Lumens measuring contraption (feedback please!)

Bigmac_79

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
1,511
Location
Kansas
I'm currently making plans to re-design my lightbox, and PVC is looking like a pretty appealing material to use, for it's sturdiness and whiteness. Have you encountered anything so far that you would change about the way that you built yours? Specifically, with your setup does the reading change much based on how well centered the light is? I did a quick trial in Lowes the other day, with a few ways of arranging the pipe, and I found that moving the flashlight around the entrance made visible changes in the light level near the exit. I'm thinking through some different ways to even things out a bit, to make it less necessary for perfect centering and even out the playing field for throwers vs flooders.
 

turboBB

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
1,032
Location
NJ, USA
LOL, I was actually shining a flashlight into the pipe at HD although no one really paid me any attention. ;)

As for mods:

- I'm looking to find a way to mount the sensor so that it's perfectly centered and allow it to adjust easily fore and aft in relationship to the mouth of the pipe.
- have a piece of glass custom cut to fit the opening of the LMD (where the light rests on). In testing at PF18, having the light off centered did affect the readings but not too bad as having it at an angle (with the glass removed we angled the light in different directions). However w/the glass in place, you are always guaranteed the light will hit the pipe dead perfect to catch that elbow at a right angle. My original idea was to cut out thick white cardboard to act as a cover around the light (to reduce ambient lighting from getting in and help center it perfectly) but I haven't bothered since the sensor side is open and I always take measurements in the dark now.

I have some more tinkering to do and will post updates as they happen but would love to hear your experiences with this should you decide to implement it.

Am also still looking to send out a few lights for testing in a calibrated IS to see just how close/off this thing is but again, we did a bunch of testing at PF18 and most were in agreement it's great for relative output comparison and within close proximity of claimed/known values.

Cheers,
Tim
 

TEEJ

Flashaholic
Joined
Jan 12, 2012
Messages
7,490
Location
NJ
Tim, what about a pocket door slide type receptacle for the sensor?

The "Door" would have a hole the size of the sensor target dome...and a pocket the size of the sensor housing. You just insert/slide the sensor into the pocket, and its positioned.

So, it would be a "door" that clips/attaches to the end pipe opening...and the door has a hole for the sensor dome to protrude though.

The door would also have a pocket to hold the sensor housing...as simple as 2-3 rods angled to guide the dome in and hold it in place once inserted into the hole.

Even one rod, formed into a long loop, would probably work.
 
Last edited:

0dBm

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Dec 6, 2005
Messages
153
"Anyways more experimenting to come but what are your thoughts on this?"
Interesting and creative experiment.

*Call Labsphere to determine what coating they apply on the inside of of their spheres. It is not ordinary black paint. It is a special, non-reflective compound. If you don't feel comfortable about speaking with their engineers, let me know and I'll do so. I have several contacts within their organization.
*Have your meter calibrated. Not just the meter itself, but the combination of the sensor plus the meter. The meter is simply measuring the current proportional to the output of the photodiode within sensor head.
*Find a way to diffuse the outputs of those flashlights that are collimating their "beam" into a "hotspot." Since your luxmeter measures the peak of the value of the hotspot, it is does not, necessarily, account for the scatter values. Dispersing the beam will allow the measured value to be more indicative of the overall output rather than a peak.
*Find a way to even out the right angles of the connect points of the PVC pipe. Angles tend to create reflection and scatter that tend to artificially pump-up the luxmeter readings.
*Find a way to cover the entrance point of the light. You need to reduce the loss because much of the total light output of the source is lost since the large pipe opening vice the smaller flashlight head/bezel is allowing all the light to "escape."
*Find a way to cover the point where the light meter sensor meets the pipe. Much light is also lost there.
*If it is possible to do so and not damage the photodiode, remove that cheap, translucent, polymer prophylactic that covers the photodiode. This "cup" likely accounts for approximately 25% total (RSS not aggregated) loss in the meter reading. Polymers of this type (similar to milk jugs) typically have a Transmittance (T) value of ~25%; a Reflectance (R) value of ~3-7%: and an Absorbance (A) value of ~3-5% given the formula T + R + A = 1.
*When making a measurement, ensure that the power supply of both your meter and the light source is as close to the nominal value as possible. Take a total of five readings. Move the flashlight [device] under test (DUT) minimally on the X and Y Axis to obtain a peak (max)meter reading then do the same for the detector. Using this technique, measure the trough (min) values. Calculate the average (mean) of the min and max value. This is known as varying the Angle of Incidence (AOI). Take the five readings, square the values, add them, divide by the number of readings (5), and calculate the square root. This is called Root Sum of the Squares (RSS).


Good luck. Happy experimenting.:)
 

TEEJ

Flashaholic
Joined
Jan 12, 2012
Messages
7,490
Location
NJ
"Anyways more experimenting to come but what are your thoughts on this?"
Interesting and creative experiment.

*Call Labsphere to determine what coating they apply on the inside of of their spheres. It is not ordinary black paint. It is a special, non-reflective compound. If you don't feel comfortable about speaking with their engineers, let me know and I'll do so. I have several contacts within their organization.
*Have your meter calibrated. Not just the meter itself, but the combination of the sensor plus the meter. The meter is simply measuring the current proportional to the output of the photodiode within sensor head.
*Find a way to diffuse the outputs of those flashlights that are collimating their "beam" into a "hotspot." Since your luxmeter measures the peak of the value of the hotspot, it is does not, necessarily, account for the scatter values. Dispersing the beam will allow the measured value to be more indicative of the overall output rather than a peak.
*Find a way to even out the right angles of the connect points of the PVC pipe. Angles tend to create reflection and scatter that tend to artificially pump-up the luxmeter readings.
*Find a way to cover the entrance point of the light. You need to reduce the loss because much of the total light output of the source is lost since the large pipe opening vice the smaller flashlight head/bezel is allowing all the light to "escape."
*Find a way to cover the point where the light meter sensor meets the pipe. Much light is also lost there.
*If it is possible to do so and not damage the photodiode, remove that cheap, translucent, polymer prophylactic that covers the photodiode. This "cup" likely accounts for approximately 25% total (RSS not aggregated) loss in the meter reading. Polymers of this type (similar to milk jugs) typically have a Transmittance (T) value of ~25%; a Reflectance (R) value of ~3-7%: and an Absorbance (A) value of ~3-5% given the formula T + R + A = 1.
*When making a measurement, ensure that the power supply of both your meter and the light source is as close to the nominal value as possible. Take a total of five readings. Move the flashlight [device] under test (DUT) minimally on the X and Y Axis to obtain a peak (max)meter reading then do the same for the detector. Using this technique, measure the trough (min) values. Calculate the average (mean) of the min and max value. This is known as varying the Angle of Incidence (AOI). Take the five readings, square the values, add them, divide by the number of readings (5), and calculate the square root. This is called Root Sum of the Squares (RSS).


Good luck. Happy experimenting.:)

I thought they used a Reflective WHITE coating?
 

0dBm

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Dec 6, 2005
Messages
153
"I thought they used a Reflective WHITE coating?"
Not in the way most people understand reflection. An integrating sphere uses the relevant property of diffusion and scattering to minimize the original direction of the light incident to any part of it. Light applied to the sphere is distributed over all angles by minimizing specific angles such as what a mirror does.

I should have clarified this in my original post.
 

turboBB

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
1,032
Location
NJ, USA
Thx for feedback guys!

@0dBm, the paint that Labsphere uses (Spectralon) is prohibitively expensive so not an option for me at this time and if I were to splurge on that kind of money, I may as well save up for a real IS. ;)

For creating better diffusion, I'll likely sand down the inside w/steel wool and acetone. This should scruff up the surface enough to provide a nice matte finish, besides it'll be hard to evenly coat the insides w/paint anyways (which has also been a challenge for styrofoam spheres as well).
 

TEEJ

Flashaholic
Joined
Jan 12, 2012
Messages
7,490
Location
NJ
"I thought they used a Reflective WHITE coating?"
Not in the way most people understand reflection. An integrating sphere uses the relevant property of diffusion and scattering to minimize the original direction of the light incident to any part of it. Light applied to the sphere is distributed over all angles by minimizing specific angles such as what a mirror does.

I should have clarified this in my original post.

Labsphere's description of their coating is a reflective white - not a non-reflective black coating as you SEEM to describe. This IS very unclear in your post, as your post implies the exact opposite. IE: To a lay person, the difference appears to be more black and white.

Perhaps if you were to clarify why the non-relective black coating you described, is described by them as a reflective white coating, it would help to clarify what you meant?

--------------------

Tim - It sounds like a lot of factors might be cancelling out in a nice way here.

Your losses in light due to the transmission through the glass plate used to stand the light on to fix the height/alignment are subtracting from the lumens into the pipe.

Your reflection of the light by the PVC inside the pipe might be increasing the detected lumens...according to the above post, but I don't think absorbing light would change the lumens except by reducing the amount making it to the end of the pipe/detector...and reflectance can't increase the OTF lumens themselves, as only what is there can be reflected, etc.

Your losses to the pipe opening (Light reflected back out the top, around the light) would reduce the lumens detected.

Your losses to the lumens lost around the detector would reduce the lumens detected.

Your meter may or may not be reporting an accurate lux value.


You already know you are currently getting good correlation of lumen values with known references...and your Lux = Lumens ratio is a happy coincidence.

This says to me that while you are losing light from both open ends of the pipe, and due to the glass plate the light stands on, the square footage of the interior surfaces and the involved angles, whatever your meter is reporting, etc, all seem to be in a good ratio to have your end result work.

:D

Having your meter calibrated, and having some reference lights across a broad spectrum of light sources calibrated, would of course help...but may simply result in your current Lux = Lumen ratio being skewed - and you needing to use a conversion factor to get back to what you already get.

Food for thought.

:D
 
Last edited:

ti-force

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
1,266
Location
Georgia, U.S.
Thx for feedback guys!

@0dBm, the paint that Labsphere uses (Spectralon) is prohibitively expensive so not an option for me at this time and if I were to splurge on that kind of money, I may as well save up for a real IS. ;)

For creating better diffusion, I'll likely sand down the inside w/steel wool and acetone. This should scruff up the surface enough to provide a nice matte finish, besides it'll be hard to evenly coat the insides w/paint anyways (which has also been a challenge for styrofoam spheres as well).

Sanding bare styrofoam actually works very well, and may work well with pvc also. I have sanded pvc before by hand and it tends to leave fine pieces of pvc sticking up. I'm guessing that's why you're planning to use the acetone while sanding? Anyhow, if you haven't already, see the following link for some interesting reading, and a comparison of light reflectance from styrofoam using three different surface finishes. 1- bare styrofoam, 2- sanded styrofaom, and 3- white paint/barium sulfate mixture coated styrofoam. CPF member Saabluster did all testing. The results for the sanded styrofoam are posted after post #20, but the entire thread is informative for some. Barium sulfate is a cheap alternative (for budget minded diy guys) to Spectralon, and the like. Link to thread- http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...ating-sphere&p=3624709&viewfull=1#post3624709
 

turboBB

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
1,032
Location
NJ, USA
@TEEJ, sorry for late reply, the subs don't seem to be notifying me for some reason. Anyways, I couldn't have put it more succintly than you have. Perhaps I shall call this the Serendpitube ;o)

@ti-force - yup, you're right as sanding PVC smoohtly is actually pretty difficult!! And thanks for the link, I've actually read it before but still good to go through all the useful info in there again.

All, FYI:
http://www.cpfmarketplace.com/mp/sh...-in-NY-NJ-area-(or-calibrated-regulated-light)

Any takers?

=o)
 

TEEJ

Flashaholic
Joined
Jan 12, 2012
Messages
7,490
Location
NJ
@TEEJ, sorry for late reply, the subs don't seem to be notifying me for some reason. Anyways, I couldn't have put it more succintly than you have. Perhaps I shall call this the Serendpitube ;o)

@ti-force - yup, you're right as sanding PVC smoohtly is actually pretty difficult!! And thanks for the link, I've actually read it before but still good to go through all the useful info in there again.

All, FYI:
http://www.cpfmarketplace.com/mp/showthread.php?271703-WTB-Output-testing-services-in-NY-NJ-area-(or-calibrated-regulated-light)

Any takers?

=o)

I'd just call yours an ISP

Integrated Sanitary Plumbing

:D
 
Top