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.
I did some comparisons using my ODF30 which has a boost driver and seems to have very consistent output.
High level (about 1500 lumen)
Both smooth sides together .695
Both rough sides together .688
Turbo level (about 3100 lumen)
Both smooth sides together .689
Both rough sides together .684
So I’m getting consistency at higher levels. I’m going to be putting the two rough sides together on my tube to get as close to that .680 correction factor as possible.
A-plus job on using these diffuser discs TA. :+1:
Now I just need to talk you into loaning me those “Maukka measured” lights. :laughing:
Hmm, those are the same basic numbers I got, just with the wrong orientation. Very strange.
Well luckily as long as you get the right number it doesn’t matter. Just odd that people are getting different results compared to the ones I tested here.
That is what is supposed to happen, it sounds like it is working like it should. Your 4” sphere does read slightly different then the 3” but only very slightly.
Nope, they look exactly the same to the human eye. They just got slightly different readings when I tested them. Although another possibility is that the numbers changed over the length of the sheet and that is why some are getting different numbers.
The ones I installed in these spheres were from the first section I cut out, I had to cut another set a few days later to have enough. It is possible they read slightly different, although I tested a few random samples in my sphere and they seemed to be within margin of error.
Either way, luckily it is pretty easy for people to do the math and get the correction factor dialed in on their particular sphere. It annoys me that is needed though.
All of these numbers are numbers I saw with various combos of orientations and discs from the old and new batch. I am thinking that there must of been some inconsistency in the sheet that caused the second set I cut to read slightly different for some reason.
With the old batch I was going to recommend installing them with the smooth sides facing each other,.
So as annoying as it is for me, I would say everyone should do some basic math and double check the orientation of the discs. As you can see, you should be able to get it well within margin of error by adjusting the directions of the discs.