Hi Poppy,
Thanks for your detailed breakdown. I appreciate the input! Here are my responses:
Things I like about this light:
1. it takes an 18650
2. is relatively small
3. is regulated
4. has multiple outputs
5. has a warm tint.
It looks like we're firing on almost all cylinders here. The only one we're missing (and it's a big one), is the multiple brightness levels, and automatic shut off! I'd also argue that we
are the smallest, but I'll leave that up to the consumers to decide.
In my opinion, one of the biggest problems with lanterns is glare. The brighter the light source, the greater the glare for that particular lantern.
This is a universal problem, and one that I find the most amusing. We are in agreement -you cannot have a super bright light without experiencing glare.
Some designs produce more glare than others:
1. there are the multiple emitter style that project their central beam onto a conically shaped diffuser (hitting it in multiple spots) and the lantern's outer globe is semi-translucent. examples of this style are the favourlight clones, Siege, UST 30 and 60 day lanterns.
(people report these lights to have, little to no, or at least an acceptable amount of glare)
2. there are the single emitter lanterns that project their beam onto a reflective cone; there are two subsets:
2a the beam and its reflection (from the cone) are enclosed in a columnar diffuser (example is the Ozark Trail 300)
These have been reported to have a bit of glare at higher outputs, but are acceptable at lower outputs
We have performed comparisons on quite a few of these lanterns. For lanterns advertising 300 lumens, one would think that they should actually deliver. The LED might, but if you were to actually measure the luminous flux from each device, I think you might be surprised at what you find. Of course, if they weren't actually outputting their advertised lumens, it would be easy to reduce glare.
Here are our videos:
The Siege:
http://youtu.be/pZMzqrszPEM
Rayovac SE3DLN:
http://youtu.be/82AeK8Ni10c
Here are some more favourlight and similar devices:
CREE 40426 / Favourlight LTC-1613AA-W:
http://youtu.be/G17pFV5VNNw
Kelty Lumatech:
http://youtu.be/1sx5dJDVuxY
2b. the beam and its reflection are not encased in a diffuser.
These typically are not high output and even at lower outputs, they have been reported to have a bit of glare.
I imagine that at high output the glare would be totally unacceptable.
This is the category we fit into. I would argue that this is also the same category that gas powered lanterns using a mantle fit into as well. However, I would also argue that glare at high output
is acceptable, especially if you need the light (such as in the picture I posted above -imagine changing a tire, roadside at night).
3. there are lanterns that have multiple emitters directed horizontally, through a diffuser.
This style is typically lower lumens with poor quality leds. Emitting blue tint, lots of glare, and not too much light.
The only lanterns I can think of in this particular style are the Coleman Micropacker and maybe the XtremeBright LED Camping Lantern:
http://youtu.be/yqQto-3tuzo
They are exactly as you say, however I would assert that the light output is mostly due to the quality of the LED, and less to do with the diffuser / reflector configuration. In my opinion, less material in series with the light source = greater light output.
4. there are relative new comers with higher lumens, that have received reports of little, or at least, an acceptable amount of glare. They have multiple emitters mounted so that they project vertically within a semi-translucent diffuser. (examples are the fenix CL20, and the coleman 1000 CPX-6)
We haven't examined these lanterns yet, but they operate on similar philosophies to existing products. The CL20 is reminiscent of the Ivation Mini LED lantern (which I might argue is a better design, only larger).
The Coleman CPX-6 1000 lumen lantern makes a bold claim. Anything outputting 1000 lumens is definitely going to be unpleasant to look at, yet the light source is clearly exposed, encased in a diffuser. There is something fishy about that.
5. Then there are the energizer lights/lanterns with "Light Fusion technology"
They offer quite possibly the least amount of glare relative to their output.
The Light Fusion Technology has to be one of the most amazing pieces of marketing I have witnessed thus far. The concept is extremely simple: shine a light into a piece of plastic. The light bounces around inside the plastic, and is ultimately projected out. I believe we have seen this trick performed countless times through fiber optic light toys.
Again, we have not examined this lantern directly, but I cannot imagine that it's output is significant by any means. However, I will make sure we purchase one of these for a comparison video.
Given the above, the design of this lantern will produce the MOST amount of glare, except at very low lumens. At very low lumens, the electronics are not so important because the LED load on the batteries is so low that, even in unregulated lights, they run for extended periods of time with little change in output.
Yes, at it's highest level of brightness, this lantern produces a significant amount of light. And yes, I would say that it does produce a significant amount of glare, as would any light source that is actually producing the advertised number of lumens!
The catch is this: we have 15 logarithmic settings.
Here is a PDF that contains the settings, with the calculated lumen outputs and runtimes:
http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0400/4533/files/60072.pdf?943
And, in my ever so biased opinion, regulated light output -even at very low levels of light, is extremely effective.
Honestly, I do not understand the interest in this light. As I mentioned above there are aspects that I really do like, but the moderate to high lumen output GLARE is a killer for me.
I THINK that if this is to be a high lumen output lantern that the LEDs will have to be oriented differently. UNLESS, the glare can be reduced, maybe by bending the light (like with fiber optics) and using "Light Fusion technology" methods of diffusing the light. Yes I know that this is the second time that I mentioned this, but the first time the suggestion was ignored, or at least not commented on. Given the orientation of the LEDs, I THINK using the methods of the "light fusion tech" is the best way to diffuse the lights and still be able to maintain a relatively small size.
The main point that I would like to make is this: we wanted to make a lantern that is well suited for multiple scenarios. If the light is too bright, decrease the brightness. If the light is to dim, increase the brightness. You aren't locked in or restricted to a single brightness level by any means.
I apologize for not acknowledging you earlier, but I hope this addresses your initial post.
And here's the catch: we're going to fabricate the diffuser that I linked above. It already performs in the exact same way as the energizer "Light Fusion Technology" lanterns work. Our "lens" is approximately 1/16 of an inch in thickness. The light will enter the lens, bounce around, and exit. The only difference is that our LED's are exposed.
My opinions and statements are obviously biased, but I hope to express some truth along the lines.