# Fenix Engineers analyze the P1D CE's beam



## 4sevens (Dec 15, 2006)

I'm copying and pasting exactly what they have sent me here:










(original size here: PICT 

Fenix P1D CE’s Beam Testing 

The Fenix P1D CE’s beam situation is as below:

1. It is awesome in the central focusing spill, really bright with flawless beamshot and there are no rings.
2. The floodlight is also bright. It is both good for the central beam’s long shot and close quarters’ lighting.

As per the “dark ring” in the P1D CE’s beam reflected back from some of our Fenix P1D CE’s users, we test it scientifically with the conclusion as below （Please refer the attached pictures for more data）: 

The Cree LED is greatly different from Luxeon LED in lighting angle, brightness distribution and even throws aspects. We could easily see these differences such as uneven brightness and tints from a naked Cree LED.

As a result of this, there is a “dark ring” in the P1D CE’s beam while you shoot it on the snow-white wall. As a matter of fact, it is just a visual illusion as per our testing and objective analysis. In according to the test, the flux from the center spot increased gradually, but that growth will slow down when close to the center spot. Meanwhile, the Cree LED’s tint changes slightly and deceives our eyes and it forms a beingless ring. 

In addition, our current optical design is mainly safeguarding the P1D CE to have strongest light-condensing ability and maximum lumens. If we lower our requesting standard in light focusing, we could reduce this ringy visual illusion. But we must carry on further evaluation to test if this is good for the life lighting.


**4sevens note: I could not find a dip in lux readings dispite seeing
the ring. However I think Fenix hit the nail on the head about the
tint variation causing the illusion.


----------



## EngrPaul (Dec 15, 2006)

I see no pictures, just [X] [X]


----------



## wotblake (Dec 15, 2006)

Damn nice light for the $70 bucks I paid for it. I love mine.


----------



## MarNav1 (Dec 15, 2006)

Thank's for the info, can't see any pictures though.


----------



## adirondackdestroyer (Dec 15, 2006)

EngrPaul said:


> I see no pictures, just [X] [X]


 
Same here.

I don't think Fenix has to defend themselves when it comes to the "dark ring" around the hotspot. It doesn't bother me at all when in actual use. It will most likely bother you If you are either just shining your lights at a wall and not actually using them or if you are OCD and everything MUST be perfect. 
The amount of light that comes out of the P1D CE is nothing short of amazing! On medium it is brighter than anything else I have (other than Incans), and on high it compares to some of my brightest lights, which are much larger than the P1D CE. 


47's

You sold an awesome product and got it here as quick as you could. A+ to you! Now I am just waiting for the next Fenix Cree, which will hopefully be a 1AA model with 3 levels of brightness going on in this order: Low,Medium,High.


----------



## 4sevens (Dec 15, 2006)

EngrPaul said:


> I see no pictures, just [X] [X]



The links are correct. My pict server went down. It should be up soon.


----------



## Frenchyled (Dec 15, 2006)

I never look into the rings...only in the center of the beam 
Thanks for this info David


----------



## EngrPaul (Dec 15, 2006)

Can they do a MOP finish on the existing reflector and show us how the beamshot compares to stock?

The XR-E definitely needs smoothing.


----------



## LouRoy (Dec 15, 2006)

Way too much has been made about the rings in the beam of the P1D CE. Yes, they are visible on a white wall. But take it out into the field and they are not visible at all. They have absolutely no affect on the beam or usefulness of this light in the real world. Kudos to all involved in producing this VERY BRIGHT light!!


----------



## smokelaw1 (Dec 15, 2006)

4Sevens, 

With all due respect, sir....all of the engineers and scinetific testing is worthless to me. There is still one glaring issue that makes the P1D-CE the least usefull light in my collection. There is no way you will be able to post away this terrible failure.


That failure is: Mine is still on pre-order. LOL! I can't wait! From everything I read, this light is EXACTLY what I have been waiting for for a non-keychain back-up light. It will likely out-throw my main EDC light, on high.


----------



## Rando (Dec 15, 2006)

smokelaw1 said:


> 4Sevens,
> 
> With all due respect, sir....all of the engineers and scinetific testing is worthless to me. There is still one glaring issue that makes the P1D-CE the least usefull light in my collection. There is no way you will be able to post away this terrible failure.
> 
> ...



:lolsign:


----------



## X Racer (Dec 15, 2006)

I have no problems with the ring on any of the XR-E lights I have gotten. I believe it is some kind of illusion, maybe because of a tint variation. 

The only problem with the new Fenix seems to be the loose threads.


----------



## javafool (Dec 15, 2006)

I have been using my P1D CE every evening since it arrived and the beam is functionally *excellent* for my outdoor needs. Reading CPF last night I finally had to shine my CE on a wall to see if the rings actually existed since I had not even noticed them in actual use. No issue at all to me.

I think Fenix should be proud of the overall beam on this flashlight. The (loose) threads are a bit of a pain because my light often flickers directly to high when I trun it on. SOS is useless to me. My two minor complaints take this light from an A+ all the way down to an A or maybe A-.

GREAT flashlight overall in my personal opinion!


----------



## TooManyGizmos (Dec 15, 2006)

Mine has a dark oval ring around the corona as I walk down the sidewalk. I don't buy the illusion cop-out.

I would prefer it not be there . I hope they continue working trying to remove it from visual perception .

It may be considered acceptable or tolerable ..... *but really* ..... wouldn't you rather it not be there ????

This is not what I thought a Cree would be ..... the brightness is great ...... but keep working , please .


( I know my opinion is not popular ) ......... TooManyGizmos/
.


----------



## ernsanada (Dec 15, 2006)

Rings on the P1D CE don't bother me. I have way worst rings with luxeon lights like my 1st generation VB-16.


----------



## BVH (Dec 15, 2006)

I love my P1D's and care nothing about rings or perception of rings or no rings at all. It doesn't matter.


----------



## TooManyGizmos (Dec 15, 2006)

.
But Guys ....... how about some improvement as we go along .

Don't continue to consider mediocre as an acceptable standard .

We were all expecting Cree to be a vast improvement .

In brightness it is ............... but thu rings gotta go .

................. TMG/
.


----------



## javafool (Dec 15, 2006)

TooManyGizmos said:


> .
> But Guys ....... how about some improvement as we go along .
> 
> Don't continue to consider mediocre as an acceptable standard .
> ...



I do *not* consider the beam mediocre. The combination of throw, beam diameter and sidespill are ideal for what I need in a flashlight, but that is what I personally desire. The rings in my light are not distracting in the least when I am out in the yard or walking. The strobe is a real attention getter when oncoming cars approach and quite visable when pointed forward at the pavement.

The slop in the threads are an inconvenience to me and I will never use the SOS mode. It sure is a lot more flashlight in a smaller, lighter, package at a lower price than the HDS I bought at closeout prices.

Terry


----------



## ViReN (Dec 15, 2006)

How about some LOP reflector lights?

P1D with a LOP Reflector would be kool 

That's only area where Fenix apparently is laking behind....

Premium lights should have those sort of reflectors.


----------



## Badbeams3 (Dec 15, 2006)

I agree, rings gotta go. Smooth it out, widen the hotspot. See if more omph can be put in the spill beam...and wider...Wall of light. Hopefully the AA Cree will be more smooth. 

High powered sports car...that lost the handling when the more powerfull motor was dropped in. Back to the reflector drawing boards mates.


----------



## thk (Dec 15, 2006)

I've noticed the rings when white walling and also noticed the "wires" inside the LED itself casting "shadows". Does it bother me? Not really considering how bright this little bugger is and how much light there is on the spill side. If all those things are remedied, it might actually force me to purchase the next revision but right now, I'm more than satisfied with my P1D-CE.


----------



## PhotonBoy (Dec 15, 2006)

"...the Cree LED’s tint changes slightly and deceives our eyes and it forms a *beingless ring*...."
Interesting phrase :thinking: :laughing:


----------



## TooManyGizmos (Dec 15, 2006)

:laughing:

Some keep *comparing* the P1D CE .... *to* .... the *mediocre* lights of the *past *....which had rings in the beams ... *as if* that's a _standard_ to be *kept* .

Let's move *beyond that* and improve the XR-E beam by removing the ring from it .

Then I think *everyone will be happy* .... and no more complaining .


Did you guys really *not *expect a really nice / evenly blended beam ...... more like a Lux III or Lux V ????

Did you *want it* to have a dark ring in the pattern ............ *I doubt it* .


I'm just asking for improvements ....................... TMG/

.


----------



## Tronic (Dec 15, 2006)

LouRoy said:


> Way too much has been made about the rings in the beam of the P1D CE. Yes, they are visible on a white wall. But take it out into the field and they are not visible at all. They have absolutely no affect on the beam or usefulness of this light in the real world.


+1 

But a LOP Reflector would be cool that you can use the light indoor without rings.


----------



## Badbeams3 (Dec 15, 2006)

TooManyGizmos said:


> :laughing:
> 
> 
> I'm just asking for improvements ....................... TMG/
> ...



I like to think we are just asking for a correction...if these lights were no brighter than a standard light folks would be complaining left and right. Mag lite finally got rid of the ringy beam (somewhat) after a hundred years. And Fenix that had it right at the start...went backward. Orange peel or strippled...it`s that simple. Got to change a bit to work with the Cree`s.


----------



## Whitelitee (Dec 15, 2006)

I think im with 2manygizmos, I can see the rings outside too if im shining it less then 6' . Yes the brightness is cool. But having the usual flawless led beam is more importent and more cool. I dont use full brigtness all the time but I use the beam all the time. I mean its not too bad ecspecaily at distance its fine, but I just wasnt expecting this from them, and would hope fenix is working on resloving the issue and not blow it off. If they come out with a fixed one, I would defiently buy it.
I guess im alittle picky.


----------



## UnknownVT (Dec 15, 2006)

The Fenix P1D-CE is probably one of the most discussed, speculated and investigated lights recently on CPF.

Now that there are several out actually in user's hands the reported dark halo/ring can be seen by many - whether it is a mere "optical illusion" is moot - it can still be seen despite being told it is an illusion.

There are numerous beamshots of the P1D-CE posted on CPF - 
my review 
Fenix P1D-CE comparison Review
has 38 beamshots with the P1D-CE in it alone

Whether it affects anyone materially - can only be the judgement of that individual user - what is important to someone, may mean next to nothing to someone else - that's why YMMV........

Personally, I can still see the dark halo/ring - but it did not bother me in actual use - but I understand if YMMV.

=========

But please consider this.....

The specs for the Fenix P1D-CE are -
72 lumens (2.8hrs) -> 135 lumens (1hrs) -> 12 lumens (21hrs) 

the light has been tested for runtimes and estimated lumens - 

Fenix P1D CE runtimes (link)

The Fenix P1D-CE - 
High - ~111 lumens tested est (135 lumens spec) is brighter than a standard SureFire 9P - ie: good xenon on 3x CR123 
and will run 44mins tested (1 hour spec) on a single CR123A battery.

Medium/default - ~60 lumens tested est (72 lumens spec) is about as bright as a Streamlight Scorpion or SureFure 6P - ie: good xenon 2x CR123A -
but will run 2.5hours tested (2.8hours spec) on a single CR123A

Low - ~17 lumens tested est (12 lumens spec) is brighter than most 1/2 watt and any single 5mm LED light - but will run over 13 hours tested (21 hours spec) on a single CR123A.

Numerous Comparison beamshots with SureFire 9P and Streamlight Scorpion all on page 4 (link) of 

Fenix P1D-CE comparison Review

I think it's amazing these advances in technology........


----------



## TooManyGizmos (Dec 15, 2006)

PhotonBoy said:


> "...the Cree LED’s tint changes slightly and deceives our eyes and it forms a *beingless ring*...."
> Interesting phrase :thinking: :laughing:


:laughing::laughing::laughing:
Yes .......... I thought that was real .. cute .. too .....

I guess he meant " Non - Existant " as a translation on my part .

I don't see it that way ...... ( pun intended )


..................... TMG/
.


----------



## Mike abcd (Dec 15, 2006)

ernsanada said:


> Rings on the P1D CE don't bother me. I have way worst rings with luxeon lights like my 1st generation VB-16.



A piece of WriteRight mono PDA screen protector made my first gen VB-16 beam a lot prettier. It had little effect on total output and less on throw than I expected but made the beam a lot smoother. I don't know if the mono version is still available and evidently the color screen stuff doesn't behave the same.

If the P1D CE beam bugs me, I'll probably try a piece on it. Unfortunately, I wanted a black one and 4-7s seems a lot further behind on those. Folks who ordered a natural after me have already gotten them. Me=#6801 11/29.

Regardless of the cause of the ring and whether a light meter sees an intensity variation, beam shots and user reports show a visual artifact. It's certainly not enough of a reason for me to cancel my order though considering the output vs run time of the P1D CE. The super dumb med-high-low behavior bugs me FAR more but even that didn't stop me from ordering. Nothing like a 100+ lumen blast to kill your light sensitivity when trying to get to the low setting...dumb!

Mike


----------



## TCW 60 (Dec 15, 2006)

Pictures?


----------



## TooManyGizmos (Dec 15, 2006)

.
Hey ........ UnknownVT said : I think it's amazing these advances in technology........

I will agree with that ............

............ TMG/*


----------



## TooManyGizmos (Dec 15, 2006)

TCW 60 said:


> Pictures?



 ....... you want *more* pictures ...... Oh Geez !

from who ??????????

..... TMG/:laughing:
.


----------



## null07 (Dec 15, 2006)

I don't care about rings if any. It's a great light. I don't observe rings, I only use it. Yesterday I got mine and it's definitely my no 1. Thanks a lot 7777


----------



## TCW 60 (Dec 15, 2006)

TooManyGizmos said:


> ....... you want *more* pictures ...... Oh Geez !
> 
> from who ??????????
> 
> ...



The thread starter. I'am waiting for my P1D CE so I have time to look the pictures.
Michael


----------



## TooManyGizmos (Dec 15, 2006)

TCW 60 said:


> The thread starter. I'am waiting for my P1D CE so I have time to look the pictures.
> Michael




I think 4/sevens posted those in his original sales thread , part 1 ...... on the Fenix P1D CE 

Have you looked there ???

................ TMG/
.


----------



## EngrPaul (Dec 15, 2006)

Can we get the white wall police to make a business trip over to China?


----------



## TooManyGizmos (Dec 15, 2006)

:laughing::laughing::laughing:

If you mean ME ............... well .............................. NO .


Besides ........ I've been transfered ..... to sidewalks now .

I'm not doing walls anymore .


................ TMG/:laughing:
.


----------



## TigerhawkT3 (Dec 15, 2006)

I haven't seen any rings at all! Zip! Zero!

...Because I don't have it yet. It hasn't even shipped. 

What would be really nice is Low>Med>High instead of Med>High>Low.


----------



## whippoorwill (Dec 15, 2006)

If someone gave some people on this thread a bar of solid gold, they would be bitching about it being too heavy!

I would suggest the thread on throwing the P1D-CE! If you don't want yours send it to me!


----------



## Calina (Dec 15, 2006)

Here's a thought.

Would there be some space on the circuit to have a jumper or two or a micro switch? With this the user could select the level the light comes on: Jumper in pos. #1 > Low-Med-High; jumper on pos. #2 > High-Med-Low.

Is it feasible?


----------



## Justintoxicated (Dec 15, 2006)

Someone please go Lathe up a nice aluminum reflector upgrade 

I didn't expence the first cree light to have a perfect reflector. Even after years many Lux III's don't have perfect beams... I agree that for a light of it's size more spill / less spot would be an acceptable solution....

My most used light has been my Lion Heart, not because it has a perfect beam but because I can adjust it to any brightness and it's rechargable and bright.

That said I don't have mine yet either


----------



## Boomerang (Dec 15, 2006)

Calina said:


> Here's a thought.
> 
> Would there be some space on the circuit to have a jumper or two or a micro switch? With this the user could select the level the light comes on: Jumper in pos. #1 > Low-Med-High; jumper on pos. #2 > High-Med-Low.
> 
> Is it feasible?



Calina,

I've been wondering about the modes and switching.

I wish it were possible to leave it in the mode you use the most but that would require a separate switch.

Then I thought about another scheme. My binoculars have a dioptrics adjusting knob to focus the lenes for varying left and right vision. It was a pull out (click-stop 1/8" inch), then click-rotate to the desired settting and click push back in to set.

The way this would work on the P1D CE is you would have a notch for off and a notch for each mode. Pull out the head, rotate to the mode you want and push in and it would light up in that mode.

More random access than sequential access as it seems now.

??

Andy


----------



## Robocop (Dec 15, 2006)

Rings or no rings it is truly a nice little light.....Does anyone really expect Fenix to now suddenly stop trying to make a better version.?

They have constantly improved their designs and do seem to listen to us so I believe they will continue to improve on this design starting with the reflector properties. 

They were one of the first to offer us all a slick design using this new Cree and all together in a nice affordable package. Yeah it has a few rings however as fast as Fenix is I will almost bet future designs will be improved somehow.....they really do seem to never stop advancing and I for one really appreciate all their efforts in making my hobby very enjoyable.


----------



## gadgetnerd (Dec 15, 2006)

David at torchworld.com.au also received the feedback and pics from Fenix, which he kindly forwarded to me. Since 4Seven's pix aren't working, take a look at them here:

http://home.alphalink.com.au/~twallis/misc/FenixP1DCE_Radiation_Pattern.gif

http://home.alphalink.com.au/~twallis/misc/FenixP1DCE_Radiation_Pattern2.jpg

You may or may not agree with Fenix but at least they're listening to customers.


----------



## Badbeams3 (Dec 15, 2006)

Robocop said:


> Rings or no rings it is truly a nice little light.....Does anyone really expect Fenix to now suddenly stop trying to make a better version.?
> 
> They have constantly improved their designs and do seem to listen to us so I believe they will continue to improve on this design starting with the reflector properties.
> 
> They were one of the first to offer us all a slick design using this new Cree and all together in a nice affordable package. Yeah it has a few rings however as fast as Fenix is I will almost bet future designs will be improved somehow.....they really do seem to never stop advancing and I for one really appreciate all their efforts in making my hobby very enjoyable.



Well said. And very true. Fenix really has kept the hobbie fun, never know whats around the corner...only that it will be better...and better.


----------



## LightBright (Dec 15, 2006)

Just got mine about 20 minutes ago.... never had a twisty head flashlight before so I don't know how much the threads should be dragging as I twist it. So far I get a better result if I use both hands, as one handed, it seems to not reliably make contact every time, and I end up about 2 modes ahead of where I wanted to be.

I have some idea of how the output would look, because I've already had some raw P2 bins to play with.

YEP, the ring is there. I'm totally sure it's because of the type of reflector. I have one almost EXACTLY like it for my McLux (which now has a XR-E in it). I have at least 3 choices of reflectors I can use: None (bare LED), a NX-05 optic, and a "flood" metal reflector that's just a tad less deep-dished than the Fenix reflector.

When I use the optic, NO RING. When I use the metal reflector - ring ring!
Do I notice it out in the backyard? Nope. If it's an optical illusion, why does it appear in camera photos as well?

I think an textured reflector curved to match the properties of the Cree will be the way to go.

I like testing output with the "ceiling bounce" method, although I noticed my readings are affected by how tight the beam is. On the medium mode, it's about the same as my Cree setup at about 350ma or so. On high mode, I have to drive mine at about 800 to 900 ma to get the same result. The low mode takes less than 100ma. The high mode is indeed a battery and flashlight stress inducer.


----------



## EngrPaul (Dec 15, 2006)

gadgetnerd said:


> David at torchworld.com.au also received the feedback and pics from Fenix, which he kindly forwarded to me. Since 4Seven's pix aren't working, take a look at them here:
> 
> http://home.alphalink.com.au/~twallis/misc/FenixP1DCE_Radiation_Pattern.gif
> 
> ...


 
WOW. It really IS an optical illusion! Load the JPG above. Place a piece of paper over most of the beamshot. Slowly move the paper to uncover more of the beamshot. The intensity level where the paper exposes the beam continually increases! It's only after you look back at the region you already uncovered that the rings appear!


----------



## Stingray (Dec 15, 2006)

Yeah, you're right, it is.


----------



## TooManyGizmos (Dec 15, 2006)

.
Is not

Go try to make it go away out on a sidewalk , in a real-world test .

.


----------



## EngrPaul (Dec 15, 2006)

TMG,

When I apply the same procedure to a beam on my ceiling, I can sense a very slight drop-off before it gets brighter. But it isn't as significant as if I look at the beam alone.

Everybody,

Wouldn't it be cool if Fenix used an orange peel lens to help distribute some extra light to this area? Whether the drop in output is really occuring, or our eyes are not able to see reflected light in this region of the beam... it doesn't matter! 

Considering the flashlight is being used for illumination responded to by the human eye and brain:

THE FLASHLIGHT SHOULD BE DESIGNED PRODUCE A PROGRESSIVE GRADIENT OF LIGHT TO OUR HUMAN EYES REGARDLESS OF COMPUTER MEASURED INTENSITY.


----------



## TooManyGizmos (Dec 15, 2006)

.
I'll buy that 

.


----------



## aceo07 (Dec 15, 2006)

LightBright said:


> If it's an optical illusion, why does it appear in camera photos as well?



The camera captures what's actually there. Your brain/eyes help you to perceive what is actually there. The photo will also contain what's actually there, but once again your brain/eye has to do its magic to help you 'see'. Sometimes it interfers and makes you seem things that aren't actually there.

I haven't really had time to look closely at the beam pictures. I'm sure it's possible to alter the pictures so that the you can see the beam for what it is, without the illusions.


----------



## gadgetnerd (Dec 15, 2006)

EngrPaul said:


> Considering the flashlight is being used for illumination responded to by the human eye and brain:
> 
> THE FLASHLIGHT SHOULD BE DESIGNED PRODUCE A PROGRESSIVE GRADIENT OF LIGHT TO OUR HUMAN EYES REGARDLESS OF COMPUTER MEASURED INTENSITY.



Well said.


----------



## wacbzz (Dec 15, 2006)

4sevens said:


> As a result of this, there is a “dark ring” in the P1D CE’s beam while you shoot it on the *snow-white wall*.


I find this most interesting because the ring appears not only on the white wall in my bedroom, but also on the *blue* wall in my home office, the *yellow* wall in my bathroom, and the *wood-paneling* wall in the kitchen at my workplace. Hmmmm 




4sevens said:


> As a matter of fact, it is just a visual illusion as per our testing and objective analysis.


Well, duh:shakehead Did anybody expect anything different from the people who designed the light??

And finally, where are these "official" Fenix photos and what will they show? No rings? Would anybody be surprised????:thumbsdow


----------



## TooManyGizmos (Dec 16, 2006)

It appears , that none of our experimenters , as of yet , have been able to determine how to dis-assemble the head of the P1D CE to do experimentation on the focal point of the reflector ????

Maybe the reflector needs to be ice cream cone shaped ..... or maybe bowl shaped . Possibly a combination of the two ???

Maybe the Fenix reflector just needs to be moved forward - or rearward , I have several lights that were improved by doing that .

But I don't see how to access the reflector for testing . Can someone tell me how to do that ????

I don't see why a research/development laboratory can't easily find the optimum reflector shape to focus the beam .

If they can't ..... then maybe the clear dome of the emitter needs to be re-shaped to work in conjunction with the reflector ???

There has to be a focusing solution . If there is not ... then why wasn't the Cree emitter considered a failure of design ???

Even the Hubble telescope got it's focal problems resolved after a manufacturing error .......... this is a simple flashlight .

I will experiment with mine ............ if I can get the head apart .

Has anyone else made an attempt ???


.................. TMG/
.


----------



## ViReN (Dec 16, 2006)

EngrPaul said:


> Considering the flashlight is being used for illumination responded to by the human eye and brain:
> 
> *THE FLASHLIGHT SHOULD BE DESIGNED PRODUCE A PROGRESSIVE GRADIENT OF LIGHT TO OUR HUMAN EYES REGARDLESS OF COMPUTER MEASURED INTENSITY.*



Emphasis is mine.
well said... I also was wondering same in *this *thread let me quote here...




> *Illusion or not, what people prefer to view is a good smooth transition to eyes.*
> 
> Fenix Reflector (for Cree XR-E) does not do this job. where as Fenix Luxeon Based Reflector does the job and thats the brutal fact. Why Over Analyze things?.. just to support claims that it is linear drop?
> 
> ...




Adopting LOP would be more expensive as compared with current ringy reflector.... I don't buy that.:thumbsdow

It's not the problem of these getting expensive with use of LOP Reflector, How could *Nuwai QIII could still do it for *_$28_* a light???
There's more machining to whole of the light as compared to the Fenix P1D CE
*
I love Fenix Lights, I really had high expectations with P1D CE...


----------



## ViReN (Dec 16, 2006)

The irony is that the Fenix L0P, L2P and Civictor V1 that i have are really great in terms of beam quality (especially at distances more than 1 feet)
Agreed, Fenix E1 (that i have) has ringy beam, but then it's a $23 Light, not $70 from Fenix.


----------



## Concept (Dec 16, 2006)

I can't believe how big an issue this has become. It is a great light and at a good value compared to its capabillities.


----------



## ViReN (Dec 16, 2006)

Concept said:


> I can't believe how big an issue this has become. It is a great light and at a good value compared to its capabillities.



It is in deed a great light, but this has become an issue because of peoples (me included) expectations from Fenix.

As of now what I have been reading is Fenix P1D has following scope for improvement
1) Beam Quality: ringy Beam (it had been excellent in all other fenix that I have)
2) Threads Quality: Loose threads (never seen loose threads on any of fenix lights that I have)
3) Heat Management (Other Fenixes didnt get HOT)
4) Current Draw (Others Fenixes have Proportionate Current Draw, never crossed more than 1.5A at most)

Irony is other Fenix are cheaper and better, New Fenix is expensive and having issues... isnt that simple and clear enough?

They have discontinued real sweet products like Fenix L2P.. it had such a strong construction... the LxS Series and LxT Series are simple round tubes, having thinner walls... 

Civictor V1... is WOW... simple strong and robust construction... I fear that they might discontinue it too, instead of re-introducing the same construction and quality with Cree XR-E series .... Fenix (apperently) is getting loose on quality & getting expensive too....

How long... till another manufacturer takes over? .. JetBeam, LumaPower, HuntLight, UltraFire... are all in queue, and just waiting... perhaps Nuwai might just Revive itself with a new breed of Cree based lights.

I feel, It's high time, fenix live up to cpfer's expectations...


----------



## Erasmus (Dec 16, 2006)

Amen to that, Viren!


----------



## ViReN (Dec 16, 2006)

wow... now what.. people are "Throwing P1D CE".... how long can _you_ Throw P1D CE?
https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/144718


----------



## easilyled (Dec 16, 2006)

I am very happy with this light overall.

Fortunately for me the threads are not loose on the light and its
very bright and white.

There is definitely a ring that surrounds the hotspot and detracts a
little from the beam. This can be seen outdoors too, and when the
"ring" is placed over a bush, the bush looks dark, so it does impact on
"real life situations"

The simplest way to solve the problem would be to design a head around
a McGizmo XRE reflector because these *don't * have these rings
in them

A reflector with the same shape and stipple as the McR17XRE should do 
the trick and help to keep the light small.


----------



## PhotonBoy (Dec 16, 2006)

Rings or not, I'm planning on buying this light. I'm impressed by Fenix' ability to speed products to the market and I'm willing to put up with relatively minor issues like rings, etc. Perfection will follow in a year or two when the dust has settled.


----------



## TooManyGizmos (Dec 17, 2006)

P1D CE,natural ... tried to open the head with 2 strap wrenches .... no joy .

It seems the PCB pill may be screwed into the head .

There appears to be a washer/O-ring just at the base of the head to seal it .

It must be glued together ....... cause I can't get it to budge .

Has anyone had better luck opening it ..... to experiment with the focus depth of the reflector ?

Who is trying to find the cause of the dark ring in the beam ???

...................... TMG/
.


----------



## wacbzz (Dec 17, 2006)

Interesting. We still can's see the "official" Fenix beamshots...


----------



## TooManyGizmos (Dec 17, 2006)

:naughty:

Title of thread : *Fenix Engineers analyze the P1D CE's beam*
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

* robocop's post #43* .... His opening remarks :

Rings or no rings it is truly a nice little light.....
Does anyone really expect Fenix to now suddenly stop trying to make a better version.?

They have constantly improved their designs and do seem to listen to us so 
I believe they will continue to improve on this design starting with the reflector properties.

----------------------------------------------------------------


* Yes ... I do* ... "really expect Fenix to now suddenly stop trying to make a better version".. as you said .

In post number 1 , they are defending their ringy creation and trying to tell us it has "beingless ring" , 
and the end of their first sentence says "there are no rings." .

Then they say ... "... we could reduce this ringy visual illusion " . Their own words contradict each other .

* Their purpose* for creating this thread ... was to say to us ... *This is* the *Report* on *our* analysis of the beam ..... not to say they .. will ...or ... will continue ......* to* analize the beam .


So it appears to me .... *they are done* . This is the best they are going to do .

They want us to beleive it's an illusion .... so they can move on .

I am dissapointed they handled it this way .


.................... TMG/:scowl:


----------



## LightBright (Dec 17, 2006)

Fenix - put a textured reflector in it and your Dark Ring problem will likely go away.


----------



## Skyline (Dec 17, 2006)

LightBright said:


> Fenix - put a textured reflector in it and your Dark Ring problem will likely go away.



And then people will complain about the inefficient reflector and ask why not a smooth reflector.


----------



## LightBright (Dec 17, 2006)

Well that's why I like my McLux - I can switch between a smooth metal reflector, various acrylic optics, or a textured reflector depending on the circumstances.


----------



## RonnieBarlow (Dec 17, 2006)

Thanks for the info, 4sevens.


----------



## ViReN (Dec 17, 2006)

Today I recieved P4 Bin CE's, I can assure you, it's really not that difficult to get a Smooth Beam. and the transition.

Check out My very Personal Fenix E1 CE ... https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/145015


----------



## matrixshaman (Dec 17, 2006)

LightBright said:


> If it's an optical illusion, why does it appear in camera photos as well?



Because you CAN photograph optical illusions. People are greatly underestimating or not understanding the power of the illusion. If you haven't read Newbie's thread on the hot spot halo and looked at the links he has of the illusions you don't get the full impact of this concept. I had to print out one of the illusions and cut out the gray squares and lay them side by side to convince myself (and my wife who was saying 'NO WAY' are those the same shade) to see that indeed they were the same. If you want to see a ring there just realize it is not darker than the area beyond the ring but is simply a faster dropoff in light than a Lux III would have with a typical reflector. I really don't see that as a bad thing - just something that might require an adjustment in 'Expectations'. And I'm not talking about lowering your expectations but just considering something different than what you may be used to. And Yes an optic can eliminate the rings as I did in one mod but I don't consider an optic to be the best setup. Can we ask for it to be better - yes of course but in the mean time I for one am very happy with the P1D CE and look forward to more Cree based lights.


----------



## Boomerang (Dec 17, 2006)

ViReN said:


> wow... now what.. people are "Throwing P1D CE".... how long can _you_ Throw P1D CE?
> https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/144718



ViReN,

I started that thread. I was just trying to come up with a catchy thread title. The message clearly states the obvious, about the throw OF the P1D CE.

The first two respondents saw the humor in the title and it just snowballed in that direction.

I even played along.

I sure hope nobody actually throws a shiny new P1D CE! 

All the best,

Andy


----------



## ViReN (Dec 17, 2006)

Boomerang said:


> ViReN,
> 
> I started that thread. I was just trying to come up with a catchy thread title. The message clearly states the obvious, about the throw OF the P1D CE.
> 
> ...



Andy, Thanks for clarifying. First page showed some one posting wrist Rockets.... there on... i thought, people are actually making fun of either the poster or the Light considering it's beam quality.


----------



## EngrPaul (Dec 17, 2006)

Now that I have several Cree lights, here is another trick. 

Overlap two beams side by side so that their spill merges. Where the spill of the combined spill ends and only one spill is left, there is a dark ring.

Of course, this dark ring could not be present, unless the beam of one flashlight sucks the light out of the other flashlight's beam.

Is this illusion specifically due to the Cree, or have we never really noticed, because we have never seen this much spill before?


----------



## UnknownVT (Dec 18, 2006)

*EngrPaul* wrote: _"Now that I have several Cree lights, here is another trick. _
_Overlap two beams side by side so that their spill merges. Where the spill of the combined spill ends and only one spill is left, there is a dark ring._
_Of course, this dark ring could not be present, unless the beam of one flashlight sucks the light out of the other flashlight's beam._
_Is this illusion specifically due to the Cree, or have we never really noticed, because we have never seen this much spill before?"_

You mean like this?






See Post #*100* on page 4 of the thread -

New Fenix Digital Series! P1D and P1D CE with Cree XR-E !! Part 2

_EDIT to ADD -_ 
However I can assure you this overlapping side-spill dark edge is _NOT_ limited to the Cree - 
here are some Luxeons - LuxIII and Lux1 overlapping, and showing this dark edging.....


----------



## Tachion (Dec 18, 2006)

TooManyGizmos said:


> It appears , that none of our experimenters , as of yet , have been able to determine how to dis-assemble the head of the P1D CE to do experimentation on the focal point of the reflector ????


I could have sworn I saw some pictures of a disassembled P1D here on CPF…but I’ll be darned if I can find the post now. 

Annyway... the general issue in the thread I remember reading was that the contact between the aluminum head and the inner cupper “thing” that holds the LED got loose when the light was used. The different heat expansion properties of aluminum and cupper seemed to cause the problem. Both electrical and heat conductivity became an issue when the inner cupper thing got unscrewed.

I wish I had the link... but right now it seems like I just may have dreamed it all up… :sigh: although it seems a bit overly detailed for something I would just dream up.:thinking: … or it might just be about some other light.


----------



## greenLED (Dec 18, 2006)

You know... those graphs've got me thinking... the legendary "donut hole" in the U2 may very well be a wild child of wall hunters. Has anybody done the same light profile measurements with a donut-enabled U2? :thinking: I'd be very interested in seeing the results.


----------



## NewBie (Dec 18, 2006)

I just swept a KL4 with the typical Surefire donut, and got 96 lux on the hot edge of the donut and 84 in the center of the donut (beam center). One thing that helps to emphasize the donut is that the tint shifts to yellow in the center.


----------



## nekomane (Dec 18, 2006)

Tachion, maybe the pic I posted here?


----------



## EngrPaul (Dec 18, 2006)

Thanks for the pictures Vincent! That's exactly what I was talking about.


----------



## LightBright (Dec 18, 2006)

So why is nekomane's "I backed it off a 1/4 turn" flashlight now not showing the dark ring?


----------



## aileron (Dec 18, 2006)

I got my P1D-CE today. I ordered it based on the output/runtime before I heard talk of the rings. First of all let me say I like the light. Threads are fine. Just about the perfect size- any smaller and it would be impossible to use one-handed. I have the same issue as others regarding the interface- premature intermittant contact resulting in a level other than Primary on the first activation.

As for the ring-
By holding my hand in front of my face to obscure the beam and slowly moving it away, I can see that the intersection between flood and spot are quite smooth. Once I'm focused on the intersection for a few moments, a faint ring appears.

I'm no photonic guru, but that would appear to be an optical illusion rather than the result of an area of lower output.

I believe the phenomena seen above when two lights intersect is an example of destructive interference- the photons (behaving as waves) merge and cancel each other out. Due to the anomaly not being constant (I think interference should be in this case) I believe this is not the cause for the P1D CE's beam anomaly- I'm not entirely sure the effect is possible with a single nearly point-based source. I would lean towards the common issue of our brain's preprocessing of visual data giving us an inaccurate rendering.

Someone asked why the effect occurs in photographs- you are using the same faulty visual mechanisms to observe the picture as you are the original effect. On examining the intensity values of a beamshot in an editing program one finds there is no large fluctuation in brightness- to one with accurate perceptual filters the ring does not exist.

Personally I'm wondering why this effect apparently occurs only in the P1D CE. I've run a bare emitter through a 20mm IMS and it showed no such artifacts.


----------



## wojtek_pl (Dec 18, 2006)

aileron said:


> [...]
> Personally I'm wondering why this effect apparently occurs only in the P1D CE. I've run a bare emitter through a 20mm IMS and it showed no such artifacts.


Could it be, because of the intensity of the hot spot ? And very rapid change from very bright hotspot to quite dark corona ?


----------



## PANZERWOLF (Dec 18, 2006)

LightBright said:


> So why is nekomane's "I backed it off a 1/4 turn" flashlight now not showing the dark ring?


because the hotspot is less focused and therefore wide enough to overlap the dark ring, going into the yellow tinted ring (part of which you can still see outside of the hotspot)
throw will be a tad less, but i would prefer the beam like this
(still waiting for a AA versions)
the yellow ring seems unaffected by moving the reflector, so it must be a part of the beam which doesn't even hit the reflector


----------



## 4sevens (Dec 18, 2006)

Here is an idea I've been wanting to try but won't have time until after this week.
take a shot of the P1D CE beam but put a matte black piece of paper such that
the hotspot hits the corner of the black piece of paper. Take multiple shots with
the paper in different positions. I've done that with my hand and the rings
fade out as my hand blocks the hotspot. It's very interesting to say the least.


----------



## Boomerang (Dec 18, 2006)

4sevens said:


> Here is an idea I've been wanting to try but won't have time until after this week.
> take a shot of the P1D CE beam but put a matte black piece of paper such that
> the hotspot hits the corner of the black piece of paper. Take multiple shots with
> the paper in different positions. I've done that with my hand and the rings
> fade out as my hand blocks the hotspot. It's very interesting to say the least.



No science here but...

If 1,000 people are looking at the same P1D CE beam in a real world observation and 990 people see a ring and 10 don't, it's safe to say it's not an illusion.

That "mabye" equates to the number of owners of the flashlight compared to the number of Fenix engineers reporting in.

Fenix: put some eyedrops in your eyes. Drink some water.

HA!

Andy


----------



## wojtek_pl (Dec 18, 2006)

OK. I got mine. And it's ringy... But I'm A MAN, I can live with it.  Thanks 4sevens !


----------



## Boomerang (Dec 18, 2006)

wojtek_pl said:


> OK. I got mine. And it's ringy... But I'm A MAN, I can live with it.  Thanks 4sevens !



"One ringy-dingy... two ringy-dingy... [font=Arial, Helvetica]A gracious good morning to you... Have I reached the party to whom I am speaking?"
--"Ernestine[/font]", Lily Tomlin, "Laugh-In"

:lolsign:

Andy


----------



## EngrPaul (Dec 18, 2006)




----------



## N162E (Dec 18, 2006)

wojtek_pl said:


> OK. I got mine. And it's ringy... But I'm A MAN, I can live with it.  Thanks 4sevens !


I dont't have mine yet but, I hope its full of rings the more the better. I want to see rings on all colored walls and also out in the real world, if its not full of rings I am going to send it back. I will also be able to live with it the way it is. I realize that some of you Double OT spies out there need perfection, as you see it. I will enjoy mine the way it is.   :laughing:


----------



## Boomerang (Dec 18, 2006)

EngrPaul said:


>








So?

Andy


----------



## wojtek_pl (Dec 18, 2006)

I SEE SPOTS... LOTS OF SPOTS... HELP... !!!



Oh man... I shouldn't strobe myself with P1D-CE...


----------



## NutSAK (Dec 18, 2006)

Boomerang said:


> If 1,000 people are looking at the same P1D CE beam in a real world observation and 990 people see a ring and 10 don't, it's safe to say it's not an illusion.



Could you explain to me why it's safe to say that?


----------



## wojtek_pl (Dec 18, 2006)

Well... 10 000 lemmings throwing itself of the cliff cannot be wrong...  Vox populi, vox Dei, you know...


----------



## TooManyGizmos (Dec 18, 2006)

wojtek_pl said:


> Well... 10 000 lemmings throwing itself of the cliff cannot be wrong...  Vox populi, vox Dei, you know...



... Yeah .... thats what happened in the last Election !!

.


----------



## Boomerang (Dec 18, 2006)

NutSAK said:


> Could you explain to me why it's safe to say that?



After we have a few sets of 1000 viewers, I will!

Andy


----------



## UnknownVT (Dec 18, 2006)

*Boomerang* wrote: _"No science here but..._
_If 1,000 people are looking at the same P1D CE beam in a real world observation and 990 people see a ring and 10 don't, it's safe to say it's not an illusion._
_That "mabye" equates to the number of owners of the flashlight compared to the number of Fenix engineers reporting in."_

Healthy cynicism is sometimes useful -

BUT the problem is that sometimes most people do see optical illusions -
A very good example is the chess board illusion -
posted by lexina in Post #*21* of this thread -
Hot Spot Halo

which I'll re-post here -





despite the fact I know it's an optical illusion - I still persist in seeing square A as darker than square B (they are in fact the same shade) - I would hazard that the majority of people see it the same way....

So, in the case of this chess board illusion it's probably safe to say if 1,000 people were looking at this chess board - probably 990 people (if not more) will see square A as darker than square B - vs. maybe 10 people (if that) who don't - 

so where does this leave us?

I agree even if the dark halo/ring is an optical illusion - 
it _CAN_ be seen by most people.

Even though I am cynical too - 
IMHO I really don't think the Fenix engineers are trying to pull a fast one -
since P1D-CE is such a well discussed and investigated case here on CPF.


----------



## Max (Dec 18, 2006)

I just tried convincing myself about the ring by taking slices through the images showing the ring and plotting them in Excel. Believe it or not, the ring seems not to be a darker area. Starting from the outside, the brightness gradually increases. It then levels off for a bit and then shoots up at the endge of the hotspot. The "dark ring" is the area of flat brightness.


----------



## Thujone (Dec 18, 2006)

Max said:


> I just tried convincing myself about the ring by taking slices through the images showing the ring and plotting them in Excel. Believe it or not, the ring seems not to be a darker area. Starting from the outside, the brightness gradually increases. It then levels off for a bit and then shoots up at the endge of the hotspot. The "dark ring" is the area of flat brightness.



I think that just unfocusing the hotspot a bit is going to be the answer on this. As you have seen in shots where the reflector has been moved.


----------



## Art Vandelay (Dec 18, 2006)

Personally, if I want to see a perfect beam on a white wall I’ll use my perfect AmiLite Neo T3. I want the most throw and the most possible for an outdoor light. If the beam can be tweaked that’s great. But I’m _not_ willing to pay the price with throw or lumens. Whether you use a diffuser window, a heavily stippled reflector, or just you defocus the light, you have to pay a price with the light’s throw.


----------



## Boomerang (Dec 18, 2006)

UnknownVT said:


> *Boomerang* wrote: _"No science here but..._
> _If 1,000 people are looking at the same P1D CE beam in a real world observation and 990 people see a ring and 10 don't, it's safe to say it's not an illusion._
> _That "mabye" equates to the number of owners of the flashlight compared to the number of Fenix engineers reporting in."_
> 
> ...



You swallowed the illusion mistake!

It's not the squares that match, it's the letters "A" and "B" that match.

You've been led astray!!!

And YOU'RE the experts???

YIKES!

Ya BUMS!!!

Andy


----------



## UnknownVT (Dec 18, 2006)

*Boomerang* wrote: _"You swallowed the illusion mistake!_

_It's not the squares that match, it's the letters "A" and "B" that match._

_You've been led astray!!!_

_And YOU'RE the experts???_

_YIKES!_

_Ya BUMS!!!_

_Andy"_

Thanks for your very obvious sarcasm - 
that was not called for in any civil discussion - 
I did not mean any disrespect to you.....
and worded my post very carefully to avoid that.

However - please look at this page -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same_color_illusion

reproduced from that page -
=============================



 


Squares A and B are the same color.



 


As the cylinder's shadow forms square B appears to lighten.

=============================

The Wikipedia page says it's the Squares (not the letters) that are the same shade.

One can see this demonstrated on the "animated" image page at -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Optical.greysquares.arp.gif

where it's demonstarted by showing the two *squares *first - for direct comparison, then the rest of the chess board is filled in......

Here's that animated GIF image -


----------



## Boomerang (Dec 18, 2006)

UnknownVT said:


> *Boomerang* wrote: _"You swallowed the illusion mistake!_
> 
> _It's not the squares that match, it's the letters "A" and "B" that match._
> 
> ...



Excuse me if I don't agree. I didn't agree with the first person who put forth the illusion and I never fell for any further illusion that it was a human failure of the eye.

You can explain it otherwise.

Andy


----------



## wojtek_pl (Dec 18, 2006)

I say that this ring is there, whether it's an illusion or not. I guess its because 75 degree beam of Cree LED and we can't do anything about it apart from waiting for an upgraded version. So for now all you people should stop yelling at each other and :grouphug: .

So... I suggest to relax, drink a cup of a tea or something :buddies: and enjoy Christmas (and under any circumstances do not shine your new flashlight at white wall !) 
It's new, it's shiny, it's powerful, it's... affordable. So stop complaining and enjoy what you have. Just imagine that how much you saved by NOT buying HDS or Mr. Bulk Chameleon and be happy.

Ahhh... well... I must drink something, I'm being sentimental...


----------



## UnknownVT (Dec 18, 2006)

*Boomerang* wrote: _"Excuse me if I don't agree. I didn't agree with the first person who put forth the illusion and I never fell for any further illusion that it was a human failure of the eye._

_You can explain it otherwise._

_Andy"_

If it's of any use/help - I took the image in Post #*98* above - 
cropped the two Square A & B in question, and placed them side-by-side - 
other than the cropping and pasting I have _NOT_ done any manipulation or editting to change the shade of the squares -


----------



## aileron (Dec 18, 2006)

Boomerang said:


> Excuse me if I don't agree. I didn't agree with the first person who put forth the illusion and I never fell for any further illusion that it was a human failure of the eye.
> 
> You can explain it otherwise.
> 
> Andy



Optical illusions occur as a result of the brain's processing of visual data. They are an unavoidable consequence of our imperfect senses.
It is logically obvious that the ring is an optical illusion- lightmeters and cameras indicate no drop in output and the effect is reduced or removed when the image is partially obscured. There is nothing to fall for, this is a very well understood phenomena. You may choose to deny this, but such denials have no effect on reality.


----------



## LowBat (Dec 18, 2006)

wojtek_pl said:


> I SEE SPOTS... LOTS OF SPOTS... HELP... !!!
> Oh man... I shouldn't strobe myself with P1D-CE...


Any rings or artifacts in the spots you see?


----------



## greenLED (Dec 18, 2006)

NewBie said:


> I just swept a KL4 with the typical Surefire donut, and got 96 lux on the hot edge of the donut and 84 in the center of the donut (beam center). One thing that helps to emphasize the donut is that the tint shifts to yellow in the center.


:thanks: Newbie. 

So, if the donut hole in the L4 (and possibly other LuxV lights) is in fact an actual drop in light output (explanations for which are not satisfactory yet, to me at least), and not an optical illusion as it's being put forth here, what causes the darker ring in the Fenix light?

Quite possibly the nature of a LuxV's optical properties are different from an XR-E, but I'd still like independent verification that the pattern in the graph is what's being shown.

Aileron, couldn't agree more.


Edit to add:
Since I'm stuck on donuts today, check out lightrod's independent lux/angle readings for XR-E's and the L4.


----------



## PANZERWOLF (Dec 18, 2006)

UnknownVT said:


> BUT the problem is that sometimes most people do see optical illusions -
> A very good example is the chess board illusion -
> posted by lexina in Post #*21* of this thread -
> Hot Spot Halo


ok, and now please all of you stop that illusion stuff, we know now that optical illusions exist, and how tricky they can be
but in you read a little further in the thread you linked to, for example on to post 48 http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1729408&postcount=48 you can see that the increase in brightness when going from the dark to the yellowish tinted ring is indeed measurable, and the effect is even increased by the human eye's better perception of yellow when compared to blue
so even if the illusion enhances the effect, it's still in a physical way there and real
whether or not it's strong enough to stop people from buying it is their own decison, but please stop saying it's all only an illusion ...


----------



## easilyled (Dec 18, 2006)

Whether this ring is partly an illusion or not seems irrelevant to me.
It still appears to be there.

Its not as if this is the case with all Cree XR-E beams and its inevitable.

My A19-XRE and XR19-C both use the McR19XRE reflector and there
is virtually *no* discernible halo using this reflector.

Don Mcleish (aka McGizmo) seems to be able to design reflectors that
don't have halos in them (or the barest minimum)

So therefore it *its definitely possible to mimise the halo * 

Surely that's all that's relevant - whether an illusion or not.


----------



## HiltiHome (Dec 18, 2006)

A german guy posted this pic in messerforum:





I don't care whether the rings are an optical illusion or not; the rings look ugly...


----------



## EngrPaul (Dec 18, 2006)

There are rings, and there is an illusion. We don't have to decide, both are present to some degree. It is up to the manufacturers to come up with a better compromise.


----------



## greenLED (Dec 18, 2006)

EngrPaul said:


> There are rings, and there is an illusion. We don't have to decide, both are present to some degree. It is up to the manufacturers to come up with a better compromise.


Excellent thought, Paul. I agree this might be one of those instances where arguing "or" is pointless, when what we have is "and".


----------



## HiltiHome (Dec 18, 2006)

I have made up my mind not to buy one of those, as long as the illusion exists

Some other manufacturers will bring out lights, that don't need to fool yourself.


----------



## Somy Nex (Dec 18, 2006)

hmm... it's sure interesting to see how far Fenix has come as a manufacturer.

although there was much discontent amongst the local denizens directed at Surefire for its U2, it never quite reached the levels we are seeing for the P1D CE.

Yet, aside from the obvious size/brightness/reflector/price comparisons & differences, Fenix never promised us a "perfect flawless" beam (at least it's not a selling point in their literature), while Surefire does.


----------



## UnknownVT (Dec 18, 2006)

*PANZERWOLF* wrote: _"ok, and now please all of you stop that illusion stuff_
_but please stop saying it's all only an illusion ..."_

I think you may have taken my post out of context - 
I did not say it was only an optical illusion - 
I was using the the example of an illusion to show that even if 990 people out of 1,000 sees something it does not necessarily make it not an illusion.

I have always maintained I could see the rings - 
to me, whether it is an optical illusion or not - or one that's enhanced by an optical illusion - is moot -
for practical purposes - I can see the dark halo - even when I know it may be (partly) due to an optical illusion.

and I have always said it is up to the individual to judge whether it is important for them or not - as they say YMMV.


----------



## wacbzz (Dec 18, 2006)

I hate to keep repeating myself, but its now 3 days after the inital post and we still can't see the "official" Fenix photos....:thinking:


----------



## lexina (Dec 18, 2006)

wacbzz, you can check out post #44 by gadgetnerd.


----------



## UnknownVT (Dec 18, 2006)

*wacbzz *wrote: _"I hate to keep repeating myself, but its now 3 days after the inital post and we still can't see the "official" Fenix photos....






"_

It appears that you may have missed gadgetnerd's Post #*44* on Page 2 of this thread - where he posted alternate links to the pics. -

*gadgetnerd* wrote: _"David at torchworld.com.au also received the feedback and pics from Fenix, which he kindly forwarded to me. Since 4Seven's pix aren't working, take a look at them here:_

_http://home.alphalink.com.au/~twallis/misc/FenixP1DCE_Radiation_Pattern.gif_

_http://home.alphalink.com.au/~twallis/misc/FenixP1DCE_Radiation_Pattern2.jpg__ "_


----------



## wacbzz (Dec 18, 2006)

Ok-so after seeing their own picture, these engineers still believe that there is no ring? Did I miss this discussion? Sorry if I'm rehashing...5 straight 13 hour days at work. :candle:


----------



## greenLED (Dec 18, 2006)

gadgetnerd said:


> Since 4Seven's pix aren't working, take a look at them here:
> 
> http://home.alphalink.com.au/~twallis/misc/FenixP1DCE_Radiation_Pattern.gif
> 
> http://home.alphalink.com.au/~twallis/misc/FenixP1DCE_Radiation_Pattern2.jpg


What gadgetnerd said; the pics have been available - check those links.


----------



## UnknownVT (Dec 18, 2006)

*lexina* wrote: _"good work, UnknownVT - I was just about to direct wacbzz to the same post."_

*Off-Topic -*

you're amazing lexina.....

I saw my #*120* post at 10:58pm - then greenLED's Post #*122* at 11:00pm -

so how did you manage to post _BEFORE_ either of us in #*119* @ 10:55pm - predicting/pre-empting what I and greenLED were _about_ to say






I see wacbzz is also doing it too posting #*121* at 10:59pm - when I clearly saw greenLED's post first......

Are you sure you and wacbzz aren't time-traveling?


----------



## Somy Nex (Dec 18, 2006)

wacbzz said:


> Ok-so after seeing their own picture, these engineers still believe that there is no ring? Did I miss this discussion? Sorry if I'm rehashing...5 straight 13 hour days at work. :candle:



i think they are saying there is no ring. not that they don't see a ring, or that anyone does not see a ring.

the emprical evidence from the graph & gradient chart pretty much proves there is no ring. whether people see one or not, that's really a different story. ever see a heat mirage? such as on a hot day you seem to see a reflection that really isn't there? the mirage doesn't exist, but we still see it. it's like saying no no no i still see the mirage, make it go away!

and yes, i can see "it", but hell if i stare at any hotspot long enough, i start to see a ring around those too. anyway, regardless of whether one can see it or not, this isn't like a stock mag incan beam or something like that, which is painfully obvious and real. 

i really don't see how this is such a big deal. i think the complaint most reasonable people have is against the incan maglite sort of beams which can have obvious downsides. i also can see how one can demand "perfection", illusory or otherwise, from a very expensive custom light, which is more a collectors item than a tool. but honestly, this is a mass produced light. it ain't no custom. how does this very faint illusory dark ring compromise your use for this tool?

sure it can be fixed apparently by a 1/4 turn. but this shows relatively tight tolerances from the very shallow reflector used in the P1D.

sure you can fix it more reliably by a larger/deeper reflector. but this entails a tradeoff in size, and when you consider how the P1x series is among the smallest 1xCR123 light, this will be a huge tradeoff.


----------



## EngrPaul (Dec 18, 2006)

"There is no spoon."


----------



## Outdoors Fanatic (Dec 18, 2006)

Next thing we'll be hearing around here is that the loose threads are all illusions too... "It's in your head! Get some help"

The CE on this Fenix stands for _*Copperfield Edition*_, fools...:laughing:


----------



## windstrings (Dec 19, 2006)

anybody that tries to use that bright of a light that close and wants the beam to be perfect is not being realistic?.. Can you show me "any" light that looks perfect that close that has any real output?

Turn the light down to 12 lumens for that close, meanwhile when you need the throw, the rings won't be there in the distance.

They came out with the most revolutionary light for its time for only 70.00 bucks.... if you want perfection, go spend 2000.00 and it still won't look perfect from 10 feet.

If you don't like the light, don't buy it... continue your search for perfection and good luck and I hope you have tons of money.

Isn't this like getting upset that a high powered rifle causes powder stains from 5 feet away? LOL!


----------



## lexina (Dec 19, 2006)

UnknownVT said:


> *lexina* wrote: _"good work, UnknownVT - I was just about to direct wacbzz to the same post."_
> 
> *Off-Topic -*
> 
> ...


 
No, I didn't time-travel - it's just an illusion! :laughing: 

What happened was, as I was about to respond to wacbzz, I saw your post appear hence I posted what you quoted above, expecting my post to appear AFTER yours. To my surprise, I found that my post somehow ended up BEFORE yours. Hence, to avoid confusing everyone, I edited my post #119 to the current version (for some reason the "Edit" didn't show up at the bottom). Quite elementary, my dear Dr Watson!


----------



## UnknownVT (Dec 19, 2006)

*lexina* wrote: _"No, I didn't time-travel - it's just an illusion!



"_









*lexina* wrote: _"QED, my dear Watson!"_

Staying *Off-Topic* (apologies to those who want to be serious...)

Watson came home to find workmen painting their front door a bright Yellow -
quite out of keeping to the somber Baker Street.

Outraged he complained to Sherlock, who looked kindly at him and said -

"Why, it's a lemon entry, my dear Watson!"........


----------



## gadgetnerd (Dec 19, 2006)

These bloody P1D-CE threads are becoming more and more circular and pointless. I should know: I've tried participating in most of them. 

Group 1: Can see rings in beam (illusions or not), thinks it detracts from an otherwise excellent torch, especially as these rings are not appearing to the same degree in other Cree lights.

Group 2: Can't see them, think torch is excellent.

Group 3: Can see them but don't care and can't understand why anyone else should either. Accuses Group 1 of white wall hunting.

No-one's changing anyone elses opinions here.


----------



## TooManyGizmos (Dec 19, 2006)

Boy ....... ain't that the truth ..... gadgetnerd .... you nailed it !!!

Especially the very last sentence . 


The ones I can't understand .... are the *passive* buyers ... who order "the soup of the day" ... pay for it ... then when it arrives ... they *see* a *fly* in the soup ... but say they don't care ... and eat it anyway ...... with no complaints to the management ................... so the next guy gets a fly in his soup too ........... cause the last guy *accepted* it ..... and thinks you should too .



I'm in exile now . Hiding under my rock for a while , waiting this one out .



................... TMG/:huh:
.


----------



## grapplex (Dec 19, 2006)

...


----------



## Brum (Dec 19, 2006)

grapplex said:


> I think I'll give my money to people who care about my satisfaction more than their own ego's.


Riggghttt. And you have seen the D-Mini? You didn't? Oohh. The Lumapower crew themselves said the D-Mini hasnt got a perfect beam up close (WWH), because they didnt want to sacrifice the real world performance. IMHO its the same with the P1D-CE. There isnt a problem, unless you make it. But I'm looking forward to reviews putting the P1D-CE and D-mini next to eachother.


----------



## Somy Nex (Dec 19, 2006)




----------



## wojtek_pl (Dec 19, 2006)

gadgetnerd said:


> These bloody P1D-CE threads are becoming more and more circular and pointless. I should know: I've tried participating in most of them.
> 
> Group 1: Can see rings in beam (illusions or not), thinks it detracts from an otherwise excellent torch, especially as these rings are not appearing to the same degree in other Cree lights.
> 
> ...


Just put me in the third group.


----------



## gallagho (Dec 19, 2006)

The CE pattern provided by 4Sevens is interesting.

Perhaps someone could take a large piece of white card and cut a hole in the centre the same size as the main beam, shine the main beam through this hole and repeat the CE radiation pattern.

The full dynamic range of eye/camera can then examine the ring pattern without being swamped by the main beam.

Anyone? (I don't own a P1D-CE)


----------



## Handlobraesing (Dec 19, 2006)

Doesn't the_LED_museum have the instrument to plot out the intensity to a view that looks like a thermograph?


----------



## Robocop (Dec 19, 2006)

Grapplex I am not sure as to why you would say Fenix does not seem to care as they have been one of the few who have actually brought us many great lights recently and they also have done it twice as fast as the nearest competitor....to say the least Fenix has impressed me several times over and one light of many with a less than perfect beam does nothing to sway me from future purchases.

Ring or not I did not see anyone else jumping out there to offer a mass produced Cree light in such short time. I really do not believe the light is useless due to a simple beam flaw and anyone who actually uses the light for what it is intended to be used for will say it performs very well.

Numbers do not lie and this light is small and damn bright and I am sure they will sale very many in spite of the varied opinions. I will admit that as a collector I often value the perfect beam and will frown on artifacts and rings in some of my lights when I shine them on a wall. However as a person who uses a light nightly on duty I will say that smaller and brighter is better for actual duty belt carry when the light is used as a tool and not a shelf queen.

I have more lights than I will ever use and many sit in a box with me often simply playing with them or comparing them to the next greatest thing. I covet many of them and often laugh at myself for being so picky at times however when it comes down to it you will not find many here who do not do the exact same things....you will also be hard pressed to find anyone who feels Fenix does not wish to impress us and they do seem to care about what we want.....I will bet that all the negative comments will lead to a very quick change with future Cree based lights or in the very least offering a light with the ability to slightly move the reflector forward or back for individual tastes in beam pattern.

As a past satisfied customer I will purchase one of these from 4Sevens without any fear of not liking the product. The only reason I have not done so as of yet is simply as I knew I would have to wait due to all of the orders....when it comes to toys I so hate waiting for that mail truck and it drives me crazy...hehe


----------



## twentysixtwo (Dec 19, 2006)

I wonder what the resolution of the light measuring device is - if the light detector is a pinhole and the readings are taken every mm, then the graph is pretty convincing that there is no ring.

However, I see a ring. Other people see a ring. If the light detector is actually the size of your pinky and readings are every cm, then this setup is simply not capable of reading the ring.


----------



## Long John (Dec 19, 2006)

Well said Robocop :twothumbs

Best regards

____
Tom


----------



## JanCPF (Dec 19, 2006)

Here is good method of seeing whether there really is a dark ring or not: Cut out a round piece of black paper the size of CD or the like, and put it on a white wall. Now shine the light at the black disk/wall at distance so the hotspot fills the black disk exactly. Look at the spill just outside of the hotspot and see if it's uniform or there is a dark ring. This way you block out the bright hotspot that may create the illusion of a dark ring.

Jan


----------



## EngrPaul (Dec 19, 2006)

grapplex said:


> The arrogance of the Fenix people is the decisive factor... the Fenix guys are second rate optical engineers.


 
Speaking of illusions! I believe you are "seeing" too much into the situation.

Please keep your comments objective. Please don't judge people by one thread. Fenix has done quite a bit of things that respond to consumer requests recently

If you have something to say not objective, please make it clear that you are making assumtions or expressing an opinion.


----------



## LowBat (Dec 19, 2006)

Outdoors Fanatic said:


> The CE on this Fenix stands for _*Copperfield Edition*_, fools...:laughing:


And I thought it stood for "Circle Emitter"


----------



## wojtek_pl (Dec 19, 2006)

"*C*ry *E*veryone" ?


----------



## matrixshaman (Dec 19, 2006)

CPF has been having time warp bubbles ever since moving to a new server lying on a major grid vortex. Perhaps the bubbles are also spreading out in cyberspace causing the 'ring' illusion. It's all a consipiracy I tell you :tinfoil: 
There is no ring there is a ring there is no ring     


UnknownVT said:


> *lexina* wrote: _"good work, UnknownVT - I was just about to direct wacbzz to the same post."_
> 
> *Off-Topic -*
> 
> ...


----------



## Outdoors Fanatic (Dec 19, 2006)

*Fenix's sponsored Horror Movie:

*




:lolsign:


----------



## windstrings (Dec 19, 2006)

grapplex said:


> I think I'll give my money to people who care about my satisfaction more than their own ego's.



*It sounds like you don't own the light yet?*
How can you judge?.... if I had total control over how the beam was set, I would choose the way they did it.. it has throw like a big light...in fact better than most.

You act like someone stepped on your grave and you were expecting the perfect light of all time for a small light... well you got your wish and your still not happy....

Camera shots are not your eyeball, they respond differently.... look at one in real life first before you judge.. if you still don't like it.. don't buy it!...

Why are you "pissed" and want to rant on about such an awesome product?.

Do you see anything else out there that touches it for 70.00 bucks?.. do you just want the whole world given to you for free on a silver platter?...

Even the guys that are modding it by turning the reflector are admitting they are doing it at the expense of distance throw... you can't have it all at once. 

Would you prefer they back off the throw so you can have a "prettier" beam to splat on the wall at 10 feet?.. not me!!!!

It sounds like you have other issues......

chill babe!


----------



## javafool (Dec 19, 2006)

I agree with you windstrings. I really like the overall beam design. Good compromise between flood and throw.


----------



## matrixshaman (Dec 19, 2006)

agree windstrings - if they can find a light with this many features, quality and Lumen output at any price at this point in time I'd like to hear about it. Hmmm ... the sweet sound of silence


----------



## sgtgeo (Dec 19, 2006)

If I can touch her breasts they are real !!!


----------



## hivoltage (Dec 19, 2006)

But I'm looking forward to reviews putting the P1D-CE and D-mini next to eachother.[/QUOTE]

I will have them both, so I can do that!!!!!!


----------



## Nake (Dec 19, 2006)

The mini has a ring too, oh the horror!!






D-mini & 24wHID


----------



## EngrPaul (Dec 19, 2006)

Is that a ring, or CCD saturation?


----------



## Thujone (Dec 19, 2006)

Looks like a posturized photo to me...


----------



## grapplex (Dec 19, 2006)

...


----------



## PAB (Dec 19, 2006)

I want a really bright flashlight in a compact, easy to use EDC size.
Is there a really a ring or no ring? To which I respond with an old joke:
What is the difference between ignorance and apathy?
I don't know and I don't care!


----------



## windstrings (Dec 19, 2006)

grapplex said:


> Thanx to those that responded to my post. Don't get your underwear in a bundle. I was making a counter point to the idea that Fenix is actually seeming to say..It's not us it's your eyes. Yes my post seemed vitriolic. But the fact is that Fenix has some work to do to get Rev 2 out there and appearing to try to deflect is a business mistake. Knowing that some have gotten the reflector right or will means that many fewer will buy the CE than might have. So Rev 2 will come, or someone else will get it on their own Rev 2 or 3 and get the business. The CE is like a killer piece of software with bugs. How they respond will stick to them for a long time. In large part because several makers and several mods have produced beams without rings. Recently every time they have hyped a new high end product it has come out amazing L!T, P1, L0P SE.
> 
> And BTW the only comment I saw from Lumapower warning about their beam was about a center artifact from the wire feeding the die. It won't be long before the comparison is clear. But I bet if Luma has it wrong they will get to work on refocusing and not say...It aint us its your eyes. I was tweaking Fenix cause they got it coming. and should perform. It's a business not one of your children. They make money and don't require your motherly loyalty.



Maybe I haven't used mine enough yet.. but I see no bugs???
That the point of contention..... Maybe you need to exterminate?


----------



## javafool (Dec 19, 2006)

grapplex said:


> Thanx to those that responded to my post. Don't get your underwear in a bundle. I was making a counter point to the idea that Fenix is actually seeming to say..It's not us it's your eyes.
> <snip>
> They make money and don't require your motherly loyalty.



There is a difference between motherly loyalty and actual satisfaction with the product. I still think the threads more of an issue than the beam.

Terry


----------



## N162E (Dec 19, 2006)

grapplex said:


> I think I'll give my money to people who care about my satisfaction more than their own ego's.
> Hey 4sevens? Has anyone taken the head of a P1D CE apart to see if a simple shim or shave of the reflector would solve this illusion?


Could this be the missing link? BTW grapplex what flavor PID-CE do you have, Natural or Black?  :huh2:


----------



## adirondackdestroyer (Dec 19, 2006)

WHOA! The throw on that D-Mini is HUGE! Makes me really consider it.


----------



## chevrofreak (Dec 19, 2006)

I haven't read most of the reply's in this thread, but I really REALLY wish Fenix would switch to textured (orange peel) reflectors in their Cree lights, if not their entire line.


----------



## grapplex (Dec 19, 2006)

...


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Dec 19, 2006)

Check this out...

That pic several posts above shows something that would NEVER EVER stop me from getting a P1D CE if I had $70 to spend on one. 

It just isn't an issue as far as I can see... 












And I'm pretty anal about my beams!


----------



## Somy Nex (Dec 19, 2006)

grapplex said:


> You say this as if you stuck me on the definitive weakness in the point I'm making. But the point I'm making is precisely in the realm of pre-purchase perception, the buying decision, and management of that perception as a business competence. All indications to the pre-purchaser are that the Fenix beam is good-ok with a unsightly flaw in the shots. Some owners are okay with this and some are disappointed. Brightness and runtime are exaggerated also. To me, not being such an addict that I get an irresistible boner to own every golly wiz thing down the pike, am still left on the fence. Moreso by the stance of Fenix that seems to indicate that they do not recognize that their product could be improved. So according to you my "perception" that this light is almost what it could be, is an illusion. But an illusion that will keep me from buying one for at least a while. Til the price goes down, the beam gets better or some other mfr. does it better. Fenix is mismanaging this process from a business/marketing standpoint. They need a sign in their office:
> 
> It's the perception stupid.
> 
> ...



I can certainly empathize with the points you are making in this post at least, of how you are still on the fence and weighing up options.

what I find hard to swallow is that you:

a) at best summarily dismiss Fenix completely because of a perceived ring, completely ignoring function because of a very minor flaw in form (i mean, are you buying a flashlight to show off or to light something up? how does this particular faint ring that appears on a white wall compromise its function? if it is really that bad, why haven't you bought a McGizmo or some other light at 1.5x-2x-3x-hell, as much as 6x the price?; or

b) at worst, somehow draw conclusions that are completely contrary to reality, such as your earlier post where you somehow concluded that Fenix engineers, apart from being incompetent, are still skilled enough to engineer a flashlight that tricks your eyes into seeing a ring or are somehow only out to screw us consumers over? Don't remember saying that? Lets review a few posts. Maybe my reading comprehension isn't quite what it should be.



grapplex said:


> I think I'll give my money to people who care about my satisfaction more than their own ego's. Yeah the Lumapower guys. They have the decency to engineer a flashlight that doesn't trick my eyes into seeing a ring. Maybe the ring is imaginary or at best no big deal. The arrogance of the Fenix people is the decisive factor. Hopefully the Lumapower crew makes a few million before Fenix comes out with Rev. 2 and a head trade in option. It'll give them a chance to get grounded and a footing from which to challenge Fenix into remembering the customer. It looks to me like Lumapower and McGizmo are smart enough to engineer around the imaginary ring, but the Fenix guys are second rate optical engineers. Too bad. They had such a good thing goin round here. This coulda been an opportunity to shine. Create a loyalty legend, like the Lumapower guys are going to do. Seems to me that despite the best efforts of 4Sevens to create a great rep they're leaving him with his *** hanging out. Hey Fenix, read up on the Proton Photon. Only takes one poor product to destroy a lot of goodwill. Poor being defined as a let down of expectations. Rule 1 of business is the customer is always right. If people have an imagined problem with your product, There is a problem with your product.



Not only that, i have absolutely no idea how you could come up with the conclusion that:


> Moreso by the stance of Fenix that seems to indicate that they do not recognize that their product could be improved.


Outside a custom modder, Fenix is undoubtably the most responsive and nimble of any mass producing manufacturer. Can you perhaps remember that it was only one year ago that they came out with the groundbreaking L1P? the first well-made single-AA Luxeon light at an affordable price? And little more than a year, look where they are now? They have in fact responded to almost _every_ little whim and fancy us "hobbyist flashaholics" have thrown at them, coming up with constant improvements every time a solution could be found to make that improvement. What other company has done something similar? Don't forget, Fenix is the _first_ mass manufacturer to get us the Cree package at well-made package at an affordable price. If that isn't responsiveness, I don't know what is. 

Anyway, maybe it's just me, but I like to deal with actual delivered results over "imagined problems". Fenix has shown itself to be a pretty nimble company, constantly coming up with improvements to their line, and also being the first to incorporate new technology into its products which are aimed at the masses.

I can understand if you are still on the fence, and trying to weigh the pros and cons and discuss them on the forum. But for you to hop in and somehow summarily dismiss Fenix because of a product barely one month old that they got to market before anyone else, with complete disregard (or perhaps ignorance) of both their track record and the other merits of the P1D CE against all other current competition is, to me, pretty presumptuous.


----------



## rivet62 (Dec 19, 2006)

I haven't seen this posted yet:
http://web.mit.edu/persci/gaz/gaz-teaching/flash/craik-movie.swf


----------



## windstrings (Dec 19, 2006)

grapplex said:


> You say this as if you stuck me on the definitive weakness in the point I'm making. But the point I'm making is precisely in the realm of pre-purchase perception, the buying decision, and management of that perception as a business competence. All indications to the pre-purchaser are that the Fenix beam is good-ok with a unsightly flaw in the shots. Some owners are okay with this and some are disappointed. Brightness and runtime are exaggerated also. To me, not being such an addict that I get an irresistible boner to own every golly wiz thing down the pike, am still left on the fence.



It sounds like you want the light so bad you can't stand it, but you can't give up the bucks so you are trying to justify why you don't need it?.. .am I right?

You sure seem to know alot and are able to tell exaggerations verses the truth quite well for not owning one yourself!

You're starting to become quite funny!

Are you trying to talk yourself into buying it, or out of it?

*If your not sure and can afford it, then buy it, if you can't afford it or don't think its worth it, then don't.....* but you won't do either... you want to complain about something you don't even know about first hand and won't buy it, yet you can't "not" buy it either... 

You are truely on the fence... I would hate to have you as my stock broker..... just make a decision and be done with it.....

I'll be nice and not say what fence I think it is, but its irresponsible to make claims and accusations about a product you have never laid your hands on and are merely going by pictures.... I can take a picture of your TV and make it look like crap, that doesn't mean it really does in person.

I have absolutely no agenda or reason for promoting the light other than I"m blown away with it for so many reasons... and thats what drives you nuts.... you speak as a perfectionist..... that wants something "perfect" for nothing...... Just what did you expect for 70.00 anyway?.....

You never answered my last question to you...... have you found anything else that compares that gives reason to dog this light?


----------



## grapplex (Dec 19, 2006)

...


----------



## grapplex (Dec 19, 2006)

...


----------



## Somy Nex (Dec 19, 2006)

grapplex said:


> Somy Nex
> 
> Some of your criticisms of my points are subjective and moralizing even. Presumptious? The day I worry about being presumptious about when, why and for what I spend my money will be a bad day. Summarily dismiss? Hardly. Took a shot at? Yup.



took a shot at? i'm sorry, your posts are there for all to see. i'd hardly call that taking a shot, as taking a rant.

as for my post, all it has done was refute the assumptions (assumptions such as assuming they actually engineered a flashlight that 'tricks our eyes into seeing a ring', or are 'arrogant', or a 'stance ... that seems to indicate that they do not recognize that their product could be improved') made in your post with fact.

if it is subjective and moralizing to refute such claims with the facts of how Fenix has behaved over the last year or so, or by putting empirical fact over perceived illusion, then i am truly guilty as charged.

anyway, this is getting old. as it has already been mentioned by others and myself, the choice is there. if this "perceived illusion" is so disappointing, and truly outweighs all the other strengths of this product, then why have you not bought something else?


----------



## grapplex (Dec 19, 2006)

...


----------



## PAB (Dec 20, 2006)

grapplex
If you can find a better product for a better price, buy it. So far, I haven't seen a better product for a better price. That doesn't mean it's perfect. I have some issues with it. In a year, there will likely be much better lights out there. Heck, if I were to wait 10 years, I could get something far, far superior. I look at it as an opportunity cost. What is it worth to have something pretty good NOW versus waiting an indeterminate amount of time for something better. And there is always something better coming out eventually. Time is a commodity too. If in 6 months or a year something more to your liking comes along, you can always sell the old light here. It's not a dead loss.


----------



## PAB (Dec 20, 2006)

chevrofreak said:


> I haven't read most of the reply's in this thread, but I really REALLY wish Fenix would switch to textured (orange peel) reflectors in their Cree lights, if not their entire line.


I agree. They should at least have the orange peel reflector as an option. I think it would be cool if you could choose.


----------



## windstrings (Dec 20, 2006)

grapplex said:


> Nope. I just want to buy one flashlight and have it over already.



Here is one point I"m with you on... thats the exact same reason I bought the Cree..... I love flashlights, but I dont' need 57 of them that do the same thing... after quite "intense" research I bought the P1... I found it to be the brightest, best runtime and smallest without going to AAA which is even worse.
Other than 150.00+ lights "with less runtime" I saw nothing else that could touch it.

But now they went and came out with the "chosen child was born" .. the Cree, and it took the cake, so I had to get that one too.

If you come to my house right now, I will give you any light "thats used and can't be given as a gift" right now that I don't use.
I only use the best I have.. I have no use for the others.

I'm no engineer.. I find they usually get tunnel visioned in thier little world of reality and can't see outside the box.

I'm just a guy who has always been facinated with lights.. every since I was about 4 and my uncle gave me my first flashlight.. it was a calydoscope light that had all sorts of colors etc.... if your old enough, maybe you remember them.....

My simple point is.. whether illusion or not, the ring doesn't exist out where you will be using the light.. in the distance... for up close, turn it down to the 12 lumen setting.. otherwise you will go blind anyway....

Sorry if we got off on the wrong foot... I just think your straining at a knat and swallowing a camel.


----------



## TooManyGizmos (Dec 20, 2006)

.
That was your best post .... windstrings ...... I enjoyed it .


.............................................. TMG/*
.


----------



## javafool (Dec 20, 2006)

windstrings said:


> <snip>
> I'm no engineer.. I find they usually get tunnel visioned in thier little world of reality and can't see outside the box.
> 
> <snip>



I agree very much with the points you expressed except maybe this one. I have been an engineer for many, many years and have found that sometimes people who generalize too much have their own form of tunnel vision, LOL. I don't mean to dig at you, maybe just hold up a mirror for a quick glance.


----------



## lightbug (Dec 20, 2006)

ROFLMAO!!! You humans are surely funny  :naughty: :lolsign:


----------



## PAB (Dec 20, 2006)

javafool said:


> Originally Posted by *windstrings*
> <snip>
> I'm no engineer.. I find they usually get tunnel visioned in thier little world of reality and can't see outside the box.
> 
> ...



Hey, everybody generalizes from one example. I know because I do. :lolsign:


----------



## windstrings (Dec 20, 2006)

javafool said:


> I agree very much with the points you expressed except maybe this one. I have been an engineer for many, many years and have found that sometimes people who generalize too much have their own form of tunnel vision, LOL. I don't mean to dig at you, maybe just hold up a mirror for a quick glance.



I didn't mean to generalize so.... most of the nasty discussions I've had has been with engineers who are so absolutely sure there is nothing that escapes thier logic.....

Of course surely, they are not all that way...


----------



## javafool (Dec 20, 2006)

windstrings said:


> I didn't mean to generalize so.... most of the nasty discussions I've had has been with engineers who are so absolutely sure there is nothing that escapes thier logic.....
> 
> Of course surely, they are not all that way...



I sometimes to generalize too (more often than I should), but of course that is different. I am still very happy with the P1D CE beam and agree with your thoughts on how useful it is.


----------



## TooManyGizmos (Dec 20, 2006)

.......... So ... :kiss: ... and make up .


.


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Dec 20, 2006)

If anyone gets a P1D CE and just can't stand it, I'd be happy to supply my mailing address! I have to soldier along with plain old P1 (Which ain't no slouch!)


----------



## grapplex (Dec 20, 2006)

...


----------



## windstrings (Dec 20, 2006)

grapplex said:


> No big deal. Too much coffee makes me grouchy.
> 
> I'm not straining at a gnat, but rather seeing several beamshots where individuals have either modded a reflector by hand or taken a MC-??XR and adjusted the position of the Cree vis a vis the focus or tested a parabolic reflector by holding by hand and they have no rings.. But when the complete assembly is designed and put together in a production way the LED is in the wrong place.



You make an assumption to say its in the wrong place based on "rings" being what makes or breaks the light.

If you notice the folks that modded the reflector by turning it back 1/4 turn also lost thier hot center beam. Shooting at a wall is like testing a deer rifle at 20 yards...

Just based on what the wall pics look like, I can tell you the distance throw will be less because they took those extra lumens to give more corona... if thats the desired effect, then mod your light too.... as for me "as I have mentioned about 3 times now" I honestly prefer thier choice of throw.

Lights are a dime a dozen that light up 20 yards in front of me.. give me a little pocket light that will go beyond a 100 yards with actual usable light and you have something......

Its is not a mistake or an automation error, its an engineering choice... it appears you are all about whether rings hit your wall... I'm all about whether the light projects into the distance..... once you get your light you will see its no big deal.

I have a 50W focusable HID the "Xeray" and up close there is all kinds of artifact, because the light was made to look good in the distance... I can pull out my pea shooter light for up close.... but in the distance its a perfect beam.

If you make your beam perfect 10 feet away against your wall, your distance throw will suffer.


----------



## grapplex (Dec 20, 2006)

...


----------



## windstrings (Dec 20, 2006)

Well its America and there are alot of lights out there... you have alot to choose from.

It almost sounds like you should get the 40.00 P1.

There is not much point in getting a light that has 3 different power levels if you don't intend on using them. The Cree is so bright that the lowest level will compete with most pocket lights, the medium level keeps up with the big boys of small pocket lights and the high level blows them away.... if you don't have that need.. don't feel bad about not getting it.... just get something different and be happy. There is no use in buying more than you really want.

The Cree is cutting edge technology at a very modest price... its not often to see upgrades that include so many issues at once.. this is quite a treat... usually you get "one" item if any.

Lets see.. let me count the ways!......
For an extra 30 bucks over the standard P1 you get:
1. Cree technology that will take wider voltage variations without damage and heat and produces less heat per lumen with higher effeciency both in runtime and brightness per expended battery.
2. New deeper reflector for farther throw.
3. An even "purer" white light... not sure what frequency it is.. but its white like the sun.
4. Variable power without runtime loss..... most lights that are variable use the "inefficeint" a PWM Circuit "pulse width modulation" that turns the light on and off many times a second. "less efficient", this new light uses better technology to obtain the variable power levels. 
The way it regulates is it's a boost circuit and not buck. Runtimes are maintained and even greater than non Cree lights.
5. Runtimes are amazingly long and bright combined with that runtime.
They can still take rechargables which will lessen runtime due to being brighter without regulation and the rechargables batteries are only 900mah instead of 1300mah.
6. Should you want it "some hate it", it has a strobe and SOS mode...
7. Developes an amazing 135 lumens on primaries... when on high mode... brighter than any other rlight in its class... rechargables wiill increase lumens even more.

Those are all added bonuses for a mere 30.00 bucks.. if you don't appreciate any of that then get the P1 "without the rings" LOL!

It has been reported you can still toast the Cree if you run it long enough without holding it or dissipating heat when on high, but keep in mind the lument output is almost 3 times that of the normal P1...... not bad!


----------



## grapplex (Dec 20, 2006)

...


----------



## grapplex (Dec 20, 2006)

...


----------



## TooManyGizmos (Dec 20, 2006)

.

You two should just PM each other ..... and become Pen-Pal's .

It's OK to use such language in Private PM's .

.


----------



## wojtek_pl (Dec 21, 2006)

Grapplex, just try P1D, with Luxeon. No rings but still multilevel and brightness within very compact shape.


----------



## TCW 60 (Dec 21, 2006)

This "black ring" is there, but it is only visible on short distance to a wall. In normal purposes it is not visible. The light is impressive. If anyone like not the P1DCE with the multilevels he can try the old P1.

Michael


----------



## windstrings (Dec 21, 2006)

grapplex said:


> Dude, your not telling me anything. If anything your confirming that Fenix P!D CE has some throw to burn. So they can sacrifice a little throw in a pocket light to scrap the ugly rings.
> They immediately defended their ostensible perfect beam as if to say: "We DID the perfect beam. Don't believe your lyin eyes."



You don't know much about flashlights...... when a beam is set for distance, it never looks perfect up close.... they have "variable" power, you are supposed to use the low power if up close.

YOu have never had a light so intense with throw so directed before, so it tricks the camera into making it look more dramatic than it really is... but you seem to be extremely hard to get through to.. so I'm finished....

You won't believe anything until you taste it yourself, but yet your afraid to taste... just like a kid who won't try a nice steak, because its not "chicken"....

Just grow up a tiny bit and quit worrying about it, or don't buy it!..Simple

Why must you insist the whole world revolve around you?..Are you still a kid?

I'm gonna let you jump up and down and rant and rave all you want.... any furthur protest after all this timely and very patient discussion will only mark you as a troll in my book.... someone else can spend their time on you consoleing your fears and stroking your feathers.....

You don't even own the light for peets sake, yet your the perfect critic.... 

If you decide to get the light and prefer less throw and more corona, then do the mod, but don't ask Fenix to adjust thier light for your preferences and infer they are idiots and did a mistake because they forgot to ask you your preference first.

I own the light.... I would have picked exactly what they picked as throw...

Its about time we have a light with decent throw, until now, there wasn't enough lumens to make the attempt count.


----------



## TooManyGizmos (Dec 21, 2006)

This has gotten to be a " Wee-Wee " bit personal .

Don't get nasty and insulting - Just say you're done with it & stop .


Please


----------



## EngrPaul (Dec 21, 2006)

Yeah, there goes all hope of Fenix Engineers respecting our opinions.


----------



## NewBie (Dec 21, 2006)

My goodness, this is turning into a child's sandbox.

Some people get upset with what is said on one radio channel, and since they are adults, they just change the channel and not listen to that guy again.

Hint, there are other flashlight vendors in the world, go try one of them.


----------



## ernsanada (Dec 21, 2006)

Remember flashlights are a hobby.

I like to have fun with my hobby.

When it's not fun it's time to find something else.

Don't take it too seroius!


----------



## TooManyGizmos (Dec 21, 2006)

.
This Forum is here mainly for the purpose of *sharing* information and our experiences .

If you don't agree with the info or opinions shared - then mainly just ignore them .

After all .... it's kinda like that other thing we've all got one of .... and we each tend to think that our own (idea) ... doesn't smell like the other guys (idea) ..... if ya know what I mean .

People shared the *ringy beam* in photos - to inform the rest of the membership .... of what *can* be seen in the beam ... that action gives us ALL a *Heads-Up* . That's what we visit this Forum *for* .

Let's don't argue over whether it exists ( we All see it ) .... Let's share ideas on how the light can be made to satisfy EVEryone ... or how to send hints to the maker that we would prefer the ability to make choices on options when we buy ... so it will meet individual needs and applications that vary with each user .

I wish they wouldn't glue the head pieces ... if they are not going to give us *point-of-purchase-options* ... that way some of us can do our own experimentation ... if we choose to .

The point is ..... how can we get the manufacturers to build in versatility and buying options so that we ALL can get what suits our needs best ???


.............. TooManyGizmos?


----------



## TooDamFast (Dec 21, 2006)

from a noobs point, its has a great beam, (upgraded from 2a mag with nite-ize to this!)


----------



## Cabo (Dec 21, 2006)

So when can we expect the _non-illusion_ version of this light??? Will Fenix call it a P1D CE Premium. This thread, if nothing else, has persuaded me to put off my order.


----------



## Whitelitee (Dec 21, 2006)

windstrings said:


> Well its America and there are alot of lights out there... you have alot to choose from.
> 
> 
> 3. An even "purer" white light... not sure what frequency it is.. but its white like the sun.
> ...


 

Mine does not have that sun white tint your talking about I wish it did. But instead its a very white/ slight violet tint. Proberley around 6000K+ in hid comparison. The ring is there, be an illiuson or real its there, but im starting to get used to it. So now the tint bugs me about as much as the ring, ohwell in all its still a very amazing and useful light. I was just so used to my perfect FF3 with its slightly warm soothing white tint and peferct beam and UI. But yes i still use my P1DCE more now and I like it.


Edit: and yes if the fixed one comes out I will buy it.


----------



## JanCPF (Dec 21, 2006)

JanCPF said:


> Here is good method of seeing whether there really is a dark ring or not: Cut out a round piece of black paper the size of CD or the like, and put it on a white wall. Now shine the light at the black disk/wall at distance so the hotspot fills the black disk exactly. Look at the spill just outside of the hotspot and see if it's uniform or there is a dark ring. This way you block out the bright hotspot that may create the illusion of a dark ring.
> 
> Jan


Hey Jan that's a great idea :ironic:  

Okay so nobody tried this method or even commented on it? I thought it would be quite usefull if you haven't got a luxmeter. 

Jan


----------



## Mike abcd (Dec 21, 2006)

I've got a P1D CE on its way to me. While a beam without any visual artifacts would be nice, the beam shots I've seen make me pretty confidant I won't mind the "dark ring" at all.

I suspect I'll hate the loose threads though as even my L0P SE really bugs me when using it one handed. About half the time, I can get it to turn off at the first setting but it frequently winds up blinking off and moving to the next level or the high level. A LOT of the time, I want to use it, my other hand is holding something so one handed reliable operation is a HUGE issue for me.

I am SURE I am going to HATE the P1D CE, medium, high, low sequence! The low output was measured by Chevrofreak at 17 lumens. That's more than enough for most times I need light and I hate that I'll have to put up with a 100+ lumen blast to get to that level. I also suspect that a largely drained cell could still operate it for quite a while on low but it's likely that having the current drain of the medium and high levels first will stop it from even turning on. What were the Fenix engineers thinking when they selected the sequence....

It also seems my L0P CE takes a lot longer than 1.5 sec off to "reset". The loose thread issue would be less annoying if it reset quicker.

That said, there is no way I could pass up a small multi level Cree XR-E that works OK on an RCR123 and wait for a more perfect implementation for my first Cree XR-E purchase. I'm going to be a LOT more picky before I buy another one though.

Mike


----------



## TooManyGizmos (Dec 21, 2006)

.
JanCPF ,

Why not just cut a circle out of the middle of a piece of White printer paper ..... shine the beam thru ... let the *hotspot* go way off in the distance ... so it don't affect your vision in any way ... move the light in & out of the hole ... till you see the dark ring ... and you will ..... YES , it is there ..... even without a hotspot GLaring back at you .

That's the test I came up with several days ago .... It convinced me .

............ TMG/*


----------



## Calina (Dec 21, 2006)

TooManyGizmos said:


> .
> 
> That's the test I came up with several days ago .... It convinced me .
> 
> ............ TMG/*


 
What are you convinced of ? 
Ring or no ring ?


----------



## naturelle (Dec 21, 2006)

windstrings said:


> You don't know much about flashlights...... when a beam is set for distance, it never looks perfect up close.... they have "variable" power, you are supposed to use the low power if up close.



NACK. I've compared a P1D-CE with my Jetbeam Jet1 Mk-II: the beam-diameter is comparable, but the Jet has a much better beam than the Fenix, without any ring or another fault.
And: the Jet is only a little bit less bright than the Fenix. So, Jet persits as my EDC in case of the better beam, in the proximity as well as in distance.

Dirk


----------



## TooManyGizmos (Dec 21, 2006)

:naughty:
TMG's post :


> JanCPF ,
> 
> Why not just cut a circle out of the middle of a piece of White printer paper ..... shine the beam thru ... let the *hotspot* go way off in the distance ... so it don't affect your vision in any way ... move the light in & out of the hole ... till you see the dark ring ... and you will ..... YES , it is there ..... even without a hotspot GLaring back at you .
> 
> ...





Calina said:


> What are you convinced of ?
> Ring or no ring ?




:laughing::laughing: ... :sick2: ... I'm just *not *gonna say it any more 


............... TMG/:laughing:


----------



## hivoltage (Dec 21, 2006)

Holy Crap....this post is still going on ? Mine has rings too, and I still like it. Much brighter than my FF3 and when I take outside there are no rings!!!!!!


----------



## naturelle (Dec 21, 2006)

Huh. You're all talking about the rings. My reason for refund the P1D-CE was the impossibility to work well with 3,6V-rechargeables.


*That's* really a disadvantage of the P1D-CE.


----------



## dano (Dec 21, 2006)

Can everyone stay on track and take a breath, please...

thanks

-dan


----------



## Pwallwin (Dec 21, 2006)

I haven't got the patience to read this whole thread, but I get the jist and hope that Fenix sort out the rings...

I've just ordered a P1D CE in black (available 1st Jan) and can't wait to get it! 

:twothumbs


----------



## TooManyGizmos (Dec 21, 2006)

hivoltage said:


> Holy Crap....this post is still going on ? Mine has rings too, and I still like it. Much brighter than my FF3 and *when I take outside there are no rings!!!!!!*



 ... Oh , Bull-Snot ........................................ 

Do you constantly shine your light into the tree tops while you are walking around outside ..... in the darkness ?? How do you see where you're going ???

Go outside when it's dark and use your light like a normal person .

Shine it on the ground in front of you so you don't trip and fall ... walk around ..... move the light around in front of you ... and THen ... come back here and tell me you *didn't* see a dark ring while taking it outside ... as you say .


If you don't see one - then I'd like to swap lights with you .


It's really just that simple ......................... TMG/

.


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Dec 21, 2006)

If I could, I'd buy one ANYWAY!


----------



## hivoltage (Dec 21, 2006)

The rings dont bother me one bit, nor do I notice them outside. I live in the boonies and I guarantee you it is darker outside my back door than wherever you are. You want to see rings....look at the flashlight that normal people use....or a Maglight. Now there are some rings for you!!!!


----------



## TooManyGizmos (Dec 21, 2006)

:laughing:

 hivoltage  ,

O.K. ... I just wanted to make my final point about the outside ... cause so many keep saying the ring doesn't exist when the light is used in outside conditions ... which I totally disagree with .

And bye-the-way , normal people .. as you say .. use ringy Maglights and others ... but remember who you're typing to ... most who read this are true Flashaholics who really appreciate a nice smooth transitional beam ... if not now , eventually they will . That seems to be the nature of a Flashaholic .

Since this is considered EDC by most who buy it ... it will get used a lot ... and I'd bet that most times it is used will be at a distance where the dark ring is noticable to most .

So that's all I wanted to say .................... at this time .

I realize it is all getting rather redundant to most .


................. TMG/:laughing:


----------



## EngrPaul (Dec 21, 2006)

Comon people, he said analyze the beam, not *ANAL*ize.


----------



## TooManyGizmos (Dec 21, 2006)

EngrPaul ,

Now I think you are baiting ... and trying to incite a riot .

Is that the correct way to spell ..... Comon ???

I'm going to bed .

Bye


----------



## Skyline (Dec 21, 2006)

I've been using mine quite a bit now, indoors and outdoors. If I aim it at the famous white wall and look for it, I see the ring. When I _use_ the beam for looking around, illuminating the dark, etc., I don't even remember there was a ring of some kind. I don't see the ring outdoors.

YMMV


----------



## TooManyGizmos (Dec 21, 2006)

Skyline ,

I'm not falling for it , like I said ..... I'm off to bed

....... TMG/*


----------



## windstrings (Dec 21, 2006)

naturelle said:


> Huh. You're all talking about the rings. My reason for refund the P1D-CE was the impossibility to work well with 3,6V-rechargeables.
> 
> 
> *That's* really a disadvantage of the P1D-CE.



To my knowledge.. I don't think "any" variable mode lights work right with the 3.6 volt rechargables.... if they made the circuits to work right at that voltage.. maybe it would then not work at the normal primary voltage of 3.0.

It would be nice to make a circuit that would work over a wider voltage range.......

so instead they make them to work at the primary voltage of 3.0.. above that, they disengage and you are "for the most part" in direct drive with the battery.

If you really want rechargables and want all the modes too.. go with the 3.0volt rechargables... thier mah is less, but they are internally regulated to keep the voltage down.

So when you said they don't work right with rechargables... I"m assuming you mean't the 3.6 volt... they should work fine with any 3.0 volt battery.

Just to define what is not working right.. we are talking about the modes of brightness differences.... I just keep primaries handy for long hikes and such, since they are only a buck a piece and I use 3.6V rechargables for normal day to day use.. I have no need to turn my light down to low if I'm not trying to preserve runtime anyway... when I'm at home and near my recharger with my backup batteries, thats not an issue.


----------



## windstrings (Dec 21, 2006)

EngrPaul said:


> Comon people, he said analyze the beam, not *ANAL*ize.



So when you *"ANAL*ize" a flashlight..... just what are you trying to find???... please don't say a ring!!!!:lolsign:


----------



## Dan C (Dec 22, 2006)

windstrings said:


> To my knowledge.. I don't think "any" variable mode lights work right with the 3.6 volt rechargables.... if they made the circuits to work right at that voltage.. maybe it would then not work at the normal primary voltage of 3.0.



The Jetbeam AA and AAA lights work fine with Li-ions, all the modes are ramped up in brightness but seem to be as equally different from one another as they were on primaries....

Dan C


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Dec 22, 2006)

PlayboyJoeShmoe said:


> If I could, I'd buy one ANYWAY!



I mean it! dedhorse

And I'd STILL buy one if I could!


----------



## windstrings (Dec 22, 2006)

Dan C said:


> The Jetbeam AA and AAA lights work fine with Li-ions, all the modes are ramped up in brightness but seem to be as equally different from one another as they were on primaries....
> 
> Dan C



Thats a nice feature... but I don't know if thats available yet with this new technology... doesn't the Jet work with PWM Circuit "pulse width modulation" that turns the light on and off many times a second. "less efficient" to simulate its variable levels?

I'm assuming so because if I remember right, the runtimes are really bad when using those modes with the jetbeam, or FireFly for that matter... but the poor runtimes could be due to other reasons.. I'm just speculating.


----------



## naturelle (Dec 22, 2006)

windstrings said:


> To my knowledge.. I don't think "any" variable mode lights work right with the 3.6 volt rechargables.... if they made the circuits to work right at that voltage.. maybe it would then not work at the normal primary voltage of 3.0.
> 
> It would be nice to make a circuit that would work over a wider voltage range.......


Yes, I mean 3,6V rechargeables like I'm using in my Jet.
My Jetbeam Jet-1 Mk-II works fine in all modes, never mind using 1AA or 2AA primary, or NiMHs or one 14500. With the 3,6V 14500 the Jet is almost as bright as the P1D-CE *and* alle modes are working fine! So my Jet is the standard for me, and a P1D-CE is not reaching it.

For the P1D-CE I would have to buy extra 3V rechargeables and an extra charger only for these crappy rechargeables (same chemistry than "real" Lithiums, but with an artificial reduction of voltage).

In my opinion the Jet, although it is the older development, is the better light!



Dirk


----------



## naturelle (Dec 22, 2006)

windstrings said:


> Thats a nice feature... but I don't know if thats available yet with this new technology... doesn't the Jet work with PWM Circuit "pulse width modulation" that turns the light on and off many times a second. "less efficient" to simulate its variable levels?



Don't know what's the real runtime, but it seems to be the same comparing JetAA and P1D-CE with 3,6V rechargeables. Also they both getting nearly the same temperature (about 55°C after ten minutes on "high").


Dirk


----------



## Sarratt (Dec 22, 2006)

grapplex said:


> ....
> ......I'll often take a woman I don't like that much out to dinner and drinks for twice that and have no sex. Makes no sense, does it? Hell I hate wasting $10 on something worth $8. Guess I took too many accounting courses.
> And thanks I think you're quite funny too : )



.... though that had to be the amusing if not most self revealing statement I've ever read on this forum.
.
.
but who am I to talk


----------



## Whitelitee (Dec 22, 2006)

Its a bummer everyone dosnt mind the ringy beam, Now fenix will think its fine and never fix it.


----------



## MikeF (Dec 22, 2006)

windstrings said:


> To my knowledge.. I don't think "any" variable mode lights work right with the 3.6 volt rechargables.... if they made the circuits to work right at that voltage.. maybe it would then not work at the normal primary voltage of 3.0.


 
My LionCub was 64 levels, and it works great on a 3.6 volt RCR123.


----------



## Sarratt (Dec 22, 2006)

grapplex said:


> ....
> ......I'll often take a woman I don't like that much out to dinner and drinks for twice that and have no sex. Makes no sense, does it? Hell I hate wasting $10 on something worth $8. Guess I took too many accounting courses.
> And thanks I think you're quite funny too : )



.... though that had to be the amusing if not most self revealing statement I've ever read on this forum.
.
.
but who am I to talk 

(edited because my post sounded plain bitchy... I've actually injoyed the debate)


----------



## grapplex (Dec 22, 2006)

...


----------



## PANZERWOLF (Dec 22, 2006)




----------



## grapplex (Dec 22, 2006)

...


----------



## windstrings (Dec 23, 2006)

MikeF said:


> My LionCub was 64 levels, and it works great on a 3.6 volt RCR123.



I've never heard of that light before.. its quite interesting.. and little too... I notice high is 1700lux.. how many lumen will that translate into with that reflector?... lux is hard to figure by since I don't know what the throw is like.

How much does it cost?.... I wonder what technology they are using for thier variable levels, and how much of an impact it has on runtime.....

Its obvious the ability is out there.. I just don't know if its available without much more cost with the technology that the Fenix P1D Cree is using.

My question is..... is it a wise option for Fenix to switch to the technolgy of the Lioncub or others, or is the tradeoff in runtime too costly?

Or

Can they simply raise the bar and allow regulation up to 3.6 volts with existing technology?


----------



## windstrings (Dec 23, 2006)

grapplex said:


> What caused the debate ................



Well it takes one to know one... so you don't have to look for revealing statements with me.... I'll just come right out and tell you.... I'm argumentative.......

Not because I enjoy fighting "because I don't" but three key ingredients.....

1. Not always wise in choosing my battles. 
2. Willing to defend a good cause or belief against unfair abuse.
3. Thought patterns that bring in many other variables and parables of countersuit to aid in the illustration and defense of my point.

Example...


grapplex said:


> when you made the statement: But I really care about that about as much as I care about the NFL, MLB, cars, politics, your favorite religious fairy tales, self absorbed women and what some forum guys will think when I mention my personal quirks, which is to say not that much.


That brought in a ton of other issues and invites for discussion away from the topic at hand. I could make all kinds of assumptions about you based on your angles of thought on all those subjects..... especially the "religious fairy tales" part..... 

You are very opinionated.. and thats good in the respect that you at least think about things and come to a conclusion based on the evidence and the understanding you have.... But others experience life through different eyeglasses and levels of revelation and understanding.

I'm sitting at my desk right now.. its totally "real" to me..... but its not to you... you are free to call it a fairy tale because you have never felt, tasted, or seen it. Reality is extremely limited when viewing through our five senses..... Turn on a ham radio or TV and see what I mean.. they pick up tons of stuff you are totally oblivious to without those aids.

Making rings a big deal and harping about the importance of them over and over to the point of calling the engineers incompetent and claiming Fenix is a second rate company because they have decided it was ok to produce the product without worrying about it is your opinion.

Me personally.. I see the wisdom in getting a very fine product with the Cree technology out on the table "before" the rest of the herd which tends to bring Fame and money to the table.

Maybe thier next version won't have it, but as I have already pointed out.. isn't 70.00 buck a phenominal bargain for all you do get both in features, performance and cutting edge technology.... why be so negative and kick them in the ribs because they offended your expectations of that the light would be like?
So many "in fact record breaking numbers" are estatic about the light... so wouldn't you consider Fenix an overwhelming success in the production of this one little light?... after all it is about giving the public what they want to the point they will pay for it and bring home a profit.......

Just because the rings offend you, doesn't mean the light is not a star success and another notch in Fenix's engineering feats to produce a phenominal light at a low cost so all of us can have one.

Every product does not please everybody... that doesn't even matter if its brings a profit and those who bought it are happy enough to buy again.

I was attacking your statements because it appeared they had no tolerance for anything that did not perform to expectations and/or be willing to repent with a promise to go better next time.
-------------------------

Now.. just to set the record straight..you made a comment about people thinking the can read other peoples thoughts... like I said.. it takes one to know one...
IN post #127 I started the defense and opened it up to everyone


> anybody that tries to use that bright of a light that close and wants the beam to be perfect is not being realistic?.. Can you show me "any" light that looks perfect that close that has any real output?



You reply in post # 132


> I think I'll give my money to people who care about my satisfaction more than their own ego's. Yeah the Lumapower guys. They have the decency to engineer a flashlight that doesn't trick my eyes into seeing a ring. Maybe the ring is imaginary or at best no big deal. The arrogance of the Fenix people is the decisive factor.



So anybody out there who feel sorry for you shouldn't.... I think you got what you asked for......you taked about thier *egos* and called them *arrogant*....as well as attacked *whether they even care* about the consumer as if they are going out of business tomorrow.... Then you implied they were'nt even *decent *because they were up to *trickery*....if your going to throw around accusations as that.... would you not expect a rebuttal?

Do you now see how you brought this upon yourself and hopefully got a shred of revelation about how offensive you can be? And that for some reason you have little capacity for faith or to believe in anything to give it or them the benifit of a doubt before you judge?

P.S. I already know I"m offensive.... I'm too blunt and too truthful.

The truth often reveals stuff that's not pretty since we are all fallible and human and being blunt about it affords no softness to the blow, but often to the hard headed, its the only way it can penetrate.....


----------



## Mike89 (Dec 23, 2006)

I just got my P1D CE yesterday (from FS). While I was waiting for it I didn't know what to make of the so called rings. Some here were even going so far as to say they would no longer be getting one because of what's been posted regarding this.

After using it last night, all I can say is this has been blown so far out of proportion it's not even funny. Some even appeared to be in a panic over it. I personally notice no rings whatsoever. When I think of rings, I think of rings like the Fenix E1 puts out. Now those are rings. This beam looks very nice (and bright as hell). I'm very happy with this light though I still have no use for the last two modes. To me it's no more than a gimmick. Looks cool but I don't need it. This light has nice spill and a very good throw which is what I wanted. Outshines anything I currently own.


----------



## NewBie (Dec 23, 2006)

Mike89 said:


> ...
> Some here were even going so far as to say they would no longer be getting one because of what's been posted regarding this.
> 
> After using it last night, all I can say is this has been blown so far out of proportion it's not even funny. Some even appeared to be in a panic over it. I personally notice no rings whatsoever.
> ....




Just remember in a lot of cases it is agenda based, and put a feather in your cap.


----------



## windstrings (Dec 23, 2006)

Mike89 said:


> I just got my P1D CE yesterday (from FS). While I was waiting for it I didn't know what to make of the so called rings. Some here were even going so far as to say they would no longer be getting one because of what's been posted regarding this.
> 
> After using it last night, all I can say is this has been blown so far out of proportion it's not even funny. Some even appeared to be in a panic over it. I personally notice no rings whatsoever. When I think of rings, I think of rings like the Fenix E1 puts out. Now those are rings. This beam looks very nice (and bright as hell). I'm very happy with this light though I still have no use for the last two modes. To me it's no more than a gimmick. Looks cool but I don't need it. This light has nice spill and a very good throw which is what I wanted. Outshines anything I currently own.



*You had the courage to buy the light and then judge it*, and trust the comments of so many who have bought it before you, rather than prejudge it before you bought..... we miss out on alot in life by prejudgeing... most kids would never eat most vegetables and meats if allowed to prejudge... they would be stuck on milk, jello, macaroni and cheese, hotdogs, hamburgers, french fries and pop would be thier only staples.


----------



## NewBie (Dec 23, 2006)

For a white wall hunter nightmare, check out the LumaPower's Lumacraft:

http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1750759&postcount=444


It appears the Huntlight beamshot problem is between the Fenix and the LumaPower.

Only things I've see that are worse are incandescents for MagLite Luxeons.


Thank Goodness I bought a McGizmo A19 CREE XR-E! I paid extra for the beam quality characteristic of a McGizmo, and am quite glad, especially now that I am seeing the likes of the Huntlights and Lumapowers. I can forgive a little stain, but a hole-in-one crater bullseye blaster or saturn's rings are really something else.

I wonder, with all the fuss that has been raised, why the slower follow on manufacturers didn't try to even attempt to address the problems with the early lights.

Then they created stuff even worse than the early stuff, geesh, go figure!

:huh2: 
 
:eeew:


----------



## Pumaman (Dec 23, 2006)

P1D CE (left) on high vs A19 x-re(right). both on rcr123, 4 ft.







for some perspective, here is the P1D CE on high (left) vs a HDS B42XR on high. again both rcr123 and 4 ft.





The A19 beam quality is superior, but the fenix is great for the size and price. the narrow nature of the A19 reflector really pushes all the light forward, with a much narrower sidespill. I really dont see the rings in the p1 to be a real problem(unlike the ringy,blue Fenix E1). I think both the P1D CE and the A19 kick a**.


----------



## NewBie (Dec 23, 2006)

Thank you very much, those show a thousand words right there.

Would you happen to have the Huntlight XR-E with the Saturn effect, or and of the XR-E Lumapower (or any other XR-E lights)?


----------



## windstrings (Dec 23, 2006)

Does anyone else see the ring in the upper right picture "A19 x-re" similiar to the Fenix? It goes from purple to black to babyblue as in enters the corona.
"black being the ring"

Not as pronouced as the Fenix, but still there in the photograph.....


----------



## Pumaman (Dec 23, 2006)

windstrings said:


> Does anyone else see the ring in the upper right picture "A19 x-re" similiar to the Fenix? It goes from purple to black to babyblue as in enters the corona.
> "black being the ring"
> 
> Not as pronouced as the Fenix, but still there in the photograph.....


 
i really dont see the ring in the A19 like i do the fenix. I can see a little bit of color shift in the photo, but not with the naked eye. but the dark ring in the fenix is only seen in real world use if you are looking for it, not a problem imo.

newbie, i have some cree modded lights. all have orange peel reflectors so the beams look great. a Pelican M1, Pelican M3 and Lumapower LM301 AA light.
there are more pics here.
http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=143602
no other stock cree lights tho


----------



## Art Vandelay (Dec 23, 2006)

Pumaman said:


> i really dont see the ring in the A19 like i do the fenix. I can see a little bit of color shift in the photo, but not with the naked eye. but the dark ring in the fenix is only seen in real world use if you are looking for it, not a problem imo.
> 
> newbie, i have some cree modded lights. all have orange peel reflectors so the beams look great. a Pelican M1, Pelican M3 and Lumapower LM301 AA light.
> there are more pics here.
> ...


Pumaman, I think you hit the nail on the head with your comment.

Personally, I not interested in the real or illusion debate. I am a Fenix fan but would naturally expect the more expensive McGizmo Cree to be superior to the much less expensive Fenix Cree. The ring illusion seems less pronounced in the beam shots of McGizmo’s A-19 Cree. I assumed that reducing the ring effect would just reduce the throw of the light. From the beam shots I have seen, it seems like the price has been paid with reduced side spill. The deeper reflector also adds length to the light. 

I don’t think it is going to be possible to make every happy with this. Maybe Fenix could offer an orange peel reflector as an option. AmiLite Neo T3’s have an option of a McGizmo orange peel reflector for just a few dollars more. If AmiLite can do it, why not Fenix?

Having said all that, the P1D CE is my new favorite light.


----------



## LowBat (Dec 23, 2006)

Hey, I tried putting my camera behind a pair of those 3D glasses and the P1D-CE's hot spot and spill look "out of this world".














Ok Ok, just adding a little humor.


----------



## NewBie (Dec 23, 2006)

That would be cool, an orange-peel, P1D-CE-OP.

I don't have production Seoul P4 parts yet, but if the same holds true, folks who care about tint shifts in a beamshot are due for a serious gut check if the Seoul P4 is used with smooth reflectors.


----------



## windstrings (Dec 23, 2006)

NewBie said:


> That would be cool, an orange-peel, P1D-CE-OP.
> 
> I don't have production Seoul P4 parts yet, but if the same holds true, folks who care about tint shifts in a beamshot are due for a serious gut check if the Seoul P4 is used with smooth reflectors.



It would be fun to see what an orange peel reflector would do.. that would be an easy fix.... I wonder if it would affect throw... I think these have enough lumens you wouldn't tell the difference anyway.


----------



## NewBie (Dec 23, 2006)

If you search the archives, there is a technique called sputtering that you can do with clear coat, and there are several good tips/techniques mentioned, and you can use the shinny side of Aluminum foil to practice with.



LowBat said:


> Hey, I tried putting my camera behind a pair of those 3D glasses and the P1D-CE's hot spot and spill look "out of this world".
> 
> Ok Ok, just adding a little humor.




Try that with a Huntlight XR-E, it is even more realistic, and for high fidelity in high definition digital, try the LumaPower LumaCraft XR-E:
http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1750759&postcount=444

erscanada's comparision photos of the LumaPower light and the Fenix P1D-CE in the same photo (outstanding job there):
https://www.candlepowerforums.com/posts/1751387&postcount=51

NanoTech17's Huntlight XR-E beamshots:
http://profile.imageshack.us/user/nanotech17/images/detail/204/t3ft01xseeo8.jpg


erscanada gracefully allowed use of his photos for discussion, here it is:


----------



## Boomerang (Dec 24, 2006)

EngrPaul said:


> "There is no spoon."



TINC

Andy


----------



## MikeF (Dec 24, 2006)

LowBat said:


> Hey, I tried putting my camera behind a pair of those 3D glasses and the P1D-CE's hot spot and spill look "out of this world".
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Hey LowBat, couldn't you clean the lens before taking the pic? Why just look at those dust spots, a small dark one within the hotspot, and three light ones to the lower left, although the dark one looks like it might be the shadow of one of the lighter ones. Maybe it was dust inside the lens or on the reflector. They look like they were big enough to be seen with the naked eye!
:lolsign:


----------



## NewBie (Dec 24, 2006)

We used to call those orbitals, and I forget who coined that one. On some Luxeons, you see a blue spot when imaging the die.

Here is a Luxeon III with orbitals imaged upon a wall, roughly 2 o'clock:





When they are stronger, they can be the source for the blue flares or comets when put in reflectored lights.


----------



## nekomane (Dec 25, 2006)

Here are some interesting looking charts from Illuminum.

P1D CE/P1D Comparison 

3D Illuminum Index


----------



## cave dave (Dec 31, 2006)

*FENIX does care!* and here is the poll to prove it. They are working on the issue but there are trade offs. So far 29% would prefer a ringy beam with max throw.

https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/146747

I'm in the Heavy OP myself, I like smooth transitions. They do matter in the real world. Maybe even more so than White wall. Its because as the beam gets twice as far away it takes four times the light to appear the same brightness to the human eye. So the light needs to ramp up to provide a uniform brightness in the beam. This is the sidewalk test.


----------



## Mike89 (Dec 31, 2006)

I just don't get this "dark ring" debate on the P1D CE. For the ones who see this so called "dark ring", I don't know what you guys are talking about. I guess it's all in people's definition and what I see when I shine this light in no way fits my definition of a dark ring. When I think of dark ring, I think of a ring with no light in it like the rings on the E1. This is not the case with the P1D CE. At most, maybe I would say there's a slight (and I mean very slight) abberation around the center of the beam which I can only notice when pointing it at a wall, not when I'm pointing it outside. I surely don't call this a "dark ring" and it's nothing to interfer with lighting something up in the distance. Sometimes I think a lot of people here just use their flashlights to sit and point them at walls (with a magnifying glass in the other hand). I don't use my flashlights for that (maybe I'm just weird that way, heh). I didn't like the dark rings in the E1 (it was distracting to me) and gave it to my daughter for a purse light because of it. I have no issues with the beam of the P1D CE. When I shine it at something when I need some light, I like what I see. I see a nice consistant beam with a very nice spill and throw.


----------



## windstrings (Dec 31, 2006)

Whitelitee said:


> Yes the brightness is cool. But having the usual flawless led beam is more importent and more cool.



therein is the foundation of the debate. Its a matter of choice and preference.
I don't know about you, but I see in the dark by the use if light... the brightness is what its all about for me.... If it could be brighter still with the price of more artifact, I would gladly take the trade.

If some people want to put thier light through a diffuser and put an orange peel reflector "which may be ok" to get a soft perfect beam then thats thier choice. I have the RR lantern.. I prefer the clear bright beam.. others want it frosted. 

The brighter the light gets, the more contrast will be between that bright and the dark... in other words, if the Cree wasn't so bright, you may not even see the "ring" you see.... but nevertheless.... *I like bright.. and lots of it.. thats why I bought the cree.. not for a pretty soft beam without rings that other lights have.

*P.S... its been nice to back off this thread for a while and let others confirm my prior feelings.. I would hate for someone to think I'm merely trying to press a point.... it just a preference..... 

One question would be... "can you have both?".. if not, I'll take the bright... besides I could care less about rings.. I fumble around in the dark with the aid of light.. rings that don't even exist at farthur distances, do not impede me.

*Maybe they will provide an orange peel reflector as a choice... even if it kills some throw.. some people may prefer that.

*I may take it too "if" it doesn't kill throw, so I doubt I'll be getting an orange peel!!!


----------

