# 1000 Lumen LED flashlight



## MikeRD03 (Aug 18, 2006)

Hi folks,

On my serach for high lumen LED solutions I found this new LED flashlight:

http://www.wiseled.com/index.aspx?articleid=888

Perhaps this would interesst someone. With 1000 Lumen on paper for a handlamp it sounds not too bad ;-)

Bye
MikeRD03


----------



## easilyled (Aug 18, 2006)

MikeRD03 said:


> Hi folks,
> 
> On my serach for high lumen LED solutions I found this new LED flashlight:
> 
> ...



I saw no mention of 1000 Lumens in your link


----------



## BigusLightus (Aug 18, 2006)

Try this link: http://www.wiseled.com/index.aspx?articleid=+927+927


----------



## easilyled (Aug 18, 2006)

BigusLightus said:


> Try this link: http://www.wiseled.com/index.aspx?articleid=+927+927




Ok thanks - I can see the claim now

No technical info though - like leds, batteries, drivers, circuitry.

We tend to be sceptical about manufacturers claims unless they
are backed up by facts.


----------



## MikeRD03 (Aug 18, 2006)

That are 1000 lumen on paper out of 7 LED. Makes 140 Lumen per LED. There are only very few LEDs on market that will do that.

I wonder what this lamp does with the heat of seven 5W LED in your hand..


----------



## Manzerick (Aug 18, 2006)

it looks familar...


I can't put my finger on it...


----------



## Tritium (Aug 18, 2006)

" Pick up a Wiseled Tactical and turn it on. It delivers an incredible amount of light. With an output of 1.000 lumen (233 watt)"

233 watts? That is over 33 1/4 watts per emitter in a 7 emitter package. Definitely not LuxV's although 7 W-bin emitters could come close to the 1000 lumen figure.

Thurmond


----------



## PeteBroccolo (Aug 18, 2006)

But who, or where, can they be purchased from?


----------



## soffiler (Aug 18, 2006)

Tritium said:


> " Pick up a Wiseled Tactical and turn it on. It delivers an incredible amount of light. With an output of 1.000 lumen (233 watt)"
> 
> 233 watts? That is over 33 1/4 watts per emitter in a 7 emitter package. Definitely not LuxV's although 7 W-bin emitters could come close to the 1000 lumen figure.
> 
> Thurmond


 
You can't convert lumens directly to watts, unless of course you know the efficacy of the particular light source in the particular situation (Efficacy gives you the relationship between lumens and watts...)

1000 lumens and 233 watts is 4.29 lumens per watt. That can't be right. Decent white LED's should be ten times that.... aha, it makes more sense if the decimal got dropped and it's 23.3 watts.

In addition, 23.3 watts is a lot easier to pull out of a battery pack than 233 watts.


----------



## freakflag (Aug 18, 2006)

Anybody see any prices?


----------



## Illum (Aug 18, 2006)

I dont think its legit

233 watts is alot of heat.....for a flashlight

1000 Lumens on 7 LEDs? 

[font=Verdana, Arial Black][font=Verdana, Arial]"Horse puckey!





_Horse puckey!!!_







*HORSE PUCKEY!!!!!!*









"
--LED Museum


is there a possibility 1000 lumens can be reached using 7 LuxV die's?:candle:
probably cook itself...
[/font][/font]


----------



## Manzerick (Aug 18, 2006)

"Horse puckey"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


----------



## BigusLightus (Aug 18, 2006)

What about the power source? 233 watts for stated "12 hour" run time? Is it nuclear powered?


----------



## soffiler (Aug 18, 2006)

Illum_the_nation said:


> ...i[font=Verdana, Arial Black][font=Verdana, Arial]s there a possibility 1000 lumens can be reached using 7 LuxV die's?...
> [/font][/font]


 
With a REALLY BIG heatsink, you can avoid cooking. And you can theoretically overdrive a LuxV up to 143 lumens (=1000/7). You won't be able to maintain the typical 25-30ish lumens per watt when overdriving this hard. I would take a wild guess and say it'll drop down under 20 lumens per watt. So you're going to need to stuff more than 50 watts into it. That's over 14 amps at nominal Vf of 3.5 volts. That is one heavy duty driver circuit. And a mondo battery pack to run it.


----------



## simonsays (Aug 18, 2006)

BigusLightus said:


> What about the power source? 233 watts for stated "12 hour" run time? Is it nuclear powered?


 

Whenever anyone asks what is powering my Orb Raw I tell them 'Its not a battery, its a 3rd generation submini nuclear fusion reactor'





Simon


----------



## cmacclel (Aug 18, 2006)

Yup......Crap specs 100%. I tried sending them an E-Mail and it bounced.

7 Lux V's driven to produce 100 lumens would melt that optic 

Mac


----------



## Ra (Aug 18, 2006)

And..

They are a bit arrogant calling this the most powerfull flashlight in the world !!!

Almost every manufacturer thinks his flashlights are the best!!

They probably never heard of CPF !!! If they did they woudn't make such a claim...

And Mac: don't you mean 1000 lumens...

Ra.


----------



## Blindasabat (Aug 18, 2006)

I think their "watttage" is stating what incandescant bulb wattage the lumens are equal to. 
i.e. 140 lumens (30 Watts) from a single LED in the "Stealth" version is about equal to a 30 Watt bulb. I don't know if that's true... just saying I think that could be what they mean. 

A V or W-bin Lux V can get 140 lumens so it's not TOO far out there. At least before heat takes over and they have to drop output or burn up as efficiency drops.


----------



## ledaholic (Aug 18, 2006)

Price page
http://www.wiseled.com/index.aspx?articleid=+916&shopCId=9&menuid=916009


----------



## Ra (Aug 18, 2006)

Blindasabat said:


> I think their "watttage" is stating what incandescant bulb wattage the lumens are equal to.
> i.e. 140 lumens (30 Watts) from a single LED in the "Stealth" version is about equal to a 30 Watt bulb. I don't know if that's true... just saying I think that could be what they mean.



Could be.. 

But then it would be an estimated equivalent power so if they indeed forgot the decimal point, 23.3 does not sound like an estimated value to me !!

And if you have a bulb that needs 233 watts to produce 1000 lumens... THROW IT AWAY !!! 

They do anything that sounds in their favor... Just like the ones claiming 15 million cp for a halogen spotlight

Ra.


----------



## dixemon (Aug 18, 2006)

It sounds like somebodys riding the "BS" wave on this one. I think their claims are embelished a bit to say the least. 10hrs of runtime off a single charge? Hmm.. at 1000lumens...Hmmm Wow!!


----------



## LumenHound (Aug 18, 2006)

Look through the PDF's in the Download section of the site.


BigusLightus said:


> What about the power source? 233 watts for stated "12 hour" run time? Is it nuclear powered?


----------



## Tritium (Aug 18, 2006)

simonsays said:


> Whenever anyone asks what is powering my Orb Raw I tell them 'Its not a battery, its a 3rd generation submini nuclear fusion reactor'
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
You still using those outdated power sources. A micro quantum singularity is the new wave in portable power generation (needed for the RAW NS). Get with the program! 
:lolsign:
Thurmond


----------



## cmacclel (Aug 18, 2006)

ledaholic said:


> Price page
> http://www.wiseled.com/index.aspx?articleid=+916&shopCId=9&menuid=916009




$610 delivered in the US for the Tactical 1000 Lumen version.....


Mac


----------



## adirondackdestroyer (Aug 18, 2006)

WHOA, you gotta be kidding me. Over $500 for the tactical light. My only question is who's gonna be the crazy guy to actually buy one of these and test it out.


----------



## Illum (Aug 18, 2006)

jeezez 500 euro?

thats about $640.422 acording to http://www.xe.com/ucc/convert.cgi

I'd spend that money on a SF M6 and some extras


----------



## Ra (Aug 18, 2006)

LumenHound said:


> Look through the PDF's in the Download section of the site.



Well.. I did.. It gave me one answer: They did not forget the decimal point !

So question remains: What is meant by the "233watt" with the 1000 lumens claim ??

And what the .... is 400 watts strobe effect..??..

How do they get rid of the heat produced by those led's at 1000 lumens??

Edit: Where does it stop...: With the 1lux at 900 feet claim I calculated a WHOPPING 90,000 Beam CP's !!! 
YES,, 90,000 Lux at one meter !!!!

Even with halogen you need a 4 inch diametre reflector to reach that amount of CP's !!! Impossible to do with led's in a 61mm diameter head !

Guyzzz,, I'M OUTTAHERE !! DOEIII...


Ra.


----------



## LumenHound (Aug 18, 2006)

Can't wait to see the AI review on one of these flashlights.


----------



## cuervo (Aug 18, 2006)

Has anyone looked at their Diving link?

The diver pictured *isn't* using one of their lights.


----------



## yekim (Aug 18, 2006)

Weird, even though I had never been to their website before, I still had 2 Tactical models in my shopping basket. o_0? 

This page says it has 1420 lumen. http://www.wiseled.com/index.aspx?articleid=+916&shopPId=34&menuid=916009

Run Away!!!


----------



## gessner17 (Aug 18, 2006)

Hm...my Tri-lux V will burn you if left on for more than 10 min on hi (1000ma), but it produces a whole lot of light.


----------



## Ra (Aug 18, 2006)

Sorry.. couldn't stay away.. had to see where this goes...



yekim said:


> This page says it has 1420 lumen.QUOTE]
> 
> On one of their pages they mention a taillight producing 420 lumens.. so in combination with the 1000 lumen light that brings 1420 lumens...
> 
> ...


----------



## fire-stick (Aug 18, 2006)

I think it's bunk... 1000 lumens.. :candle:


----------



## Chucula (Aug 18, 2006)

I tested one a few weeks ago. It really is bright--totally blows away my SF M6! I left it on for 1 hour and there was no noticeable dimming but it did get warm. I had to send it back but i definitly want to get one.


----------



## JimH (Aug 18, 2006)

yekim said:


> This page says it has 1420 lumen. http://www.wiseled.com/index.aspx?articleid=+916&shopPId=34&menuid=916009
> 
> Run Away!!!


*Quote from wiseled.com:
"Tactical – power in your hand* Wiseled Tactical is by far the most powerful handheld flashlight in the world – a stunning 1000 LUMEN (up to 1420 with extra 3LED) literally turns night into day."

1420 lumens


----------



## JimH (Aug 18, 2006)

dixemon said:


> ... I think their claims are embelished a bit to say the least. 10hrs of runtime off a single charge? Hmm.. at 1000lumens...Hmmm Wow!!


I think what they meant to say was "When this baby hits 88 mph, you're going to see some serious poop."


----------



## zelda (Aug 18, 2006)

1000 Lumen @ *20°C* is possible. Maybe its has a thermal protection like a gatlight.


----------



## Long John (Aug 18, 2006)

Their statements are full of contradictions, IMO crap.

Best regards

____
Tom


----------



## Jon S (Aug 18, 2006)

Look good at the specs. It shows only a 4 or 5 degree beam. That's pretty dang narrow.


----------



## Gryloc (Aug 18, 2006)

Im sorry, but I was just browsing around on CPF since I havent done so fo a few months. I think some of you are harsh. The flashlight seems bogus by the numbers, but I think they messed up in just two areas. 

First of all, I think they seriously messed up with the wattage numbers. The reseller probably doesnt know anything about electronics, so he probably carried the decimal over or something (poorly printed or faxed specs?). They probably didnt get actual measurements of the flashlight itself, just the combined specs of all seven of the emitters. The 23.3W ("233W") mark is very realistic. That is 3.33W per emitter. Hmmm... 3.3W Those look familiar. Some say that powering you LuxV at those levels (or something) will just fry them. Well look at the new LED that Lumileds came out (not really new, and still not publicly released). The K2. They use 3.4W at the typical voltage at 1A. Those LEDs arent run hard at all! If they were, they could take the abuse! So, 3.3W X 7 for the mail flashlight is 23W.

The 40W ("400W") strobe is alright. That comes down to 5.71W per LED. That looks like the K2 driven at 1500mA! They are using K2's driven at 1000mA for normal operation (to sort of keep down on heat), then flash them at 1500mA for the "non lethal weapon" strobe effect. Hmmm... Its getting clearer.

The other side of the problem is the lumens measurements. 1000lm is fairly impossible out of 7 K2's driven at 1000mA (so far - yet). That means 140lm per emitter. No way at 1A. Maybe at 1.5A. They would have to be using better than V-binned K2's (explaining the high cost). Maybe they are using cheap chinese knockoffs. Sort of like the Golsten-like flashlights on eBay (which I wouldnt trust, possibly). 

The 1420lm figure is with the tailcap light "taillight". It has three of the same LEDs (140lm each). They just added all 10 of the LEDs (even if they arent pointing in the same direction).

I suppose if they use the K2's generic "140lm per emitter" figure from specs and apply that to the total brightness, that would be more clear (although that is the spec to the higher drive level). It is like saying I have a "120lm LuxeonV", a "80lm LuxeonIII", or a "45lm 1-Watt Luxeon". When cheap flashlight makers (or stupid copy-cat flashlight makers) make their flashlights, they always tell them these basic, generic figures (the average figures). They dont tell the consumer about the light decrease as the temp rises, or that they used the cheap-binned LEDs that they got in bulk or were sold to them cheaply.

I know that there are several factors affecting the whether or not this Wiseland flashlight is believable or not, but the flashlight cant be totally bogus. They use the wrong figures, translated the numbers wrong, then over-priced the sucker, thats all. 

The only reason that I am doing this is that some of you seemed to have a blind rage or hate towards the company just because of the way the product looked and by how everyone else on this thread was slamming the product. I am not backing the company, nor any other reseller. I would never buy one myself, but I wouldnt mind testing and reviewing it (who wouldnt?  ). I just think that when you would get the flashlight after buying it, it shouldnt be a shiny hollow piece of aluminum with a few nuts and bolt and some dead mice sitting in it (imagine the noise it would make if you shook it -and never open the cap to change batteries :sick2: :green. It should function like advertised (for the most part -minus the brighness) and throw a whole bunch of light without burning your hands instantly or frying the batteries.

Again sorry if I have to ruin the dissing fun in this thread. I just wanted to decribe my own findings and opinions. Feel free to comment back. 

Cheers,
-Tony


----------



## Brighteyez (Aug 18, 2006)

Perhaps the person who wrote the copy got their training from writing ads for eBay sellers?  You don't suppose the vendor meant candlepower rather than lumen do you? 

The site appears to originate in Denmark. Are there some different standards in that country regarding the veracity of advertising claims?


----------



## nemul (Aug 18, 2006)

Chucula said:


> I tested one a few weeks ago. It really is bright--totally blows away my SF M6! I left it on for 1 hour and there was no noticeable dimming but it did get warm. I had to send it back but i definitly want to get one.



okay, what LED's did it use, batterys, ect.


.....
dont forget $64 for shipping...


----------



## Danintex (Aug 18, 2006)

I can explain everything- Brighteyez says it comes from Denmark, so, logical!y, their lumens are just smaller. You never know- maybe the M6 is actually 4000lm.


----------



## yalskey (Aug 18, 2006)

If something is too good to be true... it usually is!


----------



## LumenHound (Aug 18, 2006)

Gryloc said:


> Im sorry, but I was just browsing around on CPF since I havent done so fo a few months. I think some of you are harsh.
> 
> Cheers,
> -Tony


Harsh? Naw, we're just having a bit of light hearted fun.
It's not everyday we see a nice looking website with such out of line product claims.

When one finally does come along it's worth more than a few  

Hopefully, the people making those lights will search out a few honest reviewers and sent some of those models out for testing.


----------



## SATURN (Aug 18, 2006)

Based on the watt-hours of the batteries, the number of LEDs, and the burn times given on their website, it appears that the single LED light are be driven at approximately 6.5 watts and the multiple LED lights are driven at approximately 4.5 watts per LED. 

What is the lumen output of a LUX III driven at 4.5 watts?


----------



## Illum (Aug 18, 2006)

the company



Ra said:


> Sorry.. couldn't stay away.. had to see where this goes...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Randy Shackleford (Aug 18, 2006)

Illum_the_nation said:


> the company
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## nemul (Aug 18, 2006)

Randy Shackleford said:


> Illum_the_nation said:
> 
> 
> > the company
> ...


----------



## tanasit (Aug 18, 2006)

RE: MOST EXAGGERATED TORCH-CLAIMS 
May I add this one that I just won for 99 cents???
I wanted a HID.  

*NEW PURPLE HID XENON FLASHLIGHT TORCH LIGHTER*


*http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=003&item=130003989682&rd=1&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWN%3AIT&rd=1*


----------



## kinseykaylor (Aug 19, 2006)

Humor me. It is possible to get 1k lumens out of 7 K2's. Lumileds does claim 140l per emiter. the light could only be on for a few seconds, but it's possible.

Im just curious about a battery that can run "230 watts". You could have a lightweight camping hairdryer:lolsign:


----------



## nemul (Aug 19, 2006)

http://www.wiseled.com/index.aspx?articleid=+928+928
420 Lumen (90 watt) light output * Charges in 60 minutes

their whole site is full of it!

looks like 3 leds thats 30watt each...




wooo... 1400 something lumens.... :\


----------



## Twellmann (Aug 19, 2006)

hmm maybe I should drive by and borrow a few, half an hour away...


----------



## Ray_of_Light (Aug 19, 2006)

You need 25 x 18650, or 2 x 12V-9AH SLA, or 18 x NiMH 1.2V-10AH D Size batteries to make 230 Watt/hour.
That capacity equates to 1 Kg. (1 Kg = 2 Pounds - moreorless) of Li-Ion, 5 Kg. of SLA, or 3 Kg. of NiMH.

By knowing the size of the subject flashlight, the chemistry of the battery, and its runtime and weight, some close calculation of the real lumen output can be inferred.

Anthony


----------



## LEDninja (Aug 19, 2006)

Maybe i'll stick wth the ELX-12
http://elektrolumens.com/ELX-12/ELX-12.html
http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=101844
Or the K2 Stunner from Flectrolumens
http://elektrolumens.com/K2-Stunner/K2-Stunner.html
http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=115929
Only a piddling 800 lumens but I'm more confident of Wayne's numbers.
Less money too especially the K2 Stunner's pre sale price.

-----

Maybe the 1000 lumen light are using the 15W Ostar LEDs.


----------



## MikeRD03 (Aug 19, 2006)

Hey boys, stop to speculate!

I have contact with the guys that desiged their optics and what I can say for sure that are no OSTAR LEDs. They definitly use a single point emitter like K2 or Cree.

In one point youre right - the lumen and watt are crab, but that´s normal buiseness with diving lamps. What they mean is wattage comparable to halogen watt - not the true power consum!! 233W in a touchlight.. grpff

The problem is every manufacture make it own comparison to hallogen light so that 3W LED power simply gets 20W hallogen light.... well bullshit of cause. Keep in mind a 20W hallogen has 400-500 lumen and 50W has around 1400 lumen.

even the 1000 lumen will be maximum ratings on paper - nothing else. I´m sure they "forget" the lumen lost in the optics. Nevertheless I think the optics are very good, but relativly small over all so they wil have around 80% efficency

What you need is a beam shootout with some lux measures...

greets
MikeRD03


----------



## joema (Aug 19, 2006)

Gryloc said:
 

> They use the wrong figures, translated the numbers wrong, then over-priced the sucker, thats all.



That's all? For such a high end product, isn't that enough to warrant substantial criticism?

It's not a $5 Chinese flashlight, but 100 times that expensive. They are marketed for professional and mission-critical use. There's a natural expectation of competency, accuracy and attention to detail -- in both product and advertising -- for any similar high end product, not just flashlights.

If they can't manage to put accurate technical info on their web site, that doesn't reflect well on the quality of the light or credibility of the company.


----------



## Illum (Aug 19, 2006)

tanasit said:


> RE: MOST EXAGGERATED TORCH-CLAIMS
> May I add this one that I just won for 99 cents???
> I wanted a HID.
> 
> ...



Sounds like someone should start a new thread on MOST EXAGGERATED TORCH-CLAIMS...but this thread itself proves as an example for that :thinking: ....we'll let this drift on


----------



## Ra (Aug 20, 2006)

"POORLY PRINTED".. GRYLOC ????

Everywhere you go on their site the same exaggerations show up, even with their smaller lights !!

That simply doen't sound like missprint to me !!

We're talking about the part of the specs the make a flashlight here...

Do you really think they didn't think this through before making this stuff known to the world !!

Take the info LEDninja posted: For example the K2 stunner: 8 powerled's with a massive heatsink producing 800+ lumens at 13,000 beam candlepower..
THOSE ARE SPECS I WOULD BELEVE !!

OK.. 1000 lumens with 7 led's is possible, for a short time perhaps...
But they also claim 1 lux at 900 feet... THATS ABOUT 90,000 BEAM CANDLEPOWER !!

With the best halogen bulb you'll still need a 4 inch reflector for that !!
My guess is you'll need at least a 7 inch reflector when you want to do this with led's !!

Its not just one or two things that not add up here.. its the whole pakkage !!

Sorry, but I'll stick to my earlier statements !!


And.. Yes IllumTheNation... THIS INDEED IS FUNN... And it feels good posting about this..GGHHHRRAAAHWWW. thats why I came Back..

It is well possible that if we post a thread about exaggerated claims, it bekomes a sticky...

Shall I... Or do you...?

Ra.


----------



## Illum (Aug 20, 2006)

I agree with Ra...

Obviously they didnt think there was a forum built upoin a gustapo of people who has built custom lights and can prove that such specs doesnt work...


----------



## Ra (Aug 20, 2006)

Well said Illum....

I rest my case...


----------



## EvilLithiumMan (Aug 20, 2006)

A 'W' bin Lux V gets you in the 147 to 192 lumen range. So seven of those could certainly support (on paper) their lumen claim. But you'd need a solid 35 watts for that, and more factoring in converter efficiency.

The site looks legit. Someone somewhere must have one of these; too bad they don't know about anguished CPF'ers who want proof.


----------



## Ra (Aug 20, 2006)

EvilLithiumMan said:


> too bad they don't know about anguished CPF'ers who want proof.



...And know about the limitations of light-sources...



Still enjoying my donut tho...

Ra.


----------



## 3rd_shift (Aug 20, 2006)

For what it's worth, I have come close, but no cigar with 2 minimonsterquads I have built with 4 W flux Luxeon5 leds.
600 - 800 lumens from one of those.
But.... heat was an issue before too long.
I built one of those with a d2dim circuit to dim it down for longer runtimes and less heat.
I sold it to another cpf'er in Dallas.


----------



## nemul (Aug 20, 2006)

you smell that? i think i just stepped in it! 

not you 3rd... lol


----------



## Boomerang (Aug 20, 2006)

MikeRD03 said:


> Hi folks,
> 
> On my serach for high lumen LED solutions I found this new LED flashlight:
> 
> ...



Spam junk

Imho.

Save your keystrokes!

Andy


----------



## CarbonArc (Aug 20, 2006)

This seems like a more realistic version of a 1000 lumen flashlight.

http://elektrolumens.com/ELX-12/ELX-12.html


----------



## nemul (Aug 20, 2006)

CarbonArc said:


> This seems like a more realistic version of a 1000 lumen flashlight.
> 
> http://elektrolumens.com/ELX-12/ELX-12.html


ditto


----------



## michaelmcgo (Aug 21, 2006)

My dad has one of these. He uses it to shoot flying pigs at night. We keep the meat on the ice that has been building up since hell froze.


----------



## chesterqw (Aug 21, 2006)

wow. 

they are using x-bin lux V with the redesigned heliotek's bloody throw reflector.


----------



## iNDiGLo (Aug 21, 2006)

I emailed them and questioned their claim of 1000 Lumens. Their Procurement Manager actually replied to my email and here is what he had to say. Take it for what its worth.

Here is what i originally sent:
_
"To Whom It May Concern,

__I don't see how your claim of 1000 lumens could possibly be accurate on your Tactical flashlight._

_It appears that it uses 7 5mm LEDs. Considering the SureFire M6 Devestator Flashlight with high out put bulb only puts out 550 lumens i find it very difficult to believe an LED torch could put out that much light and not overheat._

_Can you provide me with very detailed technical specifications on this light?_

_Regards, 

iNDiGLo "

_Paraphrasing this is basically what they said:

 "The 1000 Lumen is correct and it is more powerfull than the Surefire. In darkness, fog, rain or in water you will really see the difference. They use a special version of a high power led (whatever that means), and that for instance the new Audi Q7 use similar 5 Led for running light. As far as heat dissipation they use a pwm transformer to dim when too hot. The thermal design is a very important factor and of critical cause, but built in thermal protection gives at least some minutes of full power before the protection starts dimming. The color temperature is still 6000k when dimming and safe battery since the transformer has high efficiency"

:huh2:


----------



## indenial (Aug 21, 2006)

Pdf file with specs here .


----------



## Long John (Aug 21, 2006)

iNDiGLo said:


> The thermal design is a very important factor and of critical cause, but built in thermal protection gives at least some minutes of full power before the protection starts dimming.
> 
> :huh2:



Now I understand the long runtime. Some minutes full power and the last hours in candlemode.

Best regards

____
Tom


----------



## indenial (Aug 21, 2006)

Per spec sheet:

Light output duration:

100% = 100 mins.; 

70% = 300 mins.;

35% = 600 mins. 

If someone setup a GB, I'd be interested!


----------



## joema (Aug 21, 2006)

Long John said:


> Now I understand the long runtime. Some minutes full power and the last hours in candlemode...


Unfortunately (for them) they can't use the "flashbulb" argument, IOW that it truthfully outputs 1000 lumens but only briefly before dimming. Why? Because their specs state light output duration is 100% for 100 minutes, 70% for 300 minutes. It must output 1000 lumens for 100 minutes or it's false advertising.

As already stated their specs also equate 1000 lumens with 233 watts, when of course there's no lumen/watt relationship. This implies a fundamental misunderstanding both of physics and of marketing reality. For a high end technical product targeted at sophisticated users, you can't play fast and loose with numbers and retain credibility. Saying "it was the advertising guys" makes no difference.

There's little difference between this and a car manufacturer claiming in public advertising "2,000 horsepower" for a regular passenger car.

It's one thing to be vaguely misleading but another entirely to specifically state mathematical product characteristics which are provably false. I don't know about other countries but in the U.S., the Federal Trade Commission doesn't like that.


----------



## Illum (Aug 21, 2006)

still....even in a few seconds worth of full 1000 lumen runtime, 185 Lumen per LED seems... :thinking:

I really doubt "The 1000 Lumen is correct and it is more powerfull than the Surefire" is legit:hairpull: 

 The thermal design is a very important factor and of critical cause, but built in thermal protection gives at least some minutes of full power before the protection starts dimming. 
No matter how efficient the circuitry or the LED is...1000 lumen start will basically trigger the dimming process nearly in the same time as the LEDs begin to function...

as joema said, I suspect this 1000 lumens for 100 minutes is false advertising.
:green: :shakehead


----------



## JonSidneyB (Aug 21, 2006)

I am going to contact them and see if I can buy some sample lights. I do not believe the claims but I would like to see the lights anyway.


----------



## cmacclel (Aug 21, 2006)

JonSidneyB said:


> I am going to contact them and see if I can buy some sample lights. I do not believe the claims but I would like to see the lights anyway.



Funny......go ahead and try to contact them NONE of there E-Mails work.

Mac


----------



## JonSidneyB (Aug 21, 2006)

your right...emails are not working.


----------



## Tritium (Aug 22, 2006)

michaelmcgo said:


> My dad has one of these. He uses it to shoot flying pigs at night. We keep the meat on the ice that has been building up since hell froze.


 
Wow I didn't know 1000 lumens would down a pig (unless very tightly collimated):naughty: 

Thurmond


----------



## Robocop (Aug 22, 2006)

All in all some of their products do have a nice "look" to them however with some of the major players in todays light market their claims do seem incredible to say the least.

I am curious as to why anyone would put so much effort into a very nice looking web site only to have none of their e-mails working. I am also curious as to why such few people have any actual hands on experience with this light company.....if this were such a good product surely we all would have known of it by now.

Their design seems to have potential as far as looks goes however real world testing would be needed to convince me as to the performance. For the cost of some of their products I am sure I could find many others that are already proven performers.


----------



## Illum (Aug 22, 2006)

Tritium said:


> Wow I didn't know 1000 lumens would down a pig (unless very tightly collimated):naughty:
> 
> Thurmond



1000 lumens worth of light collimated into a beam ye thicker than a typical laser beam will down a passanger jet given the chance, let along pigs...

Whats flying pigs? :thinking:


----------



## ianb (Aug 22, 2006)

'Pigs might fly'. (British, American & Australian, informal, American, informal)
something that you say which means you think there is no chance at all of something happening. 'I'll pay you back on Friday, I promise.' 'Yeah, and pigs might fly.' 

found on http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/

Ian


----------



## LifeNRA (Aug 22, 2006)

Chucula said:


> I tested one a few weeks ago. It really is bright--totally blows away my SF M6! I left it on for 1 hour and there was no noticeable dimming but it did get warm. I had to send it back but i definitly want to get one.


Joke? Serious? 
You can't post a hit and run like that if you are serious.


----------



## Vinnyp (Aug 22, 2006)

It's a European Company. In Europe we have the distance selling regulations I can order one, try it and send back after 14 days and get my money back. I have no need of a massive torch 100 lumens is enough for me. But the Stealth light looks interesting and not so silly claims it is only 20 more lumens than a SF L2 and lasts 20 mins more it runs off built in rechargables so I think that is not such a wild claim? It's also cheaper than the surefire here, and only a little more in Dollars, which as it includes the rechargeables and it's got more features is not so bad. If they are even nearly as good as they claim I could be tempted.

I know no where near as much as you guys and am not defending them but I think under your criteria every torch manufacturer is guilty. I know some very well respected lamps back off under constant use to prevent overheating. I have a 2 bulb unit for my bike (It's in the garage I forget the make but it's meant as a helmet light for caving) it cost a fortune but it dims on maximum if I leave it running when I am stationary. The 100% for 100 minutes is a battery life claim. Not a claim you can run it continuously at full power, just for a total of 100 minutes, under ideal conditions. Few phones or laptops meet their life claims but they are covered because in theory that's the max. If it is just a scam it's a good one those pictures and the brochures on that site are well done and would cost a bit to have had taken, most scams would have been a lot less professional.

I like everyone else have have no idea where that stupid watt figure comes from on their site unless it's an equivalent, many energy saving bulbs here have equivalent numbers so a "60W" bulb is actually only 11W or so. The only problem is by my scribbled figure at denmark Voltage (220) 233 watts is well over 1000 lumens even on the most ineffecient tungsten lamp.

So if we ignore the watt figure is everything else crazy?? The PDF for the tactical says it runs at 12V 4.4amps which is 50W. I don't know much about Leds but I am OK on physics that's plenty of power for 1000 lumens on LEDs. For 100 minutes that's a 12V 7300 mAh battery that's easily possible at that weight, it claims Li-ion the torch is 871grams or 37 ozs. 

As I said I have no idea but if the watt figure is an error or some marketing equivalent. I'd love to see one tested and may order one. Infact I just tried to and got as far as the payment screen when the script failed so ... who knows maybe it is all nonsense.


----------



## Chucula (Aug 22, 2006)

LifeNRA said:


> Joke? Serious?
> You can't post a hit and run like that if you are serious.



eh its a joke, but Vinnyp reminds me that we shouldnt judge it before we have one. After we have proved ro refuted their claim, then we can talk. Right now its all speculation.


----------



## easilyled (Aug 22, 2006)

I think the credibility problem lies in the vague, unscientific specs.

Manufacturers hiding behind pseudojargon generally have something to hide.

If not, why not present all the facts, so that they can be assessed prior
to purchase?


----------



## wquiles (Aug 22, 2006)

Just looked at the link and the light in "question". I don't buy their claims. 

I have a single 5W LED that when driven at 1.5A is about 13-14 watts, and after ten minutes or so it becomes too hot to handle comfortably. 

1000 lumens and 233 watts from 7 LED's - right 

Will


----------



## Long John (Aug 22, 2006)

Chucula said:


> .......Right now its all speculation.



Oh no, it's not speculation. The side claimed statements with contradictions.
And the product-manager answered also no facts, only promises or wishes.

So what kind of akkus they use with a "up to 10 years batterie life"?

-Nonsense

"Best flashlight in the world"

-Nonsense

When the light draws 233watts at full power and will run 1 hour it needs a batterie about 12V and 20Ah

-Nonsense

Only my opinion.

Best regards

____
Tom


----------



## joema (Aug 22, 2006)

Vinny you have some good points. Further comments:

As the thread title indicates the tactical model which claims "over 1,000 lumens" has received much of the criticism here.

There is essentially zero probability a production Wiseled tactical light will produce 1,000 lumens measured in a properly calibrated integrating sphere. However you are correct, the same is true for many lights from other mfgs.

Fenix claims 46 lumens for the L1P. Flashlightreviews.com's test shows it's closer to 28 lumens.

It seems that Wiseled is pushing the limits more than most mfgs. Maybe their reasoning is everybody does it (exaggerates lumen claims), so we'll do it even more.

Unlike SAE horsepower, I don't think there's an SAE, ISO or other standard for measuring lumens. IOW while a lumen is defined, the measurement technique is not.

E.g, a mfg could do a primitive ceiling bounce test with a $29 lux meter, compare to a "known" lumen light, and rightfully claim that output. There's no standards or enforcement body specifying you must measure lumens in a specific way to use the term "lumen".

Even if one flashlight was precisely measured, that doesn't mean the hundreds or thousands of like models will have the same output. 

There's no rule saying a mfg must measure each light, or every tenth light. 

There's no rule saying a mfg must measure a final production light. They could measure a prototype with X bin emitters which might vary from the final production model.

There's no rule saying a mfg must measure a light with typical consumer batteries, or even powered by batteries at all. They could direct wire DC power to it, tremendously overdrive the emitters and measure the first second of output.

They could also take the specified lumen output of their emitters and simply multiply by seven to reach 1,000 lumens. In theory seven perfect V bin emitters could product 1,000 lumens. However this is emitter output only -- subtracting reflector loss, front lens loss, operating at real world die temps, etc all could result in a much lower number.

The problem is they state _light output duration_ (not battery duration) is 100% for 100 minutes. Whatever the actual lumen output is, I doubt it's totally flat for 100 minutes.

Another problem is the 233 watts statement. They said watts, not "watts". That means watts, not watt equivalents. When a fluorescent light states 60 watts but actually consumes 11 watts, the packaging somehow must state it's not really 60 watts. Every package I've seen does so.

Re battery capacity of 12 volts @ 4.4 amps, that's not really capacity (which is measured in watt hours or amp hrs @ voltage) but instantaneous power output. Yes 52 watts is enough to provide 1,000 lumens of emitter output -- you'd only need emitters with 19 lumens per watt efficiency, which is possible.


----------



## Long John (Aug 22, 2006)

joema, I can't understand what you want to say.

Do you mean, they can build a prototype with X-bins, takes the datas of this one and want to sell us a light with T,U or W bins and that's ok?

Do you mean, they don't use batteries which lasts up to 10 years, they means a DC power? And that's ok?

Do you mean the "light output duration (not batterie duration)" is 100% for 100 minutes and after that the light is broken? And that's ok?

They claimed the light output is 1000 Lumen (233watts) and they don't means watts?

:huh2:...:thinking:...

Best regards

____
Tom


----------



## joema (Aug 22, 2006)

Long John said:


> joema, I can't understand what you want to say.
> 
> Do you mean, they can build a prototype with X-bins, takes the datas of this one and want to sell us a light with T,U or W bins and that's ok?


It's not OK from my standpoint, but there is no regulatory or enforcement agency if they did. A comparative example: various auto mfgs were recently caught doing horsepower tests with special one-off engine control software, different from what production cars used. Sometimes they used premium fuel, when the owner's manual specified regular. In this case the SAE (who specifies hp and measurement techniques in the US) called them on this: http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0508/17/A01-283759.htm

In case of lumens there is no SAE or similar agency to specify the tested light is identical to the production light. Like the above auto mfgs, flashlight mfgs can test a prototype with custom enhancements, when that doesn't accurately reflect production versions. There are also many other ways to "game the system" of lumen measurement. 

E.g, a flashlight mfg could use a non-modified production light for lumen measurements, but hand-pick the best light that ever came off the assembly line. Emitters of a given bin have wide variation in output and efficiency. 

Wiseled isn't unique in this area, they're just "pushing the envelope" of exaggeration.



Long John said:


> Do you mean, they don't use batteries which lasts up to 10 years, they means a DC power? And that's ok?


Unless the mfg explicitly states lumen measurements were taken on a totally representative light with regular batteries, they can do whatever they want.



Long John said:


> Do you mean the "light output duration (not battery duration)" is 100% for 100 minutes and after that the light is broken? And that's ok?


I meant the Wiseled spec states light output duration remains at 100% for 100 minutes on the tactical model. That means absolutely perfect regulation with 0% decrease for 100 minutes. It's very unlikely the light will maintain 1000 lumens for 100 minutes with 0% decrease in output.



Long John said:


> They claimed the light output is 1000 Lumen (233 watts) and they don't means watts?


We have no idea what they mean. They didn't say "lumens" or "watts" in quotes, as if symbolism for something else. There was no footnote stating the units meant something else, therefore it must mean actual lumens and watts. Some posters have speculated that the watts aren't real watts but something else. I guess that's possible.


----------



## Handlobraesing (Aug 22, 2006)

handheld light, battery pack external


----------



## Delvance (Aug 23, 2006)

Hahahaha  Handlobraesing (nice sig too).


----------



## territit (Sep 3, 2006)

Hi all

I am new in this forum but I just got my hand on one of the *tactical wiseled* light and it is impressiv. It is the first production model so i don't know if they will change something. I went diving yesterday at around 45 feet and it work well, I did not change the tail light, that, I will do next time when diving.
I am playing a lot of hardball and we use surefire, but now I will try some how to fit the *tactical* to my gun. 
kindly 
territit


----------



## Illum (Sep 3, 2006)

Delvance said:


> Hahahaha  Handlobraesing (nice sig too).



Hey! I SECOND THAT!
now if i can figure out what the sig supposed to mean...


----------



## monkeyboy (Sep 3, 2006)

Hello territit

Welcome to CPF  

Can you post a review of the wiseled? Or at least some beam shots against one of your surefires. A lot of people are dying to know if there is any truth behind the 1000 lumen output claim. We would also like to know what the regulation is like i.e. does it dim significantly when run continuously out of water (Thermal protection).

Thanks


----------



## myk (Sep 3, 2006)

at only 3 lb's it should be quite portable and easy to attach to your gun


----------



## ohiocopper (Sep 4, 2006)

Hmmmm, me thinks we need one of these.....






Or else my over rated, highly acclaimed 1000 lumen photon death beam from hell might end up like this........






Muhahahahhaa
Yup a melted mess o metal slag.
I would really love to see this thing in person, to see the truth.
Group buy?  :lolsign:


----------



## territit (Sep 4, 2006)

Hi again

We would also like to know what the regulation is like i.e. does it dim significantly when run continuously out of water (Thermal protection)

The heat is not a problem out of water, I did turn it on and left it there for like 1 hour on full power and it only got a little hot around the top .

It is kind of strange that you can change the tail light under water, I mean the water gets in every where and there is no tail cap too protect the connection pins, it just worked.

I will work on the test with my surefires , M3 CombatLight but only with 120 lumens. the old 6p only with 65 lumens so i guess this is no match but i will show you anyway.

Territit


----------



## AtomSphere (Sep 5, 2006)

We would be very intrested in it! Some pics and beamshots would be nice



territit said:


> Hi again
> 
> We would also like to know what the regulation is like i.e. does it dim significantly when run continuously out of water (Thermal protection)
> 
> ...


----------



## monkeyboy (Sep 5, 2006)

territit said:


> The heat is not a problem out of water, I did turn it on and left it there for like 1 hour on full power and it only got a little hot around the top .


 
Hmm... interesting. So it maintains full brightness for the hour and only gets a little hot? I'm curious to know what emitters it uses. Something doesn't quite add up here. Either, it's using some super efficient LED that no-one knows about, or it has very poor heatsinking and the LEDs are cooking themselves to death.

Territ, here's an idea for the beamshots  :
Take a beam picture of the wiseled against a surefire shortly after switching on. Switch off the surefire and leave the wiseled on for an hour. Switch on the surefire and take another picture.

Let us know if you can't work out how to post pictures.

Thanks


----------



## Blindasabat (Sep 5, 2006)

monkeyboy said:


> Something doesn't quite add up here. Either, it's using some super efficient LED that no-one knows about, or it has very poor heatsinking and the LEDs are cooking themselves to death.



Or the heatsinking mass is largely internal. I know that would not work as well because heat would not be dissipated and the mass would have to be large to hold all that heat internally, but it is a possibility that some of the heat is being internally contained. An insulated copper slug would do that, but would eventually reach thermal capacity and need to conduct some heat away or cut the current and therefore output.
I don't remember seeing any vents for airflow like the Inova low end lights, so the heat does not appear to be directly transferred from internal to outside air.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 5, 2006)

Hi Guys,
I talked with WISELED’s CEO last week and he is going to send a few samples out this week so I’ll be able to post our opinion shortly. If everything works out we will have some in stock towards the end of September and I’ll also make arrangements for a group buy if there is interest. :naughty:


----------



## joema (Sep 5, 2006)

monkeyboy said:


> Hmm... interesting. So it maintains full brightness for the hour and only gets a little hot? I'm curious to know what emitters it uses. Something doesn't quite add up here. Either, it's using some super efficient LED that no-one knows about, or it has very poor heatsinking and the LEDs are cooking themselves to death...


Exactly right. You cannot internally contain appreciable heat -- there is no way to store the amount of heat generated by the "1,000 lumen" Wiseled light, at least if you believe their figures.

Wiseled says the 1000 lumen light has 233 watts output. They also say battery capacity is 4.4 amps at 12 v (52.8 watts). 

Real-world (not theoretical) efficiency of high output LEDs is about 25 lumens per watt when driven at high power. For more details, see: http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1140524&postcount=5 This gives 1000 lumens / 25 lumens/watt = 40 watts.

Whether you trust the 233 watt figure, the 52.8 watt figure or the 40 watt figure, the light would rapidly become very warm. There is no other place for the heat to go.

High output white light LEDs are about 10%-20% efficient -- the rest is dissipated as waste heat. So it would be like holding either a 186 watt (233 watts * 80%), a 42 watt (52.8 watts * 80%) or a 32 watt (40 watts * 80%) heating element. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_efficiency

If the LED gets hot it will either (a) burn out/degrade or (b) the higher temperature differential will still conduct heat to the body (which would get hot), even if there is poor conduction -- that's basic heat flow physics.

High output LED lights become very hot very fast. There is no way around that with current physics. Elektrolumens new K2 Stunner uses 8 new K2 LEDs, produces roughly 800 emitter lumens of output (less than the claimed figure of the Wiseled light), and rapidly becomes very hot: http://elektrolumens.com/K2-Stunner/K2-Stunner.html

The Wiseled "1,000 lumen" light either (a) does not produce remotely close to that output, or (b) if it does will become very hot. There is no other way.

It may be a good light but the advertising and specifications should be more professionally done and technically sound.


----------



## monkeyboy (Sep 7, 2006)

[email protected] said:


> Hi Guys,
> I talked with WISELED’s CEO last week and he is going to send a few samples out this week so I’ll be able to post our opinion shortly. If everything works out we will have some in stock towards the end of September and I’ll also make arrangements for a group buy if there is interest. :naughty:


 
Send one to Doug at flashlightreviews


----------



## pilou (Sep 7, 2006)

Notice how the whole thing is merely 10 inches long. Interestingly, they seem to imply that both the head and tail lights can be operating at the same time, for a total output of 1420 lumens. Given the probelms already mentioned with the battery specs, my first reaction is to roll my eyes, but I'll keep an open mind and wait for more info.


----------



## lightmeup81 (Sep 10, 2006)

can't wait for the beamshots to start coming in


----------



## Torbeam (Sep 15, 2006)

Just a few links. I'm trying hard to get one of those beambeauties. I live in Copenhagen, close to the manufacturer )

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mortenjust/236868211/

http://www.23hq.com/mortenlund/photo/347370

http://www.23hq.com/mortenlund/photo/347376

http://www.lundkenner.com/blog/?cat=3

http://grandespoches.net/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=1307


----------



## AtomSphere (Sep 15, 2006)

Torbeam. Thanks for some shots but can you put it in comparison with a surefire flashlight? and some extra shots at the "light engine", batteries, and tailcap would be nice..

Thanks for the effort!


----------



## kaboja (Sep 19, 2006)

They are actually sponsoring http://www.500feetdive.net/ ?


----------



## cancow (Sep 19, 2006)

It might as well be a 500000 lumen if it is $600 it really is a moot issue






MikeRD03 said:


> Hi folks,
> 
> On my serach for high lumen LED solutions I found this new LED flashlight:
> 
> ...


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 22, 2006)

Hi Guys,
Well I’ve been playing with the WISELED Tactical for about a week now and……. I like it! Why – because it’s bright, very bright and instant on toooo. :naughty: 

Weight: 1Lb 14oz
Length: 10.75”
Body diameter: 1.875”

The pictures were taken 5 feet from the wall.


----------



## blahblahblah (Sep 22, 2006)

Mike,

I know a picture is worth a 1000 words, but could you compare the HIDs and the WiseLED with regards to bightness. I can't tell from the pics since they are overexposed in the hotspots. 

Also, even after looking at the website, I don't understand the tailcap LED things. Are there LEDs in the tail??? Is that an option or is it stock? 

Any idea of an ETA on the groupbuy? Pricing?

Thanks for the info!


----------



## Illum (Sep 22, 2006)

this is unreal.....

LEDs with brightness near equivalent to HID?


----------



## AtomSphere (Sep 22, 2006)

Thanks for the pic there mike



I am waiting for the day someone will dismentle the whole unit and really tell us what is in there...


----------



## cmacclel (Sep 22, 2006)

The pictures are a great addition but they are completely blown out. With brighter lights you need to put the camera in manual mode and way under expose the image. Any chance your camera has manual mode?? I know alot of the newer point and shoots are automatic and lack this feature.

Or you could always send it to me and I'll take some nice beamshots 

Mac


----------



## matrixshaman (Sep 22, 2006)

Nice that it's a bright light but they still need to get their numbers right. 233 Watts is not REAL. Power=Volts x Amps. Assuming 12 volts that would be over 19 Amps draw. Something isn't right unless they've got battery technology we've never seen. And beamshots with very strong lights on a wall at 5 feet is not a great way to compare such lights. From that close they all will look bright and washout a picture. How about some shots in the night down the street at objects a hundred yards or so?


----------



## JanCPF (Sep 22, 2006)

I second what others said about the over exposure. We also need to know how the runtime is. I mean - It's really no use if it's bright the first 5 minutes, and then dims down due to heat protection or something like that. I smell a rat when I go through the numbers. I'm having difficulty believing that this light can produce 1000 lumens other than *PERHAPS* in the first few minutes, but even that sounds to good to be true. That would mean 142 lumens per LED.  The only Luxeon that could do that would be a bare Lux V of very good bin (at a relativly low junction temperature), and then what about the loss in reflectors/optics and window? 

Jan


----------



## carrot (Sep 22, 2006)

Any chance for a passaround?


----------



## Blindasabat (Sep 22, 2006)

carrot said:


> Any chance for a passaround?



I second a passaround. If ever a light needed one to dispel or prove the myths...


----------



## monkeyboy (Sep 22, 2006)

Thanks for those beamshots [email protected]

Some more questions:

Is this as bright as the picture makes it look, or is it just overexposed? i.e. Is it noticibly brighter than the K500R to the eye?

Does it really hold the maximum brightness for as long as it claims: 100% for 100mins etc. ...?




My best guess as to what is inside (if the claims are true)is: 7x Cree XR-E emitters under a 7 cell 6 degree polymer optics plastic optic powered by 6x 18650 in a triangle formation.

If driven at 3W per emitter, this would give 130lm x7 = 910lm (close enough to 1000lm) and draw only 21W. 6x 2600mAh 18650's gives about 58Wh (Watt hour). This gives 2.7 hours of full brightness.
(this is just a guess)

EDIT:

OK, I just looked at the spec sheet for the battery, "12v 4.4 amps" I think they mean: 11.1V 4.4Ah. They must use 6 x 2200mAh 18650s = 49Wh gives 2.3 hrs at 700mA drive current.

reading the spec sheet, i think it means 100% for 100mins OR 70% for 300mins OR 35% for 600mins. This would make a lot more sense. Correct me if I'm wrong. 100% must be overdriving the LEDs.


----------



## Long John (Sep 22, 2006)

monkeyboy said:


> If driven at 3W per emitter, this would give 130lm x7 = 910lm (close enough to 1000lm) and draw only 21W. 6x 2600mAh 18650's gives about 58Wh (Watt hour). This gives 2.7 hours of full brightness.
> (this is just a guess)



Hello monkeyboy

Which LuxIII led ermitts 130 and needs only 3w? The highest lumens output available LuxIII is an U-bin and with the lowest vf the U--J (available)vf about 3,3-3,5 volts, rated at max 113 lumens.
So they must be overdriven to pull out the max lumens. But 7x in one head uninterrupted usage can't deliver this output over a longer runtime due to the heat.

You refered the unprotected 18650's. With your math you can throw away the cells because they are deep discharged. 
Or in the case the light will have a driver, you forgot the lost of capacity due to the inefficiency of the driver.

In every case, something is wrong with the statements of the manufacturer.

Best regards

____
Tom


----------



## monkeyboy (Sep 22, 2006)

I'm refering to the new CREE XR-E emitters not luxeon, heres a link:

http://www.cutter.com.au/prodimages/temp-xre.pdf

It produces 80lm at 350mA 1w and 130lm at 700mA 3W. the math does work out (just about) if the quoted runtimes on the spec sheet are for different settings, see edit on my previous post.


----------



## Long John (Sep 22, 2006)

Thank you monkeyboy for clarifying

Best regards

____
Tom


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 23, 2006)

> Posted by cmacclel
> The pictures are a great addition but they are completely blown out. With brighter lights you need to put the camera in manual mode and way under expose the image.
> Or you could always send it to me and I'll take some nice beam shots


 This was my first attempt to take beam shots and my camera is dummy proof without many options. 
Okay Mac, PM me with your address and I’ll send you the flashlight.


> Posted by blahblahblah
> Also, even after looking at the website, I don't understand the tailcap LED things. Are there LEDs in the tail??? Is that an option or is it stock?


LED’s in the tail end is an option. Your choices are; 1 LED or 3 LEDs or colored LEDs (red, green, blue, amber, yellow, ultraviolet and IR
It also has an option called the light line which is about 2’ long and plugs into the tail light socket so you can operate the smaller tail light away from the main flashlight.


> Posted by monkeyboy
> Is this as bright as the picture makes it look, or is it just overexposed? i.e. Is it noticibly brighter than the K500R to the eye? Does it really hold the maximum brightness for as long as it claims: 100% for 100mins etc. ...?


Yes, I think its brighter than the MF K500R!
Continuous drive mode and the Boost function are different brightness levels.
The instructions say: Boost function is a time limited state where you use the technology to the edge, when the edge is reached the flashlight returns to continuous drive mode. It’s not advised to use the boost function always due to battery/heating reasons.


----------



## Amonra (Sep 24, 2006)

This light is clearly intended for under water use so the claims are based on an underwater environment. keeping this in mind might help in clearing their claims as follows:

Efficiency 233W - 

http://www.fa-mi.com/ecommerce2/prodotti2_1/ ( click on one of the LED or HID lights ) for the Fa-Mi lights what they mean with 75W efficiency for example is that UNDER WATER the visibility/throw ( not the total output ) will be the same as with a 75W halogen bulb. this could be true as water eats up halogen light but LED or HID light travels further. 
now for the wiseled light 233W ( halogen equivalent ) could be a bit exagerated but if it has a narrow enough beam ( rated 5deg ) it could throw as much as a 233W halogen light UNDER WATER. 

Strobe effect 400W - 

same as above. probably they are overdriving the led substancially in strobe mode.

1000 Lumens - 

if as mentioned by monkeyboy they are using the new Cree XR-E led's http://www.cutter.com.au/prodimages/temp-xre.pdf and ploymer-optics 7 LED cluster optics http://www.polymer-optics.co.uk/LED Optic Brochure (Cree) 2006-1.pdf ( scroll down ) it could be possible. Looking at the wiseled photo the optics look identical to the polymer-optics ones. If they are over driving the XR-E led they could go well beyond 1000 Lumens to compensate for optical and heat losses. of course heat is a major problem but if it is being used UNDER WATER this problem decreases substantially. by using a large copper heatsink ( to move the heat away from the led's fast ) that transfers the heat to the aluminium body which in turn is cooled by the surrounding water. The water temprature will never saturate by the heat emitted from the light and therefore will keep the light nice and cool thus sustaining high output for a long time.

100 min. runtime @ 100% -

If they are using the Cree XR-E led's U1-0021 bin ( 73.9 - 100.4 Lumen @ 350mA Lets say the average for this bin is 90Lum @ 350mA )
to achieve 1000 Lum out the front they would need to drive them at about 900mA which is about 180 - 190 Lum / LED at about 3.5V ( following the curves in the cree spec sheet ) = 3.15W / LED
i.e. 1260 - 1330 LUM ( out of LED at 25 deg ) @ 22W.
Factoring optical losses and heat losses UNDER WATER would bring it close to 1000 LUM out the front.

Now as mentioned by monkeyboy they are probably using 6x18650 2200mAh cells in a 3S-2P configuration = 11.1V. So the led's need 24.5V @ 900mA if wired in a series configuration i.e they are pulling 2.3A from the battery pack or 1.15A from each battery.( factoring 15% driver losses ). according to this graph https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/117117&page=1&pp=20 Pila 600P batteries would give a runtime of 112.6 Minutes at a 1.15A load. 
But the load is not constant @ 1.15A. As the batteries drain the voltage drops and the load increases. near the end of their life the batt voltage should be about 3.3V which means a 1.3A load and a runtime of 103.4 Minutes.
Averaging these runtimes will give a total runtime of 108 Minutes at full power and still have some more juice before the batt. protection kicks in.

300 min runtime @ 70% - 

70% output would mean about 520mA / LED ( better efficiency of LED at lower currents ) which means a 600mA load on each battery which is about half the full power load. the batts might perform better at this load but i doubt 300 minutes is achievable. probably more like 220 minutes.

600 min runtime @ 35% - 

35% output would mean about 200mA / LED ( better efficiency of LED at lower currents ) which means a 220mA load on each battery which is about one sixth the full power load. therefore a 600 minute runtime @ 35% is quite possible.

If you feel that i might have miscalculated anything at any point please tell me.

Sooo... according to my calculations above, the claims made by Wiseled are not out of this world but in fact are quite achievable using current technology and keeping in mind the UNDER WATER factor. 
They might be a bit optimistic in some of their claims but on the other hand all manufacturers are. The only thing that i find to be inadequate is the unclear/misleading or incomplete information/documentation.

My 2c

P.S. i'm in no way affiliated to wiseled. i just saw a lot of confusion and thought my opinion might help


----------



## Long John (Sep 24, 2006)

:goodjob: Amonra

This could be an explanation for some troubles.

It would be desirable, the manufacturer had done this by his marketing.


Best regards

____
Tom


----------



## monkeyboy (Sep 28, 2006)

OK, I have confirmation from Tacticalsupply that they are using Luxeon K2s. (Not Cree XR-E as I had hoped) They are probably using V bins to give 140lm per emitter. I've also managed to download the manual and it looks as if 1000lm comes from 'boost' mode which reverts to continuous mode when things get too hot. I'd imagine the continuous run output is significantly less than 1000lm.

I think this looks like a really good product but it's a shame that the spec sheet appears to have been written by marketing guys rather than the technical guys who designed the thing. e.g.

1) The worlds brightest handheld flashlight - No its not! (Microfire K2000R beats it and is smaller)

2) 1000 lumens - They should quote the continuous lumen output as well.

3) 12V 4.4amp - When they must mean 11.1v 4.4Ah

4) Why all the secrecy regarding what emitter it uses?

Despite all this, I still think this is a great product and excellent value for money. (remember you're paying for a sealed diving torch with magnetic switches)


----------



## cmacclel (Sep 28, 2006)

I have one of these lights in hand thanks to [email protected] So far I'm very impressed with the output of the light. Is it really 1000 lumens? There's no way to tell unless you have a friend with a sphere 

I will start another "Review" thread within the next couple of days once I get everything in order. As for LED's, since there not exposed or easy to see I cannot tell what MFG they are but they do not look like K2's or Luxeon's from what I can see through the optic.

The output of this light makes my new Tri-Lux with XX1S leds driven at 1.4 amps through 31mm reflectors look DIM! 

Thats all for now, more when the review is posted 

Mac


----------



## evan9162 (Sep 28, 2006)

The 140 lumens is for V bin emitters, and no one that I know of has gotten a V bin K2. In addition, that 140 lumens is at 25C Tj, at a drive current of 1500mA.

At 1500mA, the Vf is likely around 4.5V (K2s have had notoriously high Vfs compared to Luxeon IIIs). So the Lux is dissipating 4.5*1.5 = 6.75W. The thermal resistance, junction -> slug for a K2 is 9C/W. So even if you somehow held the slug at 25C, the junction temp would be 6.75 * 9 + 25 = 86C. At 86C, a white K2s output degrades to 87%

So at best, these V bin K2s at 1500mA will output 140 * 0.87 = 122 lumens. You still have to factor in optical losses - you'll lose like 20% between the reflectors and bezel, which drops you down to abouy 98 lumens.

With 7 emitters, you're looking at a realistic 700 lumens out the front, and even less if they're not using V bin K2s.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 28, 2006)

Thanks Mac!
I was waiting to hear your opinion before I placed an order. I’ll send the PO today so these units will be available in two to three weeks. 

So how many should I order??? For those of you that want one please let me know so I can order enough the first time. 

I’m going to add a page today with special CPF pricing. In order to protect the MSRP ($560), only members can view the CPF price.

_CPF Discount_ 
Since these special prices are not available to the public you will have to create an account on our website which is easy. We do not share your information with anyone, period. Please keep the prices confidential, as in please do not post your special CPF price in a public forum like CPF or any of the other forums.
Once you have created an account PM me (so I’ll know you’re a member) and include your Last Name and email address you signed up with and I’ll set your account to the correct discount rate for CPF members. 
To view your special prices just login to your account and start browsing, it’s that easy.

For those of you that don’t want to create an account on the PTS website PM or email me through the CPF system and I’ll respond with the special CPF price.


----------



## blahblahblah (Sep 28, 2006)

evan9162 said:


> The 140 lumens is for V bin emitters, and no one that I know of has gotten a V bin K2. In addition, that 140 lumens is at 25C Tj, at a drive current of 1500mA.
> 
> At 1500mA, the Vf is likely around 4.5V (K2s have had notoriously high Vfs compared to Luxeon IIIs). So the Lux is dissipating 4.5*1.5 = 6.75W. The thermal resistance, junction -> slug for a K2 is 9C/W. So even if you somehow held the slug at 25C, the junction temp would be 6.75 * 9 + 25 = 86C. At 86C, a white K2s output degrades to 87%



Wouldn't it be closer to 3.85Vf instead of 4.5Vf at 25C Tj ???

I have no real world experience using the K2, but I was looking at Lumiled's chart at the top of page 14 here: http://www.lumileds.com/pdfs/DS51.PDF

If there's a reduced Vf, then the heat dissipation requirements and subsequent degradation would be reduced. If my numbers are correct (they may not be) this would be about a 9C difference or about 2% increase in efficiency.

Moral of the story:
Store your K2 lights in the freezer. :laughing:


----------



## evan9162 (Sep 28, 2006)

Depends. Most of the -14 K2 parts that people have been getting have been in the L and M Vf bins. Note that those are at 1A, so it would be higher at 1.5A. I have a UY0L -14 part at home that I need to test, but I did a test on it before, and I think the Vf was pretty darn high at 1.5A (4.5V or higher)


----------



## Archangel (Sep 28, 2006)

To those who've seen one, is there a means to attach a lanyard?
I assume we're not lucky enough for it to be HA?


----------



## cmacclel (Sep 28, 2006)

Archangel said:


> To those who've seen one, is there a means to attach a lanyard?
> I assume we're not lucky enough for it to be HA?




The rear section unscrews so I think it would be easy enough to make a plate to attach a lanyard.

Mac


----------



## x2x3x2 (Sep 28, 2006)

regarding the beamshots, could u post something more at a distance like outdoors or something?

overexposed shots at thats distance dont really tell much with regards to beam characteristics or such hi output lights...


----------



## cmacclel (Sep 28, 2006)

x2x3x2 said:


> regarding the beamshots, could u post something more at a distance like outdoors or something?
> 
> overexposed shots at thats distance dont really tell much with regards to beam characteristics or such hi output lights...



This weekend I will be in the White Mountain woods and will take many beamshots 


Mac


----------



## brightnorm (Sep 28, 2006)

deleted


----------



## Outdoors Fanatic (Sep 29, 2006)

Illum_the_nation said:


> the company
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## monkeyboy (Sep 29, 2006)

Mac, can you post beam shots showing the difference between continuous high and boost modes? Also, does the 100min @ 100% refer to continuous mode?

Thanks


----------



## x2x3x2 (Sep 29, 2006)

Well the output may be a little exagerated but still blows the socks of 99% of current LED toches.

Im still on the fence tho, i got some cash saved up. Cant decide weather to spend it on this scorcher or an iPaq hw6915 or a PSP... decisions decision! Shouldnt have looked at the beamshots 

Funny thing, i still havent even considered spending on any surefires yet.. hehe..

Btw mac, thanks for offering to take outdoor shots!


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 29, 2006)

Originally Posted by Archangel
To those who've seen one, is there a means to attach a lanyard?
I assume we're not lucky enough for it to be HA?

Yes two stainless steal lanyard rings were provided and I believe you have the choice to add one to the front or back. 
Here are some more specs you might find interesting.
Battery: Rechargeable Li ion 
Battery capacity: 12 volt 4.4 amps light output
Duration: 100%: 100 min; 70%: 300 min; 35%: 600 min 
Dimmable: 12 steps 
Submersible: 300 feet 
Lens: 5 degree 
Anodized Aerospace grade aluminum 
Grip: Thermo plastic rubber 
Strobe effect: 400 watts (non lethal weapon) 
Pre programmable: SOS or warning function 
Usable light: Range min. 900 feet (1 lux) 
Signaling: 10 miles in clear weather 
Weight: 871 grams / 31 oz 
Size: Front head diameter 61 mm / 2.4 
Body diameter: 44 mm / 1.7 
Overall length: 25.5 cm / 10 
Taillight: 1 lens, 3 lens solution.


----------



## Archangel (Sep 29, 2006)

Twelve levels? What brightness level does it start at (top, bottom, last used)? What is the current/brightness ratio of the steps? So the whole thing is covered in rubber? You definitely won't be running the top few levels above water, but that's hardly a surprise. Got it in the cart, and getting it in the cart is half the battle. Any chance they'll share what bin they're using?


----------



## hank (Sep 29, 2006)

> This light is clearly intended for under water use

That solves the problem of getting rid of the heat --- at least, if the LEDs are properly thermally connected* to the case, the water should carry away all the heat.

I wonder how long til it overheats if _not_ surrounded by water?
_______
* heat-sinked (heat-sunk? no, that's what happens if they _weren't_....)


----------



## Chronos (Sep 29, 2006)

OK, I'm logged into PTS right now... argh. Must resist... must resist... Once I think I'm free Mike drags me back in again!

I'll probably wait until there are more reviews, as I don't want to invest that much money in as-yet unproven light. Sigh.


----------



## cmacclel (Oct 3, 2006)

Review posted let me know if there are any Typos.....it's been a hell of a day here!

https://www.candlepowerforums.com/posts/1623120#post1623120


----------



## cmacclel (Oct 3, 2006)

Server Glitch Double Post

Mac


----------



## NewBie (Oct 8, 2006)

cmacclel said:


> Review posted let me know if there are any Typos.....it's been a hell of a day here!
> 
> https://www.candlepowerforums.com/posts/1623120#post1623120




In your review, you also did a beamshot of the SureFire M6, which looks brighter. Could you stick the M6 in your light box and see what it reads? The M6 is rated for 500 lumens with the high output bulb.


----------



## cmacclel (Oct 8, 2006)

NewBie said:


> In your review, you also did a beamshot of the SureFire M6, which looks brighter. Could you stick the M6 in your light box and see what it reads? The M6 is rated for 500 lumens with the high output bulb.




The M6 is rated at 500 lumens but from what I have read this is halfway through it's runtime / burn. Output on a new set of batteries is very close to 1000 lumens. I will try the m6 in the lightbox when I get home.

Mac


----------



## Ken_McE (Oct 10, 2006)

The part I find interesting is that they brag about not selling, not even making, spare parts. Perhaps all the bits are potted together to keep out water. If it breaks do they just give you a new one? At $600 a pop I'd be expecting a good warranty.


----------



## Archangel (Oct 10, 2006)

Well obviously there are spare parts; these things aren't grown. They have a three-year trade-in guarantee.


----------



## UKSFighter (Oct 11, 2006)

Right now, they offer a no questions asked 3 year trade in Guarantee. Anything goes wrong or looks funny, just send it back for a brand new one. Sometime in the near future they will launch a program where you can pay to replace your light or battery after the 3 year trade-in.


----------



## Art Vandelay (Oct 11, 2006)

:lolsign:
[size=-1]Stockholm Concert Hall, here they come.[/size]


----------



## NewBie (Oct 11, 2006)

cmacclel said:


> The M6 is rated at 500 lumens but from what I have read this is halfway through it's runtime / burn. Output on a new set of batteries is very close to 1000 lumens. I will try the m6 in the lightbox when I get home.
> 
> Mac




Cool, thanks!


----------



## postalguy (Oct 11, 2006)

They say the rechargeable battery will last for 10 years, but there is only a 3 year warranty. Since you cannot replace the battery yourself, what happens after 3 years if it no longer holds a charge? 

I ask this because I've never seen a rechargeable battery last 10 years. I've had several battery types and none of them lasted that long. That includes Ni-cads, NiMH, 12-v SLAs, Lithium-ion, and car batteries. Now I will admit rechargeable CR123s are new to me, so I have no long term experience with them, yet.


----------



## Archangel (Oct 11, 2006)

.


tacticalsupply.com said:


> Some concern was raised over the batteries being swapped out. Here's the deal, in the first 3 years if something goes wrong or the life on the battery isn't what it should be, they (WiseLED) will swap it out for a new one. After 3 years, you will be able to send it in for service to have the battery changed for a nominal fee. Right now the batteries are not user serviceable, but should have a useful lifetime of 5-7 years before needing serviced (from the manufacturer).


----------



## lucio (Oct 30, 2006)

so u think the item doesn't worth the price?

i'd be really curious to see it in action..


----------



## easilyled (Jul 12, 2011)

WorldTravel45 said:


> Just purchased the 1000 Lumen LED flashlight, and I can say from experience it is a great flashlight. Very bright. Also just purchased this flashlight, it uses very few watts! Perhaps those people who are looking at the 1000 Lumen LED flashlight would be interested in this one as well:
> 
> http://gogreenledbulbs.com/products/18-safety-baton-5-watt-led-flashlight.aspx


 
You do realize that this flashlight was advertised in 2006 and that led technology has moved on an enormous amount since then?
You can get 1000 lumens from just one led instead of 7 now, and it will be far more efficient in terms of runtime and output.


----------



## jorn (Jul 13, 2011)

easilyled said:


> You do realize that this flashlight was advertised in 2006 and that led technology has moved on an enormous amount since then?
> You can get 1000 lumens from just one led instead of 7 now, and it will be far more efficient in terms of runtime and output.


You do realize that you quoted a post from 2006?


----------



## easilyled (Jul 13, 2011)

jorn said:


> You do realize that you quoted a post from 2006?



You are mistaken. 

WorldTravel45 (whose post I quoted) had just posted (on 12/07/2011) which is why I made my comment.
It appears that his post has now been removed by the moderators, so you may not be able to see that.
All the same, did you try to establish when WorldTravel45 made the post that I quoted before your remark?


----------



## jorn (Jul 13, 2011)

Haha I dident see the post you quoted, it was deleted berfore i red it. Just #158 from 2006 then your #159. Funny


----------



## easilyled (Jul 13, 2011)

jorn said:


> Haha I dident see the post you quoted, it was deleted berfore i red it. Just #158 from 2006 then your #159. Funny


 
Well perhaps you need to establish the facts a bit better before making clever remarks.


----------



## jorn (Jul 13, 2011)

The "fact" is: all the post before yours is from 2006  Well, seems like "facts" can be deciving.:touche:


----------



## easilyled (Jul 13, 2011)

jorn said:


> The "fact" is: all the post before yours is from 2006



Except the actual post that I quoted and which you incorrectly alleged was from 2006, when it was not.
Where was your evidence that the post by WorldTravel45 was dated 2006? 
The "fact" is that you made a smartass comment without examining the evidence.

Now, you're compounding it by carrying on in the same vein instead of just holding your hands up.
Whilst you may think its funny, I think that you lack the etiquette expected by a forum like this.


----------

