UV Black Lights ?? will they do anything....anything at all ?? - STELTHY :leaf:

stelthy

Well-Known Member


I am currently running 4X Blue spec CFL's, 1X HPS, and a UV-B tube... and purely out of interest I am curious to find out if the UV-(BLACK-LIGHT's) will do anything at all as far as assisting my plant/s in there mission for Bud...

I know that Infra Red = heat and is bad for plants causing thin stems etc..

I know that Green Light is un used by plants and is ideal for a night light..

But

With regards to Black-Lights I am unsure of what they may/may not do ??


All replies welcomed, best answer's = +REP! - STELTHY :leaf:
 

stelthy

Well-Known Member


Apparently according to Wikipedia the UV-Black Lights emit UV-A... Ultraviolet A, long wave, or black light UVA 400 nm–315 nm 3.10–3.94 eV

Below is a LINK to the info available on Wiki :-



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultraviolet



Ultraviolet (UV) light is electromagnetic radiation with a wavelength shorter than that of visible light, but longer than X-rays, in the range 10 nm to 400 nm, and energies from 3 eV to 124 eV. It is named because the spectrum consists of electromagnetic waves with frequencies higher than those that humans identify as the color violet.
Although ultraviolet radiation is invisible to the human eye, most people are aware of the effects of UV through sunburn, but the UV spectrum has many other effects, both beneficial and damaging, to human health.

UV light is found in sunlight and is emitted by electric arcs and specialized lights such as black lights. It can cause chemical reactions, and causes many substances to glow or fluoresce. Most ultraviolet is classified as non-ionizing radiation. The higher energies of the ultraviolet spectrum from about 150 nm ('vacuum' ultraviolet) are ionizing, but this type of ultraviolet is not very penetrating and is blocked by air.

"Black light"
Main article: Black light
A black light, Wood's light, or UV light is a lamp that emits long-wave UV radiation and very little visible light. Fluorescent black lights are typically made in the same fashion as normal fluorescent lights except that only one phosphor is used, and the clear glass envelope of the bulb may be replaced by a deep-bluish-purple glass called Wood's glass, a nickel-oxide–doped glass, which blocks almost all visible light above 400 nanometres. The color of such lamps is often referred to in the trade as "blacklight blue" or "BLB", to distinguish them lamps from "bug zapper" blacklight ("BL") lamps that do not have the blue Wood's glass. The phosphor typically used for a near 368 to 371 nanometre emission peak is either europium-doped strontium fluoroborate (SrB4O7F:Eu2+) or europium-doped strontium borate (SrB4O7:Eu2+) while the phosphor used to produce a peak around 350 to 353 nanometres is lead-doped barium silicate (BaSi2O5:Pb+). "Blacklight Blue" lamps peak at 365 nm.
While "black lights" do produce light in the UV range, their spectrum is confined to the long-wave UVA region. Unlike UVB and UVC, which are responsible for the direct DNA damage that leads to skin cancer, black light is limited to lower-energy, longer waves and does not cause sunburn, although it can damage collagen fibers and destroy vitamins A and D in skin.[citation needed]
A black light may also be formed, very inefficiently, by simply using Wood's glass instead of clear glass as the envelope for a common incandescent bulb. This was the method used to create the very first black light sources. Though cheaper than the fluorescent source, only 0.1% of the input power is converted to usable radiation, as the incandescent light radiates as a black body with very little emission in the UV. Incandescent bulbs used to generate significant UV, due to their inefficiency, may become dangerously hot. More rarely still, high-power (hundreds of watts) mercury-vapor black lights that use a UV-emitting phosphor and an envelope of Wood's glass are made, are used mainly for theatrical and concert displays. They also become very hot during normal use.
Some UV fluorescent bulbs specifically designed to attract insects use the same near-UV emitting phosphor as normal blacklights, but use plain glass instead of the more expensive Wood's glass. Plain glass blocks less of the visible mercury emission spectrum, making them appear light-blue to the naked eye. These lamps are referred to as "blacklight" or "BL" in most lighting catalogs.
Ultraviolet light can also be generated by some light-emitting diodes and laser diodes.

Ultraviolet fluorescent lamps
Fluorescent lamps without a phosphorescent coating to convert UV to visible light, emit ultraviolet light with two peaks at 253.7 nm and 185 nm due to the peak emission of the mercury within the bulb. Eighty-five to ninety percent of the UV produced by these lamps is at 253.7 nm, while only five to ten percent is at 185 nm. Germicidal lamps use quartz (glass) doped with an additive to block the 185 nm wavelength. With the addition of a suitable phosphorescent coating, they can be modified to produce a UVA, UVB, or visible light spectrum (all fluorescent tubes used for domestic and commercial lighting are mercury (Hg) UV emission bulbs at heart).
Such low-pressure mercury lamps are used extensively for disinfection, and in standard form have an optimum operating temperature of about 30 degrees Celsius. Use of a mercury amalgam allows operating temperature to rise to 100 degrees Celsius, and UVC emission to about double or triple per unit of light-arc length. These low-pressure lamps have a typical efficiency of approximately thirty to thirty-five percent, meaning that for every 100 watts of electricity consumed by the lamp, it will produce approximately 30-35 watts of total UV output.

Ultraviolet LEDs
Light-emitting diodes (LEDs) can be manufactured to emit light in the ultraviolet range, although practical LED arrays are very limited below 365 nm. LED efficiency at 365 nm is about 5-8%, whereas efficiency at 395 nm is closer to 20%, and power outputs at these longer UV wavelengths are also better. Such LED arrays are beginning to be used for UV curing applications, and are already successful in digital print applications and inert UV curing environments. Power densities approaching 3,000 mW/cm2 (30 kW/m2) are now possible, and this, coupled with recent developments by photoinitiator and resin formulators, makes the expansion of LED-cured UV materials likely.

If anyone has any info on plants/wavelengths/ and UV-A emitting 'Black-Lights' please add it to this thread, many thanks - STELTHY :leaf:
 

stelthy

Well-Known Member
According to this video from E-How's site :-



http://www.ehow.com/video_4872780_do-lights-affect-plant-growth_.html



Black Lights are pretty useless at growing plants.. However the women does go on to say they are ok for seedlings, and during veg will cause the plants to get 'leggy/stretched" However she did not mention if combined with the Blue, Red and UV-B spec what the outcome would be.. and also she failed to mention UV-A... As I expected a low Watt Black-Light is pretty useless... But what about one thats a little more powerful and used in conjuction with one or more of the other bulbs? - STELTHY :leaf:
 

cannawizard

Well-Known Member
**cool experiment.. i do feel this plant deserves a full spectrum.. the sun has everything.. yet.. indoors, we only give them hps, mh.. blues.. reds... but we neglect green, purples, deep red, deep blue.... still a new science, and ppl need to do some DIY research... so im glad your around Stelthy :) test away brah~


--keep us posted on what you find... try doing a controlled test also,,.. one plant under hps/mh/cfl... AND one plant just under UVA :) --that would be cool
 

stelthy

Well-Known Member
**cool experiment.. i do feel this plant deserves a full spectrum.. the sun has everything.. yet.. indoors, we only give them hps, mh.. blues.. reds... but we neglect green, purples, deep red, deep blue.... still a new science, and ppl need to do some DIY research... so im glad your around Stelthy :) test away brah~


--keep us posted on what you find... try doing a controlled test also,,.. one plant under hps/mh/cfl... AND one plant just under UVA :) --that would be cool
I am thinking I may use a Black Light for the last 30 mins of lights on when there is less light towards the end of the day, and stage my other lights to switch off one by one until the Black Light is the last on to turn off during 12/12 ... I will have to wait for a week or so to get one of these lights .. But that'll give me time to research and find the best one for the job :)

I am also interested in getting a KESSIL 'Extreme Red' but due to cost may leave this for a future grow! in a perfect world individual bulbs for each colour of the spectrum would be a great experiment.. Pricey, but I am sure it'd be worth it :) !!

I'll concentrate on tracking down a Black Light for now and research like crazy to find the best/most suitable amount of UV-A for a Cannabis plant :) Cheers for showing up dude :) I knew I could count on you - STELTHY :leaf:
 

cannawizard

Well-Known Member
**hhhmm.. i might actually have a spare red booster from kessil.. ill donate it after this current run for your research needs :) ., got a UVa thread in some old site, if i find it.,ill link it to you~
 

cowell

Well-Known Member
Sorry.. didn't read through all your findings to see if you have this already figured out or not.

UVB light efffects the potency of your weed, not the size of it.
UVB is HARMFUL to plants.
Trichomes have been proven as marijuana's defence system against UVB damage. So introducing more UVB into your indoor grow, your plant will try and throw out more resin to protect itself from the UVB.

Generally guys add the 10.0 UVB reptile bulbs to their set up for this, or add MH light in flower to boost UVB in the room.. which works, but not like the real thing.
There's a great video on the subject which explains what happens, why it happens, and even shows you it happening :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfiI78uN3Ks

12 minutes of your life well worth it for the explainations and understanding on the subject when you're done.
 

cannawizard

Well-Known Member
**nothing is for sure.. (THERE IS NO CONCLUSIVE) evidence..

ive research the ultra violet spectrum for 13years.. (and still going)... yet.. i got ppl like this guy above me .. freely posting (cut & paste logic) ...that has no scientific merit :\

;)
 

cowell

Well-Known Member
**nothing is for sure.. (THERE IS NO CONCLUSIVE) evidence..

ive research the ultra violet spectrum for 13years.. (and still going)... yet.. i got ppl like this guy above me .. freely posting (cut & paste logic) ...that has no scientific merit :\

;)
ok...I won't post links to the relevant ALREADY posted papers on the subject, and let you carry on your independant research...I'll just post some references that I have based my conclusions on.

Article: UV-B RADIATION EFFECTS ON PHOTOSYNTHESIS, GROWTH AND CANNABINOID PRODUCTION OF TWO Cannabis Sativa CHEMOTYPES.
By: JOHN LYDON, ALAN H. TERAMULA and C. BENJAMIN COFFMAN.
Department of Botany, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA.


Another good one - Pate (1983) indicated that in areas of high ultraviolet radiation exposure, the UVB (280-320 nm) absorption properties of THC may have conferred an evolutionary advantage to Cannabis capable of greater production of this compound from biogenetic precursor CBD. The extent to which this production is also influenced by environmental UVB has also been experimentally determined by Lydon et al. (1987).

http://www.hempfood.com/iha/iha01201.html


Cannawiz even "likes" this thread posting the same information https://www.rollitup.org/general-marijuana-growing/124705-effects-uvb-radiation-thc-trichrome.html

here's some more that links to good information.
https://www.rollitup.org/general-marijuana-growing/43272-independent-study-about-affects-megaray.html


What I would love to see is links to YOUR evidence supporting that UVB light does not increase THC content.

There have been one's done to prove it. None have been done that disprove it.

What equates to a scientific finding in your opinion oh mighty mod? Before you count me out as "some guy posting copy paste".. I have read all the shit I'm pasting links to, and instead of sitting here typing it all out everytime I go over this - I link to the info supporting my comment for people to find out more if they want. I also grow weed, and experiment myself all the time..didn't take me 13 years to figure it out either.
Have a fantastic day.
 

cannawizard

Well-Known Member
**your not gonna see any of my works published, but thnks for asking :)

(((TWO Cannabis Sativa CHEMOTYPES--- were tested ALAN H. TERAMULA... i spoke to him.. did you? ..he stated the tho the test(s) were successful.. they only USED 2genos :)

((Another good one - Pate (1983) indicated that in areas of high ultraviolet radiation exposure, the UVB (280-320 nm) absorption properties of THC may have conferred an evolutionary advantage to Cannabis capable of greater production of this compound from biogenetic precursor CBD. The extent to which this production is also influenced by environmental UVB has also been experimentally determined by Lydon et al. (1987). ))

--both studies are only partial evi.. mr .Lydon also stated that IT IS UNKNOWN WHAT HAPPENS TO THE UVB WAVE..WHEN ITS "ABSORBED" BY THE THC HEAD---THEN BROKEN DOWN WITHIN THE SPHERE... caps ftw ;)

.2s

(can anyone post anything thats not science data collected from the 70s/80s ...sigh, try israel army/gov cannabis research.. or ..nvm... lol.. why do i even bother.. yawn)

(keep it coming, im working on my post count)
 

cowell

Well-Known Member
**your not gonna see any of my works published, but thnks for asking :)

(((TWO Cannabis Sativa CHEMOTYPES--- were tested ALAN H. TERAMULA... i spoke to him.. did you? ..he stated the tho the test(s) were successful.. they only USED 2genos :)

When did you discuss this with him? I have his phone number, and email - I can call and ask him myself (PM me if you don't believe it and I'll give it to you). 808-956-****.
I also know that the majority of the research he does now is on c3 plants like rice... so not likely to see any MJ studies from UofH let alone studies on c4 plants.

The test on 2 genos - I have grown 4 more myself.. friends growing several others. It is SO OBVIOUS by observation alone the difference in resin production between those grown with supplimental UVB lighting vs those grown without that I doubt there are many others thinking it's worth working on anymore...much the same as all the new work they are doing on Newton's laws right?
People tend to not bother once there is substaciated evidence... again, NO testing has contradicted the findings that increased UVB increases potency. The only thing I have ever seen is there has been reports by people with different theories.. but no experiments to back them up. Does that leave doubt in my mind. Nope. If they thought there was enough reason to believe the findings form the UVB study were merely coincidental.. they would have tested varying lower degrees of humidity and it's effects on THC production.. as that is the only other real mitigating factor in the discussion.

((Another good one - Pate (1983) indicated that in areas of high ultraviolet radiation exposure, the UVB (280-320 nm) absorption properties of THC may have conferred an evolutionary advantage to Cannabis capable of greater production of this compound from biogenetic precursor CBD. The extent to which this production is also influenced by environmental UVB has also been experimentally determined by Lydon et al. (1987). ))

--both studies are only partial evi.. mr .Lydon also stated that IT IS UNKNOWN WHAT HAPPENS TO THE UVB WAVE..WHEN ITS "ABSORBED" BY THE THC HEAD---THEN BROKEN DOWN WITHIN THE SPHERE... caps ftw ;)

.2s

(can anyone post anything thats not science data collected from the 70s/80s ...sigh, try israel army/gov cannabis research.. or ..nvm... lol.. why do i even bother.. yawn)

(keep it coming, im working on my post count)
I won't find your work published? LOL. No shit - really? Why would anyone invest 13 years of time to "researching" a topic, to never publish their findings? Likely cause you have no credibility in the scientific community, no research, no experiments conducted under protocol, and you are diverting discussion from the point..

Why bother? I thought that was the point of this forum. I answered a question to a person asking a question. You responded back with .. no that's not right, and I don't wanna waste my time letting you read the sources I'm going off of.
Great job as a mod and as an "advanced cultivation" anything BTW.
I even ASKED you to point me to the literature, or source you think is relevant so I could read up on where you were coming from.

THAT'S how learning works.

My understanding is based off what I have seen and read.. I have used MH for flower, and my observations were that the result was a more potent - but fluffier end product than HPS. Blind "smoke" testing confirmed that to me with several "voulenteers". MH has more UVB than HPS - right? The only variable I changed was the bulb from HPS to MH.. the plants were clones. 4 different strains, Cali orange, strawberry cough, bubba kush, violator kush, same room (dialed in - so same temps, same RH, same water, same nutes, same air flow).

The Israel army.. LMFAO... ok.. why not Inuktatuk's research on it too..
Didn't they just ok trials to use Mj for PTS?... so... what's that got to do with anything UVB or potency related?... post me a link to a study on UVB and I'll read it...

I'd post current scientific results if there were any recent testing published on the subject... seems like most botanists accept it as fact, or would challenge the findings. How many tests are being done to dis-prove Newton again?.. oh right.. none have ever been done. (87 BTW is no where near the 70's - just saying).

What happens to THC in the trichome when it absorbs UVB - is that it absorbs it...and destroys the THC in the trichome... you want a link to that study.. no never mind of course you don't... you're of course right. Or the Lithouanian government would have published a paper saying that's what happens.

I don't work on my post count. I only post when I can help. Hence the 1300+ post count in going on 2 1/2 years...You post just to post? Obviously 2600+ posts in 3 months.. go to toke and talk to boost your count if you aren't going to be helpful - and it's at the very least distasteful to say that anyone is "another cut and paste guy" when you obviously didn't take the time to even look at my posts to see if I was informed or not.

Whatever... you have nothing to post but your opinion. Show me a study saying UVB has no effect on THC production and you have a foot hold.. but since you don't. You have nothing to argue about other than what you THINK is right.
 

cannawizard

Well-Known Member
**dude.. almost fell asleep waiting for your response.. finally :) ..wow.. nice prep work on the comeback :)

--glad you got your point out, feels good doesnt it?.. instead of keeping it bottled in ;)

..you win, i loose, ..and life moves on..

--cheers brah (i bow to your vast knowledge of the UV wave)... all hail
 

cowell

Well-Known Member
**dude.. almost fell asleep waiting for your response.. finally :) ..wow.. nice prep work on the comeback :)

Dude.. I have a wife that is a brain cancer survivor, and I'm her caregiver... I had to make fucking dinner, and take out the garbage, do the laundry, and make sure our bills were paid...
I'm reporting you for being a fucking asshole.

--glad you got your point out, feels good doesnt it?.. instead of keeping it bottled in ;)

..you win, i loose, ..and life moves on..

--cheers brah (i bow to your vast knowledge of the UV wave)... all hail
see above you fucking ass hole.. if I ever met you on the street I'd turn you inside out.. I hope you feel like a big MOD treating people with such disrespect.
 

WestAussie

Active Member
Yeah, Cannawizard, you weren't exactly helpful or even remotely interested in discourse. A lot of us n00bcakes come to this site to witness and sometimes participate in the exchange of ideas. Your response smacked of arrogance and entitlement. Maybe it's time to hand in your mod badge...

:-)
 

stelthy

Well-Known Member


I've found some interesting info on X-ray beams applied to plants with positive effects.. However voltage and filtration is needed.. here is some blurb :-

STIMULATIVE EFFECTS OF X-RAYS ON PLANT GROWTH'
CHARLES A. SHIULL AND JOHN W. MITCHELL


(WITH FOUR FIGURES)



Introduction


During the period since the discovery of x-rays by R6NTGEN in 1895, a vast amount of work has been done in which these radiations have been used for clinical diagnosis and therapy. The practical applications of x-rays in medicine and surgery make it necessary to know the effect which x-rays produce upon the living organism. Many investigators have suggested on the basis of general observations that small doses of x-rays may stimulate cellular activity and growth, but convincing proof of such action has been wanting. In more recent years such claims have been discounted in favor of the belief that x-rays are always more or less destructive in action, and tend to retard growth. It is not the purpose of this preliminary report to survey the literature dealing with the effects of x-ray treatments upon plants. It has been found that every part of the plant body can be profoundly modified by appropriate treatments. Cytological and histological examination of treated cells and tissues reveals striking changes in the organization of the protoplasm and of organs derived from the treated meristems.

Most frequently the results described are of a destructive nature. The protoplasm is partially disorganized; chromosomes are vacuolated or fragmented; the cell division mechanism functions imperfectly, showing unequal distribution of chromosomes, non-disjunctions, translocation of pieces of chromosomes from one to some other non homologous chromosome, etc. Gene changes may be produced, often injurious in character, with resulting lethal effects and tendency to sterility. The results obtained by McKAY and GOODSPEED on cotton are typical. Many mutations have been induced in maize and barley and tobacco, but it has been questioned whether there are any progressive evolutionary changes induced by x-ray treatments.

All vegetative parts are subject to injury by x-rays. Root tips may become bulbous and swollen, with tumor-like enlargements in which giant cells may occur. Stems become fasciated under strong treatments. Leaves are injured readily; they become asymmetric and crumpled in appearance, develop deep sinuosities, and often show irregular development of chlorophyll. The sunflower shows these injuries in typical fashion, the leaves becoming pocked and marked as though they were suffering from a mosaic. This investigation was aided in part by a grant to the University of Chicago from the Rockefeller Foundation.


Below I've added a LINK to the web page I gained the info :-



http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC439021/pdf/plntphys00324-0112.pdf



Conclusion

From the results obtained in these preliminary experiments it is concluded that if the x-rays are properly filtered to decrease the intensity of the beam, or to decrease the proportion of the longer radiations, and if the quantity of energy used is adjusted to the specific requirements of the plants by control of the duration of radiation, and of the voltage and amperage used, plants can be stimulated to show increased growth rates.


Summary

1. A few preliminary experiments are described which indicate that under appropriate conditions of treatment, x-rays produce stimulative effects upon plant growth. Wheat, corn, oats, and sunflower seedlings have been used.

2. The seeds were treated in an early stage of germination after soaking for 24 hours in a closed moist chamber on a substrate of cellueotton
saturated with water. The seeds are not submerged during soaking, but
are wet on one side, and in contact with air.

3. The conditions which we believe necessary for such stimulative action are: the use of metallic screens, high voltage and low amperage, and brief exposures. The total dosage for stimulation does not much exceed 100 r-units. Even with the 1-mm. aluminum screen sunflowers given 150-200 r-units were overtreated. Optimum growth occurred with about 115 r-units (3 minutes).

4. There is some evidence of increased sugar content and increased respiration of treated seedlings.


HULL BOTANICAL LABORATORY
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO




** For the record I doubt I'll be able to get my hands on the technology to try this out with Cannabis seedling's and Cannabis plants in Veg, but there's no harm in looking... I am aware of high volumes of radiation are a health risk and so plan to do alot more research 1st..

I will add more to this thread soon hope you find this interesting :) - STELTHY :leaf:
 

stelthy

Well-Known Member


Ok so I know radio waves and sound waves, will help stimulate plant growth via molicular vibrations.. Micro-waves will harm pretty much anything in their path.. Visible light is great for plants minus Green.. UV-C is crap for plants & humans alike.. UV-B is great : Shocks the plant into thinking its under attack/plant retaliates with CBD/THC etc etc.. UV-A seem's harmful from the knowledge I have gained so far (Black-Lights are defo not the way to go :() Controlled X-ray beam are good for young plants.. so that now leaves Infra-Red and Gamma Ray...

Hmm... anyone have any info on these 2 spectrums ?? - STELTHY :leaf:
 
Top