Citizen Horticultural COB CLU04H - Plant RB
- Thread starter bles
- Start date
can you estimate the photon flux of the luxeon @ 700mA?
DesertHydro
Well-Known Member
looking good man!
NoFucks2Give
Well-Known Member
At 19" (0.5 meter)
L2C5-RM001211E1900 2220K 80 µMole and 3600 lm Datasheet (typ 85°C) 3180 lm @ 1.2 Amp 76 lm/Watt 34V x .700 = 23.8 Watts x 76 lm = 1808 lm
BXRC-17E4000-F-24 1750K 97 CRI 62 µMole and 3000 lm Datasheet (typ 85°C) 2004 lm @ 1.2 Amp 73 lm/Watt 27V x .700 = 18.9 Watts x 73 lm = 1380 lm
Datasheets say Vero 1750 is 76% (1380 /180
of Luxeon based on lm/watt @ 700mA.My measurements say Vero 1750 is 81-83% (PAR-Lumens) of Luxeon. Although I believe my Luxeon Red Meat is damaged from thermal testing.
Using Inverse Square Law
80 µMole @ 19" (0.5 meter) = 20 µMole @ 1 meter,
62 µMole = 15.8 µMole @ 1 meter,
3600 lumens = 900 lm @ 1 meter, and
3000 lm = 750 lm @ 1 meter.
I paid $25.08 for the Luxeon, and $14.58 for the Vero Decor 1750, which is 58% of the Luxeon price. So bottom line, 58% of cost with 80% of performance. But my Luxeon may be damaged. But at 700 mA vs 1200 mA measured flux should have been 70% less where 3180 would become 2200 lm @ 700 mA. 85° C, or 2420 @ 25°C. So the measured and datasheet are close enough to give the measurements validity.
Measurements made with a StellarNet Blue Wave spectrometer with SpectraWiz software.
http://www.stellarnet.us/spectrometers/blue-wave-spectrometer/
Last edited:
numen.talpa
Member
It's very good!
When a harvest?)
When a harvest?)
Last edited:
thinking of turning my 16 cob lights into 20 cob lights so same wattage would help with driver choice as i could reuse the 700mA drivers, hlg 320 for 12 3590s, hlg 185 for 8 of the luxeons
NoFucks2Give
Well-Known Member
Wall Watts DO NOT MATTER! No matter the wall watts, the number of photons per watt remains about the same. 25% increase in watts equates to 25% more photons. The number that matters is the photons per watt. Unfortunately we only get the lumens per watt from the datasheet and lumens has absolutely nothing to do with PAR or number of photons i.e. µMoles.
You are correct, the Vero 1750 appears to be a better value than the Luxeon Red Meat.
wietefras
Well-Known Member
Well your charts are supposed to show "umols". More watts is more umols. So, from the little information you give on what those charts are supposed to show ... WATTS DO MATTER!
If not, then perhaps you should properly label your charts (especially the Y axis) with units to make clear what they are supposed to show.
NoFucks2Give
Well-Known Member
I do not know what chart you are referring to.
You were correct in pointing out the wattage was different between the two LEDs at the same current and the Luxeon cost more.
What I said was regarding your comment on the forward voltage and the wattage. Voltage is fairly fixed so photon flux is current and therefore wattage dependent. Not forward voltage.
I did the math and spelled it out and summed it up when I said Vero cost 58% of the Luxeon but yet had 80% of the Luxeon performance.
Here is where I took the forward voltage out of the picture:
27V x .700 = 18.9 Watts x 73 lm = 1380 lm
34V x .700 = 23.8 Watts x 76 lm = 1808 lm
That is from the datasheet, and my measurements correlated well with the datasheets. My measurements showed 81-83% performance difference and the datasheet showed 80%.
The datasheets also stated 76 lm/watt (Luxeon) and 73 lm/watt (Vero) but that means nothing in terms of photon energy. 73/76 = 96% difference in lumens per watt and that may lead someone to incorrectly believe the Vero and Luxeon have only 4% difference in photon energy. They have a 4% difference in Luminous flux but 20% difference in Radiometric flux.
What I brought to the table is the measured photometric luminance in lumens and the measured photon radiance in µMoles for both devices.
wietefras
Well-Known Member
@NoFucks2Give, So, like I said, watts do matter in those charts. The lines can't be properly compared because they are not for the same wattage.
Not sure what your point is with the voltage being fixed. In fact it's the only thing that differs between those COBs. The current is what is fixed in your measurements. Either way, I was talking about wattage being different, so for that it doesn't matter which is changed. Just that I would say the wattage should be the same to at least keep those lines sort of comparable. So it would be better to drop/raise the current to compensate for changes in voltage.
Although even that makes it difficult to make a proper comparison since a "larger" COB (in he broadest sense of the word) will be more efficient than a "smaller" one at the same wattage, but the price difference can completely turn upside down which one will actually be more efficient in practice.
Which is an even broader cause of people jumping to conclusions based on charts like this. We have seen too many of the "CXB3590 is more efficient than CXB3070" or "Citizen 1825 is more efficient than 1212" arguments here.
Also, what does "80% of the performance" mean? Did you correct that for wattage at least?
And what's up with 73/76 being a "96% difference" and then later a 4% difference. Same with the 81-83% and 80% difference which later probably becomes a 20% difference.
Not sure what your point is with the voltage being fixed. In fact it's the only thing that differs between those COBs. The current is what is fixed in your measurements. Either way, I was talking about wattage being different, so for that it doesn't matter which is changed. Just that I would say the wattage should be the same to at least keep those lines sort of comparable. So it would be better to drop/raise the current to compensate for changes in voltage.
Although even that makes it difficult to make a proper comparison since a "larger" COB (in he broadest sense of the word) will be more efficient than a "smaller" one at the same wattage, but the price difference can completely turn upside down which one will actually be more efficient in practice.
Which is an even broader cause of people jumping to conclusions based on charts like this. We have seen too many of the "CXB3590 is more efficient than CXB3070" or "Citizen 1825 is more efficient than 1212" arguments here.
Also, what does "80% of the performance" mean? Did you correct that for wattage at least?
And what's up with 73/76 being a "96% difference" and then later a 4% difference. Same with the 81-83% and 80% difference which later probably becomes a 20% difference.
NoFucks2Give
Well-Known Member
The bigger issue than the forward voltage is the conversion from lumens to PPF which is wavelength dependent.
I was specifically asked by @sethimus to use 700 mA.
Mounted on the same bar as the Luxeon I had the Vero 1750 and the LDD-700H. I did not feel like pulling out the equipment to adjust the current. I would have rather skipped the Vero device than do the extra work.
It's trivial to convert the wattage and flux to compensate for the difference in forward voltages especially when I have the measurements for lumens and PPF for both CoBs.
The "73/76 being 96%" is just that. The datasheets give 73 (Vero) and 76 lumens (Luxeon) per watt. That's a difference of 4% (73 ÷ 76 = 0.04) where 96% of a value compared to another value is the same as saying a 4% difference in the two values.
That was from these two calculations where I calculated the 700mA Lumens from the datasheet specs.
L2C5-RM001211E1900 2220K 80 µMole and 3600 lm Datasheet (typ 85°C) 3180 lm @ 1.2 Amp 76 lm/Watt 34V x .700 = 23.8 Watts x 76 lm = 1808 lm
BXRC-17E4000-F-24 1750K 97 CRI 62 µMole and 3000 lm Datasheet (typ 85°C) 2004 lm @ 1.2 Amp 73 lm/Watt 27V x .700 = 18.9 Watts x 73 lm = 1380 lm
The 80% was the middle ground between the measured and calculated values of 76% calculated and 83% measured.BXRC-17E4000-F-24 1750K 97 CRI 62 µMole and 3000 lm Datasheet (typ 85°C) 2004 lm @ 1.2 Amp 73 lm/Watt 27V x .700 = 18.9 Watts x 73 lm = 1380 lm
Calculated lumens: 1380 lm Vero / 1808 lm Luxeon (73 ÷ 76 = 0.76) 76%
Measured Luminance 3000 Vero / 3600 Luxeon (3000÷ 3600 = 0.8333) 83%
Measured PPFD 65 µMoles Vero / 80 µMoles Luxeon (65 ÷ 80 = 0.8125) 81%
80% difference in Luminous Energy based on both calculated values from datasheet and the measured lumens for each device.
wietefras
Well-Known Member
Well if you use different wattages for the COBs, it give you an incorrect base for the whole comparison. Which leads to incorrect conclusions to which people then "jump" and I tried to warn about that.
Again, that's not "80% difference", but 20% difference.
73/76 isn't 76% either (it's 96%). Which is what you compared that 80% figure to. It makes no sense at all to average that calculated lumens "difference" back to the measured "difference".
What's worse, again you are comparing raw PPFD and lumen figures without correcting for wattage or even telling us that you didn't. If you measure 65 umol/s/m2 from a COB that receives 18,9W and on the other COB that receives 23.8W you measure 80umol/s/m2. Which one is more efficient then? 20% more light for 25% more watts used?
Apart from it being really confusing that you keep messing up the terminology and calculations like that, you are also completely incorrect in your conclusions. Going on your measurements, watt for watt, the Vero beats the Luxeon a bit. As well as on price by a huge margin. Although you also mention 62 µMole (where I guess you should say µmol/s/m2) instead of 65 and then the Luxeon would be slightly more efficient at that current.
Either way, the differences are well within tolerances used for the datasheets (they usually mention a 6% to 7.5% margin of error on flux figures mention in the datasheet).
You really should try to understand the basics first. Perhaps start by calculating the QER and LER for these COBs.
NoFucks2Give
Well-Known Member
It was never my intention to compare the measured values. I stated the measured values and stated my Luxeon is damaged.
So NO, you go on the measured values.
The only valid data from the Luxeon was the correlation between Luminous Flux and PPFD.
But that is all that is needed. The comparing with the Vero Lumens and PAR was for validity of their Lumen Par ratios.
???? I have no fucks to give so go fuck yourself. It's you that is confused. Sure you found some typos.
Are you always this stupid? Or are you putting in an extra effort today?
Last edited:
wietefras
Well-Known Member
I didn't just find some typo's. Your posts are a complete mess. Both your math and use of terminology is all over the place.
Seriously, try to grasp the basics before posting stupid things like:
Of course you found a minute difference between a lumen comparison (76%) vs a PPFD comparison (82%). So we should all just focus on that. All those errors don't matter.
Well it gets even worse. You completely messed up those calculations too since you forgot to correct for watts used.
In fact it should be
- In lumen 73lm/W vs 76lm/W which is a "96% difference" (or in real math a 4% difference)
- In PPFD it's 65"uMoles"/18.9W=3.44"uMoles"/W vs 80"uMoles"/23.8W=3.28"uMoles"/W which is a "98% difference" (or 2% in real math) in the opposite direction (Vero beats Luxeon).
Since this is well within error margins, the actual "performance" in light/w is really pretty much even between these COBs.
Since the prices differ a huge lot, those tiny differences are moot.
Although you ruined several COBs with your ill handling of them and then you still report your findings as something to base conclusions on. Which are then also completely wrong even if the figures were trustworthy.
It's nice that you try and measure those COBs, but if you mess up the measurements and also in reporting those findings, you are really not doing any good.
You can scream at me, keep moving goalposts and blame shifting, but why not learn something instead and move on?
Seriously, try to grasp the basics before posting stupid things like:
How is the scale the same when one COB draws 25% more watts than another?
No it isn't. Not on efficiency and not on price. You were the one comparing absolute PPFD figures there. While one COB is drawing 25% more watts and then only produces 20% more PPFD in return. I just pointed out that you made that mistake. Don't blame me for your own mistakes.
Yes they do. Especially when you are comparing "uMoles" (where you should use either umoles/s/m2 or PPFD).
Of course you found a minute difference between a lumen comparison (76%) vs a PPFD comparison (82%). So we should all just focus on that. All those errors don't matter.
Well it gets even worse. You completely messed up those calculations too since you forgot to correct for watts used.
In fact it should be
- In lumen 73lm/W vs 76lm/W which is a "96% difference" (or in real math a 4% difference)
- In PPFD it's 65"uMoles"/18.9W=3.44"uMoles"/W vs 80"uMoles"/23.8W=3.28"uMoles"/W which is a "98% difference" (or 2% in real math) in the opposite direction (Vero beats Luxeon).
Since this is well within error margins, the actual "performance" in light/w is really pretty much even between these COBs.
Since the prices differ a huge lot, those tiny differences are moot.
Although you ruined several COBs with your ill handling of them and then you still report your findings as something to base conclusions on. Which are then also completely wrong even if the figures were trustworthy.
It's nice that you try and measure those COBs, but if you mess up the measurements and also in reporting those findings, you are really not doing any good.
You can scream at me, keep moving goalposts and blame shifting, but why not learn something instead and move on?
Randomblame
Well-Known Member
I could not more agree...
Wrong interpretation and math!
It is better to rethink the own Logic than to being offensive... Think about your karma ...
And the comparisons are already useless because your Luxeon is damaged.
Last edited:
numen.talpa
Member
Hi! What are the results? What is your opinion about Citizen COB?
ganjamystic
Well-Known Member
reminds me of the color of the old chloroba c2 chinese cob lights... anybody remember those?If there were a "full spectrum" horticulture CoB it would be this one.
View attachment 3943120
This is the color of the Fresh Focus Red Meat CoB reflected off a white ceiling.
In Lumens.
View attachment 3943123