CRI test and Mcree weighted results

Rahz said:

I haven't really been paying attention to this conversation

Click to expand...

Okay. I put in considerable effort to create an application for you that would do what it is I thought you were trying to achieve.

In my opinion I thought this one was very helpful where it gave the ability to see at a glance the difference between two white LEDs.
I will continue to use it as I find it very useful. But I may be wrong as someone loves to point out to me here.



This is the only opinion being expressed in this thread.

wietefras said:

the rainbow colored charts you keep spamming.

Click to expand...

I does not sound like you or anyone in this thread has any interest in continuing with this app, so I will work on it without you guys.

Rainbow shining way up high
All the way across the sky
Rainbow colors, oh me, oh my

When rainy clouds have gone away
Sun comes out, it's time to play
All the lovely rainbow colors will light our day

Red, orange, yellow, green, blue
Don't forget there's purple too
Rainbow colors for me and you
Rainbow colors for me and you

wietefras said:

Pfft stop deluding yourself

Click to expand...

You know you should see a therapist. You got issues. No need to respond. Try to resist the urge to message me. Please.

NoFucks2Give said:

You know you should see a therapist. You got issues. No need to respond. Try to resist the urge to message me. Please.

Click to expand...

Although it changes every few days...i want to say i liked your "cry baby" picture the best.

BuddyColas said:

..i want to say

Click to expand...

Thank you.

Haha,
thought she smokes ... Fuckin' small handy displays...!
But no worry it was also my first guess...
looks a bit surrealistic..

@NoFucks2Give
Please dont stop posting spectrum comparisions and pdf's.
Interesting stuff!
Even though it is hard to find the useful stuff between the whole dispute with @wietefras .

By the way, I'm sure you both have a good reputation and if you were to sit down in a quiet conversation, you could quickly settle out your differences.

Randomblame said:

By the way, I'm sure you both have a good reputation and if you were to sit down in a quiet conversation, you could quickly settle out your differences.

Click to expand...

You should know that if he actually would post some thing that made sense, you wouldn't see me arguing.

Good luck with his "interesting" charts then. I'll stop wasting my time trying to stop this deluge of bullshit flooding the form.

NoFucks2Give said:

You know you should see a therapist. You got issues. No need to respond. Try to resist the urge to message me. Please.

Click to expand...

Seriously dude, you have NoFuckingClue. Why would I waste even more of my time on PM? I'm only trying to correct your crap here so you don't confuse others.

Every post of yours is so full of mistakes and bullshit that it makes my head hurt. We all have invested a lot of time to correct dozens mistakes in your posts and you still keep pretending like you are some sort of scientist.

You also pretend you corrected lost of mistakes I made. Which then? You have only contested my example an SMD fosfor led as one of three examples showing that COBS can achieve over 60% efficiency. So even if you don't accept that one I had 2 more examples and you are still wrong.

Anyway, I'll go back to ignoring you. This forum deserves imbeciles like you, PhotonFUD , Sativied and VegasWinner I guess. Just post some bullshit in color and people will cheer.

I have a clear photo of where your "science" originates from. Maybe you can use that as an avatar?

wietefras said:

But then "normalized" in NF2G's made up jargon just means that it's capped at some random maximum value.

Click to expand...

SPDs are normalized. Normalization describes which process is being used to display the data where the maximum value is a the top of the chart. It is not a made up phrase.


_______________________________________________________________________________




For a spectral comparison of two LEDs and the distance and watts are the same, it does not matter what the distance and wattage values are. If both are at 10W the resulting chart will look identical if the measurements were made at 20W.

If I were making normalized SPD charts the watts and distance do not matter even if the various CCT LEDs are measured at different heights and wattage do not matter becasue the absolute values are normalized to the height of the chart.

My normalization formula is very simple: PPFD x (height of chart in px ÷ max value between 400nm and 700nm).

When an SPD shows more than one LED each LED is normalized to the height of the chart so there is no relation ship between the different LEDs displayed. Even though their peak values are different absolute values, all their peak are at the top of the chart.

What I did is normalized the data to the highest peak in both sets of data where distance and watts matter in that they need to be the same values so the height of the peak is meaningful with respect to one another.

wietefras said:

Every post of yours is so full of mistakes and bullshit that it makes my head hurt

Click to expand...

This is what you do not understand, they are not full of mistakes. You just think they are or are just saying they are mistakes with no regard for whether they are mistake or not.

I do not mind you pointing out actual mistakes. If I respond to what you called a mistake, I am showing you why I do not agree it is a mistake. For example, normalized is not made up jargon.

I posted two superimposed SPD curves and someone (mabe @CobKits or @Rahz) or asked me if I couple normalize them. It's a common term for how SPD charts or made.

Not everything I post is simple to understand. I wish you would take the time to understand before saying I am wrong with no explanation for why you think I am wrong. It's getting to be a knee jerk reaction with you.

Randomblame said:

Please dont stop posting spectrum comparisions and pdf's.

Click to expand...

I will take this topic with the differences of comparisons to a new thread. I think it is very cool. I took me by surprise. I like it a lot. But I understand exactly what it is and what how it can be used. It would be similar to his app but the choices would be CCT and DRI. http://growlightresearch.com/ppfd/dangles.php


I think normal people will understand if I used the same distance and wattage for both CoBs, the results will be okay. How that one someone refuses understand this is a job for his therapist.

I was thrilled to see how the charts turned out when I subtracted one LED's value from the other. I do not understand why no one else sees this. I find it will be very valuable when comparing two LEDs. Where it is so simple to see the difference between the two LEDs.

For example you choose 3000K 80CRI and you compere it to another and the result curves look like this where only the differences are displayed.

If you choose the other LED you will gain everything above the line and lose everything below the line. If you want more red and blue then change your selection to the other LED then begin comparing that LED to some others. If you want more green and have enough red and blue then stay with the one originally selected and continue comparing it to others.

NoFucks2Give said:

You know you should see a therapist. You got issues.

Click to expand...

Don't give him false hope please, there's no treatment or cure for such extreme and blatant ignorance.

You're trying to teach people who convinced themselves they have something to teach you, while so obviously they miss both the intelligence and intellectual honesty to possess any knowledge by definition. The irony can be entertaining but at some point it becomes a bit like messing with retards aye...

Jezus wietefras wat heb jij toch een dikke plaat voor je kop man. Maffe fries...

wietefras said:

I have a clear photo of where your "science" originates from. Maybe you can use that as an avatar?

Click to expand...

Like this???

wietefras said:

You also pretend you corrected lost of mistakes I made. Which then? Y

Click to expand...

The irony of it all.

Which then? corrected lost of mistakes I made => corrected lots of mistakes I made

• Where watts and distance really matter, you cannot get that right.
• Inverse square law was one of your bigger mistakes, both definition and when it applies.
• Normalize, absolute, relative
  
• Just about every time you said I was wrong.

wietefras said:

you still keep pretending like you are some sort of scientist.

Click to expand...

wietefras said:

Of course now you pretend you invented the whole McCree chart to begin with

Click to expand...

I have told you multiple times I am not a scientist, I am an electrical engineer and programmer.
I know nothing about plant physiology. I still do not fully understand quantum yield well enough to calculate QE values. I read lots of textbooks. When I see something that does not agree with the text book or what is written in the study, I may question it. That does not mean I am an expert, or they are wrong, it just means I want to know why what someone says does not agree with the science.

There is nothing I post that I do not fact check. I do make mistakes especially typos.

PSUAGRO. and Rahz like this :

• because relative SPD's are already in the datasheet.
• But then "normalized" in NF2G's made up jargon just means that it's capped at some random maximum value
• you cannot compare PPFD measurements of a 50W COB to a 40W one

So @PSUAGRO and @Rahz you like @wietefras rant on normalization. Do you realize what a stupid ass he makes of himself when this is read by someone that understands he has no clue what he is saying? It is mostly a nonsensical rant.

Normalized is made up jargon? You like that? "because relative SPD's are already in the datasheet" Do you two think SPDs are relative too?

You CAN compare measurements of a 50W and 40W CoB.

If I made a SPD with a CoB running at 50W and another SPD with the same CoB running at 40 W,
would there be any difference between the two SPD? (hint: none)
So if different CoBs were measured at different wattage, would the SPDs be valid to compare to one another? (hint: yes)
How about the SPD for a little CoB with a max output of 10W, could you compare its SPD with the SPD of a much larger CoB? (hint: yes)

I still working on this. I do not have what I am looking to do with this.

I have the two CLU028-1204C4 CoBs superimposed where both curves are normalized with the same scaling factor (the peak of 3000K).

Each graph is drawn with a vertical line which, proportionately, represents the measured value at that wavelength.
The horizontal line represent 10% increments of the height of the chart.

The second and third graphs are composed of the differences or the two curves.
Their respective verticals lines are the difference in the lengths (heights) of the two curves in the top image.

The middle image is the 3000K line length minus the 2700K length.
The bottom image is the 2700K line length minus the 3000K length.
The same scaling factor is used on all 3 images.

The app is in the test and debug phase. After that then I clean up the presentation. It is in a crude state now.

There is something wrong and I am working on it. Some values on the middle curve look correct some do not.

If we were to assign values to the lengths of the lines, to simply, we could say each horizontal line has a value of 1 instead of 0.10 or 10%.

In that case, at the 710nm lines on the far right, the 3000K height = 1 2700K = 3 with a difference of 2.
And in the middle image the length of the line at 710nm appears to be about a length of 2.

But at the deep blue 450nm the 3000K length is 5 and the 2700K length is 3. Difference = 2 again.
But the line in the middle image the 450nm line is not a length of 2.

The difference is that at 710nm the 2700K is the longer line and at 450nm 2700K is the shorter line.

The bottom image has kind of the opposite problem. But not exactly the same problem at 450nm the line in the bottom image is not = 2.

I will get it working correctly, I have no doubt.

I thought I'd post it now in case someone has input as what they would want to see as the result in the comparison of the two curves.

I was going to say these had the McCree weighting removed. That prompted me to check the code.
Weighting was only removed from one curve. Found the error I believe.

It is now working as I expect it to work. That does not mean I am done.

This is the time for someone to make suggestions for enhancements.

Look at the example. Think as if you were using this to choose between these two LEDs.
What else would you need to know to make your choice?

I am going to add weighting as an option. Not sure what weighting curves to use.
I have the McCree absorption and action curves working. Not so sure McCree is a good weighting curve.

I am leaning away from McCree. I do not think the McCree weighting makes that big of a difference in the selection process.



I had a 2 hour talk with Dr Thomas Colquhoun about absorptance, action, green photons, white verses BR.

Green may not be the reason white is better than BR. Could also be orange and yellow.
Green could be more important than previously thought.
There may be a way to increase THC with LED light signalling.

Turns out that there are other things more important than photosynthesis.
The biochemistry of how the photons are used is beginning to sound very interesting.
More specifically the electron transport chain pathways and secondary metabolites mainly terpenoids, polyphenols, and flavonoids

I had written this thread back in May on the subject: https://www.rollitup.org/t/br-vs-broad-spectrum-effects-on-sensory-quality.940810/

In this thread there is a link to a study Dr TC used to explain why white may be better.
The key to this is how the wavelengths influenced the production of monoterpenes and phenylpropanoid.
There is a link to Wikipedia for the metabolites in the study. The wavelengths used in your grow light will very likely affect taste, aroma, and possibly THC.
The key is which wavelength affects which metabolite. This study is the first step in mapping the electron transport chain pathways to narrow band wavelengths that modulate the pathway to alter the production of metabolites to improve quality.

Please remember I have no idea what I am talking about. I know nothing about plants.
Although I can read and learn.

NoFucks2Give said:

So @PSUAGRO and @Rahz you like @wietefras rant on normalization.

Click to expand...

The lines on the graphs above cannot represent 10% of both SPDs if the peak values are not both 1.

If you have two SPDs normalized to a maximum value of 1 they cannot be superimposed because those SPDs do have actual energy driving them and the max value of neither will be "1".

If you are not normalizing the two SPDs then the max value of each will depend on the output (wattage) of the cobs among other things.

Anyway, this is not a rant. And this is the reason I have been avoiding the conversation. I don't need the drama.

Rahz said:

The lines on the graphs above cannot represent 10% of both SPDs if the peak values are not both 1.

Click to expand...

I can make the display of the graphs user selectable for how ever the user want to see it.
I am storing absolute values and can converted on the fly to whatever is needed for various features.

Thinking through your comments brings up more questions than answers.
The problem being generating a library of data with comparison commonality. with a diverse set of characteristics.

It may be impractical and unnecessary to set a standard distance and wattage.
Where it would be a problem if values had to be converted between measurement geometries.
I cannot accurately convert form intensity to density. Both would have to be measured. But that is not the case here. Conversion will be simple if kept within the domain of quantum intensity.
Low wattage and a close distance would be best to accommodate a large range of LEDs.

Possibly there could be a few measurement profiles depending on characteristics such as forward voltage and max current.
Then there would be a method convert measurements to a single standardized profile.

My thoughts would be to use a two current sources with an accurate measurement of forward voltage. .
Adjusting current to a common wattage would bring in error. Human error must be eliminated.
Then use a conversion formula to compute to relative single common intensity values
350mA and 700mA may be two good standard currents for measurements.
10 W could be the common normalization standard
Distance could be and average of 100mm and 316mm ( CIE Publication 127 or other current intensity measurement standard).
The two distance could include an angle e.g. 100mm @ 2° and 316mm @ 6°.
Measurements would be made in 0.5nm increments from 300nm to 800nm

I have some standardization conversion schemes in mind but I have to run some experiments to verify how well they work.

No like I'd be reinventing the wheel: https://www.led-professional.com/resources-1/articles/measurement-of-leds
see also attached NIST Optical Metrology for LEDs.

I have many books, handbooks, documents on the topic most which I have read and a few I have studied extensively.

screen shot of top half of my photons folder:

I can't believe I just read through this damn thread!

So... what is the answer? Are we still at 3000K 90CRI being the best bet from start to finish?

Jcb890 said:

I can't believe I just read through this damn thread!

So... what is the answer? Are we still at 3000K 90CRI being the best bet from start to finish?

Click to expand...

https://www.rollitup.org/t/quantum-board-qb-288-3000k-80-cri-vs-3000k-90-cri-show-down.941168/
https://www.rollitup.org/t/quantum-boards-3000k-80-cri-vs-3000k-90-cri.941486/

The jury is still out, but sub to both of the above threads. My take so far...don't throw those 3000/80cri out just yet!