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.
Yeah, I think MacGuyver would be stoked up- although I'm not sure how this could be used to create a cheap diversionary stunt to save the pretty girl...
I'm so damned sick of hearing this, seriously; "light movers suck. I have NO evidence to back this up, but I'm gonna shit all over your idea cuz I heard someone else say it once and I have some silly-ass pseudoscientific jargon that sez so."
GIVE ME A BREAK! You know, the sun moves across the sky every day- plants evolved to take advantage of that a billion years ago, and the same is true today, and just because we make our own sun with bright lighting in caves doesn't negate that. Hence, stationary lights don't solve the problem of leaf shading, and therefore don't get good light penetration.
Point two; With enough brute force- in this case, lights and watts- you can make anything grow, but the light mover is about efficiency. Half the watts with a mover gets similar results, because less light is wasted. I ask everyone who tells me light movers don't work to provide me with SOME documentation, ANYTHING, and you know what? Nobody has stepped up to the plate with anything! Columbus knew this feeling, after all, 'everyone knew' the Earth was flat and if you sailed too far to the west, you'd fall off the edge! Galileo got tired of hearing about how the rest of the universe revolves around the earth, and invented the telescope to prove that his hunch was what really squared best with the reality he knew.
I'm not as sharp as either of those guys, but I am not going to let someone with no evidence tell me that everything I know about physics, agronomy, biology and engineering is bunk 'just because!' BRING ME EVIDENCE. I did- have a look at the pics, and I'll tell you that my own results bear out my thinking, that is, with a decent rotator, installed correctly, with an appropriate reflector and a good reflective canopy edge treatment will flat suck the doors off a stationary light setup in terms of grams per watt, and usually performs like twice the watts on a square footage comparison.
Why is this useful knowlege? I don't like to waste my money, and I think that wasting power is expensive, unnecessary and bad for the environment. Just as I don't piss my spent nutes down the drain but put them on my fruit trees and in my garden, I think that if I can get the same results with half the lumens and half the bulbs, then I'm farther ahead. That simple.
No matter what you grow, if you can spend less in terms of inputs to get the same results, then it's an improvement, period. Right this minute, the price of ganja is falling around the country due to the slow advance of medical marijuana laws, and in a few years at most, it will be legal for recreational use, at least in more liberal places like California and Colorado. That means that there will be an ever shrinking margin for growers to live on and those who produce a quality product for lower cost will be able to keep more of their hard earned cash in their pocket. My device will help you claw back fully half of what you spend on power and bulbs. How is that so terrible?