Can’t afford $$$ uvb meter, check this out

A catch-all category for LED-related questions, content, news, rumors, or whatever. If it doesn’t fit elsewhere, put it here.
User avatar
Chiefrunningphist
LED-Curious
LED-Curious
Reactions:
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2019 11:34 pm

This was interesting...
1561497446661.png
1 has a rectangular reflector running behind it and 1 has nothing that it reflects off of. I'd assume that the un-reflected would be less intense but these results flip that assumption.

Has anyone noticed a difference in measurement when the sensor is tilted so that its not perfectly perpendicular to the emission source? I wonder if the sensor was tilted in one of these tests, or was positioned in such a way to receive photons of a different trajectory?

I wonder if it's just that the black corded PS produces more power? In the pic below there's almost 2 identical reflectors used but a rather significant difference in measurements. If the black cord PS produces more power then perhaps that's why the un-reflected tube from above is more intense than the semi reflected tube??
1561498115169.png
User avatar
Randomblame
LED Enthusiast
LED Enthusiast
Reactions:
Posts: 40
Joined: Sat Jun 22, 2019 6:28 am

Chiefrunningphist wrote:
Tue Jun 25, 2019 9:04 am
I've been looking at this for awhile. I'm not sure what to conclude. It seems to be functioning with consistency, so maybe only a calibration is needed. I wonder how recessed the sensor is?

Here's a chart at 10cm of a 12% arcadia...
spectrumUVArcadiaD3plus-T5tube.gif
.

Here's the tables random posted...
Screenshot_20190623-082426.png
.

According to the tables, at 15cm the arcadia d3 12% should have a differythemal intensity of 100mW/m2 (4.0 UVI × 25mW/m2 = 100mW/m2), that doesn't seem too far off?? The actual is recorded at 1,360mW/m2, so a weighted intensity of 100mW/m2 seems plausible??

Hmm, digging deeper...

It looks like in the 10cm chart that there's roughly 163μW/cm2 total UVB intensity or 1,625mW/m2.
USER_SCOPED_TEMP_DATA_orca-image--1977829195.jpeg_1561455077393.jpeg
When I do a rough estimation of the differythemal intensity...

average of ~12.5μW/cm2 from 310-320 multiplied by 10nm = ~125μW/cm2

average of 2.5μW/cm2 from 295-310 multiplied by 15nm = ~37.5μW/cm2

1,250mW/m2 × 0.05 = ~62.5mW/m2, 375mW/m2 × 0.33 = ~123.75mW/m2
124 + 63 = ~187mW/m2
187mW/m2 ÷ 25mW/m2 = ~7.45UVI

... I get ~187mW/m2 or ~7.45 UVI. That's spot on for the UVI map they post, but this method doesn't scale accordingly. According to this method, at 15cm or 1,360mW/m2, we should be closer to 6.0 UVI which the map doesn't correlate with.
Screenshot_20190623-082909.png

Investigating further...

The table shows a consistent UVB measurement in μW/cm2 ÷ ~34 to realize the UVI.

Screenshot_20190623-082426~2.png
136μW/cm2 ÷ 34 = 4.0 UVI
100μW/cm2 ÷ 34 = 2.94 UVI
78μW/cm2 ÷ 34 = 2.29 UVI

The map shows a 7.45 UVI at 10cm, but when I multiply 34 by 7.45 UVI, I get ~253μW/cm2. This means an average of 10μW/cm2+ from 295nm - 320nm, looking at the chart posted earlier it doesn't appear to have enough total UVB to be averaging 10μW/cm2+ from 295nm - 320nm (at 10cm away). I'm roughly calculating <163μW/cm2 (125μW/cm2 + 37.5μW/cm2), am I that far off??

Maybe I'm just making some silly math errors, if you see them point them out, its late and my brain is a bit fried lol

EDIT:
Looks like I've made a new word lol, when I say "differythemal," I mean... "diffey-weighted," or "DUV," or "erythemal dose."

EDIT: EDIT:
I meant to write " divide by 25mW/m2 to achieve the final UVI" in the graphic I made, not "divide by 25mW/cm2"
You have used the Sunblaster numbers not the Arcadia numbers. The lower two are just to compare them to the Arcadia bulbs. 1st row is bare bulb, no reflector. The 3 rows below are with 3 different types of reflector and the last two rows are the numbers of a sunblaster bulb with no reflector and with nanotech reflector.
Attachments
Screenshot_20190623-082426.png
Last edited by Randomblame on Sun Jun 30, 2019 3:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Randomblame
LED Enthusiast
LED Enthusiast
Reactions:
Posts: 40
Joined: Sat Jun 22, 2019 6:28 am

Hey, buddies! I finally got my smart UVI checker and have tested it immediately.

At first, I've installed the according app and another one called "UVlower". The latter use you location and connects to the local weather provider to get current UV data. It shows you the current UV Index and also a timeline where you can see the UVI at different times at the day.
I've checked it at 13.00 locale time with clear sky and 32,4°C and it showed exact 7 and a maximum of 8 at 14.00.
Screenie UVIower app, shows locale UV-Index.jpg
Next step was initialing UVI checker app and sensor an take the 1st measuring. I've tested for 5 minutes(they recommended even more time) and the highest readings was 6,9 which it surprising close to what the weather provider says.
Stored UVI checker results, pretty nice.. within 0,1.jpg
In the UVI checker description they say that the device used has may an effect on the sensor readings. That's a bad news! In the settings of version 1.0.8 there are 3 different calibration modes available, normal, Galaxy S3 and Galaxy S4/Note4. I don't know how it looks installed on an iphone but I could imagine maybe for the most used models... ?

I've used my OP6 with naked android 9 and the "normal" profile. Unfortunately we can not calibrate it in settings but I'll contact the devs and ask them If they add more profiles(for more devices) or if they can add self calibration.
Its probably the easiest way cuz In my case I would just set it to +0,14% to calibrate it to the weather data. Not 100% exact but better than none...
Or_Gro
LED Maniac
LED Maniac
Reactions:
Posts: 287
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 10:54 am

@Randomblame , we’ve got tags...

So have you tried it under your arcadias?

Btw, thanks for offering to talk with devels about other devices and their settings...

Cuz, the i-phone version looks like this:
00A15EEE-9637-4241-A717-3E14FAF460D8.jpeg
User avatar
Randomblame
LED Enthusiast
LED Enthusiast
Reactions:
Posts: 40
Joined: Sat Jun 22, 2019 6:28 am

Nope! But I will test them soon. Also the Agromax bulbs gets tested just to compare them. Theoretically they should be 5 times stronger like an Arcadia.

Is it the latest version available for iOS? 0. in front suggest its still in beta stage.
There should be at least final release available..


Edit!
Tagging works now!
Or_Gro
LED Maniac
LED Maniac
Reactions:
Posts: 287
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 10:54 am

Randomblame wrote:
Sun Jun 30, 2019 3:31 pm
Nope! But I will test them soon. Also the Agromax bulbs gets tested just to compare them. Theoretically they should be 5 times stronger like an Arcadia.

Is it the latest version available for iOS? 0. in front suggest its still in beta stage.
There should be at least final release available..


Edit!
Tagging works now!

Only version on apple store...
User avatar
Randomblame
LED Enthusiast
LED Enthusiast
Reactions:
Posts: 40
Joined: Sat Jun 22, 2019 6:28 am

I finally found the time to test my 3 Arcadia 12% bulbs and 4 of the Agromax pureUV bulbs(75% UVB).

At 10" the UV checker reading was only 1,2 with the Arcadia 12% bulb and at 6" it was 2,2. This bulb was ~800h old(two runs)
A 420h old bulb reached already 2,4 at 6" and a new one has stabilized at 2,5. (takes ~1-2 minutes) According to the UV-guide.uk tests(same bulb, 100h old) it should be 5,5 and 10.1 UVI at 6". That's a huge difference...

For the Agromax bulbs it was 3,4, 3,5, and 3,4 with 3 new bulbs at 6" and an almost 140h old bulb measured still 3,3.
At 10" is was 2,4-2,5 and the used one stabilized at 2,3.

Both values are much lower then expected. I've tested them with an alli wing reflector but the readings are even lower as the results for a bare bulb. At least the Agromax bulb should be much stronger; 5 times stronger actually not only ~50%.
Pretty sure that's because all wavelength above 295nm are weighted the same. The checker can simply not distinguish between 280 and 290nm.

But why there is such a big difference to the Arcadia test results?
Probably these sensors are simply not made for artificial UV light and are calibrated to the suns spectrum. The description says the sensor can measure 240-380nm but when all below 295nm are weighted with 1.0 it would show the same results even when the Agromax wavelengths would be in the UVC range.

Even if you use the Agro's at 10" you can use them only for minutes while the Arcadia bulbs can literally run all day long at 6" without causing a serious damage. Both are 24w bulbs but the Agromax goes down below 280nm while the Arcadias have nothing below 295nm.
So IMO we can use the UV checker like a smartphone lux meter app to set up and check an even UV distribution but the measured values are almost useless and say nothing about the wavelengths or how strong the UVB light really is for plants.
Is that worth 25 bucks? Probably not!

Here are a few screenies..
Arcadia at 10inch.jpg
Arcadia ~800h old bulb at 6inch.jpg
Arcadia 12% bulb (no2 ~400h old)at 6inch.jpg
Arcadia bulb no3(new) at 6inch.jpg
No3 (new) at 6inch.jpg
No2 (new) at 6inch.jpg
Agromax bulb at 6inch.jpg
No4 (~70h) also at 6inch.jpg

For better more accurate UVI readings we need a better UVI meter like the Solarmeter one (199$)but to really make a statement about the strength of a UV bulb and its spectrum its neccessary to use a UV spectrometer.
Capt. Saicin
LED Enthusiast
LED Enthusiast
Reactions:
Posts: 83
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 7:20 pm

I'm using and Arduino and a VEML6075-Breakout (something like 5$) to measure UVA and UVB.
But I have no alternative tool/golden sample/solar simulator to calibrate/verify....and no dedicated UV-lamp, yet.
UVB(and UV-Index) under my 50:50 3000k/5000k@200W total (LM301B) is about 1/7th of what i measure outdoors during a sunny midday and that datapoint is somewhat near the UV-I ratings for the day according to weatherwebsites....so i guess it's not that far off, but who knows how this thing responds to low values :D

Anyway, super cheap and fairly easy to setup.


Also: Who did the interface on that App?
"Low, Moderate, Hoch, Sehr hoch, extrem" This mishmash of english/german/capitalization is great :D
User avatar
Chiefrunningphist
LED-Curious
LED-Curious
Reactions:
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2019 11:34 pm

Hmm..

Does anyone you know have a different UVI meter they could check alongside with the $25? It's funny how it seems to be spot on for outdoors and what the weather stations say but not for the flouro tubes. Maybe test under normal QB light? I'm trying to determine if non UV light will have an effect. If non UV light does impact the result then yep I'd say its junk! But if it doesnt, that makes me wonder how accurate the fluoro datasheets are. Its such a simple concept I can't see how adding $$ creates a better product. The working principle utilizes a photodiode with a tuned response in the UV EM band, it's the same working principle as any UV meter.

The SD012-UVC-011 + the GUVCL-S10GD seems like a good combo for UVI, and most of UVB, though 315-320 is rather neglected.

Screenshot_2019-08-06-01-25-27~2.png
$9.72 from digikey

Screenshot_2019-08-06-01-25-52~2.png
$18 from digikey, $22 from Alibaba.
Last edited by Chiefrunningphist on Tue Aug 06, 2019 7:29 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Chiefrunningphist
LED-Curious
LED-Curious
Reactions:
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2019 11:34 pm

Capt. Saicin wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 12:16 pm
I'm using and Arduino and a VEML6075-Breakout (something like 5$) to measure UVA and UVB.
But I have no alternative tool/golden sample/solar simulator to calibrate/verify....and no dedicated UV-lamp, yet.
UVB(and UV-Index) under my 50:50 3000k/5000k@200W total (LM301B) is about 1/7th of what i measure outdoors during a sunny midday and that datapoint is somewhat near the UV-I ratings for the day according to weatherwebsites....so i guess it's not that far off, but who knows how this thing responds to low values :D

Anyway, super cheap and fairly easy to setup.


Also: Who did the interface on that App?
"Low, Moderate, Hoch, Sehr hoch, extrem" This mishmash of english/german/capitalization is great :D
UVI is weighted logarithmicly towards 290nm. You have to multiply your UV SPD by the erythemal curve and then integrate the resulting curve from 290 to 380 (or whatever the top boundary is) before you can calculate UVI, if you have no UV LEDs you really shouldnt be reading any UV (let alone 1/7 of the sun).

I'm just getting into arduino and what you have described is partially something that I've been looking to design. Id rather a UVI reading than a total UV reading, but very cool. Ill look into the VEML6075, I think a tweek to the code would give me what I'm after.

*
Screenshot_2019-08-06-01-33-26~2.png
Looks like itll pick up UV conforming to a traditional slope, but 285nm LED would be lacking (UVR8), and seems most of the lower UVB would go undetected. I like that its i2c. I didn't realize it was a chip and could calculate UVI for you. Pretty neat little deal. For $5 more you could add that little guy to the other 2 photodiodes and run them off an Uno to switch between UVI, UVB, UVA, or total UV.
Post Reply