...All Things Vero...

Would you consider buying a VERO after reading through some of the posts?

  • Total voters
    357
robincnn

robincnn

Well-Known Member
J-Icky said:
Justa couple questions I hope you all could help with. I ordered 6 of the pico ezmate connectors for my 6 vero 18s. Now everyone here says they work great for multiple cob setups, but........... First according to their website hey have a 130V max and I would need to run 170-180V through the 6, second everyone says to get the 18 gauge but technically they are all 28 gauge at the chip and then connect to a larger wire an inch or so past the connector. SO first would I be fine running the 6 with the voltage I need and second I got the solid 28gauge ezmates, will I be fine running the whole thing with these or should I spend the time cutting them and connecting the 28gauge to 18 gauge, even though they will all just go back down to 28 at each chip?
Thanks for any and all help on this.
Click to expand...
Lookup 28 gauge http://www.powerstream.com/Wire_Size.htm
28 gauge can handle 1.4amps chassis wiring(short distance). So even thou near connector it is 28 gauge for only few inches, it is fine as long as rest is thicker proper gauge.

Nice point about the 130V max. I do not think assuming voltage dividing over each COB will help here. Could cause some arcing and damage connector or impact reliability.
Its always good to respect whats in datasheet. I never liked ezmates. I prefer solder.
 
J

J-Icky

Well-Known Member
Getgrowingson said:
Current is what your worried about in small wires like that. I would check how much a 28 Awg wire is good for in A and if it's more then what your running then worry about the voltage. You should be fine but I would just buy the appropriate size ez mate and run that way. I mean your hanging a fire on a 2$piece. If peace of mind is what your looking for I suggest giving it a thought
Click to expand...
robincnn said:
Lookup 28 gauge http://www.powerstream.com/Wire_Size.htm
28 gauge can handle 1.4amps chassis wiring(short distance). So even thou near connector it is 28 gauge for only few inches, it is fine as long as rest is thicker proper gauge.

Nice point about the 130V max. I do not think assuming voltage dividing over each COB will help here. Could cause some arcing and damage connector or impact reliability.
Its always good to respect whats in datasheet. I never liked ezmates. I prefer solder.
Click to expand...
Thanks I think I will just solder them. I mean it would be easy enough to cut the 28awg at an inch and connect to a 18 awg, but in the end even the ones they sell already like that are still only rated for 130v so I doubt doing it myself would be any better. Now I just have to rpactice up on my soldering after reading the bridgelux doc on properly soldering them. Don't want to mess up the cobs before I even get to run any power into them.

Appreciate the help!!!
 
BigYellowCob

BigYellowCob

Well-Known Member
J-Icky said:
Thanks I think I will just solder them. I mean it would be easy enough to cut the 28awg at an inch and connect to a 18 awg, but in the end even the ones they sell already like that are still only rated for 130v so I doubt doing it myself would be any better. Now I just have to rpactice up on my soldering after reading the bridgelux doc on properly soldering them. Don't want to mess up the cobs before I even get to run any power into them.

Appreciate the help!!!
Click to expand...
I soldered my Vero 18 and 29s, and if you've done any soldering before you'll have no trouble with it. Just be careful not to tug or snag the wires on anything once the wire is soldered to the pad. I almost ripped a soldering pad off one of my Vero 29s when a wire caught on something. The cob still works fine, but the one pad is a little loose. The pads will withstand some mild tugging on the wire, but can get pulled loose and probably ripped off if they are pulled on too hard.
I followed the Bridgelux instructions and tinned the wire and then tinned the pad, then placed the tinned wire on the pad and heated them both with the iron for a second or two until the solder melts, hold in place until it cools, then then you're done. Easy peasy. Just keep the exposed, tinned wire pretty short so there's no chance of the exposed wire coming in contact with the heat sink.
 
AquariusPanta

AquariusPanta

Well-Known Member
Good morning everyone! I'd like to share with you all how well COB technology stacks against the more bulbular kind ;).

After playing around with the 1000W bulbs last week and witnessing how much better the Vero 29 COBS perform using less watts, I wanted to practice the same comparison this week using 600W bulbs and Vero 29 COBS, with the addition of Cree CXB 3070 COBS; the results left me awestruck!


In order from least averaged PPFD to most:

600W HPS PAR (5x5).png 600W MH PAR (5x5).png Model-C4 (500W) PPFD Testing (5x5).png Model-V4 (500W) PPFD Testing (5x5).png



While it's remarkable that the COBS, using less wattage, perform better than the brand-new bulbs, it's even more shocking to see how the Vero 29 3000K provides more averaged PPFD in comparison to the Cree CXB 3070 4000K at the same current. A few things that could explain this would be that it is typical for lower temperatures in Vero COBS to offer slightly more PPFD, as well as the CXB 3070 typically operating at a lower voltage than the Vero 29 (1~3 below). The thing the removes those possibilities and leaves me wondering is that the CXB 3070 4000K COBS I tested are straight from Jerry and are labeled as BB-bin. If they're truly BB-bin, they would easily provide more PAR/PPFD as they would be running 4~5% more efficient than the Vero 29's.


*From wall numbers for HPS/MH take into account 60W of inline fan for bulb cooling.
 
Abiqua

Abiqua

Well-Known Member
AquariusPanta said:
Good morning everyone! I'd like to share with you all how well COB technology stacks against the more bulbular kind ;).

After playing around with the 1000W bulbs last week and witnessing how much better the Vero 29 COBS perform using less watts, I wanted to practice the same comparison this week using 600W bulbs and Vero 29 COBS, with the addition of Cree CXB 3070 COBS; the results left me awestruck!


In order from least averaged PPFD to most:

View attachment 3510522 View attachment 3510523 View attachment 3510524 View attachment 3510525



While it's remarkable that the COBS, using less wattage, perform better than the brand-new bulbs, it's even more shocking to see how the Vero 29 3000K provides more averaged PPFD in comparison to the Cree CXB 3070 4000K at the same current. A few things that could explain this would be that it is typical for lower temperatures in Vero COBS to offer slightly more PPFD, as well as the CXB 3070 typically operating at a lower voltage than the Vero 29 (1~3 below). The thing the removes those possibilities and leaves me wondering is that the CXB 3070 4000K COBS I tested are straight from Jerry and are labeled as BB-bin. If they're truly BB-bin, they would easily provide more PAR/PPFD as they would be running 4~5% more efficient than the Vero 29's.


*From wall numbers for HPS/MH take into account 60W of inline fan for bulb cooling.
Click to expand...
Where's Alesh chart? :) I think he has Vero's being higher than a few of the Cree in joules/Par watt....There are a few benefits that not many bring up....temp difference being a possible huge difference....... [.17C/W is ridiculously low] dies, materials, etc etc etc....
 
salmonetin

salmonetin

Well-Known Member
Last edited:
Abiqua

Abiqua

Well-Known Member
robincnn

robincnn

Well-Known Member
Thanks for Brutal 2.8A match. Very interesting
@AquariusPanta You have developed an appetite for what Cree would call 'V. Coarse current range'.

Although Vero 29 has slightly lower efficiency, I think it still scored higher as PAR meter is giving higher readings for 3000K than 4000K. Higher Tc of 3070 could also be a factor.

upload_2015-9-29_22-51-24.png
AquariusPanta said:
The thing the removes those possibilities and leaves me wondering is that the CXB 3070 4000K COBS I tested are straight from Jerry and are labeled as BB-bin. If they're truly BB-bin, they would easily provide more PAR/PPFD as they would be running 4~5% more efficient than the Vero 29's.
Click to expand...
Data looks legit. I think Jerry gave you correct Bin.

Abiqua said:
[.17C/W is ridiculously low] dies, materials, etc etc etc....
Click to expand...
Do you mean thermal resistance of cob ?
 
AquariusPanta

AquariusPanta

Well-Known Member
robincnn said:
Thanks for Brutal 2.8A match. Very interesting
@AquariusPanta You have developed an appetite for what Cree would call 'V. Coarse current range'.

Although Vero 29 has slightly lower efficiency, I think it still scored higher as PAR meter is giving higher readings for 3000K than 4000K. Higher Tc of 3070 could also be a factor.

View attachment 3510988

Data looks legit. I think Jerry gave you correct Bin.


Do you mean thermal resistance of cob ?
Click to expand...
Haha, I'm more of a "Vero" kind of guy ;)

The thing about this test is that I was running Vero 29 3000K, which is ~36% efficient at around 40C, and Cree CXB 3070 4000K (BB-bin), which is around 40% efficient at similar temps; so there you have a 4~5% efficiency difference, with PAR output being higher with the Vero 29 infused fixture, which is wacky as it should be the other way around. I've compared Vero temperatures, from 3000~5000K, and the biggest difference under the PAR meter lays between 5000K and 4000K, with everything else following being quite close in terms of outputted photons. Now it's likely that the CXB 3070 is running a little hotter than than the Vero 29, for reasons stated above by @Abiqua.

I will be testing the Model-C6 and C8, which use Cree CXB 3070 COBS, tomorrow and look forward to the results, although I'm feeling a little tested out lately :/
 
SupraSPL

SupraSPL

Well-Known Member
AquariusPanta said:
Haha, I'm more of a "Vero" kind of guy ;)

The thing about this test is that I was running Vero 29 3000K, which is ~36% efficient at around 40C, and Cree CXB 3070 4000K (BB-bin), which is around 40% efficient at similar temps; so there you have a 4~5% efficiency difference, with PAR output being higher with the Vero 29 infused fixture, which is wacky as it should be the other way around. I've compared Vero temperatures, from 3000~5000K, and the biggest difference under the PAR meter lays between 5000K and 4000K, with everything else following being quite close in terms of outputted photons. Now it's likely that the CXB 3070 is running a little hotter than than the Vero 29, for reasons stated above by @Abiqua.
Click to expand...
First of all thank you making the measurements very good data. Here is what I get from the PDFs, assuming Tj of 60C

CXB3590 3500K CD @ 2.8A = 103.9W @ 43.1%, cost $1.06/PAR W
CXB3070 4000K BB @ 2.8A = 107.5W @ 39.3%, cost $0.89/PAR W
Vero29 V2.0 4000K @ 2.8A = 107.8W @ 38.24%, cost $0.68/PAR W

I agree, the Vero will handle the heat and high current better and cost less, so the CXB3070 is less than optimal for this configuration. What driver is it the NPF-120?
 
alesh

alesh

Well-Known Member
AquariusPanta said:
Good morning everyone! I'd like to share with you all how well COB technology stacks against the more bulbular kind ;).

After playing around with the 1000W bulbs last week and witnessing how much better the Vero 29 COBS perform using less watts, I wanted to practice the same comparison this week using 600W bulbs and Vero 29 COBS, with the addition of Cree CXB 3070 COBS; the results left me awestruck!


In order from least averaged PPFD to most:

View attachment 3510522 View attachment 3510523 View attachment 3510524 View attachment 3510525



While it's remarkable that the COBS, using less wattage, perform better than the brand-new bulbs, it's even more shocking to see how the Vero 29 3000K provides more averaged PPFD in comparison to the Cree CXB 3070 4000K at the same current. A few things that could explain this would be that it is typical for lower temperatures in Vero COBS to offer slightly more PPFD, as well as the CXB 3070 typically operating at a lower voltage than the Vero 29 (1~3 below). The thing the removes those possibilities and leaves me wondering is that the CXB 3070 4000K COBS I tested are straight from Jerry and are labeled as BB-bin. If they're truly BB-bin, they would easily provide more PAR/PPFD as they would be running 4~5% more efficient than the Vero 29's.


*From wall numbers for HPS/MH take into account 60W of inline fan for bulb cooling.
Click to expand...
I don't see anything shocking in that. Vero 3000K produces in the 380-780nm range 4.94µmol/J while CXB 4000K only 4.68µmol/J (5.5% difference). Vero29 is a larger COB and will run cooler. And in the end even your meter could do some difference (not saying it does).
BTW an average of the measured values is not averaged PPFD.
 
Last edited:
littlejacob

littlejacob

Well-Known Member
Bonjour
When I read this I am not sure that a cxa/b underdriven vegg pannel is the way to go...
Maybe vero13 @700mA would be good enough for a good vegg...it is cheap and can grow nice and healthy plant with it...I am going to give it a try... (hlg-120-700 + 7/8 V13...I have to check! )
Have a great day ★
 
AquariusPanta

AquariusPanta

Well-Known Member
alesh said:
I don't see anything shocking in that. Vero 3000K produces in the 380-780nm range 4.94µmol/J while CXB 4000K only 4.68µmol/J (5.5% difference). Vero29 is a larger COB and will run cooler. And in the end even your meter could do some difference (not saying it does).
BTW an average of the measured values is not averaged PPFD.
Click to expand...
I'm not shocked that one of my sensi's isn't shocked about my results, although I'm a little caught up on your point about averages. When I do these tests, I take the centered recording for every square foot in the given testing area. So for these tests that are taking place in a 5' x 5' tent, I'm marking down twenty-five recordings at each of the listed heights. When I listed the above results in order, I painstakingly added up every one of them, divided, and came up with the average, which I then assessed by value and listed in order by lowest to highest.

That all being stated, what would you recommend me terming the average of those numbers as? :joint:

SupraSPL said:
First of all thank you making the measurements very good data. Here is what I get from the PDFs, assuming Tj of 60C

CXB3590 3500K CD @ 2.8A = 103.9W @ 43.1%, cost $1.06/PAR W
CXB3070 4000K BB @ 2.8A = 107.5W @ 39.3%, cost $0.89/PAR W
Vero29 V2.0 4000K @ 2.8A = 107.8W @ 38.24%, cost $0.68/PAR W

I agree, the Vero will handle the heat and high current better and cost less, so the CXB3070 is less than optimal for this configuration. What driver is it the NPF-120?
Click to expand...
You're welcome, Supra, and thank you for leading the charge in this broad field of COB research ;)

----------------------

Attached are the test results that I obtained earlier, as well as the V6 and V8 recordings (please pardon the fact that I took some tests horizontally and others vertically :bigjoint: ):


Model-C6 (750W) PPFD Testing (5x5).png Model-V6 (750W) PPFD Testing (5x5).png Model-C8 (1000W) PPFD Testing (5x5).png Model-V8 (1000W) PPFD Testing (5x5).png


These results confirm that the Vero 29 (version 2), ran at currents around 2.8A, perform better than the CXB 3070 BB-bin. Additionally, the Vero 29 is far more obtainable, cheaper, and in my experience, easier to play with.

---------------------

Is anyone looking for Vero 18's? I have a whole stash of unused Vero 18's that I won't be using anytime soon. If interested, PM me.
 
alesh

alesh

Well-Known Member
AquariusPanta said:
I'm not shocked that one of my sensi's isn't shocked about my results, although I'm a little caught up on your point about averages. When I do these tests, I take the centered recording for every square foot in the given testing area. So for these tests that are taking place in a 5' x 5' tent, I'm marking down twenty-five recordings at each of the listed heights. When I listed the above results in order, I painstakingly added up every one of them, divided, and came up with the average, which I then assessed by value and listed in order by lowest to highest.

That all being stated, what would you recommend me terming the average of those numbers as? :joint:
Click to expand...
What it is - average of the measured values. With more readings it gets closer but I'm not sure whether we can determine how close it actually is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top