No disagreement there. You usually get what you pay for, and I understand that. When someone claims to have a lab-grade spectrometer and refuses to prove its worth to probably hundreds of hobbyists, one wonders why they claim to have several.
Funny. I'll absolutely attempt to satisfy some of your requests, but that won't be a valuable contribution to the reefing hobby. It's just two fools arguing related nonsensical points.
Yes, yes...I know, but it's honest. Sharing the requested information will bring me joy.
Agreed. As for hobby stuff, if I test with three things, and two things are close, I like those two things more than the third. That's my position here. As for PAR, I can use five things to measure the same light. Six if you include the Photone app. That can give me even more confidence that some, all, or none are giving me actionable data.
Somebody's on a mission. Where's the proof based on measurements of individual LEDS above and below the 470nm point? Even the manufacturer hasn't said that.
Why are you defending parwise so hard lol, there is a clear difference in grades of equipment. Anyone who understands the utility of measuring spectrum for our reef tanks can look at both of these graphs and immediately understand the limitations of the parwise. In my opinion its nearly useless, perfect case of jack of all trades is master of none.
Although post #140 above clearly shows the shift and overstatement vs the same spectrometer that BRS uses, we'll get there with the individuals.
I disagree. A table of correction parameters is something that can be used--actionable data--assuming your measurements are accurate.
It's a joyous time of year!
I have another sensor for PAR, but I do understand your reasoning. All I want to know at this point is the relative accuracy of my measurements below 500nm. 4 points are enough to establish a curve.
Maybe it's because an "expert" is attacking it so hard. LOL
Let's hope so.
Did you tell the prospective buyer it's crap"?
Roger.
I'm no expert. I'm a hobbyist with a little bit of experience and someone who enjoys learning.
That's the point...the spectrums are aligned, but you can see the spectrum misrepresented by the PARwise. Like, still. That's my data captured with my spectrometers, one being the same unit BRS uses, with spectrum values aligned. 380=380, 780=780, and the same for everything in between.
I'll have to see if ChatGPT will help with the formula. That was so long ago.
Yes, I think it's your turn.
All these posts are answering your questions and offering more data with relevant equipment that not many people have experience with, there is clear differences. If you think sharing this with people is attacking the product thats ridiculous, he isn't altering results. I think if anyone is rooting for cheaper/quality products (especially lighting) in the hobby its telegraham you guys are on the same team.
I do see what appears to be a misalignment. You can just as easily derive an assumption that the PARwise could be overstating the intensity of both blue and red for those regions. The PARwise curves have peaks higher than the other meter.
Nope. We're arguing both sides of the same issue.
I wanted the PARwise to be priced at the originally suggested $200 and I wanted it to work. It kinda works, it should be improved through software, and everyone should have access to a legit PAR meter. This device does not tick my legit box, but it is a PAR meter. The VBR PAR meter works better and it's $190. Buyers need to decide if the PARwise as a PAR meter is good enough for them and they need to decide if a maybe good enough PAR meter with some level of spectrometer functionality is worth the extra $110 when looking at the VBR. I vote no only because I know better, but I also know that if the VBR wasn't a thing, I'd suggest the PARwise with caution.
Holy crap...we agree!
And nice of you to say. Thank you!
Well that's not good, is it?
Well crap. Now what?
