Slinging PAR
Well-Known Member
Therein lies the problem - it is subjective. What you consider not great enough for additional cost is more than adequate for others.The efficiency is not great enough to incur the cost of additional lights at the current prices.......
It's negligible, but it is still more cost effective to run them with active cooling at a higher current. Even the cost difference in electricity doesn't work because you are driving more of them in exchange for a lower current.
Like I said, at these prices and the current efficiency, it is more about personal flavor than anything.
If I am to produce light I shall do so with the objective of using the power as efficiently as possible. Possible reasons could be but not limited to:
1. being able to afford the capital cost
2. bragging rights
3. save the planet philosophy and keeping a minimal carbon footprint
4. the minimal extra cost returns itself over multiple times from the first harvest
5. found better use for the heat sinks such as mounting to a TEC to generate power from a wood stove to power the lights
12 Vero 29 C per square meter (10.7 square feet) run at 8-34w each is the proverbial cat's meow in my opinion. I fully expect to bump that up over time as I keep getting different CCTs to compare.
No heat sinks needed just simple aluminum sheet cooled by airflow in each space.
Cost? In Canuck Bucks its 430 for the cobs, 150 for the two HLG 185s, 5 for wagos, (from Future Electronics) and another 2 for a dollar store cookie sheet so about 600 in total. At full power (400w) that's 1248 ppf or 89220 lumens according to Bridgelux specs. On the other end, 96w for 496.8 ppf or 35508 lumens which is better than both of your 2 and 3 cob setups that you posted. So for an extra 400 you start off with better performance and can increase to almost 3 times the intensity of the 2/3 cob setups.
Put another way with all other factors considered equal that extra 400 will return value on first harvest.