Gypsy's Picture Depot

[bigjesse1922]

There fore 18/6 would make for a quicker transition to flower... when compared to 20/4 or 24/0...

So if that's true.. you are actually extending vegetative growth further into the 12/12 cycle...

Making for a slightly longer flower period... but with an extra umph to that final stretch...

WTF am I talking about...????

Sometimes... I just don't know about this gypsy guy...

I see some holes in this argument.

Flowering hormones, as for everything I have read, are hyper sensitive to light to the degree that they cannot sufficently build up until there 12 hours of light or less.

I would sumise that the flowering hormone would be as depleted from light exposure within 20 hours as with 18, due to its aforementioned hyper sensitivity to light.

I could be wrong, and I am certainly not trying to pick a fight but...This is what makes sense to me based on all I have read on the topic.

 

[GypsyBush]

I see some holes in this argument.

Flowering hormones, as for everything I have read, are hyper sensitive to light to the degree that they cannot sufficently build up until there is less than 12 hours of light.

I would sumise that the flowering hormone would be as depleted from light exposure within 20 hours as with 18, due to its aforementioned hyper sensitivity to light.

I could be wrong, and I am certainly not trying to pick a fight but...This is what makes sense to me based on all I have read on the topic.

Well you have a good point...

But the way I understand it...

The "flowering hormone", which isn't a hormone at all...

Accumulates during dark and dissipates during light...

12/12 allows for more to be created than is being destroyed... so the plants flowers...

at 10/14 the "hormone" would build up more agressively, as less of it is being dissipated... but we don't use this cause we want to give the plants as much light as we can... and still flower...

now, if we go the other way...

say... 14 light 10 dark...

the hormone will still build up, but will be kept from reaching "critical levels" by the light...

So at 16/8 we would still see the hormone present, but in less force than 14/10...

as would 18/6 be in comparison with 16/8...

I am sure you are correct in assuming that there is a point at which the "hormone" is non present...

But I actually believe that anytime a plant shows sex (pre-flowers) it has SOME quantity of the "hormone" present... even at 24/0.... even if in minute amounts...

So I do believe that 18/6 will have a higher (although still very low) build up of the "flowering hormone" than say 20/4... which will still have some, just less...

So when we switch a plant that has been in 24/0.. it needs to build up a full supply...

and I am posing that a plant in 18/6 will only need to build part of that supply.. maybe even close to half ... as I believe it contains within, some of it already...

...

hit me back...

 

[TrynaGroSumShyt]

i started off 24-0, went to 18-6 , then 12-12.. ive been considering goin on natural daylight times. but that would just slow me down.

 

[bigjesse1922]

Well you have a good point...

But the way I understand it...

The "flowering hormone", which isn't a hormone at all...

Accumulates during dark and dissipates during light...

12/12 allows for more to be created than is being destroyed... so the plants flowers...

at 10/14 the "hormone" would build up more agressively, as less of it is being dissipated... but we don't use this cause we want to give the plants as much light as we can... and still flower...

now, if we go the other way...

say... 14 light 10 dark...

the hormone will still build up, but will be kept from reaching "critical levels" by the light...

So at 16/8 we would still see the hormone present, but in less force than 14/10...

as would 18/6 be in comparison with 16/8...

I am sure you are correct in assuming that there is a point at which the "hormone" is non present...

But I actually believe that anytime a plant shows sex (pre-flowers) it has SOME quantity of the "hormone" present... even at 24/0.... even if in minute amounts...

So I do believe that 18/6 will have a higher (although still very low) build up of the "flowering hormone" than say 20/4... which will still have some, just less...

So when we switch a plant that has been in 24/0.. it needs to build up a full supply...

and I am posing that a plant in 18/6 will only need to build part of that supply.. maybe even close to half ... as I believe it contains within, some of it already...

...

hit me back...

I think you have some valid arguments here...

I would argue, however, that the flowering hormone present is just as ineffective at 18 hours of light as at 20. I don't believe that the plant has stored up enough of this hormone to battle the effect light has upon on, and until you actually make the switch (or at least get closer to 13 hours, perhaps 14), the hormone is totally ineffective past that time.

If this was not the case, wouldn't people who keep their mothers for YEARS at 18/6 eventually have them flower? If the hormone was present in an effective way that would somehow account for a shorter (or unlengthend) flowering time, doesn't it stand to reason that it would build and build and build until there was finally enough to flower? If not, then how could any effective "hormone" remain after 18 hours? Or wouldn't these flower times me abnormally short, because the hormone had built up over a long period of time and somehow made the plant extra ready to flower?

I just think we disagree on the fundamental point: is there any "flowering hormone" that exists at 18/6 that wouldn't at 20/4. I just can't see how. But I wouldn't mind being proven wrong. Its very interesting just to think about!

 

[GypsyBush]

I think you have some valid arguments here...

Thanks!

I would argue, however, that the flowering hormone present is just as ineffective at 18 hours of light as at 20.

Agreed...

But my point is that they are present at different levels...

I don't believe that the plant has stored up enough of this hormone to battle the effect light has upon on,

Agreed... but when you do switch.. the plant that has a higher level of it will reach "critical level" sooner...

and until you actually make the switch (or at least get closer to 13 hours, perhaps 14), the hormone is totally ineffective past that time.

How can I put it...

Everything being a constant...

think of a water tank (the plant) and the water (the "hormone) and the Sun's evaporative powers (the light) and the rain (the darkness)


At 24/0 there is no rain... the tank is empty...

at 18/6 there is some rain, enough to fill the tank half way up.. but the sun evaporates enough that it never gets a chance to build beyond that... sorta like a balance... it rains enough to keep water in the barrel... but sunny enough to make sure it doesn;t over fill..

At 12/12 the barrel will eventually overflow and flower...

So you are right in saying that the hormone is just as innefective at 18/6 or whatever...

We are waiting for the tank to overflow... and any water in there is useless until it flows out...

BUT... a tanks that is kept at half full will fill quicker tha an empty tank...

Did I make any sense?

If this was not the case, wouldn't people who keep their mothers for YEARS at 18/6 eventually have them flower?

No because even after years and years and years, the light will still dissipate some of it , just like it did on the first day...

If the sun/rain balance is kept, the barrel will never overflow...

If the hormone was present in an effective way that would somehow account for a shorter (or unlengthend) flowering time, doesn't it stand to reason that it would build and build and build until there was finally enough to flower?

Remember.. it just doesn't build and build and build...

it builds and dissipates and builds and dissipates.. on a daily cycle......

If not, then how could any effective "hormone" remain after 18 hours?

Not sure how you mean "effective"...

But the water that we can't access in the barrel is still wet... just because it is not overflowing (flowering) it doesn't mean that the water is ineffective... just that we do not have enough...

Or wouldn't these flower times me abnormally short, because the hormone had built up over a long period of time and somehow made the plant extra ready to flower?

The tank size doesn't change...

You still need "X "amount of water in the tank for it to overflow...

Having a partial tank vs an empty tank would only reduce the transition/final stretch.. (time it takes to overflow the barrel once it starts to rain more and sun less...12/12)

I just think we disagree on the fundamental point: is there any "flowering hormone" that exists at 18/6 that wouldn't at 20/4. I just can't see how.

So you believe it works like a switch?

all or nothing?

one particle of it means the same thing as 1 million articles of it?

different levels do not make a difference?

But I wouldn't mind being proven wrong. Its very interesting just to think about!

I don't think anyone can PROVE it... even science does not understand how this so called "flowering hormone" works....

What I am saying is based on my own OPINION, based on research and personal experience, not only with growing but life in general.. to include water tanks over flowing and the sun evaporating rain water...

I just can't believe that such a smooth transition occurs on a switch...

It takes time for those levels to build up...

but a couple of weeks worth of rain should be enough to get that barrel overflowing...

This is awesome Jesse...

Usually when I discuss things like this.. I just get told I'm an asshole... and people go away mad...

 

[bigjesse1922]

think of a water tank (the plant) and the water (the "hormone) and the Sun's evaporative powers (the light) and the rain (the darkness)

Ok! I like analogies.

At 24/0 there is no rain... the tank is empty...

at 18/6 there is some rain, enough to fill the tank half way up.. but the sun evaporates enough that it never gets a chance to build beyond that... sorta like a balance... it rains enough to keep water in the barrel... but sunny enough to make sure it doesn;t over fill..

At 12/12 the barrel will eventually overflow and flower...

I see it differently. At 24/0, 18/6, whatever, the barrel has, let's say, 5 gallons of rain. When the lights go out, that barrel goes, "Oh boy, some rain! I am gonna start tipping over!"

If, prior to 12 hours (typically for us indoor guys) the lights come back on, the barrel says, "Well, we have our rain water, but the lights are back on now, so no tipping!

However, if, AFTER 12 hours or more have passed and still no light, the barrel says, "Hey, let's tip this sombitch over!"

Its not the amount exactly that changes in my mind, its the barrel's RESPONSE to the length of time in which it sits in the dark with this water in it that depends upon how it is effected.

My argument is that the barrel is still chilling waiting for the lights to come back on, whether its 6 or 4 hours of darkness.

So you are right in saying that the hormone is just as innefective at 18/6 or whatever...

We are waiting for the tank to overflow... and any water in there is useless until it flows out...

I don't think we are waiting for the tank to fill up and tip over as much as we are waiting for it to decide that its tired of being wet and dumps that shit out

BUT... a tanks that is kept at half full will fill quicker tha an empty tank...

Did I make any sense?

Yeah for sure. I just don't think it fills and drains. I think that hormone production rapidly starts to accelerate and shift a plant into reproductive overdrive, but I think that is signaled by the cessation of light for a 12 hour period or more. Did I make any sense?

So you believe it works like a switch?

all or nothing?

one particle of it means the same thing as 1 million articles of it?

different levels do not make a difference?

Well, kinda. I think the tank, or barrel as I misrepresented it earlier in my failed attempt at a recreation of your analogy...

It might, at around 8, 10 hours of darkness start to say, "You know what, I think we are stayin in the dark for 12 hours a day here real soon." And the hormone might start to effect it differently, I.e. preflowers, maybe even full blown flowering depending upon the strain.

I think it is more about the EFFECT that the mostly stable level (pre 12/12) of flowering "hormone" has on the plant, as opposed to a collection or gathering. I believe the hormone triggers the plant in the form of a reaction to the new effect of this hormone.

I don't think anyone can PROVE it... even science does not understand how this so called "flowering hormone" works....

I agree. The only real way to have some efficacy to either theory would be a test. Like a cycle where you ran 18/6 till the last two weeks then switched to 20/4 then to 12/12. And then the next cycle, no switch. Measure the time it took to get preflowers, budsites beginning to develop, calyx formation, etc, etc. Then compare. We would have to have more than one person do the test as well, to make sure it wasn't just an abberation or strain specific trait.

Then, there's factoring in you have indica AND sativa growing in the same damn basket.

Seed vs. Clone
Equatorial vs high/mid range latitudes
Dirt
Hydro

Who knows, one could show sex quicker one way and slower another...It could be totally variable, or absolutely one way or the other, or some mix of our theories....or we both could be wrong and there is some sort of anti-matter at work

This is awesome Jesse...

Usually when I discuss things like this.. I just get told I'm an asshole... and people go away mad...

I agree. I mean I have an ego too. But some people are just so married to their opinions that they are actually making themselves less intelligent. When you close your mind, you can't learn.

Everyone takes it personal...A reflection of what's inside if you ask me...Call out someone secure in their belief that a train isn't coming, but not insecure enough to get hit by the son'bitch because they couldn't handle being wrong....you get a productive conversation. On the opposite side of the spectrum, you get a mess...

But I know you Gypsy. At best, you are being a teacher, helper, friend, guide, resource, and many other titles. At worst, you are all the same. Its just how people want to take it.

 

[GypsyBush]

I am confused...

what does "tipping the barrel" relate to in the analogy?

Why would the barrel "start tipping over" at any stage, much less if it's half full?

 

[GypsyBush]

I mean.. if you "think of a water tank (the plant) and the water (the "hormone) and the Sun's evaporative powers (the light) and the rain (the darkness)"

Who tips over the barrel? and why?

 

[bigjesse1922]

Well let me step away from the analogy, for clarity.

When the flowering hormone has been allowed 12 or more hours of darkness, it becomes "effective" in the sense that it triggers the transition into flower. I do not think the flowering hormone starts to "build" exactly. I think the amount that is there one minute into lights off is relatively close to the amount that is there in the middle of lights on.

It just doesn't DO anything until its been sitting in the dark long enough.

Its not that it needs to gather or collect for it to transition, its that it needs to be DARK.

What causes the plant to burst into flower and begin pumping out hormones to its branches, leaves and other parts is the fact that the hormone sat in the dark long enough, not "built up."

After 18 hours of light, that hormone is ineffective. Its still there in relatively the same amount. Its just powerless.

 

[GypsyBush]

Ok! I like analogies.

Some people can't follow..

I see it differently. At 24/0, 18/6, whatever, the barrel has, let's say, 5 gallons of rain. When the lights go out, that barrel goes, "Oh boy, some rain! I am gonna start tipping over!"

Why would the barrel think? it's barrel?

and why would it it tip over? didn't you place it on a flat surface?

If, prior to 12 hours (typically for us indoor guys) the lights come back on, the barrel says, "Well, we have our rain water, but the lights are back on now, so no tipping!

Who's knocking your plant (the barrel) over???

Better catch them...

However, if, AFTER 12 hours or more have passed and still no light, the barrel says, "Hey, let's tip this sombitch over!"

Again.. I do not follow how or why the barrel would tip... is thre a prankster teenagercoimng in and spilling your water or what???

Its not the amount exactly that changes in my mind, its the barrel's RESPONSE to the length of time in which it sits in the dark with this water in it that depends upon how it is effected.

Well... I can't agree with that.. if the levels didn;t need to build, the plants would just go straight to flower, no lingering veg traits after the first night of 12/12.. or even the 3rd...

My argument is that the barrel is still chilling waiting for the lights to come back on, whether its 6 or 4 hours of darkness.

The barrel/plant will only overflow/flower, when there is sufficient quantity of water/hormone within...

I can not believe that the chemical reactions within the plant are so black and white... nothing else is.. everything about the transition is gradual... it does not look to me like someone flipped a switch and BAM they are flowering...

It looks to me like a build up to flowering... maybe that's just my plants...

I don't think we are waiting for the tank to fill up and tip over as much as we are waiting for it to decide that its tired of being wet and dumps that shit out

I can't see how the barrel/plant would be tired of containing water/hromone... and how or why it would tip over...

Yeah for sure. I just don't think it fills and drains. I think that hormone production rapidly starts to accelerate and shift a plant into reproductive overdrive, but I think that is signaled by the cessation of light for a 12 hour period or more. Did I make any sense?

Not really.. I mean I understand your last sentence here, but I don;t know who or what "tipping the barrel" is in my analogy...

Well, kinda. I think the tank, or barrel as I misrepresented it earlier in my failed attempt at a recreation of your analogy...

Didn't follow tis at all...

It might, at around 8, 10 hours of darkness start to say, "You know what, I think we are stayin in the dark for 12 hours a day here real soon." And the hormone might start to effect it differently, I.e. preflowers, maybe even full blown flowering depending upon the strain.

How? I don't get where you are coming from ? how did you reach this conclusion?

I think it is more about the EFFECT that the mostly stable level (pre 12/12) of flowering "hormone" has on the plant, as opposed to a collection or gathering. I believe the hormone triggers the plant in the form of a reaction to the new effect of this hormone.

So you think there are no reproductive hormones in the plant at all until flowering starts?

And the day you switch to 12/12 it appears?

I agree. The only real way to have some efficacy to either theory would be a test. Like a cycle where you ran 18/6 till the last two weeks then switched to 20/4 then to 12/12. And then the next cycle, no switch. Measure the time it took to get preflowers, budsites beginning to develop, calyx formation, etc, etc. Then compare. We would have to have more than one person do the test as well, to make sure it wasn't just an abberation or strain specific trait.

To do a real test .. each person would have to multiple grows with side by side comparisons...

Then, there's factoring in you have indica AND sativa growing in the same damn basket.

Seed vs. Clone
Equatorial vs high/mid range latitudes
Dirt
Hydro

I am sure each of those things affect how the plant reacts to it..

But what we are talking about here is plant physiology...

How this hormone works is not dependant on those factors...

It all depends on how the plant's DNA says it deals with it...

Who knows, one could show sex quicker one way and slower another...It could be totally variable, or absolutely one way or the other, or some mix of our theories....or we both could be wrong and there is some sort of anti-matter at work

Sure... but whatever it is, it applies the same to different strains...

I agree. I mean I have an ego too. But some people are just so married to their opinions that they are actually making themselves less intelligent. When you close your mind, you can't learn.

I agree with you Jesse...

and I gave you my opinions and the WHYs behind my opinions...

But I feel like you just told me what you think without any refence to where or how you came to believe that...

Everyone takes it personal...A reflection of what's inside if you ask me...Call out someone secure in their belief that a train isn't coming, but not insecure enough to get hit by the son'bitch because they couldn't handle being wrong....you get a productive conversation. On the opposite side of the spectrum, you get a mess...

Very true...

I am only interested in the infomation..

But I know you Gypsy. At best, you are being a teacher, helper, friend, guide, resource, and many other titles. At worst, you are all the same. Its just how people want to take it.

Ahh.. I'm just an opinionated cynic asshole that won't shut up...

But thanks for the kind words...

 

[bigjesse1922]

I can't link you cause its from an old high school textbook:

"Plant tissues produce ethylene at low levels throughout life. During ripening of flowers or fruits, ethylene production increases based upon photoperiodical timelines, causing an autocatalytic response: higher levels of ethylene cause higher evels of ethylene production"

My point being, yes, the hormones may still be there and maybe even in a slightly larger amount in 18/6 than in 20/4. IMO, slightly is the keyword.

The whole question is would it caused a more lengthy flowering period. I can't say I think it would at all! The plant is not going to kick into overdrive until its photoperiod tells it to, and the small amount of "flowering hormone" it carries is a drop in the bucket compared to the explosion created from the 12/12 switch.

 

[GypsyBush]

Well let me step away from the analogy, for clarity.

When the flowering hormone has been allowed 12 or more hours of darkness, it becomes "effective" in the sense that it triggers the transition into flower. I do not think the flowering hormone starts to "build" exactly. I think the amount that is there one minute into lights off is relatively close to the amount that is there in the middle of lights on.

It just doesn't DO anything until its been sitting in the dark long enough.

Its not that it needs to gather or collect for it to transition, its that it needs to be DARK.

What causes the plant to burst into flower and begin pumping out hormones to its branches, leaves and other parts is the fact that the hormone sat in the dark long enough, not "built up."

After 18 hours of light, that hormone is ineffective. Its still there in relatively the same amount. Its just powerless.

The "hormone" is manufactured by the plant during hours of dark...

and it dissipates during the hours of light...

There is where we diverge...

You think the hormone is "activated" by dark... I think it is created by dark...

and youthink it becomes "ineffective" in light... I think it decays...

Yup... that is the difference in our beliefs...

 

[GypsyBush]

The whole question is would it caused a more lengthy flowering period.

I never said that...

I said more lengthy TRANSITION... not flowering time...

BIG DIFFERENCE...

 

[GypsyBush]

I can't link you cause its from an old high school textbook:

"Plant tissues produce ethylene at low levels throughout life. During ripening of flowers or fruits, ethylene production increases based upon photoperiodical timelines, causing an autocatalytic response: higher levels of ethylene cause higher evels of ethylene production"

My point being, yes, the hormones may still be there and maybe even in a slightly larger amount in 18/6 than in 20/4. IMO, slightly is the keyword.

This supports my theory of build up and decay... just read it... it even talks about HOW it builds up...with "an autocatalytic response"...

And if you read what I said... you will notice that I mentioned just that...

Slight levels... but 18/6 showing a bit more than 20/4...

 

[bigjesse1922]

I am not really sure what you mean in response to my long ass post...

Tipping the barrel=the switch from veg to flower....

I am not sure why you think I am under the impression that NO reproductive material exists, just that it doesn't DO anything. If you want some WHYS, read my last post.

I am not saying it isn't gradual. But let me ask you this:

From the MOMENT a child is conceived, their is an instantaneous spark that sets in motion a sequence of events. Sure, the mother isn't bulging the next morning....

In fact, you can't tell she is pregnant at all. It seems very grey indeed.

But it is black and white, even if it takes time for their to be evidence. Even if there is a transition.

I may not quite be on your level knowledge wise, certainly not experience wise, but I feel like I have explained the why's....

 

[GypsyBush]

i'm gonna let you catch up before responding...

 

[bigjesse1922]

This supports my theory of build up and decay... just read it... it even talks about HOW it builds up...with "an autocatalytic response"...

And if you read what I said... you will notice that I mentioned just that...

Slight levels... but 18/6 showing a bit more than 20/4...

LOL!

Are we reading the same thing??? It talks about how it bulds up based up PHOTOPERIODICAL timelines, IE, switching to 12/12!!

The autocatalytic response doesn't BEGIN until this change. It doesn't BUILD until AFTER.

It clearly states that they produce LOW levels throughout their life but not until flowering and ripening....does it matter. It doesn't say that these levels slowly build. Catalytic has an exponential inclination in this since. I.e. a trigger, eruption, explosion...

 

[bigjesse1922]

I never said that...

I said more lengthy TRANSITION... not flowering time...

BIG DIFFERENCE...

My mistake you are correct.

And that would really be worse, a lengthier transition. If the bud was ready in the same amount of time but not quite as much of that time was actually bulking up....well less yield, duh...am I extrapolating correctly?

 

[GypsyBush]

LOL!

Are we reading the same thing??? It talks about how it bulds up based up PHOTOPERIODICAL timelines, IE, switching to 12/12!!

The autocatalytic response doesn't BEGIN until this change. It doesn't BUILD until AFTER.

It clearly states that they produce LOW levels throughout their life but not until flowering and ripening....does it matter. It doesn't say that these levels slowly build. Catalytic has an exponential inclination in this since. I.e. a trigger, eruption, explosion...

Do they do not matter because they haven't been activated or because they haven't reached sufficient levels.?

If a plant is in full veg in 24/0... and has "X" amount of "hormone" (we already established that we agree on this, right??)...

I believe that of you switch the light to 18/6... you will see an increase in amount X of hormones...

And proportionately, if you go to 12/12 you will see an even higher build up ...

And so on until the plants just does not have enough light to function properly...

IT"S ALL tied to the photoperiod.. I never said it wasn't

It almost feels like you are jumping into the middle of the conversation...

I never said these things..

 

[GypsyBush]

My mistake you are correct.

And that would really be worse, a lengthier transition. If the bud was ready in the same amount of time but not quite as much of that time was actually bulking up....well less yield, duh...am I extrapolating correctly?

In the same amount of days from 12/12 yes... but do you really go by number of days to judge harvest?

I chop when they are done... not before... unless I mean to...

....


The whole thought that started this convo was MBlaze switching from 18/6 to 20/4 before going to 12/12...

If my theories were to be correct, this would work to his/mine advantage...

WE WANT STRETCH.. I think... he has not come out and said that just like that...

But what WE (you and I) consider budsites... to him they are BRANCH sites...

and he wants them to stretch and become great tall branches full of smaller but hopefully still big branches...

So by creating a longer transition... he in fact prolongs that final stretch... giving every branch a chance at one more reach for the light...

one more chance for the fimming to produce excellent results...

Even if all this were true... we are talking about super fine tuning here... and apperantly something he reached without all of this talk of why and how!!


But that was what I was trying to get at...

not longer flowering.. or early sexing... just stretch...