SupraSPL
Well-Known Member
Most of us are familiar with constant voltage circuits so constant current circuits may seem un-intuitive. Electrical engineers could give you the actual technical explanation, but to make sense of it in my head I think of the forward voltage as the LED's "native" voltage at a given current and temperature. The constant current driver provides a preset current and then "adapts" to the voltage of the LED as best as it can to maintain the constant current. It is the DIYers job to select the drive current level and then match the vF of the LED string to the vF range of the driver. In other words picking the right driver for your goals. We have many good options in the $6-$12 range that can drive COBs efficiently.
If you connect 2 LEDs in series, the forward voltage will add but the current will remain constant. If you change the current or the temperature of the LED, the forward voltage will change slightly. Higher temps result in decreased vF. Higher currents result in increased vF. Higher currents result in higher temps.
So it works like this: vF (forward voltage) * A (current/amps) = W (dissipation watts). That is the total power dissipated inside the LED. Some percentage of that becomes photons and some percentage becomes heat. That is where efficiency of the LED comes into play. When I say an LED is running at 43% efficient, I mean 43% of the dissipation wattage is emitted as photons and 57% becomes heat that has to travel through the thermal path into the heatsink/radiator.
The Cree CXA3070 can be run up to 2.8A, which would dissipate 115W. That may be fine for very brief periods of time but because growing LEDs are run almost constantly, efficiency strongly comes into play. For example rather than running a single CXA3070 at 2.8A, I would run a pair at 1.4A. You get much more light that way, better spread and the LED will last almost indefinitely. The up front cost for the LEDs increases but less up front cost for drivers and heatsinks along with the obvious electrical savings and the AC/ventilation cost savings.
Here are the numbers as best as I can estimate. I am assuming the 2.8A LED is at 85C and the 1.4A is at 50C.
(1) CXA3070 @ 2.8A = 114W = 10170m = 89lm/W = 27.7% efficient
(2) CXA3070 @ 1.4A = 104.5W = 13348lm = 128lm/W = 39.9% efficient
If you wanted to run at 2.8A there is also the problem of finding a cheap driver. The 1.4A driver is only $12 while a 2.8 driver might cost $50 (if there even is one). That difference in cost makes it even more appealing to run them softer.
If you connect 2 LEDs in series, the forward voltage will add but the current will remain constant. If you change the current or the temperature of the LED, the forward voltage will change slightly. Higher temps result in decreased vF. Higher currents result in increased vF. Higher currents result in higher temps.
So it works like this: vF (forward voltage) * A (current/amps) = W (dissipation watts). That is the total power dissipated inside the LED. Some percentage of that becomes photons and some percentage becomes heat. That is where efficiency of the LED comes into play. When I say an LED is running at 43% efficient, I mean 43% of the dissipation wattage is emitted as photons and 57% becomes heat that has to travel through the thermal path into the heatsink/radiator.
The Cree CXA3070 can be run up to 2.8A, which would dissipate 115W. That may be fine for very brief periods of time but because growing LEDs are run almost constantly, efficiency strongly comes into play. For example rather than running a single CXA3070 at 2.8A, I would run a pair at 1.4A. You get much more light that way, better spread and the LED will last almost indefinitely. The up front cost for the LEDs increases but less up front cost for drivers and heatsinks along with the obvious electrical savings and the AC/ventilation cost savings.
Here are the numbers as best as I can estimate. I am assuming the 2.8A LED is at 85C and the 1.4A is at 50C.
(1) CXA3070 @ 2.8A = 114W = 10170m = 89lm/W = 27.7% efficient
(2) CXA3070 @ 1.4A = 104.5W = 13348lm = 128lm/W = 39.9% efficient
If you wanted to run at 2.8A there is also the problem of finding a cheap driver. The 1.4A driver is only $12 while a 2.8 driver might cost $50 (if there even is one). That difference in cost makes it even more appealing to run them softer.
Last edited: