gk skunky
Well-Known Member
Sorry, I didn't even catch how misleading that sounds. The CLW 440 does about the same as the either the RW-150 or the XGS-190 individually. The XGS and RW numbers were not too far off from one another. CLW was about intermediate of those and center favoring closer to the RW. So just going off measurements from the two lights the CLW 440 is about equivalent to either an RW 150 @ 155W or the XGS @195W. The CLW did spread a bit better and didn't fall off at the edges quite as fast. I should have done a more thorough recording of that though. I was just at the store they had the lights and I had my meter so was just a quick run through without all the more accurate 4x4 footprint like I measured with the RW and XGS. But the numbers I did get were in that ballpark range. All lights were measured using the same voltmeter and the apogee SQ-120 electric quantum sensor. The CLWS were pretty close to what their umol claims stat.Yeah I'm a little confused too, was he saying that the 440CLW performs equivalently to the other two combined (440CLW ≈ [XGS190 + RW150]) or was he saying that all three lights are roughly equivalent, (440CLW ≈ XGS190 ≈ RW150). Looking back I suppose that the former is more likely, but I definitely read it as the latter the first time I read it.