Bridgelux Gen2 BXEB-L0560Z-30E2000-C-B3 First Look

wietefras

wietefras

Well-Known Member
PSUAGRO. said:
Lol, I want whatever you're vaping........i don't give a shit about some flat pane measurements with user error.

Idk where your getting higher efficiency, less losses from without proof/ sphere tested builds?
Click to expand...
Just ask yourself, would you put 4 COBs on a single heat sink in the center of your room, or would you spread them out? Or alternatively, would you lump 4 led strips together in the middle of the room or would you spread them out?

Pricewise, QBs use the exact same LM561Cs as Samsung F-series Gen3 strips. Yet a Samsung strip with 288 of those SMD's costs $48.

But like I said, some people I can't reach anymore and the people who do get it have already moved to strips. So not much point for me to invest much time into this. Sometimes you have to pick your battles.
 
PSUAGRO.

PSUAGRO.

Well-Known Member
wietefras said:
Just ask yourself, would you put 4 COBs on a single heat sink in the center of your room, or would you spread them out? Or alternatively, would you lump 4 led strips together in the middle of the room or would you spread them out?

Pricewise, QBs use the exact same LM561Cs as Samsung F-series Gen3 strips. Yet a Samsung strip with 288 of those SMD's costs $48.

But like I said, some people I can't reach anymore and the people who do get it have already moved to strips. So not much point for me to invest much time into this. Sometimes you have to pick your battles.
Click to expand...
You're assuming the thermal management is the same?..........like I said, show some proof, sphere results with strips .

Bcblondes think their fixtures are the most efficient on the market from their ppfd map. .....ha
 
Last edited:
WeedSexWeightsShakes

WeedSexWeightsShakes

Well-Known Member
I could see the qb120s and 132s being the better buy. No headsinks and everything a little more spaced out.
I don’t get what the issue is with putting your quantum board in the middle of you tent tho lol.
Given it covers the area you are growing in.
They seem to have good light spread from what I have previously used.
I’m pretty sure your example of having 4 cobs in the middle isn’t very relevant.
From everything I’ve read qbs have better spread than cobs.
 
S

Schalalala

Active Member
wietefras said:
Pricewise, QBs use the exact same LM561Cs as Samsung F-series Gen3 strips. Yet a Samsung strip with 288 of those SMD's costs $48.
Click to expand...
Samsung doesn't garantuee S6 chips (or do they??) and they use cheap FR4 PCB material, not aluminium. You have to admit that these are advantages, or in case of aluminium CAN be... depending how hard you wanna drive your LEDs.
 
Humple

Humple

Well-Known Member
wietefras said:
Just ask yourself, would you put 4 COBs on a single heat sink in the center of your room, or would you spread them out? Or alternatively, would you lump 4 led strips together in the middle of the room or would you spread them out?

Pricewise, QBs use the exact same LM561Cs as Samsung F-series Gen3 strips. Yet a Samsung strip with 288 of those SMD's costs $48.

But like I said, some people I can't reach anymore and the people who do get it have already moved to strips. So not much point for me to invest much time into this. Sometimes you have to pick your battles.
Click to expand...
IMAG0272.jpg
That's why I like the QB120 so much. You can cover the whole canopy easily and at low cost. (Though the spread on my build would have been better with a wider frame.)
 
S

SteelyX

Active Member
tomate said:
You don't have to do that. Most of the manufacturers provide an IES optical source model. All you have to do is to open it with the DIAL LDTeditor and complete the missing information like size/shape, wattage and luminous output. In case of the lumen output you can simply provide the absolute ppf values (µmol/s) instead of lumens so your results will show PPFD instead of lux which by the way Cree probably did the same for their horticulture reference paper using the same software to demonstrate some PAR maps.
If you need more decimal spaces for more accurate results, simply open the ies file with a text editor and change the numbers manually. Dialux will show you only rounded numbers, but it will use the point numbers for its calculations.
Click to expand...

That's great. Thanks.
Any chance you could post or send me the script for that layout? It would be a great starting point for my project.
 
Randomblame

Randomblame

Well-Known Member
GrowLightResearch said:
Just noticed they are sold out. Sometimes I see them on eBay and Amazon. Many times marked up.



That sex pistols image in my head was not good.

I went through some very rough years recently. I am finally back to near normal. Although I was never normal. I could not imagine how awful it would be to be normal. I used to say I have lived a blessed life. the worst that happened to me was my dog died. Then 2010 came along. An unbelievable number of things beyond my control went to shit. Sometime between 2010 and 2014 my dog died. I do not know what year that was.

I understand Quantum electrodynamics fairly well. Much more than what's his name. I did not like seeing him give others bad advice.
I like a challenge, I tried to get him to understand. He knows stuff, like book smart. He likely took physics and was able to take and pass the exams. But there is a difference between being able to answer a question and know why that formula comes up with the answer. I am not satisfied with knowing the answers. I need to understand why and how it works. I need to visualize it in my head.. For example I could ace an exam on gravity. I cannot wrap my head around how gravity actually works. Haven't had the need to either. In this thread I gave it my all to put him in his place. I have seriously come to the conclusion he has some sort of personality disorder. In retrospect I wasted too much time. I could have been helping others that needed it. And those I can help, rather than this lost cause. I was too technical. It's science to me. I know the difference between intensity, density, radiance, and radiance. I am very careful to use the correct terminology. I have a PhD son in law. If I use an incorrect term he corrects me. You can not image how many times I have heard the difference between taste and flavor explained to me. He drinks too. One of the problems is I do not come across well in written words. You can not see my smile. I always smile now. My next challenge is to learn diplomacy. I can't even read his posts anymore.
Click to expand...

It's pretty much faded out over the years. But it's a funny thing if you refresh your tetanus vaccination at the doctor..
I even popped a nurse with the help of the tattoo, it always breaks the ice and makes the girls laughing ...


BTW, I can see you smilin'...

 
Last edited:
wietefras

wietefras

Well-Known Member
WeedSexWeightsShakes said:
I could see the qb120s and 132s being the better buy. No headsinks and everything a little more spaced out.
I don’t get what the issue is with putting your quantum board in the middle of you tent tho lol.
Given it covers the area you are growing in.
They seem to have good light spread from what I have previously used.
I’m pretty sure your example of having 4 cobs in the middle isn’t very relevant.
From everything I’ve read qbs have better spread than cobs.
Click to expand...
Why would a QB have better spread than 4 COBs lumped in the middle? It's the same amount of light coming from the same small area. It all spreads out in 10" already and you really need to hang a QB288 at 18" to get the light to spread over the whole 2x2. At that distance there is no difference between 288 separate SMDs or 4 COBs (BTW also with a few hundred diodes inside).

The problem is that you can't easily get the edges of the grow lit up when the light is all lumped in the middle. This is what you get with a QB in a 2x2 or 4xQB in a 4x4 even at 18":
QB288_PPFD.png HLH550=4xQB288_PPFD.png
That is just incredibly poor uniformity even at what is an extreme height for leds. It's really the minimum acceptable for growing plants. While with led strips you get pretty much uniform light everywhere at already 6". See the animation tomate posted a bit up.

So what you see people do to fix this problem is to put COBs around the QBs or they run those expensive boards at say 50W instead of 135W and then simply use just as many as they did with COBs before. Costs a fortune, but indeed that will be a better light spread than the COB fixture they had before. But then you can do the same (actually better) with a led strips costing 60% of that.

Or you really need to increase the height to 18" and run with that poorly uniform lighting. The problem with that height is that wall losses increase with the amount of wall exposed to the light. For every inch the height increases you will lose around 2% to 4% of the light depending on reflectivity of the walls.

Spread 4 COBs around each over a sqft and you can drop the light to 10". Spread it over 4 led strips and you can drop to 6". That's easily a gain of 30% in total light. And you'd spend only 60% on the cobs or strips. Those Ledgardner PPFD maps above show even bigger wall losses (40% for 12" or 60% for the full 18"), but then he uses a tent with "white poly" lining so his wall losses will be on the high side.

It all works fine, but I think it would have been a lot better if people tried to improve led strip fixtures and come up with kits for that instead of the boards. It seems like half the forum is having their own board clones made in China.
 
S

Schalalala

Active Member
Okay, didn't know you talked about a commercial available fixture....well, in my opinion you are comparing apples to grapes (4 Cobs with heatsinks are more expensive than a QB with a heatsink, you can't compare commercial fixtures with DIYs etc.) but yeah, i don't want to get into this argument.
I fully agree with you that stripes are currently the best option.
 
D

Dave455

Well-Known Member
wietefras said:
Why would a QB have better spread than 4 COBs lumped in the middle? It's the same amount of light coming from the same small area. It all spreads out in 10" already and you really need to hang a QB288 at 18" to get the light to spread over the whole 2x2. At that distance there is no difference between 288 separate SMDs or 4 COBs (BTW also with a few hundred diodes inside).

The problem is that you can't easily get the edges of the grow lit up when the light is all lumped in the middle. This is what you get with a QB in a 2x2 or 4xQB in a 4x4 even at 18":
View attachment 4084125 View attachment 4084126
That is just incredibly poor uniformity even at what is an extreme height for leds. It's really the minimum acceptable for growing plants. While with led strips you get pretty much uniform light everywhere at already 6". See the animation tomate posted a bit up.

So what you see people do to fix this problem is to put COBs around the QBs or they run those expensive boards at say 50W instead of 135W and then simply use just as many as they did with COBs before. Costs a fortune, but indeed that will be a better light spread than the COB fixture they had before. But then you can do the same (actually better) with a led strips costing 60% of that.

Or you really need to increase the height to 18" and run with that poorly uniform lighting. The problem with that height is that wall losses increase with the amount of wall exposed to the light. For every inch the height increases you will lose around 2% to 4% of the light depending on reflectivity of the walls.

Spread 4 COBs around each over a sqft and you can drop the light to 10". Spread it over 4 led strips and you can drop to 6". That's easily a gain of 30% in total light. And you'd spend only 60% on the cobs or strips. Those Ledgardner PPFD maps above show even bigger wall losses (40% for 12" or 60% for the full 18"), but then he uses a tent with "white poly" lining so his wall losses will be on the high side.

It all works fine, but I think it would have been a lot better if people tried to improve led strip fixtures and come up with kits for that instead of the boards. It seems like half the forum is having their own board clones made in China.
Click to expand...
Why not just get F double 4 foot strips and cover that tent with photons !!!
 
Humple

Humple

Well-Known Member
wietefras said:
Yes that looks better already. Although I'd say led strips would still beat that on price and light spread.
Click to expand...
I'm sure you're right about the spread. And I can't recall the current at which the various strips require heatsinks, so I won't argue on price either. (The savings on aluminum are what attracted me to the 120s - I have a little less than $225 in this 250w build.)
 
Randomblame

Randomblame

Well-Known Member
WeedSexWeightsShakes said:
I could see the qb120s and 132s being the better buy. No headsinks and everything a little more spaced out.
I don’t get what the issue is with putting your quantum board in the middle of you tent tho lol.
Given it covers the area you are growing in.
They seem to have good light spread from what I have previously used.
I’m pretty sure your example of having 4 cobs in the middle isn’t very relevant.
From everything I’ve read qbs have better spread than cobs.
Click to expand...
QB's are better as one 150w COB, agreed, but with four COB's you would be able to spread the light more uniform with the same or better effiency. From this point of view he is indeed correct.
But I would not go so far as to call QB's a bad idea. They are definately a game changer because they showed us how efficient mid-power diodes can be and switching to LED strips is just the next logical step on the way to find the best light for our purposes. And with stripes and the new QB120, 132 and 96 we are already very close.

BTW, you can take a QB slate heatsink to mount 4 COB's to each corner as long as you use the same driver/ amount of watts it's also enough for low driven COB's.
 
PSUAGRO.

PSUAGRO.

Well-Known Member
Randomblame said:
QB's are better as one 150w COB, agreed, but with four COB's you would be able to spread the light more uniform with the same or better effiency. From this point of view he is indeed correct.
But I would not go so far as to call QB's a bad idea. They are definately a game changer because they showed us how efficient mid-power diodes can be and switching to LED strips is just the next logical step on the way to find the best light for our purposes. And with stripes and the new QB120, 132 and 96 we are already very close.

BTW, you can take a QB slate heatsink to mount 4 COB's to each corner as long as you use the same driver/ amount of watts it's also enough for low driven COB's.
Click to expand...

He's saying F strips are cheaper(true)/more efficient & less losses? than QB's...................with no proof, that's my issue. I'm sorry but par maps are not an accurate way to gauge system efficiency

4 cobs/strips vs a qb is silly, obvious advantage in spread.......buyer knows this before committing to one or the other
 
wietefras

wietefras

Well-Known Member
Schalalala said:
Okay, didn't know you talked about a commercial available fixture....well, in my opinion you are comparing apples to grapes (4 Cobs with heatsinks are more expensive than a QB with a heatsink, you can't compare commercial fixtures with DIYs etc.) but yeah, i don't want to get into this argument.
I fully agree with you that stripes are currently the best option.
Click to expand...
I'm not comparing commercially available fixtures. Just the boards, but they were placed as advised by the manufacturer.

CobKits already showed that 4 citizen 1212 (of the previous gen) mounted on a slate (QB heatsink) are identical in performance to a QB. But those COBs cost $5 a piece (when they were last available). The current gen ones are around $11 or $12 something and they are better still. So that $48 worth of COBs beating a $75 QB.

Strips > COBs > QBs
 
Randomblame

Randomblame

Well-Known Member
PSUAGRO. said:
He's saying F strips are cheaper(true)/more efficient & less losses? than QB's...................with no proof, that's my issue. I'm sorry but par maps are not an accurate way to gauge system efficiency

4 cobs/strips vs a qb is silly, obvious advantage in spread.......buyer knows this before committing to one or the other
Click to expand...
No, as long as they use the same diodes(LM561c/S6) pure LED effiency is the same.
But with strips, you can distribute the light better, which means you can reduce the distance and use the light "more efficiently". Here lies the real advantage of using optimal distributed strips.
BTW,
If I would use QB's I would anyway use two QB288's in parallel + HLG-150H-54A for a 2x 2' area to get the desired uniform illumination at half the distance, without the need of heatsinks.
 
PSUAGRO.

PSUAGRO.

Well-Known Member
Randomblame said:
No, as long as they use the same diodes(LM561c/S6) pure LED effiency is the same.
But with strips, you can distribute the light better, which means you can reduce the distance and use the light "more efficiently". Here lies the real advantage of using optimal distributed strips.
BTW,
If I would use QB's I would anyway use two QB288's in parallel + HLG-150H-54A for a 2x 2' area to get the desired uniform illumination at half the distance, without the need of heatsinks.
Click to expand...
Yes absolutely friend IF same bins and thermal management? still would prefer strips to be sphere tested and confirmed................also can dim/run lower ma on qb's and bring them closer @ a cost
 
Last edited:
GrowLightResearch

GrowLightResearch

Well-Known Member
Randomblame said:
with four COB's you would be able to spread the light more uniform
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that is true. IMHO it is difficult to get good uniformity with CoBs. Where it is simple with strips.

PSUAGRO. said:
I'm sorry but par maps are not an accurate way to gauge system efficiency
Click to expand...
No, system efficiency is not a good use for a PAR map. They are a good way to gauge uniformity at various heights to find the optimal height. Then you just need to adjust the intensity (driver current).

PSUAGRO. said:
still speculation until strips are sphere tested.
Click to expand...
What does sphere testing give you? A count of all the photons emitted from the LED with no consideration of the directional component (datasheet's spacial radiation pattern). A sphere works okay for a light bulb, not LEDs. It strips the LED's directional pattern. A light bulb radiates equally in every direction so a sphere flux measurement has value to a light bulb when designing a lighting fixture. When designing an LED lighting fixture the directional information is required because the LED intensity changes at every angle.

So if you take the flux of one LED that has been sphere tested, you just multiple the measured flux times the number of LEDs. That should give you the exact same results as if you tested a strip in the sphere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top