...All Things Vero...

I found it quite interesting when comparing the efficiencies between the VERO 10 and VERO 13. While the V10 has a lower start up cost at each current, it falls behind in efficiency all along the board, throughout the different makes.

Take a gander for yourselves!




(Updated with more accurate LER values)

AquariusPanta said:

Your larger room sounds a little like mine, which, in my opinion, is small lol. Converting your centimeters to inches and then feet, your large room is like 5' tall x 3' wide x 1.7' thick.

I've heard from Churchy that the VERO 29 tends to burn things at high amps (1700mA and higher) in close quarters. With less than five feet of total clearance for a plant, with or without scrogging, you run the risk of bleaching/burning your canopy later in the final stages. I'd consider V18's for the medium and large cab, while running V13's in the smaller.

The efficiencies along the VERO seem to share the same ranges between the models and makes. I'll depict this in later demonstrations.

Are you using each cab for vegetation through flowering or small/medium for vegetation and the larger for flowering?

Click to expand...

imho looking at the new numbers the best eff/cost is either the 10's or the 29's. The 13's/18's are still very good, but more efficient when ran softer, but slightly higher $Par/Cost. Small nitpick, but valid......

I will take the cooling of the 29 @1.4 to running a V18@ 1.4. Evens out, except I have a higher ceiling w/ V29......

The V29's looks sexy @ 3amps. Basically the efficiency of the Z2 3070 @1.4a. That might not be quite a fair comparison, since the V is outputting more overall light.......requiring more lockdown on the cooling regimen.

Supra's #'s as of last night or the night before....

10-13


18-29

Abiqua said:

Supra's #'s as of last night or the night before....

10-13
View attachment 3296412

18-29
View attachment 3296413

Click to expand...

I wonder how he solves for his LER values...

Nonetheless, our values are pretty close, with me undercutting the LER value for the higher CCT models.

AquariusPanta said:

I wonder how he solves for his LER values...

Nonetheless, our values are pretty close, with me undercutting the LER value for the higher CCT models.

Click to expand...

Read the 1st page of Jade....SDS I believe broke it down, somewhat....

And supra redid his spread sheets based on update typical numbers, instead of minimums. That is why I thought you started this whole thread cause you saw the new numbers.
And the LER does change K to K and is available(click the little arrow next to "supra said" to go to the spreadsheets in the original post)...

SupraSPL said:

I was referring to the "typical" figures since we are mentioning Veros. The CXA3590 5000K CD bin is the 200lm/W I was referring to. I am using this driver and COB combo for vegging the taller sativa dom ladies.
Here are the updated numbers for the entire Vero series (based on approx Digikey price with a bit of shipping)
View attachment 3295878
View attachment 3295879

Looks like if you ran the Vero29 5000K at 300mA you could get up to 55% for $5/PAR W (for those on the nutty side, like me) and if you ran a pair of them on the driver it would drop to 270mA. The CXA3590 5000K CD runs at about 270mA on this driver and is about 62% efficient typical for about $5/PAR W.

I guess $5/PAR W is actually not that unreasonable especially for a vegging lamp. We are paying $4-$6/PAR W to run our reds and deep reds at 700mA. I paid $7/ PAR W for the Oslon SSL deep red 3T bin, seemed economical at the time but now the Cree photo reds are much more efficient and only cost $4.60/PAR W.

Click to expand...

Greengenes707 said:

And supra redid his spread sheets based on update typical numbers, instead of minimums. That is why I thought you started this whole thread cause you saw the new numbers.
And the LER does change K to K and is available(click the little arrow next to "supra said" to go to the spreadsheets in the original post)...

Click to expand...

Are you trying to discredit my work or have you misunderstood something I posted?

Our numbers are both updated (Fall 2014) and are from the typical section.

He may have been a little more precise with voltage calculations, giving some loads 2.5% more voltage than some of mine, but everything else, except LER, has got to be the same if it was all based from the information provided by BridgeLUX.

(And I do understand that LER changes from K to K. I couldn't find a source to give me the values, so I just went with an average value of 320.)

Hey AP, the LER values I used cam from the calculus Mr Flux performed in this thread and include his updates to that work:

Vero 3000K, 97 CRI
LER : 273 lumen/W
Blue : 9% power, 7% flux
Red : 30% power, 33% flux

Vero 3000K
LER : 320 lumen/W
Blue : 8% power, 6% flux
Red : 27% power, 30% flux

Vero 3500K
LER :323 (my guess)

Vero 4000K
LER : 325 lumen/W
Blue : 13% power, 10% flux
Red : 23% power, 25% flux

Vero 5000K
LER : 337 lumen/W
Blue : 22% power, 18% flux
Red : 15% power, 17% flux

AquariusPanta said:

Are you trying to discredit my work or have you misunderstood something I posted?

Our numbers are both updated (Fall 2014) and are from the typical section.

He may have been a little more precise with voltage calculations, giving some loads 2.5% more voltage than some of mine, but everything else, except LER, has got to be the same if it was all based from the information provided by BridgeLUX.

Click to expand...

I am not doing anything other than this...telling you that LER changes from spectrum to spectrum(and where it can be found). Nothing more, nothing less.

Just so happens that will effect the whole sheet's efficiency values...which if are incorrect...call it what you want

Here is how I got the current droop and Vf figures, painstaking counting pixels lol

Vero 10


Vero 13


Vero 18


Vero 29

Greengenes707 said:

I am not doing anything other than this...telling you that LER changes from spectrum to spectrum. Nothing more, nothing less.

Just so happens that will effect the whole sheet's efficiency values...which if are incorrect...call it what you want

Click to expand...

I agree. The LER values are not as accurate as Supra's/Flux's/Whoever's LER data.

The cool thing about these sheets is that they can be updated, which is something I will do now that someone has come forth with quasi-legitmate LER values.

SupraSPL said:

Here is how I got the current droop and Vf figures:

Vero 10
View attachment 3296448 View attachment 3296449

Vero 13
View attachment 3296450 View attachment 3296451

Vero 18
View attachment 3296452 View attachment 3296453

Vero 29
View attachment 3296454 View attachment 3296455

Click to expand...

Nice. You definitely worked more precisly on that section of the report .

Feel free to use those for your sheets if you like, I like how you have them set up. Or if you feel ambitious, maybe the newest PDFs have more accurate curves and we can recalculate the LER data from those to see if they have changed at all? I think SDS did his own calculation for the 3000K Vero LER or maybe it was the CXA 3000K that he did.

there is another problem with our sheets. They are all based on Tj 50C, whgich of course is just a guess and a compromise, but my experiements observing the Vf drop makes me think that many of use that are running soft have a much lower Tj in practice. I plan to do more experimentation on that but the end result of a very low Tj is a very low temp droop. I am seeing output decrease by as little as 1-3% from a cold start to fully warmed up

SupraSPL said:

Feel free to use those for your sheets if you like. Or if you feel ambitious, maybe the newest PDFs have more accurate curves and we can recalculate the LER data from those to see if they have changed at all? I think SDS did his own calculation for the 3000K Vero LER or maybe it was the CXA 3000K that he did.

Click to expand...

I just might take you up on that offer/challenge. I'll have to look over Flux's calculations to gain an understanding of the math behind it later tonight or tomorrow.

SupraSPL said:

there is another problem with our sheets. They are all based on Tj 50C, whgich of course is just a guess and a compromise, but my experiements observing the Vf drop makes me think that many of use that are running soft have a much lower Tj in practice. I plan to do more experimentation on that but the end result of a very low Tj is a very low temp droop. I am seeing output decrease by as little as 1-3% from a cold start to fully warmed up

Click to expand...

As you know, the main goal of these sheets are to provide anyone with an idea of where COBs may typically stand with everything else being considered. I think you've reached that point of standardization and are now exploring new territory which involves many more, yet related variables .

Your the teacher in this scenario; I've been following you ever since. I'm just here to watch and learn from you. I am as they say, one of your many 'pupils'.

The gist of it is, each wavelength has a certain value for the lumen curve and a certain amplitude in the curve being analyzed. Once you have digitized every nm of the visible wavelength, you can convert the entire curve into umols/PAR W and into an LER value.

To demonstrate LER for those who do not know, at 555nm (pure green) the value is 100% or 683 LER, the maximum possible, so the higher the % green, the closer it will be to the maximum. But deep red wavelength's LER is about 55, so the higher the % deep red, the more it lowers the LER of the curve.

I have never tried doing it, but I think there is software available that automates the process of digitizing a curve.

There are some stumbling blocks converting the wavelength values. I recall Mr Flux saying the he used the wrong data on his first attempt and it made a slight difference when he recalculated it.

Cree has verified the LER for the CXA 2700 80 CRi to be 321 and the 3000K 80CRi to be 325.

SupraSPL said:

The gist of it is, each wavelength has a certain value for the lumen curve and a certain amplitude in the curve being analyzed. Once you have digitized every nm of the visible wavelength, you can convert the entire curve into umols/PAR W and into an LER value. I have never tried doing it but I think there is software that automates the process of digitizing a curve.

There are some stumbling blocks converting the wavelength values. I recall Mr Flux saying the he used the wrong data on his first attempt and it made a slight difference when he recalculated it.

Cree has verified the LER for the CXA 2700 80 CRi to be 321 and the 3000K 80CRi to be 325.

Click to expand...

So your saying, in short, that it takes more than just a pad and pencil to calculate the LER value (like if you were to solve for watts), that instead software is necessary/mandatory in order to achieve legitimate results?

Why can't BridgeLUX just provide the f'in LER values...

AquariusPanta said:

I wonder how he solves for his LER values...

Nonetheless, our values are pretty close, with me undercutting the LER value for the higher CCT models.

Click to expand...

you are overrating the LER Factor.
the LER factor for High CRI emitter is around 280

next BS are the number for Vf(50°C)
the leverage is 3 to 4 times higher than the specification in the datasheet
and it change with higher currents.

Vero13 Sheet
Vf (25°C ) ....Vf (50°C) ..........Vf (25°C )- Vf (50°C)
30,2 ..............28,7 ..................1,5
31,4 ..............29,8 ..................1,6
32,3 ..............30,7 ..................1,6
33,4 ..............31,7 ..................1,7
35,1 ..............33,3 ..................1,8

guod said:

you are overrating the LER Factor.
the LER factor for High CRI emitter is around 280

next BS are the number for Vf(50°C)
the leverage is 3 to 4 times higher than the specification in the datasheet
and it change with higher currents.

Vero13 Sheet
Vf (25°C ) ....Vf (50°C) ..........Vf (25°C )- Vf (50°C)
30,2 ..............28,7 ..................1,5
31,4 ..............29,8 ..................1,6
32,3 ..............30,7 ..................1,6
33,4 ..............31,7 ..................1,7
35,1 ..............33,3 ..................1,8

Click to expand...

High CRI meaning 90 and above? Again, I don't have some fancy formula (yet) for solving different LER values for different makes. Please share your resources.

Is that my Vero 13 Sheet your rambling on about lord knows what? I looked at a graph (on the updated sheets) and came up with 95% (Vf @25c) for Vf@50c, as you have demonstrated.

AquariusPanta said:

Your larger room sounds a little like mine, which, in my opinion, is small lol. Converting your centimeters to inches and then feet, your large room is like 5' tall x 3' wide x 1.7' thick.

I've heard from Churchy that the VERO 29 tends to burn things at high amps (1700mA and higher) in close quarters. With less than five feet of total clearance for a plant, with or without scrogging, you run the risk of bleaching/burning your canopy later in the final stages. I'd consider V18's for the medium and large cab, while running V13's in the smaller.

The efficiencies along the VERO seem to share the same ranges between the models and makes. I'll depict this in later demonstrations.

Are you using each cab for vegetation through flowering or small/medium for vegetation and the larger for flowering?

Click to expand...

I'm making project for me, i will have medium box, and for some of my friends, one have large cupboard, one small.
So i have a quest - to make the DIY lamp for them!
At first i wanted CREE

@SomeGuy - What was your final dry yield with V18's ?