Yes I agree, It is very unfortunate. And especially when they try to change actual datafiles to fit their own narrative like 1 company is. They changed the lm561c and put an lm561y image on it and is trying to pass it off as just as good or better than lm561c.
It is total bull shit that they are doing the same or claiming the same design. How hard is it to just make your own design. It is not they just want to steal your work getting it this far.
What company?
This should illustrate it well:
Bava
As temp goes up (25C is not realistic in most cases) the LM301B pulls ahead. We generally don't talk in 25C flash measurement but real-world performance. Notice the .1C difference in Tj @ 25C. At 55-60C case temp, the difference is quite a bit more.
Your numbers are wrong. You are not running at the same current.
The numbers are still pretty close when you use the same numbers.
Not sure what you mean here. I do notice the 301B has more in the 600 nm range and less in the 550 nm range than the 301B.
That means there will be more photons at a given lumen count.
I understand that but when you said jumbled up I was not sure what you meant. The benefit here is that the 301 is running more of the energy intense red spectrum. Which means to my thinking you could run a higher kelvin number with more blue in it and get about the same growth as the 3000K 561C. So more blue which takes less energy to produce and could be more usable light for the same growth.
I think you're confused on efficiency. Higher color temps (like 4000k) are not really more efficient than lower temps (like 3000k). The only thing that increases is the lumens per watt output. But that's because higher K temps simply contain more green light, which means more lumens as lumens are based off of the green spectrum intensity. But as far as the PAR output (umol/joule), it's the same or at least nearly identical.
Two different ways to compare. I was doing the same current and the same number of lumens. I think your way is a better comparison in that it take into account the power consumption and the total number of lumens. A little harder to get the exact driver to match I would think. But if you can get the efficacy where you want it that is not a big deal.
I think you misunderstood what I was getting at. I was implying that the blue spectrum takes less energy to produce a photon than the red spectrum does. The 301B produces more red in the 600 nm range than the 561C which has more in the 550 nm range than the 301B. If that is the case the 301B can have more blue to make up for the difference that the 561 has. And since the blue takes less energy you get more blue for the energy consumed and the 301B would need more blue to even out the red to blue that the 561C has.
Yeah no I got what you were saying. But I think you're overestimating how small the difference in energy it is to make a photon between say 3000k and 4000k. The big difference is the 4000k since it is more blue would produce more lumens per watt than the 3000k, but as far as the actual photon output in the PAR range I don't think the difference between 3000k and 4000k is much at all. What im saying is I think you're looking at lumens/w for output and not umol/joule (PAR)
Running at the same current is not the same as running them at the same *efficacy*.