Is Vertical really worth it?

[gunnaknow]

I've heard of greatly improved yields when growing vertically, if it's dialed in properly but I'm not so sure that it really makes that much difference to yield, in all honesty. The argument for vertical systems using the light more efficiently may be a valid one but I wouldn't have thought that it would be by much. Where are these large increases of light efficiency meant to come from exactly?

The only real waste of light in a flat garden is when the light is too high because of temp issues and the 10% or so absorbtion of light from the reflector. So long as you use air cooled hoods, you shouldn't have to raise the lights too high and the light foot print wouldn't need to be larger than the area of plants.

The only real difference between vertical and flat then would seem to be the 10% or so of light absorbtion from the reflector in a flat garden. In any case, between a third and a half of the light from the bulb goes directly to the plants without being reflected first, so that 10% loss is more like a 5-7% loss. For all of the expense and/or effort in setting up a vertical system, a 5-7% gain hardly seems worth it. Am I missing something here? I can't see how a well dialed in vertical system could live up to the hype of producing vastly more yield than a well dialed in flat system. Thanks.

Gunna

 

[freeradical]

I'm skeptical myself about trying vertical. The following is in regards to smaller vertical grows (not trees).

If all the light you are using is straight from the bulb, and not reflected, you will gain much more overall intensity at your plants over using a reflector. This is because reflectors require light to travel a longer distance before reaching the plants. Reflected light also loses intensity as no reflector material is 100% reflective (light is lost).

In addition, getting a reflector to distribute light evenly is very difficult, and uneven light distribution is not desirable.

Lastly, reflectors throw a lot of light in a direction much higher than the canopy, and this light is either lost, or reflected if you have something to reflect light, but even this will result in the longer distance+reflected=less intensity.

Now in regards to vertical growing, it seems efficient after reading the above information, however there are some problems with vertical growing. First off, there is potentially a lot of light lost since plants are being hit with light from the side. There is plenty of light to be lost between the plants, unless you arrange them to capture all the light (using two rows with one row filling the light gap of the other)...or you could always do a "vertical scrog" aka "v-scrog".

Another problem with vertical is you need to make use of the light that is being thrown above and below the lamp, which means you need to have a somewhat tall garden to make efficient use of that light.

Other problems include the difficulty of accessing the plants in certain vertical setups. Cooling is said to be tricky. A setup is usually more complex when there are multiple levels of plants as well (watering, runoff, etc). This causes your choice in grow methods to be more limited. Finally, there is the problem of plant size. Vertical growing is usually inefficient with smaller/younger plants. When your plant are a few inches tall, there is a lot of empty space being lit, whereas in most horizontal grows, the area of the canopy that needs light doesn't change nearly as much (plants grow much more vertically than horizontally).

...If you can build a setup to make efficient use of vertical lighting by capturing all the light that is thrown, directly, while solving the other problems mentioned above, then it is definitely worth going vertical.

 

[C21H30O2]

I've heard of greatly improved yields when growing vertically, if it's dialed in properly but I'm not so sure that it really makes that much difference to yield, in all honesty. The argument for vertical systems using the light more efficiently may be a valid one but I wouldn't have thought that it would be by much. Where are these large increases of light efficiency meant to come from exactly?

The only real waste of light in a flat garden is when the light is too high because of temp issues and the 10% or so absorbtion of light from the reflector. So long as you use air cooled hoods, you shouldn't have to raise the lights too high and the light foot print wouldn't need to be larger than the area of plants.

The only real difference between vertical and flat then would seem to be the 10% or so of light absorbtion from the reflector in a flat garden. In any case, between a third and a half of the light from the bulb goes directly to the plants without being reflected first, so that 10% loss is more like a 5-7% loss. For all of the expense and/or effort in setting up a vertical system, a 5-7% gain hardly seems worth it. Am I missing something here? I can't see how a well dialed in vertical system could live up to the hype of producing vastly more yield than a well dialed in flat system. Thanks.

Gunna

your considering direct reflection but not the distance the light has to travel. I think its closer to a 40% loss overall. So with a reflector you get 60% return in light from the side facing the reflector. You get more intense light in one area but lose efficiency. On top of this you've got the heat to deal with. I have gotten plants within inches of a 1000w in a cool tube without burning. Vertical grows run cooler. the ability to set the plants closer to the bulb and the increased coverage area more than offset the lack of reflected light.

 

[freeradical]

the ability to set the plants closer to the bulb and the increased coverage area more than offset the lack of reflected light.

It seems obvious, but I never really thought about that! Hmm, I'm going to look into going vertical. I'm tight on funds, though. =(

 

[yamaha_1fan]

I know theres some threads on other sites about vertical grows. keith something or another has a big thread. Apparently his results are pretty impressive.

Light looses alot of power for every inch it travels. I dont know the eaxact formula. So the light being reflected has to go up then back down. Plus the hood doesnt reflect all the light.

Then consider the space. Vertical use space much more effieciently.

Its actually something I would like to try

 

[stevewinthrop]

I don't know if you've heard this yet, but take 1000 watts, that covers roughly 20 sq ft with 50 watts per square foot on a horizontal grow. Take the same 1000 watts, and cover 80 sq ft with 50 watts per square foot.

It's not the light being more efficient, it's the growing area being bigger.

I have a vertical i'm running right now, and I can tell you, the 1200 watts I'm running in there is putting out a WHOLE lot more than 1200 watts would on a traditional grow.

And using a reflector doesnt neccessarily amplify your wattage, as far as I can tell, you're still getting the same amount of lumens whether your light has a reflector on it or if it doesn't. The reflector just reflects the light that's already there onto a smaller area. If you grow on 4 walls, as opposed to 1 floor of the same area, it's not dividing the light into 4.

There's several colliseums that come ready with 500 total watts, and 1200 watts, but the square footage is unreal.

Yes, it's really that much more efficient...


Think of being in a concert. (i'm only using this analogy because light is like sound, travels in waves) The stage is in the middle of an arena, and there are speakers surrounding the stage. It doesn't matter if there is 10,000 people in the crowd, or just 3, when the band comes on stage, you will all hear the same amount of ear shattering rock. The only thing that will change it, is if you get further away from the stage... same with the vertical lighting... Every plant in the room gets the same amount of light, that doesn't change. It's the distance from the light that weakens it.

Now if you think that reflectors "double" the light by reflecting it back down onto the horizontally laid plants, that's fine (although untrue in so many ways), if you double the wattage of your vertical lights, you'll still be hitting twice as much growing space as you would if you doubled the lights in a horizontal setup.

But, don't take my word for it... As soon as H.G.4.2.0. comes back up, take a look at their vertical section. (sorry for mentioning a rival message board? but IC doesn't have a vertical board)

You have people pulling in steadily heavy amounts off of vertical grows. In sogs where you'd typically see .75 grams per watt, you'll see 2-3 grams per watt. In colliseum grows, even more. (the fiberglass colliseums are engineered to have the radius be the same as the footprint of a 1000w light)

Ever seen an omega garden in action? As far as I know it's the only horizontal vertical system in the world... Spins a big wheel around with a light in the center, everything facing the light... A guy was busted in Tacoma, WA with 4 of them running and he was pulling over 5 lbs each run off of each omega (i think he had them custom made locally, but still same concept).


I can't stress it enough, it's very little extra work, a lot more startup cash, but in the long run, it's much much much more efficient.

Right now I'm working on a 4x4 vertical room with 4" pvc filled with rockwool croutons, with a drip feeder... So far, the maintenance has been filling res and cleaning the filter... that's it. Just as easy as a regular drip system, minus the labor of building the vertical manifold and setting up the pump and filter. (those things were definately harder than a conventional drip system)


So as far as I'm concerned, flat grows are for squares, haha.

-- steve

 

[chef]

I'm an old vert guy new to horizontals & have pretty much decided to go vert again for a 4x1000w flower room.

My take is...
I love these new horizontals for veg.
The straight down light is great for reaching max foliage for max veg growth.
Reaching max foliage unfortunately causes max shadowing, so...

I'm leaning towards 1k verts w/3-4ft domes for flowering because:
1. When running multiples, the light distro patterns are better for each fixture cross lighting its neighbor. Max wall to wall blazeage.
2. They basically LST your upright vertical plants from the 45-90 degree side lighting.
Similar results as a straight down light on a 45-90 degree LST'd branch, without doing any LST work.

I was really tempted to go with 6x600w horizontals, but #2 was the clincher.
So I'm going to build some oldskool vert dome Lumateks

cheers

 

[stevewinthrop]

Light looses alot of power for every inch it travels.

Yes, the wavelength changes as well once it hits the reflector. Just like sound changes when it hit objects.

-- steve

 

[Haps]

I have done some work with this, vertical can be productive, but I usually was wasting some of the light. If you plan well, it can be worth it. I go hort now, simply because it is working better for me.
H

 

[chef]

Yeah, the coliseum racks look like a lot of work, but probably worth it too.

I'm limited in plant #'s, so no racks for me. Simply gonna blaze a 12x12 w/good reflective walls.
We used to just coliseum our canopies in the old days, bigger plants to the outside & tie'em down a bit in the middle. Cheap, easy & effective!
probably be doing a bit of that now too.

cheers

 

[XIII]

Light looses alot of power for every inch it travels. I dont know the eaxact formula. So the light being reflected has to go up then back down.

Spot on. If I remember physics properly, it's the inverse square law. Doubling the distance light has to go will 1/4 it's intensity. Tripling it will make the light a meager 1/9th as strong!

I have always been interested in a vertical grow but I wouldn't attempt it unless I was going aero. I have no personal experience but I would assume everything else would have too many runoff/watering issues!

-XIII

 

[sophisto]

I do not usually post in this forum but the title caught my eye when I got to the growers furum page.......anyways here it goes...
I have tried both....and I can say personally if numbers are a concern, vertical just doesnt cut the mustard...

I prefer larger plants, topped early in veg to promote multiple 12-18 inch tops, thus creating a sea of green canopy from much biigger and less plants......For instance 4 plants under a 1000 watts vegged to about 2-3 ft with 5-10 tops each adds up to a theoretical 20-40 plants in a 4x4 area....These plants are lollipopped from the soil line towards the top
(usually the bottom 12-18 inches of the plant), this eliminates the annoying larf at the bottom and also gives the plant an ability to focus on creating tops....(mo tops mo better)The more veg the more root mass, and we all know the more root mass available the higher the potential for yield is.

Vertically if you want your system to be manageable, it is required that you put plants in at most ( non-stretchy) 12-18 and (stretchy sativas ) 8-10....This increases plant numbers, you wind up with more larf, because lollipopping makes holes for the light within the circle, octagon etc, to escape, thus never being utilized....Also it takes more small plants to fill in the light so it is all used and not wasted, which is the concept behind why vertical is better. " concept "

HEre is a drawing I did a while back and a system that I have tried and it does not even come close to a less plants more tops, approach that I am taking now..... The drawing is the one on the right....Disregard the drawing on the left......LOL





Dont get me wrong if one wants to try vertical there are a 1000 theoretical answers as to why it is better...For some it may be better... For me .75-1 g per watt with 4 plants is way better than the same yield based on 24 plants....also it is way easier to maintain and give the proper attention to other details that will really increase the plants abilities, as opposed to trying to be creative and using light in a way that is theoretically better..... Also I found that keeping plant numbers lowers my stress levels, Dig???
Mother nature has been shining light horizontally down on plants from the dawn of time...Science can sometimes complicate the issue with math, and theories IMO..... KISS is my approach.

Again this is just my experience I am not trying to knock any one elses approach...

 

[Greyskull]

With reflectors you can aircool the loghts... wiht vert you have to make sure you have a kick ass AC and keep the temps down.

And don't bump your head on a light!

 

[Mr Celsius]

I mean no offense by this, but if you haven't done it, you really shouldn't comment like you know... because you don't.

Its not that the light is really more intense or that the wavelengths have changed a bunch... or any ho ha like that.

Quite simply, instead of just having light shine on the top of your plant... say it has a diameter of about 8"-10", now imagine the plant is 36" tall, well its shining on 36"x8"-10" and some light goes through and reflects on the other side as well.

You don't have to run high numbers. Off of 3600w (6 - 600's) I pulled 5 1/2... that was my first run with 60'ish plants that were all being killed by the gassing off of my panda poly (I just figured it out this next run when the same panda poly in the room was starting to do the same thing). I think I would have pull around.... 7-8lbs if I had had it dialed in properly. Yes thats dry weight with 3 - 4 ' tall plants.

As for heat... its actually much easier to cool bare bulbs then ones in reflectors.

Ok adults, lets remember something from grade school, heat rises and cold sinks. Bare bulbs shoot all the heat to the ceiling, they don't have a 'reflector' (see how it REFLECTS light/heat toward your canopy). If you have a good exhaust system, then its super easy to cool your room. I kept my rooms at 76'ish degrees in august with no A/C with a normal 10" can fan.

I'm sure some other experience vert growers will chime in and quash some of these silly notions.

 

[KingRalph]

Yes.

 

[Greyskull]

As for heat... its actually much easier to cool bare bulbs then ones in reflectors.

Ok adults, lets remember something from grade school, heat rises and cold sinks. Bare bulbs shoot all the heat to the ceiling, they don't have a 'reflector' (see how it REFLECTS light/heat toward your canopy). If you have a good exhaust system, then its super easy to cool your room. I kept my rooms at 76'ish degrees in august with no A/C with a normal 10" can fan.

I'm sure some other experience vert growers will chime in and quash some of these silly notions.

I watched good friends mine who are very very very successful growers with reflectors change from 8k reflector to 8k vert. Guys that have been doing things a certain way fro 20 years. I listed to the hydro shop guy nibble and nibble each time they went in ho great vertical was. How they had to try it. How it was so effective. How the 12LBs they were getting from reflectors would turn into 15lbs vert becasue of the extra light intensity.

So my guys went and got a nice 4br house. Sealed the rooms. Added $5k AC unit. And all the other crazy gear (controllers, co2 burners, etc). These are guys that take care of busines up in the triangle. They know how to grow plants. Should be turn and burn,, right? Same RO water.. same plants & nute recipe they'd been using forever. Circle the plants around the bulbs and go?

First harvest was 8lbs. No big deal.. new place and dialing it in. Second crop 5lbs. Well, there was all those fires going on. Crop 3 7lbs. No more excuses they went back and remake the op for aircooled lights and they look back on track for 10lbs+ next crop (few weeks)

MAYBE IT WAS THE SEALED ROOM THAT WAS THE ISSUE???

Either way I know for myself I am not ever gonna go vert after watching guys I hold in the higest esteem get in a big hole chasing the vertical light dragon.

To those can can do it and do it successfully - BRAVO.
To those that tried and didn't find it all that - sorry.

 

[badugi]

Good post, Greyskull. I think most people don't realize how much more limiting a vertical garden is, and how much more maintenance and on top of your game to be able to crank out 5 solid cycles a year.

 

[chef]

Agreed & Greyskull has me back on the fence now lol

Maybe I'll go Vertizontal?

 

[gunnaknow]

Thanks for the responses so far guys. This is exactly the kind of feedback that I was hoping for. I agree and disagree with some of the arguments for why vertical is more efficient. I agree with the idea that some of the light leaving a reflector will be above the canopy line, even if the reflector is lowered to limit the footprint.

Some of the light will leave the reflector at very shallow angles because of the zig zagging of acute angle reflections. Reflective materials on grow room walls would limit the amount lost in this way but some could never be recouped or redirected towards the plants. Unless, one placed higher plants around the outside, to act as a wall for the acute angle reflections. A vertical system would also suffer from acute angle light escape, unless a reflective ceiling and floor were fitted.

Light looses alot of power for every inch it travels. I dont know the eaxact formula. So the light being reflected has to go up then back down. Plus the hood doesnt reflect all the light.

You are speaking of the inverse square law. However, the light shouldn't really be understood as "losing power", the light just becomes more dispersed with distance. By raising a light you decrease the concentration of light but you increase the footprint, so the output remains the same.

What you have to remember about the inverse square law is that it regards the dispersal of light in an open system, in which the light is allowed to continue dispersing into an ever greater volume of space. A reflector negates this by acting as a channel, stopping further dispersal until the light leaves the confines of the reflector. The inverse square law would apply almost entirely as usual, if the reflector was merely a flat sheet of reflective material. With the inward sloping walls, however a reflector stops further dispersal from occuring. Much of the light from opposing walls actually reconverges.

Other than that, there have been some interesting proposals for how vertical uses the light more effciently. How much more efficiently is up for debate. I'm open minded about whether vertical is worth the extra expense and planning, or not. Vertical definately seems to put PGRs to more effective use than flat, going on what Purgatory reported when using Bush Master on both his flat and vert systems.

http://www.icmag.com/ic/showpost.php?p=629882&postcount=27
http://www.icmag.com/ic/showpost.php?p=643267&postcount=50
http://www.icmag.com/ic/showpost.php?p=644024&postcount=53

 

[Greyskull]

I think VERTICLE LIGHTING is like COMMERCIALLY GROWING WITH AEROPONICS.... not for everyone, but when done correctly KICK ASS.