Adding UVB spectrum to COBs - opinions on this setup?

RuRu.The.Half.Elf

RuRu.The.Half.Elf

Well-Known Member
Any thoughts on these products?

http://current-usa.com/lighting/sunpaq-lamps/

Mostly the Smartpaq 460nm/10k & Dual Daylight.

Smartpaq has a bump around 280 leading into a well rounded 330? peak and an additional 415ish peak.

Dual Daylight has a bump at 300, a larger bump in the 350, with an additional 450ish peak.

Seems like either can supply some UV without it being overkill. They are PL-L compact fluorescents though. Multiple wattages.
 
efi2

efi2

Well-Known Member
I'm always looking for info.
Thing have away of popping up.
Like this Youtube video
At minute 25, talks about environment before the big flood, and the Ozone layer being thicker blocking UV radiation. Also magnetic forces effect on growth of most living plants and animals. So this Dr. Bough did a 30yr study with control environments
just very interesting
Just to ad i use hortilux UV bulb I move plants indoors and oudoors,though this would help light shock.
 
testiclees

testiclees

Well-Known Member
Shugglet said:
My stance on the effect of uvb from the research I've done leads me to believe that there is a bigger placebo effect from placing a uvb bulb in your grow than actual chemical effects.
Click to expand...
"Your stance" have you used UVB at all in a real garden?
 
S

Shugglet

Well-Known Member
testiclees said:
"Your stance" have you used UVB at all in a real garden?
Click to expand...
Yes, negligible results IMO. No difference or not enough to justify adding them.

There is more evidence of the placebo effect being real than there is for significant improvements coming from adding UVB light to grow ops. The key word there is "significant".
 
RM3

RM3

Well-Known Member
Shugglet said:
Yes, negligible results IMO. No difference or not enough to justify adding them.

There is more evidence of the placebo effect being real than there is for significant improvements coming from adding UVB light to grow ops. The key word there is "significant".
Click to expand...
Happy to smoke one with ya if you're ever in Denver 8)

I promise no placebo effect
 
Abiqua

Abiqua

Well-Known Member
Fastslappy said:
So what did you get from that ? I only read the conclusion that it seemed to increase thc in "Drug" plants ? o_O



lol :arrow: sorry I had to laff with "Drug" plants reference :eyesmoke:
Click to expand...

Dosing was based on solar zenith weighted average for somewhere in Columbia at 0 degrees Latitudes. That was interesting.

Mentioned Pate 1983 who suggested that UV-b creates higher THC content the higher in altitude you go....

That was just the 1st couple of paragraphs....The discussion is a bigger mess...Good info, but not terribly revealing imho...The chemotypes COULD be Jamaican [drug type] or a Hemp variety no Thc/ some CBD....

Anybody growing any varieties hoarded from 29 years ago? I am not super adept on Jamaica but from what I have heard most of the stuff growing comes from Holland or now the states and "landraces" I use that very loosely...maybe some in 87 or earlier, could be hard to find and smoke, let alone test....
 
Last edited:
S

Shugglet

Well-Known Member
Important info relevant to this topic:

Only the AY-THC content in leaf and floral tissues of drug-type plants increased significantly with UV-B radiation. Regression analyses indicated that there was a significant linear increase in A'-THC with UV-B dose in these tissues (Fig. 3). The concentration of A"- THC in leaf tissue increased by 22% and 48% with a total daily UV-B dose of 6.7 and 13.4 effective kJ m-*, respectively, as compared to controls. The same levels of UV-B radiation resulted in a 15% and 32% increase in A'-THC, respectively, in floral tissues.

What does this mean? Seems like it has a great impact on THC content in the leaves, and a slightly less significant impact on flower THC content.

Y = 4.39 + 0.1402 X for leaf content
Y = 25.0 + 0.5149 X for flower content

(x = KJ/m2 of UVB per day.)
(y = mg/g THC for dryweight)


1KJ = .28watthours (The maximum UVB exposure per day in this experiment was roughly 3.72 watthours/m2)


I do have a bit of a problem with them referring to this as a linear function considering they only have 3 data points, but thats not that important at the moment.

Whether or not all strains react similarly is also a factor to consider. Also, the plants were harvested 40 days into flower.

Anyone got questions or come to different conclusions?

And with this information, I will certainly consider adding UVB to future grows.
 
Last edited:
testiclees

testiclees

Well-Known Member
I do not really give a fuck about who believes in whatever.

In my exp plants that get uvb exposure are stonier than plants which have had no uvb exposure. Im not sure if its desirable or if it would show as higher thc% but, to me, my indoor uvb weed is noticeably stonier than my non uvb indoor.
 
researching

researching

Well-Known Member
Shugglet said:
Important info relevant to this topic:

Only the AY-THC content in leaf and floral tissues of drug-type plants increased significantly with UV-B radiation. Regression analyses indicated that there was a significant linear increase in A'-THC with UV-B dose in these tissues (Fig. 3). The concentration of A"- THC in leaf tissue increased by 22% and 48% with a total daily UV-B dose of 6.7 and 13.4 effective kJ m-*, respectively, as compared to controls. The same levels of UV-B radiation resulted in a 15% and 32% increase in A'-THC, respectively, in floral tissues.

What does this mean? Seems like it has a great impact on THC content in the leaves, and a slightly less significant impact on flower THC content.

Y = 4.39 + 0.1402 X for leaf content
Y = 25.0 + 0.5149 X for flower content

(x = KJ/m2 of UVB per day.)
(y = mg/g THC for dryweight)


1KJ = .28watthours (The maximum UVB exposure per day in this experiment was roughly 3.72 watthours/m2)


I do have a bit of a problem with them referring to this as a linear function considering they only have 3 data points, but thats not that important at the moment.

Whether or not all strains react similarly is also a factor to consider. Also, the plants were harvested 40 days into flower.

Anyone got questions or come to different conclusions?

And with this information, I will certainly consider adding UVB to future grows.
Click to expand...
I can see this as being a definite possibility. If the cause and effect is to "protect" the plant then it makes sense that production would increase in the less protected areas. It all equals the same result at least in the aspect of extraction. Anything that increases sugar trim is good imo. My wife loves her wax and I love making bubble and prefer to use trim over flower. Nothing prettier than a sugar coated frosty as fuck plant.
 
researching

researching

Well-Known Member
testiclees said:
I do not really give a fuck about who believes in whatever.

In my exp plants that get uvb exposure are stonier than plants which have had no uvb exposure. Im not sure if its desirable or if it would show as higher thc% but, to me, my indoor uvb weed is noticeably stonier than my non uvb indoor.
Click to expand...
This is a good stance to take as there are so many differing opinions on a lot of things. It would be beneficial from a "told you so" standpoint to prove these things. I dont think UV is needed as we already know what can be produced without it, but I definitely believe it works.

I "dont give a fuck" either as it pertains to flushing. I do it and believe in it. The people that think its bullshit can think that and I respect their opinion. Same goes with darkness before harvest. I have seen some strains benefit from it. Some don't. But I always harvest plants out of darkness.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top