hillbill
Well-Known Member
Not just "No" but "HELL NO!"
Reduced hour light cycles
- Thread starter torontoke
- Start date
Gaz29
Well-Known Member
Not that I've noticed..
Gaz
potroastV2
Well-Known Member
Do you have any documented research to prove what you say?
Nope! Just your uneducated "feelings."
How about you test your "feelings" in a lab, and then get back to us.
Until then, let's hear some more of your "feelings."
torontoke
Well-Known Member
Where’s your lab results?Do you have any documented research to prove what you say?
Nope! Just your uneducated "feelings."
How about you test your "feelings" in a lab, and then get back to us.
Until then, let's hear some more of your "feelings."
Maybe post anything remotely close to the numbers you claim before expecting it from others.
We understand your standing by your book that was written before hid lighting was even used but seriously why bother posting in this thread if it’s just going to be a pissed off granny mod rant.
This is exactly the reason more and more people are leaving these forums.
No sense trying to help get any new stats or opinions let’s just continue to measure dicks and sling insults like the petty mods do
If there’s no conversation to be had here then why bother?
potroastV2
Well-Known Member
In my first post was a quote by Dr. Clarke that started "research has shown." Then he cited the source.
"before hid lighting was even used," HA! that gave me a really good laugh! I imagine that you were not even born when Rob published his research, so you would not know about the use of HID lights.
Let's hear some more of your "feelings."
"before hid lighting was even used," HA! that gave me a really good laugh! I imagine that you were not even born when Rob published his research, so you would not know about the use of HID lights.
Let's hear some more of your "feelings."
torontoke
Well-Known Member
I won’t attempt to debate someone’s 40 year old research that isn’t even your own.In my first post was a quote by Dr. Clarke that started "research has shown." Then he cited the source.
"before hid lighting was even used," HA! that gave me a really good laugh! I imagine that you were not even born when Rob published his research, so you would not know about the use of HID lights.
Let's hear some more of your "feelings."
Clearly genetics and light tech haven’t changed at all since then so the same blanket data must stay true forever.
Everyone else must be wasting their time
None of us would be able to tell our end product is missing a measly 50% of the thc because we aren’t as old as you
potroastV2
Well-Known Member
I won’t attempt to debate someone’s 40 year old research that isn’t even your own.
Clearly genetics and light tech haven’t changed at all since then so the same blanket data must stay true forever.
Everyone else must be wasting their time
None of us would be able to tell our end product is missing a measly 50% of the thc because we aren’t as old as you
That's absolutely correct, now you're talking! You are threatened by my knowledge and experience.
So it's time for me to thank you, and tell you how much I appreciate your growing skills. Because of that every time someone smokes my bud, they say it's the best they've ever had!
Thanks again!
Flowki
Well-Known Member
Today at work I had trouble. I went to the toilet in a nearby restaurant and it felt like I was having a number one from my number two, but the type of number one experienced after you've fornicated. There's more. I was the only person to go to the toilet in that time and when I tried to flush, it didn't work. I took the lid off the top bit and started yanking on the floating device, I remember doing that as a child flooding the bathroom, seemed like an option.. but nothing happened. I walked out feeling very bad knowing the young waitress was not going to get an early finish today. Tomorrow my face is probably on a poster pinned to every post in town ''wanted for shit and run''.
Still, not the lowest point of the day.. night guys.
Still, not the lowest point of the day.. night guys.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
That's rough, bro. Hope everything works itself out soon...
berten-ernie420
Well-Known Member
Both flowered under shortened flower periods. So by your logic, these strains if flowered under 12, would've doubled levels? C'mon guy. Different strokes for different folks.Do you have any documented research to prove what you say?
Nope! Just your uneducated "feelings."
How about you test your "feelings" in a lab, and then get back to us.
Until then, let's hear some more of your "feelings."
Attachments
OLD MOTHER SATIVA
Well-Known Member
this quote from RobClarke and the apparent 'research' is ridiculous.Marijuana Botany said:
"Research has shown (Valle et al. 1978 ) that twice as much THC is produced under a 12-hour photoperiod than under a 10-hour photoperiod."
(emphasis added)
please think about this "twice as much statement "first..not all research is correct
let me rephrase that because no i do not have documented info to support my claim
and i thank the mod for inserting a bibliography[of one]
so this means that the two hr period is responisble for 50% of producing thc
Does this also mean that 13, 14 , [18 hrs, 24 hrs]yah know those auto's
will increase it even more or is the magic number with all cannabis 12 hrs?
Last edited:
deno
Well-Known Member
50% less does sound suspect, but devaluing research because it is old is ridiculous. If it was just one study, than it is anything but confirmed. Its a data point to consider. At the same time, anecdotal evidence is not useless, but is suspect as well (among other things largely due to conformation bias we humans all suffer from). That 'going into an ice age' thing was a result of the media hyping it up. These wasn't a scientific consensus - not even close. It was one researcher who said it, and the media ran with it. The media does what the media does - tries to be interesting so they make more money. It's been bandied about by climate change deniers recently, holding it up as a false equivalence. Understand how the scientific method works, and you won't get conned by politicians (and their shills).
hillbill
Well-Known Member
I'm not doing a scientific experiment. I am though growing more herb in less days with less electricity since I cut my light period to 10 hours several months ago. I thought I would try it and here I am. I do grow under high quality full spectrum white COBs and LEDs, not street lights.
Gotta go enjoy some anecdotal herb. My lights finally turned on!
Global warming is very real, very serious and an incredible threat.
Gotta go enjoy some anecdotal herb. My lights finally turned on!
Global warming is very real, very serious and an incredible threat.
deno
Well-Known Member
No one is suggesting you are. We all make decisions based on limited info. I think the anti-science sentiments so many people express are cute. They act as if its something to despise, as if their lives would be better without it. They act like a spoiled brats, thinking if he breaks his toy another even better one will magically appear. A brat with absolutely no appreciation of what he has, or how he got it. I'll stick with running the light as long as possible while still keeping the plant in bloom for yield reasons.
Last edited:
hillbill
Well-Known Member
My yield is noticeably up. It just is. Potency is at least as good and plants flower time is a couple days shorter. Been doing some same strains for years. Only time I ever was under 12 hours before was down to just over eleven hours to try to finish full bleed Sativas. Too many folks here are having similar results to dismiss. I just like spending less on power with better results, faster.
deno
Well-Known Member
Oh, I'm not dismissing your experience. It's got me, and probably a lot of other people thinking about this. But surely you are getting better with each grow. And you probably grow various strains. There are other variables in play, and we are talking about subtle things here. The thing I have difficulty accepting is that a plant that gets more light will have a smaller yield than one that gets less light. That's an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I think it's an open question, and I won't jump to conclusions either way.
Sounds like you have a lot of experience with the strains you are growing. It would be interesting if you made an adjustment to maximize the light during bloom on your next run. You should see either an increase in yield, or decrease. When you're accustomed to a certain technique, subtle differences become more apparent. That would carry a lot of weight in this debate.
Last edited:
hillbill
Well-Known Member
I was surprised with the results myself but at this point I'm not suddenly getting that much better. From all I can gather, it is working in intensely lit areas. I'm at just over 10 on at about 45 watts/sqft. COBs.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Your experience is far from unique.
Well the research is aboutI know it was written over 30 years ago, and the research cited is older than that, I'm still going with Rob Clarke's Marijuana Botany. I give my flowering plants 13 hours of light and 11 hours of darkness.
Rob Clarke says that less than 12 hours of light per day will result in less THC produced. So here it is, like I've copied in threads on this board for years:
Marijuana Botany said:
"Research has shown (Valle et al. 1978 ) that twice as much THC is produced under a 12-hour photoperiod than under a 10-hour photoperiod."
(emphasis added)
So you can give your plants 10 hours of light per day, and they will produce half of the THC they would produce under 12 hours.
Therefore, I give my plants as much light as I can give them, while keeping them in flowering.
EFFECT OF LIGHT QUALITY ON CANNABINOID CONTENT IN VEGETATIVE LEAVES
Nothing about buds