Moe.Red
- 5,044
- 313
So what I'm doing here is trying to move away from anecdotal evidence even if it is statistically relevant and post actual results that anyone can see and determine for themselves if UV is worth it.We both would like to see more peer review studies. We give away a lot of gear to do small studies. And someone earlier was saying he does sell products, I don't know. And yes, he studies nutrients and the whole agriculture aspect, we don't. We specialize in pure UV research. We do with with Texas A&M and others who use our lamps studying agriculture on the whole and the effects of UV on plants. My bias would be in "my product vs their product". There is no "$x hours works better than $y hours" bias, or "indica can handle more than sativa" bias. Those have no financial bearing on either of us, those are simply data points, drawn from different data.
We do real research (at differing levels of quality) but yes TONS of information is anecdotal, but it is anecdotal based on input from hundreds or thousands of people, not dozens, so even that information has merit. With flu, the same was true for losing your sense of taste and smell. They began saying it was a symptom well before any study was published, because when the anecdotes are that numerous and all agree with each other, the conclusions tend to be valid.
So what I'm doing here is trying to move away from anecdotal evidence even if it is statistically relevant and post actual results that anyone can see and determine for themselves if UV is worth it.
Here is an opportunity for you to help yourself by helping me. Let's step away from theory here for a moment and please tell us what you expect from the upcoming cannabinoid reveal and what we could / should be doing differently, even if based on anecdotes you have stored away in your brain.
Please help to guide this test.
This is why I just ask people to follow our directions the first time, so they have success to compare to as they change the methods later.
I'm not sure you are understanding, I have run your bulbs as directed and it has destroyed plants. This is my second set of your bulbs.
I'm not asking for a refund. I'm not even trying to bring money into this if at all possible.
I just want to know what gives. The only thing I have done differently is the 21" distance instead of 24.
Awesome.It's hard to say why without having a lot more information. I've never them kill plants at 21" at 2 hours, ever, and 21" is certainly within spec. I think you said White Widow, which is one of the strains we have tested more than anything else locally since it is what I prefer for myself. (arthritis, great strain for that). We usually run 3 to 3.5 hours at 24" and they can handle more, we just don't push them. You need to give me a call, afternoons EST are best, Tues-Fri, although I will talk with you any time if those aren't convenient. Those are just the times that I'm least busy. If we are getting excess damage, this is something I want to know about and try to figure out. Need to know if you got the fixtures from us, which fixture they are, etc. We need to figure out what is going on. Something is "different" and I want to figure out what that means. Maybe we sent F64 fixtures instead of F32, who knows, but that is what we need to find out.
As for the money, I would extend the money back if you aren't happy. I'm more concerned with figuring out how to get this working, and why are are getting results way outside the norm. As I sit here now, I am genuinely clueless, it's just unheard of. Call 800 600 8118. You can try later today as well, but I can't promise I will be around, the wife has me a little tied up, but if I can, I will answer it. Definitely can't Sunday, whole family is here all day. I forward the 800 number to my cell phone on weekends, btw.
Yeah. That's...a result. Like, assuming there isn't a big error, a pretty clear result.I will re-run this plate with only 3 lanes so the control can be better quantified.
I have video of this entire process in the can if anyone doubts the process.
View attachment 1109686
View attachment 1109685
View attachment 1109684
Right. But instead it seems to be ramping up the precursor.I know dude, I'm getting excited, this plant is soooo lemony and just sticky gooey.
It will be interesting to see if CBG drops as THC rises since it is the precursor. It would make sense to me the plant would grab that to consume for THC production.
Right. But instead it seems to be ramping up the precursor.
What spectrum is this in? Full or hps? And under what were they vegged?
Awesome.
I think at this point I am pretty well locked in - I'm just gonna give small bursts and read the plants daily. I'm not going to anything near 2 hours let alone 4 or more. So sure we can talk next week and I'll fill you in and perhaps work out what's the appropriate change to make my results match yours and I will retest.
Interestingly enough, we already have a positive result, I just posted.
Right. But instead it seems to be ramping up the precursor.
I wonder if I am just too soon and it’s making CBG by sucking the life out of the leaves as a step one to making THCA
I wonder what it needs to protect the leaves and pull instead from the roots?
California LightWorks also states sativa's are better able to handle UV-B than Indicas...........
"Different plants with unique genetics will respond differently to the intense UVB light that this fixture puts out. When growing cannabis, sativa dominant strains typically have a higher tolerance to intense UVB than strains that are indica dominant. If you notice leaves on your plants start to turn brown around the edges, increase the distance between the UVB and your plant or decrease the exposure time per day. If you don't notice any unwanted results, you may gradually move the light closer to your plants or increase exposure time at your discretion."
Not the best advice. The purpose of the distance isn't about power, it is about coverage. The farther you are, the larger the area you cover (but the lower the intensity via the Inverse Square Law). You generally reduce intensity only by adjusting the time. When you move the light closer, you aren't covering as much area. Granted, this might not matter so much if you have one plant it a 3x3 tent, but most users are larger than that. As for sativa or indica, my guess is they are basing it on someone elses research. Our claim that indica handles more was based on research back when we were the only company making UVB lamps for cannabis, there was no other research to base it on.
I've burned mine with agromax pure uv.you don’t mention it but in a reflective grow tent the light is much more intense and the inverse square law does not apply as much.
many many growers report burning plants with these uv bulbs. And most are in tents from my observation. When it was more popular a few years ago there were tons of posts with puckering leaves.
how different is your bulb compared to the htg one? I will say most of the issues I see used those bulbs. I can’t remember the brand name. @Aqua Man was sent them for his grow.
I've burned mine with agromax pure uv.
Half the info here way over my head, but I surf and read all these treads and I sure see/ rather read about some pretty successful growers harming or even killin plants call it over exposed ? Intensity? What ever you want, but is the reward really worth the risk?you don’t mention it but in a reflective grow tent the light is much more intense and the inverse square law does not apply as much.
many many growers report burning plants with these uv bulbs. And most are in tents from my observation. When it was more popular a few years ago there were tons of posts with puckering leaves.
how different is your bulb compared to the htg one? I will say most of the issues I see used those bulbs. I can’t remember the brand name. @Aqua Man was sent them for his grow.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?