New Cree J Series 3030

[Prawn Connery]

I don't know the bloke. I just like the argue

 

[Prawn Connery]

I mean, ahem, "debate".

 

[BuddyColas]

See it from this point.
A 3k Q-Series strips at 450mA needs 9,85w and put's out 187lm/w for 1840mA total(1st screenie).
A 3k F-Series strips at 525mA needs 11,81w but driven low it put's out 187,9lm/w for 2217lm total(screenie 2).

That means F-Series trumps Q-Series in all aspects.
- You can get more watt's,
- more lumens,
- better effiency and
- more diodes, but
- still a better price ..

..from F-Series strips when driven @525mA(58,34mA per diode) and even better when running at the same current.

Only above 62,5mA per diode the Q-Series is more efficient. And the minor differences in spectrum has more or less no effect, both are 3k spectrums, both peaks are in the same range.

These numbers are just copied from another thread:
LM561C - A1/S6 - 3000K @65mA
VF: 2.9V (max)
Flux: 34.5 lm/W (min)
QER: 321.6 lm/W
LER: 4.86 µmol/J
-> 2.766 µmol/J

LM301B - A1/SK - 3000K @65mA
VF: 2.9V (max)
Flux: 36 lm/W (min)
QER: 331.83 lm/W(+3%)
LER: 4.816 µmol/J(-1%)
-> 2.772 µmol/J

And the funny thing is, there are folks who would be up at night having "Efficiency OCD" anxiety over that .006 umol/joule they left on the table!

 

[wietefras]

"Wow. Just wow" is not an argument.

Yes, it is a relative chart - that is why it is called a Relative Intensity vs Wavelength chart.

Yes so the vertical scale is just a random choice really. It's just where the peak is. If I pick another "peak" value it's all relative to that.

It's really just a litle extra blue. That;s how these things work. It's a blue 450nm led with some coating on top to convert that blue light to the rest. So it's all just a little less of this coating so more of the blue shines through.

Mate, if you are going to keep stating "there is only 2% difference in lumen to PAR conversion rates", you really need to provide a basis and methodology for that calculation.

I already explained this over and over. Get alesh's sheet and put the SPD values in it. There is nothing I can "show" about that. Only thing I can give is the outcome. Which I did. At best I can give you the two lumen to par conversion rates. It's 72,9 for the Cree and 71,84 for the Samsung (divide lumen by this factor to get umol/s)

:edit: before I get whining on my head about this. Those were the 400-700nm figures. For the full spectrum values it's 71,28 vs 69,93. That includes all wavelengths from 380 to 780

Usually we only look at regular PAR values, but especially the 90 CRI crowd likes to go go wider since that's where the far red is. I took that as the maximum which is 1.9% difference. So I would always be on the safe side. Since the regular PAR difference is only 1.5%.

 

[wietefras]

I mean, ahem, "debate".

Yeah, it's ok dude. You will get it one day. Might take half a year, but in the end people realize I was right all along. Have seen it plenty of times.

You are so caught up in "being right" at the moment that you cannot listen to reason anymore. Whatever I say must be wrong. Cognitive dissonance.

That's also why I keep jerking you two mice around. I find it hilarious when people just can't seem to figure out how I know what I know. Especially when they accept these values at face value from someone else. Although I had hoped that at least greengenes wouldn't be such a lame duck and he would have figured it out by now. Guess I overestimated him.

Even though this is pretty common knowlegde. You see plenty of people calculating LER and QER from the SPD. Like I said, it's a pretty common thing people do here. Where do you think Randomblame got those QER and LER numbers from? Yet you don't go al postal on him for doing exactly the same. He even just copied it from someone else. Hilarious how these things work

 

[wietefras]

So you come back with ZERO calculations or actual figures.

[/QUOTE]Dude, you have to digitize a chart and pull it through an Excel sheet. All I can do is give the outcome. Which I did and that's all I needed to prove my point.

The fact you cannot understand how I calculated that is not my problem.

Like I said, if you want my help in figuring out something that you should have long known how to do, then you can ask me politely. Or just spend a few seconds using the search function. Seriously, try and figure this out or be very ashamed of yourself. Because you really look silly not knowing how to do this and then huffing and puffing trying to blow my hose down when many people around here know how to do this.

That last line is hysterical. You really cannot see the irony there? You bash everybody here and usually from a basis of ignorance.

 

[Greengenes707]

Dude...I have been a round since well before the thread or alesh had to help people like you. Again...this is not about me, I can do the math. But I am not the you arguing a point with no support other than...”someone can do it”
It’s about you coming into threads like a know it all and providing ZERO substance or support for what you claim. It’s called supporting evidence and is to be shown and cited in the scientific method...aka basic showing and proving with backing, your point. Learn to do it, cause all you are is a substanceless troll.

So again, support you claims and statements with actual figures and calcs...it’s that simple. Now get to work, or go back to your bridge.

You might be too cheap to actually pay for digitizeit and can’t even get point exported. Come on man...step up to the plate.

 

[Prawn Connery]

I already explained this over and over. Get alesh's sheet and put the SPD values in it. There is nothing I can "show" about that. Only thing I can give is the outcome. Which I did. At best I can give you the two lumen to par conversion rates. It's 72,9 for the Cree and 71,84 for the Samsung (divide lumen by this factor to get umol/s)

:edit: before I get whining on my head about this. Those were the 400-700nm figures. For the full spectrum values it's 71,28 vs 69,93. That includes all wavelengths from 380 to 780

Usually we only look at regular PAR values, but especially the 90 CRI crowd likes to go go wider since that's where the far red is. I took that as the maximum which is 1.9% difference. So I would always be on the safe side. Since the regular PAR difference is only 1.5%.

That's interesting. So perhaps you could explain what "area under the graph" means in the following context and why it doesn't apply to your rescaled graph (which, coincidentally, altered the area under the graph)?

View attachment 3405761 is the area under the View attachment 3405762 graph (SPD multiplied by luminosity function).

View attachment 3405763 is area under the SPD graph.

https://www.rollitup.org/t/math-behind.868988/

While we're on the subject, care to share the SPD values you "digitised" for the Cree and Samsung chips? Once we have those values, we can work out it for ourselves. You obviously have them on hand, as you just stated - right?

 

[wietefras]

Again...this is not about me, I can do the math.

Ha, ha, that's even more hysterical. Just give up the pretense.

If that were true, why not calculate it yourself and show how wrong my numbers were?

Besides, if you actually knew these things you would have known that you need QER too and not just LER

 

[Greengenes707]

Ha, ha, that's even more hysterical. Just give up the pretense.

If that were true, why not calculate it yourself and show how wrong my numbers were?

Besides, if you actually knew these things you would have known that you need QER too and not just LER

It's not my fuckign argument. You're the one that came in here with no evidence or support for what you said. I called you and @Prawn Connery out. He is man enough to see where he was missing it. You are a child that won't support your statements. And now refuse to "because your mentioned a link about it"

So again...I have supported my statement over and over...you are a troll with no support. You have also supported my statement about your supportless trolling. But you have not supported your own statements about the difference in spectrum and how it calcs out...so get to it troll.

 

[wietefras]

That's interesting. So perhaps you could explain what "area under the graph" means in the following context and why it doesn't apply to your rescaled graph (which, coincidentally, altered the area under the graph)?

I'm not doing calculations on "under the graph". I'm simply "comparing the spectrum"

I do have the SPD values yes. That's how I got the numbers and created that combined SPD graph in Excel.

I've been enough of an ass to "poor" greengenes. He looks like he's going to throw pop a gut with all the huffing and puffing. So I have derailed this thread too much already I guess. You can PM me if you want me to explain how to get these figures yourself if it's not already clear from Alesh's thread. I really wouldn't advise using this on COBs/SMDs of similar spectrum, but for the more "exotic" SPDs it can really help. Like those "Meat" decor COBs and such.

 

[Prawn Connery]

You haven't derailed the thread at all. I'm happy for you and anyone else to continue.

At best I can give you the two lumen to par conversion rates. It's 72,9 for the Cree and 71,84 for the Samsung (divide lumen by this factor to get umol/s)

So 72.9 divided by 34.5 lumens = 2.11 umol/s for the Cree and 71.84 divided by 36-38 lumens = 1.99-1.89 umol/s for the LM561C.

They're your figures, right?

I think you misunderstood what I said about "area under the graph/curve". Are you saying that the area under the graph/curve did not change when you rescaled the Cree graph to show how much it was like the Samsung? I'm talking in the context of the above link to alesh's post.

 

[wietefras]

You haven't derailed the thread at all. I'm happy for you and anyone else to continue.


So 72.9 divided by 34.5 lumens = 2.11 umol/s for the Cree and 71.84 divided by 36-38 lumens = 1.99-1.89 umol/s for the LM561C.

No, you divide the lumen by those factors.

So these values would end up around 0,5 umol/s

Normally it would be something like say 160lm/W efficacy and then 2.3 "something" umol/s/W in PAR.

There is a thread with lots of these conversion factors around here as well. For 3000K 80 CRI it's around 70 and "high CRI and/or low K" COB/SMD SPD will generally be lower values and "low CRI high Kelvin" SPDs have higher values.

I think you misunderstood what I said about "area under the graph/curve". Are you saying that the area under the graph/curve did not change when you rescaled the Cree graph to show how much it was like the Samsung? I'm talking in the context of the above link to alesh's post.

Well you can't use that stretched chart for the LER and QER calculations no, but for comparing the spectrum it makes sense to scale it so the bulk matches and only the 450nm base wavelength stands out.

The chart is relative to the peak level being normalized to 1. So it's a completely arbitrary scale anyway. The only reason that Cree chart got squished is because of the higher blue peak.

These charts are confusing too since it can make weaker COBs/SMDs look more powerful than they really are. Just because the scale just doesn't make sense.

It would be more "fair" to normalize the "area under the chart" to the umol/s. Then it's at least related to actual amounts of light emitted, but then you get the endless discussion at which amperage/wattage.

 

[Greengenes707]

I'm not doing calculations on "under the graph". I'm simply "comparing the spectrum"

I do have the SPD values yes. That's how I got the numbers and created that combined SPD graph in Excel.

I've been enough of an ass to "poor" greengenes. He looks like he's going to throw pop a gut with all the huffing and puffing. So I have derailed this thread too much already I guess. You can PM me if you want me to explain how to get these figures yourself if it's not already clear from Alesh's thread. I really wouldn't advise using this on COBs/SMDs of similar spectrum, but for the more "exotic" SPDs it can really help. Like those "Meat" decor COBs and such.

Stop deflecting...your sill on the spot. You have mentioned 2% in this thread. Show where you got that. As well as all the other comparison calculations that are easily shown if you did the first.

And why would anyone PM you for something you didn’t come up with and have shown not one single example of use???

Here is the thread the @wietefras is attempting to use but can’t...
https://www.rollitup.org/t/math-behind.868988/

That is more than you have given and it’s your argument. Step up man

 

[Prawn Connery]

See it from this point.
A 3k Q-Series strips at 450mA needs 9,85w and put's out 187lm/w for 1840mA total(1st screenie).
A 3k F-Series strips at 525mA needs 11,81w but driven low it put's out 187,9lm/w for 2217lm total(screenie 2).

That means F-Series trumps Q-Series in all aspects.
- You can get more watt's,
- more lumens,
- better effiency and
- more diodes, but
- still a better price ..

..from F-Series strips when driven @525mA(58,34mA per diode) and even better when running at the same current.

Only above 62,5mA per diode the Q-Series is more efficient. And the minor differences in spectrum has more or less no effect, both are 3k spectrums, both peaks are in the same range.

These numbers are just copied from another thread:
LM561C - A1/S6 - 3000K @65mA
VF: 2.9V (max)
Flux: 34.5 lm/W (min)
QER: 321.6 lm/W
LER: 4.86 µmol/J
-> 2.766 µmol/J

LM301B - A1/SK - 3000K @65mA
VF: 2.9V (max)
Flux: 36 lm/W (min)
QER: 331.83 lm/W(+3%)
LER: 4.816 µmol/J(-1%)
-> 2.772 µmol/J

Cheers for your help mate. I ended up buying 25x 2' H Series 3000K, as they worked out just a few $ cheaper than the equivalent F Series (8x double or 16x single) but more importantly I can spread the H Series over more U channels to dissipate heat and spread the light. I'll wire them 6p 2s for each board and have bought a couple of HLG-240H-48A drivers to run them. That pretty much replicates my current veg board but with H strips instead of double F strips.

Off to bed and back tomorrow for Round 4

 

[wietefras]

Stop deflecting...your sill on the spot. You have mentioned 2% in this thread. Show where you got that.

It's 71.28499/69.92503 - 1 (using all available wavelengths)

That's not the correct figure perhaps, but one might argue that it is and I like to be on the safe side of things so I'm always right no matter how much people nit pick. Unfortunately that requires people to actually understand the matter.

Otherwise use 72.90060262 / 71.83805704 -1 = 1.5% (for just 400-700nm)

You're welcome.

 

[Greengenes707]

It's 71.28499/69.92503 - 1 (using all available wavelengths)

That's not the correct figure perhaps, but one might argue that it is and I like to be on the safe side of things so I'm always right no matter how much people nit pick. Unfortunately that requires people to actually understand the matter.

Otherwise use 72.90060262 / 71.83805704 -1 = 1.5% (for just 400-700nm)

You're welcome.

No dude, you haven't done anything for me, stop kidding your self. But...you sure are welcome for showing you how to actual communicate a point and support it.
Next time even use some unit. Keep practicing and one day you'll get it.

 

[Yodaweed]

You referenced a spread sheet...that is it. You didn't supply the spread sheet...or even apply to the questions in this thread your arguing. You could have at least linked it if you weren't going to actually use it and make some calculations to validate you guesses, but you didn't. Then you went off on a reductio ad absurdum in that the data sheets aren't accurate enough to do anything with...is that your way out of doign actual calculations??? Pure pretentious ambiguity to deflect from the lack of actual numbers and support in your claims. It's simple...do the calcs and stop talking out your....

Here are all your post, you tell me where you made any actual calculations, what the LER is that you arguing about...and so on. Point out one factual based example you made, one calculation, one hard fact number...I'll wait...





As you can see...you have not used what you asserted(the spreadsheet). You have not supplied any example calculations or actual calculation that you speak about.

And to top it off, you don't need QER, but as I said you could go that far with it. Radiant watts is the even playing field that all chips, even with different or shifted SPD's can be compared on. But you have calculated, supplied, or corrected any of them. You just hypocritically comment. Simple as that. Feel free to supply some actual data driven content for your post. Do the calculations, show them...even just a link to have alesh do them. But you gave nothing, claimed that you did...and have now been called on it and exposed using your own post.
I gave you the out to just do calcs and shut him up(and now me). But you didn't present anything in your support.
You get it???...now do some calcs or go back under your bridge.
I have no dog in this fight except the facts. I called you both out. So get over your ego and support your assertions with actual calculations.

Love it when the guy with the biggest ego on this website tells someone else to get over their ego. Classic pot calling the kettle black.

 

[wietefras]

No dude, you haven't done anything for me, stop kidding your self. But...you sure are welcome for showing you how to actual communicate a point and support it.
Keep practicing and one day you'll get it.

You mean you finally managed to read what I posted in #64 already? Good for you!

How about I just pulled those numbers out of my ass though? Does me quoting two seemingly random numbers offer more proof than just saying it's less than 2% and therefore insignificant?

Maybe next time you want to pretend to be a know it all, make sure you actually know something about the subject. At least you wouldn't need to try so hard to safe face after making dumb remarks.

Either way, you really are a hoot and so easy to rile up Yeah I know, I;m an ass too, but at least I know what I'm talking about MUHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[Greengenes707]

How about I just pulled those numbers out of my ass though? Does me quoting two seemingly random numbers offer more proof than just saying it's less than 2% and therefore insignificant?

No which is why I said maybe use some units. And have also said in multiple post to show your works. But a baby step for you was good enough and honestly your never going to change. You're too cool to be participative in a thread. All you have shown how poor you are at supporting what you say and claim.

Again...this is your argument, not mine. Learn to support your argument.

So like I said already...keep practicing and one day you'll get it.