Some Vert Questions

[DaveTheNewbie]

Ok so i posted a couple of questions on the heath robinson tree thread, but it seems dead.

https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=181239&page=43

Then i posted a couple of questions on the indoor vert 101 thread, still no bites :

https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=189454&page=16

So i figured i would start a new thread, somebody might be able to point me in the right direction.

Basically why do people recommend the vert 5 light 4 plant setup :

xox
oxo
xox

when the four corner lights are only using 90 degrees of light instead of 360 degrees. Effectively this makes all 4 corners reflectors.

isnt this bad?

 

[thesloppy]

I've always wondered this myself, good question.

My assumption (which is worth nearly nothing) is that the resulting trees are much larger and spread out against the walls/margins (perhaps even attached to the walls like some of the vertical scrogs in here), and the lights more centrally spaced, than the simple diagram shows.

Like, it looks more like this, once it fills in:

00000
0X0X0
00X00
0X0X0
00000

...but again, that's formulated purely out of my ass, and I assume and hope someone will give you a better answer shortly.

 

[MagicChef]

Im not a vert guy but I agree somewhat with the 4 plant 5 light setup. I guess it all depends on how much money you want to spend or whatever. If you rotated your plants position wise you'd be getting maximum coverage.

 

[thesloppy]

If you rotated your plants position wise you'd be getting maximum coverage.

I don't think the OP is concerned about the coverage of the plants, so much as the fact that 4 out of 5 of the lights appear to be directing 3/4 of their energy directly into the walls.

...but as noted, I assume that's just a function of the fact that the 'design document' were interpreting uses all of 2 letters, is under an inch square, and could be confused for a game of tic-tac-toe....the reality is probably a little more sophisticated then what my slow, old noggin has filled in the blanks with.

 

[DaveTheNewbie]

I don't think the OP is concerned about the coverage of the plants, so much as the fact that 4 out of 5 of the lights appear to be directing 3/4 of their energy directly into the walls.

100% correct.

 

[megayields]

RE> I don't think the OP is concerned about the coverage of the plants, so much as the fact that 4 out of 5 of the lights appear to be directing 3/4 of their energy directly into the walls.

But isn't this exactly why we use Reflectix to bounce the Lumen's back into the plants?

 

[thesloppy]

RE> I don't think the OP is concerned about the coverage of the plants, so much as the fact that 4 out of 5 of the lights appear to be directing 3/4 of their energy directly into the walls.

But isn't this exactly why we use Reflectix to bounce the Lumen's back into the plants?

You tell me!? I definitely shouldn't be answering questions on the matter. Hehe.

Even if Reflectix was 100% reflective (which I assume it isn't) it seems counter-intuitive to me that literally 60% of the lighting in the room should be directed at the walls. At the absolute least, aren't you losing significant intensity and penetration by making the light travel the distance to the wall, and bounce back before reaching the plant?

 

[zor]

it does indeed seem like a waste of light. if you're gonna use the 90degree wall as a reflector, your losing one of the benefits of growing vert .

 

[MagicChef]

I don't think the OP is concerned about the coverage of the plants, so much as the fact that 4 out of 5 of the lights appear to be directing 3/4 of their energy directly into the walls.

...but as noted, I assume that's just a function of the fact that the 'design document' were interpreting uses all of 2 letters, is under an inch square, and could be confused for a game of tic-tac-toe....the reality is probably a little more sophisticated then what my slow, old noggin has filled in the blanks with.

Dont you mean a 1/4 of thier light? Take a look. Even at that some light will be reflected back so you can lower that 1/4 even more. Small price to pay for maximum plant surface facing your lamps. My HO.

 

[thesloppy]

Dont you mean a 1/4 of thier light? Take a look.

Nope. Are you sure your not confusing the plants and the lights? I certainly did so the first time I saw it (even though there's four of one and five of the other), since an X looks more like a plant, and an O looks more like a light bulb, imagined from above, to my simple mind.

Again, just to be clear, I personally think the diagram is just meant as a super simple visualization, rather than some sort of accurate blueprint, but I share the OP's confusion over the specifics, as there's obviously enough room for us to get lost in there, despite its tiny size and simple concept.

 

[DaveTheNewbie]

I don't think the OP is concerned about the coverage of the plants, so much as the fact that 4 out of 5 of the lights appear to be directing 3/4 of their energy directly into the walls.

it does indeed seem like a waste of light. if you're gonna use the 90degree wall as a reflector, your losing one of the benefits of growing vert .

effectively the rflective wall is a reflector. using a reflector is conceptually going hortizontal. the advantage of vert is no reflectors and 360 degree coverage of the lamp.

 

[DaveTheNewbie]

take that last image, used alot on these forums
imagine that your only using 90 degrees of the circle (becuae your in the corner)

you get 37.68 ft squared, which is just above half the standarf flat grow. that seems a fail

 

[DaveTheNewbie]

on another forum heath posted this :

The first pics are of the tree grow using 3x600w this yielded 30.6 Oz from the plant on the left and 43.8 Oz from the plant on the right for a total of 74 Oz.

The second pics are of a separate grow using 2 x 600w surrounded by 8 Mr Nice Shit plants and a yield of approx 64 Oz.

The first pics are of the tree grow using 3x600w this yielded 30.6 Oz from the plant on the left and 43.8 Oz from the plant on the right for a total of 74 Oz.

74.4 oz total / 3 lights = 24.8 oz or 701.84 g per light
1.17 gpw

The second pics are of a separate grow using 2 x 600w surrounded by 8 Mr Nice Shit plants and a yield of approx 64 Oz.

64 oz total / 2 lights = 32 oz or 905.6 g per light
1.51 gpw

The shit seriously out performed the critical mass. The only difference i can see is that the CM grow had 2 trees with 3 lights in a light, plant, light, plant, light row. The Shit had 2 lights above each other surrounded by plants.

Even heath seems to get much better results when plants are surrounded and there are no lights on the edges of the plants. I would rather get 64 oz out of 2 lights than 74 oz out of 3 lights.

 

[Anti]

The only difference i can see is that the CM grow had 2 trees with 3 lights in a light, plant, light, plant, light row. The Shit had 2 lights above each other surrounded by plants.

Even heath seems to get much better results when plants are surrounded and there are no lights on the edges of the plants. I would rather get 64 oz out of 2 lights than 74 oz out of 3 lights.

Sounds like you found your answer.

 

[DaveTheNewbie]

Sure does!
8 plants, 2 or 3 lights, RDWC, plants around lights circular fashion
now i just have to work out distances

 

[Stonefree69]

I don't think the OP is concerned about the coverage of the plants, so much as the fact that 4 out of 5 of the lights appear to be directing 3/4 of their energy directly into the walls.

True dat. Just can't get "around" it. I suspect coliseum's would be better.

Sure does!
8 plants, 2 or 3 lights, RDWC, plants around lights circular fashion
now i just have to work out distances

Ditto. But 2-600's or 2-1,000's, maybe 1 of each per donut/circle. Unless you did a cool tube like Vertitude, that'd be for bare bulb.

 

[hayday]

take that last image, used alot on these forums
imagine that your only using 90 degrees of the circle (becuae your in the corner)

View Image

you get 37.68 ft squared, which is just above half the standarf flat grow. that seems a fail

Your diagram is partialy acurate but keep in mind multiple points of light on the four plants.

Each plant is strongly luminated from 3 sides with reflected light coming back off the walls in mutiple directions.

 

[Stonefree69]

Your diagram is partialy acurate but keep in mind multiple points of light on the four plants.

Each plant is strongly luminated from 3 sides with reflected light coming back off the walls in mutiple directions.

True looking from each plants perspective. Still looking at the corner bulbs themselves have a lot of reflected light. Donuts and coliseums I'd say have more efficient/direct light distribution. A vertical thread somewhere listed efficiency in order with donuts then coliseums, etc. in order. Now you're making me want donut trees!