DiY LED - Cree CXA3070

Organix420

Member
1925ma is harder than I would suggest running the 3070 for our purposes (long term use) because there is a significant efficiency penalty. I run at 700 and 1.4A is also popular. I am at a friends but later I will post a chart that shows the change in efficiency and wattage based on qhich current you choose to run at.

The lowest hanging fruit IMO is led for vegging. Separate vegging area is a great idea and will supercharge your yield over time. You could veg with as little as 30W LED. In a 5x5 flowering canopy Id use 600HPS + 300 LED or 600W LED.
Again great info! Thanks Supra. I had to burn some nag champa and think about it for a minute but I think I get your efficiency argument now. When I first read the thread I was under the impression that your reasoning for running under powered was long term use. I now see that your argument for running under powered is efficiency i.e. lumens per watt and the long term use is kind of a side effect. Originally I was thinking I don't need these things to last 60 years its fine if they only last 30 years so I started to look at fewer cobs at higher amps and watts but now that I see your arguments I'm starting to rethink my whole setup. I just have one lingering question in my mind because I think the datasheet says @1925mA you would get ~7000lumens(it doesn't say how many watts though) and I believe you said that at 25w 720mA-740mA that you would get ~3500lumens. So, I could run 8 3070s at 400w 15.4A (50w 1925mA each) and if each cob puts out 7000lumens for a total of 5600lumens or I could run 16 3070s at 400w 11.84A (25w 740mA each) and if each cob puts out 3500lumens then that's still a total of 5600lumens. What am I missing here?
 

SupraSPL

Well-Known Member
And whats that, like high 70's low 80's in efficacy %? Hello 3+ GPW in the future :) ..only takes 10 to 15 years at this rate to get those buggers to the market..

If they used the same 4000K phosphor as the CXA3070, the LER is 323 so 276lumens/W would be 85.5% efficient. I did not think something like that would be physically possible?
 

SupraSPL

Well-Known Member
Still unsure, but it's very possible :-P I found the COBs for 33$ a piece in multiples of 20, so that's tempting. Just to confirm the estimated efficiency for the 3K 3070 is about 47, 42, and 39 % at .35, .7, and 1.05 respectively?
Yessr here are the updated numbers. The original numbers were estimated from the PDF but for the more accurate numbers I counted the pixels in MSpaint.
CXA3070 3000K and 5000K.png

I know you mentioned the KNNA values of 20% for blue during flower as potentially idea. This is important to me as I plan no other supplemental lighting aside from the 3070... Looking at the umols/s/nm for these emitters posted in the cre cxa analysis thread (thank you Flux) it would appear that I need a way to calculate the area under the curve. I believe I read that you mentioned the 3K has about 10% blue. How did you calculate this? I am attempting to calculate the 3K:5K (or even 3K:4K:5K) ratio I need to arrive at to fulfill the spectral requirements through veg and bloom based on the photosynthesis charts I have compiled.
Thankfully KNNA specified PAR WATTS when he have us the 15-20% number. When I mentioned 10% for the 3000K CCA3070 I got that number from Mr Flux's data:

CXA 3000K
Blue : 10% power, 8% flux
Red : 24% power, 27% flux

CXA 4000K
Blue : 19% power, 16% flux
Red : 17% power, 20% flux

CXA 5000K
Blue : 24% power, 20% flux
Red : 14% power, 17% flux


I have also used the counting boxes method for the 3000K XTEs and I arrived at 11% (different phosphor). For vegging the 4000K or 5000K could be very helpful. Unfortunately the 5000K from Digikey is the lowest bin. Where did you find them for $33?

Also, how is your build going? I agree that lapping is difficult given the size of these sinks and is probably unnecessary with the thermal mass / area you are using per watt. Were you lapping with the 3M paper tapped to a piece of glass? Also, I believe you mentioned polishing. I typically forgo this step, as it is my belief that these buffing compounds leave a residue that may actually impede thermal conductivity vs the freshly lapped surface itself.

Cheers!
Got all the wiring from elecdirect but still waiting on the drivers so I have been working on another pair of driver boards for 300W each. Last time I used 1/2" plywood and but it is much heavier than necessary. Home Depot was out of pegboard so I am using a 1/4" sheet of underlayment and it is much better. I just drilled holes and will zip the drivers to the board. Made some power terminals and zipped those on.

To polish the big sinks I start off with 80 grit on a palm sander. That does the majority of the work. Then I go to 220 until all the 80 grit scratches are out. Finally 600 with a 3M manual sanding block. When I was polishing them I would continue to 1000 1500 and 2000. Then I would use a pair of liquid compounds and finally aluminum polish. I decided that none of that was necessary and 600 grit should be a good value point. I agree that the aluminum polish leaves a residue. I was using alcohol to try and dissolve it afterward.

I also go to 600 grit on all of my aluminum stars. Every single one of them is a far cry from flat lol.
 

SupraSPL

Well-Known Member
Again great info! Thanks Supra. I had to burn some nag champa and think about it for a minute but I think I get your efficiency argument now. When I first read the thread I was under the impression that your reasoning for running under powered was long term use. I now see that your argument for running under powered is efficiency i.e. lumens per watt and the long term use is kind of a side effect. Originally I was thinking I don't need these things to last 60 years its fine if they only last 30 years so I started to look at fewer cobs at higher amps and watts but now that I see your arguments I'm starting to rethink my whole setup.
Yep the idea is to use the largest COBs possible and run them as soft as you believe is still a positive economy. I tried to demonstrate that in post 53. The up front cost of the CXA3070 was actually lower and the overlamp efficiciency was so much higher that the electric savings were substantial, making the CXA1820 a false economy from day 1 (granted I was calculating based on passive cooling). You are correct the lumen maintenance is more of a nice side effect because in just a few years the COBs will likely be much more efficient. When I said "long term use" what I really mean is long hours of use or lights that get left on most of the time like grow lamps or aquariums. For flashlights or photography lights I say go ahead and crank the amps :)

I just have one lingering question in my mind because I think the datasheet says @1925mA you would get ~7000lumens(it doesn't say how many watts though) and I believe you said that at 25w 720mA-740mA that you would get ~3500lumens. So, I could run 8 3070s at 400w 15.4A (50w 1925mA each) and if each cob puts out 7000lumens for a total of 5600lumens or I could run 16 3070s at 400w 11.84A (25w 740mA each) and if each cob puts out 3500lumens then that's still a total of 5600lumens. What am I missing here?
This chart will demonstrate the differences. Each row is a different drive current. The column lm50C means total lumens with a junction temp of 50C. The column 50C dissW means dissipation wattage with a junction temp of 50C. The datasheet lumens is based on a junction temp of 85C which is much hotter than I recommend running these for our long hours of use, of course because there is an efficiency bonus to running them cooler (about 6%)
CXA3070.png
 

MrFlux

Well-Known Member
If they used the same 4000K phosphor as the CXA3070, the LER is 323 so 276lumens/W would be 85.5% efficient. I did not think something like that would be physically possible?
According to the Cree tool, it is already possible with the CXA3070... just run at 350 mA and cool with liquid nitrogen (-196C) :-)
 

Gaius

Active Member
Man I wish I had understood this better before I ordered all those 1400mA drivers that Guod recommended. Oh well, I guess 36-39% isn't horrid. Sucks I got the lowest bin in 5000K, because for some reason I thought I had gotten the highest bin. :/

Live and learn I guess.

...Should still be far cheaper to run than the ol' 1000watt HPS with magnetic ballast and 13,000 BTU portable AC unit. :)
 

SupraSPL

Well-Known Member
Yessr your light will be pimpin and have no worries in a year or two I expect we will see more efficient COBs and a better choice of bins. You can always swap out drivers later on, they will have resale value and the COBs will also.
 

PetFlora

Well-Known Member
Supra, this design has my attention. I'm thinking it is the next step for horticulture

I contacted an eBay company that sells 2 cob panels @ 150w, though not NW WW. They say they can provide 100w (2 @ 50w) with 110* reflectors

Haven't gotten down to price yet. Here's a high priced version

Thoughts?


http://www.growevolution.com/lights/bud-boss-343/
 

Mellodrama

Well-Known Member
Hehehe. I guess that's a pretty major downside to using permanent thermal adhesive to mount my chips on the heatsinks :/
I''ve gotta ask about this because it's been buggin' me since I started following these DIY threads. Isn't there some way to melt that thermal adhesive stuff without damaging the COB? Dab a little acetone onto the adhesive, or careful application of heat?

Gaius, I hate to see you bummed out about not picking exactly the right parts. Believe me, I've done the exact same thing. Your lights are gonna rock and I'm sure you'll be happy with the results once it's all fired up.
 

SupraSPL

Well-Known Member
PF I agree multicolor COBs would be awesome for grow lamps, especially if they can provide the high levels of efficiency we are seeing from the CXA and Vero.

Mello that is a good question. I have heard that in some cases thermal adhesive can be forced off. Not sure in the case of epoxy I will have to look into that.
 

Gaius

Active Member
Acetone may work. Not too concerned about it really, as I'll likely never sell them anyways.

I was only slightly bummed. I expect I'll probably upgrade the lights long before I'd see a major hit to the wallet from a couple % of efficiency.
 

Gaius

Active Member
Supra, I got 2 of these coming to supplement my 2 WHITE ufos (3500/50000K)

The whites have done an awesome job without color augmentation, but these only come as multicolor cobs. I wouldn't use them without whites.

75w for $77 PLUS free shipping. I think the reflectors will be da bomb


http://www.ebay.com/itm/Amazing-Growth-Reflector-Cup-75W-LED-Light-Grow-Panel-Integrated-COB-Hydro-Lamp-/190958710284?pt=US_Hydroponics&hash=item2c7606ae0c
Yeah that looks like a nice little COB housing. For the price it seems like a decent deal. I wonder about the quality of driver/chip. If the components are replaceable it might be pretty good value. If the parts inside are inefficient shit though, then it's kinda expensive to just use for the housing/reflector/fan/heatsink.
 

PetFlora

Well-Known Member
Well should anything happen; COB, driver and fans are standard items. Spyder heatsink in common use. Field repair (or cob upgrade) should be a no brainer

Most of the guys here do the heavy lifting. This falls within my capability

If i get half an oz more on first grow, they will pay for themselves
:fire:

Yeah that looks like a nice little COB housing. For the price it seems like a decent deal. I wonder about the quality of driver/chip. If the components are replaceable it might be pretty good value. If the parts inside are inefficient shit though, then it's kinda expensive to just use for the housing/reflector/fan/heatsink.
 

mtnstream

Active Member
I believe low bin or not, you're going to hit it out of the park with the Cree cxa cobs!
Currently, 2-3050's, 2.7k @ 1.5mA are rocking my 1.8 sf flower scrog box...



Man I wish I had understood this better before I ordered all those 1400mA drivers that Guod recommended. Oh well, I guess 36-39% isn't horrid. Sucks I got the lowest bin in 5000K, because for some reason I thought I had gotten the highest bin. :/

Live and learn I guess.

...Should still be far cheaper to run than the ol' 1000watt HPS with magnetic ballast and 13,000 BTU portable AC unit. :)
 
Top