...All Things Vero...

I tried accessing the .com and .net domains. Both were not loading half the time. Don't you own all the .com, .net, .org, .info domains for your business? A simple whois search will show who owns it.

All the domains should all point to the same place.

I edited my post to include both URLs. You are missing my point though. Your servers are really slow. Dial up?

AquariusPanta said:

As for the readings, you'd have need to submit the data from the data sheets that either Bridgelux or Cree provides for their products, specifically the intensity for each of the individual wavelengths throughout the 'color curve' for each of the temperatures. Here's what it came to, thanks to @alesh and Damon from Apogee for their support.

Vero18 3000K 80CRI : -6.5%
Vero18 4000K 80CRI : -5.2%
Vero18 5000K 70CRI : -3.6%

Click to expand...

Good info thnk you! Do I understand correctly, that this means the Apogee sensor reads 6.5% low for the 3000K and therefore I should multiply the reading by the inverse which would be +7%?

AquariusPanta said:

I remove the pre-applied paste and squirt as much MX2 as needed. I used to try to conserve the MX4 but found it was less troublesome to start fresh without any paste, as drilling holes makes a mess

Click to expand...

Gotcha, make sense

SupraSPL said:

Good info thnk you! Do I understand correctly, that this means the Apogee sensor reads 6.5% low for the 3000K and therefore I should multiply the reading by the inverse which would be +7%?


Gotcha, make sense

Click to expand...

http://www.apogeeinstruments.com/light-intensity-measurements-for-light-emitting-diodes-leds/



Figure 1: Apogee quantum sensor/meter response (blue line) compared to defined quantum response (black line) of equal sensitivity at all wavelengths between 400 nm and 700 nm.

Patience is a virtue.

@SupraSPL

I was instructed, in the case of a 6% low to divide readings by .94.

THNX from that info it looks like the readings are too high so for the Vero5000K we would multiply by .94. For some reason I had it in my head that the sensor was closer to baseline in the middle of the range. Based on that it will be well worth the effort to submit the data for any curve we can get.

SupraSPL said:

THNX from that info it looks like the readings are too high so for the Vero5000K we would multiply by .94. For some reason I had it in my head that the sensor was closer to baseline in the middle of the range. Based on that it will be well worth the effort to submit the data for any curve we can get.

Click to expand...

Instead of multiplying, we're supposed to divide in the case of a low reading. The (-) sign is to signify that the reading is under the true value of radiation, which can be represented as 100% or 1.00. In order to reach the true value of radiation (TVR), we would need to first subtract the low reading from the TVR and then divide the PAR reading(s) from the sensor (SQ-120) by that remainder.

In the case of the Vero 5000K (70 CRI - Version 2.0), we have an average low reading of 3.6% or - 3.6%. To make sense of this, the (-) signifies that the sensor isn't reading everything that we expected, through calculations, to be present, while a (+) sign would signify that the sensor is picking up an inflated amount of light within the 475nm~660nm region.

When it comes down to the number crunching, everything becomes a little easier to mentally digest. Using the numbers from the previous paragraph, the math works out like this:

1.00 - 0.036 = 0.964 ....... or you can do it this way ......... (100 - 3.6)% = 96.4% ............... I prefer the former approach. Next we simply divide the readings from our sensors by the corrected value of radiation (CVR) and end up with the calculated TVR.

Say we ended up with a reading of 85 for this Vero 5000K, the math would look like this: 85 / 0.964 = 88.2
Now if we ended up with a high reading of 11% or + 11%, we'd need to divided readings by 1.11.

I'm sure you won't have any issues understanding this and hope the entire breakdown of the processes will benefit other wizards out there

for a par reading that you can compare between different cobs of different temps the fudge factor is useless because the fudge factor is determined by comparing readings to a Known spectrum to a standard which measures close to a true PAR.

As we design led lighting systems with various leds there isn't any way to know what fudge factor should be without measuring against a much more expensive system.

The apogee is useful for comparing coverage over a canopy, which is what most growers need, but don't even think about comparing to different lights, especially those with significant levels of deep red and expect to get any detailed accuracy. Goodness look at the apogee curve and how steep the cliff is right at 650nm - 670nm. It actually looks like they are using a cutoff filter for wavelengths above 650nm.

PurpleBuz said:

for a par reading that you can compare between different cobs of different temps the fudge factor is useless because the fudge factor is determined by comparing readings to a Known spectrum to a standard which measures close to a true PAR.

As we design led lighting systems with various leds there isn't any way to know what fudge factor should be without measuring against a much more expensive system.

The apogee is useful for comparing coverage over a canopy, which is what most growers need, but don't even think about comparing to different lights, especially those with significant levels of deep red and expect to get any detailed accuracy. Goodness look at the apogee curve and how steep the cliff is right at 650nm - 670nm. It actually looks like they are using a cutoff filter for wavelengths above 650nm.

Click to expand...

Don't be so quick to throw out the Apogee PAR sensor as an option to measuring credible amounts of PPFD.

By measuring the individual intensities of each of the wavelengths found on the spectral charts that Bridgelux and Cree provides and recording them on a spreadsheet, one can establish how much deep red wasn't counted by sending that data spreadsheet to Apogee, where they will calculate the error factor and send back the low/high readings that are needed in order to correct the imperfections of the SQ-120 sensor. Obviously every COB listed at 4000K isn't going to be exactly 4000K in actual color coordinated temperature, unless you're like Jeff at A51 and disregard the color binning page found on the Vero data sheets, and think otherwise, but the readings will be very close to one another and thus lends credibility to using these low/high corrected values of radiation in the search for a fixture's PPFD output.

AquariusPanta said:

Don't be so quick to throw out the Apogee PAR sensor as an option to measuring credible amounts of PPFD.

By measuring the individual intensities of each of the wavelengths found on the spectral charts that Bridgelux and Cree provides and recording them on a spreadsheet, one can establish how much deep red wasn't counted by sending that data spreadsheet to Apogee, where they will calculate the error factor and send back the low/high readings that are needed in order to correct the imperfections of the SQ-120 sensor. Obviously every COB listed at 4000K isn't going to be exactly 4000K in actual color coordinated temperature, unless you're like Jeff at A51 and disregard the color binning page found on the Vero data sheets, and think otherwise, but the readings will be very close to one another and thus lends credibility to using these low/high corrected values of radiation in the search for a fixture's PPFD output.

Click to expand...

I'm not throwing the apogee out, but it is useless to compare lights with significantly different spectrums. You can do all the mathematical correction you want but it will never be accurate since your piling estimation on top of projection.

PurpleBuz said:

I'm not throwing the apogee out, but it is useless to compare lights with significantly different spectrums. You can do all the mathematical correction you want but it will never be accurate since your piling estimation on top of projection.

Click to expand...

I think if you worded your argument a little differently I would have better understood you. You're stating that if someone had a fixture with 3000K, 4000K, and 5000K Vero COBS packed into it, that we'd, by default, have a less accurate true value of radiation than if the fixture were all one temperature, such as all 4000K. I'd agree with you on this if this was the point you were making.

Overall, if the error in both the estimation and projection are marginal (which they should be coming from Bridgelux and Apogee, don't you agree?), than I'd say the approximation of the corrected values of radiation are good enough for government work.

every measuring instrument has it own errors.
her are the spectral errors of some light-soures for the apogee-sensor
make it more realistic is just a bit calculation.

My tap bit snapped, anyway of getting the bit out or just start again slightly off
These lights are insanely bright, didn't realise how bright until I couldn't see

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Rollitup mobile app

@rosswaa

That tap is a goner. Have you checked out my "A Thread on Tapping" thread? There's a few pro tips in there if you need em'.

@purplebuzz

It's cool dude, your claim is slightly outside of the original context of the discussion that you decided to jump in and your explanation was crude, hence my denseness.

Yeh was hoping there was a way to pull what is stuck out so I can retap. Looks like I'll just file down and start again.
I'm considering kapton tape though as this is alot trickier than I thought lol managed the first hole easy

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Rollitup mobile app

Just takes some practice to get the knack of it. I broke a tap in my early attempts. You should be using a lubricant. Pay attention to the amount of pressure, it shouldn't take much. When you feel pressure do a reverse turn and carry on.

lol its out of subject , but realy interested.
Its rise the measurement problem.
I think for each apparel its like that .
i saw a video , the guy were testing 4 thermometers ( from 4 different brand ) .
Probe at same place , same height well all same , for 4 different results lol .
and not small difference , the range was between 5 degres ....
like one measure 20° and one other was at 25° .
Hard to make an average if the measure conditions are strictly the same for each apparel right ?
So which value you choose in this case ?

Its same for Ph probe etc....

structure like LHC , Cern got stuff ultra precise and they are sure of the apparel calibration.
the most important , you can have weighing scale precise at 0.00000 gr , if it bad calibrate , the measure will be precise , but false.

i say that , i used 4 ph probe , blue line , hanna ect .. each time got surprised with, in despite the maintenance i've done (clean, storage, etc ... )

But i supposed , its not very serious thing for us , even if , no one could well lead futures in hydro culture for example , where we got to control and have good measure of the environement

Rahz said:

Just takes some practice to get the knack of it. I broke a tap in my early attempts. You should be using a lubricant. Pay attention to the amount of pressure, it shouldn't take much. When you feel pressure do a reverse turn and carry on.

Click to expand...

I've ordered 2 more taps and kapton. Kapton is the back up lol
Really want to have some LEDs beaming down


Sent from my Nexus 5 using Rollitup mobile app

Rahz said:

Just takes some practice to get the knack of it. I broke a tap in my early attempts. You should be using a lubricant. Pay attention to the amount of pressure, it shouldn't take much. When you feel pressure do a reverse turn and carry on.

Click to expand...

In aircraft aluminum drilling in the shop, we used WD-40 as a lube or paraffin(canning wax).
Don't forget to start with a "starting tap", there is also taper and bottoming taps, sometimes you have
to use two taps to do the job right. Besides backing up when you feel pressure as "Rahz" said, you
may need to back the tap OUT to clean the chips out.
They aren't cheap, but they do make tap extractors, and for big $$$ parts from blueprints, you can't
drill and tap a new hole.
SLITLOS

I prefer to use non-fluted thread forming taps when tapping aluminum. It eliminates the need to do the tedious back and forth steps to clear chips and forms stronger threads to boot. They're a little more expensive, and you typically have to special order them, but it's worthwhile IMO. They're cheap enough from china though.

Another little tool for the home shop.
http://www.grizzly.com/products/Tap-Wrench-w-Fixture/H5607

Works wonders at keeping your tap straight. I can tap a M3 hole with one finger using the above with a cheap thread forming tap. Even without lube, though WD-40 helps.

Though neither tool is going to prevent broken taps if the hole isn't straight I'm afraid...

bicit said:

I prefer to use non-fluted thread forming taps when tapping aluminum. It eliminates the need to do the tedious back and forth steps to clear chips and forms stronger threads to boot. They're a little more expensive, and you typically have to special order them, but it's worthwhile IMO. They're cheap enough from china though.

Another little tool for the home shop.
http://www.grizzly.com/products/Tap-Wrench-w-Fixture/H5607

Works wonders at keeping your tap straight. I can tap a M3 hole with one finger using the above with a cheap thread forming tap. Even without lube, though WD-40 helps.

Though neither tool is going to prevent broken taps if the hole isn't straight I'm afraid...

Click to expand...

Bicit, I have never used the Non-Fluted taps, or ever seen them, I worked sheet metal fab shop, they
may have used them in the machine/engine shop, but that was another world unto it self.
I just bought a small can of WD-40 to spray down the tools I'm having to buy doing this DYI, gave my
2 rollaway tool boxes and tool to my son when I left the US. Having to buy new toys to make things.
SLITLOS