bassman999
Well-Known Member
There is speculation that the testing on the CXB might not have been accurate.
I have no way of testing to know first hand, but I wish I could.
Luminus CXM-32 Gen3 the next big thing??
- Thread starter bassman999
- Start date
I have no way of testing to know first hand, but I wish I could.
Me too Bc all the lumin talk really means nothing to me .. 1818 are 50% .. so that's why I'm hoping they are close to 50% eff at 75w on the cxm Bc then they would be a home run
bassman999
Well-Known Member
Reliability Designed from the ground up, the Luminus COB LED is one of the most reliable light sources in the world today. Having passed a rigorous suite of environmental and mechanical stress tests, including mechanical shock, vibration, temperature cycling and humidity. Only then are the devices qualified for use in a wide range of lighting application including some of the most demanding commercial applications. Delivered with fully qualified LM80 test data and TM21 lifetime results that certify lumen maintenance at 35,000 hours or more, Luminus COB LEDs are ready for the toughest challenges.
Careful I'm getting hard
bassman999
Well-Known Member
Thats not lifespan, just where you will be able to measure lumen loss, I think 85% remaining
Not to mention they are basing that on 85*C, so actual lumen loss should be less.
My cobs never go over 40*C but usually 26-30*C
CobKits
Well-Known Member
Last edited:
What is it on the pin heatsinks ?? Run passive .. was trying to just go off what growmau5 vid said
Greengenes707
Well-Known Member
The reference numbers?? 50c Tc dude. Pixels counted in data sheet.
What are your thoughts on this product?? Also was wandering your thoughts on best option out for right now to run at 50w or mid 70w to achieve a par of 25-50.. run passively
licoricetree
Well-Known Member
Attachments
licoricetree
Well-Known Member
Think I'm correct on the math
CobKits
Well-Known Member
just goin off PCT
i try not to get hung up on "efficiency." im content with the fact that apart from its high cost CXB is below the performance against nearly every other chip ive tested it against in the $15-$25 range
if youre going to call that "56%" as a benchmark then youre going to have to acknowledge other chips are getting to 60-70% at 25-50W. or accept that number was never really 56% to begin with
cxb is overpriced outdated tech with poor thermal management in my opinion. I mean its a fine chip... but it should be $10-$15 for what it does
when tested side by side with other chips it seems to be a lot closer to this type of performance:
Last edited:
licoricetree
Well-Known Member
I agree. Thats why im upgrading and since its a smaller chip should be better heat wise also.
CobKits
Well-Known Member
well for a given wattage, larger chips dissipate better to heatsink, but i think that the aluminum base most mfrs use is better than crees alumina ceramic esp at higher currents. just my observation based on observed thermal droop relative to other chips
realistically at 30-60W performance of most chips is so similar that chip cost is the driving factor
realistically at 30-60W performance of most chips is so similar that chip cost is the driving factor
Greengenes707
Well-Known Member
Stop trying to flex...your PCT numbers are 52%. I'm not here to argue with you about what is what...I thought you had a sphere going and this could be done? All that matters is system output anyways. And as far as built systems...the list is different. But no one here will ever really do that. Even what has been shown keeps getting ignored for basic data sheet chirping. So you are stuck to data sheets, so be it. But make it consistent. And as for the 56% reference data that everyone knows and goes by...that you yourself based many calcs off for your customers...was data sheet pixel counting to 50c Tc. Thank @SupraSPL.
As for more misinformation you're referencing(we both agree it should be used anymore anyways...but since it is)...
56% was at 1400ma(50w)...calced 64% at 700ma(25w)...two years old...less than half the die...doing just fine.
I hope some others are doign well by now. So well they may actually make it to a sphere one day when people were that confident.
Great product and has lots of proven results. In that wattage range everything available is pretty close on a system level.
Some cheaper options in the DIY realm. New vero 29's are solid.
Thanks
Well that's what I was going off of when I purchesed my cxb a yr ago.. I know it's old tech just wanted to get answers that's all. I like these cobs and think these are a great choice just wanted to know if you know the eff. If the cxm22 was in the low 45 % eff at73w then it would give off 40w off heat and just checking the light engine you had could run passive .. was just double checking .. wasn't trying to get under your skin .. thanks
CobKits
Well-Known Member
me neither, consider this last post about it for a day or two at least. not trying to battle just clarify. happy new year and thanks for your contributions
yes ive done some relative testing with my sphere but i have not had the time to be able to set it up to do absolute flux measurements at controlled case temps. maybe when im back to 100%. Also im using a simple li-cor which is filtered to PAR range and not really measuring lumens via a photodiode calibrated to a tungsten lamp (which i have, but again only so many hours in the day.... so far ive only done the limited testing i need to confirm my decisions.) it really does appear the results are darn similar to the 12" spot tests that supra and i had done
yes which is why i always put real measurements above any mfr datasheets. im just saying the "lm/W" number when compared relatively to what other mfrs claim (bridgelux and citi and luminus all do better with providing Tc/Tj and Tj-c resistance figures), would indicate that when PCT says 25 Tj they mean 25 Tj which isnt really realistic absent of water cooling. thus the 52% is prob more accurate but just a guess
later recanted/corrected by me many times over here. there may be some errant efficiency references on my website which is due for an overhaul
well it seems we agree that 56% was an overstatement at least. at that point its real world relative output in absence of a benchmark
yup lots of people doing fine. with hps, mh, cmh, T5, CFL, you name it. not saying they dont perform.
agreed. thats why im all in on luminus. as its right there with all the best chips at 40-60W at an unbeatable price.
also bullish on gen 6 citis which should put down some great perfomance
in any case youre not all that far from me, the sphere is here, if you ever want to do as much testing as you want with it
Last edited: