# **New Flashlight Standards Just Announced



## BugOutGear_USA (Oct 9, 2009)

CPF'ers,

I didn't see this posted so if this is a double post I apologize.

A coalition of flashlight companies have put their heads together and decided to create a new flashlight standard. 

Here is the link to article:

http://www.shootingwire.com/story/207490

Unfortunately, they want $60 to find out what the standards are. 

Regards,
Flavio


----------



## ptolemy (Oct 9, 2009)

I wouldn't worry too much about it. Anyone who sets standards for others and thinks they can charge $ to find those out, obviously is afraid of something


----------



## post tenebras (Oct 9, 2009)

I don't see $60 as a barrier to manufacturers.


----------



## Phaserburn (Oct 9, 2009)

Way to go, Streamlight! I think it's great that SL has stepped up to the plate to push forward in this area. 

Kudos Grande to them!

:twothumbs


----------



## Marduke (Oct 9, 2009)

I have known about this for quite some time. It's nice to see it finally made available for implementation. I think people will be surprised to notice which product packaging has already been adjusted for labeling requirements so they can slap on the stamp and immediately start shipping conformal products. 

What is perhaps more interesting than what testing it consists of and who sponsored it is who DIDN'T sponsor it.... MagLite.


----------



## HKJ (Oct 9, 2009)

ptolemy said:


> I wouldn't worry too much about it. Anyone who sets standards for others and thinks they can charge $ to find those out, obviously is afraid of something



The fact is that you have to pay for most standards, and often a standard has references to other standards, i.e. you might have to buy 10 documents to get all information about a standard.
This payment is one of the income sources that a standard organization has, the other income source is (sometimes) from companies defining the standard, i.e. the companies pays to be in a working group for making standards.
This standard might make it easier to compare lights, but it will probably only be used by the big manufacturers.


----------



## Black Rose (Oct 9, 2009)

Marduke said:


> What is perhaps more interesting than what testing it consists of and who sponsored it is who DIDN'T sponsor it.... MagLite.


A very diverse group, encompassing the entire cost spectrum of flashlights.


----------



## kramer5150 (Oct 9, 2009)

Sweetness! this is LONG overdue.

What manufacturers contributed (oops nm I just read the .pdf)
Theres not even a wiki for it yet.
What does the package labeling look like?... just an "ANSI-FL-1" logo?


----------



## kramer5150 (Oct 9, 2009)

I am shocked to see Coast on the list of contributors and Inova missing!!

I have always found Coast published specs grossly over-rated and Inova somewhat close. If Coast (Led Lenser) products currently meet FL-1... I don't know... that doesn't sound like a spec I should be looking for.


----------



## Vesper (Oct 9, 2009)

What kind of details would be influenced by these standards, and would it hurt innovation in the long run?


----------



## ptolemy (Oct 9, 2009)

HKJ said:


> The fact is that you have to pay for most standards, and often a standard has references to other standards, i.e. you might have to buy 10 documents to get all information about a standard.
> This payment is one of the income sources that a standard organization has, the other income source is (sometimes) from companies defining the standard, i.e. the companies pays to be in a working group for making standards.
> This standard might make it easier to compare lights, but it will probably only be used by the big manufacturers.


 
but that's my point...

shouldn't these standards be FREE and PUBLIC? but in order to use the logo, then you charge them fees!

standards are meant to be public, so others can compare to them and be able to verify them


----------



## Marduke (Oct 9, 2009)

FYI for what aspects it covers:
http://www.nema.org/stds/complimentary-docs/upload/FL 1 2009 final.pdf 

Much of the new Energizer markings are very similar to what is to be used.

This is what CPF has been wanting for years. While they do not use our standards per se, at least there is one now.


----------



## Marduke (Oct 9, 2009)

ptolemy said:


> but that's my point...
> 
> shouldn't these standards be FREE and PUBLIC? but in order to use the logo, then you charge them fees!
> 
> standards are meant to be public, so others can compare to them and be able to verify them


Almost all standards are not free. Rarely does a standard use a logo as in this case, and the standards would not exist unless some organization can get enough money to create and control them.


----------



## kramer5150 (Oct 9, 2009)




----------



## SFG2Lman (Oct 9, 2009)

hahahahaha thats awesome


----------



## HKJ (Oct 9, 2009)

ptolemy said:


> but that's my point...
> 
> shouldn't these standards be FREE and PUBLIC? but in order to use the logo, then you charge them fees!
> 
> standards are meant to be public, so others can compare to them and be able to verify them



I would also prefer that it was free, but the company that is making the standard needs money to stay in business, they are not fully government sponsored.


----------



## Search (Oct 9, 2009)

If American companies are the only ones that will follow this standard what good is it. We all know who has the unreliable numbers.

This should be an international standard.


----------



## Marduke (Oct 9, 2009)

Anyone who wants can use the standard. Nowhere does it say "USA only"


----------



## Owen (Oct 9, 2009)

It will be interesting to see how they implement this, and how specific the guidelines/results in each category are displayed. 

I'm a bit dubious about manufacturers volunteering to be completely open about their products' shortcomings, and am already envisioning companies assigning them a score based on the total results, or on a curve based on expected usage, or some gay crap like that. Guess time will tell.


----------



## divine (Oct 9, 2009)

Nema has thousands of standards prior to this. Nema isn't pulling a stunt by charging for standards.


----------



## Search (Oct 9, 2009)

Marduke said:


> Anyone who wants can use the standard. Nowhere does it say "USA only"



Then let me rephrase it. Do US companies have to follow the standard?

If it's not enforced it isn't worth anything. Plus, I highly doubt chinese type companies will care.


----------



## kramer5150 (Oct 9, 2009)

Owen said:


> It will be interesting to see how they implement this, and how specific the guidelines/results in each category are displayed.
> 
> I'm a bit dubious about manufacturers volunteering to be completely open about their products' shortcomings, and am already envisioning companies assigning them a score based on the total results, or on a curve based on expected usage, or some gay crap like that. Guess time will tell.



I am envisioning something like the Swiss watchmaking federation guidelines... "SWISS MOV'T" instead of "SWISS MOVEMENT" or "SWISS MADE".


----------



## KiwiMark (Oct 9, 2009)

Marduke said:


> What is perhaps more interesting than what testing it consists of and who sponsored it is who DIDN'T sponsor it.... MagLite.




Don't Maglite only make hosts? 

How could they test their lights without knowing what reflector/lens/bulb/driver/batteries will end up in their host?
I have 4 x 2D, 1 x 3D, 2 x 4D and 1 x 6D (as well as an Elephant II) - since Maglite didn't make the bulb in any of those they couldn't really say what the output or run time is.


For the other manufacturers that choose to use these new standards - it sounds like a good idea, especially for those people that don't realise that you can find reviews on the internet and read them before buying stuff. Let's face it - that is a lot of people.


----------



## baterija (Oct 9, 2009)

Search said:


> Then let me rephrase it. Do US companies have to follow the standard?


No. Companies making electrical devices aren't required to have them UL Listed either. The market can enforce through purchasing decisions not just the government. Voluntary standards can also make civil enforcement and false advertising claims easier. The light either was or was not independently tested against the standards. Claiming it was if it wasn't opens up a company to civil risk.


----------



## Marduke (Oct 9, 2009)

No, this is a voluntary standard. Adhering to it will simply be putting a brand ahead in the game.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Oct 9, 2009)

Marduke said:


> No, this is a voluntary standard. Adhering to it will simply be putting a brand ahead in the game.



Hopefully they will be wearing their common sense hats, and not worry about all those silly output rules, definitions, correct terms, and standards. If we get real lucky they may be using an upgraded Radio Shack photometer with their shoebox.  Hmmm, that Table of Contents seems to imply an unecessary amount of precision though. It's certainly not rocket science, wonder why the big deal?


----------



## Search (Oct 9, 2009)

baterija said:


> No. Companies making electrical devices aren't required to have them UL Listed either. The market can enforce through purchasing decisions not just the government. Voluntary standards can also make civil enforcement and false advertising claims easier. The light either was or was not independently tested against the standards. Claiming it was if it wasn't opens up a company to civil risk.





Marduke said:


> No, this is a voluntary standard. Adhering to it will simply be putting a brand ahead in the game.



That's what I was looking for thanks.


----------



## Marduke (Oct 9, 2009)

LuxLuthor said:


> Hopefully they will be wearing their common sense hats, and not worry about all those silly output rules, definitions, correct terms, and standards. If we get real lucky they may be using an upgraded Radio Shack photometer with their shoebox.  Hmmm, that Table of Contents seems to imply an unecessary amount of precision though. It's certainly not rocket science, wonder why the big deal?



Interestingly enough their statements also agree in principle with quickbeam's....


----------



## LuxLuthor (Oct 9, 2009)

Marduke said:


> Interestingly enough their statements also agree in principle with quickbeam's....



And yet, like most scientific pursuits, the devil is in the details. I mean what could possibly go wrong if we just used 300,000 km/s as the general principle of the speed of light in designing space travel vehicles? :kiss:

Sounds like they are going for absolutism rather than ballpark relativistic comparisons which would be a refreshing breakthrough in standardization.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Oct 9, 2009)

*Best $60 I ever spent. WOW!*

Actual precision and standardization and multiple samples, power source standardization, specified ambient conditions, spectroradiometer for source correction, and calibration requirements. I don't think I can get into more specifics without violating copyright, but this is truly wonderful to see.

Buying a light with these listed parameters certified, then allows it to be used as a bonafide source against which relative comparisons can be made.

It will be interesting to see who uses this, even if they were not a member of the "Flashlight Standards Committee" at the time the standards were issued.


----------



## csshih (Oct 9, 2009)

interesting concept.
I wonder how well this will catch on.


----------



## ypsifly (Oct 9, 2009)

Self adhered industry standards are great. So much better than government mandates IMHO. This will require rigorous testing and enforcements by the body who sets and maintains these standards, so I can understand why they need to raise capital, but at the same time the buying public needs to be educated about said standards. At what point do you do that without charging a fee just to get consumers familiar with the requirements and testing methods?

How do you market the stamp on the packaging in our mass media driven culture without boring the average Joe to death with what he would see as jargon and minutia?

I welcome the industry standards but I wonder how far this will all go outside the CPF community.


----------



## Burgess (Oct 9, 2009)

Sounds very interesting, and long overdue. :thumbsup:


Gee, they shoulda' had some *CPF members* on that Panel !



_


----------



## Patriot (Oct 9, 2009)

It is very interesting for sure, but without doing what Lux Luthor did, I'm afraid that's about as far as I'll get to ponder at this time. It will be fun to see what effects this has in the industry.


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 9, 2009)

What I love to see is reliablilty testing. Like 10000 switching cycles, drops from certain heights, harsher water testing in non static conditions than ipx8 and what Marduck did to the tk10.


----------



## Marduke (Oct 10, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> What I love to see is reliablilty testing. Like 10000 switching cycles, drops from certain heights, harsher water testing in non static conditions than ipx8 and what Marduke did to the tk10.



Some of those exist. Drop/impact testing, and waterproof testing more severe and specific than baseline IP standards.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Oct 10, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> What I love to see is reliablilty testing. Like 10000 switching cycles, drops from certain heights, harsher water testing in non static conditions than ipx8 and what Marduck did to the tk10.



This is why they should have consulted CPF...LOL! We would always have more we would want....like voltage overdrive fail/destruction point. :devil: Or whitewall beamshots at set distances....or hottest temp at any location after certain running times...or smoke/fog penetration.

Switch testing would have been a brilliant addition, but alas...also not harsh*er* than ipx8, but if submersible depth is verified, I'm not seeing why a more rigorous criteria would be needed for a hand held flashlight? Are you envisioning filming another underwater James Bond sequence, or taking closeups of an ocean liner's prop wash?  Where is Marduck's post about testing TK10? _(I didn't get a hit searching google box for "Marduck TK10")_


----------



## Marduke (Oct 10, 2009)

LuxLuthor said:


> Switch testing would have been a brilliant addition, but alas...also not harsh*er* than ipx8, but if submersible depth is verified, I'm not seeing why a more rigorous criteria would be needed for a hand held flashlight? Are you envisioning filming another underwater James Bond sequence, or taking closeups of an ocean liner's prop wash?  Where is Marduck's post about testing TK10? _(I didn't get a hit searching google box for "Marduck TK10")_



The water proof testing _IS_ more severe than baseline IP testing (I suggest you read it again), setting additional requirements.

Also, I would appreciate it if you didn't make fun of my name... I am not related to a duck...


----------



## Stress_Test (Oct 10, 2009)

Marduke said:


> ...
> 
> Also, I would appreciate it if you didn't make fun of my name... I am not related to a duck...




Oh, relax, I'm sure YuxLuthor just made an innocent typo... :laughing:


----------



## Marduke (Oct 10, 2009)

Stress_Test said:


> Oh, relax, I'm sure YuxLuthor just made an innocent typo... :laughing:




Twice??


----------



## Stress_Test (Oct 10, 2009)

Marduke said:


> Twice??




OK Lux, I tried to help you out but you're on your own now, brother!


----------



## LightTracker (Oct 10, 2009)

Vesper said:


> What kind of details would be influenced by these standards, and would it hurt innovation in the long run?


 
Hi Vesper! I was linked to this by TH232 in the "Are we being ripped-off"" thread. If the group is doing this for the wrong reason then the details considered may be those that are less helpful to the avverage buyer and more helpful to "those in the know". It also could be involved in some government-business partnership, who knows? But I thnk its a red flag when someone is asking for money, and probably indicates that their idea is not that strong. A good idea stands on its own merit, its just good. And if its good it will become the next standard. The rest of it I think comes at the problem from a different angle. Of course there would be nothing wrong with having a standard that effects manufacture of better qaulity products, right?

I don't think it could hurt innovation. I would think part of the motiviation is to spur on more innovation. If its not, they may be forced to withold information that helps everyone move forward. The most successful companies in recent decades (with some notable exceptions in the software industry) are not particualrly selfish about sharing what they're doing and sahring the standards with others. If they're successful, then they're setting new standards for others to follow and that would entail revealing the standards. I think the 60.00 fee is a scam and a huge red flag.

Thanks,
LT-Dan


----------



## Marduke (Oct 10, 2009)

LightTracker said:


> I think the 60.00 fee is a scam and a huge red flag.
> 
> Thanks,
> LT-Dan



You don't deal with technical standards much (ever) do you?

I can't think of a single technical standard which you _don't_ have to pay for.


----------



## Th232 (Oct 10, 2009)

LightTracker said:


> I think the 60.00 fee is a scam and a huge red flag.



Will have to agree with Marduke on this point, all technical standards I've ever had to deal with had to be paid for in some form or another. They don't write this stuff up for free.

Usually uni has an agreement covering us students using standards. Pity it doesn't cover this one though.


----------



## Fred S (Oct 10, 2009)

All us OSHA standards are free, some of them could be considered technical. For the most part, however, you will pay quite a bit for most tech standards. We use ASME, AWS, and CGA standards at my work, any they are high $ for the number of pages.


----------



## baterija (Oct 10, 2009)

Fred S said:


> All us OSHA standards are free, some of them could be considered technical.



Well OSHA compliance isn't voluntary.


----------



## LightTracker (Oct 10, 2009)

Marduke said:


> You don't deal with technical standards much (ever) do you?
> 
> I can't think of a single technical standard which you _don't_ have to pay for.


 
Actually, I do and have while working in programming and less recently in steel insection. My most recent experience was with recreational trailers, and they have a recreational camper and park trailer association and standard (RCPTA, it think its called)... and required a rather siff fee for the more telling documents, and also wanted me to "be warned" about failing to understand teh finer points of how things that you can live in are defined by the govt. and standards groups. Of course, once you get outside of that culture you find that no one really understands what they're talking about nor do they care. It tends to be driven by political special interest groups who are lobbying for "the standards" to favor one industry or another. Its just about the most nauseating and brain-numbing experience a person can go through, governed a by a lot of self-interested parties and people who succumb to the "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" mentality.

What does this have to do with standards, you may ask? If there are going to be standards of any merit they will have to be driven by the people who are impacted by them most, the consumers, the users, the ordinary people who live and exist on te planet. esp. the opnes who have no "angle", no axes to grind politically and are not seeking to get some advantage at the expense of someone else. Anything being done for a fee that claims to have the general interest of consumers in mind is, I think, very short-sighted and does not understand how powerful is "Word of mouth" and "The market place of ideas". The very people who they are seeking to serve most (to provide product and stay in business) are the very ones who they should be going to to check their standards and encourage participation. And for that, no fee is required.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Oct 10, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> What I love to see is reliablilty testing. Like 10000 switching cycles, drops from certain heights, harsher water testing in non static conditions than ipx8 and what *Marduck *did to the tk10.





Marduke said:


> Also, I would appreciate it if you didn't make fun of my name... I am not related to a duck...


*
 OMG! Dude, take up your childish beef with [email protected] in post #35 who I quoted and searched for the member name he referred to. I did not assume he was referring to your name, or making fun of you, or even that the member listing he gave was a misspelled member name.* :shakehead

Believe it or not, most of us have better things to do than read every one of your posts to then know that you were the person doing testing of a TK10 (whatever that is), and then figure out that [email protected] made a posting typo error. :sigh:



Stress_Test said:


> OK Lux, I tried to help you out but you're on your own now, brother!



Appreciate the assist. Hopefully the adults can now get back to discussing the Standards.

Note to Mods: I am just setting the record straight, and won't persist in this childishness.


----------



## LightTracker (Oct 11, 2009)

LuxLuthor said:


> Note to Mods: I am just setting the record straight, and won't persist in this childishness.


 
One might ask why you bothered going there in the first place.

What [email protected] is talking about is generally durability, and so the standards... if they address that in terms of switching cycles, drop height, etc. may help to determine whether the product is good for a highly demanding application.... say emergency or military usage vs. recreation. I think a scale (or class) would help. But there are standards that could care less about any of that and are yet useful and may be applied to any light or any light and battery combination. And I think it would help anyone who is concerned about the ability to standardize lights (whether for usage reasons or manufacturing reasons) to separate out the issues that are general and universal (output, energy efficiency, etc) from more special issues such as color temperature, durability, aesthetics, etc.

Does anyone know what I'm talking about? There are certain things it seems to me that you don't need to look to the specific application to make sense of and understand exactly. And those things give you basis for understanding and comparison. Beyond that, a lot can still be accomplished, but don't you need a point to to start that gets folks on the same page or at least using similar dialog? What are the universals? How do yo describe them in sensible enough terms for ordinary people to work with?


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 11, 2009)

Sorry marduke innocent typo on my behalf. I was talking about the crush test you did.


----------



## John-Galt (Nov 22, 2009)

Energizer of all people has some more info on this standard, including the tests that will be performed and the icons for each rated test result.

http://www.energizerlightingproducts.com/technology/ansistandard/Pages/environmentals.aspx

These are the tests:
Light Output
Runtime
Beam Distance
Peak Beam Intensity
Enclosure Protection Against Water Penetration Ratings
Impact Resistance


John-Galt


----------



## divine (Nov 22, 2009)

LightTracker said:


> Actually, I do and have while working in programming and less recently in steel insection. My most recent experience was with recreational trailers, and they have a recreational camper and park trailer association and standard (RCPTA, it think its called)... and required a rather siff fee for the more telling documents, and also wanted me to "be warned" about failing to understand teh finer points of how things that you can live in are defined by the govt. and standards groups. Of course, once you get outside of that culture you find that no one really understands what they're talking about nor do they care. It tends to be driven by political special interest groups who are lobbying for "the standards" to favor one industry or another. Its just about the most nauseating and brain-numbing experience a person can go through, governed a by a lot of self-interested parties and people who succumb to the "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" mentality.
> 
> What does this have to do with standards, you may ask? If there are going to be standards of any merit they will have to be driven by the people who are impacted by them most, the consumers, the users, the ordinary people who live and exist on te planet. esp. the opnes who have no "angle", no axes to grind politically and are not seeking to get some advantage at the expense of someone else. Anything being done for a fee that claims to have the general interest of consumers in mind is, I think, very short-sighted and does not understand how powerful is "Word of mouth" and "The market place of ideas". The very people who they are seeking to serve most (to provide product and stay in business) are the very ones who they should be going to to check their standards and encourage participation. And for that, no fee is required.


Have you ever looked at how much the National Electrical Code costs to buy?


----------



## Egsise (Nov 22, 2009)

> Must use the same new and unused batteries as packed with the light.


1xAA alkie=Fail

2xAA alkie=Double Fail

Great standard.



> The continuous time lapsed from the initial light output to when the light output is at 10% of the initial light output.



OMG LL runtimes!
As standard.

facepalm


----------



## Size15's (Nov 22, 2009)

Egsise said:


> 1xAA alkie=Fail
> 
> 2xAA alkie=Double Fail
> 
> Great standard.


I don't understand what your point is.
Why shouldn't the standardised rating be created from testing the standard product with the standard batteries it is supplied with as standard?

If people want to use other batteries and the manufacturer wants to facilitate or encourage this then I'm sure it can be included in supplied details.

IMHO it's better to have a standard against which to level the playing field as far as ratings go - then not have one.
Whether the standard is appropriate is another matter. One size can't fit all and you can't please all of the people all of the time. That's why it is called a 'standard' rather than a 'bespoke'(!) 

Al


----------



## Marduke (Nov 22, 2009)

Egsise said:


> 1xAA alkie=Fail
> 
> 2xAA alkie=Double Fail
> 
> Great standard.



Not necessarily. The specs are for the supplied battery, _or a specifically recommended battery_ if none is supplied.


----------



## Pekka (Nov 23, 2009)

Egsise said:


> > The continuous time lapsed from the initial light output to when the light output is at 10% of the initial light output.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If anything, this looks like a great spot to fool Joe Average. Not exactly great thing to implement into standard...


----------



## Paul_in_Maryland (Sep 7, 2010)

Here's a recent article about the new standards. I found it, well, illuminating.


----------



## AnAppleSnail (Sep 7, 2010)

Pekka said:


> If anything, this looks like a great spot to fool Joe Average. Not exactly great thing to implement into standard...



Now we know why Coast/LL is in on this. But even 10% output is enough to see by - I just hope the stated runtimes are specific about how they're defined. The packaging icons look just like the ones on the SunwayLED light I got recently (FL 1 Standard).

One question I have for you people with light-meters is: How bright is .25 lux, for their seeing distance?


----------



## HKJ (Sep 7, 2010)

AnAppleSnail said:


> One question I have for you people with light-meters is: How bright is .25 lux, for their seeing distance?



Not very bright, especially with a high power light to make anything close to you very bright.
If I do a ceiling bounce on a white ceiling with a Preon on low I get about 0.25 lux at the floor.


----------



## Ray_of_Light (Sep 7, 2010)

I don't agree the way ANSI FL-1 standard measures the runtime. Runtime to 10% of initial intensity is not indicative of the typical usage of a flashlight. 
It will help selling incandescent flashlight powered from alkaline batteries, or resistored LED light powered from three alkaline cells, which typically can produce a month of tail light.

A runtime to 10% will certainly discourage the advent of mass produced regulated light, among other negative effects.

Here on CPF have defined the runtime to 50% of the initial brightness, which is more indicative of the usable light emission time of a flashlight.

Comparatively, the specification in the IEC standards on battery capacity, which set the test discharge current to 20 mA, rendered the indication of a battery capacity useless - unless you know the discharge characteristic curves.

The clause of runtime measurement of a flashlight with the supplied batteries is meant to avoid trickeries from manufacturers specifing the runtime with alkaline batteries while supplying zinc-carbon, expired, or low quality batteries. It is very positive for the consumers, I think. On the other hand, the clause can bite consumers - if a manufacturer will include expensive LiFeS batteries with a torch: in some cases, LiFeS batteries can produce five times (as in my Eagletac P10A, as an example) the runtime of alkalines.

I see very positive the new requirement for impact testing. I bought too many torches in the past which died from a 10 centimeters impact on the floor tiles. I'm sure they will use better bulbs now...

All in all, a flashlight standard is better than none. At least, knowing the type of flashlight, we can make some reasonable comparison now. Despite the evident bias of the new standard in favour of the flashlight industry, I think it should be party time for flashaholics...

Regards

Anthony


----------



## Dr.Jones (Sep 7, 2010)

Throw calculated for 0.25 Lux illuminance...? White targets or what? That's somewhat a joke (unless you live in snow-covered areas)...
Don't expect that throw in a forest.

At least I hope more people start using the appropriate unit for beam intensity now (candela (cd), not 'lux @1m').


----------



## Tally-ho (Sep 8, 2010)

AnAppleSnail said:


> One question I have for you people with light-meters is: How bright is .25 lux, for their seeing distance?


Petzl choose .25 lux because it is said that it is equivalent to a fullmoon brightness on a clear night.
I suppose that it is to give an idea of what you can expect of a .25 lux illuminance.
In fact the real value of a fullmoon brightness is depending of a lot of parameters (seasons, etc), so the real value is very different each times in reality.
Furthermore, Is .25 lux an average value ? The lowest value ?

Fullmoon brightness can be about 1 lux so, "the beautifull fullmoon light i remember" has a lot of chance to be above .25 lux.
If it was 1 lux or a particulary bright fullmoon, am i not going to be cheated by a manufacturer which claims that a fullmoon brightness is .25 lux ?

Manufacturers tried to set standards to help to compare flashlights from different brands but, they set range/distance calculation with a very low illuminance value that help them to claim very high range/distance. Good choice !

Wiska light has choosen for its searchlights to give (target) range at 1 lux.
1 lux that he has definided as "the minimum illuminance to identify a target with some details". 

IMHO it is more fair than the 0.25 thing. Once the light has hit the target, the light has to travel back to our eyes. 0.25 lux "to see at my feet when i walk by a fullmoon night" is not the same as .25 lux at 250 m. 

(Sorry for my bad english).


----------



## Paul_in_Maryland (Sep 8, 2010)

Tally-ho said:


> Manufacturers tried to set standards to help to compare flashlights from different brands but, they set range/distance calculation with a very low illuminance value that help them to claim very high range/distance.


But how does this provide them an advantage, if their competitors can make the same claims? It's like a bicycle racer who thinks, "When I reach the downhill, I can go faster." So can everyone else.


----------



## Tally-ho (Sep 8, 2010)

Paul_in_Maryland said:


> But how does this provide them an advantage, if their competitors can make the same claims? It's like a bicycle racer who thinks, "When I reach the downhill, I can go faster." So can everyone else.


That does not give an avantage to a manufacturer against another, it gives an avantage to all manufacturers by letting them claim very high values/figures for distance/range. That is part of the marketing.
If you already know what does it means and how it is calculated, well, you are lucky. If you ignore it, you will only see "distance: 250 m"..."waooo...great !".

Don't blind yourself by using your flashlight in high mode at short range (but maximum range/distance value is calculated in high mode), or .25 lux will be nothing usefull.


----------



## fixitman (Sep 9, 2010)

The run time standard is messed up. Looks like it was designed to allow cheep resistored lights to compete with high quality regulated lights. I had such high hopes about the standard initially, but this is pretty much crap. Guess we are still stuck doing our own run time tests, to get the real numbers. Sad :shakehead


----------



## Tally-ho (Sep 9, 2010)

How the distance/range is calculated ?
It is probably a value that is calculated from a value measured at very shorter range. 1 meter, 10 meters ?
It is measured after how many times ?
1 second ? 1 minute ?

I guess that it is calculated form a mesurement at short range after a few seconds.
I don't know a flashlight that stays at 100% brightness after 1 minutes, even after 20 seconds. I'm pretty new to flashlights' world so maybe i'm wrong, but the distance calculation probably doesn't reflect the real distance/range after 1 minutes of use.
So, what purpose is this standard made for if it only reflects the reality for only the first seconds of use ?
In my humble opinion it is nothing more than marketing disguised with good intentions.
Who cares something that is only true for a few seconds.


----------



## Size15's (Sep 9, 2010)

Perhaps it makes more sense to base opinions on the actual test methods rather than assumptions of what they might be.


----------



## saabluster (Sep 9, 2010)

Paul_in_Maryland said:


> But how does this provide them an advantage, if their competitors can make the same claims? It's like a bicycle racer who thinks, "When I reach the downhill, I can go faster." So can everyone else.


My problem is not that it necessarily gives an advantage to one over the other. The whole premise of these standards was to assist/protect the consumer. But with the way the standards are set it does the opposite. Say a person needs a light to see the back of their multi-acreage property about 1000m away. When they read the specs of the light and it says it will reach as far 1100m away they will rightly conclude that this light will do the job. On getting it home and testing it however they will find this light to be woefully short of what is needed and what was advertised. Now they either have to eat the cost or take the light back. :shakehead 

These standards were set by companies who cared more about their pocketbooks than helping the consumer. Sure the .25lux standard creates a level playing field but then so does a more realistic 1lux or 2lux standard. 

They would have been far better off coming here and allowing the intelligentsia of CPF to set the standards.


----------



## JP Labs (Sep 11, 2010)

You guys have made a bunch of very good observations about the way in which these standards relate to actual use, and have demonstrated to me that they are very optimistic. I especially wish there was a runtime to 50%.

Still, I very much appreciate having a standard by which various lights can be fairly compared. Sure, the marketed numbers will be highly optimistic. Well, I never achieve the advertised fuel economy in my vehicles, but I'm glad to be able to use them for comparison shopping, just the same. At least the flashlight performance claims will be equally inflated by all of the standards-users, which is a heck of a lot more useful when comparison shopping than having to go on trust and reputation, especially for any non-flashaholic. 

A large part of developing a _voluntary _standard is defining it such that merely adopting said standard does not pose a disadvantage in marketing, or it will never catch on. So, they tend to be defined to provide good numbers when they are manufacturer developed. I'd rather have that, than no cooperative standard development among manufacturers. And, at least they included 'manufacturers, users, and general' in the voting group, with a clause that required no one group to hold more than 50% of the winning vote. That's a pretty balanced approach, in my opinion.

The example of somebody having a 1000m lot and buying a light rated to 1100m throw, as fooling the consumer, does seem valid, I agree. Part of the shopping game is knowing how much to discount the claims. Car fuel economy, not too much. Car audio power ratings, a whole bunch! Flashlight throw, probably discount by 75% if 1 lux is a more useful threshold? Folks will catch on quickly enough, though, and this will help make the ratings more useful as time goes on. Sure, I was disappointed when that $20, 1000W car amp I bought when I was 17 was quieter than my mom's 50W home amp, but I learned to deal with the exaggeration and can better compare and select products with standard power ratings now. They still help.

That's how I see it, anyway.


----------



## TMedina (Sep 11, 2010)

At the end of the day, it's an interesting exercise in self-regulation, but I don't think it will effectively alter the practical flashlight buying experience for the casual user or the dedicated professional user.

I don't believe it will impact the US Army's Family of Flashlight certification process, for example.

-Trevor


----------



## Paul_in_Maryland (Sep 11, 2010)

JP Labs said:


> At least the flashlight performance claims will be equally inflated by all of the standards-users...


Sadly, they won't. Unless I missed it, there's no reward for a company whose lights stay brighter longer. As a result, the endurance ratings favor companies whose lights lack any sort of regulation.


----------



## rayman (Sep 11, 2010)

Those standards are long overdue. Sounds really great :thumbsup:.

rayman


----------



## uk_caver (Sep 11, 2010)

In the wonderful new standards, is there any requirement for people to give output figures for times other than immediately after turning the light on?

If not, I really can't see what the point of them is, since the information given is likely to be misleading to a large fraction of potential customers.

In fact, if the only important figures are brightness (candela/lumens/distance) at switch-on and time to 10% of initial, wouldn't it be easy to play the system, and have a light electronically designed to get the best possible figures - having a regulated brief initial high, followed by a nice subtle regulated decline down to somewhere a little over 10% brightness, where the light then just sat until the battery flattened?

It wouldn't even be easy to say the light was definitely a _cheat_, since a manufacturer could argue that it was a special 'automatic' mode, giving a good initial output, but subtly dropping to be nice and green and save power as a user's eyes became dark-adapted.


----------



## Paul_in_Maryland (Sep 11, 2010)

uk_caver said:


> In the wonderful new standards, is there any requirement for people to give output figures for times other than immediately after turning the light on?


I think I read that the "initial" brightness value is taken 30 seconds after the light is turned on--a welcome concession to reality.


----------



## uk_caver (Sep 11, 2010)

I'd wonder if it was largely a concession to ease of testing.

I'd have thought it's simpler to turn a light on and then make a measurement 30 seconds later than doing one immediately at turn-on, especially since with 30 seconds being specified, I can't see too many people losing much sleep about whether they measured at the precise second, or a second or three either side.

In terms of cells discharging, or badly heatsinked LEDs warming up, 30 seconds doesn't seem very far away from 'immediately'.


----------



## Tally-ho (Sep 11, 2010)

Paul_in_Maryland said:


> I think I read that the "initial" brightness value is taken 30 seconds after the light is turned on--a welcome concession to reality.



_Run Time
The duration of time from the initial light output value (30 seconds after the light is turned on with fresh batteries) until the light output drops to 10 percent of the initial value.

Light Output
A measurement of the total quantity of emitted overall light energy. The value is reported in lumens._

It is not said when the measure is done for "Light Output", only for the reference value for measuring "Run Time". But if the "initial light output value" for measuring "Run time" is taken 30 seconds after the light is on, maybe it is the same value that is used for "Light Ouptut".
I'm not sure to understand this well.
Anyway...nothing better than graphic curves for regulation provided by CPF reviewers.

lovecpf


----------



## saabluster (Sep 13, 2010)

uk_caver said:


> wouldn't it be easy to play the system, and have a light electronically designed to get the best possible figures - having a regulated brief initial high, followed by a nice subtle regulated decline down to somewhere a little over 10% brightness, where the light then just sat until the battery flattened?
> 
> It wouldn't even be easy to say the light was definitely a _cheat_, since a manufacturer could argue that it was a special 'automatic' mode, giving a good initial output, but subtly dropping to be nice and green and save power as a user's eyes became dark-adapted.



You mean like the Icon?


----------



## tolkaze (Sep 13, 2010)

Pekka said:


> If anything, this looks like a great spot to fool Joe Average. Not exactly great thing to implement into standard...


 

Agreed, the specs don't cover regulated output at all. I would prefer to know exactly how my light will react at different light outputs. 90 minutes on high, and then choose to select a lower output. 10% IS okay to see by, but LL has been saying that 190 lumens for hundreds of hours for quite a while now (i'm looking at you P7!) 

The good thing is, revisions do take place in peer reviewed standards, and especially in a fast moving industry like this one. I just hope that Surefire has a controlling interest in the revisions, as soon as they pull out, the standard means less!

I will read the standard though, I am sure I can sneak it into the purchasing list for the next round of tech documents!


----------



## saabluster (Sep 13, 2010)

JP Labs said:


> At least the flashlight performance claims will be equally inflated by all of the standards-users, which is a heck of a lot more useful when comparison shopping than having to go on trust and reputation, especially for any non-flashaholic.
> 
> A large part of developing a _voluntary _standard is defining it such that merely adopting said standard does not pose a disadvantage in marketing, or it will never catch on. So, they tend to be defined to provide good numbers when they are manufacturer developed. I'd rather have that, than no cooperative standard development among manufacturers. And, at least they included 'manufacturers, users, and general' in the voting group, with a clause that required no one group to hold more than 50% of the winning vote. That's a pretty balanced approach, in my opinion.
> 
> ...



So if I'm understanding you correctly this standards body was so forwards looking that they included their own BS fudge factor built into the standards and that 1. the consumer should be expecting exaggerated claims so it is ok to lie and 2. if the consumer doesn't realize they they are being lied to then they will just have to learn the hard way.

For standards to carry any weight they must bear out in the real world. What they have done is shoot themselves in the foot. They want a standard people can trust and use to guide their purchases but then undermine the authority they seek to gain as a standard.

These myopic businessmen make me sick. Just make a standard that carries weight. If there are only a few manufacturers who take it on so be it. A good marketer could use this to their advantage and show the others to be frauds. 

Let's say you(the manufacturer) follow the new standard for flashlights with clearly marked specs. But if on getting home the customer realizes they've been had they will no longer believe those specs. So what good are those specs going to be for the consumer in the future if now they no longer give credence to them?




JP Labs said:


> A large part of developing a _voluntary _standard is defining it such that merely adopting said standard does not pose a disadvantage in marketing, or it will never catch on.


 One must always tell the truth regardless of how many people follow you. 

If one realizes there is a problem in the marketplace with many sellers giving wildly false or misleading claims and honestly truly wants to help correct a wrong would they, an honest person, come to the conclusion that just because my lie is not as far fetched as their lie makes me a good guy?

Basically this standard is one where everyone has gotten together and agreed to "lie a bit less". 

I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm beating up on you. My frustration is with the standards and not you and I realize the above is probably not your thoughts but your attempt to "get in their heads".


----------



## uk_caver (Sep 13, 2010)

Personally, at the moment I think I'd probably have more respect for a trustworthy manufacturer who chose not to buy into the standard than one who did.

If it lacks a requirement to clearly distinguish regulated and unregulated lights, and give some idea how output will change over time, this standard doesn't even give the most technically-aware consumer enough information to make an informed decision, let alone anyone else.


----------



## ptolemy (Sep 13, 2010)

The more I read about this the more I realise that these standards aren't really designed for us, but rather for an uneducated buyer. Chances are the more 'icons' they can add to the box, the better it'll sell.


---story time---
I remember a few month ago my friends father was showing off his new flashlight. I was carring a basic direct drive sst-50 with panasonic 18650. it had a 2" deep smo reflector. 

Anyway, we went to his garage and he said, I just bought this light and it claims to be used by police departments and many others.

He tookout pelican 7060 and turned it on, then we went outside and he shined to his car 20ft away, sure it was cool. Then he shined towards a house on the other side, and it dissipated. I said, well, I have this toy that Nailbender made me, I turned it on, shined it to neighobers side and it made a nice 6-8ft hot spot from about 100ft away. My friend's father basically had an epithany...It took me 5 minutes to explain that yes, 7060 is much better than previous mag's, but it's nothing worth writing home about.

I told him that on low mode, it still has 2x more than 7060 on max and about 2-3x runtime and the same cost. And because it has intense hot spot, police officers would love that too. 
---story over---

Yes, sure, those standards don't really hurt anyone, but I also don't really think that they help.


----------



## Tally-ho (Sep 13, 2010)

ptolemy said:


> Chances are the more 'icons' they can add to the box, the better it'll sell.


Without a doubt.
But it is unfair to compare a pelican 7060 to an SST-50, all the more to compare brightness only. That doesn't make much sense for me...much less than biased standards.



tolkaze said:


> I will read the standard though, I am sure I can sneak it into the purchasing list for the next round of tech documents!


Certainly an interesting reading but i prefer to save up 60$ to spend for a flashlight than for downloading this PDF detailing biased standards.
I will look further for your comments.


----------



## KiwiMark (Sep 13, 2010)

tolkaze said:


> IS okay to see by, but LL has been saying that 190 lumens for hundreds of hours for quite a while now (i'm looking at you P7!)



While camping I came across a person with an LED he was very proud of. To me it seemed a bit average, but bright enough I suppose. He told me that it is supposed to run from 100 hours, I asked "is that on low" and he says "it only has one level" - I thought "WTH, it isn't that far off the brightness of my D10 and isn't that much better - no way it could run at that level for more than 2 - 4 hours, 100 hours is complete rubbish!"

I am not to sure on the brand - it could have been LL but I do know that this person was told a load of bull! I also know that my weakest Maglite was brighter and had more throw - but that may have been because I don't own an unmodified Maglite.

Oh yeah - it was an LL, he told me that the shop that sold it to him had said that LL was pretty much the top brand in the world for flash lights!


----------



## Paul_in_Maryland (Sep 13, 2010)

saabluster said:


> So if I'm understanding you correctly this standards body was so forwards looking that they included their own BS fudge factor built into the standards and that 1. the consumer should be expecting exaggerated claims so it is ok to lie and 2. if the consumer doesn't realize they they are being lied to then they will just have to learn the hard way....


 
Well said, saabluster! Yours is among the most eloquent and well-reasoned CPF posts I've ever read. I happen to agree with you 100 percent. I am a technical writer in an organization ruled by public relations. Their half-truths, euphemisms, Orwellian spins, and "lies by omission" make me sick.


----------



## LEDninja (Sep 13, 2010)

Bad thing about using 0.25 lux for throw is one can see a dot of light on a moonless night but will be washed out by the full moon.

Good thing about using 0.25 lux for throw is it is exactly 1/4 of 1 lux the most common 'standard' used on CPF. Allowing for the inverse square law we simply halve the ANSI throw number to arrive at an equivalent number used by quickbeam (flashlight reviews), selfbuilt and many other CPF members.
Example:
A 2D rebel MagLED is rated (0.25 lux at) 294M.
http://www.smartdeviceresource.com/device-reviews/maglite-led-flashlight-review-and-guide/#specs
Flashlight Reviews and Selfbuilt should get 1 lux at 294/2M=147M.
147^2=21,609 lux at 1M.
I expect to see 147(21,609) under the throw column if selfbuilt ever gets around to reviewing a rebel MagLED.
So the ANSI throw numbers actually mean something and can be easily converted to throw numbers CPF members are used to.

Runtime is another matter. CPF members are used to regulated lights. Even when there is no regulation circuit the use of NiMH or lithium batteries result in fairly flat output. Most lights out there are unregulated and run off alkaline or carbon zinc cells. Output is constantly dropping. So runtime is until the flashlight does not emit any light. 190 lumens at 1 sec dropping to 0 lumens at 100 hours. (NOT 190 lumens for the whole 100 hours.)
So what use is 0.25 lumens at 99 hours? During the big blackout of 2003 I found out the battery of my Solitaire was dead. I had to feel my way up many flights of stairs. I would be very happy to have 0.25 lumens to confirm what floor I was on at each landing.
LL is not the only company that claim runtime until the light goes out. Dorcy used to claim 200 hours for their 4 AA 1 LED floating lantern (also known as Cool Blue). Funny thing is the 4 AAA using the same LEDcorp bulb designed by ARCmania got 400 hours! The AAA batteries put out a lot less current and end up lasting a lot longer than the AA.

The brightness measurement at 30 seconds is not very useful by itself but it forces manufacturers to actually measure the output rather than take some number they read somewhere sometime. C-bin SSC-P7s are still listed as 900 lumen even after SSC has corrected their datasheets to 700-800 lumen. If the manufacturers have to actually measure the output at the 30 second mark it would be in the 400-450 lumen range for a 1*18650 P7/MCE light.
Batteries tend to have an initial 0.1V peak above normal operating voltage so gives a much higher brightness number than after a few minutes. An extreme case is a Preon with a 10440.
https://www.candlepowerforums.com/posts/3387389&postcount=3
326.2 - 1 sec
*262.3 - 30 sec*
234.6 - 1 min
223.1 - 2 min
222.3 - 3 min
At 30 sec the output has dropped significantly from the 326.2 lumens at 1 sec but is still high compared to what can be expected in normal operation. The output does not flatten out until the 2 minute mark.
I still have to quote the above numbers to newbies (and probably some not so newbies) that dropping an 10440 in a preon will not give 300+ lumens for long. They usually just look at the first line go "WOW I can get 300+ lumens out of a preon" and forget to read the rest.
BTW a 10440 in a Preon is running at 4C, double the safe limit of 2C for Li-on batteries.  Definitely not recommended.


----------



## uk_caver (Sep 13, 2010)

LEDninja said:


> Runtime is another matter. CPF members are used to regulated lights.


To some extent, yes, though if I were buying a light I'd still really like to have idea how regulated it is.
I have/use lights that are unregulated, soft-regulated (graceful tail at end), and hard-regulated (constant until either sudden death or rapid decline)
Some idea of knowing which of those three behaviours a light might exhibit could be really useful to a purchaser.



LEDninja said:


> The brightness measurement at 30 seconds is not very useful by itself but it forces manufacturers to actually measure the output rather than take some number they read somewhere sometime.


Having an actual output measurement rather than a nominal LED output figure (real or imaginary) is an improvement over the past, though taking it at 30 seconds doesn't allow a great deal of time for heatsinking issues to make themselves known.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if any positive information value for the consumer for having a 30 second reading compared to an instant one was just a side-effect of making measurement simpler.

And I'd reckon that in practice, it's probably more misleading to many people to fail to give a good idea of lumens-vs-time than for amanufacturer to claim a product output based on the average (or maximum) LED output for the bin used rather than an OTF reading.
If I bought a claimed 800lm device and was actually only getting a regulated 650 OTF, that's possibly less bad than one that actually gives a true 800 at 30 seconds, but which is down below 650 before I've got more than a fraction of the way through its claimed runtime.


----------



## Paul_in_Maryland (Sep 13, 2010)

I didn't realize that the U.S. Department of Energy has its own labeling standards. Manufacturers can list their results in a label called Lighting Facts. But some manufacturers, including Philips, have taken liberties with the label, using modified versions designed to show their wares in a more favorable light.


----------



## uk_caver (Sep 13, 2010)

Paul_in_Maryland said:


> But some manufacturers, including Philips, have taken liberties with the label, using modified versions designed to show their wares in a more favorable light.


It looks rather like Philips had just failed to properly register the relevant division with the program (while other divisions had registered), not that they were trying to mislead anyone.

Personally, I'm principally bothered about whether any information provided is actually accurate and non-misleading, and only incidentally interested whether someone is or isn't a member of a voluntary standard, and the poorer the standard, the less I am interested in who has signed up to it.


----------



## Dioni (Sep 13, 2010)

csshih said:


> interesting concept.
> I wonder how well this will catch on.


 
+1


----------



## JP Labs (Oct 2, 2010)

saabluster said:


> So if I'm understanding you correctly this standards body was so forwards looking that they included their own BS fudge factor built into the standards and that 1. the consumer should be expecting exaggerated claims so it is ok to lie and 2. if the consumer doesn't realize they they are being lied to then they will just have to learn the hard way.
> 
> For standards to carry any weight they must bear out in the real world. What they have done is shoot themselves in the foot. They want a standard people can trust and use to guide their purchases but then undermine the authority they seek to gain as a standard.
> 
> ...



No, it's not lying if they accurately report to the specifications. It's just that the standards used, such as 0.25 Lux, might not be benchmarking performance at a high enough brightness to meet expectations. It's still honest, it's just not a super severe specification. Again, similar to the fuel economy ratings for cars, which assume lighter loads than most drivers would apply in real life. Those numbers DO honestly report performance to the standards. So will these light ratings. No lying involved at all.


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Oct 3, 2010)

For me, when all is said and done, we on CPF will be doing our own evaluation of flashlights, and using our own standards, which may include out the front lumens, lux at one meter, or further, and runtime graphed to 50% or less. Some of us may be using calibrated Integrated Spheres, others may be using bounce, and or lightbox measurement with a light meter. I personally will be buying lights mostly based on what I read here on CPF. I will follow up with my own testing to see if I have made worthy purchases.

I should be know that some flashlight makers in the US will not be using the new standards. I talked to one manufacturer at SHOT 2010 who said that he would not subscribe to the voluntary standards, and will advertise his lights with at least out the front lumens, and graphed runtime to 50%. I did not think to ask about lux figures.


----------



## saabluster (Oct 4, 2010)

JP Labs said:


> No, it's not lying if they accurately report to the specifications.



See lie 2 *"2. * Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.*"*

The category in question is what they call "beam distance". From this the consumer will rightfully conclude that beam distance means the distance they will be able to see. The standard as outlined clearly deceives the consumer in this respect and is therefore lying. 

If you bought a light based on the expectations of the light performing "up to spec", and then realize it doesn't come close, you would feel like you had been lied to.



Bullzeyebill said:


> I should be know that some flashlight makers in the US will not be using the new standards. I talked to one manufacturer at SHOT 2010 who said that he would not subscribe to the voluntary standards, and will advertise his lights with at least out the front lumens, and graphed runtime to 50%. I did not think to ask about lux figures.



This is really good to know as any manufacturer that decides to use these standards is party to the lie. I hope that this company is rewarded for taking this stand and upholding the interests of the consumer.


----------



## brted (Oct 25, 2010)

I wrote up what I could on the FL-1 standard on the CPF Wiki based on information I found on the internet. I also have a list of flashlight makers who have adopted the standard on their packaging, but it is just a start, so if you know others, please add them.

http://www.cpfwiki.com/Wiki/index.php/ANSI/NEMA_FL-1


----------



## GarageBoy (Oct 26, 2010)

Pekka said:


> If anything, this looks like a great spot to fool Joe Average. Not exactly great thing to implement into standard...



I agree
Still, I guess it's a start
Let the amendments come


----------



## Rocketman (Oct 26, 2010)

Owen said:


> It will be interesting to see how they implement this, and how specific the guidelines/results in each category are displayed.
> 
> I'm a bit dubious about manufacturers volunteering to be completely open about their products' shortcomings, and am already envisioning companies assigning them a score based on the total results, or on a curve based on expected usage, or some gay crap like that. Guess time will tell.



So why does it have to be "gay crap?"

As a software engineer, I came across standards. They cost money because they cost money to implement and to maintain and to disseminate. Their worth will be determined by how they are used. If, perhaps, Streamlight, Surefire, Fenix, and, say, a dozen other flashlight companies agree to use the standard, then the flashlight market will become aware of the standard and will begin to expect their flashlights to be held to the standard. The result is more honesty and therefore better products. Dishonest companies loose customers, honest companies are empowered.


----------



## swtim255 (Dec 26, 2011)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1ffbOCDRf0
Looks like very few people watched this when it was posted to youtube
. 
I just bought one of the "flashing flares" at Home depot and saw the FL run time logo for the 1st time and was researching it.


----------



## cccpull (Dec 27, 2011)

I'm OK with the Ansi standards as long as everyone uses it. Whatever the claimed lumen or distance mean, it will establish the same point of reference for everyone.


----------



## AnAppleSnail (Jul 26, 2012)

cccpull said:


> I'm OK with the Ansi standards as long as everyone uses it. Whatever the claimed lumen or distance mean, it will establish the same point of reference for everyone.



That is the value of a standard. I estimate that if you cut the ANSI distance to 1/3 to 1/2 of the stated value, you have an estimate for the range that you can effectively see with this flashlight.

Some assumptions in that approximation: How is your eyesight? How much foreground clutter is overlit to block the distant things? How much background light is there? How much light pollution is there? What contrast is there - a reflector (full ANSI distance) or a crouching deer in brown brush?


----------



## Steve-at-Springboard (Jan 9, 2013)

BTW, at least one CPF member was very involved in the creation of the standard.


----------



## Cataract (Jan 9, 2013)

The funny part about having a standard for flashlights is that there is no standard for radiometer calibration.


----------



## Yamabushi (Jan 9, 2013)

Cataract said:


> The funny part about having a standard for flashlights is that there is no standard for radiometer calibration.



??? ASTM G130 Standard Test Method for Calibration of Narrow- and Broad-Band Ultraviolet Radiometers Using a Spectroradiometer, ASTM E824 Standard Test Method for Transfer of Calibration From Reference to Field Radiometers


----------



## Cataract (Jan 10, 2013)

Yamabushi said:


> ??? ASTM G130 Standard Test Method for Calibration of Narrow- and Broad-Band Ultraviolet Radiometers Using a Spectroradiometer, ASTM E824 Standard Test Method for Transfer of Calibration From Reference to Field Radiometers



ASTM E824: "...Transfer of calibration indoors using artificial sources is not covered by this test method." 

ASTM G 130 "Note 3 For purposes of this test method, narrow-band radiometers are those with 20 nm, broad-band radiometers are those with 20 nm 70 nm, and wide-band radiometers are those with 70 nm."

These are very restrictive and probably apply for specific scientific fields. I work closely with a few manufacturers and we use the same method, but we all have slightly different light sources for visible light sensor calibration. Fortunately, the sensors seem to have identical response aside the newer fully digital models. I am considering writing the basis and then getting these manufacturers together to write a new, more appropriate standard. It will be difficult as I also calibrate other brands and we all have pretty much the same result. Also, there is no specific demand, even from the very tightly controlled aviation industry to state some standard other than NIST traceability.

I'm ready to open a partial discussion on requisites from such a standard (I can't spill too many beans as metrology is an *extremely* competitive field when it comes to proprietary stuff.


----------



## Yamabushi (Jan 10, 2013)

I was responding to your statement that "there is no standard ...". Now if you had said "no suitable standard ...".

IIRC in the past there were a dozen or more ASTM and ISO standards that have fallen by the wayside. I have no idea if any of those would have been useful. As you have observed, for any standard to be developed, adopted and persist, there has to be both a need/demand (either in the marketplace or by regulatory decree) and industry support.


----------



## Cataract (Jan 10, 2013)

Touche! I should re-read myself with more detachment, but I probably would not have seen it your way anyways.

I have been thinking about involving CPF big guns on developping the basis for a real-world application standard on radiometer calibration for some months now. I still need to do my part of research, which has been a part-time endeavour for my job. As I said, the big challenge is stirring interest from the manufacturers side, as none of us officially calibratibg radiometers want to be stuck with unrealistic expectations. From what I gather, I have to deal with more stringent demands than anyone in the U.S., but I know it will eventually catch up. I even calibrate instruments from Mexico with similar unrealistic demands as I get here - not just for radiometers. There is a major factor in educating the end user, which has become my primordial goal for the short-medium term, but it's a tough market I'm in with many other people, companies and auditors to bring in the loop. Sorry, I'm sorta emptying my bag a bit with this post.


----------



## saabluster (Jan 14, 2013)

Steve-at-Springboard said:


> BTW, at least one CPF member was very involved in the creation of the standard.


Now if only this person could be involved in changing it as it is horrible in many areas.


----------



## TEEJ (Jan 14, 2013)

I'd like to see some recognition of the need for higher lux to be visible at longer distances for example. (0.25 lux is too dim at very long ranges)


----------



## saabluster (Jan 14, 2013)

TEEJ said:


> I'd like to see some recognition of the need for higher lux to be visible at longer distances for example. (0.25 lux is too dim at very long ranges)


Or changing the statistically insignificant 3 unit sample size.


----------



## TEEJ (Jan 14, 2013)

Yeah, that's a bit small given normal batch variations.

What else irks you?


----------



## Cataract (Jan 14, 2013)

TEEJ said:


> I'd like to see some recognition of the need for higher lux to be visible at longer distances for example. (0.25 lux is too dim at very long ranges)



err... not 100% sure what you mean... I believe the 0.25 lux is a reference for the throw statement: the calculated distance at which the light tested will have only 0.25 lux output is the throw distance. I don't like this in the sense that I won't see anything that is being lit by 0.25 lux while I'm 100+ meters away (sounds like this is what you meant). I'd prefer that they used at least 100 lux, something that would at least light a stop sing and reflect enough light back to be seen. I also do not like that it is a calculated number from a measurement made at a close distance, but you can't ask manufacturers to build half-mile long testing rooms either. 

I'd also like to see a new statement: beam profile, as in spot / spill angles.


----------

