CRI test and Mcree weighted results

@NoFucks2Give , OMG, please stop it already man. As many people have tried to explain to you:

STOP LOOKING AT CHLOROPHYLL CHARTS!!!!

Try to understand things before you claim everybody else is wrong. There are more pigments in plants than just chlorophyll



Those other pigments also contribute to photosynthesis. Look up (and try to understand!) the McCree "Relative Quantum Efficiency" and absorptance charts.

Someone measured the actual RQE and Absorptance for Cannabis Sativa:




That's how the whole set of pigments in a cannabis leaf responds to all the wavelengths, instead of just the chlorophyll charts which you keep posting.

wietefras said:

There are more pigments in plants than just chlorophyll

Click to expand...

In your chart there only chlorophyll and the less efficient carotenoids are applicable to higher pant life. Whereas phycocyanin, Phycoerythrin apply to bacteria and algae.

Please notice the top cannabis graph is labeled RELATIVE QUANTUM EFFICIENCY,not absolute.

The absorbance spectrum does not appear (meaning I do not know for sure) to be photosynthesis absorption but rather spectral absorption as result of the leaves reflection. This would be used to distinguish illegal cannabis fields from other vegetation. Photosynthesis was not in the object of this study. Just because the leaf absorbs a photon does not mean it is used by the plant. Over 70% of photons are that hit the leaf are not used. There is also transmittance and fluence.

FROM A GRADUATE LEVEL AUTHORITATIVE TEXT BOOK Plant Physiology and Development 6th Edition.:



Why quantum efficiency was included in the report is a mystery to me.



Do you have the full report text?

The study's objectives were to 1) characterize the spectral properties of the leaves of marijuana and various other plants that occur where marijuana is grown in the eastern United States, 2) simulate canopy reflectance, and 3) identify wavebands for discriminating marijuana from other plants. In a series of replicated field experiments, the basic factors affecting marijuana growth and reflectance, including planting date, plant density, and N-fertilization

Without the full report the graph is meaningless.

wietefras said:

STOP LOOKING AT CHLOROPHYLL CHARTS!!!!

Click to expand...

Don't tell me what to do. If I want to understand photosynthesis I need to see chlorophyll and cartotenoid charts.

NoFucks2Give said:

In your chart there only chlorophyll and the less efficient carotenoids are applicable to higher pant life. Whereas phycocyanin, Phycoerythrin apply to bacteria and algae.

Please notice the top cannabis graph is labeled RELATIVE QUANTUM EFFICIENCY,not absolute.

The absorbance spectrum does not appear (meaning I do not know for sure) to be photosynthesis absorption but rather spectral absorption as result of the leaves reflection. This would be used to distinguish illegal cannabis fields from other vegetation. Photosynthesis was not in the object of this study. Just because the leaf absorbs a photon does not mean it is used by the plant. Over 70% of photons are that hit the leaf are not used. There is also transmittance and fluence.

FROM A GRADUATE LEVEL AUTHORITATIVE TEXT BOOK Plant Physiology and Development 6th Edition.:

View attachment 3966473

Why quantum efficiency was included in the report is a mystery to me.



Do you have the full report text?

The study's objectives were to 1) characterize the spectral properties of the leaves of marijuana and various other plants that occur where marijuana is grown in the eastern United States, 2) simulate canopy reflectance, and 3) identify wavebands for discriminating marijuana from other plants. In a series of replicated field experiments, the basic factors affecting marijuana growth and reflectance, including planting date, plant density, and N-fertilization

Without the full report the graph is meaningless.

Click to expand...

The top chart (Mcree RQE) was formulated by observation of CO2 assimilation. That equals photosynthesis in my book. Cannabis most certainly use green in photosynthesis..... Look up Nasa study. In high intensity white light green actually does better than red.

NoFucks2Give said:

Citizen's PPF/Watt numbers look correct. The numbers generated by Alesh's SPD spreadsheet look very high.

Click to expand...

My response was a mistake assuming the relative values might be off due to sensor response. Correcting the sensor response changed the results by less than 2%. It wasn't a well thought out response, but the point is, the readings I took for this test were meant to be relative. I wanted to show how the various phosphor coatings would affect the PAR output, which I did.

As far as Alesh's spreadsheet looking high, this has been explained several times. The QER generated by the sheet is umols per radiant watt, while the Citizen data is showing umols per watt... meaning how many photons are generated from an input watt (at nominal current). The rest of that potential energy is converted into heat and the umol/j figures will go up or down based on the current applied. You yourself just stated in another thread:

One watt @ 680nm =   5.68 µmol
One watt @ 420nm =   3.51 µmol

Those figures are for radiant watts and QER factored by the spreadsheet will fall between them... usually between 4 and 5 for white sources, though something like 2700K 90CRI and lower K 90+ CRI values will be over 5. The sheet also factors the LER which is used to find the radiometric efficiency expressed as lumens per watt (at a particular current) as a percentage of the LER. That percentage is multiplied by the QER to find PPF/(input) watt and will fall between 1 and 3, I think for everything but old school incandescent bulbs.

If you want to see if the spreadsheet is working plug a Citizen SPD into the spreadsheet, use the LPW from the datasheet (at nominal current) to find the radiometric efficiency (as a percentage of LER) and multiply it by the QER. I suspect you will come up with a number very close to the Citizen data. I hope this also answers the question you asked in another thread regarding where PAR watt and PPF values are derived. Although lumens isn't a great way to measure light intensity for plants it's an exact way to calculate the radiometric efficiency of a light source which is used to determine PAR wattage and thus PPF. PAR watts * QER = PPF.

As for the chart you posted, if you will read a bit on the Mcree study you will find that it measures the CO2 product of various spectra from whole leaf which is a direct indicator of photosynthetic rate. It shows that the green spectra is not just absorbed but is being used for photosynthesis at rates similar to the blue spectra and slightly less than red. This is old news and there's no reason to look specifically at chlorophyll a and b if you're trying to determine relative photosynthetic rates per spectra. It doesn't invalidate the chlorophyll response charts but it's a higher order test and will be a better indicator of whole plant response.

sup guys happy saturday

so i guess the question is what is the plant doing with the photons its absorbing from 300-550 nm that arent specific to photosynthesis.

How do we quantify the plant response of creation of hormones etc? do any of those processes give a distinct easily measurable input or product of reaction?

CobKits said:

sup guys happy saturday

so i guess the question is what is the plant doing with the photons its absorbing from 300-550 nm that arent specific to photosynthesis.

How do we quantify the plant response of creation of hormones etc? do any of those processes give a distinct easily measurable input or product of reaction?

Click to expand...

And a happy Sunday to you!

Stephenj37826 said:

The top chart (Mcree RQE) was formulated by observation of CO2 assimilation. That equals photosynthesis in my book.

Click to expand...

Before a photon can be subjected to Quantum Efficiency it must first be absorbed. There is much less absorption between 500 and 600nm. But of those photons that are absorbed, most everyone of them is utilized. Like the clip from the text book says, QE is nearly 100% across the board. QE only applies to the absorbed photons not the number of photons that reach the leaf.

There are many studies on Green wavelengths. Green does better than red if... There is always an if. Green is the least efficient color produced by LEDs. Efficacy of the best green LED is less than 10%. There are no phosphor pushed green LEDs on the market so they are likely less efficient than a direct green LED. The plant does not care if a photon is green or red, they are equally utilized. It just costs a lot more to feed a plant green photons from LEDs. Red photons are very efficiently generated by LEDs. The low forward voltage of red LEDs makes them more efficient. Even phosphor pushed red is very efficient. One watt of red yields more photons than any pother color. Red's biggest draw back is it is very sensitive to thermal management. A red LED can lose half its flux at a junction temperature (not case) of 100° C. Amber can lose 70% at 100° Tj. So the plant does not absorb these wavelengths well, and they are inefficient to produce.

A grow lux bulb does an adequate job with most plants. So a white LED is going to do fine. It just not as efficient as other alternatives.

Typically with phosphor conversion the more the photons are red shifted the more energy is lost to heat. When talking about cobs it's not meaningful to speak of color generated at the emitter level. As time has gone by phosphor technology has improved. For instance, the current gen 7 Vero29C at 700ma (3000K 80CRI) has a radiometric efficiency of 57%. A gen 7 Vero29C at 700ma (3000K 90CRI) has a radiometric efficiency of 56%. Very little difference for the increased red ratio.

NoFucks2Give said:

A grow lux bulb does an adequate job with most plants. So a white LED is going to do fine. It just not as efficient as other alternatives.

Click to expand...

This makes no sense. A white LED may or may not do well depending on it's electrical characteristics and drive current. A state of the art COB from a variety of manufacturers can easily reach the 50-60% efficiency range when driven in a particular current range. No bulb can do that.

Rahz said:

use the LPW from the datasheet (at nominal current) to find the radiometric efficiency

Click to expand...

There within lies the problem. lm/W is calculated with Photopic Luminous Efficacy. You cannot apply luminous efficiency to radiometric characteristics.

Multiplying the normalized radiometric values by luminous efficiency is wrong and will yield nonsensical values. The luminous efficiency is skewed by the Photopic Luminous Efficacy factors. And it skews the radiometric values in a way that weighs green wavelengths significantly more than blue or red. Additionally the distance of the measurements must match.

If you want to measure radiometric values you must use 316 mm and 100 mm distances to match the CIE Averaged LED Intensity as datasheets are required to uses as specified by CIE 127. The idea floating around on this site that distance does not matter is insane.

We can not factor in green absorbance. Even if we agree red and green are equally absorbed and utilized, that still does nothing for the fact that over 90% of the wall watts used to generate a green photon is lost as heat.

Rahz said:

there's no reason to look specifically at chlorophyll a and b if you're trying to determine relative photosynthetic rates per spectra.

Click to expand...

The reason to look at chlorophyll a and b is that is where photosynthesis takes place. Carotenoid pigments also process photons for photosynthesis but they pass the energy to chlorophyll. It's a slightly less efficient process. Without chlorophyll there is no photosynthesis in higher plant life. Bacteria and algae is a different story.

The truth is green is not utilized as well as red or blue. The quantum efficiency is misconstrued to make green look equal. Kevin Folta is likely the person on this plant that is the most authoritative when it comes to GMO and LED grow lighting. He has an open line to the public. You can ask him any question you want.

In section 2.1, on the third page of the attached Not all wavebands are created equal, Folta explains RGB wavelengths. If you have a better authority than Folta... You cannot.

Rahz said:

50-60% efficiency range

Click to expand...

No. The most efficient LED is deep blue. Cree and OSRAM are just reaching 60% efficiency with deep blue now. CoBs are no where near there yet.

Rahz said:

7 Vero29C at 700ma (3000K 80CRI) has a radiometric efficiency of 57%

Click to expand...

Show me a legitimate source for that efficiency claim. An SPD spreadsheet is not a legitimate source.

The efficiency of red phosphor is explained in the attached Lumiled white paper #32.

NoFucks2Give said:

Before a photon can be subjected to Quantum Efficiency it must first be absorbed. There is much less absorption between 500 and 600nm. But of those photons that are absorbed, most everyone of them is utilized. Like the clip from the text book says, QE is nearly 100% across the board. QE only applies to the absorbed photons not the number of photons that reach the leaf.

There are many studies on Green wavelengths. Green does better than red if... There is always an if. Green is the least efficient color produced by LEDs. Efficacy of the best green LED is less than 10%. There are no phosphor pushed green LEDs on the market so they are likely less efficient than a direct green LED. The plant does not care if a photon is green or red, they are equally utilized. It just costs a lot more to feed a plant green photons from LEDs. Red photons are very efficiently generated by LEDs. The low forward voltage of red LEDs makes them more efficient. Even phosphor pushed red is very efficient. One watt of red yields more photons than any pother color. Red's biggest draw back is it is very sensitive to thermal management. A red LED can lose half its flux at a junction temperature (not case) of 100° C. Amber can lose 70% at 100° Tj. So the plant does not absorb these wavelengths well, and they are inefficient to produce.

A grow lux bulb does an adequate job with most plants. So a white LED is going to do fine. It just not as efficient as other alternatives.

Click to expand...

Yes there are phosphor green LEDs. Photons are photons. If 500-600 where not absorbed very well HPS would not work very well. They do and as a matter of fact if you look at yield in a per photon basis HPS yields very will even compared to pure chlorophyll targeted red/blue. In this very forum white light led was tested vs red/blue dominant clw ss550 s . In a photon to photon basis the fixtures where not that much difference umol/j. The clw ss550s had a wattage advantage of 20+% and they stop didn't outperform 3500k Cree.... If what you are saying is true the blurple lights should've owned the Timber build but it didn't at all. @BMAGS did the side by side. If you bothered to read the study by NASA to which I referred you would see the green light was more effective than additional red once light levels reached what most of us provide to flowering plants 700+ ppfd. In low light conditions red/blue (specifically red) could have an advantage this the reason you see a lot of low wattage red blue fixtures by the big players. Once you get to flowering intensity things change. Measuring chlorophyll adsorption of Algae in the seventies is hardly enough evidence to conclude that's all that drives photosynthesis.......

NoFucks2Give said:

There within lies the problem. lm/W is calculated with Photopic Luminous Efficacy. You cannot apply luminous efficiency to radiometric characteristics.

Click to expand...

You haven't bothered to understand what LER represents. It has been explained multiple times and you continue to ignore it.

NoFucks2Give said:

Citizen's PPF/Watt numbers look correct. The numbers generated by Alesh's SPD spreadsheet look very high.

Click to expand...

I was going to address other points but I thought it would be better to get back to this. I quoted data you posted showing the high and low flux potentials, which just happens to be in the same range Alesh's spreadsheet will calculate... and yet somehow Alesh's number are too high? I explained why this was and offered a way to test the result of the spreadsheet against Citizen's efficiency figures and you ignore it. You debate in bad faith.

NoFucks2Give said:

No. The most efficient LED is deep blue. Cree and OSRAM are just reaching 60% efficiency with deep blue now. CoBs are no where near there yet.
Show me a legitimate source for that efficiency claim. An SPD spreadsheet is not a legitimate source.
The efficiency of red phosphor is explained in the attached Lumiled white paper #32.

Click to expand...

Really dude ,I 've been reading most of your posts about light and it's utilisation from plants.
One thing I've to say to you: Half knowledge is worse than ignorance .
I do not mean to bash on you or insult you.
I 'm just stating a truth .That's all.
And I will give you an immediate / handy example of what I mean .

" Cree and OSRAM are just reaching 60% efficiency with deep blue now "
Yes correct , at 1 Watt power ( meaning @ 350 mA, which is BTW the industry's standard for setting radiometric efficiency figures ) .

"CoBs are no where near there yet."
You really think so ?
Take a Citi CLU048 1212 for example .
12 parallel rows ,each with 12 x 1 Watt LED chips.
Thus in total ,that particular COB has 144 x 1 Watt chips.
The cobs maximum drive is at 2760 mA .
Divided by 12 rows = 230 mA for each row of 12 chips in series and that at max power.
(But Citi does not use Osram or Cree chips ,right ? )

So ...
You 're still thinking that a chip driven at 350 mA (as in single 1 watt LED emitters )
is more efficient than the same chip driven at 230 mA (as in COBs ) ?
Moreover ,the nominal If of CLU048 1212 is 1080 mA ,
which means that at nominal If ,each chip is driven at 1080 /12 =90 mA !
Does the LED die still operates more efficiently at 350 mA ,
than when driven at 90 mA ?
And on top of all these you ask : " Show me a legitimate source for that efficiency claim."
when it's all about simple maths and basic semiconductor physics.

COB operation is based upon the " power of many ( extra low driven dies )".
You should have known this -totally basic - thing,by now.
I'm really sorry ,but while it seems that you have a some sort of scientific background ,
judging by some -if not most - of your posts you seem to do not know really what you're talking about .You seem way confused ,actually with simple things .

Like that "official " chlorophyll absorption charts are more or less useless ,
'cause they used extracted chlorophylls into organic solvents (with the latter having their own absorption /reflection spectra and "contributing" to the -way false/ skewed - results also) and they did not use alive plant tissue ,where BTW you can find plenty of light-harvesting proteins
which broad significally the absorption and action spectra of chlorophylls,just for-another- example.Nowdays we use two sensors in order to measure the absorption spectra of a living leaf. One sensor is placed on the adaxial leaf surface to measure the reflectance of incident light and the other sensor is placed on the abaxial side ,measuring the transmittance .
Their sum is subtracted from 100% and the result is the absorptance.It is not the perfect method ,but for sure way more accurate than the methods used previously in the past.

Sometimes also I'm facing trouble to really understand what exactly you want to share with us .
Like :
"Before a photon can be subjected to Quantum Efficiency it must first be absorbed. There is much less absorption between 500 and 600nm. "

Much less I would have said for light > 730 nm .
Green light is absorbed from 10% to 15 % less than red at 660 nm ,per single leaf .
But due to the " green window " and sieve effect ,green photons are also absorbed from
lower canopy and not only top.So ,in fact there are very few green photons not being absorbed.
Enough though ,to cause false assumptions to humans.

" There are many studies on Green wavelengths. Green does better than red if... There is always an if. Green is the least efficient color produced by LEDs. Efficacy of the best green LED is less than 10%. There are no phosphor pushed green LEDs on the market so they are likely less efficient than a direct green LED. "

That's why we use phosphor converted white light ,instead of mono combinations .
And as for green phosphor leds ...
Already old news that obviously you never got informed about :
http://www.ledsmagazine.com/articles/2014/11/osram-research-project-increases-efficiency-in-green-leds.html

https://www.osram.com/osram_com/press/press-releases/_trade_press/2014/osram-constructs-the-worlds-most-efficient-led-lamp/index.jsp

https://www.electronicsweekly.com/blogs/led-luminaries/led-research/osram-starts-bridge-green-gap-2015-01/

"The plant does not care if a photon is green or red, they are equally utilized. "
For photosynthesis more or less it might be true .
But what about phototropism ,circadian rythms and photomorphogenesis ?
They are not "out of the whole picture" at all , as you may know about.

" It just costs a lot more to feed a plant green photons from LEDs. Red photons are very efficiently generated by LEDs. The low forward voltage of red LEDs makes them more efficient. Even phosphor pushed red is very efficient. "

And a phosphor pushed green LED ain't ?
With less Stokes shift losses already than the red phosphor and same excitation dies ?
Can you explain further how that's possible ? I'm all ears !
Moreover ,when growing under artificial lighting of high intensity ,you can't do without some green light.Otherwise you may push the plant anabolism way out of it's limits.
Green light is a signal to "slow down" .Especially under high intensity light and under long
periods of exposure .We already 've experienced what happens in such situations ,without the
use of green light.

" One watt of red yields more photons than any pother color. Red's biggest draw back is it is very sensitive to thermal management. A red LED can lose half its flux at a junction temperature (not case) of 100° C. Amber can lose 70% at 100° Tj. So the plant does not absorb these wavelengths well, and they are inefficient to produce.
A grow lux bulb does an adequate job with most plants. So a white LED is going to do fine. It just not as efficient as other alternatives. "

Which alternatives are those,really ?
Since green monos are of low efficiency ,red ,FRs and ambers when they get hot lose
efficiency dramatically and the efficient blue LEDs are needed to contribute to only 10-20%
of the total flux output ?
Alternatives ?


To finalise ,my advice to you if you choose to accept it :
Study in depth and think thoroughly ,before typing .
Otherwise ,is almost certain that quite a few people around here
by reading your posts ,unavoidably all they can think is : "OMG ,that guy is full of shit ! "

Cheers.

stardustsailor said:

Really dude ,I 've been reading most of your posts about light and it's utilisation from plants.

One thing I've to say to you:
Half knowledge is worse than ignorance .
I do not mean to bash on you or insult you.
I 'm just stating a truth .That's all.

And I will give you an immediate / handy example of what I mean .

" Cree and OSRAM are just reaching 60% efficiency with deep blue now "
Yes correct , at 1 Watt power ( meaning @ 350 mA ) .

"CoBs are no where near there yet."
You really think so ?
Take a Citi CLU048 1212 for example .
12 parallel rows ,each with 12 x 1 Watt LED chips.
The cobs maximum drive is at 2760 mA .
Divided by 12 rows = 230 mA for each row of 12 chips in series and that at max power.
(But Citi does not use Osram or Cree chips ,right ? )

So ...
You still think that a chip driven at 350 mA (as in 1 watt LEDs ) is more efficient than the same chip
driven at 230 mA (as in COBs ) ?

My advice to you if you choose to accept it :
Study in depth and think thoroughly ,before typing .
Otherwise ,is almost certain that quite a few people around here
by reading your posts ,all they can think is
"OMG ,this guy is full of shit ! "

I'm really sorry ,but while it seems that you have a somewhat scientific background ,
judging by your posts you really seem to do not know what you're talking about .

Cheers.

Click to expand...

Hey! Long time no see!

stardustsailor said:

Really dude ,I 've been reading most of your posts about light and it's utilisation from plants.

One thing I've to say to you:
Half knowledge is worse than ignorance .
I do not mean to bash on you or insult you.
I 'm just stating a truth .That's all.

And I will give you an immediate / handy example of what I mean .

" Cree and OSRAM are just reaching 60% efficiency with deep blue now "
Yes correct , at 1 Watt power ( meaning @ 350 mA ) .

"CoBs are no where near there yet."
You really think so ?
Take a Citi CLU048 1212 for example .
12 parallel rows ,each with 12 x 1 Watt LED chips.

Click to expand...

Aaaannnnd - what color are those individual LEDs in a COB? (hint - they are the most efficient ones)

ttystikk said:

Hey! Long time no see!

Click to expand...

Been pretty occupied ,my brother.
But I always find some time to sneak and take a peek on what's going on around here.

Hope that everybody is doing better than OK.

sup SDS

When i see statements like "I never do mistakes" like on the math behind thread i cant help but thinking back on preparing questions and statements on psychstudies. You allwyas include a few slightly outrageous and obviously false statements in order to remove individuals who arent responding truthfully, either for social desirability (Like "I never lie" or "I never done anything bad to anyone") or in some way has a challenged relation to reality. Anyone who answered a few of them as yes got removed; if you know they answer yes on those you know you cant really teust them on anything else. "I never make mistakes" seem to be in this category, do you really think you are unable to ever do misstakes? As stated, it seems like you come from studious background and youre obviously not stupid, but really the hallmarks of someone systematic abd scientific is to ALLWAYS cultivate a bit of doubt in how you go about things in order not to get blind to your own point of view. And whats the point of coming on a forum anyway? To enrich yourself thru discussion with others or just making sure that everyone thinks the same as you? If your guiding inner statement is nofuckstogive how do you actually learn from others, when you cant take on others ideas with out page after page of protesting?

Checkout this thread, it was one of my favorites when i found it:
https://www.rollitup.org/t/top-bin-cob-comparison.891010/

First time, as far as i know someone compared different cobs using real data at different wattages in order to find out what was going on instead of arguing over datasheets. (Tjx supra )
And eventually the thread gets derailed over something that had nothing to do about the original thread and the thread got closed down. 33 pages of reading and all the time people took to do tests and noone found out what happened in the end cause people have to bicker. Try to understand the dynamics here, knowledge easily gets lost in silly bickering and people will be reading these things as long as theres a riu.

I know wietfras might seem a bit prickly and come off a bit offensive to you. But if you have issues with him, why not settle it over PMs? If youre on someone elses thread and half the thread is you arguing with people something is not working.

I hear what you say about shit happening, death close to you an all but thats not a reason to not give a fuck. Its more the reason to give a fuck cause yeah ti.e is limited for all of us and there are better ways to spend it than arguing on a forum.
Peace and love to you, if take issue with anything i said, please hit me up on PM. I wont argue on the thread, its purpose is the experiment of Rahz.

stardustsailor said:

nd on top of all these you ask : " Show me a legitimate source for that efficiency claim."
when it's all about simple maths and basic semiconductor physics.

Click to expand...

But you did not do the math. You talk about wall watts in, yet nothing about radiant watts out, thermal watts out, or quantum efficiency.

So you think 200 lm/W is high efficiency for green? It's twice as good as what is currently being sold. What is done in the lab is one thing. What is economically feasible to mass produce is another. Currently the green LEDs being sold by Cree, Lumileds, and OSRAM are native green, not phosphor. While some green phosphors may be more efficient at producing photons, they are not yet economically viable for mono LEDs. White LEDs have to use green phosphors.

The only common mono LED color being sold is PC Amber. I have never seen a PC green LED.

Can we agree that a direct narrow band deep red and deep blue are more efficient than a phosphor pushed red and blue? Deep blue is the no brainier because they are used in white LEDs except covered with phosphor. The white paper I posted from Lumileds says direct red is more efficient than red phosphor. With red it's a matter of economics whether to use mix technology where a direct red produces superior CRI with phosphor blue and green vs. RGB phosphor.


So if we were to make a grow light using mono RGB that produce 5 µMoles each of red, green and blue. How efficient would that be? It will be more efficient than a phosphor pushed RGB, correct?

The efficiency 36.6% using the most efficient Red Green and Blue LEDs on the market calculated at their Maximum rated output run at their most efficient current at an unrealistic 25° C.

And that is why I do not believe a CoB is 60% efficient.

Let's do the "simple maths"

Currently the most efficient on the market

Cree XP-G3 Royal Blue .730 radiant Watts @ 350mA 2.82V,
Cree XPE green 113 lm/W @ 350mA 3.2V,
OSRAM Olsen SSL Hyper Red .530 radiant Watts @ 350mA 2.15V

To produce 5 µmol each of RGB we will need 2 blue 1.8W, 5 green 5.7W, and 2 red 1.7W.
Datasheets attached so you can check the "simple maths".

The column lm/W is the number of lumens required for 1 Watt radiant flux.
The column µmol/W is the number of µMoles in one watt radiant flux at that wavelength.
flux is in watts