# Trichomes, THC and UVB light.....



## tahoe58 (Nov 26, 2007)

I have been encouraged to start another thread with the purpose of looking beyond the purpose of the trichome and under what condition and how the trichome evolves during the maturation process. 

The premise I would like to put forward is to look more in depth into the role the UV light plays. There is a significant body of evidence that has shown that the potency of your babies will be improved with UV light  a trade off with lumens, but an improvement of the concentration of THC  why? Because it is the UV light that breaks down the precursors in the trichomes to THC. This is a little out there so to speak because we have all be told that the HPS is the flowering lightwhen in fact.it produces NO favourable UV light. So while a MH bulb is lower on the lumens scale, it has an abundance of favourable UV light.

This is a post that TheBigBad made on 05-21-07
_ive read a bunch on how plants grown outside is stronger than the same strain grown indoors. and how UV rays are what cause this. UVB are mostly responsible as they are the stronger of the UVB rays. UVB is what you get sunburns/tans from. the plant makes resin to fight off the UV rays, so outside makes for stronger pot._
_assumeing all that is right, if you added a UVB light source to a grow room where it would just come on for alil while each day of the flowering phase you might be able to get stronger buds indoors. and if that did work whos to say by makeing the light stay on alil longer each day than the day before the plant wouldnt just go crazy and turn into a huge pile of THC??? lol _
_anywhoo, what do yall think? worth a shot or not?_

That thread stalled and was last posted on in August.

possibly the most authoritative piece that I have found so far is Pate, D.W., 1994. Chemical ecology of Cannabis. Journal of the International Hemp Association 2: 29, 32-37. This paper is widely referenced in future documentationso just as I do in my professional work.I like to stick with what the ganja research fraternity takes as somewhat of an authoritative piece.

As a little of an aside, this may be valuable in the discussion relating to the purpose of resin  in regards to this, it references anti-dessication (i.e., THC concentration higher in xeric conditions), antimicrobial, antifungal, antifeedant *i.e., chemical and physical deterrent) and UV-B pigmentation roles. But thats another topic. I want to look at what factors might best guide us in further maximizing our resin production and thereby potentially, our potency.

In this regard, I take from this paper (and the unavoidable tangential research.), the following:


cannabinoids are present in glands throughout the plant in two formsstalked and not stalked;
the density of glands increases as you move up the plant (uncertain whether or not this is a function of maturity or structural difference  more study needed)
in one study, the THC generally increased as locations became less favorable for plant growth, suggesting increased plant stress enhanced _delta_-9-THC production
cannabinoids also may function in the role of UVB protection (another biological stress-inducer), which may be functionally analogous to human skin pigmentation (again more study needed to understand and resolve current information).
colour rendering Index (CRI) with a maximum value of 100 (i.e., that of outdoor daylight)  only comparable with lights on the same temperature (i.e., 2700K, or 6500K, etc.). For example it is un-instructive to compare identical wattage CRI (70 vs. 20) of MH (4500K) vs. HPS (2700K)
recent developments in LPS (Low pressure sodium) might provide some better solutions
Pate (1983) and Lydon _et al_ (1987) both demonstrated that under conditions of high UV-B exposure, drug-type _Cannabis_ produces significantly greater quantities of THC.
The following are a couple of excerpts from a post entitled UV and its effects (BC Growers Association).from 1999.. http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/amphitheatre/5796/uv.htm

_Growers use two or more 20 minute UV light treatments during the day cycle_.

_Metal halide produce the best potent weed less lumens for the money but better smoke. After years of testing with some friends who did want to keep THEIR recipe (more hps) i foung there weed to be harsh, full of CBD, make me eat and sleep, only good to sell to someone else taht you dislike. The blue spectrum will give you a final product that have everything included :taste without curing, potency and yield, To be effective a ratio of 2 MH for 1 hps at the most.(hps) Hps alone can produce a cash crop but not a connaisseur crop. _
_Et Voila.._. 

Q1. if UV in ionisers is used for odour control, will high UV light conditions (high altitudes) also influence odour  which has been postulated to have important functionality in the life cycle of cannabis?

Q2. should/could we maybe consider the introduction of a highly limited level of exposure to UVB to enhance resin production while within the limited of phytological degradation?

Q3. do we need to take a closer look at the true comparison of the growth potential/potency of using HPS vs. MH vs. MV lights? Have we been incurring a limitation to potency by using HPS lighting for flowering?


----------



## Harkin (Nov 26, 2007)

Wow amazing read mate, I've heard that ratio of 2MH for 1HPS is ideal, sure I've heard that on here before from someone but can't remember who..


----------



## tahoe58 (Nov 26, 2007)

thanks...man...I did a search for references to UVB and I continue my search....I am so stoked on what we can find out.....even if I am following a trail of balderdash....! 


Harkin said:


> Wow amazing read mate, I've heard that ratio of 2MH for 1HPS is ideal, sure I've heard that on here before from someone but can't remember who..


----------



## fdd2blk (Nov 26, 2007)

why not just plug in the MH? question answered. i don't have one or i would.


----------



## Harkin (Nov 26, 2007)

tahoe58 said:


> thanks...man...I did a search for references to UVB and I continue my search....I am so stoked on what we can find out.....even if I am following a trail of balderdash....!


Can't wait to see what you find. Im too lazy at the moment to do that much research, I know when I'm smoking my first bud I will probably spend hours reading up on the matter. I'm sorry for this stupid question but here goes: I was thinking of getting a 250w Envirolite CFL, in the blue spectrum. So would this be considered UVB light or is that something different? I think a mixture of HPS and Blue Spectrum CFL should produce some potent bud, Hopefully with my next grow(same white widow seeds) I can tell the difference. Sorry if it's off topic


----------



## tahoe58 (Nov 26, 2007)

YouTube - THC, UVB and Me

Marijuana Man gives a lesson....


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 26, 2007)

Great post... probably take me a couple of reads to digest properly.

Loved the marijuana man vid on you tube. It'd be great to have him on site now. Interesting though, in his vid he placed cbd before thc...

Also, he mentions something else... he said that 24/0 will not keep a plant out of flower. Great video. He got any more?


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 26, 2007)

fdd2blk said:


> why not just plug in the MH? question answered. i don't have one or i would.


You should already know the answer. Are your outdoor plants more potent, or the indoor ones?


----------



## tahoe58 (Nov 26, 2007)

thanks man.....*POT*-*TV* Network .... 


skunkushybrid said:


> Great post... probably take me a couple of reads to digest properly.
> 
> Loved the marijuana man vid on you tube. It'd be great to have him on site now. Interesting though, in his vid he placed cbd before thc...
> 
> Also, he mentions something else... he said that 24/0 will not keep a plant out of flower. Great video. He got any more?


----------



## Harkin (Nov 26, 2007)

Nevermind Tahoe, after watching MM I know it's a lizard light, or a light you can get from a pet store that has UVB. Got to try this abd see what happens


----------



## tahoe58 (Nov 26, 2007)

I have been delving deeper into this...and it does not seem to be quite that clear cut....at least from the "anecdotal evidence" presented by fellow growers...? 


skunkushybrid said:


> You should already know the answer. Are your outdoor plants more potent, or the indoor ones?


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 26, 2007)

Also there are UV A, and UV C... how come these are ignored?


----------



## tahoe58 (Nov 26, 2007)

I believe it is because it is a very narrow range of UV light that has trhe influence over the conversion process. (i.e., 280-315 nm)


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 26, 2007)

Then what happens to the A and C? We know red (far) light is bounced off, and green is reflected too. So this means all other light would be absorbed into the trich' at the same time... likewise magnified.

Could the chemicals, like MM said, be created to divert the different spectrums? Hence the varying cannabinoids in the first place?

Also the chemical responsible for smell, he makes no mention of that... Ed Rosenthal, put the chemical as THCV... the plants with high levels of this chemical are usually the most potent strains. Could it in fact be the THCV that is created by by one of the UV ranges? THC created by another, and CBD created by the other one?

Hence the reason for the two sets of cells in the trich'.

Also, why would cbd be derived from THC? Maybe THC is derived from THCV, and CBD is derived from CBN. The reason for the two sets of cells, could be to process light from both extremes of the spectrum. The cell responsible for smell (i forget the names now, and scrolling down doesn't reveal enough, sorry) reacts to blue, and the part responsible for cbn reacts to red?

Hope that makes sense.


----------



## USD (Nov 26, 2007)

Like you have mentioned, the ultraviolet region of the magnetic spectrum is divided into three different regions, UVA, UVB, and UVC. These three sub-divisions are rather arbitrary, however, as it seems that most disciplines originally defined them differently and have their own definition of what wavelengths fit in which division. Environmental photobiologists (who I tend to trust because they know plants) tend to define the wavelength regions as: UVA= 400-320nm, UVB= 320-290nm and UVC= 290-200nm. 290nm was chosen as the distinction between UVB and UVC because UVR in the shorter wavelengths are unlikely to be present on Earth's surface, other than at high altitudes . The division between UVA and UVB does seem to be rather arbitrary however, as I have yet to read a definitive explanation. More recently what does seem to becoming clear now, however, is that electromagnetic radiation occurring at wavelengths shorter than 320nm are thought to be generally more active photobiologically than longer wavelength UVR.


----------



## tahoe58 (Nov 26, 2007)

thanks man....for adding this....a good deal of insight to the technical specific here....preciate you pipining in! 


USD said:


> Like you have mentioned, the ultraviolet region of the magnetic spectrum is divided into three different regions, UVA, UVB, and UVC. These three sub-divisions are rather arbitrary, however, as it seems that most disciplines originally defined them differently and have their own definition of what wavelengths fit in which division. Environmental photobiologists (who I tend to trust because they know plants) tend to define the wavelength regions as: UVA= 400-320nm, UVB= 320-290nm and UVC= 290-200nm. 290nm was chosen as the distinction between UVB and UVC because UVR in the shorter wavelengths are unlikely to be present on Earth's surface, other than at high altitudes . The division between UVA and UVB does seem to be rather arbitrary however, as I have yet to read a definitive explanation. More recently what does seem to becoming clear now, however, is that electromagnetic radiation occurring at wavelengths shorter than 320nm are thought to be generally more active photobiologically than longer wavelength UVR.


----------



## stonedroach (Nov 26, 2007)

ReptileUV.com is soon to be releasing a metal halide uvb bulb with loads of uvb


----------



## bKonz (Nov 26, 2007)

I found this link in a quick search. There is some good info in there on what lights produce specific spectrums of UV light.

Reptile Lighting


----------



## tastyaces (Nov 26, 2007)

ive also been looking into this. But where would you put uv light just seems small to cover 10 plants. and where would u put it??? but great thread been lookin for some info and this pretty much says it all...


----------



## tahoe58 (Nov 26, 2007)

thanks tasty aces......the penetration of UVB should be pretty good considering the wavelength...but that is a good question...something more to look into for sure....in my case....I will never have more than 5-6 plants...so its not as much of an issue


----------



## Your Grandfather (Nov 26, 2007)

USD said:


> ... 290nm was chosen as the distinction between UVB and UVC because UVR in the shorter wavelengths are unlikely to be present on Earth's surface, other than at high altitudes . The division between UVA and UVB does seem to be rather arbitrary however, as I have yet to read a definitive explanation. More recently what does seem to becoming clear now, however, is that electromagnetic radiation occurring at wavelengths shorter than 320nm are thought to be generally more active photobiologically than longer wavelength UVR.


What is high altitude?


----------



## tastyaces (Nov 26, 2007)

so where do u have it setup do u just put above some just making sure it hits the plants?


----------



## Your Grandfather (Nov 26, 2007)

tahoe58 said:


> ...the penetration of UVB should be pretty good considering the wavelength



  Cell phones, satellite dishes, etc don't work because of the chloropyll. Seems that it just sucks the RF right up. I don't know how to convert nm into ghz but.....

I once had to tell someone their stuff wasn't working because of activity on the sun. You should have seen the look they gave me 

Chlorophyll


----------



## Your Grandfather (Nov 26, 2007)

As a side bar. UVB is the more dangerous form of UV. 

IMHO, I'm gonna do a bit o' research on shielding, prior to putting the 'lizard light' on my babies and me_cause I spend a heck of a lot of time looking at them.


----------



## tahoe58 (Nov 26, 2007)

I have to do some more reading before I can give you a definitive answer. The papers that I have as background have methodology sections, but so far, I have only been skimming the results and conclusions...so its gonna take more time....sorry I could be of more help at this time.


----------



## tastyaces (Nov 26, 2007)

what i just said makes no sense....sorry blew out!!! Do you pu it over the plants so the are hittin the light or it doesnt really matter


----------



## Your Grandfather (Nov 26, 2007)

tahoe58 said:


> ...in my case....I will never have more than 5-6 plants...so its not as much of an issue




 yeah, sure - that is like saying "I'll never need more than 4Gb of RAM"

Just wait until those big time lights show up...woohooo, you'll be a sea of green on the frozen tundra.


----------



## tahoe58 (Nov 26, 2007)

hahahahaha...we haven't even met yet....and you already know me better than I do! hahahahahaha....

then again..now I have to re-think the bulbs...that are going to go into that monster!......hahahahaha....


----------



## tahoe58 (Nov 26, 2007)

good evening man. more toys n' things..good for you. you know, about that humidity...I have been running a steady range of 24-27% and based on all the recent reading I've done, I'm not sure that humidty is a real problem? or am I missing sumthin? 


Your Grandfather said:


> Well, what do we have here.
> 
> Blue box is controller for aux. internal lighting.
> You can see the 4" inline fan_need to work on getting more humidity into the box.
> ...


----------



## tahoe58 (Nov 26, 2007)

awesome good for you...I'm happy for ya....I can't wait to see the pics....I really enjoyed my day off work today....though I really did spend the WHOLE (or was that HoLE) day on here....and not a minute wasted either...hahahahahaha!!


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 27, 2007)

tahoe58 said:


> good evening man. more toys n' things..good for you. you know, about that humidity...I have been running a steady range of 24-27% and based on all the recent reading I've done, I'm not sure that humidty is a real problem? or am I missing sumthin?


Plants can take a higher humidity and grow normally, so long as the roots are at an adequate temperature. I believe that more co2 being available will also help the plant withstand temps of 100f and still grow better than a well constructed grow room that doesn't have co2.The only really worrying part about high humidity is mould... plus other harmful pathogens are more easily created in this type of environment.Also, doesn't the sun change it's wavelengths? Or do they stay consistently the same day to evening, season to season?


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 27, 2007)

USD said:


> Like you have mentioned, the ultraviolet region of the magnetic spectrum is divided into three different regions, UVA, UVB, and UVC. These three sub-divisions are rather arbitrary, however, as it seems that most disciplines originally defined them differently and have their own definition of what wavelengths fit in which division. Environmental photobiologists (who I tend to trust because they know plants) tend to define the wavelength regions as: UVA= 400-320nm, UVB= 320-290nm and UVC= 290-200nm. 290nm was chosen as the distinction between UVB and UVC because UVR in the shorter wavelengths are unlikely to be present on Earth's surface, other than at high altitudes . The division between UVA and UVB does seem to be rather arbitrary however, as I have yet to read a definitive explanation. More recently what does seem to becoming clear now, however, is that electromagnetic radiation occurring at wavelengths shorter than 320nm are thought to be generally more active photobiologically than longer wavelength UVR.


Yes, that was a good point... what would be considered as high altitude? A place with little vibrant plant life?After watching the marijuana man (mm) video, I felt that he was almost there... but his reasoning did falter at certain points. For example he made no mention of thcv. Only cbn, thc and cbd. Yet, the strongest plants we know are very high in thcv. These plants are also the smelliest. Marijuana man mentioned that one of the cells in the trichome (as there are two) is responsible for creating chemicals that make the plant smell, and that the other cell is responsible for creating cbn.This seems logical to me then, that one of the cells reacts to blue (i'd say the thcv, which i think may also be the precursor for thc)... the other to red which releases the cbn and changes (downgrades) to cbd.All this of course, is also assuming that the trichome only magnifies certain wavelengths that are suitable for the devlopment of these chemicals.Maybe. Maybe it does, and the leaves are what draw enough of the light in for adequate plant growth. But I doubt it.The trich' is still going to magnify all the colours of the spectrum, just like a raindrop. The light is filtered all across the head of the trich'... hence the shield-like shape. There are two cells in the trich' that are the focal points for all this light.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 27, 2007)

Do you think it might be possible to genetically alter the flowering time of cannabis just by using correct wavelengths of light? We do it in veg' right now... by giving the plant 24/0 the plant grows and matures much faster. Yet cannabis has not evolved in a 24/0 environment. I honestly believe that cannabis merely gets the best out of what nature has to offer. If we are to change that world completely, the plant will respond in kind. It always does, whether that be good or bad. If we could work out the correct workings of the trichome, we will unlock the secrets, and by using correct wavelengths of light, and plenty of co2. Not only could we keep a plant in perpetual harvest (if we so chose), but we could increase the potency to a like never seen before.


----------



## bKonz (Nov 27, 2007)

CC had a really good article on the topic of UV light and the production of THC. I haven't seen it linked in here yet so here it is.

Light disagreement

Pot potency


----------



## Your Grandfather (Nov 27, 2007)

"_How can you get more UVB light to your plants? Certainly it's true that MH lamps emit more UVB light than HPS lamps. Still the amount that MH lamps emit is small. In fact, many manufacturers use UVB shielding glass to filter out most of the UVB that's produced. The UVB light the plant receives from an MH lamp does increase the plant's potency slightly at the cost of yield, but there are better ways to introduce UVB light into the grow room. They include reptile lights, which emit about 10% UVB, and tanning lamps.

* The problem with using these lamps is that they are associated with increased number of cancers and many other problems. They should not be on when you are in the grow room.*"

Ed Rosenthal - cannabis culture magaize."


_I want a UV lamp real bad but I've gotta do more research on how to protect myself. Just as I thought, this stuff is dangerous.


Thanks for the link bKonz 

Also as a sidebar, an interesting comment Ed made in the article is that mfg's of lamps create UV shields to limit the amount of UV which escapes from the lamp. hmmmm, so are some bulbs better than others? And, are these "better bulbs" actually not better? If you have one of these 'uv' emitting bulbs, are you placing yourself in danger?


----------



## tahoe58 (Nov 27, 2007)

hey man...thanks. As I had said in anotehr post/thread....seems to me we have been chasing a manner of growing that is highly suitable for certain objectives, but very possibly not the best for "other" objectives. Thanks for posting those links....more to read! cheers! 


bKonz said:


> CC had a really good article on the topic of UV light and the production of THC. I haven't seen it linked in here yet so here it is.
> 
> Light disagreement
> 
> Pot potency


----------



## bKonz (Nov 27, 2007)

I'm quite surprized at the amout of information floating around the net on this subject. This is all quite intriguing as I am still a newbie. I'm still on my first cycle. I have got a couple more links for you that are worth the read.

bcgrowers title

http://www.onlinepot.org/medical/opticsandthc9M.pdf

http://marijuanaoptics.fileave.com/0220decoy.pdf

I think I'm going to invest in a supplementary UVB light.


----------



## tahoe58 (Nov 27, 2007)

thanks man.. yes there is a tremendous amount of discussion, and some of it goes way way back. I too am on my first indoor gro....only 15 days into it....but things are good. I'll take it as it is for now. but this certainly sparks the intrigue and inqusitivieness.....gotta keep reading......!


----------



## natmoon (Nov 28, 2007)

Being exposed to a sun bed for 20 minutes a day is a risk being exposed to a small single tube for 10 mins a day indirectly is not a risk at all imo anyway.

The real risk from uvb tubes is to your eyes.
Always make sure you switch the uvb lamps of before you enter the grow area just to be safe.

Remember that the advice about skin cancer is from tanning beds that have maybe 40 high output tubes in them and the fact that some people use these beds for 20 minutes every day.
A single tube or even 2 will do you no harm(i think)


----------



## tahoe58 (Nov 28, 2007)

hey nat....I agree with you. the easiest mitigation option is to turn them off when you enter the room. I used to use tanning lamps years and years ago. they continue to be popular with a certain segment of the population.

hahahahaha...I just remembered a funny story...I was about ten, and fell asleep under the tanning light and fried my most sensitive parts. I thought for sure the radiation had baked my breeding capacity. Not to mention how frickin sore painful it was for quite a while. Duh! anyhwo....I have kids today and although they do glow a little in the dark, they are otherwise completely normal....



natmoon said:


> Being exposed to a sun bed for 20 minutes a day is a risk being exposed to a small single tube for 10 mins a day indirectly is not a risk at all imo anyway.
> 
> The real risk from uvb tubes is to your eyes.
> Always make sure you switch the uvb lamps of before you enter the grow area just to be safe.
> ...


----------



## devilwacause (Nov 28, 2007)

I agree Natmoon, the most damage would seem to be to the eyes. But who are we to know whether one person or another is prone to skin cancers and the like. I've studied UVB about a year ago for awhile and a friend and I thought of an ingenious idea, just havent had time to test it yet. Would be a possible ingenious mix of led's and HPS tho. 

If UVB is potentially causing the plant to push out more at the bud sites this would be considered more of a defense mechanism in my eyes. I mean resin and all that is really meant to protect the seed until it is mature after all. 

Now my science mind is working - could it work like this? 

Think, skin cells (our own) mutate under UV light, as do other cells both in our bodies and bodies of other animals. This possible mutation would in nature make it more/less likely for different variations to form in a species (hence diff strains). Now in animals the embryo and all of its development is protected from this UV by the mother. In plants seeds are either protected by a fruit or seed pod. Now a plant goes into flowering, it notices the UV levels would endanger its offspring but UV tends to penetrate the thin leaves. It starts pushing out more trichs and THC etc to absorb and relect/refract this UV light before it harms the seed. 
I unno...maybe...what'a ya'll think.


----------



## tahoe58 (Nov 28, 2007)

ohhhh.....I like the way you're thikning. I'm gonna read and re-read this. I do believe you are making an important point. I know of some people at the moment that are working on a system of integrating the LED and HPS lighting......they are currently in a test phase....could be more than a little interesting. the issue with LED's is intensity...though I have found some that have 900 lumens per.....maybe we need to recruit a light/physicics major into this discussion? thanks for your thoughts, and keep them coming...


devilwacause said:


> I agree Natmoon, the most damage would seem to be to the eyes. But who are we to know whether one person or another is prone to skin cancers and the like. I've studied UVB about a year ago for awhile and a friend and I thought of an ingenious idea, just havent had time to test it yet. Would be a possible ingenious mix of led's and HPS tho.
> 
> If UVB is potentially causing the plant to push out more at the bud sites this would be considered more of a defense mechanism in my eyes. I mean resin and all that is really meant to protect the seed until it is mature after all.
> 
> ...


----------



## devilwacause (Nov 28, 2007)

Oh and on the animals mother protecting offspring maybe I should say she either carries them, lays them in a safe area (as sea turtles think they are doing) or produce so many offspring that mutation wouldnt matter. However still those producing mass offspring (cause a plant does the same in a sense) either biologically "empower" the offspring's chances of survival to external stimuli thru years of evolution or instinctively tend to still place offspring in a safe location. Therefore in animals the offspring is fitted with every possible chance of protection available by the environment to the parent. Plants like marijuana wouldnt have that luxury of selecting a perfect area to place their offspring. So over the eons as marijuana spread worldwide naturally and by mans hand it constantly encountered new environments. Since the plant has no control of the environment its offspring will be in it has to provide the maximum protection it can.


----------



## devilwacause (Nov 28, 2007)

tahoe58 said:


> ohhhh.....I like the way you're thikning. I'm gonna read and re-read this. I do believe you are making an important point. I know of some people at the moment that are working on a system of integrating the LED and HPS lighting......they are currently in a test phase....could be more than a little interesting. the issue with LED's is intensity...though I have found some that have 900 lumens per.....maybe we need to recruit a light/physicics major into this discussion? thanks for your thoughts, and keep them coming...


But since LEDs generate no heat, weigh virtually nothing, and can be wired in multiple different setups you could overlook intensity here. Our idea was to "mount" UVB wavelength led's along the stalk pointing downwards at each bud spot with the wiring (thin a** wire) could be run down say the back of the plant.


----------



## tahoe58 (Nov 28, 2007)

the thought that the trichome production is a defense mechanism against UVB is certainly considered within the literature to date. and that is the basis for this discussion, the relationship between trichome, UVB, and then ultimately THC (as an indivdual compound). the role of the trichome is also being discussed in gthe thread Evolution of the trichome (The Evolution of the Trichome). I am really interested in the role of UVB light plays in the physical presence of THC and if UVB is increased can we also anticipate an increase in THC. there would appear to be significant evidence that this is true. the question then becomes, how do we administer that type of light most effectively and to optimize the THC production - does it mean strain development? i.e.e, breeding for strong trichome AND THC production in the presence on UVB light? is it possibnle to achieve improvements merely from adaptive changes as oppposed to genetic mapping changes? I am having a ball with this.....


----------



## tahoe58 (Nov 28, 2007)

oic....ok...I missed what you were trying to say. alright...that's interesting...I didn't realize there were UV LEDs? frick! how interesting is THAT!  you got some very interestingthoughts there.....let keep running with this.... 


devilwacause said:


> But since LEDs generate no heat, weigh virtually nothing, and can be wired in multiple different setups you could overlook intensity here. Our idea was to "mount" UVB wavelength led's along the stalk pointing downwards at each bud spot with the wiring (thin a** wire) could be run down say the back of the plant.


----------



## natmoon (Nov 28, 2007)

I just been down the town and noticed that they have sets of 120 leds for Christmas trees for 12.99.
They were all blue leds with caps added to change the colours.
It would be real easy to remove all the caps and add these 120 leds to my grow room and see if it made any noticeable difference.
For only 12.99 seems to be worth a try to me,as a side lighting option only though


----------



## tahoe58 (Nov 28, 2007)

i'd be interested in how effective this could be....thanks for piping in... 


natmoon said:


> I just been down the town and noticed that they have sets of 120 leds for Christmas trees for 12.99.
> They were all blue leds with caps added to change the colours.
> It would be real easy to remove all the caps and add these 120 leds to my grow room and see if it made any noticeable difference.
> For only 12.99 seems to be worth a try to me,as a side lighting option only though


----------



## devilwacause (Nov 28, 2007)

But those christmas lights wouldnt be putting off UVB if they are LED, led's are made to specific wavelengths. Plus anyone who has really really contemplated using LEDs will tell ya the specific wavelengths to focus in on. I dont remember them off hand, but it seems you would need a specialty led for any type grow. Well maybe not "specialty" but to hit the right wavelengths you have to order certain ones.


----------



## Harkin (Nov 28, 2007)

Skunk, we got to find a way to best utilize these UVB lights. As was mentioned in the many articles we read about UVB, the buds seem a bit smaller but more potent when given UVB (or exposed to in naturally). So I'm on 12/12 at the moment, maybe like 1 day UVB on and 1 day off and so on. Maybe this way the bud can grow oneday and get stronger the next? Or maybe you have a better plan?

Btw, don't forget UVB is bad for the eyes and skin, especially the eyes, so best to turn them off when looking at the plants, don't want to take any chances.. or just wear some


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 28, 2007)

Personally, I'd attach them somehow to my hid lamps. Cut across them width ways. I have long HID's with built in ballasts. So i'd cut across them width ways. One across the top-end, one across the bottom-end of the lights. The HPS is important too, for yield... and cbd.


----------



## Harkin (Nov 28, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> Personally, I'd attach them somehow to my hid lamps. Cut across them width ways. I have long HID's with built in ballasts. So i'd cut across them width ways. One across the top-end, one across the bottom-end of the lights. The HPS is important too, for yield... and cbd.


You can see how I have mine, should be alright like that. I turn my plant everyday so that it will get the UVB evenly, don't have room for 2 right now plus it's just 1 plant. 

But concerning the hours, are you just going to leave the UVB on when the HID is on without a break at all? Like I said we I want to get big buds aswell as try and get some more potency out. So maybe during the 12/12 I could have the UVB on for 6, or another way is to have the UVB on oneday and off the next. What you think?


----------



## tahoe58 (Nov 28, 2007)

I'm thinking ur gonna wanna watch the reaction of the plant....it might be a pain in the ass...but you might want to "ramp" up the amount of time, and closely monitor the condition of the leaves and other visible attributes. even if you went 2-4-6-8-10-12.....say for a couple of days at each level? IDK.....I'm a cautious one though...and would not likely subject them full force right off the bat? who knows, that might be totally over-conservative.


----------



## Harkin (Nov 28, 2007)

tahoe58 said:


> I'm thinking ur gonna wanna watch the reaction of the plant....it might be a pain in the ass...but you might want to "ramp" up the amount of time, and closely monitor the condition of the leaves and other visible attributes. even if you went 2-4-6-8-10-12.....say for a couple of days at each level? IDK.....I'm a cautious one though...and would not likely subject them full force right off the bat? who knows, that might be totally over-conservative.


No you are right, I always try things full pelt but need to think about it. Like I said I want bud size aswell as potency, but with constant UVB I don't think I will get that. I'll start at 4 for now


----------



## tahoe58 (Nov 28, 2007)

excellent....I'll be watching...


----------



## kindprincess (Nov 28, 2007)

hey guys, i wanted to stop in and say that i have two 10.0 uvb bulbs i've never used. i also have a favored mom that i've been growing for almost a year and a half, many harvest in many conditions. because i know this mom so well, i decided to do a uvb added grow with her. i know the potency (which is predictable in every way shape and form, two hitter at most for light weights....) and i'll be able to tell if there is a valid increase and/or change in the high. other plants will be in the flower room, but won't be in this demonstration, as i don't know them well enough to say what made a difference.

so. coming in about 8 weeks:

The Sunburned Dreamgoddess; Baking Under 2kw and UVB....


----------



## Harkin (Nov 28, 2007)

Nice one, will be eagerly waiting for your results. I don't have anything to compare my grow to so it's a bit pointless, I'm just trying to make the best of what 'we' have learnt recently and hoping for some good results. But in your case it should help in showing whether it makes much difference or not, but I have faith cos the research seems to suggest it. 

Btw did you have the lights for lizards or have you heard about this UVB light thing before?


----------



## tahoe58 (Nov 28, 2007)

excellent kp...I sincerely appreciate your piping in on this...I'll be very interested in your feedback and results. 


kindprincess said:


> hey guys, i wanted to stop in and say that i have two 10.0 uvb bulbs i've never used. i also have a favored mom that i've been growing for almost a year and a half, many harvest in many conditions. because i know this mom so well, i decided to do a uvb added grow with her. i know the potency (which is predictable in every way shape and form, two hitter at most for light weights....) and i'll be able to tell if there is a valid increase and/or change in the high. other plants will be in the flower room, but won't be in this demonstration, as i don't know them well enough to say what made a difference.
> 
> so. coming in about 8 weeks:
> 
> The Sunburned Dreamgoddess; Baking Under 2kw and UVB....


----------



## kindprincess (Nov 28, 2007)

Harkin said:


> Btw did you have the lights for lizards or have you heard about this UVB light thing before?


i have lizards, but they do not require uv.

i've know for years that uvb makes a difference in potency. however, i've not had any complaints for my stuff without it, and i like the principle, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". 

but, since i have something i can compare against with no bias, i figure it couldn't hurt; each uvb bulb is only 26 watts


----------



## tahoe58 (Nov 28, 2007)

I totally agrtee with you of that principle....did you get a chance to read that piece (Seedless Marijuana - the hoax) or maybe you have seen it from before? I found it made for an interesting read.... 


kindprincess said:


> i have lizards, but they do not require uv.
> 
> i've know for years that uvb makes a difference in potency. however, i've not had any complaints for my stuff without it, and i like the principle, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
> 
> but, since i have something i can compare against with no bias, i figure it couldn't hurt; each uvb bulb is only 26 watts


----------



## kindprincess (Nov 28, 2007)

tahoe58 said:


> I totally agrtee with you of that principle....did you get a chance to read that piece (Seedless Marijuana - the hoax) or maybe you have seen it from before? I found it made for an interesting read....


no, but i can tell you that properly cared for plants will be just as potent with seeds as without. no doubt there


----------



## Harkin (Nov 28, 2007)

kindprincess said:


> i have lizards, but they do not require uv.
> 
> i've know for years that uvb makes a difference in potency. however, i've not had any complaints for my stuff without it, and i like the principle, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
> 
> but, since i have something i can compare against with no bias, i figure it couldn't hurt; each uvb bulb is only 26 watts


Cool, mines 25w, only got 1 for 1 plant though. Yeah forsure if ain't broke don't fix it, but then again we can always improve and progress right? Well lets hope... 

Good Luck


----------



## tahoe58 (Nov 28, 2007)

that's interesting....I have read that as well. and back in the days....the talk became sensimilla....that was the only weed that was worth anything...and then it became if you had weed with seed in it...well it was crap.....the perpetuation of these stories is a little astonishing when I start to learn a little more....I have been out of this world for the better part of thirty years....and I am having a fascinating time learning all over again.... 


kindprincess said:


> no, but i can tell you that properly cared for plants will be just as potent with seeds as without. no doubt there


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 29, 2007)

kindprincess said:


> no, but i can tell you that properly cared for plants will be just as potent with seeds as without. no doubt there




That sounds very reasonable... although yield would be down, it seems reasonable that potency won't/shouldn't be affected. We've been taking this plant in the wrong direction.


----------



## tahoe58 (Nov 29, 2007)

I do believe we may have been doing that...wait, well actually....I am only starting over again here, so hopefully I can totally benefit from this new direction....if that is what we should be doing....how friggin' exciting is THAT!?? 


skunkushybrid said:


> That sounds very reasonable... although yield would be down, it seems reasonable that potency won't/shouldn't be affected. We've been taking this plant in the wrong direction.


----------



## cjsesh00 (Nov 30, 2007)

I have a 26w uv light and it only goes on for a little while during the day, and I have been keeping it away from the plants just in case and it has done some serious damage to the leaves. it is killing them! be careful everybody


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 30, 2007)

cjsesh00 said:


> I have a 26w uv light and it only goes on for a little while during the day, and I have been keeping it away from the plants just in case and it has done some serious damage to the leaves. it is killing them! be careful everybody


 
You sure it's the light? You got a pic'?


----------



## cjsesh00 (Nov 30, 2007)

I can post a pic later, but yeah I am sure. I have it at a 45 degree angle from one side of the grow room and it fried all the leaves that were facing it. Like a sunburn. I already have a lot of light in there, running two HPS and some fluoros on the side. But I keep the temps steady just under 70 all day with some fans and a/c. I have seen burnt leaves before but not like these. They are almost black and have all sorts of strange discoloration from a real bright, not pale, yellow to purple and brown. There seems to be damage to the upper parts of the long fan leaf stems, real dry and brittle and the same damage around the veins of the leaves. they were perfectly healthy before hand and growing like crazy, they are definitely stunted now and seem to be getting worse, the strange thing is... I have 2 blueberries that have been everything but easy and they appear just fine and getting fatter still. my other four have the same identical burns and discolorations on all leaves that were directly facing the lamp. I made a cone reflector for the bulb, cfl style, out of mylar. I wonder if it has 'hot spots' or if it is altering the UV somehow. I have not heard of anybody else having this problem before. I have read of kids using just reptile lights for their entire grow and having nothing bad happen.


----------



## devilwacause (Nov 30, 2007)

What type of light are you using, and until somebody tries it with LEDs set to the specific wavelength of UVB UVA etc we cant be sure it is UVB causing the damage or a mixture whatever. I agree for everybody diving into this to be careful, but lets not assume UVB is exactly what is causing this to happen to this plant.


----------



## Harkin (Nov 30, 2007)

I've had my reptile UVB on for a few days now and nothing bad has happened. I'm not saying that it hasnn't caused yours to happen but it does seems strange. What are the specs of the bulb? I've had mine on for the full 12hrs, also with mylar and no burns at all


----------



## cjsesh00 (Nov 30, 2007)

whatever it might be, I had no problems before implementing this light. I have had several successful grows the past few years and this is something I have not seen before. But I agree, it could be anything. My plants only vegged for about 3 weeks in soil, I like smaller easy to manage plants, they are quite predictable. I have a strict lighting, watering, feeding schedule, and at 2 months in I know these plants really well now. The onset was overnight almost and getting really bad really fast, and began the morning after the first day I used the UV light, so I am convinced this is the cause all the way, but since I am not a scientist obviously I dont know for sure. I am on week five of flower and the buds even are getting a little gross looking. If this is the case would it be worth chopping them down before they are just nasty? since i didnt veg long i typically get a shorter flower period as well by about 2 weeks so i am not far off, and the sick plants have about 10% orange hairs. I guess the situation is that right now i could get half decent buds, or I could wait and see what happens and get shit that I cant smoke and turns to dust. prob not even good for butter. but I do have my two glossy blueberries that are magically just fine so the whole grow wasnt a waste. I have a scope but all the trich's are still really clear so I dont think they are quite ready. maybe I could just smoke one now and see if it's any good, even though it tastes like shit and makes me a little nauseated. oh yes, its a 26w reptisun 10.0. pretty standard, but maybe mine is defective or something


----------



## Harkin (Nov 30, 2007)

hmm, I have the repti-glo 10.0 26w, like you say maybe it's defective


----------



## cjsesh00 (Nov 30, 2007)

yeah its a reptile bulb from petco. zoo-med repti-sun 10.0 uvb desert 26w 10%uvb 30% uva , got the box right here. Such a deceiving little guy, it has to be defective or something. now that i think about it, my 2 blueberries were on the far side of the grow room that first day and prob werent getting hit by its light from so far away. i had it at a 45 on one end of the room so i could hit the plants on top, and some on the sides, and not have it under my two HPS where it would be blocking light, if that makes sense, well whatever has happened happened, could be the light, might not be but i dont know what else it could be. maybe root problems that I cant see. the only 2 variables are strain and the reptile light. the 2 BB's werent harmed, and the morning after the first UV day problems set on quickly like nothing i've seen, my camera doesnt do great close ups so i'll get some of the bigger fan leaves that FELL off and look disgusting. but they fell several hours ago and the colors have changed alot


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 30, 2007)

This could always be a strain thing. If it's only the leaves affected that are next to the UV lamp, then it's fairly safe to assume that this is the cause.

Although, I must add that flowering is genetic. A plant will flower for a set amount of time, no matter what size it is.


----------



## Harkin (Nov 30, 2007)

Sorry just so it's clear, is it a fluorescent, cfl , mercury vapour bulb?


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 30, 2007)

Take a look at this beauty. Now this is what I call POWER.

UV300 Ultravitalux 300W ES Osram


----------



## Harkin (Nov 30, 2007)

And that is how far I have it from mine, hope you get yours sorted


----------



## cjsesh00 (Nov 30, 2007)

well as far as flowering time, I always wonder, do you guys count the first 2 weeks of 12/12 as 'flowering' time or do you consider it pre-flowering? I grow mine til they are done regardless but have always been curious as so many people rely on these figures and publish flowering time w/their seeds. It is a CFL bulb. I have it in a 60w adjustable desk lamp with one of those flexible necks that you can angle just right. I line the inner hood of the lamps reflector with a cone of mylar to reflect more light than the polished aluminum that the hood is originally made from. I really am more bummed out than anything, and no sense chasing the snake after it already bit me.


----------



## Harkin (Nov 30, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> Take a look at this beauty. Now this is what I call POWER.
> 
> UV300 Ultravitalux 300W ES Osram


Ahahaha for that oh so crispy bud, one hit and you get a tanning


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 30, 2007)

Flowering time should start from the moment you instigate 12/12. Usually my seed plants will pre-flower while under 24/0. So after 24 hours of 12/12 they are covered in pistils.


----------



## cjsesh00 (Nov 30, 2007)

yeah wow. I think i would prefer a fluoro tube over the CFL. but that mercury vapor bulb looks nasty! that one would have nuked my babies clean had I used it and assuming that was the problem...


----------



## Harkin (Nov 30, 2007)

cjsesh00 said:


> well as far as flowering time, I always wonder, do you guys count the first 2 weeks of 12/12 as 'flowering' time or do you consider it pre-flowering? I grow mine til they are done regardless but have always been curious as so many people rely on these figures and publish flowering time w/their seeds. It is a CFL bulb. I have it in a 60w adjustable desk lamp with one of those flexible necks that you can angle just right. I line the inner hood of the lamps reflector with a cone of mylar to reflect more light than the polished aluminum that the hood is originally made from. I really am more bummed out than anything, and no sense chasing the snake after it already bit me.


Ahh yeah the CFL, well the Fluorescents are suppose to be better for growing as it is much more spread, the cfl has a very concentrated beam, maybe it was a bit overdone mate, check this UV Guide UK - Ultraviolet Light for Reptiles - 2005 Reptile Lighting Survey


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 30, 2007)

I do notice a difference between your plants... one is in flower and the other is in veg'. This might mean something.


----------



## Harkin (Nov 30, 2007)

Also check this, you might want to get rid of the refelctor on the UVB mate if it's too much UV Lighting for Reptiles: Compact Fluorescent Lamps


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 30, 2007)

The mercury vapour bulbs contain more UV-A, I believe. UV-B only makes up a small percentage.

Here's an interesting article on them.

High UVB Mercury Vapour Lamps in Zoos - Osram Ultra-Vitalux - ReptileUV Zoo Mega-Ray test results


----------



## cjsesh00 (Nov 30, 2007)

and interesting on the flowering time, these were force flowered, if I counted those 2 weeks of force flowering in theory (and some pistils did show up on days 3-5 of force flower) they are on week 7 then if this is correct. i usually wait til pre flowering so no unexpected males show up overnight to crash the party but my lease is up on this place after december so i wanted everything done by then so i could clean up. Leaves usually yellow and die off around week 7 generally so maybe its a combo of the reptile light and their age, could it be perhaps? maybe those leaves were fading anyways and the strong light blasted the already weak and dying leaves, although there is some nasty shit burnt into some of the buds too. maybe they become weaker at the end of their life span too and not very resistant.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 30, 2007)

I'm not sure why a tiny UV lamp like that would burn your plants. It doesn't seem intense enough. Did you feel any heat off it?


----------



## cjsesh00 (Nov 30, 2007)

no i didnt feel much heat and i keep the temps under control and have this entire grow. It has to be the CFL and the cone reflector I made from the mylar. I really have seen every problem from bugs, to root rot, nute burns and deficiencies, etc and this is a new look for my plants. not a fashionable accessory. I have two completely healthy unharmed blueberries, and 1 afghani that has slightly damaged fan leaves, and real crispy leaves on the main cola on the side that was facing the light. I have noticed this plant has been the strongest of all my plants this go round. It has been near perfect so this leads me to believe.... and I have a northern lights that was the most harmed by it. all the fan leaves went wacky and fell off within 2 days. the buds are fine and it actually has only white hairs. not one orange yet. But it is just buds on a stick right now.. I have a another plant that was given to me when young and I am not sure what it is, but it has several buds on it. very branchy plant, ALL fan leaves have fallen off and these ones turned burnt and crispy and curled upwards, the sugar leaves within the buds look brown on the side that was facing the lamp. so on and so forth. All I have concluded is that having not force flowered before I could be off on the timing of this UV light, I was planning on hitting them midway into flower but if they are indeed 7 weeks old (even though they look more like 5 or 6) then they must not be very resilient when this mature or past their prime I should say. The odd thing is since using this light as well they have lost their aroma. when i put my face in them the sweet smell is gone and they smell like plain old vegetation. what have I done!!


----------



## Harkin (Nov 30, 2007)

How close did you have the UVB cfl to the plant?


----------



## cjsesh00 (Nov 30, 2007)

i have six plants, two rows of 3. two HPS suspended over top, one 400w, one 175w. I happened to have two lights and a 400 would prob suffice but this 175 is quite a complement. Didnt plan it this way, I have just acquired them both luckily. I clamped the uv light to a bar at the end of the table, the long end, prob a foot out and a foot above the tops, but some plants are significantly taller, so @ about 12" diagonally from the closest 2 plants , and at a 45 maybe steeper as to hit most of the plants from an angle, the next closest 2 were maybe 24" away, and the blueberries were at the opposite end about 3ft away. the layout is more or less a rectangle, 2x3. yeah it is a sunburn for sure, I have pistils turning brown now on just the sides that were facing it. it is progressively getting worse. definitely the light. if I had just dropped it directly centered and above them, maybe if i had taken the hood off the lamp and just suspended the naked CFL bulb between the two HPS that are right over head this wouldnt have happened. It seems as if the light was so concentrated from the mylar cone (pretty narrow cone too) around the bulb. that first day it ran for a few hours but with the neck being so adjustable on the lamp I would redirect its aim every 20-30 minutes, the second day things seemed funny and I only ran it for a little bit, and my sister came over for about 30 minutes that day and I shut it off and the 400w light( it looks like a tanning salon in my closet, but just the 175w lamp is very discreet and can keep things going by itself for a very short period time). I never turned the uv bulb on after that bc I had a basketball game and was going to be gone when the lights timed off and I didnt want it running and didnt know if i'd be back that night. then the next day I noticed major problems and even today as the time goes on its getting exponentially worse. Enough tension and stress that I have to write these long watered down messages to keep my sanity, and I have nobody to talk to about it, I live in Utah and I am one of few on this side of town that enjoy such things. Salt lake is amazing, but i am about 45 minutes out.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 30, 2007)

It may also depend on the quality of your bulb. From what I've been reading these old UV bulbs are nothing like the sun... whereas the mercury vapour are suppose to be as close to the sun UV as you can get.


----------



## cjsesh00 (Nov 30, 2007)

yeah mercury vapors I hear are pretty intense. Back in the day I think they were some of the first lights people used to grow indoors and they would get so hot they would explode often. use up lots of electricity too for the light output


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 30, 2007)

cjsesh00 said:


> yeah mercury vapors I hear are pretty intense. Back in the day I think they were some of the first lights people used to grow indoors and they would get so hot they would explode often. use up lots of electricity too for the light output


I think they're good, or at least better now than back then... I don't know. wtf?

Plants grow in UV all the time... your little bulb shouldn't have caused that much damage unless your strain is genetically unused to UV. 

I can see this happening to a lot of the modern strains. Breeding indoors leads to domestication of the plant, and this can happen very quickly. 

Maybe it's because they are in flower. During the plants natural cycle there would be less UV getting to the plants anyway... and if they didn't have any during veg' this would lead the plant to believe it is an environment with very little UV. I think adding it this late to your grow may have shocked the plant, in that it has had very low UV levels up to now.

You changed the environment too late into the plants life. i believe cannabis would need it in veg, so that the plant can build the necessary defense levels in its leaves. Just like an adult that's never had chicken pox, instigating UV at this late stage must be the reason for the effects.


----------



## cjsesh00 (Nov 30, 2007)

yeah I thought the same thing. they must not be used to it, its like spring break, I always go to mexico after a long snowy winter and get torched every yr. But I have not been counting my two weeks of force flower as part of their flowering period, bc I have not force flowered and i think i read a bad article that said 2 weeks force flower THEN 6,8,10,12 wks of flowering followed. but I think that size wise they look 5 or 6 wks flowering, but in reality its more like 7. way too late to drop the UV bomb


----------



## Harkin (Nov 30, 2007)

Great, I introduced the UVB as I started flowering


----------



## cjsesh00 (Nov 30, 2007)

I will try it again in the future and start with small doses during VEG. get them a base tan first. I should pull an OZ off my 2 BB's anyways so I'm happy with that, these other ones we'll see how they turn out, I always like making cookies with butter I prepared from trim. Its not something you get to do often and I love the process. So if these 4 that were closest do fail i'm not down and out completely. but looks like they are done for all the way.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 30, 2007)

Harkin said:


> Great, I introduced the UVB as I started flowering


Was the plant pre-flowering when you put it in? You might still be ok, and the plant may have enough time to build defences. 

This must be the answer, can only be the answer for cjs' misfortune. We all know that cannabis survives much more intense UV in the wild... and that it also adapts readily to places with very little UV (ruderalis).

I think I'm going to need a UV lamp with a dimmer switch. Or maybe pull it out, then bring it further in while the plant is still a sprog. There is naturally less UV in the spring, when these guys pop the soil... and it's the most intense just as they start flowering.

hmmmm. this is taking a lot of thought. maybe we're on the wrong track....


----------



## cjsesh00 (Nov 30, 2007)

1. The mylar cone was very narrow, it had to of been concentrating a beam of rays. 
2. I brought the UV light in much later than I should have. I am retarded and was off 2 weeks on my days flowering. a real stupid mistake on my part. but, my plants looked after the first two weeks of force flowering about how they would from pre-flowering a few weeks prior to changing the light cycle. so I didnt consider this, but have now learned its not the time flowering but rather nights of 12 hrs darkness that they need to mature. big difference. so this leads me to believe we can run our lights maybe longer during the day as long as we give them 12hrs of dark? just kidding, no more tweaking with things anymore. I am sticking to the basics.

I know how UV effects humans when introduced abruptly, it only makes sense it would do the same to these babies. Even if it is a relatively weak source of UV.


----------



## Harkin (Nov 30, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> Was the plant pre-flowering when you put it in? You might still be ok, and the plant may have enough time to build defences.
> 
> This must be the answer, can only be the answer for cjs' misfortune. We all know that cannabis survives much more intense UV in the wild... and that it also adapts readily to places with very little UV (ruderalis).
> 
> ...


I had just started 12/12 when I introduced the light, and it flowered a few days later. It would make more sense to use the UVB from the beginning but I can't see why the plant wouldn't know what to do if introduced later on, you reckon it would loose the ability? And no I can't see why we are on the wrong track, we are only using light that it would naturally get right? How is that bad?


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 30, 2007)

Thanks cjs', if anything else I've learned a lot from this mistake of yours. I wasn't even considering the veg' cycle, only the flower.

I think we all owe you one.


----------



## cjsesh00 (Nov 30, 2007)

yeah it was all my fault I think. Nothing to be paranoid about, but indirectly everyone here helped me figure out that I just did it WAY too late. I was off on my week count by 2, beat that for a bonehead mistake. that CFL bulb.. it is a pretty dainty little thing compared to these HID's but it packs a punch apparently so we know it is doing something as far as UV goes. My girls werent as young as I thought they were! their old saggy...leaves.. got torched. haha, shit. lucky to have got some lemon trainwreck last night and I think it is friday night officially, and so it begins!


----------



## cjsesh00 (Nov 30, 2007)

thanks skunky. I hope I have not sounded all smartsy and trying to be intelligent, just trying to paint the picture and convince everyone in a nice way it was the light and to use some caution. It seems to be kind of a craze these days to talk about UV bulbs and I knew this morning i made a mistake and cant imagine anybody else having a worse experience with it so i thought i'd write it up since i had the day off. im ready to get some new sprouts going now and move on in a couple weeks. but only after the blueberries are done!


----------



## skunkushybrid (Nov 30, 2007)

Harkin said:


> I had just started 12/12 when I introduced the light, and it flowered a few days later. It would make more sense to use the UVB from the beginning but I can't see why the plant wouldn't know what to do if introduced later on, you reckon it would loose the ability? And no I can't see why we are on the wrong track, we are only using light that it would naturally get right? How is that bad?


Chemical processes are complicated. So complicated in fact, that scientists know very little about how they work. It could be that these strains we are growing are too domesticated to take UV at such a late stage... and we would need to be extrememly careful during the veg' stage...

Did I say wrong track? I don't know... my head is in a million different places at once, at least it feels like it is.


----------



## tahoe58 (Nov 30, 2007)

holy crap...missed today...and had to go through 4 pages of great great info....



cjsesh00 said:


> whatever it might be, I had no problems before implementing this light. I have had several successful grows the past few years and this is something I have not seen before. But I agree, it could be anything. My plants only vegged for about 3 weeks in soil, I like smaller easy to manage plants, they are quite predictable. I have a strict lighting, watering, feeding schedule, and at 2 months in I know these plants really well now. The onset was overnight almost and getting really bad really fast, and began the morning after the first day I used the UV light, so I am convinced this is the cause all the way, but since I am not a scientist obviously I dont know for sure. I am on week five of flower and the buds even are getting a little gross looking. If this is the case would it be worth chopping them down before they are just nasty? since i didnt veg long i typically get a shorter flower period as well by about 2 weeks so i am not far off, and the sick plants have about 10% orange hairs. I guess the situation is that right now i could get half decent buds, or I could wait and see what happens and get shit that I cant smoke and turns to dust. prob not even good for butter. but I do have my two glossy blueberries that are magically just fine so the whole grow wasnt a waste. I have a scope but all the trich's are still really clear so I dont think they are quite ready. maybe I could just smoke one now and see if it's any good, even though it tastes like shit and makes me a little nauseated. oh yes, its a 26w reptisun 10.0. pretty standard, but maybe mine is defective or something


this is most interesting....I am glad I had a chance to read through it all at once. thanks so much for piping in, and your contribution to this discussion is huge...



skunkushybrid said:


> Take a look at this beauty. Now this is what I call POWER.
> 
> UV300 Ultravitalux 300W ES Osram


that a friggin' monster!



skunkushybrid said:


> I think they're good, or at least better now than back then... I don't know. wtf?
> 
> Plants grow in UV all the time... your little bulb shouldn't have caused that much damage unless your strain is genetically unused to UV.
> 
> ...


I am not saure about the timing of the nitroduction, though as the plant grows it prolly has adaptation to the UV light...as opposed to getting bombarded all at once.

I believe the idea of strain might be important. we can all atest to friends and others that are "fair" skinned and have no tanning capacity, that even uder controlled conditions are at risk from damage. so it might be a couple of factors that all combined to give this result.



skunkushybrid said:


> Chemical processes are complicated. So complicated in fact, that scientists know very little about how they work. It could be that these strains we are growing are too domesticated to take UV at such a late stage... and we would need to be extrememly careful during the veg' stage...
> 
> Did I say wrong track? I don't know... my head is in a million different places at once, at least it feels like it is.


I guess having read all this, and thought about it only a little....as I tried to say above, I think we might be dealing with several different factors that could have compounded to give us the unfortunate result for our friend. I believe that the combination of late introduction (i.e., no opportunity for acllimitization), possibly a genetic strian more sensitive, and possibly even the cone to overly focus the light - could together have given us this outcome.

I go back to my personal circumstances, and this would have been.....oh 1968....I feel asleep under a sunlamp and burned my privates badly....and that in only 20-30 minutes of exposure.

VERY VERY interesting circumstances, and than oyu all so much for your contributions. this is a huge step forward...in advancing our understanding.....


----------



## cjsesh00 (Nov 30, 2007)

by far the best discussion I have had in my few weeks on this site. thanks guys, and FYI, I harvested one today convinced it was 7 weeks old and not five and this was almost completely fine I think. The leaves in the buds were turning brown and ugly and I didnt want to wait another hour for it to get worse, I smoked one first as gross as they are and it got me going for sure so they we'll be just fine! i had to trim the buds real tight to get the discolorations out and have some appeal to it and they are fairly resinous, my scissors are almost jammed and I got maybe a half ounce off this plant and I'm making butter right now. boiling it with water to get the chlorophyll and shit out and then i'll pour it though a filter and put it in the freezer to separate the butter and water. its been an eventful day!! happy friday


----------



## Harkin (Nov 30, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> Chemical processes are complicated. So complicated in fact, that scientists know very little about how they work. It could be that these strains we are growing are too domesticated to take UV at such a late stage... and we would need to be extrememly careful during the veg' stage...
> 
> Did I say wrong track? I don't know... my head is in a million different places at once, at least it feels like it is.


Yeah you did... I know what you mean though. I think Tahoe summed it up nicely, it's rather complicated to know exactly what each strain can take. But still the plants must hold onto there ability, maybe not aswell but we know how well it can adapt to extreme circumstances. I truely believe it does need _some _UVB(to reach it's THC potential) but how much is just a guess..


----------



## tahoe58 (Nov 30, 2007)

thanks Harkin...and I think you also said it when you said you get toasted in MX for whatever time....I think smacking the plant sraight into full blown UV will give you the same reaction...I realize I am taking a very simplistic view....but as we have discssed at length, the adaptability of this plant in monumental...and that woulds suggest that they also might adapt to some degree with the UV as well.


----------



## kindprincess (Nov 30, 2007)

wow, i missed alot.....

i was going to say that i plan on running uvb for 30 min increments with an hour in between..... lights on for an hour, uvb for half hour, etc...

i also plan on keeping my uvb bulbs four feet away from plants so as not to burn and to utilize the uvb on the largest scale possible (spread).

if i get a day off soon, i'll tell you guys all i've read about it. mv sux, don't waste your time


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 1, 2007)

Thanks KP... glad to see you in on this. I'm sure that now we have your technical ability helping us along that the answers will be very forthcoming.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 1, 2007)

Harkin said:


> Yeah you did... I know what you mean though. I think Tahoe summed it up nicely, it's rather complicated to know exactly what each strain can take. But still the plants must hold onto there ability, maybe not aswell but we know how well it can adapt to extreme circumstances. I truely believe it does need _some _UVB(to reach it's THC potential) but how much is just a guess..


Yeah... it's just going to take a bit of training. The training starts early... does anyone know the difference in UV levels season to season in somewhere like Australia? 

Australia has the highest levels of UV in the world... also TH3BigBad has some experience with UV too, anyone seen him around?


----------



## potroast (Dec 1, 2007)

I tried this several years ago. I used a flouro T-5 tube that is 30 inches long UV reptile light, and I read that the UV rays travel 2-3 feet away, so I hung it along the ceiling over the plants, kinda along the side. I started by using it for a couple of hours a day, and increased the time until I saw the damage to the foliage. I settled on 4 times/day for 20 minutes.

The lamp burned out in 3 months, and since I didn't notice any difference in bud quality/potency, I didn't buy a new one.

HTH


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 1, 2007)

Hey pot'... then why do the most potent strains we know grow in places of high UV?


----------



## Your Grandfather (Dec 1, 2007)

Very interesting, indeed.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 1, 2007)

Both parts of the spectrum are definitely needed...


----------



## Your Grandfather (Dec 1, 2007)

I think a number of things.
1. There is an effective radiation pattern_ERP_for every bulb. How the plant orientates to the ERP is the question.
2. As the bulbs age, their effectiveness and probably ERP change.
3. Are there unique ballast and starters for uv bulbs?
4. I still have concerns about the propagation of the waves out into the secondary and beyond harmonics.
5. My opinion_and I'm probably wrong_is that the uv light should as closely as possible mimic the introduction of the uv into the mix. eg, when the sun comes up the level of uv is quite low, only when the suns rays are the most direct to the atmosphere is the uv levels high. It's a bell curve with the max being a 2±hour window for max. uv radiation. This thought goes to my work in progress of a gradual red spectrum moving to a bright daylight spectrum_with uv_ and then back to a red before lights out.
6. I believe that outdoor plants which have been domesticated, have adapted to produce a fruit with less uv. If this is true, then it will take a few cycles before a domesticated dna adapts to the uv. If you look at the areas of high uv, all of the indigenous people are dark skinned.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 1, 2007)

I'm still thinking it's about building a tolerance too. The chemical processes in the plant will need to start getting used to UV very early in the plants life. 

They say that the first year of your life is when you learn the most about the world. What would equal a year to cannabis? Once the sprog pokes it's little head out it will get an immediate guage of it's environment... and the chemical processes will start there.

I believe cannabis should adapt just fine.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 1, 2007)

Here's an interesting cut n paste, prompted by YGF's mention of the moon... 

*Scientists Clueless over Sun's Effect on Earth*

By [URL="http://www.livescience.com/php/contactus/author.php?r=rb"]Robert Roy Britt[/URL], LiveScience Senior Writer
posted: 05 May 2005 02:01 pm ET


Share this story




 Email


While researchers argue whether Earth is getting warmer and if humans are contributing, a heated debate over the global effect of sunlight boiled to the surface today. 
And in this debate there is little data to go on.
A confusing array of new and recent studies reveals that scientists know very little about how much sunlight is absorbed by Earth versus how much the planet reflects, how all this alters temperatures, and why any of it changes from one decade to the next. 
Determining Earth's reflectance is crucial to understanding climate change, scientists agree.
*Brighter outlook?*
Reports in the late 1980s found the amount of sunlight reaching the planet's surface had declined by 4 to 6 percent since 1960. Suddenly, around 1990, that appears to have reversed.







Surprising Side Effects of Global Warming

Longer Airline Flights Proposed to Combat Global Warming 
*




* No Stopping it Now: Seas to Rise 4 Inches or More this Century
*




* Internet Project Concludes Planet Could Warm by Nearly 20 Degrees 
*




* 2005 Could Become Warmest on Record​"When we looked at the more recent data, lo and behold, the trend went the other way," said Charles Long, senior scientist at the Department of Energy's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
Long participated in one of two studies that uncovered this recent trend using satellite data and ground-based monitoring. Both studies are detailed in the May 6 issue of the journal _Science_. 
Thing is, nobody knows what caused the apparent shift. Could be changes in cloud cover, they say, or maybe reduced effects of volcanic activity, or a reduction in pollutants. 
This lack of understanding runs deeper.
A third study in the journal this week, tackling a related aspect of all this, finds that Earth has reflected more sunlight back into space from 2000 to 2004 than in years prior. However, a similar investigation last year found just the opposite. A lack of data suggests it's impossible to know which study is right.
The bottom line, according to a group of experts not involved in any of these studies: Scientists don't know much about how sunlight interacts with our planet, and until they understand it, they can't accurately predict any possible effects of human activity on climate change.
*Reflecting on the problem*
The percentage of sunlight reflected by back into space by Earth is called albedo. The planet's albedo, around 30 percent, is governed by cloud cover and the quantity of atmospheric particles called aerosols. 
Amazingly, one of the best techniques for measuring Earth's albedo is to watch the Moon, which acts like a giant mirror. Sunlight that reflects of Earth in turn reflects off the Moon and can be measured from here. The phenomenon, called earthshine, was first noted by Leonardo da Vinci.




Albedo is a crucial factor in any climate change equation. But it is one of Earth's least-understood properties, says Robert Charlson, a University of Washington atmospheric scientist. "If we don't understand the albedo-related effects," Charlson said today, "then we can't understand the effects of greenhouse gases."
Charlson's co-authors in the analysis paper are Francisco Valero at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and John Seinfeld at the California Institute of Technology.
Plans and missions designed to study the effects of clouds and aerosols have been delayed or cancelled, Charlson and his colleagues write.
To properly study albedo, scientists want to put a craft about 1 million miles out in space at a point were it would orbit the Sun while constantly monitoring Earth. 
The satellite, called Deep Space Climate Observatory, was once scheduled for launch from a space shuttle in 2000 but has never gotten off the ground. Two other Earth-orbiting satellites that would study the albedo have been built but don't have launch dates. And recent budget shifts at NASA and other agencies have meant some data that's available is not being analyzed, Charlson and his colleagues contend.
*'Spurious argument'*
While some scientists contend the global climate may not be warming or that there is no clear human contribution, most leading experts agree change is underway. 
Grasping the situation is crucial, because if the climate warms as many expect, seas could rise enough to swamp many coastal communities by the end of this century. 
Charlson says scientists understand to within 10 percent the impact of human activity on the production of greenhouse gases, things like carbon dioxide and methane that act like blanket to trap heat and, in theory, contribute to global warming. Yet their grasp of the human impact on albedo could be off by as much as 100 percent, he fears.
One theory is that if humans pump out more aerosols, the small particles will work to reflect sunlight and offset global warming. Charlson calls that "a spurious argument, a red herring." 
Greenhouse gases are at work trapping heat 24 hours a day, he notes, while sunlight reflection is only at work on the day side of the planet. Further, he said, greenhouse gases can stay in the atmosphere for centuries, while aerosols last only a week or so. 
"There is no simplistic balance between these two effects," Charlson said. "It isn't heating versus cooling. It's scientific understanding versus not understanding."


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 1, 2007)

Here's another...

From the top: The ultraviolet rays that reach the earth's surface come in two basic varieties, the more prevalent UV-A and the more potent UV-B. While each seemingly plays a role in skin cancer and eye damage, it's UV-B that both helps the body produce vitamin D and causes sunburn; its intensity varies widely with time of day, time of year, and latitude. (Being closer to noon, summer, or the equator all = more.) Clouds usually block UV rays, particularly UV-B; on a really overcast day they can keep out 70 to 90 percent of the UV-B coming in.
Maddeningly enough, though, that's not where it ends. Under partly cloudy conditions a phenomenon sometimes called the "broken-cloud effect" can come into play, resulting in higher UV levels than a clear sky would produce, and so a greater risk of sunburn &#8212; or worse. A survey conducted at six U.S. sites in 1994 found that cumulus clouds could raise surface UV-B measurements by 25 percent, and in 2004 Australian researchers reported that the specific UV-B frequencies associated with DNA damage were up to 40 percent stronger under somewhat cloudy skies.
Why does this happen? Scientists aren't positive, but there seem to be two key mechanisms here: (1) UV rays bouncing off the sides of dense clouds, and (2) rays getting redirected as they pass through wispier clouds. Conceivably (as an _American Scientist_ article suggested last year), a combination of thin refracting clouds up high and puffy reflecting clouds down low could result in a major UV boost at ground level. Throw in an aggravating factor or two &#8212; say, a blanket of snow to knock the rays around some more &#8212; and you're on the bullet train to sunburn city.
Also at work is another insidious effect involving haze. Both natural haze and the kind resulting from pollution have a redistributing effect on solar radiation: while they can block UV-B from reaching the earth directly (sometimes reducing overall levels 50 percent or more), they also scatter it all over the place, in effect turning the entire sky into a radiation source. Standing in the open on a hazy day, you may get less UV-B than if the sky were clear (on the other hand, you may not), but over in the shade haze means you'll get lots more &#8212; an ominous thought for those dwelling in the smoggier parts of the world. And compounding it all is the problem your friend mentioned, namely that generally people are less likely to take precautions against sun when it's cloudy, leaving themselves wide open to any UV-amplifying consequences.
Crying over spilt milk is lousy public health policy, of course, but it's hard not to feel a little nostalgic for the days when we had a first-rate ozone layer. Ozone's crucial in blocking solar UV-B, hence the widespread dismay on discovering we'd put a big dent in our atmospheric supply. Most authorities agree that ozone depletion has leveled off following decades of fluorocarbon bans, but it'll still take 50 years for the layer to mend &#8212; so expect more parasol weather ahead.
And while we're all here: Some will occasionally claim that since the moon reflects UV radiation, staying out too long when it's full can get you a case of "moonburn." In medical parlance, these people are known as half-wits. The moon's only 0.0002 percent as bright as the sun and reflects UV light only about half as well as it does visible light; thus, eight hours of top-strength moonlight delivers less UV-B than a second of sun.


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 1, 2007)

g'mornin' skunk! how are ya? this continues to be wholly instructive. and as with most research....more questions than answers, but to me that is a good thing.

PR - interesting experience. certainly important to bring that into the mix of the discussion.


potroast said:


> I tried this several years ago. I used a flouro T-5 tube that is 30 inches long UV reptile light, and I read that the UV rays travel 2-3 feet away, so I hung it along the ceiling over the plants, kinda along the side. I started by using it for a couple of hours a day, and increased the time until I saw the damage to the foliage. I settled on 4 times/day for 20 minutes.
> 
> The lamp burned out in 3 months, and since I didn't notice any difference in bud quality/potency, I didn't buy a new one.
> 
> HTH


yes Skunk, and the article of chemical ecology of cannabis - although much more theoretical, still suggests that there is a significant role that UVB plays. more to ponder? 


skunkushybrid said:


> Hey pot'... then why do the most potent strains we know grow in places of high UV?


this bell curve I believe plays an important role in something like UVB light. thanks YGF.


Your Grandfather said:


> I think a number of things.
> 1. There is an effective radiation pattern_ERP_for every bulb. How the plant orientates to the ERP is the question.
> 2. As the bulbs age, their effectiveness and probably ERP change.
> 3. Are there unique ballast and starters for uv bulbs?
> ...


I am totally with you on this. as with an biological organism...its "learning" and "adaptation" begin from day one.


skunkushybrid said:


> I'm still thinking it's about building a tolerance too. The chemical processes in the plant will need to start getting used to UV very early in the plants life.
> 
> They say that the first year of your life is when you learn the most about the world. What would equal a year to cannabis? Once the sprog pokes it's little head out it will get an immediate guage of it's environment... and the chemical processes will start there.
> 
> I believe cannabis should adapt just fine.


I am goning to try and find more to do with seasonal variations in UV radition, and see what relationships have been explored with plant processes....thanks everyone for your incredible contributions to this investigation and thought process.....more and more exciting as the days go by!


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 1, 2007)

this is an "example chart" for the daily max. UV for western Canada.....  you know what I find weird OR maybe not so weird....the peak is in June/July....but then again the peak comes from the longest days (June and July)....this means that for AU its prolly similar - except Dec/Jan....which means that in CA....the highest UV is NOT at flowering and budding but during the intial vege growth? 

maybe more telling is the UV annual max in Alert, Nunavut - the most northerly community in North America...


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 1, 2007)

Yes, during the veg' stage... but the plant can triple in height during the flower stage and has to do much more. That's what I meant when I said trich's are there to harness dwindling light. 

I'm assuming that the trich's are a response to this...

The cannabinoids are a different subject, at least to my mind. Obviously light of varying spectrum is needed to create them, and there are two cells inside the trich that do two different things... or release two different chemicals.

I believe though that the two main chemicals of cannabis are THCV and CBN. These two chemicals seem the most likely to actually be produced within the plant itself. It then pushes these chemicals into the two cells of the trichome. These react with the two different spectrums, creating THC and CBD.

I'm not sure on the CBN-CBD part. It may well be the other way around... unless CBN reacts quicker to turn into CBD, and THCV slower to turn to THC.

I'm struggling with this, as I believe that the chemicals were originally an attractant for prey. It makes sense then that THCV was used to entice the prey in, and then CBD used to knock the prey out...


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 1, 2007)

yes...interesting....your thought are then rather logical...regarding the growth evolution of the plants physical structure and chemical mechanisms and processes.....so we still need to figure out what/when/how much....is it possible that if we bombard the plant in late vege, and into flowering budding, that the plant will say wait....we don't actually need to produce so many trichomes? because if the function is to take the most from dwindling light and we provide the plant with more than enough light...then the plant may adapt and alter its trichome production because it senses it doesn't really need to have that "magnification" that the trichomes may function as?


----------



## natmoon (Dec 1, 2007)

Its also possible that uvb will only increase the thc level marginally.
So say a plant that produces 18% thc normally may produce 19-20% thc with uvb being present.

Its highly unlikely that we as smokers of large amounts on a daily basis would notice this unless we chemically analyzed the thc content from as near identical clones as possible grown in different rooms.

I think it is more likely that uvb can make a big difference to strains that usually produce only about 5-10% thc and that this can cause the lower thc producing strains to produce a more noticeable and significant increase than the already high thc strains as its probable that the cannabis strain will never be able to get above 40% thc as it requires a certain amount of plant matter to live and the genetics are mostly maxed out at the moment with 22% so i think that uvb would appear to make little if any difference to these kind of strains as they are genetically incapable of producing any more thc than they already do at this moment in time.

However there is more room for improvement on the lower thc producers and i think that they will react to it more as they probably originated in areas of the planet that had naturally low levels of uvb anyway so they produce more as they are fighting against something that there genetics is not used to and i think obviously that is highly probable that the higher thc strains come from areas of the planet that were naturally high in uvb and have already developed the higher thc levels to compensate for this anyways so they obviously will not produce much more than they already do as they don't actually need to whereas other strains do.

Anyway i am totally caned today so i may even be talking a load of old shit,who can tell lmfao


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 1, 2007)

hey thanks Nat. What I have floating in my mind is the question - if what you are saying is in fact the way things are - then how do we reconcile the whole aspect that the UVB is the functional link and mechanism to the production of THC. Maybe the little amounts of UVB that come from our various attempts at lighting these gro ops is sufficient, and this effort of increasing UVB is not a critical item in THC production....that we are already at a sufficient level of UVB radiation that any amount will only result in the assumed incremental amounts that you reference. However, that would then take me to the question of the oldtimers (myself included) that used to smoke the outdoor weed thirty years ago...and as good as ANY indoor stuff is,.......it does not compare to the outdoor gro?


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 1, 2007)

tahoe58 said:


> yes...interesting....your thought are then rather logical...regarding the growth evolution of the plants physical structure and chemical mechanisms and processes.....so we still need to figure out what/when/how much....is it possible that if we bombard the plant in late vege, and into flowering budding, that the plant will say wait....we don't actually need to produce so many trichomes? because if the function is to take the most from dwindling light and we provide the plant with more than enough light...then the plant may adapt and alter its trichome production because it senses it doesn't really need to have that "magnification" that the trichomes may function as?


Maybe this is why the plant keeps growing at night... it stores the light, then works through it slowly in the dark. To grow much bigger during flower, the more trich's it gains in the dark will magnify more of the sunlight during the day. 

I think the actual trich' development itself is something we can only magnify by giving extended dark periods during certain points of flower. Then increase photoperiod to help the plant catch up in potency, and size. So if you give 12 hours light, increase to 12.30 for example. But this may just still all even out in the end...


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 1, 2007)

interesting....thanks for sharing those thoughts. so do you mean that the introduction of UVB then may not have any measureable difference and it is the photoperiod that has the more cirtical path to both trichome concentration (density) and therefore THC and potency?


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 1, 2007)

Yes nat', that fits in perfectly with my feeling that there is only one original strain of cannabis, and that various environmental factors have caused the genetics of the plant to change, almost, completely.

The strongest strains that grow on this planet, are most likely genetically the strongest plants on this earth. Yet if we try and grow that strain indoors, we will not achieve the potency. Using UV may get us closer to the actual strength of the plant we are trying to grow.

Co2 may also boost potency.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 1, 2007)

tahoe58 said:


> interesting....thanks for sharing those thoughts. so do you mean that the introduction of UVB then may not have any measureable difference and it is the photoperiod that has the more cirtical path to both trichome concentration (density) and therefore THC and potency?


Yes photoperiod is critical, but then so is quality of light. Just because a strain says 27.5%thc, doesn't mean that when you grow it, this is what you'll get. The strain has a genetic potential, but it is our job to help it get there.


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 1, 2007)

yuk...I hate when this happens....it had been getting a little clearer for me....and now its going back the otehr way again...more unclear.....  I need a toke real bad.....oh yea....I still have a couple of months wait! grrrrrrrr. 


skunkushybrid said:


> Yes photoperiod is critical, but then so is quality of light. Just because a strain says 27.5%thc, doesn't mean that when you grow it, this is what you'll get. The strain has a genetic potential, but it is our job to help it get there.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 1, 2007)

I don't know tahoe, I think I'm starting to see things much more clearly now. When I said the trich's are a response to low light levels, I suppose this means the plant uses energy stored during the day to produce the trich's. Also that these trich's are not very potent.

It takes quality of light to give them potency.

I still think potency is down to light intensity. Whether that be red or blue, except for the far ends of the spectrum. Although important too they are going to take much more management.

It seems the more intense the blue, the more THC we get. The more intense the red, the more cbd. There are two chemicals in the trich head that react to light...


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 1, 2007)

thanks man....I appreciate you being paitent with me and taking the time to recover those thoughts. Maybe I need to go read the chemical ecology of cannabis again... 


skunkushybrid said:


> I don't know tahoe, I think I'm starting to see things much more clearly now. When I said the trich's are a response to low light levels, I suppose this means the plant uses energy stored during the day to produce the trich's. Also that these trich's are not very potent.
> 
> It takes quality of light to give them potency.
> 
> ...


----------



## natmoon (Dec 1, 2007)

On the red and blue light notes i can confirm that mixing blue fluorescent lights and hps light whilst flowering gives better and stronger weed


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 1, 2007)

thanks Nat....I'm gonna take a closer look at the light physics associated with that combination. I'm working with some folks right now on combining LED with HPS and they're running trials....should be interesting. 


natmoon said:


> On the red and blue light notes i can confirm that mixing blue fluorescent lights and hps light whilst flowering gives better and stronger weed


----------



## psyclone (Dec 1, 2007)

This is brilliant-marijuana man very clear. He mentioned the the light rating as between I think 266-300nm, I believe this to be in the black light range, as I have a UVB light designed for curing reactive resins that emits 366nm and this is about as dark a light as I have seen. I wonder if any harm can be done by exposing well developed plant (within a few days of harvest) to this light? Can anyone help with this?


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 1, 2007)

I think we want to be pretty careful with the aplication of this source of light as we know it is biologically destructive....it is used in wastewater treatment systems, and it causes sunburn....so I think we just have to be a little smart about it all.....there has been a lot of info posted to this thread...some good experiences, some neutral, and others bad.....lets all be careful....


----------



## Your Grandfather (Dec 1, 2007)

*Shopping List*

Personal UV meter - check
TestProducts.com | National Safety Products, Inc. | 877-412-3600 | <-

UV Safety Goggles - check
UV Safety Goggles - Science Gifts - Edmund Scientific
Uvex Stealth Goggle w/ Clear Lens - Safety Goggles

UV Safety Film - check
HanitaTek

I'm getting ready


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 1, 2007)

g'morning YGF....getting ready eh....good for you...how much snow did you get?


----------



## Your Grandfather (Dec 1, 2007)

psyclone said:


> He mentioned the the light rating as between I think 266-300nm, I believe this to be in the black light range, as I have a UVB light designed for curing reactive resins that emits 366nm and this is about as dark a light as I have seen.


A change of 66nano meters on a scale of 366 is a significant % change. I believe,

Did you look at the light without any glasses on?

*Sidebar - airline pilots have a high incidence of cataracts and skin cancers. Think sitting, even behind 2 layers of tempered glass, at those high uv levels for hours on end has/had anything to do with it? I do.
http://archopht.ama-assn.org/cgi/reprint/123/8/1102.pdf


----------



## Your Grandfather (Dec 1, 2007)

Here's a real good wake & bake thought.

Maybe plants can see. If so, maybe the THC is 'sunglasses' for the plant.

Great frigging weed....gag, cough, seeing stars.


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 1, 2007)

awesome thought YGF...I like it....I'm gonna digest that one..... churn it around a little! hope you're ok.....and survived your choking....


----------



## Harkin (Dec 1, 2007)

Damn you guys move fast, been away like half a day and all this reading to catch up. And Tahoe, NICE avatar haha


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 1, 2007)

thanks man.....muy delicioso....


----------



## psyclone (Dec 1, 2007)

um, it's newton meters I think....Tahoes caution point is well made...I have a tent full of plants developing at different rates and a bunch of uniform clones waiting for space. I propose to lovingly harvest the dirtiest girls, and subect the smallest skank to stress pressure- something like 24/24 for a few days and ripening nutrients, it wouldn't hurt to add UV or perhaps better only to use the UV so as to better monitor any changes. I will post results in my grow journal day by day and see what occurs.
"selah"


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 1, 2007)

this could prove to be very interesting....I have read that the preponderenvce of trichomes is a reaction of the plant to stress......of all kinds, predatory, moisture, heat, and light.....good luck....and keep us uptodate!


psyclone said:


> um, it's newton meters I think....Tahoes caution point is well made...I have a tent full of plants developing at different rates and a bunch of uniform clones waiting for space. I propose to lovingly harvest the dirtiest girls, and subect the smallest skank to stress pressure- something like 24/24 for a few days and ripening nutrients, it wouldn't hurt to add UV or perhaps better only to use the UV so as to better monitor any changes. I will post results in my grow journal day by day and see what occurs.
> "selah"


----------



## psyclone (Dec 1, 2007)

Will do bud.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 1, 2007)

Yes, this is a point often missed. Not only does a plant produce trich's in the dark, but it also gets them when stressed... the banging of the proverbial nail through the stem.

This stress could even just be a shaking of the plant, or the trimming of it's leaves a few days before harvest. i have done both of these things, even snapped a stem clean in half and sellotaped (sticky tape) it back together. Also through accidents, I have had to piece plants back together. Every single time these plants will release an excess of trichomes.

Although this could also be in a response to harness more light, as the plant will need light to heal itself.

You could of course argue that the plant does it to defend itself against whatever is attacking it... but in the case of the plant snapping in half, how does it defend itself against an elephant, with trichomes?


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 1, 2007)

hahahahaha....thats a good one skunk.....I believe the dark is a stressor.....its keeps trying to grow but can't....the elephant...haven't thought about that one? certainly keeps this discussion interesting though....


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 1, 2007)

light intensity from both ranges could still be the plants total goal in life... and UV have little to do with the plants flowering development. There is less UV around when the plant is flowering, which will likewise be magnified into the plant (unless the trich' actually reflects UV)... and we're assuming that this is where the potency is made, from a reaction in either of the cells in the head of the trich.

What if the light is magnified through the head and in between the cells, and down the narrow tube of the trich stem and into the plant itself? The plant then processes all this energy and this governs how many trich's it will produce the next night. The cells in the trichs are merely there to pump out the necessary chemicals to attract nitrogen-giving animal life. Doubtless, the broader the spectrum we have will add flavour and potency to the bud. Therefore it is merely light intensity we are after, and not particularly UV.

Another point on the sticky trich's... if they're so sticky that a fly will stick to them, get drugged up and die on the leaf. Is it possible for cannabis to foliar feed from the rotting corpse?


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 1, 2007)

thanks man...a couple of thoughts....

1. you say .....assuming that this is where potency is made.... is this not stated in the chemical ecology of cannabis.....or am I taking statement for measured/known fact....and should be theory?

2. I have been always thikning that the stock was the transport mechanism....as we have the paper that YGF orginally put forward regarding the yellow pigment and the correction in chromatic abberation for lbue light?

3. as Item 1. I think there is already scientific evidence that uv plays a role....it just might be a different role than we (or at least me) was thinking?

wow....I keep going on about this....but I am so fascinted by these discussions...



skunkushybrid said:


> light intensity from both ranges could still be the plants total goal in life... and UV have little to do with the plants flowering development. There is less UV around when the plant is flowering, which will likewise be magnified into the plant (unless the trich' actually reflects UV)... and we're assuming that this is where the potency is made, from a reaction in either of the cells in the head of the trich.
> 
> What if the light is magnified through the head and in between the cells, and down the narrow tube of the trich stem and into the plant itself? The plant then processes all this energy and this governs how many trich's it will produce the next night. The cells in the trichs are merely there to pump out the necessary chemicals to attract nitrogen-giving animal life. Doubtless, the broader the spectrum we have will add flavour and potency to the bud. Therefore it is merely light intensity we are after, and not particularly UV.
> 
> Another point on the sticky trich's... if they're so sticky that a fly will stick to them, get drugged up and die on the leaf. Is it possible for cannabis to foliar feed from the rotting corpse?


----------



## Harkin (Dec 1, 2007)

For me personally, what I am trying to create for my plant is the most natural environment I can. I'm new to this so some of the things you guys discuss goes over my head, but I'm trying to understand. Like I said I'm creating a natural environment but it's hard to decipher what each specific strain prefers and needs to create the most THC, and fully realized THC. I thought UVB was a step forward and another form of light that my plant would need to produce more potent bud. Another light I need is a form of blue light as I just have a 400W HPS and it's getting mostly red. So my next step is getting a 250w blue Enirolite and seeing what that does. Hopefully with all 3 lights I can create this natural environment and implement them in the right quantities and order, and thus creating bigger, better buds with fully realized THC. Maybe I'm missing the point by trying to create thus natural environment when the strains we are growing today aren't as affected by it and have lost most of their abilities to counteract UVB etc... maybe they have adapted so far already that it's of less importance... I hope not so I will still try the blue light thing with HPS and UVB, together creating a THC dripping bud of monstrous size


----------



## psyclone (Dec 2, 2007)

This thread is roaring along! I have had a nicely toasted sleep thinking on it, and I would like, if I can to test a plant to destruction under the light I mentioned earlier, both to see what effect if any is noticeable in the production of trichomes, and to nail down (with pics if I can learn how to upload them, tutorial welcome!) the visual signs of 366nm(long wave) UV overdose/damage. I will work out an exposure schedule and put it in my grow journal along with observations. The plant I am thinking of is currently in LST, crawling around the bottom of the tent and it should be easy enough to mount the light in a box, place it over a specific area at a set height and compare with non-exposed areas of the same plant. Not very scientific, I know, but this thread is making me very intrigued-wonder if short doses of intense UV can assist with mould/pest control? any thoughts?


----------



## cjsesh00 (Dec 2, 2007)

I was glued to this thread on friday and am back now with some new info... I had 4 plants that WERE damaged from the UV light. Of the four, I had to harvest one early bc the buds were losing quality by the second, the other 3 have done some kind things including a noticeable increase in resin heads and much longer and bigger ones. You can almost pick them like mushrooms and look at them. A lot of crispy leaves within some buds and the fan leaves have almost all wilted off these other 3 damaged plants. They seem to have recovered now and the buds have began to plump up again. My 2 blueberries never had a problem and I have been giving them small doses of the UV light and the main colas on these 2 plants have started growing some 'fingers' as I like to call them.Ya know the buds that elongate and stick out of the bigger hosting bud. I love those things... What's most interesting... the fingers emerged from the sides of the blueberries that were facing the UV light those first 2 days (I have not run it again until today and its been exactly one week). and there are fingers on the same sides of the buds just below the top ones, SO yes I am convinced this light serves its purpose and a a great complement to overall lighting. I believe. Does anybody here increase light hours during peak flower? then follow it with a standard dose of 12 hrs dark? I hear when the plants are mature they wont revert to VEG with longer days as long as they get a 12 hr night following the longer day. I am not talking an additional hour or two but more like an 18-20 hr day then a 12 hr pitch black night. whoever wrote the article seemed very intelligent, and including signs to look for (to know when to stop the procedure) when running what he claims a 22hr day schedule for 2 weeks and making sure they get 12 hrs dark after each day. Very interesting, i guess again it would vary depending on genetics. Some of my plants look like they have more potential to keep going without over ripening them and this theory seems applicable for sure..


----------



## gogrow (Dec 3, 2007)

no input right now about tricombs, but found this very interesting, its about uvb being possibly beneficial to plants.
UV Light Discovery Surprises Scientists

really interesting thread btw


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 3, 2007)

Thanks for the link gogrow... wow, that paper is 11 years old.

It's also turned my attention back to UV radiation... I don't think my mind ever left, but it had started moving in a different direction. Still is, but I now believe that the gentic altering capabilities of UV may be the key to forcing cannabis to evolve quicker.

I'm ordering NL from sensi seeds today,hopefully get them within the next 48 hours. I'm still unsure of which light to get though. I really want the 300w bulb they use in zoos... I think it has to be that one.


----------



## psyclone (Dec 3, 2007)

interesting link GoGrow. Certainly another method of stressing, if not more-can't wait to see what happens


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 3, 2007)

hey man....thanks for your input on this .....I'll be very interested in what you can find out. with the known uses of UV in wastewater treatment and disinfection, you might have a thought there. keep walking forward! 


psyclone said:


> This thread is roaring along! I have had a nicely toasted sleep thinking on it, and I would like, if I can to test a plant to destruction under the light I mentioned earlier, both to see what effect if any is noticeable in the production of trichomes, and to nail down (with pics if I can learn how to upload them, tutorial welcome!) the visual signs of 366nm(long wave) UV overdose/damage. I will work out an exposure schedule and put it in my grow journal along with observations. The plant I am thinking of is currently in LST, crawling around the bottom of the tent and it should be easy enough to mount the light in a box, place it over a specific area at a set height and compare with non-exposed areas of the same plant. Not very scientific, I know, but this thread is making me very intrigued-wonder if short doses of intense UV can assist with mould/pest control? any thoughts?


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 3, 2007)

I am so excited where this thread is going. it spawned out of some other somewhat related discussions, and now look where we are.....

Skunk...your thought about the enhanced or forced mutation is bang on....this will be a potnetially double ednged sword......because there may be challenges to managing the rate and degree of mutation...but I expect that may very well end up in your favour.....interesting....most interesting.....cheers folks....PARTY ON, GARTH!


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 3, 2007)

I can't wait to get started... I've just ordered the seeds. Northern Lights (sensi seeds)... and I have my credit card in hand ready to order the lamp. I just need to be positive it is a lamp, and not just a bulb.

I think we've all come away with our own ideas on what we're going to do with this information... and what a beautiful and rewarding plant to study.


----------



## natmoon (Dec 3, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> I can't wait to get started... I've just ordered the seeds. Northern Lights (sensi seeds)... and I have my credit card in hand ready to order the lamp. I just need to be positive it is a lamp, and not just a bulb.
> 
> I think we've all come away with our own ideas on what we're going to do with this information... and what a beautiful and rewarding plant to study.


What bulb are you going to buy skunky?


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 3, 2007)

natmoon said:


> What bulb are you going to buy skunky?


this one:

UV300 Ultravitalux 300W ES Osram


----------



## natmoon (Dec 3, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> this one:
> 
> UV300 Ultravitalux 300W ES Osram


Looks good but are you sure that it emits a high percentage of uvb and not uva?
I couldn't see any proper specs for that bulb on that site.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 3, 2007)

Yes... high in UV A... and relatively high in UV B too.

I like it... fook it, i'm gonna order it right now.


----------



## natmoon (Dec 3, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> Yes... high in UV A... and relatively high in UV B too.
> 
> I like it... fook it, i'm gonna order it right now.


Well i had heard that many of the lamps available had a great uva output but emitted hardly any uvb.
Where did you find the specs for the lamp that your going to order?
I couldn't find the specs anywhere for it.
Anyway best of luck whatever you do.
Heres a link to a proper high output uvb lamp that works well and emits a low amount of uva and a high amount of uvb
Southwest Exotics, 100W UVB Flood lamps


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 3, 2007)

I just ordered and payed for the other one... had to buy a holder for it too. Should have them in the next couple of days.

I got the spec's from a different site that linked me to that page, apparently this bulb is supposed to be the closest you can get to the sun's radiation.

I'll look into your bulb too, might be worth buying as well.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 3, 2007)

Just looking on the site I bought that bulb from and they sell hps and mh bulbs too.

Also these... Infra Red Reflector Spotlight 375W ES Clear


----------



## natmoon (Dec 3, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> I just ordered and payed for the other one... had to buy a holder for it too. Should have them in the next couple of days.
> 
> I got the spec's from a different site that linked me to that page, apparently this bulb is supposed to be the closest you can get to the sun's radiation.
> 
> I'll look into your bulb too, might be worth buying as well.


The bulb your getting sounds good and has a high wattage to.
If the bulb you've ordered works well and like you said has a near sunlike output then its a great buy.
How much was the units fitting?


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 3, 2007)

These too...

Ultra Violet Testing


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 3, 2007)

Here's the bill:

Item
Qty
Description
Rate
Amount
VAT
Gross Amount
Lampholder E27 Porcelain ES1Lampholder Porcelain ES E27£5.65£5.65£0.99£6.64UV300 Ultravitalux 300W ES Osram1Ultra Vitalux Mercury Tungsten Blended UV Reflector Self Ballasted 300 Watt 240 Volt ES E27 Cap Osram£40.25£40.25£7.04£47.29VAT£8.03 *Total**£53.93*


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 3, 2007)

Well that didn't turn out right.

Total price is £53.93 

47.29 for the light

6.64 for the holder.


----------



## natmoon (Dec 3, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> Well that didn't turn out right.
> 
> Total price is £53.93
> 
> ...


Well a bit pricey but if it works well it will be worth it.
Personally i reckon you'll see more trics being put out and more resin as well and it will turn out to be an investment.

How far away do you plan to have the lamp from the plants and what cycle are you going to use?

I had planned to buy a 5 foot tanning tube but if this works out for you i may well give it a go instead as i like the idea of having a spot lamp better than a tube.
Are you going to make a reflector for it?


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 3, 2007)

I'm not sure of anything yet... trial and error, that's how I intend to play it.


----------



## psyclone (Dec 3, 2007)

_can't get out of my head the thought that Moonlight is missing from my plants schedule- 6 weeks of moonlit nights in fact, and I am sure I read somewhere that moonlight is(quite) high in UV. My local Aquarium shop sells an actinic moon light simulator, it's peak emission is 300nm. yes I bought it. it covers 1m2 with ambient moonlight, so a couple of hours a night 1 week a month will be tried on some cuttings that are in 12/12._


----------



## psyclone (Dec 3, 2007)

heh heh heh


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 3, 2007)

psyclone said:


> _can't get out of my head the thought that Moonlight is missing from my plants schedule- 6 weeks of moonlit nights in fact, and I am sure I read somewhere that moonlight is(quite) high in UV. My local Aquarium shop sells an actinic moon light simulator, it's peak emission is 300nm. yes I bought it. it covers 1m2 with ambient moonlight, so a couple of hours a night 1 week a month will be tried on some cuttings that are in 12/12._


You're ahead of the game... cannot wait to see how this one turns out.


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 3, 2007)

the moonlight thing sounds interesting....I too will be interested in this...ahhhh the complexity of nature and all its cogs and components.....makes me think like we could prolly model our climate really accurately! oh right....they're already doing that!

on a different note, I found this thread, and am currently reading it....will post more again later tonight...

UVB light and its effect on THC prodcution - UKCultivator

_TAKEN FROM THAT THRED.......some fella on ukc( was it greenman ?) told of his experience with a 300watt osram uvb bulb, 3 sessions of 25mins a day and he had billions of more trichs than without uvb,, uhmm i looked around for the light , found it , but it was a little pricey, and 300watts._

_Sharma (1975) reported a greater glandular trichome density on leaves of Cannabis growing in xeric circumstances. Paris et al. (1975a) have demonstrated a marked increase in the cannabinoid content of Cannabis pollen with decreased humidity. Murari et al. (1983) grew a range of Cannabis fiber cultivars in three climatic zones of Italy and found higher THC levels in those plants grown in the drier "continental" (versus "maritime") climate. Hakim et al. (1986) report that CBD-rich English Cannabis devoid of THC produced significant amounts of THC and less CBD, when grown in the Sudan. This trend was accentuated in their next generation of plants._


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 3, 2007)

ok...well continuing my search for a better understanding of what we might be shooting for in terms of UVB delivery and intensity. I have found the following: natural sunlight UVB delivery at the Equator is 265 microwatts/cm2. this can be favourably compared to several different UVB lights on the market including T-Rex Active UVHeat (UVB and heat), MegaRay mercury vapor (UVB only), ZooMeds Powersun UVHeat (UVB, UVA and heat), and some others....fluorescents generally produce very little UVB but also UVA (and generally at a rate double their UVB).

UV radiation represents only 4.6% of the solar spectrum, the other component being visible (45%) and infrared light (50%). 

The *irradiation *is the radiation energy incident over a specific area for a given period of time. It is expressed either in *W*s /m2, Joule/m2 *or very often in *Langley (Ly)*.


*1 Ly = 1 cal/cm2 = 4.184 E**4 Joule/m2*​ 



The following are some example of irradition val;ues for various notable marijuana producing countries: Pakistan and Afganhistan (180); Nepal, Jamaica, South Africa, Mexico and Morocco (160); Thailand (140) as compared to Canada (100) and the UK (70). The highest values (in the table I looked at....Sudan (220) and Bahrain, Egypt, Mali, Saudi Arabia, Niger (200) - all, in my view either too dry or too wet?​ 
it only math....but I'm not into trying to figure out what will work best right now. the 160W T-Rex Active UVHeat have the appropriate measure of microwatt/cm2....250-300 @ 18-24"​ 
I looked for your bulb Skunk.....Osram 300W Flood.....but it is not in the chart that I found? I'm gonna keep looking to see what else I can figure out here.....​


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 3, 2007)

some more background info coming ur way....

_Sunlight in tropical and sub-tropical regions has UVB levels typically rising to 300-400 uW/cm² (with a UV Index of about 7 - 10) by mid-day. On a clear day, levels may rise to above 100 uW/cm² (UV Index 1.5 - 2) within two hours of sunrise. Even in the shade or under overcast skies, 100 uW/cm² or more may be recorded throughout the middle of the day. (__1__, __2__)_ 

_Until relatively recently, few artificial sources provided anything but very low intensity UVB at short range.(__7__) Specialist fluorescent tubes marketed for reptiles, described as 5% or 8% UVB, for example, when new typically emit only 15  25 uW/cm² at 12 inches.(__8__)_ 

I have also found the following meter for measuring UVB from Welcome to Solartech

SOLARMETER 


MODEL 6.0 UV METER UVB*




*​


[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular][SIZE=-1]




[/SIZE][/FONT]
[SIZE=-1][FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]








[/FONT][/SIZE]
*




*​ 
*Features*

*Integral Sensor *
*Compact *
*Durable *
*Accurate*
*LCD readout*
*Applications*


*Lamp UVB Intensity & Aging *
*Acrylic Shield Transmission *
*Percent (%) UVB if divided by reading from *
*Model 5.0 (UVA + B) *
*Eyewear UV block comparison *
Solarmeter Specifications


*Radiometer**Model*6.0*Irrad. Range*0-19.99 mW/cm² UVB*Response*280-320 nm*Resolution*0.01 mW/cm²*Conv. Rate*3.0 Readings/Sec*Display*3.5 Digit LCD*Digit Size*0.4 inch high*Oper. Temp *32° F TO 100° F*Oper. Humid.*5% TO 80% RH*Accuracy*±10% REF.NIST*Dimensions (in.)*4.2L x 2.4W x 0.9D (in.)*Weight*4.5 OZ. (incl. batt.)*Power Source*9-Volt DC Battery*Lens*UV Glass*Diffuser*Virgin Teflon .005​



Click graph for enlarged view​



*Sensor*
Silicon Carbide (SIC) Photodiode packaged in hermetically sealed UV glass window cap.​ 
Interference filter coating (Metal Oxide) blocks most UVA from response as shown on Spectral Sensitivity Graph.​ 
*Operation*
Press and hold push-button switch on face of unit. Aim sensor window in top panel of meter directly at UV source. Note reading on LCD and record if desired.​ 
Battery operation voltage is 9V down to 6.5V. Below 6.5V the LCD numbers will begin to dim, indicating the need for battery replacement. Under "typical" service load, the battery should last about 2 years.​ 

*Proper Usage of Solarmeter ® Ultraviolet Radiometer for Lamp Aging Tests*

Wear eye protection when checking UV lamps (UV-block wrap around glasses).
Allow lamps to warm-up prior to taking readings (at least 5 min).
When checking aging of lamps, keep measuring distance and locations constant.
Note: Model 5.0 (UVA + B) is best for lamp aging tests.
Lamps should be replaced when output drops 30% to about 70% of their original (new) readings. Take overall reading center of tanning bed bench pointing up with canopy closed, or check individual lamps at acrylic with canopy up. Keep track of hours vs. readings on a chart.
If unsure of what original new values were, replace two adjacent lamps with new ones of the same kind and compare to old ones.
To determine percent UVB divide Model 6.0 reading by Model 5.0 total UV (UVA + B) reading. (See FAQ page).
When checking acrylic transmission, take reading through acrylic; then remove acrylic and hold meter sensor at approximately the same distance from lamp as the acrylic shield was located. If acrylic blocks much UVB it should be replaced.
When using this meter to compare different type lamps, due to their different spectral power distributions, the readings should be considered relative rather than absolute. Although higher output lamps of similar SPD's will generally read higher than lower output lamps, ones that peak near 290-300 nm (as does the meter response) will read higher than ones peaking near 313 nm even if the total UVB output of both is the same.
Do not subject the meter to extremes in temperature, humidity, shock or dust.
Use a dry, soft cloth to clean the intrument. Keep sensor free of oil, dirt, etc.
*Types of MV Lights- All in one UVB and Heat (Floods expand UVB under and outward/Spots concentrate directly underneath them).*

*Powersun UV made by Zoo Med* _(Shown in use in Figure 3) _This is the easier to find UVB MV light on the market, some pet stores carry them and they are usually available at Expos/shows. They have excellent customer service should you experience early burn out. They are available in 100 watt and 160 watt Flood designs. We used the Flood for most of our enclosures. This is the least expensive of the UVB MV lights.
Powersun UV 100 watt at ReptileSupply.com
Powersun UV 160 watt at ReptileSupply.com
*Active UV Heat by T-Rex* This light has a stronger UVB output than the Powersun, cost a bit more, but in our opinion, worth it. Harder to find locally, it is available online many places and you can click on the links below to order. Available in 100 watt and 160 watts, Flood and Spot models. Customer Service is good, not as liberal with replacement cost as the Powersun.
T-Rex Active UV Heat Flood - 100 watt at ReptileSupply.com
T-Rex Active UV Heat Spot - 100 watt at ReptileSupply.com
*Active UVHeat from Wild Inside* This company has like the T-Rex Lights, but customer service has never been good for us. They do have a external ballast 60 watt light that is not available from T-Rex or Zoo-Med for smaller enclosures.
Product Photo not available
*Mega-Ray* _(Figure 4) _from ReptileUV by Mac Industries/Westron Lighting This company has put it all together for us, avid owners of reptiles themselves, they sought out the best, improved on it, produced companion items and all with the *best* customer service of any company. They have Self Ballast lights available in 100 watt/160 watt Flood and the External Ballast in Low, Flood and Zoo quality. Additionally they have produced what we think is the best and safest Heat Emitter around. This new design uses less wattage to produce the required heat and with the added feature of protection so the animals are safe. The owner is available for consultation of your requirements for heat or UVB, by email or phone and actually prefers you contact him and start out with the proper lights.


----------



## LoveIt (Dec 3, 2007)

psyclone said:


> _can't get out of my head the thought that Moonlight is missing from my plants schedule- 6 weeks of moonlit nights in fact, and I am sure I read somewhere that moonlight is(quite) high in UV. My local Aquarium shop sells an actinic moon light simulator, it's peak emission is 300nm. yes I bought it. it covers 1m2 with ambient moonlight, so a couple of hours a night 1 week a month will be tried on some cuttings that are in 12/12._


i _thought_ i read earlier in this 18 page thread (all of which i just read without blinking, whew... this has been a riveting discussion and i've been dying to learn more about this subject!) or maybe in an offshoot reference that someone cited, that moonlight doesn't reflect any significant radiation whatsoever... it _is_ useful to scientists who want to measure how much and which spectra of light the earth reflects; that includes uvb. shit... let's grow some weed on the moon under some earthshine 

ps tahoe- glad you figured out my avatar lol


----------



## Harkin (Dec 4, 2007)

Tahoe, from this link ReptileUV Mega-Ray Mercury Vapour Lamps for Reptiles - Test Report UV Guide 2006, don't you think it's weird how they measure from so far away? I can't find any stats for my particular bulb, but if they take those measurements from so far then my 23w light should have the same readings from close, I think.


----------



## psyclone (Dec 4, 2007)

I read the same thread about the moons albedo. I also read in an article from Woomera space facility SpringerLink Home - Main that there is in fact a good deal of UV given off by the Lunar disc. also followed the UKcultivator link. V. interesting- someone on that sight is using a blue moon reptile light (same as the one I have bought) so reports shouldn't be long coming - just have to wait and see. Once a plant is in full flower outdoors, moonlight certainly doesn't seem to inhibit the flowering process, so not too much to lose I fancy. Oh yes, love the new toy Tahoe - I shall soon have more tech running a 4'x4' tent than sent Apollo to the Moon if not V. careful.......


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 4, 2007)

tahoe58 said:


> _some fella on ukc( was it greenman ?) told of his experience with a 300watt osram uvb bulb, 3 sessions of 25mins a day and he had billions of more trichs than without uvb_quote]
> 
> Oooooooooooh yeah... I just bought that light yesterday, my instincts told me to go with it, and I did. This just helps confirm things...


----------



## Harkin (Dec 4, 2007)

Skunk, just becareful with that light. From close it gives off ALOT of UVB.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 4, 2007)

Harkin said:


> Skunk, just becareful with that light. From close it gives off ALOT of UVB.


But surely no more than the sun would in a hot country? Isn't this stuff also good for us in mediocre doses? Vitamin D, all that shit?

I don't know, these are genuine questions. I'm yet to look into them properly.


----------



## psyclone (Dec 4, 2007)

Just been to my local dump and there found a Philips 300 Watt single bulb UV SunLamp , and also a Philips Cleo Mini Home Solaria, with 4x15 Watt UV tanning tubes (this one is dimmable, indeed has a dimmer fitted) these cost £1.50 altogether, and both work. What to do, what to do......maybe a couple of short, "hot" periods in late flowering around "Noon"? any thoughts?


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 4, 2007)

harkin, skunk...I found a table with data of uvb irradiation from this whole list of lights and it does not have high penetrebility. by 24" it has declined in power considerably...however, the precautionary principle is obviously still be important to make sure we don't fry our plants. the one fella comments about "billions of more trichs" is pretty exciting. Like a said last night, the 160W bulb has exactly similar output to the natural sunshine in Morocco at 18-24"......Now I have to figure out how to hook this up in my cab? yipppeeee!!! 


skunkushybrid said:


> But surely no more than the sun would in a hot country? Isn't this stuff also good for us in mediocre doses? Vitamin D, all that shit?
> 
> I don't know, these are genuine questions. I'm yet to look into them properly.


----------



## psyclone (Dec 4, 2007)

found this in the US patent office "Method and apparatus for encouraging maximal plant growth which method and apparatus comprise a light filter which prevents the natural decay of plant growth stimulating materials by absorption of UV radiation while permitting photosynthesis to occur with blue light in the absence of attendant heat generating and dehydrating radiations caused by green, yellow and infra-red light. The objective is made possible according to the preferred embodiment of the invention by interposing separately, continuously, or discontinuously, a combination of filters made of solid material between the sun and the growing plants which block out radiation in those wave lengths which are either physiologically harmful or which retard growth, but do not inhibit those wavelengths which are necessary for photosynthesis, metabolism, differentiation and development" 
I think we want cool, blue light, lads is what he is saying-strikes me that sunbulbs may give off too much IR along with the UV (for prolonged use, any way. Could scorch things. Another little nugget I found seems to indicate that 6 hours exposure to Black Light UV resulted in a five fold increase in a gene that controls the production of flavinoid/alkaloids This, I believe is a good thing. I do not know however, if they killed the plant in question, which was a petunia. The gene is found in all mature plants apparently


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 4, 2007)

Yes, red and blue... this goes back to my earlier theory on light intensity, not radiation being the key.

Yet, there is evidence to suggest now that UV does play a role in the development of the plant. The article is saying that UV radiation is a hinderance to plant growth. How old is that article? Have you got the link for it?


----------



## psyclone (Dec 4, 2007)

*'ere's another..........*

*UV and flower colour
*Ultraviolet light (UV) is not a significant factor for photosynthesis, but many flower growers will have noticed that under glass or plastic covered greenhouses, some varieties of flower do not develop the same colour intensity as when grown in the open. Similarly, it has been reported that colour, flavour and fragrance of some other crops are not as intense when grown under protected conditions. It is also known that plants grown in the open can be more robust than those grown inside &#8211; for example, salad growers realise that outdoor grown lettuce is better at surviving modern washing and handling processes.


----------



## psyclone (Dec 4, 2007)

Re the stunting power of uv-this has "cropped up" -forgive the pun- a couple of times, let me find a link.....


----------



## psyclone (Dec 4, 2007)

............and on the way found this 
*Responses in surface structure and chemistry*
Outdoor UV-B supplementation studies of higher plants involving modulated lamp banks have revealed some significant responses, but plant responses to UV-B generally seem to be more subtle than those based on exclusion studies. The most consistent response in higher plants was an increase in the concentrations of soluble leaf UV-B-absorbing compounds. Phenylpropanoids, e.g. hydroxycinnamic acid, cinnamoyl esters, and flavonoids, including flavones and flavonols, and anthocyanins provide a UV-A and UV-B screen in higher plants. The flavonoids responsible for UV screening vary from species to species, and most plants synthesize a range of compounds to provide more effective screening. So far, most of the studies have been made with summer-green species. 
The studies with evergreens have shown that, in warm years, the production of soluble phenolics is higher compared to cold years. UV-B radiation and altitude alter the foliar flavonoid composition in forest tree species, such as Scots and ponderosa pine. The responses may be transient or long-lasting. Phenolics increase with needle age in Scots pine, black pine and ponderosa pine Enhanced UV-B radiation increased Scots pine needle cutinization and wall-bound phenolics as well as flavonoids, , which are important during the late winter and early spring.
The natural UV-screening mechanisms in evergreens have been shown to include UV light screening via reflectance of UV/violet light by the epidermis, UV light screening via reduction of transmission by special anatomical arrangement of epidermal cells as well as light-reflecting hyaline hypodermal cells, conversion of UV light via fluorescence and UV light screening by UV-screening substances in cell walls and on surfaces. In higher plants, anthocyanins and flavones increase in response to high visible light levels, and UV irradiation induces flavonoids, sinapate esters, isoflavonoids and psoralens, and in evergreens, diacylated flavonol monoglycoside induction, for example, has been detected and p-coumaric acid, ferulic acid and astragalins have been identified as UV-B-absorbing substances


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 4, 2007)

Now that's more like it... lot's of things happening... plenty of chemical processes... i like it.

Can you see me?


----------



## psyclone (Dec 4, 2007)

Box 2 : Light-regulated transcriptional networks in higher plants : Nature Reviews Genetics Is the link - think they are saying that etiolation is much reduced or eliminated - all helps to keep their heads down by the look of it......


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 4, 2007)

Thanks for the link, and 'm so impressed with what i read I felt compelled to steal it:

After germination, seedlings follow one of two developmental patterns. Skotomorphogenesis (or etiolation) in the dark is characterized by long hypocotyls, closed cotyledons protected by apical hooks in A. thaliana, and the development of proplastids into etioplasts. By contrast, growth in the light results in photomorphogenesis (or de-etiolation) characterized by short hypocotyls, expanded open cotyledons and the development of mature green chloroplasts that can photosynthesize. A wide spectrum of light, in particular far-red, red, blue and ultraviolet (UV) light conditions, induces photomorphogenesis. PHYA is the primary photoreceptor under far-red light in A. thaliana, whereas PHYB has a major role under white or red light with the aid of PHYA, PHYC and PHYD. Rice PHYA and PHYB equally contribute to seedling photomorphogenesis under red light and both rice PHYA and PHYC are involved in far-red light responses148. Both CRY1 and CRY2 cryptochromes are responsible for photomorphogenesis under blue and UVA light.
When plants grow in close proximity there is competition for light. Higher plants have evolved an impressive capacity to avoid shade. A plant canopy is associated with a reduction in the ratio of red:far-red light. Changes in the red:far-red ratio are detected as a change in the relative proportions of Pr and Pfr forms of phytochromes and PHYB has the most significant role5.
The perception of photoperiod (or day length) is crucial for plants to adjust their development to fit into annual seasonal changes. The interaction of light signals with intrinsic circadian rhythms measures changes in day length. In A. thaliana, both phytochromes and cryptochromes contribute to synchronizing the circadian clock. The perception of day length is an important signal in the control of flowering.
Several other transient developmental processes, including phototropism, chloroplast movement and stomatal opening, are under light control mainly through phototropins146. These rapid light-responsive processes are not under extensive transcriptional regulation, and are therefore beyond the scope of this Review


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 4, 2007)

One thing though, I'm assuming their mention of far red is not infra red?


----------



## psyclone (Dec 4, 2007)

um, er, dunno zacly my wife says yes, and she knows a thing or two...


----------



## psyclone (Dec 4, 2007)

infa-red, lightwaves beyond 700nm.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 4, 2007)

psyclone said:


> um, er, dunno zacly my wife says yes, and she knows a thing or two...


Yes it is, or yes it isn't?

If infra red reflects off plants... ah fook, this just gets more complicated. Too many contradicting notions from very respected sources.

I'm sure though, that the answer is there.


----------



## psyclone (Dec 4, 2007)

All i can get out of it really is that doses of cool uv can be beneficial - how much and when to apply, sounds like a lifetimes work luckily.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 4, 2007)

psyclone said:


> sounds like a lifetimes work luckily.


Yes, it seems good fortunes that all of this is going to take so long to work out. Can't wait to tell my gf.


----------



## psyclone (Dec 4, 2007)

-inhale-yep


----------



## Harkin (Dec 4, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> But surely no more than the sun would in a hot country? Isn't this stuff also good for us in mediocre doses? Vitamin D, all that shit?
> 
> I don't know, these are genuine questions. I'm yet to look into them properly.


Check this out, it has tests on the particular bulb that you have, the 300 watt Osram UV (Ultra Vitalux) ReptileUV Mega-Ray Mercury Vapour Lamps for Reptiles - Test Report UV Guide 2006. It has a few graphs and tables explaining how much that bulb puts off and how much is normal(natural sunlight) etc

lol when the bulb is new it emitts 2000 uw/cm2 at 12"(but it declines rapidly the first 90hrs), you don't really want to go higher than 500 uw/cm2. But read that link it will show it all...


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 5, 2007)

Here's the pic's of the bulb, and holder... I also got a nice instruction manual that comes in 100 different languages. I'll just make some key points from the pamphlet:

The regulative effect on the vegetatitive nervous system and increased elasticity and reaction of the redox system. For the organism, this means preservation or even increase of the resilience and efficiency. This biological effect can be compared with the act of sportive training, but not with the stimulating effect of, say caffeine.

Improved capability to recover from strenuous work or illness.

Prevention of infectional diseases on account of the bacterial effects.

Reactivation of active substances, e.g. the development of vit. D (antirachitic effect) and its accelerated distribution throughout the organism. raising or regulation of the calcium level.

Improved blood circulation of the skin which becomes more elastic and smoother, with a healthy suntan as a cosmetic effect.

Excellent results in the treatment of acne, furuncles etc.

Apparently the biological effect of this lamp is 6 times greater than sunlight when held at the correct 50cm distance.

3 minutes exposure is equivalent to 35 minutes exposure at noon on a mid summer day.


----------



## Harkin (Dec 5, 2007)

Something more powerful than the sun lol dum dum duuummmm...looks cool mate....did you read that link I sent? Just so you know how much it degrades etc. and move it closer


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 6, 2007)

Hey harkin, any chance you could cut n paste the section that regards my bulb? I've scanned through twice and I can't find it... although, you have made me think I'm going to need to buy some sort of meter to measure the UV with.

I also remember YGF putting a meter up somewhere... in one of these threads.

90 hours seems very quick...


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 6, 2007)

hey Skunk....the meter that I had put up was one from Solartech...Welcome to Solartech[SIZE=-1]Manufacturer of digital UV meters - UVA, UVB, UVC, MED and UV Index.
www.*solarmeter*.com/ - 54k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this[/SIZE]


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 6, 2007)

Ah! Sorry tahoe, must've been you that put the meter up. I haven't clicked the link yet, and I'm just hoping it's not going to be too costly... with x-mas only a couple of weeks away I'm all but spent out... I don't think my gf would be too happy if I bought this too.

I'll just see how much it costs first.



tahoe58 said:


> hey Skunk....the meter that I had put up was one from Solartech...Welcome to Solartech[SIZE=-1]Manufacturer of digital UV meters - UVA, UVB, UVC, MED and UV Index.[/SIZE]
> [SIZE=-1]www.*solarmeter*.com/ - 54k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this[/SIZE]


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 6, 2007)

ya I totally understand....if I remember correctly they are not cheap...but ya know....and this certainly is not ideal....there have been a series of guiding principles....and placing the light onto a digital multi-timer....allowing for 20-30 minute exposure every2-4 hours or something like that.....and monitor the plants.....the reality is that whatever the meter is saying you're still gonna have to watvch the plants...they'll tell you want happening


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 6, 2007)

I just had a look at the cheapest model, which I'm assuming to be the 5.0 total UV detector... and in my money it comes to around £80 on the face of it. Doubtless by the time I get to check out I'll be paying a fair bit more.

Still though, it seems a good investment, and yet just a tad too pricey for me at the moment. 

I'm imagining having it in my hands... taking it everywhere with me, testing the UV of various spots at various times a day. I want one, but I can't. I wonder if they have january sales?


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 6, 2007)

hahahaha yea that would be fun wouldn't it....checking out all the time where ever you go...cool idea....the one that was recommended to me was the 6.0 or 6.2 as these a UVB only....


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 6, 2007)

Yeah, definitely... they're always the main source of information. I like to believe I have achieved an affinity with my plants.


tahoe58 said:


> the reality is that whatever the meter is saying you're still gonna have to watvch the plants...they'll tell you want happening


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 6, 2007)

obviously the more empirical information you have the better you can interpret what the plant is showing you...but its funny that in so many ways....as a person grows epxerience...they seems to spend les time on empirical data, and more time on the "feel"....so the meter would aid in developing that "feel" but as with so much else....going with your gut is such an important rule to follow....listen to yourself. You know more than you are giving yourself credit for.

have you ever seen the knowledge quadrant? I'll find it and post it in a minute


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 6, 2007)

there are four quadrants in the knowledge quadrant.....amazing eh? sorry...that was a stupid sentence....

1. don't know, and don't know you don't know - this is the territory of the teenager
2. don't know and know you don't know - the transition from ignorance to enlightened ignorance
3. know and don't know you know - transition from enlightened ignorance to enlightenment
4. know and know you know - informed confidence


----------



## natmoon (Dec 6, 2007)

5.Think you know,were told you know,999 people agreed with you,got to the End and found out you knew shit


----------



## Harkin (Dec 6, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> Hey harkin, any chance you could cut n paste the section that regards my bulb? I've scanned through twice and I can't find it... although, you have made me think I'm going to need to buy some sort of meter to measure the UV with.
> 
> I also remember YGF putting a meter up somewhere... in one of these threads.
> 
> 90 hours seems very quick...


Hey Skunk, well I think I posted the wrong link actually looking at it now. Here's the right one High UVB Mercury Vapour Lamps in Zoos - Osram Ultra-Vitalux - ReptileUV Zoo Mega-Ray test results I tried to copy and paste but it's got copyright protection...


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 6, 2007)

Thanks harkin, i read that before... but didn't get as far as the test results, so I'm glad you posted it again. It seems that my lamp will be off the chart on readings for the first 90 hours of use. I'm going to have to hold it really far away at first.

Although, even after 3000 hours continuous use, the lamp will still put out a higher UVB output than is found in nature.

Those tests help convey just how intense this light is going to be, and have added caution to my verve.


----------



## Harkin (Dec 6, 2007)

No worries, now you have a rough guestimate of how much that bulb produces. Ain't it weird though how the RetileUV Zoologist Mega-Ray 60w bulb performs better in UVB than a 300w?


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 7, 2007)

Yeah it is amazing... but I'm still not put off by my choice... by all accounts this light I have here will be more than adequate to see me through a few grows.

3000 hours continuous use sounds fine to me.

Also, I'm still hooked on UVA, and UVB... I believe they're both important, I've even read something somewhere that suggested UVC is good too... 

I may do a little test run first on some cheaper seeds... just try my best to kill them with the light, see what happens.


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 7, 2007)

hahahahaha....thats a really good one...you had me laughing orginially when I saw your reply yesterday...and I forgot to reply again....love it! thanks! 


natmoon said:


> 5.Think you know,were told you know,999 people agreed with you,got to the End and found out you knew shit


----------



## butterflykisses (Dec 7, 2007)

most of mine are clodie


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 7, 2007)

cool Skunk.....you did much an amazingly fabulous job with the root/plant development, I have every confidence that your feedback here will be critically important and insightful.....! 


skunkushybrid said:


> Yeah it is amazing... but I'm still not put off by my choice... by all accounts this light I have here will be more than adequate to see me through a few grows.
> 
> 3000 hours continuous use sounds fine to me.
> 
> ...


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 7, 2007)

I've just placed two Afghan Kush seeds into germinate, not 5 minutes ago. So set the timers and see how quick they take to pop the casing...

I've already decided that I'm going to try and kill them with radiation overdose. My lamp needs 90 hours burn out time before it stabilises.

Obviously, I really want them to live and this isn't going to be straight out murder (I hope)... so I'm going to give them a couple of days.

I don't want to give them any other light, I'll just give them fluoro's... maybe. Not exactly sure... I was considering just giving them 16 hours UV with no other light source... see what happens. Yeah, I think I'll go for the straight out murder, throw them in at the deep end... see how they cope.


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 7, 2007)

aaaarrrgggghhhhhhh.....nooooooo....I'll have you taken away! thats right...don't think I won't......hahahahahaha....I'll be watching you!


skunkushybrid said:


> I've just placed two Afghan Kush seeds into germinate, not 5 minutes ago. So set the timers and see how quick they take to pop the casing...
> 
> I've already decided that I'm going to try and kill them with radiation overdose. My lamp needs 90 hours burn out time before it stabilises.
> 
> ...


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 7, 2007)

Hopefully they'll pop by the morning... the seeds were very fat, fresh and healthy. One of the seeds looks like it might be twins. Which will still give me at least a few days to set things up how I want them.

The furthest i can really put the light is around 5ft away. 

Anyway, i have much to do to get this thing up and running, haven't even wired the light up yet to test that it's working... Can't see why it wouldn't do though.

Better get started.


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 7, 2007)

good luck man...if you get a moment....can you take a look at my thread, and provide your feedback on my questoins... thanks...i know ur busy with this other stuff too.....cheers!


----------



## Harkin (Dec 7, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> I've just placed two Afghan Kush seeds into germinate, not 5 minutes ago. So set the timers and see how quick they take to pop the casing...
> 
> I've already decided that I'm going to try and kill them with radiation overdose. My lamp needs 90 hours burn out time before it stabilises.
> 
> ...


What kinds range are you trying? As 500wu/cm2 is like the top range near the equator, maybe something like 700wu/cm2-1000wu/cm2? I don't see the point in actaully trying to kill them, maybe just push the boundries and see how the plant copes/adapts to it..


----------



## Serotonin (Dec 7, 2007)

I don't really know how much of this is speculation. It seems like an ok idea but not great... just ok. 

First, are there any studies done on this? Like, actual studies done with clones, one group with uvb and the other in regular HPS w/out uvb? If conditions were kept identical including feeding from the same reservoir, wouldn't there be some more simple and empirical evidence proving a higher CBD % and/or the amount of resin produced? 

It just seems like resin production has more to do with attracting pollen than from exposure to UVB. Hell, in antarctica uvb exposure causes quite a bit of cell death in plants since the ozone is depleted down there. Also, the density of glands being higher is probably an evolutionary trait so the plant catches more wind and thus a better chance of being pollinated especially in the wild... the lower reaches of the plant would be in a lot of other vegetation. If it were a protective measure against UV radiation doesn't it seem like the plant would have it on all of its leaves and during the entire life cycle? Studies have shown younger plants to be more vulnerable to UV damage. Also, aside from the utility of making pollen stick, another advantageous adaptation would be keeping things from eating your reproductive glands, which is in my opinion the true role of THC. It isn't coincidence that all animals have cannabinoid receptors, thus at one point in time the adaptation of the plant developing that gave it better fitness in the wild.

edit: Also, angiosperms(flowering plants) are the "youngest" plants in terms of evolution. If UVB had that much of a negative impact on plant genomes and led to cell death, more plants would have similar defense mechanisms don't you think? Only recently has UVB become damaging to plants and its our fault for killing the ozone layer. 

Just my opinion, but I don't buy it. We all know dual spectrum bulbs work the best anyways, I'd just stick to that.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 8, 2007)

I want to kill them. I want to see them die, and exactly what happens when a plant does die from too much UV. I believe there is much to be learned from failure. Plus, they're only cheap seeds. I wouldn't waste my NL doing this.


Harkin said:


> What kinds range are you trying? As 500wu/cm2 is like the top range near the equator, maybe something like 700wu/cm2-1000wu/cm2? I don't see the point in actaully trying to kill them, maybe just push the boundries and see how the plant copes/adapts to it..


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 8, 2007)

hey Serotonin....you have put forward some interesting discussion.....we have another thred going....The Evolution of the Trichome ....where we have debated the "purpose" of the trichome and its components.... in my view, if the resin was for pollen retention, how would the pollen make it to the stamen/eggs if it was stuck on the pollen? you would end up with pollen stuck to the p[lant in all the wrong place....like trying to make a baby by screwing the wrong hole....anyhow, in my view, trichomes and resin have a mutlitude of functions ..... but I will let you read the thread....it is very interesting I think.

the uv light question has been spawned as part of the above referenced debate/discussion. a laboratory directed experiment has not been done to my knowledge. the evidence is mostly anecdotal....old timers talking about the charateristics of outdoor vs. indoor....etc. AND a very instructive paper entitled the Chemical Ecology of Cannabis. UV is an important component of the production of trichomes and of THC. scientifically. empirical and measured. how much UV? that's the question. UV is biologically destructive in excess. sunburn, sterilization..etc all can be achieved with too much UV. but the right amount has the potnetial to equally improve our product, just as so many of the old timers talk about their highly regarded preference for outdoor smoke and not that indoor schwag.....(in their words...not mine). Indoor lighting does produced some but VERYY limited UV light. so, it is not all lost in indoor grows....but the motivation in indoor gorws has been predominatly more yeild and less time - in my view (and that of many others), at a sacrifice of quality. is indoor pot shit? no...is it as good as it can be? maybe there is an opportunity to improve how we do our indoor grows.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 9, 2007)

The seeds had little tails around 5mm out this morning, so an ideal time to pot them up. I've also wired up the light and it's working. I didn't let it warm up, but it doesn't seem too dangerous to me.

I'm wary of making a reflector for it, aside from anything else I have nothing to hand to make one with. The lamp did warm up very quickly in the few seconds I had it on. The light was still bright white when i turned it off.

I'll keep things posted with updates.


----------



## psyclone (Dec 10, 2007)

Good luck old boy-It's going to be hell, but it seems you have the spunk for the job. I am following with interest as I intend to do the same test with a flowering plant. Keep it posted...And may your God go with you


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 10, 2007)

The normal sized seed is already pushing it's little pod head above the medium. The larger one seems to be struggling, but it does have a massive head. I had to do some reorganisation with it this morning to help it out a bit.

Maybe they know what i have in mind for them... lol

I'm kinda hoping that I'll be able to blast them with the UV and they'll live through veg'... wouldn't that be cool... but there are certain things I can learn, even if I don't consciously realise it at the time, through their deaths.


----------



## psyclone (Dec 10, 2007)

I have just started a quick and dirty trial. Noticed that my vegging clones are orientating toward the centre of the existing light source, and that they re-orientate themselves in one light cycle. I have set up a UVB 420 fluoro to one side and will check in 24hrs on the orientation. I think if UV is offering an advantage, the plants on that side will react accordingly. the bulb is an Aquarium moonlight simulator and is designed to assist marine photosynthesis. Iwill re-post 24hrs hence.
"Selah"


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 10, 2007)

That's kind of along the lines of what i'll be looking for with the UV lamp. I want to see if the plants turn to face the light.


----------



## munch box (Dec 10, 2007)

I have found that adding LEDs to the HPS light creates a huge increase in juiciness, fluff, and size of the bud. I know i grow on a small scale, but ever since I added over 2000 LEDs to my HPS in the flowering cycle I've seen a huge increase in my buds potency and flavor. Click the link below to check out my setup


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 10, 2007)

Yeah, that's a cool cab. Got to give you loads of repect for making something so well.

Do the leds burn out? what did you use, x-mas lights? 

I have thought of using a couple thousand x-mas lights before and wiring them to an mdf board, but then I've also thought of doing the same thing with fluoro's.

Did you notice any difference to the colour of the bud? What colour led's did you use?



munch box said:


> I have found that adding LEDs to the HPS light creates a huge increase in juiciness, fluff, and size of the bud. I know i grow on a small scale, but ever since I added over 2000 LEDs to my HPS in the flowering cycle I've seen a huge increase in my buds potency and flavor. Click the link below to check out my setup


----------



## natmoon (Dec 10, 2007)

This is a great site i bookmarked for getting leds from.
Heres a link to the most basic and cheap leds you can get all that you need from here to make amazing led setups if you have the money
LED 3mm ultra bright, LED Shop - portofrei - LED1.de ® - Geprüfte LEDs vom Fachhändler


----------



## munch box (Dec 10, 2007)

No, most christmas lights its lens that is colored and not the bulb, thus not giving you the spectrum you need. If you do decide to grow LED, I would make 2 recomendations 1) Use an LED bulb that is designed for horticulture production such as gro-tek. they have a great line of LED lamps out. The "bud spotlight" works well. I have 8 of 'em. Each bulb and panel uses less electricity than a cfl and lasts longer than 50,000 hours! 2) Don't use them alone.Always use them in conjunction with an hps or mh lamp. Don't buy from thier website. ebay is much cheaper.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 10, 2007)

Yes, the money... 

But they need the money to better their product, so they need us to buy them.

As soon as I see some good results from either fluoro or LED I would switch. I had a 200w grow king fluoro once... and after a while I didn't even rate it to do my clones.


----------



## munch box (Dec 10, 2007)

The color of the bud won't change from using LEDs. just texture and potency. If you want to change the color of your bud what i use and would stronly recomend is the purple maxx snow storm stacker developed by Humboldt County's Own. your node regions will be stacked, massive trichome crystalization, and depending on the strain of your bud. it will turn your plant purple and you will be loving it. use with kelp extract or "gravity" which is a bud hardnerfor maximum results.


----------



## moon47usaco (Dec 10, 2007)

What about UVB LED's... I know that they have UV Led's but do they produce UVB... ??


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 10, 2007)

I have noted before that when I flowered beneath both red and blue (hps and mh), the colour of the bud seemed more intense than that just flowered under the red. 

Also, have you seen the list of my nutrients?



munch box said:


> The color of the bud won't change from using LEDs. just texture and potency. If you want to change the color of your bud what i use and would stronly recomend is the purple maxx snow storm stacker developed by Humboldt County's Own. your node regions will be stacked, massive trichome crystalization, and depending on the strain of your bud. it will turn your plant purple and you will be loving it. use with kelp extract or "gravity" which is a bud hardnerfor maximum results.


----------



## tastyaces (Dec 10, 2007)

I have 2 beautiful girls one is almost done that was only under hps during flowering...the other has about 4 weeks to go but the first 3 weeks were under mh. didnt grow too much so i put it under a hps an man it looks so much more potent the the other we will see i defintly will try to post pics on this thread when their done. i really think its making a big difference but i do think i'm going to end up with less.......but stronger!!! and thats what i want so fine by me


----------



## psyclone (Dec 11, 2007)

Arcadia - Home A wide variety of fluoro units, designed to promote plant growth in Aquaria and vivaria. nice COMPACT, cool running and reasonably priced. all types of ballasts and lampholders, inc several UVB/actinic. They also stock metal halide lights, 150,250 and 400watt in V.trick, compact holders with integrated timers, starters etc-worth a look


----------



## psyclone (Dec 11, 2007)

Well 24hrs have passed. The plants are not positively leaning toward the UV light source, neither are they leaning toward the CFL propagation light. So a change has occured, the light must have satisfied some basic requirements. I will now use CFL solely for a while, just to see if there are any late showing problems. I will then use the UV light continually on a known plant in late flowering.


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 11, 2007)

excellent...thanks for the update!


----------



## Your Grandfather (Dec 11, 2007)

Okay, the lurker is gonna chime in.
#1 - I think, and I'm probably wrong, that from the moment the seeds go into the paper towel, UV must be present.
#2 - Again I think, the plant if not exposed to UV will lessen its ability to protect itself_this will happen over the time it takes to develop a 'new' strain.
#3 - I think_  _ that plants get sunburn.
#4 - Everyone who just guesses at their ph_raise you hand. Hmmm no hands. So why would you put UV into the environment and not have a meter?
#5 - Lastly, thanks to everyone for their input. Collectively it happens a lot faster.


----------



## natmoon (Dec 11, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> I have noted before that when I flowered beneath both red and blue (hps and mh), the colour of the bud seemed more intense than that just flowered under the red.
> 
> Also, have you seen the list of my nutrients?


Yeah blue and red are required for the best results


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 11, 2007)

In these pic's the guys... Skinny on the left, and Fatboy on the right in the second pic... have been under constant UV for seven hours. They are yet to get rid of their seed casings.

I think I imagined a quick death. Fatboy has very vibrant green cotlyedons that can just be made out beneath the casing. Currently there is no other available light to the seedlings. The light is a 300w Osram Ultra-Vitalux. The first 90 hours of the bulbs life are where it's at it's most unstable, and can give both UV A and UV B readings that are off the scale. Indeed, even after 3000 hours continuous use this bulb will put out higher UV readings than anywhere found on this planet.

The center of the lamp is 27" away from both plants.


----------



## Your Grandfather (Dec 11, 2007)

Fucking kewl, and beyond


----------



## popo9er (Dec 11, 2007)

Hey folks I'm curious say someone was using only T5 in say an eight bulb system, In theory would a mix of 3 blue day bulbs and 3 warm red bulbs with 2 of these lizard uvb lights get better results during flowering. And would the T5 lizard lamp work in any T5 flourescent fixture. bearing it's a typical bi pin?
Just curious I think someone would be willing to make this experiment happen. Following any good advice you might have to offer.


----------



## Your Grandfather (Dec 11, 2007)

popo9er said:


> Hey folks I'm curious say someone was using only T5 in say an eight bulb system, In theory would a mix of 3 blue day bulbs and 3 warm red bulbs with 2 of these lizard uvb lights get better results during flowering. And would the T5 lizard lamp work in any T5 flourescent fixture. bearing it's a typical bi pin?
> Just curious I think someone would be willing to make this experiment happen. Following any good advice you might have to offer.



If the requirement of the uv lamp is within the operating range of the ballast & if the electro-mechanical_how it connects to the fixture_are the same, then I would think you got no problems. 

REMEMBER UV IS NOT GOOD AT ALL FOR YOUR EYES. Either wear UV eye goggles or turn the bulb off. It is radiation--therefore, time and distance are your friends.


----------



## Your Grandfather (Dec 11, 2007)

psyclone said:


> I have just started a quick and dirty trial. Noticed that my vegging clones are orientating toward the centre of the existing light source, and that they re-orientate themselves in one light cycle. I have set up a UVB 420 fluoro to one side and will check in 24hrs on the orientation. I think if UV is offering an advantage, the plants on that side will react accordingly. the bulb is an Aquarium moonlight simulator and is designed to assist marine photosynthesis. Iwill re-post 24hrs hence.
> "Selah"




Is it time yet?


----------



## psyclone (Dec 12, 2007)

Check page 26, also SKH's propagation diary with pics same page.
https://www.rollitup.org/grow-journals/36611-switch-hydroponic.html BTW, my grow journal. Wanting to get results half as good as i have seen on this site.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 12, 2007)

Another couple of pic's... from these you will notice the repositioning of the pots. You might also notice the direction in which the plants are pointing.

Earlier the plants were pointing the other way, I merely moved them to the other side of the light... only 3" closer, and added a fan.

They've now been under 26 hours constant UV, with it being their only light source.


----------



## psyclone (Dec 12, 2007)

A good, strong colour and no stretch at all-was the UV on when the picture was taken?


----------



## natmoon (Dec 12, 2007)

As long as the lamp is a decent distance from the plants you wont burn them at all however long you leave it on for


----------



## Your Grandfather (Dec 12, 2007)

Seems real green to me. You also, or is it the camera image itself.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 12, 2007)

I try not to look at the light for too long... but when i do i can see a mixture of colours, different hues. it looks kinda white... but with tints of green and blue... very subtle though.

The plants are showing a slight sign of stretch. But they do look incredibly vibrant, and healthy. Probably much more so than had I been beneath that light for 32 hours.

They have their first set of true leaves. Although I've never grown this strain before, but it does seem very healthy thus far.


----------



## Your Grandfather (Dec 12, 2007)

Oh shit man. get yourself some UV goggles, they are only like 5 Euros.

Check this out
UV Goggles


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 12, 2007)

Yes, they seem to like the light... but this is their only light source. maybe it's because they have no other choice. The light was on when I took the pic's. 

I think the UV is just naturally more intense. Maybe this is the light cannabis favours the most. Then again, maybe they will die. Either way I must start germinating the NL today or tomorrow.

The light is 24" away at the moment and i may decrease that to 18". The heat output from the lamp seems to be about 12". The stems grew thick and strong straight away. Skinny has now completely unfurled the cotyledons and is looking just as vibrant as Fatboy.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 12, 2007)

Your Grandfather said:


> Oh shit man. get yourself some UV goggles, they are only like 5 Euros.
> 
> Check this out
> UV Goggles


I got sunglasses. But I'll check out the UV goggles. thankyou very much.


----------



## rkm (Dec 12, 2007)

I did not read the entire thread but skimmed most of it, and it brings up a question I have asked before. If I take the research as it says, then what would be wrong with Actinic lights generally used for corals on fishtanks. Here is a link that gives a little overview of them: Aquarium Lighting information


----------



## popo9er (Dec 12, 2007)

Well thanks for the advice YG. I'll keep you brothers updated as to what I learn. I am worried however that the bulbs I find that are lizard lights seem to be rated at 25watts.... and the T5 system I was referring to is 24 watt bulbs. I'll do more research. Thanks again.


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 12, 2007)

the general sense at the moment (to be confirmed) is that these lights may not provide adequate intensity of UV to gain the benefit that we seek. but like I said, that is yet to be tested and confirmed. Within the thread there is a chart of the various light outputs and the lihhts you reference I believe are on the lower end of the output....but the reality is we are still not certain about whether or not that is an issue to improving the potency and growth of our favored weed! 


rkm said:


> I did not read the entire thread but skimmed most of it, and it brings up a question I have asked before. If I take the research as it says, then what would be wrong with Actinic lights generally used for corals on fishtanks. Here is a link that gives a little overview of them: Aquarium Lighting information


----------



## rkm (Dec 12, 2007)

tahoe58 said:


> the general sense at the moment (to be confirmed) is that these lights may not provide adequate intensity of UV to gain the benefit that we seek. but like I said, that is yet to be tested and confirmed. Within the thread there is a chart of the various light outputs and the lihhts you reference I believe are on the lower end of the output....but the reality is we are still not certain about whether or not that is an issue to improving the potency and growth of our favored weed!


Ok, I understand that, its just unknown at the moment. However, considering what the spectrum of those lights are and what was implied in your original post, do you feel that they would offer some benefit, even if they were just secondary lights backing up the primary? You know, just a supplemental type of light or maybe even a nightlight? I am just really interested in this, because I honestly see the effects with and without those lights in another application. No pun intended, but there is a night and day difference when used on aquariums, in all aspects of life.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 13, 2007)

MY UV light is 300w, and has been running constantly, and as the seedlings only light source for 45 hours.

They are vibrant, and growing just as well, if not better than under a 400w MH.


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 13, 2007)

simple answer yes, extent of benefit unknown....but I do believe that the value of these light spectrums are what is missing from indoor pot...as explained else where in the thread. 


rkm said:


> Ok, I understand that, its just unknown at the moment. However, considering what the spectrum of those lights are and what was implied in your original post, do you feel that they would offer some benefit, even if they were just secondary lights backing up the primary? You know, just a supplemental type of light or maybe even a nightlight? I am just really interested in this, because I honestly see the effects with and without those lights in another application. No pun intended, but there is a night and day difference when used on aquariums, in all aspects of life.


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 13, 2007)

that is so cool.....and thats a 300W bulb....very interesting.... 


skunkushybrid said:


> MY UV light is 300w, and has been running constantly, and as the seedlings only light source for 45 hours.
> 
> They are vibrant, and growing just as well, if not better than under a 400w MH.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 13, 2007)

They say a picture is worth a thousand words...

The light is now a mere 17" away from the tops of the plants... and i fear i shall have to move it in to 12" maybe before the day is out.


----------



## Your Grandfather (Dec 13, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> They say a picture is worth a thousand words...
> 
> The light is now a mere 17" away from the tops of the plants... and i fear i shall have to move it in to 12" maybe before the day is out.



_
A thousand thoughts go thru my mind when I see this._


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 13, 2007)

Thelight is now 11.5" away, and the plants seem to be ok. Aside from the stretch, which I believe should now be halted by the closeness of the light.


----------



## moon47usaco (Dec 13, 2007)

i had a feeling they were goin to stretch... =P


----------



## Your Grandfather (Dec 13, 2007)

How much water are you giving them? Same as normal, less than normal, more than normal.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 13, 2007)

Your Grandfather said:


> How much water are you giving them? Same as normal, less than normal, more than normal.


I pre-soaked the medium... left it to drain for 24 hours. Then placed in the seedlings. The feed I put in came to 0.4ec. 

They've only been in for 48 hours. I'm not expecting to have to feed them again for another couple of days. If it is that quick where they need feeding before the 1st week of veg' is up, they will recieve the same 0.4ec feed. I have 3litres made up ready. If they last the week I will throw that feed away, into my garden... and make a feed up of 0.6ec


----------



## rkm (Dec 13, 2007)

tahoe58 said:


> simple answer yes, extent of benefit unknown....but I do believe that the value of these light spectrums are what is missing from indoor pot...as explained else where in the thread.


Very well. Now, I have been running fishtanks far longer than I have been growing. I have actinics out the yinyang that I can use. I am about to harvest, and then make a few mods to my box. My question is this, in your opinion how should I experiment with this with actinic lights? Should I run them on a separate timer to come on at different intervals of the day(loosly speaking of course), should I run them at the same time as the other lights full time or should I make them a nightlight, the "white lights" go off and the actinics come on during its night cycle, or even leave them on all the time and never shut them off? I dont know, I think there is really something to this, and this is an experiment that really cant go wrong. As long as I have what is considered adequet light as it is, then adding another light certainly cant cause any ill affects, if its the wrong spectrum then the plant will not respond to it at all is the way I see it. Any advice??


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 14, 2007)

rkm said:


> Very well. Now, I have been running fishtanks far longer than I have been growing. I have actinics out the yinyang that I can use. I am about to harvest, and then make a few mods to my box. My question is this, in your opinion how should I experiment with this with actinic lights? Should I run them on a separate timer to come on at different intervals of the day(loosly speaking of course), should I run them at the same time as the other lights full time or should I make them a nightlight, the "white lights" go off and the actinics come on during its night cycle, or even leave them on all the time and never shut them off? I dont know, I think there is really something to this, and this is an experiment that really cant go wrong. As long as I have what is considered adequet light as it is, then adding another light certainly cant cause any ill affects, if its the wrong spectrum then the plant will not respond to it at all is the way I see it. Any advice??


Go with your instincts. This is an experiment... which means, nobody actually knows.


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 14, 2007)

what skunk said...got me outta making an ass outta myself with some highly (un)intelligent answer....hahahaha! My idea is to integrate the UVB at a level that allows it to be on with the other lights....though there is also that "moonlight" option to bring into the equation - there are really only 12 "daqrk" days in every moon cycle. I am still working on what my first experiment is going to look like.


----------



## Moldy (Dec 14, 2007)

Hey Tahoe58. I live down in the valley (off 50E near Dayton) from you so we are kinda close. I used UVB light and just harvested some fairly good stuff. I haven't smoked any of my tops yet but the lower buds were pretty "dreamy" as MM man stated. It stands to reason that we need that spectrum of light. I used a 24" UVB bulb plus a compact flou. that rated it as 10.0" lizard light. During the first part of flowering I had them on 2.5 hours a day then slowly worked up to 4 hours a day, this during the mid day of lighting. I always turned them daily so they would get UVB evenly. Now my clones are flowering so I'm doing the same routine. I haven't done any control studies but I think it may have boosted the level of THC production. Some of the powder on my rolling tray looks like coke all ready to toot but a little yellowish. The verdict isn't in but I'm really happy with the initial results. I'm a bit new to growing so keep that in mind.


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 14, 2007)

hey Skunk...spending a little time on my ideas regarding a multi-setup. and came across this regarding UV LEDs....

_Ultraviolet LEDs_

_Ultraviolet light is divided into three bands: UV-A, which is fairly innocuous; UV-B, which causes sunburns; and UV-C, which kills things. Most UV-B and all UV-C from the sun is filtered out by the ozone layer, so we get very little of it naturally. LEDs emit UV-A. __400 nm is a pretty common wavelength for UV LEDs. This is right on the border between the violet and ultraviolet, so a significant portion of the light emitted is visible. For this reason 400 nm UV LEDs are sometimes rated in millicandela, even though as much as half of their energy is invisible. LEDs with lower wavelengths, such as 380nm, are usually not rated in millicandela, but in milliwatts._ 

just thought I would add this into the mix of knowledge....


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 14, 2007)

cool....thanks for the excellent info...and direct experience.

PS - not sure where you get where I'm at but I don't think Dayton is anywhere near me? cheers! 


Moldy said:


> Hey Tahoe58. I live down in the valley (off 50E near Dayton) from you so we are kinda close. I used UVB light and just harvested some fairly good stuff. I haven't smoked any of my tops yet but the lower buds were pretty "dreamy" as MM man stated. It stands to reason that we need that spectrum of light. I used a 24" UVB bulb plus a compact flou. that rated it as 10.0" lizard light. During the first part of flowering I had them on 2.5 hours a day then slowly worked up to 4 hours a day, this during the mid day of lighting. I always turned them daily so they would get UVB evenly. Now my clones are flowering so I'm doing the same routine. I haven't done any control studies but I think it may have boosted the level of THC production. Some of the powder on my rolling tray looks like coke all ready to toot but a little yellowish. The verdict isn't in but I'm really happy with the initial results. I'm a bit new to growing so keep that in mind.


----------



## lifeless420 (Dec 15, 2007)

excuse me for butting in but i read this whole thing in the span of 2 days i would get to high and have to take a break lol anyway i read somewhere that uvb light is good vitamin d production. so i was wondering if you guys thought this would be a good light Vitamin D production with Ultraviolet Light


----------



## potroast (Dec 16, 2007)

Well, I talked to The Man about this last night, the Guru of Ganja, Ed Rosenthal. He said that UV is useful in the last 10 days of flowering, and since HPS spectrum has none, to switch your HPS to a MH for the last 10 days. Or add a UV lamp for the last 10 days. He said it will increase trichome development, and cause higher potency. He suggested tanning bed lamps.

BTW Ed and I smoked _*a whole lot*_ of pot! 


HTH


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 16, 2007)

Hey pot'... why only the last 10 days?


----------



## Your Grandfather (Dec 16, 2007)

Yeah, why only the last 10 days? what's up with that? Give any reasoning?

Next time you see Ed, ask him if he'll autograph a 1st edition printing of his book for me.


----------



## Your Grandfather (Dec 16, 2007)

potroast said:


> Well, I talked to The Man about this last night, the Guru of Ganja, Ed Rosenthal. He said that UV is useful in the last 10 days of flowering, and since HPS spectrum has none, to switch your HPS to a MH for the last 10 days. Or add a UV lamp for the last 10 days. He said it will increase trichome development, and cause higher potency. He suggested tanning bed lamps.
> 
> BTW Ed and I smoked _*a whole lot*_ of pot!
> 
> ...



I'm not 100% positive but doesn't the glass in front of the bulbs _ both HPS & MH _ block uv? I know that the quartz envelope of a HID bulb pretty much filters out all of the uv, before it reaches the glass.

*of course these are my opinions and I'm probably wrong.


----------



## natmoon (Dec 16, 2007)

Your Grandfather said:


> I'm not 100% positive but doesn't the glass in front of the bulbs _ both HPS & MH _ block uv? I know that the quartz envelope of a HID bulb pretty much filters out all of the uv, before it reaches the glass.
> 
> *of course these are my opinions and I'm probably wrong.


From what i could find hps emit very little uvb and the best ones are MVD lamps for emmiting uvb but they all now have to have built in filters according to wiki anyway


> Some HID lamps such as Mercury Vapor Discharge produce large amounts of UV radiation and therefore need UV-filters to block that radiation. In the last few years there have been several cases of faulty UV-filters, causing people to suffer severe sunburn and Arc eye. Regulations may now require guarded lamps or lamps which will quickly burn out if their outer envelope is broken.


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 16, 2007)

the idea of only the last 10 days of flowering is an interesting thought. From a pure physiological perspective, it would seem logical that more consistent and longer term exposure would enhance the plant's ability to accomodate this type of light. However, if in fact the production of trichomes is a stressor response, then maybe only the last period is important. in fact, keeping the plant unexposed would further the stressor response by ONLY exposing in the last days - increasing the trichome production in response to an unusual circumstance and therefore more significant stress. And then the production of THC (as a function of the UV light and precursor compounds) would also be increased.

My current thinking is leading my to using a combination of both MH/HPS bulbs and UV specific bulb. This will be a forthcoming project - I need to finish what I am doing first. I do believe this does warrant some experimental effort though.


----------



## bwinn27 (Dec 16, 2007)

good luck tahoe58


----------



## Your Grandfather (Dec 16, 2007)

natmoon said:


> From what i could find hps emit very little uvb and the best ones are MVD lamps for emmiting uvb but they all now have to have built in filters according to wiki anyway


Sodium lamps use no phosphors, and their low mercury content creates very little UV output, although some high-pressure sodium lamps are coated to reduce glare and to widen light distribution.
Lighting: High-Intensity Discharge Lamps - Upper Peninsula Power Company


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 16, 2007)

I think it is time for a look back...to look forward with a clearer path - at the beginning of this thread I asked three questions - maybe it is valuable to go back through all of this material and see what has been learned so far (so I went back and read the entire thread all over again.....):

Q1. if UV in ionisers is used for odour control, will high UV light conditions (high altitudes) also influence odour &#8211; which has been postulated to have important functionality in the life cycle of cannabis?

there is very little that has come forward on this issue. reference has been made to THCV as the source of the smell. I expect that the smell is from the volatility of these terpenes (cannabinoids), higher terpene levels, greater smell - higher concentration of trichomes, higher terpenes? but it still is not clear to me that - if uv ionisers are used in odour control...how do we reconcile that with the higher trichome count?

Q2. should/could we maybe consider the introduction of a &#8220;highly limited&#8221; level of exposure to UVB to enhance resin production while within the limited of phytological degradation?

there is a lot of info provided by all posters on this issue, incuding some commitments to do some test procedures. the subjects varied, and included increases in defensive enzyme production, the value in meters and measuring UV light, and cautions regarding the risks of uv light (cancer, eye damage). The more I search and read (and a good bulk of the info is related to the early 90's when concern over the ozone hole had everyone wondering what was going to happen to terrestrial ecosystems from the added UV light), the more evidence (mostly anecdotal and some scientific) there is to confirming some positive value in UV light. I believe we have made some progress in at least understanding the fundamentals of this, but require some speicfic experimental evidence to better to support our theories. I hope we get some good feedback from those have said they will move forward with their own test program.

Q3. do we need to take a closer look at the true comparison of the growth potential/potency of using HPS vs. MH vs. MV lights? Have we been incurring a limitation to potency by using HPS lighting for flowering?

again, we have theoretical evidence that this may be true, but experimental evidence is required to further understand the realities. it seems there is some support for the notion that MH may produce higher quality bud with a compromise on yeild/speed. UV does seem to have some support for better bud quality. It is my belief that the move towards HPS has been driven by the "commercially important " yeild and speed objectives - and maybe unknowingly resulted in some quality consequences. However, this is far from unequivocal. there remain conflicting views. further work is needed. I am inclined to explore the option of combining MH/HPS/UV in some as yet undetermined arrangement. this will not deal with the +/- twelve days of dark (without moonlight) that outdoor plants get....during the typical moon cycle? or does that just make things even more complicated. There has even been some discussion about UV LEDs....however, my information indicates that these do not got to the UVB range and only the UVA range, and if true, will not contribute in a way that we currently understand.


----------



## LoveIt (Dec 16, 2007)

thanks tahoe- i swear you just read my mind- i was really hoping to see this thread boiled down!


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 16, 2007)

oh no...another one of those scary coincidences.....you're very welcome...i jst got thinking timing was right to try and provide some full circle...


----------



## Heruk (Dec 16, 2007)

Interesting stuff
Saltwater fish MH lamps create uv for the coral an lie rock right?
I think so 
I might have to pick 1 up
what do you guys think


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 16, 2007)

yes those lights have been also referenced...I'd have to go back to the comparison table...but they are mentioned I'm sure.


----------



## nongreenthumb (Dec 16, 2007)

Someone needs to get one of those cannalyze kits for testing thc levels and do this scientifically. Get a bunch of clones all from the same mother and see how they respond and how the thc is effected. Sometimes the mind can tell you somethings stronger because you want it to be, I'm not saying this is the case with this, but for me to really believe in it it needs to be properly tested.


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 16, 2007)

hey ngt, totally agree.  I too am famous for hearing/seeing what I want to believe. and to answer this properly, your suggestion is exactly what needs to be done. I am not set up adequately to do this, and cannot in my current circumstances. It would be best to have the space and flexibility to take a suitably large enough number of clones from an identical plant, and raise them in identical conditions, with the exception of introducing uv light. consistency in approach, and anally retentive record keeping will be critical. Maybe we wuold be able to provide additional suppoting evidence to that already provided 20 years ago?

Extract from *Pate, D.W., 1994. Chemical ecology of Cannabis.* Journal of the International Hemp Association 2: 29, 32-37. 

_The extent to which this production is also influenced by environmental UV-B induced stress has been experimentally determined by Lydon et al. (1987). Their experiments demonstrate that under conditions of high UV-B exposure, drug-type Cannabis produces significantly greater quantities of THC._ 

Lydon, J., A. H. Teramura and C. B. Coffman (1987) UV-B radiation effects on photosynthesis, growth and cannabinoid production of two Cannabis sativa chemotypes. Photochem. Photobiol. 46, 201-206.

I have not been able to find this other paper as yet.


nongreenthumb said:


> Someone needs to get one of those. cannalyze kits for testing thc levels and do this scientifically. Get a bunch of clones all from the same mother and see how they respond and how the thc is effected. Sometimes the mind can tell you somethings stronger because you want it to be, I'm not saying this is the case with this, but for me to really believe in it it needs to be properly tested.


----------



## potroast (Dec 17, 2007)

Well, I didn't ask him "why only the last 10 days."

Because I assumed the last 10 days was when it's beneficial for our purposes. I'm sure that if it was also beneficial sooner, then he would have said so.

I'd say that the UV is the stress that causes something to happen to either the trichomes, maybe producing more, or the resin itself, probably producing more of that in each trichome. Sorta causing the heads to swell up, like a bigger umbrella. Also what is happening at that time of flowering is cannabinoid biosynthesis, what we call the ripening of the bud. So maybe the UV causes more THC to stay around rather than be converted to CBD. 

And we use the HPS light for flowering because of its spectrum, the artificial spectrum that is closest to autumn sunlight, as well as HPS has the most lumens output per watt. If you switch to MH, you are giving up lumens.

So I stick with the HPS all the way through flowering, and I'll add the UV at the end.

HTH


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 17, 2007)

In all honesty though pot', any type of extra lighting we can provide in the final 10 days is bound to have a positive effect. There are more lumens flying around, so the plant will respond in growing faster.

If we grew an Afghani strain indoors, we as indoor growers, or even outdoor growers in certain climates will not achieve the same potency as the same plant grown in Afghanistan. 

Is potency, like growth, purely down to lumens present?

Everybody seems to know already that it isn't. for example a mixture of MH and HPS is said to produce the best bud.

Does anyone know if there are more lumens in the red part of the spectrum than there is in the blue, in natural sunlight?


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 17, 2007)

hey PR - thanks for those thoughts. I understand what ur saying re: the last 10 days. there has obviously been lots of pot grown exactly in the manner you have described based on years of experimenting already, and with very satisfactory results and stoned smokers.

and Skunk, that also a good question regarding the light intensity (light energy) at different parts of the spectrum. the distinction here then is between the relative importance of spectrum/wavelength and intensity (i.e., is one aspect more critical than the other in terms of enhancing potency?). I don't know the answer. I expect that it is prolly not that easy to separate the two and that as with most variables in biological systems, they are interdependent - change one a little and the other will also change.

Maybe what we need is a comprehensive light metering station in the location known for the highest potency pot, and do a full cycle growth recording of the conditions measuring photoperiod, spectrum, intensity, angle of incidence, etc. do that for 3-5 repititions and come up with some data. or maybe someone did that already....and I should just go back to growing my plants? hahahahahaha


----------



## bKonz (Dec 17, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> Does anyone know if there are more lumens in the red part of the spectrum than there is in the blue, in natural sunlight?


I would assume that it would be true per say. The blue end of the visible spectrum of light has the shortest wavelengths next to violet. I experienced this first hand when putting "HID" look-a-like headlight bulbs in your car was the "cool" thing to do 10 years ago. It became much harder to see at night because the output didn't cover as much ground as the bulbs that have a greater output of the white or red wavelengths of light.


----------



## Heruk (Dec 17, 2007)

tahoe58 said:


> Maybe what we need is a comprehensive light metering station in the location known for the highest potency pot, and do a full cycle growth recording of the conditions measuring photoperiod, spectrum, intensity, angle of incidence, etc. do that for 3-5 repititions and come up with some data. or maybe someone did that already....and I should just go back to growing my plants? hahahahahaha


lol
that is very interesting though
I watched that weed man video and he was sayng that all the best weed comes from the equator areas
those get the most red spectrum light than the rest of the globe


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 17, 2007)

all joking aside....it would be interesting. The challenging part is standardizing the circumstances to ensure that you are truly undestanding the nature of all the variables. As a practicing scientist....this is a big step.....and making sure you have all your assumptions adequately identified and understood. But...it could be very instructive.....


----------



## Your Grandfather (Dec 17, 2007)

The are 2 libraries which have the answer. U of Maryland and Michigan.

The effects of ultraviolet-B radiation on the growth, physiology and cannabinoid production of Cannabis sativa L.


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 17, 2007)

hey YGF...yea this is the paper that I continue to search for....

Lydon, J., A. H. Teramura and C. B. Coffman (1987) _UV-B radiation effects on photosynthesis, growth and cannabinoid production of two Cannabis sativa chemotypes_. Photochem. Photobiol. 46, 201-206.

cheers man!


----------



## Your Grandfather (Dec 17, 2007)

Well that is where the only 2 copies _ other than what the author has _ exist. I've searched the databases and this is it. Nothing more, nothing less. 

I've got an email off to the good Dr., but who knows if/when I'll get a response.

You could petition your local university to purchase a copy.


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 17, 2007)

thanks man. that might just be the thing to do...i found a bunch of other stuff again tonight....I'll forward to you.... 


Your Grandfather said:


> Well that is where the only 2 copies _ other than what the author has _ exist. I've searched the databases and this is it. Nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> I've got an email off to the good Dr., but who knows if/when I'll get a response.
> 
> You could petition your local university to purchase a copy.


----------



## psyclone (Dec 19, 2007)

Well I have just started exposing some stunted flowering plants to 365nm UV along with a 250watt Eurolite Sodium/MH they are on 12/12 at present, and I will keep it up until death or harvest.


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 19, 2007)

hey man....that'll be interesting - please keep us updated on your observations....and thanks for taking this on. I believe the references I have seen specify that the uv light is most effective in the uvb range (280-320nm) - as this is where the biochemical interactions were most responsive. the light you are using is uva light (i.e., 320-400nm) and has not demonstrated the same results in previous tests.


----------



## Your Grandfather (Dec 19, 2007)

Heruk said:


> lol
> that is very interesting though
> I watched that weed man video and he was sayng that all the best weed comes from the equator areas
> those get the most red spectrum light than the rest of the globe


They also get the most amount of UV


----------



## Your Grandfather (Dec 19, 2007)

psyclone said:


> Well I have just started exposing some stunted flowering plants to 365nm UV along with a 250watt Eurolite Sodium/MH they are on 12/12 at present, and I will keep it up until death or harvest.


How did you arrive at 365 nano meteres wavelength? Got any pic's??


----------



## psyclone (Dec 20, 2007)

It's what it says on the bulb mate. I am also now full time (24/24) using an actinic moonlight bulb in my clone area to supplement the CFL. no ill effects as yet, indeed the plants are growing straight and true, correcting a bias toward the CFL. the bulb is designed to aid photosynthesis (in marine plants).


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 20, 2007)

cool....thanks again for the update....walk on!


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 20, 2007)

psyclone said:


> It's what it says on the bulb mate. I am also now full time (24/24) using an actinic moonlight bulb in my clone area to supplement the CFL. no ill effects as yet, indeed the plants are growing straight and true, correcting a bias toward the CFL. the bulb is designed to aid photosynthesis (in marine plants).


The plants will/should lean towards the more intense/luminous light source. If the lights are either side and of equal luminosity then that should hold the plant in a steady central position.

Cannabis loves light.

In these UVB tests... does anyone know how they were conducted? Like were the UV lights added as an extra light source, or with the lumens taken into account and levelled off so that the plants would be receiving the same amount?

We know that lumens are responsible for everything the plant does (even if it is a lack of them)... so maybe in these tests it was simply the added lumens that added to the potency.


----------



## natmoon (Dec 20, 2007)

I had heard many years ago about using facial tanners hanging from cords with the lights coming on for 20 minutes every hour with the lamps hung 8" further away from the ideal facial tanning distance stated in the manual.

Marijuana man also recently verbalized his ideas and theories that the best weed always comes from the countries that have the highest uvb exposure.

I have never heard of any proper scientific tests and in all reality as you said it is also possible that it is just the extra lumens that give better bud as weed is very light responsive and for all we really know it might be the soil or the air in these countries with a higher uvb level that makes better weed.

However having said that it does seem very logical that the plants would produce more of their natural defense chemicals which we just happen to love to smoke.
Hopefully in response to thinking they may get sunburn they may produce more suntan cream


----------



## Your Grandfather (Dec 20, 2007)

natmoon said:


> Hopefully in response to thinking they may get sunburn they may produce more suntan cream


You and I are on the exact same page. I can tell you that _ at altitude, >7,000' _ plants have to be carefully conditioned prior to full exposure to sunlight. It is my belief the plant produces 'X' amount of THC, as is _ without any supplemental uv. Then when UV is added either by man or nature, the plant produces more sunscreen to protect itself.

*This is my opinion and I'm probably wrong.


----------



## Your Grandfather (Dec 20, 2007)

In Ed's first book, he expounded about how plants have their environment encoded into their DNA and if one was going to be successful at growing, you had to, as best as possible, replicate the environment it was used to growing in.

Okay, hang with me, I've got a good buzz and am thinking clearly.... we _ as people _ are similar to plants in many ways. We need water, light, nutes. We get injured and repair ourselves, etc. Over time, our ancestors who resided at/near the equatorial areas had their skin develop darker pigment because of exposure to the sun/uv. This is a fact.

Therefore, it also stands to reason that plants grown in these areas are more potent because of their exposure to the same conditions. Sun/uv.

We have _ over the last 30 years become quite proficient in replicating a number of the key elements to successfully grow indoors.... I still believe the absolute best weed I've ever smoked consistently comes from outdoors, and quite a few had seeds. I digress.... we have lights that go far beyond my original 'Power-Twist' floro's, we have nutes, PPM meters. But we don't have much uv.

So, this rant is about the Darwin-ism of the plant. If we expose the White Widow, Super Silver Haze, and other premium indoor strained to constant uv, at levels which had not been present before.....Will the plant, like us, develop dark skin _ more THC?

rant off/


----------



## natmoon (Dec 20, 2007)

Your Grandfather said:


> In Ed's first book, he expounded about how plants have their environment encoded into their DNA and if one was going to be successful at growing, you had to, as best as possible, replicate the environment it was used to growing in.
> 
> Okay, hang with me, I've got a good buzz and am thinking clearly.... we _ as people _ are similar to plants in many ways. We need water, light, nutes. We get injured and repair ourselves, etc. Over time, our ancestors who resided at/near the equatorial areas had their skin develop darker pigment because of exposure to the sun/uv. This is a fact.
> 
> ...


Yeah man know yourself know everything else(a bit anyway)

I like to think that one of the best growing secrets is to tell the plant that you will help it to evolve.
In my case as i always pollinate at least 10 seeds on every plant this is true.

I provide a shit environment and shit grow products and i get good stuff all though i do have a growing method and it does help i think that directing my will power towards plants does work.

I like to believe not that i am talking to the plants as i might talk to you but just that i give off an aura of truth in the reality that i did create this weed and that i am further procreating the weed for future generations and that somehow and maybe the plants know that i am helping them just as plants and flowers knew that they needed insects to pollinate them and then adapted to attract insects like bees etc.

I am hoping that they keep doing well for me because they want to _attract_ me like a bee to look after them and pollinate them and i have communicated what i want by constantly directing my needs and what i will do for them in return so that they will evolve further to become more of what we want.

Now all i have to do is get it to work on humans


----------



## Your Grandfather (Dec 20, 2007)

natmoon said:


> I like to think that one of the best growing secrets is to tell the plant that you will help it to evolve.
> In my case as i always pollinate at least 10 seeds on every plant this is true.
> 
> ...somehow and maybe the plants know that i am helping them just as plants and flowers knew that they needed insects to pollinate them and then adapted to attract insects like bees etc.


What a very interesting concept - 10 seeds from every plant. I like it and it can't hurt. Plus, todays seeds are tomorrow's Acapulco Gold or maybe Panama Red. 

I'm ready to accept that plants 'know'. To what extent I'm not sure, but I am sure they do 'know'. Have you ever known a plant to go to seed overnight, right after you walked thru and said....Tomorrow is the day? I'm real superstitious.


----------



## natmoon (Dec 20, 2007)

Your Grandfather said:


> What a very interesting concept - 10 seeds from every plant. I like it and it can't hurt. Plus, todays seeds are tomorrow's Acapulco Gold or maybe Panama Red.
> 
> I'm ready to accept that plants 'know'. To what extent I'm not sure, but I am sure they do 'know'. Have you ever known a plant to go to seed overnight, right after you walked thru and said....Tomorrow is the day? I'm real superstitious.


Ive never known of a plant that you could tell to go to seed

When i say communicate i mean i think about my needs from the plant and i direct it mentally with my minds voice at them every day.
I have no idea if this really works or if i am just to stoned.

But you all have to admit that the plants must have some kind of idea of their surroundings and what creatures they need around them in order to survive and procreate


----------



## Your Grandfather (Dec 20, 2007)

Agreed. Plants are in tune with their surrounds.


----------



## LoveIt (Dec 20, 2007)

natmoon- i think how ever you want to envision something like that is cool... i mean, as long as one has a visualization at all, and keeps focused on that, it's really powerful. it makes things less complicated, and just gives the body cues as to what it's aiming for, so you don't have to think too hard about it... that's why things just seem to happen, because you are more focused on your goal than what is right in front of you.

your grandfather- so are you thinking we need to condition plants from seedlings, all the way through veg with uv light in order to make sure they are conditioned to produce the most thc during flower? if we don't expose them to uv as babies, then flood them with it as adults, they are just gonna get sun burnt, and skin cancer...


----------



## Your Grandfather (Dec 20, 2007)

LoveIt said:


> your grandfather- so are you thinking we need to condition plants from seedlings, all the way through veg with uv light in order to make sure they are conditioned to produce the most thc during flower? if we don't expose them to uv as babies, then flood them with it as adults, they are just gonna get sun burnt, and skin cancer...



I'm exposing _ did I just use that word _ that we need to inject uv into the grow, and at such levels which cause a Darwinian response. Meaning, the plant will genetically produce more THC _ sunscreen or turn it's skin dark, for the people analogy _ in subsequent generations. If I expose a mother to uvB, she adjusts and imparts that adjusted 'know how' into the seeds, if nothing else she tells the seeds "Get read for more UV than past generations so be prepared to produce more THC"


----------



## LoveIt (Dec 20, 2007)

did anyone ever find a bulb out there that has the range we need? what is it, 280-320nm?


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 20, 2007)

there are a couple....the one that Skunk is using is that range....thought I believe also UVA....and the MegaRay bulbs 100W and 160W are also very suitable. I believe I am going to get that is I can find it....


LoveIt said:


> did anyone ever find a bulb out there that has the range we need? what is it, 280-320nm?


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 21, 2007)

Your Grandfather said:


> I'm exposing _ did I just use that word _ that we need to inject uv into the grow, and at such levels which cause a Darwinian response. Meaning, the plant will genetically produce more THC _ sunscreen or turn it's skin dark, for the people analogy _ in subsequent generations. If I expose a mother to uvB, she adjusts and imparts that adjusted 'know how' into the seeds, if nothing else she tells the seeds "Get read for more UV than past generations so be prepared to produce more THC"


Does thc have a colour?

I'm thinking I need a powerful microscope. 

I don't believe thc is a protectant from UV... 

If it were the case that UV somehow works to protect the plant from UV then exposing a young seedling to high levels would force the seedling to produce early trichomes... else suffer irrepairable damage.

The plants 'skin' may well change colour, or even form some sort of protective sheen to repel the harmful light. 

In the evolution of the trichome thread it was reasoned that trichomes draw in light... and cannabis loves light. It'll even grow under an incandescent if that's all you've got. Halogen if you can find a way to get rid of the excess heat...

We also need to remember that the places with the most UV are also the places that are hotter, with more intense light from across the spectrum.

I feel that while there is still another side to the coin then it must be said. UV may change cannabis on a molecular level but we have no way of knowing if this will change for the better.


----------



## Your Grandfather (Dec 21, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> I feel that while there is still another side to the coin then it must be said. UV may change cannabis on a molecular level but we have no way of knowing if this will change for the better.



Exactly.

There is only one way to find out if the world is truly flat.

Sure wish I had access to a greenhouse. I'd grow two plants side by side. Same, same everything except one would be shielded from the uv.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 21, 2007)

I just can't see potency being developed as a way of protecting the plant from UV. Yes the UV may encourage a higher potency in the plant... but in what way would the potency protect the plant from future UV radiation?


----------



## Your Grandfather (Dec 21, 2007)

If we have a strain _ Super Silver Haze (I'm jut picking a name). And the genetic makeup of SSH is such, that it has always been grown indoors. 

We know that indoor growing does not have the amount of uv which outdoors does.

So, here is my argument (and this is based on the premise that more UV=more THC) - if we take that SSH seed, _and expose it and it's offspring to more UV, than historically the plant has received_. I believe then if we plant 10 seeds from the harvest and then 10 seeds from each subsequent harvest. At some point in the lineage the seeds will have genetic encoding that says "These seeds are expectant of more uv" than seeds which were not exposed to the uv over the generations.


----------



## Rocky Mountain High (Dec 22, 2007)

wow this shits deep for my newbie ass. But I can see the logic, it's simply evolution. It takes place in all of nature. Everything adapts or subsides. If UV does indeed equal THC production obviously it would only stand to reason that the plant's adaptation would pass this on in it's genetic code, especially if controlled and done correctly generation after generation. 

man you guys got TOO MUCH time on your hands.

Take care

Farm Hard


----------



## Your Grandfather (Dec 22, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> Does thc have a colour?


Good question.

I know that white is the absence of color and conversely black is all color.

If it is not white, then I believe, technically, it has color.

Olympus makes real nice microscopes


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 23, 2007)

Yeah... microscopes, test-tubes, slides... thc test kits. I've got to get a lot of things in.

My NL germination isn't going too well, only 6/10 have germinated. they're expensive seeds too, the Sensi Seeds original. I usually have very close to 100% germ rate. These seeds are off... going stale. Out of the 10 seeds I had 5 fat ones and 5 skinny ones. So far, after 4 days, 4 of the fat ones have germ'ed and 2 of the skinny ones. Let's hope the genetics outweigh the early losses.


----------



## natmoon (Dec 23, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> Yeah... microscopes, test-tubes, slides... thc test kits. I've got to get a lot of things in.
> 
> My NL germination isn't going too well, only 6/10 have germinated. they're expensive seeds too, the Sensi Seeds original. I usually have very close to 100% germ rate. These seeds are off... going stale. Out of the 10 seeds I had 5 fat ones and 5 skinny ones. So far, after 4 days, 4 of the fat ones have germ'ed and 2 of the skinny ones. Let's hope the genetics outweigh the early losses.


I dunno if you have a lidl where you live skunky but these scopes are the dogs bollocks for the price anyway.
They are 130 quid each even on ebay and only 89.99 at lidl with a 5 year warranty included.
If i hadn't just bought a camera this is the scope that i would have bought

For all those that have no lidl to shop at you can get these scopes on ebay but they are 130 quid each plus 15.99 postage so your talking almost 146 quid instead of 89.99,anyway here is the ebay link as apparently even 146 quid is cheap for these kind of scopes.
Professional Digital Bresser Biolux LCD Microscope on eBay, also Microscopes, Lab Equipment, Medical Lab Equipment, Business, Office Industrial (end time 25-Dec-07 14:03:30 GMT)


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 23, 2007)

whoa...Nat...that is SO cool....gotta find me one of them!

Hey...btw Nat....just bought myself a pair of these....man o man...you have NEVER heard anything like this...unless...you have...hhehehehehehe


----------



## natmoon (Dec 23, 2007)

tahoe58 said:


> whoa...Nat...that is SO cool....gotta find me one of them!
> 
> Hey...btw Nat....just bought myself a pair of these....man o man...you have NEVER heard anything like this...unless...you have...hhehehehehehe


Bought yourself a pair of what?????


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 23, 2007)

heheheheh....sorry about that....Ultimate Ears Earphones Headphones Personal Monitors ........


natmoon said:


> Bought yourself a pair of what?????


----------



## natmoon (Dec 23, 2007)

I like the look of the super fi extended bass phones but i aint got 200 dollars right now


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 23, 2007)

yea they ain't cheap....but I went with the simp-lest one an I am not really an audiophie so to speak....but for 80$ they are more than worth it!


----------



## natmoon (Dec 23, 2007)

tahoe58 said:


> yea they ain't cheap....but I went with the simp-lest one an I am not really an audiophie so to speak....but for 80$ they are more than worth it!


I just choose the ones that were rated for me i.e. electronica,turns out they were 199 dollars
Let me know what my new track sounds like through your new earphones please

Entheogen
hi-fi URL: Start Player


----------



## sgtpeppr (Dec 23, 2007)

Your Grandfather said:


> If we have a strain _ Super Silver Haze (I'm jut picking a name). And the genetic makeup of SSH is such, that it has always been grown indoors.
> 
> We know that indoor growing does not have the amount of uv which outdoors does.
> 
> So, here is my argument (and this is based on the premise that more UV=more THC) - if we take that SSH seed, _and expose it and it's offspring to more UV, than historically the plant has received_. I believe then if we plant 10 seeds from the harvest and then 10 seeds from each subsequent harvest. At some point in the lineage the seeds will have genetic encoding that says "These seeds are expectant of more uv" than seeds which were not exposed to the uv over the generations.


I think this may have been true in reverse. As in when people started growing indoors and not supplying their plants with UV, thus each seed generation produced less THC. (I am also using the premise more UV=THC)

Question: Now do you think using UV from germination would stress a plant out, or do you think they would be able to adapt since that is all they know.....survival of the fittest I would imagine at that point. Which would only help speed up the evolution process at that point. I guess I am just answering my own questions really, and the only way to know for sure is to just try it........DAMN!!!!! I need to get settled in somewhere.

Well......Wakey Bakey


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 23, 2007)

natmoon said:


> I dunno if you have a lidl where you live skunky but these scopes are the dogs bollocks for the price anyway.
> They are 130 quid each even on ebay and only 89.99 at lidl with a 5 year warranty included.
> If i hadn't just bought a camera this is the scope that i would have bought
> 
> ...


That looks a decent piece of kit... but i'm thinking second-hand would get me a better machine for half the money. Thanks for the link though it's given me the inspiration to shop around.

There is a lidl a couple of areas away, but I thought they sold cheap food.


----------



## SnowWhite (Dec 23, 2007)

natmoon said:


> I just choose the ones that were rated for me i.e. electronica,turns out they were 199 dollars
> Let me know what my new track sounds like through your new earphones please
> 
> Entheogen
> hi-fi URL: Start Player


Hey Nat...I like your track man....especially the start. Nice eery synth with the hats and stuff. Good shit mate.....


----------



## sgtpeppr (Dec 24, 2007)

*Ultraviolet radiation*

Another stress to which plants are subject results from their daily exposure to sunlight. While necessary to sustain photosynthesis, natural light contains biologically destructive ultraviolet radiation. This selective pressure has apparently affected the evolution of certain defenses, among them, a chemical screening functionally analogous to the pigmentation of human skin. A preliminary investigation (Pate 1983) indicated that, in areas of high ultraviolet radiation exposure, the UV-B (280-315 nm) absorption properties of THC may have conferred an evolutionary advantage to _Cannabis_ capable of greater production of this compound from biogenetic precursor CBD. The extent to which this production is also influenced by environmental UV-B induced stress has been experimentally determined by Lydon _et al._ (1987). Their experiments demonstrate that under conditions of high UV-B exposure, drug-type _Cannabis_ produces significantly greater quantities of THC. They have also demonstrated the chemical lability of CBD upon exposure to UV-B (Lydon and Teramura 1987), in contrast to the stability of THC and CBC. However, studies by Brenneisen (1984) have shown only a minor difference in UV-B absorption between THC and CBD, and the absorptive properties of CBC proved considerably greater than either. Perhaps the relationship between the cannabinoids and UV-B is not so direct as first supposed. Two other explanations must now be considered. Even if CBD absorbs on par with THC, in areas of high ambient UV-B, the former compound may be more rapidly degraded. This could lower the availability of CBD present or render it the less energetically efficient compound to produce by the plant. Alternatively, the greater UV-B absorbency of CBC compared to THC and the relative stability of CBC compared to CBD might nominate this compound as the protective screening substance. The presence of large amounts of THC would then have to be explained as merely an accumulated storage compound at the end of the enzyme-mediated cannabinoid pathway. However, further work is required to resolve the fact that Lydon's (1985) experiments did not show a commensurate increase in CBC production with increased UV-B exposure. 
This CBC pigmentation hypothesis would imply the development of an alternative to the accepted biochemical pathway from CBG to THC via CBD. Until 1973 (Turner and Hadley 1973), separation of CBD and CBC by gas chromatography was difficult to accomplish, so that many peaks identified as CBD in the preceding literature may in fact have been CBC. Indeed, it has been noted (De Faubert Maunder 1970) and corroborated by GC/MS (Turner and Hadley 1973) that some tropical drug strains of _Cannabis_ do not contain any CBD at all, yet have an abundance of THC. This phenomenon has not been observed for northern temperate varieties of _Cannabis_. Absence of CBD has led some authors (De Faubert Maunder 1970, Turner and Hadley 1973) to speculate that another biogenetic route to THC is involved. Facts scattered through the literature do indeed indicate a possible alternative. Holley _et al._ (1975) have shown that Mississippi-grown plants contain a considerable content of CBC, often in excess of the CBD present. In some examples, either CBD or CBC was absent, but in no case were plants devoid of both. Their analysis of material grown in Mexico and Costa Rica served to accentuate this trend. Only one example actually grown in their respective countries revealed the presence of any CBD, although appreciable quantities of CBC were found. The reverse seemed true as well. Seed from Mexican material devoid of CBD was planted in Mississippi and produced plants containing CBD. 
Could CBC be involved in an alternate biogenetic route to THC? Yagen and Mechoulam (1969) have synthesized THC (albeit in low yield) directly from CBC. The method used was similar to the acid catalyzed cyclization of CBD to THC (Gaoni and Mechoulam 1966). Reaction by-products included cannabicyclol, _delta_-8-THC and _delta_-4,8-iso-THC, all products which have been found in analyses of _Cannabis_ (e.g., Novotny _et al._ 1976). Finally, radioisotope tracer studies (Shoyama _et al._ 1975) have uncovered the intriguing fact that radiolabeled CBG fed to a very low THC-producing strain of _Cannabis_ is found as CBD, but when fed to high THC-producing plants, appeared only as CBC and THC. Labeled CBD fed to a Mexican example of these latter plants likewise appeared as THC. Unfortunately, radiolabeled CBC was not fed to their plants, apparently in the belief that CBC branched off the biogenetic pathway at CBD and dead ended. Their research indicated that incorporation of labeled CBG into CBD or CBC was age dependent. Vogelman _et al._ (198 likewise report that the developmental stage of seedlings, as well as their exposure to light, affects the occurrence of CBG, CBC or THC in Mexican _Cannabis_. No CBD was reported. 
*Conclusions*

Although the chemistry of _Cannabis_ has come under extensive investigation, more work is needed to probe the relationship of its resin to biotic and abiotic factors in the environment. Glandular trichomes are production sites for the bulk of secondary compounds present. It is probable that the cannabinoids and associated terpenes serve as defensive agents in a variety of antidessication, antimicrobial, antifeedant and UV-B pigmentation roles. UV-B selection pressures seem responsible for the distribution of THC-rich _Cannabis_ varieties in areas of high ambient radiation, and may have influenced the evolution of an alternate biogenetic pathway from CBG to THC in some of these strains. Though environmental stresses appear to be a direct stimulus for enhanced chemical production by individual plants, it must be cautioned that such stresses may also skew data by hastening development of the highly glandular flowering structures. Future studies will require careful and representative sampling to assure meaningful results. 


from here




I don't know if this helps anyone still......but I think the bottom line is if you care for your plants and try to give them the best conditions you can (which I believe can be done relatively cheaply) ........basically take care of your plants the best you can , and they will take care of you equally. If you feel your plant can give you more of something you want, then the same can probably be said of you. If you believe that better bulbs or soil or water or nutes or whatever is the answer, then it is up to you to decide what the next step in the evolution process is. But I can honestly boil it down to one thing....Love. Love your plants and they will love you. I haven't even started growing yet, but I already know that no matter how I have to go about it, I will be very happy with my overall experience once I start......as long as I can get as close to the environment that I know I can produce as I am able to at that moment. 




I was just reminded of a story....I happened to be visiting a hospice home about a year ago, dismal places to begin with, and I noticed a plant that had obviously been neglected. All the nurses in that place, you would think one of them would water a plant....anywho.....This poor guys leaves were brown, he was completely droopy and sagging...so like the people in the building he was on the brink of being thrown into the trash. So my girlfriend and I simply watered him properly using regular unfiltered tap water, put him in a nice area that would get some sun the next day and told him everything would be alright.....(if only humans would understand and believe this). The next night when I came back the plant literally out shined everything else in the room. It had the most amazing color and stature. There were no brown spots at all. It radiated such energy that it lifted the mood of the room, which subsequently lifted the mood of the people in the room. And I believe the same will be true of any plants I will grow in the future.

__________________
Love....merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily....it's advanced


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 26, 2007)

My scope will be broadened in a few days, as I have just bought one of these:

New BRESSER MICROSCOPE BIOLUX AL 20x-1280x USB For PC on eBay, also Microscopes, Lab Equipment, Medical Lab Equipment, Business, Office Industrial (end time 04-Jan-08 15:02:47 GMT)

I paid £77 inc postage. He's got those other ones too with the LCD screen, but these are just as good, for around half the price.


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 26, 2007)

hey skunk...good deal.....high ass quality pics will be mandatory! hahahahaha.....excellent, can't wait to see.


----------



## bongspit (Dec 26, 2007)

professor skunk!!


----------



## Your Grandfather (Dec 27, 2007)

Skunk, woohoo, maybe it's time I upgraded from the Panasonic. Let me know what you think of it after you have had a chance to 'break it in'.


----------



## psyclone (Dec 27, 2007)

Hello Truth Seekers,
I am just finishing the plants under UV as mentioned. I think it came too late in flowering to make any significant difference. No death resulted from exposure. They are quite frosty buds anyway, so I cannot honestly say if the trichomes are thicker/denser/more productive. 
I intend to introduce tanning sessions from the start of flowering my next batch, at "high noon" by the timer, for one hour a day, racking it up by increments over 8 weeks (i have 30mins per week in mind, for no good reason). My clones are getting moonlight supplement 24hrs a day at the moment, and have been for two weeks. They are positively vibrant, a beautiful emerald green and growing FAST.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 27, 2007)

Hey psyclone... any chance you can remind me of the wattage of your UVB bulb, and the distance you had it from the plants?

Ta.


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 27, 2007)

hey Psyclone.....very cool update, thanks. I'll be watching....and thanks for sharing!


----------



## Your Grandfather (Dec 27, 2007)

Also, do you know what wavelength the bulb is? How many nanometers.

Mucho danke 



skunkushybrid said:


> Hey psyclone... any chance you can remind me of the wattage of your UVB bulb, and the distance you had it from the plants?
> 
> Ta.


----------



## Your Grandfather (Dec 27, 2007)

Got any pictures?

Are these clones different in appearance than ones who did not get the moon treatment? 

Got any thoughts on the difference?

Many thanks 




psyclone said:


> My clones are getting moonlight supplement 24hrs a day at the moment, and have been for two weeks. They are positively vibrant, a beautiful emerald green and growing FAST.


----------



## sgtpeppr (Dec 27, 2007)

Awesome microscope Skunk.....Now there is something else I will have to upgrade to. That even more confirms my feelings of being back in high school, because once again it seems I am using out of date equipment (of course I did get it for free) 

I just wished I had smoked back then


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 28, 2007)

Thanks sgt. Oh and thanks also for that lengthy post a page back. It was very interesting... 

I just got the microscope around 30 minutes ago at 0830. Christmas, for me, starts today!


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 28, 2007)

hey skunk...cool...so it has arrived, and maay the games begin! cheers man!


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 28, 2007)

Just a couple of pic's i took while having a play around. I can't get full magnification through the USB connection, but it's good enough.

These are all pic's from a very small section from the tip of a fan leaf that is only a few days old. The second pic' is of the very tip and puts me in mind of a green prickly tongue. The final pic' is of the edge of the leaf and these hairs/thorns travel all the way up the sides.


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 28, 2007)

hey man thanks....looks very interesting....thanks again!


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 28, 2007)

A couple of trichome pictures...


----------



## Your Grandfather (Dec 28, 2007)

Frigging picture of trichromes just like the magazines. That's it!

I'm getting one.


----------



## sgtpeppr (Dec 28, 2007)

Me too....that thing is fucking awesome!!!


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 28, 2007)

You can't get full magnification through your pc, but it is adequate enough. The center of the leaves look a little different and are relatively devoid of hairs/thorns. Instead are what look like circular wet patches... but I couldn't figure out whether the light from the microscope was what was causing the effect.

I didn't actually take a pic of this as i thought it too boring, but in this pic' here you can just make out what I mean. Towards the top of the hairs you can see a circular blob... all the centre of the leaf is like this with blobs and no hairs. Anyone know what they are?


----------



## sgtpeppr (Dec 28, 2007)

Probably the beginning of Trichomes. Remember that before the addition of an observer(you) into the equation, nobody can tell what should be there. Everyone who looks at there plant in the same stage of growth could possibly all see something different. Sorry for the Quantum Physics. Why can't you get full magnification through the pc....is it a camera/microscope limitation, or a pc/usb limitation?


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 28, 2007)

sgtpeppr said:


> Probably the beginning of Trichomes. Why can't you get full magnification through the pc....is it a camera/microscope limitation, or a pc/usb limitation?


It's the attachments, the camera end is not big enough to fit into the higher grade magnifier pieces. It's either the camera or the extra magnification bits, you can't have both. 

I found this a little trying at first but the magnification is enough. The leaf pic's are off a plant that has been vegging for 16 days.


----------



## sgtpeppr (Dec 28, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> It's the attachments, the camera end is not big enough to fit into the higher grade magnifier pieces. It's either the camera or the extra magnification bits, you can't have both.
> 
> I found this a little trying at first but the magnification is enough. The leaf pic's are off a plant that has been vegging for 16 days.


You can always have both....you just need to think creatively like MacGyver, or better than that once you get good at it.


----------



## Your Grandfather (Dec 28, 2007)

Are the images pixilated? or just not sharp?

Pixilation can be fixed  




skunkushybrid said:


> It's the attachments, the camera end is not big enough to fit into the higher grade magnifier pieces. It's either the camera or the extra magnification bits, you can't have both.
> 
> I found this a little trying at first but the magnification is enough. The leaf pic's are off a plant that has been vegging for 16 days.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 29, 2007)

No it's the actual camera attachment itself. The camera attachment fits in the scope, but not if I place a bigger magnification tube in first. The extra bits are too small to allow the camera to get in. I think the max i can get with the actual camera is 200x.


----------



## natmoon (Dec 29, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> No it's the actual camera attachment itself. The camera attachment fits in the scope, but not if I place a bigger magnification tube in first. The extra bits are too small to allow the camera to get in. I think the max i can get with the actual camera is 200x.


Yes mate which is why i told you about the lcd screened scopes,they see the image at the highest mag on the screen with any lens and you can then transfer the image from the lcd screen on the scope to your pc without the limitations.
Could you not find the scope i suggested,or was paying an extra 10 quid for the one that i suggested that was twice as good and properly digital just to much extra cash

Sorry to be like i told you so dude,that makes me a dick

Any chance you can send that scope back and get the proper digital version from lidls?
You could say that you were unhappy with the results and demand your cash back.

I know you don't trust me to much skunky but i promise that i wouldn't steer you wrong,this scope is the dogs bollox and will do *exactly* what you need it to do without all of the limitations of a normal scope with a usb enhancement.


----------



## crazy-mental (Dec 29, 2007)

lidl, mite go see if they have any there. are they worth £90. do you think.


----------



## natmoon (Dec 29, 2007)

crazy-mental said:


> lidl, mite go see if they have any there. are they worth £90. do you think.


No they are worth much more than that.
This is a genuine bargain


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 29, 2007)

Yes, I did remember about lidl, unfortunately the only store i know of didn't have any in... and in fact the girl I asked seemed to not know what i was talking about.

So I gave up... not wanting to settle for the same model for almost £150 I decided to go for the next one down which I thought would do exactly the same thing, only having to use the monitor instead, and it does... almost.

Trust? what are you talking about? You're the one with those issues, not me.


----------



## natmoon (Dec 29, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> Yes, I did remember about lidl, unfortunately the only store i know of didn't have any in... and in fact the girl I asked seemed to not know what i was talking about.
> 
> So I gave up... not wanting to settle for the same model for almost £150 I decided to go for the next one down which I thought would do exactly the same thing, only having to use the monitor instead, and it does... almost.
> 
> Trust? what are you talking about? You're the one with those issues, not me.


Ohh?
I thought you said i was a fucking lieing bullshitter,you even posted that in my gallery and in my threads.
But anyway moving on


----------



## munch box (Dec 29, 2007)

Thats messed up your shitting on natmoons threads like that. Even on his picture page? He must have done something really mean to upset you.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 29, 2007)

natmoon said:


> Ohh?
> I thought you said i was a fucking lieing bullshitter,you even posted that in my gallery and in my threads.
> But anyway moving on


Yes, i remember calling you out on your bullshit... I can't help that. I'd do it again too. 

This still doesn't have anything to do with trust... people lie to make themselves look good all the time, this doesn't make them untrustworthy, at least not completely so...


----------



## natmoon (Dec 29, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> Yes, i remember calling you out on your bullshit... I can't help that. I'd do it again too.
> 
> This still doesn't have anything to do with trust... people lie to make themselves look good all the time, this doesn't make them untrustworthy, at least not completely so...


If you had actually read what i had posted properly you would have seen that i had said that i _*hoped*_ for an ounce per stem.

I had 8 stems on the indica which if they were not seeded and i had not taken one stem early would have probably been getting on for an ounce per stem because they were as fat as a can of deodorant and the biggest one was a 28" long bud the size of a can of deodorant.

I never actually said i had 8 ounces just that i hoped for an ounce per stem and that i had 8 stems.
In all reality you set onto me because i said your plants were fluffy and tied and weak and i made you angry so you set out to get me.
Anyway who cares huh and on a final note you slagged of my sativa with your "8oz what a bullshitter" jive comment in my gallery and we were talking about the indica shows how much attention to detail you pay really because i never said i could get anything like that weight from the sativa


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 29, 2007)

On a note more to the point, I've just ordered one of these. Should have it by tuesday...

NEW 3 RANGE DIGITAL LUX PHOTO LIGHT METER EXPOSURE UK on eBay, also, Light Meters, Film Camera Accessories, Photography (end time 29-Dec-07 20:15:00 GMT)


----------



## sgtpeppr (Dec 29, 2007)

Maybe we should start a "Drama/Marital squabbling" thread for you guys


----------



## natmoon (Dec 29, 2007)

sgtpeppr said:


> Maybe we should start a "Drama/Marital squabbling" thread for you guys


LOL
Point taken i will shut up now


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 29, 2007)

natmoon said:


> If you had actually read what i had posted properly you would have seen that i had said that i _*hoped*_ for an ounce per stem.
> 
> I had 8 stems on the indica which if they were not seeded and i had not taken one stem early would have probably been getting on for an ounce per stem because they were as fat as a can of deodorant and the biggest one was a 28" long bud the size of a can of deodorant.
> 
> ...


In all reality nat', you don't know what reality is...


----------



## sgtpeppr (Dec 29, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> On a note more to the point, I've just ordered one of these. Should have it by tuesday...
> 
> NEW 3 RANGE DIGITAL LUX PHOTO LIGHT METER EXPOSURE UK on eBay, also, Light Meters, Film Camera Accessories, Photography (end time 29-Dec-07 20:15:00 GMT)


Awesome pickup.....let the quest for more information begin


----------



## natmoon (Dec 29, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> In all reality nat', you don't know what reality is...


And i was trying to walk away as well.

I think your talking about yourself again,you don't even seem to know the difference in what plant it is your attacking this time,or what you are reading,probably because you attack so many people and your to wasted all the time.


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 29, 2007)

holy sh*t you guys...give it a rest.....this thread is a debate about trichomes, uvb light, and THC.....lets ferget the pettiness and get on with the discussion of merit....PLEASE!


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 29, 2007)

Here's a thread, especially for you nat'...

https://www.rollitup.org/toke-n-talk/40948-natmoons-problem-page.html#post431345


----------



## sgtpeppr (Dec 29, 2007)

Maybe we should rename this section "Advanced Emotion Cultivation"


----------



## psyclone (Dec 30, 2007)

Hello again,

A quick response to one or two questions. The moonlight lamp I am using is Arcadia's Marine Actinic Blue. It is 60watts I believe, and is designed expressly to simulate moonlight at sea, and to promote photosynthesis in plants and simple organisms. I use it as a supplementary light and at the same range from the plants as my propagator tubes. The light values range between 360/420nm , all their tubes have the values illustrated. They have a range of superb, compact tube lights including daylight simulators(with a UV element) and a VERY trick sodium/mph array in a tank-top housing containing all ballasts and circuitry, including an accurate, robust timer. Plug and play.
All my plants are in good condition with strong growth. I am not much of a photographer, but will post some crap pix soon. Follow my adventures in https://www.rollitup.org/grow-journals/36611-switch-hydroponic.html Happy New Year in the Wonderful World Of Weed


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 30, 2007)

Thanks for that psyclone, I'm going to look into your journal. Although what I will say here is that the only thing that does concern me with these tubes is how close to the plants they will need to be to be effective.

I need power. I'dmuch rather have bought a 400w UV light than a 300w.


----------



## psyclone (Dec 30, 2007)

I know what you mean, but is power as important as the Lux/Lumen output? for example, LED growlights use nugatory amounts of power compared to incandescant/Fluorescant lights. I would be wary in my set up of using too much power because a lot of that power ends up as expensive heat.
All that being said, of course I wish I had bought a 600-1000watt sodium/MPH, and I probably will.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 30, 2007)

Heat is fairly easy to get rid of, you just need a place for it to go. I do suffer now and again with heat issues, as i am yet to invest in a proper exhaust system. I run 1200w (3, 400W's) in my flowering area and use 2, 18" desk fans and 1, 7" desk fan to strategically push the hot air out through the grow space.

The trouble with this system is that if i move one of the fans, or turn one of them off by mistake and leave them... the next day i will see leaf curl from too high temp's. Aside from that, I can manage 1200w fairly adequately. I can also only grow 3ft plants, due to height restrictions, so this led to a bit of a nightmare one time growing a sativa strain.

But yes, my attitude is power first, then deal with the side effects. I'd also rather buy a co2 system than an exhaust system. With a regulated co2 system cannabis will thrive better than ever in temps as high as 96f.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 30, 2007)

psyclone said:


> I know what you mean, but is power as important as the Lux/Lumen output?


One begets the other. It takes power to provide the lumens necessary to provide your plants with good growth.

I think that cannabis has proved time and time again that it is lumens and not spectrum that counts in it's growth development.


----------



## natmoon (Dec 30, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> One begets the other. It takes power to provide the lumens necessary to provide your plants with good growth.
> 
> I think that cannabis has proved time and time again that it is lumens and not spectrum that counts in it's growth development.


This is very true,cannabis is highly light/lumen responsive and from what i have been able to tell it will adapt to as much or as little light as you give it.
The more light the better regardless of spectral output


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 30, 2007)

hey everyone....some good discussion. I know wehat I want to do is have 3 x 250W 2-MH and 1-HPS and supplement with decent uvb output on a different timer, that comes of for say 8 of the 12/12 ..... 

hey psyclone....I'll be looking for your pics in your journal.....thanks for coming on by and answering those questions!


----------



## munch box (Dec 30, 2007)

natmoon said:


> This is very true,cannabis is highly light/lumen responsive and from what i have been able to tell it will adapt to as much or as little light as you give it.
> The more light the better regardless of spectral output


Natmoon.Thats not true. "the more light the better regardless of spectral output"... I'm calling you out on posting false statements and giving people bad advice. Light spectrum has a LOT to do with growing canibus. This links first post will take you to school on Lighting. Go here https://www.rollitup.org/general-marijuana-growing/723-things-know-about-lighting.html


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 30, 2007)

Hey MB.....I believe that when compared directly across with all other variable being equal.....changing lumen/intensity....is going to make more of a difference than changing spectral properties.....its not that the spectrum is unimportant....it is less important the the intensity.....at least thats what I think....but I'm prolly wrong....(thnks YGF for that!)


----------



## natmoon (Dec 30, 2007)

munch box said:


> Natmoon.Thats not true. "the more light the better regardless of spectral output"... I'm calling you out on posting false statements and giving people bad advice. Light spectrum has a LOT to do with growing canibus. This links first post will take you to school on Lighting. Go here https://www.rollitup.org/general-marijuana-growing/723-things-know-about-lighting.html


And i am calling you out for being an asswipe.
Retract your comments or i will post the pms that you sent me about skunky.
You misinterpret everything and jump to conclusions and you don't know what you are talking about.


----------



## munch box (Dec 30, 2007)

tahoe. why do you say that changing lumen/intensity is more important than changing spectral properties? Are you telling me that force feeding a thousands of lumens to a plant in a spectrum that the plant doesn't use to make food is benificial? Lets say you have an 400w HPS lit up its giving off mostly yellow, orange, and red spectrum.canibus ONLY USES part of the spectrum. Mostly red. as for the yellow spectrum, the plant does NOT use this light to make food AT ALL no matter how powerful it is. Its "wasted" energy.If what you are saying is true, then how come Incanscent lights are so bad for growing? They give off plenty of Lumens, but very little usable light.


----------



## natmoon (Dec 30, 2007)

munch box said:


> tahoe. why do you say that changing lumen/intensity is more important than changing spectral properties? Are you telling me that force feeding a thousands of lumens to a plant in a spectrum that the plant doesn't use to make food is benificial? Lets say you have an 400w HPS lit up its giving off mostly yellow, orange, and red spectrum.canibus ONLY USES part of the spectrum. Mostly red. as for the yellow spectrum, the plant does NOT use this light to make food AT ALL no matter how powerful it is. Its "wasted" energy.If what you are saying is true, then how come Incanscent lights are so bad for growing? They give off plenty of Lumens, but very little usable light.


You can grow weed in the light of a fireplace it wont do well but it will grow,the bigger the fire the better it will do.
Your the one who doesn't understand what he is talking about and a plant will adapt to the available light as would a human to the available food sources.
Now remove your post slagging me off or i will post your messages for all to see what a prick you really are


----------



## munch box (Dec 30, 2007)

natmoon said:


> And i am calling you out for being an asswipe.
> Retract your comments or i will post the pms that you sent me about skunky.
> You misinterpret everything and jump to conclusions and you don't know what you are talking about.


Your statement was clear, and there is very little room for misunderstanding. If don't know then please explain it to me. That is, if you can without confusing yourself. Go ahead and post all that skunky shit, I've got nothing to hide. This is hardly the forum to do so, but if you feel the need for all that. then do it


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 30, 2007)

thanks MB.....I agree theree are portions of the spectrum that are not as useful as the blue and red portions. My comments are limited to the range of spectrum that the plant does use....i.e., by changing the spectrum from blue to red or vice versa will not make as much of a difference as improving the overall lumen and intensity from say 250W to 600W. the plants under identical "other" conditions will grow better with more light energy directed as either blue or red than a change between blue and/or red light will have at the same intensity.


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 30, 2007)

Nat & MB .... please take this somewhere else.....I am most interested in progressing our debate and discussion....I would prefer that this communication be kept separate. thanks. 


psyclone said:


> natmoon said:
> 
> 
> > You can grow weed in the light of a fireplace it wont do well but it will grow,the bigger the fire the better it will do.
> ...


----------



## natmoon (Dec 30, 2007)

munch box said:


> Your statement was clear, and there is very little room for misunderstanding. If don't know then please explain it to me. That is, if you can without confusing yourself. Go ahead and post all that skunky shit, I've got nothing to hide. This is hardly the forum to do so, but if you feel the need for all that. then do it


Just proving that your a lil prick really who don't know what hes talking about,slagging me of because i wouldn't look at your thread when you send me pms saying that skunky is sending people some kind of smear material about me and i find out its all a big lie that you made up to get attention for yourself.
Now your trying to make me angry by stalking me and posting more shit about me into a decent conversation.
I think that you will find that pming saying that skunk is doing this and that talking about me behind me back and sending people shit when he wasn't will make skunky pretty damn angry.
I would be careful if i were you


----------



## munch box (Dec 30, 2007)

So you are saying that if I veg under HPS and flower with a MH that I would get the same results if I were to veg w/ MH and flower w/ HPS?


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 30, 2007)

I do not mean to say that.....If I am understanding this discussion correctly, the question to me is what attribute makes a more significant difference in observed growth? - lumens/intensity or spectrum. if you have a situation where you have the exact same plants (clones) and they are grown in 250W vs 600W (say for example MH) the measureable growth differential between the two scenarios would be a greater measureable differential than between 2 grows side by side of the same plants but one in under blue and the other under red of the same lumens. So it is the growth differential observed by the same plants when lumens/intensity are changed versus the growth differential when the specturm is changed. I believe the growth differential from lumens/intensity change would be greater than the growth differential from a spectral change.


----------



## munch box (Dec 30, 2007)

I see what your saying, but what is your control? How can you compare 2 things together that are measured differently? How many extra lumens do you give a plant before you decide that it is equal to the ammount of change in color spectrum? The way you are saying the test is being done. you're not adding color spectum by switching color lights, then how are you adding color spectrum without adding lumens?


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 30, 2007)

I agree with you this is not as simple as I am putting forward. The fact that MH of the same wattage puts out less lumens than a similar HPS....and the fact that the plant veges better under MH and flowers better under HPS ...... so this does make it more complex than I am presenting.

I believe that by measuring solely the differential in growth...i.e., as measured by say dry weight from each plant.....then you effectively remove the uncertainty and the need for a control. 

In my example I take two plants the same and grow them under two lights (both MH or both HPS) but one is 250W and the other is 600W and get a dry weight differential between the production from each plant. Say one plant yeilded 2.5oz and the other 3.25oz.

Then two of the same plants again, and grow under the same wattage bulb (say 400W), and one is red spectrum and the other is blue spectrum. the dry weight differential again measured from final production.

I believe the the dry weight differential coming from the increased light intensity would be a greater number than the differential measured from the plants grown under red versus blue spectral bulbs. So, all else being equal, icreasing the intensity under which you grow will bring a bigger improvement in yeild than a smiple change from red to blue or vice versa.


----------



## psyclone (Dec 30, 2007)

People........Why Can't We all Just.............Get Along.....?

Actually the point in question for me is that more power (wattage) does not, these days, mean more light. There are as we all know low wattage LED lights available which have a tremendous light output, a three lamp full spectrum inc UVB array using I think about 55watts and with little tell tale heat waste.
I will constantly try to increase my light intensity (broad spectrum) while reducing the overall power consumed.


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 30, 2007)

totally agree....this is absoutley the case. With LEDs the highest lumen output I have seen is like 900 lumens....but you can certainly make up boards of broad spectrum and have a very cool grow system. I have been watching this for some time. I have a colleague that is doing a combined MH/HPS and LED setup right now....all very secret about it though.....cool experiments!



psyclone said:


> Actually the point in question for me is that more power (wattage) does not, these days, mean more light. There are as we all know low wattage LED lights available which have a tremendous light output, a three lamp full spectrum inc UVB array using I think about 55watts and with little tell tale heat waste.
> I will constantly try to increase my light intensity (broad spectrum) while reducing the overall power consumed.


----------



## munch box (Dec 30, 2007)

If all 900 LED lumens reach the plant, the plant should ba able to use ALL 900 to make food right? I know that a 400w HPS puts out 55,000 lumens. how many of these lumens does the plant actually use?


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 30, 2007)

there a graphs that have been prepared that shows the deterioration in light intensity...I'll see if I can dig it up.....good thoughts for sure though!


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 30, 2007)

I found an interesting book, Hydroponics Indoor Horticulture - has a really good section on light. in this he talksabout the depreciation of light intensity over distance - if starting with one lumen at 1 ft. from source becomes 1/4 at 2ft., 1/8 at 3ft., and 1/16 at 4 ft. In his examples - 1000W HPS with 140,000lumens at 1 ft., is at 4ft is less than 10,000lumens.

He goes on to say that in a room with an eight foot ceiling, and the light not suspended, the light hitting the floor is 1/64th the original intensity, and in his example at 100W HPS with 12,000 lumens eight feet away from your plant will give you the same intensity as being 1 ft. away from an incandescent blub at the floor level.


----------



## munch box (Dec 30, 2007)

These are the LED bulbs I have from gro-tek. LED Grow Lights Gro-Tek GroTec HID Hydroponic light Fluorescent leds Growing Metal halide MH growing indoorS indoors Ultraviolet Infrared light emitting diodes supposed to be top of the line, but i always just say "high end", cuz you never know. The thing about LEDs and the reason I buy so many (2044) is because they max out at out 720NM on the red end of the color spectrum. There is no other light that can do that. Even the new advanced T5s peak at only 635NM, which is higher than HPS by the way. On my next grow, which will be my first ONLINE grow ever by the way, I will be using a MH bulb the entire grow. Rather than use an HPS bulb for flowering I am going to try it with a MH for UVB, as well as a bud hardner (humboldt's gravity) to get the dense buds HPS would provide. The red end of the color spectrum that my plant loves so much during the flower cycle will be supplamented by LEDs. What do you think Tahoe? would that get me the UVB I need?


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 30, 2007)

I like you thoughts about the red spectrum stuff from the LEDs. I think your setup should prove to be quite productive. I would have to go looking for one of the original posts in this thread.....but essentially it talked about from a "quality" perspective....an MH bulb actually had better results that using the HPS. I have come to believe that the flood towards HPS has been fdriven b y the spped and yeild objectives of commercial growers. It has been stated that MH does have some UVB and this is also one of the reasons for the better results.

As I have stated....my intent is to at some point in the near future go with MH in vege and in flower - 2 MH (100W) and 1 HPS (250W) and supplemented with UVB (MegaRay 160W) or when the UVB LEDs are ready then those.....but I believe you are on the same or similar train of thought....


----------



## munch box (Dec 30, 2007)

Thats a good find tahoe. It is important to get your lights as close as possable. Not to loose any lumens that the plant could be using. Thats why even when growing in large rooms people are using in-line coolable light reflectors.lights are able to get much closer to the plant when heat is not a problem.


----------



## munch box (Dec 30, 2007)

Some people think that the use of high pressure sodium (HPS) light as a sole source of lighting has resulted in unconscious selection for lower THC parents during breeding. This theory is based on the assumption that ultraviolet light is a large causal factor in the plants production of THC. As HPS lights produce little in the way of UV, the lower potency plants could look the most vigorous in early selections (before flowering) as they would have a genetic advantage over high THC plants (less wasted energy).
Anyone that has ever seen a mixed light garden can testify that the healthiest, most crystallized buds occur where the two spectrums overlap.As metal halide bulbs emit a fair amount of UV while HPS emit almost none. Most growers employing halides in conjunction with HPS do so at a 2:1 HPS:halide ratio. Many growers, especially those restricted to one light, have been having good success using one of the new enhanced metal halide bulbs such as Sunmaster(what I use), which have a more balanced spectrum than either sodium or regular halide alone.
Also,I have heard but not tested the theory that Quartz glass will allow the most uvb to go through. Although manufacturers don't put them on reflector hoods.


----------



## potroast (Dec 31, 2007)

Ah, yes, Metal Halides used all the way through, including flowering.


Just like 25 years ago, when M/H was all we had.


----------



## munch box (Dec 31, 2007)

I'm worried that leaving one of those lizard reptile lights on 4 hours and then off will turn my plants into hermaphrodites. Geez how many mods does riu have?


----------



## munch box (Dec 31, 2007)

potroast said:


> Ah, yes, Metal Halides used all the way through, including flowering.
> 
> Just like 25 years ago, when M/H was all we had.


Lol. I'd like to think that MH bulbs, not to mention ballasts have come a LONG way since the 1980's.


----------



## Smoke2Live420 (Dec 31, 2007)

munch box said:


> I'm worried that leaving one of those lizard reptile lights on 4 hours and then off will turn my plants into hermaphrodites. Geez how many mods does riu have?


what makes that light different from any other light?


----------



## psyclone (Dec 31, 2007)

LED Grow Lights - Range Check this out for trick lighting boys.


----------



## munch box (Dec 31, 2007)

Smoke2Live420 said:


> what makes that light different from any other light?


You misoverstood what I wrote. Its not type of light that concerns me, its the fact that I would be introducing my plant to irregular light cycles. I don't know this to be true, it is only a concern of mine. Is a UVB light strong enouph to confuse the plant (during flowering)into thinking it has missed its chance to reproduce? And if so will the plant in one last ditch effort to continue its species, begin to produce seeds?


----------



## psyclone (Dec 31, 2007)

It did not give my plants a problem, though this was in late flowering. Who minds a seed or two anyway? Could be the gift of a unique strain. I grow every seed I get on the off chance.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 31, 2007)

munch box said:


> You misoverstood what I wrote. Its not type of light that concerns me, its the fact that I would be introducing my plant to irregular light cycles. I don't know this to be true, it is only a concern of mine. Is a UVB light strong enouph to confuse the plant (during flowering)into thinking it has missed its chance to reproduce? And if so will the plant in one last ditch effort to continue its species, begin to produce seeds?


If the light isn't strong enough to affect the plant then it isn't worth using.


----------



## munch box (Dec 31, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> If the light isn't strong enough to affect the plant then it isn't worth using.


sorry did i say affect? I meant confuse


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 31, 2007)

You did say confuse... but on a deeper level this is the same thing as affect. 

I don't believe plants can get confused. they just respond to any given situation/environment in whatever way the environment demands.

Hermaphroditism isn't brought on by confusion it is brought on by stress. 

A female cannabis plant is stressed anyway due to unpollination... the further flowering goes the more stressed they get. So unstable light periods or any other type of stress can lead the plant to hermaphroditism dependent upon any given plants leaning towards hermaphroditism. Some plants are more prone than others, this depends also on the genetic code given to them by their parents, and their parents before them etc...

So long as the light is useable by the plant, it will use it. I don't see how giving the plant more useable light will lead to stress. The extra heat factor maybe, but this should be a consideration and steps taken to counter it anyway.

Even if you only want to give the plants 4 hours UV per day, this would not count as flickering light schedules... as it would be only the UV light that is turned off. The plants main source of light would still be there.


----------



## munch box (Dec 31, 2007)

look close at this question. 
"Is a UVB light strong enouph to confuse the plant (during flowering)into thinking it has missed its chance to reproduce? "
I can more closely relate the word "confuse" with "stress", than i could "affect". 

your right, stress is what I was refering to. And I'm almost sure your right about it not being a large enouph light source that it will cause hermaphrodites, but if it were I think the reason would be this... There are many ways to stress a plant. some stress good, some stress bad. but the bottom line is canibus plants are sun worshipers. They do what light tells them to do.And if irregular lighting were to tell the plant "grow season is almost over". Then some strains of canibus might say, "oh shit, i better fertalize myself". How much light does your UVB put out?


----------



## skunkushybrid (Dec 31, 2007)

Cannabis is not that clever, it uses photoperiod to determine seasonal change. The sun is ever changing and plants must have an inbuilt adaption mechanism to change with the different levels of spectrum the plants will receive. Also the environment is ever changing and one male pollen will not always end up in a similar environment from which it came. So the plants must have a natural adaptation to receiving differing light sources and spectrums. Which can also be witnessed from indoor grows, for example cannabis will quite happily grow all the way through with either the red or blue spectrum.

It is photoperiod in terms of light and darkness hours that determine how the plant knows when it is time to flower. There is only one trigger, and for most strains this is a dark period of 11 hours.

Even by giving the plant slightly less light hours during veg' to attempt to try and 'trick' the plant into believing autumn is on the way will fall on deaf ears. The plant cannot understand this concept, all it knows is that once 11 hours dark has come then flowering begins. Like I said, cannabis cannot be too complex, and is not that clever.


----------



## psyclone (Dec 31, 2007)

...Got to agree with the above. PEOPLE ..It's a weed... WAAAY back in the 70's my Mum knew a couple with a farm in Suffolk, both of them big fans of the drug. They planted out among the crops and along quiet hedgerows-yes it self seeded, and in a big, big way. Became something of an embarrasment in the end. Nature finds a way......


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 31, 2007)

cool story psyclone...yea....nature is an amazing thing.....resilience, intent and purpose......going forward when al else stumbles and falls. One example that is very illustrative to me is the rehabilitation of the Mt. St. Helens eruption and devastation....but then 4.5B years of practice should probably have provided some refinement to the process of acquiring food water light and sex....hahahahaha! 


psyclone said:


> ...Got to agree with the above. PEOPLE ..It's a weed... WAAAY back in the 70's my Mum knew a couple with a farm in Suffolk, both of them big fans of the drug. They planted out among the crops and along quiet hedgerows-yes it self seeded, and in a big, big way. Became something of an embarrasment in the end. Nature finds a way......


----------



## munch box (Dec 31, 2007)

skunkushybrid said:


> Cannabis is not that clever, it uses photoperiod to determine seasonal change. The sun is ever changing and plants must have an inbuilt adaption mechanism to change with the different levels of spectrum the plants will receive. Also the environment is ever changing and one male pollen will not always end up in a similar environment from which it came. So the plants must have a natural adaptation to receiving differing light sources and spectrums. Which can also be witnessed from indoor grows, for example cannabis will quite happily grow all the way through with either the red or blue spectrum.
> 
> It is photoperiod in terms of light and darkness hours that determine how the plant knows when it is time to flower. There is only one trigger, and for most strains this is a dark period of 11 hours.
> 
> Even by giving the plant slightly less light hours during veg' to attempt to try and 'trick' the plant into believing autumn is on the way will fall on deaf ears. The plant cannot understand this concept, all it knows is that once 11 hours dark has come then flowering begins. Like I said, cannabis cannot be too complex, and is not that clever.


I was not implying that cannabis is clever. What I was refering to is natural tendencies. My puppy likes to hump the corner of my couch. Would you call that clever? 
Do not attempt to apply or simulate UVB in an indoor environment using expensive and powerful UVB emitting lamps. It is near impossible to cover the entire exposed surface area of the plant EVENLY with the correct levels of UVB light using these UVB lamps anyway. They are only useful in industrial applications such as drying paint very fast &#8211; like they do in the automobile industries. When used in these industries the operators MUST wear full bodied protective clothing and they are adjusted with an effective &#8216;strike zone&#8217; that is measured in 1 to 2 inch increments away from the bulb. &#8216;Strike zone&#8217; meaning the area away from the lamp at which we require a predetermined level of UVB to be emitted onto. &#8216;IN OTHER WORDS&#8217;, if adjusted for a strike zone that is 3 feet away from the lamp to have an intensity of 250microWatts per square inch, then the area which is only 1 foot past that may be getting as little as 30microWatts per square foot. So it&#8217;s impossible to EVENLY cover the plant all over given that the plant has curvature&#8230; as too does the lamps lighting output emit itself from the lamp in a radial manner. I have looked into what it would take to make it possible to have the right amounts of UVB indoors using UVB lamps and it is simply not feasible. UVA is not worth considering as it is not the correct wavelength of light we are seeking for full activation of the resin. UV fluorescent lamps are in effect UVA emitters and emit minute levels of UVB, and some emit no UVB at all. The closest your going to get your UVB light to emit that of the sun -you would need to get in the 240-300nm athwart radiation range. Natural UVB is the key for more THC


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 31, 2007)

I find this post arrogant and just plain annoying. there are assumptions that are reflective of a general sense that you truly do know it all. Well, the reality is quite different and I will let you take the time to introspect a little, review and reassess the assumptions you have made and then respect this thread for a place where the tone you have presented does not belong. Thank you.



munch box said:


> I was not implying that cannabis is clever. What I was refuring to is natural tendencies. My puppy likes to hump the corner of my couch. Would you call that clever?
> Do not attempt to apply or simulate UVB in an indoor environment using expensive and powerful UVB emitting lamps. It is near impossible to cover the entire exposed surface area of the plant EVENLY with the correct levels of UVB light using these UVB lamps anyway. They are only useful in industrial applications such as drying paint very fast  like they do in the automobile industries. When used in these industries the operators MUST wear full bodied protective clothing and they are adjusted with an effective strike zone that is measured in 1 to 2 inch increments away from the bulb. Strike zone meaning the area away from the lamp at which we require a predetermined level of UVB to be emitted onto. IN OTHER WORDS, if adjusted for a strike zone that is 3 feet away from the lamp to have an intensity of 250microWatts per square inch, then the area which is only 1 foot past that may be getting as little as 30microWatts per square foot. So its impossible to EVENLY cover the plant all over given that the plant has curvature as too does the lamps lighting output emit itself from the lamp in a radial manner. I have looked into what it would take to make it possible to have the right amounts of UVB indoors using UVB lamps and it is simply not feasible. UVA is not worth considering as it is not the correct wavelength of light we are seeking for full activation of the resin. UV fluorescent lamps are in effect UVA emitters and emit minute levels of UVB, and some emit no UVB at all. The closest your going to get your UVB light to emit that of the sun -you would need to get in the 400nm athwart radiation range. Natural UVB is the key for more THC


----------



## munch box (Dec 31, 2007)

tahoe58 said:


> I find this post arrogant and just plain annoying. there are assumptions that are reflective of a general sense that you truly do know it all. Well, the reality is quite different and I will let you take the time to introspect a little, review and reassess the assumptions you have made and then respect this thread for a place where the tone you have presented does not belong. Thank you.


Ok tahoe then bring it. Your just a little punk bitch wannabe mod. getting pissed off for no reason. If this is not the appropriate thread to discuss and debate UVB THC and trichomes, then please direct me to the appropriate thread.


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 31, 2007)

in order to discuss and debate, there is a need for respect. your post showed none. start your own.


----------



## munch box (Dec 31, 2007)

How about I just take this thread over since clearly have had nothing to contribute since the very fist posting. Everything you've posted after that has been total bullshit. All I see you do is criticize me from the first post you've ever left on a thread of mine, after a kind pm invitation for your insight on an air flow issue, you accepted it only to insult me. Then and now.I give respect, when shown respect. Maybe you're just a sensative short guy, with a short way of thinking.


----------



## tahoe58 (Dec 31, 2007)

you are correct, I am a sensitive guy and have a short way of thinking. my apologies if this does not fit with your expectation of me.


----------



## Harkin (Dec 31, 2007)

munch box said:


> Ok tahoe then bring it. Your just a little punk bitch wannabe mod. getting pissed off for no reason. If this is not the appropriate thread to discuss and debate UVB THC and trichomes, then please direct me to the appropriate thread.


Oi have respect. go smoke a joint and chill


----------



## Lord Dangly Bits (Dec 31, 2007)

WOW!!!!!! I have not read this thread in a while now. As I read what I missed, I have found that there is one stupid SOB flapping bull shit from his lips.

Lets think about how Nature works, boys and girls. The sun rises low in the the sky, the light is filter through longer distance of atmosphere. this filters out some of the light. as the sun reaches noon the light has more strength, lumens, different strengths of light spectrums. Then as the sun starts to set it once again goes back through its changes. so how the hell would adding another light during your "on" light cycle, hermie or confuse your plant. Also, there is UVB light in nature, so how would adding this light hurt your plant. AND NOT AT INDUSTRIAL STRENGTH!!!!!!!!!!!!! One more thing, uneven light on the plant.. HOW THE "F" IS THIS GOING TO HERMIE YOUR PLANT!!!!. Who the hell thinks a plant has even lighting all day long in nature. 

I think somone is Hemiephobic.

Step away from the gene pool, and no one gets hurt!!!!!


----------



## Lord Dangly Bits (Dec 31, 2007)

Some people just can not understand something new. But hey, who is to say for sure that a little UVB light will help..


----------



## munch box (Dec 31, 2007)

Lord Dangly Bits said:


> WOW!!!!!! I have not read this thread in a while now. As I read what I missed, I have found that there is one stupid SOB flapping bull shit from his lips.
> 
> Lets think about how Nature works, boys and girls. The sun rises low in the the sky, the light is filter through longer distance of atmosphere. this filters out some of the light. as the sun reaches noon the light has more strength, lumens, different strengths of light spectrums. Then as the sun starts to set it once again goes back through its changes. so how the hell would adding another light during your "on" light cycle, hermie or confuse your plant. Also, there is UVB light in nature, so how would adding this light hurt your plant. AND NOT AT INDUSTRIAL STRENGTH!!!!!!!!!!!!! One more thing, uneven light on the plant.. HOW THE "F" IS THIS GOING TO HERMIE YOUR PLANT!!!!. Who the hell thinks a plant has even lighting all day long in nature.
> 
> ...


Is this the advanced cultivation forum? Because I love how when you tell me I'm wrong you give me a half ass 3rd grader explanation. You have misread and misquoted me on everything. Claim to know me and things about me your full of shit. If you don't know how UVB rays can hurt your plant then you are WAY ahead of yourself on this thread. Your mouth is moving faster than your brain, and you truly are an ignorant person.winning an arguement with you(lord dangly tits) is like winning the special olympics. Even if you win, your still a retard. so drop it your not worth my time.


----------



## Lord Dangly Bits (Dec 31, 2007)

Ok Fuck it. Boot me if you must. But I must say this. MUNCH BOX, you are about the stupidist mother fucker I have ever came across. The smartiest thing you could ever do would be to shut your dam mouth and never open it again.


----------



## Lord Dangly Bits (Dec 31, 2007)

Check this thread out.. LMAO.. Munch box has not even started his first ever grow. He is all talk and no WALK..

Walk on Mother Fucker!!!!!

https://www.rollitup.org/grow-room-design-setup/38345-stealth-grow-box-cool-waste.html


----------



## Lord Dangly Bits (Dec 31, 2007)

Munch Box, admitt it, You know nothing about growing weed, because you are still a child living with your parents, and have not even had a crop yet.

Also, I have gotten 4 private messages so far thanking me for telling you to SHUT THE FUCK UP, LOSER!!!!

You know what they say, you are what you eat, so that must be why you are such a BIG DICK.....


----------



## skunkushybrid (Jan 1, 2008)

munch box said:


> I was not implying that cannabis is clever. What I was refering to is natural tendencies. My puppy likes to hump the corner of my couch. Would you call that clever?
> Do not attempt to apply or simulate UVB in an indoor environment using expensive and powerful UVB emitting lamps. It is near impossible to cover the entire exposed surface area of the plant EVENLY with the correct levels of UVB light using these UVB lamps anyway. They are only useful in industrial applications such as drying paint very fast  like they do in the automobile industries. When used in these industries the operators MUST wear full bodied protective clothing and they are adjusted with an effective strike zone that is measured in 1 to 2 inch increments away from the bulb. Strike zone meaning the area away from the lamp at which we require a predetermined level of UVB to be emitted onto. IN OTHER WORDS, if adjusted for a strike zone that is 3 feet away from the lamp to have an intensity of 250microWatts per square inch, then the area which is only 1 foot past that may be getting as little as 30microWatts per square foot. So its impossible to EVENLY cover the plant all over given that the plant has curvature as too does the lamps lighting output emit itself from the lamp in a radial manner. I have looked into what it would take to make it possible to have the right amounts of UVB indoors using UVB lamps and it is simply not feasible. UVA is not worth considering as it is not the correct wavelength of light we are seeking for full activation of the resin. UV fluorescent lamps are in effect UVA emitters and emit minute levels of UVB, and some emit no UVB at all. The closest your going to get your UVB light to emit that of the sun -you would need to get in the 400nm athwart radiation range. Natural UVB is the key for more THC


Whatare you talking about now? Are you still suggesting that giving your plants UV will make them hermie?

Maybe if you left it too late, and only used the light during flower, then maybe you would be adding to the plants stress slightly... but, if UVB is a precurser to THC then this is the chemical that should be produced during the stress.

I feel that a tolerance to UV must be given to the plants during vegetation. You're quite right, to dry paint. Here's what a plant looks like after 17 days UV on 24/0, this is with UV as the plant's sole light source.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Jan 1, 2008)

I should also add that the 300w UV bulb is a mere 9" away from the tops of the plants.


----------



## psyclone (Jan 1, 2008)

Thats as healthy a plant as you would want to see. I get that leaf curl in the early vegging stage under normal lighting. Are you going to take it through to the end under UV? If so are you planning to add, for example other parts of the UV spectrum during flowering? (I am thinking tanning ray myself, high noon time)
Nice work.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Jan 1, 2008)

Yes thanks psyclone, they've had their fair share of trauma along the way, all my fault and down to my inexperience with the light. They were both severely burned at one point too after I left the fan off by mistake.

I expected them to be dead by now, so I'm not sure what i'm doing with them yet.


----------



## Lord Dangly Bits (Jan 1, 2008)

Hey!!! where is Butt Muncher????


----------



## tahoe58 (Jan 1, 2008)

hey Skunk....I'm interested if you might post a couple of new pics...? thanks! I am intrigued at the progress you have seen....through the challenges....good work!


----------



## nongreenthumb (Jan 1, 2008)

What we gotta do, is we gotta get two samples of weed, one that has had uvb and one that hasn't.

Then you gotta do a massive bong or something, at like 7am, then you gotta time how long it stops for you to feel stoned.

Which ever one lasts the longest has to be the strongest.


----------



## tahoe58 (Jan 1, 2008)

hey NGT....I knew we were making this al too complex....simple resolution......hahahahahaha....I like it, and HNY to ya NGT! walk on man!


----------



## crazy-mental (Jan 1, 2008)

skunkushybrid said:


> Whatare you talking about now? Are you still suggesting that giving your plants UV will make them hermie?
> 
> Maybe if you left it too late, and only used the light during flower, then maybe you would be adding to the plants stress slightly... but, if UVB is a precurser to THC then this is the chemical that should be produced during the stress.
> 
> I feel that a tolerance to UV must be given to the plants during vegetation. You're quite right, to dry paint. Here's what a plant looks like after 17 days UV on 24/0, this is with UV as the plant's sole light source.


8 days from seeds,packet, also grown under the same conditions.
strain. 4 ak48 and 4 d.poison. also 24/0.

View attachment 51601


----------



## skunkushybrid (Jan 1, 2008)

What I did notice, right at the beginning, was that it took much longer for the tri-leaves to develop than is usual under mh. Usually the tri-leaves develop almost straight after the first set of true leaves... but with these they didn't. There was a delay of a few days.

Either this was the plants getting used to or adapting to the UV or having the light too faraway and causing the stretch did it. Another factor to consider is that this lamp takes 90 hours to calm down to a regular light source. So the plants would have had different levels of UV throughout the first 90 hours.

One plant is clearly showing female growth characteristics and the other is showing male.


----------



## tahoe58 (Jan 1, 2008)

hey skunk...thanks for the additional detail. 

You mention some thoughts about why you have obsesrved what you did. may it also be that is the indiviudal nature of "that" seed? a slower developer (at first).....anyhow really interesting. thanks again.


skunkushybrid said:


> What I did notice, right at the beginning, was that it took much longer for the tri-leaves to develop than is usual under mh. Usually the tri-leaves develop almost straight after the first set of true leaves... but with these they didn't. There was a delay of a few days.
> 
> Either this was the plants getting used to or adapting to the UV or having the light too faraway and causing the stretch did it. Another factor to consider is that this lamp takes 90 hours to calm down to a regular light source. So the plants would have had different levels of UV throughout the first 90 hours.
> 
> One plant is clearly showing female growth characteristics and the other is showing male.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Jan 1, 2008)

tahoe58 said:


> hey skunk...thanks for the additional detail.
> 
> You mention some thoughts about why you have obsesrved what you did. may it also be that is the indiviudal nature of "that" seed? a slower developer (at first).....anyhow really interesting. thanks again.


Yes, that is another consideration. The genetics of the seed is questionable. they are White Label Afghan Kush. 

Although since then growth rate has been normal... except the male. The male has chosen to grow a second set of 5-fingered leaves whereas the female has gone from 5 straight to 7.


----------



## tahoe58 (Jan 1, 2008)

cool....being able to watch and track so intimitaley the ever changes details.....I can't remember if I mentioned, but my BigBud (one of them) has produced 11 leaf fans.....they are so incredibly beautiful.....deep green and like velvet to touch......


----------



## munch box (Jan 2, 2008)

Although the person who started this thread is not interested in discussing the subject. I AM. Matter a fact, anybody who offers prospective on the UVB suject gets ridiculed by tahoe. It is my suspision that tahoe is a Narc trying to misinform his subscribers on the benefits of indoor UVB by way of placebo effect.In an attempt to rekindle the suject and provoke thought I have this to say...

Please keep in mind that I'm not an expert on Reptile lighting.... As far as I know there are 3 basic types of reptile lights. floro, cfl, and MV. 2 of these are not even worth mentioning (MV & cfl) and the 3rd one (floro) is too WEAK to have an effect on a descent RADIUS crop, but instead the SMALL fraction of a canopy.If you MUST buy one, get a long bulb (36" or longer) becasue the majority of the UVB the bulb produces comes from the middle, with not much coming from the sides. Also: the UVB in those weak reptile floros will disapate quickly over short distances.UVB rays don't travel fast and bounce around like UVA rays do. The top colas COULD be getting UVB, and at the same time 1 foot below and next to it will get almost nothing. If you do decide to buy one be sure that you are clear on the ACTUAL UVB output. When these lights advertise 10% UVB they are talking about 10% of the UV output is UVB. So if a lizard light puts out 20% UV and 10% of that is UVB ,then in actuallity your not really getting 10%.At the same time if a lizard light were to give out 40% UV and 6% of that is UVB then that would be the light emitting the most UVB. The last and most LEAST important reason is because most but not all lizard lights stop letting out UVB rays after about 6 months. The light may not be burnt out but its not doing its job either. There are many ways to stimulate the production of resin withOUT UVB. If you are growing in a room with plenty of space,no heat issues and u got $$$, I would recommend looking into suntan booth lights, or psoriasis treatment bulbs.The lizzard light in my view is not the most practical idea.


----------



## tahoe58 (Jan 2, 2008)

your view and anyone else's is always welcome. your disrespect or anyone else's is not.


----------



## munch box (Jan 2, 2008)

Anyways back to the subject .Marijuana man explains why pot is not as strong today as it was 10 years ago, And what role UVB plays in that.watch the video. YouTube - THC, UVB and Me


----------



## skunkushybrid (Jan 2, 2008)

tahoe is right. your disrespect is not welcome...

The marijuana man thing is old news... and we don't appreciate links to that site here. There are links within these threads.

You might also want to read 'The Evolution Of The Trichome' thread, where the marijuana man link was given a couple of times. We are well beyond anything you have brought up so far munch box, i suggest you go back and read these threads from the beginning.


----------



## sgtpeppr (Jan 2, 2008)

skunkushybrid said:


> tahoe is right. your disrespect is not welcome...
> 
> The marijuana man thing is old news... and we don't appreciate links to that site here. There are links within these threads.
> 
> You might also want to read 'The Evolution Of The Trichome' thread, where the marijuana man link was given a couple of times. We are well beyond anything you have brought up so far munch box, i suggest you go back and read these threads from the beginning.


Does this qualify for Garden Knowm's "You've Been Bitchslapped" tag??


----------



## munch box (Jan 2, 2008)

sgtpeppr said:


> Does this qualify for Garden Knowm's "You've Been Bitchslapped" tag??


Good question. Do you and I have a problem skunk? were you venting disrespect ? i need to know before i type my next post...


----------



## Lord Dangly Bits (Jan 2, 2008)

Listen Butt Muncher, You are disrespectful of others in almost every thread you are in. BUT!!! I am not perfect, I also have flung a little crap also. But you seem to do it with joy, and most of the time what you have to say is so stupid.
Lets recapp a few things you have said. UVB light will hermie a plant. Un even light will hermie a plant. As I said before,, you seem to be a Hermiephobic.... I DID NOT SAY HOMOPHOBIC!!!!!!!! If UVB light made plants turn hermie, then a lot of plants in nature would be Hermies. Also even more plants in nature would be hermies, because almost none of them get even light. 
Maybe this UVB light will hurt the plant in some way. Heck no one has really done a study on it. I have bought a simple 8% UVB light to give it a try, and you bashed me for it. (I do think I shouldn't have bought such a strong UVB light)

You try high-jacking other peoples threads with your repeated stupid questions about your messed up cabinet grow, and when politely asked not to, you bash them. 

This statement alone I feel should get you banded, plus it shows you know nothing about UVB lights. Mine puts out 8% UVB of the total light out put.



munch box said:


> Although the person who started this thread is not interested in discussing the subject. I AM. Matter a fact, anybody who offers prospective on the UVB suject gets ridiculed by tahoe. It is my suspision that tahoe is a Narc trying to misinform his subscribers on the benefits of indoor UVB by way of placebo effect.In an attempt to rekindle the suject and provoke thought I have this to say...
> 
> Please keep in mind that I'm not an expert on Reptile lighting.... the UVB in those weak reptile floros will disapate quickly over short distances.UVB rays don't travel fast and bounce around like UVA rays do. The top colas COULD be getting UVB, and at the same time 1 foot below and next to it will get almost nothing. If you do decide to buy one be sure that you are clear on the ACTUAL UVB output. When these lights advertise 10% UVB they are talking about 10% of the UV output is UVB. So if a lizard light puts out 20% UV and 10% of that is UVB ,then in actuallity your not really getting 10%.At the same time if a lizard light were to give out 40% UV and 6% of that is UVB then that would be the light emitting the most UVB. The last and most LEAST important reason is because most but not all lizard lights stop letting out UVB rays after about 6 months. The light may not be burnt out but its not doing its job either. There are many ways to stimulate the production of resin withOUT UVB. If you are growing in a room with plenty of space,no heat issues and u got $$$, I would recommend looking into suntan booth lights, or psoriasis treatment bulbs.The lizzard light in my view is not the most practical idea.


----------



## munch box (Jan 2, 2008)

I NEVER said that UVB lights would turn a plant hermie. you're lieing, you misquote me. And trying to win an arguement with you is like winning the special olympics, even if you win your still a retard. Your always talking about banning people. If you spent half the time talking about growing as you do talking shit maybe you would learn something. Go ahead tell RollitUp. I'm sure it won't be the first time you beg him to ban somebody.snitch


----------



## Lord Dangly Bits (Jan 2, 2008)

What ever, just go back to you fake cabinet grow, which has no plants and stay away from the grown ups....


----------



## Lord Dangly Bits (Jan 2, 2008)

HEY TAHOE!!!!!!!! If you are an under cover NARC.... I can think of no one nicer to come bust me....

Other then Kind Princess, or Asiankate or someone like that.....


----------



## munch box (Jan 2, 2008)

Lord Dangly Bits said:


> HEY TAHOE!!!!!!!! If you are an under cover NARC.... I can think of no one nicer to come bust me....
> 
> Other then Kind Princess, or Asiankate or someone like that.....


Its amazing how you were able to say all that with his dick in your mouth. And yes, Narcs can be VERY nice.


----------



## Lord Dangly Bits (Jan 2, 2008)

Muncher, you sure talk about people having Gay sex a lot. Why is this? please tell us?


----------



## Lord Dangly Bits (Jan 2, 2008)

Ok, Munch Box. I am tired of you now. I will be ignoreing you from now on. So burn and trash all you want. One of these days everyone will be ignoring you.

OH Happy day!
OH Happy dayyyyy!!!!!!!! come on, sing along...

By the way, Muncher, do not waste your time sending me private messages. I am not even wasting my time reading them. You want to try and flex your chest with me, then do it here. Private with you is just out of the word. Can you say exit only!!!!!

OH!!! By the way. Butt Muncher is the one licking his lips. This is why he is always talking about gay sex.


----------



## psyclone (Jan 3, 2008)

This is just silly. I do not know this site very well. Would it be possible for people who are ACTUALLY experimenting with/using UV in any of it's forms to send me a private message so we can swap experiences, maybe? 
I am sorry Tahoe et al. Good strong thread, but this girl school shit is not fun.


----------



## psyclone (Jan 3, 2008)

End Of Message


----------



## skunkushybrid (Jan 3, 2008)

righty then... back to serious business, and here it is. This pic' is of a couple of pieces of paper from a small notepad I leave in the grow area to make notes on plant growth.

The original colour is luminous orange. After just 3-5 days we can see that where the paper has been exposed to the UV the colour has been stripped. These pieces of paper were around 2.5 ft from the lamp, my plants are a mere 9 inches away.


----------



## psyclone (Jan 3, 2008)

...And the plants are still strong?


----------



## skunkushybrid (Jan 3, 2008)

psyclone said:


> ...And the plants are still strong?


Yes. They hit 21 days veg' today.


----------



## tahoe58 (Jan 3, 2008)

hey folks.......we're talking business again....whew.....good.

Psyclone - I totally understand....no apologies necessary. I hope you are able to find the connection you need.

Skunk - interesting eh? 21 days vege - how do they compare to other grows? size, robustness, colour, etc?


----------



## psyclone (Jan 3, 2008)

Is cool. Lets get empirical, practical work done with results we can see using systems that are affordable and available to us. We are not all rocket scientists, but we have nice little labs. Lets work them. 
Happy new year and bumper crops all round


----------



## tahoe58 (Jan 3, 2008)

hey Psyclone.....thats the opportunity (and challenge) that has been presented. we have the goods, a few braincells left and onwards we go. My circumstance will mean I will not be doing anything out of the current status until at least May. This is my first indoor grow and should finish up here is a few mre weeks? and then I get prepared for my dream of a lifetime, a month in Australia (east coast beaches to the rainforest), myself, my pack, my camera, and my binocs, and a strong sense of adventure and exploration. I am schedule back in early May though I am thinking I might just stay a little longer....we'll see.....I have never been away from my kids for a whole month......I love my kids! but this is dad's 50th birthday present to himself.....as is the grow set up......what FUN!

So I'll be rerring to go into the summer months...in the meantime, I look forward to some of these other current experiments show some valuable feedback on this topic.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Jan 3, 2008)

tahoe58 said:


> Skunk - interesting eh? 21 days vege - how do they compare to other grows? size, robustness, colour, etc?


funny you should say that because I started some NL seeds over a week afterwards, and they have almost caught up in size and nodes.

Although i have said earlier in this thread (i think) that there was a hesitation between the first set of true leaves and the tri-leaves appearing. I'm not sure if the gap is long enough on its own to account for the difference between the AK and the NL.

This doesn't mean that I can't find out. I have so far logged quite a lot of information. So it's a simple matter of going back and checking. As soon as I figure out the time scales I'll let you know.


----------



## tahoe58 (Jan 3, 2008)

thanks man....yea...now I remember you saying that....and you thought at the time that you didn't know what over effect it might have....maybe thats what ur seeing? excellent and thanks for the update....


----------



## munch box (Jan 3, 2008)

skunkushybrid said:


> tahoe is right. your disrespect is not welcome...
> 
> The marijuana man thing is old news... and we don't appreciate links to that site here. There are links within these threads.
> 
> You might also want to read 'The Evolution Of The Trichome' thread, where the marijuana man link was given a couple of times. We are well beyond anything you have brought up so far munch box, i suggest you go back and read these threads from the beginning.


Your condescending remarks has left me no choice but to expose your ignorance.Yes you're right the marijuana man thing is old news. But I'm sure a lot of people havn't seen it yet. Not everybody has the time to search threads and make 5000 posts like you do. I guarentee you somebody clicked that link and had something to learn from it. the only information that had already been gone over is the suggestion of the suntan bulbs.Other than that I offered facts that people can beneift from, including you.cheap shot. If you (skunk) are "way beyond anything i've brought up" than how come your using a piece of shit mercury vapor 300w UVB bulb? You can get the same UVB out put for 250 less watts using a floro tube.Let me guess, tahoe told you to buy it. all that other electricity is just producing expensive heat in a shitty spectrum. If your going to do it right why didn't you fetch a 40w floro UVB with a 175w MH lamp? like a good little doggy. use less electricity, for way better results. 4 months ago you created a thread https://www.rollitup.org/newbie-central/1272-trichomes.html . The purpose of that thread was asking poeple "when can i expect to start seeing trichomes?" So now(4 months later) your all of the sudden some type of trichome guru? Get a life. ANYBODY who thinks I'm just going to push over and let you shit on me is sadly mistaken. My beef is not with you skunk, stay out of my way.


----------



## Lord Dangly Bits (Jan 3, 2008)

Hey Tahoe, Didn't someone say that the 40 watt, 48" floro UVB light I bought was a waste of time and money, and that I would most likely Hermie my Plants.

Does anyone have a knife to cut the string on that Yo-Yo......


----------



## skunkushybrid (Jan 3, 2008)

I think that you'll find that thread is from 16 months ago... and my words speak for themselves.

My interest is not only in UVB but also UVA, which is the reason i chose a bulb that is high in both. If you'd read the thread you'd know this.

I don't care who your beef is, but when it starts ruining good threads and the status quo of the site then as a moderator it becomes my business.


----------



## munch box (Jan 3, 2008)

So what your telling me is that your MV bulb puts out precious UVA rays. So you go ahead and screw in a 300w light?


----------



## skunkushybrid (Jan 3, 2008)

munch box said:


> So what your telling me is that your MV bulb puts out precious UVA rays. So you go ahead and screw in a 300w light?


I've just told you. it's a 300w bulb that puts out higher UVA and UVB than anywhere found on earth... even after 3000 hours continuous use.

yes, i went ahead and screwed in a 300w light. Did I expect them to live? No. But they have, and have been vegetating under 300W UV for 21 days, today.


----------



## bwinn27 (Jan 3, 2008)

do you have any pics skunkushybrid?


----------



## skunkushybrid (Jan 3, 2008)

bwinn27 said:


> do you have any pics skunkushybrid?


Here's a pic' from yesterday...


----------



## bwinn27 (Jan 3, 2008)

thanks and is there water on some of the leaves or is that the plant? anyway its looking good how many grows do you have under your belt? and then ill stick to the topic sorry.


----------



## tahoe58 (Jan 3, 2008)

sumthin' like that......but then I'm the idiot....so I wouldn't put much value in anything I have to say.  box-cutters are coming FedEx...Sat delivery! 


Lord Dangly Bits said:


> Hey Tahoe, Didn't someone say that the 40 watt, 48" floro UVB light I bought was a waste of time and money, and that I would most likely Hermie my Plants.
> 
> Does anyone have a knife to cut the string on that Yo-Yo......


hey Skunk...thanks....21 days vege......the lower leaves....are they a little funky? that's a highly scientific term btw.....


skunkushybrid said:


> Here's a pic' from yesterday...


----------



## chabnock (Jan 3, 2008)

Hey Tahoe,

Nice Thread, makes me wonder what more we can do to make our product better. 

I have not been around for a while. When I come back, the first thread I read has some guy saying how other people are fucking each other in the ass and sucking dick and things. That and that people in here are NARCS. Is this what this site has become? Maybe i should go away for a while again.

CHILL DUDE!!!!! The world is not out to get you, but they might be if you keep up that attitude all the time.


----------



## tahoe58 (Jan 3, 2008)

hey CCB....go to hear from you. you been busy eh? hope you had a great holiday season....yea there been a little kurfuffle here....mostly just walk around it....sorry you had to find out through here that I was a NARC....I WAS gonna tell you...the time was just never just right........you doing any indoor? haope allelse is well!.....walk on man!


----------



## chabnock (Jan 3, 2008)

Dude, you even knew I was talking about you. I think everyone has been overly patent with you. I am amazed you are still allowed to post at all. All the terrible things you have said. And Calling people NARCS in a weed site.. WOW!!!!!! So far out of line. You sure you smoke weed? You sure you are not hitting a different kind of pipe? You seem very stressed, and full of hate. Just relax, take a big BONG hit and become one with the weed...........


----------



## munch box (Jan 3, 2008)

hey chabnock. why you being such an asshole? And skunk (MH = a lot of UVA)


----------



## psyclone (Jan 4, 2008)

Lunch Box. You let us know (with pictures) how your super stealthy LED grow works out - with notes on the spectrum if possible. I for one am deeply interested.
SKH is posting regular updates, with pics on what he is choosing to use, which, I take it is, like me what he can find, beg, borrow and if all else fails, buy as cheaply as possible. We seem to have speculated our way up our arses here-lets see you walk the walk.
I have grown my current batch from cuttings with CFL supplemented with actinic moonlight UVA. The mother plants are in the same light environment 18/6. my 16 SOG plants are under a 250watt combined sodium/mph with 2 cool 5' fluoros up the side.
I am going to suntan them in the flowering period with a home tanning array, because I found one at my local rubbish dump. I do not know if it will help or not. I just want to know why my indoor plants yield significantly less than my outdoor plants and I believe this thread may offer a clue. If enough people try enough things and share their experience. Let us see what you have to offer. Over and out Out To Lunch Box


----------



## psyclone (Jan 4, 2008)

And I think I may have been growing outdoor weed longer than you have walked this Planet.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Jan 4, 2008)

bwinn27 said:


> thanks and is there water on some of the leaves or is that the plant? anyway its looking good how many grows do you have under your belt? and then ill stick to the topic sorry.


Well i started on a commercial basis and was running 2 grows almost from the start. I started my own grow so that I could do experiments and carry the results over to the larger grow. I've grown in soil, DWC and now coco, I'm just a hobby grower now, and I can't honestly remember how many successful crops I've had through. I've never had an unsuccessful one.

The watery looking stuff on the leaves is where they were burned.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Jan 4, 2008)

munch box said:


> And skunk (MH = a lot of UVA)


What does this mean, are you saying I could get the same UVA output from a MH lamp? 

Could you sit for just 3 minutes a day rising up to 14 minutes by the end of day 7, not use the MH lamp for 4 weeks and still get a suntan?

Do the metal halides come with warnings about how long you spend around a lighted MH bulb?

No.

I think you need to take a look at this link: High UVB Mercury Vapour Lamps in Zoos - Osram Ultra-Vitalux - ReptileUV Zoo Mega-Ray test results


----------



## psyclone (Jan 4, 2008)

30+ years I have grown Grass, and it was not until I came to this site that I discovered that Resin Glands were correctly called Trichomes. Didn't mean that I didn't love and cherish those Resin Gands.......and wish their increase.


----------



## tahoe58 (Jan 4, 2008)

it is so totally fun to have the opportunity, to be provided the access and to have all these friends with such a breadth and depth of experience....hands on...in the water in the dirt....it is really a VERY special thing we all have here...


psyclone said:


> 30+ years I have grown Grass, and it was not until I came to this site that I discovered that Resin Glands were correctly called Trichomes. Didn't mean that I didn't love and cherish those Resin Gands.......and wish their increase.


----------



## munch box (Jan 4, 2008)

tahoe58 said:


> sumthin' like that......but then I'm the idiot....so I wouldn't put much value in anything I have to say.  box-cutters are coming FedEx...Sat delivery!


I'm going to let that one go by, I don't feel like argueing. Do it again though ,we can take this to round 3 whenever your ready. Just say the words


----------



## tahoe58 (Jan 4, 2008)

hahahaha.....you're the light of my day bud....I am to be so priviledged that ...let this noe go by.......hahahahahahaha......thanks....and I really thought I was in for it this time.....hahahahahahahaha....what a friggin' joke!


----------



## munch box (Jan 4, 2008)

ok. you said the words


----------



## munch box (Jan 4, 2008)

skunkushybrid said:


> What does this mean, are you saying I could get the same UVA output from a MH lamp?
> 
> Could you sit for just 3 minutes a day rising up to 14 minutes by the end of day 7, not use the MH lamp for 4 weeks and still get a suntan?
> 
> ...


 
MH lamps are strongly recommended not to be used in reptile aquariums because they produce massive ammounts of UVA and are harmful for the pet.I thought we were talking about UVA rays now. UVA rays are not what give you a suntan bro. With all due respect its UVB rays.....


----------



## tahoe58 (Jan 4, 2008)

I believe we are here in a "plant" forum......and that is different from an "animal" forum......ooohhh...sorry....that too is prolly beyond your mental capacity...my apologies.....and just in case you haven't started to read yet and research is foreign to you....uvb is not the only problem with uv spectra light.....to animals OR plants.

Twenty years ago virtually nothing was known about the effects of UVR on plants (Teramura 1986). Even today knowledge is principally limited to the effects on agricultural crops; little is known of the effects of UVR in other natural ecosystems such as forests, meadows, savannas, tundra and alpine areas (Tevini and Teramura 1989). 

The responses of plants to UV irradiation include physiological, biochemical, morphological and anatomical changes. Clearly more information is needed before a reliable assessment can be made on whether changes in ambient UVB are likely to affect significantly productivity. 

And regarding sunburn......Recent studies (Parrish et al 1982, Gange et al 1986) have extended determination of the erythema action spectrum up to 400 nm and have shown that the erythemal effectiveness of UVR decreases with increasing wavelength through the ultraviolet spectrum, although the rate of change of effectiveness is much less from 330 to 400 nm, than from 300 to 330 nm. 

A large number of published erythema action spectra were subject to statistical analysis and combined to produce the reference action spectrum (McKinlay and Diffey 1987). This action spectrum has been accepted by both the Commission Internationale de l'Eclairage (CIE) and the International Electrotechnical Committee (IEC), and has been shown to predict accurately the erythemal effectiveness of several polychromatic light sources differing greatly in spectral composition (Urbach 1987).

Although it can be seen that UVA radiation is much less erythmogenic than UVB radiation--broadly speaking by a factor of 1000--the much higher UVA irradiance present in sunlight means that in summertime UVA radiation contributes about 15-20% to the sunburn reaction.


----------



## munch box (Jan 4, 2008)

tahoe58 said:


> Although it can be seen that UVA radiation is much less erythmogenic than UVB radiation--broadly speaking by a factor of 1000--the much higher UVA irradiance present in sunlight means that in summertime UVA radiation contributes about 15-20% to the sunburn reaction.


Thankyou for proving what i was trying to say. Although your off by you percentages "15-20%" whats your resource? and what bulbs were used in these studies? Why don't you break down all those big science words smart guy. cuz I think I probly have a few questions after you do.your gay...


----------



## tahoe58 (Jan 4, 2008)

1 (one) bulb.....the big kahuna....


----------



## natmoon (Jan 4, 2008)

I wonder how many extra trics i could get from these if i had some uvb lamps.





And skunky can you tell me what happened to the 2 seedlings that you had under that uvb lamp?
Did you keep them or carry on with seeing what the death threshold was?
Did they seem to display any or more baby tric sites?
I am seriously interested and i may go out next week and get a facial tanner from argos and suspend it on bungie cords.


----------



## tahoe58 (Jan 4, 2008)

SKH posted a pic yresterday....its going well, though I believe overall growth is behind the other lights. 

the spectra of the facial and body tanning units that I have looked at are predominantly UVA and lessor amounts of UVB ..... I believe the most I have seen is 25% uvb in tanning lights....


----------



## natmoon (Jan 4, 2008)

tahoe58 said:


> SKH posted a pic yresterday....its going well, though I believe overall growth is behind the other lights.
> 
> the spectra of the facial and body tanning units that I have looked at are predominantly UVA and lessor amounts of UVB ..... I believe the most I have seen is 25% uvb in tanning lights....


Wheres the pic tahoe please?
Thats all i can afford at the moment im afraid.
edit. cant even afford that anymore,as i just looked and theyve gone back to full price again 54.99.
so i wont be doing it yet,they were previously on offer at half price.


----------



## tahoe58 (Jan 4, 2008)

top of page 49


----------



## natmoon (Jan 4, 2008)

tahoe58 said:


> top of page 49


Cheers tahoe.
Well for nothing but a uvb lamp thats some very dark looking leaf.
Looks like its doing great to me.
Can you see any baby trics on it skunky under the scope?


----------



## tahoe58 (Jan 4, 2008)

he showed pics of that earlier too....I'll go find it...


----------



## tahoe58 (Jan 4, 2008)

https://www.rollitup.org/advanced-marijuana-cultivation/36368-trichomes-thc-uvb-light-36.html

about a third of the way down the page....


----------



## potroast (Jan 5, 2008)

You just linked this thread back to itself ... now we'll never get out of here!


----------



## skunkushybrid (Jan 5, 2008)

As far as I'm aware animals like both UVA and UVB... another reason for my choosing a bulb that is high in both.

growth rates are slower, but my only comparison are a different strain, still though they're both indica type plants so they should grow at around the same rates. I'm also not sure that they are slower any more, what I mean is that I feel they had a stutter. After the first set of true leaves appeared these plants just froze. They stretched upwards but took a ferw days to start growing the first 3-fingered leaves. Maybe this is where the delay came in and after that they've grown normally.

I've looked under the microscope and tried to find differences from the leaf of the plant under UV and the leaf from a plant under MH... 
Although I do believe there is an excess of trichomes or hairs on the leaves of the UV grown plants and they do seem to be standing more upright, there were also slight differences on the epidermis. The UV plant's cuticles seem to be larger with thicker edges. I also took the leaves from a similar part of the plants.

I'll need to check that out again today to be sure, and I'll try and post some pic's of the occasion.


----------



## psyclone (Jan 5, 2008)

What a sticky leave Nat-how old is she?


----------



## skunkushybrid (Jan 5, 2008)

After analysing a few leaf samples this morning I can find nothing to distinguish leaves groing under UV and leaves growing under MH. I have 2 plants beneath the UV, one is doing way better than the other. The poorest of the two seems to have more hairs and less cells. The healthiest seems to be doing better than the mh plants with an abundance of cells and hairs.

I also got my lux meter this morning, now I just got to figure out what all the numbers mean. Anyone in the mood for sharing some education?


----------



## psyclone (Jan 5, 2008)

let's go. Just wish I knew what all the numbers meant. barely have a command of PH


----------



## tahoe58 (Jan 5, 2008)

mornin' psycloner and skunk....let's get on and get technical....hahahahahaha


----------



## tahoe58 (Jan 5, 2008)

hahahahaha...shite...I meant to go to a particular page within the the thread...I thought that worked?? oh well!!


potroast said:


> You just linked this thread back to itself ... now we'll never get out of here!


----------



## psyclone (Jan 5, 2008)

Hello mate -I have just put the girls to bed (been and smiled at them) and am of to watch the football in with madonn sorry, in bed with medinner. Will read up your musings in the AM.
Night night weed world


----------



## tahoe58 (Jan 5, 2008)

cheers man!


----------



## Lord Dangly Bits (Jan 6, 2008)

As for the UVB light... Hmmm. I think it does seem to help now. The sugar seems to be a little heavier on the side the light is on. My next crop I think I will hang a white reflective curtain down the center, that way only one half of my plants will get the UVB light. And I will not start it up in the last 3 weeks of flowering. I might boost the time a little also. I am only at 1 Hour a day now, I was at 4 hours. seemed to strong. Hmmmmmmmmm. Now that I think of it,, my Trichs were building until I put out the UVB light, then it was not for another week the gooey masses starting coming again. I can see it now. I introduced a new enviroment change to my plants, it took them a week to adjust. Someone back earlier was correct I think.. You should start the UVB light before flowering starts.

Anyway, I will give it another try next flowering. And i will make it more accurate also.

Later,
LDB


----------



## psyclone (Jan 6, 2008)

I was thinking that- I introduced it too late for me to notice change I am going into 12/12 at the end of next week, and will use the tanning array I have as soon as the girl bits show (another week on, damn this time lag. What do we want? instant gratification! - when do we want it? - NOW). Note to SKH I have done my shabby best to post some more photo's they are in my gallery, as I haven't a clue how to attach them to this thread. Any advice would be appreciated, thanks in advance.


----------



## tahoe58 (Jan 6, 2008)

hey man...looking good..


posting pics.....go to "reply" not the quick reply....and then you can "attach" photos.....hope it works for ya!


psyclone said:


> I was thinking that- I introduced it too late for me to notice change I am going into 12/12 at the end of next week, and will use the tanning array I have as soon as the girl bits show (another week on, damn this time lag. What do we want? instant gratification! - when do we want it? - NOW). Note to SKH I have done my shabby best to post some more photo's they are in my gallery, as I haven't a clue how to attach them to this thread. Any advice would be appreciated, thanks in advance.


----------



## psyclone (Jan 7, 2008)

I shall give it the good old college try - thanks a lot


----------



## psyclone (Jan 7, 2008)

Now for it.


----------



## psyclone (Jan 7, 2008)

WAHAHAHAH Heeeee <manic laughter> IGOR< IT LIVES! LIFE IGOR HAHAHAHA


----------



## skunkushybrid (Jan 7, 2008)

Great job psyclone!

Some nice pic's too. Are they ok sharing pots like that?


----------



## psyclone (Jan 7, 2008)

Should be, have been. The growth rate is fairly even and heights match up well - this next stage will tell all. I got my signal today to boost into flowering, which is a significant use of water/nutrient and 3"+ of new growth over 24hrs -The roots have hit the bottom (more Cannazym). I am just going in to fit up the tanning lamps, will 18/6 til Friday then 12/12 and the long, dragging wait..


----------



## tahoe58 (Jan 7, 2008)

hey Psyclone....thanks for updating us and providin those photos....and the commentary.....looks good. I am excited about your progress.


----------



## psyclone (Jan 7, 2008)

I just hung the tanning array, it's a tight fit, and focuses mainly on one pot (4plants, SOG style) so if there is a difference, it should be easy enough to spot. I start tomorrow AM with one hour a day 10-11 and will post. Any sign of damage and out it comes.


----------



## tahoe58 (Jan 7, 2008)

thanks man. the one hour per day? if you have little or no observeable result, may you alter that?


----------



## crazy-mental (Jan 7, 2008)

Hi Tahoe, Whos That In Todays Avitar


----------



## tahoe58 (Jan 7, 2008)

in the pits at F1 race....a girl I think...hehehehehehe I like taking pics...of anything....I like girls.....I take pics of girls whereever I am....generally they like the attention...


----------



## psyclone (Jan 7, 2008)

One day at a time, just give us the strength, to do everything, one day at a time.


----------



## tahoe58 (Jan 7, 2008)

yup....thats the way...one foot in front of the other, walk on faith, trust in love.....walk on mna!


----------



## skunkushybrid (Jan 7, 2008)

What wattage is the tanning lamp psyclone?

Also what will you consider as damage? My experiment has shown lots of damage, but then I did expect them to be dead by now. I have some NL now vegging not too far away from the UV lamp under a 400w MH. The MH is not close enough to affect the UV plants too much, but the UV lamp is close enough to affect the plants under the MH... if you get my meaning. I've already selected what i hope will be mom and dad from the NL and shifted them so they are vegging closer to the UV.

What I have noticed from one of the plants under the UV is a very shiney epidermis to the leaves. I'm not sure if this can be called damage. But it is certainly more significant on one plant than it is the other. The one with the less shiney epidermis is the healthiest plant of the two.


----------



## psyclone (Jan 7, 2008)

There are 4x15watt tubes and damage is like a dirty girl-you know it when you see it! Anything out of the experience to date I guess.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Jan 12, 2008)

Ok it's around 4 weeks veg' now, and there are clear pre-flowers forming. Immature at present, but obvious enough.

True to form Fatboy is a female, and Skinny is a Male. Surprisingly Fatboy is now taller than Skinny, although still far wider.


----------



## psyclone (Jan 12, 2008)

Are they comparable in height and vigour to plants grown under conventional light?


----------



## skunkushybrid (Jan 12, 2008)

psyclone said:


> Are they comparable in height and vigour to plants grown under conventional light?


yes. maybe a week behind in growth... but certainly not in maturity. Straight from the seed fatboy grew like a female and skinny like a male. Although in the past week Fatboy shot past Skinny in height which had me wavering a little.

I'm going to top Fatboy and keep her as a mom for a sog grow while I breed the original plants. I'm thinking of doing the mom in a bubbler (lol, what a sentence! ha ha ha) to get me a faster rate of clone production. Particularly as indicas are hard work in the clone department.

I'm hoping that i can both breed and run through sog grows in my flowering area at the same time. It'll give me a good idea on the difference in quality of smoke then too, and lots of seed.


----------



## PKNL (Jan 12, 2008)

after reading all this info about uvb and increased resin production ive started an experiment of my own i usualy veg under MV lamps and flower under HPS lamps this time ive got 3 under HPS and 2 UNder MV completely seperated from each other will see how it goes both plants are purple kush


----------



## psyclone (Jan 12, 2008)

Nice one, thats four different grows at least. If we all keep posting, results should start to flow in over the next few months.
Doing a Mum in a bubbler.....That I have got to try, sounds so....frothy
Have you had a look at Billybob88's SGROG? real quality work, He is also playing with UV.
On the side, my suntan plant and it's neighbour are head and shoulders above the others and very healthy (so far).


----------



## tahoe58 (Jan 12, 2008)

hey everyone.....good to run through the discussion that is continuing.Skunk - good to see the progrsss, and interesting plans forward as well. pknl, glad you came by to visit, and thanks as well of picking up the torch and taking your own initiative. this is the way we will better learn so realities and nuances of uvlight use. hey psyclone, yea Skunk's statement...and your interpretation...hahahaha....also go to hear your news and progress.

as psyclone says, there are a number of initiatives underway right now. it will be really exciting to see the results....whatever they are. I had a good laugh though...when I was looking at fdd's raft/hijack pics, and saying my goodness...you create any more trichs on that leaf and you won't even see the leaf anymore! it'll be liker a sponge and you can just fresh-squeeze the resin onto your bowl! hahahahahaha....not really of course but.....all this work is certainly going to help me understand what innovative modifications I will do to my BloomBox after the warranty is up!


----------



## skunkushybrid (Jan 12, 2008)

An abundance of resin glands is not always a sign of potency. I'm sure this is different in fdd's case as they are his genetics, and he has bred the plant with the right mix of genes.

Certain strains however can look very frosty but contain little in the way of cannabinoids. i suppose I'm saying to just be careful when making comparisons between your own plants and somebody elses, particularly when there is different genetics involved.


----------



## tahoe58 (Jan 12, 2008)

hey Skunk....sure nuf...thanks for clarifying that.....I understand. Yea all those pics you see and marvel at, and yet the real test of "beauty" is in the smell, taste and high of the smoke....not in the physical appearance of the plant....


skunkushybrid said:


> An abundance of resin glands is not always a sign of potency. I'm sure this is different in fdd's case as they are his genetics, and he has bred the plant with the right mix of genes.
> 
> Certain strains however can look very frosty but contain little in the way of cannabinoids. i suppose I'm saying to just be careful when making comparisons between your own plants and somebody elses, particularly when there is different genetics involved.


----------



## Earl (Jan 13, 2008)

I have three Afghans growing in and aero system.

At week Five I added 48inch T-12 80w Iguana Lamps with 7% uVb @ 12 inches.

I have the UvB light on 12/12

I also shut down my HPS.

I am finishing the grow with three 400w MH and the Lizard lamps 

The MH bulbs are Sunmaster Cool Deluxe 






These lights are very bad for your eyes and exposure must be limited.

Under the microscope, some of the trichomes have a bright red color in them.

I cut a bud yesterday and will give it a test in a week or ten days.


----------



## psyclone (Jan 13, 2008)

Check Earls Aero grow - brilliant.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Jan 13, 2008)

You think that's close enough for the UV lamps?

Fair enough, your plants are not needing the UV to photosynthesise, but I'm using a 300w osram. Here's some info on the bulb...


The Ultra Vitalux from Osram is already a classic in herp keeping. For years it has been the only useful UV bulb for reptiles. The Radium Sanolux is identical in construction with the Osram bulb. Both spot lamps fit into standard E27 lampholders (porcelain sockets strongly recommended) and do not need an external lighting controller. Compared to UV fluorescent lamps the UV output is much higher and has a better effective range with more than 1m. These are excellent prerequisites to provide reptiles with enough UVB. However, you have to be careful with these bulbs because their radiation is so strong that the animals should only be placed in their effective range for 30 minutes a day. The 300W of the Osram Vitalux and the Radium Sanolux require a high quality lampholder with heat resistant ceramic socket.


I've just vegged 2 plants 24/0 beneath that, the light had to be 8-9inches away to prevent stretch.


----------



## tahoe58 (Jan 13, 2008)

another pioneer.....walk on EarL! thats great....the outcome will add to our now growing background. so at wk5 you added the uv and exchanged the hps for mh. how long did you vege for....and t5hat was under MH I presume, and then for the first 5wks of flower you used the hps? had you grown this strain before, and if so (or if not) what differences in your grow have you observed? sorry 'bout all the questions.....just really curious. thanks!


----------



## Earl (Jan 13, 2008)

I started these plants under a 400hps, and then added more lights as they grew.

During veg they were eventually under (3)400whps, 
and (1) 600w hps 
and (1) 400w MH, 
for a total of 2200w, until the 5th week of flower. 

Now they are under three 400w MH, and the floro.


----------



## Earl (Jan 13, 2008)

I have not grown this strain before, 
so the final evaluation will be subjective.

I had a White Widow plant that I chopped some, 
and then added the lizard light.

There is a diiference in flavor.

The uvb exposed budz are sweeter smelling 
and did cure faster. 

It's hard to tell if the stone is better, 
because after two hits you're overserved.

My Afghans have lost most of the skunk smell, 
and have become more piney smelling.


----------



## tahoe58 (Jan 13, 2008)

hey Earl....thanks so much for the clear and definitive answers....much appreciated!

WHOA!! 2200 watts.....I had a good chuckle when I first read that.....man o man....thats sum bright I'll bet! have you ever had any temp or other issues?

Thanks again for sharing.....walk on man! love your grow!


----------



## Earl (Jan 13, 2008)

Not in the winter.


----------



## tahoe58 (Jan 13, 2008)

oh right...ok......and what will all of us do with GW and the potentially eventual shift in climate norms......I too rely on winter for temp management.....ahhhh....the challenges of our personal hobbies...


----------



## Heruk (Jan 13, 2008)

.


----------



## Everready (Jan 13, 2008)

So M.H. are the best lights to have to add UVB light? And it is true then, in your opinions, that UVB light is benificial? Sorry didn't have much time to read the entire thread! But I am curious as I am in the light buying phase...


----------



## tahoe58 (Jan 13, 2008)

hey man...thanks for popping on in....yea there is some evidence that the addition of uv light improves the crop. Iam not sure if it would be more beneficial with an MH vs. a HPS. In some circles it is recommended to combine the MH with the HPS and then as my personal preference, add the uv light to that.....but there continues to be debate. I used CFls for vegeing and then a super HPS for flowering (that the way the turnkey setup came) and I sure can't complain with my result so far....


----------



## skunkushybrid (Jan 14, 2008)

Well I've just vegged and am still vegging (due to circumstance) 2 plants in a pure UV environment.

So if the plant can grow in this environment, and still mature after just 4 weeks, I'd say that UV is certainly beneficial to the plants.

the question is, in what respects is the UV beneficial?

The level of radiation that I'm using, I'm very surprised that they aren't dead... and who knows what wonders have been unfolding within the living cells of the plants.

The adaptation process took just a few days. I take this from the brief stutter they had producing the tri-fingered leaves. After that they grew normally. I believe this is because the plant adapted in just 3-5 short days to the harsh environment.

these are cheap seeds, a sensi seeds white label rip off of Serious Seeds AK47. So the genetics do not account for the fast rate of adaption.


----------



## Inneedofbuds (Jan 14, 2008)

skunkushybrid said:


> Well I've just vegged and am still vegging (due to circumstance) 2 plants in a pure UV environment.
> 
> So if the plant can grow in this environment, and still mature after just 4 weeks, I'd say that UV is certainly beneficial to the plants.
> 
> ...


pure UV? you mean you're using nothing but UV light?? What kind?


----------



## skunkushybrid (Jan 14, 2008)

Inneedofbuds said:


> pure UV? you mean you're using nothing but UV light?? What kind?


A 300w ultra vitalux. They use them in zoos for the reptiles. Even so the light is held quite far away, and only for 30 minutes a day. 

My plants have been under this bulb for nigh on 5 weeks 24/0, and the light is 8-9" away.


----------



## PKNL (Jan 14, 2008)

just over a week now with the high uv MV lamps and im noticing deser veg and thinker stems and added shorter nodes about qter to 8th " apart so id say there doing good but this is the first week of flowering and there just starting to get good pistilige but ive hear MH and MV lamps take longer for the flowering stage


----------



## Inneedofbuds (Jan 14, 2008)

PKNL said:


> just over a week now with the high uv MV lamps and im noticing deser veg and thinker stems and added shorter nodes about qter to 8th " apart so id say there doing good but this is the first week of flowering and there just starting to get good pistilige but ive hear MH and MV lamps take longer for the flowering stage


can you post some pics?


----------



## natmoon (Jan 15, 2008)

skunkushybrid said:


> Well I've just vegged and am still vegging (due to circumstance) 2 plants in a pure UV environment.
> 
> So if the plant can grow in this environment, and still mature after just 4 weeks, I'd say that UV is certainly beneficial to the plants.
> 
> ...


This is also something that i believe in.
Cannabis adapts very quickly to many environments.
Much quicker than other old documents would suggest.

From the picture that you posted the leaf seemed extra dark green which suggests to me anyway that your plant has compensated for the extra uv with a darker thicker leaf skin.

I also think that if or when you flower it under the uv bulb it will do the same thing to the bud and will probably produce more resin as well in an attempt to moisturize itself.

Its also possible/probable that uvb rays are more thc destructive and as a result this is why the plant then produces even more to compensate for its own rate of loss.


----------



## Inneedofbuds (Jan 15, 2008)

Your plant IS actually forming a thicker skin because of the UV.
With added UV light, an increased level of essential oils yields a more powerful scent and flavour. The essential oils also aid in the absorption of UV light , thus a sunscreen for plants. Plants in the wild produce their own kind of &#8220;sunscreen,&#8221; called flavonoids. Flavonoids screen out some of the more dangerous UVB-type radiation.

more can be found in my post here:
https://www.rollitup.org/general-marijuana-growing/43324-why-uv-important-plants.html

I still find it amazing, and very awesome, that you have grown a plant under pure UV, but can we see some pics please?


----------



## skunkushybrid (Jan 15, 2008)

Inneedofbuds said:


> Your plant IS actually forming a thicker skin because of the UV.
> With added UV light, an increased level of essential oils yields a more powerful scent and flavour. The essential oils also aid in the absorption of UV light , thus a sunscreen for plants. Plants in the wild produce their own kind of sunscreen, called flavonoids. Flavonoids screen out some of the more dangerous UVB-type radiation.
> 
> more can be found in my post here:
> ...


Yes, of course. I'll have to do it a little later. I have some updated pic's from two days ago on my camera still... but I topped the female yesterday so I'd rather take some new ones.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Jan 15, 2008)

Inneedofbuds said:


> Your plant IS actually forming a thicker skin because of the UV.
> With added UV light, an increased level of essential oils yields a more powerful scent and flavour. The essential oils also aid in the absorption of UV light , thus a sunscreen for plants. Plants in the wild produce their own kind of sunscreen, called flavonoids. Flavonoids screen out some of the more dangerous UVB-type radiation.


 
I find this very interesting. As my plants were growing they developed what I call a translucent sheen. This sheen actually served to reflect light.

I'm no scientist, despite buying a microscope I could not see anything special about this sheen aside from the fact that it was shiney. In other words normal cannabis leaves have this stuff too, only in less abundance. On all cannabis leaves there are shiny parts, but on the UV plants they just seemed to have more of these cells.

I wasn't sure if I was just seeing damage, or the plants natural defence mechanism working in overdrive. My mind leans heavily toward the latter.


What has me thinking, is that if cannabis can adapt so quickly to the environment and develop a sunscreen, if we could somehow take those properties and develop them into a cream... we would see the first ever sun screen that actually works.

That may sound crazy to some of you, but like I said... I am no scientist...


----------



## tahoe58 (Jan 15, 2008)

hey Skunk....interesting developments eh?! I am excited about this current thinking....just out of curiousity....what part of current sunscreening are you refering to that does not work? I thought the various SPF rsatings were quite effective? sorry...maybe I'm missing something? 


skunkushybrid said:


> ..... if we could somehow take those properties and develop them into a cream... we would see the first ever sun screen that actually works.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Jan 15, 2008)

tahoe58 said:


> hey Skunk....interesting developments eh?! I am excited about this current thinking....just out of curiousity....what part of current sunscreening are you refering to that does not work? I thought the various SPF rsatings were quite effective? sorry...maybe I'm missing something?


They also told us, a few years ago, that factor 2 was ok for heavily tanned skin.

When the shit hit the fan, and suncream companies had to backpeddle... I remember a report (in memory) saying that none of the factors were effective, or as to apply too little protection to actually be called effective.

Then a contradicting report came out saying that only the highest factors were effective.

Either way, these plants have survived an extremely harsh environment, and there was some definite sheen produced to protect them. Whatever these plants did, it has enabled them to survive a harsher UV climate than can be found anywhere on this planet.

Maybe I'm imagining the implications, or overextending... but implications there must be.


----------



## tahoe58 (Jan 15, 2008)

oic....sorry....didn't totally understand what you had meant....thanks so much for the clarification. Yea...I guess thats the case with so many products these days....the latest here was the plastic in water bottle...that all the health and fitness people use.....I have a good friend who is an ecotoxicologist...water quality specialist....and he has been reeading reports about that compound that comex out of plastics....and with todays detection limits....they CANNOT measure an amount of this stuff that is safe in water? WTF!

like you said the reality is the plants are adapting in the way they are...and what are the implications....time to think...and puff...and think some more,...and puff some more....


----------



## skunkushybrid (Jan 15, 2008)

Ok... i wanted to upload a couple more but i couldn't access them to edit them for some reason...

The tallest plant is the female, the shorter the male. What is also interesting with these two is that they grew very much true to form for much of the veg period. It is only in the last week, or at the 3rd-4th node that things reversed. 

The male started tightening up the nodes, whereas the female started to elongate them. This happened to such an extent that I believed I may be witnessing some type of sex reversal...

...but no, the plants have stayed true to original form and have matured into the sexes I had them at almost from day 1.

btw, it is exactly 28 days veg' today, so these (this rather) pic's were taken at 26 days veg'.


----------



## tahoe58 (Jan 15, 2008)

hey man...thanks....is some ways...the leaves (some) do almost look hardened? tougher, stiffer, more robust? thanks again....cool pic...cool experiment!


----------



## skunkushybrid (Jan 15, 2008)

Here's a pic from today, you can see that the female has been topped for a clone.


----------



## tahoe58 (Jan 15, 2008)

cool....so you've started the clone as well then? thanks again for the update!


----------



## skunkushybrid (Jan 15, 2008)

Yes, I topped her yesterday. these damned indicas are a nightmare for clones.

Even the NL i'm growing are the same. Very few side branches. A couple of the NL have started to show sex too, so I'm just waiting for them all to show before I start flowering them.

I've taken a couple of clones from the NL too. With the NL there are 2 very distinct phenotypes. One of the phenotypes is very short with stunted leaves, and they are almost furry to the touch. It looks like i may have 1 of each of this phenotype (a male and female), so they may make a nice breeding pair. The other 4 NL are much taller with longer (but still broad) leaf blades. the larger phenotype has shown sex quicker.

Sorry to go off track... not running a journal anymore so i get little chance to talk about what I'm up to.


----------



## PKNL (Jan 15, 2008)

the first two pic are those of the plants veged under cfl and flowering for 1 week under MV lamps pics 3 and 4 are thoughs of a plant veged under clf's and flowering under HPS for 28 days and the last pic is a plant veging under MV for 21 days from clone but had that one under cfl till it was about 7" tall and had good root system


----------



## PKNL (Jan 15, 2008)

off topic but desided to try areoponics took one clone and set it up will see how it goes will take a pic in a little while


----------



## smokefast89 (Jan 15, 2008)

Be sure to update us on the crop. I was doing research on L.E.D. lights that have some interesting facts pertaining to maximum plants growth and light consumption


----------



## PKNL (Jan 16, 2008)

hmm idk from what ive seen of one grower useing LED's i wasnt imprest at all


----------



## PKNL (Jan 16, 2008)

why does it seem the bigger the plant the longer it takes to grow ? might just be me


----------



## tahoe58 (Jan 16, 2008)

not sure I am getting this but.....because its bigger? things bigger take more time? the plant growth rate has physical and physiological limitations, the bigger the plant the long it take to grow? sorry, if I am missing your point. 


PKNL said:


> why does it seem the bigger the plant the longer it takes to grow ? might just be me


----------



## PKNL (Jan 16, 2008)

no im just saying from my perseptions that when a plant gets bigger you dont notice it growing as quick as when there small


----------



## Lord Dangly Bits (Jan 16, 2008)

PKNL said:


> no im just saying from my perseptions that when a plant gets bigger you dont notice it growing as quick as when there small


I find this to not be true. When I enter the flowering stage, and my plants hit that growth spurt, this is when I notice the growth more then anytime. I am adjusting the lights almost daily, and they are drinking a ton of water.


----------



## Yota (Jan 16, 2008)

Hey guys. I have found the topic of UV to really spark my interest and after visiting my local grow store today i came aways shocked. The employees were raving about a new UV-B bulb on the market. They say that when it is used for the last 2 weeks of the grow, the buds produce a ton more crystals and oil, making for some amazing looking buds at the possible cost of some yield. Heres a link to the bulb makers. Check out the chart at the very bottom. I cant find the exact bulb here, but i saw it in the store today. cheers. http://www.lifelighttec.com/f/LLI_Fall07RetailPricingWeb_B1.pdf


----------



## PKNL (Jan 16, 2008)

i meant in the veg stage i notice big changes in the flowering stage everytime the light cycle kicks on and i can go and have a look see , but like in the veg stage when there 3 feet tall i myself dont notice such excelerated groth example ( when there 6 " tall you notice each leaf open and expand / when there big theres mass areas of growth so you have more to remeber how it was the night befor) hope this clarified for you all


----------



## Lord Dangly Bits (Jan 16, 2008)

Yes I am clarrified on your thoughts, but I still disagree strongly.

But i do understand where you are comeing from.


----------



## Inneedofbuds (Jan 16, 2008)

Yota said:


> Hey guys. I have found the topic of UV to really spark my interest and after visiting my local grow store today i came aways shocked. The employees were raving about a new UV-B bulb on the market. They say that when it is used for the last 2 weeks of the grow, the buds produce a ton more crystals and oil, making for some amazing looking buds at the possible cost of some yield. Heres a link to the bulb makers. Check out the chart at the very bottom. I cant find the exact bulb here, but i saw it in the store today. cheers. http://www.lifelighttec.com/f/LLI_Fall07RetailPricingWeb_B1.pdf


i cant find the bulb you mentioned on this site, can you help me out?


----------



## PKNL (Jan 16, 2008)

well i been thinking about your grow and having to raise your lights dangly what lights and wattage are you useing?


----------



## Yota (Jan 17, 2008)

me neither, i saw it in the store, but i gotta find the bulb online to show poeple. That is the company who makes it though.


----------



## Your Grandfather (Jan 18, 2008)

Hey Skunk 

Did you ever pick up a uvB radiation meter to measure?

I'm thinking of vegging my outdoors under uv. Any ideas?


----------



## skunkushybrid (Jan 18, 2008)

Your Grandfather said:


> Hey Skunk
> 
> Did you ever pick up a uvB radiation meter to measure?
> 
> I'm thinking of vegging my outdoors under uv. Any ideas?


hey YGF, I was wondering where you'd got to. Was contemplating sending you an email just to check on things.

No, I went and bought a lux meter, which is ok but the novelty wears off quite quickly. I really need one of those (UVB meters), but it's going to be a couple of months before I can spend freely again... well not exactly freely, but you know what I mean.

Do you mean UV combo with fluoro or mh? Or just UV on its own?


----------



## LoudBlunts (Jan 18, 2008)

Yota said:


> Hey guys. I have found the topic of UV to really spark my interest and after visiting my local grow store today i came aways shocked. The employees were raving about a new UV-B bulb on the market. They say that when it is used for the last 2 weeks of the grow, the buds produce a ton more crystals and oil, making for some amazing looking buds at the possible cost of some yield. Heres a link to the bulb makers. Check out the chart at the very bottom. I cant find the exact bulb here, but i saw it in the store today. cheers. http://www.lifelighttec.com/f/LLI_Fall07RetailPricingWeb_B1.pdf




WOWOWOWWW!!!! those are some great systems....


i like those spinners.... i'd get a dual spinner with an hps and an mh bulb and those eballast with the spinner!!!!! wow!!!!!!!

although that would cost 1,000 dollars, but it would be very much worth it!!!


----------



## Greenthumb Gangsta (Jan 19, 2008)

This thread really make you think. All of this talk about UVB light really makes sense and I don't know why this information has never been part of indoor growing guides. I think the experiments that people are doing here are going to show some amazing results. 

Does anyone have any good suggestions on what kind of source offers the best range of UVB?

Also I found an interesting article about this topic that I think most of you will enjoy.
Marijuana THC

Greenthumb


----------



## psyclone (Jan 19, 2008)

Good article, kicks right in with our gut feeling. UVB all the way through flowering in nice high doses. I am sticking mine on 2 hours a day at noon. It has been on one hour a day, and the subject plants are stupidly healthy


----------



## psyclone (Jan 19, 2008)

Repped for that.


----------



## Your Grandfather (Jan 19, 2008)

psyclone said:


> It has been on one hour a day, and the subject plants are stupidly healthy



What is the nm range of your light? Do you know?

OMG, Stupidly healty, what a great way to describe the results.


Precision Economy Spectrometer - Science Gifts - Edmund Scientific

&

TestProducts.com | National Safety Products, Inc. | 877-412-3600 | <-

Enjoy


----------



## tahoe58 (Jan 19, 2008)

hey man...thanks for the supportive thoughts. that article is one of the ones that got YGF, Skunk, myself and so others all thinking about this....and getting this thread off the ground.....super kudos to YGF in this regard! some reasonably well planned, executed and documented experiments need to be run and then take that info to further improve the efforts.....thanks again....walk on!


----------



## LoudBlunts (Jan 20, 2008)

2 Bulb Vitiligo and Psoriasis UVB narrowband unit - eBay (item 220166723307 end time Jan-29-08 11:43:16 PST)


----------



## psyclone (Jan 20, 2008)

I am not exactly sure, it is a Philips Cleo Home Solarium unit 4x15watt tubes, I would need SKH with his trick meter to be certain. 
I shall use a BlakRay lamp as things progress that is calibrated to 320nm. I am not sure how useful that will be, as it does not have great penetration.
The suntan array is doing fine, I want to see the trichome distribution before coming to any conclusion though.


----------



## psyclone (Jan 20, 2008)

Good link for the Spectrometer, thanks.


----------



## munch box (Feb 1, 2008)

This clone has been vegging for 6 days under a 400w MH and a 36" reptisun 10.0.Has grown from just over 4" to 6.5". I'm not sure if its responding to the UVB. Probly not, but who knows we'll see....


----------



## psyclone (Feb 4, 2008)

Well this is a peek inside the tent. All plants clones, all fed from the same reservoir. The only difference is that the taller, more advanced plants have been getting a regular suntan, starting at one hour a day in veg, going up to two hours at the start of flowering and 4 hours a day when nutrients were changed for the second stage of flower (12 days ago).


----------



## tahoe58 (Feb 4, 2008)

hey pysclone and MB....that's great thanks. we'll be watching to see the progression.


----------



## Mr Choof (Feb 12, 2008)

Hey there, Just thought i would point you guys to this site i came acorss. Lots of UVB specs of lights. I read that the Nec Black Light T10 20w rates high in the Snakes, Pythons, Lizards world. Lots of pet owners seem to speak highly of them. Quite cheap and considerable UVB output. Also in the lists below are other light types (CFL's, fluros, MH's etc...) Hope this is helpful. Project UVB RDU - UV Lighting Information - SA Test Other tid bit... RDU - UV Lighting Information Peace. P.S. this seems to be formatting weird...


----------



## tahoe58 (Feb 18, 2008)

hey Choof....thanks for coming on by and sharing that info....will go and check that out. thanks again!


----------



## joepro (Feb 18, 2008)

what a great thread!


----------



## munch box (Feb 23, 2008)

on the top plant one of the leafs that is nearest to the uvb lizzard light is curling downward really bad. do you think it has something to do with radiation?


----------



## skunkushybrid (Feb 23, 2008)

munch box said:


> on the top plant one of the leafs that is nearest to the uvb lizzard light is curling downward really bad. do you think it has something to do with radiation?


No......................


----------



## munch box (Feb 23, 2008)

......................


----------



## burningreens (Feb 25, 2008)

how long are you having the UVB bulb on during the cycle? what is the Watt of the bulb?


----------



## munch box (Feb 25, 2008)

skunkushybrid said:


> No......................


 
why you say no? and then i ask you to elaborate on it , but then you just delte my post whats up with that? you have got to be the most useless and counter-productive mod ever. i think maybe you've got that 300 watt mercury vapor bulb shoved just a little too far up your ass buddy.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Feb 25, 2008)

munch box said:


> why you say no? and then i ask you to elaborate on it , but then you just delte my post whats up with that? you have got to be the most useless and counter-productive mod ever. i think maybe you've got that 300 watt mercury vapor bulb shoved just a little too far up your ass buddy.


If you like munch box I'll undelete your post and prove you to be a liar. Want me to do that?


----------



## munch box (Feb 25, 2008)

how can i be a liar if you just admitted to deleteing my post? that doesn't make any sense.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Feb 25, 2008)

munch box said:


> how can i be a liar if you just admitted to deleteing my post? that doesn't make any sense.


Why would I be talking about deleting your post when it says right underneath it that i deleted it?

You are a liar because YOU DID NOT ask me to elaborate. You made an unnecessary post...


----------



## munch box (Feb 25, 2008)

Not true Not true. people can't see that you deleted it nor does it say anywhere that my post even existed. only you know cuz you're a mod.i see what this is. a simple miscommunication.Its you not knowing/understanding what my post implied. it would be clear to me what it meant, why not you? this could all have been avoided if you made less attempts to go out of your way to answer people's questions with a simple "no" and then be on your way with no explanation. why are you the way you are? where are you from really? i heard people from the netherlands get a lot of night life poon tang and fuck a lot.


----------



## skunkushybrid (Feb 25, 2008)

munch box said:


> ......................


 
There's your post munch box, number 604.

Now show me where you asked me to elaborate...


----------



## skunkushybrid (Feb 25, 2008)

Ok, here's an elaboration.

No, your leaves are not drooping because of radiation.

How's that?


----------



## NOblenoMAD (May 10, 2008)

very interesting


----------



## furcifer (Aug 19, 2008)

I would like to give some insight into UV light.
My background: I am currently studying to become an Exotic Veterinarian. I am working on my Thesis paper right now, on Metabolic Bone Diseases associated with reptiles. MBD is generally caused from lack of UV-B. All reptiles require UV-B to properly metabolize Vitamin D3. I also used to breed Panther Chameleons and Uromastyx.

UV-A light ranges between 320-400 nm, UV-B light ranges between 290-320 nm, and UV-C 180-290 nm. UV-C light is dangerous to all living organisms.

UV-B light cannot be transferred through normal glass. Glass will filter out UV-B light. The typical lizard lamps that produce UV-B light are not made from typical glass (ie. Silicate) but instead are made from quartz. 

The typical reptile lamp that is a 7% or a 10.0 is kinda of tricky to figure out and it actually took several phone calls to many companies. I needed to know where they came up with the basis of 7% or 5.0 or 10.0 for my paper. I finally got a good answer as to what the 7% actually stands for from Exo Terra. It is somewhat hard to explain what the 7% or the 5.0 or the 10.0 UVB stands for. It is actually a relative rating based on levels taken on the equator with the sun directly over head. Now with that being said, 7% is actually only 7% of the actual UVB recieved mid day on the equator. I really see no harm running a 10.0 or a 5.0 or a 7% bulb during the entire photo period of the life cycle. I hope that helps a little.


----------



## toiletmint (Aug 24, 2008)

^^ 
You just answered my question. Now I just need to do is get one. Just in time to turn on the MH and let the treats grow.


----------



## BloodShot420 (Aug 27, 2008)

Wow... great thread I just finished reading all of it... (ok, i skipped over some of the bitching) and i am impressed... I am one who is always looking for ways to improve my garden, my hobby, and my smoke  UVB was the next step.. I got one of the reptile lights 10.0 - CFL from a pet store to test it out... I am in the last 3 weeks of a dutch passion blueberry grow under a screen... i have kindof limited space to play with so i try to do it as big as i can with what i have... so far the plants have been growing completely under 2K enhanced spectrum HPS (hortilux) with no UVB... I'm adding the bulb in the last 3 weeks because i figure it cant hurt... and with everything in this thread that i've been reading, i probably just have a couple more days before these plants react to it and start making more trichs. (although they are beautifully covered now - i can only hope fore more!) I looked up the amount of uva and uvb that is coming from my 26W CFL bulb, and its not much - but when you mount the same bulb in an aluminum reflector (aluminum is apparently very good at reflecting uvb rays) it can reach out to about 4 ft and stay at uv index of at least 2... but up by 12&quot; its about at uv index 10. since if have the screen, all my buds are at the same height so i am trying to make it hit them all... and i change the position of the light every time i go in there... I'm running the UVB for 10 hrs of the 12 that the lights are on. I am worried about my exposure to the uvb though - if you are within a couple inches of the bulb, the exposure is hundreds of times stronger than anywhere on earth... for my next run i'm looking at getting the growtronix setup to run my grow show with a pc (Growtronix, Greenhouse Controller and Grow Room Computer Automation System), then i can control it from anywhere - including my phone... one of the advantages of this would be that you can make it so when the door to the grow opens, the UV will immediately shut off... i'm not doing this so much for the single CFL thats in there now... but i want to get the flouro tubes... they have much more even distribution of uvb light... (at the surface there is no super strong uv - they are more constant and i believe they last longer) another thing that i wasnt sure about is providing uvb when the plants are in veg state - i dont think it hurts them - but i would be afraid that it might slow them down from getting to flower... what would be wrong with adding the uvb only in the flower stage. it is supposed to be the catalyst (arguably) that ups the trichome production - why would you want that in veg? wouldnt you want it to focus on making more growth during that cycle, you know - so you have more plant to work with during flower? also, i dont think that the plant communicates anything to the seed about the amount of UV radiation that it is receiving... (i cant remember who thought that it might, that happens) BUT, i think you could prove this by looking at the root system... when the seed starts, it basicly has to choose between 2 different kinds of root systems it wants to use... there are hydro roots and soil roots... you will not have very good luck removing a plant from a DWC hydro system and planting it in soil, due to the root system, likewise, it would expect you cant take a big soil plant and drop it into a DWC system and expect it to live. (DWC = roots constantly suspended in oxygen-rich nute solution). anyways, to the point of the issue... if you get a DWC plant to make seeds... it doesnt tell those seeds &quot;get ready for a shit load of water&quot; because its in a DWC... the sees from that plant can grow in either type of system, and can still choose either type of root system - i suspect it works the same way with the UVB exposure... sorry thats so long...i type like a court stenographer


----------



## BloodShot420 (Aug 27, 2008)

oh man - that looks like a mess... i dont know why i cant get any line breaks in there... maybe its because i'm using a proxy? anyways... here are some of the uv charts for the bulb i'm using... and one with the reflector.


----------



## toiletmint (Aug 28, 2008)

Ahhh who cares about exposure...just coat yourself in Banana Boat and wear a welders mask (keep your eyes good) and bring on the melanoma!


----------



## jayd1974 (Sep 4, 2008)

tahoe58 said:


> YouTube - THC, UVB and Me
> 
> Marijuana Man gives a lesson....


 marijuana man makes alot of sense... just goes to show, EVERYONE should smoke pot. What a wonderful world this would be.


----------



## HiGHLiFE28 (Sep 18, 2008)

so get the UVB? does it increase yields if used during veg or flower? Which bulb to get


----------



## jrhgsxr (Sep 18, 2008)

What about using a tanning bed on one while its open? Do it every day for like 5 mins or every other day? I think i am going to try this with some bag seed and jus see what happens.......


----------



## handy66 (Sep 21, 2008)

this is a great thread, everyone is always trying to improve thc production. does anyone have any recent updates on their uvb experiments? did the uvb harm any plants in the end or did it really improve the thc?


----------



## wmike82 (Sep 21, 2008)

So guys, this is something I've been hearing about so I decided to research it.... Found potential uses for human health and more technological discoveries on types of UV-B output.

Basically, UV-A is UV that causes tanning and stretches the receptors for UV-B allowing it to absorb more easily, but you can over-do it with UV-A making it hard to isolate proper amounts of absorption with UV-B absorption. UV-A causes potential burning and damage.

Bottom line, there is a more intense version of an isolated healthy UV-B spectrum called Narrowband UV-B, which focuses at the 312nm range with almost no other UV nm range output. This is mostly being intended for human health, but can be used for plant health especially with Cannabis for THC production. 

Narrowband UV-B is much different in effectiveness than silly reptile UV-B bulbs that can't compare. They are also costly as they are intended for human health. These can be found on ebay, and if you look at more items from the dealer you can find higher wattage units.

However, as for stressing plants for THC, I can understand how certain forms of stress would create more as THC is a defense mechanism production. Things like Dry, Hot, maybe some other forms of stress, may cause more THC production... 

But, UV-B influence is not a stressor, it is directly related to providing a nutrient the plant needs to create the THC for various stress factors (Just as UV-B is what creates the vital vitamin D in our skin). 

Keep this in mind... So for optimal THC production, you could influence the plant with Narrowband UV-B and also provide a hot and dry environment. Providing the necessities (air/water/feed, etc) are still required to even produce the THC... Unless the plant could also use it's own energy to also produce more if you used that as a stress factor - near the end of flowering.

Eh, what do I know


----------



## timmmy2021 (Sep 21, 2008)

whould a mh light work like a uv bulb??


----------



## dr danky doodle (Sep 21, 2008)

medal halide bulbs put off minor amounts of UV rays. alot less than a reptile bulb though.


----------



## born2killspam (Sep 22, 2008)

Some insane ppl have used MH bulbs with the outer glass shell busted off.. Most UV is filtered by glass.. Not quite as dumb as using a carbon arc for the task, but still..
Cold nights are another factor that promote crystal production btw.. Hot UV intense days, and cold dry nights probably work in tandem....


----------



## lorenzo08 (Sep 22, 2008)

this is some great info. 312nm looks like it's at the lower end of uv-b. there are uv led's on ebay that I'd really like to try, but they are 400nm, just barely uv-a. without telling me how bad led's are to use.. how much would 400nm help with thc production? better then no uv at all?


----------



## dr danky doodle (Sep 22, 2008)

I have never thought of the cold nights being a factor in trich production.. makes sense. And about LED lights, i dont know too much about them but i hear they suck and the other day i was camping and my friend was about 20 feet away maybe and he pointed his LED light at me and i was almost blinded. I dont think plants would like that very much. LED light is so far away from natural light


----------



## lorenzo08 (Sep 22, 2008)

dr danky doodle said:


> I have never thought of the cold nights being a factor in trich production.. makes sense. And about LED lights, i dont know too much about them but i hear they suck and the other day i was camping and my friend was about 20 feet away maybe and he pointed his LED light at me and i was almost blinded. I dont think plants would like that very much. LED light is so far away from natural light


led light is focused like that, so it's strongest in the area where it's shinning. I think this could be good for uv light if the whole plant is covered, or even just the buds. could be worth trying out at least, if the low end uv-a is helpful to the plants. the led's are 400nm, I think the black light cfl's at walmart are around 350nm. anyone have a chart or document showing how much different types of uv light help?


----------



## timmmy2021 (Sep 23, 2008)

will 2 philips 2700k 40w 1600lumens lights work as a uv ?


----------



## 707DankSmoker (Sep 24, 2008)

For that matter LED lights are designed to only show the exact spectrim of light essential for optimum plant/bud/thc/cbd/cbn/cbl growth.


----------



## born2killspam (Sep 24, 2008)

Regardless of action efficiency at a specific wavelength, I do still wonder if near zero action on other pigments would have adverse effects.. (Or positive effects for that matter..)


----------



## GrowKindNugs (May 8, 2009)

interesting stuff dudes....what happened to this thread?? i didn't make it through all those pages! is there a general consensus on this? i've got another 3 to 4 weeks on my grow left and i'm wondering if i should add some uvb light in? i only have one 400 hps and would one bulb do? what do i get, a uvb lamp at the pet store? for side lighting i have a 2 tube shop fluoro at 6500k...thanks for any help...i know someobody has got to be alive from this thread! haha, peace

Gkn


----------



## born2killspam (May 9, 2009)

Ppl have liked uvb addition, especially considering the cost.. With pure hps you'll likely see as much benefit as anybody if you go for it.. Post pics of what was close to the UV vs what was not please, more anecdotal evidence can't hurt..


----------



## tahoe58 (May 9, 2009)

a past member did the following experiment. I can't remember where it ended up. I have not gone the next step, with any further field/bench investigation. Other priorities took over. And my grow was hugely successful so little need at the time to follow through. Maybe a project for times coming. Thanks for all the interest and contribution. I think the debate is still alive and the science enticing. Cheers and walk on!!

https://www.rollitup.org/advanced-marijuana-cultivation/48409-death-radiation.html


----------



## B.C Chef (May 27, 2009)

tahoe58 said:


> a past member did the following experiment. I can't remember where it ended up. I have not gone the next step, with any further field/bench investigation. Other priorities took over. And my grow was hugely successful so little need at the time to follow through. Maybe a project for times coming. Thanks for all the interest and contribution. I think the debate is still alive and the science enticing. Cheers and walk on!!
> 
> https://www.rollitup.org/advanced-marijuana-cultivation/48409-death-radiation.html


 
Hey guys has anyone ever completed grow tests with uvb yet? This thread is old but I would be curious on how or if things have changed in the last year or two!

I want to add them to my grow but still looking for more definitive proof.

Thanks,


----------



## tahoe58 (May 27, 2009)

hey there Mr. Culinary Master. hehehehe ..... I have continued to read as much as I can. I not be actively growing for quite some time. I have not seen any test results. Skunkhybridkush did an experiment. I believe his intent was to see how much intensity (duration and distance to exposure) would kill the plant. I believe he killed the plant but I don't know his final parameters when the plant met its demise. I do know he was using a 300W bulb, the thread title is Death by Radiation (from well over a year ago). I am currently contemplating adding light to my 400W Spectrum Enhanced HPS - including possibly CMH (expensive bulbs, and again no assured and definitive benefits) or a couple of uvb lights, still not sure what might work best. With my renewed interest in doing a grow, maybe its time again to do some thorough research of threads across all forums and see what people have done. Or maybe it just time to pull the pin and do it myself.... I'm getting some new beans and the timing might be right very soon. 


B.C Chef said:


> Hey guys has anyone ever completed grow tests with uvb yet? This thread is old but I would be curious on how or if things have changed in the last year or two!
> 
> I want to add them to my grow but still looking for more definitive proof.
> 
> Thanks,


----------



## tahoe58 (May 27, 2009)

well a quick look at trusted sources, and bonus: A recent article that seems quite applicable - I want to read the full deal and see what it has to say. Here's the abstract. Bottom line? seems that there are some pretty powerful data supporting the benefits of uvb light and medicinal productivity. I'll be back with some of my own thoughts (maybe I can find them...). In the meantime enjoy! and Walk On!

_The effect of ultraviolet radiation on the accumulation of medicinal
compounds in plants - A review is given of how the production by plants of compounds useful as medicines or raw
materials for manufacture of medicines is influenced by ultraviolet radiation, particularly by UVB
radiation (280315 nmwavelength). The compounds considered in this revieware flavonoids
and other phenolics, alkaloids (especially indole terpenoid and purine alkaloids), essential oils
and other terpenoids, cannabinoids, glucosinolates and isothiocyanates, and compounds having
human hormone activity. A short account is also given of ultraviolet signalling in plants. The
reviewconcludes with a discussion of the possible evolutionary mechanisms that have led to the
evolution of UV-B regulation of secondary metabolite accumulation._
*© 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.*


----------



## endogrowa (May 27, 2009)

I am in my first grow and have been using two uvb bulbs since week one of flowering and let me tell everyone that ubv is amazing. I have never seen bud grown indoors that has this many trics (three different strains, all of them are sparking huge glands (way bigger then I've seen in any indoor before and its only four weeks of uvb) I have the uvb bulbs on 8-9 hours a day in the middle of the light cycle (and for everyone who says thats too much uvb....it still dosent come close to outdoor, but you will get "hot spots" were thc will build up in responce to the uvb bulb being too close, cant get too close or you baby might burn and uneven ubv absorption) milky trics on every bud surface, top, bottom, inside and out...frosted to the max! If you dont have uvb and your growing indoor go buy one at a pet store (reptile isle) or two or three or four....

PS test dried nug at five weeks and thought I was trippin....so good now, cant wait till harvest


----------



## B.C Chef (May 28, 2009)

endogrowa said:


> I am in my first grow and have been using two uvb bulbs since week one of flowering and let me tell everyone that ubv is amazing. I have never seen bud grown indoors that has this many trics (three different strains, all of them are sparking huge glands (way bigger then I've seen in any indoor before and its only four weeks of uvb) I have the uvb bulbs on 8-9 hours a day in the middle of the light cycle (and for everyone who says thats too much uvb....it still dosent come close to outdoor, but you will get "hot spots" were thc will build up in responce to the uvb bulb being too close, cant get too close or you baby might burn and uneven ubv absorption) milky trics on every bud surface, top, bottom, inside and out...frosted to the max! If you dont have uvb and your growing indoor go buy one at a pet store (reptile isle) or two or three or four....
> 
> PS test dried nug at five weeks and thought I was trippin....so good now, cant wait till harvest


 Sweet! I'm glad this thread is coming alive again. You say to use two or three reptile lights...is that the CFL 10.0 with aluminum reflector? 

Also how about some pics bro. 

I'm currently growing 4 plants, White widow, blue cheese, Mazari and trainwreck....still trying to find my plant of choice. I will be adding UVB lights in three weeks when I switch over to flowering.


----------



## B.C Chef (May 28, 2009)

Thanks bro! Good info from you as usual!

Mmmmm canabutter!


----------



## dirt clean (May 29, 2009)

just got my uvb 10 flourescent bulb. 18 watt, about a foot and a half long. Paid 20 bucks for it. Can wait till day time in the tents!


----------



## dirt clean (May 29, 2009)

also I am aware of various uvb bulbs for various stages of growth. I read about this a long time ago and am now just getting my bubls going. The cfl bulb at the pet shop was like 50 bucks but the flouro tubes were cheap and I see from a quick check very low watts at only 18 watts. Lol. 300! watts i saw in a post. 

I have a lot of reading to do and this is my day off. But if someone has any words about the uvb in veg, I would love to hear. Is a 5 good? I also saw some uva chap cfls and other sun spectrum bulbs. Along with using meotorite dust as a soil amendment I would like to read up on that. I wish I had a wharehouse to experiment with tools. Volunteer at Monsanto maybe, but I am high!


i just read this, I am sure it is in the thread, long!, also quarts glass will let some uvb thru i found. Also has anybody ever got huge huge!!!!!! headaches from an unglassed MH? I am awating my cool tube for a 400 mh and ow,everytime I look at it I am piundedwith migraines. Sunglasses barely help. 

The writer's own experience allow for a more specific conclusion: If the UVB photon is missing from the light stream(a), or the intensity as expressed in µW/cm2 falls below a certain level(b), the phytochemical process will not be completely energized with only UVA photons which are more penetrating but less energetic, and the harvested resin spheres will have mostly precursor compounds and not fully realized THC(c).

(a)Examples of an environment where the UVB photon would be missing from the light stream include all indoor cultivation illuminated by HID bulbs and in glass or corrugated fiberglass covered greenhouses.


----------



## tahoe58 (May 30, 2009)

thanks everyone for their great contributions. I will remain wholly interested in the outcome of some of these efforts.

I went through that paper that should have paid attention to the the title - review - which is exactly what it was - as review of much of the stuff already discussed in this thread.

In other efforts, I also came across another thread that talked about 2.0 and 5.0 and the coming of 10.0 bulbs from petsmart (http://www.petsmart.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2752556). With the posts here, I am thinking the 10.0 bulbs will be measurably beneficial. I think I am going to try that.


----------



## tahoe58 (Jun 20, 2009)

well after some additional reaching and reading I have gone with 2 x 160W SolarGlo from Hagen. I will add that to my bbox measuring 3x3x4 with a 400W HPS. Could be interesting. I really should get a UV meter? I'll be putting up a new grow journal very soon. Tahoe's TGA + HPS + UVB =


----------



## orgnlmrwiggles (Jun 27, 2009)

bump want pictures!! lol


----------



## tahoe58 (Jun 28, 2009)

journal is up and running 

 2 x 160W uvb lights on full eight hours within twelve-twelve. Did a run up 2 -4 -6 -8 hours to monitor any ill effects. none seen so have stuck with the current schedule. 

 I'm liking the results but we'll have to see how things develop over time. Check it out! 

https://www.rollitup.org/grow-journals/205665-tahoes-tga-hps-uvb-co2.html


----------



## RickWhite (Jul 18, 2009)

Great topic. I just wish the thread wasn't so cluttered.

Anyway, if supplying some UVB light increases potency that would be awesome. However, I find the logic behind the idea less than convincing. First, the fact that more potent plants come from regions with greater UVB doesn't necessarily prove anything. Is UVB also responsible for the exceptional flavor of Chilean sea bass? No, it's because that species of tooth fish is only found off the coast of Chile. In general conditions in equatorial regions are better for just about all living things. It is possible that there is a causal relationship here but it's merely a possibility at this stage and the greater potency could be the result of a myriad of other things.

Also, UV light is an extremely poor penetrator so it is unlikely that the plant needs any additional substance to filter it. Even a piece of plastic wrap will filter UV light. Plus, all all UV light is harmful. Of course C is more harmful than B which is more harmful than A. Also when it comes to penetration the opposite is true - A penetrates the most followed by B and lastly C.

Even if THC is produced to filter UVB light, isn't it also possible that the THC is destroyed in doing so? We do know that UV light destroys THC in the long run so it's also possible that the degradation meets or exceeds the increase in production. Then again harvest timing may be the crucial factor.

In the end a proper experiment needs to be conducted and the product analyzed in a lab in order to know for sure. In the mean while I'm going to finish my girls with my full spectrum MH bulb as growth has pretty much stopped. You never know.


----------



## born2killspam (Jul 18, 2009)

Dude, alot of testing has been done through the last decade or so.. The most recent question around here is what the most effective way to get it is.. 
You basicly rattled off the physics that account for the presumed reason that this is the case, but you used them to come to the opposite conclusion..
And yes plastic would work fine, but plants never really seemed to evolve to the point of building greenhouses..
Light is involved in production, and destruction of various cannabinoids.. UV light shifts that equilibrium more to production via increased trichome/resin production while the plant is actively maturing.. Trichromes are like pawns to a plant.. They're the first line of defense..
But then again, sharks never stop swimming so who knows..


----------



## RickWhite (Jul 18, 2009)

born2killspam said:


> Dude, alot of testing has been done through the last decade or so.. The most recent question around here is what the most effective way to get it is..
> You basicly rattled off the physics that account for the presumed reason that this is the case, but you used them to come to the opposite conclusion..
> And yes plastic would work fine, but plants never really seemed to evolve to the point of building greenhouses..
> Light is involved in production, and destruction of various cannabinoids.. UV light shifts that equilibrium more to production via increased trichome/resin production while the plant is actively maturing.. Trichromes are like pawns to a plant.. They're the first line of defense..
> But then again, sharks never stop swimming so who knows..


The seed is already protected by the the calyx which contains chlorophyll. Generally anything that contains chlorophyll is a component of photosynthesis. It would be counter productive to block light from any part of the plant that carries out photosynthesis so it stands to reason that the roll of the trichome is not to block light. As stated it wouldn't even be necessary because UV is so poor at penetrating anything.

I'm just pointing out a number of reasons why the hypothesis might not be sound - that's what science is all about.

Anyway, if a great deal of research has been done, can you tell me where to find it?

I am looking for actual scientific data, not some growers opinion.


----------



## born2killspam (Jul 18, 2009)

You mentioned UVB is easily filtered by trichromes.. Thats kind of the point visible and especially red light passes more easily.. They also help with flower hold moisture btw, and dryer climates tend to produce more potent weed..


----------



## RickWhite (Jul 19, 2009)

born2killspam said:


> You mentioned UVB is easily filtered by trichromes.. Thats kind of the point visible and especially red light passes more easily.. They also help with flower hold moisture btw, and dryer climates tend to produce more potent weed..


The tissue of the seed calyx should be sufficient to filter UV light. Also, there is a lot of space between trichomes though which light can pass. Plus, there are a whole lot of plants that are capable of similar seed production that produce zero THC.

Look, I don't pretend to know why THC is produced by the plant. All I'm sayng is that the correlation between regions with higher UVB light and high quality weed doesn't necessarily hold water. It may, but it may just be a non-sequitor.

If anyone knows of any scientific studies in this area by all means post a link.


----------



## tahoe58 (Jul 19, 2009)

hey there folks ..... nice to see the thread alive and well again. I guess I have a couple of thoughts that come from this last round above. I had a substantial folder of background material that disappeared with my last hard drive. I have slowly been pulling together all those that I can find. I have not gone back through this thread but I would have sworn that I made reference to stuff along the way. And it is also my recollection that the discussion was as said above, not about whether or not there was increased trichome and thc production with higher incidence of uv light, it was a discussion about how and why the biology, the physics, the whatever? I suppose it was one of the underlying thread assumptions that it had been shown with reasonable certainty that the addition of uv light to an indoor grow improved the results - yield improved, but to a lessor extent than quality-potency).

I also believe that there was a component of this discussion that revolved around the shortcomings of indoor growing. It was not only the argument that pot from equatorial regions which measurably receive the greatest uv intensity was greatest among pot strains. With the advancement in lighting and metrics, the thought of "what's missing" what can we do to "mimic" sunlight more closely? this is based on the observed results that people achieve with indoor and outdoor grows. It is a belief held by me that outdoor pot given the same due care and attention indoor growing receives but with the sun's real energy, the monsters you can grow are out of this world. So there really were multiple drivers behind seeking a better understanding of the relationship between uv and thc/trichome.

That is not to say that that assumption to preface our discussion was valid. Those of us who were the initiators of this thread were believers of the assumption, so for us it was valid.

In response to a comment about the thread being "cluttered" .... I guess that just a clear representation of the commotion going on from my neck up .... hahahahaha! and for that reason, the closest I will get to doing a proper experiment (remember, I am only a scientist of 30 years) is what I am doing now. Same seed batch, same strain, same growing conditions (mostly), same love and care, ADDED UVB light. Comparing the same seed same strain at day 44 showed the obvious difference between the two grows ...... they are barely recognized as the same .... but I am the first to acknowledge that there are many many factorz, that influence the result of what you see. For me, the answer is this; I believe that to grow indoors, it is beneficial to make attempts to improve the "quality" of that indoor environment. We all make great efforts in this regard. In my case, I also believe supplemental CO2 up to 1600ppm is beneficial. I realize that these "new" conditions require adjustments in water and food and other parameters. Similarly, I believe adding uv light is "improving" the quality of my environment. and with a sample size of one as my current experience, we'll have to wait and see what the measured results (wet/dry weight) will be. But even with that .... this is still one grow, one event ,and the next one and the next one and the next will each be different. Based on what I have seen so far with this grow, I'll very likely be including the uv lights into my successive grows ........ walking on!!~~


----------



## RickWhite (Jul 19, 2009)

You can't compare two plants from different seeds. There are typically vast differences to begin with when growing from seed. The only way to do this experiment properly would be to use clones or better yet only expose a portion of one plant to the UVB. Also, you would have to increase the lumens equally using a non-UVB source for the control plant. Also, you would need to have access to a lab to do a legit quantitative measure of actual TCH. If you are a scientist of 20 years you ought to have some basic understanding of scientific methods and criteria. No offense but your anecdotes are far from scientific.


----------



## tahoe58 (Jul 19, 2009)

I appreciate the thought you have put into your reply. Your description of a potential research direction is helpful in allowing me to understand your perspective. However, I believe we might not be talking on the same page. With all due respect, I can compare whatever I like. The question is whether the comparison is meaningful or not. And whether or not it is meaningful is a function of the expectation of the exercise. If I were interested in conducting an appropriately designed and executed research project with sufficient scientific rigor to withstand full peer review, then I would do so. However, that is not my intent or expectation. And I expect if I were to choose such a path for research, that path would not be on an internet forum that has limited academia connections.


----------



## RickWhite (Jul 20, 2009)

tahoe58 said:


> I appreciate the thought you have put into your reply. Your description of a potential research direction is helpful in allowing me to understand your perspective. However, I believe we might not be talking on the same page. With all due respect, I can compare whatever I like. The question is whether the comparison is meaningful or not. And whether or not it is meaningful is a function of the expectation of the exercise. If I were interested in conducting an appropriately designed and executed research project with sufficient scientific rigor to withstand full peer review, then I would do so. However, that is not my intent or expectation. And I expect if I were to choose such a path for research, that path would not be on an internet forum that has limited academia connections.


So in other words there is no solid evidence to support the UVB hypothesis. Maybe some day someone will try a lizzard light over 1 clone compared to a similar clone without and do a single blind with some friends.

At any rate, the Hortilux blue lamps put out gobs of light in the UVB spectrum.


----------



## tahoe58 (Jul 20, 2009)

One of the paper's that might be valuable to review is Pate (1994) Chemical Ecology of Cannabis. There is another that is more quantitative but I have to still relocate it. I will pass along again what I do find.


----------



## shockerboy8 (Jul 20, 2009)

tahoe58 said:


> One of the paper's that might be valuable to review is Pate (1994) Chemical Ecology of Cannabis. There is another that is more quantitative but I have to still relocate it. I will pass along again what I do find.



hey man, if you don't mind me asking, how long are you exposing your plants to UVB everyday? I assume you want a steady increase. and when did you start exposure? and what kind of UVB light are you using? like watts?


----------



## tahoe58 (Jul 20, 2009)

hey no worries. I'm using 160W SolarGlo floodlights. I have two. I started with running them two hours then four then six then 8 .... I started them about a week into flower I think? I'd have to go back and check my calender of dates. Another friend of mine had an idea about putting them on a rheostat to infinitely adjust the UVB increasing intensity into noon and then decreasing intensity to night. These bulbs are self ballasted and I'm not sure that would work here. For now. that is how I am doing it. I am quite impressed with the results. But as is the case, there are other factors that influence the bud growth, not the least of which is a different phenotype - but regardless, she is a fine specimen, and I believe that some of that is due to the additional uv energy.


----------



## spiked1 (Jul 21, 2009)

Awesome stuff guys, especially the last 1/2 dozen or so posts.
It's such a pleasure to actually witness an intelligent concersation on this site.
I've been watching this post from the start as I bought some (3 to be exact) reptiglo 10 26W cfl's and have been experimenting for several months, unfortunately most of my notes were on a harddrive sent back for warranty replacement.
keep up the good work.


----------



## TheNatural (Jul 21, 2009)

Your almost there my friend, but you must get rid of any old ideas that will hold you back.

Get rid of a little bit of the Science mind and relax and concentrate on the " common sense. "

Very soon, I will show my brothers and sisters the full potential of our beloved Tree.......................

It is a combination of things that will expose the truth of our wonderful Tree........

UV, A and B are just one of the keys..........enough for now

Be Blessed,

Rev. TheNatural


----------



## tahoe58 (Jul 21, 2009)

many thanks for your contribution .... the whole picture is but a speck of the actuality. Walk On!~


----------



## shockerboy8 (Jul 21, 2009)

tahoe58 said:


> hey no worries. I'm using 160W SolarGlo floodlights. I have two. I started with running them two hours then four then six then 8 .... I started them about a week into flower I think? I'd have to go back and check my calender of dates. Another friend of mine had an idea about putting them on a rheostat to infinitely adjust the UVB increasing intensity into noon and then decreasing intensity to night. These bulbs are self ballasted and I'm not sure that would work here. For now. that is how I am doing it. I am quite impressed with the results. But as is the case, there are other factors that influence the bud growth, not the least of which is a different phenotype - but regardless, she is a fine specimen, and I believe that some of that is due to the additional uv energy.



thanks man i appreciate it. i plan on trying something out with the UV light and i'll definitely post if anything positive comes from it. which i'm sure will happen. 

and nice plant. that is a magical plant you have growing. keep that up.


----------



## tahoe58 (Jul 22, 2009)

hey man many thanks. I adore that girl. Her weight and stank are really advancing ..... whether that is a function of the additional uv energy or not I surely cannot say. The conditions of this grow have generally been more positive than the last, with the exception of a brief fairly intense nute burn. Sometimes I think that my brain would benefit from a little nutes burn ... maybe take a couple of notches off "full-bore-all-the-time" .... LOL!! I'll be posting some new pics hopefully later today. I actually turned the uvb exposure back to 6 hours in the middle of the day cuz I just got thinking that some of the severity and prolonged appearance of the nute burn may have been exacerbated with the intense uv light as wel? don't know, just thought I would be cautious. It is recommended to use a uv meter so you are better prepared to understand your actual intensity readings .... but I have not bought one yet. The recommended one is the Solartech Model 6.2 ($179) (http://www.solarmeter.com/model62.html). Meanwhile, she continues to get phatter n'phatter 


shockerboy8 said:


> thanks man i appreciate it. i plan on trying something out with the UV light and i'll definitely post if anything positive comes from it. which i'm sure will happen.
> 
> and nice plant. that is a magical plant you have growing. keep that up.


----------



## tahoe58 (Jul 22, 2009)

thanks Spike .... appreciate the positive feedback. I too considered the 10 reptiglo .... and almost bought them .... but I ran across a comparison of realized uv intensity, and these newer bulbs (SolarGlo) seems to have a better performance ...so I went with them ..... I will be interested to see the development of my new strains and see what fruits they bear. Again, many thanks for the visit and the thoughts!! Walk On!!~~~


spiked1 said:


> Awesome stuff guys, especially the last 1/2 dozen or so posts.
> It's such a pleasure to actually witness an intelligent concersation on this site.
> I've been watching this post from the start as I bought some (3 to be exact) reptiglo 10 26W cfl's and have been experimenting for several months, unfortunately most of my notes were on a harddrive sent back for warranty replacement.
> keep up the good work.


----------



## SableZen (Jul 22, 2009)

Question if anyone wants to clear it up for me:

I can see where the amount of cannabinoids, as a chemical messenger, present in a plant may be related to stress the plant is undergoing or having undergone...

And... I've read it conjectured that cannabinoids present in trichomes may be related to UV protection as a secondary role... 

But... where has the jump come from that controlling UVB exposure directly results in increased cannabinoids? Is there any measurable evidence of this anywhere - or is just conjecture based on subjective experiences? 

The whole premise just sounds really shaky to me - but hope I'm just missing some information?


----------



## tahoe58 (Jul 22, 2009)

many thanks for your visit and your questions. Those are valid questions as most recently raised. I believe the simple answer is no. I do not have in my possession a peer reviewed scientific document that empirically supports the hypotheses that increased uv exposure will have a direct positive influence over quantity of cannabinoids when directly compared with the identical circumstances less the uv energy. The anecdotal and subjective evidence that formed the basis for our assumption to initiate this thread may not be valid as I have already acknowledged. Regardless, I remain interested in observing the improvements (or not) in my crops with the changes I make to my environmental quality. The lack of the scientific evidence in no way diminishes the value (to me) of the exercise I am currently undertaking. I expect there will certainly be those that find that entire effort a waste of time. For them, that may be true. The same is not true for me.


----------



## shockerboy8 (Jul 22, 2009)

tahoe58 said:


> hey man many thanks. I adore that girl. Her weight and stank are really advancing ..... whether that is a function of the additional uv energy or not I surely cannot say. The conditions of this grow have generally been more positive than the last, with the exception of a brief fairly intense nute burn. Sometimes I think that my brain would benefit from a little nutes burn ... maybe take a couple of notches off "full-bore-all-the-time" .... LOL!! I'll be posting some new pics hopefully later today. I actually turned the uvb exposure back to 6 hours in the middle of the day cuz I just got thinking that some of the severity and prolonged appearance of the nute burn may have been exacerbated with the intense uv light as wel? don't know, just thought I would be cautious. It is recommended to use a uv meter so you are better prepared to understand your actual intensity readings .... but I have not bought one yet. The recommended one is the Solartech Model 6.2 ($179) (http://www.solarmeter.com/model62.html). Meanwhile, she continues to get phatter n'phatter



so are you supercropping that thing? cause it looks mucho bonzai like.


----------



## tahoe58 (Jul 22, 2009)

no not really a formal bonsai ...don't know how to do that actually. But I did successively remove the large fan leaves over a period of about a week resulting the form and structure she has. But this pheno was also quite predisposed to this structure from the get go. I believe the added uv energy is providing some additional fuel to this classical shape and structure. Thanks for dropping by. Walk On!~


----------



## RickWhite (Jul 23, 2009)

Until a sound explanation of TCH's roll is known, the smartest thing to do is to assume that TCH like all the other plant's anatomical parts are the product of optimal conditions. The problem with fooling around with UV light is that it the one thing we know it does well is destroys things. UV definitely kills a host of microbes and is known to be detrimental to just about everything from human skin to food and drink. That is why beer comes in amber bottles.

Granted, we know that there are some benefits from extra exposure in some cases such as reptiles or those suffering from SAD, but I'm sure these things are much more thoroughly researched. Basically what I'm saying is that it is just as likely that concentrated UV light can result in a net loss just as easily as a gain.


----------



## tahoe58 (Jul 23, 2009)

many thanks for your thoughts. I understand the caution in relation to the known and potnetially destructive properties of uv energy. The known and measured intensity of these particular lights does not exceed the "typical" equatorial intensity values. This is within the acceptable for my risk tolerance profile. Thanks again. 


RickWhite said:


> Until a sound explanation of TCH's roll is known, the smartest thing to do is to assume that TCH like all the other plant's anatomical parts are the product of optimal conditions. The problem with fooling around with UV light is that it the one thing we know it does well is destroys things. UV definitely kills a host of microbes and is known to be detrimental to just about everything from human skin to food and drink. That is why beer comes in amber bottles.
> 
> Granted, we know that there are some benefits from extra exposure in some cases such as reptiles or those suffering from SAD, but I'm sure these things are much more thoroughly researched. Basically what I'm saying is that it is just as likely that concentrated UV light can result in a net loss just as easily as a gain.


----------



## YouGrowBoy (Jul 23, 2009)

Great thread! Tahoe, I commend you for keeping it going since 11/07. I have read a lot of it (the 1st 6 or 7 pages, skipped the middle, then jumped to the last 5) and was wondering if you would be able to post a short summary of the best way to use UVB?

I understand the hazards and dangers to eyes, skin and health of humans, and also believe in the philosophy (and science) behind why it works on plants, I'm interested in the nuts and bolts of putting it into action.

As you're a person who's studied this for some time now, I'm interested in your thoughts on the following.

How many watts per sq ft?
How close to the plants?
What UVB % do you recommend?
How would you outfit the perfect garden? (around 6'x6')

Or any other practical advice for usage.

Many thanks for your contribution here.

YGB


----------



## tahoe58 (Jul 24, 2009)

tried to give some answers to you directly with the questions below. Thanks for your thoughts and comments. I really appreciate the contributions other people make to this thread. 


YouGrowBoy said:


> Great thread! Tahoe, I commend you for keeping it going since 11/07. I have read a lot of it (the 1st 6 or 7 pages, skipped the middle, then jumped to the last 5) and was wondering if you would be able to post a short summary of the best way to use UVB?  I might make an effort to do such a summary ... but that will take a little time to do it properly.
> 
> I understand the hazards and dangers to eyes, skin and health of humans, and also believe in the philosophy (and science) behind why it works on plants, I'm interested in the nuts and bolts of putting it into action.
> 
> ...


----------



## doobnVA (Jul 24, 2009)

Just a quick question, because I hear everyone saying how dangerous UV light is when it comes to using it for growing despite the fact that we are exposed to UV rays daily from the time we are born.

Is using a UV light for growing really any more dangerous than going outside?


----------



## born2killspam (Jul 24, 2009)

doobnVA said:


> Just a quick question, because I hear everyone saying how dangerous UV light is when it comes to using it for growing despite the fact that we are exposed to UV rays daily from the time we are born.
> 
> Is using a UV light for growing really any more dangerous than going outside?


Studies have linked UV exposure to gayness, but excessive body building may be the ultimate cause since they were unable to find enough control candidates who only did one or the other..


----------



## tahoe58 (Jul 24, 2009)

well there is the potential for damage. Just as being out in the sun can cause over-exposure. So can exposure to artificial UV light. It is a matter of intensity, and time of exposure. I stick my head and body and arms in my BBox a couple of time a day and dig around and water and trim and stare, mostly just stare..... ok so I love my plants, what can I say? Anyhow, I do not believe I am putting myself at risk with these activities.  But


doobnVA said:


> Just a quick question, because I hear everyone saying how dangerous UV light is when it comes to using it for growing despite the fact that we are exposed to UV rays daily from the time we are born.
> 
> Is using a UV light for growing really any more dangerous than going outside?


----------



## doobnVA (Jul 24, 2009)

born2killspam said:


> Studies have linked UV exposure to gayness, but excessive body building may be the ultimate cause since they were unable to find enough control candidates who only did one or the other..


I always knew something was fishy about those bodybuilders! Also explains why there are so many gay people in California.

Seriously though, is using a UV light for growing really any more dangerous than forgetting the sunscreen at the beach?


----------



## tahoe58 (Jul 24, 2009)

hahahaha .... too funny. good one!! Walk [email protected]@!!!~~~~~ 


born2killspam said:


> Studies have linked UV exposure to gayness, but excessive body building may be the ultimate cause since they were unable to find enough control candidates who only did one or the other..


----------



## YouGrowBoy (Jul 25, 2009)

tahoe58 said:


> tried to give some answers to you directly with the questions below. Thanks for your thoughts and comments. I really appreciate the contributions other people make to this thread.



Thanks for the answers. They were a big help. 

YGB


----------



## tahoe58 (Jul 25, 2009)

no worries at all. I a grateful to be able to provide some insight. if u be doing some testing of ur own .... I would certainly be interested in what you had to say, how things worked, what worked, what didn't, the individual and specific challenges you had. Many thanks for coming by for the visit. I'm glad I could help out a little. Walk on!~~~ 


YouGrowBoy said:


> Thanks for the answers. They were a big help.
> 
> YGB


----------



## RickWhite (Jul 25, 2009)

doobnVA said:


> Just a quick question, because I hear everyone saying how dangerous UV light is when it comes to using it for growing despite the fact that we are exposed to UV rays daily from the time we are born.
> 
> Is using a UV light for growing really any more dangerous than going outside?


I have to chuckle a bit when I read this. Have you ever been in a tanning salon? Why do you suppose they insist that you wear eye protection? The answer is yes.

However, if the bulbs used are no more powerful than that of typical equatorial light they are probably fine. If you use bulbs from tanning beds you might come back in an hour to find your plants dried, cured and smoked.

So the question is where the line is drawn. IDK what kind of lumens those reptile lights put out or how they compare to say a Hortilux MH Blue in terms of UVB lumens.

But the question is also if the hypothesis is correct. We already know that UV exposer degrades THC after harvest. The question is, does UVB promote THC production, does it degrade the THC being produced and which happens faster.

It could be the case that UVB light does promote THC production but that in protecting the seed from the UVB (which answers your question about damage), the THC is also destroyed. In that case it might be better to grow a plant that evolved with this mechanism and grow it in the absence of high UVB. We simply don't know.

An interesting experiment might be to take two clones, flower one with say a 100W 2700K CFL and the other with a similar 50W bulb plus a 50W reptile light. Then smoke plant A with three or 4 friends, take notes and then a week later do it again with plant B and compare. Not exactly scientific but at least you might determine if the difference is appreciable. If it's not then why bother with inefficient lights.


----------



## tahoe58 (Jul 25, 2009)

many thanks for your thoughts. Not sure if either of these will be of any assistance, but in my view they do have some applicability to your queries. I have readily found all this online. (1) Pharmacological and therapeutic secrets of plant and brain (endo)cannabinoids (2) A CHEMOTAXONOMIC ANALYSIS OF CANNABINOID VARIATION IN CANNABIS (CANNABACEAE); (3) An elaboration on the phytochemical process that makes THC; (4) Marijuana Chemistry (Chapter 2) (6) Influence of low-intensity ultraviolet radiation on extrusion of furanocoumarins to the leaf surface AND (6) Influence of ambient and enhanced ultraviolet-B radiation on the plant growth and physiological properties in two contrasting populations of _Hippophae rhamnoides_ [while acknowledging these are completely unrelated species - the relationship between plant physiology and structure are influenced by uv light]


----------



## bakeddude (Jul 25, 2009)

I skimmed over a lot of this and its got some really great stuff in it. It basically confirms the mixed spectrum theory in flowering.

1. If you can only have one light for an entire grow, get a HPS.
2. If you can afford the metal halide or cfl's for veg, do it as you will get shorter node spacing, and a bushier style plant. 
3. When you switch to flowering (if not using HPS the whole grow) add the hps to the current cfl/metal halide setup. By having daylight cfls and the blue from the metal halide, thc production skyrockets from the UV being put out by those two lights. The HPS adds the red spectrum which is used to get fatter and bigger buds.

1.Commercial grade big yield, less potent = Straight hps the whole grow
2.Quality grade big yield, denser buds, more potent = CFL/Metal Halide add HPS when switching to 12/12
3.Quality grade airy buds, less yield, more potent = CFL/Metal Halide the whole grow


----------



## tahoe58 (Aug 3, 2009)

This is my current grow with a top44 girl, currently 63 days since that start of 12-12. The "real" flowering started about ten days after the introduction to 12-12. This setup also has fully automated [email protected] (reportedly to maintain 1600ppm) and a 400W HPS. And it is in soil with Sensi-Bloom A + B, Molasses, and VoodooJuice.

Of course I cannot say one factor is more or most influential than any other, but I certainly am pleased with these results. Walk On!!~~~~


----------



## YouGrowBoy (Aug 4, 2009)

tahoe58 said:


> Of course I cannot say one factor is more or most influential than any other, but I certainly am pleased with these results. Walk On!


You've done a nice job on your grow. The real strength or promise with UVB is not the size of your buds (and you're buds look nice) it's the amount of and color of the trichomes. As I understand it, UVB does not effect the actual growth but instead the trichome production. What I'd like to see is a close up of the tri's on this bud compared to the tri's on one far away from the UVB.

YGB


----------



## imanoob (Aug 4, 2009)

YouGrowBoy said:


> As I understand it, UVB does not effect the actual growth but instead the trichome production. What I'd like to see is a close up of the tri's on this bud compared to the tri's on one far away from the UVB.YGB


Funny you should say that, I will try get up some pics for you guys. I have had one strawberry haze plant under the UVB for the majority of its grow (i think i started the 2nd week into flower)...you can actually see the diff with your eyes...and im not even talking too close up!

Room setup
UVB
SH - ST/LS
HPS
SH - SH

BUT they plant beside the Strawberry haze was giving to us from a friend. Its either sweet tooth or lifesaver. Not sure tbh...but that plant doesnt look to have much tri's at all. Weird. The leaves look to have a "plastic" sheen to them! 


Oh, and you have a great looking plant tahoe58! What strain is it?


----------



## tahoe58 (Aug 4, 2009)

thanks ... for the compliments to my grow. I really appreciate that.

I think I understand what you mean, Like the density of trichomes on each measured area of the leaves/calyxes? Yea, like the overall frostiness. I think that the "volume" of growth comes from the higher ambient concentration of CO2 and commensurate increases in water/fuel intake. 

I had a little of a surprise yesterday. I was over viewing my male cohort. The ones outside looked very beautiful and progressing well. But one of the ones that I had in the BBox really for probably close to too long, was actually much more developed (real flowertop seedpod complex) than the one I had put outside a bit ago (and which at the time were further along in their maturity for sure in terms of comparison). It had me thinking that one reasonable explanation for such advanced development by the BBox plant would be that the exact circumstances I describe above which makes the cab grow more advanced more quickly ..... CO2, UVB, HPS, Nutes, Water .... ? or am I just sting the obvious?

it is a top44 ..... which last time (same seed batch) I got a good yield of some pretty speedy smoke, great for activity, and for me, a perma-smile. I have yet to be able to find any convincing geneology for it to really understand it. Thiese plants all demonstrate some broad sativa characteristics, and yet others have said the large single monstor cola is surely more indica. I dunno, I like it, it smokes well, and will be a great alternative for the DQ and MM that are up and coming.


----------



## bulkybud (Aug 13, 2009)

For you guys using UVB 10.0 26 watt CFL's, how far do you keep it from the canopy? I have two of them with my 600 HPS and I plan on using them until a week from harvest. They are running 8 hours/day midway through the 12 hour cycle and I keep them slightly further than my HPS on opposite ends of the grow room.


----------



## tahoe58 (Aug 13, 2009)

hey there .... sounds good. It is my understanding that the distance to bulb should not necessarily be more than 18-24 inches or less and 4-6" . I have inadvertently had leaves within inches of the light and they do receive damage. Penetration is poor. So I believe it is just important to not be too close. The further away ones? they get what they get unless you added more uvb lights

Here's my Cola as she stands today.


----------



## bulkybud (Aug 13, 2009)

Thanks for the reply Tahoe58. That makes my job easy, since I can keep the lights within the upper range of my 600 HPS. I caught the chart on page 62, and it seems if I keep the two UVB's at opposite ends of my 10-12' footprint, it should spread pretty well throughout the canopy.

This may be anecdotal, but my local Kush which I have grown twice from seed, is showing sex a lot earlier (day 2 vs 6-10 days previously). Don't know if that is genetics or the effect of UVB...but definitely something to keep in mind for future grows.


----------



## tahoe58 (Aug 13, 2009)

excellent, thanks for the feedback and appreciate your thoughts. Walk on!!~~~


----------



## munki (Sep 10, 2009)

tahoe58 said:


> excellent, thanks for the feedback and appreciate your thoughts. Walk on!!~~~



Hmmm, no posts in the last few weeks. I would like to thank everyone for their contributions to this "illuminating" discussion (OK I couldn't resist). Especially you, tahoe58, thank you for all you have done the past few years.

I decided to investigate this for the end of my ScrOG grow. I have written a journal for it, but it is on another site. I found a Zilla Low Profile Double Fixture. It has two 18 watt, 30 inch T5 bulbs in it. It was on clearance at Petco for half off ($40). I plan on suspending the lamp 3 to 6 inches above the screen on one side of the grow and tilt the lamp 45 degrees so the radiation can spill out to the middle. This should allow me to see if the response of one plant's bud tops under the various levels of UV radiation. As I get towards the middle of the screen, the UV radiation level should fall to undetctable levels. I'm going to install it tonight and I'll post any results here as well.


----------



## TheGreatPretender (Sep 10, 2009)

ooooo anxiously awaiting results


----------



## tahoe58 (Sep 12, 2009)

very many thanks ..... I appreciate your effort and your thoughts. I will be interesteed in what your results show. thanks again.


munki said:


> Hmmm, no posts in the last few weeks. I would like to thank everyone for their contributions to this "illuminating" discussion (OK I couldn't resist). Especially you, tahoe58, thank you for all you have done the past few years.
> 
> I decided to investigate this for the end of my ScrOG grow. I have written a journal for it, but it is on another site. I found a Zilla Low Profile Double Fixture. It has two 18 watt, 30 inch T5 bulbs in it. It was on clearance at Petco for half off ($40). I plan on suspending the lamp 3 to 6 inches above the screen on one side of the grow and tilt the lamp 45 degrees so the radiation can spill out to the middle. This should allow me to see if the response of one plant's bud tops under the various levels of UV radiation. As I get towards the middle of the screen, the UV radiation level should fall to undetctable levels. I'm going to install it tonight and I'll post any results here as well.


hey man thanks for the visit. Yea certainly time for an update.


TheGreatPretender said:


> ooooo anxiously awaiting results


so the top44 was harvested. 128g dry. not a bad haul for one plant for sure. she was a special bitch! hahahaha! The smoke is fabulous ..... a little more heady than my last grow. and I like it a little more that way. Some of the earlier bud that I harvested is more speedy, but still a great smoke.

My next grow is underway. I have DairyQueen and a GooeyBreeder strain. Only a sinlge plant each. Both are doing well. This is a shot of the DQ at 4-5wks. Pretty frosty foo shur.


----------



## bulkybud (Sep 24, 2009)

>


Beautiful looking plant Tahoe! I'm midway through week 6 of my White Rhino and Carnival grow. The plants are surely packing on the ''sugar'' especially the ones closest to the UVB. I have been running the 10.0 CFL about 4 hours a day and the plants aren't showing any particular stress from it. I will post some budshots in 2-3 weeks when I harvest the first few plants.


----------



## tahoe58 (Sep 24, 2009)

excellent, and many thanks for your contribution .... we all look forward to your pics ... thanks again for sharing!! Walk on!!~~ 


bulkybud said:


> Beautiful looking plant Tahoe! I'm midway through week 6 of my White Rhino and Carnival grow. The plants are surely packing on the ''sugar'' especially the ones closest to the UVB. I have been running the 10.0 CFL about 4 hours a day and the plants aren't showing any particular stress from it. I will post some budshots in 2-3 weeks when I harvest the first few plants.


----------



## DaveCoulier (Oct 8, 2009)

Before deciding how you want to introduce UV lighting to your plants, check out this site.

http://www.uvguide.co.uk/index.htm

A shame they dont have tests done on the Solar Glo.

If this link was already posted somewhere deep in this thread, my apologies.

This is an interesting read.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/v55778540771772j/


----------



## DaveCoulier (Oct 9, 2009)

For those of you that are too lazy to actually check out the link about lights, I would suggest the Mega Rays. They seem to be what most reptile owners consider top of the line, and they last alot longer than other brands. Dont forget they put off alot of heat, so make sure your grow area can deal with it before purchasing one.

http://www.reptileuv.com/


----------



## damnbigbudz (Oct 10, 2009)

This is awesome by the way. I would have never guessed that a plant that makes people feel awesome would lead us all to such high level botany. It is sad that we are required to grovel and hide, it is sad that this research cant be better organized and shared hindrance free with a world that is ready to process it. (kicks soapbox off-stage)

I have grasped the concept of light spectrum analysis and the effect of specific wavelengths on not only plant growth but trichome development, but I am having trouble pinpointing the correct wavelength or series of alternating wavelengths that will jump start the THC potency we are all looking for. If UVB is the answer and it is generally agreed upon that bud grown outside TENDS to have greater potency why don't we use black lights? According to this website and graph... (which I found on this thread)

http://www.anapsid.org/uvtable.html

black lights produce the exact same amount of UVB as the sun, they also don't create as much heat as reptile lamps. Granted it wont breed super bud but what if this is a missing link for indoor grows? I want to thank not only this site but especially tahoe58. I will continue to +rep as I progress back through this thread and see people who have contributed valuable and useful information. 

I am currently on my first serious grow (my first 2 weren't so hot) and will be purchasing black lights to throw in my flowering tent along with my 1000watt HPS (which after reading this thread I hope wasn't a waste of my money). I will post updates in my journal for any who are interested (unless someone has information that debunks my black light theory). If I do not see an increase in trichome development I will continue on to testing the various reptile lights.

Best of luck to all, and PLEASE criticize anything I say as it is pure conjecture and I would love solid facts to work off of. Because waiting in almost 3 month cycles to evaluate the effects of my whack experiments is very frustrating.


----------



## DaveCoulier (Oct 10, 2009)

I read through that article and I did not find anything stating that blacklights produce the same levels as the sun. I did read that they produce low levels of UVB radiation. Point it out in the article for me If Im wrong.


----------



## DaveCoulier (Oct 10, 2009)

Tahoe did you notice an increased speed at which your Thrichromes turned amber? I read a thread on another site regarding UVB, and a guy ended up with 50% amber after running the lights for 3 light periods straight in late flowering(last week I think) 8-10 hours a day. 

He suggested running the lights heavy in early flowering and gradually taper off near the end to prevent this. Whats your thoughts?


----------



## damnbigbudz (Oct 10, 2009)

[FONT=Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]*1. REPRESENTATIVE LIGHT SOURCES AND THEIR PRINCIPAL TYPES OF RADIATION*
_Note: Wavelengths responsible for conversion of 7-dehydrocholesterol to cholecalciferol: 280-315nm_[/FONT] [FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Verdana]*SOURCE*[/FONT] 
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Verdana]*RADIATION*[/FONT] 
[FONT=Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]Sun[/FONT] 
[FONT=Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]*UVB  290-320 nm*, UVA 320-400 NM, Visible 400-700 NM, Infrared >700 NM[/FONT] 
[FONT=Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]Incandescents (frosted, reflector floods, spots, halogen lamps[/FONT] 
[FONT=Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]UVA 320-400 NM (low levels), Visible 400-700 NM, Infrared >700 NM[/FONT] 
[FONT=Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]*Fluorescents:*[/FONT] 
[FONT=Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]Chroma 50, Colortone 50, Design50, Cool White, Warm White[/FONT] 
[FONT=Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]Visible 400-700 NM
UVB 280-320 NM (low levels), UVA 320-400 NM (low levels)[/FONT] 
[FONT=Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]Plant lights[/FONT] 
[FONT=Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]Emphasize red and blue spectrums within Visible 400-700 NM[/FONT] 
*[FONT=Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]Blacklights (BL)[/FONT]
* [FONT=Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]*UVB 290-320 NM (low levels similar to Vita-Lite)*, UVA 320-400 NM[/FONT] 
[FONT=Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]Blacklight Blue (BLB)[/FONT] 
[FONT=Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]Same as BL but with less blue light emitted; reported harmful to eyes[/FONT] 
[FONT=Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]Sun lamps, Germicidal Lamps, Phototherapy lamps[/FONT] 
[FONT=Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]High levels of UVB causes skin cancer, cataracts, etc.[/FONT] 
[FONT=Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]*Other UV Sources:*[/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]High Intensity Discharge Mercury, Metal Halide[/FONT] 
[FONT=Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]Visible 400-700 NM, Infrared >700 NM; UVA and UVB are shielded due to extensive damage to skin and eyes caused by such high intensity[/FONT] 
[FONT=Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]Mercury vapor combo heat/UV product[/FONT] 
[FONT=Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]Extremely high  output of UVA and UVB posing health hazards to humans and reptiles in typical home setting

IT IS COMPLETELY POSSIBLE THOUGH THAT I AM READING THIS WRONG
[/FONT]


----------



## DaveCoulier (Oct 10, 2009)

Oh, now I see what you're getting at. The reason people aren't using blacklights for UVB is because its output probably isn't as intense as Mercury Vapor Bulbs, etc. It also doesn't have any of the visible wavelengths the plants also need. I couldn't come up with any data showing how much UVB light blacklights provide over varying distances, but Id steer clear of them and just use a MVB.


----------



## 420pharms (Oct 11, 2009)

tanning bed lamps? merc vapor ? I have a freind who works in a light testing lab I have been trying to get his cooperation and he says he will but that remains to be. I have so many things to get under control now that I may not be playing UVB yet, but I will


----------



## 420pharms (Oct 11, 2009)

do you think that my trichs wont turn is due to lack of uvb co2 enriched 4x600w hps? can get them a little milky but thats it I have indicas that are close to 12 wks in bloom counting first wk sativas that should run 12wks pistols ready in 10wks ?


----------



## DaveCoulier (Oct 12, 2009)

Its not a lack of UVB. People grow and harvest all the time indoors w/o UVB. Your plant is probably just a later bloomer


----------



## 420pharms (Oct 12, 2009)

violator kush, pure power, afgan kush, blueberry all indicas all over 11wks no amber visable I am not really on topic but Im not getting normal results no fresh air co2 enriched temp contlroled


----------



## RanTyr (Oct 13, 2009)

Amazing thread with a great deal of information. Unfortunately we may never know the fulle ffects of UV light on living things in our lifetime. Having undergone a trial that involved UV treatment for SAD I can assure that under-doing it is better than over-doing it.


----------



## tahoe58 (Oct 17, 2009)

hey ya'll .... thanks for poppin on in. Yea overdoing it is nasty. I am very interested in the comment relating to the acceleration of trichome maturation. My last set of plants have had some challenges I thought mostly to pH/nutes screwups of my own. But I am going to think about that other aspect some more because it would follow that the uvb light intensity would be dynamic and somewhat seasonal with the exception of directly at the equator. Something to ponder ...while enjoying the fruits of the labour.  I dunno, in my view I looked into it because it was interesting, and I had the time. My effort was rewarded with a belief that it would be beneficial to add it to the process. With no quantitative support, I believe it does improve the product. And in a way, that all that matters ..... Walk on!!~~~~~


RanTyr said:


> Amazing thread with a great deal of information. Unfortunately we may never know the fulle ffects of UV light on living things in our lifetime. Having undergone a trial that involved UV treatment for SAD I can assure that under-doing it is better than over-doing it.


----------



## Roland (Oct 17, 2009)

420pharms said:


> do you think that my trichs wont turn is due to lack of uvb co2 enriched 4x600w hps? can get them a little milky but thats it I have indicas that are close to 12 wks in bloom counting first wk sativas that should run 12wks pistols ready in 10wks ?


 
Try taking a few buds and drying and curing them .. mine seem to turn more amber after a couple weeks of curing

also: turn the lights off for a few cycles and cut nutrient's back .. that should help trich's turn amber ...

I'm also a believer in fresh air


----------



## 6wayswinger (Oct 19, 2009)

Ok then firstly on a cloudy day in uk uvb levels can be 200 thats through the clouds lol so putting a 7% or 12% uvb bulb cant do any dammage?. so i used a 7% reptile bulb from 12 12 switchover. 12 hours a day till the end. ihad no problems whatsoever i did get some good trich coverage an was v strong. hope this is a helpull post


----------



## tahoe58 (Oct 29, 2009)

Review

The effect of ultraviolet radiation on the accumulation of medicinal compounds in plants

Wen Jing Zhanga, b and Lars Olof Björna, c, , 

aLund University, Department of Cell and Organism Biology, Sölvegatan 35, SE-22362 Lund, Sweden

bQingHai Normal University, Key Laboratory of Resources and Environment in Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, Ministry of Education, Qinghai 810008, China

cKey Laboratory of Ecology and Environmental Science in Guangdong Higher Education, School of Life Science, South China Normal University, Guangzhou 510631, China


Received 8 January 2009; accepted 11 February 2009. Available online 23 February 2009. 
Abstract

A review is given of how the production by plants of compounds useful as medicines or raw materials for manufacture of medicines is influenced by ultraviolet radiation, particularly by UV-B radiation (280315 nm wavelength). The compounds considered in this review are flavonoids and other phenolics, alkaloids (especially indole terpenoid and purine alkaloids), essential oils and other terpenoids, cannabinoids, glucosinolates and isothiocyanates, and compounds having human hormone activity. A short account is also given of ultraviolet signalling in plants. The review concludes with a discussion of the possible evolutionary mechanisms that have led to the evolution of UV-B regulation of secondary metabolite accumulation.

Graphical abstract


----------



## blueybong (Oct 30, 2009)

I just wanted to share that I'm at the beginning of week 3 flowering and started using the ReptiSun 10.0 UVB Desert @ week 1, with no ill affects. The bulbs on from 9am to 5pm, while the 400W HPS comes on @ 7am & off @ 7pm.

I'm growing 1 NL, 1 WW & 2 Thai in a 4'X4'X6.5' tent.


----------



## merahoon (Nov 1, 2009)

I'm creeping up on week 2 of flowering and have not introduced uvb yet. I was curious as to when the best time would be to add the 10.0 uvb bulb. Also whats the best suggested time for it to be on?


----------



## Gardenboy420 (Nov 1, 2009)

I have done extensive testing and this is what I can offer.

If you are on a 12 -12 schedule, much like the fall season, think of sun intensity during the day. The strongest sun is usually during the fourth to seventh hour. That is when I turned my UVB"S on. Yes multiple, to the tune of 25 in a 130 sq ft. The pre and post hour I turned on for 5, off for 15, on for 10, off for 10, then on throught the seventh hour, and a degregation of the same on the 8th hour.

The test source were indentical clones, Test group A Inside, under 1000w hps, UVB, and a high color temp 26w CFL(mounted vertically in a four corner post layout), and Test group B outside just mother sun. The differnence was night and day. The addition of the UVB at a close high intensity created and explosion of tri's and enhanced smoke (when cured properly VERY IMPORTANT). Tri's act like sunscreen, and UVB will burn the crap out of anything if given the chance. You included! This can be very costly though, another method to achieve similar results when doing an inside grow, leave the MH on the first 10 days of the 12/12 intro. Switch to HPS until the last 14 days of your cycle and switch back to MH. Harvest only after letting your mama's sit in the dark for about 36-48 hours (see prior postings for exp. for doing this). Turn the lights on for an hour and harvest. 

While on the subject of UV, I also utilize UVC lights to control insects and mold issues. This is a very tricky subject and should only be attempted by seasoned growers. It works extremely well, and I have even introduced pests, and molds in my growing enviroment to research the validity and ability to work... It does and is much better than the numerous products or homemade potions to control the same detriments.

Ok with all that said, PLEASE, turn off any UV light when entering a room. A,B,or C. It is very bad for you, especially the eyes!! Be safe, happy vegetating!


----------



## tahoe58 (Nov 1, 2009)

This is a current shot of my DairyQueen(SubCool TGA). Frosty is and Forsty says.


----------



## DaveCoulier (Nov 2, 2009)

Thats a beautiful plant. It looks like you dunked it in sugar. Me want!


----------



## masterd (Nov 2, 2009)

love this thread, sick of trying to find it, 

subscribed


----------



## tahoe58 (Nov 3, 2009)

The Same DQ lady ripening up to full maturity .... some time to go yet?


----------



## tahoe58 (Nov 3, 2009)

And the GooeyBreeder which is of PurpleEmpress heritage


----------



## DannyGreenEyes (Nov 4, 2009)

I'm about to start my first grow, have three 400w on the way (2hps & 1mh) and I'm just learning bout UV exposure. I'm starting with 8 plants, 2 Sour Diesel, 2 Citrus Diesel, 2 Blueberry, 1 Grape Ape, & 1 Oak Leaf.

I've read that UVA exposure is important as UVB rays use them somehow, but overexposure to UVA can be dangerous. I also heard that the reptile lights give off much more UVA than UVB.

That said, I'll probably start off with 2 reptile lamps due to cash flow problems. I'll start with one on each side of the 2 rows of plants. I'll hang them hi at first and I'll slowly move them closer to the plant till I'm as close as I can be, and I'm going to try using them during veg to see if it helps.

I'm going to be looking to upgrade as soon as I can. Very early in this thread someone mentioned that www.reptileuv.com was developing a UV Metal Halide, well it's here and they're selling them. I just wish I could read the charts. Can someone read them and let us all know how they stack up against the other types, and also let us know if it's overkill or if they just took regular MHs and renamed them.

Can you also break down the UVA & UVC levels in these UV MHs.

Thanks.


----------



## DaveCoulier (Nov 5, 2009)

Thats a good bulb if your plants are directly underneath it. It just doesn't have the width of light I would want. I plan on using the Mega-Ray 160w Narrow Flood lamp.

You can see how it performs here:

http://www.uvguide.co.uk/spreadchartcombo.htm

Almost 48 inch wingspan versus the 24 or so for the MH you posted.

That MH is also $120. At least it doesn't produce extra heat like the flood lamps though.


----------



## DannyGreenEyes (Nov 5, 2009)

DaveCoulier said:


> Thats a good bulb if your plants are directly underneath it. It just doesn't have the width of light I would want. I plan on using the Mega-Ray 160w Narrow Flood lamp.
> 
> You can see how it performs here:
> 
> ...


 
Thanks for the info, what a bummer though. I didn't see the pic with the spotlights and I was assuming that all metal halide bulbs were made in the same shape as a MH Grow light and use the same kind of ballast. I can't imagine why they wouldn't make them that way but I hope they start making them soon. Spotlights are going to be harder to work with, even the wide angle ones. Oh well, we can't have everything I guess.

Can anyone tell me how to figure out the UVA, UVB, & UVC output of a bulb. I guess I'm going to start with aquarium lamps and I want to buy the one with the lowest UVA output. Problem is these bulbs don't list a breakdown of the UV spectrums and in most cases don't even list the total UV output.


----------



## groove (Apr 25, 2010)

I've got that one repti glo 10.0. 24". How far it need to be and how much hours of exposure? during veg? during flower?


----------



## MAXXDANK (Dec 22, 2011)

tahoe58 said:


> hey there folks ..... nice to see the thread alive and well again. I guess I have a couple of thoughts that come from this last round above. I had a substantial folder of background material that disappeared with my last hard drive. I have slowly been pulling together all those that I can find. I have not gone back through this thread but I would have sworn that I made reference to stuff along the way. And it is also my recollection that the discussion was as said above, not about whether or not there was increased trichome and thc production with higher incidence of uv light, it was a discussion about how and why the biology, the physics, the whatever? I suppose it was one of the underlying thread assumptions that it had been shown with reasonable certainty that the addition of uv light to an indoor grow improved the results - yield improved, but to a lessor extent than quality-potency).
> 
> I also believe that there was a component of this discussion that revolved around the shortcomings of indoor growing. It was not only the argument that pot from equatorial regions which measurably receive the greatest uv intensity was greatest among pot strains. With the advancement in lighting and metrics, the thought of "what's missing" what can we do to "mimic" sunlight more closely? this is based on the observed results that people achieve with indoor and outdoor grows. It is a belief held by me that outdoor pot given the same due care and attention indoor growing receives but with the sun's real energy, the monsters you can grow are out of this world. So there really were multiple drivers behind seeking a better understanding of the relationship between uv and thc/trichome.
> 
> ...


brilliant.....


----------



## Bonzo Mendoza (Apr 7, 2012)

Early Results of uv-b experiment in gorw room: SUCCESS!!!

I have a 2x600w HPS and double 48" 32 watt t8 fixture with two 5.0 Reptisun uv-b flourescent tubes. The garden has a few Bubblicious, some Short Ryder, several AK48, and some Deisel. I have Northern Lights too, but the NL are never exposed to the uv-b. The uv-b fisture was suspended along the edge of the garden - only one side of the garden received uv-b illuminance/ The bulbs were hung 3-4 inches above the plants. According to earlier posts i hve made, I calculated that the uv-b exposure at that range to be around 100 milliwats of uv-b - equivalent to the uv index in an American Sunbelt city on a cloudy summer day. 

For all strains, some seeds produced more healthy plants than othersl; for example, the Bubbleicious produced both weak and striong plants, while all of the AK48 plants came up strong. 

For the healthy plants, all strains respond well to the uv-b. Weak or damaged plants suffered damage under the uv-b.

The plants are a full two weeks into flowering.

The uv-b lights are causing the Bubbleicious and AK plants to make terpenes like crazy - compared to the other plants, the bud feel damp to the touch and your fingers come away REEKING. The Bubbleicious smells exactly like a piece of Bazooka bubblegum!!! 

The Short Ryders are not under the uv-b; now, about 50 days from seed sprout, the Short Ryders have lots of nice resiny piney-smelling buds. The Short Ryder are going to be good smoking (but small yeild), but those uv-b AK's are going to be the stars of the grow this season.

I still have a month and a half for flowering plus another 4 weeks to finish the late sprouted Northern Lights.

I am definitely going to go get another $35 t8 48" fisture at Home Depot and order two new Reptisun 10.0 bulbs.

Actually I need two new t8 fixtures from Home Depot - after less than 30 days, the one I have is already having problems and needs to be replaced (fucking chink rubbish). HD sells a 48" t8 with an EXCELLENT polished nickel reflector (painted metel does not reflect uv-b) - that is really a good reflector for such a low price.

These three strains were a waste of time and money:
Nirvana Super Skunk (poor germination, way too many males, very poor flowering by surviving females)
Nirvana Kaya Gold (a weak indica)
Nirvana free seeds


----------



## mmjmon22 (Mar 9, 2014)

So, is this thread dead? If so, why? Was there ever any great conclusions? Everyone continuing to use these uv bulbs in their grows?


----------

