# if led's are brighter and more efficient why does anyone do incan?



## waddup (Nov 3, 2008)

or any other bulb type?

just thinking out loud, i was wondering this today,

any answers?


----------



## Juggernaut (Nov 3, 2008)

10,000 reasons, Incans are just as superior to LEDs, no question about it. I can’t make 4000 lumens from LEDs for $30.


----------



## SureAddicted (Nov 3, 2008)

I cant believe these threads keep popping up, if you like LED that is fine, leave incan alone. I'll always carry an incan for a reason you'll never understand.


----------



## Sgt. LED (Nov 3, 2008)

Room and reason for both types.

There always will be.


----------



## kramer5150 (Nov 3, 2008)

I still like using the OEM P60 modules in both my lights, although I can't say that I favor them over my LED modules. 60 Lumens is just about right for general use. I can't explain why but I just like the color tint, I think it just looks "right". I have never tried a warm tint Cree though.


----------



## brighterisbetter (Nov 3, 2008)

SureAddicted said:


> I cant believe these threads keep popping up


+1

To the OP, the search feature is very useful  This also goes for your previous thread here. It saves a lot of people the aggravation of having to answer relatively the same question several times over.

Also, wouldn't this be more suited in either the LED or Incandescent forum?


----------



## Double_A (Nov 3, 2008)

Welcome to CPF. Remember flood beats throw in 90% of circumstances unless you're trying to impress your friends!


I used to have a FAQ to respond to questions from newbies it really helped my blood pressure.

Simple answer is...your basic assumption is wrong.

There are no LED at this time that can completely replace incandescent lamps if you need HIGH output. Remember however color rendering. Mankind has evolved over eons with only two light sources...the Sun and Fire.

Maybe in a few years heat dissipation and color index will improve to the point where your question is a no brainer.


----------



## etc (Nov 3, 2008)

Just compare the number of posts in the incan forum vs. those in the LED forum.

Is that a rhetorical question? 

Better color rendition is a moot point, as Malkoff proved you can make LEDs just as yellow as an incan. (Not to my taste though)


----------



## LightKnife (Nov 3, 2008)

Incans still gives the instant gratification of 5k lumens


----------



## brighterisbetter (Nov 3, 2008)

etc said:


> Just compare the number of posts in the incan forum vs. those in the LED forum.
> 
> Is that a rhetorical question?
> 
> *Better color rendition is a moot point*, as Malkoff proved you can make LEDs just as yellow as an incan. (Not to my taste though)



Maybe at lower lumen ratings, but that's not the only thing that's going on here. Incans are not dead yet. They're vastly more cost effective, at least in the short term. See following quote:



Juggernaut said:


> I can’t make 4000 lumens from LEDs for $30.


Now I do realize that in the long term under normal use, many incans will fail prior to one led failing.




Honestly, I'm getting really sick of these threads, incan vs. led It sort of reminds me of a new member's first post, and without using the search function at all or reading any threads, they post something like: "Hey everyone, I'm new. What's the best flashlight out there? Beamshots plz!!!!" It just gets old after a while.

How about *'buy what you like'* and that's it. What do you personally have to gain by trying to conform another person to your tastes???? That's an effort in futility if there ever was such a thing.


----------



## shomie911 (Nov 3, 2008)

etc said:


> Just compare the number of posts in the incan forum vs. those in the LED forum.
> 
> Is that a rhetorical question?
> 
> Better color rendition is a moot point, as Malkoff proved you can make LEDs just as yellow as an incan. (Not to my taste though)



Not quite.

I'm the one with the M60W. It's warm but nowhere near as yellow as an incan in person.

It is, however, a lot warmer than a normal LED tint.

Incan is still king in my book. The color rendition is perfect, throws a lot better for a given size. 

LED is getting close, and the extended runtime is more important than light quality in some circumstances.

The M60W is the best LED I've had so far though. :twothumbs


----------



## BlueBeam22 (Nov 3, 2008)

Just my humble opinions:

I much prefer LED flashlights over Incandescent flashlights, but love Incandescent spotlights for their high output and throw.
My favorite light source is HID for its extreme output and throw, but IMO Incandescent is also very good because it is so cheap yet performs so greatly in large spotlights.

CREE XR-E LED flashlights are amazing for their extreme output and throw at such small sizes, and IMO nothing beats LED in small flashlights. I LOVE my CREE XR-E flashlights.

I appreciate all 3 light sources for various reasons and feel each one has its good points, pros, and cons.


----------



## brighterisbetter (Nov 4, 2008)

> *if led's are brighter and more efficient why does anyone do incan?*


*

??

show me ONE led that's brighter than an Osram 64623 incan lamp
*


----------



## LukeA (Nov 4, 2008)

etc said:


> Better color rendition is a moot point, as Malkoff proved you can make LEDs just as yellow as an incan. (Not to my taste though)



Malkoff did not prove anything about LED tint. Others did.

Also, users vote with their wallets as to light usefulness. Look at the number of users viewing the LED flashlights forum compared to the incandescent forum.


----------



## leon2245 (Nov 4, 2008)

kramer5150 said:


> I still like using the OEM P60 modules in both my lights, although I can't say that I favor them over my LED modules. 60 Lumens is just about right for general use. I can't explain why but I just like the color tint, I think it just looks "right". *I have never tried a warm tint Cree though*.


 

Speaking of, what _will_ be the advantages once L.E.D.'s are able to match incan tints (the other 9,998 advantages that is L.O.L. @ J.N.)? And S.A. why is yours a reason the O.P. would never understand? Is it something so abstract it can't be put into words, or is it because it's a personal matter? I think we should give W.U. the benefit of the doubt here and assume he is capable of understanding the reasons if you can explain. His only crime really is not searching, but despite how many times this conversation exists in the archives, I.M.O. it's always O.K. to run it again, as the context of this discussion changes with advancements of L.E.D. technologY!

I actually prefer incans' color and how with less lumens they seem to throw better outdoors. In fact I currently E.D.C. an incan (A2), but once L.E.D.'s can match those aspects, they will be hard for me to deny. As it is now, I can live with less runtime and lower efficiency, but my main reason for not having more is their lack of regulation, or else I'd buy more quality incans.

J.M.O. and Y.M.M.V.


----------



## mdocod (Nov 4, 2008)

There's a lot of misconception about LEDs. The automatic assumption that they are vastly more efficient than incans, while valid in many comparisons, can be proven false in other comparisons. A well designed incan can achieve 30-60 lumens per watt, which is not far behind the best LEDs out there when they are driven hard. There are plenty of Cree modules out there being pushed into the realm of ~5W input power, at those drive levels, they around 50-70 lumens per watt. The gap is not as large as many think. Where LEDs are best is in compact flashlights where they are driven to more conservative levels, taking advantage of the 100+ lm/w they are capable of. 

As for LEDs being brighter, yes and no... Depends on how much you are willing to spend. The only way to get the LED brighter is to slap more of them in the head of the flashlight, this can get complicated, and getting a quality build that involves a shower-head style setup of R2s can cost hundreds, even up to a thousand dollars or more. 

With the recent advancement of LiMn cells from AW in the 16340 size, there are 2xCR123 and 3xCR123 size options becoming available that very few similar size LED lights can compete with at all. Granted the runtime stinks, but some operations do not require runtime, just maximum output in a compact package, incans have taken the upper hand here recently. Think Room clearing.

I have no delusions that LEDs will continue to eclipse out incans in the areas they excel in over the next few years. It's coming and there is no stopping it. I welcome the new generations of LEDs with excitement. Incans will always be relevant for as long as someone desires to use them. 

Eric


----------



## Monocrom (Nov 4, 2008)

waddup said:


> or any other bulb type?
> 
> just thinking out loud, i was wondering this today,
> 
> any answers?


 
Truthfully, if you ever owned a HID; you wouldn't ask such a question.

I love LED lights. But they don't do everything well.


----------



## js (Nov 4, 2008)

The spectral characteristic of incan light makes it pretty well suited to use in fog and rain, and in areas where there is lots of residual light pollution. Lumen for lumen, it cuts through such an atmosphere better than LED light. Also, it is easier to make an incan light throw, all other things being equal.

I still have a SureFire M6 with MN15 (X-LOLA) lamp installed that I use when out in the woods and fields. I also take an LED light along with me, usually my LunaSol 20, of course, but the M6/MN15 is my main walk-in-the-fields-at-night light. Or if I want a smaller one, then the SureFire A2.

There's still nothing quite like a medium to high power incandescent thrower for certain situations. Although, I'm sure that will change given some more time, and it already is changing, what with the Nichia 083 high CRI LED--freaking amazing LED light from that emitter! But right now, in mist and fog and rain, give me a medium power incan over an LED light.

As for HID, I don't have any experience with it, so I can't speak intelligently about it.


----------



## LukeA (Nov 4, 2008)

js said:


> The spectral characteristic of incan light makes it pretty well suited to use in fog and rain, and in areas where there is lots of residual light pollution. Lumen for lumen, it cuts through such an atmosphere better than LED light.



I wouldn't have a problem with this statement if it didn't make it seem like LED light is inherently poorly suited to the task. You can have any spectral distribution you want from an LED.


----------



## yellow (Nov 4, 2008)

see it that way:
1st: dont make these threads, the incan guys dont like them 
2nd: it depends on the *SIZE* of the light.
... as long as You think of 2*CR123, 2*AA, 1*18650 and similar lights, "normal" incan bulbs give 50 mins of light, while the Led ones (especially the 18650s) give some 2+ hours of considerably brighter light.

but with way larger lights - which as a "plus" offer only about 20 mins of runtime - incans in the 20+ Watt class are much brighter, but need way more power for this.
(what a surprise  as if it were a surprise a Porsche can go faster that a Volkswagen Golf)

the question is: what is of importance for You?
light, small, multilevel light --> Led
brightness, brightness, brightness, but runtime and weight/size does not matter? --> look for an incan.


PS: to compete with the powerlights, one would need led lights eating an equivalent of the current the incan model runs on. That means more than just one led.
Try bike lights: usually the brighter homemade ones feature an Osram 12V/20 W bulb. This one runs on ~ 2 Amps.
To come to a comparable led model, that means 7-8 individual led (and such a light blows the incan away!)
but
cost! effort in building! Thermal management!

use the actual technique for what its best: 
led = small handheld lights, 
incan = large throwers


----------



## js (Nov 4, 2008)

LukeA said:


> I wouldn't have a problem with this statement if it didn't make it seem like LED light is inherently poorly suited to the task. You can have any spectral distribution you want from an LED.



LukeA,

LED light _is_ inherently poorly suited to the task of being a fog light, yes. It is actually incandescent's failing--the "**** yellow" beam--that suits it to cutting through suspended water droplets in air. This is why fog lights on cars usually have yellow tinted glass. And, no, you can't have any spectral distribution you want from an LED! Not if you also want high efficiency, anyway. LED's are weak in the red end of the spectrum, and usually strong in the blue, and also don't usually have a nice smooth spectral curve.

In general, however, the light from the latest generation of LED's rivals that from incandescent lights, in my experience, and are so much more efficient as to make incandescents a niche light now. I still love them, but my EDC is no longer an incan, for example.

So, please don't get me wrong here. I love LED lights! And for the love of God, let's please not turn this into yet another stupid flame war about incans vs. LED's. I really don't want that. So, let's just not. It can't be such an inflammatory statement to make: that incans can do one thing, one specific task, better than LED's? Is that so outrageous? I hope not, because it is true. But it doesn't take away from the superiority and excellence of LED's in general!


----------



## kts (Nov 4, 2008)

This is too funny, people almost seem to be insulted by this thread 

Whats wrong with using both types?


----------



## js (Nov 4, 2008)

yellow said:


> see it that way:
> 1st: dont make these threads, the incan guys dont like them
> 2nd: it depends on the *SIZE* of the light.
> ... as long as You think of 2*CR123, 2*AA, 1*18650 and similar lights, "normal" incan bulbs give 50 mins of light, while the Led ones (especially the 18650s) give some 2+ hours of considerably brighter light.
> ...



As I mentioned already, incans are useful for a lot more than "brightness, brightness, brightness". I have an MN15 lamp assy installed in my SF M6, and it gives 200 lumens for 2.5 hours in a 2D sized light, and it _throws_, and it performs very well in rain and fog and in city scenarios where there is a lot of incandescent light pollution. This is very far from the parody of the incan as a 20 minute super-bright exhibition light.

The incan power niche used to be between about 8 watts and 30 watts, but times have changed, and in truth their niche was never just about a power range, but about the ability to pierce through fog and ambient lighting. Still, in that power range, they can be made to throw better than LED's, all other factors being equal, because you just use a more powerful filament, whereas an LED light that powerful has to use multiple emitters (so far, at least), which doesn't lend itself to throw.

As for incan guys not liking threads like this, it's not the type of thread, it's the _attitude_ that usually accompanies it.


----------



## js (Nov 4, 2008)

kts said:


> This is too funny, people almost seem to be insulted by this thread
> 
> Whats wrong with using both types?



Nothing at all. Quite the opposite.


----------



## HKJ (Nov 4, 2008)

yellow said:


> Try bike lights: usually the brighter homemade ones feature an Osram 12V/20 W bulb. This one runs on ~ 2 Amps.



That is about the same light as a P7 led, running at 7 watt.

Overdriving an incan will increase the efficiency, but serious reduce the lifetime of a bulb.


----------



## leon2245 (Nov 4, 2008)

J.S. what kind of bulb life did you end up getting on your extra low MN15 in the M6 (now that you have a whole lot of bulbs through it to get a good average on)? You probably use your regulated set-up, does that help extend their life at all? 

I agree that less incan lumens seem to have more throw outdoors when it's misty and/or foggy etc.


----------



## SureAddicted (Nov 4, 2008)

I think the op is contradicting himself. To the op, if you drive a car, truck or motorcycle there's a good chance the headlights are incans. So why are you still using them?


----------



## LEDninja (Nov 4, 2008)

:welcome:


waddup said:


> if led's are brighter and *more efficient* why does anyone do incan or any other bulb type?


LEDs while more efficient do not necessarily provide more *runtime*.
I bought a Radio Shack branded Turtlelight way back in 1999 or 2000. Dorcy's claim for their version was 200 hours. I figure ~80 hours actual useful light. But it is fairly dim.
I bought an MTE SSC-P7 earlier this year. Runtime is considerably less than 1 hour on high.
The long runtimes for LED lights come from their ability to run on low. Run them continuously on high and you better have spare batteries ready, just like incan. And you better not be using alkaline batteries.
-
At local store bought lights the situation is worse for LEDs. The LED torches are usually 3AAA giving 1 hour runtime for the brighter ones. The incans are usually 2D or a 6V brick. The bigger batteries more than make up for the inefficient bulb giving many hours of runtime.
-
What stopped me from going incan is the lack of availability of bulbs. I will have to replace incan bulbs sooner or later and it is a pain to order them from another country.


----------



## Marduke (Nov 4, 2008)

LEDninja said:


> :welcome:
> 
> LEDs while more efficient do not necessarily provide more *runtime*.
> I bought a Radio Shack branded Turtlelight way back in 1999 or 2000. Dorcy's claim for their version was 200 hours. I figure ~80 hours actual useful light. But it is fairly dim.
> ...



Apples to apples, lumen for lumen, using the same battery setup, you get 2-10x more runtime using a LED.


----------



## Tec40 (Nov 4, 2008)

I say,use both. It all depends what your using it for. I just bought an INOVA T1. It's got a more yellow LED tint to it,and is a fantastic light with at lest 4 hours of run time. I also just fell in love again with my Surefire E2e incan. I love the light that the 25 lumen MN02 bulb puts out,and the run time is good as well at about 2.5 hours of runtime before it starts to dim. There is a place for both.


----------



## Chrontius (Nov 4, 2008)

LukeA said:


> I wouldn't have a problem with this statement if it didn't make it seem like LED light is inherently poorly suited to the task. You can have any spectral distribution you want from an LED.



While true, efficiency and spectral quality are at opposite ends of a sliding scale. At some point, you may as well just use an efficient incan like the A2.

Also, making an LED ROP-alike would have blown the budget way to hell. The closest equivalent, the Malkoff triple dropin, is $150 plus host, and requires at least a four-cell configuration. To get a 2D body, you're looking at... about $250 with Eneloops and adapter. My entire li-ion ROP came together at just under $100 (though I later upgraded to a FM-eneloop configuration).

LED's achilles heel is mostly cost, thermal management (again, increasing cost or killing service life), and spectral power distribution. If you're willing to throw budget to the winds, you'll do amazing things, but the rest of us can't afford to to that. 

(Methinks a Malkoff tri-dropin with a cool white, a very warm white, and a desaturated red LED would do fine... but be prepared to sell your car to pay for it!)


----------



## Monocrom (Nov 4, 2008)

LEDninja said:


> -
> What stopped me from going incan is the lack of availability of bulbs. I will have to replace incan bulbs sooner or later and it is a pain to order them from another country.


 
I guess it depends on the company. Surefire lamps are easy to replace, in terms of availability; even in Canada. I'm sure there are probably a few Authorized Dealers in your country.


----------



## etc (Nov 4, 2008)

Yeah, with incans having 5-10 lesser runtime, they become very costly in the long run. The startup cost can be deceiving in this case.

(Unless you have free primaries given to you or use a rechargeable solution)

Even then, if I wanted long runtime, and couldn't carry a lot of spares (Of any chemistry including NiMH or Li-Ion), I would go with LED.

Example: 
SF 9P with P91 module: 200 lumens for 20 minutes. Oh and bring the spare P91 modules with you.

SF 9P with M60 LED module: 235 lumens for 2.5+ hours.

If you go caving or mountain climbing with very limited space left for cells, which one do you want with you?

Incan is on the way out, clearly. LEDs are still being developed, look at them in a few years, while incan is 100+ year old technology that's stagnated. SF knows this and doesn't develop any new incan tech.


----------



## Juggernaut (Nov 4, 2008)

leon2245 said:


> (the other 9,998 advantages that is L.O.L. @ J.N.)
> 
> J.M.O. and Y.M.M.V.


 
Perhaps there is not 9,998 reasons why Incans are as good as LEDs:sigh:. But there is definitely enough for me (maybe only 287). To see the true beauty of Incans some times you have to stray a little from the norm “lctorana would know:thumbsup:” but even he uses less radical light setups then me, for I consider there to only be two kinds of flashlights… those you can EDC, and those that you can’t. Any light you can’t easily slip on you belt and go to school with I consider to be all bets off:huh:. In my world it’s a no holds bar race for performance:devil:. I don’t care if the light is held together with bubblegum as long as it’s tuff as nails, cost very little, runs forever and has an outputs that rivals the sun. Example I am currently trying to make a light that will run for 6 hours while producing 625 lumens with a bulb life exceeding 300 hours with a low setting that will run for 85 hours continuously with a crazy 2,000 hour rating. All using technology that has existed for a looong time:candle:. I can easily build this light for under $50 and it will hold together for a hundred years “it’s base light is over 40 years old already”. So the catch of cause is that it’s going to way like 18 pounds. But do I care? No Way! Because I feel get great satisfaction when I can make a light that will rival almost any on paper for 1/10th the price:twothumbs, all I have to do is get strong arms when I use it.


----------



## kelmo (Nov 4, 2008)

I use my incans more now because of LEDs. The long running low intensity LED in my pocket gets the lions share of use. My primary spotting light is an incan because it will only be used in brief bursts and thus I don't need to carry more than a few extra sets of cells and a spare lamp. 

I became a flashaholic in a time when there were no LED options. So extra batteries, bulbs, and short runtimes were the norm, not the exception. And those old lights were big! It still amazes me how small my E2d and SC3 really are and how superior it is to that old Sportsman 2C flashlight I used to lug around. In fact my flashalism predates alkaline batteries. Who still remembers the zinc carbide "Never Ready's?!"

I am an Incan Man at heart.


----------



## brighterisbetter (Nov 4, 2008)

To everyone who says that incans are being phased out and eventually being replaced with LED's needs to take a close look at the wristwatch industry. Remember when the quartz movement came along and the swiss makers suffered dramatically at first? Well fast forward to a few decades later and you'll see custom winders more alive than ever. A market will always exist for incan, whether you personally choose to go that route or not.

Many LEO's to this day prefer an incan beam for piercing the tint of automobile windows. And remember this, for IR duties, most LED's do not have that part of the light spectrum, or in adequate amounts anyway. You'd need a special IR LED for such a task. Try putting an IR filter on an LED light and turn your camera to 'night' mode; see if that makes a difference.


----------



## Icebreak (Nov 4, 2008)

OP -

You've been here six days and started 15 threads. Please don't start a new thread for every question that pops into your head.

To answer this one, "why does anyone do incan?" because I go outside sometimes.


----------



## csshih (Nov 4, 2008)

here we go again 

cheaper.
done.


----------



## js (Nov 4, 2008)

leon2245 said:


> J.S. what kind of bulb life did you end up getting on your extra low MN15 in the M6 (now that you have a whole lot of bulbs through it to get a good average on)? You probably use your regulated set-up, does that help extend their life at all?
> 
> I agree that less incan lumens seem to have more throw outdoors when it's misty and/or foggy etc.



I'm actually still on my first MN15 lamp, believe it or not, but reports in the X-LOLA thread seem to indicate that you can expect about 20 hours of runtime, although, sometimes as little as 15. It's rather overdriven on primaries (which is how I run it, not on an M6-R pack). That's the price you pay.

LED's are about 4 times more efficient if you are comparing apples to apples, by the way.

LED's rock. They are awesome. I love them. But outdoors, in some types of weather/atmosphere, incandescent light is the better choice--but you pay for it, of course, by sacrificing runtime, or brightness, or both, or by sacrificing size. But if EDC isn't an issue, then you can afford to up the size if incan light is going to give you an advantage for certain tasks.


----------



## [email protected] (Nov 4, 2008)

kts said:


> This is too funny, people almost seem to be insulted by this thread
> 
> *Whats wrong with using both types?*



Nothing but why limit yourself to a mere 2 options? HIDs rock! 


Choose the best 'illumination weapon' for the intended task


----------



## Marduke (Nov 4, 2008)

js said:


> LED's are about 4 times more efficient if you are comparing apples to apples, by the way.



It depends on where you're at on the inverse sliding scale. Driven low, incans are close to 5lm/watt, where current generation LED's can manage >130lm/watt. Driven hard, typical incans peak around 20lm/watt and LED's dip to the 50lm/watt range. High end incan setups can achieve approximatly 50lm/watt.

So, it's anywhere from about 1:1 to 25:1 ratio depending on where on the scale you are.


----------



## Sgt. LED (Nov 4, 2008)

Juggernaut said:


> I am currently trying to making a light that will run for 6 hours while producing 625 lumens with a bulb life exceeding 300 hours with a low setting that will run for 85 hours continuously with a crazy 2,000 hour rating. All using technology that has existed for a looong time:candle:. I can easily build this light for under $50 and it will hold together for a hundred years “it’s base light is over 40 years old already”. So the catch of cause is that it’s going to way like 18 pounds. But do I care? No Way! Because I feel get great satisfaction when I can make a light that will rival almost any on paper for 1/10th the price:twothumbs, all I have to do is get strong arms when I use it.


 
Hey when you get it working, make another one for me! :thumbsup:


----------



## WadeF (Nov 4, 2008)

Icebreak said:


>


 
Don't post a nice beam shot like that without telling us what lights were being used.


----------



## RobertM (Nov 4, 2008)

etc said:


> Example:
> SF 9P with P91 module: 200 lumens for 20 minutes. Oh and bring the spare P91 modules with you.
> 
> SF 9P with M60 LED module: 235 lumens for 2.5+ hours.



While I'm not going to dispute that LEDs tend to be more efficient, your example has one problem. In comparing to the 235 emitter lumens of an M60 LED module, the P91 is making closer to 350+ bulb lumens. Remember, SureFire's output numbers are out-the-front lumens averaged over the usable life of the battery.


----------



## SureAddicted (Nov 4, 2008)

etc said:


> Incan is on the way out, clearly. LEDs are still being developed, look at them in a few years, while incan is 100+ year old technology that's stagnated. SF knows this and doesn't develop any new incan tech.




Says who? LED's are still being developed and will take a while to catch up to incans. You can't just add a third light wave into an LED. When that happens then LED's will surpass incans, until then it's just no competition. I use my lights outdoors, and colour rendition is a huge thing, not so much with indoor use. 

I'm still waiting for waddup to make an appearance, but like most post's, I think he's just stirring the pot. Threads like this are non productive.


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Nov 4, 2008)

Most of my light are LEDs, and mostly efficient. Who cares about effeciency, when you are dealing with incans. Bright is good and super bright incan is much more pleasing than super bright LED. This is CPF and I am a flashaholic and I like all types of lights, so bring on the new battery technology and bring on the hot, hot, hotwires. Nobody needs to get seriious here, or passionate about one or the other, so lets have fun, and turn on the lights. LOL.

Bill


----------



## etc (Nov 4, 2008)

It's said over and over again, I saw multiple pics posted here, of one vs. another, but I totally "don't get it" why incans render colors better. 

Well, I like the way LEDs have color rendition better. Granted, just some of them. Malkoff is pretty good and others are too.

I like pure white with a hint of warm vs. sickly yellow flood. Malkoff M60 strikes it just right. Perfect balance of color. Granted, I never had a "real incan" like some cool people here but I put in the stock P60 module and I really did not like it.

I don't like deathly blue 5mm leds.


----------



## Illum (Nov 4, 2008)

waddup, find me a single chip LED that is 


Impervious to heat damage
Impervious to surge current
Emits all the wavelengths from both sides of the spectrum AND whats in the middle [important if your going to use, say a red filter for night vision, blue filter for blood track, and infrared for others...on the SAME light]:twothumbs
Can be overdriven
5500K color temperature
Cost effective output [see Juggernaut's post 2]
Doesn't require soldering out of the package
And I'm all ears, before then...lets not be biased on LED being new, therefore incandescent should be extinct


WadeF, I think those are mag85/ROP beamshots


----------



## brighterisbetter (Nov 4, 2008)

Icebreak said:


> OP -
> You've been here six days and started 15 threads. Please don't start a new thread for every question that pops into your head.


+1,000


----------



## Icebreak (Nov 4, 2008)

Hey, Wade. Thanks for the good words about the beamshot. I'm not nearly as skilled as most of the guys that post those pics but I'm learning.

That's a high-quality, high-output, regulated, select bin, custom built LED vs a Maglite with an $8.00 lamp installed in it. That old school incan sure makes things say hello, eh? I sent you a PM with details.


----------



## nitesky (Nov 4, 2008)

I use LED lights. And sometimes I think an incan works well. It depends on what and where and is a personal thing. My reasoning would have supporters and detractors. Both types work. I use both. And I liked Ginger AND Mary Ann.


----------



## WadeF (Nov 4, 2008)

These debates are often silly. Maybe people should focus on comparing a 1xCR123 sized LED light to a 1xCR123 sized incan light. Of course a big old incan is going to be brighter than a small LED light, but for LED fans you can get a lot of light out of a very small package. We now have 1xCR123 (or 1xR123) sized LED lights that can do 200+ lumens out the front. Can any incans do this? 

Then of course if we go on the large scale it's harder for LED's to match the big incan spot lights, etc. Unless you have something like the Databank 70.


----------



## SureAddicted (Nov 4, 2008)

WadeF said:


> We now have 1xCR123 (or 1xR123) sized LED lights that can do 200+ lumens out the front. Can any incans do this?



Show me 1, and I'm not interested in out the front, only torch lumens. Also, I'm not prepared to play the tint lottery, something you don't have to do with incans. And it has to be in a similar price bracket to an equivalent incan.


----------



## Marduke (Nov 4, 2008)

SureAddicted said:


> Show me 1, and *I'm not interested in out the front, only torch lumens*. Also, I'm *not prepared to play the tint lottery, something you don't have to do with incans*. And it has to be in a similar price bracket to an equivalent incan.




1) "out the front" = "torch lumens". They are the same thing.
2) There is also a large variation in incan beams, from pure white to **** yellow.


----------



## SureAddicted (Nov 4, 2008)

Marduke said:


> 1) "out the front" = "torch lumens". They are the same thing.



I'm having a hard time believing this...what ever happened to times it by .60 or .65 to get torch lumens?


----------



## Marduke (Nov 4, 2008)

SureAddicted said:


> I'm having a hard time believing this...what ever happened to times it by .60 or .65 to get torch lumens?



That's for "bulb lumens" for incans. LED's are multiply by .7-.8 to get from "emitter" to "out the front" lumens.


----------



## waddup (Nov 4, 2008)

Marduke said:


> **** yellow.



sounds 'warm' 

where do i get one


----------



## SureAddicted (Nov 4, 2008)

Marduke said:


> That's for "bulb lumens" for incans. LED's are multiply by .7-.8 to get from "emitter" to "out the front" lumens.



Cool, thanks for clearing it up.


----------



## Icebreak (Nov 5, 2008)

WadeF said:


> Maybe people should focus on comparing a 1xCR123 sized LED light to a 1xCR123 sized incan light.



Or...maybe we should focus on the targets we wish to see when we use the proper flashlight for each task.


----------



## Chrontius (Nov 5, 2008)

Sgt. LED said:


> Hey when you get it working, make another one for me! :thumbsup:



What he said! :candle:


----------



## WadeF (Nov 5, 2008)

SureAddicted said:


> Show me 1, and I'm not interested in out the front, only torch lumens.


 
The Dereelight C2H is driving a Q5 or R2 at 1A. This should produce 250-270 emitter lumens, which should give 200 torch lumens (out the front lumens). 

I have a Surefire E2E running 2xR123's and a lumens factory 150 lumen incan bub. It has a hard time producing 100 out the front lumens with twice the voltage and twice the size. 

Also moving into the nuetral white Cree's, like a Q3 5A, yields a much more incan like tint that I think a lot of people will really take a liking too once they get a chance to see one in person.


----------



## SureAddicted (Nov 5, 2008)

Nice one, you manged to prove me wrong, congrats.
http://www.torchworld.com.au/catalo...id=507&zenid=9e17c8a18a6650144ec36d20c6bc088d

It states the R2 is ~210 lumens, is that out the front? nevertheless seems like a pocket monster. Whats the runtime on it?

EDIT around 55-60 min. at max.


----------



## 276 (Nov 5, 2008)

These threads are really touchy...


----------



## js (Nov 5, 2008)

Marduke said:


> It depends on where you're at on the inverse sliding scale. Driven low, incans are close to 5lm/watt, where current generation LED's can manage >130lm/watt. Driven hard, typical incans peak around 20lm/watt and LED's dip to the 50lm/watt range. High end incan setups can achieve approximatly 50lm/watt.
> 
> So, it's anywhere from about 1:1 to 25:1 ratio depending on where on the scale you are.



Driven hard, for a practically useful setup, incans peak at around 34 or so bulb-lumens/watt. Higher than that is achievable, but filaments that are that overdriven have very short lives and are very fragile. Already at 34 lpw you are talking 10-ish hour filament life.

130 lumens per watt is almost exactly 4 times more efficient than 34 lumens per watt, but the conversion factors between emitter lumens to torch lumens, and bulb lumens to toruch lumens is different, (.8 vs. .65), so it leaves some room for driving the LED harder, raising the die temp, and lowering the efficiency.

Quite simply, the SF L1 runs of 1 CR123A, is about the same brightness (on average) as the A2, and runs for close to 2 hours. This is 4 times as efficient as an A2.

Or my LunaSol 20 runs from 1 CR123A, is the same brightness as the A2, and runs for close to 2 hours. This is also 4 times as efficient as the A2 (or E2e, for that matter).

So, there is no question that for an EDC light, incans are at a great disadvantage, and you wouldn't EDC one unless you really needed or wanted the incandescent light. I EDC'd an A2 for so long mostly because of the low-flood, high-throw combination in a single light, with an instant access KISS UI. The incandescent light was also great for me for outdoor use.

Now, however, I EDC my LunaSol 20. It has the same low-flood, high-throw combination with an instant access KISS UI, but is smaller and longer running. As soon as that light became available, I was there!

So, there's no question that LED's rule the EDC realm, but there's also no question that the SureFire A2 is still a great EDC choice for some people, especially those who want or need incan light, or those who want or need the low-flood, high-throw, and can't afford a LunaSol 20. But that's not the point of this thread! It doesn't restrict discussion to EDC lights. It's a wide open discussion, right? And anyone who has experience with rain, fog, and light polluted areas like parking lots, will be able to vouch for the fact that good incandescent lights are better suited.

Here are a couple of posts from Robocop, from the thread What is the point for incandescent???!?!?!?!111. They are well worth reading and considering, written by a professional, from real world experience:



Robocop said:


> When I first became interested in lights for duty use I tried so very hard to find a luxeon that could do it for me. After several failed attempts I stuck with a high power incandescent for a main light and a very dependable luxeon as a back up. This is the perfect combo for my tastes however after 10 years on the street (all of it night shift) I will say that nothing can compete with a good incandescent.
> 
> I have told this story before however it fits this topic perfectly.....A few months back I had to qualify on a night fire course and brought with me a new high power incandescent....right out of the box the light blew a lamp and I had to resort to my TW4 backup to finish the course.....Now the course was a target recognition course and I was right in the middle of a line of about 40 officers all firing away. We had several colored targets as well as different shapes and with each string of fire the instructor would call any number of certain colors and shapes with a double tap on each target.
> 
> ...





Robocop said:


> My post was based on actual real world experience and the fact remains that I have tried several times but again keep going back to incandescents for a duty light.....not a play around in the yard light or an impress your friends light but a true tool designed to be used in a harsh environment......incandescents work better plain and simple.
> 
> The first one I tried was the classic Pelican PM6....man I still like this light but after a few nights on duty it was retired back to my duty bag. I play with this light often and still enjoy that crystal white tint but it could not compare.
> 
> ...


----------



## Juggernaut (Nov 5, 2008)

> Originally Posted by *Sgt. LED*
> 
> 
> _Hey when you get it working, make another one for me! :thumbsup: _


 


Chrontius said:


> What he said! :candle:


 
If it wasn’t for the fact that all my lights are based on antique styled flashlights that I recondition, replace parts with modern equipment, and simply make better, “making them one off products” I could remake them for others to buy if you were serious of coarse. If I tried to make one new for example using today’s parts they would cost a lot- example: My 150 watt hotwire Big Beam 1766 C cost about $39 all together:thumbsup:. But to make another would cost $119 for base light “new” $80 battery, $14.40 bulb, $8 switch, $12 original switch, $5 wood, $12 “3” foot steel threaded rod and nuts, $10 brass nuts and screws = total *$260.40*! Now the moral of the story is that unlike LEDs I can’t simply grab an old scool light, chuck an LED in it like a P7, directly wire it to a 12 volt SLA, without worrying about soldering anything / heat sinking / any driver unit:sigh:. I’m sure when I get the tools and finances that most people on CPF have I will begin my journey of tinkering with LEDs in such a manner that I do with Incans. So for now Incans are my test bed for my creativity. 

Yay! (400) posts.


----------



## Sgt. LED (Nov 5, 2008)

OK I can't afford 260 right now.

If I could I'd ask you to make me one of those bad boys! Now that $39 bit of awesomeness sure.


----------



## glenda17 (Nov 7, 2008)

I like LED flashlights because when I go to pick one up they always turn on. I have thrown away countless incans because the filament broke and finding a new bulb is a hassle.


I disagree that LED technology will get better. Those projections from a couple years ago are way off track. The LED technology has plataued, the led makers are resorting to multiple LEDs on a die. There is only so much energy you can get per watt, its thermodynamics. With HID there is little incentive for R&D into better LED. The flashlight hobby doesn't fund the LED industry. Q5/R2 is about all the market will bear, expect little investment going foward.


----------



## Marduke (Nov 7, 2008)

glenda17 said:


> I disagree that LED technology will get better. Those projections from a couple years ago are way off track. The LED technology has plataued, the led makers are resorting to multiple LEDs on a die. There is only so much energy you can get per watt, its thermodynamics. With HID there is little incentive for R&D into better LED. The flashlight hobby doesn't fund the LED industry. Q5/R2 is about all the market will bear, expect little investment going foward.



They were indeed off track. We are quite a bit ahead of the projections at this point, and have better efficiency AND tint than anyone expected.

Research is ongoing, and there is work being done on prototypes in labs right now which will give us another efficiency and tint jump of the same magnitude as the last one. The multi-die approach is just what comes at the end of a cycle before the next big jump. The last cycle saw the same thing with the Osram Ostar's and Lux V's.

We are not even close to being near the theoretical maximum for the efficiency of white light output. We are not even half way there yet. Until we are at that maximum, research will continue.


There is no more research going into HID or incandescent, almost all of it is now in LED's of some shape or form.


----------



## ScubaSnyder (Nov 8, 2008)

Juggernaut said:


> 10,000 reasons, Incans are just as superior to LEDs, no question about it. I can’t make 4000 lumens from LEDs for $30.




Agreed, Also 150 lumen incan is much nicer than a 150 lumen led in my mind.


----------



## Hogokansatsukan (Nov 8, 2008)

OMG! My A2 was sitting on the desk while reading this thread and it's now fighting with itself and having "esteem" issues.
And "my dad can beat up your dad".

I liked both Mary Ann and Ginger too!:naughty: But as I get older, that Mrs. Howell....


----------



## baterija (Nov 8, 2008)

Hogokansatsukan said:


> I liked both Mary Ann and Ginger too!:naughty: But as I get older, that Mrs. Howell....


There's something wrong with you...something seriously wrong. I should know. We smell our own. :naughty:

Back to the question at hand, each technology has it's strengths and weaknesses. There's plenty of discussion above about what some of those are. Like most technologies it's a matter of picking the most appropriate to the use, or range or uses, you need it for. There's still uses for both nails and screws even though fundamentally they both hold things together. There's room for more than one kind of device that makes light.


----------



## etc (Nov 8, 2008)

Marduke said:


> They were indeed off track. We are quite a bit ahead of the projections at this point, and have better efficiency AND tint than anyone expected.
> 
> Research is ongoing, and there is work being done on prototypes in labs right now which will give us another efficiency and tint jump of the same magnitude as the last one. The multi-die approach is just what comes at the end of a cycle before the next big jump. The last cycle saw the same thing with the Osram Ostar's and Lux V's.
> 
> ...



That hits the nail on the head


----------



## KD7EIR (Nov 8, 2008)

The times they are a changing.

Research into LED technology will continue to grow and produce efficiencies and outputs that we can only dream about today. LED is THE future for lighting - there are just far too many advantages in far too many industries to ignore. In aviation, for instance, weight and reliability are king, and LED lighting is the clear winner here. 

As the world marches towards more energy efficiency, LED lighting will begin to supplant all incandescent lighting. Traffic lights in my town are quickly being converted to LED, which reduces the maintenance overhead tremendously. This results in a phenomenally reduced TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) to the city. 

As in most technology, the real story behind the amount of R&D dollars devoted to it revolves around the TCO to the expected consumer of that technology. If the consumer sees that a new technology can do the same job, equally or better, for lower TCO, then they will demand that product, and the manufactures will pour R&D dollars into it to make their version better than the other guy.

Technology changes, time marches on, and we get better and newer ways to accomplish the job. Just as some people still have LP records and some people have already dumped CD's in favor of mp3's, there will always be a different means to accomplish the same end.


----------



## zx7dave (Nov 8, 2008)

CPFers have older incandescant technology for the same reason a lot of us have old muscle cars...


----------



## KD7EIR (Nov 8, 2008)

zx7dave said:


> CPFers have older incandescant technology for the same reason a lot of us have old muscle cars...




That is a very good analogy. Just because the newest technology may be better, it does not take anything away from what the old technology gave us. And on occasion the old technology can pull off a few tricks that the new technology is just not capable of.


----------



## Stilt (Jan 2, 2013)

mdocod said:


> There's a lot of misconception about LEDs. The automatic assumption that they are vastly more efficient than incans, while valid in many comparisons, can be proven false in other comparisons. A well designed incan can achieve 30-60 lumens per watt, which is not far behind the best LEDs out there when they are driven hard. There are plenty of Cree modules out there being pushed into the realm of ~5W input power, at those drive levels, they around 50-70 lumens per watt. The gap is not as large as many think. Where LEDs are best is in compact flashlights where they are driven to more conservative levels, taking advantage of the 100+ lm/w they are capable of.
> 
> As for LEDs being brighter, yes and no... Depends on how much you are willing to spend. The only way to get the LED brighter is to slap more of them in the head of the flashlight, this can get complicated, and getting a quality build that involves a shower-head style setup of R2s can cost hundreds, even up to a thousand dollars or more.
> 
> ...


Just reading some old posts. Good reading about how it was 5 years ago, and what some thought the future would bring. mdocod seemed to have an insight as to what was to come. Especially "the Incans will always be relevant for as long as someone desires to use them".....how true.


----------

