CobKits
Well-Known Member
i hear ya. but i think 2.2 is easily acheivable. 2.6 would be a high water mark
lets look at jorge's digitized citi data
again this is on paper, i dont have my data in front of me to know if jorge used minimum flux per citi spec.
we do know citi tends to punch above its weight in testing so its possible that the numbers above are understated as much as a few percent or more. also at the low currents were targeting for efficiency, its possible to over-cool which would help a bit with flux. 90CRI chips also flux a little higher. theres also several chips our there that perform above the 1825 (whats up @Rahz wheres youre 3 umol goodness)
lots of little things.like that add up and suddenly 2.7-2.8+ is within reach at the chip level. if youre using meanwell's best you can be 95-96% efficient so in absence of optics 2.6 is right there
1818 w/optics hitting 2.6 would be a feat but we shall see!
this time next year 2.5+ should be the norm for HQ commercial cob fixtures as we will be below $1/watt on chip cost for 200lm/W
lets look at jorge's digitized citi data
again this is on paper, i dont have my data in front of me to know if jorge used minimum flux per citi spec.
we do know citi tends to punch above its weight in testing so its possible that the numbers above are understated as much as a few percent or more. also at the low currents were targeting for efficiency, its possible to over-cool which would help a bit with flux. 90CRI chips also flux a little higher. theres also several chips our there that perform above the 1825 (whats up @Rahz wheres youre 3 umol goodness)
lots of little things.like that add up and suddenly 2.7-2.8+ is within reach at the chip level. if youre using meanwell's best you can be 95-96% efficient so in absence of optics 2.6 is right there
1818 w/optics hitting 2.6 would be a feat but we shall see!
this time next year 2.5+ should be the norm for HQ commercial cob fixtures as we will be below $1/watt on chip cost for 200lm/W