Light movers ?

[Potted]

hi guys,I’m trying to deside weather it’s worth getting one, or not? I have a sun system 315 with a 4200k bulb, and looking on amazon there seems to b two in my price range. About 200.00 or less. I’m looking for options, recommendations or warnings!!!!! Any information at all will help me in deciding. Thanks 😁

[IGH]

Hey Potted.
A light mover is a great idea for getting all the bud for half the light watts, or rather twice the bud for the same light watts. I was very close to purchasing a light mover as well, but ultimately decided it was not appropriate for my garden.
One con is that it further limits ceiling height. My garden cant afford that without going T5s all the way.
Also, finding steady patients to grow for is almost impossible, so my bloom tent goes dark periodically and reduces the need for extra equipment to stretch a dollar.
If my bloom room ran 365 days a year, then a light mover would definately move up in priority!
If you really think its a good option for your own situation, check out the grow boss on youtube. He has videos to show you how it works, how to set it up and use it properly, and a bunch of info to help you decide.

Good luck Potted

[Gingerbeard]

If you're running a single light I don't imagine you have a big space. I understand the 315's are great for penetration. I'm 350 watts of LED in a 2'x2'. My plants are in pots so it's super convenient to rotate and move them around. A light mover would take up too much space. Grab $50-$100 worth of T5's for supplemental lights that can hang or mount to the sides of your space. Spend the extra $100-$150 on your next baggie.

[ZigZag]

Yeah, I do the same thing for the same reason. At the moment though its getting pretty tricky because this grow got a lot bigger than anticipated. Its getting difficult to move them around without the colas bumping into each other. Going to put some supports in soon to help keep those colas pointing up!

[Serapium]

Potted how big is your grow space? I've found that my 315 LEC does a good job of covering about a 3x3 area. I do have a 600W MH/HPS covering a 6x3 area on a Light Rail Adjustadrive 4.0 as an experiment. In theory it lets you reduce the distance between light and canopy into the 'burn' range but because of the shorter duration exposure you don't actually burn anything. My experiment has yet to yield any real data though. I will say that the LightRail (www.lightrail4.com) was super easy to set up, has worked flawlessly, and offers some adjustability that you don't see in every mover. If this experiment works I'd be comfortable investing in another.

[ZigZag]

When I toured a bunch of different grow operations this last Fall a number of them were using these rails/ drives/ etc to cover more area with less lights and provide a more real life lighting experience for the plants. Most of them had fixed lights covering the entire grow full time and had the lights on rails move over the canopy for supplemental light. Schedules for the rails varied quite a bit. I just hooked up a dimmer so I could keep one light on full time 12/12 at 80% power and the other light on a different timer at 100%. I have the timer set for the 100% powered light to light up every other hour for an hour_ hopefully this will allow me to give them full sunlight off and on during the day but give them a little shade to recover. My problem is I can't get my lights any higher and have no room to open them up or train them anymore. I've never had plants over 5' tall which is an eye opener for me!

[Serapium]

ZigZag in theory if you have a large space and a powerful light, would can deliver the same number of photons to a larger number of plants by using a mover and a lower height, which means ultimately that your power consumption and heat production goes down considerably. It's just theory to me at this point though, which is why I'm running the one small experiment. I just have the one HID on a mover, and 52 other lights set up in stationary configurations. The experiment I'm running is to have a 600W HID running stationary over a 3x3 flower area at approx 18" from the canopy and another 600W HID on a mover over a 2x6 flower area at approx 10" from the canopy. Leaf temp stays about the same in both configurations, though the very center of the 2x6 area gets significantly warmer than the edges because the mover doesn't ever really 'leave' the center area like it does on the edges. All other variables are constant: humidity, planting medium, strain, pot type, ambient temperature, nutrients, training methods, etc. So in the end what I will learn is if a 600HID on a mover can produce the same harvest amount and quality in a 12 square foot area as a stationary 600HID in a 9 square foot area. No real data to share yet as they are just now about to enter flower, though I will say that the plants have all vegged at roughly the same rate in both configurations (i.e. plant size is roughly equivalent across both configurations).

[starramus]

Serapium Is this the best price on the Light Rail Adjustadrive 4.0 ? https://www.amazon.com/Light-Rail-In...djustamove+4.0 I see one reviewer recommends the 5.0, but it is definitely pricier. https://www.amazon.com/Light-Rail-Co...light+rail+5.0 I believe the law of diminishing returns applies here.

Do the light movers have any effect on the longevity of lamps? You would think the motion and vibration would have an effect on a hot lamp.

[Serapium]

starramus I considered the 5.0 but ultimately decided the additional benefit wasn't worth the cost. I'm perfectly happy with the 4.0 and see no reason now that I have it to have chosen the 5.0 instead. So yeah, I think the law of diminishing returns applies. I did end up buying mine through Amazon as that was the lowest price I could find.

[Serapium]

starramus regarding lamp life I see no reason there would be an impact. The light rail 4.0 moves at a very steady, smooth pace and at the fixture itself I feel no vibration at all.

[DrPhoton]

The potential for yield is limited by the laws of energy production through photosynthesis. Moving a light source over a larger surface area will not provide any increase in yield but instead will spread the potential yield by the light source over a larger area. It will also create more work for the grower to maintain a crop that is larger than required for a specific light source. Rather than moving a light source around on a mover you can raise the light higher so that the light sources footprint covers the same surface area of plants. This has the same effect as a light that is mobile.

The main and only real benefits for light movers is uniformity. As the light moves, it distributes its energy to the plants more evenly.
If light movers were really a more efficient system, it would be adopted by many commercial facilities. Of course this is not the case as its not possible to increase the yield in such a way. As yield is determined by the total amount of light energy input per biomass.

[DrPhoton]

Yes an interesting hypothesis. And i appreciate you bringing your ideas forward.

Photosynthetic potential works like the law of minimum. Where one particular can become the limiting factor preventing further increase or continuation. There are usually only two properties which are limiting factors for photosynthesis, which are light and co2. Other properties, such as nutrients and water do not typically function as limiting factors as they are usually in surplus when cultivated right. Cannabis is considered light limited up until about 500umols, as the ambient co2 concentration can sustain carbon fixation. When this light level is increased beyond this point, then it starts to become co2 limited. And the photosynthetic efficiency declines. Outdoor plants typically shift from light limited to co2 limited, multiple times a day. As the lighting condition constantly changes.

The main reason that we cannot bring light sources closer has less to do with heat and more to do with the effects of photodamage that occurs from reactive oxygen species. The likely reason that light movers can have their sources closer, is because they allow time between extreme exposure to heal. But the same can be done by manipulation of the light cycles with fixed systems. Research has shown however that even if you change the duty cycle (the amount of light on/light off periods), duration or duty ratio. That the photosynthetic efficiency is unchanged. Which comes back to reasons created by the law of minimum and basic laws of conservation. Co2 concentration is still the limiting factor so the potential for photosynthesis is ultimately limited by this unless the photosynthetic efficiency can be increased. Which it just simply does not.

You can argue that radiative losses are decreased by being able to bring the light sources closer. But you have to take into account the additional losses you are now creating from photochemical quenching created by the effects of photoinhibition. Which would be higher than the losses created from radiative and reflective ones.

Where light lands is very insignificant. Younger leaves typically photosynthesize more and they are typically found on the top canopy anyway. Lower leaves capture any additonal light that is unutilized from leaves above from transmittance. So they are anatomically and physiologically adapted for low light levels. Where as upper leaves are adapted for high light levels. Where the photon energy lands on the upper canopy is not likley to make any difference. Whats actually more important, is the uniformity. Because if you can spread the energy out more evenly, preventing hotspots that promote the effects of photoinhibitoon. Then your overall efficiency is improved as you can allow for the highest photosynthetic efficiency. Light movers, although they spread the light better accross the plants. Still have hotspots of high intensity, as their light uniformity is unchanged. This is why commercial grow facilities typically hang their lights high and have their canopy flux levels around 500-700umols (without co2). As this provides superior uniformity and light levels for maximum photosynthetic efficiency.

[Serapium]

DrPhoton I should probably clarify that when I say 'blast' a leaf with photons I'm still talking in the neighborhood of 700 umols or so, so I don't think I'm getting any of the canopy in the range of photoinhibition. The exception may be the very center, which as I said never really gets full 'relief'. The center is going from 400 umol to 700 umol and back again, whereas the edges are hitting 700 umol and then getting as low as 200 umol as the light reaches the other end of it's travel.

I have thus far not added any CO2 to my grow in any significant quantity so I believe I will still be largely limited by that factor, though I do have a significant amount of air movement going to combat this.

As an experiment I don't really expect to gather much data from it but wanted to try it anyway.

[DrPhoton]

At those light levels your not getting the light source any closer than you would with fixed systems. So that argument is thrown out the door in that case. You cannot think about light effects as just averages, but also instantanous effects. Even if light levels momentarily become co2 limited, the efficiency still declines during that time. Much research went into pulsed lighting vs continous lighting to asses whether there were benefits that could be obtained by manipulating the light in such a way. But nothing has been found or is being applied to commercial applications.

Experimenting is always good, this is what science is all about. Even if it has been proven or not, repeated experiments are always helpful.

[Potted]

Thanks for all the responses .... u guys helped me out again and ..... after seeing a few videos, and reading sum pros & cons, ( thay move faster than I thought ) i chose not to spend my $$$$ at this time, again gradatude

[Gingerbeard]

$200 baggies (of basil) instead... Dang how I hate do downsize. Save those colas, whatever the cost! Damn the torpedoes...

[Potted]

I’ll pass on the oregano, I’d get a better bulb instead lol

[starramus]

Many of the products seem to exist just to capitalize on the hobbyist mentality. I am opting out taking the doctor's advice DrPhoton .Although it does make sense that allowing you to get the light closer without inducing light burn you would think would increase yield. But then again there are limits, and the added cost for the minimal increase would not be justified. Lots of rave reviews for light movers, but mainly by those selling light movers. Let the debate continue.

[ZigZag]

I can definitely see how the tracking systems would work well in large grow room or green house with supplemental lighting but with anything smaller_like a grow space of about 10' feet on the long side, you might find getting another light could be a better investment. I'm getting a similar effect by having a dimmer on each light and having the lights timed so sometimes both are on and sometimes just one is on. Its set so one light comes on the first hour at 80%, then the second comes on an hour later. During the peak hours of the day_ the middle 4 hours of the 12/12 photoperiod_ both lights are on 100%.
Then when the lights are alternating back and forth every hour they are also at 100%. They each light up their "side" of the grow space so the strongest light falls on the canopy from slightly different sides. This is Probably more of a fun experiment than anything else but its a new project... trying to replicate morning and evening light, full on afternoon sun and partly cloudy other times.
If I think they might need a break_ usually every 3-5 days I will turn both lights down to 70% for the entire 12/12. Thats a "cloudy" day!
Way more info than you wanted I'm sure, but its fun to experiment anyway.
And it will be hard at this point to tell if its making a difference_ but it does seem to be enabling me to provide the maximum light they can possibly use without rising the lights further above the canopy- because thats not an option for me where I'm at on the current grow. Cheers!

[Serapium]

ZigZag do I remember you saying that you didn't anticipate this grow to get as large as it has? How much if any of that do you attribute to what you're doing? I love the idea of mimicking the travel of the sun across the sky by modulating light intensity from different locations. I bet it contributes a lot to stem strength because the plants are turning to face the light as they would in nature.

[Potted]

I sure do like the idea of alternating lights from different areas in the grow room Zigzag thanks for all the advice. I only wish I could run bouth at the same time just to much heat

[ZigZag]

Hey Potted_ well, we'll see. One things for sure is that it doesn't seem to be hurting them any. All but two of six seem plenty happy with the light there're getting but two of them (same strain) are showing early signs of light stress_ leaves with a slight "V" and pointing up at 45 degrees. They were "relaxed" in the morning but by the end of the day they are looking like that. So I started timing the lights different as above_ and now they aren't looking as stressed at the end of the day. So it seems that the change is making a difference....

[Potted]

Thanks man, I’m thinking on that,I have a 600 watt cool hood with a adjustable balast not in use now, if I place it at the other side of my room and split the light 50/50 with the lec315 that should give them light at different angles to represent the movement of the sun. What do u think?

[ZigZag]

I think you should at least try it, can't hurt. just keep an eye on them- make sure not to introduce too much light stress. But that may not even be an issue. I'm pretty sure alternating between having both lights on and then just one of the others is allowing me to give them more intense light without stressing them. Gives em time to rest. With my canopy-light distance down to 18-20" I found that I can get more light deeper into the canopy when both are on and then give the top of the canopy some relief off and on throughout the day. No signs of stress and I have been able to use both lights now at full power rather than turning it back. Thankfully the stretch finished and they are as tall as they're gonna get. Try it_ your plants will probably like it! cheers and hope the set up works for your plants!

[Farmall]

While I was getting stuff in place and seeing how my plan was not adequate, I started buying lights of all kinds to help keep a steady beam on what I had growing. I wound up with 4 - 300w(at the wall) LED’s, 1 315 LEC in a sun systems housing and a 1000w HID in a blockbuster xl hood . It must have had a benefit to the plants ....as much of a pain in the ass as it was keeping lights in positions… but then after reading about side lighting for shaded bud sites, I lowered the 1000w hood and angled it to shine brightly on the side of two plants and had of the LED units side light the plants with LEDs overhead.

from the 10 plants... my 3 week dry yield is 1677g. There were some very large main colas but some of the buds on the plants center and side (now dried and cured 3 weeks) measured 3 1/2” dry. My only real source of information was continuous reading about light being a driving force in growth. I’ve also read the sidelighting has little benefit. Nearly 4 lbs to me was a very happy yield ... while I’m changing a bunch of stuff around for round 2, I’m sidelighting again.

[oldjarhead100]

Hey Potted I have a light rail 4.0 and I love it My run is about 6 feet long and it covers 8 plants ,I did have a 1000 hps in a big kahuna hood it gave me issues because of its weight so I purchased a 630 cmh so far so good this is the first grow with it , I went with a light mover because a friend has one and he routinely gets 2 lbs off of 5 plants I understand what the Dr. says and if it was a longer run it would be to much movement verses light saturation will cause a loss of yield so my run is 6 feet it takes 2 minutes to run it and it pauses for 30 seconds at each end I also have 100w led light bars for when the main light is not over plants , I would hang anougher light on the same rail if I thought I wasn't getting enough light so we will see what happens