linear1 forums
[part of the linear1 network]
+ [linear1 case mods]
+ [LED Center]
+ [privacy policy]
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 21, 2010, 02:25:25 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
* Home Help Search Login Register

linear1 forums  |  LED discussion  |  Article discussion  |  Topic: New: candela to lumen converter wizard « previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: New: candela to lumen converter wizard  (Read 26775 times)
Rob
LED guy
Administrator
Smart like tractor
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1970


The constant-current gardener


WWW
« on: March 17, 2005, 12:14:08 PM »

http://led.linear1.org/lumen.wiz

Try it out.  Cool

By definition, 1cd = 1 lm/sr (lumen per steradian). You can check this by entering 1000 mcd and 360 degrees. The wizard returns 12.566 lumens, or 4*pi. SInce the surface of a shpere is 4*pi steradians, this is a nice check on the accuracy of the math (even if its a meaningless case).

See also: http://led.linear1.org/how-do-i-convert-between-candelas-and-lumens/
Logged

spider
Strong like bull
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #1 on: April 24, 2005, 04:58:58 PM »

I would like to know what formula you are using to convert cd to lm.  Your wizard gives numbers that are close to the formula that I've found.  I'd like to know which is not precise.  This is the link to where i got my information...
http://www.ledproductstore.com/measurement_of_leds.htm

the formula is ...

candela * pie * (radians / 2)^2
or
(mcd/1000) pie (pie (degrees/2) /180)^2

Also, why don't you already display the formula that you use?  There are a lot of websites with bad math when it comes to this topic. It's critical for those trying to convert conventional lighting to LEDs to have exact formulas.
Logged
Rob
LED guy
Administrator
Smart like tractor
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1970


The constant-current gardener


WWW
« Reply #2 on: April 24, 2005, 11:52:03 PM »

Welcome to the boards. I'll take your several questions in order:

I would like to know what formula you are using to convert cd to lm.

1cd = 1 lm/sr, but more specifically, the calculator is simply

lm = cd * 2 * pi * 1 - cos(theta/2) , where theta is the beam angle.


The term 2 * pi * 1 - cos(theta/2) is nothing more than the solid angle subtended by the beam (in steradians, effectively dimensionless):
solid angle = A / r^2 = 2 * pi * h / r = 2* pi * (1- cos( theta/2))

If you'd like a reference, allow me to cite
Quote
Ryder, Alex, Light Measurement Handbook (http://www.intl-light.com/handbook.html), Chapter 7.

I'd like to know which is not precise.

The worst problem is that you don't really have specs on how the luminous intensity measurement was taken. The formula I use assumes it represents an average value of the beam that falls within the beam angle. It's entirely possible that a manufacturer should choose to sample more narrowly than this in order to obtain a higher published spec. If you think that isn't likely, you are less cynical than I.

The real point is that my formula is a direct consequence of geometry--error will arise from imprecision in the published spec that violates the assumptions inherent in the calculation.

Also, why don't you already display the formula that you use?

I guess it seemed like a trivial geometry problem to me, and not really the most significant caveat I could issue. It may be worth stating that the formula assumes the beam is a circular cone, and that the luminous intensity represents an average over the published beam width spec.

It's critical for those trying to convert conventional lighting to LEDs to have exact formulas.

I never presumed to serve the professional lighting community. I was under the impression their literature dealt with this sort of calculation as a matter of course.

+++

Okay, to take a step back from that, I should probably note that I wrote the calculator precisely because I was annoyed at websites suggesting there was a constant conversion factor between lumens and candelas (I've seen 4*pi stated), or even more alarming, Google's suggested conversion.

If you dig hard enough (including offline) there are excellent resources for information on radiometry, photometry, illumination engineering, colorimetry and the related fields. What's available online is spotty. (I'm looking for the chromaticity coordinates of the Planckian locus, for example, and while I can find dozens of instances of it plotted on a CIE chromaticity chart, I can't uncover a formula in terms of x and y. I'm confident this is answered in a book, but I haven't yet obtained the correct book.) With this site I aimed to bridge the gap between enthusiasts or hobbyists and the large body of technical information on lighting.

As to the differences in the formulas, if I read yours correctly, it seems it assumes the beam impinges on a flat surface, mine assumes it impinges on a spherical one. I'll note again that for theta = 2*pi, my formula returns 4*pi, the entire area of a sphere.

[edit: minor typos]
« Last Edit: June 10, 2008, 04:42:19 PM by Rob » Logged

Rob
LED guy
Administrator
Smart like tractor
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1970


The constant-current gardener


WWW
« Reply #3 on: April 24, 2005, 11:56:33 PM »

One more point on the aproximation you posted--it works out to be pretty good for most realistic beam angles for an LED. I ran a quick spreadsheet on the difference:

Code:
degrees radians spherical solid angle planar solid angle
5 0.087266463 0.0059802 0.005981149
10 0.174532925 0.023909417 0.023924596
15 0.261799388 0.053753521 0.053830341
20 0.34906585 0.095455703 0.095698385
25 0.436332313 0.14893658 0.149528726
30 0.523598776 0.214094348 0.215321366
35 0.610865238 0.290804975 0.293076303
40 0.698131701 0.378922439 0.382793539
45 0.785398163 0.478279003 0.484473073
50 0.872664626 0.588685536 0.598114905
55 0.959931089 0.709931873 0.723719035
60 1.047197551 0.841787214 0.861285463
65 1.134464014 0.984000567 1.01081419
70 1.221730476 1.136301218 1.172305214
75 1.308996939 1.298399256 1.345758536
80 1.396263402 1.469986118 1.531174157
85 1.483529864 1.650735177 1.728552076
90 1.570796327 1.840302369 1.937892293
95 1.658062789 2.038326841 2.159194807
100 1.745329252 2.244431642 2.39245962
105 1.832595715 2.458224441 2.637686731
110 1.919862177 2.67929827 2.894876141
115 2.00712864 2.907232302 3.164027848
120 2.094395102 3.141592654 3.445141853
125 2.181661565 3.381933205 3.738218157
130 2.268928028 3.627796454 4.043256758
135 2.35619449 3.878714388 4.360257658
140 2.443460953 4.134209368 4.689220856
145 2.530727415 4.393795046 5.030146352
150 2.617993878 4.656977286 5.383034146
155 2.705260341 4.923255105 5.747884238
160 2.792526803 5.192121629 6.124696628
165 2.879793266 5.463065054 6.513471317
170 2.967059728 5.735569625 6.914208303
175 3.054326191 6.009116613 7.326907587
180 3.141592654 6.283185307 7.75156917
185 3.228859116 6.557254001 8.188193051

For beam widths under 75 degrees, the approximation error is < 5%. Things go pear-shaped pretty quickly after that.
Logged

merlinicorpus
Global Moderator
Smart like tractor
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 50


KFC FTW!


WWW
« Reply #4 on: April 25, 2005, 12:02:21 AM »

Wow... I just wish I knew what you guys just said.  Tongue
Logged

Rob
LED guy
Administrator
Smart like tractor
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1970


The constant-current gardener


WWW
« Reply #5 on: April 25, 2005, 12:04:08 AM »

Heck, I thought I was clarifying the situation...  Cry
Logged

merlinicorpus
Global Moderator
Smart like tractor
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 50


KFC FTW!


WWW
« Reply #6 on: April 25, 2005, 12:14:19 AM »

Clarifying?  I'm still trying to define "lumen".
Logged

Rob
LED guy
Administrator
Smart like tractor
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1970


The constant-current gardener


WWW
« Reply #7 on: April 25, 2005, 10:43:35 AM »

Clarifying? I'm still trying to define "lumen".

Oooh, thanks for the topic suggestion. Watch for the upcoming article...
Logged

spider
Strong like bull
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #8 on: April 25, 2005, 10:46:53 AM »

WOW, Thank You for the detailed answer.   That pdf handbook you linked to is awsome.

Sucks how the 12.57 factor is on a lot of websites.  I'm not a lighting professional, but even I figured out that the led's angle needs to be used in the formula.  In this case, all the bad info online makes it hard to find the correct answers.

Thanks for your help!  :-)
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
linear1 forums  |  LED discussion  |  Article discussion  |  Topic: New: candela to lumen converter wizard « previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.7 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.213 seconds with 18 queries.