wietefras
Well-Known Member
Are we talking about the same "sun"?
Again, you really are going to loose massively on yield if you go for something resembling that spectrum
320w QB or 315 CMH
- Thread starter No1up
- Start date
Again, you really are going to loose massively on yield if you go for something resembling that spectrum
rkymtnman
Well-Known Member
this sun. yellow line is full sunlight. notice the high blue peak and higher red peak. similar to a grow room with no clouds inside.
so your theory is that you loose massively on yield if you grow with sunlight? you guys are delusional.
my original point is still true no matter how you try to rail against it: THC increases with exposure to UVB.
rkymtnman
Well-Known Member
check out htgsupply.com
you want the 2 ft single T5 pure UV bulb. or longer depending on your room size. probably 40 bucks total for bulb/fixture.
i run it 15mins ON for a few times during lights ON. don't get close to your plants or it will literally melt your leaves. and turn off whenever you are in the room.
Humple
Well-Known Member
It's this sort of rigmarole that leaves me completely uninterested in adding UV to my grows. There's just too much fussing about for my taste, and I honestly don't need my weed to be any stronger, so... I pass. That said, if someone feels the need to increase THC, and they don't mind the fussing, more power to them. But as has been pointed out, any THC increase is likely going to be marginal, so how valuable is it, really? You wouldn't happen to have any with/without labs, would you?
rkymtnman
Well-Known Member
nope.
what do you consider marginal? if a strain was 12% without and 14% with, that's hardly marginal IMO. for the cost of less than a single malt, i'm down with it.
Humple
Well-Known Member
No, I wouldn't consider a 15% increase to be marginal, but I would be surprised if that ratio could be maintained across most strains. For that matter, I'd be surprised if a 12% strain could be UV'd into a 14% strain. But yeah, if you're down to do it, why the hell not, I guess. If you don't mind the fuss, any gain you see will be all gravy. But as a fellow scotch-drinker, I'd say it really depends on the single malt! Tomatin prices would be one thing, but Lagavulin another entirely...
rkymtnman
Well-Known Member
my fav. i'm definitely an Islay homer for sure.
Laphroaig and Ardbeg are 2 and 3 on my list.
Budies 101
Well-Known Member
This is simply not a debate I care to have, but if you can get 2% THC more just by adding UV then everyone would have done it... Consider, at 20% THC adding 2% THC is a 10% difference, meaning there is a cheap and incredibly easy thing to add for INCREDIBLE gains in THC levels. 2% is starting point by your "random" guess, meaning once tested thousands of times you can be assured that more than 2% would be possible... meaning that adding UV could add 10% to 30% more THC. Odds of you landing on that perfect level of UV on the first trial runs is almost non existent.
While I'm not saying that UV won't help, I'm suggesting you add to the pile of people that have used UV and show us where no one else has been able to, that having UV will give you such large gains.
We are in the LED section where the whole point is to create a better light through efficiency... Why grow with LED if you use the same watts but ends up costing so much more for the lights upfront with no long term savings? Consider that if a new CoB or diode came out today that offered 10% better efficiency over everything else out there how these boards would blow up... If UV added 10% more THC or better once tested over years then my feelings are that we would already know about it because UV is not "new tech."
What you're suggesting as a possible increase (2% thc with UV) is that on the low end 10% more THC should be possible with added UV. Meaning on the LOW END that's 1% more THC per 10% THC tested bud. At let's say a high of 30% increase in THC levels with added UV should make it 20% THC bud now 26%.. Again if tested over years you can bet people will find the best UV and times/levels and get higher returns... If this were the case, once again, we would know all about it.
30% THC bud would mean we could see 39% THC bud...
Again, feel free to try it out, do the testing to prove it works and go down in history as one of the greats. I'm being honest, I'd follow your work if you can show that it actually works. I personally don't understand how outdoor is not massively better than indoor on THC levels...
rkymtnman
Well-Known Member
my point is I don't care about large gains. Any gain, and it's proven there is one, is worth the $40 bucks(bulb and timer, had the t5 fixture) I spent.
nfhiggs
Well-Known Member
No, its basically a flat line that slopes from the blue end toward the red end.
a mongo frog
Well-Known Member
Yea but isn't your favorite smoke out door sour diesel?
Budies 101
Well-Known Member
I don't smoke. I just started using edibles for sleep and I hate it. At 37 years old I never used any drugs and for myself, I clearly can tell a huge difference in my ability to hold a conversation and even play sports but I just sleep so poorly that I use marijuana for that and that only.
If one day energy were "free," meaning we're not using fossil fuels anymore, I doubt there would be any debate on what's "better," seeing as most the debate centers around burning energy VS using the sun and comments like "can you do it better than mother nature?"... And of course we all know almost everything can be done better than mother nature as there is no mother and nature is a process of evolution based on what's in supply and only "evolves" when something is killing off the weaker to allow for evolutionary traits to shine through. Mother nature didn't build your house or computer, car or phone... But everything used to make these items was provided by our world.
That is my situation and stance, everyone is different and Marijuana can help others in ways I'm not here to judge anyone for as it's their life, their choices.
=)
Budies 101
Well-Known Member
Should be solid =)
wietefras
Well-Known Member
Well this has been established not by me, but by scientific experiment. Forgot how much it was exactly, but it was in the order of magnitude of 10% less than the lights indoor growers normally use.
I have never said otherwise. Stop pretending I did. My original point is still that you don't understand that the effect of UV is proportional to the amount of UV(B) and your yield will suffer from adding UVB.
But sure if you want to go with made up sunlight spectra to pretend there is more red in sunlight (apart from at dawn and dusk) then good luck with that. Perhaps you should first try it out though before you contradict actual tested science.
rkymtnman
Well-Known Member
how about a link to your study that proves this?
No1up
Active Member
Look, once I get up and going I'll set up a tent with the 315 LEC same seed and soil, same pot size. Two tents one with the QB 320 and one with the LEC. I'll do a taste test knowing which is which then I'll have my brother in law do a double blind. (that' a scscientific as I can get). Maybe I'll do an extraction on both to see if there is any difference in resin amount.. That's all can do 
No1up
Active Member
To be fair, everything I seem to come across on the net seems to imply that UVB does increase thc levels. But I have no way to confirm this.