vertical growing
- Thread starter cerberus
- Start date
fatfarmer34
Well-Known Member
I just found this on the net and this is pretty much exactly how I want to make mine.
http://www.octagonhydroponics.com/hydroponic-vertical-systems.html
http://www.octagonhydroponics.com/hydroponic-vertical-systems.html
That 5hit
Well-Known Member
great find
Hydrogon-Square™
This innovative vertical garden kit can be used with a 4x4 Tent. The newly designed Vertitube 3L600 accommodates three (3) 600W OR 400W bulbs and fits snugly into the vent flange in top of the tent. System also works well without tent. System shown has 48 plant sites and is compatible with all nutrient delivery systems, including Ebb and Flow, NFT, Drip and Mist systems. This is one nice hydroponic kit
3 level Hydrogon™
A vertical garden system designed to accommodate 63 full canopy 18"-24" tall tomato plants
4 level Hydrogon™
This vertical hydroponics system works well with lettuce varieties by providing 84 plant sites with growing area to spare in only 36 square feet of floor space.
Vertitube™ 3L1000
The Vertitube™ 3L1000 is designed to accommodate three (3) 1000w lamps. The 3L1000 is designed for use with the Hydrogon. total height with 17" base is 90 7/8"
Vertitube™ 4L600
The Vertitube 4L600 is designed to accommodate four (4) 600w lamps. Total height with 14" base is 91 7/8".
Hydrogon-Square™
This innovative vertical garden kit can be used with a 4x4 Tent. The newly designed Vertitube 3L600 accommodates three (3) 600W OR 400W bulbs and fits snugly into the vent flange in top of the tent. System also works well without tent. System shown has 48 plant sites and is compatible with all nutrient delivery systems, including Ebb and Flow, NFT, Drip and Mist systems. This is one nice hydroponic kit
3 level Hydrogon™
A vertical garden system designed to accommodate 63 full canopy 18"-24" tall tomato plants
4 level Hydrogon™
This vertical hydroponics system works well with lettuce varieties by providing 84 plant sites with growing area to spare in only 36 square feet of floor space.
Vertitube™ 3L1000
The Vertitube™ 3L1000 is designed to accommodate three (3) 1000w lamps. The 3L1000 is designed for use with the Hydrogon. total height with 17" base is 90 7/8"
Vertitube™ 4L600
The Vertitube 4L600 is designed to accommodate four (4) 600w lamps. Total height with 14" base is 91 7/8".
ya ive seen this sick stuff. but they also charge up the ass for that 3 vert cool tube i think they charge like 700. and for the system its like extremly bank. id would just make that shit for way cheapergreat find
Hydrogon-Square
This innovative vertical garden kit can be used with a 4x4 Tent. The newly designed Vertitube 3L600 accommodates three (3) 600W OR 400W bulbs and fits snugly into the vent flange in top of the tent. System also works well without tent. System shown has 48 plant sites and is compatible with all nutrient delivery systems, including Ebb and Flow, NFT, Drip and Mist systems. This is one nice hydroponic kit
3 level Hydrogon
A vertical garden system designed to accommodate 63 full canopy 18"-24" tall tomato plants
4 level Hydrogon
This vertical hydroponics system works well with lettuce varieties by providing 84 plant sites with growing area to spare in only 36 square feet of floor space.
Vertitube 3L1000
The Vertitube 3L1000 is designed to accommodate three (3) 1000w lamps. The 3L1000 is designed for use with the Hydrogon. total height with 17" base is 90 7/8"
Vertitube 4L600
The Vertitube 4L600 is designed to accommodate four (4) 600w lamps. Total height with 14" base is 91 7/8".
cerberus
Well-Known Member
You could deffinatly make that way cheaper than they are selling it for. That seems to be the real intriguing part of the verticle grow, there is no real rocket science or special kits needed.
I am still thinking about the less lummens issue. If the 400 (or whatever) is reflected and directed down then Most of the light is being directed to a small foot print BUT if you sorround the light with plants your are in effect making more space. more space with less light, I am still trying to figure out how 50,000 lummens will produce the same when lighting 16sq feet of plants compared to say 28 sq feet (from the tubular geometry) I am really going to have to own this idea and how that doesnt cause an obstical.
I am still looking favorable towards this style I just see the issue of no more light with more space.
I am still thinking about the less lummens issue. If the 400 (or whatever) is reflected and directed down then Most of the light is being directed to a small foot print BUT if you sorround the light with plants your are in effect making more space. more space with less light, I am still trying to figure out how 50,000 lummens will produce the same when lighting 16sq feet of plants compared to say 28 sq feet (from the tubular geometry) I am really going to have to own this idea and how that doesnt cause an obstical.
I am still looking favorable towards this style I just see the issue of no more light with more space.
fatfarmer34
Well-Known Member
I by no means plan on buying one of those the price is crazy, but the pics show what we have been discusing well. As far as the more space less light issue, it isn't more space just better use of it. Vertical exposes more plants to to same light and I think that the difference in the focused beam from a reflector over 360 degree is way more than made up for by volume of plants and each plant gets more light saturation from the side and more effective use of reflective material. Whatever you use Mylar, white paint, permaflec and etc. is directly behind each and every plant.
That 5hit
Well-Known Member
thank you this was my point from day one to me and many other this is why verts are better vert use 360d while hor use only 90d with a reflector even if that reflector is reflecting back the exact same power of light (which it cant maybe 25-50% if that) you could only dubble the power of the light making the power of what would cover an 180d arer packed into a 90d area - where as with a vert you have 360d area to use coming out better
and the reason i post pics of these vert systems that you can buy is to give possible idea on how to make and build them there very simple many of the systems that i have posted are so ez to revers engineer them
the insides are either sprayer, mister, flood tube , dwc, dirt, and many others
squarepush3r
Well-Known Member
wow, that looks a lot like Heaths setup. Also, it gave me the idea to make a system like heaths easier, just halo rings on top of eachother. That could be done for under $100 for a multilevel system like the one pictured.
fatfarmer34
Well-Known Member
Halo Rings?
2 things...
Firstly, it's very irritating for you all to keep saying "pervert" because you don't "perfer vertical"... the damn word is "PREFER" not perfer and so you'd be a "PREVERT" not a "pervert". Don't make a play on words if you can't even spell properly, it makes you look stupid rather than witty.
Secondly, vertical is more efficient, end of story. Unless you have a 100% efficient reflector and you are using 180 degrees of the light and reflector... then and ONLY then will you be getting the same lighting to your plants as with vertical. You'd be giving them 2x the lighting, disbursed unevenly amongst 1/2 the plants. Most bulbs with reflectors only cover about 120 degrees... with another 120 degrees being reflected downward... and another 120 degrees going onto the walls and being lost.
There is no argument, vertical DOES give lighting to plants more evenly and it DOES give more lighting directly to plants. Unless you can come up with a logical reason why not (which you can't) then stop arguing against it.
Firstly, it's very irritating for you all to keep saying "pervert" because you don't "perfer vertical"... the damn word is "PREFER" not perfer and so you'd be a "PREVERT" not a "pervert". Don't make a play on words if you can't even spell properly, it makes you look stupid rather than witty.
Secondly, vertical is more efficient, end of story. Unless you have a 100% efficient reflector and you are using 180 degrees of the light and reflector... then and ONLY then will you be getting the same lighting to your plants as with vertical. You'd be giving them 2x the lighting, disbursed unevenly amongst 1/2 the plants. Most bulbs with reflectors only cover about 120 degrees... with another 120 degrees being reflected downward... and another 120 degrees going onto the walls and being lost.
There is no argument, vertical DOES give lighting to plants more evenly and it DOES give more lighting directly to plants. Unless you can come up with a logical reason why not (which you can't) then stop arguing against it.
DaveTheNewbie
Well-Known Member
ok, so with vert is it still the plan to get the plants as near to the light as possible without burning or bleaching? I figure so and am doing so. It makes a very small surface area 
That 5hit
Well-Known Member
you are 1 asshole i agree with
but ima still say pervert not prevert cause then the club icon can be quagmire
but thanks for the schooling ma'am
cerberus
Well-Known Member
First off that is how play on words go.. SCRoG - Screen of Green thats a bit of a stretch. secondly what do you care what a group of people call it. thirdly Is calling out your own personal dislikes productive for anything here other than voicing your opinion?
Since I was the last post to question the efficiency question I'll also field this one. First off lets notice I am the OP, I have high hopes for the possibility of a vertical grow BUT I would like to see all (logical, and reasoned out) thoughts on it.
What you say makes since to me but only on the surface layer; lets use round numbers for simplicitys sake: 10,000 lumens from the bulb. With a reflector half of the bulbs is directed down (5000 lumens) the other half of the bulb is being reflected back down (lets say it loses 10%, 4500 lumens) this puts down 9000 lumens onto a section (say 3x3) a flat section which would yield 1000 lumens per sq foot.
NOW you go vertical and you can use more space, lets say double the space (I dont know concaved geometry so I am guessing at double, its irrelevant for this discussion) that is 18 sq/foot with the same 10,000 lumens (not losing 1k from reflection) 10,000/18 which comes to 555.5 lumens per sq foot.
This is my concern, adding more space de facto reduces the ratio of light per growing space.
As stated above I think its a good way to utilize space, it does reduce the loss from reflection BUT it may require more light because it always lights more space, just a thought
fatfarmer34
Well-Known Member
All hail Redeflect, he has spoken and there is no more to say on the subject. I would like to personally thank him for helping me with my grammar and the proper way to make a play on words. Also you have saved me time, now I dont even have to think about this anymore, I can just take your word for it. I advise everyone else to do the same. Thank you so very much.
That 5hit
Well-Known Member
this is a new game its call
hey redeflect is this irritating you
you may want to call toy-r-us and tell them there r is backwards
... nevermind i'll do it . wouldn't want to irritate you.
you may also want to call the KKK and tell them to change it to KKC - you'll have to do that i'm black
and tell the us government too stop using the term deep throat for there informants- there using it worng, just trust me you'll never understand why- i'll make that call
jigfresh
Well-Known Member
I'm beleive in vert so much I'm actually doing it. However, now that everything is growing, I'm beginning to think about the above. There is just so much more usable growing space now.... and I still have the same lights. No conclusion, just that I wonder the same thing.This is my concern, adding more space de facto reduces the ratio of light per growing space.
As stated above I think its a good way to utilize space, it does reduce the loss from reflection BUT it may require more light because it always lights more space, just a thought
LOL.... Good shit. I'm a fan of good spelling, but I save it for english class. We're talking about growing Marijuana... not having a spelling bee.call toy-r-us and tell them there r is backwards
call the KKK and tell them to change it to KKC
and tell the us government too stop using the term deep throat for there informants- there using it worng, just trust me you'll never understand why- i'll make that call
What is it about vert that gets everyones panties in a bunch?
DaveTheNewbie
Well-Known Member
What you say makes since to me but only on the surface layer; lets use round numbers for simplicitys sake: 10,000 lumens from the bulb. With a reflector half of the bulbs is directed down (5000 lumens) the other half of the bulb is being reflected back down (lets say it loses 10%, 4500 lumens) this puts down 9000 lumens onto a section (say 3x3) a flat section which would yield 1000 lumens per sq foot.
NOW you go vertical and you can use more space, lets say double the space (I dont know concaved geometry so I am guessing at double, its irrelevant for this discussion) that is 18 sq/foot with the same 10,000 lumens (not losing 1k from reflection) 10,000/18 which comes to 555.5 lumens per sq foot.
This is my concern, adding more space de facto reduces the ratio of light per growing space.
As stated above I think its a good way to utilize space, it does reduce the loss from reflection BUT it may require more light because it always lights more space, just a thought
FROM MY UNDERSTANDING (AND NOT FACT) :
its not how many lumens per square foot that matters. that factor is irrelevant. its how many lumens get to plants (any plants anywhere, no matter how many plants there are, no matter how many square feet they are spread over)
generally you put a reflector as close to the plants as you can without burn or bleach (minimizing square feet). you can pull any reflector as far back as you want to cover more square feet at the cost of lumens.
a bigger light will deliver the same light to more square feet (and therefore more lumens to plants assuming there are plants on the square feet) (and im ignoring the issue of bigger lights penetrating further too)
ignoring the inefficiency of the hoods reflector the disadvantage of the hood is that the light travels up to the reflect then back down, therefore travelling further and dissipating over distance. vert just goes from the light to the plant.
I suspect if you could wrap one plant around a cooltube you would have near zero square feet but major intensity of lumens hitting direct on plant. that the cooltube is vert or horizontal would be irrelevant then.
just my 2 cents.
fatfarmer34
Well-Known Member
I mean how can you give That 5hit a hard time about spelling? hell he spells Shit with a number not even a letter. Just kidding, I love you man.
cerberus
Well-Known Member
wow, to think i came in to offer some insight on growing. never mind.
View attachment 613790 View attachment 613791 View attachment 613792
I agree, we should keep this a no flame thread.
nice grow! what size lights are you using? any reflective matirial on the ceiling?