nachooo
Well-Known Member
Yes..and it worked nicely thanks to @Randomblame previous clever advicesThis is basically exactly what @nachooo did.
Yes..and it worked nicely thanks to @Randomblame previous clever advicesThis is basically exactly what @nachooo did.
Maybe not ideal for your situation, but thought I would put this out there. If space and other factors are favourable, then maybe a jerry-rigged mover running a bar or tubes over the length of flower area. The bar/tube could be close to canopy and moving, so would have little impact on main light falling on flowers.Agree on all of that, especially the whole plant response for toughening up an increasing thc. Or at least its the way my thinkking leans towards.
As for ripening, it might very well be that uv ripens the plant uneven, top buds first and lowers later.
2 feet and 15 mins: i really feel this isnt ideal, or id prefer running closer andd lower doses for longer time. Uvb also has a very strong effect on transpiration/opening the stomata. So i figure a lower dose for a bit longer will lead to better nutrient uptake. Better to have your plants digesting uvb for longer time at softer dose if its praying while doing so.
I dont wanna be forced to run main lights at 2 feet losing intensity (open space here) or having the uv hanging over our mainlight and the light blocking the path of the uvb.
Also the 360° nature of uv tubes means your relying on reflectors turn the light instead of leds which send all the light rhe right way. All these reasons, along with nachooos word re smoke noticeable difference in his cultivar which he knows really well (anecdotal proof was smoking gave him coldsweats in a real cold room and some of his terps changed drastically) has got me thinking that led is probably right for the grow i work for.
Maybe some day there would be a chance to ruun tests, nachooos not far away from me and i thinkt tests are just 30-40euros here, but right now theyve confined the fuck out of us, 11 weeks pretty much, so that would be a distant future project. I know for a fact that nachooo is a datanerd so i wouldnt be surprised if his up for it.
Yeah, that's a good question.I did read pretty far into this thread - lots of info!
I might try the 2 T8 UVA tubes I have on my next flowering - they aren't black lights and have even coverage.
I also have two 405nm LED lights - 3.4w each (at the wall).
Is that spectrum worth using?
Are those small lights worth supplementing with in a 4X4 / 2000ish w tent?
Since i build for my growbuddy who seems to be followed by murphys law everywhere he goes (really, you dont know how bad this shit is) i wont get into mechanical stuff. But aa uv light mover might be a good idea, i just prefer the versatility in some diodes that you can spread and time in any way youd like.Maybe not ideal for your situation, but thought I would put this out there. If space and other factors are favourable, then maybe a jerry-rigged mover running a bar or tubes over the length of flower area. The bar/tube could be close to canopy and moving, so would have little impact on main light falling on flowers.
If you are using tables or trays, floor/tray mounted rather than roof mounted option makes sense.
Some type of budget rail from angle or Z extrusion, with power cable/flex encased in cheap cable chain. The rails do not have to be expensive or over engineered, as its a simple mover - not a cnc router mill.
Using the formulas/example posted above, by randomblame, it should be straight forward to have the uv led array or tube running back and forth delivering the required radiation.
Those cheap 28BYJ-48 motors, and an arduino nano could be a cheap option for an experiment. Not sure what would be right for transmitting the movement though. Friction fit drive wheel like original light movers, or just some simple spool and twine to pthe arrangement back and forth.
In nature UVB is strongest in the middle of the day, not in the mornings/evenings.Use my UVB/UVA for 2 hours after dark cycle.
Arcadia 55w D3+ UV Flood 12% UVB 30% UVA Reptile T5 Lamp
Representing sunrise effect.
Run for the first hour UVB lamp only, then I turn up the main lights gradually over next hour to around 60% of the dimmer.
They are on a programmable dimmer.
After the 2 hours the UVB bulb switches off.
Main LED lights at 60% then increase gradually till peak at plants "midday" .
Flowering use them constantly for last 1 week to 2 weeks.
As close as I can get them, as UVB is only optimal at a very short range with this bulb. In an individual tent. Moving uvb light round each side each day till ready.
Yeah, far reds for morning and end of day, UV for middle of the day, if you want to mimic nature. I don't have my UV come on until 4-hours into the light cycle, and then it's at 15 to 20 minutes on and 40 to 45 off each hour for 5 or 6 hour cycles the rest of the day.Shit better change my timer.
View attachment 4574459
Interesting to see how grow lights are enhanced to simulate an exaggerated late summer dusk and dawn spectrum throughout the indoor 12 hr period.Shit better change my timer.
View attachment 4574459
This plant is quite tolerant of various lights and their respective ratio of colour composition. But when we get below 400nm we should be judicious and approach with caution. The idea is to trigger a response that results in an increase in active plant compounds, without causing a stunting of overall growth.Cool article. Sort left me thinking a lot of measurements are: "6 of this and half dozen of that" (the same but different)
Not sure how much this contributes to this convo, but in the studios, 5600k is "white".
During some downtime, our lighting director gave a clinic in mixing light. He started with Red, Blue, and Yellow, combined the spots on the floor and made white. He did it again with Cyan, Magenta, and Green (IIRC). A lot more to it htan that, but that part seems
Point is, "white" can be made a with many different combos - my VA-1200 makes "white", but the green / yellow end of the spectrum is missing - hence the unnatural look.
I'd have to say yes. There's a reason we use supplemental red and focus on it more in flower. Not only is it what flowering girls want, but it's what comes through in the later fall months, too.This plant is quite tolerant of various lights and their respective ratio of colour composition. But when we get below 400nm we should be judicious and approach with caution. The idea is to trigger a response that results in an increase in active plant compounds, without causing a stunting of overall growth.
Using light deprivation outdoors, to make the requisite 12 hours, would clones flowered to finish at the height of summer when uv radiation is at a peak be of poorer medicinal quality? Compared to clones put out later in season where lighting levels change and plants see different proportions of spectrum?
But what about medicinal qualities and terpenes? I am also biased towards earlier finishing that is brought on with the reds. The whole grow light industry is.I'd have to say yes. There's a reason we use supplemental red and focus on it more in flower. Not only is it what flowering girls want, but it's what comes through in the later fall months, too.
One thing is for certain, this plant has been growing with a decent and sometimes excessive amount of UV radiation for 1,000's of years. Only in the last 40 years or so has it been brought in doors and grown Without It. So I think doing everything possible to recreate what it's been used to dealing with outside, inside our setups is always going to be a good thing.But what about medicinal qualities and terpenes? I am also biased towards earlier finishing that is brought on with the reds. The whole grow light industry is.
I wonder if anyone has done a comparison of medicinal quality of a light dep crop timed to finish around peak of summer versus late planted crop, like I asked in my post above?
If we get back to the UV component, sure I read somewhere that exposing plants to gradual diminishing quantity of the UV bands of the spectrum results in, effectively, a net zero effect.
Compared to starting off with low levels of UV radiation, and then gradually increasing the UV. Probably read it somewhere in this thread or in an attached paper.
There is a lot going on with the plant, be it growing indoors or outside. There is always the possibility of temperature having an effect on production of compounds, and growers being fixated on attributing the increase or decrease to a spectrum change. When it could just as likely be, that the ambient temperature had some kind of impact.
There are a lot of dots to join.
I have not read the whole thread ,in order to have a more complete picture of what was discussed about the effects of UV light on cannabis ,but since it has been somewhat of a “holy grail “ as long as I can remember ,there has been plenty of research in the past also .One thing is for certain, this plant has been growing with a decent and sometimes excessive amount of UV radiation for 1,000's of years. Only in the last 40 years or so has it been brought in doors and grown Without It. So I think doing everything possible to recreate what it's been used to dealing with outside, inside our setups is always going to be a good thing.
For YEARS it was thought UV was the vehicle for the creation of the THC compound within the trichomes head once it passed through the stalk and into the membrane, but that's obviously not how it is.
Visuals signs are serrated edges of leaves clawing upwards and general bleaching to a lighter shade of green, this would take longer to happen and sometimes will happen even if you dont over do it. Ive not seen it with my own eyes but its been quoted here and there over threads around here and other forums by people i trust their judgement.UV damage. After reading this post several times. There is very little posted or even one picture of it on here.
Apart from the normal sign of leaf burn, has anyone else noticed if you have given them just too much one time any other signs of damage.?