Updated my UV-led test method (=final), tested a Luminus SST-10 365nm led (and some others)

The detector is a wideband device (UVA+UVB+UVC, 221 to 358 nm). They have other devices for other wavelengths. The data sheet provides a spectral response graph, so with a bit of back-of-the-envelope calculation, or spreadsheet math, I think you could get within a couple of percent error.

The amplifier circuit has only 4 parts, which you could pop into a breadboard. No equipment required. It’s perfect for a beginner.

I think in this situation where you’re comparing products, the most important thing is consistency and reproducibility. The relative measurements are the only thing you’re interested in.

The ideal setup would use slits to sample the light, and be performed in a lightproof enclosure. You could also take several measurements while rotating the emitter through 180deg to get an angular intensity profile.

Devices which measure total light output are spherical and fairly sophisticated.

I know too well. Anyway, I thought I’d throw some ideas out there.

I think your tests are very good. Independent testing like this is very valuable to people trying to make purchasing decisions, so thank you. Never be afraid of learning new stuff! I’m always glad I did.

To compensate for a non-flat spectral response of a radiation detector you can not do some post-measurement correction calculation unless you know the spectrum of the radiation source. The only way is to use a dedicated optical filter before the detector that fixes the non-flatness of the detector response. Such filter-detector combinations are usually very expensive.

I still think that you under-estimate the importance and difficulty of integration of the radiation in total light output measurements.

Anyway, I hope that someone will do all those nice things that you propose (not meant in a cynical way :slight_smile: ), thanks for the suggestions and discussion, I hope it will be picked up by someone.

Me, I have so many nice little hobby projects on my list that for UV tests I will stick to what I do now until someone else does it better (hence the mention β€œfinal” in this threads title).

You can. That is exactly what response curves are for. By the way, this is after passing through a diffraction grating + slit , so you are starting with fairly monochromatic light.

I don’t underestimate it at all. As I mentioned, the apparatus which labs use for measuring TOTAL output is fairly sophisticated. But I think for the purposes of comparing one LED to another, measuring at 0deg from the emitter (usually peak intensity) will get you pretty good idea. As I said, you could measure at a few different angles in case the emitter has some weird profile.

In regards to the fluorescent source, I think quinine (ordinary tonic water) might make a good candidate. You could start with a fresh sample for each measurement in case there is some bleaching.

I am in the process of reading all your other excellent posts, and it looks like you’ve tested a lot of devices, mostly high power. I wonder if you have tried some lower power 365nm LEDs as well? (classic 3 and 5mm dome or SMD 5050 and smaller)

You see I’m looking for smaller emitters that I can spread over a larger area, for even diffused light, rather than a point source like for a flashlight. Stray visible or IR light is of no consequence to me. I’m only concerned with output below 400nm.

The lowest power 365nm emitter that I tested was a β€œmid-power” Vishay led. Ultimately I’m interested in leds that are useful in flashlights.

But I will think of testing some lower powered 365nm leds in the future. :slight_smile:

Oh good. These might be a good starting point :wink:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/263820260024

Yes, the Vishay was interesting. Very efficient. At $3 it’s not so hard on the wallet too, but it is probably still too high-end for my purposes.

The 5mm leds you linked do not even mention a wavelength, just β€œpurple”, and no output either. So I guess around 400nm and max 90mW at 20mA.
I do not have a proper calibtration yet for 400nm leds so this led would not be first in line.

It is there in the description:

But at that cost I am very skeptical.

90mW is way too much. The 5mm T1 variety will not be much over 10.

These Everlight ones have the same advertised output as the Vishay, but cost 30% less.
https://www.digikey.ca/product-detail/en/everlight-electronics-co-ltd/EAUVA2016BC4/1080-1607-1-ND/9490265

The 90mW was assuming 400nm, at least I have a 5mm 400nm led that claims 90mW output.

I ordered some inexpensive LEDs and a filter for testing. We’ll see how it goes.


:+1:

http://www.instrumentsystems.com/

PTFE Integrating Spheres - UV measurement for laboratory and production
Instrument Systems offers complete measurement solutions for UV-A, -B and -C radiation starting from 200 nm. The operation of the well-proven Instrument Systems spectroradiometers, e.g. CAS series, with integrating spheres made from PTFE facilitate high sensitivity measurements of UV radiant flux.

All Instrument Systems UV measurement solutions with PTFE integrating spheres are delivered with a PTB traceable calibration.

Features:
Complete UV measurement solutions
High optical throughput due to the use of highly reflective PTFE material
High sensitivity measurements for UV radiation down to 200 nm
State-of-the-art stray light correction (optional)
Wide selection of optical equipments and accessories


ISP 50-UV
50 mm inner diameter
200 - 2500 nm usable wavelength
Application: production, e.g. wafer probing, chip testing
Measurement port options: window
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”-


ISP 100-UV
100 mm inner diameter
200 - 2500 nm usable wavelength
Application: production, e.g. wafer probing, chip testing
Measurement port options: window, dome
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”-


ISP 150-UV
150 mm inner diameter
200 - 2500 nm usable wavelength
Application: laboratory and production, e.g. single-chip / multi-chip testing
Measurement port options: window, dome, LED adapter plate
SMA connector for auxiliary light source: yes
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”


ISP 250-UV
250 mm inner diameter
200 - 2500 nm usable wavelength
Application: laboratory and production, e.g. multi-die / multi-chip testing
Measurement port options: window, dome, LED adapter plate
SMA connector for auxiliary light source: yes
β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”β€”

OK, who is going to buy first?

- Clemence

^ cool stuff :slight_smile: (quanta costa? :frowning: )

:+1:
Nice and clear video giving a lot of perspective for what UV-exposure is all about with some basic tests. I enjoyed that :slight_smile:

I have been having trouble with getting parcels from China lately. Postal workers probably dumped them in the river during the strike action last winter. I had to reorder the digital UV sensor, and 3W UV LED because they never came. The ZWB2 filter came, but it’s absolute shite. It lets through lots of visible light.

My second order of 5mm UV LEDs came (1st order never made it). I posted an analysis of them and an instructional how-to about measuring light wavelength here:

Digging up a zombie thread - you mention a single cell would have trouble getting an emitter past 1.2A; would that carry through if there were three in parallel? Looking at making a 365nm triple and not 100% sure which emitter is right to choose. Given that the SST10s are on sale at kaidomain it seemed like a good idea…

Yes correct, making a triple is a way to get more output from high voltage leds, you should expect over 3W. Mind not to go for TIR optics because they absorb a lot of it. Carclo absorbs more than Ledil btw. But a reflector is the better choice.

Nice. Was thinking put three in the Convoy S12; I can get a ZWB2 filter that’s very close to the glass lens in there. Will aim for ~4A total (resistor mod on that Convoy 6A driver).

Cheers!

can i use standard s2+ driver 2.1amp with this sst10 ?