# Staggered lighting - anyone tried this?



## lowerarchy (Oct 15, 2010)

I was reading on another site about a guy who had a 16kw vert flowering room and he was running his lights 8 on, 8 off for two hour cycles 12 hours a day. So he had a 12/12 cycle but only half the lights were on at any given time. As I recall he said the yield was disappointing (he expected 1g/w given the room setup and strains) so only ran that for one harvest, 16kw being a lot to experiment with naturally.

The lights were staggered so plants under the dark light were still getting side light from the lamps that were on. Like so:

X 0 X 0 X 0
0 X 0 X 0 X

then in two hours

0 X 0 X 0 X
X 0 X 0 X 0

Seems like it could be legitimate. I imagine that plant metabolism would follow a bell curve when it comes to light utilization and a 2/2
cycle doesn't seem ideal for this. I'm interested to see if a 6/6 would yield even slightly better on a gram per watt basis. If it did, you could technically run double the lights yer running now for the same operating costs and hey, more yield. You'd probably need a very compact strain, low sensitivity to IR light, cause stretching would certainly be a problem with half the day's light being filtered through the canopy.

Anyone ever tried this/know any threads discussing this?


----------



## Youngling (Oct 16, 2010)

I believe this is the best method of lighting for plants. Except 2 hours is far to slow. 2ms is more like it. A very fast pulsing strobe one that does not look to be strobing to the human eye. Its the way the sun works I'd imagin it would be best for the plant.


----------



## 808toker (Oct 16, 2010)

Youngling said:


> I believe this is the best method of lighting for plants. Except 2 hours is far to slow. 2ms is more like it. A very fast pulsing strobe one that does not look to be strobing to the human eye. Its the way the sun works I'd imagin it would be best for the plant.


 a strobe light? for growing marijuana? LOL im confused. also that could work but keep the ones that are dark away from the ones getting there light...sounds like your messing with there light cycles by exposing them to light during its dark period. even though i am not very experienced with indoor growing.


----------



## lowerarchy (Oct 17, 2010)

808toker said:


> also that could work but keep the ones that are dark away from the ones getting there light...sounds like your messing with there light cycles by exposing them to light during its dark period.


Just for the record, the dark period is maintained. Switch up the lights only during the daylight hours.

I wonder if you can get a strobe light for the same price as a hid light that'll put out the same lumens with the same power factor. I doubt it. High-end stage lighting costs a fortune.


----------



## Youngling (Oct 17, 2010)

You would need to get LED grow lights to strobe them that fast. 

Think about it. The sun outputs light only when a nuculear reaction occurs. These reactions are happening constantly so the light we receive isn't like water comming down a pipe it actually comes in waves like the ocean. A super fast strobing LED grow light could mimic this. But out technology isn't there yet as far as LED and growing so we will have to wait.


----------



## jesus of Cannabis (Oct 17, 2010)

Youngling said:


> A super fast strobing LED grow light could mimic this.


but the suns power is constant not flickering and the difference between the suns energy in each wave is so microscopic on a human scale it wouldnt do any of us ant good to try and mimic it. Stick with regular light schedules.


----------



## petrock (Oct 17, 2010)

The only way I could see this making any sense if you were in fact trying to replicate natures light cycle.
Dusk/ Dawn , Noon/ Night and all the in betweens. To simply have half on half off will extend bulb life is 
about all thats going to do.
For the money it would be better to take that extra 8 kw of light and start another grow.


----------



## lowerarchy (Oct 17, 2010)

petrock said:


> The only way I could see this making any sense if you were in fact trying to replicate natures light cycle.
> Dusk/ Dawn , Noon/ Night and all the in betweens. To simply have half on half off will extend bulb life is
> about all thats going to do.


Yeah, that's part of the logic. Since plants don't get maximum light intensity all day in an outdoor setting you'd be replicating that to some extent. Obviously the overall light intensity outside is greater because it penetrates the foliage more, but we already accommodate for our weaker lights indoors with plant height and favourable growing conditions. 




petrock said:


> For the money it would be better to take that extra 8 kw of light and start another grow.


 Electricity costs are halved, not doubled. There is no extra 8kw. There's 8kw less in a 16kw setup. Unless I'm confusing what you mean here.

I'm seriously considering trying this. My main issue is that I'm worried that when I get all my lights up I won't be able to keep my room at temp. My fans and just the way things are set up are really stretched to the limit for air exchanges, so if I find that I'm running hot I may be forced to try this anyways. It's a trade-off between scrapping a couple of trays or staggering the lighting. Another potential problem is that even if it's worthwhile it might be difficult to tell because I'm trying a bunch of new stuff this year and I won't be able to really tell what's working and what's not if I throw major untried lighting schemes into the mix.


----------



## Youngling (Oct 18, 2010)

jesus of Cannabis said:


> but the suns power is constant not flickering and the difference between the suns energy in each wave is so microscopic on a human scale it wouldnt do any of us ant good to try and mimic it. Stick with regular light schedules.


But the sun isn't constant and is always flickering. It only appears to be constant (solar panels proved this to us)


----------



## Serapis (Oct 18, 2010)

It has nothing to do with strobing. The process is explained in detail and pictures in the latest High Times. The guy is simply switching what lamps are on every 4 hours. The plants don't receive direct light all cycle and it seems to actually improve the yields.


----------



## Grumpy Old Dreamer (Oct 18, 2010)

... and when the lights are off, the plants are receiving indirect light from the light next to the one that is off ... so during the light cycle the plants are either receiving full direct light (half the time) or indirect light (the other half).

Even if the yields don't improve - the lighting costs are halved, so the yield per watt goes through the roof.

It's a similar concept to using automated light movers, the plants don't get full exposure all the time and you get more coverage from a set number of lights.


----------



## lowerarchy (Oct 18, 2010)

I think I'll try this with 2 lights in my room. I'll let you all know how it works in a couple months.

Here's an article about it. It's really goddamn pointlessly wordy though - 4 ballasts, two rooms, staggered lighting for 16 lights. 

http://www.maximumyield.com/article_sh_db.php?articleID=576


----------



## Grumpy Old Dreamer (Oct 18, 2010)

lowerarchy said:


> I think I'll try this with 2 lights in my room. I'll let you all know how it works in a couple months.
> 
> Here's an article about it. It's really goddamn pointlessly wordy though - 4 ballasts, two rooms, staggered lighting for 16 lights.
> 
> http://www.maximumyield.com/article_sh_db.php?articleID=576


Agreed, some people just like to used lots of words trying to appear more educated - they need to take lessons in Simple English and concise communication. 

I tried to read that article and actually gave up.

I may not be the "sharpest tool in the shed" but I can certainly communicate better than that guy.


----------



## cerberus (Oct 19, 2010)

yeah I have seen a guy with four lights
2 Ks
2 400's
like this 400 - k(1) - k(2) - 400
and the K's were on for 8 hours a day
1 from 1-8
2 from 6-12
and the 400s lit up when their respective k was down.

less watts spent per cycle and great production, super techy and fine tuning of timers and shit..


----------



## lowerarchy (Oct 19, 2010)

Grumpy Old Dreamer said:


> Agreed, some people just like to used lots of words trying to appear more educated - they need to take lessons in Simple English and concise communication.


Either that or the writer gets paid by the word. Makes you wonder whose signing those checks... lotta folks around here could freelance for that company.



cerberus said:


> yeah I have seen a guy with four lights
> 2 Ks
> 2 400's
> like this 400 - k(1) - k(2) - 400
> ...


That's ok, that's like saving 1kw. It's what I'm doing in the mom room now - 1kw on a 4x4 tray full of moms, 400w close by vegging clones when that turns off, 12/12. I don't suppose you remember/know what he was pulling on a gram per watt basis huh?


----------



## cerberus (Oct 20, 2010)

I don't know the gram/watt ratio but if I remember correctly the room was like 12-15 feet long and about feet wide and he pulled easy elbow and a half a month.. this is rough numbers, it was a friends grow and he felt so some details were opsec issues..


----------



## iscrog4food (Oct 21, 2010)

The best way to go is to run all the lights all the time and setup like you are suggesting. Grow serious 3-4 lb trees with the right setup. If you are gonna run them only part time i reccomend you make a flip box so you dont have to buy the ballasts for every light only half of them.


----------



## mindphuk (Jan 16, 2011)

Youngling said:


> But the sun isn't constant and is always flickering. It only appears to be constant (solar panels proved this to us)


 What are you talking about? Where did you hear this? 

The sun does not flicker. Florescent tubes flicker. The sun is a constant light source. A star is very close to being a perfect black body radiator.


----------

