Thats a negatory. every measurement in that plot is only relative to the other measurements, and you could use any decent meter whatsoever regardless of calibration. repeatability is the only requirement and in that regard i would bet dimes to dollars a $30 lux meter would show the exact same trends with perhaps a bit more scatter in the data.
"calling you out on that" = worthless
"here is my data that shows otherwise" = lemme know
ill tell you what, youre a good guy and i wouldnt even be bothering you if you werent outright defaming me.
lets do this.
-ill buy the cheapest shittiest lux meter i can find
-you send me 2 of the latest, greatest, highest bin, most recent date code CXB3590s you can get your hands on thru your super special hookup. mark em if you want so you know im not pulling funny business
-we'll do a live youtube where ill let you pick out 2 cxm22s from a tray.
-ill mount both of these as well as the cxbs live on the air and will take measurements in the sphere with both the licor and the cheap lux sensor, and users can see the raw data right from the meters and plot it along as we go
if the CXM22 have equal or greater PPFD/W than the cxb (lets say "equal" = within 1/2% when averaged across all measurements), ill keep your CXB chips
if the CXB are greater (more than 1/2% greater flux at almost twice the cost), ill send you the two CXM22 plus a 16 oz framing hammer and safety glasses to be cost for cost on the bet. you can then make a vid smashing the cxm22 if you wish
