Nice, so that's basically just a COB without the diodes quite so close together. I mean, that's all a QB is in many ways, but this is a nice in-between. Would it have the penetration of a CXB3590?
I would have thought that the competition between the two was a no-brainer, but when I look at the PAR data for the CXB3590 I am surprised by how well it competes, but perhaps I am missing something.
Here's the data for the CXB3590:
and here is similar data for the QB96:
Seems like the CXB3590 rates around 2-2.5 umoles/joule depending on how hard you drive it, and the QB96 rates around 2.4 umoles/joule at half power(around 180W). Beyond that I don't know how they compare apples to apples. I'm not dissing the QB96, but I am honestly just trying to understand what makes it special and especially what justifies the significantly higher relative cost...