Top bin COB comparison 2

dionysus4 said:
the luna is that flip chip ying yang 2400w garbage i see all over the grow forums?
Click to expand...
That is duet 2400

nevergoodenuf said:
The Luna 300 is only $70. So less:bigjoint:
Click to expand...
I am glad you happy with your Luna 300. i still think 70 is a lot specially if we are after efficiency and not output. I can almost buy 3 Vero 29 or 2x 3070 for that cost and get much higher efficiency.
 
Last edited:
SupraSPL said:
Great data thank you sir! How was each COB mounted? In my tests I mounted them without holder, using kapton BUT I did check the output of the Vero 29 with LEDIL C13584 holder and the holder gave it a 5-7% boost in output because it is a great shape to act as a mini reflector. I did not check the CXB3590 with ideal holder to see if there was any boost, but the ideal holder is poorly shaped as a mini reflector so that would be a good test. Also, how much are the Luna 200s retail $$?
View attachment 3598208
Click to expand...
I have been mounting my Vero's with just screws. 3590 with ideal holders. This has been test platform for a while. Active cooled 120mm fan
Untitled.png
I usually put Vero clamp (reflector Holder) only when checking Tc. I have not been using clamp on Vero for PAR charts after i saw your results that the clamp actually works like optic.
I think the ideal holder for 3590 should not change the light distribution as it is flat. However the reflector adapter on Ideal holder should change numbers just like Vero Clamp.
For veg lamps i am going to use Vero clamp without the reflectors just to focus the light slightly. Thanks for your research.

Those luna 200 cost just a little less than CXB 3070. However the performance does not look as impressive. It is like under driving a large inferior cob. It may have better thermal dissipation for over driving but the efficiency is not impressive. Luna 200 is rated for 422.3, vero 29 is rated for 4.2 amps aprox 170 watts. Vero is cheaper and still beats Luna in efficiency
 
Honestly, I found the Luna while I was waiting to get one of the first CLU550. So why not test them at nominal and under driven. The I think will out shine the Luna. The CLU will be over 40% efficient on an hlg240.
 
robincnn said:
Thanks guys. No more charts until i can save money to get the new SQ500 Apogee meter :bigjoint:

Thanks to @SupraSPL :clap: for his COB output charts.
Click to expand...


nice., that will be an affordable version of the li-cor. tracks it pretty well on the datasheet. looks like the sensor is modular and you can keep your existing meter. hopefully they will sell a package of sensor+meter for <$500
 
nevergoodenuf said:
Honestly, I found the Luna while I was waiting to get one of the first CLU550. So why not test them at nominal and under driven. The I think will out shine the Luna. The CLU will be over 40% efficient on an hlg240.
Click to expand...

From data I have seen it seems that Flip Chip Opto's core technologies, 3-Pad LED Flip Chip and Pillar MCPCB chips shine when driven hard, otherwise why bother ?

upload_2016-2-1_4-1-11.png
 
PurpleBuz said:
From data I have seen it seems that Flip Chip Opto's core technologies, 3-Pad LED Flip Chip and Pillar MCPCB chips shine when driven hard, otherwise why bother ?

View attachment 3598537
Click to expand...
What is the ceramic cob in their graph?
I thought maybe the CXB2530 but if that's so then they have cherry picked a lower bin.

The top bin of the 2530 (3000k) puts out 143 lm/w at 800 mA

Also they cherry picked to begin with since the P-25-12S3P... is a 122 watt cob while the 2530 is only 60 watts max.
 
frica said:
What is the ceramic cob in their graph?
I thought maybe the CXB2530 but if that's so then they have cherry picked a lower bin.

The top bin of the 2530 (3000k) puts out 143 lm/w at 800 mA

Also they cherry picked to begin with since the P-25-12S3P... is a 122 watt cob while the 2530 is only 60 watts max.
Click to expand...

dunno which ceramic cob could be the 2530, doesn't really matter though pay attention to the trend as the current increases and how the lines are diverging. We already know that veros and crees at currents significantly below nominal are more efficient than any of the flip chips.
 
robincnn said:
I have been mounting my Vero's with just screws. 3590 with ideal holders. This has been test platform for a while. Active cooled 120mm fan
View attachment 3598274
I usually put Vero clamp (reflector Holder) only when checking Tc. I have not been using clamp on Vero for PAR charts after i saw your results that the clamp actually works like optic.
I think the ideal holder for 3590 should not change the light distribution as it is flat. However the reflector adapter on Ideal holder should change numbers just like Vero Clamp.
For veg lamps i am going to use Vero clamp without the reflectors just to focus the light slightly. Thanks for your research.

Those luna 200 cost just a little less than CXB 3070. However the performance does not look as impressive. It is like under driving a large inferior cob. It may have better thermal dissipation for over driving but the efficiency is not impressive. Luna 200 is rated for 422.3, vero 29 is rated for 4.2 amps aprox 170 watts. Vero is cheaper and still beats Luna in efficiency
Click to expand...

Gotcha thank you for clarifying, so there are no reflector holder effects in these numbers. I agree the ideal holder should have no effect, I mean to say reflector adapter rather than holder. I would like to test the ideal reflector holders effects versus the ledil clamp just out of curiosity
 
Last edited:
revisiting supras graph on

https://www.rollitup.org/t/top-bin-cob-comparison.891010/page-26#post-12264383

comparing the cost per watt at a given efficiency its a dead heat between the 80 cri vero29 V2s and the CD bin 3590

for example, budget of $2000 for 2000 W (cobs only):
50 cxbs @ 40W ea, $40 each = 8 PPFD/W
80 veros @ 25W ea, $25 each = 8 PPFD/W

double the wattage/half the cost ($1000 for 2000W)
25 cxbs @ 80W ea, $40 each = 7.25 PPFD/W
40 veros @ 50W ea, $25 each = 7.25 PPFD/W

obvious advantage of the cxbs is less equipment to deal with mounting, tapping, wiring, etc
prob comes down to cost of holders lenses and accessories at that point

will be interesting to see if the V3 veros and the newer bin CXBs also track the same on cost per watt, or if one will pull ahead? prob only slightly if anything

at that point lumen maintenance may give one or the other an edge over the life of the product, say 2+ years from now.

these are jerrys prices on CXB in bulk and digikeys prices on veros. vero from jerry in bulk is prob the best, i have an email into him
 
fun fact: looking at heat transfer area of the veros vs the cxbs

cxb = 34.85 x 34.85 square = 1214 mm2
vero = 49.5 mm circle = 1963 mm2

for a given wattage of cob in the previous example (vero 1.66x the qty vs cxb@ 1.66x the cost)
vero = 1963*1.66/1214 = 2.68 x the surface area per watt of dissipation at the same lumen/watt efficiency

surely that superior dissipation can help to partially explain the veros impressive performance. an excellent candidate for advanced cooling methods
 
cxb2530 3000k at 800ma, 36v, 29w is putting out 3500 lumens. Price seems about the same. How do these compare? These are rated for 40v at 1.15A, 46w putting out 6700lumens. 145lm/watt compared to the cxbs at 120lm/watt, not too shabby! How much more efficient are they at 700ma than 1150ma?
 
thetr33man said:
cxb2530 3000k at 800ma, 36v, 29w is putting out 3500 lumens. Price seems about the same. How do these compare? These are rated for 40v at 1.15A, 46w putting out 6700lumens. 145lm/watt compared to the cxbs at 120lm/watt, not too shabby! How much more efficient are they at 700ma than 1150ma?
Click to expand...

Starting with 148.6 lumens / watt (6700 lumens / 1150ma * 39.2 for 80 cri). and estimating with the Vf x Current and Lumens x Current charts near the bottom of the data sheet, I get around 5-10% increase in lumens/watt. so maybe 155 - 160 lumens/watt ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top