# Actual Lumens readings in 6" dia. Lab Sphere IS with SC 5500 control



## MrGman (Oct 30, 2008)

*This is the growing collection of Lumens readings I have taken in a real integration 6 inch sphere system over the last 3 years. **More to be added.*
*Orange readings are Incandescents, (forgive me). Truth is Truth. *

*Make/Model Torch___________Real IS Lumens_______Batteries____________Notes_____________,*
*Browning Black Ice 9V________165,__________________3 primaries__________incan--No bezel or glass,*
*with Magstar Xenon lamp,_____125,__________________3 primaries__________incan--with bezel and glass,*
SureFire 6PLED_______________82,__________________2 primaries__________original LED________,
SureFire E2DL on high,________210__turn on___________2 primaries__________Brand new as is from Factory!
SureFire E2DL on high,________203__warm.____________2 primaries__________let it run over a minute,
SureFire E2DL on high,________181__warm.____________2 primaries__________w/SF F04 Diffuser, on > 60sec,
SureFire E2DL on low,___________8.1_________________2 primaries______________________________,
SureFire M600C Scout,________171__turn on___________2 primaries__________KX2C head; single mode version of the E2DL,
SureFire M600C Scout,________165__warm.____________2 primaries__________60 second warm up time. 
SureFire M600C Scout,________148__warm.____________2 primaries__________w/SF F04 Diffuser, on > 60sec 
SureFire KX2C on E2DL_______192__turn on.___________2 primaries__________Different KX2C head on my E2DL body.
SureFire KX2C on E2DL_______185__warm_____________2 primaries__________Different KX2C head on my E2DL body.

Solarforce R2-S______________202___________________3 RCRs,_____________Browning Black Ice 3 cell host.
Solarforce R2-5M low,__________37___________________2 primaries___________Surefire 6P host_________,
Solarforce R2-5M Med,_________85___________________2 primaries___________Surefire 6P host___________,
Solarforce R2-5M High________160-155________________2 primaries,__________Surefire 6P host__________,
Solarforce Cree R2-S_________210___________________2 primaries____________Surefire 6P host___________,
Solarforce Cree R2-S_________190___________________2X17500 LI___________Solarforce L2 Host 1 extension,
Solarforce Cree Q5,__________150___________________2X17500 LI___________Solarforce L2 Host 1 extension,
Nailbender P7 Drop in,________460__turn-on____________2 SF CR123 fresh,______Solarforce L2 Host, AR coated glass,
Nailbender P7 Drop in,________387__warm_____________2 SF CR123 fresh,______Solarforce L2 Host, AR coated glass,
Nailbender P7 Drop in,________427__turn-on,___________1_18650 LI unprotected__Solarforce L2 Host, AR coated glass,
Nailbender P7 Drop in,________357__warm_____________1_18650 LI unprotected__Solarforce L2 Host, AR coated glass,
Nailbender P7 Drop-in________300__turn-on____________2_WF CR123 >60 dead__Surefire 6P Patriotic Spirit Edition, 
Nailbender P7 Drop-in________446__turn-on,___________2 SF CR123 fresh_______Surefire 6P Patriotic Spirit Edition,
Nailbender P7 Drop-In________377__warm_____________2 SF CR123 fresh_______Surefire 6P Patriotic Spirit Edition,
Nailbender P7 Drop-In________517__turn-on____________3.90V__2.55A Reg supply___ No host at all.
Malkoff MC-E_W_DD,________480__turn-on____________1_IMR 18650,_________SureFire 6P_No Bezel__(DD=direct drive)
Malkoff MC-E_W_DD,________457__turn-on____________1_IMR 18650,_________SureFire 6P_ Bezel AR coated Glass,
Malkoff MC-E_W_DD,________406__warm,_____________1_IMR 18650,_________SureFire 6P_ Bezel AR coated glass,
Malkoff MC-E_W_DD,________185__turn-on____________2.99V_0.85A, Reg Supply___No host at all. 
Malkoff MC-E_W_DD,________314__turn-on____________3.19V_1.60A, Reg Supply___No host at all. 
Malkoff MC-E_W_DD,________397__turn-on____________3.39V_2.10A, Reg Supply___No host at all. 
Malkoff MC-E_W_DD,________440__turn-on____________3.52V_2.60A, Reg Supply___No host at all. 
Malkoff MC-E_W_DD,________470__turn-on____________3.60V_3.01A, Reg Supply___No host at all.
Malkoff MC-E_W_DD,________518__turn-on____________3.65V_3.20A, Reg Supply___No host at all.
Malkoff MC-E_W_DD,________617__turn-on____________3.82V_4.20A, Reg Supply___No host at all.
Would not hold any of the higher values steady state. The higher it started the faster the readings dropped, even for just 5 seconds of testing. 

Malkoff MC-E_reg,___________542__turn-on____________2X18650LI_____________Solarforce Host +1 ext. no Bezel
Malkoff MC-E_reg,___________528__30 sec.____________2X18650LI_____________Solarforce Host +1 ext. no Bezel
Malkoff MC-E_reg,___________514__1 min._____________2X18650LI_____________Solarforce Host +1 ext. no Bezel
Malkoff MC-E_reg,___________509__90 sec.____________2X18650LI_____________Solarforce Host +1 ext. no Bezel
Malkoff MC-E_reg,___________504__2 min._____________2X18650LI_____________Solarforce Host +1 ext. no Bezel
Malkoff MC-E_reg,___________496__3 min._____________2X18650LI_____________Solarforce Host +1 ext. no Bezel
Malkoff MC-E_reg,___________492__4 min._____________2X18650LI_____________Solarforce Host +1 ext. no Bezel
Malkoff MC-E_reg,___________488__5 min._____________2X18650LI_____________Solarforce Host +1 ext. no Bezel

Malkoff MC-E_reg,___________482__turn-on____________2X18650LI_____________Solarforce Host +1 ext.
Malkoff MC-E_reg,___________461__30 sec.____________2X18650LI_____________Solarforce Host +1 ext.
Malkoff MC-E_reg,___________453__1 min._____________2X18650LI_____________Solarforce Host +1 ext.
Malkoff MC-E_reg,___________447__90 sec.____________2X18650LI_____________Solarforce Host +1 ext.
Malkoff MC-E_reg,___________443__2 min._____________2X18650LI_____________Solarforce Host +1 ext.
Malkoff MC-E_reg,___________435__3 min._____________2X18650LI_____________Solarforce Host +1 ext.
Malkoff MC-E_reg,___________430__4 min._____________2X18650LI_____________Solarforce Host +1 ext.
Malkoff MC-E_reg,___________426__5 min._____________2X18650LI_____________Solarforce Host +1 ext.

Malkoff MC-E_W_reg,________482__turn-on____________2X18650LI_____________Solarforce Host +1 ext. no Bezel
Malkoff MC-E_W_reg,________458__1 min._____________2X18650LI_____________Solarforce Host +1 ext. no Bezel
Malkoff MC-E_W_reg,________449__2 min._____________2X18650LI_____________Solarforce Host +1 ext. no Bezel
Malkoff MC-E_W_reg,________445__3 min._____________2X18650LI_____________Solarforce Host +1 ext. no Bezel
Malkoff MC-E_W_reg,________440__4 min._____________2X18650LI_____________Solarforce Host +1 ext. no Bezel

Malkoff MC-E_W_reg,________430__turn-on.____________2X18650LI_____________Solarforce Host AR coated glass in Bezel
Malkoff MC-E_W_reg,________408__1 min._____________2X18650LI_____________Solarforce Host AR coated glass in Bezel
Malkoff MC-E_W_reg,________400__2 min._____________2X18650LI_____________Solarforce Host AR coated glass in Bezel
Malkoff MC-E_W_reg,________395__3 min._____________2X18650LI_____________Solarforce Host AR coated glass in Bezel
Malkoff MC-E_W_reg,________391__4 min._____________2X18650LI_____________Solarforce Host AR coated glass in Bezel
Malkoff MC-E_W_reg,________388__5 min._____________2X18650LI_____________Solarforce Host AR coated glass in Bezel


Malkoff M60________________231__turn-on____________2 primaries____________Surefire 6P host_______________,
Malkoff M60________________220__warm,_____________2 primaries____________Surefire 6P host_______________,
Malkoff M60________________235__turn-on____________2 AW ICR123__________Surefire C2 Centurion host_______,
Malkoff M60________________218__warm _____________2 AW ICR 123_________Surefire C2 Centurian host_______,
Malkoff M60________________276__turn on____________2X17500 LI____________NO BEZEL Solarforce L2 +1 ext.__,
Malkoff M60________________245__warm_____________2X17500 LI____________NO BEZEL Solarforce L2 +1 ext.__,
Malkoff M60________________240__turn on,___________2X17500 LI____________w/nonCren BZL Solarforce L2 +1 ext.
Malkoff M60________________215__warm_____________2X17500 LI____________w/nonCren BZL Solarforce L2 +1 ext.
Malkoff M60________________212__turn-on____________2 primaries____________Solarforce L2 host_____________,
Malkoff M60________________202__warm_____________2 primaries_____________Solarforce L2 host_____________,
Malkoff M60F_______________220__turn-on___________2 primaries_____________Surefire 6P host_______________,
Malkoff M60F_______________216__warm_____________2 primaries_____________Surefire 6P host_______________,
Malkoff M60F_______________202___________________2X17500 LI_____________Solarforce L2 Host 1 extension,
Malkoff M60W______________172-165________________2X17500 LI____________Solarforce L2 Host 1 extension,
Malkoff M60W______________185-165________________2X17500 LI,___________ L2 Host 1 extension, _Surefire Bezel_,
Malkoff M60W______________192 peak_______________2X17500 LI____________NO BEZEL L2 Host 1 extension,
Malkoff M30________________237___________________1X18650LI_____________NO BEZEL L2 Host_____________,
Malkoff M30________________207___________________1X18650LI_____________Solarforce L2 Host______________,
Mag-LED 4D________________50__drop to 40 1 min____4XNiCads____________-------------------------------------,
Mag-LED 4D_______________80 no reflector__________4XNiCads____________-------------------------------------,
Mag Terralux directly________120 (no reflector)________4XNiCads____________-------------------------------------,
Lumens Factor EO-9 Lamp___272__turn on peak______2X18650 L I__________Solarforce L2 Host 1 ext, AR Coated glass in BZL. 
Lumens Factor EO-9 Lamp___260___warm___________2X18650 L I__________Solarforce L2 Host 1 ext, AR Coated glass in BZL.
Lumens Factor HO-9 Lamp___180__________________2X17500 L I__________Solarforce L2 Host 1 extension,
Lumens Factor ES-9 Lamp___100__________________2X17500 L I__________Solarforce L2 Host 1 extension,
Lumens Factor ES-9 Lamp___127__turn on peak______2X18650 L I__________Solarforce L2 18650 Host + 1 ext, AR coated glass in Bezel,
Lumens Factor ES-9 Lamp___122__60sec.___________2X18650 L I__________Solarforce L2 18650 Host + 1 ext, AR coated glass in Bezel,
Lumens Factor ES-9 Lamp___120__120sec.__________2X18650 L I__________Solarforce L2 18650 Host + 1 ext, AR coated glass in Bezel,
Lumens Factor ES-9 Lamp___126__turn on peak______2X17500 L I__________Solarforce L2 Host 1 ext, no glass in Bezel!
Lumens Factor ES-9 Lamp___122__warm____________2X17500 L I__________Solarforce L2 Host 1 ext, no glass in Bezel!
Lumens Factor ES-9 Lamp___121__turn on peak______2X17500 L I__________Solarforce L2 Host 1 ext, non cren bezel.
Lumens Factor ES-9 Lamp___116__warm____________2X17500 L I__________Solarforce L2 Host 1 ext, non cren bezel.
SureFire P60 Lamp__________87___turn on peak_____2XCR123____________Solarforce L2 Host, no glass in Bezel!
SureFire P60 Lamp__________75___warm___________2XCR123___________Solarforce L2 Host, no glass in Bezel!
SureFire P60 Lamp__________80___turn on peak_____2XCR123____________Solarforce L2 Host, non crenellated Bezel!
SureFire P60 Lamp__________68___warm___________2XCR123___________Solarforce L2 Host, non crenellated Bezel!

Inova X5 Green._____________16___________________2 primary___________------------------------------------,
Inova X03 06 model__________38___________________2 primaries_________------------------------------------,
Inova T5 (07model),__________96___________________3 primaries__________-----------------------------------,
Inova T5 (06 model,)_________ 46___________________3 primary___________------------------------------------,
Inova T1 (08 model)_________100___________________2 primary___________-----------------------------------,
Fenix T1 turbo______________225 peak (corr)_________2 Delkin RCR123, or New primaries --------------------,
Fenix T1turbo,______________219.4 (corr)____________2 primary____________----------------------------------,
Fenix L1T_High_____________148 peak_down to 140___1 NiMH_____________RV7 3 Level Driver-------------,
Fenix L1T_med,______________33__________________1 NiMH_____________RV7 3 Level Driver-------------,
Fenix L1T_low,_______________10__________________1 NiMH_____________RV7 3 Level Driver--------------,
Fenix L2D Q5 Turbo__________145__________________2 AA alkalines_______same with NiMH-----------------,
Fenix L2D Q5 Med,____________37__________________2 AA alkalines_______same with NiMH-----------------,
Fenix L2D Q5 Lo_______________8__________________2 AA alk____________same with NiMH----------------,
Fenix L2D High_______________76__________________2 AA alk____________same with NiMH ---------------,
Fenix P2D CE Turbo,_________104__________________1 primary___________------------------------------------,
Fenix P2D CE high,___________61__________________1 primary____________------------------------------------,
Fenix P2D CE med,___________30__________________1 primary____________------------------------------------,
Fenix P2D CE low,_____________6.9________________1 primary_____________-----------------------------------,
EagleTac P10A2 Low__________50 (corr),____________2AA eneloops_________---------------------------------,
EagleTac P10A2 High________173 (corr)_____________2AA eneloops_________----------------------------------,
EagleTac T10C2 HIgh________268__turn-on,__________2 primaries____________--------------------------,
EagleTac T10C2 HIgh________256.5__warm,__________2 primaries____________--------------------------,
EagleTac T10C2 Low,_________60 (corr)_____________2 primaries____________----------------------------------,
EagleTac P10C2 High________225__________________2 primaries____________-------------------------------,
EagleTac P10C2 Low,_________50__________________2 primaries____________-------------------------------,
DX_MC-E High_____________337__turn-on,__________1_IMR 16340__________SF E1B Host, custom mod, doesnt hold value
DX_MC-E Low,_____________137__turn-on,__________1_IMR 16340__________SF E1B Host, custom mod,
DX_MC-E High_____________385__turn-on,__________1_18650 LI____________Solarforce L2 Host AR coated glass,
DX_MC-E High_____________345__warm____________1_18650 LI____________Solarforce L2 Host AR coated glass,
DX-MC-E Low______________150__warm____________1_18650 LI____________Solarforce L2 Host AT coated glass, 
Duracell Truebeam Wide,______74__________________3AAA Alkalines________-------------------------------,
Duracell Truebeam Wide,______64__________________3AAA NiMH __________-----------------------------,
Duracell Truebeam Narrow_____64__________________3AAA Alkalines________------------------------------,
Duracell Truebeam Narrow_____60__________________3AAA NiMH __________-------------------------------,
Dorcy K2 120 Lm,____________86__________________3 AAA NimH___________------------------------------,
Dorcy K2 120 Lm,___________100 (no reflector)_______3 AAA NimH__________-------------------------------,
Dereelight 3SM WC Q5_High __242__turn on__________2X17500 LI___________Solarforce Host+1EXT_AR coated glass, OP refl,
Dereelight 3SM WC Q5_High __222__warm____________2X17500 LI___________Solarforce Host+1EXT_AR coated glass, OP refl,
Dereelight 3SM WC Q5_Med ___78__ warm____________2X17500 LI___________Solarforce Host+1EXT_AR coated glass, OP refl,
Dereelight 3SM WC Q5_low,____25_ warm,____________2X17500 LI___________Solarforce Host+1EXT_AR coated glass, OP refl,

DereeLight 3SM5A_Q3-High,___146__________________2 primaries____________Surefire 6P host------------,
DereeLight 3SM5A_Q3-Med_____87__________________2 primaries____________Surefire 6P host------------,
DereeLight 3SM5A_Q3-Low_____47__________________2 primaries____________Surefire 6P host------------,
_This Q3 is the older style 1A draw pill, not the newer 1.2 amp draw._

DereeLight 3SD WH R2-High___215__turn-on__________1_18650______________ Solarforce L2 Host AR coated Glass,
DereeLight 3SD WH R2-High___197__warm,___________1_18650______________ Solarforce L2 Host AR coated Glass,
DereeLight 3SD WH R2-Med.____65__warm,___________1_18650______________ Solarforce L2 Host AR coated Glass,
DereeLight 3SD WH R2-Low,____27__warm,___________1_18650______________ Solarforce L2 Host AR coated Glass,
This is the 2.8-4.2V rated pill. 

Pill and Reflector Type*_____________**SLR F Bzl/AR**__**SLR F plain Bzl**__**SF 6P Bzl,*
Dereelight 3SM R2 SMO refl: High_*_____**227**___________**220**____________**215,*
Dereelight 3SM R2 OP refl: High,_*______**226**___________**223**____________**215,*
Dereelight 3SM Q5 SMO refl: High,,*_____**215**___________**207**____________**203,*
Dereelight 1SM R2 OP refl: High,_*______211___________209____________206,*
Dereelight 3SM R2 OP refl: Med,_*_______**78.3**___________**78.3**___________**74.0,*
Dereelight 3SM R2 SMO refl: Med_*______**77.5**___________**74.8**___________**73.0,*
Dereelight 3SM Q5 SMO refl: Med_*______**76.7**___________**73.3**___________**71.9,*
Dereelight 3SM R2 OP refl: Low,*________**26.1**___________**25.9**___________**24.6,*
Dereelight 3SM Q5 SMO refl: Low_*______**25.7**___________**24.7**___________**24.2,*
Dereelight 3SM R2 SMO refl: Low_*______**25.5**___________**24.8**___________**24.1,*
Dereelight 3SM R2 SMO refl: Low_*______**25.5**___________**24.8**___________**24.1,*

Sorted in Order of Brightness from high to low. All of these in a Solarforce Host with 1 extension 2X17500 batteries. Solarforce Bezel with A/R glass, Solarforce Plain glass/Bezel, last is the stock Sure Fire 7P Bezel, all done side by side into same integration sphere on the same day. The R2 is the creamy white/greenish tint Wh. These are all warmed up readings not turn on cold "peak". 


Craftsman "170Lm" High,______150___________________6 AAA Alkalines________------------------------------,
Craftsman "170Lm" High,______133___________________6AAA NiMH___________------------------------------,
Craftsman "170Lm" Low,_______89___________________6 AAA Alkalines_________------------------------------,
Craftsman "170Lm" Low,_______74___________________6AAA NiMH____________-------------------------------,

MilkySpit Creemator Low,_______2___________________2 primaries____________Sure Fire E2E Exec Elite-,
MilkySpit Creemator L-Med,____26.3_________________2 primaries_____________Sure Fire E2E Exec Elite-,
MilkySpit Creemator Med,______80.2__________________2 primaries____________Sure Fire E2E Exec Elite-,
MilkySpit Creemator High______242___________________2 primaries____________Sure Fire E2E Exec Elite-,

Lumens Factory D26 LED_____182 peak_______________2 primaries down to 170 when warm Sure Fire 6P Host,
Lumens Factory D26 LED_____182 peak_______________2x17500 down to 170 when warm Solarforce 1 ext___,
TNVC Single mode___________166__turn on ___________2X17500 LI___________SureFire Bezel Solarforce Host.
TNVC Single mode___________177__turn on ___________2X17500 LI___________Solarforce Host with A/R coated glass.
TNVC Single mode___________169__warm_ ___________2X17500 LI___________Solarforce Host with A/R coated glass.
Neoseikan Spartanian II_______157___________________1 AW RCR123_________Level #13,
Neoseikan Spartanian II_______122.8._________________1 AW RCR123_________Level #12,
Neoseikan Spartanian II_______103.7._________________1 AW RCR123_________Level #11,
Neoseikan Spartanian II________82.4._________________1 AW RCR123_________Level #10,
Neoseikan Spartanian II________70.3._________________1 AW RCR123_________Level #9,
Neoseikan Spartanian II________58.2._________________1 AW RCR123_________Level #8,
Neoseikan Spartanian II________45.1._________________1 AW RCR123_________Level #7,
Neoseikan Spartanian II________31.3._________________1 AW RCR123_________Level #6,
Neoseikan Spartanian II________24.6._________________1 AW RCR123_________Level #5,
Neoseikan Spartanian II________16.9._________________1 AW RCR123_________Level #4,
Neoseikan Spartanian II_________3.97.________________1 AW RCR123_________Level #3
Neoseikan Spartanian II_________1.091________________1 AW RCR123_________Level #2,
Neoseikan Spartanian II_________0.150________________1 AW RCR123_________Level #1,

Solarforce standard Bezel's glass is not AR coated, and the assault crown cuts off a little of the outer perimeter of light, it drops a measurable amount of lumens compared to the Surefire bezel's window. 

I have made corrections to Fenix T1 and EagleTacs numbers based on the findings that their steel bezels were adding reflections of light to the total readings by a small percentage. See page 6 for explanation. 

http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pIhrzNLNezKYVu9XmK3dpYg

Credit for the spreadsheet goes to Fooboy. I am guessing that as I add new readings to my chart he will update the spreadsheet shown in this link so that people can get a nice pull down listing of all lights tested thus far. G


----------



## mechBgon (Oct 30, 2008)

Sweet! :twothumbs

Are you accepting further test candidates?


----------



## Burgess (Oct 30, 2008)

Thank you for this info, MrGman.

:twothumbs


Your time, dedication, and hard work is greatly appreciated.

:goodjob::thanks:
_


----------



## jzmtl (Oct 30, 2008)

Good to know the new Inova rating is spot on. Thanks!


----------



## Patriot (Oct 30, 2008)

Great stuff! :twothumbs


I especially appreciate the two Lumens Factory lamps measured, and the Mag Terralux was interesting for me too. It's great to finally know.

Please bring us more in the future.


----------



## MrGman (Oct 30, 2008)

mechBgon said:


> Sweet! :twothumbs
> 
> Are you accepting further test candidates?


 
Yes, 50 year old Scotch and fresh pizza, not in the same box. I will do sample analysis for biometric data and report back to you. 


Send me a PM as to what you have.

I have a few projects to finish up and then I am going to wind down for the Christmas Holiday Season and some personal life time off which I don't want to get into here. 
The projects though are going to be very good, hope the weather holds out to "get er done!".


----------



## KDOG3 (Oct 30, 2008)

I'd love to see what the Surefire LEDs' actually rate, E1B, L1, U2, Kroma etc....


----------



## MrGman (Oct 30, 2008)

I just received the new EagleTac T10C2 for myself from Pacific Tactical Solutions. Its measurements were added to the list above.

Turned on at a screaming 280 lumens, slowly drifted down to about 270 lumens. for reference I remeasured the Fenix T1 in the sphere, all with fresh new batteries of course. It turned on at 231 and was settling down to 227. 

for comparison. the Fenix T1 draws 0.82-0.8 amps on high with fresh primary batteries ala SF CR123 or Duracell CR123.

the new EagleTac T10C2 draws 0.96 amps on high also with fresh batteries.

Also for comparison the Malkoff M60 draws 0.82A from the same CR123 batteries I used for the other 2 flashlights in this test in the SF6P host. 

Fenix T1 is 107mA on low and the EagleTac T10C2 is 119mA on low.


:twothumbs I could see the moment I turned it on it was brighter overall than the Fenix, The Malkoff M60, every single Cree type LED torch I had.

There will be more to come in a separate thread about this light. It is what it is. I was surprised that it was so bright, I figured it to be only around 240 to 250 lumens. But the current draw tells you how it does it, its not mystery, its just AWESOME.


----------



## Icebreak (Oct 30, 2008)

MrGman -

Good stuff. Thanks.

Is that a typo? Is this a 6 foot diameter sphere?


----------



## MrGman (Oct 30, 2008)

Icebreak said:


> MrGman -
> 
> Good stuff. Thanks.
> 
> Is that a typo? Is this a 6 foot diameter sphere?


 

It's not a typo the symbol is the single quotation mark " which is inches its the 6 inch sphere. the symbol for foot is the apostrophe '
not to be confused with those apostate disbelievers. 


6' feet 6" inches. 280 lumens symbol is


----------



## jupello (Oct 30, 2008)

MrGman said:


> 280 lumens symbol is


LOL 
That's pretty interesting list :twothumbs
btw. should EagleTac T10C2 be written in black, since it's not incandescent?


----------



## MrGman (Oct 30, 2008)

jupello said:


> LOL
> That's pretty interesting list :twothumbs
> btw. should EagleTac T10C2 be written in black, since it's not incandescent?


 

I put it in red not orange because its red hot. My fault for not making it stand out more from the orange, I will fix it.


----------



## Mockingbird (Oct 30, 2008)

parenthesis () 
apostrophe ' :candle:


----------



## Outdoors Fanatic (Oct 30, 2008)

I've told ya in the other topic that any EagleTac using 2XCR123 beats the Malkoff M60 or any other single LED light out there...


----------



## MrGman (Oct 30, 2008)

Mockingbird said:


> parenthesis ()
> apostrophe ' :candle:


 
I was blinded by the light, you are correct. Didn't have that first cup of coffee yet too busy doing exciting tests.


Separate note not related to this original message:
Also note for my reference when I say this new light is "hot" I don't mean physically too hot to touch, I just mean way too good blinding power you got to have it _hot. _


----------



## Calina (Oct 30, 2008)

This thread smells like a sticky! 
Humm, I love that smell... 

Thanks for this great work :twothumbs.


----------



## wacbzz (Oct 30, 2008)

Calina said:


> This thread smells like a sticky!
> Humm, I love that smell...
> 
> Thanks for this great work :twothumbs.


 
+1 for sure. I do hope the mods take notice of this thread. The best flashlight buyer is an informed buyer.



MrGman said:


> I just received the new EagleTac T10C2 for myself from Pacific Tactical Solutions. Its measurements were added to the list above.
> 
> Turned on at a screaming 280 lumens, slowly drifted down to about 270 lumens. for reference I remeasured the Fenix T1 in the sphere, all with fresh new batteries of course. It turned on at 231 and was settling down to 227.
> 
> ...


 
*Where are all the EagleTac doubters now????*:thinking:


----------



## [email protected] (Oct 30, 2008)

MrGman,
You’re awesome! Actual unbiased lumen readings from a lab. 
I knew the EagleTac was going to do good but that’s pretty darn close to their claims on the box. So I guess the T10C2 is the brightest flashlight in it's class for the price!
You know everyone is going to want you to test their flashlights now.  :devil: Hey, do you have any Cree based weapons lights you’ve tested?


----------



## phantom23 (Oct 30, 2008)

[email protected] said:


> You know everyone is going to want you to test their flashlights now.  :devil:



Not all flashlights just EagleTac T10L. Theoretically it's 40lm less bright but practically...


----------



## WadeF (Oct 30, 2008)

EagleTac T10C2 HIgh_______280-270_______________2 primaries !!
 
Wow. Impressive! They must be sending some serious juice to the emitter. At least 1.2A, maybe 1.4A? Seems like it would take closer to 1.4A to get that many out the front lumens.
 
It would be interesting to test the OTF lumens of a Dereelight CL1H with a 1.2A R2 pill.


----------



## Yoda4561 (Oct 30, 2008)

You've listed the M60F twice, at 202 and at 216-220. Is that a typo? I recall those being the numbers for the M60F and M60 respectively.


----------



## woodrow (Oct 30, 2008)

MrGman,
Thanks for the test. It was nice for me to see the Fenix T1 really was 230 lumens. I knew it was as bright as my old SF M3 with the HO bulb. It was also nice to see that the new Eagletac was around as bright as its claims. (I was a doubter....thought they would be around 230 as well)

I will have to pick one up. Thanks again for your efforts!

brad


----------



## kramer5150 (Oct 30, 2008)

280-270 Lumens!!! Holy Moly!... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjCRUvX2D0E

Thats some serious output. Does it get warm to the touch?


----------



## kramer5150 (Oct 30, 2008)

Yoda4561 said:


> You've listed the M60F twice, at 202 and at 216-220. Is that a typo? I recall those being the numbers for the M60F and M60 respectively.



He tested it with different cells and hosts.


----------



## MrGman (Oct 30, 2008)

Yoda4561 said:


> You've listed the M60F twice, at 202 and at 216-220. Is that a typo? I recall those being the numbers for the M60F and M60 respectively.


 

Its not a typo its in 2 different hosts with different battery configurations. Look at the entire line. The lights are somewhat brighter in the Surefire 6P host than the Solarforce L2 host, which has that longer black crenalated strike bezel masking off some of the outer edge of the beam pattern and probably different AR coatings on the glass.


----------



## MrGman (Oct 30, 2008)

kramer5150 said:


> 280-270 Lumens!!! Holy Moly!! Thats some serious output. Does it get warm to the touch?


 
It warms my heart just to hold it but I have not run it for any extended periods of time yet, Needed to keep the batteries fresh for the lumens test and haven't had any time yet to do anything else. Its on my hip and will be seeing some extended usage as part of the further evaluation, just hasn't gotten there. This is only day #1 of the EagleTac T10C2 Saga.


----------



## PhantomPhoton (Oct 30, 2008)

Wow, having real data is pretty nice. Thanks for taking time out of your life to satisfy our collective curiosity.
I'll admit I'm surprised at a couple of the results, but then again I'm a skeptic who doubts most everything claimed by a manufacturer until proven otherwise. Good to see some of them are actually giving good numbers.


----------



## kramer5150 (Oct 30, 2008)

Mods, any way you guys can sticky this?

GMan... can I send you my 11836 and 6090 + 6P to test? I'll pay return postage.

PM me if interested.

One again... GREAT job!!


----------



## Yoda4561 (Oct 30, 2008)

MrGman said:


> Its not a typo its in 2 different hosts with different battery configurations. Look at the entire line. The lights are somewhat brighter in the Surefire 6P host than the Solarforce L2 host, which has that longer black crenalated strike bezel masking off some of the outer edge of the beam pattern and probably different AR coatings on the glass.



I did notice the batteries and hosts were different, it's just that the numbers were so similar to ones you'd posted before with the m60 and m60f.


----------



## cheetokhan (Oct 30, 2008)

phantom23 said:


> Not all flashlights just EagleTac T10L. Theoretically it's 40lm less bright but practically...



+1
I have the T10C and T10L and would love to know how they compare to the T10C2.


----------



## Energie (Oct 30, 2008)

MrGman said:


> Turned on at a *screaming 280 lumens*, slowly drifted down to about 270 lumens.
> The new EagleTac T10C2 draws 0.96 amps on high also with fresh batteries.


 

Just wondering:

EagleTac T10C2: Cree XR-E Q5 inside

Draws 0,96 A on hight (2 fresh batteries = 6 V)
under load: 5,3 V
= 5,1 Watt from the batteries

Driver efficiency 90 %
= 4,6 Watt to the Led

Vf approx. 3,7 V (at 1.000 mA)
= 1.240 mA to the Led 

Cree XR-E Q5 max. 114 lm at 350 mA
approx 250% at 1.240 mA
= 285 lm (emitter lm)

Relative Light Output approx. 85% at 100°C junction temperature
=242 lm (emitter lm)

minus some losses (reflector, lens) approx. 10%
--> *220 lm out of the front*


(Article about efficiency: link)


----------



## HKJ (Oct 30, 2008)

Energie said:


> Just wondering:
> 
> Relative Light Output approx. 85% at 100°C junction temperature
> =242 lm (emitter lm)



I was also surprised by the high output, but I believe I can explain some of the factors.

Your temperature rise does not match the reported data, there the light started at 280 and slowly (i.e. while heating) dropped to 270 lumen, that is only a vary small drop due to temperature

Have your checked, that *fresh* batteries drops to 5.3 volt at 1A load?


Another way to look at it is:
The T10C2 draws about 20% more power then the T1 and if this translates to 20% more light output (This is a bit optimistic), it is about right.


----------



## Outdoors Fanatic (Oct 30, 2008)

wacbzz said:


> +1 for sure. I do hope the mods take notice of this thread. The best flashlight buyer is an informed buyer.
> 
> 
> 
> *Where are all the EagleTac doubters now????*:thinking:


*+2*


----------



## Energie (Oct 30, 2008)

HKJ said:


> I was also surprised by the high output, but I believe I can explain some of the factors.
> 
> Your temperature rise does not match the reported data, there the light started at 280 and slowly (i.e. while heating) dropped to 270 lumen, that is only a vary small drop due to temperature


 
The led is driven above the specs.
There is a document about thermal management on the Cree-site. I think, 100 °C *junction* temperature after some seconds is not wrong.



HKJ said:


> Have your checked, that *fresh* batteries drops to 5.3 volt at 1A load?


 
Yes, I have. With two pairs of fresh surefire batteries.


----------



## I came to the light... (Oct 30, 2008)

wacbzz said:


> +1 for sure. I do hope the mods take notice of this thread. The best flashlight buyer is an informed buyer.
> 
> 
> 
> *Where are all the EagleTac doubters now????*:thinking:



my thoughts exactly 

MrGman, it's really great to finally have somebody doing IS tests. I hope this thread grows into a fairly complete database.


----------



## I came to the light... (Oct 30, 2008)

Energie - you can eliminate temperature causing the output to drop. When you first turn the light on (which is when he got 280 lumens), the temperature will not have increased at all yet. 

As for other aspects, I don't know enough to explain all of it, but I am sure some of your assumptions, like optical and driver efficiency, are a bit pessimistic.


----------



## WadeF (Oct 30, 2008)

Energie said:


> Just wondering:
> 
> EagleTac T10C2: Cree XR-E Q5 inside
> 
> ...


 
I think you are describing a worst case scenerio, and the OP's IS readings don't agree with your guesstimates. I don't think the junction temp is 100C in a few seconds, maybe after 10-20 minutes, but even then it may not be 100C. If it's well heat sinked, it's probably only around 48-50C after a minute or two. 

Also would the voltage really drop to 5.3v with fresh primaries? 

If you rework your numbers do you think it's possible for 1.4A to reach the emitter, and consider the output is near 100% at the start (no loss from junction temp), what kind of emitter lumens do you come up with now?


----------



## insanefred (Oct 30, 2008)

Not sure about anybody else. But should we offer some donations for your time and effort for testing?
More tests would be nice.
I am interested in the Fenix tk20, tk11, Surefire g2L, and eagletac T10L do.

Mods, please sticky!


----------



## LG&M (Oct 30, 2008)

I almost got a Eagletac P10C2. Then I found the T1 Lighthound deal & got that. I am very happy with the T1. I thought they would be about the same. Now I just might have to get the P10C2 also. Thanks a lot.
No really thanks. Nice work.


----------



## Outdoors Fanatic (Oct 30, 2008)

insanefred said:


> Not sure about anybody else. But should we offer some donations for your time and effort for testing?
> More tests would be nice.
> I am interested in the Fenix tk20, tk11, Surefire g2L, and eagletac T10L do.
> 
> Mods, please sticky!


*+1 *

I'd really like to see some popular SureFire flashlights such as: the new L1, E2L, E2DL, E1B, KL5A. The new Inova T2, T3, T4. All popular Dereelights and more incandescent lights as well. That would be sweet!


----------



## copperfox (Oct 30, 2008)

This is a terrific resource, thanks so much MrGman. 
Do you have a ROP you could test? I'll bet that a ROP really is brighter on 2xLithium-ion than on 6xNiMh as most of us have witnessed; I'd just like to know by how much.


----------



## MrGman (Oct 30, 2008)

copperfox said:


> This is a terrific resource, thanks so much MrGman.
> Do you have a ROP you could test? I'll bet that a ROP really is brighter on 2xLithium-ion than on 6xNiMh as most of us have witnessed; I'd just like to know by how much.


 

Why would I want to test Really Old Pizza? 

what is ROP? (that probably answers your question right there, doesn't it.)


----------



## MrGman (Oct 30, 2008)

Outdoors Fanatic said:


> *+1 *
> 
> I'd really like to see some popular SureFire flashlights such as: the new L1, E2L, E2DL, E1B, KL5A. The new Inova T2, T3, T4. All popular Dereelights and more incandescent lights as well. That would be sweet!


 
It takes time and money to do real science. You guys could probably come up with the money collectively, but I don't have the time to do all of these well. If it was just a quick reading in the IS and nothing more that might be possible. But I don't have hardly any interest in most of these lights and I don't want to have to keep paying return shipping and use my lunch hour to make trips to the post office to return lights. A few "key" lights of real interest and controversy would be sufficient.

What I will be interested is the new Lumens Factory D36 in the M90 Rattlesnake to see if its brigher and has better throw than D26 type pills.

I would want it with very light orange peel reflector and not a heavy OP texture pattern. But the weather has already started turning south and my choice of targets will blow away and get ruined in the rain. Beamshots of tree tops just don't do it for me (as you can probably tell). 

We will figure something out later. G


----------



## Hellbore (Oct 30, 2008)

It would sure be nice to see some actual lumens measurements from some of the current crop of budget DX lights with the SSC P7 emitters, the ones that make the ridiculous 900 lumen claim.


----------



## Hellbore (Oct 30, 2008)

That Eagletac looks awesome, I wonder if they will ever make a 2x18650 version?


----------



## copperfox (Oct 30, 2008)

ROP = "Roar Of the Pelican"

ROP is a maglite modification that uses one of the two #3854 "Big D" Pelican 6v bulbs being overdriven. The 3854-high bulb is approximately 700 real lumens and the 3854-low bulb is approximately 500 lumens (but obviously it depends on how much voltage you supply and the "sag" your cells experience). The standard ROP mod uses a 2D maglite, an aluminum reflector and glass window (as they are resistant to heat), and a 6AA->2D cell adapter in which you place 6 NiMH cells (usually LSD or high-current ones that can take the current draw). Some people (myself included) use two li-ion cells instead because they sag less, thus providing more light. The 3854-high can take about 8.5v before flashing and I believe the 3854-low bulb can take around 9v. 

The reason I ask about the ROP is that is is a very common "first hotwire mod" among CPFers due to being both very bright and relatively inexpensive.


----------



## thegeek (Oct 30, 2008)

Energie said:


> Just wondering:
> 
> EagleTac T10C2: Cree XR-E Q5 inside
> 
> ...



If you look at the following test by jtr1963, and assume his specimen was fairly typical, it should skew your values a bit. Also, I believe fresh CR123's typically have a voltage slightly above 3 volts. 

https://www.candlepowerforums.com/posts/2170040&postcount=141


----------



## MrGman (Oct 30, 2008)

copperfox said:


> ROP = "Roar Of the Pelican"
> 
> ROP is a maglite modification that uses one of the two #3854 "Big D" Pelican 6v bulbs being overdriven. The 3854-high bulb is approximately 700 real lumens and the 3854-low bulb is approximately 500 lumens (but obviously it depends on how much voltage you supply and the "sag" your cells experience). The standard ROP mod uses a 2D maglite, an aluminum reflector and glass window (as they are resistant to heat), and a 6AA->2D cell adapter in which you place 6 NiMH cells (usually LSD or high-current ones that can take the current draw). Some people (myself included) use two li-ion cells instead because they sag less, thus providing more light. The 3854-high can take about 8.5v before flashing and I believe the 3854-low bulb can take around 9v.
> 
> The reason I ask about the ROP is that is is a very common "first hotwire mod" among CPFers due to being both very bright and relatively inexpensive.


 
Don't have one, don't want one. Got the Malkoff Triple drop measuring over 700 lumens without any strange battery conversions. Have no interest in such a beast.
Sorry, G.


----------



## LEDninja (Oct 30, 2008)

Thanks for getting these numbers.

Mag-LED 4D_____________50 (I assume torch lumens)
Mag-LED 4D_____________80 no reflector (I assume emitter lumens)
50/80=62% of emitter lumens getting out front.

I used to get pooh poohed a lot when I use 65% light transmission as a rule of thumb. Now I have the numbers to back me up.

The Fenix is about 80% efficient when the measured is compared to the spec numbers. Shows what a good reflector and AR coated optics can do.
I do notice quite a difference when I replaced my stock Mag lenses with AR coated UCL lenses.


----------



## 300winmag (Oct 31, 2008)

I think this will be the most useful thread on CPF, it will save a lot of people money from buying over rated lights. Thank You


----------



## Axion (Oct 31, 2008)

300winmag said:


> I think this will be the most useful thread on CPF, it will save a lot of people money from buying over rated lights. Thank You



Over time I'm getting to the point where I care less and less about lumen ratings because they don't tell you much about real life application. For most anything close range ~100 lumen is plenty IMO and for anything long range lux measurements matter much more. 

For example, that T10C2 put out 280 lumen vs. the 225 of the T1, and for the sake of argument I'll assume the TK11 puts out the same 225 lumen as the T1. Judging by lumen outputs you'd assume that the T10C2 is clearly brighter and thus would be "better right". Well for me, the main purpose of a really bright light is to be able to see stuff far away, for indoors I find the 200 lux (claimed on my NEX to be plenty). So according to light-reviews.com the lux measurements break out as follows (all number on max):

T10C: ~6900 lux spot % ~220 lus spill 
T1: ~7800 lux spot % ~150 lux spill
TK11: ~11200 lux spot & ~215 lux spill

By those numbers I'd rank the TK11 as being the clear winner since it has an equally bright spill with a MUCH brighter hot spot. Even the T1 has a brighter spot with a marginally dimmer spill (in my experience the difference between a 150 lux spill and a 200 lux spill is barely noticeable at any kind of distance). So the T10C2 might still be better indoors where throw isn't as important, but who really needs more then 200 lumen to see stuff that's up close.

Long story shot, I really appreciate MrGman's work and it's really interesting to see who under or over rates their lights, but lets not put too much emphasis on lumen. It's to easy for new comers (like myself a few months ago) to think that lumens are everything, when as I'm finding beam profile is a HUGE part of the story.


----------



## LED_Thrift (Oct 31, 2008)

Thank you so much for the effort you put into this MrGman. Bravo!

I saw all the EagleTacs at PhotonFest a few weeks ago. They are wonderful lights. The amount of light you get out of two NiMH batteries in a P10A2 is amazing.


----------



## Philbee (Oct 31, 2008)

wacbzz said:


> +1 for sure.* I do hope the mods take notice of this thread. The best flashlight buyer is an informed buyer.*
> 
> 
> 
> *Where are all the EagleTac doubters now????*:thinking:


 
+2
The silence is deafening.

:naughty:


----------



## MrGman (Oct 31, 2008)

Energie, your assumptions are off, your math is off.
It is what it is. Assume 270 lumens out after then initial warm up (15 seconds or more). For some one pulsing it on and off. 282 to 276 lumens is what I kept seeing.
Current draw to the LED is in the 1.3 amp range by my calculations. 

Axion. I don't disagree with those numbers and your entitled to that perspective but I find it to be just the opposite. Don't need a tiny little pencil beam to look at a tree 100 yards off for bragging rights that I can light up a tiny spot of it better with flashlight X over Y. I like bright flashlights with a good ratio of hot spot to spill. And from what I have seen here, so do a lot of other users. 

We are not always walking into a house with white walls and everything can be seen with a low power light. The gun range I shoot at is all dingy lead grey and dark. 100 lumens is nothing in there. Some one walking through a dark warehouse with big empty floor space may want a lot more overall lighting in a good spread. If its all crowded with various junk and some one is trying to hide amongst it, all the more reason for a much more versatile light like the EagleTacs, Fenix's, Malkoffs. Knowing the total lumens and seeing the beam pattern is a good combination of figuring out what is a good light to buy or not. Yeah a comparison of lux of the hot spots for all of them isn't bad, but to me it tells less of the story of what I need than the lumens reading and a good beamshot image. G


----------



## insanefred (Oct 31, 2008)

MrGman said:


> It takes time and money to do real science. You guys could probably come up with the money collectively, but I don't have the time to do all of these well. If it was just a quick reading in the IS and nothing more that might be possible. But I don't have hardly any interest in most of these lights and I don't want to have to keep paying return shipping and use my lunch hour to make trips to the post office to return lights. A few "key" lights of real interest and controversy would be sufficient.
> 
> What I will be interested is the new Lumens Factory D36 in the M90 Rattlesnake to see if its brigher and has better throw than D26 type pills.
> 
> ...



MrGman, I don't want you to think that we want you to do time graphs.
Just enough for the light to settle into regulation. 
No, you don't need to do every single light that exists, just some of the more popular ones.
If a brand is very consistent on their ratings (i.e. almost always as advertised, let's say brand X has 5 lights you tested and all perfect and 5 untested). you won't need to do the rest of them. A few tests will speak for the brand. 
You have valuable tool that most of use only can dream of owning. We, ask you kindly to test more lights, and are very thankful of your efforts.


----------



## MrGman (Oct 31, 2008)

video clip comparing the EagleTac T10C2 to Fenix T1, Malkoff M60 in Solarforce L2 host and the Solarforce R2 single mode also in Solarforce L2 host. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekYAB9qsiq4

Tried to have some fun with it, so don't take the intro too serious, Beam shots in the garage. I turned the F stop all the way up and the exposure level down to -2 so I could get a little closer to the garage door and see the spill areas. I think this shows pretty well that the EagleTac T10C2 is overall brighter than the others in this test. I love them all however. Enjoy.


----------



## Energie (Oct 31, 2008)

MrGman said:


> Energie, your assumptions are off, your math is off.


 
May be.

But:
- The current (0,96 A) is from your measuring
- 2 fresh CR123 (Surefire) cells deliver 5,2-5,3 V under 1.000 mA load
- The specs of the Q5 led are from the Cree-site
- I don´t know the driver efficiency, but 90 % is not pessimistic
- Led *juncion* temperatur 100 °C at 1.240 mA is not much, Cree allows max. 150 °C
- a total loss of 10% (lens, reflector) seems to be realistic

So, were is the mistake?


----------



## jirik_cz (Oct 31, 2008)

I think that Fastcar said on the l-r forums that according to the manufacturer, the current to LED is 1.3A. At this current 270 OTF lumens shouldn't be a problem with Cree R2 or good Q5.
https://www.candlepowerforums.com/posts/2412997&postcount=158



MrGman said:


> Assume 270 lumens out after then initial warm up (15 seconds or more). For some one pulsing it on and off. 282 to 276 lumens is what I kept seeing.



I really appreciate your tests. But I would recommend taking measurements after longer warm up. At least 5 minutes or more. 15 seconds is not enough.


----------



## LedZep (Oct 31, 2008)

Some impressive lights!!

Thanks MrGman!

Does anyone have the T10C2 and the T10L or P10C2 for comparison? Light-Reviews shows the T10C2 and T10L having similar output but EagleTac rates them differently, and the P10C2 as lower output even though EagleTac rates it the same as the T10C2. 

Also, if the P10A2 with 2 AA's is running at 1.3a, shouldn't it be as bright as the T10C2? 

I'm confused........but still learning!
Thanks everyone for what I've learned so far!


----------



## Outdoors Fanatic (Oct 31, 2008)

LedZep said:


> Some impressive lights!!
> 
> Thanks MrGman!
> 
> ...





> Also, if the P10A2 with 2 AA's is running at 1.3a, shouldn't it be as bright as the T10C2?


No, not at all. Alkalines should never perform like CR123. AAs under that high load will sag like a motherforker. They just can't provide the juicy needed to achieve that power. CR123s are very pwerful cells, so light fueled by them should never be compared to plain alkaline-powered lights.:thumbsup:


----------



## MrGman (Oct 31, 2008)

"I really appreciate your tests. But I would recommend taking measurements after longer warm up. At least 5 minutes or more. 15 seconds is not enough."

I did run it longer, it just started to settle out. I ran it for a couple minutes and it was "holding" at 270 lumens after the "initial" drop. :thumbsup: that's is why I myself was so impressed, especially when I already knew it was sucking down 0.96 amps at turn on. G


----------



## Lookin4U (Oct 31, 2008)

Well, now you know why I heartily recommend the T10C2. I've been using one nightly at work for five weeks now, and love it. Working as LEO assigned to CSI, I've run it for over an hour continuously and no, it does not get "hot", but does get about as warm as other comparable format lights I have. I've also found that it makes an awesome Mountain Bike light (lots of wide, bright spill *& it throws as well as comparable lights!!!!!!).*


----------



## KDOG3 (Oct 31, 2008)

I would be interested in seeing what the new SSC-P4 based U2 is rated at. I just got one (on the way) so i'm very interested to find out what I'm getting.


----------



## etc (Oct 31, 2008)

Great thread, thanks for posting real-life lumens.


----------



## MrGman (Oct 31, 2008)

KDOG3 said:


> I would be interested in seeing what the new SSC-P4 based U2 is rated at. I just got one (on the way) so i'm very interested to find out what I'm getting.


 
Tell me more about this light.

_Also I am interested in Feedback about the video, mostly is it useful in showing the differences in brightness and color tint in the way I did it in the garage? the original looks better than what gets translated to you tube? _
_But what do you goes think, does it help you to see how bright this light is compared to the other. :candle:_

If I didn't turn down the brightness of the camera it would have simply light up the garage like the "house" lights were on. G


----------



## Noobiwan (Nov 1, 2008)

Thank you for putting some time and effort into this MrG. I hope there will be more tests from you in the near future.


----------



## etc (Nov 1, 2008)

Outdoors Fanatic said:


> No, not at all. Alkalines should never perform like CR123. AAs under that high load will sag like a motherforker. They just can't provide the juicy needed to achieve that power. CR123s are very pwerful cells, so light fueled by them should never be compared to plain alkaline-powered lights.:thumbsup:



Unless you use Lithiums. 2xAA L91s should give over 3V, or about equal to 1x123 cell.

with much greater capacity and runtime of course, but way more bulk.

Don't discard the AA format just yet, L91 gave it new life.

Now Alkalines still have their place in low modes. 

Fenix L2D for example runs very well on Alkalines in low modes. In the lowest modes it will even run on CarbonZinc 'heavy duty' junk. 

That why multimodes make sense, about 2 of them. I am getting EagleTac in 2xAA format, use NiMH or L91 for high mode and hopefully the low mode will run well on alkalines if necessary. Even if I don't get the stated 8 hours out of it.


----------



## Outdoors Fanatic (Nov 1, 2008)

etc said:


> Unless you use Lithiums. 2xAA L91s should give over 3V, or about equal to 1x123 cell.
> 
> with much greater capacity and runtime of course, but way more bulk.
> 
> ...





> Unless you use Lithiums. 2xAA L91s should give over 3V, or about equal to 1x123 cell.



You are comparing TWO long cells against one, not fair. A single CR123 has more energy and twice voltage than a single L91. Two CR123 is not even funny to compare...


----------



## phantom23 (Nov 1, 2008)

You're incorrect. Single L91 has slightly more energy than single CR123A.


----------



## Nake (Nov 1, 2008)

phantom23 said:


> You're incorrect. Single L91 has slightly more energy than single CR123A.


 
A CR123 has about 3.2V. An L91 is AA size and has about 1.7V. Maybe you're thinking of an EL123A the Lithium equivelant of a CR123.


----------



## phantom23 (Nov 1, 2008)

Average CR123 capacity is 1300-1400mAh (let's say 1350mAh). L91 - 2800-2900mAh (2850mAh).
3,2*1350=4,32Wh
1,7*2850=4,85Wh


----------



## Nake (Nov 1, 2008)

You wrote energy, I read it as voltage.


----------



## HKJ (Nov 1, 2008)

phantom23 said:


> Average CR123 capacity is 1300-1400mAh (let's say 1350mAh). L91 - 2800-2900mAh (2850mAh).
> 3,2*1350=4,32Wh
> 1,7*2850=4,85Wh



I do not know where your got your data from, the voltage your specify is way to high. 2.5 and 1.4 is more correct at high load.

The L91 is (according to data sheet) between 4.5 Wh and 3.8 Wh, depending on load and CR123 is about the same (see https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/67078)


----------



## phantom23 (Nov 1, 2008)

And 1,5 and 3,0V nominal.


HKJ said:


> The L91 is (according to data sheet) between 4.5 Wh and 3.8 Wh, depending on load and CR123 is about the same (see https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/67078)


I agree. That's why I said this is incorrect:


Outdoors Fanatic said:


> A single CR123 has *more energy* and twice voltage than a single L91.



CR123 isn't better. And outside US it's better to have AA light (CR's are rare and very expensive if you find one).


----------



## HKJ (Nov 1, 2008)

phantom23 said:


> CR123 isn't better. And outside US it's better to have AA light (CR's are rare and very expensive if you find one).



I can not get L91 one around here, but CR123 is easy to get from local internet shops and the price is acceptable for me (About $3).
But any light I uses on a regular schedule is running on rechargeable batteries, primary batteries are reserved for lights with low usage.


----------



## phantom23 (Nov 1, 2008)

HKJ said:


> But any light I uses on a regular schedule is running on rechargeable batteries, primary batteries are reserved for lights with low usage.


And than AA light is a keeper


----------



## HKJ (Nov 1, 2008)

phantom23 said:


> And than AA light is a keeper



AA lights are fine with eneloopes, but there are many other possibilities, I like 18650 and 16340.


----------



## phantom23 (Nov 1, 2008)

I use Sanyo 2700, use a lot so I don't care about self-discharge. 16340 has low capacity, 18650 is thicker and if they run out you'd regret it's not AA (because you won't buy a spare in casual shop). But I have and use some 18650 lights as well:thumbsup:

PS. Sorry for the OT.


----------



## Youfoundnemo (Nov 1, 2008)

Thanks for doing this work for us....Im sure all of CPF is as grateful as I am


----------



## MrGman (Nov 1, 2008)

Youfoundnemo said:


> Thanks for doing this work for us....Im sure all of CPF is as grateful as I am


 
Your welcome.

_*Also a tidbit of news. I just ordered the Lumens Factory D26 LED module for myself so it will be seeing testing in my Solarforce and SureFire Flashlight hosts.*_ 

I am debating getting the M90 Rattlesnake with the R2 LED already in it and then possibly ordering the LF D36 LED pill, but not in a hurry. If some one gets any of these, I would want to test it. Still haven't decided if I want the big head M90 with the P7. 


For those guys who want to test their big P7 modules in larger head flashlights like the M90 Rattlesnake P7, you can ask precisionworks who has a larger opening in his integration sphere system that he built and I helped calibrate. We will continue to work back and forth to keep his home made system calibrated. My sphere at work has a smaller opening. 

http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=203822

Precisionworks is also a busy guy with real job, (now don't read that as you guys who want testing don't have real jobs and aren't busy), I am guessing he doesn't have the time to test every light out there but some of you guys asked about testing the P7's from DX. If you have them you can consider asking him to test them. Since he has tested my Malkoff Triple drop and his Elektrolumens P7 in the same system it would be a great reference point. 

Will keep you all posted of course.


----------



## TexLite (Nov 1, 2008)

I want to say Thanks as well for such a great thread!

The truth is so much better than speculation.

I appreciate the unbiased way in which your tests have been conducted. 

Thanks Again,
Michael


----------



## MrGman (Nov 6, 2008)

Your welcome Mike, I tested your lights and added the readings to the original table at the top of sheet one. 

Dereelight 3SM5A Q5 LED very pinkish in tint, The original 6P LED and the Fenix L1T. So everyone go check out the list.


----------



## jirik_cz (Nov 6, 2008)

I always thought that Fenix L1T has only two modes. But you measured low, medium, high ???


----------



## TexLite (Nov 6, 2008)

MrGman said:


> Your welcome Mike, I tested your lights and added the readings to the original table at the top of sheet one.
> 
> Dereelight 3SM5A Q5 LED very pinkish in tint, The original 6P LED and the Fenix L1T. So everyone go check out the list.


 
Thank You Sir!!!

I greatly appreciate it.I hope to get my lightbox dialed in now since I have some actual numbers to work with. 



jirik_cz said:


> I always thought that Fenix L1T has only two modes. But you measured low, medium, high ???


 
The drivers not stock in the L1T,its been replaced with an RV7 3-level with a high output of over 600mA for most or the runtime from a single NiMH,with an R2 WG XR-E.

-Michael


----------



## jirik_cz (Nov 6, 2008)

Thanks that is pretty important information


----------



## 4sevens (Nov 6, 2008)

MrGman - we can send you anything from our store for testing 
Just contact us at [email protected]

btw- nice avatar. Is that grissom from csi?


----------



## Outdoors Fanatic (Nov 6, 2008)

4sevens said:


> MrGman - we can send you anything from our store for testing
> Just contact us at [email protected]
> 
> btw- nice avatar. Is that grissom from csi?


That's great 4-7777s!

Send him the PH50... LOL


----------



## MrGman (Nov 6, 2008)

4sevens said:


> MrGman - we can send you anything from our store for testing
> Just contact us at [email protected]
> 
> btw- nice avatar. Is that grissom from csi?


 
That's me at the range I run. 

I will review what you have.

In the meantime I tested the new Lumens Factory D26 LED module and it was a very disappointing 182 lumens at turn on and dropped down to 170 when it warmed up. I put it in the Solarforce L2 with the new non crenellated bezel using 2X17500 batteries then in the Surefire 6P with 2 primaries and got the same results. Its got a bright hot spot and the spill area looks good, but its a smaller cone area of light. so they are just concentrating the light to keep up the brightness but its not a 200 plus lumen light. Its now on the data sheet on page one.


----------



## wacbzz (Nov 6, 2008)

This thread - the first post - just keeps getting better and better. Keep up the great work G.:twothumbs


----------



## Marduke (Nov 6, 2008)

I would very much like to see the IS numbers for the new LD01 on NiMH, and L92's


----------



## 4sevens (Nov 6, 2008)

Outdoors Fanatic said:


> That's great 4-7777s!
> Send him the PH50... LOL



Depends how big the opening of the IS is.
The PH50 may overload it.



Marduke said:


> I would very much like to see the IS numbers for the new LD01 on NiMH, and L92's


If someone starts to put together a list we'll send out a bunch of loaners to test


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Nov 6, 2008)

Is that a typo re your L1T lumen results, and actually a L1D?

Bill


----------



## MrGman (Nov 6, 2008)

4sevens said:


> Depends how big the opening of the IS is.
> The PH50 may overload it.
> 
> If someone starts to put together a list we'll send out a bunch of loaners to test


 

I don't have the time and am not interested in testing every flashlight out there. I will review the flashlights that Fenix. com has to offer on their website that I think would be relevant to fill in the niches of other lights. Perhaps the infamous TK11 for instance. 

The opening on the sphere that is set up is about 1.5 inches? I have to remember to actually go measure it. For really high power lights we are supposed to put in neutral density filters of known lumens drop to subtract out the reading so we don't overwhelm the meter, but I don't know where it is and would have to get the Optical Engineer involved to start working with that, and don't want to bother him at this point in time. We are very busy with real projects that pay the bills.

I consider doing this fun when its just a couple new lights or lights of great controversy. If I have to sit there and run lots of lights through and report back it just becomes "work". I already have a full time job and then some running a FA lab.


----------



## MrGman (Nov 6, 2008)

Bullzeyebill said:


> Is that a typo re your L1T lumen results, and actually a L1D?
> 
> Bill


 

It says LIT as in terrific on the side of the light.


----------



## HKJ (Nov 6, 2008)

MrGman said:


> It says LIT as in terrific on the side of the light.



Something is wrong, the L1T is only supposed to have to levels, one with head tight and one with head loose.

The L1D has 5 levels, two with head tight (Turbo + strobe) and 3 with head loose (low med high).

Can your have a D head on a T body?


----------



## adirondackdestroyer (Nov 6, 2008)

Have you considered doing a Mag85 or a ROP? It would really stir things up!


----------



## IcantC (Nov 6, 2008)

Thank you for your time and service, very great info being provided.


----------



## Calina (Nov 6, 2008)

HKJ said:


> Something is wrong, the L1T is only supposed to have to levels, one with head tight and one with head loose.
> 
> The L1D has 5 levels, two with head tight (Turbo + strobe) and 3 with head loose (low med high).
> 
> Can your have a D head on a T body?


 
You should read the thread !!!!

Post 84.


----------



## IcantC (Nov 6, 2008)

Also I liked the video. Something that might be helpful. If you also shined the lights at the same place/object. For example you shine the Eagletac on right, T1 on left. That is good. Then do Eagletac on right, turn off Eagletac and then turn on T1 on right. That way it is easier to see spill. I know this would help me because I rewatched your video and paused to see which was lighting up more area.

It is a great video and I guess that is not really needed. Thank you for your time once again.


----------



## wbp (Nov 6, 2008)

Gman,
All those flashlights and not one overlap with my collection - rats! I was hoping to be able to compare results with my sphere and SP-100.
Guess I'll have to order an EagleTac. Not sure I want a T10C2, but the P10C2 should have the same lumens.
Was thinking of sending one of mine to you for a comparison, but did not want to impose.
William


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Nov 6, 2008)

Calina said:


> You should read the thread !!!!
> 
> Post 84.



I missed it too. It is a modified L1T per TexLite's post 84.

Bill


----------



## MrGman (Nov 6, 2008)

I am surprised that no one commented on the new Lumens Factory D26 LED not breaking over 200 lumens. I thought this was supposed to be a screamer with 1000mA drive. 

I have no interest in testing big incandescent lights, sorry.


----------



## bkumanski (Nov 7, 2008)

MrGman,

I too was skeptical about the light output of the T10C2, especially for the price. I just got mine today. WOW! I agree, it does seem brighter than my other duty lights. I agree, the combo of throw and spill blows away my Inova T4 and everyone elses little lights. Dunno how they did it, but everyone is asking me about it. And I agree, it's great for large building searches. Glad I chose this one.


----------



## HKJ (Nov 7, 2008)

Calina said:


> You should read the thread !!!!
> 
> Post 84.



I have read the full thread, but I do not remember or read it before each post I make

Anyway I thing that it would be nice if MrGman put a note in his table, saying that the L1T is modified.


----------



## MrGman (Nov 7, 2008)

The note is posted, done.


----------



## MrGman (Nov 7, 2008)

bkumanski said:


> MrGman,
> 
> I too was skeptical about the light output of the T10C2, especially for the price. I just got mine today. WOW! I agree, it does seem brighter than my other duty lights. I agree, the combo of throw and spill blows away my Inova T4 and everyone elses little lights. Dunno how they did it, but everyone is asking me about it. And I agree, it's great for large building searches. Glad I chose this one.


 
*Truth is Truth. *

*you have chosen wisely my young padua learner, but face Vader still, you must. *


----------



## NoFair (Nov 7, 2008)

MrGman said:


> I am surprised that no one commented on the new Lumens Factory D26 LED not breaking over 200 lumens. I thought this was supposed to be a screamer with 1000mA drive.


 
The 3.7V version is brighter (at least mine is) than the 2 normal D26 R2 drop ins I have. 

I think they are a decent compromise between brightness and runtime, mine also have perfect tint

Could you test current draw on your lights with the D26? I'll test mine when I get back from work.

Sverre


----------



## MrGman (Nov 7, 2008)

I will try and get current draw readings this weekend. 

also I added the Fenix P2D CE to the table. I have one and its handy little light.


----------



## NoFair (Nov 7, 2008)

LumensFactory drop ins:

3.7V 1.22A of a single partially discharged 17670

Normal D26 0.56A using 2 R123s that are pretty fresh.

The 3.7V one is brighter and drawing a bit more power (Watts).

Both are using less than the somewhat brighter Raidfire Spear.

Sverre


----------



## faucon (Nov 7, 2008)

MrGman said:


> I will try and get current draw readings this weekend.
> 
> also I added the Fenix P2D CE to the table. I have one and its handy little light.


Thanks much for all of the info. I love my P2D CE, it's now my primary EDC for times when I must carry something small. And I absolutely love my T10C2. It's become my new favorite, even with all of the other excellent lights I own.


----------



## copperfox (Nov 7, 2008)

MrGman said:


> *you have chosen wisely my young padua learner,*



it's "padawan"


Quick, somebody loan your ROP to MrGman so he feels obligated to run it in the IS. :duck:


----------



## MrGman (Nov 7, 2008)

copperfox said:


> it's "padawan"
> 
> 
> Quick, somebody loan your ROP to MrGman so he feels obligated to run it in the IS. :duck:


 
you may be correct on your spelling, but yout tactics for getting me to want to help you are sadly lacking my young padawan not so good at learning learner. 

How big is the bezel opening of this ROP light? Is it more than 1.5 inches across? If it fits into a maglight head it won't fit into the sphere anyway and I will never get an accurate reading. 

I have no interest at all in testing this incandescent monstrosity. It probably has an ugly beam anyway. It would hurt my eyes after looking at the beautiful beams of my Malkoff M60. M60F, Fenix T1 and EagleTac T10C2.


----------



## IcantC (Nov 7, 2008)

MrGman said:


> you may be correct on your spelling, but yout tactics for getting me to want to help you are sadly lacking my young padawan not so good at learning learner.
> 
> How big is the bezel opening of this ROP light? Is it more than 1.5 inches across? If it fits into a maglight head it won't fit into the sphere anyway and I will never get an accurate reading.
> 
> I have no interest at all in testing this incandescent monstrosity. It probably has an ugly beam anyway. It would hurt my eyes after looking at the beautiful beams of my Malkoff M60. M60F, Fenix T1 and EagleTac T10C2.


 

It would hurt, but probably from blinding you .
https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/159457

ROP mod is done to a [email protected] C or D.


----------



## copperfox (Nov 7, 2008)

Mine is a 2C, so it's far from being a "monstrosity." And the beam is very nice with a MOP reflector. :nana:


----------



## MrGman (Nov 7, 2008)

copperfox said:


> Mine is a 2C, so it's far from being a "monstrosity." And the beam is very nice with a MOP reflector. :nana:


 

But it still won't fit in the opening, so its a moot point. I am sure my Malkoff Triple is pertier. (as in prettier beam).


----------



## naked2 (Nov 7, 2008)

Great job, MrGman!:twothumbs 

Since 7777 is willing to send anything they sell for testing, maybe they could send you the other EagleTac models (since there's only six more). Or at least the P10C (the smallest), and the T10L (the 18650, but it would be great to see how it holds up to the T10C2! ).

Thanks, Tony

Edit: Oops! Make that the other FIVE, I just noticed the P10A2 is already on your list!


----------



## Sir Lightalot (Nov 7, 2008)

I think it would be nice to have a few E01s tested after all those threads....
Very useful information MrGman! many thanks :thumbsup:


----------



## MrGman (Nov 8, 2008)

For the question as to the Lumens Factory D26 LED Current Draw that "NoFair" asked about.

With 2 new CR123 batteries its 0.73A assuming 6V (just for a moment) thats a max of 4.38watts. Don't want to hear about open circuit voltage being higher, its not open circuit. If we assume 2.85V per battery under this load then thats 4.16 watts, so lets just say its consuming "approximately 4 and a quarter watts to run the driver and LED. The LED isn't getting over 4 watts of power so the light output at this level (180 lm) is "reasonable".

With 2X17500 well charged Lith Ion batteries that are over 8V the current draw is only 0.57A. At best that would be around 4.56 watts. I measured the lumens with those batteris and saw no improvement in brightness. So those are the numbers for theLF D26. Its a good 2 hour runtime module with 2 primaries.

The Dereelight 3SM5A (in SureFire 6P host) that was sent to me for testing, I measured the current draw in that one before I shipped it back today (on its way my friend). using 2 fresh CR123's 620mA high, 235mA medium and 57mA on low. So the lumens output I measured on that one also concurs with the current draws. I did like the warm pinkish tint but didn't have time to get a picture with it or make a video, sorry. So here are more numbers to add to the never ending data. 
 :thumbsup:


----------



## MrGman (Nov 8, 2008)

wbp said:


> Gman,
> All those flashlights and not one overlap with my collection - rats! I was hoping to be able to compare results with my sphere and SP-100.
> Guess I'll have to order an EagleTac. Not sure I want a T10C2, but the P10C2 should have the same lumens.
> Was thinking of sending one of mine to you for a comparison, but did not want to impose.
> William


 

Tell me whats in your collection and choose 2 that you think would make good candidates for me to test directly, send me a message and I will see what I can do you for to help calibrate your sphere as I helped precisionworks. 

Also you guys with the ROP; _precisionworks_ has been testing the larger head maglights with his sphere (homemade) but I helped him calibrate and we are getting some very believable readings. You should ask him if he wants to test these ROPs. He tested my Malkoff Triple between 722 and 736 and his Mac Custom P7 at 760 lumens so may want to give him a shot. At the very least you will know in a very useable relative manner if its brighter or weaker than the Malkoff Triple or Mac Custom P7. 

That is is screen name "precisionworks". :thumbsup:


----------



## insanefred (Nov 8, 2008)

Come on guys chant with me! :twothumbs
_TK20..
__TK20..
__TK20..
__TK20..
__TK20..
__TK20..
__TK20..
__TK20_.......


----------



## Splunk_Au (Nov 8, 2008)

How do these lumen values apply to practical use where most lights have a focused spot and spill?


----------



## NoFair (Nov 9, 2008)

MrGman said:


> For the question as to the Lumens Factory D26 LED Current Draw that "NoFair" asked about.
> 
> With 2 new CR123 batteries its 0.73A assuming 6V (just for a moment) thats a max of 4.38watts. Don't want to hear about open circuit voltage being higher, its not open circuit. If we assume 2.85V per battery under this load then thats 4.16 watts, so lets just say its consuming "approximately 4 and a quarter watts to run the driver and LED. The LED isn't getting over 4 watts of power so the light output at this level (180 lm) is "reasonable".
> 
> ...


 
Thank you:twothumbs

They seem very consistent on current draw. Happy with mine, guessing that the slightly brighter 3.7V unit is about 200 then:thumbsup:

Sverre


----------



## Outdoors Fanatic (Nov 10, 2008)

Mods, please stick this thread ASAP.


----------



## wbp (Nov 10, 2008)

*The Eagle(Tac) has landed...*

USPS just delivered an EagleTac P10C2 from Fenix-Store.com

With fresh CR123 primaries, I measured 27780 lumens on high, 63.0 lumens on low. The high reading drops over time as the light heats up, but the 63.0 reading is very very stable, rising slowly to 62.2 after a couple of minutes as the light cooled off.

It doesn't get much closer than that!

edit: I measured 280 lumens with freshly charged RCR123's (Powerizer).
William


----------



## Outdoors Fanatic (Nov 10, 2008)

*Re: The Eagle(Tac) has landed...*



wbp said:


> USPS just delivered an EagleTac P10C2 from Fenix-Store.com
> 
> With fresh CR123 primaries, I measured 277 lumens on high, 63.0 lumens on low. The high reading drops over time as the light heats up, but the 63.0 reading is very very stable, rising slowly to 62.2 after a couple of minutes as the light cooled off.
> 
> ...


Fantastic results!

The T10C2 drops a lot less on high though, because there's a lot more material in there for heatsinking. It is my favorite 2XCR123 LED light right now, it even replaced my E2DL...


----------



## wbp (Nov 10, 2008)

*Re: The Eagle(Tac) has landed...*



Outdoors Fanatic said:


> Fantastic results!
> The T10C2 drops a lot less on high though, because there's a lot more material in there for heatsinking. It is my favorite 2XCR123 LED light right now, it even replaced my E2DL...



I think if you're actually holding there should be little or no difference in drop due to heating between the two. I measured the same output range on the P10C2 as MrGman did on the T10C2. I picked P because of the reviews of the beam pattern.


----------



## IcantC (Nov 10, 2008)

*Re: The Eagle(Tac) has landed...*

MrGman do you have a SF E1B to test?


----------



## wbp (Nov 10, 2008)

*Re: The Eagle(Tac) has landed...*



Outdoors Fanatic said:


> The T10C2 drops a lot less on high though, because there's a lot more material in there for heatsinking. It is my favorite 2XCR123 LED light right now, it even replaced my E2DL...



At 280 lumens, it's only 7% less output than my Creemator, and it's a LOT less money!!! Better color too... (sorry, Scott)

William


----------



## MrGman (Nov 11, 2008)

*Re: The Eagle(Tac) has landed...*



IcantC said:


> MrGman do you have a SF E1B to test?


 

No I don't, If I did it would have already been tested.
Not interested in getting one. Way too much money for an 80 lumen light. I am sure its very close to what SureFire claims it is.


----------



## wbp (Nov 12, 2008)

*Re: The Eagle(Tac) has landed...*



MrGman said:


> Not interested in getting one. Way too much money for an 80 lumen light. I am sure its very close to what SureFire claims it is.


Not according to my measurements. 109+ lumens for the one I have.


----------



## MrGman (Nov 12, 2008)

*Re: The Eagle(Tac) has landed...*



wbp said:


> Not according to my measurements. 109+ lumens for the one I have.


 

Assuming your correct its still too much money for me for a 110 lumen range light.

I mentioned previously to pick a couple (2) lights that you would think are good candidates to send me and send me a PM about getting them tested to calibrate your IS system. If you think this one would be one of the two good candidates we can see. There was another unit that you had with a real high lumen output and was a thrower, in your collection, did you want to send that? G


----------



## Art Vandelay (Nov 12, 2008)

Thank for doing this. It's a great resource. Measurements like this can help flashlight companies compete based on performance, when they don't have the budget for expensive advertising.
:goodjob:


----------



## MrGman (Nov 14, 2008)

Splunk_Au said:


> How do these lumen values apply to practical use where most lights have a focused spot and spill?


 
It is a good gauge of the total output in general, Once you see what a few lights really put out, you can get a general sense of what something with more or less power would do, especially since most lights have a hot spot and certain amount of spill. But the more important thing is if you know that the light is only say 80 lumens, would you be willing to pay $170 for it when there is another one with 3 modes that goes up to 150 lumens for less than $70. 

I know I don't really want my tactical carry light to be less than 200 lumens now that I have a good reference to go by. I also know that 30 to 40 lumens is what I consider a good useable low level light for me. 

A lot of these guys are quite accustomed to known outputs and say that they specifically want their low lumen light outputs to be 10 lumens or 5 lumens or 1 lumen because they have a good idea what that means and what its good for.

It takes time. Kind of like knowing what a 400 horsepower car really feels like to drive after driving one with 135 horse power. You get accustomed to the power and know how to gauge it and then compare other cars back and forth.


----------



## MrGman (Nov 14, 2008)

My psychic powers tell me more popular and interesting lights will be getting tested soon. Stay tuned. :naughty:


----------



## LED_Thrift (Nov 14, 2008)

MrGman said:


> My psychic powers tell me more popular and interesting lights will be getting tested soon. Stay tuned. :naughty:


That sounds good. Thanks


----------



## baterija (Nov 14, 2008)

MrGman said:


> My psychic powers tell me more popular and interesting lights will be getting tested soon. Stay tuned. :naughty:



Ooh I like the Amazing MrGman Psychic Show. I still think the fork bending is a trick though. His ability to read lumen levels makes it all worthwhile though.


----------



## wbp (Nov 14, 2008)

There is no fork. :tinfoil:


----------



## Marduke (Nov 14, 2008)

wbp said:


> There is no fork. :tinfoil:



These are not the forks you are looking for..... :wave:








sorry, back on topic please.


----------



## MrGman (Nov 14, 2008)

I got the new Malkoff M60 Warm version today. So you know that will be tested very soon. Plus ????????? 

May have to make some videos as well, all I need is more time.


----------



## Burgess (Nov 14, 2008)

Don't worry . . . .


We CPF'ers are a *very patient bunch*.



_


----------



## MrGman (Nov 17, 2008)

The M60 warm version has just been posted. I realized I never added my original M60 data to the chart. Its also posted now. The warm has less lumens as I expected. I also did a quick test with no bezel at all on the Solarforce L2 host. I knew it wasn't AR coated, but the readings without it are substantial, about 11% loss all by itself.


----------



## 2xTrinity (Nov 17, 2008)

MrGman said:


> The M60 warm version has just been posted. I realized I never added my original M60 data to the chart. Its also posted now. The warm has less lumens as I expected. I also did a quick test with no bezel at all on the Solarforce L2 host. I knew it wasn't AR coated, but the readings without it are substantial, about 11% loss all by itself.


This is not surprising. The reason the lumen loss from the bezel is so high is because the Malkoff drop-in uses a TIR optic, rather than a metal reflector.

Each interface from the glass will reflect at least 4% of incident light (more depending on angle), so right there that's over 8% of the light reflected, plus probably some shadowed by opaque portions of the bezel. 

In the case of the reflector, most of the light reflected from the glass will re-strike the reflector and eventually make it back out into the spill. With an optic, the light from the glass won't be at the proper angle to reflect, so it will be completely lost.

The ideal design would be to actually to not have any glass surfaces past the optic of all. Short of that, I'd say an AR coated lens might be worth looking into, moreso for something like the Malkoff M60 than usual.


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Nov 17, 2008)

Would like to see the M60W run with the 6P bezel. Would also give us some info on any losses using a SF glass window compared to your no bezel results.

Bill


----------



## MrGman (Nov 17, 2008)

Bullzeyebill said:


> Would like to see the M60W run with the 6P bezel. Would also give us some info on any losses using a SF glass window compared to your no bezel results.
> 
> Bill


 

The SureFire Bezel is better, you can tell from the readings already posted. I forgot to bring it today. I will try and get readings with it this week but I am sure they will be about 8% better or more based on previous testing.


----------



## etc (Nov 18, 2008)

2xTrinity said:


> This is not surprising. The reason the lumen loss from the bezel is so high is because the Malkoff drop-in uses a TIR optic, rather than a metal reflector.
> 
> Each interface from the glass will reflect at least 4% of incident light (more depending on angle), so right there that's over 8% of the light reflected, plus probably some shadowed by opaque portions of the bezel.
> 
> ...



This is interesting.
I was under the impression that the optic was more efficient than the reflector? Apparently not the case?


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Nov 18, 2008)

etc said:


> This is interesting.
> I was under the impression that the optic was more efficient than the reflector? Apparently not the case?



I would guess that the optic is more efficient, hard to prove though. I think that a nice high flux side emitting LED would be more efficient than a Cree LED with an optic or reflector. Don't see many side emitting LEDs. Problem with a Cree and reflector is it really needs to be really deep to catch the photons due to the Cree's narrow beam profile, while the optic gathers the light immediately and manages it all the way out the front, and as MrGman has demonstrated the flashlights window can play a significant role in blocking and disrupting that light. 

Bill


----------



## MrGman (Nov 18, 2008)

Increased efficiency of an optic in front of the LED versus a reflector around it has nothing to do specifically with the additional light loss of the glass window in front of either. The glass window without AR coatings is going to drop about 8% of the light plus any additional shadowing of the light beam from the black bezel itself obstructing the periphery of the beam. An optic only looses about 8% total light in front of the LED (not counting window) but a reflector can be as high as 30% based on how its made and what the final coating is. Stippled/orange peel reflectors lose more than smooth ones. And again that doesn't include any light loss from the window. I don't think there is a reflector that would only be an 8% loss to light that you could get in a commercial flashlight. Maybe very close to 8% in a really good design.


----------



## Outdoors Fanatic (Nov 18, 2008)

I wonder why there are still no Nitecore or Jeatbeam lights in MrGman's list. Nor any big thrower either...


----------



## jirik_cz (Nov 18, 2008)

It is not so simple with the optic vs reflector efficiency. For example efficiency of carclo optics varies from 91% down to less than 80%. 

Also reflectors may have only 70% efficiency but not all light hit them. Especially with LED lights there is a lot of light that just go forward and will not hit the reflector. So the overall lumen efficiency of lights with reflectors is at least comparable(if not better) to lights with optics.


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Nov 18, 2008)

jirik_cz said:


> It is not so simple with the optic vs reflector efficiency. For example efficiency of carclo optics varies from 91% down to less than 80%.
> 
> Also reflectors may have only 70% efficiency but not all light hit them. Especially with LED lights there is a lot of light that just go forward and will not hit the reflector. So the overall lumen efficiency of lights with reflectors is at least comparable(if not better) to lights with optics.



So why would a carclo optic with an efficiency of 91% be comparable to a reflector with 70%? Because the photons of an LED light might be going forward and not making contact with the reflector, and if they did make contact then efficiency would go down? When does 70% efficiency become 91% efficiency? I do not understand that. When I have been able to fit an optic, designed for the LED, into a light that has a reflector, smooth or not, I have always seen higher light readings using bounce with lightmeter. Gene Malkoff is using an optic for two purposes I think, one to get the desired beam shape he wants, and for better light transmission out the front compared to a reflector.

Bill


----------



## 2xTrinity (Nov 18, 2008)

etc said:


> This is interesting.
> I was under the impression that the optic was more efficient than the reflector? Apparently not the case?


The optic is more efficient under the right conditions. If light inside the optic strikes the internal reflector surface at the proper angle, it will reflect 100%. However, unlike metal reflectors, this effect is very sensitive to the angle of incidence. Some of the cheap plastic optics used in lights are poorly designed, so that much of the light coming from the LED is at the wrong angle, and trasmits through rather than reflecting. Further, it is a bad idea to add a separate glass window in front of a TIR optic. A better option would be to actually use a glass optic with no separate window (obviously, Gene can't do this in a retrofit, but I mean if onewere designing a light from scratch)

When light travels through a separate glass window that is not AR coated, a significant amount of light will reflect backward. None of this light will be at the right angle to undergo internal reflection. In the case of a metal reflector, some of the light reflected off the window glass will bounce off the reflector AGAIN and make it back out as spill.

My original point wasn't about total effeciency of metal reflector or optics, but rather, an explanation for the unusually high difference between the bezel/no bezel effeciency in this case.




> So why would a carclo optic with an efficiency of 91% be comparable to a reflector with 70%? Because the photons of an LED light might be going forward and not making contact with the reflector, and if they did make contact then efficiency would go down?


Yes. This is part of the reason why (empirically) incandescent lamps lose 33% of their lumens and LEDs in the same reflector lose only ~18%. More of the lumens from the LED exit the light as "spill" without ever striking a reflector surface. 

So if you are fine with most of your lumens leaving the light as spill, a reflector light can have similar effiency as an optic-based light. If the goal is a more throwy light, the optic is a MUCH better choice as it controls all the light coming from the LED.



> Gene Malkoff is using an optic for two purposes I think, one to get the desired beam shape he wants, and for better light transmission out the front.


Agreed. My point is that by using AR or no glass, Gene coudl be doing 8% better than even what he currently is. A reflector light wil lnto see as much of an improvement from AR glass.


----------



## jirik_cz (Nov 18, 2008)

Bullzeyebill said:


> When does 70% efficiency become 91% efficiency? I do not understand that.



It is simple. Reflector affects lets say only 50% of light and the other 50% goes just straight from the LED to the front and will not hit the reflector. 70% from 50% is 35%. So the total luminous efficiency will be 50+35 = 85%...


----------



## etc (Nov 18, 2008)

Is it possible to replace the glass in the 9P bezel with the AR-coated glass?


----------



## MrGman (Nov 18, 2008)

etc said:


> Is it possible to replace the glass in the 9P bezel with the AR-coated glass?


 
I believe the SureFire bezels are already coated, at the very least on the inside. I always seem to get better readings with the SureFire bezels which is why I repeat my tests with them. I know that the Solarforces are not.


----------



## MrGman (Nov 18, 2008)

Outdoors Fanatic said:


> I wonder why there are still no Nitecore or Jeatbeam lights in MrGman's list. Nor any big thrower either...


 

Its against my religion to buy programmable lights. 

The only big "throwers" I know of in the 2CR123 or 18650 range that should fit into the port of truth would be the Raidfire Spear and the Dereelight DBS Q5 2SD. I have offered to test these and other so called "throwers" in the past. No one has taken me up on that offer yet. I would be happy to test these 2 models, some one can PM me if they have them. I have no intention of buying them, I like my EagleTac T10C2, my Fenix T1, my collection of Malkoff's (including the Triple Drop mega light). I think I am pretty well set for my personal collection until something really exciting comes along. Say 500-600 lumens using 2 watts of power. 

Also no one has submitted the SureFire E2DL even though I said I would be more than happy to test that one.


----------



## naked2 (Nov 19, 2008)

If the Spear and DBS will fit, so should the Tiablo A9.


----------



## wbp (Nov 19, 2008)

My crystal ball says a DBS V2 3SD will be in your future very soon. Also an EagleTac P10C, a modified EX10, and perhaps even a Creemator.
William


----------



## wacbzz (Dec 2, 2008)

MrGman-

Any response to the idea that a smaller vs a larger IS will give different lumen readings? The idea has risen from this post:



MattK said:


> Regarding the sphere testing you linked we were using a 10" sphere and I think we'd see a different results in a smaller sphere based on the numbers that are reported in that thread - we didn't test any of the exact same lights but we did test a TK10 and TK11 and didn't crack 200 where he was getting 228-230 with a T1 - not quite exacting but it does make one wonder.


 
and I was curious if such a discrepancy could exist...:shrug:


----------



## MrGman (Dec 2, 2008)

I just finished responding to that post. the short answer here is, if they are both properly calibrated with the metering system used with than they should both get the same readings. The sphere has to be calibrated with the metering system used, its actually the metering system that gets calibrated to the known light source using the sphere of choice to collect the light and send it to the detector. If everything is done correctly a 100 lumen light source would read 100 lumens in both units with maybe less than 1 percent deviation. 

Calibration is always key. Our system is calibrated as a complete system every year. The meter/detector/sphere are always calibrated together. We can't just throw on the 12 inch sphere we also have and keep taking readings, we would have to recalibrate, the whole system.


----------



## Outdoors Fanatic (Dec 4, 2008)

Great post!


----------



## MrGman (Dec 5, 2008)

I have some new readings that I posted and I am also making a set of corrections. In the process of looking at WBP's Integration Sphere and readings and why some lights seem to read higher than others between his system and mine, I talked to my PhD Optical Engineer friend at work and showed him the lights in question. One of the issues that came up was the shiny bezels versus black bezels. To keep this short I will say we did a special test using a 1 lumen green LED as a controlled light source in the bezel through a special pin hole port on the far side. With the output set to 1.00 lumens we then put various flashlights into the regular port opening to see how their reflection would change the reading. The black bezels all caused the readings to go up to 1.10 due to the reflection of the glass/reflector. The EagleTacs with the shiny steel caused the reading to go up to 1.20, The Fenix T1 with the satin finish steel caused the reading to go up 1.15. So the Fenix is 5% higher than flashlights with black bezels and the EagleTac is 10 percent higher.

However that was part A of the test. Back into the normal configuration with the sphere not having a green LED as a source and not using the port cover plate with the hole in it. I put blue (didn't have black) masking tape carefully around the bezels for the T1 and 2 EagleTacs. The readings were lower than before but only a 2.5% drop for the Fenix T1 and only a 5% drop for the EagleTacs. Basically the reflection of the bezels is adding to the total reflection and "gain" of the sphere.

So for the sake of accuracy I am correcting the readings up front for Fenix and EagleTac flashlights. 

I also am adding the readings of the milkyspit Creemator in an E2E and the EagleTac P10C2 (2 CR123 not AA) that WBP gave me for more correlating readings. 

There is nothing wrong with the Integration sphere at work but having shiny reflective surfaces as part of the light source are adding to the total readings that would not necessarily be there if it was just the light source. Especially beveled edges that are reflecting the light at more odd angles, even though the light source is not inside the sphere.

This is about accuracy. The EagleTac T10C2 is still my highest reading light of any single Cree LED unit I have tested at my facility with the 6" IS and SC5500 controller/meter.


----------



## wbp (Dec 5, 2008)

MrGman said:


> The EagleTac T10C2 is still my highest reading light of any single Cree LED unit I have tested.



To be completely accurate you might want to say "of any single Cree LED unit I have tested here" or specify the location.

Because... when you (and I) tested your T10C2 here in my lab, with the shiny bezel, the output was the SAME as the Creemator. So with the bezel taped off, I would expect it to be slightly lower...

William


----------



## MrGman (Dec 5, 2008)

All corrections/additions made.


----------



## LED_Thrift (Dec 5, 2008)

Thanks again for the good work and your attention to accuracy. 

Do the shiny bezels reflect more of the light comming out the front in a real world situation, and therefore deserve their higher "tested" readings? Not that it's a huge difference either way.


----------



## MrGman (Dec 5, 2008)

Yes and no. Yes the bezel shines the light coming out off of the flashlight, but the Integration sphere is picking up a reflection from itself back to the flashlight's shiny bezel (and back into the sphere again) that would not happen in the real world. The reflected light coming out of the entry port of the IS around the flashlight is actually very bright. The sphere is doing a very good job of bouncing it around in all directions (what its supposed to do) So some of it is restriking that bezel and reflecting back into the sphere at odd angles causing a higher reading than what would be there. So that 5% difference between the green LED source reference test reading of 10% high, and the actual flashlight output reading difference (shiny bezel to covered bezel) only being 5% delta, I believe truly represents the IS reading additional reflections off the bezel that should not be a part of the original reading.

I hope that makes sense.


----------



## LED_Thrift (Dec 5, 2008)

Sure does, thanks.


----------



## wbp (Dec 5, 2008)

The key point here is that the sphere is precisely calibrated in a specific configuration, usually with the input port open and not reflecting any light back into the sphere. If one were to block off even a small portion of the port with anything except total black, this increases the reflecting area of the sphere system and invalidates the calibration. The shiny bezels on the lights in question are doing this. (one wonders if the manufacturer might even be aware of this)

I now have a configurable 4 port version LabSphere, and this is easily demonstrated by adding and removing covers or changing the size of a port opening. Any of these things changes the sensitivity of the sphere/detector system and requires that it be re-calibrated.

Also, for the sphere/detector system to be accurate, none of the light emanating directly from the source can reach the detector, only light reflected by the sphere.

William


----------



## MrGman (Dec 5, 2008)

This is true. As a reference, back to that 1 lumen green LED as a control source. When we put the cover over the entry port (same white material as the inside of the sphere on the inside cover), that one lumen readout jumped up to 1.76 lumens. All our testing is done with that port left open, only the light under test is in that opening.


----------



## Art Vandelay (Dec 6, 2008)

Thanks for the update. I'm sure I could not tell that small of a difference with my eyes, but I appreciate your work making these results more accurate.


----------



## faucon (Dec 6, 2008)

MrGman said:


> Yes and no. Yes the bezel shines the light coming out off of the flashlight, but the Integration sphere is picking up a reflection from itself back to the flashlight's shiny bezel (and back into the sphere again) that would not happen in the real world. The reflected light coming out of the entry port of the IS around the flashlight is actually very bright. The sphere is doing a very good job of bouncing it around in all directions (what its supposed to do) So some of it is restriking that bezel and reflecting back into the sphere at odd angles causing a higher reading than what would be there. So that 5% difference between the green LED source reference test reading of 10% high, and the actual flashlight output reading difference (shiny bezel to covered bezel) only being 5% delta, I believe truly represents the IS reading additional reflections off the bezel that should not be a part of the original reading.
> 
> I hope that makes sense.


Thanks for the info once again. So the higher readings for the SS bezels are due to the simple fact that they are not absorbing as much of the emitted light as a darker bezel, giving the IS more total light to read? Shiny bezels aren't creating more light, of course, just absorbing less of it (which naturally is the same as reflecting more light). In the real world, however, something like half of the extra light reflected by the shiny SS bezels is just scattered and reflected 'randomly' off the SS bezel into the environment rather than reflected usefully?


----------



## cave dave (Dec 6, 2008)

I think these test are very useful; however, I'm wondering if all spheres would really produce the same results. I was looking at the specs for the Labsphere FS2 Flashlight measuring system and in the Data Sheet it says:



> The general rule of thumb is the sphere diameter should be five times large the
> measurements port. The 12, 20, and 40-inch FS2 Flashlight Measurement Systems have
> 2, 4, and 7-inch entrance ports respectively



What is the largest port size on your sphere, and hence the largest size you can measure? I imagine it would be 1.2" or less.

I also note they recommend an external lamp standard instead of an internal one.


> Although Labsphere integrating spheres are coated with the worlds best performing diffuse
> high reflectance coating, substitution errors can occur due to spatial distribution difference
> between the standard lamp and test lamp. The FFS-100 forward spectral flux standard are
> specifically designed for testing light sources with 0 to 2pi light distribution such as
> flashlights and other forward emitting light sources.



And they also different interior coatings for different applications, The FS2 coating is specifically for forward emitting light sources, aka throwers. If your lab sphere was not designed for throwers it could skew the results.

PS I think I'm gonna ask Santa for an 12" FS2 for Christmas! :naughty:


----------



## naked2 (Dec 6, 2008)

> such as flashlights and other forward emitting light sources.


*ALL* flashlights are forward emitting light sources, not just throwers. Examples of things that are not forward emitting light sources would be a light bulb or lantern; they emit light from all directions.


----------



## Fooboy (Dec 6, 2008)

Mr. Gman,

As you said in your thread to Gene Malkoff, "Good work deserves more good work."

I hope you don't mind but I took your list on Page 1 and put it into a Google Document, basically ... a free, web-based spread sheet for you to edit and publish. It also allows sorting.

I made some assumptions when creating based on your list, but am happy to edit or show you how to edit. For example, it would not let me correctly sort (ascending/decending) with multiple numbers in a cell ... so for the lumens you listed like 220-210, I just took the top lumen number.

I think this will be an easier way to track and publish future testing. Right now, I am the only one who can edit the document. PM me and I will happy to share control or completely turn over control.

Right now I have it sorted by manufacturer, but if you click the spreadsheet link below, you can click the top of each column and sort. We can also easily add or remove columns to make this a more comprehensive tool, if you would like to.

*Link to view only spreadsheet (no changes will be saved): * 
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pIhrzNLNezKYVu9XmK3dpYg

Image of chart:


----------



## cave dave (Dec 6, 2008)

naked2 said:


> *ALL* flashlights are forward emitting light sources, not just throwers. Examples of things that are not forward emitting light sources would be a light bulb or lantern; they emit light from all directions.



Yes I know, I'm not that stupid. I meant that the FS2 coating is designed so that throwers don't skew the results. I think the same thing could be achieved by using a filter as referenced in Post 93.


----------



## naked2 (Dec 6, 2008)

I didn't insinuate you are stupid, and I think you know that. Imo the following quote is not accurate, according to the information _you _gave.


cave dave said:


> The FS2 coating is specifically for forward emitting light sources, aka throwers. If your lab sphere was not designed for throwers it could skew the results.


Again, in _my _opinion, it would be _more _accurate to say: "The FS2 coating is specifically for forward emitting light sources, aka flashlights. If your lab sphere was not designed for flashlights it could skew the results."

Tony


----------



## MrGman (Dec 6, 2008)

No fighting on my thread boys, argue nicely. 

The 6 inch sphere has a 1.5 inch maximum port opening.


----------



## cave dave (Dec 6, 2008)

I make no claims about my eloquence! 

Mostly I just posted because I thought the FS2 is cool and I want one. But reading the info two things came to light.

1) If the IS isn't designed for flashlights some errors might occur in comparative readings due to beam shape differences.

2) If the IS is using an internal lamp for calibration there might be an error in the Lumen readings for a flashlight.

Reading the specs did not indicate how big the errors may be, they may be 0.01% or 10%. Let us hope that they are so trivial it doesn't matter.


----------



## MrGman (Dec 6, 2008)

I will ask the engineer at work what this specific sphere was designed for. He was the one who was originally using it to test numerous LEDs, some on stars and some actual flashlights, and got me interested in it when I showed him my new light 2 years ago. Back then I showed him my original Inova T5 (06 model) and he said lets go see what it really does. Then he showed me various flashlights he had tested and then all these LED's on stars, mostly luxeon's at the time. He was testing them for potential uses as backlights in our display products which I won't get into, and compared his results of the various stars to the vendor's published data. We have had many long discussions since, and I never got the message that this specific sphere system would not be appropriate for measuring flashlights. 

The unit is normally calibrated with an external light source. The optical engineer has various lights that he can put into a different port with a pin hole in it to do reference testing. We put a green LED into the unit simply as a way to show the differences in gain of the system due to the differences of reflectivity of the various flashlights I had. The Green LED was set to 1.00 lumens out, but it is not part of the units calibration system. This was just for a relative reference and reality check. Finding out that the stainless steel bezel ring increased the readings by 10% was an eye opener for me. He had already suspected it would do that based on his many years of experience of using the system. 

finding out that the flashlight with the SS bezel would in reality only have a 5% change in readings when it was the light source with a covered bezel was surprising to both of us. 

So the small green LED light I mentioned is for us to see how different things affect the measurements of the system but it is not part of how the unit is calibrated.


----------



## wbp (Dec 6, 2008)

faucon said:


> In the real world, however, something like half of the extra light reflected by the shiny SS bezels is just scattered and reflected 'randomly' off the SS bezel into the environment rather than reflected usefully?



The shiny SS bezel is not creating any light. It does not increase the output of the flashlight. What it does is modify the integrating sphere system by introducing a reflection that the sphere was not calibrated for.

William


----------



## MrGman (Dec 6, 2008)

If only I knew how to spell succinctly I would say that is how you put it, as in very succinctly. But since I don't know how to spell it I will just say, Damn, well said. 
Is it time for the scotch yet? G


----------



## naked2 (Dec 6, 2008)

Spelled it right by _my _dictionary, twice!  And I got to learn a new word, I only wish I knew how to pronounce it! :laughing: Now have your scotch! :buddies:


----------



## MrGman (Dec 6, 2008)

A special official thank you to Fooboy for posting my lumens readings in a very nice looking spreadsheet chart that you can click on and see the actual spreadsheet. :twothumbs


----------



## Calina (Dec 6, 2008)

If you have a Google account...


----------



## TITAN1833 (Dec 6, 2008)

Calina said:


> If you have a Google account...


They are free get one,if you like :devil:


----------



## Fooboy (Dec 7, 2008)

Sorry ... THIS LINK should work for anyone and not require google account - its published to webpage and shouldn't require a login BUT you can't sort. No biggie.

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pIhrzNLNezKYVu9XmK3dpYg


----------



## WadeF (Dec 7, 2008)

So if a SS bezel ring increases the reading by 10%, does that mean the EagleTac TC102 should be adjusted down?


----------



## naked2 (Dec 7, 2008)

G already did, It's still his tops!


----------



## MrGman (Dec 7, 2008)

WadeF said:


> So if a SS bezel ring increases the reading by 10%, does that mean the EagleTac TC102 should be adjusted down?


 

Yes, I already made the corrections to the post on page one and the explanation starts on page 6, got to read it all. YOu will find I only needed to adjust it down by 5%. There will be a quiz later as to why, G


----------



## Outdoors Fanatic (Dec 7, 2008)

inflammatory comment removed


----------



## js (Dec 7, 2008)

Outdoors Fanatic,

You know better than to make a post like that. Don't do it again.


----------



## faucon (Dec 7, 2008)

wbp said:


> The shiny SS bezel is not creating any light. It does not increase the output of the flashlight. What it does is modify the integrating sphere system by introducing a reflection that the sphere was not calibrated for.
> 
> William


Good explanation, thanks.


----------



## wbp (Dec 7, 2008)

Gman got higher readings for the T10C2 than the Creemator on his setup (both lights on highest setting). On my setup (also a LabSphere 6" sphere but different instrument) I got virtually identical readings for these 2 lights. We are investigating the cause. The difference is not huge, on the order of 8 percent.

William


----------



## Kiessling (Dec 7, 2008)

I am still wondering why the flux values of all those lights are so high.

Looking at the data sheet of the Cree XR-E:
http://www.cree.com/products/pdf/XLamp7090XR-E.pdf

... tells me that at a current of 1000mA, the rated max. current for the LED, you get roughly 220% of the flux at 350mA, which is, for current bins, about 220 lumens at the emitter. 
All that at a temperature of 25°C.

In order to achieve 250 or more lumens you'd need to go well above the max. drive current of 1000mA, and considering the temperautre being higher than 25°C at the LED, which is always the case, the current needs to be even higher.

Add to that the losses of the optical systems of about 20-35% typical guesstimate.

In the end ... either those lights are driven way beyond spec, meaning madly beyond spec, to achieve those flux numbers, or something is wrong with the measurements?

I don't knwo the runtimes, but they should be an indicator for a guesstimate about the drive level. 
EagleTac advertises their driver as 1200-something, which *could* be an indicator for a drive curretn of 1200mA.
Also ... isn't the SF P60L more like 65 lumens constant or is my memory leaking?

It seems that the OP knows what he is doing and also that a second member with an IS gets similar readings ... so ... can anybody explain?

bernie


----------



## WadeF (Dec 7, 2008)

Bernie, I was always under the impression that a Cree XR-E Q5 should be aroudn 250-260 lumens (at the emitter) when driven at 1A. It is pretty clear that EagleTac is driving with more than 1A, sounds like 1.2A, if not 1.4A. This could mean close to 300 emitter lumens? Also I think people account for too much loss due to reflector and optics. LED's project their light forward, so they have far less loss than an incan bulb that is sending light in all directions, including the base of the bulb which doesn't reflect.

So 20% loss maybe too high. Maybe the OP can try taking readings of various lights with the LED exposed (when possible) and readings with the reflector/lens in place. 

So if a Cree Q5 can muster around 280-290 lumens at 1.2A, and we knock 20% off, that's 230ish lumens. What is loss is only 10%? Then we're looking at 250-260 lumens which is more in line with the OP's findings. 

The EagleTac TC102 is one bright light. It blows my SF E2e with a 150 lumen bulb (bulb lumens) out of the water. So if it isn't 230-250 lumens, what is it?


----------



## Kiessling (Dec 7, 2008)

I don't know, and it puzzles me. :thinking:

IIRC we do not have reliable data about the losses of LEDs in various optical systems. It was determined that for incan, the losses of a *good* set-up are about 35% of the bulb lumens.

But even when considering the losses way inferior to 35%, the high values are still baffling. Especially considering the higher junction temperature and much less afficience of the emitter at high currents. 


Not that it really mattered in a practical way, as they are all higher than what I thought they'd be, but it would at least mean I have to re-evaluate some of my reality in my head 

This is most certainly a very interesting thread, and much thanx to the OP for doing all that work !! :thumbsup:

bernie


P.S.: wasn't the Q5 225 emitter-lumens ans 1A, which is why we have so many "225lm torches"


----------



## naked2 (Dec 7, 2008)

Kiessling, you ought to buy an EagleTac, I guarentee you'd lik it! I have their single CR123A model, the P10C, and thier single 18650 model (only VERY slightly less bright than the one in question here!), the T10L, and they're both excellent lights.

But I'd suggest the one measured here as the brightest, the 2x CR123A (or 2x 16340, even brighter) T10C2 for you, then you could see for yourself just how bright it is!


----------



## Kiessling (Dec 7, 2008)

naked2, it is not about having the brightest light. I don't really care for that any more since we have an abundance of flux these days.

For me, I'd like to know as much as possible about our hobby. And those findings suggest that I (or we) might have been way too pessimistic about the out-the-front lumens we can achieve. Or that those things are driven harder than we thought 

bernie


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Dec 7, 2008)

Look at the Malkoff M60W (Q2) on MrGman's chart. It is shown without the bezel, with a Solarforce bezel, and with a Surefire bezel. Compared to the 192 peak figure for the no bezel reading, the other readings are not to far from that number, and certainly not 20% difference.

Bill


----------



## WadeF (Dec 7, 2008)

Kiessling said:


> And those findings suggest that I (or we) might have been way too pessimistic about the out-the-front lumens we can achieve.


 
From my time on CPF I would say you have been one of the most pessimistic when it comes to LED's and their lumen capability. 

Now Cree has acheived 170+ lumens at 350mA with their new XP-E LED. However it sounds like this LED can only be driven at 700mA max, so I don't know how many lumens it is capable of at 700mA. I think sooner than later we'll see single emitter LED lights with 300+ out the front lumens.


----------



## Kiessling (Dec 7, 2008)

I was that way before your time, too 

If those values pan out as correct than LEDs do not only have more efficient light producing elements than incan, they have also more efficient optical systems at their disposal, thus gaining an additional edge. This would then also be true for a comparison with HID. I liek that idea, but as a born pessimist, I am of course sceptic till the bitter end.

Which in turn reserves you the right to say "Told you so :nana:"

bernie


----------



## WadeF (Dec 7, 2008)

Well look at the way a LED emitts light vs and incan. With an incan, the filament is emitting light in all directions. So over half the the emitted light is depending on the reflector to project it forward. With an LED all of the light is projected forward (the maximum beam angle can only be 180 degrees since the emitter is flat). So right there the LED is going to have much less loss since it is less dependant on the reflector to get light out the front of the flashlight. 

In the case of the Cree XR-E, if I am reading the specs right (someone correct me if I'm wrong) it emmits a 90 degree beam. I believe they emitt a more narrow beam than other LED's like the SSC P4. So this allows even more lumens to escape reflector loss.


----------



## naked2 (Dec 8, 2008)

Kiessling said:


> naked2, it is not about having the brightest light. I don't really care for that any more since we have an abundance of flux these days.
> bernie


Not the brightest period, just the brightest that MrGman has _tested _ (to date)! 

But regardless of how bright it is, I still think you should treat yourself to a T10C2! :devil:

Tony


----------



## Art Vandelay (Dec 8, 2008)

Thank you for setting that spreadsheet up. It's awesome.

Could somebody please do me a favor and post another one of those sorted by lumens? 

I know I can get a Google account and do that myself. For reasons unrelated to this thread, I'm never going to do that. I started to cut and paste it, but it's a little too big to do that one cell at a time. Thanks.



Fooboy said:


> Mr. Gman,
> 
> As you said in your thread to Gene Malkoff, "Good work deserves more good work."
> 
> ...


----------



## Fooboy (Dec 8, 2008)

Well how about this - since to make that picture I had to manually crop multiple screen shots ...

I just made you cpf google account.

username: cpfforum
password: surefirevsfenix



It's not tied to me at all and has no into in it. Use it, trash it, use it for a junkmail email address ... don't matter to me.

EDIT TO ADD: I also made a second tab on this link below (see the top right), this one has it sorted by Lumens.

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pIhrzNLNezKYVu9XmK3dpYg


----------



## naked2 (Dec 9, 2008)

Pssword should be surefirevseagletac though! :devil:


----------



## prof student (Dec 17, 2008)

any chance you have a SL Strion to do a incand test on that?


----------



## MrGman (Dec 17, 2008)

If I had the SL Strion it would have already been tested and published. I don't have one. At this point in time don't care to get any incandescent lights. I have or have had in the past that I have blown out, numerous Lumens Factory incan D26 drop in modules that go into the Sure Fire/Solarforce hosts. Incan lights have a peak reading at turn on and then start dropping as the infrared signature goes up and the visible light signature goes down accordingly, they also draw high current so battery drain in regards to getting a constant output reading is an issue. Basically from the moment you get your first reading, you're watching that reading slowly drop. So at best you would get the turn on peak reading and know that's the best it will be for those who use it in momentary on/off type operation. I would say take whatever SL says it is and multiply it by 0.65 and leave it at that, for your out the front end lumens.


----------



## naked2 (Dec 17, 2008)

> Solarforce Cree R2-S_______210________________ ___2 primaries_________Surefire 6P host___________,
> Solarforce R2-S___________202___________________3 RCRs___________Browning Black Ice 3 cell host.
> Solarforce Cree R2-S_______190_______________ ___2X17500 LI_________Solarforce L2 Host 1 extension,


MrG, Are all the above readings taken from the same SolarForce module, just in different host/cell configurations?
Edit: Does the "-S" denote "single mode"?

Also (didn't re-read the whole thread again to see if it's already been asked), any chance of borrowing a Fenix TK10 and/or JetBeam JetIII M for testing?

Thanks, Tony


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Dec 17, 2008)

I am not MrGman, but yes they are the same Solarforce R2S module, just in different configurations. S is part of module nomenclature, and yes it is a single mode LED module.

Bill


----------



## naked2 (Dec 17, 2008)

It's just that I have both of the SolarForce R2 modules; the label on my single mode unit reads "SolarForce R2", and the 5 mode w/memory unit reads "SolarForce R2-M". 

I know on the eBay stores, some list different voltage input ranges than others (ie: 3-8.4V, 3-12V, 3-18V, etc.), for what _appears_ to be the same module. I have the above two, and other various SolarForce P4, Q5, etc. modules, and none of them have the voltage input range printed on the side of the unit.

I _assumed_ the "-S" denoted single mode, but just wanted to make sure, that maybe MrG knew something about how to tell a SolarForce module's input range that I didn't.

And as far as what this has to do with the readings, for example, the LF 3-18V D26 LED module is reported to have less output with a single 3.7V cell than their new 3.7V single voltage module does.

Tony


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Dec 17, 2008)

I was assuming too much re the S. Perhaps the S had to do with the model of the SolarForce flashlight, and maybe the SolarForce LED drop in came with the flashlight. Quite possibly we need to read back in this thread for further info.

Bill


----------



## precisionworks (Dec 17, 2008)

Nice work, GMan



> _precisionworks_ has been testing the larger head maglights with his sphere (homemade) but I helped him calibrate and we are getting some very believable readings. You should ask him if he wants to test these ROPs.


My inlet port will just admit a Mag head, but testing an unregulated incan produces questionable results at best. The reason is that the lumen readings never level out, as it does with a regulated incan (Surefire A2 Aviator). Almost every commercial LED light is regulated also, so the readings settle in after just a brief time. And it's hard to get excited about taking a decreasing reading every 15 seconds for 15 minutes

However, *I would like to test anything P7* ... especially those with multiple P7 reflectors in one head.



> MrGman do you have a SF E1B to test?


My readings are really close to wbp's -- he measured 109+, I measure 113. Only one single cell light has done better than that, the McGizmo PD-S at 116 lumens. The E1B, at 20% of the cost of the PD-S, is a bargain.


----------



## maxa beam (Dec 17, 2008)

Whoo, thanks a bunch for the readings.


----------



## LightObsession (Dec 17, 2008)

It's interesting the that Fenix L2D has higher Turbo output than the P2D. I thought they were supposed to be about the same.


----------



## MrGman (Dec 17, 2008)

The "S" of the Solarforce R2-S simply refers to the single mode module. It was on the modules that I bought. I wanted to make sure people didn't confuse it with the readings of the 5 mode module marked with the "M" for multimode. 

the Fenix L2D is the Q5 unit which is marked in the list and the P2D is not a Q5 unit, I believe its the older CE Q2 or something like that. It was a lower budget one on sale, definitely not the Q5. So I am not surprised at all. Fenix listed the Q5 L2D as having 180 emitter lumens so its actually pretty low to its "rated" value in some respect.


I am still working with WBP as to color sensitivity and accurate calibration "correction" for all these LED's they have a very interesting spectrum. It is quite possible that when we are done all of the lumens readings will have to be shifted higher (yes higher) for underreading the blue wavelengths. But we (mostly WBP) are working on it. Its important because some units like his Creemator read dramatically lower in my system than in his and that Creemator had a lot of blue in the overal spectrum. 

Ahh but the holidays are coming and I am planning of going on a real vacation and goofing off, flirting with women, so on and so forth, so this will all have to wait.

Have not figured out what new flashlight I really want for myself. (Tiablo A10??????) I do have an M30 module coming from Gene Malkoff. Trying to get one of his custom P7 mods, but shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, more on that later. G


----------



## jirik_cz (Dec 17, 2008)

It would be really nice to see some SSC P7/Cree MC-E flashlight measured. Looking forward for P7 by Gene Malkoff!



MrGman said:


> Fenix listed the Q5 L2D as having 180 emitter lumens so its actually pretty low to its "rated" value in some respect.



Fenix L2D Q5 145/180 - 80,5%
Eagletac P10A2 173/220 - 78,6%


----------



## LightObsession (Dec 17, 2008)

the Fenix L2D is the Q5 unit which is marked in the list and the P2D is not a Q5 unit said:


> That explains it. Thanks for all of the hard work.
> 
> I didn't know they made 6" spheres. I used to work with a 6' sphere with Labsphere software for collecting data on HID lamps.


----------



## HitecDrftr (Dec 18, 2008)

LightObsession said:


> That explains it. Thanks for all of the hard work.
> 
> I didn't know they made 6" spheres. I used to work with a 6' sphere with Labsphere software for collecting data on HID lamps.



You worked with a six foot sphere???:bow:
Reminds me of Mork from Ork, although his was more egg shaped.

-Hitec-


----------



## LightObsession (Dec 25, 2008)

I look forward to the addition of the Fenix LD10 and Nitecore D10.

Thanks for the great work.


----------



## Monocrom (Dec 25, 2008)

A kick-*** thread indeed. :twothumbs


----------



## MrGman (Jan 7, 2009)

I finally got to test my new Malkoff M30 unit so its posted back on the first page with the rest of the Malkoff units. It read 237 lumens with no bezel and a fresh 18650 (non protected) Lithium ion battery.

With the Solarforce bezel on there it dropped to 207 lumens. Onlly a 13% drop for that Bezel. From what I am seeing visually compared to my numerous other lights on the wall and the ceiling bounce this appears to be perfectly normal. 

I want to add that the current draw from fresh charged battery is 1.54 amps at turn on. Settles into 1.5 amps. I don't do run time measurements, but thats a good starting reference. 

Forgot to bring the SureFire bezel to see if that would have been any better. This was the new non crenallated Solarforce Bezel not the older one with the deep crenelation that means I have to have the actual light further away from the opening of the sphere by the distance of the crenallation ring. Sure would be nice of Solarforce came out with an AR coated window/bezel model.


----------



## Lampenfisch (Jan 9, 2009)

Hi,

@ MrGman:

I´m a little bit confused about your latest test results regarding the Malkoff M30 Drop In.

As I can see on your list (Actual Lumens readings) on page 1 the M60 outputs between 212 and 202 Lumens when used in a Solarforce L2 Host with 1 extension.

The M30 also used in a Solarforce L2 Host outputs about 207 Lumens as you wrote in your last reply.

So the output from the M30 is nearly the same as from the M60.

But when I look at this thread
https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/194879

gsnorm stated that the M30 output should be higher than the M60 output because the Amp draw on the M30 is higher than on the M60.

Perhaps you can help me to understand why we see nearly the same output from the M30 and the M60 in the IS Sphere measurements.

Thanks :wave:

best regards

Lampenfisch


----------



## naked2 (Jan 9, 2009)

A 3.7V module will almost always draw more current than a 7.2V module.


----------



## MrGman (Jan 9, 2009)

Well my young padua learner this is a good question. Some people get confused that the higher current draw at the battery with lower voltage means that module's LED is drawing higher current than another that draws less from the battery at higher voltage. My current draw readings are at the battery not directly to the LED. So there is a conversion of current and voltage through the regulator that I am not measuring. The M30 and M60 as far as I know are the same exact same LED with different drivers. Gene's website list them both as 235+ lumens out of the LED module directly. From what I have seen that is correct info. 

From the battery side one ideally runs at 3.7 volts and draws around 1.5 amps. The other from the battery draws anywhere from 1.2 to 0.6 (approximate range, don't have the time to go retest them right now) at 5V to 9V. (I haven't gone below 5V so don't quote me that the regulator goes down to 3.8V, I know) What the regulator sends to the LED should still be around the same amount of power for each type, after the loss of power consumption of the regulator itself. That means a fixed current and voltage to the LED but not 1.5A. I am not measuring the current directly to the LED but from the battery. The Cree XR-E 7090 or whatever that die is does not draw 1.5 amps through the die. The M30 module draws higher current at the battery for the consumption losses of the Regulator itself at a much lower voltage by design. That in now way equates direclty to LED current draw. 

Here is the most important part that we can't measure and don't really know about: The M60 and M30 regulators obviously are different since they work in different voltage ranges. We should not assume that they have the exact same efficiencies and conversion of power consumption from the batteries to the LED at the same rate. The M30 regulator may waste a slightly higher percentage of power on itself to convert low voltage and high current over to the LED, than the M60's regulator. We don't know and can't measure it since its sealed so we shouldn't make assumptions that the conversions of voltage X current at the batteries translate to exact levels of power to the LED through 2 different regulators. They may be close, but I doubt that they are exactly equal. 

Some people who make their own calculations and assumptions of what that translates to the LED rather than measure it are making mistakes.

There is no evidence that the M30 should be brighter than the M60 when there is no bezel differences to get in the way because its the exact same LED and optic, just a different driver to accomodate different voltage range. 

Since the module is solidified there is no way to get between the driver and the LED and interrupt the circuit so we can put an ammeter in series to that connection and measure the current directly to the LED. I am sure Gene has measured it when he picked and tested the drivers before putting it into a solidified module in a brass housing, but I haven't. Don't know of anyone who has opened up a Malkoff module and done it after the fact either. Would really be a waste of a good module. 

Regardless of any of this, they are both great modules, do exactly what they are intended to do and work great. If you are a 1X18650 battery fan and have lots of those and that's what you want to use, get the M30. If you use CR123's or RCRs or want to run 2X17500 or 2X17670 or 2X18650's run the M60 and enjoy bathing in the light. I have been evaluating all options.

The only thing I really don't like is that the Solarforce Bezels, with or without crenallated heads, consume some of that output, moreso than what it should. The ones with the crenallations cut off a bit more light and are worse than the ones without it in regards to spill. I am looking into getting separate AR coated glass replacement windows (I hate to call them lens because they do nothing for the beam just keep the dirt and moisture out) for the Solarforce units. If I can get those, that would be very nice. I expect an 8% recovery of lumens right there (approximately). 

I will keep you posted if I do. G


----------



## cfromc (Jan 9, 2009)

Thank you for doing these readings MrGman!

I believe flashlightlens and lighthound have UCL windows that will fit (if they are the same size as 6P/G2 lights). 

Any chance of doing readings on any light with and without a diffuser material on the window just to see how much light is lost?


----------



## MrGman (Jan 9, 2009)

I contacted Lighthound and they said the current models don't fit the Solarforce Bezels but are working with Flashlightlens to see what they can get to specifically fit, so that's in the works already.

I have made some measurements of the M30 and the M60W with no bezel at all to show the with and without differences in output. Its already posted. What do you mean by "diffuser" material? I wouldn't call the bezel and glass window a "diffuser"?


----------



## cfromc (Jan 11, 2009)

MrGman said:


> I have made some measurements of the M30 and the M60W with no bezel at all to show the with and without differences in output. Its already posted. What do you mean by "diffuser" material? I wouldn't call the bezel and glass window a "diffuser"?


 
Something like this: http://www.flashlightlens.com/str/index.php?app=ccp0&ns=prodshow&ref=acrylite_lens
or some other application of material over the window that diffuses the beam to more of a flood.


----------



## MrGman (Jan 12, 2009)

cfromc said:


> Something like this: http://www.flashlightlens.com/str/index.php?app=ccp0&ns=prodshow&ref=acrylite_lens
> or some other application of material over the window that diffuses the beam to more of a flood.


 
I have tested diffuser material in another thread about the Malkoff Triple Drop light. I had tested some homemade diffusers and then some Gene Malkoff sent me that were holographic laser cut diffusers to give specific beam patterns. They depending on beam shape cut out 8 to 20% of the light. The simplist basic diffusers that just spread the light out a little was 8 percent. Find my thread its towards the end. 

Uncoated glass will generally cost 8% of the light to be lost because its 4% off of each glass to air interface and you can't get out the front without having gone through 2 interfaces for each piece of glass.


----------



## 2xTrinity (Jan 12, 2009)

MrGman said:


> I have tested diffuser material in another thread about the Malkoff Triple Drop light. I had tested some homemade diffusers and then some Gene Malkoff sent me that were holographic laser cut diffusers to give specific beam patterns. They depending on beam shape cut out 8 to 20% of the light. The simplist basic diffusers that just spread the light out a little was 8 percent. Find my thread its towards the end.


Losses from these diffusers will be due to the interfaces between the diffuser and the air. And unlike plain glass, these will not be at nice normal incidence, so the reflection losses will be greater than the 4% per interface experienced when dealing with normal glass. 



> Uncoated glass will generally cost 8% of the light to be lost because its 4% off of each glass to air interface and you can't get out the front without having gone through 2 interfaces for each piece of glass.


Uncoated glass will cut 8% from the hotspot (possibly more like 10% if you consider not all the light is normally incident), but not necessarily 8% of the total lumens. If the light is using an aluminum reflector, a significant fraction will bounce back out again as spill. Note this does not apply to TIR optics.

The most efficient optic I can think of for a LED flashlight would be the following:

Start with a TIR optic. A cheap TIR optic as found in most LED flashlights is probably only about 80% efficient. Most of these losses are "insertion" losses, where light is reflected from the interior cylindrical interface. Since the incidence angle here is very oblque, as much as 10% loss of lumens may occur. Losses from the interface where light _exits_ the TIR optic (eg the front surface) will be another 4% at least.

I would propose using an index matching fluid between the LED and optic, and AR coating on the front surface (not the back surface -- we WANT that to reflect...). Both those losses I just mentioned would be eliminated completely, and optical efficiency would be ~95% (the only losses would be due to impurities in the material resulting in absorption of light, which is pretty trivial compared to all those reflection losses I mentioned). 

Note this woudl require a custom designed TIR optic to do, which I do not have the resources or skills to fabricate, but I would certainly love to have a flashlight with something like this.


----------



## nzbazza (Jan 13, 2009)

Let's make this thread a sticky!

There is an incredible amount of valuable information in this thread.


----------



## MrGman (Jan 13, 2009)

nzbazza said:


> Let's make this thread a sticky!
> 
> There is an incredible amount of valuable information in this thread.


 

That's been requested numerous times in several pages starting at #1 with no attention from the moderators.

they hurt my feelings :mecry::mecry:

(I haven't actually been the one asking) 

My psyhic powers tell me its because I haven't been offering or willing to do this on a continuous regular basis for a lot other flashlights. If they knew that this list was going to grow on some sort of continuing basis they probably would. I will test various new models that may be ground breaking or of such controversy but I cannot commit to just keep testing on and on. 

I think I want to test the new Fenix TK11 R2. will have to contact the Fenix Store, they said they would send me anything I wanted to test and I think that one qualifies. Is it here yet???


----------



## Kiessling (Jan 13, 2009)

MrGman said:


> That's been requested numerous times in several pages starting at #1 with no attention from the moderators.
> 
> they hurt my feelings :mecry::mecry:
> 
> ...





Shut down your psychic powers, they don't guide you well 
Asking - by anyone - would have been the easiest solution. It was also an oversight on my part as I read parts of the thread and did not think about sticking it.

I seemed to remember that we had a sticky "threads of interest" but it seems to have disappeared and be replaced by other sticky threads. I'll sticky this one, too, as it is a very valuable resource and a great effort for the community.
In case the "threads of interest" sticky reappears, this thread will be unstickied and added to the list.

bernie


----------



## Calina (Jan 13, 2009)

Kiessling said:


> Shut down your psychic powers, they don't guide you well
> Asking - by anyone - would have been the easiest solution. It was also an oversight on my part as I read parts of the thread and did not think about sticking it.
> 
> I seemed to remember that we had a sticky "threads of interest" but it seems to have disappeared and be replaced by other sticky threads. I'll sticky this one, too, as it is a very valuable resource and a great effort for the community.
> ...


 
Bernie,

The sticky "threads of interest" is in the "general flashlight discussion" forum. I'm not sure there was ever such a sticky in this forum but it wouldn't be a bad idea to create one .


----------



## Kiessling (Jan 13, 2009)

I'll check on it. Either we retrieve it if it was lost, or we create one, or we wait until the stickies smother the top of the forum and create one then


----------



## flash_bang (Jan 13, 2009)

If you could PLEASE test the peak output of a P90 incan in a surefire host, I would really appreciate it. I'm attempting to compare the brightness of the P60L, the P90, and the D26 LED (which I hope is like a long runtime and slightly brighter P90).

Thanks much! This thread is amazing!


----------



## wbp (Jan 13, 2009)

flash_bang said:


> If you could PLEASE test the peak output of a P90 incan in a surefire host, I would really appreciate it.



Do you have one you can send for testing? Otherwise it's probably not going to happen.


----------



## flash_bang (Jan 13, 2009)

wbp said:


> Do you have one you can send for testing? Otherwise it's probably not going to happen.


dang! hmmmm, well I should edit my post, I meant a P91, as that's supposed to be 200 lumens...

Am I the only one that thinks the LF Rating is too high? that means that their 1000 lumen thing is only 800 or something...

Cheers,
Flash


----------



## MrGman (Jan 13, 2009)

"Shut down your psychic powers, they don't guide you well "

Actually they worked perfectly, I am not allowed to give away the answer that changes the outcome, so I fibbed. 

It would have created a disruption in the time/space continuim or I would have to sell land in Florida with all the water rights or something like that. 

Big Time thanks, G



If some one wants to send me the lamp module from a P91 I am sure it will fit into the solarforce L2 with 1 extension and I can use the SureFire bezel (and no bezel) to test it if its supposed to be that good. 

The torch I have been asking for in the past, no one has ever sent.
Sure Fire E2DL. I even said I would send it back :candle:


----------



## wbp (Jan 13, 2009)

MrGman said:


> If some one wants to send me the lamp module from a P91 I am sure it will fit into the solarforce L2 with 1 extension and I can use the SureFire bezel (and no bezel) to test it if its supposed to be that good.



Gman,
The P91 is normally driven at 9V by 3 CR123A cells. Do you have something that will accomdate this?
wbp


----------



## bigchelis (Jan 13, 2009)

MrGman,
Have you got the P7 by Gene Malkoff for the 18650 or Aw16340?


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Jan 13, 2009)

flash_bang said:


> dang! hmmmm, well I should edit my post, I meant a P91, as that's supposed to be 200 lumens...
> 
> Am I the only one that thinks the LF Rating is too high? that means that their 1000 lumen thing is only 800 or something...
> 
> ...



LF has always used bulb lumens, not out the front lumens. They would never be able to give out the front lumens accurately as it depends on so many factors inherent in a given flashlight, such as type of reflector, type of glass used for window, built in resistance in flashlight, etc. They are not alone. Same with Welch Allyn, and Carley. The out the fron lumens with the 1000 lumen bulb would probably be in neighborhood of 650-700 lumens, dependent on a lot of factor. Spend some time in the incandescent forum. :thumbsup:

Bill


----------



## flash_bang (Jan 13, 2009)

Bullzeyebill said:


> LF has always used bulb lumens, not out the front lumens. They would never be able to give out the front lumens accurately as it depends on so many factors inherent in a given flashlight, such as type of reflector, type of glass used for window, built in resistance in flashlight, etc. They are not alone. Same with Welch Allyn, and Carley. The out the fron lumens with the 1000 lumen bulb would probably be in neighborhood of 650-700 lumens, dependent on a lot of factor. Spend some time in the incandescent forum. :thumbsup:
> 
> Bill


Thanks much!
I guess this means I need to shoot for 500 and get about 300. 

Thanks again,
Flash


----------



## MrGman (Jan 15, 2009)

I finally got more time on the IS. I brought my original Malkoff M60 and tested it with no bezel in the Solarforce host with 1 extension tube and 2X17500 batteries. I also remembered to set the controller for the sphere to fixed range so I could see the instantaneous turn on peak reading. M60 with no bezel in the way hit 276 lumens. Warmed up it dropped to 245 lumens. Put the non crenallated bezel on by Solarforce (also let it cool down for a couple minutes) and redid the test. Turn on peak was 240 lumens and it dropped to 215 at warm up.

That is basically a 12.2% drop due to that bezel, most of that is the non AR coated glass but some is the blackened bezel edge cutting off just a bit of light around the perimeter. 

The data has been added to the front sheet as individual line items for Fooboy or anyway who wants to dump it into a spreadsheet.


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Jan 15, 2009)

Would be interesting to see differences using a SF bezel setup with a UCL window, UCL should transfer more light than Pyrex/Borofloat.

Bill


----------



## MrGman (Jan 16, 2009)

Bullzeyebill said:


> Would be interesting to see differences using a SF bezel setup with a UCL window, UCL should transfer more light than Pyrex/Borofloat.
> 
> Bill


 
Do you have one of these, is the glass available or is this something one has to buy as part of a SureFire Flashlight package? Give me all the details you can about this. Thanks, G.


----------



## cfromc (Jan 16, 2009)

MrGman said:


> Do you have one of these, is the glass available or is this something one has to buy as part of a SureFire Flashlight package? Give me all the details you can about this. Thanks, G.


 
The pyrex is standard on most SureFire bezels (i.e. 6P, 6PD, C2, C3) made in the past 6-7 years while Lexan is standard on the G2/G2L and older 6P models (the change was around 2001/2002). The UCL glass is available at Lighthound.com here: http://www.lighthound.com/UCL-for-SureFire-G2_p_2254.html
and flashlightlens.com here: http://www.flashlightlens.com/str/index.php?app=ccp0&ns=display&ref=apps_specs

I think an excellent comparison would be on a G2/G2L window with the standard Lexan, vs. Pyrex vs. a UCL window. Most G2/G2L/6P bezels have a removable retaining ring so the Lexan can be taken out and replaced with Pyrex, then replaced with UCL.


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Jan 16, 2009)

cfromc, good post. 

Bill


----------



## MrGman (Jan 16, 2009)

I asked the people at Lighthound if this would fit into the Solarforce Bezel and they said they would check with flash light lens and the answer was no. FLL doesn't have anything to fit directly into a SureFire 6P or Solarforce L2 host? I don't have any SureFire G2 hosts and I don't think the Bezel will screw onto my 6P or L2 hosts anyway if some one lent me one, is that correct? 

I may have to get one of these UCL's and just see what I can do to make it fit my bezel. If its too big I can certainly make it smaller. 

I would certainly like to get some that will just drop into the L2 Bezel though.


----------



## naked2 (Jan 16, 2009)

FLL does have one for the 6/9P, as well as one for the G2; they're different. The diameter is only very slightly different, but the thickness I think is much different. There's a third one of around he same diameter listed with no hosts; maybe it'll fit the L2, you'd have to measure yours.


----------



## naked2 (Jan 16, 2009)

OK, I just measured my L2 lens; it's 27.87mm diameter by 1.81mm thick. There's one listed as 28.6mm x 1.83mm; it should fit. Though there is a difference in it than the ones listed as for SureFires; it is listed as "UCL green tint AR" with 98% typical performance, and the SF ones are listed as "UCL blue tint AR" with 99%.


----------



## 43X16 (Jan 16, 2009)

Thanks for posting, tremendous info!


----------



## jenskh (Jan 17, 2009)

I have made some experimenting with my DBS with and without lens. The lens seems to reduce the illuminance in the hot spot by about 16 %, but it seems to make little difference in the total output measured in lumens.

I suggest this as a test also in the integrating sphere to find out how much the lens means. Just measure with and without lens. Afterwards we can find out which lens is best.


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Jan 17, 2009)

jenskh said:


> I have made some experimenting with my DBS with and without lens. The lens seems to reduce the illuminance in the hot spot by about 16 %, but it seems to make little difference in the total output measured in lumens.
> 
> I suggest this as a test also in the integrating sphere to find out how much the lens means. Just measure with and without lens. Afterwards we can find out which lens is best.



There are some posted lumen figures for M60 with and without a lens (bezels removed).

Bill


----------



## MrGman (Jan 17, 2009)

jenskh said:


> I have made some experimenting with my DBS with and without lens. The lens seems to reduce the illuminance in the hot spot by about 16 %, but it seems to make little difference in the total output measured in lumens.
> 
> I suggest this as a test also in the integrating sphere to find out how much the lens means. Just measure with and without lens. Afterwards we can find out which lens is best.


 

That size reflector is too big for the opening of the sphere that I have access to at work as I have pointed out in previous pages. I have measured as already pointed out the Solarforce Bezel and its plain glass in front of the Malkoff M60 to show that it causes about a 12% of total lumens loss. I figure about 8% from the glass and another 4% from the shadow effect of the black bezel itself. In all cases if you can get an AR coated lens or window to go in front of you favorite torch I would do it if you want peak lumens.

You can try your test again using the ceiling bounce method and get more of an average for the total loss of the lens you are using. Since it is a direct comparative process, absolute accuracy of the readings isn't critical, just that you measure both the same way. Put the light meter on table or some other surface above the floor, point the light at the ceiling from a fixed distance, like a table, put the lens in and out and find the difference in those readings. The closer to the ceiling the better. Don't confuse this for lumens, just know that you can see the difference and use it more of an overall average of the light loss than just the hot spot reading. Tell us what you find.


----------



## MrGman (Jan 19, 2009)

I have done more testing specifically comparing bezel with glass to bezel with the glass removed. So rather than have no bezel at all, I simply took one of the crenellated bezel types, unscrewed the crenellation and took the glass and seals out. the bezel still holds the lamps in which was necessary this time because I decided to test the Lumens Factory ES-9 and the SureFire factory P60. So I am sure there is some slight shadowing effect of the bezel being there but we can compare directly to not having any glass versus non AR coated glass. Data is back on sheet #1 in Orange since its incandescents. 

the ES-9 is the Energy Saver 9V from Lumens Factory rated at 150 bulb lumens probably running on an exact 9.0V power supply. With 2 freshly charged lithium ions I saw only a 5% loss due to the glass being in the bezel. 

The SureFire P60 I had to test with primary batteries and I saw a 10% drop. I actually did the test with the glass installed first and then repeated with no glass, so if the batteries are already getting weak the second reading with no glass should not have been that much higher. I am at a loss as to why this is unless the sphere is again reading the differences in the actual reflectors adding to the total readings and the 2 units are not the same. All I can say is that the LF reflector looks shinier (more shine?) than the SureFire P60.

You may say, why didn't I do this on some LED modules instead. I am getting reading to help do a cross calibration with WBP on his 2 spheres to an incandescent light source that more closely represents "Illuminant A" that is normally used to calibrate integration sphere systems. 

More to come.


----------



## PhantomPhoton (Jan 21, 2009)

That's rather interesting that there's different apparent losses between the two incan modules. I look forward to more findings.


----------



## jenskh (Jan 21, 2009)

MrGman said:


> That size reflector is too big for the opening of the sphere that I have access to at work as I have pointed out in previous pages. I have measured as already pointed out the Solarforce Bezel and its plain glass in front of the Malkoff M60 to show that it causes about a 12% of total lumens loss. I figure about 8% from the glass and another 4% from the shadow effect of the black bezel itself. In all cases if you can get an AR coated lens or window to go in front of you favorite torch I would do it if you want peak lumens.
> 
> You can try your test again using the ceiling bounce method and get more of an average for the total loss of the lens you are using. Since it is a direct comparative process, absolute accuracy of the readings isn't critical, just that you measure both the same way. Put the light meter on table or some other surface above the floor, point the light at the ceiling from a fixed distance, like a table, put the lens in and out and find the difference in those readings. The closer to the ceiling the better. Don't confuse this for lumens, just know that you can see the difference and use it more of an overall average of the light loss than just the hot spot reading. Tell us what you find.



Thank you for the tip on the ceiling bounce. Using this technique, I got a 6,5 % higher reading without the lens, which seems to fit in nice between your measurements and estimates.
I discovered that in the test mentioned in my previous post here, the battery was quite low for the test without the lens. I guess this was the main reason for my conclusion. Even that the DBS is well regulated, it is not totally independent on the condition of the battery.
I am getting more and more eager to get an UCL lens both for my DBS and my CL1H.


----------



## Alan B (Jan 21, 2009)

We have a couple of Integrating Spheres at work in the lighting lab and I know the engineer that works with them. He mentioned to me some time back that for good readings they have to be recalibrated for each setup due to the reflectance of the different source. He said it is easy to do as the calibration lamp is always there. It is more important for their setup since they put the source under test entirely into the sphere (large sphere). But I expect the same is true here - each time a change is made to the lens, bezel, or reflector the system is changed and should be recalibrated. The more reflective the surface inside the sphere is the more important the losses in the flashlight under test become.

-- Alan


----------



## wbp (Jan 21, 2009)

If you have a sphere with a built in reference lamp, you can recalibrate as you describe.

Note however, that the lamp in your sphere is most likely incandescent and also very likely Illuminant A. Depending on the instrumentation you are using this may result in inaccurate readings for LED's that have a very different spectrum. Most of the spheres that have been available until very recently used filtered sensors to approximate the CIE photopic measurement curves; such a system is only really accurate when measuring incandescent lights. Very recently the industry has started to use spectroradiometers for this purpose - these are more expensive but also much more accurate for devices such as LEDs.

We are working on establishing an LED reference more appropriate for our needs.

William

Radiometric spectrum of incandescent reference lamp in Hoffman LS-65-8C:







Radiometric spectrum of Spartanian S2 LED flashlight on Level 10:


----------



## precisionworks (Jan 22, 2009)

> PLEASE test the peak output of a P91 incan in a surefire host



In the testing I've done with my shop built IS, only one incan is easy to test - The A2 Surefire. Because it's regulated, the output stabilizes quickly & settles in so a relevant reading can be taken.

Every other incan produces a high initial reading that immediately starts dropping like a rock. Even if the tester picks some arbitrary time, like 120 seconds after turn on, the reading will still not be stable at that point. Since the human eye adjusts to the diminishing light level, it is not noticeable or objectionable, but it does make testing difficult.


----------



## MrGman (Jan 24, 2009)

naked2 said:


> OK, I just measured my L2 lens; it's 27.87mm diameter by 1.81mm thick. There's one listed as 28.6mm x 1.83mm; it should fit. Though there is a difference in it than the ones listed as for SureFires; it is listed as "UCL green tint AR" with 98% typical performance, and the SF ones are listed as "UCL blue tint AR" with 99%.


 

I just received yesterday and tested today the UCL from Lighthound.com (listed above) for the SureFire G2. It is slightly too wide in diameter to fit into the O-ring with lip that is part of the Solarforce Bezel assembly. However, taking out that O-ring, the UCL fits into the housing without being snug up to the side of the glass. I trimmed the lip off of this special O-Ring and put it right back in. There is also a plastic spacer that goes against the other side. So basically by trimming off the L portion of an L shaped O-Ring, I got the UCL that is offered as a drop in replacement for the SF G2 into the Solarforce L2 bezel. 

I am guessing that the 26.8 X 1.85mm UCL that FLL has for the "MrBulk" flashlight would actually be a better fit to drop right into the special L shaped O-Ring of the Solarforce Bezel. 

I will be testing the lumens drop of the ultra clear lens as soon as possible. The Integration Sphere I normally use went back to the factory for its regularly scheduled annual calibration check, so it may be a few weeks.

I can see looking at the lens I got that it does in fact have AR coatings on it and the tint is blue. If push comes to shove I could always order more of these and try and find the proper thin 1.25 inch outside diameter O'ring to simply replace the one that comes with the Solarforce Bezel.


----------



## naked2 (Jan 25, 2009)

MrG, have you heard about the new EagleTac T10C2 (and other) head and bezel design? There's a thread on LRF about it here. 

I wonder if they (EagleTac) read your thread, especially the part where you adjusted the numbers for the T10C2 after finding out the shiny bezel "skews" the readings!


----------



## MrGman (Jan 25, 2009)

Hadn't seen it till you posted your link, been real busy. Its very interesting. I can't see why they would do that just so some one could take more IS readings. The light doesn't actualy get "used" by just shining it in an IS. In the real world it doesn't matter and certainly doesn't hurt. Making it to have different options like crenellated or non Cr is a good thing. Giving it a bit more throw and less spill will probably make a lot of people happy but should not change the total lumens reading on Iota.

I am sure that they read my and other threads though, in regards to satisfying their customers in general and giving them more options to have what they want. I would not mind having this new head or simply a replacement reflector that I could just drop in with a lot more throw and less spill as an option.

In general I love my Eagletac T10C2 just as it is because it just flat out works great. Lights up a wide swath but has a generally brighter cental hot spot. Its just really useable for short to mid ranges out past 50 feet. 

Thanks for the link update. G. :thumbsup:


----------



## The Sun (Jan 26, 2009)

i just wanted to drop by and say...AWESOME JOB GUYS!!!! keep up the great work!:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:


----------



## Mjolnir (Jan 26, 2009)

I'd be interested to see how the regulation with 18650s is on the new T10C2 compared to the T10L. What I would really prefer would be a smooth reflector for the T series designed for more throw instead of a separate semi-different light.
I'm kind of annoyed that the new light doesn't rely on the bezel to keep in the lens like the old T series lights. I would have really preferred how the lens is on the T10C2 L on my T10L. It seems like they are trying to fix the issue of lenses shattering when the light impacts something that some people have had. It sees to me like they are acknowledging that the original design was problematic.


----------



## kramer5150 (Feb 3, 2009)

Awsome work!!! keep it up, thanks!!!
I had no idea the P60 bezel design blocks that much light... very interesting.


----------



## Alan B (Feb 3, 2009)

kramer5150 said:


> Awsome work!!! keep it up, thanks!!!
> I had no idea the P60 bezel design blocks that much light... very interesting.



I agree, it is awesome work, and we appreciate it very much.

I'm not sure the "bezel blocks that much light". It might be more accurate to say "the bezel affects the calibration that much". The light in an integrating sphere bounces back and forth many times, depending on the reflectance of the surfaces. This causes the light to hit the bezel many times - not just on the way out of the light. The presence of a dark material changes the calibration of the system, possibly more than it changes the light output of the flashlight.

Things like this are why it is so hard to get good accurate data, and it makes it hard to accurately interpret the data that is collected.


----------



## jenskh (Feb 3, 2009)

yes, the thruth is not always the truth


----------



## richardcpf (Feb 3, 2009)

I would like to see some testing with the Surefire E2DL.

There is so much discussion about this light being brighter (overall output and in ceiling bounce test) than a Malkoff M60 rated at 230lms. Personally I don't think this is true, since we only look at the hotspot and not the entire beam pattern. 6P is rated 80 lms and was measured 82, so it is not very probable that the E2DL claimed 120 lms doubles up and beat a Malkoff drop in.


----------



## MrGman (Feb 3, 2009)

The reported 180 plus lumens by some others from their "white box" or ceiling bounce tests I don't believe to be accurate either. I have already said in a couple different threads that a friend of mine has a new E2DL and that he is going to let me test it, the integration sphere is out for Calibration, so a little more patience is required. I have already seen his unit and compared it to various lights on his high cathedral ceilings and he and I both knew the answer as to what was brighter, you however, still have to wait yet a little while longer.


----------



## PhantomPhoton (Feb 4, 2009)

Thanks for taking your personal time to satisfy our shared interests and questions. I'm quite interested in the results of the E2DL when you get them.


----------



## MrGman (Feb 6, 2009)

MrGman said:


> I just received yesterday and tested today the UCL from Lighthound.com (listed above) for the SureFire G2. It is slightly too wide in diameter to fit into the O-ring with lip that is part of the Solarforce Bezel assembly. However, taking out that O-ring, the UCL fits into the housing without being snug up to the side of the glass. I trimmed the lip off of this special O-Ring and put it right back in. There is also a plastic spacer that goes against the other side. So basically by trimming off the L portion of an L shaped O-Ring, I got the UCL that is offered as a drop in replacement for the SF G2 into the Solarforce L2 bezel.
> 
> I am guessing that the 26.8 X 1.85mm UCL that FLL has for the "MrBulk" flashlight would actually be a better fit to drop right into the special L shaped O-Ring of the Solarforce Bezel.
> 
> ...


 

I just received the 26.8mm UCL glass from FLL to test with the Solarforce Bezels. They fit right in and are not too small such that the L shaped O-ring isn't pressing them. So I just installed 3 of them into 3 of the Solarforce Bezels, 2 non crenallated and one with crenallations. So now I have a low budget L2 host system that has AR coated glass, 4 lights thus far. Still waiting for the IS to come back from Cal. on the east coast before I can take some readings.


----------



## kramer5150 (Feb 7, 2009)

PhantomPhoton said:


> Thanks for taking your personal time to satisfy our shared interests and questions. I'm quite interested in the results of the E2DL when you get them.




x2... Its really under rated, either that or just about everyone else is severely over rated.


----------



## Patriot (Feb 11, 2009)

This thread just keeps getting better. My only question is why hasn't it made it into the review section yet? :thinking:


----------



## MrGman (Feb 12, 2009)

Patriot36 said:


> This thread just keeps getting better. My only question is why hasn't it made it into the review section yet? :thinking:


 

I think its actually better right here.

I see some new test results coming up closer on the horizon.


----------



## 9x23 (Feb 12, 2009)

MrGman said:


> I think its actually better right here.
> 
> I see some new test results coming up closer on the horizon.



MrGman,

Thank you for a superb job and excellent information! For a new test subject how about a Jetbeam M1x? Look at post 194 here....
http://www.cpfmarketplace.com/mp/showthread.php?t=188709&page=7

 I anxiously await the results!

9x23


----------



## electric sheep (Feb 13, 2009)

Fitted a UCL lens to my CL1h V4 after sizing it to fit and have noticed a better brighter beam by eye. Not very scientific but there is a improvement.


----------



## MrGman (Feb 13, 2009)

I have added some new test data on the original chart on page 1. I got the Lumens Factory 380 lumen (bulb lumen rated) incandescent and put it in my Solarforce L2 18650 host with one 18650 extention and my new A/R coated glass into the bezel (non crenellated) So now I am getting optimum through the glass readings. This will be the standard for all testing here on in, AR coated non crenellated Solarforce Bezel, not the Surefire with Pyrex window. The light output is actually right around 71.6% of rated bulb lumens from the vendor, so thats not bad.

Of course that's an incan, nobody cares about that. I also tested a new Dereelight 3 mode R2 pill donated to the cause of science from FlashCrazy (big thank you). I tested its regulation with a DC power supply at work.

At 6V it drew 1.0A at 10V (rated to 13V) it drew 0.6A. And had a linear reduction of current draw in between. So that's a constant 6 watts from the power source. Tested with A/R coated glass in the bezel to compare to all those factory flashlights that of course come with A/R coated glass already, results are on page 1. Very comparable to the Malkoff and Fenix T1 at peak and warmed up output. Has a slight purplish/blue tint.

As to 9X23 (isn't that a commie pinko russian caliber? (I like it)) and testing request of the Jetbeam MX-1. If you have been doing your homework, you would know that I can't fit the larger reflector heads into the smaller 1.5 inch opening of the 6" sphere.

If we get wbp's larger sphere fully calibrated to our top secret plan, then we can use that, but he's too busy making real $$$. Can't say I blame him. More secret projects are on the short list. G


----------



## 9x23 (Feb 14, 2009)

MrGman said:


> As to 9X23 (isn't that a commie pinko russian caliber? (I like it)) and testing request of the Jetbeam MX-1. If you have been doing your homework, you would know that I can't fit the larger reflector heads into the smaller 1.5 inch opening of the 6" sphere.



Ha ha ha ha......well, I think you might be referring to the lightweight 9mm largo (some call this 9x23) that was of Danish decent. I would like to believe that my "9x23" refers to the IPSC catridge developed by Winchester in the mid 90's in the good ole' US of A and making major power factor!  

Sorry, I must have missed that part about the 1.5" opening.......I guess I have to work on my speed reading techniques.  

Keep up the great work! It certainly helps me make informed purchasing decisions.

9x23


----------



## MrGman (Feb 14, 2009)

"Ha ha ha ha......well, I think you might be referring to the lightweight 9mm largo (some call this 9x23) that was of Danish decent. I would like to believe that my "9x23" refers to the IPSC catridge developed by Winchester in the mid 90's in the good ole' US of A and making major power factor!  "

Very good you passed yesterday's quiz. Yes if I had a larger port opening I could test my various mag light with Malkoff modules in them myself and my brandy spanking new Solarforce L900M 2X18650 P7 LED module. Now that's talking major power factor. It is ridiculously bright, more so than the Malkoff Triple Drop. That is why I have to finish working with wbp to get his 12 inch sphere system calibrated as best possible so we can get more readings of these mega monsters. :tinfoil:


----------



## MrGman (Feb 18, 2009)

Posted new data on page one. Flashcrazy had previously sent me two Q5 pills originally but thought they were R2s, They were not. He sent the R2's and I got them today and tested them in both smooth and orange peel reflector than took a Q5 and tested it in a smooth reflector, forgot to go back and redo it with the orange peel. I decided to do a direct comparison of the Solarforce Host with the Flash Light Lens AR coated glass in the Bezel to the plain glass in Bezel and the Sure Fire stock 6P bezel. None of these had crenellations on them. I repeated a lot of the readings because I could not believe myself what I was getting between these 3 bezels. All done in the same sphere on the same day with the same host back and forth back and forth to confirm readings and batteries were not fading. Changed batteries and did multiple readings and got the same results. 

The Dereelight R2 pills are very slightly to the green tint side the Q5 pills that were previously thought to be the R2 pills are very slightly blueish/purple. The Smooth reflector definitely puts out a tighter central beam with more through. Don't ask for beam shots there are a long time in coming. Lots of rain and real work to do.

More top secret lights and testing are in the works though.


----------



## naked2 (Feb 18, 2009)

Nice additions! Too bad Jay didn't send you the 1S pills (18650 only) though. I've got a 1S 5A Q3 OP on the way (my first warm tint LED of _any_ kind), but I would also like to see how the 1S R2 and 1S Q5 rate (in both OP and SMO).


----------



## Bimmerboy (Feb 19, 2009)

MrGman said:


> I repeated a lot of the readings because I could not believe myself what I was getting between these 3 bezels.



Interesting. Offhand I guess I'd chalk up the difference to the borofloat used in the SF, which stands up to heat and abuse better than UCL, but has a little less transmittance, even against a non-AR coated UCL.

Excellent info, Gman! :thumbsup:


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Feb 19, 2009)

Bimmerboy said:


> Interesting. Offhand I guess I'd chalk up the difference to the borofloat used in the SF, which stands up to heat and abuse better than UCL, but has a little less transmittance, even against a non-AR coated UCL.
> 
> Excellent info, Gman! :thumbsup:



Another variable can be the depth of the window in the bezel. My P6 window sits 3.09mm into the bezel. Might cause some lumen loss, but would only be loss of some flood. Would be interesting to know depth of window in a SolarForce L2.

Bill


----------



## wbp (Feb 19, 2009)

Gman,

While I find it interesting that there are the differences you saw, I also note that we are talking about VERY small differences, 7 out of 220, or around 3 percent. This small a difference would be extremely difficult to detect by eye.

I also received a new 3SM WH R2 pill (from FlashCrazy) to replace the 3SD that I fried. When I measured it I got a bit of a shock - I'm getting 305 to 308 lumens!!!:eeksign: I rechecked it and remeasured my reference lights to be sure.

Now that your IS is back, let's get together and see how your incan's read in my IS, so we can establish a correction factor for your IS for LED's. From what I see of your data, I suspect all of your LED measurements are low.

William


----------



## MrGman (Feb 19, 2009)

_"Another variable can be the depth of the window in the bezel. My P6 window sits 3.09mm into the bezel. Might cause some lumen loss, but would only be loss of some flood. Would be interesting to know depth of window in a SolarForce L2.

Bill "_

This is true. The SureFire is the one that has the shallower window. The solarforce bezels have a deeper inset to the glass and therefore the pill is further back even without the crenellated heads. That is I believe part of the reason why the readings were not greater in difference with the A/R coated glass. What I don't understand is why the one's with no A/R coating were still reading better than the Sure Fire bezel's glass. I checked to make sure it was clean several times. 

wbp, my original sphere system is still out for cal as I have said in the past we have 2 units in engineering, we actually have more out on the production floor dedicated to special test equipment here and there. The first one hasn't come back yet, so the engineer I normally work with set up the second one in the lab he uses and I share to take readings. But the incandescent lights that I want to reference already have multiple readings taken and posted here, just been waiting for a good time for you to do the test. 

G


----------



## MrGman (Feb 19, 2009)

"I'm getting 305 to 308 lumens!!!:eeksign: I rechecked it and remeasured my reference lights to be sure."

The tin foil hat adds extra reflections that falsely increase the readings. You really need to take it off indoors and especially in front of the sphere.

I R Gel Us.


----------



## Yoda4561 (Feb 19, 2009)

Are you sure the 6p glass uses AR coating on the backside? I recall once upon a time that only the millenium series had AR coating, while the 6p/9p used uncoated windows. I assumed that wasn't the case anymore but it would explain what you're seeing.


----------



## MrGman (Feb 19, 2009)

Yoda4561 said:


> Are you sure the 6p glass uses AR coating on the backside? I recall once upon a time that only the millenium series had AR coating, while the 6p/9p used uncoated windows. I assumed that wasn't the case anymore but it would explain what you're seeing.


 

I am not sure at all if you are asking me. I thought I had heard or read from some one else that they are coated on at least one side. When I look at the reflection of a fluorescent "white" light against it compared to the plain glass of the stock solarforce bezel it appears to be a darker yellow in color. It may have a coating that was not optimized for the LED lights since this was the original incan model 6P. 

Just in case some one asks, I am not buying a 6P LED model to see if its bezel's glass has a better coating and reading.


----------



## Ryanrpm (Feb 20, 2009)

MrGman,

Is it possible to post the advertised lumens alongside the actual lumens on your page 1 spreadsheet?


----------



## MrGman (Feb 20, 2009)

Ryanrpm said:


> MrGman,
> 
> Is it possible to post the advertised lumens alongside the actual lumens on your page 1 spreadsheet?


 

No, its way too much work. I don't have the data for a lot of these pills myself and ain't looking it up or asking. The name brand lights people can go find it if they don't already know. If you want to pull down the data and add all that to a spread sheet and send it to me for reposting I can do that.


----------



## polkiuj (Feb 22, 2009)

MrG,

I have a question. I'm planning to get an Eagletac now thanks to you (and also the fact that it's available here and cheap) so based on your readings I see that the T10C2 is quite a bit brighter than the P10C2. Is this correct? Is it also correct to assume that this is caused by the head of the P10C2 being smaller so more light is being reflected rather than going straight out? Eagletac quotes that same emitter lumens for both models.

Also WBP (i think) posted that his findings id different from yours. What gives?

Thanks!


----------



## MrGman (Feb 22, 2009)

the difference in the reflectors definitely has a lot to do with why two lights with the same LED source have different total output. The T10C2 is definitely brighter to the meter and to the eye. So if you want the brightest one get the T10C2. Wbp and I are still working on getting correlations with the readings. His meter is vastly different than mine even though the spheres are the same type. That's all I can say about that for now. 

G


----------



## MrGman (Feb 23, 2009)

Well its done, I lost a bet over this (small gentlemanly wager). the New SureFire E2DL that I just picked up last Saturday measured 210 lumens at turn on in the sphere. Let it run for over a minute and it was still pumping out 203 lumens, on high. On low its 8.1 lumens.

current draw on fresh batteries on high is 0.80 amps, on low was 0.1 amp.

Truth is Truth. My expectations of this light were certainly wrong and grossly exceeded and in this case I am more than happy to admit it. 

Why, because I own it.


----------



## jirik_cz (Feb 23, 2009)

Interesting result. Thanks! But why do they say only 120 lumens? What is the point in such heavy under rating of their lights?


----------



## asdalton (Feb 23, 2009)

jirik_cz said:


> Interesting result. Thanks! But why do they say only 120 lumens? What is the point in such heavy under rating of their lights?



My guess is that it's because they want to have a single runtime and a single _minimum_ rated output during that entire runtime (although Surefire isn't always consistent in how they do this). They seem to follow this method with their incandescent lamps.


----------



## Yoda4561 (Feb 23, 2009)

Surefire also isn't very picky about what bin (flux or tint) of LED they use, so this gives them some wiggle room in case they have to use a lower LED bin to meet demand.


----------



## bigchelis (Feb 23, 2009)

MrGman said:


> Well its done, I lost a bet over this (small gentlemanly wager). the New SureFire E2DL that I just picked up last Saturday measured 210 lumens at turn on in the sphere. Let it run for over a minute and it was still pumping out 203 lumens, on high. On low its 8.1 lumens.
> 
> current draw on fresh batteries on high is 0.80 amps, on low was 0.1 amp.
> 
> ...


 

Good to hear SureFire E2DL is over 200 lumens. Was your version the 2 mode or single mode LED?

I think I saw the E2DL single mode for $120, but most are $150.


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Feb 23, 2009)

Yoda4561 said:


> Surefire also isn't very picky about what bin (flux or tint) of LED they use, so this gives them some wiggle room in case they have to use a lower LED bin to meet demand.



Would you explain that further. Thanks,

Bill


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Feb 23, 2009)

asdalton said:


> My guess is that it's because they want to have a single runtime and a single _minimum_ rated output during that entire runtime (although Surefire isn't always consistent in how they do this). They seem to follow this method with their incandescent lamps.



The lumen rating issue may have something to do with their management of their web site. They still note the lumen output of the KL3 at 19 lumens. Seeing the lumen numbers for the E2DL, I would expect that the newest U2 is outputting more than 100 lumens. 

Bill


----------



## Yoda4561 (Feb 23, 2009)

Bullzeyebill said:


> Would you explain that further. Thanks,
> 
> Bill



Just that using a low 120 lumen rating gives them the flexibility to use pretty much any bin of XRE or seoul P4 they want, since almost any of them will put out the minimum required lumens. Surefire has historically not put the greatest effort into hand picking the best tints for their lights, so while it's only conjecture they may not push for the brightest flux bin if a lower bin that meets can meet their output spec is more readily available.


----------



## wbp (Feb 23, 2009)

Yoda4561 said:


> Just that using a low 120 lumen rating gives them the flexibility to use pretty much any bin of XRE or seoul P4 they want, since almost any of them will put out the minimum required lumens. Surefire has historically not put the greatest effort into hand picking the best tints for their lights, so while it's only conjecture they may not push for the brightest flux bin if a lower bin that meets can meet their output spec is more readily available.



Which also means that the one MrGman got is not necessarily representative of what you will get if you buy the same light...


----------



## Yoda4561 (Feb 23, 2009)

It's more than likely though given the number of reports of how bright their e2dl is compared to known 200+ lumen lights. The Q5 bin is probably the most common one out right now, there's no reason to get a lower brightness bin if the Q5 is the easiest/cheapest to get.


----------



## Search (Feb 23, 2009)

I'm fixing to fork out the money for two E2DLs

A single mode is waiting for me and a multi mode when I save up more money..

That's more light than I'm going to need.


----------



## N/Apower (Feb 23, 2009)

wbp said:


> Which also means that the one MrGman got is not necessarily representative of what you will get if you buy the same light...


 
MrGman has a KX2C in the mail from me in the form of an M600C scout light that he is going to test for us, as well as in conjunction with the F04 diffuser. We will see if it backs the numbers up.


----------



## MrGman (Feb 23, 2009)

N/Apower said:


> MrGman has a KX2C in the mail from me in the form of an M600C scout light that he is going to test for us, as well as in conjunction with the F04 diffuser. We will see if it backs the numbers up.


 

To be followed up with some BBQ Salmon if he ever wants to see them back again.   

It will be interesting to see how much the diffuser loses. G


----------



## N/Apower (Feb 23, 2009)

MrGman said:


> To be followed up with some BBQ Salmon if he ever wants to see them back again.
> 
> It will be interesting to see how much the diffuser loses. G


 
Haha, the salmon rocks so hard I would love to send it if it were possible. Alas, all I could do was PM him my recipe.


----------



## wbp (Feb 23, 2009)

N/Apower said:


> Haha, the salmon rocks so hard I would love to send it if it were possible. Alas, all I could do was PM him my recipe.



Hey, there's always Fedex! (wouldn't be the first time they carried something like this)


----------



## MrGman (Feb 23, 2009)

I plan on doing some follow up video work on this E2DL versus the ?????
(don't tell anyone cause its top secret) Dereelight 3SM something something R2 Pill with the smooth reflector in a Solarforce L2 host with A/R coated glass in the Bezel that will be posted on Youtube and linked to here in the semi near future. It measured 227 lumens, had a nice little hotspot. We'll see how the look.

Then for grins and giggles I want to compare the 2 with wbp's spectral radiometer at 5 meters (when we are working on other top secret projects that are in the works) to see what the peak lux comparisons will be as well. Stay tuned. The fun never ends.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1MGK4KD_VU

Video Comparison of SF E2DL to Dereelight 3SM R2 pill with smooth reflector to targets at about 53 feet. Camera is closer than I am with flashlight to make for a better clearere video.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YXTKvi_oEo

Video comparison of the SF E2DL versus the Dereelight [email protected] Q5 pill with OP reflector in the same manner as above video.


----------



## emr (Feb 23, 2009)

MrGman said:


> It will be interesting to see how much the diffuser loses. G


For those who may not know, McGizmo guesses the F04 is made from Physical Optics Corporation, aka Luminit, circular 20° Light Shaping Diffuser (LSD), 85% transmission efficiency. 
 

http://www.luminitco.com/index.php/registration/download_det/?id=&dcat=1&ddat=108&item=dl

http://www.poc.com/default.asp


----------



## N/Apower (Feb 23, 2009)

emr said:


> For those who may not know, McGizmo guesses the F04 is made from Physical Optics Corporation, aka Luminit, circular 20° Light Shaping Diffuser (LSD), 85% transmission efficiency.
> 
> 
> http://www.luminitco.com/index.php/registration/download_det/?id=&dcat=1&ddat=108&item=dl
> ...


 

Hrmm...sounds about right based on what I have seen, but we will know for sure in a couple of days!


----------



## richardcpf (Feb 25, 2009)

MrGman said:


> Let it run for over a minute and it was still pumping out 203 lumens, on high. On low its 8.1 lumens.
> 
> Truth is Truth. My expectations of this light were certainly wrong and grossly exceeded and in this case I am more than happy to admit it.


 

Time to buy a Surefire...


----------



## outersquare (Feb 25, 2009)

MrGman said:


> Well its done, I lost a bet over this (small gentlemanly wager). the New SureFire E2DL that I just picked up last Saturday measured 210 lumens at turn on in the sphere. Let it run for over a minute and it was still pumping out 203 lumens, on high. On low its 8.1 lumens.
> 
> current draw on fresh batteries on high is 0.80 amps, on low was 0.1 amp.
> 
> ...


 
thx for posting this


----------



## MrGman (Feb 26, 2009)

I have tested and posted N/A Power's M600 Scout results with and without his SureFire brand diffuser. My E2DL is brighter and his has more of a bluer tint next to mine side by side. The diffuser takes away very close to 11% of the light.


----------



## emr (Feb 26, 2009)

Interesting result. Thanks.


----------



## kramer5150 (Feb 26, 2009)

Thanks for confirming what has been long suspected about the E2DL!!! Although, I admit I was not expecting it to break the 200L barrier


----------



## N/Apower (Feb 27, 2009)

kramer5150 said:


> Thanks for confirming what has been long suspected about the E2DL!!! Although, I admit I was not expecting it to break the 200L barrier


 
I half way think Gman's is a fluke. We have 2 IS measurements at 160-171 and 1 measurement at 200+. We need a larger sample-size me thinks. If I had my X300 still, I would have sent that also.


----------



## richardcpf (Feb 27, 2009)

N/Apower said:


> I half way think Gman's is a fluke. We have 2 IS measurements at 160-171 and 1 measurement at 200+. We need a larger sample-size me thinks. If I had my X300 still, I would have sent that also.


 
Rare to see that the same model of 2 Surefire lights having such a big ouput or tint difference. This is why I haven't got mine yet..


----------



## MrGman (Feb 27, 2009)

richardcpf said:


> Rare to see that the same model of 2 Surefire lights having such a big ouput or tint difference. This is why I haven't got mine yet..


 

When I am all done evaluating the one I have, I intend to put it up for sale as it doesn't fit into my 6P and Solarforce Host Modular Fleet Concept. You guys are tempting me to auction it off to the highest bidder and take advantage of all this SF devotion but I will probably not be that much of a pirate. Just for the record it is not for sale at this time and this is not a solicitation to sell. However I can be bribed with pizza and a good shot of Scotch!


----------



## Kiessling (Feb 27, 2009)

richardcpf said:


> Rare to see that the same model of 2 Surefire lights having such a big ouput or tint difference. This is why I haven't got mine yet..



Huh?
Tint difference is a built-in feature of Surefires  ... especially the LuxV and LuxI lights of old.

As for the output differences ... there are variations in the LED bins, is true for every company. Surefires models are around a long time and cover some development in LED tech, and so brightness differences are to be expected. More than with the companies that change their line-up more frequently or name the ligths after the bin of the LED and offer new specs for each version.
It is the nature of the beast. 


bernie


----------



## wbp (Feb 27, 2009)

N/Apower said:


> I half way think Gman's is a fluke. We have 2 IS measurements at 160-171 and 1 measurement at 200+. We need a larger sample-size me thinks. If I had my X300 still, I would have sent that also.



But with what instrumentation and calibration reference?


----------



## N/Apower (Feb 28, 2009)

wbp said:


> But with what instrumentation and calibration reference?


 
2 were in GMan's 6'' IS, and one was in Mike's 10" IS.


----------



## naked2 (Feb 28, 2009)

Kiessling said:


> Tint difference is a built-in feature of Surefires  ...


(and why the only SureFires I currently own are incans)!


----------



## seattlite (Mar 3, 2009)

N/Apower said:


> I half way think Gman's is a fluke. We have 2 IS measurements at 160-171 and 1 measurement at 200+. We need a larger sample-size me thinks. If I had my X300 still, I would have sent that also.



I posted this in the other E2DL thread:

I have both a one level E2DL Head and a KX2C. I don't have the sophisticated measurement equipment as the gman, but I do have a light meter and a "box". My un-scientific measurements of both heads resulted in the KX2C having 20% more light output than the E2DL head. Both lights were using the same brand of 3.7V RCR123's and I switched the paired cells and re-measured.

The KX2C seems to be a whiter than my warmer E2DL head....just the opposite of gman's test samples.

I also have a X300, but have not yet made any comparisons.


----------



## N/Apower (Mar 3, 2009)

seattlite said:


> I posted this in the other E2DL thread:
> 
> I have both a one level E2DL Head and a KX2C. I don't have the sophisticated measurement equipment as the gman, but I do have a light meter and a "box". My un-scientific measurements of both heads resulted in the KX2C having 20% more light output than the E2DL head. Both lights were using the same brand of 3.7V RCR123's and I switched the paired cells and re-measured.
> 
> ...


 
My X300 was warmer than my KX2C.


----------



## MrGman (Mar 12, 2009)

New test results are now posted for a second and different KX2C head on my E2DL provided by N/A Power, Also his TNVC module in a Solarforce Host with AR glass and just for grins also in a SureFire 6P bezel.

And just because I can, I put my original Malkoff M60 in my new Surefire C2 Centurion Host and remeasured it. So these readings are posted.

It would be interesting to see what the new Malkoff MC-E's read in the Solarforce host with AR glass.


----------



## N/Apower (Mar 12, 2009)

Would the TNVC module have been brighter had you used 2 primaries?


----------



## N/Apower (Mar 12, 2009)

MrGman said:


> New test results are now posted for a second and different KX2C head on my E2DL provided by N/A Power, Also his TNVC module in a Solarforce Host with AR glass and just for grins also in a SureFire 6P bezel.
> 
> And just because I can, I put my original Malkoff M60 in my new Surefire C2 Centurion Host and remeasured it. So these readings are posted.
> 
> It would be interesting to see what the new Malkoff MC-E's read in the Solarforce host with AR glass.


 

Thanks!

Questions: Could the body/tail-cap used modify the output of a KX2C head?
Would the TNVC have been brighter using primaries?


----------



## MrGman (Mar 12, 2009)

N/Apower said:


> Thanks!
> 
> Questions: Could the body/tail-cap used modify the output of a KX2C head?
> Would the TNVC have been brighter using primaries?


 

If there were resistance issues due to old and corroded material, possibly, my unit is of course brand new and also My head has very high readings with this body tail cap combo so it would be hard to blame them.

The TNVC and most other modules that take various voltages should not have a higher output with lower voltage. The voltage used from 2X17500 which is somewhere between 7.4 to 8V under load is right in the middle of the voltage range you told me it works at. 

At 6.0V it draws 0.64A, 3.84 Watt at 9.0V it was drawing 0.45A 4.05watts. Certainly shouldn't be brighter at 6V not that 0.16 watts difference would be noticeable. I ran it back and forth from 6 to 10V on my DC power supply quickly and saw no change in brightness at all. This is not a bright module. I hope it wasn't expensive.


----------



## N/Apower (Mar 12, 2009)

MrGman said:


> If there were resistance issues due to old and corroded material, possibly, my unit is of course brand new and also My head has very high readings with this body tail cap combo so it would be hard to blame them.
> 
> The TNVC and most other modules that take various voltages should not have a higher output with lower voltage. The voltage used from 2X17500 which is somewhere between 7.4 to 8V under load is right in the middle of the voltage range you told me it works at.
> 
> At 6.0V it draws 0.64A, 3.84 Watt at 9.0V it was drawing 0.45A 4.05watts. Certainly shouldn't be brighter at 6V not that 0.16 watts difference would be noticeable. I ran it back and forth from 6 to 10V on my DC power supply quickly and saw no change in brightness at all. This is not a bright module. I hope it wasn't expensive.


 
The unit retails for $44 :thinking: and has a cult following on AR15.com

Several times I asked the distributor (Tactical Night Vision Company) for lumen output and/or Amp draw. No information was provided me other than run-time.


----------



## bigchelis (Mar 12, 2009)

MrGman,

I purchased a Malkoff MD2 Flashligt hosts and a Malkoff MC-E Warm on direct drive. I already have the P60 drop-in, but now I have to wait till tommorow for Gene to ship out the MD2. If you are interested I can ship it out for you to test it and return shipping too.

The MC-E on DD Gene said pulls 3.5amp draw and the MD2 hosts requires no bezel with his P60 drop-in the Lumens should be 700 to 1000. The 3.5amp draw drops to 2.8amp draw after 10 minutes or so.

Pm me if you are interested in this set-up, I can send you both the MD2 and the MC-E dd next week.


----------



## MrGman (Mar 12, 2009)

N/A Power, I feel for ya. I had the Uniq Q5 that was supposed to be hot and was rather disappointing. I had the Lumens Factory newest D26 LED Module that was also mediocre. Matter of fact that stinking unit died and I was so disappointed in it I just took the reflector off of it and put it on a Dereelight unit and didn't bother to try and send it back for repair. Figured even if they sent me a new one just like it I wouldn't want to bother to put it in any of my hosts. I like My Malkoff's, Dereelights, and the original low budget Solarforce R2 modules, no troubles or complaints with those. 

So far the only name brand drop in pills that I like and trust are Malkoff and Dereelights. That's from personal use and abuse. I have tested others that I have never even mentioned here because they were worthless as well and didn't survive long enough to even make it into the Sphere of Truth. Its usually the driver circuit that stinks, cheap quality parts and very poor construction so they don't hold up, but that is another story for some where else. G.


----------



## N/Apower (Mar 12, 2009)

MrGman said:


> N/A Power, I feel for ya. I had the Uniq Q5 that was supposed to be hot and was rather disappointing. I had the Lumens Factory newest D26 LED Module that was also mediocre. Matter of fact that stinking unit died and I was so disappointed in it I just took the reflector off of it and put it on a Dereelight unit and didn't bother to try and send it back for repair. Figured even if they sent me a new one just like it I wouldn't want to bother to put it in any of my hosts. I like My Malkoff's, Dereelights, and the original low budget Solarforce R2 modules, no troubles or complaints with those.
> 
> So far the only name brand drop in pills that I like and trust are Malkoff and Dereelights. That's from personal use and abuse. I have tested others that I have never even mentioned here because they were worthless as well and didn't survive long enough to even make it into the Sphere of Truth. Its usually the driver circuit that stinks, cheap quality parts and very poor construction so they don't hold up, but that is another story for some where else. G.


 

I had suspected for some time after buying a few more lights, that the TNVC module was behind the curve.


----------



## bigchelis (Mar 12, 2009)

I had TNVC P60 Q5 rated at 250 lumens out the front. The TNVC had a huge donut, but outside the donut there was not much light compared to the Malkoff. The vender affirmed it was at least 250 lumens out the front. Pictures taken with a digital camera with flash turned off, but we all know digital cameras adjust more favorable to Malkoff drop-ins.:laughing::laughing:

*Edit:* I didn't want to point this out, but the TNVC Q5 suddently stopped working on me. Just took it out for a walk in the park once (30 min). Then put a pair of fully charged cr123 took these pictures and then no go. I sent it back to vendor and that was the last time I ever played around with the TNVC Q5. I babied the drop-in and it failed on its own. TNVC said the failed Q5 I got was a rare and limited case that had only occured a few times. For $45 dollars that is a few times too many. 

The M60 on Left and TNVC Q5 on Right.









Up close the beam of the M60 left and TNVC Right


----------



## MrGman (Mar 12, 2009)

fix the pictures. I only see 2 of 4 showing up. Two others are X's in boxes.


----------



## MrGman (Mar 12, 2009)

MrGman said:


> fix the pictures. I only see 2 of 4 showing up. Two others are X's in boxes.


 
Suddenly after this post, they all appeared, so nevermind.


----------



## KDOG3 (Mar 13, 2009)

Dang! I knew my E2DL was a lottery winner but wow! 180 - 203 lumens. The E2DL is a killer light. I was thinking of selling it but I think I'll hold on to it now!


----------



## N/Apower (Mar 14, 2009)

KDOG3 said:


> Dang! I knew my E2DL was a lottery winner but wow! 180 - 203 lumens. The E2DL is a killer light. I was thinking of selling it but I think I'll hold on to it now!


 

Lol, this E2DL/X300/KX2C seems to be the LS1 of the flashlight world.


----------



## MrGman (Mar 18, 2009)

I just posted readings of 3 flashlights/modules from Bigchelis. Since the flashlights he gave me are so small, 1 is a 3" long unit custom mode with only a 13640 battery to run it I shall have to nickname him "little" Chelis.

I tested his Nailbender P7 direct drive unit that runs off up to 6V in a 6P using 2 CR 123's and 1X18650 to see what would happen.

Also tested is the new Malkoff MC-E warm version direct drive unit. This thing draws big current at turn on and loads down the batteries quick. I could not get it to read up to 500 lumens but its definitely in the 400 plus class.

Next up was the DX (Yes a Deal Extreme unit) in a SureFrie E1B mod and also in a Solarforce Host, starting with 1 IMR 16340 battery and then moving up to my 18650 in my Solarforce host with AR Coated glass. This would not break into the 400 lumens group, maybe if I could leave the bezel off (too loose to do so). 

Enjoy, pay attention to the notes as to battery and bezel configurations so as not to get confused as to why readings are high or low. 

More yet to come. G.


----------



## bigchelis (Mar 18, 2009)

Wow the DX surprised me the most. DX rates it at 410 lumens.
http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.21037
At $23.49 it is a great deal and it is P60 D26. Definetly not Malkoff quality but a great value IMHO.
DX_MC-E High______________337__turn-on,__________1_IMR 16340__________SF E1B Host, custom mod, doesnt hold value
DX_MC-E Low______________137__turn-on,__________1_IMR 16340__________SF E1B Host, custom mod,
DX_MC-E High______________385__turn-on,__________1_18650 LI____________Solarforce L2 Host AR coated glass,
DX_MC-E High______________345__warm____________1_18650 LI____________Solarforce L2 Host AR coated glass,
DX-MC-E Low______________150__warm____________1_18650 LI____________Solarforce L2 Host AT coated glass, 

Great job MrGman. Thank you.


----------



## MrGman (Mar 19, 2009)

I have updated the post with more data, I ran the NailBender P7 and the Malkoff MC-E DD unit with a DC power supply that can provide plenty of stable power. The results are in the table for those who want to see.

I only did instantaneous turn-on readings and then would let the parts sit and cool off before taking more readings. So most turn on times were only up to 5 seconds as I was trying to get the best possible peak turn on lumen reading of a cool die. Modules were clamped into a vise, for stability but not great overall heatsinking. I would hold them with my fingers and not allow them to get to the point where they were ever too hot to touch. I could handle them with no problems.

I will let the results stand for themselves for those may be interested. I put up to 15.8 watts DC power into the Malkoff unit to see what I could get out of it at turn on. Once on the readings were dropping very rapidly thus after a few seconds I simply shut it off and waited before starting over. G


----------



## Yoda4561 (Mar 19, 2009)

I'm curious to see a head to head between the DD and regulated MCE now. I was gonna go the DD route for the extra throw for the first 10 minutes, but it looks like all the extra power draw is wasted as heat. 

The one beamshot I've seen outdoors with an MCE-W DD vs XRE M60(normal, not flood) makes the two look like they throw similarly. Another indoor shot of the regulated MCE-W suggests it isn't even close to a 200 Lumen XRE for throw. It doesn't seem to make much sense to me if both MCE's are putting out 400+ lumens. Gene's numbers for the regulated MCE show it pulling 7.8 watts. That would put it just over 400 lumens OTF but can it hold it?


----------



## MrGman (Mar 19, 2009)

In his never ending pursuit "of a better mousetrap" Gene called me yesterday and said he wanted to send me one of each of the regulated MC-E's to see what their real performance is after hearing about the DD test results from bigchelis. So stay tuned.


----------



## N/Apower (Mar 21, 2009)

MrGman said:


> In his never ending pursuit "of a better mousetrap" Gene called me yesterday and said he wanted to send me one of each of the regulated MC-E's to see what their real performance is after hearing about the DD test results from bigchelis. So stay tuned.


 
Good stuff! I like it when a man steps up and says "I want to know what happens when the rubber meets the road. Here is what I brung, now run it!"


----------



## DavesKam (Mar 25, 2009)

Very good information. Thanks.
Is there anyone has data for Zebra Light H50?


----------



## nanotech17 (Mar 28, 2009)

anybody willing to send their Eagletac P100C2 & P100A2 to MrGman for lab lumen testing


----------



## polkiuj (Mar 30, 2009)

Hey! MrG!! You gotta test the Surefire L1 running on 1 x 3.7V RCR123As.

I tested it beside my Eagletac T10LC2 (with a "light meter" and ceiling bounce and found that 

IT THROWS THE SAME AS MY T10LC2 BUT WITH A MUCH LARGER HOTSPOT (albeit with far less spill.

about 9000 lux vs about 9000 lux!!

And THE OUTPUT IS ABOUT 88% of my Eagletac!!

My Eagletac has issues (thermal epoxy paste on LED dome) but it should put out ~230 lumens OTF, measured beside my Fenix LD10 which should have about 85 lumens OTF.

So the L1 HAS ABOUT 200 Lumens out the front!!


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Mar 30, 2009)

polkiuj, that would be amazing if the L1 got 200 lumens with the RCR123. I have seen some runtime graphs comparing L1 with CR123, and with RCR123 and compared using bounce with lightmeter but never that much of a difference, maybe 20% due to being overdriven with LiIion. L1 actually handles RCR123 pretty well, much better than the E1L overdriven.

Bill


----------



## Bruce B (Mar 30, 2009)

I would love to see how the various levels of the Surefire U2A look when measured.


----------



## MrGman (Mar 30, 2009)

polkiuj said:


> Hey! MrG!! You gotta test the Surefire L1 running on 1 x 3.7V RCR123As.
> 
> I tested it beside my Eagletac T10LC2 (with a "light meter" and ceiling bounce and found that
> 
> ...


 

what is the current draw from you RCR battery with a fresh charge when its putting out all those lumens? What does it normally draw from a CR123 primary??? I don't keep track of the L1 series. What's its normal output supposed to be 80 lumens?


----------



## MrGman (Mar 30, 2009)

Bruce B said:


> I would love to see how the various levels of the Surefire U2A look when measured.


 
they don't look all that impressive because they are inside the integration sphere. You just see a little light coming out of the opening on the side, but its hard to read the meter if you are looking at the light anyway. 

Does this U2A model actually exist out in the real public world. Is this something you can buy and send me or is this still just some pie in the sky unit that some one saw at a trade show and waiting to be blessed from on high before we can actually go get one?

Do you have one of these to send me? I am all full up on all the SureFire lights I am going to buy. I still have to finish 1 more set of tests with the E2DL so I can sell that one off.


----------



## NoFair (Mar 30, 2009)

U2A: upgraded U2 with a Seoul emitter. Longer runtimes, more throw and maybe a bit brighter.

UA2: Not released focusable beautiful light SF hasn't released yet:sigh:

PS! Thanks for doing the test for us:twothumbs


----------



## Monocrom (Mar 30, 2009)

Yeah, the U2A isn't something Surefire advertises. It's a quiet upgrade to the old Surefire U2. Instead of using the old luxeon emitter, Surefire switched to a Seoul emitter.


----------



## Rat6P (Mar 30, 2009)

Hey MrGman,

Was just wondering if you still have access to an M30, could you test it running on a single primary or 2AA batts?

If not....cheers anyway!


----------



## MrGman (Mar 31, 2009)

Rat6P said:


> Hey MrGman,
> 
> Was just wondering if you still have access to an M30, could you test it running on a single primary or 2AA batts?
> 
> If not....cheers anyway!


 
You want me to measure lumens or the current, I am guessing the lumens. I don't have a way to hold the batteries while in the sphere. Still waiting on my L2 mini. What I can do is measure the current from regulated supply and see what it does down to 2.0V. If it doesn't hold regulation you must assume that the output goes down.


----------



## Rat6P (Mar 31, 2009)

Yeah the lumens.

Really interested in the output from 2aa batts in comparison to some of the dedicated 2aa flashlights, like a fenix or an eagletac.

Whatever you can do would be great, 

but don't worry about it too much.:thumbsup:I can live not knowing.

thanks


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Mar 31, 2009)

MrGman said:


> You want me to measure lumens or the current, I am guessing the lumens. I don't have a way to hold the batteries while in the sphere. Still waiting on my L2 mini. What I can do is measure the current from regulated supply and see what it does down to 2.0V. If it doesn't hold regulation you must assume that the output goes down.



The M30 with AA's can be run in your L2 SolarForce with extension. Just insert some rolled up stiff paper or light cardboard in tube and add 2 NiMh AA cells. Paper will keep AA's centered and overall length of two AA's is same as two 17500's, 3 CR123's, or two 18500's.

Bill


----------



## Ny0ng1 (Mar 31, 2009)

someone should send MrGman some popular SureFire models like E1B, L1 Cree and A2 aviator. 

Thanks MrGman for doing these tests for us.


----------



## polkiuj (Mar 31, 2009)

MrGman said:


> what is the current draw from you RCR battery with a fresh charge when its putting out all those lumens? What does it normally draw from a CR123 primary??? I don't keep track of the L1 series. What's its normal output supposed to be 80 lumens?



I have no access to any current draw equipment. It's just amazing (and I'm jealous, yea yea) that a single 123 can put out so much light, and throw like such a crazy thing with quite a useful beam!

I guess that it's a boost only circuit and runs on or close to DD with RCR. Probably the same output as a Lummi Raw or Fenix PD20 (on RCR)?

Just guessing here.


----------



## MrGman (Mar 31, 2009)

polkiuj said:


> I have no access to any current draw equipment. It's just amazing (and I'm jealous, yea yea) that a single 123 can put out so much light, and throw like such a crazy thing with quite a useful beam!
> 
> I guess that it's a boost only circuit and runs on or close to DD with RCR. Probably the same output as a Lummi Raw or Fenix PD20 (on RCR)?
> 
> Just guessing here.


 

A single 123 doesn't put out any light just a whole bunch of electrons. If you have something to convert electrons to light efficiently well then voila. You get both.

You can buy a digital multimeter with ammeter capability fairly cheap nowadays. Most hardware stores even carry something useful. You want a digital multimeter with Ammeter capability that can read up to 10 Amp range. Should be able to get a good one for less than $100.00. Look online under handheld digital multimeters.


----------



## polkiuj (Apr 1, 2009)

Hey!

What i meant was a 123A light... :mecry:

I live in Malaysia and based on the exchange rate $ 100 = RM 375!

Wayyy to expensive.. =(


----------



## MrGman (Apr 1, 2009)

I have been posting some new readings on page 1. I didn't want to add a new post here for every one. I will eventually be moving to a new thread with the original data and then we can add from there. Anyway tested the Malkoff MCE-W and results are posted, amongst other lights like say a Neoseikan Spartanian II. G


----------



## Bimmerboy (Apr 2, 2009)

Great data on the Malkoff MC-E's, MrG! This really helps me with a couple purchasing decisions. :thumbsup:

Very good lumen maintainence on the regulated version. Seems like it reaches a stable temp after 5 minutes, and not too much drop during that time to boot. Excellent! Indicates nice design work by Gene.

The performance of the IMR 18650 running the DD module was somewhat surprising to me. Compared to the data using the power supply, I'm _assuming_ the batt was holding approx. 3.6V. I'd have expected an IMR of that size to hold a higher voltage under that load, thus delivering more current. However, I don't know if the DD Malkoff is resistored internally. If it is, that would clear up my confusion.

Gene, if you're reading this, can you tell us if the MC-E DD uses a current limiting resistor?


----------



## MrGman (Apr 2, 2009)

Bimmerboy said:


> Great data on the Malkoff MC-E's, MrG! This really helps me with a couple purchasing decisions. :thumbsup:
> 
> Very good lumen maintainence on the regulated version. Seems like it reaches a stable temp after 5 minutes, and not too much drop during that time to boot. Excellent! Indicates nice design work by Gene.
> 
> ...


 

Its not resistored internally and the battery was delivering around 12 watts of power, how much more do you want. From my testing so far we believe the phosphor got overheated from running this much power and degraded so that it will never reach the high brightness it might have initially in the first few minutes of running again. By the time I got it bigchelis had already put some serious run time on it. 

The regulated module which is keeping total power down to around 9 watts does seem to do a lot better. I should have run it for a lot more than 5 minutes but I had other things to test and do and can't sit there for hours at a time in the optics lab. I believe it would be better in hand out on a cool night rather than in a lab at room temp with no cooling fan as its self heating. but yes, so far the regulated unit put out as advertised good numbers. G


----------



## MrGman (Apr 2, 2009)

Rat6P said:


> Hey MrGman,
> 
> Was just wondering if you still have access to an M30, could you test it running on a single primary or 2AA batts?
> 
> If not....cheers anyway!


 
Here are your special ordered test results just for you. don't share this with anyone else okay? :thumbsup:

M30 on a regulated power supply at various voltages and the current draw there of.

1.5V 0.84A 1.26W
2.0V 0.88A 1.76W
3.0V 0.97A 2.91W
3.2V 1.00A 3.20W 
3.6V 1.10A 3.96W
4.0V 1.29A 5.16W
4.2V 1.42A 5.96W
4.5V 1.60A 7.20W
5.0V 1.89A 9.45W

And the brightness kept going up with these numbers. I could run the voltage up and down and watch the brightness constantly change. If you can run it with 3 Alkaline C or D cells at 4.5V that's going to be far brighter than 235 lumens out the front off of 1X18650 (for a while). Whether or not it will keep it as it gets hot is another test question.

I like it. :twothumbs


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Apr 2, 2009)

Thanks for testing. My M30 holds well over a period of 105 minutes when output starts to drop quickly using an 18650 cell. Over that time period from initial turn on and waiting 1 minute to record and to finish 105 minutes later output drop was 10%. Run was done 15 minutes on and about 15 minutes off to rule out high heat and fact I was running it not hand held. Bounce with lightmeter. 

Bill


----------



## Bimmerboy (Apr 3, 2009)

MrGman said:


> Its not resistored internally and the battery was delivering around 12 watts of power, how much more do you want. From my testing so far we believe the phosphor got overheated from running this much power and degraded so that it will never reach the high brightness it might have initially in the first few minutes of running again. By the time I got it bigchelis had already put some serious run time on it.



Partially due to my hotwire bent, I was as curious about Vbatt under load as anything else, and was expecting to see it higher _*if*_ (and this is a big if) one could correlate the lumen data while using the power supply to the test using the IMR.

If they do correlate, then one could reasonably ask, for example, since the IMR pumped out 480 lumens from the DD module at turn on, was it delivering approx. the same voltage and current as the power supply did at 3.60V_3.01A, which pumped out 470 lumens at turn on?

However, these are questions for another topic (battery related), and bear no relation to what I think of Gene's excellent stuff.


----------



## Rat6P (Apr 3, 2009)

:bow:



MrGman said:


> Here are your special ordered test results just for you. don't share this with anyone else okay? :thumbsup:
> 
> M30 on a regulated power supply at various voltages and the current draw there of.
> 
> ...


----------



## MrGman (Apr 3, 2009)

Bimmerboy said:


> Partially due to my hotwire bent, I was as curious about Vbatt under load as anything else, and was expecting to see it higher _*if*_ (and this is a big if) one could correlate the lumen data while using the power supply to the test using the IMR.
> 
> If they do correlate, then one could reasonably ask, for example, since the IMR pumped out 480 lumens from the DD module at turn on, was it delivering approx. the same voltage and current as the power supply did at 3.60V_3.01A, which pumped out 470 lumens at turn on?
> 
> However, these are questions for another topic (battery related), and bear no relation to what I think of Gene's excellent stuff.


 
I thought I mentioned somewhere on a previous page but maybe I forgot that the Malkoff Direct Drive MC-E unit was drawing 2.8 amps from that IMR battery at turn on. I calculated that the power based on that was over 12 watts. The voltage drop to the module in that current range although I didn't write it down in the thread was around 3.4V. The IMR battery definitely had the ability to deliver all the power that module wanted and it was getting hot to prove it. It just wasn't making what should have been 12 watts worth of light, which is why we believe that letting it get that hot has degraded the phosphor coatings. 

That is why the regulated lights which keep the power down in the 9 watt range on batteries is the way to go. Gene is publising 400 lumens from the Warm unit and it appears to more than meet that directly from the module. It is a wide flood so the bezel blocks a little of the periphery of the light and knocks those numbers down in the "out the front" lumens of a complete light but that is not a fault of the module. In general a "400 lumen" flood light is definitely a one shot see it all backyard lighting tool. With 2X18650's or 2X17500's in a nice size package it will draw a reasonable amount of current from the batteries and have over 1 full hour of run time. 

For in door house clearing activity, again this is not a bad way to go either.


----------



## MrGman (Apr 3, 2009)

Here is the power draw of the Malkoff MC-E Warm unit that I tested for Gene. This is the fully regulated unit whose lumens numbers with 2X18650 batteries in a full flashlight are on page one.

5.0V 1.48A 7.40W
5.5V 1.71A 9.40W
6.0V 1.67A 10.0W
8.0V 1.11A 8.88W
10.0V 0.90A 9.00W
11.0V 0.80A 8.80W
12.0V 0.74A 8.88W

So you can see it is regulated and you will get great runtime with 4 X CR123 batteries or 2X 17500 up to 18650 LI rechargeables. It will take three LI at up to 13V. I didn't want to push this one up to 13V just yet. Its a beautiful tint beam as well. 

Mounted on a shotgun in a 9P size light running 2X17500 rechargeables rated for 1500mAH and you clearly have a 1 plus hour run time light of the 400 lumen range. 

And yet, more to come!!! :thumbsup:


----------



## Black Rose (Apr 9, 2009)

MrGman said:


> I just received the 26.8mm UCL glass from FLL to test with the Solarforce Bezels. They fit right in and are not too small such that the L shaped O-ring isn't pressing them.


Any issues with that size UCL glass in the Solarforce L2s?

I have a couple of the Solarforce L2s and would like to put better glass in them. Was unsure which UCL to get from FLL, but your post helped answer that question


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Apr 10, 2009)

Black Rose said:


> Any issues with that size UCL glass in the Solarforce L2s?
> 
> I have a couple of the Solarforce L2s and would like to put better glass in them. Was unsure which UCL to get from FLL, but your post helped answer that question



He answered your question with that quote from his post. It works fine.

Bill


----------



## etc (Apr 10, 2009)

MrGman said:


> Here are your special ordered test results just for you. don't share this with anyone else okay? :thumbsup:
> 
> M30 on a regulated power supply at various voltages and the current draw there of.
> 
> ...




This is good info. I run M30 on 3xAA - thus far tried alks, NiMH and L91 Lithiums.

Malkoff M30 on L91s is a bit brighter than M60 on 3x123 cells but M30 on 3xAA NiMH or alks is a bit less bright than M60 either on 123s or Li-Co.


----------



## MrGman (Apr 15, 2009)

I have posted the readings for the Malkoff MC-E cool (as opposed to warm) unit with and without the bezel on page 1. I used 2 different sets of fresh batteries to take 2 sets readings with a cool down between. These MC-E's from Gene are fully regulated units. 

Enjoy


----------



## Kiessling (Apr 15, 2009)

This thread has reached critical mass.

I have copied the first post with all the valuable data and it now serves as a starting post for the second part of this thread here:

https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/229135

Thanx for all the work, MrGman !


bernie


----------

