660nm420
Active Member
I'm only looking at actual performance results with theses lights. My goal is to reduce the amount of energy I'm using so if I get the results I'm looking for with 144w instead of the 170w that they advertised, well that's better for me because my goal is to use less watts. I understand what people are saying and yeah 144w compared to 170 is roughly a 16% difference but 144w in terms of a kilowatt hours or 1000w hours is less than 3%. Now looking at the difference between 60 and 58 when referring to kilowatt hours the difference between 60 and 58w is less than 1% but closer to zero. That's exactly my point. If you take $1000 and look at the difference between $144 and $170 or between $60 and $58! What I'm trying to say is that it is not a problem limited to just LED units. The difference is that from what I see nobody on here is running through their house testing the watts on all their other electronic devices. An air conditioning unit can run between 750 and 1500w an electric heater is about the same but I assure you that as it runs and warms up it will begin to draw more wattage. All I'm saying is if you test other electronics you will see that this isn't unique to LED units. Kilowatt is a rating over time, hence kilowatt hours so you have to test it for longer durations to get an accurate reading. I could seriously careless about the actual draw. I'm looking at how much smoke I get for how much I spend on energy and already know that LED grows kick ass despite, false advertising and all this other stuff. If you get the results you are looking for with 144w instead of the 170w as advertised, what's bad about that?? I thought that was the point of LED grows.