Texas_Ace BLF Calibrated Lumen tube / Sphere No math skills needed - Several spheres still available

[Texas_Ace]

@Krash610

Is that a 4” sphere? That could be why we are getting different results.

Indeed, the 4” does get slightly different results from the discs but only slight.

[Texas_Ace]

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.

[Texas_Ace]

@JasonWW

TA, what about me sending you a light that I know has very stable output in the 200 lumen range?

Could you compare it to your reference lights and tell me what it’s real output is?

I can include shipping money as well to send it back.

Sure, send one my way and I will measure it on my sphere.

Send me a PM to work out the details.

[teacher]

@Texas_Ace

@teacher

@Texas_Ace

You want the smooth side to face towards the inside of the sphere for both discs in most cases (unless you got one of the first batch of discs).

Are they subtlety marked in any way or is there any way to tell the difference between the “first batch disks” & the ‘new disks’??

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.

OK… thank you TA!! And thanks for the tube…… I’m loving it. :+1:

[WillyD]

TA, just read through all the updates. Sent $5 via PayPal as well. Fiddled around with the disks, and I finally got a .68 correction factor with the rough sides both facing out (smooth sides facing each other in the middle). Appreciate all your hard work with this. I’m charging batteries now so that I can spend all night testing my lights

[inrealtime]

Received my discs. After installing & re-testing , my MT09R modded by TA & shipped at 20k lumens now test at 13K :cry: . when I first received the sphere it was tested at 19.2K lumen same now when I take out the disc to retest. Maybe mine is pretty accurate without the correction?

[Texas_Ace]

@inrealtime

Received my discs. After installing & re-testing , my MT09R modded by TA & shipped at 20k lumens now test at 13K :cry: . when I first received the sphere it was tested at 19.2K lumen same now when I take out the disc to retest. Maybe mine is pretty accurate without the correction?

Remember, it is only numbers. The light is just as bright as it was yesterday.

That said, yes, it does appear that the lights were sadly overrated even though that is the last thing I wanted.

If I could afford it I would offer refunds for all of them.

If someone is truly unhappy with any of my work please contact me and I will make it right one way or the other.

These spheres have thrown a wrench in the what we consider a lumen here on BLF. I know my numbers for a given light were actually on the low side when compared with others readings on here in many cases.

That said, I trust these new numbers with an actual standard to base them on much more. They are simply much much lower then expected.

I have been hesitant to retest my own lights, it really hurts to get take readings on lights I used to think were doing much better then they really are.

[Newlumen]

I am very happy with the tube and mt09r. I got 1044 lumen with my fenix tk15. 18000 lumen with the mt09r ( not fully charged battery)

I tested my mt09r many many times… 21000 lumen @turn on with the fully charged battery…

[beam0]

I thought the purpose was to have everyone’s tubes calibrated the same.
Doesn’t that mean we should all be installing the discs the same, per TA instructions? (both textured sides facing in)

It sounds like everyone is trying different ways to orientate the correction discs to get what they feel is the right “correction factor” based on some light they think is true to it’s factory specs. TA installed the correction discs all the same way in the 13 remaining tubes and they all spec’d out properly with the test light he used, why does anyone think their tube is different from those 13 tubes??

How can anyone know for sure what the true correction factor is if they don’t have the same light TA used to re calibrate? To me it almost seems like a whole new can of worms has been opened, I just don’t understand how anyone can know the real “correction factor” without using the same light TA used for this. I suppose the differences are not that great, but again I thought we wanted everyone’s tubes calibrated the same.

Maybe I just don’t understand, does what I’m saying sound right to anyone else?

[Newlumen]

Yes that’s what I did… you should able to feel the rough disc with your finger after you apply tape to the meter…

I see other people are doing opposite and still getting a consistent output…

[Texas_Ace]

@beam0

I thought the purpose was to have everyone’s tubes calibrated the same.
Doesn’t that mean we should all be installing the discs the same, per TA instructions? (both textured sides facing in)

It sounds like everyone is trying different ways to orientate the correction discs to get what they feel is the right “correction factor” based on some light they think is true to it’s factory specs. TA installed the correction discs all the same way in the 13 remaining tubes and they all spec’d out properly with the test light he used, why does anyone think their tube is different from those 13 tubes??

How can anyone know for sure what the true correction factor is if they don’t have the same light TA used to re calibrate? To me it almost seems like a whole new can of worms has been opened, I just don’t understand how anyone can know the real “correction factor” without using the same light TA used for this. I suppose the differences are not that great, but again I thought we wanted everyone’s tubes calibrated the same.

Maybe I just don’t understand, does what I’m saying sound right to anyone else?

What actually matters is that the tubes are corrected by as close to 0.68 as possible. It is quite simple to do the math by taking a reading of a light without the discs and then taking readings with the discs installed and calculating the correction factor they give.

Changing the orientation to get closer to the .68 is fine and actually the ideal way to do it, I had hoped it would not be necessary though. In most cases it should not but it doesn’t hurt to check.

[teacher]

@beam0

Maybe I just don’t understand, does what I’m saying sound right to anyone else?

Truthfully…… I have been kinda wondering the same thing beam0. :+1:

I can somewhat understand it if someone has a certified tested light such as a PFlexPRO or a ‘maukka tested light’ or the actual ones TA used…. to then ‘calibrate’ their particular tube to. Otherwise it seems to me things will again be all over the map so to speak.

Just my thoughts…. nothing earth shattering.
.
EDIT: Just saw what TA posted above. :+1: I understand a bit more now…. I think. . .

[Newlumen]

@beam0

I thought the purpose was to have everyone’s tubes calibrated the same.
Doesn’t that mean we should all be installing the discs the same, per TA instructions? (both textured sides facing in)

It sounds like everyone is trying different ways to orientate the correction discs to get what they feel is the right “correction factor” based on some light they think is true to it’s factory specs. TA installed the correction discs all the same way in the 13 remaining tubes and they all spec’d out properly with the test light he used, why does anyone think their tube is different from those 13 tubes??

How can anyone know for sure what the true correction factor is if they don’t have the same light TA used to re calibrate? To me it almost seems like a whole new can of worms has been opened, I just don’t understand how anyone can know the real “correction factor” without using the same light TA used for this. I suppose the differences are not that great, but again I thought we wanted everyone’s tubes calibrated the same.

Maybe I just don’t understand, does what I’m saying sound right to anyone else?

We dont have an exact answer for that, since we dont have a calibrated light… It is too obvious if your number is way off…

For example… my fenix tk15 should be 1000 lumen range… i got 1045 lumen… thats is acceptable… i also test my pelican 7060, which is 369/368/366 lumen.

We just have to install the disc correctly and play with it until we are satisified with the results…

[beam0]

@teacher

.
EDIT: Just saw what TA posted above. :+1: I understand a bit more now…. I think. . .

Me thinks this too. Guess I didn’t understand :person_facepalming:

So we need to orientate the discs whatever way it takes to get a 0.68 correction factor, (Reading without correction discs multiplied by .68, correct?)
So we need everyone to correct for 0.68 and leave it that way.

.

I think my concern was in part based on Terry Oregon orientating his discs to achieve the factory spec of the Pflex S2+

Quote:

Convoy S2+ (PFlexPRO)

spec 607 @ 30sec

TA Tube: 790

Since his reading before and after correction was 790 and 608, doesn’t that work out to 0.77 (rounded)?
For 0.68 shouldn’t he be shooting for 537? (closer to his first reading of 505)

[beam0]

@Newlumen

We just have to install the disc correctly and play with it until we are satisified with the results…

No, If i understand correctly we all need to orientate the discs to get the 0.68 correction, regardless of what we think the output should be for a particular light.

With the testing TA did to verify 0.68 was the correction needed, we all need to correct for 0.68 and live with the outputs that’s giving us for our lights, like it or not!

[teacher]

@beam0

@teacher

.
EDIT: Just saw what TA posted above. :+1: I understand a bit more now…. I think. . .

Me thinks this too. Guess I didn’t understand :person_facepalming:

So we need to orientate the discs whatever way it takes to get a 0.68 correction factor, (Reading without correction discs multiplied by .68, correct?)
So we need everyone to correct for 0.68 and leaves it that way.

.

I think my concern was in part based on Terry Oregon orientating his discs to achieve the factory spec of the Pflex S2+

Quote:

Convoy S2+ (PFlexPRO)

spec 607 @ 30sec

TA Tube: 790

Since his reading before and after correction was 790 and 608, doesn’t that work out to 0.77 (rounded)?
For 0.68 shouldn’t he be shooting for 537? (closer to his first reading of 505)

I am kinda in the same boat beam0. Like ole Forrest Gump, “I’m not a real smart man”. …. Except I am not concerned about Terry Oregon’s results at all…

His PFlexPRO is sphere tested & certified…. it is not just an arbitrary “factory spec”.
If I had a light like his…. I would do exactly as he has done. :+1: …. …

[Newlumen]

@beam0

@Newlumen

We just have to install the disc correctly and play with it until we are satisified with the results…

No, If i understand correctly we all need to orientate the discs to get the 0.68 correction, regardless of what we think the output should be for a particular light.

With the testing TA did to verify 0.68 was the correction needed, we all need to correct for 0.68 and live with the outputs that’s giving us for our lights, like it or not!

That’s correct… those disc are cut into .68 or whatever correction factored…

[SKV89]

I did some pretty extensive testing with my 4” TA sphere using different orientations of the correction disk. Here are the results:

Both smooth faces face tube: 0.62
Both smooth faces face meter: 0.70
Smooth faces face each other: 0.66
Rough Face face each other: 0.67

I also tested removing the sensor and inserting it back in the tube in a different orientation and the readings didn’t change :+1:

I’m trying to figure out which correction factor to use. I’m leaning towards 0.70.
With the 0.70 factor, my PflexPro S2+ triple Nichia 219B 4000k measures 875 startup lumens and 853 ANSI lumens whereas PflexPro’s integration sphere measures 930 startup lumens and 919 ANSI lumens. This equates to about 0.75 correction factor between my original TA sphere and Randy’s integration sphere. Did anyone get an answer how PflexPro calibrated his sphere?

[Newlumen]

@SKV89

I did some pretty extensive testing with my 4” TA sphere using different orientations of the correction disk. Here are the results:

Both smooth faces face tube: 0.62
Both smooth faces face meter: 0.70
Smooth faces face each other: 0.66
Rough Face face each other: 0.67

I also tested removing the sensor and inserting it back in the tube in a different orientation and the readings didn’t change :+1:

I’m trying to figure out which correction factor to use. I’m leaning towards 0.70.
With the 0.70 factor, my PflexPro S2+ triple Nichia 219B 4000k measures 875 startup lumens and 853 ANSI lumens whereas PflexPro’s integration sphere measures 930 startup lumens and 919 ANSI lumens. This equates to about 0.75 correction factor between my original TA sphere and Randy’s integration sphere. Did anyone get an answer how PflexPro calibrated his sphere?

Yes skv… I have the same set up and working well… both smooth facing meter…

[JasonWW]

@beam0

I thought the purpose was to have everyone’s tubes calibrated the same.
Doesn’t that mean we should all be installing the discs the same, per TA instructions? (both textured sides facing in)

It sounds like everyone is trying different ways to orientate the correction discs to get what they feel is the right “correction factor” based on some light they think is true to it’s factory specs. TA installed the correction discs all the same way in the 13 remaining tubes and they all spec’d out properly with the test light he used, why does anyone think their tube is different from those 13 tubes??

How can anyone know for sure what the true correction factor is if they don’t have the same light TA used to re calibrate? To me it almost seems like a whole new can of worms has been opened, I just don’t understand how anyone can know the real “correction factor” without using the same light TA used for this. I suppose the differences are not that great, but again I thought we wanted everyone’s tubes calibrated the same.

Maybe I just don’t understand, does what I’m saying sound right to anyone else?

The discs are only for convenience. Without them we measure the lights and multiply by .68 to get the more accurate results. It’s an extra step compared to reading the lumens straight off the lux meter.

We can eliminate having to do the extra math by letting the discs do that for us. By getting them to automatically reduce the normal readings down by .68 we don’t have to use a calculator any more. This adds convenience and makes the tubes live up to the promise of “No math skills needed”.

There are obviously some small differences in the diffuser sheets so “both smooth sides facing into the tube” is not always going to give a .68 reduction. If we test the same two circles of discs across multiple tubes I bet they have the same results.

But if we test one tube with two sets of discs from different sheets of diffusers we get these small differences. This is why we do before and after measurements. We just find the orientation that automatically reduces the readings .68. A .68 reduction is the goal.

I hope that makes sense.