24/0 vs. 18/6 debate is over!!!!
- Thread starter mafuki
- Start date
TheChemist77
Well-Known Member
THANKS DOC, Ill switch my veg to 20/4 but keep my cloner under 24/0...im going to add the t5's to my flower room to i think just to add some blue spectrum w the 2 600 hps
unwine99
Well-Known Member
I was definitely able to notice a difference in growth and overall plant health when I switched from 24/0 to 18/6; they like their beauty sleep is all I can say. I've also used 16/8 and I saw no difference really when compared to 18/6 but I switched back to 18/6 just because I keep my clones under my veg light and I thought 8 hours dark was a little excessive for cloning.
Last edited:
TheChemist77
Well-Known Member
Is it possible for clones to root faster with a dark period?? i ask as it was said dark= bigger roots, bigger roots=bigger plants/yields...So if i put my clones under 20/4 or 18/6 is it possible they will root faster than under 24/0?? if so i can change my veg and clone area to whichever is best,,,and save on electric is a big bonus too!!!! wright now i have a clone king 36 under a 150watt cfl 24/0 and i usually get roots in 10 days, some at 7 days but i always leave them for 10 so they are well rooted...however for some reason my durban poison takes 14 days,,dont know why?? all other strains have major roots wile the durban is just getting the bumps or only a little root...i still have a 100% success rate though..
TheChemist77
Well-Known Member
I have also found from seed, i get a better female- male ratio under 18/6. but i guess thats up for a diferent debate..
unwine99
Well-Known Member
I have roots in 10-14 days with both cycles--24/0, 18/6 -- it doesn't seem to speed up or slow down cloning time.
DrDank
Well-Known Member
this is legit. I switched over to gaslight about ~6 months ago, and it's the best for veg; plant and electrical usage. i'll use 24/0 for early early veg on clones* (1day up to 1week) [*I use gaslight for seedlings], but [gaslight] 12/5.5/1/5.5 works flawlessly without spending -any- extra money on electricity. if i were to run 18/6, my bill will be at least $60 higher than it needs to be.What no one seems to have done in their test is to see the relationship with the stretch? The more light in veg, the more they stretch, longer they take to start budding. The more dark they get in veg the less they stretch and they start budding faster, they also make more bud sites. I use the Gaslight Veg or 12/1 and I just flipped one last sunday that is already budding with 24 bud sites in the top 8 inches, before I switched to Gaslight, I did 16/8
edit/add, it only stretched 3 inches
Cheers
FiddlersGreen
Member
"C3 plants
leaf:cannabis/veggies) gather CO2 only during the light period when they are photosynthesizing. During the dark period these plants only use oxygen for their metabolic life processes. They don't uptake CO2, nor do they use it. As soon and as long as the light is on, C3 plants gather and use CO2 for photosynthesis."
dose this mean there is no reason for ventilation during the dark period?
leaf:cannabis/veggies) gather CO2 only during the light period when they are photosynthesizing. During the dark period these plants only use oxygen for their metabolic life processes. They don't uptake CO2, nor do they use it. As soon and as long as the light is on, C3 plants gather and use CO2 for photosynthesis."dose this mean there is no reason for ventilation during the dark period?
DrDank
Well-Known Member
Depends, I suppose. My stuff runs at night, but I still have the fans kick on in my flower tent for about 15min during the daytime to exchange the air. It's good to keep the air in grow space from getting to stuffy/stale."C3 plants
dose this mean there is no reason for ventilation during the dark period?
Cyrus420
Well-Known Member
Imma bump a really old thread just to say this.I'd love to agree with you (God knows I would) but this debate will NEVER end. Both work and both have benefits.
And really, threads like this are staples in our forums. "MH vs. HPS for flower", Flush vs. no Flush" etc. So like the greatest debate of them all, Creation vs. Evolution, these ones will continue to spark conversation and innovative ideas till the end of time.
I, for one, welcome them
Creation is based off nothing more than assumptions and a single book. There are as many stories of creation as there are species of ants.
Evolution (the theory of evolution) is a verified fact that has a scientific basis in a wide array of fields.
Basically, one is horse shit the other is actual science with the evidence to back it up.
Kingrow1
Well-Known Member
And still science has no idea how life evolved from the primordial soup, the greatest single step in evolution, the creation of life on earth and possibly a million other planets spread endlessly through the cosmos.
Creation is yet so unknown that it produces the biggest gap in text book evolution, science fraught with these mysteries boggle the conuderum of wether we came from a meteorite that travelled light years, black smokers at crushing depths on the ocean floor, the electricity of a lightning bolt or one of many other current ideas.
Certainly this one step in evolution would have narrowed down the search for life on mars, even making the whole program redundant. The ability to replicate lifes creation alone would give us a scientific revolution, living systems from silica or base metals, possibly even the dawn of the quantum computer age. The applications of this one scientific discovery would be boundless.
Creation vs Evolution is still a fundamental approach of yet we are not evolved enough to say one or the other is rubbish.
You do realse the ops thread was about 18/6 24/0 light periods.....
Cyrus420
Well-Known Member
Evolution has nothing to do with how life begin it merely describes how life evolves over time. Not knowing how life started doesn't invalidate evolution. You need to read up more on the subject.And still science has no idea how life evolved from the primordial soup, the greatest single step in evolution, the creation of life on earth and possibly a million other planets spread endlessly through the cosmos.
Creation is yet so unknown that it produces the biggest gap in text book evolution, science fraught with these mysteries boggle the conuderum of wether we came from a meteorite that travelled light years, black smokers at crushing depths on the ocean floor, the electricity of a lightning bolt or one of many other current ideas.
Certainly this one step in evolution would have narrowed down the search for life on mars, even making the whole program redundant. The ability to replicate lifes creation alone would give us a scientific revolution, living systems from silica or base metals, possibly even the dawn of the quantum computer age. The applications of this one scientific discovery would be boundless.
Creation vs Evolution is still a fundamental approach of yet we are not evolved enough to say one or the other is rubbish.
You do realse the ops thread was about 18/6 24/0 light periods.....
Creation is bogus simply because the holy texts such events come from describe things we know that cannot be congruent with our current understanding of reality.
Once again, evolution doesn't concern itself with where life came from, only how it changes. Of course I really don't understand what life on mars and replicating life have to do with this. Those are subjects aside from evolution.
Creation vs Evolution IS NOT a good approach to take, even as an analogy, for the 18/6 24/0 light debate because evolution has already been proven to be true. A theory in scientific context is a set of ideas that have been tested, reviewed, test again, reviewed again, and put through the grinder of science. What has come out of it are ideas we can prove to be true because we have data backing them.
On the other hand there is no way creation could ever be true. God made the universe in seven days and made light BEFORE the sun? Bullshit. Or how about the one about the giant celestial spider who spun the world from it's web? Seriously, keep googling and you'll find a million and one creation stories but there is only ONE theory of evolution (a proven fact once again.)
I understand OP's thread is about the light cycle, this is merely a confusion I must clear up every time I come across it. You don't have to accept evolution for it to be fact but you do have to accept creationism based on faith...see the problem there? It doesn't hold up as a decent analogy for the idea presented by OP.
What if we had pure raw data that showed an 18/6 light schedule was better for plants but then someone with NO data comes along and says "Nuh uh 24/0 is better I did it myself and it was better."
That's basically what creationism is, an extraordinary claim with zero backing to it what-so-ever besides their holy texts (which cmon we all know are barbaric.)
Call me nit picky but I was just pointing out how the analogy doesn't make sense and I advocate the use of science and reasoning to reach our conclusions but having the sense about us to not dive headlong into any one answer without first questioning it's validity, especially if it comes from a place of strictly anecdotal evidence.
Kingrow1
Well-Known Member
,
Creation of life is the science evolution is based on, thats pretty much fact in science terms. Consider that not carbon based life will exhibit similar and different evolutionary pulls to our own.
Creation is the bedrock, evolution the layers, modern science dosent even discount the theory of god even.
Cyrus420
Well-Known Member
Please go research evolution before talking about it because you obviously don't understand it off you think evolution had anything to do with the origin of life. No offense meant you literally are just displaying you don't understand the idea. Also
Also there is no theory of god. Google what a theory is here is a tip to is not just a guess.
Either way this isn't what this thread is for pm me if you still want to debate.
Cobnobuler
Well-Known Member
....Now there..theres the best idea if you guys want to journey into that subject. Thats right up there with Republican vs Democrat.....Liberal vs Conservative. It may have no ending.
churchhaze
Well-Known Member
A dark period does not cause the roots to grow faster.
rkymtnman
Well-Known Member
true. sleep is overrated for MJ
if you don't agree, explain how all my dwc grows had huge rootballs under 24/0
churchhaze
Well-Known Member
Exactly.
Kingrow1
Well-Known Member
One reference to the unending debate thats spanned almost 200 years and you wade in with your one sided answer. You give no consideration to the theology of evolution let alone the origin of life and tbh it seems like an ill educated one word answer to a debate that as yet is un-resolved.
With consideration as to what light period you should run, again i wouldnt like to say either but on the subject of auto, it has been shown by many growers that a 20/4 light period gave the biggest yeilds. Coincedence....? maybe but it has been tested by many auto growers and this gives it at the very least some factual weight. I find often most overlook the hard work done by many dedicated auto growers on this subject.
I dont pm anyone except a few ive known and that would be on unrelated subjects to any forum posts.
nice thread. Helped me tracking @Acuity https://www.rollitup.org/t/why-not-24hrs-light-during-veg.272587/page-2