New Samsung mid power diodes LM302N

ChiefRunningPhist

ChiefRunningPhist

Well-Known Member
Tungsten said:
Hey guy, I just read about this new diode on grower.ch.
It's called the LM302N and offers additional peaks at 450nm and 474nm.
I don't know if these are usable or beneficial in growing.
Maybe someone with deeper knowledge in spectra can comment on this.
So long!
Click to expand...
Nice! Makes for a more uniform spectral blend when using these 4K's 302N's with 3K 301B/H. Blending 4K 301B/H with 3K 301B/H still leaves you with a major gap in the 480nm region. If using the 302Ns you could potentially fill in this gap.

The 302N are only estimated to be ~40% efficient though (@150mA), compared to around ~65% for the 301B (@150mA).


*
Multicolor line is the Phototropin & Zeitlupes absorption spectra, the white CCT LED SPD in the background is a LM301H 3500K 80CRI...
 

Attachments

Last edited:
T

Tungsten

Active Member
User Zynki from grower.ch also calculated the QERs and LERs for 3000K, 3500K and 4000K.
Für LM302N 3000K:
LER [lm/W] = 321,98
QER [µmol/J] = 4,84
Lm/µmol = 66,518

Für LM302N 3500K:
LER [lm/W] = 336,32
QER [µmol/J] = 4,61
Lm/µmol = 72,968

Für LM302N 4000K:
LER [lm/W] = 315,40
QER [µmol/J] = 4,70
Lm/µmol = 67,078
Click to expand...
 
ChiefRunningPhist

ChiefRunningPhist

Well-Known Member
Tungsten said:
How is your german? :) It's an old school message board from 2002.
I'm a lurker over there but I can take a look or ask him.
Click to expand...
Lol I saw that, I signed up but still waiting for confirmation email so I can't post yet.

Tungsten said:
lol
look what I just found:
https://www.grower.ch/forum/threads/quantum-board-v3-mit-samsung-lm301h.120934/post-2708807
He mentions that the LERs and QERs from the spectra in the datasheet are exactly the same as the one from the LM301B datasheet.
Even the same errors in the labeling
Click to expand...
That's pretty close to my numbers too. I was curious because I can't figure where exactly the discrepancy about the 3.03μmol/J figure that Samsung advertises is coming from. (I've been told that the 301B & 301H are the exact same chip by distributors)
1569448195212.png
https://www.samsung.com/led/lighting/mid-power-leds/3030-leds/lm301h/



...Working back...



Energy IN: (CRI:80, Flx: ?, CCT:6500K)...
(0.065A) × (2.7V)
=
0.1755W input (datasheet data)
...

(0.065A) × (2.72V)
=
0.1768W input (distributor data)



Lumen OUT: (CRI:80, Flx:SM, CCT:6500K)..
42lm - (SM flux bin, max, from datasheet, assuming they're advertising optimal flux bin?, though the Vf of 2.7V seems like only the 2nd best voltage bin..)
39lm - distributor data
Screenshot_2019-09-25-15-58-33~2.png Screenshot_2019-09-25-17-51-52~2.png



LER: (CRI:80 Flx: ?, CCT:6500K)..
313.3lm/W (my digitized figure)
Screenshot_2019-09-25-17-56-23~2.png



Energy OUT: (CRI:80, Flx:SM, CCT:6500K)..
42lm ÷ 313.3lm/W
=
0.134W output (datasheet data)
...

39lm ÷ 313.3lm/W
=
0.1244W output (distributor data)



Efficiency (mW): (CRI:80 Flx:SM, CCT:6500K)..
0.134W(out) ÷ 0.1755W(in)
=
0.7638; 76.38% efficient (datasheet data)
...

0.1244W ÷ 0.1768W
=
0.704; 70.4% efficient (distributor data)



QER: (CRI:80 Flx: ?, CCT:6500K)..
4.482μmol/J (my digitized figure)



μmol/J: (CRI:80 Flx:SM, CCT:6500K)..
0.7638 × 4.482μmol/J(QER)
=
3.42μmol/J(input) (datasheet data)
...

0.704 × 4.482μmol/J
=
3.15μmol/J (distributor data)



You can see that the numbers don't add up. I've used distributor calculations to more precisely figure Vf per operating current (it changes input power minutely, likewise with other linked metrics), but even with those supposedly more precise figures it's still off (distributor says a Vf figure for 80CRI 6500K 301H @65mA, 25C is 2.72V, using distributor Vf & lm data instead of data sheet Vf & lm ranges I get ~3.15μmol/J - 3.18μmol/J, depending on CCT). In order for the digitized μmol/J figure to match what's advertised, the actual SPD would have to be different from the one they print in the datasheet, or... the luminosity function that we're using to determine our LER is skewed and off.

My LER for the 3500K and 80CRI is 329.3lm/W, and my QER worked out to be 4.801μmol/J. This matches 99%+ to "Zynki's" figures (332.16lm/W, & 4.802μmol/J).

The difference between the digitized μmol/J figure & the advertised μmol/J figure is more pronounced in the higher CCTs. The higher CCTs have lower LERs, but the actual max lumen output per chip barely changes from 3000k - 6500k (40lm max to 42lm max). This means having the same actual output (or within 95%+) while reducing LER equates to a higher efficiency. If using the more precise distributor Vf as well as the distributor lm output figure @65mA for a 6500K 80CRI (39lm compared to 42lm), then adding ~15lm to the LERs (if using a static Vf figure obtained using the bottom figure of a Vf range listed on the data sheets, then it'd be closer to adding 20lm - 40lm ontop of the LERs), the digitized μmol/J figures would match pretty close to advertised. Idk if this is due to an incorrect luminosity function being used to calculate LER, or if the chip SPD is off, or if the recorded lm counts in the data sheets are off. Calculating LER using a shifted curved might put the question to rest, but just thinking out loud...
@alesh

EDIT:
Essentially our LERs (Zynki's & mine) need to be ~15lm higher to match Samsungs advertised μmol/J figure with the distributors calculated lm output figures. If using less precise Vf and lm output figures, ie from a range listed on a datasheet, the resulting efficiency can be off which will throw your μmol/J figure off. In this case not knowing exact Vf and exact lm output created a μmol/J figure of 3.42 compared to 3.03. An ~13% deviation.

I've been working to back calculate μmol/J from a lm measurement and relative SPD graph, but at least with Samsung LM301H I can't figure where the issue is. LM301H datasheet SPD graph is ~4% off(?), or our luminosity curve is ~4% off(?), or advertised μmol/J is 4% below true (not likely). Is Samsung a certain % off while other brands will be off a distinct % as well(?) due to their/my respective measuring or recording procedures, ect (speculation). If theres other white CCT chips that have μmol/J claims or documentation I could cross examine LER/efficiency/output/ect discrepancies between brands, but I just haven't got that far yet..
 
Last edited:
Z

Zynki

Member
Hi @ChiefRunningPhist
Thank you for reminding me. Until today I thought the LM301H was just a relabeled LM301B. To be honest I'm still not convinced that there is a difference at all.
I use the excel sheet by @alesh from the "Math behind" thread
Did you see that Samsung updated its datasheet? The current version is V 2.1 from 2019-09-10.
And they corrected the spectra.
I just did a short calculation on the 6500K.
LER [lm/W] 318,38740
QER [µmol/J] 4,51467
The values for 6500K don't differ much from those I calculated earlier (measurement error)


One diode at 65mA and 2,7V is ~175mW.
Samsung states between 38-40lm for the SL bin.
~217lm/w - ~228lm/w -> 3,08µmol/J - 3,23µmol/J
 
Last edited:
ChiefRunningPhist

ChiefRunningPhist

Well-Known Member
Zynki said:
Hi @ChiefRunningPhist
Thank you for reminding me. Until today I thought the LM301H was just a relabeled LM301B. To be honest I'm still not convinced that there is a difference at all.
I use the excel sheet by @alesh from the "Math behind" thread
Did you see that Samsung updated its datasheet? The current version is V 2.1 from 2019-09-10.
And they corrected the spectra.
I just did a short calculation on the 6500K.
LER [lm/W] 318,38740
QER [µmol/J] 4,51467
The values for 6500K don't differ much (measurement error)


One diode at 65mA and 2,7V is ~175mW.
Samsung states between 38-40lm for the SL bin.
~217lm/w - ~228lm/w -> 3,08µmol/J - 3,23µmol/J
Click to expand...
Haha nice, didn't know if you were an English speaker or not. I still haven't received a confirmation email from growers.ch so I won't be able to discuss over there.

That's pretty much the figures I'm getting too. Even with SL bin the calculated efficiency range is still over the advertised 3.03μmol/J. If you use SM bin it's more pronounced. Theoretically and conceptually speaking the math is sound, so not sure which piece(s) of data is off. Ill have to check out the luminosity curve @alesh posted, I digitized one from wiki that I'm using but seems to be fairly the same as y'alls. Lol thanks for going down the rabbit hole with me. :bigjoint:

EDIT:
I've been told they're the exact same chip just labeled as horticulture in the catalogs. I've been told there's not even a new anti suferization coating, that it's the exact same chip. I was told this by a junior engineer working for a distributor. I see they advertise anti-sulfurization, but according to the diatributor it's the exact same and the old ones had the same coating. Who knows...
 
Last edited:
Z

Zynki

Member
I still haven't received a confirmation email from growers.ch
Click to expand...
I found my RIU confirmation mail in my spam folder :lol:
@tomate - who is or was a RIU user as well- wrote on grower.ch about a modified Relative Quantum Efficiency graph and posted the modified Excel file:
Ich hänge hier mal eine leicht erweiterte excel Tabelle von alesh an.
Erweitert wurde diese um die auf cannabis angepasste RelativeQuantumEfficiency Kurve vom Beta-Test-Team aus dem icmag forum um damit einen YPF statt PPF Wert ermitteln zu können. Außerdem gibt es jetzt den üblichen PPF QER Wert für die Standardkonforme 400-700nm Range und einen für die von HLG und Co. oft benutzte Range von 380-780nm mit denen sie ihre Werte etwas schönen.

Durch die Gewichtung nach der RQE und dem resultierenden QER für den YieldPhotonFlux sollten Vergleiche verschiedener Spektren aussagekräftiger sein.
Click to expand...
Translation:
"I am attaching here a slightly extended excel table from alesh.
This table was extended by the cannabis adapted RelativeQuantumEfficiency curve from the beta test team of the icmag forum to get a YPF instead of PPF value. In addition there is now the usual PPF QER value for the standard 400-700nm range and a range of 380-780nm often used by HLG and Co. with which they can improve their values a bit.

By the weighting according to the RQE and the resulting QER for the YieldPhotonFlux comparisons of different spectra should be more meaningful."

(Translated with DeepL)

I can't post the link yet :neutral:

These are the values for the 6500K LM301H:
LER [lm/W] = 318,38741
QER 400-700 [µmol/J] = 4,44308
QER 380-780 [µmol/J] = 4,514679
QER 360-760 YPFc [µmol/J] = 3,74334


At 38lm per diode and estimated 175,5mw it's about 3,07µmol/J using the 380-780nm QER.
1% error
Maybe that could also be a coincidence.. I don't know

At 38lm per diode and estimated 175,5mW it's about 3,02µmol/J using the 400-700nm QER
Maybe that could also be a coincidence.. I don't know
 
Last edited:
R

Ryante55

Well-Known Member
Zynki said:
Hi @ChiefRunningPhist
Thank you for reminding me. Until today I thought the LM301H was just a relabeled LM301B. To be honest I'm still not convinced that there is a difference at all.
I use the excel sheet by @alesh from the "Math behind" thread
Did you see that Samsung updated its datasheet? The current version is V 2.1 from 2019-09-10.
And they corrected the spectra.
I just did a short calculation on the 6500K.
LER [lm/W] 318,38740
QER [µmol/J] 4,51467
The values for 6500K don't differ much from those I calculated earlier (measurement error)


One diode at 65mA and 2,7V is ~175mW.
Samsung states between 38-40lm for the SL bin.
~217lm/w - ~228lm/w -> 3,08µmol/J - 3,23µmol/J
Click to expand...
The difference is the lm301h has an anti sulfurization coating so it's more durable basically
 
ChiefRunningPhist

ChiefRunningPhist

Well-Known Member
Zynki said:
I found my RIU confirmation mail in my spam folder :lol:
@tomate - who is or was a RIU user as well- wrote on grower.ch about a modified Relative Quantum Efficiency graph and posted the modified Excel file:

Translation:
"I am attaching here a slightly extended excel table from alesh.
This table was extended by the cannabis adapted RelativeQuantumEfficiency curve from the beta test team of the icmag forum to get a YPF instead of PPF value. In addition there is now the usual PPF QER value for the standard 400-700nm range and a range of 380-780nm often used by HLG and Co. with which they can improve their values a bit.

By the weighting according to the RQE and the resulting QER for the YieldPhotonFlux comparisons of different spectra should be more meaningful."

(Translated with DeepL)

I can't post the link yet :neutral:

These are the values for the 6500K LM301H:
LER [lm/W] = 318,38741
QER 400-700 [µmol/J] = 4,44308
QER 380-780 [µmol/J] = 4,514679
QER 360-760 YPFc [µmol/J] = 3,74334

At 38lm per diode and estimated 175,5mw it's about 3,07µmol/J using the 380-780nm QER.
1% error
Maybe that could also be a coincidence.. I don't know
Click to expand...
Ya I'm creating a YPF metric as well, I think that's what he/you were getting at with the RQE?

I'm using the automeris.webplotdigitizer to digitize the data sheet SPD. What are you guys using? Im guessing the digitizing program or parameters we're using is allowing for some slight variability in the QERs we're getting. Same with LER, but LER adds a second layer of possible mistakes. Not only could our digitizing of the chip SPDs be a bit variable (due to different programs ect) but also our digitizing of the luminosity curve could have the same inate variance (due to different programs/parameters when digitizing). This added ontop of most likely not using the same luminosity curve to digitize from in the very beginning is where I'm assuming the discrepancy is. I'd like to use the exact luminosity function that manufacturers use, ie Samsung, but what I was getting at in my earlier post is I'm not sure if there is a standard luminosity function that ALL manufacturers use, or if they have a bit of variance between companies. I have to select the color of the line that im digitizing with the program I'm using, and it seems that the line width plays a role in how accurately the digitizer numerically represents the graph. If the graph line is "thick" the data points are collected along the perimeter of the thick line rather than in the middle of the thick line, so the data can skew slightly towards the outline of the line rather than the center of the line. Very minute changes but they do make a difference. Things like this add to the variability and where I'm guessing some of our LER & QERs are differing from. I'm fairly confident the issue resides with the luminous function we're using and the digitizing software parameters, but mostly the luminosity function. We're both off by about the same margin and I'm guessing Samsung is using a slightly different luminosity function which in turn leads to different efficiency, which in turn correlates with the documented figures. If the luminosity function were skewed it would seem to solve all issues I think, so that's where I'm guessing the problem is but I really don't know..
 
Last edited:
ChiefRunningPhist

ChiefRunningPhist

Well-Known Member
Zynki said:
As long as Samsung states

we're well inside the error margin.
Tbh we're talking nerd level deviations :bigjoint:
Click to expand...
Lol I hear ya, but I'm never under, always over. When the bottom figure in a range is used and the result is still always over, I think I'm fundamentally off somewhere (albeit off by a pretty dam small margin, but these things drive me crazy!). Also, these are theoretical calcs, shouldn't they be pretty spot on(?), I think the tolerance plays more in the true performance side? I'm designing a fixture and if I intend it to be 3.0 but end up only being 2.9 because my calc was off it'll drive me crazy lol, that's why I'm trying to figure where it's off, and/or who is off.. I'm using another PC chip (2 in total) and if μmol/J is back calculated from the 2nd PC chips QER/LER, it too gives a higher μmol/J than the stated figure in the data sheets. If my luminosity function is off for the PC white, its off for the 2nd PC chip too. Monos are all pretty spot on, it's only the PC chips..

If I find anything I'll post it. When I was looking through luminosity graphs to use and digitize for my tuning program I saw several different graphs. Scotopic, mesopic, photopic, and some blends in between I think... Ill have to look again..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top