Built my own light rotator- wanna see?

[ttystikk]

...or, just ride the $50k custom hog you bought with te yield this thing helped you grow...

 

[ttystikk]

So, I just upgraded the unit. Now, it has two hoods linked together and is actively cooled with 6" flexible ducting and an exhaust fan. I put glass in the hoods so the air cooling can work, and it effectively lights an entire 9x11 foot veg. room. I'll post pics soon!

 

[Seamaiden]

I have to see that thing in action. Do you have a video camera, or know anyone with a vid cam?

 

[ttystikk]

I have a smart phone to shoot some video with. Not a bad idea, will just have to figure out how to post it here. Even if i prove not to be smart enough to manage, seeing the pics I'll post, and knowing it takes about 3 minutes to complete one full revolution should suffice.

 

[DoobyScoo]

I have a smart phone to shoot some video with. Not a bad idea, will just have to figure out how to post it here. Even if i prove not to be smart enough to manage, seeing the pics I'll post, and knowing it takes about 3 minutes to complete one full revolution should suffice.

Make sure to remove any GPS tags from your 'Smart Phone' pictures/videos.

 

[ttystikk]

 

[ttystikk]

Okay, so now it goes around in a full circle every few minutes, it carries a 1000w HPS AND a 1000w MH, and the hoods now sport insulated ducting to exhaust the hot air to the outdoors.

Any questions? ;-)

 

[BCrocker]

I think you have a winner. Patent coming soon?

 

[ttystikk]

I'll patent a specific device, but I don't think there's anything patentable about the idea itself. Unless you think there is? Bottom line is, it works. And here's the kicker; it reduces power consumption and bulb replacement, by half!

 

[motherlode]

half = you mean becasue you use less lights?

less lumens = less buds

you could double the weight in that same space with 2 more lights

 

[ttystikk]

half = you mean becasue you use less lights?

less lumens = less buds

you could double the weight in that same space with 2 more lights

Correct- half the lights to get the same, often better results. That means half the juice used, half the lights burnt up. There is an upper limit to adding more lights and getting increased weight- and conventional systems have long since reached it. This system gets the same results for half the power... I knew it was too simple. I should put some kind of black box on it and tell everyone there's special circuitry in there, so they'll believe me!

Another way to look at it is that- assuming you have extra space- the same number of bulbs with enough of these systems running them could run double the canopy size. Soooo... half the power bill, or double your crop? You decide...

 

[ttystikk]

less lumens = less buds

Ummmm.... no. Does driving a big truck get you there faster than a small car? Lumens is directly proportional to yield ONLY if all other variables remain constant, which of course they don't in this case due to the equipment.

Why? First, moving the light allows it to be lower and closer to the canopy without fear of burning. Half the distance = FOUR times the light intensity. Second, the light moves, increasing penetration and reducing leaf shading. Third, the canopy edge treatment (pictures when I have a decent working prototype) reflects light much more efficiently than a white wall, and of course much better than nothing at all. Lastly, and this might be giving away the store, but since the light moves it is no longer necessary or desirable to employ diffusion coatings or finishes to 'spread' (a.k.a. scatter!) the light to make up for a stationary mount. Thus, the reflecting surfaces are all smooth- and far more efficient at directing light down onto the canopy where it belongs. If the room loolks bright when you walk into it, that's actually a great indicator that you're WASTING light- after all, how much of that light hitting your eyes is working to increase your yield? None...

 

[1971]

yes, the lights can be closer, but in actuality, they are getting less light than a fixed light. there will never be a substitute for more lights. that is why 2 600w will always produce better than 1 1000.

that aside, I am loving your bike on the ceiling...fucking classic!

are you going to post the radiator thing?

 

[motherlode]

dude it has been proven over and over again that light movers and flip flops setups dont net as much bud per square foot as if you just had twice the light stationary style

its why light movers are pretty much a dead fad

50-75 watts per square foot - look into it

i used a light mover back in 91 - after it failed I bought a second light instead of replacing the mover and never looked back

most people running movers nowadays do it in veg or for moms

 

[1971]

that would make sense to use a light mover for moms, clones, or to harden your clones.

currently I'm running 2600w in a 50 sq ft room holding a 32 sq ft tray. so in actuality the plants fill less than the whole room. that being said, I feel like i could have a 6th light to have adequate coverage.

under one of my 600's, i get about 95k lux for the canopy under the bulb... on the edges i get between 35-50k.

but i imagine there was a reason you went with the light mover... i.e. lack of funds

 

[motherlode]

somebody gave it to me - lol

 

[ttystikk]

Motherlode- when you say 'it's been proven time and time again that light movers don't work'- can you cite any references? The problem with getting a fair hearing for new technology is often twofold; one, the assumption that it must be wrong because someone told you- remember not so long ago 'everyone knew' the Earth was flat!- and two, the tech improves over early iterations, but the bad old reputation still follows it around.

It's funny that you actually concede one of the light mover's best points inadvertently, that spreading light around via multiple 600 watt hoods is better than one stationary 1000 watt light. A light mover does that for you, with fewer bulbs and less expense-

There are important differences between my system and those which have come before:
1. the old systems rotated or moved too slowly- mine makes a full revolution in less than three minutes
2. the old systems didn't take lowering the light into account, because you couldn't- they moved too slowly!
3. the old systems did not account for purpose built reflectors or canopy edge reflective treatments- or worse, assumed that what was best for stationary setups was best for moving fixtures, too
4. No one to my knowlege has done much, if any investigation into how one could set up a light mover poorly, get bad results and then badmouth the whole tech, thereby setting a false precedent.

 

[surferbum6900]

haha NICE man! that shit put a huge smile on my face! haha

 

[ttystikk]

I have to say that the proof of concept trial is going pretty well- I am getting excellent light dispersion, and good light penetration- and the heat buildup from the two hoods is well taken care of by the ducting. Temps in the room remain in the high 70s even when the temps outside are in the upper 80s and the house is in the low 80s. Plants are responding extremely well. I just don't see how those results add up to 'light movers don't work?'

 

[Mr.GoodCat]

Good Creativity, but light movers suck. You get so many grams per watt not square foot. Like motherlode said it has been proven time and time again. Good luck with you venture.