Cxm22 questions

Ya I'm just having trouble with rapping my head around this efficiency thing. I understand you get better spread but I'm a se1000w hps grower lol so Im still equating yeald with wattage. Basically I can run 36 cobs at 1800w or run less cobs at a highig wattage. Say like 30 at 3000w. It's confusing to me lol
 
You can run the with more power and you will get more light but the lumens per watt drops as you crank them up. So if you drive 6 cobs at 200 watts total you wont get as much light as with 8 cobs at 200 watts. Timber lights are cranking the vero chips with more watts because if they were to use more cobs it would make the light cost prohibitive. A downside to a cranked cob is you cant get it as close to the plants without burning. So running more cobs will cost more to build but will run more efficiently and provide a more even light spread.
 
This graph shows the light output per watt as the wattage increases you can see the light per watt drops. So at 60 watts with a gen 4 chip I get a little over 32 lumens per watt but cranked to 100 watts I only get 29.5 per watt.
Luminous CXM22.png

So more cobs costs more to build but runs more efficient.
 
If you make your design modular with rows of 4 cobs as the building blocks then you can expand lights by adding a row. I am going to make mine so that each row of cobs can be dimmed individually.
 
So how many watts per square foot are you trying to run. Or are you even concerned about that? And I get what your saying about the rows of 4. But I've done all my math with the hlg600h54b drivers. And I've only got 7 free 220v plugs free in my room. Lol
 
oilfield bud said:
So how many watts per square foot are you trying to run. Or are you even concerned about that? And I get what your saying about the rows of 4. But I've done all my math with the hlg600h54b drivers. And I've only got 7 free 220v plugs free in my room. Lol
Click to expand...
I aim for 35 - 40 watts per sqft. I ran my tent at 37.5
 
Ok maybe I should just use a 5x9 flowering space. I could run 3 rows of 4 cobs for each 600w driver over 3 3x5 spaces. That would equate to 40w a square foot.

And thank you for all your help understanding all this man I really appreciate it
 
Renfro said:
Well the way I am driving them they go best in strings of 4. So perhaps 12 cobs? You can always run them dimmed but get more spread. They run more efficient at lower power levels.
Click to expand...
The words more efficient..... we are talking pennies. I don’t think I’d wanna mine much softer than I am now . Never used a par meter but I’m sure 8 cobs in my room would be a little much at 73 w each. But man my plants love 4 cobs at 73. My electric bill...... barely a blip.
 
Chart
Renfro said:
This graph shows the light output per watt as the wattage increases you can see the light per watt drops. So at 60 watts with a gen 4 chip I get a little over 32 lumens per watt but cranked to 100 watts I only get 29.5 per watt.
View attachment 4373248

So more cobs costs more to build but runs more efficient.
Click to expand...
Still getting more photons.
My take for anyone’s room.... buy as many cobs as possible and purchase driver capable of driving them to their max, passively. Then dim them as needed
 
Either way is good. I made my lights so I could run them a little closer when needed. Having the extra cobs and driving them softer allows for that. These things can put out a lot of light thats for sure and the spectrum is the same at any level. There is definitely more potential in those cobs than at 60 watts I am running them at but you do generate more heat per lumen as the wattage increases. At least that was my understanding from talking to @CobKits I am sure he can explain it better than I can lol. I didn't mind paying a little extra to build a Cadillac light that.
 
depends on what your space can handle

if you can maintain your product quality at high light levels, more light will definitely yield more mass of product, but its diminishing returns. In other words, dont expect that going from 800 to 1000 umol will increase yield 20%. Also dont expect that going from 1000 to 1200 umol will yield as much as going from 800 to 1000 did. I like my stuff to be low maintenance so i usually run in the 700-800 umol at the tops.

if you live in a variable climate where it gets cold and you might need to add space heating, extra firepower in your lights on reserve is kind of a no brainer (though extreme cold (60s in your room) and high light levels causes all kind f wack shit to happen as (i believe) transpiration gets out of whack
 
Renfro said:
This graph shows the light output per watt as the wattage increases you can see the light per watt drops. So at 60 watts with a gen 4 chip I get a little over 32 lumens per watt but cranked to 100 watts I only get 29.5 per watt.
View attachment 4373248

So more cobs costs more to build but runs more efficient.
Click to expand...
that Y axis isnt a calibrated as PAR or lumens, FYI. its really only for comparative purposes

so you can compare curves within a given test, but if you see another test by me it is not comparable. there are lot of variables (temp, did i use the same sensor, etc). I just use it to compare relative performance of given chips. my first tests were all against CXB3590 which quickly got ditched for the better options (citizen then luminus)

vero is good but i never know what people are talking about when trying to compare. B, C and D are totally different chips that happen to share a form factor. in the 50-80W range that we like to use, the gen3 luminus are about equal to vero C, and above B and D

gen4 is an impressive chip and should beat vero C handily, ive been trying to get my hands on some newer vero C to see if they are performign better than the ones i have from a year or two ago. same part number but they might have increased efficacy now
 
Last edited:
Ok so is one of the reasons they are less efficient because they create more heat when ran harder? Hell if that's the problem I'm set to cool 4000w of se hps in my room year round in Texas and I could easily afford to run 2400w at 75w a cob instead of 1800w of cobs at 47w a peace if that would give me a better yeild. 2400w would give me 44w a square foot over a 6x9 area hell I could probably streach that out to 8x8 and still be running 37.5w a square foot. My electricity is cheap as hell.
 
For me I was looking to get my light spread a little more than if I used less cobs and ran them harder. Having more points of light emmision lets me run the lights a little closer too since the cobs aren't as intense individually. For me the electrical and thermal efficiency is a bonus as either way they would be cooler than a HPS.
 
On my light project, if it was just about replacing a 1kW DE HPS I could probably have used less cobs and had them cranked up to a higher wattage, I just wanted an optimal spread of the light so I decided to use more cobs since it's still cheaper than buying a timber. I had been told that with the Vero's for example, powered at the higher wattages, people have to run the light farther away from the plants. That is something I am trying to avoid having to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

giggywatts
question
Replies
7
Views
776
Rocket Soul
Rocket Soul
Determination
Hermaphrodite problem
Replies
10
Views
588
Determination
Determination
Rahz
DIY Aluminum Drain Tables
Replies
9
Views
769
DarkWeb
DarkWeb
R
LEDs In the closet (Romulan Bx1) and (Chernobyl x Peach Ringz)
Replies
9
Views
752
rageous
R
S
Superboof & Chimera #2-just flipped 12/12
Replies
7
Views
341
STPsd
S
Back
Top