vertical vs horizontal orientation: a theorem of light intensity and effectiveness

[Wav3F0rm]

so i just realized this today. In a typical situation, you have a light or lights over top an area with a reflector shining down, you loose like what is it 30% efficiency with a reflector? so 30% of 400 is 120.

However, a bulb produces 360 degrees of light, but for simplicity we'll put that into quadrants of either 4 or 2 depending on light orientation. moreso in a horizontally oriented bulb, might be better to put it into two quadrants. up and down.

so that puts the downward portion of the bulb producing 200w and the upper portion producing 200w. so, 30% of 200 = 60. so you are in a sense getting 120 watts coming back down towards the plants because of the loss from reflection. Therefore a horizontal bulb is more like 300w instead of 400w.

However, there is this consideration in a horizontal orientation, all that energy is being diverted to one place, straight down, all in one area.

so this is where i'm trying to consider how this works with a vertical bulb. With a vertical bulb there are no reflective losses, but, the bulb is then cut into 4 sections. so in effect you are getting 4 100w sources of light vs one 300w source, with the same 400w bulb.

granted with a vertical situation, there also is little to no canopy so penetration is not even a consideration. As well, i know all to well the benefits of light to grow space ratio and multiple points of light vs one large one, as well as proximity of plants to light source. So, while only a 1/4 of the bulb is being utilized at a time, the distance to said source from plant can be much closer. i've produce buds from multiple, very elongated 36w sources, that looked like it came from a 400w+ HID, all because of ratios of light:grow space and lightlant proximity and plant:emission sources.

In typing this, i was considering how this plays out. In my mind initially i was taken aback. I thought all i had realized was a fallacy, well, of coarse a larger single more intense source is more beneficial. then i realized my own conclusions and what i had saw personally, using low intensity, vertical, multiple light sources and how that turned out better than any single large source. Also, i DO realize these are approximations, but i am merely giving a physical form to an idea, and at least in some form this here represents reality.

thoughts?

 

[moritzst]

hi there
maybe this graphic gives a clue,http://i768.photobucket.com/albums/xx322/hundredgramoz/2684498593-way-comparisoon-med-med.gif taken from tagged: benefits of vert
but efficiency is an issue in verts, at least people pull up to 1,3g/W on the horizon, so thats a mark hardly to reach even in verts, plant handling( size, canopy as u mentioned) is way more complicated=fact, u cant adjust the light to your plants so easily, so in comercial grows u never will find verts but in private its a quest
greez mo

 

[Wav3F0rm]

well, i was just reading through the sticky and a lot of people came up with these same ideas. it just happen to occur on my own.

however, i think i did learn something important. i think max potential grow space is considerate here. v-scrog seems to be best for smaller spaces, while stadium styles seem to be best for no size constraints, unless of coarse one is doing a SOG on a vertical scale, then a circle makes sense.

anywho, i've reached my conclusions. thanks

 

[ProMixNSunshine]

Unrelated but somewhat related, regarding the inverse square of light vs coverage- If I move a light in a reflector from 2' to 4', yes it drops to 25% intensity...... but how much of that is gained back in coverage?

 

[Wav3F0rm]

yeah, thats pretty much inline with my thinking.

i think there is a relationship with vertical growing and choice of light source. all the astonishing vertical grows i've seen where of the lower end of the intensity scale of lights. With a vertical grow there is no canopy, so no issues of light penetration. 400w and under. As, i think at that point, anything above 400w you almost defeat the purpose. 600w+ lights have such great intensity that a canopy isn't as much an issue, as well this is half the point of larger wattage lights.

yeah, related also, one is limited in the coverage available with a vertical bulb position, there is no inverse square relationship.

this was more or less the conclusion i reached. If grow space is an issue, vertical makes sense. If smaller wattage/and/or lower intensity lights used, vertical makes sense. If one can get away with a huge vertical sog, vertical makes sense. In the same vein, i've seen 1gpw+ LED grows and getting back to the intensity issue, 5w emitters are crazy intense, penetration becomes a non issue. In the pursuit of output per watt, all factors are necessary. fours times the grow space but 1/4 the light intensity onto said spaces.

more or less this was just kinda a reality a check for me, output doesn't come out of thin air. back when i was using my micro SOG, and originally have cfls run across a space at top, i realized even from the start penetration was going to be a real issue regardless of watt per volume. running pl-l's vertically made all the sense in the world, cfl=low intensity, that light doesn't travel very far once it leaves its source. HID, a whole other scenario. Sure, vertically there is no reflector loss, but as a trade-off intensity is lost. Sure, larger utilized space, but lower output over said space. larger amount of smaller crop or smaller amount of larger crop(buds)?

 

[coldcanna]

I think like anything else there's no "one best way" that covers all situations. I think a huge draw of vert is ability to lower plant count and keep yields high, and the more efficient use of space is also a big help. Since so many guys on here are trying to keep within the plant limit of their states med laws but still produce poundage I think vscrog is going to be the way of the future. I do realize that a lot of the big commercial ops in places like CO run horizontal reflectors but I almost think that's for simplicities sake rather than actual yield results. You figure you have a warehouse with hundreds of lights and plants.... a time consuming style like vscrog would take several full time employees to be tying branches, pruning, defol, ect.... You start to run into diminishing returns when those employees wages are more costly than the added yield from vert.

All rules aside, horizontal sog would prob yield just as much as any vert with less labor involved, but not all of us can throw 60 plants up on the table

 

[Ttystikk]

I have several close friends who grow at big Colorado dispensary warehouses, and they all run horizontal lights because bare bulbs don't meet code. Nothing whatsoever to do with employee's labour time, because A. They DO ScrOG at these places, B. It IS a time consuming bitch. Which brings me to my next point;

The vertical method I'm using cuts down on time and effort spent trellising out a horizontal ScrOG, and it's far less ungainly and back breaking.

I'm not sure who told the poster above that vertical is less efficient at larger scale, but I'm proving that all of its principles scale up just fine to larger bulb sizes, thank you very much!

Heath Robinson made the vertical sea of green famous many years ago, so either method is amenable to either high or low plant counts, whatever is your preference.

I'm baffled why people would say there is no canopy with vertical. Where are your buds- on the roots?! My canopy is right where I want it, exactly the right distance from the bulb, all the way around. That putting the entire plant in the goldilocks zone leads to better yields is no surprise to me. The real shock is how resistant most people are to the idea!

No, vertical isn't any of those things. What it is, is the ability of the grower to capture the largest percentage of the light energy produced at the optimal intensity for the plants. Round, vertical shapes do that better than anything else.

I grow trees inside out to reduce my plant count, but also because it's simply a lot less effort to deal with one plant than dozens or even hundreds of clones, and I'm speaking personally. Others may be more comfortable with that route.

I trellis up the outside of the wire mesh cylinder, I do not top my girls, they get clipped only if they run off the top or sides of their trellis.

The CANOPY thus grows inward from the side branches, these are anywhere from a few inches to over a foot and a half depending on factors from initial size of the branch to strain characteristics. I try to train so I have about 8" of depth, which leaves about 15" to the bulb itself. This seems to work very well with my thouie, and I bet it will work even better once I set up the vertical light mover I'm having made.

 

[Wav3F0rm]

light movers. yeah. somehow that slipped my mind. a light mover changes the game entirely, but, the same can be said of a horizontal situation as well.

Yeah, keeping within medically allowed limits, while maintaining yields. However, i have to wonder about cost effectiveness, what are the economics of extended veg time. Obviously, as the time to final product is consumed, the production becomes more and more 'resource' intensive.(nice to consider those states that allow plants outdoors, can't beat free).

when i was saying there is no canopy, i was considering the smaller end, say 400w and less, no light mover, a smaller grow space, less veg time, small ish plants. Therefore, yes, the buds do grow towards the light, but, compared to a similar ScrOG system, the canopy will still be much smaller, even compared to a SOG of the same scale. the canopy is greatly diminished using vertical systems

how funny would that be if cannabis had tubers. LOL, cutting up, drying and using tubers. lol, that'd be funny.

my thought still stands about light intensity being diminished when being diverted to all angles of the light verses downwards to a singular spot. however, canopy and reflective losses considered, the vertical system is in all likelihood, a more overall efficient use of electricity.

like i had said, this thought just occurred to me, i didn't read any of this, this was just my own thoughts, conclusions, experiences.

speaking of best yield one man can do himself, i was getting 40-60oz every two weeks from 2 square feet. this was a 14"x24"x28" space with 200w vertical, growing in(what i figure 18oz containers, i don't know exactly, but, somewhere from 16-20oz). time consuming as all get out, and took a little over a year to dial in, and could have been extended to becoming much less labor intensive over another year or so with a drip irrigation, but, plant numbers became an issue. i think it was it was 6-8 rows of 4. there were a lot of plants... but, the potential to yield was immense.

"no one best way" yeah, that really applies to next to anything, and is entirely true in this scenario.

Light produced is light produced, its all about converting electricity to visible light, so, which technologies produce the most usable, or valuable output for the purpose we are all trying for here(such as the new CDM bulbs, newer LED tech, tuned spectrum HPS, etc) but, thats neither here nor there, simply making an analogy.(if we were all truly objective, we'd have everything were are using hooked up to a kilowatt measuring device, apply our kilowatt/hr rate, divide out the time to production, figure in cost of supplies/equipment, labor if thats an issue. but aye)

thanks to everyone for adding to this. again, i've more or less reached my final conclusions regarding vertical systems.

there are always considerations and dependent upon variables, similar systems will have different outputs respectively. the dynamics of similar/different scenarios.

 

[slamsomethc]

you were getting ~60+ lbs per year?! ((50oz/16)x26 Show me more please!

 

[Wav3F0rm]

you were getting ~60+ lbs per year?! ((50oz/16)x26 Show me more please!

speaking of best yield one man can do himself, i was getting 40-60oz every two weeks from 2 square feet.

that crack will do it to ya every time. ha, no, i must have been way baked or something.. or just tired. i dunno...

either way. thats grams, not ounces. so thats 1 - 2 ounces. also, it was awhile ago.. and i didn't really keep great notes. so that two week figure may be a little off.
8 rows of 4. or.. rather, 4 rows and 8 columns. either way. 4 weeks in a month, 2 month flowering period, ended up being more like every week or week and a half, one column would go in and one would go out.

 

[redclover]

Bare bulb=more intensity and UV=shit ton of resin. I have an 860w CMH that is a monster 12" way from bulb. Light mover and two layers crushes horizontal. Don't forget about PAR and CRI.

 

[slamsomethc]

that crack will do it to ya every time. ha, no, i must have been way baked or something.. or just tired. i dunno...

either way. thats grams, not ounces. so thats 1 - 2 ounces. also, it was awhile ago.. and i didn't really keep great notes. so that two week figure may be a little off.
8 rows of 4. or.. rather, 4 rows and 8 columns. either way. 4 weeks in a month, 2 month flowering period, ended up being more like every week or week and a half, one column would go in and one would go out.

LOL

I was tripping out at first wondering why you'd be upset with ~60 lbs. per year! 40-60g makes much more sense now,