looking to buy a quantum meter found this at $199 anyone know of a better price?
http://www.eseasongear.com/apin.html
http://www.eseasongear.com/apin.html
-
Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
-
Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!
quantum meter
- Thread starter growshopfrank
- Start date
I'm finding quantum meters, but non that I want. They seem to be ignoring the fact that 630nm light is more useful than 600nm. They don't follow the curve. Instead, they measure any wavelength that is over 50% effective, based on the curve. So green, being 40% effective, is ignored. But both orange and red are over 50%, and so are included in the measurement, but making no adjustment for the fact red is better than orange.
I expected a sensor in full light. With the electronics forming a filter that sweeps across the band, giving maybe 50 different in band measurements. The value of each would be multiplied based on the effectiveness of energy at that frequency. Before all 50 measurements were summed and the answer put on the screen.
What I'm finding is ineffective. I spent a while deciding on 70 80 ot 90cri leds. Which were 170 150 or 125lm respectively. They all had similar blue spikes, but the red spikes of each were placed differently. The 170 had the most, but it was sodium orange. The 80cri fell around 600nm while the 90cri was on 630nm. It was a two horse race. The 125lm and 150lm lamps giving as much light at 630nm. The 150lm lamp gave more orange which is where it gained lumens. The 125lm lamp gave about double the 660nm lumens though. I chose the 90cri leds with the 125lm reading. After looking where it's output lay, and the efficiency the plant could use it there.
The quantum meters I'm looking at would of said the 70cri led was 40% better. They don't care about the 630nm spike. So much so, a 40% error is present. Some of these meters can't even measure a 660nm led. They use math based on light type, to guess what it would be. Which is ok with the sun or sodium, which are all about the same. Useless to us moving forwards into leds though.
Would I be right in saying that $10,000 meters work as I expected they all should?
I have a $30 meter in mind that is better than the crap I'm finding. It's just two $10 meters, one with a 630nm optical filter. The other with a blue one (I forgot the number). Then we can measure energy centered around the right frequencies. I have looked at optical filter bandwidth, and a typical filter has just about the right shape. Made to measure one's could be as perfect as the curve data we have.
Edit: Electronic filtering at 650terrahertz is giving me a lot to think about. I have designed a liquid crystal resonant sensor that's into quantum science. I may need more than my blender and sieve.
I expected a sensor in full light. With the electronics forming a filter that sweeps across the band, giving maybe 50 different in band measurements. The value of each would be multiplied based on the effectiveness of energy at that frequency. Before all 50 measurements were summed and the answer put on the screen.
What I'm finding is ineffective. I spent a while deciding on 70 80 ot 90cri leds. Which were 170 150 or 125lm respectively. They all had similar blue spikes, but the red spikes of each were placed differently. The 170 had the most, but it was sodium orange. The 80cri fell around 600nm while the 90cri was on 630nm. It was a two horse race. The 125lm and 150lm lamps giving as much light at 630nm. The 150lm lamp gave more orange which is where it gained lumens. The 125lm lamp gave about double the 660nm lumens though. I chose the 90cri leds with the 125lm reading. After looking where it's output lay, and the efficiency the plant could use it there.
The quantum meters I'm looking at would of said the 70cri led was 40% better. They don't care about the 630nm spike. So much so, a 40% error is present. Some of these meters can't even measure a 660nm led. They use math based on light type, to guess what it would be. Which is ok with the sun or sodium, which are all about the same. Useless to us moving forwards into leds though.
Would I be right in saying that $10,000 meters work as I expected they all should?
I have a $30 meter in mind that is better than the crap I'm finding. It's just two $10 meters, one with a 630nm optical filter. The other with a blue one (I forgot the number). Then we can measure energy centered around the right frequencies. I have looked at optical filter bandwidth, and a typical filter has just about the right shape. Made to measure one's could be as perfect as the curve data we have.
Edit: Electronic filtering at 650terrahertz is giving me a lot to think about. I have designed a liquid crystal resonant sensor that's into quantum science. I may need more than my blender and sieve.
Last edited:
