- Thread starter
- #341
AfricanGrower
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the support Stealth & Lavernz!
>>>are u leaving a dark period before flower? i find a 36 hour dark period speeds up the start of flowering by up to a week.
I usually allow a 24 hour dark period, but due to me having to wait to put up the trellis, I want to limit stretch until I get it on. The following days after the dark period, will allow all those built up flowering hormones to be released, so I don't mind a slower transition into flowering this time around
>>>What's this blue thing? A fan?
Yes Capn, its a fan, I'm glad you got your glasses on I'll heed your advice. As for the resolution.. I have been smoking far less now to prepare me for this harvest as I can only smoke a very small portion of it. If I had no self control I would go through half a pound in 1-2 months
>>>Question, would varying periods of darkness during veg have a negative impact on the plant?
I would assume that any dark period more than 12 hours will have a negative effect. As that is the optimal amount of time for Flowering Hormones to develop in darkness. Note the GLR, there is never a total dark period of more than 11 hours, and never a consecutive dark period for more than 6 hours. This allows the plant to never fully go into flower, WITHOUT stressing it to revert back to veg.
>>> What I really wanna know is can top light be diminished and side lighting (whatever side) be the primaries for a period?
Well this is what most users of the GLR do. They supplement the 1 hour on time with CFLs instead of overworking the HID ballast to come on twice a day. I am sure that 1 hour would not be effective, but given if you make a schedule where your HID turns off earlier you can allow the CFLs to remain on in certain favorable positions for the rest of the lights on cycle.
>>> I know what I'm about to say means more spending, but table that for a moment to consider what gains (if any) can be had in plant growth times or other possible gains. What if CFLs were used for top lighting and smaller MH HIDs used dynamically to sway the plant to grow towards the HID? Do you think this might produce a more favorable result? Or even CFL if not HID is available, had your HID been turned off, do you think the CFLs would have earned a more favorable grade? I know nixing the HID would greatly reduce overall plant gains for the time period that light is off, but if the grower could gain control of several lights simultaneously, could s/he not have a better success rate for what s/he was trying to accomplish?
So I think what you are saying here is: having the CFLs be the primary source of light and having them be on constantly during 'lights on' cycles. While using multiple HIDs similar to how I experimented with the CFLs, and use them for side lighting during certain periods of lights on. Is that the jist of it?
If so, I think that having the CFLs as a main source of light will cause the whole plant to stretch, except for the parts that are closest to the CFLs. Now when you introduce varying times of supplement HID lighting, I think the plant will stop stretching as there is a higher intensity light. The thought is kind of going against my whole experiment, but the when the HID is introduced, I assume that the side growth of the plants will stop searching (stretching) for a better source of light because exponential increase of intensity. Now the part of the plant that is directly exposed to the CFLs, based on my research (and Don Paul's experience) will remain in a stasis, and won't show any signs of rapid growth compared to the rest of the plant.
So potentially there might be something in what you are getting at, but that is way ahead of where my experiments are now It definitely is something worth trying out in the future though
>>>are u leaving a dark period before flower? i find a 36 hour dark period speeds up the start of flowering by up to a week.
I usually allow a 24 hour dark period, but due to me having to wait to put up the trellis, I want to limit stretch until I get it on. The following days after the dark period, will allow all those built up flowering hormones to be released, so I don't mind a slower transition into flowering this time around
>>>What's this blue thing? A fan?
Yes Capn, its a fan, I'm glad you got your glasses on I'll heed your advice. As for the resolution.. I have been smoking far less now to prepare me for this harvest as I can only smoke a very small portion of it. If I had no self control I would go through half a pound in 1-2 months
>>>Question, would varying periods of darkness during veg have a negative impact on the plant?
I would assume that any dark period more than 12 hours will have a negative effect. As that is the optimal amount of time for Flowering Hormones to develop in darkness. Note the GLR, there is never a total dark period of more than 11 hours, and never a consecutive dark period for more than 6 hours. This allows the plant to never fully go into flower, WITHOUT stressing it to revert back to veg.
>>> What I really wanna know is can top light be diminished and side lighting (whatever side) be the primaries for a period?
Well this is what most users of the GLR do. They supplement the 1 hour on time with CFLs instead of overworking the HID ballast to come on twice a day. I am sure that 1 hour would not be effective, but given if you make a schedule where your HID turns off earlier you can allow the CFLs to remain on in certain favorable positions for the rest of the lights on cycle.
>>> I know what I'm about to say means more spending, but table that for a moment to consider what gains (if any) can be had in plant growth times or other possible gains. What if CFLs were used for top lighting and smaller MH HIDs used dynamically to sway the plant to grow towards the HID? Do you think this might produce a more favorable result? Or even CFL if not HID is available, had your HID been turned off, do you think the CFLs would have earned a more favorable grade? I know nixing the HID would greatly reduce overall plant gains for the time period that light is off, but if the grower could gain control of several lights simultaneously, could s/he not have a better success rate for what s/he was trying to accomplish?
So I think what you are saying here is: having the CFLs be the primary source of light and having them be on constantly during 'lights on' cycles. While using multiple HIDs similar to how I experimented with the CFLs, and use them for side lighting during certain periods of lights on. Is that the jist of it?
If so, I think that having the CFLs as a main source of light will cause the whole plant to stretch, except for the parts that are closest to the CFLs. Now when you introduce varying times of supplement HID lighting, I think the plant will stop stretching as there is a higher intensity light. The thought is kind of going against my whole experiment, but the when the HID is introduced, I assume that the side growth of the plants will stop searching (stretching) for a better source of light because exponential increase of intensity. Now the part of the plant that is directly exposed to the CFLs, based on my research (and Don Paul's experience) will remain in a stasis, and won't show any signs of rapid growth compared to the rest of the plant.
So potentially there might be something in what you are getting at, but that is way ahead of where my experiments are now It definitely is something worth trying out in the future though