I am worried that I possibly only should have ordered one as my first request and last request where over a year apart donāt want to jump the queue and upset the applecart
Your test was biased on so many level that it made me ācringeā and in science an example is never considered as a proof or a demonstration.
āI can prove that a bullet isnāt lethalāā¦by shooting a part of the body without arteries and vital organs.
On earth ground, the lower the angle between the observer and the beamlight, the higher the rayleigh back-scattering. This applies to molecules (air), not particles (dust).
Which means that if you are holding the flashlight in your hand, you will have more Rayleigh back-scatterring than someone that is far away on your side. You will have less back-scattering when your are taking a picture on the side of the lightbeam than if you are close to it.
The farther on the side you will be, the better for your demonstration.
The rayleigh back-scattering intensity is greater with short wavelengths (blue) than for higher wavelengths (red), then a CW LED has more rayleigh back-scattering than a WW LED.
It also depends of the spectrum wavelengths absolute and relative intensities.
CW LED has more blue light absolute intensity than WW LED, but with a higher CRI at same CCT, the red wavelengths of a high CRI LED have more intensity than a med CRI LED = more throwy red.
Also keep in mind that when you are holding a flashlight in your hand, the receptor is your eye which doesnāt respond the same to a given spectrum than the receptor of a camera.
Your experiment was very interesting though but have too much relative parameters/variables to draw a firm conclusion like you did.