actually children rick white is right in that it is a colosseum. so saying WRONG is wrong
i really wish you children would stop fighting over silly little things tho.
by your definition those great expensive spinning things with the light in the middle wouldnt be vert because the globe is horizontal, even tho the globe is in the plants and the plants surround the globe.

ps you dont utilise the light at the end of the globe, not much light comes out of there. so you put a reflector on and now your not vert your horizontal with a reflector : thats a hybrid of the 2 using both concepts. its not wrong, but its not pure vert either

__________________

my understanding is that you should be pulling well over 1 pound per 600 watter.

i pulled just 1 pound last grow because i had all sorts of issues. I wont go into the details.

i know people pulling 24 ounces from a single 600 watter (no Co2, just a small cab and a reflective hood) in coco with drippers, very simple setup.

__________________

Got pictures of anything you have growing?

__________________

thank you all for letting me know just how much i really suck.

__________________
i'm the guy i've always wanted to be

What are you talking about man?

Switch to decaf or something. Nobody said anything like that.

__________________

go back and read the last 3 pages.

then maybe YOU could try some caffinated.

__________________
i'm the guy i've always wanted to be

I wish i knew 1/2 of what FDD knew. I think 1lb on a 600 is pretty far fetched unless you are a master of sorts. Not sayin it cant be done.

__________________
It is better to be poor & have pot than to be rich & have none.

fuck the haters
people re forgeting that you arae an outdorr grower and you said this was your first time using this setup and system
now you have learned a gr8 deal and can inprove on the next time
first time + 3 600w + yeilding 2lb's = real good (not gr8 but reall good)

__________________
just go to the first link in my sig
http://www.rollitup.org/marijuana-pi...x.php?u=135841
http://www.rollitup.org/introduce-yo...69-5hit-3.html

The information you give is true; however, I believe you are misapplying it. Let’s 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 let’s 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 marijuana’s saturation point – the point at which additional light does not result in more growth – and somewhere around 1,000 lumens is thought to be marijuana’s compensation point – the point at which there isn’t 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 doesn’t 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 won’t 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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RickWhite there is no escaping the physics of light.

Apparently there is when you apply it

__________________
Dystopia's 250w DWC VScrOG: http://www.rollitup.org/dwc-bubblepo...0w-vscrog.html

WHO IS Heath Robinson? i need a link for him please!