# using UV to put plants to sleep



## NWbordergrower91 (Jul 11, 2015)

To cut this short since I have a tendency of rambling, I've recently stumbled across Ed Rosenthal's bit of info on using UV for flowering cannabis as a lighting supplement. It's got me very interested, and I plan to use it when I start my next flower round. 

However, something I came across I saw online in a related post (on this site too if I remember correctly) that said something about how UV can actually help give the plant a kick start into its sleep.

The way they broke it down as I understood it is when the plant is about to go into "night" and your lights are shutting off, leave your UV on for about 20 minutes and ONLY your UV on for that short period, to trigger the plant into sleeping. So rather it taking the plant anywhere from 1 to 2 hours to "fall asleep", it gets ready in 20 minutes, giving it a better chance of a true 12/12 cycle.

Obviously I can flower juuuuuuuust fine without the UV and the plant will go to sleep juuuuuust fine on a normal set up. I'm just curious as to whether not someone out there with experience can put their 2 cents into this for me. Does it really work? Did the plant seem happier or more aggressive during the days with its growth rate? 

Thanks again


----------



## qwizoking (Jul 11, 2015)

No, and it falls asleep as soon as lights go out. The hormone responsible for flowering not stable in light. Does not need any aid


----------



## NWbordergrower91 (Jul 11, 2015)

fair enough. Had me a bit curious but sounded a bit backwards using light to help a plant sleep


----------



## qwizoking (Jul 11, 2015)

All uv is really good for is increasing cannabinoids. But thats also a but debatable


----------



## NWbordergrower91 (Jul 11, 2015)

That was the understanding I had come to so far from what I've read. I dont know anyone personally that tried using them but everyone I talk to has at least heard of it. I figure it cant hurt, and is a decently cheap investment to experiment with. 

I'm mainly to see the difference if any from combining it with my set up


----------



## testiclees (Jul 11, 2015)

qwizoking said:


> No, and it falls asleep as soon as lights go out. The hormone responsible for flowering not stable in light. Does not need any aid


Its not that simple. 

_The far red thread _on riu has an explanation and some observations by gardeners with experience using far red and uv.


----------



## qwizoking (Jul 11, 2015)

Whats not that simple.


----------



## testiclees (Jul 11, 2015)

qwizoking said:


> Whats not that simple.


https://www.rollitup.org/t/the-far-red-thread.867665/


----------



## NWbordergrower91 (Jul 11, 2015)

its links like that, that make me curious to at least try it. All in all, i havent read a thing really saying it harmed anyones plants much. So that at least gives a piece of mind. 

It'll be a nice addition with my led set up as is


----------



## qwizoking (Jul 11, 2015)

Im not gonna read a thread. Answer the question.. im well aware of how uv and red effects flowering


----------



## cannawizard (Jul 11, 2015)

NWbordergrower91 said:


> To cut this short since I have a tendency of rambling, I've recently stumbled across Ed Rosenthal's bit of info on using UV for flowering cannabis as a lighting supplement. It's got me very interested, and I plan to use it when I start my next flower round.
> 
> However, something I came across I saw online in a related post (on this site too if I remember correctly) that said something about how UV can actually help give the plant a kick start into its sleep.
> 
> ...


i have never heard of anyone using ultra violet to "help" kick start the sleeping process.. just turn off all the lights and viola-- its "bed time" --tho the plant really is not asleep, it just goes into its dark cycle functions 

imho, no. uv won't help it under that application.

but feel free to experiment, nothing wrong with finding out yourself  i had cool prof in college that always said, "there are no stupid questions, but there are shit tons of stupid answers".. Lol

#cheers


----------



## NWbordergrower91 (Jul 11, 2015)

hahaha i love it. Very true and seems obvious enough that they wouldn't need the aid. I just ran across a couple posts when I originally started looking into the UV and just caught my curiosity. Thanks for the input, as far as helping them sleep no go but they'll still get a little boost from them when I get into flower next.

Also random question and I'm sure its on here somewhere, but what does everyone think about Phresh duct silencers, the ones with the acoustic sound pad inside of it. I was thinking of building one, and aside from using insulated ducting I figured that would be the extent I'll go to help "silence" things outside of the room.

The fan is mounted inside the room, the room is fully sealed 1/2' plywood built with a 2x2 framing. Any holes cut or door frames made into are all sealed and weather stripped. All ducting (still need to buy) is going to run from the top of the room, to the floor, along my wall, and vent out into my bathroom. I'm good on heat and what not, just wondering if theres any other go-to's for helping reduce noise. I know most of the noise is actually from the moving air itself and not actually the fan (although it still has its fair amount). Input?


----------



## getsoutalive (Jul 12, 2015)

Not UV. IR. or near IR.

Many on the LED board are using a 730nm LED lights for 10 minutes at lights out to increase nighttime hormone release and supposedly speed the day to night transition by up to two hours. Claims are for faster flowering times if the light cycle remains at 12/12 or allowing for longer daylight times (14/10 or 13.5/10/5) without extending the flower period, thereby increasing yields. I cannot confirm any of this yet. But many respected LED members are convinced.


----------



## Dr. Who (Jul 12, 2015)

Interesting to be sure.....I was in the "Dam" over the first part of the year and missed that earlier thread - Nice of you to link it....


Anyway......I have 2 of those overpriced LEDs and am not totally impressed by what they do.....Yes, they put the plant into night mode in minutes and not hrs.....Do you gain from being able to have the lights on 2 hrs longer? Sadly, no.....I gain more on my electric bill then in yields....

I think you should know that in reality .... Cannabis is a _"short day - long night" _plant. I don't like 12/12 as if you lower to 11/13 or 10/14 you get better, more stable results.......No loss in yields.....I'm running some 6-8/18-16 tests from some researching.. maybe more on that when it's done....12/12 has always given me to many variables.....not so/they go away with even 11/13......

The 730nm range does put the plant to "sleep" faster.....But your barking up the wrong tree if you want them to actually make a difference in quality/yield.

Doc


----------



## ttystikk (Jul 12, 2015)

getsoutalive said:


> Not UV. IR. or near IR.
> 
> Many on the LED board are using a 730nm LED lights for 10 minutes at lights out to increase nighttime hormone release and supposedly speed the day to night transition by up to two hours. Claims are for faster flowering times if the light cycle remains at 12/12 or allowing for longer daylight times (14/10 or 13.5/10/5) without extending the flower period, thereby increasing yields. I cannot confirm any of this yet. But many respected LED members are convinced.


Ya know... My HID lamps stay hot for about ten or fifteen minutes after the power is cut to them. I wonder if this has any effect? Spectrum and timing sure seem to match up...


----------



## NWbordergrower91 (Jul 12, 2015)

all about shopping for the right LED at the right price, paying $400ish for something that'll match a 600w HID set up, and not have to replace all the parts within a year or so.

With proper knowledge you can find some that will do just what you need for upto 3-5 years if not more. Yes you do need new phosphorus layers but thats still years down the road

bit of an investment to start off, but much better than rotating out old with new bulbs, new reflectors, ect. Will look into the IR or near IR to see what others feel on the matter


----------



## Dr. Who (Jul 13, 2015)

NWbordergrower91 said:


> all about shopping for the right LED at the right price, paying $400ish for something that'll match a 600w HID set up, and not have to replace all the parts within a year or so.
> 
> With proper knowledge you can find some that will do just what you need for upto 3-5 years if not more. Yes you do need new phosphorus layers but thats still years down the road
> 
> bit of an investment to start off, but much better than rotating out old with new bulbs, new reflectors, ect. Will look into the IR or near IR to see what others feel on the matter


If it's light spectrum information your looking up....Check on the info from Jorge Cervates and Ed Rosenthal........Google 730nm pfr lighting in growing. PAR lighting is what makes the plant grow the most fastest....That's HPS over MH.....Google PAR lighting in plant growth too.......read the college papers and the hort texts that will come up....

As soon as you hit the 670nm band, your turning the daylight response of the plant back on.....

I think you missed something in the other thread's link's. It's not a plasma or induction lighting system that do the job......Here - 4th item down the page - THE FLOWER INITIATOR
http://www.led4growth.com/All Lighting Products.htm#EXPERIMENTAL PRODUCTS

Happy reading

Doc


----------



## Dr. Who (Jul 13, 2015)

ttystikk said:


> Ya know... My HID lamps stay hot for about ten or fifteen minutes after the power is cut to them. I wonder if this has any effect? Spectrum and timing sure seem to match up...


The brief time as they shut down. They reproduce the deep red nm range over 690. It's this time when they get a taste of the 730nm..As with the plant getting even a short blast of light to stay in veg.....It gets a shot of that 730nm to initiate night change....longer exposures get it changed faster.....out to about 10-15 min is all it takes to cut the 2 hrs of lag time...

Doc


----------



## ttystikk (Jul 13, 2015)

Dr. Who said:


> The brief time as they shut down. They reproduce the deep red nm range over 690. It's this time when they get a taste of the 730nm..As with the plant getting even a short blast of light to stay in veg.....It gets a shot of that 730nm to initiate night change....longer exposures get it changed faster.....out to about 10-15 min is all it takes to cut the 2 hrs of lag time...
> 
> Doc


I didn't follow you here. Are you saying that the infrared glow from high wattage HID lighting is or is not acting on this principle?


----------



## NWbordergrower91 (Jul 13, 2015)

looks like I have more HW to do


----------



## GroErr (Jul 13, 2015)

Dr. Who said:


> The brief time as they shut down. They reproduce the deep red nm range over 690. It's this time when they get a taste of the 730nm..As with the plant getting even a short blast of light to stay in veg.....It gets a shot of that 730nm to initiate night change....longer exposures get it changed faster.....out to about 10-15 min is all it takes to cut the 2 hrs of lag time...
> 
> Doc


I'm trying this but I'll be testing a few strains (from clones) I've run over a period of time before I decide whether there's any true benefit. I'm using 630/660nm for 10 min before lights-on (another theory that supposedly "wakes" them up faster), and 730nm for 10 minutes after lights-off. Will be trying a total of 13 hrs. on per cycle. It's not so much about yield but in the right combination, if in fact this works per theory, you could potentially shave off time to harvest. Indoor, with limited flowering space, I want the most harvests I can get per 365 day period. If I could shave off say 4-5 days per cycle I could run an extra cycle per year. imo that would be worth it.


----------



## testiclees (Jul 13, 2015)

qwizoking said:


> Im not gonna read a thread. Answer the question.. im well aware of how uv and red effects flowering


youre mistaken, def not well aware.

"Answer the question." I did answer it bro. there is more to it than you know. Read the thread if you wanna know the scope of the topic. Otherwise you dont even know what it is that is under discussion.

Your know it all attitude coupled with cluelessness. uh uh...this isnt the place for idiots bro.


----------



## qwizoking (Jul 13, 2015)

Your the only idiot. Ive more than proven my depth of knowledge on cannabis related topics. Ive never a learned a thing from an riu thread. So if you have something to add, do so. If not..reported for spam


----------



## testiclees (Jul 13, 2015)

qwizoking said:


> Your the only idiot. Ive more than proven my depth of knowledge on cannabis related topics. Ive never a learned a thing from an riu thread. So if you have something to add, do so. If not..reported for spam


Worse than spam is the innacurate information that comes with your arrogant tone. You might benefit from reading up on the topic under discussion. At the RIU thread i linked many knowledgeable RIUers contributed good, relevant information. I think it would help you figure out what we are discussing.


----------



## qwizoking (Jul 13, 2015)

Right so ypy will ne posting no relevant information then? Even a copy/paste
Spam


----------



## Budzbuddha (Jul 13, 2015)

Get this popular book and read it to your plants .... Totally works !


----------



## testiclees (Jul 13, 2015)

Budzbuddha said:


> Get this popular book and read it to your plants .... Totally works !
> 
> View attachment 3459026


Disappointed BB, after that brilliant tip i went to find more genius techniques at your grow journal but i havent got permission to view it. Why you keeping all of that to yourself baller?


----------



## Budzbuddha (Jul 13, 2015)

testiclees said:


> Disappointed BB, after that brilliant tip i went to find more genius techniques at your grow journal but i havent got permission to view it. Why you keeping all of that to yourself baller?


Wow , that's weird ... It's just a link . No permissions needed
Also don't read into some lighthearted postings . You will see the butt hurt posters come out. Just sit back and watch the drama . 

LOL


----------



## testiclees (Jul 13, 2015)

Budzbuddha said:


> Wow , that's weird ... It's just a link . No permissions needed
> Also don't read into some lighthearted postings . You will see the butt hurt posters come out. Just sit back and watch the drama .
> 
> LOL



Got it.


----------



## Dr. Who (Jul 14, 2015)

ttystikk said:


> I didn't follow you here. Are you saying that the infrared glow from high wattage HID lighting is or is not acting on this principle?


IS!.. You have the concept - light gives off the deep reds as it winds down.

Doc


----------



## Dr. Who (Jul 14, 2015)

GroErr said:


> I'm trying this but I'll be testing a few strains (from clones) I've run over a period of time before I decide whether there's any true benefit. I'm using 630/660nm for 10 min before lights-on (another theory that supposedly "wakes" them up faster), and 730nm for 10 minutes after lights-off. Will be trying a total of 13 hrs. on per cycle. It's not so much about yield but in the right combination, if in fact this works per theory, you could potentially shave off time to harvest. Indoor, with limited flowering space, I want the most harvests I can get per 365 day period. If I could shave off say 4-5 days per cycle I could run an extra cycle per year. imo that would be worth it.


Good luck and go for it....I think you might be happier with less lights on time then the manipulation of light spectrum.

Give this a try.....8, 7 or even 6 hrs of lights on and the rest off.....If your running enough intensity in your lights foot print. The plant will receive enough lighting in those time parameters to really speed up bloom enough to reach the goals you seek....At 6 on, 18 off your reducing your electric bill by 50% too! The more actual lumins you have, the better it works......I run 1K's and have no trouble with loose or airy buds......I do run a Co2 generator but have seen others in our "collective" not gas and get the nice tight budding we all look for...

Doc

P.S. I forgot to say that I have found 12/12 and longer to give me more instability in my plants. ie; I get some herming from clones that have never done that before. If you look up things on this exact subject. I have found others who noticed the same things, including bug attacks that have been not a problem in the past. Once I reduced my bloom lighting time to less then 12/12,,,,These little hiccups - were gone again.......just saying.

Doc


----------



## GroErr (Jul 14, 2015)

Dr. Who said:


> Good luck and go for it....I think you might be happier with less lights on time then the manipulation of light spectrum.
> 
> Give this a try.....8, 7 or even 6 hrs of lights on and the rest off.....If your running enough intensity in your lights foot print. The plant will receive enough lighting in those time parameters to really speed up bloom enough to reach the goals you seek....At 6 on, 18 off your reducing your electric bill by 50% too! The more actual lumins you have, the better it works......I run 1K's and have no trouble with loose or airy buds......I do run a Co2 generator but have seen others in our "collective" not gas and get the nice tight budding we all look for...
> 
> ...


Yeah it'll be interesting to see the outcome, over time with known strains/clones for reference. Will keep an eye out for stuff like that, I have a few strains/phenos going, none have hermied. If I don't see much difference I may eventually try lower times. What I'm going for with this is to see if it can affect/shorten flowering time further than CMH did when I switched to it. I like testing new tech/methods and observing how they react to changes. Trick is to document everything and try to be subjective of the outcome, log or it didn't happen  Cheers...


----------



## qwizoking (Jul 15, 2015)

It has no effect on flowering hormones.
Do yiu know what time of year the uv index is highest? Hint hint...now-summer-veg
The thought process is idiotic even with a minute understanding of biological responses


I wont flower less than 11hrs


----------



## Dr. Who (Jul 15, 2015)

qwizoking said:


> It has no effect on flowering hormones.
> Do yiu know what time of year the uv index is highest? Hint hint...now-summer-veg
> The thought process is idiotic even with a minute understanding of biological responses
> 
> ...


All I can say here (being respectful) quizo, is you should do some more research on that!

But, do what you like and what works for you!

Doc


----------



## qwizoking (Jul 15, 2015)

I already have. That was the point

I dont ask questions i dont know the answers too.. 


Would you care to finally add something


----------



## testiclees (Jul 15, 2015)

qwizoking said:


> I already have. That was the point
> 
> I dont ask questions i dont know the answers too..
> 
> ...


The poster added something quite useful.

His point Is: you dont know that you dont know. Youre like a clown posing as an expert but unaware of the basic topic. You are a pathetic laugh.


----------



## qwizoking (Jul 15, 2015)

Well keep laughing.
Maybe i will too if you post something i dont know


----------



## testiclees (Jul 15, 2015)

you dont know that you dont know. see what i did there.


----------



## qwizoking (Jul 15, 2015)

I see you stil havent posted anything relevant 
A copy paste is fine..anything at all


----------



## testiclees (Jul 15, 2015)

qwizoking said:


> I see you stil havent posted anything relevant
> A copy paste is fine..anything at all


 Its relevant for readers to note that you have been called out as an ignorant clown.

I posted a thread that is loaded with keenly relevant information that you are oblivious to.You proudly declared you wouldnt read it. You are boastful.and ignorant. You do not even grasp the topic that is being discussed. An other poster pointed out.the you are in the dark. Take a hint.

Try "educating" some of the posters in the far red or other led photosynthesis/photomorphogenesis threads You will be shredded and your bloated self importance ridiculed.


----------



## ttystikk (Jul 15, 2015)

Dr. Who said:


> All I can say here (being respectful) quizo, is you should do some more research on that!
> 
> But, do what you like and what works for you!
> 
> Doc


@torontoke just did a thread on this, with less than stellar results. I'm not buying the idea that we can give the plants half the light interval they've evolved to receive and still expect decent results?


----------



## qwizoking (Jul 15, 2015)

Now that post made me laugh.


----------



## testiclees (Jul 15, 2015)

ttystikk said:


> @torontoke just did a thread on this, with less than stellar results. I'm not buying the idea that we can give the plants half the light interval they've evolved to receive and still expect decent results?


Agree, those posts that mention a plants ability to get a full quotient of photons in 8 hours seem suspect. 

Although the effect of hastening a full darkness response through far red is well studied, pretty sure.


----------



## ttystikk (Jul 15, 2015)

testiclees said:


> Agree, those posts that mention a plants ability to get a full quotient of photons in 8 hours seem suspect.
> 
> Although the effect of hastening a full darkness response through far red is well studied, pretty sure.


I've repeated asked if the normal cooling of HID lamps will trigger this response. They glow plenty hot after shutoff for quite some time, mostly in the IR range. This would seem to be just what they're looking for? Or, not? Why?


----------



## testiclees (Jul 15, 2015)

It does seem like the glow would give the effect if it were 730nm for a few mins.

Did you enquire on the far red thread?


----------



## ttystikk (Jul 15, 2015)

testiclees said:


> It does seem like the glow would give the effect if it were 730nm for a few mins.
> 
> Did you enquire on the far red thread?


I did. No one seems to know.


----------



## torontoke (Jul 15, 2015)

ttystikk said:


> @torontoke just did a thread on this, with less than stellar results. I'm not buying the idea that we can give the plants half the light interval they've evolved to receive and still expect decent results?


Not sure exactly what u are pulling me into or what results would be considered steller or not.


----------



## ttystikk (Jul 15, 2015)

torontoke said:


> Not sure exactly what u are pulling me into or what results would be considered steller or not.


I tagged you because you just did a run with a short day cycle- and as I just saw you respond to another posting, you got about 75% of the full run's yield. I'm not sure that's enough to keep looking into the technique. Figured you might have some useful input to the discussion!


----------



## torontoke (Jul 15, 2015)

ttystikk said:


> I tagged you because you just did a run with a short day cycle- and as I just saw you respond to another posting, you got about 75% of the full run's yield. I'm not sure that's enough to keep looking into the technique. Figured you might have some useful input to the discussion!


Actually then you and i disagree completely. I think getting 75% yield out of 6-8 hrs is definitely worth me to keep looking into it. 
Especially switching to 8hrs and running three flower rooms with one light.
75% yield from 50% of the light is good math and reason to experiment further.


----------



## qwizoking (Jul 15, 2015)

I rotate crops. But my heavy sativas dont do well under about 10 hours.
But damn, an extra 30lbs a month would be the shit


----------



## torontoke (Jul 15, 2015)

Well common sense should tell anyone that reducing the light period is going to produce a reduction in yield. However if the reduction of yield is less then the reduction of light its worthwhile.
So using tty's own idea on my thread and you used one light to do three crops it would increase your yield by 30-50% while only costing 25% more than 12/12 if that makes sense.

Edit: and the reduced light schedule actually made the plants finish 5 or so days earlier aswell


----------



## Dr. Who (Jul 16, 2015)

ttystikk said:


> I've repeated asked if the normal cooling of HID lamps will trigger this response. They glow plenty hot after shutoff for quite some time, mostly in the IR range. This would seem to be just what they're looking for? Or, not? Why?


Yes, that _IS _where the deep reds (aprox 690 - 700nm and above) are generated using HID lighting......I found this out by talking with several different bulb makers - that actually _make_ their bulbs here in the US.



torontoke said:


> Actually then you and i disagree completely. I think getting 75% yield out of 6-8 hrs is definitely worth me to keep looking into it.
> Especially switching to 8hrs and running three flower rooms with one light.
> 75% yield from 50% of the light is good math and reason to experiment further.


I too got around >75% at 6 and when maximizing lumin out put by every way I could while still running 1K's (Jupiter 6 hoods = 20% more reflected light, new bulbs {155,000} metering out at 179K to 183K per {Interesting spread - bulb variation}). I got very close to 90% at the the 7 hr point test.

Conversely, On the 730nm LED - Giving you 2 more hrs of lights _on_ time. The rise in yield was minimal from my normal 11 and was not (mathematically) worth the added electrical cost!

So, another point of view by testing from another member, qualifies your findings....Also point given on the 730nm LED value. Hell the cost of the 2 LED's I bought were not even worth it....Another "collective" member bought them from me to do his own testing on the subject, following standards of a similar test at MSU on C3 fruiting plants in the squash, Bean and tuber family's.

Still awaiting results on that..

Doc


----------



## PurpleBuz (Jul 16, 2015)

qwizoking said:


> No, and it falls asleep as soon as lights go out. The hormone responsible for flowering not stable in light. Does not need any aid



wrong. indoor grows miss sunset and sunrise, which are important environmental signals.
there is an interplay with far red light and deep red light that helps the plant to keep track of daytime and nighttime.

I do agree tho, Rosenthal is poppycock


----------



## skunkd0c (Jul 16, 2015)

PurpleBuz said:


> wrong. indoor grows miss sunset and sunrise, which are important environmental signals.
> there is an interplay with far red light and deep red light that helps the plant to keep track of daytime and nighttime.
> 
> I do agree tho, Rosenthal is poppycock


The plants imo are sleeping while the light is still on, if you leave lights on for 24 hours per day
or even 16-18 per day i notice that at around 15 hours of light during veg , all the leaves often severely droop downwards while still under strong hid lighting
some newbies even think the plant has wilted when this happens lol

peace


----------



## PurpleBuz (Jul 16, 2015)

skunkd0c said:


> The plants imo are sleeping while the light is still on, if you leave lights on for 24 hours per day
> or even 16-18 per day i notice that at around 15 hours of light during veg , all the leaves often severely droop downwards while still under strong hid lighting
> some newbies even think the plant has wilted when this happens lol
> 
> peace



yeah I get what your saying, they do try to follow a normal daily cycle despite 24 hour light, But keep in mind plants do not sleep.


----------



## skunkd0c (Jul 16, 2015)

PurpleBuz said:


> yeah I get what your saying, they do try to follow a normal daily cycle despite 24 hour light, But keep in mind plants do not sleep.


lol, i know that, but its so cute when they look like they are sleeping 
they will still do it under 16 hours, they know when they have had enough and want a rest

when they want light, the leaves will often twist in all sorts of positions to get the best angle
i say they are drooping down like that for a good reason , and it seems to happen at the 15 hour mark


----------



## PurpleBuz (Jul 16, 2015)

skunkd0c said:


> lol, i know that, but its so cute when they look like they are sleeping
> they will still do it under 16 hours, they know when they have had enough and want a rest
> 
> when they want light, the leaves will often twist in all sorts of positions to get the best angle


lol I reserve cute for my girls, otherwise they get jealous.


----------



## PurpleBuz (Jul 16, 2015)

ttystikk said:


> I've repeated asked if the normal cooling of HID lamps will trigger this response. They glow plenty hot after shutoff for quite some time, mostly in the IR range. This would seem to be just what they're looking for? Or, not? Why?


not sure but I don't think it will work, has too much orange\deep red light in the glow.


----------



## Dr. Who (Jul 16, 2015)

skunkd0c said:


> The plants imo are sleeping while the light is still on, if you leave lights on for 24 hours per day
> or even 16-18 per day i notice that at around 15 hours of light during veg , all the leaves often severely droop downwards while still under strong hid lighting
> some newbies even think the plant has wilted when this happens lol
> 
> peace


Ah HA! You have now seen a classic example of the light saturation point in effect!

I have to ask Skunk,,,how many lumins is the lighting producing? Sounds kinda slow - 15 hrs. More then kinda! Well then you say "severely." That means that they actually reached it well before that and are struggling to "recover" from the cellular changes that the "saturation" has caused or begun...



skunkd0c said:


> lol, i know that, but its so cute when they look like they are sleeping
> they will still do it under 16 hours, they know when they have had enough and want a rest
> 
> when they want light, the leaves will often twist in all sorts of positions to get the best angle
> i say they are drooping down like that for a good reason , and it seems to happen at the 15 hour mark


While a Cannabis plant does not "need" a lights out time to grow. Growth is more balanced and effective when given some!

Light saturation will cause reduced effective use of the light! Photosynthesis declines as does the plants use of Co2 in a correlated way....Cells change on the peptide level to actually protect the plant from the light!

Turn out the lights - give your plant a real rest. The cells will use the time to change back to the most effective they can be...

Doc

(cool observation sd)


----------



## skunkd0c (Jul 16, 2015)

Dr. Who said:


> Ah HA! You have now seen a classic example of the light saturation point in effect!
> 
> I have to ask Skunk,,,how many lumins is the lighting producing? Sounds kinda slow - 15 hrs. More then kinda! Well then you say "severely." That means that they actually reached it well before that and are struggling to "recover" from the cellular changes that the "saturation" has caused or begun...
> 
> ...


Personally mate, i would agree, i feel the extra benefit that i see from the 24 hour thing is from consistent heat rather than the extra light helping
when i started growing 16 hours was recommended for veg, this changed to 18 pretty quickly
i have heard that some rare types can even flower on 16 hours, i have never seen this myself

in the uk lights off temps can be 58-65f in an unheated room, with lights constantly on, the temps would be a steady 75f in the colder months
this would be my main justification for leaving the lights on all the time
i have always thought that once the leaves start drooping they would not be photosynthesizing to their maximum potential anyway

i would observe the drooping thing, mostly between weeks 3-5 of veg
when they are growing fast and spitting out new leaves daily 
i have seen this under hid and low lighting , so i do not think it is the intensity
it happens when they are growing very fast
also, i forgot to mention, they perk right back up around 2 hours before the lights come back on

observing this, it is like, they are very tired from a hard days growing
they take themselves to bed early after 15 hours
they are so eager to get up the next day to start growing again
the leaves all return back to their normal positions, waiting for the light to come on

so 16 on and 6 off would be the natural pattern they seem to follow at this stage 
of maximum veg growth 

peace


----------



## torontoke (Jul 16, 2015)

Dr. Who said:


> Yes,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thank you for helping make me feel a lil bit better about some of the things i have been saying on my own thread for a long time now.
Ive been told i was nuts or it wasnt a worthwhile project to bother with since i started.
And thank you @ttystikk for bringing me into the discussion im always happy to read that im not nuts.
Or well at least not all the way nuts.


----------



## ttystikk (Jul 16, 2015)

torontoke said:


> Thank you for helping make me feel a lil bit better about some of the things i have been saying on my own thread for a long time now.
> Ive been told i was nuts or it wasnt a worthwhile project to bother with since i started.
> And thank you @ttystikk for bringing me into the discussion im always happy to read that im not nuts.
> Or well at least not all the way nuts.


I don't think you're even a little bit nuts- at least, not about growing! The problem is that you're trying to be rational in an irrational world, lol

If you got 75% if your yield with 50% of the light time, then you'll get more weed, if you use more space and manpower... so I'm not sure how far ahead you end up there.

On the other hand, I'm actually pretty curious about a head to head comparison of 8 hours of light per 24 vs 12. If it doesn't lose much yield, this could be an interesting way forward! 

Here's another thought, it may have been mentioned before; With a programmable cycle timer, you could conceivably run eight on and twelve off, which would mean the same overall light interval but now every day cycle lasts only twenty hours- might that shorten the blooming time by twenty percent as well? If the cycle is thus made shorter but yields remain the same or close, that's real progress!


----------



## Dr. Who (Jul 17, 2015)

ttystikk said:


> I don't think you're even a little bit nuts- at least, not about growing! The problem is that you're trying to be rational in an irrational world, lol
> 
> If you got 75% if your yield with 50% of the light time, then you'll get more weed, if you use more space and manpower... so I'm not sure how far ahead you end up there.
> 
> ...


Hmm, another interesting idea!

I think I may pick up a cpl of programmables when I'm out today..

Doc


----------



## churchhaze (Jul 20, 2015)

qwizoking said:


> Im not gonna read a thread. Answer the question.. im well aware of how uv and red effects flowering


Look up phytochromes. Darkness will cause Pfr to slowly convert to Pr, but 730nm (far-red) will do this quickly. 660nm (deep red, looks the same really) will convert the majority of Pr back to Pfr (about 85% of total phyotochromes in Pfr form).

Pfr is the active form and Pr is the inactive form. The % of total phytochromes in Pfr form controls a bunch of things directly through genetic expression.

The UV thing is COMPLETELY wrong however.

Besides controlling circadian rhythm, the % of phytochrome in Pfr form determines the stretch rate (logarithmically proportional to %Pfr where 85% stretches the least).

Far-red will also inhibit the germination of lettuce seeds, while red light will promote germination. Actually, it's only the last pulse in a sequence of pulses that matters. So if you pulse R, FR, R, FR, only the last, FR, will matter, and thus it will inhibit germination. If the sequence was R, FR, R, FR, R, it would promote germination.


----------



## GroErr (Jul 20, 2015)

churchhaze said:


> Look up phytochromes. Darkness will cause Pfr to slowly convert to Pr, but 730nm (far-red) will do this quickly. 660nm (deep red, looks the same really) will convert the majority of Pr back to Pfr (about 85% of total phyotochromes in Pfr form).
> 
> Pfr is the active form and Pr is the inactive form. The % of total phytochromes in Pfr form controls a bunch of things directly through genetic expression.
> 
> ...


Good explanation, this is why I'm trying the 10 min 660nm before lights on, and 730nm for 10 min after lights out. The science is there. If you could get say a net gain of 1 hour on each end of light/dark growth phases (by speeding up the change from pfr to pr or vice-versa), that could translate into either weight gains, or more likely reduced cycle times. e.g. 2 hrs. of gain per 12 hr. cycle, would be 2 % 12 = 16%. For an 8 week strain, 16% of 56 = 9 days. idk if there's such a direct gain, just an example. But if I can shave a week off per cycle, that's an extra cycle per year gained. Worth trying out imo. I have these clones going from a strain that normally goes 56 days, this bud below is at day 42/6 weeks and looking more like 7 weeks in, don't expect them to go much more than 50 days at this rate.


----------

