vertical growing
- Thread starter cerberus
- Start date
RickWhite
Well-Known Member
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.
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
Well-Known Member
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.
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.
Attachments
That 5hit
Well-Known Member
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
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
Attachments
jigfresh
Well-Known Member
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.
Attachments
RickWhite
Well-Known Member
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.
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
Well-Known Member
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.
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
Well-Known Member
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
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.jpgbudleydoright
Well-Known Member
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
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
Well-Known Member
That 5hit
Well-Known Member
now this i like skill level play a big role in yeild
DaveTheNewbie
Well-Known Member
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
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
Attachments
jigfresh
Well-Known Member
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
Well-Known Member
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.
Attachments
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
Well-Known Member
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
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
