DiY LED - Cree CXA3070

Scotch089

Scotch089

Well-Known Member
It's just the mylar/panda film/whatever you wanna call it that my cabs lined with. I think it is even more important in our kind of spaces now that we're using emitters with 115+° viewing angles vs area 51/apache/HPS/etc. I'm positive that helps our numbers and every bit counts.
 
Lighterfighter

Lighterfighter

Well-Known Member
I mean that 200umol at 18 in with a 6 in gap between light and canopy and 12 in deep cannopy is a very constricting limit for such a wide area. IF the beams werent degreed so widly (eg.180 panel and 115degree single lense ). wed get the photons to angle more directly to the canopy. I am pretty sure I have read that secondary lenses add to the penetration factor by alot. I can pull studys or something if youd like. I am more interested in reflectors or optics as a solution to this problem. reflector is redirecting the light in a different mannor then an optics. I believe optics are better becasue the photons travel in less space before they stabilize through, thus keeping more energy. IDk maybe lol. I they are 34.85mm so prolly measured at 34 or 35 ill start reading. This tells me the answer my own question with the aluminum back drop(maybe as a secondary reflector where the lense sits in the alluminum hole and thus allowing a flat pannel, important for consistency?. I think itd prolly be best if I start looking at reflectors and spectrum now that I got got the heart of my setup( I also know how to read into the older models if I need to). do you guys recommend actively cooled or passively cooled? single cob w reflector and fan or like a panel?
 
Scotch089

Scotch089

Well-Known Member
Reflectors would be smart if you're not training too much, our man @Positivity has plenty of experience running with and without in different orientations/emitters/heights. I wouldn't mind putting two on the furthest on my panel but honestly it's pretty good where it's at now, if I could get just two I might but honestly that just comes down to me just putting in the effort to find them, and then I'd have to buy different mounts for cxas instead of what I have now. Meh...

I don't understand what you had started to say at the beginning "..at 18 in with a 6 in gap between light and canopy and 12 in deep cannopy.."

The 18" IS the gap between the light and canopy? And like I said if your going a foot into the canopy- reflectors for sure, I would avoid lenses to get as little loss as you can through the material and keep as much eff as you can.
 
Lighterfighter

Lighterfighter

Well-Known Member
Okay cool. what I was sayin was your umol rating was not through your canopy? I assumed you measured from the light the build? it is really irrelevant mines ganna be pumped a lil different and newer light. I Was saying that 200 umols is hitting the bottom what you really want so the livable space for buds and many leds pull that at like 2ft+ on outter edges from what I thought I was reading. I could be wrong though... stretch is more then a foot lol. I end at 3 ft maybe. yea I was hoping to push a lil deeper into the canopy then 1 ft deep with 6 in gab in between. Scotch there are new cxa's they are cxb's and are like more then 20% more efficient. so sick lol. glad I am jumping in at the right time. @SupraSPL is there any known ballast that is not dimmable that goes to 1050 fitting my light? what if I cancelled my order and moved to 36v? would this open my balllast options up?
 
Lighterfighter

Lighterfighter

Well-Known Member
I dotn wnat to end up with shield payback like the mars. I am just thinking the extra lumens will really help the coverage area and fruit production and wont hit any heat watts or any o limits. if this hypothosis is wrong then I believe the best would still be the 700 I am a bit worried about the umol rates presented. @Scotch089 what do you pull form something light that?
 
Scotch089

Scotch089

Well-Known Member
Yea I'm sure I'll be upgrading given the higher bins become available of the cxbs. I haven't been able to run our favorite plant under my light (82 more days of Probation and counting -_-) unfortunately but my umol ratings are right on par with what commercial LED panels are putting out, well, the quality ones that are not using monochromatic blues to up their readings at the cost of spectrum. I charted out an SGS160's readings back when I first got one and my DIY is just of umol/watt with what it's putting out and honestly I'm happy with that because of the difference in spectrum. 4000+630 vs 3000+4700+670 it came out to the 160 producing like 4.3umol/w vs 3.4umol/w, within a single umol? Ha Not considering the extra 10-12+% efficiency bump and the SGS160'S is hitting right at 290 at the same 18" on the side so from 670some to 290 vs. 857 to 607.

If ppl are rocking with pre-made panels, What're we gonna do building our own kickass one step further panels?

diy fo'life!
 
Scotch089

Scotch089

Well-Known Member
You have to remember that the more blue in our whites mean the more efficient they are (more photons produced because of the less amount of phosphor used to convert the color to "white") so these companies that are using 4000 and 6500 Kelvin cool/neutral whites are getting a head start with their readings whether it's a beneficial spectrum or not. That's why I said something about these companies like progrows mars cali light works and such using mono blues. We're hitting inside that photosynthetic curve better than they are so the photons we produce MAY be readily used better than others. That's the magic of the 3070 and veros, not only are they beasts, but they give us almost the ideal distribution that were lookin for. So not matching umols or beating them doesn't mean EVERYTHING, but being close is a good idea. Then like I said, to produce a BETTER spectrum, MORE efficiently... lol. They can't touch us! Of course I'm not bad mouthing the companies that have done their best to supply us with what we want without putting themselves out of business, but remember they ARE a business and I'd they used what we are- they would have to make sure their was a margin to make it worth it, and by then, it may not be worth investing for us. feel me?

And something that stands out to me after looking at the numbers and rereading myself, the falloff to the sides are considerable using lenses on the 160, while penetration will still be the same with the wide 3070s, especially for a scrogger like myself.
 
G

getsoutalive

Well-Known Member
I question the pursuit of maximum efficiencies. Don't get me wrong, I get it. And for those who need to reduce every watt of heat generated, by all means. But for most of the group, I don't know how strong the case for chasing efficiency is. Mostly because the tech is still very young. The new announcements from Cree and Bridgelux are very exciting and if history is any guide likely to be repeated on a fairly regular schedule. So while the new high bin CXBs are awesome, I stocked up on some Vero 18s when Newark had their 20% off sale. Sure today's chips will last for years, but I suspect in just a few, most will be lucky to be supplemental lighting. Probably way before they can pay back the additional costs. Once the supporting hardware is purchased, chip upgrades are pretty much drop in place.
 
SupraSPL

SupraSPL

Well-Known Member
You are correct, in terms of flat out electrical savings the law of diminishing returns kicks in at a lower efficiency, but when you factor in the potential to increase yield and quality in your space, that is a whole nother story. For me, the limiting factor was heat. I was already running a 12/12 flip flop and I just could not pack any more HPS lamps into my space without an unnaceptable sacrifice of bud quality, complex loud expensive fans and ducting systems, and of course expensive AC. So the obvious answer was to increase efficiency so I could increase yield and it worked. That increased yield is extremely valuable and that is how I justify the efficiency pursuit. The phenomenally expensive LED paid for itself in about 3 weeks.

But when it comes to choosing between something like Vero29 running hard versus CXA running soft, the increase in efficiency is not as extreme as when switching from HPS. That is why I recommend most growers run their CXA3070s and CXB3590s at 50W each. Here is how it compares:

Vero 29 running relatively hard
Vero 29 = $28
Alpine11 = $10
2.1A driver HLN-80H-42 $45
total cost $83
79W @ 37.3% = 29.5 PAR W
$2.81/PAR W (driver efficiency is 91% vs 94% for the next examples)

CXA3070 running mid:
CXA3070 AB $120
Alpine11 $30
1.4A driver HLG-185H-C1400 $70
total cost $220
156W @ 43.3% = 67.5 PAR W
$3.26/PAR W

CXA3070 running soft
CXA3070 AB X8 $320
Alpine11X8 $80
.7A driver HLG-185H-C700 $70
total cost $470
196W @ 50.4% = 98.9 PAR W
$4.75/PAR W

CXB3590 running mid
CXB3590 CB X4 $240
Alpine11X4 $40
.7A driver HLG-185H-C700 $70
total cost $350
195.6W @ 51.7% = 101 PAR W
$3.46/PAR W

CXB3590 running soft
CXB3590X6 $360
Alpine11X6 $60
HLG-120H-C350 $65
total cost $485
143.4W @ 58% = 83.2 PAR W
$5.83/PAR W

Looking at these examples, I think CXB3590 @ 700mA is the best compromise and the only reason to pursue efficiency higher would be if it is going to directly increase your yield. In my case it would because I am at 48% efficiency and bumping into the limits of heat in the canopy that I am willing to accept (80F) so I would be willing to pay extra for the CXB3590 @ 350mA if I was starting over again. The savings on the electric bill is a really nice bonus, but peanuts compared to the value of the increased yield.
 
Last edited:
Romz1

Romz1

Member
Hey guys :) I have just received 2x HLG-185H-C1050B, and in the end of the week I am ordering CXA3070 3K. However I can see that CXB models are about to be released... Is it worth to wait for CXB3070? When I can order CXA 3K AB? Or ?

In two weeks I am planning to set up my 2x 50w CXA3070 5k and start growing some seeds, so there is still some time before I need 3000K light :)
 
REALSTYLES

REALSTYLES

Well-Known Member
SupraSPL said:
You are correct, in terms of flat out electrical savings the law of diminishing returns kicks in at a lower efficiency, but when you factor in the potential to increase yield and quality in your space, that is a whole nother story. For me, the limiting factor was heat. I was already running a 12/12 flip flop and I just could not pack any more HPS lamps into my space without an unnaceptable sacrifice of bud quality, complex loud expensive fans and ducting systems, and of course expensive AC. So the obvious answer was to increase efficiency so I could increase yield and it worked. That increased yield is extremely valuable and that is how I justify the efficiency pursuit. The phenomenally expensive LED paid for itself in about 3 weeks.

But when it comes to choosing between something like Vero29 running hard versus CXA running soft, the increase in efficiency is not as extreme as when switching from HPS. That is why I recommend most growers run their CXA3070s and CXB3590s at 50W each. Here is how it compares:

Vero 29 running relatively hard
Vero 29 = $28
Alpine11 = $10
2.1A driver HLN-80H-42 $45
total cost $83
79W @ 37.3% = 29.5 PAR W
$2.81/PAR W (driver efficiency is 91% vs 94% for the next examples)

CXA3070 running mid:
CXA3070 AB $120
Alpine11 $30
1.4A driver HLG-185H-C1400 $70
total cost $220
156W @ 43.3% = 67.5 PAR W
$3.26/PAR W

CXA3070 running soft
CXA3070 AB X8 $320
Alpine11X8 $80
.7A driver HLG-185H-C700 $70
total cost $470
196W @ 50.4% = 98.9 PAR W
$4.75/PAR W

CXB3590 running mid
CXB3590 CB X4 $240
Alpine11X4 $40
.7A driver HLG-185H-C700 $70
total cost $350
195.6W @ 51.7% = 101 PAR W
$3.46/PAR W

CXB3590 running soft
CXB3590X6 $360
Alpine11X6 $60
HLG-120H-C350 $65
total cost $485
143.4W @ 58% = 83.2 PAR W
$5.83/PAR W

Looking at these examples, I think CXB3590 @ 700mA is the best compromise and the only reason to pursue efficiency higher would be if it is going to directly increase your yield. In my case it would because I am at 48% efficiency and bumping into the limits of heat in the canopy that I am willing to accept (80F) so I would be willing to pay extra for the CXB3590 @ 350mA if I was starting over again. The savings on the electric bill is a really nice bonus, but peanuts compared to the value of the increased yield.
Click to expand...
I'm so buying some CXB3590's Supra gonna ask Kingbrite if they can get themv after the Chinese New Year.
 
O

obviously

Well-Known Member
Guys , I got a decision finally : 2 x Lumatek 600W :) Thank you everybody for your opinions. I have only one thing to get : the seeds. Does anybody knows a shop in Leicester ?
 
Blakhash

Blakhash

Well-Known Member
obviously said:
Guys , I got a decision finally : 2 x Lumatek 600W :) Thank you everybody for your opinions. I have only one thing to get : the seeds. Does anybody knows a shop in Leicester ?
Click to expand...
Dude this is for diy if you need seeds use the good Old Google, I found 3 seed shops just in Leicester England.
 
O

obviously

Well-Known Member
Thank you . I know , but I don;t know if they are still available. And I know it is about DIY , cause I was thinking to get a few , but finally I've got the Lumatek :)
 
Lighterfighter

Lighterfighter

Well-Known Member
@Scotch089 for sure man, those are way up to par when it is compared to commercial fixtures. Ive seen some commercial lights hit that at 24" on outter limits, but your stating this is a bit of a falsified, or scewed, result due to measuring methods. Understood. Thats still legit that we learn how to do all of this.

@SupraSPL Thank you for asking king bright on ali, if they respond could you post here?
Are you stating that the 35omA higher yields? I Thought higher watts (or higher mA) make more fruit... I have a fundamental misunderstanding somewhere because I am thinking that bumping the mA higher, it would increase wattage output and lumen output thus making bigger fruit. is the trade of that lower wattage gets closer to canopy and less heat? I am dealing with a 1200 w mars now and it gets up to 84 F WIth an 4 in exaust fan., this is not an issue for my plants until I put the light ridiculously close( closer than 12 in).

@getsoutalive I feel you on this question. The struggle is real lol. I was under the assumption that the 1050 would be best because the 9000 lumens on the 700, but I thought this could be increased by 20% by bumping up to 1050ma and producign over 11k in lumens... I was really thinking lumens produces more fruit, Unless hitting heat factor, like with hps as supra stated. I topp at like 83 degrees for short intervals in my hps room. And hit about 81 avg. But I just cant get why you wouldnt want more lumens, other then needing to buy more drivers. I believe earlier I was told me hitting a heat limitation shouldnt be an issue, so why not bump it louda!

I feel like the people who run the veros push them hard. I thought this was for the most lumens. the crees threads suggest cxa's to be run lower mA and were efficiency oriented. just form what Ive read.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top