still misquoting me. I do not remember the numbers at 36" & 40" Like 97 and 120?
Not misquoting, you demonstrate again that you have a sieve for a memory
The measured values matched calculated ISL.
No Sides 40" 97 µMoles
No Sides 36" 117 µMoles
I left out the reflection bit, because that's too difficult for you. So only overlap and it's pretty much a straight line.
Just plug the 36" and 40" PPFD numbers into an inverse square calculator.
Yes that's your confirmation bias. You only look at the viewpoints which support your claims and ignore the heaps of evidence that you are wrong. Which on it's own already completely disqualifies you from being a researcher.
Added to that, your grasp of math is as poor as your understanding of light. You need three points to determine the nature of a relation.
But then, even with the two pairs of measurements you compared it's abundantly clear it's linear. You see 13% loss in the first 4 inches and 17% loss in the last 4 inches. So you were completely staggered about the readings of the first 4 inch not matching ISL, but you found that the last 4 inches "sort of" came close to "ISL", so the universe is safe and you were right all along! Really only you can see such conflicting observations and still claim you are right.
If you just imagine a world where you are wrong and allow yourself to look at all the data properly, then you would see the linear line. Lesson learned and move on.
Take a look at the AMS TCS3400 Color Light-to-Digital Converter. Very inexpensive 4 photodiode sensor RGB+clear.
That is not a CMOS nor a CCD like you claimed. Also, small detail perhaps, but
that's not a PAR meter at all.
That's another problem with your attitude, you have no clue about anything and yet you think whatever you Google proves that you are right. Yet what you find is either completely unrelated or you simply also misunderstand what ever you Googled. Or both.
Like when you thought that a "sun direction sensor" with a CCD inside was a PAR meter.
Or now when you think a sensor for adjusting the backlight on a smartphone is a PAR meter.
A PAR meter cannot use an ambient light sensor. A PAR meter must have some spectral data. RGB minimum.
No, a PAR meter does not need to "have spectral data" and yes they do generally measure ambient light. That's why the cosine corrector is added.
You have got to be kidding me that you understand that little of how they work. You keep insisting people waste money on a PAR meter and you don't even know how they work or what they do.
Here is how LICOR explains how it works:
The LI‑190R uses a high-quality silicon photodiode and glass optical filter to create uniform sensitivity to light between 400 nm to 700 nm
no CCD, no special software calculation angles and arctanning, no array of photodiodes correcting for the "spectral data". A single photodiode and a filter. Exactly like a lux meter uses. Albeit filtered for a different response curve.
The sensor features excellent cosine response, which ensures accurate measurements under diffuse light and when sunlight originates from a low solar angle.
and a cosine corrector to make sure it measures light over a wide angle.
I've covered all your deceptive comments previously, so I hope we are done.
As long as you keep posting this utter bullshit there will be people calling you out.
How about you stop pretending that you know anything about light and just read and learn for a few months on this forum? There is a heap of knowledge and knowledgeable people here who you could learn a lot from. Just screaming nonsense at everybody constantly is not going to get you over your lack of understanding of the subject.
If you ever manage to get over yourself and actually learn how things work then you will look back at these posts and you will feel the shame of posting so much stupidity. I kid you not. Although odds are you will never learn.
