Using uv light to increase resin production
- Thread starter theo212
- Start date
polyarcturus
Well-Known Member
your point being? beside confirming what i just said and adding that UV is dangerous a well known fact. and of course if the outer bulb is damaged it will let out UV, i dont need to "click here" because i know what photoconjunctivitis is already, so your point there is null.
i have already proved my knowledge to you and your lack off, now sit back and read more, input less, ive done my research that for god damn sure. so just chill man its not a smart contest, i dont give a fuck that i know more about this subject, perhaps you know more in other subjects.
PJ Diaz
Well-Known Member
I'm sure you're right. I posted that one real quick, but there are indeed high power MV lamps which are specifically designed to be UV producers. I think you knew that already though, and are just trying to clarify. Thanks.
polyarcturus
Well-Known Member
yep and your right but they arent exactly easy to find on the net, more of a zoo order only thing but they exist. and definitely not applicable for MJ growing they are designed to be 15ft in the air for like rooms full of alligators and shit.
PJ Diaz
Well-Known Member
You don't have any alligators in your grow room?
They also use them for Equatorial birds and stuff.
whazzup
Well-Known Member
lol I'm not arguing with you polyarcturus, I wanted to say (and agree with you) that indeed they do (or at least should) specify the suitability for open fixture or not. I understand that you understand that a MH is very dangerous when the glass breaks. Adding to that I just wanted to warn people who don't and who do not check if a lamp is suitable for open fixture. It's a serious enough problem that I believe a lot of people underestimate.
Do these efforts to bring UV into the picture really make a difference? I find it doubtful. Simple test: grow the same clone both indoors and outdoors and test the difference. I have, and the difference is negligible. I do believe that the UV produced by the sun is going to exceed anything you can produce artificially.
Nmccray420
Member
Currently using two 20 watt UVB Bulbs with my Afghan Kush and Purple Wreck. They are 30 days into flower and are frosting up real nice. I use for 4 hours during the middle of the day, emulating the sun when it is at its highest peak. They definitely have already earned they're spot in my grow cycle
.
.
Kite High
Well-Known Member
wow....ok...these are the ONLY fluorescents that produce the 150-400 uw/cm2 required to produce the affect
http://www.lightyourreptiles.com/ard3t546in54.html
and some Metal Halides that will
http://www.reptileuv.com/megaray-metal-halide-uvb.php
if you do not achieve at least 150/cm2 ime you will not tell a difference...I apply the uvb radiance throughout the entire grow timed with the main lighting
Hope it helps
http://www.lightyourreptiles.com/ard3t546in54.html
and some Metal Halides that will
http://www.reptileuv.com/megaray-metal-halide-uvb.php
if you do not achieve at least 150/cm2 ime you will not tell a difference...I apply the uvb radiance throughout the entire grow timed with the main lighting
Hope it helps
Kite High
Well-Known Member
ime experience it does NOT increase resin production but rather alters the cannabinoid ratios in favor of psychoactivity....lower cbd, increase of 10% average thc, and 7% average thcv validated on numerous lab tests on many compare grows with sativa or sativa dominant strains...indicas to a lesser degree as well as seems to make indicas take a bit longer to mature...hope it helps
PJ Diaz
Well-Known Member
G13 Haze @ 29 days 12/12, w/NO UVB, Ushio 600w HPS only:
Genetics are more important than UVB in determining resin production.
Attachments
whazzup
Well-Known Member
I don't get this. How can one define the output of a lamp as power per surface? That is irradiance, not radiant flux. Now let's look at a 35W 10% UVB lamp and let's even assume that it is 100% efficient (it is not of course 
)
A quick calc (correct me if I'm wrong)
Let's assume that the efficacy of the lamp is quite good then 250-300 uw/cm2 would be possible IF you would be able to spread this evenly over a 1m2 surface
I have done tests with HPS versus plasma/HPS versus HPS/CMH versus plasma . Now the plasma light of course adds more than just UV to complete the spectrum, but so does the CMH: this lamp doesn't emit any significant UVB though. That way I was able to see the differences between the different light sources, using clones from the same mothers.
If I can just focus on trichome development I see earlier trichome development and faster maturement of trichomes when using UVB (so more trichomes and cloudy earlier). In some cases we also saw elongation of the stem of the trichome. But another influence (which is confirmed by peer growers) is the intensity of the smell. And we all know by now that terpenes specifically have an influence on how we perceive the product. UVB hardens the leafs, which makes the plants less sensitive for fungi, so that's another advantage. All in all I think there is enough reason to experiment with it. Personally I have found significant differences with all the varieties (indica dominant, sativa dominant) that I have grown under these combinations of lights (at the same time, same climate, same irradiance etc.).
What really shocked me the first time during the grow: The full plasma grow looked really disappointing during the grow. Though it was extremely white and fragrant the buds seemed to stay behind in volume. They were very dense though. How dense they were I found out when they were dry - rock-hard nuggets that didn't shrink much
! We had 5-8% more dry matter compared to HPS after drying. So of course the HPS proved still most (energy) efficient (I did not expect anything else), but I certainly saw great quality and plant health improvements (including extremely good rooting) when plasma was added. A few of these effects I contribute to the UVA and UVB that are present in the plasma spectrum: the glass filter used transmits UVA and UVB, but blocks UVC. As the Luxim LEP is Metal Halide based it is high in UV.
Interesting read
)A quick calc (correct me if I'm wrong)
| Power lamp | 35 | W |
| % UVB | 10% | |
| UVB output | 3,5 | W |
| Lit surface | 1 | m[SUP]2[/SUP] |
| UVB Irradiance | 0,00035 | W/cm[SUP]2[/SUP] |
| 0,35 | mW/cm[SUP]2[/SUP] | |
| 350 | µW/cm[SUP]2[/SUP] |
Let's assume that the efficacy of the lamp is quite good then 250-300 uw/cm2 would be possible IF you would be able to spread this evenly over a 1m2 surface
I have done tests with HPS versus plasma/HPS versus HPS/CMH versus plasma . Now the plasma light of course adds more than just UV to complete the spectrum, but so does the CMH: this lamp doesn't emit any significant UVB though. That way I was able to see the differences between the different light sources, using clones from the same mothers.
If I can just focus on trichome development I see earlier trichome development and faster maturement of trichomes when using UVB (so more trichomes and cloudy earlier). In some cases we also saw elongation of the stem of the trichome. But another influence (which is confirmed by peer growers) is the intensity of the smell. And we all know by now that terpenes specifically have an influence on how we perceive the product. UVB hardens the leafs, which makes the plants less sensitive for fungi, so that's another advantage. All in all I think there is enough reason to experiment with it. Personally I have found significant differences with all the varieties (indica dominant, sativa dominant) that I have grown under these combinations of lights (at the same time, same climate, same irradiance etc.).
What really shocked me the first time during the grow: The full plasma grow looked really disappointing during the grow. Though it was extremely white and fragrant the buds seemed to stay behind in volume. They were very dense though. How dense they were I found out when they were dry - rock-hard nuggets that didn't shrink much
! We had 5-8% more dry matter compared to HPS after drying. So of course the HPS proved still most (energy) efficient (I did not expect anything else), but I certainly saw great quality and plant health improvements (including extremely good rooting) when plasma was added. A few of these effects I contribute to the UVA and UVB that are present in the plasma spectrum: the glass filter used transmits UVA and UVB, but blocks UVC. As the Luxim LEP is Metal Halide based it is high in UV. Interesting read
igothydrotoneverywhere
Well-Known Member
i dont think you can say that as you nor anyone else has done a proper experiment. sure genetics matter and play a big role, but saying its more important is just a theory. light intensity then genetics, i can make a crappy strain produce under the right light but a great strain CANNOT make up for poor lighting or an incomplete spectrum.
one thing is for sure,weed grown properly outdoors is stronger gram for gram than indoor. outdoor plants have more trichomes per square inch than indoor plants, indoor plants grow larger longer trichs, but not as many as outdoor grown in uv light. look at them side by side under a microscope, i have several times. probably twice as many. thats empirical data not even from stuff from the equatorial region where uv/uvb is the greatest.
the people that say uv light is bad for plants, man, yall really put too much faith in what you read in your science books. use logic and all 5 of your senses to decide what is right for marijunana and put down the antipussygettin material. the dankest nastiest weed on the planet grows in the areas where uv and uvb is the greatest. along the equator. unfortunately it is also the most illegal around those areas. the sad truth
google. Global UV index map
the "safety glass" in front of and around your bulb filament blocks all uv and uvb light. fact. take out your hood glass and cool your room not your hoods for more resin
Kite High
Well-Known Member
no way environment can outdo genetics as the plant is limited by the genes, however your are correct that environment can bring out the genetics full potential
btw there are no hid grow bulbs which emit enough uvb to cause the effect as it requires at least 150uw/cm2 to have an effect...best hid bulb I tested was cmh and it was 20 uw/cm2 at 6 inches from the bulb...the outer envelope glass blocks almost all the uvb ...the glass formulations need to include quartz to allow its passage...so removing all that will increase lumens but not uvb
yesum
Well-Known Member
I also have a uvb meter (Solarmeter 6.2) and use a Reptisun 10.0 cfl. Did you measure the 150 uw on your plants and not get the results? The uvb drops off really fast I guess you know. Goes from close to a 1000 at a inch to around 100 or less at a foot. So it is hard to use the uvb really.
I have to have the closest buds at 500 or more so I can get the distant ones to have anything.
Sir.Ganga
New Member
Well I have been playin around with UV for years and my findings tell me that what the bulbs used and the additional heat out put are not worth the the additional thrichs, if any.
I ran all the way up to 250 watt of uv lighting per 1000watt hid with no noticible difference in thric production. Didderent bulbs, hood on, hood off, vertical, horzintal any way you can think and my results did not show worthyness.
I have a shit load of bulbs for sale...I have moved on from this experiment but it is good to keep experimenting.
I ran all the way up to 250 watt of uv lighting per 1000watt hid with no noticible difference in thric production. Didderent bulbs, hood on, hood off, vertical, horzintal any way you can think and my results did not show worthyness.
I have a shit load of bulbs for sale...I have moved on from this experiment but it is good to keep experimenting.
polyarcturus
Well-Known Member
no, it is 4 hours non stop, i run my uvb all 12 hours of lights on. 10 min a day 3x a day is not gonna do shit.