Integrating sphere #4 (the fast and cheap one)

I was watching a doku about LED light (danger of the blue part. . . .and other effects on the body ). When this nice integrating sphere came up.
And i was thinking the 40cm sphere i was planing is bulky :smiley:

I have 50cm at the office, it’s just enough for torches :frowning:

When I’ll have a load of money and a big house I’ll buy this one :

:sunglasses:

We should chip in a few dollars each and buy this for djozz. I’m sure he’d fit it into his unit somewhere. :stuck_out_tongue:

We’re not using the bath very often, I can break it out and place the sphere there, squeezing ourselves past it to reach the shower. But we can’t afford to shower anyway after I bought that thing.

Best integrating bathroom in the world.

Too much information, but I do the ceiling bounce test in the bathroom quite often at night, so it makes sense to me.

If we can get him a even bigger one the space problem goes away because he could move directly into it.
A bit cold in the winter but during the day he could use the calibration quartz tungsten halogen lamp to heat it. :sunglasses:

Preventing my son sticking his dirty fingerprints on the wall will be a daytime job. “Get your f#lthy fingers off my wall, you’re ruining my multiplier”

Here’s mine, 20cm in diameter :

I made the entry aperture the size of a C8 bezel and coated it with some black electrical tape.
I have some quite good measurements, but I don’t have many stock flashlights unfortunately… I tend to mod any new light that comes in my collection :innocent:

Anyway, I average my multiplier with a dozen stock lights, and then apply it to my measurements.
I’m glad to have tested it, but now I kind of regret to not have bought the 30cm version (11€ vs 5€…)
Well, I guess I’ll buy it to measure some bigger lights.

Here is a spreadsheet I made to compile my results.

Looks good X3 !

Your calibration leans on the published numbers of Olight, I’m not sure how they compare to real lumens. But the multiplier at least does not show enormous deviations so that looks trustworthy.

What bother me is my Eagletac D25A 219C… I have a multiplier of about 4 with this one :frowning:

EDIT : I don’t know how Olight round up their numbers, but I do know that they own an integrating sphere (maybe 1m in diameter) as can be seen on the office/factory tour that Marshall did a few years ago

Made from 4 inch , schedule 80 PVC “P” trap and 90’s and with a .05 (or 1/2 of actual reading on meter) comes in about 3% under what the Maukka calibration lights show.

The cut out on the side of the top opening , is so that headlamps or other 90 degree lights can be centered for testing. Also have different sized foam cut outs , from 3/4 inch opening up to almost 4 inch to block any light from escaping the opening.

Below are the pictures of the light tube and under those , the Readings Muakka had on his integrating sphere and my actual readings from my light tube set up with those same lights.





Hi Guys! I read all comments on this beautiful thread. I got curious and I registered, so I am new here!
Is there a welcome cake or something? =D

I was wondering what power could such integrating spheres sustain. what if I plug in a 10W halogen lamp?

Cheers!
Lorenzo

Welcome to BLF lelea!

We have no cake but we do have Milla, if the Raccoon chimes in that is.

Not sure about the halogen inside a styrofoam sphere, 10W sounds still ok for a single measurement but do not do a runtime experiment with that. I have coated a few spheres with latex paint mixed with bariumsulphate, I think those can handle some more heat than bare styrofoam.

Thank you Djozz =)

did they end up collecting money for a larger bathroom with a larger integrating sphere for you?

Unfortunately I have to run long measurements and it has to last “forever”. The point is also to be able to change the lamp when it dies without messing with alignement.
I will think about painting with latex. maybe it’s worth doing a test! In that case is it even necessary to have the foam sphere? I could paint any other material, right?

How should I think about efficiency of integrating spheres in terms of input-output power? If my lamp is 10W how much should I expect to have as output?
Right now I use a lens to collect some of the light, thus I lose most of the source power. To calculate how much I can just compare angle of illumination with size of the lens, but what about the integrating sphere?

Thanks again,
Lorenzo

There is zero chance that I will have a larger bathroom, it implies moving house inside Amsterdam which is virtually impossible with the current crazy housing market. And even if it came true, it will be my girlfriend’s domain, not mine, my hobby is doomed to be restricted to the dark corner behind the cupboard. :cowboy_hat_face:

Painting with latex may make a styrofoam sphere a bit more heat-resistent. I experimented with a PVA-bariumsulphate mixture too (PVA=polyvinylalcohol), that handles a bit better even and should give a better (more constant reflectivity over all visible wavelengths) coating too.

But there is no other reason to start with a styrofoam ball than easy availability, if you can find a sphere from any other material and give it a flat white coating on the inside, you are good. I hope to find an affordable nice metal sphere at some point, that should handle any output power.

It is a misconception that input-output efficiency plays a direct role in integrating spheres. It does not matter if the sensor picks up only a tiny fraction of the input power (which indeed it only does), it can be any fraction as long as that fraction is the same for all colours and output directions of the light source. Your multiplication factor then takes care of the correct calibration. The only reason that you want high reflectance on the inside of your sphere is indirect: high reflectance causes more reflections before the light is finally lost or reached the sensor, and more reflections equals better integration.

(As a side note: I suspect that most people on BLF have no idea what light integration is, and even if they have a clue, why it is an important feature of your device in order to measure light output. I hoped that my threads on integrating spheres would help a bit but it does not seem so.)

I see your point about integration. Maybe I should have pointed out I am most interested about power output than most people. I am considering using a sphere to “save” energy from a halogen lamp that I need illuminating an optical setup. The setup only takes few mm rays, thus now most of the light is lost shining elsewhere. An integrating sphere with a homemade output slit will give me the ability to change lamp without realigning the setup while using somehow all the light from the lamp, even tho I have no clue what would be the efficiency I get out.
Maybe a new thread is due for me =)

Ah, I see. My spheres are for measuring, yours is to make what they call a lambertian light source :slight_smile: Then my story does not apply to your situation. And yes, you can paint any sphere flat white on the inside, styrofoam spheres are simply the cheapest and most available spheres, that is why I use them.

I found that any white coating of the sphere warms up the light of the source, typically by 500K to 1000K (some blue is lost) It will depend on the coating. If that is not a problem, any coating will do.

I was just discussing spheres with member Moderator007 the other day and he found that molds for “Atlas stones” may be a good material for an integrating sphere. Unfortunately that is a very US product so on top of them being more pricy than styrofoam, shipping will be high to Denmark.

Thanks Djozz! I will look for Lambertian light to see what’s up =)

So I’m learning that my DIY sphere (shown back at post# 64) is apparently wildly inaccurate at higher lumen levels (/- 400 lumens and above) and it doesn’t seem to matter what size flashlight is in the hole (so I don’t believe it’s related to light reflecting off the bezel/glass lens). I’m wondering if it’s related to light loss through the sphere wall, where lower lumen levels wouldn’t see much light loss, but higher outputs would. Thoughts? A few years back I posted these lux readings where I experimented with covering my sphere with a thick black towel, but I only used my Convoy S2 EDC (high mode on that light is only/- 500 lumens). FYI - my sphere calibration/multiplier is derived from measuring three different Fenix HL55 headlamps and averaging the results. (Note that I’ve never had a light that shows steady well regulated output at levels about /- 400 lumens, so my multiplier(s) are computed with “low” and “medium” output levels). I’m not trying to nail down exact lumen #’s from lights (I understand I’ll be off/-10% of “true”), but looking to have a multiplier that works consistenly from 1 lumen to +/- 2,000 lumens.

Here are 3 sphere results that have led me to question my calulated lumens at higher levels (all lights measured using fully charged hi-drain cells):

Sofirn SP40 (XP-L 4,000k):
Low = 6.6 Lumens
Med = 62.8 Lumens
High = 306 Lumens
Turbo = 798 Lumens

Sofirn SD05 (on a brand new Molicel P42A 21700)
Low = 277 Lumens
Med = 792 Lumens
High = 2,223 Lumens

Astrolux HL01 (XP-L 4,000k)
Stepped Ramp Levels:
Step 1 – 13.0 lumens
Step 2 – 43.9 lumens
Step 3 – 124 lumens
Step 4 – 162 lumens
Step 5 – 253 lumens
Step 6 – 404 lumens
Step 7 – 690 lumens
Turbo – 992 lumens

I immediately questioned my results on all three lights above 300 lumens. In this post, user YogibearAl gave me his calculations for the SP40 (which sound good to me) and so I used those to re-calculate new multipliers for each mode. My previous multiplier was 0.4275, and now trying to calibrate to Yogi’s #’s I am getting varying multipliers, with the #’s for the high outputs being significantly higher (my expectation – that my sphere is “good” at low outputs, but gets exponentially worse at higher levels). Multiplier’s I get:

SP40
Low – 0.4516
Med – 0.4422
High – 0.5000
Turbo – 0.5158

If I then run with the multiplier of 0.5000 from high mode, run that back against my SP40 measurements and also on my SD05 & Astrolux HL01 (XP-L 4000k) measurements, I get:

SP40
Low – 7.8 lumens
Med – 73.5 lumens
High – 358 lumens
Turbo – 934 lumens

SD05
Low – 324 lumens
Med- 926 lumens
High- 2600 lumens

Astrolux HL01
Stepped Ramp Levels:
Step 1 – 15.2 lumens
Step 2 – 51.3 lumens
Step 3 – 145 lumens
Step 4 – 190 lumens
Step 5 – 296 lumens
Step 6 – 472 lumens
Step 7 – 807 lumens
Turbo – 1160 lumens

So now my higher numbers seem much more in line with expectations, but I suspect I’m showing lumen #’s that are too high for the lower levels. So what am I supposed to do, use different multipliers for different lumen output ranges? And how would I know what I am doing is reasonably accurate Is anyone else using these round styrofoam spheres seeing the same issue I am? Do I need to paint the outside of my sphere to stop light loss? Should I test lux readings with the towel again with higher output lights? Is a towel really causing light not to get “lost”.

Thanks,
-Garry

I will have a closer look at your numbers above, but there are a few things that I am fairly sure of:

*luxmeters are as far as I know very lineair, so if you start with a reading at a low setting, then 10 times as much light should get you a 10 times as high reading, and 1000 times as much light should get you a 1000 times as high reading.
*same goes for light loss through the sphere wall (light loss is no problem at all as long it does does get over a certain percentage), the same percentage is lost from very low to very high light levels.
*and thus: for the same spectrum (tint+CRI) the same multiplier should be used for all output levels.

So either your numbers are “more right” than YogibearAl’s, or something is going on with your measurements that I do not understand yet.