# My Helios, P1, XeRay pics & thoughts



## mtbkndad (Dec 3, 2006)

Here are the pics I took from the second shootout.
All XeRay shots in this shootout were done with the good DL50 Bulb.
Camera- Canon S2IS set to f3.5 and 6” auto white balance and ISO.
The area we are shooting has a very slight incline for approximately 100 yards. It is level for around 20 yards after that and then drops very gradually from there toward the tree.






Polarion P1
-------------------




Helios
------------------




XeRay DL50 tight focus Reflector 1
------------------




XeRay DL50 tight focus Reflector 2
------------------
Now for some more direct comparisons.





Polarion P1
-----------------




XeRay with Reflector 1 set to approximate P1 focus.

This is actually my favorite XeRay setting and wouldn’t you know it, this reflector is not the one that comes with the light. 
The P1 is a brighter in the fore ground in the photo and the XeRay is a brighter down field. When looking at these in person, it is really hard to tell a difference at this setting. However the cropped shots with their 6” exposure will show the down field difference.
------------------





Helios
----------------------




XeRay with Reflector 2 set to approximate Helios focus
The Helios corona is still slightly wider. The XeRay lights brighter up close and to the sides at this setting. The Helios lights the tree and behind the tree better.
Once again, in person these are very close.

Now for the cropped shots.
The crops put the tree the lights are focused on to the left side, it is 146 yards away.
The rock above the tree is 312 yards away.
Watch the hill to the right of the rock and behind the tree as it gets brighter and dimmer.
The large tree to the right side of the photo is 132 yards away.
Watch how portions of this tree appear and disappear in the different photos
The vertical trunk in the background just right of center is 266 yards away.




Polarion P1
-------------------




XeRay P1 focus
Once again, I really like how this configuration put light down field. While keeping a wide beam.
Too bad it is the old reflector 1.
-------------------




XeRay Helios Focus
---------------------




Helios
---------------------




XeRay Reflector 1 tight focus.
---------------------




XeRay Reflector 2 Tight focus.

My personal thoughts.
In terms of light output all three lights are quite comparable to me. The 40 watt Helios and XeRay with reflector 2 do seem to put out a little more light then the 35 watt P1 and the XeRay with reflector 1. The key term here is a “little” more light when looking at these in person. The difference in light output is by no means overwhelming. The different shapes of the coronas and distribution of light within the hotspots, coronas, and amount and brightness of spill make beam shots very imprecise for determining accurately the total relative light output of each of these lights or any lights for that matter.
I would like to measure light output in my light box some time. It is not an integrating sphere but would be a better way of measuring total light output then comparing beam shots.
The 35 watt and 40 watt Polarion products are simplly more efficient at getting more lumens out of the front of their lights with there perfect little reflectors. This is why they hold their own against the XeRay in terms of light output.
The XeRay has the advantage of being adjustable.
I do not think anybody should be too focused on the stated bulb lumens by either manufacturer. Bulb lumens and what comes out of the front of any light are often drastically different. 
The lights are what they are and their output has been clearly demonstrated in multiple shootouts.
Here are a couple of pics of the lights in Mr Ted Bear’s car.









One of the XeRays had a 50 watt ballast and one had a 75 watt ballast.
That way we were able to switch reflectors and the one bulb between the two lights with minimal trouble.
To me personally, the XeRays are rather large clunky boxy looking lights compared to the Polarion offerings. I also prefer a balance between flood and throw for most uses. That is why the focusability of the XeRay lights would be lost on a person like me. If you look at the Polarion P1 in the overhead photo you will also see the square ballast box on the bottom. While the P1 is significantly smaller then the XeRays, only the Helios is missing that rectangular ballast box. I have stated numerous times that my primary criteria for a high end HID search light is packability. I want a 35+ watt packable light and the Helios is the most packable 35+ watt HID light that I know of on the market right now. 

Somebody emailed me a while back and asked me why I thought the XeRays are the best HID lights under $1,000. I replied that I never said that.
I would like to clarify once again I consider the XeRay the most versatile in terms of bulb and ballast options. My favorite bulbs in the XeRay were bulb’s I believe Xevision does not even offer that Mr Ted Bear got for another shootout. They were 35 watt bulbs driven at 50 watts. One was a Japanese bulb and one was a Phillips bulb that was in a white box and that is all I know about it. 


I personally think in terms of fit and finish and compactness and light output to size of the unit and other nice features they have, the Polarion offerings are the best lights available at anywhere near their price points. Of course they do not have adjustable beams, so if you do not like the beam patterns they offer you will need to look elsewhere. 
When I borrowed BVH’s Helios for the 3rd shootout it was a few days before he was able to pick it back up. I just loved taking people out on my long dark street and saying watch this. I would then turn the Helios on and light up the street perfectly evenly and bright 368 yards to the garage at the end of my block. Nobody said $1,595 is too much once I explained all of it’s features and that was before I found out it is waterproof to 265 feet not 165 feet.
You really have to see, handle, and use a Polarion Helios to appreciate what a nice light it is and just how compact and packable it is in relation to the other lights in this test. 

In summary all of these are nice lights with different features that create advantages and disadvantages that will determine which light is most suitable to you. All of these lights will illuminate people farther then you will clearly be able to identify (sex, height, weight, race, etc.)without binoculars.

Take Care,
mtbkndad :wave:


----------



## windstrings (Dec 3, 2006)

I've come to the conclusion that these shootouts are similiar to the old days when we used to all go out and race our cars.... its a fun hobby.. fun to challenge and fun to soup up....

I think those are very good pics and very fair to all lights mentioned... It seems the capture of lumens presented is accurate... the intensity of the lumens of the Xeray do seem apparent as well as the pattern of the beam while in focus position into the distant. The Helios appears to be designed to use all its lumens on the ground if poss as it chops off the top part of its beam to conserve lumens to rather cast onto the bottom.

The "very" tricky part with the Xeray is the focus... its fair to focus out until you have a corona the same size as the Helios and use that as a comparison, but the trickier part is the "tight" focus setting.

As it has been mentioned in previous threads when the Xeray is focused as far as it will "physically" go to tightest, it cast a hot center spot and the overall beam is not uniform...... but if you back it off by physically turning the ring "back about one inch it actually gets tighter and the center hotspot goes away and blends into a much bigger hotspot gained from the added corona being brought in towards the center.. "This is my favorite setting".....

Its definately a matter of preference.. hence the beauty of focus... each light has obvious differences in ruggedness, looks, and usablity.

These discussions as well as the shootouts are very valuable.

I really think these forums inspires purchases that would otherwise never be considered... its the ultimate advertizing.... not so much to build up one and put down another like some kind of a campaign, but to show the idiosyncrasies, differences and general impressions by those who have tried as well as own these products.

Every kid on the block has fun thinking his car is the fastest, but as in lights, all have colors, comfort, looks, usability and "gas mileage" that differs from the other.

The ability to focus does make an attempt to take a normal light and extend its usability, but even with that, there is no perfect light. The beam itself may be a beauty, but it takes bulbs, ballast, cases, batteries , switches and all types of other issues to actually make up that light.. therein is the real meat and potatoes of why we buy a light.

If you just want a beam and nothing else matters, that too is preference, and those customers will go get a Costco hid or similiar for much cheaper.

I really do appreciate everyones efforts and spirit to make a fine product and be willing to painstakingly endure the gammet of questions and confusion... it really helps people such as myself who is basically a novice in the field to have the guts to spend so much money on a light.

I'm totally confident, without these shootouts and extensive comments this forum affords and all the nice people who helped me consider the options, I would have NEVER purchased such a light on my own accord.

Now that I have.. I really enjoy it and am thankful I found out about it.

Thanks for everyones work and efforts.. all these lights are extremely fine lights and anyone who owns any of them will be envied by others.


----------



## NAW (Dec 3, 2006)

-A bit off topic.

But I wonder if the Helios can out throw a 15MCP spotlight? For me no flashlight in my collection can outhrow the 15MCP Thor. My Rayzorlite can't came close to the throwing capabilities to of the 15MCP. Although thats unfair because the Rayzor uses a stippled reflector, and I'm waiting for the SMO reflector.


----------



## BVH (Dec 3, 2006)

Mr. Ted Bear sure has a lot of "cameo's" in this thread! Mtbkndad, thanks for posting your shots. Analysing them, for me, never gets old. Windy, I agree about the focus technique. When I first got my Xeray, i took it and the Helios out to the back yard and shined them each, one at a time, on a palmtree about 200' away and about 70 feet up. The crown of the tree, which is about 20' in diameter, was much brighter when illuminated with the Helios. I thought maybe the bulb needed to be broken in a bit because towards the bottom half of the glass lens, the color of the light output had a brownish tinge to it as compared to the top half. I thought I remembered Dan saying at one time, this was normal and it would go away after 25 or 50 hours of use.

A night or two after that, I was looking at the Xeray at my desk and noticed the focus adjustment screws. I decided to play around with the focus and was surprised when I discovered the focus ring was maxed out one direction and hense, as Windy said, it was not focused in the tightest spot condition it could be. After fine-tuning it, I replayed the palm tree shoot out and by far, the crown of the tree was much brighter when illuminated with the Xeray. But the trade off was that its corona was much smaller and less bright than the Helios.

I can't wait until Dan releases the 75 Watt ballasts!

NAW, I'll do a little shootout (no camera so no pics) of the Helios and my 15 MCP Cyclops/Thor with its 135 Watt Halogen lamp. I'll let you know which does better. However, I would guess that the Costco HID will outdo the Thor.


----------



## mtbkndad (Dec 3, 2006)

windstrings, 

Thanks for the kind words. When we did the focus shots with the XeRay quite some time was spent with each going to the best point of focus then missing it in one direction, then missing it in the other, etc. until we were comfortable it was right.


NAW, 
The 15MCP Thor has lots of throw, I am not sure if the Helios would out throw it.
I do know the Harbor Freight will out throw it quite easily and the Amondotech Illuminator will out throw it too, but by not as far as the Costco/Harbor Freight.
BVH and I may include a my 15 MCP Thor in our next canyon shoot.
The challenge there is the roughly 1/2 to 3/4 mile hike and the lights I will already be carrying. I may get one of those industrial wagons from Harbor Freight.
At some point I will need to stop buying things for these shoots so I can save for my Helios!
When the group buy was going on I had to make a choice between a Helios or my annual attendance at MBC in Colorado. MBC won.

Take Care,
mtbkndad :wave:


----------



## windstrings (Dec 3, 2006)

I don't know about the 15mcp.. but My Xeray 50 totally consumed a 10mcp. You couldn't even see the beam when the Xeray overlayed it and the throw was far surpassed by the Xeray.... Unless this guys batteries were near dead, I can't imaging a 15 would be that much better.... even 50% more lumens couldn't have bailed out that light... 

It is possible the guys battery was down.. an HID wouldn't have made a difference with a low battery since the power is constant, but I believe those in the Thor are Halogen?.... so who knows. 

I haven't seem a shootout with the Thor verses the Helios or Xeray... I always thought they were in differenct classes so I didn't bother worrying about it.

If you look at this original shootout and see how much dimmer the Thor is than most of the other lights, you will see why another 50% more lumens still should not make the difference... I just don't have the lumens.


----------



## mtbkndad (Dec 3, 2006)

Windstrings,

The 15 MCP Thor has a really tight focus that throws much better then the 10MCP Thors.

Here are numbers that are lux readings at 37.5 feet that I did for the Amondotech Illuminator announcement thread. The Illuminator was the original prototype I had with the 6,000K bulb, the 4,200K bulb does much better outside. I have never done a 37.5 foot lux reading with it.
These numbers will show you just how much better the 15 MCP Thor throws then the 10 MCP units.


Costco HID (good focus) --7590
Costco HID (okay focus) --5650
Amondotech Illuminator --3401
15 MCP Thor Magnum ----3326
10 MCP Thor Focused -----1567
10 MCP Thor Stock -------1486
Dorcy 3 MCP --------------1053

Remember throw and lumens are two different things. The problem with both the Costco/Harbor Freight and the Thor 15 MCP is that their hotspots are so tiny they tend to brightly illuminate part of an object as opposed to the whole object unless it is real far away.

Take Care,
mtbkndad :wave:


----------



## windstrings (Dec 3, 2006)

Interesting.. that Costco HID has a lumen rating approaching that of a BB and even with the OK focus matches the Xeray 50W, yet if you look at the shootout link I was referencing.. the Costco HID didn't look too impressive... not even close.
Not only was the intensity of brightness lacking, but the throw was too as you cannot see anything past the tree in those shootouts.


----------



## mtbkndad (Dec 3, 2006)

windstrings said:


> Interesting.. that Costco HID has a lumen rating approaching that of a BB and even with the OK focus matches the Xeray 50W, yet if you look at the shootout link I was referencing.. the Costco HID didn't look too impressive... not even close.
> Not only was the intensity of brightness lacking, but the throw was too as you cannot see anything past the tree in those shootouts.




That is because the range really is not designed to show the throw of the real tight beam long throwing lights. 
The Costco HID's hotspot only illuminates part of the canopy of the tree and the corona itself is very narrow, as in barely larger then canopy of the tree. You could not see the throw of the Costco beyond the tree because the Tree was blocking ALL of the hotspot. For sheer throw an Amondotech Illuminator will hold its own against a 50 watt XeRay and the well focused Costco will be at least equal to a barn burner.
Do you remember the shed shots from another shootout.
A well focused Costco HID will light the shed better then a BarnBurner only at 512 yards away just about all it will light is the shed. That is how tight the beam is.


Take Care,
mtbkndad :wave:


----------



## Sway (Dec 3, 2006)

mtbkndad,

Thanks for making the beam shots and posting the pic's, they are very helpful. It looks like you have found the best light for your packable searchlight needs, lotta light from such a small package. 

As for brightness from looking at it on this end the XeRay is brighter than the Helios and the P1 just some differences in the wide side spill and the spot depending on which reflector is used and the focus. 

Again thanks for taking the time to shoot these lights, I don’t think anybody could go wrong with them they just need to pick the light that meets their needs.

Later
Kelly


----------



## frogs3 (Dec 3, 2006)

*Re: Throw Issue in this thread*

Dear Fellow Flashaholics,

One of the key points made in the initial commentaries by mtbkndad about the beamshots was that these lights, i. e. Helios and XeRay, easily illuminate farther than the unaided eye can usually see. Personally, as one approaching old-farthood too quickly, I use these lights for a practical working distance of about 100 to 150 yards, which keeps me informed about unhappy skunks, dogs, humans, etc, while walking or hiking. Beyond that distance, most of us cannot really identify too much without binoculars (also a neat, expensive pasttime, but don't get me started here). 

So, I guess, the issue of "throw" is either theoretical or specialized in application, depending on your viewpoint. The various HID threads sometimes have had a bit of "mine is bigger than yours" in that regard, as Windy alluded to with the hot rod automobile analogy, but returning to the theme of this thread, what has been shown is that there is some very well done engineering available to those who need and/or want plenty of lumens, in a dependable, USABLE package.

In some of the other Forums on CPF, there are lots of folks who think we are f==k=ng nuts for even thinking of using these "aircraft landing lights" for any useful purpose, and worship their LED's as the next great religion. I confess, in my house I carry with me an Inova T2, and love its 40 lumen output dearly. OK, now I feel better -- absolutem. But, the testing in this thread shows that there are some great applications for 35-75 W HID lights. Just one example -- in upstate Pennsylvania, at night there are several critters you just don't want to get to know up-close-and-personal, while walking, camping or worse, at 2AM (I am being unusually tasteful in this regard), for example poisonous snakes, spiders, bears, skunks, and others). A powerful light will keep you informed and out of harm's way. 100 lumens just doesn't cut it sometimes.

I too want to thank the sponsors of these comparison tests, as they improve the "breed" for all of us.

Abandon All Hope, Ye Who Enter Here,
Canto 1, The Inferno, Dante Aligheri

Harvey K.


----------



## NAW (Dec 3, 2006)

I'm not to sure about the rest of you guys, but I normally don't use my Rayzorlite beyond 40 feet.


----------



## windstrings (Dec 3, 2006)

mtbkndad said:


> That is because the range really is not designed to show the throw of the real tight beam long throwing lights.
> The Costco HID's hotspot only illuminates part of the canopy of the tree and the corona itself is very narrow, as in barely larger then canopy of the tree. You could not see the throw of the Costco beyond the tree because the Tree was blocking ALL of the hotspot.



True, good point.... this particular location is more designed for "realisic" use for the immediate and local surroundings.
This is why I was requesting some farthur shots at one point.

It was mentioned in the past how the tree literally blocks the throw into the distance so the only thing you really get to judge beyond this distance is some outer corona throw.... which by the way, the Helios has none up high, only on the ground.. as mentioned earlier, they chopped it off to use elsewhere which is an excellent choice in enginneering for most uses.

This particular location does show the full potential of both the polarion and the Helios and any other light that has throw in that range and below.

But some of the other locations you guys have done seem to be better for throw and distance.
The Helis and polorion have no focus and is therefore not set up for throw since they chose the refector design to create to be a light for more practicle uses.

But when it comes to lights that either focus down or lights "designed" for throw such as the short arcs, or lights that just flat out have the lumens, this particular location is not a good one to judge those characteristics in thier fullness.


----------



## windstrings (Dec 3, 2006)

NAW said:


> I'm not to sure about the rest of you guys, but I normally don't use my Rayzorlite beyond 40 feet.



I don't really have that much experience yet with my light, but for close things, I just whip out my Fenix P1 I carry with rechargables.. it has about 55 lumens.. does all I need. But if your gonna use a light to see into never never land..... it will be one designed for lots of throw as well as the poteintial to "turn night into day" with tons of lumens and a wide enough beam and corona to light up a practicle area.

I personally don't think I would like the short arcs, cause your literally looking through a straw... no spill, no corona.... just a hole in the darkness filled with light.. simiilar to looking through a scope... these HID lights are really major overkill for 40 feet range unless your gonna focus them for wide angle.

But there are so many different applications that are possible so there is no one right light to have or one right way to use it... but I would agree that when your "really" need a light, it will be for ranges less than 40 feet for the normal joe, but for fire rescue, coastguard, police, hunters, or just fun crazy guys like us that love to blast the darkness into oblivion, then the distance is the last frontier!


----------



## LuxLuthor (Dec 4, 2006)

I like to use the BB for communicating with my extra-terrestrial friends, but so far I have only heard back from 4 of them...and they are confused with my signal patterns.


----------



## windstrings (Dec 4, 2006)

Before these shootouts were popular, most of the time all you saw was some guy beaming at his living room wall, or at best against the fence in the backyard.

Its true you can see the intenseness of the beams, the size, but as far as really knowing how far they throw, I don't know of anyway to do it other than shoot them at farthur targets.

We can assume and guess at throw based on the brightness against the walls or even the trees, but some lights don't illuminate a whole lot but have really good throw, "like the short arcs" so that guestimation would be inaccurate.

I guess as lights keep getting stronger, we have to keep moving the target farthur away to get a reat taste of thier power at those distances... similiar to a shooting range for rifles.

I was comparing mine against the 10mcp Thor and it was noticable alright up close, but the distance made all the difference... the thor barely even made the trip at all whereas the Xeray turned that focused area in the distance into day.


----------



## BVH (Dec 4, 2006)

windstrings said:


> Interesting.. that Costco HID has a lumen rating approaching that of a BB and even with the OK focus matches the Xeray 50W, yet if you look at the shootout link I was referencing.. the Costco HID didn't look too impressive... not even close.
> Not only was the intensity of brightness lacking, but the throw was too as you cannot see anything past the tree in those shootouts.



Windy, you mention the Costco has just about the same LUMENS as the BB, I think, in reference to Mtbkndad's post above yours. But Mtbkndad in his post is showing the LUX reading at 37 feet, not the lumens output of the light. The Costco @ 35 Watts is no where near the BB in lumens output. I would guess its somewhere around the typical 3200 lumens from a 35 Watt, + or -.


----------



## windstrings (Dec 4, 2006)

BVH said:


> Windy, you mention the Costco has just about the same LUMENS as the BB, I think, in reference to Mtbkndad's post above yours. But Mtbkndad in his post is showing the LUX reading at 37 feet, not the lumens output of the light. The Costco @ 35 Watts is no where near the BB in lumens output. I would guess its somewhere around the typical 3200 lumens from a 35 Watt, + or -.



Hey.. so right you are.... good job at reading my mind... how did you get so good at it?... you must be married! :laughing:

That explains alot.. let my previous statement be stricken from the record.


----------



## BVH (Dec 4, 2006)

I simply didn't want you to rack your brain for a week trying to figure out why the Costco "performed" so bad as compared to the BB. We don't want to loose too many braincells over this. They're hard enough to come by as it is!


----------



## windstrings (Dec 4, 2006)

BVH said:


> I simply didn't want you to rack your brain for a week trying to figure out why the Costco "performed" so bad as compared to the BB. We don't want to loose too many braincells over this. They're hard enough to come by as it is!



Whats a brain cell?...I'll have to ask my masta!


----------



## BVH (Dec 4, 2006)

See what I mean?


----------



## LED61 (Jan 4, 2007)

This is a great thread with great beamshots on these top notch lights. So I´d like to congratulate Mtbkndad and others for the informative comments. Never hurts to bump a great thread like this one to the top!!


----------



## windstrings (Jan 4, 2007)

LED61 said:


> This is a great thread with great beamshots on these top notch lights. So I´d like to congratulate Mtbkndad and others for the informative comments. Never hurts to bump a great thread like this one to the top!!



Don't forget the good side show entertainment!!!!


----------



## XeRay (Jan 5, 2007)

LED61 said:


> This is a great thread with great beamshots on these top notch lights. So I´d like to congratulate Mtbkndad and others for the informative comments. Never hurts to bump a great thread like this one to the top!!


 
I think windy missed an opportunity to correct that statement by saying top "crotch" lights. Remember as windy put it, the tree in the beam shots has a crotch not a notch.
:lolsign:


----------



## mtbkndad (Jan 5, 2007)

XeRay said:


> I think windy missed an opportunity to correct that statement by saying top "crotch" lights. Remember as windy put it, the tree in the beam shots has a crotch not a notch.



Actually, in these shots the spotlights are focused at the center of the tree canopy.
The lights in my Stunner review were focused at the crotch in the tree.
For the record this tree has a great crotch.
As a woodturner I am very aware of the FACT that some of the most prized turning wood in a tree after burls is crotchwood.
See definitions 7 and 8.


Top Web Results for "crotch"

8 results for: crotch
View results from: Dictionary | Thesaurus | Encyclopedia | All Reference | the Web

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
crotch [kroch] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1.	a forking or place of forking, as of the human body between the legs.
2.	the part of a pair of trousers, panties, or the like, formed by the joining of the two legs.
3.	a piece of material serving to form a juncture between the legs of trousers, panties, etc.
4.	a forked piece, part, support, etc., as a staff with a forked top.
5.	Billiards.
a.	an area 41/2 in. (11.4 cm) square at each corner of a billiard table.
b.	the situation in which both balls to be struck by the cue ball are within this area.
6.	Nautical. crutch (def. 6).
7.	the area of a tree at which a main branch joins the trunk.
8.	the wood from such an area; crotchwood. 

Yes Trees have Crotches  .

Take Care,
mtbkndad :wave:


----------



## LuxLuthor (Jan 5, 2007)

mtbkndad said:


> Yes Trees have Crotches



I can only imagine what Windy will do with that information. He is from Texas, you remember.


----------



## mtbkndad (Jan 5, 2007)

LuxLuthor said:


> I can only imagine what Windy will do with that information. He is from Texas, you remember.




Actually with my luck, after mentioning I am a woodturner, that crotchwood is great for turning, that this tree has a great crotch (many tree crotches are mere splits) this tree will mysteriously fall or be cut down. :sick2:

Something like that happened to me back in my college days when I was asking a chemistry professor about the laser he was using for some experiments because I had interest in getting one and later the same day it was stolen. 
:hairpull: .

*Environmental Disclaimer*​For anybody that lives near this tree, I value it's place in the park and enjoy using it as a photo object and would never go anywhere near it with my 24" Stihl, :thinking: unless it was already down and I had permission from the park workers. Then it would be a shame to let such potentially nice wood go to waste  .


----------



## windstrings (Jan 5, 2007)

Dogs better be careful..instead of peeing on the tree, the tree might pee on them! LOL!

you do a google search for "crotch", all kinds of wierd things come up.... but mtbkndad is the first one to start watching tree crotches.... I can't find the link but I was again educated listening to his wisdom and profound knowledge. 

I would crown him title of crotch master himself!, but I'll reserve that title for someone else!! LOL!


----------



## frogs3 (Jan 5, 2007)

If I recall, we were discussing lights, but at some point switched to crotches. I hate to be a spoiler, but getting back to the lights and the issue of "throw", it simply gets down to how many lumens one wants to send into the distance, and engineering that to happen. Windy noted that for practical purposes, most of us either need a small LED for very local lighting, or a REAL LIGHT, that covers the area where the human eye (which is the only one I happen to own and connect to my brain currently) can actually SEE. 

So, throw doesn't need to go beyond about 200 yards, as I can't see out beyond there too well, and what might be further is not ordinarily of interest unless it is a jet airplane heading my way. Fortunately that does not occur too often, making throw a very theoretical way to even evaluate the more powerful lights under consideration.

When I get better at beamshots, I don't plan to go for more than 200 to 300 yards tops to test performance, as it just doesn't matter to me. Evenness of illumination and some way to measure total photons per second projected would be more interesting.

My 0.02 lumens worth.

-Harvey K.


----------



## windstrings (Jan 5, 2007)

frogs3 said:


> If I recall, we were discussing lights, but at some point switched to crotches. I hate to be a spoiler, but getting back to the lights and the issue of "throw", it simply gets down to how many lumens one wants to send into the distance, and engineering that to happen. Windy noted that for practical purposes, most of us either need a small LED for very local lighting, or a REAL LIGHT, that covers the area where the human eye (which is the only one I happen to own and connect to my brain currently) can actually SEE.
> 
> So, throw doesn't need to go beyond about 200 yards, as I can't see out beyond there too well, and what might be further is not ordinarily of interest unless it is a jet airplane heading my way. Fortunately that does not occur too often, making throw a very theoretical way to even evaluate the more powerful lights under consideration.
> 
> ...



I think that was my thought too "until" I got my Xeray... now I see the benifit of seeing 300 yards clearly.

We tend to compare how far we can see at night with that which we have been trained all our lives "crummy lights".
If we can see a mile on a clear sunny day and enjoy what we see with the naked eye, then its possible to do the same at night too providing the light is bright enough to do the job? 

The more light you get, the more benifit you see in having even more.

You never miss it when you've never had such a powerful light, but once you get a taste, you see the beauty and benifit.

I see it like computers... who ever thought we could actually use more than 4 meg of ram and faster than a DX 486! LOL!


----------



## frogs3 (Jan 6, 2007)

But, Windy, in the daytime, our light source is (now don't get too upset) the SUN, with gazillions of lumens streaming all over the place, even with clouds. The eye can respond well to great distances because of its physiology (memo to self: do not get boring here) with large amounts of light. Much as we may hope, dream and drool, our hand-held HID's and even battery powered landing lights just don't compare. Not even close. We go into "rod" vision when the lights go dim, at those large distances, and "poof" goes the resolution, color and detail. You mentioned 300 yards, which is reasonable, but some here want to test out to twice thatand more, which I find unreasonable at night. Daytime is a whole other world, to coin a phrase.

I am trying (fool that my wife tells me I am) to be somewhat realistic with what to expect and how to measure "goodness" in terms that, at night, have meaning.

Relax, I still love you, in a strange way naturally.

-Your Frog


----------



## NAW (Jan 6, 2007)

frogs3 said:


> But, Windy, in the daytime, our light source is (now don't get too upset) the SUN, with gazillions of lumens streaming all over the place, even with clouds. The eye can respond well to great distances because of its physiology (memo to self: do not get boring here) with large amounts of light. Much as we may hope, dream and drool, our hand-held HID's and even battery powered landing lights just don't compare. Not even close. We go into "rod" vision when the lights go dim, at those large distances, and "poof" goes the resolution, color and detail. You mentioned 300 yards, which is reasonable, but some here want to test out to twice thatand more, which I find unreasonable at night. Daytime is a whole other world, to coin a phrase.
> 
> I am trying (fool that my wife tells me I am) to be somewhat realistic with what to expect and how to measure "goodness" in terms that, at night, have meaning.
> 
> ...


 
I love throw more than flood. My Rayzorlite and magchargers are all set tor maximum throwing capabilities and its bloody awesome.  

Now I want even more throw and am hoping that the Rayzor guys will get back on track and sell SMO reflectors for my Rayzor (the stock Rayzor reflector has heavy stippling which severley cut down throw)


----------



## windstrings (Jan 6, 2007)

frogs3 said:


> But, Windy, in the daytime, our light source is (now don't get too upset) the SUN, with gazillions of lumens streaming all over the place, even with clouds. The eye can respond well to great distances because of its physiology (memo to self: do not get boring here) with large amounts of light. Much as we may hope, dream and drool, our hand-held HID's and even battery powered landing lights just don't compare. Not even close. We go into "rod" vision when the lights go dim, at those large distances, and "poof" goes the resolution, color and detail. You mentioned 300 yards, which is reasonable, but some here want to test out to twice thatand more, which I find unreasonable at night. Daytime is a whole other world, to coin a phrase.
> 
> I am trying (fool that my wife tells me I am) to be somewhat realistic with what to expect and how to measure "goodness" in terms that, at night, have meaning.
> 
> ...



I understand what your saying and its the truth, I'm just trying to point out that the eyes "and" the brain can appreciate details, color, and beauty at great distances if the light source is good enough.

I'm just trying to discount the idea that says there is no need for more throw or more lumens because our eyes can't see that far anyway.

I thought I couldn't see any further than about 100 yards with a good light, now I can appreciate I can see a "whole" tree at 300 yards and see every detail of the limbs... a coon wouldn't have a chance at hiding!


----------



## XeRay (Jan 6, 2007)

NAW said:


> I love throw more than flood. My Rayzorlite and magchargers are all set tor maximum throwing capabilities and its bloody awesome.
> 
> Now I want even more throw and am hoping that the Rayzor guys will get back on track and sell SMO reflectors for my Rayzor (the stock Rayzor reflector has heavy stippling which severley cut down throw)


 
That is wishfull thinking, Their web sites BOTH have been gone for 2 months. What reputable company disapears from the business world for 2 months and offers no service to their customers. Why would a rational person do business with them, if they ever come back? 
They deserve the loyalty of no-one. They had plenty of start-up money behind them but after making no profit for 2 years with not miuch hope for improvement, someone (investors) pulled the plug.

I could be wrong about some of this but the red flags are everywhere. Why take the websites down, the hosting is still paid for?

Their intended 1st big market / customer was to be the Israeli military, my contacts in Israel indicate that was a big flop. I believe Ruven was also Israeli with personal contacts in the Israeli military.


----------



## Lips (Jan 6, 2007)

.



XeRay said:


> That is wishfull thinking, Their web sites have been gone for 2 months. What reputable company disapears from the business world for 2 months and offers no service to their customers. Get a clue, why would a rational person do business with them, if they ever come back.
> They deserve the loyalty of no-one. They had plenty of start-up money behind them but after making no profit for 2 years with not miuch hope for improvement, someone (investors) pulled the plug.
> 
> I could be wrong about some of this but the red flags are everywhere. Why take the websites down, the hosting is still paid for?
> ...




Ah

Spoken like the true congenial competitor you are...


You have talked about getting out of the non-profitable spot-light business. 

Should we be worried about YOU getting out of the business...


.


----------



## NAW (Jan 6, 2007)

XeRay said:


> That is wishfull thinking, Their web sites have been gone for 2 months. What reputable company disapears from the business world for 2 months and offers no service to their customers. Why would a rational person do business with them, if they ever come back?
> They deserve the loyalty of no-one. They had plenty of start-up money behind them but after making no profit for 2 years with not miuch hope for improvement, someone (investors) pulled the plug.
> 
> I could be wrong about some of this but the red flags are everywhere. Why take the websites down, the hosting is still paid for?
> ...


 
I realized the risks of purchasing one of the GB units from this new company (I seen the Rayzor guys fiasco with Waion) but I still did it. Why? Because I wanted a very cheap HID that could easily smoke my AE and I had a offer for a Rayzorlite so I took it. To tell you the truth, even if I knew all that I knew today I probably still would have bought the Rayzorlite. Why? Because I want a cheap HID light.


----------



## XeRay (Jan 6, 2007)

Lips said:


> .Ah Spoken like the true congenial competitor you are...
> You have talked about getting out of the non-profitable spot-light business.
> Should we be worried about YOU getting out of the business...


 
Since you bring it up, we intend to service our customers long term. We may choose not to sell certain products any longer or change our market focus but we will NOT abandon our past customers. We may at some point decide to focus only on designing, making and selling ballast systems etc. and let others market the finished products. We now have 7 different ballast models. Either way we feel a moral (yes moral) obligation to our customers. 

BTW we just won a contract to provide the US military several hundred units. Can't spill the beans yet on the configuration, thats still our secret. Our price was also very reasonable, the tax payer got a very good deal.

I am plenty congenial when dealing with honorable business people who shoot straight without all the BS.


----------



## XeRay (Jan 6, 2007)

NAW said:


> I realized the risks of purchasing one of the GB units from this new company (I seen the Rayzor guys fiasco with Waion) but I still did it. Why? Because I wanted a very cheap HID that could easily smoke my AE and I had a offer for a Rayzorlite so I took it. To tell you the truth, even if I knew all that I knew today I probably still would have bought the Rayzorlite. Why? Because I want a cheap HID light.


 
I can't argue with that reasoning.


----------



## NAW (Jan 6, 2007)

frogs3 said:


> If I recall, we were discussing lights, but at some point switched to crotches.


 
And several posts later this thread is off track again. :lolsign:


----------



## mtbkndad (Jan 6, 2007)

Back on the topic of the thread. 
Recently I was driving down my street in broad daylight in the bright early afternoon
sunlight. I could tell that 350 yards ahead of me was a person walking across the street. I knew the distance because I have measured my street and had numerous points of reference. I knew the person was wearing a red sweatshirt and light brown or kacky pants. The person had light hair of some sort. That was all I could tell clearly and I have a farsighted stigmatism. I guessed by the location of the person it may be my wife. When I got home I knew I was right, but it was just a good guess since she walked right on the other side of the car I knew was parked in front of my house.

Any of the lights in the test above would have enabled me to recognize my wife nearly as well at night as I could during the day since all I really did was make a good guess based on where the person was.

I have mentioned in other threads that, for the average person using lights outdoors at night, all of these lights are overkill.


The Barn Burner is a really nice light and for most people it is serious overkill with the rest of the lights in this thread being regular 
overkill   .

When you get to the custom uber lights (Ken4, Ken5, Sleeper, LarryK, MegaBlaster for throw), I personally think these are more about power and the ablility to conquer the darkness by wielding light and the fun that comes from this then anything else.

I am contemplating making a LarryK for myself.
It would be worth the price and work just to see the faces of some of my friends that think I am crazy already.

Regarding the lights in this thread, each one has advantages and disadvantages depending on your needs.

The Polarion reflectors are really amazing and largely responsible for the the incredible light output the Helios and X1 have for their size. They are supersmooth, super reflective, and I would guess probably one of the more expensive parts of the light. I think XeRay did a great job of using his expertise to get the most out of the light body and reflector he had to work with. Now a XeRay 50 watt or Barn Burner with a Polarion quality reflector would really be something to behold. I am pretty sure is would cost more too.

Take Care,
mtbkndad :wave:


----------



## LuxLuthor (Jan 6, 2007)

It feels about right for me to step into this "juicy" thread (again).

Harvey, It is not true that ONLY your rod's (& lower acuity) are working at night...IF....there is sufficient light. Evidence for cone activity is being able to see colors when a light is used. It takes 10-30 minutes to produce enough rhodopsin in relative darkness to be able to see at night with the rods, and using a white light interferes with rhodopsin fomation (pilots use red lights which does not cause as much interference with rhodopsin formation). Take a minute to read this simple explanation on a Mr. Wizard type site here. Or if you are more technically interested, this is a more complete explanation link.

Even if you cannot see fine details at distances beyond 250-300 yards (3 football fields is easier for me to relate to), you can still see large objects like people, buildings, and animals. That is the value in using these more powerful lights, especially with adjustments for throw. You can know much sooner that there is something of concern ahead, giving you more time to react or exit the area. 

Even if you are doing something as simple as walking your dog, these more powerful lights let you see a large dog roaming wild, or a skunk with it's characteristic white stripe and waddle way far ahead. 

There is also a strong deterrent effect that having such a bright light can have on a person/animal that may be up to no good. I don't see any of these situations as overkill, and I know for a fact that I have been in these situations several times, and these lights made all the difference.

I do agree that the Uber Lights, such as the Larry14K, Ken4/5, MegaBlaster, Sleeper, Tank Light, are mainly just for "Blowing Your Friends Away" type fun with us CPF consumers. Same is mostly true for > 5mW lasers, and even Mac's Torch (especially when the firestarting effect is included). But, nothing wrong with having some fun with this hobby too.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Jan 6, 2007)

On the subject of the Razor's. There are some that always find a way to praise them (same "dealio" with the XeRay, Polarion, and other light brand "groupies"), and ignore any negative aspects that may be raised. There are pro's and con's with every single item that has ever been made or discovered, and technically this thread was not about the Razors until just now....so IMHO, they became fair game after NAW introduced them.

There are many nice features with the Razorlites, and for the cost/benefit, those GB'ers did alright, and have a right to be proud of their light and enjoy them. However, it is important when people praise a light in the present tense, for questions to also be raised about the current status of the company who made/supports them. Imagine how happy all those currently holding products and assets from Enron or Worldcom must be today. I have the same bittersweet issue about my currently working Mag85 Hot Driver, as related to it's source. I cannot praise it without raising a significant caution for anyone considering getting one....so I see Dan's comments about Razor as very important and relevant.

A company's current status when an item is praised should impact a person's evaluation as it may affect service/repair/warranty/replacement issues. I personally did not know that information about the Razor company/website, and I would not want to buy new (or used) a light who's source has disappeared.

Dan and XeVision's track record is an important part of making a decision on buying a high performance spotlight, and should factor into the overall cost/value of an item. It has always been extremely reassuring to know that there is an actual "bricks and mortar" company and track record when entering into the XeRay GB's. 

As far as I am aware, not a single person was ever at risk in any of the sales that Dan has conducted. Will XeVision survive, or service one of these lights 20 years from now? I wouldn't count on anything that far ahead....but I have no concerns about them in the forseeable (2-5 years) future. None of our posting personality styles are perfect _(well mine is pretty close to perfect---LOL!)_, and despite some "less than tranquil" comments, most importantly Dan has provided sound reasons for his opinions, and has always honored his promises, or been in communication when a problem/delay developed.

I think there is a similar reassurance when you find out Ken's personal and professional background if considering a Polarion purchase. That is also a relevant issue since the U.S. presence of a Polarion/Kumkang distributorship is so new.

I agree with mtbkndad on the Polarion reflector quality, and at one point, even Dan was considering trying to find a better reflector for his spotlight. I doubt that will ever happen, because you would likely need a whole new head, but the shortcomings of the reflector can be mitigated with the adjustment ring. I forget which light had the custom keyhole bulb slot for the igniter wire, which was another cool design idea.

Did you all actually read all of that?


----------



## mtbkndad (Jan 6, 2007)

LuxLuthor,

You have numerous good points in both of your posts. After posting about barely seeing my wife at 350 yards I was thinking. :thinking: That is assuming the only things being looked for are "people sized". 

There is also the level of detail that people may want to see objects with.
In the park where the pictures were taken the Lawn is around 270 yards long. Less powerful lights can light this distance well enough for the average person to see the the end of the lawn. However with all of these light you can immediately count how many people are there, see what color clothes they are wearing, etc..

What I am terming "overkill" can be a good thing when objects need to be recognized quickly or as you pointed out, in personal security or emergency type applications. That is why I want an X1  . I am also quite confident that there will be times when using an X1 that I will tell myself. I wish this had Barn Burner, or better yet LarryK ouput, in this size and form factor. :sigh:

However, once you get past persons like us CPF types, or other people with special illumination needs, the average person I have shown these bright lights to has said "WOW! Those are bright, but cost way too much. I do not need that much light and I really do not need to spend that much for those lights, etc." In essense, I am using the term overkill regarding the average person and what the average person currently wants from and is willing to spend for their lights.

Take Care,
mtbkndad :wave:


----------



## windstrings (Jan 6, 2007)

mtbkndad said:


> I have mentioned in other threads that, for the average person using lights outdoors at night, all of these lights are overkill.



Well in Texas, we believe brighter, bigger, badder, and meaner is better!

Of course, everything is bigger!

As far as overkill.....
if we're gonna kill something we're gonna empty our gun on it!....

maybe we should make the BB the state light!

LOL!!!


----------



## frogs3 (Jan 7, 2007)

*Re: My Thoughts*

Dear LuxLuthor,

I am a radiologist, who spent many hours as a resident learning about visual physiology during my Physics lectures (a significant portion of my Board Examination questions, which I passed), because the use of an image intensifier which I require every day depends on applying the difference between rod and cone vision, as well as the amount of light necessary to activate each of them. The resolution of rods vs. cones also makes a huge difference when "intensifiers" are in the system, which has been the case for over forty years now. So much for educating me on visual physiology -- another assumption that turns out to be a bit wrong, perhaps? For your information, that data on 10 to 30 minutes for rhodopsin generation is based only on young retinas, and for those of us at the 60 year mark, the correct number is closer to 60 or more minutes. I am just old enough to have worn RED goggles to adapt my eyes when I was a resident, so I have heard of this sort of thing you see. It also doesn't take into consideration corneal opacities which are a natural part of aging, which eventually become known as cataracts, and affect night vision adversely. Should I ASSUME you already know this stuff and more? Was your medical school training more thorough than mine? It is just as bad to ASSUME that statement. My viewpoints are based on my age and some progressive concepts of visual function as we grow older. Some very interesting discussions with my ophthalmologist also contributed to my outlook. 

Light intensity falls off at the rate of the square of the distance, which is another subject included in the physics of radiology, so please don't "assume" and lecture me again. The farther away we try to see, the amount of light needs to increase by the square of what is "adequate" at a close range. The exact numbers are really not important here. My only viewpoint, and it was just that, not a Bill to be passed in Congress, was that there is a practical range, which may be out to 350 yards with the lights in this thread, to which a human can be identified to some degree of certainty. If someone wishes to engineer a light that can throw further, and the viewer has a large exit-pupil binocular, they will see further. But that is not my interest.

I hope I made that simple enough that I don't get any more critiques. This is a place where many viewpoints can be shared, and all of them have validity.

-Harvey K.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Jan 7, 2007)

frogs3 said:


> ...We go into "rod" vision when the lights go dim, at those large distances, and "poof" goes the resolution, color and detail. You mentioned 300 yards, which is reasonable, but some here want to test out to twice thatand more, which I find unreasonable at night...



Dearest Harvey,

This is fun, we are becoming pen pals. :touche:

Thank you for forcing a reinterpretation of your original statement, now that we learn of your radiological expertise on opthalmological information, and mentioning an unrelated issue of image intensification vis-a-vis rod/cone vision. Congratulations also on becoming Board Certified.

However, my point regarding spotlights at night is a really "dumbed down" straightforward comment. Namely, if you are seeing color (with a spotlight), then you are not using "rod vision" since they are not capable of interpreting colors...and therefore the necessary rhodopsin formation has been interrupted.

FYI, neither corneal opacities, or cataracts affects the rod requiring rhodopsin chemical reaction. While such issues are indeed an unfortunate process of aging or medical pathologies, and may impede full photonic delivery to the retina, I am 100% sure that I have seen people and animals moving at night with my superlights much farther than 300 yards..and in color. How could that be? I hope it does not make me seem insensitive to the infirmities of the aged.

At the risk of apparent elderly callousness, for this discussion I have no intention of taking into account the exceptional, end organ issues of medical pathology/aging when making general statements on visual acuity, night vision, or benefits of high power lights. As far as I know it is not called the "Old Fogey's Barn Burner." (Dan, maybe rethink the nickname.....and consider giving Senior Citizen's discount....a potential huge new market with advertising in the AARP magazine...ZOUNDS!)

The correct answer on night vision vis-a-vis adequate rhodopsin formation is neither 10-30 or 60 mins. Rather, it is a gradual process where rhodopsin keeps building up over time. Eventually, the partial rod mediated night vision reaches a maximum effect at some time point, depending on a multitude of factors, including everything from genetics, to age, to individual health, to ambient conditions...but even after 10 minutes of total darkness, there will be some beginnings of night vision via rod receptors....well unless you are actually blind. Hmmm, maybe we should also have taken into account those with unilateral enucleation, or bitemporal hemianopsia secondary to pituitary adenoma encroaching on the optic chiasm. Oh wait....check that...I'm not worthy of such contemplative expositions.

Again, Harvey, my most humblest of apologies at my obvious ignorance and insensitivity at not fully appreciating all of the implied nuances in your original comments. I am especially humiliated at my (apparent) lack of educational worthiness, and especially at having made such a feeble attempt at providing but a whisp of elucidation in a sea of erudite obfuscation. Please forgive me.

Very Truly Yours,
LuxLuthor


----------



## NAW (Jan 7, 2007)

BVH said:


> NAW, I'll do a little shootout (no camera so no pics) of the Helios and my 15 MCP Cyclops/Thor with its 135 Watt Halogen lamp. I'll let you know which does better.


 
Hello BVH,






do you have any updates?


----------



## windstrings (Jan 7, 2007)

With a focusable light.. I have no issues with brighter is better... you can always widen the beam and kill everybody a little bit, instead of frying a few allot!..LOL!!

The main negative is all about runtime..... I have been on rescue scenes that were dicy and extrication was very tedius to avoid permanent damage...and even firescenes where salvage and overhaul would take the whole night... having a light thats "Bright enough" with plenty of runtime is what being useful and practicle is all about.

With some of our other experiments and uses, we just love the short lived "nova" effect of lighting the our world for a brief moment like a piece of space debrie falling from space would do.
Not practicle and long enough to get any work done.. but the whole world stands amazed!.... tons of "wow" factor!
Basically the same reason we buy lasers. Who really "uses" thier laser for anything constructive?... not many.....

And the same warnings and precautions are taken so as to not spoil the fun for everybody with unreasonable laws passed.

Most people will buy a light thats bright enough and tons of runtime... thats where we really live everyday....


----------



## BVH (Jan 7, 2007)

NAW, Mtbkndad and I are planning a light shoot in the hopefully, near future at which time, we'll include the Thor 15 MCP. I'm having a Larryk14 built (yeah, i got lazy and am having someone else do it for me, and will probably end up with a better product) and want to include it in this outing so bear with us for a while.


----------

