- Joined
- Jan 2, 2008
- Messages
- 1,513
- Points
- 83
danq said:pls forgive me if this is slightly out of line...but I thought the primary purpose of this is for each of us to be able to calibrate our meters, so when we report a power reading later, it will be accurate... kind of like synchronizing our watches.
Of course a nice side-benefit is we will have data on different meters - and I will of course report my meter's readings before I adjust it - but then I will adjust mine to the 'standard'.
I'd like opinions on whether these basic procedural blocks are what y'all have in mind:
sound good?
- get my meter as accurate as I can, with what I've got here
- receive the 'standard' laser(s) in the mail
- measure the 'standard' laser's output prior to adjusting my meter
- adjust my meter to read the standard-bearer's set value (or that of whomever is thought to have the most accurate meter so far)
- pass the 'standard' on to the next person
- report my measurements
- later, when everybody has posted their results, decide whether the standard-bearer's measurement was accurate
- if not, adjust my meter to reflect the new (computed) reading that should have been the standard reading.
Same thing I'm wondering. I'm also curious how close all the LPM-1's are and if the 2.58x is consistent across the board or if we each need to adjust accordingly based on our meter (LPM-1 or whatever).
But, what is going to get the best results, regarding any of the power meters, IMO, is the curve for the power meter, much more than the readings. If we can plot a curve for ANY of the power meters, it would allow a fairly accurate reading at any nm freq. and it would allow comparisons between the same type of meters.
So you could have a 405nm diode and if you have the curve for the meter you can determine the power for that diode using ANY of the settings (470, 650, etc) just by comparison and matching to the curve and not have to do the same thing when the next "new" diode comes out at a different frequency.