# GAS lantern Schedule & Diminished light



## JDMase (Nov 25, 2016)

this has probably been discussed millions of times. I just wondered if anyone has actually come across any factual evidence or any side by side comparisons for me to check out? Even if it's elsewhere. 

For those that don't know gas lantern routine or schedule is 12 on, 5.5 off, 1 on, 5.5 off. 
It's supposed to mimic real world sunlight routines and inhibits flowering with the 1 hour of lights on. It's also meant to reduce power bills by allowing you to veg with less actual light on. 

Diminishing light schedule is the flowering alternative which says you should reduce the amount of light on by half an hour per week. Ive already mentioned this on the forum and somebody said that the reduced light actually hurt flowering yields. 

Let me know if you've tried it and your experience of it!


----------



## Growdict (Nov 25, 2016)

real world sunlight routines are lattitude and seasonal dependant. so of course range from 0/24 to 24/0 and everything between. if you take this portion out of your arguement it makes much more sense. if for example you say 12/5.5/1/5.5 lighting gives 90-95% of the growth of 18/6 while using 72% of the energy, this would be a good argument. some actual experiments would be in order.


----------



## RM3 (Nov 25, 2016)

been usin it for years and know several others usin it as well. No one I know that has tried it has gone back as the pros far outweigh the cons


----------



## Growdict (Nov 25, 2016)

i am not saying it is not efficient, but i highly doubt you have better ie 105-110% veg growth of 18/6, However, I have no data either way and have an open mind. I am saying calling 12/5.5/1/5.5 a mimic of real world sunlight routines is bro science at best and your arguement is hampered by this statement.


----------



## Growdict (Nov 25, 2016)

for that matter, wouldnt 6/6/6/6 produce good results for the same electricity as gas lantern.


----------



## JDMase (Nov 25, 2016)

RM3 said:


> been usin it for years and know several others usin it as well. No one I know that has tried it has gone back as the pros far outweigh the cons


Is that both methods? I respect your knowledge @RM3 so im going to take your word for it!
Is how I described correct? In regards to dimished light, starting from 12/12 then down to 9/15 a half hour a week?


----------



## JDMase (Nov 25, 2016)

Growdict said:


> i am not saying it is not efficient, but i highly doubt you have better ie 105-110% veg growth of 18/6, However, I have no data either way and have an open mind. I am saying calling 12/5.5/1/5.5 a mimic of real world sunlight routines is bro science at best and your arguement is hampered by this statement.





Growdict said:


> for that matter, wouldnt 6/6/6/6 produce good results for the same electricity as gas lantern.


Not my argument man, just lots of archive forum posts that im reviving lol. 

Well I believe the flowering hormone is activated at 6 hours of dark so I think your 6/6/6/6 would switch that hormone on and off resulting in stress. But im not an expert on the matter. There are however a lot of experts here who im hoping will chime in *hint hint*


----------



## disbeverk (Nov 25, 2016)

I ran the GLR light schedule while in veg and it was a complete failboat. All strains were held on the brink of flower. Vegetative growth was severely stunted, producing much smaller leaves. Had to switch back to 18/6, and took weeks to reveg.

YMMV, but I'll never do it again.


----------



## RM3 (Nov 25, 2016)

Growdict said:


> i am not saying it is not efficient, but i highly doubt you have better ie 105-110% veg growth of 18/6, However, I have no data either way and have an open mind. I am saying calling 12/5.5/1/5.5 a mimic of real world sunlight routines is bro science at best and your arguement is hampered by this statement.


Hardly bro science! Tis called the Gas Lantern Routine because it was developed by green house growers back when they used gas lanterns for street lights in order to extend the growing season and deliver more flowering plants. Tis century old tech that is still used today


----------



## JDMase (Nov 25, 2016)

disbeverk said:


> I ran the GLR light schedule while in veg and it was a complete failboat. All strains were held on the brink of flower. Vegetative growth was severely stunted, producing much smaller leaves. Had to switch back to 18/6, and took weeks to reveg.
> 
> YMMV, but I'll never do it again.


What a bummer! What lighting do you use? Could there of been any other factors that would of played a part do you think?


----------



## Growdict (Nov 25, 2016)

RM3 said:


> Hardly bro science! Tis called the Gas Lantern Routine because it was developed by green house growers back when they used gas lanterns for street lights in order to extend the growing season and deliver more flowering plants. Tis century old tech that is still used today


re-read my post. did i call gas lantern bro science? nope.


----------



## RM3 (Nov 25, 2016)

Growdict said:


> I am saying calling 12/5.5/1/5.5 a mimic of real world sunlight routines is *bro science at best* and your arguement is hampered by this statement.





Growdict said:


> re-read my post. did i call gas lantern bro science? nope.


sorry but my reading skills say you did


----------



## RM3 (Nov 25, 2016)

JDMase said:


> Is that both methods? I respect your knowledge @RM3 so im going to take your word for it!
> Is how I described correct? In regards to dimished light, starting from 12/12 then down to 9/15 a half hour a week?


I don't do the diminished flower stuff as that is not part of the GLR but I also don't run 12/12


----------



## JDMase (Nov 25, 2016)

RM3 said:


> I don't do the diminished flower stuff as that is not part of the GLR but I also don't run 12/12


Care to share what you do run? I am running autos right now, hit a bit of a Plato and wondered if I could change up my lighting to assist them. 
I heard GLR is good for both auto and photos


----------



## Growdict (Nov 25, 2016)

RM3 said:


> sorry but my reading skills say you did


 then your reading skills need work.
*calling 12/5.5/1/5.5 a mimic of real world sunlight routines* is bro science at best.
24/0 is a real world sunlight routine
18/6 is a real world sunlight routine
12/12 is a real world sunlight routine
"real world sunlight routines" is bro science
if you take out anything in your hypothesis that is clearly untrue you can make your case better.


----------



## JDMase (Nov 25, 2016)

Growdict said:


> then your reading skills need work.
> *calling 12/5.5/1/5.5 a mimic of real world sunlight routines* is bro science at best.
> 24/0 is a real world sunlight routine
> 18/6 is a real world sunlight routine
> ...


Take your attitude elsewhere man. Im just reiterating what the article I read said. If you have issue with that go find the article and vent there


----------



## RM3 (Nov 25, 2016)

JDMase said:


> Care to share what you do run? I am running autos right now, hit a bit of a Plato and wondered if I could change up my lighting to assist them.
> I heard GLR is good for both auto and photos


would not do either with autos


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Nov 25, 2016)

JDMase said:


> Care to share what you do run? I am running autos right now, hit a bit of a Plato and wondered if I could change up my lighting to assist them.
> I heard GLR is good for both auto and photos


Why did you hit Plato? And how? He's like.. Millennia dead.


----------



## JDMase (Nov 25, 2016)

Olive Drab Green said:


> Why did you hit Plato? And how? He's like.. Millennia dead.


Reborn and hit me in the nuts! Must have anger issues


----------



## Olive Drab Green (Nov 25, 2016)

JDMase said:


> Reborn and hit me in the nuts! Must have anger issues


I believe he was fairly peaceful. That's unfortunate.


----------



## Growdict (Nov 25, 2016)

JDMase said:


> Take your attitude elsewhere man. Im just reiterating what the article I read said. If you have issue with that go find the article and vent there


i dont have an attitude. i am simply pointing out 18/6 is just as much a real world lighting schedule as 12/12. Now there may be actual scientific reasons plants dont absorb energy well after 12 hours, i dont know. And like you i would be interested in any side by side experiments showing quantifiable results. I sometimes use gas lighting in my veg, but i do it to balance the heat in my flowering off hours.


----------



## torontoke (Nov 25, 2016)

JDMase said:


> Not my argument man, just lots of archive forum posts that im reviving lol.
> 
> Well I believe the flowering hormone is activated at 6 hours of dark so I think your 6/6/6/6 would switch that hormone on and off resulting in stress. But im not an expert on the matter. There are however a lot of experts here who im hoping will chime in *hint hint*


Who are these experts your waiting on to chime in?
Seems to me that this topic hasn't had much actual research or at least documented beyond "bro science" research.


----------



## JDMase (Nov 25, 2016)

torontoke said:


> Who are these experts your waiting on to chime in?
> Seems to me that this topic hasn't had much actual research or at least documented beyond "bro science" research.


General growers with experience in what im discussing, is what I meant by that


----------



## torontoke (Nov 25, 2016)

JDMase said:


> General growers with experience in what im discussing, is what I meant by that


Oh ok
Fair enough.


----------



## BobCajun (Nov 26, 2016)

There would be no benefit to doing gaslight in an indoor artificial light setup. It's only purpose is to prevent flowering of short day plants in greenhouses in winter when days are too short. Indoors, all that would happen is that growth would be slower because you only get a total of 13 hours light a day.

I'll tell you what does work well though, repeating 6/2 cycle. I find it works better than straight 18/6. Just by visual assessment, no side by side or anything. That's what I use for rooting clones and veg stage. I tried 11/1 too and it didn't work as well. I think I tried 7/1 also and 5/3 was too slow for my liking. All I can say is 6/2 seems to me to be the best of all I tried. All it takes is 3 programs on a digital timer.


----------



## pineappleman420 (Nov 26, 2016)

BobCajun said:


> There would be no benefit to doing gaslight in an indoor artificial light setup. It's only purpose is to prevent flowering of short day plants in greenhouses in winter when days are too short. Indoors, all that would happen is that growth would be slower because you only get a total of 13 hours light a day.
> 
> I'll tell you what does work well though, repeating 6/2 cycle. I find it works better than straight 18/6. Just by visual assessment, no side by side or anything. That's what I use for rooting clones and veg stage. I tried 11/1 too and it didn't work as well. I think I tried 7/1 also and 5/3 was too slow for my liking. All I can say is 6/2 seems to me to be the best of all I tried. All it takes is 3 programs on a digital timer.


Im hoping to do a 6/2 18/6 side by side in the next month or so. Just waiting for more lights lol


----------



## BobCajun (Nov 26, 2016)

pineappleman420 said:


> Im hoping to do a 6/2 18/6 side by side in the next month or so. Just waiting for more lights lol


Oh good, I'll watch for that. There's actually a page that recommends that cycle. I just happened to also think of it independently.


----------



## Rayne (Nov 26, 2016)

I use those lighting schedules also. 

My budget won't allow me to run the more standardized/mainstream/what everyone else does lighting routines. Cannabis is a long night short day flower anyway


----------



## RM3 (Nov 27, 2016)

BobCajun said:


> There would be no benefit to doing gaslight in an indoor artificial light setup. It's only purpose is to prevent flowering


Number 1 benefit less stretch and faster finish 

sorry but you're wrong on this


----------



## BobCajun (Nov 27, 2016)

RM3 said:


> Number 1 benefit less stretch and faster finish
> 
> sorry but you're wrong on this


Sure there's less stretch, because there's less growth. Faster finish? Get real. You can SAY I'm wrong, but where's the proof? Why has no article ever been published saying that anything ever grown in a greenhouse with the gaslight had it's finish sped up? I find it rather unlikely that you found an effect of night interruption that has never been noticed by any scientist before in the history of greenhouse horticulture.


----------



## RM3 (Nov 27, 2016)

BobCajun said:


> Sure there's less stretch, because there's less growth. Faster finish? Get real. You can SAY I'm wrong, but where's the proof? Why has no article ever been published saying that anything ever grown in a greenhouse with the gaslight had it's finish sped up?


prolly because they weren't growin cannabis lol

I've grow the same strain from clone for years, when I used 18/6 it was a 9 week strain since switching to GLR it is a 7 week strain and this has now been consistent for years

This same strain used to stretch bout 2 feet after flipped and now stretches bout 8 inches

many others are seeing the same thing I have seen, just because there isn't a paper on it doesn't make it any less real


----------



## BobCajun (Nov 27, 2016)

RM3 said:


> prolly because they weren't growin cannabis lol
> 
> I've grow the same strain from clone for years, when I used 18/6 it was a 9 week strain since switching to GLR it is a 7 week strain and this has now been consistent for years
> 
> ...


You can't grow SHIT in 7 weeks, cept thin little crappy excuses for buds. How could anything done in the veg cycle increase the rate of photosynthesis in the flower cycle? Just not possible. Where's your side-by-side? Don't tell me you didn't bother doing one all this time?

As you can see here, potency is about the same from week 7 to week 10. You just decided to pick at week 7 instead of 9. Same potency, much lower weight and density. Let's see your supposedly done plants. I bet they look like typical 7 week immature buds.


----------



## RM3 (Nov 27, 2016)

BobCajun said:


> You can't grow SHIT in 7 weeks, cept thin little crappy excuses for buds. How could anything done in the veg cycle increase the rate of photosynthesis in the flower cycle? Just not possible. Where's your side-by-side? Don't tell me you didn't bother doing one all this time?


Not gonna argue wit ya 

Tis used and discussed by several growers here and it works and does exactly what is intended not my fault your mind is closed to it ?


----------



## BobCajun (Nov 27, 2016)

RM3 said:


> Not gonna argue wit ya
> 
> Tis used and discussed by several growers here and it works and does exactly what is intended not my fault your mind is closed to it ?


Show your pics of your 7 week plants, or concede defeat.


----------



## RM3 (Nov 27, 2016)

BobCajun said:


> Show your pics of your 7 week plants, or concede defeat.


seriously lol

my pics are all over this site but what the hey lol this pic was taken at the end of week 5 (pic taken Nov 12th) plant was harvested on the 24th 
note the amber 
.


----------



## BobCajun (Nov 27, 2016)

RM3 said:


> seriously lol
> 
> my pics are all over this site but what the hey lol this pic was taken at the end of week 5 (pic taken Nov 12th) plant was harvested on the 24th
> note the amber
> ...


Okay, looks like 5 week old bud, but where's your 7 week pics? You realize that amber means degraded to CBN, right? Probably from excessive UV.


----------



## RM3 (Nov 27, 2016)

BobCajun said:


> Okay, looks like 5 week old bud, but where's your 7 week pics? You realize that amber means degraded to CBN, right?


Not in this case it doesn't but I agree most are unaware of what true early amber is
feel free to ask @GardenGnome83 since he smoked some yesterday whether it had CBN in it ? Since it is a very clear euphoric, up/energetic strain 

this pic was taken on the 19th 
.


----------



## RM3 (Nov 27, 2016)

and before you ask, here is the harvest pic, taken on the 26th 
.


----------



## BobCajun (Nov 27, 2016)

Looks like it needs about 3 more weeks to fatten up. When you dry that out you'd get next to nothing. What's your yield per sq ft at 7 weeks? Those look exactly like normal 7 week buds, except the hairs got browned, probably from low humidity or the UV all the time. You barely even see hairs when a plant is really done, because they retract into the calyxes. Those are a bunch of hairy underinflated calyxes. There's more leaf than calyx. You just don't know how to grow weed, son.


----------



## Yodaweed (Nov 27, 2016)

BobCajun said:


> Okay, looks like 5 week old bud, but where's your 7 week pics? You realize that amber means degraded to CBN, right? Probably from excessive UV.


PREACH, @RM3 's plants get WAYYYY too much UV light.


----------



## RM3 (Nov 27, 2016)

BobCajun said:


> Looks like it needs about 3 more weeks to fatten up. When you dry that out you'd get next to nothing. What's your yield per sq ft at 7 weeks?


Sorry, I don't grow for yield. Simply grow my meds for myself, no need to weigh em


----------



## RM3 (Nov 27, 2016)

Yodaweed said:


> PREACH, @RM3 's plants get WAYYYY too much UV light.


If that was true ? Then why don't ALL plants do it ?


----------



## Yodaweed (Nov 27, 2016)

RM3 said:


> If that was true ? Then why don't ALL plants do it ?


Some may be able to handle more UV than others most likely equatorial sativas can handle UV the most, or strains that originate in the mountains like PCK . I can tell you right now early amber is fried trics from UV, i did it when i first started using UV lights in my garden and ran them too long, fried a lot of the trics on my golden goat early. Shit was super sedative, too much CBN.


----------



## iHearAll (Nov 27, 2016)

i use it. i look at it like a tree in the way


----------



## BobCajun (Nov 27, 2016)

Yodaweed said:


> PREACH, @RM3 's plants get WAYYYY too much UV light.


Yeah I know, like from birth.


----------



## BobCajun (Nov 27, 2016)

RM3 said:


> Sorry, I don't grow for yield. Simply grow my meds for myself, no need to weigh em


Just as I suspected, you get shit yields.


----------



## Yodaweed (Nov 27, 2016)

BobCajun said:


> Yeah I know, like from birth.


Guess he likes to stress his plants and reduce his yield. I mean he does grow with a t5 so what do you expect...


----------



## RM3 (Nov 27, 2016)

Yodaweed said:


> Some may be able to handle more UV than others most likely equatorial sativas can handle UV the most, or strains that originate in the mountains like PCK . I can tell you right now early amber is fried trics from UV, i did it when i first started using UV lights in my garden and ran them too long, fried a lot of the trics on my golden goat early. Shit was super sedative, too much CBN.


Sorry but nothing I grow is sedative, not even land race Indicas


----------



## Yodaweed (Nov 27, 2016)

RM3 said:


> Sorry but nothing I grow is sedative, not even land race Indicas


Well that sucks, i love a good bed time smoke. Also sedative strains help with pain relief. If you need some strong indica let me know i got some strains i am working with that will put a rhino down. Just a fyi if you didnt know UV is harmful to plants and humans. It stresses your plants, and shouldnt be used until at least week 2 flower, 15 minutes per hour starting mid day. And that's a fact that was published by a university.


----------



## RM3 (Nov 27, 2016)

BobCajun said:


> Just as I suspected, you get shit yields.


If you say so lol 

funny thing was when I stopped carin bout yields, my weed got way better 

And I know you just spent a week gettin bashed over you curing tech brown buds (which I agreed with by the way) so bash away, doesn't bother me. I'll keep doin what I do and you do what you do


----------



## RM3 (Nov 27, 2016)

Yodaweed said:


> Well that sucks, i love a good bed time smoke. Also sedative strains help with pain relief. If you need some strong indica let me know i got some *strains i am working with that will put a rhino down.* Just a fyi if you didnt know UV is harmful to plants and humans. It stresses your plants, and shouldnt be used until at least week 2 flower, 15 minutes per hour starting mid day. And that's a fact that was published by a university.


Not if I grew it


----------



## iHearAll (Nov 27, 2016)

Nvm h-o


----------



## BobCajun (Nov 27, 2016)

RM3 said:


> If you say so lol
> 
> funny thing was when I stopped carin bout yields, my weed got way better
> 
> And I know you just spent a week gettin bashed over you curing tech brown buds (which I agreed with by the way) so bash away, doesn't bother me. I'll keep doin what I do and you do what you do


Well that's a good attitude anyway. Your weed, you can harvest early if you want. I don't believe the gaslight has any advantage over normal veg cycles, that's all. It might take a day or 2 off the time it takes to induce flowering, since long photoperiods are known to inhibit induction by a couple days and your cycle is actually a short photoperiod of 12 hours followed by an even shorter one of 1 hour. My 6/2 cycle accomplishes the same thing and I suspect produces more rapid growth than your 13 hours per day cycle. You never tried 6/2 so you wouldn't know. I don't know why you would chop before the most productive weeks though, after all that setup time that led up to it. Maybe you have too much weed or something.


----------



## Yodaweed (Nov 27, 2016)

RM3 said:


> Not if I grew it


These are known for their couch locking sedative effects , i like to have some good daytime smoke , and a nice knock out at night to relax me, i got a lot of anxiety so the couch lock ones help a ton.


----------



## iHearAll (Nov 27, 2016)

BobCajun said:


> Well that's a good attitude anyway. Your weed, you can harvest early if you want. I don't believe the gaslight has any advantage over normal veg cycles, that's all. It might take a day or 2 off the time it takes to induce flowering, since long photoperiods are known to inhibit induction by a couple days and your cycle is actually a short photoperiod of 12 hours followed by an even shorter one of 1 hour. My 6/2 cycle accomplishes the same thing and I suspect produces more rapid growth than your 13 hours per day cycle. You never tried 6/2 so you wouldn't know. I don't know why you would chop before the most productive weeks though, after all that setup time that led up to it. Maybe you have too much weed or something.


is that 6 on 4 off 2 on? ill give that a shot if so.


----------



## torontoke (Nov 27, 2016)

BobCajun said:


> Sure there's less stretch, because there's less growth. Faster finish? Get real. You can SAY I'm wrong, but where's the proof? Why has no article ever been published saying that anything ever grown in a greenhouse with the gaslight had it's finish sped up? I find it rather unlikely that you found an effect of night interruption that has never been noticed by any scientist before in the history of greenhouse horticulture.


Control your cannabis part II 
Skunk magazine feb/mar 2014 by joe Pietri 
He's written several articles over the years.
Julien turnois wrote a book about this very topic in 1910 called reaching for the sun.
Probably not long enough ago to be taken seriously I'm sure.


----------



## disbeverk (Nov 27, 2016)

JDMase said:


> What a bummer! What lighting do you use? Could there of been any other factors that would of played a part do you think?


In short, yes. Lighting was 315w LEC/CMH. The plants were in aero, and the reason I switched to GLR was to keep heat down to help with getting root rot under control. However, while on GLR, I had a harder time than usual fighting off the rot, and the growth of the plant was noticeably different than when on 18/6. The plants were bursting with preflowers, internode spacing was very compact, all leaves were basically miniature versions of their 18/6 counterparts. Although the root rot didn't help with the vigor, those issues are not symptoms of root rot. After nearly two months of crap growth, the GLR was abandoned, plants moved to soil where they've been revegging.

Rooted cuttings headed into GLR.
    
The aftermath of GLR growth after transplant to soil for revegging under 18/6.
 
Transplanted to coco in 3G fabric pots after 37 days of 18/6.


----------



## iHearAll (Nov 27, 2016)

Under 12-1 until yesterday. Larger was kept bonsai'd for a while. Smaller is a querkle vegged for 2-3wks


----------



## BobCajun (Nov 27, 2016)

iHearAll said:


> is that 6 on 4 off 2 on? ill give that a shot if so.


No, just 6 on 2 off, repeat twice more and you have the full 24 hours.


----------



## BobCajun (Nov 27, 2016)

torontoke said:


> Control your cannabis part II
> Skunk magazine feb/mar 2014 by joe Pietri
> He's written several articles over the years.
> Julien turnois wrote a book about this very topic in 1910 called reaching for the sun.
> Probably not long enough ago to be taken seriously I'm sure.


The Turnois book merely mentions that an interruption in the middle of a 16 hour night prevents flowering, which is well known. I found an article abstract that says night interruption will reduce stem elongation and increase branching, so that much may be true. That's with sun grown plants though. The day extension or night interruption with electric light of with lower far red content than the sun will reduce stem length.

Since RM3 grows with fluorescents rather than sunlight I doubt there would be any difference from the night interruption. It's the exact same spectrum. And notice that it says the same effect is produced by extending the day with low far red light. So a longer day produces the same effect, like 18/6. It all only applies to greenhouse growing, where you have a short day problem in the winter months. I don't think it has an effect of speeding up flowering later when 12/12 is used though. And btw you could get the same effect as 12/5.5/1/5.5 by 1 minute of light in the middle instead of 1 hour. So you could use 13/11 with a one minute interruption in the middle of the 11. You don't even need an hour so what's the point? If more darkness increases growth then why would you not use 12/12 with 1 minute on in the middle of the night part? You'd get 59 more minutes of dark.



> "Elongation of plant stems, flower stalks and leaf petioles, lateral branching, shoot and leaf orientation, and leaf pigmentation are influenced by both light quality and temperature. Morphological responses to light and temperature are referred to as photomorphogenesis and thermomorphogenesis, respectively. Red light (R) or light with a high R/FR ratio (e.g. fluorescent lamps) applied as day-extension or night-interruption (NI) suppresses stem elongation and promotes lateral branching. Far-red light (FR) or light with a low R/FR ratio (e.g. incandescent lamps) strongly enhances stem elongation and inhibits lateral branching. The DIFference between day temperature (DT) and night temperature (NT) defined as DT minus NT = DIF strongly influences internode length and plant height in a wide range of pot and bedding plants, while average daily temperature only slightly influences internode length. Plants grown with a positive DIF (DT>NT) are taller at maturity than plants grown with a negative DIF (DT<NT). The response to DIF is quantitative. For many morphological characteristics, thermomorphogenesis is similar to photomorphogenesis in the following manner: 1) R light (high R/FR ratio) = negative DIF, 2) FR light (low R/FR ratio) = positive DIF. In the long day plant (LDP) Campanula isophylla, DIF interacts with lamp types (high R versus high FR) which indicates that DT/NT alternations interfere with phytochrome mode of action. Leaf unfolding rate and flower development are not affected by DIF, but by average daily temperature. Incandescent (FR) and fluorescent (R) lamps are almost equally effective in promoting early flowering. in some LDP. Incandescent lamps, however, cannot be recommended as proper lamp type for photoperiodic lighting to induce flowering in LDP if compact, well-branching plants are desired. Lamp types with a high R/FR ratio should be used. Practical application of DT/NT treatments and light quality manipulations with different lamp types and time of applications, including elimination of twilight or selective screening of the daylight spectrum, will be discussed."
> http://www.actahort.org/books/272/272_11.htm


----------



## pineappleman420 (Nov 27, 2016)

BobCajun said:


> Sure there's less stretch, because there's less growth. Faster finish? Get real. You can SAY I'm wrong, but where's the proof? Why has no article ever been published saying that anything ever grown in a greenhouse with the gaslight had it's finish sped up? I find it rather unlikely that you found an effect of night interruption that has never been noticed by any scientist before in the history of greenhouse horticulture.


 I actual have tried @RM3 scheduled and it does as he says... I just like to experiment and always look for new ways. I also came across the 6/2 light page when researching my own theories out...Now it's time to test. Maybe the test should be between the two different views here. It may take a little while but i will get this set up with clones ect to have as much controls as i can with the testing.


----------



## disbeverk (Nov 27, 2016)

pineappleman420 said:


> I actual have tried @RM3 scheduled and it does as he says... I just like to experiment and always look for new ways. I also came across the 6/2 light page when researching my own theories out...Now it's time to test. Maybe the test should be between the two different views here. It may take a little while but i will get this set up with clones ect to have as much controls as i can with the testing.


Would love to see a test of 18/6 vs 6/2 x3.


----------



## BobCajun (Nov 27, 2016)

pineappleman420 said:


> I actual have tried @RM3 scheduled and it does as he says... I just like to experiment and always look for new ways. I also came across the 6/2 light page when researching my own theories out...Now it's time to test. Maybe the test should be between the two different views here. It may take a little while but i will get this set up with clones ect to have as much controls as i can with the testing.


Speaking of clones, the 6/2 works great for rooting them. 11/1 didn't work well at all so I doubt if 24/0 would be good, even though many pages recommend it. Cuttings are under water stress when in light but in dark they make water during respiration so they sort of supply themselves.


----------



## iHearAll (Nov 27, 2016)

BobCajun said:


> The Turnois book merely mentions that an interruption in the middle of a 16 hour night prevents flowering, which is well known. I found an article abstract that says night interruption will reduce stem elongation and increase branching, so that much may be true. That's with sun grown plants though. The day extension or night interruption with electric light of with lower far red content than the sun will reduce stem length.
> 
> Since RM3 grows with fluorescents rather than sunlight I doubt there would be any difference from the night interruption. It's the exact same spectrum. And notice that it says the same effect is produced by extending the day with low far red light. So a longer day produces the same effect, like 18/6. It all only applies to greenhouse growing, where you have a short day problem in the winter months. I don't think it has an effect of speeding up flowering later when 12/12 is used though. And btw you could get the same effect as 12/5.5/1/5.5 by 1 minute of light in the middle instead of 1 hour. So you could use 13/11 with a one minute interruption in the middle of the 11. You don't even need an hour so what's the point? If more darkness increases growth then why would you not use 12/12 with 1 minute on in the middle of the night part? You'd get 59 more minutes of dark.


has anyone tested the one minute thing? seems like a stretch.


iHearAll said:


> View attachment 3840499 View attachment 3840501 View attachment 3840503 View attachment 3840505
> Under 12-1 until yesterday. Larger was kept bonsai'd for a while. Smaller is a querkle vegged for 2-3wks


querkle is older than i thought. closer to 5 weeks old


----------



## BobCajun (Nov 28, 2016)

iHearAll said:


> has anyone tested the one minute thing? seems like a stretch.
> 
> querkle is older than i thought. closer to 5 weeks old


It's not my idea, it's a well established fact that all you need is a minute of red or white light in the middle of the dark period to prevent flowering. They just didn't know that in the distant past when gas lamps were still in use. Not much excuse for using a whole hour now though.


----------



## Rayne (Nov 28, 2016)

BobCajun said:


> It's not my idea, it's a well established fact that all you need is a minute of red or white light in the middle of the dark period to prevent flowering.


Kindly site the study that proves the claim you made. As far as I am aware, the plant uses an hour of light like it is a short day followed by a long night, which is then followed with a long day and short night.

In regards to "Finishing faster" do you have a calculator?

With the standard mainstream flowering light schedule (12 hours on / 12 hours off) at the end of seven days a plant will be subjected to 84 hours of darkness to flower under. By the end of the flowering period, should it be a full eight weeks a plant will be subjected to 672 hours of darkness (84 hours per week multiplied eight weeks).

During the flowering phase: Using a lighting schedule that mimics what happens outdoors... (AKA: the diminishing light schedule) 
Week 1 (11 on / 13 off) 13 off x 7= 91 hours of darkness
Week 2 (10.5 on / 13.5 off) 13.5 off x 7 =94.5 hours of darkness
Week 3 (10 on / 14 off) 14 off x 7 = 98 hours of darkness
Week 4 (9.5 on / 14.5 off) 14.5 off x 7 = 101.5 hours of darkness
Week 5 (9 on / 15 off) 15 off x 7 = 105 hours of darkness
Week 6 (8.5 on / 15.5 off) 15.5 off x 7 = 108.5 hours of darkness
Week 7 (8 on / 16 off) 16 off x 7 = 112 hours of darkness
Week 8 (7.5 on / 16.5 off) 16.5 off x 7 = 115.5 hours of darkness
Week 9 (7 on / 17 off) 17 off x 7 = 119 hours of darkness
Week 10 (6.5 on / 17.5 off) 17.5 off x 7 = 122.5 hours of darkness
Week 11 (6 on / 18 off) 18 off x 7 = 126 hours of darkness
Week 12 (5.5 on/ 18.5 off) 18.5 off x 7 = 129.5 hours of darkness

If one were to use basic algebra...
Weeks 1-3 total amount of darkness... 283.5 hours
Weeks 4-6 total amount of darkness... 315 hours
Weeks 7-9 total amount of darkness... 346.5 hours
Weeks 10-12 total amount of darkness... 378 hours

Weeks 1-6 total amount of darkness... 598.5 hours
Weeks 1-7 total amount of darkness... 710.5 hours
Weeks 1-8 total amount of darkness... 826 hours
Weeks 1-9 total amount of darkness... 944.5 hours
Weeks 1-10 total amount of darkness... 1,067 hours
Weeks 1-11 total amount of darkness... 1,193 hours
Weeks 1-12 total amount of darkness... 1,323 hours

For anyone reading this thread that is also considering using the "Gas lantern routine" and the "Diminishing light schedule" start from a seed or take clones from a plant that has developed under the "Gas lantern routine" 

Using clones from a plant that has been subject to the, vegetative, mainstream light schedule (18 on / 6 off) will take time to adapt to another vegetative light schedule. 

Using clones that were not rooted in a grow medium other than the intend final medium will have to adapt to the unintended grow medium. Hydroponic roots are not the same as the roots a plant develops in a soil based medium.


----------



## BobCajun (Nov 28, 2016)

Rayne said:


> Kindly site the study that proves the claim you made. As far as I am aware, the plant uses an hour of light like it is a short day followed by a long night, which is then followed with a long day and short night.
> 
> In regards to "Finishing faster" do you have a calculator?
> 
> ...


Not hard to find. Just google short day plants night break. Here's something from wikipedia. It says several minutes But I've seen in other articles that with red light it only takes 1 minute and very low intensity, but let's just say 15 minutes to be safe. That's a lot less than an hour.

"*Short-day plants*
Short-day plants flower when the night lengths exceed their critical photoperiod.[7] They cannot flower under short nights or if a pulse of artificial light is shone on the plant for several minutes during the night; they require a continuous period of darkness before floral development can begin. Natural nighttime light, such as moonlight or lightning, is not of sufficient brightness or duration to interrupt flowering."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoperiodismhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoperiodism

What the longer night break of an hour or two is used for is making long day plants flower. Apparently that takes a longer light period.

I don't know what your list of various light cycles is about but if you flower with less than 12 hours light you'll get weak product. Also, no weed growing country gets less than 9 hours light at any time in the year. Afghanistan gets just under 10 hours on its shortest day so you're not really mimicking nature with, say, 5.5 hours of light.


----------



## davillains (Nov 28, 2016)

what are you guys going on about ? the gas lantern was invented to prevent the plant from switching to flowering mode so you can veg longer. end of story. What am I missing ?


----------



## disbeverk (Nov 28, 2016)

davillains said:


> what are you guys going on about ? the gas lantern was invented to prevent the plant from switching to flowering mode so you can veg longer. end of story. What am I missing ?


the part where people prefer it over 18/6.


----------



## davillains (Nov 28, 2016)

smaller electricity bills ?


----------



## Rayne (Nov 28, 2016)

BobCajun said:


> Not hard to find. Just google short day plants night break. Here's something from wikipedia. It says several minutes But I've seen in other articles that with red light it only takes 1 minute and very low intensity, but let's just say 15 minutes to be safe. That's a lot less than an hour.
> 
> "*Short-day plants*
> Short-day plants flower when the night lengths exceed their critical photoperiod.[7] They cannot flower under short nights or if a pulse of artificial light is shone on the plant for several minutes during the night; they require a continuous period of darkness before floral development can begin. Natural nighttime light, such as moonlight or lightning, is not of sufficient brightness or duration to interrupt flowering."
> ...


I already knew of the wikipedia entry before I started using the lighting schedules I use with my grows. Wikipedia entries can be edited by almost anyone. 

Kindly remember plants only get a portion of their growth related energy from light not explicitly all of it. As for the strength... oh wait you apparently have not studied Botany, much less tried another flowering light schedule. 

If you were to read carefully and with comprehension you would have noticed the total amount of darkness gradually increases. Rather than staying the same. The diminishing light schedule also increases the total amount of darkness a short day / long night flower, such as cannabis, has to produce more flower clusters. More flower clusters means your dry harvest weight is heavier 

As the total of amount of light gets closer to the plant's critical day length the plant begins to push itself, for the sake of seed production, as it's senescence takes over.


----------



## BobCajun (Nov 28, 2016)

Rayne said:


> I already knew of the wikipedia entry before I started using the lighting schedules I use with my grows. Wikipedia entries can be edited by almost anyone.
> 
> Kindly remember plants only get a portion of their growth related energy from light not explicitly all of it. As for the strength... oh wait you apparently have not studied Botany, much less tried another flowering light schedule.
> 
> ...


I tried 8 hour days on the last week of a recent batch and it came out noticeably less potent than 12/12. Surprisingly I did get a high yield. Don't know if it was from that or not, probably not since it was only one week. Maybe it makes more weight at the expense of potency.


----------



## ttystikk (Nov 28, 2016)

RM3 said:


> been usin it for years and know several others usin it as well. No one I know that has tried it has gone back as the pros far outweigh the cons


Well, I believe I reported that I wasn't happy with the results. This would have been a couple years ago. 

I'm now doing something similar; six on and two off, three times a day. I'm also running more light. Higher light intensity along with the short day cycles seems to be having a synergistic effect and my veg plants are growing more vigorously than ever. 

Am I saving power? No, but I'm getting more growth for the same usage, which still chalks up as a win in my book! The real dividend is bigger plants- and you know what that means.


----------



## ttystikk (Nov 28, 2016)

RM3 said:


> Hardly bro science! Tis called the Gas Lantern Routine because it was developed by green house growers back when they used gas lanterns for street lights in order to extend the growing season and deliver more flowering plants. Tis century old tech that is still used today


Quite. But it was still the same bright sunlight all day. 

This leads me to wonder if those who have trouble with GLR don't have enough light intensity in veg for the technique to work properly.


----------



## BobCajun (Nov 28, 2016)

If the 12/5.5 etc thing worked then 5/3 would have been better than 6/2, which it wasn't. Less light does not equal more growth. In flower mode there's some evidence that longer light hours inhibit flowering to some degree, so shorter days in flowering might be good, but not in veg mode. In veg mode it's overall light hours up to a certain point, which seems to be about 18 hours a day total. The shorter chunks of 6 hours is to avoid the midday depression thing of long days. I don't see how the 12/5.5 could be beneficial myself.


----------



## ttystikk (Nov 28, 2016)

BobCajun said:


> I tried 8 hour days on the last week of a recent batch and it came out noticeably less potent than 12/12. Surprisingly I did get a high yield. Don't know if it was from that or not, probably not since it was only one week. Maybe it makes more weight at the expense of potency.


There are people here running their whole bloom cycle this way. They get good results, even if yield is a bit lower.


----------



## ttystikk (Nov 28, 2016)

BobCajun said:


> If the 12/5.5 etc thing worked then 5/3 would have been better than 6/2, which it wasn't. Less light does not equal more growth. In flower mode there's some evidence that longer light hours inhibit flowering to some degree, so shorter days in flowering might be good, but not in veg mode. In veg mode it's overall light hours up to a certain point, which seems to be about 18 hours a day total. The shorter chunks of 6 hours is to avoid the midday depression thing of long days. I don't see how the 12/5.5 could be beneficial myself.


It's effective in my veg space right now. I am running high light intensity in my veg, without which I don't think it would work nearly so well.

Having related this a couple times, it occurs to me to ask where the idea of low light levels in veg got started, anyway? I sure don't like the results compared to higher intensity!


----------



## torontoke (Nov 28, 2016)

BobCajun said:


> I tried 8 hour days on the last week of a recent batch and it came out noticeably less potent than 12/12. Surprisingly I did get a high yield. Don't know if it was from that or not, probably not since it was only one week. Maybe it makes more weight at the expense of potency.


Or maybe you should just stop guessing and arguing with people actually using the technique and are happy with the results.
Switching your timer for the last week had about as much to do with your decrease in potentcy as the color of your shoes the day you chopped it. 


davillains said:


> smaller electricity bills ?


Lower electric bill
Tighter node spacing
Quicker transition to flower
Less heat to move


----------



## iHearAll (Nov 28, 2016)

idk. it works for and i have nothing to compare it to but the sky is indeed black.


----------



## BobCajun (Nov 29, 2016)

Of course it "works". 12 hours, or actually 13 with the one in the middle of the night, is enough for fairly healthy plant growth, as shown by the flowering cycle "working". But does it produce as much growth as say 18/6? I maintain that it does not. 

If a person doesn't care that much about growth rate and just wants to save on power then the gaslight routine probably makes sense. But obviously if 13 hours produced as much growth as 18 then so would 15 or 16, which would also prevent flowering just like gaslight. So why would anybody use 18 hours instead of 15? Because studies have shown that it produces more growth. So it's a matter of what your priorities are, power savings or growth rate. RM3's priority is apparently power savings.


----------



## RM3 (Nov 29, 2016)

BobCajun said:


> RM3's priority is apparently power savings.


Nope, don't even consider it 

my priority is the faster finish and the extra harvest round each year. I breed so bein able to go thru more plants in a small area is priceless


----------



## BobCajun (Nov 29, 2016)

RM3 said:


> Nope, don't even consider it
> 
> my priority is the faster finish and the extra harvest round each year. I breed so bein able to go thru more plants in a small area is priceless


Oh, so no valid reason at all then, since I don't believe that you get a faster finish from it, other than a maximum of 2 days, which could be avoided with a 6/2 cycle. You just harvest your plants early, as evidenced by your pics. 7 weeks indeed.


----------



## RM3 (Nov 29, 2016)

BobCajun said:


> Oh, so no valid reason at all then, since I don't believe that you get a faster finish from it, other than a maximum of 2 days, which could be avoided with a 6/2 cycle. You just harvest your plants early, as evidenced by your pics. 7 weeks indeed.


What you believe and what actually happens are 2 different things but like I already said each to their own


----------



## BobCajun (Nov 29, 2016)

RM3 said:


> What you believe and what actually happens are 2 different things but like I already said each to their own


At least you're saving on power, though your weed must suck pretty bad. Mostly leaf by the look of it. And what's the point of an extra harvest round if it's less weight and lower quality? You would actually get more weed per year by going 10 weeks per round and having fewer rounds.


----------



## RM3 (Nov 29, 2016)

BobCajun said:


> At least you're saving on power, though your weed must suck pretty bad. Mostly leaf by the look of it. And what's the point of an extra harvest round if it's less weight and lower quality? You would actually get more weed per year by going 10 weeks per round and having fewer rounds.


Whatever dude, I'm not gonna change how I do things because of your beliefs LMAO 
as for my weed? well there are lots of RIU members that have smoked it, why not ask em


----------



## BobCajun (Nov 29, 2016)

RM3 said:


> Whatever dude, I'm not gonna change how I do things because of your beliefs LMAO
> as for my weed? well there are lots of RIU members that have smoked it, why not ask em


99% of them wouldn't know the difference between good weed and mediocre green leafy, stemmy crap, so it would be a waste of time asking them. But I think you SHOULD keep using your odd little system. You deserve no better. Quality weed is for the elites, like me. You couldn't handle quality weed anyway.


----------



## BobCajun (Nov 29, 2016)

Sorry, RM3. You're not a bad dude really. I just don't agree with your theories, that's all. I was just screwing around in that last post.


----------



## ttystikk (Nov 29, 2016)

BobCajun said:


> 99% of them wouldn't know the difference between good weed and mediocre green leafy, stemmy crap, so it would be a waste of time asking them. But I think you SHOULD keep using your odd little system. You deserve no better. Quality weed is for the elites, like me. You couldn't handle quality weed anyway.


Right. Because NOBODY in Colorado knows dink about dank. 

Dude, I'm not sure what's got your panties in a twist here, but this just makes you look bad.


----------



## JDMase (Nov 29, 2016)

When everyone grows in vastly different ways, as seen by the diversity of methods on the forum, why anyone Flames someone else for their way of doing things I do not know. 

I guess that's the internet for you..


----------



## ttystikk (Nov 29, 2016)

BobCajun said:


> Sorry, RM3. You're not a bad dude really. I just don't agree with your theories, that's all. I was just screwing around in that last post.


I don't agree with ALL of his theories, either. The other 99% of them work just fine though, and so does his weed.


----------



## BobCajun (Nov 29, 2016)

ttystikk said:


> Right. Because NOBODY in Colorado knows dink about dank.
> 
> Dude, I'm not sure what's got your panties in a twist here, but this just makes you look bad.


I do overstate things now and then.


----------



## ttystikk (Nov 29, 2016)

BobCajun said:


> I do overstate things now and then.


I swear that there's something about @RM3's writing style or maybe it's his willingness to challenge convention that just rubs some people the wrong way. 

It's not his fault at all; he's a humble guy with little pretense. But he does call bullshit on a lot of hydro store bro science and there's a very vocal faction that will shout that down anytime they hear it. 

I've seen his setup and there's no magic fairy dust. Just a lot of trichomes. 

You're absolutely right that he's leaving a lot of yield on the table, but what he gets is plenty for his purposes and I haven't found good reason to doubt his methods; he wants frost and he's willing to give up max yield to get it. Sure seems to be working! 

I take mental notes every time we talk and his perspective broadens my own. I may not agree with everything he does but anytime someone gets me to see things in a new way I find it valuable. At my age, that doesn't happen a lot anymore, at least not about growing the plant.


----------



## BobCajun (Nov 30, 2016)

That would be the constant UV. I don't believe the veg photoperiod has anything to do with it nor that it hastens ripening 7 weeks later. There's just no scientific basis for such a claim. Therefore I must find it very doubtful. Good for saving 5 hours of power a day though, and probably only losing a few days worth of growth in the process. RM3 is doing his part to reduce fossil fuel use, unless he gets hydro or nuclear power. Don't know why he doesn't just use a 13 hour day with 1 minute of red light in the middle of the night though. Or if you do get better growth with shorter dark periods, which is what his system results in, then why not a more regular cycle like 4.33/3.66 repeating? I only used those odd numbers to total 13 hours light per day, to equate to his total of 13 hours per day. In reality, I use 6/2 repeating for faster growth.


----------



## Dirty Hippie (Nov 30, 2016)

hum, well that was quite the read. My take away's are:
1. I know what "Gas Lantern" is now
2. I'm going to switch fro 18/6 and try 6/2 x3 to see if there is a difference
thanks for all the input.


----------



## RM3 (Nov 30, 2016)

Yeah I kinda enjoy growin trics, it's a nice hobby, here's one in week 5
.clic to zoom in


----------



## JDMase (Nov 30, 2016)

RM3 said:


> Yeah I kinda enjoy growin trics, it's a nice hobby, here's one in week 5
> .clic to zoom in
> View attachment 3842706
> View attachment 3842707


Wowwwww ! And you put this down to the UV? I have a 100w uvb, uva and IR reptile bulb, can I use that?


----------



## RM3 (Nov 30, 2016)

JDMase said:


> Wowwwww ! And you put this down to the UV? I have a 100w uvb, uva and IR reptile bulb, can I use that?


I do a lot of things differently


----------



## JDMase (Nov 30, 2016)

RM3 said:


> I do a lot of things differently


Teach me your ways


----------



## RM3 (Nov 30, 2016)

JDMase said:


> Teach me your ways


Start by following my leprechaun sig link


----------



## GardenGnome83 (Nov 30, 2016)

BobCajun said:


> At least you're saving on power, though your weed must suck pretty bad. Mostly leaf by the look of it. And what's the point of an extra harvest round if it's less weight and lower quality? You would actually get more weed per year by going 10 weeks per round and having fewer rounds.


Wow, you're a punk!
I bet your weed is garbage. I've smoked his weed. Nothing airy there. Super good smoke too. You would probably turn down a second j, being used to bro science bud.
You must be extremely jealous to rip on @RM3 so hard.
Why not try things out for yourself, instead of looking like a complete moron?
@BobCajun you are a perfect example of why most peoples bud sucks. Closed minded, stuck on bro science. Enjoy your mids, I'll continue to add elements to my garden that make my weed so much better than yours.


----------



## GardenGnome83 (Nov 30, 2016)

BobCajun said:


> That would be the constant UV. I don't believe the veg photoperiod has anything to do with it nor that it hastens ripening 7 weeks later. There's just no scientific basis for such a claim. Therefore I must find it very doubtful. Good for saving 5 hours of power a day though, and probably only losing a few days worth of growth in the process. RM3 is doing his part to reduce fossil fuel use, unless he gets hydro or nuclear power. Don't know why he doesn't just use a 13 hour day with 1 minute of red light in the middle of the night though. Or if you do get better growth with shorter dark periods, which is what his system results in, then why not a more regular cycle like 4.33/3.66 repeating? I only used those odd numbers to total 13 hours light per day, to equate to his total of 13 hours per day. In reality, I use 6/2 repeating for faster growth.


Lol go somewhere else where being ignorant is standard


----------



## GardenGnome83 (Nov 30, 2016)

BobCajun said:


> 99% of them wouldn't know the difference between good weed and mediocre green leafy, stemmy crap, so it would be a waste of time asking them. But I think you SHOULD keep using your odd little system. You deserve no better. Quality weed is for the elites, like me. You couldn't handle quality weed anyway.


Lol, you would not know what to do after smoking his stuff.


----------



## GardenGnome83 (Nov 30, 2016)

BobCajun said:


> Oh, so no valid reason at all then, since I don't believe that you get a faster finish from it, other than a maximum of 2 days, which could be avoided with a 6/2 cycle. You just harvest your plants early, as evidenced by your pics. 7 weeks indeed.


YOU don't believe. But you've never tried, so...


----------



## NewI (Dec 3, 2016)

BobCajun said:


> Show your pics of your 7 week plants, or concede defeat.


Dude has a thread called "how a finish plant looks like" or smt like that. LOL.
I learned from that thread... after 2 y of growing.


----------



## Bakersfield (Dec 3, 2016)

I'm running a veg cycle of 12 on 3 off 6 on and 3 off, out of necessity and everything seems to be doing good.
It's a bit early for me to form an opinion, yet. I'll give it a few more weeks and report back.


----------



## ttystikk (Dec 3, 2016)

Dirty Hippie said:


> hum, well that was quite the read. My take away's are:
> 1. I know what "Gas Lantern" is now
> 2. I'm going to switch fro 18/6 and try 6/2 x3 to see if there is a difference
> thanks for all the input.


Let me know how it works for you. I've found that it works better with good strong veg lighting than it does with barely adequate illumination.


----------



## JDMase (Dec 3, 2016)

ttystikk said:


> Let me know how it works for you. I've found that it works better with good strong veg lighting than it does with barely adequate illumination.


So are we concluding that an unnatural lighting cycle is actually more benefitial for cannabis than just x amount of straight light, regardless of spectrum, intensity or "flower initiators"? 

And if so, what does this mean? Is the 6/2 cycle an imitation of a location a land race grows? Or is it just a hormonal/metabolism thing within the plant, like rather than eating your days food at once for us humans, we seperate it into 3 square meals?


----------



## ttystikk (Dec 3, 2016)

JDMase said:


> So are we concluding that an unnatural lighting cycle is actually more benefitial for cannabis than just x amount of straight light, regardless of spectrum, intensity or "flower initiators"?
> 
> And if so, what does this mean? Is the 6/2 cycle an imitation of a location a land race grows? Or is it just a hormonal/metabolism thing within the plant, like rather than eating your days food at once for us humans, we seperate it into 3 square meals?


My guess- and that's all it is- is that plants like a little rest and grow fastest when they've had one. Some say this is a way to eliminate 'mid day depression', when growth slows. Maybe it's cooling the plants into thinking (hormonally speaking) the days are going by fast and that it needs to keep up.


----------



## JDMase (Dec 3, 2016)

ttystikk said:


> My guess- and that's all it is- is that plants like a little rest and grow fastest when they've had one. Some say this is a way to eliminate 'mid day depression', when growth slows. Maybe it's cooling the plants into thinking (hormonally speaking) the days are going by fast and that it needs to keep up.


I could go with that, I wish Id done a degree in horticulture and botany now! This stuff is so interesting.


----------



## ttystikk (Dec 3, 2016)

JDMase said:


> I could go with that, I wish Id done a degree in horticulture and botany now! This stuff is so interesting.


Call it on the job training.


----------



## BobCajun (Dec 3, 2016)

They do fine as long as it's a cycle that coincides with 24 hours. Using odd ones that don't add up to 24 might cause problems, I don't know, never tried it, just read that somewhere. I can't say for sure if 6/2 works better than 18/6, I just figure that since plants elongate in darkness that short dark periods would be better for keeping stems short. Also, when changing to flower mode it may be better for them to go from 6 hours light per cycle to 12 than from 18 down to 12. Just a hunch.


----------



## hyposomniac (Dec 3, 2016)

No one is talking about DLI (daily light integral).
If you have bright lights exceeding your dli target in a straight 18 hour period, then 6/2 might offer real benefits. 
How long does it take a plant to fall asleep and wake up? Transitional periods might cut into you light period. 
Can we hasten the sleep/wake time with far red manipulation?


----------



## NewI (Dec 3, 2016)

hyposomniac said:


> No one is talking about DLI (daily light integral).
> If you have bright lights exceeding your dli target in a straight 18 hour period, then 6/2 might offer real benefits.
> How long does it take a plant to fall asleep and wake up? Transitional periods might cut into you light period.
> Can we hasten the sleep/wake time with far red manipulation?


I was just thinking this.... maybe 2h isn't enough sleep? If I follow the leaves after light off, the drooping of leafs takes 30min+ ? Another 30min for them to go back up so we have just 1h of rest?


----------



## Rayne (Dec 3, 2016)

hyposomniac said:


> No one is talking about DLI (daily light integral).
> If you have bright lights exceeding your dli target in a straight 18 hour period, then 6/2 might offer real benefits.
> How long does it take a plant to fall asleep and wake up? Transitional periods might cut into you light period.
> Can we hasten the sleep/wake time with far red manipulation?


Do not confuse Day Light Integral with Critical Day Length. DLI is just a measurement of how much photosynthetic radiation falls upon a given area. It is usually measured in Moles per meter square per day. Depending on a number of variables (IE: Geographical location, weather conditions, season, and time day) DLI can be as high as 60 outdoors and 30 in green houses.

As it has been stated before in this thread and another thread.. Long day / short night plants like a tomato need longer days to flower. Short day / long night plants like cannabis need long nights to flower. The longer nights give cannabis and other "Short day plants" more time to produce flower clusters.


----------



## hyposomniac (Dec 4, 2016)

Rayne said:


> Do not confuse Day Light Integral with Critical Day Length. DLI is just a measurement of how much photosynthetic radiation falls upon a given area. It is usually measured in Moles per meter square per day. Depending on a number of variables (IE: Geographical location, weather conditions, season, and time day) DLI can be as high as 60 outdoors and 30 in green houses.
> 
> As it has been stated before in this thread and another thread.. Long day / short night plants like a tomato need longer days to flower. Short day / long night plants like cannabis need long nights to flower. The longer nights give cannabis and other "Short day plants" more time to produce flower clusters.


No confusion here (dont worry ill be confused again soon enough). Cumulative ppfd(which is per second) over a 24 hour period - How is this not relevant to a veg lighting discussion? Light intensity has barely been mentioned in this thread and its crucial to choosing light duration. Maybe DLI is outdated but can be useful.

1000ppfd over
16hrs - 58dli
18hrs - 65dli
20hrs - 72dli

1300ppfd over 18hrs is an 84dli.

How intense is the lighting. Are you exceeding reasonable DLI goals before your photoperiod is finished? If so then youre wasting electricity and risk photoinhibition.


----------



## phantumstranga (Dec 5, 2016)

Is this only used in flower or veg, and what are the hourly differences?


----------



## ttystikk (Dec 5, 2016)

BobCajun said:


> They do fine as long as it's a cycle that coincides with 24 hours. Using odd ones that don't add up to 24 might cause problems, I don't know, never tried it, just read that somewhere. I can't say for sure if 6/2 works better than 18/6, I just figure that since plants elongate in darkness that short dark periods would be better for keeping stems short. Also, when changing to flower mode it may be better for them to go from 6 hours light per cycle to 12 than from 18 down to 12. Just a hunch.


Just use a digital cycle timer. Plants can't tell time, cycles that don't square with 24 hours still work fine. 

Why are you putting up guesswork as factual information? It's clear you don't know.


----------



## BobCajun (Dec 5, 2016)

ttystikk said:


> Just use a digital cycle timer. Plants can't tell time, cycles that don't square with 24 hours still work fine.
> 
> Why are you putting up guesswork as factual information? It's clear you don't know.


Oh, you're a fucking expert on plant science now are ya ddipstikk? Let's put it this way then, you COULD use cycles not totaling 24 hours but then you'd have to buy a special kind of timer, if you can even find one, and it's highly unlikely that it would be of any benefit anyway.


----------



## ttystikk (Dec 5, 2016)

BobCajun said:


> Oh, you're a fucking expert on plant science now are ya ddipstikk? Let's put it this way then, you COULD use cycles not totaling 24 hours but then you'd have to buy a special kind of timer, if you can even find one, and it's highly unlikely that it would be of any benefit anyway.


First, you've made an assumption that you've already admitted you know nothing about- so my comments about your habitually running your mouth about things you know nothing about stands. 

Second, such cycle timers aren't hard to find and in fact I own one. The simplest one is a digital timer that can be set for weekly operation, these aren't expensive. 

Finally, I know what I know- and I know what I don't. You clearly don't. Thus the credibility problem.


----------



## BobCajun (Dec 5, 2016)

ttystikk said:


> First, you've made an assumption that you've already admitted you know nothing about- so my comments about your habitually running your mouth about things you know nothing about stands.
> 
> Second, such cycle timers aren't hard to find and in fact I own one. The simplest one is a digital timer that can be set for weekly operation, these aren't expensive.
> 
> Finally, I know what I know- and I know what I don't. You clearly don't. Thus the credibility problem.


Go watch Star Wars, ddipstikk


----------



## ttystikk (Dec 5, 2016)

BobCajun said:


> Go watch Star Wars, ddipstikk


Nah. It's much more fun to build it, instead.


----------



## Odin* (Dec 5, 2016)

ttystikk said:


> Just use a digital cycle timer. Plants can't tell time, cycles that don't square with 24 hours still work fine.
> 
> Why are you putting up guesswork as factual information?



They may not be watching the clock, they are aware of relative sundown and sun up. Following a healthy 18/6 one can note that the plants are ready for "bed" just before lights out (no longer reaching for the light), and ready for the "day" just before lights on (reaching for light that is about to come on, but not there yet).

Unaware of time, but subject to circadian rhythm. I've already posted the link (elsewhere) to a study that showed unusual light cycles upset a plants circadian rhythms which slows growth/development, decreases the plants health/vigor, and weakens it's immune system. Conclusion, "odd" light cycles have a negative effect on a plants metabolic pathways. Not "guesswork", factual info.

I've also previously posted a link that stated that elf3 halted growth and was at it's peak 14-16 hours after first light, regardless of dark period. Is 6/2x3 generating overlap between these periods of stagnation, an accumulation of inhibition? Is this odd light cycle also exhausting the elf3 protein (which is also associated with flowering), in turn delaying the onset of flowering during the initial "long night" catalyst to flowering? Maybe, would explain the stunted growth exhibited with the upset of circadian rhythms. Regardless of "Why?", we know the negative effects of "odd" light cycles on plant growth.


----------



## ttystikk (Dec 5, 2016)

Odin* said:


> They may not be watching the clock, they are aware of relative sundown and sun up. Following a healthy 18/6 one can note that the plants are ready for "bed" just before lights out (no longer reaching for the light), and ready for the "day" just before lights on (reaching for light that is about to come on, but not there yet).
> 
> Unaware of time, but subject to circadian rhythm. I've already posted the link (elsewhere) to a study that showed unusual light cycles upset a plants circadian rhythms which slows growth/development, decreases the plants health/vigor, and weakens it's immune system. Conclusion, "odd" light cycles have a negative effect on a plants metabolic pathways. Not "guesswork", factual info.
> 
> I've also previously posted a link that stated that elf3 halted growth and was at it's peak 14-16 hours after first light, regardless of dark period. Is 6/2x3 generating overlap between these periods of stagnation, an accumulation of inhibition? Is this odd light cycle also exhausting the elf3 protein (which is also associated with flowering), in turn delaying the onset of flowering during the initial "long night" catalyst to flowering? Maybe, would explain the stunted growth exhibited with the upset of circadian rhythms. Regardless of "Why?", we know the negative effects of "odd" light cycles on plant growth.


And that sounds good... Except that my plants respond vigorously to my 6/2 x 3 schedule. Definitely no delays or slower growth happening here.


----------



## Odin* (Dec 5, 2016)

ttystikk said:


> And that sounds good... Except that my plants respond vigorously to my 6/2 x 3 schedule. Definitely no delays or slower growth happening here.


If I veg'd 3 months, I would have plants that were 15'-20' tall at the end of a 60 day bloom. You have stated that you veg for 3 months...




For the most part, we're dealing with "hearty" plants, they are capable of coping with quite a bit, but just because they survive and flower does not mean that they are doing so within an optimal setting.

You asked for "science", all of the science points to maintaining "regular" light cycles.


----------



## JDMase (Dec 5, 2016)

I think somebody with some space and time needs to set up a grow with 3 clones, a control, and two variables and run tests. This forum is full of pseudoscience and speculation and I feel there must be someone here with the resources to put some of it to bed. What do you guys think? 
I could set something up but im a newb grower and doubt Id be able to control other variables.


----------



## ttystikk (Dec 5, 2016)

Odin* said:


> If I veg'd 3 months, I would have plants that were 15'-20' tall at the end of a 60 day bloom. You have stated that you veg for 3 months...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You don't know the whole story of how I veg or why, so making such assumptions would likely only lead you astray.


----------



## phantumstranga (Dec 5, 2016)

In some states where you're only allowed very few plants some people have to vegetate for a prolonged period in order to LST and other forms of maximizing yield with your plants even if that means taking a bit longer to prepare them. Also I would imagine it has much to do with how many microorganisms in what dosage of feed is being used under how many watts per square inch of light etcetera etcetera. I recently made a post in the advanced cultivators section and no one has yet to respond with what hours they use for vegetative or for flowering or when they change over from metal halide to high pressure sodium in flour or if there actually is any benefit to Gaslight routine. Pardon me everyone I'm on my phone talk to text isn't always great


----------



## Odin* (Dec 5, 2016)

ttystikk said:


> You don't know the whole story of how I veg or why, so making such assumptions would likely only lead you astray.



Incorrect. 3 months veg is relative across the board. If one environment produces 15-20' monsters (I would generally refer to it as a "base", but with that amount of veg time they produce a "trunk" of 2-3" diameter, from experience) with a 3 month veg and another does not...


You're assuming that I have not experimented with "odd" lighting cycles and just sharing that which has been "Googled". No, I have experimented, it is no fault of my own that known science supports my experience. I don't share or contradict in an effort to justify or validate, I do so to help. 


In no way am I trying to knock your efforts, but if you want my honest opinion/constructive criticism, you're leaving a lot on the table.

CO isn't that far, I need to bring some flav out to you and @Afgan King , as well as anyone in that "neighborhood". It would be my pleasure. 

Nothing but well wishes and good vibes, honestly.


----------



## Odin* (Dec 5, 2016)

phantumstranga said:


> In some states where you're only allowed very few plants some people have to vegetate for a prolonged period in order to LST and other forms of maximizing yield with your plants even if that means taking a bit longer to prepare them. Also I would imagine it has much to do with how many microorganisms in what dosage of feed is being used under how many watts per square inch of light etcetera etcetera. I recently made a post in the advanced cultivators section and no one has yet to respond with what hours they use for vegetative or for flowering or when they change over from metal halide to high pressure sodium in flour or if there actually is any benefit to Gaslight routine. Pardon me everyone I'm on my phone talk to text isn't always great



Just noticed this; There is much to consider when discussing "yield", prolonged veg does nothing but decrease said "yield". This is from a "net annual" perspective. Again, from experience, point of diminishing returns.


----------



## phantumstranga (Dec 5, 2016)

Odin* said:


> Just noticed this; There is much to consider when discussing "yield", prolonged veg does nothing but decrease said "yield". This is from a "net annual" perspective. Again, from experience, point of diminishing returns.


I agree but some individuals prefer the technique. It was just my theoryism ha


----------



## ttystikk (Dec 5, 2016)

phantumstranga said:


> I agree but some individuals prefer the technique. It was just my theoryism ha


He forgot to consider the effects of perpetual gardening in his timing.


----------



## Odin* (Dec 5, 2016)

ttystikk said:


> He forgot to consider the effects of perpetual gardening in his timing.


I ran perpetual at one site for 5 years, does not alter anything I said, not one iota.


----------



## ttystikk (Dec 5, 2016)

Odin* said:


> I ran perpetual at one site for 5 years, does not alter anything I said, not one iota.


Funny how it isn't reducing my yield. On the other hand, little or no veg time certainly would.


----------



## NewI (Dec 5, 2016)

So.. what isn't a odd vege light program?


----------



## Odin* (Dec 5, 2016)

ttystikk said:


> *Funny how it isn't reducing my yield*. On the other hand, little or no veg time certainly would.


Really. How many "complete" grows do you finish in a single year/room. I accomplish 6 (per room/grow) You are "underachieving". 

3 month veg, plus 8-9+ week bloom. Your "turnaround" does not allow for maximum results. Indubitable.


----------



## ttystikk (Dec 5, 2016)

Odin* said:


> Really. How many "complete" grows do you finish in a single year/room. I accomplish 6 (per room/grow) You are "underachieving".
> 
> 3 month veg, plus 8-9+ week bloom. Your "turnaround" does not allow for maximum results. Indubitable.


I pull 6 or more every year.


----------



## NewI (Dec 5, 2016)

Fuck this... every thread goes sideways.


----------



## Odin* (Dec 5, 2016)

ttystikk said:


> I pull 6 or more every year.


No you do not. You said "Perpetual", which means that you are running 2, or more, different stages of bloom in the same room simultaneously. Let's assume its 2 within the given space, 50/50 split. That would mean that you would need to pull 12 to match a full room at 6 (at the very least, as the later stage plants take up a greater amount of space). You veg for 3 months, you would require significantly greater veg space to accommodate. If you do accomplish 12+ from the same room with a 3 month veg, you are sacrificing additional bloom space to do so, further decreasing your weight per sq'.

Numbers aren't adding up.


----------



## ttystikk (Dec 5, 2016)

Odin* said:


> No you do not. You said "Perpetual", which means that you are running 2, or more, different stages of bloom in the same room simultaneously. Let's assume its 2 within the given space, 50/50 split. That would mean that you would need to pull 12 to match a full room at 6 (at the very least, as the later stage plants take up a greater amount of space). You veg for 3 months, you would require significantly greater veg space to accommodate. If you do accomplish 12+ from the same room with a 3 month veg, you are sacrificing additional bloom space to do so, further decreasing your weight per sq'.
> 
> Numbers aren't adding up.


I'm going to say this oooooone last time; you make far too many assumptions for your own good.


----------



## Odin* (Dec 5, 2016)

Odin* said:


> No you do not. You said "Perpetual", which means that you are running 2, or more, different stages of bloom in the same room simultaneously. Let's assume its 2 within the given space, 50/50 split. That would mean that you would need to pull 12 to match a full room at 6 (at the very least, as the later stage plants take up a greater amount of space). You veg for 3 months, you would require significantly greater veg space to accommodate. If you do accomplish 12+ from the same room with a 3 month veg, you are sacrificing additional bloom space to do so, further decreasing your weight per sq'.
> 
> Numbers aren't adding up.





ttystikk said:


> I'm going to say this oooooone last time; you make far too many assumptions for your own good.



Fair enough. Ok, let's assume you pull 6 back to back without lapse or overlap, that, or 12 split. In order to achieve this you need to be running a greater amount of veg space VS bloom (6 back to back requires 6x3mo veg, 12 requires 12x3mo, but .5space). As I said, numbers don't add up. Nothing to assume, this is what you have stated. 

I run 6-7 week veg, ~60 day bloom, 6 runs a year per room (separate from veg). Veg is approximately half the sq ft of bloom. Forget about per light (~3), average as high as 105.6g per sq ft (example is Gelato).


----------



## phantumstranga (Dec 6, 2016)

Odin* said:


> Just noticed this; There is much to consider when discussing "yield", prolonged veg does nothing but decrease said "yield". This is from a "net annual" perspective. Again, from experience, point of diminishing returns.


I agree but some individuals prefer the technique. It was just my theoryism ha


----------



## JDMase (Dec 6, 2016)

So if we are to assume there are "diminishing returns" when it comes to veg time:yield, how do we work out what optimum veg time is? Is that strain dependant? And obviously variable dependant, eg plant stress and vigorous growth. But hypothetically, if all things controlled what is ideal?


----------



## mauricem00 (Dec 23, 2016)

RM3 said:


> been usin it for years and know several others usin it as well. No one I know that has tried it has gone back as the pros far outweigh the cons


just switched my current crop to flowering and trying 5.5/1/5.5/12 lighting for the first time. what effect does this have on yield?what are the pros and cons of this style?


----------



## Rayne (Dec 23, 2016)

mauricem00 said:


> just switched my current crop to flowering and trying 5.5/1/5.5/12 lighting for the first time. what effect does this have on yield?what are the pros and cons of this style?


For flowering...If you set your timer for : 5.5 on/ 1 off/ 5.5on/ 12 off... you are essentially giving your plants a total of 11 hour days and 13 hour nights or one long day a short night and then a short day followed by a long night.

As it has been stated a number of times already... Longer nights will allow "Short Day" plants, like cannabis, more time to produce flower clusters. More flower clusters means your overall dry weight will be heavier.


----------



## Rayne (Dec 23, 2016)

phantumstranga said:


> Is this only used in flower or veg, and what are the hourly differences?


(Gas Lantern Schedule: This keeps plants from going into a flowering mode during the night time. This also used my numerous large scale, commercial, greenhouses)
12 on/ 5.5off/ 1on/ 5.5off is for the vegetative phase.

(Diminished Light: Mimics what happens in nature... Unless you live on the equator. In the fall/winter seasons have you ever wondered why the sunsets gradually earlier)
Flowering starts at 11on/ 13off and gradually the night gets longer as the days get shorter.


----------



## ttystikk (Dec 23, 2016)

I've been running 6 hours on, 2 off three times a day for a month or two now and I think the ladies like it. They stay in veg and grow vigorously.


----------



## RM3 (Dec 24, 2016)

mauricem00 said:


> just switched my current crop to flowering and trying 5.5/1/5.5/12 lighting for the first time. what effect does this have on yield?what are the pros and cons of this style?


The biggest is it reduces the stretch and in turn plants finish faster


----------



## Chunky Stool (Dec 29, 2016)

RM3 said:


> The biggest is it reduces the stretch and in turn plants finish faster


Is this a good option for people running HID? I only ask because I've heard that more on/off cycles will decrease bulb life.


----------



## RM3 (Dec 29, 2016)

Chunky Stool said:


> Is this a good option for people running HID? I only ask because I've heard that more on/off cycles will decrease bulb life.


Depends, there is give and take in all things, gotta choose the path that fits your needs


----------



## pineappleman420 (Dec 29, 2016)

RM3 said:


> Depends, there is give and take in all things, gotta choose the path that fits your needs


I ran with hid with great results...no real notice in bulb life being shorter


----------



## phantumstranga (Jan 18, 2017)

ttystikk said:


> It's effective in my veg space right now. I am running high light intensity in my veg, without which I don't think it would work nearly so well.
> 
> Having related this a couple times, it occurs to me to ask where the idea of low light levels in veg got started, anyway? I sure don't like the results compared to higher intensity!


What hours do you guys use in veg vs flower? How many of what hour intervals? Thanks


----------



## ttystikk (Jan 18, 2017)

phantumstranga said:


> What hours do you guys use in veg vs flower? How many of what hour intervals? Thanks





ttystikk said:


> I've been running 6 hours on, 2 off three times a day for a month or two now and I think the ladies like it. They stay in veg and grow vigorously.


In bloom I stick with the conventional 12 on and 12 off.


----------



## BobCajun (Jan 18, 2017)

I now veg with 3/1 and flower with 11.5 hours light the first week, 13 for weeks 2-8 and 12 for weeks 9-10. 12 is more of a ripening cycle than an active growth cycle. 13 produces "rapid formation of new florets" according to this from a David Potter article. Whether or not the floret formation would be the same with 12 hours at the same growth stage I don't know. It looks similar from the table, since the indoor was on 12 hours the whole time. I just figure more light = more growth. It looks like even 13.5 could be used, but I don't want to push it that far.






This from the same article shows that the day length is 13 hours in Mazar on Sept 1, so should be good for flowering most Indicas and hybrids.


----------



## ChefKimbo (Jan 23, 2017)

BobCajun said:


> Those look exactly like normal 7 week buds, except the hairs got browned, probably from low humidity or the UV all the time. You barely even see hairs when a plant is really done, because they retract into the calyxes. Those are a bunch of hairy underinflated calyxes. There's more leaf than calyx. .


BIG Thanks man. This quote answered so many questions for me.


----------



## BobCajun (Jan 23, 2017)

What I posted earlier earlier about using 13 hours, my last buds did come out pretty fluffy. I don't know if that was why or not, possible though. I think I better just stick with 12. I did read on some site that growers found that 13 hours made buds fluffier and leafier. Probably true, at least in many strains. My plants did get pretty damn leafy.


----------



## farmerfischer (Jan 24, 2017)

@ttystikk I'm going to try that 6/2×3 for veg on my next run.
I'm always "trying" new and different things..
I'm currently flowering under 9.25/14.75 on/Off. And it seems like the indica and indica doms like it, some loss in structure but are packing on some tight almost fist size buds at week five'ish.
The sativas/sativa doms don't like it.. Tiny nugs spaced far apart ( Crystally as hell though.. ) I'm flowering under both mh. And h.p.s. 600's


----------



## tangerinegreen555 (Jan 24, 2017)

ttystikk said:


> In bloom I stick with the conventional 12 on and 12 off.


Some day I'll have to try that. Lol.


Seriously, I've never flowered on 12 and 12. Always slightly more dark time.


----------



## ttystikk (Jan 24, 2017)

tangerinegreen555 said:


> Some day I'll have to try that. Lol.
> 
> 
> Seriously, I've never flowered on 12 and 12. Always slightly more dark time.


You know they start flowering in August with 13 hours of light, right?


----------



## tangerinegreen555 (Jan 24, 2017)

ttystikk said:


> You know they start flowering in August with 13 hours of light, right?


I have indeed seen that outside, sure. I've seen some plants finish in August already. (My mind still struggles with that one.)

Inside I've just always started 11.5/12.5 or 11/13.


----------



## ttystikk (Jan 25, 2017)

tangerinegreen555 said:


> I have indeed seen that outside, sure. I've seen some plants finish in August already. (My mind still struggles with that one.)
> 
> Inside I've just always started 11.5/12.5 or 11/13.


12/12 corresponds with Sept 21, easily a month into an outdoor flowering schedule. Running even shorter day cycle just reduces DLI and chips away at total yield potential. At least, that's my experience.

You sure those August finishers weren't autos?


----------



## tangerinegreen555 (Jan 25, 2017)

ttystikk said:


> 12/12 corresponds with Sept 21, easily a month into an outdoor flowering schedule. Running even shorter day cycle just reduces DLI and chips away at total yield potential. At least, that's my experience.
> 
> You sure those August finishers weren't autos?


Never grew an auto (that I know of). It was 10 -12 yrs. ago, Early Hope or something like that.


----------



## ttystikk (Jan 25, 2017)

tangerinegreen555 said:


> Never grew an auto (that I know of). It was 10 -12 yrs. ago, Early Hope or something like that.


'premature ejaculator', maybe? Lol


----------



## tangerinegreen555 (Jan 25, 2017)

ttystikk said:


> 'premature ejaculator', maybe? Lol


Lol. It wasn't that memorable for a reason.


----------



## a senile fungus (Jan 25, 2017)

We need to bring rep back. 

Bob woulda lost all his already, lol


----------



## churchhaze (Jan 25, 2017)

ttystikk said:


> I swear that there's something about @RM3's writing style or maybe it's his willingness to challenge convention that just rubs some people the wrong way.


Interesting theory.... but..... it's not the way he writes, it's the things he says. The way you describe it, people only argue based on emotion rather than on what they believe is correct. You'd be right for people like mongofrog.


----------



## churchhaze (Jan 25, 2017)

Here's an advanced technique... It's called 24/0.

Want to save electricity? Use less light! Less light also implies less startup cost, and lower maintenance costs. You also don't need a timer.


----------



## torontoke (Jan 25, 2017)

churchhaze said:


> Interesting theory.... but..... it's not the way he writes, it's the things he says. The way you describe it, people only argue based on emotion rather than on what they believe is correct. .


And this says more about the closed mindedness of people these days.
Everyone seems to get fixed in their ways and assumes that they are smarter then the guy next to them. Based usually on someone else's theories or trial and error.
People like to think they know everything about growing mj because they read something or someone told them "how it is."
It's my belief that our growing environments are as varied as our needs and everyone should try things and find what works best for them. Why does someone else's timer settings or light choice effect anyone else?
I'm 100% positive that RM3 is very happy doing exactly what he's doing and isn't going to change anything because of something someone online argues about.


----------



## BobCajun (Jan 25, 2017)

a senile fungus said:


> We need to bring rep back.
> 
> Bob woulda lost all his already, lol


Still evil I see. How surprising.


----------



## tstick (Jan 26, 2017)

I ran the Gas Lantern Technique in veg. and it worked FANTASTIC!

I then switched over to the Diminished Lighting Schedule for flowering and I started to get worried at around week 5 because the plant was starting to cannibalize its shade leaves...which was earlier than I remembered having this strain show this.

The strain description for MotherTongue given by the TGA Subcool site is that the plant finishes at 56-60 days. However, I NEVER go by what a seed seller says, in that regard! I try to always take my plants 10 weeks or more. But this time, I think I am going to be pushing it to even get through this week 9 because the trichomes are pure milk, the branches are flopping over and there is jussssst the hint of some fox tailing starting.

I always grow from regular seeds, so it's hard to tell if the growth, yield, etc. are more related to the phenotype or if they are responding to the lighting schedule...but all I can say is that I'm sold on the techniques, now, and I will use them in the future.
I think the flowers are producing more terpenes than ever before...again can't say for certain what the relevance of that is...but I'm very happy with the results.

For all the people who maybe can't afford to get into the LED game for efficiency, they can certainly improve their electrical use by incorporating these techniques.


----------



## tstick (Jan 26, 2017)

One of my best friends is one of the partners at a mega-HUGE recreational grow facility. All they use is HID lights....just cannot convince them of the merits of LED. But, I wonder if I can convince them to at least try out the Gas Lantern Technique for their veg. rooms. On that kind of scale, the electrical savings would be major -especially for HID lighting.


----------



## torontoke (Jan 26, 2017)

tstick said:


> One of my best friends is one of the partners at a mega-HUGE recreational grow facility. All they use is HID lights....just cannot convince them of the merits of LED. But, I wonder if I can convince them to at least try out the Gas Lantern Technique for their veg. rooms. On that kind of scale, the electrical savings would be major -especially for HID lighting.


Doubtful
Most of these places have to many scientists and preconceived ideas to try anything non traditional.
And if they are being paid handsomely per gram then the wasted electric costs are being covered so why would they bother.

This is one of those things that u can claim works for u but that's about it. If you tell others let alone try to convince them you will be ridiculed and trolled.


----------



## tstick (Jan 28, 2017)

Well, ok...I was bored...I'm not great at math, but this seems pretty easy to calculate....


Let's compare the standard 18/6 lighting schedule that many people use for vegging their plants. Let's figure that we are going to sprout the seed and grow them, top and/or supercrop them a bit...more or less let's call it 8 weeks. Once you see the math, you can adjust according to your own schedule-preferences.

Okay, so, based on _my_ numbers, that's:

18 hours X 8 weeks

8 weeks = 56 days

56 days X 18 = *1008 hours* *on
*


And now we calculate the flowering cycle based on a (fairly) standard 10 week period of 12/12

12 hours X 10 weeks

10 weeks = 70 days

70 days X 12 = *840 hours on
*


56 days (veg) + 70 days (flower) = 126 days

So, in that 126 day period, the lights will be *on for 1848 hours

*


Compare to Gas Lantern Technique + Diminished Lighting Schedule numbers:

13 (12 +1) hours X 8 weeks = *728 hours on 
*
And for flowering (adjusted bi-weekly):

11 X 14(154) + 10.5 X 14(147) + 10 X 14(140) + 9.5 X 14(133) + 9 X 14(126)

154 + 147 + 140 + 133 + 126 = *700 hours on
*


That means the lights will be *on for 1428 hours
*


You save...Are you ready for this?....*420 hours!! *Is that a sign or what? * 
*
That's a *savings of 17.5 days* worth of lights being on!

Plus, for whatever reason(s) this type of grow schedule seems to accelerate the entire growth/ripening process and cut the entire run by a week! This is actually panning out to be true for me, as I will be harvesting a week earlier than usual! So, to that 17.5 figure, I will add another 7 days for an additional 63 hours saved (7 days X 9 hours on per day = 63 hours)!

I'm sold!


----------



## sallygram (Feb 3, 2017)

Thank you TStick for putting this tread on track again!

I had a broken timer in my last grow that was keeping 7 of my plants in the dark cycle for about 5 minutes a day longer then they should. Everyday my lights were coming on about 5 minutes later then the day before so I guess I had an inadvertant dimishing light schedule where I was loosing about 35 minutes a week. On my regular schedule I was supposed to harvest on Feb 10th. Well I took them down last night (one week early). The plants seemed to have stretched a little less (not much) but the bud sites are about half the size of the ones I am used to seeing. There is a major loss in weight to it. I am happy about the early harvest but not happy about the weight loss. So basically I am agreeing that a grower that doesn't care about weight may find that these light schedules work better for them.

The gas lamp method has always intrested me, last year I strated to do it then I ran into some health issues and went back to a 13/11 schedule because it was easier to explain to my caretaker when I was hospitalized, I actually have been working on two new vert setups of 150 plants each so maybe I will do a side by side just to try to end the debate (more likely it will just add to the debate lol).


----------



## Chunky Stool (Feb 3, 2017)

sallygram said:


> Thank you TStick for putting this tread on track again!
> 
> I had a broken timer in my last grow that was keeping 7 of my plants in the dark cycle for about 5 minutes a day longer then they should. Everyday my lights were coming on about 5 minutes later then the day before so I guess I had an inadvertant dimishing light schedule where I was loosing about 35 minutes a week. On my regular schedule I was supposed to harvest on Feb 10th. Well I took them down last night (one week early). The plants seemed to have stretched a little less (not much) but the bud sites are about half the size of the ones I am used to seeing. There is a major loss in weight to it. I am happy about the early harvest but not happy about the weight loss. So basically I am agreeing that a grower that doesn't care about weight may find that these light schedules work better for them.
> 
> The gas lamp method has always intrested me, last year I strated to do it then I ran into some health issues and went back to a 13/11 schedule because it was easier to explain to my caretaker when I was hospitalized, I actually have been working on two new vert setups of 150 plants each so maybe I will do a side by side just to try to end the debate (more likely it will just add to the debate lol).


You are setting up a new grow for 300 plants??? Holy shit! 
I am limited to 15...


----------



## tstick (Feb 3, 2017)

sallygram said:


> Thank you TStick for putting this tread on track again!
> 
> I had a broken timer in my last grow that was keeping 7 of my plants in the dark cycle for about 5 minutes a day longer then they should. Everyday my lights were coming on about 5 minutes later then the day before so I guess I had an inadvertant dimishing light schedule where I was loosing about 35 minutes a week. On my regular schedule I was supposed to harvest on Feb 10th. Well I took them down last night (one week early). The plants seemed to have stretched a little less (not much) but the bud sites are about half the size of the ones I am used to seeing. There is a major loss in weight to it. I am happy about the early harvest but not happy about the weight loss. So basically I am agreeing that a grower that doesn't care about weight may find that these light schedules work better for them.
> 
> The gas lamp method has always intrested me, last year I strated to do it then I ran into some health issues and went back to a 13/11 schedule because it was easier to explain to my caretaker when I was hospitalized, I actually have been working on two new vert setups of 150 plants each so maybe I will do a side by side just to try to end the debate (more likely it will just add to the debate lol).


Interesting!

I do one run a year and I pop four seeds (all different strains) each time....hopefully, I get all-females. However, THIS run, 3 of the 4 plants turned out to be males!  So, with my one remaining female (TGA Mother Tongue), I decided to just go all-out with the experiments that I had been reading about for years and never tried.

I ended up topping the plant twice and then super-cropping it with a heavy hand! I had a scrog net that I'd been wanting to try out...it's made of bungee cord and can hook onto my tent poles. I used a fantastic Timber Grow Lights light (CXB 400R) combined with some prototype 660nm Osram Olson bars they made for me...and I am just finishing the plants under a 400 watt MH bare-bulb fixture that had been my standard for 30 years or so (I always take meticulous care of my stuff....mainly because I don't have a ton of money!) I bought a brand-new bulb for it, of course! I also tried going all-organic soil and ferts this run, too...hoping to intensify terpenes and flavors.

I usually just pop the beans and then let the plants grow their own way, so doing all this new stuff was kind of exciting. I learned a lot from the experience, that's for sure! I am a better grower now because I kept an open mind. Even if my yield wasn't what I had hoped for, I made a pretty good batch of lemonade from a lemon of a run!

I can't say whether or not I am getting less yield using these techniques, because I always grow from regular seeds...so each phenotype is unique. Unless I was to grow out some clones and run the comparison to a more standard way of lighting schedule, I probably wouldn't be able to discern what the differences might be. I never pick strains based on their yield potential. I'm more of a flavor-seeker. If I get a plant that tastes really good, then I'm happy. My yields have varied, greatly, from strain-to-strain every single grow! But, I will say this....I have grown Mother Tongue twice before and it is a real "OG" of a plant....lots of consistent, small golf ball knobs...just frrrrrrosted with trichomes...and has the most unique, Bailey's Irish Cream diesel smell! Just a few days ago, it smelled like synthetic grapes! Even though the buds are small, they are dense and all the main branches are flopping over. I plan on trimming on Sunday in front of the tv (Super Bowl)!

Hopefully, I will have some pics posted of the grow and harvest, shortly!


----------



## sallygram (Feb 3, 2017)

Chunky Stool said:


> You are setting up a new grow for 300 plants??? Holy shit!
> I am limited to 15...


The vertical garden is based on a small yield per plant but a quick turnaround so 15 at 8oz. each would blow away my yield .


----------



## sallygram (Feb 3, 2017)

tstick said:


> Interesting!
> 
> I do one run a year and I pop four seeds (all different strains) each time....hopefully, I get all-females. However, THIS run, 3 of the 4 plants turned out to be males!  So, with my one remaining female (TGA Mother Tongue), I decided to just go all-out with the experiments that I had been reading about for years and never tried.
> 
> ...


I would not mind trying some Irish Cream weed, I got some lemon haze last week and realized I am not much of a fan of lemons. lol


----------



## tstick (Feb 3, 2017)

I agree. The lemon terpene profile strains tend to give a headache -especially the lemon Pledge furniture polish lemon smell. I do however, enjoy the tangerine/orange terps of some strains like Tangie and the grapefruit smelling terps of some Sativas - as far as citrus fruit smelling strains.

Yes, this Mother Tongue strain is really a chameleon. One day it smelled like pineapple. A week later, it smelled like grapes....a week later, it had a vanilla smell...then it took on a diesel and fake grape smell....and it seems to be finishing with this ultra-sweet, Bailey's smell....very creamy and vanilla...maybe some kind of root beer....weird.


----------

