Built my own light rotator- wanna see?

  • Thread starter ttystikk
  • Start date
  • Tagged users None
ttystikk

ttystikk

6,892
313
Killer DIY. "RAD" lol. I give you probs man.

Motherlode is right though. Movers are good for veg when it comes to flower they cut your weight in half. 2 4x4 with 2 600s on a mover yielded less then half vs 2 stationary lights over each table. Movers main goal is heat buildup. Also using it to lets say move lights a foot and a half each direction over a single table to get 100% coverage for example. Other then that your yield will suffer. Just the facts. If it didn't everyone would be rocking light movers.

CemChris, nice to hear from you. I discussed why light movers have gotten short shrift in the past in some of my most recent posts, so I won't repeat myself here.

I reiterate my position that treating light emanating from a moving source the same as that from a stationary source is a widespread and erroneous practice that, once corrected, allows light movers to reach their full potential. The right type of reflector is an often overlooked yet crucial step in helping your light mover give you the best results. As I said before, you need a reflector that allows you to get lots of sideshine. It's this sideshine that keeps your plants growing when the bulb isn't directly overhead. Until I develop a hood specifically for this application, I recommend the adjust-a-wing reflectors, set up so that the bulb is far away from the metal ('down') and the wingspan is set for maximum width.

Another very important stage in the proper installation of light movers is the presence, type and location of the reflective materials at the canopy's edge. Skip putting it up and I'll readily agree with you that the light mover may end up doing you more harm than good! Trouble is, that's sorta like saying your Ferrari is useless because you put bicycle tires on it...

The type of reflective matters plenty, too- I suggest sticking with the simple, mirror reflective surface mylar sheeting, not white and certainly not the 'diamond pattern' or other diffusion coated materials on the market. These diffusion coatings are used to help overcome the fact that a stationary light doesn't move, and are detrimental to a moving light setup.

For that matter, I'm going to go on record here and say that I'm not a big fan of the linear light movers out there. When people say that they don't work because the light gets too far away from the plants, I think it's perhaps most often because of this type of system. Some manufacturers actually suggest using supplemental stationary lighting at the ends of the track's length, which in my mind defeats the whole purpose of moving lights in the first place!

I think a rotisserie, or rotating, light moving system is a better solution, based on its inherent advantages in even lighting and the fact that there are no 'ends' since it moves in a circle. It's also much more feasible to properly place canopy edge reflecting materials around a circular mover than a linear one.

Lastly, You're absolutely correct that one of the light rotator's benefits is reducing heat buildup- as long as it moves your light fast enough. Take this concept one logical step further, and you'll see that you can get higher light intensities without burning them because you're moving the light. How? By allowing the light to be closer to the canopy, so you take advantage of the inverse square law. If you can position your 1000w HID light 18" above the canopy instead of 36", you've increased the light intensity under it by a factor of four! Yes, this can be done with aircooled stationary lighting too, but the problem is that the bright spot you've created doesn't move and thus its benefits are limited.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

6,892
313
I'm getting a lot of static about my contention that I can double the efficiency of a stationary light with a rotator. I want to make a few things clear;
1. The rotator is NOT a magic bullet; it will not solve other problems, nor does it operate equally well in all installations. Like any other piece of technology, it works best when the rest of the system in which it operates is properly set up to work with it. The assumption that this setup looks or works the same as one for a stationary light is simply incorrect.

2. The doubling of efficiency is achieved when- and ONLY when!- the bulb, hood, canopy shape and reflective surfaces are all properly sized, adjusted and tuned to work properly together. I am advocating a systems approach, and no one component of a light distribution system can make up for deficiencies elsewhere. This should not be considered an insurmountable obstacle, any more than a Toyota Camry's inability to burn diesel makes it useless.

3. The light rotator's efficiency is very sensitive to the type and placement of the hood and the reflective materials placed around the canopy, much more so than with stationary lights. When people get disappointing results with rotators these are usually the culprits, yet the rotator gets the blame.

4. Everything in a garden is interdependent, indoors or out. Temps affect growth, style of training the plants affects results, etc, etc, etc. Light rotators are no different in the regard. Indoor gardens are totally dependent for their success on what amounts to a completely artificial environment, and that certainly includes the light source. After all, no one growing outdoors complains of lanky plants at sea level because of excessive distance from the sun, or burning in the mountains because the sun is too close!
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

6,892
313
OH boy, you are going by Behind Times, I mean High Times magazine. Also the joker Jorge Cervantis for research.
I want to know what your grams per watt are after this harvest. That is where the proof is. You may be growing large looking buds, but after dry, not too much weight on them.
I used light movers when they came out. Only due to the fact I was running around 100 watts per square foot. The light movers were only used to move about a foot to stop the lights from burning the plants, known as light bleaching.
After the mover burnt out, It was not worth the money to replace it. You get more weight when you use more lights.
I don't have a pic of me throwing the light mover in the garbage if that is what you are asking for.
There have been a few people on here telling you there experience using them. There is a reason why people do not use them anymore.
You might as well be placing a strobe light above your plants. That is pretty much what the movers do to the plants.
No matter how fast you spin the lights. There will alway's be a dark spot. Even for a slight second, you still have one. Now times that every time it goes around a light cycle. Now add those up and see how much light you actually lost.
I give you props to the idea. But not on listening to people that have used them in the past.

I give you props for sharing what you learned, but you're kind of proving my point here. I didn't say that light movers are the last word, I said they solve a lot of problems and increase efficiency. One big problem they solve you readily admitted to, light bleaching, or scorching your plants under lights placed too close. You never mentioned what you did to overcome this problem...

Second, I'm not growing plants for density. I'm growing them for maximum trichome production.

I don't need a pic of you chucking a busted piece of gear to believe you, I trust that you're givin it to me straight about your own experience! I get grumpy with people who DON'T have a personal story to tell but wanna tell me how it is anyway. Big difference there.

On the other hand, trashing the magazine that carried the article that you didn't read but want to damn by association anyway is sloppy, bro- read the article, and then come back to me and tell me the guy doesn't know what he's talking about. Same goes for baggin' on the work of someone who has dispelled many myths about cultivation, indoors and out. No one is perfect and I'm sure he'll admit to an occasional error, but at least spell his name right; that's 'Jorge Cervantes'.

I am not advocating that you use inadequate watts to properly light saturate the plants. I am sharing my research about how it can be done more efficiently, using less power and fewer bulbs. Your own light bleaching issue showed clearly how too many lumens and too much heat can also be counterproductive.

Lastly, I agree that if all else were equal and I let the plants opposite the light sit in the dark, then I'd have inferior results. What bugs me is that neither you nor anyone else has asked me whether I'd solved this problem, or how... And by the way, solve it I did!
 
Mr.GoodCat

Mr.GoodCat

693
63
I think its time to do a grow off, you say your light mover is twice as efficient as running a single bulb, so in my eyes it sounds like your conclusion is you can get as much yield out of a single thousand as 2. I have 2 thouies still in the box that I was going to use for something else, but I think its time to put your money where your mouth is. My 2 thouies stationary vs. your mover, what you think? This is your chance to prove all the nay sayers wrong
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

6,892
313
I think its time to do a grow off, you say your light mover is twice as efficient as running a single bulb, so in my eyes it sounds like your conclusion is you can get as much yield out of a single thousand as 2. I have 2 thouies still in the box that I was going to use for something else, but I think its time to put your money where your mouth is. My 2 thouies stationary vs. your mover, what you think? This is your chance to prove all the nay sayers wrong

Something like what you suggest is already in the works. Instead of doing two side by side, I'm doing two consecutive grows, keeping all other variables constant as much as possible. If I'm wrong, I'll be the first to say so. On the other hand, even if my methods "only" improve yields by 20-30%, I'm not going to have much patience for those who would call them a failure. After all, that's still the equivalent of three bulbs for the cost of two!
 
Mr.GoodCat

Mr.GoodCat

693
63
Gotcha, well the opportunity is always there if you wanna put your mover and research to the ultimate test. Don't worry though I wouldn't wanna grow against me either in a side by side, lol. No seriously though hope you find what your after.
 
Smokey503ski

Smokey503ski

1,865
263
I tried to light mover like they were advertised back in the day. Had the lights about a foot off the canopy.
Although I let the lights move the length of the bar, which was about 4 feet. I used 2 movers with 4 1k total.
I used this setup for about a year untill i set my buddy up with a grow room. That was when air cooled hoods came out. We bought 8 of them and did the same size room I was using. Same setup, everything to the nutes.
I was pulling around 5 pounds constant with my setup. He was pulling around on average 12-13 pounds per harvest.
This is when I realized the light movers did not give off more weight.

Nowday's if I were to ever use light movers would be to move them about a foot from side to side. Or if I grew vertical, I would setup a pulley system so the lights would go up and down about a foot.
I would only use this if I were growing in a small space with lot's of light around the 75-100 watts per sq foot. To prevent light bleaching. Otherwise in my experience, they are not cost effective.

So that was my personal side by side experiment. I was a true believer like you. It took my own eyes to see I was wrong.
 
Mr.GoodCat

Mr.GoodCat

693
63
smokey, i read your sig, what about the original 2 in the pink and 1 in the stink?
 
Smokey503ski

Smokey503ski

1,865
263
Everyone knows that one. I change my sig from time to time. I have a few hundred different sayings for the Shocker.
 
Smokey503ski

Smokey503ski

1,865
263
I admire your dedication! :hi

good to see ya around bro

Thank you!

Had to take a break from things. My family was going threw some issues and I needed to focus on them.
Now I am back to what I do best. Growing.
Nothing like having to tear down a 3 room built sheet rocked rooms in 1 night and move the next morning before the fuzz kicked in the door.
Now the dust has settled and snitches got there stitches, I am back!!!

Sorry for the thread jack.
 
C

Chilewig

20
0
Please direct me to the results pics. Again, I may be missing something, I have only seen pics of a bike with milk jugs hanging from it. If you actually read my post, I agreed that a light mover can have benefit. I do not however agree with your claim that you double "or more". You have not provided any proof of that at all and yet you are asking people to prove you wrong? If pointing out how rude you become when people simply disagree with you is whining, I guess I did. If you think the information you have provided here would qualify as scientific research, you are sadly mistaken. Now that I see where you get your information, everything is clear.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

6,892
313
Please direct me to the results pics. Again, I may be missing something, I have only seen pics of a bike with milk jugs hanging from it. If you actually read my post, I agreed that a light mover can have benefit. I do not however agree with your claim that you double "or more". You have not provided any proof of that at all and yet you are asking people to prove you wrong? If pointing out how rude you become when people simply disagree with you is whining, I guess I did. If you think the information you have provided here would qualify as scientific research, you are sadly mistaken. Now that I see where you get your information, everything is clear.

I let you have it for one simple reason; you didn't bring any informatin to the discussion, you just took a crap all over my research. You want chapter and verse on my results, you'll have them, just be patient enough to wait for me to complete my test runs. You called me a joke; that's a personal insult, and unhlepful to the discussion. You have yet to provide squat of substance to the conversation, yet you complain that what I have provided isn't good enough for you. Soooo... kindly put up something of substance, or don't be surprised when I call you out on it! Again!
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

6,892
313
Showed some pics of my setup to the folks over at Sunlight Supply; they seemed to think I was onto something significant. I'm nowhere near ready to release product to market, let alone start signing exclusive distribution deals- and for that matter, as I've said here time and again, I believe that what I'm seeing is the result of several pieces of technology all tuned carefully to optimize one another. No one thing I'm doing is in any way revolutionary, I think that the improvements I'm seeing are just synergy at work.

Until I have a better handle on what I'm seeing, I'm not willing to say exactly what's causing it- but the three pieces of tech are as follows; a wide reflector with plenty of sideshine such as an adjust-a-wing, very carefully installed flat mirror style mylar, and of course the rotator... and again, I'm not trying to light a tennis court with one bulb, the growing canopy is a rough circle only about 6.5 feet in diameter. Bigger with two hoods, of course- but not by as much as you might think...

When someone mentioned that the opposite side of the grow is in the dark, they would ordinarily be correct- except that here the reflective material, the sideshine from the specialized hood and the carefully managed distance from the bulb all combine to prevent a dark crescent from ever quite forming. Hence, no plant is ever in a position of darkness, not even for a moment- and since the bulb is less than 18" from the canopy, the light intensity goes up drastically, while heat load is avoided by the constant movement. I have used hoods with glass, and I found it to be unhelpful- more because such designs minimize sideshine, but also because the glass itself does impede the light somewhat.
 
T

TreFarmer

Guest
Maybe I am missing something, but have you provided any evidence other than what you think? You have not provided any factual information or even documented any results and/or comparisons at all. You make estimates backed by nothing. You are a joke, anytime someone says anything you don't like, you begin the insults. You don't want an exchange of ideas, you want everyone telling you that your idea is great.
You are very good at debate, however...You cannot compair light movers with the sun, nor can you make a point about the sun being too close on a mountain or too far at sea level, these are rediculous compairisons! The sun is millions of miles away, 10,000 feet means nothing! Now the atmosphere might but not the "closeness". And I wouldn't consider a mover with all the "kinks" worked out to be the "New World" or the Model T, I'd call it a light mover. I am impressed with the inginuity and dedication but I gotta agree, I don't SEE the results just some pretty impressive wording. Not doubting just not getting any proof. Good luck I'm standing by.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

6,892
313
You are very good at debate, however...You cannot compair light movers with the sun, nor can you make a point about the sun being too close on a mountain or too far at sea level, these are rediculous compairisons! The sun is millions of miles away, 10,000 feet means nothing! Now the atmosphere might but not the "closeness". And I wouldn't consider a mover with all the "kinks" worked out to be the "New World" or the Model T, the light buld, sliced bread or even the gobstopper, I'd call it a light mover. I am impressed with the inginuity and dedication but I gotta agree, I don't SEE the results just some pretty impressive wording. Not doubting just not getting any proof. Good luck I'm standing by.:bow

One most certainly can compare indoor lighting to the sun, and it's important to do so in order to uncover their differences, and yes, shortcomings. You missed my point entirely about the sun's light already being attenuated so that there is NO appreciable difference between high altitude and sea level intensities based on distance- although there definitely is, based on other factors like atmospheric effects and pollution.

Hmmm, not sure where you got the Model T thing, but I'm not trying to say this is the next greatest thing- I am trying to find ways to lower our light bills. It's amazing how much grief I'm getting about this. In the interest of full disclosure, all those who own stock in the power company are encouraged to come forward now!

Again, stand by- the reason I did all this work on a watercooled room was specifically to remove outside variables and be able to home in on measurable differences between the light mover approach and stationary lighting. When I have specific data based on back to back runs under the same circumstances, I'll be more than willing to share those results here, as I've said all along.

I got after Chilewig because he clearly didn't understand the difference between a project in process and data from a completed experiment- and then shit all over my ideas without bringing a shred of information to the discussion. If you're gonna debate, don't call the other party 'a joke', and DO try to back up your position with evidence! This inability to debate, or think clearly and critically is at the heart of our nations' inability to effectively compete, or even properly govern itself.
 
Mr.GoodCat

Mr.GoodCat

693
63
Who did you talk to at Sunlight Supply, I know all the guys there very well. I talk to them on almost a daily basis. I am interested in what they have to say ...
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

6,892
313
Again, the whole reason I'm doing this is because I think our hobby uses too damned much electricity unnecessarily, and can achieve the same or better results using less of it. That would be far better for us and the environment. My stated goal is a reduction of 50% on electricity use for similar results. I don't think that's out of the realm of possibility even if the naysayers don't agree. Why not? Well, taking a cold hard look at the current state of lighting equipment, I already get plenty of agreement from the engineering crowd that many of the most popular reflectors on the market are stunningly inefficient. I also have a deep and abiding dislike for all those reflective materials that purport to 'diffuse' the light reaching them, because diffusion is the same thing as scattering! Here's the way to think about it; if the light from your hood reflecting off the the material you have around your canopy looks bright to you standing next to your plants, then it's SCATTERING the light away from its destination. Why? Because unless you're at plant level looking up, all the light reaching your eyes is WASTED. You want that light shining down onto your canopy where it can do you some good, not bouncing off the damned ceiling.

I also think that putting bulbs behind glass is inefficient, compounded by the design compromises of the reflector so as to be able to glaze the opening. The best that can be expected from such an approach is to get the bulb closer to the canopy due to aircooling, but you're still throwing away light you're paying dearly for.

The 'german specular finish' in most reflectors today? Again, it's there to 'diffuse', a.k.a. SCATTER, the light to help overcome the fact that the hood doesn't move. It's there to soften the reflections created by the hood's internal shape, so you don't end up with weird hot and cold spots caused by A. poor reflector design, and B. the fact that the light is unnaturally stationary.

Moving the light has many, generally underexplored, benefits. First, it's a powerful alternative to aircooling hoods as a way to get the bulb closer to the plants. If you can get a 1000w HID only 12" above your canopy without scorching it, I guarantee you'll like the results! And, yes, it is equivalent to sunlight in intensity at that distance. Use a light meter and try it yourself. In addition, you get rid of the glass which is a dust magnet and even if it's perfectly clean (let's face it, how often do people REALLY clean them?) you lose 8-10% of your light right there. A 50% loss of light can be suffered through a surprisingly clean looking pane of glass...

Second, moving the light takes advantage of the plants' built in structure and reduces leaf shading, which helps it grow better. Few dispute this, even while whining that light movers have no benefits. So it's okay for the sun to move, but not my hood? Why not?

I know lots of people have tried light movers and were disappointed by their results. I get that. I also know that lots of people stuck a light mover into a setup that was optimized for stationary lighting, and then wondered why it didn't help. That's sort of like putting 44" mudder tires on your Corvette and then wondering why it doesn't handle like it used to! I think a serious investigation of the surrounding setup to optimize the growroom for a moving light has to be part of the equation and is by no means 'cheating'. Indeed, it's just leveling the playing field...

Let's not leave out all the other stuff that excess power consumption forces, either; like having more cooling to make up for having to use all that power to make light. If I can show how to reduce the cooling bill by 25 or 30% while at the same time gaining 25 or 30% efficiency in lighting, then I've met the 'same results for half the power' standard, haven't I? I just don't get why people aren't more excited about this, especially since as of this writing, LED lighting has yet to prove itself a viable alternative- at least in bloom phase. It's your money- do you really want to spend it on your electric bill if you don't have to?
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom