I think there is maybe some merit to the idea, but I don't know if it's really all that profound. If nothing else you can cover more area with fewer bulbs and maybe there is a cost savings to that somehow. That said, I think a tank that is lit only on one side has a lopsided look to it. I find the same thing with the staggered lights, especially since I keep my photoperiod to somewhat match the outside daylight, and that I'm only around the tank at "high-noon" on weekends, that the likelihood that I will see my tank at one of these lopsided moments is larger.
I might consider something that is a compromise, ie., there is still enough light on both sides to keep the tank balanced but there is something of a hot spot that travels across the reef in a 10 or 12 hour period. If the difference is not unaesthetic (sp?) but enough to "fill in the shadows" then maybe that could be something of a "best of both worlds."
If I was to do such a thing though it would probably be on a track rather than with an array of bulbs. One thing that a track has over multiple-but-staggered bulbs is that you only have to purchase one bulb and one ballast.
I kind of like Brad's point about having enough light at all angles to begin with, but I would think that one disadvantage of a static lighting arrangement is that as corals grow (and grow and grow) the likelihood of their base starting to shade out and bleach/die off, increases over time. A setup that allows me to rearrange corals less often or be pruning less often is something that has some appeal. But ultimately, as with all kinds of gardening, pruning/weeding/culling is not usually something that is postponable indefinitely.
Anyways I don't stagger (other than the dusk/dawn effect) ... I have a hard enough time trying to fit all my timers onto plugs as it is.
