if there are enough reading can't one estimate the average by accounting for the total surface area and weighting the readings appropriately ?
...All Things Vero...
- Thread starter AquariusPanta
- Start date
robincnn
Well-Known Member
Does this sound correct for calculating PPFD in 5x5
Calculate the average PPF in 1x1 then multiply that with 1
Calculate the average PPF in 2x2 outside 1x1 then multiply that with 4-1=3
Calculate the average PPF in 3x3 outside 2x2 then multiply that with 9-4=5
Calculate the average PPF in 4x4 outside 3x3 then multiply that with 16-9=7
Calculate the average PPF in 5x5 outside 4x4 then multiply that with 25-16=9
then add all you got after you multiplied and divide by 25
Calculate the average PPF in 1x1 then multiply that with 1
Calculate the average PPF in 2x2 outside 1x1 then multiply that with 4-1=3
Calculate the average PPF in 3x3 outside 2x2 then multiply that with 9-4=5
Calculate the average PPF in 4x4 outside 3x3 then multiply that with 16-9=7
Calculate the average PPF in 5x5 outside 4x4 then multiply that with 25-16=9
then add all you got after you multiplied and divide by 25
mc130p
Well-Known Member
Please forgive my ignorance, but isn't PPFD expressed wrt square meter? I think with this calculation, it's important to keep the units proper. I always think of PPF as the integral over the surface of a sphere surrounding the light...the total light output by the system is the integral of the flux over the surface surrounding the source..
alesh
Well-Known Member
Yes you're right, but this assumes there are no losses due scatter and/or absorption.
What would you based the weighing coefficient on?
I'm not sure if I understand what you mean. Could you be perhaps a little more graphic please and try me with a picture?
based on the area covered for each measurement point
Last edited:
guod
Well-Known Member
this stoner Math is too high
for me
salmonetin
Well-Known Member
nahhh...only need more red wine...
...averaged measures...sum of measures divided by number of measures?...
...i told you wilson... today we need more beers... and more weed...
Saludos
...averaged measures...sum of measures divided by number of measures?...
...i told you wilson... today we need more beers... and more weed...
Saludos
Last edited:
robincnn
Well-Known Member
Example for 4x4
If we average all the numbers we get 572, which is wrong in my opinion.
The Green area is 1sqft. So multiply average PPF in this green area with 1 weighing coefficient.
The Blue area is 3 sqft. So multiply average PPF in this blue area with 3 weighing coefficient.
The Orange area is 5 sqft. So multiply average PPF in this orange area with 5 weighing coefficient.
The yellow area is 7 sqft. So multiply average PPF in this yellow area with 7 weighing coefficient.
Now add all and divide by total weighing coefficient (1+3+5+7= 16)
Why yellow 7sqft?
4x4sqft - 3*3sqft = 16-9=7
All formulas are in the attached excel
for Data1 column I will explain for row #1 (900+840)/2= 870
for Data2 column I will explain for row #1 (900+810)/2= 855
for Data1 column I will explain for row #2 (840+720)/2= 780
for Data2 column I will explain for row #2 (810+570)/2= 690
@guod
Let me know if you see anything wrong with this approach.
@Stephenj37826 Thanks for letting me use your data to explain this.
Last edited:
well if she is gonna be the teacher, I'm going back to school and be naughty!View attachment 3512653
Example for 4x4
If we average all the numbers we get 572, which is wrong in my opinion.
The Green area is 1sqft. So multiply average PPF in this green area with 1 weighing coefficient.
The Blue area is 3 sqft. So multiply average PPF in this blue area with 3 weighing coefficient.
The Orange area is 5 sqft. So multiply average PPF in this orange area with 5 weighing coefficient.
The yellow area is 7 sqft. So multiply average PPF in this yellow area with 7 weighing coefficient.
Now add all and divide by total weighing coefficient (1+3+5+7= 16)
All formulas are in the attached excel
for Data1 column I will explain for row #1 (900+840)/2= 870
for Data2 column I will explain for row #1 (900+810)/2= 855
for Data1 column I will explain for row #2 (840+720)/2= 780
for Data2 column I will explain for row #2 (810+570)/2= 690
View attachment 3512656
@Stephenj37826 Thanks for letting me use your data to explain this.
Let me know if you see anything wrong with this approach.
sounds like I need to brush up on my calculus to do it precisely, nonetheless if robin did the averaging math correctly he has the right idea for a reasonable estimation. (sorry its Friday and my brain is too tired to do more than fuzzy math)
Stephenj37826
Well-Known Member
View attachment 3512653
Example for 4x4
If we average all the numbers we get 572, which is wrong in my opinion.
The Green area is 1sqft. So multiply average PPF in this green area with 1 weighing coefficient.
The Blue area is 3 sqft. So multiply average PPF in this blue area with 3 weighing coefficient.
The Orange area is 5 sqft. So multiply average PPF in this orange area with 5 weighing coefficient.
The yellow area is 7 sqft. So multiply average PPF in this yellow area with 7 weighing coefficient.
Now add all and divide by total weighing coefficient (1+3+5+7= 16)
Why yellow 7sqft?
4x4sqft - 3*3sqft = 16-9=7
All formulas are in the attached excel
for Data1 column I will explain for row #1 (900+840)/2= 870
for Data2 column I will explain for row #1 (900+810)/2= 855
for Data1 column I will explain for row #2 (840+720)/2= 780
for Data2 column I will explain for row #2 (810+570)/2= 690
@guod
View attachment 3512656
Let me know if you see anything wrong with this approach.
@Stephenj37826 Thanks for letting me use your data to explain this.
Awesome work and yes I believe your approach gives us a better understanding of coverage as well as intensity. Man I have to say though if she said example one was the right way I would have to agree
Stephenj37826
Well-Known Member
I need that pic on my site lol
littlejacob
Well-Known Member
Bonjour
Do you have her cell number!???
I want to go back to school!!!
Why my son teachers are not like her...I would be more involved in school things...
Is your numbers are correct!?
Have a great day ★
Do you have her cell number!???
I want to go back to school!!!
Why my son teachers are not like her...I would be more involved in school things...
Is your numbers are correct!?
Have a great day ★
when I was in high school, I had a French tutor, she was wife of one of my dads coworkers. very French and very hot.... I actually passed French class that year thanks to her.
littlejacob
Well-Known Member
Alors tu parles français mon ami!
Peux tu me dire quelques mots s' il te plaît?!?
C'est dur d'apprendre le français!?!
Bonne culture a toi!
Et a tous!
Peux tu me dire quelques mots s' il te plaît?!?
C'est dur d'apprendre le français!?!
Bonne culture a toi!
Et a tous!
lol sorry that was a long time ago, I forgot most of my French, but I still dream of the tutor even after 30 years of marriage. Yeah it was hard for me to learn French, that's why I needed the tutor.
littlejacob
Well-Known Member
Haaaa French Womens!!!!!
AquariusPanta
Well-Known Member
What's up, amigos?
A week (or two?) ago, I tested and measured the individual PAR measurements of both the Vero 29 and CXB 3070 (BB-bin) at exact currents using the same driver (~2.8A) in the same space. To some surprise, the Vero 29 performed remarkably better in comparison to it's counterpart but a few select individuals weren't impressed and insisted that it was because the Cree CXB 3070 COBs aren't typically ran at such high currents, leaving my tests/results in favor of the Vero 29.
So this week I decided it would only be right to pull out one of my ole', straight-outta-China drivers that operates at around 1600mA, in order to give the CXB 3070 a fair chance and trial against the Vero 29 - I mean we are paying remarkably more for the CXB, so it must have some definable attribute that justifies its higher cost, right?
Guess again.
While some may point out that the temperatures aren't the same or that the COBs run at slightly different voltages, it should be clear that CXB 3070 and Vero 29 COBS are typically compared to one another in most instances, with the former being hard, if not impossible to find in top-tier bin.
Anyhow, I thought some of you may enjoy this, as there seems to be an abundant amount of hype surrounding the Cree CXB 3070 COB and with most high-bin versions out of reach, it makes me wonder why people pay more for arguably the same output, if not less in some cases where high-bin isn't an option.
A week (or two?) ago, I tested and measured the individual PAR measurements of both the Vero 29 and CXB 3070 (BB-bin) at exact currents using the same driver (~2.8A) in the same space. To some surprise, the Vero 29 performed remarkably better in comparison to it's counterpart but a few select individuals weren't impressed and insisted that it was because the Cree CXB 3070 COBs aren't typically ran at such high currents, leaving my tests/results in favor of the Vero 29.
So this week I decided it would only be right to pull out one of my ole', straight-outta-China drivers that operates at around 1600mA, in order to give the CXB 3070 a fair chance and trial against the Vero 29 - I mean we are paying remarkably more for the CXB, so it must have some definable attribute that justifies its higher cost, right?
Guess again.
While some may point out that the temperatures aren't the same or that the COBs run at slightly different voltages, it should be clear that CXB 3070 and Vero 29 COBS are typically compared to one another in most instances, with the former being hard, if not impossible to find in top-tier bin.
Anyhow, I thought some of you may enjoy this, as there seems to be an abundant amount of hype surrounding the Cree CXB 3070 COB and with most high-bin versions out of reach, it makes me wonder why people pay more for arguably the same output, if not less in some cases where high-bin isn't an option.
your "PAR" measurements ... are they based on apogee ? then they are invalid for deep red testing.
trying to compare a 3K to a 4K makes absolutely no sense for PAR
why aren't you spending your cycles GROWING and SHOWING ?
AquariusPanta
Well-Known Member
@PurpleBuz
They are based from an Apogee. How are they invalid if corrected? Have you even talked any of the owners/representatives at Apogee on deep red testing? Based on your response, no, no you haven't.
If you ever tested PAR levels, you'd realize that the typical PAR output difference between 3000K~4000K isn't quite dramatic and is rather quite similar, with 3000K reaching highest, so comparing 3000K and 4000K isn't exactly out of the question, especially when the CXB is suppose to be much higher in efficiency at that bin. Furthermore, obtaining high-bin 3000K CXB 3070 isn't exactly realistic at this time, so I believe 4000K is a worthy contender given the rest.
They are based from an Apogee. How are they invalid if corrected? Have you even talked any of the owners/representatives at Apogee on deep red testing? Based on your response, no, no you haven't.
If you ever tested PAR levels, you'd realize that the typical PAR output difference between 3000K~4000K isn't quite dramatic and is rather quite similar, with 3000K reaching highest, so comparing 3000K and 4000K isn't exactly out of the question, especially when the CXB is suppose to be much higher in efficiency at that bin. Furthermore, obtaining high-bin 3000K CXB 3070 isn't exactly realistic at this time, so I believe 4000K is a worthy contender given the rest.