# lumens factory comparison confusion



## Mikeg23 (May 13, 2007)

A while back I purchased a 3.7V bulb from AW and ran it with an AW18650 in a Surefire 6P. I liked it real well and when it burned out I replaced it with a Lumens Factory 
HO-4. The AW bulb and Lumens factory bulb seem pretty compareable in brightness both are just slightly brighter than the P60 that they replaced.

Any way I bought a Lumens factory EO-E1R and run it on an AW17670 and it is brighter than the HO-4. So the EO-E1R has a better run time and it's brighter, which doesn't make any sense to me.

Am I the only on who has experienced this?


----------



## winny (May 13, 2007)

Although I have no idea about the bulbs in particular you talk about, but keep in mind that all bulbs are not the same. You can always make a bulb better, the problem is price. Was the good one more expensive?


----------



## Outdoors Fanatic (May 13, 2007)

Mikeg23 said:


> A while back I purchased a 3.7V bulb from AW and ran it with an AW18650 in a Surefire 6P. I liked it real well and when it burned out I replaced it with a Lumens Factory
> HO-4. The AW bulb and Lumens factory bulb seem pretty compareable in brightness both are just slightly brighter than the P60 that they replaced.
> 
> Any way I bought a Lumens factory EO-E1R and run it on an AW17670 and it is brighter than the HO-4. So the EO-E1R has a better run time and it's brighter, which doesn't make any sense to me.
> ...


 IF you want a brighter bulb, you should get the E0-4 instead the HO-4. But I agree, the EO-E1 is really an impressive little bulb. But this one isn1t compatible with the P60, so I'm not sure how were you using this bulb as a HO-4 replacement.


----------



## ampdude (May 13, 2007)

I liked the EO-E1Rs. I went to the EO-E2R's so that I could carry spare rechargeables and make use of an SC3 spares carrier I had. The difference in brightness between the two bulbs is noticeable. It's not HUGE, but it is there. Maybe 30-50 or such extra lumens like the numbers suggest.


----------



## cernobila (May 13, 2007)

Mikeg23,

I am not sure how you made the comparison.....these lamps are for 3.7V use.

HO-4 (150 L) and EO-4 (190 L) only fit D26 heads such as the G2 and 6P etc.

HO-E1R (50 L) and EO-E1R (90 L) only fit the D19 heads such as the E1E and E2E

Lumens Factory data


----------



## mdocod (May 14, 2007)

i really doubt the EO-E1R is brighter. Something is wrong. Either the 18650 driving the HO-4 is not charged up to the same state, or there is a connection problem in the flashlight causing a major drop in voltage at the bulb. Or you aren't taking into account differences in beam profile for the brightness comparison.


----------



## Norm (May 14, 2007)

I received 2 EO-4's in the post today I have 1 in my 18650 bored C2 centurion and the other in a Falcata running a 17670 battery both nice and bright very pleased with the EO-4's.
Norm


----------



## Mikeg23 (May 14, 2007)

Sorry for the confusion I run the HO-4 with an 18650 in a Surefire 6P and I run the EO-E1R in an E2E with a 17670.

I had considered that maybe my 6P had some resistance some where so I popped the HO-4 in my G2 with a 17670 and it was the same actually a little dimmer, but I figure the 18650 drives it better than the 17670.

The HO-4 has more throw, but the EO-E1R is much whiter and seems to be brighter.

In comparison to a P60 on fresh batteries:
the HO-4 on an 18650 is a little brighter 
the HO-4 on a 17670 is about the same 
my EO-E1R on a 17670 is brighter

It just isn't making much sense to me, but I am also confused by the MN03 being whiter with a longer run time than a P60.


----------



## Mikeg23 (May 14, 2007)

Outdoors Fanatic said:


> IF you want a brighter bulb, you should get the E0-4 instead the HO-4. But I agree, the EO-E1 is really an impressive little bulb. But this one isn1t compatible with the P60, so I'm not sure how were you using this bulb as a HO-4 replacement.


 
I'm not looking for a brighter light all I want is an incandescent light with a one hour run time and both of these lights achieve that. It's just something that has me wondering. 
Maybe the one isn't brighter than the other it just seems like it, but either way I am happy.


----------



## jumpstat (May 14, 2007)

Are both the LF HO-4/EO-4 having the same beam patern? If not which has throw and which has bright side spill? TIA. Thinking of putting it in SF M2


----------



## Gordov2 (May 14, 2007)

I put the HO9 in my Surefire C2, with AW's 123R 3.7 cells. This has amazing output!! It is just as bright (or brighter to my eye), as my Surefire M3 with 225 lumen bulb! The throw is a little less than the M3, but it IS just as bright to the naked eye as the M3.


----------



## ampdude (May 14, 2007)

Gordov2 said:


> I put the HO9 in my Surefire C2, with AW's 123R 3.7 cells. This has amazing output!! It is just as bright (or brighter to my eye), as my Surefire M3 with 225 lumen bulb! The throw is a little less than the M3, but it IS just as bright to the naked eye as the M3.




I have to disagree. I have the MN11 (225 lumen) in my M3 and HO-9 in my C3 with two 17500's and it's not even close, the Surefire M3 225 lumen assembly is way brighter, especially on 2 X 17670 lithium ions. It's about twice as bright. I have compared them side by side many times.


----------



## Gordov2 (May 14, 2007)

Mikeg23 said:


> A while back I purchased a 3.7V bulb from AW and ran it with an AW18650 in a Surefire 6P. I liked it real well and when it burned out I replaced it with a Lumens Factory
> HO-4. The AW bulb and Lumens factory bulb seem pretty compareable in brightness both are just slightly brighter than the P60 that they replaced.
> 
> Any way I bought a Lumens factory EO-E1R and run it on an AW17670 and it is brighter than the HO-4. So the EO-E1R has a better run time and it's brighter, which doesn't make any sense to me.
> ...


 

Are you running the EO-E1R and the HO-4 on the same cell? If so, and the EO-E1R is brighter, you might want to ask AW himself. He should have an answer. He's a good guy and very smat about this stuff.


----------



## Gordov2 (May 14, 2007)

ampdude said:


> I have to disagree. I have the MN11 (225 lumen) in my M3 and HO-9 in my C3 with two 17500's and it's not even close, the Surefire M3 225 lumen assembly is way brighter, especially on 2 X 17670 lithium ions. It's about twice as bright. I have compared them side by side many times.


 
Mine is a C2 with two AW 3.7 volt 123R's. Not a C3. Maybe that's why. As I mentioned, the SF M3 will definitely out throw it. But my M3 does not seem as bright up close. If I shine both lights on the wall at 12 inches, it is impossible to even look at the spot on the wall of the C2 with the HO9 bulb. With the M3 and 225-lumen MN11 bulb, you can look at the spot on the wall a bit easier. This says to me that my C2 is brighter, but the throw on the M3 is better with a bigger/wider beam, which at distance, could make it seem brighter overall. As an example, when outside at night, the M3 does definitely out throw the C2, with a much wider beam, making it seem brighter at 30 yards. The C2 however, is not as wide at that same distance and does not appear as bright.

 

Also, in a very non-technical test, if I hold both lights pointed at my arm at 3-6 inches, the C2 burns much hotter (and again is impossible to look at) than the M3. I realize this is not necessarily a measurement of brightness, but none-the-less, does say something about the difference in the two.


----------



## ampdude (May 14, 2007)

The MN10 on li-ions is around the same territory as the HO-9. Sorry, but I just don't see it. Are you sure you're not mistaking the MN10 for the MN11? The MN11 on lithium ions is close to the ROP LE-High in output.


----------



## Gordov2 (May 14, 2007)

ampdude said:


> The MN10 on li-ions is around the same territory as the HO-9. Sorry, but I just don't see it. Are you sure you're not mistaking the MN10 for the MN11? The MN11 on lithium ions is close to the ROP LE-High in output.



 

Yeah, it's definitely the MN11... maybe it's just my eyes, as I do not have any way to make this judgment on empirical data. However, I will double check this evening.


----------



## mdocod (May 14, 2007)

Gordov2 said:


> I put the HO9 in my Surefire C2, with AW's 123R 3.7 cells. This has amazing output!! It is just as bright (or brighter to my eye), as my Surefire M3 with 225 lumen bulb! The throw is a little less than the M3, but it IS just as bright to the naked eye as the M3.



The HO-9 is actually underdriven on a pair of RCR123s to about 175 torch lumens, The MN11 (I'm assuming you're on primaries?) Is somewhere around 250-75 torch lumens by comparison. On Li-Ion it runs well over 300. The HO-9 seems brighter because your mind is playing games with you. "bigger number = better" combined with "smaller size per lumen for the C2" and you are likely to draw an inaccurate conclusion. It's like watts or megapixels, 2 very unimportant factors for stereo systems and digital cameras (respectively) and yet, those are the numbers our minds have been trained by the industry to give a darn about. The result is that all they have to do is make the number on the box bigger to make you feel like the one you got isn't as good as the one available, when in reality, it may be better.


----------



## Gordov2 (May 14, 2007)

mdocod said:


> The HO-9 is actually underdriven on a pair of RCR123s to about 175 torch lumens, The MN11 (I'm assuming you're on primaries?) Is somewhere around 250-75 torch lumens by comparison. On Li-Ion it runs well over 300. The HO-9 seems brighter because your mind is playing games with you. "bigger number = better" combined with "smaller size per lumen for the C2" and you are likely to draw an inaccurate conclusion. It's like watts or megapixels, 2 very unimportant factors for stereo systems and digital cameras (respectively) and yet, those are the numbers our minds have been trained by the industry to give a darn about. The result is that all they have to do is make the number on the box bigger to make you feel like the one you got isn't as good as the one available, when in reality, it may be better.



 

mdocod-

I am very aware of the preconscious marketing aspects of upping the numbers. Whether it is lumens or anything else (my profession is marketing). That being said, maybe my perception at close range is the issue. As previously mentioned, when pointing both lights at the wall at 12 inches, it's simply impossible to look at the spot of the C2 for more than a couple seconds. Whereas the M3 is possible... though not a very scientific test, I know what my eyes are telling me and I know what a few folks I've shown both lights to have told me. Those folks by the way know nothing about flashlights or lumens and they have all said, "that smaller one is brighter."

 

So I guess it's perception: Based in reality, or otherwise, the C2 "seems" brighter under the conditions described. I wish I had the equipment to test empirically.
 
I'll put brand spanking new primary cells in the M3 tonight. Maybe that's where this issue exists, as the current cells have been used a tad.


----------



## mdocod (May 14, 2007)

may just go to show how poor performing someCR123s are in comparison to li-ion.


----------



## Gordov2 (May 14, 2007)

Good point.


----------



## Gordov2 (May 15, 2007)

OK, so I put brand new primary cells in the SF M3 and double-checked that we are comparing apples to apples using the MN11, 225-lumen bulb, and the brightness did go up a tad. However, I still think that because the M3 beam, along with the spot on the wall is bigger overall, that it either APPEARS brighter, or maybe just IS brighter. Period. 

However, with the C2, two fully charged AW 123R cells (3.7 volts each), and the HO9 bulb, my feeling is that if the head on the C2 were of equal size to the SF M3, the C2 would be at least as bright or brighter. I also believe this theory would be borne out by proper testing with the proper equipment (which I unfortunately do not have).

Mdocod, I am interested in exactly what the theory is behind the concept that the M3 would have to be brighter under the circumstances I have described?

In addition, I am curious if the sheer size of the M3 beam (or, head) simply allows more light to come out the front of the torch, thereby more lumens? Do these kinds of queries come into play when measuring light output in candlepower, lux, or lumens exiting the front of a given torch?


----------



## Mikeg23 (May 15, 2007)

jumpstat said:


> Are both the LF HO-4/EO-4 having the same beam patern? If not which has throw and which has bright side spill? TIA. Thinking of putting it in SF M2


 
I can't comment on the EO-4 but the HO-4 is very similar to a P60 it's a little brighter in my experience when ran on an 18650 rather than a 17670.


----------



## mdocod (May 15, 2007)

> Mdocod, I am interested in exactly what the theory is behind the concept that the M3 would have to be brighter under the circumstances I have described?



good question:

for one thing.. the size of the head has very little to do with it. Increasing the size of the head, moving the filament further into the head, loosing less light out the little hole in the bottom, increases efficiency of the reflector assembly by maybe 5%. Assuming the C2 setup were on a turbo head, all it would do is tighten the beam down, and improve transmission efficiency by a small amount (5% at best), not enough to make or break the "who's brighter" campaign.

The MN11 is a pretty powerful lamp. but I think the reason the HO-9 is appearing brighter is the primary cells in the M3. (which brand by the way? some are really not up to driving SF HOLA lamps)

MN11 on CR123s is at about 6.8V ~2.5A. That's about ~17W, ~375 bulb lumen. 
The HO-9 on RCR123s runs right about at spec, 7.6V, 1.55A, ~12W, ~320 bulb lumen.

There's only about a 17% difference in brightness there. All it takes is the fact that the HO-9 is running at a higher CCT in this configuration to confuse your eyes. Even if they were the same CCT and beam profile it would be nearly impossible to distinguish that small of a difference with the eye, you'd have to take pictures with a ceiling bounce or use a light meter with a diffuser box or an integrating sphere to actually see that difference.

That's my story for now. hehe. till I have a new one.


----------



## Gordov2 (May 15, 2007)

Thanks mdocod. The primary cells in the M3 are brand new Surefire.

What you're saying sounds like it makes sense and I appreciate your response.

Question: What does CCT stand for? I'm thinking it's some part of the bulb core temperature?

I'd sure like to have an integrating sphere!


----------



## mdocod (May 15, 2007)

stands for correlated color temperature. And it is related to the temperature of the filament, but the 2 are not the same, but as the bulb is driven harder, the temperature of the filament rises, and so does the "white point" of the output color. 

On a pair of RCR123s the HO-9 runs about 3300-3325K color temp, where on 3xCR123s, the MN11 is probably somewhere around 3235-3265K. The difference side-by-side would be enough that the whiter look of the HO-9 could easily fool the eyes into distinguishing it as "brighter" when compared on a wall indoors.


----------



## DM51 (May 15, 2007)

Gordov2 said:


> I'd sure like to have an integrating sphere!


You should do what *c0d0t0s0* does. He has built an *integrating bathroom*:
http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=164237


----------



## mdocod (May 15, 2007)

If you put an extender on that M3, and ran a pair of 17670s, bulb lumens would jump to about 500, CCT would jump to about 3340K, and the MN11 would appear quite obviously brighter. 

Your experience, I think is a great example, showing that the big power hungry bulbs are really not all that much better in some situations, and showing how much better li-ion is at delivering performance.


----------



## wrathothebunny (May 15, 2007)

mdocod said:


> the size of the head has very little to do with it. Increasing the size of the head, moving the filament further into the head, loosing less light out the little hole in the bottom, increases efficiency of the reflector assembly by maybe 5%.


The MN11**Correction - MN15** lamp outputs 125 SureFire Lumens and is a 9.5 Watt lamp. The P90 lamp outputs 105 SureFire Lumens and also is a 9.5 Watt lamp. The MN11**Correction - MN15** lamp is approximately 20% brighter than the P90 lamp. If not for the positioning of the lamp, then where do you feel the higher lumens are coming from? You have, up to this point, calculated lumen output almost entirely by wattage of the assembly, so either you need to break from that approach in this case, or revise your previous analysis. Personally, I don't know which contributes more, but I would be interested in your take.


----------



## mdocod (May 15, 2007)

the MN11 a 225 lumen lamp.
http://www.surefire.com/maxexp/main/co_disp/displ/carfnbr/254/prrfnbr/406
it's about 17W on primary cells.


----------



## wrathothebunny (May 15, 2007)

My bad, I meant the MN15 lamp.


----------



## mdocod (May 15, 2007)

Ok... now i understand the question better....

as I understand it, the bulbs in the M series may be slightly different than in the P series lamps, they very similar... But I do think that very small reflectors are less efficient than a larger one, because the filament position may be closer to the hole they are mounted through, so a larger "cone" of the "sphere" of light emitted from the filament is lost out the back..

however... I think you should take into consideration, for a moment, that the numbers SF is using, are more marketing related than true to any particular formula. They DO rate very conservatively, but if you were selling 2 different flashlights, one with a turbohead that costed SIGNIFICANTLY more than the non-turbo version, then you would slap a slightly bigger number on it to go along with it's higher price tag. I think the difference in efficiency between a 26mm reflector, and say, a 36mm reflector, is maybe ~3-5%, step up to a ~50mm reflector, and it might be like 5-8% better...

In doing the charts, I treated the P90/MN10/MN15 as the same lamp for all intents and purposes because trying to "guess" what minor differences may be present and recalculating for every possible little variation is futile with no real point. They are all essentially a high pressure lamp that runs about [email protected][email protected][email protected]~175-225 Bulb Lumen. Ballpark figures are good to have to make comparisons, but trying to mathematically figure out an exact number is impossible without more information about the bulbs to begin with. miniature pressurized 9V Lamps rated ~50 hours life like SF lamps tend to be in the 20-25lm/w range. Step down to around 20 hours life, and it's in the 25-30lm/w range, like the LF lamps.


----------



## Gordov2 (May 16, 2007)

mdocod said:


> stands for correlated color temperature. And it is related to the temperature of the filament, but the 2 are not the same, but as the bulb is driven harder, the temperature of the filament rises, and so does the "white point" of the output color.
> 
> On a pair of RCR123s the HO-9 runs about 3300-3325K color temp, where on 3xCR123s, the MN11 is probably somewhere around 3235-3265K. The difference side-by-side would be enough that the whiter look of the HO-9 could easily fool the eyes into distinguishing it as "brighter" when compared on a wall indoors.


 
OK thanks mdocod. On the Kelvin scale above, whcih is closest to the whitest white? Would 3000K be the whitest of the whites?


----------



## mdocod (May 16, 2007)

whatever the light source is becomes white point. if it's an HID with a ~4200K output, then that becomes the white point. Eyes adjust for changing white point. When you turn on the lights in the house, you adjust to a ~3000K white point, when the sun comes up you adjust to a ~5500K whitepoint.

true white rendering would be a light source that does not have a "white point" but emitted all wavelengths of color at the same intensity simultaneously.


----------



## Gordov2 (May 16, 2007)

Mdocod-
I see. Thanks. What about the white light emitting all color wavelengths at the same intensity simultaneously? What color temperature in Kelvin would that be?


----------



## mdocod (May 16, 2007)

I truly don't think it would have a color temperature because it would be equal at all frequencies. I'm pretty sure that would be as futile as asking what the color temperature of complete blackness would be. We have "color temp" to define where the "strongest" output/average is in a range of possible color. Since every source of light available is "un-perfect" so to speak, they can be defined with a white point or kelvin rating. A "perfect" light source with all wavelengths emitted with equal strength would have no rating to define an impurity that isn't there.


[edit] though I suppose if you were to average all light frequency, you might get a CCT that defines the average of everything... maybe it would be 8900K?


----------



## wrathothebunny (May 16, 2007)

mdocod said:


> I truly don't think it would have a color temperature because it would be equal at all frequencies. I'm pretty sure that would be as futile as asking what the color temperature of complete blackness would be. We have "color temp" to define where the "strongest" output/average is in a range of possible color. Since every source of light available is "un-perfect" so to speak, they can be defined with a white point or kelvin rating. A "perfect" light source with all wavelengths emitted with equal strength would have no rating to define an impurity that isn't there.
> 
> 
> [edit] though I suppose if you were to average all light frequency, you might get a CCT that defines the average of everything... maybe it would be 8900K?



My understanding is that this is not correct. For example, Tr-Phosphor Compact Flourescent lights have Color-Temp ratings that average the whole spectrum and do not typically correspond to any of the three spectrum spikes that typically occur in the blue, green, and orange/red spectrum. A "pure" white color temp would likely fall somewhere between 5000-6000 Kelvin, though just because the color temp falls within that spectrum, doesn't mean that the light is "pure." It's one of those cases where the logic of "if A then B" does NOT mean "If B then A." It works in one direction only. In any case, incadescent sources of light typically emit a "Full Spectrum" of light. However, the color temp is usually lower as the spectrum is almost linearly weighted toward the red end of the spectrum, with blue and violet light actually being emmited at the lowest levels. However, ALL of the spectrum is being emmited at some significant levels.


----------



## mdocod (May 16, 2007)

I should have said strongest average, bad communication. not conveying what I mean very well.


----------



## DM51 (May 16, 2007)

mdocod said:


> … asking what the color temperature of complete blackness would be.


*0*, presumably.


----------

