bridgelux vero???

http://canada.newark.com/bridgelux/bxrc-27g10k0-l-03/led-hb-vero-white-10000lm-2700k/dp/62W5797

so i found this chip and it says it can output 10,000LM at 2.1 amps and 40V.. now im wondering is this light actually as good as a cxa3070?

Here's a comparison of a few,I'm sure there's a chart for that one in one of the CXA DIY threads. The CXA3070 Z4 is the top dog tho.

HolyGhost23 said:

http://canada.newark.com/bridgelux/bxrc-27g10k0-l-03/led-hb-vero-white-10000lm-2700k/dp/62W5797

so i found this chip and it says it can output 10,000LM at 2.1 amps and 40V.. now im wondering is this light actually as good as a cxa3070?

Click to expand...

The 2700k Vero has more in the deep red range than the 3000k Cree. Efficiency wise, the Cree is better when comparing like colors and cri but not by a great deal. I like the Vero chips. So far I have built 4 lights using the Vero 10 and 13 chips. I run them a bit soft to get higher efficiency and use multiple emitters to get a wide and even spread.

HG, you linked a 2700K Vero 29 80 CRI. Digikey sells the 90 CRI version. They will definitely grow some serious buds, may be a good choice if you are planning on running them very hard to reduce the up front cost. But as others mentioned the CXA3070 3000K 80 CRI is the most efficient and cheapest if you are planning on running relatively soft. In my mind, I wouldn't run them harder than 1.4A for a grow lamp and in that range the CXA is our best option currently. I am working on nailing down some good sources for 1.4A drivers. Meanwell makes the LPC-60-1400 for ~$20 but it is only 85% efficient and not power factor corrected. Some of the cheap Chinese 1.4A drivers are 90% efficient and are power factor corrected.

The harder you run them, the more the light is concentrated in a small area. Photosynthetic efficiency decreases as PPFD rises, so it makes sense to spread the light as evenly as possible in your canopy. Of course the harder you run them, the lower the efficiency due to current droop as well.

id still prefer to use a 1.9amp driver for the cxa as for light spread could i not just raise the lights

I loved the idea of running leds hard. 2.1a xmls did the job for me.

But these cxas are a different beast. The ability to have lots of juice from one nicely reflected area...AND high lumens.

The opportunity to make a led light with 150 lumens per watt is there for the taking. But not at 1.9a

then 2.1 ?

Nah..not anymore. I've changed things up. With cobs you can have both power and efficiency it seems.

I just say that because if you think about it...what makes a 600hos so awesome. Long considered the best all around light. The most lumens per watt available. If designing a led light I'd shoot for 130 lumens and up now.

HolyGhost23 said:

id still prefer to use a 1.9amp driver for the cxa as for light spread could i not just raise the lights

Click to expand...

Because of the wide spread of the COBs (115 degrees), raising the light may allow some of the light to escape sideways above the canopy. So that would encourage the use of a reflector or lens. My strategy has been to keep the LEDs in close to the canopy to avoid that complication. But POS has done some cool stuff with COB reflectors.

captainmorgan said:

Here's a comparison of a few

Click to expand...

Keep in mind that Supra's most excellent spreadsheets are based on minimum flux numbers, not typical flux. When comparing CXA vs Vero this would give a bit of systematic bias in favor of the CXA. The reason for this is that the CXA is binned and the Vero is not. Or put differently the Vero is in a single wide bin. Because it is so wide a bin, the minimum lies far away from the typical value; For the Vero this is about 9%. So to get the Vero's typical value, add 9%. To get CXA's typical value:

• For a mid bin it seems reasonable to take the minimum and add half a bin width. A bin is about 7-8% wide, so add lets say 4%;
• For a top bin, due to the Gaussian (bell shaped) distribution, the typical value will be much closer to the minimum, it seems reasonable to add at most a few percent.

With this real world performance in mind the Vero stacks up much better. Where the CXA breaks away from the Vero is when undercurrenting; A soft running CXA is king.

MrFlux said:

Keep in mind that Supra's most excellent spreadsheets are based on minimum flux numbers, not typical flux. When comparing CXA vs Vero this would give a bit of systematic bias in favor of the CXA. The reason for this is that the CXA is binned and the Vero is not. Or put differently the Vero is in a single wide bin. Because it is so wide a bin, the minimum lies far away from the typical value; For the Vero this is about 9%. So to get the Vero's typical value, add 9%. To get CXA's typical value:

• For a mid bin it seems reasonable to take the minimum and add half a bin width. A bin is about 7-8% wide, so add lets say 4%;
• For a top bin, due to the Gaussian (bell shaped) distribution, the typical value will be much closer to the minimum, it seems reasonable to add at most a few percent.

View attachment 3156048
With this real world performance in mind the Vero stacks up much better. Where the CXA breaks away from the Vero is when undercurrenting; A soft running CXA is king.

Click to expand...

what about a hard running vero. im trying to get the most power for the least cost up front. electricity for me is free so i don't need to factor that.

HolyGhost23 said:

what about a hard running vero. im trying to get the most power for the least cost up front. electricity for me is free so i don't need to factor that.

Click to expand...

1000w hps and an AC.
Do it now while you don't pay for power. All the while saving up money and knowledge for when you do start paying for electricity. Then the switch will be no big thing and you can get the best and run it the best.


But you can run vero's hard, pico did it fine...
https://www.rollitup.org/t/bridgelux-vero-29-led-test.702193/

i wont ever pay for electricity, i make my own.. but i like new nerdy things. and i have an hps set up..,I like to fuck around and experiment, sometimes just to see what happens..so i would still like to find the cheapest upfront cost yet most powerful light, and who cares about fuel mileage...

it simply being an LED light would save me more reserve power.. I live so far north that i need to use solar panels and a windmill to make my power. so cost of electricity means nothing to me. what id like is a total power saving in wattage over my current HPS setup.. using an LED over an HPS light alone would be huge for me. but i want that LED to crank as much light as that bitch can put out.

i dunno if anyone here is also a computer nerd.. but think of it as trying to see how far you can overclock your cpu..i want that in an LED but make it so it doesn't pop in a week..maybe perhaps move to liquid cooling?

HolyGhost23 said:

i wont ever pay for electricity, i make my own.. but i like new nerdy things. and i have an hps set up..,I like to fuck around and experiment, sometimes just to see what happens..so i would still like to find the cheapest upfront cost yet most powerful light, and who cares about fuel mileage...

Click to expand...

Now I got it. If making your own, there is a cost...limitation being that cost?

As long as your system can maintain ideal/good temps(junction/case temps), then you can in theory run then as hard as your system will maintain without much effects on longevity...and the cooler they are kept the higher other things like lm/w and efficient will be maintained.

HolyGhost23 said:

what about a hard running vero. im trying to get the most power for the least cost up front. electricity for me is free so i don't need to factor that.

Click to expand...

The reason most people run leds is that they are more efficient at producing PAR light while using less power, producing less wasted heat and doing so for many times longer than HID. Upfront cost with led is higher but is offset by the efficiency and longevity advantages. Driving them hard sort of works at odds with the true advantages of led. In the case of leds less amperage equals more lumens/watt and easier cooling. I would agree with Supra that 1.4a is better than 2.1a to drive the Vero 29. Personally I would recommend you use 2 emitters at 1.4a instead of 1 at 2.1a to get the most bang for your buck. That would also give you a wider light spread.

so if i got a 40V buck for a 500W power supply and liquid cooled the chip?????.. your right about that i max out at 900KWH.. I have a large shop that uses most of that power.. im trying to reduce my total wattage use but have the best performance

if i can get the same profomrance out of one chip a a 1000W HPS. i and still have it running any lower than 1000W. id consider it a saving...that being said

if i had a lux meter or what ever you call it. how far could i push this light to make the most output of light, and is there a drop off point where if i apply to much amperage the lumens drop off and the heat goes up?... basically what is the absolute maximum luman output of a single chip before it reaches meltdown? and how far would i have to back it off to make it last longer than a year