# vertical hydro GARDEN



## panta (Sep 26, 2009)

http://www.pi-technics.com/

id like to hear from somebody who grows like this the advantages and disadvantages,what can u expect in yeild W-G,


----------



## panta (Sep 27, 2009)

does anybod have any knowledge on the subject


----------



## Redeflect (Sep 27, 2009)

It's called a "Colosseum" and they are one of the most efficient yielding methods... there is no way to get more use from your lighting.


----------



## damnbigbudz (Sep 27, 2009)

i keep seeing stuff like this pop up because what we are doing is still a growing and expanding business and everyone likes to make money. 
BUT I dont have the money or space on my electric bill for something like this. 
what i would do is use that as a template, 360 degree grows are THE SHIT. 
I am POSITIVE that with enough paper you could design a 360 cage that holds your plants. 
Im also a soil guy so my setup would be weird as shit trying to hold up all the weight of the soil and plants. GOOD LUCK!!


----------



## Redeflect (Sep 27, 2009)

Its easy and there are several DIY Colosseums on this site.... it takes some effort but not any more than building a regular grow room with ducting, cooling, lighting... and having shelves/steps already available helps. A soil Colosseum would be heavy, but still take less effort than a hydro setup.


----------



## panta (Sep 27, 2009)

how do they keep their plants from falling under their own weight,does anyone know whats the watt to gram ration


----------



## Redeflect (Sep 27, 2009)

Colloseum growers usually get 1g/watt consistently... sometimes they get up to 1.4g/watt(possibly more, but I've never heard of anyone claiming more). The plants are done as a SoG(in this case a Wall of Green). plants only grow out about 1ft to 1 1/2ft from the shelves. If during flowering the buds become too heavy, there are multiple ways to keep them from snapping or tiping the plants over:

1. Often string(or thread) will be hung from hooks along the ceiling to hold individual branches that're too heavy, to prevent the plant from tipping over. Other growers that don't wish to ruin their ceiling can use either planks laying across the top of shelves or a fence/gridded mesh to hang the strings from.

3. Another easy method is to put a screen such as chicken-wire about 1ft infront of all of the walls to hold the plants up (same as you would with a Scrog to keep the plants from stretching too far, the screen helps support the weight of the plants).


----------



## panta (Sep 27, 2009)

what would u think is better the Colloseum or something like this http://www.omegagarden.com/index.php?content_id=1500


----------



## cbtwohundread (Sep 27, 2009)

I seen one of those but a dif model on my last trip to the hydroponic spot.,.,it was like $1,50o.,.,he said u needed like 1hundread plants in the thing.,thats way over my legal limit.,.,lol.,.,but im thinking bout it.,would be a effective method.,.,from wat ive read,ect


----------



## Redeflect (Sep 27, 2009)

That was a pretty dumb question... that thing is the exact same thing as a Colosseum grow... only instead of growing on all 4 sides, it grows on 2 sides and the top and bottom... it's the exact same thing but tilted on its side.

Colosseum's are better because you can use any method you'd like, soil/DWC/Bubbleponics/Aeroponics/Ebb&Flow... that thing would have to be soil kept in bags or some sort of watertight containers to keep from dripping when they are upside down. Also that thing would waste electricity rotating the plants (for no reason).

The "Produce High Yield Plant" aspect is crap. Gravity plays little part in making plants more "compact". Besides, in some cases having tight internodes restricts bud growth. Also, those plants are upside-down being stretched just as often as they are right-side-up being compacted.

"Benefits over conventional Hydroponics

the cylindrical planting drastically increases yield/space (3-5 times)
feeding and watering management is simple and efficient
ph at the roots remains consistent due to watering design
light in the center means limited waste - it all goes to the growing
Omega Garden's can easily be moved"

I can tell you from the start of that quote.... 1 and 3 are bullshit lies.

Save half the money and just make a Colosseum yourself that is even bigger and can handle whatever size plants you intend to grow.


----------



## panta (Sep 28, 2009)

Redeflect said:


> That was a pretty dumb question... that thing is the exact same thing as a Colosseum grow... only instead of growing on all 4 sides, it grows on 2 sides and the top and bottom... it's the exact same thing but tilted on its side.
> 
> Colosseum's are better because you can use any method you'd like, soil/DWC/Bubbleponics/Aeroponics/Ebb&Flow... that thing would have to be soil kept in bags or some sort of watertight containers to keep from dripping when they are upside down. Also that thing would waste electricity rotating the plants (for no reason).
> 
> ...


the omega has a extremely simple watering system thats what i like about it,what di u think about it couse it rotating would that make plants sturdy enough to support their own weight or would i still have to have some rods or a net to keep em,and whould a Colosseum or a cilindrical grow have a better yeild expectancy than a classical table grow with a light mover


----------



## Redeflect (Sep 28, 2009)

Light movers provide lighting to all parts of the plant due to the light's position moving. Colosseums use all of the light from the bulb, rather than having to reflect half of it. 

Colosseum *>* light mover. That's my opinion at least, you'd have to ask someone who's used both, but from what I understand, Colosseum's yield more. You can always make an extra large Colosseum with a light-mover that moves the light around the middle in a circle... basically orbiting around near the wall. That would probably yield more than anything (It takes the best of both worlds).

As for that omega garden, its "extremely simple" watering system is no different than an ebb&flow... only rather than raising and lowering the water, you're raising and lowering the plant to dip it into the water. Bubbleponics in a Colosseum grow would yield more because the plants would get more oxygen to the roots. The rotation might help to strengthen the plant from breaking under its own weight, but if anything I'd say having heavy buds swinging around on the end of the plants would increase the chances of them snapping. With that Omega garden, the only way to help out the buds would be to use a screen(you can't tie the branches to anything because they'll always be moving in different directions), which would be pretty difficult to put into place inside that thing since it moves, it'd have to attach to the ends of the cylinder.

In general trust me:

1. Colosseums yield more than light movers(less light being wasted *>* getting less light to more parts of the plant)
2. Light movers in a Colosseum would probably be better than anything(very little light wasted AND light to most parts of the plant)
3. That Omega Garden is just a beautified Colosseum tipped on its side that in reality is worse than a simple Colosseum if you're growing marijuana(buds swinging around, can't hold them up easily, can't change the type of growing method, limited to the size of the setup)


----------



## panta (Sep 28, 2009)

Redeflect said:


> Light movers provide lighting to all parts of the plant due to the light's position moving. Colosseums use all of the light from the bulb, rather than having to reflect half of it.
> 
> Colosseum *>* light mover. That's my opinion at least, you'd have to ask someone who's used both, but from what I understand, Colosseum's yield more. You can always make an extra large Colosseum with a light-mover that moves the light around the middle in a circle... basically orbiting around near the wall. That would probably yield more than anything (It takes the best of both worlds).
> 
> ...



great point,so in a Colosseum i would probably need to use a screen streched along the walls,and the omega is designed for lettuce as i can see in every picture,but is there a simpler design for the watering in a Colosseum,could i use some pvc pipes and have the solution drip from above and down back to the reservoir with the plants from top to bottom


----------



## Redeflect (Sep 28, 2009)

https://www.rollitup.org/indoor-growing/228602-where-legends-come.html

OR even better

https://www.rollitup.org/indoor-growing/11577-octagon.html

Always trust to Fdd2blk to come up with the good ideas first... apparently on page 8 he already thought of using lightmovers in a vertical grow... that fucker!


----------



## RickWhite (Oct 1, 2009)

I'm not really convinced that these things are really all that. If someone has actually used one and has produced a 3 fold increase I am all ears but until then I'm skeptic.

I do see some benefit from making a Colosseum type setup so each plant is equidistant from the bulb but you can also just use 400W lights and spread them out. Kind of seems like the benefit is out weighed by all the additional monkeying you would have to do.


----------



## Redeflect (Oct 1, 2009)

There is still the fact that with a regular grow you use only 1/3 of the lighting(120 degrees)... with about 1/3 reflected and the other 1/3 wasted or reflected. A Colosseum still uses nearly 100% without being reduced by reflection, that is where it's value becomes apparent. Regardless, your grow uses reflected light and a Colosseum has very little need for reflection.


----------



## RickWhite (Oct 2, 2009)

Redeflect said:


> There is still the fact that with a regular grow you use only 1/3 of the lighting(120 degrees)... with about 1/3 reflected and the other 1/3 wasted or reflected. A Colosseum still uses nearly 100% without being reduced by reflection, that is where it's value becomes apparent. Regardless, your grow uses reflected light and a Colosseum has very little need for reflection.


Good hoods reflect around 97% of the light downward. The only real benefit I see is that the plants are equidistant and you can potentially grow more in a smaller amount of floor space.

Really even if you factor the cost of electricity and extra lights its a fairly marginal gain at best for all the additional grief and aggravation. If I was to do a NFT system I would probably lift the side troughs higher than the center ones but that's about as far as I'd go. Then again, spreading the light makes even this unnecessary.

I think the better answer is to use a few 400W instead of a single 100W.


----------



## Redeflect (Oct 3, 2009)

I would say the only real "grief" is the initial setup. Also 97% is highly optimistic. Materials don't even reflect 97% alone. Then, you have to take into account the angles of the reflector, Many reflect a good portion of the lighting directly back at the bulb (probably about 5-10% gets angled just at the bulb). Then, lots of reflectors angle some of the light to the sides, unless you have your light perfectly positioned at the optimal height above your specifically sized canopy, some light still goes beyond the edges of the canopy, you probably lose another 5-10% there. Also the reflector gets in the way of any light that would reflect off the top of the grow room, there goes a few more %. In the end you're looking at only about 75% of your original lighting. Personally, I'd gladly take the extra time to make my setup save me 25% of my light. As I said, very rarely does anyone with a Colosseum get below 1g/watt and unless they screw up badly and lose the whole harvest, they usually get above 8g/watt. The numbers speak for themselves.


----------



## panta (Oct 3, 2009)

Redeflect said:


> I would say the only real "grief" is the initial setup. Also 97% is highly optimistic. Materials don't even reflect 97% alone. Then, you have to take into account the angles of the reflector, Many reflect a good portion of the lighting directly back at the bulb (probably about 5-10% gets angled just at the bulb). Then, lots of reflectors angle some of the light to the sides, unless you have your light perfectly positioned at the optimal height above your specifically sized canopy, some light still goes beyond the edges of the canopy, you probably lose another 5-10% there. Also the reflector gets in the way of any light that would reflect off the top of the grow room, there goes a few more %. In the end you're looking at only about 75% of your original lighting. Personally, I'd gladly take the extra time to make my setup save me 25% of my light. As I said, very rarely does anyone with a Colosseum get below 1g/watt and unless they screw up badly and lose the whole harvest, they usually get above 8g/watt. The numbers speak for themselves.


8g/watt, this was i typo right


----------



## Redeflect (Oct 3, 2009)

Lol yes, my apologies... I mean .8g/watt.


----------



## RickWhite (Oct 4, 2009)

Redeflect said:


> Lol yes, my apologies... I mean .8g/watt.


I'm not convinced you can't get those results with a good SOG or SCROG grow.

However, if one was to build one of those rotating cylinder deals only have the plants on trays that swivel the plants would receive light on all sides instead of just one as is the case with the one sold by that company.

See, that is the problem with vertical grows - only half the plant receives light so you are just moving the canopy, not eliminating it.

I the end, a good grow should produce a solid canopy of buds covering a given area. A good hood such as the super wing with light spreader is highly effective at reflecting light and they don't reflect it back to the bulb (see parabolic effect). Also a small loss in light does not translate to a 1:1 loss in plant growth, just a 1:1 loss in energy consumption which is not all that significant.

Also, there is the issue of plant size. The vertical systems I have seen are designed for numerous very small plants which is a problem for those working under plant number limitations.

Don't get me wrong, I'm always looking for a better method, I'm just not convinced in this case.


----------

