Math behind

[wietefras]

And those that criticized me and made fun of me, that's okay, I understand. And really, I don't give a fuck what anyone else thinks and I've got no fucks to give.

We corrected some of the many mistakes you made and in return you treated us like garbage. You're welcome I guess.

Perhaps you should head our pleas for acting like a sane person, because it should be clear by now we have more to offer to you than you to us.

 

[NoFucks2Give]

The idea behind this is to able for us to convert photometric units from data sheets

The SPD from the datasheet is radiometric not photometric

With my radiospectrometer I saved a measurement in Lux and then saved it again in Watts.
Then my app creates the SVGs attached below. (saved as jpg)

If you compare them to the datasheet you will see they are NOT photometric.

In the first image Lumens means Lux.




Some datasheets are photomtric. OSRAM I have seen using photometric but the SPD is labeled Luminous Flux.
Like the one on this thread's original post it specifically says "Power", which typically would mean radiometric even though you could use the term Luminous Power but not likely.

F4 doesn't cancel the B column in the E column calculation as it's sum - sum is represented by integral in the original formula. You definitely need all 3 columns

No. It does not matter that it is a sum. Picture it as (B/1 + B/1 + B/1) / B
The Proof:
Take the column D formula multiply it by 683 in every row e.g. (=B2*C2*683)
Change J2 to 1 Or remove $J$2 from F2 Your results are the same. And Column D is now Lux.

Just like in my post column E, I would have made Lux. Only because it makes more sense.
But column E does not become Lux until it's sum is multiplied by J2 in cell F2. But you could add *683 to the formulas in Column E and remove $J$2* from F2 and column E then becomes a column of Lux for each wavelength and you can get rid of J2.


=B2*C2*683
=D2*0.000012635*A2/C2

LER =SUM(D$1$1048576)/SUM(B$1:B$1048576)
QER =SUM(E$1:E$1048576)/SUM(B$1:B$1048576)

Then you can re-label the columns so they make sense

Now if you want other numbers they are simple to implement.
The sum of Column B is Watts (same as it ever was)
The sum of Column D is Lux (the real one, not mine)
The sum of Column E is PPF or PPFD if PPFD I believe the distance would be one meter. The numbers appear to be. And the Integrating Sphere used is likely one meter, it probably is PPFD @ 1 meter.



I uploaded a copy of the spreadsheet as I cleaned it. I named it spd.xlt in Excel 5.0 format and zip it to spd.zip.

I think it is much more elegant now. When a newbie comes around it is much clearer what is going on.
It will be much easier to expand and add new features.
Use it if you please, or not because I got no fucks to give. Especially @wietefras who has made me smile and shake my head so many times in the past few days. Just trying to help which is misunderstood by some.

It's not. It is 10^-3/(N_a * h * c). I'm completely sure.

It's my formula, it is ONLY speed of light and Avogadro, NO Planck, I'll put money on it. The math is in my post.

I guess it's just a most straightforward way of translating the formulas to excel.

I'm not a spreadsheet guy but
I was going to say why I would do it that way, but I'm different. So I don't know. Straight forward would not be my word for it. I would put the value in the formula rather than $J$2. Although I have been writing apps since 1983. Well I wrote one on Apple II before the PC came out but I don't really count that because no one paid me to do that one. But in the early 2000s I was making $500/hour programming and running an electronic manufacturing business. And doing a shit load of drugs. What they say about money and the devil, it's true.

Graph digitizing software is there already.

Okay I was just offering. I do not like using third party so I will probably write my own depending on how the numbers come out. I think I can make use of the SPD if I combine it with the view angle radiant distribution. For selecting CoBs I just look at the SPD. If the red peak is not more than 625 or the 550nm is over 40% I will not consider using it. So that doesn't leave much to look at.

 

[NoFucks2Give]

in return you treated us like garbage

I treated you like garbage because you have been a total asshole.

I did not make mistakes. You never understood. You never answered my questions. You made mistakes. e.g. XP-G3 is a Cob.

Was this post of yours, here now, really necessary? NO, you are just being a fuckin' asshole.

First off I did NOT make any mistakes.

I posted my math, and you did not understand. And do not give me your improper label bullshit the formulas were very clear.

I stated this is my stuff, my conversion factor does not match yours. Why?
No one could tell me why.
No one could explain the math in the spreadsheet.
Then after I reverse engineered the spreadsheet no one could explain cell F2 not even alesh.
It became clear alesh did not understand the math either.
He thought the SPD numbers were luminous.
He should be good now.
I figured out on my own how the spreadsheet worked.
I simplified the spreadsheet so it is much easier to understand.
Added the values for lux, watts, and PPF
But all you can say is I do not know what I am doing, am sloppy (true), and only make mistakes.

I posted a new spread sheet. It works the same. Different rounding on the umol/J. Formulas are all changed, the columns make sense now. Check it out, I know how you like to critique my work. That's good, I appreciate that.

Just maybe I know what the fuck I am doing. What you think means Jack Shit.

Thanks for the smiles. You always make me smile as I shake my head. There was once upon a time when assholes would piss me off. I am way beyond that. Now most of the things that once made me angry, now make me laugh. Because I got no fucks left to give. I also hold no ill will.

 

[NoFucks2Give]

You're welcome I guess.

Thank you.

 

[alesh]

The SPD from the datasheet is radiometric not photometric

With my radiospectrometer I saved a measurement in Lux and then saved it again in Watts.
Then my app creates the SVGs attached below. (saved as jpg)

If you compare them to the datasheet you will see they are NOT photometric.

In the first image Lumens means Lux.

Some datasheets are photomtric. OSRAM I have seen using photometric but the SPD is labeled Luminous Flux.
Like the one on this thread's original post it specifically says "Power", which typically would mean radiometric even though you could use the term Luminous Power but not likely.

Yes, SPD is radiometric, no doubt. But LEDs' output in most data sheets is specified as luminous flux. We can easily get any LED's luminous flux at basically any condition but we need to convert it to radiometric and/or quantum units.

No. It does not matter that it is a sum. Picture it as (B/1 + B/1 + B/1) / B
The Proof:
Take the column D formula multiply it by 683 in every row e.g. (=B2*C2*683)
Change J2 to 1 Or remove $J$2 from F2 Your results are the same. And Column D is now Lux.

Just like in my post column E, I would have made Lux. Only because it makes more sense.
But column E does not become Lux until it's sum is multiplied by J2 in cell F2. But you could add *683 to the formulas in Column E and remove $J$2* from F2 and column E then becomes a column of Lux for each wavelength and you can get rid of J2.

No, that's different. You can take out multiplying by a constant (683.002) but you can't take out multiplying by a function.
The reason why the constants are linked to formulas is that they're properly labeled and visible. I could have combined them but it seems counterintuitive for an educational spreadsheet.

It's my formula, it is ONLY speed of light and Avogadro, NO Planck, I'll put money on it. The math is in my post.

OMG. Just try it with your calculator.
1/(N_a * c) is something like ~5.5 * 10^-33

First off I did NOT make any mistakes.

You made tons of mistakes and still do, with generally assholish attitude. No surprise most users aren't super friendly.

 

[wietefras]

I treated you like garbage because you have been a total asshole.

I was perfectly friendly until you said something like that I was trying to be exceptionally stupid after I wrote a whole I post trying explaining a ton of mistakes you made. YOU were a complete and utter asshole from the start.

I did not make mistakes. You never understood. You never answered my questions.

Just knock it off. You made nothing but mistakes. I understood everything you said even though you write it down like a complete noob with:
- math errors (you can't even correctly calculate an average)
- unit confusion (you keep mixing up lumen vs lux and PPF vs PPFD)
- mixed up symbols and units (which you then claim to do on purpose to sound cool, but in reality you clearly just don't know cause even when you try you get it wrong)
- utter lack of comprehension (you really have no clue and don't even understand when things are explained to you multiple times.)
- factual incorrect statements ("NO COB IS 61% EFFICIENT", "WATTS DON'T MATTER ONLY CURRENT MATTERS because voltage is always the same" ROFL)
- completely unneeded calculations confusing the poor math even further (adding inverse square calculations which were of course also incorrectly calculated)
- blame shifting and goal post moving (you even went so far as to blame me for mistakes which you made yourself)

Your posts are seriously at least 90% bullshit and I shudder to think what more bullshit will follow.

If I didn't answer "questions" it's because they are even bigger bullshit than your original mistakes themselves. "Show me the MATH" when you have a page full of explanations and an Excel sheet which performs the calculations for you. Are you fucking kidding me?

Besides, I don't HAVE to answer all your "questions" (in fact lame attempts to deflect from the original mistake really). It should be enough that I elaborately explained where you made mistakes. Someone with a properly functioning brain would pick up on that and be done. I wasted enough time on your dumb shit already.

You made mistakes. e.g. XP-G3 is a Cob.

I said it's the same technique as a COB. It's their phosphor coated led without the coating. Again, how on earth is that different from a "COB"? It's not the fact that it's a COB or not that matters. Besides, at the same time I also mentioned the Citizen royal blue COB which is a COB in whichever definition you want to use, but of course you conveniently leave that out.

Either way, you are still 100% wrong screaming that 61% efficient COBs don't exist. Whether or not you choose to not accept a single example is not going to change that in any way.

Anyway, don't worry this is the last reply you'll get from me. I did my best and you are unfortunately too stupid to even understand how stupid you really are.

At least you should now understand/know in at least a dozen cases that you were extremely stupid. Bizarrely you still think you are all that. You are delusional to a level I have never seen before.

 

[NoFucks2Give]

You can take out multiplying by a constant (683.002) but you can't take out multiplying by a function.

Agreed, but yet is that not what you are doing?

What I have been asking for days now is WHY do you do that in cell F2?

F2=$J$2*SUM(D$1$1048576)/SUM(B$1:B$1048576)
Where
Column D=B2*C2

So essentially F2 is doing what I demonstrated with a constant. You say "you can't take out multiplying by a function"

Substituting the column D formula into F2 , You have B2 represented in the numerator and denominator.
683*SUM(B2*C2)/SUM(B$1:B$402)

Why did you do it like that? What do you get by doing it like that?

This whole thing started because someone used a number he said he got here. The results did not match measured values. Maybe he used the wrong number.

I tried, no one could help. All I needed was the answer to F2. Did not think that would be so difficult.

Just try it with your calculator.

Don't have one, I use a slide rule.

with generally assholish attitude. No surprise most users aren't super friendly.

I know, I am not normal, and often misunderstood. When I used to care I'd tell them to put smiley face after any sentence they found offensive and re-read. That worked well.

The written word does not express emotions well.

An actor can be given a phrase and give the same phrase 5 different meanings through voice and body language.

You find what you look for. Look for an asshole, you will find an asshole. It's human nature why is the new kid at school treated like shit for no reason? Treat him like and asshole and he becomes an asshole. If it was something I said specifically to you where you found me assholeish then look at yourself as to why, because I was not purposely being an asshole with you. There are other posts where I responded as an asshole purposely for reason.

If you do not have an answer to F2 please do not respond at all. It's okay if you do not know the answer. I'll use my own.

 

[NoFucks2Give]

I said it's the same technique as a COB. It's their phosphor coated led without the coating. Again, how on earth is that different from a "COB"? It's not the fact that it's a COB or not that matters. Besides, at the same time I also mentioned the Citizen royal blue COB which is a COB in whichever definition you want to use, but of course you conveniently leave that out.

Really??? I'm delusional?? You originally specifically said "the XP-3G is a CoB". Your response when into the technique bullshit.

I also asked me to show me any CoB with and efficacy greater than 60%. You could (did) not do that.

Show me one and I will buy it for you.

That product IS a COB.

. It's the fact that it's a COB which makes it a COB

Then you back peddle:

I said it's the same technique as a COB

It's a fuckin' LED not a CoB. You were wrong accept it and move on.

which you then claim to do on purpose to sound cool

That's not why I did it, I'm just naturally cool. Nice of you to notice.

Anyway, don't worry this is the last reply you'll get from me

Please let it be true.
If so I will never quote you again on anything. And I'll stop fuckin with your head when I get drunk. I always got a good laugh when I was dunk. Sober you are just a dick.

I wrote a whole I post trying explaining a ton of mistakes you made.

Except your post was comparing efficacy about my that was about comparing spectra. You were "correcting" my spectra comparison with YOUR efficacy formulas. Do you have any idea how annoying that is? And You STILL don't get it. you say I moved the goal post like you are trying say you trying to justify you are correct in calling a XP-G3 Royal Blue LED a CoB. Fuck You.

CURRENT MATTERS because voltage is always the same"

Never said that, watts do not matter when I am measuring lux and PPFD to get the lux to PPFD ratio. And I replied to your at the time, "you were correct to mention the difference in wattage". The difference in forward voltage was stated in my post but you wanted to emphasize the watts and I agreed with you.

My math is not going to work when you think I am doing something other than what I am doing. I was asked by someone to do the measurements specifically at 700mA. But I was getting the lux : PPFD ratio to compare the spectra of the two CoBs. The math I was doing was to validate the ratio was correct by using my measured result with the calculations used with the test current. You were calculating the difference in efficacy with my measurements (which was 62 and you used 65) which were done with a damaged CoB. A damaged CoB is okay to use for measuring the spectra not efficacy as you did. What you could not understand is I was comparing spectra and you were comparing efficacy and you say I was moving the goal post. And as you wrongly presumed the CoB was damaged due to it being mishandled as you said in you derogatory comment. You were wrong and a dick in the same sentence. The CoB was unexpectedly damaged (sacrificed) in a thermal experiment as I use CoBs for a heat source not to grow things. I use LEDs to grow things. I don't need to waste electricity with CoBs in the nearly useless 500-600nm wasteland.

You have issues when it comes to units. You know what I meant because in your rants you tell me what is correct. Even after I told you when I say µMole I mean µmol/m²/s because that's the only unit that is relevant to horticulture. When I mention microcontroller and use µController that's okay. When I type µMole it is as if I were saying it. This site is far from a peer reviewed horticulture study. In conversation no one says micro mole per meter squared per second. I also so suggested you listen to what I mean, not what I say. Yet you are still bitching I use µMole rather than µmol/m²/s. When it comes to how many photon reach the leaf what the difference between µmol/m²/s and µmol/m²? a second? It like the difference between µmol/J and µmol/W. Then you cry that they wouldn't let you get away with it in college. It's not important. Why do you give a fuck?

. "Show me the MATH" when you have a page full of explanations and an Excel sheet which performs the calculations for you. Are you fucking kidding me?

Those are not the "math" the formulas in that spreadsheet were nearly illegible kludge. They still are. Is column E really Energy per Mole? WTF is this? $J$2*SUM(D$1$1048576)/SUM(B$1:B$1048576)

And just to piss you off I need to tell you I was just given a Well Liked Member trophy. Go figure? And you might like this, you joined this site on my birthday. Thought you'd like to know.



You see recently my father died, on the day of his funeral my best friend died, mother was diagnosed with cancer, came out cancer treatment with with Alzheimers, then broke her hip, then died, my dog died, my production guy's wife died he could no longer work had to close the business, house went in to foreclosure, law suit, arrested on bullshit charges, on and on. That was in about a nine month period. After that nothing else matters unless it very important like having to do with one of my children.

 

[NoFucks2Give]

Perhaps you should head our pleas for acting like a sane person, because it should be clear by now we have more to offer to you than you to us.

That sounds nice but it is condescending as all shit. You and your cronies that like this post can all go fuck yourselves.

 

[nfhiggs]

I don't need to waste electricity with CoBs in the nearly useless 500-600nm wasteland

You should perhaps take a look at the McCree curve, instead of focusing on those dissolved chlorophyll absorption charts... Dead chlorophyll in a solution does not behave like live chlorophyll in a leaf.

 

[alesh]

Agreed, but yet is that not what you are doing?

What I have been asking for days now is WHY do you do that in cell F2?

F2=$J$2*SUM(D$1$1048576)/SUM(B$1:B$1048576)
Where
Column D=B2*C2

So essentially F2 is doing what I demonstrated with a constant. You say "you can't take out multiplying by a function"

Substituting the column D formula into F2 , You have B2 represented in the numerator and denominator.
683*SUM(B2*C2)/SUM(B$1:B$402)

The purpose of this spreadsheet was to show others how to apply well known formulas to excel. The constant could be used in the whole D column but I chose to follow original formulas closely. Not making two steps at once.

However, 683*SUM(B2*C2)/SUM(B$1:B$402) wouldn't work. To multiply SPD by luminosity as functions in excel, you need to do it for every single nm - as a whole column. Then integral is sum of that column.

 

[NoFucks2Give]

wouldn't work.

I originally put a note on that formula you say wouldn't work, saying "I know this doesn't work" but I didn't want to come off as patronizing and deleted it.

The reason I put the B2 * C2 in the numerator was just to show what is being summed, where B was in both the numerator and denominator.

It's not that important anymore, at first I was wondering if it was an error. Then when I did the spreadsheet in what I would call an more orthodox style it showed I got the same result. Then it became a curiosity as to how it works and why you did it in that fashion. I couldn't afford to spend any more time reverse engineering a spreadsheet when I now have one that is IMHO easier to understand.

I think it's time for me to drop the effort and give the cyber bullies a rest.

I appreciate the effort you have put into this project. I apologize if I said anything to you that came off assholeish, it was not intended. There were some post made on this thread to another member who has been a cyber bully and is following me around criticizing and spreading lies.

 

[NoFucks2Give]

You should perhaps take a look at the McCree curve,

Yes I have, see attached. But perhaps you should keep current rather than relying on a distorted look at a 1973 study. Notice in the original published study, the term for the curve is relative.

There is a source that is very credible. It is a textbook in its 6th edition where the authors have published some more recent peer reviewed studies on the topic of absorption, action, and quantum yield. Quantum yield has been misused by the grow light charlatans. Quantum yield and action cannot take place if they are not absorbed. The quantum yield chart is relative to those photons that have been absorbed. What is much clearer and more difficult to distort is an absolute chart. The broad spectrum charlatans like to use the very old 1973 McCree chart because it is easy to misconstrue.


It may help to understand the subject. It's not just a graph, there is a lot going on as far as how the photons are used. Tossing the name McCree does not mean a damn thing. This is a simple question from the textbook referenced below. If you can't answer this then what you say is not relevant. Explain the concept of quantum yield. Compare and contrast the quantum yields of photochemistry, oxygen evolution, and photosynthetic carbon fixation. Explain the differences between the respective quantum yield values.

The McCree study still holds today, I am not trying to discredit McCree. I find it just pathetic how the charlatans distort his findings.

But a more modern look at absorbance and action chart like from a 2014 6th edition authoritative textbook which contains all the references to the peer reviewed studies to back its contents, may paint a more accurate picture.

Below is the absorbance and action chart (with citations) for the textbook Plant Physiology and Development. It is a $168 text book that has survived in a very tough market to make it to a 6th edition with a price tag like that.


Here is a link to a webpage describing more about the chart http://6e.plantphys.net/topic07.01.html

I'm not say photons are not absorbed in the 500-650nm range, I'm saying it makes more sense to use the most efficient bands of the absorption spectrum of chlorophyll. I also agree that a plant will utilize a green yellow orange photons the same as a deep red or deep blue. It just more efficient to use red and blue.

Also of interest is fluorescence where the absorbed photons are emitted and not used. And absorption by carotenoids is less efficient. And how the absorption spectrum of chlorophyll charts include absorption of photons by algae and bacteria in the 500-600nm band (e.g. phycoerythrobilin) that are not relevant to higher plant life is passed off by the grow light charlatans to promote full and broad spectrum grow lights.

Lux is also abused by the grow light charlatans to inflate lumens in the 500-600nm band. Red and Blue have very little lux compared to green.






Cramer, W. A., Soriano, G. M., Ponomarev, M., Huang, D., Zhang, H., Martinez, S. E., and Smith, J. L. (1996) Some new structural aspects and old controversies concerning the cytochrome b6f complex of oxygenic photosynthesis. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant Mol. Biol.47: 477–508.
Bruick, R. K., and Mayfield, S. P. (1999) Light-activated translation of chloroplast mRNAs. Trends Plant Sci.4: 190–195
Demmig-Adams, B., and Adams, W. W., III. (1992) Photoprotection and other responses of plants to high light stress. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant Mol. Biol.43: 599–626.
Blankenship, R. E., and Hartman, H. (199 The origin and evolution of oxygenic photosynthesis. Trends Biochem. Sci.23: 94–97.
Green, B. R., and Durnford, D. G. (1996) The chlorophyll-carotenoid proteins of oxygenic photosynthesis. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant Mol. Biol.47: 685–714
Grossman, A. R., Bhaya, D., Apt, K. E., and Kehoe, D. M. (1995) Light-harvesting complexes in oxygenic photosynthesis: Diver-sity, control, and evolution. Annu. Rev. Genet. 29: 231–288
Krause, G. H., and Weis, E. (1991) Chlorophyll fluorescence and photosynthesis: The basics. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant Mol. Biol. 42: 313–350
Li, X. P., Bjorkman, O., Shih, C., Grossman, A. R., Rosenquist, M., Jansson, S., and Niyogi, K. K. (2000) A pigment-binding protein essential for regulation of photosynthetic light harvesting. Nature 403: 391–395
Long, S. P., Humphries, S., and Falkowski, P. G. (1994) Photoinhi-bition of photosynthesis in nature. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant Mol. Biol.45: 633–662
Müller, P., Li, X.-P., and Niyogi, K. K. (2001) Non-photochemical quenching: A response to excess light energy. Plant Physiol.125:1558–1566
Pullerits, T., and Sundström, V. (1996) Photosynthetic light-harvest-ing pigment-protein complexes: Toward understanding how and why. Acc. Chem. Res.29: 381–389
van Grondelle, R., Dekker, J. P., Gillbro, T., and Sundström, V. (1994) Energy transfer and trapping in photosynthesis. Biochim. Biophys. Acta1187: 1–65

 

[wietefras]

It's useless. They guy just doesn't want to get it. It's very rare to see people to get just about everything wrong. Unfortunately, like PhotonFUD, they are very loud and obnoxious while spreading their nonsense too. The moderators wont do anything to stop these idiots, so I guess the only thing to do is to put him on ignore. Sorry for the people who get taken in by his bullshit, but it's pointless trying to correct him. He never understands anyway and just keeps posting the same bullshit.

 

[NoFucks2Give]

I posted science. @wietefras posted an anecdotal rambling rant. If someone has a valid point it should be backed by peer reviewed science. Opinion and anecdotal evidence is worthless. I will not be cyber bullied.

 

[Greengenes707]

Does posting something that is "science" make it the correct use, application, or even terminology of stated "science"????

Keep living in your...if I'm wrong and get called on it it is "cyber bullying" world dude

 

[Greengenes707]

Will do.

Case and point. Misused and miscited information. Clearly your go to MO.

 

[Yodaweed]

Does posting something that is "science" make it the correct use, application, or even terminology of stated "science"????

Keep living in your...if I'm wrong and get called on it it is "cyber bullying" world dude

Is that world similar to yours when you tell people you are gonna beat them up through the internet?

 

[Greengenes707]

Is that world similar to yours when you tell people you are gonna beat them up through the internet?

Check your facts bro. You mean when Johnson said exactly that and I ask where he wants to meet??? Is that what you are referring to???
Or is when robin said he wanted to shove a maxi pad up my ass??

Or when realstyles said to "watch out for him" when I was at the cup??

All I do is present fact...usually not to many people's likings...which causes temper tantrums and hissy fits by them...but are indisputable facts none the less.

 

[Yodaweed]

Check your facts bro. You mean when Johnson said exactly that and I ask where he wants to meet??? Is that what you are referring to???
Or is when robin said he wanted to shove a maxi pad up my ass??

You also threatened to beat up @REALSTYLES and also threatened me as well which gave me some good laughs.

I think you might got a bit of an internet anger problem.