Took me a while to catch up. Sick work bro!
Indoor 2nd Thoughts; Round 2 With THINK DIFFERENT
- Thread starter ThaGreenBandit
- Start date
ThaGreenBandit
Student of Herbal Alchemy
Yeah, it's one of those issues where one side swears by it, the other side swears it's a bunch of bull. I decided to see what side of the fence I would end up. The bulbs were less than $20, so I figured why not. I'll check out that site one I got a few minutes.
Bayou! What up, man? Thanks for stopping get through, bro! What you got cooking in the pot? Something sticky n stinky, I presume?!
Haven't been on much recently, just caught up man. Glad she's got that citrus smell you've been waiting for. Nice work Bandit
Yeah, the scent is changing, and I'm loving it! The funny thing is, you don't smell the sweet smell until the cab is opened. Outside the cab, it's funkalicious! I need a new filter! LOL
justintrudeau
NUGS.COM JT!
Ya..I'm swaying more to the bull side! I thought the same thing..price wasnt bad soo y not! Its not like it was a huge regret just didnt pan out as hoped
.also I was told that the cfl style don't get near enough penetration. Ya gotta go with the flood style which is where the heat issues kick in! The cfls are gen tooo low in output to do squat! Just some food for thought bro...
justintrudeau
NUGS.COM JT!
If you think about it its just plain lighting logic..most of the uvb cfls are between 20-35 watts..just like normal cfls that is not enough light for proper penetration. I used 2 x 75 watt sunray bulbs and still had no real significant gains in resin. If you really want to stress some more resin out of em there are other free of cost methods that in my opinion carry about as much weight!
If your just looking to add some more supplemental light your better off with just going to home depot and buying some 2700k 150watt equiv cfls bulbs.
If your just looking to add some more supplemental light your better off with just going to home depot and buying some 2700k 150watt equiv cfls bulbs.
Last edited:
I've just bought my first carbon filter for the narco, she reeks!
ThaGreenBandit
Student of Herbal Alchemy
Thanks for the details, JT! It was pretty much just the extra resin I wanted, not supplemental lighting. I might be getting some more lights, just depends on how my pockets are looking. I almost got a 100w flood style uv light, but decided not to because of the heat issue.
ThaGreenBandit
Student of Herbal Alchemy
justintrudeau
NUGS.COM JT!
No prob bro...if u are using the cfl type u have to use a reflector to get some focus if you hope to get enough penetration is my last bit of advice..just the cheap ones like I have my cfls in in my closet will do!
Can't help but feel that if its soo cheap and it ain't new that everyone would be doing it by now!
Can't help but feel that if its soo cheap and it ain't new that everyone would be doing it by now!
justintrudeau
NUGS.COM JT!
I am not convinced that UVB produces more THC. The idea that UVB improves THC content appears to have derived from only one scientific study (see below):
[Lydon, J., A. H. Teramura and C. B. Coffman (1987) UV-B radiation effects on photosynthesis, growth and cannabinoid production of two Cannabis sativa chemotypes. Photochem. Photobiol. 46, 201-206.]
It appears to me that all of the interest in using UVB to improve THC yield stems from that one study. The video by Marijuana Man, the forums dedicated to UVB lights, and other articles all use the same study as a reference. The articles, forums, and stories about UVB has been growing ever since. This is how urban myths are created.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that UVB light doesn't cause an increase in THC, only that I don't see any good evidence for it.
I think it's important to realize that one study does not make a convincing case. Many a scientific study that first appeared convincing turned out completely wrong upon further investigation. For a scientific fact to be established, the study needs to be repeated, and the more the better. Unfortunately, in another study by Brenneisen (1984) "showed only a minor difference in UVB absorption between THC and CBD, and the absorptive properties of CBC proved considerably greater than either. Perhaps the relationship between the cannabinoids and UV-B is not so direct as first supposed." (see: Chemical ecology of Cannabis by David W. Pate)
Now if CBD and CBC works as good or better than THC for UVB blocking, then what need of THC? Nature does waste resources for unnecessary chemical production. I suspect that THC has another purpose (see below). Moreover, at least one grower grew cannabis from seed all the way to vegetation by using *only* UVB lights, long before stalked trichomes became apparent. The leaves turned dark green with a slivery finish which suggests that cannabis has another method of protecting itself from UVB: by reflection. Moreover this protection (if that is what it is) appears to have come from the leaf itself instead of trichomes.
It's also interesting to note that THC *absorbs* UVB. How in the world does this protect the plant? Absorption means heat and this doesn't make sense to me how this can protect the plant. Wouldn't you want a reflector instead of an absorber?
The other claimed increase of THC by the application of UVB comes from amateur growers who swear that UVB light works. Unfortunately, anecdotal evidence is not considered scientifically trustworthy simply because of unreliable test methods, placebo effects, and psychological variability.
Also the theory about UVB in environmentally friendly areas for cannabis does not make sense to me. Marijuana Man, for example, points out that UVB radiation occurs greater in tropical and mountainous areas where it's known that high THC cannabis grows. Well, yes there indeed is some correlation, but as many scientists warn: correlations do not prove causations. This is one of the most ignored fallacies made by humans.
Moreover, the correlation does not always work. For example, many have pointed out that some Mexican and Brazilian weed is very poor in THC even though it grows in a tropical climate high in UVB.
I think there is a much stronger correlation for high THC than UVB and that is LOW humidity. Now, of course this correlation also does not prove causation, but if you want correlations, low humidity, I think, serves a stronger case than UVB for increasing THC.
Note that humidity tends to decrease with altitude. Mountains, not only provide more UVB but also dry conditions. Many deserts also have high UVB, but also low humidity. Poor Mexican weed, however, is gown, many times in low altitude humid climates. Perhaps that is why it is considered a poor smoking weed.
So why would low humidity increase THC? Because it appears that one of the purposes of glandular trichomes is to protect the plant from desiccation. The sticky oil coats the leaves and protects the plant from becoming too dry, (similar to the way cacti protect themselves). And whenever you have more trichomes, you also get more THC along with the ride. As for the purpose of THC, that is still under study, but some suggest that it is there to intoxicate (or kill) small predators that might eat the cannabis leaves.
It's also interesting to note that the evolution of cannabis has spread from Indo-China, India, Arabia, Moroco, Afghanistan, all arid dry areas. Most of the best strains are naturally grown in dry arid climates, even where there is little UVB.
It's also noteworthy that cannabis usually flowers in Autumn or early winter where the days are shorter and the sunlight contains very little UVB. If THC is to protect the plant from UVB, then why-oh-why doesn't it produce THC mostly during the summer months when UVB is the greatest? It doesn't make sense.
Moreover, indoor growers around the world produce high THC plants without using UVB at all. At all! However, the best growers do decrease humidity in the last few weeks of flowering to increase THC levels. So it seems to me that humidity has a much stronger correlation for high levels of THC than UVB.
And could not the Lydon, et al, study have inadvertently created a dry leaf condition by exposing the plants to high levels of UVB? I think it's something to think about.
[Lydon, J., A. H. Teramura and C. B. Coffman (1987) UV-B radiation effects on photosynthesis, growth and cannabinoid production of two Cannabis sativa chemotypes. Photochem. Photobiol. 46, 201-206.]
It appears to me that all of the interest in using UVB to improve THC yield stems from that one study. The video by Marijuana Man, the forums dedicated to UVB lights, and other articles all use the same study as a reference. The articles, forums, and stories about UVB has been growing ever since. This is how urban myths are created.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that UVB light doesn't cause an increase in THC, only that I don't see any good evidence for it.
I think it's important to realize that one study does not make a convincing case. Many a scientific study that first appeared convincing turned out completely wrong upon further investigation. For a scientific fact to be established, the study needs to be repeated, and the more the better. Unfortunately, in another study by Brenneisen (1984) "showed only a minor difference in UVB absorption between THC and CBD, and the absorptive properties of CBC proved considerably greater than either. Perhaps the relationship between the cannabinoids and UV-B is not so direct as first supposed." (see: Chemical ecology of Cannabis by David W. Pate)
Now if CBD and CBC works as good or better than THC for UVB blocking, then what need of THC? Nature does waste resources for unnecessary chemical production. I suspect that THC has another purpose (see below). Moreover, at least one grower grew cannabis from seed all the way to vegetation by using *only* UVB lights, long before stalked trichomes became apparent. The leaves turned dark green with a slivery finish which suggests that cannabis has another method of protecting itself from UVB: by reflection. Moreover this protection (if that is what it is) appears to have come from the leaf itself instead of trichomes.
It's also interesting to note that THC *absorbs* UVB. How in the world does this protect the plant? Absorption means heat and this doesn't make sense to me how this can protect the plant. Wouldn't you want a reflector instead of an absorber?
The other claimed increase of THC by the application of UVB comes from amateur growers who swear that UVB light works. Unfortunately, anecdotal evidence is not considered scientifically trustworthy simply because of unreliable test methods, placebo effects, and psychological variability.
Also the theory about UVB in environmentally friendly areas for cannabis does not make sense to me. Marijuana Man, for example, points out that UVB radiation occurs greater in tropical and mountainous areas where it's known that high THC cannabis grows. Well, yes there indeed is some correlation, but as many scientists warn: correlations do not prove causations. This is one of the most ignored fallacies made by humans.
Moreover, the correlation does not always work. For example, many have pointed out that some Mexican and Brazilian weed is very poor in THC even though it grows in a tropical climate high in UVB.
I think there is a much stronger correlation for high THC than UVB and that is LOW humidity. Now, of course this correlation also does not prove causation, but if you want correlations, low humidity, I think, serves a stronger case than UVB for increasing THC.
Note that humidity tends to decrease with altitude. Mountains, not only provide more UVB but also dry conditions. Many deserts also have high UVB, but also low humidity. Poor Mexican weed, however, is gown, many times in low altitude humid climates. Perhaps that is why it is considered a poor smoking weed.
So why would low humidity increase THC? Because it appears that one of the purposes of glandular trichomes is to protect the plant from desiccation. The sticky oil coats the leaves and protects the plant from becoming too dry, (similar to the way cacti protect themselves). And whenever you have more trichomes, you also get more THC along with the ride. As for the purpose of THC, that is still under study, but some suggest that it is there to intoxicate (or kill) small predators that might eat the cannabis leaves.
It's also interesting to note that the evolution of cannabis has spread from Indo-China, India, Arabia, Moroco, Afghanistan, all arid dry areas. Most of the best strains are naturally grown in dry arid climates, even where there is little UVB.
It's also noteworthy that cannabis usually flowers in Autumn or early winter where the days are shorter and the sunlight contains very little UVB. If THC is to protect the plant from UVB, then why-oh-why doesn't it produce THC mostly during the summer months when UVB is the greatest? It doesn't make sense.
Moreover, indoor growers around the world produce high THC plants without using UVB at all. At all! However, the best growers do decrease humidity in the last few weeks of flowering to increase THC levels. So it seems to me that humidity has a much stronger correlation for high levels of THC than UVB.
And could not the Lydon, et al, study have inadvertently created a dry leaf condition by exposing the plants to high levels of UVB? I think it's something to think about.
Similar threads
