Thanks for looking that up. Very strange, it seems to be giving a lower correction factor then it should but it seems to be inline with the numbers I got with the old sheets in that orientation (around .64)
It is unlikely but possible that he managed to get 2 of the first batch of discs that read a little lower. In which case he is correct, flipping them around is what is needed to get the correct readings.
Yep, that is the correct way to install them physically, although I can’t tell which orientation they are. Both of the smooth sides should face towards the inside of the sphere with the new discs (which I made 100 of). With the old discs they were the other direction but there were only about a dozen of them mixed in, so it is unlikely that most of you have those.
Yep, I sent 3 to everyone (and 4 to the international people) just in case 1 broke in shipment. Easier and cheaper to send a spare then ship another package. I had the buy the whole sheet of diffuser anyways.
this is what i’m experiencing with my kit.
With both smooth side facing the tube i’m getting a .64 correction. it seems a little low.
what seems to work for me is the smooth side touching, with that i’m getting a .675 correction.
Do you have the rough side of both disc facing the tube?
I did try it that way. I think the correction factor was around .74
The way I have mine setup is the rough side facing the tube and the sensor.
Is there a difference in readings if you align the two discs with each other with regard to the ridges on them or if they are at some random oblique angle?
It seems clear to me that we should use a stable test light and then experiment with the discs until we get as close to a 0.68 correction factor as possible.
Let’s say it reads 1000 lumen before then we want it to read 680 lumen with the discs.
500 before
340 after, etc…
Please don’t try and make a light match it’s rated specs. That is not the point of all this.