# LED versus Xenon ? What is better?



## Flymo (Jun 11, 2007)

I have a Pentagonlight L2 HAIII and I love this light for his perfect white tint and smoothly spilbeam and that is IMHO a correct flashlight.
Many (China) Cree flashlights has a explicit hotspot with less spilbeam.
I just ordered a Pentagonlight X2.
Does somebody has experience with this light? and are LED flashlight better than Xenon, besides bulblife and durability?

What is the advantage of LED versus Xenon flashlights ?

Thanks everybody!:twothumbs


----------



## yellow (Jun 11, 2007)

THE controversal discussion 

in the class up to a current draw of 2 Amps, the Led is way brighter than the Xenon

in higher class, there is simply no comparison present and the hotwire guys still insist on their ROPs being brighter than a single Led, 
(no wonder with bulbs eating ten times or more the current)

imho such a light (the 2nd one, w. 7 emitters) might stand the challenge, 
maybe not at the most extreme throw, but on medium to far distance illumination (its the equivalent to a 25-30 W ROP):





gif stolen from his site


----------



## qip (Jun 11, 2007)

decision i had to go through either a rop or multi led set up ...i decided with  multi led , main reason i dont have to worry about burning out and replacing bulbs and a bonus is, at first i thought this stunner would get 1 hour runtime but someone did a runtime test on a stunner and it resulted in 4hrs high output  

and yes its bright :thumbsup:


----------



## Andrew Nik (Jun 11, 2007)

Incandescent light have a more "natural" spectrum, and provide better color rendition.
Although your eyes (or camera) will fully adapt for white balance of LED light, some colors (red/brown/grey-brown) will seems worse than incan light can provide.

See samples here:
(WB was set for each lights manually)
http://talks.guns.ru/forummessage/109/214621.html

Make a point of pencil and orange color.


----------



## Learjet (Jun 11, 2007)

A lot easier to build / modify a mag for ROP than multi LED though.


----------



## RustyKnee (Jun 11, 2007)

Learjet said:


> A lot easier to build / modify a mag for ROP than multi LED though.



only a little bit though.

multi led is more effiicient

fair comments on colour rendition at the moment though.

Stu


----------



## Learjet (Jun 11, 2007)

Can you start fires with the multi LED or do you need the IR of Incan for that?

Yeah I know, matches are for lighting fires, but doing it with a torch is more fun. :devil:


----------



## RustyKnee (Jun 11, 2007)

Learjet said:


> Can you start fires with the multi LED or do you need the IR of Incan for that?
> 
> Yeah I know, matches are for lighting fires, but doing it with a torch is more fun. :devil:



nah thats high power incan territory. only IR leds emit much IR....not sure if a multi IR led would ligt a fire though lol.,,,invisible too so eye melting perhaps hehe

Stu


----------



## wrathothebunny (Jun 11, 2007)

I prefer Xenon incan to LED for color rendering. This might not seem like a big deal, but be aware that the inferior color rendering of LEDs have practical consequences. For instance, depth, 3-dimensionality, and contrast are all affected, and for target acquisition - or even detailed rendering of one's environment, these are very important areas. Incans simply render the target area under the light better. Also, incans cut through fog far better than LEDs do. I use an incan for bump-in-the-night and emergency instances, and I use LEDs for everyday use when runtime and low battery replacement frequency are more important.


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Jun 11, 2007)

I like LED because in 1xAA or 1x123 (or CR2) size lights NO incandescent bulb stands a chance!

And I like them in larger lights, because Alkaline cells will pull 'em and last a LOOOOOONG time doing it!


----------



## mdocod (Jun 11, 2007)

their both better at certain things. so their both good and bad, no winner.


----------



## FlashKat (Jun 11, 2007)

I agree 100%...Plus if you are true Flashoholic then you would appreciate owning both like I do. 


mdocod said:


> their both better at certain things. so their both good and bad, no winner.


----------



## drew2001 (Jun 12, 2007)

hello,

I have to agree 100% with wotb. I use LED lights everyday in my work as an auto tech. LED and it's running time is my much needed mechanical 'cold light'. My 49 yr old eyes transition between a couple of Black Diamond headlight models, and a couple hand held inspection lights. I do use my Streamlight incans too, but most indepth repairs/services end up under LED. 

Incan is my choice for an organic sight, non-metal outdoors or people, where earthy stuff needs to be comprehended in reality, as in a 'warm light.' Where acquisition and or color rendition is important. 

wrath's quote sums it up to me. For me there is a definite need for both beam types.



wrathothebunny said:


> I prefer Xenon incan to LED for color rendering. This might not seem like a big deal, but be aware that the inferior color rendering of LEDs have practical consequences. For instance, depth, 3-dimensionality, and contrast are all affected, and for target acquisition - or even detailed rendering of one's environment, these are very important areas. Incans simply render the target area under the light better. Also, incans cut through fog far better than LEDs do. I use an incan for bump-in-the-night and emergency instances, and I use LEDs for everyday use when runtime and low battery replacement frequency are more important.


----------



## Flymo (Jun 12, 2007)

Ok, thanks everybody.

So, (I think) they are both usefull and when I received the Pentagonlight X2, I post my experience here.
But does has someone experience with the Pentagonlight X2 HAIII ? :wave:


----------



## 2xTrinity (Jun 12, 2007)

> nah thats high power incan territory. only IR leds emit much IR....not sure if a multi IR led would ligt a fire though lol.,,,invisible too so eye melting perhaps hehe


Even an IR LED isn't going to be setting fires anytime soon. Really, the color/wavelength is irrelevant as far as setting fire is concerned -- if the object you're trying to burn is black, or completely absorbs the color you're shining on it (ie, popping a red balloon with a green laser), the only relevant figure is the intensity of the beam in watts/square meter. 

With incandescent, it's easy to get high power -- just buy a high wattage bulb, and it will radiate with almost 100% efficiency (most of that radiation is invisible, but that doesn't matter if all you need is a heat lamp)

LEDs, (and even HID lamps) don't radiate their excess waste heat however, they build up the heat internally -- usually requiring a separate heatsink. They're also limited to fairly low overall power, the only way to get high overall power would be with a large array, which would be almost impossible to concentrate enough to be able set anything on fire.



> I prefer Xenon incan to LED for color rendering. This might not seem like a big deal, but be aware that the inferior color rendering of LEDs have practical consequences. For instance, depth, 3-dimensionality, and contrast are all affected, and for target acquisition - or even detailed rendering of one's environment, these are very important areas. Incans simply render the target area under the light better. Also, incans cut through fog far better than LEDs do. I use an incan for bump-in-the-night and emergency instances, and I use LEDs for everyday use when runtime and low battery replacement frequency are more important.


This is certainly the problem with the current LEDs, which are all blue emitters which convert a portion of that to green light. Red is almost completely absent, which is what causes most of the problem you've listed above (poor color rendering, depth perception etc). One trick that I have used in multi-emitter arrays with some success is to augment white LEDs, which tend to look "greenish", with separate red LEDs. I have found that dramatically improves color rendering/depth perception -- the beam itself looks a lot uglier, but the target being lit up looks better.

Also, in the case of fog, the shorter the wavelength (the more bluish) the more the light will get reflected back into your face -- I find if I hold the light as far away from my face as possible, their usability in fog improves. If I set the light down somewhere, and view my target from a different angle, the problem almost completely goes away (of course, that's hardly practical...)

IMHO some sort of RGB array has the potential to be the best -- the user could cut off blue completeley to produce amber light (for fog) or to have red light only (for night vision), or have white light of any color temperature, depending on the application. The only problem there is that green LEDs are FAR less efficient than red or blue -- which is why white is usually done using blue + a phosphor.


----------



## Bertrik (Jun 12, 2007)

The higher reflection of blueish light from LEDs in fog sounds nice in theory, but has anyone ever actually measured the amount of light reflected back by fog between an incan and a LED light?


----------



## mdocod (Jun 12, 2007)

in the end, it wouldn't matter if it could be measured or not, if your eyes say incan works better then that's what matters.

like home audio gear, in reality, if you actually measured a bose system for flat output, you'd be startled to learn that bose systems are terrible at accurate reproduction of audio, but to the human ear, they are (unfortunately) rather pleasing, which is why people part with large sums of money for complete garbage.


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Jun 12, 2007)

My P1 sure as heck came in handy today! I don't need no stinkin' Incan for my Job!!!

I COULD use a nice TOUGH floody headlight... 

A Streamlight Clipmate got busted by the other stuff in the door of my truck. I need something ROBUST!


----------



## Outdoors Fanatic (Jun 13, 2007)

qip said:


> decision i had to go through either a rop or multi led set up ...i decided with  multi led , main reason i dont have to worry about burning out and replacing bulbs and a bonus is, at first i thought this stunner would get 1 hour runtime but someone did a runtime test on a stunner and it resulted in 4hrs high output
> 
> and yes its bright :thumbsup:


Therer are other things beyond ROP VS Multi-LED in the world of flashlights...


----------



## ringzero (Jun 14, 2007)

PlayboyJoeShmoe said:


> I COULD use a nice TOUGH floody headlight...A Streamlight Clipmate got busted by the other stuff in the door of my truck. I need something ROBUST!




Headlamps, in general, just aren't anywhere near as TOUGH as decent handheld lights. The angle adjustment mechanism on most headlamps is an obvious weak point.

Few headlamps will survive long term bouncing around with heavy tools inside a toolbox as reliably as a decent handheld. Most headlamps won't survive as well as handhelds when stepped on, slammed against rock, etc.

You can get ROBUST headlamps, but you're looking at 200 to 300 bucks for Stenlight, FoxFury, or similar.


.


----------



## TORCH_BOY (Jun 14, 2007)

Both in there own rights


----------



## FoxFury (Jun 15, 2007)

Thanks for the mention ringzero

The most popular FoxFury (Performance Series) headlamp, tough enough for Fire, Industrial and Search and Rescue, is under $100.

We also have a right angle light, called our Scout Series, which has survived being run over by a fire engine.


----------



## Flymo (Jun 22, 2007)

I just received my Pentagonlight X2 HA-III yesterday and I must say that ths light is intenser than the PL L2.
Not a perfectly round corona but it is brighttttt !! and that for $31.00 :kiss:
I wonder, if there is a drop-in bulb for that light to make it more brighter.....

Suggestions ?? please let me know !


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Jun 22, 2007)

When you can get something as bright as my MTE 1AA SSc light that you could NEVER get with 1AA and incand it goes without saying.

If it weren't such a pain, I'd get/send one to my favorite lady (she is my good buddies mom so don't get the wrong idea!) but instead I'll send her my Task Force 1AA so she'll have a small light to check on the chickens!


----------



## dandruff (Jun 23, 2007)

just to digress a little..

why do incans provide better colour/depth rendition? i do see the difference for myself, but cant quite explain why.

is it because they are more 'yellow'? if so then yellow tinted led bins should provide the same benefit?


----------



## Daekar (Jun 24, 2007)

wrathothebunny said:


> For instance, depth, 3-dimensionality, and contrast are all affected, and for target acquisition - or even detailed rendering of one's environment, these are very important areas.



While using my PT Apex with the Seoul P4 mod in the woods, I've noticed this phenomenon... or at least, I'm pretty sure it was the same thing. HOWEVER, there was a very simple solution. I was experiencing optical anomalies because there was only one source of light - when I switched to the 5mm LEDs which are offset from each other by some distance, all sensation of uncertain depth disappeared. The same effect could be achieved by simply turning on a hand light while the Apex was running on the main emitter. Of course, I may just be crazy and have weird eyes. :thinking: Has anybody else noticed this?


----------



## Flymo (Jun 25, 2007)

wrathothebunny said:


> I prefer Xenon incan to LED for color rendering. This might not seem like a big deal, but be aware that the inferior color rendering of LEDs have practical consequences. For instance, depth, 3-dimensionality, and contrast are all affected, and for target acquisition - or even detailed rendering of one's environment, these are very important areas. Incans simply render the target area under the light better. Also, incans cut through fog far better than LEDs do. I use an incan for bump-in-the-night and emergency instances, and I use LEDs for everyday use when runtime and low battery replacement frequency are more important.


 
Thank you wrathothebunny !

You are very right, incans has a much much better throw into the fog than LED's, is my experience also.:twothumbs
Incans are NOT dead at all (as some people says)!
My Pentagonlight X2 HA-III is bright like hell (and warm also)!
Normally I use my PL L2, but only when it is not foggy outside.:wave:


----------



## 2xTrinity (Jun 25, 2007)

dandruff said:


> just to digress a little..
> 
> why do incans provide better colour/depth rendition? i do see the difference for myself, but cant quite explain why.
> 
> is it because they are more 'yellow'? if so then yellow tinted led bins should provide the same benefit?


The reason is that most LEDs are still deficient in reds. They have improved a long way, in that respect however. The ones that look warmer yellowish are better, but the problem is that they are based on a blue emitter, that uses a yellow-green phosphor. In the case of the warm white, more yellow-green phosphor is used, so the light might look yellow, but those phosphors still don't release a lot of red like the incandescent light. It is possible to use two phosphors -- a separate red and green. That would solve the color rendering problem completely, but right now the whole marketing goal is who can come up with the most lumens, and a two-phosphor design would likely hurt the efficiency as the eyes are a lot more sensitive to yellow-green light than red light. I do think this will eventually happen though, as LED start to be used for more things where color rendering matters.

Another option that some have done with multi-emtiter arrays is to mix a separate red emitter in with a whole bunch of cool white emitters, which also greatly improves things.


----------



## Bertrik (Jun 25, 2007)

Another possible explanation for the throw is the beam pattern of LEDs: because most LEDs throw light forward instead of around like a hot wire, less light is caught in the reflector and more light escapes as spill.

Yet another explanation I've read here is stronger backscattering of the strong blue light component in LEDs (incans are weak in that component). I'm not ready to believe that without a more thorough scientific explanation / calculation. For example: consider fog consisting of 10 um droplets and light of 500 nm wavelength, the droplets are still quite a bit bigger (20 times) than the wavelength of the light, so there shouldn't be a strong frequency dependent scattering effect.


----------



## R11GS (Jun 25, 2007)

Bulbs don't last as long as LED's...


----------



## 2xTrinity (Jun 25, 2007)

Bertrik said:


> Another possible explanation for the throw is the beam pattern of LEDs: because most LEDs throw light forward instead of around like a hot wire, less light is caught in the reflector and more light escapes as spill.
> 
> Yet another explanation I've read here is stronger backscattering of the strong blue light component in LEDs (incans are weak in that component). I'm not ready to believe that without a more thorough scientific explanation / calculation. For example: consider fog consisting of 10 um droplets and light of 500 nm wavelength, the droplets are still quite a bit bigger (20 times) than the wavelength of the light, so there shouldn't be a strong frequency dependent scattering effect.


The backscattering has more to do with the excess of spill (your first point) than the color of the LEDs. My LEDs that use optics, or very deep reflectors perform much, much better in the fog. Also, lights with a lot of spill consequently have weaker hotspots, so that means you'll be trying to observe a target with less light reaching it, through a veil of fog lit up by bright spill. The issue with the blue I believe has more to do with the fact that the eyes are generally a lot more sensitive to blue light in the dark -- so the backscattered blue light is more of an irritant than backscattered warm white light 

(blue will scatter more in the atmosphere due to Rayleigh scattering, but that is from the air molecules themselves which are much smaller than the wavelength of light -- not really relevant to the disucssion)


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Jun 25, 2007)

In the VAST majority of reasons I use a light, bright LEDs do what I require.

The tend to be brighter on one or two batteries than many incans. They also tend to be usefull when you need them, not sometimes dead like a blown bulb.

That said...

Among the lights in my truck you will find incans AND Leds.

But on my belt are ONLY LEDs, as they are small enough not to cause issues in bucket seats!


----------



## woodrow (Jun 25, 2007)

I think a lot of it also involves what kind of flashlight do you like. My D-mini with the 18650 tube will burn for over 3 hours at brighter levels than a Surefire p61 bulb will burn for 20 minutes. All with guilt FREE lumens.

That being said, the Surefire M2 light has much better fit and finish. Is more waterproof, and carries more of a pride of ownership than the D-mini.

I like leds better than incans for the reasons listed above. I do miss $200+ flashlights though. Just not spending the thousands of dollars in 123a's to feed them...especially with high current draw bulbs like I always used.


----------



## wrathothebunny (Jun 26, 2007)

Obviously, I have some very strong positions on the advantages of incandescents, but I would be blind to ignore the many advantages that LEDs bring to the table. However, having both watched and participated in such LED vs. Incan (or Xenon) debates, I've clearly noticed how this issue draws out surprisingly powerful emotions in people. I do get why, but I think it is really a shame because such emotions could easily get in the way of making good informed choices in ways that can end up limiting oneself. So I just want to provide a little encouragement to those that might be starting down a self-limiting path.

The nuts and bolts of my encouragement to you all is to enjoy your flashlight products, and do so to the fullest extent possible. However, my rather radical contention is that I am not convinced having read these forums that many members here actually know how to do this. I've met a variety of people in my life that shun some experiences they might very well enjoy, often due to stubbornness or arrogance.

For example, I love dark chocolate. I really do. I sample some of the most exquisite chocolate creations produced on the planet. Some of my favorites in pure chocolate include Valrhona Manjari, and the new Amadei Chuao (ranked top in the world and at $12 per small bar). Now, my family loves chocolate too. However, most of them like milk chocolate. I tell them of the wonders of gourmet dark chocolate, and they turn their noses up at it because "they know what they like," and they say they tried dark chocolate and didn't like it. I try to explain that not all dark chocolate tastes the same, and that lower grade darks can taste quite bitter - not necessarily the case in the more gourmet stuff. I also try to convey that it can take some time to begin to develop an appreciation for the complex and subtle flavors in some fine chocolates, just like with wine, and even some coffee. In any case, they just don't want to and will not give the stuff a chance. I understand that tastes differ, and I won't like everything that others like, and others won't like everything that I like. In this case, some people truly cannot and will not ever be able to enjoy dark chocolate, it just doesn't suit their tastes. However, my family hasn't given it the chance it needs to determine whether this is the case or not. Perhaps if they did, they still might not like it. But should they have liked it, it would be a shame that they are missing out.

I think that this is the case with some members here at CPF. "I prefer LEDs." "I like incandescents." Fine, I'm sure you do. But have you really tried to honestly appreciate the other technology for what it has to offer? For the LED fans, are you willing to except that you might, you just might, find light at warmer colors pleasurable to look at? You may have a hang-up on associating high quality with just the perfect optical tint. Should you revise this preconception, you might find that you could quite enjoy incandescents. Same goes for the runtime issue. To the incandescent lovers, is the greater flexibility and runtime offered by LEDs truly not something you can appreciate and enjoy, should only you accept the look of LED light for what it is, and not expect the warm rendering of an incandescent?

You may find that when you try these other technologies, it turns out you still don't like them - thus confirming that you do, in fact, "know what you like." However, should the opposite be true, then a new window is opened to you that otherwise would have remained closed. You have everything to gain and very little to lose by keeping a more open mind on what you are "sure" you like vs. don't like, so please try to stay open to enjoying new things.


----------



## Flymo (Jun 26, 2007)

Ok, and the winner is..................undecided.
It is like cartires, a tire for all circumstances don't exist.
That is why I like them both, with the benefits and drawbacks of LED's and incans.:thinking:


----------



## Learjet (Jun 26, 2007)

I like both incan and LED but I was thinking to myself the other day that if I was forced to choose just one technology it would be LED. Leds are generally smaller and easier to EDC, run for longer, don't blow bulbs and are an evolving technology. The spectral deficiencies they have today may be solved tomorrow as well as the ever increasing brightness and runtimes. Incans don't seem to be evolving at the same rate, although they are already at a brightness level that single Leds will not reach for a while yet.


----------



## zamboniman (Jun 26, 2007)

LED pros:
-Long life
-High efficiency
-Shockproof

LED cons:
-Requires heatsinking for high power
-Things look flat (because of the emission spectrum)
http://www.ecse.rpi.edu/~schubert/Light-Emitting-Diodes-dot-org/chap21/F21-08%20Spectrum%20white%20P%20LED.jpg[img]
-Colors can be poorly rendered
-Seems to lend a "clinical" air to the subject being lit

Incandescent pros:
-Old technology, well-developed and mature (the month after you buy your flashlight, they won't have one that's four times better)
-Projects excess heat forward
-Can be designed for high power
-Yellow light adds a warm feeling to the subject being lit
-Good depth perception
-With high-pressure Xenon, exceptional color rendition

Incandescent cons:
-White-hot tungsten does NOT like being thrown around, a stronger (thicker) filament reduces efficiency
-Lower efficiency
-Minimal room for improvement in design (heavier fill gases retard tungsten evaporation), right now (in order of increasing weight) it's Argon (large bulbs), then Krypton (cheap small bulbs), then Xenon (pricey small bulbs). Isn't the next logical choice Radon? Would this make a high-efficiency, long-lasting, brilliant white bulb, albeit a radioactive one?


A luxeon K2 can compete with one of the smaller xenon bulbs in terms of output. Right now, for anything >6.5watts, xenon wins. Once they come up with a better phosphor blend, though, and make an LED bulb with a 15 watt output, there they will have a winner. I'd say that'll happen in about 5 years. Then I'll have to REPLACE EVERY LED FLASHLIGHT I OWN.


----------



## jtr1962 (Jun 26, 2007)

wrathothebunny said:


> I think that this is the case with some members here at CPF. "I prefer LEDs." "I like incandescents." Fine, I'm sure you do. But have you really tried to honestly appreciate the other technology for what it has to offer? For the LED fans, are you willing to except that you might, you just might, find light at warmer colors pleasurable to look at? You may have a hang-up on associating high quality with just the perfect optical tint. Should you revise this preconception, you might find that you could quite enjoy incandescents. Same goes for the runtime issue. To the incandescent lovers, is the greater flexibility and runtime offered by LEDs truly not something you can appreciate and enjoy, should only you accept the look of LED light for what it is, and not expect the warm rendering of an incandescent?


Based on what I've read here, many of the LED fans here are converted from incandescent so they _have_ tried the other technology. So have I. Fact is LED got me interested in lighting again. Back when I had more time I used to do model railroading. I may still again at some time in the future. As much as I liked the way things looked lit up the drawbacks of incandescent bulbs just plain made me give up on lighting models. Here's the long list of reasons why:

1) Power consumption was too high. Although this should seem like a non-issue since the models were powered via a transformer it wasn't. First off the power required to obtain decent lighting levels often resulting in the heat distorting the plastic models. Second, you needed a pretty hefty power supply to run a decent-sized train of passenger cars given that the lamps in each one could draw upwards of half an amp at 12V.

2) Lamps burning out were an ever present annoyance. As a result, you couldn't glue lit models permanently together, but had to have some means of replacing the burnt out lamps.

3) Colored lighting was even more inefficient than "white" lighting due to losses in the color filters.

4) Note my use of the term white above in parentheses. This was another problem with incandescents. There really was no such thing as a white light. To give some semblance of reasonable lifetime the bulbs had to be underdriven. This resulted in a horrible orange-tinted light even warmer than the already not so great 2700K of regular household lighting. You really couldn't even match the tint of standard incandescent in models, never mind fluorescent lighting in things like office buildings.

5) The replacement bulbs were anything but cheap. If you lit enough models the costs quickly built up.

LED got me back into lighting since it had practically none of these problems. Here's the same points addressed in the same order with LED:

1) Power consumption is very low. I can light a passenger car with 4 white LEDs driven at 10 mA (for longer life). I can design circuits which drive the LEDs at constant brightness once the track voltage is above about 2 volts. A step-up driver driving 4 white LEDs in series at 10 mA will only draw about 10 mA at 12V. I can run a string of 20 lit passenger cars using less power than one car used before! Heat is also obviously a non-issue now.

2) Lamp burn-out is a non-issue so lighting can be permanently built in. The main issue is dimming, but this can be practically eliminated by underdriving the LEDs. I don't care that maybe they'll get noticeably dimmer in 20,000 hours. I doubt I would have that much cumulative runtime in my entire life.

3) Colored lighting probably uses 1/100 of the power that it did before, and I can get every possible color. I can imitate sodium vapor streetlights with amber LED, mercury vapor with a combination of cyan and white, for example.

4) I can get tints to match every possible color of white lighting. I can even imitate the real look of incandescent by using warm white LEDs with a small percentage of reds thrown in.

5) LEDs are dirt cheap compared to small incandescent bulbs. I remember the bulbs costing at least $0.50. I can get decent white LEDs for $0.25 or less, even as low as $0.10. I can get colors for as low as $0.05. In short, combined with the fact that they don't burn out, the cost of LEDs has become a non-issue.

I also used to "try" to light my bike with incandescents. Again, the disadvantages made me give up, especially the lack of shock resistance. Hit a decent-sized pothole. and I would be in the dark. I also needed a decent-sized lead-acid battery to get reasonable run times. Now I can run a few hours on 4 NiMH AAs.

I'll grant that high-quality 3300K incandescents may have color-rendering advantages under a fairly limited set of circumstances (outdoors, mostly organic scenes). However, these are quickly outweighed by the long list of disadvantages. I'll also point out that lower quality typical cheap incandescents don't even really have a color rendering advantage under any circumstances. They're just too yellow. So what LED has really done is to make decent quality lighting affordable to the masses. A fairer comparison might be to compare a $20 Maglight with a $20 made in China LED. The LED pretty much wins hands down in every category. It's only when you start getting into the category of high-end lights that incandescent possesses _some_ advantages.


----------



## wrathothebunny (Jun 26, 2007)

JTR1962,

I understand that most folks who now exclusively use LEDs at one time used incandescents, so this doesn't exactly fit my chocolate analogy. However, I do think that people can develop hang-ups over time that keep them from enjoying both technologies.

I have a Princeton Tec 40 that I've modified with Xenon bulbs that cost $3.50 each and are rated for 30 hours life - so replacing them isn't any big deal. The reflector is dimpled and I frosted the tops of the Xenon bulbs, so I get a nice big, round hotspot with good, smooth transition to spill. It has plenty of spill, and if I hold it at waste level, the spill almost illuminates the fronts of my shoes when pointed at the horizon. Battery life is 3 hours on 4 rechargeable Eneloop AAs. Color temp is probably about 3100K. I love this light and it easily beats out my Fenix P3D for a trail light.

Now, is this $20 cheap incan better than my Fenix P3D? No. If I had to choose just one light to own, would I choose it over my P3D? No. But the point is I can enjoy both technologies. I realize I don't always need 65 hours runtime in a light, especially when running rechargeables. I realize that warm color temp doesn't have to be a negative thing, sunsets produce very warm color temps and I love the way that renders my surroundings.

If a bulb blows on my Tec 40, big deal, that's $3.50. I also would have my P3D by my side so I could switch to that. Inefficient? Who cares, I get 3 hours runtime and then can recharge, more than enough for most tasks.

The point is, I enjoy both technologies and I would hate to see you all keeping yourselves from doing so just because of some unnecessary hang-ups. JTR1962, it sounds like you've given incans a good run, and found ways to modify your LED experience to get many of the same benifits. So for you, Incans may not be the way to go. However, this message was directed at the broader LED-only community, and I doubt the majority of them are modifying their LED lights to the extent you are - they probably just buy stock.


----------



## jtr1962 (Jun 26, 2007)

wrathothebunny said:


> JTR1962, it sounds like you've given incans a good run, and found ways to modify your LED experience to get many of the same benifits. So for you, Incans may not be the way to go.


Even though LED appeals to me as more high-tech, even not counting its other advantages, I actually wish someone would develop some filament material which can burn at 4000K or 5000K or even higher. I would probably be one of the first to embrace it, especially if it had decent life, as it would solve one of the existing problems with LEDs-lack of ability to adjust color temperature. While RGB LEDs may in time solve this problem, the control circuitry to do so while ensuring color balance will be complex. With a hypothetical 5000K filament material you can vary color temperature from 5000K down to whatever you want just by lowering the drive current/voltage. And by it's nature a 5000K hotwire, perhaps with a reflecting IR/UV coating, could top 100 lm/W. Since brightness increases to the fourth power of absolute temperature, it would also be over 5 times brighter than a 3300K hotwire.

I'll also add that once LED takes over pretty much all lighting functions, which it probably will within 15 or 20 years, the lighting landscape will be pretty boring compared to today where you have incandescent, HID, LED, fluorescent, neon, etc. I'll still love LEDs, but it's nice to have the other technologies just for something different. I guess for exactly opposite reasons I've been excited about the potential switch to EVs/alternative fuels in the next decade. After decades of having just one choice to power a car, namely the internal combustion engine, we'll have several alternatives. Perhaps here too one technology will win in the end (I suspect it will be EVs) but things will be more interesting for a while.

P.S. I like dark chocolate myself over milk chocolate. I also like white chocolate.


----------



## BB (Jun 26, 2007)

wrathothebunny said:


> I understand that most folks who now exclusively use LEDs at one time used incandescents...I love this light and it easily beats out my Fenix P3D for a trail light...Now, is this $20 cheap incan better than my Fenix P3D? No. If I had to choose just one light to own, would I choose it over my P3D? No....The point is, I enjoy both technologies and I would hate to see you all keeping yourselves from doing so just because of some unnecessary hang-ups....However, this message was directed at the broader LED-only community...



Why continue this? Nobody has limited themselves to LED only. You are evangelizing for incandescents but say a cheap incandescent is not a good as a cheap LED--but you would still get the cheap cheap incandescent over the cheep LED.

What is the point about arguing which is "better" when you, apparently, ignore your own conclusion and get the "less good flashlight" .:shrug:

Buy and use what you like with great joy.

-Bill


----------



## wrathothebunny (Jun 26, 2007)

I do agree that LEDs (for flashlights) along with Fluorescents (for indoors) are the wave of the future. Incandescent is older technology, though their have been novel ideas of how to improve their efficiency, such as coating the insides of the bulbs with substances that reflect back heat. The problem with increasing the color temp of the filaments is that color temp really does correspond to how hot that thing is getting. Current 3300 K bulbs are approaching their limit, much higher and the filament will just plain start to melt, oxidation or no. In any case, current research suggests that most people will find a 4000 K lightsource (perhaps even as low as 3700 K) most pleasing in lower light environments, such as the outdoor night-time environment. For indoor work, you may prefer 5000 K I suppose. Of course, every person is different, but for the general populous, I believe a flashlight in the 3700-4000 K range would be preferred over a 5000 K flashlight, all things being equal.


----------



## jtr1962 (Jun 26, 2007)

wrathothebunny said:


> The problem with increasing the color temp of the filaments is that color temp really does correspond to how hot that thing is getting. Current 3300 K bulbs are approaching their limit, much higher and the filament will just plain start to melt, oxidation or no.


I was thinking along the lines of a synthetic filament material here, not tungsten which is already at its limits. If we could find something which conducts electricity plus remains solid at as high a temperature as possible then incandescents may still yet have a future. As for color temperature preference, the beauty of a 5000K or even 6000K filament material is that you don't _have to_ run it near its limits if you don't want to. You can run it at 3700K, 4000K, anything up to its maximum rated temperature, depending upon your preference. The only major problem I see with much higher temperature filaments would be the need to block UV, perhaps via a UV reflective coating which can also reduce power consumption similar to the way present IR coatings work.

Although my sweet spot for general lighting seems to be in the 4500K to 5500K range, I find CCTs as low as 3500K or as high as 6500K acceptable.


----------



## 2xTrinity (Jun 26, 2007)

jtr1962 said:


> I was thinking along the lines of a synthetic filament material here, not tungsten which is already at its limits. If we could find something which conducts electricity plus remains solid at as high a temperature as possible then incandescents may still yet have a future. As for color temperature preference, the beauty of a 5000K or even 6000K filament material is that you don't _have to_ run it near its limits if you don't want to. You can run it at 3700K, 4000K, anything up to its maximum rated temperature, depending upon your preference. The only major problem I see with much higher temperature filaments would be the need to block UV, perhaps via a UV reflective coating which can also reduce power consumption similar to the way present IR coatings work.


I don't think we'll ever see a practical solid material able to physically reach temperatures higher than tungsten or carbon (around 3700K). It is certainly possible to reach apparent color temperatures higher than that using incandescent technology by using things like filters and reflective coatings -- I know there has been some work done with IR reflective coating, and I'm sure there's a lot of potential to go there. However, I expect that LEDs will both drop in cost, and improve in capability to the point where it will actually be cheaper to go solid state, than with some exotic next-generation incandescent, for effectively the same thing.

In the shorter term, I'd like to see some more options become available in small-scale HID lights and ballasts (read: the 10-50 watt range suitable for flashlights). 



> Although my sweet spot for general lighting seems to be in the 4500K to 5500K range, I find CCTs as low as 3500K or as high as 6500K acceptable.


Indoors, for ambient lighting, I prefer 3500K. I actually find I can see better at that color temp and actually get away with less light -- For example, I find that a 9W 3500K CFL (500 lumens) is a suitable replacement for a 60W incan, or 14W 2700K CFL (850 lumens). For task lighting, I prefer 5000K. 

Outdoors, my preference is HID at about 4000K (true for flashlights, street lights, and auto headlights -- provided glare is properly managed). The closer to that, the better -- the LEDs that I prefer are Cree WH bin, around 5000K, augmented with a small amount of red light. The incans I prefer are the ones being driven the hardest, 3200K+.


----------



## R11GS (Jun 26, 2007)

I'm no material specialist, but what materials have a higher melting point than tungsten (3695 °K)? I understand that tantalum hafnium carbide (Ta4HfC5) has an extremely high melting point of 4488 K, but I can't think of anything else.


Seems like to incandesce at the temperatures you folks are discussing you may need to bail on anything solid...


----------



## wrathothebunny (Jun 26, 2007)

JTR1962,

I doubt that'll be the way they go. Right now some researchers are looking into carbon nanotube filaments, but they top out at 3500K. Perhaps filament-less designs is where future technology will take us, like HID, but better spectral qualities, shorter ramp-up time to full brightness, and lower power options. The problem is, of course, that insane voltage is required to create that filament-less arc, but there could be a lot of creative ways to address this problem, perhaps creating multiple mini-arcs.


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Jun 26, 2007)

The TEC 40 trick sounds good.... IF I meant to take the light for use.

The small LED lights like the P1 or the MTE are WITH me because they take up little room.

I haven't sworn off Incans by any means. But they don't ride on my person anymore.


----------



## wrathothebunny (Jun 26, 2007)

I would agree that LEDs seem better suited for EDC for most general, non law enforcement or military applications. I EDC my P3D, but I don't see swearing off incans any time soon. For camping and hiking, nothing beats their rendering properties, and 3 hours runtime is not too shabby for the Tec 40.


----------



## jtr1962 (Jun 27, 2007)

2xTrinity said:


> However, I expect that LEDs will both drop in cost, and improve in capability to the point where it will actually be cheaper to go solid state, than with some exotic next-generation incandescent, for effectively the same thing.


Probably true. I was just postulating some possible developments which might save incandescents from extinction. In the long run I'm sure solid-state will win as it's inherently cheaper to make an LED instead of a gas-filled sphere with a coiled filament. Look at those tiny lamps used for modeling. Despite the advantages of decades of production, they're much more expensive than 5mm LEDs.


----------



## wrathothebunny (Jun 27, 2007)

One can spend a lot of time speculating over which technology will win out: LEDs, Incandescents, HID, etc. I don't personally see the point in it if such speculation is meant to justify what you've perchased today. It seems like the rationalization process is: I purcahsed an LED - Someone just addressed an advantage that Incans have that LEDs don't - But that's ok, because LEDs will eventually have those advantages too - So I made the right choice buying into LEDs. :thinking: 

In any case, tomorrow's technology won't improve today's LEDs or Incans. Judge each technology on its current merits as it applies to the flashlights you own. Who really cares who wins? As long as the products continue to improve, we all do.


----------



## woodrow (Jun 27, 2007)

I just looked at Flashlight Reviews and pulled up the review on the Wolfeyes 3.7v incan running on a 18650. It seems to produce about the same overall output as a Fenix P3D with more throw, with over 40 min of good light output. That would be tempting to me.

I had a SF 9n shortly after they came out. While I did not like the nicad batts (I believe they are better now than when they first released the light) It really had a nice beam and I liked the 2 bulb setup and size.

The new Wolfeyes 300 light looks pretty cool as well.

This debate has made me re look at incans. I want Free lumans both for myself and rechargables are better for the environment. But there are still some pretty neat incan designes out there. I was also really impressed by the Wolfeyes flat discharge curve.


----------

