What's new
By:
GrowWeedEasy.com
You're browsing as a guest. Sign up to join the conversation, share your grows, and get help from thousands of fellow growers — it's free and takes less than a minute.

Light movers ?

Potted

Potted

Guest
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 😁
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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!
 
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!
 
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
 
$200 baggies (of basil) instead... Dang how I hate do downsize. Save those colas, whatever the cost! Damn the torpedoes...
 
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.
 
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.
 
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 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 I'm not entirely sold on the science behind your position, though I do understand where you're coming from.

What I'm considering as a possible point of gain is the time it takes the plant to replace the raw materials necessary for the reactions that occur within the leaf itself. Granted, I'm no biologist and I'm fairly ignorant where the actual chemistry of photosynthesis is concerned, but consider the following:

The plant is using raw materials to create stores of energy, namely carbohydrates by combining the ATP and NADPH created via the chemistry within each chloroplast. There is then a secondary reaction(s) that results in the production of the carbohydrates themselves. Each of these processes uses a raw material: water, carbon dioxide, trace elements, etc. What I'm wondering is if the process is rate limited by the amount of light that the plant receives in total, or the rate at which it can replace the basic raw materials to utilize the amount of light being delivered. It may be possible that by 'blasting' each chloroplast with many more photons that you can exhaust the store of raw materials within the chloroplasts and 'load up' the Calvin cycle (which is light independent). Meanwhile, as the light moves on to blast the next series of leaves the first plant can then spend a minute or two 'restocking' the raw materials resident within the chloroplasts and the various organelles that power the Calvin cycle so that when the super-high-intensity light comes back it can produce another large burst of photosynthesis and restock the Calvin cycle.

In addition to that consideration, I've also observed that the light on a mover is exposing a much larger percentage of the leaf surface to light energy than the stationary light by virtue of the changing angle of penetration into the canopy as the light moves. There may be some additional gain here due to the fact that the top leaves in the canopy are always getting light but the lower leaves in the plant are exposed to a higher number of average photons.

In terms of the law of conservation of energy (which is where your original premise is rooted), consider that my light on a mover is wasting considerably fewer photons on the floor and walls of the grow space by virtue of it being much closer to the canopy. Thus, a larger portion of the light energy being produced by the fixture is landing on photoreactive surfaces as opposed to non-photoreactive surfaces.

Again, this is all conjecture on my part and I'm no biologist. The experiment I'm running is certainly not what I would call an accurate application of the scientific method, but it should at least give me some anecdotal evidence as to whether a controlled experiment may be likely to yield significant data.
 
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.:smile:
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!
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top