320w QB vs 300w Vero COB, what do you choose?

nfhiggs said:

Not even close, really. Maybe we are not looking at the same simulator?

Click to expand...

I guess it's more like the simulator for the Q-series is completely unreliable. Indeed I see it produces incredibly unlikely numbers and wild swings with small changes.

Do people still use 3500K though?



Better efficacy for the F-series at the Q-series test scenario and same efficacy when given 20% more power to the F.

:edit: Perhaps they have a different SPD too. In that case comparing on lm/W could be warping the numbers too.

In the real world the 540mA one would run hotter.. add some heat to that side's calculator.

ANC said:

In the real world the 540mA one would run hotter.. add some heat to that side's calculator.

Click to expand...

In the real world you could use a 20% bigger alu U-profile to compensate. To be honest, I doubt either of them will ever run at 40C.

Anyway, like I said already, all this nitpicking on slight differences in efficacy (going both ways) is completely besides the point. The point is, there barely is a difference between Q and F series on efficacy and cost.

The real difference is in practicality.

A grow room bigger than 2x2 is going to need annoyingly large amounts of those 10W Q-series 2' strips. You'd need 40 of them already for something as simple as a 400W light. Even when you run them at maximum rated current you would still need 20. Only the biggest proponents of the "more spread is more better" belief would go for that kind of bother.

wietefras said:

The point is, there barely is a difference between Q and F series on efficacy and cost.

Click to expand...

On efficacy, yes, but cost per strip is lower on the Q - by about $2 for the 22". - and running them hotter - up to 900 mA - shows you really don't need a larger number of strips

I think our contrary results were just the fact that we were looking at to different CCT's. The 3000K favors the F series ever so slightly (at equal currents), while the 3500K favors the Q series by a bit larger margin.

Depending on the price point the real game changer may turn out to be the H-influx strips.

nfhiggs said:

On efficacy, yes, but cost per strip is lower on the Q

Click to expand...

That's still not how that works.

wietefras said:

That's still not how that works.

Click to expand...

If the strips will put out nearly equal efficacy and light levels at a given current (900 mA and lower), then yes it IS how it works. I can replace six F strips with six cheaper Q strips, run them with the exact same driver and get the same results (within a few percentage point of variance). I'm simply replacing a softy run strip with one running harder. The only drawback is I can't run them as hard as I can run the F series. I don't see that as a negative unless I am trying to cut the cost to the bare minimum - in that instance the F strips win out. But if the cheapest option is your goal then you may as well use HPS, no?

nfhiggs said:

If the strips will put out nearly equal efficacy and light levels at a given current (900 mA and lower), then yes it IS how it works.

Click to expand...

Come on man, it's clear the Q simulator is broken from 3500K and up. You don't get 6% extra efficacy going from 3000K to 3500K. That's what you would get for going from 3000K to 4000K. Actually not even then.

:edit: It's obvious they shifted the data incorrectly for the Q-series. The 4000K data ended up in the 3500K slot and the 5000K data in the 4000K and 5000K slots. Yes 4000K and 5000K are the same for the Q-series simulator. So let's stick with 3000K, which is what people would use anyway.

But if the cheapest option is your goal then you may as well use HPS, no?

Click to expand...

Again, that is not how it works. The way to properly compare led strips is by comparing them on equal efficacy. Or if that is impossible or not sensible, you'd need to add running costs for a number of years. That's where HPS loses out.

Anyway, since no one is going to be running these strips at 10W anyway, lets look at more reasonable figures at 900mA:


40% more watts for the F-series even. That's not even a little bit anymore. It's blowing the Q-series out of the water.

wietefras said:

o let's stick with 3000K, which is what people would use anyway.

Click to expand...

Plenty of people choose 3500K so I will dispute the second part of that, but for arguments sake, fine, lets just consider the 3000k numbers since the calculator does have duplicated values at 4000k and 5000k for the Q's.

Even with the 3000K the favorability of the F strip is MARGINAL at 900 mA and below when the currents are equal. You're looking at efficacies of 188.7 vs 186.7 lm/w at 450mA and 1866 vs 1840 lumens. That difference is well inside the statistical variation of the mini/max values and can be ignored for all *practical purposes*. Again, at equal currents BELOW 900mA, they are effectively a one for one replacement - a one percent difference is statistically irrelevant when published flux variation is something like 7%. Yes, the F's can be pushed MUCH harder and as such you can use fewer of them to minimize build cost while sacrificing some efficacy - I don't argue that point at all. But at LOW currents they are EFFECTIVELY a 1-1 replacement - maybe not EXACTLY, but the differences are small enough that they really don't matter.

nfhiggs said:

Even with the 3000K the favorability of the F strip is MARGINAL at 900 mA and below when the currents are equal. You're looking at efficacies of 188.7 vs 186.7 lm/w at 450mA and 1866 vs 1840 lumens.

Click to expand...

Again, that's not how it works. You need to compare them at equal efficacy. To get 10% higher efficacy means you need to reduce the power by 50%. That's where the real difference is.

So lets look at equal efficacy. The F-series can handle 20% more power at 186.7lm/W and 40% more watts at 171.8lm/W. So you need less of them and that means they compensate for the price difference and then some.

You were the one who kept on arguing there was a minute advantage for the Q series. Now it turns out that was a data error and in fact the F-series is marginally ahead and suddenly you argue that 20% or 40% difference is not worth noting?

Anyway, perhaps finally this useless nitpicking can be over then so we can circle back to what was my actual point all along .... even though the Q series is marketed as superior in efficacy, according to the working part of the datasheet that's apparently not the case and there is no significant difference in efficacy and price at all.

So we are left with practicality which is where the F-series and it's double row strips are miles ahead for anything bigger than a micro grow or perhaps a small VEG light.

There is yet again, more to this...
http://dev.edman007.com/~edman007/pub/par-dli-cal.html

Punch in some imaginary lumen value into this calculator.
Go to the bottom to check DLI or PPFD or whatever, now adjust spectrum from 3k to 4k etc...
Check the values again

wietefras said:

You need to compare them at equal efficacy

Click to expand...

No, I really don't. I can make any comparison I wish. You just don't want to accept that. I am not comparing efficacy - I am merely NOTING very similar efficacy. I am comparing TOTAL LIGHT OUTPUT at the same current and (very nearly) the same wattage (there is a 0.1W difference). And it is almost the same to within 1% - and that equates to a one for one replacement when running at 900 mA and below. Really, what part of that do you not get? Its just like replacing 100W incandescent bulbs with 14W LED bulbs in my house - I don't need to match efficacy numbers to compare them, I just want to know if they put out the same amount of light when I plug them in.

Again, yes, the F strips are the obvious choice if you want use fewer strips as possible - but if you want to run at higher efficacies you *can* do so with the Q strips for a couple bucks less per strip.

You are the one nitpicking over fractions of efficacy numbers when that's not what I am actually looking at..

What makes the 100W strip useful is the fact that there is 100W of it.

wietefras said:

Yes exactly

Click to expand...

Thanks. What would be the cheapest driver to run just 2 strips, LPC-100-350? I figure I might as well get 10 and add the other 2 to my HPS chamber.

nfhiggs said:

No, I really don't. I can make any comparison I wish.

Click to expand...

Sure you can but it's pointless.

You are the one nitpicking over fractions of efficacy numbers when that's not what I am actually looking at..

Click to expand...

No, I'm clearly not, you keep droning on and on and on and on about this.

if you want to run at higher efficacies you *can* do so with the Q strips for a couple bucks less per strip.

Click to expand...

See? There you go again. And you are still wrong about this. Seriously what is your problem? You know what, I don't care what your problem is.

DazeHazy said:

Thanks. What would be the cheapest driver to run just 2 strips, LPC-100-350? I figure I might as well get 10 and add the other 2 to my HPS chamber.

Click to expand...

That's a 350mA driver though.

On Digikey you can use their parametric search to find suitable drivers:
https://www.digikey.com/products/en/power-supplies-external-internal-off-board/led-drivers/137?k=&pkeyword=&pv1120=640&FV=fffc074a,mu100W|2187,mu101W|2187,mu102W|2187,mu120W|2187,mu90W|2187,mu95W|2187,mu96W|2187,mu97W|2187,mu99W|2187,ffe00089&quantity=0&ColumnSort=1000011&page=1&pageSize=25

Although one of those doesn't produce an output voltage high enough for two strips.

Anyway, looks like the LPC-100-1050 is the cheapest one yes. Not familiar with these drivers myself, but the biggest difference looks to be that the LPC can't be dimmed and the ELG can.

I have never tried the strips but I do think the cobs are pretty fantastic. I have a 2 fixture cob and I think the only thing i am on the fence about is do i keep running my 315 or get a 4 fixture vero at 400 watts. I think they are both very good choices and i have both. I will see how the crystals develop on this round and pull the plug on one or the other.
I like the veros because fire hazard is zero. A blown 315 bulb is not a good thing. That being said quality fixtures and bulbs and proper inspection upon arrival do mitigate worry.

I have also been very tempted to get a 2 panel board to try in a smaller tent. OMG it is so hard to decide with the great lights coming out.

You can build them yourself but I like when Dan puts them together. They look pro and they work pro and I never think about it. All of my lighting paid for itself in a grow or 2 so price is not a thing for me.

But I grow for 100% personal use.

gwheels said:

I like the veros because fire hazard is zero.

Click to expand...

You know you can set fire to stuff with cobs over 80w.

Yes, you can light your cigarettes with the light from a COB.
Adding a relay and tilt switch may be a good safety feature.

I singed my hair a little when bumping into a COB, but for setting stuff on fire you need hundreds of degrees. How is that going to happen with a COB attached to a heat sink?

Clarification.....I like veros because fire hazard is less than a blown CMH bulb. Timber made mine.

I might try a samsung board just to see how they work But I will get a kit or fixture. I could build one but i dont mind paying a bit extra and having it all look awesome. And after 1 grow the lights are paid for with my personal consumption savings.

I do have glasses now to use with both the CMH and COB and I am starting to tan so much I might have to go south for an excuse....