I find it amazing that you haven't noticed significant potency drop. There's an article around where they found that potency with 10/14 was half what is was with 12/12. 8/16 would have to be even worse. I guess it must be potent enough, if people like it. Would be interesting to see test results for it though. Come to think of it, I read about a particular strain requiring 8 hour days to ripen, so maybe it's enough.I've been using 8/16 for almost a year. I started playing around with 6/18 but found 8 hrs to be the sweet spot.
I have a 37 page thread on here about it and have said I won't ever use 12/12 and everyone thinks I'm nuts. I'm just glad I'm not the only crazy one.
Someone mentioned this idea in my thread a year ago. I think running three crops off one light makes up for the percentage of lost yield.
Having someone else saying the same thing makes me feel a lot better lol
How big of an op do u have running 8/16 times 3?
I'm a lic med patient and so are most of my family members.I find it amazing that you haven't noticed significant potency drop. There's an article around where they found that potency with 10/14 was half what is was with 12/12. 8/16 would have to be even worse. I guess it must be potent enough, if people like it. Would be interesting to see test results for it though.
Interesting. So how much weight did you get with two 12/12 crops vs three 8/16 crops? It can't be a full 50% more, maybe 25%. I guess any increase is a benefit, as long as it's as dense and potent.I'm a lic med patient and so are most of my family members.
We all buy lab tested meds that are all 15-20plus percent and I'd say my last harvest was hands down the most potent I've had in years.
I wish I could get a nug tested too just to know myself but considering that I've been smoking the shit for 20 years believe me I can spot low potentcy from the first exhale.
I've learnt a lot from this site but I think the most important thing I've learnt is don't believe everything u read.
That could really be helpful in large commercial facilities where power adds up. You get 40% more for the same power.Running 8/16 I found we got 75-80% of a 12/12 yield.
I haven't done 3 8/16 at the same time.
The thinking came from well losing 25-30% of your yield wasn't worth the energy savings and then someone else suggested that while only using the light for 8 hrs u could then use the same light for two other harvests.
I only thought of it in a hypothetical sense until @qwizoking just said that's what he does.
I was planning to set up an area this summer to try it out and weigh the numbers after the fact.
But if 12/12 yielded say 1000 grams
Two harvests 2000grams
8/16 yielded 800grams
Three harvests would yield 2400grams so in theory your up 400grams vs 12/12.
Very doubtful that any commercial grower even thinks about altering a system they already consider working. My intention was always energy savings on a small scale since I only grow for myselfThat could really be helpful in large commercial facilities where power adds up. You get 40% more for the same power.
What do you use for IR? Doesn't seem to be a convenient source to buy by just walking into a store, unless you use Ed Rosenthal's suggestion of incandescent bulbs with black paper over them, which actually sounds like a recipe for a paper fire.The longer a night is, the slower the leaves will break down the starch they have reserved in their chloraplasts from the day. The plant remembers previous night lengths and adjusts it's rate of starch->sugar conversion so it runs out of starch when the night is over. That means if nights are getting longer, the leaves will decrease the rate at which they use their stored starch so that they can make it to lights on without going into starvation mode.
(this is one reason using longer nights toward harvest won't affect the dry/cure. It will still accumulate the same amount of leaf starch even with longer nights. It will just use it slower)
730nm leds attached to a flat aluminum bar. It doesn't need to be very intense as 730nm isn't very well absorbed by chlorophyll (it reflects off the leaves and transmits through)What do you use for IR? Doesn't seem to be a convenient source to buy by just walking into a store, unless you use Ed Rosenthal's suggestion of incandescent bulbs with black paper over them, which actually sounds like a recipe for a paper fire.
So nothing you can just get in a store then huh? Maybe a small infrared heater. I wonder if that's in the near IR or too far.730nm leds attached to a flat aluminum bar. It doesn't need to be very intense as 730nm isn't very well absorbed by chlorophyll (it reflects off the leaves and transmits through)
An incandescent with a theatrical filter over it would work, but actually seems more of a hassle at this point.
This is 1 of my sleep lights (or whatever you call it). The heat sink on it is overkill.. you could get away with just a flat aluminum bar. (my like my other one)
View attachment 3590108View attachment 3590112
The wall it's hanging on is not a grow room ... just a place I hung it to take a picture.
I also Wil never flower 12/12 again . Been veg 16/8 for longtime, and have fixed to a10.25on/13.75hrs off flowering. Noticed different expression s from plants ,faster finish, with no loss of yield etc. Sativa an sativa dom hybrid s respond the best I ve found. Some indica don't like as much so I put them in a 11/13 an yes that 3/4 hr makes big difference. Check my latest post in my journal my Phoenix Fire #1 blew my mind how it responded to that lighting hrs an some other variables been messing with.I've been using 8/16 for almost a year. I started playing around with but found 8 hrs to be the sweet spot.
I have a 37 page thread on here about it and have said I won't ever use 12/12 and everyone thinks I'm nuts. I'm just glad I'm not the only crazy one.
Someone mentioned this idea in my thread a year ago. I think running three crops off one light makes up for the percentage of lost yield.
Having someone else saying the same thing makes me feel a lot better lol
How big of an op do u have running 8/16 times 3?
It can't be any IR, it has to be 730nm. Far-red looks the same as regular red. If it's invisible, it's not going to work. Be careful with far-red btw. Your lenses will focus it onto your retina and could cause it to burn, even when it looks dim. (1W of far-red looks dimmer than 1W of red, but 1W is 1W)Oh I know how you could get an IR light in a store, in the photography department for use with IR cameras.
But Ed Rosenthal said you can use a light bulb with a black covering (he said paper but that would burn). Maybe Ed was just wrong, who knows. I wonder what the spectrum of an IR photography light would look like. Here's one that's 730 nm.It can't be any IR, it has to be 730nm. Far-red looks the same as regular red If it's invisible, it's not going to work. Be careful with far-red btw. Your lenses will focus it onto your retina and could cause it to burn, even when it looks dim. (1W of far-red looks dimmer than 1W of red, but 1W is 1W)