King Cob Led grow light

GrowLightResearch

Well-Known Member
better performance with series hookup??

please try to make it easy to understand..because i am not a tech..i am a grower
And a very good grower at that. And I'm not blowing smoke.

I am very good at tech and so so with plant physiology, but I know people that know a lot.

When the Vf does not match exactly, you are putting stress on them and the run slightly less efficient but not enough to matter much, a few dollars a year in electricity. Their further apart the Vf the more stress and inefficiencies.

you are saying that parallel is not as good because??
Because I have seen too many strips and CoBs significantly unbalanced. See my previous post in this thread.

I look for opportunity where there are problems and then create a solution to the problem.

To find problems I have to look hard and understand every detail of a system. I have been researching horticulture grow lighting for a few years now. I used to think LEDs were simple.

The boards works great, resistance is almost identical, as the solder worked to create adequate resistance to rebalance the circuit again
Why did you not solder in a new LED?

I have been using Lumileds Luxeron SunPlus 20 diodes for the reds and blues.
I would suspect those Color C LEDs will likely have issues if wired in parallel. The get too hot and if their Vf is anything like Rebel, matching strips Vf would be too problematic. Logistically an inexpensive buck step down driver with thermal overload protection would be easier, more efficient, in the long run cheaper, and much more reliable. Parts cost and the parts count to build a driver keeps going down. I found some very small inexpensive Coilcraft inductors that are perfect for a 1 amp driver. Coilcraft knows how to make inductors. I've been using them for over 30 years.

this is a thumbnail, actual size is over1600px. That's just too damn small. For my eyes.

August14 013_cr.jpg

after all a diode is resistor,
I used to think LEDs were that simple too. LEDs have a dynamic resistance. More dynamic that most will ever understand.

The resistance is characterized in the datasheet's IV curve. Datasheets use typical values but there is NOTHING typical about an LED. The IV curve and the fact that every LED's IV curve is different is why you do not want to wire them in parallel. Especially when their heat is generated and concentrated in a tiny little package. The Color C / SunPlus 20s were targeted for entertainment spot lights which need a lot of flux in a small spot. I think they get too hot to place close to one another on a PCB. So the "bigger", if you can call 2.5mm bigger, should work better than the aging Color C Line. Today I like OSRAM for horticulture.

Too many think an LED is like a light bulb. An LED is NOTHING like a light bulb. I also find becasue people tend to view LEDs as a light bulb they make poor decisions when put them to use. I do not think LEDs should be used in light bulb. Light bulbs are from Edison's time. Lighting needs to be looked at from a new out of the box perspective.

I think stuffing a bunch of high powered LEDs into a high bay fixture is stupid as stupid gets. An LED high bay is now an expensive heatsink with LEDs mounted to the heatsink. Same for light bulbs. The heat is not good for LEDs. 50,000 hrs? Bullshit.

LEDs need to be spread out to ease the thermal management. Many find that to be to costly becasue they think it would require a big expensive MCPCB. For example if we were to replace high bay fixtures by spreading individual LEDs across the entire ceiling with that line of though it would require a PCB the size of the ceiling. So what do they do? They compromise. They make a bigger PCB than a light bulb but not too big. So they end up with a 1 sq. ft. PCB which drives up the price. My choice is to make a strip only big enough to solder on the LEDs and mount the strip to a heatsink. My new strips are 0.25" or 9mm wide. The least expensive PCB panel size is 16" x 20" on which I can fit almost 60 16" long strips. The panel is laid out with 50 strips with four strings of 16 Nitride LEDs and ten strips with three strings of 21 Gallium LEDs. 16 inch works well because three of them will make a 48" strip which seems to be popular length. But yet has flexibility to fit anywhere. If I were to populate every LED I could make a 48" strip with enough flux to equal a 1000W HPS.

I'm doing the strings of 21 gallium as an experiment. I want to experiment with yellow. Yellow is know to mitigate elongation when yellow is used with seedlings. I also have a sneaky suspicion that yellow is the reason HPS does so well.

In the excerpt from a graduate level plant physiology textbook I highlighted one sentence. This is why I want to try the blue and yellow with seedlings.


There are several ways to experimentally separate a reduction in elongation rates mediated by phytochrome from a reduction mediated by a specific blue-light response. If lettuce seedlings are given low fluence rates of blue light under a strong background of yellow light, their hypocotyl elongation rate is reduced by more than 50%. The back-ground yellow light establishes a well-defined Pr-fr ratio (see Chapter 17). In such conditions, the low fluence rates of blue light added are too small to significantly change this ratio, ruling out a phytochrome effect on the reduction in elongation rate observed upon the addition of blue light.

Blue light and phytochrome-mediated hypocotyl responses can also be distinguished by the swiftness of the response. Whereas phytochrome-mediated changes in elongation rates can be detected within 8 to 90 minutes, depending on the species, blue-light responses are rapid, and can be measured within 15 to 30 s (Figure 18.6). Inter-actions between phytochrome and the blue light–dependent sensory transduction cascade in the regulation of elongation rates will be described later in the chapter. Another fast response elicited by blue light is a depolarization of the membrane of hypocotyl cells that precedes the inhibition of growth rate (see Figure 18.6). The membrane depolarization is caused by the activation of anion channels (see Chapter 6), which facilitates the efflux of anions such as chloride. Use of an anion channel blocker prevents the blue light–dependent membrane depolarization and decreases the inhibitory effect of blue light on hypocotyl elongation (Parks et al. 1998).

Blue Light Regulates Gene Expression Blue light also regulates the expression of genes involved in several important morphogenetic processes. Some of these light-activated genes have been studied in detail—for example, the genes that code for the enzyme chalcone synthase, which catalyzes the first committed step in flavonoid biosyn-thesis, for the small subunit of rubisco, and for the proteins that bind chlorophylls aand b(see Chap-ters 13, 8, and 7, respectively). Most of the studies on light-activated genes show sensitivity to both blue and red light, as well as red/far-red reversibility, implicating both phytochrome and specific blue-light responses.



It's about morphogenetic. My hypothesis is thecells affected by the polymorphism will persist for at least six weeks before the cells with the altered gene expression due to the BY lights die. polymorphismis the environmental factor in genetics. Lifeforms need to adapt to their environment. One of the best examples is a tiger's strips. Of course a tiger's strips are a genetic factor. Bu the shape and color is environmential and brought about via polymorphism. I get the six weeks from addiction research. Habitual crack and meth users develop chemically induced psychosis. They found the morphogenetic genes that cause the psychosis and other associated symptoms die off after six week when they stop smoking their drugs.

I do go off on tangents. I am not offended wen people call me crazy. I get that. Back to the topic at hand. Well let me first finish the point to yellow and the gallium strips.

Yellow is the least efficient gallium LED because its band gap is the widest with its wavelength being so far away from red the ideal color for gallium. Wide band gap equates to more energy consumed. And yellow can easily lose 80% of its flux to temperature when it reaches 100°C. Were a nitride blue or white will only lose 10% at 100° C.

I find a 48" strip would be problematic to manufacture. A pick and place robot that can handle a 48" dimension would cost too much for low volume. Samsung does not have that problem. They probably make their strips on slightly outdated mobile phone production lines.

I had a Zevatech 760 which was a great machine in almost new condition. When I move I had some one move it for me. He had it stored in a warehouse. when I contacted him to get it I found out he was dead. He went on a date with a girl from Craigslist and was met by three guys with baseball bats and they robbed him and beat him to death. And I did not know where the warehouse was. He had my entire manufacturing line stencil printer PnP, and convection oven.
 
Last edited:

GrowLightResearch

Well-Known Member
Oh shit, I hate when that happens: ...you are putting stress on them and the run slightly less efficient
I meant ...and they run slightly less efficient

I always admit when I make a mistake.


lol stop making shit up man
Jesus Christ. And you say you are an engineer. Must be a model train engineer. You don't know Jack shit about electricity.

No I do not make this shit up. Not only do I learn it, verify with experiment and using what I learned, I often fact check before I post. I did not fact check this becasue it is aso fundamental to anyone that understand how electricity works. It's taught in the fist semester, DC Fundamentals 101. For me that was in 1974 and I still remember. WTF is wrong with you?

This is why you should NOT tell your customers to wire the stuff you sell them. Or are you purposely telling them to put stress on your CoBs to make them fail so you can sell them more?

I can't believe an engineer would make such stupid comment. LOL:dunce: He who laughs lasts laughs longest. Dumb ass!



There is no shortage of literature that supports what you laugh at. Here is what took me seconds to find. Texas Instruments and OSRAM. Credible enough?


________________________________________________________________________


you are saying that parallel is not as good because??

better performance with series hookup??

please try to make it eay to understand..because i am not a tech..i am a grower

the full documents are attached.


Pitfalls of Parallel LED Arrays2.jpg





Also please notice where this one says
Moreover, if the string current is considerably different between
strings, the light output from each string would be different (Figure 3)
and this difference will be visible to the naked eye.

NOTE: This also means that there can be issue that will NOT be visible to the naked eye which is true in most cases.

Just because when you plug them in and cannot see anything is wrong, does not mean nothing is wrong. So far that is the biggest defense mentioned in favor of parallel wiring here that they work fine. Someone even posted a picture of their parallel wired fixture. Most of this stuff is NOT visible. So proud yet unfortunately they have been duped into believing the self proclaimed experts on this website. You guys say stuff with so much authority people actually believe your baffling bullshit.

Pitfalls of Parallel LED Arrays3.jpg

Pitfalls of Parallel LED Arrays4.jpg


This is especially important when the strings are running near their maximum tolerable current. Either a short or an open in one of the strings could take out them all.

Pitfalls of Parallel LED Arrays.jpg
 

Attachments

Last edited:

VegasWinner

Well-Known Member
I used to think LEDs were that simple too. LEDs have a dynamic resistance. More dynamic that most will ever understand.

The resistance is characterized in the datasheet's IV curve. Datasheets use typical values but there is NOTHING typical about an LED. The IV curve and the fact that every LED's IV curve is different is why you do not want to wire them in parallel. Especially when their heat is generated and concentrated in a tiny little package. The Color C / SunPlus 20s were targeted for entertainment spot lights which need a lot of flux in a small spot. I think they get too hot to place close to one another on a PCB. So the "bigger", if you can call 2.5mm bigger, should work better than the aging Color C Line. Today I like OSRAM for horticulture.

Too many think an LED is like a light bulb. An LED is NOTHING like a light bulb. I also find becasue people tend to view LEDs as a light bulb they make poor decisions when put them to use. I do not think LEDs should be used in light bulb. Light bulbs are from Edison's time. Lighting needs to be looked at from a new out of the box perspective.

I think stuffing a bunch of high powered LEDs into a high bay fixture is stupid as stupid gets. An LED high bay is now an expensive heatsink with LEDs mounted to the heatsink. Same for light bulbs. The heat is not good for LEDs. 50,000 hrs? Bullshit.

LEDs need to be spread out to ease the thermal management. Many find that to be to costly becasue they think it would require a big expensive MCPCB. For example if we were to replace high bay fixtures by spreading individual LEDs across the entire ceiling with that line of though it would require a PCB the size of the ceiling. So what do they do? They compromise. They make a bigger PCB than a light bulb but not too big. So they end up with a 1 sq. ft. PCB which drives up the price. My choice is to make a strip only big enough to solder on the LEDs and mount the strip to a heatsink. My new strips are 0.25" or 9mm wide. The least expensive PCB panel size is 16" x 20" on which I can fit almost 60 16" long strips. The panel is laid out with 50 strips with four strings of 16 Nitride LEDs and ten strips with three strings of 21 Gallium LEDs. 16 inch works well because three of them will make a 48" strip which seems to be popular length. But yet has flexibility to fit anywhere. If I were to populate every LED I could make a 48" strip with enough flux to equal a 1000W HPS.

I'm doing the strings of 21 gallium as an experiment. I want to experiment with yellow. Yellow is know to mitigate elongation when yellow is used with seedlings. I also have a sneaky suspicion that yellow is the reason HPS does so well.

In the excerpt from a graduate level plant physiology textbook I highlighted one sentence. This is why I want to try the blue and yellow with seedlings.


There are several ways to experimentally separate a reduction in elongation rates mediated by phytochrome from a reduction mediated by a specific blue-light response. If lettuce seedlings are given low fluence rates of blue light under a strong background of yellow light, their hypocotyl elongation rate is reduced by more than 50%. The back-ground yellow light establishes a well-defined Pr-fr ratio (see Chapter 17). In such conditions, the low fluence rates of blue light added are too small to significantly change this ratio, ruling out a phytochrome effect on the reduction in elongation rate observed upon the addition of blue light.

Blue light and phytochrome-mediated hypocotyl responses can also be distinguished by the swiftness of the response. Whereas phytochrome-mediated changes in elongation rates can be detected within 8 to 90 minutes, depending on the species, blue-light responses are rapid, and can be measured within 15 to 30 s (Figure 18.6). Inter-actions between phytochrome and the blue light–dependent sensory transduction cascade in the regulation of elongation rates will be described later in the chapter. Another fast response elicited by blue light is a depolarization of the membrane of hypocotyl cells that precedes the inhibition of growth rate (see Figure 18.6). The membrane depolarization is caused by the activation of anion channels (see Chapter 6), which facilitates the efflux of anions such as chloride. Use of an anion channel blocker prevents the blue light–dependent membrane depolarization and decreases the inhibitory effect of blue light on hypocotyl elongation (Parks et al. 1998).

Blue Light Regulates Gene Expression Blue light also regulates the expression of genes involved in several important morphogenetic processes. Some of these light-activated genes have been studied in detail—for example, the genes that code for the enzyme chalcone synthase, which catalyzes the first committed step in flavonoid biosyn-thesis, for the small subunit of rubisco, and for the proteins that bind chlorophylls aand b(see Chap-ters 13, 8, and 7, respectively). Most of the studies on light-activated genes show sensitivity to both blue and red light, as well as red/far-red reversibility, implicating both phytochrome and specific blue-light responses.



It's about morphogenetic. My hypothesis is thecells affected by the polymorphism will persist for at least six weeks before the cells with the altered gene expression due to the BY lights die. polymorphismis the environmental factor in genetics. Lifeforms need to adapt to their environment. One of the best examples is a tiger's strips. Of course a tiger's strips are a genetic factor. Bu the shape and color is environmential and brought about via polymorphism. I get the six weeks from addiction research. Habitual crack and meth users develop chemically induced psychosis. They found the morphogenetic genes that cause the psychosis and other associated symptoms die off after six week when they stop smoking their drugs.

I do go off on tangents. I am not offended wen people call me crazy. I get that. Back to the topic at hand. Well let me first finish the point to yellow and the gallium strips.

Yellow is the least efficient gallium LED because its band gap is the widest with its wavelength being so far away from red the ideal color for gallium. Wide band gap equates to more energy consumed. And yellow can easily lose 80% of its flux to temperature when it reaches 100°C. Were a nitride blue or white will only lose 10% at 100° C.

I find a 48" strip would be problematic to manufacture. A pick and place robot that can handle a 48" dimension would cost too much for low volume. Samsung does not have that problem. They probably make their strips on slightly outdated mobile phone production lines.

I had a Zevatech 760 which was a great machine in almost new condition. When I move I had some one move it for me. He had it stored in a warehouse. when I contacted him to get it I found out he was dead. He went on a date with a girl from Craigslist and was met by three guys with baseball bats and they robbed him and beat him to death. And I did not know where the warehouse was. He had my entire manufacturing line stencil printer PnP, and convection oven.
LED's are quite a device.

I have been experimenting with Cree and SunPlus 20. I will have to look at OSRAM's Horticulture line as well.

Interesting abut the yellow color, SunPlus provides a Lime color for what you speak of.

I have been experimenting and working with various reds and blues, mostly Deep Red, and, Royal Blue and their relationships and effects on each other. quite interesting.

I developed a small board to provide additional color for COB lights.

Regarding COB's I would agree with he design. The Industry wants a direct replacement for a bulb assembly and the Industry hurries and meets the need. There is an efficient space betyween a strip lighted high bay ceiling and a COB lighted high bay ceiling. This has always been an issue with me, going to another highh bay light for horticulture is the same choice made with using an HPS in the firest place a street light or high bay light.

I developed my own pcb because I am tired of he street light approach to horticulture lighting.

Osram is making inroads in that arena, as well.

Gonna go read up on Osram diodes for a while. great discussion.
thanks
 

VegasWinner

Well-Known Member
Board assembly is mostly a robotic thing. Is it really all that advantageous to go overseas?
lower cost. American's are too greedy and want too much for too little. Chinese/Shenzhen and nice guys to work with. I would like to get the highest S6 Bin for the Samsung LM561C but US manufacturers want to maximize their profits over my needs. I get good quality from my supplier, and he is honest too. Hard quality to find honesty no matter where you look.

I was thinking of flowing diodes by hand but I am getting old for that kind of work. I leave that to the guys with robotics they do a great job.
 

alesh

Well-Known Member
PPFD If anything it is a "defacto" standard not a standard SI unit. Seeing we are being technically correct, PPFD can only be used when the wavelengths are from 400nm to 700nm whereas µmols/m²•s applies to all wavelengths.
Correct, guess I should drop the leading "P".
Refer to my conversion below.

Lumens are representative of how the human eye perceives radiometric brightness as defined by the CIE. It's not a law of physics. It was determined by ask people if when the brightness of a 555 nm source was reduced until the observer felt that the two sources were equal in brightness. The fraction by which the 555 nm source was reduced, became the luminous sensitivity with respect to the second observed wavelength aka Luminous Efficacy. After enough of these observations were recorded, the CIE formalized it in a spec titled Relative Sensitivity Curve for the C.I.E. Standard Observer. However there are multiple types of vision Photopic , Scotopic , and Mesopic.

The point being it is a simple single factor conversion between photometric and radiometric.
Competely agree. For the sake of argument, I believe we're talking photopic only.

So I take that to mean you are saying W/m² cannot be converted to µmols/m²•s without making estimated conversions when crossing geometries.
No! I was talking about irradiance to photon flux conversion. That is W/m^2 to µmol/s conversion - different geometry.
The only issue I see with a conversion from watts/m² is the wavelengths from 360nm to 830 nm will stimulate the human visual system and elicit a response from an observer. Whereas PAR (PPF &, PPFD) are confined to 400-700nm. Otherwise the conversion between Lux, W/m², and µmols/m²•s all follow the laws of physics and do not require any estimations. Straight forward calculations.

So yes, I believe it is a simple conversion. Please comment on the following:


This is how I make a simple (accurate) conversion from irradiance in W/m² to quantum in µmols/m²•s.

A photon has a distinct energy quanta Ep which is defined by (Note: the m value for λ is used): Ep= h•f = h•(c/λ)

(with Plancks constant h=6,63•10-34 [Js]; Speed of light c=2.998•108 [m/s]; Frequency f [1/s]; Wavelength λ [m])

The number of photons Np can be calculated by (Note: the nm value for λ is used):

Np= E/Ep= E•((λ•10-9)/h•c) = E [W/m²]•λ10-9[m]•/ (1.988•10-25) [J/s•m/s] = E•λ5.031015 [1/(m²s)] (with Irradiance E [W/m²])
Completely correct and that's exactly what the spreadsheet does. Divide illuminance (lux) by LER and you'll get irradiance (W/m^2). Multiply by "QER" and you'll get photon irradiance (µmol/s/m^2).

In your spreadsheet you factor in the efficacy when you multiply by your "LER" in lm/W. The watts in lm/W are electrical watts. The ratio between lm and watts is the efficacy. You seem to be saying your lm/W the W is radiometric. Otherwise it is the efficacy factor. Your efficacy is very high. The best I know of is the LM301B at about 218 lm/W.
The watts in LER are radiometric (optical). Luminous efficacy of radiation. It tells you how many lumens there are in 1 watt of radiation of given spectrum.
Also illuminance and irradiance do not convert to photon density. The term is photon Irradiance or quantum Irradiance.
My bad, then. If I said photon density I meant photon irradiance.
Before I continue, I need you to clarify the "Most common use" conversion you refer to above, is what you are doing or trying to do in your spreadsheet.
What I meant is most common use of the spreadsheet's products. Say you want to find out how many µmol/s a LED produces but the data sheet only has luminous flux and SPD. Digitize SPD, get 'LER and QER', convert lumens to µmol/s.
And you disagree my conversion from irradiance to photon flux is more complex as if maybe I am missing the point?
And you have no use for my "simple" and "not possible" conversion in your spreadsheet?
It's fine. The point was that it's irradiance to photon irradiance.
You're only converting 1 wvl at the time while the spreadsheet does for the spectrum as a whole, only spiting out conversion factors for given spectrum.
 

OLD MOTHER SATIVA

Well-Known Member
my only question about "matching vf" is

it seems to me that a mismatched vf from series and parallel are the same

and series is just another way to match drivers

ie. 48 vf parallel hooked to 48v dc pcbs.

and if you mean series /parallel string inside a pcb..

then i have no reply because it seems they have to do that to arrivevat the correct vf for a driver

again.. i know sfa
 

GrowLightResearch

Well-Known Member
So far so good.

My bad, then. If I said photon density I meant photon irradiance.
I knew you knew, I was just pointing out the typo so others would not be confused. Just a typo.

The watts in LER are radiometric (optical).
This is one the point where I start getting confused..
The W (watts) in LER's (lm/W) is electrical, NOT optical or radiometric
My issue begins with the sample SPD in the spreadsheet where the LER comes out to 278 lm/W
IMHO that is a ridiculously high LER. The highest I know of is 218 lm/W for a LM301B

Example: Samsung LM561C 5000K SPMWHT541ML5XAR0S6
38 lm @ 65mA and 2.75 Vf and LER = 212 lm/W

LER calculations:
Electrical Watts = 65mA x 2.75Vf = 0.17875 W
38 lm ÷ 0.17875 W = 212.58 lm/W

Do you have a different interpretation of LER?


. Digitize SPD, get 'LER and QER', convert lumens to µmol/s.
You're only converting 1 wvl at the time while the spreadsheet does for the spectrum as a whole, only spiting out conversion factors for given spectrum.
My question was, could you use my conversion as shown in my previous post in your spreadsheet to go from SPD to get LER and QER and lumens to µmols if it were used on each wavelength in the SPD column then summed? Similar to how you do your columns.

Just need to get this clear. It is important to me to in an attempt to understand your spreadsheet.
I assume you are saying my conversion cannot be used in your spreadsheet because it is the wrong geometry (or any other reason).
Is this statement correct?
 

GrowLightResearch

Well-Known Member
it seems to me that a mismatched vf from series and parallel are the same
When in series there is no way for them to become mismatched.



When wired in parallel then there are two paths for the current to go. In parallel the paths may become unbalanced and possibly 600mA could go thru one strip and 800mA thru the other. That is not far fetched. I have seen much worse. There are things that can be done to mitigate the two paths from becoming unbalanced.

When they are wired in series, there is no way they can be unbalanced because they are both in the same path of the current flow.


parallelWiringLEDs.jpg


___________________________________________________________________________

A current mirror and monitor can save a parallel string from failure.
I got this image from the above post made by @VegasWinner and altered it.

___________________________________________________________________________
 

alesh

Well-Known Member
This is one the point where I start getting confused..
The W (watts) in LER's (lm/W) is electrical, NOT optical or radiometric
My issue begins with the sample SPD in the spreadsheet where the LER comes out to 278 lm/W
IMHO that is a ridiculously high LER. The highest I know of is 218 lm/W for a LM301B

Example: Samsung LM561C 5000K SPMWHT541ML5XAR0S6
38 lm @ 65mA and 2.75 Vf and LER = 212 lm/W

LER calculations:
Electrical Watts = 65mA x 2.75Vf = 0.17875 W
38 lm ÷ 0.17875 W = 212.58 lm/W

Do you have a different interpretation of LER?
Yes, I do. You're talking about of the luminous efficacy of a LED. I am talking about luminous efficacy of radiation that a LED produces.
38 lm @ 65mA and 2.75 Vf and L̶E̶R̶ luminous efficacy = 212 lm/W
LER of LM561C 5000K 80Ra LED is actually 329.4 lm/W, QER is 4.59 µmol/J.
With these values you can convert luminous flux of this LED to radiant flux:
radiant flux = 38 lm / 329.4 lm/W ~= 0.11536 W => electric efficiency = 0.11536 W / 0.17875 W = 64.54%; heat produced = 0.17875 W - 0.11536 W = 0,06339 W
or photon flux = 0.011536 W * 4.59 µmol/J = 0.5295 µmol/s => "quantum efficacy" (? really don't know how to call it - photons produced per energy consumed) = 0.5295 µmol/s / 0.17875W = 2.9623 µmol/J

My question was, could you use my conversion as shown in my previous post in your spreadsheet to go from SPD to get LER and QER and lumens to µmols if it were used on each wavelength in the SPD column then summed? Similar to how you do your columns.
Yes, that's what the spreadsheet does.
Just need to get this clear. It is important to me to in an attempt to understand your spreadsheet.
I assume you are saying my conversion cannot be used in your spreadsheet because it is the wrong geometry (or any other reason).
Is this statement correct?
No. Your calculations for single wavelengths are correct - there's nothing to discuss about speed of light, Planck's or Avogadro's constants.
In order to convert a complex SPD you need to apply SPD for each wavelength and then sum up.
 

GrowLightResearch

Well-Known Member
I am talking about luminous efficacy of radiation that a LED produces.
Thank you. That helped big time.

Sorry, I hate to bug you on this one but you answer is unclear to me.

I hope I understand what you are doing now.

You are using the same equations I used to convert from radiometric irradiance to quantum
irradiance. You are using radiant flux in watts to convert to µmols/s. Not W/m² to µmol/m²/s.

I was wrong about you, please forgive me. You understand optical measurement very well. I am impressed. Not too many understand it as well as you, especially on this site.

I always viewed the SPD units to be W/m². I have not thought it through all the way but I guess it does not matter if you use radiant watts because its normalized numbers. Cannot think of any reason that would not work.

Thanks for being patient with me, you are a gentleman and a scholar.
 

OLD MOTHER SATIVA

Well-Known Member
"
When in series there is no way for them to become mismatched."


>>thanks for the explanation..i almost under stand it.

it may be why i seem to notice one strip.pcb etc dimmer than the other while using
driver in parallel
and have to attempt to rectify it by
making individual outs from driver to each pcb
 

CobKits

Well-Known Member
Oh shit, I hate when that happens: ...you are putting stress on them and the run slightly less efficient
I meant ...and they run slightly less efficient

I always admit when I make a mistake.




Jesus Christ. And you say you are an engineer. Must be a model train engineer. You don't know Jack shit about electricity.

No I do not make this shit up. Not only do I learn it, verify with experiment and using what I learned, I often fact check before I post. I did not fact check this becasue it is aso fundamental to anyone that understand how electricity works. It's taught in the fist semester, DC Fundamentals 101. For me that was in 1974 and I still remember. WTF is wrong with you?

This is why you should NOT tell your customers to wire the stuff you sell them. Or are you purposely telling them to put stress on your CoBs to make them fail so you can sell them more?

I can't believe an engineer would make such stupid comment. LOL:dunce: He who laughs lasts laughs longest. Dumb ass!



There is no shortage of literature that supports what you laugh at. Here is what took me seconds to find. Texas Instruments and OSRAM. Credible enough?


________________________________________________________________________





the full documents are attached.


View attachment 4055674





Also please notice where this one says
Moreover, if the string current is considerably different between
strings, the light output from each string would be different (Figure 3)
and this difference will be visible to the naked eye.

NOTE: This also means that there can be issue that will NOT be visible to the naked eye which is true in most cases.

Just because when you plug them in and cannot see anything is wrong, does not mean nothing is wrong. So far that is the biggest defense mentioned in favor of parallel wiring here that they work fine. Someone even posted a picture of their parallel wired fixture. Most of this stuff is NOT visible. So proud yet unfortunately they have been duped into believing the self proclaimed experts on this website. You guys say stuff with so much authority people actually believe your baffling bullshit.

View attachment 4055675

View attachment 4055676


This is especially important when the strings are running near their maximum tolerable current. Either a short or an open in one of the strings could take out them all.

View attachment 4055672
man thats a long post to say something might happen in some cases. i just dont know how many times you can reexplain the definition of thermal runaway that everyone here is already familiar with for years now. It doesnt apply to a properly selected driver cob/combo

sure if you design a system like an idiot you can create a situation where a cob sees too high of a current. this is literally impossible on the drivers we are using where the max voltage is within the safe operating range of the cob

to suggest that cobs even have any reaction to other cobs in their array and are somewhat "less efficient" or "stressed" because one chip is running at a few % different current than another is ludicrous. if you have a system where a cob is "safe" at 1400 mA and "at significant risk" at 1500 mA then your design was complete garbage in the first place

no cob will suffer reduced lifespan in any measurable way when run at either 1300 mA or 1500 mA as opposed to 1400 mA. thats the part you are literally making up that has no basis in reality
 

GrowLightResearch

Well-Known Member
sure if you design a system like an idiot
First of all I would NEVER use CoBs.

say something might happen in some cases.
The topic was not about thermal runaway. It was about running unbalanced which is very common.
It is most common with parallel wired CoBs.

I posted what just a couple of LED engineers (real ones, not like you). There are plenty more that will same the same. They would also tell you You're full of shit.

I know you sell CoBs here an you have an agenda. I have NO agenda. I have no reason to lie. I just cannot sit by idly while a few guys on this site spread their wise crackin' lies.
 

GrowLightResearch

Well-Known Member
it may be why i seem to notice one strip.pcb etc dimmer than the other while using
driver in parallel
and have to attempt to rectify it by
making individual outs from driver to each pcb
Most of the time there are no visible symptoms. The eye cannot distinguish the difference because the eye is maxed out by the brightness. The best defense is to do it right. You can gamble that your stuff will not run unbalanced, but why take a gamble? There is no legitimate reason to take that gamble.

The Samsung and Bridgelux 24" single row strips are 30W max. If you want to run them hot use a 60 watt HLG 60H-48A for every two strips . If you want to run them cool use a 40 watt HLG-40H-48A. Two strips in series will have a 44V forward voltage. A strips 48V driver is perfect.

These drivers are perfect for these strips because you can run these drivers at 80-90% for the best efficiency. If you have a driver failure you only temporarily lose two strips until you can get a replacement. Meanwhile the other strips continue working and your crop does not die.

I would go with drivers to supply 20 watts per strip. strips are most efficient when run at their published "test current". Manufacturers always spec their products at the most efficient current in the IV curve.

The test current is 700mA. That is at 77% of 20 watts, 22V x .700. Crank it up a little and you will be running at 90%.

upload_2017-12-11_18-30-53.png
 

Attachments

CobKits

Well-Known Member
I would go with drivers to supply 20 watts per strip. strips are most efficient when run at their published "test current". Manufacturers always spec their products at the most efficient current in the IV curve.
false

regardless of arbitrary test current, every single LED in existence is more efficient than that at lower currents. as seen by relative flux vs current curve on every single datasheet
 

GrowLightResearch

Well-Known Member
Am I paranoid or are you really out to get me?

It seems I am being attacked. With either useless bits of shit like your comment now..
false

regardless of arbitrary test current, every single LED in existence is more efficient than that at lower currents. as seen by relative flux vs current curve on every single datasheet
Maybe I could have worded it better. Like the test current is always within the most efficient region of the IV curve (i.e. the datasheet's Relative Luminous Flux curve).

My first priority in design decisions is efficiency. So naturally I often check the IV curve above and below the test current. I no longer look below the test current. I never saw a more efficient spot in the curve below the test current. I still, as a issue in my due diligence, will check the 200% point of the IV curve.

Typically at 200% the flux is usually about 175% of the test flux. At 50% of test current, almost always, the flux is also 50%.

So I grabbed a couple of datasheets I have and checked them . I used Cree XP and Luxen Rebel Royal Blue.

The hold up to what I said. Not sure WTF you meant with your comment here than you are grasping at straws to say anything negative. But it gives me an opportunity to help others hear the truth. I have no agenda other than to help others.

50PercentTestCurrentRebel.jpg

50PercentTestCurrentXPE.jpg
 
Top