WOW! Hey Trich - nice looking space, dude.
One of the features that drew me to "wings", (i picked up on Mr Bong's abbrev), was it's focusing ability, but I've found that I don't use the tight spread very often and when I do it's not part of a larger design so much as the result of a unique situation presented by the plant configuration of my typically non-homogeneous grows. ie dodging light off of a tall plant and focusing down on a row of shorter plants in the middle of a pallet. I'm more apt to tilt the reflector to feather away and redirect light but there are situations where optimizing direct light, (closer to what the vertical growers are doing) is my best solution. Of course, if you're using scrog/sea of green, or other techniques that give a nice even canopy, this would all be moot.

On the surface, dorjewright use of spreaders on chrismas trees might appear to conflict w/ my best way of putting them to use. ie for a trained/lp'd plant w/ a wide, flat, shallow canopy. I've seen people get into pissing matches over similar (non)incongruities in perception. Actually, there is no conflict in the validity of style or the logic here. We are both simply optimizing the same density pattern in different ways. I'm playing to the wide, full, shallow spread and need to be judicious w/ rotation (squares help) to even things out. A spreader over a christmas tree is playing directly to the graduation of the density pattern.

A personal note: I side-stepped and resolved the issue that almost led to an eviction from my grow space about a month ago. I'm legal but had to scatter my run to mine and a couple of friend's backyards Will be reassembling my rooms in a week (after the plumber replaces the old galv in the bldg w/ a copper run.) Once he's out, I'm going to change the spacing between lamps- went w/ the mnfrs suggestion, but think that bringing them in a little closer to each other will make the cross-spill between them more usable. Will detail it w/ light meter and bring findings here.

A Quality of Light That's Attractive to Spreader Users

Thanks for the feedback, rep and invites, friends. It's a pleasure to connect w/ new folks.

It would be presumptuous of me to speak for every grower who's using a spreader to redirect light, but I have a fairly good idea of the quality of light that is attractive to them and although I believe there are more efficient ways of doing business, (a "wash at best" ain't too bad, either) I would have to say that they do have good taste.

An explanation of the quality of light that I'm referring to ^^ requires a little more background then what I have time to get into this morning but I promise to get back and not leave the issue hanging. In the meantime, here's a dumb grip joke.

Grips, in case you don't know, are typically the blue collar guys and girls on the set- the he-men, the tomboys, the man's men, the man's women (or something like that.) Their job responsibilities center around 3 major functions- 1) putting things in front of or in the path of light, (ie flags, cutters, scrims, nets, lavs, silks, cuc's, bounce cards, shiny boards, backdrops, blacks, tree branches, recently dead trees- growing trees would be the greensman's job, and so on.) They mount the objects of their trade on c-stands, overhead grids, doorways, ceilings, building tops- in almost any location, safe or otherwise, and in every way imaginable. 2) They do the building, arranging, laying or whatever else it takes to make it possible for the camera to move to different marks at different speeds smoothly and w/ precision- ie laying out dolly track, building risers, pushing dollies (a Dolly Grip has a special skill and is generally #2 to the Key), and 3) They tell jokes- often bawdy, insider stuff

If the camera dept, lighting dept, (gaffers) and grip dept. got in a punch it out free for all, the grip dept would kick everybody's asses and I'd be standing next to the director, latte in hand, commenting on the inner truths of slap-stick and the 3 Stooges scene that the spectacle in front of us was reminiscent of. (Towards the end of my career, that is.)

If a director told me he wanted a very slow, short, subtle dolly push-into (or pull-out from) the subject, I'd go to the Key Grip and tell him to get set for a "Mickey Rooney move". He and the dolly grip would understand immediately, (after all, their people are the ones who came up with it), that what I was calling for was a short, little creep.

I had the honor of shooting Mickey on two occasions and would argue that they got most of it right. I'd preface their line w/ "funny", but how would 'funny', short, little, creep transfer into a dolly move?

From what I understand spreaders are only needed on the medium adjust a wings

jm

Hi jm
I don't use them w/ either size anymore, so I don't have a preference or suggestion. Sorry I can't be of more help.
That aside, thanks for checking in.

Another reason that I like Wings. Cut the flaps off of the tops of the packing boxes, poke some holes in the sides if you wish, stretch a piece of mosquito netting across the top, (I got mine off of a defunct tent) and staple. Voila! A black, sleek, perfectly sized dry rack (insert?) I use them as an intermediate between hanging and brown-bagging and sometimes again after the grocery bag stage if the colas are big and need some watching.

Finally! Out of the holding pattern, time to land and get it on! The workers have left the building! TTD: gather up the girls from their temporary digs, drop some new beans in the hole, flip the air on and fire up dem wings again. woo-hoo!! (Just in case there was something in my posts above that has left someone guessing: I will not be mounting spreaders below the lamps of my reflectors. ;-))

Time to write myself out of the script and call this one a wrap which, coincidentally, is the answer to the quality of light question that I posed above. "Wrap" is the quality of light that I suspect has captivated growers who have opted into using spreaders.

One of the new F-1's that I'll be popping is a cross between the dankest G-13 male that anyone at the collective has ever seen and an elite Chem female. I was told that this one will "drive your, (my) dick into the dirt."
Can't wait.

Peace

GG

fwiw- I really like the adjust-a-wing style reflector with my light rotator. Use the spreader to weed your carrots...

This works best when you have a good reflectant material right up against the canopy all the way around, so the light bounces back into the girls for maximum penetration. woohoo! I just made a funny...

ttystikk said:

fwiw- I really like the adjust-a-wing style reflector with my light rotator. Use the spreader to weed your carrots...

This works best when you have a good reflectant material right up against the canopy all the way around, so the light bounces back into the girls for maximum penetration. woohoo! I just made a funny...

Click to expand...

Agreed. Don't underestimate the power of bounce light. I've lit silked outdoor set-ups using only bounce cards (foam core) for fill and shiny boards for key and kickers. The only negative effect of maximizing bounce in a room is that a the space can become a bit intense on the eyes and brain if it's totally wrapped in foil/mylar/reflective. I split the diff- white panda for coverage/seal and adjustable (up-down) 3' foylon panels to rim edge/corners at the height that picks up the most horizontal throw off the reflector wings. All foylon would increase light efficiency over all panda by approx 5-10% by my calcs. White bounce throws out more illumination than one might expect.

GanjaGardener said:

Agreed. Don't underestimate the power of bounce light. I've lit silked outdoor set-ups using only bounce cards (foam core) for fill and shiny boards for key and kickers. The only negative effect of maximizing bounce in a room is that a the space can become a bit intense on the eyes and brain if it's totally wrapped in foil/mylar/reflective. I split the diff- white panda for coverage/seal and adjustable (up-down) 3' foylon panels to rim edge/corners at the height that picks up the most horizontal throw off the reflector wings. All foylon would increase light efficiency over all panda by approx 5-10% by my calcs. White bounce throws out more illumination than one might expect.

Click to expand...

Heyyyy- you just gave me an idea- the thing I hate most about rolls of reflective mylar is that it's floppy and is almost impossible to hang smoothly. How could I easily and cheaply make custom sized and shaped 'bounce cards' with a good flat fully reflective mylar surface? Something smooth enough you could shave with the reflection...?

The idea I have is to use these cards to go all the way around the crop zone with the light rotator, angle them slightly, and in this way reflect all the light that would otherwise be wasted down onto the canopy.

Your thoughts?

You could try that OSB that comes with the mylar already on one side. Or the foam insulation that already has one side mylared.

Seamaiden said:

You could try that OSB that comes with the mylar already on one side. Or the foam insulation that already has one side mylared.

Click to expand...

Damn! I feel out of it. Wasn't aware of these products. Been a few years since I "remodeled". Hmm... not since the aftermath of the Northridge earthquake, as a matter of fact. ;)

ttystikk said:

Heyyyy- you just gave me an idea- the thing I hate most about rolls of reflective mylar is that it's floppy and is almost impossible to hang smoothly. How could I easily and cheaply make custom sized and shaped 'bounce cards' with a good flat fully reflective mylar surface? Something smooth enough you could shave with the reflection...?

The idea I have is to use these cards to go all the way around the crop zone with the light rotator, angle them slightly, and in this way reflect all the light that would otherwise be wasted down onto the canopy.

Your thoughts?

Click to expand...

I don't know if my solution will work as well as what Seamaiden has suggested but here's a stab- snot tape
that's what the grips use to stick gels to 4x4 metal frames- it's quick and sticky as hell. You'd have to build frames, (maybe w/ 1"x2"s or molding strips) apply snot tape and slowly work the mylar across, stretching and smoothing as you go.

If you can afford foylon or a heavier, stiffer, more durable reflective material, I'd go that route. Mylar is tougher to work with and has a shorter shelf life. My 2 p. anyways.

where would I find foylon or these other, more durable materials? You're right about mylar, it's fragile and a pain in the ass.

The mylar-backed OSB and foam insulation have been readily available at my local Lowe's for over a year now, so I would think if you're in at least as populated an area as I am, you should be able to find it pretty easily.

Not sure if this is what you had in mind, ttystikk, but angling the top of the board in- even a slight angle, will direct more usable light to the canopy than will the 90 degrees off the wall, given you have a little extra space and a lighting array that can handle it. You can use a mirror and a laser pointer to drill down the optimum angle.

GanjaGardener said:

Not sure if this is what you had in mind, ttystikk, but angling the top of the board in- even a slight angle, will direct more usable light to the canopy than will the 90 degrees off the wall, given you have a little extra space and a lighting array that can handle it. You can use a mirror and a laser pointer to drill down the optimum angle.

Click to expand...

You're thinking EXACTLY what I'm thinking. In my mind's eye, I'm seeing the light, say a 1000w HID in an adjust-a-wing, endlessly moving around a circle about 3.5-4' in diameter about 18" above the canopy. The plants are arranged in a circular area about 6.5' in diameter centered on the hub of the light rotator, and topped and trained so they are flat across the top and are themselves each perhaps 2.5 - 3' across.

The rigid reflective light panels are mounted around the perimeter of the circle, arranged like a stopsign if seen directly from above. Shaped like trapezoids, top narrower than bottom, these panels are all angled inwards about 25 degrees from the vertical so as to accomplish just what you suggest, reflecting any and all light that would otherwise miss the canopy back down onto it. Better yet, the angle is such that the light would help illuminate the 'dark crescent', that area of the circular grow area that would otherwise be far enough away from the bulb and reflector to receive inadequate light. If the circle of canopy is 6.5' in diameter or less, then light from the adjust-a-wing and light panels would combine to eliminate this traveling dark spot altogether!

What you're left with, then, is a bare (no glass!) 1000w HID bulb that travels in an endless circle only a foot and a half above the canopy, moving fast enough that this proximity does NOT burn any growing tops. Nearly all the light the bulb throws off, even that which is traveling horizontally away from the bulb gets captured by the flat panels at the edge of the caniopy and reflected down onto it, ALL WHILE MAINTAINING THE SHORTEST POSSIBLE DISTANCE BETWEEN BULB AND CANOPY. This last is critical, since therin lies the reason why this setup would be anywhere up to twice as efficient as a stationary fixture at getting effective lumens on leaves. The bulb is so close to the canopy at all times that it's like having a traveling spot of daylight, and even the furthest reaches of the canopy would be getting adequate plant available lighting. It would have the maximum penetration due to both brightness and the fact that it's moving to overcome leaf shading.

The panels around the edge of the canopy would need to be right AT the edge of the canopy to minimize the length of travel of any given photon. I want them to be smooth, not 'specularized', since I don't want any diffusion to take place. Diffusion = scattering and it's only employed to help overcome the weaknesses of a stationary light source. Since the light moves, all the bright 'hotspots' travel around as well, eliminating any need for scattering.

For that matter, I am trying to source smooth mirror finish aluminum instead of the specularized stuff for my own version of an adjust-a-wing, again to maximize the reflection and minimize scattering. The cheap batwing reflectors out there use this smooth finish stuff, and it's the best material out there in terms of absolute reflectivity. The shape of the reflector is also very important- the best way to set up the adjust-a-wing for this approach is as wide as possible with the bulb hung as low in the fixture as possible, for the maximum amount of side lighting. Since the angled panels are there to redirect light down onto the canopy, there is no longer a concern that light will be lost just because it's travelling horizontally away from the bulb.

Specularized reflective surfaces, including white walls, all serve to scatter light around- which wastes light by sending a lot of it in useless directions- like into your eyes when you're standing next to your crop, making it SEEM bright when actually what you're squinting at is wasted lumens! With a moving light source there is no need for diffusion strategies of any kind, so instead my approach FOCUSES all available light onto the canopy, relying on the movement of the hood itself to spread the light around evenly.

If you crawl in amongst your girls and look up (with sunglasses on!) from the perspective of the canopy itself, I want you to be able to clearly spot not just one, but at least THREE light filaments; one directly, one in the reflector next to the bulb, and at least one more when you look at the rigid reflective panels around the canopy.

Air movement is accomplished by running oscillating fans up on the walls above the reflective panels aimed downwards, and using the natural airflow coming in from under the edges of the panels near the base of the plants rising up and through the 'stopsign', since heat rises. The shape of the panels aorund the outside actually look and act a lot like a slice of a cooling tower you see at the power plant.

Since you're well versed in how light works, let me know if this makes sense to you, and where my thinking may be awry?

Immediate thoughts-

- Perhaps I need to visualize the set-up more, but I still see effective air circulation as an impediment- not in theory- it can be done, but the set-up and practical application will be difficult to achieve an optimum atmospheric flow with, IMO. I see myself arranging fans to fit in w/ the reflector arrangement rather than getting efficient flow -> plants. It 'feels' cumbersome to me but that's my minds eye view which may be different from what you're visualizing. Do the panels move? are you using a light mover?

I designed an "all-in-one" grow cart a while back w/ modular reflector panels that I ended up scrapping due to air circulation difficulties. Lee Gel Roll 270 is a beaded, reflective scrim, which doesn't fit into your hard bounce scenario, but it is perfed which allows for air flow. I use it to create small rooms within a room when needed and can blow a fan/s directly at and through the material for circ while optimizing the projected light source- bare CFL's arranged vertically, for instance.

A shiny side bounce board will reflect a harder, more intense beam of light back into the object but will also render a smaller, much tighter area of coverage w/ a sharper drop off at the reflected edges. As the plants grow and spread out, the hard reflective panels will require regular tweaking because a hard light pattern doesn't have the forgiveness that a softer, more diffuse source has.

Not saying that the exclusive use of hard, well angled bounce source can't be built into a set-up, but one might want to consider doing a somewhat detailed comparison of diffused and hard light sources w/ a spot meter, (built into most digital cams if you don't have one) in your areas before making the leap to hard reflective material. The same # of photons. Choices depend on how one wants to disperse and direct them to achieve the most effective coverage of a unique plant arrangement in a given space.

My T-5 racks have a hard reflective surface whereas my wings do not. Both do their assigned jobs very well although they draw on different physical effects to do so.

Yes, the whole idea of this setup is to maximize the effect of a light mover. This mover is a rotator, look up my thread in advanced techniques and problems, 'built my own light mover- wanna see?' you'll see pics of the setup there.

Your experience in lighting clearly shows when comparing the effects of the 'hard bounce' reflective material behind the T5 bulbs, and the 'soft bounce', or diffused finish in a wing or standard reflector. I'm going for the hard bounce specifically because of the ability to better control the direction of the photons traveling away from the light source. Since the light constantly moves about its circle, all the hots spots move and therefore don't need to be artificially scattered via 'soft bounce' surfaces.

My theory is based on two principles;

First, that having a powerful, intense light source very close to the plants gives them more light than any other strategy, period. I solve the problem of plant burns by moving the light constantly. It travels a full circle (ten feet in circumference, give or take) in roughly 3 minutes. This constant movement also solves the problem of hotspots caused by using 'hard bounce' reflective surfaces, since because the source moves, the hotspots all do too.

Second, the 'hard bounce' gives me better control over where the rest of the lumens end up. As you know, a light meter isn't a perfect light measuring device either- for instance if you tilt it, your reading changes. Also, they tend to be better at capturing readings from 'soft bounce' surfaces than 'hard bounce' ones, at least all the ones I've worked with have been. Therefore, the ability to focus that hard reflection down onto the canopy in a controlled fashion allows me to lose fewer lumens to scattering in undesirable directions, After all, only those lumens that actually land on leaves do any good! The rest don't count.

All of this assumes a canopy that presents as more or less level across the top, like a forest viewed from far away. People who use their bulbs vertically and arrange their plants around them are following a different lighting strategy alogether, and my light mover concept probably wouldn't be as good for them. It's a systems approach; all the components coming together to create a result better than the mere sum of its parts.

As far as air movement and cooling are concerned, I got plenty of good airflow by using fans that blew down from above the reflective stripe around the room. After all, the reflective material does not need to be higher than the hood, nor does it need to be lower than half the vertical distance from hood to the base of the stems. That leaves plenty of room for air movement.

Saw your set-up @ 'built my own light mover- wanna see?'
and was thoroughly impressed w/ your ingenuity. Will post a comment regarding lumins transmitted/ footcandles recieved/ distance from object ratio. Don't use a mover myself for reasons I discussed w/ you earlier but the math, at least as I'm applying it would support your position, but then I'm neither a physicist or a mathematician.

Here's a shape for reflective surfaces that I've been running thought experiments on (ie bisected). If nothing else, the fullerene is an interesting structure.

Buckminsterfullerene:


Another idea related to your production line/energy conservation concept would be a shelf garden that utilized t-5s.

Keep on exploring/refining/plugging away. It's a process- not a finished product. Regrettably, not everyone gets that.

GanjaGardener said:

Saw your set-up @ 'built my own light mover- wanna see?'
and was thoroughly impressed w/ your ingenuity. Will post a comment regarding lumins transmitted/ footcandles recieved/ distance from object ratio. Don't use a mover myself for reasons I discussed w/ you earlier but the math, at least as I'm applying it would support your position, but then I'm neither a physicist or a mathematician.

Here's a shape for reflective surfaces that I've been running thought experiments on (ie bisected). If nothing else, the fullerene is an interesting structure.

Another idea related to your production line/energy conservation concept would be a shelf garden that utilized t-5s.

Keep on exploring/refining/plugging away. It's a process- not a finished product. Regrettably, not everyone gets that.

Click to expand...

Thak you for your kind words, my brother! If you read the whole thread, you no doubt noticed that many out there are more interested in tearing down another's work than doing any of their own. This goes double when people start pushing the boundaries of conventional wisdom...

I never claimed that such a light rotator device would be THE best way to light plants, I just suggested that it would improve efficiency on a grams per watt basis. From my own admittedly anecdotal experience thus far, it seems this will hold true if you're not as concerned with grams per square foot in your grow space as grams per watt used. So far, it looks like yield falls between 15 and 30% when using half the watts. Add in the additional savings from lower air conditioning costs, and it's looking pretty good so far!

I like your 'Buckyballs', since they do provide an excellent surface to place plants you want to keep at a specified distance from the center. If this buckyball rotates then the hot spots it generates would also move and spread the light around.

In fact, the reflective surfaces arranged around the rotator and canopy could well be thought of as a slice of a buckball, taken not quite halfway between the centerline and the edge. All surfaces are angled inward and somewhat downwards, and the light moving around the circle within also scatters its hot spots around without ever bouncing them off the ceiling or some such. "Aimed lumens" is the theory I'm testing, and soon I will have a much better facility to do side by side testing; In order to drive out extraneous variables, I'm setting up two equally sized rooms, both with rdwc so I can keep the nutes constant (to the point of mixing batches of nutrients and putting half in each system), both sealed climate, same strains, etc. If I get more than half the yield with half the wattage, I think that will be proof enough that the system is effective.

The reasons I'm doing this are varied; one is just for the love of inquiry and the discipline such investigation requires. Two is that I believe the price of crops will continue to fall, leaving those who have successfully managed their production costs with a significant advantage. Three is that electricity production is amongst the most environmentally destructive things we as humans do, and if we in this admittedly power hungry industry can cut our power consumption, then it will make a real and measurable impact on the environment, both now and in times to come. Last, I feel strongly about the idea that the science of indoor plant lighting is NOT driven solely by sources, and that the way the light is delivered to the leaves has been underinvestigated.