vertical growing
- Thread starter cerberus
- Start date
RickWhite
Well-Known Member
I selected an arbitrary circumference for the vert as one could make it any size. Your inclusion of a third dimension is extraneous and I don't see how there is any logic in including it. In both cases you have a canopy and in the vert this is more pronounced because the morphology of the plant is designed to utilize light from the top and not the side. That is why the bottom branches extend out further than the top.The information you give is true; however, I believe you are misapplying it. Lets say you are using a 600-watt HPS at 80,000 lumens to light your 4 x 4 area. With a horizontally-hung light and a good hood and lets even assume there is no light loss in the reflection your 16 square foot area will provide 5,000 lumens/square foot (80,000/16). With a vertically-hung light - using your assumption that it is illuminating 50 square feet the average drops to 1600 lumens/square foot.
So, on the face you might say that any gains in area for a vertically-hung lamp would be compensated for by losses in growth rate and density of the buds. 5,000 lumens of light is thought to be marijuanas saturation point the point at which additional light does not result in more growth and somewhere around 1,000 lumens is thought to be marijuanas compensation point the point at which there isnt enough light to produce growth.
These numbers define the flower box that I talk about extensively in my vertical grow journal. The upper-boundary of the box is defined by the lumens felt at the top of the canopy - up to 9,000 lumens depending on how close you hang the light; even though the plant doesnt use any of the lumens above 5,000, higher lumens at the top means deeper penetration. The lower part of the box is defined by the lowest level of lumens necessary to sustain growth approximately 1,000 lumens:
The problem (I believe) with your analysis is that you are looking at it 2-dimensionally, or in the square feet a particular light will support. I believe a better way is to look at it is 3-dimensionally, or the volume in cubic feet that a particular light will support. In my example above, a 600-watt light that is hung horizontally 18 from the canopy will support a 4 x 4 x 1.5 box, or about 24 cubic feet.
When you hang the light vertically, you take the box and wrap it around the light:
The problem with your calculations is that you calculated the square feet of the back wall (Area = Diameter * pi * Height; Area = 4 * 3.14 * 4 = 50.24 square feet). This is the point where the least amount of light is felt the BOTTOM of the flower box. If you want to compare apples to apples, then compare the top of a horizontal box to the top of a vertical box the point closest to the light. If we use the above formula on the INSIDE cylinder we get Area = 2 * 3.14 * 3 = 18.84 square feet, much closer to your 16 square feet for your horizontally hung bulb. Notice that I am decreasing the distance of the bulb to the canopy to 1 foot I can do this because when hung vertically the light is not as intense nor is the bulb as hot, because there is no hood reflecting light and heat. Since the bulb is closer to the plants, I wont get as large a footprint, so I decreased the inner cylinder height to 3.
But a better measurement would be to calculate the volume of the cylinder. If I take the volume of the entire cylinder and subtract the volume of the inner cylinder, I should get the volume of my flower box.
Volume = pi * radius squared * height
Volume 1 = 3.14 * 2^2 * 4 = 50.24 cubic feet
Volume 2 = 3.14 * 1^2 * 4 = 12.56 cubic feet
Total volume light supports = 50.24 12.56 = 37.68 cubic feet
Compare your horizontally hung flower box volume of 24 cubic feet to 38 cubic feet for a vertical flower box, and you can see a potential increase of 58% in the yield. And if you place a hood over the top and bottom of the light and around the back of the plants you increase the potential even more. You can see how Heath Robinson can pull close to 3 lbs from ONE 600-watt light vertical grow. Much better utilization of the light, even over a stadium grow.
Apparently there is when you apply it
At any rate, the only thing that matters is the surface area being illuminated. The area below the canopy in both cases is wasted growth in large measure so the best way to grow is with minimal height.
I see what you are trying to say by including the depth but it is erroneous to do so.
Also, it is wrong to assume that a reflector causes a loss. A lights reflector is capable of not just reflecting light but of focusing light via parabola effect. There is loss due to the material but there is also a gain in the ability to focus the light.
Now a stadium style grow is very efficient because light emanates in a sphere. This means the plants below the bulb see far more intense light than the outer plants, so raising the outer plants in a bowl shape brings them equidistant from the bulb.
The main problem with any side lit plant is that a bushy plant will be entirely shaded on one side. This only happens to top lit plants when they are overcrowded as the lower branches grow out and up.
A 600W bulb with a good reflector and light mover can produce over 40oz in a 13 week growing period in a good stadium designed SOG. I think that is at least as much as any vert grower is getting - maybe more.
That 5hit
Well-Known Member
Rick you have to hand it to dystopia
this guy has grown both ways with the same light
if he says one way is better then it is
unless you have grown both ways and can prove otherwise
which you have not and cant
dystopia has taken time out to use the no. you provided and prove his point even with pictures
and factual sience - instead of saying
yeah you gat me you have proving verts are better you
you take the shithead route
this guy has grown both ways with the same light
if he says one way is better then it is
unless you have grown both ways and can prove otherwise
which you have not and cant
dystopia has taken time out to use the no. you provided and prove his point even with pictures
and factual sience - instead of saying
yeah you gat me you have proving verts are better you
you take the shithead route
bigtomatofarmer
Well-Known Member
I know alot of little kids who dish out insults but cant take them. You seem to be one of them. Whats wrong, did you miss your afternoon nap today??
And by the way, I smiled when I saw a neg rep from you. It lets me know that you really do care what people on the internet say. Lets face it, RIU is your life hahahahahahahaa
That 5hit
Well-Known Member
if you looked back you will see that i never once said you sucked infact i said that you did good for a guy that normally grows out side but be cause i tell it like it is, the truth, you may have me on ignore so unless someone quotes me he would not have seen those post - unless you dont have me on the list then that would mean you saw my posts and you are way to emosee your first mistake is, I'm not upset.
i posted a pic but didn't want to discuss it because you all were on the drama before i even came in. then i CLEARLY stated "i suck". then people went on to tell me how i suck. i found it all rather FUNNY.
i have no idea why you feel i'm upset. i'm rather amused.
the LAST thing i need is your sympathy.i really do suck indoors and i have the ego to admit it.
RickWhite
Well-Known Member
No, you are not getting it. You have to understand the physics of the situation. There is no third axis that factors into the intensity of the light.WTF??? I used your "arbitrary" example and proved you were wrong. You live on some bizarro world where logic, and even evidence, don't apply? I'm out of here...
See, it works like this. The light leaving a bulb is like a shotgun blast in outer space. The pellets never slow down but as the blast gets further from the gun the shot spreads out. Now if the shot went through a paper plate a foot from the gun all the shot would make a hole in the middle. That is intensity. Now if you moved the plate to 50' only a few pellets would hit the plate and the rest would pass by beyond the edge.
So, intensity decreases with the square of the surface it is shining upon. The distance it travels only matters in so far as how much (like the buckshot) the light spreads. Contrary to popular belief, the light rays do not slow down over distance. And when light is focused, the spreading effect can be reduced or even reversed.
In the end, both a vert or horizontal grow can be set up to illuminate any amount of area simply by raising the light, or increasing the size of the circle.
As far as this third axis you mention, it is true that the light would diminish additionally from the top of the plant to the bottom, but it will also diminish from one side to the next unless you keep the plant perfectly flat which I have yet to see.
The easy solution to this problem is to grow short plants or to top your plants and make them wider than tall.
Anyway, I hope this clarifies things a bit.
bigtomatofarmer
Well-Known Member
Its hard to see in the pictures, but this Chemo is tied to the wall behind it. Its as flat as it gets.
Now you've seen it
Attachments
cerberus
Well-Known Member
most of these grows have been as flat as your going to get horizontally, there is variation in where the plants stretch but you’ll always have that. I think dystopia is right on the money with this. His cubic feet explanation explains the principles pretty soundly.
I will say that the tube is not the cube wrapped around the bulb, if that where the case there would be a slice missing from where the two ends meet, this space would account for where that missing light may be. Still, that space is a fraction of the entire grow.
cerberus
Well-Known Member
what do you mean better results? more plants, more per yield per plant, or better quality?
nice little setup, is that a K? did you start with the light high?
thanks for contributing
Dystopia
Active Member
Are you trying to grow buds shaped like pancakes? It is you who does not understand the "physics" of the situation. You say there is no third axis, or that it is not important, yet talk about dispersion and how intensity decreases as you get further from the light in the same breath. The rate of dispersion or decrease in intensity as you get further from the light IS THE THIRD AXIS; furthermore it is probably THE MOST IMPORTANT axis because intensity decreases rapidly as you get further from the source according to the inverse square law
There is a point above the canopy where you can hang the light so that your horizontal (x-y axis) and vertical (z-axis) is maximized; this is pretty well documented and EASILY calculated. Light and space resources are tightly bound together; hanging the light anywhere else results in diminishing returns, either in the quality or the quantity (or both) of the yield. All you've done by raising the light above this point is to decrease the vertical penetration; the horizontal footprint basically remains unchanged because the light at the periphery is no longer intense enough to sustain usable growth.
I guess you think that if you grow more "smaller" plants with the same light you can get more yield over time. Raise the lights and grow a shitload of plants with smaller buds faster. That's the ONLY way you MIGHT increase yield if your theory actually worked - over time due to less vegetation. You certainly won't do it in a single grow. The problem is, nobody will want to smoke the shitty buds you produce, especially the buds produced from the extra plants you added to the periphery that aren't getting near enough light.
Go ahead, raise the light and add more plants and let us know how that works out for you. Hell, I'll even give you THREE consecutive grows with one 600-watt light using your space-time theories and I'll bet you won't top Heath's ONE grow for yield and certainly not appeal.
That 5hit
Well-Known Member
now this is cool +rep for the idea
you should also put a screen behind the plants to tie them for lst ing
yeah what size light is that
haw many plants
have you grown like this before
what was the out come
is that soil
what strain
are you rotating them
DaveTheNewbie
Well-Known Member
now this is cool +rep for the idea
you should also put a screen behind the plants to tie them for lst ing
yeah what size light is that
haw many plants
have you grown like this before
what was the out come
is that soil
what strain
are you rotating them
this is exactally what i have (except im in a reflective cabinet and my light is in a cooltube).
why on earth do you think you need a second screen for? crazy suggestion!
RickWhite
Well-Known Member
Actually, physics was my best subject in college.Are you trying to grow buds shaped like pancakes? It is you who does not understand the "physics" of the situation. You say there is no third axis, or that it is not important, yet talk about dispersion and how intensity decreases as you get further from the light in the same breath. The rate of dispersion or decrease in intensity as you get further from the light IS THE THIRD AXIS; furthermore it is probably THE MOST IMPORTANT axis because intensity decreases rapidly as you get further from the source according to the inverse square law
There is a point above the canopy where you can hang the light so that your horizontal (x-y axis) and vertical (z-axis) is maximized; this is pretty well documented and EASILY calculated. Light and space resources are tightly bound together; hanging the light anywhere else results in diminishing returns, either in the quality or the quantity (or both) of the yield. All you've done by raising the light above this point is to decrease the vertical penetration; the horizontal footprint basically remains unchanged because the light at the periphery is no longer intense enough to sustain usable growth.
I guess you think that if you grow more "smaller" plants with the same light you can get more yield over time. Raise the lights and grow a shitload of plants with smaller buds faster. That's the ONLY way you MIGHT increase yield if your theory actually worked - over time due to less vegetation. You certainly won't do it in a single grow. The problem is, nobody will want to smoke the shitty buds you produce, especially the buds produced from the extra plants you added to the periphery that aren't getting near enough light.
Go ahead, raise the light and add more plants and let us know how that works out for you. Hell, I'll even give you THREE consecutive grows with one 600-watt light using your space-time theories and I'll bet you won't top Heath's ONE grow for yield and certainly not appeal.
The inverse square law is frequently misunderstood and that is why I gave the example of a shotgun. Light decreases with distance only because that light disapates. A laser is an example of light that does not dissipate and therefore does not lose intensity. It is the spreading of the light rays that cause the loss of intensity, not the ditance they travel.
But anyway, I think you were pointing out that my figures used floor space or back wall space and that the space of your vert is actually different. You are correct in that if you figure different amounts of space, your equation changes. I selected the floor space vs the back wall. One could just as easily calculate canopy to canopy or middle of plant to middle of plant. Regardless of what base points you use, the vert should give more area - this is true.
The problem is that LUX = Lumens/M^2. So regardless of how you get there, spreading more lumens over more area gives a loss in LUX. This spreading can come from a verticle setup, changing the shape of your hood or raising your hood. If you constructed a searchlight that creates a 4'X4' focal point at 100' away you could light your 4'X4' growing area from 100' away without losing any light intensity. The only thing that matters is in the end, what amount of area is illuminated by X lumens.
Now, given a free floating bulb, light spreads according to the square of the distance away from the area it illuminates. The distance is not the key variable, it just so happens to be a predictor of how much the rays will spread after having traveled that distance. So, rays leaving a bulb and traveling 2M will have spread enough to illuminate 4M square. Traveling 3M will illuminate 9M square, etc.
So, 90,000Lum/4M SQ=22,500LUX
But, if you apply a reflector to those same rays so that at 2M the light still illuminates 2M squaare you get.
90,000Lum/2M SQ = 45,000LUX
See, it is only the ultimate area illuminated that matters.
budleydoright
Well-Known Member
RW, what about lumen loss in your reflector, those light wave also don't like to collide with each other either. when they do they generate heat, the fuel for this heat are the light waves themselves. This is one of the reasons a reflector runs so much hotter than a bare bulb. I don't know if there has been any study done on this, but lets just say that your bare bulb garden generates 15% less heat. Now the only difference is the way the bulb is hung, what is creating that 15% heat? Your lumens, what is required to remove this heat? More energy. Why not utilize all of the light energy. Rather than force the lamp to cover an area with plants. I'm covering the are with plants that the lamp naturally illuminates. I understand your argument 100% but you are leaving out one of the biggest reasons a single point source is more effecient than a reflected one.
Everyone misses the point... with horizontal grows you are losing light to the reflective material and to light being reflected back onto the bulb itself... and you are losing light to the side walls... not to mention the light is disbursed unevenly amongst the plants. With a Colosseum you have all those disadvantages as well only they are not quite as large.
Unless your plant canopy is PERFECTLY level... some light is going to overshoot and hit the walls.
Unless your bulb is the size of a micron or you have a perfectly parabolic reflector with a vertical reflection directly above the bulb... light is lost when reflected back at the bulb.
Unless you train your plants to be perfectly equidistant from the bulb while taking into account reflection... there is uneven distribution.
With a vertical grow you can't have any light overshooting the plants... it is completely surrounded by plants and so there is no wall for it to hit.
With a vertical grow there is no reflector so you do not lose any light to materials or reflector angles... there are none.
With a vertical grow the plants get even growth... they can be easily placed equidistant from the bulb.
The disadvantages to vertical growing are negligible. However the disadvantages to horizontal do add up. You may argue that a vertical grow brings less lighting to the plants. This is true, but only partially. You can compensate for that by putting the light closer and you are still covering a larger area. Anyone who knows common algebra and is aware of the inverse rule when it comes to lighting can attest to this.
Assume that any plants under a 600watt light with a reflector receive 2x as much light as plants under a 600watt light without a reflector. You can get the same light intensity to your plants by putting them .7 or 7/10ths of the distance as close (.707*.707 = 2). With a vertical grow, you can still cover a larger footprint even with the light only about 7/10ths as far away from the canopy.
Unless you have a Colosseum grow with 180 degrees of the bulb being used and the other 180 degrees being reflected with 0 loss, then you could achieve the same footprint with the same intensity by keeping the bulb 1.41x as far as you would with a vertical grow.
Unless your plant canopy is PERFECTLY level... some light is going to overshoot and hit the walls.
Unless your bulb is the size of a micron or you have a perfectly parabolic reflector with a vertical reflection directly above the bulb... light is lost when reflected back at the bulb.
Unless you train your plants to be perfectly equidistant from the bulb while taking into account reflection... there is uneven distribution.
With a vertical grow you can't have any light overshooting the plants... it is completely surrounded by plants and so there is no wall for it to hit.
With a vertical grow there is no reflector so you do not lose any light to materials or reflector angles... there are none.
With a vertical grow the plants get even growth... they can be easily placed equidistant from the bulb.
The disadvantages to vertical growing are negligible. However the disadvantages to horizontal do add up. You may argue that a vertical grow brings less lighting to the plants. This is true, but only partially. You can compensate for that by putting the light closer and you are still covering a larger area. Anyone who knows common algebra and is aware of the inverse rule when it comes to lighting can attest to this.
Assume that any plants under a 600watt light with a reflector receive 2x as much light as plants under a 600watt light without a reflector. You can get the same light intensity to your plants by putting them .7 or 7/10ths of the distance as close (.707*.707 = 2). With a vertical grow, you can still cover a larger footprint even with the light only about 7/10ths as far away from the canopy.
Unless you have a Colosseum grow with 180 degrees of the bulb being used and the other 180 degrees being reflected with 0 loss, then you could achieve the same footprint with the same intensity by keeping the bulb 1.41x as far as you would with a vertical grow.
RickWhite
Well-Known Member
Some reflectors may be hotter because they hold in the heat, not because of colliding photons. Good reflectors are very efficient - for instance the adjust a wing is rated at 97% and the super spreader distributes the light evenly. No rays bounce back to the bulb unless you have a surface that is perfectly 90 deg perpendicular to the bulb because the angle of incidence = angle of reflection. As far as distance, a cool tube or light mover allows you to have your light closer.
Now a 100% flat grow does waste some light or have inefficient areas due to the light that shoots out horizontal but a raised perimeter solves this issue. And the vert does put plants equidistant from the bulb so that is an advantage. On the other hand, verts generally waste space and light below the bulb. If I were to do one, I would do more of a bowl or stadium than a full vert.
A bowl shaped grow would certainly be the most efficient setup bar none. But, the increased efficiency is very small and simply not worth a marginal difference in power consumption. If space is limited, it is certainly worth it - but aside from that I have trouble seeing how it is worth all the extra effort and risk of failure.
If I ever find myself having to go vert, it would be a bowl setup with a DWC in the center and Rockwool slabs around the sides.
Now a 100% flat grow does waste some light or have inefficient areas due to the light that shoots out horizontal but a raised perimeter solves this issue. And the vert does put plants equidistant from the bulb so that is an advantage. On the other hand, verts generally waste space and light below the bulb. If I were to do one, I would do more of a bowl or stadium than a full vert.
A bowl shaped grow would certainly be the most efficient setup bar none. But, the increased efficiency is very small and simply not worth a marginal difference in power consumption. If space is limited, it is certainly worth it - but aside from that I have trouble seeing how it is worth all the extra effort and risk of failure.
If I ever find myself having to go vert, it would be a bowl setup with a DWC in the center and Rockwool slabs around the sides.
thehiena
Active Member
Better results mean that I'm getting more than 1gr. per watt, and yes I did start with the light a little high because they tend to stay small if you don't raise the light a little bit during the first two weeks of flowering, like I said I'm no expert.what do you mean better results? more plants, more per yield per plant, or better quality?
nice little setup, is that a K? did you start with the light high?
thanks for contributing
thehiena
Active Member
now this is cool +rep for the idea
you should also put a screen behind the plants to tie them for lst ing
yeah what size light is that
haw many plants
have you grown like this before
what was the out come
is that soil
what strain
are you rotating them
1000WATT HPS
8 PLANTS AT THE TIME, USUALY IS 9
YES I HAVE DONE IT BEFORE
BETTER THAN EXPECTED
HYDROTON ROCKS
WHITE WIDOW
ROTATING PLANTS 1/4 FOR THE FIRST 2 WEEKS
you should also put a screen behind the plants to tie them for lst ing
yeah what size light is that
haw many plants
have you grown like this before
what was the out come
is that soil
what strain
are you rotating them
1000WATT HPS
8 PLANTS AT THE TIME, USUALY IS 9
YES I HAVE DONE IT BEFORE
BETTER THAN EXPECTED
HYDROTON ROCKS
WHITE WIDOW
ROTATING PLANTS 1/4 FOR THE FIRST 2 WEEKS