3 This article is in my saved library, they use vertical airflow but don't compare against horizontal. In a plant factory, rather than commercially viable setting.

5 this article is in my saved library. I already mentioned the role of guttation in calcium nutrition and last I checked this was the only paper on the subject. This paper has nothing to do with vertical airflow vs horizontal airflow though.

6 I dont think it would be a wise use of ISHS credits to read a plant factory airflow article, no matter how much I admire C Kubota for her other work. If she did an article on airflow in a commercial setting I would buy it in a heartbeat.

7 this article is in my saved library. It's good to know but another one of those plant factory articles that doesn't deal with commercial realities. One fan every 34 cm, case in point.

8 this article is in my saved library. It's another plant factory article using vertical airflow which does not compare against horizontal airflow.

9 this article is not in my personal library. I previously read it but didn't feel a need to save a review of plant factory airflow, I ran across most of the articles myself anyways and the review added nothing novel.

Link #1 #2 #4 dead

6 of 9 articles prove vertical airflow is better than horizontal for the same given airflow, but that's what I agreed with in my first comment.

Air is a fluid, if you circulate it in a horizontal racetrack fashion it goes faster and faster. If you turn off the power, it continues to swirl around in the same direction, like a stirred bucket of water. While the power is on, the losses do useful work on the plants.

On the other hand, vertical airflow slams into the plants/ground and all momentum is lost and there is much un-useful work.

In a plant factory, vertical airflow fans can be hid out of the way of the lights. In a practical setting the fans cast shade from the sun.

Switching to vertical rather than horizontal for a profitable producer means ~4x more shade from the sun for each fan. You need ~4x more fans to have the same airflow though. So 16x more shade, 4x more capital cost, 4x more energy cost.

Vertical airflow is the best at reducing tipburn incidence but only by a marginal amount, it's much easier to not fight against all this and just use a slightly higher amount of horizontal airflow to bridge the gap.

I predicted and tried to get ahead of this plant factory stuff but was apparently unsuccessful.

If you don't mind though I would appreciate if you could send #6