Mike80
Well-Known Member
I’m really curious as to how a 24/12 light schedule will affect auto plants.
24-on 12-off light cycle
- Thread starter GreenGrowth
- Start date
Elvin
Banned Troll
So the guy is postulating that flowering is dependent on the dark cycle only and we can increase the light cycle?
Perhaps, but I have revegged several times and the first thing I do is go to a 24/0 light cycle for a couple of weeks (at least) until I see new veg popping out of the flowers. Once each flower has started to revegg is when I stop with the 24/0 and go to 18/6.
Perhaps interrupting it with 12 hours of darkness instead of 6 would prevent it reverting but it seems like it would not.
I only have 2 tents and I'm not going to try it.
Unless that paper was just released I'd assume someone would have tried it by now and we'd have many who would have if it was successful, but who knows? I do know it is curious that this is a single person making this claim and no one else.
No one is posting here or elsewhere like Rollitup about this light cycle which leads me to believe it is not possible.
Perhaps, but I have revegged several times and the first thing I do is go to a 24/0 light cycle for a couple of weeks (at least) until I see new veg popping out of the flowers. Once each flower has started to revegg is when I stop with the 24/0 and go to 18/6.
Perhaps interrupting it with 12 hours of darkness instead of 6 would prevent it reverting but it seems like it would not.
I only have 2 tents and I'm not going to try it.
Unless that paper was just released I'd assume someone would have tried it by now and we'd have many who would have if it was successful, but who knows? I do know it is curious that this is a single person making this claim and no one else.
No one is posting here or elsewhere like Rollitup about this light cycle which leads me to believe it is not possible.
Grandma Weedstein
Well-Known Member
Yes that’s my understanding — compare 24/12 with 12/12
Elvin
Banned Troll
I thought the debate with those was if you even needed any darkness.
Grandma Weedstein
Well-Known Member
Yea this idea still seems to have a lot of unanswered questions. It sounds like the best way to do it would be to start with 12/12 until solidly in flower, then change to longer daylength.
They probably wouldn't give a toss and do their own thing like they usually do
The initial claim is that by running 24/12 during the flower cycle you can shave 1 week off for every month of the grow and have them ready sooner.... but please correct me if I’m wrong. I’m gonna peruse that again
Quote
Here’s why this method works so well. Out of the 168 hours in a week a traditional 12 on 12 off light cycle gives the plants a total of 84 hours of light to grow. An extended 24 on 12 off cycle provides the plants with 120 hours of light per week. Over the course of a 30 day month the plants get exposed to 516 hours of light instead of only 360 hours. The 156 hour advantage translates into 6.5 days worth of extra growing time per month.
Yes Gma Weedstein he says to wait until buds are set and then flip to new schedule!
Quote
Here’s why this method works so well. Out of the 168 hours in a week a traditional 12 on 12 off light cycle gives the plants a total of 84 hours of light to grow. An extended 24 on 12 off cycle provides the plants with 120 hours of light per week. Over the course of a 30 day month the plants get exposed to 516 hours of light instead of only 360 hours. The 156 hour advantage translates into 6.5 days worth of extra growing time per month.
Yes Gma Weedstein he says to wait until buds are set and then flip to new schedule!
Mike80
Well-Known Member
Yeah you don’t need any darkness but curious as to how they would respond to a 24/12 schedule. Maybe in the future I will test this out because I’m only growing autos.
Stormblessed
Well-Known Member
I was under the impression that once a plant reaches its DLI max for the day, extra light doesn’t help, and I would also think if the amount of light determined how fast it matured, growers with weak lights would just need to flower longer, but instead they finish around the same time frame just being larfy and small, but that’s just my interpretation
Elvin
Banned Troll
If this method works so well why has it not been tried? All I can find are posts from when it was first published and then subsequent ones asking if it has been tried.
If it works, great; but why in the 3 years since "Professor Lee" published there is nary a post by someone who has tried it?
I assume a few have but evidently it did not work so they did not post about their lack of success.
I'm sure it works with Autos (Why even bother with darkness with those? Weed is a C3 so it does not sleep) But will the 24 of light cause a reveg with Photo's?
Perhaps the good doctor's writing style is "different" because all I read was Lee sharing that he supposedly recommends this method but there was nothing about how these growers fared, just his assurance that it works. Nothing like "we have done this over the course of three grows and when comparing it to the control group we saw an Increase in flower or decrease in growing time."
Or "we were able to produce 4 crops in the time it normally takes 3"
All I read was him doing some math to show the plants will receive more light and his assurance that it will cause only more flowering.
I do not want to throw cold water on this, it may work; who knows?
But I'm not wasting a grow on trying this out especially when Professor Lee (who calls themselves "professor" BTW?) has not presented anything resembling a study or even proof that it works other than his word published a C-grade knock-off of High Times. Plus no one in the 3 years subsequent to its publication no one anywhere has tried it and posted about how great it works.
The lack of anyone trying it successfully really makes me question it.
But go for it someone and please share even if it does not work.
I’m curious and somewhat skeptical too, and I agree one would think there would be some evidence, studies or other growers raving the benefits. Like I mentioned back in post 40 he contradicts himself on the harvest claims. However since 13Goody has space and wants to try - I’m gonna tune in.
Who knows maybe they figured it would sell more copies of their rag and no one prominent would dispute the article.
Who knows maybe they figured it would sell more copies of their rag and no one prominent would dispute the article.
Haha that’s what I was thinking “Trust me it works! Now buy my book” isn’t the most convincing argument, especially with no proven results posted anywhere.
I still have a while to consider it, the clone won’t be put into flower for 2 more weeks or so. I’d love to find another person to grow for comparison, otherwise it just looks like a fluke (kind of like my autoflower clone) Science is a lot more convincing when the results can be repeated.
The original test is related to photo plants.
Autos likely won't respond better, that schedule gives them less light. Doing 20/4 gives almost 200 hours more than this experiment will give with 24/12 in 60 days. So all you'd probably be doing is robbing an auto of light unnecessarily by giving it 12 off.
I would love to jump in on a comparison grow, and yes it would be much better if a dozen of us could sync up and test the claims.
Quoting from the opening paragraph in his article: "A lot of growers are familiar with short light cycle methods like 11 on 13 off, 10 on 14 off, 9 on 15 off and 8 on 16 off. Each hour that the light cycle is reduced, up to 4 hours, directly translates to a reduction in the length of the floral cycle. Basically the plants think that winter is bearing down on them and they need to finish up as quickly as possible. The disadvantage is a proportionate reduction in harvested bud weight."
It took me awhile to figure out what he was saying. After reading it a couple of times I believe that he is trying to say that when the light is reduced from the traditional cycle of 12/12 each hour less means a shorter flower cycle time, that is, it takes less time to get to harvest BUT the harvest will be smaller. And, that the grower can reduce by up to 4 hours for the light cycle, that is, that they can get away with going all the way down to 8 hours of light and 16 hours of dark.
Then he gets into his longer lights on theory which seems to be that the grower can go past the 12 hours of light and instead go up to 24 hours straight and then turn the lights off for 12 hours and repeat. He indicates that the grower should not bother to go over 24 hours of lights on since it does not accomplish anything.
So, we are back to why a 24/12 light cycle works which is not explained. Since he does not mention an increase in harvest weight or quality I would have to believe that the only gain is going to be a shorter time in flowering.
It will cost more for electricity for lighting and cooling so each grower will have to figure out if the shorter time is worth the extra money for the same amount and potency.
He suggests that but does not say just how long this 12/12 cycle has to be before the grower switches over to his suggested 24/12. Just how far into flower before trying his theory?
For some growers it seems to be 5 days from starting 12/12 and they have flowers, or at least the pistils start showing up. For others it could be 2 weeks for the pistils to show up.
I am all for adding more books to my collection but why won't the guy give us something to show that his theories work. Like, why not give up a freebie and explain the 24/12 in detail. Then ask us to buy the book and he will explain all his other theories in detail.
Hey Smoking
Very well written. Shorter time to flower sounds good but less yield bites! Yes, how far has that been tested with giving less light hours in flower? It’s an intriguing subject too and why don’t more practice it - if it works?
There is an extra cost to the grower and we are not gonna justify that $$ where’s the beef? Am I right? If it doesn’t benefit us or it does dampen yields its all fluff, nice to know but it will never fly. We already know how to grow - we want better, faster, stronger all in one
He’s totally vague on that but I’ve always said 2 to 3 weeks from day of flip for buds to set and get all spiked up depending on strain. I think the harder you set the buds the better any anticipated results would be simply because if you mess with too much right there it could hermie or reveg IDK but just a thought.
I agree with you hands down you’ve made excellent points - thanks for the clarity! I’m still up for learning or sidelining on any projects. I still say there’s tons we don’t know about how to grow or best use this plant.
Very well written. Shorter time to flower sounds good but less yield bites! Yes, how far has that been tested with giving less light hours in flower? It’s an intriguing subject too and why don’t more practice it - if it works?
There is an extra cost to the grower and we are not gonna justify that $$ where’s the beef? Am I right? If it doesn’t benefit us or it does dampen yields its all fluff, nice to know but it will never fly. We already know how to grow - we want better, faster, stronger all in one
He’s totally vague on that but I’ve always said 2 to 3 weeks from day of flip for buds to set and get all spiked up depending on strain. I think the harder you set the buds the better any anticipated results would be simply because if you mess with too much right there it could hermie or reveg IDK but just a thought.
I agree with you hands down you’ve made excellent points - thanks for the clarity! I’m still up for learning or sidelining on any projects. I still say there’s tons we don’t know about how to grow or best use this plant.
Elvin
Banned Troll
I'd just like to see reviews of his book praising this wonderful new light schedule of his.
Where are the happy customers writing how great this works? No one is writing anywhere that this works!!!
Professor Elvin is going to write a grow book about using Unicorn farts for fertilizer and I assure you this works because I also write for a High Times rip-off as well (that my neighbor publishes in his spare bedroom).
Stormblessed
Well-Known Member
So would he I’m sure lol
Similar threads
