...All Things Vero...

AquariusPanta said:

@PurpleBuz

They are based from an Apogee. How are they invalid if corrected? Have you even talked any of the owners/representatives at Apogee on deep red testing? Based on your response, no, no you haven't.
.

Click to expand...

I know how to read the apogee data sheet that they publish. its completely cutoff at 660nm .Any valid correction depends on having an accurate spectrograph of the light that you are measuring. otherwise its just a guess estimation based on some other unknown light.. The calibration might be usefull if the apogee actually measured some of the waves over 650 nm in some fashion, but its completely filtered out. the apogee is usefull for comparing similar lights that aren't heavy in deep red and to help a grower optimize their lighting footprint. But you really can't expect anynnmore than that.

AquariusPanta said:

If you ever tested PAR levels, you'd realize that the typical PAR output difference between 3000K~4000K isn't quite dramatic and is rather quite similar, with 3000K reaching highest, so comparing 3000K and 4000K isn't exactly out of the question, especially when the CXB is suppose to be much higher in efficiency at that bin. Furthermore, obtaining high-bin 3000K CXB 3070 isn't exactly realistic at this time, so I believe 4000K is a worthy contender given the rest.

Click to expand...

If you have ever read and understood the cob datasheets you will note significant efficiency\light level differences between 3K cobs, 4K cobs and 5 K cobs. So how can you not understand that your comparing oranges to lemons and that there are significant diffs between a 3K and a 4K cob ?

@PurpleBuz

Here, I'll fill you in.

The Apogee electric quantum meter is well known for having initial limitations, such as having spikes in the blue/green region of wavelengths, as well as not measuring wavelengths after 660nm. Apogee has long known of this ordeal and offers solutions, such as pinpointing the intensity of each wavelength found on the CCT graph for a given COB and calculating a correction factor for readings including wavelengths over 660nm. Obviously factored approximations from readings aren't the same as exact readings from the million dollar light measuring machines but we can use them to reliably determine how well one lighting source fares with another, whether it be a COB or a HID lamp.

Your observations are correct in that the lumen output/efficiency for cooler temperatures, such as 5000K, are better than warmer temperatures, such as 2700K, but what you fail to take into account is that warmer temperatures for Cree and Bridgelux COBs have a higher umol/PAR W conversion factor in comparison to the cooler temperatures. Don't believe me, ask @alesh.

Based off both accurate calculations and readings/measurements, the photon output comes close to one another for Vero COBs between 3000~4000K, with 3000K sporting the highest amount of photons, which is what most of us and our plants are after.

AquariusPanta said:

@PurpleBuz

Here, I'll fill you in.

The Apogee electric quantum meter is well known for having initial limitations, such as having spikes in the blue/green region of wavelengths, as well as not measuring wavelengths after 660nm. Apogee has long known of this ordeal and offers solutions, such as pinpointing the intensity of each wavelength found on the CCT graph for a given COB and calculating a correction factor for readings including wavelengths over 660nm. Obviously factored approximations from readings aren't the same as exact readings from the million dollar light measuring machines but we can use them to reliably determine how well one lighting source fares with another, whether it be a COB or a HID lamp.

Your observations are correct in that the lumen output/efficiency for cooler temperatures, such as 5000K, are better than warmer temperatures, such as 2700K, but what you fail to take into account is that warmer temperatures for Cree and Bridgelux COBs have a higher umol/PAR W conversion factor in comparison to the cooler temperatures. Don't believe me, ask @alesh.

Based off both accurate calculations and readings/measurements, the photon output comes close to one another for Vero COBs between 3000~4000K, with 3000K sporting the highest amount of photons, which is what most of us and our plants are after.

Click to expand...

based on logic like that I may as well use a foot candle meter to do comparative measurements. geez

Again, here is the comparison for those who may have missed it and don't like sifting:

AquariusPanta said:

Again, here is the comparison for those who may have missed it and don't like sifting:
View attachment 3517935

Click to expand...

Looks fine but I have a hard time analyzing your PAR charts. May be too few data points.
May be i am too used to my PAR chart formats.
I think i get your point that Vero 29 and 3070 have similar output at 1.6amps. The test might not be accurate as 4000k and 3000k might read different on PAR meter.

@robincnn

Hey man. Your math the other day had me, like many others, thinking abunch.

The charts are fairly simple and the tests straight forward. The point was to compare each COB with everything close to the same. Six points were arbitrarily marked in the tent, where the sensor was placed at each height. The 3000K and 4000K were indeed corrected for their differences in color, with numbers representing total corrected PAR output. I believe that the CXB 3070 3000K BB would match or slightly surpass the Vero 29 if the mentioned test were duplicated but I don't think there would be too great of a difference, thus leading to the question - when are CXB 3070 actually worth it, especially now that the top bin are so hard to find and obtain?

AquariusPanta said:

@robincnn

Hey man. Your math the other day had me, like many others, thinking abunch.

The charts are fairly simple and the tests straight forward. The point was to compare each COB with everything close to the same. Six points were arbitrarily marked in the tent, where the sensor was placed at each height. The 3000K and 4000K were indeed corrected for their differences in color, with numbers representing total corrected PAR output. I believe that the CXB 3070 3000K BB would match or slightly surpass the Vero 29 if the mentioned test were duplicated but I don't think there would be too great of a difference, thus leading to the question - when are CXB 3070 actually worth it, especially now that the top bin are so hard to find and obtain?

Click to expand...

Well at test current what is the forward voltage of each. Vero wattage vs cxb3070 wattage. Also they both need to be 3000k I agree. Especially seeing that apogee reads blues @80% of true output. Also it reads deep reds at 120%. Seems like not only is vero29 getting a boost from the far red over measurement but 4000k cxb is losing some from under measurement of blues.

Straight from apogee

Stephenj37826 said:

Well at test current what is the forward voltage of each. Vero wattage vs cxb3070 wattage. Also they both need to be 3000k I agree. Especially seeing that apogee reads blues @80% of true output. Also it reads deep reds at 120%. Seems like not only is vero29 getting a boost from the far red over measurement but 4000k cxb is losing some from under measurement of blues.

Click to expand...

@robincnn
I just was thinking of the apogee corrections earlier. Funny it came up here today as well.

AquariusPanta said:

@robincnn

Hey man. Your math the other day had me, like many others, thinking abunch.

The charts are fairly simple and the tests straight forward. The point was to compare each COB with everything close to the same. Six points were arbitrarily marked in the tent, where the sensor was placed at each height. The 3000K and 4000K were indeed corrected for their differences in color, with numbers representing total corrected PAR output. I believe that the CXB 3070 3000K BB would match or slightly surpass the Vero 29 if the mentioned test were duplicated but I don't think there would be too great of a difference, thus leading to the question - when are CXB 3070 actually worth it, especially now that the top bin are so hard to find and obtain?

Click to expand...

That's why everyone is getting CXB3590s lately

@alesh

But aren't they more expensive?

@Stephenj37826

Yes, Vero 29 runs at slightly higher wattage, with temperatures being accounted for and corrected using the COB correction data that Apogee doesn't provide on their website, the data that requires a little more effort on the users part.

AquariusPanta said:

@alesh

But aren't they more expensive?.

Click to expand...

Certainly they are. Why only are buying buying them?

I have pretty much settled on 5x Vero 29's on a 1050mA driver, color of 4,000K for a 2x3 cabinet. The cabinet is built and running with cheap CFL's and LED's.

Last decisions:
COB holders because I want to be able to easily change reflectors. What gives the most options? I can solder, drill and tap.
If I had my own reasons for putting 3,000K Vero 29's on one end of the cabinet, 4,000K on the other ... choosing the same vf... running on the same series string on the same meanwell driver - is there a good reason to not do this? The obvious question most are asking themselves as they read this is "why doesn't he just choose 3,500K?"
Well, I can grow all the medicine I need in 3 square feet. I can also grow enough green vegetables in 3 square feet for two people all they can eat - or produce enough halfway grown transplants to feed 6 or more using outdoor garden space depending on outdoor weather.

So forgetting the reasons - this is all the space i am allowed indoors... good COB holders for wide range of reflectors and is there any reason to not run 3x 4000 and 2x 3000 if the spec's match other than color?

Sure I could complicate it by going left to right, 5K,4K,3.5K,3K,2.7K but I'm trying not to bore readers. Personally I would like to see a picture of the results in such a setup, and imagine I am not the only one?

Your Vero29s come with the holders if I'm not mistaken~

HiloReign said:

Your Vero29s come with the holders if I'm not mistaken~

Click to expand...

Yes but i don't think you can attach the reflector directly on the Vero's PCB. You need an additional holders for that.

@disengaged : i have got a similar setup and i regret to have chosen to go with the 1050mA driver, if i could change it now for a 1400mA or a 2100mA version, i would not hesitate... It lack of intensity @ 1050mA but it works anyway, just not as good as it could be. Just my opinion, i still am a noob.

Peace

I'm using 3 vero 29 3000k in a 3 x 1.5x 6' space on 185 c1400b driver and I'm very happy with growth so far. I have kept light 12" above canopy and they have exploded with growth since swapping the blurple light out. I haven't bothered with anything fancy. Just mounted cobs onto heatsink with machine screws with bolts on the back. One fan keeps the entire setup cool. Was a good move so far. I'll keep posted on the results

GFS_Nic said:

Yes but i don't think you can attach the reflector directly on the Vero's PCB. You need an additional holders for that.

Click to expand...

It's plastic.. Not PCB. Not sure what I'm missing... From the Vero spreadsheet:

"Optics and reflectors must not be mounted in contact
with the LES (yellow phosphor resin area). Optical
devices may be mounted on the top surface of the
plastic housing of the Vero LED array. Use the
mechanical features of the LED array housing, edges
and/or mounting holes to locate and secure optical
devices as needed."

Ok, maybe you can then. I was thinking that all reflectors need an additional holders like this one: http://www.ledil.com/node/2/p/8183/a9818?ds=1&mn=0&ld=308&md=0&xd=0&mh=0&xh=0&mt=0&mf=0&xf=0&sf=0&fm=0&ty=0&sm=0&cn=0&vc=0&io=0&tro=0&tpo=0&tr=n0&tp=n0&trt=0&tpt=0&fr=n0&st=0&pg=0&lo=n0&ol=0&of=0&od=0&oh=0

Sorry if it's a mistake.

GFS_Nic said:

Ok, maybe you can then. I was thinking that all reflectors need an additional holders like this one: http://www.ledil.com/node/2/p/8183/a9818?ds=1&mn=0&ld=308&md=0&xd=0&mh=0&xh=0&mt=0&mf=0&xf=0&sf=0&fm=0&ty=0&sm=0&cn=0&vc=0&io=0&tro=0&tpo=0&tr=n0&tp=n0&trt=0&tpt=0&fr=n0&st=0&pg=0&lo=n0&ol=0&of=0&od=0&oh=0

Sorry if it's a mistake.

Click to expand...

No need to apologize, friend. I was just hoping to answer disengageds question~

I see what you're talking about now and I think that holder is meant for the ledil reflectors (although I could be wrong about that too lol). So I guess the right answer is make sure you have the right components to go with your reflector... He mentions that he wants to be able to swap out reflectors, so that link you provided might be a better option.

Hi everyone,

I have been growing in a 1m2 box using only 200W (HLG185C500) of vero 13 4000K.
Now, even if the result are high in terms of g/w (1,4 up to 1,7 in Wilma) i would like to change my set up.
I transform my light so that it can fit a 2x2 box and plan on giving it to a friend, I am sure 1g/W would still be achievable in that size of tent.
Although I have been very happy with the quality of the weed, I am wondering if 3000K or 3500K would bring me rock hard bud with as much resin as i got with 4000K.
I have seen many growers here taking 3000k and even 2700K while less efficient COB, is there a reason ?

In short : 4000K is wonderful from seed to harvest, but would it be better to use 3500 or 3000K in flower ?
Or even a mix, like 1:1 4000K/3000K so that I can veg under half power 4000K and flower with both...

New lamp is for 4x2x5, will be a made of :

• 1m heatsink able to cool 663W active and more than 200W passive.
• 3 LPC 150 2100 with switches -> can have 75,150,225,300,375,450W
• 6 VERO 29 actually I think they will be @ 80W each so closer to 480W than 450W
• might add 6 reflector or lenses, don't know yet is it is necessary (when growing 95% reflective, i guess the wall are your reflectors)
• 140mm fan at 9V

help apreciated guys, thank you