rshackleferd
Well-Known Member
Are these two different types of cobs or is it the same cob ran on different drivers/setup?
CXB3590 36v and 72v
- Thread starter rshackleferd
- Start date
nevergoodenuf
Well-Known Member
same
VegasWinner
Well-Known Member
each has advantages. CXB, 72v can use 700B driver and get 50W per COB for 200W w/ 4 COB's. CXB 36V can use 1400B driver to get 200W w/ 4 COB's. However, th4 36V COB's can driven lower with a 700B to 52W w/ 4 COB's, dimmed to 360mA. peace
rshackleferd
Well-Known Member
I need to do some more research, you lost me.
VegasWinner
Well-Known Member
Volts x Amps = Watts. 36V x 1.4A = 50.4W and 72V x 1.4A 100.8W conversely 36V x .7A = 25.2W and 72V a .7A = 50.4W note that a COB at 36V creates 50.4 watts at 1.4A creating 190.8 lumens/watt while a 72v COB creates 50.4Watts at 0.7A only 167.23 lumens/Watt so the 36V COB is more efficient and produces more lumens for the same cost. peace
Attachments
Malocan
Well-Known Member
Hello,
cxb 3590 (3000k cb 36volt version) @1,4A is around 50 watt and creating 167 lumen / watt, you can see it in the chart which you posted.
the 36 volt version @ 1,4A or the 72 volt version @ 0,7A have the same output and should have the same efficiency
VegasWinner
Well-Known Member
pay attention to the moles not watts.190 moles vs 167 moles not equal. peace
guod
Well-Known Member
lm/watt is it little moles per watt or left moles per watt or maybe lousy moles per watt?
Malocan
Well-Known Member
i dont wanne be unfriendly, but i think you didnt read correct the table which you posted. try it please again
167lm/w @ 1,4A for the 36volt version = around 48watt
167lm/w @ 0,7A for the 72volt version = around 48watt
that is wrong im pretty sure, if they create the same amount of Watt (cxb 36volt or cxb 72volt) they should have both the same efficiency. Just look again the table which you posted
Last edited:
VegasWinner
Well-Known Member
you saw it. yes the 36V COB run at lower wattage is more efficient. I have found running e CXB's at 15-25 watts is even more productive, than higher watts. it is not watts I am seeking, it is pure energy, or moles. Running the COB's at lower wattage creates more growwth than higher wattage, as heat is lower and COB is more efficient at lower temps. It costs more, but works better. More efficient at lower temps, FTR, I mentioned the moles, but the group blew that off, and focused on what they choose. I moved on. I have success with lower wattage and higher growth patterns. Others have noticed the same. I listened to SupraSPL and discovered what he was saying through experimentation. Some people can listen others cannot. I have run 150W COB's at 7w just to see what they do. I used a HLG-80H-C350B just to see how low they will go. I have drivers from 350mA to 2100mA all for 36V COB's. I commented on this in this thread ->https://www.rollitup.org/t/the-far-red-thread.867665/page-41#post-12611188
I am getting great results with COB's at lower wattage's and using more light spectrum. Just sharing my results. I am not trying to change anyone just sharing. it appears to me, this group is focusing ojn power just not pure power. that is OK. I have great results with 36V cob's more flexible than the 72/77v versions. But you can mix 36v and 72/77v cob's on one driver. I have done that and gotten two different wattage outputs, of course, 36v v 72v half the4 watts, but twice the moles. peace
VegasWinner
Well-Known Member
Please noter the moles is 190 moles for the 36v COB and 167 moles for the 72v COB. Are those equal value? no peace. 36v COB creates more usable energhy for the plants. plase re-read what I posted. I have read it in detail. I posted it. Focus on energy not watts, if that is possible. peace.
VegasWinner
Well-Known Member
Actually SUPRASPL highlighted the chart to show just what I was shown, not me. Attacking the messenger is all wrong. have a good day. . peace.
VegasWinner
Well-Known Member
energy available to the plant for growth purposes.
uhhh there are no moles in the chart. its all in lumens.
the 36V cobs and the 72V cobs are the same chip with a different combo of parallel/series strings. To compare directly you need to compare at half the current. Nobody is disagreeing that if you run the 36V at a lower current it will be more efficient than a 36V at a higher current. But that is also true the with a 72V run at a lower current.
as Malocan pointed out you should be comparing the 36Volt at 1.4A with the 72Volt at 0.700A as that is the same amount of energy being used.
VegasWinner
Well-Known Member
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_efficacy
Luminous efficacy is a measure of how well a light source produces visible light. It is the ratio of luminous flux to power. Depending on context, the power can be either the radiant flux of the source's output, or it can be the total power (electric power, chemical energy, or others) consumed by the source.[1][2][3] Which sense of the term is intended must usually be inferred from the context, and is sometimes unclear. The former sense is sometimes called luminous efficacy of radiation, and the latter luminous efficacy of a source.
The luminous efficacy of a source is a measure of the efficiency with which the source provides visible light from electricity.[4] The luminous efficacy of radiation describes how well a given quantity of electromagnetic radiation from a source produces visible light: the ratio of luminous flux to radiant flux.[5] Not all wavelengths of light are equally visible, or equally effective at stimulating human vision, due to the spectral sensitivity of the human eye; radiation in the infrared and ultraviolet parts of the spectrum is useless for illumination. The overall luminous efficacy of a source is the product of how well it converts energy to electromagnetic radiation, and how well the emitted radiation is detected by the human eye.
lumens/watt = energy conversion. peace
Luminous efficacy is a measure of how well a light source produces visible light. It is the ratio of luminous flux to power. Depending on context, the power can be either the radiant flux of the source's output, or it can be the total power (electric power, chemical energy, or others) consumed by the source.[1][2][3] Which sense of the term is intended must usually be inferred from the context, and is sometimes unclear. The former sense is sometimes called luminous efficacy of radiation, and the latter luminous efficacy of a source.
The luminous efficacy of a source is a measure of the efficiency with which the source provides visible light from electricity.[4] The luminous efficacy of radiation describes how well a given quantity of electromagnetic radiation from a source produces visible light: the ratio of luminous flux to radiant flux.[5] Not all wavelengths of light are equally visible, or equally effective at stimulating human vision, due to the spectral sensitivity of the human eye; radiation in the infrared and ultraviolet parts of the spectrum is useless for illumination. The overall luminous efficacy of a source is the product of how well it converts energy to electromagnetic radiation, and how well the emitted radiation is detected by the human eye.
lumens/watt = energy conversion. peace
Malocan
Well-Known Member
still not able to read the table
im sure, one day you are able to read it
You compare 23watt (190lm/w) against 48watt (167lm/w), that is not fair
Last edited:
