ganja - that sounds awesome.
-
ICMag with help from Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest in November! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
UVB bulbs...
- Thread starter dontstepongrass
- Start date
Ganja Pasha said:
well then, please, enlighten me.
i dunno what to say, i thought that the fact that weed grown under higher ammounts of blue/uvb is stronger wasn't under discussion... well then... the only thing i can say is that here in netherlands the "distinguo" in the quality is made base on HID/neon grown weed, like somewhere else is made between hydro/soil grown weed.
I told my point: the only effective way to deliver UVB using an HID is CMH. Or some MH.
And this doesn't come from a superficial understanding of the matter, but from month and month of studies on lights. I really reached a superior level of understanding, in the attempt of building a coherent model to understand the interaction between lights and plants.
None, since we start to speak about UVB from 315(320) nm to 280 nm.
DIGITALHIPPY said:
let's do some calcs: 10% of a 50 W bulb that emitts 3% of UVB is 0.3%=0.6 watts=600 mW = 600.000 uW of uvb. In a room of 1 M^3 is less than 6 uW/cm^3, whit a distribution law that follow the eigth power (if you double the volume, the strength became 1/(2^8) ).
I have to check the number, but almost for sure it's strength is less than the one mesuarable by modern devices.
Yeah i use CMH for the same reason.
With CMH, since UVB and normal light is emitted from the same source, and since the difference in phase shift is 0, the desructive interference is minimum, thus making CMH the best source for UVB.
Last edited:
dontstepongrass said:
heyla man, don't provoke me if you don't want to be provoked.
anyhow, i noticed that MY CMH grown buds were slightly weaker than the ones grown under neons of a friend of mine...
Maybe it's just autosuggestion... or seeds fluctuation (DP PP fem, from the same pack, he was so kind to gift me one seed)
Or maybe is that open-rated CMH bulbs have such a low UVB counts....
Maybe it's just autosuggestion... or seeds fluctuation (DP PP fem, from the same pack, he was so kind to gift me one seed)
Or maybe is that open-rated CMH bulbs have such a low UVB counts....
Last edited:
Well, this is easy.
I have seen an LED grow on the internet using 660nm and 465nm LED's. This plant producing trichomes and got the user high. So obviously UV light is not required to produce THC.
Here's a few things that I theorize:
The marijuana plant makes THC to protect itself from genetic damage from UV - a lot of living things do this.
But why's it making THC in the LED grow?
The plant is already programmed to produce THC - based off it's previous experiences with DNA-damaging UVB light, it is already programmed to make THC and will still make it whether UVB is present or not because it learned that and it's ingrained into it's DNA.
Another reason a plant would want to produce more oils and resins is because water is stored in the plant and oil keeps it in, UVB is dimmed by the resin glands - absorbing those rays that are harmful to DNA, but guess what? UVB is a wavelength that causes things to heat up and that could make the plant lose water. So THC blocks UVB for two reasons.
Those are just theories though, I've read a lot of articles saying UVB isn't good for plants and causes stunted growth and effs with the flowering cycle. Basically what I am saying is base your facts on reality. You have to experience reality for yourself and by supplementing with UVB, you would know the real truth - reality.
britishhempire says his plants grown with UVB are better and who really has done a specific study on all of this?
I have seen an LED grow on the internet using 660nm and 465nm LED's. This plant producing trichomes and got the user high. So obviously UV light is not required to produce THC.
Here's a few things that I theorize:
The marijuana plant makes THC to protect itself from genetic damage from UV - a lot of living things do this.
But why's it making THC in the LED grow?
The plant is already programmed to produce THC - based off it's previous experiences with DNA-damaging UVB light, it is already programmed to make THC and will still make it whether UVB is present or not because it learned that and it's ingrained into it's DNA.
Another reason a plant would want to produce more oils and resins is because water is stored in the plant and oil keeps it in, UVB is dimmed by the resin glands - absorbing those rays that are harmful to DNA, but guess what? UVB is a wavelength that causes things to heat up and that could make the plant lose water. So THC blocks UVB for two reasons.
Those are just theories though, I've read a lot of articles saying UVB isn't good for plants and causes stunted growth and effs with the flowering cycle. Basically what I am saying is base your facts on reality. You have to experience reality for yourself and by supplementing with UVB, you would know the real truth - reality.
britishhempire says his plants grown with UVB are better and who really has done a specific study on all of this?
G
Guest
I haven't grown plants with added UV-B, OT1 has and he says they are mroe otent and psychoactive.
But two things go against the grain the UV theory:
1. Plants grown outdoors at northerly latitudes such as esbe and Paddi at 55N aren't getting anything like as much UV as many other outdoor growers, but they are just as resinous.
2. Indoor lighting produces NO UV-B, bulbs are coated to block UV-B emisions, yet they are still highly resinous, outdoor plants ahould always be a lot more resinous if the UV-B theory is correct, but that's not the case.
There is still a lot of work to be done in this area, that much is certain.
But two things go against the grain the UV theory:
1. Plants grown outdoors at northerly latitudes such as esbe and Paddi at 55N aren't getting anything like as much UV as many other outdoor growers, but they are just as resinous.
2. Indoor lighting produces NO UV-B, bulbs are coated to block UV-B emisions, yet they are still highly resinous, outdoor plants ahould always be a lot more resinous if the UV-B theory is correct, but that's not the case.
There is still a lot of work to be done in this area, that much is certain.
BonsaiBud said:
no i think that THAT much would harm the plant...
LOL YOU TOOL!devilgoob said:
no one said UVB IS REQUIRED for THC, were talking about RIPENING....
your right that plant produces oils on its own, but the oil glands need to ripen, and the esters and lipids need to develop, hence imature weed dosent get you high, the plant wasnt 'mature'
its like eating a bannana, sure a green bananna is good to eat, but put it in a paper bag for 2-3 days and a whole world of color, and taste/smell comes out. same with UVB.
i here what your saying antonio, i need a few more UVB lights to make 'the real differance' i wasnt good at math but im following the logic on your calc.
devilgoob said:
Ganja Pasha said:
I think you two are confusing the issue.
You are confusing resin with thc. They are not the same.
You can have a plant with lot's of resin and virtually no thc and vice versa.
THC is just a small part of the resin gland as a whole.
I think what devilgoob says is partly correct in that MJ has evolved genes over thousands (millions?) of years and such will grow out according to it's genetic predetermination provided an adequate environment.
HOWEVER, I believe this ONLY means a plant will produce resin (NOT thc) according to it's genes but it's the thc production that will ONLY be produced when the uvb interacts with the PRE-THC compound (CBG?) MJman was talking about in the you tube vid.
In other words, a plant will be genetically predetermined to produce a set amount of CBG (resin) no matter what the light BUT it will be the amount of uvb that will determine how much of that CBG will be CONVERTED into thc. (No uvb=no CBG conversion)
In other words THC production is a CONVERSION due to an EXTERNAL force (uvb) and that external force (uvb) is not contained within the genes.
It's a combination of genes AND environment that produces high thc bud.
Last edited:
inflorescence said:
Which may well be why, Cannabis native to lower elevations and more northerly climes produce more CBD than THC; less less protection needed from less UVB radiation. That would mean that they are predisposed to little effect from UVB radiation. Sativa's on the other hand, glory in it, but, their yields are predisposed to suffer for it. (The stronger the UVR, the harsher the climate.)
Namaste, mess
Last edited:
DigitalHippy,
What exactly do you mean by ''Ripening''..please make that more clear/specific...
I completely disagree that immature weed doesn't get you high like you say.
I can get high from bubblehash that was made from plants in veg/early flower . THC is there in such plants so are other cannabinoids and they can get you high (in the correct concentration obviously) no matter what you say. I ve experienced it numerous times myself.
==============
As for 'UVB and High' ,
According to OT1,
who did some tests the high was *perceived* as more potent and more psychedelic & more complex.. ..BUT he didn't claim that he measured the THC content and that *he* found more THC in the resin of the buds that had received more UVB light...
According to Sam_Skunkman ,
who also did tests with UVB supplamental lighting, he found *UVB REDUCES the THC content*
--
We all know that THC alone , is not what gives us the 'weed-high' we are all familiar with ..Other substances of our beloved plant affect the high , how we perceive it.
We also know as a fact that UVB light degrades THC.
My personal opinion is that UVB ( at least over a single or 'few' generations) doesn't make plants produce more THC..BUT it DOES alter the high as it changes the ratios of certain substances that are found inside the resin..and maybe even helps the plant produce some substances that otherwise wouldn't be present if UVB light is absent.It may also change 'the way' THC degrades.
People that use uvb supplemental light may have noticed a perceptually more potent and stony high when they added UVB , as uvbdegrades THC to other cannabinoids and *also* alters the resin compounds and/or their ratios. Resin of buds that received UVB light in MJMan's Youtube vid looks more amber which shows that THC is somewhat degraded.. (and this is in agreement with what Sam_Skunkman found) .
So even though you may end up with less THC in the resin of the treated (with uvb) plants , that resin can give a perceptually more potent,complex & psychedelic high/stone for the reasons I mentioned earlier.
I believe my theory is somewhat right and makes sense.
What exactly do you mean by ''Ripening''..please make that more clear/specific...
I completely disagree that immature weed doesn't get you high like you say.
I can get high from bubblehash that was made from plants in veg/early flower . THC is there in such plants so are other cannabinoids and they can get you high (in the correct concentration obviously) no matter what you say. I ve experienced it numerous times myself.
==============
As for 'UVB and High' ,
According to OT1,
who did some tests the high was *perceived* as more potent and more psychedelic & more complex.. ..BUT he didn't claim that he measured the THC content and that *he* found more THC in the resin of the buds that had received more UVB light...
According to Sam_Skunkman ,
who also did tests with UVB supplamental lighting, he found *UVB REDUCES the THC content*
--
We all know that THC alone , is not what gives us the 'weed-high' we are all familiar with ..Other substances of our beloved plant affect the high , how we perceive it.
We also know as a fact that UVB light degrades THC.
My personal opinion is that UVB ( at least over a single or 'few' generations) doesn't make plants produce more THC..BUT it DOES alter the high as it changes the ratios of certain substances that are found inside the resin..and maybe even helps the plant produce some substances that otherwise wouldn't be present if UVB light is absent.It may also change 'the way' THC degrades.
People that use uvb supplemental light may have noticed a perceptually more potent and stony high when they added UVB , as uvbdegrades THC to other cannabinoids and *also* alters the resin compounds and/or their ratios. Resin of buds that received UVB light in MJMan's Youtube vid looks more amber which shows that THC is somewhat degraded.. (and this is in agreement with what Sam_Skunkman found) .
So even though you may end up with less THC in the resin of the treated (with uvb) plants , that resin can give a perceptually more potent,complex & psychedelic high/stone for the reasons I mentioned earlier.
I believe my theory is somewhat right and makes sense.
Last edited:
l33t,
I think your right about the ratios but my point was cbg's and cbn's are found in the leaves (mainly of indicas correct?) and these are psychoactive. No one is disputing that.
But it's the uvb that converts these into thc in the resin heads and thc has a distinctive psychoactive affect compared to the other cbg's and cbd's.
I think a lot of MJ developed with the propensity to develop cbg and cbn and over time as the continents shifted the ones that were exposed to more uvb (equitorial) developed so that their cbgs and cbns were converted into thc and there results the different ratios.
true, no one strain has only cbg or cbd or thc but the ratios certainly do follow the pattern MJman was saying in terms of the world map and uvb index.
And it's no coincidence that the higher uvb (and thus higher thc) equitorial strains have a distinctive psychoactive effect compared to the norhern cbg, cbd ratio strains.
What I'm saying is it all comes down to three psychoactive chems (cbg, cbd and thc) and all uvb does is convert more of this into thc and the end product is a different high because of the thc.
I think your right about the ratios but my point was cbg's and cbn's are found in the leaves (mainly of indicas correct?) and these are psychoactive. No one is disputing that.
But it's the uvb that converts these into thc in the resin heads and thc has a distinctive psychoactive affect compared to the other cbg's and cbd's.
I think a lot of MJ developed with the propensity to develop cbg and cbn and over time as the continents shifted the ones that were exposed to more uvb (equitorial) developed so that their cbgs and cbns were converted into thc and there results the different ratios.
true, no one strain has only cbg or cbd or thc but the ratios certainly do follow the pattern MJman was saying in terms of the world map and uvb index.
And it's no coincidence that the higher uvb (and thus higher thc) equitorial strains have a distinctive psychoactive effect compared to the norhern cbg, cbd ratio strains.
What I'm saying is it all comes down to three psychoactive chems (cbg, cbd and thc) and all uvb does is convert more of this into thc and the end product is a different high because of the thc.
Last edited:
well I tried to help, I knew when talking about UVB we were going the path that it "makes more ripe glands or more THC."
DIGITALHAPPY - thanks for calling me a tool, maybe you'd like to point out that you're a tool also for being an asshole - over a near pointless thread on top of that.
DIGITALHAPPY - thanks for calling me a tool, maybe you'd like to point out that you're a tool also for being an asshole - over a near pointless thread on top of that.
inflorescence,
So you claim that buds that that were grown under supplemental UVB lighting have more THC than those who didn't receive it??
To be honest with you personally I don't really care as much about the (long term) evolution part of 'THC production' , as I care to find out if UVB supplemental lighting makes the end product , I can grow, to have more THC .
If it does ..then that would be really great , in practical terms , to know.
If it doesn't ..then I would like to know if it affects the high in a different way like OT1 says (makes it more complex etc etc).
devilgoob,
If you find this thread ''near pointless''
then why are you here posting in the first place... If you guys dont have something useful and on topic to say then perhaps you shouldn't say anything at all..No reason for being rude or anything..
So you claim that buds that that were grown under supplemental UVB lighting have more THC than those who didn't receive it??
To be honest with you personally I don't really care as much about the (long term) evolution part of 'THC production' , as I care to find out if UVB supplemental lighting makes the end product , I can grow, to have more THC .
If it does ..then that would be really great , in practical terms , to know.
If it doesn't ..then I would like to know if it affects the high in a different way like OT1 says (makes it more complex etc etc).
devilgoob,
If you find this thread ''near pointless''
then why are you here posting in the first place... If you guys dont have something useful and on topic to say then perhaps you shouldn't say anything at all..No reason for being rude or anything..
Last edited:
l33t said:
No I claim that buds that that were grown under natural (NOT supplemental) UVB lighting have more THC than those who didn't receive it.
In other words the equitorial sativas, etc.
That's the point of contention in this thread.
Not really whether uvb produces more thc (it clearly does in equitorial sativas over northern indicas) but what is the best way for the interior farmer to REPLICATE the exterior uvb.
I think that why everyone is having a problem.
They are looking for a cheap bulb to replace the sun and haven't found it yet.
BUT, we are getting there.
Last edited:
I think UVB's impact on long term evolution is completely different to the impact it has when we add it in a grow *once*. Yes high intensity UVB light may have contributed to cannabis more potent (forced them to produce more THC in the long term) BUT adding UVB light doesnt nessesarily mean that the plant will produce more THC . As many said the how much THC a plant produces is mostly determined by the genes.
Personally I m still not convinced that UVB light when added indoors increases the THC content of plants (even with equatorial sativas)..though I think I agree.
Personally I m still not convinced that UVB light when added indoors increases the THC content of plants (even with equatorial sativas)..though I think I agree.
Last edited:
No, you're just using the wrong uvb, or not enough, too much etc.
it's not the uvb part thats the problem, it's how it's being implemented.
I can prove it.
grow your plant outside (in different uvb environments)
Did it get you higher?
if not, its genes are not ready (haven't evolved - this takes eons ) for the uvb.
Maybe that's why many growers have sub-consciously shifted to growing compact indica like plants inside without realizing that it was because when they tried to grow their sativas inside the high "just wasn't there" not realizing it was all because of the light they were giving the plant!
it's not the uvb part thats the problem, it's how it's being implemented.
I can prove it.
grow your plant outside (in different uvb environments)
Did it get you higher?
if not, its genes are not ready (haven't evolved - this takes eons
) for the uvb.Maybe that's why many growers have sub-consciously shifted to growing compact indica like plants inside without realizing that it was because when they tried to grow their sativas inside the high "just wasn't there" not realizing it was all because of the light they were giving the plant!
Last edited:
