# What is the best flashlight in the fog?



## efka (Sep 17, 2009)

Hi all,

maybe whose tested flashlights in the fog?

What color temperature and beam is preferred in the fog?


Thanks


----------



## mwaldron (Sep 17, 2009)

You'll probably get many responses about the warmer the led the better, but in my (admittedly somewhat small) experience nothing beats an incandescent. Any incandescent. 

I've not yet had a really foggy night to try my M60W, but my Ra WW wasn't that great in fog and I'm not expecting much from the M60W since it's slightly higher color temp.


----------



## jankj (Sep 17, 2009)

I don't know anything about incandescent, but a pretty convincing video of the merits of a warm white LED can be seen here. 

Apart from that, I would say lots of throw held as far away from the eyes as possible. You want to look as little along the beam as possible. You want little flood as the reflections of the fog/snow only be the more blinding.


----------



## Juggernaut (Sep 17, 2009)

You want a low Kelvin color, “most likely Incan, and a narrow beam, though I wouldn’t use anything super bright because the beam turns solid white and can not be seen though, the old school sealed beam bulbs “up to 8 watts” are some of the best for this and are used or reproduced with modern reflectors / bulbs in most firefighting lanterns / search lights:thumbsup:.


----------



## Cataract (Sep 17, 2009)

I can say by experience that the cooler the color, the worse it is, unless you're trying to signal someone. When I got my first thrower (very cool LED color) I used binoculars to see how far it could throw on a clear night, but all I saw was the beam and nothing else. I do take my TK40 out in the fog just to wow myself on how bright the beam is, however...

I did try some slightly more neutral lights in the fog this summer and they where a lot nicer, but still not the best, so I'd say incan will probably work best


----------



## yellow (Sep 17, 2009)

color is totally unimportant,
the amount of SPILL is important!

Thats why incands are said to be "better" in fog - nearly 2/3 of the emitted light go into reflector and thus directed.
normal Led lights are reverse - just 1/3, up to 1/5, depending on reflector/optic - gets directed, the major amount is direct spill
... and spill blinds You in fog.

If You have a nice led light You like AND have fog often: cut a round disc, about 1/2 the diameter of Your reflector, out of (black) adhesive tape and put that in the middle of Your front glass ...
... tadadaaaaaa much better fog-cutting light than anything else


[edit]
"color is totally unimportant" is meant in view of fog.
In General blue end spectrum is boring. 
Anything not neutral or warm white is so bad, even the most extreme led-guy hates it
But that has nothing to do with fog
[/edit]


----------



## strinq (Sep 17, 2009)

From the vid, it is pretty clear that the warmer TK20 totally outperforms the TK11.
It's just basically because in a fog/blizzard everything is white. Add more whiteness and you can't see a thing.


----------



## hyperloop (Sep 17, 2009)

havent actually tried it but i would go with my Ultrafire WF500 xenon or G2 with 15w DX drop in


----------



## alpg88 (Sep 17, 2009)

flir.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Sep 18, 2009)

yellow said:


> color is totally unimportant,
> the amount of SPILL is important!



Bingo! 

One LED solution which would work is an aspheric (DEFT being the most extreme example), or a Fresnel lens. Otherwise incan/HID in a reflector narrows the beam better than standard LED lights. However there are some incands (i.e. Osram 64623) that are made for projectors and also have too much flood spill to be useful in such a scenario.


----------



## Outdoors Fanatic (Sep 18, 2009)

Get a decent incandescent light, anyone.


----------



## lctorana (Sep 18, 2009)

Juggernaut has already said the answer.

A sealed beam lantern. Ideally a low-power 2W job.

Anything else, ANYTHING else, is second-best.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Sep 18, 2009)

lctorana said:


> Juggernaut has already said the answer.
> 
> A sealed beam lantern. Ideally a low-power 2W job.
> 
> Anything else, ANYTHING else, is second-best.



With respect to my esteemed colleague, living here in coastal CT a block from the beach, we get heavy fog a lot. We call it "pea soup" it gets so thick. Sometimes I cannot see the street light that is 25-30 yards away. I have experimented a lot with many lights. 

The idea of old school low power/sealed beam is based upon the idea of minimizing typical spill effect &/or total output to prevent "white out."

I have used several of the highly promoted firefighter lights (even including Pelican Big Ed, Streamlight Survivor). I am 100% certain that there are better alternatives at least in the fog we have here. Ultimately, in really dense smoke or fog, nothing is going to cut through it....but I can see way farther with a well confined, minimal spill beam than a 2-4W light.


----------



## yellow (Sep 18, 2009)

concept that - in fog - spill blinds the user, because the "wall of fog" gets illuminated ...
... not understood by posters



just try that thing with the adhesive disc, it is not the color


----------



## LuxLuthor (Sep 18, 2009)

I'll try that next time we have fog to compare to other ones I have found as best so far. Thanks


----------



## lctorana (Sep 18, 2009)

LuxLuthor said:


> I am 100% certain that there are better alternatives at least in the fog we have here.


Wow. There is something with less spill and a more concentrated beam than a low-power sealed beam lantern?

That's nothing less than incredible. Do go on, I'm really excited.


----------



## Cataract (Sep 18, 2009)

Got it! tape your lights to your feet! something with plenty of throw and little spill, yellow or orange colored and light UNDER the fog instead of throwing light straight at it! Works for cars, why not humans?


----------



## kelmo (Sep 18, 2009)

That all depends on your intent.

We really get socked-in in the the San Joaquin/Sacramento Valley area every once in awhile. When that happens you just wait until in burns off. 

So my best light for the fog are anything with a HOLA; MN21, P91, P61, BOG Cree Premium drop-in, M60W, etc. It's too dangerous to be driving in it so I use the opportunity let my inner child run wild!

BTW welcome to CPF efka!!!


----------



## Search (Sep 18, 2009)

On a foggy night I took my TK11 R2, single-mode E2DL, and stock G3 into the corn field behind the house. There was no corn.

It's probably 120 - 140 yards to the other side.

The TK11 and E2DL were much brighter but all I could see was the beam.

The G3 put just as much light on the back of the field (tree line) and I could barely see the beam.

A 200 lumen incan and 200 lumen LED would be the best example.

The incan would make the LED look like a wimp in the fog.


----------



## Illum (Sep 18, 2009)

well, that depends on what your trying to use the light for

are you trying to light up the fog or are you trying to light up something in the fog?

lighting up fog is wasting light...a light with 100% spill will do you no good except to impress bystandards


----------



## LuxLuthor (Sep 18, 2009)

As yellow said...it's not the bulb/led color or overall output that is the issue. Rather it is the elimination of as much spill as possible. You are going to illuminate the fog in any case, the question is what gives the best penetrating & useful vision. Next time we have some fog, I'll give a ranking of which works best that I have, and see how a camera captures it.

_*Ictorana, for the record to make sure I am comparing your idea of a 1-2W sealed bulb, what is the exact model/light setup you are thinking so I can compare it specifically.*_


----------



## lctorana (Sep 18, 2009)

Any lantern that uses a 4546 sealed-beam bulb (any make).

The host could be an Eveready, a Big Beam, a Ray-o-Vac, a VolKano or even your old Navy battle lantern. But the bulb must be a 4546.


----------



## Sub_Umbra (Sep 18, 2009)

yellow said:


> color is totally unimportant,
> the amount of SPILL is important!...


*Ding ding ding ding* -- we have a winner!

I would add that the tight beam should be held as far from the line of sight as possible. 

It ain't rocket surgery.


----------



## defloyd77 (Sep 19, 2009)

It's all about the beam shape and angle of which the light is held. That video comparing the TK20 and TK11 doesn't really prove that a warmer tinted light works better, the TK11 is held closer to the camera, thus making it's backscatter worse and the TK20's beam I believe is more narrow. The tint phenomena I believe is kind of an illusion, I like to call "high contrast backscatter". This basically means that a warm tinted light backscattered with greens and browns behind it will cause an illusion that there's not much backscatter, simply because the warm tint "blends in", do the same with a cool tinted one and the cool tint will contrast greatly with the background. Watch that video again and watch for the camera to adjust it's white balance, you can see the TK20 going from warm white to a very white white and the backscatter looks to be worse and the TK11 also turns to a white white and will appear better.

Pelican now has an updated Little Ed and Stealthlight with 84 lumens now. They were designed with this stuff in mind with their Recoil reflector which shines the LED backward into the reflector and it emits a very tight, no spill beam.


----------



## angelofwar (Sep 19, 2009)

How about the laser-like beam of the (now) old 19 lumen KL3's? If we ever got fog here, I'd like to try it out...any thoughts?


----------



## LuxLuthor (Sep 20, 2009)

lctorana said:


> Any lantern that uses a 4546 sealed-beam bulb (any make).
> 
> The host could be an Eveready, a Big Beam, a Ray-o-Vac, a VolKano or even your old Navy battle lantern. But the bulb must be a 4546.



OK, I have that exact bulb in my old Navy Battle Lantern. I'll try it next foggy night. This could be a moment of Incandental Transformation. Ommmmm.


----------



## lebox97 (Sep 20, 2009)

I like this idea, any bystanders will freak out when seeing ground level UFO's as you walk though 



Cataract said:


> Got it! tape your lights to your feet! something with plenty of throw and little spill, yellow or orange colored and light UNDER the fog instead of throwing light straight at it! Works for cars, why not humans?


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 20, 2009)

yellow said:


> *color is totally unimportant*, the amount of SPILL is important!



Our car's yellow tinted automotive fog lights penetrate mist/fog better than the non-tinted halogens of equal output/spill, and this is because...


----------



## zipplet (Sep 20, 2009)

I remember reading that water droplets can reflect shorter wavelengths of light more so than longer wavelengths. Combine this with rayleigh scattering and it would explain why cool blue LEDs seem to create a white wall more so than other tints in fog?


----------



## LuxLuthor (Sep 20, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> and this is because...



Myths sometimes are believed to be true.


----------



## EV_007 (Sep 20, 2009)

Best flashlight in the fog, or anywhere else, is the one(s) you have on you.


----------



## defloyd77 (Sep 20, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> Our car's yellow tinted automotive fog lights penetrate mist/fog better than the non-tinted halogens of equal output/spill, and this is because...


Check out my post.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 20, 2009)

defloyd77 said:


> Check out my post.





zipplet said:


> I remember reading that water droplets can reflect shorter wavelengths of light more so than longer wavelengths. Combine this with rayleigh scattering and it would explain why cool blue LEDs seem to create a white wall more so than other tints in fog?



Thanks for those informative responses they make more sense than *it's a myth*, ultimately visual illusion or not lower frequency light output creates less obvious backscatter (or apparent light reflection) thus making it more usable in heavily fogged conditions  




LuxLuthor said:


> Myths sometimes are believed to be true.


Not your best attempt at an explanation Lux' :shakehead

I note there is division as to how effective selective yellow light output can be with an online article from the Alaska Science Forum whereby the author claims they don't work at all, then decidedly turns around and cites a Russian article which concedes "The advantages ascribed to it may take place only in very thin fog or may be subjectively received by some drivers owing to their individual peculiarities of vision."


Isn't that a bit like saying NO but... maybe, just a little :thinking:


Furthermore, if it is said that "the amount of Rayleigh scattering that occurs for a beam of light is dependent upon the size of the particles and the wavelength of the light." then isn't light wavelength (and inherently colour) still relevant to the effect/behaviour of light particles within a mist/fog? :thinking:


----------



## defloyd77 (Sep 21, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> I note there is division as to how effective selective yellow light output can be with an online article from the Alaska Science Forum whereby the author claims they don't work at all, then decidedly turns around and cites a Russian article which concedes "The advantages ascribed to it may take place only in very thin fog or may be subjectively received by some drivers owing to their individual peculiarities of vision."



Thanks for those articles! The Alaska Science Forum one mentions "yellow" sodium-vapor street lamps, they clearly also scatter light just as bad as any other light.

Now here's something that really boggles my mind, my local airport has one of those spinning lights, one side white, the other blue, most likely they are the same wattage, the white one is brighter. Their focus seems the same, but during foggy or snowy nights, the blue one can be seen from a further distance. This goes completely against the blue light scattering theory, but helps my theory of high contrast back scatter as blue light will stick out more than a natural white light, especially if there is any light pollution.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 21, 2009)

defloyd77 said:


> Now here's something that really boggles my mind, my local airport has one of those spinning lights, one side white, the other blue, most likely they are the same wattage, the white one is brighter. Their focus seems the same, but during foggy or snowy nights, the blue one can be seen from a further distance. This goes completely against the blue light scattering theory, but helps my theory of high contrast back scatter as blue light will stick out more than a natural white light, especially if there is any light pollution.




Perhaps you too are one of those in the purported minority that experience individual peculiarities of vision OR the blue light scattering issue is heightened when in the presence of a mixed source of light frequencies and not so much so as a single independent lighting source? :thinking:


----------



## LuxLuthor (Sep 21, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> Thanks for those informative responses they make more sense than *it's a myth*, ultimately visual illusion or not lower frequency light output creates less obvious backscatter (or apparent light reflection) thus making it more usable in heavily fogged conditions
> 
> Not your best attempt at an explanation Lux' :shakehead



So you missed the elegant simplicity of my succinctness, and feel that pedantic verbosity will reinforce the truth? OK, I'll play.



[email protected] said:


> I note there is division as to how effective selective yellow light output can be with an online article from the Alaska Science Forum whereby the author claims they don't work at all, then decidedly turns around and cites a Russian article which concedes "The advantages ascribed to it may take place only in very thin fog or may be subjectively received by some drivers owing to their individual peculiarities of vision."
> 
> Isn't that a bit like saying NO but... maybe, just a little :thinking:



This is a case of a person only seeing what they want to see, rather than what is actually written. Let's examine your linked source a bit deeper, shall we? Perhaps the best idea would be to quote the entire article, despite the fact that it was written by an earthquake specialist, which becomes heresay without reference links to what his consulted "experts" actually said.



> Do Fog Lights Really Work?
> Article #593
> 
> by Larry Gedney
> ...



Again, we don't know what was actually said in the one [Russian] article, but assuming Mr. Gedney did accurately quote the source, it is stated as diplomatically as possible that some drivers who spent extra to buy yellow fog lights are imagining there may be a benefit so as to not look like an idiot.

OK, you feel pedantic verbosity is required for me to back up my invalidated succinct statement. let's see what Google gives us asking it "Do Yellow Fog Lights Work?"

http://www.cartalk.com/content/columns/Archive/2002/February/08.html


> *Car Talk*
> 
> 
> Tom: So the question becomes, to yellow or not to yellow? There's a lot of debate about this, but the research says that yellow lights are no better than white lights at penetrating fog. The theory bandied about was that yellow light has a longer wavelength and is therefore less likely to be reflected by the fog particles. Turns out, this is complete poppycock.
> ...





> Daniel Stern Lighting:
> 
> What is Selective-Yellow Light?
> 
> ...



http://www.lightingresearch.org/programs/transportation/pdf/SAE/2001-01-0320.pdf


> A long 2001 pdf file that concludes that further research would be useful.
> 
> *Driving in Snow: Effect of Headlamp Color at Mesopic and Photopic Light Levels*
> 
> ...



http://www.ibuyautoparts.com/news-536/do-fog-lights-work.html


> Here's a segment from "ibuyautoparts.com" which is a bastion of erudite sophistry.
> 
> Traditionally fog lights are yellow, and the reason why is the subject of some speculation. A common claim is that they need to be a single color light rather than white light, to minimize dispersion as the light hits the water vapor and scatters in different directions. It is often said that though red might be a more ideal color, it already has connotations to drivers —- it is used for both stop lights and brake lights. Yellow, then, would seem to be the next-most-suitable choice, because it has the next longest wavelength of visible light.
> 
> The problem with this idea, which sounds plausible scientifically, has to do with the size of the water molecules in fog. The molecules of water vapor are large enough that dispersion does not occur in any meaningful way, making the wavelength of the light irrelevant. It is possible that the first car companies to utilize fog lights were not aware of the impact that the size of water vapor molecules would have on the dispersion, and so believed that by choosing yellow lights they were minimizing the blur the fog lights cast. More likely is that yellow was chosen because of its connotations in the West with caution. Yellow lights and yellow signs are used to indicate that a driver should slow, look for obstacles, generally use increased levels of caution -- precisely the activities one wants other drivers to exercise when driving in heavy fog.





> eHow.com now we are getting into some gold-plated advice:
> 
> How Do Fog Lights Work?
> 
> ...



http://www.autoanything.com/lights/51A22.aspx


> Oh yeah, good old "AutoAnything.com" they are my go-to resource on advanced thermodynamics, so let's see what they have to say about yellow fog lights:
> 
> 8. Are yellow fog lights really better than white or blue ones?
> 
> Light coloringThe old wives' tale that yellow fog lights give you greater visibility over white or blue ones is just not true. The premise of that superstition, that yellow light waves are long enough to pass through water particles without reflecting back into the driver's eyes, is based on a misinterpretation of Lord Rayleigh's principle of light scattering. As it turns out, the water particles in fog and mist are entirely too large to have an effect on any light waves from fog lights, be they yellow, white, blue or even green. In other words, any fog light that is properly mounted and aimed is effective, so don't worry about the color.



I could continue this meaningless exercise, but I'm bored now. Sorry for my brevity in this post.


----------



## defloyd77 (Sep 21, 2009)

That's a lotta readin! Well for me at least, I have ADD or somethin. I don't think there was anything that supports my high contrast back scatter theory. I'm not sure I explained it well enough in my previous posts, but as another example, take a red light and shine it at something blue when it's foggy. The red light lit fog will contrast against the blue background, but a blue light wouldn't. Now since there isn't too much blue to be seen when you are driving, mostly greens, grays and browns, the more blue white lights will have the same issue as the red light against a blue background. I guess you could say that yellow light (or any color light that's the same as the background) in a sense "camouflages" the fog.

Make sense?


----------



## yellow (Sep 21, 2009)

to be honest, I think that _every time _*the brighter the light, bet better*.
When it comes to throw: no matter if in vacuum, air, dusty air, fog, underwater, underwater with debrits - as long as there is no spill
(I still adivise to use a bright light with spill reduced. *Just try it*
That cheap "test" with the adhesive tape makes no cost, does not harm the light, is no effort at all and reversible) 

mentioning car fog lights is a good one:
1st: 20-25 years ago, when I was a kid, nearly every car had yellow lights, at least fog lights. 
NOW? Any yellow fog lights? Original in the cars?
Why not?

2nd: has one ever disassembled an actual _projection beam _fog light?
They are this "good", because all the spill is already cut away inside the light. It does not leave it. 
No spill to illuminate the fog - better penetration
I dont have the words ready to describe it, but if needed could make a drawing 
(by the way: actual fog lights should be positioned _high_, not low)


PS: I am one of these guys who use high beam in fog - when it is not too dense - because one can see much more distance --> more light, better sight.
Of course it is harder on the eyes, but 10 meters more sight, is 10 meters, in fog.


----------



## lctorana (Sep 21, 2009)

Lux, based on yellow's post, I evidently must change my recommendation to a 4547 or H7550.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Sep 21, 2009)

lctorana said:


> Lux, based on yellow's post, I evidently must change my recommendation to a 4547 or H7550.



No way buddy. You are not jumping up from a 2 to 6W now. I'm locked in on the 4546 !!!!!! No weaseling at the last minute.


----------



## lctorana (Sep 21, 2009)

Hee!

Opinion seems divided on whether you need a lot or a little light.

But one thing is common between all three bulbs - the beam spread is a miserly 3° x 3°, and that's about as sharp as you'll get, without resorting to aspherics - hey, THERE's an idea!


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 21, 2009)

LuxLuthor said:


> So you missed the elegant simplicity of my succinctness, and feel that pedantic verbosity will reinforce the truth? OK, I'll play.



Play? :nana:





LuxLuthor said:


> *This is a case of a person only seeing what they want to see, rather than what is actually written.* Let's examine your linked source a bit deeper, shall we? Perhaps the best idea would be to quote the entire article, despite the fact that it was written by an earthquake specialist, which becomes heresay without reference links to what his consulted "experts" actually said.



No this is me raising the point that in some situations (visual peculiarities & light mist) non-white light can be more effectively utilized in fog as a counter to the "no way can't happen ever, it's all just a myth" explanation  




LuxLuthor said:


> Again, we don't know what was actually said in the one [Russian] article, but assuming Mr. Gedney did accurately quote the source, it is stated as diplomatically as possible that some drivers who spent extra to buy yellow fog lights are imagining there may be a benefit so as to not look like an idiot.



Well if that's how YOU wish to interpret the article why did you bother posting the quote from Daniel Stern lighting which included...



Daniel Stern Lighting said:


> So, why do yellow fog lamps seem to work better? It's because of the way the human eye interacts with different colors of light. Blue and violet are very difficult for the human optical system to process correctly. They are the shortest visible wavelengths and tend to focus in front of our eyes' retinae, rather than upon it



Doesn't that actually support the argument for specific yellow light? additionally "peculiarities of vision" could also be interpreted to mean the manner in which one's visual acuity is set apart from another's because of chromosomal differences & not to merely to avoid ridicule  


BTW you over-the-top pretentious sarcasm has been duly noted...


----------



## LuxLuthor (Sep 21, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> Play? :nana:


Yeah, as in "Can Maelstrom come out and play in the rain with me?" I have my yellow hooded rainsuit jacket and pants, superman lunch pail, and snazzy galoshes.



[email protected] said:


> No this is me raising the point that in some situations (visual peculiarities & light mist) non-white light *can *be more effectively utilized in fog as a counter to the "no way can't happen ever, it's all just a myth" explanation



I think the more accurate reading of "can" would best be stated as a tenuous "*may*" depending on the person's "wallet biopsy" involved in justifying the purchased yellow light.



[email protected] said:


> Well if that's how YOU wish to interpret the article why did you bother posting the quote from Daniel Stern lighting which included...
> 
> Doesn't that actually support the argument for specific yellow light? additionally "peculiarities of vision" could also be interpreted to mean the manner in which one's visual acuity is set apart from another's because of chromosomal differences & not to merely to avoid ridicule



I think the emphasis is on *peculiarities of vision*, including the neural pathways that are interpreting what is thought to be seen.



[email protected] said:


> BTW you over-the-top pretentious sarcasm has been duly noted...


Darn, I so tried to be as subtle as a church mouse too.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 21, 2009)

LuxLuthor said:


> Yeah, as in "Can Maelstrom come out and play in the rain with me?" I have my yellow hooded rainsuit jacket and pants, superman lunch pail, and snazzy galoshes.



How come your Mum lets you go out dressed like that? 





LuxLuthor said:


> I think the more accurate reading of "can" would best be stated as a tenuous "*may*" depending on the person's "wallet biopsy" involved in justifying the purchased yellow light.





LuxLuthor said:


> I think the emphasis is on *peculiarities of vision*, including the neural pathways that are interpreting what is thought to be seen.



Just one example of *peculiarities of vision* is shortsightedness which can cause night blindness, Vitamin A deficiency & early onset of cataracts can also manifest as night blindness as well


----------



## Icebreak (Sep 21, 2009)

Two lights of similar lux.

I don't remember the settings but the camera is set to make both beams have terrible color. That's fair isn't it? This is a fairly foggy night. It was rolling in like a big cloud. Nothing at all like the chewier fog that can be experienced on the coasts. Fairly close, like 60 feet or so the tight beamed LED appears to not only keep up with but surpass the incandescent spotlight in lux. However at a greater distance 60 yards (or meters) there is an evening of the competition with an odd phenomenon. 

The bluish LED beam stacks up and makes what appears to be a glowing wall preceding the target. The yellowish Incan beam all but disappears leaving its light almost exclusively illuminating the target.

Here's an inexpensive but overdriven and very tight R2:







Here's an inexpensive non-modified Eveready incan spotlight.






Tight R2 at greater than 60 yards illuminating heavy equipment.






Non-overdriven incan spotlight at greater than 60 yards illumimating heavy equipment.








This is just one example of two lights on one particular foggy night. It may not hold true in all cases. I can tell you that the LED is surprisingly intense but the reflection of the beam in the fog was a distraction for my eyes.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 22, 2009)

Thanks for those shots Icebreak... all competing theories aside, that last shot speaks volumes for Incan Vs. LED operation in foggy conditions, you can see greater detail & colour rendition :thumbsup:


----------



## LuxLuthor (Sep 22, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> How come your Mum lets you go out dressed like that?



Typical mom. She thinks it looks cute.


----------



## defloyd77 (Sep 22, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> Thanks for those shots Icebreak... all competing theories aside, that last shot speaks volumes for Incan Vs. LED operation in foggy conditions, you can see greater detail & colour rendition :thumbsup:



I'd like to see that same setup, but with a neutral Cree instead of the R2. Also take note on how the asperic's beam stays narrow and doesn't scatter whatsoever, but because the objects illuminated are of color that greatly contrasts with a cool beam that's relatively weak in the yellow part of the specturm, it won't be as affective as a beam that doesn't have a deficiency in the needed part of the spectrum. 

It all comes back to my high contrast backscatter theory.


----------



## angelofwar (Sep 22, 2009)

Any thoguhts on the old KL3's??? Anybody had a chance to use one in the fog/foggy conditions?


----------



## FlashSpyJ (Sep 22, 2009)

My experience with lights and fog are not conclusive, but I will tell my story and my choice. First test was the old LumaPower M1 (first edition) and my 9P original (incan P90?)

The M1 kicked the 9Ps ***!! The M1 beam punched through the fog like crazy and would light up stuff far away enough that you could see what it was, while the 9P just lighted up the fog near me. Could be that the M1 beam are alot more narrow than the most incan P90/P60 bulbs.

The other test was the 9P again, with LF bulb think it was the HO-9, the beam shape are alot like SF original, and a 6P w LF led drop in (warmt tint, 3,7V) I spend some time walking around in the fog shining at various objects, near and far, and I would say that it was an absolute tie! The only difference I could see was the color tint they produce. I cant say that either where better than the other. They where equally as good, and the choice between them would be the type of "feel" you get using the incans warm yellowish tint against the some what cool white/blue (compared to an incan) X-files feel tint. 
I decided that night that I would sell the 9P since I didnt feel the need for an incan light anymore, the LED light have better constant output and runtime compared to the incan with the same output (could not tell the difference between the two)
The only advantage I see with an incan light is the color rendition in most weathers, but since the overall advantages of an led light (of course depends on which led light!!!) are better I would take my 6P LF module with me any day in any weather over an incan, hate carrying two rather large lights with be just because the one advantage the incan have on the led.
This is of course with the lights I have and have had, your choice may vary...

To make this post even longer, I would conclude it by saying that I dont know what kind of situation Im going to find my selves in over the day, foggy weather for example or rainy weather, so when I leave the house I will take with me the stuff that I think will handle most of the situations I will end up in. For example I almost always have a all-weather jacket...


----------



## Outdoors Fanatic (Sep 22, 2009)

Icebreak said:


> Two lights of similar lux.
> 
> I don't remember the settings but the camera is set to make both beams have terrible color. That's fair isn't it? This is a fairly foggy night. It was rolling in like a big cloud. Nothing at all like the chewier fog that can be experienced on the coasts. Fairly close, like 60 feet or so the tight beamed LED appears to not only keep up with but surpass the incandescent spotlight in lux. However at a greater distance 60 yards (or meters) there is an evening of the competition with an odd phenomenon.
> 
> ...


Great post!!!


----------



## Icebreak (Sep 22, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> Thanks for those shots Icebreak... all competing theories aside, that last shot speaks volumes for Incan Vs. LED operation in foggy conditions, you can see greater detail & colour rendition :thumbsup:


And on that particular night, no cloud of reflective fog obscuring the target. I thought it was neat how, just standing there, I could not tell what those vehicles were but the photo shows what is clearly an orange Bobcat and a yellow Caterpillar back hoe. The incan picks up more road detail and also picks up an elevated power cable the other light doesn't reveal. If we were Smurf hunting the LED might be just the thing.


----------



## Icebreak (Sep 22, 2009)

Search said:


> A 200 lumen incan and 200 lumen LED would be the best example.
> 
> The incan would make the LED look like a wimp in the fog.


That's similar to what I see.


----------



## Icebreak (Sep 22, 2009)

defloyd77 said:


> I'd like to see that same setup, but with a neutral Cree instead of the R2. Also take note on how the asperic's beam stays narrow and doesn't scatter whatsoever, but because the objects illuminated are of color that greatly contrasts with a cool beam that's relatively weak in the yellow part of the specturm, it won't be as affective as a beam that doesn't have a deficiency in the needed part of the spectrum.
> 
> It all comes back to my high contrast backscatter theory.



The R2 isn't aspheric it's just a very deep and relatively wide reflector producing a rather tight hot spot. If the targets where Mikita Blue or Petty Blue they'd pop a little better but that fog would still be obscuring them. A warmer LED would be an improvement, I think, how much, I don't know. I have doubts that all the reflective fog would be gone like in the incan shot.


----------



## RobertM (Sep 22, 2009)

This has been a very interesting discussion. I think the next time its foggy (quite often here), I'll try out a few lights for comparison. Maybe my LX2 vs M6 with MN15 lamp and also a P60/P60L comparison.


----------



## Icebreak (Sep 22, 2009)

angelofwar said:


> Any thoguhts on the old KL3's??? Anybody had a chance to use one in the fog/foggy conditions?


I carry one night fishing. It's slightly tighter than that Dorcy 220 R2 (1.28A) I've been showing here but it has close to zero spill. I use it because sometimes there are several people around and I just want to spot something without blinding them. I would think with that tight, tight beam it would be OK in the fog.

If it fogs up one night while we are fishing I'll try to get a shot.


----------



## TKC (Sep 22, 2009)

*I had a really foggy night on a highway, and a deer ran into the side of my truck on a highway. I got out with SF G2L, to look at the side of my truck, and to look for the deer. The G2L worked fantastic in the fog. I had originally grabbed the incan G2, but it wasn't working so hot in the fog, I went back and grabbed the G2L.*


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 22, 2009)

LuxLuthor said:


> Typical mom. She thinks it looks cute.


Ah... yes, lets not get onto 'that' topic, can you say corduroy? 




FlashSpyJ said:


> My experience with lights and fog are not conclusive, but I will tell my story and my choice. First test was the old LumaPower M1 (first edition) and my 9P original (incan P90?)
> The M1 kicked the 9Ps ***!! The M1 beam punched through the fog like crazy and would light up stuff far away enough that you could see what it was, while the 9P just lighted up the fog near me. Could be that the M1 beam are alot more narrow than the most incan P90/P60 bulbs.


A quick look at an M1 gives the definite impression of a significantly deeper/narrower reflector than the typically balanced 6P/9P standard fare, not an equally footed comparison but glad you were able to enjoy both the LED & Incan' goodness in the fog! :thumbsup:




Icebreak said:


> And on that particular night, no cloud of reflective fog obscuring the target. I thought it was neat how, just standing there, I could not tell what those vehicles were but the photo shows what is clearly an orange Bobcat and a yellow Caterpillar back hoe. The incan picks up more road detail and also picks up an *elevated power cable the other light doesn't reveal.* If we were Smurf hunting the LED might be just the thing.


Yes I noted that too, considering the compared lights were about the same Lux it was a pretty fair "fight" 




TKC said:


> * The G2L worked fantastic in the fog. I had originally grabbed the incan G2, but it wasn't working so hot in the fog, I went back and grabbed the G2L.*


Did both lights have equally non-depleted cells? :thinking: 



* getting impatient for next foggy night *


----------



## defloyd77 (Sep 22, 2009)

Icebreak said:


> The R2 isn't aspheric it's just a very deep and relatively wide reflector producing a rather tight hot spot. If the targets where Mikita Blue or Petty Blue they'd pop a little better but that fog would still be obscuring them. A warmer LED would be an improvement, I think, how much, I don't know. I have doubts that all the reflective fog would be gone like in the incan shot.



The reflective fog is still there in the incan shot, can you not see it? It's clearly there, especially above the heavy equiptment.

Here's another analogy to further explain what I've been talking about in my past few posts, military camouflage. I have 2 types in mind, the new US Army's ACU http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Combat_Uniform and the woodland version of the Marine MARPAT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marpat. Put the both in a natural enviroment, the cold looking ACU is giong to stand out like a sore thumb, but the MARPAT will look like it's not there, therefore you don't seem to see the camouflage and it's almost as if you are looking right through it. The ACU is like a cool LED and the MARPAT is like an incan, only difference is the camouflages "pixels" are solid so to speak and the fog particles are spaced, allowing one to see what is beyond them.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 23, 2009)

defloyd77 said:


> The reflective fog is still there in the incan shot, can you not see it? It's clearly there, especially above the heavy equiptment.



True but it's definitely less obvious no? 




defloyd77 said:


> Here's another analogy to further explain what I've been talking about in my past few posts, military camouflage. I have 2 types in mind, the new US Army's ACU http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Combat_Uniform and the woodland version of the Marine MARPAT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marpat. Put the both in a natural enviroment, the cold looking ACU is giong to stand out like a sore thumb, but the MARPAT will look like it's not there, therefore you don't seem to see the camouflage and it's almost as if you are looking right through it. The ACU is like a cool LED and the MARPAT is like an incan, only difference is the camouflages "pixels" are solid so to speak and the fog particles are spaced, allowing one to see what is beyond them.



That's a rather long analogy, couldn't we just say our eyes process "the fog" in different ways based on type (frequency/power) of light used? ie. a lower powered (tightly focused) LED will create less back scatter than a honking P7 [email protected] mod, we definitely need to explore this theory of yours further! :thumbsup:


Thus far the proposed advantages in fog appear to be...

* Incandescent light source 
* Lower powered light source 
* Tightly focused light source 

And TKC's G2 LED Vs. G2 incandescent (cell equality not confirmed) anomaly, did I miss anyone? :thinking:


----------



## angelofwar (Sep 23, 2009)

Icebreak said:


> I carry one night fishing. It's slightly tighter than that Dorcy 220 R2 (1.28A) I've been showing here but it has close to zero spill. I use it because sometimes there are several people around and I just want to spot something without blinding them. I would think with that tight, tight beam it would be OK in the fog.
> 
> If it fogs up one night while we are fishing I'll try to get a shot.


 
Thanks, Icebreak! It would be much appreciated!


----------



## lctorana (Sep 23, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> Thus far the proposed advantages in fog appear to be...
> 
> * Incandescent light source
> * Lower powered light source
> ...


Just one thing. There is a school of thought, e.g. yellow's post #38, that favours a higher-power light source.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 23, 2009)

lctorana said:


> Just one thing. There is a school of thought, e.g. yellow's post #38, that favours a higher-power light source.



True but he was concentrating primarily on "no spill"


----------



## angelofwar (Sep 23, 2009)

Thanks for the pic of the pruple fulton filter, maelstrom...I'll still try to get some with some blood in them.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 23, 2009)

angelofwar said:


> Thanks for the pic of the pruple fulton filter, maelstrom...I'll still try to get some with some blood in them.




You're welcome... those shot were only possible because of your host's switch! :thumbsup:

FWIW my LED vampire project puts out way more light than the Fulton on 100% NiMHs with that purple filter fitted


----------



## defloyd77 (Sep 23, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> That's a rather long analogy, couldn't we just say our eyes process "the fog" in different ways based on type (frequency/power) of light used? ie. a lower powered (tightly focused) LED will create less back scatter than a honking P7 [email protected] mod, we definitely need to explore this theory of yours further! :thumbsup:



I will admit it's perhaps a bit lengthy, but it's a pretty simple to understand explaination IMHO. I'm thinking maybe if one were to take beamshots against a non reflective black background, you'd be able to see the fog no matter what tint it is.



[email protected] said:


> And TKC's G2 LED Vs. G2 incandescent (cell equality not confirmed) anomaly, did I miss anyone? :thinking:



This one has me curious, isn't the G2L a more floody beam?:thinking:


----------



## LuxLuthor (Sep 23, 2009)

Ictorana, how did that 4546 two watter perform in your "Welcome to Australia" Red Storm Blitz? LOL!


----------



## lctorana (Sep 23, 2009)

Great question. Would love to know.

Can anyone from NSW or Qld chime in?


----------



## angelofwar (Sep 23, 2009)

Slightly off topic, but kinda relevant...just tried it out last night...the "laser beam" KL3's are USELESS in thick wood's...no periphial vision what so ever...can you say "HELLO tree branch!!!"


----------



## chmsam (Sep 23, 2009)

Forgive an ignorant old fart but I find that it depends on a combination of factors. As someone who has done a lot of driving in fog, working in fog at roadside, and just plain walking around in a fog crackup:) please permit the following observations and questions and whilesome of this applies to headlights it works as well for flashlights in most cases.

Is it a matter of seeing or being seen? I have been in situations where seeing was less important than being seen. Oncoming drivers notice bright glow in the fog better than pencil beams. Seeing a reflector can be easier with one type of light or beam pattern and can be more important than actually seeing down the road or path.

Seeing in the fog with a light depends on several different factors in my experience. If you are driving with pencil beam fog lights that are properly aimed and positioned (mounted low on the vehicle and aimed at a downward angle) that works better for me than an equal amount of light that is either mounted higher on the vehicle or aimed "flat." I know of several people who would even drive with their headlights off and run only with fog lights. Most people who have ridden with them agreed to some degree. However I know of others who insist on high beams and for those people it seems that the ability to not be blinded by the spill and extra lumens is more a matter of their physiology than the lights since people riding with them mentioned it being close to being snow blind. The same things can be said to a large degree about walking in fog (some likea narrow, low angle beam and some like a really bright wall of light). 

Something else to consider -- color (tint and/or temperature) also deals with a matter of contrast. Some situations benefit from perceived changes in the background contrast. For instance, conditions of snow and or fog where seeing the terrain of the road is as or more important than distance comes to mind. If the road is rutted or the ditch blends in with the road (especially nasty in a combo of fog and snow), distance can be a secondary concern and contrast becomes a significant factor. Ditto for walking in fog and snow.

Like most things in life there are more than a few considerations and more than a few viewpoints (literally). People tend to think of light as being used only for aiding general vision and not about it being important so they are able to be seen as well. Additionally being able to see reflectors and discern shapes can sometimes be more important than seeing in detail. 

It's important to consider more factors and to think about things "in three dimensions."


----------



## Wattnot (Sep 23, 2009)

This is a very interesting discussion. I no longer believe that incans are automatically better. Enough proof was shown that less spill will give you more distance in fog. It's also been proven, without fog involved, that incans render objects better. So it would then make sense that incans would be better in fog but I now believe the tighter beam will light up the object more, incan or led. However, what you are looking AT might benefit more from the incan. That could be what is causing this argument to continue.

Next time we get some fog around here, I'm going to take my Tiablo A9 and some incans out and play!

Could one assume that the all of the same things discussed here apply to *smoke* as well? Whatever light source wins for fog could then be considered the best for a firefighter?


----------



## Cataract (Sep 23, 2009)

Amen chmsam, I agree with you 100%. 

I have been with people who said that fog lights where totally useless, others said it was worse than high beams, and met others who prefered them even in light rain. Everyone sees a little differently and what you're looking at (of for) is a very important part of what kind of light you should use PERIOD, fog or no fog.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 23, 2009)

defloyd77 said:


> I will admit it's perhaps a bit lengthy, but it's a pretty simple to understand explaination IMHO.



Yeah, I was just hoping you'd shorten it down a little 





defloyd77 said:


> This one has me curious, isn't the G2L a more floody beam?:thinking:



According to Surefire's website the G2L is 80Lm whilst the G2/6P combo should yield 60Lm (or thereabouts), but I got the impression from the post that the G2 is the primary go to light and hence may see more use than the G2L (thus having partly depleted cells) :thumbsup:


----------



## Icebreak (Sep 23, 2009)

chmsam said:


> BIG SNIP...
> is more a matter of their physiology than the lights
> ...BIG SNIP



Always important and should never be overlooked, yes; totally agree with this.


----------



## xenonk (Sep 23, 2009)

What's all this tomfoolery about tints? The fundamental physics of light scatter are rather adamant regarding the order in which they eat up wavelengths- The light physically interacts with the particles more often at shorter wavelengths. Blues simply won't make it as far as reds before hitting something and rebounding in unhelpful directions. 

That said, there's far more than one factor to consider. Spill bouncing back into your face is definitely a problem if it's to the point of occluding what's past it and wrecking your low light vision. A warm tint doesn't matter much if it fails to punch through anyway. There's also nothing stopping you from powering through with cool light if you've got the chutzpah.

_Unwelcome education_: Wavelength scatter phenomena is also why the sky appears blue. Those wavelengths get scattered and diffuse down to us (also obscuring our view of space) while the warmer wavelengths punch through the atmosphere more directly.


----------



## jankj (Sep 23, 2009)

xenonk said:


> What's all this tomfoolery about tints? The fundamental physics of light scatter are rather adamant regarding the order in which they eat up wavelengths- The light physically interacts with the particles more often at shorter wavelengths.



Water drops in fog (aka "droplets") are way to big for rayleigh scattering to have any effect. 

Rayleigh scattering by *air molecules* is why the clear sky looks blue and the sunset is red.


----------



## xenonk (Sep 23, 2009)

Wow, I completely short-circuited that with Mie scattering somewhere along the way. Probably crossed it with Rayleigh scatter in bodies of water. You are correct, of course.

Which brings up instead contrast being exacerbated by obscurement and backscatter glare, and should have been my first thought...

Nevermind me, I've been up way too long and am clearly not right in the head.


----------



## Cataract (Sep 24, 2009)

xenonk said:


> What's all this tomfoolery about tints? The fundamental physics of light scatter are rather adamant regarding the order in which they eat up wavelengths- The light physically interacts with the particles more often at shorter wavelengths. Blues simply won't make it as far as reds before hitting something and rebounding in unhelpful directions.
> 
> That said, there's far more than one factor to consider. Spill bouncing back into your face is definitely a problem if it's to the point of occluding what's past it and wrecking your low light vision. A warm tint doesn't matter much if it fails to punch through anyway. There's also nothing stopping you from powering through with cool light if you've got the chutzpah.
> 
> _Unwelcome education_: Wavelength scatter phenomena is also why the sky appears blue. Those wavelengths get scattered and diffuse down to us (also obscuring our view of space) while the warmer wavelengths punch through the atmosphere more directly.


 
That's pretty much right on... water, hence humidity, scatters blue wavelenghts (which is why the sunset appears reddish/orange) and therefore a warmer tint should get farther through in fog. Same kind of phenomenon with suspended particles because of the relationship of size of the particles and the wavelenght. However, a flashlight only throws as far a a few hundred meters, not kilometers, so this effect is fairly reduced. I have heard so many different reactions to fog, snow and rain with different types of car headlights that I am lead to believe that everyone's perception is so different in these kinds of conditions that two persons could use completely different types of lights and still think the other one is nuts. 

... Just an opinion, but I think the best way to find out is to wait for the next thickest fog, go out with all your lights and take notes and a few pictures. With a little lick we could start the FOG penetration comparison thread and see what people think out of experience.


----------



## StarHalo (Sep 24, 2009)

- The tint/particle size/wavelength are all irrelevant; if the light interacted with the water particles at all, then you would see a tint shifting over a distance - upon first noticing a car with fog lights, they would at first appear red and then slowly shift to the correct color; this obviously doesn't happen. You can use whatever color you want, but white will have the best rendering/most reflectivity off any given object.

- The thinnest beam on an axis farthest from your point of view will always be the best fog light. The narrower the beam is, the farther it penetrates through the fog, and the farther it is away from your view line will provide the least backscatter. Of your flashlights, choose the one that has the most throw, and hold it away from your body with your arm all extended all the way out to one side - that's your best fog light.

- Because more throw is better, many people perceive incans as being better than other light types in fog; this is because most incans are specifically set up to take advantage of how well an incan bulb can throw. The tiny filament with its very high and compact surface brightness is usually paired with a large reflector, making for a good thrower/fog cutter. But if you compared an LED and incan with identical lux numbers and beam profiles in a fog, there would be no visible difference. A thrower LED will do better in fog than a floody incan.


----------



## Cataract (Sep 24, 2009)

Star Halo,

I kinda agree there, but my experience from last summer has shown that a warmer colored LED light had less of a shining beam effect than a cooler color temperature LED. On two lights of comparable throw and output, I could tell that as much light did hit the trees at a hundred feet or more, but the cooler colored light just had this bright beam I barely could see through. The warmer colored light still had a beam effect, but I could see better through it.


----------



## defloyd77 (Sep 24, 2009)

Great post StarHalo. I forgot to mention that second one, extending one's arm and shining the light at an angle at wherever you need to see, I also feel that not only holding the light to the side works well, so does holding it arm raised upward and shining it downward.


----------



## asdalton (Sep 24, 2009)

I quickly discovered the importance of an off-axis beam when hiking at night in humid conditions. There wasn't much fog, but my breath was condensing and reflecting light back from my headlamp. 

This seems to be the one case where a headlamp falls down in performance compared to a hand-held light.


----------



## TKC (Sep 24, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> Did both lights have equally non-depleted cells? :thinking:
> 
> 
> 
> * getting impatient for next foggy night *


*The batteries went into both lights at the same time, from the same box of SF batteries.*


----------



## Sub_Umbra (Sep 24, 2009)

Well put, StarHalo.


----------



## yellow (Sep 25, 2009)

doh, normally fog season is starting now, here.
Sitting around with XR-E (P4) 18650 and Streamlight Scorpion 18650 - to have lights of comparable _everything_ - and those adhesive discs to put on after the "with spill" shots ...
... and there is no fog whatsoever


----------



## lctorana (Sep 25, 2009)

yellow said:


> doh, normally fog season is starting now, here.
> Sitting around with XR-E (P4) 18650 and Streamlight Scorpion 18650 - to have lights of comparable _everything_ - and those adhesive discs to put on after the "with spill" shots ...
> ... and there is no fog whatsoever


No sealed-beam lantern? You're still playing in second division.


----------



## Cataract (Sep 25, 2009)

asdalton said:


> I quickly discovered the importance of an off-axis beam when hiking at night in humid conditions. There wasn't much fog, but my breath was condensing and reflecting light back from my headlamp.
> 
> This seems to be the one case where a headlamp falls down in performance compared to a hand-held light.


 

I found that the Fenix headband can fix that problem rather well... just put your flashlight on the downwind side of your head and you're set to go


----------



## Linger (Sep 25, 2009)

Cooler / blue white light is the worst.
My P7 out on a foggy night lights up a huge swath and nearly the entire beam is visible as a cone of white coming out the front of the torch.
Consider, what 'colour' is fog, anyway? During daylight / dusk when sunlight is still available fog appears white (not red, not green). Water vapour, visible in the form of steam rising from a hot kettle, appears white.
And so it holds that a redder, warmer light (incan, warm tint led), when used on in dense fog, reveals more of the surrounding landscape.
Lastly, a cool emitter in one hand, a warm emitter in the other, the 'cool' appears as a cone coming from the front of the torch, the warm has some beam visible in the fog, but in truth if you only use the incan / warm tint it just you'll swear the fog has lifted. Until you fire up the cool tint again.

Lots of time in the woods / on the water
-Linger


----------



## defloyd77 (Sep 25, 2009)

Linger said:


> Consider, what 'colour' is fog, anyway? During daylight / dusk when sunlight is still available fog appears white (not red, not green). Water vapour, visible in the form of steam rising from a hot kettle, appears white.
> And so it holds that a redder, warmer light (incan, warm tint led), when used on in dense fog, reveals more of the surrounding landscape.



White reflects any and ALL colors, be it red, green warm white or cool white. I'm not sure where you are trying to go with this one.


----------



## fiorano (Sep 26, 2009)

Linger said:


> Cooler / blue white light is the worst.
> My P7 out on a foggy night lights up a huge swath and nearly the entire beam is visible as a cone of white coming out the front of the torch.
> Consider, what 'colour' is fog, anyway? During daylight / dusk when sunlight is still available fog appears white (not red, not green). Water vapour, visible in the form of steam rising from a hot kettle, appears white.
> And so it holds that a redder, warmer light (incan, warm tint led), when used on in dense fog, reveals more of the surrounding landscape.
> ...


Linger, please read all the posts in this thread. Spill versus Throw is important.

You are using a P7 which is pretty much a floodlight so color becomes secondary to its beam pattern. Floods are _not _the best choice for fog.

Your warm/cool tests are not necessarily valid especially if you have your P7 in one hand and a thrower in the other. Again, beam pattern makes a difference and you need to factor that in to your warm/cool comparisons.


----------



## Linger (Sep 26, 2009)

Has no-one stopped when driving down a foggy road, pulled over, and gone for to urniate? The 4-way hazzard blinkers show some fog around the car but you'd think it lifted. Get back in, restart the car, and as the headlights come on you're back in the blinding white.



fiorano said:


> Spill versus Throw is important.


given - both were floody lights. I acknowledge and agree with your point, its not the issue i'm contending.



defloyd77 said:


> White reflects any and ALL colorsQUOTE]
> 
> Yes, as does fog. It reflect red or blue if that is shone at it, but it seems to reflect white the brightest of all.
> I verified this last night by the lake with two mc-e's (cool blue and more vanilla) **This isn't a cool / warm debate, just that my cool tint was 'more white' then my warm tint. IMHO there is a degree of white that fog is the most efficient at reflecting, and as one moves away from that tempurature the reflection is less and less intense
> ...


----------



## MCFLYFYTER (Jan 3, 2010)

no other beamshots? Maybe I will go out and take my first ever beamshots. Wish me luck. Gota love that Tule fog.
:toilet:
Don't mind the guy on the crapper. I had never noticed it before, and thought it was funny.


----------



## MCFLYFYTER (Jan 3, 2010)

Not happening. I have no idea how to take a pic through fog. I could see better with my m60, but I could identify objects further with the p60. It is also not very foggy. I wonder what peoples definition of fog is. Around my parts, it is considered dense if you have to look out the drivers window to see the road. I just realized a few years ago that not everyone has the pleasure of driving in tule fog. Some of the views I have read can't be speaking of very dense fog.


----------



## Neo9710 (Jan 3, 2010)

How much is there a difference between fog and smoke?


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 4, 2010)

Neo9710 said:


> How much is there a difference between fog and smoke?



Fog & mist are created by water particles smoke is not, excessive light spill will behave similarly in both mediums 


Additional information can be found in this thread here... Best light to cut through smoke :thumbsup:


----------



## Sub_Umbra (Jan 4, 2010)

Neo9710 said:


> How much is there a difference between fog and smoke?


Quite a bit. They are composed of different things and have different properties.

In usage the term *fog* will imply something heavier than smoke and it will become denser and denser the closer you get to the ground (because it is heavier than clear air.) Smoke is heavier than air also but it behaves differently than fog because it may exist over a much wider range of temperature. Hot smoke rises away from the cooler air near the ground and will continue to rise until it cools to the point where it reaches thermal equilibrium.

Smoke is more complex chemically (and varied) than fog is and will reflect and refract light differently according to what it is made up of.

In the context of *Display* and *Theatre* the two terms are often used interchangeably which muddies the water a bit. The truth is that they have dramatically  different properties and designers and technical directors who need a certain effect must know the difference and implement the right one to get what they want. Theatre/Display also has a hybrid called *cooled smoke* which is smoke generated from a conventional smoke machine and then passed through *dry ice* to severely chill it so that when it's deployed it will retain some of the properties of both smoke and fog. It resists rapid dissipation because the liquid it's made from is formulated with that in mind and yet it is cold enough to flow on the floor like fog -- for a while, anyway.


----------



## Magic Matt (Jan 5, 2010)

I have taken photographs in fog with a flash. If the flash is on the camera, for get it, you just get a white haze.

The secret is to mount the flash away from the lens, as close to your subject as possible, with a sharp cut-off so that as little fog near the lens is illuminated.

With a flashlight for walking, following this principle, you actually want the beam aimed low towards the ground, and a cut-off shade to stop any of the light beam shining upwards. This results in you seeing far more of the ground, and your view is not obscured by the fog in front of your face being illuminated.

Colour makes no difference at all in my experience (which admittedly is more with flashes and colour filters than flashlights). What makes the biggest difference is the angle of the beam.

Car foglights are designed to case a bar-shaped beam and not to shine light upwards at all - some even cut off at -5 or -10 degrees from the horizontal. This gives maximum visibility on the road.

You can make ANY torch, even a cheap supermarket one, perform far better in the fog by making a shade out of a piece of card to stop the beam scattering upwards and securing it with an elastic band. I have had to do it before in an emergency, and it worked far better than expected. Try it - you may be surprised at just how much difference it makes.


----------



## cloggy (Jan 6, 2010)

I have a LumaRay 6 with an additional head specifically designed for fog- I don't know why but it works far better in fog than the original head supplied.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 12, 2010)

cloggy said:


> I have a LumaRay 6 with an additional head specifically designed for fog- I don't know why but it works far better in fog than the original head supplied.



According to the manufacturers' "blurb" :thumbsup:

- The optical lens is impregnated with an enhanced fluorescent
pigment. The fluorescent pigment is excited by using a white,
blue, or near UV LED light source to produce the fluorescent
yellow light color necessary for the task. The optics then further
concentrate the color intensity and the light altogether. With the
right mixture of fluorescent dye, it will produce a fog light with a
yellow color light stream (~570nm) that improves vision in poor
weather conditions during DAYTIME or NIGHTTIME.


----------



## Icebreak (Jan 12, 2010)

Seriously? Wow. That is fascinating. It's especially fascinating because I distinctly remember a few discussions that entertained adjusting light spectrum with fluorescence. Unlike a filter that subtracts and only subtracts this would absorb-adjust-add. Hugh. How about that? And just when I was getting a little board.

Thank you, [email protected]

[Edit] Oh, goodness, I see Phil Lui's post from 2007 explaining it. [/Edit]


----------



## Juggernaut (Jan 13, 2010)

lctorana said:


> No sealed-beam lantern? You're still playing in second division.


 
Wow, good read. I had no idea that this thread was still alive, after much reading I still have not seen any comparisons between old school sealed beam technology and modern LEDs. Let me see if I can shed some light on the issue. During the foggy season of my little rural town we often “almost every night” get some pretty bad fog up here “like when you can’t see 20 feet in front of you. I can tell you that such lights like the Tiablo A9 with collimator can not compete with the likes of the H7550 bulb. People must also understand that while the narrower the beam is, the better it cuts through the fog, aspheric LEDs can’t even compete with a properly built low wattage sealed beam bulb. The A9 aspheric produces a “230 L” 4.5 degree beam while the H7550 makes a 3x3 degree “150 L” beam, that’s much smaller. Also as I’ve stated above, once you get to a certain output “at least with cooler tints” you can not get any more range with more light. Example, with my Tiablo I went to one of the many local fields in my area, it is exactly 304 yards long. On a clear day I can easily light up the other side with my A9, but on a foggy day no matter how I hold the A9 “even as far away as my arm will let me, my line of sight will always intersect the very intense beam of light and obscure my view:shakehead. This technique does work at closer ranges, but not at 250+ yards. The 8 watt H7550 on the other hand could be held at eye level and I could see clearly through the beam and see the trees on the other side of the field. Take what you will from my observations, but that’s what I could see “and couldn’t”.


----------



## Linger (Jan 13, 2010)

that is good Juggernaut, but imho it confirms the established point that light scattered close to your eyes illuminates the near fog and hides distant object.
A tightly focused light is better.

Does it go beyond that? Are there light sources (thus wavelengths) reflect less off fog?
This would really require the same set-up with different tints (for example if you just over-drove a bulb to increase colour temp and see if whiter is worse, by-product is increased lumen output so its an unclear test)


----------



## Magic Matt (Jan 14, 2010)

I asked a friend of mine who works in the merchant navy about this. He came up with some interesting points.

First of all, he says Fog isn't white, it's slightly blue. Apparently red doesn't reflect as much as blue. In bad fog, they may turn off any white lighting "on-deck".

There's also a prism effect that splits the light. The yellow light stays relatively on-axis compared to blue that is scattered more off-axis, so because yellow stays more on-axis it "cuts through" more.

This makes sense to me, but I can't find any references to backup this info.


----------



## Cataract (Jan 14, 2010)

Magic Matt said:


> I asked a friend of mine who works in the merchant navy about this. He came up with some interesting points.
> 
> First of all, he says Fog isn't white, it's slightly blue. Apparently red doesn't reflect as much as blue. In bad fog, they may turn off any white lighting "on-deck".
> 
> ...


 
Reference or not, it makes a lot of sense and it's exactly the kind of information we need to take the experiments with fog to the next level.

I read somewhere (in a TK20 manual or papers that came with the red filter ?????) that red cuts through fog better. It _is_ reflected less by the fog as I could experiment for myself, but a red filter is just that : a way to reduce the output from your light, so all I can say for sure about that is that mt TK20 or TK11 R2 could light up at the same distance with the red filter on, fog or no fog (which isn't all that far to start with). 

The next level, IMO, would be to have a yellow, red and an orange emitter and see which of the three fares the best. I'm even willing to modify one of my own lights if anyone could recommend a good LED for the purpose. It might take a while before I see some fog again, mind you...


----------



## Magic Matt (Jan 14, 2010)

It would be cheaper, and quicker, to use a neutral white LED and try some cheap photographic filters. You can usually find "Cokin" type filters cheaply, since a lot of photographers are dumping them since going digital.


----------



## Juggernaut (Jan 14, 2010)

Next time, it’s foggy I’ll experiment with the “yellow” fog lens that came with my Oracle. Sadly the Oracle is not a very narrow beam orientated light, but for now I figure I’ll use it on high with the filter and low with out, that way hopefully the light out put will be similar “not the same I’m sure” but closer with the filter and with out. I’ll also try the filter with the Tiablo A9 to see if that may help at all. Though again it’s not exactly fog season right now.


----------



## OceanView (Jan 14, 2010)

Magic Matt said:


> he says Fog isn't white, it's slightly blue.


Interesting, I hadn't thought of that. But it makes sense since underwater, blue is the wavelength that can penetrate to the deepest depth.


----------



## Sub_Umbra (Jan 14, 2010)

While *very minor* differences in fog penetration _may_ exist between different beam tints I find it hard to believe that the disparity is great enough to make any *usable difference* in the *real world* -- in particular when compared to beam shape.

To put it another way, the differences in beam shape performance is so great that I doubt very much that a floody beam even of the *optimal tint* for the penetration of fog would outperform nearly any other color of equal power in a tight, tight beam shape with no spill held on the target nonparallel to the line of sight.


----------



## Cataract (Jan 14, 2010)

Magic Matt said:


> It would be cheaper, and quicker, to use a neutral white LED and try some cheap photographic filters. You can usually find "Cokin" type filters cheaply, since a lot of photographers are dumping them since going digital.


 
The problem with filters is that you usually loose a lot of light, depending on the color of your lens and the spectrum emitted by your flashlight. I'm suspecting that yellow or orange filters might give a much more interesting result than red filters with neutral lights



Juggernaut said:


> Next time, it’s foggy I’ll experiment with the “yellow” fog lens that came with my Oracle. Sadly the Oracle is not a very narrow beam orientated light, (...)


 
I have been trying to get rid of spill lately by making a simple paper tube that I slide onto my flashlight... it works to a certain degree, but if you make it too long you then loose some intensity in the spot as well. Maybe you could try that and see if it makes any difference. We don't get much fog here, especially in winter, so it might take a while before I can try it myself...


----------



## asdalton (Jan 14, 2010)

Magic Matt said:


> There's also a prism effect that splits the light. The yellow light stays relatively on-axis compared to blue that is scattered more off-axis, so because yellow stays more on-axis it "cuts through" more.



That's true for a single refraction (as with a rainbow), but the reason that fog obscures vision is that you have multiple reflections and refractions that scatter light in random directions. This random scattering will negate the slight differences in the bending of different colors of light scattering from any single droplet.


----------



## Juggernaut (Jan 14, 2010)

Cataract said:


> I have been trying to get rid of spill lately by making a simple paper tube that I slide onto my flashlight... it works to a certain degree, but if you make it too long you then loose some intensity in the spot as well. Maybe you could try that and see if it makes any difference. We don't get much fog here, especially in winter, so it might take a while before I can try it myself...


 
Yes I may try that:thumbsup: or one of the other “spill reducing” ideas mentioned earlier in the thread, however even with little side spill the Oracle 35 watt still produces low lux when compared to some of my other lights, again for example the H7550 easily out throws it with only >150 lumens.


----------



## DM51 (Jan 15, 2010)

Best flashlight in the fog? Well, I know a Barnburner is NOT much good, lol. I've just taken delivery of one and I've been keen to get out and get some beamshots... but it's been solid FOG here for the last few days. Shine a big light like this into fog, and it's like hitting a white wall.


----------



## Linger (Jan 16, 2010)

DM51 said:


> I've been keen to get out and get some beamshots... but it's been solid FOG here for the last few days. Shine a big light like this into fog, and it's like hitting a white wall.



Sounds perfect!
Maybe break out 'The Moderator,' some M6 configurations, a few [email protected] mods as well. Ideally one or two dozen led's of similar configurations but different tints.


----------



## Magic Matt (Jan 17, 2010)

asdalton said:


> That's true for a single refraction (as with a rainbow), but the reason that fog obscures vision is that you have multiple reflections and refractions that scatter light in random directions. This random scattering will negate the slight differences in the bending of different colors of light scattering from any single droplet.



Are you sure it wouldn't accentuate it?

I wish I had some different coloured lasers to try, it would be interesting to see how they are affected by fog from a side-profile beam shot.


----------



## Icebreak (Jan 20, 2010)

Icebreak said:


> Two lights of similar lux.
> 
> I don't remember the settings but the camera is set to make both beams have terrible color. That's fair isn't it? This is a fairly foggy night. It was rolling in like a big cloud. Nothing at all like the chewier fog that can be experienced on the coasts. Fairly close, like 60 feet or so the tight beamed LED appears to not only keep up with but surpass the incandescent spotlight in lux. However at a greater distance 60 yards (or meters) there is an evening of the competition with an odd phenomenon.
> 
> ...



This GIF may or may not serve to illustrate the distracting nature of the reflective light the fog returns to an LED source as opposed to how the fog reacts to a very similar incandescent source.


----------



## alpg88 (Jan 20, 2010)

easiest way ,get a auto fog light kit, hook it to a 12v battery, that is it.
you could also change a bulb for lower wattage, so you have longer runtime


----------



## defloyd77 (Jan 20, 2010)

alpg88 said:


> easiest way ,get a auto fog light kit, hook it to a 12v battery, that is it.
> you could also change a bulb for lower wattage, so you have longer runtime



Not quite, where are we going to mount them? On our shins?


----------



## alpg88 (Jan 20, 2010)

defloyd77 said:


> Not quite, where are we going to mount them? On our shins?


use your imagination, be creative, :duh2:
i made few lights from automotive lights, back in the days when there was not much else to work with, it came out not bad at all, turned out to be handy searchlights.
todays kit lights for cars a lot more lighter and smaller. you don't have to use led acid or nicd batteries, now there is a lot more possibilities,
another question is it the best way??? idk , but one thing is for sure lights will be made specifically for fog


----------



## Magic Matt (Jan 21, 2010)

Icebreak said:


> This GIF may or may not serve to illustrate the distracting nature of the reflective light the fog returns to an LED source as opposed to how the fog reacts to a very similar incandescent source.



There is no way that those light sources could be considered 'similar'. One is blue, the other is orange, and we already know that beam colour is a factor. To do a valid comparison, you need two light sources that are at least almost the same colouring. Blue tinted incans are crap in fog, unless you're deliberately trying to light a beam into the sky.


----------



## Icebreak (Jan 21, 2010)

They are both tight beams with similar intensity or lux. Of, course they are not the same. One is LED. The other is incandescent. And the bluish one is not a blue incandescent.


----------



## Magic Matt (Jan 21, 2010)

Icebreak said:


> They are both tight beams with similar intensity or lux. Of, course they are not the same. One is LED. The other is incandescent. And the bluish one is not a blue incandescent.



I think you missed the point somewhat.

You have only hit 2 out of the 3 requirements for a valid test.

Very similar, or identical, beam patterns - Pass, just.

Very similar, or identical, measured brightness in the beam - Pass.

Very similar, or identical, colour temporature and tint - FAIL

The comparison is not valid unless the tint is the same, because the tint makes a large difference to how well the fog is penetrated. Cool white lights sources are crap in fog, regardless of whether they are incan, LED, HID, or glow-in-the-dark alien urine.

If you take two IDENTICAL LED flashlights, one with a warm white, and one with a cool white, the warm white penetrates more and looks better. That's an undeniable easily observed fact. Comparing a cool white LED and a warm white incan doesn't prove anything outside of what we have already observed - warm white is better in fog. A cool white incan would in all likelyhood look just as bad as a cool white LED.


----------



## Icebreak (Jan 21, 2010)

1.) As can be seen in this thread, opinions very unless they are ignored.
2.) It ain't just tint.
3.) What you see is what happens in reality with real flashlights.
4.) Go do some real world "valid" beam shots of your own and get back to us.


----------



## defloyd77 (Jan 21, 2010)

alpg88 said:


> use your imagination, be creative, :duh2:
> i made few lights from automotive lights, back in the days when there was not much else to work with, it came out not bad at all, turned out to be handy searchlights.
> todays kit lights for cars a lot more lighter and smaller. you don't have to use led acid or nicd batteries, now there is a lot more possibilities,
> another question is it the best way??? idk , but one thing is for sure lights will be made specifically for fog



Keep in mind what automotive fog lights are for and where they are mounted, way below eye level.

You know, I'd love to see some comparison shots of blue objects in the fog using cool tinted LED's, neutral LED's and incans. These shots on here so far are an unfair comparison as warmer tints already have the advantage of making those colors pop out when there isn't fog.

Beamshots with say a blue house being lit up with each type light could very well prove my previously mention "high contrast backscatter" theory. If my theory is correct, the warmer tinted will have greater contrast with the blue house than the cool tint, which will give the same effect of the pictures in this thread.


----------



## Magic Matt (Jan 21, 2010)

This is not intended to be personal critisism of you, or any sort of attack on your credibility. I am merely trying to inject an element of scientific analysis and criteria, which is what is needed to actually answer the subject of this thread. Unfortunately, that means you have to be somewhat clinical in analysis, and whilst your efforts are appreciated, the gathered evidence isn't up to drawing much by way of conclusions.

1) Not quite sure what you're trying to say there... if it's that we have different opinions, then I dispute that slightly, although I realise some may consider it a pedantic point. We have different *theories* as to what makes a good flashlight for use in fog, but ultimately *only valid and scientific experimentation will yeild a difinitive answer.* 

2) I never said tint was the _only _affect, but introducing such a massive flaw into the experiment from the outset just makes any conclusions you draw open to massive interpretation. I am well aware that CRI is also a factor, but a cool white tinted LED will have a massively different CRI to a warm white tinted one anyway, so that just adds more credibility to disputing the comparison. There's actually enough of a difference in your beam shape there to also affect clarity, but the most noticable factor is the beam tint - I would say the incan actually has a dark spot in the centre, which may possibly mean that the target is illuminated more from scattered light than it is direct light. If you want to draw a conclusion as to a particular parameter, you need to reduce all the other factors to virtually zero - your two shots have quite a few differing factors, so you can't conclude it is down to one factor. We already know tint as well as beam shape makes a large different, so both need to be eliminated to refine the tests and further our understanding. Another factor which unfortunately is beyond control is the density of the fog... is there a way to measure that?

3) We need proper comparisons as a frame of reference, yes. Photographs with the camera on the same settings for both are a good start, providing the light sources are comparable. I have already stated why, in this case, the comparison lights aren't close enough in real world output to draw much of a conclusion. 

4) I don't have enough light sources to do many comparisons, but I do have a camera with proper colour calibration setup from an industry recognised Kodac colour chart at all ISO and Shutter combinations with the different lenses I use. I also have access to a 'dark site' where there is virtually no light pollution present. I would be more than happy to do beamshots in cooperation with somebody who could provide flashlights. The biggest issue I would have is actually that we get very little fog in controlled conditions - it tends to be somewhat unpredictable! There seems little point in me posting beamshots of a common flashlight in commonly occuring conditions on this forum, there are already plenty if you use a search.


----------



## defloyd77 (Jan 21, 2010)

Magic Matt said:


> 2) I never said tint was the _only _affect, but introducing such a massive flaw into the experiment from the outset just makes any conclusions you draw open to massive interpretation. I am well aware that CRI is also a factor, but a cool white tinted LED will have a massively different CRI to a warm white tinted one anyway, so that just adds more credibility to disputing the comparison. There's actually enough of a difference in your beam shape there to also affect clarity, but the most noticable factor is the beam tint - I would say the incan actually has a dark spot in the centre, which may possibly mean that the target is illuminated more from scattered light than it is direct light. If you want to draw a conclusion as to a particular parameter, you need to reduce all the other factors to virtually zero - your two shots have quite a few differing factors, so you can't conclude it is down to one factor. We already know tint as well as beam shape makes a large different, so both need to be eliminated to refine the tests and further our understanding. Another factor which unfortunately is beyond control is the density of the fog... is there a way to measure that?



This is exactly the point I am trying to prove (I'm not doing to well at it, insomnia has that effect), that tint creates an illusion that the warm light shown in these pictures "cuts" through the fog better than cool tint, but simply the warm tints already have an advantage over cool at illuminating yellows, browns and greens over cool tints. Add to that illuminated fog that either "blends in" with the background(warm tint) or radically contrasts with the background (cool tint).

Okay I'm thinking way too hard on how to explain my theory  Let's try this, the fog is there, no matter what kind of light you use, there is simply no magic way to see through it, all the warm tints are doing in these pictures is "camouflaging" the fog. Taking a picture of a cool LED against a blue background will have this same camouflaging effect.


----------



## Cataract (Jan 21, 2010)

defloyd77 said:


> Not quite, where are we going to mount them? On our shins?


 

Screw them on top of the steel toes of your boots!


----------



## defloyd77 (Jan 21, 2010)

Cataract said:


> Screw them on top of the steel toes of your boots!



DUDE!!! THAT'S GENIOUS!!!


----------



## Magic Matt (Jan 21, 2010)

Love it Cateract! If you mounted an LED directly to the steel toecap, you could use it as a heat sink and it would keep your toes warm in the cold too! :tinfoil:


----------



## alpg88 (Jan 21, 2010)

defloyd77 said:


> Keep in mind what automotive fog lights are for and where they are mounted, way below eye level.


 damn, you right, i never thought about that.


----------



## Outdoors Fanatic (Jan 21, 2010)

Magic Matt said:


> This is not intended to be personal critisism of you, or any sort of attack on your credibility. I am merely trying to inject an element of scientific analysis and criteria, which is what is needed to actually answer the subject of this thread. Unfortunately, that means you have to be somewhat clinical in analysis, and whilst your efforts are appreciated, the gathered evidence isn't up to drawing much by way of conclusions.
> 
> 1) Not quite sure what you're trying to say there... if it's that we have different opinions, then I dispute that slightly, although I realise some may consider it a pedantic point. We have different *theories* as to what makes a good flashlight for use in fog, but ultimately *only valid and scientific experimentation will yeild a difinitive answer.*
> 
> ...


 

Dude, your assumptions are so absurd that even Baghdad Bob thinks you are full of fecal matter.


----------



## Magic Matt (Jan 21, 2010)

Outdoors Fanatic said:


> Dude, your assumptions are so absurd that even Baghdad Bob thinks you are full of fecal matter.



There are ways to disagree with what I posted. Quoting it all then violating forum rule 4 probably isn't it. As a long term member, surely you know that?

If you think my statements are so absurd, then pleae by all means sensibly point out why. Don't flame me just because my reasoning doesn't fit with yours.


----------



## Icebreak (Jan 21, 2010)

Magic Matt said:


> If you want to draw a conclusion as to a particular parameter, you need to



What you don't understand is that I'm not doing "the" experiment or "your" experiment. I don't need to do anything. I got up off the couch and did a beam shot comparison in the fog. I was there. I know what it looked like and it looked like the photo. In the real world. Where one gets dirt on one's boots.



Magic Matt said:


> - I would say the incan actually has a dark spot in the centre, which may possibly mean that the target is illuminated more from scattered light than it is direct light.



OK. I'll address this because it is interesting. There is no hole. That's an optical illusion. I know because I own the light. I know because I understand the illusion. Take my photos. Make a Gif. Extend the duration of the LED beam and the non-existent hole will appear greater on the incandescent beam.

If there was a hole in the beam, increasing the thresholds on the photo would detect it. It's simply not there. I can tell you that I've had these type discussions many times before and it's not uncommon for people to get a certain notion and no matter what you show them they won't change their minds. Often they'll find a fault in everything presented that opposes their notion. It's important to realize that and to respect....well I could go on but I won't.


----------



## Magic Matt (Jan 21, 2010)

Icebreak said:


> I got up off the couch and did a beam shot comparison in the fog. I was there. I know what it looked like and it looked like the photo. In the real world. Where one gets dirt on one's boots.



Perhaps there is some misunderstanding here due to differences in the way we use language - when I say "What you need to do" I don't mean you specifically, I mean anyone. It's a common use of phrase, particularly in southern England (UK) - I'll have to try and make sure I don't use that phrase in future.

My issue is that you seem, to me, to be using the shots as a way of saying that LEDs don't work as well as Incans - the beams are too different to draw that conclusion because, as I tried to point out originally, a blue incan may be as bad as the blue LED, and we know that warm LEDs perform better than blue ones. We know this from going outside when it's foggy and trying it.



Icebreak said:


> Take my photos. Make a Gif. Extend the duration of the LED beam and the non-existent hole will appear greater on the incandescent beam.



You're right - there is no hole. What seems to be revealed is that the LED was directly on the back of the plant machinery, but the incan beam was significantly above it. I have observed on my walks that this makes quite a difference.

An interesting thing happens if you move the hotspot... I realise this is not particularly accurate way of doing things, but...









Icebreak said:


> I can tell you that I've had these type discussions many times before and it's not uncommon for people to get a certain notion and no matter what you show them they won't change their minds.



I can assure you I am not one of those people. I'm not a fan of a particular technology over another. What I want to do is find the answer as to why some lights are better than others. I can't accept this...



Icebreak said:


> This GIF may or may not serve to illustrate the distracting nature of the reflective light the fog returns to an LED source as opposed to how the fog reacts to a very similar incandescent source.



There are just too many other factors which explain why the shots are different over and above the type of emitter. What I originally thought to be a hole in the beam looks to be a different target position, slightly different in shape, and the colour tint is quite different. If the same test could be done by somebody using light sources that were much closer to each other, it would reveal more. They definately need to be much closer to begin with to draw any conclusion about whether it's down to using an LED over an incan.


----------



## Icebreak (Jan 21, 2010)

Oh, great googley moogely, stop it Magic Matt. You're killing me over here.You photoshoped my photo and overylayed darkness on top of the equipment in the incan shot and now the powerline is going through the equipment. AWE SOME! 

Again, I was there. As I've already described, the beams were aimed at the equipment. What you are seeing is where the reflection from the fog begins to stack up. It is less severe with the incan and begins sooner in the beam in what appears to be above the equipment due to perspective. This perspective is because the beam is generated from just above the camera. The reflectivity is not very heavy and this allows the rays, which can appear to be almost invisible in comparison to the visible beam, to hit the target causing a good image return. The fog reflection is more severe with the LED and stacks up later in the beam blocking the target.

Photoshopped darkness on top of my target...thanks for the laugh. :laughing:


----------



## LuxLuthor (Jan 22, 2010)

I have the definitive answer on this question, after giving my US Navy lamp with the sealed GE 4546 bulb a good test since it had been previously suggested.

However, this thread has too many negative vibes going on to wade in now. What I want to know is who the heck is "Baghdad Bob" that O.F. mentioned? :wave:


----------



## Icebreak (Jan 22, 2010)

Agreed.

In a more pleasant and mutually edifying direction here is some food for thought that should be somewhat palatable for all. This is not the first time words very similar to these have been posted: 

Possibly the most important component of our flashlights and torches is the actual light that is thrust out of them. What that light does to illuminate its objective target in the way of returning an image to us is important enough to be the basis of many of our discussions. One of my favorite subjects to learn about is light itself. What creates it, how it acts and reacts, its intensity, its power and how it is defined are aspects of light that fascinate. Of great interest to me is the spectral components of a beam of light. The different frequencies or colors present in different light beam emissions can greatly effect the imagery or information returned to the user.


* Here is a **mildly entertaining, somewhat annoying "test"*. The answers are provided for ease of reading.

*1)** Environment:* Fair to poor office lighting.

Would light from a blue LED peaking near 470 nm help or hinder in reading small print?

Answer: 

It depends on the individual. Some people report that it blurs the print and hurts their eyes, some report there is not much difference, still others report a significant increase in their ability to read small print. One legally blind individual reported being able to retain their job which required reading small print simply by employing the use of a blue LED torch. He could not perform this function without the aid of blue Inova even with powerful glasses.

* 2) Environment:* Low ambient lighting during a stage presentation such as a play.

Would light from red LEDs peaking near 625 nm spotting the target character help or hinder in defining the image of the target character?

Answer:

It depends on the individual. Some members of the audience will experience little effect in definition; others will notice a slight blurring; still others will notice some increase in definition. What most audience members will notice is a different definition rendition as well as a different depth rendition in comparison to everything else on the stage. These two differences highlight the target character and set that target character apart almost as much the obvious difference of the red color.

One individual reported that they were so visually impaired that they could barely navigate in low ambient light situations without the use of both a powerful blue light and a powerful red light used simultaneously. They designed and used a head mounted dual LED device to successfully satisfy this need.

* 3) Environment:* Woods/Forest at night, clear sky, away from population and no moon.

Would light from a cyan LED peaking near 505 nm help or hinder vision in the area of defining the target image?

Answer:

It depends on the individual. Some individuals report that they lose so much color rendition that they feel almost bewildered. Others report a preference for cyan in this environment due to its definition of target capability as well as its particular color rendition capability. With effort, individuals can train their eyes/vision processing to take advantage of the aspects some wavelengths afford. 505 nm is one of those wavelengths.

* 4) Environment:* Woods/Forest at night, clear sky, away from population and no moon.

Would light from a royal blue LED peaking near 455 nm help or hinder vision in the area of defining the target image?

Answer:

It depends on the individual. Some individuals report a blurring effect; others nothing; others reported that it was pretty. One individual reported that he could read distant signs he could not possibly read without royal blue light returning the image. Other individuals substantiated this report with their own real world investigations.

*5) Environment:* Jewelry store, low to no lighting.

Which frequency of light is best for causing diamonds to fluoresce?

Answer:

380 nm. 395nm will work also. However not all diamonds fluoresce. Some diamonds fluoresce different colors. If a yellowish diamond fluoresces blue, the effect could be strong enough to mask the yellowish tint when viewed in a jewelry store's fluorescent lighting. You might be surprised by the diamond's true color when you look at it at home under different lighting. The reverse is true for diamonds that fluoresce yellow. They can appear more white under incandescent lights, but acquire a yellowish tint in ultraviolet light. A strong yellow fluorescence bring diamond prices down, sometimes quite a bit, since yellowish tinted diamonds are generally less desirable than whiter stones. A blue fluorescence can help increase the prices of diamonds with yellowish tones.


* 6) Environment:* Low ambient lighting during a stage presentation such as a play.

Which of these colors of light would be easiest to hide from the audience on non-target backgrounds; blue 470 nm, red 625 nm, cyan 505 nm or royal blue 455 nm?

Answer:

blue 470 nm.

* 7) Environment:* Medical diagnosis.

Which color of light would be best for diagnosing subdermal vascular anomalies; blue 470 nm, red 625 nm, cyan 505 nm or royal blue 455 nm?

Answer:

red 625 nm. One specific instance is where 625nm/660nm is used in oximetry. 910nm IR is used in tandem in oximeters for attaining a ratio of absorption differential between the two (red and infrared) frequencies.


*8) Environment:* Woods/Forest at night, clear sky, away from population and no moon. 

What color of light is best for tracking blood?

Answer:

The discussion continues among folks all over the world in many different venues. Some individuals report blue works for it’s absorption properties. Some individuals report that red works for its reflective properties. Some individuals report that a strong warm/white LED works very well while still others report that incandescent light is best for them.


* 9) Environment:* World.

Which personal lighting tool is better for rendering diverse target images; LED or incandescent?

Answer:

It depends on the target and possibly more importantly it is dependent on the individual observer. All perspectives are valid.

*
Opinionated Commentary*
 
Each individual has unique optical capabilities. Each individual has unique image processing capabilities. For a moment, couple all the above mentioned light frequencies and their different renditions of different targets with the fact that individuals see images differently. All those colors. All those targets. All those eyeballs. All those brains. One would think it would be a simple logical step forward to accept that one type of light is better for one person’s interpretation of a target image and a different type of light is better for another person’s interpretation of a target image. My observations indicate to me that it is in fact not such an easy logical step.

I think I may know why. It has to do with what is right before your eyes. We instinctively trust our vision for survival. What we see must be correct because we are seeing it. Now that might be considered to be empirical evidence. Add to that varying degrees of knowledge of light. From here the individual might submit that what works for them does so because of scientific fact. Since the preference is evidenced empirically _and_ is supported by scientific fact, the preference might be considered to be an absolute. It’s not. It's their perception. 

This is the complicated part of the pot of ingredients that can produce enthusiastic discussions and sometimes those discussions can cook up to produce quite a spicy dish of conversational fare. 

And there’s more. One very interesting fellow has let me know (and I now agree with him) that people can train their eyes to use different types of light to enhance the information they receive from an image. Further he contends and I agree, that individuals can train their light processing capabilities and can even recalibrate their processors using different techniques not limited to but including simple concentration.

These words I’m using to attempt to make a point may or may not be of use. Let’s try another question. Is a blue LED the best choice for reading a map? Why, of course not. The best light for reading a map would be incandescent. No wait. The best light would be warmish white LED outputting exactly 28 lux. Maybe not. Remember that legally blind fellow who’s job depended on his ability to read small text and this task could only be accomplished by enhancing the target with a blue Inova? He doesn’t care what color the interstate is. He just wants to know _where_ I-40 West is. Now if he and I were in a “save the world” scenario and he was the guy that had to cut the correct wire on the bomb before the timer reached zero, I might be inclined to hand him an incandescent light for its color rendition capability. A better choice for me, if time allowed, would be to ask him which light he would prefer for the task at hand. In this case his opinion makes a world of difference to me.

Like many, I have certain lighting preferences for different tasks.

While night fishing I prefer to use a tiny LED torch to tie lures, a no-spill TIR LED torch to spot the fish the guy twenty feet from me just pulled on shore and a powerful incan torch to see if that's a small branch or large snake floating in the water. Not everyone will prefer my choices. Individuals see images differently and process those images differently. If a fellow tells me he has no problem identifying an un-moving, mostly submerged cotton-mouth water moccasin at 30 feet out using an LED flashlight I’m inclined to believe his choice is best for him despite my own personal empirical evidence or my somewhat limited grasp of the science of light.

Is it possible that in a given environment and while targeting a given object, that one type of flashlight emitting a particular class of light beam might truly be more useful to some people while a different type of flashlight emitting a different class of light beam might truly be more useful to other people?


----------



## Sub_Umbra (Jan 22, 2010)

That was one heck of a post, Icebreak. Lots of ground covered. I would add that many fail to realize the importance of an individual's ability to concentrate in any challenging visual situation like fog to mention just one.

In a group, concentration may take one person beyond his visual acuity alone. I've personally seen this happen over and over. Med students are often taught relaxation techniques to help them center themselves while sussing out subtle details when viewing x-rays. 

The same is also true of hearing.


----------



## Magic Matt (Jan 22, 2010)

Icebreak said:


> Oh, great googley moogely, stop it Magic Matt. You're killing me over here.You photoshoped my photo and overylayed darkness on top of the equipment in the incan shot and now the powerline is going through the equipment. AWE SOME!



Glad I gave you a laugh - I was beginning to worry you were getting genuinely angry! LOL! I used the "light source shift" filter that came in a pack of 'Astronomy Tools'. I did say it wasn't a very good way of doing it. 

What I was trying to point out is this....





This time I just did auto-levels ... quick way to find the hotspot basically.
Height A ... Height B ... it looks like the incan was pointing considerably higher and lighting the equipment with the spill, whereas the LED didn't have much spill so the main point of the beam was on the equipment.

You are sure it wasn't... ok - I have probably been inept at highlighting that, and I apologise for that, but I don't think anyone would argue that it's just not what it _looks like _in the photos.


Thank you for the massive post full of info - there's some great stuff there I will have a go at myself too. 




LuxLuthor said:


> I have the definitive answer on this question, after giving my US Navy lamp with the sealed GE 4546 bulb a good test since it had been previously suggested.
> 
> However, this thread has too many negative vibes going on to wade in now. What I want to know is who the heck is "Baghdad Bob" that O.F. mentioned? :wave:



Bagdad Bob was the Iraqi (dis)Information Minister in the most recent Iraq War. He was most famous for trying to insist they had the American infidels on the run from their troops, when the reality was very different. I think you can even get a DVD of his quotes - it's supposed to be quite funny. Of course there's a double negative there in that if Bagdad Bob thinks you're lying, you're probably telling the truth... 

If I'm causing too many bad vibes then I most certainly apologise and I will stop posting in this thread. I wanted to take part in the debate and try to find the answers, not upset people. I will keep following the thread and not post again unless I'm invited to, as that would seem to be the best solution.


Please, LuxLuthor, post your information.


----------



## Icebreak (Jan 22, 2010)

Sub_Umbra said:


> I would add that many fail to realize the importance of an individual's ability to concentrate in any challenging visual situation like fog to mention just one.



I've seen that happen also and agree that it's important to remember.



Sub_Umbra said:


> In a group, concentration may take one person beyond his visual acuity alone. I've personally seen this happen over and over. Med students are often taught relaxation techniques to help them center themselves while sussing out subtle details when viewing x-rays.
> 
> The same is also true of hearing.



I hadn't heard of this but it makes sense. Thanks for bringing that knowledge.


----------



## Icebreak (Jan 22, 2010)

Maybe think of it like this, Magic Matt. You know that when you point a light into the sky you can see a beam. It's intensity has much to do with the atmosphere. But what you should have observed is that your light can illuminate past the visible beam. That's what you are seeing is the end of the visible beam as reflection stacks up as a return image. It appears to be the end of the visible but the angle takes the remaining illuminating rays straight to the target and causes a useful return image to be reflected back. 

In the incan shot you have the fog being mildly reflected back but the target is nicely returning an image as the flashlight is pointed directly at it.


----------



## Cataract (Jan 22, 2010)

LuxLuthor said:


> I have the definitive answer on this question, after giving my US Navy lamp with the sealed GE 4546 bulb a good test since it had been previously suggested.
> 
> However, this thread has too many negative vibes going on to wade in now. What I want to know is who the heck is "Baghdad Bob" that O.F. mentioned? :wave:


 
I think the way things are going here, the trend is that there are no "definite" answers, but I'm sure willing to try anything that works great... I personally find that if somethig works great or at least much better than average, it's a solution that is worth my attention, at least until the day I accidentally stumble on something that works a little better, but not just slightly better. A little better is often noticeably better, but slightly better for the same investment or more is not satisfyingly better. Apparently that flashaholics tend to look for "perfect", which in this case, due to the nature of the phenomenon at cause would be to actually "hide" the handicapping problem is unfortunately impossible without hiding more than just the problem, but also the very thing that the solution is trying to highlight as well (translation: if you want to hide the fog completely, close your eyes).


----------



## ACHË (Jan 25, 2010)

Well...

Looks like I just got in with yet another answer to this one.

I just got back from a 3 day camping trip in the "foggiest" mountains of my islands rainforest.

I'm talking fog so thick you can cut it with a knife!

2 people

4 flashlights (_I had 4 of them on me_)

6 bumpy muddy miles in the pitch black dark with more fog than one would ever want.

Two of the lights EXCELLED at this:

*
EagleTac T20C2

Raidfire Spear
*

They are both throwers and ultimately that's what you need to pierce the fog. With these lights we could see about 30~50ft in front of us depending on the eternally changing thickness of the fog; and because of the moderately wide spill(which only travels 3~4 feet in fog like that) we could see the ground in front of us and could watch our step.

These two lights are nothing special in terms of beam quality so I'm sure others with similar beam patterns will work out just fine. 


Other lights we had:

Floody P7 / MC-E's = fail

*all you see is a massive white ball of fog that ruins your night vision

Aspheric = fail

*you can see futher; but not THAT much and; cant make out where you are stepping unless you aim at the floor in front of you, but of course, the intense spot will make you loose your night vision.


Keep in mind that this is just my experience in outdoor hilly, muddy, wet, windy conditions for winding trails that are full of ditches, cracks, limbs and 10 foot falls all around. 

For urban fog walking, perhaps other lights will work better.


----------



## Juggernaut (Jan 28, 2010)

LuxLuthor said:


> I have the definitive answer on this question, after giving my US Navy lamp with the sealed GE 4546 bulb a good test since it had been previously suggested.
> 
> However, this thread has too many negative vibes going on to wade in now. What I want to know is who the heck is "Baghdad Bob" that O.F. mentioned? :wave:


 
He never got back to us? He must be lost…. Gazing at the mighty sealed beam bulb, worshiping it’s superiority:naughty:. Don’t be amazed when you see the market place get flooded with all of his lesser lights, for he now understands the greatness of the 4546:duh2:! On a realistic note: I’d like to see what you found Lux.


----------



## StandardBattery (Jan 30, 2010)

LuxLuthor said:


> I have the definitive answer on this question, after giving my US Navy lamp with the sealed GE 4546 bulb a good test since it had been previously suggested.
> 
> However, this thread has too many negative vibes going on to wade in now. What I want to know is who the heck is "Baghdad Bob" that O.F. mentioned? :wave:


 
_*"Definitive"*?_

I presume this would come with pictures... and you're not sharing? 

*We can handle the truth, so spill it... *the is always plenty of fog for a rematch if anyone feels it is necessary.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 21, 2010)

LuxLuthor said:


> I have the definitive answer on this question, after giving my US Navy lamp with the sealed GE 4546 bulb a good test since it had been previously suggested.




Well this thread should have "cooled off" sufficiently by now to resurrect, I'm extremely curious as to your "findings" LuxLuthor, care to share now?


----------



## saabluster (Sep 21, 2010)

[email protected] said:


> Well this thread should have "cooled off" sufficiently by now to resurrect, I'm extremely curious as to your "findings" LuxLuthor, care to share now?



Agree. Certain people who were of issue haven't even been back to CPF since February. Oh oh Please Please Please LuxLuthor?


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Sep 22, 2010)

I think that we should let "sleeping threads lie".

Bill


----------



## saabluster (Sep 22, 2010)

Bullzeyebill said:


> I think that we should let "sleeping threads lie".
> 
> Bill


So are you suggesting another thread be started? The OP posted a very valid question that "needs" to be answered with some real world data. I would like to see what the answer is even though I have an idea of what it will be. There has been some not so well chosen words in this thread but I don't see why we can't have a happy ending. Hmm..then again something tells me people will just argue ad-nauseum regardless of what proof ol Luxypoo gives.:shrug:


----------



## Sgt. LED (Sep 23, 2010)

Be careful about asking for a happy ending.
Could get you arrested........


----------



## saabluster (Sep 23, 2010)

Sgt. LED said:


> Be careful about asking for a happy ending.
> Could get you arrested........



I keep getting the feeling I missed something. Something bad happened here but I guess I'm too dumb to see what.:shrug:


----------



## HooNz (Jun 12, 2011)

Search said:


> On a foggy night I took my TK11 R2, single-mode E2DL, and stock G3 into the corn field behind the house. There was no corn.
> 
> It's probably 120 - 140 yards to the other side.
> 
> ...


 
How dare you NaNa me when the NaNa is not in the center of this widescreen Lcd :wave:


----------



## Fusion_m8 (Jun 13, 2011)

This morning I went for an early dawn walk and took both my cheap DX warm(2800K) & cool(6000K) MC-E lights out for a walk in the fog. I'd have to agree that a a warm LED beats a cool LED hands down in the dark, foggy and wet conditions. The cool white LED just washes out everything and produces too much glare, the warm LED doesn't glare my vision as much and provides much better depth perception and colour rendition. Sorry, but my vote has to go warm LED or incand for this one.


----------



## Kingfisher (Jun 13, 2011)

chmsam said:


> Forgive an ignorant old fart but I find that it depends on a combination of factors. As someone who has done a lot of driving in fog, working in fog at roadside, and just plain walking around in a fog crackup:) please permit the following observations and questions and whilesome of this applies to headlights it works as well for flashlights in most cases.
> 
> Is it a matter of seeing or being seen? I have been in situations where seeing was less important than being seen. Oncoming drivers notice bright glow in the fog better than pencil beams. Seeing a reflector can be easier with one type of light or beam pattern and can be more important than actually seeing down the road or path.
> 
> ...



The only sensible post in a sea of fog.

Too many posts here with people not seeming to know what they're talking about.

For finding say, your house in the fog, a Surefire 6p would be better than a really bright LED? If you want to be seen in fog use bright red like cars rear end?


----------



## DM51 (Jun 13, 2011)

Kingfisher said:


> For finding say, your house in the fog, a Surefire 6p would be better than a really bright LED*?* If you want to be seen in fog use bright red like cars rear end*?*


Why the question marks?


----------



## Kingfisher (Jun 13, 2011)

DM51 said:


> Why the question marks?



To see if anyone agrees


Do you think they need to be removed ??????????????????????????????????????????????


----------



## DM51 (Jun 13, 2011)

Kingfisher said:


> To see if anyone agrees*.*
> 
> Do you think they need to be removed*?*


The two sentences were constructed as statements, not questions. Question marks were therefore inappropriate. If you want to ask a question, please make sure it *IS* a question. 

Errors in punctuaton can cause confusion, especially where question marks are used to ape the annoying new trend of using a rising cadence at the end of a statement.


----------



## Cataract (Jun 13, 2011)

Beamshots in the fog

Looking at these pictures, it becomes obvious that too much light will just not show anything for the user, but would help being seen from a good distance. 

Kingfisher: I have done some experiences with a TK11, TK20, TK40 and a red filter on the TK11. The red filter gave the best results, but the reduced output made it hard to really se well around 100 yards. I did not have a good incan back then, but I'd say the best results would lie somewhere between an incan with a red to orange filter. Derek Dean said he would test a bunch of colored filters back on that other thread, which i brought up to see if he has any results.


----------



## Kingfisher (Jun 13, 2011)

DM51 said:


> The two sentences were constructed as statements, not questions. Question marks were therefore inappropriate. If you want to ask a question, please make sure it *IS* a question.
> 
> Errors in punctuaton can cause confusion, especially where question marks are used to ape the annoying new trend of using a rising cadence at the end of a statement.


 
..... at least I can spell "punctuation" 

Tea anyone?


----------



## Fusion_m8 (Jun 13, 2011)

Ok, but it seems you don't know how to use it! 



Kingfisher said:


> ..... at least I can spell "punctuation"
> 
> Tea anyone?


----------



## Kingfisher (Jun 13, 2011)

Fusion_m8 said:


> Ok, but it seems you don't know how to use it!



Try to see the humour (English spelling) and stop being a teachers pet. You are supposed to put my quote above your reply BTW - it's a bit confusing to read the reply first.


----------



## DM51 (Jun 13, 2011)

Kingfisher said:


> ..... at least I can spell "punctuation"


LOL, fair point. Cheap keyboard...


----------



## Fusion_m8 (Jun 13, 2011)

You need to grow up and pull your thumb out...

Coffee anyone?




Kingfisher said:


> Try to see the humour (English spelling) and stop being a teachers pet. You are supposed to put my quote above your reply BTW - it's a bit confusing to read the reply first.


----------



## Ian2381 (Jun 13, 2011)

Hi, I moded my Romisen RC-29 (Flood to throw) to direct drive using 14500 battery and warm Cree LED. Will this set up be able to penetrate fog? On my last Mt climb, even my bright Solarforce L2 R5 with smooth reflector can't penetrate the thick fog.


----------



## mvyrmnd (Jun 14, 2011)

All I know is my floody High CRI lights allow me to see better than my pointy cool lights... I'm not really smart enough to explain why.


----------



## DM51 (Jun 14, 2011)

Kingfisher said:


> ... stop being a teachers pet





Fusion_m8 said:


> You need to grow up and pull your thumb out...


Rule 4 beckons if this type of post continues...


----------



## Fusion_m8 (Jun 14, 2011)

I guess we have to leave that to the scientists, we have lots of the homemade ones here on CPF apparently.



mvyrmnd said:


> All I know is my floody High CRI lights allow me to see better than my pointy cool lights... I'm not really smart enough to explain why.


----------



## Kingfisher (Jun 14, 2011)

I'm looking to try a few things out when it gets foggy - don't seem to get the 'pea soupers' here anymore like we did when Sherlock Holmes was knocking about.


----------



## HooNz (Jun 16, 2011)

1st post in this Fred , its been a good read .

Last night we had Fog and recalling this discussion i opened the front door and poked out the XML-T6 Ho out there pointing at a small tree/bush about 40m away and around 15ft diameter.
It was a fairly bright night due to the Moon being up and the tree/bush being very faintly highlighted from the back-ground (could just see it with eye no torch) , to my surprise on MAX the tree and everything disappeared due to the bounce-back , tried high then medium and it was the same , i was very disappointed , i thought low would get there by then but nope! , then lighted up the 5d halogen and YEP , could see the tree/bush and bounce back was far reduced.

Please do not even bother with the beam/focus/intensity routine as i have tried a few over the months and noticed the same .

I have noticed this same phenomena on clear nights when one would think just by the feel that there is no humidity/moisture about , LED's are a good indicator if any sort of moisture is in the air with bounce-back , without a LED i would have never known that there was/is and i thought i was a fairly good judge for humidity and dry nights clear or not , but they show up something that seems to be floating about , and with smoke i would guess it would be even worse , even just smell-able smoke , imo.


----------



## buds224 (May 6, 2013)

Bump to see if there are any other opinions (newer developments) about Flood vs. Tight Beam & Color Temperature advantages in the fog.


----------



## davidwestonh (May 7, 2013)

angelofwar said:


> Any thoguhts on the old KL3's??? Anybody had a chance to use one in the fog/foggy conditions?


Anyone have pictures of kl3 to fit in the review section?
were these special use or edc?
anyone have a close up of the lense?


----------



## maoku (May 8, 2013)

XML T5-5C 3700-4000k


----------



## kaichu dento (May 11, 2013)

Very interesting thread to see opened back up again and I'm hoping to get a chance to do some comparisons here sometime soon.


----------



## BenChiew (May 12, 2013)

I am equally interested to find out if technology has provided a solution for those foggy conditions.


----------



## Ian2381 (Jun 12, 2016)

Any update on this thread? Been looking to build a light with XPL Hi warm led(having a hard time finding one though) to be used during Mt hiking/climbing. Thanks


----------



## recDNA (Jun 12, 2016)

Isn't green supposed to be good in fog? Surefire has some greenish led. Maybe only cuz they"re too cheap to put good ones in.


----------



## lumen aeternum (May 11, 2017)

Another bump. Now that we have throwers with multi-thousand Lumens; seems to be little in a fog-cutting pencil beam being made; certainly not much advertised as such.
Wonder if you can buy a true yellow LED to duplicate the headlight color?


----------



## yellow (May 12, 2017)

> yellow Led


do You mean yellow light as in car headlights in the last millennium?
And think that this were a plus in regard to _fog_?
then I have a slight update: wrong!

proof: easy --> with a survival of the fittest standpoint: do You see a single car running yellow headlights now?


*to "fight" fog ... get rid of any spill light*, that is what blinds


----------



## lumen aeternum (May 12, 2017)

Yea I read the whole thread about colors & Rayleigh Scattering etc.
But a yellow flashlight would be cool.
And if my car is the only one with yellow lights, it will be noticed by other drivers. So safer for me.


----------



## jacksmith69 (May 13, 2017)

Aren't warmer colors better suited? Or am I missing something??


----------



## bykfixer (May 13, 2017)

recDNA said:


> Isn't green supposed to be good in fog? Surefire has some greenish led. Maybe only cuz they"re too cheap to put good ones in.



Green by SureFire is the new cool white. When you absolutely positively have to completely blind a bad guy, do it with a kinder/gentler cool white.

Nah, seriously I see Toyota SUV's have a slight green tint in the beam of the headlight. It allows a brighter bulb to be used but isn't seen as harsh to oncoming motorists and is apparently better at cutting through darkness in late night, dew-ey conditions (or in rain) without self blinding the driver when their lamps reflect off roadsigns or wet objects. 

Why Sure does it? I dunno.


----------



## jorn (May 13, 2017)

yellow said:


> do You mean yellow light as in car headlights in the last millennium?
> And think that this were a plus in regard to _fog_?
> then I have a slight update: wrong!
> 
> ...


That s no proof. Cars are not designed to only drive in fog. Most of the time the weather is nice. A rain jacket is not better than a normal jacket in rain. Proof. most of the jackets you see pepole wear, are not rainjackets


----------



## scs (May 13, 2017)

I recall reading that reducing the spill beam is one key to see better in fog. The spill gets reflected by nearby particles, effectively creating a bright foreground, thus causing your pupils to shrink and you don't pick up the light in the distance as well. Also cool and warm tint scatter just the same; the Rayleigh principle doesn't apply given the typical fog, rain, or snow particle sizes. Everything else aside from tint being equal, the same amount of cool and warm light gets bounced back. Our eyes are just more sensitive to cooler tints, so we see more of it. The warm bounce back is there in the same amount, but our eyes don't see as much of it. As a result, everything else being equal, warmer tints effectively allow us to see better in fog, rain, and snow. That's my takeaway. Awaiting any valid corrections.


----------

