UVb an experiment - Page 3 - Cannabis Forums Message Boards - Medical Marijuana, Cannabis Club, Dispensary, News

oldmac · #51 (**permalink**) Aug-18-2009, 19:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by headshake

damn, oldmac. that sounds like a pretty nice little experiment! when does the log start?
-shake

Well first, I need to get 2 more TIs. The only problem is my partner right now, he came up with the idea of using 4, I wanted to take the 2 we have and use a light mover and move the 2 back and forth abt 2' over the tray. I said great to use 4 but when I called TI the only units they have are the new housings and my partner freaked they would look stupid with 2 of the old and 2 of the new, all bolted together. My original TIs are now 1 year old and where the first batch built and sold (they are labeld "pre-production unit"s). The housings where made of stainless steel, the new ones are die formed aluminum (I think) but contain the same diodes. Just need to convince him we can still mount them all together and get over the appearance.

Rusty Trichome · #52 (**permalink**) Aug-18-2009, 19:34

Well, been a week with the UV bulb (yesterday) not much visible difference. Will be looking at undergrowth, leaf development, structure and color, internode stretch...

The tray with the bottle is the UVB tray. Each tray holds 6 clones. 3 short one's, 3 tall one's each.
The box describes the bulb, and I keep it about 6-8 inches from the clones. Box says one foot for proper usage on reptiles, but no real way to get it further without raising the CFL's.
6 23w CFL's in each chamber, but the addition of the 23w UVB bulb isn't made-up for in the control batch. (no extra lumens for the non-UVB clones) I went back-n-forth with this decision, so I flipped a coin.

I guess I'll have to work on getting better shots for comparison, but like I said...nothing going on yet.

Often wondered what kind of growth I'd get with a 20k MH bulb I have from my days in coral reefing. But it's a 400w and not too sure I would want to commit to the wattage and heat, if results were sub-par...and supplimental lighting would be out of the question. (heat and electric bill)

OldMac: Tell him it's doubtful Home and Garden will be stopping by any time soon. (or keep him out of the growroom, lol)

sheist · #53 (**permalink**) Aug-18-2009, 19:45

Quote:

My point is.... When everyone figures out that speed (300nm to 400nm) is the only thing good about these lights. The next step will be seeing that the good (speed) don't out way the bad (uv-b). There are much better ways of getting the plants clock moving faster IMO.

heres a curve ball

can anyone try an addition to this experiment if the uv-b light was color screened to filter out the blue? i've dabbled with photography and color gels to filter out certain lights to get that 'perfect' effect in some shoots, i figure the concept should be relative in this particular case.. if this could be accomplished, perhaps we'll be able to see the true effects of uv-b without spectral influence

MerryPrankstr · #54 (**permalink**) Aug-18-2009, 20:37

Quote:

Well first, I need to get 2 more TIs. The only problem is my partner right now, he came up with the idea of using 4, I wanted to take the 2 we have and use a light mover and move the 2 back and forth abt 2' over the tray. I said great to use 4 but when I called TI the only units they have are the new housings and my partner freaked they would look stupid with 2 of the old and 2 of the new, all bolted together. My original TIs are now 1 year old and where the first batch built and sold (they are labeld "pre-production unit"s). The housings where made of stainless steel, the new ones are die formed aluminum (I think) but contain the same diodes. Just need to convince him we can still mount them all together and get over the appearance.

My TI has the main housing and lens bezel made from a hard tough plastic, FWIW, Mac (s/n 70). Did they change the housings again?

M.P.

Dutch Pimp · #55 (**permalink**) Aug-19-2009, 00:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by oldmac

I am very impressed with the SunPulse bulbs that are rated in K temp terms. They make 4 flavors; 3k, 4k, 6.5k & 10k. The 3k is great for flowering but the 10k is loaded with UV.

SunPulse's web site talks about 10k bulbs for the last few weeks of flowering ? Don't think I've heard anyone discuss that concept yet?

oldmac · #56 (**permalink**) Aug-19-2009, 15:19

Hey Dutch,

I believe the reason they rercommend that bulb for the last couple of weeks, is that UVb has it's greatest impact (from what I just saw) on trichome finishing. In my experiment wo/UVb trichomes stayed clear longer and changed to cloudy slower without UVb and never produced any amber ones.

Here's my last obsevations, since drying and manicuring;

1) The finished buds have less odor wo/UVb, they lack the sweet/pungent smell that I usually have with WR.

2) Potency seems to be slightly less wo/UVb, myself and a few tasters could tell a difference but it was very slight. Tonto preferred the wo/UVb saying only it was a better overall "to him". Again a product of no amber trics?

3) Finished weight was down a bit, averged .42 grams per plant less wo/UVb. That does not sound like alot but in my SOG grow it equals 2+ OZs for the run.

I'm not going to give up the UVb supplemental lighting anytime soon. It did not do everything I thought it would, but based on just finishing times and wgt differences I believe it is worthwhile.

oldmac · #57 (**permalink**) Aug-19-2009, 15:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rusty Trichome

6 23w CFL's in each chamber, but the addition of the 23w UVB bulb isn't made-up for in the control batch. (no extra lumens for the non-UVB clones) I went back-n-forth with this decision, so I flipped a coin.

I don't think that small a difference in lumens will invalidate the effects of your experiment. If UVb has an effect overall, starting at the veg state, it will have an effect. Good coin toss.

OldMac: Tell him it's doubtful Home and Garden will be stopping by any time soon. (or keep him out of the growroom, lol)

I sorta see his point, we are talking about placeing over $5,000 worth of lights over one grow tray. For that much money they should be aesthetically pleasing.

Are you showing any signs of turning hermie from the aspirin?

oldmac · #58 (**permalink**) Aug-19-2009, 15:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by MerryPrankstr

My TI has the main housing and lens bezel made from a hard tough plastic, FWIW, Mac (s/n 70). Did they change the housings again?

M.P.

No they have not, I was guessing the new ones where aluminum, so thank you for letting me know they are now plastic. From what I gathered the originals where stainless, then they went to painted black, same shape but I'm not sure if they changed materials and then the current design.

M.P. you could do me a big favor and let me know what the new housings measure, lip to lip (both directions). Also, if possible the distance from the lip to the glass cover over the diodes. That would give me a chance to prerun mounting ideas, and see if they need to be mounted at differant heights.

oldmac · #59 (**permalink**) Aug-19-2009, 16:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by sheist

heres a curve ball

can anyone try an addition to this experiment if the uv-b light was color screened to filter out the blue? i've dabbled with photography and color gels to filter out certain lights to get that 'perfect' effect in some shoots, i figure the concept should be relative in this particular case.. if this could be accomplished, perhaps we'll be able to see the true effects of uv-b without spectral influence

Hello sheist, you raise an interesting point about the use of filters. Almost all of the scientific research dealing with plant photosynthesis was done useing filters. A paper done in '98 dealing with pulsing LEDs (5mm diodes back then) used a 668nm LED that showed abt 660nm was optimum for photosynthesis, and got me real excited because they did not use filters.

Here for our purposes it would be difficult to filter blues out since some blue is necessary for plant growth. Also there is a possiblity that some UVa or UVc may be helpfull not just the UVb, and that would be ok by me. We pretty much can only grow with what's available to us. Using an all LED grow light, with and without UVb diodes might be the only method to better define the effects of UVb.

But if someone wants to step up with an experiment using filters, I'm interested.

oldmac · #60 (**permalink**) Aug-19-2009, 17:03

Sorry, I just double posted.....had a brain fart apparently.

MerryPrankstr · #61 (**permalink**) Aug-19-2009, 18:00

Originally posted by OldMac

Quote:

M.P. you could do me a big favor and let me know what the new housings measure, lip to lip (both directions). Also, if possible the distance from the lip to the glass cover over the diodes. That would give me a chance to prerun mounting ideas, and see if they need to be mounted at differant heights.

Overall size of the bezel at the bottom is 14 inches by 14 3/8th inches, while the width of the bezel is 3 3/8ths" on the "length side" and 3 1/2" on the "width side." The actual LED window is 7" x 7 1/2".

Hope that this helps!
M.P.

oldmac · #62 (**permalink**) Aug-19-2009, 19:02

Thanks MP, I think it does.

The size of the LED window I believe to be the same as the older model, but I'll check it tonite. The original housings are abt 12"x12+" so the new ones are a little larger, but should not be a problem. thnx again.

(I need to spread some more love around, I owe you one!)

Rusty Trichome · #63 (**permalink**) Aug-20-2009, 08:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by oldmac

Are you showing any signs of turning hermie from the aspirin?

I don't think so, but my boobs do kinda hurt... The hand is getting better though. Would likely help if I quit bumping it on everything. Amber (my wife) is still mad I wouldn't go get it casted.

Was wondering...(rut ro)
Are there wavelengths from our other lighting sources (HID, CFL, T5's, LED's...) that can cancel-out, dilute or distort UV light before it hits the plants? I know I read something along those lines not too long ago, but I guess age has it's drawbacks. I can't remember where. A photography forum, perhaps...?

Regarding using filters...are there any filters that would let the UVB through it unscathed, and which wavelengths would be affected by the mixing of colors from the filter(s)? I wonder if it would inhibit photosynthesis, change biological processes (wound repair, internode stretch, nutrient uptake...)

I hadn't really thought of it before, but has anyone tried infra-red? (just curious)

MerryPrankstr · #64 (**permalink**) Aug-20-2009, 20:09

You're welcome, OldMac...

Nice to meet you and a lot of the regulars and have them as friends in my last days. Hope to finish this grow, maybe even taste some of it...

Laterz,
M.P.

Rusty Trichome · #65 (**permalink**) Aug-25-2009, 08:45

Tiz been two full weeks, and I'm a little more impressed that I thought I would be.

Ok, I run my lights at 18-6 and that is the schedule I kept with. 18 hours a day of UVB suppliment.
Keeping in mind the potential dangers with using UV light, I turn it off prior to each viewing and for daily maintenance, (watering, feeding...) so this is not an uninterrupted exposure.

So, I had two trays of clones. In each tray I placed 3 tall clones, (cola's from a semi-successful fimming) and 3 shorter clones which were culled from the undergrowth of the same two (identical) donor plants.

The UVB shelf had the shorter clones closest to the UV bulb, but the taller ones had more than adequate exposure in peeking over the short ones. None were further than 10 inches from the UVB bulb, none were closer than 6 inches. All 12 clones had CFL's within 3 inches.

What I've noticed so far:
All 12 clones have thrived, but the UVB exposed batch grew a little taller, (avg of an inch taller) and they have a noticeably tighter internode spacing, with darker-green leaves that appear...IDK...more mature...heartier...? Under the UV light, the shorter clones almost caught-up to the taller clones in height. This is only true of one non-UVB clone, but is still smaller than her siblings in UVB light.

Under a Radio Shack pocket microscope, no difference in pore spacing, and the trichome hairs. (precursors to globular-head trichomes). Leaves appear equal in size and shape, and no strange mutations, other than the non-UVB plants being a tad yellowish in comparison.

Had to move 6 of the plants into flower shed, so the UV in veg will continue with only 6 plants, and all will be UVB exposed.
In flower, I now have 3 plants from each tray. Two of the original 'tall' clones, one of the 'short' clones. I've tagged them and will see if any difference in growth or habits between the exposed and the non-exposed.

Still a crappy camera, (and photographer) but hopefull the pix will help. UVB tray is on the right in one picture, and closest to you in the other.

oldmac · #66 (**permalink**) Sep-06-2009, 00:57

Hey Rusty, the pictures ain't so bad, of course there is no way short of hooking up a camera to a microscope to be able to see the precursor hairs of the trichomes. But your observations have that covered. Seems there is not much difference between groups in that respect, at least at this stage.

I tried to do some research on your question of interference to UVb from light sources that might cancel or distort the UVb. I haven't found anything along those lines...yet, but I'll keep looking.

I did come across some interesting work that has been done on producing THC from the plants chemicals artifically using UVb. A Dr. Mechoulam (who with Dr. Gaoni isolated THC in 1964) has worked on medial applications of mj for over 40 years now. He was the first to also synthesize THC (marinol) and his process uses UVb light to do the conversion. Seems he is the father of medical marijuana research, especially dealing with the cannabinoids and endocannabinoids. I am trying to find some of his scientific papers, but without even seeing them I am sure UVb plays a major role in THC production.

Sorry I was among the missing for a week or so, but I don't have a housekeeper till after Labor Day so Tonto and I took a road trip to a couple of car shows and casinos. Keeps us from messing up the house and me from having to cook for us.

Keep the updates and observations comming, the early use of UVb
supplemental lighting might be as usefull as it's late use.

headshake · #67 (**permalink**) Sep-06-2009, 12:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rusty Trichome

Was wondering...(rut ro)
Are there wavelengths from our other lighting sources (HID, CFL, T5's, LED's...) that can cancel-out, dilute or distort UV light before it hits the plants? I know I read something along those lines not too long ago, but I guess age has it's drawbacks. I can't remember where. A photography forum, perhaps...?

i don't think any of the other lighting sources will cancel-out the UVB, other than UVB itself. granted, this is an assumption at the moment. if light is waves like sound, with UV being short, spikey waves and the red end of the spectrum being slow and rolling waves, then it would take the exact opposite of the UVB wave to cancel it out, no? and like FM radio, or the high end of the audio specturm (treble), environmental factors (atmosphere, line of sight, walls etc) would impact UVB, or any short-wave light for that matter. kinda like treble cancels it self out quick and bass doesn't.

did any of that make sense?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rusty Trichome

I hadn't really thought of it before, but has anyone tried infra-red? (just curious)

far infrared waves are thermal so i can't imagine there would be much use there. as for the near infrared, well just aim some remotes at them and use something to hold the buttons down...lol.

sorry, not trying to explain anything to anyone, just brainstorming out loud. maybe i'll spark somebody else?

-shake

oldmac · #68 (**permalink**) Sep-09-2009, 13:17

While we wait for Rusty's updates, I thought I'd pass on what I'm doing currently.

I decided to not use the supplemental UVb again, at least not right away. This current batch went into bloom Aug 13th and is now abt 4 weeks in. I'm going to go to the UVb for the last 2 weeks or so, to see if that alone will cause the plants to ripen faster, and get me to the amber tric state that I like.

Weezard · #69 (**permalink**) Sep-09-2009, 16:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by oldmac

While we wait for Rusty's updates, I thought I'd pass on what I'm doing currently.

I decided to not use the supplemental UVb again, at least not right away. This current batch went into bloom Aug 13th and is now abt 4 weeks in. I'm going to go to the UVb for the last 2 weeks or so, to see if that alone will cause the plants to ripen faster, and get me to the amber tric state that I like.

Might have to fool with it myself.
Just had 2 of my outdoor ladies ripped off!

There's that "ethical human behavior" again

Gonna have to go back to indoors under LEDs.
Just so I don't have to hurt anybody.
It's probably kids.
But with the quality of these strains, they'll be back.
I can cope with the loss of weed, it's the trust in others that is never the same.

Makes the world a colder place.

Have ordered a proximity alarm and a fence charger for the outdoor pen.
Don't have solid faith in it though. So, will have to keep an indoor room to insure a minimum med. supply at the least.

So, Howzit with you?

Weeze

oldmac · #70 (**permalink**) Sep-09-2009, 17:28

Hey Weez,

Sorry to hear about the rip off, I know what a bitch it is. I lost an entire greenhouse (8'x16') last fall, all where seeded plants. Besides the money I lost that was to come from those seeds (hurt me big time) the real shit part was they poisoned my outside dog. But the up side is there are now 3 less crack heads in my town, for some reason they disappeared a few months later.

BTW I hear you are becomming a mole-ass user. Et tu 'zard?

You may want to consider a little UVb indoors to get amber trics.

Rusty Trichome · #71 (**permalink**) Sep-09-2009, 18:45

Sorry, but wife had a tizzy. I promised her not long ago I'd stop with the UV threads, but it seems she swears it extended to me actually using the bulbs, too. She's been going through the chemo treatments for the better part of 7 years, and it's understandably a concern of hers. (albeit not entirely rational) Not entirely unlike an ex-smoker when they smell smoke, or a recovering alcoholic smelling booze.

Anyway, it's the end of the line for my UV usage. If I can allay tensions or stresses in her life, (and by extention...mine) it's my job to help do so. So for me, likely best to return to growing without the risk.

Parting conjecture:
I am convinced UV light changes the physical biology of the plant, requiring it to excell at building strength, battling the elements (wind and sun) and might just contribute to aroma and flavor, and might be altering the "expression of maturity". Seemingly, the only process not directly or indirectly correlating to trichomes, are the bonds (or structures) the celulose forms within the stalks and leaves. Perhaps all cannabis strains deal with this in a positive way, but I doubt it. I'm sure all will react in some fashion, but will that fashion be a benefit to us cannabis smokers?

But I do think it's likely dominate strain specific, (geographical) giving us these variable outcomes. Or conversely, it might be the recessive traits being brought-forth under the harshness of UV light. Or, maybe it's just that occationally we grow some really wicked shit, and it's not the lights at all, lol. <sigh>

Given a choice...I'd keep the bulb running. But she's my wife, and I know where she's coming from.

Sorry to hear about your losses, Weezard. One of the many reasons I dislike people. Well, it's not really that I actively dislike people...I just don't like them.

Weezard · #72 (**permalink**) Sep-09-2009, 18:57

"You may want to consider a little UVb indoors to get amber trics.

"

That's zackly what I'm about to do.
I like my buds just a little singed around the edges.

"BTW I hear you are becomming a mole-ass user. Et tu 'zard?"

As for da small, burrowing, rodent's derrier?

Well, jus' cause Image Reaper endorsed da stuff, I'm gonna double-blind some clones with it and see what happens.

Tryin' to get someone to "mirror my test".

If it turns out to be effective folklore, woohoo!
If bogust, like the chloramine scare, one less thing to have to think about, yah.

Guess I'm gonna

, an' think about all the good folks that did not steal from me.
Ah,

that's mo' betta.

Aloha,

Weeze

headshake · #73 (**permalink**) Sep-09-2009, 19:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Weezard

"You may want to consider a little UVb indoors to get amber trics.

"

That's zackly what I'm about to do.
I like my buds just a little singed around the edges.

"BTW I hear you are becomming a mole-ass user. Et tu 'zard?"

As for da small, burrowing, rodent's derrier?

Well, jus' cause Image Reaper endorsed da stuff, I'm gonna double-blind some clones with it and see what happens.

Tryin' to get someone to "mirror my test".

If it turns out to be effective folklore, woohoo!
If bogust, like the chloramine scare, one less thing to have to think about, yah.

Guess I'm gonna

, an' think about all the good folks that did not steal from me.
Ah,

that's mo' betta.

Aloha,

Weeze

hey weeze, i'll mirror your study. my only question is how is it gonna be double-blind? we know what plants get it and there is no one else that doesn't know what's going on. lol. did that make sense?

-shake

Weezard · #74 (**permalink**) Sep-09-2009, 19:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by headshake

hey weeze, i'll mirror your study. my only question is how is it gonna be double-blind? we know what plants get it and there is no one else that doesn't know what's going on. lol. did that make sense?

-shake

The double-blind comes later, at the bake off, brah!
Mole ass makem beeg? Dat's nice.
Mole ass makem smell mo' betta? Jus' fine.
But, personally.
Ainokea 'bout big, nor pretty.
Gonna, pretty soon, look like ashes anyway.

If da south end of a northbound mole gonna "kick it up a notch",

!
Now you're speaking hawaiian!

So, roun' here we gonna put M.A. bud, an' no M. A. bud in identical containers, put 'em onna lazy susan, turn out da lights, an' geevum a spin.
Den we smokem inna dark.
When we sure which one be da kine, we turn over container.
Label onna bottom.
Blind enough for ya?

Howzit, HS?

Weeze

oldmac · #75 (**permalink**) Sep-09-2009, 23:52

Hey Rusty,

Sorry to read about the end of your experiment and UVb use. I applaud you tho for having your priorities straight and trying to keep your wife happy. My wife passed almost 25 years ago from cancer and I would give anything to have her nag me just one more time.

I may try your experimment starting at the beginning of veg, possibly in the partnered grow were we veg a little longer then here. Not sure I can set up a side by side, maybe run a batch with and compare a batch without. Your conjecture's are great food for thought, I hope I can follow up on them.

Weez and Shake,

Would be great to have two experiments with mole-ass. Do you really need to do a blind taste test, do you think you'd be influenced by knowing which is which? However you work out your experiments protocol it sounds like a good idea.

Hey everbody, ain't it great to see Stinkyattic around and to read her posts? Hope she comes around regularly, it just might help to revive the boards...and keep the shills at bay.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode