I’v sent a mail to him to, to get som lights measured.
I did a list and will let him pic what he think vill be good.
The list is this
Out of these lights witch ones do you want to test?
Sr mini intimidator
Utorch 02
Astrolux S1
Nitecore Ec11
Klarus Xt11gt
Sofirn Sp10a
Imalent Dn70 flood king
Imalent Dn35 throw king
Added several more lights to my original post (#342)
TA, is your plan to get a couple of properly measured lights from Maukka and then figure out a simple and repeatable way to reduce output on the sensor?
I would much rather we do that so that we can still use the numbers directly off the Lux meter. I realize we can just use a correction factor and do the math, but that’s not ideal to me. We can still make these tubes live up to the intended expectations.
BTW, I’m going to put off measurin all my lights for a few days when I have more time. Plus other people will be receiving theirs. We will get it sorted out. :+1:
Yes, my goal is to get a good calibration figured out first and this try to figure out a way to calibrate the spheres.
Mailing them back to me is the best way then I can calibrate them directly.
Or if you have a nice stable light you can take some before measurements and calibrate it yourself.
Or if I can find a way to add something that will adjust them that I can mail out that would be cool but after having messed with these, I doubt that is possible.
We just need to find a consistent, thin, film-like material that we can layer up.
A paper-based product would certainly be cheap, but I’m not sure of its consistency. I think you share the same concerns. Maybe we can test a variety of thin papers.
What about a lens that can be bought and stuck into the hole that the sensor mounts into? Kind of like a neutral density filter but fairly weak. I’ve got that ND filter you sent me and that thing really knocks down the lumens. I have to multiply my readings by 13.1. This should be more consistent, but the odds of getting exactly the right reduction in output seems a bit slim.
I will do some more experiments next week and report back.
Yeah, it is possible a film or sheet can be found that will work, but consistency is the problem from sphere to sphere.
Even now I can not explain the fact that no 2 spheres calibrated exactly the same way, they all needed to be customized.
Although putting something at the sensor end is possible, it would vastly reduce the possible variables.
I have about 10 spheres here I could test it on, if it worked on all of those then it is safe to say it should work on everyones.
Based on the results from fifteen lights (manufacturer spec vs TA Tube), my average correction factor would be .728
Later, if we need a standard across all units, I can also use that. But for now, that number makes the tube useful for me until everything gets sorted out.
If others can post their correction factor, it would be interesting to see if the results are close - or not.
Sure i will… i will test out a bunch of lights on tuesday… we are taking @ 30 seconds right?
correct
When you say spec, do you mean the lumens the light is advertised to be?
Compared to the JoshK sphere, my numbers (roughly) are around .65 to .70, so pretty close to your .73. We are in the same ballpark. :+1: Of course, this all needs to be decided later on.
We should also try to standardize the time we measure. ANSI-FL1 says 30 seconds. That might be our standard time unless we state otherwise.
The batteries also can make a difference with certain lights. I have 26650 blue and black Liitokala’s that are low IR. I’ve also got some low IR button top 30Q. I can have several on the charger as I’m using one. Then put it on the charger and grab another so the voltage is always topped off.
I guess I will record the lumens as they come off the stock TA Tube. Then we can probably decide on a specific correction factor at a later time.
I can see this being a fun marathon session when I get a day off. 
Correct (clarified post).
I also took all measurements 30sec after turn on.
It is much higher than mine. Base on maukka’s review DATA, my average calibration# for TA’s tube is 0.6730133. The number is not 100% accurate because I know maukka did upgrade & recalibrate his integrating spheres several times.
I use most mid & low mode for more constant output from maukka’s review found on CPF and BLF. I choose seven stock lights same model & CCT as in maukka’s review to calibrate TA’s tube:
Lumintop Tool AAA Copper Nichia
Lumintop Tool AAA Ti Nichia
Zebralight SC600w HI Mk3
Olight H1 Nova NW
Olight S Mini Ti NW
Nitecore EC4SW
Nitecore MH20 NW
I wouldn’t use the Lumintop Tool AAA for any calibration as its driver has been known to vary wildly from one batch to another. I can remeasure the Nitecores when I have time to give you more accurate numbers. It was a long time ago when I tested them.
I would not call that much higher. Is 0.06 considered a lot?
I am just glad that we are all so close to one another. Even TA said that his calibration was plus or minus 5%.
If I find time today I think I’ll try layering some DC Fix in mine, unless someone has tried it already. More diffusion, plus reduction. Might take several layers but worth a shot. The stuff is cheap, ~12 bucks a roll from amazon and I’ve got plenty of it here.
Here’s new output numbers for Nitecore EC4SW and MH20. Both with full 30Qs. Measured first on high, then on turbo, so the turbo numbers aren’t with absolutely topped off cells, since I had the high on for about 40 seconds. I did let the light cool off a couple of minutes though.
Seems my small styrofoam sphere I used when originally tested these was reading about 8-9% low. Still I think a 10% error margin is quite good for DIY integrating devices.
Nitecore EC4SW
High 0 sec: 860 lm
High 30 sec: 850 lm
Turbo 0 sec: 1738 lm
Turbo 30 sec: 1667 lm
Nitecore MH20 NW
High 0 sec: 497 lm
High 30 sec: 500 lm
Turbo 0 sec: 932 lm
Turbo 30 sec: 890 lm
This is an option I was considering for a fix-all solution. Or some other similar film. Possibly cut out some acyrlic discs to fit in the hole the sensor goes and then add layers of the DC fix to it until the readings are correct. People can then install it. Although I have not figured out a good method for that yet.
Glue works but can also change the readings.
So even nitecore are not true to the numbers?
I can’t seem to find the fenix I used to have, I might of given it away.
While we’re all bouncing factory numbers around don’t forget that the variation among LEDs in any single flux bin is something like 12 or 15%, so Nitecore may say a light makes 1000 lumens but each light made will actually vary along a range of output depending on the efficiency of that specific LED and where it falls in that bin range. The only way that I can think of to calibrate these tubes to within less than the binning variation is to either sample many many many specimens of the same light and average them, or better yet to compare the tube’s readings against a NIST-calibrated sphere using the same exact light source, not another specimen of the same model. …which is what I tried to do using the HDS lights because supposedly they do that for each individual light sold.
Maukka, what type of sphere are you currently using? I assume it’s a high dollar professional unit?