# DEFT Aspheric Shootout - Part 2 Now Up !



## LuxLuthor (Oct 31, 2008)

*DEFT Shootout Part 1 - The Clear Lens*


In some ways, this DEFT shootout is a followup to my previous Aspheric Mag Shootout here.

Let me start this review with the money shots, then I'll add some other details in 2nd post.

I used this field, but mainly the 865' backround trees, and dirt infield. 


 .......................... 



I used these lights, with their abbreviations on each photo:







In all outside shots from left to right are in the following order (but not all lights used in every shot. Yes, 2 lights in above image are out of order used outside):


*XeRay* - 75W HID "BarnBurner"
*KD *- KD drop-in Q5 with KD Aspheric Lens. Buck Boost w/ 4xAA
*Mac *- Cree Xre P4 with DX Aspheric Lens. Direct Drive w/ AW 18650-P
*Led *- Ledean Cree Xre P4 with Melles Griot *01LAG123*. w/ AW C Li-Ion
*Deft-R* - DEFT with R2, clear lens, w/ 4xAA
*Deft-Q5* - DEFT with Q5-WC, clear lens, w/ 4xAA
*Ellie *- Elephant HID (FiveMega) WA Solarc HID w/ 3 x 18650
*MaxaB *- Gen 3 MaxaBeam High & Low beams used
 *Canon Powershot S45* used in Daylight White Balance with exposure times between 1.5 to 10 seconds and F-Stop between 5.0 & 8.0. I further adjusted brightness in Paintshop for better viewing, since this shootout is intended to be simultaneous comparison with other lights.

As always, beamshot images do not capture actual appearances, but this shootout was designed to give relative comparisons. For example, the cooler/blue colors do not look that blue or strikingly brighter. Note the detail of the tree leaves on blowup of various lights to see amount of actual illumination projected. It appears to me in images, and in person that the R2 is not as bright as the Q5-WC, but the R2 has a slightly warmer color which contributes to this result.

I did not take any shots with diffusion lens, as I thought I would see what feedback/questions these shots raise. I may be able to try other shots on another night. It was about 30 F last night, and at some point, my fingers said "ENOUGH!" Also, if some of you are astutely looking at my image file naming, the missing numbers were too underexposed to use or duplicates. Most of these were shot with 10sec, F-8, ISO 100, AWB-Daylight....but that was wayyyy too little exposure, despite camera LED displaying captured image as looking good. Hence, I had to use Paintshop brighten tool so you can see relative comparisons within an image. 


*Lights shining at baseball infield dirt to show colors, focus, sizes of patterns:*_*

 

*_​*
All lights focused on far tree line. Note that KD/Mac/Led Aspherics barely visible on trees. These show the best comparison of DEFT vs. old Aspherics:*_*

 

*_​* 
DEFTs Alone & vs. MaxaBeam *_(far right image is MB High Mode)_*
*_*

 

 

*_​* 
BarnBurner Rains on DEFT Parade:*_*

 

*_​


----------



## LuxLuthor (Oct 31, 2008)

*Re: DEFT Aspheric Shootout*

*DEFT Shootout Part 2 - The Diffuser Lens*

This post now reviews the DEFT components, overall features, & new comparisons when diffuser lens is used. The diffuser lens puts the DEFT in a more conventional flashlight category.

Again, let me put the money shots up front, and DEFT features will be at the end of this post. *I used the same setting and camera location for all shots.* No adjustments have been made to these photos from one light to the next.

*Camera Info*: Canon Powershot S45 Manual Mode, AWB-Daylight, ISO-100, Exposure-5 sec, Aperture-F6.3, Resolution-2272x1704 (no optical zoom).

*Light images are in this order below.* All DEFT's are with diffuser lens. All Mag Mods are with tightest hotspot focus & minimal artifacts. Lights directed at trunk branches just below evergreen needles. Main evergreen is 18 yards (16 meters), and back fence is 24 yards (22 meters) away. All images are clickable thumbnails.


*DEFT-R2*
*DEFT-Q5-WC*
*DEFT-MC-E*
*DEFT-Q2-5A*
*DEFT-Rotating Gif *of all 4 above pills
*Mag85*-FM's 2" Deep Reflector in 3D Mag, direct drive with 3s3p 17500 Li-Ion
*Mag66*-MOP Reflector in 1D Mag. AWR Hotdriver regulated @ 12.58V with 4s 14670 Li-Ion
*Mag1331*-FM's 2" Deep Reflector in 1.5D Mag, direct drive with 3s 17670 Li-Ion
*SF-M6* stock with MN-21 bulb & 6xSF123a cells
*Mag66*-FM's 2.5" Turbo Reflector in 1.5D Mag. AWR Hotdriver regulated @ 12.58V with 4s 14670 Li-Ion
*Mac's Mini-Mag with P4* warm U-bin Seoul LED, direct drive with 1 x C Li-Ion. (Tailcap Switch).
*Elephant HID*. Original model with 10W WA Solarc Ballast. Made by FiveMega & Mac
*JetBeam III Ti Pro* LED on maximum
*SF-L2* LED on high mode


*The Parade of Lights in Post #2*

​*The 4 Pills of DEFT:*

 





 

​*Rotating Gif of 4 DEFT Pills:*


​*The DEFT Diffuser Lens Competition:*

 

 





 

 






 

 

​*Overall DEFT Features/Review:*Initial size impression upon receipt is the DEFT looked like a 1D Mag with an original FM Elephant 3" head. Body, tailcap, & head are all matching black, with minor knurling/grooves that are more cosmetic than useful. Fenix strap attached to build-in tailcap recessed eyelet. I have a concern about the Fenix thread/loop being strong enough for long term use, so would recommend being careful or replacing with heavier duty strap. It stands up smartly on its quality custom carbon fiber extended bezel, giving about 1/4" of clearance of lens surface from countertop. 

It has a nice weight/balance in the hand. Actual weight with batteries is 1lb 2oz (0.5kg). Simple thumb on/off rubber booted switch with reliable feel. Black coating appears as a simple type of HA coating on aluminum tailcap, body, & head. No defects or scratches are seen.

Carbon fiber extended bezel is essential to avoid scratching this optical grade epoxy if stood up. *Do Not Try To Save $$$ By Skipping The Carbon Fiber Extender !!! *The carbon fiber is apparently glued to stock aluminum bezel, and on careful inspection this is much higher quality work than I expected. You can see the seam, but only if specifically looking hard to find it. The weaving is symetrical and even. There is a heavy duty outside coating that will hold up to a lifetime of ordinary use.

The entire light fits in a typical winter jacket or sweatshirt pocket, but I wish it had a soft cap to fit over bezel to give extra dust/scratch protection for lens. I will likely apply some of my Pachmayr "Pac-Skin" around body to give better grip and insulation from cold winter, as stock surface seems a bit slippery.

My first real concern before getting light was about the quality/clarity/durability of the optical grade epoxy lenses. I had an image in mind of those K-Mart plastic toy magnifying lenses, but these are suprisingly better than I had expected. While obviously not comparable to optical-grade, quality glass lenses, the extreme magnification function of DEFT setups forgives its limitations (as evidenced in above shootout images).

Close inspection and holding lens up to a light source reveals a few, very tiny (< 0.5mm) suspended air bubbles, and a few minor skuff/superficial scratches on underside of clear lenses. I emphasize that these are VERY minor and do not appear to have *any *effect whatsoever on the projected beam (not even on a whitewall). Overall on gross inspection, the lens looks almost like glass.

This epoxy is not a soft or impressionable type plastic. It actually feels quite hard & durable, but not as strong, clear, or polished as optical glass. *Remember, this was a cost/availability, intentional tradeoff, and I believe it is more than acceptable, with one caveat--Be careful to not scratch, abrade, or damage lens surfaces, as it is not glass.* 

Since I have two sets of lenses for each light (one clear/one diffuser), I am going to look for some type of soft protective pouch for storage of spare lens. The diffuser lens has a very fine frosted surface pattern on base side that looks like a frosted/etched glass panel.

The battery holder is one of the higher resistance, cheap plastic type of 4xAA holders with both +/- contacts on inside end of holder. With a regulated driver, I don't have a big concern with this holder from a resistance standpoint. The tailcap does not make any battery contact, and it threads on smartly to hold battery pack in place. 

The driver assembly uses battery holder contact points with simple springs (similar to the the cylindrical spring in a ball point pen), and should be adequate for long term use in this low amp LED application.

The pill design is one of the strong points in the DEFT. Given the power of the aspheric clear lens throwing result, the changeable pill and/or diffuser lens are unexpected bonuses. In other words, when you see just the clear lens aspheric throw, I feel that makes this worth the price alone. 

These additions give an easy way to upgrade/re-configure your light as technology changes. 4 metal screws hold copper heatsink in place, and JST type 3 pin connector (1 pin is ignored, but helps with alignment and gripping) is easy to remove/replace with needle nose pliers. It took me 2-3 mins to interchange the pills. The parts are well machined and wires secured. I'm not sure if the bare copper will oxidize over time, but that would likely be a cosmetic issue.

One of my few valid criticisms of the DEFT is the shallow threads between body and head. Unscrewing that joint is extrememly difficult, and most will prefer removing bezel and lens to get at LED pill. Part of the problem is that saabluster used a slightly large O-Ring that makes the joint very tight and even more difficult to reconnect head and body. It will be very likely that you will damage these few, shallow threads by frequently separating the head from body. The work around is to remove the bezel instead.

I was also reminded of why I have switched exclusively to St. Claire's Nano-Lube when getting the black/gray lubricant all over my hands from unscrewing pieces. First thing I did was clean it all off and re-lube with the nano oil. This O-ring and aluminum contaminated lube also gets all over the white spacer ring that is above the lens (see photos below). 

I suggested to saabluster that he consider spraypainting this plastic spacer ring with some black enamel so it didn't look so dirty upon inspection...whereupon he told me it had glowpowder coating on it. Indeed it does, but I do not believe that idea is worth the effort or appearance. Most of the glow comes from the LED mounting epoxy.

I should remind everyone that I am very picky, and look at all the small details more than most people. Overall, the only issue of all the points above that impacts functionality in a significant way is the bad threading/fit of body with head. 

*None of the other things I mentioned above is a significant, practical issue that affects what you want the DEFT to do.* There was a conscious choice to keep costs down, so while this does not have the total package top-to-bottom quality maching of something you would expect from Mac, McGizmo, Data, etc., *the DEFT leaves you feeling like you got more than your money's worth*. 

I made my impression and appreciation known by immediately ordering a third light after getting these two. Excellent overall performing, functional, and adaptable light, saabluster !
​*Size & comparisons to other lights.*

 

 



 

 ​


----------



## choppers (Oct 31, 2008)

*Re: DEFT Aspheric Shootout*

Great pictures Lux!! Thank you for taking the time.


----------



## saabluster (Oct 31, 2008)

*Re: DEFT Aspheric Shootout*

Wow! You are putting it up against some heavy competition. That maxabeam is just unbelievable. Can't wait to see the rest of the pictures and get your comments on it all. Thanks for your hard work!


----------



## LuxLuthor (Oct 31, 2008)

*Re: DEFT Aspheric Shootout*

OK, let me pause after having all of initial set of photos for questions, feedback. If I did another set of shots using the Diffuser Lens, it would give a more apt comparison vs. Incans/Ellies? I do have some other LED lights, M4, M6, etc.

Saabluster, I used the one you sent me with clear lens and R-2, and then with other DEFT, I removed the MC-E and Diffuser, and put in the Q5-WC & other clear lens. I was thinking the R2 would have been notably brighter. Both had freshly charged same brand AA NiMH's.


----------



## DM51 (Oct 31, 2008)

*Re: DEFT Aspheric Shootout*

Just found this thread. It is a great comparison, Lux - an amazing line-up. I think for most people, the important shots are the Defts vs. the "old" aspherics, and the Defts are easy winners there.

I'll move this to the Reviews section.


----------



## brighterisbetter (Oct 31, 2008)

*Re: DEFT Aspheric Shootout*

Thanks for this thread Lux. For a while there I couldn't understand what all the hype was about regarding the Maxabeam.....now I get it :bow:
Simply amazing.


----------



## Aircraft800 (Oct 31, 2008)

*Re: DEFT Aspheric Shootout*

Thanks for the in-depth review Lux!

In this shootout, The DEFT is CLEARLY the longest throwing LED Flashlight. You never mentioned anything about the fit, finish, craftsmanship of the DEFT as compared to others, it is truly one-of-a-kind.


----------



## choppers (Oct 31, 2008)

*Re: DEFT Aspheric Shootout*



Aircraft800 said:


> Thanks for the in-depth review Lux!
> 
> In this shootout, The DEFT is CLEARLY the longest throwing LED Flashlight. You never mentioned anything about the fit, finish, craftsmanship of the DEFT as compared to others, it is truly one-of-a-kind.


I have the Black HA and the CF Bezel is a seemless look/fit. Mike trully did a fantastic job on this light. I am looking forward to the many other products the he offers here. (The Black Tie)


----------



## Bonky (Oct 31, 2008)

*Re: DEFT Aspheric Shootout*

christ that maxabeam looks like it's going to set the trees on fire!


----------



## TITAN1833 (Oct 31, 2008)

*Re: DEFT Aspheric Shootout*

There's my fav light again "THE BB" setting fire to the trees lol,thanks for posting this Lux


----------



## I came to the light... (Oct 31, 2008)

*Re: DEFT Aspheric Shootout*

Wow, great comparison :thumbsup:

Before now the barnburner was just a thought in the back of my head. But wow, that is amazing output! 

The DEFT really does live up to the hype. It decimated the other LEDs.


----------



## Patriot (Oct 31, 2008)

*Re: DEFT Aspheric Shootout*

Lux does it once again!  Great pictures and review. I've been very interested to see how the DEFT did against the 52mm aspherics and your pictures clearly demonstrate the difference.



P.S. If you happen to take a few extra pictures could you take a few close ups of the DEFT. I'm curious about what you think of the light regarding the build quality.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Oct 31, 2008)

*Re: DEFT Aspheric Shootout*

Thanks for comments. I really have not done the review of the DEFT details, workmanship, pro's/con's yet. I'll be posting it in reserved, 2nd post above, with photos. Wanted to first get the comparison shots up so people can see that it is quite the thrower, and a much different combo package than the Mag Aspherics. 

Was pausing after first volley to see if it looks like I covered the beamshot comparisons that people have wondered about. There is only one place you can get this, so if you are interested, you may want to get on his list.

Honestly, in a hand held package I never thought you could outperform the various Mag aspherics which are already quite unique. There are a good number of those Mags out in people's hands, so you may think you "have the aspheric base covered" -- *but you don't*. 

The DEFT is in a whole other cateogry of throw...but the interchangeability of clear/diffuser lens, and LED pills makes it a much more practical, powerful, variable, and future proof photonic tool.

I have one of the MC-E pills, but its 4 panel LED is not ideal for clear aspheric lens throwing. Interchanging it with the diffuser lens, and it suddenly becomes a whole different package. Also have the Q2-5A pill but didn't use it in first tests because Saabluster is out of stock. 

It only takes a few minutes to interchange the pills...which makes the DEFT thoughtfully versatile. I was thinking about doing another set of shots with the other two pills, & diffuser lens....comparing to some other lights (incan, elephant, etc.).


----------



## Lunal_Tic (Oct 31, 2008)

*Re: DEFT Aspheric Shootout*



LuxLuthor said:


> There is only one place you can get this, so if you are interested, you may want to get on his list.






saabluster said:


> Well thanks to everyones support we now have to start a new thread as the original one was getting too big.
> 
> There are some important things to take note of. *First if you have not signed up already it is too late as I am stopping production of the DEFT once I am through the current list.* These take a really long time to build and get in a condition where I am proud to have my name attached to it and to be honest even though these are not the cheapest lights ever I am not making enough to make it worthwhile.
> 
> . . . Don't worry too much if you are not on the list for the DEFT this go around as it likely will return sometime later in 09' with some innovation added to the mix.




Lux, it was pointed out to me in that thread that he is no longer taking names, that the DEFT ordering is closed at this time. I missed the boat too since I'd been hoping to get one when I went back to Texas for the holidays.

-LT


----------



## LuxLuthor (Oct 31, 2008)

*Re: DEFT Aspheric Shootout*



Lunal_Tic said:


> Lux, it was pointed out to me in that thread that he is no longer taking names, that the DEFT ordering is closed at this time. I missed the boat too since I'd been hoping to get one when I went back to Texas for the holidays.
> 
> -LT



End of 1st paragraph mentions another run in 2009, so that seems to contradict earlier statements. It's like any custom project in terms of labor intensive production time required....so if indeed these are all that he is doing, count yourself fortunate...or try to get one on BST.


----------



## Lunal_Tic (Nov 1, 2008)

*Re: DEFT Aspheric Shootout*



LuxLuthor said:


> End of 1st paragraph mentions another run in 2009, so that seems to contradict earlier statements. It's like any custom project in terms of labor intensive production time required....so if indeed these are all that he is doing, count yourself fortunate...or try to get one on BST.



Just was trying to clarify that there is no list on which to put oneself currently. It's not that there might not be one in the future but for now it is closed. I'm hoping for an "early" to be added to his "in '09" statement myself.

Question about your beamshots, it looks like the R2 actually has better color rendition. Is that the case or is my monitor playing tricks on me?

-LT


----------



## woodrow (Nov 1, 2008)

*Re: DEFT Aspheric Shootout*

Wow! I never thought a led could throw like that. And yet the (how many years old now???) MB is still the most incredible throw machine I have ever seen. Thanks for showing us regular people what the next....or next, next level of lighting is!


----------



## saabluster (Nov 1, 2008)

*Re: DEFT Aspheric Shootout*



Lunal_Tic said:


> Just was trying to clarify that there is no list on which to put oneself currently. It's not that there might not be one in the future but for now it is closed. I'm hoping for an "early" to be added to his "in '09" statement myself.
> 
> Question about your beamshots, it looks like the R2 actually has better color rendition. Is that the case or is my monitor playing tricks on me?
> 
> -LT


Not to sidetrack this thread but I have rethought some things and the list is one of them. So check back on my thread for more.


----------



## Lunal_Tic (Nov 1, 2008)

*Re: DEFT Aspheric Shootout*



saabluster said:


> Not to sidetrack this thread but I have rethought some things and the list is one of them. So check back on my thread for more.




[_trots over to other thread to sign up before Michael comes to his senses_]



Lux, forgot to ask it also looks like the die projection sizes are slightly different. Are they the same size in use or is there a noticeable variation?

Thanks,
-LT


----------



## Icebreak (Nov 1, 2008)

*Re: DEFT Aspheric Shootout*

Thanks for this shootout, LuxLuthor.

I've looked at the DEFT threads but I just wasn't getting it. I've seen plenty of ashperics and projecting a grid image is cool and all but they never seemed all that intense. Well, obviously something very different is going on here. The intensity is truly surprising. I think I like the color you are getting on that R quite a bit.

Good work, man. Very much appreciated.


----------



## ChrisDallas (Nov 1, 2008)

*Re: DEFT Aspheric Shootout*

Thanks very much for this shoot-out LuxLuthor, very much appreciated.

The DEFT looks like a pocket sized maxabeam wow, very nice. The Q5 also matches the color of the maxabeam from the looks of it...is the maxabean much higher than 6500K? It sure seems it.


----------



## saabluster (Nov 1, 2008)

*Re: DEFT Aspheric Shootout*



Icebreak said:


> Good work, man. Very much appreciated.


Thanks for the "nod" oldtimer.


----------



## Icebreak (Nov 1, 2008)

*Re: DEFT Aspheric Shootout*



saabluster said:


> Thanks for the "nod" oldtimer.



Certainly. The DEFT definitely produces an "unusual glimmer".


----------



## looman (Nov 1, 2008)

*Re: DEFT Aspheric Shootout*

This was some good pics but any chance of doing led like for like comaprison. Its all well and good but HID is HID and LED is LED. 

Those two HID's are hardly fair competion against a single LED.

I would like to see better comparisons against other LED's 

A comparison on how it stacks up against HIDS is a useful benchmark though.

Would also like your obserations re the emitters too please - I am going for R2 myself at the moment but open to pursuasion
Cheers

Looman


----------



## TITAN1833 (Nov 1, 2008)

*Re: DEFT Aspheric Shootout*



looman said:


> This was some good pics but any chance of doing led like for like comaprison. Its all well and good but HID is HID and LED is LED.
> 
> Those two HID's are hardly fair competion against a single LED.
> 
> I would like to see better comparisons against other LED's


I believe Lux already did a like for like comparison Aspheric with Aspheric,and I also think the BB and the likes were put there for fun as well 
I can't see what will be gained from a Aspheric led V's led without Aspheric,that would be the same as you said already unfair competition


----------



## LuxLuthor (Nov 1, 2008)

*Re: DEFT Aspheric Shootout*



looman said:


> This was some good pics but any chance of doing led like for like comaprison. Its all well and good but HID is HID and LED is LED.
> 
> Those two HID's are hardly fair competion against a single LED.
> 
> ...



This was the first stage of my review to address the throw effect of DEFT compared to the many "Aspheric Mags" which have been seen/purchased. The "King of Throw" (besides Ra's single MaxaBlaster) is the MaxaBeam which a number of us own. 

Several of us have described the DEFT as a Mini/Pocket MaxaBeam, so the actual comparison seemed apt. Comparing to BarnBurner HID was to accentuate the DEFT's narrow spot beam....and for fun.

As Titan says, the clear lens of DEFT (or other Aspheric Mag LED's) is not applicable to any other LED light, as they all have flood outputs, and lame throwing ability. What I still plan on comparing is the DEFT using its diffuser lens against some LED's and Incans.


----------



## Patriot (Nov 2, 2008)

*Re: DEFT Aspheric Shootout*



LuxLuthor said:


> What I still plan on comparing is the DEFT using its diffuser lens against some LED's and Incans.





Good deal. I'm looking forward to that. The aspheric really makes for a unique performance. It's so far beyond the best reflectored thrower, the DBS, that it's truly in a category of it's own.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Nov 3, 2008)

*Re: DEFT Aspheric Shootout*

OK, I finally finished the 2nd post with many more photos. I think this completes my review. I highly recommend the function, performance, and value of this light.


----------



## choppers (Nov 3, 2008)

Lux, all I can say is fantastic review. Very in depth and informative. Thank you for taking the time to complete the DEFT review. It was obviously time consuming however proved to be extremely informative for all those that have the DEFT or are considering purchasing one.

Thanks again,


----------



## Patriot (Nov 3, 2008)

Great Part2! I've not got a much better understanding about the look, build and performance of the DEFT. It really comes across as an outstanding value considering that it's hand built and performs like it does. 

The more I look at the beamshots, the more I'm leaning to the Q5 WC. I always seemed to favor the warmer tints but the the Q5 WC does look great.

One other light that struck me as having suprising performance was the 10W Ellie. It does appear to be a bit warmer in the picture compared to they eye.

Excellent pics Lux. Thanks for doing all of the work and then sharing it with us. I know that's a sacrifice of your time but you probably enjoyed putting it all together too.

:twothumbs


----------



## saabluster (Nov 3, 2008)

LuxLuthor excellent work! I think you were *very* fair. And you have given me some things to work on. Notably the thread issue which has been a pain for me. The threads at the junction between the body and head are not the greatest in the world from the factory. This was part of what I was complaining about early on in the original sales thread. And because in order to get the LED die to be in focus I had to sand away some of the threads to allow it to screw down far enough it did not leave much of the threads left. The good news is I am already rectifying the problem of the shallow threads. At least as much as I can since I am dealing with host lights. The base of the pill needs to be moved up so that the head does not need to screw down as much. This change and several others will be instituted starting with Aircraft800's. 

Also I find it interesting about the lube issue. I use a silicone lube on the o-ring and Chris Arnold's NanoLube for the threads. The stuff does work well but it does seem to get dirty and black fast. I also notice when using the stuff that if you turn the threads back and forth several times fairly fast and then take off the tailcap it has a strong odor. I don't have any of St. Claire's but I think I might have to try some if it will not cause this problem. Something tells me it is an issue with the base oil he uses. :shrugThis is for everyone. Please do not start up comments on one nanolube vs another as it never seems to lead to a good place.:kiss 

You mentioned the desire for a pouch to hold the extra lenses and a dust cap. I can certainly work something up for the dust cap if there was enough interest but I am curious if you have seen the case that I am now offering? It comes with a space for your extra lens and plenty of spots for extra batteries.

Again I think you did an excellent job with this review. I also appreciated the pictures next to the HIDs and hotwires, even though they aren't really in the same class, as it really helps me and others gauge how the state of the art in LEDs(as far as throw) stacks up to them. Now I have a better idea of how far I have to go before I beat the Maxabeam. As crazy as it may seem I am going to try.

Thanks for all your *hard work* and I can't wait till you see the improvements on your third DEFT.


----------



## saabluster (Nov 3, 2008)

One thing I am curious about Lux. I could not tell by the pictures. Which threw better the DEFT or the Ellie?


----------



## DM51 (Nov 3, 2008)

That is a stand-out review, as now completed - superb work, very comprehensive and detailed. It gives a very good insight and impression of the Deft. 

Many thanks!


----------



## TITAN1833 (Nov 3, 2008)

saabluster said:


> One thing I am curious about Lux. I could not tell by the pictures. Which threw better the DEFT or the Ellie?


In between the DEFT and MB I can make out a faint light which is where the beam of the Ellie would land,so I would say the DEFT.:twothumbs


[EDITED] That said maybe my eyes are not as good as the rest of you


----------



## karlthev (Nov 3, 2008)

Great review...as I guess was expected. I received my DEFT and unfortunately have had very little time to use it--I've been sick as a dog for the past several days and still am today. These are incredible throwing lights and full credit has to be given to the designer and builder.



Karl


----------



## saabluster (Nov 3, 2008)

TITAN1833 said:


> In between the DEFT and MB I can make out a faint light which is where the beam of the Ellie would land,so I would say the DEFT.:twothumbs
> 
> 
> [EDITED] That said maybe my eyes are not as good as the rest of you


I saw what I thought might be the beam of the Ellie I just expected it to be brighter than that so was not sure. It does appear to beat it fairly handily. It seems to match what I saw when I compared my original DEFT to a 10W HID at a Dallas get together.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Nov 3, 2008)

Thanks for comments....and I hope you feel better soon, Karl.

Saabluster, hands down the DEFT out throws the Ellie. The effect you are seeing with Ellie is the outstanding 3" FM reflector with no gap in bore around HID bulb. Going back several years it was one of the best throwers in the custom Mag mod lineup, however it is not able to out throw the original P4 aspherics that Mac/Ledean came out with. The Ellie has a lot more spill which has a different effect on overall perceived light by the eye.

If you can re-position the LED pill to keep better top body threads, that would be great, and I wouldn't mind buying a spare body. My solution is to just do the LED pill swap through the wide bezel removal.

*[Pet Peeve] *Not trying to stir up the old lube controversy, but I find all the Surefire lights, and any that I used Nyogel lubes on to give the "ugly gray crap" nuisance in a very short time. I clean all the new lights, & their O-Rings with a white cotton rag, followed by additional wipes with Isopropyl (rubbing) Alcohol, until clean then apply the Nano-Oil to threads and O-Rings. Honestly, having bought both early on, I don't think there is a big difference between them. 

I'm guessing the conventional lubes/silicone either have some deleterious effect on the O-Rings (which can be made out of many synthetics), or there is aluminum abrasion that I don't see when using the Nano-Oil. If you adjusted/sanded the original threads, then I'm guessing there is aluminum dust in the mix. In any case, I absolutely hate the "ugly gray crap" on threads because it gets on counter, clothes, hands, lens, outside of light, etc.* [/Pet Peeve]*


----------



## saabluster (Nov 3, 2008)

Just in case you were wondering Lux the O-rings in the DEFT are Buna-N. The ones that come with the light that I throw away start to disintegrate when I put the nanolube on them and move the threads back and forth.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Nov 3, 2008)

saabluster said:


> Just in case you were wondering Lux the O-rings in the DEFT are Buna-N. The ones that come with the light that I throw away start to disintegrate when I put the nanolube on them and move the threads back and forth.



LOL! OK, now you got me curious enough to do a mini-shootout of the lubes! I guess since this is my shootout, I can add a sub-shootout if I want to, so what the hell.

I used the extra packet of the 2 spare O-rings you sent with the DEFT, which I assume are Buna-N. I didn't bother with the other O-Rings I displayed in first pix. I verified that dry O-Rings did not discolor dry Kleenex before hand...to make sure it was not in an existing state of self-decay.

My ultra-scientific testing methodology was to put 3 drops of Quicken Nanolube, 3 drops of StClaire Nanolube, and two beads of Nyogel on each of three clean Kleenex sheets. I pulled one side of your O-Ring between my pinched fingers, through each of the indivicually lubed Kleenex spots 30 times. Alternated O-Ring side and used 2nd O-Ring to avoid cross contamination.

To the eye, there is no rubber on the Quicken Kleenex, slight rubber on St.Claire, and much more on Nyogel Kleenex. I don't have any silicone grease handy. Now that I see this, I remember filling my metal oil pen applicator with the Arnold Quicken brand, and actually think it is what I have been using most of the time over quite a few months. I even went back and did the other clean side of 2nd Nyogel tested O-ring in Quicken again because I was surprised it came out so clean....with same result. _(God...I'm hoping he doesn't see this post, as I will never hear the end of it.) _ 

It was still worth doing to see that there is an effect of lubes on the O-Ring that I long suspected. Still not sure how much of the despised "Gray Crap" is coming also from abraded aluminum in threads. You have to blow up larger image to see results more clearly. This test was a very short time exposure to each of the lubes, so I would expect a more significant effect inside the light for months.


----------



## saabluster (Nov 3, 2008)

That was very interesting. Thanks. I'm thinking the black on my lights is coming from the aluminum then. Wonder if there is anything that can even be done about that?


----------



## TITAN1833 (Nov 3, 2008)

saabluster said:


> That was very interesting. Thanks. I'm thinking the black on my lights is coming from the aluminum then. Wonder if there is anything that can even be done about that?


Hi when i first got my DBS the threads gave that grey mush,I put it down to the grease used.
I cleaned off evrey trace then re-lubed with "lux mentioned it" :thinking: I don't want to start a lube war lol,
anyway the threads have stayed grey mush free since,maybe some silicon grease is to thick and adds to gaulling :shrug:


----------



## choppers (Nov 3, 2008)

karlthev said:


> Great review...as I guess was expected. I received my DEFT and unfortunately have had very little time to use it--I've been sick as a dog for the past several days and still am today. These are incredible throwing lights and full credit has to be given to the designer and builder.
> 
> 
> 
> Karl


Hope you feel better soon Karl....I cant wait to see what you think when you get the DEFT outside...


----------



## saabluster (Nov 4, 2008)

*Re: DEFT Aspheric Shootout*



LuxLuthor said:


> The carbon fiber is apparently glued to stock aluminum bezel, and on careful inspection this is much higher quality work than I expected. ​




I forgot to tell you the other day but the carbon fiber bezel has more than just epoxy holding it down. I weld on aluminum tabs to the metal part of the bezel. These in turn slip into slots that are grooved out of the core of the carbon fiber and are then filled with epoxy. After that sets up I go back and apply the epoxy you can see around the joint between the CF and aluminum more for appearance sake.​


----------



## FLT MEDIC (Feb 3, 2009)

*Re: DEFT Aspheric Shootout*

Many thanks for the detailed review about the DEFT and the lubes too!

I use No. 25 Silicone shock oil used in RC shock absorbers to lube the O-rings and threads but I still get the grey grime. 

Tried white Silicone thermal grease with the same results. I guess the grey grime is from aluminum thread particles reacting with the lubricant.


----------



## Patriot (Feb 4, 2009)

Interesting findings about the lube. I've been using Nyogel and also notice the "grays." Makes me wonder.


----------



## toby_pra (Feb 9, 2009)

Very very nice shootout!!! :twothumbs


----------



## troller_cpf (Jun 8, 2009)

From the first pics it seems that the DEFT R2 throws better than the DEFT Q5... am I right?


----------



## Patriot (Jun 9, 2009)

It's too close for me to difinitively call from Lux's pictures alone but based on this review I ordered the Q5 myself. To me the beam signature traveling through the atmostphere looked slightly brighter and more defined. The hot spot of the R2 DEFT appears, at least to me, to be slightly brighter but I suspected this had something to so with the warmer tint on the green leaves. Maybe Lux will comment on the differences. I light meter would help to tell the story though.


----------



## BlueBeam22 (Jun 20, 2009)

LuxLuthor I realize this is a late reply to your thread, however I wanted to say that I think your review and shootout pictures of these lights are fabulous and truly showcase the performance of the DEFT lights. The DEFT R2 is my favorite out of the lights being compared, its laser like beam is amazing.

Saabluster's DEFT is a truly amazing creation and I have always been blown away by it in the beamshots, especially its ability to generate higher lux than some of the smaller HIDs.


----------



## strinq (Jun 21, 2009)

oo:those are powerful lights...


----------



## windstrings (Jul 6, 2009)

Good job Lux on the effort and time for the excellent review.

I too was struggling with the differences in the R2 verses the Q5... in some pics the R2 seems to win and in others the Q5.

BTW... I loved the rotating gifs......the rotating pics seems to show a more pleasing bright crisp color for my preference with the Q5.. but I know after traveling some distance... "say several hundred feet" things can change as throw differences can be hard to discern up close.


The closeup shots seemed to show the R2 hotter but smaller .... that would lead one to believe throw will be farther!
Yet in the distance shots, the Q5 seemed brighter "and" bigger in some shots yet the opposite in the shots with the maxabeam?
The Barnburner reveals the differences in colors between the fall orange leaves verses the greener leaves of the trees that possibly the Q5 was hitting.

Without being there, its hard to decipher.

Michael explained something about how more power can be sent to the R2 without overheating than with the Q5 because of the single die of the R2 which may allow more overall throw with the R2. However, based on your pics I can't confirm for sure.


Lux, since you've seen them all in person. Your comments and opinions would be valued if you don't mind.

I"ve come from the HID world where I've learned to love a bright white light with throw, but I know sometimes the LED's offer give and take.

Do you have a favorite and if so why?


----------



## Hugo2x (Jul 29, 2009)

how much do maxabeams go for?


----------



## saabluster (Jul 29, 2009)

Hugo2x said:


> how much do maxabeams go for?


About $2500. Nothing like it though.


----------



## saabluster (Jul 29, 2009)

windstrings said:


> Good job Lux on the effort and time for the excellent review.
> 
> I too was struggling with the differences in the R2 verses the Q5... in some pics the R2 seems to win and in others the Q5.
> 
> ...


This is no knock on Lux but those pictures have confused more than one person because they are not aware that the trees the Q5 and R2 are shining on are two different colors. That makes it hard to see the true difference between the two. The R2 will always be the farthest thrower all things being equal. He prefers the Q5 WC as I seem to remember that he thought it threw a little farther. This could have been caused by an LED with a slightly lower Vf or just variance in the lens placement or manufacture. I am now manufacturing the lenses with tighter tolerence than before but noticed before that some would throw ever so slightly more than others. The bottom line in which one to choose is to pick the tint you prefer as you will never be able to tell the difference in flux bin without instrumentation.


----------



## windstrings (Jul 29, 2009)

Hugo2x said:


> how much do maxabeams go for?



The explanation can get quite involved and I'm sure I'm opening up a big can of worms.... Based on my limited knowledge, suffice to say the maxabeam is a "short arc" which means the gap of electricity across the arc is smaller and very white hot. Being smaller, the large reflector totally captures that light and sends it forward rather than "missing" some of the sources light and allowing spill.
The angle of the reflector matters of course, but if the source light is too big, a small reflector just can't harness the light to give a total throw effect.

To get the same "effect" from the longer arc HID's you would need a very large reflector. 
Some similarities are radio antennas.. they have the transmitting element, then the reflectors.. the reflectors do their best job when cut to exact counterparts of the length of the frequency being transmitted.

A light is a radio transmitter also.. its just in a very high frequency "in nanometers".. the reflector is very similar to a dish antennae array.

If you took a light bulb and simply held it in the air without a reflector, it would transmit in all directions the same as an omnidirectional antenna does on your CB or ham radio.

If you've notice, the dish antennae for your satellite tv has gotten much smaller than the old days because the frequency used is much higher and therefore that wavelength is "shorter".

The bigger the transmitting element needed to represent the frequency your transmitting, in turn, the bigger the reflectors needed to do a good job if your trying to make a "beam" and throw all your signal forward.

I'm sure someone will step in if I'm off on my theory but thats the basic idea.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Jul 31, 2009)

Had not checked this section of the forum in a while, sorry.

Windy, I don't really understand all the details about LED's and all the various bins and colors, so trust Saabluster (and other LED experts before me). I believe what I was describing in terms of farther throw in part is due to the R-2 having a warmer tint, and therefore does not contrast against green tree leaves as much as a whiter Q5. There could always be voltage/lens differences as Saabluster says when I tested them.

As much as I generally prefer the fuller & warmer spectrum outside with incands, I use the DEFT (& generally prefer the Q5 model) outside for a different application...as a sort of pocket Maxabeam. I think you may have gotten an aspheric Mag...and those are nice...but the DEFT blows them away in either LED model.

So if you want a warmer color, the R2 will still be very impressive. If you want more white contrast effect, then the Q5. Either will work well.


----------



## windstrings (Jul 31, 2009)

Thanks Lux.. the color temp is a decision I'll have to iron down soon and your comment helps... I only recently studied the difference as I was amazed at how many people preferred the warmer temps outside.

Seems in dimmer light conditions such as shooting far off or lower lumens up close cause the eyes perceive the lower kelvins as "natural" much better than when under intense lumen conditions.... which would be like an HID or Maxabeam short arc in the distance or any decent light up close.. in the latter case, the higher kelvins around 4200K will look more natural.

I didn't think I would like the warmer tints, but outside they just seem to suck you in to the scene as it lures your eyes to want more. Like an autumn day or the woods late in the eve.

I compiled a couple of posts in my investigations here on post # 26

I had concerns that the lower kelvins produced a tad less lumens, but it almost seems the eyes perceive it as more as the pupils dilate better since the light is warm and inviting rather than cold and harsh.

Since the DEFT is giving a different effect than a normal flashlight... I will really have to give some thought as to which tint I would prefer.... theres something awestricking about an intense white-bluishish beam streaking "that maxabeam effect" though the sky verses a warmer beam that may be more comfortable to the eyes and present better colors at night.


----------



## Patriot (Jul 31, 2009)

windstrings said:


> Since the DEFT is giving a different effect than a normal flashlight... I will really have to give some thought as to which tint I would prefer.... theres something awestricking about an intense white-bluishish beam streaking "that maxabeam effect" though the sky verses a warmer beam that may be more comfortable to the eyes and present better colors at night.




I just wanted to quickly add that the Q5 is far warmer than the Maxabeam to begin with. I wouldn't describe it as blue-ish myself. 

If you're unsure Windy, maybe you should just order it with on of each pill.


----------



## windstrings (Jul 31, 2009)

Patriot said:


> If you're unsure Windy, maybe you should just order it with on of each pill.



Yea.... why didn't I think of that?


----------



## LuxLuthor (Aug 2, 2009)

Yeah, that is what I did initially.

Now to confuse matters further, I got my 3rd DEFT recently, and it has some nice improvements, including a lens over the R-2 which gives a tad wider display, but still sharp focus. Main thing in comparing this R-2 to the previous one in my shootout is this new one is much less red/brown. It's not like the Q5 white/blue, and it is clearly more illuminating than the previous R-2.

We have to get Michael to let us know what is different about this new version & color...but I am now thinking this newest one will be my go to DEFT. Have to play with it side by side with all three, but I think this is a whole other level of improvement.


----------



## saabluster (Aug 3, 2009)

LuxLuthor said:


> Yeah, that is what I did initially.
> 
> Now to confuse matters further, I got my 3rd DEFT recently, and it has some nice improvements, including a lens over the R-2 which gives a tad wider display, but still sharp focus. Main thing in comparing this R-2 to the previous one in my shootout is this new one is much less red/brown. It's not like the Q5 white/blue, and it is clearly more illuminating than the previous R-2.
> 
> We have to get Michael to let us know what is different about this new version & color...but I am now thinking this newest one will be my go to DEFT. Have to play with it side by side with all three, but I think this is a whole other level of improvement.



There have been quite a few changes since the first round no? You will notice that the head is held on better than the first ones because I changed the positioning of the LED which allowed me to stop sanding away some of the threads. The copper layer also allows better heat transfer to the head. I started beveling the head where the body slips in to avoid the o-rings from getting pinched. The new springs on the battery holder are much better but it does make it somewhat harder to remove the batteries. Will have to work on that in future models. Did you notice how much thicker the newer bezels are?

The color/brightness improvements are from the new smaller lens primarily. It reduces the chromatic aberration or separation. That is why it can be both farther throwing _and_ have a larger beam. I spent some time to get just the right lens to pre-collimate the beam. If you have the bezel off or the lens out and look through the small lens at the LED die you will notice that as you move your eye to where the edge of the main lens would be you start to lose sight of the die. I have essentially gotten the system about as efficient as it can be. The pre-collimation is not too much and not too little. It's juust right. Before the chromatic aberration would cause you to have either the red in the beam or the blue in the beam depending on how far or close the lens was to the LED. I always tried to find a good balance before shipping lights out. Due to the short amount of play in the threads it was always hard to get it just right and I spent a huge amount of time trying to "tune" the lights. 

Your first R2 light may have had the focus where the blue was getting kicked out of the beam. Some of this is down to the manufacturing on my part but also is due to the limitations of using one lens. I will tell you this though. When I was first looking for lenses that I could just buy from an established company I got a lens from a well respected lens company that had horrendous chromatic aberration. It was not fit to use and was worse than my most failed attempts at making lenses. I never did find a company that made what I needed so I started making my own. I have gotten better at making these lenses and there now is more conformity lens to lens. The new AR coats helps some too. Can't wait to hear some more feedback from you.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Aug 3, 2009)

I just did a quick inside whitewall on top of a picture frame to give an idea of how the new R2 setup I got recently from Saabluster compares to the older versions. First photo is a longer exposure showing colors, and 2nd shorter to show LED edges & intensity. Note that the model I got has almost entirely eliminated the halo around the sides of LED edge in beam. Both have lights with clear lens in this order:

Older R2 --- Older Q5 --- New R2


----------



## saabluster (Aug 3, 2009)

LuxLuthor said:


>


OK. Now I understand why you thought the Q5 was brighter than the R2. IT IS!! I wish I had seen this picture some time ago. Do me a favor and swap the lenses and let me know if it makes a difference. Thanks for posting the pictures. It could be possible that the driver is not putting out as much current as it should. If that is the case I can send you a new driver for it. It should regulate between 1500mA and 1600mA.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Aug 3, 2009)

I swapped the lenses of the old R2 and old Q5. No difference with old R2. Still looks rose/light brown colored. So it's not the lens. Is there a safe way for me to measure anything with my Fluke 189?


----------



## saabluster (Aug 5, 2009)

LuxLuthor said:


> I swapped the lenses of the old R2 and old Q5. No difference with old R2. Still looks rose/light brown colored. So it's not the lens. Is there a safe way for me to measure anything with my Fluke 189?


You can disconnect the plug and pry out one of the leads on the LED side of the connector by lifting up on the little plastic tab that holds it in and then pulling out. Now you should have one wire coming from the LED free while the other one stays in the connector. Put the connector back on and stick your Fluke probe down into the vacant hole of the connector and the other probe to the bare LED lead(You may need to cut a small section of wire and strip it if you Fluke probes are not small enough). The driver is a buck so you do not need to worry about having a load supplied to keep the driver from burning out. You could also swap the drivers to see if it makes a difference.


----------



## Aircraft800 (Aug 5, 2009)

Why don't you swap the emitters? The body with the Q5 now is obviously putting output more, it should push the R2 nicely!


----------



## Patriot (Aug 5, 2009)

Aircraft800 said:


> Why don't you swap the emitters? The body with the Q5 now is obviously putting output more, it should push the R2 nicely!



I think they're trying to find out if the driver is in spec or if the LED is under performing.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Aug 5, 2009)

saabluster said:


> You can disconnect the plug and pry out one of the leads on the LED side of the connector by lifting up on the little plastic tab that holds it in and then pulling out. Now you should have one wire coming from the LED free while the other one stays in the connector. Put the connector back on and stick your Fluke probe down into the vacant hole of the connector and the other probe to the bare LED lead(You may need to cut a small section of wire and strip it if you Fluke probes are not small enough). The driver is a buck so you do not need to worry about having a load supplied to keep the driver from burning out. You could also swap the drivers to see if it makes a difference.



Michael, I used a 2 pin JST (sanded side to make it fit) and
took:

4.8953 V - Voltage-No Load
0.6522 A - Current-On with DMM in DC mode
0.6679 A - Current-On with DMM in DC+AC mode

I don't know what these mean, or should be...but that's what I got with this R2.


----------



## Aircraft800 (Aug 5, 2009)

Patriot said:


> I think they're trying to find out if the driver is in spec or if the LED is under performing.


 
Yes, If the R2's output is brighter in the DEFT that currently has the Q5, then the driver is at fault. If it is the same, R2 is the suspect. 

Since you already measured the output of the R2 driver at 650mA, the driver is at fault. Should read between 1.500A - 1.600A.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Aug 5, 2009)

Aircraft800 said:


> Yes, If the R2's output is brighter in the DEFT that currently has the Q5, then the driver is at fault. If it is the same, R2 is the suspect.
> 
> Since you already measured the output of the R2 driver at 650mA, the driver is at fault. Should read between 1.500A - 1.600A.



I could probably do the same test on another body/driver, but if we already know this driver is bad, probably not much point. This is how it arrived, and now makes the side by side comparisons in OP not as valid.

I'll wait for Michael's feedback, but thanks Aircraft800.


----------



## saabluster (Aug 5, 2009)

LuxLuthor said:


> I could probably do the same test on another body/driver, but if we already know this driver is bad, probably not much point. This is how it arrived, and now makes the side by side comparisons in OP not as valid.
> 
> I'll wait for Michael's feedback, but thanks Aircraft800.


It does appear to be a bad driver. I will send you another one asap. Thanks for the pictures. The upside of the bad driver is runtimes should be much longer.


----------



## Patriot (Aug 7, 2009)

LuxLuthor said:


> This is how it arrived, and now makes the side by side comparisons in OP not as valid.





I ordered my Q5 DEFT because your testing.... 

Hey, at least I can pat myself on the back for determining which was brighter according to your beamshots. I'll be eager to see how the R2 light does with the replacement driver.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Aug 7, 2009)

LOL! Well, you certainly can't go wrong with the Q5...plus you forgot the CPF Motto: Buy Both!

I will have to at least do a few token comparison shots once I install the new driver. The newest DEFT with the R2, has a few minor (as far as performance output) changes, but the interesting test will be long exposure at far distance. I'll use 3 sets of freshly charged Eneloopies to standardize that aspect.


----------



## Patriot (Aug 9, 2009)

LuxLuthor said:


> I'll use 3 sets of freshly charged Eneloopies to standardize that aspect.



That's what I should be doing. I've been using L91's but I'll bet they sag more than the eneloopies. Thanks for reminding me Lux.


----------



## windstrings (Sep 4, 2009)

Lux, did you ever get the new driver in and note if the R2 still appears less bright, or did it correct the issue?


----------



## JeffInChi (Sep 7, 2009)

That Maxabeam looks like a laser! wow! Great reveiw too. Not sure if anyone asked but what does the 75w "barnburner" go for?


----------



## Patriot (Sep 7, 2009)

JeffInChi said:


> Not sure if anyone asked but what does the 75w "barnburner" go for?




They're not made or sold any longer. When the rare one comes up for sale they're typically between $1200-1400.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Sep 14, 2009)

windstrings said:


> Lux, did you ever get the new driver in and note if the R2 still appears less bright, or did it correct the issue?



I should take some new measurements like I did before. I think it is brighter, but nothing like the Q5 now that I just went outside with them.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Sep 14, 2009)

With new switch, I just hooked it up the same way and get an amp reading of between 1.068 and 1.094 A 

That is better than 0.6A but not up to the 1.5-1.6A that Aircraft800 mentioned. I'm not sure what's going on. I sent Michael a PM about this result, so I'll wait for his feedback.


----------



## saabluster (Sep 14, 2009)

LuxLuthor said:


> With new switch, I just hooked it up the same way and get an amp reading of between 1.068 and 1.094 A
> 
> That is better than 0.6A but not up to the 1.5-1.6A that Aircraft800 mentioned. I'm not sure what's going on. I sent Michael a PM about this result, so I'll wait for his feedback.


As I said in the PM that LED may have an unusually high Vf that is preventing the current from getting very high. In using my LED testing rig I found one LED with a crazy high Vf. I took this LED out of the pool of LEDs to use in builds. When I built your first lights though I did not have this rig so there is a good chance that if I found one super high Vf there is another one out of that original batch of 50 LEDs.
If this is indeed the case you may find that the current to the LED increases to spec by using L91s as the total voltage of those batteries will be higher than the NiMHs and would help it overcome the voltage issue.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Sep 14, 2009)

saabluster said:


> As I said in the PM that LED may have an unusually high Vf that is preventing the current from getting very high. In using my LED testing rig I found one LED with a crazy high Vf. I took this LED out of the pool of LEDs to use in builds. When I built your first lights though I did not have this rig so there is a good chance that if I found one super high Vf there is another one out of that original batch of 50 LEDs.
> If this is indeed the case you may find that the current to the LED increases to spec by using L91s as the total voltage of those batteries will be higher than the NiMHs and would help it overcome the voltage issue.



What is/are L92s ? I'm guessing Vf must mean "Voltage FLux" or power required for optimal output? When I get a reading of 1.06 to 1.09Amps instead of 1.5-1.6, I can only assume there is something causing increased resistance in this LED setup. Is there any possibility that there is a partial short to the copper heatsink (like one strand of a multistrand wire) under the epoxy? I ask because there is a small amount of solder on the bottom of this LED that I don't see on the others.

I don't know if you did soldering before or after LED was epoxied. I dismissed this previously because the heatsink was applied to screw sides that made contact with mounting frame, and it seemed irrelevant. Here's a thumbnail to show what I mean:

​So you are suggesting I use a higher voltage battery source? I'm not sure how your driver works in terms of needing a higher delivered voltage being regulated by it...but not overwhelming it.

How far can I increase the Vbat before overwhelming/damaging the driver? I could probably setup a 2s2p x 14500 Li-Ion which would start at 8.3 V.

Thanks for your patience.

Edit: Oh one more thing I noticed in comparing these two LED's which I'm not sure if they are both R2's, there is a slight amber tint when I look at the die in the old R2 in glow epoxy, whereas the newer "Man in Black" is crystal clear.





​.


----------



## Aircraft800 (Sep 14, 2009)

LuxLuthor said:


> With new switch, I just hooked it up the same way and get an amp reading of between 1.068 and 1.094 A
> 
> That is better than 0.6A but not up to the 1.5-1.6A that Aircraft800 mentioned. I'm not sure what's going on. I sent Michael a PM about this result, so I'll wait for his feedback.


 
That driver figure I used was from saabluster, see post #64 above;



saabluster said:


> OK. Now I understand why you thought the Q5 was brighter than the R2. IT IS!! I wish I had seen this picture some time ago. Do me a favor and swap the lenses and let me know if it makes a difference. Thanks for posting the pictures. It could be possible that the driver is not putting out as much current as it should. If that is the case I can send you a new driver for it. It should regulate between 1500mA and 1600mA.


 

I was just merely giving it to you the range your Fluke was reading.

1.5-1.6A 

or

1500mA - 1600mA

I hope I didn't confuse anyone, I'll stay out of this since Michael has such great customer service!


----------



## LuxLuthor (Sep 14, 2009)

Noted, AC. Thanks bud! This is more of a curiosity/learning experience than anything.


----------



## saabluster (Sep 14, 2009)

LuxLuthor said:


> What is/are L92s ?


It's L91s actually. They are the Energizer Ultimate lithiums. 



LuxLuthor said:


> I'm guessing Vf must mean "Voltage FLux" or power required for optimal output?


Forward voltage. The higher the Vf of the LED the higher the voltage needs to be to reach a given current.



LuxLuthor said:


> When I get a reading of 1.06 to 1.09Amps instead of 1.5-1.6, I can only assume there is something causing increased resistance in this LED setup. Is there any possibility that there is a partial short to the copper heatsink (like one strand of a multistrand wire) under the epoxy? I ask because there is a small amount of solder on the bottom of this LED that I don't see on the others.


Unlikely to be a short. The solder you see on the underside was solder put there solely to help the heat flow better from the iron when trying to solder together the copper pieces that made up the base that the LED sits on. As you know I changed the design to make life easier and no longer need to do that step.



LuxLuthor said:


> So you are suggesting I use a higher voltage battery source? I'm not sure how your driver works in terms of needing a higher delivered voltage being regulated by it...but not overwhelming it.
> 
> How far can I increase the Vbat before overwhelming/damaging the driver? I could probably setup a 2s2p x 14500 Li-Ion which would start at 8.3 V.


The L91s will boost the voltage enough that if the problem was a high Vf LED it could be overcome. You could also rearrange the battery holder to run Li-ions in a 2s2p setup like you mention but that is a bit of work.



LuxLuthor said:


> Edit: Oh one more thing I noticed in comparing these two LED's which I'm not sure if they are both R2's, there is a slight amber tint when I look at the die in the old R2 in glow epoxy, whereas the newer "Man in Black" is crystal clear.
> 
> 
> ​


​Very interesting. Are you referring to the phosphor covering all the inside of the old one or does the gel inside look like it has yellowed? The older R2s(the one in your first is from the very first batch of R2s released) had the phosphor applied to the whole thing instead of just the die.


----------



## saabluster (Sep 14, 2009)

Aircraft800 said:


> That driver figure I used was from saabluster, see post #64 above;
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Don't worry man you were right on the money. Can't go wrong if your quoting me.


----------



## windstrings (Sep 14, 2009)

saabluster said:


> Forward voltage. The higher the Vf of the LED the higher the voltage needs to be to reach a given current.




Its fun to listen to you guys banter back and forth.... most of its so far over my head I only get to glean parts and pieces.

Based on your above statement, it sounds like a higher "forward voltage rating" is another way of saying the internal resistance is higher and so it needs more volts to pass the same amount of current?

interesting stuff!.......


----------



## LuxLuthor (Sep 15, 2009)

saabluster said:


> It's L91s actually. They are the Energizer Ultimate lithiums.


I misquoted saying L92, in either case I had not heard of them referred to as that. Thanks.



saabluster said:


> Forward voltage. The higher the Vf of the LED the higher the voltage needs to be to reach a given current.


I'm curious about this "forward voltage" term being used in a simple LED circuit, as it implies there is some other voltage category. Is there some distinction other than the voltage being delivered to the LED...when I think about it as compared to voltage being delivered to an incand bulb?

What is it about same type of (i.e. R2) LED's that have some requiring a higher input voltage to allow a proper current flow of 1.5 to 1.6A?



saabluster said:


> Unlikely to be a short. The solder you see on the underside was solder put there solely to help the heat flow better from the iron when trying to solder together the copper pieces that made up the base that the LED sits on. As you know I changed the design to make life easier and no longer need to do that step.


 OK, I was just speculating, and this seemed a possibility.




saabluster said:


> The L91s will boost the voltage enough that if the problem was a high Vf LED it could be overcome. You could also rearrange the battery holder to run Li-ions in a 2s2p setup like you mention but that is a bit of work.


Not hard for me to do, but if I used 2 Li-Ions, what is the maximum battery voltage that can be safely handled by the driver before it would be damaged?



saabluster said:


> Very interesting. Are you referring to the phosphor covering all the inside of the old one or does the gel inside look like it has yellowed? The older R2s(the one in your first is from the very first batch of R2s released) had the phosphor applied to the whole thing instead of just the die.


 That may be it. All I know is from looking straight down at die, there is a uniform amber shade. Here let me try to capture with closeup...two light source/angles:


----------



## Patriot (Sep 15, 2009)

Lux, if you're referring to the die and surrounding area (everything that you can see under the clear polycarbonate dome) being amber green or phosphor coated, vs. only the die being coated in phosphor on the newer R2, that's a fairly common batch or production run variation in Cree's. All of my R2's happen to be surrounded by silver coloring, as in your example on the left. 

If you're talking about something else, I'm unable to see the difference from the photo.


----------



## HKJ (Sep 15, 2009)

LuxLuthor said:


> I'm curious about this "forward voltage" term being used in a simple LED circuit, as it implies there is some other voltage category. Is there some distinction other than the voltage being delivered to the LED...when I think about it as compared to voltage being delivered to an incand bulb?



When specifying electronic components there may be multiple voltages, for led this usual includes:
Vf or forward voltage, that is the voltage required for a specific current in the led, i.e. a specification can contain multiple Vf for different currents. A XR-E has a typical Vf of 3.3 volt at 350mA and a maximum Vf of 3.9 at 350mA, depending on production tolerances.

Vr or reverse voltage, that is the maximum voltage that the led is guaranteed to stand in the reverse direction. This voltage is usual specified as 5 volt.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Sep 15, 2009)

The older one on right shows a yellow/amber color everywhere I look inside around the central R2 diode. Obviously the small center diode should be yellow phosphor coated, but I cannot tell if the glass/acrylic dome above it is tinted amber, and/or if everything under the glass cover is colored. It looks a bit more tinted when I look at all areas inside the bubble, than it shows in these photos. This may be perfectly normal for these early R2's.

Not being an LED Jockey, I don't know enough of the variations in normal appearances, but I'm looking for possible explanations for the lower current running through. I will send this old R2 back to Saabluster so he can see what I'm talking about. He is taking great care of me with PM's, but this is just a little fascinoma.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Sep 15, 2009)

HKJ said:


> When specifying electronic components there may be multiple voltages, for led this usual includes:
> Vf or forward voltage, that is the voltage required for a specific current in the led, i.e. a specification can contain multiple Vf for different currents. A XR-E has a typical Vf of 3.3 volt at 350mA and a maximum Vf of 3.9 at 350mA, depending on production tolerances.
> 
> Vr or reverse voltage, that is the maximum voltage that the led is guaranteed to stand in the reverse direction. This voltage is usual specified as 5 volt.



Some of that is sinking in...but I'm having a hard time picturing in my head this reverse voltage concept. Electrons flow from battery neg out and into LED, and then emerge from LED on their return to the battery pos....so I'm not yet grasping the concept of forward/reverse flow in a led circuit.


----------



## saabluster (Sep 15, 2009)

LuxLuthor said:


> Some of that is sinking in...but I'm having a hard time picturing in my head this reverse voltage concept. Electrons flow from battery neg out and into LED, and then emerge from LED on their return to the battery pos....so I'm not yet grasping the concept of forward/reverse flow in a led circuit.


The reversing he is talking about it if you wired up the led with the polarity wrong. Since LEDs are diodes the power is made to only flow in one direction. He was not talking about reversing the flow of power in and out of the battery. 

Think of forward voltage as two cows hooked to a yolk. One is lazy cow(high Vf) and the other not(low Vf). Both cows are capable of the same amount of work and can pull the plow just as fast as the other. The one cow just needs more incentive(read whipping). The whip/incentive is the voltage. Not a perfect analogy for sure but its late. Good night.-Michael


----------



## Patriot (Sep 15, 2009)

Michael, I was recently testing an XP-E behind various aspherics including the DEFT head and getting beam die projections about 20% smaller than my standard Q5 DEFT. I realize that the XP-G is next but it's still neat to see how tight that beam gets with the XP-E.


----------



## windstrings (Sep 15, 2009)

Patriot said:


> Michael, I was recently testing and XP-E behind various aspherics including the DEFT head and getting beam die projections about 20% smaller than my standard Q5 DEFT. I realize that the XP-G is next but it's still neat to see how tight that beam gets with the XP-E.



Trying to understand this:
Tight beam from a smaller die may not interpret into more throw or brightness though since the die is smaller. It may however give a nicer laser effect, but less practical for use as the illuminated area would be smaller. 
I would think going smaller may sound good for throw, but if you lose real estate on the die while at a given surface temp, you lose overall lumens... and if the real estate could somehow stay the same, it would take more current thus draining the battery faster and less runtime?

Micheal has that light so perfected now for that die size, I wonder if a smaller die would be as efficient without reworking the whole light.

Seems I also recall Michael saying the XP-G's are less efficient too as far as how much current it takes to produce a given amount of surface temp.

In other words.. if the XP-G's have the potential for producing higher surface temps at the expense of more battery power but yet are smaller, I'm not sure the overall product would be as good.

Not to mention if the die is smaller and therefore harder to manipulate and mount perfectly.


----------



## Patriot (Sep 15, 2009)

Hi Windy,

I think the ultimate DEFT goal has always been to attain the highest lux numbers regardless of the beam angle or "laser effect" since that is what determines throw. For example, when Michael learned that by adding the second optic the lux and throw increased, it wasn't a great concern that the beam angle also increased in size. Actually, it was a win/win situation with regards to practicality. Higher lux and a wider beam angle to boot. Before the 2nd optic was introduced we were limited to the narrow beam angle because that's how the greatest throw was achieved. 

In theory, since the smaller XP-E can be driven to the slightly higher surface brightness than the current Q5 and R2 used in the DEFT now, it would create a beam slightly brighter and slightly tighter. Again, in following with the DEFT primary goal, the beam angle is secondary but if lux has increased then gains have been made.

You're correct in that size isn't as important as surface brightness. Simply having a smaller die at the same surface brightness as a larger one results in the same throw but less overall output because the emitting footprint is smaller. 

In relation to a standard R2 model....

Same sb, smaller footprint = same throw, less overall output
Same sb, larger footprint = same throw, more overall output sb 
Higher sb, same footprint = more throw, more overall output
Higher sb, larger footprint = more throw, much more overall output 
Lower sb, smaller footprint = less throw, much less overall output
Lower sb, same footprint = less throw, less overall output
Lower sb, larger footprint = less throw, but could mean less, the same, or more overall output depending on how much lower the sb is and how large the footprint was. 

The advantage occurs when sb increases regardless of the die size, but sb is unlikely to increase as die size increases because of technological constraints. It's naturally more likely that as sb increases, that die size remains the same or decreases slightly. Obviously the "holy grail" so to speak, would be to have a die with 10X more surface area than a current R2 while retaining the same sb, but this hasn't been possible for many reasons.


----------



## windstrings (Sep 15, 2009)

Patriot said:


> Hi Windy,
> 
> I think the ultimate DEFT goal has always been to attain the highest lux numbers regardless of the beam angle or "laser effect" since that what determines throw. For example, when Michael learned that by adding the second optic the lux and throw increased, it wasn't a great concern that the beam angle also increased in size. Actually, in was a win/win situation with regards to practicality. Higher lux and a wider beam angle to boot. Before the 2nd optic was introduced we were limited to the narrow beam angle because that's how the greatest throw was achieved.



It was my understanding that adding the second lens merely captured light that was lost in the housing and caused it to go out the lens instead thus transmitting "more" of the existing light thus making a bigger beam with the same surface temp.... creating a win win!

But making the beam smaller I don't see as a win unless the surface brightness correspondingly is brighter to make up for the smaller beam.
I'm not sure that relation is there?

Maybe you get 10% more brightness and 30% less size of a beam "for instance".. I wouldn't see as a better choice, unless like I say, your looking for that dramatic laser effect..

That effect is not a bad tradeoff as long as you don't mind your vision being a bit more tunneled with the smaller beam for spotting objects in the distance.



Patriot said:


> In theory, since the smaller XP-E can be driven to the slightly higher surface brightness than the current Q5 and R2 used in the DEFT now, it would create a beam slightly brighter and slightly tighter. Again, in following with the DEFT primary goal, the beam angle is secondary but if lux has increased then gains have been made.



IN the least, it will be interesting to see the final product... but it sounds like until they place it on a different platform it will be very difficult to mount and connect..... also not sure how much runtime will be lost due to efficiency being worse???


----------



## Patriot (Sep 15, 2009)

windstrings said:


> It was my understanding that adding the second lens merely captured light that was lost in the housing and caused it to go out the lens instead thus transmitting "more" of the existing light thus making a bigger beam with the same surface temp.... creating a win win!




Yep, just like you said. The second lens captures and redirects the light that would have otherwise been bouncing around the inside of the head. 






> But making the beam smaller I don't see as a win unless the surface brightness correspondingly is brighter to make up for the smaller beam.
> I'm not sure that relation is there?


I guess it depends on what a person is looking for from the DEFT Windy. Yes, many of us specifically like the tightly collimated beam being projected from it. But I also point out that despite what some prefer, the ultimate goal of the DEFT is producing maximum throw results. So, while some may have fought a minor internal battle over the trade off between a wider beam or higher lux, the higher lux is better, and a wider beam is actually better from a usability standpoint. Thus the win/win that I originally spoke of.





> Maybe you get 10% more brightness and 30% less size of a beam "for instance".. I wouldn't see as a better choice, unless like I say, your looking for that dramatic laser effect..


Well, this is probably close to the actual difference that a fully driven XP-E would provide. Again, since maximum throw is the ultimate goal of the DEFT, having 10% more throw would be substantial even at the sacrifice of a 20% reduction in beam angle. Now, if the untimate goal of the DEFT were to give the best balance between maximum throw while a providing reasonably wide beam angle, then I'd be in complete agreeement with you.


----------



## windstrings (Sep 15, 2009)

Recently I got into lasers pretty heavy.. I still have my 135mw handheld pocket green laser.. but I did have a Hercules laser capable of 425mw.

The intensity of both beams looked basically the same to the naked eye, but the 425mw was 3times bigger making it much more striking as it beamed across the sky.

Of course if you could focus the 425mw into the same size point the 135mw was, you would obviously get a hotter burn.

I said all that to say... that narrower is only better if its truly brighter because the "width" of the beam also carries weight when beaming across the sky. 
IMO the name of the game is the have the biggest beam you can get without dropping surface temperature "or brightness"

I think we are saying the same thing.

Prob is, we just don't know what all the variables are yet.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Sep 15, 2009)

Michael, did my last sets of the dies indicate if the old one is just the way they coated the phosphor back then, vs. something that would explain the lower amps running? 

When HKJ said in his last post:


> Vr or reverse voltage, that is the maximum voltage that the led is guaranteed to stand in the reverse direction. This voltage is usual specified as 5 volt.


Is the forward and reverse voltage (if you screw up polarity) always a different value, and would the same voltage yield the same current if applied with correct polarity vs. reverse polarity? Does it give the same light output if you reverse polarity for a given voltage? Does it actually cause damage to the diode if reversed?

Not dealing with voltage polarity in incands--they glow like fire no matter which way you power them--I'm trying to learn why it is so important to hook up an LED with the correct polarity. Depending on your answer to that, also wondering if these leads are reversed as another guess about low current.....but I have no idea what happens with voltage reversal.

If it turns out to be this "high Vf" dealie-wad, how come some LED's have high Vf?

OK, that's all the questions I can think of now. LOL!

That new 2nd lens on the DEFT does a major improvement on beam & target illuminance. Think MaxaBeam for the extreme comparison. 

I gave up on lasers because although they are mega-kewl, they are nothing but trouble if used outside. Too many people are aware of their abuses, so the risk factor outweighs the fun factor--even if you are using it responsibly.


----------



## HKJ (Sep 15, 2009)

LuxLuthor said:


> Is the forward and reverse voltage (if you screw up polarity) always a different value, and would the same voltage yield the same current if applied with correct polarity vs. reverse polarity? Does it give the same light output if you reverse polarity for a given voltage? Does it actually cause damage to the diode if reversed?



The forward and reverse voltage are always different voltages, on ordinary diodes they are very different, i.e. Vf can be 0.6 volt and Vr can be 1000 volt.
The led does not produce any light when voltage is reversed, but if the applied voltage is above Vr the led might get damaged.


----------



## saabluster (Sep 16, 2009)

LuxLuthor said:


> Michael, did my last sets of the dies indicate if the old one is just the way they coated the phosphor back then, vs. something that would explain the lower amps running?


I see nothing wrong in the pictures. I do see that the older one has yellow all over but that is normal for XR-Es back then. That one is one that was manufactured in the US. When Cree bought out a company there in China they moved the packaging process over there as there was more capacity. As part of the change they started coating the dies only. The LED dies are still made in the US as it is a highly guarded secret and they would rather not have that info in an environment where it would be hard to keep the lid on. I do not know if the phosphor coating is done here or there. 



LuxLuthor said:


> When HKJ said in his last post: Is the forward and reverse voltage (if you screw up polarity) always a different value, and would the same voltage yield the same current if applied with correct polarity vs. reverse polarity? Does it give the same light output if you reverse polarity for a given voltage? Does it actually cause damage to the diode if reversed?
> 
> Not dealing with voltage polarity in incands--they glow like fire no matter which way you power them--I'm trying to learn why it is so important to hook up an LED with the correct polarity. Depending on your answer to that, also wondering if these leads are reversed as another guess about low current.....but I have no idea what happens with voltage reversal.


I think HKJ covered this pretty good but I will try to expound on it some. The LED will only light if the polarity is correct. An LED acts like a one-way valve. Reversing the polarity can damage the LED if the applied voltage is high enough. This is from the Cree data sheet on the XR-E.


_________________________Typical ___Maximum
Reverse Voltage  _____________________5V
Forward Voltage (@ 350 mA) 3.3V______3.9V
Forward Voltage (@ 700 mA) 3.5V
Forward Voltage (@ 1000 mA) 3.7V

Notice that the Vf rises as more current is applied. This just means that to get more current requires more voltage as an "incentive" to jump the *semi*-conductor gap. Note that since it is a semi-conductor electricity does not necessarily "want" to cross through. 

The data sheet says "Typical" and "Maximum" because of the manufacturing variance. Lets say you got a part that had a Vf of 3.9 at 350mA. You would then have to have about 4.3V just to get to 1000mA. Now keep in mind the DEFT is trying to run at 1500mA. With 4 NiMH that just will not work as the voltage of the batteries is not enough when you figure in the resistance loss in the battery holder and the various connections as well as the driver itself. 

*Big note here. I am not an electronics expert by any stretch of the imagination so I could be off in my understanding somewhat.



LuxLuthor said:


> If it turns out to be this "high Vf" dealie-wad, how come some LED's have high Vf?


It has to do with how the LED was doped. There is currently no way to have a perfectly repeatable process in making LEDs. That is why there is all the talk about different bins within the same LED product line. Even when they bin for tint it can vary wildly. This is not by choice on the part of the manufacturers. 




LuxLuthor said:


> That new 2nd lens on the DEFT does a major improvement on beam & target illuminance. Think MaxaBeam for the extreme comparison.


Yeah it real does make a lot of difference. Glad you like it.:thumbsup:


----------



## LuxLuthor (Sep 17, 2009)

Thanks very much to HKJ and Saabluster. Wonderful, complete, and interesting information I did not know.

Michael, one last question regarding this possible high Vf R2. If I were to use a 2s2p setup on a holder, or even make my own spot welded pack of Li-Ions, do you know how high the Vbat can be going into your driver? 

This possible 2s2p setup would likely give a voltage range of 7 to 8.3V.


----------



## saabluster (Sep 17, 2009)

LuxLuthor said:


> Thanks very much to HKJ and Saabluster. Wonderful, complete, and interesting information I did not know.
> 
> Michael, one last question regarding this possible high Vf R2. If I were to use a 2s2p setup on a holder, or even make my own spot welded pack of Li-Ions, do you know how high the Vbat can be going into your driver?
> 
> This possible 2s2p setup would likely give a voltage range of 7 to 8.3V.


9V is the upper range. The current to the LED will rise some as the voltage climbs but it becomes more inefficient as well. 2s2p will work just fine though if you want to try it. Just make sure your cells have protection.


----------



## Patriot (Oct 1, 2009)

I'm eager to see new long range pictures of your newest R2 light with 2nd lens.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Oct 1, 2009)

I was waiting on the 2 hole mounting plate to arrive. But maybe I'll make the 2p2s Li-Ion balance tap pack and push the high Vf R2 in the mean time.


----------



## Patriot (Oct 1, 2009)

oo: It's driven to 1.5A now, right? How high were you thinking of going?


----------



## fareast (Oct 2, 2009)

HKJ said:


> The forward and reverse voltage are always different voltages, on ordinary diodes they are very different, i.e. Vf can be 0.6 volt and Vr can be 1000 volt.
> The led does not produce any light when voltage is reversed, but if the applied voltage is above Vr the led might get damaged.




I know of 1 exception: Henry's very special Ra Twisty 85 TR. When reverse polarity is applied, a red led lights up next to the main (Golden Dragon) emitter.


----------



## HKJ (Oct 2, 2009)

fareast said:


> I know of 1 exception: Henry's very special Ra Twisty 85 TR. When reverse polarity is applied, a red led lights up next to the main (Golden Dragon) emitter.



It might light up, but the Vf and Vr is still different (Red leds usual has below 2 volt).
It is also possible to buy other led packages with two leds in anti-parallel, there exist some 5 mm with red/green.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Oct 2, 2009)

Patriot said:


> oo: It's driven to 1.5A now, right? How high were you thinking of going?



LOL! :tinfoil:


----------



## saabluster (Oct 2, 2009)

Patriot said:


> oo: It's driven to 1.5A now, right? How high were you thinking of going?


It _should_ be 1.5A. As Lux mentioned earlier in the thread he measured far below that on the original R2. I am thinking now it is because the LED has an unusually high Vf and the voltage with the NiMH is not able to overcome it to reach a high enough current. It's a long story but he has a new style pill but needs the new style base to mount it in the old light. He is waiting on my lazy self to get one in the mail to him.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Oct 6, 2009)

saabluster said:


> It's a long story but he has a new style pill but needs the new style base to mount it in the old light. He is waiting on my lazy self to get one in the mail to him.



I have lots of popcorn.


----------



## windstrings (Oct 7, 2009)

Well to prevent reposting all my pics again, I"ll just put the link to them here starting at post # 379.

But last night for fun I sat my DEFT upon my car and aimed it to a spot I could walk to some 200 yards away.

When I got to the other end and looked back it looked like a star in supernova!

I tried to take a pic but it was just too much for my phone camera to handle.
Basically, just picture a blinding white star in the center of the screen surrounded by black and there you have it.

The DEFT operates under a mysterious illusion. It shines so far away, that the image it makes seems rather small when in reality it maybe be 50 ft tall.

This light would be great for spotting game as I don't think it would alarm all the other animals except the one that was targeted.
Since it has no corona or spill, the game would have no light to see by to run away.

Humm.... so if we mount this on a gun, does that make it tactical!..


----------



## Patriot (Oct 8, 2009)

About a month ago I spent a weekend up at my uncle's ranch house in the woods. It's very dark there and free of light pollution. One of his renters is a heli medi-vac pilot. While visiting on the deck one evening after dinner he asked be a couple of LED questions and then the conversation turned to HID. He asked me if I'd ever heard of a NightSun (short-arc) light. I said "I sure have" and proceeded to rattle off a few basic specs about the light off the top of my head. He's flown heli's equiped with NightSun's and was obviously impressed with the light. I went inside and grabbed the DEFT then walked back out and handed it to him. I said, "switch this little guy on and tell me what it reminds you of." He turned on the DEFT and just started chuckling in amazment. He said, "yep, that sort of like a baby NightSun isn't it!" He was very impressed with the DEFT and wanted to know more about it. I pointed him to CPF and Michael's work so hopefully he'll jump in here one of these days. Up there in the pitch darkness the DEFT had no trouble reaching the opposite side of the small canyon, well over a 1/4 mile away. I just wish I owned the new double lens DEFT..:shrug:

Perhaps I'll wait for the XP-G though.


----------



## saabluster (Oct 8, 2009)

Patriot said:


> About a month ago I spent a weekend up at my uncle's ranch house in the woods. It's very dark there and free of light pollution. One of his renters is a heli medi-vac pilot. While visiting on the deck one evening after dinner he asked be a couple of LED questions and then the conversation turned to HID. He asked me if I'd ever heard of a NightSun (short-arc) light. I said "I sure have" and proceeded to rattle off a few basic specs about the light off the top of my head. He's flown heli's equiped with NightSun's and was obviously impressed with the light. I went inside and grabbed the DEFT then walked back out and handed it to him. I said, "switch this little guy on and tell me what it reminds you of." He turned on the DEFT and just started chuckling in amazment. He said, "yep, that sort of like a baby NightSun isn't it!" He was very impressed with the DEFT and wanted to know more about it. I pointed him to CPF and Michael's work so hopefully he'll jump in here one of these days. Up there in the pitch darkness the DEFT had no trouble reaching the opposite side of the small canyon, well over a 1/4 mile away. I just wish I owned the new double lens DEFT..:shrug:
> 
> Perhaps I'll wait for the XP-G though.



Cool story. If you want your DEFT upgraded you can ship it back so that I can make sure it is all in proper alignment. I would have to reset the copper base. Just PM me. 

I have not made up my mind on the XP-G just yet. I was not all that impressed with the pre-production sample I got(with the DEFT's lens) but then it was only an R3. Still it will have to be run pretty hard to match the surface brightness of the XR-E. I can of course do that but then there are heat issues. The current DEFT would not be able to handle that amount of heat very well. It's on the line but I would like more room for comfort. I am trying to take into consideration these new LEDs with a DEFT redesign but there is a lot up in the air right now.


----------



## Patriot (Oct 8, 2009)

Thank you for the option and I'll take it into consideration. 

I do like the ultra tight beam of the original design and might enjoy keeping one that way. Maybe I'll just wait things out and see how the XP-G plays out. As I rarely have the light on more that a minute or two I might opt for the XP-G despite the possible heat concerns. Perhaps I could even guinea pig the XP-G and monitor it's output via the lux meter over time and see if it falls off at all .

Thanks Michael


----------



## saabluster (Oct 14, 2009)

LuxLuthor said:


> I have lots of popcorn.


I had to go to extremes today because the notes I posted across my computer screen weren't working.







It's not coming off till it ships. I figure I can hold out for another day or two.


----------



## Aircraft800 (Oct 15, 2009)

Cool!! A sneak peak into saabluster's laboratory!


----------



## windstrings (Oct 15, 2009)

Aircraft800 said:


> Cool!! A sneak peak into saabluster's laboratory!




I wonder what he does with the Binoculars?  :shakehead
.... or are those something else?

And what the hecks blotted out on the screen with that big white dot?
Now our imaginations run wild!


----------



## saabluster (Oct 15, 2009)

Well I had to sleep with it on but I just got the base in the mail a few minutes ago so I am freeeee!



windstrings said:


> I wonder what he does with the Binoculars?  :shakehead
> .... or are those something else?
> 
> And what the hecks blotted out on the screen with that big white dot?
> Now our imaginations run wild!


I bought those binoculars to look at the night sky. They don't work too well as I got them from DX. The blotting out was to hide some sensitive information.:nana: I almost didn't see it before posting.


----------



## Data (Oct 15, 2009)

windstrings said:


> . . . And what the hecks blotted out on the screen with that big white dot?
> Now our imaginations run wild!



After much forensic image editing, filtering, Fourier series transforms, fractal image solving, and googling . . . 
I have discovered what is behind the mysterious "BIG WHITE DOT"




































The truth is Mr. Luster is a Phillies Fan!!!!!!!!! * 













 *not mush else can be learned from this image


----------



## saabluster (Oct 15, 2009)




----------



## windstrings (Oct 15, 2009)

saabluster said:


> I bought those binoculars to look at the night sky.



Ok.. as long as we know your not a stalker! :duh2:

I had a pair of Swarovski 8.5 X 42's that were awesome for looking at the moon, it almost looked like you could reach out and scrap off the cheese! Quality lenses are better than high power IMO.

BTW... Speaking of High power..... I need a DEFT that will light up the dark side of the moon. :huh:


----------



## saabluster (Oct 15, 2009)

windstrings said:


> Ok.. as long as we know your not a stalker! :duh2:


Hmm...look out your kitchen window.:wave:













:nana:


----------



## LuxLuthor (Oct 15, 2009)




----------



## saabluster (Oct 16, 2009)

LuxLuthor said:


>


:thinking:I could have sworn that I posted this already but after having to sleep with that stupid thing taped to my head I finally got to take it off this after noon as I got it in the mail. Bout time I know.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Aug 24, 2012)

saabluster said:


> :thinking:I could have sworn that I posted this already but after having to sleep with that stupid thing taped to my head I finally got to take it off this after noon as I got it in the mail. Bout time I know.



LOL! I loved seeing those photos of you with the taped memo. I did get that base, btw. !!!


----------



## vestureofblood (Aug 24, 2012)

Well Well, look whose back in town. Nice to see you again Lux


----------

