CXA 3000°K 80 vs 93 CRI .An Estimation.

[stardustsailor]

CXA3070 3000°K ,bin AB ,80CRI vs CXA3070 3000°K ,bin Y2 ,93CRI

Gentlemen ,You're shall both be driven at 1400mA and you burn your cases -baby burn- at 55°C ..

At one corner stand the multiple times champion the 80CRI with a LER of 325 ...
At the other corner the new rival with a high CRI of 93 (typ ) and a LER of 275 ...

Gentlemen ,hits under the TIM are not allowed .
Neither current spikes .
May be the best COB win .....


DING-DING !!!!

Round #1: Radiant Power

Round#2 : Photon Flux and Photosynthetic Efficient Flux
* PFE = RQE x P.Flux --380-780 nm --


(That round was given @ "Mr.Flux arena" .....,before ...


Round #3 :The final knock-out !!!


80CRI -AB



versus

93CRI -Y2




I hope no bets were placed ....


Cheers.

 

[stardustsailor]

Further analysis of the fight ...
Soon ...

Cheers.

 

[Greengenes707]

The lower output was always clear. But with the RQE factored in...the spectral efficiency gains seem to be near nothing.

 

[stardustsailor]

The lower output was always clear. But with the RQE factored in...the spectral efficiency gains seem to be near nothing.

Firstly ,you'll have ton excuse me for not digitizing the RQE /action Spectrum from a Hi-res pic that I have ...
Table I have ,has values of every 5 nm steps ...
A good digitizing offers up to 0,1 -0,2 nm stepping ...
(higher resolution of digitized curve and "smoother" )

Secondly ,yes ...

One can learn lots of things studying more carefully ...

For example ..
The steeper angle of the 80 CRI in green region (of lower RQE than yellow /amber which are close to 100% ),
gives a big advantage on the 80 CRI ,over it's high CRI '

...

Also ....
16% of power in blue ,might be translated in " photoinhibition" of Photosystem II
( ChB and D1 protein damage ) ,under certain circumstances ...


And of course the Quanta ....
Numbers count ...

By the power of many ,there ...



Cheers.

 

[grapeoptimo]

so basically for our purposes we want the 80CRI...

 

[SupraSPL]

Awesome graphs thank you SDS! Honestly, the works from you and Mr Flux are changing the entire cannabis world, but the Cannabis world does not know it yet

So the high CRI has a steady slight advantage in the deep red range and the 80 CRI just pumps out so many more photons I am sold on that SPD. For those that don't know. this analysis is between the brand new top bins Cree added the CXA datasheet. We had access to some of the 80 CRI AB chips, but not yet the 93 CRI Y2 chips. Hopefully we can get more Z4 or AB chips.

 

[SupraSPL]

So here are some of the contenders for the best standard-CRI COB grow lights potentially available:
CXA3070 2700K
CXA3070 3000K
CXA3590 2700K
CXA3590 3000K
Vero 29 3000K
Vero 29 4000K

I have been rating and recommending COBs based on the minimum flux numbers supplied by the manufacturer data. Mr Flux has pointed out that since the Crees are binned by efficiency and the Veros are not, that this approach gives an advantage to the Crees on paper, and I agree. This also helps keep the price down on the Veros. So are there poor performing Veros and awesome Veros all mixed in or do most meet the "typical" rating? Also, how far above the minimum does the typical Cree perform? Unfortunately we need a spectroradiometer to find out. Until then, I will have to rely on the minimum numbers for comparisons.

To make matters more complicated, the 3000K Vero curve is more like a 2700K Cree. A 4000K Vero is more like a 3000K Cree. Any chance we can uncomplicate some of that with your spreadsheets SDS?

 

[speedyganga]

What about a comparaison between vero29 4000K and the cxa 80 3000K in Z2. (sorry but can't buy any AB or even Z4 in small quantity for now)

Edit: LOL SUPRA has been quicker ! same idea bro

 

[epicfail]

Hopefully we can get more AB chips.

I would be happy to see some 2.7k z4/z2's or some more 3k z4's available.

 

[SupraSPL]

Another big question regarding COBs, how much light should we be pumping into the typical canopy? Is the CXA3590 or Vero 29 too concentrated? Is the CXA3070 too concentrated at 1.4A or 1.9A? Even at .9A and 30W/sq ft I am noticing white tips on many of my ladies and I have never seen that before. It does not seem to compromise bud quality, but is it a signal that we are in the optimum light range? It is well known that increasing PPFD will increase yield, but the law of diminishing returns does apply.

Since we now have so much control of how many photons we want to put into the canopy, what size is the right size nugs? Greengenes pointed out that his favorite nugs tend to be a few down from the top. I agree completely. Sometimes top nugs have a bit of dreading or fresh pistils. Sometimes top nugs are so big that the inside is very shaded out and light green. God forbid, sometimes very large top nugs are more likely to have a touch of mold inside. So what I am suggesting is that there may be additional reasons to try and spread the light as much as possible and avoid the brute force approach of maximum photons from above. For some growers maybe that means use shelving and have two layers of canopy? For others it may mean use more side lighting, etc.

On the other hand I am an organic soil grower. Maybe the chem guys can put a lot more photons to work?

 

[Positivity]

Getting bleaching from whites! Wow..wasn't expecting much of that

Oh well..reflectors might be overkill with them then. I was planning on running lights well above canopy though to hit my area evenly

 

[speedyganga]

Reflector are good if you grow trees I think...
I like having more penetration from a light source 'cause It enable you not to put higher everyday and fuck off the LST and all this skills to keep plant low profile that takes lot of time. way too much time for me at least.
Also you could fixe your light on the top, put the lenses until the babies are tall and then take it off for more spreading...

 

[SupraSPL]

Yessir white tips on 5 or 6 ladies. Only certain plants do it even though they might be right next to each other and it doesn't even have to be that bright to make it happen. Honestly I don't even know for sure that brightness is what causes it. I have run these cuts many times before and they never did this under bare 600 HPS bulbs.

 

[speedyganga]

I know as a matter of fact that nutrition have an impact on the burnings. It happen to me under 250W with a too close cootube. Then I added an anti-chlorose and I didn't had anymore.
But it might not be organic. and if you always gave them the same soil than light was just to intense.
I think I will stick with the old 30W/ sqft for now, and use the dimmer if I see the babe ask for some more light.

 

[stardustsailor]

Awesome graphs thank you SDS! Honestly, the works from you and Mr Flux are changing the entire cannabis world, but the Cannabis world does not know it yet

So the high CRI has a steady slight advantage in the deep red range and the 80 CRI just pumps out so many more photons I am sold on that SPD. For those that don't know. this analysis is between the brand new top bins Cree added the CXA datasheet. We had access to some of the 80 CRI AB chips, but not yet the 93 CRI Y2 chips. Hopefully we can get more Z4 or AB chips.

Exactly ...But High CRI 's slight advantage in Deep red wls ,is neligible ,
comparing to it's lack of photons ,versus the standard CRI ...

Please Supra,try to get some 'official ' LER values for various CXA's & Vero's ...
If you're able of course ...

Cheers.

 

[stardustsailor]

So here are some of the contenders for the best standard-CRI COB grow lights potentially available:
CXA3070 2700K
CXA3070 3000K
CXA3590 2700K
CXA3590 3000K
Vero 29 3000K
Vero 29 4000K

I have been rating and recommending COBs based on the minimum flux numbers supplied by the manufacturer data. Mr Flux has pointed out that since the Crees are binned by efficiency and the Veros are not, that this approach gives an advantage to the Crees on paper, and I agree. This also helps keep the price down on the Veros. So are there poor performing Veros and awesome Veros all mixed in or do most meet the "typical" rating? Also, how far above the minimum does the typical Cree perform? Unfortunately we need a spectroradiometer to find out. Until then, I will have to rely on the minimum numbers for comparisons.

To make matters more complicated, the 3000K Vero curve is more like a 2700K Cree. A 4000K Vero is more like a 3000K Cree. Any chance we can uncomplicate some of that with your spreadsheets SDS?

I need a small rest-time..
Yes,I 'll try ,with your help provided ,of course...
Find some rel. spectra graphs and some LER values ,if possible for the COBs involved ...

Cheers.

 

[stardustsailor]

Another big question regarding COBs, how much light should we be pumping into the typical canopy? Is the CXA3590 or Vero 29 too concentrated? Is the CXA3070 too concentrated at 1.4A or 1.9A? Even at .9A and 30W/sq ft I am noticing white tips on many of my ladies and I have never seen that before. It does not seem to compromise bud quality, but is it a signal that we are in the optimum light range? It is well known that increasing PPFD will increase yield, but the law of diminishing returns does apply.

Since we now have so much control of how many photons we want to put into the canopy, what size is the right size nugs? Greengenes pointed out that his favorite nugs tend to be a few down from the top. I agree completely. Sometimes top nugs have a bit of dreading or fresh pistils. Sometimes top nugs are so big that the inside is very shaded out and light green. God forbid, sometimes very large top nugs are more likely to have a touch of mold inside. So what I am suggesting is that there may be additional reasons to try and spread the light as much as possible and avoid the brute force approach of maximum photons from above. For some growers maybe that means use shelving and have two layers of canopy? For others it may mean use more side lighting, etc.

On the other hand I am an organic soil grower. Maybe the chem guys can put a lot more photons to work?

Take into consideration the cost/price of "spreading the power" ....
As more cobs/leds/drivers used and budget can go pretty steep ...

The sun ,has set the "standarts" some million years now ...

Sun's LER = 93
total PAR irradiance = ~ 450 W/ sq.meter (1050 x 0.43 ) **

That is ~50 W / sq.foot (max value ) ...
Going over that 'light density' limit ,is not just an overkill ,
but also will probably " fry" the(top) leaf canopy , of most plants ....


**

The total amount of energy received at ground level from the sun at the zenith depends on the distance to the sun and thus on the time of year. It is about 3.3% higher than average in January and 3.3% lower in July (see below). If the extraterrestrial solar radiation is 1367 watts per square meter (the value when the earth-sun distance is 1 astronomical unit) then the direct sunlight at the earth's surface when the sun is at zenith is about 1050 W/m2, but the total amount (direct and indirect from the atmosphere) hitting the ground is around 1120 W/m2.[3] In terms of energy, sunlight at the earth's surface is around 52 or 55 percent infrared (above 700 nm), 43 or 42 percent visible (400 to 700 nm), and 5 or 3 percent ultraviolet (below 400 nm).[4] [5] At the top of the atmosphere sunlight is about 30% more intense, having about 8% ultraviolet (UV),[6] with most of the extra UV consisting of biologically-damaging shortwave ultraviolet.[7]

Direct sunlight has a luminous efficacy of about 93 lumens per watt of radiant flux, higher than most artificial lighting, including fluorescent. Multiplying the figure of 1050 watts per square metre by 93 lumens per watt indicates that bright sunlight provides an illuminance of approximately 98 000 lux (lumens per square meter) on a perpendicular surface at sea level. The illumination of a horizontal surface will be considerably less than this if the sun is not very high in the sky. Averaged over a day, the highest amount of sunlight on a horizontal surface occurs in January at the South Pole (see Insolation.)

Sunlight is a key factor in photosynthesis, the process used by plants and other autotrophic organisms to convert light energy, normally from the sun, into chemical energy that can be used to fuel the organisms' activities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight

 

[stardustsailor]

Most Chem (mineral ) nutes are fast -acting ..
(Being in most root absorbable forms ... )

Organic nutes are more of Slow-released ...
Both have pros n cons ....

I'm a soilless-mix grower (peat-perlite for some ten years now .... )

I prefer mixing both types of nutes ....
Using Organics as an 'initial load ' and steady 'providers' of low concentrations ..
And minerals cause are more fast acting and controlable ..For covering the immediate anabolic needs,
of plants grown under high irradiances ...

Water availability also , plays a crucial role ,to photoprotection mechanisms of plants ...
Roots of plants ,under high irradiances ,shall never be out of water/dry ..
Else all the rest of 'sub-systems',just 'shut-down' ,to prevent severe light damage ...

Temperatures have to be moderate also (20-25C ),under high irradiance illumination ..

Elevated CO2 concentrations ,do support the photosynthesis at high irradiance.

 

[speedyganga]

So If I understand well, Cxa 3000K driven at 1400mA provide the maximum light needed for a square meter.
If used in more than 52W than not only it would be inefficient but it could also harm the plant if all the other factor are not perfect such as CO2 supplementation and quick available nutrients.
Nice, I will stick to 35W per/m2 for now then.

 

[SupraSPL]

Of course, no rush

CXA3070 2700K Official LER is 321
CXA3070 3000K Official LER 325
CXA3590 2700K Official LER 321
CXA3590 3000K Official LER 325
Vero 29 3000K (Mr Flux) LER 320
Vero 29 4000K (Mr Flux) LER 325



Will something like this work for digitizing? (Vero 4000K curve)


That reminds me of something Mr Flux and a few others have said, why not Vero 3500K. I forgot that was available. Unfortunately we do not have a curve for the 3500K Vero.