techniques for HUGE yields

I just wanted to point out the inverse square law. Every time you double the distance from the light you get 1/4 the light strength. The sog maximizes this by having all the vegation the same distance from the light. A normal plant will look like a xmas tree and most of the vegetaion will be at the bottom of the plant furthest from the light. With a topping/fim technique and lollipopping if the plant is taller you can reverse this so that most of the foliage is closest to the light.

Vertical has it's merits, where yOur previously reflected light is now directly cast. This is mOre efficient, but I'm not certain it's more productive per lumen than sog or scrog, which are less efficient w/ reflectors, but more lumens per square inch if the lamps are the same. This is because you get the direct cast light, plus the less powerful reflected light.

Vertical does not get this same intensity as it is cast only once, you don't get the other side of the lamp reflected onto a specific point. Apples and oranges.

SOG- best yield with no plant limit, especially over time
ScrOg, Fim lst- best yield with limited plants
Vertical/tube: most efficient use of light (no relectors).

All is my oppinion and subject to Callin BS. Ha

JayBio420 said:

Vertical has it's merits, where yOur previously reflected light is now directly cast. This is mOre efficient, but I'm not certain it's more productive per lumen than sog or scrog, which are less efficient w/ reflectors, but more lumens per square inch if the lamps are the same. This is because you get the direct cast light, plus the less powerful reflected light.

Vertical does not get this same intensity as it is cast only once, you don't get the other side of the lamp reflected onto a specific point. Apples and oranges.

SOG- best yield with no plant limit, especially over time
ScrOg, Fim lst- best yield with limited plants
Vertical/tube: most efficient use of light (no relectors).

All is my oppinion and subject to Callin BS. Ha

Click to expand...

J,
check out my light setup, I appreciate your opinion. . . I have a Sour Bubble and Tahoe Og vegging 2 months, pinched/fimed Tahoe and still about 3 1/2 ft and a BUSH. I was going to just put it in and see if it can reach the 78" top to my tent. If so, will bend, lol. . . IMO, the largest yields come from the longest veg periods. Thanks, GL to all.

Just run coco with a drain to waist with 4 sativas in a scrog. go with 10 gal pots water 2 times a week under 1k lights with only 1 strain more than one strain require u decide a middle ground for nute efficiency since each strain takes a different liking to certain levels of eitehr a calmag, base,or whatever running too many dif strains makes output less than maximized.
Running perpetual means u hav perpetual pests and problems which means perpetual $ wasted on preventative and corrective measures neither of which are cheap. if you hav 6k worth of lights ur not gonna have a ton of time to cultivate and pamper a ton of plants which unless you want this to be your only job might end up being the case if you run a perpetual. Just speaking from experience. That shit only works if you're trying to do commercial scale and those guys dont get on here and talk about how to run a clean one. (well the ones that dont get caught "legal or not") as for co2 thts not worth it unless u have a completely sealedass room which i still wouldnt do in my house nooooo fuckin way. Tried it never saw a dif worth the $ and hastle of getting refills which is awkward as well going and getting tanks filled at always the least convient times. Unless you have a completely computer monitored room CO2 is a luxury item id cross off the list until you get a steady output established. Just get a bigger intake fan and pull more air exhanges in and out of the room should do a base equivalent.

Hope tht helps and doesnt come under too much sctiny from all the "experts" out there we're all here to learn and help eachother keep it friendly everyone

DWC is the only technique you will need for huge yields.

for yields a vertical stadium or colisseum grow is the most efficient i have seen to date. no one can pull close to 2gpw with a horizontal bulb (more like 1.5gpw MAX). with a vertical colisseum i have seen people pull 2.5gpw. you are using more than triple the footprint as a horizontal bulb when you hang the bulb vertically and surround it with plants.

ScoobyDoobyDoo said:

for yields a vertical stadium or colisseum grow is the most efficient i have seen to date. no one can pull close to 2gpw with a horizontal bulb (more like 1.5gpw MAX). with a vertical colisseum i have seen people pull 2.5gpw. you are using more than triple the footprint as a horizontal bulb when you hang the bulb vertically and surround it with plants.

Click to expand...

And like I and the other guy tried to explain, no one ever does the math on this. The Horizontal has at least TWICE the lumens in that smaller area.

Here is a simple scenario involving inverse square law.
Same light bulb. Same distance from plant. Lets say 100,000 lumens measured at 12" from the bulb with no reflector and the plants are 12" from the light.Also allow for light to fully penetrate and ignore vegetation in both scenarios.

Vertical - closest part of plant gets full 100,000 lumens, 1 ft deep into the width of the plant gets 25,000 lumens, 2 ft deep into the width of the plant gets 6,000 lumens
Horizontal + reflector that is just flat. So the tip of the plant is getting ~180,000 lumens with the best reflectivity hood. 1 ft down gets 45,000 lumens 2ft down gets 12,000 lumens

Notice how having even a flat reflector doubles the penetration? Most reflectors are more closer to 120 degrees so you get even better penetration.

And that's the trade-off.

Less lumens over more area, or more lumens in a smaller area.

You could argue the reflector causes a loss in lumens, but planting verticly leaves more 'holes' at the top of the plants for light to just pass through to the wall as well. SOG/SCRog is fairly efficient in canopy space and not letting light pass through to the floor. And yes I have seen vertical SOG/SCrog done to maximize this.

Think about leaf orientation as well. The leaf can roll a little bit to become more perpendicular with the light, but horizontaly it can be mostly perpendicular to have the most surface area possible exposed when the light is above and use that energy for other things.

There are too many variables between growers to say that their light orientation is the reason they yield more.

Opm said:

And like I and the other guy tried to explain, no one ever does the math on this. The Horizontal has at least TWICE the lumens in that smaller area.

Here is a simple scenario involving inverse square law.
Same light bulb. Same distance from plant. Lets say 100,000 lumens measured at 12" from the bulb with no reflector and the plants are 12" from the light.Also allow for light to fully penetrate and ignore vegetation in both scenarios.

Vertical - closest part of plant gets full 100,000 lumens, 1 ft deep into the width of the plant gets 25,000 lumens, 2 ft deep into the width of the plant gets 6,000 lumens
Horizontal + reflector that is just flat. So the tip of the plant is getting ~180,000 lumens with the best reflectivity hood. 1 ft down gets 45,000 lumens 2ft down gets 12,000 lumens

Notice how having even a flat reflector doubles the penetration? Most reflectors are more closer to 120 degrees so you get even better penetration.

And that's the trade-off.

Less lumens over more area, or more lumens in a smaller area.

You could argue the reflector causes a loss in lumens, but planting verticly leaves more 'holes' at the top of the plants for light to just pass through to the wall as well. SOG/SCRog is fairly efficient in canopy space and not letting light pass through to the floor. And yes I have seen vertical SOG/SCrog done to maximize this.

Think about leaf orientation as well. The leaf can roll a little bit to become more perpendicular with the light, but horizontaly it can be mostly perpendicular to have the most surface area possible exposed when the light is above and use that energy for other things.

There are too many variables between growers to say that their light orientation is the reason they yield more.

Click to expand...

look, first off...you're argument doesn't mean anything. i'm not trying to be a dick here but you are talking up and down about "lumens." please go and google the definition of a lumen. it is the measurement of light visible to the human eye. it means ABSOLUTELY nothing when it comes to growing plants. the lighting variables and measurements you should be concerned with are PAR value, footcandles (fc), and spectrum. the only reason lumens are even reported on these bulbs is because before they were used for growing that was the manner in which they needed to be measured; what was visible to the HUMAN eye.

your example; although useful in some other scenario possibly; means absolutely nothing in the growing of plants. i would much rather have direct light coming from the bulb than light that is traveling 4-10" and then reflecting off an aluminum surface. anyone knows that.

that being said...try and think of it as simple as possible. we'll use a 1000w light as our example. most of us keep 1000w bulbs 18" from the tops of our plants. so, in a horizontal lighting setup i am going to be generous and say you get a footprint of 5x5 out of a 1000w bulb. this means that all canopy within that 25sq.ft. is receiving at least 5,000fc. in a vertical colisseum setup your canopy would be 18" from the bulb all the way around. so the diameter of your grow would be 36" (18" x 2). to get the circumference you multiply that by 3.14 and you get 113.5" which is roughly 9'6". now, multiply that 9'6" by 5' of vertical canopy (floor to ceiling) and you get your plant footprint of 47.5sq.ft. so...would you rather have 25sq.ft to grow in or 47sq.ft.?

if that still doesn't make any sense to you then find me a SINGLE grow on this or any forum in which a person is yielding more than 1.5gpw with a horizontal lighting setup. there are 3 journals on this forum alone that i know of people yielding 2-2.5gpw with a vertical colisseum setup. proof is in the pudding. NO ONE get's those yields with a horizontal light. the best (of which neither you nor I am) have tried and have never come close. there's a reason for that.

So light density has little to do with production?

That is what you are claiming with that scenario.

Why do you get popcorn buds at the bottom of the plant?

That is what I am trying to point out.

Opm said:

So light density has little to do with production?

That is what you are claiming with that scenario.

Why do you get popcorn buds at the bottom of the plant?

That is what I am trying to point out.

Click to expand...

no, i lollipop my plants and get huge colas. please, show me a single horizontal lighting setup where someone is getting more than 1.5gpw. if your theory is correct then there should be plenty of grows out there proving it. light density is important. but getting light from the focul point of a bulb is more efficient that having it reflected off an aluminum surface. please feel free to prove me wrong. i am always game to learn something new. like i said before...show me a single horizontal grow that gets those types of yields.

i don't see any popcorn buds here and the yield was 2.25gpw. (https://www.rollitup.org/hydroponics-aeroponics/149998-heaths-flooded-tube-vertical.html).

if you want, feel free to post pictures of your plants and i'll post some pics of mine. i don't grow vertically but i am smart enough to know that it is the most efficient use of a bulb.

Spectrum of light is whats needed. Intensity will carry the spectrum to the points of growth. You recieve less "good light" at the bottom than the top, thus the popcorn. Depth of penetration should be he topic. If you go by sq/footage than vert wins hands down.

IMO

Check the links in my sig

ScoobyDoobyDoo said:

no, i lollipop my plants and get huge colas. please, show me a single horizontal lighting setup where someone is getting more than 1.5gpw. if your theory is correct then there should be plenty of grows out there proving it. light density is important. but getting light from the focul point of a bulb is more efficient that having it reflected off an aluminum surface. please feel free to prove me wrong. i am always game to learn something new. like i said before...show me a single horizontal grow that gets those types of yields.

i don't see any popcorn buds here and the yield was 2.25gpw. (https://www.rollitup.org/hydroponics-aeroponics/149998-heaths-flooded-tube-vertical.html).

if you want, feel free to post pictures of your plants and i'll post some pics of mine. i don't grow vertically but i am smart enough to know that it is the most efficient use of a bulb.

Click to expand...

That is the crux of the argument. Everything posted is hearsay. There is no way to prove or disprove what someone writes unless you set up your system exactly as they have with every nuanced detail. That is inefficient and what we can do is use a different method of evaluation. One that can be objectively quantified easily by a third party such as physics and mathematics.

I totally agree that vertical is more efficient for the light output because of the reflector absorbtion and I stated such, but does that translate into more growth? I don't necessarily think so because when you consider surface area of leaf absorbing that light. A leaf perpendicular to the light is going to absorb more than one sideways. And yes I already mentioned that leaves can rotate to collect more but isn't that energy best spent growing buds?

Opm said:

That is the crux of the argument. Everything posted is hearsay. There is no way to prove or disprove what someone writes unless you set up your system exactly as they have with every nuanced detail. That is inefficient and what we can do is use a different method of evaluation. One that can be objectively quantified easily by a third party such as physics and mathematics.

I totally agree that vertical is more efficient for the light output because of the reflector absorbtion and I stated such, but does that translate into more growth? I don't necessarily think so because when you consider surface area of leaf absorbing that light. A leaf perpendicular to the light is going to absorb more than one sideways. And yes I already mentioned that leaves can rotate to collect more but isn't that energy best spent growing buds?

Click to expand...

proof is in the yields and i think i have proven that. in the entire forum or internet cannibus community there isn't a single grow posted with someone getting over 2gpw with horizontal lighting. so, if people are getting twice the yields with vertical lighting and stadium or colisseum grows then i really don't understand your point. yes, maybe they are growing smaller plants but they are growing twice as many of them. just like SOG will always give you better yields in my opinion as opposed to growing trees. yield is the question here and if you are looking for larger yields then the vertical setups work the best. if you want to grow massive colas on a few large plants then yes...horizontal lighting is the best. but that isn't the question here. the OP asked for techniques to achieve HUGE yields and vertical grows like i mentioned are the best techniques i've seen. you keep talking about horizontal lighting and reflectors but can't show me a single instance where they yield more. not a single one.

sounds to me like you just want to argue. have at it man...thread is all yours.

ScoobyDoobyDoo said:

proof is in the yields and i think i have proven that. in the entire forum or internet cannibus community there isn't a single grow posted with someone getting over 2gpw with horizontal lighting. so, if people are getting twice the yields with vertical lighting and stadium or colisseum grows then i really don't understand your point. yes, maybe they are growing smaller plants but they are growing twice as many of them. just like SOG will always give you better yields in my opinion as opposed to growing trees. yield is the question here and if you are looking for larger yields then the vertical setups work the best. if you want to grow massive colas on a few large plants then yes...horizontal lighting is the best. but that isn't the question here. the OP asked for techniques to achieve HUGE yields and vertical grows like i mentioned are the best techniques i've seen. you keep talking about horizontal lighting and reflectors but can't show me a single instance where they yield more. not a single one.

sounds to me like you just want to argue. have at it man...thread is all yours.

Click to expand...

It's not about arguing. It is about vetting your position against countering views. I can make up numbers all day and post them on the internet. So can anyone else. How can you trust that as fact?

This is kind of funny.

I see two ways of looking at this.

1. Assume everything is perfect and nothing ever goes wrong.
2. Reality

1. Yes, Omini gardens all day long.

2. So hard to maintain a system like that for long term production. Almost impossible to keep up production for years. Need 100's of clones a month that are all perfect and uniformed.

To me, for one run, a vert system might work out better of you happen to get it all right. BUT, for year after year production. Shit, just for one year I bet a traditional horizontal systems will out preform 90% of the time for 90% of growers. Just because there is one dude out there that kills in vertically doesn't mean that technique works for everyone every time with every plant in every area.

It me it's about long term repeatably and reliability. If you're thinking about one grow at a time you might be missing the bigger picture. I'm not here for one grow.. I'm here for 60+ grows.

To sum it all up.. "Tortoise And The Hare"

Once upon a time there was a hare who, boasting how he could run faster than anyone else, was forever teasing tortoise for its slowness. Then one day, the irate tortoise answered back: “Who do you think you are? There’s no denying you’re swift, but even you can be beaten!” The hare squealed with laughter.“Beaten in a race? By whom? Not you, surely! I bet there’s nobody in the world that can win against me, I’m so speedy. Now, why don’t you try?”
Annoyed by such bragging, the tortoise accepted the challenge. A course was planned, and the next day at dawn they stood at the starting line. The hare yawned sleepily as the meek tortoise trudged slowly off. When the hare saw how painfully slow his rival was, he decided, half asleep on his feet, to have a quick nap. “Take your time!” he said. “I’ll have forty winks and catch up with you in a minute.”
The hare woke with a start from a fitful sleep and gazed round, looking for the tortoise. But the creature was only a short distance away, having barely covered a third of the course. Breathing a sigh of relief, the hare decided he might as well have breakfast too, and off he went to munch some cabbages he had noticed in a nearby field. But the heavy meal and the hot sun made his eyelids droop. With a careless glance at the tortoise, now halfway along the course, he decided to have another snooze before flashing past the winning post. And smiling at the thought of the look on the tortoise’s face when it saw the hare speed by, he fell fast asleep and was soon snoring happily. The sun started to sink, below the horizon, and the tortoise, who had been plodding towards the winning post since morning, was scarcely a yard from the finish. At that very point, the hare woke with a jolt. He could see the tortoise a speck in the distance and away he dashed. He leapt and bounded at a great rate, his tongue lolling, and gasping for breath. Just a little more and he’d be first at the finish. But the hare’s last leap was just too late, for the tortoise had beaten him to the winning post. Poor hare! Tired and in disgrace, he slumped down beside the tortoise who was silently smiling at him.
“Slowly does it every time!” he said.

Click to expand...

Opm said:

It's not about arguing. It is about vetting your position against countering views. I can make up numbers all day and post them on the internet. So can anyone else. How can you trust that as fact?

Click to expand...

you might wanna google who heath robinson is before you go claiming he was making numbers up. better yet...no need to even leave this site. just go check out his other threads and maybe you'll be a lot less inclined to claim he needs to lie about yields. then check out some of the other vertical colisseum grows in the "vert" section where far less experienced growers are getting 2+gpw in those setups.

eDude said:

This is kind of funny.

I see two ways of looking at this.

1. Assume everything is perfect and nothing ever goes wrong.
2. Reality

1. Yes, Omini gardens all day long.

2. So hard to maintain a system like that for long term production. Almost impossible to keep up production for years. Need 100's of clones a month that are all perfect and uniformed.

To me, for one run, a vert system might work out better of you happen to get it all right. BUT, for year after year production. Shit, just for one year I bet a traditional horizontal systems will out preform 90% of the time for 90% of growers. Just because there is one dude out there that kills in vertically doesn't mean that technique works for everyone every time with every plant in every area.

It me it's about long term repeatably and reliability. If you're thinking about one grow at a time you might be missing the bigger picture. I'm not here for one grow.. I'm here for 60+ grows.

To sum it all up.. "Tortoise And The Hare"

Click to expand...

running a vert setup is not rocket science. i don't see how you can claim it is not a sustainable growing technique. just because you need hundreds of clones every 2 months doesn't make it any less difficult than someone running multiple flood tables in a SOG grow. you can't use the large number of plants as a determining factor in whether a grow is sustainable. we are talking about yields here anyway. there are tons of threads that deal with perpetual harvests and sustainable grows. this just doesn't happen to be one.

Hey there hope that we here at Delta9Labs (not the seed company, but we love you Ed and your seeds) can help you and your ladies out and hopefully inspire you to follow these steps.

`Now we all know that you need to maintain a certain level of humidity 40-55% and a temperature of 69-78F for optimal growth rates and for the prevention of pests and diseases and mold like symptoms from forming on your plants and as well as your lab (greenroom). Cleanliness and equipment also factor in, but here are a few steps to follow as well as a few tips on how obtain 0.9 to 1.2 per watt of light that is being used.

*As we said earlier keep your room like a hospital, make it a little quarantined bubble. That means daily cleaning and sweeping of the room, and weekly scrubb downs of the walls and floors and all of the equipment your using with (H[SUB]2[/SUB]O[SUB]2[/SUB]) hydrogen peroxide. And you better make sure you unplug your electrical equipment dummy we don't want a "grow op" fire now.

*make sure your bubble has no in or out vent (CEA) if you can, if not you must get cover your vent of with a thick micron filter sheet over al you in and out ventilation to prevent the outside world coming in.

*make sure your day/night temps don't go over or under 10 degrees, due to shocking the plants system.

*feed your plants with high quality base nutrients, bloom boosters, enzymes, fulvics, humics, micro and macro nutrients, stimulants, carbs, proteins and so on, they need and love it (non of that organic crap lol)

*R/O your water, dont cheap out

*watch that PPM (part per million), you shouldn't be increasing any more than 50 ppm per feeding.

*heat is another thing, as we said before, 69F to 78F. you can lose a lot of yield due to heat

*cool your room right so you can get those bulbs super close to those colas (we have air cooled reflectors but you don't NEED them)

*sulfur burners are a beauty and not to hard to use (just don't turn them on too much, and keep them on for long period of time)

*introduce larger pots with larger veg times (its the only medical and commercial way, small pots and scrog are a technique of the past)

*topping works very well on some strains, just time it all in correctly

*don't listen to the strain info and harvest at week eight. your room may not be the same as in Netherlands,Spain or Canada or what not. Its up to your judgement to tell you when its ready

*the more money you spend on setting up, the better the results. that means better equipment and nutrients and all that good stuff, AC's, flip box's, timer boards, Buddy were telling you that you do not want to walk into your room and see your lights turned of when they shouldn't be, or you room is at 95-105F because your ac's have shut down. always pre plan for these events, they happen all the time.

larger the root zone, the larger your yields. So do what you have to do to get those roots larger, that mean getting be root stimulators or larger pots or even vegging longer. even CO2 injections if you want.

Not everyone will agree to the things we have set out for you today, but we really hope that it may work for you and everyone who is also looking to amp up there yields without having to increase the watts obviously. Run your room like a lab or hospital, and you'll get results.

ScoobyDoobyDoo said:

you might wanna google who heath robinson is before you go claiming he was making numbers up. better yet...no need to even leave this site. just go check out his other threads and maybe you'll be a lot less inclined to claim he needs to lie about yields. then check out some of the other vertical colisseum grows in the "vert" section where far less experienced growers are getting 2+gpw in those setups.



running a vert setup is not rocket science. i don't see how you can claim it is not a sustainable growing technique. just because you need hundreds of clones every 2 months doesn't make it any less difficult than someone running multiple flood tables in a SOG grow. you can't use the large number of plants as a determining factor in whether a grow is sustainable. we are talking about yields here anyway. there are tons of threads that deal with perpetual harvests and sustainable grows. this just doesn't happen to be one.

Click to expand...

It's cool man. I am just lending my viewpoint. Without knowing ten different ways to skin a cat it's hard to know if the way your a doing it is the best.

Opm do you know of diffuse light and it's being better at penetrating foliage? I heard that theory from another guy and he said reflected light is more potent so to speak. He may have mistaken the fact the reflected light adds to the direct point source light and therefore penetrates better.

He went on to say having different light sources on the same plant, is better than having one point source of light. I can see that as the light would get past leaves at different angles and no shaded area to speak of. The way he worded that idea was about penetration though, and I do not see several point sources of light(diffuse light) penetrating better than one.

On the Heath grow he may be the only one who has yielded like that. I have heard of close to 2 grams per watt vertical from someone on another site. What the genetics of the seed are and veg time have so much to do with yield as well.

I am using vertical and horizontal at the same time in my tent grow. Also using reflectors on the vertical lights, so breaking all the rules here. hehe