Quote Originally Posted by Graybeerd
Perplexed? I would think that the two 600W lamps would be more efficient than one 1K lamp, especially if they were on a mover.
On that advice about movers used to "make the original intentions more efficient". No matter how you slice it, if you move the lamp, you are "extending the grow" a certain extent. I know what he means, to vary the light angle so that areas of the plant that would not get light in a static setup would get some light periodically. But, like the old saying goes, "there is no free lunch", any time you move the light around the growing area you are diminishing the amount of light in any particular area.
This is the problem that I addressed in the original post, but nobody has come up with a formula, or opinion as to whether periodic intense direct light (with a mover) can be substituted for a static setup, and most important, where is the point of diminishing returns, how far can you stretch the growing area before you are impeding the plants growth.?
There has got to be a formula for a setup that would take advantage of the moving light to maximize the crop, but I haven't figured it out yet. Everyone says, "just add more lights". Well sure, thats a no brainer. I'm just trying to figure out how far you can stretch the ones you have to maximize the harvest.
I have had this same question for awhile. And after playing around with it I figured out my personal solution. I just add 50% more space and keep the distance of the lamp close yet keeping it high enough to shine on everyone. So for a 1000w I'd have it 4x6 with the light between 12" and 16" high. I can get 50%more plants and they actually grow much bigger and more stable with the mover... definately. a good investment. I've seen people do 4x8 and get great results but the size of the buds wasn't as good and he had a couple stretching problems early on. If he had used alot of rooted clones instead of big bushes he probably could have done better. It seems to me that smaller freshly rooted clones would be able to do better under "less" light than a big rapidly growing bush.. right?