Aqua Man
- Posts
- 26,479
- Reactions
- 59,693
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2018
- Points
- 638
Yeah but intensity is going to be absolutely key.
Yeah but intensity is going to be absolutely key.Plants use sunlight for photosynthesis and are exposed to ultraviolet (UV) radiation that is present in sunlight. UV radiation is divided into 3 classes: UV-A, UV-B, and UV-C. The Ultraviolet-C (UV-C) region of the UV spectrum includes wavelengths below 280 nm; these highly energetic wavelengths are absorbed by ozone and are not present in the sunlight at the earth's surface. Under normal growing conditions, effects of UV-C light are not seen on plants. This research examined the effects of the application of ultraviolet-C irradiation (UV-C) on greenhouse ornamental plants and demonstrated very promising uses of UV-C as a treatment to increase branching and reduce the height of plants, and in some situations, affect the rate of flowering. Several conclusions have been made from this research that are consistent with multiple plant species. First, the amount of UV-C light that a greenhouse plant receives is critical to its response. The proper weekly dosage, for as little at 15 min a week, will control a plant's growth response. In addition, too high a dosage of UV-C irradiation will burn plants and too low will have no effect. Second, proper applications of UV-C light decreases final plant height. Several plant species have responded to applications of UV-C light by growing shorter than the control plants that receive normal greenhouse lighting. Third, UV-C light increases branching of greenhouse plants. At appropriate dosage rates, UV-C light increases branching on some species and increases the number of flowers that are produced. This avoids the need to pinch plants and to apply plant growth regulators. Fourth, the application of UV-C light can affect flowering time. The application of UV-C irradiation can either delay flowering or cause earlier flowering depending on plant species and dosage rate. In some cases, the increased branching is accompanied by delayed flowering.
No it's not safe... You can easily cause damage you your eyes and skin depending on UV source and exposure timei would assume the amount is safe for our purposes, and doesn't constitute a significant cost to either the manufacturer which is in turn passed onto the buyer . will the UV lights be controlled by a switch for the flower cycle?
20-30 % increase in thc with the only change being addition of UV light? Complete and utter B.S.
No it's not safe... You can easily cause damage you your eyes and skin depending on UV source and exposure time
Sorry to hear that bro. I'm really not up on all the info. But there are tests done with various intensities for various durations this is where I don't feel we know exactly what ratio of UVA to UVB and intensity/duration is optimal. At least I don't. Something like 90-120w per M2 for 90 min a day. I would have to dig back into so don't take that as fact... Then there is what time of day is best or intervals. If you google it I'm sure you will find a a fair bit on it.i didn't assume it would be a tanning bed. i was asking more as in how would it be made safe for plants? i had guessed the amount we would receive would lull in comparison a sunny day outside. i already have skin cancer by the way so, let's talk about yield and thc content.
I gave my numbers on best case 30% if you care to recheck my math. Again you are misinterpreting my info and my math now.!8% thc plant 20% increase is an additional 3.6% giving a total of 21.6 % thc from the addition of a non-specified amount of additional uva b c (doesn't really matter the uv increase #'s . If that is acceptable to by and of. Then yes, It is an opinion and my opinion is, it is utter bullshit. I am not debating I am rejecting the original info, not meaning to insult, just reiterate a completely different opinion.
20-30 % increase in thc with the only change being addition of UV light? Complete and utter B.S.
I'm not advocating it but I cannot discount it and I feel there is merit to it. The number are debatable... I don't feel there is enough independent studies done.Well if it only increases costs by the corresponding % then I'm in. U of Maryland from the 80's aww you win I'm not googling that...
UVA alone does not provide the same results. The best results have been a combination but from what I have researched UVB is the most important. That's not to say UVA is not beneficial
!8% thc plant 20% increase is an additional 3.6% giving a total of 21.6 % thc from the addition of a non-specified amount of additional uva b c (doesn't really matter the uv increase #'s . If that is acceptable to by and of. Then yes, It is an opinion and my opinion is, it is utter bullshit. I am not debating I am rejecting the original info, not meaning to insult, just reiterate a completely different opinion.
Sorry to hear that bro. I'm really not up on all the info. But there are tests done with various intensities for various durations this is where I don't feel we know exactly what ratio of UVA to UVB and intensity/duration is optimal. At least I don't. Something like 90-120w per M2 for 90 min a day. I would have to dig back into so don't take that as fact... Then there is what time of day is best or intervals. If you google it I'm sure you will find a a fair bit on it.
I"m running mine the whole light cycleI've read some of the led guys on here swear by their new supplement lighting uv strips. Only run them for like 5 minutes or something like that per day. I personally have no exp with them tho.
lol for me it's called no schooling and working full time since I was 12.................................i have troubles with reading too
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?