# Got Lucky - Right Place at the Right Time



## BVH

I’ve had a 60” Carbon Arc, a few VSS-1 and VSS-3 tank lights, have some helicopter targeting lights, a couple Maxabeams and more HID and Short Arc lights but here's a light I never thought I’d have. Not because I wouldn’t want one, but because they are so expensive for what they are as compared to other HID’s. I’ve been watching these on Ebay for a long, long time during which, there have been very few for sale and at very high prices. A few months ago, I saw one that I think was between $3,500 and $4,500 that looked pretty good in the pics but came with batteries that were completely dead/expired. I saw it listed a few more times for a little less each time. Then a couple weeks ago, I saw it listed for less again. A day later, it was a little less again. I emailed the seller saying that if he didn’t have any luck selling it, I would buy it for a$1,800 plus shipping. What the heck – a new 80 Watt Maxabeam is $2,300 and I can run this light on my 28 Volt portable power supply so a working light would cost me about $1,850 with shipping. He emailed back saying that he would keep my email but that he wanted to continue on Ebay for a month or two. A couple hours later, he emailed again saying that he was working with others on this and that he had argued with them to keep the price low while the others wanted to raise it back up. At the end of the email, he said they actually had 3 of them and that I could probably get them all for $5,500 shipped and with rugged Hartigg Storm Cases – of course all 3 with the dead batteries. I kicked it around for a day, emailed a fellow CPF member asking him if he wanted to go in for 33%. He answered in the affirmative. He can ID himself if he wants. So a deal was struck and now I have a couple of them sitting in the garage. I bought two with the intent of keeping one and selling the second one to help pay for the one I’m keeping. But I’m also toying with the idea of attempting to mod the 2nd light to 300 Watts.

This is what arrived a few days ago: (I’m a little disappointed that there was no Red Beret and military fatigues in the cases)

Cases are well traveled and the wheel bearings were near frozen. Soaked them in solvent and then in some oil and they’re almost as good as new. One case is cleaned and polished. I have new OEM foam sets coming for one.







The contents of the purchase






A little closer






The lights close up






The battery packs in the vest. These were very nice Safion packs but every cell has vented and many have corroded through their cases. The cells are worthless. It was mfg’d as a 6S/4P LiFePO4, 3.3V x 6 = 19.8 V Nominal x’s 5.3 Amps = 104.94 Watt Hours each x’s 3 = 314.82 Watt Hours. The boxes and the PCB are salvagable. The 3-box pack weighs 8 lbs, 6 Oz. By comparison, I’m using 4 ea., 6S/3 Amp Lipo packs that weigh 4lbs total. 3.7V x’s 6 = 22.2V Nominal x’s 3 Amps = 66.6 Watt Hours each x’s 4 = 266.4 Watt Hours. So my substitute pack is 85% of the capacity of the OEM pack. OEM pack run time on high is stated as 100 minutes so I might get 80 minutes from my pack. 







The charger







Some beam shots on a windy, dirty atmosphere night. I'm disappointed in my beam shot results. In-person and in Photoshop at full resolution, the view looks a full 25 - 30% brighter. Something is lost in reducing them. I need to somehow compensate for this in the future. The same thing happened in my beamshots post in the Abyss Group Buy thread. To my eyes, the MR puts a bigger spot downfield and that entire spot is at least 2.5, maybe 3 times brighter than the Gen3 Maxabeam. I had my Maxabeam along but the battery ran out. I'll add the MB shots in the next few days. When they're up, you can probably appreciate the 175 Watt MRs' performance more.

Update: I reshot everything tonight with both lights using 8 second exposures instead of 6 seconds. It's better but still not what I see. But at least is a relative comparison of the two lights.


Maxabeam 350 Yards







Megaray 350 Yards







Maxabeam 900 Yards







Megaray 900 Yards







Maxabeam 1355 Yards







Megaray 1355 Yards







Megaray Left, Maxabeam, Right







Megaray Left, Maxabeam, Right


----------



## LuxLuthor

Good for you! Are they still making these, or are they an abandoned product now? You should put on that battery vest and bring the case and walk to the TSA Airport guy and make his day! It's hard to get these in a proper perspective with other megalights.


----------



## FRITZHID

WTG Bob! Great Score!!!!! wish i coulda gotten in on the deal, alas, they are byond my reach at this time. Enjoy your new toys! we all look forward to your fututre projects with these!


----------



## Parker VH

Congrats Bob,
I saw that one on Ebay also but being unfamiliar with them I just watched it. He definitely lowered the price significantly from when he first listed it. Having seen your beamshots now I kind of wish I would've attempted buying it. I have never seen any other beamshots from it so I was hesitant. 
Enjoy!!


----------



## Patriot

Outstanding Bob! Of all the people who could appreciate and talk about the differences between the MR and other high performance spots, I'm glad it was you. The beam shots look really good regardless of the loss of light in reduction. Ultimately it's the comparison that we're after and you made a great showing. I sure love that beam shot place that you have. One of the very vest on CPF!


----------



## N10

wow! i remember reading about these in a thread and on the super lights shootout made by KENSHIRO and Mr Ted Bear back in 2006 or 2007...if i'm not wrong the price on one of these was in the $8k range...haven't been to the blog site in a while. If anyone wants a review of these or just want a comparison with other short arcs and HIDs..just head to kenshiro's website..it's still there,just checked


----------



## BVH

Every year I hunt down Kenshiro's review. I think it was closer to 04 or 05 wasn't it? His review planted the seed. I'm hoping I have my test range for at least another couple of years. City Council is close to approving a 400 home and country club development. It should take some time to build out hopefully. I find it interesting that the battery pack boxes have the label of the manufacturer on them and it turns out to be only about 6 miles from where I used to live in Burbank. If I'm not mistaken, the lights come from South Africa so why the U.S. battery? Unless these are replacements, but I don't think so.


----------



## Phil Ament

Better update your sig line. 


Phil Ament :wave:

P.S. I am quite sure that you'll be able to get some new batteries for it as you really now have a vested interest! :shakehead

P.P.S. Have you thought of mounting one on a helmet for when you go for a ride on your bike!


----------



## BVH

Phil Ament said:


> Better update your sig line.
> 
> 
> Phil Ament :wave:
> 
> P.S. I am quite sure that you'll be able to get some new batteries for it as you really now have a vested interest! :shakehead



Updated Sig a few days ago wondering if anyone would be curious about what "MR's" is. Nobody took the bait.


----------



## N10

BVH said:


> Every year I hunt down Kenshiro's review. I think it was closer to 04 or 05 wasn't it? His review planted the seed. I'm hoping I have my test range for at least another couple of years. City Council is close to approving a 400 home and country club development. It should take some time to build out hopefully. I find it interesting that the battery pack boxes have the label of the manufacturer on them and it turns out to be only about 6 miles from where I used to live in Burbank. If I'm not mistaken, the lights come from South Africa so why the U.S. battery? Unless these are replacements, but I don't think so.


You might be right...2004 or 2005,the website says last updated in 2006. Yeah, the lights are made in South Africa but i can't really give you much info on the batteries,depending on how old the lights you bought are and how much use they've been through,the original batteries might have had to be replaced at some point..Do you plan on trying to build a lighter battery pack for the light? And how do you plan on modding those to 300W?wouldn't that be hard on the bulbs?


----------



## Phil Ament

Wow, now I feel like a real idiot coz I totally missed it. Bit too subtle maybe or is it just that I may need some newer glasses. :thinking: :sick2:


Phil :wave:


----------



## Lips

.
.
.
*Here's the other Megaray representing Louisiana! 
Thanks Bob for letting me in on the deal! These lights and optics are in great shape!*




*Very "Heavy" Duty Military Case with pressure relief valve. Wheels on one long end and handle on other:*









*
Coffee cup by light for size comparison. Light is smaller than you would think or pics show...*
*Motorized Fan in back of Tube for cooling*








*Heat-Sink on Bottom:*









*Cermax Lamp module down in there with built in ellipsoidal reflector. *









*On-off *trigger switch and *High-Low-Strobe* toggle
Head of light extends by pulling at fatest end for narrow to tight focus.









*24 Lithium Phosphate 18650 in each pack(x3): *









*
Easy open with 4 screws:*









*Batteries are shot!*

























*PCB for Battery Packs:*








*Head fully extended by hand:*


----------



## BVH

N10 said:


> You might be right...2004 or 2005,the website says last updated in 2006. Yeah, the lights are made in South Africa but i can't really give you much info on the batteries,depending on how old the lights you bought are and how much use they've been through,the original batteries might have had to be replaced at some point..Do you plan on trying to build a lighter battery pack for the light? And how do you plan on modding those to 300W?wouldn't that be hard on the bulbs?



The 4 Blue Lipo packs in my pic are what I've settled on. The 4 represent 85% of the capacity of the OEM packs and I can buy the four for $80.00 TOTAL! No way could I rebuild the LiFePO4 packs for less than probably $800 to $1,000. So less than 1/2 the weight and about 1/3 the physical size. I could fill the other two pockets with 8 more packs and get 4 hrs run time.

For the upgrade, I need to buy the 300 Watt version of the same Cermax bulb. It has identical specs - arc gap, focal point, physical size ect. as the 175 Watt bulb except for more Amperage - 22 Amps versus 14 Amps. I bought an OEM Cermax outboard power supply for powering both 175 and 300 Watt bulbs. To retrofit, I'd end up with an outboard PS and running just the high voltage cable directly into the light. I'd give up some portability but it would be only a demonstration light. I'd upgrade the standard configuration fan for more CFM.


----------



## Phil Ament

Lips

What a coincidence. I notice that in the 6th photo down that the battery already has your name on it. Now you won't have to get your mum to label it! :shakehead


Phil Ament :wave:


----------



## BVH

Phil Ament said:


> Lips
> 
> What a coincidence. I notice that in the 6th photo down that the battery already has your name on it. Now you won't have to get your mum to label it! :shakehead
> 
> 
> Phil Ament :wave:



Ah, yes and he must be in the third quarter "C" of his "65"th year.


----------



## Lips

Phil Ament said:


> Lips
> 
> What a coincidence. I notice that in the 6th photo down that the battery already has your name on it. Now you won't have to get your mum to label it! :shakehead
> 
> 
> Phil Ament :wave:




When BVH told me how much those batteries would cost to rebuild like they are stock my LIPS pocked out like MUM had given me a spanken!


----------



## ma_sha1

MegaRay, wow!

Congratulations!


----------



## BVH

All new comparison beam shots. Old ones removed.


----------



## Patriot

Those are really clear and bright Bob! Great comparisons. It's so neat to think that you actually own one of these after all this time. What an impressive light too. Great performance from a sort of odd ball, off the wall, semi-rare, super light. We've never seen shots this good before.


----------



## Phil Ament

Bob

Really great comparison photos but in the second one from the bottom, it appears as though the beams are actually crossed, and I thought that you weren't meant to do that, or has someone been lying to me. Maybe you had better find out for sure but I don't know "who you're gonna call". :shakehead



Phil Ament :wave:


----------



## ma_sha1

Looks like Mega Ray is positioned on the left & higher of Maxa Beam from the last photo, its not crossed.

The MagaRay 150W in Ken's beam shots had much less throw than Gen II Maxa Beam, zoomed-in photos clearly showing them hitting the same objects were critical in his long distance beam comparo.

In theses shots here, on the 1300yards, it is not clear if the MagaRay 175 & Maxa Beam are hitting the same tree? Zoomed in images would be very helpful.

Would like to see Lux at over 100 meters measured between the two.

I am also surprised to see that there apears to be some spill or corona that light up some path around the Maxa beam hot spot? When it's perfectly focused, I would not expect that. 

In my experience, I see corona when I focus maxa beam pass its highest cp position while the cp start to reduce. At the highest cp position, it's a pure spot with no visible corona to light up the surrounding of the spot.


----------



## DM51

Great stuff! Well done for acquiring these!


----------



## angelofwar

Awesome BVH! Now you have Street Fighter cred!

http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?321629-Ok-had-to-chuckle-when-I-saw-this-thing......


----------



## LuxLuthor

Be interesting to find out where those 3 have been, and how used.


----------



## BVH

For the photo people....I sometimes notice that beamshot photo posters talk about "cropping" their photos before posting. Would this allow the important center portion of the photo to retain its' original resolution and look when posted on CPF within the limit of 800 x 600? And if so, how do I know how much to crop off to end up with a final center image that is not zoomed or reduced when uploaded to Photobucket then CPF?

When I looked at these images again this morning, I again, am very disappointed. They are really poor representations of what I see.

Lux, I was told they saw service in Afghanistan.


----------



## Patriot

ma_sha1 said:


> Looks like Mega Ray is positioned on the left & higher of Maxa Beam from the last photo, its not crossed.
> 
> In theses shots here, on the 1300yards, it is not clear if the MagaRay 175 & Maxa Beam are hitting the same tree? Zoomed in images would be very helpful.
> 
> Would like to see Lux at over 100 meters measured between the two.
> 
> I am also surprised to see that there apears to be some spill or corona that light up some path around the Maxa beam hot spot? When it's perfectly focused, I would not expect that.




I think that would still mean that they're crossed albeit vertically instead of horizontally. Phil Ament was making a reference to the first Ghost Busters movie where the character Egon Spengler says with regards to the "unlicensed nuclear accelerators" on their backs, "Don't cross the streams" because "it would be bad" Character Ray Stantz acknowledges this truth by saying, "Total protonic reversal!" Peter, played by Bill Murray says, "Right, that's bad. Okay. All right, important safety tip. Thanks, Egon.


I'd like to see lux numbers as well but I'm guessing that the MB is still substantially higher even though the MR is producing far more light. 

I was wondering if the corona that you're seeing might just be scattered or reflected light at the target area due to the intensity of the hot spot from the MB. Not sure though, just guessing.


----------



## Patriot

BVH said:


> For the photo people....I sometimes notice that beamshot photo posters talk about "cropping" their photos before posting. Would this allow the important center portion of the photo to retain its' original resolution and look when posted on CPF within the limit of 800 x 600? And if so, how do I know how much to crop off to end up with a final center image that is not zoomed or reduced when uploaded to Photobucket then CPF?.



Yes, this would retain its original resolution. Since I don't know what software you're using and since everyone has is MS Paint, open the selected photo in Paint, choose the rectangle shape cutter. Pull / Stretch the rectangle to 800 x 600 and save the crop. It will remain at its original pixel size. Whether or not you'll be able to crop the desired image to only 800 x 600 will depend on how large/small your target is. In the case of those little trees at hundreds of yards you should be fine. In the case of a large tree at short distance, where the tree fills a significant percentage of the frame, you probably won't be able to crop the whole tree and fit it into an 800 x 600 frame. You'd have to resize in this case.


----------



## Lips

*I used to do allot of beam shots and have forgotten must of the tricks.

Tons of little programs out there that allow you to right click on a photo and re-size it very quickly. All the old ones I used in the past would degrade the photo's substantially. I'm sure something better has come along. I use firefox browser now and I bet there are some good add-ons for this available. For me the full blown version of Photo Shop would allow you to re-size and keep the quality of the image. It's a pain and takes way more time to do... It's sooo much nicer just to right click on the photo and re-size. Photo Shop allows you to do the rotating images fairly easy but it can be a pain too. I'm going to try some firefox add-ons and see what I can find...

Alternatively LuxLuthor and others used the small image up front and the full size image behind. It's a little code trick (have to look at one of his photos to see the simple code in image posting to do it). Click on image posted and it goes to the full size megapixel image hosted somewhere. Quote the post to see the code...*



*Example from LuxLuthor post. CLICK PIC for full size*

* 
BarnBurner Rains on DEFT Parade:
*_*

 

*_


----------



## ma_sha1

You can also use MS Power Point, paste a picture into ppt, click on the picture, one of the icon says crop when you mouse over it,
older PPT version, the icon might be in the Format tab. After cropping, right click the image will allow you to save picture as jpeg. 

Doesn't matter what size/shape, uploading to image shack will allow you to re-size the image during uploading to comply with various forum policies.


----------



## Phil Ament

Patriot said:


> I think that would still mean that they're crossed albeit vertically instead of horizontally. Phil Ament was making a reference to the first Ghost Busters movie where the character Egon Spengler says with regards to the "unlicensed nuclear accelerators" on their backs, "Don't cross the streams" because "it would be bad" Character Ray Stantz acknowledges this truth by saying, "Total protonic reversal!" Peter, played by Bill Murray says, "Right, that's bad. Okay. All right, important safety tip. Thanks, Egon..




Patriot, thank you very much for explaining this in a much more comprehensive manner, and for also including all of the very important operational safety details. It's just that I would of hated to think that either BVH or Lips would experience a "Total protonic reversal" situation as I believe that the results would be extremely catastrophic and I wouldn't wish that on anybody, especially BVH and Lips.



Phil :wave:


----------



## BVH

Both the MR and MB were on the Sonata roof about 2' apart. When viewing the target, the MR is on your left, the MB on your right. The camera was about 5-7 feet to the left of the MR. Beams were not crossed, no danger of a Klystronic event!

I have Photoshoppe Vers.7. I've used the crop tool but have not investigated to see how I can tell when I'm at 800 x 600. Once I've done the crop, I can go back and see what the size is but this requires trial and error to arrive at near 800 x 600 reso. So how do I see it dynamically and ensure that target remains centered? I'll investigate.


----------



## BVH

An experiment with cropping, enlarging, cropping again then posting to Photobucket with fetch link in CPF. Last nights images used. So, yes, I did hit the same bush! Cropped to about 750 x 560 initially, then enlarged to 1400 x ???? (linked proportionately), then cropped again to approx 760 x 560. Used a ruller on the screen to crop as evenly as I could. there MUST be an easier way!

MB - 1355 Yrds








MR - 1355 Yrds


----------



## get-lit

I've had the same issue with the intensity getting lost in the pics. They seem fine up until they're saved as a JPG. I think the JPG compression algorithm has a hard time retaining subtle intensities in dark images.

Lux readings!!! I sampled the hotspots in Photoshop and the MB seems to be about 20% brighter.


----------



## BVH

The difference between MB 1 degree vrs the MR 2 degree beams is clearly visible in these enlargements. The extra Wattage in the MR is in the much larger area illuminated. I can add that in-person, you can see the brighter spot of the MB in the 1355 Yrd shot but because the spot is so small, it is much, much more difficult to find and identify what the target is. I think I said before that on the first night, I could not find the target with the MB until I found it with the MR instantly. Unfortunately, pics do not tell a lot of the story of performance. I've also said before that much beyond 700 yards, without binocs or a scope, none of these lights are of much use.

I've also noticed that when starting from flood and moving all the way to max spot on the MR, the spot continually gets smaller. It is not possible to go too far such that the spot begins to grow again as you can with the MB. It's travel is limited by a simple molded-in stop on the telescoping extension. My guess is that there's a bit more focusing that could be done if one were to want to do some mods to increase travel outward.


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Lips*, all I do for those...after making smaller thumbnail image is upload both to my photobucket. Use the "insert image" icon and enter URL for thumbnail which then appears in my composing response. Next, I click on that thumbnail to highlight it, and go up and choose the "Link" icon and enter the URL for the full size image. That results in the thumbnail taking you to the full size image, just like linking highlighted text would do.

I do my quick editing, adding labeled text, cropping with Paint Shop Pro. I was never willing to pay the outrageous price for Adobe Photoshop, which is also a pretty complex program for most users. The original JASC Software Program Paint Shop Pro that worked with Windows 3.0, included "Animation Shop" to customize gifs. Back then it was really cheap...like $12 shareware, and I got updates up to the 7.04 version which I still use to this very day. After that JASC sold to Corel who broke PSP apart, and selling at much higher $$$. I think you can still find the old 7.04 version for free now.

*Patriot/BVH*, I always thought the idea presentation of long distance comparisons would be to have one guy manning the lights, and the photographer being way down up close to the trees/bushes with his camera on a tripod. You have to try various timed & f-stop settings to capture the light. You could communicate back and forth with cell phones. This technique would eliminate the dust particle illumination trail, and just give an actual photo of light hitting the tree.


----------



## BVH

I like the two person idea but in my case, it's private property with no access. It would be a great way to do it. Heck, I'd like another person along just to help stage the lights and keep track of what order everything was shot in and all of the cam settings.


----------



## Phil Ament

BVH said:


> I like the two person idea but in my case, it's private property with no access. It would be a great way to do it. Heck, I'd like another person along just to help stage the lights and keep track of what order everything was shot in and all of the cam settings.



I don't mind helping you at all and as a matter of fact it all sounds like a real lot of fun, but as I am around 8000 miles away it may take me a little while to get there. Also as my wife currently has our car I am going to have to ride my bicycle, so you will just have to be a little more patient.



See you soon
Phil :wave:

P.S. I was going to ask you to please leave your front light on, but there is a very small chance that I may not make it there before sunrise, but you can rest assure that I will pedal as fast as I can.


----------



## Patriot

Gosh Lux, what a great idea! 

Once I found myself going 100m downrange to measure lux numbers until I thought to set up the spotting scope and read the numbers from the light and camera position. I remember once thinking, "I wonder if I should bring the camera down here and take a picture of the target with the light up range. The reason I didn't was because it was flat and there was a huge shadow cast no matter where I stood. With two people though, the right dip in the topography and the right lens and angle to keep the photographer's own shadow out of the picture, it would really be the ideal beamshot. 

I'd love to help with this Bob, just too bad we're a state apart. 



BTW, I just wanted to say that despite you own dissatisfaction with the way some of the pictures came out, they're really very useful and I find the differences in the beams pretty easy to discern. Even with the first set of pictures, I wasn't looking at them thinking, 'oh man, I wish he'd have done this or that.' Everything you posted was really great! 

You have more experience with the beamshots than I do but as a rule I always try to take the series of pictures slightly over exposed by 1-2 stops. This seems to make up for some of the jpeg and resizing darkness. I've learned that dark beamshots, that is darker than what I remember seeing, always disappoint me. It's easy to darken them but impossible by any non-artificial way to increase the amount of light. 

Thanks for putting forth so much effort Bob. I'm really enjoying your thread tremendously.


----------



## get-lit

Phil Ament said:


> I don't mind helping you at all and as a matter of fact it all sounds like a real lot of fun, but as I am around 8000 miles away it may take me a little while to get there.



Well if we keep at it, maybe you won't have to travel the 8000 miles to take pics of the end of the beam :wave:


----------



## Phil Ament

get-lit said:


> Well if we keep at it, maybe you won't have to travel the 8000 miles to take pics of the end of the beam :wave:



Well considering who it is that we are talking about, and some of the weapons that he has in his arsenal, I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised.


Phil Ament :wave:


P.S. Sent from my mobile whilst still pedalling! :sweat:


----------



## Patriot

BVH said:


> An experiment with cropping, enlarging, cropping again then posting to Photobucket with fetch link in CPF. Last nights images used. So, yes, I did hit the same bush! Cropped to about 750 x 560 initially, then enlarged to 1400 x ???? (linked proportionately), then cropped again to approx 760 x 560. Used a ruller on the screen to crop as evenly as I could. there MUST be an easier way!




Bob, have you tried using MS Paint yet? It's probably not the ideal but you can easily pull open a rectangle that's 800 x 600 because the pixel size is displayed for you as you drag it open. No measuring with a ruler on screen. 

Here are two different photos that I cropped in paint and uploaded to Photobucket from their original pixel size of 4288x2848. It two about 3-4 minutes to do both of them.


----------



## BVH

I think the last time I used MS Paint was in Windows 3.1! Will I find it within Win my XP Professional?

Nice choice of pics! Aviation is another one of my loves!


----------



## get-lit

I've checked into that heli light before, it's the same ellipsoidal/lens design as the MegaRay. I've been interested in this design because it produces better flood and the shape is easy to handle, it's the best option for stage lighting and probably for all-around use, but the parabolic reflector still can't be beat for the most intense beam of light. Here's a German article I just came across with some interesting points made when translated.


----------



## BVH

Here's a mod I did yesterday after waiting a few days for parts to arrive.

Original Vest power cord ties all 3 packs in parallel using Anderson 45 Amp Power Pole connectors soldered to a simple PCB. I had 4 ea. Blue Lipo 6S/1P/3.0 Amp packs for a marine searchlight project that's been on the shelf for a while. To tie all 4 together in to 3 Anderson connectors, I was using an Anderson 8-place multiplace bulkhead connector with short and messy looking pigtails.







So I shopped on Mouser and found the Anderson PCB mount contacts.








The PCB end of the contact was way too big so I filed it down to about .090" to match the holes I drilled in the MR PCB.








The contacts I used were somewhat different from those the MR used so the + one just barely fits on the +PCB pad as you can see. But this is the only way I could maintain alignment with the other 3 OEM Andersons.







I pushed the new contacts into place and soldered them up and away I went.











Finished assembly







All 4 neatly plugged in


----------



## Phil Ament

Hmmm. More extremely innovative and high quality work from BVH, which is just what I have come to expect from him. Nice work there Bob, as always!


Phil :wave:


----------



## Patriot

BVH said:


> I think the last time I used MS Paint was in Windows 3.1! Will I find it within Win my XP Professional?
> 
> Nice choice of pics! Aviation is another one of my loves!




I believe so. It should be in Start > All Programs > Accessories > Paint. Alternately you could open the picture in windows, right click on the picture and select "Open With" and then Paint should be one of those options. 

Thanks! These were taken last year on an Alaskan cruise ship MS Vaandam. We had a passenger with a serious medical emergency and the ship's doctor called out the Coast Guard so they could fly this passenger into Juneau via JayHawk. The crew had to remove the light string and some other gear from the bow so that the helo could fly in and hover over it. The fire crew was sent to the front of the ship in case there was any mishap but it all went smoothly. Though the sea was calm in the fiord the ship was underway about 5-6 knots forward speed. I could see from the JayHawk's tail sticking out past the port-side bridge extension that the pilot was seriously busy on the cyclic as he hovered about 15 feet while flying sideways. He was likely dealing with a lot of rotor effect amplified by the bowl shape of the bow enclosure. The main rotor couldn't have been more than a few meters from the ships bridge. I experienced a much less dynamic scenario as a student in an R44 as we descended into the Salt River with 6ft embankments. The instructor with his hand hovering millimeters from the cyclic explained what would happen when we entered this three sided box shape but I was still surprised at the amount of turbulence there was and how much it moved the aircraft around. It was the sweatiest palm moment I've ever had as a student. Anyhow, the professionalism and efficiency of the helo crew was incredible. To cap off the entire event, it occurred during our departure from Glacier Bay so this all happened in a rather spectacular setting. That very evening, the ship's doctor was the guest at our dinner table so you can imagine we all picked his brain. It was a shame that a person had become so ill but to my knowledge the passenger lived thanks to the professionalism of many people, namely the Coast Guard aircrew who risked their lives.


----------



## Patriot

get-lit said:


> I've checked into that heli light before, it's the same ellipsoidal/lens design as the MegaRay.



EDIT: A very fitting picture for this thread then!


----------



## Phil Ament

Patriot said:


> You may be correct but the aperture is only about 2" I was always under the impression that this was a piece of FLIR equipment. These Jayhawks are outfitted with so many varying pieces of sensors and avionics that it's difficult to research.




This particular light is called a "Trakkabeam" and I don't know if I am allowed to do this here but I can post a link to a photo of one if you like. As a matter of fact I think that they might be made right here in Australia and their head office is also located here in Melbourne too, and very close to where I live. I am pretty sure that this particular light is actually their A800 Model. I also have a link to it's technical specifications as well! :naughty:


Phil :wave:


----------



## Patriot

Awesome Phil! I searched and found it by that name. Thanks for the information!


----------



## LuxLuthor

MS Paint isn't in the XP versions I have installed. It's on the CD. Or you can just download the 400KB file: http://www.sheeptech.com/download/mspaint.exe

Save and put it in your C:\WINDOWS\system32 folder. Make a shortcut and drag it to your Accessories or Desktop. 

You can also start it by going to Start > Run > Type “mspaint” > OK


----------



## Phil Ament

Patriot said:


> Awesome Phil! I searched and found it by that name. Thanks for the information!



No problems whatsoever Patriot, anytime, and I am glad that I could be of some assistance, plus any friends of Bob's is also a friend of mine. By the way, we make all the top quality items here, for example me! :naughty: 



Phil Ament :wave:


----------



## get-lit

Hey Patriot, you're in my home town. Grew up in East Mesa, went tubing down the river ever since I can remember.


----------



## Walterk

Great lights, congratulations. And thx for the beamshots!

You can leave the pictures as they are, and place links to pictures with the original size? I am sure most of us would open them in another tab.

How I do it in Photoshop:
Crop the original to the cut-out you want to frame the details you want to share.
Then 'save for web', where you can see and adjust image size (pixels and percentage) with preview.
If you want pictures to be aligned or same size, try out how the layers work.


----------



## Patriot

LuxLuthor said:


> MS Paint isn't in the XP versions I have installed.




Funny that MS didn't add it to XP. It's back in Windows7 again.


----------



## BVH

Walterk said:


> Great lights, congratulations. And thx for the beamshots!
> 
> You can leave the pictures as they are, and place links to pictures with the original size? I am sure most of us would open them in another tab.
> 
> How I do it in Photoshop:
> Crop the original to the cut-out you want to frame the details you want to share.
> Then 'save for web', where you can see and adjust image size (pixels and percentage) with preview.
> If you want pictures to be aligned or same size, try out how the layers work.



Thank you sir! I will investigate tonight.

Forgot to mention in the pics of the battery connectors post and in the interest of safety, that I will be splicing in (with double ended Anderson pigtails) 6 or 8 Amp in-line fuses, one for each pack. With all that unprotected energy on my back, I will feel better! Maybe I should wrap some of my fire blanket material around me, too. 


With Photobucket, the max reso I can save is 1024 x 785. What/who do others use for hosting photos, ect and what are typical costs?


----------



## Patriot

BVH said:


> Forgot to mention in the pics of the battery connectors post and in the interest of safety, that I will be splicing in (with double ended Anderson pigtails) 6 or 8 Amp in-line fuses, one for each pack. With all that unprotected energy on my back, I will feel better! Maybe I should wrap some of my fire blanket material around me, too.




You know that I'm the last person that falls into the safety police category but if you were to lose you footing and fall onto gravel with your weight on top, these packs *will* vent. I've put out several li-po fires from people crashing their RC aircraft at my local field. Some didn't hit very hard but they sure did blast fire out of them. On one occasion a blundered landing caused a kart wheel and the pack got G-forced out of it's holder harness and slid a few feet on some rocks. Didn't think much of it until it turned into a flame thrower. 

I'm not scared of LiPo in the literal sense but LiCo cylindrical cells almost seem like toys in comparison. (not to minimize the seriousness of either)

I use the LP-Guard fire sack from Hobby King. They're 18-22cm and $2.00 each and will fit 3 x 2000mah packs. You might require the next size up. *Li*


----------



## matthewcyho

Bob , What a nice light .


----------



## LuxLuthor

BVH said:


> With Photobucket, the max reso I can save is 1024 x 785. What/who do others use for hosting photos, ect and what are typical costs?



Must be a limit on the free account.


----------



## BVH

Yeah, I saw that and upgraded.


----------



## Patriot

get-lit said:


> Hey Patriot, you're in my home town. Grew up in East Mesa, went tubing down the river ever since I can remember.



That's great Get-lit! Mesa is a big city today. You must have seen a lot of growth while growing up there. I've probably done the river thing several dozen times over the years. Neat to hear that you've experienced some of the state as well. Take care buddy and keep of the great work over in your Nightsword thread!


----------



## TEEJ

Great work!






I might have wanted to see a grommet or something to protect against chaffing/vibration wear, etc...where the wires pass through the holes though...but that's just me.

Obviously, the holes would nee to be a bit larger to allow it, etc...possibly crossing that PITA factor.


----------



## BVH

I agree and I don't know why such an expensive and quality light geared for military would not have done it that way. Though I see absolutely no signs of wear and these were supposed to have seen service in Afghanistan. And thinking some more, not sure why the bottom of the PCB is exposed in the vest just as it's shown. The OEM battery boxes were plastic so no issue there but still, Murphy's law applies here, I think.


TEEJ said:


> Great work!
> 
> 
> I might have wanted to see a grommet or something to protect against chaffing/vibration wear, etc...where the wires pass through the holes though...but that's just me.
> 
> Obviously, the holes would nee to be a bit larger to allow it, etc...possibly crossing that PITA factor.


----------



## TEEJ

There appears to be solder around the holes the wires pass through...did that used to connect something?


----------



## BVH

Not that I know of. My only mod was to drill the two Anderson contact pin holes thru the existing two solder pads and solder them in place.


----------



## TEEJ

Its possible then that by the time you obtained it, it had already been repaired/modified...explaining the solder around holes, etc.

For example, that part might have been canabalized from another device, or, whatever used to be there was repaired or modified, etc.


----------



## BVH

All 3 units are like that - not that it doesn't mean that all 3 could have been worked on.


----------



## TEEJ

When I see something that took time and material to do, with no obvious purpose, I always consider that it used to serve some purpose...and that purpose is simply no longer present....or is simply not obvious.

IE: I try to find the purpose, or, an explanation for its absence.


----------



## BVH

The more we talk about it, the more that termination does not seem to be of the quality of the rest of the light components. Here's another bit of info. The label on the 3 OEM packs show them to be made in Southern California. The light is made in South Africa I believe, so how did US made batteries get there? Maybe the US military sourced replacements from a US company and the company modified whatever original setup came with the lights? Or the feds bought the lights without batteries and sourced their own. Just a thought.


----------



## LuxLuthor

BVH said:


> The light is made in South Africa I believe, so how did US made batteries get there?



Ninjas.


----------



## Patriot

BVH said:


> The more we talk about it, the more that termination does not seem to be of the quality of the rest of the light components. Here's another bit of info. The label on the 3 OEM packs show them to be made in Southern California. The light is made in South Africa I believe, so how did US made batteries get there? Maybe the US military sourced replacements from a US company and the company modified whatever original setup came with the lights? Or the feds bought the lights without batteries and sourced their own. Just a thought.




Mr. Ted Bear actually recently visited the place where those batteries were made. It sounds like they probably handle thousands of small contracts for electrical gadgets since they didn't even remember making those packs when MTB inquired about them.


----------



## BVH

Patriot said:


> Mr. Ted Bear actually recently visited the place where those batteries were made. It sounds like they probably handle thousands of small contracts for electrical gadgets since they didn't even remember making those packs when MTB inquired about them.



WOW, what a small world! Hmmmm, wonder what Mr. TB was doing there...........


----------



## Patriot

BVH said:


> WOW, what a small world! Hmmmm, wonder what Mr. TB was doing there...........



He indicated to me that he was about other non-related business in his old stomping ground when he remembered that they were just down the street. I guess he couldn't resist stopping in. Either that or he as going to inquire about the availability of some battery packs for you and Lips.


----------



## larryk

Way to go Bob and Lips. Now you got me thinking about a new light again. Usually not a good thing. Bought a used MR250 125 watt version. I should have it by the middle of next week.


----------



## BVH

Glad to see we drafted you in Larry!


----------



## larryk

I wonder if the 175 watt bulb would work in the MR250 ?


----------



## BVH

.alkansan.com/pdf/Perkin-Elmer-Endoskopi-Ampul-Katalogu.pdf (add the http......)

Here's the PDF showing the different Perkin Elmer Cermax bulb modules. Looks like physical size, focal length ect are same but Voltage and current requirements of course, are different. I have a Perkin Elmer bench PS for the 175 and 300 Watt bulbs so it's current can be set per bulb type but I would guess that our on-board supplies cannot autosense and compensate. 175 Watt Elliptical Bulbs are about $500.00.


----------



## larryk

Wow, $ 500.00. I think this will stay a 125 watter. Hopefully the MR will arrive in perfect working order as described by the seller.


----------



## Just Jac

Wow! Very nice lights that you guys have got there!


----------



## BVH

larryk said:


> Wow, $ 500.00. I think this will stay a 125 watter. Hopefully the MR will arrive in perfect working order as described by the seller.


My guess is that 125 - 300 are the same price based on what I've seen. They all look the same on the outside.


----------



## Lips

larryk said:


> Way to go Bob and Lips. Now you got me thinking about a new light again. Usually not a good thing. Bought a used MR250 125 watt version. I should have it by the middle of next week.




*Finally got around to firing mine up the other night. Only blasted my neighborhood late at night as I don't have a proper battery yet. Sure is nice to have BVH on board because he'll find out everything about the light, provide courteous help and come up with "out of the box" modifications, thanks much! 


Good to see you around Larry! Can you say where you found your Megaray?
*


----------



## larryk

Hi Lips, how have you been ? I found it on Craigslist in Madison Heights Michigan. It was to good to be true for $ 250.00. He, a young man in the Navy, was only asking $100.00 for it. He was reluctant to ship it to Milwaukee, (34 lbs.) but the added $ 150.00 to cover his troubles convinced him. I’ll see on Tuesday if it’s a scam of not. I bought a house last year, and now live 3 blocks from a medium sized airport, so I don’t get a chance to fool around with spotlights and lasers in the back yard like the old place.
I sometimes go to Scott’s home, CPF’er Tranquilitybase to test lights out.


----------



## BVH

Here's a pic of the Megaray battery pack being charged all at one time. Can be charged in as little as 30 minutes.


----------



## larryk

My Megaray MR250 arrived today. Man is this thing heavy with the SLA battery pack. Mine is the basic kit with the soft shipping and storage case. The only thing that may have been changed are the batteries. From what I've read, the batteries should be 10 amp and mine are 12 amp rated. Everything is working properly, that’s a relieve. I’ll need to get out of the city to really see how it compares to the Maxabeam.


----------



## Lips

larryk said:


> My Megaray MR250 arrived today. Man is this thing heavy with the SLA battery pack. Mine is the basic kit with the soft shipping and storage case. The only thing that may have been changed are the batteries. From what I've read, the batteries should be 10 amp and mine are 12 amp rated. Everything is working properly, that’s a relieve. I’ll need to get out of the city to really see how it compares to the Maxabeam.




Need some pics of light and battery set-up Larry!


----------



## larryk

Here ya go.


----------



## BVH

Thanks for those pics Larry! Man o man, I can imagine those 3 SLA's weigh more than I do. Well, maybe close to what I weigh! I probably couldn't lift the vest. Get some light weight Lipo packs in there. Hobbypartz dot com has 6S 22.2V/3 Amp packs for $20.00 - when they're in-stock. Blue Lipo brand. Go from 216 Watt Hours to 266 Watt Hours and run the light cooler with less current flow due to higher Voltage.


----------



## larryk

Bob, have you taken apart one of yours yet. I will more than likely open mine up to see if the optic can be move forward a little. It seems on mine there is a spring clip that holds the optic in from the front. Also my optic seems to be made out of plastic. The optic is 102mm. That seems to be a common size used for telescopes. PS, BTW there's 4 SLA's.


----------



## larryk

He's a photo of the front telescopic tube. The spot will get quite smaller bringing the optic out about an inch. you would need to cut back the ridge using a lathe. I ran the light just holding the optic tube up against the front of the MR and at 7 feet gave it the tightness of the Maxabeam. But at 25 feet it produced a hole in the center. There is still room for improving the spot. You can experiment yourself by loosening the alen screws and working the tube out past the stopper.


----------



## Patriot

Great looking light Larry! The condition appears to be nearly perfect! I can imagine that vest feels like an anchor. Will be looking forward to beam shots!


----------



## BVH

Yes, partially. Unfortunately, all the circuitry and other components lay in the same half of the light except...the darn Cathode connection wire runs up thru the other half. So I separated them by about 3/4" and put them back together. I didn't want to undo the wire connector nut at this point. I did take out the telescope though and thought the same as you in that more forward movement may be beneficial. I'm not ready to separate halves yet because my new fan has not arrived so I put it back together for later. The fans are a little raspy and I could make out the brand and part number from outside the light. I ordered up new ones that are physically the same dimensions but move a little more air. I think it was 16 cfm to 24 cpf, IIRC. I may have a line on much cheaper bulbs. Report later when I confirm.



larryk said:


> He's a photo of the front telescopic tube. The spot will get quite smaller bringing the optic out about an inch. you would need to cut back the ridge using a lathe. I ran the light just holding the optic tube up against the front of the MR and at 7 feet gave it the tightness of the Maxabeam. But at 25 feet it produced a hole in the center. There is still room for improving the spot. You can experiment yourself by loosening the alen screws and working the tube out past the stopper.


----------



## larryk

Yea that vest is unreal,it weighs about 23 pounds. Maybe it's a combo battery pack bullet proof vest if your shot in the back. I was thinking of making a removable battery box that could be attached to the base of the MR somehow. That would make it self contained and give a more stable base for it to stand on. It's quite tipsy the way it is now. I have a pair of 4s 5000ma Lipo batteries that I used in an RC boat. Running them in series would give about 30 minutes on high. The heat sink would need to be addressed though.


----------



## BVH

8S would probably over volt it if fully charged to 33.6. I've been searching and searching for a nice looking small box for the bottom and a nice, simple sliding and locking rail for ease of connect/disconnect but have not come up with anything I really like. I was going to use 2 each, 6S/4Amp in P for 6S/8Amp. Probably 25-30 minutes. I want it to look really good but have not found any boxes that do that. Nor any thin, simple sliding and locking rails. Please help!


----------



## larryk

I haven't looked for a battery box yet but I got a chance to test the light with the tube extended 1 inch. At first it looked very promising. At the short ranges (40 to 50 yards) I had available the beam was perfect. Much tighter and a perfect circle. But when I briefly shinned the light in the sky I could see that the beam about halfway up started to expand wider than normal.


----------



## BVH

I split the case on one of the MR's to replace a raspy sounding fan. Upon initial inspection, I noticed what looked to be a simple hold-down bracket for the ignitor (pic) had one of the two soldered attachment rods come unsoldered. Cleaned it up and re-soldered it. The fan coming out is a 12V, 2.5 Watt, 24 CFM unit. The fan going in is a 12V, 3.5 Watt, 29 CFM unit. I wanted to provide a little more cooling capacity over the 40 heat pipes. In earlier run tests with the front lens out, I noticed that a tiny bit of magic smoke was escaping after about 14 minutes of running. Despite a couple attempts to get it smoking and then quickly turn it off and ID the smoking culprit, I could not see anything. There is nothing flammable or smokeable in the bulb chamber except maybe the ring style Cathode electrical crimp connector insulation piece (red in the pic). So I removed it, as it serves no purpose. I also noticed a white residue coating both halves of the black body in the bulb chamber. (pic) I cleaned this off with some 95% alcohol. I also wanted to order a spare bulb and have been holding off to positively ID the bulb via a part number on the body of the bulb. It looks like the part number is covered by the yellow o-ring so I've sent pics to a bulb expert to see if he can tell me whether it's the Elliptical model or the parabolic model. I need the Elliptical, which is harder to find and more expensive. I won't know if I've fixed the magic smoke issue for a few days.


Note red crimp connector insulation piece. Suspected magic smoke source?













A little hard to see but the copper'ish looking rod on the right side has come unsoldered on the bottom half.







Repaired







Bulb mountig system front view







Bulb mounting system side view. Note the double concave lens about 3/4" in front of the bulb window







Heat pipes and fan (blurry, will fix later)







White residue in bulb chamber


----------



## get-lit

They really packed that circuit board. Being a military light, it should be weather proof, at least to some degree, and it should have an air filter. I can't make out enough from the pictures to see the source of the magic dust. Hope it works out.


----------



## Lips

Nice pics, thanks!


Did you wipe down the double concave lens for dust?


Is the cooling fan a typical computer fan?


No air filter system but it looks like it was designed that way... Blow it out with a little compressed air...

.


----------



## BVH

Yes, typical size - 60mm by 60mm by 25.4mm computer fan but none of them are really typical in the sense that the 60's on Digikey range from around 18 CFM to about 38 CFM, some with sleeve and some with ball bearings. The double concave was actually very clean but I did give it a wipe with a new eye glasses wipe. I agree that no air filter was designed into this light. The electronics and bulb chamber are 99.5% isolated from cooling chamber. The heat sensor wires and fan wires go thru a small grommet with a bit of space left over. I might just dab some silicone in there before I close it up. Then just blow and go. The only vulnerability is the fan bearing itself if it's not sealed. The two halves are mated tightly together but I would call it 99% water proof, not 100%.

Looking into the easiest way to try to get another 1/8" to 3/16" forward travel to see it the light will focus down tighter. My telescoping sleeve (which holds the flat rear/convex front secondary lens has two snap ring grooves. Normally, the lens seats all the way back in the bore against a thin bead of clear silicone and the snap ring goes in the second groove back, right against the lens. If I make a 3/16" spacer and insert it first, the lens will be moved out 3/16" and the snap ring can go right into the first groove and hold the lens snug. Just need to figure what to make the spacer out of. I have a lathe and could peel off a bit from the telescoping sleeve molded stop but I'd rather not make a permanent mod.


----------



## larryk

Was the bad solder joint causing the raspy noise ? I would be careful with that snap ring so close to the optic. My clip seems to be awfully stiff. I think it would be easier to temporally have the tube out a little past the stop to test the focus. That way you can easily test the focus between 0 and 1 inch forward. I had mine out about an inch past the stop and the short range beam was much tighter, but lost it at the farther ranges.
Maybe MR has it focused as good as it can be.


----------



## BVH

Larry, yes I'm very careful when using a tiny pick to catch the "right" end of the snap ring. Even though both ends look the same, I cannot begin to catch the left end to remove it but the right end is fairly easily caught and removed.

I don't believe the broken and separated solder joint was causing any noise. The two pieces were too far apart to vibrate together and the ignitor is well removed from where I was hearing the "fan" noise.

I see what you're saying about temporarily lighting the system up with the halves apart and the tube temporarily maneuvered back and forth. I may try that at the range because as you say, it looked good close up but not so good far away. I found that same thing when trying to optimally focus my Maxabeam at 50 feet. It was perfect until I went to the range with the same focus and it was no where near correct.


----------



## larryk

You only need to loosen the top screws to wiggle the tube out, then lightly retighten the screws. You my also want to mark you tube with a pencil when at the farthest factory setting. That way you can measure what length works best.


----------



## BVH

Did a down and dirty tube extension test tonight. I took the lens out and held it as close as I could to the front of the tube. That position is exactly 1" beyond normal, lens installed max tube extension. So I pushed the tube in precisely 1 inch so that I would be in the relative same max extension position by holding the lens as close as I could to the front. I turned it on, held the lens in front and the spot looked about the same as normal when the tube is fully extended. I then began to move the lens a little further out and immediately a slight doughnut hole developed. To confirm, I extended the tube by 1/8" and retried. This time I could not get rid of the doughnut hole by moving the lens as far back as I could. Test was done at about 400 Yrds.


----------



## larryk

I'm going to have to find an area where I can get some distance and see if mine does the same.


----------



## Patriot

So cool to have these kinds of pictures and description after so many years of wondering about this light. Thanks so much for the ongoing updates Bob!


----------



## get-lit

If you adjust focus for flood by moving the ellipsoidal reflector and lamp assembly, the virtual image of the light source moves to de-focus the beam, but since there's little variance in the lens reflection distances over the luminance angles, there will be a distinct doughnut hole. The method I'd use is to move the lamp light source in relation to the ellipsoidal reflector. This would make the virtual source larger without a doughnut hole in the beam. Of course this can't be done with a lamp that is coupled to the ellipsoidal reflector.


----------



## Walterk

Nice build, with the seal, grp-housing with inserts.
Great to see the inner workings, especially the lens. 
So in effect, it is the elliptical reflector and double concave lens that is doing the tric ?


----------



## BVH

Actually, I'm 99% certain that the sealed beam lamp is the Parabolic version based on seeing the lamp close up, taking measurements of the length of the ceramic body and sending pics to a multi brand short arc bulb dealer. But still going to nab that extra 1% before I buy a spare lamp. Based on a little browsing yesterday, the collimated beam from the Parabolic lamp hits the double concave lens which diverges the light out to the convex lens which re-collimates it into a larger diameter beam.


----------



## LuxLuthor

BVH, you split it open!!!!!!!!!! You are my hero! 

I won't ever have one of these, but it's so great how you are investigating, tweaking, fixing. This is what CPF is about.


----------



## get-lit

Ah I see. Interesting that the lamp is sealed.


----------



## BVH

I'm used to seeing small arc chamber short arcs so seeing the volume of space inside these lamps that must be filled with Xenon is interesting. I'd roughly say the space is equal to a cylinder with an ID of 1.062" x 1.250" long.

Lux, I just can't help myself! I just have to know what's inside. Even though I'm not very knowledgeable in electronics, I really enjoy seeing how the boards are populated. I know what most of the parts are but how they interact and function is still magic.


----------



## ma_sha1

BVH said:


> Actually, I'm 99% certain that the sealed beam lamp is the Parabolic version based on seeing the lamp close up, taking measurements of the length of the ceramic body and sending pics to a multi brand short arc bulb dealer. But still going to nab that extra 1% before I buy a spare lamp. Based on a little browsing yesterday, the collimated beam from the Parabolic lamp hits the double concave lens which diverges the light out to the convex lens which re-collimates it into a larger diameter beam.



When I built my Mega Blaster, I looked into the Mega Ray info. quite a bit, I am pretty sure it's Elliptical, that's how I built my light. 
http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...-Blaster-My-first-short-arc-mod-MegaRay-style

A parabola of that small is not going to have serious throw even with a short arc source. Expanding the beam will further reduce the throw. 
There was a guy from Mega Ray commented in my Mega Blaster thread at the end, might worth contacting him & find out for sure. 
You can't tell by the looks. I'd hate to see you waste money if it's the wrong lamp. Then, maybe not, you seems to have a pretty big budget .


----------



## bshanahan14rulz

Magic smoke was probably just dust. Looks like most of the residue from the smoke is in the optics chamber.


----------



## BVH

Unfortunately, the magic smoke is still leaking. So it wasn't the crimp fitting insulator nor the white residue on the body walls. Before I closed the cases, I noticed a tiny piece of thermal compound on the Anode band of the lamp. It's white. Hmmm, I thought, maybe this is the culprit. Cleaned it off hoping for positive results. But no. There are two possibilities I can see. A thermal paste is used on the entire Anode band/connector/backside of the lamp. Even though none shows, I'm thinking that some of it hidden just inside the heat pipe sink may be burning and smoking. I know of 3 MR's that are doing this so it seems to be common. The other possibility is a tiny patch of the exposed heavy foam ring that is used to help hold the heat pipe in the case halves. It helps suspend the lamp/heatpipe ***'y in the body. 99% of it is behind a bulkhead of body material just behind the lamp but there is a hole in that bulkhead about 1/8" by 1/4" where the foam is exposed to the lamp chamber heat. It looks as though it may have at one time, been a hole thru which to route the Cathode wire in an earlier version of the light. But the visible foam shows no sign of burning or distortion. Given all the white residue on the case halves in the lamp chamber, my 1st guess is on smoking thermal paste.

I've looked at the elliptical and parabolic lamp specs again and again. There is a full 1/2" difference in their lengths, the parabolic being the shorter. When comparing the dimensions of the Cathode band, ceramic body and Anode band parts of my lamp with the specs, they agree exactly with the parabolic. I've got one coming so we'll see. If it's not right, a simple 180 mile trip and I can exchange it.


Parabolic is 2nd from left and Elliptical is 3rd from left.


----------



## Lips

.
.
I think you have the lamp (not even close) figured out and the cause of the magic smoke (thermal paste). What! 14 min run-time with heat-smoke and on multiple units. I bet the original/designer engineer knows also! Nice diagnosing work...

I doubt the intended users would have notice anything array... Lighting up the battle-field for 14 min would probably mean incoming so... 




cheers


.


----------



## BVH

Lips said:


> I doubt the intended users would have notice anything array... Lighting up the battle-field for 14 min would probably mean incoming so... cheers
> .



Hey! Here I am, shoot me!

Although, these were supposedly used in Afghanistan and at least 2 have white residue on the case halves in the lamp chamber so they probably did use them for more than 14 minutes.


----------



## ma_sha1

Lips said:


> .
> Lighting up the battle-field for 14 min would probably mean incoming so...
> .



Something I've always wondered as well. Using log distance projection light to look for enemies, either get shot on the spot or expose your position for later, doesn't sound like a good idea...


----------



## BVH

Just an FYI, I just received my new Cermax PE175BF, Parabolic lamp and it is just like the one in the light. To further confirm, I just got an email response from Leon from MR, that it is, in fact, the Parabolic model. Leon was fantastic in answering some questions for me and I was very pleasantly surprised to get a response within 30 minute or so!

I think I may have describe the first lens in front of the bulb as double concave. It's actually a Plano Concave. Flat on the backside and concave on the front. It it still a diverging lens and expands the beam to meet the flat side of the Plano Convex lens in the front.

Evidently, Cermax supplied MR with the lamps with the yellow silicone donuts. It was not a MR add-on. They are no longer supplied this way so if I ever need to change out the bulb, I won't re-install it. Maybe it or the silicone adhesive is the cause of the smoking. Maybe I'll remove it and see what happens.


----------



## ma_sha1

Sounds like the lens system is like sending parallel lights through a monocular to expand spot size? 
That would actually reduce the throw, would it? Unless it'll actually increase the throw based on the largest lens diameter? 

I hope RA is around to put some logics in. 

I wonder if it'll throw further with a smaller spot if all the lens are removed? But then, the parabola is so small, how would it throw?
I am kind of confused right now, would love to see some 100 meter lux measurements from MegaRay.


----------



## BVH

I'd really like to become knowledgable in optics and will attempt to do so. From the few diagrams I've seen online, the Plano Concave accepts the collimated Parabolic reflectorized light and expands it out its front at least to the 4" (104mm) flat/back side size of the Plano Convex. Then the PCx recollimates the light between 2 and 6 degrees depending on extension tube placement and sends it out the front. I'm going to try to work with the Edmond Optics folks to see if I can get a pair of lenses to reduce beam size down to 1.5 or 1 degree. I'm not real clear on something their videos say on the relationship of spot size and beam divergence. It sounds like what happens is backwards from what I think. Something like spot size growing as beam diameter is decreased and spot size getting smaller as beam size is increased. Can't quite grasp that yet. I'd love to hear from others who know a lot more than I.


----------



## Walterk

Could you describe the front assebly for us?
How many lenses, the plano, concave, convex surfaces as far as you can figure out?

BTW Edmunds and alike have projecting all written out in 'white papers'.


----------



## BVH

Cermax PE175BF light source. Approx .9mm gap. 1" Parabolic reflector. Focal point of reflector is approx 25mm behind flat surface of first 40mm diameter, single element, approx 7mm thick Plano Concave lens. Depth of center of Concave surface estimated to be 4.5mm. Have not estimated surface curve radius nor focal length. This lens has the concave surface pointing forward. The distance from the exterior of the bulb front window to the flat surface of the first lens is approx 8.5mm. Front Plano Convex lens is single element, 104mm diameter, approx 205mm radius surface curve, approx 105mm focal length (if I'm following Edmonds directions in finding this distance with a laser pointer), 3.5mm edge thickness, 6mm center thickness. Front lens is able to be placed from 7.5" to about 11" in front of first lens via sliding tube. Max extension results in smallest (2 degree) beam. The convex surface is pointing forward. I would imagine that the focal length and surface curve radius specs of the first Plano Concave lens are critical for any calcs to be done. I've just not wanted to remove the front lens bracket and end up changing the distance between lamp reflector focal point and back surface of first lens. But, that measurement may not be critical from what I understand?

Can you point me to a calculator where I can plug in these numbers to begin to calculate what I need to do to reduce beam diameter? Is it that simple?







By the way, I've found out that the yellow silicone donut and it's silicone adhesive are probably the cause of the magic smoke. I need to remove it and move the lens bracket about 1.5mm forward - even with the back edge of the front lamp metal band. The bracket band is too wide and in it current placement, shortens the distance between the front lamp band (which is the Cathode connection) and the lamp back band (which is the Anode connection). This reduced distance can cause flashover during ignition. Newer MR's do not have the yellow donut because the lens bracket width has been reduced thereby increasing the air gap between Cathode band and Anode band.


----------



## get-lit

Glad you found the source of the smoke. I think you're supposed to leave the silicone adhesive there, the smoke is to make the light bad azz. Who would want to mess with this...


----------



## BVH

get-lit said:


> Glad you found the source of the smoke. I think you're supposed to leave the silicone adhesive there, the smoke is to make the light bad azz. Who would want to mess with this...




If I post some lens specs, can someone/some of you provide a starting point for some experimentation to achieve a 1 to 1.5 degree beam and tighter, more intense spot? I conversed for about 20 minutes with someone at Edmunds. Bottom line, they thought I needed a little more magnification via a shorter focal length Plano Convex lens in front.

Specs are close but not exact.

Primary Lens:
40mm diameter
FL - unmeasured at this point
Thickness: 7mm
Curve radius - unmeasured at this point
Depth of concave surface: 4mm
Location: flat surface is 25mm in front of 1" Parabolic reflector focal point and 8.5mm, in front of lamp window exterior surface

Front lens:
104mm diameter
FL - 350mm
Center thickness: 6mm
Edge thickness: 3.5mm
Curve radius: 210mm
Range of distance from primary lens front surface: 7" to 10" - 10" results in tightest, 2 degree beam.


----------



## ma_sha1

*I am going to make a wild hypothesis based on:*

1. In Aspherical lens set-up, Multi lens or larger secondary lens (small lens closer to led) won't change lux, lux is dictated by the front lens diameter only (Proven by Dr. Jones)

2. In Both lens & reflector set-up, given fixed front diameter, set ups that change spot size doesn't change lux. (Ra, Dr. Jones etc.)
-Shorter focal length reflector increase spot size but doesn't increase lux. 
-Shorter EFL aspheric increase spot size but not the lux. 

3. Add my wild assumption: In a mixed system with Large front lens + small secondary reflector, Assume the small reflector next to light source acts exactly the same as the small lens next to light source in multi lens system, ignore if they are elliptical or parabola & ignore the urge of trying to figure out why. 

*Prediction:*
In a mixed system with Large front lens + small secondary reflector, one would predict that *the lux is dictated by the front lens diameter only*. In such case, as long as you do not increase the front lens diameter, you will not increase the lux (beyond quality improvements).


----------



## BVH

As a laymen in this arena, I think I understand what you've said. But as a laymen again, it seems that if everything else remains the same, a front lens that focuses the same amount of light input out the front in a smaller beam, will produce a smaller and brighter spot down field.


----------



## get-lit

For the most part as ma_sha1 said, changing the lens without going with a larger aperture won't gain more lux, just a different beam profile. There may be some lux gains by tweaking the lens to accommodate the non-uniform source area and non-uniform luminance profile of the source, but it would take some serious experimentation or computer modeling to extract that bit of optimization. The light may already be optimized since some thought had gone into the design. I'd be surprised if less than a 2-degree beam could be had from such a small design, that's pretty darn good.

EDIT: I'm also confused by this design; using a parabolic reflector to a lens, so I'm kinda staying out of this one. A parabolic already makes the light as parallel as it can, the lens can't make it any more parallel. Maybe the lens is just for flood mode. Maybe see what you get without the lens.


----------



## Walterk

BVH said:


> .....as a laymen again, it seems that if everything else remains the same, a front lens that focuses the same amount of light input out the front in a smaller beam, will produce a smaller and brighter spot down field.



I am a layman, but I suspect a smaller beam will give a brighter spot for this light. The same lumen on a smaller area results in higher lux. 

Ma_Sha is probably right in essence. But there are details we don't know and its behaviour we can not predict. 
Its to simple to make a parallel comparison between led-and-aspheric and XSA-and-multi-lens-system. 
This MegaRay is optimized for a certain behaviour. 
Now you have to find out how with a given diameter you can optimize the Cermax for tightest beam and throw. With or without using the exisiting components.

There are free modelling apps online, have found multiple but the links are lost in my archives. Most free tools are limited to one or two lenses by the way.
I am sure if you find multiple white papers addressing 'focusing light by using reflector and lenses', you will soon get more grip.
Thanks for the details and the laserjobs for measurements, I might reconstruct it in cad in time for my knowledgebase or I don't know why. Its an effective solution.
I am sorry I can't do Raytracing as in light-engineering software.


----------



## BVH

I've got some cheap "test" Plano Convex lenses coming from Anchor which is owned by Edmunds. They are not the perfect shorter Focal Length steps I would like but all are a little less diameter and shorter focal lengths none the less so we'll see what happens. I have a Perkin Elmer Cermax bulb bench power supply with ignitor for 175 and 300 Watt bulbs and I have a 300 watt Cermax Parabolic light module and made hi voltage cables for the connection. I can play around with this setup very easily with just the lamp and some of the test lenses to see the result without the Plano Concave lens. Maybe the concave lens is just for flood as mentioned above.


----------



## bshanahan14rulz

With solid state lasers, the light emitted from the cavity produces a tiny spot that diverges very quickly. The beam is then expanded and recollimated. All else the same, it seems like beam diameter and divergence are inversely proportional; the larger the beam diameter, the lower the divergence. Maybe this will help you brains think.

Edit: Another laser "device" that might translate well to this application is a beam expander. If you focus a theoretical laser to infinity and send it through a beam expander, the beam is expanded and then recollimated, using two complementary lenses (one concave, the other its matching convex). The result on the theoretical laser is a wider beam diameter. The result on actual lasers is that it is easier to bring the divergence down, and you can achieve lower divergences than you can with the non-expanded beam. 

Here is an article google found for me:
http://specialoptics.com/pdf/wp_laser_beam_expander_theory.pdf


----------



## sven_m

get-lit said:


> I'm also confused by this design; using a parabolic reflector to a lens, so I'm kinda staying out of this one. A parabolic already makes the light as parallel as it can, the lens can't make it any more parallel. Maybe the lens is just for flood mode. Maybe see what you get without the lens.



I guess the point is that it's not one lens but two, this smaller visible one and the second in the front tube only shown in earlier pics.
In connection they have both input and output parallel and just widen the beam (and they allow slight modification for flood).


----------



## get-lit

Walterk said:


> I am a layman, but I suspect a smaller beam will give a brighter spot for this light. The same lumen on a smaller area results in higher lux.



It's not the same lumen on a smaller area. Different focal lengths of the same aperture will generally change the beam diameter AND amount of light within the beam. The longer focal length will gather less light but collimate better, a smaller beam with less light. A shorter focal length will gather more light but will not collimate as well, a larger beam with more light; but generally with the same "concentration" of light.

My hunch is that since the parabolic reflector collimates the light, and since it can't be be further collimated after that, then the lenses actually de-collimate the light for flood use. What sven_m says makes perfect sense. I can't conceive of how this could otherwise work.


----------



## Walterk

get-lit said:


> It's not the same lumen on a smaller area.


Still believe, thinking of input and output, assuming equal efficiency in the system, the Lumen collected from the arc by the Cermax reflector is the same, the projected spot is smaller, thus higher lux.


----------



## get-lit

Here's my take - There's two cases here...

Case 1. If the Cermax is an ellipsoidal, which we already gather it's not, the lumen gathered by that Cermax reflector is always the same, but a longer focal length lens for greater collimation is placed further back and thus utilizes less of the light gathered by the Cermax reflector; and conversely, a shorter focal length lens would be placed closer to the Cermax reflector and gather more of its light while the shorter focal length would reduce collimation; wherein the net effect either way is the same beam intensity of different pattern, aside from somewhat minor advantages when optimizing for the lamp source area dimensions and luminance distribution pattern.

Case 2. If the Cermax reflector is parabolic, as we understand it is, no lens is going to improve the beam, neither in collimation nor light gather.


----------



## Dr.Jones

It's like bshanahan14rulz said, it's a beam expander. Collimated beam in, collimated beam (with bigger diameter) out. The fun however is: While the beam diameter (at the lens) increases, the divergence decreases. To be more precise: The product of lens area (A) times beam divergence solid angle (Omega) is constant for a beam throughout an optics system. That's what my avatar image means 

Like Walterk said, that implies that the light from the parabolic reflector is projected into a smaller spot of higher intensity.

And like ma_sha1 said, reflector and concave lens together work like a precollimator, increasing caught luminous flux [lumens] and producing a wider beam, but with the same spot intensity (compared to a setup without reflector and concave lens): Spot intensity (and thus throw) depends on front lens area and source luminance (which isn't changed by the lens system); to get more throw you'd need a bigger front lens or a brighter (in terms of luminance) arc.

(The above does not account for losses due to absorption, reflection (at lenses), scattering or imperfect lenses/reflectors.)


----------



## get-lit

This is very interesting, but my observation is that the light from the parabolic can not be better collimated.

Divergence from the parabolic reflector does not emmenate as angular distribution from a single point as in Dr.Jones avatar, but from every single point within the entire surface area of the parabolic. Therefore, if a lens were to improve collimation for a point on the parabolic surface, it would greatly hinder collimation from all other points on the parabolic surface.

I think in this application, the lens is to apply controllable beam spread to the light from the parabolic. If BVH compared lux readings with the parabolic/lens combo and a parabolic/flat glass combo, the parabolic/flat would be marginally brighter.


----------



## BVH

Not sure precisely what you'd like to see but I can say this. With only the Plano Concave/rear lens in-place, there is no hotspot visible at all at about 10' distance. If I light up my 300 Cermax bulb by itself, It yields a hotspot maybe 14" in diameter at 10'. When I place only the Plano Convex/front lens in front of it and focus it as tight as it will go, the hotspot seems more intense and is about 8" in diameter. I haven't removed the concave lens from it's factory position yet. Once I do, I will be able to provide more info. Another project (new thread here in HID Section) has my attention currently and my bench is only so big.


----------



## get-lit

10 feet is much too close to see collimating effect. The lens is simply spot focusing up close rather than collimating. Need a long distance comparison, outdoor beamshots with and without the lens.

The light from the parabolic does not diverge as if emanating from a point...





I wish it did because that would open new doors to what could be accomplished, but instead it diverges from every point on the parabolic surface...





For illustration, lets split the opposing divergences into red and blue lines...





Now if a lens were to increase collimation for the blue lines, it would decrease collimation for the red lines (and vice versa)...





The lens is not increasing collimation for any benefit at distance, but rather it's spot focusing it up close, and generating a usable flood at distance.

The Megaray is using an adjustable spaced pair of Plano Convex lenses to create an adjustable flood from the collimated light from the parabolic.

Also, just to be absolutely sure you're dealing with a parabolic lens rather than an ellisoidal, turn on the lamp with just reflector and move a flat object from a rather large distance to right up to the reflector aperture. If you notice the beam get smaller than the aperture at any point in between, it's ellisoidal. If not, it's parabolic. I'll be dumbfounded if it's parabolic and the lens somehow does increase collimation at long distance.


----------



## Dr.Jones

My avatar is only a simplified image  Those ray cones are supposed to emanate from all points of the surfaces A1 and A2.

In #136 you try to apply only one lens - that can't work. You need to use two lenses.

Let's consider arc and reflector as a secondary light source, already quite collimated, as in your 4th image; it's aperture (reflector front) is a disc emitting light with some amount of divergence.
In the simple simulation below that's the green circle. The white rays shown are only the "most divergent" rays that go upwards, like your red and blue rays, but just the upward ones. Their angle is the divergence angle for the beam from arc+reflector.
The beam expander shown is not to scale (it's a simple simulation; also the front lens is too small and needs to be bigger to catch all the rays), but it works: A parallel beam goes in, a parallel one comes out. The point is: The angle of those most divergent rays has become smaller, i.e. the divergence is reduced.


----------



## BVH

I don't know enough to know if this makes a difference but the first lens is a Plano Concave with the back side being flat and front side concave.


----------



## get-lit

Thanks Mr.Jones for taking the time to explain that. It's an interesting method to increase collimation. However, it don't see how it may circumvent the trade-off we always have to accept with differing configurations of the same aperture... you either get more collimation with less total light output, or you get less collimation with more total light output, with relatively the same final beam brightness either way. As the configuration in the diagram increases collimation, it does so at at loss of more than half the total light output, so it would seem the final beam brightness would be relatively equivalent to other configurations of the same aperture.

BVH, could you take an outdoor long distance beamshot of the light with the lenses and without the lenses? That would really help determine what's occurring and if there's a way to improve.


----------



## Dr.Jones

BHV: Doesn't make a difference in this simple simulation; the plano-convex and plano-concave lens helps reducing aberrations a bit (but that simulation uses 'perfect' lenses anyway).

get-lit: That HID light doesn't loose total light output like the optics in the simulation, because it uses a much bigger front lens to catch all the light from the concave lens. So the trade is that you get better collimation at the price of a bigger lens - so it finally comes down to what ma_sha1 said: With a given source, throw is determined only by front lens diameter (and losses...).


----------



## get-lit

Now there's an ah-ha moment for me... I didn't realize the lens aperture was larger than the parabolic reflector aperture. I'd still like to see how it compares long distance with and without the lens.


----------



## BVH

1" parabolic vrs 4" lens. Sorry it was not clear.


----------



## get-lit

That's a huge difference. No reason to bother with more beamshots to figure this out. This is a method I'd never seen before in a searchlight, and I've researched all of them, so I thought. The Megaray is definitely something to be proud to have in your arsenal.


----------



## BVH

get-lit said:


> ............... The Megaray is definitely something to be proud to have in your arsenal.



I am but......I always want MORE! I'm really focused on getting the 500 Watt+ Short ARC Light Cannon working. I've wanted the 500 Watt Spectrolab Starburst for ages and this will be my chance, and in a smaller package that really is handheld'able


----------



## BVH

I confirmed that the bulb in my Megaray is the Parabolic Cermax PE175BF. I did this by removing the lens holding band on the front of the bulb, carefully cutting the bead of silicone sealant holding the yellow silicone donut to the Cermax bulb ceramic body, then rolling the donut off the bulb. Lastly, carefully, by hand/finger, removing all the silicone sealant residue off the ceramic body, ensuring every tiny bit was off. Removing the band allowed me to see the part number on the bulb. According to the mfg, the donut is there to prevent flashover during starting. This is because the lens holding band was manufactured too wide and when installed correctly, it effectively narrows the gap between Cathode and Anode because it slides on beyond the Cathode lamp terminal band. When I reinstalled the lens holding band, I moved it forward (towards the front of the light) by about 1/32" from where it was. According to the mfg, this will not significantly affect the optics performance. I started the light and was able to verify that there is no flashover occurring after 10 starts, cold and hot. I have not re-assembled the light yet because I want to do some more focusing investigating so I'll have to wait to see if the magic smoking issue is fixed by removing the silicone donut and sealant. See post 120 and this will make better sense when looking at the pic.


----------



## get-lit

Be sure to run the lamp for at least 15 minutes between starts to reform the electrodes from the ignitions, otherwise the lamp won't last.


----------



## BVH

The instructions that came with the lamp advised to run it the first time for between 1 and 2 hours but didn't say anything further about minimum run times. Something to the effect that this establishes the point on the Cathode from which the arc will form in future runs to minimize future flicker (movement of the arc to different points on the Cathode)


----------



## get-lit

It's always cautioned to run for longer in the manuals for larger lamps (Strong and Spectrolab user manuals), but maybe it's because they have much higher ignition voltages for igniting larger gaps, which in turn may deform the electrodes more with each ignition. A bit OT, but my mishap with 50kv a while back put a nice dent in the nickel reflector it arced against and vaporized a thin temp probe lead. Literally turned the entire lead to gas in a single pop.


----------



## BVH

Yes, It's scary sometimes working with 10's of KV! No matter how careful I am, I still make mistakes. Just the other day, I plugged the input cables of my FMC PL8 battery charger in reverse polarity. As plain a mistake as one can make. Thank goodness that charger was programmed with many, many safety algorithms and all it does is beep at me when something like this happens. But it just reinforces the fact that no matter how careful a person is, mistakes will be made.


----------



## get-lit

There's definitely a lot of anxiety when setting up to run a test. I usually set everything up carefully and then do something else for a few hours and then come back to recheck before powering up.


----------



## BVH

That's a great practice. Definitely worth a try.


----------



## BVH

Got the MR rigged up tonight so that I could, with precision, test the beam maximum focus by shooting the Manufacturer's mechanically stopped focus, +1/16, +1/8", +3/16", +1/4", + 5/16" forward movement of the tube & lens. Now a couple of qualifiers. All shots are at F3.5 and 8 Sec. When cropping, I tried to be as close to the same for all but as you can see, I was not equal on all of them. I don't think that makes a significant difference. What I actually saw, was more dramatic than depicted. The moment I moved forward from MFG stop, it was apparent that the donut hole was developing. It is difficult to see the difference between mfg's stop and 1/16" but look closely at the size of the hotspot btw the two. The mfg's stop is smaller.

MFG's max








+1/16" forward







+1/8" forward







+3/16" forward







+1/4" forward







+5/16" Forward







MFG's max (again)


----------



## FRITZHID

well.... MB has that lens that compensates for the doughnut hole... maybe that could be used? JAT.:thinking:


----------



## BVH

Without having a collimating filter for my MB, I don't know the results of using it but what I don't understand is....You buy a MB for it's laser thin beam. If you want to flood it out a bit, use the de-focus feature. But you can do that to the point of having a donut hole. But now you can get rid of the donut hole with a filter. But why not just re-focus the beam instead of having to carry and use a filter?


----------



## BVH

Hurray! No more Magic Smoke escaping after a 20 minute run. I suspect it was the silicone sealant holding the silicone doughnut in-place and not the silicone doughnut itself. Actually, the sealant was probably to increase the amount of flash-over protection insulation beyond the doughnut because the doughnut is very thin at its' point of contact on the bulb versus its' nominal thickness of about 1/4".


----------



## FRITZHID

BVH said:


> Without having a collimating filter for my MB, I don't know the results of using it but what I don't understand is....You buy a MB for it's laser thin beam. If you want to flood it out a bit, use the de-focus feature. But you can do that to the point of having a donut hole. But now you can get rid of the donut hole with a filter. But why not just re-focus the beam instead of having to carry and use a filter?



well, MY guess would be able to have a larger spot w/out the donut.:thinking:


----------



## BVH

I didn't mention that a while back, I was in the process of removing the front lens by removing the retention clip and then I set the light down to get a different grip. The lens fell forward striking another magnifying glass lens I had sitting on the bench and a small chip appeared. Big enough to be visible in the beam. No, it couldn't land on the carpeted bench top, it had to find the other piece of glass! I communicated with Leon at MR and asked how I go about buying a replacement. He came back saying that he would look around back in the shop to see if there was a used one sitting around. Same day he came back and said he had found one with a tiny chip on the edge that is covered by the retaining ring. He sent it to me for nothing, including postage!! And when it got here, I was extremely please to find it was AR coated! How about that for customer service!!


----------



## BVH

Maybe the only On-Board Power Megaray in existence?

26.4V/4.2AH LiFeP04 pack
Self machined Aluminum mounts and end caps
Carbon Fiber Tube

On Board battery negates need for Red Buret!

MR draws about 8.5 to 9 Amps at 26V so I expect to get maybe 20 - 25 minutes of run time.

Back end power entry end cap







Back end cap and rear battery support ring







Back end support ring flat mounting surface and screw







Front end cap







Finished


----------



## ICUDoc

That looks really nice, BVH. Lovely combination of materials. That lathe is a handy thing!!
Thanks God you could lose the beret (quite fetching, though, on the right person....)
What about a belt mount??


----------



## ShortArc

Nice work Bob!
But it's round...how can you set it down
PS. Got the 125W version, now to find the time to compare it to the 175W one.


----------



## ShortArc

Here is a pic of the Lead Acid Bat pack it came with.


----------



## BVH

Now _That's_ what I call _*HEAVY duty!*_

One thing I did not plan on in deciding to do this project, was that the MR has a full-time parasitic current draw of about 40 mAh. I found this out while finishing the electrical connections and observing a tiny spark when connecting the fuse. So, while it's not difficult to remove the setscrew and front end cap for charging, it will require an additional R&Rs for connection and disconnection of the electrical when using the light. The draw will empty the pack in 4 days.

While I did not think that the mod was all that practical, I thought it worth the effort considering I wanted some experience on the lathe and mill and that I have another MR that is stock. This one may go back to stock. But then again, I hardly use them so what's a few extra minutes going to cost?


----------



## ShortArc

WOW a 40mA draw. That is alot. Thank you for this discovery.


----------



## Lips

BVH said:


>




Very Cool. I'm jealous!


Bet soldiers would like setup over heavy backpack at times.


----------



## stephan van straaten

What do mean the lights are from south africa?


----------



## BVH

stephan van straaten said:


> What do mean the lights are from south africa?



Night Vision Optics/Megaray: Somerset House I 11 York Street I Randburg I Johannesburg I 2194 I South Africa


----------



## japudjuha

BVH
In your first post you mentioned a portable 28v power supply.

Quote:
"What the heck – a new 80 Watt Maxabeam is $2,300 and I can run this light on my 28 Volt portable power supply so a working light would cost me about $1,850 with shipping."

May I ask about the specifics of this PS.
I am looking for any options that will work for powering a Q4559X application.

Thanks
James


----------



## BVH

PM sent.


----------



## BVH

A free MegaRay charger over on MarketPlace Giveaways.


----------



## bshanahan14rulz

Very nice of you, nice kits too 

I did want to comment and say that tube looks awesome!


----------



## holylight

When I get my hands on these, my wife will use it it to knock my head.....


----------



## The_Driver

BVH's light with the mounted battery is definitely one of my dream lights!

Using the numbers posted on their website and in the manual (for the current MKII version) I calculated some stuff:
At max-focus (2°) it does 51lux at 200m distance. This means the luminous intensity is 3,187,500cd (a quarter of the Maxabeam, so half the range)
In a distance of 1000m it thus does 3.1875lux. According to the manual the hotspot has a diameter of 35m in this distance with max-focus. That equates to an area of 962m2​. So there are around 3066 lumens in the actual beam at 1000m distance (values in other distances will be very similar)! That's an extremely high value for a light with this much candela! Since the light also doesn't have any real spill it is probably best suited for actually seeing stuff in long distances.

The Maxabeam has a very deep reflector which limits the amount of light which is actually in the hotspot (a lot actually goes into the corona). There are probably less than 1000 lumens actually in the main hotspot. Thats a big difference!

I have used the Lemax LX-70 (standard head version). Because of the properties of the arc in the car HID bulbs only a very small hotspot actually has the stated luminous intensity. The corona is much, much larger (and still very bright), but it intensity is much lower. I think the Superpower probably has a very similar beam pattern (jut more focussed). This means that there is also probably less light in the actual hotspot compared to the Megaray even though the Lemax lights have much more lumens to work with.

*EDIT2: *Together with the Lemax/Xe-Vision lights the Megaray also has a much better flood mode compared to the Maxabeam. The former can be used with a diffusor while the Megaray can de-focus to 6° and all the way to 74° with an add-on lens. All of that with a uniform beam pattern. The Maxabeam has a big donut hole when defocussed, can be used with an add-on lens (probably to get rid of the donut hole), but really suffers from low total lumens output.

*EDIT3: *it's interesting though that Cermax states that the bulb used in the Mageary (Cermax PE175BF) only produces 2200lumens at 175W!?!  In the manual Megaray states a lumens output of 4375 lumens "as per the lamp manufacturer at 25lm/W". The latter value does make much more sense to me! Low-powered xenon short-arc lamps have an efficiency in this range.

*Edit4: *my calculations are probably wrong. The Megaray also has a visible corona on BVH's beamshots. The stated spot diameter probably refers to this Corona. This beam profile makes sense because the arc of a Xenon short-arc bulb does not have a uniform luminance like an LED. It has a small bright spot and a dimmer, much larger area around it.


----------

