# New Surefire prototype pics added



## BigD64 (Dec 28, 2009)

I got a peek at an MCE version of the M6. All I can say is wow. 2 light levels with the high being about 500 Surefire lumens. Takes the 8 cell 123 battery pack and should put out 2 hours on high, low looked to be in the 30 lumen range (just a guess) and I have no idea on run times for low. I don't know if this will ever hit the market but if it does I want one.


----------



## jonesy (Dec 28, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*

Where did you see it at? Got any pics? If this is real, it sounds like a winner.


----------



## jslappa (Dec 28, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*

8 cell holder? Standard now is a 6-cell holder. Hopefully you just goofed here. It would be nice to continue using all the battery carriers we already have available to us


----------



## mwaldron (Dec 28, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*

So in other words it's about as bright as the Seraph P7 head, but has a (desperately needed) low mode as well.

Hopefully they do something with CRI to make it interesting.


----------



## BigD64 (Dec 29, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*

It is 6 batteries, my bad I looked to quick, no Pics yet maybe soon I have to get my hands on it again.


----------



## Monocrom (Dec 29, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



mwaldron said:


> So in other words it's about as bright as the Seraph P7 head, but has a (desperately needed) low mode as well.
> 
> Hopefully they do something with CRI to make it interesting.


 
You're better off getting the Seraph head and a keychain light for low mode.

This LED M6 should be available by the time PK's great grand-children start designing lights for Surefire. :ironic:


----------



## Zeruel (Dec 29, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



Monocrom said:


> This LED M6 should be available by the time PK's great grand-children start designing lights for Surefire. :ironic:


----------



## hyperloop (Dec 29, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



Monocrom said:


> You're better off getting the Seraph head and a keychain light for low mode.
> 
> This LED M6 should be available by the time PK's great grand-children start designing lights for Surefire. :ironic:


----------



## Monocrom (Dec 29, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*

Yeah, you both know I'm right.


----------



## Echo63 (Dec 29, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



Monocrom said:


> You're better off getting the Seraph head and a keychain light for low mode.
> 
> This LED M6 should be available by the time PK's great grand-children start designing lights for Surefire. :ironic:



:twothumbs

I did buy the LF seraph head, because i couldnt wait for an M3LT


----------



## DimeRazorback (Dec 29, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*

Where did you get this sneak peak??

I'm thinking it is the LF head...


----------



## Monocrom (Dec 29, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



Echo63 said:


> :twothumbs
> 
> I did buy the LF seraph head, because i couldnt wait for an M3LT


 
More than one CPFer has bought a JetBeam M1X because they got tired of waiting for Surefire to release the M3LT.


----------



## rmteo (Dec 29, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



BigD64 said:


> I got a peek at an MCE version of the M6. All I can say is wow. 2 light levels with the high being about 500 *Surefire lumens*. Takes the 8 cell 123 battery pack and should put out 2 hours on high, low looked to be in the 30 lumen range (just a guess) and I have no idea on run times for low. I don't know if this will ever hit the market but if it does I want one.



I know what a lumen is. Can you tell me what is a Surefire lumen and how it is different from a regular lumen (or is that proprietary info) ?


----------



## Monocrom (Dec 29, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



rmteo said:


> I know what a lumen is. Can you tell me what is a Surefire lumen?


 
Conservative measurement of output out the front. If Surefire lists a light as having 65 lumens, you know that you'll get, bare minimum, 65 lumens of light out the front. Usually you get a bit more since Surefire tests a large sampling of the same model, and then rates the average output across that wide sampling. This leads to rather conservative output numbers. Some companies also list lumens in terms of real lumens, as out the front. But they use a different standard than Surefire. Many companies still list over-inflated emitter lumens. (Output measured at the emitter itself, before the head is attached. Once the head is in place, output drops down by 1/3 or even as much as 1/2.) Since folks don't use flashlights without the head attached, measuring output at the emitter is retarded. But it's a nice way of pretending that a company's product is better and brighter than it actually is.


----------



## rmteo (Dec 29, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



Monocrom said:


> Conservative measurement of output out the front. If Surefire lists a light as having 65 lumens, you know that you'll get, bare minimum, 65 lumens of light out the front. Usually you get a bit more since Surefire tests a large sampling of the same model, and then rates the average output across that wide sampling. This leads to rather conservative output numbers. Some companies also list lumens in terms of *real lumens*, as out the front. But they use a different standard than Surefire. Many companies still list over-inflated emitter lumens. (Output measured at the emitter itself, before the head is attached. Once the head is in place, output drops down by 1/3 or even as much as 1/2.) Since folks don't use flashlights without the head attached, measuring output at the emitter is retarded. But it's a nice way of pretending that a company's product is better and brighter than it actually is.



Now I am even more confused. You mention another type of lumen that I have not heard of, the *real lumen*. Let me rephrase the question:

1 Surefire lumens = ?? lumens
1 Real lumen = ?? lumens


----------



## Monocrom (Dec 29, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*

Surefire lumens are real lumens. They don't measure output at the emitter.


----------



## rmteo (Dec 29, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



Monocrom said:


> Surefire lumens are real lumens. They don't measure output at the emitter.



OK, what then is the relationship between emitter lumens and real/Surefire lumens?

1 Surefire/real lumen = ?? emitter lumens.


----------



## Monocrom (Dec 29, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



rmteo said:


> OK, what then is the relationship between emitter lumens and real/Surefire lumens?
> 
> 1 Surefire/real lumen = ?? emitter lumens.


 
I already explained the difference in a previous post.


----------



## Size15's (Dec 29, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*

SureFire set the standard for how to measure the lumen output of a flashlight.
Indeed SureFire is already implementing the industry standard it helped to develop. The "Flashlight Basic Performance Standard" (ANSI/NEMA FL 1-2009) introduces definitions and testing methods for flashlight basic performance as well as associated marking.

So in this regard there is no more recognised measure of a lumen from a flashlight than the one SureFire is using.

However, there is output variation from flashlight to flashlight as each individual LED in combination with the individual electronics used to drive it and the individual batteries used to power it, will generate variances that result in the output of each individual flashlight varying from the next.

Whilst SureFire doesn't uses terms like 'minimum' or 'at least' to qualify its lumen ratings, it is general acknowledged that SureFire isn't in the game of being optimistic with it's lumen ratings.

It seems that some other companies do not realise, or perhaps even decide not to take account of, the performance variation and determine to use a rating that only represents the better performing individuals.

The Flashlight Basic Performance Standard has only recently been published and many flashlight companies are either not aware of it, haven't finished undertaking testing to ensure their ratings 'comply' with it, or have decided to deliberately act to ignore it.

Al


----------



## Federal LG (Dec 29, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*

Monocrom... you killed me! 

And we all know you´re right.


----------



## yalskey (Dec 29, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



rmteo said:


> OK, what then is the relationship between emitter lumens and real/Surefire lumens?
> 
> 1 Surefire/real lumen = ?? emitter lumens.



rmteo, are you just playing "so smart that I'm dumb"?

Yes, we get your point... a lumen is a standardized unit of measurement. Just like an inch or millimeter is a standardized measurement of distance. However, there are such things as conventions of measurement and the way in which lumens are measured that could effect the resultant.

For example, if I'm measuring the speed of a car, and I get 100 mph, but I don't mention that I was measuring the speed of that car while traveling inside an observation car going 50 mph in the opposite direction, you would think, oh, that 100 mph car is fast, I'll buy that one... which really, it's only going 50 mph.

Was that an overly complex example?

Maybe I'm just feeding a semi-troll here... not sure. No offense intended.

Uhhhgggg.


----------



## rmteo (Dec 29, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



Monocrom said:


> I already explained the difference in a previous post.



You tried to explain - but you didn't answer my question?

1 Surefire/real lumen = ?? emitter lumens.


----------



## Monocrom (Dec 29, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



rmteo said:


> You tried to explain - but you didn't answer my question?
> 
> 1 Surefire/real lumen = ?? emitter lumens.


 
If you want an exact mathematical breakdown to the exact lumen, that's not going to happen. Not realistic. The best that can be done is, once again, take a company's stated output (one known for measuring output at the emitter) and subtract that number by 1/3 to get a more realistic idea of what the flashlight is actually putting out. If a company has a reputation for over-inflating numbers, you'd be better off subtracting by 1/2 instead of 1/3.

It's like wanting a cup of warm tea. You can't just boil the water to the perfect degree. You boil it until the kettle whistles, pour the tea, then toss in an ice-cube to get it warm.


----------



## mwaldron (Dec 29, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



Echo63 said:


> :twothumbs
> 
> I did buy the LF seraph head, because i couldnt wait for an M3LT



I bought it and I love it, it gave me something to do with the M6 body once my Megallenium claimed my KT4 fulltime. 

It sure would be nice to have it a 2-stage though... that P7 is blinding.


----------



## rmteo (Dec 29, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



yalskey said:


> rmteo, are you just playing "so smart that I'm dumb"?
> 
> Yes, we get your point... a lumen is a standardized unit of measurement. Just like an inch or millimeter is a standardized measurement of distance. However, there are such things as conventions of measurement and the way in which lumens are measured that could effect the resultant.
> 
> ...



Agreed. But that does not detract from the fact that mph is a unit of velocity that can be used as a basis for a real comparison of different vehicles. What I'm saying is that a Surefire lumen is about as useful a piece of information as a Ford mph (or a GM mph, or a Toyota mph) in that it tells you absolutely nothing - except to give the uninitiated the impression that they are getting more than what they really are.


----------



## THE_dAY (Dec 29, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*

rmteo,

Emitter lumens are lumens out of the LED before Losses from reflector and lens, usually ~20-25%.

Most flashlight companys will rate their flashlights with emitter lumens, so for example:

Flashlight A is rated @ 100 lumens (emitter lumens) but actual lumens out the front are ~80-75 lumens.

Surefire Flashlight is rated @100 lumens (Surefire lumens) so actual lumens are ~100-120 because Surefire can be very conservative with their estimates.

So in the real world when you turn on a Surefire flashlight rated at 100 lumens, and Flashlight A rated at 100 lumens then it will all make sense.


----------



## rmteo (Dec 29, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*

THE_day, thank you for taking the time to make that explanation.

Bottom line is that there is no such thing a Surefire lumen or a real lumen or emitter lumens, etc. A lumen is a lumen period. The lumen is a metric unit of measurement that is used to quantify the total amount of light radiated by a visible light source.


----------



## skillet (Dec 29, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



BigD64 said:


> I got a peek at an MCE version of the M6. All I can say is wow. 2 light levels with the high being about 500 Surefire lumens. Takes the 8 cell 123 battery pack and should put out 2 hours on high, low looked to be in the 30 lumen range (just a guess) and I have no idea on run times for low. I don't know if this will ever hit the market but if it does I want one.




Has anyone else seen this light? Let me try to pull this thread back on topic...


----------



## MSaxatilus (Dec 29, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



> Bottom line is that there is no such thing a Surefire lumen or a real lumen or emitter lumens, etc. A lumen is a lumen period. The lumen is a metric unit of measurement that is used to quantify the total amount of light radiated by a visible light source.


 
True, but it would be nice if every flashlight manufacturer made claims on their products based upon the same methodology. Since they don't, some claims are exagerated, while others are understated, which leads to alternative "definitions" in hopes of clarifying the obvious discrepancies.



> Has anyone else seen this light? Let me try to pull this thread back on topic...


 
Agreed. Anyone else seen this thing?

MSax


----------



## Search (Dec 29, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*

To sum a collective waste of words up into one comment: "When a LOT of manufactures over emphasize their products lumens, brands like SureFire take a more conservative approach, often under rating their products lumens." 

There, now lets not even get into how they rate their incandescent lights. 


On topic. Where is this information coming from? Insider knowledge? I'm a tad bit skeptical.


----------



## Kestrel (Dec 29, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*

Thread title: *New Surefire prototype*

# of posts on New Surefire prototype:
*15*

# of posts on lumens:
*15*

Currently the score is *tied*. Let's try to change that.


----------



## Patriot (Dec 29, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



Monocrom said:


> This LED M6 should be available by the time PK's great grand-children start designing lights for Surefire. :ironic:





LOL!!!!!! Oh my goodness! That was good Monocrom. It has become quite a funny subject around here though hasn't it? 

It's amazing to me that someone has actually seen "it." Since the sighting is discrete, so to speak, we don't know what stage of development it's in or if it will ever exist. It's probably safe to say that MC-E will shortly be getting flogged by the new generation of SST-50's and 90's. Even if the light made it to market in the next 6-12 months it will be interesting to see where it stands on the LED curve at that time. We know that the light itself is going to be quality and a work of art but still, I don't see myself buying a 4 die light at this point. Jetbeam pretty much perfected the 4 die beam long ago in the M1X and the quality was pretty darn good to boot. Lumens Factory has developed quite an excellent reputation as well so for the price, again, it's hard to beat. 

Please don't laugh at me but I'm still waiting on their new HID light...:nana:


----------



## csshih (Dec 29, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*

were you looking at a prototype, or a mod? :thinking:


----------



## wykeite (Dec 29, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



rmteo said:


> Bottom line is that there is no such thing a Surefire lumen or a real lumen or emitter lumens, etc. A lumen is a lumen period. The lumen is a metric unit of measurement that is used to quantify the total amount of light radiated by a visible light source.


 
How many Lumens are there in a dawning?:thinking:


----------



## RichS (Dec 29, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



Monocrom said:


> Conservative measurement of output out the front. If Surefire lists a light as having 65 lumens, you know that you'll get, bare minimum, 65 lumens of light out the front. Usually you get a bit more since Surefire tests a large sampling of the same model, and then rates the average output across that wide sampling. This leads to rather conservative output numbers. Some companies also list lumens in terms of real lumens, as out the front. But they use a different standard than Surefire. Many companies still list over-inflated emitter lumens. (Output measured at the emitter itself, before the head is attached. Once the head is in place, output drops down by 1/3 or even as much as 1/2.) Since folks don't use flashlights without the head attached, measuring output at the emitter is retarded. But it's a nice way of pretending that a company's product is better and brighter than it actually is.


 
For my own clarification, since SureFire rates the new LX2 at 200 lumens - which should be conservative out-the-front lumens, does this mean that they're getting 260 lumens (30% more) at the emitter out of this Cree XRE light?


----------



## DimeRazorback (Dec 29, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



rmteo said:


> What I'm saying is that a Surefire lumen is about as useful a piece of information as a Ford mph (or a GM mph, or a Toyota mph) in that it tells you absolutely nothing - except to give the uninitiated the impression that they are getting more than what they really are.



This is where you are wrong.

A "Surefire" Lumen has *much* more substance than a Lumen rating from "Brand X's". 

I'm sure you understand why, by now.


----------



## DimeRazorback (Dec 29, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



RichS said:


> For my own clarification, since SureFire rates the new LX2 at 200 lumens - which should be conservative out-the-front lumens, does this mean that they're getting 260 lumens (30% more) at the emitter out of this Cree XRE light?



Don't forget that the TIR optics have a dramatically less amount of lost light, compared to that of a light with a reflector.

Therefore, the lumen output at the emitter, would not need to be as high as some of those lights putting out 200 Lumens via a reflector.


----------



## Kestrel (Dec 29, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



Kestrel said:


> Thread title: *New Surefire prototype*
> 
> # of posts on New Surefire prototype:
> *15*
> ...


OK, now it's *18* to *19*. _What is a lumen?_ is currently ahead, perhaps we should change the thread title now.


----------



## Search (Dec 29, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



sp5it said:


> What is so impressive in that light? SF logo?
> Mine P7 based light can do 900 lumens for 80 minutes from two cheap 18650.
> I love mine U2, but dealextreme light for 30 bucks is brighter than that.
> Mike





RichS said:


> For my own clarification, since SureFire rates the new LX2 at 200 lumens - which should be conservative out-the-front lumens, does this mean that they're getting 260 lumens (30% more) at the emitter out of this Cree XRE light?


----------



## Sgt. LED (Dec 29, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*

I would like to see the M6 sporting a SST-50 but an MC-E I would not buy.
It'll have a donut or have hardly any throw.


----------



## Josey (Dec 29, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*

A powerful, multi-level, long-running LED option for the M6 seems so obvious. I hope Surefire goes this route. 

It should also have a rechargeable option. The Wolf-Eyes Super Storm is probably close to 1,000 OTF lumens (rated at 1,200 to 1,500, depending on model). That amount of light makes such a difference, especially when the runtime is so long and when recharging is as simple as plugging in a charging jack. It makes tactical recharges practical.

The Surefire M6 is a wonderful platform; it's a shame that the company doesn't do more with it. I'd eve like to see them have a replaceable LED/light engine package, something like a tower or Don's old Aleph design, so the light could be easily and cheaply upgraded in a time of such rapidly advancing technology.

But Surefire clearly has problems in bringing out new models, as the Optimus illustrates.


----------



## csshih (Dec 29, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



sp5it said:


> Mine P7 based light can do 900 lumens for 80 minutes


no. more like 400-500 lumens. 

I seriously doubt the new surefire LX2 does 260 OTF.. and they seem to be rating more "correctly' now.


----------



## foxtrot29 (Dec 29, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



rmteo said:


> THE_day, thank you for taking the time to make that explanation.
> 
> Bottom line is that there is no such thing a Surefire lumen or a real lumen or emitter lumens, etc. A lumen is a lumen period. The lumen is a metric unit of measurement that is used to quantify the total amount of light radiated by a visible light source.



No, there is an actual equation for this I read somewhere... I could be slightly off, but I think it was:

60 Surefire Lumens = 300 Chinese Lumens.

Again, I could be slightly off...


----------



## JakeGMCHD (Dec 29, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*

That would be a cool light taking the U2 UI and combining it into a M6. 

I'd buy one of them.


----------



## dcycleman (Dec 29, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*

I just get sick of waiting for models that never come out, and when they do theres already a hotter led on the market


----------



## c0t0d0s0 (Dec 29, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



rmteo said:


> Now I am even more confused. You mention another type of lumen that I have not heard of, the *real lumen*. Let me rephrase the question:
> 
> 1 Surefire lumens = ?? lumens
> 1 Real lumen = ?? lumens



1 Surefire lumen is whatever Surefire Marketing designates it to be for any given model of their lights at any given moment of time without any correlation to actual measured light output. However, typically 1 Surefire lumen > 1 SI lumen. Also, 1 Chinese lumen < 1 SI lumen.


----------



## RichS (Dec 29, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



Sgt. LED said:


> I would like to see the M6 sporting a SST-50 but an MC-E I would not buy.
> It'll have a donut or have hardly any throw.


Agreed. Part of the problem is that LED technology is evolving at a much faster pace than SureFire's R&D in bringing a new light into production. By the time they get an MCE light ready, other manufacturers will have SST-50 or newer LEDs out which produce a better beam pattern. 

But maybe that's their strategy - keep their fanbase close through anticipation of their "soon to be released" model with the latest and greatest emitter, while in reality they are waiting on the dust to settle.. Is the P7 or MCE, or the SST-50, or maybe something else the best way to break the 500 lumen mark in a SF LED light.. They are not a company to update their lights every other month when the next new emitter is released. Pretty smart IMO - it seems to be working for them so far.


Oh and Search, :wave:oo::shrug:


----------



## DimeRazorback (Dec 29, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*

I think it is because they like to use tried and tested things, not fresh on the market products that haven't necessarily proven themself to stand up to do the job SF wants them too. Anyway, an SST-50 may never fill the niche that they have. Their range of products include HID's & high output incans, so why would they need to produce an LED version?

I think people have the misconception that SF are a company that release a new light for each new LED like other companies... Fact is they design things to do a specific job, not to utilise the latest LED on the market.

If people don't like the light, or the wait that SF produce... don't buy it. There is no obligation, so why complain?

My 6PL with P60L isn't the brightest, or best tinted light in my collection, however I use it more than my "Brand X" tactical flashlights...

I am a huge fan of SF which is very obvious, however if they produce a product I don't like or want, I simply wont purchase it... I won't complain or feel upset that the product didn't fill the particular use I need something for. They make tools, and sometimes not everyone needs a particular tool.


----------



## berry580 (Dec 29, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*

well they're a company with a secure fan base, no need to rush things to achieve market penetration and sell products that they know they'll need to recall straight away.
They sell their things with reliability as their main attribute, not being the newest and greatest nor the "best", IMO, those belongs in the fad section.


----------



## Search (Dec 29, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*

This is similar to the people in the MP still trying trying to participate in a give-away that ended 5 days ago.


----------



## DimeRazorback (Dec 29, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*

Berry - Spot on :thumbsup:

Search -


----------



## Monocrom (Dec 30, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



Patriot said:


> Please don't laugh at me but I'm still waiting on their new HID light...:nana:


 
I won't laugh. But you have the optimism of a Saint.


----------



## a1penguin (Dec 30, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*

So lumens reporting number are like..... Ford mpg or Toyota mpg for cars? They all tell the truth, but only if you drive in a vacuum at a specific temperature and pressure and on idea surface.


----------



## Monocrom (Dec 30, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



a1penguin said:


> So lumens reporting number are like..... Ford mpg or Toyota mpg for cars? They all tell the truth, but only if you drive in a vacuum at a specific temperature and pressure and on idea surface.


 
Nope!

My main point with lumens numbers from Surefire is that your Surefire light will either be putting out the lumens numbers stated, or a bit more. Oddly, that simple concept was too difficult for a certain CPFer earlier in this thread to grasp. Despite his attempts to muddy the waters, it doesn't change the fact that Surefire tends to be conservative when rating the output of their lights. Let's say you buy a G2. It's rated at 65 lumens. Since it's a Surefire, you know the actual output will be 65 lumens. With Surefire, you'll probably get a bit more output than what's stated. But at a bare minimum, output will be what's stated by Surefire. This isn't always the case with lights from other companies. Here's an example to illustrate what I mean ...

A couple of years ago, I visited my best friend in upstate NY. We stopped off at Cabela's. I went a bit overboard, and bought several lights. One was a Surefire G2, rated at 65 lumens. Another one was a Streamlight Scorpion rated at 114 lumens. I thought the Scorpion would be much brighter than the G2. One of the reasons I bought the G2 was to compare quality with my Brinkmann Maxfire LX. (At the time, I knew Surefire made quality lights. But I didn't know just how good they really are).

Imagine my shock when I discovered that the Surefire G2 was significantly brighter than the Streamlight Scorpion. Streamlight measured the Scorpion's output at the emitter. Once the head was installed, you no longer got 114 lumens. So no, it's not the same as MPG stated by one car company, vs. the numbers stated by another one. Surefire uses the best method for giving customers realistic info as to what they'll get when they press the tailcap switch. Other companies are content with telling customers what a light is _capable _of, instead of what it _actually _gives. 

A V6 Mustang is capable of performing like a Cobra Mustang. After all, they share a lot of the same sheetmetal. But are you realistically going to get that level of performance out of a Base Mustang?


----------



## kaichu dento (Dec 30, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



Size15's said:


> SureFire set the standard for how to measure the lumen output of a flashlight.
> Indeed SureFire is already implementing the industry standard it helped to develop. The "Flashlight Basic Performance Standard" (ANSI/NEMA FL 1-2009) introduces definitions and testing methods for flashlight basic performance as well as associated marking.
> 
> So in this regard there is no more recognised measure of a lumen from a flashlight than the one SureFire is using.
> ...


I hope someday all makers will have to publish figures using this system. The other day I was at a friends house and he took a reading of my MiNi AA using a meter he'd just bought and had it rated at such an incredible output figure that I didn't even bother remembering what it was.


rmteo said:


> THE_day, thank you for taking the time to make that explanation.
> 
> Bottom line is that there is no such thing a Surefire lumen or a real lumen or emitter lumens, etc. A lumen is a lumen period. The lumen is a metric unit of measurement that is used to quantify the total amount of light radiated by a visible light source.


After all the effort put into answering your question this is the conclusion you come to? Faux intellectual post intended to show your superior understanding of all things, but it seems you still don't get it. 

There is most definitely a difference between Surefire lumens which run by a very stringent set of guidelines and a great majority of other makers lumens, many of whom deliberately finagle their numbers to dupe buyers like you who think that a Streamlight lumen rating and Surefire lumen rating will give accurate comparative output. 


Monocrom said:


> Nope!
> 
> My main point with lumens numbers from Surefire is that your Surefire light will either be putting out the lumens numbers stated, or a bit more. Oddly, that simple concept was too difficult for a certain CPFer earlier in this thread to grasp. Despite his attempts to muddy the waters, it doesn't change the fact that Surefire tends to be conservative when rating the output of their lights. Let's say you buy a G2. It's rated at 65 lumens. Since it's a Surefire, you know the actual output will be 65 lumens. With Surefire, you'll probably get a bit more output than what's stated. But at a bare minimum, output will be what's stated by Surefire. This isn't always the case with lights from other companies. Here's an example to illustrate what I mean ...
> 
> ...


Monocrom, your answer was sufficient from the start and some of us still appreciate the information you give! :thumbsup:


----------



## MattK (Dec 30, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*

Reposting myself a bit here. I'm not addressing SF specifically here but this thread has moved beyond that into lumen measurement/claims. I do not disagree that SF is conservative when claiming lumens - we tested a '120L' E2DL earlier this year in a $25K spehere and it was closer to 165L.

Moving on to the greater topic...

The OTF vs emitter lumens topic has been beaten to death many times over already.

Only a few Mfr's currently state OTF - the other 50+ user emitter spec output. 

To test OTF one needs a $20-30,000 integrating sphere with a NIST calibrated bulb that costs $2000+ and is only good for 1 year or 50 hours of use. Additionally, no one would want to be one of the 'first' stating OTF lumens as they'd be at a severe disadvantage marketing their products. 
Also, even if they did would you 'trust' all of the factories to provide perfectly accurate data or would you then require that lights went out to an independent NIST certified lab? 
Sure, SF does it now but what SF does has no relevancy to any other company as SF truly exists in a class by themselves.

Also, OTF integrating sphere measurements are not absolute. 
Different sphere and chromatographs will give different results even assuming that they're properly calibrated. 
Different testing methods will give different results; output capture relative to start time of the light, position of the light relative to the port, placing the light entirely within the sphere vs using a port, light positioning within the sphere or port, etc etc etc. 
To do it right you'd need to test like 10 lights in 2-3 different spheres. You need 10+ lights because testing one is meaningless - you need to allow, somewhat, for batch variation in the emitters and componentry. 
How often would you require re-testing? Every production batch? 
Also, because of component variation a particular light might not meet the stated lumens - is it then false advertising??

We looked into buying a sphere. It's complicated, very complicated, to do it 'right' and there is really no, 'right.'

Selling a flashlight as X Watts is selling on MPG - 'our car is so fast it only get's 10MPG - that is meaningless. Selling an engine on displacement is also somewhat useless but it's done all of the time. Using FACTORY EMITTER SPEC based on current to the LED is a completely valid method - one could make the argument that it is the most valid simply because it's the most widely used. Would you have the factories average emitter spec lumens and OTF lumens to arrive at a number?

Now, on to discussing the, "Flashlight Basic Performance Standard" (ANSI/NEMA FL 1-2009) - let's call it FBPS.

-Many companies might not be 'aware of it,' because it was a small group of US companies on the committee that worked at developing it and they neither invited nor really welcomed 'outside' input. The processed was intitiated by one factory and many other companies declined to participate as a result.

-FBPS does address some of the issues I've mentioned above but it's still a pretty crappy standard because it's standards are poorly designed and seem made more for marketing purposes than actual fact finding. I'm on my home machine and have the doc on my work machine but it's toally made to give absurd runtimes - clearly a product of the desires of a certain companies on the committee....(Not SF)

-It's absurd that one has to pay to buy a copy of this standard. If it's not open to consumer/commercial review what applicability does it have? Seriously, it's like publishing poll results without posting the methodology.

-Use of FBPS is a completely voluntary 'standard'. Making it sound compulsary is misleading. Further, since the 'standard' was basically discussed in secret and decided by a handful of companies why should every factory feel compelled to abide by it?


----------



## Hitthespot (Dec 30, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



Monocrom said:


> Surefire lumens are real lumens. They don't measure output at the emitter.


 
Monocrom,

Surefire Lumens are lighter than regular lumens aren't they?


Bill


----------



## divine (Dec 30, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*

All talk about lumens is off the topic of the new M6 Prototype and can all be answered by using the search feature.

I think it is bad that Surefire is still looking at the MC-E for a high lumen light. I think the SST-50 would make a much nicer light and much more similar to the original M6.


----------



## rmteo (Dec 30, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



Monocrom said:


> ... A V6 Mustang is capable of performing like a Cobra Mustang. After all, they share a lot of the same sheetmetal. But are you realistically going to get that level of performance out of a Base Mustang?



Of course not. Anyone will tell you that a Cobra Mustang that puts out 190 Cobra HP will outperform a V6 Mustang that puts out 190 Base HP.


----------



## pulstar (Dec 30, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



Hitthespot said:


> Monocrom,
> 
> Surefire Lumens are lighter than regular lumens aren't they?
> 
> ...



Well, i don't see nothing constructive in your reply....


Look guys, why is so hard to understand difference between OTF and emitter lumens? Phrase "Surefire lumens" usually describes OTF lumens and with 200lum LX2 you're gettin' atleast 200lum OTF flashlight. It really isn't so complicated. 

From my personal experience i can say, that Surefire rates it's products very conservative. My LX2 (200 lumens) is brighter than Nitecore Extreme R2(220lumen) while doing a "ceiling-bounce" test.


----------



## MattK (Dec 30, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*

Nitecore uses emitter lumens so it should be brighter.


----------



## Search (Dec 30, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*

The prototype doesn't exist. Most have been had twice. Guess where the second joke is in the thread.


----------



## rmteo (Dec 30, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



kaichu dento said:


> .... The other day I was at a friends house and he took a reading of my MiNi AA using a meter he'd just bought and had it rated at such an incredible output figure that I didn't even bother remembering what it was.



You don't have a clue what lumen is, do you?


----------



## iceagecaver (Dec 30, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*

I really wish Surefire would put out a rechargeable M6. I like its look a lot more than the Dominator 10X, but really balk at that 20 minute run time...maybe they could lengthen the handle to take another batch of batteries to make it 30 minutes of run time. That to me would be the perfect flashlight, like a mini-Beast.


----------



## kaichu dento (Dec 30, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



rmteo said:


> You don't have a clue what lumen is, do you?


Of all the people in this thread, you seem to be the sole example of one who would muddy the waters with your inane posts, not to mention the only one who is apparently clueless. You've ignored all the examples given, or are incapable of comprehending what has been very explained many times by numerous posters, all of whom agree on the discussion at hand and the best you come up with now is that we don't know what a lumen is? 

Go back to your bridge troll. 

Matt, thanks for taking the time to explain a lot of what is going on in the industry. I for one pretty much ignore lumen/lux ratings on lights from any company I don't trust and I'm sure many of the ones I don't are the ones described in your post.
Ratings decided behind closed doors sounds really fishy to me!


----------



## rmteo (Dec 30, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



kaichu dento said:


> Of all the people in this thread, you seem to be the sole example of one who would muddy the waters with your inane posts, not to mention the only one who is apparently clueless. You've ignored all the examples given, or are incapable of comprehending what has been very explained many times by numerous posters, all of whom agree on the discussion at hand and the best you come up with now is that *we don't know what a lumen is?
> *
> Go back to your bridge troll.



Do you? If you do, then please explain how you friend was able to measure the output of your MiNi AA with his light meter.


----------



## kaichu dento (Dec 30, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



rmteo said:


> Do you? If you do, then please explain how you friend was able to measure the output of your MiNi AA with his light meter.


You're the only one here who had a problem with the term 'Surefire lumens' so go do your homework and quit trolling up the thread. :shakehead


----------



## rmteo (Dec 30, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



kaichu dento said:


> You're the only one here who had a problem with the term 'Surefire lumens' so go do your homework and quit trolling up the thread. :shakehead



I have done my homework or I would not be asking these questions. And thank you for confirming my suspicions.


----------



## Monocrom (Dec 30, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*

Matt, you raised some excellent points. But I don't see how measuring emitter lumens is considered a valid method for rating output. With the exception of a company dedicated to making aftermarket drop-ins only, such as TerraLux, it comes off as misleading to claim output is higher than it actually is. If the difference was just a tiny bit, no one would care. But it's not. 

Here's another example of what I mean. A Streamlight UltraStinger is rated at 295 lumens. Someone who isn't a flashaholic, doesn't know the rule of thumb to subtract 1/3 or 1/2 from claimed output, decides that it would make an excellent, powerful light. That person buys it. Perhaps later on they stumble onto our little community. Learns that his powerful torch isn't putting out a tick under 300 lumens. Out the front output, realistic output, is closer to 160 - 175 lumens. 

Is that person going to be upset? Is he going to feel as though he was cheated? Is he going to think this is a case of false advertising? 

That sort of common situation is why measuring output at the emitter isn't a vaild way of rating output. I will admit that it is much cheaper than having to invest in a sphere. But just because a method is cheaper and therefore adopted across the board by an industry, that doesn't make it valid. If the cheaper method resulted in lumen output being grossly underrated, instead of overrated, would flashlight companies still use it? I honestly don't believe they would. Measuring output at the emitter is cheaper and gives over inflated results, making a company's product seem better than it really is. 

No customer is going to buy a flashlight and use it without the head attached. So why measure output without the head attached ... Other than the fact that it's cheaper than using a sphere to get a more accurate indication of a light's performance, and that it makes a product seem better than it is.

Also, it might look as though I'm focusing on Streamlight. The UltraStinger is a fine light that many LEOs rely on. It's just not the one to buy if you want something putting out 300 lumens.


----------



## Monocrom (Dec 30, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



iceagecaver said:


> I really wish Surefire would put out a rechargeable M6. I like its look a lot more than the Dominator 10X, but really balk at that 20 minute run time...maybe they could lengthen the handle to take another batch of batteries to make it 30 minutes of run time. That to me would be the perfect flashlight, like a mini-Beast.


 
Good news! Many of us who own an M6 have already turned it into a rechargeable light. The easiest option is to get a charger, buy six AW RCR123 cells, and buy a Lumens Factory HO-M6R lamp. Use the stock M6 battery carriage. There's your rechargeable option. I use one that's a bit brighter. Same LF lamp, but I use three 17670 rechargeable cells in a special battery carriage made by CPFer mdocod.

There are a ton of other rechargeable configurations as well. :twothumbs


----------



## yalskey (Dec 30, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*

[To the melody of "Breaking the Law"]

"Feeding the troll, feeding the troll..."

Some people think they are so smart, but really they are emotionally / socially unintelligent. Like trying to make a little technical point whilst missing the big picture. Overly left-brain thinking. There's a difference between denotation / exact facts and connotation / conventions & practices in the real-world. Anyways, let's not waste anymore time with this... what was this thread about anyways?


----------



## Monocrom (Dec 30, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



yalskey said:


> ... what was this thread about anyways?


 
An LED M6 that many of us won't see until we're collecting social security.


----------



## BigD64 (Dec 30, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*

Well.......I certainly didn't mean to stir the lumen pot with my post. Rmteo, I believe you made your point and have beaten the dead horse so severely it's beyond resurrection.

The light in question is a prototype and if I can get a hold of it again I'll post some pics. It is an M6 with a 4 die led emitter. 2 light levels with a tactical tailcap (push momentary on and light level change and twist for constant on). It's size and heft would make it a great law enforcement light. I do not think you will see a rechargeable version although the are rumblings of AA lights in the works.


----------



## rmteo (Dec 30, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



Monocrom said:


> ... A couple of years ago, I visited my best friend in upstate NY. We stopped off at Cabela's. I went a bit overboard, and bought several lights. One was a Surefire G2, rated at 65 lumens. Another one was a Streamlight Scorpion rated at 114 lumens. I thought the Scorpion would be much brighter than the G2. One of the reasons I bought the G2 was to compare quality with my Brinkmann Maxfire LX. (At the time, I knew Surefire made quality lights. But I didn't know just how good they really are).
> 
> *Imagine my shock when I discovered that the Surefire G2 was significantly brighter than the Streamlight Scorpion.* Streamlight measured the Scorpion's output at the emitter. Once the head was installed, you no longer got 114 lumens. So no, it's not the same as MPG stated by one car company, vs. the numbers stated by another one. Surefire uses the best method for giving customers realistic info as to what they'll get when they press the tailcap switch. Other companies are content with telling customers what a light is _capable _of, instead of what it _actually _gives.



And why should you be? You are trying to equate output (lumens) with brightness (intensity) which are entirely different things altogether.

Which is like saying - I was shocked when I discovered that my motorcycle will out accelerate my truck even though my motorcycle has an output of only 40HP and my truck has an output of 280HP.

It must be because a Yamaha HP is a lot more potent than a Chevy HP.


----------



## Hitthespot (Dec 30, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



pulstar said:


> Well, i don't see nothing constructive in your reply....
> 
> 
> Look guys, why is so hard to understand difference between OTF and emitter lumens? Phrase "Surefire lumens" usually describes OTF lumens and with 200lum LX2 you're gettin' atleast 200lum OTF flashlight. It really isn't so complicated.
> ...


 
No sense of humor or what. How many replys in a thread does it take to explain Surefire rates their Lumens out the front after losses and most manufacturers rate their lumens at the emiter before losses..................


----------



## kromeke (Dec 30, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



> -It's absurd that one has to pay to buy a copy of this standard. If it's not open to consumer/commercial review what applicability does it have? Seriously, it's like publishing poll results without posting the methodology.


I tend to agree, but it is a widespread practice. ANSI, ASME, SAE, ASTM, I could go on. The great thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from  

Those guys at ANSI need to eat too you know!

Open source, open source, open source, is the answer...

BTW, there is at least one other company that tries to keep things honest, HDS Systems D/B/A Ra lights.


----------



## AR_Shorty (Dec 30, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*

Are Seraph P7 heads still being made? I can't seem to find any in stock anywhere.


----------



## yalskey (Dec 30, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*

This is like the worst thread in a while... yet I can't stop reading it!!!!

I agree that Surefire should use a beefier emitter than a MC-E for a new M6. I also think it will be at least a year before we see anything like this.

Also... pics or it didn't happen.


----------



## pulstar (Dec 30, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



Hitthespot said:


> No sense of humor or what. How many replys in a thread does it take to explain Surefire rates their Lumens out the front after losses and most manufacturers rate their lumens at the emiter before losses..................



Sorry, i need to take my sarcasm detector to a technical examination...

I apologize for "picking" on you, it really sounded a bit harsh.


----------



## rx78gp02 (Dec 30, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*

*going to apply at surefire to find out the down low on the led m6... and the surefire lumens rating...*


kidding!!!


----------



## MattK (Dec 30, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



Monocrom said:


> Matt, you raised some excellent points. But I don't see how measuring emitter lumens is considered a valid method for rating output. With the exception of a company dedicated to making aftermarket drop-ins only, such as TerraLux, it comes off as misleading to claim output is higher than it actually is. If the difference was just a tiny bit, no one would care. But it's not.



Ahh, you've missed it though - see we're not going to be measuring emitter lumens - we're going to use the factories specified minimum output for a given bin at a set current/Vf - that's much more accurate frankly than measured OTF since it's a simple mathematical calculation and an entirely even playing field.



Monocrom said:


> Here's another example of what I mean. A Streamlight UltraStinger is rated at 295 lumens. Someone who isn't a flashaholic, doesn't know the rule of thumb to subtract 1/3 or 1/2 from claimed output, decides that it would make an excellent, powerful light. That person buys it. Perhaps later on they stumble onto our little community. Learns that his powerful torch isn't putting out a tick under 300 lumens. Out the front output, realistic output, is closer to 160 - 175 lumens.
> 
> Is that person going to be upset? Is he going to feel as though he was cheated? Is he going to think this is a case of false advertising?



Strawman argument. Someone who isn't a flashaholic will fire up that UltraStinger and say, HOLY CARP THAT's BRIGHT! The rule of thumb isn't relevant - see if everyone uses the SAME system it's simply not relevant if the number is OTF or emitter. 

Is it false advertising? No, only if they say that it is 300 OTF.



Monocrom said:


> That sort of common situation is why measuring output at the emitter isn't a vaild way of rating output. I will admit that it is much cheaper than having to invest in a sphere. But just because a method is cheaper and therefore adopted across the board by an industry, that doesn't make it valid. If the cheaper method resulted in lumen output being grossly underrated, instead of overrated, would flashlight companies still use it? I honestly don't believe they would. Measuring output at the emitter is cheaper and gives over inflated results, making a company's product seem better than it really is.
> 
> No customer is going to buy a flashlight and use it without the head attached. So why measure output without the head attached ... Other than the fact that it's cheaper than using a sphere to get a more accurate indication of a light's performance, and that it makes a product seem better than it is.
> 
> Also, it might look as though I'm focusing on Streamlight. The UltraStinger is a fine light that many LEOs rely on. It's just not the one to buy if you want something putting out 300 lumens.



Do you know how cars HP is rated? 
It's called SAE NET HP @ RPM. 
Know what is is? 
Engine HP before the transmission and the driveline, wheels etc. 

SO, every car MFR in the world is basically advertising 'emitter' HP. 

Why? I dunno - probably because the numbers are 20% bigger but also it takes the tires, transmission choice etc out of the loop and simplifies the measurement.


----------



## Hitthespot (Dec 30, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



pulstar said:


> Sorry, i need to take my sarcasm detector to a technical examination...
> 
> I apologize for "picking" on you, it really sounded a bit harsh.


 
No Worries......:twothumbs

Bill


----------



## kaichu dento (Dec 30, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



rmteo said:


> I have done my homework or I would not be asking these questions. And thank you for confirming my suspicions.


Yalskey got your numbers... :laughing:


yalskey said:


> [To the melody of "Breaking the Law"]
> 
> "Feeding the troll, feeding the troll..."
> 
> Some people think they are so smart, but really they are emotionally / socially unintelligent. Like trying to make a little technical point whilst missing the big picture. Overly left-brain thinking. There's a difference between denotation / exact facts and connotation / conventions & practices in the real-world. Anyways, let's not waste anymore time with this... what was this thread about anyways?


----------



## angelofwar (Dec 30, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*

Might this be the M6 with one of the newer M3TL LED heads? if it works on nine volts like the KL6, it should also work on the M6...and I can see ti being a prototype, as it appears they have a little more work to do...and it would keep with SF's habit of keeping things "compatible". i.e. KT4 for the M3T and M6 now...KT4L(?) for the new M3TL and "prototype" M6L???? $10 says it will end up being the same head...nice to see a pic to compare it to the new (unreleased) M3TL in the catalog...


----------



## riffraff (Dec 30, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



kaichu dento said:


> You're the only one here who had a problem with the term 'Surefire lumens' so go do your homework and quit trolling up the thread. :shakehead


Actually, anyone here with a background in metrology should have a problem with these so-called "Surefire lumens." I still cannot find any mention such a unit of measure at NIST. Oh, well.

A lumen is a lumen; it's where and how it's measured that makes a difference. The MPG analogy earlier doesn't really fit, but an analogy using horsepower does (as long as you understand that horsepower is not a recognized unit of measure, either). Brake horsepower (bhp) is measured at the engine's output, before encountering any losses due to power train. Rear-wheel horsepower, on the other hand, is always less. Does that make it a "Surefire horsepower?" No, it's still a "horsepower." Only now the context is different. 

The only standard of measure with regard to light in this thread is a lumen. Pure and simple.


----------



## rmteo (Dec 30, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



riffraff said:


> Actually, anyone here with a background in metrology should have a problem with these so-called "Surefire lumens." I still cannot find any mention such a unit of measure at NIST. Oh, well.
> 
> A lumen is a lumen; it's where and how it's measured that makes a difference. The MPG analogy earlier doesn't really fit, but an analogy using horsepower does (as long as you understand that horsepower is not a recognized unit of measure, either). Brake horsepower (bhp) is measured at the engine's output, before encountering any losses due to power train. Rear-wheel horsepower, on the other hand, is always less. Does that make it a "Surefire horsepower?" No, it's still a "horsepower." Only now the context is different.
> 
> The only standard of measure with regard to light in this thread is a lumen. Pure and simple.



Thank you. For a moment there, I was getting the feeling that the engineering discipline was becoming totally extinct.


----------



## Burgess (Dec 30, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*

to Monocrom --

Loved yer' comment.

:goodjob:

-


----------



## Search (Dec 30, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



The prototype still doesn't exist.


----------



## rmteo (Dec 30, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



Size15's said:


> SureFire set the standard for how to measure the lumen output of a flashlight.
> Indeed SureFire is already implementing the industry standard it helped to develop. The "Flashlight Basic Performance Standard" (ANSI/NEMA FL 1-2009) introduces definitions and testing methods for flashlight basic performance as well as associated marking.
> 
> So in this regard there is no more recognised measure of a lumen from a flashlight than the one SureFire is using.
> ...



For the record.


> This Standards Publication was developed by the Flashlight Standards Committee. At the time it was approved, the Committee was composed of the following members:
> 
> Dorcy International Columbus, OH 43217
> Princeton Tec Bordentown, NJ 08505
> ...


----------



## Monocrom (Dec 31, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



MattK said:


> Strawman argument. Someone who isn't a flashaholic will fire up that UltraStinger and say, HOLY CARP THAT's BRIGHT! The rule of thumb isn't relevant - see if everyone uses the SAME system it's simply not relevant if the number is OTF or emitter.
> 
> Is it false advertising? No, only if they say that it is 300 OTF.


 
Have to disagree with you there.

A non-flashaholic will indeed be impressed with what he gets when he fires up his UltraStinger. However, a non-flashaholic will also assume that he's actually getting 295 lumens when he fires up his light. He's going to have no clue that there's such a thing as emitter lumens and OTF lumens. He switches on his torch, he's thinking he's actually getting the stated 295 lumens. It's not about "perception equals truth." If he finds out how that 295 number was determined, he's going to be p*$$ed. Other than a Mini-mag in candle mode, no one uses a light without the head attached. 

Also, the main theme running through this thread is the fact that not everyone uses the SAME system. Surefire doesn't. At least a handful of other companies don't either. Now it does matter if that number is OTF or at the emitter. When you fire up a flashlight, you want to know what you're actually getting instead of what your light is _capable _of ... if you ripped its head off.


----------



## kaichu dento (Dec 31, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



riffraff said:


> Actually, anyone here with a background in metrology should have a problem with these so-called "Surefire lumens." I still cannot find any mention such a unit of measure at NIST. Oh, well.
> 
> A lumen is a lumen; it's where and how it's measured that makes a difference. The MPG analogy earlier doesn't really fit, but an analogy using horsepower does (as long as you understand that horsepower is not a recognized unit of measure, either). Brake horsepower (bhp) is measured at the engine's output, before encountering any losses due to power train. Rear-wheel horsepower, on the other hand, is always less. Does that make it a "Surefire horsepower?" No, it's still a "horsepower." Only now the context is different.
> 
> The only standard of measure with regard to light in this thread is a lumen. Pure and simple.


What you're missing here is the law of common usage. Surefire is legendary for under-rating their output, as opposed to many makers who, either innocently or deliberately over-rate their output, which brought into usage the disputed term 'Surefire lumens' which most on CPF would have no problem identifying with.

The term shall remain in usage as long as various makers continue to make wildly unsupportable claims of output. Next time you see the term 'Surefire lumens' you can assume that the rating is not being overly liberal, but rather on the conservative side, which is generally better for the buyer. :thumbsup:


----------



## ugrey (Dec 31, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*

Well, I wanted to read about the new M6. Instead I got to read a lot of argueing about lumens from somebody registered here for less than a year. Where are the Mods? RMTEO, stick around here for a few years, and buy a few SF flashlights, and you will see advertised lumens a bit differently than you do now. Can we hear any more about the new M6 now?


----------



## Sgt. LED (Dec 31, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



divine said:


> All talk about lumens is off the topic of the new M6 Prototype..


 Indeed! I think half of this thread needs deleted.


divine said:


> I think it is bad that Surefire is still looking at the MC-E for a high lumen light. I think the SST-50 would make a much nicer light and much more similar to the original M6.


I agree! The 5700K SST-50 would work well in there.


----------



## SureAddicted (Dec 31, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



Monocrom said:


> Matt, you raised some excellent points. But I don't see how measuring emitter lumens is considered a valid method for rating output. With the exception of a company dedicated to making aftermarket drop-ins only, such as TerraLux, it comes off as misleading to claim output is higher than it actually is. If the difference was just a tiny bit, no one would care. But it's not.
> 
> Here's another example of what I mean. A Streamlight UltraStinger is rated at 295 lumens. Someone who isn't a flashaholic, doesn't know the rule of thumb to subtract 1/3 or 1/2 from claimed output, decides that it would make an excellent, powerful light. That person buys it. Perhaps later on they stumble onto our little community. Learns that his powerful torch isn't putting out a tick under 300 lumens. Out the front output, realistic output, is closer to 160 - 175 lumens.
> 
> ...




Well said Monocrom, if you look at it, most companies are false advertising, they don't stipulate "emitter lumens" in their spec list.
It is a shame when you buy a flashlight, for example say an MC E equipped flashlight, most are advertised @ ~700 lumens, your actually getting ~500. If a light is advertised as 700 lumens with no mention of "emitter lumens" *then I want 700 Lumens.
*Your average Joe wont know the difference between OTF and emitter lumens anyway, so most companies get away with it.


----------



## Size15's (Dec 31, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



ugrey said:


> Well, I wanted to read about the new M6. Instead I got to read a lot of argueing about lumens from somebody registered here for less than a year. Where are the Mods? RMTEO, stick around here for a few years, and buy a few SF flashlights, and you will see advertised lumens a bit differently than you do now. Can we hear any more about the new M6 now?


Important enough to have a dig in open forum but not important enough to report this thread to CPF staff though right? 

As far as I'm concerned the community having this discussion over and over and over again is all part of the great tapestry... There is obviously a lot of feeling and a lot of different perspectives, and for the most part I not overly concerned about the content of this thread. It has certainly allowed several people to show more of their character. And it is nothing extraordinary in terms of CPF behaviour. 

Given the input of the thread-starter in this thread - it's reasonable for the topic to settle on areas that actually seem to be more greater concern to members rather than the original idea.
In this regard isn't it telling how much support or further details our community has been able to produce for this SureFire prototype?
Shirley we have a greater passion for flashlights as a community than to have but one member aware of such a SureFire prototype?
Or perhaps we haven't created the environment and atmosphere in which members feel comfortable discussing what they know?

This is what disheartens me about this thread.

Al


----------



## rmteo (Dec 31, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



Monocrom said:


> A non-flashaholic will indeed be impressed with what he gets when he fires up his UltraStinger. However, a non-flashaholic will also assume that he's actually getting 295 lumens when he fires up his light. He's going to have no clue that there's such a thing as emitter lumens and OTF lumens. He switches on his torch, he's thinking he's actually getting the stated 295 lumens. It's not about "perception equals truth." If he finds out how that 295 number was determined, he's going to be p*$$ed. Other than a Mini-mag in candle mode, no one uses a light without the head attached.



Last time I checked, the human eye does not have the ability to integrate the output of a light source. If it had this ability, then one would not need an integrating sphere to measure output. The eye perceives intensity (or brightness - measured in lux) which is an entirely different thing altogether from output (measured in lumens) - I pointed this out in post #74. 

Take a very floody light, like a Zebralight and shine it at the wall from a distance of say, 20ft. Take another light with a similar output, but one which has a distinct hotspot, and shine it at the wall from same distance. Ask a person which one is brighter. Unless the person is a lighting engineer, most will tell you that the light with hotspot is brighter. Do this outside on a dark night and the result will be even more dramatic.


----------



## Flyhigh (Dec 31, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



Monocrom said:


> This LED M6 should be available by the time PK's great grand-children start designing lights for Surefire. :ironic:



What, that soon!? I might actually be alive then, albeit in a wheelchair in a nursing home, but still, something to look forward to...

Cheers

K


----------



## MattK (Dec 31, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



Monocrom said:


> Also, the main theme running through this thread is the fact that not everyone uses the SAME system. Surefire doesn't. At least a handful of other companies don't either. Now it does matter if that number is OTF or at the emitter. When you fire up a flashlight, you want to know what you're actually getting instead of what your light is _capable _of ... if you ripped its head off.



When you buy a car you want to know how much HP is going to the wheels right? But you don't because that is not the industry standard of measurement.

The case is easily made that emitter lumens IS the industry standard as it's usage is far more widespread then measured OTF lumens.




rmteo said:


> Take a very floody light, like a Zebralight and shine it at the wall from a distance of say, 20ft. Take another light with a similar output, but one which has a distinct hotspot, and shine it at the wall from same distance. Ask a person which one is brighter. Unless the person is a lighting engineer, most will tell you that the light with hotspot is brighter. Do this outside on a dark night and the result will be even more dramatic.



I can attest to this 100% - we (my CS agents) deal with this issue on a daily basis, even from CPF members, confusing LUX and LUMENS. Please, for the love of god, stop shining lights at walls and posting here that a light looks like X lumen, human eyes SUCK as a light output measurement tool. Buy a photometer and start bouncing them off of the ceiling or better yet make yourself a ghettosphere® if you really want to start comparing lights.

Folks, don't attack rmteo for his 'noobness' or whatever. I've spoken with the guy and can attest that he knows as much as most, more than many. He is making a legitimate argument that a 'lumen is a lumen' and he IS CORRECT- but I also know what you mean by 'Surefire lumens.'


----------



## MattK (Dec 31, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*

Al, I'd like to further discuss the Flashlight Basic Performance Standard a bit more if you're fine with doing so in this thread.

Do you have any insight with regards as to when SF switched to using the ANSI/NEMA FL 1-2009 testing protocols and how they differ from Surefire's previous testing regime?


----------



## rmteo (Dec 31, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*

Thanks, Matt.

Manufacturer's of consumer products advertise capabilities/features (lumens with flashlights, HP with cars) rather than performance/benefits (brightness with flashlights, eg. acceleration with cars). 

Why? Features can be made to look more impressive (as noted by MattK) to the uninitiated (eg. quoting emitter lumens instead of OTF lumens OR in the case of cars, quoting flywheel/SAE horsepower instead of RWHP). Also, features are much more difficult to verify - eg. you need an integrating sphere to accurately measure flashlight output (lumens) OR in case a cars, you need to have access to a dynamometer to determine its output (HP). How many people have their cars tested on dynamometer to verify the manufacter's HP claims after they buy it?

On the other hand, performance (fitness for a specific use/application) is relatively easy for the end user to determine. With a simple piece of equipment (a stopwatch), you can get a really good idea of how quick a car is. Same with a flashlight. It is pretty easy to detemine is its absolute brightness with a simple lux meter - most people will just look at the beam and determine whether the light is bright enough for his/her use.

To expect manufacturers to emphasize performance over features is unreasonable, IMO. It is just not in their interest to do so - big numbers, whether they are considered inflated or not, sell product. Also, when was the last time you saw 0-60 times published in a car brochure? Car manufacturers will continue to push HP while flashlight manufacturers will continue to push lumens for the reasons stated above.

If you want more information on a car to aid your buying decision, there are many printed and online sources of vehicle test reports. In these test reports, you can find performance info such 0-60 times, braking distance, cornering G forces, etc. - however, rarely (if ever) will you find measured HP figures, at best they will just quote the manufacturer's advertised HP numbers.

If we are to provide useful info here that can aid buyers in making comparisons among different lights, we need to come up with an appropriate test regimen defining what performance parameters should be tested for and how the tests are to be performed (test methodology/criteria) - similar to what is done in car magazine test reports. 

Providing lumens (output) figures alone (even if accurately measured with a $25,000 integrating sphere) is not really any more useful to the potential buyer than quoting measured RWHP in car test report - it just does not tell you how the equipment performs and/or whether it will fit the intended application.


----------



## Monocrom (Dec 31, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



MattK said:


> The case is easily made that emitter lumens IS the industry standard as it's usage is far more widespread then measured OTF lumens.
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> {rmteo} is making a legitimate argument that a 'lumen is a lumen' and he IS CORRECT- but I also know what you mean by 'Surefire lumens.'


 
Yes, I agree. Lying to customers regarding what type of performance they can expect from a light is sadly the industry standard. I often criticize Surefire for quite a few of the decisions the company has made. (Large price hikes in 2003 and 2008 with no improvements to any of their lights, not issuing a recall awhile back when customers were getting DOA U2s right out of the box, announcing new models years before they are ready to come to market, etc.) But with regards to their rating system and the quality of their lights, Surefire continues to do it right. And, it's why this company that I sometimes can barely stand still gets my hard-earned money. 

~~~~~~~~~~

Thank you. It's clear that there was a misunderstanding regarding lumen vs. "Surefire" lumen.


----------



## kromeke (Dec 31, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*

As always, caveat emptor.

The car analogy is flawed. The EPA provides mpg ratings standards. I'm not sure exactly how it is done, but there are EPA MPG ratings on every new car I've seen. Edit: not all of us care about HP or top speed. 

Manufacturers of flashlights could easily provide voltage and current draw of their lights (or wattage) as some measure of battery life. Not so much brightness, but some of us aren't obsessed with brightness or intensity.

Lot's of bitching an moaning about something that wasn't even much of a factor 10-15 years ago. Back then, most lights sucked. 

You kids are spoiled. 

I'll say it again, caveat emptor. That is why this forum exists.


----------



## rmteo (Dec 31, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



Monocrom said:


> ... *Lying to customers* regarding what type of performance they can expect from a light is sadly the industry standard.



That is a pretty strong statement. MattK has pointed out for example that car manufacturers quote output (HP) at the flywheel - aka BHP or SAE HP. What you see at the rear wheels is going to be significantly less due to the efficiency losses in the transmission, gearbox, etc. What they are quoting is equivalent to "emitter" HP instead of "OTF" (RWHP, rear wheel horsepower) HP. The SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) method of quoting output is the standard adopted by the industry - does that then mean that the auto manufacturers are lying to their customers?

Your vendor of choice may have decided to take a different approach to specifying the output of their lights which results in lower numbers than the majority who use an alternative method. IMO, that does not automatically make the others liars.


----------



## MattK (Dec 31, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



kromeke said:


> As always, caveat emptor.
> 
> The car analogy is flawed. The EPA provides mpg ratings standards. I'm not sure exactly how it is done, but there are EPA MPG ratings on every new car I've seen. Edit: not all of us care about HP or top speed.
> 
> ...



I don't see how the car analogy is flawed at all.

'EPA MPG' or MPG in this analogy is equivalent to wattage consumed from the batteries - something which is easily tested with a $10 DMM and which is not subject to cherry picking and manipulation the way output testing in a sphere is; the only variation in wattage would be from component variation (LED Vf, resistor variation etc). 

There's voltage/current from the batteries - easily ascertained with a DMM as noted above. (aka MPG)

There's voltage/current to the emitter - divided against the results of the above = efficiency of circuitry and design (we could sortof call it resistance)

Then there's voltage/current to the emitter measured against the LED mfr.s rating - that = emitter lumens (aka Horsepower)

Lastly there is a measurement out of the lumens out the front - so called 'surefire lumens' or 'truel wheel horsepower,' in the analogy.


----------



## kaichu dento (Dec 31, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



ugrey said:


> Well, I wanted to read about the new M6. Instead I got to read a lot of argueing about lumens from somebody registered here for less than a year. Where are the Mods? RMTEO, stick around here for a few years, and buy a few SF flashlights, and you will see advertised lumens a bit differently than you do now. Can we hear any more about the new M6 now?


This is one of the most spot on posts identifying the problem with this thread derail.

Rmteo should open his own thread on whether we should acknowledge the term Surefire lumens or not and quit trying to change CPF jargon. If he doesn't understand it then perhaps it's time for him to take a pointer and recognize what is intended when the term is used.


----------



## csshih (Dec 31, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



rmteo said:


> Last time I checked, the human eye does not have the ability to integrate the output of a light source. If it had this ability, then one would not need an integrating sphere to measure output. The eye perceives intensity (or brightness - measured in lux) which is an entirely different thing altogether from output (measured in lumens) - I pointed this out in post #74.
> 
> Take a very floody light, like a Zebralight and shine it at the wall from a distance of say, 20ft. Take another light with a similar output, but one which has a distinct hotspot, and shine it at the wall from same distance. Ask a person which one is brighter. Unless the person is a lighting engineer, most will tell you that the light with hotspot is brighter. Do this outside on a dark night and the result will be even more dramatic.



A very good statement! :thumbsup:
May I quote this post when needed?


----------



## SureAddicted (Dec 31, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



MattK said:


> I don't see how the car analogy is flawed at all.
> 
> 'EPA MPG' or MPG in this analogy is equivalent to wattage consumed from the batteries - something which is easily tested with a $10 DMM and which is not subject to cherry picking and manipulation the way output testing in a sphere is; the only variation in wattage would be from component variation (LED Vf, resistor variation etc).
> 
> ...



Yeah, but Matt, we can easily find out what how much HP our cars have, at the flywheel and the wheels in the way of a dyno tune. Now its not so easy flashlights finding out how much lumens it has OTF, unless we have access to someone with a sphere, which the majority dont.

Comparing a car to a flashlight isn't the best comparison, we can clearly see how the car industry standard has got it wrong, misinforming their customers, that's what it comes down to.


----------



## ugrey (Dec 31, 2009)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*

Mr, Dento, Thanks, but I am afraid Al disagrees with us both. I don't understand, but he is a Mod. 

When I was a young pup here, I owned a SureFire G2 and an E1. I then bought a Streamlight TL3 and it was a darn good light. I went on to buy 3 or 4 more non SF incandescent lights because I was seduced by the low prices. I was disapointed with all of them. I gradually gave them all away. Now I own about 21 SFs. Most of these pups on here now will go through the same learning process. SureFire Lumens ARE different, believe it or not.

I can't wait to see the new LED M6. Thanks PK, I believe in you.


----------



## MattK (Jan 1, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



SureAddicted said:


> Yeah, but Matt, we can easily find out what how much HP our cars have, at the flywheel and the wheels in the way of a dyno tune. Now its not so easy flashlights finding out how much lumens it has OTF, unless we have access to someone with a sphere, which the majority dont.
> 
> Comparing a car to a flashlight isn't the best comparison, we can clearly see how the car industry standard has got it wrong, misinforming their customers, that's what it comes down to.



Well putting a car on a chassis dyno costs at least a $100. I'm sure you could find a place to test a flashlight for $100 or less. I don't know that a chassis dyno is so much more accessible than sphere.

Is the car industry standard really misinforming it's customers? It has a a uniform standard - that's my point - emitter lumens are a much more accessible unform standard than testing.

Also, having read the ANSI standards for flashlight testing I can tell you they leave a lot to be desired.


----------



## Monocrom (Jan 1, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



rmteo said:


> That is a pretty strong statement. MattK has pointed out for example that car manufacturers quote output (HP) at the flywheel - aka BHP or SAE HP. What you see at the rear wheels is going to be significantly less due to the efficiency losses in the transmission, gearbox, etc. What they are quoting is equivalent to "emitter" HP instead of "OTF" (RWHP, rear wheel horsepower) HP. The SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) method of quoting output is the standard adopted by the industry - does that then mean that the auto manufacturers are lying to their customers?


 
Yes it does.

It doesn't matter which industry we're discussing. If the vast majority are quoting over-inflated numbers for their products, then they're lying. Let's not sugar-coat it. I don't get the concept behind the idea that if one company lies, they're horrible. But if it's done across the board and is systematic, then it's the industry standard; and that's okay.

I honestly don't get that. Reminds me of the story regarding the Emporer's New Clothes. The two men hired to make the regal outfit do nothing. Then when the Big Cheese shows up, they tell him it's a magical outfit. Only those who are noble or pure of heart (such as children) can see it. The Big Guy can't see it, so he gets nervous. Not wishing to look less than noble, he pretends he sees it. They help him put on his new outfit, and he goes outside amongst his people. They're shocked by what they see, but are afraid of what might happen to them if they point out that the King is naked. So they all go along with the lie. 

Ironically, everything is fine. The lie becomes systematic. Everyone goes along with it. Until that one little girl decides not to and points out that the King is naked. Ooops!

What I'm saying is ... Surefire is a little girl.


----------



## rmteo (Jan 1, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



csshih said:


> A very good statement! :thumbsup:
> May I quote this post when needed?



Go Ahead. Have at it.


----------



## Hitthespot (Jan 1, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



kromeke said:


> As always, caveat emptor.
> 
> 
> Manufacturers of flashlights could easily provide voltage and current draw of their lights (or wattage) as some measure of battery life. Not so much brightness, but some of us aren't obsessed with brightness or intensity.
> ...


 
Spoiled to say the least. 99.9 percent of the Flashlight buying world could care less about current draw. Matter of fact most of them wouldn't understand what it meant even if it was on the package. 

I think most people don't pay any attention to how much horse power their new car purchase has either. Do they still list it on the sticker?

We're a bunch aren't we? lol

However I agree with monocrom. A flashlight company should list lumens after losses and Surefire does it right. Other manufacturers, I won't say are lying, but they are stretching their exaggerated claims at the consumers expense. 

Bill


----------



## rmteo (Jan 1, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



Monocrom said:


> Yes it does.
> 
> It doesn't matter which industry we're discussing. If the vast majority are quoting over-inflated numbers for their products, then they're lying. Let's not sugar-coat it. I don't get the concept behind the idea that if one company lies, they're horrible. But if it's done across the board and is systematic, then it's the industry standard; and that's okay.
> 
> ...



As long as you feel so strongly about it, then you should continue giving your money only to the little girl.

But I wouldn't hold my breath expecting the entire flashlight industry (and the auto industry, etc.) to become little girls.


----------



## C-Beam (Jan 1, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



Monocrom said:


> Imagine my shock when I discovered that the Surefire G2 was significantly brighter than the Streamlight Scorpion. Streamlight measured the Scorpion's output at the emitter. Once the head was installed, you no longer got 114 lumens. So no, it's not the same as MPG stated by one car company, vs. the numbers stated by another one. Surefire uses the best method for giving customers realistic info as to what they'll get when they press the tailcap switch. Other companies are content with telling customers what a light is _capable _of, instead of what it _actually _gives.



How do you know the Scorpion was over-rated and the G2 properly rated? Couldn't the G2 have been under-rated and the Scorpion properly rated?


----------



## asdalton (Jan 1, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



C-Beam said:


> Couldn't the G2 have been under-rated and the Scorpion properly rated?



No. (See the measurements for the Surefire P60 lamp.)


----------



## OfficerCamp (Jan 1, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



Monocrom said:


> What I'm saying is ... Surefire is a little girl.



Best quote of 2010


----------



## Monocrom (Jan 2, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*

*To: rmteo ~*

I'm horribly addicted to lights, so I buy whatever strikes my fancy. Still, it's true that I own more Surefires than any other lights from other companies. 

You're right about one thing ... When lying is so systematic, when it is so ingrained into the S.O.P. of an industry; things aren't going to change any time soon. Integrity is far more rare than gold.
*--- --- --- --- ---*

*To: C-Beam ~*

asdalton beat me to it.

It's important to remember that if the lumen output of a flashlight is measured at the emitter, that number will always decrease once the head is attached. The Scorpion's lumen rating could not have been accurate since it is known that output was measured at the emitter. By the very nature of the system used, it will always be less with the head attached. 

If you had a bucket of water, and someone dipped their glass into it to take a drink; you'd have less water. You might not know exactly how much less. But it would be an undisputed fact that it would be less than what you started out with.
*--- --- --- --- --- *

*To: OfficerCamp ~*

Thank you.

Now everyone has a year to try to top me.


----------



## Entrope (Jan 2, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*

_(Post Removed)_


----------



## asdalton (Jan 2, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



Entrope said:


> Sorry to state the obvious but I think we need a new thread specific to this new "Surefire prototype"



Why? The original subject of this post is unsubstantiated phantomware.


----------



## MattK (Jan 3, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*

Agreed. The conversation about light measurement was far more interesting that the original topic.


----------



## Patriot (Jan 3, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



rmteo said:


> Last time I checked, the human eye does not have the ability to integrate the output of a light source. If it had this ability, then one would not need an integrating sphere to measure output. The eye perceives intensity (or brightness - measured in lux) which is an entirely different thing altogether from output (measured in lumens) - I pointed this out in post #74.
> 
> Take a very floody light, like a Zebralight and shine it at the wall from a distance of say, 20ft. Take another light with a similar output, but one which has a distinct hotspot, and shine it at the wall from same distance. Ask a person which one is brighter. Unless the person is a lighting engineer, most will tell you that the light with hotspot is brighter. Do this outside on a dark night and the result will be even more dramatic.





Well, the human eye doesn't have the ability to integrate or calibrate but it does have the ability to detect instantaneous, minute changes in ambient light, somewhere around 10,000 levels iirc. As you've stated, most people will point to the light with the brightest hotspot and call it the "brighter" light even if the overall lumen output of that light is the same or less. Below is a good example of that. The two lights below were measured in a small baffled light box.

Maratac AAA 31.2 lux ................................. Preon 40.0 lux 






Your idea that a person must be a "light engineer" to grasp the concept seems a bit self propping though. By your same test parameter, the person who sees the brighter spot on the wall cast by a 2D maglite probably wouldn't also say that a 2D mag was brighter than the 4 tube CFL in their kitchen. They may not be able to give specifics of why that's the case but at the same time they're capable recognizing the difference, especially if it's explained to them. Virtually every person who I've explained the difference between flood and throw too was able to understand what I was speaking of. Likewise, if I take the same two flashlights used in your example and tell the observer to sit on the floor and read a book while I illuminate the ceiling with the two lights in question, the observer will almost always detect the light with greater output when it's indirect.

Many of your posts here in this thread really seem to ooze from the position of an elitist rather than someone who is truly knowledgeable and interested in sharing that substance through patience and explanation. You've fussed over common terms such as SF lumens when most people here understand perfectly well what we're speaking of through common CPF language. Most of us are not scientists but we are enthusiasts and many of us have a lot of practical knowledge on this subject. We bottom feeders might often use generic terms to relay our thoughts while you engineer types might have an equation at the ready to relay yours. Most emotionally secure professionals typically grace the layman their less than perfect verbiage and resist making mountains out of molehills. In several cases here you've driven the neophyte for an explanation for something you already knew the technical answer too, instead of just explaining it yourself, at which time we would have replied, 'that's just our novice term for explaining the same thing.' For whatever reason, you've chosen to grieve the minute points here which have contributed making this thread difficult. Hopefully we can continue from here sharing our varying levels of expertise liberally instead of as card holders of knowledge through the use of once sentence responses and drilling. Ease up...please.


----------



## MattK (Jan 3, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*

Patriot - You are the voice of reason as always. 

:goodjob:


----------



## rmteo (Jan 3, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



Patriot said:


> .... Many of your posts here in this thread really seem to ooze from the position of an elitist rather than someone who is truly knowledgeable and interested in sharing that substance through patience and explanation. You've fussed over common terms such as SF lumens when most people here understand perfectly well what we're speaking of through common CPF language. Most of us are not scientists but we are enthusiasts and many of us have a lot of practical knowledge on this subject. We bottom feeders might often use generic terms to relay our thoughts while you engineer types might have an equation at the ready to relay yours. Most emotionally secure professionals typically grace the layman their less than perfect verbiage and resist making mountains out of molehills. In several cases here you've driven the neophyte for an explanation for something you already knew the technical answer too, instead of just explaining it yourself, at which time we would have replied, 'that's just our novice term for explaining the same thing.' For whatever reason, you've chosen to grieve the minute points here which have contributed making this thread difficult. Hopefully we can continue from here sharing our varying levels of expertise liberally instead of as card holders of knowledge through the use of once sentence responses and drilling. Ease up...please.



And your point is? If anything I have stated is factually incorrect, please point it out.


----------



## ampdude (Jan 3, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*

I don't want a crappy MC-E M6, I want an HID M6!!!


----------



## monanza (Jan 3, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



ampdude said:


> I don't want a crappy MC-E M6, I want an HID M6!!!


I want both! Unlikely as it may be. The HID prototype demonstrated by PK years back never made it to production. The MC-E would actually be more efficient (by a wide margin) than the 10W HID. P7 would be even more efficient. Now if Seoul would release high CRI P7 emitters, that would be something to talk about in an M6.

Edit: As to the SF lumen debate, I have always understood CPF's jargon to define a statistical distribution metric in addition to a lumen value. To me it means that 100% of the lights rated by SF at X lumens will have a real world output above roughly 0.95X. 95% of the lights would be at or above X. I don't have statistics to back this up but anecdotal evidence seems to suggest it. It is not misleading, although admittedly it is not measurable (until someone sits down and collects the necessary statistics). So for us SF lumen is a conservative out-the-front lumen measurement over a random sample. We do not have enough information about SF's testing methodology to support this scientifically so it is a somewhat subjective metric at this point. Come to think of it, it is as much a utility metric as a it is a luminous output. Both sides of the debate have made valuable remarks and neither should be discounted out of hand. I just keep thinking that any measurement is flawed without a proper description of the testing methodology and the sample selection process along with reliability data.


----------



## olrac (Jan 3, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



Patriot said:


> Well, the human eye doesn't have the ability to integrate or calibrate but it does have the ability to detect instantaneous, minute changes in ambient light, somewhere around 10,000 levels iirc. As you've stated, most people will point to the light with the brightest hotspot and call it the "brighter" light even if the overall lumen output of that light is the same or less. Below is a good example of that. The two lights below were measured in a small baffled light box.
> 
> Your idea that a person must be a "light engineer" to grasp the concept seems a bit self propping though. By your same test parameter, the person who sees the brighter spot on the wall cast by a 2D maglite probably wouldn't also say that a 2D mag was brighter than the 4 tube CFL in their kitchen. They may not be able to give specifics of why that's the case but at the same time they're capable recognizing the difference, especially if it's explained to them. Virtually every person who I've explained the difference between flood and throw too was able to understand what I was speaking of. Likewise, if I take the same two flashlights used in your example and tell the observer to sit on the floor and read a book while I illuminate the ceiling with the two lights in question, the observer will almost always detect the light with greater output when it's indirect.
> 
> Many of your posts here in this thread really seem to ooze from the position of an elitist rather than someone who is truly knowledgeable and interested in sharing that substance through patience and explanation. You've fussed over common terms such as SF lumens when most people here understand perfectly well what we're speaking of through common CPF language. Most of us are not scientists but we are enthusiasts and many of us have a lot of practical knowledge on this subject. We bottom feeders might often use generic terms to relay our thoughts while you engineer types might have an equation at the ready to relay yours. Most emotionally secure professionals typically grace the layman their less than perfect verbiage and resist making mountains out of molehills. In several cases here you've driven the neophyte for an explanation for something you already knew the technical answer too, instead of just explaining it yourself, at which time we would have replied, 'that's just our novice term for explaining the same thing.' For whatever reason, you've chosen to grieve the minute points here which have contributed making this thread difficult. Hopefully we can continue from here sharing our varying levels of expertise liberally instead of as card holders of knowledge through the use of once sentence responses and drilling. Ease up...please.



well put and right on the money :thumbsup:


----------



## kaichu dento (Jan 4, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



rmteo said:


> And your point is? If anything I have stated is factually incorrect, please point it out.


As usual you try to re-direct the conversation. His point is that you are an elitist trying to bust our balls because you don't approve of terminologies in common usage here, and as if to add an exclamation point on Patriot's post, you trite answer proves him right on the nailhead.

Instead of trying to be an antagonist why not join the forum instead of being such a nerd.


----------



## ampdude (Jan 4, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



monanza said:


> I want both! Unlikely as it may be. The HID prototype demonstrated by PK years back never made it to production. The MC-E would actually be more efficient (by a wide margin) than the 10W HID. P7 would be even more efficient. Now if Seoul would release high CRI P7 emitters, that would be something to talk about in an M6.



Nobody buys an M6 for efficiency. If so, they are looking at the wrong light. The M6 is all about highest intensity performance possible in a smaller package for a short time. It is a tactical light. Not an EDC light, or a long runtime light or a modular light. And should not have "modes" either. I would like at least a 24W version, if not a 35W version in 4200K color temperature or lower.

The 10W HID's are not as efficient as 24W or 32W models. I don't think anyone is really interested in 10W HID's anymore, that is 2005 technology.


----------



## ampdude (Jan 4, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



kaichu dento said:


> As usual you try to re-direct the conversation. His point is that you are an elitist trying to bust our balls because you don't approve of terminologies in common usage here, and as if to add an exclamation point on Patriot's post, you trite answer proves him right on the nailhead.
> 
> Instead of trying to be an antagonist why not join the forum instead of being such a nerd.



I have been reading this thread and I think that what he has to say is interesting, because I have always thought the same. I don't know if lumens have ever been more than a subjective terminology. I believe they were in fact standardized when the manufactures came together awhile back, but there still seems to be a lot of room for interpretation with their ratings. Especially with how different makers such as Streamlight and Surefire rate lumens. Are they using a properly calibrated integrating sphere? And are they measuring emitter lumens or out the front lumens? And at what color temperature? Are they simply using the emitter manufactures specs and putting their own rating on it based on their lights drive current for the bin they bought? There are still a lot of problems with the whole lumens rating system, but it has gotten a little better it seems.


----------



## Vesper (Jan 4, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



rmteo said:


> And your point is? If anything I have stated is factually incorrect, please point it out.



 

Start a Surefire thread and regardless of its nature, the monkeys start throwing poop.


----------



## Rocketman (Jan 4, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



Patriot said:


> Well, the human eye doesn't have the ability to integrate or calibrate but it does have the ability to detect instantaneous... Your idea that a person must be a "light engineer" to grasp the concept seems a bit self propping though... Many of your posts here in this thread really seem to ooze from the position of an elitist rather than someone who is truly knowledgeable and interested in sharing that substance through patience and explanation... Ease up...please.



Ah man, there is nothing like an open forum. I think of these diversions as all part of the same multifaceted conversation. As long as it's real, I'm good.


----------



## Rocketman (Jan 4, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



ampdude said:


> I don't want a crappy MC-E M6, I want an HID M6!!!



I want one of each. Too bright is bad, too dim is bad. I see incandescent lights going away except for special purposes, led lights being the main technology for some time, and HID lights becoming the new really bright lights.

And oh yeah, I hope to see the led lights being made using a red/green/blue led grouping to allow for a better white light and color tuning and adjustment rather than using the yellow phosphorescent substance. Don't see why that isn't happening now, actually. The bright led's are really light blue in color, aren't they? Single frequency? Remember, color is frequency.


----------



## ampdude (Jan 4, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



Rocketman said:


> I want one of each. Too bright is bad, too dim is bad. I see incandescent lights going away except for special purposes, led lights being the main technology for some time, and HID lights becoming the new really bright lights.
> 
> And oh yeah, I hope to see the led lights being made using a red/green/blue led grouping to allow for a better white light and color tuning and adjustment rather than using the yellow phosphorescent substance. Don't see why that isn't happening now, actually. The bright led's are really light blue in color, aren't they? Single frequency? Remember, color is frequency.



Ha, too bright is never bad my friend!  The M6 is SUPPOSED to be too bright. It's an M6...

My current holy grail is an M6 or M6 sized light with a 35W HID in 4200K or lower color temperature with instant on. Such a light is possible with current IMR battery technology and even with older lithium cobalt battery technology, but from what I gather with my limited knowledge of HID's, the main problem is the technology needed to make a 4200K 24W or 35W ballast fit in an M6 sized head.


----------



## Rocketman (Jan 4, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



ampdude said:


> Ha, too bright is never bad my friend!  The M6 is SUPPOSED to be too bright. It's an M6...
> 
> My current holy grail is an M6 or M6 sized light with a 35W HID in 4200K or lower color temperature with instant on. Such a light is possible with current IMR battery technology and even with older lithium cobalt battery technology, but from what I gather with my limited knowledge of HID's, the main problem is the technology needed to make a 4200K 24W or 35W ballast fit in an M6 sized head.



I had a picket operator once, she was quite good but was offended, in no small way, when I would shine my flashlight at her to get her attention. It was too bright for her eyes! It was only, let me think, I think it was my Streamlight Scorpion. Ah yes, now we can see how this fits into this thread! The 120 lumens were not Surefire lumens, as I understand it, were that so she would have been even more angry with me, endangering my very life.

Thus, brightness is relative to the observer and the purpose at hand. I could make a similar remark on terminology and measurement methodology. Some people see many details because such detail is important to them, other people are not interested in such detail. We all have a tendency to combine details in a way similar to the symbolism used by mathematicians. Combining many things in one thing, this is what a symbol does for us. Words are symbols, really. The term "Surefire lumen" is a term used to group the level of brightness of a light emitted by a flashlight in combination with the methodology used to measure that brightness. It is... a simplification and this is human nature.

My point is that we each think differently and this is neither good nor bad. Understanding is what is important, and the expression of ideas.

Since we are expressing ideas now, allow me to state that I believe that the state of flashlight technology is a reflection of the state of technology for all humankind. Thus, you see, we are all pioneers for the human race >=rm==>


----------



## ampdude (Jan 4, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*

Well said!!! And I think we can all agree that complicated math equations with any amounts of symbolism are subject to different analysis and re-interpretation until something is pinned down precisely.

Even then there is room for abstract thought, but of course that is not the point being made here. I understand your point completely.


----------



## DM51 (Jan 4, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



rmteo said:


> And your point is? If anything I have stated is factually incorrect, please point it out.


Patriot's point, which he made in such an exquisitely polite manner that it seems to have completely eluded you, is that what you have been doing amounts to trolling in this thread. I wasn't around earlier on, or I would have warned you about it before - or perhaps suspended you for it. 

Consider yourself warned now. I suggest you stay out of the thread, if all you can do is make unnecessary nit-picking points to annoy other members.


----------



## rmteo (Jan 4, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



DM51 said:


> Patriot's point, which he made in such an exquisitely polite manner that it seems to have completely eluded you, is that what you have been doing amounts to trolling in this thread. I wasn't around earlier on, or I would have warned you about it before - or perhaps suspended you for it.
> 
> Consider yourself warned now. I suggest you stay out of the thread, if all you can do is make unnecessary nit-picking points to annoy other members.



If stating facts that nobody wants to (or can) dispel constitutes nit-picking and trolling (while direct personal attacks are acceptable), then I apologize for contravening forum rules.


----------



## gallonoffuel (Jan 4, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*

This thread has been somewhat of a learning experience, both in technical as well as social areas, and there isn't much to say that hasn't been said already. However, just to beat a dead horse some more, I really tend to ignore output ratings simply because they are not comparable between manufacturers. I can go to Surefire's website and pull up this:

http://www.surefire.com/FlashlightTechnology

Which tells me clearly what they are testing and how they are testing it.


Streamlight tries to do this here:

http://streamlight.com/education/guide.aspx

Digging deeper I found a PDF where they mention an integrating sphere:

http://www.streamlight.com/education/pdf/SL08 Sec2_Right_Light.pdf

I cannot find anything about output measurements on the Fenix site, but some of their sections are 'under construction' so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt for now.

MagLite has a similar page to Streamlight but it's even less functional, the lamp and optics sections are 'Coming soon':

http://www.maglite.com/knowledge.asp

Ra Lights has an article on a flashlight measurement standard on his 'Articles' page, and detailed descriptions of output measurements, LED variability, etc on his 'FAQ' page:

http://www.ralights.com/?id=Articles

http://www.ralights.com/?id=LightFaq

ARC links to some comparison testing and lists what the ARC6 is supposed to run at, and mentions the Arc6 was tested in a sphere:

http://www.arcflashlight.com/faqs.shtml

http://www.arcflashlight.com/arc6-flashlight.shtml

PrincetonTec doesn't tell us much:

http://www.princetontec.com/?q=technology/glossary

NovaTac mentions they test their lights to ensure output, but does not outline the method:

http://www.novatac.com/faqs.html

Searching for 'integrating sphere' I found that LumaPower measures the MRV in an integrating sphere:

http://www.cpfmarketplace.com/mp/showpost.php?p=2220382&postcount=54

Mark at LumensFactory mentions they test their lamps in a sphere:

http://www.cpfmarketplace.com/mp/showpost.php?p=1997612&postcount=563

Energizer has a nice write-up on the flashlight measurement standard, but they don't explicitly say that they are using that method:

http://www.energizerlightingproducts.com/technology/ansistandard/Pages/environmentals.aspx


----------



## MattK (Jan 4, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



gallonoffuel said:


> I can go to Surefire's website and pull up this:
> 
> http://www.surefire.com/FlashlightTechnology
> 
> ...



Did I miss something in the SF link? I don't see the methodology described...


Energizer is most assuredly using the new standard - they were the major proponent behind it. If you read the new standards it stated that runtime be measured to >10% and allows only for the use on the included or recommended batteries. Since Energizers lights mostly use/include AA and they always include L91 lithium primaries (higer voltage and capacitance) you can see how the standard they pushed forward works to their advantage.


----------



## gallonoffuel (Jan 4, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



> The science of measuring light with respect to its effect on the human eye—which responds differently according to the wavelength, or color, of that light—is called photometry. Photometry includes measuring light intensity in a particular direction (in units of candlepower or candelas) and total light energy in a particular situation (measured in lumens).
> 
> SureFire uses integrating sphere photometers to measure the total lumen output of our illumination tool's, weighted with respect to human eye response. Other manufacturers have begun to follow our lead.
> 
> ...


----------



## was.lost.but.now.found (Jan 4, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



MattK said:


> Did I miss something in the SF link? I don't see the methodology described...
> 
> 
> Energizer is most assuredly using the new standard - they were the major proponent behind it. If you read the new standards it stated that runtime be measured to >10% and allows only for the use on the included or recommended batteries. Since Energizers lights mostly use/include AA and they always include L91 lithium primaries (higer voltage and capacitance) you can see how the standard they pushed forward works to their advantage.


 
I don't personally have issues with a manufacturer recommending a specific battery type so long as they are consistent in using that battery type for their listed specifications.

For example let's say a given flashlight gets better runtime on NIMH, but gets better peak brightness on lithium primary. IMHO they can't have it both ways; they should choose one battery type and then advertise all the specs based off running the light from that one battery type - I would be ok with that.


----------



## MattK (Jan 4, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*

@ gallonoffuel - that's method, not methdology.

@ was.lost.but.now.found - I pointed this out because Energizer was sure to be the proponent of a methodology favoring their power source. Don't get me wrong, we provide an L92 with our illuminati for a reason, but they pushed for and got specifications that gave them a distinct advantage. Also, runtime to 10% of original output? Cmon.


----------



## rmteo (Jan 4, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



MattK said:


> @ gallonoffuel - that's method, not methdology.



Careful with those elitist, nit-picking engineering details.


----------



## Schuey2002 (Jan 4, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*

Even after all this lumen talk, I still want to see a pic of this M6 LED vaporware...


----------



## gallonoffuel (Jan 4, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



MattK said:


> @ gallonoffuel - that's method, not methdology.



My apologies. Should we email Surefire as to why they chose to use the SI unit for the human perceived power of light to rate their flashlights?


----------



## kaichu dento (Jan 4, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



DM51 said:


> Patriot's point, which he made in such an exquisitely polite manner that it seems to have completely eluded you, is that what you have been doing amounts to trolling in this thread. I wasn't around earlier on, or I would have warned you about it before - or perhaps suspended you for it.
> 
> Consider yourself warned now. I suggest you stay out of the thread, if all you can do is make unnecessary nit-picking points to annoy other members.





rmteo said:


> If stating facts that nobody wants to (or can) dispel constitutes nit-picking and trolling (while direct personal attacks are acceptable), then I apologize for contravening forum rules.





rmteo said:


> Careful with those elitist, nit-picking engineering details.


I thought you said in your PM that you'd let the mods decide?!? So now one of the mods suggests that you quit making posts like this, and the first thing you do is to add two more? 

Please, go read Patriots post again... :sigh:


----------



## yalskey (Jan 4, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



rmteo said:


> Careful with those elitist, nit-picking engineering details.



EVERYBODY: STOP FEEDING THE TROLL!!!


----------



## js (Jan 4, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*

rmteo,

You were warned, but decided to be a smart alec and post sarcastic and inflammatory comments. Not to mention your sigline, which I apparently don't have the power to edit--but rest assured, it will be changed.

Take a week off.


----------



## yalskey (Jan 4, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



js said:


> rmteo,
> 
> You were warned, but decided to be a smart alec and post sarcastic and inflammatory comments. Not to mention your sigline, which I apparently don't have the power to edit--but rest assured, it will be changed.
> 
> Take a week off.



Oh thank God!!!!  lovecpf


----------



## Kestrel (Jan 4, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*

I haven't visited this thread for a few days (in spite of my interest regarding a potential LED M6) so that the thread could ferment and hopefully evolve (or rather, devolve, I guess) into a thread on the M6 that the OP posted about.

Patriot, that was a particularly good post.

DM51, thanks for coming by, we missed you. 



Schuey2002 said:


> Even after all this lumen talk, I still want to see a pic of this M6 LED vaporware...


 
+1


----------



## MattK (Jan 4, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



gallonoffuel said:


> My apologies. Should we email Surefire as to why they chose to use the SI unit for the human perceived power of light to rate their flashlights?



I'm not being pedantic. 

We know they use a spehere to measure their lights but it is far from that simple which is why I refer to methodology:
Is the light tested within the sphere or in a port?
What size sphere / port?
What is the internal reflectity of the sphere utilized?
What calibration? NIST certified bulb?
WHEN is the output tested? Initial turn on? After some time count? From what interval?
How many sample units are tested? Are they random pulls?

etc etc etc


----------



## was.lost.but.now.found (Jan 4, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



MattK said:


> I'm not being pedantic.
> 
> We know they use a spehere to measure their lights but it is far from that simple which is why I refer to methodology:
> Is the light tested within the sphere or in a port?
> ...


 
Matt, it seems like you are very familiar with the variables involved. If you had to guess, what % of variance could all these variables add up to? In other words, how "in the ballpark" are you just by having the IS, all other variables aside?


----------



## MattK (Jan 4, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*

Assuming it's a quality spehere from a known maker and using a NIST certified bulb as a rule of thumb I believe the variability to be about 20-25%, or more if 'abused'. 

How and where you place the light (inside sphere, etc is also a factor. )

A good example of 'abuse' would be testing output within the first 5 seconds only and using that data. Heap component variation, handling ( 'aiming' from the port) and calibration issues on top of that and the numbers can be way off. 

The ANSI standards state that maximum output testing is done for :30-2:00 (30 seconds after startup, until on for 2 minutes) which is relatively reasonable.


----------



## Patriot (Jan 4, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*

Matt, I just wanted to say that I've really appreciated your technical expertise in this thread, including; your working knowledge of the industry, the explanation relating to difficulties of precise, repeatable, measurements and how this all relates to a real world application. Everything you've stated seems perfectly logical and you've been very articulate. Thanks!


----------



## carrot (Jan 4, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*

Hold on a sec- I thought this thread was about an updated M6 rumor?


----------



## knightrider (Jan 4, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*

So this new M6 has 2 levels of light? I like tactical lights to be simple, and lights with more than 1 level don't seem easy to use usually. At least no one mentioned strobe.

I hope this multi-mode thing doesn't interfere with the tactical needs of the operator. My E1B has a nice dual interface - comes on max brightness, with low mode selected after. It seems to work ok as a tactical light.

How does the switching work on this one? Push for high, then a twist for low?


----------



## MattK (Jan 5, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*

Thanks Patriot.


----------



## ampdude (Jan 5, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



knightrider said:


> So this new M6 has 2 levels of light? I like tactical lights to be simple, and lights with more than 1 level don't seem easy to use usually. At least no one mentioned strobe.
> 
> I hope this multi-mode thing doesn't interfere with the tactical needs of the operator. My E1B has a nice dual interface - comes on max brightness, with low mode selected after. It seems to work ok as a tactical light.
> 
> How does the switching work on this one? Push for high, then a twist for low?



My E1B would often come on in the wrong mode. Or switch modes while turning the light on and off for room searches. Modes have no place on tactical lights, especially when the clicky is the interface used to switch output levels.


----------



## ugrey (Jan 5, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*

What a thread! What a troll! For a while there, I thought I was going to have to tell all of you in detail about my 1970 Buick GS 455 and my 1977 Trans Am and how the car manufacturers lied about horsepower numbers and then somehow relate that to flashlight manufacturers and fudged lumen figures. I am glad I did not, because I kept thinking, "This is an M6 thread, not a musclecar thread or a lumens thread". I am glad I can tell the difference, not everyone can.

Thanks mods!

Anybody got any news on a new M6?


----------



## Monocrom (Jan 5, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



ugrey said:


> Anybody got any news on a new M6?


 
Want a new one? ... Running an LED? ... Sent that thing off to MilkySpit. Throw your wallet away, cause you will not have any money to put in one for quite awhile. But it'll be worth it! :thumbsup:


----------



## DimeRazorback (Jan 5, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*

Still waiting for pics OP


----------



## knightrider (Jan 5, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



ampdude said:


> My E1B would often come on in the wrong mode. Or switch modes while turning the light on and off for room searches. Modes have no place on tactical lights, especially when the clicky is the interface used to switch output levels.



Really? That is not good to hear. These computer/circuit controlled lights sometimes get ghosts in the machine it seems, even SFs. That is when I am very happy incandescent lights still exist.

I guess my C2 with standard twisty and either a Malkoff or P60/P61 will be used even a little more now. My E1B Backup was just that, more of a backup light. My M3 and C2 are the real tactical lights I use. Agree completely, simple is better in a tactical light for sure.


----------



## Kiessling (Jan 5, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*

That's why the LX2 et al interface is so great ... 2 levels and always high at the fingertip.

I'd be IN for this M6 ... but I guess I could have arthritis by the time it is finally released.


----------



## BigD64 (Jan 5, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*

Kess, the M6(L I Guess) that handled had a twisty just like the LX2. There is supposedly a clicky in the works. I would make a great primary light for LEO's the low is very usable. I hope to see it again in the next week or so if I can sneak a pic I will. It looks no different than a stock M6 except for the LED and the total lack of markings.


----------



## Kestrel (Jan 5, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



BigD64 said:


> Kess, the M6(L I Guess) that handled had a twisty just like the LX2. There is supposedly a clicky in the works. I would make a great primary light for LEO's the low is very usable. I hope to see it again in the next week or so if I can sneak a pic I will. It looks no different than a stock M6 except for the LED and the total lack of markings.


Oh wow, I would *love* to have the L-series tailcap UI on an LED M6. :huh:


----------



## Patriot (Jan 5, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



Kestrel said:


> Oh wow, I would *love* to have the L-series tailcap UI on an LED M6. :huh:




Me too! I think it's one of the best UI's ever and one of the very few multi-level UI that would be acceptable for "tactical purposes." Of course we'd all argue about where the low level should be set to...:laughing:


----------



## Monocrom (Jan 6, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



Patriot said:


> Me too! I think it's one of the best UI's ever and one of the very few multi-level UI that would be acceptable for "tactical purposes." Of course we'd all argue about where the low level should be set to...:laughing:


 
Not so great for tactical purposes. Two words ... Thumb fatigue.

Nothing like needing super bright output, keeping your thumb up against that switch, and then output drops at that critical moment. Not because the batteries are depleted, or the protection kicked in, but simply because your poor thumb couldn't take it anymore.


----------



## carrot (Jan 6, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



Monocrom said:


> Not so great for tactical purposes. Two words ... Thumb fatigue.
> 
> Nothing like needing super bright output, keeping your thumb up against that switch, and then output drops at that critical moment. Not because the batteries are depleted, or the protection kicked in, but simply because your poor thumb couldn't take it anymore.


True... but I'd still rather have that UI (dual-stage) over the fidgety 2-mode E1B-style interface...


----------



## Monocrom (Jan 6, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



carrot said:


> True... but I'd still rather have that UI (dual-stage) over the fidgety 2-mode E1B-style interface...


 
Excellent point. I solved the pesky two-mode issue . . . By getting a single-stage E2DL head. :twothumbs


----------



## carrot (Jan 6, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



Monocrom said:


> Excellent point. I solved the pesky two-mode issue . . . By getting a single-stage E2DL head. :twothumbs


Yeah... I solved that too, with three single-stage KX2's...


----------



## rmteo (Jan 11, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



js said:


> rmteo,
> 
> You were warned, but decided to be a smart alec and post sarcastic and inflammatory comments. Not to mention your sigline, which I apparently don't have the power to edit--but rest assured, it will be changed.
> 
> Take a week off.



Jim, just so you know, someone has been selectively deleting posts here. 2 posts (one each from MattK and yalskey) were deleted from this thread on Jan 5, 2010 - around post #165/166.


----------



## MattK (Jan 11, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*

I think I'd made a post pointing out to someone that accusing others of trolling while themselves posting a troll was rather hypocritical. C'est la vie.


----------



## yalskey (Jan 11, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



rmteo said:


> Jim, just so you know, someone has been selectively deleting posts here. 2 posts (one each from MattK and yalskey) were deleted from this thread on Jan 5, 2010 - around post #165/166.



Hey! Yeah, where did my post go? Son of a...


----------



## Lightcrazycanuck (Jan 11, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



Monocrom said:


> You're better off getting the Seraph head and a keychain light for low mode.
> 
> This LED M6 should be available by the time PK's great grand-children start designing lights for Surefire. :ironic:


----------



## Rocketman (Jan 11, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



yalskey said:


> Hey! Yeah, where did my post go? Son of a...



Hmm, sorry, it was probably one of my bots run out of control. 
Now, what is this thread about again? Oh yeah, a new Surefire. You know, I looked in their catalog and saw some new lights that have yet to come out.

My biggest problem with Surefire right now is that I need to be running rechargeable batteries most of the time. They need to go ahead and make a nice 2-mode led rechargeable in a tactical version and a general use version. I suppose someone is going to tell me now that most of their customers don't want that.


----------



## kaichu dento (Jan 12, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



rmteo said:


> Jim, just so you know, someone has been selectively deleting posts here. 2 posts (one each from MattK and yalskey) were deleted from this thread on Jan 5, 2010 - around post #165/166.


Unless you're trying to get things going again this kind of posting is best handled by sending a PM to the Mod you're trying to reach. 
But then that's not what you're trying to do, is it?


----------



## DM51 (Jan 12, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



rmteo said:


> someone has been selectively deleting posts here


rmteo... this is your last warning - read Rule 8: 


Rule 8 said:


> The moderators and administrators of CPF are around in order to keep order. Do not whine or complain about the rules


----------



## Armadew (Jan 12, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*

*_edited for immaturity* _


----------



## easilyled (Jan 12, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*

Sorry I know this is off topic, but a famous quote from "Sudden Impact" just came to mind.

I have no idea why. :shrug:

Anyway, back to this mysterious Surefire prototype!


----------



## jp2515 (Jan 24, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*

Bump! 

OK guys I spoke at great lengths to different people at the Surefire booth at SHOT (ranging from sales to product dev) and more people at the MattK party and nobody know of a M6 LED in the works. To be sure I asked them again and right now the only multi LED light that will be coming out is the M3LT and the UB3T. There might be future plans for a M6 LED but everyone I talked to says the M3LT and UB3T are their top projects right now, maybe in the future.


----------



## easilyled (Jan 24, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



jp2515 said:


> Bump!
> 
> OK guys I spoke at great lengths to different people at the Surefire booth at SHOT (ranging from sales to product dev) and more people at the MattK party and nobody know of a M6 LED in the works. To be sure I asked them again and right now the only multi LED light that will be coming out is the M3LT and the UB3T. There might be future plans for a M6 LED but everyone I talked to says the M3LT and UB3T are their top projects right now, maybe in the future.



I can't say I'm surprised to hear that. 
It sounded like a red herring all along.


----------



## souptree (Jan 24, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*

Darn, and I was getting all excited about that 8 cell holder too. :laughing: :wave:


----------



## BigD64 (Jan 27, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*

I have the "Red Herring" in my possession and will be posting some pics soon. It is slightly different than the 1st one I handled. The 1st one had switch similar to LX2 2 stage twist with a momentary on full twist for high. This one has a 2 stage twisty one twist for low, a second quick twist for high, and another quick twist gives you a high strobe. Fresnel Tir optic, 4 die led. Friggin flame thrower. It's not in the catalog but like all Surefire goodies may be out before the items in the catalog.


----------



## Kiessling (Jan 27, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*

Uh ...  ... I am all ears


----------



## DimeRazorback (Jan 27, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*


----------



## BigD64 (Feb 4, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*
















Ok here are the pics. I threw in a couple pics of my E2L AA for a kicker.


----------



## DimeRazorback (Feb 4, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*

Looks similar to the M3LT head.

Thanks for the pics :thumbsup:

Hows the beam??


----------



## KDOG3 (Feb 4, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*

OH MY. Me want. Nao! I think that just might be the same head as the the M3LT. It would make sense they both run off 9v just 2 sets in parallel with the M6 body.....


----------



## BigD64 (Feb 4, 2010)

I'll post some beamshots soon. It's monstrous. Lights up my back yard like it's daytime. ok maybe slight exaggeration. But it's the brightest LED I have ever seen. Huge flood with decent throw.


----------



## DimeRazorback (Feb 4, 2010)

I'm looking forward to the beamshots! 

Would love to know how you got your hands on this!


----------



## Search (Feb 4, 2010)

Without reading 7 pages, is this supposed to be an actual prototype from SF?

Well, I do see the E2L-AA, so I'll take it as real


----------



## DimeRazorback (Feb 4, 2010)

Apparently so, yes.


----------



## angelofwar (Feb 5, 2010)

Thanks BigD64...hmmm...the new M3LT looks to have a narrower head...but, this is intriguing none the less...I like the aspheric look...it's like "SF Gone Retro".

I think an LED "L.A." wouldn't quite be able to run the same on ANY voltage when ran serial-vs-parallel (if that makes sense). But it looks very nice reagrdless.

Oh, BTW, how ya want for your E2L-AA??? 

Thanks again for all your insider info...I never doubted ya once!


----------



## seale_navy (Feb 5, 2010)

ahhh im in the office now I cant view the pics...since the IT support here block this type of hosted link pictures..

well its 3 more hours to go home.. cant wait to have a first look...hehe


----------



## 270winchester (Feb 5, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



BigD64 said:


>




I've been using LED lights longer than many people here (well except the German guy who claims to be a doctor and that British guy who claims to have large feet :nana: ) and I have always been a big fan of their optics. In fact I don't know too many people who liked their post-NX05 KL1 optic.

Yeah, I like their optics.


----------



## jchoo (Feb 5, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*

beamshotsbeamshotsbeamshotsbackyardlitupbeamshotsbeamshotsbeamshots

<faint>
<breathe>
<regain consciousness>

So... how about a nice backyard beamshot?


----------



## Patriot (Feb 5, 2010)

+1 to that

I've always loved SF's optics and thought the KL1 was revolutionary. It seems that they're the only ones who are regularly using TIR in production lights, unless I'm forgetting someone.

Kudos to SF for this concept/proto. I hope that we see it soon.


----------



## easilyled (Feb 5, 2010)

Looks like I owe BigD64 an apology about it being a red herring.
However with no pictures and minimal info. up until recently, I think I can be excused for coming to that conclusion. 

An M6-LED is a long time overdue from Surefire and this one looks promising.

However lets not get too excited. There have been many SF protos that have come to nothing. Lets hope this isn't one of them.


----------



## DimeRazorback (Feb 5, 2010)

Could always get an M3LT and just wack the head on an M6's body, a bit like the KT4 now.


----------



## Tempest UK (Feb 5, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



270winchester said:


> ...I have always been a big fan of their optics...
> 
> Yeah, I like their optics.



+1

I'm looking forward to seeing SureFire use their optics in this size.

Regards,
Tempest


----------



## RobertM (Feb 5, 2010)

BigD64 said:


> I'll post some beamshots soon. It's monstrous. Lights up my back yard like it's daytime. ok maybe slight exaggeration. But it's the brightest LED I have ever seen. Huge flood with decent throw.




How does it seem to compare to the MN21?

Thanks,
Robert


----------



## Size15's (Feb 5, 2010)

DimeRazorback said:


> Could always get an M3LT and just wack the head on an M6's body, a bit like the KT4 now.


Its by no means certain that the M3LT will feature the "Millennium theads", or if it does, whether the bezel can be controlled by the M6's TailCap (even just the one level), or if it can, whether it can accept the additional juice the M6's battery pack provide...


----------



## mwaldron (Feb 5, 2010)

The pics certainly look interesting and I'm looking forward to seeing what that SureFire optic can do, but it's going to have to be impressive because I'm pretty happy with my Serph P7 head on the M6 body...


----------



## 270winchester (Feb 5, 2010)

Size15's said:


> Its by no means certain that the M3LT will feature the "Millennium theads", or if it does, whether the bezel can be controlled by the M6's TailCap (even just the one level), or if it can, whether it can accept the additional juice the M6's battery pack provide...



that's a lot of "leading on" there Al. Are you hinting at something?

The battery pack of the M6 is a 9v pack, so theoretically if a circuit can run on 9v then it shouldn't be a big deal of there are two parallel packs, no?


----------



## mwaldron (Feb 5, 2010)

The M6 battery pack is 3S2P, which means 2 sets of 3 cells in series where the sets are wired in parallel. The total voltage is 9V (3xCR123) at twice the capacity of a 3x123 light. 

Now, conventional thinking would say that it is simply a double capacity 3S pack which is the intent, but here in flashlight land we do things a bit different. The voltage sag will be less since you're distributing it across 2 sets of 3 cells. That could and incandescent bulb that was designed to run near maximum ratings on a conventional 3S pack. It's unlikely, but it's possible. This is why the M3 and M6 get different bulbs. 

For an LED, it wouldn't matter nearly as much. LEDs have driver circuits and the slight difference in sag just doesn't matter.


----------



## ICUDoc (Feb 5, 2010)

Looks like a P7 in there- all agree?
That tells us the likely outputs, then.
That TIR is massive!


----------



## RichS (Feb 5, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*



Search said:


> The prototype doesn't exist. Most have been had twice.


----------



## Search (Feb 5, 2010)

*Re: New Surefire prototype*

I was skeptical at first. It's hard to argue with the E2L-AA next to it.

Next time he comes in with something like this I'll not ask questions :candle:


----------



## Size15's (Feb 5, 2010)

mwaldron said:


> For an LED, it wouldn't matter nearly as much. LEDs have driver circuits and the slight difference in sag just doesn't matter.


If the M3TL bezel fits but isn't designed or intended to function on the M6 body then the bezel could suffer, or perhaps it just wouldn't make best use of the power the M6 body provides (like the KL2 or even KL6)

My point though is not to read too much into what are proto-types at this stage. We know that things change as new concepts are transitioned to production.

I admit to being disappointed for CPF that nobody from CPF at SHOT Show 2010 either asked these questions or got photos of the M3LT with the bezel removed etc. In fact, did we get to see any details of the M3LT's TailCap? Doesn't it look a bit long to simply be like the two-stage TailCaps we know currently?

CPF had the opportunity to ask and explore these details at the show but I've not seen any discussion about such things here on CPF?

Aren't we meant to be the flashlight-fanatics ?


----------



## Tempest UK (Feb 5, 2010)

Size15's said:


> I admit to being disappointed for CPF that nobody from CPF at SHOT Show 2010 either asked these questions or got photos of the M3LT with the bezel removed etc.



Quite right! 

C'mon, people. What did you want to do? Give the SureFire staff an easy time? 

I'm desperate to know more about the M3LT and UB3T!

Regards,
Tempest


----------



## jp2515 (Feb 5, 2010)

Tempest UK said:


> Quite right!
> 
> C'mon, people. What did you want to do? Give the SureFire staff an easy time?
> 
> ...



Word is that the M3LT will be released April 1. Whether it will come out on that date, who knows (and hopefully the release date is not a joke!)


----------



## DimeRazorback (Feb 5, 2010)

Size15's said:


> Its by no means certain that the M3LT will feature the "Millennium theads", or if it does, whether the bezel can be controlled by the M6's TailCap (even just the one level), or if it can, whether it can accept the additional juice the M6's battery pack provide...



I was going to mention those things, however I felt that I would then be drawing too many conclusions as to what is going on.
I decided to work with what we "have", which is a very similar head to that shown on the M3TL, and the fact that in the past the T heads were interchangeable.

I felt my response was rather open ended, which you proved


----------



## BigD64 (Feb 5, 2010)

Hope to have an M3LT before the end of the month..........


----------



## John_Galt (Feb 5, 2010)

You'd thin it would be cheaper to design an optic around one large die (ie: SST-50/90) than four smaller dies, whether designing for throw or flood... Also, wouldn't an underdriven SST-50 be more efficient than a fully driven P7?


----------



## KDOG3 (Feb 5, 2010)

BigD64 said:


> Hope to have an M3LT before the end of the month..........




Well we will definetley want pics and beamshots when you get it!


----------



## Tempest UK (Feb 5, 2010)

BigD64 said:


> Hope to have an M3LT before the end of the month..........



Some people have all the luck!

Regards,
Tempest


----------



## rx78gp02 (Feb 5, 2010)

may i request to see the serial number of the led assembly on the led m6? and the M6 logo?
wanna see how many LED assemblies they have produced and if they altered the classic m6 logo.


----------



## Tempest UK (Feb 7, 2010)

rx78gp02 said:


> and the M6 logo?
> wanna see how many LED assemblies they have produced and if they altered the classic m6 logo.



From what I could see in BigD64's photos, the sides of the M6's body are blank.

Regards,
Tempest


----------



## BigD64 (Oct 18, 2016)

My Surefire insider was laid off from Surefire a couple of years later, he was a close friend of Dr. Mathews and passed away a couple of months ago. I got to meet many wonderful people at Surefire, including Dr. Mathews. Thanks to George "Skip" Langan. I have many many Surefire lights from his own collection. Those in the flashlight world who knew Skip, knew of his passion for led lights. Skip and I had numerous conversations over lights. After leaving Surefire he was a big fan of Four Sevens and I got to meet David Chow at Skips hole in the wall of a shop in East Hartford, CT. He will be missed, so I'd like us all to shine a light for Skip! Sorry about reviving this antique thread but I thought it appropriate.


----------



## RobertMM (Oct 18, 2016)

Eternal Light shine upon Skip!


----------



## StandardBattery (Oct 19, 2016)

Never knew him, but maybe his spirit had me searching yesterday for my L2D LED Defender Ultra. I have not located it yet, and it bugs me when I can locate a flashlight I own, so hopefully later after work I can take another look. I did find the non Ultra version... but man I want the Ultra.


----------



## StandardBattery (Oct 23, 2016)

Been carrying a E1D LD along with my regular EDC and today I found the L2D LD Ultra. Interesting it costs more today than when I bought it, but I did get it below MSLP. For many things it is the perfect sized light for retention and easy carry.


----------

