DIY light mover, idea thread. With a twist.

C

churchhaze

Well-Known Member
I agree with Realstyles that you could just use twice as many cobs. This is why I used cxb2530 (besides availability of top bins when I needed them). I personally think the best results come from having light come in from as many angles as possible, and thus lots of overhead cones creates overhead and angled lighting everywhere. This is one of the reasons I don't bother with reflectors or lenses. When you get them close to the canopy, that wide angle light is hitting the plant at the complement of that angle.

When I did my first grow with 6 vero 29 inline, the outer perimeter receiving only angled light actually did very well while the buds directly under turned crispy.
 
Last edited:
bicit

bicit

Well-Known Member
AquariusPanta said:
A great solution for users of high-powered COBs, who fear bleaching. I suppose you would need a periodic dimmer or some sort of light reducer in order for the contraption to make sense, as moving light bulbs around in a circle or square isn't going to rid you of the light intensity problem in a given spot but rather move the lights around (if my logic serves me rightly).
Click to expand...
That's exactly it. The idea being to simulate 'dimming' by moving the light source while also moving the 'void' spaces. This should give planned areas of dim light. Thus hypothetically avoiding over saturation. (Bleaching)
 
bicit

bicit

Well-Known Member
Doer said:
If I was doing it. I would be use a garage door opener with the light on a pair of gararge door rails attached to garage door rollers.

Set up a big gear reduction so that it moves the length of the track in 12 hours then reverses.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't be a terrible plan, depending on what the power draw would be.
 
bicit

bicit

Well-Known Member
churchhaze said:
I agree with Realstyles that you could just use twice as many cobs. This is why I used my cxb2530 (besides availability of top bins when I needed them). I personally think the best results come from having light come in from as many angles as possible, and thus lots of overhead cones creates overhead and angled lighting everywhere. This is one of the reasons I don't bother with reflectors or lenses. When you get them close to the canopy, that wide angle light is hitting the plant at the complement of that angle.

When I did my first grow with 6 vero 29 inline, the outer perimeter receiving only angled light actually did very well while the buds directly under turned crispy.
Click to expand...
Essentially im trying to achieve the same effect as you. Except mine is more of a dynamic system instead of a static one.

I know it CAN be done that way. Thats not a question. Will it work this way, thats what im wondering.
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
bicit said:
Essentially im trying to achieve the same effect as you. Except mine is more of a dynamic system instead of a static one.

I know it CAN be done that way. Thats not a question. Will it work this way, thats what im wondering.
Click to expand...
If you really want this completely controlled, you can use another set of garage door rails at 90 degrees. The entire first rig can be moved by the 2nd second motor.

You will have true x, y positioning and can set a sun path that changes with the months if you so desire.
 
AquariusPanta

AquariusPanta

Well-Known Member
bicit said:
That's exactly it. The idea being to simulate 'dimming' by moving the light source while also moving the 'void' spaces. This should give planned areas of dim light. Thus hypothetically avoiding over saturation. (Bleaching)
Click to expand...
You realize that by moving the light source(s), whether helicopter-blade fast or subtly every hour, the energy output is constant, therefore the leaves are receiving little less or more than the same impact as if the lights stood in place. It may work for mono LEDs, but for 30W+ COBS, I have a hard time believing that rotating COBS, as the concept was originally posted, will make much of a difference.

In short, if you have too much intensity and want to avoid bleaching, your only choice is to lower intensity, either through dimming or increasing distance between canopy and lights.

Edit: I have this Pizzazz contraption in my kitchen, which acts as a rotating oven. The user puts, say, two halves of a bagel on the oven. As the bagel rotates around the circular rotation, it gets heated up by an overhanging coil. Now if you were to place the food under that coil and constantly heat up the selected food, the outside would burn quite quickly, leaving the insides possibly doughy, hence why there is a cooling/breathing portion on the circular pan (around 3/4 of the area). Now as I imagine this concept you bring into question, I can't help but think that it would be a similar comparison except that bagel would have more time under the coils than coiling off.

Now my logic could be off with my assumption, or yours could very well be. We won't know until your hypothesis is put into testing, which I strongly support and encourage. Prove me wrong I say!

;)

(:
 
Last edited:
the dopest

the dopest

Well-Known Member
bicit said:
Essentially im trying to achieve the same effect as you. Except mine is more of a dynamic system instead of a static one.

I know it CAN be done that way. Thats not a question. Will it work this way, thats what im wondering.
Click to expand...
It will work this way too, but you loose light. Everyone I knew that has grown with a light mover yielded only slightly more than without, in the same equsal space and the buds were extremely airy. You aren't adding light, you are just moving it around so think of it like you are also spreading around the buds when you try to cover a bigger area than your lights can handle.

When I grew with HPS, one setup I had was a 400w over a 3x5 area. The buds in the middle grew large and solid but the ones on the edges were crap. I got the idea to use a light mover to move that 400w back and forth across the 5' width, roughly same yield, maybe a little more but all the buds were so airy they could not be sold or shown to anyone with growing knowledge without fear of ridicule... :)

NOTHING can replace light. That said, you may finds parts you need to build this in an automotive salvage yard. Cars that have steering wheel stereo controls and airbags will have the rings you speak of with wiring. IDK how much voltage they will carry but I'm sure you could find out.

Also, If you decide to build it, please don't put all of the lights the same distance from the center or you will just be lighting up the same plants every go around. Put one in the center, another a bit farther out, then another same distance, then the last out at the end. You will get better coverage drawing four circles than all lights out at the ends drawing one circle.

JM $0.02
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
Don't you sling the light around better, with a light mover? Better slinging is better, right? :)
 
bicit

bicit

Well-Known Member
the dopest said:
It will work this way too, but you loose light. Everyone I knew that has grown with a light mover yielded only slightly more than without, in the same equsal space and the buds were extremely airy. You aren't adding light, you are just moving it around so think of it like you are also spreading around the buds when you try to cover a bigger area than your lights can handle.

When I grew with HPS, one setup I had was a 400w over a 3x5 area. The buds in the middle grew large and solid but the ones on the edges were crap. I got the idea to use a light mover to move that 400w back and forth across the 5' width, roughly same yield, maybe a little more but all the buds were so airy they could not be sold or shown to anyone with growing knowledge without fear of ridicule... :)
Click to expand...
Well, by using higher efficiency chips, I would be adding light so to speak, about 17% additional light over a 50% efficient panel. The power level is about appropriate for the space as well, without the mover. IIRC it works out to about 13.33 par/watts per square foot. Supra recommends about 15 parw/square foot. Using your example, a 3x5 is 15ft squared, even assuming the 400w HID was 40% efficient, that would work out to about 10.7 par w/square foot in that space. So it's not a huge surprise the yield was a bit low. I think your results would have been much better under a 600w HID, which works out to about 16 parw/square foot.

My goal isn't to stretch the lighting source to the space. It's simply to prevent hot spot bleaching under a high power emitter.

Though I'm putting the project on hold until I can get 4000k, 70cri, top bin emitters. I can only find 80CRI emitters, which puts the effeciency back at right around 51-58% which can be achieved by much cheaper vero 29's or CXB2530's.

GAH HURRY UP BRIDGELUX AND CREE!!!! GET YOUR SHIT IN STOCK!
 
AquariusPanta

AquariusPanta

Well-Known Member
bicit said:
Well, by using higher efficiency chips, I would be adding light so to speak, about 17% additional light over a 50% efficient panel. The power level is about appropriate for the space as well, without the mover. IIRC it works out to about 13.33 par/watts per square foot. Supra recommends about 15 parw/square foot. Using your example, a 3x5 is 15ft squared, even assuming the 400w HID was 40% efficient, that would work out to about 10.7 par w/square foot in that space. So it's not a huge surprise the yield was a bit low. I think your results would have been much better under a 600w HID, which works out to about 16 parw/square foot.

My goal isn't to stretch the lighting source to the space. It's simply to prevent hot spot bleaching under a high power emitter.

Though I'm putting the project on hold until I can get 4000k, 70cri, top bin emitters. I can only find 80CRI emitters, which puts the effeciency back at right around 51-58% which can be achieved by much cheaper vero 29's or CXB2530's.

GAH HURRY UP BRIDGELUX AND CREE!!!! GET YOUR SHIT IN STOCK!
Click to expand...
So what brought you to this venture? Please explain in great detail (:.
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
bicit said:
Well, by using higher efficiency chips, I would be adding light so to speak, about 17% additional light over a 50% efficient panel. The power level is about appropriate for the space as well, without the mover. IIRC it works out to about 13.33 par/watts per square foot. Supra recommends about 15 parw/square foot. Using your example, a 3x5 is 15ft squared, even assuming the 400w HID was 40% efficient, that would work out to about 10.7 par w/square foot in that space. So it's not a huge surprise the yield was a bit low. I think your results would have been much better under a 600w HID, which works out to about 16 parw/square foot.

My goal isn't to stretch the lighting source to the space. It's simply to prevent hot spot bleaching under a high power emitter.

Though I'm putting the project on hold until I can get 4000k, 70cri, top bin emitters. I can only find 80CRI emitters, which puts the effeciency back at right around 51-58% which can be achieved by much cheaper vero 29's or CXB2530's.

GAH HURRY UP BRIDGELUX AND CREE!!!! GET YOUR SHIT IN STOCK!
Click to expand...
In that case, you need to move in the vertical axis. Up and down.
 
bicit

bicit

Well-Known Member
AquariusPanta said:
So what brought you to this venture? Please explain in great detail (:.
Click to expand...
It's a rather short story, with a few lapses ( :eyesmoke: ) in logic. Basically I've had a lot of time on my hands due the lack of availability of my choice in components. (namely vero 18/29's in general and 4000k cree). I started crunching numbers and going through mental models of designs working with the existing drivers that I had on hand. (HLG-185H-C700B (x2) HLD-120H-C1050A) I came up with a few designs.

I didn't 'set' a budget, but I was trying to maximize the 'bang to buck ratio' while also trying to get the effeciency number as high as possible. Since AC isn't really an option and HID's tend to cook everything. One of the designs happened to consist of 4 CXB3590's, which turned out to be rather convenient. Since I can fit all four emitter on the HLG-185, or two on each HLG-120H if it turned out that 200w wasn't quite up to the job. It'll also offer insane efficiency numbers while dimmed for veg.

All the drivers would be located in a separate room, so the heat generated by the driver while dimming isn't being released into the grow space, so dimming offers great temperature control considering it's the only source of power(aka heat) in the space. The reason lens are in use is actually more to protect the emitter and simplify maintenance more than anything else. It allows the use of foiler feeds without worrying about hitting the LES or exposed wiring.

The problem with so few emitters compared to something like @churchhaze built would be light distribution. The problem with using lot's of emitters is the price increase from the use of a lens on each emitter. The light mover idea is an attempt to bridge that gap.
 
bicit

bicit

Well-Known Member
AquariusPanta said:
So bobbing the COBS up and down instead of a marry-go-round style?
Click to expand...
OK so here's the plan. Each LED will be placed on a linear motion platform and moved along the plane like a traditional light mover. Each linear platform would be attached to the rotating merry-go-round which will be attached to a threaded rod that moves the whole assembly up and down, in tangent with the periodic dimming circuit that SDS is developing. :bigjoint:

I'm estimating about a lb/watt,
 
salmonetin

salmonetin

Well-Known Member
...or another crazy idea... add more cobs for simulate the movement of light... with off and on cycling power of diferents cobs... with a similar hardware of SDS... tuning on successively to simulate the moving lights... yeah i know this implicate more number of cobs in a tent... maybe implicate the sidelighting sistem too... ...on this sistem the lamps dont move... only the light change of site....

...on other things spining lights helps to move air on the heatsinks... semipasive way helped with movements of spining lights...

...vids only for ideas or examples...




saludos
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top