Crazy idea.

There are so many other simpler ways to accomplish the same.

dcarch

How would you accomplish the same thing?

They claim that with their technology in the digital ballasts and bulbs the light emitted is not only closer to the sun with color spectrum (which is full spectrum) but with the frequency of the light waves as well. Regular ballasts put out the same frequency as the wall plug.

Quoting from their promo:

"Spinning your lights can increase the intensity and amount of light received by your garden, without adding heat. "
Wrong. Same amount of heat will be produced, spin or no spin. More heat will be produced if you add the heat generated by the spinning motor.

"Spinning fixtures allow your lamps to run cooler, increasing their longevity."
If the fixture is designed properly, this is never a problem for lamps.

"In conjunction with spinning, relocating the lamps at the edge of the fixture allows you to effectively mix spectrums (HPS & PSMH or full spectrum lamps) and increase your foot print. "
Obviously you donÂt need to use a complicated spinning machine, just place a mixture of lamps in different locations would do. Any rotating high-current electrical contacts are high-maintenance headaches, as you can tell if you read between the lines in their promo.

"The system also delivers light in frequencies closer to the sun. Magnetic ballasts deliver light with the same frequency as the wall voltage. The system using solid state technology is able to increase the frequency that artificial light is delivered to frequencies closer to natural sunlight. So now we have light frequency and in spectrum similar to the sun."
What frequency are they talking about? Frequency of sunlight is the spectrum(color) of light. If they are talking about on-off frequency of AC current then this does not make any sense. First, no one has any idea if frequency is good or bad for plants, second, non-electronic ballasts now do not flicker anymore.

Furthermore:
They donÂt make special light bulbs with special spectrums. They buy whatÂs on the market, so can you.

They donÂt make the ballasts; they buy whatÂs on the market, and so can you.

dcarch

LOL, Spike would have kicked your ass so hard you couldn't sit down for a week. Lucky for you, the new owners don't care so much about sneaky advertising ;)

I can sell you one of these that NOT ONLY spins twice as fast for added frequency on the plants but it ALSO HAS LEDs on it to maximise PAR AND a cigar lighter built in. Now that is special ;)

"Spinning is good" - Linda Blair.

{{gwi:1028813}}

dcarch :-)

I'm not advertising, I'm starting a discussion, which obviously didnt go too well. We had a rep come to my store and explain it all, but to each his own. Such strong opinions here.

hydrogrow,

The responses were based on principles of thermodynamics, electronics, and lighting engineering.

Sorry that science does not support your enthusiasm for this product, but it just doesn't. Dcarch and shrubs really know their stuff. I know. I've had "discussions" with them before! :)

"I'm not advertising, I'm starting a discussion, which obviously didnÂt go too well. We had a rep come to my store and explain it all, but to each his own. Such strong opinions here."

OK, letÂs start a discussion. I am interested in new ideas, and thanks for bring this up as a topic of discussion.

1. I am interested to find out, assuming the bulbs are about 100w each driven by four ballasts, how would it be more efficient than one 400w bulb driven by one ballast?
2. The picture you showed is a very good setup that it has reflective surfaces around. If the environment is very reflective, I believe that the lights would already be randomized and why would you need the very complicated rotating arrangement?
3. It appears that the design has very poor reflector design.
4. Plants have a natural ability to grow and seek out source of light. Why do you need to rotate the light?
5. If you really believe the lights have to be rotated, wouldnÂt it be simpler to rotate a few mirrors instead?
6. wouldn't it be simpler to put the plants on a turntable?
7. Tell us more about the "amazing results".

dcarch

I like the idea of putting the plants on a turntable :)

But if we put the plants on a turntable powered by an power source external to the system, then we will still be adding more heat to the system than we would from spinning nothing, which goes back to dcarch's first point and again controverts the "spinning means cooler" claim of the advertising. They can't both be right, you know.

Unless you find a way of harnessing the heat generated by the lights and making in flow upstream in a manner similar to those perpetual motion devices to power the turntable...

And for the purposes of discussion, would the spinning lights work better for plants which naturally grow at the earth's poles, which would perceive their summer sun as a spinning in the sky?

I guess there is some room for discussing the practicality of spinning lights.

I was saying that IF you have to rotate, I didn't say you should.

Rotating a heavy load requires a different kind of roller/ball bearing, it is not cheap. rotating high electric current with contact switch in a humid environment is questionable.

dcarch

spinning lights are the best option out their at this point and time. Anyone want to debate this disregarded subject?
The science is here anyone interested?????

Well thanks for the necromancy, resurrecting a long-dead thread...

Obviously you'd like the opportunity to convince people that they absolutely MUST have one of your ritzy spinning lights so stop beating around the bush and just get on with the sales pitch so we can all have a good laugh at the "science" you speak of and move on.

Why would you approach a topic of discussion with such a negative, pessimistic attitude. I was asking if there was anyone who wished to debate the physical evidence that I have to offer on these systems. If I had asked if there was anyone out there who thinks spinners are a joke then perhaps your comment might have been justified, but in this case i find it childish. I noticed this thread was very old, a point which lead me to inquire if there was anyone out there not to consumed in their preconceived misconceptions to learn something new. So please don't mislead or deter the curiosity of others because you think you've got it all figured out. I wasn't a member of the site when the topic arose so please excuse my tardiness!!!!

So again if anyone would like to DISCUSS the topic then please let me know.

And Gary have you ever used a spinner???? I don't think you have.

If you have please elaborate on your experience.....

"And Gary have you ever used a spinner???? I don't think you have."

Nope, haven't used a spinner. Haven't installed a water injector in my car to quadruple my gas mileage and I never bought a Riddex to get rid of unwanted house pets.

Know why? Because I'm a savvy consumer that does research before he buys, and none of those products achieve the goals they advertise (Riddex has actually been legally required to cease making claims that it gets rid of pests.)

Like I said, you clearly sell this product. So make your pitch and move on. You continuously claim to have "science" to back yourself up and continuously ask if anyone wants to debate you.

Well here's a hint: no one can discuss what you continue to refer obliquely to but never actually present.

So present it already. If you're science is so damn good it won't make any difference if I've got an open mind or not.

Didn't think so.

garysgarden, everyone is entitled to their own opinion but no one is entitled to their own facts. are you familiar with the second law of thermodynamics and the meaning of cascading thernmodynamics? do you understand the interrelationship of ignition frequency and electromagnetic emissions from the plasma created in the arc tube of a hid bulb? do you know how long it takes for a plant to react to light? i ask this because i note that dcarch, shrubs n bulbs, ralleia and and yourself all seem busier defending an entrenched position rather than seeking greater understanding. i have been active in the field of phytotronic technology for over 30 years, including having invented a cannabicultural technique called sea of green (go ahead and ask me to prove it), so i feel somewhat qualified to say that the science behind spinning lights is no less sound than the use of a mixer in delivering audio. it is literally impossible for stationary lights of different spectra to deliver blended light in equal proportions to the entire field of an incident surface. this can only be done with rapidly spinning point sources. further, i'd suggest that you might want to look into how gasses used in bulbs are made and who makes them. there are a couple of companies which make their own, the rest buy from g.e.

Someone's been reading books on negotiating. If you do nothing but ask questions you look smarter.

Of course you don't present any arguments of your own that way.

You're simply implying a position and argument, but since you aren't actually owning up to one and stating it (rather asking questions about what I and others know) you do not cement a position that anyone can argue against. Should anyone present an argument you can't counter you can simply slip away by stating the stance that argument opposes is not your own. You were simply "asking a question" not making a statement.

It's sneaky.

Also, by asking a bunch of technical questions you effectively call into question the technical knowledge of anyone that doesn't agree with you. It's an underhanded way to make everyone else look unqualified to have an opinion.

You assert only one real thing - that myself and others are merely "defending an entrenched position rather than seeking a greater understanding". This is true, but not for the reason you propose.

We don't have any opposition.

See, if I come along and say that wrapping your electrical cords around a bottle of scotch makes your plants grow better... well I think we could all agree I'm talking out of my backside. However, there's virtually no basis for anyone to cultivate any true argument against me beyond "that's just plain stupid" because I've given no real explanation for why this method is supposed to work.

If I then come back and ask my detractors how much they really know about Einstein's Theory of Relativity, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, and Unification Theory I can make it look like I know something about the physics involved and those who disagree with me do not. I create doubt about my opponents and a kernel of uncertainty that my science might actually be based in... science.

But since I haven't actually presented any science I still have denied my opponents anything to actually oppose.

And thus I've created an essentially unassailable position.

Instead of suggesting that everyone else is too stupid to understand the reason you're right and they're wrong, try us.

Modern electonic ballasts like they use in compact fluorescent lights already chop the current up to a higher frequency than the old magnetic ballasts that had a 60 cycle flicker. And this in a bulb that you can buy for around a dollar on sale.