Top bin COB comparison
- Thread starter SupraSPL
- Start date
- Status
bassman999
Well-Known Member
I just sold mine on eBay
Nope the 3590 has larger les and case, but the holders are very cheap in contrast to cobs, but mounting holes will not line up
bassman999
Well-Known Member
I was using a pair of 600 watt Lumatek LK600 dial a watt ballasts with generic bulbs.
Then had to be more stealth and bought a generic 300 watt 178W at wall led light and an Advancd Platinum Led P300 180W at wall. I saw this diy arena and decided to sell the PREFAB and do my own
AquariusPanta
Well-Known Member
@SupraSPL
Great data input as always, although I'd like to see some Vero 29 measurements in comparision to their Cree counterparts. For every test that I've conducted between the Vero 29, CXB3070, & CXB3590, the Vero 29 has either come very close or exceeded it's contenders in PAR output under same factors, such as height difference and current. It should be pointed out that the Vero 29 has a typically higher forward voltage than it's mentioned cob siblings at same currents, undoubtedly giving it an advantage at higher currents (+2.1A).
Great data input as always, although I'd like to see some Vero 29 measurements in comparision to their Cree counterparts. For every test that I've conducted between the Vero 29, CXB3070, & CXB3590, the Vero 29 has either come very close or exceeded it's contenders in PAR output under same factors, such as height difference and current. It should be pointed out that the Vero 29 has a typically higher forward voltage than it's mentioned cob siblings at same currents, undoubtedly giving it an advantage at higher currents (+2.1A).
alesh
Well-Known Member
Unless you have an integrating sphere, talking about 'PAR output' isn't very relevant.
AquariusPanta
Well-Known Member
It's very relevant to me. I'd like to think the Apogee meter and correction factors have some sort of value, as how would you calculate the perks of optics into the PPF/PPFD formula and compare one fixture from another? Again, I'd like to see what Supra's data says about using one cob instead of another and whether or not it's feasible to live in a quasi fantasy.
LOL understand your tool, fool.
AquariusPanta
Well-Known Member
Tell me, what is there to understand? It's a quantum meter, which measures PAR/PPF, the stuff that we, including our plants, are after. Comparing these numbers is how you distinguish which cob is performing best in terms of overall photon output.
Are you always this rude with people you don't like on this forum?
Are you always this rude with people you don't like on this forum?
sometimes , but mostly only you now a days
point is to understand the limitations of the tools you use, whether it be a par meter or a soldering iron. an apogee meter is not an adequate substitute for an integrating sphere.
alesh
Well-Known Member
It certainly doesn't measure nor PAR neither PPF and it can't distinguish which cob is performing best in terms of overall photon output. Understand your tool.
AquariusPanta
Well-Known Member
@alesh
So you're saying Apogee, a genuine company unlike an online wholesaler/retailer, is falsely advertising their product(s) and that some of today's best cob-based fixture manufacturers are wasting their time with compiling and providing graphs through counting individual wavelengths from CCT graphs, something you and @Greengenes707 proposed as a solution to establishing correction factors for the exclusion of missing parameters found when using such products? Really dude?
@PurpleBuz
How unfortunate.
So you're saying Apogee, a genuine company unlike an online wholesaler/retailer, is falsely advertising their product(s) and that some of today's best cob-based fixture manufacturers are wasting their time with compiling and providing graphs through counting individual wavelengths from CCT graphs, something you and @Greengenes707 proposed as a solution to establishing correction factors for the exclusion of missing parameters found when using such products? Really dude?
@PurpleBuz
How unfortunate.
apogee is upfront on the limitations of its sensors, we can't help it if you do not understand the specs.
AquariusPanta
Well-Known Member
@PurpleBuz
I guess you never got the memo, those limitations, that matter, can be accounted for. But continue not listening, it's entertaining for some.
I guess you never got the memo, those limitations, that matter, can be accounted for. But continue not listening, it's entertaining for some.
the corrections are based on an independently measured test system.
However the whole point of measuring YOUR test system is that you want to determine what YOUR system produces. Well that independent system is NOT the system that your measuring so wtf is the point of doing the measurements if your relying on something else to bring them in line ???????
we can easily do an estimate based on the published specs (spd and outputs).
so get that memo.
alesh
Well-Known Member
I'm saying that you can't measure PAR or PPF or overall photon output (of which the latter two are basically synonymous) with that Apogee sensor. Correcting a sensor's nonlinear response has nothing to do with the sensor being unsuitable for measuring above mentioned quantities.
AquariusPanta
Well-Known Member
@PurpleBuz
To give you an example of what it's like to measure with this sensor and to better help you and possibly others understand the process of measuring PAR output with an Apogee meter, you simply cover your desired ground and record the readings. Afterwards, depending on whether or not you bought the handheld meter, you multiply the recordings by 5, just like how Apogee states in the directions. The resulting number is based on a spread that leaves out some late red and and early blue, which does matter. By counting the individual spikes of each wavelength on the given CCT from cob manufacturer, you have a rough understanding of the percentages for each wavelength found on the average cob of that given manufacturer. By sending that information to Apogee, they will freely calculate the correction error of that cob type, such as .935 for the Vero 29 3000K. Afterwards, you simply divide your readings from before by that correction error and boom, you have a close yet practical reference of how well a given cob performs in respect to the others.
By ensuing this method, we implement both real life data with mathematical estimates to formulate a very reasonable value for a given spot under a given light, not much different to how it's performed in a sphere test. Some of you can argue until your blue in the face on how one method is more superior than the other but until that statement is proven in our case of cobs and whether or not the degree in difference of outcomes between each method of testing is actually considerable, then you're riding the waves of popular whim rather than first hand experience, which, ironically is what led us to this thread.
To give you an example of what it's like to measure with this sensor and to better help you and possibly others understand the process of measuring PAR output with an Apogee meter, you simply cover your desired ground and record the readings. Afterwards, depending on whether or not you bought the handheld meter, you multiply the recordings by 5, just like how Apogee states in the directions. The resulting number is based on a spread that leaves out some late red and and early blue, which does matter. By counting the individual spikes of each wavelength on the given CCT from cob manufacturer, you have a rough understanding of the percentages for each wavelength found on the average cob of that given manufacturer. By sending that information to Apogee, they will freely calculate the correction error of that cob type, such as .935 for the Vero 29 3000K. Afterwards, you simply divide your readings from before by that correction error and boom, you have a close yet practical reference of how well a given cob performs in respect to the others.
By ensuing this method, we implement both real life data with mathematical estimates to formulate a very reasonable value for a given spot under a given light, not much different to how it's performed in a sphere test. Some of you can argue until your blue in the face on how one method is more superior than the other but until that statement is proven in our case of cobs and whether or not the degree in difference of outcomes between each method of testing is actually considerable, then you're riding the waves of popular whim rather than first hand experience, which, ironically is what led us to this thread.
AquariusPanta
Well-Known Member
And why, if you care to share and in your humble opinion, do you feel that their instrument is unsuitable for us, farmers to manufactures?
there is no popular whim here. your the only one that's belaboring this point. ABOVE ABOUT 650nm the apogee sensor DOESN'T MEASURE ANYTHING. that's PER APOGEE SPECS.
Greengenes707
Well-Known Member
- Status