This is one of the studies that I have based my ideas on how the "Emerson Effect"/ photo systems I &II work. The extent of the effect varying by plant species of course.
Are you saying random >680nm + random <700= emerson effect.
this is the so called "second emerson effect"
To my understanding it still falls under the "Emerson Effect" category. Technological advances just allow us to see more data and reactions, expanding the scope of the effect. Same principles involved.
Do we have data showing that the effect is actively influencing cannabis metabolism? The older data is based on algae and in cdg's citation it's heliantus. Does the theory predict that the mechanism would apply across species?
The ones I have are only 730nm, however I see now that the Emerson2 panels have both 660nm and 730nm...
I'm aware of this.... what gave you the idea that I wasn't?
For flower triggering?
Do you have a scientific resource for that statement? Ive read anywhere from 15 minutes to 2 hours afterwords... but not 1 reputable source. Why would you reduce the amount of daylight hours to 12/12? then whats the purpose of the Far Red since cannabis already flowers at this schedule? that makes no sense... I mean I have heard about, and used diminishing light regiments, and its not economically feasible. So what would using Far red on a 12/12 benefit? the whole theory is to be able to extend the normal daylight hours by making the plant "think" the night is 12 hours long when in reality its only 10.
I have used @captainmorgan light schedule for my last three grows with great success, It works and works well.
Right, I get that cannabis flowers at a 12/12 schedule... but why use Far Red then?
Not different at all, my flower schedule is 12/12 to start,13.5/10.5 for the bulk of flower time and 12/12 to finish.
