Top bin COB comparison

AquariusPanta said:

And why, if you care to share and in your humble opinion, do you feel that their instrument is unsuitable for us, farmers to manufactures?

Click to expand...

You're twisting my words, again. And the reason why that sensor is unsuitable for measuring PAR or PPF or overall photon output is the same as the reason why you don't measure distance with a multimeter - it's simply a tool for something else.

AquariusPanta said:

And why, if you care to share and in your humble opinion, do you feel that their instrument is unsuitable for us, farmers to manufactures?

Click to expand...

I think a PAR meter is a great field tool for measuring photons for growing. Who can really afford an integrating sphere or has access to one? Very few.


So please share your comparisons between Vero and Cree. I’m interested.

@PurpleBuz

It's implied that I understand the limitations of the Quantum sensor, hence the additional correction factor that most are unaware of. But please continue.

@alesh

I may be twisting your words but only to better understand your understanding of the matter at hand. What is the objective of measuring with these devices, either quantum sensor or sphere?

@BuddyColas

I'm relieved that you feel the same way. I have some relevant comparisons on the resource page for heavenbright.com, as well as some other graphs that are stashed in my hard drive from earlier models.

AquariusPanta said:

@PurpleBuz

It's implied that I understand the limitations of the Quantum sensor, hence the additional correction factor that most are unaware of. But please continue.

Click to expand...

and yet you persist on using the apogee for purposes that are out of spec.

AquariusPanta said:

@PurpleBuz

It's implied that I understand the limitations of the Quantum sensor, hence the additional correction factor that most are unaware of. But please continue.

@alesh

I may be twisting your words but only to better understand your understanding of the matter at hand. What is the objective of measuring with these devices, either quantum sensor or sphere?

@BuddyColas

I'm relieved that you feel the same way. I have some relevant comparisons on the resource page for heavenbright.com, as well as some other graphs that are stashed in my hard drive from earlier models.

Click to expand...

I did check out the “Resource” page on your site. A great snap shot of 3 very popular emitters run fairly hard.


My request, please show that same page with them running at 50 watts, 30 watts and 20 watts. I run Vero 29s at 3500K at 25w to 35w per emitter and I run 1 emitter per square foot. I get great coverage (as measured by my rudimentary PAR meter) compared to the singe emitter of my old HPS! It’s not even a contest. And canopy temps are not even an issue anymore. Warm COBS beat anything I have seen or read about.


You, and a few others, have said that Vero 29s do lose the efficiency contest…but not by much. So I am here at ring side with my bag of popcorn waiting to see how the “Heavy-Weight COB Championship” turns out!


Thanks for sharing.

@BuddyColas

Whether they're ran at 1.6A or 2.86A, the Vero 29 and the upper CXB lineup perform very similarly in terms of output. Cree supposedly runs more efficient at lower currents but ultimately you're paying that extra premium for the heat reduction/increased efficiency and name of company.

In need of an optical spectrum analyzer perhaps. Mine only goes to 1 ghz....

Yokogawa perhaps. Many tens of thousands.

AquariusPanta said:

@BuddyColas

Whether they're ran at 1.6A or 2.86A, the Vero 29 and the upper CXB lineup perform very similarly in terms of output. Cree supposedly runs more efficient at lower currents but ultimately you're paying that extra premium for the heat reduction/increased efficiency and name of company.

Click to expand...

I for one would like to see some more relative test results. If someone can replicate robincnn's low current results that would be very interesting.

@Greengenes707

Idk why your emote is repeatedly racking his head against a wall in response to this subject - you have a PAR measurement graph on your product page, with data used by the same instrument/technology. Why don't you come out of your safe space and explain yourself, mister.

[QUOTE="AquariusPanta, post: 12169609, member: 886695][/QUOTE]
It's implied that I understand the limitations of the Quantum sensor, hence the additional correction factor that most are unaware of. But please continue.[/QUOTE]
You don't understand anything. You only know how to apply a correction factor to a reading on a meter. You don't understand what you're measureing...or what the reading is even showing/signifying.

You understand that apogee has accuracy issue(thus needing a correcting factor)...you do not understand the limitations or even the basics of a quantum meter.

So again...understand the tool and understand basic lighting terms if you are going to try and be some kind of sources for the limited and unknowing.


EDIT
I do have it...and have been doing it online here for 5+years. But unlike you, it is to show the correct information and concepts.

@Rahz

Perhaps SupraSPL will if he hasn't already? I really have no personal interest in running these kind of cobs any lower than 1.6A, as any lower becomes cost prohibitive for most folks.

@Greengenes707

Perhaps you're right about me not understanding anything at all and not knowing what I'm measuring, which in essence is obviously provided by the manufacturer/creator of the quantum sensor on their product page, so please share some specifics by using what I've said or provided to reinforce your argument, as I'm not at all convinced by your statements.

Five years, huh? So you support the use of Apogee's quantum sensor to compare the outputs of various light sources, such as Vero and Cree cobs and HID, when it's executed the exact way you were taught?

PPFD is the primary
measurement taken by a Quantum PAR meter and is expressed as a density over a unit of area, this would be
similar to using Lux or Foot-Candles on a regular light meter.

PPF as μMol/S is the value that a grow lamp should specify for its total light output (Radiant Watts would also
be appropriate), this would be similar to using Lumens for a regular area light.

http://www.inda-gro.com/IG/sites/default/files/pdf/plant-lighting-resource/2-Understanding PPF and PPFD.pdf

lets all be clear about the apogee par meter. its a great par meter for a grower to verify distribution of light over the canopy.
it can also be usefull in "roughly comparing" one light system to another for average intensity.

Unfortunately it has a major flaw in its sensor. it can't read ANYTHING over 655nm. Well PAR includes wavelengths to 700nm and 660nm is well known for its chlorophyll peak. This isn't just a weaker linear respone at 655, it drops off like a cliff.

per apogee the Spectral Range is from 410 nm to 655 nm (wavelengths where response is greater than 50 % of maximum). They are NOT kidding about a cutoff at 655nm. look at the Apogee published graph. Its A CLIFF.


sooooooooooooo if you want any kind of accurate results with a decently small deviation you have to forget about anything above 650nm because ITS NOT MEASURED. Correct it all you want BUT you have not measured anything above 650nm, meaning you might as well as extrapolate the published SPDs and flux data for an estimation of performance of a specific chip.

bottom line ... the apogee sensor is not measuring around 20-30% of the light in a warm white cob, varies somewhat depending on whose wamr white cob it is. Back correction to a manufacturer published SPD helps, but it can't make up for what it never measured, and certainly can not be used to compare the performance between different cobs.

Its a circular argument, lol.

AP,


Regarding running the COBs at lower power levels…like below 1.6A. I like to run more cobs at lower power levels to increase efficiency. I look at lighting a bit backwards. I tried to design my COB bars for a umol at the canopy that will end up 30 DLI at 12/12. So the really cool thing is that when I run autos I can dial the COBs down for 30 DLI at a 20/4 lighting schedule. That’s when they really shine (no pun intended) because the lower they are driven the more efficient they get. Shweeeeet!

And that is why I am really interested in the comparisons at lower power levels.

BuddyColas said:

AP,


Regarding running the COBs at lower power levels…like below 1.6A. I like to run more cobs at lower power levels to increase efficiency. I look at lighting a bit backwards. I tried to design my COB bars for a umol at the canopy that will end up 30 DLI at 12/12. So the really cool thing is that when I run autos I can dial the COBs down for 30 DLI at a 20/4 lighting schedule. That’s when they really shine (no pun intended) because the lower they are driven the more efficient they get. Shweeeeet!

And that is why I am really interested in the comparisons at lower power levels.

Click to expand...

I used to to, but not any more umol/j seems to be a better baseline, because not all umol created equal

Avoiding the ambiquities of comparing various lighting sources when using the mentioned measuring device and with all factors being set nearly the same, e.g. optics used, height difference, current in, Vero 29 and CXB3070/3590 cobs have performed similarly for me throughtout my output tests over the past year.

Putting datasheets and company names aside and simply looking at real life data, I have a challenging time trying to justify the extra costs associated with the 'more efficient' brand. Some people feel more comfortable though too buying something they perceive as being superior to other options and companys will exploit that psychological weakness in order to profit.

Putting all that aside there's still an anomaly that has nothing to do with brand comparative results. The Vero in robincnn's test performed very well at low currents. This was just as big a surprise as the comparative results. I'm at a loss as to how to explain it as it's not a simple matter of spectral adjustments. I would love to see some more multi current tests to see if robincnn's test data can be duplicated.

@Rahz

Yes a bit of a surprising result and this was also the case for my results at 1.6A, which led me to question the provided numbers and figures that Cree provides, as well as the authenticity of the binning.

More data from multiple sources would be ideal in attempting to better understand and compare the cobs that everyone turns to.