The light isn't on their website anymore...they have changed stuff around since 75% of their lights are not on there.
Actually, it looks like the person in control of the website somehow managed to inadvertently switch to an OLD version of their web pages - it now has information about the SE350+UVB, which has been out of production since the SE450+UVB came out. Maybe they could use the services of a decent webmaster, lol.
But if I recall correctly they advertise actual wall wattage.
Yeah, lol, people must be too used to...
economy-class LEDs
. All of Amare's LED products' model numbers reflect the "normal" wattage consumption.
I just found my Kill A Watt a few days ago. Do you ever calibrate yours? Requires a known 1,000-watt output, IIRC (used to be able to buy ten 100-watt incandescent light bulbs and wire the sockets up in series, but I haven't seen those in stores for a couple years). At this time, I don't really have a known (confirmed) source of any particular wattage consumption to even check mine. I'm assuming that even if it isn't right on the money, it's still pretty close. Seems like I read once that they tend to stay calibrated under
normal conditions.
There are 60 - 5 watt LEDS and 6 cobs. They are probably run at 50%. I'll hook our kill-a-watt meter up to it and see the actual draw later tonight.
I checked the older, less powerful version (
Amare Technologies SE350+UVB) of that panel. My readings may not be completely accurate, because my (very low wattage) fuse box is "a little" old - it was manufactured, IIRC, just before the United States entered WWII :rolleyes3 - and most of the wiring in the house is older than that, between 90 and 100 years old at a guess (and is ungrounded, two separate wires). It has been repaired (I should have enclosed that word within quotation marks) a few times, but never upgraded... Back then, residential electrical loads consisted mainly of low-wattage light bulbs (often, only one per room), with maybe a couple of those old fans that were so low-power that they didn't really even need to be enclosed in grilles (as you could pretty much stop the blade with your hands). I have... interesting electricity, with the occasional gremlin/ghost in the system. Using the voltage function of my Kill A Watt, I get readings between about 113v to 124v. So I cannot say whether the variability in my wattage readings is because of the LED panel, the Kill A Watt device, or the ancient electrical system. With that disclaimer out of the way, lol: With the 60 mono-color LEDs running, I saw the readings averaging 186. Just the COBs gave me 169 - 172 watts. Both together gave me between 345 and 349 watts. I saw readings of between 358 and 362 (IIRC - I didn't write down the readings I got with all three switches on) with the UV bulb added. I think just the UV bulb by itself was 14 to 15 watts, so something was a little fishy with my readings - It seemed like the separate loads from each switch, added up, should have been a wee bit higher than the numbers I got when all three switches were turned on.
In addition to the uncertainty about my wiring/fusebox/etc. and my Kill A Watt meter, I did the testing with the Kill A Watt in my bedroom on a hot day, and the ambient temperature in the room was 102°F, which may have affected the performance of either the KaW or the LED panel (I have no idea). And this panel was not brand new when I received it (although everything about it
looked to be in as-new condition except for the little fluorescent reptile (UV) bulb, which showed the classic sign of heavy usage - dark places near the ends). At a (complete) guess, the panel may have seen daily use for up to a year, and some of that may have been for vegetative growth (18 or more hours per day). It was also one of the first units, perhaps even "THE" prototype, lol. IDK if the power supplies are still functioning at 100%. I'd really be interested in finding out how to test all the individual components. Someone told me that there was a video on YouTube showing a tear-down of a different model from the same company by a competitor (Mars, I think?) in which the person doing the video commented that, "Since ALL of the components except for the Cree LEDs/COBs were manufactured in China, we could have saved a substantial amount on shipping if the company had sent the Cree stuff to China for assembly, then shipped it to me from there instead of assembling it in the United States," or words to that effect. IDK, personally, because I haven't seen the video (I'm not really a YouTube user); my friend wouldn't have had any reason to lie, but he could be mistaken, I suppose.
Hey, while I'm thinking about the SE350+UVB, and knowing that you have the newer version: If you glance in through the side vents, do you see a bit of light from all of the mono-color LEDs shining
through the sides of their individual housings/mountings? While the bulk of their illumination undoubtedly comes out the bottom through their lenses(?), that still struck me as being inefficient. If those things had been built of that 99.x% reflective stuff that they make high-end HID reflectors out of, I assume that NO light-energy would escape to be visible through the side vents of the case - and that more of it would actually reach the plants below. Again, it doesn't look like a substantial percentage of the whole, but even 5% to 15% loss is something that I would consider to be significant in a product that had a MSRP of (IIRC) $899. As I mentioned, this panel is an older version and a (very) early unit of that version, quite possibly a prototype... so, perhaps, this issue has since been solved and does not appear in the newer SE450+UVB?
The light she was under was 450 watts so if my calculations are correct that's .82 grams per watt, as we currently sit. Now I know there is quite the discussion about LED and HID not having the same gpw calculations or reasoning or whatever. The light just paid for itself...5 times over!
You go six days,...no cigs, you rock !!
