# Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 8/27/2010 (Newer Info Added)



## LuxLuthor

6/28/09 Note: *Ictorana's* Graphs are now being presented in this other pinned thread.

8/14/09: Shoutout to *Drewfus2101* for doing destructive testing of most of the potted Maglite bulbs in charts linked here.

I started testing bulbs after thinking about various ways to get some REAL bulb data, rather than everyone relying on AWR's Hotrater spreadsheet to predict overdriving Incandescent bulbs. I tried to control for as many variables as I can think of, and am showing photos of my setup. I have used two or more new bulbs for all tests listed below done on different nights to verify and correlate results. Complete testing method is listed below thumbnail images. 



 

 




 

 



*Setup for potted bulbs:*

To eliminate resistance, I'll check it using a Magswitch bulb holder I just setup. Soldered 14AWG to parts as shown in these thumbnails:



 

 


*
**Martek 4509Q (Par36) Bulb Tested*
---------------------------------------------------------

4509Q (13V 100W) ***New***


​---------------------------------------------------------

*WA Bulbs Tested*
---------------------------------------------------------

1111


​---------------------------------------------------------

1274


​---------------------------------------------------------

1326



​---------------------------------------------------------

1331


​---------------------------------------------------------

1160 



​--------------------------------------------------------

1164


​--------------------------------------------------------

1166


​---------------------------------------------------------

1185


​---------------------------------------------------------
*MagCharger Bulb Tested*
---------------------------------------------------------

LR00001 (6V 10W)


​---------------------------------------------------------
*Kaidomain Bulb Tested*
---------------------------------------------------------

KD-773U (6V 13.8W)


​---------------------------------------------------------
*Carley Bulbs Tested*
---------------------------------------------------------

CL-809 (10.5V 12.6W) 


​---------------------------------------------------------​

CL-1057 (6V 12W)


​---------------------------------------------------------

CL-1794 (7V 21W) _Custom made for FiveMega
_


​---------------------------------------------------------

CL-1794 (7V 21W) _Revised Default Lumen Rating
_


​---------------------------------------------------------​

CL-43 (14.8V 41W) _Custom made for FiveMega_


​---------------------------------------------------------

FM-1909 (11.4V 63W) _Custom made for FiveMega 
_


​---------------------------------------------------------
*Philips Bulbs Tested*
---------------------------------------------------------

HPR71 (6V 10W Potted) 


​---------------------------------------------------------​

5761 (6V Philips)


​---------------------------------------------------------
*Westinghouse Bulb Tested*
---------------------------------------------------------

4743 (12V 20W)


​---------------------------------------------------------
*GE Bulb Tested*
---------------------------------------------------------

347118 (6V GE)


​---------------------------------------------------------
*AW (Generic Chinese) Bulb Tested*
---------------------------------------------------------

6V 30W 2000Hr Chinese Generic


​---------------------------------------------------------
*ROP Pelican Big-D 3853 & 3854 Bulbs Tested*
---------------------------------------------------------

3853-L 7.2V 11W Pelican Big D Low (NiMH)



​---------------------------------------------------------​

3853-H 7.2V 24W Pelican Big D High(NiMH)


​-------------------------------------------------------​

3854-L 6V 11W Pelican Big D Low


​---------------------------------------------------------​

3854-H 6V 24W Pelican Big D High


​---------------------------------------------------------
*Hikari Bulbs Tested*
---------------------------------------------------------

JC-5033 (12V 35W) 



​---------------------------------------------------------​

JC-5043 (12V 50W) 



​---------------------------------------------------------​

JC-5051 (12V 75W) 



​---------------------------------------------------------​

JC-5607 (6V 20W)



​---------------------------------------------------------
*Osram Bulbs Tested*
---------------------------------------------------------

64250 (6V 20W)



​---------------------------------------------------------​

64430 (6V 35W Osram Brand)


​---------------------------------------------------------

64430 (Tungsram 56580 version from Svetila)


​---------------------------------------------------------

64430 (Top Bulb Chinese Generic)


​---------------------------------------------------------

64275 (6V 35W)



​---------------------------------------------------------

64610 (12V 50W)



​---------------------------------------------------------

62138 (12V 100W - USL)


​---------------------------------------------------------

64625 (12V 100W - USL)


​---------------------------------------------------------

64623 (12V 100W - Torch)


​---------------------------------------------------------

64458 (12V 90W)



​---------------------------------------------------------

50050 Ministar - 12V 50W (Osram Link) 



​---------------------------------------------------------

64432 IRC - 12V 35W



​---------------------------------------------------------

64440 IRC - 12V 50W (Osram Link)



​---------------------------------------------------------

64447 IRC - 12V 65W 


​---------------------------------------------------------

64633 (15V 150W) 



​---------------------------------------------------------

64655 (24V 250W)



​---------------------------------------------------------​

64657 (24V 250W)



​---------------------------------------------------------​

64656 (24V 275W)


​*-------------------------------------------------------------------- *
*
Step One* - I measure bulbs at increasing voltage steps, up to the point where they flash. Each voltage setting only stays long enough to get stable readings.

*Step Two* - I will compare these measurements to the AWR Hotrater Spreadsheet _(based upon WA website's default & predicted overdrive values)_ for correlation with my results among all the tested bulbs. This may lead to some adjustments being made on a revised Hotrater Spreadsheet.

*Step Three *- I will pick what appears to be the two best predicted voltages that optimze lumens with bulb life in an 8-12 hr predicted range, and run the bulbs until they die. The brighter, lower life choice will be done first.

*Test Platform:* I mounted a bare KIU to a block of wood, with 4" wires soldered to 20" 14 AWG test leads, plugged into a Mastech HY3020-D Linear current/voltage adjustable power supply. New bulbs are inserted in KIU & cleaned with Isopropyl alcohol. 

At the same height as the bulb, a black plastic (1" I.D. x 12" long) tube is placed in a horizontal vise position, aimed by looking from far end so bulb appears centered in tube. Inside of tube was abraded to avoid any spot reflections. At exactly 1 meter from bulb, Meterman LM631 light sensor is inserted in far end of tube that has a thin layer of black foam to seal around sensor and hold it in place.

For Step One, a Fluke 179 using a thermistor probe positioned 4mm from bottom of bulb envelope to get relative bulb temps. A black blanket is positioned behind the bulb, and along one side to eliminate reflected light. The idea behind this test platform is to consider an incan bulb as a "point light source," and take Lux measurements with the tube to get a narrow cone of lumen output from the side of the filament.

There is no way to use an Integrating Sphere on a practical basis for this many bulbs, and I am not using a reflector or measuring out the front of a bulb which may introduce hotspot variations. I am using the Amps displayed on the Mastech during this step which only displays 1 decimal.

This platform will not correlate with "bulb lumens" from a manufacturer, in part because I am only measuring a narrow cone of light, and from a distance of 1 meter. However this step will be useful in providing more realistic comparisons between bulbs as long as the same test platform is used. The 1 meter distance helps eliminate bulb artifacts.

Step Two will hopefully allow being able to revise a spreadsheet so it becomes an accurate tool. Right now, we know there are major errors that magnify as you get farther from the manufacturer default results. We may also be able to compare manufacturer claims against other bulbs to see if their default values give accurate Lux measurements when compared.

Step Three will not require the Lux measuring setup, but I will verify the same Lux reading as I got in Step One when starting. This is basically a run time verification of the projected life. I will only be doing this in steps of 1-3 hours at a time, so I verify the bulb failure time at what looks like the best two voltages. I will also use my Fluke to measure the actual Vbulb and current during this step.

I may also consider a Step Four of mounting Lux sensor on wall, and set it to record "Maximum" reading and shine bulb from a distance using a Maglight with adequate battery source and reflector to get a somewhat objective controlled "Torch" hot spot output between various lights. This would be ideal if I could supply regulated (and verified) Vbulb from best result of Step Three. It would very hard to control all the variations from light to light, but would still be some interesting data.


----------



## TorchBoy

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*

Sounds like very useful tests. In step one are you ramping/stepping up the voltage or turning it on at each level from a cold filament? Both could be useful if you're doing soft starts.


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*



TorchBoy said:


> Sounds like very useful tests. In step one are you ramping/stepping up the voltage or turning it on at each level from a cold filament? Both could be useful if you're doing soft starts.



I am just stepping up voltage after I take my readings. I want to control and avoid any possibility of higher spiking voltage on startup (like turning off power supply then back on)...because I'm ultimately trying to assume using this information for soft starting setups. I also would have no idea of the comparison between this power supply starting up and a set of batteries in a non-soft starting setup. The issue you raise gets more into bulb life than it does stable lumen/lux output at a particular voltage....which we assume from the Hotrater.

Gonna do one of my 35W 6V Osrams now just to see how that goes, and an 1166. I'm waiting for one of these bulbs to explode on me.


----------



## TorchBoy

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*



LuxLuthor said:


> I also would have no idea of the comparison between this power supply starting up and a set of batteries in a non-soft starting setup.


Good point. Right on the limit where you're testing a subtle difference may have a significant effect.



LuxLuthor said:


> I'm waiting for one of these bulbs to explode on me.


I hope you're wearing safety goggles etc.


----------



## DM51

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*

LL - this is excellent! Extremely valuable work - very useful indeed. 

_*STICKY !!!*_

The figures for the WA 1185 are very interesting, and as you add others this will become a major reference resource - exactly what is needed.


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*

I added 1166 & the Osram 64430 vs. the TopBulb (Chinese) 64430.

You can start to see how the Hotrater is falling apart on its predictions. I can also see the need for visual reporting of beam color/shape & the Hotspot Lux from a distance I mentioned in Step 4. Right now I am putting these each in a separate Excel sheet, but it's going to be hard to combine all this information in one display.


----------



## karlthev

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*

Lordy Lux, this otta be data you could SELL to the manufacturers!! Thanks!!! Rather incredible work here!!!


Karl


----------



## Valolammas

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*

Excellent! I'm looking forward to your test results.

It just crossed my mind, that do you think the open air environment of the bulb in your setup vs. a small, enclosed space of a flashlight head will have any effect on bulb life? I know heat dissipation isn't much of an issue with incans, but since you are testing them to death, I just thought the filament might be able take a little bit more abuse in open air due to less heat build-up. I don't mean to criticize or anything, I think you are doing a great job! Just a thought.


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*

Thanks Karl. Well this is something I have always wanted to know...and at least there is some objective info now.



Valolammas said:


> Excellent! I'm looking forward to your test results.
> 
> It just crossed my mind, that do you think the open air environment of the bulb in your setup vs. a small, enclosed space of a flashlight head will have any effect on bulb life? I know heat dissipation isn't much of an issue with incans, but since you are testing them to death, I just thought the filament might be able take a little bit more abuse in open air due to less heat build-up. I don't mean to criticize or anything, I think you are doing a great job! Just a thought.



Yeah, I think it is only reasonable to suspect that contained Mag Head heat would affect bulb life somewhat. That's why this is all kind of relative to other comparisons I do with the same setup, and why my Step 3 will run two more of each bulbs at what looks to be the "sweet spot" (you can see my note on far right "pending" of the two voltages I'm intending to use)...and starting with the higher voltage.

If my pending voltages don't last as long as they should, or even longer...you can still use that to extrapolate a bit above and lower voltage.  It's pretty hard to figure out the life of bulbs in a battery powered setup...where you may not run it for more than 20-45 seconds, or where you are using a direct drive setup with startup spikes, battery drain, etc. I have no practical way to keep track of the total bulb life in a light...unless i only had 1 or 2 that I used all the time...so this will at least give us a "ballpark" real life vs. predicted values.


----------



## JimmyM

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*

The results from the 64458 testing will be really interesting.
The hotrater had the bulb lumens over 11,000 at 20.4V. So the measurements Lux makes will be really eye-opening.
Just be sure to move that black blanket nearest the bulb. It won't lasy long against the likes of the 655s and 458s.


----------



## Patriot

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*



DM51 said:


> LL - this is excellent! Extremely valuable work - very useful indeed.
> 
> _*STICKY !!!*_
> 
> The figures for the WA 1185 are very interesting, and as you add others this will become a major reference resource - exactly what is needed.


 

Big time STICKY. This is really great work! Just think how long you guys have been modding and how nice this would have been to know all those years. Thanks to Lux, we'll finally have some very useful info. 

Nice work Lux :thumbsup:


----------



## mudman cj

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*

Excellent work Lux! I am especially interested in the discrepancy you are measuring between predicted lumens and measured lux. This measurement may be good enough as it is, but I thought I would propose a couple of alternatives for discussion.

The potential problem with lux measurements IMO is bulb artifacts, and from your post I think you would agree that this needs to be considered. I also agree with you that lux readings within a reflected (or refracted) beam are subject to a lot of variation and would make repeatable results very difficult to obtain. Your current method still seems subject to bulb artifacts though, since the meter long tube is effectively sampling the output at a small solid angle of the total output (aka lux when adjusted to the right units). What if there happens to be a bulb artifact projected right onto the light meter at the end of the tube?

One way to deal with this is to sample at multiple solid angles and average the results, so you would just reorient the bulb or detector tube. This may be borderline practical.

Another method would be to 'sample' a large solid angle with the help of a reflector and measure the light intensity at the end of your meter long tube through a frosted glass lens to diffuse the beam and obtain a more even light intensity reading. To make myself clear, the diffusing lens would be placed at the beginning of the tube and the meter would be at the end just like it is now. In this way, lux variations within the hotspot would be smoothed out.

Thoughts?


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*

Mudman, the main reason of putting the sensor 1 meter away from the bulb, and position a side reading of bulb envelope was to avoid bulb artifacts. The tube is 12 inches and doesn't run the full meter. Just to see if there was a change in average peak lumens related to transverse filament being parallel or perpendicular to sensor, I rotated bulb block 90 degrees and found no difference (still within 1-2 Lux which I consider at least within the margin of error) after lining it up again. I will check that again with some of the "uglier" filament bulbs.

I suspect that most artifacts we see are more related to output coming out the front of the bulb, and also from the reflection magnification picked up by the reflector. If you put most of the bulbs we use in candle mode and look for artifacts on a white wall perpendicular to bulb, and 1 meter away, they do look like a point light source.

However, for Step 4, I think it would be most useful to have something like a sheet of tracing paper between bulb in reflector testing for torch mode...and the sensor to simulate a bounce test, but still reflect the hottest spot projected on the paper/screen.


----------



## petrev

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*

:thumbsup:


----------



## JetskiMark

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*



DM51 said:


> LL - this is excellent! Extremely valuable work - very useful indeed.
> 
> _*STICKY !!!*_
> 
> The figures for the WA 1185 are very interesting, and as you add others this will become a major reference resource - exactly what is needed.



I agree, outstanding work Lux. Thank you for your time, effort and testing expenses.

Regards,
Mark


----------



## jimjones3630

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*

Well done Lux, very well done. 2nd or 3rd the Sticky:thumbsup:


----------



## TorchBoy

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*

Measured life in hours for the top setting is zero - could be added to the spreadsheets.


----------



## Lips

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*

*$20 donation* to help cover bulb expense/cost if you'll take it... 


 




This should give us some good voltage set-points for AW's new D regulator, will it not...


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*

Thanks Lip & everyone. Yeah, one of the main reason's I wanted to do this was the find "The Sweet Spot" for regulated drivers. I'm saving my tray of dead bulbs !!! I actually tested a couple of them twice tonight to verify correct numbers to see if there was a signifiicant variation in bulb quality control. I also made sure to make the transverse filaments perpendicular to tube, so it is looking at side of filament. 

My double runs of the 1185, 1164, 1166, 1331, 5761, C-43, 64625, 64623, 64458 were almost on the money...like mostly within 2 to 5% which is much better correlation than I hoped for. I redid the Osram 64430 because I realized I forgot to make sure it was centered in the tube...late last night, and results were better on repeat. There's some more tests I put up just now. It is getting pretty interesting comparing some of these now.


----------



## plasmaman

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*

Great work Lux - very useful indeed :thumbsup:

Look forward to seeing the GE34711, Osram 64250 and WA1274 soon!


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*

I actually did two tests with every bulb so far, just to make sure I had correlated results....and to finish off the night, just posting an *IRC 50W*. I am not going to do run times on these beauties, but I did test it twice for correlation.


----------



## jimjones3630

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*

7.8vbulb to 5761. Wooo hooo, that is some tuff bulbs Lux. 
where did you get yours?


----------



## DMC

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*

It's interesting that your current measurements for the 64623 and 64625 did not agree with the manufactures designed specifications. The rerate formula for current gives a much better prediction when using your measured currents at 12 volt.

64623 (16.5V/12V)^.55 * 8.9 = 10.6A instead of 9.92A, LL measured 10.7A at 16.5V
64625 (14V/12V)^.55 * 9.2 = 10.01A instead of 9.07A, LL measured 9.9A at 14V

Any plans on testing the 62138?


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*

Plasmaman, all done! Thanks for that GE bulb

JJ, I just ordered them from TopBulb. I did every bulb twice to verify that my tube alignment, voltage/amps/lumens were close...and was amazed at how tight all values were....including the two Philips. Remember, I'm stepping up the voltage after taking reading...so no spikes. This is a linear power supply (don't know if the more typical "switch" PS matters).

DMC, that is actually a known issue primarily with Osram. I had some long discussions with AWR and he wanted me to specifically go back (with a 3rd bulb if I had one) and measure the default amp using my Fluke and a 100A=100mV shunt (in photo below), which I did tonight and revised images to indicate. All Hotrater predictions are based on the default values, so this was important. Now the challenge is to figure out the formulas to make spreadsheet reflect reality.

But as of tonight, I have tested 19 unique bulbs...most of them had two runs done to flash...so that's about 35 bulbs....and none exploded on me.  I reformatted the display organization on top so it easier to find results.

I got this shunt from here.


----------



## Esthan

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*

Lux You are absolutely crazy ! 

Wonderful tests ! Keep it going


----------



## DMC

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*

I don't think the vendors advertised current at 12V for either 64623 or the 64625 are right. Do both bulbs really have a current at 12V of exactly 8.33A?

And if you use your measured current at 12V the Hotrate formula does a lot better predicting the measured current.








Also, thanks for measurements on the 62138 and all the other bulbs.

Awesome!


----------



## plasmaman

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*

So the GE 34711 is a viable alternative to the 64430 - and it seems more resilient to voltage - in fact I saw 13v on one on my bench supply and it did not flash, but that must have been a freak!
I just built a 3D with 3xemoli for this bulb, and its great!
Great work Lux, and really useful info for later on when AW gets the reg switch finalised.
I suppose in an ideal world, having established the 'flash point' of these bulbs on a stepped voltage basis, it would be great to know the cold start flash point for each bulb - in the real world that's what folks are going to be doing with their lights, and if AW's switch is not user configurable(?) and he has to set it, it would be good to know this so that the optimum voltage could be specified when ordering.
Hey AW - send more bulbs to Lux!


----------



## jimjones3630

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*

Lux, on the bench you won't get amp inrush at turn on assume your starting at 0.0v at turn on. You have a soft start method in your testing. 

I used the same method with a linear bence power and stated so in my posted results but very impressive 5761 7.8v not doubting you. Never heard of a 5761 going 7.8v soft start or not.

I wonder if repeating the test twice with same type bulb could give the same results and still be off. I'm thinking an instrument out of calibration would give every measurement taken the same erroneous findings.




LuxLuthor said:


> Plasmaman, all done! Thanks for that GE bulb
> 
> JJ, I just ordered them from TopBulb. I did every bulb twice to verify that my tube alignment, voltage/amps/lumens were close...and was amazed at how tight all values were....including the two Philips. Remember, I'm stepping up the voltage after taking reading...so no spikes. This is a linear power supply (don't know if the more typical "switch" PS matters).
> 
> DMC, that is actually a known issue primarily with Osram. I had some long discussions with AWR and he wanted me to specifically go back (with a 3rd bulb if I had one) and measure the default amp using my Fluke and a 100A=100mV shunt (in photo below), which I did tonight and revised images to indicate. All Hotrater predictions are based on the default values, so this was important. Now the challenge is to figure out the formulas to make spreadsheet reflect reality.
> 
> But as of tonight, I have tested 19 unique bulbs...most of them had two runs done to flash...so that's about 35 bulbs....and none exploded on me.  I reformatted the display organization on top so it easier to find results.
> 
> I got this shunt from here.


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*

*DMC*, AWR reminded me that Osram didn't specify the amps at default voltage, we just divided Watts/Default Voltage and assumed...here is a typical link from them. So we could never have been accurate without knowing the measured default voltage amps. :thumbsup: 

The "predicted" values of 100W/12V=8.3A, but you can see the 64625 has a measured of 9.1A and 64623 of 8.8A. Eventually a new Hotrater spreadsheet will include actual default values and more accurate formulas to reflect real overdrive results.

*Plasmaman*, without a soft starting driver your cold start reality is accurate. However, trying to reproduce a realistic cold start seems very hard to control variables. You have issues of the test platform/switch resistance, battery factors (type/combination/manufacturer quality/age of cell/internal resistance/hookup resistance/level of charge), behaviour of bench power supply vs. batteries on startup...it just got too hard to make sense out of.

I was also thinking of putting a couple bulbs in AW's D starting direct driver just to see how the lux measures at the same voltages, and on his low/med/high power settings. But, remember AW's (& AWR's) are soft starting, so these flash points should still be realistic. The more important issue is the tested run time...to see how that holds up. 

I think measuring 2 representative WA bulbs against their predicted life points would likely extrapolate well for all other WA's, since their numbers were in better correlation with their website rating predictor. Then I would likely just do two run times each of Osrams: 64430, 64275, & a couple of the 12V'ers. Will likely test predicted run times of 5761, C-43, and Tungsram 64430 (whenever I get them from Slovenia)!

* JJ,* that is how I tested, turning dial from zero, and switching to fine tune dial when I was getting close to target voltage. Then I stepped up from tested voltage to higher levels in chart without going back to 0V each time.

Any variation from readings you got with 5761 could have been from resistance differences between setups, and I tried to keep mine as simple as possible...14AWG wire soldered to test lead plugs, other end soldered to KIU bipin leads, & shrinkwrapped solder connections. 

I did verify the reported Amps on default and several other points for each bulb with my Fluke + 100A=100mV shunt, and Fluke tested voltage on a few bulbs with wires on bipins to make sure it correlated with the display I was reading on Power Supply...which it did.

If there is a real difference (assuming both our test methods and measuring were the same and calibrated), it could always be a manufacturer QA issue from batches to batches. To prove that theory, we would have to exchange new bulbs and see if we each got different readings with other batches.


----------



## jimjones3630

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*

Lux Slovenia still subing last order anyway Tungsram 56580 for 64430. Be glad to send you couple 56580 if not get from them or if not ordered yet will send couple to you, just pm your address again.

Your method of soldering all connection is what I didn't do and NL mentioned some time back he had a punny batch of 5761's flashing, forget exactly.

Thanks for clearification on your methodology.

jim



LuxLuthor said:


> Tungsram 64430 (whenever I get them from Slovenia)!
> 
> *JJ,* that is how I tested, turning dial from zero, and switching to fine tune dial when I was getting close to target voltage. Then I stepped up from tested voltage to higher levels in chart without going back to 0V each time.
> 
> Any variation from readings you got with 5761 could have been from resistance differences between setups, and I tried to keep mine as simple as possible...14AWG wire soldered to test lead plugs, other end soldered to KIU bipin leads, & shrinkwrapped solder connections.
> 
> I did verify the reported Amps on default and several other points for each bulb with my Fluke + 100A=100mV shunt, and Fluke tested voltage on a few bulbs with wires on bipins to make sure it correlated with the display I was reading on Power Supply...which it did.
> 
> If there is a real difference (assuming both our test methods and measuring were the same and calibrated), it could always be a manufacturer QA issue from batches to batches. To prove that theory, we would have to exchange new bulbs and see if we each got different readings with other batches.


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*

I have ordered a lot of bulbs from Svetila in the past...maybe 6 orders that all came within 2 weeks. This last order placed on 10/5 for 18 of the Tungsrams_ (which was the threshold for same postage)_ never came, and each query met with "wait another week please." If they don't reship this week, then I will dispute credit card....so I'll take you up on the offer for two in the meantime. PM sent!


----------



## LumenHound

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*

Outstanding work Lux! This answers so many questions. Your destructive tests will save all of us a wad of cash.

:twothumbs

Thankyou.


----------



## mdocod

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*

this needs to be a sticky in the threads of interest, very good info here.... I love the charts.... easy to read, good layout, job well done, pat yourself on the back a few times!!!


----------



## petrev

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*

Hi Lux

Love It ! ! !

One regulated driver (or JM-SST/SSR) for (IRC35), IRC50, IRC65 and 64458 

19.5V (6x E-Moli)
349LML - 449LML - 595LML (( Lux Measured Lux ))
! LOLA to WHOLA

or regulate lower for constant output and longer run/life ? ? ?

18.5V (6x A123)
308LML - 395LML - 515LML 

17.5V (5x E-Moli)
270LML - 341LML - 442LML 

Thanks for all this work
Pete


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*

I wish they made Emoli/A123 in smaller sizes. I just can't deal with a 5C/5D or 6D for a light. Thanks for all the nice comments!


----------



## Action

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*

Great work Lux, I'll further the call for a sticky as this is the kind of to the bleeding edge testing that will get the best from incandescent bulbs.


----------



## Action

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*

The more I look at the data, this should be in a pivot table so that users could arrange the table based on whatever criteria they would like.


----------



## DM51

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*



Action said:


> pivot table


Qué?


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*

Also Que? Pivot table? :thinking:


----------



## Aircraft800

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*

Nice Work LuxLuthor,

I like that GE Bulb you tested, It looks like it is overbuilt or underrated. It sure looks like driving this at 9.6v with 8 High Drain Ni-Mh cells in a 2D host would give a whopping 2200 lumens with a generous 10 Hour lamp life. Nice tactical Blinder!!

(Oh Yea, soft start would be needed like a NTC or AW Driver)

I Think you found a new Hotwire Bulb!!

(Nope, Plasmaman did, I found your post in another thread)


----------



## Action

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*



LuxLuthor said:


> Also Que? Pivot table? :thinking:



An Excel function. Search for help on pivot table and play with it a bit. Its quite a powerful feature for displaying data.


----------



## DM51

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*

Ohhh, Excel. Right, yeah. Excel, huh? Sure thing. Easy, lol. Yeah, good old Excel. Everyone can work Excel, right? 

Uhhh… hey guys, could someone tell me where the Excel for dummies thread is? lol


----------



## Action

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*

I believe that all this data is already in excel. If I could get it, I'd be happy to combine it and send it back to someone to post for FTP...


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*

Action, I put each bulb's data on its own Excel page mainly because this first phase involved collecting data points for each bulb. I'm doing the run times now.

Ultimately, we want to construct a hotrater file that has realistic formulas for each tested bulb. It didn't make sense to release the premature data points yet...and last I heard, AW's regulated D driver was "months" away.

I'm checking the Lux readings a 3rd/4th time when setting bulbs at my hopeful "sweet spot" voltages, and running them until dead. The run time information is just as important as the maximum voltage flash point. I'm doing the Osram 64430 at 10V now....but what if it died after 2 hours, despite the WA bulb formula derived Hotrater predicted 9 hours? 

Of note with this 3rd O-64430 it gives Lux of 198 at 10V which is a little less than my last two bulbs tested in step up manner. Each 1-2 hour run time segment for life, I'm taking fresh Lux readings to see how wide the spread is.


----------



## Action

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*

I think one of the valuable things about this data right now is the ability to choose the particular voltage output inherent in the battery design and quantity and then make truly informed choices about which bulb to use. Its not so easy to quickly do this with the choices spread among multiple spreadsheets (please do not take this as critical, just a statement, ease of data collection is important, consolidation after the fact is often easy).


----------



## mzzj

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*



LuxLuthor said:


> I wish they made Emoli/A123 in smaller sizes. I just can't deal with a 5C/5D or 6D for a light. Thanks for all the nice comments!



How about 2 or 3 A123 cell lamp with boost converter to drive 35/50W IRC?



mzzj said:


> I am pretty sure that I could fit that ~67W converter on 32mm x20mm round case. (1/3 of D-size cell or so) 120W could be more tricky, but nothing unheard of. Resulting converter size would be about 16cm3 (one cubic inc) State of the art dc-dc converters operate with power densities up to 1000W/in^3 so 70W/in3 or even 120W/in3 is hardly even any hi-tech.


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*



Action said:


> I think one of the valuable things about this data right now is the ability to choose the particular voltage output inherent in the battery design and quantity and then make truly informed choices about which bulb to use. Its not so easy to quickly do this with the choices spread among multiple spreadsheets (please do not take this as critical, just a statement, ease of data collection is important, consolidation after the fact is often easy).



I agree with you about this difficulty using all the multiple spreadsheets for each bulb. I wanted to get some of the run times done though because it seemed that just using what I have so far isn't as useful until you know how long the bulb will last. I also wanted to see how the data came out during these tests...and as you might expect it is pretty interesting....even with only 1 run time done so far.


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*



mzzj said:


> How about 2 or 3 A123 cell lamp with boost converter to drive 35/50W IRC?



I didn't want to get into these kind of questions in this thread, since it is mainly about getting objective data on bulbs, and how to improve/interperet information we have never had before. 

What anyone wants to do with various solutions & possibilities like you suggest is then a whole other (& very useful/interesting) series of conversations.


----------



## Timaxe

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*

Lux, I'm wondering if you can do a simple Voltage/Current bit to the collected data to derive the Resistance of the bulb.

Ideally this could give us some insight into the temperature of the bulb, since under most circumstances the resistance of materials increases as its temperature goes up (this behavior explains why a 'cold' bulb may need multiple clicks on some LiIon cells to warm up and stay on). I don't know how this holds at the extremes of temperatures, but this resistance data could be a useful value to look at.

Because of how the data is sampled there will be a lot of noise in this value, but it might be useful on a per-bulb basis to see how it is performing. Thanks & good work collecting this data!


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*



Timaxe said:


> Lux, I'm wondering if you can do a simple Voltage/Current bit to the collected data to derive the Resistance of the bulb.
> 
> Ideally this could give us some insight into the temperature of the bulb, since under most circumstances the resistance of materials increases as its temperature goes up (this behavior explains why a 'cold' bulb may need multiple clicks on some LiIon cells to warm up and stay on). I don't know how this holds at the extremes of temperatures, but this resistance data could be a useful value to look at.
> 
> Because of how the data is sampled there will be a lot of noise in this value, but it might be useful on a per-bulb basis to see how it is performing. Thanks & good work collecting this data!



I can add another column that posts result of V/I once I get more of these run times. Thanks for suggestion!


----------



## hoffner5

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*

How about doing the ROP bulbs?


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*

I would have considered it...despite the expense, but my testing bulb holder is a KIU bipin as in pix. I'm not doing any potted bulbs.


----------



## deeuubee

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*

I'm not familiar with incan bulbs yet. Are any of the ones you tested MR-16? I'm looking at those for the Kui sockets when they come in mainly because I have a ton of them. If not, would you consider doing some if I send them to you?


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*



deeuubee said:


> I'm not familiar with incan bulbs yet. Are any of the ones you tested MR-16? I'm looking at those for the Kui sockets when they come in mainly because I have a ton of them. If not, would you consider doing some if I send them to you?



I do appreciate your generous offer, but if the MR-16 look like this page image, I dont think it will work, as I am testing clear glass envelope bulbs that show up as a "point light source" from the side like this view of "dead soldiers" below. I don't think the MR-16 would show up from a side view like my setup in post #1. If I'm wrong about your bulb, by all means I would enjoy adding it to the list.


----------



## deeuubee

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*

Yes, those are the bulbs. I was thinking about trying a small variable pot to adjust the voltage to the bulb in order to have adjustable output. Knowing at what voltage to stop before they go POOF! would have been great. I could have put a stop or maybe found a pot in the right range before hand. I'll give it a go until the AW regulated drivers come out.

Thanks for all the great info. I search for your posts whenever I need straight answers.


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*



deeuubee said:


> Yes, those are the bulbs. I was thinking about trying a small variable pot to adjust the voltage to the bulb in order to have adjustable output. Knowing at what voltage to stop before they go POOF! would have been great. I could have put a stop or maybe found a pot in the right range before hand. I'll give it a go until the AW regulated drivers come out.
> 
> Thanks for all the great info. I search for your posts whenever I need straight answers.



Oh well if you want me to just test the amps and volts in a stepwise manner (but not lumens), I would be happy to do that for you....and can give you general observation of output. Send me a PM if this would be useful info.

I should be getting those O-64430 Tungsram clone replacement bulbs, and AW's 6V 30W bulb arriving next week. Meanwhile, gathering run times.


----------



## SuRgE

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*

Just what I needed since I'm a newbie to M*g mods and keep flashing bulbs!

Great job Lux:twothumbs


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*

Will be adding AW's chinese bulb results, and finally got my replacement shipment of Tungsram 6v from Svetila today. Run times continue to be surprising with variable decrease of lumens with different bulbs, and not what AWR's hotrater was predicting.


----------



## Northern Lights

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*



LuxLuthor said:


> Will be adding AW's chinese bulb results, and finally got my replacement shipment of Tungsram 6v from Svetila today. Run times continue to be surprising with variable decrease of lumens with different bulbs, and not what AWR's hotrater was predicting.



Yes, Please! LL, something I have noticed in certain bench runs or mock ups on my existing hot wires when experimenting with some of these bulbs was a qualitative, very subjective and noticeable decrease in expected brightness. I never mentioned much about it; I assumed the variables in battery conditions or circuits problems were the cause and not the bulb. So it does not surprise me you are finding actual light outputs to be lower and not predictable by our current collection of mathematical models.


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*

Yes, there is that....but also a surprising drop in lumens with overdriven bulb as run time progresses that was never even brought up. I suspect that running a bulb at its default specification voltage/current would not result in the lumen drop over bulb life...but when overdriving....suffice it to say there is a whole other issue to factor into arriving at a bulb's "sweet spot" voltage/current. There is a degree of OD'ing particular bulbs (using Hotrater 9-15 hour ideal bulb-life range), after which it does so much apparent damage to the filament that it becomes like a limp dishrag.


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 12/2/07*

Added the *AW Chinese generic 6V 30W 2000Hr bulb* that has been discussed in other threads. No known default lumens were given by AW. Many thanks to AW for sending me these sample bulbs. Sturdy bulb for 30W as compared to 6V 35W, and will be interesting to see its run times.

Also added the *Svetila.com *equivalent of the Osram 64430, made by *Tungsram (#56580)*, and revised the projected lumen and life stats of the Top Bulb 64430 version which I noticed had different defaults from their website here.

I have not posted the run times for bulbs yet, which continues to be a crucial factor in deciding on bulb quality. I can also see the need for a summary comparison sheet of the various 6V options.


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 12/2/07*

Based on my comparison testing, I guess you could consider my implicit endorsement of AW's $3.50 6V 30W bulb by considering that I just ordered 30 of them from him. Many thanks for his sending me the samples for testing.

Waiting on the ROP being sent by Pokerstud. I posted my pix of the low resistance testing setup on first post. I continue working with AWR revising his Hotrater formulas, and being shocked at the results of the run time results.


----------



## Northern Lights

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 12/2/07*



LuxLuthor said:


> Based on my comparison testing, I guess you could consider my implicit endorsement of AW's $3.50 6V 30W bulb by considering that I just ordered 30 of them from him. Many thanks for his sending me the samples for testing.
> 
> Waiting on the ROP being sent by Pokerstud. I posted my pix of the low resistance testing setup on first post. I continue working with AWR revising his Hotrater formulas, and being shocked at the results of the run time results.


My, friend, LL, based on your charts and having seen the physical proportions of this bulb, I know it is a bright bulb and compares very directly to the Chinese 64430. The Chinese 64430 has a similiar Lux output and predicted over 6000 lumens. I would expect this bulb to act like wise but be brighter in total lumens because of the LUX readings. 
Subjectively, did it appear to out perform the 64430 in actual use as far as beam patterns and comparative brilliance?


----------



## LumenHound

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 12/2/07*



LuxLuthor said:


> Based on my comparison testing, I guess you could consider my implicit endorsement of AW's $3.50 6V 30W bulb by considering that I just ordered 30 of them from him. Many thanks for his sending me the samples for testing.


 
Lux, I don't get it. :thinking:

According to the charts, AW's 6 volt 30 watt mystery bulb used 64.6 watts to produce a reading of 139 lux while the Philips 6 volt 30 watt bulb produced a slightly higher 143 lux at only 37.8 watts.
I think I know what bulb my batteries would prefer.

Sure, you can crazy overdrive the AW bulb but why would you want to when other 6 volt bulbs seem so much more efficient at producing higher light levels at much lower consumption rates?

In this example, 70% higher power consumption seems an awfully high price to pay for reduced instaflash risk with the AW mystery bulb.


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 12/2/07*

*Northern Lights*, I will have to load them both in lights using similar reflectors. As you know, bulb hotspots, artifacts, throw, and other performance characteristics are a whole other matter, and can be much more subjectively derived.

*LumenHound*, on a purely Lux/Watt basis, I cannot dispute your observations....however, IMHO that is too limited in evaluating an incan bulb's usefulness. I am not saying the Philips 5761 is a bad bulb if used in the proper setup....ideally with a regulated driver.

The 5761 has a VERY narrow voltage tolerance range, and because its ideal Amps are just beyond the AW Li-Ion PTC cutoff, there are few flat output battery options, despite the bulb being 50-75% more expensive (including shipping). Two fully charged Li-Ions without a PTC can easily flash the bulb unless resistance is added. AW's developing regulated D Driver would make it more useful. Until then I would not recommend using the 5761 without an AWR Hotdriver.

By contrast, the AW bulb voltage range makes it much more tolerant of direct drive battery choices. At a higher *practical % *overdrive, it slightly outperforms the 5761 in lux measurement. 

Then there is the whole issue which I have alluded to--namely--lux dropoff with age at a particular overdrive voltage. Suffice it to say that my short term "initial max lux" readings reported on first post can drop off precipitously with accumulated run time--depending on the bulb. This additional information will need to be displayed as curves of Lux vs. Hrs (at particular voltage).

If your primary concern is choosing optimal Lux/Watt efficiency (aka: Lux/battery run time), they would choose LED's and deal with the unnatural color, flood beam, and lack of focus (aspherical LED mags excepted). While the Lux/Watt notion is of merit, I personally do not reach for a particular light thinking of which will use less energy for recharging. If I need more run time, I may choose another light, or take another set of batteries.


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 12/9/07 (ROP)*

*Big thanks to Pokerstud who sent me a set of 3854 Big D bulbs which I tested and posted on 1st thread.* 

I used assumptions that I read in the FAQ thread that 3854-L is 11W 6V 290L at default; and 3854-H is 24W 6V 600L at default specifications.

I didn't see a reliable value for life, and remember my Amp measurements only goes to 0.1 digits. You can also see picture of my setup which has almost no resistance. I always test bulbs with transverse filaments like this bulb has perpendicular to light sensor/tube axis. I'm not an ROP Guru, but I'm guessing that the sweet spot is the 8V 4.7A setting.


----------



## Jenova

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 12/9/07 (ROP)*

This has got to be the best thread eva 
Needs a Sticky 

Well Done Lux  Nice Work


----------



## Pokerstud

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 12/9/07 (ROP)*



LuxLuthor said:


> *Big thanks to Pokerstud who sent me a set of 3854 Big D bulbs which I tested and posted on 1st thread.*
> 
> I used assumptions that I read in the FAQ thread that 3854-L is 11W 6V 290L at default; and 3854-H is 24W 6V 600L at default specifications.
> 
> I didn't see a reliable value for life, and remember my Amp measurements only goes to 0.1 digits. You can also see picture of my setup which has almost no resistance. I always test bulbs with transverse filaments like this bulb has perpendicular to light sensor/tube axis. I'm not an ROP Guru, but I'm guessing that the sweet spot is the 8V 4.7A setting.



Lux,

I am rather amazed at what the 11W LOLA can take as compared to the 24W HOLA. Great work Lux.


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 12/9/07 (ROP)*



Pokerstud said:


> Lux,
> 
> I am rather amazed at what the 11W LOLA can take as compared to the 24W HOLA. Great work Lux.



That surprised me too...but when I read the back of the 2-pack it says 3854-H is high intensity lamp; *3854-L is long time lamp*. Just goes to show how much is controlled by the lamp manufacturing specifications.


----------



## missionaryman

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 12/9/07 (ROP)*

that's great research on the ROP bulb, seems it can be pushed much harder and perform far better that the CPF community knew about.
great discovery


----------



## Jenova

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 12/9/07 (ROP)*

hey lux how maqny of the same bulb do you test ?
is it just the on of are the results of an average of a certain amout of bulbs ?


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 12/9/07 (ROP)*

Every report was done with two bulbs, done on different nights, except I only had one of the new ROP-H (but had two ROP-L), and one of the TopBulb version of 64430.

In every case despite taking down testing tube setup, and setting it up again another night, the results were way closer than I would have thought....flash points mostly within 0.2V of previous reading, Amps the same at every point, and Lux within 2-5 Lux at almost every voltage data point. In the 2 or 3 data point cases (out of hundreds of data points for all bulbs) where there was between 5-10 Lux difference, I took the average. Never had more than 10 Lux difference. 

I take my time to measure the exact distance (1 meter) between bulb & sensor; same height & distance from side of table. I make sure to have bulbs with transverse filament perpendicular to sensor tube direction, and line up by sight from a distance behind back of tube so the bulb is centered.


----------



## Jenova

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 12/9/07 (ROP)*

Well done Lux 
thats pretty sweet 



LuxLuthor said:


> Every report was done with two bulbs, done on different nights, except I only had one of the new ROP-H (but had two ROP-L), and one of the TopBulb version of 64430.
> 
> In every case despite taking down testing tube setup, and setting it up again another night, the results were way closer than I would have thought....flash points mostly within 0.2V of previous reading, Amps the same at every point, and Lux within 2-5 Lux at almost every voltage data point. In the 2 or 3 data point cases (out of hundreds of data points for all bulbs) where there was between 5-10 Lux difference, I took the average. Never had more than 10 Lux difference.
> 
> I take my time to measure the exact distance (1 meter) between bulb & sensor; same height & distance from side of table. I make sure to have bulbs with transverse filament perpendicular to sensor tube direction, and line up by sight from a distance behind back of tube so the bulb is centered.


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 12/9/07 (ROP)*

Some information on my testing, and what it means.

You have to recognize that manufacturers specify a default voltage lumen output, which is ONLY accurate if they test their bulb in an "integrating sphere" ("I.S.")--which measures the total output of the bulb from all directions. This is referred to as "bulb lumens." 

However, not all manufacturers that list their default voltage bulb lumens have actually had the value *independently *verified in an I.S., because they are quite expensive.

Then the next thing to recognize is extrapolating higher lumens based on a Welch Allyn re-rating formula (on their website URL) as voltage and current changes....is not valid for other bulb types. It even becomes invalid for WA pushed higher than 25-30% of default voltage. Specifically, notice the values of this 1185 bulb for voltage and current in the URL. By manually inserting different voltage/amperage values in the URL, you can force the WA website to use a set of formulas to predict bulb lumen output at various inputs.



Code:


http://www.walamp.com/lpd/webstore/rerate.tpl?action=rerate&V2=10.8&L2=3.36&adj=5&partnumber=01185-U

What you see on my destructive testing charts, under the "*Predicted Lumens*" column is based entirely on this re-rating formula from WA's website URL, once their formulas were figured out and put into a spreadsheet by CPF member AWR. In contrast, my Lux readings are ACTUAL tested results taken by light meter on 2 separate bulbs, mostly done on two separate nights. If the 2nd bulb test results did not correlate within a few lux of the 1st bulb tested (which was only the case with two bulbs), a 3rd bulb was sacrificed, and the two closest readings were then used.

This lack of objective data from bulb to bulb is why I did the destructive bulb testing. You can read my setup description in the initial post, and why I measured Lux at 1 Meter. I saw this testing as akin to Silverfox independently testing all the batteries at various Amp discharge loads. 

I'm not even sure that you can use my Lux reading compared to manufacturer's default voltage bulb lumens, and extrapolate bulb lumens at raised voltages...in part because it assumes default voltage bulb lumens that the manufacturer listed are correct. 

For example if you look at the 5761 bulb, Philips says at 6V it puts out 765 BL. My measurement gave 94 Lux at 6V. 

So theoretically, if you wanted to know what an accurate bulb lumen reading would be at 7V, you could take my tested value of 143 Lux. Then you should be able to solve for x in this equation based upon the default "known" comparisons:

94 Lux 143 Lux
------ = ------ (cross multiply)
765 BL x BL


94x = 109,395 (solve for x)

x = 109,395/94

*x = 1164 bulb lumens*

Is 1164 BL more accurate than the WA formula predicting 1312 BL for a Philips bulb? Honestly, I don't know. 

I do know however that an actual (repeated) Lux test reading of 143 Lux is a brighter reading than any of the Lux readings I got testing the WA 1185 bulb here. I also know that the Philips 5761 bulb is 52% brighter at 7V than at 6V....which is more reliable than the WA formula predicting it is 71.5% brighter.


----------



## medicmerlynn

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 1/7/08 (Info Added)*

lux... i'll save the padding by using just one word:

thanks!


----------



## AMD64Blondie

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 1/7/08 (Info Added)*

Question: I just received a newly built Mag85 from KEW,a fellow forum member. (He sent the batteries fully charged). How long do I need to wait before turning my new light on,so I don't instaflash my new Mag85's expensive bulb? (The bulb is a Welch-Allyn WA1185..)

(Also,do I need to remove the Mag's lense before turning it on?) 

Thanks,Mike


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 1/7/08 (Info Added)*



AMD64Blondie said:


> Question: I just received a newly built Mag85 from KEW,a fellow forum member. (He sent the batteries fully charged). How long do I need to wait before turning my new light on,so I don't instaflash my new Mag85's expensive bulb? (The bulb is a Welch-Allyn WA1185..)
> 
> (Also,do I need to remove the Mag's lense before turning it on?)
> 
> Thanks,Mike



It depends on which batteries, how many, state of current battery charge (NiMH drop quickly), what other stock or modded components are in it, whether he did any resistance mods, etc. It should have a glass lens and metal reflector replacing stock plastic.


----------



## DMC

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 1/7/08 (Info Added)*

Does anyone have any experience with a Sylvania 58680?

[SIZE=-1] *Light Output:* [/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 1,450 lumens [/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] *Energy Used:* [/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 75 watts [/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] *Average Lifetime:* [/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 4,000 hours [/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] *Volts:* [/SIZE] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica][SIZE=-1] 12 [/SIZE][/FONT] [SIZE=-1] *Bulb Type:* [/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] T4 [/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] *Base Type:* [/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] GY6.35 Bi-Pin [/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] *Color Temperature:* [/SIZE] [SIZE=-1] 3,000K *Axial Filament*
[/SIZE]
https://www.lightbulbemporium.com/proddetail.asp?prod=58680
and
http://www.servicelighting.com/catalog_product.cfm?prod=SL58680


----------



## Techjunkie

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 1/7/08 (Info Added)*

Where do the Maglite branded Xenon (Mag-num Star) drop-in bulbs weigh in here? Does their 6 Cell Xenon replacement approach the ROP L 11W? Thanks.


----------



## Northern Lights

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 1/7/08 (Info Added)*



Techjunkie said:


> Where do the Maglite branded Xenon (Mag-num Star) drop-in bulbs weigh in here? Does their 6 Cell Xenon replacement approach the ROP L 11W? Thanks.


No, they are lower outputs. The ROP is the pelican bulb listed above.
The Mag Charger, Mags premier bipin rechargeable is 200 lumens. You see the Manum Star will fall in below that or they would put that in the MC. Manum Star is a quick, cheap and good way to get more light but there is no substitute that compares to the hot wire moddifications. The WA 01160 bulb, a bipin that is made for 5V is put into Mag Chargers at 6Vs and that runs at about 369 torch lumens. (Bulb lumens x .65 = torch lumens which is how much light goes out the front) . Next Hope the comparison helps demonstrate the differences.


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 1/7/08 (Info Added)*

Big thanks to *Pertinax *for sending me two 64610 bulbs and *Ictorana *for two Energizer HPR-71 (6V/10W) bulbs for me to test. I'll post testing results when I get to them in next few days.


----------



## jimjones3630

*64430 (Tungsram 56580 version from Svetila)*

Noticed you have the Tungsram 56580 bulb listed with a 4,000 hour life. 4,000 hour life is mistakenly listed on Svetila web page. 

2000 hour life is listed on the factory carton. see pic. Lumens would double?







After plugging in Lux values and correct bulb life of 2000 hours the lumens did about double.

https://www.candlepowerforums.com/posts/2337776#post2337776

added: used volts and amps measured in my mod. 10.1 vbat, 9.5vbulb


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: 64430 (Tungsram 56580 version from Svetila)*



jimjones3630 said:


> Noticed you have the Tungsram 56580 bulb listed with a 4,000 hour life. 4,000 hour life is mistakenly listed on Svetila web page.
> 
> 2000 hour life is listed on the factory carton. see pic. Lumens would double?
> 
> After plugging in Lux values and correct bulb life of 2000 hours the lumens did about double.
> 
> https://www.candlepowerforums.com/posts/2337776#post2337776



Good info from box. Thanks. I did take the 4,000 hrs from the Svetila site, as I didn't get a box like this, and will correct that chart when this CPF website isn't going down every 2 mins. 

The reduction of life down to 2,000 hrs means projected bulb life will now shorten, but I'm not seeing where a shortened lifespan would have an effect on projected lumens, or measured Lux.


----------



## jimjones3630

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 1/7/08 (Info Added)*

Did double the lumens in the hot rater with correct bulb life or 2000 hours and the measured volts, amps in my mod. see the link in my last post.

The predicted bulb life did go from 16 something hours down to 8 hours when corrected the design bulb life to 2000. That was not the only change. getting 9.5vbulb bumped the "real lumens" to over 3,200.


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 1/7/08 (Info Added)*



jimjones3630 said:


> Did double the lumens in the hot rater with correct bulb life or 2000 hours and the measured volts, amps in my mod. see the link in my last post.
> 
> The predicted bulb life did go from 16 something hours down to 8 hours when corrected the design bulb life to 2000. That was not the only change. getting 9.5vbulb bumped the "real lumens" to over 3,200.



Jim, now you got me really curious. You are not using any of the versions of Hotraters that I have ever seen. None of my various Hotrater versions have formulas that use bulb life in any calculation for lumens. 

When I think about the concept of using bulb life, I cannot think of a reason that it would affect Lumens either. Certainly, the measured Lux is the most objective information I have been able to find, and when I spoke with AWR, he agreed and was looking for a way to get new formulas that would reflect actual measured Lux at various voltage levels.


----------



## jimjones3630

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 1/7/08 (Info Added)*

your posted hotrater page for:

Top Chinese Bulb shows. 
volts applied 10.0v, measured amps 7.6, measured lux 151, lumens 3885

Tungsram.
volts applied 10.0v, measured amps 7.9, measured lux 250, lumens 1913

So with almost half the lux of the Tungsram the Top Chinese bulb has double the lumens? 

I pugged in to the hotrater your given values except for volts, amps, and design bulb life then got double the lumens for the Tungsram so should be no surprise. 

The Tungsram now yeilding twice the lumens with the lux you measured of 250 is almost twice (151) that of the Top Chinese bulb. More the lux measured the higher the lumen should be. 

How can twice as much lux measured yeild half the lumens?

There is no particular reason I can think of to wonder about a different copy of the hotrater than yours. Not sure how can expect to get more lumens with less lux measured but do appreciate your ongoing work.


----------



## Northern Lights

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 1/7/08 (Info Added)*



LuxLuthor said:


> Jim, now you got me really curious. You are not using any of the versions of Hotraters that I have ever seen. None of my various Hotrater versions have formulas that use bulb life in any calculation for lumens.
> 
> When I think about the concept of using bulb life, I cannot think of a reason that it would affect Lumens either. Certainly, the measured Lux is the most objective information I have been able to find, and when I spoke with AWR, he agreed and was looking for a way to get new formulas that would reflect actual measured Lux at various voltage levels.


 
I wonder what is happening too. I forwarded the latest version of Hotrater I have to JJ and I believe, Lux and I have the same version. Changing the life on mine only changes the expected burn time not the lumens. Something is wrong with that file if changing the Hours changes anything else. The higher the bulb life suggests that you may be able to run a higher voltage to get more lumens as. Increasing the Vbat on the hot rater reduces expected bulb life, but increasing the OEM bulb life only affects the expected bulb life. It only works in one direction.
So what I am saying the calculations work this way. Increas voltage, expected lumens go up, life goes down. Increase the original bulb life and expected life goes up. No other calculations change.


----------



## jimjones3630

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 1/7/08 (Info Added)*

Yes I agree, more lux measured should yield more lumens.

The Tungsram 56580 shows a lux measurement of 250 and 1913 lumens by your calculations. The top Chinese bulb is 151 lux and 3885 lumens?



LuxLuthor said:


> Certainly, the measured Lux is the most objective information I have been able to find, and when I spoke with AWR, he agreed and was looking for a way to get new formulas that would reflect actual measured Lux at various voltage levels.


----------



## jimjones3630

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 1/7/08 (Info Added)*

As I posted above I also changed voltage, amps. and plugged in the other values from LL's posted values, ie. Lux measured of 250. There is no mystery to me why the Tungsram now shows almost twice the lumens.




Northern Lights said:


> I wonder what is happening too. I forwarded the latest version of Hotrater I have to JJ and I believe, Lux and I have the same version. Changing the life on mine only changes the expected burn time not the lumens. Something is wrong with that file if changing the Hours changes anything else. The higher the bulb life suggests that you may be able to run a higher voltage to get more lumens as. Increasing the Vbat on the hot rater reduces expected bulb life, but increasing the OEM bulb life only affects the expected bulb life. It only works in one direction.
> So what I am saying the calculations work this way. Increas voltage, expected lumens go up, life goes down. Increase the original bulb life and expected life goes up. No other calculations change.


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 1/7/08 (Info Added)*

I don't think any of us are understanding what you are saying that reducing a bulb's life span increases a bulb's lumens, but oh well.

The difference between the projected lumens of both bulbs, using AWR's spreadsheet shows how meaningless and worthless the spreadsheet has always been....especially if you are given bogus default lumen values starting out.

Looking at the default 6V, the Tungsram 56580 is reported by www.svetila.com as 320 Lumens, and my actual measurement is 54 Lux. We are then told that the 6V default for Top Bulb Chinese generic version of the 64430 is 650 Lumen, but I only measured 33 Lux. 

_*It is immediately obvious to me that the Top Bulb website has given a falsely inflated default lumen value....therefore all projections starting with a false 650 default Lumen value will also be inaccurate projections. Based upon my measurements, I would say the ACTUAL default Top Bulb Lumen value is more like 250 bulb lumens. *_

In addition, as a separate problem there is not a good correlation using AWR's spreadsheet formulas _(adapted from Welch Allyn's re-rating formulas for their own bulbs)_ to project lumens FOR ANY BULB, even if we were given an accurate default lumen rating. The only way to see how inaccurate the claimed default lumen rating, and the accuracy of the AWR spreadsheet projected lumens is to do actual measurements. This was the reason I did this whole topic, and sacrificed all these bulbs.
*
To summarize, it is my opinion based upon my actual testing that you cannot rely upon either the website advertised default Lumen reading, or the AWR spreadsheet calculated projection lumen values that we have all be tossing around as reliable.* 

If actual measurements are done at various voltages, that is more reliable than website claims or AWR spreadsheet projections. _*It is my observations that Welch Allyn, Philips, and Osram brand name bulbs do give more accurate default voltage bulb lumen rating values than others I have tested.*_


----------



## jimjones3630

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 1/7/08 (Info Added)*

Lux just read what I posted in all my above posts if you want to understand what I'm saying. The statement below reflects a part, small part of what I posted. 

One thing we both understand is the lux measurement is the main factor determining the lumens of a bulb. So how a bulb with less lux rating 64430 "Top Chinese Bulb" can get a higher lumen output than the Tungsram 56580 is....



LuxLuthor said:


> I don't think any of us are understanding what you are saying that reducing a bulb's life span increases a bulb's lumens, but oh well.
> _*.*_


----------



## pertinax

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 1/7/08 (Info Added)*

Is he perhaps misapplying the fact that higer bulb temps mean more efficiency, and shorter life?


----------



## jimjones3630

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 1/7/08 (Info Added)*

As a bulb becomes more efficient by increading vbulb with subsequent higher lumen/watt ratio it's bulb life inversly declines.

Whatever causes a bulb to burn efficiently and subsequently brighter is measured with a lux meter. What I did not know is if the Hot Rater formula considered any factors other than lux measurements. It could have a bias factored in the formula. And still have a user bias by tinkering with the numbers. 

The Hot Rater is in an Excel program and Excel does not generate formulas nor fix errors. I did have a circular error in my copy and spent the afternoon yesterday debugging it resulting in no change to lumen ratting of any bulb.
jim


----------



## Timaxe

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 1/7/08 (Info Added)*

I "ported" the Hot Rater to TK Solver during class, and it only relies on default lumens, and a ratio of stock/overdriven voltages. Specificially:

Overdrive Lumens = Lumens Spec * (Overdrive Voltage / Spec Voltage)^3.5

The rest of the spreadsheet works out voltage drop through the body of the light by ways of calculating the amperage drawn by the bulb at the overdrive voltage and using a given resistance value to find the voltage drop.

The formula for finding amperage appears to account for higher bulb resistances at higher temperatures (ie, overdrives) but I didn't bother to see if it correlates to the resistance of metals at elevated temperatures. (and it has no way to figure out what the temp of the bulb actually is).

The rest just provides interesting statistics that let you judge the validity of the numbers, such as comparing estimated CCT to the melting temperature of tungsten metal, calculating bulb life, efficiency, etc. Overall it is a very tight spreadsheet that has good insights into how the overdriving process generally works.


----------



## Timaxe

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 1/7/08 (Info Added)*

I'm interested in the 3.5 exponent used in the hot rater. It appears to be arbitrary, and warrants some investigation as to where it came from...so I had a very quick investigation into this...

Background:
Lumens and Lux are assumed to be related by a projected area (based on their definition - output & intensity). For a bulb, this area isn't expected to change during overdrive since the projected area depends on the filament shape.

Hypothesis:
The current equation for lumens overdriving from the hotrater spreadsheet (see previous post) should be applicable to lux.

Test Plan:
See how well Lux Luthor's data on lux matches the equation for lumens overdriving. We will look at the Osram 64625 & 62138 bulbs, since they are both 12v bulbs that are supposed to draw about 8.3 amps at default levels and are both bulbs used in the USL mod.

First, there will be a small modification to the equation to use lux values instead of lumens values. Our equation will be:
Od = Sd * (Ov / Sv ) ^ 3.5

Secondly, we will see what exponent actually fits the data collected, since this exponent is of interest to myself. With actual data we will solve the following equation for "x':
Od = Sd * (Ov / Sv ) ^ x

Results Part 1:
We will compare predicted lux with measured lux. The predicted lux comes from the formula: Odp = Sd * (Ov / Sv ) ^ 3.5

Part 1 w/ OSRAM 64625


Code:


Ov    Od   Odp    x
12    395 395    3.5
12.4  417 443.04 3.5
12.6  436 468.55 3.5
12.8  456 495.11 3.5
13    475 522.71 3.5
13.2  494 551.41 3.5
13.4  519 581.21 3.5
13.6  537 612.14 3.5
13.8  557 644.23 3.5
14    579 677.50 3.5

Sv = 12
Sd = 395

Note: Odp = Overdrive lux Predicted.  Od = Overdrive lux measured.

Part 1 w/ OSRAM 62138


Code:


Ov    Od   Odp    x
12    270 270    3.5
13    334 357.30 3.5
13.2  346 376.91 3.5
13.3  354 387.00 3.5
13.4  359 397.28 3.5
13.6  371 418.42 3.5
13.7  379 429.29 3.5
13.8  386 440.36 3.5
13.9  393 451.63 3.5
14    400 463.10 3.5
14.1  407 474.78 3.5
14.2  416 486.67 3.5
14.3  425 498.78 3.5
14.4  436 511.09 3.5
14.5  439 523.62 3.5
14.6  450 536.37 3.5
14.7  460 549.34 3.5
14.8  466 562.53 3.5
14.9  473 575.95 3.5

Sv = 12
Sd = 270

Note: Odp = Overdrive lux Predicted.  Od = Overdrive lux measured.

Analysis of Part 1:
There is a difference between what was predicted and what was measured. If the lumens formula was correct AND if the lumens to lux relationship is the projected area of light (which does not change at higher overdrives - but may change for bulbs) the numbers should have been the same or close. This does not appear to be the case.

Results Part 2:
We will try to determine the exponent "x" using lux luthor's collected data in the formula:
Od = Sd * (Ov / Sv ) ^ x

Part 2 w/ OSRAM 64625


Code:


Ov   Od    x  
12.4 417 1.653
12.6 436 2.024
12.8 456 2.225
13.0 475 2.304
13.2 494 2.347
13.4 519 2.474
13.6 537 2.454
13.8 557 2.459
14.0 579 2.481

Sv = 12
Sd = 395

Part 2 w/ OSRAM 62138


Code:


Ov   Od    x  
13.0 334 2.658
13.2 346 2.602
13.3 354 2.634
13.4 359 2.582
13.6 371 2.539
13.7 379 2.560
13.8 386 2.557
13.9 393 2.554
14.0 400 2.550
14.1 407 2.545
14.2 416 2.568
14.3 425 2.587
14.4 436 2.628
14.5 439 2.569
14.6 450 2.605
14.7 460 2.625
14.8 466 2.602
14.9 473 2.590

Sv = 12
Sd = 270

Analysis of Part 2:
For these particular bulbs, the exponent appears to be closer to 2.5, but these values seem to vary a somewhat within a particular bulb at various overdrive levels. Sometimes it decreases as overdrive goes up. Sometimes the exponent increases with increasing overdrives. But the trends are inconclusive with n=2 samples, and may not apply to bulbs from other manufacturers or of different filament design.

Overall Analysis:
The lumens overdrive formula seems to be over-optimistic when applied to lux overdrive values. If the assumption that the projected light area of the bulb is constant at different overdrives holds (which is used to relate lux & lumens in my experiment and validate using the same formula), then this may mean that x=3.5 is too optimistic for these particular bulbs. That said, the overdrive equations may need to be modified to include other important variables, such as the change in resistance of a bulb as temperature goes up (another assumption from electrical resistance of metals at high temperatures). It is unknown if all bulbs will share similar exponents, and it is inconclusive if there are any trends in the exponent at different overdrive levels.

Ideas for Future Research:
Obviously we should compile more data. It would be nice to get a better insight into the exponent used in the current hotrater overdrive formula so that we can get some insights into what needs to be done to write a new formula or modify the new formula to better correlate measured lux readings to predicted lumens readings.

Future research could go into looking at overdrive POWER consumption instead of voltage, since it is accepted that metals at higher temperatures generally increase their electrical resistance - so a formula that doesn't account for this will likely be off

I didn't look at power consumption in these bulbs at different voltages as I didn't want to derive a new formula using it - my focus was on determining the validity of the exponent 3.5 in the current hotrater formula. My results place some doubts on the validity of the hotrater equations (which have come into question recently, inspiring LuxLuthor's data collection), with the current item of major concern being the validity of the exponent x=3.5. Changing the exponent in the hotrater formulas will have MAJOR effects on the *advertised* output of today's hotwire lights, so more research is needed before anything conclusive can be derived from Lux's data.


Other random thoughts:
Does the definition of a lumen at a certain wavelength change output? Does the color temp of a hotwire torch change enough for this to make a difference in calculated outputs?


----------



## Northern Lights

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 1/7/08 (Info Added)*

The hotrater came from Andrew Wynn. Is it copyrighted? Although CPF had a fall out with him over undelivered goods; maybe someone can ask him how he developed the equations. Last I heard they were based on empirical data. There were several up dates form him and many of us, including me have been cutting and pasting and adding new bulb specs. I have no idea which are his original specs in the sheet and which have been added.


----------



## jimjones3630

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 1/7/08 (Info Added)*

Timaxe,

Thanks for your work and analysis of formulas in the hot rater. Appreciate any help.
jim



Timaxe said:


> I'm interested in the 3.5 exponent used in the hot rater. It appears to be arbitrary, and warrants some investigation as to where it came from...so I had a very quick investigation into this...


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 1/7/08 (Info Added)*



Timaxe said:


> I'm interested in the 3.5 exponent used in the hot rater. It appears to be arbitrary, and warrants some investigation as to where it came from...so I had a very quick investigation into this...



A great project, which I have been following. I have had conversations with AWR about this very subject. I tracked back the formula using the 3.5 exponent and other estimates in his Hotrater Excel spreadsheet. Here is the story on the history of that number.

Someone noticed that the WA website had a built in predictor on links with their various bulbs that listed changed webpage link values in the URL. I.E. this link regarding the 1185 bulb has Volts/Amp values of *V2=10.8&L2=3.36* that can be manually changed, and link refreshed to give new values.



Code:


http://www.walamp.com/lpd/webstore/rerate.tpl?action=rerate&V2=10.8&L2=3.36&adj=5&partnumber=01185-U

This then evolved to people trying to guess the formulas that gave the different values. According to AWR, someone either affiliated with WA, or in some research website where their re-rating formulas were being discussed, came accross the formula and posted about it here. It may have been CPF user Newbie or Genseng, or someone of that kind of background. 

AWR then took a spreadsheet chart that Litho123 had made to keep track of the various WA bulbs that he was selling...and which had some common voltage matchups he obtained from the URL manual formula. AWR added this formula to a revised spreadsheet which he needed for figuring out various voltage/current/resistance setups with his Hotdriver development.

When I started discussing with him all of the assumptions behind his Hotrater spreadsheet, and this equation for lumen prediction...it became clear that no one had done any data testing to confirm the accuracy of the Hotrater predictions. Basically, people used the WA URL predictor to give false promotion of WA Hotwire packages....saying with xx volts, the WA xxxx bulb gives a bazillion Lumen rocket that you should buy. LOL! 

Then people started using this same WA 3.5 exponent formula that someone came across in researching WA bulbs, and using bulb retail website default listings of Osram, Philips, GE, Tungsram, Generic, etc. brands....just dropped those other bulb default Voltage, Amps (by dividing watts by volts), Lumens, Life into the same spreadsheet...and again assumed the equation must apply to all bulbs.

This was all done innocently, and to try and tout "my light is bigger than your light." When I began to get more people looking at a quick post I made trying to compare some Hotwires I had....and seeing that they were relying on it, and people selling various light combinations using lumens from the AWR spreadsheet...it became obvious that this was a case akin to "The Emperor Has No Clothes" fable, since noone did any type of data testing to correlate predictions.

Obviously, my testbed setup is not as precisely accurate as an expensive industrial research set of tests in an integrating sphere, but I tried to be as objective as I could, and controlling for variables like reflectors, reflected light, variations in technique...for a hobbyist setup.

When I started seeing the results, and talking with AWR, we realized that the variations that you noticed were not following a linear proportional relationship to voltage/amps that would be resolved by just finding the correct exponent. The actual results have typical "real life" complexity that likely involves many unique factors...and that may not even be the same complex formula from one bulb manufacturer to another, or from one same bulb model lot number to another.

A whole other level of complexity was introduced when I started doing "ideal bulb voltage" correlation of the predicted lifespan part of the Hotrater spreadsheet...which started again with default life values. I was amazed with some bulbs, that at a particular voltage they started out at an expected Lux, but then the output dropped precipitously after a relatively short time of being overdriven.

For example, one bulb that had a 12 hr predicted life at xx overdrive voltage/amps....began dropping Lux with run time...down to 30% of starting (peak) Lux after 4-5 hours...and burned out at about 9 hours. Equally perplexing is seeing that other bulb brands/models did not have the same dropoff using the voltage/amps that predicted the same 12 hr. life duration. Obviously, this has now become a whole other crucial aspect to using a particular bulb. 

It is very hard to objectively appreciate with our eyes the drop over hours of intermittent use with a particular flashlight, in various nighttime ambient light environments over time. Suffice it to say that having two identical lights (identical batteries with same charge, same reflector, same internal resistance) but with a new and moderately used bulb shining side by side, a difference will be appreciated, that was not seen with used bulb alone. 

We would tend to adjust to a decreasing Lux/Lumen output as bulb ages in our flashlight setup, thinking it is close to the same as when bulb started new....or chalk it up to waning battery remaining charge if not using a regulated light....or just not remembering objectively.

Of course, even controlling for voltage/amperage by using my test platform (vs. draining batteries and/or varrying ambient light environments), this drop in Lux/Lumen output over bulb lifetime varies from bulb to bulb, brand to brand, model to model, and with degree of overdrive. I have not yet published any of the dropoff Lux results with run time....but the projected life on the Hotrater is also capriciously unreliable.


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 1/7/08 (Info Added)*

Also, the Hotrater spreadsheet that a few of us have been using for the last 5-6 months has a much more complex formula for estimating lumens....the 3.5 exponent got dropped a while back. It is now using an "S" curve function.


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 1/7/08 (Info Added)*



LuxLuthor said:


> Big thanks to *Pertinax *for sending me two 64610 bulbs and *Ictorana *for two Energizer HPR-71 (6V/10W) bulbs for me to test. I'll post testing results when I get to them in next few days.



I was kind of stalling when I got a note that Litho123 was sending me a bunch of new bulbs to test, which I just got yesterday...so now I will get these all caught up and tested soon.


----------



## Firemedic262

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 1/7/08 (Info Added)*

And the great work cont. :thumbsup:


----------



## lctorana

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 1/7/08 (Info Added)*



LuxLuthor said:


> I was kind of stalling when I got a note that Litho123 was sending me a bunch of new bulbs to test, which I just got yesterday...so now I will get these all caught up and tested soon.


Understood, Lux; it makes more sense to settle doen to do a decent test session in one hit.


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 1/7/08 (Info Added)*

OK, got first round of new bulbs tested last night...but I like to repeat another round with second bulb on a separate night to make sure that my test bed setup is being reproduced the same way, so I take it all down and setup fresh each time...which I believe helps eliminate any human testing method errors. I even check the battery level of the Light Meter each time.

I will be posting results of these bulbs I got from pertinax, lctorana, & Litho123: 

Osram *64610 *12V
Energizer *HPR71 *6V 10W (made in Germany)
WA *1331 *- Frosted
WA *1111 *- Frosted
Carley *809*
Carley *1057*


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 1/7/08 (Info Added)*

I have received a number of questions on the still listed Lumens on my spreadsheets, which are mostly not accurate. Here is a reply to a recent PM about the 64625 bulb for my advice on Lumens, and which will be added to spreadsheets on post #1 as a new column calculation:



LuxLuthor said:


> Don't use the Lumens that appear on my spreadsheets, as they are only determined by the AWR Hotrater spreadsheet, which is not very accurate. I think a better way to estimate lumens in most cases, is using the manufacturer default voltage/lumens and show an increase in that starting lumen value--in direct proportion to my actual Lux measurements. This is an answer I gave to another member which I think gives the answer. I will eventually setup this calculation as another column when I post latest bulb tests shortly.
> 
> I think the most accurate way to figure out lumens is to look at the destructive test thread I did. In particular the chart for the 64625 bulb:
> 
> I know my Lux measurements were accurate, as I repeated them at least twice for all the bulbs on this thread. I also know that projections for Osram Lumens using AWR's Hotrater spreadsheet were overblown, so you cannot use those higher values.
> 
> So if we assume that Osram's published lumen estimate at default is accurate, then we can cross compare that to my actual Lux measurements when overdriven, and set up a simple algebra equation, and solve for "x lumens"
> 
> If at default 12V, Osram says this bulb has 3,600 (bulb) lumens, and I measured 395 Lux. If we look at higher voltage of 13V it gives Lux measurement of 475, which we use to setup equation:
> 
> 3600 Lumen / 395 Lux = *X* Lumen / 475 Lux
> 
> To solve for X, you 'cross multiply' to get:
> 
> 3600 x 475 = *X* x 395
> 
> Solve for *X*:
> 
> 1710000 / 395
> 
> = *4,329 (Bulb) Lumens*
> 
> Now, that assumes the voltage at that one value, even though without regulation, the battery voltage starts high, and drops over run time.


[


----------



## Raoul_Duke

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 1/7/08 (Info Added)*

So going off that the Ozram 458 crunches out to 

1800 x 157 / X x 723

8289 lumens (bulb lumens (65%) ~ 5388)

And the osram 623 =

2800 x 303 = X x 713

6589 lumens ( bulb lumens (65%) ~ 4282 )


----------



## Raoul_Duke

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 1/7/08 (Info Added)*

ooops double post;.

Oh well may aswell use this chance to say another thanks for all this quality testing :twothumbs


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 1/7/08 (Info Added)*

Except I would not use the values just before it flashed. The more you overdrive, the more inaccurate it all becomes.

I think I will try doing the *64655 *& *64657 *bulbs...not sure how my 30V 20A PS will hold up....but I have everything setup. What's the worst that can happen? Let's see...I do have my homeowner's insurance paid for the year....ok good to go!


----------



## Raoul_Duke

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 1/7/08 (Info Added)*

Excellent, I have wanting to see your results for the 64657 for a long time.

Looks promising on paper, and has a longer life than the 655, should be able to handle the overdrive better.

Any info on your real world eye comparison of these lamps.

I have all the bits and have been planning to stick 6 or 7 emoli up it for too long now, but no time to do it in.


----------



## Fulgeo

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 1/7/08 (Info Added)*

Wanted to open with saying thanks LuxLuthor for spending the time and effort to make these charts available. I find myself mulling over them alot. Fuel for creative dreams. 

I was curious has anybody underdriven the Osram 62138 or 64625 at 11.1 volts? Is the beam too yellow? Anyone have a lumen estimate or reading? How does this effect bulb life? Is it detrimental? I have three Emoli and a 3D Mag waiting to go.

Anyone have a good source to purchase the 64447, bulb connection does not seem to carry them?

Thanks in advance. Perhaps I should change my handle to "Question Man"


----------



## petrev

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 1/7/08 (Info Added)*

Halostar 64447 IRC 65W 12V GY6,35

Svetila.com


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 1/7/08 (Info Added)*

I finally added the bulbs I got from pertinax & lctorana: 
Osram *64610 *12V
Philips *HPR71 *6V 10W (made in Germany)​_(Note: the *frosted WA **1331 *& *1111 *that I got from Litho123 have the same Lux & Life as non-frosted)_​I have the test results done for these bulbs, just need to input in spreadsheet. Note: t still have the two Carley to post from Litho123 , and my own 250W bulbs which pushed my 30V 20A power supply !!!

Carley *809*
Carley *1057*
Osram *64657 (OMG this bulb got hot) *
Osram *64655 (Even more OMG as this bulb got REALLY hot) 

Also note that I added a new column (in yellow) with the Philips HPR71 & Osram 64610 that multiplies the ACTUAL measured percent increase Lux readings times the default manufacturer lumen rating, rather than using the inaccurate Hotrater spreadsheet. I will be adding this column to the other bulbs when I update the above 4.

I believe this is the most accurate, "real world" measured overdrive estimation using the default baseline Lumen reading we are given.  *_The only baseline Lumen rating that is whacked is the Top Bulb Chinese Generic 64430 listed as 650 lumens at 6V, which should actually be a default rating of about 230 lumens at 6V._


----------



## Lips

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 2/21/08 (Info Added)*

Lux

I have two WA1160 bulbs that everyone uses in the MagChargers if you don't have those I can send.


Lips


----------



## Jay T

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 1/7/08 (Info Added)*



Fulgeo said:


> Anyone have a good source to purchase the 64447, bulb connection does not seem to carry them?
> 
> Thanks in advance. Perhaps I should change my handle to "Question Man"



http://www.servicelighting.com/catalog_product.cfm?prod=QQ64447


----------



## modamag

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 1/7/08 (Info Added)*

Lux, this is AWSOME stuff. Although I'm an LED guy, but I surely can appreciate the amount of work and thought that goes in your testing process.

You're making it much harder for me to keep up with the incands crowds.

Great Job! :twothumbs:


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 2/21/08 (Info Added)*



Lips said:


> Lux
> 
> I have two WA1160 bulbs that everyone uses in the MagChargers if you don't have those I can send.
> 
> Lips



Lips, that would be cool. I don't have those bulbs. PM sent with my address.

Modamag, thank you sir! Your work is legendary.


----------



## lctorana

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 2/21/08 (Info Added)*

Lux,

Given a linear relationship between lux and lumens...


May I draw any conclusions from the variance of the Lux : Lumens ratio from bulb to bulb at default voltage?

If I can, then that would seem to indicate that some bulbs are wildly optimistic in their claimed lumens, whilst others are actually rather conservative...

Or is there another factor at work?


----------



## Timaxe

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 2/21/08 (Info Added)*

Given the same & constant surface area for the bulb filament, the lux and lumens should have the same linear relationship. Otherwise it is possible for this line to have a different slope depending on surface area, the shape of the filament (blocking/diffracting the light), etc. While in some models it is possible to assume that all bulbs have the same filament sizes (due to how the light meter may work - see how most people working with LED flashlights assume it is a point source, which can be good in some general cases) I'm not sure how LuxLuthor's setup and the bulbs under test fare in this regard.

Most filaments are produced via powdered metallurgy, which results in a relatively high surface area to volume ratio. LuxLuthor has commented that over time the output of a bulb goes down. One possible explanation for this behavior is that over time at high temperatures the tungsten will go through some annealing processes (or perhaps also some of the halogen cycle) and reform into a lower energy shape - reducing surface area and thus lumens output.

It would be interesting to have detailed photos/models of these bulb filaments, but that's probably too much to ask out of LuxLuther who has done so much for us already. If we want to produce a 'complete' simulation/estimate for bulb outputs it will be a useful piece of data, but our estimates are often good enough and not too critical of +/- 100 lumens (or 10%).


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 2/21/08 (Info Added)*

I just finished adding the yellow column to every bulb listed in first post--had to add it in each spreadsheet manually, and fix up formatting and colors. Man, that was a lot of work. Still didn't add the last few tested bulbs yet.

I double checked on every bulb, so if you are not seeing the new yellow column with red type either on page one, or when clicking on larger images, hit your browser refresh.

_*I changed the default TopBulb 64430 Chinese clone default to 230L, instead of their 6v=650 lumens listed on their website here, because it is obviously a bogus value. I also extended its life up to 4,000 hrs from their spec of 2,000 for the same reason. These changes are based on reasonable comparison of my Lux readings with other brands, and you will see them in red text.

I additionally extrapolated the default 6v lumens for AW's Chinese generic that he sells ("*__*6V 30W 2000Hr Chinese Generic"), again based upon Lux comparisons. This allows us to use the new yellow Lumen columns on all bulbs, based on measured Lux.

*_I believe this new yellow column is the most accurate assessment of Lumens, but it does assume the default lumen spec value is accurate...since the percent increase in measured Lux is multiplied times that value. Only other option is to start using standard of Lux measurements from my tables.

Regarding the decreasing Lux measurement as an overdriven bulb ages, it is variable with the bulb model, and degree of overdrive beyond default. I almost think it is better to use the Ostrich "Head in the Sand" strategy on the fading output with degree of overdrive and life issue. LOL!


----------



## DM51

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 2/21/08 (Info Added)*

Lux, I've just had a look at a couple of those tables. I didn't think there was much room for improvement over what was there before, but you have managed it. 

These tables are now absolutely superb - clear, easy to access information which we have never had before - we were floundering around 'in the dark', mostly just guessing at what the figures were. This is definitive, unarguable data - invaluable.

Every CPFer should be grateful to you for all the amazing work you have put into this project. This is a fantastic resource to have.

I take my hat off to you! Bravo!


----------



## Action

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 2/21/08 (Info Added)*

Any chance that these tables can be available in an excel format? I really would love to combine these into a table that is based either on lux or voltage or some lux per watt ratio vs. based on individual bulbs...

This is just awesome work Lux, a huge resource for the community!


----------



## JimmyM

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 2/21/08 (Info Added)*

Nice addition of the yellow column. It's good to see the adjusted lumens based on measured lux. It makes the "math" make more sense when comparing the 64458 and 64655 numbers.
Did you say you were going to do 64655s too?


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 2/21/08 (Info Added)*

DM51, thanks!

Action, I might....I was hoping to do the life duration testing, but it is a real hassle. Very important information for some bulbs fading with overdrive and life span, but a major hassle to do.

Jimmy, here are the bulbs I have tested, and just need to put the data into spreadsheets:
*Carley 809
Carley 1057

Osram 64655 (250W)
Osram 64657 (250W)*​Lips is sending me a couple magcharger *1160* bulbs which I will test and post.


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 2/21/08 (Info Added)*

Jimmy, just to wet your whistle....ya know how the 64458 chart peaks at about 720 Lux before flashing? Well more than double that with the 250W bulbs!!! I wanted to check the 64657 because I noticed it had 300Hrs life vs. 64655 with 50Hrs....and indeed the 657 goes to a higher Lux & voltage before flashing!

Edit: I just posted the 64657 250W chart. Still have to transfer data over for the 655, but *Modamag wanted me to hurry up and post this one!* :devil:

This is the bulb I used in my Vaporizer.


----------



## sylathnie

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 2/21/08 (Info Added)*

Have you tested a 64633 yet? I'm willing to buy a few bulbs if you don't mind spending the time.


----------



## Raoul_Duke

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 2/21/08 (Info Added)*



LuxLuthor said:


> Jimmy, just to wet your whistle....ya know how the 64458 chart peaks at about 720 Lux before flashing? Well more than double that with the 250W bulbs!!! I wanted to check the 64657 because I noticed it had 300Hrs life vs. 64655 with 50Hrs....and indeed the 657 goes to a higher Lux & voltage before flashing!
> 
> Edit: I just posted the 64657 250W chart. Still have to transfer data over for the 655, but *Modamag wanted me to hurry up and post this one!* :devil:
> 
> This is the bulb I used in my Vaporizer.



Thanks for those results Lux.

Fired up a 64657 last night with 7 x 26700 emoli in an extended 6D wth FM3V-2 head and Judco modded switch. 29V to the pins on start up and nice output. ( Judco switch is a pain to install in to a mag switch, but I managed and added terminals to measure Vbulb under the switch cover.

A word of caution though when testing the circuit during the build I used a couple of uninsulated wires from the ends of my volt meter that would fit into the lamp holder and turned switch but failed to notice the wires were touching, and for a second or two dumped the whole 7 emolis though the wires.

The wires got quite a good lux reading on thier own without a gas filled envelope, and glowed white hot.  

Whilst testing in the garden my friend asked if I could focus the beam to throw like on my other hotwires but it was already, it just happens to throw and flood everything. 

The info you provided was a major help to this build, as I had all the bits and had this planned to do for ages, but didn't know the lamps limits, and was too cautious to try to push the lamp too hard. When you posted up the data that gave me the impetus to revisit putting it all together.

Your spread sheets are great for working out the build components required, and I realised I didnt need to tame the power of seven emoli; but seeing as you have already used eight on the 657 I'll have to use my Jimmy M soft starter when I get home again.

Thankyou


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 2/21/08 (Info Added)*

Look for the 64655 results tonight.

BTW, how did you like the heat from that 64657? The 64655 got up to 300°F with my Fluke thermister probe about 2mm below the bottom of the envelope (to the side of the bottom glass pin enclosure)...which was about 60°F hotter than the 64657.

Also the 64655 underperformed the 657. Before the 655 flashed, it had a lower Lux peak of 1464, lower flash voltage of 27.4V, while using higher 12.6A.

Take home message is the 64655 with 10,000 lumen 50 hour rating did not perform as well as the 657 with 9,000 lumens and 300 hour rating.


----------



## Raoul_Duke

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 2/21/08 (Info Added)*



LuxLuthor said:


> Look for the 64655 results tonight.
> 
> BTW, how did you like the heat from that 64657? The 64655 got up to 300°F with my Fluke thermister probe about 2mm below the bottom of the envelope (to the side of the bottom glass pin enclosure)...which was about 60°F hotter than the 64657.
> 
> Also the 64655 underperformed the 657. Before the 655 flashed, it had a lower Lux peak of 1464, lower flash voltage of 27.4V, while using higher 12.6A.
> 
> Take home message is the 64655 with 10,000 lumen 50 hour rating did not perform as well as the 657 with 9,000 lumens and 300 hour rating.



Yep, I guesses so, so I risked getting a bunch of the 657's a while back, and skipped the 655's as the runtime was so low. i have seen various times for the 657 though, that range from 200 - 300 hrs. :thinking:

Heat; Well, didn't notice anything too alarming, but kept runtimes to a minute, or less, bursts.
I was paranoid about peeling my 3" reflector, but it all seems fine, heat from the front was noticable waving hand infront, i'm sure its a fire starter. :devil:

I didn't insulate anything or add cooling fins to the reflector, this was more of a go at checking the output verses my other hotwires. I will look into that more when I get back.

What I did notice was from your charts was that as my 7 cells drop to their nominal voltage or less under load the 657 temp drops to the same temp range as the 64623 and 64458 peak temps ( ballpark) and I have ran a 64623 back to back on two 15.6V packs with no reflector problems, and the same for the 458 on 5 emoli for a good 5 minutes at a time. 

But we have to keep in mind this lamp has cremated at least two of Jims reflectors that we know of, so for now its a wow light, on short burst use, untill we find a suitable material to conduct max heat from the reflector to the head, or there are a bunch more 3.5" heads made.
As I understand it that 3.5" head is also a one peice reflector so the heat transfer must be pretty good.

Now that Emoli and A123 are becoming the norm here, heat is now the main factor that holds us back. We need to look into thermal management, or by a bunch of cheaper reflectors and swap them out for each lamp ( kinda like some like surfire etc lamps)


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 2/21/08 (Info Added)*



sylathnie said:


> Have you tested a 64633 yet? I'm willing to buy a few bulbs if you don't mind spending the time.



I don't have any of those, so I can test them if you want. I did get the 1160 from Lips that I will be testing soon.

I posted the other 250W 64655 bulb just now.


----------



## sylathnie

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 2/21/08 (Info Added)*



Toast me a few 64633 bulbs please!


----------



## lctorana

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 2/21/08 (Info Added)*

The variations in lux:lumens from bulb to bulb have been suggesting to me that some default lumen claims are overstated, and some understated.

With this thought in mind, I have crunched the numbers, and found two things:

1) There is a *weak correlation *between wattage and efficiency, but other factors, such as bulb life, filament type and gas (e.g. krypton, xenon or halogen) are also at play here.

2) There is *no correlation *between wattage and lux:lumens ratio - not even close. Statistically, I therefore feel justified in averaging out the lux:lumens ratio at 0.09861 for the 26 bulb types so far tested.

So, without further ado, I here publish my opinion, based on LL's default lumen tests, of the true output of these bulbs:

*Bulb **Claimed Lumens **Likely Lumens **Min **Max*
Osram 64657 9000 9309 8693 9926
Osram 64625 3600 4006 3744 4268
Osram 64623 2800 3073 2861 3285
Osram 62138 2800 2738 2544 2933
Osram 64610 1600 2140 2001 2278
Osram 64458 1800 1592 1463 1721
Osram 64447 1700 1349 1249 1449
Carley C43 1317 1349 1257 1440
Osram 64440 1250 974 898 1049
Philips 5761 765 953 889 1018
Osram 64275 780 690 636 743
WA 1185 817 679 629 730
WA 1166 703 639 594 683
Svetila 56580 320 548 501 594
Pelican 3854H 600 507 469 545
WA 1274 553 487 452 522
Osram 64430 320 487 444 529
Osram 64250 480 466 432 501
WA 1331 534 456 423 489
WA 1111 465 436 403 469
GE 347118 550 406 367 444
AW "2000Hr" *n/a *335 301 368
TopBulb 64430 clone 230 335 300 369
WA 1164 301 254 230 277
Pelican 3854L 290 162 148 176
Philips HPR71 210 162 149 176

The last two columns are the upper and lower prediction limits, based on the sample uncertainty, plus the uncertainty in LL's lux readings of +/- 0.5 lux.

Of particular interest is how the Philips 5761 puts out very nearly double the lumens of the Pelican 3854H, for only an amp extra draw. This does suggest that RoP builders considering investing in a PR-to-G4 adaptor take the plunge - it should be a worthwhile upgrade.

The spreadsheet I calculated all this on is available on request. It's 24kB zipped.

Next step - to apply the same statistical analysis technique to calculate a new hotrating exponent for overdriven bulbs.


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 2/21/08 (Info Added)*

I'm not quite seeing what you did here or why. I didn't see the validity or value in establishing an average lux:lumen ratio, nor the basis of establishing min/max values.

My original intention of doing this testing was to verify some actual data points of the AWR spreadsheet which started with straight line graph formulas based upon the WA website URL calculator. If anything has been uncovered it is that one shoe does not fit all....and that an "S" curve type formula is likely to be more accurate than a fixed exponent linear curve.

In an ideal world, at close to default all lumen predicted values should be very close to measured lux, but they are not. In other words, if 5 bulbs give a projected lumen rating (near default) of say...350 Lumens, then I should have gotten nearly the same Lux measurement to correlate with that 350Lumen projection....but results are all over the place. It raises questions in my mind about how many manufacturers actually used a quality, calibrated integrating sphere before making their default rated bulb lumen claims.


----------



## modamag

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 2/21/08 (Info Added)*

Lux & Raoul_Duke, can you guys do a full runtime test with a 2" reflector to see how it will hold up? We can interpolate the data and see how it will affect the 4" head.

BTW: Will 18650 emoli power this Osram 64657? If so for how long? 9 mins?


----------



## lctorana

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 2/21/08 (Info Added)*



LuxLuthor said:


> I'm not quite seeing what you did here or why. I didn't see the validity or value in establishing an average lux:lumen ratio, nor the basis of establishing min/max values.


 
LL,
I am assuming that the results are repeatable from bulb to bulb.

For example, the 5761 claims 765 lumens @ 6V, the 3854H claims 600.

But your lux readings were 94 vs 50, which is nearly double.

So, there are now only three possibilities:

1) the readings are not transferrable from bulb to bulb, and to do so would be like comparing apples with oranges. This has a similar effect to saying that lux:lumens is not a constant.

2) the 765 claimed lumens for the 5761 is understated.

3) the 600 claimed lumens for the 3854H is overstated.

If it is valid to compare lux readings between different bulbs (and this is where my big assumption lies), then the lumens must be directly proportional to your measured lux readings.

To interpret these in terms of lumens, then an assumed "standard" lux:lumens ratio is required. And the average of your test results is as good a figure as any. To change this figure would be to multiply the whole set of readings by a common factor - up or down.

.oOo.

The uncertainty?

For uncorrelated data (and there is no correlation between the ratio and the default lumens), this is determined by the standard deviation divided by the square root of the sample size, expressed as a percentage. To this is added the uncertainty in the readings - which is give or take half a lux.

I opnly hope I'm adding some value here.

I am interested in opinions whether the default-voltage lux readings are consistent between bulbs. In simpler words, if bulb 1 shines at 50 lux, and bulb 2 sines at 50 lux, are the lumen outputs the same?


----------



## EvilLithiumMan

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 2/21/08 (Info Added)*

Great! Simply great. I've been thinking about designing myself a toned down Hotdriver (Lukewarmdriver?) in order to get a balance of brightness and runtime, like 4-5 hours per charge. Thanks to your data, I think I'll try a ROP low bulb first.


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 2/21/08 (Info Added)*



lctorana said:


> LL,
> I am assuming that the results are repeatable from bulb to bulb.
> 
> For example, the 5761 claims 765 lumens @ 6V, the 3854H claims 600.
> 
> But your lux readings were 94 vs 50, which is nearly double.
> 
> So, there are now only three possibilities:
> 
> 1) the readings are not transferrable from bulb to bulb, and to do so would be like comparing apples with oranges. This has a similar effect to saying that lux:lumens is not a constant.
> 
> 2) the 765 claimed lumens for the 5761 is understated.
> 
> 3) the 600 claimed lumens for the 3854H is overstated.
> 
> If it is valid to compare lux readings between different bulbs (and this is where my big assumption lies), then the lumens must be directly proportional to your measured lux readings.
> 
> To interpret these in terms of lumens, then an assumed "standard" lux:lumens ratio is required. And the average of your test results is as good a figure as any. To change this figure would be to multiply the whole set of readings by a common factor - up or down.
> 
> .oOo.
> 
> The uncertainty?
> 
> For uncorrelated data (and there is no correlation between the ratio and the default lumens), this is determined by the standard deviation divided by the square root of the sample size, expressed as a percentage. To this is added the uncertainty in the readings - which is give or take half a lux.
> 
> I opnly hope I'm adding some value here.
> 
> I am interested in opinions whether the default-voltage lux readings are consistent between bulbs. In simpler words, if bulb 1 shines at 50 lux, and bulb 2 sines at 50 lux, are the lumen outputs the same?



OK, I see what you are trying to accomplish now. I do think the Lux are more reliable than the Lumen. I was also puzzled at how many times the predicted Lumens varied with measured Lux from bulb to bulb, when Lumens were supposed to be the same. 

I'm confident in my measurements, mainly because I always did at least a 2nd set of tests with each bulb, and the correlation of Lux readings was remarkably similar, or I did a 3rd test in a few cases on yet another night and picked the average reading of the two closest.

Each time I setup the testing platform from scratch to verify my technique. I check the batteries in the light meter, measure distances & height of the bulb, tube, sensor, line up the tube with the bulb, and then verify the tube is aimed at the brightest view of the filament projecting on a white paper about 6 feet beyond the tube opening (where the sensor then goes).

I think most of the mischief with predicted Lumen values is a combination of incorrect listing of default values, and AWR spreadsheet using prediction formulas that are erroneous.

*Thanks to sylathnie. I ordered 3 x 64633 (15V 150W 10A 5600L 50 Hr) to test. Also have two 1160 from Lips to test. I will also do a 35W IRC bulb, but just a single one (not two).
*


----------



## rizky_p

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 2/21/08 (Info Added)*



LuxLuthor said:


> *Thanks to sylathnie. I ordered 3 x 64633 (15V 150W 10A 5600L 50 Hr) to test. Also have two 1160 from Lips to test. I will also do a 35W IRC bulb, but just a single one (not two).
> *




633? nice i am waiting for the result as well, now i am using that bulb with your 15.6v pack and has similar result(brightness and still burning paper) to 623 but without instant-flash when freshly charged.

thanks.


----------



## lctorana

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 2/21/08 (Info Added)*

I have completed my "Part 2" analysis of the above data.

This was to study the relationship between voltage and lumens, with a view to calcaulating a new hotrater exponent from the observed readings.

After plotting the lux:V relationship for each of the 26 bulbs, I can confidently state that each and every model conforms to the following model:
*L = Lo * (V/Vo)^x*, where *L*=emitted Lux, *V*=applied volts, *Vo*=published design voltage and *Lo* = Lux measured lux at Vo.

I repeat, each set of bulb measurements corresponded to this model with a rock-solid Pearson correlation coefficent of 0.98 or greater.

So far, so good.

But then I divided V by Vo and L by Lo for each bulb, and superimposed all the shifted plots onto one chart, and saw something surprising - *the exponent *("x" in my equation) *varies from bulb to bulb*. By quite a bit.

Perhaps, dear and gentle reader, you are not surprised. More on this later.

The bulb with the lowest curve was the *64447*, which had an exponent of just *2.5*. That is, the relative lux increases by the power of 2.5 with respect to the relative voltage increase.

And the highest? The bulb whose lux increased the most for a given relative voltage increase? The *WA 1164*, with an exponent of *3.175*. But notice that this didn't even approach the AWR hotrater figure of 3.5, originally from WA themselves.

The next step was to combine ALL the data points from all bulbs into a single analysis, and measure the exponent of that.

The result? Still a strong correlation, and the *overall figure comes out at a little under 2.9*

But that's based only on the 26 bulbs LL has destroyed, it may prove yet not to be a useful figure.


But if you want to estimate your lumens for a given overdrive, more accurately than the hotrater, and want a *quick-and-dirty* ready reckoner? _*Cube the voltage increase for the lux or lumen increase*._

.

.

Further thoughts - why does it vary from bulb to bulb?

My thoughts turn to the I:V characteristic. I have long known that 240V Argon bulbs follow a I = kV^0.6 (or is it 0.4?) curve, and vacuum bulbs are a lttle more ohmic in profile.

Now think of a barrettor, which is as close as an incan bulb can get to a perfect current regulator. (_These were big in 240V countries for AC/DC and DC mains sets_)

In one of these, because the current barely changes with voltage, the lumens emitted by your barrettor barely change when the volts even double.

So that gets me thinking - maybe it is the *current* rise we should be measuring the lux/lumen rise against.

When you think about it, it is the current that makes the wire glow, not the applied voltage.

If bulbs were ohmic conductors, it wouldn't make a scrap of difference. But as we know, they are not.

In Part 3 of this analysis, I will plot Lux increase vs Current increase, and see if the results are more consistent.


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 2/21/08 (Info Added)*

A worthy pursuit. I'm not sure that a flat exponent will work through the range for most bulbs. I think there is more of an "S" curve formula that is required for more accurate prediction, but I'll be damned if I can remember math detail of that magnitude from my college days. I think the best idea would be to plot out the testing results, and figure out what kind of formula would give that kind of curve, rather than more of a straight line plot prediction that we have been using.


----------



## lctorana

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 2/21/08 (Info Added)*

LL,

I hear what you're saying, but I am finding that the y=x^b formula maps EXACTLY for every single bulb you tested, taken individually.

The one thing I AM certain of is that a flat exponent CAN be applied.

It's just that that flat exponent varies from bulb to bulb.

As for plotting every bulb curve and curve fitting, yup, done that for each.

Currently working on the current - lux relationship, which is looking even more promising!


----------



## Fulgeo

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 2/21/08 (Info Added)*

Once again great thread LL. I have just ordered some parts from Kaidomain and as part of the order I picked up some of these http://www.kaidomain.com/WEBUI/ProductDetail.aspx?TranID=3988. You interested in testing this bulbs? If so when I get my order I could send you two of them for testing. Need more than two? Usually takes me 2.5-3 weeks to get an order from Kaidomain. I am about one week in. Just let me know. Thanks again.


----------



## lctorana

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 2/21/08 (Info Added)*



lctorana said:


> Currently working on the current - lux relationship, which is looking even more promising!


 
After a very promising-looking start, the lux-as-a-function-of-current relationship turned out to have even more spread as the voltage one.

Back to the drawing-board. For the statistically minded, I can report that the lux appears to rise with the fifth power of the current rise - give or take a LOT. There is so much uncertainty in this data that I cannot use it for any predictive modelling.

It was worth a try.


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 2/21/08 (Info Added)*



lctorana said:


> After a very promising-looking start, the lux-as-a-function-of-current relationship turned out to have even more spread as the voltage one.
> 
> Back to the drawing-board. For the statistically minded, I can report that the lux appears to rise with the fifth power of the current rise - give or take a LOT. There is so much uncertainty in this data that I cannot use it for any predictive modelling.
> 
> It was worth a try.



You need to insert Planck's Constant into your formulas. :devil:


----------



## EvilLithiumMan

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 2/21/08 (Info Added)*



lctorana said:


> After a very promising-looking start, the lux-as-a-function-of-current relationship turned out to have even more spread as the voltage one.
> 
> Back to the drawing-board. For the statistically minded, I can report that the lux appears to rise with the fifth power of the current rise - give or take a LOT. There is so much uncertainty in this data that I cannot use it for any predictive modelling.
> 
> It was worth a try.



Efficacy is how efficient a lamp is at producing visible light vs. heat. IE - a 20 watt bulb with an efficacy of 20(%) is converting 4 watts of that power to visible light, the remaining 16 watts being given off as heat. Welch Allyn halogen lamps range from the single digits (8-9%) to just over 30% for the 1166 lamp.

http://www.walamp.com/lpd/webstore/...71&cart=11916866532825259&divnum=2&startat=31

That's a 3 to 1 ratio and without factoring it in, it's why (as you have noted) 
it is virtually impossible to correlate power to lux.


----------



## RoyJ

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 2/21/08 (Info Added)*



EvilLithiumMan said:


> Efficacy is how efficient a lamp is at producing visible light vs. heat. IE - a 20 watt bulb with an efficacy of 20(%) is converting 4 watts of that power to visible light, the remaining 16 watts being given off as heat. Welch Allyn halogen lamps range from the single digits (8-9%) to just over 30% for the 1166 lamp.
> 
> http://www.walamp.com/lpd/webstore/...71&cart=11916866532825259&divnum=2&startat=31
> 
> That's a 3 to 1 ratio and without factoring it in, it's why (as you have noted)
> it is virtually impossible to correlate power to lux.


 
You get a much stronger correlation when you throw in the color temp facotor in there: i.e. the lumens output as a function of power consumption @ a given color temp becomes very comparable.

We all know this experimentally of course - the harder you drive a filament closer to its melting point, the higher efficiency (and lower life) you obtain. It'll be interesting to include that factor in a formula though.


----------



## lctorana

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 2/21/08 (Info Added)*

Perhaps in my efforts at economy of words in my last post, I misled the witnesses.

I wasn't graphing Lux vs Power - we all know that varies with bulb efficiency, but rather the pro-rata lux increase as a function of the pro-rata current increase, to attempt to learn a new hotrater exponent.

Doubtless there are many other factors involved, but the point of this, or any hotrater exercise is to arrive at a rule-of-thumb for lux/lumens after overdrive.

I'm not keen on colour temperature as a hotrater variable, even if it is a significant contributing factor, simply because I know of no reliable, repeatable and objective way of measuring it.

At this stage, and as I posted above, the best I can suggest is to reduce the 3.5 voltage exponent to 3. Still not accurate, but closer to the observed data.

Please keep the suggestions coming.


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 3/11/08 (Info Added)*

OK, got new bulbs posted - All bulbs now tested (still have to post Carley 809 & 1057 results from Litho)
*WA-1160 (5V 17W) -- Thanks Lips!!!*

*Osram 64432 (IRC 12V 35W) - Uses latest AWR Hotrater Spreadsheet Lumen Prediction formula
*

*Osram 64633 (15V 150W) -- Thanks sylathnie !!!*
*Ictorana*, I used the more complex "S" curve formula which I have in the latest Hotrater spreadsheet for the IRC-35W bulb for predicted Lumens. You can see how it compares to other results.


----------



## rizky_p

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 3/11/08 (Info Added)*

finally the bulb that i've been waiting , IRC 35 watt and 633 

Lord! that IRC 35 is an excellent hotwire bulb.
and i am quite surprised that 633 can be pushed that far. Since i have been using it in my 623 setup...The tungsten wire is a bit bigger compared to 623's though!

Lux how white is the IRC35 before flashing? compares to 623 maybe?


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 3/11/08 (Info Added)*

The IRC bulbs are the "Cadillac" of incan bulbs....although I'm not sure that car brand's reputation is all that it used to be. They are beautiful bulbs, and the best place to get them is www.svetila.com which I have ordered from at least 7 times.

Just make sure you limit your quantity to between 9 - 10, beyond which your shipping rate triples from $15.75 to $45.43 once you go over a threshold number....you'll see the shipping price change.


----------



## Timaxe

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 3/11/08 (Info Added)*

Ictorana, I posted some thoughts on similar things on page 4 while searching for an exponent and my conclusion was that a single number as an exponent, especially applied to voltage, just won't work very well given that formula. We need something else.

Have a look at https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/179748&page=4#post2345381 to see that even for a single bulb, the exponent changes depending on overdrive.

I'm thinking that we may need to know more about the bulbs under test...such as the filament size. But I haven't figured out if LuxLuthor's testing method allows us to ignore the filament size of the bulb under consideration, or if it causes other unwanted trends in the data that we need to account for. I'm currently not sure how this data would correlate with what has already been collected, but the result of that type of study could help us infer the effects of filament size on LuxLuthor's tests so we can look at the data better. If anyone knows, please post something about this topic that uses some of LuxLuthor's collected data. It would at least save me time looking at it.

And given the wide range of technologies employed by different bulbs...I see a monster of an equation if we want to be able to use the same formula for all incan bulb types, from colored christmas lights to hundred watt projector bulbs... :candle:


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 3/11/08 (Info Added)*

Now that I figured out how to accurately measure milliohms, I posted a new pix in first post that gives milliohm losses in each bulb holder setup.


----------



## mdocod

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 2/21/08 (Info Added)*

interesting, I was just studying the charts and noticed that the "^3.5" for re-rating that we have often used for estimating is probably very rarely true, and then did a little reading through the thread and found I am not the only person to realize this... In studying the charts, it appears that this exponent can be anything from about 2.6-3.4 depending on the bulb. I remember having a discussion with Mark over at LumensFactory, he told me that for the compact xenons he deals with, it's closer to ~3.3 give or take. Which seems about right, I'm trying to remember the explanation, something to due with the higher pressure of the fill gas reduces the "overdrive-exponent."


----------



## Mr Happy

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 3/11/08 (Info Added)*

On bulb re-rating, there are different factors at work.

In terms of plain power consumption, it goes up with the square of the voltage. So if you increase the voltage by 1.1 (or 10%), you will increase the power by 1.21 (21%).

Playing against that slightly is the increased filament resistance from the higher temperature. But at bulb working temperatures I think this effect is small and can be ignored.

Another thing the higher filament temperature does is shift the radiation spectrum to shorter wavelengths, out of the infra-red (heat) region and into the visible light region. So this gives relatively more light compared to the increase in power, as you get more visible lumens and fewer infra-red lumens. 

The shifting of the emission spectrum is probably the main thing that increases the power law from ^2 to around ^3.

Working against the increase in filament temperature is heat loss by conduction. In small high pressure xenon bulbs, the xenon gas conducts heat away from the filament to the glass bulb and the surroundings. The heat conducted away can't be radiated and is energy lost. This causes a reduction in bulb efficiency and will reduce the power law a bit compared to larger bulbs with lower pressure gas fills.


----------



## mdocod

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 3/11/08 (Info Added)*

sounds perfectly logical to me 

On another note:
Have you (LuxLuthor) or anyone experimented with a 64607?

It comes in a MR-16, but I wonder if there is a bare bulb equivalent sold somewhere... It's an 8V, 50W, 50 hour bulb. I have one on order supposed to show up tomorrow. I'm planning to test it on 8 rested eneloops and see how it looks. I'm not sure what kind of beam it's going to have, but I am optimistic, with any luck it will be something useful. If the beam pattern is good, then this might be a way to build an ROP-high killer for similar price


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 3/11/08 (Info Added)*



Mr Happy said:


> On bulb re-rating, there are different factors at work.
> 
> In terms of plain power consumption, it goes up with the square of the voltage. So if you increase the voltage by 1.1 (or 10%), you will increase the power by 1.21 (21%).
> 
> Playing against that slightly is the increased filament resistance from the higher temperature. But at bulb working temperatures I think this effect is small and can be ignored.
> 
> Another thing the higher filament temperature does is shift the radiation spectrum to shorter wavelengths, out of the infra-red (heat) region and into the visible light region. So this gives relatively more light compared to the increase in power, as you get more visible lumens and fewer infra-red lumens.
> 
> The shifting of the emission spectrum is probably the main thing that increases the power law from ^2 to around ^3.
> 
> Working against the increase in filament temperature is heat loss by conduction. In small high pressure xenon bulbs, the xenon gas conducts heat away from the filament to the glass bulb and the surroundings. The heat conducted away can't be radiated and is energy lost. This causes a reduction in bulb efficiency and will reduce the power law a bit compared to larger bulbs with lower pressure gas fills.



I am guessing there is a myriad of additional factors that are involved...off the top of my head:
Accuracy of default specifications that we use as foundation in overdrive tests. (Huge factor in some cases)

Fluctuation from one company's engineering & manufacturing standards & QC to another brand

Within a specific company, the variations in assembly, component QC, manufacturing, by location, age of facility & equipment

Personnel training and methods used in all phases of a bulb's design & manufacturing

Variations in batch runs

Design changes over time for a given model within the same company

Purity, type, and concentrations of gas in bulb envelope

Purity & quality control of filament, glass, ceramic components,

Component shapes, thickness, coatings

The age/stress (degree of overdrive & run time) before performance is evaluated

Ambient temperature, barometric pressure

Heat transfer efficiency (i.e. my open air destructive tests vs. enclosed reflector-glass lens space), etc.

Care, transport, packaging, storage, age of bulbs after leaving factory.
I mention some of these factors because I have three different boxes of a particular Osram bulb 64430 model. One box style has a percentage of glass stem fractures/visible cracks around bipins while still in sealed plastic wrapper. Another Osram brand 64430 box style has dramatically better Lux performance and overdrive voltage tolerance, and slight variations in measured amp at a given voltage. The 3rd box outputs more Lux at specific voltages, but flashes at lower voltage. I tested about a dozen of these bulbs before determining that these were consistent within Osram brand of 64430 box style.

Then there are Tungsram version of 64430, and a Chinese generic version that is 2-3 times as expensive, sold by Top Bulb that had a preposterous default 650L rating that I estimate should have been more like 1/3 of their value --down to a more realistic 230L at 6V.

Remember, people are taking the given default rated values to plug into the Hotrater...and some of those ratings are obviously pulled out of thin air....and trying to figure the corret Hotrater exponent from them.

Without any hesitation, and by far the and most impressive design, manufacturing, and consistently high quality bulbs are the Osram IRC 35, 50, 65W bulbs. 

Next, I would put the Philips 5761 & most of the WA bulbs....but I am hesitant about the WA only because they are not in any kind of sealed or labeled container/box. Almost all of us have obtained our WA bulbs from Litho123, and it's hard to be sure of exactly what you are getting & specific details when only provided with hand labeled plastic envelopes. I'm not saying anything negative about Litho, rather it is just not the same "standard" as getting an individual bulb in a sealed envelope/box.


----------



## Mr Happy

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 3/11/08 (Info Added)*



LuxLuthor said:


> ... myriad of additional factors ... three different boxes ...


Wow. You really make bulb buying sound like a bit of a lottery 

When you buy bulbs by the box load, I have to think you are a bit serious about this flashlight thing...


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 3/11/08 (Info Added)*

LOL! I make sure it remains a fun hobby....but my main point is not to disparage my beloved incans, rather to underscore what I believe is the near futility in searching for the "Holy Grail of Hotrater Lumen Overdrive Rating Exponent."

Big thanks to *Techjunkie *who found this bulb from a company I had not tried before....*Hikari*. He scored some of them on eBay which has the darker blue box. I then scored a bunch from another bulb company I had not ordered from because their web search system if you don't have a part number is abysmal. Bulbtronics #JC5033

What is so great about this bulb? *It costs 87 cents*, and takes some unimagineable abuse before buckling under. It is a 12V 35W G4 bulb rated at 650 bulb lumens, 2,000hr life. Here it is at Bulbconnection for $2.00

*I'll post the charts after I get some sleep*....but default 12V 650L gave 50 Lux....and this little sucker didn't flash until I got up to 22.5V and 315 Lux before flashing at 22.8V. Here's some eye candy of these and a few others.


----------



## Wattnot

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 3/11/08 (Info Added)*

I would like to volunteer a new 1185 if one of you needs it for a test. It only has a few minutes of use but I did a home-made potting job with JB Weld. I un-potted it after buying a socket but could not get the JB Weld off!! 

So it would make an excellent test subject as it still works and the leads are accessible.

mdocod and LuxLuthor get first crack.

:thumbsup:


EDIT: PM me if anyone wants this. I'm unsubscribing now.


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 3/11/08 (Info Added)*



Wattnot said:


> I would like to volunteer a new 1185 if one of you needs it for a test. It only has a few minutes of use but I did a home-made potting job with JB Weld. I un-potted it after buying a socket but could not get the JB Weld off!!
> 
> So it would make an excellent test subject as it still works and the leads are accessible.
> 
> mdocod and LuxLuthor get first crack.
> 
> :thumbsup:



Ummm.....I already tested an 1185...and I only test brand new bulbs.


----------



## Fulgeo

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 3/11/08 (Info Added)*

Still a great thread. I check it every day. Ordered a bunch of lamps from http://www.bulbconnection.com/ a while back. In the order I picked up a few Osram 64440. This one http://www.bulbconnection.com/ViewItem/bcrw/itmid/1494/oc/64440/item.html. When I examine the lamp it has the more common horizontal filament. I tend to be more of a fan of the tubular or axial filaments. Like what is found in the Osram 62138. I am wondering if this one http://www.bulbconnection.com/ViewItem/bcrw/itmid/2381/oc/64440S/item.html is of the tubular/axial filament type. It is specified as 64440S. Also was wondering if all the Osram IRC lamps are of the tubular/axial filament type?

As a side note I placed a call to the bulbconnection a while back and talked to one of their sales types. I asked them if they carry Welch Allyn bulbs. They said no but they were thinking about it based on requests. I replied that I was formally requesting they carry the WA1111 and WA1185 lamp. I also explained what we CPFs were doing out here. In retrospec I should have asked about a CPF discount at the same time. Anyway just went to their page and notice they are now carring the WA1111 and WA1185 lamp. Not saying it was all about me just wanted to share the info

Happy Modding and keep that info coming in.


----------



## TKO

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 3/11/08 (Info Added)*

Fulgeo,


The "S" is axial:








The IRC bulb is, also:


----------



## JimmyM

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 3/11/08 (Info Added)*



LuxLuthor said:


>


That's quite the grave yard you've got there!


----------



## Fulgeo

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 3/11/08 (Info Added)*



TKO said:


> Fulgeo,
> 
> 
> The "S" is axial:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The IRC bulb is, also:


 

Thanks for the info. Man that IRC bulb looks sexy. Any one have a good supplier that carries the IRC bulbs in the USA?


----------



## FILIPPO

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 3/11/08 (Info Added)*

what about testing this 6v bulbs??

Westinghouse 04424


----------



## TKO

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 3/11/08 (Info Added)*

Fulgeo,


I think that you owe me a beer.


----------



## Fulgeo

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 3/11/08 (Info Added)*



TKO said:


> Fulgeo,
> 
> 
> I think that you owe me a beer.


 
Think, heck I know I do!:thumbsup:


----------



## rizky_p

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 3/11/08 (Info Added)*

Just test Osram 64640 (24v 150w) and blew it, i think it measured between 27-28v before flashed. Do you have this bulb Lux? could you test it? This bulb is easier on the batteries @ 6.3A. 

Test some Philips 12v 50w(dont know the type but it is Axial), this bulbs is amazing it survived a 22v punishement measured at the bulb and as bright as my 623 @15v

Thanks.


----------



## WildChild

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 3/11/08 (Info Added)*

Does someone know the lifespan of the ROP-HI and ROP-LO bulbs at 7.4V (6 AA NiMH)?


----------



## TKO

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 3/11/08 (Info Added)*



LuxLuthor said:


> *I'll post the charts after I get some sleep*....


 
Okay, Rip Van Winkle, time to wake up


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 4/1/08 (Info Added)*



TKO said:


> Okay, Rip Van Winkle, time to wake up



LOL! OK, ok....I'm finally awake.

Posted Litho's two bulbs he sent me a while ago....I was trying to find a life specification for them, but no luck. Also posted the Hikari bulb that Techjunkie sent me. Thanks guys.

*Carley CL-1057 (6V 12W)*
*Carley CL-809 (10.5V 12.6W)*
*Hikari JC-5033 (12V 35W)*
 _Note: This is all the bulbs I have received for testing. If someone has others they want tested, you will need to send me two new bulbs so I can get correlation between them._


----------



## TKO

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 3/11/08 (Info Added)*

:twothumbs


*Thanks Lux!

I was chomping at the bit to see what the **Hikari JC-5033 would do.

Sorry to "wake you up".
*


----------



## thezman

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 3/11/08 (Info Added)*

This is weird. I clicked on this thread for some info and post #1 is TorchBoy, not LuxLuthor. Tried it with FireFox and IE with the same results.

None of the charts are there. 

Is it just me, or is something wacked with this thread. :thinking:


----------



## starburst

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 3/11/08 (Info Added)*

Chart's seem to be down right now.


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 3/11/08 (Info Added)*

Well, this does not bode well. I had asked DM51 & then Silverfox to edit the topic title to reflect the latest 4/1/08 results I posted....and it appears that they have deleted my post with all the data that was there. With no note about it being done.

Isn't that lovely?


----------



## thezman

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 3/11/08 (Info Added)*

Hey Lux, I have the tar if you have the feathers.


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 3/11/08 (Info Added)*

I'm hoping at least CPF has a backup copy of the thread, I could add the last few additions back in....or if someone saved it as a web page because I am not going to rewrite the first post from scratch....with all the formatting, etc.


----------



## EvilPaul2112

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 3/11/08 (Info Added)*

I sincerely hope someone has a back-up. That was the single most useful page on CPF. The only reason I didnt save it was for the continued updates.


----------



## Kiessling

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 3/11/08 (Info Added)*

We're sorry about that, and we're evaluating options about how to re-animate the first post of this thread. When I say "we" ... this means those who know the tech stuff.
Stay tuned and let's hope for the best.
bernie


----------



## FILIPPO

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 3/11/08 (Info Added)*

hi...I'm sorry about that lux!

I want to say that when I open the thread I have as 1st post the famous LUX post with all excel pages and...

I have also saved it as web page and I have all pics and what lux wrote.


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 3/11/08 (Info Added)*

I know this was an inadvertent mistake, so thanks for your attention Kiessling & Silverfox. I think if someone like Filipo saved it as web page (which I should have done), the links and formatting should be in it.

Filipo, I'll send you an email, and maybe you can zip/RAR your saved version and backup files to me? Thanks!


----------



## chuck614

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 3/11/08 (Info Added)*

I refer to this thread all the time. To lose it is worse than the burning of the Alexandrian library.
:mecry:


----------



## Kiessling

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 3/11/08 (Info Added)*

I am relieved to hear that !!! 

Once you have the backup, please contact staff (I suggest: Unforgiven, Sasha, Empath) to put it back where it belongs.

Again ... sorry ... for whatever mistake happened and the confusion and grief it caused.

bernie


----------



## SilverFox

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 3/11/08 (Info Added)*

Hello LuxLuthor,

Although I really don't know exactly what I did, I believe I was the only one editing your post trying to get the title updated. Since I was the only one there, I take the entire blame for the missing post.

Sorry...

OK, bring on the tar and feathers.

Tom


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 3/11/08 (Info Added)*

Tom, 

We will get it all fixed, no problems.

Thankfully Filippo saved a complete copy of post before my last update which I can put back in....then I can send it as a PM that should preserve all the content and formatting. Thanks for great phone call....


----------



## FILIPPO

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 3/11/08 (Info Added)*

:twothumbs.......:thumbsup:


----------



## thezman

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 3/11/08 (Info Added)*

Glad to see this thread on the road to repair. Too much good info to get lost.

Oh, and Tom, everybody knows you don't tar and feather a Silver Fox, you make a coat out of it. :devil:


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 3/11/08 (Info Added)*

OK, Unforgiven restored it back....so we are all set. Backup made.

Thanks again to Filippo and everyone's help.


----------



## SilverFox

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 3/11/08 (Info Added)*

Hello Thezman,

OK enough of that... (nervously looking over my shoulder...)  

I am glad to see this resolved.

Tom


----------



## chuck614

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 4/1/08 (Info Added)*

PM sent.


----------



## petrev

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 4/1/08 (Info Added)*

Hi LUX,

I've just been getting JimmyM to upgrade 2 of my JM-SSTs for 40V+ use and I sent him an *Osram 64663* to test while he was doing it.

He set it up on his Mastech HY5020 and this is what he sent me - All results direct from Mastech no independent voltage/current readings.




JimmyM said:


> OK. I just returned from my la-BOR-a-tory.
> 
> .Volts --- Amps
> 
> 36.0V --- 12
> 36.5V --- 12.1
> 37.0V --- 12.15
> 37.5V --- 12.3
> 38.0V --- 12.4
> 38.5V --- 12.5
> 39.0V --- 12.6
> 39.5V --- 12.7
> 40.0V --- 12.8 *( 512 W )*
> 40.5V --- 12.9
> 41.0V --- 13
> 41.5V --- 13.1
> 42.0V --- 13.2
> 42.5V --- 13.3 ( 565.25 W )
> 42.5+ . . . . *Pffft*.
> 
> When it blew, it did not do quietly.
> It started flickering and arcing, then started about 1 second of sustained intense blue arcing.
> 
> At that point it made a VERY sharp POOF!
> 
> The arcing caused localized melting of the glass envelope and the intense pressure blew a small hole in the base of the bulb. It blew it's guts out on my bi-pin base and 1 week old bench top. I suppose some damage had to happen at some point.
> 
> At 41 volts, to say it's impressive is an understatement. It was *INSANE!*
> 
> . . .
> I'm enclosing your blown bulb so you can see what I'm talking about . . .


 
Wish I could have seen the "sustained intense blue arcing" etc. - Can't wait to see the bulb ! ! !

Don't know if you can feed these figures into your XL-Sheet (Voltage not from pins and no LUX measurements of course) but rather interesting results none the less !
Wonder what the predicted lamp life is at say 40V - 41.6V

41.6V just happens to be my guesstimate of 13x A123 cells under this approximate load ?

CAUTION - Safety Glasses Needed . . .

Cheers 
Pete


----------



## Spypro

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 4/1/08 (Info Added)*

A quick question here:
I already have a nice Mag85: 3 x AW rechargeable 18650, AW softstart and all of this in a 4 C body.

What would be the brightest options with the battery setup I have ?


----------



## Fulgeo

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 4/1/08 (Info Added)*

Hey LuxLuther.

PM Sent!


----------



## EvilLithiumMan

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 4/1/08 (Info Added)*



Spypro said:


> A quick question here:
> I already have a nice Mag85: 3 x AW rechargeable 18650, AW softstart and all of this in a 4 C body.
> 
> What would be the brightest options with the battery setup I have ?



IIRC, 2C is the maximum safe limit for 18650 cells. So if your cells are 2200mah capacity, 4400ma is max. safe load. 11.7V x 4.4A is 51W, so a 50W bulb your best (safest) bet. There are 12V, 50W bulbs available, but you won't be overdriving them at a nominal 11.7 volts. I don't know if 10V, 50W bulbs exist, that would be the way to go.


----------



## beetleguise

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 4/1/08 (Info Added)*

Lux, I need some advice. I used to run a 5761 with 2 aw c cells and an incan smartdriver, but I kept tripping the over discharge PCB protection. I now am running a 5761 with 2 D lithium protected cells. I am having no over discharge problems since these are 5000 ma capacity, but I am flashing bulbs when I am fully charged even with my incan smart driver. If I accidentally go full high, POOF! I wish my driver automatically started in low, or I could regulate max voltage. What bulb would work best, or, what would you do to keep from POOFing?
Thanks!


----------



## Fulgeo

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 4/1/08 (Info Added)*



beetleguise said:


> Lux, I need some advice. I used to run a 5761 with 2 aw c cells and an incan smartdriver, but I kept tripping the over discharge PCB protection. I now am running a 5761 with 2 D lithium protected cells. I am having no over discharge problems since these are 5000 ma capacity, but I am flashing bulbs when I am fully charged even with my incan smart driver. If I accidentally go full high, POOF! I wish my driver automatically started in low, or I could regulate max voltage. What bulb would work best, or, what would you do to keep from POOFing?
> Thanks!



The 2D Lithium cells are probably 4.0 - 4.1 volts fresh off the charger. Pick up a VOHM meter if you do not already have one and measure the voltage of your cells. If it is over say 3.8 volts per cell you will need to lower it. There are two schools of thought. Some say to wait until the cells stabilize but I find that the newer lithium cells stay up near 3.9-4.0 volts per cell for a long time. What I do is use my charger to discharge the cells at half the bulb amperage and watch the voltage. When it drops to the desired level then you can use them. If your charger does not have the ability to discharge you can use a safer higher amperage bulb. You could also connect one cell to a 5761 bulb for 30 seconds per bulb. This would probably lower your voltage to safe levels. When in doubt just use your VOHM to measure the voltages you are working with. Happy Modding!


----------



## Action

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 4/1/08 (Info Added)*

Hmmm. Where does one get protected D cells? Does AW carry them now?


----------



## Gunnerboy

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 4/1/08 (Info Added)*

.


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 4/1/08 (Info Added)*

This is where some of us have added an NTC and/or resistor to keep voltage in that narrow range below flashing. Ideally, the best setup is one of AWR's HotDriver Regulators.


----------



## RustyKnee

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 4/1/08 (Info Added)*

Hi Lux

as I mentioned in your battery thread I received my pack....ta very much .

I just took the battery fresh of the charger where it terminated itself....and tried it within 1 minute on the Philips 13100 12V 100W builbs I have with AW's multi level soft start switch.......It didn't poof!

So either I have a volt drop somewhere....or this bulb can take 13 cells. I might tale the light into work tomorrow to see if I can find any volt drops....but it might be worth you testing this bulb aswell as it is an axial filament and hopefully can take the voltage (if it turns out my light isn't dropping current anywhere).

Stu


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 4/1/08 (Info Added)*

That is a 100W bulb, so it may very well have enough "balls" to hold up to a 15.6V pack. You might try to stick DMM probes in bulb holes just to see that voltage is showing up there, but that does not tell you how much resistance you have in your setup.


----------



## RustyKnee

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 4/1/08 (Info Added)*



LuxLuthor said:


> That is a 100W bulb, so it may very well have enough "balls" to hold up to a 15.6V pack. You might try to stick DMM probes in bulb holes just to see that voltage is showing up there, but that does not tell you how much resistance you have in your setup.


 I have some other bulb sockets that will take these bulbs. I am not sure if we have a man enough psu at work to try them on. I know it does 10 Amps, but I am not sure it can do it at the required voltage. I will look today. 

I hope it works as this may be another option for 13 cells and a round beam (looking at your tests 13 cells was a bit too far for most). the only major artifact is the shadow from the wire (ala HID hehe).

(Great battery by the way)

Stu


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 4/1/08 (Info Added)*

Let me know, Stu. Good to hear battery pack is working out! 

I have some bulbs I'm testing (& have tested but not posted yet) from *Fulgeo *& *Chuck614*.


----------



## RustyKnee

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 4/1/08 (Info Added)*

Hi Lux,

I just whacked the 13100 on a 35V 10A PSU at work 5 minutes ago. I used the same Bulb holder

I didn't use a DVM, just the PSU display so it may be a bit off (I will check at lunch). But.....

The PSU got to its 10.35 indicated limit with 17Volts applied and no pop....over 170 watts with a axial filament. I will check with test equipment....but so far this looks like a bulb that can take a beasting.

update - The PSU display was accurate enough. It was with +-0.2 units from measured with a DVM and Current Clamp.

Stu


----------



## Patriot

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 4/1/08 (Info Added)*

Lux, it appears that 8 x AW 18650s will sufficiently drive the 64655 but not the 64657. Is that correct?

Thanks


----------



## WildChild

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 4/1/08 (Info Added)*

Does anyone know what kind of lifespan I can expect from the WA 1111 bulb on 6 AA Eneloop?


----------



## Crenshaw

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 4/1/08 (Info Added)*

I am _just_ realising the usefullness of this thread. Thank you LuxLuthor!

Crenshaw


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 4/1/08 (Info Added)*

OK, I finally got the bulbs from *Fulgeo *& *Chuck614* tested and posted, namely:

*KaiDomain KD-773U *(6V 23W) that I extrapolated lower values from their 8.3V promotional listing.

*Westinghouse 4743* (12V 20W)

*Hikari JC5043* (12V 50W)

*Hikari JC5051* (12V 75W)

*Osram HLX-64656* (24V 275W)


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 4/1/08 (Info Added)*



Patriot36 said:


> Lux, it appears that 8 x AW 18650s will sufficiently drive the 64655 but not the 64657. Is that correct?
> 
> Thanks



Not the AW cells with the 12 Amp draw ranges. You need to use the high current Emoli or Konion safe chemistry...then let's see...8 x 3.7 to 4.1V is a range of 29.6 to 32.8V which favors the 64657 because it tolerated higher voltage....but you really need to look at your overall resistance in the light, hopefully have a soft starter, etc.



WildChild said:


> Does anyone know what kind of lifespan I can expect from the WA 1111 bulb on 6 AA Eneloop?



It's not real easy to answer you because those cells will give a voltage range of 7.2 to 8.6V depending on charge level...then it depends on how much resistance you have in your light that will drop the voltage effectively delivered to the bulb. In a typical FiveMega setup using stock parts and his drop-in bulb holder, you will see about a 0.75 to 0.95 Volt drop from the values I listed in my chart.



Crenshaw said:


> I am _just_ realising the usefullness of this thread. Thank you LuxLuthor!
> 
> Crenshaw



Appreciate your note.


----------



## Fulgeo

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 4/1/08 (Info Added)*

Thanks LuxLuthor! I have been using the KaiDomain bulb to make flashlights for family. The nice thing about this bulb is I can drive it with 6 NiMH battery packs and get about 500 Lumens without having to worry about the following:

Heat. Not enought to cause a fire or worry about durring long run times.

Insta Flash - not a problem for a CPFer but a major consideration when you give a modded flashlight to someone that does not even have a VOHM. How do you tell a teenager not to use the flashlight for a day after you charge it?

60+ minute run times with 2700+ Mah AA batterys.

Unusually long bulb life.



LuxLuthor said:


> OK, I finally got the bulbs from *Fulgeo *& *Chuck614* tested and posted, namely:
> *KaiDomain KD-773U *(6V 23W) that I extrapolated lower values from their 8.3V promotional listing.
> 
> *Westinghouse 4743* (12V 20W)
> 
> *Hikari JC5043* (12V 50W)
> 
> *Hikari JC5051* (12V 75W)
> 
> *Osram HLX-64656* (24V 275W)


----------



## FILIPPO

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 4/1/08 (Info Added)*



Fulgeo said:


> Thanks LuxLuthor! I have been using the KaiDomain bulb to make flashlights for family. The nice thing about this bulb is I can drive it with 6 NiMH battery packs and get about 500 Lumens without having to worry about the following:
> 
> Heat. Not enought to cause a fire or worry about durring long run times.
> 
> Insta Flash - not a problem for a CPFer but a major consideration when you give a modded flashlight to someone that does not even have a VOHM. How do you tell a teenager not to use the flashlight for a day after you charge it?
> 
> 60+ minute run times with 2700+ Mah AA batterys.
> 
> Unusually long bulb life.


 
and they are cheap...


----------



## chuck614

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 4/1/08 (Info Added)*



FILIPPO said:


> and they are cheap...


 
Speaking of cheap, that Hikari 50W'er I sent is a pleasant surprise. While the 75W didn't do as well as I hoped. Still, I think this thread is probably the most useful in all of CPF. Thanks Lux!:thumbsup:


----------



## jerry i h

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 4/1/08 (Info Added)*



LuxLuthor said:


> ...*KaiDomain KD-773U *(6V 23W) that I extrapolated lower values from their 8.3V promotional listing...


 
KUL :twothumbs. Now I want a few, and would like to make some torches with it for some family members for Christmas. Pity KD shows these as out-of-stock ...


----------



## mdocod

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 4/1/08 (Info Added)*

I got bored and decided to run some numbers....

-------

exploring real world output re-rating formulas based on real world tests, LuxLuther, If you'd like to include this anywhere in the OP feel free 

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

Old school re-rate formula was [(Va/Vd)^3.5]xLd= re-rated lumens

Have been told by an anonymous bulb bulb manufacture that 3.3 may be closer to realistic.

I have brought this up before but have decided to do some more in-depth research into your charts and find some true ballparks....

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

Lets see:

WA1111: ~2.8

WA1274: ~2.9

WA1185: ~2.9

KD773U: ~2.95

CL1057: ~2.9

5761: ~2.7

W-4743: ~2.95

347118-GE: ~2.9

AW6V: ~3

ROPH: ~2.9

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


I'll come back in and edit in some more later, just taking a few each brand or "type" and testing a few spots in the chart to see what the exponent would be if you wanted to do a rough calculation, so far I think it's fair to say that it's going to be less than 3 for most bulbs. Good to know


----------



## lctorana

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 6/22/08 (Info Added)*

I refer the Honorable Member for high-pressure Xenon dropins to Post # 137.


----------



## mdocod

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 6/22/08 (Info Added)*

LOL, yea, i didn't wade through everything that had been posted and just started plugging away on some numbers, 

Looks like you came to the same conclusion, that 2.9 is a much more appropriate exponent on average. I suppose I can stop there. 

Thank You!

Eric


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 6/22/08 (Info Added)*

I was searching with AWR for all types of more accurate formula exponents, including more complex that would give "S" curve variation by % overdrive....but then I gave up the hunt when I started seeing the unexpected (& reproduceable) drop in Lux measurements with what should have been some ideal run times.

When you see a bulb putting out 1000+ "lumens" in first 3 hrs at a particular overdrive voltage (equalibrated to default values), then at 4 hrs the output drops to 500 "lumens" and keeps dropping...I gave up on the exponent being important.

I didn't see this lumen dropping with run time @ various overdrive voltages with all brands the same way, or as significantly at a % overdrive. It was just too individualized for various bulbs....making it too complex to be as useful as I anticipated. I gave up on more interpolation accuracy, and never heard any more ideas about it from AWR.

In some ways, I kind of like the "magic," mystery, & wow factors related to living on the bleeding edge of incans. The obsession for predictibility "down to a gnat's ***" in life can become as boring as a plank of wood after a while.


----------



## DM51

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 4/1/08 (Info Added)*



mdocod said:


> I got bored and decided to.....


LOL. That would make a great thread title for the Cafe.


----------



## Bimmerboy

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 4/1/08 (Info Added)*



DM51 said:


> LOL. That would make a great thread title for the Cafe.



Go for it! It would be too funny if you started something like that, it gets out of hand, and you had to lock your own thread. :laughing:


----------



## Nite

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 6/22/08 (Info Added)*

Wheres the tests for some D-26 lamps like SFP91 or LF EO-9?

AM I so tired I missed it?

Must re read....


----------



## brighterisbetter

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 6/22/08 (Info Added)*

I could be wrong, but I think the OP was testing bare bulbs only, not LA's like SF and LumensFactory produce.


----------



## Action

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 6/22/08 (Info Added)*

Yep, just bare bulbs. There was a request for MR style bulbs early in the thread, however it would have required a different methodology and perhaps differing equipment to test.


----------



## Nite

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 6/22/08 (Info Added)*

ok can i get some examples of surefire or other lights that use these?


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 6/22/08 (Info Added)*

Considering for a moment that I would be interested in blowing $30/bulb for a P91 setup (which I'm not), stop and think with my test setup in post #1 how a side view of a bulb inside of a reflector assembly would be reliably tested.

I already ruled out testing bulbs inside of a reflector, by measuring straight out the front (so called "torch lumens"--which is a made up term without any scientific rigor or established standards) because of lack of uniformity from reflector design, hotspot distance from bulb/position of light meter, size of sensor, etc.


----------



## Nite

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 6/22/08 (Info Added)*

I always wondered what the diff tween torch lumens and lumens

Dont u guys get all these companies to send you stuff free ?


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 6/22/08 (Info Added)*



Nite said:


> Dont u guys get all these companies to send you stuff free ?


Ummm....in short, no. Of the 38 bulbs tested, I got 8-10 of them from people sending, the rest I bought. All but a few had at least two bulbs tested on different dates to get correlation of test method. Some had 4-5 bulbs of one type tested.


----------



## Nite

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 6/22/08 (Info Added)*

im guilty of skimming thru looking for D26 and not reading the whole thread...

what kind of lamps are these..I mean..what Lights do these go into?


is the info all there? 


Im totally new and know nothing that isnt contained in MDOCODs Li-ion sticky thread.

Im gonna read it now i think....all the text 2 see what I can learn makes this data so valuable.


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 6/22/08 (Info Added)*

These are bulbs that have bipin "legs" that plug into several universal holders, and which in turn mostly are "hotwire" upgrades in custom maglites. Many of us have played around with trying to find the optimal voltage, light output, and how far you can overdrive a bulb before you run the risk of killing it. So this was my attempt to bring some real testing data into previously made assumptions taken from a spreadsheet that proved not to be very accurate.


----------



## Nite

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 6/22/08 (Info Added)*

wow thanks for quick reply

as a beginner im gonna stick to SF and thicker but compatible parts. they are like putting together lego pieces its so easy. Most civilians cant build a P91 from scratch, without coming here first..theyd just buy one.

However the setups your using arent retail items...off the shelf..as U said "hotwired"

I am not rich enough, nor skiilled enuough (yet) to attempt the configs..

however thanks for doing this..its alot of work im sure

at your own expense! ? thats a labor of love.

im sure this is like equivalent to my needing the MDOCODS lithium ion battery threadhttps://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/161536

SO u wrote a bible like MDOCOD? thats awesome..

I hope one day to be able to afford too and be knowledgeable enough to attempt playing around in this area without electrocuting myself or dying via vent with flame multiple event.
:wave:

regarding someones post i saw....in this thread...
oh yeah and this kind of data definitely has some kind of commercial value...however im sure each company did its versions of these same tests, they only did it on their own brand lamps. in any case, their competitors datas now published here for free where their computer guys see it right away.

say why dont they publish THEIR test data on THEIR manufacturer websites..has anyone checked?
:shrug:


----------



## Nite

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 6/22/08 (Info Added)*

im on this thread because i saw the words DESTRUCTIVE TESTS in the title.

WHo else is also here same way...i know its alot!


----------



## Fulgeo

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 6/22/08 (Info Added)*

Nite,

Do not sell yourself short. If you are buying SF products you can afford to put together a ROP or better yet a Mag85. Both are doable under $100 USD. As for knowledge you can find it all right on these forums. As for skill just jump in, the water is fine. You have a problem just post it on the forums most like to help (and argue but that can be fun to)! 



Nite said:


> I am not rich enough, nor skiilled enuough (yet) to attempt the configs..
> 
> I hope one day to be able to afford too and be knowledgeable enough to attempt playing around in this area without electrocuting myself or dying via vent with flame multiple event.
> 
> :shrug:


----------



## Alan B

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 6/22/08 (Info Added)*

I seem to recall a thread called something like "What is a Mag85" that is a good intro on how to build a hotwire. It is only "hard" before you know how to do it, after knowing it is a "piece of cake". 

There is more than one way to do it, but basically all you need is a socket to put the bulb into, an upgraded reflector and lens that can take the increased heat, and a battery or battery holder that matches the voltage requirements of the chosen bulb. There are many bulbs, but some are very simple like the ROP (Roar of the Pelican) or [email protected] All the mod parts are available on the forums. 

I built a Mag85 using a 9AA cell holder that fits in a 3D [email protected], a socket adapter that holds a bipin bulb and fits the regular [email protected] tower, and a reflector and lens. I got everything except the lens and the [email protected] from one vendor and put it together in 5 minutes, and that was my first "hotwire". The total cost was less than most SF lights, and the build quality is quite high. It produces a lot of guilt-free (rechargeable) lumens, and filled with low self-discharge NiMH it is always ready to go. It rarely fails to impress, and the runtime is long enough and heat low enough to be actually useful as a light.

-- Alan


----------



## kosPap

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*

LuxLuthor,
did you ever try the Philips Focusline 7388 20W bulb. I think it is the 5761's 20W brother.

cheers, Kostas


----------



## Techjunkie

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 6/22/08 (Info Added)*

I have been using the Osram 64640 bulb (24V 150W 6000L) with 20 Titanium 1800 AAs in a modded Mag 4D for some time now. I tried the higher wattage 24V bulbs but couldn't cope with the super short runtime and couldn't focus those longer bulbs without a 3" head.

It would be cool to have a LuxLuthor chart for the 64640.


----------



## abarth_1200

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 6/22/08 (Info Added)*

great work i must have looked at the first page of this thread at least 40 times already, very useful.

Is there any chance of doing maglite bulbs, like the higher up ones 4 5 6 cell xenon and maybe the krypton too.

Would interesting to see how bright they actually are, especially the 5 and 6 cell xenon


----------



## rayman

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 6/22/08 (Info Added)*

Great test :twothumbs

I'm just about to build my first ican mod and this charts really help me to choose the bulb.

rayman


----------



## jerry i h

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 6/22/08 (Info Added)*

OK: finally did my first hotwire (ROP) .
_I’ve tasted blood and I want more_ (hint: the singer was Susan Sarandon).
For my next trick: I was on the bulbconnection website looking at 6v/G4 bulbs (planning on a FM/KIU bipin socket in the same host as ROP). The 7388 is listed there as an exact substitute for the Osram 64250. However: the Osram 64275 is the big brother: still 6v, but 50% more lumens and 50% more amps (6.6, ouch). 
I guess my next task is: Philips 5761, Welch Allyn WA1111, and Osram 64275. So many bulbs, so few batts…


----------



## JimmyM

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 6/22/08 (Info Added)*



jerry i h said:


> OK: finally did my first hotwire (ROP) .
> _I’ve tasted blood and I want more_ (hint: the singer was Susan Sarandon).
> For my next trick: I was on the bulbconnection website looking at 6v/G4 bulbs (planning on a FM/KIU bipin socket in the same host as ROP). The 7388 is listed there as an exact substitute for the Osram 64250. However: the Osram 64275 is the big brother: still 6v, but 50% more lumens and 50% more amps (6.6, ouch).
> I guess my next task is: Philips 5761, Welch Allyn WA1111, and Osram 64275. So many bulbs, so few batts…


While I am partial to the 64275 (I have a Mag275 as my "go to" incan. It requires no more than 7.0V, 7.1-7.2 if you ease up on it gently. I have a Hotdriver set at 7.05V. The 5761 is slightly more robust in that you can direct drive it on 6 NiMH cells that have been rested. Lux's tests show it as more efficient than the 64275. Also, the 5761 is a smaller bulb and thus requires a smaller reflector hole. So more of the generated lummens make it out the front.

Edit: Was it "Rocky Horror"?


----------



## ktafil

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 6/22/08 (Info Added)*

LuxLuthor, this is very usefull information.

Thanks for the research!

:twothumbs


----------



## nfetterly

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 6/22/08 (Info Added)*

Interest Thread – Need 250 bulbs for this to happen

I started this over in the Group Buy section - but wanted exposure over here.... looks like a bunch of bulb folks...

I’ve got a FiveMega M*g that runs the FM Carley 43W bulb. I’ve only got 4 bulbs (I bought this from another forum member).

The bulbs were custom made to FiveMega specifications by Carley – and there are none available. I’ve had some PMs with FiveMega and he’s open to having another run of bulbs, but the minimum order is 250 with the cost being around $12 per bulb. FiveMega (reasonably) also will require pre-pay for the run of bulbs to happen.

I’ve seen people posting that they want to buy the bulb, its #12 on LuxLuthor's list of most powerful MAG Mods. *1500 Bulb Lumens* It is really incredible – it’s the light I use to “wow” people in the office – pull out a fancy looking M*g and shine a hot spot on a wall 100 yards away.


If you are interested - please post over on my thread in the Market Place Group Buys. I'm up for 20 bulbs. Total is ~75 right now.

Neale


----------



## Nite

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 6/22/08 (Info Added)*

can we get an fm1794?


----------



## metlarules

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 6/22/08 (Info Added)*

Have you tested a WA 1183 yet?


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 6/22/08 (Info Added)*

I have not heard much about, nor used fm1794 or WA-1183. A quick check on Litho's sales thread says the 1183 is about 440 BL at 4.8V

nfetterly's idea of the Carley 43W made for FiveMega is a fabulous bulb.


----------



## RODALCO

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 6/22/08 (Info Added)*

I find it interesting to see that in most "flashed" bulbs, the filaments have actually melted of or near the supports to the filament.

Obviously that part is exposed to most thermal stress.

I would expect the filament to melt somewhere midway where most heat is generated.

Just my $0.02 worth on this interesting topic.


----------



## Tirodani

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 6/22/08 (Info Added)*

I notice that current specs on the 62138 rate it at 25 hours, not the 50 that I've seen mentioned in all the CPF discussion on this bulb. Can anyone vouch for having seen specs before that rated it at 50 hours? If so, I wonder if they've changed it or just re-rated it.

Seems strange, especially since folks report the 62138 liking more voltage than the 50-hour rated 64625.


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 6/22/08 (Info Added)*



Tirodani said:


> I notice that current specs on the 62138 rate it at 25 hours, not the 50 that I've seen mentioned in all the CPF discussion on this bulb. Can anyone vouch for having seen specs before that rated it at 50 hours? If so, I wonder if they've changed it or just re-rated it.
> 
> Seems strange, especially since folks report the 62138 liking more voltage than the 50-hour rated 64625.



You are likely relying on www.BulbConnection.com rather than Osram's actual site which has always listed the 62138 bulb as having 50 hrs life.


----------



## Tirodani

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 6/22/08 (Info Added)*



LuxLuthor said:


> You are likely relying on www.BulbConnection.com rather than Osram's actual site which has always listed the 62138 bulb as having 50 hrs life.



Could have sworn I checked both.


----------



## wayne21

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*

I sure hope you are getting help from somebody or somewhere for the cost of the bulb's. untill I bought a good voltage meter as you suggested,I fried almost $100.00 in bulbs within a 2 month period. out of pocket for me is rough. you proably helped the bulb companies sell a poop load of bulb's. they should donate to you and write it off.


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 4/18/09*

I am posting my results for a clever new Osram category of bulbs, called Ministar. There is a thread about the 35W version here, but I ordered and tested the 50W version. 

This bulb has a high quality silver coating on the bottom, acting like a reflector, and improving efficiency similar to the IRC bulb. Because this is a more directional bulb, Osram rates it in candela.

As I have said elsewhere, there are very strict definitions of lumens and candela, that are rarely understood. Candela underscores the measurement output in a directional cone of light (called a steradian) which applies more accurately with this type of built in reflector coating.

Luckily, we can do an approximate conversion by looking at Osram's site for the 50W Ministar bulb here, which I just finished testing. I will be posting it in my destructive original post shortly. 

We see that this bulb puts out 1400 candela with radiation angle of 30° (also has life of 2,000hrs and color temp of 3,000 K). Going back to the WIKI page, there is a conversion table at the bottom if you know the beam angle, which in this case 30° uses 4.67.

So we divide 1400 candela by 4.67 to get *approximately 300 lumens. *However, this is a totally unique bulb design, because of directional output, but I did my same perdicular lux testing method to be consistent.The obvious question is how does it compare to the IRC 50W 64440 bulb listed here. That bulb lists 1250 lumens & 4,000hr life (same 3,000K temp), and at first blush it appears the IRC blows it away.

I will have to additionally test both bulbs in the same reflector setup to see how they compare visually and practically. The Ministar reflector design makes an unfair "apples to oranges" comparison. You can use my data to see the low amp efficiency and flash point voltage.



.


----------



## zehnmm

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 4/18/09 (Info Added)*

LuxLuthor: Great Work! I am very interested in your further tests of the Osram Ministar. Like you stated, on paper it appears that the IRC bulb is better, but because of the design differences, that may not be the case.

I am also interested in your opinion as to the color the Ministar 50W puts out at various voltages. 

Thanks and congratulations!


----------



## LIGHTSMAD

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 4/18/09 (New Info Added)*

good work here.....a real helpful guide....thanks lux


----------



## ElectronGuru

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 4/18/09 (New Info Added)*

Hi Lux, if I send you a H/L pair of 7.2v Pelican 3853 bulbs, would you mind entering them into your bulb lineup?


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 4/18/09 (New Info Added)*

Yeah, I can do that. I only have heard people using the ROP 3854 Hi/Low which I tested. Why do you like the 3853 instead?


----------



## ANDREAS FERRARI

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 4/18/09 (New Info Added)*

Lux-I'm looking forward to your test results on the 3853H/L.I only learned of the existence of these bulbs last week.I always thought the brightest potted bulb you could buy normally was the 3854H.


----------



## lctorana

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 4/18/09 (New Info Added)*



LuxLuthor said:


> Yeah, I can do that. I only have heard people using the ROP 3854 Hi/Low which I tested. Why do you like the 3853 instead?


I can chip in here:

ElectronGuru has found that two rested IMR 26500 cells blow the 3854-H, and looking at your test table, are not terribly far from the flashpoint even with an NTC.

Hence the interest in the 3853 bulbs. It was actually me who suggested these, as for some time now, I have been getting into what I call "rightwires", using very bright bulbs at their rated voltage, or only just over, for lots of lumens with full bulb life.

And your measured lux values are a very useful point of comparison between different bulbs anyway. For example, it will be fascinating to see the measure lux figures for the 3854H and the 3853H, both driven at, say, 7.7V.


----------



## Jay T

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 4/18/09 (New Info Added)*

For my 2C ROP high with a spring tower bypass I let the IMR Cs sit on the shelf for 1/2-1 hour and till the cells were 4.17 and no poof. 

I don't think that EG ever did a retest of the ROP with rested cells like he did with the 1185. I wish more people would give it a try. Perhaps his bulb was weak or perhaps my bulb is strong.


----------



## Nite

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 4/18/09 (New Info Added)*

the ROP I have been hearing about is a powerful incan?

in the voltage range of a FM 1794..7.2 V appx...

Is there some info on these...1.5mm or 4mm..or just for Modified mags?

I did a search and got so many hits its scary.

I have bought alot of FM1794... havent found anything better yet..

started playing with 1111 and 1185 lately tho..and a 3 x cell axial

the 1794 is still my fave.

You only need two bulbs for these tests? Im tempted to buy you two.


----------



## Benson

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 4/18/09 (New Info Added)*



Nite said:


> the ROP I have been hearing about is a powerful incan?
> 
> in the voltage range of a FM 1794..7.2 V appx...
> 
> Is there some info on these...1.5mm or 4mm..or just for Modified mags?


PR base -- the low bulb can be OK for short runs with a plastic reflector, so it's widely usable as a drop-in upgrade for flashlights, lanterns, etc., either at 6V or overdriven to 7.2V or more. The high bulb is a little more "dangerous", especially with a good overdrive, so it's mainly for Mags (due to lack of metal reflectors to retrofit most other lights).

Of course, with the 7.2V version, they _should_ be overdrivable by a corresponding amount, so maybe they'll go well with 3x LiFePO4.


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 4/18/09 (New Info Added)*



lctorana said:


> I can chip in here:
> 
> ElectronGuru has found that two rested IMR 26500 cells blow the 3854-H, and looking at your test table, are not terribly far from the flashpoint even with an NTC.
> 
> Hence the interest in the 3853 bulbs. It was actually me who suggested these, as for some time now, I have been getting into what I call "rightwires", using very bright bulbs at their rated voltage, or only just over, for lots of lumens with full bulb life.
> 
> And your measured lux values are a very useful point of comparison between different bulbs anyway. For example, it will be fascinating to see the measure lux figures for the 3854H and the 3853H, both driven at, say, 7.7V.



Ahhh, very good information. In fact, I just got off the phone with Pelican.com (800-473-5422) and said they don't make these bulbs, and don't have detailed specs but the 3854 is what comes with the BigD Lead Acid battery listed here as 600L at 6V, and is known to be less tolerant of higher voltage. 

The 3853 comes with their BigD NiMH model here which specs as 600L @ a higher 7.2V, so will be able to overdrive more. Both models say package includes 11 & 24W bulbs. I'll see how they hold up, but in retrospect, I think we all should have been using this model to overdrive more than 3854.

I forget where we got these, but Lighthound only carries the 3854 at $9.99; whereas this site has them for $7.95 for either 53 or 54.


----------



## ElectronGuru

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 4/18/09 (New Info Added)*

Thanks Dude (and thanks everyone)! 

After lctorana's timely introduction D), I did some research. The 3854 is considered a 6AA bulb and the 3853 is considered a 7AA bulb. The 3854 was considered ideal for 2 LiIon's until the 26500 came along. Here's an older thread with additional comparative info (particularly post 9-10 on watts):

https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/103987


Its a bummer Lighthound doesn't carry the 7.2's, I'll have to request them on my next LH order. In the mean time, there are several dealers who do, including SO & BS:

http://www.batterystation.com/flashlight_lamps.htm


ROP 2.0! :rock:


----------



## ANDREAS FERRARI

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 4/18/09 (New Info Added)*



ElectronGuru said:


> ROP 2.0! :rock:



Sorry EG-I have already named a Mag ROP 3853H the ROP Exetreme!!!Copyright Pending.LOL


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 4/18/09 (New Info Added)*



ElectronGuru said:


> Its a bummer Lighthound doesn't carry the 7.2's, I'll have to request them on my next LH order. In the mean time, there are several dealers who do, including SO & BS:
> 
> http://www.batterystation.com/flashlight_lamps.htm



Even if at LH, it comes down to the best price + Shipping. Delivered price from SO including USPS shipping for 6 packs was $53.58


----------



## Nite

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 4/18/09 (New Info Added)*

Please PM me your shipping address, I would like to send a FM-1794 for you to destroy please.
lovecpf


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 4/18/09 (New Info Added)*

Nite, I got those two 1794's today. Thanks! Man, those are tiny little suckers!! With some careful bending, I got them to fit in my standard KIU bulb holder. Just waiting to get those 3853 bulbs later this week and will do the tests.


----------



## Nite

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 4/18/09 (New Info Added)*



LuxLuthor said:


> Nite, I got those two 1794's today. Thanks! Man, those are tiny little suckers!! With some careful bending, I got them to fit in my standard KIU bulb holder. Just waiting to get those 3853 bulbs later this week and will do the tests.



I cant wait!!!

One of those has a few minutes use on it...it kept slipping out of the bi pin holder so many times I decided to have it murdered, by you!

Also, howd u like that packaging job? My GF works at a lab!lovecpf


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 4/18/09 (New Info Added)*

I just did the FM CL-1794 because I know you are anxious for it, and I didn't get the Pelikan 3853 bulbs yet.

I see why everyone is flashing these on 2 x IMR/Emoli cells. These two bulbs had very tight correlation in measured Lux within 2 Lux at every voltage. Both flashed as soon as I went to 7.9V, so that is a measure of consistent reliable correlation.

The other thing I like to do is compare the default claimed Lumens and my measured Lux with other bulbs that claim around that same lumen level, and see what I get for Lux for those. When you do that, you start to see that a bulb like this is understating its default lumen, which all of my projections are based upon. The CL-1794 is listing default 628L where I measured 87 Lux. Compare that lumen level to other lux I measured to see what I mean. I estimate that the 7V output of this bulb is more like 1,000L

For example, look at the Lux I measured for the WA-1274 WA-1331 WA-1166 The Lux I measured correlates with higher lumen ratings all the way up the voltage scale.
*
For this reason--and this is the only time I have done this with these charts, I'm posting a second chart for this bulb of what I believe are the actual ratings. I don't have this light (regretfully), so the next step would be for some who have other 1,000-1500L lights to see how this compares to them on a practical basis. (One other time I lowered the manufacturer claimed lumen rating here)

I do think this makes it worth the $20 in bulbs that you sent me. You would think that FiveMega would want to contribute these, but oh well.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Edit (5-23-09): I have since done my comparison shootout with other known Mag Mods, and lowered the estimated default lumens. However, this is still a VERY IMPRESSIVE performance by a very tiny bulb.  





.
*


----------



## sami_voodoo

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 4/18/09 (New Info Added)*

Lux

Just a comment here, a quick calculation using the "new" lumen values that you calculated for the CL-1794 bulb give a rating of slightly above 53 Lumens/Watt (1333 Lumens and 24.96 Watts). I never thought these levels of efficiency or efficacy were possible for incandescent lamps. Am I missing something or are bulbs that are overdriven to such levels _*can*_ give these outputs? 

Cheers!
Sami


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 4/18/09 (New Info Added)*



sami_voodoo said:


> Lux
> 
> Just a comment here, a quick calculation using the "new" lumen values that you calculated for the CL-1794 bulb give a rating of slightly above 53 Lumens/Watt (1333 Lumens and 24.96 Watts). I never thought these levels of efficiency or efficacy were possible for incandescent lamps. Am I missing something or are bulbs that are overdriven to such levels _*can*_ give these outputs?
> 
> Cheers!
> Sami



It's a legit question, but remember my measurements should never be taken as absolute, rather they are relative to other bulbs tested in this setup. This result was striking (& yet consistent between the two bulbs) enough that I put an 1185 in the holder afterwards to make sure my LM-631 Meterman meter wasn't haywire, and I got very close readings to previous (posted) 1185 readings. I can't do any more now because the sun is coming up, and I should be in bed. More useful correlation would be to do practical side-by-side eyeball comparisons of lumens.

I forget what the Osram IRC bulbs can get up to when overdriven...I think it was over 60 L/W


----------



## JimmyM

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 4/18/09 (New Info Added)*

Someone needs to buy you an integrating sphere. :devil:


----------



## zehnmm

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 4/18/09 (New Info Added)*



JimmyM said:


> Someone needs to buy you an integrating sphere. :devil:


 
Agree. Does anyone know the choices of these devices, where to get them, and their price?

The last I heard they were over $5,000. While it could be a pipe-dream, if we could source one at a sensible price, I for one, am willing to pony up some funds and chip in. Should we get enough folks to chip in, maybe this could become a reality.


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 5/15/09 (Newer Info Added)*

I think the cost of an I.S. of adequate size needed for all these bulbs with calibration checks, etc. is only justifiable for commercial bulb manufacturer, govt. researcher/contractor, or a multi-millionare who has satisfied their quest for the ultimate porn collection, and ready to move on to an obscure hobby. :laughing:

*A good way to cross check my results is for someone who has one of these 1794 bulb setups and compare it to say a decent Mag85. If my readings are correct, it should hold its own against it, and outperform a Mag1331, Mag66, SF M6, etc.*


----------



## KiwiMark

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 4/18/09 (New Info Added)*



LuxLuthor said:


> Just waiting to get those 3853 bulbs later this week and will do the tests.



The 3853-H bulb looks good from 2 x KD Li-ion protected D-Cells - nice colour, similar to my ROP (3854) low. I had been trying to decide what to do with my #3 Mag 2D, now I just have to decide what to do with my Mag 3D.

My ROP low is pulling around 2A and the 3853 High pulls around 3.5A - the brightness doesn't seem all that much different to my eyes though. Maybe a bit brighter but no where near twice the brightness. If the Lumen is proportional to the amp draw then we are looking at 75% more Lumen (by my eyes I would guess this is about right), but we need 300% more Lumen (4x the Lumen for twice the apparent brightness) to look twice as bright. Still - nice bright light with nice tint and over 1 hour run time on my setup, focuses well after I remembered to put the cam back on to the reflector.

Waiting to see the test results chart from Lux.


----------



## mdocod

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 4/18/09 (New Info Added)*



KiwiMark said:


> The 3853-H bulb looks good from 2 x KD Li-ion protected D-Cells - nice colour, similar to my ROP (3854) low. I had been trying to decide what to do with my #3 Mag 2D, now I just have to decide what to do with my Mag 3D.
> 
> My ROP low is pulling around 2A and the 3853 High pulls around 3.5A - the brightness doesn't seem all that much different to my eyes though. Maybe a bit brighter but no where near twice the brightness. If the Lumen is proportional to the amp draw then we are looking at 75% more Lumen (by my eyes I would guess this is about right), but we need 300% more Lumen (4x the Lumen for twice the apparent brightness) to look twice as bright. Still - nice bright light with nice tint and over 1 hour run time on my setup, focuses well after I remembered to put the cam back on to the reflector.
> 
> Waiting to see the test results chart from Lux.



An overdriven 3854L would be probably close to the brightness of a regular driven 3853H. 

Remember. Efficiency really cranks up as bulbs are overdriven.


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 5/15/09 (Newer Info Added)*

Just got in the 3853 bulbs today.


----------



## mdocod

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 5/15/09 (Newer Info Added)*



LuxLuthor said:


> Just got in the 3853 bulbs today.



A silence overcomes the crowd, anticipation is the feeling of the moment and it's thick in the air.


----------



## sami_voodoo

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 4/18/09 (New Info Added)*



LuxLuthor said:


> It's a legit question, but remember my measurements should never be taken as absolute, rather they are relative to other bulbs tested in this setup. This result was striking (& yet consistent between the two bulbs) enough that I put an 1185 in the holder afterwards to make sure my LM-631 Meterman meter wasn't haywire, and I got very close readings to previous (posted) 1185 readings. I can't do any more now because the sun is coming up, and I should be in bed. More useful correlation would be to do practical side-by-side eyeball comparisons of lumens.





LuxLuthor said:


> The CL-1794 is listing default 628L where I measured 87 Lux. Compare that lumen level to other lux I measured to see what I mean. I estimate that the 7V output of this bulb is more like 1,000L



I get it. You're going by reference values and from lux values, you calculate the lumens. 

Another question, I apologise if it's been already answered. Measuring an IRC-type axial filament bulb is simple enough, but what about bulbs that have transverse filaments? Do you take two measurements (at 90° each) and take an average? Do you even see a difference on the lux meter? 

Cheers!
Sami


----------



## ElectronGuru

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 5/15/09 (Newer Info Added)*


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 4/18/09 (New Info Added)*



sami_voodoo said:


> I get it. You're going by reference values and from lux values, you calculate the lumens.



Correct. While the Lux & Amps are actually measured at every voltage level, the first "Predicted Lumens" column is taken from the AWR Hotrater spreadsheet prediction*Predicted Lumens=Default Lumens *(Overdrive Voltage/Default Voltage)^3.5*​AWR and I experimented with trying to find more accurate predictive calculations, such as this Excel cell formula:*=I9*(F11/F9)^(3+(0.55/(1+2.72^(5*(P11-0.5)/1.1))))*​But ultimately, there is significant variation from bulb to bulb, and manufacturer to manufacturer, so that a "unified reliable predictive formula" was just not working. 

It was at that point that it made more sense to go to a real measurement model, and this thread was born. I did as much as I could think of (short of using an I.S.) to control for variables. For example, that new Osram Ministar 50050 is not really a fair test from a side view because it has a built in reflector in the base.

Then I added the Yellow "Predicted Lumens from Measured Lux" which takes the % increase in my measured Lux from default, and multiplies that MEASURED increase x Manufacturer stated default Lumens value.



sami_voodoo said:


> Another question, I apologise if it's been already answered. Measuring an IRC-type axial filament bulb is simple enough, but what about bulbs that have transverse filaments? Do you take two measurements (at 90° each) and take an average? Do you even see a difference on the lux meter?
> 
> Cheers!
> Sami



I did think of this, and in some cases having the transverse filament perpendicular to the light meter tube gave a slight improvement. The whole goal here was to try and represent the bulb as a point source at 1 meter. It was not a significant change for smaller bulbs, but was notable with bigger watt, wider bulb filaments like the Osram 64623. 

I did not want to do those additional parallel measurements because there was no easy way to keep distance reliable when rotating bulb holder mounted on board...so it would have had to be a whole separate set of measurements run for each bulb in fixed position with transverse filament perpendicular and again parallel to light meter tube. 

I thought it more important to verify consistency between at least two bulbs, and doing additional filament orientations would have needed 3-4 bulbs for each chart. So wanting to give as much advantage as possible to the bulb, I just made sure to do all transverse filament bulbs perpendicular to tube.


----------



## sami_voodoo

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 5/15/09 (Newer Info Added)*

Thanks a bunch for your time! :thumbsup: Looking forward to the tests on the 3853.

Cheers!
Sami


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 5/15/09 (Newer Info Added)*

OK, just got the Pelikan 3853 bulbs done and posted. A respectable showing with the High, but the Low is a girly-man bulb. You sneeze at it and it flashes.


----------



## ElectronGuru

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 5/15/09 (Newer Info Added)*



LuxLuthor said:


> OK, just got the Pelikan 3853 bulbs done and posted. A respectable showing with the High



Great info. Looks like the High bulb has .2 volts greater range and about .6 less amps output overall, with correspondingly more runtime and less lumens.




LuxLuthor said:


> the Low is a girly-man bulb. You sneeze at it and it flashes.



8.1!? :thinking:

This is confusing. I've poofed the 1111 bulb (rated to flash at 8.3) on the same cells/charge that both the Low bulbs handle just fine. To say nothing of the counter intuitive nature of the "better" bulb doing worse. Could it be an anomaly or bad batch? 

I've got more 3853 on order (making 4 total tried). If all show just as strong, would you mind testing a proven one?


----------



## KiwiMark

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 5/15/09 (Newer Info Added)*



LuxLuthor said:


> OK, just got the Pelikan 3853 bulbs done and posted. A respectable showing with the High, but the Low is a girly-man bulb. You sneeze at it and it flashes.



I have tried a 3853-L on 2 x Li-ion D cells fresh off the charger - no prob. Maybe you got a bad one. I measured a drain of 1.6V. Seems to be a good bulb, fairly white, not much different to the 3854-L - a bit less amp drain for very similar output.


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 5/15/09 (Newer Info Added)*

I did two sets of bulbs of each. Lux and flash points were very very close. Remember there is very little resistance (29 mOhm) in this setup.

First 3853-L flashed going slowly (I use coarse knob to go to 6.0V, then switch over to fine tune voltage knob) between 8.0 & 8.1 which surprised me. So I did the 2nd test even more carefully, and as soon as it went over 8.1V it flashed too. I run this linear (vs. switching) power supply through an APC UPS, so the delivered power should have been smooth.

I do have two more 3853 dual bulb packages, so I could check a 3rd without any pauses for Lux measurements...just slowly ramping up until it flashes. Hold on....I can do this now.
*
Edit: OK, here are more results for you to digest:*

Since I didn't plan on using my Low bulbs, I just ran another new 3854-L & 3853-L slowly *but continuously* (after using coarse knob to move up to about 6.0V) with fine adjusting voltage knob to find flash points.*3854-L Flashed at 9.9V*
* 3853-L Flashed just over 8.8V*​When I take the Lux readings, there is about a 10-15 second pause at each voltage setting while I look & write LUX, Amps, & Temp readings. So while this repeat rampup just now shows it as a higher flash point, it only took about 10-15 sec to do this last test...so my guess is the bulb life is catastrophically & proportionately lowered as 3853-L overdrives above 7.2V, and my Lux delayed readings cascaded the stress. 

Of note was the higher 3854-L flash point, and its closer correlation to OP posted chart (with Lux/Amp/Temp measuring delays) flash point of 9.7V--especially when you consider that the 3854-L has a default 6.0V and 3853-L a 7.2V default.

Certainly, a case could be made that all three of my 3853-L were from a bad manufacturer lot, but these are my observations.


----------



## lctorana

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 5/15/09 (Newer Info Added)*

It does seem to suggest that the 3853L, despite the packaging and marketing, is a 6V bulb that is normally overdriven in 7.2V service, not a true 7.2V bulb.

Surprising that the overdrive capabilities are so much less than the 3854L. This suggests that it doesn't possess the long-life characteristics of the 3854L either.

Still, it's a reasonable substitute for either the HPR71 or the 3854L for 6-cell use.

Thanks for the tests, as usual.

_Last night, I graphed the Lux-vs-Volt curves for all 5 PR bulbs - is that of interest to anyone?_


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 5/15/09 (Newer Info Added)*



lctorana said:


> _Last night, I graphed the Lux-vs-Volt curves for all 5 PR bulbs - is that of interest to anyone?_



Did you put them all on the same graph to view simultaneously? That would be interesting to see what that looks like. I'm not an Excel whizz, and can see how to do graphs within each spreadsheet, but not sure how to combine 5 different sets of data into a single grapsh.


----------



## lctorana

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 5/15/09 (Newer Info Added)*



LuxLuthor said:


> Did you put them all on the same graph to view simultaneously?


Yes.

_Oh, and speaking of Excel manipulations, I have been tracking the Claimed Lumen : Measured Lux ratios since you started._

_As the sample size grows, the variance shrinks, and I can now say with more than 95% confidence that this ratio is *10.4*._

_So if you measure 100 lux, that's 1040 lumens. Give or take about 4%._


----------



## lctorana

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 5/15/09 (Newer Info Added)*

Here 'tis:


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 5/15/09 (Newer Info Added)*



lctorana said:


> Yes.
> 
> _Oh, and speaking of Excel manipulations, I have been tracking the Claimed Lumen : Measured Lux ratios since you started._
> 
> _As the sample size grows, the variance shrinks, and I can now say with more than 95% confidence that this ratio is *10.4*._
> 
> _So if you measure 100 lux, that's 1040 lumens. Give or take about 4%._



WoW! No kidding! Now that's also a useful rule of thumb. I have each bulb on its own sheet, which is getting to be a boatload of files. Regretfully I'm not an Excel whizz. 

I love that graph. Do you use some other graphing program?


----------



## lctorana

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 5/15/09 (Newer Info Added)*

I have used many graphing programs over the years, but prefer native Excel. It's handy at work because you can combine data storage with quite sophisticated VB code (e.g. macros) and generate Excel charts on-the-fly in the code. Excel, since release 5, has had good graphing capability.

The other thing about graphing the lux-vs-volts curve of every bulb is that I can calculate the hotrating exponent.

It varies wildly, but not with voltage, current, wattage, fill gas or anything else I can think of. But what I can say it is mostly around the 2.9 to 3 mark, not 3.5. Not one single bulb you have tested has been anywhere near 3.5.

I can post more about the statistical methods involved in this analysis, but I bet nobody's interested...


----------



## sami_voodoo

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 5/15/09 (Newer Info Added)*



lctorana said:


> The other thing about graphing the lux-vs-volts curve of every bulb is that I can calculate the hotrating exponent.
> 
> It varies wildly, but not with voltage, current, wattage, fill gas or anything else I can think of. But what I can say it is mostly around the 2.9 to 3 mark, not 3.5. Not one single bulb you have tested has been anywhere near 3.5.



Maybe it's already been discussed, but has anyone tried relating filament length and wire diameter to the lumens vs. volts relation? That is to say, bring it down to the basic physics. Of course filament material maybe a very important unknown variable.


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 5/15/09 (Newer Info Added)*



mdocod said:


> A silence overcomes the crowd, anticipation is the feeling of the moment and it's thick in the air.



As long as I don't notice any enexpected loads in my pants, I think we are in good shape.


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 5/15/09 (Newer Info Added)*



sami_voodoo said:


> Maybe it's already been discussed, but has anyone tried relating filament length and wire diameter to the lumens vs. volts relation? That is to say, bring it down to the basic physics. Of course filament material maybe a very important unknown variable.



Well it filament lengh, thickness, configuration is a factor, but I'm convinced that gas fill, pressure, and alloy compositions are a complex witches brew of variables. Then you have things like the IRC coated bulbs introducing a whole other wild card.

One thing I have not mentioned in a while, which this girly man 3853-L bulb reminds me about is that certain bulbs have dramatic Lux drop off at certain overdrive levels. So if a 7V xxx bulb puts out 150 Lux at 8 volts, that can drop off after 30 mins, so that even though it doesn't flash for 3 hours later, the lumen outputs piddles away like an old man with an enlarged prostate.


----------



## lctorana

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 5/15/09 (Newer Info Added)*



LuxLuthor said:


> Well it filament lengh, thickness, configuration is a factor, but I'm convinced that gas fill, pressure, and alloy compositions are a complex witches brew of variables. Then you have things like the IRC coated bulbs introducing a whole other wild card.


None of which are measureable.

This is why I advocate the simple use of curve-fitting to the third power of the voltage rise. A nice, simple cubic spline approach, and accurate to at least a first approximation.


----------



## petrev

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 5/15/09 (Newer Info Added)*

Hi Lux


My Favourite Bulbs
LuxLuthor-LUX vs *V*bulb
+Current at ~ 10Hr life




Excel + PSP6 

and

Do You Concur ? ? ?
My best guess for Regulator settings for *V*low - set as Cell*V*low x Cells


petrev said:


> Hi
> 
> Thanks for the input to my guide chart - JM and Lux
> 
> Corrected and updated with reference to JM and LL comments


 


Cheers
Pete


----------



## ElectronGuru

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 5/15/09 (Newer Info Added)*



LuxLuthor said:


> I have each bulb on its own sheet, which is getting to be a boatload of files. Regretfully I'm not an Excel whizz.



Starting with a bit of vocab, a Workbook is the largest Excel unit, a computer file composed of any number of sheets. A Worksheet is the part inside the file/book that contains the cells/grid. Have a read through here, with particular attention to the tab system along the bottom (Sheet1, Sheet2, Sheet3):

http://blogs.tech-recipes.com/shama...move-worksheets-from-one-workbook-to-another/​

You can copy/move all of your 1-workbook with 1-worksheet bulb profiles so its 1-workbook, many-worksheets. Then everything will be in one big file. Or better yet, group them by brand:

workbook / worksheets
WA / 1111, 1331, 1185, etc
Osram / 64250, 64430, 64275, etc
Pelican / 3854H, 3853H, etc
Carley / 1057, etc
Other /​

Then ship the finished books over to lctorana for high level anlysis 


Pete, this graph is very easy to ready. The 64633 looks sick!


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 5/15/09 (Newer Info Added)*



petrev said:


> Hi Lux
> 
> 
> 
> Do You Concur ? ? ?
> My best guess for Regulator settings for *V*low - set as Cell*V*low x Cells
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers
> Pete



Pete, you have two numbers in the Vlow row. I would pick the top one for low voltage (probably 3.3V for both Li-Ion and Li-Mn) regulator setting, as when they are in series, some will drift lower than others, and having a bit higher than the bleeding edge gives a bit more protection for the 'low ball hitters.'


----------



## petrev

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 5/15/09 (Newer Info Added)*



LuxLuthor said:


> Pete, you have two numbers in the Vlow row. I would pick the top one for low voltage (probably 3.3V for both Li-Ion and Li-Mn) regulator setting, as when they are in series, some will drift lower than others, and having a bit higher than the bleeding edge gives a bit more protection for the 'low ball hitters.'


 
Hi Lux

Yep - 2 numbers . . . Upper and Lower limits.

Pick the high one for protection in multi cell configs and to be sure in all configs, the lower value in 1 or 2 cell configs was my thought. People will no doubt make their own decisions but I thought it handy to have some sort of a guide. 

Cheers
Pete


----------



## petrev

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 5/15/09 (Newer Info Added)*



ElectronGuru said:


> . . .
> 
> Then ship the finished books over to lctorana for high level anlysis
> 
> 
> Pete, this graph is very easy to ready. The 64633 looks sick!


 

Hi EG

64633 will be the bomb with a PhD regulator 

IRCs are good for lower current apps - no need for special switches and work with LIon C-Cells.

64623 + 64625 are just great and the 64458 has the sweetest hot-spot with it's axial filament 

Hope to see some amazing analysis and graphs when an Excel master gets hold of the original data.

Cheers
Pete


----------



## ElectronGuru

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 5/15/09 (Newer Info Added)*

Here's a photo study of both bulbs. Blue is the 7.2v 3853L and red is the 6.0v 3854L. The 3853L has angled (not parallel) supports and looks cheaply made overall. I'm not sure which bulb came first but it looks like the guys Pelican hired didn't do nearly as good a job hitting the specification:


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 5/15/09 (Newer Info Added)*

Now THOSE are some primo closeup views!!! I remember another interesting thing. All the 3853-L melted on one of the sides as it attached to the post, whereas the 3854L melted in the middle of the coil. I would take pix, but I threw them in the trash, and then this morning emptied two packages of partially melted bacon grease which they are somewhere in the middle of.

It seems funny that everyone is focussed on the 3853-L, rather than the 3853-H which I thought was the main bulb of interest, and how it fared vs. 3854-H. I never even thought about using the Low bulbs, and only tested them because they were in the packs. 

I wonder if any of these bulb manufacturers have any idea how much we push and psychoanalyze their bulbs here at CPF! I'm sure their engineers would at least appreciate our enthusiasm.


----------



## petrev

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 5/15/09 (Newer Info Added)*



petrev said:


> Hi
> 
> Thanks for the input to my guide chart - JM and Lux and AlanB
> 
> Corrected and updated with reference to JM, LL and AlanB comments


 
Thanks Lux 
Posted a revised Guide

Cheers
Pete


----------



## ^^Nova^^

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 5/15/09 (Newer Info Added)*



lctorana said:


> Here 'tis:


Wow, that is a really cool graph.

What would be really useful is to see similar bulbs grouped by output/voltage. This would make it really easy to compare bulbs for a given application.

Some groups that come to mind - sub 800-900 lumens, 1000 to 2000 lumens, over 2000 lumen; then voltage groups - 6v bulbs, 12v bulbs etc.

Voltage would be useful as it allows someone to easily see the options for something like 2x liIon bulbs (with the new regulators there are now more options without flashing bulbs).

Really great work lctorana. :twothumbs

Cheers,
Nova


----------



## ElectronGuru

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 5/15/09 (Newer Info Added)*



LuxLuthor said:


> Now THOSE are some primo closeup views!!!



Thanks Dude. I've decided to more actively combine my two favorite hobbies...


----------



## Sgt. LED

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 5/15/09 (Newer Info Added)*

The CL 809 runs at room temp? 
I guess it's a warm wire! 

I think it will work in my plastic reflector then. Thanks! :twothumbs


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 5/22/09 (Newer Info Added)*

I said in earlier posts that I wanted to compare the custom FM Carley 1794 D26 21W bulb with some other Maglites that I have used to see if the boosted default lumen rating I did panned out on a practical basis. Based upon the testing and photos that I did tonight, I am going to settle on an estimate for default value of 800L. FM was told by Carley that it was default 628L @ 7V 3A. I previously guessed it was more like 1,000L, based solely on the measured Lux.

I did a shootout tonight that I will put in a separate thread comparing SF-M6 (MN-21 bulb), Mag66 x 2 regulated voltage levels, & direct drive Mag85, Mag1331, the CL-1794, and the CL-1499.

It was pretty interesting, and in some ways different than Lux measurements would have indicated. It is harder to control all the variables in a shootout. First thing is the very small 1" MOP diameter reflector for the D26 has a totally different effect on a beam than a 2" MOP. I then did repeated swapping of lights moving around at various items close and far, and eventually you can come out with a pretty reliable ranking comparison.


----------



## mdocod

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 5/15/09 (Newer Info Added)*



LuxLuthor said:


> I wonder if any of these bulb manufacturers have any idea how much we push and psychoanalyze their bulbs here at CPF! I'm sure their engineers would at least appreciate our enthusiasm.



We're looking at bulbpornovision, they're rolling their eyes and making up really mean and inappropriate jokes about our "strange" behavior....


----------



## fivemega

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 5/15/09 (Newer Info Added)*



LuxLuthor said:


> I wonder if any of these bulb manufacturers have any idea how much we push and psychoanalyze their bulbs here at CPF! I'm sure their engineers would at least appreciate our enthusiasm.


*This is part of their design and they test several samples, make correction, another batch of samples and...
Some actual tests are done by bulb manufacturer for maximum voltage, minimum output, average life... and some tests are done by flashlight manufacturer for reliability.
You will never see firefighter flashlight with 10 hours bulb life and 3450K because is not reliable for that purpose.
Same thing applies for tactical flashlights because won't even last for first fire shock.
Anybody remembers shortage of MN20 for several months? They had to redesign several times to meet flashlight manufacturer spec.*


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 5/15/09 (Newer Info Added)*



fivemega said:


> *This is part of their design and they test several samples, make correction, another batch of samples and...
> Some actual tests are done by bulb manufacturer for maximum voltage, minimum output, average life... and some tests are done by flashlight manufacturer for reliability.
> You will never see firefighter flashlight with 10 hours bulb life and 3450K because is not reliable for that purpose.
> Same thing applies for tactical flashlights because won't even last for first fire shock.
> Anybody remembers shortage of MN20 for several months? They had to redesign several times to meet flashlight manufacturer spec.*



Great information, and all makes good sense! Thank you!


----------



## Starlight

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 5/22/09 (Newer Info Added)*

Lux, I don't want to hijack your thread, but please check your PM.


----------



## JimmyM

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 5/22/09 (Newer Info Added)*

RE: Osram ministar.
One thing I haven't seen discussed yet is the subject of heat. With a normal bulb and a tightly fitting reflector, a lot of light still hits the bulb socket and elsewhere behind the bulb. With this reflectorized envelope I would imagine that the heat behind the reflector would be reduced.


----------



## sami_voodoo

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 5/22/09 (Newer Info Added)*



JimmyM said:


> RE: Osram ministar.
> One thing I haven't seen discussed yet is the subject of heat. With a normal bulb and a tightly fitting reflector, a lot of light still hits the bulb socket and elsewhere behind the bulb. With this reflectorized envelope I would imagine that the heat behind the reflector would be reduced.



Is the reflectorised envelope opaque or slightly transparent? If it's opaque, wouldn't the beam shape be defined by the bulb envelope and not the reflector?

Cheers!
Sami


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 5/22/09 (Newer Info Added)*



sami_voodoo said:


> Is the reflectorised envelope opaque or slightly transparent? If it's opaque, wouldn't the beam shape be defined by the bulb envelope and not the reflector?
> 
> Cheers!
> Sami



Opaque. It looks like the bottom of the bulb was dipped in liquid chrome, but it doesn't come up the sides. As a result, there is still benefit from the reflector. Plus, tiny reflectors like that on the bulb do not give much of a focussed beam (vs. larger reflector).


 

 

 ​


----------



## ^^Nova^^

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 5/22/09 (Newer Info Added)*

I was playing around with some graphs (like lctorana did in this earlier post) of a handful of 6v bulbs. I noticed that the 3854 low bulb seems really efficient. I checked the amp draw of all of the bulbs at about 800 lumens, most of the bulbs are drawing 26-28 watts of power, the 3854L only pulls about 18w, but they are all producing the same amount of light. It draws a lot less amps than the others for some reason.

Here is the graph of the bulbs.







Hope this is useful, I find it easier to compare bulbs like this than changing from chart to chart.

EDIT - After it was pointed out to me by petrev, using the predicted lumens may not be as accurate as I first thought. I am going to redo this using the measured lux instead.

Cheers,
Nova


----------



## ANDREAS FERRARI

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 5/22/09 (Newer Info Added)*

I've always suspected that the 3854L was a more efficient bulb-especially when compared to the 3854H.And yet I continue to use it in all my ROP's because I crave more power.I guess that makes me a 'lumens whore'!!!


----------



## JimmyM

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 5/22/09 (Newer Info Added)*



ANDREAS FERRARI said:


> I've always suspected that the 3854L was a more efficient bulb-especially when compared to the 3854H.And yet I continue to use it in all my ROP's because I crave more power.I guess that makes me a 'lumens whore'!!!


You and me both.
One of my favorite all time flashlights was an ROP-Hi using 2 of AWs C Li-Ions with a modified switch that uses an FET.
I also had a Mil Spec HAIII ROP-Low that ran on 2 of AWs Li-Ion C cells.
Alas, they didn't remain after the big sell-off I had to do a year or so ago. :mecry:


----------



## ^^Nova^^

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 5/22/09 (Newer Info Added)*

The power draw looks like this at the 800 lumen mark -
1111 - 27W
1160 - 27W
1274 - 24.5W
3854L - 18.5W

Quite a difference (unless my maths/science is bad).

Also did the same check for some 1300L capable bulbs, the 64430 draws around 75W while the 1164 only pulls 40W. I never thought there would be such a large difference in power use for a similar amount of light.:thinking:

Cheers,
Nova


----------



## Nite

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 5/22/09 (Newer Info Added)*



^^Nova^^ said:


> The power draw looks like this at the 800 lumen mark -
> 1111 - 27W
> 1160 - 27W
> 1274 - 24.5W
> 3854L - 18.5W
> 
> Quite a difference (unless my maths/science is bad).
> 
> Also did the same check for some 1300L capable bulbs, the 64430 draws around 75W while the 1164 only pulls 40W. I never thought there would be such a large difference in power use for a similar amount of light.:thinking:
> 
> Cheers,
> Nova



if this listed the voltages of the bulbs, like 2 or 3 cells, then it would all make sense I think.

for example
A 3 cell FM axial 11 volt bulb is less power draw than FM 1794 @ 7.4 volts but just About as bright.

SO since im not familiar with the above, i assume bi bin 4mm bulbs I dont know their voltages

so im just asking to add the voltages they run at..im almost sure youll see a pattern

wouldnt a 3854L run at a higher voltage if using less watts for same light compared to the 1111 and 1160?

Remember I know nothing about anything and im just making this up as i go along..
but
I just thought a higher voltage can make more light at a lower wattage...

there are so many variables...


----------



## ^^Nova^^

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 5/22/09 (Newer Info Added)*

Nite, you are getting Amps and Watts mixed up. Your post above is correct for amps, but not watts. Amps is a measure of current (which will vary as voltage varies, like you said), while Watts are a measure of power or energy consumed. I'll show the calculations so you can see what I mean.

1111 - 27W
At 822 lumens it runs 7.3v and 3.73A. To work out how many watts of power is being used, multiply voltage by the amps. In this case, 7.3 x 3.73 = 27.3)

1160 - 27W
At 842 lumens, voltage is 6.8, amps are 4.09 which gives 27.8 (6.8 x 4.09 = 27.8). Slightly more power being used but also more lumens so I rounded down to 27w.

1274 - 24.5W
At 806 lumens, voltage is 8.2 with 2.98 amps. Watts used here is 24.4 (I rounded up to 24.5).

3854L - 18.5W
Lastly, the 3854L makes 816 lumens at 8.4volts and draws 2.2amps. This gives 18.48W used.

The difference here is the amount of light that a particular bulb produces for a given wattage of power used.

Cheers,
Nova


----------



## petrev

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 5/22/09 (Newer Info Added)*

Hi ^^Nova^^

Looks like you are plotting Predicted Lumens Vs Volts

This relies on the manufacturers Lumen rating and I think you should look at making a graph of Measured Lux Vs Volts or Power as this might be more accurate - as we have LuxLuthors actual readings at a given Power I think they probably give a better standardised (LuxLuthor Test Method) relationship between bulbs.

For example

3854L - 8.4V 18.5W 816 Pred.Lumens (44 Pred.Lumens/W)
- Measured Lux* = 45 Lux* (2.43 Lux/W)

WA1111 - 7.3V 27.3W 822 Pred.Lumens (30.1 Pred.Lumens/W)
- Measured Lux = *76 Lux* (2.78 Lux/W)

As we can see while the predicted Lumens are equivalent, giving a much better efficiency for the 3854L, the actual Measured Lux are just not equivalent producing a much more similar efficiency rating (slightly more efficient 3854L).

Can you do a graph of Measured Lux vs Power-In please as I'm sure that would be useful to people.

Cheers
Pete

ps. Do you have LuxLuthors actual data or are you transcribing from the .jpg versions and which version of Excel are you using ?


----------



## ^^Nova^^

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 5/22/09 (Newer Info Added)*

Hi Pete,

Yeah, I am plotting predicted lumens against voltage. I had not looked at using the measured lux values, now that I have had a quick look, I agree that it will be a better comparison. If I get some time this week I will give it a shot and see how different it looks. Thanks for pointing the measured lux/predicted lumens difference.

As for the graphs, I am just copying from the .jpg files from the first post, although having the .xls files would make it easier, especially if I attempt to plot watts against lux (save me from calculating each power reading). I am using Office 95 still (I generally use Open Office, but decided to use Excell for the charts).


----------



## petrev

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 5/22/09 (Newer Info Added)*



^^Nova^^ said:


> Hi Pete,
> 
> Yeah, I am plotting predicted lumens against voltage. I had not looked at using the measured lux values, now that I have had a quick look, I agree that it will be a better comparison. If I get some time this week I will give it a shot and see how different it looks. Thanks for pointing the measured lux/predicted lumens difference.
> 
> As for the graphs, I am just copying from the .jpg files from the first post, although having the .xls files would make it easier, especially if I attempt to plot watts against lux (save me from calculating each power reading). I am using Office 95 still (I generally use Open Office, but decided to use Excell for the charts).


 
Hi Nova

Lots of work transcribing . . .

Nice graphs from OFF-95 - For some reason my OFF-97 refuses to draw the actual line in that nice simple mode you have ? I just get the points plotted even though I set it for lines ? ? ? ?

Keep up the good work
Cheers
Pete


----------



## ^^Nova^^

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 5/22/09 (Newer Info Added)*



petrev said:


> Hi Nova
> 
> Lots of work transcribing . . .
> 
> Nice graphs from OFF-95 - For some reason my OFF-97 refuses to draw the actual line in that nice simple mode you have ? I just get the points plotted even though I set it for lines ? ? ? ?
> 
> Keep up the good work
> Cheers
> Pete


Hi Pete,

To remove the point markers on the graph line, right click on the line, select "format data series", then under the "patterns" tab, there is a section titled "marker", set this to none. I also change the thickness of the line which is under "weight" on the line side of the same tab.

I did a graph of measured lux for the 6v bulbs I graphed earlier, looks a bit different. I'll post it up in a sec.

Cheers,
Nova


----------



## ^^Nova^^

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 5/22/09 (Newer Info Added)*

After petrev pointed out that using predicted lumens was not the best comparison, I changed to using measured lux. The results are quite different to the graph using lumens.







The 3854L doesn't stand out as being way more efficient than the others not that they are brighter.

Cheers,
Nova


----------



## Alan B

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 5/22/09 (Newer Info Added)*

Plotting lux vs power would be more telling.


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 5/22/09 (Newer Info Added)*

I did not send my Excel files to anyone, but there's no denying seeing various bulbs graphed like that gives a whole other level of appreciation. I had this fantasy that I was going to be able to verify actual run time at a couple of apparently best looking overdrive voltage ranges, and see how much the measured Lux drops off with run time at those given overdrive voltages...but I have now faced the reality that despite this being more great information, I'm not going to do it.

Just looking now, I have 43 Excel files, each are about 23KB; zip down to 200KB. I was thinking Ictorana would be a good person to send them to if he is motivated to do graphs of all categories, not just say... 6v. I'll send him a PM. If they get sent to several people, there could end up being a whole bunch of graphs, rather than an organized, coherent, easy to distinguish bulbs, & complete presentation.

It would probably be best to start a new thread, as this thread's first post is a bit long.

I think the best use of graphs would be in comparing similar voltage category bulbs, otherwise some will have too many lines.


----------



## lctorana

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 5/22/09 (Newer Info Added)*

Task accepted.

As for starting a new thread, I think that's a good idea. I have been a little concerned at this thread getting a little cluttered with graphs. But that notwithstanding, I post the below on a proof-of-concept basis:

Anyway, just as a taste, here's what the package will look like for each bulb group:





Plotting Lux-as-a-function-of voltage puts all three "low" bulbs together, with the 3853H mid-way between the two.





Now when you adjust the curve for percentage of overdrive, you see how close the HPR71/GH24 and the 3854L really are. Note the 3853H is now slightly above the 3854H curve - I have reason to belive this is because the 3854H is actually a 6.3V bulb. The 3853L is clearly a 6V bulb, too, despite its 7.2V pretensions. Also note the incredible level of overdrive tolerated by the amazing 3854L.





Plotting Lux as a function of current is interesting, and here you see the first hint of the usefulness of the 3853L - producing decent Lux at low current.





When you plot Lux as a function of wattage _(thanks AlanB!)_, the graph really comes to life. It clearly shows that, within its limited maximum ratings, the 3853L is the pick of the bunch for efficiency. And that there is nothing to choose between the 3853H and 3854H on a pure lux-per-watt basis.


Perhaps a moderator might consider splitting the graphical part of this thread off once this discussion concludes.


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 5/22/09 (Newer Info Added)*

I sent you a bunch of ideas in PM. I think the main thing I want to see is a complete set of coverages for different categories. Like I can see the usefulness in comparing all the Potted "drop in" bulbs in that range.

I can also see value with potted + bipin for a given category....then the various displays of type of data curves. I think the trick is figuring out the best ways to organize and standardize it.

It still makes the most sense for me to organize in broad categories by voltage from low to high, and use small thumbnails (so the page loads quickly) that follow the same display of data graphs.  Looking at this thread which for me loads quickly, there are 7 rows of 5 x 150pixel thumbs, so I think a lot of graphs could be thumbnail displayed. 

I don't want to limit this by downsizing for dial up, and the graphs just displayed in Ictorana's last post are a bit too small on my 1280x1024 resolution, and would take too long to load with the number there will be. Anyway, I think we can work out via E-mail, Skype, IM how to have this work best.


----------



## petrev

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 5/22/09 (Newer Info Added)*

Hi

My tuppence worth

Graphs are Great - nice and easy comparisons.

Categories - good . . . no point in putting an ROP up against a 400W monster. Though it might be fun !!! :devil:

I personally like the size of these graphs and the GIFs are pretty small in comparison to full colour photo JPEGs.

Your review thread does load quickly but then I have to load all the pictures to actually read what they are about and find out that I didn't need to load some of them at full monitor size after all. In thumbnail form a lot of images look the same and thats the same for graphs - you have to open them just to find out they don't have the info you wanted.

640x400 size gives you the info at a glance and could still be linked to a bigger full resolution version if desired for greater definition.

How about a thumbnail thread - Named as such for Dial-Up and a medium thread with pop-up large versions named for BB users.

Keep up the great work you guys.
Cheers
Pete


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 5/22/09 (Newer Info Added)*

I can easily envision 50+ unique graphs, and I don't see Petrev's 600 pixel display as workable if there is to be a complete listing which I would want.

My idea is using smaller thumbs in a row like my link in post #325, with 5-8 graphs in every category. That example link was only to show how many thumbs could be put in a thread and row, and have it load fast...not that the post was properly labeled. 

Graphs would be in the same labeled order for each category. If graphs were text labeled and in the same order, people could click on what they wanted. Same is true if someone wants to see details for a particular bulb, they click on the larger image of that item in 1st post of this thread. 

Here's why I see smaller thumbs working better, as long as they are the same for each category, and in the same order. 600 pixel for each would take a very long time to load, and would be a very long scroll down to your desired display. Off the top of my head, I can see these 5 graph displays for these categories.

*Potted ("PR") 6 Volt Bulbs*
Lux vs Volts - Lux vs Current - Lux vs Power - Lux vs %O.D. - LL's Predicted Lumens vs. Volts - etc.​ *Bipin 6 to 9 Volt Bulbs*
Lux vs Volts - Lux vs Current - Lux vs Power - Lux vs %O.D. - LL's Predicted Lumens vs. Volts - etc.​ *All 6 - 9 Volt Bulbs*
Lux vs Volts - Lux vs Current - Lux vs Power - Lux vs %O.D. - LL's Predicted Lumens vs. Volts - etc.​ *9 - 12 Volt Bulbs*
Lux vs Volts - Lux vs Current - Lux vs Power - Lux vs %O.D. - LL's Predicted Lumens vs. Volts - etc.​ *All WA Bulbs*
Lux vs Volts - Lux vs Current - Lux vs Power - Lux vs %O.D. - LL's Predicted Lumens vs. Volts - etc.​ *12-22V Bulbs*
Lux vs Volts - Lux vs Current - Lux vs Power - Lux vs %O.D. - LL's Predicted Lumens vs. Volts - etc.​ *Osram IRC Bulbs*
Lux vs Volts - Lux vs Current - Lux vs Power - Lux vs %O.D. - LL's Predicted Lumens vs. Volts - etc.​ *All Osram Bulbs*
Lux vs Volts - Lux vs Current - Lux vs Power - Lux vs %O.D. - LL's Predicted Lumens vs. Volts - etc.​ *24-30V Bulbs*
Lux vs Volts - Lux vs Current - Lux vs Power - Lux vs %O.D. - LL's Predicted Lumens vs. Volts - etc.​ *All Bulbs*
Lux vs Volts - Lux vs Current - Lux vs Power - Lux vs %O.D. - LL's Predicted Lumens vs. Volts - etc.​


----------



## petrev

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 5/22/09 (Newer Info Added)*

Aye Aye Cap'n Lux


With that many graphs you are perfectly correct.

Cheers
Pete


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 5/22/09 (Newer Info Added)*

All my information and more was sent to Ictorana to work his magic a few days ago. People should be patient while he works on it.

Either he or I will start a new thread with the charts comparing all the tested bulbs in various categories.

Meanwhile, I have also decided to post all of the latest spreadsheet files I worked on with AWR after he left the community in this thread as another community resource. They also represent an enormous amount of work that many will find useful.


----------



## Swagg

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 5/22/09 (Newer Info Added)*

Has anyone used the 3854-L 6V 11W Pelican Big D Low on 2 AW IMR 18500's? Would there be any issues with this set up?


----------



## ElectronGuru

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 5/22/09 (Newer Info Added)*

I've not tried it, but the 3854-L is some kind of crazy miracle bulb, easily handling a pair of beefier IMR26500's. It should handle a pair of IMR18500 with room to spare (and excellent efficiency).


----------



## Swagg

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 5/22/09 (Newer Info Added)*



ElectronGuru said:


> I've not tried it, but the 3854-L is some kind of crazy miracle bulb, easily handling a pair of beefier IMR26500's. It should handle a pair of IMR18500 with room to spare (and excellent efficiency).



Yeah the efficiency is what I'm wondering about. Would I get decent runtime with those batts?


----------



## KiwiMark

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 5/22/09 (Newer Info Added)*



Swagg said:


> Yeah the efficiency is what I'm wondering about. Would I get decent runtime with those batts?



What do you consider decent? IMR 18500 cells only have 1100mAh and the 3854-L bulb pulls approx. 2A so you will only get about 1/2 hour run time. The 26500 cells have 2300mAh so they would run the same bulb for over an hour. My Kaidomain Li-ion D cells are claimed to have around 5000mAh and even if it is really ~4000mAh I can get 2 hours out of the 3854-L bulb.

Obviously if you are using the 3854-L bulb in a smaller torch that can only fit the 18500 cells then you just can't expect the same run time as from cells that fill a torch the size of a Mag 2D. Half an hour from such a great bulb is not too bad for a small torch IMO.


----------



## Swagg

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 5/22/09 (Newer Info Added)*

Yes I agree! Really I was hoping for anything 30 mins or above so that's great! I found this old metal Rayovac light with a magnet on the side that has a really cool look and 2 18500 IMR cells would fit perfect in it. It already has a metal reflector and glass lens too.


----------



## cernobila

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 5/22/09 (Newer Info Added)*



Swagg said:


> Yes I agree! Really I was hoping for anything 30 mins or above so that's great! I found this old metal Rayovac light with a magnet on the side that has a really cool look and 2 18500 IMR cells would fit perfect in it. It already has a metal reflector and glass lens too.



With the ROP L you can use any Li-Ion cell with the 18500 or 18650 size 1600mAh to 2600mAh capacity giving you over an hour with the new AW cell.


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 5/22/09 (Newer Info Added)*

Speaking of which, wait until you guys see the graphing that Ictorana has been doing. 

*Holy Moly!*​


----------



## ElectronGuru

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 5/22/09 (Newer Info Added)*


----------



## lctorana

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 5/22/09 (Newer Info Added)*

What I am also working on is an automated calculator, whereby you input your:

battery supply voltage
internal resistance (=0 for regulated use)
and it will tell you:

the current draw
the lumen output (+/- 20%)
how close to a  you are
for every bulb LL has tested.

Watch this space. But please be patient, as my life doesn't *entirely* revolve around light bulbs.


----------



## petrev

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 5/22/09 (Newer Info Added)*



lctorana said:


> What I am also working on is an automated calculator, whereby you input your:
> 
> battery supply voltage
> internal resistance (=0 for regulated use)
> and it will tell you:
> 
> the current draw
> the lumen output (+/- 20%)
> how close to a  you are
> for every bulb LL has tested.
> 
> Watch this space. But please be patient, as my life doesn't *entirely* revolve around light bulbs.


 
:thumbsup:  

What ? :thinking:

Why doesn't your life *entirely* revolve around light bulbs.


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 5/22/09 (Newer Info Added)*



petrev said:


> What ? :thinking:
> 
> Why doesn't your life *entirely* revolve around light bulbs.


When you have transcended incandescence, lightbulbs revolve around you. Continue on the path, grasshopper.


----------



## lctorana

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 5/22/09 (Newer Info Added)*



LuxLuthor said:


> When you have transcended incandescence, lightbulbs revolve around you. Continue on the path, grasshopper.


People have pondered on this forum, what the stage beyond flashoholism is.

Now we have a name for it.

*TI*

*T*ranscendental *I*ncandescence.

_That Zen-like state of bliss that only a hotwire incan can induce._

_(There is probablty an LED equivalent of TI, but my care factor is way too low to speculate.)_


----------



## cernobila

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 5/22/09 (Newer Info Added)*



lctorana said:


> _(There is probablty an LED equivalent of TI, but my care factor is way too low to speculate.)_



Aahhh, a family member for sure......


----------



## HarryN

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 4/18/09*



LuxLuthor said:


> I am posting my results for a clever new Osram category of bulbs, called Ministar. There is a thread about the 35W version here, but I ordered and tested the 50W version.
> 
> This bulb has a high quality silver coating on the bottom, acting like a reflector, and improving efficiency similar to the IRC bulb. Because this is a more directional bulb, Osram rates it in candela.
> 
> As I have said elsewhere, there are very strict definitions of lumens and candela, that are rarely understood. Candela underscores the measurement output in a directional cone of light (called a steradian) which applies more accurately with this type of built in reflector coating.
> 
> Luckily, we can do an approximate conversion by looking at Osram's site for the 50W Ministar bulb here, which I just finished testing. I will be posting it in my destructive original post shortly.
> 
> We see that this bulb puts out 1400 candela with radiation angle of 30° (also has life of 2,000hrs and color temp of 3,000 K). Going back to the WIKI page, there is a conversion table at the bottom if you know the beam angle, which in this case 30° uses 4.67.
> 
> So we divide 1400 candela by 4.67 to get *approximately 300 lumens. *However, this is a totally unique bulb design, because of directional output, but I did my same perdicular lux testing method to be consistent.The obvious question is how does it compare to the IRC 50W 64440 bulb listed here. That bulb lists 1250 lumens & 4,000hr life (same 3,000K temp), and at first blush it appears the IRC blows it away.
> 
> I will have to additionally test both bulbs in the same reflector setup to see how they compare visually and practically. The Ministar reflector design makes an unfair "apples to oranges" comparison. You can use my data to see the low amp efficiency and flash point voltage.
> 
> 
> 
> .



Hi, despite being an incan newbie, I have been reading on this forum for weeks now, and have read through this entire thread, and the related graphs - several times. Just amazing work. I have done enough LED testing to understand the challenges of this work, as LEDs have the same challenges with color temperature, CRI, beam angle, and of course, the meters being tuned for incan bulbs.

In the case of this particular bulb set, the Osram Ministars, as best I can tell, the testing was performed in an identical setup as the more conventional bulbs, which makes sense. This means really only "side emission" measurements were taken, not "foward emission".

Nonetheless, I am really curious about the lux numbers coming from the front / top of the bulb, especially the 35 watt version. Is there any chance that anyone has captured this information anywhere? I did some searching, and did not find many users of these bulbs yet.

If you need some $s to cover some more testing of these bulbs, let me know.

Thanks

HarryN


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 8/28/09 (Newer Info Added)*

Just got two sample bulbs from FiveMega the other day, and wanted to get these results up. This is another superb custom Carley made for FM bulb #FM1909 that he is selling for $16 with light purchase in this thread. 

What is spectacular with this custom bulb is the small G4 size bulb (that fits his new Ver2 Deep reflector with small bore), yet tremendous lumen output for relatively low amp demand. Therefore, battery life will last longer than the 10A bulbs. I checked the beam and it is nice and clean looking like the no longer available FM CL43W bulb. I am grabbing a bunch of these. 

It has a default spec of:
*11.4V -- 5.5A -- 63W -- 2260L -- 20 Hrs Life -- 3400K temp.*
​Photo showing it in comparison to his previous CL-43W & Philips 5761



​


----------



## Fulgeo

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 8/28/09 (Newer Info Added)*



LuxLuthor said:


> Just got two sample bulbs from FiveMega the other day, and wanted to get these results up. This is another superb custom Carley made for FM bulb #FM1909 that he is selling for $16 with light purchase in this thread.
> 
> What is spectacular with this custom bulb is the small G4 size bulb (that fits his new Ver2 Deep reflector with small bore), yet tremendous lumen output for relatively low amp demand. Therefore, battery life will last longer than the 10A bulbs. I checked the beam and it is nice and clean looking like the no longer available FM CL43W bulb. I am grabbing a bunch of these.
> 
> It has a default spec of:
> *11.4V -- 5.5A -- 63W -- 2260L -- 20 Hrs Life -- 3400K temp.*
> ​




LuxLuthor that does indeed look like a fantastic bulb. Is there anyway for me to purchase a few of the bulbs without purchasing the turnkey flashlight?​


----------



## jar3ds

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 8/28/09 (Newer Info Added)*

dang.. i want that bulb... those are some hardcore specs..


----------



## ^^Nova^^

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 5/22/09 (Newer Info Added)*

Does that mean this bulb will handle 26500 IMR cells without needing sort start? That would be awesome. Might be reason enough to buy one of those hosts of FM's.

Cheers,
Nova


----------



## Chodes

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 5/22/09 (Newer Info Added)*



^^Nova^^ said:


> Does that mean this bulb will handle 26500 IMR cells without needing sort start? That would be awesome. Might be reason enough to buy one of those hosts of FM's.
> 
> Cheers,
> Nova



Fivemega: (obviously a Fivemega quote )
*[SIZE=+2]WA1274 with 2x26500 :thumbsup:
WA1166 with 3x26500 :thumbsup:
FM1909 with 3x26500 :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:[/SIZE][SIZE=+2]
Using soft start switch is smart choice but not necessary.[/SIZE]* 

Just a guess , I'd assume a sofstart would pay for itself in extended bulb life even if you never instaflash.


----------



## Fulgeo

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 8/19/09 (Newer Info Added)*

Got my greasy hands on a FM1909 bulb and made a quick mod with it. Direct drive with 3 x Emoli and a KIU socket. The 3 well rested cells measured 11.94 volts. Went out for a late night test. Also brought along a Mag85 on fresh batteries for a comparison. Both flashlights had FiveMega MOP reflectors with small opening. I was shocked. I was under the false impression the FM1909 would only be marginally better than the 1185. The FM1909 spanked the 1185 lamp. It produced a much whiter and more spotty beam that threw much farther. LuxLuthor mind if I call you LL CoolRay? Just kidding getting late. Any chance you would consider adding a mod that uses the FM1909 to your "*Most Powerful Maglite Mods List" *? 

Happy Mods!


----------



## ElectronGuru

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 8/19/09 (Newer Info Added)*

Well I'm ready to sign up for FMs new bulbs. 

He's not saying much, but they appear to be precisely calculated for 2 and 3 (respectively) IMR26500's. 
Just the right amount of overdrive + amperage for the given number of cells.

Me want!


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 8/19/09 (Newer Info Added)*



Fulgeo said:


> Got my greasy hands on a FM1909 bulb and made a quick mod with it. Direct drive with 3 x Emoli and a KIU socket. The 3 well rested cells measured 11.94 volts. Went out for a late night test. Also brought along a Mag85 on fresh batteries for a comparison. Both flashlights had FiveMega MOP reflectors with small opening. I was shocked. I was under the false impression the FM1909 would only be marginally better than the 1185. The FM1909 spanked the 1185 lamp. It produced a much whiter and more spotty beam that threw much farther. LuxLuthor mind if I call you LL CoolRay? Just kidding getting late. Any chance you would consider adding a mod that uses the FM1909 to your "*Most Powerful Maglite Mods List" *?
> 
> Happy Mods!



Yeah, I need to update the list with a couple lights.


----------



## Mjolnir

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 8/28/09 (Newer Info Added)*

So there is no way to buy the 1909 bulb "a la carte?" It seems like the only bulb that will run well direct driven with 3 IMR cells; however I can fit 3 IMR 26650 cells in a 3D maglite just fine, so I don't need another host (well mostly I am too cheap). 3 IMR 26650's would give a good half hour of runtime with 2200+ lumens. 

Are there any other bulbs that would work with 3 IMR and not be under driven? I can't seem to find any.


----------



## Fulgeo

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 8/28/09 (Newer Info Added)*



Mjolnir said:


> So there is no way to buy the 1909 bulb "a la carte?" It seems like the only bulb that will run well direct driven with 3 IMR cells; however I can fit 3 IMR 26650 cells in a 3D maglite just fine, so I don't need another host (well mostly I am too cheap). 3 IMR 26650's would give a good half hour of runtime with 2200+ lumens.
> 
> Are there any other bulbs that would work with 3 IMR and not be under driven? I can't seem to find any.



PM sent!


----------



## bk737

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 8/28/09 (Newer Info Added)*

I am also looking to get one or two of these bulbs but can't afford to purchase the host from Fivemega. Can anyone afford to sell me one or two??:help:


----------



## Fulgeo

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 8/28/09 (Newer Info Added)*



bk737 said:


> I am also looking to get one or two of these bulbs but can't afford to purchase the host from Fivemega. Can anyone afford to sell me one or two??:help:


 
PM sent!


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 8/28/09 (Newer Info Added)*

Probably best to start a new thread that relates to question Mjolnir has about purchasing specific bulbs, and Fulgeo replying that he sent PM's to two members. LOL!

I would guess the size of this thread is on the threshold of being closed and a new one started anyway...but still.


----------



## Fulgeo

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 8/28/09 (Newer Info Added)*



LuxLuthor said:


> Probably best to start a new thread that relates to question Mjolnir has about purchasing specific bulbs, and Fulgeo replying that he sent PM's to two members. LOL!
> 
> I would guess the size of this thread is on the threshold of being closed and a new one started anyway...but still.



I was tempted to just post a reply "PM sent!" to this LuxLuthor. I get what your saying thou!


----------



## Techjunkie

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 8/28/09 (Newer Info Added)*

I think I've discovered a poor man's alternative to FM1909. I can run the Hikari JC5607 (2000hr 6V 20W G4) bulb on three AW IMR 26500 direct drive. Current draw is about 5A, so power consumed is a very close match for 63W. Output beats my best Philips 5761 setup and best of all, the bulbs are only $1.15 each.


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 8/28/09 (Newer Info Added)*



Techjunkie said:


> I think I've discovered a poor man's alternative to FM1909. I can run the Hikari JC5607 (2000hr 6V 20W G4) bulb on three AW IMR 26500 direct drive. Current draw is about 5A, so power consumed is a very close match for 63W. Output beats my best Philips 5761 setup and best of all, the bulbs are only $1.15 each.



Another surprising nice find. Hikari makes some killer bulbs. I was just about to do destructive testing on a WA-1326 bulb that jslappa just sent me when I saw this post, and ordered some of these Hikari JC5607 you mentioned from this link. I'll do testings on both bulbs shortly. Thanks!


----------



## Techjunkie

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 8/28/09 (Newer Info Added)*



LuxLuthor said:


> ...ordered some of these Hikari JC5607 you mentioned from this link...


 
Yep, that's where I got mine. I'm looking forward to the test results.


----------



## Mjolnir

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 8/28/09 (Newer Info Added)*

Come on guys, I was about to order an M2 reflector with a .320 inch hole for my 3854, but now I am going to have to wait for the tests on these new bulbs to see if I should order one with a .500 inch hole...


----------



## parkschr

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 8/28/09 (Newer Info Added)*

I just built my first light - Mag09 (with the help of RichS). If these bulbs turn out to be a bulb that competes with the fm09, I'm sure many of us will hop on board with it

I can not wait to see LuxLuthor's tests!

Thanks LuxLuthor!


----------



## RichS

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 8/28/09 (Newer Info Added)*



Techjunkie said:


> I think I've discovered a poor man's alternative to FM1909. I can run the Hikari JC5607 (2000hr 6V 20W G4) bulb on three AW IMR 26500 direct drive. Current draw is about 5A, so power consumed is a very close match for 63W. Output beats my best Philips 5761 setup and best of all, the bulbs are only $1.15 each.


Great find Techjunkie!! I, and my brand-spankin' new 3xIMR MagD w/ AW soft-start thanks you!!:rock::twothumbs:thumbsup:


----------



## parkschr

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 8/28/09 (Newer Info Added)*

I agree with RichS. VERY nice find Techjunkie!!!!!!!!

Thanks a million!


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 8/28/09 (Newer Info Added)*

Got the Hikari while I was watching Avatar. Will test both new bulbs Sat night.


----------



## RichS

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 8/28/09 (Newer Info Added)*



LuxLuthor said:


> Got the Hikari while I was watching Avatar. Will test both new bulbs Sat night.


Great! Anxiously waiting on these results Lux...


----------



## Benson

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 8/28/09 (Newer Info Added)*



LuxLuthor said:


> Got the Hikari while I was watching Avatar. Will test both new bulbs Sat night.




I was close to pulling the trigger on the Hikaris (my Mag85 is running just fine on 3xIMR26700, but who can't always use almost ~1klm boost?), but when I heard you're testing them, figured I'd wait for lux figures.


----------



## Jay T

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 8/28/09 (Newer Info Added)*



Benson said:


> I was close to pulling the trigger on the Hikaris (my Mag85 is running just fine on 3xIMR26700, but who can't always use almost ~1klm boost?), but when I heard you're testing them, figured I'd wait for lux figures.



Put the popcorn down and order them. 

I replaced the 1185 in my 3D-9AA Eneloop fueled Mag85. Ceiling bounce light meter reading went from 85lux to 130. This is pretty much at the limit for the Eneloops so better cells should pay off. (Titanium 1800s on the charger)

EDIT to add : The Eneloopes don't last very long before the light visibly starts to dim. 

10 bulbs for 14$ off ebay, shipped! and you are sittin there eatin popcorn.


----------



## Linger

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 8/28/09 (Newer Info Added)*

did you get them from seller named 'trust....' as well?


----------



## Jay T

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 8/28/09 (Newer Info Added)*



Linger said:


> did you get them from seller named 'trust....' as well?



Mine were from Bodiex (rare lighting store). He had 5 ten packs, they are now all gone.


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 8/28/09 (Newer Info Added)*

Got the tests done last night. Still have to put them into the charts & upload to first page. I did take some comparison closeup photos so you can see the bulb sizes and filaments in the meantime.

The Hikari is a feisty little 6V bulb. First flashed at 12.1V; second at 12.3V using about 5.1 Amps. Both had very close correlation...couple numbers @10V-107 Lux @11V-141 Lux; @12V-180 Lux

The WA 1326 is a 12V 10W bulb that went all the way up to 20.7V & 20.9V before flashing; using about 1.1 Amps. Also close correlation with two samples. Couple [email protected] Lux; @16V-36 Lux; @18V-50 Lux; @19V-60 Lux; @20V-67 Lux

 



​


----------



## Billy Ram

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 8/28/09 (Newer Info Added)*

This Hikari JC5607 is looking to be another usefull bulb to choose from. It looks to fit between the 1185 and 1909 being closer to the 1909 in out put. The 5607 doesn't look to be able to take the voltage of the 1909 so it may work better with a soft start or regulated driver using IMRs. On the other hand high current AA ni-mhs may be the ticket. Lets see some beam shots.
I can tell you the 5607 has a tough rival with the 1909. I've found the 1909 to be quite robust in my FM3x26500 light that has very little resistance and delivers 11.63v. at the bulb. But at the price differance there's no comparison.
Billy


----------



## alantch

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 8/28/09 (Newer Info Added)*

Will the JC5607 bulb it fit thru the reflector hole of the KT4? It looks fatter than the 1185. Thinking of running it with a Megalennium on IMR18650s.


----------



## jslappa

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 8/28/09 (Newer Info Added)*

Yes, the 5607 is a T-3 bulb. The 1185 is a T 2-1/4. I don't have mine yet, so I can't tell you if a T-3 bulb can fit in the KT4 yet. 

Since the 5607 flashed at 12.1V and 5.1amps, it seems like the IMR's would have to be really well-rested. Hope you've got AW's softstart on that beast!


----------



## cernobila

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 8/28/09 (Newer Info Added)*



LuxLuthor said:


> Got the tests done last night. Still have to put them into the charts & upload to first page. I did take some comparison closeup photos so you can see the bulb sizes and filaments in the meantime.



I notice that the filament on this new bulb (5607) is off-centre quite a bit. I can imagine that used in a tight fitting reflector it would be difficult to get a nice even beam. I wonder if all these bulbs are like that.....


----------



## fivemega

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 8/28/09 (Newer Info Added)*






*----------------------------Left FM1909 ------------------ Right Hikari 6V, 20W


I have tested many of these JC 6V, 20W, 2000hrs and other brand similar bulbs in real life flashlight test long ago and all of them are acting differently. Some flashed with 8AA, some flashed with 9AA and some worked well with 9AA for about 30 minutes then shattered and ruin the reflector.
Seems like they have variation in voltage, amperage and life even from same batch of same brand.
Bottom part of glass is larger than tubular diameter and won't fit 8mm reflectors.
Also haven't seen any with centered fillament.
I had better luck with 12V, 35W version of these bulbs which was offered here.*


----------



## Billy Ram

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 8/28/09 (Newer Info Added)*



fivemega said:


> *I have tested many of these JC 6V, 20W, 2000hrs and other brand similar bulbs in real life flashlight test long ago and all of them are acting differently. Some flashed with 8AA, some flashed with 9AA and some worked well with 9AA for about 30 minutes then shattered and ruin the reflector.*
> *Seems like they have variation in voltage, amperage and life even from same batch of same brand.*
> *Bottom part of glass is larger than tubular diameter and won't fit 8mm reflectors.*
> *Also haven't seen any with centered fillament.*
> 
> *That is a good point! I wouldn't want to chance ruining a $40 or more reflector by trying to save a few $ on a bulb. I wasn't going to try them anyway being totally sadisfied with the FM1909. Getting the filament centered in a reflector for a good beam looks impossible.*
> *Billy*


----------



## cernobila

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 8/28/09 (Newer Info Added)*

I guess you get what you pay for.......It would be nice if the FM1909's would be available on their own.......

This bulb produces the brightest light I have....even with the disliked Kai protected Li-Ion D cells.....one of the best bulbs going at the moment!


----------



## jslappa

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 8/28/09 (Newer Info Added)*

Ok, so this Bulb doesn't like 12volts. That's ok because it's a 6v bulb. So let's see how it performs on 2 lithiums. How about in the M4 with 2 imr 18650s? M3T with 2 17500's? 

Has anyone destroyed one of these bulbs at 8.4v?


----------



## Conte

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 8/28/09 (Newer Info Added)*

Since when can I not copy and paste . . . 

Anyway, that's one thing you'll notice about cheap stuff, it indeed can be as good as or better then a more expensive name brand version, but the consistency from unit to unit will be different.

I noticed this working in Pro Audio for years. Our company bought some cheap mics to use at the punk shows so as to not take much a loss if the kids smashed them. They were good mics for the most part, but no two sounded the same. 

PS: is it just me or does it look like WA makes the Magcharger bulb?


----------



## Techjunkie

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 8/28/09 (Newer Info Added)*

You get what you pay for, no doubt. I don't use expensive reflectors so I don't worry about ruining them if a bulb pops. In my experience, the filament usually breaks but the glass stays in tact, but I still wouldn't risk ruining a $100+ FM creation to save $15 on a bulb.

In my case, I've found that the DX P7 (12229) reflector makes a nice round hotspot from these wider transverse filaments, as opposed to the football shaped hotspot I get from 2" parabolic reflectors that mimic the original Mag reflector, so I'm only putting a $5.24 reflector at risk.

Also, maybe I'm lucky, but 2 out of three of my Hikari JC5607's have centered filaments. I guess I'm also lucky that the tailspring or magnetic spacer I used in my 2D Mag with Kiu socket introduced enough resistance and battery sag to keep my bulb from popping on three AW IMR 26500 batteries with no soft start.

As I said, this is the poor man's version. To make a flashaholic's addiction reference, this cheap stuff is like a gateway drug. I don't think I need to continue the analogy by saying what that makes FM's products (white powdery stuff).


----------



## Techjunkie

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 8/28/09 (Newer Info Added)*

Update on the JC5607: Please see *THIS* post.


----------



## fivemega

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 8/28/09 (Newer Info Added)*



Techjunkie said:


> I don't use expensive reflectors so I don't worry about ruining them if a bulb pops.



*That's exactly what I suggested here.*
---------------------


Techjunkie said:


> I've found that the DX P7 (12229) reflector makes a nice round hotspot from these wider transverse filaments, as opposed to the football shaped hotspot I get from 2" parabolic reflectors that mimic the original Mag reflector, so I'm only putting a $5.24 reflector at risk.


*If you enlarge bulb opening of any 2" reflector to about 17mm, I guarantee you will get round beam shape. That's exactly what you get from LED reflector. But remember, you are loosing big portion of the unreflected light.
You may not care about this but others may do.*
----------------------


Techjunkie said:


> Also, maybe I'm lucky, but 2 out of three of my Hikari JC5607's have centered filaments. I guess I'm also lucky that the tailspring or magnetic spacer I used in my 2D Mag with Kiu socket introduced enough resistance and battery sag to keep my bulb from popping on three AW IMR 26500 batteries with no soft start.


*You tested only 3 bulbs, I have tested dozens of them and result is in post #376
However, I encourage everybody to do same test and let us know the result.*


----------



## Steve in SoCal

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 8/28/09 (Newer Info Added)*



jslappa said:


> Ok, so this Bulb doesn't like 12volts. That's ok because it's a 6v bulb. So let's see how it performs on 2 lithiums. How about in the M4 with 2 imr 18650s? M3T with 2 17500's?



I think I may test this little guy in my M6 on 2x18650 IMRs.


----------



## jslappa

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 8/28/09 (Newer Info Added)*

I've got a tls head that I've opened up to take the FM bipin holder. When my bulbs come in I'll be trying the 5607 in the M3 with the tls head running 2 x 17500's. I expect it'll run just fine, but will be most interested in seeing how it performs against my 1185 megalennium. My mega has the softstart, so I may drain the 18650's a bit and try it in there. Based on reports here, I won't be using the KT4 for that test! The tls head will have that job as well. 

I am dying to see the results and the subsequent hotrater data on that bulb, as well as my low lumen 12v 1326.


----------



## Techjunkie

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 8/28/09 (Newer Info Added)*



Steve in SoCal said:


> I think I may test this little guy in my M6 on 2x18650 IMRs.


 


jslappa said:


> I've got a tls head that I've opened up to take the FM bipin holder. When my bulbs come in I'll be trying the 5607 in the M3 with the tls head running 2 x 17500's. I expect it'll run just fine, but will be most interested in seeing how it performs against my 1185 megalennium. My mega has the softstart, so I may drain the 18650's a bit and try it in there. Based on reports here, I won't be using the KT4 for that test! The tls head will have that job as well.
> 
> I am dying to see the results and the subsequent hotrater data on that bulb, as well as my low lumen 12v 1326.


 
I think both of you will be very disappointed with the JC5607 on just two cells. The PH7388 is a much better match for 2xIMR cells.


----------



## jslappa

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 8/28/09 (Newer Info Added)*

Well then, it's going to have to be the Megalennium running 3 IMR 18650's and the softstart. May God have mercy on my soul!


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 8/28/09 (Newer Info Added)*

Got the charts up for the two bulbs. Merry Christmas!


----------



## jslappa

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 8/28/09 (Newer Info Added)*

Awesome Christmas present Lux! Thank you. I tried the hikari bulb in my mega today and was shocked when I cranked the AW softstart to hi. But I had no idea that I was looking at 2300 lumens on 3 AW 18650's(non IMR). 

I'm not good with math, so could someone help me out? My WA 1326, at 12v is putting out 171 lumens at 0.8 volts. If I run 3 topped off AW 18650's (2600 mAh) in a Megalennium, what kind of runtime can I expect?

Thanks in advance. 

And Merry Christmas everyone.


----------



## Fulgeo

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 8/28/09 (Newer Info Added)*



LuxLuthor said:


> Got the charts up for the two bulbs. Merry Christmas!


 
Thanks Lux! Merry Christmas and best thread ever!:thumbsup:


----------



## Conte

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 8/28/09 (Newer Info Added)*

Hey, Lux, do you have specs on the Mag Charger bulb ?

Or the WA1165, I should say.


----------



## nighttrails

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 8/28/09 (Newer Info Added)*



Conte said:


> Hey, Lux, do you have specs on the Mag Charger bulb ?
> 
> Or the WA1165, I should say.


 
+1 I too would greatly like to see overdrive specs of the stock magcharger bulb. I'd be happy to supply the bulbs.


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 8/28/09 (Newer Info Added)*



Conte said:


> Hey, Lux, do you have specs on the Mag Charger bulb ?
> 
> Or the WA1165, I should say.



Have not heard anyone talk about that bulb, but info is here.

Never have tested default Mag bulbs, which are not noteworthy for ability to overdrive. If you guys have reason to see limits of Magcharger bulb and want to send me two new bulbs, I can test them.


----------



## nighttrails

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 8/28/09 (Newer Info Added)*



LuxLuthor said:


> Never have tested default Mag bulbs, which are not noteworthy for ability to overdrive. If you guys have reason to see limits of Magcharger bulb and want to send me two new bulbs, I can test them.


 
Great! I'll send the magcharger bulbs. PM sent.


----------



## jslappa

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 8/28/09 (Newer Info Added)*



alantch said:


> Will the JC5607 bulb it fit thru the reflector hole of the KT4? It looks fatter than the 1185. Thinking of running it with a Megalennium on IMR18650s.


 
Had my 5607 bulbs for almost 2 weeks now, and I haven't experienced any problems with them. They actually DO fit inside the stock KT4 head. I have been runnning them in my Megalennium with protected 18650's and the soft start. Out of my batch of 50, 11 of them had filaments that were not centered. Just about 20% of the batch I guess.

I have officially retired all my 1185 bulbs. At +- 2300lumens in the Megalennium, I am in awe. and at $1 each, this has to be one of the most impressive buys going right now.


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 1/8/2010 (Newer Info Added)*

OK, got the Magcharger bulb done & posted. However, I could not find a life/amp/watt spec. Measurement of amps at 6V showed it was a 10W bulb. Remember this setup has almost no resistance. I'm not sure what the total resistance of a stock MagCharger is but most default Mags have about 200-250 mΩ. When you figure your resistance loss using Ohm's Law V=IR, you solve for the voltage loss at a given current & resistance. So in this case, assume 1.8A and 0.25 Ohm (Ω). Then:

*V*loss = 1.8A x .25Ω = .45V

Given the bulb flashed at 8.3V, if you had a soft start, theoretically you could go up to *V*battery of 8.7V before the bulb would flash. More practically, you should be able to go up to 7.8 to 8.0* V*battery with all these assumptions.


The two new bulbs were very close in all the values, and both flashed at 8.3V

Also here is a bulb comparison. I used two backgrounds.

​


----------



## Conte

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 12/24/09 (Newer Info Added)*



> OK, got the Magcharger bulb done & posted. However, I could not find a life/amp/watt spec.


I do believe it's a WA1165.

*Part #* *- Voltage* - *Current* - *Wattage* - *Lumens* - *Life*
*01165-U* - 6.0 - 1.87 - 11.22 - 237.5 - 75



> More practically, you should be able to go up to 7.8 to 8.0* V*battery with all these assumptions.


Well then, that makes it a decent option in a 6D Mag w/ Rechargeables. Not fresh off the charger of course.

*Minutes Later*

Hey, yeah, it's working great in my 6D. And I should get 6 hours of straight Runtime. An Hour a D !. . . Sweet deal !


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 12/24/09 (Newer Info Added)*

It's not an 1165 as the 6V amps & lumens (by Magcharger spec on their site) were not that high.


----------



## nighttrails

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 12/24/09 (Newer Info Added)*

Lux, thank you very much for testing the MC bulb, your feedback and interpretations! Greatly appreciated!


----------



## Conte

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 1/8/2010 (Newer Info Added)*

The mag site ratings you linked me to are a bit vague.



> It's not an 1165 as the 6V amps & lumens (by Magcharger spec on their site) were not that high.


Correct me if I'm wrong but:

The Lumen rating on your chart @ 6v and the Lumen rating on that site match. Also, they would probably measure their Lumens differently wouldn't they ?
WA: bulb Lumens, Mag: out the front. 

A fresh set of 1/2D NiCD cells charge up to just over 3000mAh, and as the current draw is proportional to the decline in voltage it is possible to squeeze "Up to 2 hours" of life out of them. (I assume this is where you have determined your amps from.)

The 1.87a current matches the 7.4 volt range which is the upper limits of said NiCD pack under load with a fresh charge. Basically stating the greatest possible current the bulb will draw under normal operating conditions.

And, the MagCharger bulb is rated for 11 watts like the 1165, which is achievable in it's average operating range of 6.4 - 6.6 volts. 

Don't get me wrong, you're probably right, you certainly know WA bulbs better then I, that's for sure. This is just my logic that brought me to this conclusion. 

Also a gut feeling I have based on my experience with the MC bulb.
(It was the cats *** hotwire for me for years before I discovered this site, lol.) 

But defiantly, thanks for the ratings. I didn't feel safe popping it into my 6D till I saw that list. Tried it, it works great. I see that light joining me of a few UE adventures next summer.


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 1/8/2010 (Newer Info Added)*



Conte said:


> The Lumen rating on your chart @ 6v and the Lumen rating on that site match. Also, they would probably measure their Lumens differently wouldn't they ?
> WA: bulb Lumens, Mag: out the front.



I took their listed Lumen spec from their website, which is almost certainly their tested bulb lumens (or from WA if they make the bulb for them). If you don't have a reliable manufacturer bulb lumen spec, you can't make much of a prediction, except to use my Lux measurements and compare to other bulbs I tested with my setup platform.

You can't get a reliable gold standard Integrating Sphere test result for bulb lumens once you introduce a reflector (especially an adjustable cammed reflector). There is no such "official" specification called "Torch Lumens" (aka "out the front"), which is a term made up by well intentioned flashaholics.

Maglite's guestimate of "up to 51,700 candlepower" is something to throw out there since no one knows how to interpret such a claim anyway. It is their attempt to demonstrate their flashlight's throwing prowess. 



Conte said:


> A fresh set of 1/2D NiCD cells charge up to just over 3000mAh, and as the current draw is proportional to the decline in voltage it is possible to squeeze "Up to 2 hours" of life out of them. (I assume this is where you have determined your amps from.)
> 
> The 1.87a current matches the 7.4 volt range which is the upper limits of said NiCD pack under load with a fresh charge. Basically stating the greatest possible current the bulb will draw under normal operating conditions.



No, I directly measure the amperage drawn in my setup at a given voltage. I measure it with a Fluke DMM, and/or by the listed amps being output on the Mastech power supply which has had excellent correlation to the Fluke mA measurements. Also, flashlight manufacturers don't list a bulb lumen reading at peak battery charge. Without a regulated power supply, you couldn't get a stable bulb lumen reading, since it would immediately be dropping as the batteries begin draining. It is possible that their (nearly) meaningless candlepower claim is using stock peak battery charge, but who knows?


Conte said:


> And, the MagCharger bulb is rated for 11 watts like the 1165, which is achievable in it's average operating range of 6.4 - 6.6 volts.


Again, I take the listed spec. If they say it is a 6V bulb, then that is their default voltage spec. Their site is intentionally vague on bulb specs, not listing the watt or amps at spec, so I measured amps with my Fluke while 6V were being supplied, and it was 1.669A.

I didn't see anything on the official Mag website saying it was spec'd at 11W, and if in fact they are using a WA 1165, then they should use that exact spec listed on WA's website....but again if it was an 1165, my measured amps at 6V should have read 1.87A


----------



## Conte

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 1/8/2010 (Newer Info Added)*

Yeah, I guess you're right, eh ?

After I spewed my logic I cross referenced your charts to see if it made sense based on the results you got from other bulbs. I may not be completely off, but what you are saying is pretty consistent with how the specs match with your other findings. I can see how I made the mistake. 

At this point I'm inclined to agree. Thanks for the clarification. 



> I didn't see anything on the official Mag website saying it was spec'd at 11W


Good point, now that I think of it, I'm not sure where I got that stat from. 
I vaguely recall an official statistic. I'm going to look into this. 
I used to be under the impression that it was 8 watts. Until . . . "I read something somewhere" then tested it myself. 

Meanwhile, with these new findings. Check out the WA *01316-U.


*


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 1/8/2010 (Newer Info Added)*



Conte said:


> Meanwhile, with these new findings. Check out the WA *01316-U.*


Yeah that is spot on regarding the amps @ 6V I got with MC bulb, but WA gives that 235 BL vs. Mag's 218 BL. If it was that exact bulb, Mag would surely take the higher WA default spec lumen rating. It is likely a unique bulb made only for MC (probably by WA) and not listed on WA's site.


----------



## nighttrails

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 1/8/2010 (Newer Info Added)*



Conte said:


> Meanwhile, with these new findings. Check out the WA *01316-U.*


If you are suggesting the 1316 is the Magcharger bulb, it has a filament too long to be the MC. The 1165's filament is tiny like the Magcharger's. It would be an interesting bulb to try if some could be secured.



Conte said:


> it's working great in my 6D. And I should get 6 hours of straight Runtime. An Hour a D !.


I don't think you will actually get 6 hours out of 6 D batteries, and we also don't know if the bulb itself will actually last 6 hours overdriven that hard. My experimentation has been haphazard with intermittent running of the bulb, switching between 5 and 6 Ds, so I can't say how long the bulbs I've overdriven have really lasted. When I get some new bulbs in I'll time some runs on 6 Ds. We'll see how our experiences compare.


----------



## Howecollc

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 1/8/2010 (Newer Info Added)*



LuxLuthor said:


> It is likely a unique bulb made only for MC (probably by WA) and not listed on WA's site.


That statement is pretty much verified by the following 2 posts.

https://www.candlepowerforums.com/posts/3117327&postcount=1
https://www.candlepowerforums.com/posts/3117870&postcount=6


----------



## Conte

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 1/8/2010 (Newer Info Added)*

Nighttrails:

I'm going to move the rest of this conversation to your other tread.


----------



## Conte

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 1/8/2010 (Newer Info Added)*



> That statement is pretty much verified by the following 2 posts.
> 
> https://www.candlepowerforums.com/posts/3117327#post3117327


Hey well what do you know ! 
I searched for a thread on this subject but did not find this.

And there is the official information I remember seeing stating that the Magcharger bulb is 11 watts. Posted by Fivemega himself who also thinks the 1165 might be a match. 

Well, this new info may settle 2 things, that WA makes the MC bulb, and that Mag has indeed officially rated it at 11 watts.


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 1/8/2010 (Newer Info Added)*



Conte said:


> Hey well what do you know !
> I searched for a thread on this subject but did not find this.
> 
> And there is the official information I remember seeing stating that the Magcharger bulb is 11 watts. Posted by Fivemega himself who also thinks the 1165 might be a match.
> 
> Well, this new info may settle 2 things, that WA makes the MC bulb, and that Mag has indeed officially rated it at 11 watts.



Personally, I don't find anything reliable with what Maglite says about this bulb. You have to independently measure these things to pick out fact from fiction/embellishment. Once you demonstrate that their 6V 11W is erroneous, everything else becomes suspect.

I can say that WA, Philips, and Osram generally had very reliable correlation between my testing amps at their default voltage spec to correlate with their Watt ratings.


----------



## mdocod

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 1/8/2010 (Newer Info Added)*

If this has already been brought up in this very long thread I apologize. 

I just noticed this "discrepancy" when I was looking at bulbs and doing some personal research. 

Bulb connection has listed a 64432 ES/IRC lamp that is rated 35W 4000HR and 900 lumen (as apposed to the 600 lumens that it seems to be listed at most places). The osram product code is 615905. 

Your chart is based on the 600 base lumens (we assume listing from osram/WA/philips to be close to accurate most of the time). The more I think about it though, the 600 lumen base output doesn't seem accurate considering the efficiency of the other IRC bulbs. The 600 lumen rating is also about the same as we get from non-IRC 35W 12V long-life halogens.

(from your measurements and manufacture listed assumed output)
64432: 12V 3.2A 38W, 600L, 16L/W?
64440: 12V 4.0A 48W, 1250L, 26L/W
64447: 12V 5.0A 60W, 1700L, 28L/W

It is normal for lower wattage bulbs with similar design characteristics to have lower efficiency because the smaller filament size must be offset by less intense drive levels in the design to achieve the same bulb life. I just wouldn't expect this much of a gap. 

If one takes a leap of faith and assumes 24L/W for the 64432, we get almost exactly 900 lumens. Makes since to me. 

Makes the 64432 look a lot better eh?

Thoughts?


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 1/8/2010 (Newer Info Added)*

You are absolutely correct. I suspect I dialed into this 64432 version which has the lower default rating. and used the wrong default lumen rating of 600 rather than 900 for IRC bulb which it should have been. The more important Lux readings are correct though. I revised that projected lumen column and uploaded a correct chart version in OP. Good pickup. :thumbsup:

I also noticed some other changes that Osram has made with these IRC bulbs.

1) Note the link I have on the 50W IRC (64440) bulb on OP of this thread, which used to have the default rating of 1250 lumens, but has now been decreased to 1180.

http://catalog.myosram.com/?~language=EN&~country=COM&it_p=4050300615936​To verify that it used to be 1250 lumens, Svetila (& Bulb Connection) still have it listed as the higher value. I believe they have started making new IRC bulbs that rate lower, because of my next point.
http://www.svetila.com/en/osram-lig...440-irc-50w-12v-gy6-35-4053.html?currency=USD
​2) They no longer list the 65W IRC (64447) 1700 lumen bulb. Now that same product number goes to a 60W IRC 1650 lumen bulb. I'm staring at my four 65W IRC bulb boxes, so this is a change.

http://catalog.myosram.com/?~language=EN&~country=COM&it_p=4050300785400​Svetila (& Bulb Connection) still have the 65W IRC with 1700 lumens listed here:
http://www.svetila.com/en/osram-lig...1/halostar-64447-irc-65w-12v-gy6-35-4050.html
​3) There are changes in the lumen ratings of their Starlite lineup if you compare their Osram ratings to BulbConnection's listing....so all these revisions may be fairly recent.


----------



## mdocod

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 1/8/2010 (Newer Info Added)*

Wow!

Very interesting to see that your actual test results for the 64447 (which show it to be a 60W bulb) have been updated by the manufacture to indicate a 60W rather than a 65W bulb. 

I wonder what they are going to do with the 64432, which measures closer to a 40W than it does a 35W bulb. I'm going to assume that they will do nothing because they are in a battle for efficiency with these bulbs. The 60W IRC looks better than the 65W label, where, a 40W label looks worse than a 35W. hmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

Thank you for the correction and response Lux! 

Pleasure to share bits and bytes with you,
Eric


----------



## Roland

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 1/8/2010 (Newer Info Added)*

It really looks like a battle of efficiency. When I compare the 64623 with the 64447 power consumption numbers look quite different while output seems equal.

64623 at 15,0 volt 15,0x10,10= 151,5 watt predicts 5101 lux
64447 at 18,5 volt 18,5x 6,40= 118,4 watt predicts 5049 lux

(151,5-118,4)/151,5= 21,8%
(151,5-118,4)/118,4= 28,0%

I am thinking about swapping my regulated 64623 bulb for a regulated 64447 bulb. Theory sounds nice but do the bulbs really compare that well besides power consumption?


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 1/8/2010 (Newer Info Added)*



Roland said:


> It really looks like a battle of efficiency. When I compare the 64623 with the 64447 power consumption numbers look quite different while output seems equal.
> 
> 64623 at 15,0 volt 15,0x10,10= 151,5 watt predicts 5101 lux
> 64447 at 18,5 volt 18,5x 6,40= 118,4 watt predicts 5049 lux
> 
> (151,5-118,4)/151,5= 21,8%
> (151,5-118,4)/118,4= 28,0%
> 
> I am thinking about swapping my regulated 64623 bulb for a regulated 64447 bulb. Theory sounds nice but do the bulbs really compare that well besides power consumption?



Roland, you are correct that Osram uses an "Infra Red Coating," to keep the IRC bulbs from losing as much energy from radiated IR heat.  Since the retained energy heats up the tungsten filament to the necessary "glowing lumen output level" (more efficiently), you get more light per watt.

However, in choosing various incan bulbs, you have to consider a panoply of factors, rather than just the LED Jockey's narrow minded "Holy Grail" of efficiency.

The IRC is a high end/primo bulb on all aspects. It has gold coated legs, a rounded glass envelope, an axial filament that makes a world of difference in beam appearance and shape. 

The 64623 is a transverse filament, and since it is normally used in projectors, with cooling fans, mirrors, and lenses, the output is ugly unless a MOP/Stipple reflector is used--turning it into a wall of light.

The 623 gained most of its popularity because of the high heat loss output starting newspaper fires as a flashlight novelty. I'm not sure the IRC could even start a similar fire. You also need to take into account the heat effects of the 623 on the flashlight parts.

Then you need to look at the voltage and current required to effectively drive each bulb. It takes less cells to reach the lower voltage for the 623, but the batteries need to be higher amp output types. It is not as easy to get battery voltage up into the 18+V range to drive the IRC, but it is worth it if you can--especially if you have a setup with the AlanB, JimmyM, or AWR regulated drivers.

The IRC holds the cutting edge of small incan bulbs to date.


----------



## Roland

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 1/8/2010 (Newer Info Added)*

Thanks for your answer LuxLuthor. 
I have 50 watt/hours, alan's voltage regulation and enough voltage to supply continuously over 20 volts. I want as much light as possible but with long runtimes.

Heat buildup and power consumption hinder long runtimes. Heat buildup hinders me the most because already after a few minutes the 623 starts getting hot. 

If colour rendition of the IRC is about as good as the 623, the filament makes a nicer beam, power consumption is less at the same light output, risk of burning something is less, that sounds too good. Sounds like the only down side is the need to get 18+ volts to the bulb.

Makes me really wonder why not more people are using the 64447 ?

Is there to your knowledge a difference in bulbs with 60 or 65 watt label?


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 1/8/2010 (Newer Info Added)*



Roland said:


> Makes me really wonder why not more people are using the 64447 ?
> 
> Is there to your knowledge a difference in bulbs with 60 or 65 watt label?



Roland, a number of reasons why more people are not using the 64447:



1) Until the last year, you could only get them from Svetila in Slovenia.


2) They were more expensive than they are now (especially with shipping from Slovenia), and they still remain more costly than non-IRC bulbs.


3) Hard to get adequate battery voltage to properly drive them.


4) About the time these bulbs were promoted, people were moving on to LED's.


5) Not that many people knew how, or wanted to deal with these higher end output bulbs, including the flashlight hardware needed.
I have not seen this new listing by Osram of 60W until now. I don't see them for sale at that lower rating at the usual places, so no idea if it is an entirely new bulb, or if they just decided to change the ratings of the same bulb manufacturing spec.


----------



## Roland

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 1/8/2010 (Newer Info Added)*

Now that they are cheaper and better available probably they will get more popular. Incan regulation might help too. It is still more powerfull than a led, throws better and provides better colours.

I was looking at the tables again. I noticed I often looked at the predicted lumens ratings especially the "predicted lumens from measured lux" values. 

When I look at the "measured lux (@ 1 meter)" the values of the 64447 are way lower than the 64623.

Does that mean that in practical use the 623 is noticably brighter than a 447? Or how must that be interpreted?


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 1/8/2010 (Newer Info Added)*



Roland said:


> When I look at the "measured lux (@ 1 meter)" the values of the 64447 are way lower than the 64623.
> 
> Does that mean that in practical use the 623 is noticably brighter than a 447? Or how must that be interpreted?



Remember my setup with tube viewing perpendicular to side of bulb. In the case of the IRC spherical & axial design, there is somewhat more of a forward throwing effect, which will slightly reduce my measurements.

Mainly you should look at it from a practical standpoint. The '623 is a flood-monster, and scatters off so much dust and moisture in the air, that you cannot see distances very well in comparison to an axial bulb like the IRC's or even the 64458. 

It is true that the 623 puts out lots more lux/lumens as you noted. Look at the manufacturer default ratings of 2800 vs. 1700 lumens you are starting with. Like I said earlier, you can't just go by a single factor when choosing a bulb for various purposes. You have to take multiple factors into account.


----------



## Roland

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 1/8/2010 (Newer Info Added)*

The 64458 has great specs but might generate too much heat for me at 200 watts.

I see there is a lot to learn about bulbs. I do not quite understand your explanation.
perpendicular means at anagle of 90 degrees?

I do not see how the direction of the filament should matter as long as it is at an angle of 90 degrees to the measurement device. 

In a reflector I can imagine horizontal or vertical filament makes a big difference since it influences the distance to the reflector. Vertical filament having a equal distance to every side of the reflector.


----------



## herulach

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 1/8/2010 (Newer Info Added)*

LuxLuthor,
I've just got hold of a few philips 7388 bulbs for use in a Wf-500. Any chance I could get DX to ship a couple of them to you for testing?


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 1/8/2010 (Newer Info Added)*



Roland said:


> The 64458 has great specs but might generate too much heat for me at 200 watts.
> 
> I see there is a lot to learn about bulbs. I do not quite understand your explanation.
> perpendicular means at anagle of 90 degrees?
> 
> I do not see how the direction of the filament should matter as long as it is at an angle of 90 degrees to the measurement device.
> 
> In a reflector I can imagine horizontal or vertical filament makes a big difference since it influences the distance to the reflector. Vertical filament having a equal distance to every side of the reflector.



You see the collating effect with the IRC glass envelope shape & coating, when without a reflector _(like in the bare socket shown in my OP setup),_ you notice more light if the top of the bulb is pointing up at the white ceiling, rather than tilted 90 degrees so the sidewall is now illuminating the ceiling.



herulach said:


> LuxLuthor,
> I've just got hold of a few philips 7388 bulbs for use in a Wf-500. Any chance I could get DX to ship a couple of them to you for testing?



PM sent


----------



## ^^Nova^^

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 1/8/2010 (Newer Info Added)*

Wow, that newly tested WA1326 looks sweet. Similar power draw to the 3854L but with higher voltage so less current draw. Should be good for 4xLiIon or even more V with a driver.

Cheers,
Nova


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 1/8/2010 (Newer Info Added)*

I just received my replacement FM-1794 (Carley) bulbs from Nite/Wonderlite. They generously included 2 extras, so I will run these through my destructive tests, and see how they compare to previous batches. Maybe this weekend.


----------



## JimmyM

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests - Updated 1/8/2010 (Newer Info Added)*

Lux,
I've got a couple of 64663 (36V 400W) bulbs here that another CPFer wants me to test. I don't have a lux meter, but would you want the volts/amps I get during testing?


----------



## LuxLuthor

I just posted the Par36 Martek sealed beam 13V 100W #4509Q light info. There went $15 :mecry: Also see this post for a few photos I took. 

There was no point in doing estimated CP, and mainly people wanted to know the flash point. I did give a comparison with a Mag85 using a FM2 Deep reflector for comparison.

It took me about 8 mins to go from 13V to 18.8V when it flashed, so I think there is some reasonable voltage overdrive tolerance beyond default. Obviously, a soft driver would help. Take note of the amps, and select your battery source accordingly.


----------



## KevinL

An old bird who flew the incan nest some years ago has now returned.... 

What was supposed to be a turnkey project with another light that went sour has left me with some spare hardware including a host that I have gutted. 

Experimentation has determined that this host can likely take a 12-cell 6S2P A123Systems (3.2V) pack - perfect for the 64447 IRC. :naughty::naughty:


----------



## SwatDude

I have been searching and there isn't much talk of Magchargers these days. Have the LED's all but replaced them? I have an old one I just bought a ceramic slug and aluminum reflector for. I put the Philips 5761 in with the 3500 ma NMh battery from battery junction but I am a little disappointed in the output. Can I bump this to 7.2V by adding a 1/2 D rechargeable from BatteryJunction and will it fit in the magcharger if I just use a different spring and sand off the anodizing?

Also, can I still use the stock charger to charge both cells in the light? Both are rated at 3500.


----------



## vestureofblood

Can someone tell me what the relative size of the 15V osram 64633 is vs the 12V 64623? I can only find specs that give the length, and the diameter is the more important measurement for my project. Thanks


----------



## JetskiMark

vestureofblood said:


> Can someone tell me what the relative size of the 15V osram 64633 is vs the 12V 64623? I can only find specs that give the length, and the diameter is the more important measurement for my project. Thanks



The 64633 is 11.5 mm diameter per the data sheet on the Osram site.


----------



## vestureofblood

Thanks.


----------



## LuxLuthor

Yeah, thanks on that answer Mark. I went into my boxes of extra bulbs to answer your questions, but did not have any extra of those 64633 150W Osrams. I'm not sure why my testing was not included with all of those great graphs that Ictorna did...maybe it was the 15V not fitting into either adjacent categories.


----------



## vestureofblood

Thanks again for doing this thread Lux. I am so glad there are still a few hold outs for incan lights. This stuff is the foundation on which CPF is laid, and every member here owes a debt of gratitude for the pioneers that laid these incandescent stones.

I am actually just now to the place in life where I have the equipment and the ability to build the super lights I have dreamed of for so long. Perhaps these lights will be old news to some, but I see some full custom ( possibly even from scratch) big head, deep reflector, regulated 5-10,000 lumen incan dreams about to be fulfilled in my life!


----------



## Colonel Sanders

Yep, I hear ya VoB. I want a Colossus host to further my incan endeavors. That and some Jimmy regulators....and some stupid *BIG* bulbs! :candle: Gonna happen one day.


----------



## mesa232323

vestureofblood said:


> Thanks again for doing this thread Lux. I am so glad there are still a few hold outs for incan lights. This stuff is the foundation on which CPF is laid, and every member here owes a debt of gratitude for the pioneers that laid these incandescent stones.


:thumbup:

I couldn't tell you how many times I've visited this useful thread


----------



## JetskiMark

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*



DM51 said:


> LL - this is excellent! Extremely valuable work - very useful indeed.
> 
> _*STICKY !!!*_
> 
> The figures for the WA 1185 are very interesting, and as you add others this will become a major reference resource - exactly what is needed.





JetskiMark said:


> I agree, outstanding work Lux. Thank you for your time, effort and testing expenses.
> 
> Regards,
> Mark



Thank you again Lux for your major contribution to the community.


----------



## vestureofblood

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*

Is anyone else having trouble viewing the tests now? 

When ever I click the boxes they come up in photo bucket, but they are grainy and unreadable. I even tried downloading the image and couldn't get a clear picture.


----------



## 357mag1

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*

I'm having the same problem. I PM'ed Lux but haven't heard anything yet.


----------



## vestureofblood

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*

I sure hope there is a way to fix it thats not too much trouble. This is STILL one of my all time favorite threads.


----------



## 357mag1

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*



vestureofblood said:


> I sure hope there is a way to fix it thats not too much trouble. This is STILL one of my all time favorite threads.



Same here.


----------



## ef9sleeper

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*

If your trying to look at them on smartphone/tablet, go to the bottom of the screen and click "view full site". I was having this problem as well.


----------



## novice

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*

The graphs are working for me on my laptop. When you open the sticky thread, and click on one of the small, grainy graphs, it brings up a clear graph for me.


----------



## vestureofblood

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*

The graphs are ok, but what I really need is the actual output of each bulb at the different voltages.


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*



vestureofblood said:


> The graphs are ok, but what I really need is the actual output of each bulb at the different voltages.



I'm not sure what you mean? The thumbnails on the original forum page one are not intended to be readable. Rather they are small size images that should be clicked to get to the full size image which looks the same to me as they always did.

For example, this is the page one thumbnail: http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h75/pike444/bulbs/1326*s*.jpg (note the "s" for small in file name)

Whereas clicking it goes to the full size image: http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h75/pike444/bulbs/1326.jpg 

The measured output at all the voltages is presented in "Measured Lux" column.


----------



## vestureofblood

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*

Thanks for responding Lux.

I understand what your saying about viewing the thumbnails in the original thread. I have always had to click them to see what was written as well.

What has changed from where I am sitting is that when I used to click the thumbnail a large clear crisp image would appear. 

Now when I click it I am directed to photo bucket where a blurry illegible image is shown. Zooming in on the picture ( even if I down load it) only results in further distortion of the image.

When I said "the graphs are ok" I just meant that I can read those, but they dont provide the same info including the lumen output of the bulbs that those original pictures do.

If your still able to view them clearly I'm not sure why myself and some of the others are having this trouble.


----------



## The_Driver

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*

They work fine for me. I'm using the current Opera browser and am not logged in to the site.


----------



## vestureofblood

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*

Ok, sorry. The problem was me all along. Or my computer maybe. 

I realized what the problem was when I clicked the links LL gave me and the both did the same thing, rather than one being small and the other large. Under the image in photobucket there is a link that says Full SITE. Once I clicked that it cleared the image. I didnt realize that when ef9 mentioned it because I was not using a tablet or laptop to view it, just my same old PC.


----------



## LEDAdd1ct

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*

Hi, Lux!

If I mailed you the Osram 64410S and the JC-0615, would you be willing to work your magic on them?

I am considering them pushed to 7.0v for my project here.

You can keep the bulbs as thanks for running the tests. 

Shoot me an email if you are up for it and I'll mail them your way!


----------



## novice

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*

I don't think that I have ever thanked LuxLuthor for the incredibly useful and time-consuming work that he has put in and shared with all of us.

Thank you, Lux.


----------



## StudFreeman

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*

Why wasn't this treasure trove of info ever stickied?


----------



## Conte

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*



StudFreeman said:


> Why wasn't this treasure trove of info ever stickied?




It kind of was. Look at the second post in the incan forum.


----------



## vicv

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*

Whatever happened to the test of the Philips 7388?


----------



## id30209

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*

After years and years spent on LED crapy mods and terrible tints, i have decided to go back on incans and these graphs are guiding beacon.
Too bad not much people are on the same wave with me.
After all, there is no replacement for displacement... 64623 and 64657 ))))


----------



## 1pt21

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*



id30209 said:


> After years and years spent on LED crapy mods and terrible tints, i have decided to go back on incans and these graphs are guiding beacon.
> Too bad not much people are on the same wave with me.
> After all, there is no replacement for displacement... 64623 and 64657 ))))



Not many of us remain, but trust me; you are not alone my friend!! Finding parts can be tough these days, but you seem to be gobbling up what still remains. Smart man (you should post some of your builds, I see you've bought some QUALITY stuff on here alone)... I did the same a couple years back and will NEVER let them go!!

What's your go to host?? Mags??

The ONE thing I wish we could still obtain is proper Incan Drivers / Soft-Starts, nearly impossible to find. I have maybe one or two out of my massive incan collection and custom builds, which is sad because they are almost a must for a proper powerhouse build. New battery technology helps a lot too! :twothumbs

Enjoy that warm incan glow :candle:


----------



## id30209

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*



1pt21 said:


> Not many of us remain, but trust me; you are not alone my friend!! Finding parts can be tough these days, but you seem to be gobbling up what still remains. Smart man (you should post some of your builds, I see you've bought some QUALITY stuff on here alone)... I did the same a couple years back and will NEVER let them go!!
> 
> What's your go to host?? Mags??
> 
> The ONE thing I wish we could still obtain is proper Incan Drivers / Soft-Starts, nearly impossible to find. I have maybe one or two out of my massive incan collection and custom builds, which is sad because they are almost a must for a proper powerhouse build. New battery technology helps a lot too! :twothumbs
> 
> Enjoy that warm incan glow :candle:



Nice to hear some positive thoughts. Yeap, finding those old school powerfull hardware is a nightmare these days but i'm not loosing hope. Some members helped me with advices and i even get in touch with AlanB regarding his well known regulators. He still have bunch of them but needs to be assembled so you could get them but you need to build them from scratch (soldering pcb components, calibration etc). So far i'm still waiting my postman with most of these stuff, some hosts i have. When everything arrives then the fun purt starts-building. 
Mags are my baseline and FM elephant, a lot of options for them and easy to rework. In few weeks i will post some pictures of my progress.
It would be nice if some of us could talk Jimmy and AlanB into their project restart because like you said, drivers are now only issue.
Batteries are way above are needs unlike 10 years ago.

Cheers


----------



## The_Driver

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*

You're not alone! I too enjoy (regulated) incans and have quite a few of them. I post mostly in the German TLF forum regarding this.


----------



## id30209

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*



The_Driver said:


> You're not alone! I too enjoy (regulated) incans and have quite a few of them. I post mostly in the German TLF forum regarding this.



Hey Driver! Yes i know you're active there and you have a lot of realy good threads. That's way i joined TLF but my google translate isn't working that well. I'm not alone here in the old continent


----------



## The_Driver

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*



id30209 said:


> Hey Driver! Yes i know you're active there and you have a lot of realy good threads. That's way i joined TLF but my google translate isn't working that well. I'm not alone here in the old continent



Thanks! Try translating from English if you haven't already! It seems to work well for Enderman.


----------



## Dark Laser

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*

Going out with the 62138 tonight, yeah 
This is one insane bulb @ 4 LiFePO4 A123 cells in my good old Mag 6C :rock:


----------



## Minimoog

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*

Whilst it is not exotic, a Mag 2C fitted with 6D Xenon lamp, glass lens and 2 18650 (using the Magring made by user Download) is a real taste of incan goodness. Its bright enough, still retains the Mag benefits plus all the bits are available now.


----------



## vestureofblood

*Re: Destructive Incan Bulb Tests*

Oh NO! All of the pictures in this most wonderful thread OP are no longer available... :mecry: Does anyone have a copy of these so we can re-post them?

I have copies of about 12 or so of the ones I used the most but that is all... Not enough to really fix the thread..


----------



## id30209

NOOOOOOOOOOOOO[emoji33][emoji33][emoji33][emoji33][emoji33][emoji33]


----------



## tuelleric

At least you can still see the thumbnails here:
https://web.archive.org/web/2017061...lb-Tests-Updated-8-27-2010-(Newer-Info-Added)

Maybe someone can find the high resolution pictures in another web archive?


----------



## LuxLuthor

No worries. I have all the originals on my PC, but this problem seems to be related to a major server problem at Photobucket as described in this link: https://photobucket.com/notice/news/


----------



## id30209

Lux if you could post them again that would be great![emoji120]
Dang photobucket made more problems than it was usefull past few years...


----------



## tuelleric

Good to know. Thanks to this thread I found an Osram 64430 for my Maglite 2C hotwire mod. Very happy with this choice!



LuxLuthor said:


> No worries. I have all the originals on my PC, but this problem seems to be related to a major server problem at Photobucket as described in this link: https://photobucket.com/notice/news/


----------



## LuxLuthor

OK, looks like Photobucket recovered from whatever. I agree that what was once a wonderful photo-sharing site turned into a half-assed operation especially when they demanded an outrageous annual fee for hosting. I never complied with their greedy demands, and recently they came back with a $5/mo offer that I thought was reasonable, and am now paying for. The only important thing here is that you friends can now again see those linked photos. It's really wonderful to see that something so old still makes a contribution to you.

I probably should post a list of all my extra bulbs to sell. Like I know I have at least 75 of the WA 1085 bulbs, and many other popular ones. Yes, I confess in this hobby, I am a hoarder! LOL! Also, HAPPY NEW YEAR!


----------



## id30209

LuxLuthor said:


> I probably should post a list of all my extra bulbs to sell. Like I know I have at least 75 of the WA 1085 bulbs, and many other popular ones. Yes, I confess in this hobby, I am a hoarder! LOL! Also, HAPPY NEW YEAR!



Oh yessssssss!
I have 4 AW's, 2 PhD's and 3 AlanB regulators but still need proper bulb.:devil:

Many thanks for keeping this post alive!


----------



## LuxLuthor

I think I have 8-10 AlanB and Jimmy (? High watt) regulators, the programming code file, and several of the computer programmer modules unused! LOL! You are definitely moving me to doing an inventory of all my bulbs. Then there's all my battery spot wielding making custom battery packs I was making! So many great memories! You guys can always email me at: [email protected] if I don't check in here for a while.


----------



## id30209

Oooooooo...
Email will land for sure [emoji119][emoji106]


----------



## ma tumba

Subscribed to see that list


----------



## novice

LuxLuthor,
PM sent.


----------



## LuxLuthor

novice said:


> LuxLuthor,
> PM sent.



Thanks! Responded


----------



## sylathnie

LuxLuthor said:


> I think I have 8-10 AlanB and Jimmy (? High watt) regulators, the programming code file, and several of the computer programmer modules unused! LOL! You are definitely moving me to doing an inventory of all my bulbs. Then there's all my battery spot wielding making custom battery packs I was making! So many great memories! You guys can always email me at: [email protected] if I don't check in here for a while.



E-mail sent. My bulb collection could always use a few more!


----------



## jabe1

Has anyone tried a ROP low bulb on two 21700s?
If it doesn’t flash, it’ll make a great ROP 2c!


----------



## fivemega

jabe1 said:


> Has anyone tried a ROP low bulb on two 21700s?
> If it doesn’t flash, it’ll make a great ROP 2c!



*I haven't tried but Pelican 3854 Hi & Low bulbs can take more overdrive than WA1111 while they are all 6 volt bulb.
WA1111 has 100 hour life but ROP 3854 has *140 hour life.*

[size=-1]* Anyone can confirm ROP bulb design life?[/size]


----------



## ms1496

Both Pelican bulbs (Hi and Low) will run off of two 21700's an not flash. Recently I upgraded a custom Mag 3c ROP host from two 18650's to 21700's with no ill effect. 

I'm not sure of the exact rated voltage is for the 3854's, but my guess is that they are rated at just over 6v (maybe somewhere in the neighborhood of 6 to 6.4v?). Their rated voltage may also contribute to their advertised long life. The Pelican 3850 BigD flashlight that they came with was sold in two versions, one with a 6v SLA battery and the other with a 7.2v (6D) NiMh battery pack. As fivemega mentioned, they hold up well with overdrive. 

Also it is worth noting that another Pelican BigD flashlight (3800) was produced that ran off 6 alkaline cells. The lamps used in that model are the Pelican 3804 8W lamps and are intended to run from 8-9 volts. You can still see packs of them for sale on EBay from time to time. They produce around 200 lumens in contrast to the 600 lumens of the 24w 3854 Hi lamp.


----------



## jabe1

I've got a stash of 3854s and im thinking of upgrading my 2x18650 rop...

ms1496, where are you in NE Ohio? that's my stomping grounds!


----------



## novice

ms1496 said:


> ...it is worth noting that another Pelican BigD flashlight (3800) was produced that ran off 6 alkaline cells. The lamps used in that model are the Pelican 3804 8W lamps and are intended to run from 8-9 volts. You can still see packs of them for sale on EBay from time to time. They produce around 200 lumens in contrast to the 600 lumens of the 24w 3854 Hi lamp.



The 3804 will also run on 7 D-cells (10.5 volts _not counting voltage sag_), but 2x 26650 IMR Li-ion cells will definitely fry them. I have no idea if protected Li-ions of a different size would fare better.


----------



## ms1496

jabe1 said:


> I've got a stash of 3854s and im thinking of upgrading my 2x18650 rop...
> 
> ms1496, where are you in NE Ohio? that's my stomping grounds!



I am indeed jabe1! Brunswick to be exact... Not a lot of collectors in the area that I know of. The last light meetup that I attended was in Columbus some years ago. Though I wouldn't mind coordinating something once Covid19 restrictions are lifted.


----------



## novice

I did some very casual testing of a few examples of some bulbs I got recently, mainly to see if they would handle 2x Li-ion. They did, at least for the brief period I had them on for. I used my Fivemega G4 bi-pin [email protected] adapter with both bulbs. 

The Philips 7387 is a nominal 6 volt, 10w bulb. First it went into a 4-D cell [email protected] fueled by Dollar store alkaline, then into a 2-D ROP setup with 2x AW IMR 26650. I'm not going to guess at output. Projected 100 hour at 6v.


The Osram 64410 S is also a nominal 6 volt, 10w bulb. First it went into a 4-D cell [email protected] fueled by Dollar store alkaline, then into a 2-D ROP setup with 2x AW IMR 26650. I'm not going to guess at this output, either. Projected 2000 hour life at 6v.

If Lux Luthor wanted to test them, I would be happy to send some examples along.

The one annoying thing about the 64410 S is the gloopy tip that reminds me of a Dairy Queen soft-serve cone. It's not a complete loop, but there is enough of it that when using it in the 4-D with a light-orange-peel textured reflector that it left a shadow in the center part of the beam. It's particularly annoying because this bulb has an axial filament. The same problem was not present in the 2-D using Fivemega's "bi-focal" reflector. Has anyone ever removed excess glass tip material with a Dremel, or needle file?


----------



## LuxLuthor

WOW, this is an old thread now. LOL! I had so much fun doing all these bulb tests! Still have my setup if I wanted to resume. Doubt many incan fans left now. I'm still here.


----------



## Kestrel

Hi Lux,
I recall using your charts for a few incan setups back in the day. Good times


----------



## Bimmerboy

Kestrel said:


> Hi Lux,
> I recall using your charts for a few incan setups back in the day. Good times


Same here. I've used Lux's charts for my overdriven JimmyM builds, two of which actually got built, and two that I still have to get around to.


----------



## BVH

Hi Lux. Did you ever sell all those Fat Boys? Not looking for any, just curious.


----------



## The_Driver

I was a bit late to the party (since '08), but I'm still here. 
I have always found your tests very helpful!


----------



## strideredc

I still use the lists and loads of the info you have put up here. I can't be the only one! work like this never becomes irrelevant...

I have a few soda can many thousands lm. Good for lighting up a large area... I would be more upset to scratch even a g2 😉 in my incan collection than lose all my soda can lights!


----------



## bridgman

LuxLuthor said:


> Doubt many incan fans left now. I'm still here.


Lots of incandescent fans still here, although it gets a bit more difficult every year. I'm kicking myself for not buying more bi-pin sockets, baattery holders and bulbs though... I'm down to a 2C ROP low, a 2D WA1111, a Surefire with HO lamp, and a 3D Mag85 that needs a bulb *and* a battery pack since my last 9 cell NiMH stick is now refusing to charge.

EDIT - forgot the Magcharger with some kind of upgraded bulb (1160 if memory serves). OK, maybe things aren't so bad 

There seem to be a lot of cheap 6V 20W bi-pin bulbs on Amazon - I have a pack on the way to see how they behave with a bit of prodding. Just remembered that those bulbs are Osram 64250's which you have already covered. Excellent !

I'm starting to see interest going back towards incandescent, in the same way that people are going from low-res digital back to vinyl. I have had a few people now refer to my incandescent lights as "real flashlights"... people seem to be getting tired of cool white.

Thanks very much for all the great information you have brought to the forum (and to the great unwashed like me).

EDIT - 3 bi-pin sockets, 20+ bulbs and a few aluminum reflectors later I'm feeling much better about the future of incandescent


----------

