I don't get this. How can one define the output of a lamp as
power per
surface? That is irradiance, not radiant flux. Now let's look at a 35W 10% UVB lamp and let's even assume that it is 100% efficient (it is not of course

)
A quick calc (correct me if I'm wrong)
[TABLE="width: 248"]
[TR]
[TD]Power lamp[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]35[/TD]
[TD]W[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]% UVB[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]10%[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]UVB output[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]3,5[/TD]
[TD]W[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Lit surface[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]1[/TD]
[TD]m[SUP]2[/SUP][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]UVB Irradiance[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0,00035[/TD]
[TD]W/cm[SUP]2[/SUP][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]0,35[/TD]
[TD]mW/cm[SUP]2[/SUP][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]350[/TD]
[TD]µW/cm[SUP]2[/SUP][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Let's assume that the efficacy of the lamp is quite good then 250-300 uw/cm2 would be possible
IF you would be able to spread this evenly over a 1m2 surface
I have done tests with HPS versus plasma/HPS versus HPS/CMH versus plasma . Now the plasma light of course adds more than just UV to complete the spectrum, but so does the CMH: this lamp doesn't emit any significant UVB though. That way I was able to see the differences between the different light sources, using clones from the same mothers.
If I can just focus on trichome development I see earlier trichome development and faster maturement of trichomes when using UVB (so more trichomes and cloudy earlier). In some cases we also saw elongation of the stem of the trichome. But another influence (which is confirmed by peer growers) is the intensity of the smell. And we all know by now that terpenes specifically have an influence on how we perceive the product. UVB hardens the leafs, which makes the plants less sensitive for fungi, so that's another advantage. All in all I think there is enough reason to experiment with it. Personally I have found significant differences with all the varieties (indica dominant, sativa dominant) that I have grown under these combinations of lights (at the same time, same climate, same irradiance etc.).
What really shocked me the first time during the grow: The full plasma grow looked really disappointing during the grow. Though it was extremely white and fragrant the buds seemed to stay behind in volume. They were very dense though. How dense they were I found out when they were dry - rock-hard nuggets that didn't shrink much

! We had 5-8% more dry matter compared to HPS after drying. So of course the HPS proved still most (energy) efficient (I did not expect anything else), but I certainly saw great quality and plant health improvements (including extremely good rooting) when plasma was added. A few of these effects I contribute to the UVA and UVB that are present in the plasma spectrum: the glass filter used transmits UVA and UVB, but blocks UVC. As the Luxim LEP is Metal Halide based it is high in UV.
Interesting read