Do you have any documents confirming this?
Do you have any documents confirming this?
Rahz
Well-Known Member
The 3590 datasheet has a current-vs-luminosity chart, shows the 50C reading at about 93% which is factored into the average luminosity at nominal, 50C. There was some talk about the datasheet and PCT not matching up some time back and the consensus was that the figures @SupraSPL came up with were more accurate.
If you want to take a look at the Vero29C at 1.05 amps to compare, Bridgelux has a product simulator. http://www.bridgelux.com/product-simulator
Last edited:
MildGro
Member
Interesting info about the Vero, I hadn't considered it.
Continuing on with this build example, to hit 51000 PPF at 1.05 amps, this is data from the calculator:
Cree CXB3590 3500K: QTY:550, Total PPF: 50313.0, Total power watts at the wall: 20795.74
VERO29.V2.0.4000K: QTY:700, Total PPF: 50759.94, Total power watts at the wall: 28461.7
Could it be that the calculator is off, or am I missing something here?
Rahz
Well-Known Member
I haven't looked at the calculator, but it looks like you're looking at Vero gen6 (V2.0). I'm pretty sure you can achieve equal output without using 40% more power using them so there might be an issue with the calculator, but I'm just guessing. It may be pretty close or correct.
At any rate, Vero 29 2.0 is a different chip. You should be looking at the gen7 C version of the Vero29 for the efficiency figures I quoted. No reason to be using Vero 2.0 unless they're dirt cheap somewhere.
At any rate, Vero 29 2.0 is a different chip. You should be looking at the gen7 C version of the Vero29 for the efficiency figures I quoted. No reason to be using Vero 2.0 unless they're dirt cheap somewhere.
CobKits
Well-Known Member
what rahz said
vero 6 ouptuts less than the crees, vero7 sure doesnt
36V vero7 and citi 1818 both slightly above the CXB3590 across the board in every single test ive ever done. either crees calculator is optomistic or every other manufacturer is pessimistic.
look at jorge's efficiency numbers for the citis, vs cxb in the same color temp. this isnt even accounting for crees screwy 25 Tc in the calculator
vero 6 ouptuts less than the crees, vero7 sure doesnt
36V vero7 and citi 1818 both slightly above the CXB3590 across the board in every single test ive ever done. either crees calculator is optomistic or every other manufacturer is pessimistic.
look at jorge's efficiency numbers for the citis, vs cxb in the same color temp. this isnt even accounting for crees screwy 25 Tc in the calculator
Last edited:
CobKits
Well-Known Member
i think 3500k was just popular because of its universal applicability to veg and flower. and the fact that it got you into a higher binned chip. in any case the real differences between 3000 and 3500k in yield and flower structure is small, photon flux are pretty similar +/- just a few % at most
Rahz
Well-Known Member
My take is that it's leftover from HPS/MH days. 3000K 80CRI has about 12% blue. 3500K has about 15%. Standard HPS has 6%.
3000/80 is good for flower and even a dedicated veg lamp, though I may catch some flack for that statement.
I'm absolutely sure fan leaves under 3000K are larger than 3500K across many strains. I suspect 3500K produces more secondary branching but it was a casual observation and I can't say for certain but I always felt I was doing more trimming under the 3500K lamp. This might be good for vegging a mother, but with a single topping you will end up with bushes either way from most strains so for vegging a plant in prep for flowering I would still choose 3000K. Higher K lamps are more efficient, so that needs to be taken into consideration but pulling watts out of the red zone also lowers the phototropic efficiency. I'd like to see someone do a veg and show pictures stating "this is what 3000K veg looks like, this is what 3500K looks like, this is what 4000K looks like, etc.". Beyond that the veg K preference seems like a shaky opinion. If someone is working in a height restricted area that might make high K more attractive, but I didn't notice any stretch/height difference between 3000 and 3500, so if 4000+ produces shorter plants I would like to see some show and tell.
3000/80 is good for flower and even a dedicated veg lamp, though I may catch some flack for that statement.
I'm absolutely sure fan leaves under 3000K are larger than 3500K across many strains. I suspect 3500K produces more secondary branching but it was a casual observation and I can't say for certain but I always felt I was doing more trimming under the 3500K lamp. This might be good for vegging a mother, but with a single topping you will end up with bushes either way from most strains so for vegging a plant in prep for flowering I would still choose 3000K. Higher K lamps are more efficient, so that needs to be taken into consideration but pulling watts out of the red zone also lowers the phototropic efficiency. I'd like to see someone do a veg and show pictures stating "this is what 3000K veg looks like, this is what 3500K looks like, this is what 4000K looks like, etc.". Beyond that the veg K preference seems like a shaky opinion. If someone is working in a height restricted area that might make high K more attractive, but I didn't notice any stretch/height difference between 3000 and 3500, so if 4000+ produces shorter plants I would like to see some show and tell.
sixstring2112
Well-Known Member
Yeah the difference between 3000k and 4000k is nothing like we used to do it using 6500k mh for veg and 2200k for flower.all those cobs are right down the middle imo.if you really wanted shorter node plants try 6500k otherwise 3000 to 4000k is the all purpose light.im really anxious to see how these 2700k cobs im using now do next to 3500k
Last edited:
Stephenj37826
Well-Known Member
@CobKits
what about Tj/Tc in the Cree tool? the Citi tool adjusts those numbers automatically as current goes up but I believe you need to manually adjust crees.
Last edited:
Stephenj37826
Well-Known Member
@churchhaze is it april 1st?..............................lol...........................you probably don't want me to quote you on this down the road.
maybe I stepped out of a time machine, POSSIBLE..........not hitting that system efficiency with white phosphor in 2016
I'm a pessimist, so prove me wrong...I like the taste of crow
The numbers are derived from the diode manufacturers tool. We will be testing them in sphere after expo. Maximizer And Razor 250 bar fixture where first priority. Should have numbers in the next 10 days on these 2 fixtures.
Stephenj37826
Well-Known Member
3000k 80cri vegs fine. Also internodal spacing is dictated by intensity as well as spectrum and I feel that intensity has a bigger impact than spectrum.
What would be the best for both vegs and flowers? Thanks
CobKits
Well-Known Member
its real hard because most mfrs data is at a given temp. its like a whole different level of dissipation in real world conditions at low currents as evidenced by the characteristic almost asymptotic-looking graphs of all chips at low level. but that could be a uniform bias somewhere else (par sensor at low sensitivity, etc)
Stephenj37826
Well-Known Member
3000-4000k
We prefer 3000k as we feel the slight decrease in total ppf is well worth it to achieve a more favorable flowering spectrum.
MildGro
Member
Hey six, aside from all the math and shit, what's your real world opinion on the how much current needs to be pumped through 2 bars of 5 to meet or exceed the yield of a 1000w DE?
I'm seeing on these numbers on spreadsheets and calculators telling me I need 2.1A to make the same PPF as the ovens, but then you show me these tall monsters that are growing at @1050.
Not that I mind pumping the extra juice, it comes down to how many drivers I'm going to need. I'd rather not have to use three if I can use two you know what I mean.