Heat from 1200W of 1212's/vero 29's/cxm-22/cxb3590 compared to 2x 600W?

[frica]

just measured the heat of XTE royal blue - and i have bad news for you.
Too much heat !
Too much lumen/W ? I don`t know - but it`s hard to believe. I`m just confused.

How can they(cree) believe in 619.7 lm/W ???????????????????
There must be something wrong on this page:

http://pct.cree.com/dt/index.html

0.350 A ......................here is the data for your mentioned XTE royal blue @350mA
650.7 Led lm............. data for lumens must be fake. Several other blue data also - compare to
619.7 lm/W................ XM-L wich seems to be more real.
3 Vf
1.05 Led W

0.500 A ..................... i measured the heat of XT-E @ 500mA with 3,08 V for ten minutes
888.5 Led lm............. and i received 1,3W of heat power. That means around 80% heat power
574.7 lm/W................ from input.
3.09 Vf
1.546 Led W

View attachment 3908120

So the reference, when you say up to 57% efficiency can`t be the total input of electrical power.
Maybe your 100% is part of the electric power, that is ! not ! converted to heat.

The light transmittance is still very good. I estimate >90%
Blue light passes much better through water than red light.

Even if 10% - 30% of the light energy would be lost in the water and get converted into heat -
wouldn`t explain 80% heat energy in total as in a coolmac led system you can store ~ 60%
of total input as heat energy if you tap it only from the backside of the chip and let the light stream free to the room.

And you don't think your way of measuring this is flawed?

The balloon is still trapping a lot light, transmittance isn't the only factor. If light exits the surface part will be reflected back into the balloon, depending on the angle it's a small part or everything can be reflected back.



Cree has sphere tested their chips, which is far more accurate than a condom wrappen around the chip.

You're assumption is that your test is perfect, or at least close enough and that if results aren't like what Cree has tested then it must be that your test is better, it doesn't work that way.

How is heating a condom better than sphere measuring the total light output, and measuring the electric input power?

Your test isn't accurate because you don't factor in internal reflections which has nothing to do with transmittance.

 

[mahiluana]

And you don't think your way of measuring this is flawed?

No - why shouldn`t i believe in a self tested result, which is easy and simple to measure.
Everybody can copy this test in 20 min. it`s not complicated - just do it.

You should be able to measure Vf, If, water temp. and water quantity.
May be too simple for a high scientificed ambient like cree laboratories.

I didn`t measured spheres or light energy - and than do calculations about heat energy.
I measured the heat energy directly and the electric. input pretty exactly.

Is there any other form of energy significantly emitted by a led chip than heat and light ?
-Please tell me. The blind current of a led driver is excluded here, because this time i took volts and amperes to calculate the power and not my power consumption meter .

I wrote before:
Even if 10% - 30% of the light energy would be lost in the water and get converted into heat -
wouldn`t explain 80% heat energy in total as in a coolmac led system you can store ~ 60%
of total input as heat energy if you tap it only from the backside of the chip and let the light stream free to the room.

Able to tap ~60% of the electric. power as heat( only from the bottom of a chip platine means -
there are left ~40% on the front side as light + heat.

The bill of a coolmac system is : Total electric. power(If x Vf) = y lm/0,4W + 0,6W heat energy.

which is far more accurate than a condom wrappen around the chip.

And yes - i still think that my thermometer couldn`t fail, and my digital balance neither.
My voltmeter is cheap, but give same results as the cree data above.

Just read again on the cree page several sentences and you see that i am in fully acordance with them.

http://www.cree.com/led-components/media/documents/XLampThermalManagement.pdf

Heat generation
LEDs generate visible light when current passes across the junction of the semiconductor chip. However, LEDs are not 100% efficient;
much of the power running through an LED is output as heat, which thus needs to be dissipated. Cree royal blue XLamp LEDs are over 50%
efficient and white XLamp LEDs are over 40% efficient. That is, under normal operating conditions, approximately 50% to 60% of the input
power is output as heat, while the rest of the input power is converted to light. To be conservative, assume LEDs convert 25% of the input
power to light and output 75% of the input power as heat. This estimate varies depending on current density, brightness and component,
but is a good estimate for thermal design. Equation 1 below shows how to calculate the thermal power.

Pt = 0.75 Vf
If
Equation 1: Thermal power calculation
where:
Pt
is the thermal power (W)
Vf
is the forward voltage of the LED (V)
I
f
is the source current to the LED (A)
The Vf
and If
can be measured directly or calculated from the PCT, so the thermal power can easily be calculated. This is the amount of
power the system/heat sink must dissipate.


Notes
• Cree maintains a tolerance of ±7% on flux and power measurements, ±0.005 on chromaticity (CCx, CCy) measurements and a tolerance of ±2 on CRI
measurements.

115.8w/264w is 44% of input power being used as heat, or another way, the Light is 56%.

@Raging Stalk ? How do you measure the part of heat that is emitted on the front side ?
You forgot to add it to the 115.8W from the back side - right ? Buy condoms brother !

 

[frica]

No - why shouldn`t i believe in a self tested result, which is e
asy and simple to measure.
Everybody can copy this test in 20 min. it`s not complicated - just do it.

Even if 10% - 30% of the light energy would be lost in the water and get converted into heat -
wouldn`t explain 80% heat energy in total as in a coolmac led system you can store ~ 60%
of total input as heat energy if you tap it only from the backside of the chip and let the light stream free to the room.

A

Why are you assuming only 10-30% of the light energy will be lost?
Why don't you think it's possible it's way more?

Do you understand internal reflections?

You have no way to know how much light energy is actually being lost in the condom.

A sphere is far more accurate than your test.


Why would I trust your test over a sphere measurement from Cree?

You reasoning goes like this: My test is easy and simple to measure therefore perfect (or close enough) therefore if my values are different than the sphere measured values from Cree that must mean Cree are lying through their ass.

It doesn't work that way especially since you don't seem to factor in internal reflections, just transmittance of the water.
A sphere test is far more accurate and has only 1 variable.
Cree has tested their chip to be on average 57% efficient at .35A and a junction temp of 85c.

You have given zero reasons why a condom wrapped around a LED is as or more accurate than a sphere.
I don't even know if you understand internal reflections.

 

[mahiluana]

Why don't you think it's possible it's way more?

Because in day light an ocean is blue and not red.
You can measure (blue)day light still at 1000m deepth under water.
And not only an expert can tell you that 4cm of water is nothing to stop it -
just have a look with scuba glasses in your bathtube

this is only 3mm of water inbetween

I don't even know if you understand internal reflections.

Together with THC this can led me directly to *brain storming*

this is the data from cree page - is this fake or not ???

http://pct.cree.com/dt/index.html

0.350 A ......................here is the data for the mentioned XTE royal blue @350mA
650.7 Led lm............. data for lumens must be fake. Several other blue data also - compare to
619.7 lm/W................ XM-L wich seems to be more real.
3 Vf
1.05 Led W

If you please can scroll up to read again what Cree said about thermal power -

Pt = 0.75*If*Vf

So up to you now with internal reflections

 

[frica]

Because in day light an ocean is blue and not red.
You can measure (blue)day light still at 1000m deepth under water.
And not only an expert can tell you that 4cm of water is nothing to stop it -
just have a look with scuba glasses in your bathtube
this is only 3mm of water inbetween

And again you are not accounting internal reflections that will happen inside the water filled condom.

Pt = 0.75*If*Vf

It's a conservative estimate:
"To be conservative, assume LEDs convert 25% of the input power to light and output 75% of the input power as heat."


This is what Cree has said a couple of lines above it:
Cree royal blue XLamp LEDs are over 50% efficient and white XLamp LEDs are over 40% efficient. That is, under normal operating conditions approximately 50% to 60% of the input power is output as heat, while the rest of the input power is converted to light.

pct.cree.com is just a calculator.

http://www.cree.com/led-components/products/xlamp-leds-discrete/xlamp-xt-e-royal-blue/
the XLamp® XT-E Royal Blue LED delivers up to 575 mW at 350 mA and 85°C.

That's at least 50% efficient since it's an 1 watt chip at 0.35mA.

This is a internal reflection, if light at a certain angle goes from water to air, it will get reflected back

First a portion of the light that goes from the water to the latex condom will be reflected back into the water, then a portion from the latex condom to air will be reflected back..

Do you know how fiber optics work?

You haven't accounted for the internal reflections, so your test is almost completely worthless.

Tell me, why would your test be better than a sphere measurement?

Or are you claiming Cree is lying about the flux output by a factor of more than 2?

 

[mahiluana]

Sorry man - OSRAM say it again.

https://ledlight.osram-os.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/OSRAM-OS_LED-FUNDAMENTALS_Thermal-Characteristics-of-LEDs_v2_08-16-11_SCRIPT.pdf

better than a sphere measurement?

I`m more interested in heat efficiency of a led chip rather than light efficiency.
Everybody can measure the same amount of heat that i measured. 75-80%.
Doesn`t matter if you drive the chip @100% or 20% current.
My reference for 100% input power is Vf * If

Your internal reflection about fiber optics has nothing to do with heat production.
450nm is not a microwave that heats your coffee up.

To pretend that half of your blue light energy disapears in the water and change into heat is just silly.

 

[frica]

Sorry man - OSRAM say it again.

https://ledlight.osram-os.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/OSRAM-OS_LED-FUNDAMENTALS_Thermal-Characteristics-of-LEDs_v2_08-16-11_SCRIPT.pdf



I`m more interested in heat efficiency of a led chip rather than light efficiency.
Everybody can measure the same amount of heat that i measured. 75-80%.
Doesn`t matter if you drive the chip @100% or 20% current.
My reference for 100% input power is Vf * If

Your internal reflection about fiber optics has nothing to do with heat production.
450nm is not a microwave that heats your coffee up.

To pretend that half of your blue light energy disapears in the water and change into heat is just silly.

To just disregard internal reflections is stupid and you are clearly lacking some understanding.

If a sphere measurement concludes that a led is 55% efficient then the other 45% must ultimately be heat energy.

If your condom gets heated more than what a sphere measurement would make you assume then clearly there's a lot of lightlloss inside the water filled condom which is properly explained by internal reflections trapping the light.

 

[mahiluana]

lacking some understanding.

HELP !!! - extraterrestians radiating unknown amounts of a new, blue energy into my condoms. --------------------------- OSRAM say, that my girl can get pregnant anyway.-------------------------------------------------CREE now is waiting for DNA-test of the liquid - to proof the
presence of little blue eggs. ---------------------Should i still believe in the "easter bunny" ???

pct.cree.com is just a calculator.

To public data on the own site, which is obviously not true and 1000% over the real value
- is not professional.
So what can you calculate with this shit ???
And when will they correct this nonsence ???

You can compare other blue cree chips ( - and you will find only Cree XLamp ML-E {Blue}
with realistic data. All other blue chips`datasheet is faked.

0.350 A ......................here is the data for your mentioned XTE royal blue @350mA
650.7 Led lm............. data for lumens must be fake. Several other blue data also - compare to
619.7 lm/W................ XM-L wich seems to be more real.
3 Vf
1.05 Led W

0.500 A ..................... i measured the heat of XT-E @ 500mA with 3,08 V for ten minutes
888.5 Led lm............. and i received 1,3W of heat power. That means around 80% heat power
574.7 lm/W................ from input.
3.09 Vf
1.546 Led W

clearly there's a lot of lightlloss inside

YOUR BRAIN

 

[frica]

HELP !!! - extraterrestians radiating unknown amounts of a new, blue energy into my condoms. --------------------------- OSRAM say, that my girl can get pregnant anyway.-------------------------------------------------CREE now is waiting for DNA-test of the liquid - to proof the
presence of little blue eggs. ---------------------Should i still believe in the "easter bunny" ???




To public data on the own site, which is obviously not true and 1000% over the real value
- is not professional.
So what can you calculate with this shit ???
And when will they correct this nonsence ???

You can compare other blue cree chips ( - and you will find only Cree XLamp ML-E {Blue}
with realistic data. All other blue chips`datasheet is faked.

0.350 A ......................here is the data for your mentioned XTE royal blue @350mA
650.7 Led lm............. data for lumens must be fake. Several other blue data also - compare to
619.7 lm/W................ XM-L wich seems to be more real.
3 Vf
1.05 Led W

0.500 A ..................... i measured the heat of XT-E @ 500mA with 3,08 V for ten minutes
888.5 Led lm............. and i received 1,3W of heat power. That means around 80% heat power
574.7 lm/W................ from input.
3.09 Vf
1.546 Led W



YOUR BRAIN

This is what Cree has to say about their calculator:

"This PCT is offered for informational purposes only to assist with selecting LED models for lighting systems and is not a warranty or a specification. For LED product specifications, please see the data sheets available at http://www.cree.com/xlamp. For warranty information, please contact Cree Sales at XLampSales@cree.com."

Cree has sphere tested their XTE Royal Blue to be up to 57% efficient at .35A.
http://www.cree.com/led-components/media/documents/XLampXTE-15A.pdf

The "pct.cree.com" is just as quoted by Cree "for informational purposes only to assist with selecting LED models for lighting systems and is not a warranty or a specification"

Also for the xth time, you don't account for internal reflections which makes your test basically worthless.

It's never going to be more accurate than a sphere test anyway.
You can measure the light that is put out, and the rest must be heat.
If a 1W Royal Blue is measured to put out 550 mw of light, then it must be 55% efficient and put out 450mw directly as heat energy.

 

[Shugglet]

YOUR BRAIN

This is not a counterpoint. This is "I have no response so Im going to spew utter nonsense and refuse to accept what you say may be true".

Your biggest problem is the fact that you make major assumptions in regards to your test setups.

Anytime you make assumptions you add to your error margins. If at the end of your tests you are left with error margins of 50% etc, are you conclusions worth anything?

 

[mahiluana]

You can measure the light that is put out, and the rest must be heat.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_efficacy#cite_ref-max_7-1

The most important : have a look and trust WIKI

no response??

Luminous efficacy of radiation

Wavelengths of light outside of the visible spectrum are not useful for illumination because they cannot be seen by the human eye. Furthermore, the eye responds more to some wavelengths of light than others, even within the visible spectrum. This response of the eye is represented by the luminosity function. This is a standardized function which represents the response of a "typical" eye under bright conditions (photopic vision). One can also define a similar curve for dim conditions (scotopic vision). When neither is specified, photopic conditions are generally assumed.

Luminous efficacy of radiation measures the fraction of electromagnetic power which is useful for lighting. It is obtained by dividing the luminous flux by the radiant flux. Light with wavelengths outside the visible spectrum reduces luminous efficacy, because it contributes to the radiant flux while the luminous flux of such light is zero. Wavelengths near the peak of the eye's response contribute more strongly than those near the edges.

Photopic luminous efficacy of radiation has a maximum possible value of 683 lm/W, for the case of monochromatic light at a wavelength of 555 nm (green). Scotopic luminous efficacy of radiation reaches a maximum of 1700 lm/W for monochromatic light at a wavelength of 507 nm.

Lighting efficiency
Main article: Wall-plug efficiency
Artificial light sources are usually evaluated in terms of luminous efficacy of the source, also sometimes called wall-plug efficacy. This is the ratio between the total luminous flux emitted by a device and the total amount of input power (electrical, etc.) it consumes. The luminous efficacy of the source is a measure of the efficiency of the device with the output adjusted to account for the spectral response curve (the luminosity function). When expressed in dimensionless form (for example, as a fraction of the maximum possible luminous efficacy), this value may be called luminous efficiency of a source, overall luminous efficiency or lighting efficiency.

The main difference between the luminous efficacy of radiation and the luminous efficacy of a source is that the latter accounts for input energy that is lost as heat or otherwise exits the source as something other than electromagnetic radiation. Luminous efficacy of radiation is a property of the radiation emitted by a source. Luminous efficacy of a source is a property of the source as a whole.

Examples[edit]
The following table lists luminous efficacy of a source and efficiency for various light sources. Note that all lamps requiring electrical/electronic ballast are unless noted (see also voltage) listed without losses for that, reducing total efficiency.

Category
Type
Overall
luminous efficacy (lm/W) Overall
luminous efficiency[note 1]
Combustion candle 0.3[note 6] 0.04%
gas mantle 1–2[14] 0.15–0.3%
Incandescent 100–200 W tungsten incandescent (230 V) 13.8[15]–15.2[16] 2–2.2%
100–200–500 W tungsten glass halogen (230 V) 16.7[17]–17.6[16]–19.8[16] 2.4–2.6–2.9%
5–40–100 W tungsten incandescent (120 V) 5–12.6[18]–17.5[18] 0.7–1.8–2.6%
2.6 W tungsten glass halogen (5.2 V) 19.2[19] 2.8%
tungsten quartz halogen (12–24 V) 24 3.5%
photographic and projection lamps 35[20] 5.1%
Light-emitting diode white LED (raw, without power supply) 4.5–150 [21][22][23][24] 0.66–22%
4.1 W LED screw base lamp (120 V) 58.5–82.9[25] 8.6–12%
5.4 W LED screw base lamp (100 V 50/60 Hz) 101.9[26] 14.9%
6.9 W LED screw base lamp (120 V) 55.1–81.9[25] 8.1–12%
7 W LED PAR20 (120 V) 28.6[27] 4.2%
7 W LED PAR30 (110-230 V) 60[28] 8.8%
8.7 W LED screw base lamp (120 V) 69–93.1[25][29] 10.1–13.6%
Theoretical limit for a white LED with phosphorescence color mixing 260–300[30] 38.1–43.9%

Ideal sources Truncated 5800 K blackbody[note 3] 251[7] 37%
Green light at 555 nm (maximum possible luminous efficacy) 683.002[11] 100%

 

[Shugglet]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_efficacy#cite_ref-max_7-1

The most important : have a look and trust WIKI




Wall of text.

This doesnt help your argument.

As for your table at the bottom listing the screw base LEDs... You should check the footnotes that refer to those values. All of the references are at least 4 years old...

 

[mahiluana]

doesnt help your argument.

it should help to your understanding - not helping my arguments - this !! is my argument.
If you read it again ?

Bueno un filete para el Senor:

The main difference between the luminous efficacy of radiation and the luminous efficacy of a source is that the latter accounts for input energy that is lost as heat or otherwise exits the source as something other than electromagnetic radiation. Luminous efficacy of radiation is a property of the radiation emitted by a source. Luminous efficacy of a source is a property of the source as a whole.[/QUOTE]

 

[Shugglet]

Theoretical limit for a white LED with phosphorescence color mixing 260–300[30] 38.1–43.9%

Ideal sources Truncated 5800 K blackbody[note 3] 251[7] 37%
Green light at 555 nm (maximum possible luminous efficacy) 683.002[11] 100%

I think Im starting to see where the root of your misunderstanding lies.

You dont compare every LED to the max possible green light, you compare it to the same color temp.

So if you had a 5800k chip that put out 251 lumens it would be 100% efficiency, not 37% efficient...

 

[Shugglet]

The main difference between the luminous efficacy of radiation and the luminous efficacy of a source is that the latter accounts for input energy that is lost as heat or otherwise exits the source as something other than electromagnetic radiation. Luminous efficacy of radiation is a property of the radiation emitted by a source. Luminous efficacy of a source is a property of the source as a whole.

I dont think any of us are confused on these definitions.

 

[Shugglet]

@mahiluana What are your drivers efficiency?

Also, when people talk COB efficiency on this forum, it is specifically COB, not COB and driver.

 

[frica]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_efficacy#cite_ref-max_7-1

The most important : have a look and trust WIKI





Luminous efficacy of radiation

Wavelengths of light outside of the visible spectrum are not useful for illumination because they cannot be seen by the human eye. Furthermore, the eye responds more to some wavelengths of light than others, even within the visible spectrum. This response of the eye is represented by the luminosity function. This is a standardized function which represents the response of a "typical" eye under bright conditions (photopic vision). One can also define a similar curve for dim conditions (scotopic vision). When neither is specified, photopic conditions are generally assumed.

Luminous efficacy of radiation measures the fraction of electromagnetic power which is useful for lighting. It is obtained by dividing the luminous flux by the radiant flux. Light with wavelengths outside the visible spectrum reduces luminous efficacy, because it contributes to the radiant flux while the luminous flux of such light is zero. Wavelengths near the peak of the eye's response contribute more strongly than those near the edges.

Photopic luminous efficacy of radiation has a maximum possible value of 683 lm/W, for the case of monochromatic light at a wavelength of 555 nm (green). Scotopic luminous efficacy of radiation reaches a maximum of 1700 lm/W for monochromatic light at a wavelength of 507 nm.

Lighting efficiency
Main article: Wall-plug efficiency
Artificial light sources are usually evaluated in terms of luminous efficacy of the source, also sometimes called wall-plug efficacy. This is the ratio between the total luminous flux emitted by a device and the total amount of input power (electrical, etc.) it consumes. The luminous efficacy of the source is a measure of the efficiency of the device with the output adjusted to account for the spectral response curve (the luminosity function). When expressed in dimensionless form (for example, as a fraction of the maximum possible luminous efficacy), this value may be called luminous efficiency of a source, overall luminous efficiency or lighting efficiency.

The main difference between the luminous efficacy of radiation and the luminous efficacy of a source is that the latter accounts for input energy that is lost as heat or otherwise exits the source as something other than electromagnetic radiation. Luminous efficacy of radiation is a property of the radiation emitted by a source. Luminous efficacy of a source is a property of the source as a whole.

Examples[edit]
The following table lists luminous efficacy of a source and efficiency for various light sources. Note that all lamps requiring electrical/electronic ballast are unless noted (see also voltage) listed without losses for that, reducing total efficiency.

Category
Type
Overall
luminous efficacy (lm/W) Overall
luminous efficiency[note 1]
Combustion candle 0.3[note 6] 0.04%
gas mantle 1–2[14] 0.15–0.3%
Incandescent 100–200 W tungsten incandescent (230 V) 13.8[15]–15.2[16] 2–2.2%
100–200–500 W tungsten glass halogen (230 V) 16.7[17]–17.6[16]–19.8[16] 2.4–2.6–2.9%
5–40–100 W tungsten incandescent (120 V) 5–12.6[18]–17.5[18] 0.7–1.8–2.6%
2.6 W tungsten glass halogen (5.2 V) 19.2[19] 2.8%
tungsten quartz halogen (12–24 V) 24 3.5%
photographic and projection lamps 35[20] 5.1%
Light-emitting diode white LED (raw, without power supply) 4.5–150 [21][22][23][24] 0.66–22%
4.1 W LED screw base lamp (120 V) 58.5–82.9[25] 8.6–12%
5.4 W LED screw base lamp (100 V 50/60 Hz) 101.9[26] 14.9%
6.9 W LED screw base lamp (120 V) 55.1–81.9[25] 8.1–12%
7 W LED PAR20 (120 V) 28.6[27] 4.2%
7 W LED PAR30 (110-230 V) 60[28] 8.8%
8.7 W LED screw base lamp (120 V) 69–93.1[25][29] 10.1–13.6%
Theoretical limit for a white LED with phosphorescence color mixing 260–300[30] 38.1–43.9%

Ideal sources Truncated 5800 K blackbody[note 3] 251[7] 37%
Green light at 555 nm (maximum possible luminous efficacy) 683.002[11] 100%

Luminous efficacy/efficiency isn't the same as overal efficiency.

Lumens are for our eyes, which are most sensitive to green.

If an 1W Royal Blue LED puts out 550mw of 460nm light, it's still 55% efficient. Even if it doesn't put out 375 lumens.
Plants don't have eyes, lumens are purely for human eyes.
No light source, even if it's 100% efficient can reach 683 lm/w unless it only puts out 555nm light. (ignoring scotopic vision)


Or another example.
If I had an UV-C LED that can somehow convert all energy going in into light (200nm for example), are you going to argue it's 0% efficient because it puts out 0lm/w (we can't see light of that wavelength)

You have literally no arguments left and now you start misinterpreting shit.

Or are you playing some semantic game right now?

 

[mahiluana]

You still - don`t understand the main difference between the luminous efficacy of radiation and the luminous efficacy of a source. That means the latter accounts for input energy that is lost as heat or otherwise exits the source as something other than electromagnetic radiation. Luminous efficacy of radiation is a property of the radiation emitted by a source. Luminous efficacy of a source is a property of the source as a whole.

With a luminous efficacy of radiation (XTE Royal Blue 57% @ 0.35A.)
you are still around ~25% (24,51%) of luminous efficacy of your source.

If in 10 years - or so - Mr. Nichia or Cree or whoever will patent a blue light source with 100% luminous efficacy of radiation it will only have a luminous efficacy of the source ~ 43% and still produce ~57% of heat.

You still believe(d) that your (XTE Royal Blue 57% @ 0.35A.) converts
only 43% of P = Vf*If into heat and - that`s NOT CORRECT.

You dream(ed) about a led chip,that doesn`t produce heat - this is NOT POSSIBLE.

I still believe that a led will always produce heat with a min. @ 57% heat efficacy.
43% /100 *57 = 24,51% for your blue XTE and pretty exactly what i measured with my condom.

So even maybe in ten years with the highest luminous efficacy possible - i am able to double energy efficiency with a watercooled lamp.

Simply adding 1+1=2

Luminous efficacy 43% + 80% of the produced heat(57%*80%) = 88,6% energy efficient.

My Coolmac system in the moment stands where your blue chip stands:

Luminous efficacy 24,51% + 80% of the produced heat(76,49%*80%) = 85,638% energy efficient.

Hope you guy check this at the end and realize that watercooled led is not only a "little"
revolution in light tec - but also a powerfull tool to combat climate change and have enormous savings. A smart world with watercooled led light could save 10% primary energy(oil, gas, electricity...)

you start misinterpreting shit

and you start to stand in your spiritual desert with or without your internal reflections -
and i just don`t care...

 

[frica]

You still - don`t understand the main difference between the luminous efficacy of radiation and the luminous efficacy of a source. That means the latter accounts for input energy that is lost as heat or otherwise exits the source as something other than electromagnetic radiation. Luminous efficacy of radiation is a property of the radiation emitted by a source. Luminous efficacy of a source is a property of the source as a whole.

With a luminous efficacy of radiation (XTE Royal Blue 57% @ 0.35A.)
you are still around ~25% (24,51%) of luminous efficacy of your source.

If in 10 years - or so - Mr. Nichia or Cree or whoever will patent a blue light source with 100% luminous efficacy of radiation it will only have a luminous efficacy of the source ~ 43% and still produce ~57% of heat.

You still believe(d) that your (XTE Royal Blue 57% @ 0.35A.) converts
only 43% of P = Vf*If into heat and - that`s NOT CORRECT.

You dream(ed) about a led chip,that doesn`t produce heat - this is NOT POSSIBLE.

I still believe that a led will always produce heat with a min. @ 57% heat efficacy.
43% /100 *57 = 24,51% for your blue XTE and pretty exactly what i measured with my condom.

So even maybe in ten years with the highest luminous efficacy possible - i am able to double energy efficiency with a watercooled lamp.

Simply adding 1+1=2

Luminous efficacy 43% + 80% of the produced heat(57%*80%) = 88,6% energy efficient.

My Coolmac system in the moment stands where your blue chip stands:

Luminous efficacy 24,51% + 80% of the produced heat(76,49%*80%) = 85,638% energy efficient.

Hope you guy check this at the end and realize that watercooled led is not only a "little"
revolution in light tec - but also a powerfull tool to combat climate change and have enormous savings. A smart world with watercooled led light could save 10% primary energy(oil, gas, electricity...)



and you start to stand in your spiritual desert with or without your internal reflections -
and i just don`t care...

Luminous efficacy is how well a light produces visible light.
Which is determined not just by how well the source produces light but also how well the emitted light is detected by the human eye.

It's for humans, and just humans.

A XTE Royal Blue at 0.35A puts out up to 575mw of radiant flux.
It consumes 1w, so it must be 57% efficient at putting out radiation in the specified nm range.

And I have been talking about the radiant efficiency all this time, lumens are for human eyes.



Again tell me.
"If I had an UV-C LED that can somehow convert all energy going in into light (200nm for example), are you going to argue it's 0% efficient because it puts out 0lm/w (we can't see light of that wavelength)"

Or to make it more realistic.
If I had an UV-C led that consumes 1W and it puts out 250 mw of 200nm light.
Are you arguing that it must be in fact 0% efficient since the luminous efficacy is 0lm/w?

 

[Shugglet]

Luminous efficacy 43% + 80% of the produced heat(57%*80%) = 88,6% energy efficient.

How did you determine you capture 80% of the heat produced? The condom experiment doesnt really carry over well to your coolmac system if thats what your basing it on...