jordisgarden
Well-Known Member
thats very cool how does it work. is it efficient?
vertical growing
- Thread starter cerberus
- Start date
An often overlooked advantage of a circular vertical garden such as a coliseum is that every plant is close to the same distance from the light, and many of the plants are only a foot or so farther away from a second bulb as well. Add to that the fact that (in a well managed garden) the bottom of every cola is getting the same high light intensity as the top is with the side lighting, and with a single cola strain every bud is all frosty killer "tops". 
One challenge that lowers the yields for many vert newbies is trying to come up with the high plant numbers of healthy consistent well rooted clones, all vegged to the same height. It takes more skill and equipment to supply 300 8" plants to fill your flower room after each harvest than it does to come up with 20 plants or so to fill your flat garden in the same space. It's worth it on harvest day though!
One challenge that lowers the yields for many vert newbies is trying to come up with the high plant numbers of healthy consistent well rooted clones, all vegged to the same height. It takes more skill and equipment to supply 300 8" plants to fill your flower room after each harvest than it does to come up with 20 plants or so to fill your flat garden in the same space. It's worth it on harvest day though!
bigtomatofarmer
Well-Known Member
First, a light bulb hanging vertically in a grow room is completely different from a flashlight shining on a cone. A cone is completely solid and a flashlight focuses light on one spot. A plant and light bulb do not replicate either of those objects. Your example also negates the fact that the middle/bottom of a plant sometimes receives no light with a horizontal. Not 100% coverage like you claim.
Second, well I guess thats it. Im done arguing with you. You have yet to make a valid point. I went back and re-read your posts and laughed my ass off
. I guarantee when you finally start growing MJ you will understand. Try one vertical grow, you'll never go back. I promise. 
Go BIG or Go Home!!!
Rickwhite, seriously SHUT UP ABOUT THE 50% ISSUE. If you weren't so incompetent you'd know that ANY OBJECT that has light hitting it from a single source is 50% in shade. No matter the shape of the object. I don't care if you point a light at a ball from the left or right or top or at a god damn naked mannequin from the rear. 50% is still lit and 50% is in the shade. IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW MUCH OF THE PLANT IS IN SHADE.
Light hitting a plant is absorbed by a plant one way or the other. If not by the leaves on the surface then by the leaves underneath and if not by those leaves then it travels on through the plant. If any part of a plant is shaded, that is only because other parts of it are already catching the light. If you knew basic physics you would know that things don't simply disappear. All that matters is how much light is actually hitting the plant. This is determined by the footprint of the object. In a vertical, the plant takes up a larger footprint and so receives more lighting.
Stop attempting to seem like you actually know what you are speaking of because you apparently can't grasp basic highschool geometry. HORIZONTAL PLANTS ARE SHADED ON THE BOTTOM and vertical plants are SHADED ON THE SIDE. Every time I look at a horizontal plant from the opposite direction of the light, it is completely shaded. Any time you look at any object from the opposite direction of the light, it is completely shaded. If i look at a vertical plant from the side closest to the light, it looks 100% lit just like a horizontal plant from the top. The only difference is that vertical plants receive more lighting. Yes, a plant lit from above may have more actual plant surface area covered with light IF leaves didn't angle flat towards a light source, but NO MATTER WHAT the total measurement of lux is less. Your argument is completely backward because the true reality is that a vertically lit plant actually has a greater surface area being covered with light.
If you don't lay off your bullcrap lies about dead and withered branches that receive no light I'll start spamming about how horizontal plants have dead and withered branches on the bottom and inside where there is no light, because they are being shaded by the branches above and vertical plants let all the light through to the other side too. It would make no sense, but your argument makes just as little because it is a FACTLESS LIE. A vertically lit plant is effective for the same reason LSTing a plant is effective, it increases the footprint. Now, stop arguing, let people learn, and leave the damn thread because you're only spreading misinformation with NO BASIS.
Your bullcrap theory says if I shine a light onto a piece of paper, 50% of it is in the shade... but if i roll it into a cone and shine a light at the tip of it, 100% of it is lit. That is pure stupidity, You're still only lighting 1/2 the paper... You just don't notice because the damn angle makes the unshaded 50% hidden from you. Look at it from the bottom and you'll see a full 50% of the paper in shade. The fact is that the actual measurement of light hitting the cone is less because it takes up a smaller footprint of light. Just look at it... it'd be less bright.
If I point the light at the tip of a needle, it'd be lit all the way down the needle because it is still getting wider. The only shade would be a small dot at the bottom(if it were hollow 50% of it would be in the shade). However, I'd get much more light onto that needle if I lit it from the side. In one case you have a tiny footprint (very few photons) hitting a large surface area(due to the angle of the needle), which means the lux is very small. In the other case you have a larger footprint(many more photons) hitting a smaller surface area, which means the lux is much greater. Plants however, do not angle like your pine cone, or a piece of paper folded into a cone, or a needle. A plants leaves angle perpendicular to the light and aren't an angled smooth surface. Why do they do this? To increase their damn footprint so they can receive more light.
No matter how much I keep trying to explain basic geometry, trigonometry, physics, biology... you still don't grasp it. Others with a greater level of comprehension see the facts outside of your close minded perspective. You are the kind of fool that looks at a concave mirror and thinks that you shrank simply because you can't understand the angles and distribution of light. You look at a half moon and think that the sun stopped giving off 1/2 its light simply because you can't acknowledge where the other half of it went.
Seriously, top ruining the damn thread with your idiotic fallacies. Vertical gives more light to the plants. Grow up, man up, admit your wrong, and learn.
Light hitting a plant is absorbed by a plant one way or the other. If not by the leaves on the surface then by the leaves underneath and if not by those leaves then it travels on through the plant. If any part of a plant is shaded, that is only because other parts of it are already catching the light. If you knew basic physics you would know that things don't simply disappear. All that matters is how much light is actually hitting the plant. This is determined by the footprint of the object. In a vertical, the plant takes up a larger footprint and so receives more lighting.
Stop attempting to seem like you actually know what you are speaking of because you apparently can't grasp basic highschool geometry. HORIZONTAL PLANTS ARE SHADED ON THE BOTTOM and vertical plants are SHADED ON THE SIDE. Every time I look at a horizontal plant from the opposite direction of the light, it is completely shaded. Any time you look at any object from the opposite direction of the light, it is completely shaded. If i look at a vertical plant from the side closest to the light, it looks 100% lit just like a horizontal plant from the top. The only difference is that vertical plants receive more lighting. Yes, a plant lit from above may have more actual plant surface area covered with light IF leaves didn't angle flat towards a light source, but NO MATTER WHAT the total measurement of lux is less. Your argument is completely backward because the true reality is that a vertically lit plant actually has a greater surface area being covered with light.
If you don't lay off your bullcrap lies about dead and withered branches that receive no light I'll start spamming about how horizontal plants have dead and withered branches on the bottom and inside where there is no light, because they are being shaded by the branches above and vertical plants let all the light through to the other side too. It would make no sense, but your argument makes just as little because it is a FACTLESS LIE. A vertically lit plant is effective for the same reason LSTing a plant is effective, it increases the footprint. Now, stop arguing, let people learn, and leave the damn thread because you're only spreading misinformation with NO BASIS.
Your bullcrap theory says if I shine a light onto a piece of paper, 50% of it is in the shade... but if i roll it into a cone and shine a light at the tip of it, 100% of it is lit. That is pure stupidity, You're still only lighting 1/2 the paper... You just don't notice because the damn angle makes the unshaded 50% hidden from you. Look at it from the bottom and you'll see a full 50% of the paper in shade. The fact is that the actual measurement of light hitting the cone is less because it takes up a smaller footprint of light. Just look at it... it'd be less bright.
If I point the light at the tip of a needle, it'd be lit all the way down the needle because it is still getting wider. The only shade would be a small dot at the bottom(if it were hollow 50% of it would be in the shade). However, I'd get much more light onto that needle if I lit it from the side. In one case you have a tiny footprint (very few photons) hitting a large surface area(due to the angle of the needle), which means the lux is very small. In the other case you have a larger footprint(many more photons) hitting a smaller surface area, which means the lux is much greater. Plants however, do not angle like your pine cone, or a piece of paper folded into a cone, or a needle. A plants leaves angle perpendicular to the light and aren't an angled smooth surface. Why do they do this? To increase their damn footprint so they can receive more light.
No matter how much I keep trying to explain basic geometry, trigonometry, physics, biology... you still don't grasp it. Others with a greater level of comprehension see the facts outside of your close minded perspective. You are the kind of fool that looks at a concave mirror and thinks that you shrank simply because you can't understand the angles and distribution of light. You look at a half moon and think that the sun stopped giving off 1/2 its light simply because you can't acknowledge where the other half of it went.
Seriously, top ruining the damn thread with your idiotic fallacies. Vertical gives more light to the plants. Grow up, man up, admit your wrong, and learn.
TeddyPickles
New Member
RickWhite
Well-Known Member
Judging from the PATHETIC grows you guys are posting it looks like I forgot more about growing than you punks will ever know. I mean really, you arrange 5 or 6 scrawny plants in dirt buckets around a bulb and claim that you are getting massive yields. When you put together your first high yield setup get back to me - until then quit talking out of your ass.
cerberus
Well-Known Member
Yeah thats productive.. Look man, your seriously coming off as a troll right now. We have people in this thread that don't agree with vert but can stay productive in the conversation, why not you?
　
UB: ahhh hell OG! back when BOG was the hottest guy on the block. (I'm not saying that as a knock, I wish I could find some of his gear)
anyways - I guess my inability to understand is not that I disagree with what you said, I just don't understand it's relationship to the diagrams. So, your suggesting that with a proper hood you can move the light high enough up to illuminate the same space as a vertical and not loose any LUX?
　
UB: ahhh hell OG! back when BOG was the hottest guy on the block. (I'm not saying that as a knock, I wish I could find some of his gear)
anyways - I guess my inability to understand is not that I disagree with what you said, I just don't understand it's relationship to the diagrams. So, your suggesting that with a proper hood you can move the light high enough up to illuminate the same space as a vertical and not loose any LUX?
jigfresh
Well-Known Member
Lol Rick... you are not going to make any of us beleive you've ever grown any kind of plant in your life.
bigtomatofarmer
Well-Known Member
Haha Rick youre so funny. Im sorry to tell you this is not pathetic or scrawny....
I can do 6 of these plants around a single HPS light any day of the week
Post one picture of something you have growing... Oh wait, you can't
you dont grow anything hahaha 
Leave this conversation to people who know what they are talking about.
oh really???
Well-Known Member
wait so i got lost in all the babble.
. . .if i have a 400 hps hanging in the middle of 6 plants in 7 gallon pots with mylar on the outside walls, i should pull more weight than if i put the light horizontal w/hood?
. . .if i have a 400 hps hanging in the middle of 6 plants in 7 gallon pots with mylar on the outside walls, i should pull more weight than if i put the light horizontal w/hood?
OregonMeds
Well-Known Member
Given you keep in mind it's still just a 400 and not enough for huge thick trees, yes. Flower so the top out at no more than 4' or better yet scrog an even cylinder of bud about 4' tall.
You might pull close to a pound that way, you will almost for sure if you scrog them in a cylinder shape also.
Uncle Ben
Well-Known Member
Yeah, he was really "hot".
genuity
Well-Known Member
thats funny,i was looking at some of his B.M.R the other day,THATS CRAZY
tea tree
Well-Known Member
when I read dudes talk about "Lux" I just page down, it means BS! Lol, those you cant talk, those who can do type of deal.
bigtomatoe, I do the same size plants, five gallons or seven and I was wondering if I could really squeeze more plants in a circle around a vert bulb, rather than six or so in a row under a horizontal. I am a year into growing, so in your experince did your vertical beat the shit out of horizintal with five gallon trees? Seems like it could to me and I am curious did you just let them grow regualr or did you top or train at all? A nice bit of chicken wire seems kinda easy now that i type this, usually I am pretty lazy!
Just saw your pics, they look like they just all went for it. Ever try it with six neatly around a bulb? That is what I meant.
bigtomatoe, I do the same size plants, five gallons or seven and I was wondering if I could really squeeze more plants in a circle around a vert bulb, rather than six or so in a row under a horizontal. I am a year into growing, so in your experince did your vertical beat the shit out of horizintal with five gallon trees? Seems like it could to me and I am curious did you just let them grow regualr or did you top or train at all? A nice bit of chicken wire seems kinda easy now that i type this, usually I am pretty lazy!
Just saw your pics, they look like they just all went for it. Ever try it with six neatly around a bulb? That is what I meant.
RickWhite
Well-Known Member
Wow, you can grow six whole plants at once! And you say it as though I am supposed to be impressed?Haha Rick youre so funny. Im sorry to tell you this is not pathetic or scrawny....
I can do 6 of these plants around a single HPS light any day of the week
Post one picture of something you have growing... Oh wait, you can't
Leave this conversation to people who know what they are talking about.
And how many weeks of veg time was that? I bet that plant saw at least 8 weeks of veg time.
Try harvesting 24 1OZ plants in 10 weeks from a single 600W HPS. Or better yet 12 1OZ plants every few weeks from a perpetual SOG.
By the way what does the other side of that side lit plant look like? Oh wait, I know - nothing but bare branches.
I don't need to post pictures to prove anything and I'm not about to post incriminating evidence on line. I'll leave that to you chowder heads to post pictures of the good side of your single 20 week old, one sided plants and claiming to be pros. Have fun.
jigfresh
Well-Known Member
Rick, why rip on somebody for choosing to stay within the legal number of plants that their state allows on their card? Many of the people here are looking at ways to optimize their grows according to what they are legally allowed to do and as many of them live in apartments and other such locations, working around a single bulb prevents their landlords from getting suspicious. If that means vegging for 8 weeks and then harvesting 8 weeks later, they can still manage 3 harvests a year while being completely legal and they will have no worries about their meds running low.
Your one claim to fame on this thread was the math behind the lumens being correct, but you've thoroughly failed to see any of the other reasons people choose to grow vertical. For instance, bulbs last longer, they don't get near as hot, you can be completely certain that your light is being distributed evenly and doesn't require rotating your plants.
As you've failed to bring anything beneficial to this thread since then and you've simply been trolling on vert because your too damn stupid to understand it or whatever the case is, say something useful or just stfu and find another thread.
Your one claim to fame on this thread was the math behind the lumens being correct, but you've thoroughly failed to see any of the other reasons people choose to grow vertical. For instance, bulbs last longer, they don't get near as hot, you can be completely certain that your light is being distributed evenly and doesn't require rotating your plants.
As you've failed to bring anything beneficial to this thread since then and you've simply been trolling on vert because your too damn stupid to understand it or whatever the case is, say something useful or just stfu and find another thread.
bigtomatofarmer
Well-Known Member
I hear ya man, when rick posts its best to just scroll down to the next post. You will be dumber for reading anything by him
And to answer your question YES. Ive done 6 plants like that vertically (400 watt HPS), but it was impossible to do under one horizontal (400 watt HPS) bulb. When growing plants that size with a horizontal bulb only a few of the closest plants would receive adequate amounts of light. The outer plants were shaded by their sisters, and their lower branches received no light at all. Now that my bulb hangs vertically in between all of them, the plants are in direct view of the bulb and they respond better to it.
Its also important for me to keep the number as low as possible. My state isnt pot friendly, so 6 plants is the max I will grow. And I only grow for personal use so there is no need to get greedy.
The plants I grow are beautiful and healthy, all the way around. Anyone who cant see it is a moron