I didn't mean to say spread but that it is more uniform over say a 2x2 area. So you have measured 3590 and 3070 and they give the same par at same height and current?
Top bin COB comparison
- Thread starter SupraSPL
- Start date
- Status
bassman999
Well-Known Member
I am wondering how the CXA3070-AB at 25-30W compares against the cxb3590 efficiency wise.
I am contemplating adding 4-6 more CXA3070s to the 6 I have and drive them at 25-32W on a HLG-320H-36
I am contemplating adding 4-6 more CXA3070s to the 6 I have and drive them at 25-32W on a HLG-320H-36
Abiqua
Well-Known Member
bassman999
Well-Known Member
Ok maybe more CXA isnt the best idea.
Ill compare the CXB3070 to the CXA3070.
im just not ure if I could run cxa and cxb on same driver
robincnn
Well-Known Member
This 'Top bin COB comparison' was missing 
ero.
Sharing my test results for Vero 29 3500K bought from Future electronics and 3590 3500K CD from Kingbrite Jerry
Test objective
1) Output of 3590 compared to Vero 29
2) Is running at 25 watt worth it
3) How much does efficiency improve at reduced drive currents
Same active cooling used for both samples Vero 29 and both samples of 3590
100mm glass lens mounted on the front of LED. Cob mounted at 18 inches on an elevated platform. PPF measured using Apogee right under cob in a 2x2.5 reflective tent.
Example =26*5*1.05 26 on multimeter, 5 is the multiply factor or this sensor and *1.05 or /0.96 is spectrum correction.
The reflective tent minimizes errors due to sensor placement and light distribution from LED and Optics
You can see this in excel i used this as spectrum correction factors
Vero 29 3500K spectrum adjustment = Multiply 1.05
CXB 3590 3500K spectrum adjustment = Divide 0.96
Side note
Lens/reflectors have around 8%-10% losses and you would expect reflective area to reflect back any of those photons that spread too much. This time sensor vertical at all measuring position and not pointed towards cob.
I tried different sensor positions(moved that trash bin around in the tent) with cob at 18 inches got higher ppf everywhere with lens on. Those 8%-10% losses with lens/reflectors may not be as bad as we think.
ya sorry not plants just that trash can.
I attached the excel file. Vero 29 vs 3590. View view discretion advised.
I am not a droop testing expert like Supra. So the droop figures could be off a little.
I can test Tc well. but it would have been too much work to test Tc along with everything else.
From a recent active cool test i did Tc for Vero with lens around 55C-60C with 80 watts and cxb 3590 about 45C-50C with 80 watts.
Will make sense of data tomorrow. Feel free to share any thoughts.
ero.Sharing my test results for Vero 29 3500K bought from Future electronics and 3590 3500K CD from Kingbrite Jerry
Test objective
1) Output of 3590 compared to Vero 29
2) Is running at 25 watt worth it
3) How much does efficiency improve at reduced drive currents
Same active cooling used for both samples Vero 29 and both samples of 3590
100mm glass lens mounted on the front of LED. Cob mounted at 18 inches on an elevated platform. PPF measured using Apogee right under cob in a 2x2.5 reflective tent.
Example =26*5*1.05 26 on multimeter, 5 is the multiply factor or this sensor and *1.05 or /0.96 is spectrum correction.
The reflective tent minimizes errors due to sensor placement and light distribution from LED and Optics
You can see this in excel i used this as spectrum correction factors
Vero 29 3500K spectrum adjustment = Multiply 1.05
CXB 3590 3500K spectrum adjustment = Divide 0.96
Side note
Lens/reflectors have around 8%-10% losses and you would expect reflective area to reflect back any of those photons that spread too much. This time sensor vertical at all measuring position and not pointed towards cob.
I tried different sensor positions(moved that trash bin around in the tent) with cob at 18 inches got higher ppf everywhere with lens on. Those 8%-10% losses with lens/reflectors may not be as bad as we think.
ya sorry not plants just that trash can.
I attached the excel file. Vero 29 vs 3590. View view discretion advised.
I am not a droop testing expert like Supra. So the droop figures could be off a little.
I can test Tc well. but it would have been too much work to test Tc along with everything else.
From a recent active cool test i did Tc for Vero with lens around 55C-60C with 80 watts and cxb 3590 about 45C-50C with 80 watts.
Will make sense of data tomorrow. Feel free to share any thoughts.
Attachments
Last edited:
Rahz
Well-Known Member
Interesting. CXB is obviously more efficient but this isn't the first time it's been suggested through objective data that the efficiency disparity between them isn't as great as the datasheets suggest. Unless I'm mistaken your data is also suggesting the disparity doesn't widen by a notable amount at lower currents. Looking forward to your analysis.
robincnn
Well-Known Member
Here are my thoughts on what the data is saying.
1) Cree 3590 is way more efficient than vero 29
You get 4.59% more light by using 3590 CD instead of vero 29 at 80 watts.
You get 4.83% more light by using 3590 CD instead of vero 29 at 50 watts.
You get 3.52% more light by using 3590 CD instead of vero 29 at 25 watts.
So I say myth busted.
Assumption here is that Jerry's CD bin is authentic.
So it seems we have to equally encourage people to use vero instead of talking about cree's number and how it is soo much more efficient. Specially given the price premium for cree
2) low drive current efficiency of cree is better than vero
In supras data on page 1. The green line for 3590 3500K CD
We see 8.5 for 25 watts, 7.75 for 50 watts, 7.1 for 80 watts.
Which means
you get 9.15% more efficiency by running it at 50 watts instead of 80 watts.
you get 9.67% more efficiency by running it at 25 watts instead of 50 watts.
you get 19.71% more efficiency by running it at 25 watts instead of 80 watts.
Now these were pulsed values that do not include droop.
Here is my result with droop for cree 3590 cd. Very similar to Supra
you get 9.42% more efficiency by running it at 50 watts instead of 80 watts.
you get 10.96% more efficiency by running it at 25 watts instead of 50 watts.
you get 20.50% more efficiency by running it at 25 watts instead of 80 watts.
For Vero data
you get 9.17% more efficiency by running it at 50 watts instead of 80 watts.
you get 11.51% more efficiency by running it at 25 watts instead of 50 watts.
you get 21.74% more efficiency by running it at 25 watts instead of 80 watts.
Clearly the efficiency gain at lower drive current is similar for vero and cree.
So it seems we cannot say for lower drive currents cree is better than vero.
3) is 25w worth it or 700ma drive current
Depends on your wallet and need for that 10%
With vero you get 11.51% more efficiency by running it at 25 watts instead of 50 watts.
With cree you get 10.96% more efficiency by running it at 25 watts instead of 50 watts.
But clear that both cree and vero benefit equally at reduced drive current. We need to take that efficiency spreadsheet with grain of salt.
Now all of you with blind love for cree3590 can question authenticity of my CD bin from Jerry. But claim 2 and 3 are independent of whether I had CD or a even CB. I encourage you to test and share your data if you can.
1) Cree 3590 is way more efficient than vero 29
You get 4.59% more light by using 3590 CD instead of vero 29 at 80 watts.
You get 4.83% more light by using 3590 CD instead of vero 29 at 50 watts.
You get 3.52% more light by using 3590 CD instead of vero 29 at 25 watts.
So I say myth busted.
Assumption here is that Jerry's CD bin is authentic.
So it seems we have to equally encourage people to use vero instead of talking about cree's number and how it is soo much more efficient. Specially given the price premium for cree
2) low drive current efficiency of cree is better than vero
In supras data on page 1. The green line for 3590 3500K CD
We see 8.5 for 25 watts, 7.75 for 50 watts, 7.1 for 80 watts.
Which means
you get 9.15% more efficiency by running it at 50 watts instead of 80 watts.
you get 9.67% more efficiency by running it at 25 watts instead of 50 watts.
you get 19.71% more efficiency by running it at 25 watts instead of 80 watts.
Now these were pulsed values that do not include droop.
Here is my result with droop for cree 3590 cd. Very similar to Supra
you get 9.42% more efficiency by running it at 50 watts instead of 80 watts.
you get 10.96% more efficiency by running it at 25 watts instead of 50 watts.
you get 20.50% more efficiency by running it at 25 watts instead of 80 watts.
For Vero data
you get 9.17% more efficiency by running it at 50 watts instead of 80 watts.
you get 11.51% more efficiency by running it at 25 watts instead of 50 watts.
you get 21.74% more efficiency by running it at 25 watts instead of 80 watts.
Clearly the efficiency gain at lower drive current is similar for vero and cree.
So it seems we cannot say for lower drive currents cree is better than vero.
3) is 25w worth it or 700ma drive current
Depends on your wallet and need for that 10%
With vero you get 11.51% more efficiency by running it at 25 watts instead of 50 watts.
With cree you get 10.96% more efficiency by running it at 25 watts instead of 50 watts.
But clear that both cree and vero benefit equally at reduced drive current. We need to take that efficiency spreadsheet with grain of salt.
Now all of you with blind love for cree3590 can question authenticity of my CD bin from Jerry. But claim 2 and 3 are independent of whether I had CD or a even CB. I encourage you to test and share your data if you can.
Last edited:
REALSTYLES
Well-Known Member
Why are you hating on Jerry? Because you like Vero. Your study is bias we all know Cree is more efficient but cost more that's why people buy Vero and if they were the same price we'd see how many people would choose Cree. Vero doesn't even have a bin due to the inconsistency.
Rahz
Well-Known Member
He's not hating on Jerry. These are very anomalous results according to conventional wisdom (and the datasheets). He's just examining every possibility between bin, Cree being overly generous and Bridgelux being very modest.
Biased? How so? The meter is biased? His math is biased? Can you show how? I've been leaning towards using Cree chips so this isn't exactly music to my ears.
Vero doesn't have a bin true, but the results between the two samples were much close than the Cree samples. Perhaps they don't use bins because they have more consistency? That's what the real world data is suggesting...
I'm not brand biased so I can deal with it. Like I said earlier this isn't the first time real world testing data has contradicted the math.
If it's not KB then we have an even bigger puzzle on our hands assuming the results can be replicated. When you factor in the performance of the Vero 29 at low drive currents it would seem KB isn't the issue...
I thought perhaps the viewing angle could explain these results. However Bridgelux claims a 120 degree viewing angle while Cree claims 115. If anything this should lower the relative performance of Vero under a light meter!
Biased? How so? The meter is biased? His math is biased? Can you show how? I've been leaning towards using Cree chips so this isn't exactly music to my ears.
Vero doesn't have a bin true, but the results between the two samples were much close than the Cree samples. Perhaps they don't use bins because they have more consistency? That's what the real world data is suggesting...
I'm not brand biased so I can deal with it. Like I said earlier this isn't the first time real world testing data has contradicted the math.
If it's not KB then we have an even bigger puzzle on our hands assuming the results can be replicated. When you factor in the performance of the Vero 29 at low drive currents it would seem KB isn't the issue...
I thought perhaps the viewing angle could explain these results. However Bridgelux claims a 120 degree viewing angle while Cree claims 115. If anything this should lower the relative performance of Vero under a light meter!
Greengenes707
Well-Known Member
Very interesting as usual.
But this is only solved by putting each in a sphere. This is PPF vs PPFD all over again. We can not test the PPF without a sphere. A par meter is extrapolating a whole m2 worth of output based on that one point(<cm2).
I'm not saying the results are wrong or right...just how it needs to actually be settled before any real arguments stir up. This is field data and very useful for everyone. I sent supra a 3500K bb 3070 to play with and will add that to his data when he gets time. I don't question jerry...Just that I get mine from cree so I personally can vouch 100% what they are, I have 3590 cd's I can send out to supra or robincnn while my facility is down if anything is really in question.
But this is only solved by putting each in a sphere. This is PPF vs PPFD all over again. We can not test the PPF without a sphere. A par meter is extrapolating a whole m2 worth of output based on that one point(<cm2).
I'm not saying the results are wrong or right...just how it needs to actually be settled before any real arguments stir up. This is field data and very useful for everyone. I sent supra a 3500K bb 3070 to play with and will add that to his data when he gets time. I don't question jerry...Just that I get mine from cree so I personally can vouch 100% what they are, I have 3590 cd's I can send out to supra or robincnn while my facility is down if anything is really in question.
REALSTYLES
Well-Known Member
Yes he did "Now all of you with blind love for cree3590 can question authenticity of my CD bin from Jerry" That's why I said what I did.
Greengenes707
Well-Known Member
Considering 99.99% of people get their chips from jerry...and there is a discrepancy between a much more well known and knowledgeable company(CREE), and KB...it's only obvious and natural to question things. And they are blind faithing the data sheets. The data sheets specifically say that it is only for guideline reference and that actual product test must be done. What do you think third party testing is for.
We could just as easily say you're bias towards jerry and KB. Actually sounds more logical. Again...not saying he's not legit, but a concern about it is perfectly valid.
robincnn
Well-Known Member
Sorry real. Not trying to hate/ question jerry or tell you all what to buy. Just seeking truth.
I am trying to test and not rely on datasheet.
I know a sample size of 2 is small.
Will share more results when I have new samples and more money. May be DB bin from cutter. Thanks GG I will reach out to you if I need to compare your cree direct cd bin with what I have from Jerry. I know you mentioned sphere ball earlier too i n my ppfd thread. I could not find one. I thought my reflective tent would work similar to sphere.
Supra do not forget to include vero 29 in your next test. We may be underestimating veros.
I am trying to test and not rely on datasheet.
I know a sample size of 2 is small.
Will share more results when I have new samples and more money. May be DB bin from cutter. Thanks GG I will reach out to you if I need to compare your cree direct cd bin with what I have from Jerry. I know you mentioned sphere ball earlier too i n my ppfd thread. I could not find one. I thought my reflective tent would work similar to sphere.
Supra do not forget to include vero 29 in your next test. We may be underestimating veros.
REALSTYLES
Well-Known Member
everyone has there own perspective of that statement he made and yes I'm bias for Jerry because he gave me tip bin for a very low price. If I was to buy a large quantity I'd get even a better price than what I get now. But I'm not gonna start a lighting company. I'll let you guys slug it out. I'll just grow and show people how to make their own lights lol and make a strain.
Rahz
Well-Known Member
Vero 18 version 1: 1.2 - 1.25 GPW at 1.05 amps
Vero 29 version 1: 1.3 - 1.35 GPW at .7 amps
I don't have comparative results with CXB in hydro, or results with Vero version 2. So many variables to influence but the results above are consistent over several strains.
Rahz
Well-Known Member
What he said is that CXB3590 lovers (other people) might question his source as a way to explain the results, then goes on to suggest the low current results demonstrate KB has nothing to do with it and it's not simply a bin issue.
no he didn't. Jerry is known to carry "samples" and other factory one offs , which could have a different tech spec than the majority of the production volume. Nothing wrong with that, but you don't need to be overly defensive where its not needed.
silly salesman
- Status