Why do some guys wats to still use mono led with cobs?

Add mono's to cobs?

  • Total voters
    116
REALSTYLES

REALSTYLES

Well-Known Member
I'm confused of why I still see people holding on to the past with leds. Why take a super efficient light and dumb it down by using lower efficient light that cost more and more work? I feel you guys who do that are looking at up front cost cheating yourselves.This thread I've started is to get to the bottom of this add monos to cobs. I think it's a waste of time. Please give us your honest thoughts about this subject.
 
P

PurpleBuz

Well-Known Member
- cobs don't have significant amounts of UVA wavelengths
- royal blue monos are more efficient than cobs cause of phosphor conversion losses.
- deep red monos produce more photons than a warm white cob.

needless to say it only takes a wee little bit to widen and fatten the spectrum and raising the total effective cri into the 90s.

overall efficiency is higher.
 
EfficientWatt

EfficientWatt

Well-Known Member
Hey Realstyles,

Thanks for starting this thread ;) I'm surprised to be the first to hop in, I'll give it a go..
EDIT : PurpleBuz beat me to it.

1) APPLICATIONs are different:

I don't see it as a VS but more of a case of complementarity.
- Cobs for the base/broad spectrum are unbeatable in terms of total output, simplicity of build, efficiency and price.
- Monos are obviously the best way to tune/complement a spectrum, as you can really pick out the nm-range you want to boost.

Now fine tuning is not necessary with COBS (I beleive that's where you stand) , we already get to choose between extremely adequate and full spectrums, better than any HIDs, except maybe CMH.
.. BUT ...
LED guys have always been in this spectrum tuning stuff, as that's how it all began (no whites).
After all this spectrum experimenting, alot of us have learned from it and like the idea of hitting our plants the best way we can ( Ah yeah !).
More often than not, the ones to bring the next best thing usually started by experimenting a little further than others (..) it can be exciting to walk in uncharted territories ;)

2) CX vs 660nm : Mono's can be very efficient :

I'm not going to take the easy example of blue leds, which are by far the most efficient around, but take 660nm Osam Oslon deep red:

1) CXA - CXB 4000k/3000K give 4.53 - 4.66 umol/J
So 3500K is probably in between, something like 4.6

1W of CXB3590 3500K CD @48.85W at 56% efficiency gives: 1*0.56*4.6 = 2.576 ppf/W

2) Osram hyper red 3T give 5.48 umol/J
@350mA they have 54% efficiency ...

So 1W of that gives : 1*0.54*5.48 = 2.959 ppf/W

In those conditions : Osram Deep Red gives off 15% more photons per watt than CXB3590 CD 3500K
Shocked ? :lol:


My conclusion:

Some will keep it eZ, that's fine. Some like to get creative, and that's fine too.

In the end the right style, is to do it your way. The RealStYle is keeping it yo' style ;)

:peace:
 
Last edited:
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
I'm a big believer in Occam's razor; from the pics of @REALSTYLES @captainmorgan and others growing under all one model and wavelength of COB and my own experience under many other lights, I think the plants look great and don't appear to need any help with tuning the spectrum.

That's not to say that such tuning couldn't improve the chip's PAR performance; maybe they could mix different phosphors on different parts of the LES to mimic the royal blue and deep red COBs spectrum.
 
EfficientWatt

EfficientWatt

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
That's not to say that such tuning couldn't improve the chip's PAR performance; maybe they could mix different phosphors on different parts of the LES to mimic the royal blue and deep red COBs spectrum.
Click to expand...
That's the whole point, you can't.
It would be the same as mixing say 5K and 3K or 2.7K ... You want more (deep) red efficiently => Add mono's

For extra blue : I don't really get it. COBs are blue leds, with phosphorous layer changing *some* of the light to other nm. 3K, 4K, 5K, choose how much blue you want THEN add red.

Using less efficient Cobs to have proportionally more red, then add back some royal blue monos (which was what you had in the first place) just doesn't make much sense to me.

Deep red sure. Violet/UV, I can see why some want to do that, but royal blue, what the duck ?!
 
alesh

alesh

Well-Known Member
PurpleBuz said:
- cobs don't have significant amounts of UVA wavelengths
- royal blue monos are more efficient than cobs cause of phosphor conversion losses.
- deep red monos produce more photons than a warm white cob.

needless to say it only takes a wee little bit to widen and fatten the spectrum and raising the total effective cri into the 90s.

overall efficiency is higher.
Click to expand...
Show me:
a royal blue LED more efficient than CXB3590
a deep red LED producing more photons per dissipated joule than CXB3590
 
alesh

alesh

Well-Known Member
EfficientWatt said:
Hey Realstyles,

Thanks for starting this thread ;) I'm surprised to be the first to hop in, I'll give it a go..
EDIT : PurpleBuz beat me to it.

1) APPLICATIONs are different:

I don't see it as a VS but more of a case of complementarity.
- Cobs for the base/broad spectrum are unbeatable in terms of total output, simplicity of build, efficiency and price.
- Monos are obviously the best way to tune/complement a spectrum, as you can really pick out the nm-range you want to boost.

Now fine tuning is not necessary with COBS (I beleive that's where you stand) , we already get to choose between extremely adequate and full spectrums, better than any HIDs, except maybe CMH.
.. BUT ...
LED guys have always been in this spectrum tuning stuff, as that's how it all began (no whites).
After all this spectrum experimenting, alot of us have learned from it and like the idea of hitting our plants the best way we can ( Ah yeah !).
More often than not, the ones to bring the next best thing usually started by experimenting a little further than others (..) it can be exciting to walk in uncharted territories ;)

2) CX vs 660nm : Mono's can be very efficient :

I'm not going to take the easy example of blue leds, which are by far the most efficient around, but take 660nm Osam Oslon deep red:

1) CXA - CXB 4000k/3000K give 4.53 - 4.66 umol/J
So 3500K is probably in between, something like 4.6

1W of CXB3590 3500K CD @48.85W at 56% efficiency gives: 1*0.56*4.6 = 2.576 ppf/W

2) Osram hyper red 3T give 5.48 umol/J
@350mA they have 54% efficiency ...

So 1W of that gives : 1*0.54*5.48 = 2.959 ppf/W

In those conditions : Osram Deep Red gives off 15% more photons per watt than CXB3590 CD 3500K
Shocked ? :lol:


My conclusion:

Some will keep it eZ, that's fine. Some like to get creative, and that's fine too.

In the end the right style, is to do it your way. The RealStYle is keeping it yo' style ;)

:peace:
Click to expand...
Oslon hyper red is 50% efficient typical at 350mA and 25°C. You can underdrive the CXB more to get better µmol/J and still better price per photon.
I tend to agree with @REALSTYLES . Monos? Why not but you'd be better buying more COBs.

EfficientWatt said:
That's the whole point, you can't.
It would be the same as mixing say 5K and 3K or 2.7K ... You want more (deep) red efficiently => Add mono's
Click to expand...
http://cz.mouser.com/ProductDetail/Cree-Inc/CXB3590-0000-000R0UBD30G/?qs=sGAEpiMZZMu4Prknbu83y/XSy/Gad3PUeYzI42PFf7%2bAFeHaErYIgw==
Probably still cheaper than monos and more efficient.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top