# Lumen Measurements of Popular Lights



## Gransee (May 6, 2006)

Updated 5/6/06

Lumen Measurements of some popular lights. 

The table can be found here.

The original thread where the test was first introduced.

Peter


----------



## cheapo (May 6, 2006)

why do the runtime charts end only after a few minutes?

-David


----------



## The_LED_Museum (May 6, 2006)

I published this link on my website, on the page called "INTEGRATING SPHERE MEASUREMENTS", if that's OK with you.
If not, just say so, and I'll remove it no questions asked.


----------



## randyo (May 6, 2006)

> why do the runtime charts end only after a few minutes?


Probably because the goal was to measure output, not runtime.


----------



## CM (May 7, 2006)

..


----------



## NewBie (May 7, 2006)

I've been sitting here, scratching my head, and wondering what in the world was up with that HDS B60, until I noticed the notes, bingo! sapphire window replacement, instead of the stock UCL!

Sapphire/Mineral Glass only has a 85% transmission level, which explains the loss in lumens. UCL is typically in the 99% range.

60 lumens * 14% = 8.4 lumens lost

60 - 8.4 = 51.6 lumens expected.


A graph of extremely high quality Sapphire windows, includes a transmission chart. Remember, visible light is roughly from 400nm to 700nm:
http://www.mellesgriot.com/products/optics/mp_3_5.htm

(oh, yeah, and for those that like sapphire windows, AR coatings can fix the issue with Sapphire too!- see part way down the page, their notes...) Sapphire is so poor of a window material for transparency, due to it's high index of refraction, which causes a large mismatch to air.


----------



## BentHeadTX (May 7, 2006)

Thanks Peter,
The graphs really helped to see what my FF3 will do. Since I run it no longer than a minute at max (normally less than 30 seconds), watching the graph move between 78 to 74 lumens during that minute is interesting. The estimate that it puts out 75 lumens on max for short durations of a minute or less is accurate. 
Now for the new Arc LS to have the brightness/size/features of the FF3 with the thermal protection of the HDS. Thanks again for throwing out real numbers in this land of lumen confusion.


----------



## Xygen (May 7, 2006)

Thanks you Peter for your hard work!
I was a little confused about the graphs (e.g. the 42XR). One starts at 0 lm, the other at 42.6 lm. But now I see that the graphs are from one particular light!
Most impressive is the FireFly III, isn't it?


----------



## kiely23+ (May 7, 2006)

Hi Peter,  
We wonder what CT Level on max the Chameleon was set on? Level 3,4 or 5?


----------



## Planterz (May 7, 2006)

The HDS lights sure seem to prefer lithium ions, don't they? I realize that the "spikey" graphs with primaries really only shows about 1 lumen of variation (unnoticable by human eyes), but the li-ion graphs are much smoother. Nice flat output regardless.

Would it be safe to assume that these tests weren't done with any sort of cooling? An HDS XRGT will last much longer than 7-8 minutes before stepping down, unless the heat protection circuit kicks in. Of course, this test is only really for lumen output, not regulation graphs.

The Fire~Fly III is quite impressive. I never realized it put out that much light (75+ lumens on a fresh charge!).

Great work Peter. Can't wait to see the rest of them!:goodjob:


----------



## NewBie (May 7, 2006)

The Fenix light is quite surprising:
http://www.arcflashlights.com/1xaaa.html

16 lumens, but it is rated at 30 lumens on the Fenix website.


----------



## xochi (May 7, 2006)

Am I blind ? Are there some lights that have yet to be posted? Is there another Peter Gransee of ArcFlashlights doing lumen tests? Or

Is the Arc AAA not there? What's up with that?

Okay, I saw that more testing will be done on May 12th! I'd really like to see how current production Arcs perform.

Planterz, preventing the heat protection from stepping down can be difficult and likely not practical in an IS test setup (just an uneducated guess on my part here)


----------



## Planterz (May 7, 2006)

xochi said:


> Planterz, preventing the heat protection from stepping down can be difficult and likely not practical in an IS test setup (just an uneducated guess on my part here)


That's what I figured.

By the time I quoted you (damn this server is slow in the morning), you'd changed what you first said about having difficulty with your U60XRGT and runtime tests because of heat, and I had the same problems with my B42XR. I solved it by wrapping it in a cold compress. Of course, my scientific equipment were my eyeballs, but I was able to keep it going until it stepped down because of battery drain rather than heat. Same thing with my Light and Motion Vega bike light (Luxeon III). On max (advertised 85 lumens) it was stepping down after about 25 minutes, rather than the 2 hours supposed runtime. Cooling via cold compressess worked, although I did have to keep switching them out (actual runtime is only 1:15 too). Of course cold compresses aren't exactly the best method since temperature can affect the batteries' ability to pump juice, but it's all I had (and they weren't _that_ cold anyway).

Hm, kinda got off-topic there.

I wonder what causes the fluctuations in some of the lights/battery types.


----------



## McGizmo (May 7, 2006)

Newbie,

I am not certain that I replaced the window in my HDS60 with sapphire or not. I do think that it is best to consider that I did. FYI, these sapphire windows do have A/R coating on the inside. I just now put a light source up to my integrating sphere and measured 35 lumens. I then placed a sapphire window in the fixture between the light source and the IS and measured 33 lumens. This 9% reduction is what I had measured originally with first article sapphire windows I evaluated prior to deciding to going with the sapphire. After having a flashlight flood due to unseen chips in the borofloat window (at the edge and under the bezel) and having the reflector ruined as a result, I decided that for my lights, I was more than willing to take a 10% hit on transmission with the knowledge that I would not suffer a greater loss in transmission in the field if the window were to fail or be compromised. That link you provided makes me feel reel good about selecting sapphire!!! 


> Sapphire is a superior window material in many ways.



(How come you always give me a bad time about my window selections?!?!? :nana:  )

Actually, this brings up an interesting point that Peter may or may not be willing to delve into. My HDS60 is one with an integral reflector so it could be tested in the sphere with and without a window. I don't know if he has a UCL window that would fit but it would be great to measure the same light with no window, sapphire and UCL.

I could be wrong but it is my understanding that the A/R coatings reduce or increase the critical angle of the surface of the window and allow passage of light at a lower angle of incidence or is it greater? Anyway, I am under the impression that light that is collimated and roughly perpindicular to the plane of the window is not aided that much by the A/R coatings? Isn't when the light contacts the window from way off perpindicular that the A/R comes into play?


----------



## 270winchester (May 7, 2006)

NewBie said:


> The Fenix light is quite surprising:
> http://www.arcflashlights.com/1xaaa.html
> 
> 16 lumens, but it is rated at 30 lumens on the Fenix website.



you sound surprised at the inflated claims...


----------



## CroMAGnet (May 7, 2006)

Very nice. TY Peter! :twothumbs


----------



## NewBie (May 7, 2006)

McGizmo said:


> Newbie,
> 
> FYI, these sapphire windows do have A/R coating on the inside. I just now put a light source up to my integrating sphere and measured 35 lumens. I then placed a sapphire window in the fixture between the light source and the IS and measured 33 lumens.
> 
> ...




Well, if the sapphire is only on one side, that explains your 9% vs. typical 15% loss for sapphire/mineral glass. Why not coat the other side too? It would help alot.

Anti-Reflective coatings work the best perpendicular to the surface, or hitting it straight on. Outside this angle, their effectiveness drops. At extreme angles, going towards parallel, they don't help much.

So, yes, you had it arsebackwards.




Try this.

Grab some UCL with the AR coating on both sides (and clean with no fingerprints on it).
Hold it such that a room light is directly over your shoulder and behind your head.
While holding it at arm's length, look at the reflected image of the light.

If you are doing it right, you will notice a dim purple reflection, for good AR. As the AR coating becomes less quality, the image will look more blue or red, indicating it was made not as decent. If you know in fact that it was Magnesium Fluoride AR, and it looks yellow or green, someone really messed it up.

For Silicon Dioxide AR coatings they will show a dim green tint, when they are made such that they are properly centered in the visible band.


Next...

Stand a distance away from the light, and hold the lens at arms length in front of you, and hold it such that it is parallel to the light rays, kinda like you would skip a rock across the water's surface. Look at the reflection off the surface, you'll note there is nearly no difference between coated and uncoated lenses.


----------



## McGizmo (May 7, 2006)

Thanks Newbie. I just stuck two windows on a flat black surface and looked at my reflection in them. The sapphire had a brighter reflection and more true color whereas the window I have with 2xA/R coating had a dimmer reflection and the reflection was monochromatic of a more bluish tint.


----------



## NewBie (May 8, 2006)

No sweat, anytime!


----------



## ICUDoc (May 8, 2006)

Thanks Peter

This is interesting data
Haven't yet found a small 100 lumen torch!?!?!?

Keep it up, we're loving it....


----------



## ICUDoc (May 8, 2006)

Newbie

If I understand the AR coating's mechanism of action, the reflected fraction depends on the wavelength of the incident light. Does this vary enough with LEDs of different bins to affect transmission in a measurable fashion? Or decrease one component of the "simulated white" from Luxeons to change the perceived tint? I guess the extreme case would be to check transmission of light from the coloured LEDs through the same filter. I don't know what kind of lenses I have on my various torches but I might try an experiment when I get home... (Sorry about the OT comments and questions)


----------



## Stumpy (May 8, 2006)

What an excellent job.Thanks for taking the time to put this together.


----------



## Codeman (May 8, 2006)

Peter, can you find out which control table was active for the Chameleon? The notes mention it was on level 5 (the highest), but the Chameleon actual has two settings - a table and a level. Each table has 5 levels of regulation:

Table 1 18mA 38mA 92mA 170mA 350mA 
Table 2 18mA 55mA 132mA 244mA 500mA 
Table 3 18mA 83mA 196mA 356mA 750mA 
Table 4 18mA 110mA 263mA 488mA 1000mA 
Table 5 18mA 138mA 327mA 620mA 1200mA 

Judging from the notes, it doesn't appear any attempt was made to determine or set the table.

Without knowing which table was active, the results aren't meaningful.

Maybe the owner can tell us.


----------



## CM (May 8, 2006)

Codeman said:


> Peter, can you find out which control table was active for the Chameleon? The notes mention it was on level 5 (the highest), but the Chameleon actual has two settings - a table and a level. Each table has 5 levels of regulation:
> 
> Table 1 18mA 38mA 92mA 170mA 350mA
> Table 2 18mA 55mA 132mA 244mA 500mA
> ...



Peter $tated clearly that the light$ $ent out had to be ea$ily operable with a $ingle click and had to be "preconfigured". With the expen$e of te$ting in an integrating $here, I hope the owner followed in$truction$. (  )


----------



## adirondackdestroyer (May 8, 2006)

Peter,

Thanks alot for the results! I'm grinning right now because I have a FF3 coming in the mail!


----------



## Gransee (May 8, 2006)

Codeman, I sent an email to the owner of the Chameleon asking that very question. We spent more time with that light than any other making sure it was configured correctly. After we verify the table, I would like to test it again to see if the numbers are different. 

btw, people who are sending lights for the second test should get them in the mail quickly. The second test is planned for the 12th. I may do another sooner than that (Wednesday?) to get caught up. The tests are taking longer than I estimated.

Peter


----------



## Codeman (May 8, 2006)

Thanks, Peter!


----------



## Bullzeyebill (May 8, 2006)

The Chameleon takes some initial training, following the instructions that Charlie sent out with each light. Turning the light on, quickly pressing three times on switch, waiting for flash, then two more quick pushes on switch. Light goes out, and comes back on, then fairly quickly press on switch four more times, and release. Light goes out. You are now at CT5. Press on switch and watch light brighten X5, release and you are at CT 5/5, or press on switch from off, release, wait 5 seconds or so, then press again and 5/5 comes on. Sounds complicated but is quickly learned. Sort of fun. CT 5/5 at 1200 with a good T--H should provide more than 47 lumens.

If owner of light had done this, and maybe he did, you could have found 5/5 with two presses, first press turns light on, wait a few seconds, and press one more time and 5/5 comes up, release pressure on switch and light stays on. Owner would have had to set Chameleon to CT5 to make this work. Presses as opposed to quick clicks to switch. Quick clicks to switch are for turning light off, and turning light on to last used level.

Bill


----------



## cave dave (May 8, 2006)

Might be nice to add a MiniMag 2AA to the test just as a benchmark. I would send one but it would probably be easier and cheaper to buy one locally rather than ship it back and forth.


----------



## Dogliness (May 8, 2006)

I am the culprit who sent the Chameleon to Peter without first making sure it was set to Table 5. I sent an e-mail message to Peter early this morning (at around 5:30 am) explaining the problem, attaching the manual to the message, and describing how to set the flashlight to Table 5. I received an e-mail message from Peter that he still has the Chamleon, will reset it to the hightest level, and will retest it.


----------



## Bullzeyebill (May 9, 2006)

AHHA, we finally meet the culprit. How shall we punish him. Since he confessed, I recommend a light sentence. Five years adjusting Chammies to CT 5/5.

Bill


----------



## Macaw (May 9, 2006)

I believe these tests will be a real eye opener. 
Thanks Gransee and all else involved.


----------



## Dogliness (May 9, 2006)

Dogliness said:


> Peter [says] that he still has the Chamleon, will reset it to the hightest level, and will retest it.



To be fair to the Chameleon, can someone comment on the following. Was the 5/5 level deactivated on later lights that were sold? If so, how can Peter determine whether the Chameleon I sent him has level 5/5?


----------



## Somy Nex (May 9, 2006)

I did hear talk that subsequent Chameleons will have Lvl 5 deactivated, although I don't know which batch of these these would be.

However, i think the original model had 4 levels, so basically in going in to set the current tables, if the light increases in brightness over 4 stages, i suppose then that'd be a one with the 5th table removed. if 5, then i suppose it would have all 5 tables?

this is only what i think the case might be, as both my chameleons have 5 current tables.

hope this helps =)

p.s. a big thank you to you for sending in your chammie for testing. i would've like to have sent mine but shipping costs alone would've killed me =)


----------



## Codeman (May 9, 2006)

The possibility of disabling it was discussed, but CT5 was left enabled on all Chameleons. Owners were given the option to have it disabled by returning it for re-programming. I don't know if anyone elected to do that, though.

There isn't a way to determine which control table (CT) is active, but it can be set easily:


Turn the light on and wait at least 1 second.
Press the button 3 times quickly to access "menu" mode. The light will be turned off at this point, but after about 1 second it will flash on high and stay turned on at a low setting.
Press the button 2 times and wait 1 second to access the CT option.
Repeatedly pressing the button will rotate through all levels, with the light's output increasing for each level.
Stop on the highest level and wait for the light to turn it self off. It will now be on CT5.
If too much time passes after the first 3 quick presses, the light will lock itself out. To unlock it, simply do 3 more quick presses, or remove the battery tube.

When in the CT option menu, the light will always start on the lowest level. 4 presses will take it to CT5 (the highest), while a fifth press will return it to low. If only 4 presses rotates through all CT's and returns it to low, then your light has CT5 disabled.

Once the correct CT is selected, the highest level for the active CT can be accessed by either of the following, starting with the light turned off:


Press and hold the button while the lights "ramps" up through the 5 available levels, or
Press and release the button. Once the light has been on for 1 second, press and hold the button. This will temporarily set it to level 5.


----------



## jsr (May 9, 2006)

Thanks Peter for the testing! Tho I don't own any of the lights tested (most except the Dorcy are quite pricey and my collection is mostly cheaper stuff), it's still great info. I'm looking forward to more lights being tested and the list expanding.

BTW, the 2 Dorcys have considerable difference in output. I noticed the lower output one looks to have a pretty scratched up plastic lens. Is most of the output difference due to the scratched up lens? My Q3 has a pretty scratched up plastic lens. I wonder how much output I could gain by replacing it with a mineral glass.


----------



## jashhash (May 9, 2006)

Maybe since you have access to an integration sphere it may be possible to test the claim of IRC bulbs being 60lm/watt found here:
https://www.candlepowerforums.com/posts/1402168#post1402168


----------



## wquiles (May 9, 2006)

Thanks much for the time/effort in getting this data captured :rock: 

Will


----------



## Dogliness (May 9, 2006)

Codeman said:


> The possibility of disabling it was discussed, but CT5 was left enabled on all Chameleons. Owners were given the option to have it disabled by returning it for re-programming. I don't know if anyone elected to do that, though.


 
I did not ask to have CT5 disabled, so the one sent to Peter must have it enabled.


----------



## Gransee (May 11, 2006)

We did more tests today. It will take several days to get the results posted. 

I have added the redone Chameleon tests tonight. We spent more time with this light than any other light we tested. I verified correct CT and level adjustment. We videotaped the sequence if anyone is interested. With the first 2 recorded tests, the light shut off before 2 minutes so there is no Lumen figure posted. The third test ran much longer and we published a 64 Lumen @ 2 minutes rating. We let the unit cool between each test and we replaced the cell with a fresh charged one at the beginning of each test. The sphere was also re-compensated for the absorbtion of the test unit for each test. 

You may need to refresh the page to show the updates.

Peter


----------



## paulr (May 11, 2006)

I'd like to urge a test of the Fenix L2p head with the Nekomane CR123A body. The circuit is tightly regulated so output should be the same as with AA cells or CR2.


----------



## andrewwynn (May 11, 2006)

great job Peter, man a lot more detail than i was expecting i love the pictures and the graph details.. I'm impressed with some of the regulate lights actually regulating a flat output of lumen vs apparently current.. getting temperature fed back into the circuit apparently.. never fails to amaze me how unregulated lights drop like a ROCK in output.. and it is also interesting to note how fast some of them burn out on 'high beam' whoa! 

Real glad that rechargeable cells were used to run tests with the lion cub, the chameleon, and thanks for re-working on the chameleon.. even if the tests didn't run great or get the results some would have hoped for, i think a lot can be learned from a global picture.. the chameleon for example.. we all know that 'level 5' is really meant for bursts and not continuous use.. and the values are really nice.. It's really nice to see confirmation of the high-end HDS coming in right where they say they will.. that lends some solid credence to the work you guys are doing here, i love it when that happens. (just like when my math works out that i should be getting 3000L from a 64625 at 12.88.. and some measured evidence supports it.. a bit of a 'eureka' moment.. hope you guys got to experience some of that. 

I will likely have to send a batch of lights for testing at some point in the not too distant future.. if another run of this test is done, i would be most interested in sending some samples. 

RAW, groovy, should be in the list.. hope you can add to the list time to time.

-awr


----------



## Codeman (May 11, 2006)

Great work on the Chameleon, Peter! Thanks for going to all the trouble.

FYI - from some testing that SilverFox did on R123 cells, we've learned that very few protected cells can handle the current draw that the Chameleon's CT5/5 setting requires. That's why the first 2 tests ended quickly.


----------



## Gransee (May 11, 2006)

Added Nuwai, T1, Caribbean and more HDS tests. 

The HDS tests include a retest of #0493 without the lens or bezel ring installed. This is just the bare LED and reflector to show what the output could be with a perfect lens and lens coating. 

Peter


----------



## Gransee (May 11, 2006)

Btw, I wouldn't mind receiving more HDS lights in for testing. I have yet to see a regular "60" actually produce 60 lumens from a good 123 cell (Surefire brand). I wonder how far off the 85gts are as well. 

Peter


----------



## McGizmo (May 11, 2006)

Thanks for your efforts here Peter!! 

As a side note, there have been some questions raised about the 27LT as a result of the posted graph. The graph is zoomed in or truncated on the Y axis and does a better job of illustrating the drop in flux as the LED heats up. However, in comparison to the other graphs which have the full range from 0 up to the measurement and given the duration of the measurement, the LT27 looks like it might not be regulated, at a glance.

I won't dump a big picture in this thread but for anyone interested, HERE is a run time graph on another 27LT using the same driver configuration and a bin brother to the one tested by Peter. From the runtime, it looks like this light takes almost 30 minutes to reach thermal steady state and the flux drops as the die temp increases. From that point on, the regulated constant current provides a flat line of flux as one would expect.


----------



## Gransee (May 11, 2006)

Codeman, if the Chameleon was cutting out because of the cell, then the same should be happening with the firefly and other high drain devices we have tested. 

I suspect the switcher chip is over-heating and shutting off. In fact, I understand the manufacturer does not recommend use of CT5/level5 for more than a "short burst" and that any damage caused may be the responsibility of the owner. I found this out from an email - after I ran the tests. None of the posters here mentioned the light could be permanantly damaged by these tests. I hope I don't have to replace the light. 

Peter


----------



## Codeman (May 11, 2006)

Gransee said:


> Codeman, if the Chameleon was cutting out because of the cell, then the same should be happening with the firefly and other high drain devices we have tested.
> 
> I suspect the switcher chip is over-heating and shutting off. In fact, I understand the manufacturer does not recommend use of CT5/level5 for more than a "short burst" and that any damage caused may be the responsibility of the owner. I found this out from an email - after I ran the tests. None of the posters here mentioned the light could be permanantly damaged by these tests. I hope I don't have to replace the light.
> 
> Peter



I fail to see how the behavior of one light can be used to diagnose another light of a completely different design just because they share a common cell. That's too simplistic when you consider the electronics that are present in these high output lights. If we knew the electrical characteristics that each of these lights puts on the cell, and they were basically the same, then I'd agree.

Besides, some 123's, usually un-protected ones, run fine in the Chameleon on CT5/5, and every 18650 I've tried runs fine for periods over 10 minutes. That would seem to rule out an over-heated chip. Especially when a cell that cuts off quickly is immediately followed by one that runs for several minutes.

Rather than take this further OT, I've emailed you a couple of links to the testing that I did on the Chameleon and the subsequent testing that SilverFox did on the cells I used in my testing.

P.S. I wouldn't worry about your limited testing doing any damage to the Chameleon. I ran almost 30 cells, starting with a bunch of 123's and followed by some 18650's, and didn't damage mine. Each of those cells were run either to cut off or to 2 minutes (with a few in the middle running to 10 minutes). Each cell was run back to back with no cooling off period in between. It actually went back to MR Bulk to be checked out and it's fine. Hope that eases your mind.


----------



## Bullzeyebill (May 11, 2006)

Some RCR123 cells do not support the amp drain of the Chameleon on CT5/5, and may not even turn the light on at that level. Other RCR123's, such as Unprotected Powerizers have run 5/5 for at least 10 minutes. MSaxatilus did a test using an LG18650, and ran the Chameleon at 5/5 for 1hr 12 minutes before the light shut off. No heat issues were noted.

Bill


----------



## Gransee (May 11, 2006)

Codeman said:


> I fail to see how the behavior of one light can be used to diagnose another light of a completely different design just because they share a common cell. That's too simplistic when you consider the electronics that are present in these high output lights. If we knew the electrical characteristics that each of these lights puts on the cell, and they were basically the same, then I'd agree.
> 
> Besides, some 123's, usually un-protected ones, run fine in the Chameleon on CT5/5, and every 18650 I've tried runs fine for periods over 10 minutes. That would seem to rule out an over-heated chip. Especially when a cell that cuts off quickly is immediately followed by one that runs for several minutes.
> 
> ...




Codeman,

So the only way the unit could cut off would be because of the battery or because the light got too warm?

Peter


----------



## Codeman (May 11, 2006)

Gransee said:


> Codeman,
> 
> So the only way the unit could cut off would be because of the battery or because the light got too warm?
> 
> Peter



I and several others have seen various cells that work fine in the Chameleon. If some cells work fine and others don't, the only logical conclusion that can be made is that the Chameleon places demands on the cell that some cells simply can't meet. Several people have seen proof of this, including me.

Let me ask you a question. If the problem is a chip overheating, as you suggested, why would it do that with some cells (whether from the same manufacturer or differents ones) and not others? Why would it cut off with a 600mAh 123 and not with a 2000mAh 18650, if a chip is overheating? Surely the long-running 18650 would be far more likely to overheat the switch with it's longer runtime. Yet that isn't happening.

The fact is that the Chameleon places very high demands on 123 cells, and some of them aren't up to it. I've seen this with my own eyes, as have others. If you change a single variable, in this case a battery, and the behavior changes, it has to be due to that variable. By definition nothing else changed, so nothing else could have caused the change in behavior.


----------



## mikeymoto (May 11, 2006)

Yeesh, my Chammie sometimes even has trouble on CT4/5 with RCRs. I still like it.


----------



## Gransee (May 11, 2006)

So you are fairly certain that it is a battery problem. This unit sent to me then may not be working right. I can get it to cut off, connected to a lab power supply, in less than 1 minute on a regular basis. No battery connected.

Not that this really matters as far as the lumen tests are concerned. I will publish the test results until the manufacturer says the unit is defective. I've spent extra time on this light already. My notes will continue to say that the Chameleon shut off in less than 2 minutes, by itself. That is why I didn't capture more than 1 good 2 minute run time from it.

Peter


----------



## Bullzeyebill (May 11, 2006)

Yeah, it sounds like your testing Chameleon is not working right. Charlie (MR Bulk) did have some Chammies sent to him that had ground path issues, and he staked in a roll pin and problems disappeared (mine did also).

Bill


----------



## Gransee (May 11, 2006)

Added results for Aleph1, Arc-AAA, Tri-Star (big!). Should be adding SF lights next. 

Peter


----------



## Dogliness (May 11, 2006)

Gransee said:


> None of the posters here mentioned the light could be permanantly damaged by these tests. I hope I don't have to replace the light.
> Peter


 
I sent in the flashlight, and will assume the risk of any damage to the light. Peter only tested it as he was asked to do.



Gransee said:


> This unit sent to me then may not be working right. I can get it to cut off, connected to a lab power supply, in less than 1 minute on a regular basis. No battery connected.


 
I cannot comment on what causes the flashlight to shut off. I can say, however, that the flashlight was in the same condition as when I purchased it; that the batteries I sent were protected RCR cells I purchased from Lighthound; and that I never had a problem with the batteries shutting down in either the Chameleon or in any other flashlights but I had never operated the Chameleon on CT5/level 5.


----------



## Gransee (May 11, 2006)

Thanks Dogliness and to everyone else who sent in lights for these tests.

Peter


----------



## Bullzeyebill (May 11, 2006)

Grancee, which batteries for the Tri-Star? The 4C or 4D Tri-Star?

Bill


----------



## Codeman (May 11, 2006)

I'm as certain as I can be with my Chameleon, given that I don't have a bench power supply to test mine with.

The thing is, certain indiivdual 123 cells always cut off early without fail, some in as few as 4 seconds. Certain others always run fine. All of my 18650's run fine. And, in general, protected 123's are more likely to cut off early than un-protected 123's. All that seems to point clearly to some 123 cells not beng able to provide the current needed. And what I was seeing correlates closely to the tests that Tom ran on those same 123 cells.

Charlie did the same ground path fix on mine, but when I re-tested I still had early cut-offs, they just weren't as quick to happen. And there weren't any changes as far as which cells could handle it and which couldn't.

It's hard to argue with early cut offs when using a bench PS as evidence of a fault in the light. But the consistency (in not cutting off) of some of my 123's and all of my 18650's seem to do just that. Sounds to me like the cut-offs may be caused by different things.


----------



## chimo (May 11, 2006)

Codeman said:


> Let me ask you a question. If the problem is a chip overheating, as you suggested, why would it do that with some cells (whether from the same manufacturer or differents ones) and not others? Why would it cut off with a 600mAh 123 and not with a 2000mAh 18650, if a chip is overheating? Surely the long-running 18650 would be far more likely to overheat the switch with it's longer runtime. Yet that isn't happening.



That's an easy one. Since the driver is fully regulated, it tries to keep the output constant. If battery voltage drops, the current must go up to compensate. 

Pout = Pin - (efficiency losses) (remember that efficiency will not be constant across all input voltage/current levels)

If the battery voltage sags under the heavy current loading, the current load will have to increase even more to keep the output power constant. 

If the input current goes up, the I^2R losses in the switcher also increase, so the switcher chip will have to dissipate more heat. I believe there are 4 MOSFETs in the chip at around .2 ohms each. 

The larger 18650 cells will experience less voltage sag so the input current will also be less and therefore less I^2R losses.


Peter, sorry for taking this thread a little off topic. Thanks you for doing this, it is a great benefit to the community.

Paul


----------



## Codeman (May 11, 2006)

It seems that this has really been a po-tay-toe or po-tah-toe thing. The cut-offs are the results of the chip overheating, but the root cause of the overheating is an inability of the cell to provide the power needed, the later of which is the original point I tried to make earlier when this whole discussion started. Thanks, Paul!


----------



## randyo (May 11, 2006)

Love the test results on the Tri-Star. When I turn that one on, not only does it light up my entire back yard, but the neighbors start looking for the runaway train!!!


----------



## McGizmo (May 12, 2006)

I have looked at some more of the graphs and notice that some are showing full scale and others a zoom or truncated view of the data. The truncated is more illustrative but it can be confusing if the scale and reference frame is different from one sample to the next. Below are two graphs showing the same data.







Same Data but the pictures may tell a different story to the casual observer. :shrug:


----------



## andrewwynn (May 12, 2006)

i noticed the same thing.. i was about to comment about how fast the direct driven lights like lion cub dropped in output compared to the likes of the HDS or chameleon.. only to notice they really were pretty darn flat when shown full-scale. It would be a good idea to have the scale not just 'full scale' but use the SAME full-scale of say 80L or something that is high enough to handle all lights so we can pull up two charts to view and compare side by side


----------



## offroadcmpr (May 12, 2006)

Maybe it is just me, but does it seem like the chammie has a pretty low out put (64 lumens) for a light that is driving the LED at over 1 amp?


----------



## andrewwynn (May 12, 2006)

offroad.. i believe that the lights are all tested with their reflectors and lenses on.. it is maybe more of a 'reality check' than a surprise.. i'm sure that the HDS models likewise are running their emitters at 1A.. 

Remember that luxeons output less lumen when they are warm.. typically 20% less.. so.. if you take 80L (expected 1A performance) and re-rate for the 20% drop.. what a coincidence.. 64L exactly.

The '72-80L'. from lumileds.. is a bogus number.. that is for a ROOM TEMPERATURE emitter junction.. not slug temperature.. junction temp. 

with 13C/W.. that means about a 50C difference from slug to junction.. means the heat slug on the back of the emitter must be held to -25C to maintain 80L from 1A.. that's not remotely realistic. 

I'm DYING to see a lumen output from my BAM! when i do head-to-head with the likes of a Mag85 etc.. the numbers work out to over 400L which doesn't seem possible, but the 'bounce test' worked well. 

-awr


----------



## Kiessling (May 12, 2006)

What's the driver and LED in the Aleph1 light? Or is it the Aleph2 Don sent in (typo), as it is marked MFG?
bernie


----------



## McGizmo (May 12, 2006)

Bernie,
The light pictured is an Aleph2 with a NexGen500 and TX1J Light engine right from the shoppe. This is the light that will be tested further and hopefully provide me with a lamp file that I can use to calibrate my integrating sphere with. I am surprised it is so high in flux. I was expecting around 40 lumens. 

(Like the Ti nose and afterbody with tail and McClickie? :nana: )

There is the Aleph1 that is with the group of CPF Test lights including the green, red and blue Aleph1's as well as the SF A2. Those also will stay after school for a full blown test.


----------



## Gransee (May 12, 2006)

I fixed the label for the test from "Aleph1" to "Aleph2". Photo, graph and lumen data unchanged, just the name. Sorry for the typo.

Peter


----------



## Gransee (May 12, 2006)

I agree that the scale of the graph can be confusing. Of course, the various runtime graphs provided by other people here on the CPF also often feature different scales. I suggest a combination of educating people to get in the habit of looking at the scale used for each graph and presenters making an effort to clarify the apparent differences. I may either remove the graph data, add a note or use a common scale for all graphs. However some data may be lost in the presentation and the time base is irregular for each graph so normalization will be difficult. I have already spent a lot of time on these tests and the graphs do serve their original purpose of showing were I got each 2 minute readining from. I think adding a note may be in order. Now, in the future, I may add more data than just lumen readings such as full runtimes, scene photos, etc. 

Peter


----------



## cryhavok (May 12, 2006)

The Aelph 2 uses the same reflector as the McluxIII PD, right? So is it safe to assume the PD will have similar output?


----------



## McGizmo (May 12, 2006)

Peter,
I think the scope of your investigation was primarily to get a lumen reading at 2 minutes. The graphs provide this information as well as a framework for the number. Upon review, more is taken than just the 2 minute reading and it is in this vein that lack in continuity among the samples gave rise to some confusion. Thanks for all your effort!

cryhavok,
The PD uses the same reflector and same window and has a drive current level that is about 5% greater in target so it should perform very similar to the Aleph 2 tested. However, the variation in flux of LED's must not be discounted!!! I would guess that a PD or Aleph2 using a 500 mA driver could range in the high 30's to possibly the low 50's with a _typical_ sample in the low to mid 40's. :shrug:


----------



## Lebkuecher (May 13, 2006)

Peter

Are there anymore test scheduled for the future?


----------



## NewBie (May 13, 2006)

If you take a few of the lights www.flashlightreviews.com and multiply their overall output numbers by 1.16, you get pretty close to what Gransee measured in these tests.

It will be very interesting to compare the complete set of results with flashlightreview numbers, and see what the overall adjustment is.


Overall, it looks like most flashlight manufacturers way over-rate the output of their lights.

Judging by Gransee's tests, and www.flashlightreviews.com. manufacturers like Fenix are claiming 2x the lumens of what their lights actually put out.


----------



## NewBie (May 13, 2006)

Gransee said:


> Added Nuwai, T1, Caribbean and more HDS tests.
> 
> The HDS tests include a retest of #0493 without the lens or bezel ring installed. This is just the bare LED and reflector to show what the output could be with a perfect lens and lens coating.
> 
> Peter




It looks like it must have had the sapphire lens in it, there is a 16% increase without the sapphire lens.

Great Job Peter!


----------



## McGizmo (May 13, 2006)

Newbie,
In both cases, CR123 and R123, the window caused a 13% reduction in light transmission or allowed 87% of the light to pass through so I agree that it has the sapphire window.

*EDIT;

Take 1.16 X the numbers? Why not 1.163452984 x the numbers and then figure you can add or subtract roughly 20% or more or less to account for the lottery; or is that no longer with us? :nana: (Just yanking your chain here)

From a mid range S bin LuxIII to a mid range U bin LuxIII you could see from 55 to 100 lumens in ideal Lumiled conditions. That relative spread would hold in our less than ideal real world conditions. 

With confidence born of emperical observation, I claim that all of these lights, with batteries removed, will produce the same exact magnitude of flux! Put batteries in them and then the numbers start to diverge.  To a limited extent we can anticipate those numbers. If one doesn't like limits, just ignore them! 

*


----------



## ViReN (May 13, 2006)

Deleted on Peter's Request.

Sorry Peter :sign:


----------



## Bullzeyebill (May 13, 2006)

1.16 factor does not work for Peak Caribbean. Try 1.4 and you get 34.72. Also factor of 1.4 is closer to Peter's U-HDS lumens.

Bill

Also, 1.4 works pretty good with Inova T1. Dorcy is weird. I would throw it out. Peter's tests show inconsistancy. Maybe Dorcy was experimenting with different light engines.

Bill


----------



## cave dave (May 13, 2006)

Bullzeyebill said:


> ... Dorcy is weird. I would throw it out ...
> 
> Bill



Bill,
I think the Dorcy results are the most useful thing I've seen so far from these tests. What you are seeing is the vast differences that can be expected from unit to unit when dealing with the luxeon lottery. Dorcy most likely doesn't even specify a bin so expect the diffences to be greater than an all "R" bin selection like the Fenix premium models, but expect a fair bit of variation there as well.



Bullzeyebill said:


> ...Peter's tests show inconsistancy...


I think thats the whole point


----------



## nocturnal (May 13, 2006)

Bullzeyebill said:


> 1.16 factor does not work for Peak Caribbean. Try 1.4 and you get 34.72. Also factor of 1.4 is closer to Peter's U-HDS lumens.


On FlashlighReviews output vs. throw explanations page, a factor of 1.43 (+/-17%) is suggested for getting approximate lumen estimates from Doug's overall output numbers.


----------



## Lebkuecher (May 13, 2006)

The problem with trying to use a factor is that it assumes that Doug’s testing results are consistently accurate when measuring lights with different combinations of throw, side spill and brightness levels. It’s great when comparing to like lights but I’m not sure if it interrelates between a wide spectrum of lights.


----------



## Gransee (May 13, 2006)

We got all but a few lights finished on Wednesday. I have published most of the results save for a few SF, etc tests. I should have those up soon. I plan on testing again in a week or so. Not sure when yet.

We are now sending most of the lights back to their owners. I am accepting more lights if people want to send them in for the next test. Email me first please. [email protected]

Yes, some of the lights showed a large spread (Dorcy, etc). This is not the first time we have seen 20-50% variation from unit to unit of the same model. Some brands are just like that. Direct drive systems are also more likely to show variations in battery quality in peak output versus runtime for regulated units. As always, increasing the sample size will provide a more accurate picture of the deviation.

Again, variations in output among the same model are mostly caused by LED and battery quality. Regulated units are more effected by LED quality whereas unregulated units are effected by both LED quality and battery quality. These are the major factors of course, other factors include switching components, contact resistance, optics quality, etc. 

I don't trust in anything but a loose comparison with other lumen tests because the exact same units were not tested in both cases. The sample size (test more units of each type) really has to be increased.

Let me know if you want to send a light in for testing.

Peter


----------



## Somy Nex (May 13, 2006)

I would love to see the Peak Caribbean on a RCR123 if you still have that light. It is noticeably brighter on the RCR123, and that's how I used to run mine when I had it.


----------



## AlexGT (May 13, 2006)

I'm just extending on Viren's hard work here. Good job Viren!:goodjob:

Here is the Excel table separated by columns, I wanted to add an autofilter but it does not appear on this post

HTH
AlexGT

Edit: changed the picture for a link and the lumen rating is only an estimate...

http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/1674/dibujo6sm.gif

http://imageshack.us/?x=my6&myref=


----------



## cave dave (May 13, 2006)

Alex and ViRen,
Could you just post a link to the above tables instead of including it? Also change it the column heading to "guesstimated lumens". 

The size of the table is taking up valuble bandwith and real estate on this thread. Also this thread is about real lumens from an integrating sphere and those tables might be misleading or mistaken for the real thing.


----------



## Gransee (May 13, 2006)

I agree with Cave Dave. The figures should at least be labeled "guesses" or simply not posted at all. No offense to your hard work. I wouldn't use the word "estimates", they aren't based on a consistant method of estimation. The units are not the same units tested in both cases. Using some forumla to compare them then only provides an illusion of validity. 


Corrected my Aleph1/2 confusion, added some Surefire results.

Peter


----------



## NewBie (May 13, 2006)

Bullzeyebill said:


> 1.16 factor does not work for Peak Caribbean. Try 1.4 and you get 34.72. Also factor of 1.4 is closer to Peter's U-HDS lumens.
> 
> Bill
> 
> ...




I took all the lights I could find on www.flashlightreviews.com and the ones that Peter Gransee tested (or at least posted now), averaged Peter's results, and the overall correction factor looks to be 1.307796194

The low correction factor would be 1.149425287 with the two samples of the Fenix LOP.

The high correction factor is 1.529411765 for the Longbow Micra.

My figures shown here:
http://www.molalla.net/~leeper/lumens.png


Obviously the effect of Lux meter for measuring, since it has it's own inaccuracies due to spectral response errors, when compared to the human eye, is going to throw in errors.

And quite obviously, the Luxeon Lottery comes to play, most folks should already know this!

But when you average everything together, you end up with a more accurate set of numbers to estimate with.


Peter, which Illiminant was the sphere calibrated with?


----------



## Gransee (May 13, 2006)

Newbie, you have a history of providing hard-hitting and accurate science. Do you really want to tie these results together such as you did? Others look up to you as an example. Key members of the CPF should guide the CPF in sound scientific principles. 

Comparing the two results would only be valid if:

1. sufficent samples were taken of each model (10 or more for each model and light testing method)
2. sound statisical methods where used to arrive at a typical result for each testing method (I favor throwing out the mutants and averaging the rest)

Otherwise, I wouldn't trust any table comparing the two. It is no more than a momentary curiosity and should be quickly taken away lest simpler folk interpret it as trustworthy.

Peter


----------



## Lebkuecher (May 13, 2006)

I agree especially when sampling the data is full of errors. This thread is all about scientific testing and finally putting a standard in place that is accurate. This is the first thread of this type on the CPF so I think it is extremely important to keep it on topic.


----------



## NewBie (May 13, 2006)

Gransee said:


> Newbie, you have a history of providing hard-hitting and accurate science. Do you really want to tie these results together such as you did? Others look up to you as an example. Key members of the CPF should guide the CPF in sound scientific principles.
> 
> Comparing the two results would only be valid if:
> 
> ...




Peter

To have any sort of accuracy, to claim any one brand/model of light is x lumens, a person would in fact have to measure many samples, and it would only be a rough average. This would then vary with time, as the manufacturer received different batches of LEDs. The testing of 10 models of a light still wouldn't be a good average, except maybe for that one production batch, if all the Luxeons were off the same binning reel.

So in reality, the numbers would only apply just to the one specific light that was measured at the time it was measured, under the same conditions.

*Your measurements would only apply to that one specific light, with that specific battery, at that temperature, with whatever amount of time was on that LED when it was tested (age), and with the flashlight contacts in the condition at the time of testing, as well as many other things that change*

Change any of those things, and you introduce errors, that grow larger as you change more than one thing.

I see your numbers even changed when you changed the battery, even in regulated lights.

Did you know that a Luxeon's output will vary over time, even with current regulation, and temperature held constant? I've seen Luxeon III's that will go up in their light output by 10% and down 10% in a few hundred hours. It is interesting to watch them meander around. 

A manufacturer could also send their highest output light, out of a batch, for review, giving false impressions.

As you can see from my post, your real numbers, when compared to www.flashlightreviews.com overall output numbers, range from 1.15 to 1.53, which is *much* better than I expected. This is with the results you have put up so far.

Since you haven't tested every flashlight that www.flashlightreviews.com has, and they have quite a number of lights, as well as you tested some that they have not, when one is considering the purchase of a light from a batch of contenders, an overall average correction factor is useful.

The HDS lights are the only ones I can think of at the moment, where the manufacturer individually adjusts the drive levels, to set the lumen output.

You will note that they like to keep putting the reference standard Illuminant source back in the integrating sphere, and recalibrating their setup rather often, as even the very expensive equipment they have there changes. This is also done to correct for the absorption of each flashlight, as you switch flashlights.



Peter,

Which Illuminant was used for the Integrating Sphere calibration in your tests?


----------



## Luna (May 13, 2006)

The flashlight reviews lightbox is using a meter that may be skewed a bit by tint.

Did Doug ever get results for the lightmeter test??


----------



## AlexGT (May 13, 2006)

Sure Gransee!, its your thread after all, will change the pic for a link.

Thanks! Good work, keep it coming!

AlexGT


----------



## Gransee (May 13, 2006)

Newbie,

The first part of your post repeats what I already said on the website disclaimer or earlier in this thread. Now, if you want I could make the disclaimer wordier because as you know, we live in a liberal, lazy, litigious culture. (wink wink)

That's skirting the issue, back to the point. Since your posts are generally known to be scientifically sound, do you want to more clearly tell people reading this thread that your post about correlating the 2 different tests was just a curios anomaly and is not to be used as some sort of lumen deriving formula? 

Peter


----------



## Roboholic (May 13, 2006)

I love the results so far in a true head to head comparison.

I thought some CR2 lights were also being tested. I would like to see how the Orb, Jil, Cr2 Ion would stack up with the larger more expensive lights?

Thanks for all the hard work.


----------



## NewBie (May 13, 2006)

Gransee said:


> Newbie,
> 
> That's skirting the issue, back to the point. Since your posts are generally known to be scientifically sound, do you want to more clearly tell people reading this thread that your post about correlating the 2 different tests was just a curios anomaly and is not to be used as some sort of lumen deriving formula?
> 
> Peter




I already said it. The lumen measurement doesn't apply except to the specific light that was measured, at that point in time, under the same conditions. Grab another one, even from the same batch, and it will likely measure different. Even if it is from the same Intensity Bin, Color Bin, and Vf bin. Measure the same light, for 30 days, and you'll see some interesting variations.

One would need to measure each and every light and label it, which would tell you what it once measured, but at a later date and time, it is likely to easily vary 10% or more, and much more if the LED is being abused. The ARC AA/AAA are prime examples of LED lights that fade "rapidly" with time. Remember back when folks kept asking if you'd made some major improvement, but what they were seeing was their new one was much brighter than their old one. LEDs degrade rapidly when abused.

One cannot use your term, "lumen re-rating" with any sort of accuracy.


Once yet again, I'd like to ask you, Peter, which Illuminant was use for the Integrating Sphere calibration?


----------



## McGizmo (May 13, 2006)

Lebkuecher said:


> I agree especially when sampling the data is full of errors. This thread is all about scientific testing and finally putting a standard in place that is accurate. This is the first thread of this type on the CPF so I think it is extremely important to keep it on topic.



Not picking on this comment but doing my own extrapolation of what I am reading into it if not out of it. The tests that Peter has done are for the most part scientific and using scientific equipment. He has measured what I think are believable numbers for the test lights tested. It has been illuminating on many levels as has this discussion been. However anyone taking the measured numbers of these samples and planning to extrapolate beyond to the population at large is has no scientific justification in doing so, IMHO. There is *no standard* to be derived from these tests. There is no standard deviation to work with.

I see no real problems with providing or stating numbers of known and controlled input but even then, one needs to understand what these numbers relate to to have any utility from them. Numbers given for output are subject to so many variables that they are very unique to a particular light at any significant level and not to be aplied to others in the population without allowances for known as well as anticipated variables. On a normal distribution in a range from 0 to 100, the average is 50. What value is there in stating an average of 50 when you have a sample that is 1? 

If you have a normal distribution and the range is 40 to 50 with an average of 45 then there is some merit to stating an average of 45 and one could add that this should be considered with a +/- 10 accuracy for instance. 

I think the flashlight industry is in a game of bluf when they propose to provide * A Number* that is representative of a lights output. Most are comfortable using the lamp manufacturers stated claim and disallowing for any down stream losses due to thermal and optical considerations. Some will even go so far as to use the lamp manufacturers best case.

In terms of commercial product and marketing of these lights, if anything, I have seen a demonstrable inverse relationship between stated output, and actual quality, output and price. 

You can't base a standard on something that does not comply with standards.


----------



## SilverFox (May 13, 2006)

Hello Newbie



NewBie said:


> Once yet again, I'd like to ask you, Peter, which Illuminant was use for the Integrating Sphere calibration?



We are planning on having our light meter benchmarking lights tested by LSI next week. I believe they mentioned using D65. Is that a good reference to use?

Tom


----------



## Lebkuecher (May 13, 2006)

Don

I understand your concerns and I agree with you that the data at this point is some what of a snap shot and a standard deviation is needed for each model to draw reasonable conclusions. 

With that being said and understood I see this as the start of something that has been need on the CPF for years. I believe we need some kind of standard on the CPF. Example when Fenix states on there website that a L0P produces 30 lumens and best that two samples can do is almost half of that then you can draw a reasonable conclusion that either that they don’t know what there talking about or they are full of BS. How else are we to know without a standard and if we are going to try to create a standard then we need to do it with good equipment. The days of a shoe box and a light meter should have been in the past several years ago.

I don’t want to read to much into these test either at this time but I will tell you that some of the results have surprised me. I offered my assistants earlier in this thread that if a group on the CPF wants to create the means for ongoing test with LSI then I would participate by donating my time. If anyone in the industry can produce a standard procedure for testing lights then it is us. We can draw random samples from our group and hopefully eliminate manufactures from throwing in ringers. I don’t want take this thread to far off topic but it is something to think about.


----------



## McGizmo (May 13, 2006)

oops! pushed the wrong button..........


----------



## Kiessling (May 13, 2006)

Nice ti tail there, Don ! :bow:
Now you will have to make a run of those ... :nana:

So ... the Aleph 2 is NG500 and TX1J ?
And the Aleph 1 is our lightmeter-test-light and also a NG500 T-bin?

bernie


----------



## NewBie (May 13, 2006)

SilverFox said:


> Hello Newbie
> 
> 
> 
> ...




D65 sounds pretty decent.

One of the nice things, is it is pretty universal, besides A for incandescents. It is in the ballpark color wise of the white LEDs too. Some folks will use one of the F series, since the color is like a fluorescent. Some labs will think, flashlight, ah, lets use A.

It is important to state the Illuminant when talking about lumens, imho.


Some basic info:
http://www.hunterlab.com/appnotes/an05_05.pdf

D65 spectral power distribution:
http://www.cie.co.at/publ/abst/datatable15_1/sid65.txt

Other Illuminants:
http://www.cvrl.org/cie.htm

Learning about color:
http://www.efg2.com/Lab/Graphics/Colors/Chromaticity.htm

Other interesting stuff:
http://www.rpi.edu/~schubert/More r...DA Conference) Color issues of white LEDs.pdf


----------



## Size15's (May 13, 2006)

When using a test lab to test a sample of a product to a standard you determining whether or not a sample of a product is capable of meeting a standard.

With one sample of a product you can not say that every sample of a product is capable. That is not something a test lab usually offers. It is up to you to ensure that each individual product is at least as capable as the sample you have had tested in order that you can feel confident in claiming the product complies with a standard.

In most cases it is not for the test lab to ensure that the sample is representative of the production. The burden is on the manufacturer/supplier.

In the case of flashlights there are few times when the need for confidence in the ability to satisfy a standard is vital. Examples are ratings for suitability for use in various [explosive] atmospheres, or ratings for suitability for use at/to a depth underwater. The testing to gain certification for these uses against recognized standards is likely to require more than one sample of the product.

An interesting exercise would be to take at least twenty-five (25) of the same brand/model and run lumen measurements. This may help give some credibility to the lumen measurements of individual flashlights because it may expose the magnitude of any variation in output across the samples. It may blow the whole thing wide open and show that it is not at all possible to assume that the output of another sample of the light is anything close to the output of the sample tested.

I believe part of the difficulty of forming a standard for measuring the light output of flashlights is down not only to the ‘how’ but the ‘why’. The ‘why’ determines the use of the data - the accuracy and confidence required. Is it for marketing (perhaps low accuracy, low confidence), or is it for performance such as winning a race or achieving a goal where the ability to perform to a certain level makes a lot of difference (high accuracy, high confidence). The lumen output of a flashlight is not the only important feature for performance. If the ‘why’ involves other attributes of the beam (including the output over runtime, and output over time and output in various temperatures etc) then the standard needs to consider these as well if accuracy and confidence are required.

The testing Peter is doing appears to be a broad exploration - testing a variety of products in an attempt to see what situation is. A bit like walking around turning over different rocks and checking out whether there are bugs hiding there at the time.
The result may be that further investigation in desired in a particular area – specific models etc. Perhaps the results are very different from what was expected.
From this perspective it is ground-breaking and useful.

Al


----------



## Quickbeam (May 13, 2006)

> The problem with trying to use a factor is that it assumes that Doug’s testing results are consistently accurate when measuring lights with different combinations of throw, side spill and brightness levels. It’s great when comparing to like lights but I’m not sure if it interrelates between a wide spectrum of lights.



Very true! By using the multiplication factor on my overall output numbers, you are getting a rough estimate of lumens based upon a rough estimate of overall output comparisons. In order to say, any errors from the initial readings (Due to user error, apparatus error, inherent deficiencies in the apparatus, etc) are now compounded. 

The safest route is to compare my numbers directly with my numbers and that is all. Additional mathematical processes applied to the numbers will exaggerate any errors.


----------



## Bullzeyebill (May 13, 2006)

The days of a shoe box and a light meter should have been in the past several years ago.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

In defense of shoe boxes, lightmeters, and other contraptions, i will say that my personal use of a lightmeter and some ceiling bouncing has had some value for me when I compare lights that I own. I know that the Fenix LIP overall light output is not 30 lumens. My Chameleon on CT 5/5 is about 68 lumens, my TigerLight with 375 LA is about 360 lumens. Info for me, and my enjoyment.

Bill


----------



## leukos (May 14, 2006)

Gransee said:


> Btw, I wouldn't mind receiving more HDS lights in for testing. I have yet to see a regular "60" actually produce 60 lumens from a good 123 cell (Surefire brand). I wonder how far off the 85gts are as well.
> 
> Peter


 
The HDS units you tested with Li-ions seemed to perform at the 60 lumen mark.


----------



## chesterqw (May 14, 2006)

anyone can put an l5 and l6 for the fun of it?

and btw, can the l5 and l6 use li ion? if yes, which one?


----------



## Gransee (May 16, 2006)

Thanks again to: Lebkuecher, ShakySam, CM, McGizmo, Dogliness, Rycen, RandyO, Charlesy, Mobile1 and others for sending in their lights.

If I didn't mention your name it is because I wasn't able to find your CPF userid (don't want to post real names).

Since increasing the number of units sampled will improve the data, I plan on doing more tests in the future (next month?). I will post here when we get closer to that. 

Peter


----------



## rycen (May 16, 2006)

Peter

If you left my longbow as is maybe a note that it has a UCL and IMS reflector.


----------



## randyo (May 16, 2006)

And my lights arrived home safely today. Thanks for the quick return and for taking the time to perform these tests.


----------



## andrewwynn (May 16, 2006)

Bullzeyebill said:


> The days of a shoe box and a light meter should have been in the past several years ago.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> In defense of shoe boxes, lightmeters, and other contraptions, i will say that my personal use of a lightmeter and some ceiling bouncing has had some value for me when I compare lights that I own. I know that the Fenix LIP overall light output is not 30 lumens. My Chameleon on CT 5/5 is about 68 lumens, my TigerLight with 375 LA is about 360 lumens. Info for me, and my enjoyment.
> ...




and better yet.. we can now 'calibrate' our shoebox contraptions to get a better idea of actual lumen.. it's all proportional to an extent.. if we can take a light that's been accurately measured.. and especially one of the lucky dawgs who ACTUAL light was used and sent back.. now you have a 'standard' to compare other lights.. 

if you measure your light that scored 60Lumen and your shoebox says 600lux.. you have a ratio to work with.. 1:10.. now.. measure a different light and it reads 450lux.. you guessed it 45 lumen.. it's not perfect but it's absolutely going to be in the ball park. 

I would LOVE to send lights in.. i have some groovies that should have gotten into the first test, a couple U-bin lion cubs and others. 

-awr


----------



## Gransee (May 17, 2006)

Rycen, I added your name to the list and also added a note to your light about the modifications.

I think I have maybe 1 or 2 lights left to add to the results from the last test.

Peter


----------



## mykall (May 18, 2006)

Wasn't the E1L on the list of 1 Cell lights?


----------



## Gransee (May 18, 2006)

I don't see one in the list I have. 

Peter


----------



## hyperslug (May 23, 2006)

I must have missed this already, but was the Amilite Neo T3 tested? I saw 3 on the list.


----------



## Gransee (May 26, 2006)

hyperslug, none were sent to us for testing. 

So the first block of tests are done and we have a foundation for future testing. I would like to test another batch of lights later this summer. This will add more depth and should further demostrate the variabilities in each system.

Peter


----------



## photonhoer (Jun 18, 2006)

Peter
This was a most worthy effort, and even in its first iteration it has contributed a great deal. 

First, it provides some 'anchor points' for understanding both relative and absolute photon emissions. 

Second, it has activated discussion and even 'some' careful refelction on methodological considerations. 

With the pooled experience and knowledge of the CPF group, real knowledge is bound to emerge - even if this actually comes slowly and as a result of a lot of give and take - and this group has the opportunity to acually establish _de facto_ standards by which other less knowledgeable people can understand what is actually available.

Thanks for your time and interest.

John


----------



## john2551 (Jun 19, 2006)

Bullzeyebill said:


> Grancee, which batteries for the Tri-Star? The 4C or 4D Tri-Star?
> 
> Bill


 
Bill,

FYI; the Tri-Star is a 4D the tri-star phazer is a 4C.

John


----------



## 4sevens (Sep 22, 2006)

Gransee said:


> We are now sending most of the lights back to their owners. I am accepting more lights if people want to send them in for the next test. Email me first please. [email protected]
> ...
> Let me know if you want to send a light in for testing.
> 
> Peter



Peter,

Two things... 1) Interesting readings on the L0P's. Who contributed those
two lights? In the other thread, I did not see it in the most recent list.
2) You mentioned wanting to test mainly 1xcr123 lights. I'm surprised the Fenix
P1 didn't make it in. I am willing to provide 10 units for testing. Just let me know when the next round is


----------



## Flea Bag (Jan 12, 2009)

This is an old thread but did anyone save the lumen measurements table? Thought I did so long ago but can't seem to find it in my PC!


----------



## alex in germany (Jan 12, 2009)

Flea Bag said:


> This is an old thread but did anyone save the lumen measurements table? Thought I did so long ago but can't seem to find it in my PC!




Hi, is this what you are looking for?
http://www.arcflashlight.com/lumentests.html

Alex


----------



## Flea Bag (Jan 13, 2009)

alex in germany said:


> Hi, is this what you are looking for?
> http://www.arcflashlight.com/lumentests.html
> 
> Alex



:thumbsup: Thanks Alex! Just what I was looking for! It'll be a waste to lose all that info!


----------



## paulr (Jan 13, 2009)

Cool old thread. Any chance of doing some more tests, on more recent lights?


----------



## MorePower (Jan 13, 2009)

Anyone interested in testing of more recent lights should check out this thread: http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=211402


----------



## paulr (Jan 13, 2009)

MorePower said:


> Anyone interested in testing of more recent lights should check out this thread: http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=211402



Thanks, I have the impression that those are basically home measurements, and they are in quite a small sphere. So I'm specifically interested in seeing more LSI measurements, among other things to be able to compare them with CPF'er measurements. Ideal would be to test some of the same lights (not just same model, but actual same unit) in both spheres.


----------



## MorePower (Jan 14, 2009)

paulr said:


> Thanks, I have the impression that those are basically home measurements, and they are in quite a small sphere. So I'm specifically interested in seeing more LSI measurements, among other things to be able to compare them with CPF'er measurements. Ideal would be to test some of the same lights (not just same model, but actual same unit) in both spheres.



The Labsphere IS used in the aforementioned thread is a professional piece of equipment, on par with what any outside lab would use. If the same actual lights were tested in another IS, results should be pretty darn close to what MrGman reports. If not, then there'd be an issue of calibration of one or both spheres.


----------

