Prawn Connery
Well-Known Member
If you haven't already, check out the centrifugal Omega Garden: http://omegagarden.com/
Expensive, but one of the highest yielding systems I've ever seen. That is, if you don't count the power used to spin it
LED vs vertical HPS (PPF and other things)
- Thread starter Prawn Connery
- Start date
If you haven't already, check out the centrifugal Omega Garden: http://omegagarden.com/
Expensive, but one of the highest yielding systems I've ever seen. That is, if you don't count the power used to spin it
CobKits
Well-Known Member
yeah that was the first thing that came to mind when i read ttystiks post was the 'coliseum'
CobKits
Well-Known Member
what i really like about that is the perfect media saturation/aeration cycles it gets
Prawn Connery
Well-Known Member
You could probably achieve similar results without all the centrifugal spinning by creating a multi-tiered aero system with each tier having its own drain point.
No doubt the Omega Garden works, but unless you're on the International Space Station, I'm finding it hard to see why you would invest so much to do what you can already do with gravity, some PVC plumbing and a couple of vertical bulbs.
No doubt the Omega Garden works, but unless you're on the International Space Station, I'm finding it hard to see why you would invest so much to do what you can already do with gravity, some PVC plumbing and a couple of vertical bulbs.
Enigma
Well-Known Member
EB shelves.
CobKits
Well-Known Member
pretty high, TBH
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
I'd like to play with a rotating drum grow someday. The idea is that rotating the plants screws with the auxins, making them less lanky and thus making bigger buds and squattier plants.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
As long as it takes. Oh, thought I was in the politics section, lol
IIRC, like 30 minutes or so.
canadian1969
Well-Known Member
I have been thinking along these lines, but dont have a space adequate to test.
I would try something like this if I could and would love to see someone try it.
http://www.homedepot.com/p/Gladiator-73-in-H-x-77-in-W-x-24-in-D-4-Shelf-Welded-Steel-Garage-Shelving-Unit-GARS774XEG/206727800
Raise the bottom shelf, put your pumps, reservoirs under it, put the power/electronics on top
The 560mm EB strips would fit perfectly at 22" each leaving 1" edge clearance (running front to back)
Not sure what the height adjustment should be for proper coverage so that would impact how many strips needed
At a guess I figure 20" between shelves, so maybe 4" gaps, 15 strips per shelf?
You could build the strips right into the shelf or build fixtures and hang them from under the wire shelves. Lots of clearance.
Plenty of airflow between the shelves and the heat from the strips should function like a heating mat for the clone trays above. May need actual heating mats for the bottom shelf as there would be no LEDs under it.
Go with cheap flood and drain, 2x2 flood tables, I couldn't find any 72x24 flood tables but they prolly exist, that would be the bomb, but 3 2x2's per shelf would work. Maybe pipe them together.
So ... for driver selection reasons lets say 54 strips
54 EB strips @ $8 each = $432 (so 18 strips per shelf)
9 HLG-185H-C1400B drivers @ $60 = $540
[each bank of 6 strips will dim from 10 to 200 watts. Keeping them dimmed at 50% for optimal efficiency would be about 300 watts per shelf, 900 watts operational, with the option to kick it up if needed.
Lets say a few hundred for all the misc crap. So maybe $1300.
6'*2' = 12 sq' * 3 shelves = 36 sq' 900 watts / 36 sq' = 25 watts per sq foot.
I bet you could pull 2 pounds per run. If it works and you can do a consistent 1.5 gpw @ 900 watts is like 3 pounds.
You are now vertical farming, one run pays for itself.
edit: if you had the space and could line up about 4 of these plus tents for your mothers, thats some pretty high density growing.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
You're giving me ideas. That's a very dangerous thing to do...
canadian1969
Well-Known Member
All our ideas are belong to you (to paraphrase Elon Musk)You're giving me ideas. That's a very dangerous thing to do...
Yeah, please do it man, I have had the idea kicking around in my head for at least a year or so now. Torture. I dunno, maybe someone has tried something like this on RIU already and I missed the thread, but seems like if the SGS guys can do it and the big vertical farming guys can do it with warehouses of lettuce then why not on the DIY level too. Maybe better than those guys.
I guess the downside is you need separate areas for the mothers and you will be cloning like you have never cloned before. lol I guess if you scrogged and vegged longer you could avoid having to make like 100 clones per shelf. So as a grow probably much more labour and time intensive. Hypothetically at least.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Maybe...All our ideas are belong to you (to paraphrase Elon Musk)
Yeah, please do it man, I have had the idea kicking around in my head for at least a year or so now. Torture. I dunno, maybe someone has tried something like this on RIU already and I missed the thread, but seems like if the SGS guys can do it and the big vertical farming guys can do it with warehouses of lettuce then why not on the DIY level too. Maybe better than those guys.
I guess the downside is you need separate areas for the mothers and you will be cloning like you have never cloned before. lol I guess if you scrogged and vegged longer you could avoid having to make like 100 clones per shelf. So as a grow probably much more labour and time intensive. Hypothetically at least.
Maybe could do one plant SCRoG per tray...
nfhiggs
Well-Known Member
It has occurred to me that you can conceivably completely nullify the inverse square law. Instead of a point source emitter shining outward to a sphere of plants, use multiple emitters on the sphere pointing INWARD to a common center point where the plant is. As the density of the emitters is increased there is a point at which light levels become uniform from the center outward....I do enjoy these debates
Now the antithesis of the "pie chart" chart law is the inverse-square law. It simply states that every time you double the distance of a light source, you halve the energy through spherical dispersion. So with a single light source, the edges and corners of a square trellis get the least amount of light, as it geometrically must travel further to get there.
View attachment 4008537
For a single light source, a sphere is the most efficient trellis dimension, as equal light is distributed across all surface areas. With a HPS bulb - which is cylindrical - a tube is the most efficient shape.
Hmmm.....
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
No need to go that far; using an array of light sources evenly distributed over the target surface effectively accomplished the same thing. Further, since the lamps or chips are not just emitting light straight down but also at angle to the sides, you're getting cross illumination which effectively combats the effects of leaf shading.
Add a reflective surface such as white plastic sheeting around your array and the corners get as much light as the center does.
This is a big reason why people are seeing such huge increases in performance from LED lighting.
Prawn Connery
Well-Known Member
That would be one fuck-off big plant!
Prawn Connery
Well-Known Member
Vertical aeroponic for traditional HIDs - if you're handy, and have no concerns about plant numbers, you can knock something like this up yourself.
And for the flat-board LED guys. Would need to be sealed at the back (sheet of plastic would do it) with some misters and a run-off collector at the bottom, or U-channel under each row of pots . . . or something like that. You get the idea.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Both are large and unwieldy. Better to have something smaller that can be replicated and arranged in the desired shape.
Vertical aeroponic for traditional HIDs - if you're handy, and have no concerns about plant numbers, you can knock something like this up yourself.
And for the flat-board LED guys. Would need to be sealed at the back (sheet of plastic would do it) with some misters and a run-off collector at the bottom, or U-channel under each row of pots . . . or something like that. You get the idea.
Prawn Connery
Well-Known Member
The top one, I would guess, is about 4.5-5' across. The bottom one, well, you could probably build or cut to whatever size you wanted.
If I were going for max yield . . . and I had a nice air-conditioned room . . . and a back-up pump/power system . . . and I didn't fancy taking holidays because I would be too scared to leave it alone for an hour - LOL! . . . I would build a vertical aeroponic system like the one above. Or maybe NFT.
But I'm a pragmatist, and I like to go away for a week or two sometimes - which was perfectly OK with my last coco set-up and a 20-30 gallon reservoir - and I don't want to be a slave to my plants. So as far as I'm concerned, reliability trumps all-out growth.
That's just me.
If I were going for max yield . . . and I had a nice air-conditioned room . . . and a back-up pump/power system . . . and I didn't fancy taking holidays because I would be too scared to leave it alone for an hour - LOL! . . . I would build a vertical aeroponic system like the one above. Or maybe NFT.
But I'm a pragmatist, and I like to go away for a week or two sometimes - which was perfectly OK with my last coco set-up and a 20-30 gallon reservoir - and I don't want to be a slave to my plants. So as far as I'm concerned, reliability trumps all-out growth.
That's just me.
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
Instead of aeroponic systems, not known for their infallibility, I suggest a simpler continuous topfeed or NFT style. I've seen plastic fenceposts with a slot cut down one side and filled with a non absorbent open substrate. Connect the bases together and run a pump to recirculate and the job is done.
It works great for lettuce or other sea of green approaches, but if plant counts are a concern it's not a good idea.