Ordering my 205w and older 126w Tonight!!
- Thread starter WizeWizo
- Start date
WizeWizo
Member
Cammie was right on it and all is taken care of now! Woot, super duper excited! In case you guys havent seen the results are in on irish's grow and.....
HGL 126w= 88.9g= .7g/watt
PS 180w= 101.9= .56g/watt
Clearly the HGL LED is a better LED! And I am super stoked to be on board... Finally, hehe
HGL 126w= 88.9g= .7g/watt
PS 180w= 101.9= .56g/watt
Clearly the HGL LED is a better LED! And I am super stoked to be on board... Finally, hehe
LittleShroomie
Member
how come you took the 1st gen 126W?
just curious and what not
just curious and what not
LittleShroomie
Member
ah ok.
I have high hopes on the 205Watter, make the LED fans proud Wizo!
I have high hopes on the 205Watter, make the LED fans proud Wizo!
I re-tested our 205W last night with our power meter, and it was using 182W of actual power. Previously I had a reading at 195W, but I checked it in a few different places with nothing else plugged into the sockets, and now get 182W. Let me know if you get the same readout when you test all the units
Especially if they are supposed to be a 3-chip LED... 3 chip means (3) 1W dies on a single chip with one lens (for an example look at the Cree MC-E chip that uses 4 dies on a single chip below). Even if you drove each of them at 350mA it would still be 1W per chip... So if there are 175 LED's and they each contain (3) 1W dies, at 350mA they would have to draw somewhere near 500W. I'm interested to see how those calculations turn out and what your assessment is on the chips themselves. A single die 1W LED operated at 700mA is another type of 3W LED (second image).
Last edited:
sx646522
Member
Are you sure they use 175 individual LED spaces, WW? Or is that 175 'chip-watts' total, with the 3 chip-1 watt diodes counting as 3 units (watts)?
I was given to understand the boards they are using mix 3 chip/1 watt diodes and regular 1 chip/1 watt LEDs on the same board, as that company couldn't get 3 chip LEDs for every color they wanted. I thought it was mainly the white LEDs with the 3 chip units, not the red (and perhaps blue) also?
I would put a watt meter on that board as soon as you get it and find out what the true draw is. You might be unpleasantly surprised.
I think you'll find the main reason they use the 3 chip 1 watt diodes is: they're cheaper for the manufacturer (then buying three 1-watt LEDs). If you're lucky, they may pass on some of that cost savings to the user. More likely, they'll just pocket the difference.
Cheaper. Not better. At least, for the consumer.
Whether it's a 3 chip model or 1 chip, the three watt LEDs are always less efficient than a manufacturer having 3 individual 1 watt high-bin LEDs. Go take a look at their spec sheets. Since the manufacturers get compared by the LED wattage spec, not the actual draw, they can use a 3-die chip and charge (and rate the unit) by the watt as if it's the same as 3 one-die chips, even if it puts out less light.
I will *never* buy a unit using 3 chip LEDs. I consider it a low-quality approach to providing a barely adequate lighting solution. They may work for awhile - but they're inefficient, are more prone to failure from heat, and more expensive to run, especially vs. 1 chip 1 watt models at the same total lumens. And if you simply space fewer 3 watt LEDs out on the board, you'll get less even (more inconsistent) lighting distribution and color blending than if one was to employ more 1 watt LEDs over the same area, using the same total watts.
---------
By the way, if that unit is anything like their smaller 120w unit, the thermal management is horrible. Not only are they using the smaller board for those, they're running it 'hot' (500ma) to compensate for the fact they're using lower light output (per watt) LEDs. Which reduces the efficiency of each die (in lumens/watt) even more.
Heat is the enemy of LED boards (just like with CFL), and will kill it faster than anything. That's why the PAR38 profile LED 'bulbs' suck, and can generally fail after several hours (especially in enclosed/recessed lighting); in a round profile they're basically heat traps, even with their heat sinks. (Put anything over 5w in a 'bulb' style, even in non-recessed lighting, and say bye-bye to your light quickly. At 12-15 watt ranges, just forget about it. You NEED active cooling, as well as purpose-built lighting fixtures that completely replace conventional ones, with more watts. NOT retrofits.)
If their smaller 120w unit is any indication, I'd stay away from these. Running 119 1-watt LEDs at typical amperage draws in that profile is bad enough (I wouldn't do it, no matter what the Chinese engineers tell you); put 3 watts in the same spacing, AND raise the power requirements 50% (~43% for the mA and another ~7% from the increased Forward Voltage (Vf), and you will greatly shorten the lifespan of your unit.
I understand they wanted to run the whole board at 700ma (!), including the 3 chip diodes, but the engineers said they'd fry the board.
Yup.
I wouldn't have done even 500ma. The Chinese version of 'the customer is always right', though, apparently means giving the customer what they asked for - even if it's a bad idea. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should.
I want to give LED manufacturers the benefit of the doubt, I really do. I hope every new one entering the market serves the customer better and better.
But when a new one shoves 3w into a space designed for 1 on a regular PCB (horrible thermal junction/junction temperature (Tj) heat dispersion characteristics), they overdrive the LEDs to make up for the lower light output (which means you pay more for electric - you don't get more), and still charge customers accordingly - it doesn't exactly inspire confidence, you know?
According to the manufacturer, their smaller 120w board actually uses 165w, correct?
So, where's the cost savings there? And you're putting extra heat into your grow space - using higher watts, and less efficient power conversion. Sounds like they're just passing the burden of using a bad design and cheap LEDs onto the consumer.
The end user (YOU) gets penalized with the true cost of using those models.
Cheaper. Not better.
I hope I'm wrong about them, truly - but I don't think so. Best of luck there WW.
Cheers mate,
-SX
WizeWizo
Member
Wowza's, honestly I really shouldnt have smoked that second bowl before reading that. As I had to reread it several times to actually absorb any of it.... Umm, yeah, and stuff.
Yes, I am certain that the panel uses 175 LED's, as for your next question. I am unsure as to which colors use/come in the 3w's. And yes, as I stated before most certainly will hook all the panels up to a meter and check actual draw.
I certainly am very interested to see how this all plays out! Certainly hope you stick around SX to watch the show!
Hmm, our 126W on a larger board (the one everybody uses for their 300W models) has an actual power draw of only 112W with the LED's running at 350mA. I can't imagine trying to pump 165W through the panel we use for our 63W light...
So out of curiosity, do you think we should re-name our products based on actual wattage, or keep it based on the amount of 1W LED's we use?
WizeWizo
Member
This is a great question! I have wondered that myself.... Very curious what others would have to say about this.
Personally, I believe that the manufacturers currently have it correct. Listing wattage based off the number of 1w LED's in use.
However, the company that SX is referring to that used 165w on their 120w panel... I do feel that they should rework thier numbers. In one hand it seems like a bargain (if the lights work out) because you are getting a lot more wattage than what your paying for. Other hand, seems super shady! And from an electrical standpoint, seems like a big no no...
sx646522
Member
Neither can I...I'd advise against it! It's a bad idea...
No, keep them rated by the LED watt designation, just as you do now. While it's not a perfect system, it is still the best benchmark against which to provide designations (and do any comparisons), and is becoming an industry standard. Anything else will simply confuse the buying public more.
Exactly. Though, I look at it like you are paying for more wattage (used), you definitely don't 'get more'. Except for a larger electric bill and smaller plants. That doesn't sound like much of a bargain to me--! Quite the opposite.
If you want a 165w panel, one should be able to buy one that has (and be charged for) 165 1-watt LEDs driven at the nominal rating (usu. 350ma), not 119 overdriven ones run inefficiently. You'll get a lot more usable light that way (running 165 LEDs at their typical rated amperage) for the same power usage.
But I also don't want them calling it a '165w' panel if it has less rated LED (#s) than that, as I would assume it meant they used that many wattage-rated LEDs in that case - not just that someone's overdriving a panel. I would consider that false advertising, at the very least.
-------------------------------------
I think most folks (if they've done their homework) know that an all red-LED panel will draw under the rated LED watts, and an all blue/white one, >1watt each, for a 350ma board using 1w LEDs, for example. Just the nature of the beast. (HGL's actual unit watt usage simply tells me she's using 1w LEDs at the correct amperage and she has a lot more red than blue/white in the panel, which is what we want to see in a proper flowering-intensive light.)
If they don't - well, they should probably do a little reading first. Most folks don't need to know how the elements in their microwave actually work in order to use one, though, either - sometimes less is more. Just rate it so they understand, and let them be able to plug it in, push a button, and away they go.
Having manufacturers list actual power draw somewhere in addition to the LED watt rating might be an option, though perhaps unnecessary for most folks. But it would help cut through some of the crap, perhaps.
Since the only thing I'm selling is the truth, I simply want to see that folks know exactly what they're getting, before putting down their hard-earned cash. And if they're buying a panel that's sucking up juice to make up for putting fewer LEDs in them, people should know about it...
Always know what you're buying beforehand!
Cheers,
-SX
WizeWizo
Member
Yeppers, couldnt agree with you more.
Also managed to pick up a watt meter reader tonight from Costco. So I will definately be posting pictures of all units up and running as soon as units start arriving next week.
Peace
I've gone ahead and changed our site to reflect both the power consumption and the # of 1W LED's used in our products. Thanks for your input SX, we'll keep out lights rated at the amount of individual LED's they use
WizeWizo
Member
I've gone ahead and changed our site to reflect both the power consumption and the # of 1W LED's used in our products. Thanks for your input SX, we'll keep out lights rated at the amount of individual LED's they use
Very nice, way to be on top of stuff Cammie.
cant wait to see what you do with them,hope to join you soon WW.
achillesgr1
New member
Sitting here reading all of this information one question kept going through my head...
Have any of you actually used the 3w/3 chip panel and seen results??
Or is this just all speculation based on your own thoughts?
Just curious.
Have any of you actually used the 3w/3 chip panel and seen results??
Or is this just all speculation based on your own thoughts?
Just curious.
