Yeah looks nice, I'd be curious to see how the results differentiate between the Apogee 120 PAR meter, with approximated correction factor for otherwise excluded wavelengths, and the new one you mention. The argument was started when you butted in and carried yourself as you always do.
Taking your oranges-apples analogy one step deeper, you're nonetheless stating that comparing 3000K with 4000K is useless, as by doing so, one would be 'comparing tomatoes to oranges'. Well for one, there are many varieties of each fruit, so let's say the 3000K is the red orange and the 4000K is the orange orange. But wait, Vero 3000K isn't the same as CXB3000K, right? You might not know unless you have tested or utilized both in a timeframe suitable for you to realize that the latter version is actually more red. Ok, so we could assign oranges to Veros, while CXB are assigned as apples.
To address your argument, which is that one shouldn't compare red oranges (Vero 3000K) with orange oranges (Vero 4000), I'd like to bring in some facts from the manufacturer's datasheet.
View attachment 3585117
As you can see, typical fluctuations occur for a given temperature. So even if one were to send a given light source or light fixture to be IS tested, it would likely hold and provide slightly different lighting properties in comparison to a duplicated sample. With your logic of oranges to oranges or apples to apples, one could never reasonably compare in the first place two cobs of the same make and series after seeing these ranges provided through Bridgelux's Vero datasheet.
Based on what you've said in this debate, you simply want a meter that measures what your plants want or receive. Tell me when they make that meter, because that technology will be one step away from reading what humans want and that my dear friend would be quite a priceless piece of technology. Until then, I guess we'll have to rely on approximations to pen down what plants more than likely want or simply just compare PAR outputs of various lighting sources to reason what source puts out more than the other - the main goal behind my use of the meter.
You aren't telling me anything new, brother. I don't believe there is anything currently available, nor will there be, that will satisfy those die-hards but in the same respect, we shouldn't let their narrow-minded track of what should and shouldn't be dictate how we approach this realm of lighting. Again, the issue isn't really an issue regarding the use of the meter but rather the intent and that itself is pointless to argue over given everything that has been provided and pointed out. If you take into account all the factors that go into PAR output comparisons, while using an Apogee 120 meter w/ wavelength approximations, and keep them level of each tested sample, then it doesn't take very long to reasonably and accurately conclude which lighting source is dissipating more photons in a given area. Sure, you can go and spend a tiny-fortune on having a lighting source tested through an IS but unless there is some kind of serious factor that is excluded in the use and testing of an Apogee PAR meter, like optics vs no optics, then the sought-after answer, while not as defined, will likely remain the same in either case.
for instance 5 x 5 20 cobs 5 drivers giving me 1000 watts and around 1100 PPFD that should work out well you think 3500k and 6500 K top bin mix 3590 well we wiill see soon lol how well it really does then maybe spread it out for maybe 5 x 8 area and add another 1k in cob power for total of 50 Sq feet
