Sidelighting Interlighting Intercanopy Lightcicles

[Azeotrope]

I'ma huge believer in side lighting. This current grow of Mandala GaneshBerry in a 4x4 tent has it with the goal of hitting the top side from different angles. Obviously way overgrown but the tops will be very full figured right down until they disapear under the canopy.

I used to use multiple 70w and 150w CMH/CDM bulbs hung vertically to offer many different points of light and to cover all levels.

Over the top is an ACInfinity EVO6. Right side is an ACInfinity IONBOARD S22 (115w) and on the left are AC Infinity's 16" side light bar set grouped up.

I usually grow big stretchy sativas and it is much more easier to hang or apply various lights at different levels in the canopy.

 

[Ttystikk]

I have been lighting from below, on&off, for 30 years. In that time I have had entire forums laugh the idea out of the ring. Even with the evidence I'm bringing together, I don't imagine people will adopt the idea that lighting our plants helps them grow better. It's like people know, while at the same time they don't. Chasing bits of spectrum and nutrient amendments for tiny gains, when just adding more light where it's dark brings real results.
I'm looking at LED tubes to finally get lighting in the actual canopy, but already get more per watt from lighting below, than lighting above. That sounds odd, but the canopy is well lit, and as we light plants further, the efficiency at which they can use the light lessens. By 2000ppfd, adding more light can be more damaging than useful. The most useful watts, are the first one's we apply. So while at 750umol, I gained more putting 200umol under them, than I would of adding 200 more above them. I had no real idea of this when I first saw the results at weigh-in. I just got more per watt than I should of.
There is a paper coming soon, where they move light from above, to below, in order to prove it's better to evenly light a plant, than just from one side. The crop is down, but full analysis takes a while.

This is an interesting read. I read someplace that lighting from underneath isn't helpful because the plants can't use the light on the underside of the leaves. Having no other data, I basically took this on faith. Now here you are saying there ARE gains to be had? Are those gains worthwhile?

 

[Ttystikk]

I think there is a lot to be said on the topic of shaping plants to take best advantage of indoor lighting. They grow the way they do to maximize their performance outside under a light source that moves all the way across the sky, offering side lighting, top lighting and then opposite side lighting every day. That's actually a tough act to beat indoors.

Rather than grow big cubes or haystack shapes of plant material, I took a different approach to the problem. I grew the plants up a vertically oriented trellis panel in a classic espalier shape and lit the entire thing from the side. It was pretty effective because there's less shading.

More recently I tried lighting the trellis panel from both front and back and once again this showed lots of benefits! The key is keeping the plant from getting too thick. I think this approach more directly solves the problem that a thick shape causes and that side and interior lights are therefore trying to overcome.

If the goal is to maximize growth per unit of inputs, to include electricity, lighting, water, nutrients and space, it might be a good idea to run these approaches head to head and see which performs best.

 

[Ca++]

This is an interesting read. I read someplace that lighting from underneath isn't helpful because the pants can't use the light on the underside of the leaves. Having no other days, I basically took this on faith. Now here you are saying there ARE gains to be had? Are those gains worthwhile?

People tried to tell me the same. In fact, when I first did a serious trial online, uk 240 banned me before I could finish it. The weight of opinion against it was so strong.
In that trial I put 50w of clu1212 under each meter, which had 500w of HPS above. Yield was up over the 10% the power bill went it.
I have not had many opportunities to add lighting, in a side by side manor, but industry has just had a good look. Auxiliary lighting is found to be as useful as main lighting in most trials. This to some, means they could just turn up the main lights. While others have shadows that main lights can't reach. And don't want what grows in the shadows.

I might not of explained the recent pics well.
If you didn't know, how many plants can you see here, and how many oz on each

We know it's one plant, so it's pretty big. This was a scrog grow. Only whats at top net, got top light. The other plants were starting where this one finishes, there was no telling them apart. The bud on the right has fallen from the net as a neighbour was pulled out. It gives the illusion of a spread the plant didn't have. Perhaps the lack of light in the plants core helps judge canopy density.
This next pic is maybe 10" below. The fallen bud again. In an area where no top light reaches, and no worthwhile bud grows

We can only see that, because the other plants have gone. Look where this is on the bigger pic. Then think about how many more are down there.

I pulled what I wanted, and left the little bits like this (and those in my last post) on the bottom. That's as bad as it gets.

There is a kind of side by side there. A couple can see the floor light, and one is too low.

Although a different run, this is the top



Wall to wall scrogs don't usually have this canopy depth. They just don't. They are efficient enough to hit the numbers without all that underneath. So that is bonus weed, without a higher plant count. Or any real change of style, like moving to vertical grows. Which can do better, but are difficult commercially. I didn't even bend this. I just bunged some light under it, and trimmed to suit. I started this thread showing what happens if you don't trim them for the job. As I wouldn't want someone investing on my say so, then making my early mistakes. Along the way, it seems industry started working in parallel, with varied results. Now I have shown my standard, and leave it to the observer to decide if they want that.

I don't feel the idea that a watt extra above, is as much use as a watt extra below. That doesn't effect strataspheric distribution. More above, doesn't stop the scrot. That alone makes me happy, as trimming that stuff, is something I would rather avoid.

 

[Ttystikk]

People tried to tell me the same. In fact, when I first did a serious trial online, uk 240 banned me before I could finish it. The weight of opinion against it was so strong.
In that trial I put 50w of clu1212 under each meter, which had 500w of HPS above. Yield was up over the 10% the power bill went it.
I have not had many opportunities to add lighting, in a side by side manor, but industry has just had a good look. Auxiliary lighting is found to be as useful as main lighting in most trials. This to some, means they could just turn up the main lights. While others have shadows that main lights can't reach. And don't want what grows in the shadows.

I might not of explained the recent pics well.
If you didn't know, how many plants can you see here, and how many oz on each
View attachment 19156595
We know it's one plant, so it's pretty big. This was a scrog grow. Only whats at top net, got top light. The other plants were starting where this one finishes, there was no telling them apart. The bud on the right has fallen from the net as a neighbour was pulled out. It gives the illusion of a spread the plant didn't have. Perhaps the lack of light in the plants core helps judge canopy density.
This next pic is maybe 10" below. The fallen bud again. In an area where no top light reaches, and no worthwhile bud grows
View attachment 19156594
We can only see that, because the other plants have gone. Look where this is on the bigger pic. Then think about how many more are down there.

I pulled what I wanted, and left the little bits like this (and those in my last post) on the bottom. That's as bad as it gets.
View attachment 19156596
There is a kind of side by side there. A couple can see the floor light, and one is too low.

Although a different run, this is the top
View attachment 19156601


Wall to wall scrogs don't usually have this canopy depth. They just don't. They are efficient enough to hit the numbers without all that underneath. So that is bonus weed, without a higher plant count. Or any real change of style, like moving to vertical grows. Which can do better, but are difficult commercially. I didn't even bend this. I just bunged some light under it, and trimmed to suit. I started this thread showing what happens if you don't trim them for the job. As I wouldn't want someone investing on my say so, then making my early mistakes. Along the way, it seems industry started working in parallel, with varied results. Now I have shown my standard, and leave it to the observer to decide if they want that.

I don't feel the idea that a watt extra above, is as much use as a watt extra below. That doesn't effect strataspheric distribution. More above, doesn't stop the scrot. That alone makes me happy, as trimming that stuff, is something I would rather avoid.

The only thing I disagree with here is the assumption that vertical grows are difficult commercially and that's because I started with the design constraint that whatever I come up with HAS to be commercially viable and I think my setup meets that criteria.

There are far more similarities than differences to our approaches.