Aqua Man's 24hr trivia for rights to edit my signature

[Aqua Man]

I thought this segment was interesting from the paper:

Cannabis plants grown under blue light with a short photoperiod (12 h light:12 h dark/flowering stage) improved cannabinoid content (Magagnini et al., 2018). This same study suggested that there is a synergy between UV-A and blue wavelengths that induces cannabigerol accumulation in cannabis flowers.

My personal testing bears this out.

And this

A low percentage (≤ 24%) of green light enhanced plant growth, whereas plant growth was inhibited under a higher percentage of green light

I find interesting. Taken together, these 2 studies say that green at high PPFD promotes the highest CO2 consumption, and therefore photosynthesis, however when you supply more than 25% green you actually stunt the plant.

My takeaway is that highest possible photosynthesis is not our goal when growing cannabis, if large cannabinoid rich plants is what you are after.

I wish @Milson was still around, he was always able to cut thru the chaff on these kinds of papers and pull out the nuggets important to us growers.

You mention that HPS>MH above, I think perhaps that generalization does not hold 100%. I run Eye Hortilux bulbs with this spectrum in my non-LED tents, and after more than a dozen grows, I find this bulb / spectrum outperforms all others in terms of size and cannabinoid profiles.

View attachment 1185445
I'm starting to see why that might be. Your original paper also discussed Orange - this bulb has a lot more green and orange than most of the other light sources out there.

so cool.

Yeah its like the last piece of the puzzle that kinda puts so many things in order for me.

 

[Treecutter]

That was good and I believe. Way to go on the education.

 

[Aqua Man]

Samsung do the LM301H-ONE for growing leafy greens. It makes no effort to produce red light. IIRC the lettuce morphology we desire is controlled by the blue ratio's. It's a very different plant.

I have grown under green. The plant lost the plot. It moved to single blades and elongated stems. Red petioles. N deficiency. Reveg looking growth tips.

For us, the answer that green is best, isn't accurate. We can't actually grow with green.

Whoa wait a sec. Who said green is the best.

This is exactly the mentality I'm trying g to break with this.

MORE is NOT better... and I like I said previously you would never want to deprive a plant of a specteum... but it's absolutely clear that they can be manipulated for benefit.

Imo light are like nutrients it's all about the ratios if maximizing intensity like we should be.

Just because calcium is good does not mean more is better.

Contrary to that the myth that green light is next to useless is absolute BS. And that's the point here... that and to have some fun learning as a group and making fun of the mod by having rights to the signature.

Pretty sure you are misinterpreting what's being said here.

 

[Aqua Man]

IIRC the lettuce morphology we desire is controlled by the blue ratio's. It's a very different plant.

Say what? You telling me lettuce photosynthetic systems are different?

and that morphology based on spectrum also ok?

You do realize the study linked on morphology is all cannabis studies right?

ok let's hear it for the sake of argument.

 

[Moe.Red]

For us, the answer that green is best, isn't accurate. We can't actually grow with green.

I can see why at a cursory glance this could be the nugget people walk away with, but that is not at all what is being said, it is much more complex than that.

People just browsing this thread - no one is saying to grow under green only for the best weed. Start over if that is your conclusion.

 

[Moe.Red]

Contrary to that the myth that green light is next to useless is absolute BS.

^^ This

 

[Aqua Man]

I have grown under green. The plant lost the plot. It moved to single blades and elongated stems. Red petioles. N deficiency. Reveg looking growth tips.

I'm just gonna call bullshit what it is bullshit. Because I want to be clear about the inaccuracy of this statement for ppm reading this.

So can you attempt to explain how does a plant go into reveg from green light?

How did did it even start to flower under green?

The only possible explanation I ha e is that you used green light over the dark period at an intensity high enough to cause reveg.something I have always said green light during dark is all about the intensity used.

What you just described is revwg period.... and that's on the grower.

I'm not sure why anyone would even try to attempt it other than an experiment for knowledge and even then there is quite a bit of info and studies that can simply be read.

Makes absolutely no sense ro me. Maybe you can explain it a little more in depth?

 

[growsince79]

I think the point is ppfd don't really mean much. If that was all it everyone would use low pressure sodium.

 

[Aqua Man]

You are calling my green light diary bullshit because it is bullshit?
What do you base this on. Do you have a green light grow under your belt? can you even point to one?

Your question in post #1 wasn't 'which PART of the spectrum' it was simply which. Though I see what you meant to say, now the thread has turned in that direction.

It's a shame you don't believe what happened. It might help you think on why over 25% green is detrimental. Not just that 25% green would lead to green saturation before red and blue, but that ratio's are also triggers.

I'm out. This isn't making me happy. However for anyone wondering..
View attachment 1185883

Again re read my posts.. even before it was stated I said to much green will stunt growth.

Now can you please explain how you managed to flower them under green and then somehow they revegged under green? How did they even flower?

And I would appreciate if you don't assume what I think because every single assumption you have made is grossly incorrect.

It a shame that all you can find issues with is a word missing in the first post and can't seem to grasp the intention was to show that green is efficient at photosynthesis and the waste or safe light to use in the dark based on intensity. Not that we should all run out and grow under only green. Infact if you can quote anywhere I stated we should only use, supplement green or that somehow red and blue are not important please do so and stop assuming. Or are you just trying to put words in my mouth so you actually have something to dispute?

Your the one that came in here making assumptions with attitude that could have been a good discussion. And yeah your claims are bullshit.

Link it here so we can all see it.

It flowered but then revegged?
Cmon
N deficiency?
Etc.

Explain how this happened because if green light. I have seen enough bioscience bullshit around to know when I see it.

Just because you attribute it to green doesn't make it the case.

 

[Eskander]

Ok gonna have a little fun here. I'll even correct my illiterate spell check and fat finger mistakes.

If someone can give me the correct answer and explanation for it.... you will own my signature for a week. You send me the text and I'll copy/paste it to my signature.

Rules as follows:

1. 24hrs from time of post it closes.

2. The signature content must not violate forum rules. I'm sure you guys and gals can come up with something within those boundaries

3. Post your answer and it must contain an explanation on why you think it's correct.

4. Feel free to use the web of lies, phone a friend or ask a stranger.

Ok the trivia question:

With a fully grown plant under a high ppfd such as say 1000ppfd which spectrum of light results in the highest photosynthetic rates.

1. Green
2. Red
3. Blue

Don't forget to include the reason why for your choice.

Oh and I'll just leave this here for all you Einstein's... not taunting or anything.View attachment 1185112

Way late to the game but red is the only spectrum that used used directly to drive the initial hydrolysis that is the basis for photosynthesis. Other wavelengths get absorbed and fluoresced out as lower energy wavelengths (red). Sort of. The reality is that in the membrane bound state, this energy seems to be via direct transfer of electron excitation. If you make some green dragon and shine a blue or UV light at it in a dark room, it will flash red. This is the tuned energy emission for the blue absorption spectrum pigments and the rest of the energy becomes heat. The energy loss as heat in that transference is generally speaking, too high for a green photon to absorb and transfer the proper energy level to split water. If plants could effectively use green light, they'd have all evolved to be nearly black.

It is possible for lower energy wavelengths to excite a molecule enough to hit the energy needed for hydrolysis but it requires multiple photons of a lower energy to be absorbed in short order and the combined energy of the two photons needs to be about the same as a single blue photon. IR is low enough energy to do this but the efficiency sucks and the timing of the two photons has to be damn short. This effect gets used in TIRF microscopy to see localization.

To make things unnecessarily complex, there was a paper a few years back that argued that the energy transference was too fast, too efficient and happened over too great of a distance for direct electron cloud excitation transference to be the mechanism. The authors suggested that quantum entanglement of the collector to the accessory pigments was the only thing that could manage the efficiency we see over the distances we measure. This required the collector molecule to be simultaneously entangled with 6 or 8 other molecules though and even the string theory guys couldn't buy into it. Usually when people talk about entangled particles it is a pair of electrons, not entire molecules and definitely not more than a pair. It isn't necessarily impossible according to the physics, but seems like a reaching explanation. Still, their argument about the energetic transfer being too efficient over the distance seemed somewhat valid so there may be aspects that we don't fully understand yet. Or they just sucked at math and the coupling is efficient enough on its own...

-Eskander

 

[detroitjoe]

I just forgot my thought so here's a hash bar I just made :)

So sticky

Oh I just remembered.

No I didn't

 

[Moe.Red]

So many logical fallacies

 

[lvstealth]

i cant add to anything, but i will say I LOVE THIS! and definitely want more!

 

[Edinburgh]

White light on an led rig is iridescent I think, could be wrong probably am wrong, but my 2 cycle led puts out blue, red, full spec and ir, so the white light on an led rig should be ir?

 

[FOE20]

This is under the premise of what we know...But most likely there's spectrum's and more we can't and will never see....
What about CMYK subtractive/RGB additive colors?.....
Where additive can be transparent and subtractive compounds?....
Humans always try to make things simple...Nature is far from simple....
I would think Blue cause its just a growing plant..not flowering....
FOE20

 

[Moe.Red]

Hello FOE,

CMYK has no bearing here. CMY is the subtractive opposite of RGB, meaning that the photon bounces off a substrate (usually white paper) and thru the CMY pigments, removing part of the spectrum like a filter.

RGB is for light sources, like the sun, LEDs, or your monitor.

K (short for BlacK, as opposed to B for Brown) is only added in to CMY because when printing, adding CMY together does not produce a perfect black because the pigments used in the CMY are not 100% accurate, nor is the white in the paper. So K is added as a channel to make printed output pleasing and dark black where needed, instead of the purply / brownish color produced only with CMY rosettes.

 

[detroitjoe]

This is under the premise of what we know...But most likely there's spectrum's and more we can't and will never see....
What about CMYK subtractive/RGB additive colors?.....
Where additive can be transparent and subtractive compounds?....
Humans always try to make things simple...Nature is far from simple....
I would think Blue cause its just a growing plant..not flowering....
FOE20

That's what I say!
Just imagine the science's most humans don't even know exist.

So, is it really about "color" ?

And what the fuck is color.

 

[Moe.Red]

That's what I say!
Just imagine the science's most humans don't even know exist.

So, is it really about "color" ?

And what the fuck is color.

Guys, you are loosing me.

Color is a very well understood principal. For humans, color is all about what the rods and cones in our eyes can detect. It is based on biology.

For plants, it is about specific energy patterns and how they react to plant cells.

Either way, they are all part of the well understood spectrum of radiation... there aren't frequencies hidden in there or something that we have yet to discover. Unless this is some alternative universe with different laws governing nature and physics.

What is color? nothing more than combining of photons of different frequencies.

If you really want to understand, this is the best book I have found, and I have read a ton. I do this for a living.

 

[lvstealth]

ok, i love this, and it brings up lots of great reading materials and even more questions...

would a sunset or sunrise do anything beneficial? (sunset/rise would be some gradual turning on/off with varying amounts of different wavelengths)

flipping a switch to on has to be some shock for the plants; but might it also key some hormonal action we dont know much about? or make things better/worse? or not affect (i hate that word, i may not be using it properly at all!) time/growth/yield at all.

i mention this for two reasons, first, a lot of what i read has numerical values that can be used in creating the best fake "day" i can give them (if i had control of the wavelengths). second, the aquarium - i know it makes a difference there. so i am making a leap and guessing it might matter in/with cannabis.

having said that... would it be worth considering a more controllable spectrum? (like the aquarium light)

im thinking i can design and produce (no shit, i are an engineer irl) a controllable LED - somewhat like the Fluval 3.0, but with the cannabis' parameters. as a matter of fact my plan is to use that as a jumping off point. but would it be worth it?

i can run some tests with the Fluval, but it is only 59w - although i have 2. (but that leaves one aquarium with a crap light, the other is a Current USA, so not too bad.)

in the aquarium there is a big difference in what grows great using different sunrises and sunsets.

i think it might be fun... urm, i mean useful to look into this. but would it be worth designing and producing a working model (not so hard, just throw money at it, some way to tear down the fluval and combine with whatever, but all still controllable by color!)? would i be able to do enough with 59w x 2 to see if it makes cents (dollars and...) to keep going and maybe make a 5 "bar" light and design a heatsink...

anyway, just thinking while i still can.

 

[OutdoorGrowGuy]

ok, i love this, and it brings up lots of great reading materials and even more questions...

would a sunset or sunrise do anything beneficial? (sunset/rise would be some gradual turning on/off with varying amounts of different wavelengths)

flipping a switch to on has to be some shock for the plants; but might it also key some hormonal action we dont know much about? or make things better/worse? or not affect (i hate that word, i may not be using it properly at all!) time/growth/yield at all.

i mention this for two reasons, first, a lot of what i read has numerical values that can be used in creating the best fake "day" i can give them (if i had control of the wavelengths). second, the aquarium - i know it makes a difference there. so i am making a leap and guessing it might matter in/with cannabis.

having said that... would it be worth considering a more controllable spectrum? (like the aquarium light)

im thinking i can design and produce (no shit, i are an engineer irl) a controllable LED - somewhat like the Fluval 3.0, but with the cannabis' parameters. as a matter of fact my plan is to use that as a jumping off point. but would it be worth it?

i can run some tests with the Fluval, but it is only 59w - although i have 2. (but that leaves one aquarium with a crap light, the other is a Current USA, so not too bad.)

in the aquarium there is a big difference in what grows great using different sunrises and sunsets.

i think it might be fun... urm, i mean useful to look into this. but would it be worth designing and producing a working model (not so hard, just throw money at it, some way to tear down the fluval and combine with whatever, but all still controllable by color!)? would i be able to do enough with 59w x 2 to see if it makes cents (dollars and...) to keep going and maybe make a 5 "bar" light and design a sink...

anyway, just thinking while i still can.

You might get a kick out of reading about the Phytochrome System.

Not my field of expertise, so I won't try going into detail. But it's essentially the relationship plant's have with red and far red light. And why plants grow towards the sun, know what time of year it is, and why they don't grow much in the shade.