First off thanks everyone for the support. I really appreciate it.
Second, I think it is time to put this to rest and let everyone cool down. As most of you know, I am never a fan of things getting personal and tempers are flaring right now and when that happens nothing good ever comes out of it.
So I am not going to bother responding to the latest posts, there is enough information in this thread for people to make their own decisions.
KG has a right to his opinion, if he gets verifiable proof that the calibration is off, I will gladly work with him to correct it, even now.
At this point no such proof has been given much less data to try to figure out what the issue is so there is simply nothing I can do to fix the sphere should that be needed.
The $50 refund he agreed to I thought was enough to make him happy, all he had to do was say he wanted more or something else and I would of done everything possible to make it right.
From the data I have seen so far, the majority of the comparable data matches up well within reason with others measurements.
He showed that the sphere is indeed linear so if it reads correctly at low outputs, then it should read correctly at high outputs.
It matches up well with readings from both throwers and flooders, so the beam shape also does not appear to be a factor.
The only real problem is a few known under-preforming lights are getting readings that are too low (even for the under preforming levels).
Without more data there is simply no way to figure out why they are reading low. I would really like to figure out why they are reading how they are but that requires testing and data that have not been provided.
Unless that happens there is nothing more I can do about the matter.
So with that in mind, SB, could you please lock this thread and let it cool off?