# Flashlights are getting too bright, Lumens race getting out of hand...



## HistoryChannel (Apr 9, 2013)

There are limits to most everything, including flashlights? I was searching a new powerful flashlight, I came across this and started to think .... when is too much.. too much? 4100 lumens? 9000 lumens? 20,000 lumens and set your car on fire?


----------



## sinnyc (Apr 9, 2013)

It's only a race if you run in it 

Just because there is a constant stream of lights being produced with ever-increasing outputs, you aren't required to buy the or buy into the hype. There are plenty of manufacturers that produce lights that are not "competitive" with the highest lumen output lights on the market but are built to last, providing a (more than?) useable light for most needs coupled with decent/excellent run times. Surefire and HDS Systems are 2 examples off the top of my head. And there are plenty of lights built in the same vein by the very manufacturers that create "Lumens Monsters". I have a little 1xAA L3 Illumination L10 Nichia that has found it's way into front pocket as my daily backup EDC and it hardly tops 100 lumens, not that I ever use it in its highest setting.

I look at most of those lights with huge numbers in the same way I look at dragsters or race cars: they're cool to look at and think about and I like to see them run but what the hell would I do with one if I owned one?


----------



## HistoryChannel (Apr 9, 2013)

Yeah, I know what you mean. Its like a Ferrari... we really don't "need" it... but we want it...

I don't need a 4100 lumen flashlight. It would be cool to play around with though lol. I suppose there are people that would find these Wicked Laser Torch lights useful such as Search and Rescue where a 3 minute burst mode is good for when spot something off in the distance?


----------



## subwoofer (Apr 9, 2013)

It will get to the point where lights become licensed, or at least restrictions will be imposed like the 5mW limit for lasers.

Taking this analogy I have a 50mW laser and do find it a bit worrying to use. I would not want to accidentally damage someone else's, or my own sight, so rarely (and carefully) use it. I decided against buying anything more powerful despite wanting to. I realised it was becoming just for the sake of having it.

In motorcycling, the Hayabusa was the point that the manufacturers saw sense and a faster bike was not sensible. Still someone fitted it with a turbo:



Very quick way to die or be horrifically injured.


Despite saying all of this, I still want a light sabre for Christmas


----------



## HistoryChannel (Apr 9, 2013)

Yeah, I have a 200mw green laser and I'm afraid to use it except outside pointing at the sky or something... lol... if I point it at a wall the castoff is blindingly bright and I'm sure all that UV light bouncing back at the eyes aren't good? I do however envision myself giving a presentation and using the 200mw laser from 100 yards away someday though... lol!!

Whats the most powerful single LED light out? is it the XML2 with 1300 something lumens?


----------



## kj2 (Apr 9, 2013)

I think about this problem yeah. Every month there are coming more and more light. Every few months a smaller, more powerful light is coming out. I do wonder how long it will take before we have a single led, 18650 light running at 1500 or even 2000lumens.
More lumens can be handy in some situations but mostly not. Most I use modes between 10 and 400lumens. What if there is a light with 1500-2000lumens? how will the mode spacing be? I say, for the future, manufactures have to add more modes. Most of my Fenix lights have 4 modes. The PD32UE has 5 of them. I like that much better  6 or maybe even 8 for bigger lights would be better IMO.
It would not surprise me if there will be laws about how bright a flashlight may be. Just like it is with laser-pointers. I hope manufactures will leave the "my light have more lumens then yours" race, and start beginning with lights that run longer even at high or turbo.
Low modes are getting more and more runtime but at higher lumens, most light are still at max 1/1,5hours.


----------



## Fireclaw18 (Apr 9, 2013)

HistoryChannel said:


> There are limits to most everything, including flashlights? I was searching a new powerful flashlight, I came across this and started to think .... when is too much.. too much? 4100 lumens? 9000 lumens? 20,000 lumens and set your car on fire?




That's the Wickedlaser Torch flashlight. It only gets something like 4 minutes of battery life. It's also an incandescent, not even an LED. At least with an LED you can turn down the brightness to a lower setting.

I don't have one, but I suspect that the Wickedlaser Torch emits a lot more infrared light than an LED light. There are LED lights available with the same or higher lumens as the Wickedlaser Torch, but I doubt they could start a fire so easily.


----------



## HistoryChannel (Apr 9, 2013)

Accidentally turning on a 2000lm EDC light in your pocket could have.... uhm..... painful results.... depending on where the light is pointing? LOL


----------



## Fireclaw18 (Apr 9, 2013)

HistoryChannel said:


> Accidentally turning on a 2000lm EDC light in your pocket could have.... uhm..... painful results.... depending on where the light is pointing? LOL



I think a lot of it also depends on what kind of light you have. My understanding is an incandescent light emits a lot of IR light out the front. Hence the Wickedlaser torch burning things. An LED light emits far less IR out the front, but does create a lot of heat that is radiated backwards into the body of the light.... hence the solid aluminum body.

I'd think the biggest risk of a 2000 lm LED flashlight turning on accidentally in your pocket could be the flashlight body heating up too fast, so it wouldn't matter which direction it is pointing.


----------



## HistoryChannel (Apr 9, 2013)

touché.... but I would still want it pointing away from center so the bezel would burn my thigh and not something else... lol...


----------



## Esko (Apr 9, 2013)

kj2 said:


> More lumens can be handy in some situations but mostly not. Most I use modes between 10 and 400lumens. What if there is a light with 1500-2000lumens? how will the mode spacing be? I say, for the future, manufactures have to add more modes. Most of my Fenix lights have 4 modes. The PD32UE has 5 of them. I like that much better  6 or maybe even 8 for bigger lights would be better IMO.



The spacing could be something like 2000lm-500lm-50lm-5lm. All of those modes would be useful, and the differences in *perceived* brightness would be apparent yet not very big. Keep it simple. It is just that the manufacturers tend to use modes that are quite close to each other. I only find it useful in the high output end, where runtime can be an issue.



kj2 said:


> I think about this problem yeah. Every month there are coming more and more light. Every few months a smaller, more powerful light is coming out. I do wonder how long it will take before we have a single led, 18650 light running at 1500 or even 2000lumens.



Problem? What is the problem? It is just development. It goes on. Buying a 2000lm incan would be pretty stupid (for almost all of us at least). Buying a well designed 2000lm led light might be clever. You could mostly use the lower output levels but in the rare occasion that you need it, there would be the option of 2000 lumens, too (or 4000lm or something else, just name it).

Personally though, my most powerful flashlights have been less than 500 ANSI lumens. No "high power" lasers either. I could agree that those devices are problematic and worth the worry. The damage they can do is pretty permanent. You know it, OP knows it, you have them, OP has them, and we are talking about flashlights that are getting "too bright". It is a funny world. :shrug:


----------



## Patriot (Apr 9, 2013)

Well, if they are getting too bright (a notion that I'll never subscribe too) it happened over 7 years ago. That's when the Mac's Torch with 64623 was first introduced. Several years later Wicked Laser worked out and agreement with Mac to reproduce his light. Ever since then, about every 1-2 months, for about the last 3-4 years, someone finds one of these videos and posts it on CPF. Having owned an original Mac's Torch, and 4400L MaxBlaster, it always puts a crooked smile on my face, but it's of course nothing new or ground breaking in the development of handhelds. 

These day's we've got 3500-5500L factory build LED lights which meet or exceed the lumen output of the original torch, not to mention HID. The title should probably read, 

"Flashlights are getting too hot, Thermal race getting out of hand..."


----------



## CouldUseALight (Apr 9, 2013)

That WickedLasers "Torch" drives me nuts; almost any device can be modified to catch nearby flammables on fire. Such devices are usually referred to as "hazards" :shakehead



Esko said:


> Problem? What is the problem?



Over 50,000 lumens, people and animals nearby (and not-so-nearby) start to risk eye damage from wayward reflections. It's easy to make a case that stuff this bright should never get within 15* of the horizon (and virtually all are mounted to prevent this).


----------



## Ragnar66 (Apr 9, 2013)

Totally disagree that they are too bright........let the science roll! Smart people rule! 

On the other hand.........some of the great products are purchased by idiots......and ya can't fix stupid.


----------



## TEEJ (Apr 9, 2013)

The race is not all in the same direction. Also notice the rather large movement to sub-lumen and moon-light/firefly modes: People who complain that more than 0.001 lumens is blinding them, etc. 



Also - The races in the same direction are not all going to the same destination. People doing search and rescue etc...are constantly challenged by the need to get enough light on a large enough area...and, preferably, with hand-held equipment rather than generator powered floods, etc. IE: There's STILL not enough lumens on tap for that application...the race is a marathon.

Sure, some just want the brightest light, we ARE flashaholics afterall...and just like a stamp collector really doesn't NEED another stamp, but, he needs it for his collection. 

After that, there's people who don't want a LARGE light, but, they DO want a lot of light from whatever they feel is OK in their pocket. The pocket rocket race is a tough one, as heat management is so much harder with a smaller thermal mass/radiating surface area.

So, for many applications, there's STILL not enough lumens, and, they don't last long enough yet either....further room for improvement.


So, lumens are not getting out of hand...its just that humans tend to "calibrate" to whatever resonates with them as "right", and more than that is too much, and less than that is too little....its human nature.

George Carlin put it ~ like this: "...those who drive faster than me are maniacs, and those who drive slower than me are morons"


So if a given person is used to things being a certain way, regarding the stock market, flashlights, etc...that's THEIR baseline. Everything, for the rest of their lives, is judged relative to being above or below that baseline.


If a flashlight guy gets it in his head that 60 lumens is "normal"...lights brighter than that seem too bright to be normal, and lights dimmer than that are judged to be dim, and so forth.

Its human nature.


----------



## Esko (Apr 9, 2013)

CouldUseALight said:


> Over 50,000 lumens, people and animals nearby (and not-so-nearby) start to risk eye damage from wayward reflections. It's easy to make a case that stuff this bright should never get within 15* of the horizon (and virtually all are mounted to prevent this).



On the other hand, bare and bright sunlight can be something like 100.000 lumens per square meter and ordinary flash bulbs reached 1.000.000 lumens tens of years ago. Eyes have a nice brightness adjustment system and if said light is bright enough, eyes are also closed by reflex. Unfortunately, neither of those systems work with lasers, and very small high power lasers are already widely available through internet.

I am not too worried about flashlights getting brighter. But I can agree that some applications like illegal or unregulated headlights (used by different kinds of vehicles in traffic) can already be dangerous.


----------



## Jay T (Apr 9, 2013)

Wait a minute, you have been here since 2004 and you just now noticed hotwires?

That light is a production version of a Mag623, these things have been made and sold on CPF from the time I started here.


----------



## henry1960 (Apr 9, 2013)

HistoryChannel said:


> Accidentally turning on a 2000lm EDC light in your pocket could have.... uhm..... painful results.... depending on where the light is pointing? LOL


If You Have A 2000lm In Your Pocket You Must Have Big Pockets....


----------



## martinaee (Apr 9, 2013)

It's funny you bring up this point. I have a handful of "good" flashlights now. Mostly Fenix and a few months ago I bought my first light, an E50, that cranks out some serious lumen-bajongas. 

... Anyway. My point is that for the first time yesterday I did something I haven't been doing--- I bought a Fenix TK11 R5 that relatively speaking isn't a powerhouse of a light compared to what has come out in the last year. I know there are single 18650 lights pushing 900 lumens now which is why I was blocking myself mentally from getting a TK11. I purchased one because I realized most of these new crazy xm-l powered lights and even the new xp-g2/xm-l2 lights are overkill and what I really want now is to focus on primarily the utility and functionality of the lights I use. In my opinion there aren't enough lights these days that don't have 5 modes plus dedicated mode changing, plus memory, plus... plus... plus... you get my point.

I've been looking at the TK11 for a long time and never got one until now.... I think somebody was talking about this on another thread, but it just seems like it's one of those lights that stands out from others as a classic in this industry. Just like certain car models from certain years are instantly recognizable and fondly remembered I think the TK11 is one of those lights. 

I was considering waiting around for an xp-g2 to be dropped into the "old" TK11, but I realized that it's not worth it and I should just get what's out there and amazing now. Of course I'm going to keep buying lights, but I don't want to get too caught up in the lumen race / emitter race / tint race / beam profile race anymore.

----> I'll add to this that once you have a small range of lights from low output to very high output it becomes interesting to get lights that fit a specific purpose. I mainly bought a 2 18650 E50 as a backup power outage light that can provide a good amount of light all night if needed, My E05 is the "always handy" light, and my TK11 will probably be my outdoor walking light primarily because of it's tough build.


----------



## h2oflyer (Apr 9, 2013)

I just got my Eagletac SX25A6 which is pushing 1050 OTF ANSI lumens a long way .The XM-L2 U2 is brilliant white and allmost creamy.

Blows my TK35 out of the lumen race.


----------



## Jash (Apr 9, 2013)

There is no such thing as too much light. All other opinions are invalid.


----------



## kengps (Apr 9, 2013)

You'd be just as correct to say "Why have 200 horsepower, when a car cruises at 65mph with only 15 Horsepower". The answer is "Because sometimes you need all of it. I don't need all of 2000 lumens. But sometimes it's useful at longer ranges.


----------



## thedoc007 (Apr 9, 2013)

With weapons, you might have a point. I don't know too many people who think bigger and better nukes are a good idea. 

But flashlights...no freakin' way. Maybe when we can exceed sunlight intensity over a large area, we can have this discussion again, but for now they are not even close to dangerous brightness with proper use. I agree that people can misuse high-lumen lights, but that is hardly anything new, and certainly is no reason to halt progress. 

You have to remember that progress isn't a pick-and-choose type deal. If you research one thing, it might lead to a breakthrough somewhere else. Also, one person's awesome new feature might be a headache for someone else. But that is the beauty of the market...as lights develop, we just get more and more choices, and we can each find the lights that tick all of OUR boxes. Even if I agreed that we should limit one criteria, in practice that can't be done without harming every other aspect. Thermal and electrical efficiency, brightness, intensity, compactness etc are all related, and holding back in one area will at the minimum slow progress in the other areas, and at worst lead to a general stagnation in the entire market.

It really does seem (to me) to be backwards thinking to try to limit progress. First and foremost, it doesn't work very well. If you don't like the way things are developing, just vote with your dollars, and just don't buy anything that doesn't suit you. But personally I think it is a wonderful thing that things are constantly evolving.


----------



## Groundblast (Apr 9, 2013)

How bright would you have to get before you risk damaging eyesight permanently? I just traded off my 1w laser because I was afraid to use the thing! I wouldn't want a light that could harm me or others.


----------



## CarpentryHero (Apr 9, 2013)

thedoc007 said:


> With weapons, you might have a point. I don't know too many people who think bigger and better nukes are a good idea.
> 
> But flashlights...no freakin' way. Maybe when we can exceed sunlight intensity over a large area, we can have this discussion again, but for now they are not even close to dangerous brightness with proper use. I agree that people can misuse high-lumen lights, but that is hardly anything new, and certainly is no reason to halt progress.
> 
> ...





Well said doc, 
i keep watching led evolution and I like what I see. I'm looking forward to the day where 7k lumens for under $100 is possible


----------



## Rexlion (Apr 9, 2013)

My 4000 lumen mag mod is not 'too bright'. It's very handy for checking the yard. No need to sweep the light back and forth, because it lights up the _entire_ yard.


----------



## idleprocess (Apr 9, 2013)

One thing the LED manufacturers seem to be reaching toward is a LED flashlight that, using a single LED package and collimator, can meet both the throw, intensity, and raw lumen output of a ~35W HID spotlight - ideally for 10 watts or less. There are multi-emitter lights that can hit the lumen output in fairly small packages, but I'm not aware of any that can match the throw nor the intensity of HID.

I think in only a few years you will have nearly pocket-sized light that can spit out more than 3000 lumens and - with the addition of a surprisingly small "turbohead" - reach out as far as a 35W HID Spotlight with a ~9" reflector. In normal use, they won't be called upon to emit that kind of light, but will certainly have the capabilities to do so for short periods - thermal issues and battery life likely being the major limits.

Not sure I would worry about people being blinded by flashlights - plenty of folks have started into card headlights, stage lights, theater spotlights, and even outdoor event-promotion spotlights - seemingly without a rash of permanent eye damage nor being struck blind. Lasers, on the other hand ... have done some of those things and are subject to increasing legal scrutiny as we've all been witnessing.


----------



## Vortus (Apr 9, 2013)

Thing is, many of those lights can do small and big lumens. Useful for more things. The same light can do 10 lumen to 3K+ lumens. Sometimes you need a teaspoon, sometimes a bucket. These lights are all that.


----------



## Z-Tab (Apr 9, 2013)

Just got back from using my ~4000 Lumen HID for a while, part of that while riding a four-wheeler that doesn't have working headlamps. It was just about the right amount of lumens for me, allowing me to see as far ahead as I needed while also providing enough spill that my peripheral vision was still useful. 

I say that 4000 lumens is just about enough, but I wish I could get that kind of output in a smaller package with better run times. Of course, Search and Rescue people need more than us regular folks... based on the logarithmic nature of light perception, I'll suggest 400,000 lumens as a good place to stop.


----------



## GordoJones88 (Apr 10, 2013)

Nope.


----------



## kengps (Apr 10, 2013)

a 100 Watt incandescent light-bulb is about 1800 lumens. Heard anybody say 100 watt bulbs are too bright?


----------



## blackFFM (Apr 10, 2013)

Jash said:


> There is no such thing as too much light. All other opinions are invalid.



+1


I won't be satisfied until my lights are as bright as the sun. THEN it's enough.


----------



## HistoryChannel (Apr 10, 2013)

kengps said:


> a 100 Watt incandescent light-bulb is about 1800 lumens. Heard anybody say 100 watt bulbs are too bright?



Yeah, my wife all the time actually... lol.. they are pretty bright for normal use. At least for us.

"Thats too much bacon".... now that... I have never heard..


----------



## TEEJ (Apr 10, 2013)

HistoryChannel said:


> Yeah, my wife all the time actually... lol.. they are pretty bright for normal use. At least for us.
> 
> "Thats too much bacon".... now that... I have never heard..



Damn MY wife says its too much bacon.


----------



## Stilt (Apr 10, 2013)

I see your point, to an extent. Small single cell lights that can put out a crazy amount of lumens for only a minute or so before they overheat are trying to push out more than what they're capable of handling. But, IMO, a multi-cell light that can handle the 1000+ lumens without overheating isn't too bright. Just maybe too bright for what you need a light for.


----------



## TEEJ (Apr 10, 2013)

Stilt said:


> I see your point, to an extent. Small single cell lights that can put out a crazy amount of lumens for only a minute or so before they overheat are trying to push out more than what they're capable of handling. But, IMO, a multi-cell light that can handle the 1000+ lumens without overheating isn't too bright. Just maybe too bright for what you need a light for.



Its not really like that. (The over heating part...) Most of the thermal step downs are so you can have the same concept as a car with nitrous injection. 

IE: They COULD make the light dimmer from the get go...and, as such, would be able to run at that dimmer brightness as long as required. OR - They could make a light that COULD be a lot brighter if needed for bursts of 5-20 minutes or so, depending upon HOW much extra brightness the burst would supply.

So, for example you have say, the option of a light that maxes out at 400 lumens, but can run at 400 L for 120 minutes....or one that can run at 400 L for 120 minutes AND be able to ALSO be able to give you a 800 L boosted beam for ~ 5 minutes at a time....and then step down to 400 L again.

Obviously, you don't have to select TURBO unless you NEED it. You could leave it at 400 L the entire time if you wanted to, or, if you thought you heard a bear a bit further away than the light was reaching...you could hit turbo to see WTF made that noise out there.

If you SEE a bear, you might want to SPRINT to the nearest tree to escape it...DESPITE the fact that you can only SPRINT for maybe a 100 - 200 yards or so, before you'd need to slow down and catch your breath. You might appreciate a burst of extra speed when needed, despite not being able to maintain it for miles.


----------



## tsask (Apr 10, 2013)

subwoofer said:


> It will get to the point where lights become licensed, or at least restrictions will be imposed like the 5mW limit for lasers.QUOTE]
> 
> let's hope not, the unenlightened masses are largely unaware of this most rewardng and wholesome hobby or avocation
> 
> ...


----------



## Lou Minescence (Apr 10, 2013)

Too many lumens or lux depends on your needs. I remember the old days of my Q beam. Too bright as a single mode light to look at things close. Today's multimode lights are great. I don't use my TK70 or S6330 indoors incase I hit the wrong button. It hurts my eyes. I have other lights for inside.
Bring on more lumens. I'll quit when I've had enough. 😛


----------



## HistoryChannel (Apr 10, 2013)

TEEJ said:


> Damn MY wife says its too much bacon.



Lol!!


----------



## StorminMatt (Apr 10, 2013)

TEEJ said:


> Its not really like that. (The over heating part...) Most of the thermal step downs are so you can have the same concept as a car with nitrous injection.
> 
> IE: They COULD make the light dimmer from the get go...and, as such, would be able to run at that dimmer brightness as long as required. OR - They could make a light that COULD be a lot brighter if needed for bursts of 5-20 minutes or so, depending upon HOW much extra brightness the burst would supply.
> 
> ...



I fully understand what you are saying with regards to high output, single cell lights. But this is a concept that seems to be lost on LOTS of people. I can't tell you how many times people have told me here (and elsewhere) that it's pointless to carry large 800 lumen lights when their 1x18650 pocket light puts out the same light in a smaller and lighter package. But it can't do so continuously. Granted, as was pointed out, you certainly don't always want or need a light that can put out 800 lumens for four hours straight. But if this is what you need, a 1x18650 pocket rocket isn't going to cut it.


----------



## kellyglanzer (Apr 10, 2013)

Until i get my actual light saber lets keep it going. Dont we all really want a light saber?


----------



## HistoryChannel (Apr 11, 2013)

Hey the U.S. Navy has a really really bright light... apparently it gets hot enough to....


----------



## langham (Apr 11, 2013)

Well I guess I will weigh in, the too bright point has been reached. Have any of you read up on the Nightsword? That is too bright, anything that has to come with a waiver, because it will cause instant blindness within a few feet well that is something IMHO that is too bright. I have a modified TN31 that hits greater than 300kcd and that is too bright for practical use. You can see the light it casts on a slightly overcast day at >100ft. It can go 1400m or so before it gets to moonlight, so lets face it that is too bright. I do like that it has several modes, but I really don't have a practical purpose for it other than to impress people when they say what is up with the flashlight obsession and expect something amazing. The question isn't in lumens, because you guys are right that capability has been there for years. Just take a 12V projector bulb some low IR cells and drive it at 15V bam there you go very bright, if it is halogen, very hot handheld light. Putting all of that light forward in a small package that is where the new HIDs like the FF3 and the new LEDs like the TN30, 31 and other like the BTU and the TK75 have come into play. Have we already gotten past the point where improvements in brightness are useless? Yes. Are we going to stop? No. The gains in efficiency are amazing though and I hope to continue to see those as this race continues. After all it isn't much of a race if you spend all of your time in the pits refueling is it?


----------



## Jash (Apr 11, 2013)

kellyglanzer said:


> Until i get my actual light saber lets keep it going. Dont we all really want a light saber?



Yep, but I'll settle for 1,000 otf lumens for six hours from a single AA.


----------



## Colonel Sanders (Apr 11, 2013)

*" I have a modified TN31 that hits greater than 300kcd and that is too bright for practical use."*

Too bright to _you_ but not too bright for all. Some of us find *FAR* higher than a measly 300K to be quite useful for practical use. While using binoculars, I've found that 6,000,000cd (that's 6 MILLION) to usually be enough and sometimes not quite enough for observing various animals for various reason at great distances.

I'm just glad that _so far_ in this "free" country, the powers that be haven't gotten around to deciding _for me_ what is practical, reasonable, and therefore allowable in the flashlight world (unlike in the firearms world where _they already have_.)


----------



## Ragnar66 (Apr 11, 2013)

langham said:


> Well I guess I will weigh in, the too bright point has been reached. Have any of you read up on the Nightsword? That is too bright, anything that has to come with a waiver, because it will cause instant blindness within a few feet well that is something IMHO that is too bright. I have a modified TN31 that hits greater than 300kcd and that is too bright for practical use. You can see the light it casts on a slightly overcast day at >100ft. It can go 1400m or so before it gets to moonlight, so lets face it that is too bright. I do like that it has several modes, but I really don't have a practical purpose for it other than to impress people when they say what is up with the flashlight obsession and expect something amazing. The question isn't in lumens, because you guys are right that capability has been there for years. Just take a 12V projector bulb some low IR cells and drive it at 15V bam there you go very bright, if it is halogen, very hot handheld light. Putting all of that light forward in a small package that is where the new HIDs like the FF3 and the new LEDs like the TN30, 31 and other like the BTU and the TK75 have come into play. Have we already gotten past the point where improvements in brightness are useless? Yes. Are we going to stop? No. The gains in efficiency are amazing though and I hope to continue to see those as this race continues. After all it isn't much of a race if you spend all of your time in the pits refueling is it?



I have to say I have the 31 mb and I find many advantages in police work for this light so It really depends on what you use it for. I have the Deft X on order as it will be even better for the same purpose. I have a good list of why I will never work a shift without a thrower like that.


----------



## langham (Apr 11, 2013)

I didn't say anything about stopping the advancement of flashlight technology, I am just saying that my custom light is ridiculous and almost impossible to use without offending people. I guess if I was a police officer I would be able to use my light with no major issues, because if anyone said anything I would just tell them I was doing my job. Accidentally shining that sort of light at someone is not simply an apology, it is terrible as I have been on the receiving end of it almost every time I let someone see it. People don't realize how bright it is, it is as bright or brighter than a welding arc and you need special eye wear for that. I am not saying lights should be regulated like lasers, but I am saying that the only practical future for flashlights are smaller packages, greater run time, and lower thermal waist. We have reached the level of brightness that is required and recently the color rendition has been improved so that we can buy a light and not worry about the color when we get it out of the box.


----------



## Esko (Apr 11, 2013)

TEEJ said:


> If you SEE a bear, you might want to SPRINT to the nearest tree to escape it...DESPITE the fact that you can only SPRINT for maybe a 100 - 200 yards or so, before you'd need to slow down and catch your breath. You might appreciate a burst of extra speed when needed, despite not being able to maintain it for miles.



Except that if you see a bear, you definitely DON'T want to sprint and DON'T want to climb to tree. Bears run faster than you, and they are better climbers than you. Acting like a prey (a slow and easy one) would not be very wise. 

Just like with the flashlights. There are situations where you might be tempted to use full power, but are better with something else. And there are situations where you might need lots of power, and thanks to the progress of led lights, you have that option. 



StorminMatt said:


> I fully understand what you are saying with regards to high output, single cell lights. But this is a concept that seems to be lost on LOTS of people. I can't tell you how many times people have told me here (and elsewhere) that it's pointless to carry large 800 lumen lights when their 1x18650 pocket light puts out the same light in a smaller and lighter package. But it can't do so continuously. Granted, as was pointed out, you certainly don't always want or need a light that can put out 800 lumens for four hours straight. But if this is what you need, a 1x18650 pocket rocket isn't going to cut it.



"Need", well that is a funny word. Anyway, if you need 800lm/4hours, then you need it. However, many of those lights also have an option of something like 2500lm/1+hours. Due to that, they outperform 1x18650 pocket rockets in output, too.

IMHO compact single AAA flashlights or single 18650 flashlights are usually more amazing than the large multicell versions. Plenty of light from very tiny packages that are easy to carry with you. The logarithmic nature of human vision works in favour of small lights. I am looking forward to the progress in those formats.


----------



## HistoryChannel (Apr 11, 2013)

Colonel Sanders said:


> I'm just glad that _so far_ in this "free" country



You are LUCKY... Enjoy it!! Not so here in the USA. 
There are so many rules and laws I can't even drive the car I want to drive or hang a picture of the Octagon Ring girls above my desk at work because it might "offend" someone or own a 200mw laser. I wouldn't doubt that eventually there will be a limit on flashlight output here like lasers. 

I am glad the new Fury 600lm appears to have no step down. That's progress!


----------



## markr6 (Apr 11, 2013)

I would love the numbers game shift to a TINT RACE! Let's get some nice consistent neutral tints in all mainstream models. Man would we have a lot of cool whites for sale in the CPFMP or what?!?!


----------



## Illum (Apr 11, 2013)

Fireclaw18 said:


> ...the Wickedlaser Torch...an incandescent... I suspect that the Wickedlaser Torch emits a lot more infrared light than an LED light.


Suspect your right, but lets not forget, the amount of absorption on a matte black surface from visible light can still char it up pretty good


----------



## Husker (Apr 11, 2013)

Esko said:


> IMHO compact single AAA flashlights or single 18650 flashlights are usually more amazing than the large multicell versions. Plenty of light from very tiny packages that are easy to carry with you. The logarithmic nature of human vision works in favour of small lights. I am looking forward to the progress in those formats.


 How about pointing me to the best compact single AAA or 18650 flashlight, I want to impress myself & friends.


----------



## ledmitter_nli (Apr 11, 2013)

langham said:


> I didn't say anything about stopping the advancement of flashlight technology, I am just saying that my custom light is ridiculous and almost impossible to use without offending people. I guess if I was a police officer I would be able to use my light with no major issues, because if anyone said anything I would just tell them I was doing my job. Accidentally shining that sort of light at someone is not simply an apology, it is terrible as I have been on the receiving end of it almost every time I let someone see it. People don't realize how bright it is, it is as bright or brighter than a welding arc and you need special eye wear for that. I am not saying lights should be regulated like lasers, but I am saying that the only practical future for flashlights are smaller packages, greater run time, and lower thermal waist. We have reached the level of brightness that is required and recently the color rendition has been improved so that we can buy a light and not worry about the color when we get it out of the box.



What light do you speak of? How many lumens? Sounds like I want it. :devil:


----------



## langham (Apr 11, 2013)

Husker said:


> How about pointing me to the best compact single AAA or 18650 flashlight, I want to impress myself & friends.


My current favorite single 18650 flashlight is either the Thrunite Scorpion, Supbeam T10 (same light), or for visually pleasing the Blackshadow Fire.
I think for a single AA the Thrunite T10 from OSTS would impress just about anyone.


ledmitter_nli said:


> What light do you speak of? How many lumens? Sounds like I want it. :devil:


I have an original TN31 that has the LED replaced with the new XM-L2 U2 and de-domed. It is very nice, the TN31 MB from OSTS would be a bit higher lux version of what I have, with a little less total output. The Nightsword is insane and in my opinion will be the light that causes the government to regulate flashlights.


----------



## xevious (Apr 11, 2013)

subwoofer said:


> It will get to the point where lights become licensed, or at least restrictions will be imposed like the 5mW limit for lasers.


I agree. When you can walk around with a pocket portable light capable of producing more output than an HID car headlight, you can wreak some serious havoc if you're irresponsible. Just wait until someone only a few steps away from being homicidal decides to be mischievous, and causes some terrible accident where people either get serious hurt or die. Then there will be a heavy outcry to require a background check to buy lights above a certain output level...

I won't be looking for the next > 2k lumens output light. But if the technology keeps advancing and producing more powerful AND greater efficient emitters, I'll be happy... because this will help drive improvements in other aspects. Imagine the EA4 capable of delivering 50% more throw and double or triple the runtime, all in the same form factor. I couldn't ask for much more.


----------



## Esko (Apr 12, 2013)

Husker said:


> How about pointing me to the best compact single AAA or 18650 flashlight, I want to impress myself & friends.



I was talking in general... Lots of performance in small packages (if done well).

You are a flashaholic (I suppose), I don't know what impresses you. High output is not enough for me, if it is just for some minutes/ten minutes in short bursts and I have to count seconds or check the time from a clock. For impressing your friends, there are some AAA lights that can use lithium 10440, too. The most powerful ones should have an output of something like 500 lumens. Not sure which ones though (Peak perhaps?). One option would be MBI Torpedo (check the Custom builders section); It is not the smallest AAA flashlight but it will have thermal protection and the output with lithium cells is around 500 lumens. It is not for sale yet but the first small "beta run" should hit the markets in near future.


----------



## Husker (Apr 12, 2013)

langham said:


> My current favorite single 18650 flashlight is either the Thrunite Scorpion, Supbeam T10 (same light), or for visually pleasing the Blackshadow Fire.
> I think for a single AA the Thrunite T10 from OSTS would impress just about anyone.


*I'll do a search for those lights...Thank-U.*



Esko said:


> I was talking in general... Lots of performance in small packages (if done well).
> 
> You are a flashaholic (I suppose), I don't know what impresses you. High output is not enough for me, if it is just for some minutes/ten minutes in short bursts and I have to count seconds or check the time from a clock. For impressing your friends, there are some AAA lights that can use lithium 10440, too. The most powerful ones should have an output of something like 500 lumens. Not sure which ones though (Peak perhaps?). One option would be MBI Torpedo (check the Custom builders section); It is not the smallest AAA flashlight but it will have thermal protection and the output with lithium cells is around 500 lumens. It is not for sale yet but the first small "beta run" should hit the markets in near future.


*I'm a Flashaholic in training (Learning stage) I don't have any 'REAL' (CPF Standards) Flashlights yet. I ordered a throw light to control geese with...I'd like an extremely good light to carry in my pocket everyday, that is small, very bright and built to last. It's very confusing trying to understand what all the mods mean and how they apply to a light, let alone trying to wade through all the different brands and types...Bottom line. I want an all in one light, one that comes done, I really don't want to mod one, I just want to purchase one that is Done & Fun! *


----------



## Esko (Apr 12, 2013)

Husker said:


> *I'm a Flashaholic in training (Learning stage) I don't have any 'REAL' (CPF Standards) Flashlights yet. I ordered a throw light to control geese with...I'd like an extremely good light to carry in my pocket everyday, that is small, very bright and built to last. It's very confusing trying to understand what all the mods mean and how they apply to a light, let alone trying to wade through all the different brands and types...Bottom line. I want an all in one light, one that comes done, I really don't want to mod one, I just want to purchase one that is Done & Fun! *



Ok. In that case, forget my previous answer. MBI Torpedo would probably still be a good candidate but beta run is beta run, you could check it again next autumn.

I recommend you to check some relevant looking threads in "Recommend me a light for" sub forum. You'll find plenty of relevant threads and lights there, and of course, you can start your own thread too.

My recommendations for good first lights... Thrunite T10 is a well thought small AA flashlight and it costs only ~$30. I especially like the mode spacing. For a smaller AAA flashlight - well, my favorite is 4Sevens Preon ReVO SS but it cancelled 1½ years ago. You could consider Foursevens Preon P1. It is a light that I have bought to many friends (as gifts or because they have asked for a good and small flashlight). It is also the only light that I have bought more than one for myself (they had some _very_ good discounts last year...).

Both of those lights are bright, but not "exceptionally bright". They just are good flashlights.

I am probably not the best person to recommend you 18650 flashlights, but you could consider some compact Eagletacs. I don't have any, but I have an older light with a somewhat similar design philosophy (Shiningbeam S-mini). Eagletacs are also available with neutral white leds (like my S-mini was, too). Neutral white is my personal preference but of course, it is a matter of taste. You should make your own consideration and you will find lots of useful information here in CPF. Good luck with your journey, and of course, :welcome:


----------



## Husker (Apr 12, 2013)

Esko said:


> Ok. In that case, forget my previous answer. MBI Torpedo would probably still be a good candidate but beta run is beta run, you could check it again next autumn.
> 
> I recommend you to check some relevant looking threads in "Recommend me a light for" sub forum. You'll find plenty of relevant threads and lights there, and of course, you can start your own thread too.
> 
> ...


Thanks for all the info, I'm gonna research that Foursevens Preon P1. What do you think about the Malkoff MDC O 1AA Flashlight, I ordered one just so I can have a light until I learn more?


----------



## BeastFlashlight (Apr 12, 2013)

CarpentryHero said:


> Well said doc,
> i keep watching led evolution and I like what I see. I'm looking forward to the day where 7k lumens for under $100 is possible


Hello CarpentryHero! Hey have u heard about any break thru's for MTG2 drivers lately? Check out this bad boy that Vestureofblood showed me http://www.cree.com/news-and-events...spx?_id=A152EFF89FB7418FA682F06DD9963E8D&_z=z


----------



## CarpentryHero (Apr 12, 2013)

Aside from VinhNyugens 3k lumen p60 dropin, there's been nothing new. 
That's one beastly Cree


----------



## BeastFlashlight (Apr 12, 2013)

How are we supposed to evolve and move forward if they keep coming out with emitters that run off of odd voltages? Doesn't help us if there isn't appropriate batteries/drivers to go with them! MTG2 6.5v, that Cree link 37v, wonderful what are we gonna do with that??


----------



## CarpentryHero (Apr 12, 2013)

Come out with new batteries I hope  
the downside of big led's is there built for residential and comercial lighting where they have more voltage than they need.

flashlights are a smaller market, and as such something's aren't as easily done. That big led would need to be best for a searchlight, with a big heatsinc, so a large reflector and battery compartment would look proportional ?  
ten 18650's for one led oo:


----------



## idleprocess (Apr 12, 2013)

BeastFlashlight said:


> How are we supposed to evolve and move forward if they keep coming out with emitters that run off of odd voltages? Doesn't help us if there isn't appropriate batteries/drivers to go with them! MTG2 6.5v, that Cree link 37v, wonderful what are we gonna do with that??



Use it in a LED light fixture (or bulb), which is the big market for power LED's now that they are exceeding 100 lumens/watt and their $/lumen metric has dropped precipitously as well.

This has been the endgame for the LED manufacturers all along. It just happened that high costs and uncertain performance forced them into single-die packages suitable for flashlights first. I suspect that they will still make quality single-die packages forever, just don't expect them to be where _all_ of the leading-edge development goes here on out.


----------



## Esko (Apr 13, 2013)

Husker said:


> Thanks for all the info, I'm gonna research that Foursevens Preon P1. What do you think about the Malkoff MDC O 1AA Flashlight, I ordered one just so I can have a light until I learn more?



I think you started well. Malkoffs are very durable high quality lights (even better quality than the ones I suggested) and depending on the drop-in, they can be very impressive, too. Not the smallest or lightest flashlights though, and perhaps not the most innovative either (except for the drop-in system). They are dependable workhorses. Good choice. :thumbsup:

While we are talking about lumen race and runtimes, I have to add one thing. It looks that AAA flashlights are not powerful or expensive or "sexy" enough for manufacturers to try their best. AFAIK the current runtime kings have a maximum runtime on ~3 days and the best one is made by a small custom builder (Muyshondt Mako). At the same time, the runtime king in AA category can run 3 months (Zebralight H502)! The brightness is of course very different but that is not the point - there are plenty of bigger flashlights with sub-lumen output modes but not so many in AAA category, even though one would think that the smallest lights are the most natural choice for low output modes. My only sub-lumen AAA light is Thrunite Ti. The firefly mode is 0,04 lumens but the driver is pretty unefficient. Mako can run longer with the output of some 1,5-2 lumens than Ti at 0,04 lumens.


----------



## sticktodrum (Apr 13, 2013)

Being a knife enthusiast first, this idea reminds me of some of the things people say about both the build of knives and the edges themselves. I've read people complain about how there's too much concern for the race of super steels and super-tough built knives. I never understood why someone would be content with just (what is now) standard 440C steel instead of something like Elmax, S110V, or CTS-204P. The technology is there to get certain properties out of a product, so why not embrace the progress? 

Similarly, there's sometimes discussion of how refined an edge on a knife one really needs. Does someone need to buy a $3-600 Wicked Edge sharpener and take their edge up to 1400 grit and 0.5 micron compound on a strop? Well, maybe not, but if it performs a bit better then I see no harm in it. 

I had a LED Lenser P3 for a while as a carry light, and it was cool. Worked fine. When my friend suggested the Preon P1, I was enamored with the low mode and how bright the high mode was. Now I'm carrying a M11R Sirius (have been for a month) and I absolutely adore it. I rarely use the max output but it sure is nice having it for some occasions. As a semi-profession drummer and IT guy (day job), I don't know how I got by before I knew about these kinds of lights. I feel the same way I did when I got my first really nice knife and then got a really ridiculous edge on it. It's just a nicer, better feeling to have the kinds of choices available now.


----------



## HistoryChannel (Apr 13, 2013)

I love knives too, I just send them in to Benchmade and for $5 it comes back razor sharp, tuned and oiled. No need for any fancy sharpener for me. Lol. I just got 2 of the 275BKSN Sibert as my EDC (I always get 2 so when I send it in for sharpening). 

I started this thread because efficiency is falling behind and companies seem to be just dumping the biggest baddest LED into a flashlight. Kinda like when the Megapixel race for compact cameras got out of hand and the tiny sensors couldn't handle it. Picture quality became HoRriBLe capturing too much pixels into a tiny sensor. And the regular consumer won't ever print a wall sized picture with their 24mp picture. So companies came to their senses and now make very nice 12 mp cameras which can print poster sized prints anyway and focus on picture quality and camera quality. 

So right now it seems like companies are just making lights as bright as possible to claim the highest lumen rating even at the expense of causing thermal damage to the LED. If I'm not careful I can easily damage my PD32UE'sor G25c2's LED or even burn myself with some high lumen lights i have if I'm not careful. Companies seem to be putting a gazillion modes that most people won't even use like SOS and Strobe? I mean when is the last time you can remember you legitimately had to use SOS. I know some might say "but it's there if I ever need it". Lol. SOS... Really?

At what cost? If I don't keep my Eagletac threads clean it becomes flaky so no using in in dirty conditions unless I can clean it daily. The rubber boot on my PD32UE side button almost ripped off once hiking. Can't rely on those for rugged hiking trips or professional field use. It's just good for casual EDC to enjoy the bells and whistles and impressing friends with 3 minutes of bright light. Imagine soldiers in the dusty dirty desert grabbing their weapons mounted Eagletac and constantly twisting to change modes. The afghans might take it as an obscene gesture and geez, an international incident. Hahaha

But when it comes down to it, I do buy and enjoy crazy output lights to play with. What Flashlightaholic doesn't? Lol. And we need those bleeding edge products for future innovation I suppose.


----------



## BeastFlashlight (Apr 13, 2013)

CarpentryHero said:


> Come out with new batteries I hope
> the downside of big led's is there built for residential and comercial lighting where they have more voltage than they need.
> 
> flashlights are a smaller market, and as such something's aren't as easily done. That big led would need to be best for a searchlight, with a big heatsinc, so a large reflector and battery compartment would look proportional ?
> ten 18650's for one led oo:


Yeah looks like my complaint is misplaced it should be with batteries not emitters, measly *** 3.7v a piece come on man step up that voltage!!


----------



## idleprocess (Apr 13, 2013)

BeastFlashlight said:


> Yeah looks like my complaint is misplaced it should be with batteries not emitters, measly *** 3.7v a piece come on man step up that voltage!!



Two points:

It *far from trivial* to devise novel battery chemistries with higher nominal cell voltages - every bump in voltage represents a fairly significant scientific or engineering breakthrough. The solution to getting higher voltages than cell chemistry can provide has always been to bundle cells into batteries or to stack individual cells in a device.

Multi-die high voltage emitters are not particularly suited to use in flashlights where a well-formed beam is desirable since they effectively have an immense emitting area, rendering conventional reflectors and optics pretty useless save for generally directing the light into a vague pattern. If you think that a Cree XT-E high voltage is going to improve upon an XM-L for throw, you're going to be in for severe disappointment.

TL;DR version: _you're not missing out on anything in terms of most flashlight usage with the new high-voltage LED packages_


----------



## BeastFlashlight (Apr 13, 2013)

idleprocess said:


> Two points:
> 
> It *far from trivial* to devise novel battery chemistries with higher nominal cell voltages - every bump in voltage represents a fairly significant scientific or engineering breakthrough. The solution to getting higher voltages than cell chemistry can provide has always been to bundle cells into batteries or to stack individual cells in a device.


That sucks. But i'm confused about how that is because just today i'm holding an Energizer 9v battery up to a 18650 and saying to myself #1 it looks like there is more physical volumn in a 18650 body so why can't they pack 9v into a 18650? And #2 these Energizer 9v batteries have been in my drawers since I was 3 years old, been around FOREVER! If they had 9v Energizers since 1840 how hard can it possibly be to jump up 18650 voltages?


----------



## JCD (Apr 13, 2013)

BeastFlashlight said:


> That sucks. But i'm confused about how that is because just today i'm holding an Energizer 9v battery up to a 18650 and saying to myself #1 it looks like there is more physical volumn in a 18650 body so why can't they pack 9v into a 18650? And #2 these Energizer 9v batteries have been in my drawers since I was 3 years old, been around FOREVER!



A single 9 volt battery contains multiple cells._"Most nine-volt alkaline batteries are constructed of six individual 1.5V LR61 cells enclosed in a wrapper. These cells are slightly smaller than LR8D425 AAAA cells and can be used in their place for some devices, even though they are 3.5 mm shorter. Carbon-zinc types are made with six flat cells in a stack, enclosed in a moisture-resistant wrapper to prevent drying."_ Source​


BeastFlashlight said:


> If they had 9v Energizers since 1840 how hard can it possibly be to jump up 18650 voltages?



We can put two 18350 cells in series to accomplish essentially that. We are still limited by the battery volume and energy density of the cell chemistry.


----------



## eh4 (Apr 13, 2013)

Get in line or better yet get one available from a retailer, get an HDS. , they are not the brightest, they're not the smallest but they are just about the best. 
Talk about durability and quality build and good user interface... the best.


----------



## WHYWOULDITEXT (Apr 13, 2013)

It's almost as if you can't use that flashlight for upclose lighting...


----------



## BeastFlashlight (Apr 13, 2013)

I'm more about sacrificing a little bit on durability and trying to maximize on brute force power, even a slight durability sacrifice will still leave u with decent durability. But everyone has a different order of preferences. I was really fascinated though by the Elzetta clip where dude was literally driving nails with it. Never really looked to much into HDS


----------



## subwoofer (Apr 14, 2013)

I think this photo illustrates that lights are getting too bright.







The vet is one thing, imagine if this happened the next time you visit the doctor!


----------



## idleprocess (Apr 14, 2013)

BeastFlashlight said:


> That sucks. But i'm confused about how that is because just today i'm holding an Energizer 9v battery up to a 18650 and saying to myself #1 it looks like there is more physical volumn in a 18650 body so why can't they pack 9v into a 18650? And #2 these Energizer 9v batteries have been in my drawers since I was 3 years old, been around FOREVER! If they had 9v Energizers since 1840 how hard can it possibly be to jump up 18650 voltages?



A 9V battery's energy density (watt-hours) and ability to deliver current are pretty dismal. A good deal of the interior volume on alkalines is wasted due to the need for 6x pseuso-AAAA cells ... carbon-zinc is a bit more efficient, but its overall performance is horrific by comparison.

You're really not missing anything due to the perceived low voltage of li-ions. They can already deliver more power than the typical flashlight design can handle for sustained usage.


----------



## Sukram (Apr 15, 2013)

I just can't understand what do we need this light for


----------



## BeastFlashlight (Apr 15, 2013)

Sukram said:


> I just can't understand what do we need this light for


I understand. When you go out into the great wide open a flashlight gets humbled pretty quickly. It looks impressive at first but then u try to light the tree a little further away, still lights it Great! Than a tree further back and nothing. I want be able to sit up on hill at night and chill with a 6-pack and be able spot things far & wide. I'm pretty sure my ultimate light will be Maxabeam MBS-410, when I get that i'll be done. 

I agree that this is too much light for up close, in an EDC light I want all flood, why would I want a throwy EDC? I'll be using it to look under the hood of my car, in my basement crawl space, etc. But once it's too big for EDC it's time to pack on the power


----------



## BlueEagle (Apr 15, 2013)

HistoryChannel said:


> I love knives too, I just send them in to Benchmade and for $5 it comes back razor sharp, tuned and oiled. No need for any fancy sharpener for me. Lol. I just got 2 of the 275BKSN Sibert as my EDC (I always get 2 so when I send it in for sharpening).
> 
> I started this thread because efficiency is falling behind and companies seem to be just dumping the biggest baddest LED into a flashlight. Kinda like when the Megapixel race for compact cameras got out of hand and the tiny sensors couldn't handle it. Picture quality became HoRriBLe capturing too much pixels into a tiny sensor. And the regular consumer won't ever print a wall sized picture with their 24mp picture. So companies came to their senses and now make very nice 12 mp cameras which can print poster sized prints anyway and focus on picture quality and camera quality.
> 
> ...



I agree with you--the lumens race, at least in some quarters, is out of control! I think an important distinction needs to be made between "real progress" and that which only appears to be such. Too much of what is viewed as progress is really just an illusion because all it involves is compromise in some other area. So, for example, companies like Cree putting out new LED's which have higher lumens per watt certainly takes the industry forward, but when flashlights are simply made bigger, with more LED's, running on a greater number of batteries, which drain those batteries faster, yes, the end result is you get an increase in output, but I hate to burst some people's bubble, but this technique cannot last for long! I'm not saying there is no use for some of these amped up lights, but simply making flashlights bigger and more extreme can't truly change the underlying efficiency dynamics. But some people don't seem to care, they simply say, "Give me more, more, more!" but as you say, "at what cost?" If you have to make major sacrifices in other areas just to keep increasing lumen output, then where is the net gain? You're just shifting things around. Now, some of this experimentation and rearrangement has never been done before, so I am not implying it represents absolutely no progress whatsoever, but my point is that there is another kind of progress going on behind the scenes, at places like Cree and university laboratories, which is not nearly as exciting as a "race between flashlights on steroids" which is, in its own plodding and more cerebral way, slowly (note the shockingly limited penetration of LED's--both in the flashlight and home lighting categories--at a major retailer like Walmart) revolutionizing the lighting industry. --BlueEagle


----------



## xevious (Apr 16, 2013)

^ Good point. The lumens race is more about the flashlight makers rather than the emitter makers.

There is always the matter of "usable throw". Just how powerful do you need it? A pocket sky search light has a coolness factor but becomes useless in terms of practicality. The flashlight makers I will give my business to are the ones that balance lumens output with improved runtimes. Some lights I've bought are plenty powerful for my purposes--I'd rather see the runtimes increased rather than output increased without any runtime improvement. Also, there's the matter of the batteries used to power flashlights. One real benefit we've recently seen is how AA cells can be used to deliver performance previously imagined with only CR123 or 18650 type cells. Hopefully in another year or two, we'll see runtimes doubled or even tripled for the same or even slightly better output.


----------



## BlueEagle (Apr 17, 2013)

xevious said:


> One real benefit we've recently seen is how AA cells can be used to deliver performance previously imagined with only CR123 or 18650 type cells. Hopefully in another year or two, we'll see runtimes doubled or even tripled for the same or even slightly better output.



Ahhh...so I am not the only one who sees this . After the flashlight makers suck up the quick gains and people eventually grow bored with the lumens race, I believe your observation will prove to be an important one! --BlueEagle


----------



## bobbagum (Apr 18, 2013)

hotwires are like lightsabre, if you can build it, you probably don't need one, there are better, cheaper things to start fires with, for example lighters, flint


----------



## TEEJ (Apr 18, 2013)

People who buy tools are in the same boat.

If the Harbor Freight wrench works for them, and gets the job done, they feel that there is no need for anyone to have a wrench better than their Harbor Freight one. Some can't even UNDERSTAND why someone would spend $50 on a wrench, when they can get one for $1.

On the flip side, there are people who's USE of the wrench is not the same as the first group's use. They find the $50 wrench works better for THEM, and feel its worth it to spend the extra $49 to get the better one.


Flashlight use, for me, often involves crawling around in building looking for hidden clues....I might have to wriggle through crawlspaces or attics, and then be in long or large open areas where I need a lot of light to efficiently do my job.


If I need to put 100 lux on targets ~ 100' away, and, I want to cover a wide beam angle at one time to allow better contextual perception, etc, I might need a light with 3,000 lumens and a throw of 80k cd, etc.

I ALSO needed to carry that sumnabeetch to that location. That all means I might want that light to be as small and light as possible. So, now I want a 3k lumen thrower that fits in my pocket. 


Some OTHER person might only use their light to find the bathroom at strange hotel rooms, or not trip on the way to a latrine on a camping trip, or find their dropped keys at the theater, etc. They do NOT need a 3k lumen thrower.


The only issue left on these fronts is for the guys who don't need powerful lights to be open minded enough to accept that some people DO....and for the guys that need powerful lights to accept that some people don't.


----------



## ledmitter_nli (Apr 18, 2013)

CarpentryHero said:


> Aside from VinhNyugens 3k lumen p60 dropin, there's been nothing new.
> That's one beastly Cree



3,000 lumen P60 dropin?


----------



## CarpentryHero (Apr 18, 2013)

That's VinhNyugens estimation, when he drives the MTG2 at 6 amps


----------



## Esko (Apr 19, 2013)

BlueEagle said:


> xevious said:
> 
> 
> > One real benefit we've recently seen is how AA cells can be used to deliver performance previously imagined with only CR123 or 18650 type cells. Hopefully in another year or two, we'll see runtimes doubled or even tripled for the same or even slightly better output.
> ...



I am sorry, but the best leds are already around ~50% efficient. If we are talking about runtime, there will be no tripling available by developing better leds. Not in 2 years, not in 20 years. The bigger potential can be found in developing better power sources.


----------



## BlueEagle (Apr 22, 2013)

Esko said:


> I am sorry, but the best leds are already around ~50% efficient. If we are talking about runtime, there will be no tripling available by developing better leds. Not in 2 years, not in 20 years. The bigger potential can be found in developing better power sources.



Ok, thank you for pointing that out--this discrepancy has helped me clear some things up. I was under the mistaken impression that 683-lumens per watt represented the theoretical maximum efficiency possible from an LED, which it does (if I am finally understanding this right), but only in reference to 555nm green-light, the wavelength the human eye is most sensitive to. However, for white light--which obviously stretches over a much broader portion of the spectrum (though still a small part of the total spectrum)--the maximum theoretical lumens per watt efficiency drops to somewhere around 250-lumens per watt. This dramatic decrease compared to the first figure of 683-lumens results from the fact that when all the wavelengths comprising white light are appropriately weighted along the bell curve of human eye sensitivity, this combined average brings the green-lumen figure down. My assumption is that we are all talking about "white" light here (though "white" itself is somewhat difficult to define and can be "gamed" to the detriment of good color rendering), so when I compare the lumens per watt of a typical LED flashlight to 250-lumens instead of 683-lumens, I see your point.


----------



## Esko (Apr 22, 2013)

Yes, the peak value applies to green only...

I believe that the theoretical maximum is somewhere around 350-360 lumens per watt (depending on our definition of white of course; this number is for blue leds with phosphors and AFAIK it could be slightly better for RGB). That is roughly twice as much as we can get from the best conservatively driven leds currently.


----------



## idleprocess (Apr 22, 2013)

Esko said:


> Yes, the peak value applies to green only...
> 
> I believe that the theoretical maximum is somewhere around 350-360 lumens per watt (depending on our definition of white of course; this number is for blue leds with phosphors and AFAIK it could be slightly better for RGB). That is roughly twice as much as we can get from the best conservatively driven leds currently.




The efficiency race is effectively over. Cree stated as much in their 2012 annual statement:


Cree 2012 Annual Statament said:


> At Cree, our intense focus on innovation continues to help us redefine what is possible. With technology breakthroughs, we create new products that are revolutionizing markets. *As we launch products that deliver ever-increasing lumens per dollar*, we enable our customers to realize the primary benefit of LED lighting: better light that pays for itself through energy and maintenance savings.
> 
> While we are proud of what we’ve accomplished in LED lighting and the paybacks we have achieved, we believe it is just the beginning. Through ongoing innovation, we can close the initial price gap with conventional lighting, driving ever-faster payback - eventually resulting in LED lighting products at price parity or even lower. The power of innovation and our passion for improving the economics of LED lighting is how we plan to make it available and affordable to all.


Cree has announced lab results of > 200 lumens/watt, suggesting they see a path to commercializing those breakthroughs. It also hints at some other R&D in the pipeline that could further improve upon that. But at, say, 250 lumens per watt component efficiency, you have effectively won the efficiency war since your product uses less than half the energy of best-in-class florescent and HID. LED fixture/bulb manufacturers need to get their production costs down so they can better compete in the general lighting industry with florescent in the commercial space on total cost of ownership and bring down the price in the residential space to the point that consumers will experiment and see how much they like it.

LED die/component manufacturers might continue to compete with one another on efficiency out of habit and as a way to differentiate one another, but I see declining incentive to do so in the future. The big jumps in power savings have been made and the cost of each additional lumen per watt saved seems to be climbing.

Interestingly, in the flashlight space, this will likely mean the emergence of a new "luxeon lottery" as premium flux bins of future products become the way to see a slight bump in performance - but these will be the result of production process improvements rather than basic R&D.


----------



## BlueEagle (Apr 23, 2013)

idleprocess said:


> Cree has announced lab results of > 200 lumens/watt, suggesting they see a path to commercializing those breakthroughs...at, say, 250 lumens per watt component efficiency, you have effectively won the efficiency war since your product uses less than half the energy of best-in-class florescent and HID.



I love your term "efficiency war"! So now we have an "lumens race" and an "efficiency war." The two are obviously not one and the same thing, but they are definitely related to one another. If CFL's and HID have maxed out in efficiency and LED manufacturers can actually make the jump from laboratory showboats to real products, as you say, then indeed the future belongs to LED! If this transition had already taken place, then it would bore us all to death and be taken for granted in the same way we take for granted incandescent light bulbs now, but those of us who are currently alive and living this transition have quite a different experience of it--it will forever mark our place in time! --BlueEagle


----------



## Gun (Apr 23, 2013)

I don't think it can be too much, it's the unnecessary things in life that are fun 
I also really hope they don't put a restriction on flashlights just like they did with lasers, that would be awful.


----------



## ledmitter_nli (Apr 23, 2013)

Gun said:


> I don't think it can be too much, it's the unnecessary things in life that are fun
> I also really hope they don't put a restriction on flashlights just like they did with lasers, that would be awful.



HID spotlights that are 10X more powerful are not illegal. Just saying ....


----------



## Esko (Apr 23, 2013)

idleprocess said:


> The efficiency race is effectively over. Cree stated as much in their 2012 annual statement:
> 
> Cree has announced lab results of > 200 lumens/watt, suggesting they see a path to commercializing those breakthroughs. It also hints at some other R&D in the pipeline that could further improve upon that. But at, say, 250 lumens per watt component efficiency, you have effectively won the efficiency war since your product uses less than half the energy of best-in-class florescent and HID.



Won the efficiency war at 250lm/W? How could you say that when there is still a lot to improve? If you stop at 250lm/W and another company makes a 260 lm/W led, would you still consider yourself a winner?

There are different goals to reach. Price per lumen, lumen per watt, lumen per area etc. Also, lumen per watt race is not only about getting more lumens. It is also about getting less heat. If you have a led that is 80% efficient and you develop a led with 90% efficiency, you cut the heat production to half.

We are not talking about small numbers, either. According to this source, 461 TWh/year was used in lighting in the USA alone. It equals to more than half of the 821 TWh/year electricity production of the 104 nuclear reactors in the States (or equally huge amount of coal based energy production). Every percent counts.


----------



## BlueEagle (Apr 23, 2013)

Esko said:


> Won the efficiency war at 250lm/W? How could you say that when there is still a lot to improve? If you stop at 250lm/W and another company makes a 260 lm/W led, would you still consider yourself a winner?
> 
> There are different goals to reach. Price per lumen, lumen per watt, lumen per area etc. Also, lumen per watt race is not only about getting more lumens. It is also about getting less heat. If you have a led that is 80% efficient and you develop a led with 90% efficiency, you cut the heat production to half.
> 
> We are not talking about small numbers, either. According to this source, 461 TWh/year was used in lighting in the USA alone. It equals to more than half of the 821 TWh/year electricity production of the 104 nuclear reactors in the States (or equally huge amount of coal based energy production). Every percent counts.



Wowsers, I never made that connection before, but I instantaneously recognize it as important! Your statement is so significant I am going to quote it verbatim: "lumen per watt race is not only about getting more lumens. It is also about getting less heat. If you have a led that is 80% efficient and you develop a led with 90% efficiency, you cut the heat production to half" (Esko). You have made it clear to me now, converting more of each watt into light "IS" the heatsink!!! At a high enough efficiency, the heat dissipation problem essentially solves itself (because most of the energy is carried out the front end).

As for the comments by idleprocess concerning the efficiency war being over, I took them to be more in reference to LED's versus other forms of lighting as opposed to the end of competition between LED's themselves. --BlueEagle


----------



## Gun (Apr 23, 2013)

Haha, I guess so. But it would be terrible if they put a ban on certain lights.


----------



## idleprocess (Apr 23, 2013)

Esko said:


> Won the efficiency war at 250lm/W? How could you say that when there is still a lot to improve? If you stop at 250lm/W and another company makes a 260 lm/W led, would you still consider yourself a winner?


What it boils down to is _what does that 4% bump in efficiency cost you?_ Is it quick/cheap/certain such as a production process improvement, a relative "sure thing" R&D program with quick ROI, or something more protracted with high costs and uncertain returns? The greater the costs, uncertainty, and the longer the ROI the less likely the program is to see commitment. The big LED lighting players - Philips, Osram, Cree - are all vertically integrated to varying degrees since cost of acquisition is a barrier they need to overcome in order to expand their markets. LED's are efficient enough that component counts for general lighting have reached reasonable levels - at today's bleeding edge of 100 lm/W system efficiency. When 200 lm/W lab prototypes hit production, component counts can be nearly halved.



> There are different goals to reach. Price per lumen, lumen per watt, lumen per area etc. Also, lumen per watt race is not only about getting more lumens. It is also about getting less heat. If you have a led that is 80% efficient and you develop a led with 90% efficiency, you cut the heat production to half.


Yes, you will halve heat production at that particular increment... but heat will be pretty insignificant at the 80% point. With LED development increasingly focused on longevity and thermal tolerance, the benefit further shrinks. I don't know what the theoretical efficiency is at 200-250 lm/W, but I suspect it will be good enough to reduce heatsinking to transistor-type heatsinks with little other thermal design needed.



> We are not talking about small numbers, either. According to this source, 461 TWh/year was used in lighting in the USA alone. It equals to more than half of the 821 TWh/year electricity production of the 104 nuclear reactors in the States (or equally huge amount of coal based energy production). Every percent counts.


A few years ago, 25% was bandied about - now it's 17%. I would say that an 8-point (32%) reduction is pretty significant already. It was also a case where _any_ technology other than incandescent will produce huge gains. But with incandescents fading from general use, the low-hanging fruit is vanishing and some would say that our fixation on lighting has come at the expense of far larger energy consumers such as appliances and climate control.

Imagine a residence with 20 sockets that need to produce 800 lumens each. Electricity is $0.10 / kWH. Here are some back-of-the-napkin figures:

*Incandescent* : 60W bulbs (13.33 lm/W), gross consumption 1200 watts, $120 per 1000 hours
*CFL* : 15W bulbs (53.33 lm/W), gross consumption 300 watts, $30 per 1000 hours
*100 lm/W LED* : 8W bulbs (100 lm/W), gross consumption 160 watts, $16 per 1000 hours
*200 lm/W LED* : 4W bulbs (200 lm/W), gross consumption 80 watts, $8 per 1000 hours
The first jump (CFL) is the most cost-effective with a 4-fold reduction in power consumption. The next jump (100 lm/W LED) is a 7.5-fold absolute reduction, 1.875-fold incremental reduction. The last jump (200 lm/W LED) is a 15-fold absolute reduction, and a 2-fold incremental reduction. The absolute reduction in energy consumption drops considerably with each increment (900, 140, 80) to the point that it's hardly worth optimizing in spite of the significant percentage drops that you still see at each increment.

Unless the DOE or some other government agency funds additional R&D to directly or indirectly improve solid-state lighting efficiency, I believe the lumens-per-watt competition will taper off.


----------



## M2HB (Apr 23, 2013)

Gun said:


> Haha, I guess so. But it would be terrible if they put a ban on certain lights.




Here it comes, the dreaded Assault Light Ban. LOL


----------



## BlueEagle (Apr 23, 2013)

idleprocess said:


> What it boils down to is _what does that 4% bump in efficiency cost you?_...It was also a case where _any_ technology other than incandescent will produce huge gains. But with incandescents fading from general use, the low-hanging fruit is vanishing and some would say that our fixation on lighting has come at the expense of far larger energy consumers such as appliances and climate control.
> 
> Imagine a residence with 20 sockets that need to produce 800 lumens each. Electricity is $0.10 / kWH. Here are some back-of-the-napkin figures:
> 
> ...



You bring up a deep seated pattern, one which is virtually inescapable, the law of diminishing returns. One can predict ahead of time that the closer and closer LED makers get to achieving 100% efficiency, the harder and harder each additional gain will come. Moreover, as you also pointed out, each additional gain will be less useful. Based on the figures you provided, the jump from incandescent to CFL's saves a person $90 bucks (per 1000 hours), but the jump from CFL's to LED's only saves them $14. Then, doubling the efficiency of LED's merely saves an additional $8. One can clearly see the inevitable falloff here and that there is never an opportunity for $90 bucks of savings to be had ever again! In bringing up total terawatt hours saved, Esko's counter-argument seems to be that even small additional gains, when multiplied by a large enough population, can save astronomical sums. Both of you make very good points! --BlueEagle


----------



## HistoryChannel (Apr 23, 2013)

M2HB said:


> Here it comes, the dreaded Assault Light Ban. LOL



Hey I voted for Romney so don't blame me... Lol


----------



## Esko (Apr 24, 2013)

idleprocess said:


> What it boils down to is _what does that 4% bump in efficiency cost you?_ Is it quick/cheap/certain such as a production process improvement, a relative "sure thing" R&D program with quick ROI, or something more protracted with high costs and uncertain returns?



That 4% (percentage point) efficiency bumb equals to 2-4 nuclear reactors in the US only. They are pretty expensive. Certainly it is beneficial for _someone_ to do the development. And someone will. Development can't be stopped and efficiency will always be one of the targets, even if the priority goes down a bit.



idleprocess said:


> Yes, you will halve heat production at that particular increment... but heat will be pretty insignificant at the 80% point. With LED development increasingly focused on longevity and thermal tolerance, the benefit further shrinks. I don't know what the theoretical efficiency is at 200-250 lm/W, but I suspect it will be good enough to reduce heatsinking to transistor-type heatsinks with little other thermal design needed.



It is true that the further benefits go down but I wouldn't call them insignificant until you can use powerleds like you can use 5mm leds today (i.e. no thermal management needed).



idleprocess said:


> A few years ago, 25% was bandied about - now it's 17%. I would say that an 8-point (32%) reduction is pretty significant already. It was also a case where _any_ technology other than incandescent will produce huge gains. But with incandescents fading from general use, the low-hanging fruit is vanishing and some would say that our fixation on lighting has come at the expense of far larger energy consumers such as appliances and climate control.
> 
> Imagine a residence with 20 sockets that need to produce 800 lumens each. Electricity is $0.10 / kWH. Here are some back-of-the-napkin figures:
> 
> ...



Your calculations are right but you should also see the bigger picture (like the nuclear plant example).

Also, residences don't make very good examples since the illumination levels are low and ordinary people make irrational choices, or choices based on many other things than energy consumption. When I worked in an office, I had 440W of fluorescent tube light just for myself. In a single office room. At my university, I once counted the lights in a middle sized computer class. There were more than 30 fluorescent tubes (38W), which equals to more than 1kW of electricity consumption in a single room. A single road light is 400W (at ~100lm/w).

These numbers grow rather big very soon. Let me ask a question:

You have 100 office rooms and you are considering new lights. There are some options. 

Case 1:



Company A makes a product that can replace your 100W lights with 50W lights. 
Company B is known to make the most energy efficient leds in the markets (company image) and has a similar product that can replace your 100W lights with 47W lights 


Case 2:



Company A makes a product that can replace your 100W lights with 50W lights. 
Company B is known to make the most energy efficient leds in the markets (company image) and has a similar product that can replace your 100W lights with 47W lights 
Company B is known to make the most energy efficient leds in the markets (company image) and has a similar product that can replace your 100W lights with 50W lights (those cutting edge leds are not used in this particular product). 


Which one would you choose?


----------



## Sukram (Apr 24, 2013)

It's so big for me and dangerous, I don't even to image that someone from my family members could take this light and ...the conseduences would be unhappy. I prefer bright light but not too bright. It must help you. I have Armytek Predator 670 lumens and happy. It met all my needs and expectations.


----------



## xevious (Apr 24, 2013)

When the ban on incandescent bulbs was enacted, I was pretty pissed. Why? Because most home light fixture LED's have unnatural tints. Hopefully many advancements will be forthcoming on tint improvement. And with heat reduction as well, I could definitely see LED's being very suitable incandescent bulb replacements.

So there still is room for efficiency improvements... maybe not double what we've got right now, but enough to make it worthwhile. I don't mind the "lumens race", as it pushes the technology. Ultimately, the consumer demands will sway the direction of advancements.


----------



## alpg88 (Apr 24, 2013)

HistoryChannel said:


> You are LUCKY... Enjoy it!! Not so here in the USA.
> There are so many rules and laws I can't even drive the car I want to drive or hang a picture of the Octagon Ring girls above my desk at work because it might "offend" someone or own a 200mw laser. I wouldn't doubt that eventually there will be a limit on flashlight output here like lasers.
> 
> I am glad the new Fury 600lm appears to have no step down. That's progress!



lasers are not limited, importation of ready made laser pointers, above 5mw is, but as a part, (not ready to go out of the box) even 200mw is legal to import, and own. no one is gonna put you in jail for posesion of 200mw, or 5w lasers, as long as you don't burn ppl eyes, or shine it at the vehicles, aerial, or surfice. even than it would not be for posesion, but for an act.


----------



## alpg88 (Apr 24, 2013)

xevious said:


> When the ban on incandescent bulbs was enacted, I was pretty pissed. .



there is no ban, you are allowed to have any type or amount of inc. bulbs as you want. the production has been phased out in favor of more efficient bulbs. but not all, special bulbs (3way, reflecored, color, apliance, as well as bulbs over 100w) are still made. 

the same situation as with steam trains, manufacturers stopped building them in favor of diesels, and electric trains, but they are not banned.


----------



## xevious (Apr 24, 2013)

alpg88 said:


> there is no ban, you are allowed to have any type or amount of inc. bulbs as you want. the production has been phased out in favor of more efficient bulbs. but not all, special bulbs (3way, reflecored, color, apliance, as well as bulbs over 100w) are still made.


Let's not start nitpicking on terminology. The phase-out has "effectively banned" the use of light bulbs (read about it HERE).


Wikipedia said:


> Phase-out regulations effectively ban the manufacture, importation or sale of current incandescent light bulbs for general lighting. The regulations would allow sale of future versions of incandescent bulbs if they are sufficiently energy efficient.


So, this means it's extremely difficult (and costly) to obtain incandescents... But I'm hopeful home fixture LED's will achieve tints that may even be more usable and comfortable to the eyes than incandescent, i.e. like sunlight (Hi CRI).


----------



## idleprocess (Apr 24, 2013)

We have wandered a bit from the topic of this post. I will respond this last time on this particular subject unless someone wants to start another thread.



Esko said:


> That 4% (percentage point) efficiency bumb equals to 2-4 nuclear reactors in the US only. They are pretty expensive. Certainly it is beneficial for _someone_ to do the development.


Sure would ... if there were a truly unified electrical grid, consumption was otherwise flat, and we had fairly uniform uptake of the more efficient technology. But we don't have those and relative to far heavier loads like air conditioning, residential lighting is already on a path to shrink down nearly to the noise threshold. If we want to build fewer power plants in the future, there are far _far_ juicer targets than lighting.



> Development can't be stopped and efficiency will always be one of the targets, even if the priority goes down a bit.


I would also like to see LED get to the point that it uses less than 5% of the power of typical incandescent, but I just don't see the incentives from industry nor government to devote the resources to those ends unless the means are already within sight, already in the R&D pipeline, or are something that someone could do in their spare time without significant expense (I'm including people with access to semiconductor labs and understanding employers).



> Also, residences don't make very good examples since the illumination levels are low and ordinary people make irrational choices, or choices based on many other things than energy consumption. When I worked in an office, I had 440W of fluorescent tube light just for myself. In a single office room. At my university, I once counted the lights in a middle sized computer class. There were more than 30 fluorescent tubes (38W), which equals to more than 1kW of electricity consumption in a single room. A single road light is 400W (at ~100lm/w).


Commercial operations make choices based on things other than energy consumption as well. Witness how much people complain whenever the air temperature is a degree or two too off from what they consider optimal ... with the resultant drop in productivity that spreads to everyone around them. Then there's the dreaded subject of hated _change_ - even if it has no demonstrable side-effects, it is likely to be viewed with suspicion and hostility. People that are otherwise happy and productive working under a mishmash of ~75 CRI floro tubes might cry bloody murder when those are swapped out for 90 CRI LED simply because they know something changed.

At my employer - no champion of things _green_ not featuring dead presidents - they have installed occupancy sensors in all secondary-use rooms and the building maintenance folks routinely talk to floor managers about scheduling - and schedule lights to switch off in those areas an hour or so after the end of that group's working hours. I have noticed that these are being implemented all over the place, likely with immensely bigger bang for the buck than replacement of thousands of fixtures.

Of course, they leave thousands of desktop computers running 24/7, cool the building to the point that you can almost hang meat in the summer / heat it to the point that you could nearly dry fruit in the summer, and have ~40kW of metal halide outdoor lighting running ~12 hours a day ... which leads one to question the value of all that effort put into indoor lighting.



> You have 100 office rooms and you are considering new lights. There are some options.


Let's just look at case 2 since it's more interesting:



> Case 2:
> 
> Company A makes a product that can replace your 100W lights with 50W lights.
> Company B is known to make the most energy efficient leds in the markets (company image) and has a similar product that can replace your 100W lights with 47W lights
> Company B is known to make the most energy efficient leds in the markets (company image) and has a similar product that can replace your 100W lights with 50W lights (those cutting edge leds are not used in this particular product).


Simplistically speaking, you go from a baseline 10kW peak to 5kW peak or 4.7kW peak. Going with $0.10/kWH, Your baseline costs $1/hour to run, $2600 a year @ 10h * 5d * 52wk (10*5) or $8760 @ 24*7. The 50W option costs $0.50/hr to run and saves $1300 per year on the 10*5 schedule or $4380 per year on the 24/7 schedule. The 47W option costs $0.47/hr to run and _relative to the 50W option_ saves an additional $78 per year on the 10*5 schedule or $262.80 on the 24*7 schedule. There is presumably some routine maintenance involved with the non-LED option that involves both labor and materials that will appreciably affect the TCO that differ from the LED options.

For the 10*5 schedule, the 5 & 10 year spreads are $390 and $780 respectively. For the 24*7 schedule, 5 & 10 years spreads are $1,314 and $2,628. All other things being equal, the other costs of acquisition and ownership for the 47W option can't exceed the spread for a given schedule / planning horizon to be viable. A more sophisticated capital budgeting analysis would likely introduce some new wrinkles, but I'm no finance guy and don't want to relive that subject so soon after barely surviving a course in it... although a hasty PV() function with a 3% rate suggests the spreads shrink a little further.

Of course, the reality is often that companies choose the familiar option when evaluating fairly low-priority projects, only look at cost of acquisition, or simply extend the life of existing PP&E through increased operating costs simply to avoid the dreaded capital expense.


----------



## HistoryChannel (Apr 24, 2013)

alpg88 said:


> lasers are not limited, importation of ready made laser pointers, above 5mw is, but as a part, (not ready to go out of the box) even 200mw is legal to import, and own. no one is gonna put you in jail for posesion of 200mw, or 5w lasers, as long as you don't burn ppl eyes, or shine it at the vehicles, aerial, or surfice. even than it would not be for posesion, but for an act.



Some laws here are really really dumb. I know it's legal to own a laser pointer over 5mw, but a company can't import or sell them. So how do we get one to legally own??? Lol.


----------



## idleprocess (Apr 24, 2013)

HistoryChannel said:


> Some laws here are really really dumb. I know it's legal to own a laser pointer over 5mw, but a company can't import or sell them. So how do we get one to legally own??? Lol.



Build it yourself - possibly from some dubious "kit" - or modify one that doesn't raise the FDA's hackles.


----------



## HistoryChannel (Apr 24, 2013)

Handheld flashlight illuminates to 400 yards. Good thrower.

http://laserflashlight.com/


----------



## Esko (Apr 25, 2013)

Well, to cut the led manufacturer lumen race discussion shorter, I'll comment the last part only.



idleprocess said:


> Let's just look at case 2 since it's more interesting:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This is the way many companies would make the calculations, or at least how they should do it.

However, before those calculations can be done, one would have to decide the options. This was a bit of a trick question. If I knew that company B made the most efficient products, it would almost certainly be one of the options to consider. Not so sure about company A. After all, there are plenty of companies making led products.

Another thing is that having a premium product increase sales in lower cost solutions, too. It might be that the 47W product made me consider the company, but after some calculations and discussions, I choose the 50W option. The premium product also gives a taste of higher quality to the other product (which is better, the cheapest $35000 Mercedes or a $35000 Toyota?). Why not choose the same efficiency product from company A? Well, why not, if it is clearly cheaper. It would have to cut its margins.



idleprocess said:


> Of course, the reality is often that companies choose the familiar option when evaluating fairly low-priority projects, only look at cost of acquisition, or simply extend the life of existing PP&E through increased operating costs simply to avoid the dreaded capital expense.



True, which is also a reason for a company to take care of it's image. Efficiency is sexy and easy to understand for ordinary customers. And unlike some other image factors, better efficiency do make the products better.


----------



## SeriouslyFlashlights (Apr 25, 2013)

Jash said:


> There is no such thing as too much light. All other opinions are invalid.



Agreed.


----------



## ledmitter_nli (Apr 26, 2013)

Man. Having just witnessed a rather smallish 5"X1" pocket-able light like the SureFire C2 dishing out 3,000 lumens with an MT-G2 dropin...

I haven't looked at my other lights the same way. They feel so trite.  The only other drop-in that feels somewhat as substantial would be the 5.6A Kerberos quad XP-G2.

Fun times.


----------



## kaichu dento (Apr 26, 2013)

TEEJ said:


> If you SEE a bear, you might want to SPRINT to the nearest tree to escape it...DESPITE the fact that you can only SPRINT for maybe a 100 - 200 yards or so, before you'd need to slow down and catch your breath. You might appreciate a burst of extra speed when needed, despite not being able to maintain it for miles.


This attitude is a dangerous precedent constantly enforced in the mind of the public by portrayals in movies of actors successfully escaping from charging bears. If it's too close to outrun a dog, you're not going to outrun the bear either.



Jash said:


> Yep, but I'll settle for 1,000 otf lumens for six hours from a single AA.


Give it a great beam pattern, form factor and UI too - I want several.



langham said:


> ... I am just saying that my custom light is ridiculous and almost impossible to use without offending people.
> Accidentally shining that sort of light at someone is not simply an apology, it is terrible as I have been on the receiving end of it almost every time I let someone see it. People don't realize how bright it is...


This is one of the most annoying aspects of ever brighter lights, that the users don't use due care in controlling the power in their hands. I have the most powerful lights at work, and yet am one of the only ones who never shines it in others eyes. 
So many will just walk up to you with a headlamp on in the dark and keep talking to you without turning off, down or diverting the light until asked to.



Esko said:


> Except that if you see a bear, you definitely DON'T want to sprint and DON'T want to climb to tree. Bears run faster than you, and they are better climbers than you. Acting like a prey (a slow and easy one) would not be very wise.


+1 Grizzlies, brownies and polar bears are no climbers, but black bears are usually the ones that would be encountered in tree territory, and they can climb way faster than we can.



subwoofer said:


> I think this photo illustrates that lights are getting too bright.


That's a great thrower, but I notice that the white light coming from the flashlight seems to have picked up some tint on the way out.


----------



## Freax (Apr 26, 2013)

I think flashlights higher than 1000 lumens need locking switches where the keys are kept out of the hands of kids.
But
AT least consider putting your high powered incan in a locked aluminium box wrapped in a flame blanket, it'll keep it safe and you safe too.

A flashlight this powerful is just as dangerous as a packet of matches or a Bic lighter.

Imagine what one can do if its left to roll around in a car and is accidentally turned on, no more car..


----------



## ledmitter_nli (Apr 26, 2013)

Actually. You know after *seeing* 3,000 lumens from a pocket torch realized (MT-G2) I wanted to decide between it or the quad XP-G2. Which is more ideal in a pocket torch setting... The lumen availability is there for each and for what I realistically need to accomplish. So how many lumens is enough?

'Realistically' means general out-and-about. At night. Nothing "tacticool" or Search and Rescue. I've got other lights that do it better. Just general chores. So I mostly use custom P60 dropins in a SureFire C2. Since its dimensions are 5"x1.25" a cost has to be paid for this size. Specifically throw capability, heat and runtime. If the light is tearing itself apart because you're trying to throw far then you know it's the wrong tool. The head room is small, the math isn't there. I prefer a wall of light that's a bit more structured than an open mule. Like a smooth wide spotlight that's more targeted. The P60 format with a big MT-G2 or a quad emitter optic sets this up perfectly. So for practical suitability, if objects in my near-to field of vision seem overexposed using this spotlight, then it's too bright.

- If it's outputting a given set of lumens, and it's a hotspot issue, then it needs to be floodier.
- If it's outputting a given set of lumens, and it's not a hotspot issue, then the light is too bright.

I characterize "near-to" as being the trunk of a car, lighting a few yards up the walkway or looking at the ground several paces ahead. 3,000 lumens is admittingly overkill for a spotlight beam profile meant for near-by general use. It is *too* bright. Since drive conditions are significantly affecting heat management and runtime at 3,000 lumens, the practical limits for each can be improved by bringing the excessive output down. For me it's simply a choice - get an MT-G2 dropin that will probably be less lumens once a driver is found to run it stably (I predict around 2,000 - 2,500 lumens max) or stick with the quad XP-G2 (1,700 lumens) or even the quad Nichia 219 (1,200 lumens).

It's like creating a new gaming character with 3 attributes: Strength, Endurance, Health. You have 4000 lumen points to distribute between each of them. Where does it all go?

Quad XP-G2
2000 Strength
1000 Endurance
1000 Health

MT-G2
3000 Strength
500 Endurance
500 Health

Who makes the better all around warrior? 


--
Sent via Fax.


----------



## AFKAN (Apr 26, 2013)

I'm not sure the problem has anything to do with the lumen count. Most of us would no doubt enjoy 5000+ lumens in a small set up, but the major factor for me is that the heat and power management simply hasn't advanced anywhere near as quickly. What's the point of a huge output if it steps down to half after 20 seconds or gets so hot you need asbestos gloves just to hold it???


----------



## MikeSalt (Apr 26, 2013)

I have given up on the LED lumen race. I would much rather spend my money less frequently but on nice tools than more frequently on cheaper high-lumen gear. In fact, a lot of my high-lumen stuff has been given away because it was superceded and not really special enough to warrant keeping.


----------



## sticktodrum (Apr 26, 2013)

ledmitter_nli said:


> It's like creating a new gaming character with 3 attributes: Strength, Endurance, Health. You have 4000 lumen points to distribute between each of them. Where does it all go?
> 
> Quad XP-G2
> 2000 Strength
> ...



That is epic. I'm totally taking that.


----------



## the_guy_with_no_name (Apr 26, 2013)

To me at least, more lumens can be very functional outdoors, camping, climbing.

When I'm trying to optimize every last gram/ounce to keep things light, being able to squeeze more lumens out of a tiny package is a huge plus.

80% of the time, less lumens (eg. low modes) are usually more than enough but having a lumen pump handy 24/7 when needed is where its at for me.

I should confess that like most, I do like a mega-lumen monster, just for the pleasure of wielding such power every now and again.

Tgwnn


----------



## langham (Apr 27, 2013)

There are some genius flashlight modders and designers on here, I may be one of them :shakehead, but the point is... Has anyone calculated the absolute maximum thermal properties of a realistic flashlight? 

That means calculating surface temperature of the outside of the light with relation to worst case ambient temperature, meaning that the outside of the light can not exceed 120F during steady state operation (or if prefered it could exceed that value, but a thermal barrier would have to be used for the handle so that the light could be held without burning the user. The total weight kept to a reasonable level, and with the theoretical maximum efficiency of an led in mind. Then you would have to imagine that the heat-sink (whole body of the light) would be made of pure copper (the most practicle good thermal metal or even gold or space diamond assuming that price isn't an option) and take into account the maximum Tj of the led and the best possible thermal transfer rate of the led, and that it would then be directly thermally mounted to the led (therefore eliminating Al). I will not account for led photon energy absorption through the lens, unless someone can come up with a realistic figure that would need to be added in. I will use 250 lm/W as the maximum ( I am not interested in green light).

I will do this on my next off days if nobody has done it yet, I guess it would be nice to know when to stop. I will probably start with an aluminum body and have 2 catagories, 1 for super lights, and one for EDC. Each will get a realistic surface area including heat discipation fins (ie: no rediculous ultimate surface area like that of activated carbon) and air would not be able to interact with that entire surface area anyway. This will allow for a more realistic look at where we are now with flashlights vs. where we ever will be. 

I think that eventually we are going to have to go away from our pretty anodized coatings and just have our raw material with a stable well built general corrosion layer which will also have to be accounted for. Do any of you have a degree in therm-dynamics? I may have bitten off more than I could chew with this one now that I think of it, especially when I think of small factors like air movement and humidity, but I will do my best. It has been a while since I had to do an equation like this and then it was not with air, but fast flowing and mildly boiling water/steam, but it should be the same.


----------



## kaichu dento (Apr 27, 2013)

AFKAN said:


> I'm not sure the problem has anything to do with the lumen count. Most of us would no doubt enjoy 5000+ lumens in a small set up, but the major factor for me is that the heat and power management simply hasn't advanced anywhere near as quickly. What's the point of a huge output if it steps down to half after 20 seconds or gets so hot you need asbestos gloves just to hold it???


This is very similar to a conversation another member and I were having just yesterday. 

I guess the figure I mentioned was 2000 lumens, but only if it was still within a compact 1xcell light that was very controllable, had at least a couple hours runtime on the highest setting, and wouldn't get too hot.


----------



## Rexlion (Apr 27, 2013)

I get a chuckle every time I see this topic name. "Too bright"? *Heretical! *:nana:


----------



## BirdofPrey (Apr 28, 2013)

subwoofer said:


> In motorcycling, the Hayabusa was the point that the manufacturers saw sense and a faster bike was not sensible. Still someone fitted it with a turbo:



As someone who owned a Busa for years, I can attest to it's power. It is actually where my username came from. 

Something to note though. The manufacturers didn't see faster as not sensible, European governments stepped in and said "self regulate or we'll regulate." 

With that, the big 4 made a gentleman's agreement to stay at or below 300Km/Hr (186mph).

Back on topic, I have to say I love the battle for "top dog". My wife and wallet do not. 

While some on here will argue vehemently that only low lumen is worthwhile, I rarely use anything but the lowest settings (on occasion) and the brightest setting on nearly every light I own. 

I've seen posters here get outright mad about anyone countering their argument for super low lumens all the time especially if out doors because it kills night vision. 

I work 12 hour shifts. 6p-6a. This essentially makes me a vampire in day to day life. I often hike at night. If I were worried about my night vision, I'd just hike with the light off. When I hike, I'm generally blasting 500 to 2300 lumens down the narrow trails. 

Why? Because I can, that's why. 

When it comes to lumens, I say bring it on. 


Sent from my Transformer TF101 using Tapatalk HD


----------



## kaichu dento (Apr 29, 2013)

BirdofPrey said:


> While some on here will argue vehemently that only low lumen is worthwhile, I rarely use anything but the lowest settings (on occasion) and the brightest setting on nearly every light I own.
> 
> I've seen posters here get outright mad about anyone countering their argument for super low lumens all the time especially if out doors because it kills night vision.
> 
> When it comes to lumens, I say bring it on.


I'm a fan of having ultra-low capability and have not seen the type of posts you refer to but with the antagonists on the other side suggesting there is something useless in the lower levels that many of us find great use for, it gets old.

Let's stay on the subject of the thread here and I'll register once again as saying that the higher output I can have, as long as it doesn't get hot enough to risk my emitter or drain my batteries too quickly is very, very welcome.

My two favorite lights for some time now have been my modded V10R Ti and Nichia 119 Haiku, bot of which I'm pretty happy with at night, but when using them for daytime searches in shelves and sheds is when I most like the idea of an output level closer to what I get with my 500+ lumen TC-R1.

When it comes to lumens, definitely bring it on, coupled with an interface that allows us to access them when necessary.


----------



## ledmitter_nli (May 10, 2013)

kaichu dento said:


> This is very similar to a conversation another member and I were having just yesterday.
> 
> I guess the figure I mentioned was 2000 lumens, but only if it was still within a compact 1xcell light that was very controllable, had at least a couple hours runtime on the highest setting, and wouldn't get too hot.



With a quad XP-G2 P60 drop-in on its way I was thinking around 1,700 - 2,000 lumens as well.

If the quad 219 was pushing the same lumen and efficiency values as the XP-G2's I probably would have found my grail light (at least for the time being). 

The lumens race needs to account for our eyes ability to _adapt _to perceived brightness levels relative to ambient lighting. Point a 1,700 lumen short-range (defined as ~5 yards out) floody light towards the ground and the output would look powerless in mid-day ambiance. Our eye sensitivity has already adjusted (adapted) downward, so the adapted effect minimizes what 1,700 lumens _could _look like in otherwise pitch darkness. This is *duh* kind of stuff, but look at it considering how it applies to flashlights, 1,700 - 2,000 floody lumens in pitch darkness will more than adequately suit short range use without overexposing our eyes to a substantial detriment. Start increasing short range output and your eyes will adapt more. Things that where slightly illuminated in the distance will appear less visible from all that collateral over exposure in front of you. You'll need to start throwing that light instead. Then it becomes a discussion of beam patterns.

I also notice with power users, me included, there's a lot of one size fits all thinking behind our purchases. If we want more than 2,000 lumens to blot everything in front of us, then we'll have to sacrifice runtime, and for what? To make everything look white?  Or should we admit we like overkill, because what's really needed is a better tool - like a thrower. Unless the beam pattern can be adjusted, a different light will improve runtime and heat issues, and suit the lighting purposes better.


----------



## kaichu dento (May 10, 2013)

ledmitter_nli said:


> The lumens race needs to account for our eyes ability to _adapt _to perceived brightness levels relative to ambient lighting.
> 
> ...Then it becomes a discussion of beam patterns.


+1
It's generally during the day that I find myself wishing for more output as I grow accustomed to being able to light up items on shelves in semi-dark sheds with sunlight nearby, where all it can do is keep your pupils down to the size of mechanical pencil lead while you try in vain to see what you're looking for.

It's so nice that now reflector technology and balance has become so advanced that we're almost assured decent beam patterns anymore, not the way it was just a few years ago.


----------



## CarpentryHero (May 10, 2013)

Rexlion said:


> I get a chuckle every time I see this topic name. "Too bright"? *Heretical! *:nana:




Exactly,its blasphemy  

if the light is to bright your to old :naughty: or is it if the music is too loud then your too old? I can't remember 

craft disease (Can't Remember A Freaken Thing)


----------



## reppans (May 10, 2013)

As indicated above, the human eye is amazingly adaptable - in direct sunlight I can shine 500 lumens into the palm of my hand and barely see it, yet waking from sleep 0.5 lumens can be painfully blinding. Given enough time, my eyes can adjust to either level for many tasks I use my lights for... the difference is few hundred trips to the battery charger. 

For serious distance and large area lighting, there is no substitute for sheer lumen power, of course, but those purposes tend to be much more optional for me. 

That said, I think the lumens arms race is a great thing... it's what drives all the performance and efficiency gains, flashlights and batteries, for us all.


----------



## kaichu dento (May 11, 2013)

reppans said:


> As indicated above, the human eye is amazingly adaptable - in direct sunlight I can shine 500 lumens into the palm of my hand and barely see it, yet waking from sleep 0.5 lumens can be painfully blinding. Given enough time, my eyes can adjust to either level for many tasks I use my lights for... the difference is few hundred trips to the battery charger.
> 
> For serious distance and large area lighting, there is no substitute for sheer lumen power, of course, but those purposes tend to be much more optional for me.


Great post and you brought up something I've thought about a lot when checking out the greenhouse on a different plane - 18,000 watts of lighting is blinding in the winter time, but leave the lights on, bring out the sun and you can't even tell if they're on or off.

I'll never say no to more power, as long as I can control it.



> That said, I think the lumens arms race is a great thing... it's what drives all the performance and efficiency gains, flashlights and batteries, for us all.


Amen brother. lovecpf


----------



## ledmitter_nli (May 11, 2013)

It's too bad a lot of the lumens arms race is mostly light manufactures repackaging the same LED's and changing the switches around.

They exist mostly at the behest of CREE Incorporated and the latest data sheet.


----------



## 270winchester (May 11, 2013)

Patriot said:


> Well, if they are getting too bright (a notion that I'll never subscribe too) it happened over 7 years ago. That's when the Mac's Torch with 64623 was first introduced.



Before there was Mac's light there was Ginseng and a bunch of other people who were playing with the projector bulbs. After I heard about heir work, I built a couple with 14.4v RC Car packs from CBPs and it was really fun.

I think ginseng took a leave from CPF, I hope he comes back and hangs out here again.

62138, now that was a temperamental bulb, but boy is the beam beautiful from that axial filament....

edit: oh snap, I think he is back on here again. Woo.


----------



## BeastFlashlight (May 18, 2013)

This thread is about 20 years too early flashlights are not too powerful they are not powerful enough. I'm still waiting for my Deft-X to ship and I'm already anticipating how much it will improve by the next model


----------



## HistoryChannel (May 18, 2013)

I guess I should have stated it better. Is 2000 lumens useful if it steps down and overheats in 30 seconds. Would you rather have 600 Lumens for 2 hours or 1000 lumens for 3 min and steps down to 400? How about 3500 lumens for 5 seconds before stepping down to 500 lumens. 

I would be more interested in a jump in battery technology and more efficiency. An E2e size 1000 lumen Li-Ion flashlight running 2 hours continuos without overheating would be a jump in technology. Not mega lumens for 3 min before overheating.


----------



## Showmethelight (May 18, 2013)

Yawn, the fenix e01 is number four on this years poll of best lights for 2013, 10 lumens.


----------



## HistoryChannel (May 18, 2013)

I think my wax candle lantern puts out 10 lumens. Double yawn. Lol


----------



## Showmethelight (May 18, 2013)

HistoryChannel said:


> I think my wax candle lantern puts out 10 lumens. Double yawn. Lol


Online hi five


----------



## BeastFlashlight (May 18, 2013)

HistoryChannel said:


> I guess I should have stated it better. Is 2000 lumens useful if it steps down and overheats in 30 seconds. Would you rather have 600 Lumens for 2 hours or 1000 lumens for 3 min and steps down to 400?


It depends, is it an output desired for 90 minutes straight or is it a 'Burst mode' situation output? I got a 1 mode mod that is a super floody regulated 3,200 lumens light and will run for about 17 minutes straight before reaching critical heat level. Very heavy heat sink! I agree with you I hate step down BUT i will admit I prob don't see myself taking a 90 minute walk with 3,200 lumens on. Now I would use a smaller light the rest of the 90 minutes, like Fenix PD32UE for instance. Here's where your point is totally correct, PD32's 740 lumen rating is now a FAKE rating because it's short term output for a situation where u would prefer to have the output long term. Fenix RC40 on the other hand I don't mind limited term 3,600 lumens because do I really need that 3,600 long term?

Having said that I still think all burst modes should at least be 5 minutes


----------



## jorn (May 19, 2013)

Many of the cheap lumen monsters are only nice in high mode. Medium mode says: wooooooooooo, lo mode says: weeeeeeeeeeee. (loud induction noice and super slow pwm riuns every other mode). So you end up using only one bright mode on the hyped up pice of crap.... Too many lights are made cheap to sell fast for good profit, and are not designed to be a great tool.
I dont think the lumen mosters are any good out in the bush/camping. Too big for my backpack, and a small light does the job just fine. 
I wont use it as a edc  So it usually ends up in a drawer.. I dont think of them as a useful tool, more like a fun toy to satisfy my flasoholism  Im more into finding useful lights with great build quaity that fits my needs. And i still dont know what i really need 2000++ lumens for. If we got two cars. A slow toyota yaris, and a 2000 hp dragster. I bet we all would use the yaris for shopping (and other useful stuff), and the gas drinking dragster for fun on the strip. 
I dont think it's getting out of hand as long as there is a fun factor with the lumen mosnters. But i dont think the "sum of all compromises" makes them a useful tool.


----------



## HistoryChannel (May 20, 2013)

There are uses for crazy output flashlights, Search and Rescue for one I suppose. But when SAR teams are searching overnight in pitch dark woods... 3 min on turbo wouldn't cut it.

I wouldn't consider 3200 lumens for 5 min any significant advancement in lighting technology. Useful? Maybe. Fun? Maybe. 

When do we need, not want or useful but need (life or death) 1000+ lumens? When is the last time someone was stranded and the SOS feature saved their life where constant didn't work? Or Stobe was needed for the casual user (needed as in using constant over strobe would have significantly increased the chance of grave bodily harm or death)? 

The choice is great to have however. And I'm glad for the advancements, as slow as it may be. We are far better off than the Maglite days of the 80's. but it's taken decades to get to 600 lumens constant? Its rather moving at a slow pace. In just a few years, Apple transformed the basic feature phone into the iPhone 5.


----------



## rmteo (May 20, 2013)

HistoryChannel said:


> ...When is the last time someone was stranded and the SOS feature saved their life where constant didn't work? Or Stobe was needed for the casual user (needed as in using constant over strobe would have significantly increased the chance of grave bodily harm or death)?


http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?361974-CPF-Helps-Save-a-Life


----------



## HistoryChannel (May 23, 2013)

That's an awesome story! Dang! 

But it still proves my point. He count have probably just flashed the light himself or just used constant instead of strobe. I like having strobe but its not really a necessity. We did fine years ago before the strobe craze. 

I've used strobe to signal friends at a park or concert before. It's useful but it's not a "need".


----------



## whill44 (May 23, 2013)

HistoryChannel said:


> I think my wax candle lantern puts out 10 lumens. Double yawn. Lol



Come on guy's, it's not always about what you own. For most people it's what you have on you when you need it that counts. For myself I'm always going to have a small pocket light on me.


----------



## bluemax_1 (May 23, 2013)

HistoryChannel said:


> That's an awesome story! Dang!
> 
> But it still proves my point. He count have probably just flashed the light himself or just used constant instead of strobe. I like having strobe but its not really a necessity. We did fine years ago before the strobe craze.
> 
> I've used strobe to signal friends at a park or concert before. It's useful but it's not a "need".


http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?356772-Police-Study-of-tactical-use-of-Strobe

Need is very subjective.

Some folks need a light with quick access to strobe and use it fairly often, where many folks may never NEED it. Likewise, many folks claim that their EDC lights NEED a sub lumen mode where there are hardly ANY LEO's who have much if any use for it in a duty light.

Too many lumens? Nahh...

It's like the folks claiming that unless you have a HUGE family, you never need more than a 4-seater vehicle with more than 100 HP since you can't legally drive faster than 70mph in the US, and the harder you accelerate, the more gas you waste. There are folks that need bigger vehicles that can haul greater loads, and there are instances when the ability to accelerate faster than someone in an electric wheelchair could save your butt.

A single mode 1000+ light has limited usability, but aside from HIDs, virtually all the LED lights these days have multiple modes. If I can have a single cell 6" flashlight that has a max mode that will pump out 5000 lumens for 60 minutes or more, as well as lower modes, I'm all for it. Will I use the 5000 lumen mode all the time? No, but it would be handy to have it if I DO need it. I don't mash the throttle to the floor all the time in my 300+HP vehicles either, but it's nice to have when I want it.


Max


----------



## Romo Lampkin's Cat (May 23, 2013)

langham said:


> There are some genius flashlight modders and designers on here, I may be one of them :shakehead, but the point is... Has anyone calculated the absolute maximum thermal properties of a realistic flashlight?



We can simplify your question to "Has anyone calculated the amount of heat that can be removed from the surface of a flashlight?" But from an engineering standpoint, this question is unanswerable because of the numerous variables that defy a single solution.



langham said:


> That means calculating surface temperature of the outside of the light with relation to worst case ambient temperature,



No, it means *assuming* a whole bunch of factors necessary to model the heat transfer to be computed, some of which include:

- The total surface area of the light.
- The surface are of the light exposed to air.
- The surface area of the light exposed to the hand that holds it. Heat transfer where the hand contacts the light will be conductive (either from the light into the hand or from the hand into the light); heat transfer where the surface of the light is exposed to air is likely to be convective.
- The temperature across finite areas of the light. No flashlight experiences a constant temperature over its surface.
- The ambient air temperature.
- The velocity of the air over the surface of the light. The smallest of air movement can have a massive effect upon the heat transfer rate. See some of the detailed flashlight reviews on this site to understand how blowing a fan over a flashlight can allow it to run at a higher power level for a longer period.

Your question was if the heat transfer rate from a light can be computed. The theoretical answer is "yes." The practical answer depends upon "How do you want to model the problem?" and that's when hundreds or thousands or more possibilities come into play. This is what engineers are trained to do: model a problem and then craft a solution for the model. Correct modeling is critical.

All of this suggests another question: Do flashlight manufacturer's compute the heat transfer rate off of their lights? Of course we don't know since none of us work for a flashlight manufacturer, but I've got a fiver that'll get you 10 that the answer is "not really". What a flashlight maker is really concerned with is how hot the emitter and electronics get. This they probably measure, perhaps even inside of prototype lights, and their mitigation strategies seem to be dominated by regulation of some sort. Sometimes the regulation is based solely on time; sometimes it's based on actual temperature. But they don't really care about the total heat transfer rate of the light because the costly engineering required to sell a commodity light would not be profitable. There are lights for which such considerations are important, of course, but these are not the kinds of lights most of us can afford. I say all suggest that computing the heat transfer rate off of a light might be an interesting academic exercise, but I don't see much real-world application because light design is unlikely to focus on maximizing heat transfer rates.




langham said:


> meaning that the outside of the light can not exceed 120F during steady state operation



Why pick 120F? My SC600 Mk II can be 150F after five minutes on turbo. I can hold something in my hand up to about 145F; after that, my hold times decrease dramatically. Plus, we have the same details here that I just discussed. 120F *where* on the light? Why must the light be all the same temperature? Why can it not be well over 120F so long as my hand doesn't touch there?



langham said:


> or if prefered it could exceed that value, but a thermal barrier would have to be used for the handle so that the light could be held without burning the user.



A thermal barrier will decrease the heat transfer rate and worsens the problem. A handle, however, is a good idea if you want to maximize the area of the light's body exposed to air. It might make it more expensive and reduce ease of carry, however. These tradeoffs are probably not acceptable for commodity lights.



langham said:


> Then you would have to imagine that the heat-sink (whole body of the light) would be made of pure copper



Well now wait! Heat sinks are accumulators of heat that cannot immediately be dumped from the device that requires the sink. Heat sinks are not part of the steady-state operation of the light and not useful for computing the steady-state heat transfer rate into or out of the light, which is the purpose of your exercise.



langham said:


> I will do this on my next off days if nobody has done it yet, I guess it would be nice to know when to stop.



A far more difficult issue is knowing where to START, not stop. The outcome of your computation will greatly depend upon how you model the problem. And I emphasize "greatly".



langham said:


> Each will get a realistic surface area including heat discipation fins (ie: no rediculous ultimate surface area like that of activated carbon) and air would not be able to interact with that entire surface area anyway.



Fins are one of the most cost-effective ways to increase convective heat transfer rates. Entire textbooks have been authored on heat transfer and entire chapters are devoted to fins and convection.



langham said:


> I think that eventually we are going to have to go away from our pretty anodized coatings and just have our raw material with a stable well built general corrosion layer which will also have to be accounted for.



Why? Do you have evidence that anodization acts as an insulator?



langham said:


> Do any of you have a degree in therm-dynamics?



Thermodynamics is a field of study usually required of all people pursuing degrees in mechanical engineering (at least in the U.S.) and is an interdisciplinary fundamental studied even by people pursuing degrees in electrical engineering. During the course of getting a degree in mechanical engineering, one may choose to take technical electives specifically in heat transfer. Now, how would I know that? 

There are graduate programs that focus on areas for which heat transfer is a dominant or significant contributor. Most of us stop(ped) before we got that far. 



langham said:


> I may have bitten off more than I could chew with this one now that I think of it, especially when I think of small factors like air movement and humidity, but I will do my best. It has been a while since I had to do an equation like this and then it was not with air, but fast flowing and mildly boiling water/steam, but it should be the same.



Mmmmmmmm...probably not. But I will eagerly cheer on the effort!


----------



## CKOD (May 23, 2013)

Fireclaw18 said:


> I think a lot of it also depends on what kind of light you have. My understanding is an incandescent light emits a lot of IR light out the front. Hence the Wickedlaser torch burning things. An LED light emits far less IR out the front, but does create a lot of heat that is radiated backwards into the body of the light.... hence the solid aluminum body.
> 
> I'd think the biggest risk of a 2000 lm LED flashlight turning on accidentally in your pocket could be the flashlight body heating up too fast, so it wouldn't matter which direction it is pointing.


Put your finger in front of an XPG or XML being driven at full power (not touching it, just a few mm in front of it) and get back to me on how optical heating isnt an issue because LEDs dont emit any IR.


----------



## idleprocess (May 23, 2013)

Fireclaw18 said:


> An LED light emits far less IR out the front, but does create a lot of heat that is radiated backwards into the body of the light.... hence the solid aluminum body.


A visible-light LED emits pretty much zero IR. As others have eluded to, visible light absorbed by a surface ultimately becomes heat, but this is a minute fraction of the heat that a LED flashlight generates. The LED itself generates heat due to inefficiencies within the diode, which is why power LED's must be mated to some thermal medium (usually a heatsink in the form of the metal flashlight body) that conducts the heat away directly or at least greatly slows the temperature increase at the LED junction. As LED's become more efficient (more lumens for the same power), direct heat generation drops; along with greater heat tolerance, heatsinking requirements will begin to drop considerably to the point that a modest heat spreader may soon be all that's required for most applications.


----------



## idleprocess (May 23, 2013)

Romo Lampkin's Cat said:


> Why pick 120F? My SC600 Mk II can be 150F after five minutes on turbo. I can hold something in my hand up to about 145F; after that, my hold times decrease dramatically. Plus, we have the same details here that I just discussed. 120F *where* on the light? Why must the light be all the same temperature? Why can it not be well over 120F so long as my hand doesn't touch there?



Now that I have a modest IR thermometer, I need to run my old 3x Lux III magmod to see just how hot it gets - I recall the head being impossible to grasp after about 10 minutes of continuous operation. Funny how ~200 lumens from a 2D maglite simply doesn't impress like it used to...


----------



## alpg88 (May 24, 2013)

well, the way i see it, if few thousands lummens means things are geting out of hands, may be the hands are not up to the task.


by that logic, what is the purpose of 500hp in a corvette, or 700hp in amg s65. you only use some of them to move around for the 99% of times, and you can't run the engines for hours at FT anyway.


----------



## idleprocess (May 24, 2013)

alpg88 said:


> by that logic, what is the purpose of 500hp in a corvette, or 700hp in amg s65. you only use some of them to move around for the 99% of times, and you can't run the engines for hours at FT anyway.



Even if they don't tear themselves apart, they'll quickly exhaust their fuel running all-out. A good analogy to whatever the cool kids are calling "pocket rockets" these days ... nice to be able to burst occasionally, but usually doing more mundane things.


----------



## Curious_character (May 24, 2013)

idleprocess said:


> Now that I have a modest IR thermometer, I need to run my old 3x Lux III magmod to see just how hot it gets - I recall the head being impossible to grasp after about 10 minutes of continuous operation. Funny how ~200 lumens from a 2D maglite simply doesn't impress like it used to...


 According to Maglite (see http://www.maglite.com/flashlight_performance.asp), the 2D incandescent Maglite has a 19 lumen bulb. How much of that gets out the front, I don't know, but surely not all.

c_c


----------



## idleprocess (May 24, 2013)

Curious_character said:


> According to Maglite (see http://www.maglite.com/flashlight_performance.asp), the 2D incandescent Maglite has a 19 lumen bulb. How much of that gets out the front, I don't know, but surely not all.
> 
> c_c



Was thinking modified maglites (or similar-sized lights) - suspect there are some 2D-sized maglites doing 800+ lumens with the same power.


----------



## Curious_character (May 25, 2013)

idleprocess said:


> Was thinking modified maglites (or similar-sized lights) - suspect there are some 2D-sized maglites doing 800+ lumens with the same power.


As I recall, the 2D bulb was 750 mA at 2.8 volts nominal, which is 2.1 watts. With today's LEDs you could get a maximum of around 300 lumens for that power. But it won't be long before that number gets bigger.

c_c


----------



## HistoryChannel (May 26, 2013)

alpg88 said:


> well, the way i see it, if few thousands lummens means things are geting out of hands, may be the hands are not up to the task.
> 
> 
> by that logic, what is the purpose of 500hp in a corvette, or 700hp in amg s65. you only use some of them to move around for the 99% of times, and you can't run the engines for hours at FT anyway.



Well the comparison would be a Corvette outputting 500hp for 3 min before overheating and power goes down to 180 hp to cool down. That would kinda be a bummer going up a mountain. Lol. Not gonna comment on an AMG because to find one that's running in itself is amazing. It spends most of its life in the shop.

Would it be acceptable with your current car where it provides full output for 3 min before stepping down to a 1/4 of the HP? Yet we are content with flashlights doing it. 

I still think higher lumens isn't the advancement we need right now. LED efficiency and battery improvements would be more exciting.


----------



## alpg88 (May 28, 2013)

HistoryChannel said:


> I still think higher lumens isn't the advancement we need right now. LED efficiency and battery improvements would be more exciting.


You making it sound like due to lumen race led efficiency and battery improvements are forgotten, or abandoned. They are not.

Batteries develop\improve independently of flashlights, led efficiency is something led maker’s research all the time, again independently from flashlight makers. Their biggest market concern is not flashlights at all. 

Not to mention lumens rating is not advancement at all, there was always lumen race, even before leds came around, high power, overdriven halogens come tomind.

also you fail to see that high lumen rating of modern leds turns into very efficient leds driven at low current, xml2 is a great example, it can make 1000lm, from only 10watts, but driven at as little as 100ma, is brighter than any other led driven at 100ma, there was a thread here somewhere, where xml2 lm\ma was measured.

So high lumen numbers are not result of independent advancement, but a consequence of led efficancy\battery development. 
But if you look at it backwards, I can see why you seeing a problem where there isn't any.


----------



## HistoryChannel (May 28, 2013)

True that the lumens race always existed. But now they are pushing the output past the heat dissipation capacity of the flashlight design. And I'm saying flashlight technology (batteries included) in general is moving at a snails pace. 

Flashlights are so bright it gets too hot to run continuously. And we are still stuck on NiMH batteries (mainstream) at 2700 mAh? That's ridiculous after 20 years! When did NiMH make its debut as the next greatest thing since NiCad? How long has Alkaline been sitting still? There is no incentive for Energizer or Duracell to make better batteries. It's sad but if they make a huge leap in rechargeable technology, they would sell far less Alkaline losing massive profits. I'm sure there are not devoting a whole lot of resources in that department. Lol. 

Technology moves at the pace of profit and demand. We can totally be an oil free nation. But there is no profit in that as of right now and no demand to do so. If there was demand for better flashlights, we would be much more ahead of where we are now. I've said this before, and it's hard to believe because we tend to stay around people with similar interests (like this forum), that the vast majority of the public could care less when the new XM-L2 U2 flashlights were released. We, on this and other flashlight forums rejoiced in the thousands while the billions around the world were oblivious. 

Companies chase profit and demand, technology moves at a relative pace to those two factors. A when I say lumens race getting out if hand, I mean companies are pushing their products past their capacity to handle it. It would be like putting a 600 HP Ferrari engine in a Honda Civic. There is a mismatch and something would break. 740 lumens in a flashlight that can handle 400, something has to give. And it does... After 3 min or so the light says nope... Too hot.... Self destruct immanent.... Step down please.


----------



## ledmitter_nli (May 28, 2013)

^^^ You can always red line the engine in a sports car, but it doesn't mean you should.


----------



## alpg88 (May 28, 2013)

we are well into li ion batterys now, forget about nimh, that is old school, still used but it is far from new stuff we have available.
just don't run your light at 2000lm if it gets hot too fast, run it at 200lm (and it is possible), and you will have great efficiancy, and long runtime. and no heat problems.


if you have 3 bottles of vodka in front of you it does not mean you have to drink all of them right now.


----------



## dmevis (May 28, 2013)

Well I am of the opinion that flashlights are WAY TOO focused on Lumens and Reach. 

If flashlights had more power "settings" it would be different, but most of them have only 2 to 5 output levels, and they seem to focus on the ends of the power spectrum. 

And regarding Reach, I don't need to see 300 yards away while tripping over the rock I can't see 5 feet in front of me as a result of the pencil beam.


----------



## HistoryChannel (May 28, 2013)

alpg88 said:


> we are well into li ion batterys now, forget about nimh, that is old school, still used but it is far from new stuff we have available.
> just don't run your light at 2000lm if it gets hot too fast, run it at 200lm (and it is possible), and you will have great efficiancy, and long runtime. and no heat problems.
> 
> 
> if you have 3 bottles of vodka in front of you it does not mean you have to drink all of them right now.



So Li ion batteries are mainstream in Targets and Walmarts and available everywhere? Nope, it's still Alkaline and NiMH. You are talking about a small minority of us here on the forum and flashlight junkies that have moved on to Lithium and Li Ions. The average soccer mom shopping for batteries at the grocery store looks at 2 choices, Alkaline and NiMH. 

We can't run out 2000lm light because it gets too hot. That's my point. The brightness has far surpassed efficiency and heat dissipation technologies.


----------



## idleprocess (May 28, 2013)

HistoryChannel said:


> True that the lumens race always existed. But now they are pushing the output past the heat dissipation capacity of the flashlight design. And I'm saying flashlight technology (batteries included) in general is moving at a snails pace.
> 
> Flashlights are so bright it gets too hot to run continuously. And we are still stuck on NiMH batteries (mainstream) at 2700 mAh? That's ridiculous after 20 years! When did NiMH make its debut as the next greatest thing since NiCad? How long has Alkaline been sitting still? There is no incentive for Energizer or Duracell to make better batteries. It's sad but if they make a huge leap in rechargeable technology, they would sell far less Alkaline losing massive profits. I'm sure there are not devoting a whole lot of resources in that department. Lol.



The point of tiny flashlights capable of staggering lumen/mcd/etc levels is not to displace the larger devices that can handle the heat (and run for more than a few minutes at that level), but to offer a capability that can be used briefly as needed. Those same devices can - and often do - offer long runtimes at lower levels more appropriate to their size.

10 years ago, NiMH were still kind of new for devices traditionally powered by alkalines and decidedly <2000mAH. 20 years ago, we were happy with sub-1000mAH AA NiCd's. The progress is not so fast as we all might like, but if the various spectacular incidents with lithium have shown us anything, it's that higher energy densities come with some risk.

I have a Fenix L0D on my keychain. It has three brightness levels - the top being something close to 100 lm, which was impressive for something that small when it was newv a few years back. I mostly use the medium and low settings since those are the most useful for something that small and its main function - task lighting. If I could replace it with something with a 4th brightness level that hit 200 or 400 lumens, I would even if it could only run that bright for a minute or so - because that's about all that I would need it for. An added bonus would be the probable runtime bumps on the other levels since only a more efficient LED could offer that brightness bump due to the constraints of a AAA alkaline/NiMH cell.


----------



## alpg88 (May 28, 2013)

HistoryChannel said:


> The average soccer mom shopping for batteries at the grocery store looks at 2 choices, Alkaline and NiMH.
> 
> We can't run out 2000lm light because it gets too hot. That's my point. .


lol, the average soccer mom wont bother with nimh, this recharging, and self discharge thing annoy the hell out of them. so the soccer mom will buy a light that runs on regular batteries that she picks up at the register of the store. and will most likely pick up the light at the same rack, as batteries. high power overheating light is not an issue for soccer moms. oF course it heats up, so don't run it at 2000lm, run it at 200, (it isn't a bulb, you can dim it) and it'll never heat up, and will run long time, that's my point.


----------



## HistoryChannel (May 28, 2013)

Yes! Exactly what I was saying. It feels like we are at a standstill with batteries and flashlights compared to say the last 20 years in TV advancements. By your example, in 20 years we went from 1000mAh NiCad to 2700 mAh NiMH. (Mainstream, not LiIons for us but what's available at the local liquor store to grocery stores, etc). And how far has Alkalines come after 20 years. 

Tube TVs to 80" Ultra HDTV LED backlit razor thin connected streaming content and WiFi. Now thats demand and profits driven innovation.


----------



## HistoryChannel (May 28, 2013)

alpg88 said:


> lol, the average soccer mom wont bother with nimh, this recharging, and self discharge thing annoy the hell out of them. and even then, in the stores you can buy aaa, aa, but c or d are basicly same cells (aa or may be sub c) in larger housing, you can't buy high capacity c or d in the stores. and still nimh are used for toys mostly, not flashlights. oF course it heats up, so don't run it at 2000lm, run it at 200, (it isn't a bulb, you can dim it) and it'll never heat up, and will run long time, that's my point.



I know that was your point which made my point that flashlight and battery advancement is slower than molasses on Mt Everest.


----------



## ledmitter_nli (Jun 8, 2013)

My Surefire C2 is now 1,700 lumens of "starlight star bright!" nirvana. I was standing a few meters away testing my newly modded C2 (now with the kerberos quad R5-3C binned XP-G2 dropin) and was totally gobsmacked at how close the output and tint is compared to the 5000K MT-G2. Sure the MT-G2 *is* brighter, but not much. You know, that linear thing with the eyes. There's something to be said about acrylic optics to boot - the corona from the business end of the light literally blooms streamers looking at it anywhere inside of its spotlight cone. It's just so much more elegant than a reflectored LED. Pocket rocket? Forget that. This, *is* a *sun* rocket. 

What's odd is I don't really crave more lumens having this thing. Everything is illuminated just right. It's also so bizarrely bright for its size that moving up another tier will start to appear dangerous to anyone nearby looking at it. It's like a giant arc weld.


----------



## TEEJ (Jun 8, 2013)

Yeah, if you only need X lumens, focused to a patch of Y diameter, sure, you are done, you have what you need.


What about exceptions? What if a particular out put is fine almost all the time, but, once in a while, a little more would be helpful?


Is it better to have a light that can only put out 400 L, period, as its max, for say 3 hours, or, one that can put out the same 400 L for 3 hours, with the OPTION to run at 800 L for 5-10 minutes if needed?


I see people saying that they might prefer one that doesn't give the option of a short burst of added brightness. I'm not sure what that option hurts per se, as its simply the brightness they wanted, with the option of being a bit brighter when needed.


If you NEED 800 L for 3 hours, well, then the light that gives 400 L for 3 hrs, and the option of 800 L for a few minutes, if needed, is not the right light....but neither is the one that can't do more than 400 L anyway.


It may simply be that you need a larger light, with more mass/heat dissipation, that CAN pump out 3 hrs at 800 L.....

...But if THAT light had the OPTION of also giving you 5-10 min at 1,200 L, would that hurt you in some way?


----------



## bluemax_1 (Jun 9, 2013)

^
Precisely.

And the folks complaining that it's pointless to make the lights brighter, they'd prefer the focus be on increased runtime apparently can't comprehend that the push to make ever more efficient emitters not only means you get brighter lights from the same power draw, you ALSO get more runtime at lower lumen levels.

10 years ago 100 lumens WAS about the maximum possible output from a 2xCR123 light and it could only provide that output for about 1 hour at most. Now we have similar sized lights that can put out 1000 lumens for the same amount of time, but if 100 lumens is enough, these same lights can now put out 100 lumens for 8-12 hours. Everyone's a winner.


Max


----------



## moldyoldy (Jun 9, 2013)

^ +1

Moreover, now I can obtain 800-900 lumens on 3x-4x AA NiMH LSD cells with good runtime, whereas a few years ago that output level was doable only with Li-Ion cells. and frankly, I prefer the solid usability of NiMH LSD cells to the finicky Li-Ion cells. ie: Using modern LEDs, with Eneloops I now have roughly the same output as Li-Ion, but w/o the sudden cut-off of light from the battery protection breaking the circuit - which is really bad when you are in a difficult position!


----------



## ledmitter_nli (Jun 10, 2013)

Been having a lot of fun with the now 1700+ blazing neutral SureFire  When it turns on, it *looks* professional.

Does anyone else get what I mean?  It's not a "wow that's bright" kind of a light, it's more like:







It has presence


----------



## jaycyu (Jun 10, 2013)

My 6P can't scorch paper in seconds like Hotwires of the old, so no.
We're reset to an earlier point of the race.


----------



## StorminMatt (Jun 10, 2013)

moldyoldy said:


> ^ +1
> 
> Moreover, now I can obtain 800-900 lumens on 3x-4x AA NiMH LSD cells with good runtime, whereas a few years ago that output level was doable only with Li-Ion cells. and frankly, I prefer the solid usability of NiMH LSD cells to the finicky Li-Ion cells. ie: Using modern LEDs, with Eneloops I now have roughly the same output as Li-Ion, but w/o the sudden cut-off of light from the battery protection breaking the circuit - which is really bad when you are in a difficult position!



The way I see things, Li-Ion can't do anything that NiMH can't do except give you a higher voltage (therefore more energy) in a smaller package and maybe allow for simpler charging algorithms. Li-Ion can't deliver more current. It doesn't have better voltage output characteristics (except for LiFePO4, output voltage of Li-Ion drops drastically with discharge while NiMH stays pretty constant). And it's certainly not safer. In other words, unless small size is what you're looking for, NiMH is at least as capable as Li-Ion, if not more. Now if we could get at least the same capacity out of LiFePO4 that is possible with LiCo, THAT would be a different story. You would essentailly have the best of both worlds - basically a 3.2V battery with all the positive attributes of NiMH.


----------



## JCD (Jun 10, 2013)

StorminMatt said:


> Now if we could get at least the same capacity out of LiFePO4 that is possible with LiCo, THAT would be a different story.



At high currents, the two chemistries should be much closer in capacity. A couple hundred charging cycles after new, their capacities should also be much closer.


----------



## idleprocess (Jun 10, 2013)

jaycyu said:


> My 6P can't scorch paper in seconds like Hotwires of the old, so no.
> We're reset to an earlier point of the race.



Strange, I never find a need to do that...


----------



## langham (Jun 14, 2013)

I own both the TN31 and the TN30 both de-domed and the TN31 is being over-driven A LOT. The TN31 will put out light that is insane for a very long distance and the TN30 will put out a lot of light in a wide area for a pretty good distance as well. There is a point to this, a few months ago the XM-L U2 led was the best and then the U3 and now the XM-L2 led has arrived, and now all of the lights are slightly brighter. Were they bright enough? Yes. Do they seem inadequate now that we have a brighter one? Yes. I think this is going to turn into car audio where they literally went too far and were unable to sell the speakers, because no one needs to have the same level of noise as a jet engine coming out of their car. Likewise no one needs a light so bright that is can kill people. I am through upgrading past a certain point now, I just mod cheap DX lights for people and give them away for the same price as they were purchased for now.


----------



## alpg88 (Jun 14, 2013)

langham said:


> Likewise no one needs a light so bright that is can kill people..



i'm pretty sure if you build one like that you will have no shortages of orders.


----------



## ledmitter_nli (Jun 19, 2013)

idleprocess said:


> ....
> 
> I have a Fenix L0D on my keychain. It has three brightness levels - the top being something close to 100 lm, which was impressive for something that small when it was newv a few years back. I mostly use the medium and low settings since those are the most useful for something that small and its main function - task lighting. If I could replace it with something with a 4th brightness level that hit 200 or 400 lumens, I would even if it could only run that bright for a minute or so - because that's about all that I would need it for. An added bonus would be the probable runtime bumps on the other levels since only a more efficient LED could offer that brightness bump due to the constraints of a AAA alkaline/NiMH cell.



Interesting point.

The problem with ultra bright lights is being pigeonholed to the customary 3 levels of brightness mode spacing. High - Med - Low. So for a given lights output gamut the lumens rating assigned for Med and Low are arbitrarily chosen by manufacturers. The gaps get too wide. The lumens they assign for Med/Low might work well for indoor settings, but might come up short for outdoor settings. And vice versa. The problem is compounded when hotspot and flood is mixed. ZebraLight seems to have a handle on this issue with its Med/Low sub-modes totaling 5 brightness levels altogether. It's a better distribution. As for others? There needs improvement.

Which brings me on point with regards to my new 1,700 lumen dropin. Industry wide this 3-mode limitation (not including any extra blink modes) is pervasive with custom turn-key LED drivers. And because the drive currents for each mode is a fixed percentage of overall output there's no way to scale the modes up or down to better fit an LED's particular output range. A 1,700 lumen floody High is great for outdoors. But a 600 lumen floody Med feels lacking (after I need to bump down for heat management). I would have preferred an 850 lumen Med instead. However, change venues to indoors and 850 would feel *too* bright because light bouncing radiosity from nearby walls and surfaces adds to that brightness. The same conundrum exists for Low.

The gist here is lights need enough modes to span not only the full gamut of a lights output, they also need mode spacing that aligns with our nonlinear perception of brightness. The brighter a light is, the more modes are going to be needed. The brighter a light is, the greater for its potential utility.

BTW: Can anyone say Overkill?


----------



## kaichu dento (Jun 19, 2013)

ledmitter_nli said:


> The problem with ultra bright lights is being pigeonholed to the customary 3 levels of brightness mode spacing. High - Med - Low.
> 
> ...lights need enough modes to span not only the full gamut of a lights output, they also need mode spacing that aligns with our nonlinear perception of brightness. The brighter a light is, the more modes are going to be needed. The brighter a light is, the greater for its potential utility.


+1

Right on the nailhead, but unfortunately there are many who complain about it being too hard to get to the level they want, and while I can also understand their concern, I disagree when it comes to limiting ourselves to the customary 3 levels, when so many Fenix lights sold, and are still used, with a 5 level (or should I say position) UI. 

Offer me more brightness with increased number of positions and I'll take it. Light without control is, what else, out of control.


----------



## 1c3d0g (Jun 30, 2013)

> Re: Flashlights are getting too bright, Lumens race getting out of hand...



Uhm, no. There is NO such thing as "too much light" (at least, not for me). Perhaps this is the wrong forum to ask such a question?


----------



## jorn (Jul 2, 2013)

1c3d0g said:


> Uhm, no. There is NO such thing as "too much light" (at least, not for me). Perhaps this is the wrong forum to ask such a question?



Grab a dry triple xm-l and go for a 3 hour hike. Then you would see some of the problems im having with lots of super bright lights. High mode is too bright to be comfy in the long run, and eats your batteries. Med and lo has so slow pwm that you can almost call it: lo strobe, and medium strobe mode when youre on the move. You got full power, and anything else is rubbish.

If ferrari made a car that runs great on the redline, and had issues when driven on lower rpm, well many pepole would be angry.


----------



## ledmitter_nli (Jul 2, 2013)

Choose a better performing light without PWM?


----------



## jorn (Jul 2, 2013)

What current controlled monsters are out there? 
I got way better lights for hiking, (I swing my arms when I walk). So a handheld cant compare with a headlamp anyway, but thats another discussion. 

I dont find it very useful with all those lumens. Takes 1/2 hour to get some nightvision back. Its like heroin, if you start blasting around with 2000 lumens, you cant stop. Because if you do, you dont see anything


----------



## ledmitter_nli (Jul 2, 2013)

jorn said:


> What current controlled monsters are out there?
> I got way better lights for hiking, (I swing my arms when I walk). So a handheld cant compare with a headlamp anyway, but thats another discussion.
> 
> I dont find it very useful with all those lumens. Takes 1/2 hour to get some nightvision back. Its like heroin, if you start blasting around with 2000 lumens, you cant stop. Because if you do, you dont see anything



Eagletac's new MT-G2 SX25L3.

That's my dilemma. I have two more Kerberos quad XP-G2 drop-ins incoming. It's going to be like having a car headlight high-beam in each hand. Once the bar for lumens is raised and realized it's hard to backslide. You are scarred for lumens. Your only salvation is to decrease the dosage over time. Or medicate yourself by rationalizing to CPF that the tints are all wrong (and to keep with the lower lumen Nichia's).


----------



## jorn (Jul 2, 2013)

It's not out quite yet. But it looks like a interesting toy. But it prob wont ever find it's way into my backpack when it's time to camp. I dont want to carry the extra bulk when i dont need the monster brightness. I'll prob buy a mt-g2 of some sort for modding later this year. It's still daylight all night up here, so it's a bad flashlight season here right now. But im ok with that, dont need anything else than my keychain light when the sun is up all night 

I'm glad i got over the lumen bug. (The next light has to have more lumens than my last syndrom). After buying a mt-g2, what would make me giggle again? Ahh something that is precived as twice s bright.. atleast ! And i end up sitting there giggeling with a quad mt-g2 with 12X18650's in my lap, or quad mt-g2 in a 6p with a 2 min runtime. Fun, but not that useful 
Cant wait for my warm, 5 lumen, e01 to arrive


----------



## riccardo (Jul 2, 2013)

> I dont find it very useful with all those lumens. Takes 1/2 hour to get some nightvision back. Its like heroin, if you start blasting around with 2000 lumens, you cant stop. Because if you do, you dont see anything



Right.. when I really need a light because it's dark I often stay under 100 lumens. If I need so see a little more far, outdoor, less than 400 are usually more than enough. To navigate around home at night 10 are pretty bright.

BUT: 

In case of emergency or danger, when thanks to panic most people tend to act stupidly and to forget were they are and what's around them.. if you need to run than BRIGHT is good. A lot of more useful details are getting evident all around. In such circumstances with a very bright flashlight you can catch the attention of far people, you can intimidate intruders, you can illuminate all around you like sun raised and more easily save your ***.

SO:

Despite my most used flashlights are small and not too powerful, I'm happy to own a couple of Torchlab triples and a TM26. During an emergency they would make the difference.


----------



## jorn (Jul 2, 2013)

No living man has ever died from lacking a couple of thousand lumens in his pocket. I'm not worrying about being the first 

I dont carry around stuff in case of different emergency's. Not even a first aid kit.
So if i think flashlight=safety in a regular camping/fishing trip scenario, i would be better off with a super thrower. For sending a batman/sos signal up the vally and past the always surrounding mountain tops. (usually no phone signal up in a mountain lake hidden between the ~1000meter peaks) But super throwers are like lumen monsters. Fun to own and makes me smile, but really far from the best suited lights i got for most "general darkness stuff"
Of course if i want to quickly grab something in the garage, or light up places with lots of ambient light, or for fun, i grab a lumen monster. In max mode  

The torchlab triple p60 is not a monster anymore, with all the new stuff on the marked, it's been downgraded to the bogeyman, or spook class  
Made a little baby frankenstein from bits and pices that really made me smile recently. 3.04A neutral xp-g2 in the most throwy p60 reflector i could find. Really nice balance between Lux/lumen/p60size/runtime. I find it to be pretty mutch identical to my mutch bigger md-4 hound dog xm-l, but with a more defined hotspot. But it will not live for 50000 hours, maby only 500..who knows.. and the driver got pwm for med-lo mode. The "square law of flashlight compromices" makes sure some compromises has to be made... As alwys


----------



## thedoc007 (Jul 3, 2013)

jorn said:


> Grab a dry triple xm-l and go for a 3 hour hike. Then you would see some of the problems im having with lots of super bright lights. High mode is too bright to be comfy in the long run, and eats your batteries. Med and lo has so slow pwm that you can almost call it: lo strobe, and medium strobe mode when youre on the move. You got full power, and anything else is rubbish.
> 
> If ferrari made a car that runs great on the redline, and had issues when driven on lower rpm, well many pepole would be angry.



Your analogy may work for that particular light, but that just seems like an issue with one light, not with a whole class of super-bright lights. Just get one without PWM. And no one is saying that lumen monsters are the only kind of light that should be sold...but having the option of buying one is all to the good. There are plenty of other choices if you personally don't like them, but I don't see why you should limit brightness just because you personally don't often use it.


----------



## jorn (Jul 3, 2013)

Not only that particular light. There is a whole range of crappy 3 X XM-L light out there with stupid slow and noicy pwm. Well i asked about non pwm lumen monsters, and the only answer yet is the MT-G2 SX25L3, and that one ain't out yet. You got some better suggestion?

I dont think you have walked many 3 hour hikes in rugged terrain. If you had, you would understand why i dont like a big 3x18650 light in my hands. Each time you swing your hand, you lift a kg. Do this for 3 hours. The nex trip, bring a smaller light and compare the two experiences. 
No one is saying that lumen monsters is the only light that should be sold. But it's pretty stupid bringing a 10 liter drinking bottle filled to the top when you know you only drink 1 liter on the whole trip. Same thing..

The smaller lumen monsters also got flaws, Runtime, overheating, pwm etc. The size is ok and i used to bring my torchlab triple in a md-2 with hi/lo ring on trips. But then i always worryed about running out of juice. (and i often did) And worried abot running out of juice AND overheating everytime a friend grabbed it for 10 min to go get some firewood etc. And everytime someone nearby turned it on max, well, no one could see anything the next 20 min without a light. So why should i bring a bulky light that will tire my arm out (and strain my eyes), or a small light that is so powerful that it needs instructions about overheating and super lo batteri life? I dont hate the lumen monsters, but as i said earlyer, i leave the toys at home, and bring some lights i KNOW im always happy with when camping etc.


----------



## bluemax_1 (Jul 3, 2013)

jorn said:


> Not only that particular light. There is a whole range of crappy 3 X XM-L light out there with stupid slow and noicy pwm. Well i asked about non pwm lumen monsters, and the only answer yet is the MT-G2 SX25L3, and that one ain't out yet. You got some better suggestion?
> 
> I dont think you have walked many 3 hour hikes in rugged terrain. If you had, you would understand why i dont like a big 3x18650 light in my hands. Each time you swing your hand, you lift a kg. Do this for 3 hours. The nex trip, bring a smaller light and compare the two experiences.
> No one is saying that lumen monsters is the only light that should be sold. But it's pretty stupid bringing a 10 liter drinking bottle filled to the top when you know you only drink 1 liter on the whole trip. Same thing..
> ...



It's pretty amusing how you keep switching targets that aren't related to the original question. First, you describe a poorly made/operating flashlight, then you talk about humongous, heavy lights, then you talk about poor runtimes.

None of these are necessarily related to the discussion at hand except obliquely.

As LEDs become more efficient, they put out more light with less heat using less power. Granted, there are limits, but if they could make a small multi mode flashlight that had levels from super bright to super dim, with decent runtime at max brightness without pwm in any modes, there's no such thing as too bright until it's brighter than the sun. Simply put, human eyes have greatest acuity under daytime sunlight illumination. If I could have some miracle light that the aliens were nice enough to give me that at its brightest setting could light up everything in my field of view so it looked like daylight (and run for 12 hours), THAT would not be too bright.

We aren't even close to flashlights getting too bright. Sure, we can make do with lower levels of illumination, but making do simply means compromising. Do I need 1000, 3500 or 50,000 lumens all the time? No, but if someday, they could make a 1xAA sized light that had numerous brightness modes ranging from 0.1 lumens to 50,000 lumens (I suppose some form of infinite brightness control might be a good idea with that wide a range), I'd want one.


Max


----------



## kaichu dento (Jul 3, 2013)

bluemax_1 said:


> It's pretty amusing how you keep switching targets that aren't related to the original question. First, you describe a poorly made/operating flashlight, then you talk about humongous, heavy lights, then you talk about poor runtimes.
> 
> None of these are necessarily related to the discussion at hand except obliquely.
> 
> ...


Some great points all through your post, not the least of which being the opening, but the reason for this thread is less about whether lights are getting too bright so much as whether there's too much focus on brightness alone at the expense of other variables, primarily heat and run times.

I'll go for the light you've described too, if it's controllable, can show some decent run time and not get as hot as the sun.


----------



## jorn (Jul 3, 2013)

It's not the lumens i hate. But it's all the compromises that follows with the monster output that really makes them a toy for me. How is that not related to the topic? 

The monster output bar gets raised every year, but 100 lumes will always be 100 lumen. It just cost less and less current to make 100 lumens. But there will always be monster lights. Both big ones, and small really hard driven ones. Trying to break the next lumen record so it can sell faster... So in the end, the top lumen monsters we all want to play with (and drool over) will always have the same compromises. size or runtime/heat. And really, really often, all the other modes got tossed toghter with cheap pwm because the medium mode is not the selling point of this types of light.
Our eyes might be good in daylight, but they are not that good for ajusting between darkness and instant daylight. That kind of hurts.


----------



## bluemax_1 (Jul 3, 2013)

kaichu dento said:


> Some great points all through your post, not the least of which being the opening, but the reason for this thread is less about whether lights are getting too bright so much as *whether there's too much focus on brightness alone at the expense of other variables, primarily heat and run times*.
> 
> I'll go for the light you've described too, if it's controllable, can show some decent run time and not get as hot as the sun.


As far as the bolded part of the sentence goes, with the exception of the 'modder specials' driven to the extreme to see just how bright a small light can get (the kind where the buyer is assumed to understand that a specific light isn't meant to be run on High for more than 7.2 seconds, give or take 0.6 seconds or whatever), most of the mainstream manufacturer lights tend to be made and programmed for somewhat reasonable compromises between brightness and runtimes/heat.

As mentioned in this thread, the majority of the 1x18650 lights have a Max mode that runs for approximately 60 minutes. That's pretty close to the same runtime on Max as lights from about 10 years ago. The difference is that the current crop of lights come close to the 1000 lumen mark, whereas the 10 year old lights were pushing the 100 lumen mark. A 10-fold increase in lumens, for about the same runtime, but if all you need is 100 lumens, most of these newer lights have a mode close to that too, and will run anywhere from 9-15 hours.

Sure, if the only kind of lights being discussed are the modder-extreme-driven-at-7A for no longer than 20 seconds or the insane incans that can set stuff on fire and only run for about 10-15 minutes, then yes, the argument of brightness over utility could be valid (I say 'could' because I'm sure someone will come in to defend their 1600 lumens for no more than 20 seconds lights).


Max


----------



## Badbeams3 (Jul 3, 2013)

Everyone has different needs. I do very little hiking or camping, but I will be getting a MT-G2 SX25L3 in case the bulb in my refrigerator goes out. Would be a huge disaster if I could not find the ice cream in there one night.


----------



## jorn (Jul 3, 2013)

Badbeams3 said:


> Everyone has different needs. I do very little hiking or camping, but I will be getting a MT-G2 SX25L3 in case the bulb in my refrigerator goes out. Would be a huge disaster if I could not find the ice cream in there one night.


It's for stuff like this i use the really hard driven stuff. Around the house stuff gets more fun  And im ok with the dots and stars floating around in my vision when im going back to watch the tv. Not so ok if i need to walk over a big rockslide area and then some hours to get home. The really good news is the lights with useful specs, is getting smaller and smaller. Make me a mt-g2 aaa, and i'll buy it


----------



## bluemax_1 (Jul 3, 2013)

jorn said:


> It's not the lumens i hate. But it's all the compromises that follows with the monster output that really makes them a toy for me. How is that not related to the topic?
> 
> The monster output bar gets raised every year, but 100 lumes will always be 100 lumen. It just cost less and less current to make 100 lumens. But there will always be monster lights. Both big ones, and small really hard driven ones. Trying to break the next lumen record so it can sell faster... So in the end, the top lumen monsters we all want to play with (and drool over) will always have the same compromises. size or runtime/heat. And really, really often, all the other modes got tossed toghter with cheap pwm because the medium mode is not the selling point of this types of light.



A few months ago, I decided to replace my work light. I wanted something fairly compact (1x18650/2xCR123 size), but with a Max bright mode as high as possible (max lumens with a hotspot ntensity between 20,000-30,000cd and good spill) that would run for about 60 minutes, with a lower mode that I could use for more mundane things without blinding myself and it had to have quick access to Max brightness as well as tactical strobe from any other mode.

Most of the lights I looked at were in the 900-1000 lumen range, and none had PWM (Nitecore P25, Olight M22, Supbeam T10, Armytek Predator Pro XML/XPG2 and what I ended up going with, the Eagletac G25C2-mkII). The G25C2-mkII XM-L2 NW will put out ~900 lumens for about 60-90 minutes, and I use it in the Tactical Interface so it's High ~900 lumens, low ~130 lumens for about 12-14 hours, Strobe 1 and Strobe 2. None of the non-strobe modes have any detectable PWM.

If you're talking about even brighter than the 1000 lumen mark, I also have the Nitecore TM26 (3500 lumen) and Olight X6 (5000 lumen). There's no denying that these lights are bigger and bulkier, but they have their purposes. The TM26 is actually not bad for carrying in the holster. Walking with the light for 3+ hours would definitely mean switching hands every so often. Using the X6 for extended periods is not bad as it has a handle and shoulder strap. With the shoulder strap adjusted to the proper length, there is little to no load on the hand holding and directing it. Neither one of those has PWM either.

I guess we must be looking at different lights, or have different ideas of what high lumens are.


Max


----------



## LowLumen (Jul 3, 2013)

I'm with you Jorn. It is mostly the misplaced emphasis on lumen over other more important qualities(like beam profile, tint, CRI, etc), and just how insignificant a doubling in lumen is against runtime, size, heat, etc. 

If you are concerned with having enough light from your torch, forget about Lumen for a while and work with Lux. Depending on the task there is a range that is just right, too little, and there is too much.


----------



## idleprocess (Jul 3, 2013)

With LED, it's entirely possible to design a flashlight that performs well in one or two key attributes and offers modest secondary capabilities in another _without sacrificing the primary attributes_.

In general, a small flashlight will offer long runtimes at low levels and tend towards flood. High output comes at the expense of runtime and generates heat. Spot usually eliminates useful spill.

Large flashlights can support decent runtimes at high levels of output. Low output can usually be sustained for continuous _days_, but the market would prefer sometime smaller if that's the primary use. It can also be cumbersome to use a large, low-lumen light source.

Medium flashlights ... I think you get the idea.

I will be testing a PD35 that was just delivered to my residence this evening. It's a 2x123A / 18650 light with a "burst" mode of 800-some-odd lumens that's limited to 5 minutes continuous operation; otherwise a multi-function medium flashlight intended to balance size, brightness, and runtime.. Given the relatively small size of the light, I do not find this surprising. The heat from "burst" is reported to heat the _entire_ light, which comes as no surprise - the light is really intended to run at its lower levels most of the time and offers fairly significant runtimes at those levels.

Function outside of the primary use comes at a cost, but can still be useful. The user should understand that secondary functionality can come at some cost since it is often a free "bonus feature" of sorts.


----------



## ledmitter_nli (Jul 3, 2013)

If you are 'seeing well' at distances applicable to the mode you are in - then you've got enough lumens.

If there isn't a subconscious urge to adjust the casual brightness of what you're looking at - then you've got enough lumens.

I don't know how to simplify it any more.


----------



## alpg88 (Jul 3, 2013)

several times that i hiked, i used headlamp. very first time i went, i took a flashlight, and learned the hard way, i only got 2 hands.


----------



## Badbeams3 (Jul 3, 2013)

So what is a good lumen output for trail walking in general. 30 LM? Not talking about if you hear a growl out there and want to kick it up to see what it is...just general walking in the woods with a mostly floody beam...


----------



## ledmitter_nli (Jul 3, 2013)

Take 30 lumens to the trail and see for yourself  Do you crave more lumens? Then you need more lumens.

Then there's the variable of having 30 floody lumens, or 30 hot spot lumens.

Seriously. It's subjective.


----------



## idleprocess (Jul 3, 2013)

ledmitter_nli said:


> Take 30 lumens to the trail and see for yourself  Do you crave more lumens? Then you need more lumens.
> 
> Then there's the variable of having 30 floody lumens, or 30 hot spot lumens.
> 
> Seriously. It's subjective.


Wish I could find my old Inova X1 ... made mundane tasks in the dark exciting with its ~2-degree zero-spill hotspot!


----------



## bluemax_1 (Jul 3, 2013)

Badbeams3 said:


> So what is a good lumen output for trail walking in general. 30 LM? Not talking about if you hear a growl out there and want to kick it up to see what it is...just general walking in the woods with a mostly floody beam...



That's going to be up to the individual and the conditions:
- individual low light sensitivity
- ambient light? Full moon and a clear night? Overcast with no moon or stars?
- are you going for a stroll in the park? Walking somewhere where you need to be aware of poisonous snakes or other hazards?
- what's the terrain like?
- speed you'll be navigating the terrain? Strolling vs fast hiking vs trail running etc.

Too many variables. Some might do fine with 30 lumens in a floody light, some might be able to get away with 5-10 lumens, some might need more.


Max


----------



## LowLumen (Jul 3, 2013)

Badbeams3 said:


> So what is a good lumen output for trail walking in general. 30 LM? ..... ...just general walking in the woods with a mostly floody beam...



Your question is a good example of why lumen is a poor measure of your needs. 

Ideally, you would like to light the path in front of you from your next step, out maybe 30+ feet, evenly lit to some comfortable level. 

Right you need a floody beam; you don't need a bright dot 50+ feet out to leave spots in your vision, while leaving your next step in darkness..... ( beam quality is more important than total lumen here)

20-50 Lux (Lumen per sq. meter) is recommended for outdoor illumination in 'public places' like parking lots at night. For rural areas that's alot of light. Try a lower limit at 5-10 lux... (still too high by many)

What's a good upper limit for night use? Each doubling of lumen is equal in light intensity increase, so your lumen scale goes something; 10, 20, 40, 80, 160,320.... etc. For night use, much over 100 Lux starts to get uncomfortable for me. 100 Lux is my minimum for reading. 200-500 Lux is interior room lighting. 

How many Lumen spread to where on that trail.
For a trail light, try some DC-Fix diffuser on your favorite carry light. It makes a nice beam profile.


----------



## Esko (Jul 4, 2013)

jorn said:


> I dont think you have walked many 3 hour hikes in rugged terrain. If you had, you would understand why i dont like a big 3x18650 light in my hands. Each time you swing your hand, you lift a kg. Do this for 3 hours. The nex trip, bring a smaller light and compare the two experiences.



An experienced hiker, huh? I suggest that once you go to the next hike, keep the small light as a backup and use a decent headlamp. No extra weight in hands, just two free hands and the light that is always pointing to the same direction as your head.:thumbsup:



jorn said:


> It's not the lumens i hate. But it's all the compromises that follows



This is a valid concern though, but I would re-phrase it. The problem is not the race for higher output. The problem is the lack of attention to other output modes.


----------



## thedoc007 (Jul 4, 2013)

jorn said:


> Not only that particular light. There is a whole range of crappy 3 X XM-L light out there with stupid slow and noicy pwm. Well i asked about non pwm lumen monsters, and the only answer yet is the MT-G2 SX25L3, and that one ain't out yet. You got some better suggestion?
> 
> I dont think you have walked many 3 hour hikes in rugged terrain. If you had, you would understand why i dont like a big 3x18650 light in my hands. Each time you swing your hand, you lift a kg. Do this for 3 hours. The nex trip, bring a smaller light and compare the two experiences.
> No one is saying that lumen monsters is the only light that should be sold. But it's pretty stupid bringing a 10 liter drinking bottle filled to the top when you know you only drink 1 liter on the whole trip. Same thing..



The TK75 is a triple XM-L, no PWM. The TM26 is a quad XM-L, no PWM. I own both, and I'll stop there because I prefer to write about what I actually know, rather than making assumptions about lights I don't have (hint). But they aren't that hard to find...

You're right that I haven't hiked for over 3 hours in rugged terrain many times. Usually I do about 8 miles, which takes me a little under 2 hours. The terrain is rugged, though, with elevation change and a lot of overhanging branches and rocky trails. I need AT LEAST 100 lumens constantly, so I can perceive all of the obstacles before I run into them. I prefer about 500 lumens, because with that level I am more confident about avoiding those branches, and can keep up a good pace without having to move the light around as much.

With that in mind, I think a TK75 or a TM26 is ideal for my purposes. I have had no issues with my arms getting tired, even when I carried both for the full hike when I was doing a comparison of the lights mentioned above. They also offer an extended runtime...with a smaller light, I would be worried about having to bring extra lights or batteries, since I prefer to be over-prepared rather than under-prepared. Hasn't happened yet, but if I was injured on the trail, I'd want enough light to last the whole night at a decent brightness, and that option would just not be available with a smaller light. 

Your perspective is appreciated, and you do make some good points, but just because you don't like them, doesn't mean that others should dislike them too. And it isn't a lack of understanding, it is a matter of preference, and my preference is to avoid limiting any part of development in lighting, including brightness. Bring it on!


----------



## jorn (Jul 4, 2013)

Esko said:


> An experienced hiker, huh? I suggest that once you go to the next hike, keep the small light as a backup and use a decent headlamp. No extra weight in hands, just two free hands and the light that is always pointing to the same direction as your head.:thumbsup:
> .





jorn said:


> (I swing my arms when I walk). So a handheld cant compare with a headlamp anyway, but thats another discussion.


Yes im a lot outdoors  And thats what i always do, use a headlamp. I usually carry a really expensive fishing rod in one hand. (If i strap it to my backpack im pretty screwed when i hit branches. It will snag all the time, might break, and i wolud cry for a week). It weighs nothing so i balance it on one finger . I find the zebra h51fc to be just right in the medium modes. And i usually have a hand held with some more punch close by if i need it. Quark turbo aa2 with neutral xp-g2 is nice, because it carries 2 extra spares for my headlamp if needed. The lightveight solarforce l2t with a warm edc+. X60L is also nice. 1,5A on a warm xm-l with ~400 warm lumens looks pretty impressive the time of year it gets dark around here. I got a homemade plastic diffuser cap for it and a lanyard for lantern use. Dont plan to walk far in the dark unless you have to, or really know the terrain. Here is a pic showing the terrain to one of my favorite fishng spots, it's in a valley right under the snowy peak. You might see why i like the warm X60L only by looking at the picture 
http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/8702/rks.JPG

Your images are oversize, when you post an image please remember Rule #3 

Rule #3 If you post an image in your post, please downsize the image to no larger than 800 x 800 pixels.

*Please resize and repost.* - Thanks Norm




Thedoc007, it's always about personal preference vs reality and it's compromises. What you want vs what you need and where the ends meet. Some sizes dont fit my pocket. So if have to carry my backup handheld monster in my spare hand, or a smaller lightweight light (a safe idiot proof one) that fits in my front jacket pocket, im choosing the last one. Im not trying to step on pepoles toes and claim that all big lights (or small overdriven ones) are useless for everyone or everything. Im just sharing my own experiences, and for camping, fishing, etc where i have to carry every little thing i need from lights to toilet paper. The big lights loose, because i have lots of different stuff i need more than 2600 lumens. In some years, 2600 lumens might be medium mode on a safely driven 18650 light, but there will still be 4X18650 flamethrowers temting us to buy. And with more lumens, you might find even more ways to use that monster, and i would prob want one to find out, but i would not want to carry it with all my other stuff. I'd rather go for the 18650 light with a 2600 lumen medium, (if it has a nice way to adjust down the brightness in lots of steps with no hassle, and is fool proof) 
Im keeping my eyes on the MT-G2 SX25L3 now. So i dont hate theese types of light. I just dont find them to be the best solution for many of my tasks. Including stuff like camping/fishing/hiking. My preferences vs compromises makes sure of that. Im not trying to force my opinions on anyone, im just trying to explain the issues i often find. Maby a bit ot, but atleast with a little story


----------



## Likebright (Jul 4, 2013)

I hike with a head lamp and a thrower in my pocket or on my belt. Using 2-60 lumens most of the time. 
When need it, I appreciate having 900 lumens at my disposal. 
Is it too bright? Yes for most stuff as your eyes are adjusted to the lower output. 

Now the cop on the beat may appreciate being able to "burn some retina" from time to time and for him a good tactical light around 1000-2000 lumens would be a EDC. 1 click could possibly save his life.

I guess I've just said what many others have. I think what is happening is the light of around 1000 lumens are getting smaller and more efficient. It is up to the user how much is too much. 
The old adage "Just because you can do something does it mean you should do it," applies here. I say let the Manufactures develop away. There is going to be a vast selection to chose from.
Mike


----------



## mhpreston (Jul 4, 2013)

Funnily enough, I thought of this thread today. I grabbed my old Maglight 3xD from a nearby drawer, which I upgraded to LED some time ago (200 lumens, iirc). I wanted to read some fine writing on a converter plug. It was too bright and made it almost impossible to read the inscription. I'd forgotten how handy my adjustable Nitecore SRT7 has become.


----------



## cnicook (Jul 7, 2013)

I agree that it is getting a little ridiculous, but that doesn't make me want to have the next super bright flashlight any less...


----------



## Badbeams3 (Jul 7, 2013)

Bet should the government start regulating lumen output in small lights some folks would throw a fit. Children...and adults could blind themselves or others...end up needing an $$$$$$ retina replacement...or end up blind and on Social Security disability...costing the taxpayers big time and wrecking the economy. No my friends, I say put a cap on lumen now...the eyes you save could be your own.


----------



## esldude (Jul 8, 2013)

Sure sometimes enough is really enough. The lithium batteries and high power LED's have everyone scrambling for the eye melting power in their pocket. There is another approach. Enough to do things taking advantage of increased efficiency and life of LED's for useful very long life lights. One example is a simple 2D cell light available at Walmart that uses 5 decent LED's. Has an okay pattern, about twice as bright as good incan lights. Cost's $8 (with batteries), and runs more than 60 hrs on a pair of D cells. http://www.walmart.com/ip/Rayovac-5-LED-Light/17163369

Won't melt your retinas, won't set things on fire, but plenty of light for working on your vehicle in the dark, looking in things without lights in them, walking in the woods for most purposes, reading or lighting up your house when the power fails or walking the beach for hours without worrying about charge states. In short most things you might need to do. It is available for less than $10, and you can throw it in your toolbox, or glove box or on the shelf in your home. No need to worry about batteries for a year or two at a time. Definitely a good rig for those power outages. Sit it upright bouncing off the ceiling and it is much better than several candles (plenty of light to read by, bathe by or cook by). Yet it will burn for near 3 days non-stop.


----------



## Likebright (Jul 25, 2013)

On the other hand.
Plopping out 100 bucks for a quality piece of solid metal / waterproof, shock proof and mill spec CNC workmanship is indeed a thing of beauty not to mention with the interfaces now available that one piece of equipment can go from 2 lumen to 8 or 900 lumen in one hand / at the push of a button.
Dang! I get chills just think about it! Gotta have a fix - come on night. Wheres my Zebra Light?


----------



## S_Alomar (Jul 25, 2013)

It's always good to see technologies improve. To see more brightness out of smaller power sources, longer lasting torches, etc. And it's up to the users to choose what kind of light they want. I wouldn't want those thousands of lumens torches, at least not yet. But if I want it, the options are available to me.


----------



## ledmitter_nli (Aug 21, 2013)

Likebright said:


> On the other hand.
> Plopping out 100 bucks for a quality piece of solid metal / waterproof, shock proof and mill spec CNC workmanship is indeed a thing of beauty not to mention with the interfaces now available that one piece of equipment can go from 2 lumen to 8 or 900 lumen in one hand / at the push of a button.
> Dang! I get chills just think about it! Gotta have a fix - come on night. Wheres my Zebra Light?



2 lumens to 8 or 900 as you've said, but to really transcend you have got to see 1,700+ warm lumens 

Every time I whip out the SureFire C2 with the R4-5C binned kerberos quad and jack a vacume cleaners worth of amps through it, it gives the impression the light should be coming from somewhere else. Its got a halogen headlight like tint, so something this warm and bright that actually LOOKS like its coming from a headlight would normally be associated with bigger things. Like a vehicle, or a train  But the vehicle is not there, or behind, or to the side or through the window. Stop looking around, it's me, in my hand. I've caused a few "WTF?" moments to say the least. That's what I love about it. It's so bright it's out of place. Like a ventriloquist fooling everyone throwing its voice.


----------



## wjv (Aug 21, 2013)

I've been moving in the opposite direction.

My last couple purchases have been:

- ITP A2 EOS (1.5L -> 80L)
- Fenix LD10 (3L -> 100L)
- 47s Mini-ML (3.6L -> 216L)

I have a PD32, PD32UE and a TK15 if I need some throw, but have no need for a 2,000 lumen spot light. 

If others do. . . Their money, their choice.

What I hate most is that so many light manufacturers think that something like 8-10 lumen is "low", or the companies that provide modes that go from a low of ~2 lumen, to a medium of 70 lumen, with nothing in-between. I'm not a sub-lumen individual. My eyes are too old for 0.3 lumens to be much use. But 8 lumens is often overpowering!


----------



## markr6 (Aug 22, 2013)

wjv said:


> What I hate most is that so many light manufacturers think that something like 8-10 lumen is "low", or the companies that provide modes that go from a low of ~2 lumen, to a medium of 70 lumen, with nothing in-between. I'm not a sub-lumen individual. My eyes are too old for 0.3 lumens to be much use. But 8 lumens is often overpowering!



Good point. I used my 3-mode L10 early this morning and the lowest mode (3lm) lighted up a good portion of the bedroom. I had to block some of it with my finger to keep from waking my wife and making me grouchy at 5am (too bright on night adapted eyes)


----------



## reppans (Aug 22, 2013)

wjv said:


> .... I'm not a sub-lumen individual. My eyes are too old for 0.3 lumens to be much use. But 8 lumens is often overpowering!



Was that a Zebralight "0.3" lumens?


----------



## wjv (Aug 23, 2013)

reppans said:


> Was that a Zebralight "0.3" lumens?



Yes, which I returned because of the horrible tint


----------



## reppans (Aug 23, 2013)

wjv said:


> Yes, which I returned because of the horrible tint



Yeah, thought that might be the case - anyone (myself included) that finds 8 lumens overpowering at times should be a sub-lumen fan. ZL is giving moonlight mode a bad name, seen a few posts of people that say they've tried ZL's 0.3 moonlight mode (0.3 lumens should be one of the "brightest" sub-lumen levels offered) and found it useless. I almost exclusively buy sub-lumen lights and my SC52's 0.3 mode is useless for me too. A true 0.3-0.5 lumens hits the sweetspot for me being bright enough to use as my normal "low" mode for reading and close task work, and with about 3-4x the runtime of a 3 lumen mode.

Here's a side-by-side pix of a Quark AAX (0.3), T10 (0.09) and SC52 (0.3): CLICKY. It does, however, explain how ZL gets 3x the QAAX's runtime though.


----------



## wjv (Aug 23, 2013)

reppans said:


> ZL is giving moonlight mode a bad name, seen a few posts of people that say they've tried ZL's 0.3 moonlight mode (0.3 lumens should be one of the "brightest" sub-lumen levels offered) and found it useless.



I had a 47s Quark Tactical that did 0.25 lumen, which was nice, but I gave it to a friend as a gift.


----------



## Swedpat (Aug 23, 2013)

I think when the brightness becomes so high that it produces more heat than the light can handle for more than a minut or less, it shows that it's time for realizing that lumens race getting out of hand. Better to limit the maximum output and make use of better runtimes instead.


----------



## Yawningdog (Dec 1, 2013)

HistoryChannel said:


> There are limits to most everything, including flashlights? I was searching a new powerful flashlight, I came across this and started to think .... when is too much.. too much? 4100 lumens? 9000 lumens? 20,000 lumens and set your car on fire?
> 
> Over Tday weekend, I spent a couple of nights geocaching after dark with some of the fams. Although we do have other toys to play with, we decided to make the first night out a Nitecore only outing. Three of us were wearing the new HC50 headlamps, which can put out 565L, when needed. One of us carried a SRT6 (930L), another an SRT7 (960L), an I brought along a TM26 (3500L). Obviously, all of these lights spent most of the hunts at much lower outputs but every one of them was used at max output at one point or another. After reading this post, I find myself wishing that we had picked a long, straight trail and pointed them all in the same direction at full output to see if anyone would think it was "too much".


----------



## TEEJ (Dec 1, 2013)

Yawningdog said:


> HistoryChannel said:
> 
> 
> > There are limits to most everything, including flashlights? I was searching a new powerful flashlight, I came across this and started to think .... when is too much.. too much? 4100 lumens? 9000 lumens? 20,000 lumens and set your car on fire?
> ...


----------



## kaichu dento (Dec 1, 2013)

In addition to both of the excellent posts above, there's the limitations of battery reserves and as long as output on a light is selectable most any of us would have no problem with limitless output levels. In some cases we don't mind carrying extra batteries and swapping them out, but it's all a balancing act between runtime, physical light dimensions and controllability.


----------



## MichaelW (Dec 2, 2013)

Just got my D-C fix from CPFM, and I can say-flood early, flood often.
So, that is what you do with all these lumens.


----------



## langham (Dec 8, 2013)

I just re-built a Skyray Kung to put out 2.8A to each LED on turbo, and I think it is safe to say that is too much; for several reasons, mainly because it will burn you after a little more than a minute. I am still in proto-type phase, and may put a temperature relay in line to automatically switch to high after the light gets to 165F or so.

I have reached a point where I think they are bright enough. My Thrunite TN30/31 are modded and get to be too bright, because they will blind you when you turn them on. The TN31 is so bright that you cannot see the end of its illumination, and the TN30 has such a wide beam that goes so far that you never know who you are going to blind.

I think that at a certain intensity level too much is attained. For example the TN30 is de-domed as well, but without that huge reflector and because the TN31 is driven at 6A it is more intense in a single spot. Although the only thing I ever do with it is show off, when I actually need a light I use my TN30 or my EDC. I think my basic point is that at some point they will need to shift the concentration to run-time and efficiency. 

One more point is that these are custom made lights and the industry isn't there yet, you can't buy lights this size that put out this kind of light yet. When you can I will be alright with them not getting any brighter.

I have had my TN31 in my hand and sat it down in order to pick up a smaller light to use. Even with all of those modes it is purpose built and good for that purpose. Have you read the Nightsword Project? That in my opinion is too bright. When you have to worry about a flashlight causing instant blindness and possible death, that is too bright.


----------



## Rexlion (Dec 8, 2013)

Anyone who has lights that are "too bright" are welcome to mail them to me! :devil: Always glad to help out, you know....


----------



## Lou Minescence (Dec 9, 2013)

Rexlion said:


> Anyone who has lights that are "too bright" are welcome to mail them to me! :devil: Always glad to help out, you know....



Too funny.

Some people get upset that a person has a 350hp engine. What do you need all that power for? Where are you going to use it ?

If you have to explain... they still won't understand.


----------



## kaichu dento (Dec 10, 2013)

Lou Minescence said:


> Too funny.
> 
> Some people get upset that a person has a 350hp engine. What do you need all that power for? Where are you going to use it ?
> 
> If you have to explain... they still won't understand.


I get your message, but back on point the thread is less about whether other people will approve than it is about a practical balance and when a light can only get a few minutes of usage, runs so hot that it'll burn things, including fingers, there's a reasonable balance somewhere.

I don't care is someone has a Jaguar with a V-12, but I don't want to buy the gas for it or do the mechanic work either.

No one here is upset that some people feel the skies the limit and it just gives the rest of us products that have really been run through the mill!


----------



## Lou Minescence (Dec 10, 2013)

Lou Minescence said:


> Too funny.
> 
> Some people get upset that a person has a 350hp engine. What do you need all that power for? Where are you going to use it ?
> 
> If you have to explain... they still won't understand.



Explained:

Returning to my car comparison most cars with powerful engines do not need to be run wide open all the time. Just give it a little throttle or as much as you need.
The same goes for my TM26, I usually run it at 3 lumens walking the dog. If there is a car approaching I turn the TM up to 3500 lumens and illuminate the power lines ahead. This way a passing motorist thinks another car is coming and dims their headlamps before they shine me in the eyes. I dim my light before actually see the car. It works well for me. This is my example of putting 3,500 lumens to practical use.
I do not buy lights with only one ultra high mode. If I did it would only get momentary use as needed if needed.


----------



## Husker (Dec 10, 2013)

Lou Minescence said:


> Some people get upset that a person has a 350hp engine. What do you need all that power for? Where are you going to use it ?



I need more than 350hp just to get out of my garage.


----------



## smokinbasser (Dec 10, 2013)

I might consider a lower lumen light only if the light creates recoil from switching it on.


----------



## m1ke (Dec 11, 2013)

As long as there are low modes, to me more brightness is desirable. In fact, I love it, and the previous post talking about recoil from the brightness is highly appealing.


----------



## claythrow (Dec 11, 2013)

I kind of like the race : )


----------



## Srargaz (Dec 12, 2013)

Yes I agree like the Nitecore little monster at 3200 lumins.


----------



## davesc (Dec 12, 2013)

I heard the updated version of the TM26 will have an option of train horn or fire truck siren...


----------



## jorn (Dec 12, 2013)

m1ke said:


> As long as there are low modes, to me more brightness is desirable. In fact, I love it, and the previous post talking about recoil from the brightness is highly appealing.



True, but not always. Depends on the light. If it got dreadful slow pwm in the lower modes like the dry etc.. id rather use the direct driven hi mode until it burns up, or use no mode at all..


----------



## m1ke (Dec 12, 2013)

jorn said:


> True, but not always. Depends on the light. If it got dreadful slow pwm in the lower modes like the dry etc.. id rather use the direct driven hi mode until it burns up, or use no mode at all..


Probably right. I've never had a light with noticeable PWM, so have no experience of that.


----------



## Ruislip (Dec 14, 2013)

I'm a newbie, so still getting to grips with what's on offer. I love powerful lights, but I live in suburbia and feel self-conscious about using a very powerful light, especially as neighbours seem still to be mainly using incandescents. My LD41 seems stronger than some house security lights! I think the trick is to stay ahead of the pack, but not so far that you draw attention to yourself.


----------



## N8N (Dec 14, 2013)

Lou Minescence said:


> Too funny.
> 
> Some people get upset that a person has a 350hp engine.



It upsets me that my car only has about 350hp.



Sent from my XT897 using Tapatalk


----------



## Wiggle (Dec 14, 2013)

reppans said:


> Yeah, thought that might be the case - anyone (myself included) that finds 8 lumens overpowering at times should be a sub-lumen fan. ZL is giving moonlight mode a bad name, seen a few posts of people that say they've tried ZL's 0.3 moonlight mode (0.3 lumens should be one of the "brightest" sub-lumen levels offered) and found it useless. I almost exclusively buy sub-lumen lights and my SC52's 0.3 mode is useless for me too. A true 0.3-0.5 lumens hits the sweetspot for me being bright enough to use as my normal "low" mode for reading and close task work, and with about 3-4x the runtime of a 3 lumen mode.
> 
> Here's a side-by-side pix of a Quark AAX (0.3), T10 (0.09) and SC52 (0.3): CLICKY. It does, however, explain how ZL gets 3x the QAAX's runtime though.



Personally I find the level placement of the SC52 to be very good, even if the levels are lower than the rating (on the low end, not the high end). The general low mode is excellent and I find the brightest moonlight mode quite useful in many situations. The lowest sublevel is too low for real use, but the first sub-lumen level is just fine IMO.


----------



## Jash (Dec 14, 2013)

When I can shine a light into the park over the road from my house, and it's so bright it hurts my eyes, then, and only then will the lumens race have gotten out of hand.

Until then carry on.


----------



## NorthernStar (Dec 15, 2013)

I think that the race between the manufacturers constantly raising the bar regarding higher lumens is good, and i hope that it will continue! It leads to the development of new LEDs with higher performance. IMO a flashlight can never be to bright! However, with that said i do prefer longer burntimes before short burst modes of high output on flashlights. Right now the biggest barrier for LED flashlights is the capability of handling heat. 

The highest performance flashlights with the highest lumens have either short burst modes or steps down in effect withing a few minutes when running them at highest mode to prevent overheating. I would rather see that the developers focused and overcomes the heat problem on existing high performance flashlights so that they would not need any burst modes or need to step down in effect at highest mode because of risk of overheating.


----------



## bluemax_1 (Dec 15, 2013)

Jash said:


> When I can shine a light into the park over the road from my house, and it's so bright it hurts my eyes, then, and only then will the lumens race have gotten out of hand.
> 
> Until then carry on.



LOL! How about, "when I can cancel a lunar eclipse with my pocket rocket, I'll concede that it's bright enough".


Max


----------



## m1ke (Dec 15, 2013)

bluemax_1 said:


> LOL! How about, "when I can cancel a lunar eclipse with my pocket rocket, I'll concede that it's bright enough".
> 
> 
> Max


Still not enough. Maybe when I can create a big bang each time I hit the on/off switch. Maybe.


----------



## blah9 (Dec 15, 2013)

There are always going to be times when I wish I had more light, and as LED's continue becoming more efficient the runtimes should get better on lower modes, so I see no downside to having brighter and brighter lights. There definitely has not been a time when I wished I had less light or that I didn't appreciate a light's nice and bright output.


----------



## outdoorman (Dec 18, 2013)

Yes, most flashlights are too bright for everyday use.
A higher CRI LED in neutral white or warm white is more suitable for daily use.


----------



## kwak (Dec 19, 2013)

I do a fair few night hikes every month, most of the hike is on extremely rocky paths, tried several lower output torches, some flood type like the H52 and other tailored more towards throw like the Dereelight.

The H52 was a nightmare as i found it difficult to pick a path say 10 steps ahead plus illuminate the area where my feet are going next, result = fair bit of stumbling.

Even with the flood of H602 i find it difficult to plot paths much further than 20 meters.

So i've stuck with the H600 and have it on it's highest setting the entire walk.
I take 2 x spare batteries so know i have more than enough juice to get me through the walk, so why not use all the light i have available to me?

Can't see the point in risking a twisted ankle just so i can live up to some self imposed lumen output.

Around camp the high mode is too much, again though i don't see the problem as the torch has several decently spaced lower modes to chose from.

If people believe their 30 lumen light is enough to light their way then good on em.
If they are night hiking on a tight budget then i can completely understand.

Money aside and as long as you're carrying enough battery power, i don't really see any negatives in running a brighter light while hiking off-road at night.


----------



## Ruislip (Dec 19, 2013)

Doesn't the H600 have 420Lm on Hi and 750Lm on turbo for 3 minute bursts? So if you could would you want 1000Lm+ for hiking?


----------



## bluemax_1 (Dec 19, 2013)

Ruislip said:


> Doesn't the H600 have 420Lm on Hi and 750Lm on turbo for 3 minute bursts? So if you could would you want 1000Lm+ for hiking?



I think it really depends on the kind of night hiking you're doing, specifically terrain and speed. On smooth easy terrain (especially at lower speeds), less light is needed, the trickier the terrain and/or the faster you're going, the more light you'll want/need. Night trail running (or even worse, night mountain biking) on tricky/unfamiliar terrain requires a LOT of light.


Max


----------



## TEEJ (Dec 19, 2013)

Its all terrain based. A trail to a campsite latrine, sure, you can probably make it with a candle unless there are snakes to avoid too, etc.

If you need enough light to resolve snakes and roots and overhead branches at the same time, plus see far enough head to pick your line through all the obstacles...you need a ton of light...and most people don't have enough....even if they think they do.

Tint is a personal preference and subjective, but if night adapted, is largely irrelevant in this context.


Keep in mind that at night, your eyes are night adapted, and you essentially see in black and white, important ESPECIALLY at longer ranges. Most people do not even realize this, just like most people think they dream in color, but, they dream in black and white.

The MIND'S eye fills in the colors it assumes are there. 

I have tested this, for example, if I give a guy a green and a red jacket, but have him wearing the red on over the green one, and have night adapted observers watch him walk away in the red jacket....and then spot him with their lights a few hundred meters away, and I ask if they can see the red of his jacket or not. The true answer is no, it looks grey. This is because he swapped the red for the green, and is now actually wearing a green jacket.

The answer they GIVE, is that yes, they can see that he's wearing a red jacket. They SEE a red jacket because their brain knows it was red, and, in the dim light, with night adapted eyes, they see a hue of gray and assume its red. This is a lot like watching a black and white TV show, and forgetting its in B&W, and later KNOWING what color things were, because you knew what they were supposed to be.

If you need to look ahead on the trail to avoid running into a log or to be going the right way out of a gulley to be aligned for the next move, you need to use your fovea to resolve the details, and your fovea is where all your cones are, which see color, but, are about night blind compared to your rods...so to resolve details ahead of you, you need more light to provide your fovea/cones with what they run on.


If you get glare, it means your beam angle is too tight, and you need a floodier beam. If its floody ENOUGH, you don't get glare. 

FLOOD takes a LOT more lumens to paint the terrain with enough lux to resolve details. Its lumens per square meter...so if beam one is 1,000 L and covers 1 m2, that's a lot of lux, and it might glare. 


If instead of a 1 meter by 1 meter spot of light, it covers an area from your bike to 40 meter away, and ~ 30 meters wide, that's now covering 1,200 times more surface with the same lumens, at less than 1 lumen per square meter (Less than 1 lux)

Is one lux enough to see what you need to see? Typically, no. 

So THAT means, you need MORE LUMENS....and that's where people who only think in terms of lumens get tripped up. They don't matter in of themselves...its about the lux, not the lumens. You can't SEE lumens....but you need them to get lux, which is what bounces back to your eyes so you CAN see.

The floodier the beam, the more lumens you need just to have the SAME level of illumination. There are still people who say things like "Its impossible to read with a 100 lumen flashlight", and yet, they read by light bulbs that give off a thousand lumens with no trouble at all. And, yes, it IS because those lumens are more spread out, which is exactly the point.




If you are in public parks with paved bike trails, etc, and all you need to do is stay between the lines and avoid joggers and other bikes, sure, with no overhead foliage and a full moon, you're good to go...no need for more.

Everyone else is somewhere between those extremes, and, what ever's right for THEM is what THEY will say is "the right amount of light". Its just pointless for them to argue with each other...as they are on different trails and different speeds with different degrees of night adaptation, and so forth.


----------



## kwak (Dec 20, 2013)

Ruislip said:


> Doesn't the H600 have 420Lm on Hi and 750Lm on turbo for 3 minute bursts? So if you could would you want 1000Lm+ for hiking?



Depends on the version, the MKII has 1090Lm and 660Lm on high

If the H600 MKII was able to reliably stay on 1090Lm then yep that's what i'd use the entire walk.
Why not?

I've talked with people about this before and they've talked about preserving night vision etc, if you have a torch that illuminates the path with enough light to walk by, plus you have enough batteries to keep you going the entire walk, what exactly are they preserving night vision for?

These are the types of paths i'm walking on













Even the main paths are tricky in the dark












Even on high it's not like i'm stunning myself if reflected glare on high






I have walked these paths with no torch and it's more on a constant stumble than a hike.
I've walked these paths with lower output torches like my H502 and even with my H600's on low and although i'm stumbling less i still find it difficult to see fair enough in front to stride with any sort of confidence.
Even with my H602 so many lumens are lost by the flood type beam i find it tough to stride confidently at any decent pace.

So why again, if i have enough battery power to safely see my past the end of the hike, plus i have the finances to purchase a higher output headtorch, why shouldn't i use it on it's highest setting?
What will i be saving it for?


----------



## Ruislip (Dec 20, 2013)

I'm beginning to realise a 'night walk' can mean different things depending on the terrain, weather, and the 'experience' you are trying to get. Basicly seeing stars and shooting stars v. not getting a broken leg.


----------



## kwak (Dec 20, 2013)

Ruislip said:


> I'm beginning to realise a 'night walk' can mean different things depending on the terrain, weather, and the 'experience' you are trying to get. Basicly seeing stars and shooting stars v. not getting a broken leg.



Spot on :thumbsup:

A mate jogs for miles with a cheap little headtorch, seems my phones screen puts out more light than his light.
But it seems to work for him and he certainly runs a LOT faster than me.

For me personally although the areas i hike are only a few km from the city it's extremely rare i ever see anyone else up there, so my main priority is not twisting an ankle or cracking a knee on the edge of a sharp rock.
Plus i always have the dog with me, even though she's always within 10m of me, i still like to keep tabs on her.

Even with the light on high i can still see the stars and moon enough for it to add to the experience, so if i have the batteries and lights why not use them to the full potential, i just don't see any downside to running them flat out.

Should say i have done hikes in some areas where i feel funny about giving my position away as there are many smugglers and criminals use those areas.
In those situations i'll use as low a light as i can get away with


----------



## Swedpat (Dec 20, 2013)

Another definition: flashlights are getting too bright(for the size) when neither the heatsinking can give an adequate heat dissipation, or available battery options a reasonable runtime. "Boost-mode" I would say is a sign of a lumens race getting out of hand.


----------



## inetdog (Dec 20, 2013)

If it happens to be a moonlit night, a lower output light will also allow you to benefit from your peripheral vision instead of being limited to a tunnel of light. 

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk


----------



## TEEJ (Dec 20, 2013)

inetdog said:


> If it happens to be a moonlit night, a lower output light will also allow you to benefit from your peripheral vision instead of being limited to a tunnel of light.
> 
> Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk



Very true. If you don't have a floody enough light. ..it is like trying to see what's out there through a paper towel tube. 

If there's enough moonlight and the area is open enough...I use no light at all if I don't need one.

It's nice to see all the stars and so forth. If that doesn't work because I need to do something besides stargazing. ..oh well, on goes a light.


----------



## kwak (Dec 21, 2013)

inetdog said:


> If it happens to be a moonlit night, a lower output light will also allow you to benefit from your peripheral vision instead of being limited to a tunnel of light.
> 
> Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk



I can understand that if someone is using a hand torch that's tailored towards throw, but with a headtorch with a decent beam it moves with your head so illuminates what you're looking towards.
You hear a rustle in the bushes to the side then you automatically turn your head, turn your head and the beam moves with it.

My H600 does have a dark shadow either side of the beam, my H602's beam is very very nearly as wide as the range of motion of my eyes without moving my head.

15 years ago it was difficult to find a torch that illuminated a path enough to safely walk by, even then it was heavy, bulky, ate through batteries and you needed to take a couple of spare bulbs in case you dropped the torch.
So back then it made sense to try to get away without a torch as they didn't really do much in the way of lighting up the path anyways.

These days though, we have small extremely light weight torches that are capable of lighting up a path as far and as wide as you could possibly want, they're reliable and for what the are relatively cheap, the LED's last for years and the batteries for hours.
So unless some has a reason to act in a covert way, i can't see any logical reason (apart from those i listed previously) for not using a decent headtorch and for not having it on the highest setting the entire walk.

Even then IF their torch is too bright for the task in hand there are very very few decent torches on the market that don't have at least 3 lower output modes.


----------



## TEEJ (Dec 21, 2013)

Swedpat said:


> Another definition: flashlights are getting too bright(for the size) when neither the heatsinking can give an adequate heat dissipation, or available battery options a reasonable runtime. "Boost-mode" I would say is a sign of a lumens race getting out of hand.



I would say boost modes are merely a way to get more light for a quick peek at something harder to see otherwise, w/o having to carry a light large enough to see that far ALL the time.

This would be like saying you ONLY want to be able to jog, and NOT be able to run, unless you could run as long as you could jog.

People can sprint a short distance, or jog a long distance, or, jog a long distance, but have a kick for a short part of that.

A light with a burst or boost or turbo mode, etc...or even a step down mode (Same idea) essentially gives you the OPTION of having that sprint. WHEN/IF you use that mode is up to you. 

If you NEED the power of the burst mode ALL the time, then, you simply need a larger more powerful flashlight in the first place.

The larger more powerful light can then make all that extra power for a longer time frame, handle the heat, etc....that a smaller light cannot.

To say the smaller light can't sprint once in a while if needed, if that extra juice is only needed for a brief time, is not accomplishing anything. It can FORCE people who need say 300 L for most of the time, with an occasional need for 500 L, to carry a light that can do 500L ALL the time, instead of a smaller lighter light that can do 300 L all the time, and can also do that 500 L for a little while if needed.


So, I'm OK with a light with a jogging and a sprinting mode...if it means that the combination makes the light easier to carry, etc. 

For those who read the specs and focus on the sprint speed as what they should get when jogging...well, that's not reading the specs well. The lights say turbo, or whatever, and, we all know what that means.

If it says hi, med lo, that means one thing...and it it says extra supercalafragilistic turbo burst whatever, and THEN high, we should know it means the other thing.





A head lamp that you MUST turn your head to see with, is going to not let you look at the same time at roots/snakes and over head branches and upcoming ledges and obstacles, etc. You'd need to choose them, and, w/o KNOWING that a branch is looming from just above, you would not KNOW TO look up a bit to see it coming. So, sure, if there's a noise to hear and react to, that works for a head turn...but, if there's a cougar on the branch 10' over your head, she can pounce as you go under w/o you seeing her, if you are concentrating on not tripping on that tree's roots, etc.

If you turn the beam up to see if there's a cougar on the branch up there, you then can't see the roots or the trail obstacles coming up. So you have to choose: get jumped by a randy drunken older broad, or, trip on an Alex Haley Movie.


If the beam is floody ENOUGH, you see it all as one view, and your eyes can scan w/o having to swivel your entire head to scan. This works better.


----------



## kwak (Dec 21, 2013)

TEEJ said:


> A head lamp that you MUST turn your head to see with, is going to not let you look at the same time at roots/snakes and over head branches and upcoming ledges and obstacles, etc. You'd need to choose them, and, w/o KNOWING that a branch is looming from just above, you would not KNOW TO look up a bit to see it coming. So, sure, if there's a noise to hear and react to, that works for a head turn...but, if there's a cougar on the branch 10' over your head, she can pounce as you go under w/o you seeing her, if you are concentrating on not tripping on that tree's roots, etc.
> 
> If you turn the beam up to see if there's a cougar on the branch up there, you then can't see the roots or the trail obstacles coming up. So you have to choose: get jumped by a randy drunken older broad, or, trip on an Alex Haley Movie.
> 
> ...



Agree completely on torches turbo modes.
Still have found that the extra output does come in handy when searching out routes or trails.


I understand what you are saying about turning your head, thing is i just don't see that in practice.

While i'm hiking my head is rarely in the same place, be it me wanting to look around, my head nodding as i'm walking, it going up and down due to moving over obstacles or following the dog around with the beam, the beam is never in just one fixed spot.
Do you have a H600?
If not on it's high setting (around 600Lm) i can easily see 50m+
Now imagine that my head moves say 2 degrees up on a object 50m away, that equates to a fair bit of movement.

If you shoot then it's like looking through a scope, the slightest movement of your rifle will give a massive difference at what you are seeing through the scope, the further away you are the bigger the difference. 


It's also a bit like complaining you won the lottery because they paid you in $50 bills, as if you walked without a torch at night you would have even less chance to spot any obstacle/animal/hazard. 
Sure on a bright cloudless night with a bright moon you can generally see pretty good, throw in some tree coverage, some clouds roll in, mountains between you and the moon, even the time of night makes a difference, as at around midnight the moon will be higher in the sky so less effective at casting shadows over obstacles on the ground.


I've hiked at night in Northern Greece where we have wolves and brown bears, i can honestly say that i felt safer (from bears and wolves at least) at night because i was confident my torch would illuminate the animals eyes.
Many many times i spot animals on night hikes because of the torches reflection in their eyes, i've walked the same route without a torch and not spotted anything.
So even a indirect beam on a low light can cause a reflection in a animals eyes, or a shadow to catch your eye.

Each to their own, if someone enjoys night hiking over rough terrain without a torch then that's great, but for me personally on the terrain i walk i find it very dangerous to hike without a torch.
As i always take a couple of spare batteries (and a spare torch, or 2 ) then i just leave my torch on it's highest setting, i can't see any reason why i would chose to reduce my visibility.
I also think it's a bit weird that anyone would complain about a torch being too bright, as i say most of all torches now days all have lower levels, so you could use a torch all it's life and only have it on high as you cycle through the other levels.

It's a bit like someone complaining that their car can do 150mph, easy answer is drive slower


----------



## Swedpat (Dec 21, 2013)

TEEJ said:


> ...I would say boost modes are merely a way to get more light for a quick peek at something harder to see otherwise, w/o having to carry a light large enough to see that far ALL the time.
> 
> This would be like saying you ONLY want to be able to jog, and NOT be able to run, unless you could run as long as you could jog.
> 
> ...



With that I agree. The important thing is then that is clearly mentioned that the highest mode is just a boost mode and not the brightest available mode for normal continious run.


----------



## Ruislip (Dec 23, 2013)

Wet and windy night here in the south of UK. Thought I'd try out my new LD41, tracking debris before it can ding my car. Really surprised how these conditions can swallow up the lumens. I'm going to have to go up a level.....


----------



## Husker (Dec 23, 2013)

kwak said:


>



What is that Round Green Polka-Dot thing on the trail?


----------



## kwak (Dec 23, 2013)

Husker said:


> What is that Round Green Polka-Dot thing on the trail?




It's a tortoise, get a fair few of them around here, usually see at least 6 on each hike.


----------



## kwak (Dec 23, 2013)

Ruislip said:


> Wet and windy night here in the south of UK. Thought I'd try out my new LD41, tracking debris before it can ding my car. Really surprised how these conditions can swallow up the lumens. I'm going to have to go up a level.....



Stay safe


----------



## Ruislip (Dec 23, 2013)

Thanks Kwak. i assume I'm on the right track in thinking that heavy rain, snow, and fog need more light to cut through them? But does Neutral White really cut through weather better than CW as some sellers advertise? If so does the cut-through outweigh the 10% reduction in output that Selfbuilt asesses NW loses out to CW?

PS: we have had a pet tortoise for 40 years that has the same shell pattern as the one in the picture, I believe it is the 'Mediterranean Spur-thighed' breed.


----------



## cy (Dec 23, 2013)

a useful parallel would be how PC's have become very powerful. a basic PC has been powerful enough for all but the most processor intensive tasks for quite sometime. 

flashlights has been powerful enough for basic tasks for quite sometime. to me new lights tend to have an annoying tendency of trying to include everything including the kitchen sink. high/low/off is all I need ... thank you..


----------



## tpetsch (Dec 23, 2013)




----------



## chazz (Dec 23, 2013)

Sorry didn't read every post in thread, just last few pages. So if this has been said before, sorry...

I see quite a few people talking about night hiking on trails or rough terrain and saying they need piles of light to keep from tripping about. That may be the case depending on your eyes, and how steady footed a person is. With that said, there is more going on here if you are only using a headlight for hiking at night. If all the light is coming from basically the same angle you are looking from (headlight) then it will tend to flatten things out ie little to no shadows to see texture and terrain bumps etc. What can help with this is to have some other light either handheld or mounted on chest or even waist height, this can give hugely improved depth perception. I was on Search and Rescue for 5 years and used this a lot for night searches. It was almost a must when looking for tracks. (when looking for tracks we turned our headlights off and only used the handhelds) Also I worked at an aid station for the Hard Rock 100 race which goes all night and many of the runners used this technique also. They would have a headlight (to see where they looked) but at least as bright or brighter light on chest or waist height. So it's not just me,  next time you are out night hiking on rough terrain try it out. 

Now my mini rant on lumens... I don't mind if a light is capable of cranking out some bright lumens, sometimes it can be very useful, but most of the time I use the lower settings, I wish more lights had lower lumen modes with long runtimes. I like the Four Sevens and Zebralights for this but they are not cheap. It does seem that the max lumens is what most people care about. (impress their friends and all that) I just want to be able to see decent and have a long runtime so I am not constantly changing batteries. Options are good on both sides of the spectrum.


----------



## kwak (Dec 24, 2013)

Ruislip said:


> Thanks Kwak. i assume I'm on the right track in thinking that heavy rain, snow, and fog need more light to cut through them? But does Neutral White really cut through weather better than CW as some sellers advertise? If so does the cut-through outweigh the 10% reduction in output that Selfbuilt asesses NW loses out to CW?
> 
> PS: we have had a pet tortoise for 40 years that has the same shell pattern as the one in the picture, I believe it is the 'Mediterranean Spur-thighed' breed.



Really depends on what you want to achieve and how bad the conditions are.

I've taken my TM11 out in really bad fog and found i could see less than with the light off, my Dereelight DBS-T though with a Aspherical lens helped a fair bit.

With rain and snow a narrower beam will help give less glare, but you tend to have to go THAT narrow a beam that it's tough to have enough area illuminated around you to see well enough.

Had a really foggy 2nd day of a bike trip a few years ago and as Chazz pointed out about a light being lower to the ground casts a more useful shadow, i did find that when i attached the light low on the front forks it did help a LOT.

Problem hiking is, how do you get a light source down low enough but still have it provide a consistent beam, i.e. not move with your legs/feet?

Not noticed any gain from different tints in bad weather, this transfers to my cars as well as some of my older cars with older more yellow tints are just as bad in heavy rain and the fog as my newer car with HID's

I think you're right on the tortoise, as a Brit it still makes me laugh every time i see a wild tortoise as it's just not something you expect, tend to see THAT many now though that i don't even bother snapping pics any more.



cy said:


> a useful parallel would be how PC's have become very powerful. a basic PC has been powerful enough for all but the most processor intensive tasks for quite sometime.
> 
> flashlights has been powerful enough for basic tasks for quite sometime. to me new lights tend to have an annoying tendency of trying to include everything including the kitchen sink. high/low/off is all I need ... thank you..



Problem is, if manf's sell a torch with a high/low/off they're limiting their market.
If they sell a high/med/low/off then the torch will appeal to more people.

Personally i can't imagine buying a non specialist (e.g. thrower, keychain etc) that didn't have a turbo/high/med/low



chazz said:


> Sorry didn't read every post in thread, just last few pages. So if this has been said before, sorry...
> 
> I see quite a few people talking about night hiking on trails or rough terrain and saying they need piles of light to keep from tripping about. That may be the case depending on your eyes, and how steady footed a person is. With that said, there is more going on here if you are only using a headlight for hiking at night. If all the light is coming from basically the same angle you are looking from (headlight) then it will tend to flatten things out ie little to no shadows to see texture and terrain bumps etc. What can help with this is to have some other light either handheld or mounted on chest or even waist height, this can give hugely improved depth perception. I was on Search and Rescue for 5 years and used this a lot for night searches. It was almost a must when looking for tracks. (when looking for tracks we turned our headlights off and only used the handhelds) Also I worked at an aid station for the Hard Rock 100 race which goes all night and many of the runners used this technique also. They would have a headlight (to see where they looked) but at least as bright or brighter light on chest or waist height. So it's not just me,  next time you are out night hiking on rough terrain try it out.
> 
> Now my mini rant on lumens... I don't mind if a light is capable of cranking out some bright lumens, sometimes it can be very useful, but most of the time I use the lower settings, I wish more lights had lower lumen modes with long runtimes. I like the Four Sevens and Zebralights for this but they are not cheap. It does seem that the max lumens is what most people care about. (impress their friends and all that) I just want to be able to see decent and have a long runtime so I am not constantly changing batteries. Options are good on both sides of the spectrum.



For lower powered torches i do agree that being mounted lower they do help by casting shadows.
With higher powered lights though i really don't find it makes any difference.

With my H600 on around 600 lumens i can pick out every detail within 5m as good as i could in daylight on a overcast day.

The other thing is that a chest of hip mounted light source is bouncing about compared to the naturally shock absorbed light on your head, for me i find that a chest mounted light causes me to get dizzy as it's bobbing up and down with each step and swinging left to right.

I can understand your point on batteries, but my 1st generation (before they ruined them by having auto step-down) H600 lasts nearly 90mins on a 3400mAh 18650 battery on the torches highest setting (around 600Lm if i remember rightly).
As most of my night hikes last around 3 hours that's just one battery change.
I don't even have to take the light off my head to change it either, so it's takes only around 15 seconds to swap the battery out.

I buy my torches to do a job, the vast vast majority of my night hikes it's just the dog and i, there is no one else to impress.
I have my torch on its highest setting as that's what i prefer, i'm not looking to convince anyone else my way is the best, nor impress anyone else.

If i ran the torch around 200Lm i could probably get away without changing the battery on a 3 hour walk.
But as it takes literally seconds to swap the battery out, i take plenty with me i really don't see any possible negative against running the torch on it's high setting.
On the other hand when i have run it on low i do find i am stumbling more.

So you have a 15sec battery change V a possible injury from a stumble = no brainer to me, give me at least 600Lm :thumbsup:


----------



## BriteGeek (Dec 24, 2013)

My $.02 

Everything is relative, and subjective.

My wife has a blown pupil, and except for heavy overcast days, has to wear sunglasses. Paradoxically, she also has horrible night vision! The lights in our den are always dimmed, and I had to install lower lumen recessed lights in the kitchen. But when we are winter camping (starlight only), and she walks the dog at night, she grabs my brightest flashlight! It is mostly open field and she wants to see EVERYTHING, including the raccoon 50 yards away.

I, however have excellent night vision, and often don't bother with sunglasses. I find I use my EDC Quark mini 123 90% of the time... the other 10% is situational. If I have to find a pet that snuck out of the camper at night I am going for the 1000+ lumen flashlight. If the lights went out, than I want 200-300 lumens set on its tail. If I have to read the serial number on a fileserver, single or double digit lumens work best.

Are flashlights getting to bright? "Maybe". But in the quest for "more" lumens, the "good enough" gets a whole lot better! (runs cooler and longer)


----------



## TEEJ (Dec 24, 2013)

You are 100% correct about it being subjective. We all are doing different things, with differing vision and need different amounts and types of beams.

The fact is that for SOME, there is STILL too little light. For others, the available lights have reached what THEY need,, and they see no need for more.

The ones with enough light will not convince the ones w/o enough that there's enough, and the ones with too little will never convince the ones with enough that they DON'T have enough, and so forth.


If everyone learns to read the specs and understand that turbo/burst/boost/max whatever is for a limited run time, and that the long term output is called high, etc, then they will stop feeling "fooled" by lights that advertise "2000 lumens!" and think its 2000 lumens for 2 hours, etc...and buy an appropriate light that can output the actual output they WANT for the time they want, instead of a smaller less expensive light that can only reach what they wanted for a few minutes.

The CPF people will become gradually more savvy about this. The REST of the population will probably 1) Not have a clue what turbo is 2) Not notice a step down anyway


----------



## cy (Dec 24, 2013)

kwak said:


> Problem is, if manf's sell a torch with a high/low/off they're limiting their market.
> If they sell a high/med/low/off then the torch will appeal to more people.
> 
> Personally i can't imagine buying a non specialist (e.g. thrower, keychain etc) that didn't have a turbo/high/med/low



not really much difference between two stage and three. was really referring to lights with strobe, SOS, etc .. very annoying. 

had a working three stage light about 10 years back. back then a 500 lumen flashlight was the exception. now I'm seeing folks working on a AAA LED flashlight putting out 500 lumens.


----------



## kwak (Dec 24, 2013)

cy said:


> not really much difference between two stage and three. was really referring to lights with strobe, SOS, etc .. very annoying.
> 
> had a working three stage light about 10 years back. back then a 500 lumen flashlight was the exception. now I'm seeing folks working on a AAA LED flashlight putting out 500 lumens.



I think it's a bit pointless generalising.

If a torch has a decent UI then in my experience it doesn't really matter how many modes it has.
My TK70 is a prime example, in the years i've owned it and the hours i've used it i've not once accidentally switched on the strobe functions.

Likewise with my ZL lights, once i'd gotten used to the UI it's really really easy and quick to select the mode you want.
My Niece was using my H600 after showing her the modes she was comfortably able to select the modes she wanted, she's 6 years old.

I can understand that some folks may think 500 lumens is too much for some uses.
I can also understand that some folks would think 500 lumens from a AAA lighht would be pointless.
If the torch has decent thermal management, has decent spec'd lows and a decent UI though i personally can't see the problem.

A bit like driving a modern sports car you don't HAVE to use all the power that's available to you.


----------



## cy (Dec 24, 2013)

kwak said:


> I think it's a bit pointless generalising.
> 
> If a torch has a decent UI then in my experience it doesn't really matter how many modes it has.
> My TK70 is a prime example, in the years i've owned it and the hours i've used it i've not once accidentally switched on the strobe functions.
> ...



UI on such a huge sparingly used light is not as important as an EDC style light. if you've got to teach someone how to use a light .. it's too complicated


----------



## TEEJ (Dec 24, 2013)

cy said:


> UI on such a huge sparingly used light is not as important as an EDC style light. if you've got to teach someone how to use a light .. it's too complicated





UI is also 100% subjective.

One man's complicated is a another man's programmability.


I have seen this over and over again...where some people want to be able to make the light work the way they want it, and they want to program it to their preferences...no matter how off the wall (On at medium, then low, then high, THEN moonlight? really?)

Others want an on/off switch, and anything more than on/off makes their head explode.

Everyone else in in between those extremes somewhere.

The UI designer then has to work with the limitations of the type of light (For example, OK, its a twisty, so, I am stuck with head tight, or head loose, and/or combinations of that to get to some end result sets), and, what the PROJECTED TARGET DEMOGRAPHIC would want. So tactical guys want a tail switch typically, tacticool guys want the light to be black, and the campers and so forth want a side switch and/or rotary ring or ability ot ramp up/down in brightness, etc. Some want both side/ring/ramping plus tail switches, and it goes on and on.


They might guess that if the target buyer is a moonlight aficionado, that maybe it should come on in moonlight. If tactical, on at max output. If tacti-cool, make it black. Etc.

After that, what do they DO to get to what they probably want NEXT? The moonlight guy probably never uses strobe except to signal, the tactical guy MIGHT want strobe instantly available if he's trained on strobe, or never, if he hasn't. The tacticool guy must have strobe, but, will probably only use it to signal.

So what's after max? lowest, medium, blinkies? Ramp up, or, down in brightness? off again?

And so forth.

If YOU buy a light, and, you are NOT the target demographic, you might try out the UI, and think "WTF were these people THINKING?!?!", as it makes no sense to you, at all...or, if close, you'd be confused as to why they made the mode YOU wanted next last instead.



You really need to shop UI in addition to lumens and lux and tint and cri and all that other stuff.


----------



## kwak (Dec 25, 2013)

cy said:


> UI on such a huge sparingly used light is not as important as an EDC style light. if you've got to teach someone how to use a light .. it's too complicated



Again, a bit too much of a generalisation.

Who says that my TK70 is used sparingly ? 
I'd sooner have a decent UI on a 2000+ lumen torch than on a lower powered one, if only because i don't want to accidentally blast it on full mode in some ones eyes. 

With regards to UI's.
I have torches that have 2 switches, 1 switch, tail switch, head switch, tail and head switch, rotary switch, camera shutter type switch, side switch and so on.
It even takes me a second or 2 to redial my brain to the different switches and UI's, so coming out with a blanket statement like "if you've got to teach someone how to use a light .. it's too complicated" is pretty vague to the point of being silly.

The other thing is, we are talking about a 6 year old kid here, it doesn't matter if it was a maglite i'd still take the time to show her how to operate it CORRECTLY 

If you don't like higher powered torches then that's 100% your choice, but coming up with silly, made up and sweeping arguments against them is a little silly.


----------



## langham (Dec 29, 2013)

kwak said:


> Again, a bit too much of a generalisation.
> 
> Who says that my TK70 is used sparingly ?
> I'd sooner have a decent UI on a 2000+ lumen torch than on a lower powered one, if only because i don't want to accidentally blast it on full mode in some ones eyes.
> ...



I almost agree with these statements, Almost. First some of the most complicated UIs are the best. I just got the Thrunite Lynx for Christmas (from my wife), and I had to read the user manual before I understood how to use it. That being said it has one of the most awesome UIs I have ever heard of. I am not all that big of a fan of the depth of the tail switch, but other than that amazing.

I also agree with the statement about the UI getting more important the brighter the light is. When I bust out one of my 3000lm + lights it is very important to know what I am going to get when I hit the switch. There is a big difference between moonlight and OH MY EYES!:huh:

The part I do not agree on is the pushy nature of writing. We all love flashlights here and everyone is entitled to their opinion even if it is wrong. Oh and speaking of too bright, have you guys got one of the new Skyray Kung lights? I got one and modded it and another and didn't both are very bright. The one I modded I put the Nanjg 105C * 4 and 4 XM-L2 U2 1C direct copper mounted leds in, and it is impressive. I wound up de-doming the leds when I was done, because the person that I sold it to also wanted a stock one. 

This is an example of a too bright light, due to the fact that it gets too hot and because it is so floody that it will blind anyone in front of you. It is very much comparable to my Thrunite TN-30 XM-L2 de-dome, but at a fraction of the cost and better run time. (the spot is wider and not quite as bright, but the spill is wider and brighter with more overall light output on turbo than the TN30 on high, I set up mine for 2 modes with the second being comparable to the 3rd setting on a TN30.


----------



## GMUGNIER (Sep 23, 2015)

So what would the latest too bright light be now??


----------



## markr6 (Sep 23, 2015)

1000lm lights...LOL, useless! 1100lm is where it's at! I can't do anything with 1000lm...has to be 1100.


----------



## GMUGNIER (Sep 23, 2015)

Here is a 10,000 lumen light - Crazy!! Please note: I have no affiliation with this company at all.


----------



## more_vampires (Sep 23, 2015)

GMUGNIER said:


> So what would the latest too bright light be now??


http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/forumdisplay.php?140-Vinhnguyen54

I apologize to your wallet in advance.


----------



## more_vampires (Sep 23, 2015)

markr6 said:


> 1000lm lights...LOL, useless! 1100lm is where it's at! I can't do anything with 1000lm...has to be 1100.


Oh man, 1100lm? That's so 2010! 7000+lm is what you need in 2015 for those late night trips to the bathroom. Unfortunately, a side effect of this is now you need sunglasses. Whew! I don't know how people got by on 1100lm. Dark ages, man. Dark ages.

Can't wait to get my hands on that 15,000 lumen Vinh light!



> *TK75vnQ XHP70 SD DriverVNX2**
> 14,000 OTF lumen at turn On
> 13,300 OTF lumen at 30 second
> 210K Max Lux
> ...



Perfect for looking through a closet with the ceiling light out!

Next year's model is going to be even more useful for inspecting your skin or thawing overly hard ice cream!


----------



## FRITZHID (Sep 23, 2015)

more_vampires said:


> Can't wait to get my hands on that 15,000 lumen Vinh light!
> 
> 
> 
> Perfect for looking through a closet with the ceiling light out!



With the ceiling light out, and the door closed, while viewing from the outside!


----------



## more_vampires (Sep 23, 2015)

FRITZHID said:


> With the ceiling light out, and the door closed, while viewing from the outside!


...from the neighbor's yard. 

If we can figure out how to focus this baby tightly, I'm certain it'd be an LED firestarter. Spy 007 can barely do it at 3.3 amps.


LEDs couldn't light a fire until fairly recently, afaik. Hasn't been that long.


----------



## TheShadowGuy (Sep 23, 2015)

I suddenly want a light with .1, 1, 10, 100, 1000, and 10000 lumen modes that comes with a little firestarting lens and a diffuser.


----------



## Parrot Quack (Sep 23, 2015)

markr6 said:


> 1000lm lights...LOL, useless! 1100lm is where it's at! I can't do anything with 1000lm...has to be 1100.



And what about Turbo mode? It's gotta have a Turbo mode or it's not a flashlight.


----------



## more_vampires (Sep 23, 2015)

Parrot Quack said:


> And what about Turbo mode? It's gotta have a Turbo mode or it's not a flashlight.


I want a turbo boost flashlight that has an actual turbine that spins up for added cooling. Light sabers have sound effects, it's high time flashlights did as well!


----------



## Parrot Quack (Sep 23, 2015)

Okay. Now that's funny. LOL!


----------



## 1DaveN (Sep 23, 2015)

more_vampires said:


> I want a turbo boost flashlight that has an actual turbine that spins up for added cooling. Light sabers have sound effects, it's high time flashlights did as well!



Why not a liquid cooler, something like what they use for overclocked computers? Run the lines up your sleeve to a radiator mounted on a backpack or helmet. Or even use them for added warmth in your winter parka. Innovation at its finest


----------



## more_vampires (Sep 23, 2015)

1DaveN said:


> Why not a liquid cooler, something like what they use for overclocked computers? Run the lines up your sleeve to a radiator mounted on a backpack or helmet. Or even use them for added warmth in your winter parka. Innovation at its finest


Heh. I'm still waiting for the flashlight that uses an Einstein-Bose condensate with liquid helium and two lasers to slow down light.

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/1999/02.18/light.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_light


> Hau later succeeded in stopping light completely, and developed methods by which it can be stopped and later restarted.[2]​ This was in an effort to develop computers that will use only a fraction of the energy of today's machines.[3]​ In 2005, IBM created a microchip that can slow down light, fashioned out of fairly standard materials, potentially paving the way toward commercial adoption.[4]​



Flashlights too bright? Never. Too fast? Wellllll.....


----------



## Parrot Quack (Sep 23, 2015)

I caught all my lights so I don't care what IBM has to say.


----------



## idleprocess (Sep 25, 2015)

more_vampires said:


> I want a turbo boost flashlight that has an actual turbine that spins up for added cooling.


For the cooling? How about for the _power_?


----------



## bykfixer (Sep 25, 2015)

To me flashlights n cameras are in a race that appeals to the masses. 
More mega-pixels and more lumens packed into a smaller and smaller package. 

I say let 'em have at it. My favorite small camera maker Panasonic decided at one point to back off on mega-pixels and focus on high iso quality. Well that started a race within the mega-pixels wars. I now get super-duper noise free photos with 16 mega-pixels from non full size sensor cameras.
Winner? The consumer.

I was perfectly happy with 100 lumens. But due to mega-lumen wars and beam quality wars within the lumen wars I now get high quality light at 300-500 lumens. 
Again the winner is the consumer.


----------

