LED price -vs- effeciency poll

Would you me more likely to purchase option 1 or 2?

  • Option 1: Fans and money savings up front.

    Votes: 6 30.0%

  • Option 2: Fanless and a nice bump in output -w- better coverage

    Votes: 12 60.0%

  • Option 3: HPS cause they're both too expensive and still unproven.

    Votes: 2 10.0%
  • Total voters
    20
Rahz

Rahz

Well-Known Member
Two lamps, both 160w output, ideally providing 40 watts output per foot.

Option 1: fan cooled 130 lumens per output watt at full power, dimmable to 165 lumens per watt. Theoretical price $400

Option 2: fanless 150 lumens per output watt at full power, dimmable to 165 lumens per watt. Theoretical price $500.

Consideration 1: Most people aren't going to want to flower while dimming. 165 lumens per watt would be an option for veg under either lamp, but full power would be desirable for flowering and that's where the fanless lamp would take the efficiency crown. IE, running the fan cooled lamp dimmed to 150 lumens per watt wouldn't provide as much light as the fanless at 150 lumens per watt.

Consideration 2: fanless operates at 0 decibels. Fanless has no fans to go bad. As mentioned in another thread good fans would be very unlikely to go bad. Even if they did, design could prevent emitter failure due to fan failure. Warranty would still need to be used... but again, chance of fan failure is low... especially during the two year warranty period :) but very likely to have no issues for 5+ years, possibly 8-10 years or so.

Consideration 3: Averaged over 5 years the fanless lamp is $20 per year more. The fanless lamp could save $20 per year in electricity for the same amount of light, maybe more depending on electrical rates. If the lamp lasts longer than 5 years, which is likely, total cost would be squarely in favor of the fanless design... although more realistically (in practice) both lamps would be pulling similar watts, it's just that the fanless design would be providing more light the whole time. About 10% more light for slightly less electricity.

Consideration 4: The fanless design would have more emitters, thus providing more even coverage. An emitter over every foot of grow space.

Perspective -w- 600 watts: Growing in a 4x4' tent, fanned lamps would cost $1600. Fanless would cost $2000. Growing in a 2x4', fanned lamps would cost $800. Fanless would cost $1000.

In contrast: A buddy bought a 600w digital dimmable ballast today along with an $85 bulb and a reflector. Cost was about $450. Now... I think either LED option would outperform the HPS but there have been no watt for watt grow offs with COBs that I know of to provide a definitive objective answer to that opinion.
 
Rahz

Rahz

Well-Known Member
Marketing research. I was voicing my opinion in another thread that people would be more likely to purchase option one and someone suggested I do a poll.
 
Last edited:
Rahz

Rahz

Well-Known Member
But, but... the fanless lamp would have spider looking heatsinks! Maybe anodized red!

Honestly though I think you're right. I'd like for the poll to prove me wrong, but even then the poll provides the relevant data and a choice which isn't a commitment. Still, I got into LEDs building enthusiast products... would be cool to continue in that vein.
 
PICOGRAV

PICOGRAV

Well-Known Member
Rahz said:
But, but... the fanless lamp would have spider looking heatsinks! Maybe anodized red!

Honestly though I think you're right. I'd like for the poll to prove me wrong, but even then the poll provides the relevant data and a choice which isn't a commitment. Still, I got into LEDs building enthusiast products... would be cool to continue in that vein.
Click to expand...
Black dissipates heat better than red.
 
gk skunky

gk skunky

Well-Known Member
I'm on the fence let me think about it. Because I like active cooled lights but.... fanless definitely has an advantage. No fan to stop working. On my diy light I looked in on the tent one time and fans were sitting still. Turned out the prongs in the female receiving part of the rhino power supply were not making good connection with the power cable I determined. Squeezed the prongs inward a little to get a more positive electrical connection. Money. But that could have been bad. Either burn up the light or worse my house. Glad I caught it about 30 minutes or so after lights on. So the lack of proper cooling equipment not having a potential for failure is a plus.
 
gk skunky

gk skunky

Well-Known Member
Oh and question how does a matte black surface dissipate better? Just curious because I never considered color of a heatsink changes it's properties really other than just the coating material causing some thermal insulation.
 
S

ShyGuru

Well-Known Member
Option 4: semi passive. Why not design the light so that it can run fanless if necessary but have a fan for greater cooling capacity? Fanless won't run as cool as a fan would but relying on the fan is dicey because you just never know.
 
AquariusPanta

AquariusPanta

Well-Known Member
Rahz said:
Marketing research. I was voicing my opinion in another thread that people would be more likely to purchase option one and someone suggested I do a poll.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I was sort of joking around about making a poll BUT once again, I'm impressed with your dedication and drive to find a niche in this ever-expanding indoor lighting market.

Also, who doesn't like seeing a new thread to check out up near the stickies?

:mrgreen:
 
PICOGRAV

PICOGRAV

Well-Known Member
AquariusPanta said:
Yeah, I was sort of joking around about making a poll BUT once again, I'm impressed with your dedication and drive to find a niche in this ever-expanding indoor lighting market.

Also, who doesn't like seeing a new thread to check out up near the stickies?

:mrgreen:
Click to expand...
I guess if you need one that bad :!:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top