AquariusPanta
Well-Known Member
It's not a question of what the given plant is receiving but what and how much the given light source is dissipating, i.e. light.
Top bin COB comparison
- Thread starter SupraSPL
- Start date
- Status
It's not a question of what the given plant is receiving but what and how much the given light source is dissipating, i.e. light.
AquariusPanta
Well-Known Member
You have to ask your plant about that one, only it knows.
alesh
Well-Known Member
Oops sorry. I meant quantity -- physical quantity. The point was that PAR meter measures density while in an IS you can measure total output,
AquariusPanta
Well-Known Member
That's a great question to ask yourself.
AquariusPanta
Well-Known Member
That is a very good point to bring up, that the solution to the PAR meter's wavelength-reading imperfections is built on approximation, although the correction factor, which is indeed approximated, is typically no more than ~5% off of gathered readings from the meter itself. The error of that correction factor could be as great as 20%, which would mean that ~1% of that correction factor could be faulty. So instead of dividing a reading from the meter by 0.95, the reading should have been divided by 0.96.
or you could just surrender and use the apogee 120 for what it is capable of.
AquariusPanta
Well-Known Member
Please remind me, and possibly others, what the "whole purpose of this ligh" is? I keep seeing you delete comments, what's up with that??
What do you think the apogee 120 is capable of?
the apogee 120 is a great tool for approximating how much light a canopy receives at various points.
it can also be used to get a rough idea as to how various lights are performing, but there won't be any fine precision, since its incapable of measuring from 655 to 700. Best to restrict comparisons between apples and apples as opposed to apples and oranges. Don't even think about comparing tomatoes (lights with heavy deep red) versus oranges or apples (cool whites or neutral whites).
the comments were deleted cause I let emotion get a hold.
nogod_
Well-Known Member
AquariusPanta
Well-Known Member
It's true, the Apogee 120 is stated as being non-receptive to wavelengths above 655 and while our correction factor for that imperfection is an approximation and is therefore imperfect to the real world output of the pertaining light source, it does give us a damn good idea of how one apple fares with an orange and while an apple will taste different, or in our case visually appear different, both are targeted at filling our hunger, or in our case our plant's hunger. The whole point of comparing various fruits, or in our case temperatures, is to better understand photon output. The companies that sell us these wonderful lights give us the typical correlated color temperature for each cob, even including a chart for fluctuations or in other words, ranges of temperatures pertaining to each series of advertised temperature - 4000K (3758~4294K) (<- not from datasheet but you get the point hopefully). The point of this example is that we can simply look at a chart and figure out roughly how much red, orange, yellow, green, blue, and purple will be in a given temperature set.
For some data die-hards, this isn't enough, which is unrealistic given our options as growers.
poppycock
apogee is now offering a new meter which at least covers the full PAR range, why don't you get one of these and end these stupid useless arguments ?
nogod_
Well-Known Member
You can't say anything definitive based on results from the apogee.
You get a general idea of quality and quantity from the DS.
The "best we've got, might as well use it" line of logic isn't ever going to satisfy the die-hards. So enough of that.
The technology exists to get a much more precise (and useful) reading than what you are offering. Sans approximations. Those results will put this issue to bed. (Not your rhetoric).
You get a general idea of quality and quantity from the DS.
The "best we've got, might as well use it" line of logic isn't ever going to satisfy the die-hards. So enough of that.
The technology exists to get a much more precise (and useful) reading than what you are offering. Sans approximations. Those results will put this issue to bed. (Not your rhetoric).
AquariusPanta
Well-Known Member
Yeah looks nice, I'd be curious to see how the results differentiate between the Apogee 120 PAR meter, with approximated correction factor for otherwise excluded wavelengths, and the new one you mention. The argument was started when you butted in and carried yourself as you always do.
Taking your oranges-apples analogy one step deeper, you're nonetheless stating that comparing 3000K with 4000K is useless, as by doing so, one would be 'comparing tomatoes to oranges'. Well for one, there are many varieties of each fruit, so let's say the 3000K is the red orange and the 4000K is the orange orange. But wait, Vero 3000K isn't the same as CXB3000K, right? You might not know unless you have tested or utilized both in a timeframe suitable for you to realize that the latter version is actually more red. Ok, so we could assign oranges to Veros, while CXB are assigned as apples.
To address your argument, which is that one shouldn't compare red oranges (Vero 3000K) with orange oranges (Vero 4000), I'd like to bring in some facts from the manufacturer's datasheet.
As you can see, typical fluctuations occur for a given temperature. So even if one were to send a given light source or light fixture to be IS tested, it would likely hold and provide slightly different lighting properties in comparison to a duplicated sample. With your logic of oranges to oranges or apples to apples, one could never reasonably compare in the first place two cobs of the same make and series after seeing these ranges provided through Bridgelux's Vero datasheet.
Based on what you've said in this debate, you simply want a meter that measures what your plants want or receive. Tell me when they make that meter, because that technology will be one step away from reading what humans want and that my dear friend would be quite a priceless piece of technology. Until then, I guess we'll have to rely on approximations to pen down what plants more than likely want or simply just compare PAR outputs of various lighting sources to reason what source puts out more than the other - the main goal behind my use of the meter.
You aren't telling me anything new, brother. I don't believe there is anything currently available, nor will there be, that will satisfy those die-hards but in the same respect, we shouldn't let their narrow-minded track of what should and shouldn't be dictate how we approach this realm of lighting. Again, the issue isn't really an issue regarding the use of the meter but rather the intent and that itself is pointless to argue over given everything that has been provided and pointed out. If you take into account all the factors that go into PAR output comparisons, while using an Apogee 120 meter w/ wavelength approximations, and keep them level of each tested sample, then it doesn't take very long to reasonably and accurately conclude which lighting source is dissipating more photons in a given area. Sure, you can go and spend a tiny-fortune on having a lighting source tested through an IS but unless there is some kind of serious factor that is excluded in the use and testing of an Apogee PAR meter, like optics vs no optics, then the sought-after answer, while not as defined, will likely remain the same in either case.
AquariusPanta
Well-Known Member
I don't know if it was this thread or another but I recently said I would test and compare the PAR output between a CXB3590 3500K (CD) from Jerry and a CXB3590 3500K (CD) from Mouser, as I was a bit skeptical of the performance of the supposed best COB available when acquired through through the former source. Here are the results, enjoy.
To clarify, I recorded two points per section of the tent, with three sections total for each tent. Everything remained relatively the same, including ambient temperature (~70F), driver, series of lenses, type of heat sink, tent, measuring device, TIM, wavelength correction factor, and sunglasses.
I will have temperature comparisons for you all within the next day or so, so far very interesting results, with CXB3590 3500K CD running slightly more cool than the Vero 29 3000K under identical conditions.
To clarify, I recorded two points per section of the tent, with three sections total for each tent. Everything remained relatively the same, including ambient temperature (~70F), driver, series of lenses, type of heat sink, tent, measuring device, TIM, wavelength correction factor, and sunglasses.
I will have temperature comparisons for you all within the next day or so, so far very interesting results, with CXB3590 3500K CD running slightly more cool than the Vero 29 3000K under identical conditions.
robincnn
Well-Known Member
@AquariusPanta Those numbers all over the place. Either the test setup is not good or that 70 degree Lens sucks. If cob in center then would the left number be similar to right. I try to keep 10% or less tolarence
Jerry's cob looks legit with this data.
I will anwser your question about thermocouple later with some pics.
Jerry's cob looks legit with this data.
I will anwser your question about thermocouple later with some pics.
AquariusPanta
Well-Known Member
Yeah the numbers for the Mouser test were a little off-centered no doubt but it gives a general idea of how one performs against another; the objective was to determine whether or not the cobs would perform as they should if truly part of the same bin.
From my point of view, they are of the same bin, which is very reassuring to not just me but hopefully others who have taken the route of buying cheaper/higher binned Cree cobs through Jerry rather than through Mouser. Mouser is charging +60$ per CXB3590 3500K (CD) while Jerry is offering them under 50$. Pros and cons to each option nonetheless.
As for the lens, they are great. Using kapton tape to fasten them down, not so much, lol, but it works.
I came across a nice method of securing a thermocouple to the Tc point of a Vero. I'll share some of that later on once I finish recording temps.
SupraSPL
Well-Known Member
About half way through this thread I started from scratch with a more time consuming but more accurate method, mounting each COB onto the exact same heatsink and hanging it from the exact same chain links. After that you can see the CXB3070 performing closer to what was expected,. It does droop a bit more than the 3590 and performs very well at low currents. I have not retested the CXB3070 3000K AD yet but that will be the next test.
Last edited:
BOBBY_G
Well-Known Member
interesting,
looks like for 3500K the 3590CD has a 7% efficiency advantage over the 3070BB at 50W, but only 4% advantage at 25W
and is 35% cheaper per cutter
my only other thought is how many lots of the 3070BBs have you tested, i wonder if you got some sort of 'super top bin' accidentally or something, or if its fair to say that all 3070BB perform there, because that would be a hell of a deal! theyre performing somewhere in between BD and CB bins....
looks like for 3500K the 3590CD has a 7% efficiency advantage over the 3070BB at 50W, but only 4% advantage at 25W
and is 35% cheaper per cutter
my only other thought is how many lots of the 3070BBs have you tested, i wonder if you got some sort of 'super top bin' accidentally or something, or if its fair to say that all 3070BB perform there, because that would be a hell of a deal! theyre performing somewhere in between BD and CB bins....
- Status
