Has anyone seen or used this light? Seems impressive....
http://www.pllight.com/products/fixtures/hortiled-top/
http://www.pllight.com/products/fixtures/hortiled-top/
1600 320 watts.MSRP?
What's the umol/j of the QB at 50w? 90w?1600 320 watts.
What's the umol/j of the QB at 50w? 90w?
They are irrespective of one another. PPF is instantaneous power of the light source (photon count) whereas PPFD is photon density landing over an area. The two are equal in numbers when the light distribution covers a 1m2 area.So help me out here. Would you not take the 2.7umol/j times the 320 system watts for a PPF of 864. Not a PPFD of 864.
@50 watts ~ 2.4umol/j depending on the driver.What's the umol/j of the QB at 50w? 90w?
So $5 a watt1600 320 watts.
Cost would be around $550 if you used the slate 1 heatsink which isn't really necessary at 50 watts. Also the light mentioned above is mono red/blue for greenhouse supplement only. They have different color combos. The white light version is 2.2 umol/jSo $5 a watt
@Stephenj37826
Whats the price per watt for 5 QB's at 50 watts? ie 350 watts of QB vs 320 watts of the light above. If there is a 12% diff in umol/j then the little extra wattage should prob even that out.
Those numbers are 100% efficiency, i.e. 1 watt of light. If the emitter output is 50% for example then you would multiply the values in the table by .5 and find the emitted umol/j. It will be a bit lower once you factor in the power supply efficiency, fans, fan PS.
How do the values above relate to the 2.4umols/j your talking about?
Really? Damn. Good job making something for sale that efficient, & w/ 90CRI. Wow!The T4-725 using 3000K 90CRI emitters is 4.7 umol/j... price is less than half that 1600. Granted, the output wattage of the T4 comes in just under 300 rather than 320 but still.
@CobKits these numbers get multiplied by the efficiency of the chip to get actual PPF numbers right? According to Alesh's excel sheet my CLU038s are at about 4.7 as well.
How do the values above relate to the 2.4umols/j your talking about?
Thanks again!yes those numbers in the table are purely spectral
Should have been 2.7 based on 280 LER and 5 QER. Sorry for the screw up.no he meant that spectrum is 4.7@ 100% efficacy