QB vs Strips

[Airwalker16]

Oops!. No - my mistake. The QB288 boards are 18S x 16P, so the V1 would be about 54V max while the V2 would be about 51-52V. I'll go back and correct that in my original post.

So what about the 304's?

 

[Prawn Connery]

QB304s are 38S x 8P and use LM561C LEDs, so would be about 113-114V at their maximum rating. Like anything, there are small variations in LED Vf, different Vf bins, and the circuitry also drops a small amount of voltage (less than 1V), so these are theoretical maximum figures based on the LM561C datasheet, which is based on a "typical" LM561C LED.

If you go over to the HLG website, they have actual figures that they've tested, which are closer to 110-111V for the max board rating of 1.4A: https://horticulturelightinggroup.com/collections/quantum-boards/products/qb304-with-slate-2-single-combo

Same caveat applies to the other boards mentioned.

 

[Airwalker16]

QB304s are 38S x 8P and use LM561C LEDs, so would be about 113-114V at their maximum rating. Like anything, there are small variations in LED Vf, different Vf bins, and the circuitry also drops a small amount of voltage (less than 1V), so these are theoretical maximum figures based on the LM561C datasheet, which is based on a "typical" LM561C LED.

If you go over to the HLG website, they have actual figures that they've tested, which are closer to 110-111V for the max board rating of 1.4A: https://horticulturelightinggroup.com/collections/quantum-boards/products/qb304-with-slate-2-single-combo

Same caveat applies to the other boards mentioned.

Still a shit design on the 304 at 110V. CV drivers are out of the picture.

 

[Prawn Connery]

They are, but you'll note that HLG recommends CC drivers in any case. However, I did ask the question a long time ago about the differences between the 304 and 288 and was told the 288 was a more flexible design in terms of CV and CC drivers, so you are right in that respect.

 

[jjng5]

Oops!. No - my mistake. The QB288 boards are 18S x 16P, so the V1 would be about 54V max while the V2 would be about 51-52V. I'll go back and correct that in my original post.

Thank you for clearing up the differences between these boards. HLG doesn't have a Flux spreadsheet on these 324 V2's nor do they have any mention of the differences in their Blog section. I emailed them a few days ago with no reply -- so I appreciate you clearing this up. It starts to get very confusing.

It says that you can run these new QB324 V2 boards at 3200 mA. I assume that I could safely run two of these new QB324 V2's on one HLG-320H-C2800? Is 2800 a safe mA -- they could always be dimmed back if needed. I value your thoughts on this, you clearly know what you're talking about!

Lastly, would you recommended the 90 degree lense add-on's for these 324 V2's? I wonder when these V2's came out for 324's

 

[Prawn Connery]

I'm not really sure what the advantage of these lenses is, to be honest. They do protect the LEDs from direct contact, but they don't make the boards water resistant or anything like that. They're probably a good dust cover, and they do concentrate more light over a smaller area with the 90-degree focus, but I'd argue you can do that yourself by lowering the board.

One reason I'm not a big fan of plastic lenses is because they absorb light. And once they get dirty, they absorb even more. So unless you're out there cleaning them on a regular basis, you may find your light output diminishes over time. It kinda defeats the purpose of running a super-efficient board IMO.

One area where these types of lenses do have an advantage is when they fully seal the unit, making them water and dust proof (or at least resistant) in greenhouses. But in this case, they don't help seal the whole unit - the connectors are still exposed.

If someone else can offer any other advantages, I'd also like to know.

 

[Badmofo529]

I'm not really sure what the advantage of these lenses is, to be honest. They do protect the LEDs from direct contact, but they don't make the boards water resistant or anything like that. They're probably a good dust cover, and they do concentrate more light over a smaller area with the 90-degree focus, but I'd argue you can do that yourself by lowering the board.

One reason I'm not a big fan of plastic lenses is because they absorb light. And once they get dirty, they absorb even more. So unless you're out there cleaning them on a regular basis, you may find your light output diminishes over time. It kinda defeats the purpose of running a super-efficient board IMO.

One area where these types of lenses do have an advantage is when they fully seal the unit, making them water and dust proof (or at least resistant) in greenhouses. But in this case, they don't help seal the whole unit - the connectors are still exposed.

If someone else can offer any other advantages, I'd also like to know.

I believe the lenses are meant to be used in an open room senario so there is less sideways light loss when you don't have a more enclosed reflective space like a tent

 

[Fake stoker]

I would choose QB directly.

 

[jjng5]

I would choose QB directly.

Thank guys. Pulled the trigger yesterday on 4 HLG QB324 v2 boards (no lenses) plus two meanwell 320H-C2800A's. SWIM has two flower tents with two HPS air-cooled in each tent; these will make 1:1 HPS:QB, provide an even distribution of light source foot print, and provides better range of lighting -- 2700k HPS bulbs + 3500K on QB's.

What other items are needed to set these up? wire clamps, hangers, etc?

Thanks