Review: 510nm Direct Green Diodes / Build Photos (DGH-N1, DGH-N2)

[ElektroFreak]

When your own perception disagrees with the math in such an obvious fashion, it's time to go over things and make sure you have your methods right.. One of the checks and balances of the scientific system is your own senses.

Like I said, what good is a value if it's obviously wrong? All the math in the world might have been used to get you there, but when things look so obviously wrong, it's time to reassess.

You assume via your responses that I'm clueless about math, but I hold a university degree in electronics engineering. I'm not clueless about this stuff in general.

In electronics I have seen (and been guilty of) miscalculation or misapplication of calculations. Do you know what has most often tipped me off that I was incorrect? Not math.. it was my senses, hearing, sight, smell, touch. All VERY important scientific tools.

Still haven't answered my question. No one has, and I'm really starting to think that no one can.

What good is a value if it's obviously false? Clearly this is way over people's heads, or I'm speaking Chinese. Maybe if my 1W 532nm laser ACTUALLY looked even close to 14.33x brighter than my 1W 445nm laser I would just assume that there was some natural variation on my part involved and move on.. but in my experience 1W of green is only maybe 3x brighter. That's a WHOPPER of a difference. Please explain that difference mathematically. Also, how does ambient lighting factor into your calculations? That's HUGELY important here.. and completely unaccounted for in this application as I understand it.

Also, I certainly understand that the CIE charts are statistical models. What I'm saying is that I think they are being misapplied in an effort to put a precise value on something that inherently has none. That is not at all outside the realm of possibility, and calling me wrong, illogical, insinuating that mathematics are beyond my comprehension and finally the allusion that I'm working against scientific method does nothing to help prove your case. These are actions taken by a person who is running out of sound rationale in my experience. I've avoided all forms of personal attacks here because they do nothing to help a serious discussion/argument.

 

[rhd]

Still haven't answered my question. No one has, and I'm really starting to think that no one can.

What good is a value if it's obviously false?

The values aren't "obviously false".

Statistics that are meant to reflect average group characteristics cannot be declared "obviously false" based on the observations of one group member.

I'm done talking to you about this, and I'm unsubscribing from my own thread. I'm not going to teach high school math to somebody who insists they don't need to understand it.

I'm out. Someone else can pick up the torch and explain to you what different types of numbers mean.

*frustrated*

 

[ElektroFreak]

I've given more than sufficient opportunity for explanation, and all I've seen is hostility from you. If we're discussing high-school math, then explanations shouldn't be too much to ask as they won't be very hard. That's what sharing information on forums is all about to me.. discussions like this can be beneficial and educational to all who read them, provided the people involved are willing to participate and explain their sides/positions. If you want to bounce out of frustration that's unfortunate and unhelpful.

You say your results are not "obviously false", but I'm comparing 532nm and 445nm in the real world right now as we speak. There is nowhere near a 14.33x difference no matter what the other conditions (ambient lighting etc). Nowhere near. If my visual comparison was closer to your result, then I would agree with you that my real world observation cannot be used to declare your value as false. But the difference is HUGE, especially with blue and violet wavelengths. Other people both here and elsewhere have also stated that these figures seem off, especially with shorter wavelengths, so I'm not just a freak example. Because of that I'm suspicious of the application of this data. I think that's more than fair, more than logical and more than rational. I asked you to explain that difference, you haven't. You have only gotten upset, and for what reason I don't know. No one has attacked you in any way, I've only pointed out what I believe are sound points of interest, and potential problems with your application. This is not personal and has not been since the start.

 

[lazeristasUVISIR]

Maybe if my 1W 532nm laser ACTUALLY looked even close to 14.33x brighter than my 1W 445nm laser I would just assume that there was some natural variation on my part involved and move on.. but in my experience 1W of green is only maybe 3x brighter.

I assume lasers saturate your eyeballs similar to how a camera sees a bright laser spot which becomes white in the center.

As for "14.33", this number should go with an error or a deviation (±).

 

[Lase]

What good is a value if it's obviously false?

Because the value is not false, it's meant as a guideline.

Of course everyone will have different perceptions of wavelengths and brightness (for example myself: I have partial colour-blindness on the blue/violet scale. A 1W 445 looks pretty dim to me, 300mW 405 I can't see at all.)

The statistics are so 'precise' to factor in that margin of error that is human perception. Never fully base any work on values. Use them as approximations.

If you are going to argue that it's wrong just cause that's how you perceive it, well that's just as stupid as arguing God doesn't exist just cause He can't be seen.

Lase

 

[ElektroFreak]

I assume lasers saturate your eyeballs similar to how a camera sees a bright laser spot which becomes white in the center.

As for "14.33", this number should go with an error or a deviation (±).

Absolutely LaseristasUVISIR, I agree. It should go with a deviation. That would be fabulous and rob me entirely of solid ground to stand on in this discussion. Unfortunately that must be too much to ask, and I must be positively retarded to even conceive of such things. As to your first point, saturation should also be accounted for when attempting to categorize relative perceived brightness in this specific application.

Because the value is not false, it's meant as a guideline.

Of course everyone will have different perceptions of wavelengths and brightness (for example myself: I have partial colour-blindness on the blue/violet scale. A 1W 445 looks pretty dim to me, 300mW 405 I can't see at all.)

The statistics are so 'precise' to factor in that margin of error that is human perception. Never fully base any work on values. Use them as approximations.

If you are going to argue that it's wrong just cause that's how you perceive it, well that's just as stupid as arguing God doesn't exist just cause He can't be seen.

Lase

First off, if all we're going to do here is tell me my position is stupid without having the decency to explain why, then I really should get back to that 3 month break I took from this place as it really is a waste.

Second, there are various ways of interpreting values. You say to "Never fully base any work on values. Use them as approximations.", but that will get you into very serious trouble in certain applications, just like using the wrong data to insinuate that there is precision where there is none can be troublesome. There are times for precision values, and times for estimates. If these values had been presented with a margin of error, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But instead the idea has been that this application of said data is infallible, and because I question it I must be stupid. I'm not buying any of the above. You want to talk about ignoring scientific method, NOT ASKING QUESTIONS is a great way to do just that. So is asking someone to ignore their senses in favor of math when the right approach is to use everything at your disposal.

So far the best explanation that has been presented here is "These values are right because they're right. Don't ask questions." Sorry boys, I'm full of questions and my questions only grow when I'm expected to blindly follow as anyone's should.

 

[jcranmer]

If you are going to argue that it's wrong just cause that's how you perceive it, well that's just as stupid as arguing God doesn't exist just cause He can't be seen.

Or arguing that he does exist because you have faith that he does.

Sorry this thread has devolved enough that I couldn't help myself. :wave:

 

[ElektroFreak]

Actually I don't think it's devolved at all. This is a prime topic in a forum that is meant for discussing these specific topics. What we need are knowledgeable people who are willing to help educate our community about these things, not people who are insulted by the insinuation that their method might possibly be misapplied. Hell, I could ABSOLUTELY be wrong as the day is long, but so far nothing that has been presented has clarified this usage and how it accounts for the myriad variables involved. When someone can account for all of the points I've raised I'll accept the explanation and move on.

Faith is not an aspect of this discussion, and is therefore WAY off topic.

 

[DJNY]

^ ElektroFreak, rhd´s calculator isn´t perfect, but it won´t be possible generalizing it for all people (ages, eyes..). It´s a approximation! IMO his calculator is quite helpful and gives EVERYBODY a guess what to expect.
What you´re doing is splitting hairs :beer:

 

[sopark4000]

First off, if all we're going to do here is tell me my position is stupid without having the decency to explain why, then I really should get back to that 3 month break I took from this place as it really is a waste.

It's been explained over and over to you but you keep saying your question hasn't been answered. It's not really anyones job to explain why certain things are right and wrong when you wont accept the solutions they provide. My .02¢

 

[ElektroFreak]

So show me where all of my questions have been answered. I'm not seeing it. The solutions provided DO NOT answer the questions asked.

^ ElektroFreak, rhd´s calculator isn´t perfect, but it won´t be possible generalizing it for all people (ages, eyes..). It´s a approximation! IMO his calculator is quite helpful and gives EVERYBODY a guess what to expect.
What you´re doing is splitting hairs

Why should it have been so hard for rhd to admit that using this method results in an approximation? Please, by all means answer me that, since that's been my SOLE point this entire time.

Either your work is accurate, or it's not. Either you care, or you don't. If you don't, fine and dandy.. but when I have questions I will ask them. Either people can provide answers, or they can get all bent out of shape and insulted. I know which has value and which does not. It has not been my intention to launch personal attacks, and I have not. I believe there is a problem with this application. You might not care about problems, you might feel that confronting problems is "splitting hairs". I don't share your feelings.

Frankly, the idea of not caring about accuracy and not being able to accept that there is a margin of error when using a certain method absolutely goes against the greater scientific method as far as I'm concerned.

But hey, I've been here long enough that I really should know that LPF is NOT the place for serious scientific discussion. Silly me for trying to have an intelligent discussion with people whose only response is to attack me and my intelligence level. I'm quite comfortable with my intelligence level, after all I'm out working with computers every day, maintaining an entire hospital, and on the weekends guess what: I go out and I entertain literally thousands of people with my stupidity and the results thereof. Yeah, totally retarded I am.. you got it! And it shows!!

I'll get back to my awesome life and careers (yep, that's plural) now.. which I have because I'm completely retarded, I can't do math, I'm illogical, etc, etc, ad nauseum.

 

[sopark4000]

I'll get back to my awesome life and careers (yep, that's plural) now.. which I have because I'm completely retarded, I can't do math, I'm illogical, etc, etc, ad nauseum.

Ok. Hope you enjoy that.

 

[ElektroFreak]

Oh don't worry I'll enjoy every minute of it.. all the way to the bank ROFL..

What do you think a person like me is going to do when people insult me and my intelligence over and over without provocation.. just sit back? Not so much.. now it's my mission in life to make sure that every i is dotted and t crossed with regards to explaining how this data works for this application here on this website.

Lets focus on you for a moment.. you just said that my questions have been answered "over and over".. Care to put your money where your mouth is? Or or you just here to troll? Just because an "answer" was provided does not mean that it's even remotely correct, accurate or even on topic.

 

[sopark4000]

Give me a question and I'll give you an answer.
EDIT- NVM I have better things to do on my day off.

PS you are (according to you) incredibly intelligent and handy with computers so why don't you make a better brightness calculator. Sound good? KTHNXBYE

 

[Lase]

First off, if all we're going to do here is tell me my position is stupid without having the decency to explain why, then I really should get back to that 3 month break I took from this place as it really is a waste.

Second, there are various ways of interpreting values. You say to "Never fully base any work on values. Use them as approximations.", but that will get you into very serious trouble in certain applications, just like using the wrong data to insinuate that there is precision where there is none can be troublesome. There are times for precision values, and times for estimates. If these values had been presented with a margin of error, we wouldn't be having this discussion. But instead the idea has been that this application of said data is infallible, and because I question it I must be stupid. I'm not buying any of the above. You want to talk about ignoring scientific method, NOT ASKING QUESTIONS is a great way to do just that. So is asking someone to ignore their senses in favor of math when the right approach is to use everything at your disposal.

So far the best explanation that has been presented here is "These values are right because they're right. Don't ask questions." Sorry boys, I'm full of questions and my questions only grow when I'm expected to blindly follow as anyone's should.

Firstly. I never said your position was wrong. I said arguing simply because your perception is different is stupid. Basically no one can fully agree on anything as their perception of it will always vary.

Yes there are various ways of interperating values. Maybe you should remember that when complaining that no one agrees with you. I meant in this situation you shouldn't take the values as solid. There will be variations as it can be hard to convert a wavelength to HEX by using your perception to say what colour it is. I don't think rhd had a spectrometer back when he made the WL to HEX tool. He may be able to design a better one now though.

Uhm no. You have been told that these values are just something to 'go by' and not to rely on. Ask all the questions you want. Just don't get all pissy when you're told something you don't like.

Lase

 

[ElektroFreak]

Where did I complain that no one agrees with me? I complained that you and others decided that it was a good move to insult me.. but I could care less if anyone agrees with me as long as I believe that the points I make are solid. Solid points do not require a fan club.

AT NO POINT IN THIS DISCUSSION HAVE I BEEN TOLD THAT "these values are just something to 'go by' and not to rely on". Had I been told that, this discussion would have been a whole bunch shorter. Care to actually read the thread before jumping on the bandwagon with everyone else?

Give me a question and I'll give you an answer.
EDIT- NVM I have better things to do on my day off.

PS you are (according to you) incredibly intelligent and handy with computers so why don't you make a better brightness calculator. Sound good? KTHNXBYE

Not a programmer.. Oh how I love a nice simple, accurate answer to a question. So very nice.

Too bad about you not wanting to take the time to show me where my questions have been answered.. troll it is then right?