UVB bulbs...

[sunnydog]

I'm not convinced.

I'm not convinced.

I tried adding UVB to a couple of grows.
I used several uvb spotlights(75 or 100watts,I don't quite remember) that came with seperate ballasts, also 2 "Sperti" brand sun lamps.
Aside from costing me money, and adding more heat to the room, I think it was near, if not totally worthless.
I now have a bin full of this junk.
SD

 

[jawnroot]

To Blaze and everyone else: I don't want to give the impression I'm "hating" or anything of the sort. I'm just offering a helping hand. I'm not trying to be one of those guys that sits here and touts his experience, but in this case I can just about guarantee that I have more background with UV lighting than anyone on this forum. Am I going to sit here and list all my credentials? No. You can either take my word for it or not. Why would I waste my time coming in here and talking the talk about UV if I couldn't back up the statements I'm making?

Now then, back on topic. We need to keep in mind that UVB normally comes from the sun (ie: the most intense light source in the solar system), as does visible light. A fluorescent tube is a poor source of UVB unless it is mounted close. Why, I ask, is it easy to accept that fluorescent tubes will not give usable visible light unless they are mounted within two inches, but once we start talking about UV, it's now acceptable to mount them 20 inches away? Those "up to 20 inches" figures are marketing ploys by the bulb companies. As I said, yes, they are producing UV at 20 inches, but it's no where near enough. The Reptisun 10.0 might be producing usable UV at 12 inches -- maybe -- depending up the size tube you have, but that's the cutoff point. The exoterra is a lesser quality tube all around, so I don't think it's putting off radiation even at that distance.

In short, adding UV to a grow is no less simple than adding visible light. You can't put a visible-light fluoro tube above a full-sized plant and expect it to thrive. You need an intense light source with penetration. Similarly, you can't mount a 20 watt UV tube 8 to 20 inches away from a full-sized plant, and expect it to have a major impact. As sunnydog says, a waste of money.

Well, I tried. If any of you out there are serious about setting up a UV array, drop me a PM.

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

l33t,

I think your right about the ratios but my point was cbg's and cbn's are found in the leaves (mainly of indicas correct?) and these are psychoactive. No one is disputing that.

But it's the uvb that converts these into thc in the resin heads and thc has a distinctive psychoactive affect compared to the other cbg's and cbd's.

I think a lot of MJ developed with the propensity to develop cbg and cbn and over time as the continents shifted the ones that were exposed to more uvb (equitorial) developed so that their cbgs and cbns were converted into thc and there results the different ratios.

true, no one strain has only cbg or cbd or thc but the ratios certainly do follow the pattern MJman was saying in terms of the world map and uvb index.

And it's no coincidence that the higher uvb (and thus higher thc) equitorial strains have a distinctive psychoactive effect compared to the norhern cbg, cbd ratio strains.

What I'm saying is it all comes down to three psychoactive chems (cbg, cbd and thc) and all uvb does is convert more of this into thc and the end product is a different high because of the thc.

UBV does not convert CBG to THC in the living plant in any significant amounts, rather the conversion is via a synthase the plant has.

-SamS

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

Word. What does it matter.

Some of my best highs were off of that couchlock northern crip indica where no doubt there was hardly any thc but mucho cbgs, cbd.

Shit, high thc weed like super sliver haze makes me crazy so it's a good point mentioned that high thc weed does not automatically equal the best weed.

(although I find brazillian based strains to be exquisite)

CBG does not get you high and does not modulate the THC much at all. As for CBD how do you know it was high in CBD did you test it with a GC? If all you did was smoke it in truth you have no idea if the plant had any CBD or CBG at all. In the USA almost all of the herb grown is mostly THC with little to none of the other 71 Cannabinoids. Did you know that?
http://www.maps.org/news-letters/v09n3/09320gie.html

-SamS

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

incorrect. In the world of cannabis the difference between cbd and thc could indeed be considered a difference similar to lsd-24 and lsd -25.

Pot is not lysergic acid and therefore the difference will obvioulsly not be as profound but WITHIN the chemical family of cannabinoids some may say that the difference between cbd and thc is very profound.

For me, it is a difference, but as you say, either way I'm smoking a blend of thc and cbd.

There are no pure thc and pure cbd plants so the comparison is impossible but it doesn't mean there isn't a difference. (there is a difference when comparing ratios so it can only be infered there is a difference when comparing pure chems)

Wrong

-SamS

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

look mr who the fuck you callin a troll? who do you help here? ive helps hundreds of people with there plants, and get bombarded with pm thanking me for advice etc. so eat a sock man, i hope your not basing all your ideas on sam the skunk man,
IMO hes a moron, his seeds were all fucking duds too!
no way hes taking credit for "skunk" the plant can smell like that, i bet the indians called it that 100's of years ago too.

Don't know why Mr DIGITALHIPPY is calling me a moron, or why all my seeds are "duds" in his eyes. Maybe Mr DIGITALHIPPY is getting to high from his UVB treated plants and he can't handle them?
BTW Skunk #1 is a Sativa X Indica hybrid, so what Indians were calling it Skunk 100's of years ago? Indica was not even in the Americas until the 60's.

-SamS

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

I did try and use UVB to make the buds produce more resin, or make the high better.
I used a shitload of UVB floros and clones (haze, Skunk, hemp)that got UVB and the same clones in the same greenhouse flowered at the same time in the exact same conditions minus the UVB. I put sets of the plants really close and 3' and 5" and 10' from the lights. The ones closest got scorched from the UVB, none of the plants showed any increase in THC, when tested by GC, none seemed any better by looking or smoking or taste or smell.
I tried to use UVB to make Cannabis more active, but I do not think it works.
Rob Clarke helped with the work.

-SamS

 

[gramsci.antonio]

I tried adding UVB to a couple of grows.
I used several uvb spotlights(75 or 100watts,I don't quite remember) that came with seperate ballasts, also 2 "Sperti" brand sun lamps.
Aside from costing me money, and adding more heat to the room, I think it was near, if not totally worthless.
I now have a bin full of this junk.
SD

as i said before, normal UVB lamp are totally useless if used with HID.

 

[gramsci.antonio]

I did try and use UVB to make the buds produce more resin, or make the high better.
I used a shitload of UVB floros and clones (haze, Skunk, hemp)that got UVB and the same clones in the same greenhouse flowered at the same time in the exact same conditions minus the UVB. I put sets of the plants really close and 3' and 5" and 10' from the lights. The ones closest got scorched from the UVB, none of the plants showed any increase in THC, when tested by GC, none seemed any better by looking or smoking or taste or smell.
I tried to use UVB to make Cannabis more active, but I do not think it works.
Rob Clarke helped with the work.

-SamS

Which was the source of normal light?


Maybe not all the strains answer the same way to UVB, have you considered this?

Maybe and hawaiian haze will answer better than a northern light.

Well, really interesting though.

 

[inflorescence]

CBG does not get you high and does not modulate the THC much at all. As for CBD how do you know it was high in CBD did you test it with a GC? If all you did was smoke it in truth you have no idea if the plant had any CBD or CBG at all. In the USA almost all of the herb grown is mostly THC with little to none of the other 71 Cannabinoids. Did you know that?
http://www.maps.org/news-letters/v09n3/09320gie.html

-SamS

http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/4552.html

Over the years, have you recognized a certain strain that just keeps on coming out in front, that meets most people's requirements and needs?

Dr. Hornby: I've seen magic strains from time to time. A fellow brought me a strain with two names, called Salmon Creek and Big Bud. It was 21% cannabidiol (CBD). Now, getting 21% THC is fair enough, but this was 21% CBD, and 8% THC.

What's up with these anomaly strains?
He goes on to say CBD is great for epileptics.

Seems these anomaly strains would be a gold mine for medical MJ patients if everything else is mostly just thc.

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

as i said before, normal UVB lamp are totally useless if used with HID.

I did not use HID I was in a greenhouse under glass with sunlight.

-SamS

 

[guest]

At this point I have to question something here.
And no .. I haven't read every single post.

The pathway to produce THC is supposed to include CBD gets converted into THC by UVB.

If so then why does most pot have so little CBD when most growers don't use UVB lights?

And since most growers don't use UVB how is it possible that they have any THC at all?

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

peanutbutter,
THCA is made by the plant using CBGA not CBD, and UVB has nothing to do with it as plants grown without UVB indoors under lights yet full of THCA.

-SamS

 

[guest]

peanutbutter,
THCA is made by the plant using CBGA not CBD, and UVB has nothing to do with it as plants grown without UVB indoors under lights yet full of THCA.

-SamS

That is what I understood the pathway to be. So a basic assumption for this discussion is flawed.

I'm always willing and eagar to learn new things. And am quickly willing to disgard bad information I have floating in my brain.

Do I have it right that CBDa also comes from CBGa?

I want other cannabinoids. I'm reading this thread thinking "all I have to do is not use UVB and then I'll have CBD etc." Then I realized that's what's going on already without the expected results.

BTW thanks for posting on this thread.

And may I point out that this thread is encouraging growers to use equipment that will burn their eyes out.

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

I would not quote Dr Hornby he has made numerous incorrect statements about Cannabis and chemistry over the years. His analysis were suspect to say the least.

"DH: Delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol is a psychoactive cannabinoid. It's what gets you high. In B.C. bud, there are only five compounds in any great quantity. There's tetrahydrocannabitriol acid THCA abbreviated. Then there's Delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), theres cannabinol (CBN), then cannabidiolic acid, and then theres cannabidiol (CBD). Those are the five compounds you see in any sort of quantity in B.C. bud. This is the way they have been bred and environmentally manipulated by the breeders to produce these five compounds over the years, to push up the THC level. Now, when I look at a B.C. sample, the compound that you see in the most abundance is THCA, because when you heat THCA it converts directly one-to-one to Delta 9-tetrahydrocannabinol, the compound that gets you high. The way I analyse cannabis is by high pressure liquid chromatography, or HPLC. Ninety-nine percent of the analyses done on cannabinoids use gas chromatins. But liquid chromatography works at near room temperature; with gas chromatography, you have to heat the sample to vaporize it, to put it in the gaseous state. When you heat cannabis, you change its whole structure, you change its properties. You can heat the sample and stop it anywhere you want to get the Delta 9 concentration that you want, so gas chromotography can be manipulated to give a wide range of results. Because Im not heating it, I see the way it is in nature, with the THCA unconverted to the Delta 9. When you see the way it is naturally, you get an idea of how to make the medicine. If you burn or heat the sample if you do a gas chromatography you miss all that, because the THCA is not psychoactive, and you're converting it one to one to a compound that is (Delta 9). You shouldn't do that to analyze it in its original state."

If Dr Hornby only found THCA, THC, CBD, CBN CBNA because he did not have the standards for the rest of the 71 Cannabinoids.

Also common are THCV, THCVA, CBDA, CBC, CBCA, CBG, CBGA
By common I mean they are found often in samples in very small amounts like .01%
But these standards were hard to impossible to find unless you made them yourself, nowadays they can be bought, not cheap but available. But they do require a license from the DEA to buy or work with in the USA, not sure about Canada.
He says that he uses HPLC because it is better.
I have HPLC and GC and I can tell you unless you need to determine the acid to neutral ratio, like THCA/THC you do not need HPLC for analysis. I use GC almost entirely and I have done thousands of analysis. The acid form don't matter unless you have a need or use for it.
-SamS

 

[Sam_Skunkman]

Peanutbutter,
Yes, CBDA is made from CBGA by a different synthase in the plant.
If you want other Cannabinoids you need to look outside the normal Drug population that has been bred for THCA. That is part of the problem, very few people have ever collected non-drug varieties. The other part is they have no way to confirm content with analysis.

-SamS

 

[guest]

Peanutbutter,
Yes, CBDA is made from CBGA by a different synthase in the plant.
If you want other Cannabinoids you need to look outside the normal Drug population that has been bred for THCA. That is part of the problem, very few people have ever collected non-drug varieties. The other part is they have no way to confirm content with analysis.

-SamS

Ummm .. non-drug varieties .. like industrial hemp?

 

[Guest]

Ummm .. non-drug varieties .. like industrial hemp?

Landraces not selected by man for drug properties, industrial hemp has been bred by man.

Thanks for the info Sam, I have to agree with you that UV-B doesn't seem to be too important in THCA production as indoor plants are full of the stuff but receive no UV-B (lamps are coated to block it).

Do you have any thoughts/opinions/data on the use of violet and blue wavelengths of light while flowering cannabis in order to increase production of terpenoids and increase smell/taste?

 

[guest]

Landraces not selected by man for drug properties, industrial hemp has been bred by man.

So then a landrace that is high in resin and low in THC?

Would that be a start of a search?

 

[guest]

And again, let me point out that this thread is encourging growers to use equipment that will cause them to burn their eyes out.

Accident or design? Either way

beware​