New Vero29 simulator with PPF

Greengenes707

Greengenes707

Well-Known Member
Sweet, about time. B-lux has been talking about this for a while now.

As for the reason you don't see accurate numbers on certain vendors sites, is because they refuse test their lights. They only regurgitate incorrectly extrapolated data from data sheets and forums. Sometimes it lines up...most of the time not. Even little variations in the estimation of LER and QER, make the error margin larger rather than more accurate.
What makes it worse is one company, has had bare chips(cxb3590 3500k CD) on sink tested and knows very well the losses associated with the system of reflectors and drivers...but still post the incorrect extrapolations, not the actual sphere data.

As for working temps...85c Tj happens all the time in DIY and kit land a lot, despite what many may think about their builds. 70-85 Tj is happening a lot. Ask everyone to whip out a thermocouple, you'll be surprised. And if we are talking about vendors especially, which is what the comments are about when actual numbers are referenced...all vendors are pushing chips fairly hard, not sure what @CobKits is talking about.
But even at 50% output...vero29's output curve only puts them at 56% of 100%...aka ~2.2 at 45W with next to nothing in gains past there. As well as bridgelux's disclaimer that low currents are not stable with the vero 29 line. There is nothing helping or showing over 2.5µmols/w on the chip level is possible...let alone from an entire system running at 75+w per chip at real Tj's.

It is 2018...there really is zero reason a light company selling horticulture lights should be posting data sheet and forum extrapolations. It's a simple $500 test to show the correct and actual output of a fixture.
 
CobKits

CobKits

Well-Known Member
Greengenes707 said:
As for working temps...85c Tj happens all the time in DIY and kit land a lot, despite what many may think about their builds. 70-85 Tj is happening a lot. Ask everyone to whip out a thermocouple, you'll be surprised. And if we are talking about vendors especially, which is what the comments are about when actual numbers are referenced...all vendors are pushing chips fairly hard, not sure what @CobKits is talking about.
Click to expand...
well i was speaking more in DIY i guess. Vendors always seem to push chips a little harder in regard to creating a competitive fixture that is still dimmable to suit all markets. I see very few people buying chip and driver combos to run over 100W per chip and if so its usually with the larger footprint chips like the CLU058

one thing I am convinced of is that chip manufacturer's performance data doesnt always align with each other, otherwise wed all still be using cree who seems to post above-average performance while other chips like citi and luminus which shouldnt be brighter by datasheet actually put out more flux on a side by side measurement. Based on my anecdotal testing (no calibration), i think (IMO) the b-lux data from the datasheets is probably actually closest to accurate (and if they fixed their simulator which last time i checked had an error that would return 300+ lm/W data at low currents). Again just a guess until i do the legwork to calibrate my setup which isnt currently high priority for me as i only use it for my own relative testing.

welight said:
most likely because the average spectrometer does not run outside those numbers
Click to expand...
definitely not a level paying field in a lot of respects. i see vendors that will present data up to 800nm on here. which i think we can all agree 700-800 is most certainly photoactive but still it makes comparing different products a challenge. esp with some products featuring augmented reds to pack more punch, however a PPFD measurement weights these the same as green photons.

@Greengenes707 was of the opinion at one point that light quantity was still more important than light quality and while that may be true between sources of similar spectra (say 3000k vs 4000k white phosphor), augmenting with reds (esp now with the better flux options from cree and osram etc, seems to leave us in a voodoo science area

"well reds are more useful"
"well how much more useful?"
"uh, i dunno, but they are just more useful"

While McCree study had its place in furthering understanding of relative absorption, i think many people would say its used incorrectly in a lot of cases and that we have a way to go to really fully understand plant response beyond the simple concept of YPF which probably has some basis but really is a simplification of a complex plant.

welight said:
I think an interesting number is the performance of the V22C vs its price
Cheers
Mark
Click to expand...
I was hopeful for this chip since it is the popular 28mm package size but i wasnt impressed with its low current performance when i tested last year. Maybe time to revisit
 
Greengenes707

Greengenes707

Well-Known Member
CobKits said:
well i was speaking more in DIY i guess. Vendors always seem to push chips a little harder in regard to creating a competitive fixture that is still dimmable to suit all markets. I see very few people buying chip and driver combos to run over 100W per chip and if so its usually with the larger footprint chips like the CLU058

one thing I am convinced of is that chip manufacturer's performance data doesnt always align with each other, otherwise wed all still be using cree who seems to post above-average performance while other chips like citi and luminus which shouldnt be brighter by datasheet actually put out more flux on a side by side measurement. Based on my anecdotal testing (no calibration), i think (IMO) the b-lux data from the datasheets is probably actually closest to accurate (and if they fixed their simulator which last time i checked had an error that would return 300+ lm/W data at low currents). Again just a guess until i do the legwork to calibrate my setup which isnt currently high priority for me as i only use it for my own relative testing.


definitely not a level paying field in a lot of respects. i see vendors that will present data up to 800nm on here. which i think we can all agree 700-800 is most certainly photoactive but still it makes comparing different products a challenge. esp with some products featuring augmented reds to pack more punch, however a PPFD measurement weights these the same as green photons.

@Greengenes707 was of the opinion at one point that light quantity was still more important than light quality and while that may be true between sources of similar spectra (say 3000k vs 4000k white phosphor), augmenting with reds (esp now with the better flux options from cree and osram etc, seems to leave us in a voodoo science area

"well reds are more useful"
"well how much more useful?"
"uh, i dunno, but they are just more useful"

While McCree study had its place in furthering understanding of relative absorption, i think many people would say its used incorrectly in a lot of cases and that we have a way to go to really fully understand plant response beyond the simple concept of YPF which probably has some basis but really is a simplification of a complex plant.

I was hopeful for this chip since it is the popular 28mm package size but i wasnt impressed with its low current performance when i tested last year. Maybe time to revisit
Click to expand...
I never said over 100w...and that is my point, people thinking their Tj's are lower than they are. Get the thermocouples out and test according to the manufacturer's recommendations. Tj's are not as easy to keep down is perpetuated. And is where Cree's discrepancy has always come from out of here. Use the PCT at 70-85c and numbers are right in line because that is what' is going on. You can't assume all these variables. But there are ways to get them, so we should. Some do...many don't.
My favorite product calculator is future's, they can do multiple brands and is really accurate.

As for my views...they are still the same because photosynthesis is still a quantum process driven by photons.
Why do people add red now you ask? Because they can get 2.5-3.0µmols. Just so happens they target the chlorophyll/photosynthetic peak, while also shifting phytochrome and other signal responses such as roots. But mainly because they are higher efficacy than any other chips. Even midpowers driven super low hitting 200lm/w is 2.8µmols/w. So it may be more expensive, but under driving or even nominally driven photo/hyper reds will be ~3µmols/w.
So not sure how that is voodoo or unknown. It is raw high efficiency photons.

You need to remember I entered in years before plain whites with 630nm enhanced spectrums with apache going up against whites at the times from nichia in house. As well as 660nm enhance thanks to indagro's 660nm pontoon mixing with apache. And eventually white COBs which is where you entered. At a time when 630's had been passed by PC whites and 660nm was just emerging/progressing to usable efficacy but was very price prohibitive.

It has always been a chase for efficacy in the widest possible SPD while still targeted spectrum.
 
CobKits

CobKits

Well-Known Member
Greengenes707 said:
I never said over 100w...and that is my point, people thinking their Tj's are lower than they are. Get the thermocouples out and test according to the manufacturer's recommendations. Tj's are not as easy to keep down is perpetuated.
Click to expand...
oh i believe you.. i regularly see heatsinks over 65C.

the over 100W comments was in response to the OP (vero C at 1400 mA which is right at 100W with most "1400mA" drivers)

Greengenes707 said:
My favorite product calculator is future's, they can do multiple brands and is really accurate.
Click to expand...
http://www.futurelightingsolutions.com/en/development/Pages/index.aspx

Greengenes707 said:
You need to remember I entered in years before plain whites with 630nm enhanced spectrums with apache going up against whites at the times from nichia in house. As well as 660nm enhance thanks to indagro's 660nm pontoon mixing with apache. And eventually white COBs which is where you entered.
Click to expand...
well ive been using LEDs since 2007 but yes the white cobs were the first time i got on the forums. In the time before that i still was just a user though, and i thank you and others for bringing the fundamentals to the masses and out of the backrooms of the lighting manufacturers where we can build on it.

good point on the gross efficiency of the reds though. will be great as that newer tech levels out on cost and availability
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top