DANK_BOTANIST
Member
TAGGED for later studying....
First I'm not trying to troll. If your getting a lot better yields I'm interested and trying to nail down exactly what is causing this so I can see if it will fit into what I'm doing. I looked some more and my numbers are too high for reflectivity of flat white paint more like 75-85% of the light. I have no problem with reflector heat causing loses. Maybe that's the primary loss. If so you can expect to get 25 to 15% better yield from stopping that loss.
The diagram at the beginning is geometry per room size and has nothing to do with the question. You could make the normal room bigger to match the square footage of the vertical and still get the same lumens per square foot. I see many people saying "r squared light rule". This just means light intensity decreases as a circle or shpere gets bigger. The light doesn't disappear. Light doesn't lose anything by traveling a longer distance. Air does not dim light by a huge amount. If your light is bright enough doesn't matter how far away it is. What I'm trying to understand is if it's less light loss from the reflectors or is it hitting the plant horizontally that gives you bigger yield? Yes it's probably both but is the horizontal component bigger? Some reflective surfaces are 95% efficient. Maybe they could be used.
First I'm not trying to troll. If your getting a lot better yields I'm interested and trying to nail down exactly what is causing this so I can see if it will fit into what I'm doing. I looked some more and my numbers are too high for reflectivity of flat white paint more like 75-85% of the light. I have no problem with reflector heat causing loses. Maybe that's the primary loss. If so you can expect to get 25 to 15% better yield from stopping that loss.
The diagram at the beginning is geometry per room size and has nothing to do with the question. You could make the normal room bigger to match the square footage of the vertical and still get the same lumens per square foot. I see many people saying "r squared light rule". This just means light intensity decreases as a circle or shpere gets bigger. The light doesn't disappear. Light doesn't lose anything by traveling a longer distance. Air does not dim light by a huge amount. If your light is bright enough doesn't matter how far away it is. What I'm trying to understand is if it's less light loss from the reflectors or is it hitting the plant horizontally that gives you bigger yield? Yes it's probably both but is the horizontal component bigger? Some reflective surfaces are 95% efficient. Maybe they could be used.
Don't be nasty. I'm asking perfectly reasonable questions and diffusion does not make light disappear and become useless. Common sense will tell you that light doesn't get reduced by attenuation in air over the distance of a room. Makes no difference which way the light is "diffused" as long as your plants catch it by surrounding the light. If the only gain is from less losses in reflection off of the reflector then to me it's not as useful. I've seen some of the super yields that Heath Robinson got and I don't see just cutting reflector losses making this so. So I'm asking questions to find out why this is so.Excuse me, but wtf are you talking about? The farther away from the source, the greater the diffusion of the light through the air, and the lower the intensity. It's not that complex of a concept.
Common sense will tell you that light doesn't get reduced by attenuation in air over the distance of a room.
Don't be nasty. I'm asking perfectly reasonable questions and diffusion does not make light disappear and become useless. Common sense will tell you that light doesn't get reduced by attenuation in air over the distance of a room. Makes no difference which way the light is "diffused" as long as your plants catch it by surrounding the light. If the only gain is from less losses in reflection off of the reflector then to me it's not as useful. I've seen some of the super yields that Heath Robinson got and I don't see just cutting reflector losses making this so. So I'm asking questions to find out why this is so.
The diagram at the beginning is geometry per room size and has nothing to do with the question. You could make the normal room bigger to match the square footage of the vertical and still get the same lumens per square foot.
As far as CANOPY SURFACE AREA. You can get the same thing by making the floor area larger in horizontal and scroging the plants or adding more plants. I'm not saying it would help.
One thing we will have to disagree on is there is little attenuation of light through air. If light was attenuated through air that would mean it was absorbed by the air. This does happen but the amount is very, very low. If it were not the Sun would heat the air so much we would burn. So it makes very little difference how far light travels when we're talking about 3 or 4 feet.
Wikipedia said:The intensity (or illuminance or irradiance) of light or other linear waves radiating from a point source (energy per unit of area perpendicular to the source) is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source; so an object (of the same size) twice as far away, receives only one-quarter the energy (in the same time period).
More generally, the irradiance, i.e., the intensity (or power per unit area in the direction of propagation), of a spherical wavefront varies inversely with the square of the distance from the source (assuming there are no losses caused by absorption or scattering).
For example, the intensity of radiation from the Sun is 9140 watts per square meter at the distance of Mercury (0.387AU); but only 1370 watts per square meter at the distance of Earth (1AU)—a threefold increase in distance results in a ninefold decrease in intensity of radiation.
lowes or home depot... With the chicken wire, rabbit fencing, etc... It's called poultry netting. I'm moved on to rabbit fencing, b/c my plants are bigger...
Don't be nasty. I'm asking perfectly reasonable questions and diffusion does not make light disappear and become useless. Common sense will tell you that light doesn't get reduced by attenuation in air over the distance of a room. Makes no difference which way the light is "diffused" as long as your plants catch it by surrounding the light. If the only gain is from less losses in reflection off of the reflector then to me it's not as useful. I've seen some of the super yields that Heath Robinson got and I don't see just cutting reflector losses making this so. So I'm asking questions to find out why this is so.
I understand it perfectly. You seem to think getting closer to a light is magic. Think about it. The inverse square law has nothing to do with the TOTAL amount of light from one lamp. Getting closer to one lamp will not multiply the amount of lumens from the one lamp. A 1000W lamp is a 1000W. If you get closer to the lamp you have less area. Meaning less plant matter can fit in the same space. I won't bother you folks any more. You have no idea what I'm asking. Maybe you should crowd all your plants infinitely close then you will have infinite light, according to your calculations.You can not understand the law of inverse squares all you want. Your lack of understanding regarding a basic law of the universe does not make it cease to exist.
The essecence of what I would like to know is anyone getting 50%-70% or better yield? Let's try one more time to say I've tried. I can agree that you get more lumens from a vertical. I'm using lumens could be photons, candelas don't care. Because there is nothing directly impeding the path. One thing we will have to disagree on is there is little attenuation of light through air. If light was attenuated through air that would mean it was absorbed by the air. This does happen but the amount is very, very low. If it were not the Sun would heat the air so much we would burn. So it makes very little difference how far light travels when we're talking about 3 or 4 feet. In a horizontal grow 1/2 of the light is the same as vert. The other half loses roughly, let's say, 20% to reflector losses. I think the loss is less but I'll go with 20%. This would mean 80% of the light would reach the plants compared to vertical. If you've grown with both horizontal and vert. is the yield 20% better or much higher?
As far as CANOPY SURFACE AREA. You can get the same thing by making the floor area larger in horizontal and scroging the plants and/or adding more plants. I'm not saying it would help.
I'm wondering if it's not the light striking the plants from the side instead of the top that is helpful.