LEC - Light-Emitting Ceramic

[SupraSPL]

To compare it against a currently available LED in a 3.25X3.25 (1 sq meter)

$600 Philips 4.2K CMH (315W): 1.95umol/s/W emitted * 315W * .8 reflector loss = 491 PPFD average (is that the right price?)

$720 Optic Vero 4K 360 (316W): 1.82umol/s/W emitted * 316 W *.9 lens loss = 518 PPFD average

 

[alesh]

I know you already know this but for those learning, It is not possible to directly compare efficacy between HID and COB because of complications with reflector losses, spectral distribution, spread, photon angle and of course price. We can compare PPF (bulb emitted photon count/dissipation W) to get a starting point though.

Philips 1000W DE HPS = 2.07 umol/s/dissipation W (41.5% efficient)
Philips 315W CMH 4200K = 1.95 umol/s/dissipation W
Bridgelux Vero 29 3K V2.0 @ 79W = 1.97 umol/s/ dissipation W
Cree CXA3070 3K AB @ 52W = 2.11 umol/s/ dissipation W
Cree CXA3070 3K AB @ 25W = 2.46 umol/s/ dissipation W
Cree CXB2530 3K U2 @ 18W = 2.4 umol/s/ dissipation W
Cree CXB3070 3K AD @ 50W = 2.34 umol/s/ dissipation W
Cree CXB3070 3K AD @ 24W = 2.7 umol/s/ dissipation W
Cree CXA3590 3K CB @ 49W = 2.52 umol/s/ dissipation W
Cree CXA3590 3K CB @ 23W = 2.86 umol/s/ dissipation W
Cree CXA3590 5K DB @ 24W = 2.96 umol/s/ dissipation W

@alesh thank you for your photon count chart!

Glad I could be of help. Are these really CXA3590s? Not CXBs?

BTW I know that they're not available, but I'm getting 3.02 μmol/J for CXB3590 3000K 90CRI BD @350mA. Amazing efficiency and amazing spectrum. I guess that 3000K DB's will be available sooner that the high CRI.

 

[cityworker415]

The ballast is low frequency square wave digital. go ahead and hook a 90 dollar lamp to a core and coil ballast and tell us what happens. Welthink sells a ballast that runs this lamp, they run $240 alone.

Please dont,lol!

Sent from my SM-G900V using Rollitup mobile app

 

[SupraSPL]

Yessr they are CXA3590 5K DB. For whatever reason there have not been any CXB in cool white released yet. I did make a typo on the others tho, they are CXB3590 3K CB, fixed.

 

[alesh]

Yessr they are CXA3590 5K DB. For whatever reason there have not been any CXB in cool white released yet.

Then you'd probably come to even better reults for CXB3590 3000K 90CRI BD (maybe even over 3.1) than I did.

 

[PSUAGRO.]

To compare it against a currently available LED in a 3.25X3.25 (1 sq meter)

$600 Philips 4.2K CMH (315W): 1.95umol/s/W emitted * 315W * .8 reflector loss = 491 PPFD average (is that the right price?)

$720 Optic Vero 4K 360 (316W): 1.82umol/s/W emitted * 316 W *.9 lens loss = 518 PPFD average

your lens loss is too low for the optic panel imo...........saw a pic from a recent buyer in here and it shows significant "light bleeding" at the mount points. probably due to the cob being recessed into the fixture and not flush???

 

[SupraSPL]

You are correct, the larger that distance the more light can escape out the side. The only one I have seen so far is the Vero 18 with 44mm lenses but I believe the Vero29 will be using 50mm lenses. The COB is just about flush with the steel of the case. The magnets move the lens frame 2mm away and the lens itself is sunk about 2mm into the frame. So there is about 4mm air space between the lens surface and COB surface in this case. You could reduce that to 3mm using different magnets and reduce it further using a shim between the lens and lens frame. In the case of the Vero 18 and 44mm lens combo, what you are seeing it mostly lateral reflection off the lens surface. 4% of the 10% penalty I applied represents photons that are skimming off the lens surface laterally. I got that number here.

From their tests: "Results indicate that the greater the dominance of low incident angles (<30 ) between the source and first surface of the glass cover, the greater the gain in total light production (lumens)."

Since most of the COB photons are hitting the glass at high angle we might be losing less than 4% to the first reflection. So I just lump all the lateral loss into that 4% figure as an estimation. To back that up, my own lux measurements show equal performance between my best reflectors and the lenses. I have been testing a few 44mm "60 degree" lenses on the CXA3070s. In practice, it is a good way to get more control of the photons because of the clearly defined cutoff. Comes in handy on the edges of the canopy.

 

[GroErr]

I just thought I'd post this here. $200 for a 240v ballast and bulb, till the 30th of april. After that I'm guessing it'll be around $270 for the ballast and bulb.

http://advancedtechlighting.com/cdmmw.htm

I've looked around a lot for bare bulb and ability to run the smaller 210w Elite Agro in a smaller environment/tent, advancedtech is the best deal out there if you either want to go bare-bulb setup or DIY a fixture, they've matched a ballast to the 210/315w Elite Agro's. They are different than other MH/CMH bulbs, mainly from what I've gathered they require a ballast that uses pulse start to fire them and there seem to be few options. That's about the only downside if you don't want or need a reflector-style setup. If you're good with a reflector setup it's hard to find anything that'll beat the quality and performance of the Sun Systems package for ~$450 ready to plug in..

I've been running 2 of the Sun Systems 315w/120v for a few months. Anyone considering these with a Sun Systems/reflector setup can check out my thread (sig) to see what they can do. I'm a hobbyist and don't usually run for numbers but I'm running a 3.5 x 3.5 with 4x Blue Dream's in 5gal to push these and see what they can do when going for numbers. I'm about 4 weeks away and heading for "about a pound" which would put them in the 1.4 gpw range. I just finished pulling 3x 5gal, 3 strains and pulled 1.1 gpw. That's pretty efficient and rivals high end DIY COBs. Amazing tech, it's for real. Cheers.

 

[PSUAGRO.]

You are correct, the larger that distance the more light can escape out the side. The only one I have seen so far is the Vero 18 with 44mm lenses but I believe the Vero29 will be using 50mm lenses. The COB is just about flush with the steel of the case. The magnets move the lens frame 2mm away and the lens itself is sunk about 2mm into the frame. So there is about 4mm air space between the lens surface and COB surface in this case. You could reduce that to 3mm using different magnets and reduce it further using a shim between the lens and lens frame. In the case of the Vero 18 and 44mm lens combo, what you are seeing it mostly lateral reflection off the lens surface. 4% of the 10% penalty I applied represents photons that are skimming off the lens surface laterally. I got that number here.

From their tests: "Results indicate that the greater the dominance of low incident angles (<30 ) between the source and first surface of the glass cover, the greater the gain in total light production (lumens)."

Since most of the COB photons are hitting the glass at high angle we might be losing less than 4% to the first reflection. So I just lump all the lateral loss into that 4% figure as an estimation. To back that up, my own lux measurements show equal performance between my best reflectors and the lenses. I have been testing a few 44mm "60 degree" lenses on the CXA3070s. In practice, it is a good way to get more control of the photons because of the clearly defined cutoff. Comes in handy on the edges of the canopy.

Didn't even think of that...... your probably right!................would blame not enough coffee, but I drank a shit load already sooooooooooo.

 

[bicit]

You are correct, the larger that distance the more light can escape out the side. The only one I have seen so far is the Vero 18 with 44mm lenses but I believe the Vero29 will be using 50mm lenses. The COB is just about flush with the steel of the case. The magnets move the lens frame 2mm away and the lens itself is sunk about 2mm into the frame. So there is about 4mm air space between the lens surface and COB surface in this case. You could reduce that to 3mm using different magnets and reduce it further using a shim between the lens and lens frame. In the case of the Vero 18 and 44mm lens combo, what you are seeing it mostly lateral reflection off the lens surface. 4% of the 10% penalty I applied represents photons that are skimming off the lens surface laterally. I got that number here.

From their tests: "Results indicate that the greater the dominance of low incident angles (<30 ) between the source and first surface of the glass cover, the greater the gain in total light production (lumens)."

Since most of the COB photons are hitting the glass at high angle we might be losing less than 4% to the first reflection. So I just lump all the lateral loss into that 4% figure as an estimation. To back that up, my own lux measurements show equal performance between my best reflectors and the lenses. I have been testing a few 44mm "60 degree" lenses on the CXA3070s. In practice, it is a good way to get more control of the photons because of the clearly defined cutoff. Comes in handy on the edges of the canopy.

The one negative thing I have to say about the optic panel is their use of radial heatsinks in combination with a lens system. I've noticed that a good chunk of light is actually reflected back through the heatsink, rather than transmitted with the little vero 10 I built. The optic light looks like it's suffering from the same effect. I think they could improve their numbers slightly by moving to a solid heatsink design.

 

[alesh]

You are correct, the larger that distance the more light can escape out the side. The only one I have seen so far is the Vero 18 with 44mm lenses but I believe the Vero29 will be using 50mm lenses. The COB is just about flush with the steel of the case. The magnets move the lens frame 2mm away and the lens itself is sunk about 2mm into the frame. So there is about 4mm air space between the lens surface and COB surface in this case. You could reduce that to 3mm using different magnets and reduce it further using a shim between the lens and lens frame. In the case of the Vero 18 and 44mm lens combo, what you are seeing it mostly lateral reflection off the lens surface. 4% of the 10% penalty I applied represents photons that are skimming off the lens surface laterally. I got that number here.

From their tests: "Results indicate that the greater the dominance of low incident angles (<30 ) between the source and first surface of the glass cover, the greater the gain in total light production (lumens)."

Since most of the COB photons are hitting the glass at high angle we might be losing less than 4% to the first reflection. So I just lump all the lateral loss into that 4% figure as an estimation. To back that up, my own lux measurements show equal performance between my best reflectors and the lenses. I have been testing a few 44mm "60 degree" lenses on the CXA3070s. In practice, it is a good way to get more control of the photons because of the clearly defined cutoff. Comes in handy on the edges of the canopy.

Good starting point when trying to guess the efficiency of a lens is to look at Ledil lens. They're 93% at best. I guess that generic chinese lens will have significantly lower efficiency.

 

[vitamin_green_inc]

To compare it against a currently available LED in a 3.25X3.25 (1 sq meter)

$600 Philips 4.2K CMH (315W): 1.95umol/s/W emitted * 315W * .8 reflector loss = 491 PPFD average (is that the right price?)

$720 Optic Vero 4K 360 (316W): 1.82umol/s/W emitted * 316 W *.9 lens loss = 518 PPFD average

Supra, you are mostly correct except your pricing is off by about 150 for the LEC light...that's roughly a 250 price difference! I could have two of these and cover a WAY larger area than the LEDs for 1k less?

 

[vitamin_green_inc]

https://www.cycloptics.com/node/34-225$

http://m.ebay.com/itm/281626925208?nav=SEARCH-35$

http://m.ebay.com/itm/121525210531?nav=SEARCH-30$

http://m.ebay.com/itm/121121825489?nav=SEARCH-
89$

Total:379$
Is this a legit bare bulb setup?

 

[GroErr]

Supra, you are mostly correct except your pricing is off by about 150 for the LEC light...that's roughly a 250 price difference! I could have two of these and cover a WAY larger area than the LEDs for 1k less?

This and the fact that I didn't have the time or skills to build something is what originally turned me towards the LEC's, ready to go out of the box at ~$1.45/watt. I couldn't get below $2/watt all-in for DIY (plus the work) and commercial LED's in the higher end tend to go for $3.00+ per watt. Almost identical efficiency numbers, long life, it's about the best deal at this level of efficiency. Plus they seem to have gotten the spectrum mix right with these Elite Agro's. It'd be interesting to see a COB build that could mimic the Elite Agro spectrum, that would be something to behold, can you say 2 gpw?

 

[bicit]

Supra, you are mostly correct except your pricing is off by about 150 for the LEC light...that's roughly a 250 price difference! I could have two of these and cover a WAY larger area than the LEDs for 1k less?

Depends on your style mostly, as supra said earlier, due to differences in delivery/reflector losses it's hard to directly compare the two. For someone who grows bushes a bare bulb vert setup would be ideal. If utilizing training like a SCROG a single 360w unit would be great for a 3x3 space. Really, you can't go wrong with either.

 

[GroErr]

https://www.cycloptics.com/node/34-225$

http://m.ebay.com/itm/281626925208?nav=SEARCH-35$

http://m.ebay.com/itm/121525210531?nav=SEARCH-30$

http://m.ebay.com/itm/121121825489?nav=SEARCH-
89$

Total:379$
Is this a legit bare bulb setup?

Looks like it would work. But the 240v kit that advanced sells has comes with a different form factor in a bare bulb setup and good to go out of the box for $200 (no adapters for the mogul required), add a 240/120v down converter for ~$50 and you're good to go for ~$130 less.

 

[Sativied]

Supra, you are mostly correct except your pricing is off by about 150 for the LEC light...that's roughly a 250 price difference! I could have two of these and cover a WAY larger area than the LEDs for 1k less?

The price is far off indeed, especially when including cheaper diy kits. The loss of reflection is stretched quite a bit too and differs widely per hood. A decent reflector has 90%+ reflectivity and much of the light doesn't even hit the hood. Supra is a good source for LED info perhaps but his comparisons to HID are skewed as usual. The LEDs compared to probably also have a lower CRI too. Add the costs to post #61 and most of the list becomes a silly comparison.

The reality is that you for less than $300 can have a HID that beats a LED of over twice that price. Shocker...

 

[SupraSPL]

Thanks for filling me in Vitamin, I was going by the price mentioned in first post. Looks like people have been getting them for $450-$500.

Sativied sounds like you are talking about DIY CMH, not a direct comparison with a plug and play COB led. DIY flowering COBs are now as high as 59% flowering and 70% vegging. HID just can not deliver that kind of performance, it delivers that energy as heat. You seem convinced you have debunked COBs. But for those who want to consider reality:

HID reflectors will lose at least 20%, more in practice, 10% more if there is glass to cool the hood. 95% is just the reflectivity of the polished aluminum surface, many of the photons go through several bounces and many are scattered/blocked. "95%" is an HID fallacy. Even vertical bare bulb setups lose a lot of light to the floor and ceiling. I tried to mitigate that with 600HPS vertical bulbs and it was a big fail. I ended up going back to horizontal with reflectors because it made much better use of my tent space and lowered canopy temps.

The COBs compared are 80 CRi, not going to make a material difference versus a 92 CRi. We have learned that "miracle spectrum" is not the boost we all hoped it would be. The COBs will spread PPFD more evenly and canopy will be lit from multiple angles. This is a real advantage. The HID creates a high PPFD hot spot in the center and dim corners. COBs do the same to some extent, but reduce the gradient in the canopy.

All HIDs have an infrared output that beams directly into your buds, likely affecting the most volatile terpenes. Not saying CMH cant grow dank bud, but thats not where I am investing.

 

[genuity]

 

[ttystikk]

I'm thinking about running four x 315W LEC vertically along the centerline of a cylinder about 2.7' radius and six feet tall = 96 ft². Is that enough or would I need more lamps for that size?

Or, is COB LED a better option for the money?