# Throw VS. Output Chart



## Quickbeam (Oct 13, 2003)

*Throw and Output Charts*

*******************
UPDATE MARCH 19, 2006
*******************

THE THROW AND OUTPUT GRAPHICAL CHARTS HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM MY SITE, AND AS A RESULT, WILL NOT SHOW HERE ANYMORE. 

First of all, they are becomming huge. Second they are a huge pain to update. They have been replaced with two sortable tables - headlamps, and everything else. These tables can be sorted by manufacturer name, by throw, and by output.

So, sorry folks, but you'll have to go to my site to see the charts, and the pretty graphs are now gone.

All except Headlamps

Headlamps only

*******************

YOU MUST READ THE FOLLOWING TO UNDERSTAND THIS CHART.

First of all, Lux and Overall Output readings should NOT be relied upon to give you all of the information about the light you are looking for. Read the review and look at the beamshot. All newer reviews on my site include a beamshot on a graduated target at one meter. This will give you a good idea of the beam width which is NOT described by either Lux or Overall Output readings.

Please read the following for more information about the pitfalls of LUX measurements and how the Lightbox Apparatus works.

Throw numbers on the chart are "Relative throw". This measurement takes the Lux at beam center and applies the inverse square law. The inverse square law says that at twice the distance a light is 1/4 as bright. By taking the square root of all of the Lux measurements the numbers can be directly compared. As a result, a light that reads 50 on the chart has half the throw of a light that reads 100. It also has the odd effect of telling you the number of meters at which the light is projecting 1 lux onto the lit surface. A light with 56 throw reading is projecting one lux on a subject surface at 56 meters away from the light.

Overall Output Numbers are "Relative overall output" - "Qups" output - as found in the newer reviews and measured by my Lightbox Apparatus. This number was divided by 100 to fit the chart better. This is a good approximation how much light is put out overall by the flashlight and in a simplistic way is similar to the way Lumens readings are measured. 

Compare Throw to Throw and Output to Output. DO NOT COMPARE Throw TO Output - THEY USE DIFFERENT SCALES.

*LUMENS FROM OVERALL OUTPUT?:*

At one point, with some help from my fellow CandlePowerForums.com members, we thought that by using a multiplication factor the Overall Output numbers in my charts would give a close approximation to Lumens.

After some glaring discrepencies, I removed the reference to this calculation on my site.

Recently I had the opportunity to go over the numbers from a Lightmeter Benchmarking test that was done on CandlePowerForums which I took part in. A few things occurred which makes me think we now have a much more accurate calculation factor:

* I took Overall Output numbers of the lights that were passed around using my Lightbox.
* Those same lights were fully regulated. Output did not change (or changed very little) between my test and the benchmarking.
* They were tested by a reputable company to benchmark the Lux and Lumen output.

As a result, I was able to get what appears to be a much more accurate Lumen calculation factor. Here it is:

LED lights: multiply the Overall Output chart number x 1.39
Incandescent lights: multiply the Overall Output chart number x 1.62

I believe the're different due to the different spectral detection characteristics of the sensor in the meter.

After checking out a list of lights tested in an Integrating Sphere recently and comparing their results to Lumen estimates using the calculations above for lights that I have tested with the Lightbox, it looks like they're darn close to the actual Lumen output. I didn't calculate the variation, but they were usually very close - I was really surprised.

Remember, this is ONLY AN ESTIMATE and should not be used for advertising, marketing, or definitive comparisons. The Lightbox could be in error, or the calculation could be in error.

Enjoy!
Doug P.


----------



## pahl (Oct 18, 2003)

Nice work,
Thanks.


----------



## Doug S (Oct 23, 2003)

Great resource! Keep up the good work.


----------



## dtsoll (Oct 23, 2003)

Very Nice!!!!! Doug /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif


----------



## ChrisA (Oct 23, 2003)

WOW ! Thank you so much Quickbeam ! That looks like a lot of work...

Chris


----------



## Xrunner (Oct 23, 2003)

Thanks for all the info you provided us. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif

-Mike


----------



## Quickbeam (Oct 23, 2003)

Thanks, all! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Added: Update list in first post below the chart with lights I have not yet added to the chart, but have had time to measure. Eventually they will be added to the chart.


----------



## Doug S (Oct 23, 2003)

Looking forward to testing of the new batch of Dorcy LED lights. I see that you have the 2C 8LED one already.


----------



## Quickbeam (Oct 30, 2003)

Added BadBoy 400 Q2 and MadMax+ R2H to the listing.


----------



## Quickbeam (Oct 30, 2003)

Added Dorcy Spyder to the list.


----------



## diddy808 (Nov 2, 2003)

Nice /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/buttrock.gif


----------



## Overload (Nov 4, 2003)

I'm dying to see the numbers for the Inova X1 with it's unique spot. I assume it'll be one of the few lights with more lux than Qups, and maybe the ONLY LED on _that_ short list. (a Luxon Star might make the list too, and I guess it's a LED too)

Overload in Colorado

p.s. So, what does it mean when lux is greater than Qups? Too focused?


----------



## balrog (Nov 4, 2003)

This is an excellent chart Quickbeam. I'd like to see the chart ordered by Lux (Red) as well as by Qups (Blue). And then I'd like to see some LED based flashlights above the Maglites on the Lux ordered chart /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif Perhaps the Space Needle or MR-X might do the trick.


----------



## Quickbeam (Nov 4, 2003)

[ QUOTE ]
p.s. So, what does it mean when lux is greater than Qups? Too focused? 

[/ QUOTE ]

No, not too focused. Remember, Lux and Qups can NOT be compared directly. They are different units. I just put them on the same chart for convenience. Lux is the output at one meter sampled from a dime sized spot in the center of the beam. Qups is the relative overall output measured via reflected light at very close range.

Lights with similar Lux ratings should have similar throw. Lights with similar Qups readings should have similar overall output. 

[ QUOTE ]
I'd like to see the chart ordered by Lux (Red) as well as by Qups (Blue).

[/ QUOTE ]

Building this chart and changing it into a format that can be displayed here is a HUGE pain in the a$$. Perhaps sometime in the future I'll make various charts. I'm afraid this will have to do for now... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif


----------



## Overload (Nov 4, 2003)

Would it be fair to use a QUPS to Lux ratio of two flashlights to compare a throw vs output of the two flashlights?
e.g. the X1 has a 1.9 QUPS to Lux ratio (135/71) while the X5 has a 9.3 ratio (895/96) showing the X5 has more flood?

Overload in Colorado


----------



## Quickbeam (Nov 5, 2003)

I don't see why not... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif


----------



## Quickbeam (Nov 6, 2003)

Added 4 more...


----------



## rlhess (Nov 27, 2003)

[ QUOTE ]
*Overload said:*
Would it be fair to use a QUPS to Lux ratio of two flashlights to compare a throw vs output of the two flashlights?
e.g. the X1 has a 1.9 QUPS to Lux ratio (135/71) while the X5 has a 9.3 ratio (895/96) showing the X5 has more flood?

Overload in Colorado 

[/ QUOTE ]

I find the ratio of the square roots of these numbers tell a lot about their relative beam widths. Because of the inverse square law, the square root of these numbers seems more appropriate.

Richard


----------



## absoLite (Nov 29, 2003)

Quickbeam, your review site is great ! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/buttrock.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif

I always use it to compare several flashlights and to see how certain lights are performing.

As for the numbers, I think that for two lights, if light 1 has double the LUX of light 2, light 1 will throw 1.41 times as far as light 2.
If light 1 has 4 times the LUX of light 2, it will throw 2 times as far as light 2.
If light 1 has 9 times the LUX of light 2, it will throw 3 times as far as light 2.

Right ?

Always given clear conditions, no fog etc. of course.
With LUX I mean LUX readings at 1 m.


----------



## Quickbeam (Nov 30, 2003)

According to the inverse square law, that should be correct. Glad you enjoy the site!


----------



## StevieRay (Nov 30, 2003)

Quickbeam,

Great chart! 

Suggestion: Since you have plenty of room to expand "width wise",
I believe that the lower output lights would be better represented if their graphs could be expanded. Just a thought. It may be too much trouble since you would have to change the parameters overall.


----------



## ResQTech (Nov 30, 2003)

Great chart, lots of info! Anyway you could get a Tigerlight on that chart?


----------



## Quickbeam (Nov 30, 2003)

Sure, if Tigerlight would send a sample for review! The didn't respond when my e-mail was sent to their corporate offices. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif


----------



## Quickbeam (Nov 30, 2003)

NEW NEW NEW!!! Nov 30 

The chart is now listed by throw instead of overall output and I have taken the square root of all of the Lux readings (applying the inverse square law). That means if you see a red number of 100, it is twice as bright as a red number of 50! So now you can tell if one light is twice as bright, half as bright, etc. as another. 

It also has the odd effect of telling you the number of meters at which the light is projecting 1 lux onto the lit surface. A light with 56 throw reading is projecting one lux on a subject surface at 56 meters away from the light. 

The blue numbers are the same but have been divided by 100 so that they fit on the same chart, but are still able to be compared as before.


----------



## NewsFlash (Dec 1, 2003)

Thanks for putting the SureFire E1e Executive on the chart! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif


----------



## SilverFox (Dec 2, 2003)

Hello Doug,

Having the throw listed as an actual distance makes this chart extremely useful.

Thanks for all your work and effort.

Tom


----------



## Geode (Dec 2, 2003)

Quickbeam,

Excellent chart, with 11/30 updates. It confirms some of my heuristic measurements of lights that I own.


----------



## StuU (Dec 2, 2003)

Nice chart.
However, it seems that the Surefire E2e at 38 throw is only marginally better than the Minimag at 31 throw??????

Also, E2e throw at 38 is WAY down from the Surefire G2 at 63. The Surefire Mn03 bulb and P60 lamp should not be all that different? 

The Haglite4D is WAY up there at 104. I would take my E2e throw over the Haglite anyday.


----------



## Turt (Dec 2, 2003)

StuU has a point i think... I thought the A2 lumens rating was 50 while the E2 was 60... even the total output seems to be short of what its supposed to be for the E2. But that's just my observation... I really am thankful for this chart as it is a gives a very good ballpark figure for each of the lights. Cheers to Quickbeam!


----------



## Gretchin (Dec 2, 2003)

Thank you very much for the excellent charts Quickbeam. 


How would a 4D Mag with a xenon bulb compare to one with the regular krypton bulb?


----------



## Quickbeam (Dec 2, 2003)

Glad you all enjoy the chart and find it useful! 

StuU,

You describe a conceptual battle I've been fighting for a while and is one of the reasons I originally removed the lux cart from my site for incandescent bulbs. Basically it comes down to this: "LUX READINGS DON'T TELL YOU EVERYTHING ABOUT THE OUTPUT OF A LIGHT."

Remember that LUX is read at a tiny point in the beam (About the size of a dime). This is the result of the size of the meter element.

So, yes, the minimag at it's tightest focus will project 1 lux on a surface at 31 meters while the E2 will project 1 lux on a surface at 38 meters. The ammount of the surface illuminated is not indicated by the readings.

Lux doesn't tell you anything about the size of the "hotspot" or how smooth the beam is. Hence why this chart is "part of a whole" and you should read the reviews and look at the beamshots (all taken at one meter on a graduated target) in the reviews.

E2:







Minimag:






Better? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Turt,

Remember that the lightbox is not a scientifically perfect light measuring device. It gives APPROXIMATIONS ONLY. So the readings may be a little off from reality. Who knows? My bulb may be bad, the batteries may have been sub-par. All kinds of variables come into play. Send me 20 grand and I'll buy an integration sphere and calibration equipment. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Gretchin,

I don't know... I would expect it to be a little brighter.


----------



## GuyInBlack (Dec 11, 2003)

Wow, this chart is *really* useful. Thanks for taking the time to make it!


----------



## traveler (Dec 15, 2003)

I'm looking for a comparison between V2 PowerChip flashlight and the Inova X5. Anyone ?.


----------



## Quickbeam (Jan 31, 2004)

UPDATED with a bunch of new lights! 

Also updated the page on my site with charts sorted by Manufacturer, Throw and Output - YES, 3 CHARTS!

http://flashlightreviews.home.att.net/reviews/output_vs_throw.htm


----------



## 03lab (Jan 31, 2004)

Good update Quickbeam /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/thumbsup.gif May I also suggest a chart based on lamp type (LED/incan)?


----------



## astrilt1 (Feb 4, 2004)

I'm pretty impressed with the Dorcy Spyder numbers. I got two for $28 at Costco a while back. The output vs. price on that makes me wish i bought more while I had the chance.


----------



## Quickbeam (Feb 4, 2004)

HA! Fixed the darn charts. Much better now if I do say so myself. This is the way they were supposed to be in the first place. Stupid spreadsheet program kept giving me problems.

http://flashlightreviews.home.att.net/articles/output_vs_throw.htm


----------



## Mrd 74 (Feb 4, 2004)

Quickbeam
According to your charts the Streamlight TL-3 really performs for its size.


----------



## SilverFox (Feb 5, 2004)

Hello Doug,

I loved your charts before, and love them even more now.

Tom


----------



## pangris (Jun 19, 2004)

Thank you VERY much. I found this very interesting and useful! It gave me a new respect for some lights, and saved me some money... your numbers are at odds with some marketing departments /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Paul


----------



## leukos (Jul 11, 2004)

Thanks, Quickbeam. These charts are a better source for comparison than what manufacturers stats. I'm sure you've had plenty of requests for additional lights, and here's two more: SF L2, and Maglight 6D.
Thanks for your contribution to flashlight history! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/bowdown.gif


----------



## soloco (Oct 25, 2004)

Quickbeam~
Doesn't the inverse-square law only apply to a point source of light that radiates in all directions? I don't think you can apply this same law in this specific case.


----------



## Roy (Oct 25, 2004)

Generally speaking, if you're more than 7 times the maxium measurment of the light source, away from the light, then inverse square law still works


----------



## soloco (Oct 25, 2004)

[ QUOTE ]
*Roy said:*
Generally speaking, if you're more than 7 times the maxium measurment of the light source, away from the light, then inverse square law still works 

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry. I don't understand what that means. More than 7 times away from the light source? 7 times what distance?


----------



## Roy (Oct 25, 2004)

If the max dimention of the light is (let's say) one inch, then you would need to be at least 7 inches away from the light for the inverse square law to work.


----------



## soloco (Oct 25, 2004)

Ohhhh. Okay. I totally agree that measuring just the bulb would follow the inverse square law. Actually, I meant that the lux as measured in the BEAM, which I think is what is being measured in the Throw Charts, won't follow inverse square law, because it isn't radiating out in a sphere. It's collimated into (theoretically anyway) a parallel beam. Therefore, the lux loss difference from lets say 1m to 2m should just be due to beam divergence and losses due to passing through the air. I don't think the lux measured in the beam at 1m should be 4 times brighter than the lux measured in the beam at 2m, right?


----------



## evan9162 (Oct 26, 2004)

[ QUOTE ]

I don't think the lux measured in the beam at 1m should be 4 times brighter than the lux measured in the beam at 2m, right? 


[/ QUOTE ]

It should, even for a collimated light source. Anyone with a light meter would be able to verify. Tomorrow afternoon, I will finally be able to as well /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif


----------



## Quickbeam (Oct 27, 2004)

Inverse square law applies - move 2 times the distance from the target and the amount of light striking any one spot is 1/4. As you move in one direction away, the beam spreads out in 2 directions (vertical and horizontal).


----------



## Doug S (Oct 27, 2004)

[ QUOTE ]
*soloco said:*
Ohhhh. Okay. I totally agree that measuring just the bulb would follow the inverse square law. Actually, I meant that the lux as measured in the BEAM, which I think is what is being measured in the Throw Charts, won't follow inverse square law, because it isn't radiating out in a sphere. It's collimated into (theoretically anyway) a parallel beam. Therefore, the lux loss difference from lets say 1m to 2m should just be due to beam divergence and losses due to passing through the air. I don't think the lux measured in the beam at 1m should be 4 times brighter than the lux measured in the beam at 2m, right? 

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually your reasoning is correct for a perfectly collimated beam, i.e., zero divergence. If the beam is divergent and the detector area is smaller than the beam at the closer distance, and Roy's sufficient source to detector criterion is met, then the inverse square relationship generally applies. There are a few other minor qualifiers I am chooseing to ignore.


----------



## evan9162 (Oct 27, 2004)

Doug,

Is there such a thing as a perfectly collimated beam? I figured due to A) light source volume always being non-zero, and B) imperfections in optics, that you can't get a perfect 0-degree beam...


----------



## Doug S (Oct 27, 2004)

[ QUOTE ]
*evan9162 said:*
Doug,

Is there such a thing as a perfectly collimated beam? I figured due to A) light source volume always being non-zero, and B) imperfections in optics, that you can't get a perfect 0-degree beam... 

[/ QUOTE ]
Certainly not in the realm of flashlights.


----------



## soloco (Oct 28, 2004)

There isn't a realistically 0-degree beam, but we are talking theory and equations here. The 2 ends of the extreme are non-collimated, which is a point source of light like a candle, and a BEAM from the perfectly centered filament in a parabolic reflector. As far as matching empirical data to an equation, I think we should be able to consider every flashlight a FLOOD of some sort, just floods of various divergence.

What I actually hope to gain from this discussion is a way of describing a beam that actually speaks to the quality of the collimation as well as the overall brightness. I believe these 2 factors will yield a good THROW number. For a given torch, lux could be measured at 2 or more distances; at least at 2 and preferably at 3 or more distances. The relationship between brightness and distance can be used to interpolate an equation that wouldn't follow the inverse square law but would at least show the decrease in illuminance as a function of distance. To test the equation a point source of light could be tested to show that the inverse square law results. Then the equation should also match the opposite end of the scale and a laser could be tested.

For example, in practice consider 2 lights. Both have the same illuminance at 1m. 1st light has a tight beam and 2nd has a wide flood. The current chart would show them with the same throw. BUT if we remeasure at let's say 10m. The difference will be dramatic. Both relationships should be able to be matched to the same equation with differing constants. This constant could then be charted and show the relative throw of a variety of lights.

Does this make sense to anyone? Or am I way off here?


----------



## evan9162 (Oct 28, 2004)

I've actually done what you said for a collimated beam. The results weren't exact, but I attribute that to the fact that the optical systems don't produce a perfectly conical light shape, resulting in different beam distributions at different distances.

Anyways, I found that the inverse square law applied to tightly focused flashlights, as it should.


----------



## soloco (Oct 28, 2004)

I guess I'm having trouble with the fact that there must be some flashlights that achieve a collimated beam. The throw of these lights would therefore not obey the inverse square law and would far out throw a light that did obey the inverse square law. However, the formula used to calculate "throw" in the Throw Chart doesn't take this into account. I'll try and pick up a light meter and verify my hypothesis with actual data.

I just wanted to also say that I hope no one thinks I'm detracting from the great work that Quickbeam has done in even collecting all the data that went into the chart. I still visit his site frequently and value the content. Thanks for the healthy discussion everyone.

http://photonotes.org/cgi-bin/entry.pl?id=Collimatedlight


----------



## evan9162 (Oct 29, 2004)

Here's some actual test data. 

I tested a regulated Mag 3d mod. It has a LuxI high dome emitter, regulated at 580mA. Many would consider a LuxI with a mag reflector to be an extremely tight, collimated beam.

To test, I focused the beam to be tightest at about 20', approximating tight focus to throw the farthest. I then used a Meterman LM631 light meter, on the F-C scale to test at 1 foot increments from 1 foot to 7 feet.

Here are the results:







I added an inverse square plot to compare, then adjusted the Y-axis of the test data to fit the scale of the inverse square plot.

As you can see, beyond 2 feet, the light obeys the inverse square law perfectly. The first two feet don't obey the law because of the beam characteristics. The beam is not a perfect conical beam, it's source is a non-zero sized point - the beam source is the diameter of the reflector. Thus, the beam, when focused closest to a parallel beam, can NEVER be smaller than the reflector in diameter. Thus, for the first few feet, the measurements are low because the beam won't converge to a single point, rather it will converge to the size of the reflector.

Even if your beam angle is only 0.001 degree, it still will obey the inverse square law. It's a matter of geometry.

In fact, I'd propose that, instead of measuring at 1m, we measure our lights at 2m instead. I've found that (and this graph helps support that) at 1m on some lights, the beam still isn't completely coherent, and that the 1m measurement is slightly less than 4 times the 2 meter measurement. In the graph above, the 3' measurement (approx 1m), still measures a little low compared to the inverse square graph. Besides, why use a 1m measurement as an indicator of throw? You don't need much light at that distance anyways...


----------



## soloco (Oct 29, 2004)

Would you mind trying another test? Try to focus to the brightest beam you can at 7ft first (or whatever the furthest distance is). Then measure back toward the light from there without modifying the focus. This should yield better numbers.


----------



## evan9162 (Oct 30, 2004)

Focused at 7'






Results are pretty much identical. Focus wasn't much different for 7' vs infinity.


----------



## Roy (Oct 30, 2004)

What is the diameter of the front of the flashlight? One rule of thumb for the Inverse Square Law says that you need to be at least 7 times the maximum measurment of the light source before the Inverse Square Law works. I know of some that use 10x for the distance. My 4xD Maglite is 2 inches across the lens which would indicate that the photocell should be 14" - 20" from the flashlight. I dont know if the size of the detector has an influence or not...but I would not be supprised if it did.

From the plots presented here, I'd say that the closest the detector to flashlight distance should be is no closer than 3 feet (1 meter), if you're going to be using the Inverse Square Law.


----------



## cheesehead (Oct 30, 2004)

I thought all lights have to obey the "inverse square" law. I had this argument a while back and was "shot down". I think it's all simple physics. If you want "throw", only a short arc will do. Everything else, is basically,....um,.. a glowing candle. 

cheese

ps, and yes the short arc too has to behave according to the inverse square law, but the "hot spot" starts off very very small.


----------



## soloco (Oct 31, 2004)

What is a short arc? All point sources of light obey the inverse square law. Collimated light doesn't. Light emitting from a large flat surface doesn't. By short arc do you mean a small source of light relative to the reflector?


----------



## asdalton (Nov 23, 2004)

It is better to think of luminous flux (measured in lumens) as being constant rather than assuming the inverse square law right away. That is, the total amount of light emitted is independent of distance--so long as you are not projecting the beam through fog or some other medium that absorbs photons.

If you have a point light source, then simple geometry says that lux measurements (lumens/m^2) will drop off inversely with the square of the distance from the source. If the light source is more complex, then this won't necessarily be true except at very large distances. Just how large is "very large" depends on the light source. For something like a laser it will be enormous. For a flashlight, a good rule of thumb might be the point at which the beam hotspot is several times larger than the bezel diameter.


----------



## asdalton (Nov 23, 2004)

I would recommend putting these brightness vs. distance plots on a log-log scale. That way, the inverse square part will be linear with a slope of -2, which is much easier to pick out by eye (no need for a second 1/r^2 curve).


----------



## Quickbeam (Nov 23, 2004)

I'll look into it - as soon as I figure out what you just said... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/huh2.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif


----------



## asdalton (Nov 23, 2004)

I was referring to the graphs posted by evan9162, not the charts on your review site. Those are just fine as they are. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif


----------



## Quickbeam (Nov 24, 2004)

WHEW! Had me worried I'd have to learn all about Log scales again - did that once in college and have no desire to try to figure it all out again!


----------



## absoLite (Dec 2, 2004)

Now and then there are questions about the spill of certain lights and how they do compare.
In the reviews there is always a picture of the beam (and spill) of each light.

I think it would be great if the diameter of the spill could be included in the chart as well.

This way one could easily compare the lights spill-wise as it is possible for throw right now.
First I thought the total output would correlate to the spill, but that is only true for lights with the same throw. Lights with different throw and the same overall output would naturally have less spill.


----------



## rasserie (Dec 14, 2004)

hi ani idea how will the hyper blaster 1R will fare in the charts? thanks


----------



## ElectroLight (Jan 1, 2005)

Can you help me understand why the SureFire A2 has a higher Throw (48.08) and Overall Output (57.5) with a rating of 50 lumens as compared to the SureFire E2D/E with Throw (36.41) and Overall Output (50.0) and a higher lumen rating of 60? Thanks!


----------



## Roy (Jan 1, 2005)

Size and shape of the reflector?


----------



## Quickbeam (Jan 1, 2005)

Got me! I just take the measurements and post the numbers... Perhaps because the E2 isn't regulated? Just how long is the E2 putting out 60 lumens, anyway? Output drops from the moment it's turned on.... Just a thought.


----------



## Donovan (Mar 17, 2005)

The throw chart shows a Surefire P60 and P61 bulbs as having the exact same throw. I thought the P61 was twice as bright with similar reflector as the P60? Wouldn't that give it more throw?


----------



## JohnK (Mar 17, 2005)

Twice the lumens, but much larger hot spot, so the lux is about the same.


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Mar 17, 2005)

Regarding A2, I think that Surefire has underrated the lumens. With fresh batteries, both lights, the A2 overpowers the G2 using my "true lumen bathroom testbed" and my LM631 lightmeter.

Bill


----------



## Phaserburn (Apr 15, 2005)

Quickbeam, could your apparatus also measure overall output of some compact fluoro lights, like the Energizer Trailblazer, Osram Dulux Mini, Energizer Folding Lantern, etc? It would be interesting to me to see the output of these flood lights compared to more conventional flashlights, especially the ones people like to stand on their tails.


----------



## Quickbeam (Apr 16, 2005)

Unfortunately, it isn't set up for this. I'd need to cut a larger hole and that could throw the whole thing off...


----------



## raggie33 (Apr 16, 2005)

i been reseaarching ya aparutus quick beam where is the light senser at bottem middle.does it have to be exact .also whats the function of the alumnim foil.sorry for all the questions


----------



## Quickbeam (Apr 17, 2005)

The foil helps prevent too much of the light from leaving through the sides of the box. High output lights make the box glow which means the light is escaping though the paper sides.

The sensor is dead center in the bottom. The opening at the top for the light beam is dead center. The paper baffle hangs in the top opening, only 1/2 way around on the side toward the sensor. It hangs in about 1/2 inch - just enough to keep light from hitting the sensor directly. 

Lights are never inserted, the bezel is kept in line with the top edge of the opening.

That's it.


----------



## raggie33 (Apr 22, 2005)

cool ty for info


----------



## jayflash (May 22, 2005)

Thank you so much, Quickbeam, for your helpful reviews and the output/throw charts that I constantly refer to. You provide one of the most valuable resources, for me, on the CPF. Your time and effort is appreciated.


----------



## Quickbeam (May 22, 2005)

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif


----------



## balazer (Aug 25, 2005)

Here's a suggestion: create an *actual* throw vs. output chart. That is, a 2-dimensional graph in which each light is plotted as a point in that space. The X axis would be throw, and the Y axis would be output. You might experiment with the square root, and see if it looks better with or without that.

Even cooler would be a graph of output vs. run-time, or output * run-time vs. size or weight.

If you have your data in an Excel worksheet listing throw and output for each light, such a chart is not hard to make. Though I don't know if Excel will do a very nice job of labeling the lights.


----------



## cratz2 (Dec 3, 2005)

That would be a lot of initial work, but a lot of times when the new guys come in and ask for a 'great Luxeon flood light' or 'cheapest L4-ish clone' I always just want to scream, look for a small reflector and compare the throw vs overall score on flashlightreviews.com... I mean, it would stand to reason that if a light puts out hella total output, but has modest throw and has an even beam, then it might just make a decent flood light...


----------



## missionaryman (Jan 1, 2006)

absolutely great - thanks for the super effort.


----------

