PARwise
- Thread starter Mark Goode
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Not really
Advanced Topic: Thoughts on Emerson Effect
If you're reading this, you probably know that the Emerson Enhancement Effect is an observed non-proportional increase in the rate of photosynthesis when plants are simultaneously exposed to red and far-red light. In other words, if we expose a plant to a given amount of red light and see a...
www.reef2reef.com
Nonya
Valuable Member
Key word: plants. By your own words there's no link to zooxanthellae.Not really
Advanced Topic: Thoughts on Emerson Effect
If you're reading this, you probably know that the Emerson Enhancement Effect is an observed non-proportional increase in the rate of photosynthesis when plants are simultaneously exposed to red and far-red light. In other words, if we expose a plant to a given amount of red light and see a...
telegraham
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2017
- Messages
- 590
- Reaction score
- 795
Much like the Apogee.Note the PARwise shows the PAR range stops at 700nm.
Credit to the poster above.
As confirmed by ITC, the PARwise is reading the same 400-700 to determine PAR. It's not doing anything different than other PAR meters other than reading low, and the more I use the PARwise, the more I don't like it.
The following is how the PARwise, in plant mode, reads the intensity of individual spectrums compared to an Apogee MQ-500 (no immersion correction). These measurements were taken in open air with no other light sources present.
Blue (Cree 475nm)
PARwise - 18
Apogee - 20
10% low
Royal Blue (Cree 455nm)
PARwise - 65
Apogee - 76
14% low
White (Cree 6500K)
PARwise - 67
Apogee - 86
22% low (!!!!)
White (OSRAM EVL)
PARwise - 32
Apogee - 35
9% low
Green (OSRAM 528nm)
PARwise - 5
Apogee - 5
Aligned
Red (OSRAM 656nm)
PARwise - 17
Apogee - 24
29% low
White (7500K)
PARwise - 13
Apogee - 16
19% low
UV (SemiLED 385nm)
PARwise - 1
Apogee - 2
50% low, but not a true measure of accuracy
Violet (SemiLED 425nm)
PARwise - 7
Apogee - 4
43% high (!!!)
The pro-PARwise argument will focus on the possibility that my Apogee is funky, so when I get to it, I'll repeat using the $184 VBR-Aqua PAR meter. I've also captured spectrum alignment data. Will share that, too.
Nonya
Valuable Member
So you got the missing PARwise back?Much like the Apogee.
As confirmed by ITC, the PARwise is reading the same 400-700 to determine PAR. It's not doing anything different than other PAR meters other than reading low, and the more I use the PARwise, the more I don't like it.
The following is how the PARwise, in plant mode, reads the intensity of individual spectrums compared to an Apogee MQ-500 (no immersion correction). These measurements were taken in open air with no other light sources present.
Blue (Cree 475nm)
PARwise - 18
Apogee - 20
10% low
Royal Blue (Cree 455nm)
PARwise - 65
Apogee - 76
14% low
White (Cree 6500K)
PARwise - 67
Apogee - 86
22% low (!!!!)
White (OSRAM EVL)
PARwise - 32
Apogee - 35
9% low
Green (OSRAM 528nm)
PARwise - 5
Apogee - 5
Aligned
Red (OSRAM 656nm)
PARwise - 17
Apogee - 24
29% low
White (7500K)
PARwise - 13
Apogee - 16
19% low
UV (SemiLED 385nm)
PARwise - 1
Apogee - 2
50% low, but not a true measure of accuracy
Violet (SemiLED 425nm)
PARwise - 7
Apogee - 4
43% high (!!!)
The pro-PARwise argument will focus on the possibility that my Apogee is funky, so when I get to it, I'll repeat using the $184 VBR-Aqua PAR meter. I've also captured spectrum alignment data. Will share that, too.
telegraham
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2017
- Messages
- 590
- Reaction score
- 795
Missing? No, but it was on a field trip to SC.
Well first define "affordable" i.e an e-par USB meter is
I consider $500 significant but pretty sure a lot of others wouldn't. not if they wanted it.
I have no issue and actually would support using an extended range quantum meter.
From the video daylight the IR (up to 760-ish) percent is like 18..
As to any led/T5 driven tank that percent may be down to like 3 or less.
A 3% error isn't jack..
Call it hedging a bet.
Actually like their dual sensor one which was actually new to me.
sure 400-70 is fine and never (well thought I didn't) imply anything more.
I'd need to contemplate the "inaccuracy at the outer limits" thing a bit.
As to these err "cheap" meters.. well to each their own.
Many years ago I was deciding on if I wanted a Seneye or an Apogee (blue model just came out and was a black friday sale at BRS) . So to save about $150 I went with the Seneye.
Well I don't consider it my smartest purchase.
Only redeeming factor is Apogee now have what "I" consider even better sensors.
And there is some new competition, though that is still ???
AKReefing
Active Member
@telegraham
I messaged ITC this morning asking if they would be open to receiving your comparative measurements. They just responded:
"Would be great to see that content, how it was compared and with what devices but when we compare and calibrate with our extremely highly calibrated National Institute of standards and technology (NIST) lab certified instruments we feel our response is very accurate and true. I haven’t really seen any comparisons other than that of Telegraham on instagram vs a Chinese meter. We need to temper expectation a little too. this is a £220 light meter that can read spectrum which we feel it does exceptionally well!
It seems they claim their calibrations are extremely accurate, yet they seem to recommend taking the measurements with a grain of salt. Seems like you can help them, although I wonder why they can't do it themselves.
I messaged ITC this morning asking if they would be open to receiving your comparative measurements. They just responded:
"Would be great to see that content, how it was compared and with what devices but when we compare and calibrate with our extremely highly calibrated National Institute of standards and technology (NIST) lab certified instruments we feel our response is very accurate and true. I haven’t really seen any comparisons other than that of Telegraham on instagram vs a Chinese meter. We need to temper expectation a little too. this is a £220 light meter that can read spectrum which we feel it does exceptionally well!
It seems they claim their calibrations are extremely accurate, yet they seem to recommend taking the measurements with a grain of salt. Seems like you can help them, although I wonder why they can't do it themselves.
AKReefing
Active Member
They're "ITC Reefculture" on FB.
Who knows, maybe they have a reason to remain less accurate, i.e., more sales of the more expensive models, but making public the known errors in the most commonly used range of blue-violet LEDs could force them to make changes.
Nonya
Valuable Member
@oreo54 Is there a new definition applicable to corals? No response?
@oreo54 Agree, which is why I think attempting to show that video as some suggestion of proof relating to corals is a stretch. The video focuses on terrestrial plants, not photosynthetic corals living in an essentially IR-free zone. No response?
@oreo54 Agree, which is why I think attempting to show that video as some suggestion of proof relating to corals is a stretch. The video focuses on terrestrial plants, not photosynthetic corals living in an essentially IR-free zone. No response?
For the budget-minded hobbyist like me? Well, as a PAR meter, I wouldn't know. I have two: Biotek Marine BTM3000 and the Apogee SQ-520. They seem adequate for my use. As a spectrometer, if someone can confirm spectral accuracy for single emitters in the blue-violet-near UV range, that's all I need.
For the vast majority of hobbyists a spectrum analyzer is a luxury. I mean, after using it once when you set up your lights, why would you need one after that?
Please do.
telegraham
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2017
- Messages
- 590
- Reaction score
- 795
I've shared PAR comparisons using the Apogee, and spectrum comparisons using the Hopoocolor and UPRtek. They've seen them and have commented.
Maybe my PARwise is funky, but I can get a comparison from someone with the device using the same light I have. That, and NIST is 10 miles away. I'll see if anyone I know has anyone there in their network.
If I had to guess, they know it can't match the performance of the Hopoocolor and URPtek. That's ok. What they haven't considered is that the VBR-Aqua, a PAR meter that matches the Apogee 510's performance with a less than 5% deviation, is less than $200 and Amazon allows for free returns. Try the VBR, get your numbers, and tune your light. Then decide if you want to keep the meter.
Maybe my PARwise is funky, but I can get a comparison from someone with the device using the same light I have. That, and NIST is 10 miles away. I'll see if anyone I know has anyone there in their network.
If I had to guess, they know it can't match the performance of the Hopoocolor and URPtek. That's ok. What they haven't considered is that the VBR-Aqua, a PAR meter that matches the Apogee 510's performance with a less than 5% deviation, is less than $200 and Amazon allows for free returns. Try the VBR, get your numbers, and tune your light. Then decide if you want to keep the meter.
