Supra I liked it when you had the $/watts in your spread sheet. I know watts can all contain different par watts based on efficiency, but regular $/w was a great way to quickly calc production cost.
Just a thought
To expand on my explanation, if you take a group of LEDs that are about the same color temp, match up the rows based on radiometric efficiency and then compare the $/PAR, you get a real picture of the up front cost, or how much you are paying/photon.
So using that method, if we compare the best available large COBS running medium strength at 39% efficiency, the CXA3070 wins at $2.19/PAR W. The CXA3590 get second at $3.67/ PAR W and the Vero29 gets third at $4.21/PAR W. it is worthwhile to mention, cheap drivers are available at this current level for the CXA3070.
If we crank up the amps until we drop down to 33% efficiency, the Vero 29 comes out slightly ahead at $1.51, the CXA3070 $1.55, depending on your shipping costs. The CXA3590 cost quite a bit more $2.33. Cheap drivers are not available at this range although we are on the trail of a
$21 1.9A driver that
might work.
If we really crank it, we drop to 29%, the Vero29 wins at $1.24/PAR W. The CXA3070 is maxed out at 2.8A and off my chart but it gets second at $1.34/ PAR W. The CXA3590 would be just over $2.00/ PAR W. Cheap drivers are not available in this range although there is a
$33 3A Chinese driver out there that claims it can do 40V. Also, it may be impossible to achieve a Tj of 50C at high current levels because we are dependent on the ambient temps in the grow space. If so, there may be no cost benefit whatsoever to crank them.
In summary, I see no benefit running them hard, it may actually be cheaper to run them medium.