# vertical growing



## cerberus (Oct 29, 2009)

Vertical growing,
There has been a heated discussion on another thread about vertical growing. The vertical method is similar to https://www.rollitup.org/hydroponics-aeroponics/149998-heaths-flooded-tube-vertical.html or another of Heaths vert style http://strainguide.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/heaths-vertical-racks-strainguide.html , https://www.rollitup.org/dwc-bubbleponics/256847-dystopias-ppp-250w-vscrog.html with the coliseum style.
So the debate has been the efficiency of these grows vs. that of flat growing. This debate has ranged from claims that the vertical grow could yield upwards of 4 times that of a flat grow, to those that say a vertical grow loses out do to extended flowering times, or essentially a larger overall amount of electricity used versus that of the flat grow.
Any how.
I figured it should get a thread of its own rather than sit in the 1g per watt question thread. I also believe it to be a pretty clever idea, I can also see some areas of concern. BUT I am a newbie and I would rather get the perspective of a few people maybe some real pro even.
What do you guys think?


----------



## TheNatural (Oct 29, 2009)

This is my first time using Vertical Growing myself.

I wish I would have done it sooner!

Everyone has their own concept in mind, but for what I like " wich is big revegged bushes, the vertical lighting so far has proved to me to be the best.

The overall growth has increased and also the way " most importantly " the way the light is being utilized to its maximum.

I am SOLD on it for sure and would not go back....

Blessings,

Rev. TheNatural


----------



## That 5hit (Oct 29, 2009)

verts, its the future because its better



[youtube]Yra0g5uOXhQ[/youtube][youtube]UrAd_okZ4PU[/youtube]
[youtube]02Uz95UGhRg[/youtube][youtube]EBDgWYKGUjo[/youtube]
[youtube]bhEsRlGuifc[/youtube][youtube]9GK3TJoCSG0[/youtube]
[youtube]zB7Q66B9j6c[/youtube][youtube]veIslyfqzFc[/youtube]


----------



## That 5hit (Oct 29, 2009)

click on pic to inlarge


----------



## RickWhite (Oct 29, 2009)

A 4'X4" horizontal setup has 16 sq feet of growing area. A 4' diameter vertical setup with 4' of height gives 50.24 sq feet which is 3 times growing area. However, when you spread the light over a greater distance, you reduce its lumens by the same ratio. A light mover can expand a horizontal to 10' X 4' about 80% of the vertical. So the vert does have an edge when it comes to area. The vert also has a slight edge in what is lost by a reflector in the horizontal.

The benefits of the horizontal are first obviously the hassle free setup. The hor also has the benefit of lighting from the top which maximizes the light exposure of each plant as it receives light on all sides. The hor with a light mover also allows the light to be much closer to the plants and to be adjusted according to growth.

In the end, my intuition tells me that while the vert has some advantages, there is no escaping the physics of light. While the vert picks up some growing area, the same could be achieved by simply raising the light in the hor to cover more area. Unfortunately, light diminishes with the square of the distance. So increased area probably just translates into less lumens per sq foot. The fact that the light is further away only makes this worse. Also, lighting the plant from the side produces more shaded plant area than from the top. I don't know how much is lost here but I suspect it is significant. It should be noted that people with crappy reflectors would likely see a significant increase by going int a vert, but if you have a really good reflector you lose very little light.

Now I am not 100% against the vert - I may even try it some time. The savings on the light mover and top notch reflector is good enough reason. I do however have a far superior system in mind. I would use 15 gal plastic drums and go DWC. Way less hassle than all that PVC and dirt cheap. Just arrange 8 or so drums and drill 3 or 4 holes per drum. You could even make a big access hole on the opposite side of the drum and use the bung for drainage. Hell, i might even build one and try it just for kicks. I'd use the floor space too.


----------



## That 5hit (Oct 30, 2009)

you gat to love this guy hidden room wall
check out this vertical grow and its a water cooled light 1kw 
heres the link https://www.rollitup.org/grow-journals/263979-sealed-water-cooled-blueberry-coco.html#post3315542


----------



## That 5hit (Oct 30, 2009)

TheNatural said:


> This is my first time using Vertical Growing myself.
> 
> I wish I would have done it sooner!
> 
> ...


can we see pics of your grow and post a link to your journal or use this as your journal


----------



## JustDave (Oct 30, 2009)

That 5hit said:


> can we see pics of your grow and post a link to your journal or use this as your journal


 Please, more the merrier. I am just finishing flowering and intend to adapt a
vertical system to my room as soon as it is empty. lol


----------



## cerberus (Oct 30, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> A 4'X4" horizontal setup has 16 sq feet of growing area. A 4' diameter vertical setup with 4' of height gives 50.24 sq feet which is 3 times growing area. However, when you spread the light over a greater distance, you reduce its lumens by the same ratio. A light mover can expand a horizontal to 10' X 4' about 80% of the vertical. So the vert does have an edge when it comes to area. The vert also has a slight edge in what is lost by a reflector in the horizontal.



RW, Last time I ran a light mover if I remember correctly those things suck up electricty like a 3 dollar whore. This has always eliminated the use of one in my book, for the initial cost of the unit (+/- 200$) plus the operating cost makes a second light more advantagous. I don't have a light mover these days and it has been a while since I did, if someone had the amps used to operate it would be nice.



RickWhite said:


> ...
> The benefits of the horizontal are first obviously the hassle free setup. The hor also has the benefit of lighting from the top which maximizes the light exposure of each plant as it receives light on all sides...


How can light from the tope expose the sides to more light? My intuition says, that light from above vs light from the side are a wash in considering individual plant light exposure. That is to say, why would a plant get more lummens from either setup? a 600wt from the side or from above is going to shower the plant with the same amount of light.



RickWhite said:


> ...While the vert picks up some growing area, the same could be achieved by simply raising the light in the hor to cover more area. Unfortunately, light diminishes with the square of the distance. So increased area probably just translates into less lumens per sq foot. The fact that the light is further away only makes this worse.



This seems to be the biggest advantage the vert growing has. The light can be close to more plants due to utilizing the space on all sides of the bulb versus the horiz grow.



RickWhite said:


> Also, lighting the plant from the side produces more shaded plant area than from the top. I don't know how much is lost here but I suspect it is significant.


What makes you believe this? I don't know any data so this is all assumptions for me, but why would light get through the top of a canopy better than through the sides? I always felt it would be opposite of that, this is the reason a lot of people rock the side lighting. If you have experienced different or could explain why side lighting penitrates less than top lighting I would love to hear it.




RickWhite said:


> Now I am not 100% against the vert - I may even try it some time. The savings on the light mover and top notch reflector is good enough reason. I do however have a far superior system in mind. I would use 15 gal plastic drums and go DWC. Way less hassle than all that PVC and dirt cheap. Just arrange 8 or so drums and drill 3 or 4 holes per drum. You could even make a big access hole on the opposite side of the drum and use the bung for drainage. Hell, i might even build one and try it just for kicks. I'd use the floor space too.


Good luck with your grow, I am still an old school dirt guy and am considering moving to the new age, maybe a vert style with 2 400's, w/ a PVC pipe hydro but it won't be for a while.


----------



## cerberus (Oct 30, 2009)

That 5hit said:


> you gat to love this guy hidden room wall
> check out this vertical grow and its a water cooled light 1kw
> heres the link https://www.rollitup.org/grow-journals/263979-sealed-water-cooled-blueberry-coco.html#post3315542


yeah talk about clever, sneaky even 

Is this a vert or just a real low hung horiz? I like the whole setup though. all equip. hidden outside the wall, false wall for security, maybe I would have put it on the second row of plywood, so I didn't have to get on my knees to look inside. I hate having to get on my knees to talk to my lady's..


----------



## DubRules (Oct 30, 2009)

heath's system kicks ass.
im pretty sure that not much can rival his yields using the same footprint. 

the sky's the limit.
literally..


----------



## That 5hit (Oct 30, 2009)

cerberus said:


> yeah talk about clever, sneaky even
> 
> Is this a vert or just a real low hung horiz? I like the whole setup though. all equip. hidden outside the wall, false wall for security, maybe I would have put it on the second row of plywood, so I didn't have to get on my knees to look inside. I hate having to get on my knees to talk to my lady's..


yes i would class this as a vert. for me as long as you have plants growing all around the light then you are a pervert grower = a grower that perfer's vertical grows (LOL)



DubRules said:


> heath's system kicks ass.
> im pretty sure that not much can rival his yields using the same footprint.
> 
> the sky's the limit.
> literally..


the only down side to heath system or style of his vert system is the cost to build other then that its prety simple to build, but i would have to wait for my tax returns to build one (and i plan to)
this is why this thread was started to get feed back from those who have build these system to see what idea's we can come up with - for me i now do very small personal grows but do plan on getting it to the crop for cash business and verts are diff. the way to go , just need to find a cheap way to build one

how do you like this setup idea 
i'm thinking its a sprayer and drain system with no flood- its drains into the rez fast- no need for a clone room you can go from mother to flower room saving time- the sprayers run 24/7 -each tote is set in a wooden frame shaped like a (#) made of 2 by 2 with maybe a crose bar to keep the tote from fallen out of the # frame. the drawing is missing the frame part 
the totes would have to be made water tight with the lids
but this is what i was thinking about while at work on how a sturdy cheap diy vert system could be made 
with sprayer and water pump and a wooden stand on wheels useing a storage tote to hold the plants 6-9 each the shaded pipe is the drain return and this is to be made medium free
24 to 36 plants per wall
my guess is 1 wall would cost less then 60$ usd to build


----------



## budleydoright (Oct 30, 2009)

I was thinking of making a rez out of 2x6 and pond liner, covering it and placing slabs of rw or coco slabs kind of like the ecosystem. Mine will be the geto system!




https://www.rollitup.org/grow-journals/263979-sealed-water-cooled-blueberry-coco.html


----------



## cerberus (Oct 30, 2009)

That 5hit said:


> yes i would class this as a vert. for me as long as you have plants growing all around the light then you are a pervert grower = a grower that perfer's vertical grows (LOL)


Thats some funny shit right there, I don't care who you are.. 



That 5hit said:


>


-> Will water/moister get trapped in the tupperware containers? don't the have a slight angle out to the lid?
-> now make it 4-5 wall stadium and take the idea of having a reg. horiz grow on the bottom to boot. I like the idea of it being on wheels, thats kinda lazy


----------



## That 5hit (Oct 30, 2009)




----------



## cerberus (Oct 30, 2009)

budleydoright said:


> I was thinking of making a rez out of 2x6 and pond liner, covering it and placing slabs of rw or coco slabs kind of like the ecosystem. Mine will be the geto system!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thats not ghetto, thats effincent right there. Easy up/easy down, nothing fancy. 

This pic is pretty intriguing..


----------



## That 5hit (Oct 30, 2009)

cerberus said:


> Thats some funny shit right there, I don't care who you are..
> 
> -> Will water/moister get trapped in the tupperware containers? don't the have a slight angle out to the lid?
> -> now make it 4-5 wall stadium and take the idea of having a reg. horiz grow on the bottom to boot. I like the idea of it being on wheels, thats kinda lazy


the lids would be sealed with fish tank water proofing sealent and the tube will have large drain holes so as to not allow water to pool / flood in the tubes
the reasoning for wheels is in the heath style vert i saw it would be hard to get in and out to service the system and plants the only down side to having 4 wall system all on wheels is now i would ave to service 4 rez instead of 1 like in heath, maybe i could do 2 rez have 3 walls on 1 rez and have the door wall on it on rez

- i do like the idea of also growing under the light as well as around the light


----------



## That 5hit (Oct 30, 2009)

if i could lamminate some wood or find some plastic board i could make 1 whole wall piece with sprayer and neoprene foam inserts so as tobe medium free with like 20, 25, or 36 slots per wall with a small rez the wall would be held together by silicone the type they make fish tanks out of


----------



## budleydoright (Oct 30, 2009)

It's called the Eco System. It's an all in one "just ad plants" system. I think commercial systems are awsome but for me I got to get down and dirty with it. a high % of the stuff made or sold in this industry is simply a repurposed item. I always try to find the original source or supplier to go as cheap as possible. It's not always for the $$$ it's that desire to beat the system that drives me! 

that 5hit, look in the yellow pages under plastic supply, find some one that sells acrylic and abs sheets. The same stuff a typical commercial rez is made of should cost you way less than 100 bucks for a 4 x 8 sheet.


----------



## That 5hit (Oct 30, 2009)

budleydoright said:


> that 5hit, look in the yellow pages under plastic supply, find some one that sells acrylic and abs sheets. The same stuff a typical commercial rez is made of should cost you way less than 100 bucks for a 4 x 8 sheet.


if i could +rep you again i would


----------



## RickWhite (Oct 30, 2009)

Guys, if you want to build a super easy and awesome DIY vert all you need is a bunch of 15 gal poly drums. You buld a PVC or wood rack and you make each one a DWC. Buy a commercial air pump and a small bubble disk per drum.

DWC works as good as any system out there and it is fail safe. NTF and mist systems are highly prone to failure and way to complicated. Trust me, the 15 gal drums layed on their side with about 3 plants each is exactly what you want. Plus, you can rotate them in the rack to change the angle of the growth. I would also build 4 or more seperate sections and put them on casters so you can move them around and use all sides.

And, as an added bonus, the lower plants will have to grow around the lower half of the upper drum so the branches that would be in the shaded area behind the plant will be pushed foreward into the light


----------



## TheNatural (Oct 31, 2009)

That 5hit said:


> can we see pics of your grow and post a link to your journal or use this as your journal


Good morning friend and thanks.

I am just now getting things really started on my new grow and setup.

Here are a few pictures of my area.

My area is in a huge room and gets plenty of supplemental lighting from a south facing window.

I am using a 1000 watt HPS and a 600 watt and a 400 watt equivalent LED and good ole mylar and all are being run vertical to the Trees.

The pots are huge 25 gallon pots, but I like big indoor beasts to reveg.

Blessings,

Rev. TheNatural


----------



## That 5hit (Nov 1, 2009)

can you exsplain whats going on in this picture
is that soil in those pots or is this some type of hydro system


----------



## TheNatural (Nov 1, 2009)

That 5hit said:


> can you exsplain whats going on in this picture
> is that soil in those pots or is this some type of hydro system


 
I cannot explain exactly everyuthing friend,lol.

However, I grow completely organic all the way down to the worms and bugs and those hoses are oxygen being supplied straight to the roots 24hrs from an aquarium pump and they also get pure oxygen for a bit at night " Co2 is also used "......I do all kinds of little environmental things to the Trees, but it is always a natural and or organic stimuli..

Blessings,

TheNatural


----------



## That 5hit (Nov 1, 2009)

so it is soil 
and the pots sit in a rez 
so as to not have to keep feeding them 
like a wick hydro system??


----------



## bigtomatofarmer (Nov 1, 2009)

Once you go vertical, you never go back


----------



## TheNatural (Nov 1, 2009)

That 5hit said:


> so it is soil
> and the pots sit in a rez
> so as to not have to keep feeding them
> like a wick hydro system??


 
No friend.

They are big 25 gallon pots loaded with soil and other good stuff.

The totes are just underneath them, in order to not have water spillage when watering them.

The air hoses, are just run down to the root system.

Here is how I build them in the pictures.

The dirt I use comes from the big worm bins that I build for very rich soil as I only feed my worms fruit and Veggie scraps and also some fish.

Blessings,

Rev. TheNatural


----------



## That 5hit (Nov 1, 2009)

WOW 25 gal huge

you keep these compost been in the house 
do you just add outside dirt worms and vegy scraps
and do you keep a lid on that 
and does it smell
how long does it take to tranfrom into dirt
and do you remove worms when you tranplant into the 25gal pots


----------



## TheNatural (Nov 1, 2009)

I am sure that they smell, lol.

However, I use big purifiers in the house for health reasons also and I cannot smell much in their room.

Allot of times I use soil from other grows to freshen the bins and sometimes fresh soil from bag, as the bins turn more into castings over time.

I use Myco-Fungi and a host of other natural things in my soil over time.

I usually build my pots with about half dirt from the worm bins and the rest with fresh bag soil.

I also use worms in my pots and other bugs from the yard to help build a live soil, that will sustain a plant indefinately as I like to re-veg allot and I use no other fertilizers of any kind; " I simply feed the worms and creatures in the soil some scraps and they feed the Trees the best and most natural way and I have many bugs, but NONE on my girls " they all know their place and that is in the soil. "

Actually, I do use some Molasses and Raw Honey at times to give the soil and girls some nice natural sugars........Molasses is great in more ways than one, but Raw honey is LOVED by all in the pots when offered.

Blessings,

Rev. TheNatural


----------



## RickWhite (Nov 1, 2009)

Below is a chart showing the amount of light (LUX) that plants receive when a given number of lumens is spread over various areas. This is a direct measurement of total light output and not based on 1 side of a bulb so it applies regardless of how the light is spread. To grow weed effectively, you need between 25,000 and 50,000 LUX. As you can see, a horizontal system does in fact lower light intensity at the plants by the same proportion as the increased area.

Therefore, the only possible benefit of a vertical system is the 5% or so that would otherwise be lost by a reflector. 


*Illumination Chart*

Sorry, chart will not past. See it here:

http://www.weedfarmer.com/cannabis/lighting_guide.php

If you do the calculations, a vert with a 4' diameter would require a 600W HPS for each foot of height to produce 25,000 LUX at the plants. A flat area 4' X 3' is the same surface area - about 12 sq feet. So, according to the physics of the situation which is unwavering, there is no advantage to the additional surface area of the vertical.


----------



## That 5hit (Nov 1, 2009)

have you ever thought about doing this on a larger scale 
like building a large box like maybe 6ft by 6ft wide and 2ft deep maybe in a basement
and putting all your DIY dirt a air tupes in it
would this even work


----------



## That 5hit (Nov 1, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> Below is a chart showing the amount of light (LUX) that plants receive when a given number of lumens is spread over various areas. This is a direct measurement of total light output and not based on 1 side of a bulb so it applies regardless of how the light is spread. To grow weed effectively, you need between 25,000 and 50,000 LUX. As you can see, a horizontal system does in fact lower light intensity at the plants by the same proportion as the increased area.
> 
> Therefore, the only possible benefit of a vertical system is the 5% or so that would otherwise be lost by a reflector.
> 
> ...


Gr8 but i am still a Pervert (meaning i perfer vertical growing) tranlate that 5% in to $ for me
and in my mind that chart is wrong with respect to perverts
and remimber where you herd the term first i started Pervert i plan on coming up with a club icon and starting a grow club when i start my first vert grow


----------



## RickWhite (Nov 1, 2009)

That 5hit said:


> Gr8 but i am still a Pervert (meaning i perfer vertical growing) tranlate that 5% in to $ for me
> and in my mind that chart is wrong with respect to perverts
> and remimber where you herd the term first i started Pervert i plan on coming up with a club icon and starting a grow club when i start my first vert grow


You can also find this info on wikipedia or any other source. LUX is Lumens / m^2. So the intensity of light decreases in direct proportion to the area being illuminated. This is an absolute. A vertical grow only increases harvest by the amount that would otherwise be lost by the hood. If you have a top notch hood like the Adjust-a-wing you are looking at 3%.


----------



## panta (Nov 1, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> You can also find this info on wikipedia or any other source. LUX is Lumens / m^2. So the intensity of light decreases in direct proportion to the area being illuminated. This is an absolute. A vertical grow only increases harvest by the amount that would otherwise be lost by the hood. If you have a top notch hood like the Adjust-a-wing you are looking at 3%.


http://www.angelfire.com/cantina/fourtwenty/yor/lightres.htm

if a 600w light gives 1.00 foot (12 inches/30 cm)	9,000 fc at that distance and 1.50 foot (18 inches/45 cm)	5,600 lumens if u increase the distance for 6inches,then if u mesure the distance from the bulb to the reflective surfice of the reflector and back thats about 6inches so u lose about 25% in that direction and what about the lateral reflection there again u loose according to the distance the light has to travel,u can mesure it and see


----------



## RickWhite (Nov 1, 2009)

panta said:


> http://www.angelfire.com/cantina/fourtwenty/yor/lightres.htm
> 
> if a 600w light gives 1.00 foot (12 inches/30 cm) 9,000 fc at that distance and 1.50 foot (18 inches/45 cm) 5,600 lumens if u increase the distance for 6inches,then if u mesure the distance from the bulb to the reflective surfice of the reflector and back thats about 6inches so u lose about 25% in that direction and what about the lateral reflection there again u loose according to the distance the light has to travel,u can mesure it and see


You are misunderstanding how it works. Light decreases according to how much surface area it falls upon. As you move a light further from a surface you increase the area illuminated. Say you have a 600W HPS illuminating a 4'X4' area (16 sq feet), then you raise the light to illuminate a 6'X6' area (36 sq feet). That is over 2X the area so your light intensity is cut in half.

The formula for intensity is Lumens / M^2 (of floor space) = LUX. The fact that the light travels a few extra inches from the bulb to reflector and down is irrelevant. You only lose around 5% with a good reflector.


----------



## Gardenboy420 (Nov 1, 2009)

Honey??? Have you ever taken any type of organic chemistry and know the biometric composition of honey? I would recommend noone use this! By the way, you have eagle talons going on, might want to address that!


----------



## TheNatural (Nov 2, 2009)

Gardenboy420 said:


> Honey??? Have you ever taken any type of organic chemistry and know the biometric composition of honey? I would recommend noone use this! By the way, you have eagle talons going on, might want to address that!


Oh my friend.

I have read so many charts of different types over the years and heard the so-called " expert opinions " from Man's World's most bright and educated and I still just smile and shake my head.

Intelligence and common sense comes from within and I was Blessed with copious amounts of it.

In other words, I listen to my body and it tells me if what I put into it, is good for it or not.......that applies to my plants also.

I could care less about anything that was written up by some educated guy out of a school somewere.

Common sense, will always win in the end.

My number one ingrediant to life period is.....LOVE and Understanding Of The Truth.

Most people reject the last statement.....when it is brought to them in any form.

Truth just scares some people, because it requires them to blame themselves.....

Raw Honey is insane good for you and your plants.

Sure, you need to purchase the honey from someone who does not live close to cities and major dumping areas, but it can be done easily, with a little time and effort.

Cured many things in the Human body and other organisms, by the use of Pure Raw Honey.

Cured four incurable diseases within my own body, by using Common Sense of Nature and the Proper application of Nature into ones life.

All the Bull Hockey medical charts and expert opinions........was killing me.

I woke up to Real Truth, about life and plants and all other things in nature.......became a part of them, instead of being seperate from them.......and I am alive and healthier than I have ever been in my life.

No disrespect.......but you boys and girls can keep all of your studies and charts........not interested........my chart is from Nature......my code is Common sense.

Blessings,

Rev. TheNatural


----------



## That 5hit (Nov 2, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> You can also find this info on wikipedia or any other source. LUX is Lumens / m^2. So the intensity of light decreases in direct proportion to the area being illuminated. This is an absolute. A vertical grow only increases harvest by the amount that would otherwise be lost by the hood. If you have a top notch hood like the Adjust-a-wing you are looking at 3%.





panta said:


> http://www.angelfire.com/cantina/fourtwenty/yor/lightres.htm
> 
> if a 600w light gives 1.00 foot (12 inches/30 cm) 9,000 fc at that distance and 1.50 foot (18 inches/45 cm) 5,600 lumens if u increase the distance for 6inches,then if u mesure the distance from the bulb to the reflective surfice of the reflector and back thats about 6inches so u lose about 25% in that direction and what about the lateral reflection there again u loose according to the distance the light has to travel,u can mesure it and see





RickWhite said:


> You are misunderstanding how it works. Light decreases according to how much surface area it falls upon. As you move a light further from a surface you increase the area illuminated. Say you have a 600W HPS illuminating a 4'X4' area (16 sq feet), then you raise the light to illuminate a 6'X6' area (36 sq feet). That is over 2X the area so your light intensity is cut in half.
> 
> The formula for intensity is Lumens / M^2 (of floor space) = LUX. The fact that the light travels a few extra inches from the bulb to reflector and down is irrelevant. You only lose around 5% with a good reflector.


 
panta 
is 100% right even if you had a 100% reflective hood you would loose lux and lum when you raise the hood to increace the lights footprint the plants on the outer realm of the lights footprint would suffer- this is not true with vert growing 

rickwhite- 
if you take your own formula for intensity the no. you enter for (floor space) you would times that ceiling and right and left wall
if the foot print for a light (X) with hood is = to 3ft by 3ft
if you remove that hood and place light on its side you could have 4 times the footprint area by placing another 3x3 in front , behind, to the left , to the right of the light (4 dimensinal growing)


----------



## cerberus (Nov 2, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> You are misunderstanding how it works. Light decreases according to how much surface area it falls upon. As you move a light further from a surface you increase the area illuminated. Say you have a 600W HPS illuminating a 4'X4' area (16 sq feet), then you raise the light to illuminate a 6'X6' area (36 sq feet). That is over 2X the area so your light intensity is cut in half.
> 
> The formula for intensity is Lumens / M^2 (of floor space) = LUX. The fact that the light travels a few extra inches from the bulb to reflector and down is irrelevant. You only lose around 5% with a good reflector.


I am sure there is a light equation for % loss due to distance from target, not just how it spreads..


----------



## That 5hit (Nov 2, 2009)

check out this dudes vert grow
jigfresh 
https://www.rollitup.org/grow-journals/221652-jigfreshs-grow-2-vertical-scrog.html
[youtube]OCTavDuTAZo[/youtube]


----------



## cerberus (Nov 2, 2009)

It's funny how 2d that plant looks all flatten out against the screen. Not as fancy as Heath or Dystopia BUT it looks like it would be pretty effective. good find 5hit


----------



## RickWhite (Nov 2, 2009)

Ok, I'll try to explain this again.

There is a formula for the way light rays dissipate. The further you move a light from a surface the wider of an area the rays cover. So, as you double the distance of the light to the surface, the rays cover an area that is the square of that distance. So, suppose you have a light 2' from a source - its rays cover 4' square. Now if you move it to 4' away, it will cover 16' square. Now, the intensity of this light is decreased by an equal proportion. Since 4/16 = 1/4 or 25%, each square foot of the 16' square will receive 25% of what the 4' square would.

Now, this assumes a light source with no reflector. A reflector creates a whole other dynamic because it stops the light rays from dispersing normally. You can see this if you have ever played with an adjustable flashlight. With a flashlight you can focus the beam to make a small area of high intensity or widen it to make a larger area of weak intensity. The loss in intensity comes from the natural spreading pattern of light, not from the net distance traveled. Put another way, the inverse square law assumes natural spreading of light. When you refocus the light you reverse this effect.

Now, the vertical setup has a light with no reflector so the light naturally spreads according to the following:Lumens/M^2 = LUX. Or lamp Lumens / meters square = Lumens per meter square. So if you have a 600W HPS @ 90,000 Lumens and a circumference of 5' and a height of 2' you get 

(5X3.14)2 = *31.4' square*. 

90,000/31.4 = 2,866 Lumens per square foot.

The required light for optimal growth is 2,500 - 5,000 Lumens per square foot. So, a vert that is 5' across and 2' tall just barely makes it into good growth range.

Now, let's apply this to a standard flat grow with a reflector.

Front of bulb = 45,000 Lumens
Back of bulb = 42.750 Lumens @ 95%

Area = 5.5' X 5.5' = *30.25' square*

87750 Lumens / 30.25' square = 2,901 Lumens per square foot

So, as you see above, there only difference between the two growing setups is the 5% difference from the back side of the bulb which is 2.5% of the total bulb intensity.

Now, where you might pick up some efficiency is over grows that use 1000W bulbs with poor reflectors. In such setups there plants directly under the bulb receive a bit more light than those on the edges where as those in a vert are all the same distance from the light. This is overcome by using light movers, more smaller lights and good reflectors.


----------



## jigfresh (Nov 2, 2009)

Alright... so I've spend some time this morning crunching my own numbers. I do not claim to know much about lighting... or much about biology... or much about anything. I'm just offering my opinions.

I was basing my numbers off my personal set up. I have a 3' x 2.5' closet. It's very tall, but I am only using around 4' of height for these calculations. That height of 4' is roughly what both flat and vert grows take. What I'm saying is I used around the same interior space to figure each grow.

To my dissappointment my numbers agree with what RickWhite is saying. That going vert in the same space doesn't increase 'yield' over a curved grow necessarily... however I beleive both a curved grow and a vert grow have more efficiency than a flat grow. I'm going to use the yield as a measure (all hypathetical). Oh, and one more thing. I like screens, so I worked off using screens for each setup.

Here's the breakdown I came up with: (all answers: Flat, Curved, Vert)

Sq. Ft. of screen that would fit:
7.5', 9.8', 15.7'

Ave. Distance of screen to light:
16", 13.5", 13"

Now... one would look at these numbers and say: "look at the area difference of the screen" What they would be forgetting is the subtraction of the reflected light. Again based on my setup and my remedial calculations, the difference I would give up in lumens without reflection would be another 50%. In other words, the flat and curved areas (7.5', 9.8') would be getting hit with more lumens per square foot. This difference close to cancels out any gain in area.

Estimated yeild based on past experience (factoring loss of lumens described above):
11.25 oz, 14.7 oz, 15.9 oz

So by my guess going vert would give you an extra 8% over curved... an extra 40%.

One advantage may be that more of the plant is being used to a fuller capacity. When growing flat, only the tops get good light, but when you are growing vert, the whole entire plant gets bathed (at least when using screens).

NOW... here's what makes vert growing absolutely the best for many of us smaller growers... we are doing our grows in closets. And most of those closets are much taller tha they are wide and deep. So using that extra space is the real advantage.

I hope some of this kinda made sense.

We'll see what happens with acutal yeild when my grow is over.

And remember... I'm not claiming any of this to be the truth, just what I figured on my own. Opinions can't be wrong.


----------



## That 5hit (Nov 2, 2009)

nope, none of this made sense to me 
but i'll take your word for it being that you have grown both ways 
now that make more sense then anything 
a lot of guys put up fact and had never grown either way 

but i still think something is missing for the =tion
this =tion is based on hor. growing not vertical
the n0. vert grower are seeing can not be matched by hor growers of the same watt
and same veg time
im not good at math but in my mind this is what i see
vert is better. the end


----------



## jigfresh (Nov 2, 2009)

That 5hit said:


> nope, none of this made sense to me
> 
> but i'll take your word for it being that you have grown both ways
> https://www.rollitup.org/attachments/advanced-marijuana-cultivation/605701d1257195188-vertical-growing-cv.jpg


I thought that was confusing... thanks for confirming, haha.

Now... don't take my word too much, as I just strated flowering... we'll see what the pay off is in a couple months. Then you can take my word as somethig worth listening too.

One thing you forgot in your drawing is reflected light. Cuts the light the vert grow gets per sq. ft. by anywhere from 25-75% depending on distance of canapy from light, and also the dimensions of the reflector.

Also, it really depends how tall the vert is to get grow area/ light footprint.


----------



## RickWhite (Nov 2, 2009)

This is really very simple. The inverse square law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law describes the way light rays spread out. This is a simple formula. To find your Lumens per square foot you simply divide the total Lumens by the area. Because a vert has no reflector, this is exactly how the light spreads. If you do have a reflector that focuses the light, you can actually move your light further away and not lose intensity.

Regardless of how you slice it, dividing total Lumens by area gives Lumens per square foot and you want between 2,500 and 5,000. Whether your bulb hangs free or is in a reflector, the end result is the same save for the small reflector loss.

Now if space is limited, you can certainly get more total area with a vert - just plan on using enough light to get over 2,500 Lumens per sq foot.


----------



## captain insaneo (Nov 2, 2009)

ok did you ever hear that joke how are winning an argument on a web forum and winning the special olympics the same?



in the end it dosent really matter who won because you are still retarded any ways.


ok now all jokes aside I am joining in on this retard relay race. As I see it the advantage from growing vert is you dont have the loss from the hood even if it is only 2% that is still lost, the bigger advantage is heat travels up not out but up. Your plants will be a lot cooler allowing you to get much closer to the bulb. Which means more lumens per sq ft.... also the thing I havent heard argued here is the uneven distribution of light bouncing off the reflector leading to hot spots. Vert makes sense if i had more than a 2x4' space I would be a PerVert too, not just the good old regular type of pervert. the other advantage of many systems cause the plants to fight gravity which make them develop strong big stems that better transport nutes.


----------



## That 5hit (Nov 2, 2009)

captain insaneo i geuss im a retared PerVert
because i love to argue over internet PerVertsion (LOL)

to me the gain of reflected light is small in comparison to 4 sided direct light 
less veg, more plants, more yeild in the same small space that a hor grow would be 
if you need a 5x5 floor space to build a hor grow, with that same space you can grow a vert 

 https://www.rollitup.org/attachments/advanced-marijuana-cultivation/605861d1257199170-vertical-growing-102_6084.jpg


----------



## hectorius (Nov 2, 2009)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yra0g5uOXhQ&feature=related


----------



## hectorius (Nov 2, 2009)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBDgWYKGUjo&NR=1


----------



## hectorius (Nov 2, 2009)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GK3TJoCSG0&feature=relatedhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvUJto4FRts&feature=related


----------



## budleydoright (Nov 2, 2009)

I believe there is a bit more than a couple of percent gain going barebulb. That;s really what this is all about. Trying to get the absolute maximum return for each watt burned. Vertical is much more effecient. Less heat = more lumens. The additional heat generated by a reflector is energy that should be going to your plant. 

RWs point is valid, You are certainly not going to get the same lumens off of each 1/4 of the bare bulb as you would the same footprint with a reflector. Understood. But using 100% off the available lumens, generating less heat in the process can only result in an advantage.

Of course, skill level plays more into yeild than where your bulb is hanging. If you look at Heath Robinsons various styles of grows, and there are many, you will see he always has an above average yeild. To me, this indicates that good timing, plant and nute management are more important than style.

check out my vertical grow: https://www.rollitup.org/grow-journals/263979-sealed-water-cooled-blueberry-coco.html


----------



## That 5hit (Nov 2, 2009)

hectorius said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yra0g5uOXhQ&feature=related





hectorius said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBDgWYKGUjo&NR=1





hectorius said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GK3TJoCSG0&feature=related


i posted all 3 of these video on page one


----------



## That 5hit (Nov 2, 2009)

budleydoright said:


> I believe there is a bit more than a couple of percent gain going barebulb. That;s really what this is all about. Trying to get the absolute maximum return for each watt burned. Vertical is much more effecient. Less heat = more lumens. The additional heat generated by a reflector is energy that should be going to your plant.
> 
> RWs point is valid, You are certainly not going to get the same lumens off of each 1/4 of the bare bulb as you would the same footprint with a reflector. Understood. But using 100% off the available lumens, generating less heat in the process can only result in an advantage.
> 
> ...


 
now this i like skill level play a big role in yeild


----------



## DaveTheNewbie (Nov 2, 2009)

Im just starting to try this out.

I moved the plants to the corners of the cab, and dropped a cool tube in the middle.

Im still fine turning the system, had a ph problem (ph pen died) etc etc

I really like the theory behind vert growing regarding light use, but im not sure i like the stretch of the top branches of the plant.

Anyway its a hobby and i like to experiment, having fun finding out


----------



## RickWhite (Nov 3, 2009)

OK, you guys are obviousl having fun imagining you are inventing something new and spectacular and you are not about to let facts get in the way. So, have fun wasting your time and money.


----------



## jigfresh (Nov 3, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> OK, you guys are obviousl having fun imagining you are inventing something new and spectacular and you are not about to let facts get in the way. So, have fun wasting your time and money.


Gee Rick... way to be a hater.

I'm doing my vert grow becuase it's fun. Didn't really spend much more than $50 to convert the closet to a vertical grow. Thank you for being concerned for MY money, but it's mine... why not worry about your own?

And the time I spent building the set up was very much enjoyable to me... I like building stuff. Again, it's my time... why are you even concerned, you really care about me that much? Or just hating on the idea of someone really getting enjoyment out of something you don't agree with? 

So for you to say that all of us are wasting our time and money is just insulting and it's my guess that's just a defense mechanism to tell your self we are all idiots becuase we won't listen to you. 

We listen and we don't understand things as you explain them. Does that mean we are stupid... or could it possibly mean you don't explain things well? Could be both really. Have you ever come across idiots in the world who won't understand what you say? And what is the common factor in all those conversations... You. 

We are having fun... we aren't staying up nights thinking about every lumen we can get out of everything.

Just having fun bud.


----------



## bigtomatofarmer (Nov 3, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> OK, you guys are obviousl having fun imagining you are inventing something new and spectacular and you are not about to let facts get in the way. So, have fun wasting your time and money.


I think its hillarious when people get so mad about things that doesnt even concern them. Let me guess Rick, you've never grown vertically right? Hahaha , get some experience under your belt and then come back. 


Ill let the pictures do my talking. Here are some Bubba Kush I had around a single 400 watter. 

pic 1 Family portrait
pic 2 Bertha
pic 3 Another shot of Bertha, this time up close
pic 4 Debbie, my 4 foot monster 
pic 5 My dog wanted to show you the size of an average plant. He is a 65 pound American Bulldog. Oh yeah, Debbie is much bigger than this one 
pic 6 A few "popcorn" nugs I dried out early.


----------



## n.dap (Nov 3, 2009)

okay im duplicating heaths 600watt homemade coli vertical grow, besides i have 2 600s. so i was gunn add another 2 rows to the 4 thats already there so ill have 6 rows each light will illuminate 3 rows each. so my question is how do i calculate how much to fill the rez. i understand the whole system besides filling the rez.... or do you base filling up your rez on your nutes?


----------



## That 5hit (Nov 3, 2009)

well for my understanding heath system uses a water damn on each level
this allows him to you a small res
really the res is to only feed water to the pump to keep the system fast moving 
most of the water in the system is held up in the tubes by the damns
https://www.rollitup.org/attachments/advanced-marijuana-cultivation/607228d1257283859-vertical-growing-1_pict3517.jpg


----------



## That 5hit (Nov 3, 2009)




----------



## budleydoright (Nov 3, 2009)

RW is also assuming that he is getting 95% off of the back of the bulb. While the reflective material may be 95% the light being reflected back onto itself results in signifigant lumen loss and the generation of heat. It also causes faster bulb degradation.

So some of us believe the world should be flat and some of us believe otherwise. To me vertical is simply putting the plants were the light is. If I have a hood 24" over the tops, that light is also lighting the walls. No plant there means 0% effeciency.

We can certainly all learn from each other and I picked up alot from RW.


----------



## n.dap (Nov 3, 2009)

That 5hit. is that a vert growing upside down. i see well i understand the whole dam situation. so pretty much the res you fill it up with how much ever you water you think would be good add your nutes and run the system 24/7....


----------



## n.dap (Nov 3, 2009)

**so pretty much the res you fill it up with how ever much water you think would be good.


----------



## That 5hit (Nov 3, 2009)

n.dap said:


> That 5hit. is that a vert growing upside down. i see well i understand the whole dam situation. so pretty much the res you fill it up with how much ever you water you think would be good add your nutes and run the system 24/7....





n.dap said:


> **so pretty much the res you fill it up with how ever much water you think would be good.


 yes. heath says his res is less then 10gal thats really small compared to the size of the system - another reason for the dam if the pump fails the water would stay contained in the tubes - instead of rushing back into the res - if you are going to use no dam then the water circulating thew the system needs to be able to all rest in the res if pumps fail- to be safe i would do this anyway, no real reason not to have a large res get a 30 - 50 gal res , dam or not, untill you become comfortable with the system


----------



## That 5hit (Nov 3, 2009)

this shot exsplains it all


----------



## hectorius (Nov 3, 2009)

aeroponics is a better way to do wall of green dwc just doest match the growth rate of aero. 4 walls 2 1000w advanced nutes perfect room 7 pounds


----------



## That 5hit (Nov 3, 2009)

hectorius said:


> aeroponics is a better way to do wall of green dwc just doest match the growth rate of aero. 4 walls 2 1000w advanced nutes perfect room 7 pounds


can we see


----------



## n.dap (Nov 4, 2009)

thanks that 5hit. thats all i was looking for was the the reason for the dam and the res. now its time to get the money together and start this system going man. 

yea id like to see 7 pounds from that aswell...


----------



## That 5hit (Nov 5, 2009)




----------



## fatfarmer34 (Nov 5, 2009)

Nice thread guys, guess I'll join in and make a few of my own observations. First one is, in most vertical grows you would have a single row of plants around the light with a reflective material behind them. In my opinion it would seem to me that it would reflect more lumens back than the same material on a wall reflecting back to several plants deep(I hope that makes some sense), and that would counteract the minimal lumen loss from not using a reflector. Someone made the observation that the light saturation from a vert grow would be less and I don't even know how you can come up with that. If you look at a plant from the top and then from the side, which is the larger profile? clearly it is from the side. And if the concern is the angle of the leafs, well as we all know they will turn towards any light source. I am definitely going to be a PerVert, its just a matter of deciding what will work best for me, but probably going to be an octagon with PVC. I am thinking 6 of the sides will be fixed, with 2 sides moveable for access and 4 tiers with 2 600w lights in a double cool tube. One more thought I would like to share about this type of setup, it is definitely best for a large number of smaller plants(at least the multiple tier type not single tall plants around a light) so for anyone concerned about the law should remember it is a serious federal crime to go over 99 plants. With clones and a system like this it would be easy to exceed that limit. Good luck to all and happy growing!


----------



## fatfarmer34 (Nov 5, 2009)

There is at least 28 mature plants in this room that cannot be much bigger than 4'x4' I want anyone to show me that in the same room flat, and it looks like they are only using 3 sides!


----------



## That 5hit (Nov 5, 2009)

fatfarmer34 said:


> Nice thread guys, guess I'll join in and make a few of my own observations. First one is, in most vertical grows you would have a single row of plants around the light with a reflective material behind them. In my opinion it would seem to me that it would reflect more lumens back than the same material on a wall reflecting back to several plants deep(I hope that makes some sense), and that would counteract the minimal lumen loss from not using a reflector. Someone made the observation that the light saturation from a vert grow would be less and I don't even know how you can come up with that. If you look at a plant from the top and then from the side, which is the larger profile? clearly it is from the side. And if the concern is the angle of the leafs, well as we all know they will turn towards any light source. I am definitely going to be a PerVert, its just a matter of deciding what will work best for me, but probably going to be an octagon with PVC. I am thinking 6 of the sides will be fixed, with 2 sides moveable for access and 4 tiers with 2 600w lights in a double cool tube. One more thought I would like to share about this type of setup, it is definitely best for a large number of smaller plants(at least the multiple tier type not single tall plants around a light) so for anyone concerned about the law should remember it is a serious federal crime to go over 99 plants. With clones and a system like this it would be easy to exceed that limit. Good luck to all and happy growing!


with this system how would you keep it perptual would you do mothers or just harvest the top parts of the plants in the system then reveg

maybe 12-15 plants per side this would keep you under 99 problem 
so you could keep like 4 mothers or do the reveg thing if it could work


----------



## fatfarmer34 (Nov 5, 2009)

A few mom's in dirt, 1 tier stocked with clones about every 2 weeks, 8 week cycle. I dont think reveg would work the best, to long for the plants to recover and harder to control the size and keep them even. With larger number of plants in a smaller space, a clone straight into flowering is better.


----------



## That 5hit (Nov 5, 2009)

fatfarmer34 said:


> There is at least 28 mature plants in this room that cannot be much bigger than 4'x4' I want anyone to show me that in the same room flat, and it looks like they are only using 3 sides!


I want to say they have 4 plants each side and it looks like some type of flood a drain system but im not sure- looks great i going to try to find where i gat that from


----------



## fatfarmer34 (Nov 5, 2009)

The 99 plant thing is not an issue for me, but thought others might want to consider it.


----------



## That 5hit (Nov 5, 2009)

*You want to teach gardening to your students
but you do not have much space? *

*You want to show and experiment
the techniques and methods of hydroponics culture?*

*You want to demonstrate that VERTICAL CULTURE
is the future of the farming industry?*


----------



## That 5hit (Nov 5, 2009)

the whole world is going vertical
but you will always have haters


----------



## That 5hit (Nov 5, 2009)

https://www.rollitup.org/grow-room-design-setup/41222-vertical-2-000watts-6lbs.html


----------



## That 5hit (Nov 5, 2009)

https://www.rollitup.org/general-marijuana-growing/70310-vertical-grow-400-watt-hps.html


----------



## That 5hit (Nov 5, 2009)

https://www.rollitup.org/advanced-marijuana-cultivation/265608-11-pot-vertical-grow.html


----------



## fatfarmer34 (Nov 6, 2009)

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


----------



## That 5hit (Nov 6, 2009)

*great find*


*Hydrogon-Square*&#8482;
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*&#8482;
A vertical garden system designed to accommodate 63 full canopy 18"-24" tall tomato plants
*4 level Hydrogon*&#8482;
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&#8482; 3L1000*
The Vertitube&#8482; 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&#8482; 4L600*
The Vertitube 4L600 is designed to accommodate four (4) 600w lamps. Total height with 14" base is 91 7/8".


----------



## eric8313 (Nov 6, 2009)

That 5hit said:


> *great find*
> 
> 
> *Hydrogon-Square*
> ...


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 cheaper


----------



## cerberus (Nov 6, 2009)

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.


----------



## fatfarmer34 (Nov 7, 2009)

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 (Nov 7, 2009)

fatfarmer34 said:


> 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.


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 (Nov 7, 2009)

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 (Nov 8, 2009)

squarepush3r said:


> 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.


 Halo Rings?


----------



## Redeflect (Nov 8, 2009)

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.


----------



## DaveTheNewbie (Nov 8, 2009)

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 (Nov 9, 2009)

Redeflect said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


 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 (Nov 9, 2009)

Redeflect said:


> 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.


 
First off that is how play on words go.. SCRoG - Screen of Green thats 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?



Redeflect said:


> 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.


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 simplicitys 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 3x3) 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 dont know concaved geometry so I am guessing at double, its 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 (Nov 9, 2009)

Redeflect said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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 (Nov 9, 2009)

Redeflect said:


> 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.


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 (Nov 9, 2009)

cerberus said:


> 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


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.



That 5hit said:


> 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


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.

What is it about vert that gets everyones panties in a bunch?


----------



## DaveTheNewbie (Nov 9, 2009)

cerberus said:


> What you say makes since to me but only on the surface layer; lets use round numbers for simplicitys 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 3x3) 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 dont know concaved geometry so I am guessing at double, its 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Nov 9, 2009)

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.


----------



## fdd2blk (Nov 9, 2009)

wow, to think i came in to offer some insight on growing. never mind.


----------



## cerberus (Nov 9, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> 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?


----------



## cerberus (Nov 9, 2009)

DaveTheNewbie said:


> 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)


So if you now have twice as many plants (w/ the vert grow) do you have half as much lumens going to each plant?



DaveTheNewbie said:


> 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)
> 
> ...


I see what your saying, the trick is no putting on parameters that don't matter or worse using models of meassurement that don't matter. I used sq feet under the assumption that we (as efficent minded people) would fill as much sq foot w/ plant as we can. I don''t know if you see my area of concern or not, clever it is, and space efficent it is BUT it might not be any more light efficent or at the least SO space efficent that it requires more light. <shrug>

I could be wrong, I am just trying to get it straight before I make a major investment. =)


----------



## cerberus (Nov 9, 2009)

jigfresh said:


> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thats what this thread is about, real world results and thoughts. Please keep us all up to date with your grow and how you think it fairs against your old style. This is the kind of honesty we need in this thread. What in vert grows work, what don't, what do we need to do more of because of the style, what do we need less of because of. ect


----------



## fdd2blk (Nov 9, 2009)

cerberus said:


> I agree, we should keep this a no flame thread.
> 
> nice grow! what size lights are you using? any reflective matirial on the ceiling?



three 600's. no reflective material other than the windows. pulled 2 pounds. i suck indoors so this was one of my better grows.


----------



## fatfarmer34 (Nov 9, 2009)

My apologies cerberus, just having a little fun with the know it all.


----------



## fatfarmer34 (Nov 9, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> three 600's. no reflective material other than the windows. pulled 2 pounds. i suck indoors so this was one of my better grows.


How did the yield compare between the plants on the floor down the center, with the ones on the top shelf that where getting the light from the side instead of straight down from the top?


----------



## bigtomatofarmer (Nov 9, 2009)

fatfarmer34 said:


> How did the yield compare between the plants on the floor down the center, with the ones on the top shelf that where getting the light from the side instead of straight down from the top?


Im guessing the difference is minimal, if any.


I havent noticed any difference in the size or compactness of buds since I switched to vertical growing. 

The only difference I can see is that I can fit more plants around the same bulb. There is no way I could grow 5 - 6 of these big ass plants under one 400 watt HPS. However, When I arrange them around the vertical light, it works perfectly.


----------



## cerberus (Nov 9, 2009)

fatfarmer34 said:


> My apologies cerberus, just having a little fun with the know it all.


 
that will happen time to time. 


all is good


----------



## cerberus (Nov 9, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> three 600's. no reflective material other than the windows. pulled 2 pounds. i suck indoors so this was one of my better grows.


3 600's, and you grabbed 2 elbows?! thats not to shabby at all! Have you dont horizontal grows? (it sounds like it) and the vert went the best for ya?

what strain?

nice grow my friend, nice grow


----------



## cerberus (Nov 9, 2009)

bigtomatofarmer said:


> Im guessing the difference is minimal, if any.
> 
> 
> I havent noticed any difference in the size or compactness of buds since I switched to vertical growing.
> ...


you'll have to let us know what total yield was versus a horizontal grow. =)

thanks


----------



## That 5hit (Nov 9, 2009)

SO you plain on hand watering over 60 plants every other day if not every day
but not a bad setup i like it just tell me how it works


----------



## jigfresh (Nov 9, 2009)

I bet the journal would tell you everything you want to know:

https://www.rollitup.org/grow-journals/166743-pull-up-seat-theres-room.html


----------



## 400Whps (Nov 9, 2009)

what size are those pots?(the pic. with 44 plants and 2 600's vert.) fdd2blk
Also curious of the strain??
keep up the good work fdd2blk and all


----------



## cerberus (Nov 9, 2009)

because it deserves to be repeated..

https://www.rollitup.org/grow-journals/166743-pull-up-seat-theres-room.html


----------



## That 5hit (Nov 9, 2009)

gr8 find cerberus


----------



## RickWhite (Nov 10, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> three 600's. no reflective material other than the windows. pulled 2 pounds. i suck indoors so this was one of my better grows.


Great setup. That is not a vert though - I think it is better. It certainly makes sense to raise the outer row of plants to give more direct lighting and bring them closer to the bulb. However, you might benefit from some of those old school dish style reflectors. No sense wasting light on the ceiling.

I do think what you have there is the most efficient setup. Better than a totally flat grow or a full out vert.


----------



## That 5hit (Nov 10, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> Great setup. That is not a vert though - I think it is better. It certainly makes sense to raise the outer row of plants to give more direct lighting and bring them closer to the bulb. However, you might benefit from some of those old school dish style reflectors. No sense wasting light on the ceiling.
> 
> I do think what you have there is the most efficient setup. Better than a totally flat grow or a full out vert.


 
WRONG- that is a vert
the lights are hung vertical and there are plants growing around and up the sides


----------



## RickWhite (Nov 10, 2009)

That 5hit said:


> WRONG- that is a vert
> the lights are hung vertical and there are plants growing around and up the sides


Don't you think it is a little childish to write "wrong" in all caps.

I'm not wrong. Most of the plants are underneath the light are they not? The orientation of the bulb has nothing to do with it.

What he has there is a Colosseum setup which is nothing more than a raised perimeter. This is far different from the setups you guys are showing. All of your setups light from the sides only and have no plants below the bulb.

Grow up already.


----------



## bigtomatofarmer (Nov 10, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> Don't you think it is a little childish to write "wrong" in all caps.
> 
> I'm not wrong. Most of the plants are underneath the light are they not? The orientation of the bulb has nothing to do with it.
> 
> ...


 Looks like a vertical grow to me


----------



## jigfresh (Nov 10, 2009)

bigtomatofarmer said:


> Looks like a vertical grow to me


Me too 

???


----------



## That 5hit (Nov 10, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> Don't you think it is a little childish to write "wrong" in all caps.
> 
> I'm not wrong. Most of the plants are underneath the light are they not? The orientation of the bulb has nothing to do with it.
> 
> ...


WOW- what an awaking moment i just had after reading your post now i will start acting 30, just because some women on an internet pot site told me too - my wife would sure love you miss- NOT

what she fail to do was read the whole thread by fdd2blk
she would have seen that the plants did in fact grow up the side of the lights 
before and after flowering
yes at first glance this would appear to look like a hor. Colosseum grow
colosseum grow yes 
hor. grow no 

it is more childish to jump to premature conclusion before knowing all the facts - its what kids-
so i would say that my response was right on time with yours
just because it does not fall into what you would call a vert does not mean its not a vert 


but fdd did give me an idea with respect to my own vert grow 
if i build it high enough off the ground i could utilize the area underneath the builb aswell as all around the builb
giving my 4 sided vert idea now 5 




oh yeah let me not forget....


----------



## DaveTheNewbie (Nov 10, 2009)

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


----------



## DaveTheNewbie (Nov 10, 2009)

cerberus said:


> 3 600's, and you grabbed 2 elbows?! thats not to shabby at all! Have you dont horizontal grows? (it sounds like it) and the vert went the best for ya?
> 
> what strain?
> 
> nice grow my friend, nice grow




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.


----------



## bigtomatofarmer (Nov 10, 2009)

DaveTheNewbie said:


> 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?


----------



## fdd2blk (Nov 10, 2009)

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


----------



## bigtomatofarmer (Nov 10, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


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


 

What are you talking about man? 

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


----------



## fdd2blk (Nov 10, 2009)

bigtomatofarmer said:


> 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.


----------



## johnny961 (Nov 10, 2009)

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.


----------



## That 5hit (Nov 10, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


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





fdd2blk said:


> go back and read the last 3 pages.
> 
> then maybe YOU could try some caffinated.


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)


----------



## Dystopia (Nov 10, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> A 4'X4" horizontal setup has 16 sq feet of growing area. A 4' diameter vertical setup with 4' of height gives 50.24 sq feet which is 3 times growing area. However, when you spread the light over a greater distance, you reduce its lumens by the same ratio.


 
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.





RickWhite said:


> there is no escaping the physics of light.


Apparently there is when you apply it


----------



## bigboy973 (Nov 10, 2009)

Dystopia said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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


----------



## That 5hit (Nov 10, 2009)

bigboy973 said:


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


god 


https://www.rollitup.org/hydroponics-aeroponics/149998-heaths-flooded-tube-vertical.html

https://www.rollitup.org/hydroponics-aeroponics/149998-heaths-flooded-tube-vertical.html


----------



## bigtomatofarmer (Nov 11, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> go back and read the last 3 pages.
> 
> then maybe YOU could try some caffinated.


Typical FDD


----------



## cerberus (Nov 11, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


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


yeah.. this is the place where I go to see what my self worth is real worth.. 

I thought your journal and grow where pretty smart. Whether its a vert or a horz, I guess is a matter of oppinion BUT it gave me some idea to look at.

Do be sweat'n the haters! Brush your shoulders off, pimp!


----------



## cerberus (Nov 11, 2009)

bigtomatofarmer said:


> Typical FDD


hahahaha I can't tell, is that a thumbs up, or thumbs down? 



p.s. that shit right there might be my new avatar..


----------



## fdd2blk (Nov 11, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> three 600's. no reflective material other than the windows. pulled 2 pounds. i suck indoors so this was one of my better grows.





bigtomatofarmer said:


> Typical FDD




man you are an idiot. i was JOKING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! who's head is in their ass?
and once again, here you are hanging on my nuts. stalker.

yeah, i cry over what people on the net think of me.


----------



## fdd2blk (Nov 11, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


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



i guess i should have put a smiley, for all the DUMB people.


----------



## jigfresh (Nov 11, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> i guess i should have put a smiley, for all the DUMB people.


Are you serious? I'm not dumb, and I didn't know you were being sarcastic.

You act like all of US are the drama queens.

It's like you are courting our sympathy by degrading yourself... then when it is given you bash the people that gave it as idiots.

So basically everyone on RIU is DUMB (except you of course becuase you were just kidding). Nice how that works out.

C'mon man.

People were calling out RickWhite by name and he didn't get this upset, and here we are trying to say your grow was pretty awesome. Take a page from the Ricker... let it roll off your back.

Life must be fucking hard being like that. 

EDIT: Now comes the part where you reference what you said and what everyone else said to point out just how wrong everything I am saying is. Save youself the time. Ignore me if you think I'm so wrong. Or go ahead and prove how right you are. Just quit insulting us and our (lack of) intelligence.

EDIT EDIT: Has ANYONE seen a thread where fdd2blk has posted that HASN"T turned into a big ordeal? I never have. Makes you think. Always turns into the fdd show. Case in point, the last 3 pages. The power of positive (or negative) thinking.



fdd2blk said:


> *unsubscribed.


Just a bit too late. You've already killed everything. Thanks.


----------



## fdd2blk (Nov 11, 2009)

jigfresh said:


> Are you serious? I'm not dumb, and I didn't know you were being sarcastic.
> 
> You act like all of US are the drama queens.
> 
> ...



see 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.


----------



## cerberus (Nov 11, 2009)

.. . but seriusly, how about those verticle grows? Those things seem like an interesting topic, maybe we could go away from all the drama queen bullshit and disscuss how the extra found space requires more light, or how do you guys find watering these systems? (fdd's system looked like a bitch to water!) 


simma down now people!


p.s. this is not directed at anyone, I am not a mod, I just don't care to much for flaming each other. If I want to get in a fight with someone, well I'm Irish and I know a good number of bars within walking distance to accomodate me.. not here please.


----------



## fdd2blk (Nov 11, 2009)

*unsubscribed.


----------



## cerberus (Nov 11, 2009)

wow did this thread go into the ditch like a soccer mom on weed and beer.. 

<shakes head>


----------



## RickWhite (Nov 11, 2009)

Dystopia said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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.

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.


----------



## Dystopia (Nov 11, 2009)

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...


----------



## That 5hit (Nov 11, 2009)

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


----------



## bigtomatofarmer (Nov 11, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> *unsubscribed.


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 (Nov 12, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> see your first mistake is, I'm not upset.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


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 emo


----------



## RickWhite (Nov 12, 2009)

Dystopia said:


> 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...


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.

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 (Nov 12, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> ...


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


----------



## thehiena (Nov 12, 2009)

I'm not an expert but I have grown plants both ways and I prefer going verticaly, better results and my grow room is much cooler.


----------



## cerberus (Nov 12, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> ...


most of these grows have been as flat as your going to get horizontally, there is variation in where the plants stretch but you&#8217;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 (Nov 12, 2009)

thehiena said:


> I'm not an expert but I have grown plants both ways and I prefer going verticaly, better results and my grow room is much cooler.


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 (Nov 13, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> ...


 
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 (Nov 13, 2009)

thehiena said:


> I'm not an expert but I have grown plants both ways and I prefer going verticaly, better results and my grow room is much cooler.


 
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 (Nov 13, 2009)

That 5hit said:


> 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
> ...



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 (Nov 13, 2009)

Dystopia said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


Actually, physics was my best subject in college.

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 (Nov 13, 2009)

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.


----------



## Redeflect (Nov 13, 2009)

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.


----------



## RickWhite (Nov 13, 2009)

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.


----------



## thehiena (Nov 13, 2009)

cerberus said:


> 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


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.


----------



## thehiena (Nov 13, 2009)

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


----------



## Uncle Ben (Nov 13, 2009)

One thing that is a given, all the plants that are given vertical lighting look pretty unhealthy, and that includes Heath Robinson's stuff. Didn't bother with the whole thread but has anyone introduced the complication of phototropism? Anyway you slice it, both vertical and horizontal lighting comes with its own demons. 

UB


----------



## DaveTheNewbie (Nov 14, 2009)

Uncle Ben said:


> One thing that is a given, all the plants that are given vertical lighting look pretty unhealthy, and that includes Heath Robinson's stuff. Didn't bother with the whole thread but has anyone introduced the complication of phototropism? Anyway you slice it, both vertical and horizontal lighting comes with its own demons.
> 
> UB


 
first wise words in a very long and silly thread.


----------



## That 5hit (Nov 14, 2009)

Uncle Ben said:


> One thing that is a given, all the plants that are given vertical lighting look pretty unhealthy, and that includes Heath Robinson's stuff. Didn't bother with the whole thread but has anyone introduced the complication of phototropism? Anyway you slice it, both vertical and horizontal lighting comes with its own demons.
> 
> UB


i'm not even going to touch this one - the only thing that is unhealthy is your lack of understanding vert is the future because its better - 

, looks unhealthy!! is this guy for real


----------



## Uncle Ben (Nov 14, 2009)

That 5hit said:


> i'm not even going to touch this one - the only thing that is unhealthy is your lack of understanding vert is the future because its better -
> 
> , looks unhealthy!! is this guy for real


My lack of understanding? That is funny.

"The future"? Ya think? Ahhhhhhhh, you noobs, quick to jump on the "latest and greatest" gimmicks, snake oils, trends, consensus and fads. 

Actually the best lighting regarding logistical control, efficiency, and effectiveness is a SMALL horizontal hood with a gull wing insert. I retrofitted mine with highly shiny specular. I likes it!

Also, remember fellers, the lamp's poles emit no light and that phototropism affect is a killer. 

UB


----------



## thehiena (Nov 14, 2009)

Uncle Ben said:


> One thing that is a given, all the plants that are given vertical lighting look pretty unhealthy, and that includes Heath Robinson's stuff. Didn't bother with the whole thread but has anyone introduced the complication of phototropism? Anyway you slice it, both vertical and horizontal lighting comes with its own demons.
> 
> UB


Hi UB long time no see, I agree with you, plants grown verticaly look wierd but they stiill produce a large amount of buds for me and that's what I'm looking for, Good Luck.


----------



## bigtomatofarmer (Nov 14, 2009)

Uncle Ben said:


> One thing that is a given, all the plants that are given vertical lighting look pretty unhealthy, and that includes Heath Robinson's stuff. Didn't bother with the whole thread but has anyone introduced the complication of phototropism? Anyway you slice it, both vertical and horizontal lighting comes with its own demons.
> 
> UB


Yeah youre right... My plants looks sooo unhealthy


----------



## bigtomatofarmer (Nov 14, 2009)

So far none of you vertical haters have made a valid point.


----------



## That 5hit (Nov 14, 2009)

yeah those plants look so unhealthy 
you should really consider not growing verticaly
that first plant, in the second pic, even looks like its turning into a dog 
i guess that phototropism!

phototropism, been turning plants into dogs sence there been a sun up and sun down


----------



## thehiena (Nov 14, 2009)

bigtomatofarmer said:


> Yeah youre right... My plants looks sooo unhealthy


Beautiful plants, in the second pic the plant look like it's ready to attack that dog.


----------



## That 5hit (Nov 14, 2009)

thehiena said:


> Beautiful plants, in the second pic the plant look like it's ready to attack that dog.


AHHHHHHH.,,.. that is a dog
i was thinking that the plant turned into a dog due to the fact that they were so unhealthy having to grow vert.


----------



## bigtomatofarmer (Nov 14, 2009)

Haha good times. Heres another pic or two


----------



## That 5hit (Nov 14, 2009)

hey becarefull looks like that cola is starting to turn
i can see dog hair - very unhealthy looking thing thatly never get you high
you should mail that to me.....


----------



## That 5hit (Nov 14, 2009)

hey look at dystopia's unhealthy looking vert budz he should just throw that shit away


----------



## That 5hit (Nov 14, 2009)




----------



## thehiena (Nov 14, 2009)

Week 4 of my wierd looking grow


----------



## bigtomatofarmer (Nov 14, 2009)

You guys are cracking me up.  Im so hiiiiiighhhhhh right now


----------



## RickWhite (Nov 14, 2009)

How long do you guys grow those big plants from root to harvest? How many weeks of veg?


----------



## That 5hit (Nov 15, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> How long do you guys grow those big plants from root to harvest? How many weeks of veg?


i would like to know this too


----------



## Uncle Ben (Nov 15, 2009)

bigtomatofarmer said:


> Yeah youre right... My plants looks sooo unhealthy


So do mine.  







Nice job, and I'm not a "vertical hater", don't really care what you do as long as it works for you. My point being is that noobs will jump off on some method because they've seen pictures of it in a forum, and they'll do it not understanding the pitfalls, which most growers will not divulge. There are demons and caveats that come with every style of growing and lighting. For instance, I wouldn't think twice about SCROG.

I like the even distribution of horizontal lighting and I get good, long colas.

Happy to see you had the courage to show the whole plant and not some closeup of the top 3" of a cola.

Grow hard,
UB


----------



## bigtomatofarmer (Nov 15, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> How long do you guys grow those big plants from root to harvest? How many weeks of veg?


Here ya go, the life of Bertha 

4/25/09






5/27/09






6/06/09






7/04/09 Edit: Two weeks after switching to flower... Edited for accuracy







7/13/09






8/03/09 1 week before harvest







I took clones on 4/20/09 and they all succesfully rooted on 4/25/09.

I harvested this plant on 8/10/09 (She was a bit smaller than her sisters)

Edit: In the last pic I was flushing with plain water, so thats why the leaves have turned a lighter green. Nute def


----------



## bigtomatofarmer (Nov 15, 2009)

Uncle Ben said:


> So do mine.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Horrible, that looks totally grose!!! Haha j/k man. You've done well . Your pictures are making my mouth water . Mmmm so delicious

To each his own my friend, to each his own


----------



## RickWhite (Nov 15, 2009)

bigtomatofarmer said:


> Here ya go, the life of Bertha
> 
> 4/25/09
> 
> ...


OK, those pictures do not correspond to the dates or the stages you have stated. How do you post a picture of a plant with developed buds that is clearly a few weeks into flower and say "switched to flower" on this date?

The development in most of those pictures clearly does not correspond with the dates you posted. 

I know those plants are at least a month or more older than what you are claiming.

Plants vegged for 2-3 weeks would be around waist height if grown hydroponically. Soil grown clones would not be that large after 2-3 weeks; not a chance. And what is the strain?

Looking back, I noticed something else. Once plants begin flowering, they pretty much stop growing in size. Yet in your pictures your plants seem to continue to increase in size at a rapid pace even while flowering. Sorry, but Cannibus just doesn't do that. Those are pictures of different plants grown for different lengths of time.

Nice try though.


----------



## bigtomatofarmer (Nov 15, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> OK, those pictures do not correspond to the dates or the stages you have stated. How do you post a picture of a plant with developed buds that is clearly a few weeks into flower and say "switched to flower" on this date?
> 
> The development in most of those pictures clearly does not correspond with the dates you posted.
> 
> ...


I hope you are man enough to admit when youre wrong. 

*Same plant, same grow*. I had a journal throughout the entire grow. https://www.rollitup.org/grow-journals/188571-bubba-kush-x-deep-chunk.html But I guess you missed it  

Im sorry you are upset my plants continue to grow after I switch to flowering. But your jealousy needs to be contained on your end. Because now you just look like a jack ass/

Here, Ill post direct links to each post so you dont have to scroll through my entire journal



5/27/09 One month of growing.
https://www.rollitup.org/2547305-post47.html

5/29/09 I already had hairs growing in veg!!!
https://www.rollitup.org/2550353-post50.html

6/06/09 Getting BIGGER and BIGGER
https://www.rollitup.org/2582794-post78.html

6/18/09 This is the day I switched Bertha to flowering. Not 7/04/09 like I previously stated. Sorry for the mix up I am smoking some high quality cannabis right now 
https://www.rollitup.org/2626667-post101.html

Edit: The strain is Bubba Kush. Im sure Ak47 would have been more rapid growth and taller. We'll see next year


----------



## cerberus (Nov 15, 2009)

UB, I agree that every technique is going to have its advantages and disadvantages. Why would you say Heath's plants looked unhealthy? I have read your posts before (I'm a regular lurker on your tweeking thread) I am interested in what makes those plants look unhealthy. Also if you don't mind, what do you think the disadvantages of a vert grow are? HELL do YOU see any advantages?
I appreciate your contribution to the thread, and I know you have a lot of great info this could be a good start to a mature discussion of advantages and disadvantages. Then we can learn how maximize and mitigate accordingly. You grow tasty looking plants nobody can deny that. Tasty and happy.
.......

BTF, dank looking grows my friend! Those bud shots have such great color. Man pot plants are just great looking flowers, seriously beautiful. I appreciate, the mini journal of Bertha; nice quick timeline, 7 week flower.. Man I wish, I like my sativa though.
.......

TheHiena, Are those WW&#8217;s? It&#8217;s funny how that grow looks like a little grow but you have like 9 5 gallon buckets, deff. Not stealth. They look sweet and stanky =) Are those little ladies starting to reach for the screen? Are you rotating the plants at all? Seriously nice lookin plants
......
RickWhite, plants can double even tripple in size during flowring.


----------



## That 5hit (Nov 15, 2009)

Uncle Ben said:


> One thing that is a given, all the plants that are given vertical lighting look pretty unhealthy, and that includes Heath Robinson's stuff. Didn't bother with the whole thread but has anyone introduced the complication of phototropism? Anyway you slice it, both vertical and horizontal lighting comes with its own demons.
> 
> UB


explain yourself



cerberus said:


> UB, I agree that every technique is going to have its advantages and disadvantages. Why would you say Heath's plants looked unhealthy? I have read your posts before (I'm a regular lurker on your tweeking thread) I am interested in what makes those plants look unhealthy. Also if you don't mind, what do you think the disadvantages of a vert grow are? HELL do YOU see any advantages?
> I appreciate your contribution to the thread, and I know you have a lot of great info this could be a good start to a mature discussion of advantages and disadvantages. Then we can learn how maximize and mitigate accordingly. You grow tasty looking plants nobody can deny that. Tasty and happy.
> .......
> .


very well put
to use a word like unhealthy and never exsplain why is wrong
no one anywhere would argue that all forms of growing has hang ups and take many grows to master
but to say one perticular style produces unhealthy looking bud must be proven
especially when we are all looking at the same pics as you - maybe there's omething wrong with my monitor- maybe you used the wrong words and ment to say something else
even CFL haters give better discription then unhealthy look buds - i love a good debate ,and if you can just provide proof of what you say that would be love
either way i plain on going vert , i'ev already made up my mind


----------



## PurfectStorm (Nov 15, 2009)

Wuttup fellow vert homies!

I just started my 3 Growwalls with 63 cherrybomb cuttings in my homemade stealth cab gettin powered by one 600w cooltubed, and with airconditioning.

It might be ambitious but with my co2 im hoping to get at least 2-5 pounds this first time.

 out.
PurfectStorm


----------



## Uncle Ben (Nov 15, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> The development in most of those pictures clearly does not correspond with the dates you posted.


You're nitpicking, and for what reason?



> I know those plants are at least a month or more older than what you are claiming.


Now you're calling him a liar. Not cool. Post up if your stuff differs.



> Plants vegged for 2-3 weeks would be around waist height if grown hydroponically. Soil grown clones would not be that large after 2-3 weeks; not a chance. And what is the strain?


My soil grown plants surpass hydro regarding vigor,yield, etc.



> Looking back, I noticed something else. Once plants begin flowering, they pretty much stop growing in size.


That's when they really take off. 

This is not about theory. Grow, then you'll understand what the stretch is all about. 

Yeah, nice try.


----------



## jsteezy1290 (Nov 15, 2009)

yea when you switch to flower they seem to always grow pretty fast the first couple weeks


----------



## thehiena (Nov 15, 2009)

cerberus said:


> .......
> 
> TheHiena, Are those WWs? Its funny how that grow looks like a little grow but you have like 9 5 gallon buckets, deff. Not stealth. They look sweet and stanky =) Are those little ladies starting to reach for the screen? Are you rotating the plants at all? Seriously nice lookin plants
> ......
> .


Hi Cerberus, yeah my plants look funny but they still provide for me this are White Widow and the buckets you see are 2 gal. buckets, it's a system call Ebb n Grow. I only rotate the plants the first two weeks of flowering and I think I trimed a lot this time because I don't see many branches touching the screen yet. Good Luck.


----------



## RickWhite (Nov 15, 2009)

bigtomatofarmer said:


> 6/18/09 This is the day I switched Bertha to flowering. Not 7/04/09 like I previously stated. Sorry for the mix up I am smoking some high quality cannabis right now
> https://www.rollitup.org/2626667-post101.html


So if I'm right why are you talking shit? That is a 3 week discrepancy.

I'm not trying to bash you, that is a fine looking plant. You can't blame me for noticing a discrepancy. 

Looking back, you are talking 7 weeks veg time. So your total grow minus clone time was 15-16 weeks or so? A total grow time minus clone of 9-10 weeks should yield 1g/W. So you should be at 1.6G/W just to break even.


----------



## RickWhite (Nov 15, 2009)

Uncle Ben said:


> You're nitpicking, and for what reason?
> 
> Now you're calling him a liar. Not cool. Post up if your stuff differs.
> 
> ...


Too bad there isn't an emoticon of a guy jerking off.

Why do you assume you know more than people? FYI, I have spliced plant genes in college for my bio major. I might know a little something about growing (which is really quite simple).

I do not post any proof or admissions of any illegal activity on line. Everything I discuss is strictly academic.

I know about the two week stretch that occurs when one switches to flower. I also know that after the stretch when actual buds appear the vertical growth of the plant pretty much stops as energy goes into bud production.

But see above. I was right about the flowering switch being 3 weeks earlier.


----------



## bigtomatofarmer (Nov 15, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> So if I'm right why are you talking shit? That is a 3 week discrepancy.
> 
> I'm not trying to bash you, that is a fine looking plant. You can't blame me for noticing a discrepancy.
> 
> Looking back, you are talking 7 weeks veg time. So your total grow minus clone time was 15-16 weeks or so? A total grow time minus clone of 9-10 weeks should yield 1g/W. So you should be at 1.6G/W just to break even.


Ok, you were right about one thing. This picture. The date of the picture *is correct*, but the caption I added to it is not. I was copying and pasteing from my journal and forgot to upload the real picture from 6/18/09. Get over it . If you smoked weed Im sure you would be able to understand a minor mistake. (which I corrected and admitted to)







However, *you are completely wrong* in these 5 statements.

1) quote rickwhite = The development in most of those pictures clearly does not correspond with the dates you posted
2) quote rickwhite = I know those plants are at least a month or more older than what you are claiming
3) quote rickwhite = Plants vegged for 2-3 weeks would be around waist height if grown hydroponically. Soil grown clones would not be that large after 2-3 weeks; not a chance
4) quote rickwhite = Once plants begin flowering, they pretty much stop growing in size. Yet in your pictures your plants seem to continue to increase in size at a rapid pace even while flowering. 
5) quote rickwhite = Sorry, but Cannibus just doesn't do that. Those are pictures of different plants grown for different lengths of time.


It seems like you only talk academic because of your lack of experience. So like I said before... Are you man enough to admit when you're wrong?


----------



## Redeflect (Nov 15, 2009)

PurfectStorm... I don't care how you're growing but you aren't going to get 2-5 pounds off of a 600 watt... especially not your first time. You'll be lucky to get 1 pound if all goes well.


----------



## nuggets73 (Nov 16, 2009)

This is just the Porsche GT2 of growing methods ... there is no alternative ... it is the best, most innovative design of it's time ... 

PS - Heath deserves a medal ... he's the Rick James of herb growing


----------



## PurfectStorm (Nov 16, 2009)

Redeflect said:


> PurfectStorm... I don't care how you're growing but you aren't going to get 2-5 pounds off of a 600 watt... especially not your first time. You'll be lucky to get 1 pound if all goes well.


we'll see man, its not my first grow, just the first with this setup, and if you look way back at the grower malachi 's journals he was pulling 1-3 ounces per plant in his growwalls with 1000watters, so i feel 63 plants should net me a lil more than ur one pound estimate.


----------



## DaveTheNewbie (Nov 16, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> Once plants begin flowering, they pretty much stop growing in size. Yet in your pictures your plants seem to continue to increase in size at a rapid pace even while flowering. Sorry, but Cannibus just doesn't do that. Those are pictures of different plants grown for different lengths of time.


i really liked this one. the guy is so full of ignorance its amazing. different cannibus plants act differently at different stages.

i had a plant that went to 5x size from when flowering started to when i harvested. it was still growing at 8 weeks after i turned the light, and i had to keep tying it down to stop it getting above the light hood.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Nov 16, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> Too bad there isn't an emoticon of a guy jerking off.


Perhaps they can put in a request, just for you. 



> Why do you assume you know more than people?


Because I've been growing every kind of plant material under the sun both for fun and commerically since the 60's. That qualifies me as experienced (but still learning).



> FYI, I have spliced plant genes in college for my bio major. I might know a little something about growing (which is really quite simple).


I just sliced some bananas and had them over my cereal.



> I do not post any proof or admissions of any illegal activity on line. Everything I discuss is strictly academic.


Academic is theory. Theory is fine if you apply it.



> I know about the two week stretch that occurs when one switches to flower.


To be anal, it's actually closer to a 60/40 ratio for your typical hybrid. Taking an 8 week flowering session, that would be about 5 weeks stretching, 3 weeks finishing.

UB


----------



## Uncle Ben (Nov 16, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> Plants vegged for 2-3 weeks would be around waist height if grown hydroponically.


I don't think so. 



> Soil grown clones would not be that large after 2-3 weeks; not a chance.


This *soil grown* male Peak19 was 3 weeks old vegged and put into flower a few days after this photo was taken. Leafsets are as big as dinner plates. 







 It's all about plant health.

UB


----------



## RickWhite (Nov 16, 2009)

Guys, I'm not going to argue about silly shit. If you claim to have plants that continue a vegetative growth pattern after flower so be it - I'll believe it when I see it.Getting back to the point - what was the total grow time (sans cloning)? I believe it was around 16 weeks correct? I can harvest 1g/Watt in 10 weeks so you do the math.


----------



## jigfresh (Nov 16, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> Guys, I'm not going to argue about silly shit. If you claim to have plants that continue a vegetative growth pattern after flower so be it - I'll believe it when I see it.Getting back to the point - what was the total grow time (sans cloning)? I believe it was around 16 weeks correct? I can harvest 1g/Watt in 10 weeks so you do the math.


Priceless Rick. You aren't going to argue? Lol.

I have serious doubts you've ever grown marijuana.

Splicing Genes isn't the same as growing a plant, sorry.



bigtomatofarmer said:


> So like I said before... Are you man enough to admit when you're wrong?


Apparently not.


----------



## RickWhite (Nov 16, 2009)

The guy admitted he captioned the picture with the wrong date. How am I wrong when the guy admitted he was wrong and posted false information?Stop acting like a child and get back to the issue. If I can get 1g/Watt in 10 weeks of growth, how much should you get after 16? You should have 1.6g/Watt in case you aren't up on your math. So if you have a vert that gets 1.6 times the g/Watt yield in 1.6 times as long, you are looking at a system that is equal to a standard horizontal one.


----------



## jigfresh (Nov 16, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> The guy admitted he captioned the picture with the wrong date. How am I wrong when the guy admitted he was wrong and posted false information?Stop acting like a child and get back to the issue. If I can get 1g/Watt in 10 weeks of growth, how much should you get after 16? You should have 1.6g/Watt in case you aren't up on your math. So if you have a vert that gets 1.6 times the g/Watt yield in 1.6 times as long, you are looking at a system that is equal to a standard horizontal one.


Funny how you pay no attention to the quotes BTF put up. You said they were different plants? But you aren't going to argue about silly stuff.

Comparing 'your grow' where 'you get 1.0 g/w' to someone else's grow is like comparing apples to oranges. Or at least different kind of apples. (quick what's better a McIntosh or Golden Delicious)

The real comparison is one person doing flat vs. vert.Just becuase you are able to get 1.0 g/w doesn't mean everyone is able to. SO......If I was able to get .5 g/w from a flat grow... then in the same space with the same equipment and the same strain and the same veg time/ total grow time I was able to get .75 g/w... to me that would suggest vert would be better for my situation. EVEN THOUGH neither grow could outproduce 'your grow'.

What _are_ you saying.... that you are better than bigtomatofarmer. That's what it sounds like to me. Why not ask him this?

Hey bigtomatofarmer: Can you compare g/w for your flat grows and your g/w for the vert grows... taking into account total grow time? (that sounds like a question that would actually show something in the 'real world'... not just your academic prowess which resides in your head... the same place 'your grow' lives).

I guess you are not man enough to admit when your wrong, and not man enough to admit you've never grown either.

EDIT: Staying on topic and acting like a child are not mutually exclusive... I think you've demonstrated that quite well for us.


----------



## bigtomatofarmer (Nov 16, 2009)

jigfresh said:


> Funny how you pay no attention to the quotes BTF put up. You said they were different plants? But you aren't going to argue about silly stuff.


Funny indeed . Its ok though, I never thought he would. And I found that smiley he wanted




<---- There ya go Rick, enjoy yourself!!

I grow for personal use, so I dont bother weighing it. I dont know how many grams per watt I get, and honestly, I dont care. I harvested enough cannabis from that one grow to last me ALL winter . I dont have to start growing again until next year. And thats a great feeling. 

Bertha was the biggest and healthiest clone I had. Thats why I named her Bertha. I had another clone I wasnt sure would survive, and by the grace of God she lived. So I named her Grace. She was by far the slowest plant I had. Here is her story........


5/05/09











6/08/09







7/03/09







8/05/09


----------



## myxedup (Nov 16, 2009)

Hello all, after having been on RIU for several months now and having just read the last 21 pages of this thread, I feel it's time to finally chime in even though this thread has derailed so much but oh well.
In regards to the light intensity and all, Rick White does have it right on. The problem that I think everyone has been having, whether pro vert or not, is that the lumen's per sq.ft. ratio plays such a large part in growing and we are calculating how much is hitting the canopy. 
The superiority or vertical growing, is that it allows for a lot more small plants, and the logic in that is that with small plants, you can have a canopy made almost entirely of cola's. How that equates into the lighting is that your lumen's/sq.ft. is going to be directed at more bud canopy (if the term bud canopy seems appropriate) rather than going down past your cola's to only benefit little nugs.
For some simple math, lets say that you have 1 plant per sq. ft. with a horizontal grow, and your cola has only a 4" diameter at the top. that would mean that your bud canopy would be 4"x3.14 per sq ft, or 12.56 sq. inches of 144 sq. inches which equates into roughly 11.4% canopy efficiency. Of course, higher lumen's/sq. ft will allow for more penetration and then you would also need to factor in side illumination but your actual lumens/sq. inch of bud will still be considerably less than if you have a vertical grow using clones vegged for 3 weeks or so packed very tightly on a 45* angle. If packed close enough, you're going to have a lot more bud being hit by the light. If the setup were done correctly, very little light would ever hit the medium of the plants which is a complete waste of light.
It's the same principle that allow's SoG's and ScroG's to be efficient.
If you want evidence as to what is superior, just look at the g/w ratios of vert's using a SoG vs. hor. SoG. But anyway you look at it, the light argument really doesn't factor into the superiority of one over the other because as Rick has pointed out, the lumen's/sq.ft. isn't really changing, we need to step aside on that as Rick has given more than adequate reasoning and logic to illustrate that point and move on to figure out the most efficient ways possible to fill our canopy's with Bud.
Hope that this may help to get this thread on track, and hope that no one finds this to be insulting or whatever, if you do, go hey, he has no posts, he must be a damn noob and continue on with the grows that you're comfortable with and ignore the results of proven and experienced growers. g/w don't lie.


----------



## Redeflect (Nov 16, 2009)

G/W doesn't lie and Heath gets over 2g/w.... doesn't lie. You apparently haven't grown and seen how your light affects a plant canopy.

Vertical growing does grow more efficiently because the lumens are spread equally so you don't have some plants close to the light getting 2x more lux than needed and other plants getting a bare minimum. You also have very little light that is going onto walls (ceiling/floor in a vert) in comparison to what is used in a horizontal set up. If you try to get all the lighting directly onto the canopy in a horizontal setup by putting the light lower... then you are definitely getting way more lux than is needed to the plants near the middle and not enough lux to the plants on the edges which is also wasted light. You also are losing a bunch of lumens from the reflector reflecting the light back at the bulb itself. You also can't deny that no matter how efficient your reflector's labeling says it is, they are still not 100% efficient and ANY loss is still a loss.

You can't escape basic trigonometry and the fact is that vertical growing uses lumens more efficiently no matter how you look at it and wish to deny it. I still have not yet seen anyone post a single logical reason why vertical would be WORSE... you've all tried many times to say that horizontal is just as good but if your reflector is only 97% reflective that is still a 1.5% loss of lighting no matter what just to materials alone... not counting uneven and misdirected lighting.

Now, instead of complaining that horizontal is just as good, prove to me that it is BETTER and that a reflector doesn't cause a loss of light AT ALL.


----------



## myxedup (Nov 16, 2009)

Redeflect, I believe that you didn't quite get what I was saying, I believe that vertical is THE best way to grow currently known. This thread has gone so far into the ditch from what I believe it's original purpose was that unless we get it back on track now, no one will ever read far enough into it to glean anything useful.
In regards to my comments associated with Rick, his math is solid. The reason why horizontal yields don't compare has to deal with the reflectors and the fact that the footprint of the light isn't going to be even. Plants in the middle get light from all sides where as plants on the edge only get it from a single side.
With Vertical grows, the light is going to be evenly distributed and you can calculate EXACTLY where your plants are place in order for them to receive 5000 lumens/ sq ft where as attempts made to do so in a horizontal setup simply won't work. Plants in center might be recieving 7k+ lumens/ sq ft while ones on the edge are just pushing 3k.
Also, in a vertical grow, no light movers are going to be required to keep the light close to the canopy and g/w ratios given by growers using light movers should include the wattage of the rail in with they're lamps. Same could be said in regards to fans and such but as both grows use them, they will offset each other.
I for one would really like to see what everyone here could come up with to make the vertical grow even more efficient and discontinue any of the arguments against horizontal as they've only served to derail this thread since something like page 7 or 8.
Happy growing to all


----------



## jigfresh (Nov 16, 2009)

This pics for you myxedup, becuase civility is good.

This is 1 Casey Jones plant. The squares in the screen are 2" x 2". The white spots are sulphur powder. We are almost 2 weeks into flowering:


----------



## 400Whps (Nov 17, 2009)

myxedup said:


> Redeflect, I believe that you didn't quite get what I was saying, I believe that vertical is THE best way to grow currently known. This thread has gone so far into the ditch from what I believe it's original purpose was that unless we get it back on track now, no one will ever read far enough into it to glean anything useful.
> In regards to my comments associated with Rick, his math is solid. The reason why horizontal yields don't compare has to deal with the reflectors and the fact that the footprint of the light isn't going to be even. Plants in the middle get light from all sides where as plants on the edge only get it from a single side.
> With Vertical grows, the light is going to be evenly distributed and you can calculate EXACTLY where your plants are place in order for them to receive 5000 lumens/ sq ft where as attempts made to do so in a horizontal setup simply won't work. Plants in center might be recieving 7k+ lumens/ sq ft while ones on the edge are just pushing 3k.
> Also, in a vertical grow, no light movers are going to be required to keep the light close to the canopy and g/w ratios given by growers using light movers should include the wattage of the rail in with they're lamps. Same could be said in regards to fans and such but as both grows use them, they will offset each other.
> ...


ive read the whole thread and found some great info! i think it's obv. that vertical has the advantage over a normal grow.
i think ill be doing 8 autoflowers in my closet then converting it to vertical, ill be able to fit 24 (3 times the amount)
the pots will be a little smaller 1gal aposed to the 1.5's but i dont think this will make a huge difference,
once my af's show sex id put them in meaning the plants will only be there for 6-8weeks.
i would be seeing atleast a half oz off each plant =12 oz with the 24 1gl. vertical or my 8 oz from 8 1.5gl horizonal(guesstimating,my current pots would produce atleast an oz-dry each, with a good autoflower) if all goes well ill either post my vert setup here or start a journal for it.
thanks for the info and time!


----------



## 400Whps (Nov 17, 2009)

forgot to mention, nice plants everyone
all the fighting should stop.
were here to help eachother not get aneurysms
life's a garden,dig it!


----------



## Uncle Ben (Nov 17, 2009)

I think you should use what your most comfortable with.

All the chest beating about grams/w and "my setup can beat up your setup" is laughable. There are no verifiable standards, no controls, no designation as to the exact plant material that supposedly was measured, no non-partisan regulatory agency verifying claims or standarizing setups. It's the same ole cannabis forum babble, same ole monkeys.....just hangin' from different branches. Knitting needles anyone? 

Grow hard,
UB


----------



## cerberus (Nov 17, 2009)

AHHH HA! now we are getting some reasonable discussion here. An honest meeting of diverging beliefs does not automatically instigate personal conflict, or at the least it should not.
The problem seems to be is the light used most efficiently AND is the space used SO efficiently that it requires more light. I think Heaths biggest accomplishment is figuring out the right diameter of his vertical column and the appropriate distance that wall needs to be from the light. Its hard to knock the facts of past grows, Heaths/dystopia or Jig's current grow (Vertical Scrog - Casey Jones & Headband clones dwc 650w ) these are pretty hard fact about the efficiency of the setup. Now we really need to understand why its efficient and what its down sides are (like UB had mentioned) and then how do we minimize those downsides. I have settled on this growing style and I will be building a vert grow. I am in the midst of getting a dispensary off the ground and I have been mulling over the idea of having a grow in the waiting room. If the zoning laws will allow a grow, its going to be vert, like a weeping wall. =)

Thanks everyone for trying to get back on track here.


----------



## RickWhite (Nov 17, 2009)

I'm glad we are back on topic.

We are all here to learn and to improve our skills. We should be considering what can be taken away from these conversations, not insulting each other or trying to win at all costs.

Perhaps what is starting to emerge from this thread is that growing a maximum area and staying at the bottom of the LUX sweet spot yields the most bud. Vetrts do this well - that is undeniable. But this can also be done horizontally. Using more smaller bulbs instead of 1 big one distributes the light evenly as do well designed reflectors. Raising your garden perimeter also puts the plants equidistant from the bulb. Light movers also help as does raising your fixture.

The two main criticisms I have with verts is A) That they are complicated and prone to failure in many cases. B) That the shape of a plant (X-mass tree shape) is designed to effectively use light from the top. Efficient side lighting requires training every branch to grow in an unnatural direction in order to avoid shading a full half of the plant. Either that or you must grow high numbers of tiny plants pointing inward. And it is not how the light hits the bud that matters. It is how the light hits the leaves near the bud that matters - that is why they turn sideways if you side light. If you want a demonstration of how top lighting hits more of the plant, get a pine-cone and shine a flashlight on it - first from the top, then from the side. Note how much of the cone is shaded.

Now, granted there are some gains in efficiency with a vert. But I see these as being relatively small and easy to overcome with a horizontal grow as well. The question is, are the gains in efficiency negated by the large area of plant shading. And, are they worth all the hassle of the complex vertical systems.


----------



## myxedup (Nov 17, 2009)

Alright, I'm enjoying seeing this get on track, now as for the vert having the most even spread of light from the bulbs, I've been working on a grow setup for the last few months that simply can't get off the ground bc of the high startup costs but I suppose we can theory craft here, so....

My thought is to make a flower room involving 3 1k hps running vertically one after another in 8" Cooltubes. the actual grow area will be right at 6ft tall so let's try and figure out a formula so that we are getting right at 5k lumen's/ sq ft to optimize the setup.

Let's go ahead and just simplify it to a single 1k bulb lighting a 2ft tall area. We know that our goal is 5k lumens
so let's go ahead and divide our lumen output by the desired lumen/sq ft value. In this case 145,000/5000 which gives us 29 sq. ft to work with. 

Divide that number by the height of your grow. In this case 2 ft. So 29/2=14.5=our desired circumference C=2*3.14*R.
So 14.5=2*3.14*R
R=14.5/[2*3.14]
R= 2.3' 

Now if my math is correct, (Haven&#8217;t done much math in a good 7 or 8 years) my grow plants should be placed right at 2&#8217; 4&#8221; away from my bulbs.

Formula for everyone else to figure out they&#8217;re optimum distance from bulbs:
Lumen output/desired lumen saturation=max canopy surface
Max canopy surface/height of grow=Circumference of grow
Radius=circumference/[2*3.14]

O/L=S
S/H=C
C=2*3.14*R ==> equates to R=C/[2*3.14] or R=C/6.28

O=lumen output
L=desired lumen saturation
S=max canopy surface area
H=height of grow
C=circumference of grow
R=radius

If anyone could plz just doublecheck my math and let me know what you all think

Decided to edit again, if 5k lumens/sq ft is the maximum usable, the laws of diminishing returns may make a goal of 3.5k to 4.5k or so more viable for producing more bud but i certainly could be wrong. I do believe however that once my grow is up and running i'll keep my plants approximately 3 ft from the bulbs resulting in about 3.8k lumens/sq. ft. which will allow for a few more plants or a little bit more space for the plants that will already be there if they are too crowded.

Any thoughts on this line of reasoning, plz post


----------



## 400Whps (Nov 17, 2009)

myxedup said:


> Alright, I'm enjoying seeing this get on track, now as for the vert having the most even spread of light from the bulbs, I've been working on a grow setup for the last few months that simply can't get off the ground bc of the high startup costs but I suppose we can theory craft here, so....
> 
> My thought is to make a flower room involving 3 1k hps running vertically one after another in 8" Cooltubes. the actual grow area will be right at 6ft tall so let's try and figure out a formula so that we are getting right at 5k lumen's/ sq ft to optimize the setup.
> 
> ...



im too baked to test your math, your mean inches, not feet right?just had to make sure..
are you using a diy cooltube i cant remember if i saw the bake'a'round's here.
hope all goes well


----------



## RickWhite (Nov 17, 2009)

I couldn't follow that.

Circumference has nothing to do with it. Did you mean diameter? To figure your area you use diameter or twice the radius X 3.14 X height. Or 3.14(diameter)(height)

A diameter of 4.1' gives you 5,000LUX at 2' high. At 7.7' diameter you would have 3,000LUX. That would give 48.3' square at 2' high. At 3' high this would give you 5' diameter.

At 5' you get a 15' circumference 3' high so you could grow about 7, 3' high plants. If you get 5oz per plant you will hit 1g/Watt.


----------



## OregonMeds (Nov 17, 2009)

myxedup said:


> Alright, I'm enjoying seeing this get on track, now as for the vert having the most even spread of light from the bulbs, I've been working on a grow setup for the last few months that simply can't get off the ground bc of the high startup costs but I suppose we can theory craft here, so....
> 
> My thought is to make a flower room involving 3 1k hps running vertically one after another in 8" Cooltubes. the actual grow area will be right at 6ft tall so let's try and figure out a formula so that we are getting right at 5k lumen's/ sq ft to optimize the setup.
> 
> ...


My last two grows have been six 7' trees in a circle around 1kw hps's. One scrogged to a circle of chicken wire the other free standing trees.

The scrog worked best with a 4' screen diameter and I'd suggest 2k not 3 unless you sink the grow containers in your floor or have 9' ceilings. 2k can perfectly cover the area the plants actually have to grow in.

The free standing trees worked out best spaced a good half foot further out though so they didn't crowd eachother out too much. Of course that is strain and training dependant and temp and humidity probably too a bit but I played with things and got a feel for what seemed to work best distance wise on ea.

I'm sold on vertical, the returns are insanely high even with the hack job cheap shit 1k grows I did recently. 2.5lbs per light without even thinking about it 3.5 would have been easily attainable given a more proper setup up to 4 or more had I stacked lights like you are talking about.

For years people have shown what vertical can do and what it's drawbacks are but everything has it's place.


----------



## 400Whps (Nov 17, 2009)

i want to have my pots on shelves (soiless mix not hydro)
and just train my clones over the edge ,to face my light (im using 4 t5's and 2 13inch coolwhitebulbs for veg.)
a couple weeks after training i want to throw them in the vert closet with my hps,
does anyone know about using soil with a vertical grow?
i just want to make sure im not wasting my time
thanks in advance


----------



## Redeflect (Nov 17, 2009)

Myxedup...

Yes, I appologize. I had realized afterwards that you were speaking the opposite of what I had originally interpreted. I was just too lazy to bother editing my post. 





RickWhite...

You are forgetting that smaller bulbs are less efficient... 4 150watt bulbs is 60,000 lumens while a 600watt bulb is 90,000 lumens. That's a 50% increase in lighting which makes it the better choice without a doubt. However, for the sake of arguing light distribution... we'll pretend that the 600watt bulbs only give off 60,000 lumens.

Using more smaller bulbs as opposed to 1 big bulb PARTIALLY distributes the light evenly... if the bulbs are 1/4 the lumens then the lux is reduced 2x as fast the farther you get from the bulb.

Assuming that I had a 4x4 area... Plants at the edges of my grow under the bigger light(about 3ft away) would be receiving just as much lux as plants on the outskirts of the 150watt lights (about 1.5ft away). 1/4 the lumens but half the distance gets the exact same lux. You still have the lighting distributed just as unevenly, only rather than the plants farther from the center receiving less lighting, there are parts throughout the entire area 4x4 receiving not as much lighting.

The fact is that even disregarding efficiency, bigger bulbs can be better if you have a full canopy. The only true advantage smaller bulbs have is that they cover multiple angles. In my opinion the higher efficiency of the bigger bulbs is a far greater advantage, particularly because plants can grow larger without worrying about penetration too far from the bulb.



As for your criticisms, vertical lighting is NO MORE prone to failure than horizontal... why would it be? The bulb runs cooler so it lasts longer and is less likely to overheat/break. As long as you don't let your plants grow so big and unbalanced that they fall over then there is no disadvantage vertical growing has in regards to failure.

Next, addressing you stating that it is more complicated. It is more complicated to setup only because you have to know how big your plants are going to get and that you aren't simply putting things on one surface which means you have to think 3-dimensionally as opposed to simply 2-dimensionally. Vertical growing does require some extra planning and some extra investment, but that DOESN'T mean it is more complicated to operate. It is just as simple to grow under vertical as it is horizontal. No offense intended, but just because you may have some difficulty understanding the factors that play a part in setting up a vertical grow does not make it a worse method... simply, a method that isn't for everyone if they can't consider the different factors that will play a part in their grow ahead of time. Your opinion is that it is more complicated, my opinion is that it requires a little more planning ahead of time and in the end is a superior method.



Now, covering the fact that you argued the shape of the plant. The only reason plants grow into a "christmas tree shape" is because they attempt to grow as tall as possible so that they aren't shaded by other objects. You are forgetting that plants grow upwards because that is where the lighting is. Plants given lighting from the side grow to the sides. Clones grow in a "christmas tree shape" only because a particular bud site happens to be closest to the lighting and the auxins in the plant designate that as the site that is the "tallest" and so it grows even more and in the end shows significantly more growth than the other bud sites. I've topped and fimmed and supercropped plants and I can guarantee you that very few growers grow "christmas tree shaped" plants indoors simply because it can be very space consuming and inefficient(the main budsight is usually very close to the lighting and may be receiving more than 10x as much lux as needed while shading a large area farther away). A "christmas tree shape" is only natural in nature because the sun moves and is always of the greatest intensity perpendicular to the ground.

Plants given light from the top shade buds on the bottom. Plants given light from the side shade buds on the opposite side. Lighting plants from the top does not cause any more lighting to reach the plant, if anything lighting a plant from the side that had originally been growing upwards increases lighting to the plant because the plant then covers a larger footprint(the "stretch" is then to the side rather than upwards). The buds on the opposite side of the plant may get little light, but there are more buds on the side closest to the light growing than there would be if you simply grew from the top with the bottom buds in shade.

I don't understand how you can say that from the top there is less shading than from the side... and then argue that there is also more light hitting the plant from the top. If the side growth is shaded more, that is because the plant is effectively taking in the light on one side before it can reach the other. I don't know about you but when I point a flashlight at the tip of a pinecone, it is barely being lit but when I light it up from the side I have the entire length of the pinecone covered in lighting. Perhaps your pinecone is "unnaturally" shaped?

A 3ft tall plant that is 1ft in diameter only absorbs light in less than a one square foot area if lighted from the top. If it were lit from the side it would receive light in a footprint more along the lines of 2 square feet(the top is thinner so doesn't cover as much area)

In my opinion when I look at your "christmas tree shaped" plants from the bottom, they are COMPLETELY SHADED... how is it that u get buds at all with a completely shaded plant? When I look at it from the side, the inner parts of the plant are being shaded from the top. You can't guage how much of a plant is receiving light by trying to judge how much shade it has, but by looking at how much of it is being lit. That is common sense logic. I can guarantee you without a doubt... "A plant taller than it is wide receives more light from the side." Call me Dr. Seuss.


----------



## That 5hit (Nov 17, 2009)




----------



## DaveTheNewbie (Nov 17, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> If you want a demonstration of how top lighting hits more of the plant, get a pine-cone and shine a flashlight on it - first from the top, then from the side. Note how much of the cone is shaded.


wow you just dug yourself a hole here!

shine a light from the top, then from the side, and there is more shade created from side lighting.

BUT

there is more light hitting the pine cone from the side too because the quality (intensity) of light hitting from the top is mostly crap.

more light will be hitting a pine cone from side lighting than from top lighting because there is more surface area exposed to the light.

your example makes side lighting look like a better option, while fully missing the point being made by the vert fans.

well done


----------



## myxedup (Nov 17, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> I couldn't follow that.
> 
> Circumference has nothing to do with it. Did you mean diameter? To figure your area you use diameter or twice the radius X 3.14 X height. Or 3.14(diameter)(height)
> 
> ...


We are determining the surface area of your intended canopy and as the surface area of a cylinder is Circumference X Height, you do need to know the circumference. 

In regards to the comment someone made about the grow space, this vertical grow will in theory take place in an 11' tall room and not with trees. I would love to give more details on the grow including plans and all but I tend to be a touch bit paranoid considering how many times growers have gotten nailed by Big Brother.

What i will say though is that the grow area will be a cylinder wrapped around the lights with the area underneath the bulbs being used for fans trained on the foilage and the area above to evac air. The plants will grow to within about 9" of ceiling.

Also, the reason i will be using 1k lamps as opposed to 600's or anything else is bc 8" Cooltubes are around 20" in length and I need to have the largest radius possible in order to be able to get in and work with the plants.

This grow will in no way be like the screen grows that I've seen from Jig and a few others simply bc i don't intend to train my plants that much or veg them that long although there is much to be said in regards to the effectiveness of there grows. They are quite effective but not what I'm going for.

I really wish that I could give more detailed plans and such but even being in a medical state doesn't make me feel safe enough to present this to an open-to-all audience.

Happy growing though all


----------



## jigfresh (Nov 17, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> Circumference has nothing to do with it. Did you mean diameter? To figure your area you use diameter or twice the radius X 3.14 X height. Or 3.14(diameter)(height)


Circumference = 3.14(diameter)



myxedup said:


> i don't intend to train my plants that much or veg them that long although there is much to be said in regards to the effectiveness of there grows.


About the effectiveness of my grow... I will not do this monster plant deal again. The veg time is too long for things to be worth it. After trying a go round on vert, I feel like the real key is a 'row' of plants per light. I have my two lights, so I'm going to use two rows or levels next time. Shorten the total grow time. I will say it has been fun as hell... just not the best use of time and energy.


----------



## myxedup (Nov 17, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> I couldn't follow that.
> 
> Circumference has nothing to do with it. Did you mean diameter? To figure your area you use diameter or twice the radius X 3.14 X height. Or 3.14(diameter)(height)
> 
> ...


Rick, just reread your post and if you double check your math against mine, you'll get the same results. Different formula's but same results. Main difference is that I was trying to figure out my radius as that will allow me to figure out my final room setup/finish layout.

Only thing else worth mentioning right now, is that i won't be shooting for 3' plants nor will i be aiming for 5 oz per plant. If you look at Heath's grow again, it is the only one here on RIU that i've found that seems to get as close to what is planned as I've come across.

I'm not interested in screens or doing soil grows on shelves. My plants will be at 45* and I will tell you now that my layout is untested and as such could lead to complete failure from 1 thing or another but I'm interested in total efficiency and I will keep focusing energy on this until I'm satisfied with the results. Something that may never happen even if i were to get something outrageous like 2.5 or 3g/watt because then I'll have to start messing with hormones and such to see if that could increase efficiency. 

It's a vicious path that I must take but when your mind won't shut down and you're currently out of meds, not much else you can do.


----------



## That 5hit (Nov 17, 2009)

fdd2blk said:


> three 600's. no reflective material other than the windows. pulled 2 pounds. i suck indoors so this was one of my better grows.


 
are you sure thats only 2 lb

looks like that would be way more then 2lbs dry
not saying your lieing just saying you could be mistaken

if i had to guess i would say thats more like 4 - 5 lb dry


----------



## That 5hit (Nov 18, 2009)

400Whps said:


> i want to have my pots on shelves (soiless mix not hydro)
> and just train my clones over the edge ,to face my light (im using 4 t5's and 2 13inch coolwhitebulbs for veg.)
> a couple weeks after training i want to throw them in the vert closet with my hps,
> does anyone know about using soil with a vertical grow?
> ...





https://www.rollitup.org/marijuana-pics/images/125534/1_vertical.jpg


----------



## That 5hit (Nov 18, 2009)

nice lights
this reminds me of the first time i ever grew


----------



## 400Whps (Nov 18, 2009)

nice nice!!!


----------



## RickWhite (Nov 18, 2009)

The formula of 2Pi(r) does = circumference, I just never seen anyone start with circumference. So yes, either way works.

As for top lighting Vs side lighting. Plants do not grow up in response to light, they do it in response to gravity. In addition they will bend toward the light.

A plant will generally be almost as wide as tall. The X-mass tree shape is designed to put the lower branches out beyond the higher ones to avoid shading. Plants grown indoors are usually over crowded and that is why the lower branches are shaded. Growing short plants and not over crowding them is a way to avoid this.

When lighting one side, there is only one way to avoid shading the opposite side and that is to force each Branch from behind to the sides. Aside from that you will have growth on only one side of your plant which is again nearly as wide as it is tall in most cases.

Regardless of how you see it, what matters at the end of the day is how big of a canopy of dense bud you can create and how little wasted growth you have under or behind the canopy. Whether or not this is vertical, horizontal or upside down doesn't matter. But the fact is that plants do grow according to gravity and have evolved to use lighting from overhead, not from the side. Given a lone plant with a natural shape, the plant will receive more light where it needs it from over head.


----------



## jigfresh (Nov 18, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> Given a lone plant with a natural shape, the plant will receive more light where it needs it from over head.


I beleive this statemet depends on how the plant was raised. If the plant was somewhat in a corner with light only hitting it from the side I beleive it would develope different than if it was lit from above.

I don't think it's as simple and cut and dry as you make it seem.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Nov 18, 2009)

jigfresh said:


> I beleive this statemet depends on how the plant was raised. If the plant was somewhat in a corner with light only hitting it from the side I beleive it would develope different than if it was lit from above.
> 
> I don't think it's as simple and cut and dry as you make it seem.


It's not cut and dry, great point. Master gardeners understand the conventions and caveats that go with every style of growing. For example, everyone thinks sativas need bookoos of light. Check out my Dalat that sat on the perimeter of the garden most of its lonnnnnnnnnng life.

https://www.rollitup.org/advanced-marijuana-cultivation/267989-uncle-bens-gardening-tweeks-pointers-9.html


----------



## RickWhite (Nov 18, 2009)

jigfresh said:


> I beleive this statemet depends on how the plant was raised. If the plant was somewhat in a corner with light only hitting it from the side I beleive it would develope different than if it was lit from above.
> 
> I don't think it's as simple and cut and dry as you make it seem.


While Cannabis leaves will turn toward the light (phototropism) the stems grow mostly according to gravity (gravitropism). The stems will bend some but this is small compared to their upward growth. You can see this in the pictures posted. If you set your plants sideways, they would turn and grow upward even in a vert.

And come to think of it, while you can virtually eliminate growth under the canopy in a horizontal by growing short plants, growth behind the canopy in a vert will always equal the growth in front - no way around it except to grow super high numbers of tiny plants.


----------



## That 5hit (Nov 18, 2009)

for you guys that grow like this have you thought of adding 2 -3 more rows of plant
why only have 1 row 
the penitrating ablity of a hps is stronger then 1 row


----------



## Redeflect (Nov 18, 2009)

If stems grow mostly according to gavity as you say then all the more reason why vertical would be even better... despite the plant getting lighting from the side, it would still grow upward which would increase its footprint. Bottom branches need to stretch a LOT to increase the plants footprint and when buds grow upward they aren't increasing their footprint at all. Lighting from the side permits the plant to grow "outward" if what you are saying is correct while the buds will still be forming towards the light. This eliminates some of the need to train the plant and increases surface area faster than with horizontal while also removing much of the need to move the light farther, since the plant isn't growing toward the light. In the end, gravitropism would benefit the plant more than impair it.

Also when you came to think of it, you were incorrect... all of the branches grow towards the light so the branches on the other side would be much closer to the stem than the branches closer to the light. You keep imagining a plant lighted from above growing in a vertical and that is the wrong way to imagine the plants. Plants do not grow cut and dry into "christmas tree shapes".

Regardless of what you say, unless you have a heavy indica the plant will be taller than it is wide. Or, unless you train it... which anyone could do with a vert just as much as a horizontal. I'd much rather have my plants growing on one side in abundance as apposed to only a little bit on top and barely on the bottom... vertical lighting allows a more even canopy. In the end it doesn't matter how big a plants footprint is anyway, if the footprint is smaller it means you just need more plants. You are arguing vertical for the sake of argueing it simply because you don't like it. Stop coming up with excuses why it is "unnatural" and at a disadvantage because your arguments are null compared to the lighting efficiency.

Facts don't lie and the facts are that no matter how many invalid arguments you make, vertical growing gives greater light efficiency and grows greater g/w ratios... don't let your personal vendetta against things "unnatural" impede the thinking of others and distract them with frivolous arguments.


----------



## RickWhite (Nov 18, 2009)

The fact is a full 50% of your grow will always be shaded and produce no growth in a vert. That is an undeniable fact. By contrast a horizontal grow with short plants produces no shaded areas if done right. I have seen side lit plants and was heartbroken to see half of the plant dead and wasted - whole branches that would have given huge colas.

Cannabis stems grow up and out 360 degrees around with the bottom branches sticking out further to catch light. If you don't crowd your plants, an overhead light illuminates 100% of the plant - a vert at best can light 50%. Look at the shadow each casts. Top light = small circle on the ground, side light = an area the size of the entire plant. Are you getting the picture?

With a horizontal, I can make sure there is no wasted sub-canopy growth by growing short plants. No wasted growth = efficiency. With a vert, you can not do this because half of your plant is shaded pretty much always. There simply isn't a way around this except to grow massive numbers of dwarf plants with no veg time that are just so small that the light goes through them.

Really, if you can't see how a plant is naturally shaped to use light from overhead you don't have very good spacial perception.


----------



## 400Whps (Nov 18, 2009)

Redeflect said:


> If stems grow mostly according to gavity as you say then all the more reason why vertical would be even better... despite the plant getting lighting from the side, it would still grow upward which would increase its footprint. Bottom branches need to stretch a LOT to increase the plants footprint and when buds grow upward they aren't increasing their footprint at all. Lighting from the side permits the plant to grow "outward" if what you are saying is correct while the buds will still be forming towards the light. This eliminates some of the need to train the plant and increases surface area faster than with horizontal while also removing much of the need to move the light farther, since the plant isn't growing toward the light. In the end, gravitropism would benefit the plant more than impair it.
> 
> Also when you came to think of it, you were incorrect... all of the branches grow towards the light so the branches on the other side would be much closer to the stem than the branches closer to the light. You keep imagining a plant lighted from above growing in a vertical and that is the wrong way to imagine the plants. Plants do not grow cut and dry into "christmas tree shapes".
> 
> ...


sounds worthy to me


----------



## bigtomatofarmer (Nov 18, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> The fact is a full 50% of your grow will always be shaded and produce no growth in a vert. That is an undeniable fact. By contrast a horizontal grow with short plants produces no shaded areas if done right. I have seen side lit plants and was heartbroken to see half of the plant dead and wasted - whole branches that would have given huge colas.
> 
> Cannabis stems grow up and out 360 degrees around with the bottom branches sticking out further to catch light. If you don't crowd your plants, an overhead light illuminates 100% of the plant - a vert at best can light 50%. Look at the shadow each casts. Top light = small circle on the ground, side light = an area the size of the entire plant. Are you getting the picture?
> 
> ...


That is one of the worst arguments yet. Saying that 50% of the plant is always shaded and will not grow is ridiculous. And "half the plant is dead and wasted" ?? No way man, you've NEVER seen half a plant dead and wasted because of vertical growing. NEVER.

And saying you can only grow small dwarfed plants with a vertical light is false propaganda, at best. If you dont want to grow vertically then dont. To each his own. But spreading bad info and lying about what you've seen is not cool.

Look at these pictures and tell me they are "half dead and wasted"


----------



## bigtomatofarmer (Nov 18, 2009)

The growth I have with vertical growing is so amazing that even you couldnt believe your eyes. Remember?


----------



## Redeflect (Nov 18, 2009)

You are completely wrong Rickwhite... and when I grow plants with horizontal lighting i see a LOT of shade in the middle of the plant, the only part of the plant that gets lighting is the top and a small part of the outside as the plant gets wider, the inside growth gets NO direct lighting because it is shaded by the leaves above it. Stop making foolish arguments about partial lighting because we're looking at vertical pictures and those plants look full of growth to me. In fact they look saturated with more light than many horizontal grows I've seen. You can't say they catch no light but also are all in shade, where does the light go? You can't have your argument one way and then the other, either they use a bunch of light and other parts are in the shade, or the plant catches no light and the entire plant is being lit. Light doesn't just disappear magically before it reaches other parts of a plant. Regardless of whatever fact less and erroneous proof you try to bring up, it doesn't escape the fact that VERTICAL PLANTS RECEIVE MORE LIGHTING. If you're so intent on not having "wasted growth" then trim the back side of the plant as it grows just like you would trim the undergrowth of a plant canopy of a horizontal grow that is IN THE SHADE. You're a fool if you think that a normal plant doesn't shade itself.

You keep making the point that if you look at a plant in a vertical setup then the leaves on the other side of the light are in the shade, well guess what? If you look at the damn bottom of a plant in a horizontal setup that has leaves above it then it is receiving no light either. The only reason you make the foolish assumption that a normally grown plant is receiving 100% light is because you're ignoring the inside and bottom of the plant that is completely shaded.

Vertical lighting is the exact same as turning a regular plant on its side under a horizontal (lst). The only difference is rather than turning the plant to the side, you turn the light to the side. The plant is still being lit from the side in both cases. If anything, vertical growing is better because you do not have to consistently train the plant.

Are you saying a plant that has been LST grows worse than a normal plant? Weird, wonder why people do it then. Perhaps, when you LST your plant receives more lighting because it is growing perpendicular to the light? What do you know... it does. One of the advantages with vertical is that rather than bending the plant so that growth is outward, the plant automatically grows outward(in relation to the light). I have NEVER seen an LST plant where someone complained about only 1/2 the plant being lit, and if they did all they had to do was trim the undergrowth. I have definitely seen many complains about "naturally grown" plants shading their lower growth and forming almost no buds at the bottom. If you want to make a point based on ignorance, then trim the damn part of the plant facing away from the light and stop complaining about the "inefficiency" of vertical growing which has proven to be more effective at lighting a plant. Just because you may not LST, Scrog, Supercrop, or Fim YOUR plants doesn't mean they don't work far better than a normally grown plant for increasing plant growth. Natural isn't always better.

Your points are nothing but hypocritical, factless, and purely ignorant of established growing techniques. Now, stop coming up with more foolish points that have to be proven wrong.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Nov 18, 2009)

bigtomatofarmer said:


> That is one of the worst arguments yet.


And stealing my photos sucks just to make your case witness photo #3. This is my plant as posted before...... grown under _*horizontal*_ lighting. DO NOT pass it off as being yours. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and consider this act as another "stoner mistake".









Uncle Ben


----------



## bigtomatofarmer (Nov 18, 2009)

Uncle Ben said:


> And stealing my photos sucks just to make your case witness photo #3. This is my plant as posted before...... grown under _*horizontal*_ lighting. DO NOT pass it off as being yours. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and consider this act as another "stoner mistake".
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thank You!! My point exactly. Im glad you caught it because Im not sure anybody else would have.

It wasnt a stoners mistake, I puposefully added your (horizontal) picture to show that vertically grown plants look the exact same as horizontally grown plants. I hope we can get past the myth about vertically grown plants being unhealthy and half dead.

The difference is you can fit more plants around a vertical light than you can under a horizontal light. Case and point! Thank you

Edit: I removed your picture from my original post. Id also like to point out that every picture I posted was already posted in this thread by somebody else. Even though many vertically grown plants have been posted I keep hearing the same "oh they look so unhealthy" b.s. over and over. Its untrue and needs to stop, that is all


----------



## thehiena (Nov 18, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> I have seen side lit plants and was heartbroken to see half of the plant dead and wasted - whole branches that would have given huge colas.
> 
> I have to disagree with you, Never seen any of my plants like that, even the ones I'm too lazy to rotate don't show any dead or wasted branches. You should try to grow both ways and discover which one is the best for you.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Nov 18, 2009)

bigtomatofarmer said:


> Thank You!! My point exactly. Im glad you caught it because Im not sure anybody else would have.
> 
> It wasnt a stoners mistake, I puposefully added your picture to show you that vertically grown plants look the exact same as horizontal plants.
> 
> The difference is you can fit more plants around a light than you can uder a light. Case and point! Thank you


Right. Recommend you make that distinction, which you failed to do.


> Look at these pictures and tell me they are "half dead and wasted"


Make your case honestly, or expect my wrath.

Lot's of gung ho theorists and chest beaters here.

Vertical lighting does NOT guarantee more plants per light, quite the opposite. It will guarantee less due to about 30% of the plant being illuminated with the other 70% of the plant being shaded. 

If God wanted plants to be illuminated sideways, he would have kept the sun on the horizon. 

UB


----------



## bigtomatofarmer (Nov 18, 2009)

15 plants around one vertical 400 watt HPS. They all look pretty good to me.

Vertical growing is amazing. Try it before you bash it. 

https://www.rollitup.org/general-marijuana-growing/70310-vertical-grow-400-watt-hps.html



inbudwetrust said:


> So I have many people doubt when I tell them I have about 15 plants under one 400 watter. Well this is how I do it. My space is 4 by 4. I hang my light vertical about 2 feet off the ground. The outside row of plants is about two feet and a half from the light and about ten inches off the ground. The second row is immediatly in front of the other row on the ground. So I have like a step up kind of thing. Well I flower the plants at about 10 inches, they grow another foot but dont grow too much vertically because the light is along the face of the plant as opposed to above it. I am finding that I am able to get nugs from the dirt all the way to the top of the plants. The light hits the entire plants from a good distance. Here are some pics of the grow room. Then a few of the plants in progress. The flowering plants have about three weeks left, maybe a little more. The ones on the right are about three weeks to amonth behind the ones on the left. I am doing a perpetual grow so I can harvest 7 or 8 nice plants every month. Here are a few pics of the grow room, then a few of the actual girls flowering. They look awesome to me, let me know what YOU think. Vertical growing is the future in my opinion. Max yields with less light.


----------



## cerberus (Nov 18, 2009)

Uncle Ben said:


> Right. Recommend you make that distinction, which you failed to do. Make your case honestly, or expect my wrath.
> 
> Lot's of gung ho theorists and chest beaters here.


there certainly is.. 



> Vertical lighting does NOT guarantee more plants per light, quite the opposite. It will guarantee less due to about 30% of the plant being illuminated with the other 70% of the plant being shaded.
> 
> If God wanted plants to be illuminated sideways, he would have kept the sun on the horizon.
> 
> UB


Lets be serious here, God never intended you to grow inside did he? God never intended for bubbleponics but it seems to work. I know you are a better horticulturalist than that.

Youre the same guy that says, nay preaches about not trimming leaves. Why dont you need to remove leaves to help light the lower plant? Because its all the same organism. 30% of the plants is illuminated? If you are suggesting that the other 70% of light is lost, Where does it go? To the plant next to it? That in itself would imply there are more plants.. No most likely the other 70% of light will hit the other leaves on the plant, remember we are not lighting the buds we are feeding the leafs. (this makes the whole pine cone analogy a little moot)

I know your pissed about your picture being used with out appropriate credit, but spouting off against something without using the knowledge you obviously have is self defacing. Im a fan of your posts, man. I think you got a shit ton of good info, there no need to be so irate that you didnt get credit for a picture..

again, much love and respect but I'm gonna call it like I see it.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Nov 18, 2009)

cerberus said:


> I know your pissed about your picture being used with out appropriate credit,....


I got pissed because he used my photo without my permission and then falsely passed it off to make his case for vertical growing. I explained my position perfectly well.

I'm not here to build a fan base and have explained the function of leaves every which way but Sunday. Are you thick, hard headed or what? Prune all the damn things off if it makes you feel better.

UB


----------



## Uncle Ben (Nov 18, 2009)

bigtomatofarmer said:


> 15 plants around one vertical 400 watt HPS. They all look pretty good to me.
> 
> Vertical growing is amazing. Try it before you bash it.
> 
> https://www.rollitup.org/general-marijuana-growing/70310-vertical-grow-400-watt-hps.html


And whose plants are those? 

Those are some pretty slim looking colas.


----------



## bigtomatofarmer (Nov 18, 2009)

UB read the enitre post. I clearly quoted Inbudwetrust and even provided a link to his journal. 

And obviously I wasnt trying to steal your picture. Every picture I posted was already posted in this thread by somone else(except pic #1, that is my plant). I thought the distinction was obvious. Never did I claim them all as my own or was I trying to. Yes I did you use your picture to prove my point, and for that I thank you. 

My point is simple. You cannot tell a difference between vertically grown and horizontal. Not now, not tomorow, not ever. That phototropism affect isnt "killer."


----------



## That 5hit (Nov 18, 2009)

bigtomatofarmer said:


> UB read the enitre post. I clearly quoted Inbudwetrust and even provided a link to his journal.
> 
> And obviously I wasnt trying to steal your picture. Every picture I posted was already posted in this thread by somone else(except pic #1, that is my plant). I thought the distinction was obvious. Never did I claim them all as my own or was I trying to. Yes I did you use your picture to prove my point, and for that I thank you.
> 
> My point is simple. You cannot tell a difference between vertically grown and horizontal. Not now, not tomorow, not ever. That phototropism affect isnt "killer."


i understood you as did he - but he cant loose, and this way of thinking is why wars happen and great thread are closed - instead of him saying to each there own he would rather argue , by saying to each there own and adding your way sucks - this happen everytime something new is added to growing ( i know vert is not new, its been around for years, blah, blah,,blah - its now taking off) this happened when people first started growing indoors the out door grower would clam that shit grown indoor looked and taste funny and did not look and taste as good as outdoor buds and this also happened with hydro, people clamed you could look at the bud and tell if it was grown in soil or by hydro , this also happened with CFL's people clamed you can look at the buds and tell if they where grown under hid's or cfl' or MH buds versus HPS bud or even bud grown from seed to bud under 12/12 versus veg time of 1month of 18/6 or 24/0

the true fact is that a grower could just as ezly produce great bud with any light in any type of medium if given time to learn that strain and style - i've seen professional outdoor grower start growing indoors only to produce less then wanted results - then turn around and later became pro indoor grower 

if you took 1 strain and grew it professionally in every type of medium, every type of system using every type of light in every position indoor and outdoor form seed to cure and placed a nug of equal size and shape and weight on a table side by side you could not tell how it was grown - that like when noob's post pic of bagseed plants and buds and ask what strain is it there no way to tell

after saying all of this i end with saying growing vertical is the best way to grow


----------



## Bigrintxas (Nov 19, 2009)

Uncle Ben said:


> Right. Recommend you make that distinction, which you failed to do. Make your case honestly, or expect my wrath.
> 
> Lot's of gung ho theorists and chest beaters here.
> 
> ...


Make your case honestly? YOU are the gung ho theorist that doesnt have experience with vertical growing. YOU are the same person who said vertical plants always look unhealthy. YOU are the one saying only 30% of the plant gets light vertically. I think YOU are the one who isnt making your case honestly. Just a bunch of lies and random numbers pulled out of think air. People like YOU and rickwhite have derailed this thread incredibly. Neither one of you know what you are talking about.


----------



## cerberus (Nov 19, 2009)

Uncle Ben said:


> I got pissed because he used my photo without my permission and then falsely passed it off to make his case for vertical growing. I explained my position perfectly well.
> 
> I'm not here to build a fan base and have explained the function of leaves every which way but Sunday. Are you thick, hard headed or what? Prune all the damn things off if it makes you feel better.
> 
> UB




here is a fine example of a vacuous posting, first I didnt insult you, I expect the same respect back. Second, leafs feeding the machine IS my point! Youre the one that said that 30% of plant illumination crap; as a rebuttal I used YOUR advice to explain why your random 30% thing is bullshit. YOU are RIGHT. We dont need to prune fan leaves because they feed the vegetation that they shade.. 
&#12288;
Again, why are your shelving all your knowledge? Are you intentionally not reading through the post because your ego is feeling threatened? Nobody is questioning your ability to grow but your not applying that same knowledge to this venue. vert plants are unhealthy was never justified 30% of plant illumination was never justified. Then you go off and insult that other mans plants, trying to sling an insult at BTF. Your attitude is viral at best, not informative.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Nov 19, 2009)

bigtomatofarmer said:


> And obviously I wasnt trying to steal your picture.


Sorry for the knee jerk reaction, but after years of folks stealing my drafts and posing them as their own (by removing the "Uncle Ben" signature), pix too, I'm a little wary about the state of affairs of cannabis forums. There is little honor and alot of greed which shows its ugly head in many forms.

Here's an example right here at RIU, found by me doing a Google Search on another search issue a while back. 
https://www.rollitup.org/general-marijuana-growing/9114-spin-out-chemical-root-pruning.html

....and another....

http://forum.grasscity.com/general-indoor-growing/215941-never-ending-abuse-phosphorous-enhance-flowering-1.html

....then there were incidents of plagarism at OG and 420Magazine.



> Yes I did you use your picture to prove my point, and for that I thank you.
> 
> My point is simple. You cannot tell a difference between vertically grown and horizontal. Not now, not tomorow, not ever. That phototropism affect isnt "killer."


My apologies, I thought you were using my picture to prove that vertical was somehow superior to horizontal. 

Folks need not re-invent the wheel, Jorge Cervantes has done it for you with his excellent chapter on Lighting in his new Bible, which includes real world tests.

UB


----------



## Uncle Ben (Nov 19, 2009)

This just caught me eye and needs addressing. Botany lesson for the day....



RickWhite said:


> While Cannabis leaves will turn toward the light (phototropism) the stems grow mostly according to gravity (gravitropism). The stems will bend some but this is small compared to their upward growth. You can see this in the pictures posted. If you set your plants sideways, they would turn and grow upward even in a vert.


* Phototropism* - is the hormonal plant response in order to collect the most amount of photons possible. The cells located on the shady side of the plant's leaf petiole will elongate and divide which bends the leaf towards the light source. Accordingly, unless you have side lighting or excellent side reflecting panels, you'll be rotating your plants in a vertical situation. Another caveat with this type of lighting.

* Gravitropism* - is the genetic fingerprint via hormones whereby roots grow down and above ground plant material grows upwards as determined by the pull of gravity. Deprive a plant water and the petioles/leafsets will droop, has little to do with gravitropism in this situation.

I grow tall plants, like up to 5' or so, with horizontal lighting and still get good bud development on the lower branches and maintain most of the lowest fan leaves come harvest. 

UB


----------



## genuity (Nov 19, 2009)

[/size][/size]Here are a few diagrams that I think Krusty made a few years ago to explain why vertical lighting works so well as opposed to horizontal.























As you can see their are a few benefits to vertical lighting, Number 1 The majority of the heat produced by the HID is pushed upwards to your exhaust vs the horizontal hood that traps heat and directs it at your plant's. The main advantage to this is that you can put your plants closer to your bulb's without worrying about burning them, 1 grower I know can get his plants up to 6" from his 1000w bulb but keeps them back a few more inches due to the buds getting bleached from to much light!!

Number 2 The next benefit vertical growing is that you will be using 360o of your light, you want to absolutely cover the outer diameter of the bulb with plants so barely any light can escape, this will give you the best efficiency you will be blasting your plants with as many lumen's as possible. Compare this method to a horizontal garden, if you look at the diagrams you can see that a massive 75% of the light is reflected thus killing a lot of lumen's in the process lumen's that I'd prefer getting to my plants, and after all less lumen's = less yield and we don't want that now do we!

Benefit Number 3, This next benefit is for space, the amount of space you save by growing is phenomenal, a 600w lamp would be fit for a 4X4 area at very most, and even this is only a low 37.5 watts per square foot. compare this to a vertical set up, you could have a vert system 3 foot in diameter but 8 foot high and fill it with 300 plants have 10 of these in one room......ya get the idea? If not here is a pic to explain the major benefit of space improvement.







As you can see you would be improving your space by 135%! That's a huge increase.

i still love flat growing/soil to the end


----------



## Uncle Ben (Nov 19, 2009)

genuity said:


> Here are a few diagrams that I think Krusty made a few years ago to explain why vertical lighting works so well as opposed to horizontal.


Not a valid comparison....

Excuse the pun, but this isn't a black and white situation. A 135.5% more of 60% less is not valid. And so, back to the caveats of each......

Horizontal lighting and to a much lesser extent vertical lighting takes on dozens of different forms and effectiveness depending on the hood's design, placement of plants, reflective panels etc., but mainly the design of the hood. Gotta compare apples to apples, which Krusty didn't. Ya need to look at Jorge's stuff for an objective approach. 

Many years ago Diamond Lights, the most technical and advanced of the plant lighting design companies came up with their ultimate hood, a multi facited hood that was highly reflected and focused allowing the hood to be placed quite a bit farther from the plants which relieved the heat issue while maintaining record lumen output. I think PL took off with the design and still markets the concept. It's a round hood with alot of facits. I used to talk to the techs at Diamond Lights, this was about 15 years ago. They had their own design team, lab, etc. I still have their small horizontal hood and retrofitted the painted gull wing with a specular insert. It is so much more effective than a fancy dancy Sun Systems, that I sold the Sun hood.

UB


----------



## jeebuscheebus (Nov 19, 2009)

Cerberus post 250 of thread.

Why has Uncle Ben chosen to ignore it?

Instead he replies to numerous other posts.

Uncle Ben YOU are the one posting theories!


Add my vote for Vert!


----------



## genuity (Nov 19, 2009)

Uncle Ben said:


> Not a valid comparison....
> 
> Excuse the pun, but this isn't a black and white situation. A 135.5% more of 60% less is not valid. And so, back to the caveats of each......
> 
> ...


 that is why i posted it,cause i know i am not the only one that see's somthing wrong with this,i am a horizontal man,and have been for sometime,just looking for some info on the subject,and that is what i found,i do not think 135.5% is right,keep it horizontal


----------



## tea tree (Nov 19, 2009)

If I here the word caveat one more time, then "caveat emptor". lol. you have been warned.


----------



## cerberus (Nov 19, 2009)

Uncle Ben said:


> Not a valid comparison....
> 
> Excuse the pun, but this isn't a black and white situation. A 135.5% more of 60% less is not valid. And so, back to the caveats of each......
> 
> ...


I'm sorry if this reads like an attack after the last exchange but I am sincerely curios. How does your post explain why Krustys diagrams are not valid? As I read and view the diagrams, they compare in, basic terms, how the light is emitted from any generic bulb and how effective that illumination is to a growing square footage. It does this to show how the different bulb placements give you more or less square footage to grow in. I just dont see how diamonds efficient hoods factor into the validity of the diagram, are you saying that with those hoods you can grow a bigger footprint? Seriously, help me understand.


----------



## RickWhite (Nov 19, 2009)

Those diagrams are a joke. Do you guys have any understanding of the physics of light and of basic geometry and trigonometry? First, read up on what a parabola does. Second, understand that when light reflects of an object, the angle of incidence = the angle of reflection. In other words, the pool ball comes off the cushion at the same angle as it hits it. Few if any rays will ever leave the arc tube, pass through the glass of the bulb, hit the reflector and return to the arc tube. And we already covered the additional area issue.

As for plant shading - yes, if you have a few small, sparsely grown plants inside a room covered in Mylar and in pots you can turn, you can manage to get light to all sides. But assuming you are doing a dense grow, with bushy plants, this will never happen. Light simply does not penetrate through one side of a bush through to the other with any appreciable brightness. And the stems will not make a 180 degree turn and grow to the front of the plant.

Really, I don't see why this is so hard to comprehend - it is not rocket science. Get yourself a cone shaped cup or an ice cream cone and shine a flashlight straight down on top of it. You will notice the whole cone illuminated 360 deg around with only the area underneath shaded. Then shine the flashlight from the side and look at the opposite side. Notice that a full 50% is shaded.

Now sure, when you grow 5-10 scrawny plants around a 600W HPS, light will make it through to the back side. Try growing 24-36 plants under a single 600W HPS and see if any light gets through.

Fact is, branches grow laterally 360 deg around the plant, not 180 deg toward the side your light is on. Top lighting lights the plant 360 deg around, side lighting only 180 deg. If you have a thick canopy, 50% of your plant will receive no light. There is no two ways about it.

Have a look at this:

http://www.adjustawings.com/index.htm


----------



## Uncle Ben (Nov 19, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> Now sure, when you grow 5-10 scrawny plants around a 600W HPS, light will make it through to the back side. Try growing 24-36 plants under a single 600W HPS and see if any light gets through.


FR light does get thru, and some R.



> Fact is, branches grow laterally 360 deg around the plant, not 180 deg toward the side your light is on.


If you never rotate your plants, the branches will all turn, and remain turned, towards the light source. 

cerberus, if you don't understand how a lamp radiates, then I can't help you. I tried to explain how a well designed hood collects, concentrates, and focuses light and even made a point of how Diamond Lights perfected it. Krusty did not take such issues into consideration, just posted his bogus graphics. I've studied this and posted links to lighting issues until there is no tomorrow. Perhaps you old enough to remember OG remember my LOR thread and links.

AGAIN, get Jorge's book, perhaps it can help. 

Caveat emptor,
UB


----------



## jordisgarden (Nov 19, 2009)

thats very cool how does it work. is it efficient?


----------



## choch (Nov 19, 2009)

An often overlooked advantage of a circular vertical garden such as a coliseum is that every plant is close to the same distance from the light, and many of the plants are only a foot or so farther away from a second bulb as well. Add to that the fact that (in a well managed garden) the bottom of every cola is getting the same high light intensity as the top is with the side lighting, and with a single cola strain every bud is all frosty killer "tops". 

One challenge that lowers the yields for many vert newbies is trying to come up with the high plant numbers of healthy consistent well rooted clones, all vegged to the same height. It takes more skill and equipment to supply 300 8" plants to fill your flower room after each harvest than it does to come up with 20 plants or so to fill your flat garden in the same space. It's worth it on harvest day though!


----------



## bigtomatofarmer (Nov 19, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> Really, I don't see why this is so hard to comprehend - it is not rocket science. Get yourself a cone shaped cup or an ice cream cone and shine a flashlight straight down on top of it. You will notice the whole cone illuminated 360 deg around with only the area underneath shaded. Then shine the flashlight from the side and look at the opposite side. Notice that a full 50% is shaded.


First, a light bulb hanging vertically in a grow room is completely different from a flashlight shining on a cone. A cone is completely solid and a flashlight focuses light on one spot. A plant and light bulb do not replicate either of those objects. Your example also negates the fact that the middle/bottom of a plant sometimes receives no light with a horizontal. Not 100% coverage like you claim.

Second, well I guess thats it. Im done arguing with you. You have yet to make a valid point. I went back and re-read your posts and laughed my ass off. I guarantee when you finally start growing MJ you will understand. Try one vertical grow, you'll never go back. I promise. 


*Go BIG or Go Home!!!*


----------



## Redeflect (Nov 19, 2009)

Rickwhite, seriously SHUT UP ABOUT THE 50% ISSUE. If you weren't so incompetent you'd know that ANY OBJECT that has light hitting it from a single source is 50% in shade. No matter the shape of the object. I don't care if you point a light at a ball from the left or right or top or at a god damn naked mannequin from the rear. 50% is still lit and 50% is in the shade. IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW MUCH OF THE PLANT IS IN SHADE.

Light hitting a plant is absorbed by a plant one way or the other. If not by the leaves on the surface then by the leaves underneath and if not by those leaves then it travels on through the plant. If any part of a plant is shaded, that is only because other parts of it are already catching the light. If you knew basic physics you would know that things don't simply disappear. All that matters is how much light is actually hitting the plant. This is determined by the footprint of the object. In a vertical, the plant takes up a larger footprint and so receives more lighting.

Stop attempting to seem like you actually know what you are speaking of because you apparently can't grasp basic highschool geometry. HORIZONTAL PLANTS ARE SHADED ON THE BOTTOM and vertical plants are SHADED ON THE SIDE. Every time I look at a horizontal plant from the opposite direction of the light, it is completely shaded. Any time you look at any object from the opposite direction of the light, it is completely shaded. If i look at a vertical plant from the side closest to the light, it looks 100% lit just like a horizontal plant from the top. The only difference is that vertical plants receive more lighting. Yes, a plant lit from above may have more actual plant surface area covered with light IF leaves didn't angle flat towards a light source, but NO MATTER WHAT the total measurement of lux is less. Your argument is completely backward because the true reality is that a vertically lit plant actually has a greater surface area being covered with light.

If you don't lay off your bullcrap lies about dead and withered branches that receive no light I'll start spamming about how horizontal plants have dead and withered branches on the bottom and inside where there is no light, because they are being shaded by the branches above and vertical plants let all the light through to the other side too. It would make no sense, but your argument makes just as little because it is a FACTLESS LIE. A vertically lit plant is effective for the same reason LSTing a plant is effective, it increases the footprint. Now, stop arguing, let people learn, and leave the damn thread because you're only spreading misinformation with NO BASIS.

Your bullcrap theory says if I shine a light onto a piece of paper, 50% of it is in the shade... but if i roll it into a cone and shine a light at the tip of it, 100% of it is lit. That is pure stupidity, You're still only lighting 1/2 the paper... You just don't notice because the damn angle makes the unshaded 50% hidden from you. Look at it from the bottom and you'll see a full 50% of the paper in shade. The fact is that the actual measurement of light hitting the cone is less because it takes up a smaller footprint of light. Just look at it... it'd be less bright.

If I point the light at the tip of a needle, it'd be lit all the way down the needle because it is still getting wider. The only shade would be a small dot at the bottom(if it were hollow 50% of it would be in the shade). However, I'd get much more light onto that needle if I lit it from the side. In one case you have a tiny footprint (very few photons) hitting a large surface area(due to the angle of the needle), which means the lux is very small. In the other case you have a larger footprint(many more photons) hitting a smaller surface area, which means the lux is much greater. Plants however, do not angle like your pine cone, or a piece of paper folded into a cone, or a needle. A plants leaves angle perpendicular to the light and aren't an angled smooth surface. Why do they do this? To increase their damn footprint so they can receive more light.

No matter how much I keep trying to explain basic geometry, trigonometry, physics, biology... you still don't grasp it. Others with a greater level of comprehension see the facts outside of your close minded perspective. You are the kind of fool that looks at a concave mirror and thinks that you shrank simply because you can't understand the angles and distribution of light. You look at a half moon and think that the sun stopped giving off 1/2 its light simply because you can't acknowledge where the other half of it went.

Seriously, top ruining the damn thread with your idiotic fallacies. Vertical gives more light to the plants. Grow up, man up, admit your wrong, and learn.


----------



## TeddyPickles (Nov 20, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> I couldn't follow that.
> 
> Circumference has nothing to do with it. Did you mean diameter? To figure your area you use diameter or twice the radius X 3.14 X height. Or 3.14(diameter)(height)
> 
> ...




Thread is good except for this guy he is pretty wack.


----------



## 400Whps (Nov 20, 2009)

mellow......... mellow............ 
.........melloww..........


----------



## RickWhite (Nov 20, 2009)

Judging from the PATHETIC grows you guys are posting it looks like I forgot more about growing than you punks will ever know. I mean really, you arrange 5 or 6 scrawny plants in dirt buckets around a bulb and claim that you are getting massive yields. When you put together your first high yield setup get back to me - until then quit talking out of your ass.


----------



## cerberus (Nov 20, 2009)

Yeah thats productive.. Look man, your seriously coming off as a troll right now. We have people in this thread that don't agree with vert but can stay productive in the conversation, why not you?
&#12288;
UB: ahhh hell OG! back when BOG was the hottest guy on the block. (I'm not saying that as a knock, I wish I could find some of his gear) 
anyways - I guess my inability to understand is not that I disagree with what you said, I just don't understand it's relationship to the diagrams. So, your suggesting that with a proper hood you can move the light high enough up to illuminate the same space as a vertical and not loose any LUX?


----------



## jigfresh (Nov 20, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> it looks like I forgot more about growing than you punks will ever know.


Lol Rick... you are not going to make any of us beleive you've ever grown any kind of plant in your life.



RickWhite said:


> Stop acting like a child and get back to the issue.


----------



## bigtomatofarmer (Nov 20, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> Judging from the PATHETIC grows you guys are posting it looks like I forgot more about growing than you punks will ever know. I mean really, you arrange 5 or 6 scrawny plants in dirt buckets around a bulb and claim that you are getting massive yields. When you put together your first high yield setup get back to me - until then quit talking out of your ass.


Haha Rick youre so funny. Im sorry to tell you this is not pathetic or scrawny....








I can do 6 of these plants around a single HPS light any day of the week 


Post one picture of something you have growing... Oh wait, you can't  you dont grow anything hahaha   






Leave this conversation to people who know what they are talking about.


----------



## oh really??? (Nov 20, 2009)

wait so i got lost in all the babble. 

. . .if i have a 400 hps hanging in the middle of 6 plants in 7 gallon pots with mylar on the outside walls, i should pull more weight than if i put the light horizontal w/hood?


----------



## OregonMeds (Nov 20, 2009)

oh really??? said:


> wait so i got lost in all the babble.
> 
> . . .if i have a 400 hps hanging in the middle of 6 plants in 7 gallon pots with mylar on the outside walls, i should pull more weight than if i put the light horizontal w/hood?


Given you keep in mind it's still just a 400 and not enough for huge thick trees, yes. Flower so the top out at no more than 4' or better yet scrog an even cylinder of bud about 4' tall.

You might pull close to a pound that way, you will almost for sure if you scrog them in a cylinder shape also.


----------



## Uncle Ben (Nov 20, 2009)

cerberus said:


> UB: ahhh hell OG! back when BOG was the hottest guy on the block.


Yeah, he was really "hot".


----------



## genuity (Nov 21, 2009)

Uncle Ben said:


> Yeah, he was really "hot".


 thats funny,i was looking at some of his B.M.R the other day,THATS CRAZY


----------



## tea tree (Nov 21, 2009)

when I read dudes talk about "Lux" I just page down, it means BS! Lol, those you cant talk, those who can do type of deal.


bigtomatoe, I do the same size plants, five gallons or seven and I was wondering if I could really squeeze more plants in a circle around a vert bulb, rather than six or so in a row under a horizontal. I am a year into growing, so in your experince did your vertical beat the shit out of horizintal with five gallon trees? Seems like it could to me and I am curious did you just let them grow regualr or did you top or train at all? A nice bit of chicken wire seems kinda easy now that i type this, usually I am pretty lazy! 

Just saw your pics, they look like they just all went for it. Ever try it with six neatly around a bulb? That is what I meant.


----------



## RickWhite (Nov 21, 2009)

bigtomatofarmer said:


> Haha Rick youre so funny. Im sorry to tell you this is not pathetic or scrawny....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wow, you can grow six whole plants at once! And you say it as though I am supposed to be impressed?

And how many weeks of veg time was that? I bet that plant saw at least 8 weeks of veg time.

Try harvesting 24 1OZ plants in 10 weeks from a single 600W HPS. Or better yet 12 1OZ plants every few weeks from a perpetual SOG.

By the way what does the other side of that side lit plant look like? Oh wait, I know - nothing but bare branches.

I don't need to post pictures to prove anything and I'm not about to post incriminating evidence on line. I'll leave that to you chowder heads to post pictures of the good side of your single 20 week old, one sided plants and claiming to be pros. Have fun.


----------



## jigfresh (Nov 21, 2009)

RickWhite said:


> Stop acting like a child and get back to the issue.


You should take your own advise Rick.

Why are you even on this thread????


----------



## 400Whps (Nov 21, 2009)

the majority of this site's threads turn into pointless drama
can someone just walk away.
there are people that want usefull info around here..
thanks i think........


----------



## myxedup (Nov 21, 2009)

Rick, why rip on somebody for choosing to stay within the legal number of plants that their state allows on their card? Many of the people here are looking at ways to optimize their grows according to what they are legally allowed to do and as many of them live in apartments and other such locations, working around a single bulb prevents their landlords from getting suspicious. If that means vegging for 8 weeks and then harvesting 8 weeks later, they can still manage 3 harvests a year while being completely legal and they will have no worries about their meds running low.

Your one claim to fame on this thread was the math behind the lumens being correct, but you've thoroughly failed to see any of the other reasons people choose to grow vertical. For instance, bulbs last longer, they don't get near as hot, you can be completely certain that your light is being distributed evenly and doesn't require rotating your plants.

As you've failed to bring anything beneficial to this thread since then and you've simply been trolling on vert because your too damn stupid to understand it or whatever the case is, say something useful or just stfu and find another thread.


----------



## bigtomatofarmer (Nov 21, 2009)

tea tree said:


> when I read dudes talk about "Lux" I just page down, it means BS! Lol, those you cant talk, those who can do type of deal.
> 
> 
> bigtomatoe, I do the same size plants, five gallons or seven and I was wondering if I could really squeeze more plants in a circle around a vert bulb, rather than six or so in a row under a horizontal. I am a year into growing, so in your experince did your vertical beat the shit out of horizintal with five gallon trees? Seems like it could to me and I am curious did you just let them grow regualr or did you top or train at all? A nice bit of chicken wire seems kinda easy now that i type this, usually I am pretty lazy!
> ...


I hear ya man, when rick posts its best to just scroll down to the next post. You will be dumber for reading anything by him 

And to answer your question YES. Ive done 6 plants like that vertically (400 watt HPS), but it was impossible to do under one horizontal (400 watt HPS) bulb. When growing plants that size with a horizontal bulb only a few of the closest plants would receive adequate amounts of light. The outer plants were shaded by their sisters, and their lower branches received no light at all. Now that my bulb hangs vertically in between all of them, the plants are in direct view of the bulb and they respond better to it.

Its also important for me to keep the number as low as possible. My state isnt pot friendly, so 6 plants is the max I will grow. And I only grow for personal use so there is no need to get greedy. 

The plants I grow are beautiful and healthy, all the way around. Anyone who cant see it is a moron


----------



## That 5hit (Nov 22, 2009)

bigtomatofarmer said:


> I hear ya man, when rick posts its best to just scroll down to the next post. You will be dumber for reading anything by him
> 
> And to answer your question YES. Ive done 6 plants like that vertically (400 watt HPS), but it was impossible to do under one horizontal (400 watt HPS) bulb. When growing plants that size with a horizontal bulb only a few of the closest plants would receive adequate amounts of light. The outer plants were shaded by their sisters, and their lower branches received no light at all. Now that my bulb hangs vertically in between all of them, the plants are in direct view of the bulb and they respond better to it.
> 
> ...


how long do you veg
and whats the height before harvest 
and what's your end weight dry bud
if you dont mind, i will understand if you do


----------



## TeddyPickles (Nov 22, 2009)

Well you weren't asking me but I cooltube it and with veg time 5-6 weeks, flower time 8-9 weeks, with a single 1000w hortilux I averaged yield 3-4oz per plant across 3 plants. With a single 600w in a 2x3 space I'm hoping to get about 8oz off of two plants. This is in DWC and I am about to entirely change my grow style over to organic soil.

I really want to set up a 360 degree cooltube so that I can do circle grows and do like an 8 inch diameter or something crazy small like that. Epic.


----------



## TheNatural (Nov 22, 2009)

I like to let my eyes be my guide and common sense.

These two trees are in my current grow and were only given about three weeks of Veg and are not even five weeks into flowering and were only Vegged 15 hours a day instead of 18 and these bushes are now pushing 30 inches tall.......definately not flat and dead.

These will be monster trees along with a few more in the coming months for Re-Veg and I will never use anything but vertical again for my applications and the stem strength " especially when bushed, " is incredible.

I have a 1000 watt hanging vertical in the middle and 600 and a 400 LED also running vertical with these.

Growth is exactly what I hoped for and it would have to be for reasons unavoidable, for me to go back to lighting over the top.

With the proper utilization of reflective material........the exposure cannot be beat, no matter what the so-called science may say......my eyes and I suppose the end result will speak much more loudly and more will probably in time, at least give this style of growing a try.

I truly have nothing negative to say so far about this technique.

Blessings,

Rev. TheNatural


----------



## cerberus (Nov 22, 2009)

Hey rev,

if you don't mind me asking how many plants can/do you usually circle the vertical 1k with? Those look pretty nice for 8 weeks of total growth


----------



## TheNatural (Nov 22, 2009)

cerberus said:


> Hey rev,
> 
> if you don't mind me asking how many plants can/do you usually circle the vertical 1k with? Those look pretty nice for 8 weeks of total growth


This is actually my first grow using vertical myself my friend and as to why I am excited to share my humble opinions thusfar about it.

I always grow less than 10 trees for me and my family and I will currently " when they have reached full size, " have about six trees that will be large bushes that will be indefinately re-vegged.

It would depend on ones application and ones own personnal deisres, but with the light I am using; " yes, you could cram allot of plants in my area of smaller size, " however my intent is to have them big enough to swing on the branches,LOL.

My last grow, I simply used 1000 watt bulb hung overhead and it covered a 6x6x6 area and I got close to two pounds off of nine trees and half of their 56 days of Veg were under Flourescents, so I was pretty impressed with the performance of the big bulbs right off of the bat as my organic grow yielded well with it as seen in this old picture.

Now, that same bulb hung vertically " even without the other 600 and 400 watters on " is clearly spreading light more over a wider range and my eyes and the plants performance is all I need as proof for myself.

I am sure their are plenty of ladies or gentlemen here, with allot more vertical experiance that could give you great estimates, but it would still be based on your partiular application.

Blessings,

Rev. TheNatural


----------



## bigtomatofarmer (Nov 22, 2009)

That 5hit said:


> how long do you veg
> and whats the height before harvest
> and what's your end weight dry bud
> if you dont mind, i will understand if you do


Hey man I dont mind questions at all. Veg time varies. I wanted a perpetual grow, so I started with 6 clones and vegged them different amounts of time. Some of them were vegged for just a couple weeks, and some a couple months. Here, check my journal for exact dates yourself.... BigTomatoFarmers Big Journal

My tallest plant reached was over 4 feet tall. And I measured from the top of the soil, not from the bottom of the bucket like some people do

As for weight, I dont really know. I never weigh it out because I dont ever sell it. Its personal use only. I dry it, cure it, and stash it. Then I smoke it 


EDIT: it seems the link to my journal isnt working... Heres a direct link https://www.rollitup.org/riu/public_html/grow-journals/188571-bubba-kush-x-deep-chunk.html


----------



## bigtomatofarmer (Nov 22, 2009)

And to any else considering vertical growing, here is a picture from Earl's journal. He gave me permission to post a picture of his vertical set up. Here is a link to his journal https://www.rollitup.org/grow-journals/147201-victorvicious-northernberry-hempy-bucket-3.html
It looks like you could easily put a few more plants around that light with no problem. Really, vertical growing just makes sense!!!







Good Luck!


----------



## That 5hit (Nov 22, 2009)

WOW i sure hope that this pics shuts up the "cigarettes"
that been flaping there gums
theres no way you could do this under whatever type of bulb that is - and its clear you could fit 4 more around that light 
8 monsters around 1 X sized light doable
8 monsters under 1 X sized light never doable

and so what if i have to rotate the 8 plants every day (or once a week) more then likely il be in the grow room every day anyways 

would you look at this pic 

this is what i wanted to see i was planing on going back to soil or soiless dirt (hand watering)

can you post a link to this
how long do you think they where vegged


----------



## jigfresh (Nov 22, 2009)

I read on another site about vert growing that rotating the plants isn't the best idea. The person said they did a side by side rotating half the plants, and the ones that stayed still did better.

But yeah, that's just what I heard, I have no experience with rotating plants.


----------



## choch (Nov 22, 2009)

That 5hit: 

There is no need to even rotate the flowering plants when around the vertical bulb. Rotating just makes the plant use energy turning the leaves to face the light again, rather than using that energy to produce a little more growth that day. 

For those that have trouble accepting how well plants grow with side lighting: You just need to try it and see it yourself. Maybe try some mothers around a small bulb in the veg room or something. It's very liberating not to need to mess around with reflectors and constantly moving your plants around cause the ones in the corners don't get as much light as the ones in the middle - because in a circular vertical garden there are no corners! lol


----------



## thehiena (Nov 22, 2009)

jigfresh said:


> I read on another site about vert growing that rotating the plants isn't the best idea. The person said they did a side by side rotating half the plants, and the ones that stayed still did better.
> 
> But yeah, that's just what I heard, I have no experience with rotating plants.


 
You are right, I'm not making this mistake again.


----------



## That 5hit (Nov 22, 2009)

yeah im down from the start with vert growing 
i fully understand how it works 

just a few small thing i ve not worked out yet
but i do plan on doing a vert 
but thanks for the do not turn info - it makes sence
now i just really would like to know light watts, no. of plants, grow times, and yeilds
(ex. 600w/8 plants/veg 1m, flo.2.5/3oz per plant,24oz dry)


----------



## OregonMeds (Nov 22, 2009)

It's not the energy used to move the leaves that's a bad thing though, just to clear that up. It's that you cheat yourself of the fattest nugs on one side in exchange for medium nugs all around. Concentrating on the fat nugs works best.

Rotary gardens work as well as they do because they force the plants to move constantly. I've wanted to try slow rotating turntables on my vertical plants for quite a while but never got around to building them. It would need to rotate once an hour and then it might work out better than stationary vertical trees. Might...

AK47 6 plants, 8 weeks veg, 1kw open bulb, 2.5lbs. You don't have to sit around waiting for an extra 8 weeks though, all it takes to flip as fast as a SOG is a seperate smaller veg area. I veg one batch while another is flowering and by the time the flowering ones are done the clones I took at the start of flowering are ready. 6 weeks of the veg is just under a 250 halide, two weeks are under the 1k after transplant into 6 gallon containers. If you wanted a faster veg a 1k veg would cut time off that but I don't need it any faster.


----------



## That 5hit (Nov 22, 2009)

idk why you keep beating yourself up over this it look good to me 
but i'm just a noob 
but this shit still looks killer

do you think that you could maybe have put an extra row behind thet first row of plants


----------



## That 5hit (Nov 22, 2009)

OregonMeds said:


> It's not the energy used to move the leaves that's a bad thing though, just to clear that up. It's that you cheat yourself of the fattest nugs on one side in exchange for medium nugs all around. Concentrating on the fat nugs works best.
> 
> Rotary gardens work as well as they do because they force the plants to move constantly. I've wanted to try slow rotating turntables on my vertical plants for quite a while but never got around to building them. It would need to rotate once an hour and then it might work out better than stationary vertical trees. Might...


i was also thinkng about some type of turntable but how much more power cost will this add -IF- it is worth the benifit of having spinning plants- if it is just a few more grams then, no - but a whole oz, then yeah,
but if the power cost eats up that oz then back to no - in the end it would have to be worth 
- but maybe so, still worth it , you'll also saveing in wattage not having to use extra lights for that size plants 
someone would have to build one and test it



OregonMeds said:


> AK47 6 plants, 8 weeks veg, 1kw open bulb, 2.5lbs. You don't have to sit around waiting for an extra 8 weeks though, all it takes to flip as fast as a SOG is a seperate smaller veg area. I veg one batch while another is flowering and by the time the flowering ones are done the clones I took at the start of flowering are ready. 6 weeks of the veg is just under a 250 halide, two weeks are under the 1k after transplant into 6 gallon containers.


 this is some of the best info ive read yet 
right to the point


----------



## jigfresh (Nov 22, 2009)

OregonMeds said:


> You don't have to sit around waiting for an extra 8 weeks though, all it takes to flip as fast as a SOG is a seperate smaller veg area. I veg one batch while another is flowering and by the time the flowering ones are done the clones I took at the start of flowering are ready. 6 weeks of the veg is just under a 250 halide, two weeks are under the 1k after transplant into 6 gallon containers. If you wanted a faster veg a 1k veg would cut time off that but I don't need it any faster.


Hey OregonMeds.... do you veg your girls vertical style?

I'm sick of waiting for one space to veg and flower one batch at a time... so I'm making a veg box. I am going to use T5's. I have also been tossing around the idea of trying LED's... sorry off topic.

So the veg area... I was gong to make it normal and have the lights on the top and the plants below, becuase even though I have a vert grow... I still forget about vert when I think about growing. I actually never even thought about vegging vertically.

Anyways, what do you do? And why (if you wouldn't mind sharing)?

Anyone elses vegging practices are also requested to be shared.

Thanks


----------



## OregonMeds (Nov 22, 2009)

I veg vertically as well. If I didn't the 250 wouldn't be enough for how tall they get, I'd need a bigger veg light and more cooling. 

My veg space is just a 2x4 ebb and flow tray made from one of those under bed rubbermaid storage things in a small closet. They get as much as 3.5-4' tall in there. I could really use more veg light it is insufficient when they get that tall, but still this is just temporary so I don't want to bother adding more yet.


----------



## That 5hit (Nov 23, 2009)

flood and drain vert 
please check out this video
one of these system could be eszly build for way less ten there asking and could be made into a vert tree system 
http://www.iwssystems.co.uk/howitworks_flood.html
heres the link
http://www.iwssystems.co.uk/flood.html
great find


----------



## thehiena (Nov 23, 2009)

That 5hit said:


> flood and drain vert
> please check out this video
> one of these system could be eszly build for way less ten there asking and could be made into a vert tree system
> http://www.iwssystems.co.uk/howitworks_flood.html
> ...


 
That's the same thing I got, it's call ebb n grow.


----------



## Kama52 (Nov 23, 2009)

jigfresh said:


> Hey OregonMeds.... do you veg your girls vertical style?
> 
> I'm sick of waiting for one space to veg and flower one batch at a time... so I'm making a veg box. I am going to use T5's. I have also been tossing around the idea of trying LED's... sorry off topic.
> 
> ...


Jigfresh

Dont waste your money on LEDs, I am out $5K, tried a few 300Watt LEDS, then several 90Watts, to spread the light.
At best mediocre performance in veg, and spindly buds in flower.
Maybe in a few years they will improve, but not much good now

kama52


----------



## That 5hit (Nov 24, 2009)

thehiena said:


> That's the same thing I got, it's call ebb n grow.


 

How much did it hit you for 
did it come ready to use (after you put it together) how much after market did you have to buy for it 
and how much hydrotion is each buckit filled with

i would love to diy one of these
it look simple a few 5 gal bucket , 2 subm. water pumps and 1 big main res and 2 on/off timer


----------



## cerberus (Nov 24, 2009)

cut the timers and pump out and do it gravity feed style and its even simpler.


----------



## thehiena (Nov 24, 2009)

That 5hit said:


> How much did it hit you for
> did it come ready to use (after you put it together) how much after market did you have to buy for it
> and how much hydrotion is each buckit filled with
> 
> ...


well I think it is a little more complicated, the sistem has a controler where the timer is and inside is two sets of floating valves that activate each pump. I don't know maybe is easy I'm too lazy to build something like this.
the sistem I have doesn't need any aftermarket products, I tried aerating each bucket but didn't have any luck with that. The sistem cost me like 500 buckts with the shipping and one bag of 5olbs of hydroton is enough for 12 buckets


----------



## budleydoright (Nov 24, 2009)

There are some diy plans out there for this controller. requires some soldering and wiring chops. Sentinel has a system like this coming out soon as well. I think their controller is a little more high tech. Digital control board instead of analog timers etc...


----------



## OregonMeds (Nov 25, 2009)

thehiena said:


> well I think it is a little more complicated, the sistem has a controler where the timer is and inside is two sets of floating valves that activate each pump. I don't know maybe is easy I'm too lazy to build something like this.
> the sistem I have doesn't need any aftermarket products, I tried aerating each bucket but didn't have any luck with that. The sistem cost me like 500 buckts with the shipping and one bag of 5olbs of hydroton is enough for 12 buckets


Here's how to build one. If the op of that thread hasn't finished it yet there's a link in the thread to a finished diy version.
https://www.rollitup.org/hydroponics-aeroponics/248498-how-build-ebb-n-gro.html


----------



## thehiena (Nov 27, 2009)

just wanted to upload a pic of my plants, 18 more days before harvest.


----------



## Redeflect (Nov 28, 2009)

-Drool- They look absolutely delicious theheina.


----------



## OregonMeds (Nov 28, 2009)

Nice setup. I guess you must have been impatient though because you didn't veg them long enough.


----------



## captain insaneo (Nov 28, 2009)

Ok so I think I have convinced myself (and more importantly the mrs) that I can go a vert in my small space my flowering area is 4x2x4 (WxDxH) i was thinking about splitting that area to 2 vert sections, I have 2 250 watt ballasts. My dilemma is how to go hydro in that space, I was leaning heavily towards 4" pvc nft or aero. However I could also see the point of using rockwool or coco slabs. Any suggestions or advice. methods to stay away from?


----------



## thehiena (Nov 28, 2009)

OregonMeds said:


> Nice setup. I guess you must have been impatient though because you didn't veg them long enough.


Hi OM, I did grow 4 ft. plants before but I think I have better results with 2 ft. plants, I don't know why but I yield more bud with 2 ft plants than with 4 ft plants.. Does anyone have an explanation for this?


----------



## OregonMeds (Nov 28, 2009)

4x2x4 isn't enough space to do vertical unless all you do is three plants with a 250 between ea plant.

I say no to vertical for you, instead just do a perpetual SOG, it's the best use of your space.


----------



## OregonMeds (Nov 28, 2009)

thehiena said:


> Hi OM, I did grow 4 ft. plants before but I think I have better results with 2 ft. plants, I don't know why but I yield more bud with 2 ft plants than with 4 ft plants..


Oh ok. Just looked odd. If you're ok with that fine, otherwise if small plants yield better for you that means they probably weren't able to get enough nutrients for whatever reason. Maybe you just needed a larger root mass is all. I ran into the same problem, not nearly large enough pots.


Even with hydro, the most successful guys that grow trees are using up to 20-25 gallons just for the root mass not counting a separate reservoir. I tried using 6 gallon containers myself and it wasn't nearly enough and your containers look about the same size.


----------



## thehiena (Nov 29, 2009)

OregonMeds said:


> Oh ok. Just looked odd. If you're ok with that fine, otherwise if small plants yield better for you that means they probably weren't able to get enough nutrients for whatever reason. Maybe you just needed a larger root mass is all. I ran into the same problem, not nearly large enough pots.
> 
> 
> Even with hydro, the most successful guys that grow trees are using up to 20-25 gallons just for the root mass not counting a separate reservoir. I tried using 6 gallon containers myself and it wasn't nearly enough and your containers look about the same size.


My containers are 2 galon buckets.


----------



## OregonMeds (Nov 29, 2009)

That'd do it...


----------



## Redeflect (Dec 5, 2009)

I've grown decently yielding(no rootbound symptoms) 3ft plants in 3gallon buckets with SOIL. A 3 or 5 gallon bucket should've been more than enough for 2ft. The 2 gallon buckets is cutting it close though.


----------



## tjizzle (Dec 5, 2009)

I've grown soil,dwc and top fed hydro.my last grow was a 13ft by 5 ft room with a thousand watter and 6 ft light mover using advance nutrients,worm castings,chicken shit,cheap wallmart soil mixed with 40 to 50% purlight.and dutch masters liquid light.I used a hodge podge of containers and 14 of the 64 plants where top fed hydro and didnt do as well as the soil.mostly my fault cause I'm on a budget and used well water for the rez too many times.I set up a 4by 9 foot table in the middle.But I got around a pound of decent decent buds. And an ounce of dank.Well to get to the point I dont live there any more now the space I have to deal with is a 5by5 foot closet with a 10 foot ceiling.I want to build a 8 inch grow bed and I was thinkin I could use a sheet of fiber glass and caulk with plywood backing to build a catch basin under the grow bed and like window boxes for the walls that will drain down the walls into the catch basin.the only light I have is a 1000watt hortilux eye hps and a 6inch in line duct fan running into an air sock.Do you guys think that I have enough room to use a 1000 watter .What height should I place my window boxes for best results .I will be using indica dominant skunk strains and I would also like to know if I could get another teir of window boxes in.


----------



## OregonMeds (Dec 6, 2009)

tjizzle

I doubt a duct fan has a chance in hell by itself, but if you bought a cooltube or made one from a couple of candle chimneys and ducted it right you'd probably be ok. I have actually seen a DIY cooltube on a 1k that was just two of the candle chimneys stacked, it's a guy here doing a vertical grow but I don't have a link for you.


You'd also be ok if you leave the closet door open and just use a couple floorstanding oscillating fans to force air in or out of the closet and the room it's in. The doors would always have to be open during lights on though, and closed ea night so they can sleep to flower.

5x5 I bet you can find a pre-made shower base for that and they're not that much.. It's just what you're talking about... Either that or you can make one with a rubber liner and tile it with some cheap tile just like they do for tile shower stalls.

Are you wanting to do a vertical SOG with a ton of zero veg plants? I'd copy heaths or flo's vertical if that's what you are talking about.


----------



## whythef*not? (Dec 7, 2009)

I'm a vert grower. I love it. I'll never look back, even for smaller grows.
I've learned a lot from this thread.

Like the fact that RickWhite is a douche
and that the definition of "unhealthy" has been widened to include lush, green plants as well.


----------



## purrrrple (Dec 7, 2009)

thehiena said:


> Hi OM, I did grow 4 ft. plants before but I think I have better results with 2 ft. plants, I don't know why but I yield more bud with 2 ft plants than with 4 ft plants.. Does anyone have an explanation for this?


Yes i have a possible explanation. It's funny you made this comment because for many years i was stuggling and having subpar yields. In my case (which may also be yours), i was growing a very stout and broad-leafed indica (Querkle). It's leaves would literally shade every branch accept its colas when left untopped. I also had them packed in a SOG and my canopy was way too dense, which only amplified my problems. I basically would end up cutting off the lower 50% of the plant and cutting many fan leaves in half to allow light to the remaining budsites. This was a problem for many reasons. Tons of wasted veg time, slowed photosynthesis because of all the bottom suckers, intense pruning (which sometimes *GASP* lead to shock). For all these reasons i tried growing much smaller plants. I have found that the smaller plants (with a properly managed canopy) yield heavier and higher quality nugs. The conclusion i have come to is that although the plant has fewer branches (and budsites) those fewer budsites are recieving intense, unshaded light. Also, the plant is able to focus ALL of its energy on JUST those branches (and buds), and doesn't have to waste energy trying to keep the bottom blood suckers alive. 

Being said, I have had better results using the same wattage and space and plant numbers growing smaller plants rather than larger, all while saving myself a couple of weeks in veg time. The result is fewer buds, but much larger, fuller, denser, resin-ier, and faster to mature. 

Anyone whos grown querkle or urkle knows how painfully slow she grows in veg, so cutting your veg time in half, while maintaining the same (or better) yield is quite a feat.

Although this all seems pretty obvious, some people still insist on over vegging and wonder why they arent getting good yields. It's particulary important to know your strain and its growth patterns, and how to manage your plant and canopy. Many factors come into play when considering plant height, width etc, but this is a very important aspect to growing which is often overlooked.

I cannot stress enough how important it is to know your strain.

Hope this helps a little?


----------



## OregonMeds (Dec 8, 2009)

purrrrple said:


> Yes i have a possible explanation. It's funny you made this comment because for many years i was stuggling and having subpar yields. In my case (which may also be yours), i was growing a very stout and broad-leafed indica (Querkle). It's leaves would literally shade every branch accept its colas when left untopped. I also had them packed in a SOG and my canopy was way too dense, which only amplified my problems. I basically would end up cutting off the lower 50% of the plant and cutting many fan leaves in half to allow light to the remaining budsites. This was a problem for many reasons. Tons of wasted veg time, slowed photosynthesis because of all the bottom suckers, intense pruning (which sometimes *GASP* lead to shock). For all these reasons i tried growing much smaller plants. I have found that the smaller plants (with a properly managed canopy) yield heavier and higher quality nugs. The conclusion i have come to is that although the plant has fewer branches (and budsites) those fewer budsites are recieving intense, unshaded light. Also, the plant is able to focus ALL of its energy on JUST those branches (and buds), and doesn't have to waste energy trying to keep the bottom blood suckers alive.
> 
> Being said, I have had better results using the same wattage and space and plant numbers growing smaller plants rather than larger, all while saving myself a couple of weeks in veg time. The result is fewer buds, but much larger, fuller, denser, resin-ier, and faster to mature.
> 
> ...


Thanks for trying to help people and I don't mean to bust your balls but...

You are describing the limitations you had in a flat garden in a vertical growing thread, and none of it applies whatsoever. 

I can tell by what you say that you aren't talking about a vertical grow.

And technically it's just flat wrong about smaller plants yielding superior buds.


----------



## Iamtreehigh (Dec 8, 2009)

OregonMeds said:


> tjizzle
> 
> I doubt a duct fan has a chance in hell by itself, but if you bought a cooltube or made one from a couple of candle chimneys and ducted it right you'd probably be ok. I have actually seen a DIY cooltube on a 1k that was just two of the candle chimneys stacked, it's a guy here doing a vertical grow but I don't have a link for you.


https://www.rollitup.org/grow-journals/221652-jigfreshs-grow-2-vertical-scrog.html

I think that may be the one you're talking about


----------



## OregonMeds (Dec 8, 2009)

That looks like it, I might have been confused.

I really thought I saw one that had a single 1k hps inside the same type of stacked setup though.


----------



## jigfresh (Dec 8, 2009)

purrrrple said:


> I have found that the smaller plants (with a properly managed canopy) yield heavier and higher quality nugs. The conclusion i have come to is that although the plant has fewer branches (and budsites) those fewer budsites are recieving intense, unshaded light. Also, the plant is able to focus ALL of its energy on JUST those branches (and buds), and doesn't have to waste energy trying to keep the bottom blood suckers alive.
> 
> Being said, I have had better results using the same wattage and space and plant numbers growing smaller plants rather than larger, all while saving myself a couple of weeks in veg time. The result is fewer buds, but much larger, fuller, denser, resin-ier, and faster to mature.





OregonMeds said:


> And technically it's just flat wrong about smaller plants yielding superior buds.


I have experienced the same thing to a degree of smaller plants yielding larger, fuller, denser, resin-ier, and faster to mature. That two of us have experienced the same thing PROVES that (at least for us) smaller plants DO yeild superior buds. Just because it isn't scientifically proven, it may be true for certain peoples set ups.

Neither purrrrrple or I are saying strait up, in all situations, determined by biology that small plants are better. We are just saying what goes on with us and why we think it happens. In the name of attempting to help people by sharing our experiences.

Having said that.... here's a couple pics of my giant ladies.... we got about 3 weeks left.


----------



## OregonMeds (Dec 8, 2009)

It's because you either didn't have enough light for the big plants or you didn't feed them enough or give them enough root space or something environmental that favored the small plants. Small plants do finish faster that is true and I agree, but that is all.

Top lighting favors small plants also, so unless you compared with vertical 1k's or outdoors under the sun it just wasn't fair.


----------



## That 5hit (Dec 9, 2009)

yeah i saw those at wal-mart in the candle aisle
for lik $15 
they were short and had a frosted floral design


----------



## tjizzle (Dec 9, 2009)

Thank you oregon and tree high .I plan on 12/12 from seed my last grow I had a power plant male rape my widows when I wasnt looking and I got a lot of seed.I planted 10 seedlings 5 died 3 where males and the 2 girls only grew 3 feet tall.Not bad since I planted in july.So if I plant every 7 inches on the floor and every 7 inches in the flower boxes I should be able to plant a140 seeds.I've done rooted clones strait to 12/12 and seed straight to 12/12.the seed always pack on more weight because of the tap root I think.Growing with an open door isn't an option so I think I'll just try with another 15 dollar in line duct fan to another air sock.And since I'm goin at it from seed I wont have to worry about fertilizing I'm just going to add bat guano and mollassis to my soil mix .So I just dont want to jinx myself so I'll post picks of the whole show in 8 weeks.


----------



## genuity (Dec 10, 2009)

what whould you vert guy's do with a 1500 watt hps,206,000 lumensThe UltraSun 1500 HPS Lamp is the best of both worlds - a great HPS lamp at a great price. This high-output super high pressure sodium lamp was specifically engineered to be used in digital ballasts namely the Master Blaster 1500 watt. Their spectrum and output rival lamps that are three times the price. The next time your re-lamping try one of these - you will wonder why you were spending more. UltraSun 1500 HPS Lamp come with a one year warranty


----------



## OregonMeds (Dec 10, 2009)

genuity said:


> what whould you vert guy's do with a 1500 watt hps,206,000 lumensThe UltraSun 1500 HPS Lamp is the best of both worlds - a great HPS lamp at a great price. This high-output super high pressure sodium lamp was specifically engineered to be used in digital ballasts namely the Master Blaster 1500 watt. Their spectrum and output rival lamps that are three times the price. The next time your re-lamping try one of these - you will wonder why you were spending more. UltraSun 1500 HPS Lamp come with a one year warranty


Hell yes, but I just wish those weren't so expensive and the bulbs too. You don't have the option of getting $20 normal bulbs the only bulb is $150 and the ballast is $500.

In that case I'd prefer multiple 1k's with standard $20 bulbs that you can change often and not care about it, you'd yield more in every way.

Cash crops you might thing differently, not sure. They aren't as efficient the larger you go over 600 so not sure about yield per watt.


----------



## genuity (Dec 10, 2009)

OregonMeds said:


> Hell yes, but I just wish those weren't so expensive and the bulbs too. You don't have the option of getting $20 normal bulbs the only bulb is $150. In that case I'd prefer multiple 1k's with standard $20 bulbs that you can change often and not care about it, you'd yield more in every way.
> 
> Cash crops you might thing differently, not sure. They aren't as efficient the larger you go over 600 so not sure about yield per watt.


 wonder why anything over 600,start's to suck


----------



## OregonMeds (Dec 10, 2009)

For all the naysayers:

42 pounds from 10 trees.

http://www.thcfarmer.com/forums/f131/42-pound-10-plant-tree-grow-14877/


----------



## TheNatural (Dec 14, 2009)

OregonMeds said:


> For all the naysayers:
> 
> 42 pounds from 10 trees.
> 
> http://www.thcfarmer.com/forums/f131/42-pound-10-plant-tree-grow-14877/


 
Wow!

That gentlemen has it figured out .

Less Trees, give them more and get more.......I like them big too.

Seems people need to be more concerned about actuall imperical data shared by growers who are using this technique and less on all of the papers and studies.

There is always room for debate and proper study.......until imperical data by someone experianced takes the assumptions and shows the proof, in the making or end.

I will never stop using vertical as it is really showing to produce the exact results, that I wanted.

Blessings,

Rev. TheNatural


----------



## That 5hit (Dec 15, 2009)

TheNatural said:


> Wow!
> 
> That gentlemen has it figured out .
> 
> ...


dead on
++++++


----------



## captain insaneo (Dec 15, 2009)

to be fair he was using 12,490 watts of light... but still damn awesome. I think he got about 1.5 grams per watt. That is enough to make the best outdoor grower blush, and in far less time that an outdoor grower could do it. 42 lbs shit at a $K/lb that is $42,000 (less costs 5k max) for 3-4 months work. Makes one think! 

I have a new hero.


----------



## bigbudmike (Dec 15, 2009)

captain insaneo said:


> to be fair he was using 12,490 watts of light... but still damn awesome. I think he got about 1.5 grams per watt. That is enough to make the best outdoor grower blush, and in far less time that an outdoor grower could do it. 42 lbs shit at a $K/lb that is $42,000 (less costs 5k max) for 3-4 months work. Makes one think!
> 
> I have a new hero.


 Hero is right! Im down right aroused by those pics


----------



## OregonMeds (Dec 15, 2009)

"Makes one think"

Made me clear out the garage...


----------



## captain insaneo (Dec 15, 2009)

yeah my nipples got stiff when i saw the rainforest in the room.
10x20 is half the size of my house.


----------



## That 5hit (Jan 1, 2010)

great thread


----------



## katman94 (Jan 14, 2010)

OK, great thread btw I just have a few questions if somebody doesn't mind answering

I've been growing for 6-7 months horizontally with a 1k hps in soil. I grow Trainwreck and OG kush and I cannot get over 3/4 pounds per harvest for the life of me, If I grow 6 ft or 2ft plants I get the same yield. I get a nice cola, then a bunch of popcorn, keeping a minimum of 50 watts per sq ft

So I guess my question is, will my overall weight and density improve? From my understanding with the bulb laying on the side, next to the ladies. Every branch becomes equal to the same density as the main branch??

I'm thinking 4 plants vegged to at least 2ft, 7 gall pots coco, Bushmaster and the complete Botanicare line with Gravity at the end. Would .5 grams per watt seem achievable? 

I love my girls so I will turn them 1/4 a day, everyday. 

Thanks for helping a newb out


----------



## OregonMeds (Jan 14, 2010)

Light is just part of it. Vertical has yielded more for me than other options, but there are many ways to reach the same goal. SOG, SCROG, etc.

Do you only have 1k to work with? The popcorn trouble you mentioned won't go away if you do any vertical tree style with just 1k, and if you turn your plants all you are doing is encouraging them all to be popcorn buds. I would suggest a vertical sog like heaths for you, if you want the high yield and the least amount of popcorn buds.


----------



## katman94 (Jan 14, 2010)

OregonMeds said:


> Light is just part of it. Vertical has yielded more for me than other options, but there are many ways to reach the same goal. SOG, SCROG, etc.
> 
> Do you only have 1k to work with? The popcorn trouble you mentioned won't go away if you do any vertical tree style with just 1k, and if you turn your plants all you are doing is encouraging them all to be popcorn buds. I would suggest a vertical sog like heaths for you, if you want the high yield and the least amount of popcorn buds.


Thanks man

For now yes, I hope to have another 1k or a co2 tank and regulator within a month. I have thought about a sog but I'm only working with a 4x9 closet  . It would be hard to take care of them If I were to build shelves.

I was told turning them would cure my popcorn problem, with enough pruning and using bushmaster the first couple waterings?


----------



## That 5hit (Jan 14, 2010)

katman94 said:


> OK, great thread btw I just have a few questions if somebody doesn't mind answering
> 
> I've been growing for 6-7 months horizontally with a 1k hps in soil. I grow Trainwreck and OG kush and I cannot get over 3/4 pounds per harvest for the life of me, If I grow 6 ft or 2ft plants I get the same yield. I get a nice cola, then a bunch of popcorn, keeping a minimum of 50 watts per sq ft
> 
> ...





katman94 said:


> Thanks man
> 
> For now yes, I hope to have another 1k or a co2 tank and regulator within a month. I have thought about a sog but I'm only working with a 4x9 closet  . It would be hard to take care of them If I were to build shelves.
> 
> I was told turning them would cure my popcorn problem, with enough pruning and using bushmaster the first couple waterings?


do not turn the plants when growning vert or hor
the plant will be putting to much energy into unbending itself and start neglecting the bud, scrog it, if you must do anything, tie themm away from the light, but whaterver you do is, dont turn them


----------



## katman94 (Jan 14, 2010)

That 5hit said:


> do not turn the plants when growning vert or hor
> the plant will be putting to much energy into unbending itself and start neglecting the bud, scrog it, if you must do anything, tie themm away from the light, but whaterver you do is, dont turn them


Ok, I assume the branches would lean towards the light on themselves anyway right? I'm scared to scrog, I once tried outside while they started showing flowers and the stress slowly killed them all.

Do you think I should make somewhat of a tent with panda film around the plants for max reflection?


----------



## OregonMeds (Jan 14, 2010)

Rotary grows show movement is a good thing actually, but the reason not to do it with other styles is because you trade a few really big buds for fatter small ones and more fatter small ones just never seem to beat the weight of a few big ones. It's a loosing game.

You'd need to do more than just add plastic, you should maybe just do a SOG.


----------



## jigfresh (Jan 14, 2010)

here's the latest in my closet:

[youtube]xX9mkN8AJBY[/youtube]


----------



## katman94 (Jan 14, 2010)

Whoa.. that's a wicked lady!!


----------



## genuity (Jan 14, 2010)

jigfresh said:


> here's the latest in my closet:
> 
> [youtube]xX9mkN8AJBY[/youtube]


 i have to say,this is the best thing i have seen on this site+rep


----------



## That 5hit (Jan 15, 2010)

as you can see he did not rotate
and trust its beter that way 
but if you are going to vert you really want to think about putting you a screen like he did


----------



## Greenspace (Jan 18, 2010)

Hey guys, I justfinished my first vertical grow and am quite happy with the results. I did better than ever before in the way of
yild per lighting used. I was using 2 400 Watt HPS lights with 16 grodan slabs around these. Got 710 grams with AK 47
in about 7 weeks total time, which is about 40% better than I ever got before with these very same HPS lights. It could also be that
I am just still learning and improving my techniques and not only because it is a vertical system, but I did have 
an acidity and nutrient uptake issues for the first couple weeks of this grow. That is to say, I'll be expecting to do much
better next time. And to agree with cerberus: space economy is the main advantage of this set up.

Didn't get to take any pics of the grow unfortunately, as it was a someone else's place. Will try to post some
for the next one.

Anyone here tired Ecosystem? Would be interesting to hear feedback on it.
Cheers!


----------



## cerberus (Jan 18, 2010)

jigfresh said:


> here's the latest in my closet:


This is just beautiful!  thats just such a nice green and clean looking dog bowl


----------



## jigfresh (Jan 18, 2010)

Greenspace said:


> Anyone here tired Ecosystem? Would be interesting to hear feedback on it.
> Cheers!


There is a guy or two on Vertical Green . com that run the ecosystem. The guy I watched did quite well. Think he got 1.5 pounds the first run with 2 - 600's in there.

Looks like a nice little deal if you have the room and cash. After you put the clones in, it pretty much does the rest.

Oh... I guess you also have to have the balls (or caretakers license) to grow 80 plants at once.


----------



## That 5hit (Feb 8, 2010)

K .


----------



## RickWhite (Feb 9, 2010)

genuity said:


> i have to say,this is the best thing i have seen on this site+rep


What are the numbers on this grow? How many watts and how long was that plant vegged - plus how many were grown? 

It looks like a 6' tall plant with a lot of time and effort spent training it over the whole life of the plant.


----------



## That 5hit (Feb 9, 2010)

RickWhite said:


> What are the numbers on this grow? How many watts and how long was that plant vegged - plus how many were grown?
> 
> It looks like a 6' tall plant with a lot of time and effort spent training it over the whole life of the plant.


 https://www.rollitup.org/grow-journals/221652-jigfreshs-grow-2-vertical-scrog.html


----------



## jigfresh (Feb 9, 2010)

RickWhite said:


> What are the numbers on this grow? How many watts and how long was that plant vegged - plus how many were grown?
> 
> It looks like a 6' tall plant with a lot of time and effort spent training it over the whole life of the plant.


2 plants on the grow. 1 Casey Jones (pictured) 1 Sour Grape. They were vegged 8 weeks under 400w MH. They were treated horribly during veg... (didn't check ph... let both catch PM... let the grow space go to shit) otherwise I think it would have taken 6 weeks to acheive the same size.

Flowered under 400w HPS + 250w MH.

Sour Grape gave me 122 grams. Casey Jones 278 grams. Still working on the hash from the trim.

They were both around 3.5 feet tall. Never topped. Trained vigorously during veg. Trimmed a TON.

So... upsides of the grow/ style: It was fun and looked really cool.

Downsides: Too long veg time, very labor intensive, way too much trimmig involed (i think there was as much plant cut off as left growing), the only thing left in the 'middle' of the plant was tiny popcorn buds, meaning tons of trimming.

What I would do (and am going to do someday) is to grow shorter plants in levels. So instead of two tall ass plants... grow 4 plants half the height and have one 'on top' of the other. Cuts veg time in half and you don't have to cut away lots of plant to keep it off the light.

Now... how you could make this style truly successful I think would work but would take an EXTREME amount of effort on the growers part. What I beleive would work great is to not cut any branches at all, but to 'supercrop' them (break them a couple times) and tuck them back.

Here's what I mean... the giant buds I had going all around the outside of the plant were great. They all wighed in the neighborhood of 5-10 grams. Some more. (top cola of CJ was 15.5 grams and I even took out stem weight) Now all those tiny tiny buds in the middle weighed like 0.2 - 0.3 grams... and there were hundreds of them. Most people throw the popcorn in their trim... but this was probably half my wieght here. Also... becuase they were given full light they were all the most killer popcorn buds you've ever seen. It's funny they are all purpleish looking but tiny tiny.

So what I am gettng at is to take the secodary branches that would have been growing strait towards the light. Break them near the main branch they are growing off and send them backwards to the dark... then break them halfway and put the tip of the branch in the light. At the same time strip everything off the secondary branch that is 'below' the tip in the light. Sort of like lollipopping each secondary branch. I beleive doing this would have gotten me the big buds filling the screen. But like I said this seems extremely work intensive.

Now the comparison. I've really only done 1 real horizontal grow to compare to this vertical grow. In my flat grow same lights, DWC as well, same nutes, DIFFERENT strains however. 

FLAT: yeilded 11.2 oz - veg time: 4 weeks - flower time : 11 weeks. 

VERT: yeilded 14 oz - veg time: 8 weeks - flower time: 12 weeks.

Not very impressive. However if I would have had two Casey Jones plants I could have gotten more like 19-20 oz.

So there it is. I had a shit load of fun. Grew about the same amount I would have from going flat.

Two positves about vert. It seemed much easier to keep the lights cool. Also it was nice not having to reach across a canopy (if that makes sense).

I think this answers your questions. Please feel free to ask me more as well. I'm not trying to hide anything with this vert screen attempt.


----------



## RickWhite (Feb 9, 2010)

Great write up - thanks


----------



## That 5hit (Mar 10, 2010)

good shit


----------



## drynroasty (Mar 13, 2010)

Looking good Jiggs!


----------



## proheto8008 (Mar 15, 2010)

Hey JIG

do you think that leaf curling due to plants getting hit underneath by light is a problem for plants?

I have experienced alot of curling on my last grow and i want to know if my plants are being hurt by it.


----------



## jigfresh (Mar 15, 2010)

proheto8008 said:


> Hey JIG
> 
> do you think that leaf curling due to plants getting hit underneath by light is a problem for plants?
> 
> I have experienced alot of curling on my last grow and i want to know if my plants are being hurt by it.


Well this isn't my thread or anything... but I'll take a stab at the question anyhow.

I never really experience that I don't think. For the most part the leaves will turn the way they want to, I don't think the light would make them 'curl'.... just turn to face the light.

I think the curling could be from another factor, not the light, or the fact that it's vert. I would say that was either pH, nutes, or temps. Most likely pH by my guess.

I don't think curling leaves on thier own will cause much problems. It may however be a sign of something bigger going on. I personally wouldn't worry about it too much. You should see the leaves on my plants, lol.

Speaking of which:

[youtube]ZHnJnw0HC9Y[/youtube]


----------



## That 5hit (Mar 15, 2010)

this is ALL are thread 
made for anyone whos into or want to learn vertical growing


----------



## DIRTHAWKER (Jul 8, 2010)

Ive been reading this thread and its very interesting.

First time going vertical.. so far so good. I will let ya know if i get better yields with the vert as opposed to horizontal.
















normal horizontal setup below.. i average about 20-25 ozs with 8-10 plants.


----------



## genuity (Jul 8, 2010)

DIRTHAWKER said:


> Ive been reading this thread and its very interesting.
> 
> First time going vertical.. so far so good. I will let ya know if i get better yields with the vert as opposed to horizontal.
> 
> ...


thats a nice thread bump.


----------



## That 5hit (Jul 30, 2010)

very nice set up


----------



## myxedup (Jul 31, 2010)

What's your setup? How many watts, and how long do you veg before you flip. Looks good and will be interesting to see how your vertical setup works.



DIRTHAWKER said:


> Ive been reading this thread and its very interesting.
> 
> First time going vertical.. so far so good. I will let ya know if i get better yields with the vert as opposed to horizontal.
> 
> ...


----------



## DIRTHAWKER (Aug 3, 2010)

I veg for 3-4 weeks,, i was using 1000watt lights but the plants started to burn so i went with 600s and its much better.
This is an aero NFT setup.

heres the progress so far at day 38 top2 pics and day 21 bottom pic.


----------



## jigfresh (Aug 3, 2010)

Beautiful bro. Top notch for sure.


----------



## MEANGREEN69 (Aug 5, 2010)

sweet thread!!!...subed


----------



## Brianjox (Aug 5, 2010)

New is good OLD is better?Maybe .I use 5 1000 watts bulbs average 9 to 10 lbs, on hydroponics,NO co2 ,easy to look after,every 68 days.Is this good or bad. My quality is excellent. BC BUD at its best.Just want to know if I should scrape my old program & change


----------



## Bob Smith (Aug 8, 2010)

In a couple of weeks I'm going to be building an El Blastido octagon (with some tweaks, taller, wider, etc.) and I'll post pics of my progress in this thread.


----------



## That 5hit (Aug 10, 2010)

great i'll be waiting


----------



## isthislegal (Sep 19, 2010)

+ REP for the awesome vert setup Dirt......I will copy it indeed! kiss-ass


----------



## jrlutor (Sep 22, 2010)

I have been reading up on vertical growing and tried it last grow with excellent results. With the help of a benefactor and a LA dispensary, I decided to build a sealed 10 x 12 foot room with 10 foot ceilings. I built two 5 foot wide. I wanted to be able to fit 60 -99 mid size plants. Middle row of plants being hit vertically by bulbs on both sides.

The plan is to use first two feet in height of room to fill room with reservoirs, except a 1.5 foot walk way. 3 100 gallon and one 40 gallon. This way I can recycle nutrients for I could not feed to drain easily. 

We will be using hugo blocks in dutch leach trays suspended in air. Drip top feed plants. Total of 4 1000 watt (2 hortilux MH and 2 hortilux super hps) 2 600 watt (GE HG Lumalux hps) all run in multiple cool tubes, (thus allow for lights to be lifted and dropped(manually) as well as being moved back and forth 2 feet (mechanically) Using a max fan 10 to pull air through cool tubes. Thus 2 1000 watt and 1 600 watt on a 3.5 light rail for each row moving in opposite directions. 

We have all the gear already, CAP xtream green house controller, dual co2 bottles with 6 emitters, cap mlc 8, dual port air conditioner. 1/3 hp water pumps, (like eco 66) and so on

I wanted to get some help with this and was not sure where to post? The room is done as far as construction but now is the time to get it working.

Any comments or ideas welcomed. Also have pics but had problems loading them.


----------



## Bob Smith (Sep 23, 2010)

Try again with your pics, please - I'd really love to see what you've got going on.

Here's a pic or two of my "progress" so far - should be built within the week.


----------



## djpsylle (Sep 26, 2010)

Teddy Pickles said:


> Well you weren't asking me but I cool tube it and with veg time 5-6 weeks, flower time 8-9 weeks, with a single 1000w hortilux I averaged yield 3-4oz per plant across 3 plants. With a single 600w in a 2x3 space I'm hoping to get about 8oz off of two plants. This is in DWC and I am about to entirely change my grow style over to organic soil.
> 
> I really want to set up a 360 degree cool tube so that I can do circle grows and do like an 8 inch diameter or something crazy small like that. Epic.


 I did the same and increesed output by 1/4. 'Will never go back to flat'


----------



## Bob Smith (Sep 30, 2010)

Should be finished sometime this weekend, and I'll post finished pics here as well.



View attachment 1186625


View attachment 1186624View attachment 1186623View attachment 1186622


----------



## MEANGREEN69 (Sep 30, 2010)

whats the diameter of that setup BOB SMITH?


----------



## Bob Smith (Oct 1, 2010)

Not sure, as it's not quite finished yet.

From my preliminary measurements, it's about 7' from end to end, but take away 9" on either side for the piping and the 45 degree wye sticking out...........so I think the "working" diameter is gonna be about 5.5 feet.

But again, I'll have a better idea tomorrow when I finish it up.


----------



## Bob Smith (Oct 5, 2010)

View attachment 1195665View attachment 1195664View attachment 1195663View attachment 1195662View attachment 1195661View attachment 1195660View attachment 1195659View attachment 1195658


----------



## MEANGREEN69 (Oct 5, 2010)

thats pretty cool ..going to set up a drip line or sprayers?..what kind of light you setting in there?..and if you dont mind me asking how much cash do you think it going to cost when done?


----------



## jigfresh (Oct 5, 2010)

Holy shit bob smith. That is fucking bad ass. Even my wife's impressed, lol. Just amazing. Can't wait to see what happens.


----------



## RavenMochi (Oct 6, 2010)

no shit...details please...


----------



## Bob Smith (Oct 6, 2010)

MEANGREEN69, the water/nute delivery system is the 4th and 6th pics above - those are caps which fit onto the top of each column, and those are shrub sprinklers attached to each "T". Water flows through an the "T" shoots water out in 360 degrees, creating a mist/flow over the roots. It's basically an LP aero/NFT hybrid type deal, probably run it for 30 seconds on/3 minutes off, or something like that. Obviously gonna have to experiment with that, but I love that it's got all the benefits of aero without the chance of misters clogging.

I wanted to do a drain to waste (and still might in the future), but I was worried about root space in the 4" PVC so I figured a medium-less growing system was the best move for right now, but again, I'd love to be able to ditch my chiller(s), pumps, and all the other equipment that draws electric and doesn't directly contribute to growing.

As you can see from the water-cooled generator and the 50' coil in the video below, trying to make this room as efficient as possible.

Jig, thanks for the compliments (tell your wife thanks as well, and I hope all is well with her and the baby).

As far as cost, there's 90 wyes @$10 a piece, plus 15 waste "Ts" @$7 a piece, and then 15 22.5s (went with those instead of 8 45s, and it's much rounder and prettier because of it) @$7 a piece. Also, 5 10' tubes of PVC @$15 a piece - if you don't have a table saw to cut the PVC, I'd HIGHLY recommend one - I bought a DeWalt for $200 specifically (and only) for this project. Oh, and a shit ton of PVC primer and cement. Just bought a 1/6HP pump at Lowes yesterday for $70, and then assorted tubing, Ts, etc. for another couple of hundred bucks.

I'd say if you already have the saw that you can make one for $1500 (not including lights, obviously).

Which is a nice segue to lighting - I'm going to be running 4 stacked 600s (wanted to run bare bulbs, but my 14K AC couldn't handle the heat) in a vertical cooltube that I ordered from this place:

http://octagonhydroponics.com/grow-lighting-vertical-systems.html
I'm getting the 4L600, obviously, and it'll be here on Friday.....


EDIT: Here's a quick video I shot of my new setup - put a lot (like a fucking LOT) of time and money into building a sealed 14x10 room in my garage, and the Pentadecagon (yes, that's what a 15-sided "thingy" is called) is kind of the cherry on top - if anyone wants the construction shots, lemme know and I'll throw up a link for you........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWTX5CqEALw


----------



## Bob Smith (Oct 6, 2010)

Here's the water delivery system - obviously going to be upgrading my return pumps.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLsQGDcTevs


----------



## MEANGREEN69 (Oct 6, 2010)

thats bad ass.thanks for the videos..is this your 1st time working/makeing one of these bad boys?..also what strain are you going to use?


----------



## RavenMochi (Oct 7, 2010)

I can't wait to see what your results are...

has anyone tried to make an omega system replica? because I've been thinking on it alot...biggest problem I'm running into is what to use to make it spin slow enough...


----------



## Bob Smith (Oct 7, 2010)

MEANGREEN69 said:


> thats bad ass.thanks for the videos..is this your 1st time working/makeing one of these bad boys?..also what strain are you going to use?


Yes, and I'm probably going to run 4-6 strains per run - I don't need to max this out (monocrop) and shoot for 8+ pounds everytime; I'd rather get 4-6 pounds of different dank strains.

This run I'm going to go with Super Skunk (have 144 clones that are really anxious to get into the system because they've been ready for over a week).

After I get some things figured out this run, gonna run a bunch of different strains for the next run.


----------



## reggaerican (Oct 7, 2010)

hey bob i dont know if you said already but how much did this diy kit cost you ? im real currious about trying something tlike that??


----------



## Bob Smith (Oct 7, 2010)

"As far as cost, there's 90 wyes @$10 a piece, plus 15 waste "Ts" @$7 a piece, and then 15 22.5s (went with those instead of 8 45s, and it's much rounder and prettier because of it) @$7 a piece. Also, 5 10' tubes of PVC @$15 a piece - if you don't have a table saw to cut the PVC, I'd HIGHLY recommend one - I bought a DeWalt for $200 specifically (and only) for this project. Oh, and a shit ton of PVC primer and cement. Just bought a 1/6HP pump at Lowes yesterday for $70, and then assorted tubing, Ts, etc. for another couple of hundred bucks.

I'd say if you already have the saw that you can make one for $1500 (not including lights, obviously)."

EDIT: Forgot to mention this before - if anyone is interested in how this all went down, there's a thread on another site where there's tons of info (basically just me and one other guy going back and forth as we hit snags in construction, etc.).

I'd highly recommend checking that out if any of you are serious about building one.

PM me for a link if you're interested.


----------



## reggaerican (Oct 7, 2010)

not bad i guess seeing that those ecosystems hold the same amount of plants and cost more than twice that.. good job bob im subbed to this one and +1 for the nice build..


----------



## Bob Smith (Oct 7, 2010)

The plants in this system are going to be 3 or 4x as large as the Ecosystem plants - I can't imagine what would possess someone to buy a multi-thousand dollar rockwool hanging device, but I guess we all have our priorities in life.

With all the problems I've heard of many different vertical growing systems, I figured I'd build my own so that I could understand what went wrong when something does go wrong.

Also, not sure what all the Ecosystem comes with - that $1500 number is just for the PVC and plumbing; you still need lights, pumps, reservoirs, etc.

Total cost for the structure to be operational is gonna be somewhere above $3K (EDIT: probably more like $4K, giving it some more thought), when you factor in the $1K cooltube, the lights, pumps, etc.

That doesn't count the two 6" inlines to run the cooltube or any other equipment I already have before this setup.


----------



## reggaerican (Oct 7, 2010)

tru that, it sure does get expensive.. im sure i have everything but the pvc in spair parts floating around so would be around 1500 to 2000 cool.. i like how it is twice the size as the eco them babies are gonna get chuncky..


----------



## Bob Smith (Oct 7, 2010)

You could easily make one with 3" PVC (and the prototype I based mine off of was made with 3" PVC) and save yourself a lot of money.

The guy online I've been chatting with and bouncing ideas off of has a 2" and a 3", and likes his 2" more - 160 sites, straight from the aerocloner to flower - you could probably make that for a few hundred dollars.

A 3" would be in the $500 neighborhood.


----------



## reggaerican (Oct 7, 2010)

that does sound like more my style since im used to growing SOG i like the single cola grows..


----------



## Greenspace (Oct 13, 2010)

cerberus said:


> This is just beautiful!  thats just such a nice green and clean looking dog bowl


This is a beautiful plant. Out of curiosity, how long did you vegetate it for?
Thanks.


----------



## RavenMochi (Oct 13, 2010)

I'm going to be starting up the definition of primitive vertical grow, waiting for the lights and beans to be delivered. 400w surrounded by 8 ladies started from seed 12/12, 2 cycles (16 plants in total) simply going to have the 400 w standing vertical with 8 plants in dirt (actually 10 to start off with, be weeding out 2, with 12/12 I get mostly females, so I shouldn't need much of a buffer) AK-48. Also be the first grow I add co2 to...


----------



## OregonMeds (Oct 14, 2010)

I just cropped out my best indoor vertical plant so far... Wanted to share the details.

I'm currently using a single 1kw open bulb, and the last plant (one single plant) was over 1lb !!!!dry!!!!. That might not sound like a big deal to some, but this is just a soil plant and it's not even in a room with reflective walls or a/c or climate control or co2, not any kind work done to make it a grow room at all. 

Vegged to 5'-6' or so in a 20 some gallon rubbermaid bin full of FFOF, and then trained around the light as in sort of a 1/3 cylinder wall of bud. 

Sorry I didn't get pics of that one before chopping it, but you get the idea.

Two to MAYBE three plants could share one 1kw this way, after some experimenting I could see getting 3lbs off a single 1k per cycle.

(But I'm doing perpetual with 5 around the 1 light, of various sizes obviously, or they wouldn't all fit...) Should work out better...

I spit on flat gardens. 

(btw before someone says bullshit, I will show pics of the 8' indoor plant that's coming up next and how I tie it up, so don't even bother wasting any of our time with that crap.)


----------



## jigfresh (Oct 14, 2010)

Greenspace said:


> This is a beautiful plant. Out of curiosity, how long did you vegetate it for?
> Thanks.


Thanks. 8 weeks I beleive, from clone. Not the most effiient way of growing, but it was fun.


----------



## jigfresh (Oct 14, 2010)

OregonMeds said:


> I just cropped out my best indoor vertical plant so far... Wanted to share the details.
> 
> I'm currently using a single 1kw open bulb, and the last plant (one single plant) was over 1lb !!!!dry!!!!. That might not sound like a big deal to some, but this is just a soil plant and it's not even in a room with reflective walls or a/c or climate control or co2, not any kind work done to make it a grow room at all.
> 
> ...


Congrats on that harvest. Sounds fucking awesome. Vert rocks.


----------



## MasterOfKushes (Dec 16, 2010)

Yea, if you guys could take a look at my grow it would be awesome. I got mad love for vertical and i would love any advice or tips. Thx 

http://www.verticalgreen.org/showthread.php?2632-gt-gt-MJ-s-5k-Vertical-Garden-of-Kush-lt-lt&p=7402#post7402


----------



## OregonMeds (Dec 31, 2010)

I promised pics of my last two vertical rounds and never took them, sorry guys, I was too afraid looking at what I had to post such things, but I did finally finish my last crop and now that I'm retired from growing and at least temporarily on the wagon due to the law I can share the details.

I don't care if anyone believes me, so save your breath for eating your pies but just for the record, if you stack two 1kw lights open bulb vertical in the center of a ring of 6 critical mass ladies that you vegged over 5' before flower in 20 some gallon rubbermaid bins of FFOF, with no reflective walls and no a/c or c02 (but scrogged vertically to chicken wire in a cylinder) a person can in fact crop 1lb dry for EACH of those six plants completely breaking 3lbs per 1kw. Six is just what I had left after loosing track of a few oz's, it was more, I know it was, but someone else had their hand in my grow this time around, so all I can claim is six heavily manicured can't see a stem didn't miss a leaf anywhere fully dry sweet sticky purply pounds. (really purpled up, must have been the cold, CM never did this before for me anyway.)

I know I did it, believe or don't up to you. Actually I'm not suprised because what I had was just a vertical equivalent of those rotary grows, and they reach the same weights, mine just didn't have to spin and took six big slow plants instead of 60 quick little ones or whatever.

And with that I am retired, at least for a year or so while I take care of sobriety for my dui classes and such.

Rock on vertical folks... I might not even be on here any more at all so goodbye and good luck people. 
I can't smoke now, and am cleared out clean and sober, and since I have no choice but to stay that way for a year I don't want to be on here even thinking about weed, makes me miss it more.


----------



## Bob Smith (Feb 6, 2011)

Finally put plants in a couple of days ago; made lotsa changes in the interim - will post some plant pics in a week or two.

Built out a 3" base so that the diameter is now 5' as opposed to 7'.

Also converted from an LP aero/NFT setup to a full on HP aero setup (100-125PSI) with a 4.4 gallon accumulator tank and 30 misters (two per column, might add one more to each column).


----------



## i420 (Feb 6, 2011)

OK .... here is my next grow. It's a hexagon cage 6' diameter X 8' high. 
Running a dual cool tube (2 x 1000 watts). Plants located outside the 
cage in 5 gal BB w/ drip ring. 

The cage is made up of 6 2' x 8' 1/4" thick metal grid panels. My last 
scrog was under two (2) of these screens (4' x 8') and I hit .65 grams 
a watt in a limited 6000 lumen PSF grow off. So in a smaller footprint 
and nearly the same lighting I'll triple the grow surface and hopefully
the total harvest.

You can see the design and the mock up below. I painted it white and 
ordered the dual cool tube and the clones are a week away. I have a 
few strains to choose from so but haven't decided yet. 

Another decision I'm still considering is the res system. Water farm type
gravity feed or Ebb N Grow. Currently in solo BBs.

Your input is welcome .....

iCLONE


----------



## Bob Smith (Feb 7, 2011)

Lol, that's one of my final two options for my next setup to get my plant numbers down..........someone at IC did that really well (VSCROG around vertical bulbs from floor to ceiling) but I can't find the thread when I want to.


----------



## MediMary (Feb 7, 2011)




----------



## i420 (Feb 7, 2011)

Bob Smith said:


> Lol, that's one of my final two options for my next setup to get my plant numbers down..........someone at IC did that really well (VSCROG around vertical bulbs from floor to ceiling) but I can't find the thread when I want to.


I can't find anything similar. Someone told me that cervantes did a good vert vid but I've watched tons 
and can't find it. I've done this on a smaller scale and it works well. Ths is that next natural step....


----------



## Bob Smith (Feb 7, 2011)

i420 said:


> I can't find anything similar. Someone told me that cervantes did a good vert vid but I've watched tons
> and can't find it. I've done this on a smaller scale and it works well. Ths is that next natural step....


I was looking for it last night, actually, and still couldn't find it...........he had four plants scrogged around (I think) two 1Ks reaching from the floor to the ceiling.

So I'm either gonna do four plants and SCROG around my vertical cooltube or do four plants on turntables rotating on their own respective axis, still using the vertical cooltube as the only source of light.

Need to do some research.


----------



## rosecitypapa (Feb 7, 2011)

My first vertical:


One of the nice things about vertical growing is the head space. I do not miss having to duck or get nicked by a reflector.


----------



## Severdali (Feb 7, 2011)

*"folks need not re invent the wheel"

If God wanted plants to be illuminated sideways, he would have kept the sun on the horizon. "-uncle ben

**LOL. If the arguements for horiz. lighting weren't already funny enough
*


----------



## phyzix (Feb 7, 2011)

Inspiring thread. I'm planning a 4x4 tent with 2x600 watt HPS hung vertical (series) in a 6" cooltube. 

A few of the posts on here helped me along.


----------



## jigfresh (Feb 8, 2011)

me and rosecitypapa rockin damn near the same setup:

[youtube]uwJWt10SvYg[/youtube]


----------



## i420 (Feb 8, 2011)

jigfresh said:


> me and rosecitypapa rockin damn near the same setup:
> 
> [youtube]uwJWt10SvYg[/youtube]


Can you see me shaking my head? Sick Bro ...... simple FN sickness. You ROCK !


----------



## rosecitypapa (Feb 9, 2011)

Jigfresh! Yes, I remember seeing your journal a while back, you had to improvise with extension cups in your holes right? I like your setup, I'm thinking of going another level when I get another patient to grow for. Although my main pump and jets provide good recirculation, I'll be adding airstones within each plant site. What have your roots been looking like at harvest?


----------



## jigfresh (Feb 9, 2011)

rosecitypapa said:


> Jigfresh! Yes, I remember seeing your journal a while back, you had to improvise with extension cups in your holes right? I like your setup, I'm thinking of going another level when I get another patient to grow for. Although my main pump and jets provide good recirculation, I'll be adding airstones within each plant site. What have your roots been looking like at harvest?


I've only ran it one time before this. You are correct I needed the extension dixie cup action. I had airstones at each plant last time and the roots were insane. They were plugging the 4" tubes. Basically cram packed the whole thing and they were like 18-20" long. I did veg a long time however. I think it was near 8 weeks. 

This round I veged for 3-4 not sure... and I don't have any airstones to each one... just a 400g/h water pump. It seems to keep things nice and oxygenated upon splashdown. I also have the little airpump in the rez with one 1" airstone, just to make sure. Here's a shot of my roots as of 5 days ago, I put them into 12/12 today.


----------



## rosecitypapa (Feb 10, 2011)

Woot! Those are some pretty white roots! Are you taking the sterile rez or bennie rez route?


----------



## jigfresh (Feb 10, 2011)

No bennies for me. I just use Dutch Master - Zone. Seems to keep things nice... always the roots are white in all my grows. Nice and healthy.


----------



## Bob Smith (Feb 24, 2011)

Had some issues and kinks to work out with the system at first - really, really would've been totally avoided if I would've used aero clones (roots reach into the column) and not clones rooted in pucks - fucking EZ Clone - had a few dry out and die on me (have been replaced), but it also means that the plants in the 4" wyes (closest to the misters) are much larger than the others because they've been growing since day 1, as opposed to some which just started growing a few days ago.

Current misting times are ~6 seconds every 75 seconds to make sure that all plants are getting sufficient moisture, and that means that the larger plants are getting overwatered (in HP terms) and their roots look more like LP aero roots - as soon as all plants have a sufficient root system, gonna cut that back to 2 or 3 seconds every 2 or 3 minutes.

Um, that's about all that comes to mind - looking at the pics, all the new growth is healthy, so any brown leaves are from their "clone" days before they started rooting in the system.

All in all not too displeased - obviously there are gonna be issues when trying something like this, but I feel like I've got everything under control (for the most part).

Gonna top the largest plants in a couple of days and then put up a screen and start training them all through it; shooting to flip the switch in two weeks.


----------



## OregonMeds (Feb 25, 2011)

Bob Smith said:


> I was looking for it last night, actually, and still couldn't find it...........he had four plants scrogged around (I think) two 1Ks reaching from the floor to the ceiling.
> 
> So I'm either gonna do four plants and SCROG around my vertical cooltube or do four plants on turntables rotating on their own respective axis, still using the vertical cooltube as the only source of light.
> 
> Need to do some research.


My most successful grows ever were done like this with a vertical scrog cylinder shape with plants taller than my room. A couple over 8' if stretched back to straight.
2kw stacked worked the best, with the scrog limited to around 6' tall to allow airflow, base of the top bulb at the top plant height, second bulb mid scrog fan on the floor pointing up and that's all. Pulled over 6lbs dry off the last 5 plant scrog, that's just with large 20 gallon+ soil bins of FFOF for ea plant, no co2 or climate control or reflective walls or anything. The large root mass was absolutely key to reaching that poundage, previously tried the same thing but with smaller 6 gallon containers and didn't get near the same result.

That was with critical mass genetics btw, which is not a low yielding plant anyway. I didn't take pics of it, or post it, poundage was too scary to show since it was way out of line with my legal medical limits. Breaking 3lbs per 1kw is sure nice but you need a long veg time, however I found that veg time can be mostly under a single smaller light with just a few weeks veg in the 2kw stack.

5 plants worked best. 4 would have to veg longer to fill it up and 6 wouldn't fit.


----------



## Bob Smith (Mar 9, 2011)

i420 said:


> I can't find anything similar. Someone told me that cervantes did a good vert vid but I've watched tons
> and can't find it. I've done this on a smaller scale and it works well. Ths is that next natural step....


Check out this dude's threads/setup on UK420 - he just pulled 1.4g/w off of a 400 using a VSCROG.


----------



## jigfresh (Mar 9, 2011)

Bob Smith said:


> Check out this dude's threads/setup on UK420 - he just pulled 1.4g/w off of a 400 using a VSCROG.


Where's the link bro?


----------



## Bob Smith (Mar 10, 2011)

jigfresh said:


> Where's the link bro?


Lol.......my bads, here ya go:

http://www.uk420.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=257002&pid=2617194&st=0&#entry2617194


----------



## scottyshakes (Mar 22, 2011)

bob what kind of collars have you got on those pots?im building one like yours and i was just wandering cause im thinking on splitting 5 inch mesh?also what happend o the waterfall i read you are using misters?


----------



## notasthinkasyoustonediam (Mar 27, 2011)

Great thread. Here is my first vertical grow. 4x5 room, six plants, 2-600w lights in cool tubes, CO2. 30 days veg (took 150 clones during that time). Now in 4th week of flower. 


View attachment 1516470


----------



## rosecitypapa (Apr 7, 2011)

Vert and flooded tube, main cola, afghani

View attachment 1537387


From prior grow, same pheno, soil with horizontal lighting

View attachment 1537388


needless to say, I like growing vertical!


----------



## rzza (Aug 31, 2011)

this thread only took three days to finish and it would have been hella worth it if bob continued to post pics....


----------



## rzza (Aug 31, 2011)

jigfresh, today i made a screen for one of my plants in veg (inspired by the single plant scrog of yours) im curious, what was the dimensions of that screen?


----------



## rzza (Aug 31, 2011)

also, what size screen would you use?

zero to little veg time
soil
1.5g pot
mad hps


----------



## cannawizard (Aug 31, 2011)

*heaths vert setups are pretty sweet  rDWC king!


----------



## jigfresh (Aug 31, 2011)

rzza said:


> jigfresh, today i made a screen for one of my plants in veg (inspired by the single plant scrog of yours) im curious, what was the dimensions of that screen?


That screen was about 3' x 2.5' (h x w). The squares are 2" x 2"... and for the way I do things, I've found that to be the perfect size, the 2" squares I mean.



rzza said:


> also, what size screen would you use?


I'm not a soil guy, so 1.5 gallon pot doesn't really mean much to me. Depends on how strecthy the strain is. For a really short indica, I would do a 2 ft x 2ft, for stretchy sative I would do 3 x 3. It's a probably WAYYY overkill on the sizes... but it's not really easy to add screen to a screen, know what i mean. Plus if you have tons of light and the buds are going to be big, they will be falling over and need to be strapped up... which is much easier with extra screen room. And one thing... you can always cut off the screen you aren't going to use, once the plants get to full size.

Hope that helped. Damn, I should really do that setup again with my 1000w. I was only running a 400 + 250 for those plants. It's sooo much work though.

Good luck... keep us posted.



cannawizard said:


> *heaths vert setups are pretty sweet  rDWC king!


Hell yeah... he's the main reason I went vert... and now I have a wannabe heath setup that I really really love. In my mind you can't beat RDWC. I just love it.


----------



## rzza (Aug 31, 2011)

Thanks bro. I dont mind the work, im gardening for HOURS each day so it works out well. i bought the one inch chicken wire. its 2 ft and im cutting it into 2 ft sections. Thanks for the help man, im brand new to vertical AND scrogging. I am selling my hoods as we speak, guys on his way to grab em...


----------



## rzza (Aug 31, 2011)

whatdoya think about leaning the screen inward rather than outward in order to catch some of the lumens lost going upward. im putting a bunch of single plant scrogs around a circle with 2 or 3k in the center....picture it? im doing single plant scrogs cause im super perpetual, always putting plants in and out of flower. harvesting a couple a week...


----------



## jigfresh (Aug 31, 2011)

I can't really picture it, but anything you can do to get plant in the way of light is good. However you might just want to let the plants lean it and hold them up by the screen... other wise you might need something then to hold up your screen, holding up your plants... feel me? That's also something you can change as you go along, so you can see how things are progressing and tweak them as you go.

That grow I did with the 2 massive vert screens was litterally figure it out day by day. I had an idea at the beginning of what I wanted to do... but the plants have a mind of their own especially when doing something like this... so you pretty much gotta work with them as things go along. I didn't repeat the setup, so I don't know... but I would suspect running it a second time would have been easier as I knew what to expect.


----------



## rzza (Aug 31, 2011)

Thanks man and yes i used bamboo stakes to hold the screen from falling when it has weight on it. I feel ya on the whole day by day thing. 

Theres no turnin back now, guy from Craigslist just came and picked up my hoods


----------



## kingruar (Jun 20, 2012)

I must say this is a truly awesome thread!


----------



## jang707 (Mar 31, 2013)

OregonMeds said:


> My most successful grows ever were done like this with a vertical scrog cylinder shape with plants taller than my room. A couple over 8' if stretched back to straight.
> 2kw stacked worked the best, with the scrog limited to around 6' tall to allow airflow, base of the top bulb at the top plant height, second bulb mid scrog fan on the floor pointing up and that's all. Pulled over 6lbs dry off the last 5 plant scrog, that's just with large 20 gallon+ soil bins of FFOF for ea plant, no co2 or climate control or reflective walls or anything. The large root mass was absolutely key to reaching that poundage, previously tried the same thing but with smaller 6 gallon containers and didn't get near the same result.
> 
> That was with critical mass genetics btw, which is not a low yielding plant anyway. I didn't take pics of it, or post it, poundage was too scary to show since it was way out of line with my legal medical limits. Breaking 3lbs per 1kw is sure nice but you need a long veg time, however I found that veg time can be mostly under a single smaller light with just a few weeks veg in the 2kw stack.
> ...


Hey man I just set a room up, sounds really similar to what you had going right here. I am going to do 5 plants in a circle around a vertical scrog, but I am using a titan flo n gro system that has 4 gallon buckets so I know I cant veg mine as long as you did yours. How wide was the circle for your scrog net? I am having troubles trying to gauge how wide I need to make it so I have ample spacing from the bulb, yet close enough to achieve maximum lumens and have enough room to maneuver my babies.


----------



## sk8punk318 (Apr 19, 2013)

I've never done it before for the fact that it's more work for the same amount of yield as a flat if u took the vert. system out. It's just a small Colosseum and now you have a bunch of plants to worry about instead of just a handfull (Depending on size of grow space). it's not really a time issue because the plants are gonna flower at the same time, but the vert. is basically like a SOG,but.....vert. none the less in my opinion it is more work taking care of all those plants and if something were to go wrong it will effect all the plants most likely.


----------



## sk8punk318 (Apr 19, 2013)

base your distances as if u were treating it as a vert. setup and also the hand test works as well for heat. You also have to put into consideration that ur plants are gonna get a lot bigger towards the end of flower so focus more on flowering than veg growth because in the end u don't wanna burn ur colas! if you can get a sealed vert. tube with a inline fan that would help a lot more and u would be able to get a bigger HID light in there.


----------



## sk8punk318 (Apr 19, 2013)

jang707 said:


> Hey man I just set a room up, sounds really similar to what you had going right here. I am going to do 5 plants in a circle around a vertical scrog, but I am using a titan flo n gro system that has 4 gallon buckets so I know I cant veg mine as long as you did yours. How wide was the circle for your scrog net? I am having troubles trying to gauge how wide I need to make it so I have ample spacing from the bulb, yet close enough to achieve maximum lumens and have enough room to maneuver my babies.


*base your distances as if u were treating it as a vert. setup and also the hand test works as well for heat. You also have to put into consideration that ur plants are gonna get a lot bigger towards the end of flower so focus more on flowering than veg growth because in the end u don't wanna burn ur colas! if you can get a sealed vert. tube with a inline fan that would help a lot more and u would be able to get a bigger HID light in there.*


----------



## ledcflgrow (Nov 16, 2013)

I'm only allowed 6 plants, so I make the best of each one, to get them as big as possible with only two 600w. I flower 4 big ones and veg two others to go into the rotation once I harvest two, like a perpetual grow. I have two lights hanging vertically with no cool tubes. I removed that crap. More light. Tubes diminish a by like 10% or more. I hang one light lower to the ground, and another higher up, so the whole tree gets hit with pretty even lux, 40,000-50,000. Enter is not working here for some reason for me. Anyway. I then keep my 4 plants like 8 inches away from the bulbs, each one on home made turntables. I coverted $29 Christmas tree rotaters, the kind for artificial Christmas trees. I took it apart, cut the length down, then glued a 18 inch round piece of wood to it so I could place my coco+perlite plants on them. Works great. However, I just finished the construction, so I don't know if I will see better yields than my lst horizontal methods. Based on the lux readings from the plants from top the bottom, I should get a better yield. I will see. The turn tables turn one full rotation every 70 seconds. This should keep them from burning, and growing very evenly.


----------



## jigfresh (Nov 17, 2013)

Let us know how it goes. Also there is a whole section for vertical growing now... Might want to atop bye there to share what's going on with you as well.

annoying about the new line bug huh. I had that happen for a while.


----------



## Serial_Stoner415 (May 21, 2015)

Hey guys been reading this thread and have a question. If the light is hanging vert and is in the middle of the plants how does the light reach the outside of the plants...does that require rotating the plants or just leave it?


----------



## Serial_Stoner415 (May 21, 2015)

Serial_Stoner415 said:


> Hey guys been reading this thread and have a question. If the light is hanging vert and is in the middle of the plants how does the light reach the outside of the plants...does that require rotating the plants or just leave it?


looks like I missed the post about putting them on something that rotates, I guess some of the pics I've seen wouldn't allow for any sort of rotation as they are usually up against a wall and have netting between the light and plants.


----------



## jigfresh (May 22, 2015)

You just leave them. No need to rotate. It's like when the light is above the plant, you don't flip the plant upside down to get light to the bottom. When the light is vertical the leaves all turn to face the light.


----------



## Serial_Stoner415 (May 22, 2015)

jigfresh said:


> You just leave them. No need to rotate. It's like when the light is above the plant, you don't flip the plant upside down to get light to the bottom. When the light is vertical the leaves all turn to face the light.


 well some people do side lighting when the light is above the plant, so that wouldn't be necessary then?


----------



## jigfresh (May 22, 2015)

Some people do all sorts of things to their plants. Most people around RIU who do vertical growing is to take better advantage of small growing spaces. If you have enough room to light every angle of the plant, feel free. However, I'd rather use the space for more plants. I tie mine back to the walls of my small closet, if I kept them off the wall to put lighting behind them, I'd be cutting down on the space I could use to grow. And the plants would be shoved into the big light in the middle. What kind of space are you going to be growing in?


----------



## Serial_Stoner415 (May 22, 2015)

jigfresh said:


> Some people do all sorts of things to their plants. Most people around RIU who do vertical growing is to take better advantage of small growing spaces. If you have enough room to light every angle of the plant, feel free. However, I'd rather use the space for more plants. I tie mine back to the walls of my small closet, if I kept them off the wall to put lighting behind them, I'd be cutting down on the space I could use to grow. And the plants would be shoved into the big light in the middle. What kind of space are you going to be growing in?


I have an extra bedroom in my apartment so I built a 10ftx5x8 then built a separator wall so I have a 3.5x5 for veg and 6.5x5 for flower. I haven't set the veg up yet as this is my first grow and I want to dial in my big room first. I'm using a 6in charcoal with a 440cfm fan going to a 1000w cool tube reflector. Right now I only put my 6 in the room as that's per state law at the moment. I potted them in cloth 5g bags and am using tupur.


----------



## Serial_Stoner415 (May 22, 2015)

Serial_Stoner415 said:


> I have an extra bedroom in my apartment so I built a 10ftx5x8 then built a separator wall so I have a 3.5x5 for veg and 6.5x5 for flower. I haven't set the veg up yet as this is my first grow and I want to dial in my big room first. I'm using a 6in charcoal with a 440cfm fan going to a 1000w cool tube reflector. Right now I only put my 6 in the room as that's per state law at the moment. I potted them in cloth 5g bags and am using tupur.


strains: Double Dream
Dream Queen


----------



## jigfresh (May 22, 2015)

Nice setup. And good plan. I would spend money elsewhere than side lighting. If I did put more lights in that space, I'd have the 1000 down the middle and whatever other light (s) above the plants. Haven't heard of the strains, but they sound nice.

Good luck with everything. Not sure if you already have a thread/ journal for your grow. If you do, you should put a link in your signature so people can find it easy. if you don't have one, you should start one for people to help out. And give yourself something to reference as well. RIU and the folks here have taught me most of what I know about growing. The folks around RIU have also taken me around the world (literally). It's a good place here with good people. You just gotta find em. 

Club 600 is a good thread with good peeps and you don't have to have a 600 to join. Again... good luck with everything.


----------



## Serial_Stoner415 (May 22, 2015)

jigfresh said:


> Nice setup. And good plan. I would spend money elsewhere than side lighting. If I did put more lights in that space, I'd have the 1000 down the middle and whatever other light (s) above the plants. Haven't heard of the strains, but they sound nice.
> 
> Good luck with everything. Not sure if you already have a thread/ journal for your grow. If you do, you should put a link in your signature so people can find it easy. if you don't have one, you should start one for people to help out. And give yourself something to reference as well. RIU and the folks here have taught me most of what I know about growing. The folks around RIU have also taken me around the world (literally). It's a good place here with good people. You just gotta find em.
> 
> Club 600 is a good thread with good peeps and you don't have to have a 600 to join. Again... good luck with everything.


How do I do any of the things you said I should do....new to riu and growing as well it's nice to hear my set up sounds good. Thank you friend


----------



## Serial_Stoner415 (May 22, 2015)

jigfresh said:


> Nice setup. And good plan. I would spend money elsewhere than side lighting. If I did put more lights in that space, I'd have the 1000 down the middle and whatever other light (s) above the plants. Haven't heard of the strains, but they sound nice.
> 
> Good luck with everything. Not sure if you already have a thread/ journal for your grow. If you do, you should put a link in your signature so people can find it easy. if you don't have one, you should start one for people to help out. And give yourself something to reference as well. RIU and the folks here have taught me most of what I know about growing. The folks around RIU have also taken me around the world (literally). It's a good place here with good people. You just gotta find em.
> 
> Club 600 is a good thread with good peeps and you don't have to have a 600 to join. Again... good luck with everything.


and how would I hang a vert light under my hor light? Or how would i set the 2 up together?


----------



## jigfresh (May 22, 2015)

If you only had one vert, one horizontal, I guess I would pick the plants I wanted to show the most love and put the horizontal one above it. But really I think with two lights, the best would either be both hor. or both vert. Both working half the space. Now if I had 3, I might think of one vert and 2 hor. Make sense?


----------



## Serial_Stoner415 (May 22, 2015)

jigfresh said:


> If you only had one vert, one horizontal, I guess I would pick the plants I wanted to show the most love and put the horizontal one above it. But really I think with two lights, the best would either be both hor. or both vert. Both working half the space. Now if I had 3, I might think of one vert and 2 hor. Make sense?


I think so....so instead of hanging the vert couldn't I mount on the floor so it's coming up from the bottom. I know leaves take in light emery from the top so I would make it adjustable


----------



## Serial_Stoner415 (May 22, 2015)

I will be worried about heat this summer as well so not sure if I wanna add another horizontal.


----------



## jigfresh (May 22, 2015)

No, don't mount a light on the floor. Well, you can if you want, but I don't suggest it.


----------



## Serial_Stoner415 (May 22, 2015)

jigfresh said:


> No, don't mount a light on the floor. Well, you can if you want, but I don't suggest it.


The light wouldn't actually be in the floor it would be on an adjustable pole that I can raise to the middle of the plants....or that's a no no


----------



## jigfresh (May 22, 2015)

Ah, I see... sure that would work.


----------



## Serial_Stoner415 (May 22, 2015)

jigfresh said:


> Ah, I see... sure that would work.


Awesome


----------



## Serial_Stoner415 (May 22, 2015)

Here's my space...I have plenty of room at the moment. Gonna wait for them to get bigger schutes before I super crop


----------



## jigfresh (May 22, 2015)

Nice happy looking plants man. Keep doing what you're doing, they look nice.


----------



## Serial_Stoner415 (May 22, 2015)

jigfresh said:


> Nice happy looking plants man. Keep doing what you're doing, they look nice.


This is my first grow so I'm super paranoid I'm gonna f$!? It up.


----------



## Serial_Stoner415 (May 22, 2015)

jigfresh said:


> Nice happy looking plants man. Keep doing what you're doing, they look nice.


They weren't happy the first week. I planted them(clones) on the 11th...dealt with over watering in the begining. Figured out at that point that I only needed to water every3-4 days. So u let them dry up and 2 days ago I fed them a full load of nutes. Today I am seeing a lot of growth so they must have enjoyed that feeding


----------



## Serial_Stoner415 (May 22, 2015)

Serial_Stoner415 said:


> This is my first grow so I'm super paranoid I'm gonna f$!? It up.


One of my plants is super bushy any input on why if they're the same strain? And what do I do with the runt I have?


----------

