420 Magazine Background

24-on 12-off light cycle

GreenGrowth

Active Member
I am with you on the hours of darkness. Everything I have read says that there is hormone production that takes place during the hours of darkness and low light that starts and maintains the growing of the flowers. If that period of hormone production gets interrupted for a long enough time then the plant stops producing the hormone and stops the flowering. End result is that the grower would have to give it another 12 hours of dark to start the process over again.

@Grandma Weedstein @SmokingWings

The concept revolves around giving the plant additional hours per month i.e. 12/12 equates to 84 light 84 dark per week. After further research I have concluded that 16on/12off is the way to try this experiment. The additional 4 hours of light per shift adds up over the course of the grow, with the plant still having 12h of darkness between 'days'. As cannabis responds to extended night length to promote flowering this time schedule is pretty good (from someone that has done this before).
 

13goody13

Well-Known Member
@Grandma Weedstein @SmokingWings

The concept revolves around giving the plant additional hours per month i.e. 12/12 equates to 84 light 84 dark per week. After further research I have concluded that 16on/12off is the way to try this experiment. The additional 4 hours of light per shift adds up over the course of the grow, with the plant still having 12h of darkness between 'days'. As cannabis responds to extended night length to promote flowering this time schedule is pretty good (from someone that has done this before).
After considering the options, that’s pretty much what I was thinking as well. It’s still a considerable amount of extra light, without taking the whole plunge and possibly killing the plant (more likely turning it hermie). If it works though, we can go from there and try another few hours every time.
 

Elvin

Well-Known Member
I'm sorry, but until this wonderful schedule is actually used with success and it is proven to do so with publication other than in some European High Times rip-off with authorship by someone other than "Dr. Lee" I will try it.
But this has all the markings of those silly recommendations to pH a soil grow's runoff. People swear by that too.
If someone has done it; do a journal and prove it with weekly updates that will show that it actually works.
Then I will believe it works.
I'm not wasting 2 months of vegging just to screw things up with an unproven light schedule by someone (s) who does not even write under their own name.
Do it with a GG#4 which is notorious for doing a hermie because of light issues.
 
Last edited:

GreenGrowth

Active Member
After considering the options, that’s pretty much what I was thinking as well. It’s still a considerable amount of extra light, without taking the whole plunge and possibly killing the plant (more likely turning it hermie). If it works though, we can go from there and try another few hours every time.
I'm thinking 16/8 for veg then to 16/12 for flower. It just means that you have to calculate the hours on paper so that you can adjust your timer every week, a little work for I'm thinking some extra rewards
 

Grandma Weedstein

Well-Known Member
Whatever the merits of this theory, it will make for a fascinating botanical experiment. I’m fascinated but also don’t want to deal with it myself, LOL.

I mostly grow outdoor and find myself annoyed with how much pampering indoor cannabis requires. And that is just the occasional plants I grow in a tent to quality check my crosses.

Dealing with a whole different light schedule (in which grandma might get drunk and check on the plants, only to disrupt the light cycle) is too much of a potential headache.
 

GreenGrowth

Active Member
Whatever the merits of this theory, it will make for a fascinating botanical experiment. I’m fascinated but also don’t want to deal with it myself, LOL.

I mostly grow outdoor and find myself annoyed with how much pampering indoor cannabis requires. And that is just the occasional plants I grow in a tent to quality check my crosses.

Dealing with a whole different light schedule (in which grandma might get drunk and check on the plants, only to disrupt the light cycle) is too much of a potential headache.
Yeah it takes a little planning to have the cycle written down to adjust the timer, but I'm hearing you. Pampering? just good environment and as far as disturbing during the dark cycle provided you don't have lights on for long term I go in and fart arse around under torch/ headlamp never had an issue
 
  • Like
Reactions: 013

Elvin

Well-Known Member
Pamper? I'm just focusing on keeping mine watered. I do not want to even see them again for 2 days (and won't even peek at them) little alone pamper them.
I'll tell you why growing inside sucks for me right now;
my well is F-ing dry.
The water table is lower than my foot valve and I'm using a bucket and rope to get water to keep 9 plants alive that I'll start chopping in 2-3 weeks plus another tent with a SCROG in it that has a 32+gallon bag that needs to be kept wet.
I'm digging a new well because I can go 9 feet more into the water table with my current well pump will be able to lift (Shallow well pumps can lift 25 feet; I only have maybe 14 feet right now if that).
The hole is just an 8-inch post hole that will 21 feet deep (no biggie, just extend the handle and do a lot of lifting ;-) but that F-ing pit I had to dig next to my well to get to the line to the house is the world's worst thing to do. Think of a double grave plus a wedge so you have room to throw dirt plus so you can get in and out of the hole.
Today is making platforms to stand above it all (easier than standing in the pit and dealing with the dirt from the post hole digger in it) and gluing the well casing and water pipe inside of that together.
If I get to it today I might have a well tomorrow just in time to hook my 50-foot line with a garden wand to the kitchen sink (I used an old dishwasher faucet connector on the other end so I can connect the line to the sink as needed) and get back to using that for watering.
Then I got to fill the hole with all that dirt.
But it would be a heck of a lot worse trying to keep an outside grow going in this drought.
 

SmokingWings

Well-Known Member
@Grandma Weedstein @SmokingWings

The concept revolves around giving the plant additional hours per month i.e. 12/12 equates to 84 light 84 dark per week. After further research I have concluded that 16on/12off is the way to try this experiment. The additional 4 hours of light per shift adds up over the course of the grow, with the plant still having 12h of darkness between 'days'. As cannabis responds to extended night length to promote flowering this time schedule is pretty good (from someone that has done this before).
When you say you have done this before does that mean that you have experimented with a 12 hours off and a 16 hours on before?

I am still trying to figure out if there is any advantage to a longer "lights on" than just shortening the time the plant is in the flowering stage. And, if it is saving some time does the extra cost of electricity for lights and cooling and working out a schedule justify the amount of time saved.

While on the topic I wanted to mention that there are timers out there that could be used to keep the power off for the 12 hours of dark and then turn on the power for the lights for any amount of time up to 99 hours. It just keeps repeating the cycle without any need for the grower to jump in every 7 days to reset it. I used one to power up the pump in a cloning bucket for 1 minute and then turn off for 5 minutes and then start the pump for 1 minute and off for 5 and it just constantly repeated that cycle till the cloning project was over.

The one I used was an AgroMax Digital Cycle Timer. Just plug that into your search engine of choice for a link to the basic info.
 

Elvin

Well-Known Member
When you say you have done this before does that mean that you have experimented with a 12 hours off and a 16 hours on before?

I am still trying to figure out if there is any advantage to a longer "lights on" than just shortening the time the plant is in the flowering stage. And, if it is saving some time does the extra cost of electricity for lights and cooling and working out a schedule justify the amount of time saved.

While on the topic I wanted to mention that there are timers out there that could be used to keep the power off for the 12 hours of dark and then turn on the power for the lights for any amount of time up to 99 hours. It just keeps repeating the cycle without any need for the grower to jump in every 7 days to reset it. I used one to power up the pump in a cloning bucket for 1 minute and then turn off for 5 minutes and then start the pump for 1 minute and off for 5 and it just constantly repeated that cycle till the cloning project was over.

The one I used was an AgroMax Digital Cycle Timer. Just plug that into your search engine of choice for a link to the basic info.
The "Doctor" seems to be claiming flowering depends on having a 12 hour dark cycle and the light cycle can be longer than 12.
If that is true, why not 30 hours? 35?
Why don't we just do a week-long light cycle then throw a 12-hour darkness in there after the week?
I'm sorry but until I see a well-done grow journal (several of them in fact) that has used this light cycle (WHERE ARE THEY???) I will never believe it can be done.
Anyone can write anything and claim it works (even on this forum) but until I see that it works with some grow journals (with pictures, done by someone we trust, not "Billy from Bohunk" and his first grow journal) this "theory" is just more Internet weed forum nonsense.
We all likely know some of those that are complete nonsense as well but there are still people who swear by them no matter how much logic/scientifically supported knowledge or just common sense you throw at them.
If this works why are not the commercial growers using it?
If there was such a simple way to increase yield why are they not using it?
That question is one of those "logic" ones that really cut's to the chase; if it really worked, commercial growers would use this without question and none are.
That answers it for me despite those who claim (without any proof) it does.
 
Last edited:

SmokingWings

Well-Known Member
The "Doctor" seems to be claiming flowering depends on having a 12 hour dark cycle and the light cycle can be longer than 12.
If that is true, why not 30 hours? 35?
Why don't we just do a week-long light cycle then throw a 12-hour darkness in there after the week?
I'm sorry but until I see a well-done grow journal (several of them in fact) that has used this light cycle (WHERE ARE THEY???) I will never believe it can be done.
Anyone can write anything and claim it works (even on this forum) but until I see that it works with some grow journals (with pictures, done by someone we trust, not "Billy from Bohunk" and his first grow journal) this "theory" is just more Internet weed forum nonsense.
We all likely know some of those that are complete nonsense as well but there are still people who swear by them no matter how much logic/scientifically supported knowledge or just common sense you throw at them.
Yep. Where is the documentation.

To be on track though, he does say the max is 24 hours of light and then the 12 hours of dark to maintain the flowering. He mentions something along the lines of having tried over 24 hours and if I remember right it was diminishing returns going any further.

At this point I am thinking that if we buy his book we will read the chapter on the 24/12 cycle and he will say that it shortens the flowering time but it does not produce any extra weight, quality or savings in expenses. My little perpetual grow is doing just well based on keeping the plants in veg for as long as I want or need and then putting them in the flowering cabinet for as long as it takes.
 

Elvin

Well-Known Member
Yep. Where is the documentation.

To be on track though, he does say the max is 24 hours of light and then the 12 hours of dark to maintain the flowering. He mentions something along the lines of having tried over 24 hours and if I remember right it was diminishing returns going any further.

At this point I am thinking that if we buy his book we will read the chapter on the 24/12 cycle and he will say that it shortens the flowering time but it does not produce any extra weight, quality or savings in expenses. My little perpetual grow is doing just well based on keeping the plants in veg for as long as I want or need and then putting them in the flowering cabinet for as long as it takes.
You are doing similar to what I'm doing.
I have 9 plants (4 varieties) stuffed into one tent flowering. I have clones from those vegging in another tent that I'm just about to make new clones from to turn the flowering tent into a vegging one with the clones (I'm starting to chop in 2-3 weeks) so the other tent can be flipped and I can wack the leaves off below the screen and grow some flower.
I am not about to experiment with a very unproven light schedule that no one, I repeat no one, has even posted a grow journal about.
This hobby/discipline/business (whatever you want to call it) is still in its infancy and con artists like Dr. Lee are still trying to cash in.
 

GreenGrowth

Active Member
I've seen a grow done with a 33.6 hour day, 21.6 of day and 12 hours of dark. Impressive grow.
 

GreenGrowth

Active Member
It's on another site and the boffins in the office of this site have already warned me about posting from other sites, you are quite welcome to try it (like I'm about to do) and see for yourself. I'm running 16/12 for flowering on this grow that I have just started. I shall keep you posted.

Edit: I did however find you this light schedule to ponder over.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

013

Well-Known Member
If you reread the first post I don’t think the op is trying to push the 24/12 lighting scheme, based on all of their posts I think they were merely asking if anyone on 420 has ever tried it and if so what the results were.

Anyone can advertise snake oil and rack up a few sales from the neophytes, but experienced folks want proof and those willing to do experiments need support. On the surface if you said this plant won’t flower without 12 hours of darkness it sounds ludicrous, or we can grow plants in water without soil - it doesn’t sound possible yet both are true. Discoveries are made by curious minds.

It’s good - can’t we all just hit a bong?
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom