# Polarion CSWL (Long Arc HID) / Xenonics NightHunter 3 CSWL (Short Arc HID)



## Ken J. Good (Nov 14, 2009)

I’ve done a photographic comparison of the Xenonics Night Hunter 1 and a 50-watt Polarion Night Reaper in the past.

But I have been anxiously waiting to get the opportunity to do the same with their latest generation Night Hunter 3 (NH3) as it is advertised as a searchlight suitable for mounting on crew served weapons (CSW’s). Therefore it will find it's way onto the battlefield with our troops depending on it for it's capabilities.

Some background first if I may.

When any distance specification or capability is touted one should ask: What does this mean in practical terms? As articulated by others on this forum, does this simply mean that there are photons moving through space from the original illumination source at 1,200 meters, or does this mean there is enough light going downrange, hitting the target of interest without reflectors attached and returning in sufficient quantities to be useful to the operator?

What is the scenario here? A soldier in a turret, behind the weapon without optics attached to his eyes. He is primarily using his own eyes.

Photography does not replicate exactly what the human eye actually sees. Keep in mind, the eye is constantly metering from light to light, condition to condition, always on-the-go so to speak. Digital photography does however serve to capture the relative amount of light each searchlight is emitting in the same conditions reflecting off the same targets given the same camera settings. After all photography is at it's essence gathering light on photosensitive surfaces so the image can be enjoyed/analyzed later. 

The images posted below are all taken with a Nikon D40X, 55-200mm lens f/4-5.6 AF-S – Both searchlights had fully charged batteries and were in good working order.

The camera was set in full manual mode
Aperture: f/5.6 
Shutter Speed 2.0 secs 
Exposure Bias 0ev

Distances determined with a Laser Range Finder.

Let's start out a relatively close range where a solider might need a powerful light to identify a vehicle or the occupants of a vehicle inside of 100 yards. In this scenario, the rapid assessment of what is going on would be critical.

One does not want to see small pieces of the puzzle and try to put them together. One needs the entire picture contained in the dynamic as quickly and efficiently as possible especially when the information you are gathering may have an immediate impact on whether you or somebody else lives or dies in the next few moments.

- There is a reason why car headlights don’t have .5 degree beam angles.

- There is a reason why SWAT officers have lights on their weapons to locate and identify threats, not lasers. Lasers are aiming devices, not search tools.

- Would you pick a flashlight or laser to find a loved one in the woods at night? You might utilize a laser to signal or point in this scenario, but not to find things.

85 Yard Control Image - 55 mm

NH3 in Full Flood Mode - 85 yards 
The only thing visible is a nominal amount of light right next to the light itself. A 3-watt LED flashlight is vastly superior at this full "Flood" setting. 

NH3 in Medium Flood Mode - 85 yards
Note the most distinctive feature of the beam is the large shadows of the lamp assembly and the dark rings. Very little light in the target area

NH3 in Optimal Focus - 85 yards
Okay, this is where the tight focus is showing it's stuff

50-watt Polarion - 85 yards
Again, if the scenario was to quickly identify friend or foe, as well as reduce the situational awareness of any potential threat in the beam, which tool would you select? 

*Let's move this out to 185 Yards in an area that has some ambient lighting. A typical urban/building setting. Camera focal length still set at 55mm*.
Control Image 
Target is the edge of a Fence Line with fairly reflective Yellow Plastic on the Top of the Fence

NH3 at Full Flood - Target 185 yards
Nothing in the Actual area of Interest is Illuminated to a degree that it could be considered useful to a solider in harms way.

NH3 at Medium Flood - Target 185 yards
In this image, you can begin to see/understand that there is a fence line in the area of interest

NH3 at Optimal Focus - Target 185 yards
Fence line identified, but not the lack of any additional lateral coverage

50-watt Polarion - Target 185 yards
Fence line and beyond identified, lateral coverage is substantial

Let's go try to look at Treeline a bit over 400 yards away - This time simulating using a low power optic of some sort - Set the Camera focal length to 200mm
Control Image - Target 400 yards+ - It's Dark Go Figure!

Nothing to see either with the NH3 at Full Flood. Moving to Medium Flood.
NH3 at Medium Flood – Target 400+ yards 
Still nothing seen

NH3 at Optimal Focus - Target 400 yards+
Again nothing seen. What I glean from this is, unless the target has a high degree of reflectivity, even at optimal focus the NH3 does not emit enough volume of light to produce a useable return signature. 

50-watt Polarion - Target 400 yards+

*Here is a residential home with no lights on situated at 470 yards from the lights/camera. Camera focal length at 72mm *
Control Image
Nothing seen

NH3 Full Flood - Target 470 yard
Nothing seen but the plants right next to the Light Source

NH3 Medium Flood - Target 470 yards+
A few more plants seen right in front of the Light Source

NH3 Optimal Focus - Target 470 yards

50-watt Polarion
Self-Explaintory


*Same Residence with the Camera Focal Length set at 200mm*
NH3 Optimal Focus - Target 470 yards+

50-watt Polarion- Target 470 yards+

*Tower at 370 yards * 
The Control Image is Completely Black

No need to post the Flood or Medium Flood Images of the NH3, nothing to see but a small speck of a reflector on the bottom of the tower & only in the Medium Flood setting.

NH3 Optimal Focus - Target 370 yards

Here is a Zoomed-in version (165mm) of the area I am attempting to illuminate. 
NH3 Optimal Focus - Target 370 yards -165mm

Back to unmagnified and the Polarion:
50-watt Polarion - Target 370 yards
I directed the center of the beam at the base of the tower. 
If I directed the beam, a bit higher and to the left, I could see towers 600-700 meters away.

Finally just a valley with no unnatural or reflective objects
NH3 Optimal Focus - 560 Yards down the Valley
Nothing seen in Any setting, Full Flood, Medium Flood, or Optimal Focus

50-watt Polarion - 560 Yards down the Valley (End of Beam)

*Final Thoughts*
It is my stated and strong opinion soldiers operating CSW's need searchlights not laser like lighting tools. Especially if the light that is contained in that narrow beam width is short on volume.

If you do the math, a Polarion 50-watt HID Searchlight with a 20-degree beam angle would illuminate a surface area of over 1,500 square meters if that area was 400 meters away and was perpendicular to the light source.

A “search tool” with a .5 degree beam angle (the tightest angle advertised on the Xeonics Sales Sheet) would illuminate 9.6 square meters of the same plane (assuming there was enough light to return to the operator).

This means a light that has a 20 degree beam angle covers *156 times the surface area* of a light with a beam angle of .5 degrees….I would say that is significant when unknown threats lurk in the dark.

Target Fixation or Tunnel Vision in combat is not a good-thing. 
If you can only see a very small area and the rest is black, by definition you are target fixated.

Color temperature matters.

In this case Spot to Flood light is not a true capability. I could see no benefit or advantage to any of the settings simply because the total volume of light was so low. 

There only negative comment I have ever heard about the Polarion with respect to a 1-degree short-arc HID is that the "Polarion puts out too much light. It would illuminate friendly forces..." 

Now there is man who doesn't understand the intended or proper deployment of lights and weapons of this magnitude. If a Polarion is going to be "faulted" for putting out too much light. So be it.....Maybe a low setting??? That being said, I doubt the practical validity of that capability short of getting more runtime out or your battery.

Point your weapon and light carefully.

Off to do some more photography.


----------



## dudemar (Nov 14, 2009)

*Re: Polarion CSWL (Long Arc HID) / Xeonics NightHunter 3 CSWL (Short Arc HID)*

Ken,

There's just no competition, the Xenonics is the winner...

...




...




...




YEAH RIGHT! As expected, the Polarion kills the competition. Looking forward to see more photos.:thumbsup:


----------



## Ken J. Good (Nov 14, 2009)

*Re: Polarion CSWL (Long Arc HID) / Xeonics NightHunter 3 CSWL (Short Arc HID)*

Trying to get back out tonight.

Hopefully the Polarion can hold it's own....


----------



## jasonck08 (Nov 14, 2009)

*Re: Polarion CSWL (Long Arc HID) / Xeonics NightHunter 3 CSWL (Short Arc HID)*

Your comparing a 50W HID 4300K vs a 20W Xeon 6000K? There is not going to be any comparison between those lights!
 
And why are these Xeonics lights 3-4k? I guess I'm a little confused...


----------



## cmacclel (Nov 14, 2009)

*Re: Polarion CSWL (Long Arc HID) / Xeonics NightHunter 3 CSWL (Short Arc HID)*

I hate company's that refer as there product "XXXX in the World"

"*The NightHunter ONE *isthe world’s longest range, most powerful compact illumination system and is combat-proven by the U.S. Armed Forces worldwide."

If they state this you can almost be sure is's *BS*!


Mac


----------



## Patriot (Nov 15, 2009)

*Re: Polarion CSWL (Long Arc HID) / Xeonics NightHunter 3 CSWL (Short Arc HID)*



cmacclel said:


> I hate company's that refer as there product "XXXX in the World"
> 
> "*The NightHunter ONE *isthe world’s longest range, most powerful compact illumination system and is combat-proven by the U.S. Armed Forces worldwide."
> 
> ...





Yeah, it's quite ridiculous. Interestingly they also market the Xenonics SuperVision CCD based night vision scope. The claim is of course, "The world's best night vision." In actuality it's deficient in nearly every critical area and the resolution is poor compared to even the best GenII units never mind GenIII of equal magnification. But you're right, they're the best of everything company....:green:

It's funny to look at Ken's third picture and then to consider this claim. 
_"the NightHunter delivers a uniform, brilliant beam without the “black hole” that obstructs the field-of-view in all other illumination products."
_ 
"ALL OTHER??" Even if you discount the "all other" nonsense they're obviously taking a poke at the Maxabeam. You've got to chuckle that they call that "uniform" and that they pretend the electrode shadow isn't just as big of an issue as the Maxabeam's Donut. Donut or tree trunk sized shadow, pick your poison. 

It's great to see the Polarion stomp their tail into the dirt.


----------



## Patriot (Nov 15, 2009)

*Re: Polarion CSWL (Long Arc HID) / Xeonics NightHunter 3 CSWL (Short Arc HID)*



jasonck08 said:


> Your comparing a 50W HID 4300K vs a 20W Xeon 6000K? There is not going to be any comparison between those lights!





Actually it's 25W and he's comparing one "long range" crew served weapon light, who claims to be "the best" to another.


----------



## jasonck08 (Nov 15, 2009)

*Re: Polarion CSWL (Long Arc HID) / Xeonics NightHunter 3 CSWL (Short Arc HID)*

The specs on B&H say 20W. How many lumens is it suppose to be... I'm not seeing that info?


----------



## Ken J. Good (Nov 15, 2009)

*Re: Polarion CSWL (Long Arc HID) / Xeonics NightHunter 3 CSWL (Short Arc HID)*

jasonck08
You stated it perfectly and I really should just stop now. The point is made...There is no comparison....But I am having so much fun.

Patriot beat me to the punch...
Whether it's 20, 25, 30, 60, 75, 100 or whatever, if it's going play in the CSWL game, then compare according. CSWL's to CSWL's.

As stated in my 1st post, I already did a photography session with the 60-watt Night Hunter 1. The contrast was quite noticeable as well.

Why bother with the Night Hunter 3?
Let's say I have a passion for illumination tools and how they relate to those who go in harm's way. 
Let's say I don't like coloring within the lines.
Let's say I hear many things when I am "out there".

I am comparing them because they are being positioned as a viable option for mounting on Crew Served Weapons for our war fighters and are positioned on paper as up to the task.

I am comparing them because folks that don't have much experience with these categories of lights are being told that these are equals or better than other options.
People need to make informed decisions on what they are going to go to battle with.

Rather than look at specifications sheets, marketing language like this: 

_The NightHunter 3 Covert Package is a comprehensive long-range illumination system. The high-intensity beam from the NightHunter 3 ensures your ability to view targets, suspects, or personnel. Xenonics' state-of-the-art illumination technology generates a brilliant uniform beam that will pierce the darkest of nights, for a detailed view under any conditions. The NightHunter 3 is a versatile illumination tool that delivers optimum performance when deployed for use on foot, from vehicles, boats, helicopters, or fixed mounted positions. It is powered by its internal rechargeable battery with a run-time of up to 90 minutes. Attaching the optional IR filter significantly boosts the range of your night vision or low-light video equipment. Note! Xenonics' NightHunter line of illumination products is used by every branch of the U.S. Armed Forces as well as law enforcement and security agencies._

then let's see what these "CSWL's" actually look like in direct comparison to other systems designed for the same environment. 

I am still wondering in all honesty how could anybody select this a tool of choice. Yet is is happening everyday. I am quite obviously underwhelmed by the light itself, but I am impressed what can be done with excellent sales and marketing teams.

BTW: What I didn't go into is recent testing relating to water resistance, shock and vibration tolerance, real mounting options within the confines of turrets, protective shields and multiple weapon systems, cabling and switching quality/durability, battery swapping issues, EMI and a plethora of other factors that all should be considering when putting these things on the battlefield as a CSWL. 

I was just running a comparison to with respect to useable observation capability. If it doesn't look "fair", then configurations or statements should change.

Tonight I decided rather than focus in on the "long range" why not take a look at a few shorter range scenarios.

The images posted below are all taken with a Nikon D40X, 55-200mm lens f/4-5.6 AF-S – Both searchlights had fully charged batteries and were in good working order.

The camera was set in full manual mode
Aperture: f/5.6 
Shutter Speed 2.0 secs 
Exposure Bias 0ev

Distances determined with a Laser Range Finder.

*Solider has to look over a schoolyard or industrial area*
220yards Yard Control Image- 55 mm

At this point we can forget about the Medium and Full Flood settings. You basically cannot see anything useful in those modes. Additionally if these things were mounted on a weapon, do you reach over the shield and change your beam angle settings. When the IR Filter is attached and open it goes round and round and could easily be stopped from turning by a barrel, barrel support or mounting system. So even if you wanted to change the from Flood to Spot, it could be problematic. But I digress.

NH3 Schoolyard - 220yards to Wall - 55 mm

50-watt Polarion - Schoolyard - 220yards to Wall - 55 mm


*Vehicle Stopped, Checking for IED's, or it’s a Vehicle Checkpoint*
NH3 -Vehicle -130 yards - 55 mm

50-watt Polarion - Vehicle -130 yards - 55 mm

NH3 -Vehicle -130 yards - 200 mm

50-watt Polarion - Vehicle -130 yards - 200 mm

*Looking for trouble/sniper on the Roof at Close Range - 30-40 yards*
NH3 -Rooftop - 40 yard - s 55 mm

50-watt Polarion - Rooftop - 40 yards - 55 mm


----------



## dudemar (Nov 15, 2009)

*Re: Polarion CSWL (Long Arc HID) / Xeonics NightHunter 3 CSWL (Short Arc HID)*

Ken,

The pictures comparing the vehicle at 55mm are the same, thought I'd let you know.

I think the most dramatic photos were taken in the schoolyard, the difference made my jaw drop.


----------



## Ken J. Good (Nov 15, 2009)

*Re: Polarion CSWL (Long Arc HID) / Xeonics NightHunter 3 CSWL (Short Arc HID)*

Whoops. Fixed.


----------



## Patriot (Nov 15, 2009)

*Re: Polarion CSWL (Long Arc HID) / Xeonics NightHunter 3 CSWL (Short Arc HID)*

Ken, you might want to recheck the 

*"**Vehicle Stopped, Checking for IED's, or it’s a Vehicle Checkpoint"

*The first two pics at 130 yards are both the same, both Polarion.


----------



## Bronco (Nov 15, 2009)

*Re: Polarion CSWL (Long Arc HID) / Xeonics NightHunter 3 CSWL (Short Arc HID)*

Am I crazy or does the NH3 put fewer lumens out the front than a Cree R2? Put an aspheric on the Cree and from these pictures we've just seen it doesn't appear that it would even be close.


----------



## Ken J. Good (Nov 15, 2009)

*Re: Polarion CSWL (Long Arc HID) / Xeonics NightHunter 3 CSWL (Short Arc HID)*

Partriot: I think it might be your Browser Cache is still queuing up the old pic.

Lumens: It is going to be low, very low in relative terms.
The whole approach is to take what little there is and push the photons down a narrow tube. Granted, it looks cool in isolation. If this thing didn't cost me a few grand, I might get another one just for the novelty.

The whole point of showing this light in flood mode is to clearly demonstrate photographically that most would understand or even be surprised how little useful light is projected and returned when used in this modality.

I have a $49 LED flashlight that is much more useful inside of 100 yards than a NH3 set to flood mode.

When the NH3 is set to Flood mode, you begin to see how little is there.
In this case, anytime the lamp is repositioned in relation to the reflector out of the optimal focus point to get the flood pattern, you have nothing useful in terms of observation in the dark in a combat situation....The entire purpose of a searchlight is to actually see something in the dark and see it quickly as possible.
What you do see is large gaping rings and shadowing. 

Again, it's not a true capability in my opinion. It's a check the box, see the light is focusable and goes from 1-20 degrees and theirs doesn't sort of thing.

Therefore, the only reasonable choice left is keeping it at the tightest/optimal focus. 

Then you run right back into the fact that your coverage is extremely limited and why would you want a light that only allows you to see small parts of the picture when you desire to see as much as you reasonably can given all the requirements of the entire weapons platform/system.


----------



## SunFire900 (Nov 15, 2009)

*Re: Polarion CSWL (Long Arc HID) / Xeonics NightHunter 3 CSWL (Short Arc HID)*

Great thread, Ken.

I actually chuckled out loud when I saw your comparison beam shots above. The differences between the two lights are night and day. Now maybe there will be fewer complaints about the non-focusable Polarions. They don't need to be focusable since they "throw flood". Whomever designed the reflector for Polarion is a genius. He (they)deserve(s) a Ferrari!

Jack


----------



## one2tim (Nov 16, 2009)

*Re: Polarion CSWL (Long Arc HID) / Xeonics NightHunter 3 CSWL (Short Arc HID)*

when those lights are so bad, how can the company then get a 2million $ contract by us government as written here
http://www.xenonics.com/press/articles/


----------



## Patriot (Nov 16, 2009)

*Re: Polarion CSWL (Long Arc HID) / Xeonics NightHunter 3 CSWL (Short Arc HID)*



one2tim said:


> when those lights are so bad, how can the company then get a 2million $ contract by us government as written here
> http://www.xenonics.com/press/articles/





Great marketing and sales strategies.


----------



## Ken J. Good (Nov 16, 2009)

*Re: Polarion CSWL (Long Arc HID) / Xeonics NightHunter 3 CSWL (Short Arc HID)*

What cannot be captured with photography is the total amount of time it would take someone to actually locate an unknown threat in various situations.

I need to do some video to demonstrate this.

A few months ago, we had a USMC unit bring out a Xenonics NightHunter 2 to do a direct comparison with a Polarion PF40. The NH2 was the product preceding the NH3. The Polarion PF40 is a 40-watt system that puts out 20% less light than Polarion 50-watt system.

Prior to the demonstration, they were fairly convinced the Polarion could not out perform what they had been issued.

We had a group of 8 Marines, (Officers and Enlisted, all with combat experience - IED hunters, convoy protection, urban warfare) turn their back to a tree line. We had a Marine wearing issued camouflage clothing run to a dark area in the woods approx. 250 yards away from the compound we were standing in.

I told that Marine to just stand in the shadows, not behind a tree. Make sure he could see us and simulate having a clear line of fire to us as a group.

Once he was in position, I had the group turn around. They were told there was an enemy combatant in the woods in this general area. Fire up the NH2 and find the man. We gave them about a 120 angle to search. 

5 minutes later, they determined that he was either not there or could not be located.

Okay. Here is a Polarion. Do the same thing. Look in that general direction (same 120 degrees).

As soon as the Polarion was energized the "hidden" Marine was immediately located. He was easy to spot, because he was the guy with his hands up to block the light coming into his eyes and articulating the obscenities in unison with the Marines in our group. The best line was "That is about F$%^n game over..."

Let me repeat, as soon as the light was energized, he was located. Maybe .5 to 1 second.

I then pointed out, due to the relatively narrow beam of the NH2 you would have a difficult time keeping a moving/evading target in the beam even after the potential threat was located. I had the Marine move in closer so the NH2 could illuminate him. We gave NH2, back to one of the Marines. Had him put the light beam on the Marine and then I had him that Marine run through the woods in an effort to evade the light. He could get out of the light coverage fairly easily and get himself into the relative safety of the darkness.

At the same distance, we repeated the same exercise with the Polarion. This time, there was no way he could run fast enough to evade the light coverage.

Why is this the case?
With a 20 degree beam angle, the Polarion at a 100 meters, has a 36 meter diameter spot. Everything within that beam angle is useful in terms of observation and light reflectivity from a wide variety of materials.

According to the Xenonics Sales Sheet, the tightest spot the NH2 has is a .5 degree beam angle. The NH2 at a 100 meters, has a .87 meter diameter spot.
The width of the average man is about .5 a meter. 

The next thing I did was keep the group in place. I took both searchlights and ran to the location the individual Marine was previously hiding.
I then turned on the NH2, and directed the beam back into their faces. Yelled for feedback....There really was not anything to say.

Next up the Polarion....All I got was another chorus of obscenities as sung by the entire group, heads turned or hands up to block the incoming light.

The looks and conversation following the practical demonstrations were priceless.

The first part of the demo can be easily conducted as a empirical test in a variety of locations, conditions, reflectivity of materials.
Bring lights X,Y, and Z out. Find targets of interest. 
Clock starts, clock stops. Identified Right, Identified Wrong.

The 2nd part of this particular demos was more subjective. That being said, to any impartial observer, the results are self-evident.

When a short-arc HID like this is used in isolation, it can be "impressive".
We used in a comparative modality, it becomes ridiculously obvious to someone who has spent time in combat, which route to travel.


----------



## SunFire900 (Nov 16, 2009)

*Re: Polarion CSWL (Long Arc HID) / Xeonics NightHunter 3 CSWL (Short Arc HID)*

Sweet! Oh, so sweet!:thumbsup:

Thank you for sharing that information, Ken.


----------



## Ken J. Good (Nov 16, 2009)

*Re: Polarion CSWL (Long Arc HID) / Xeonics NightHunter 3 CSWL (Short Arc HID)*

Forget about the Xenonics NightHunter 1, 2, or 3 as a brand name for a moment. The big picture is:

Short-Arc HID lights have their place. I really do think they are cool.

That being said, it is my opinion, based on the observable data, photography (and I invite anybody to do their own photography), the math and direct feedback from operators after side-by-side comparisons on the same field, in the same conditions at the same time, a wider angle, higher lumen, quality long-arc HID searchlight is the better choice for a Crew-Served-Weapon-Light (CSWL).

It's a matter of choice in that category of HID's. Which one of those? 
Of course we would like to think we have a good thing going, but there are other good choices for those folks who really need them. 

Good competition is good for all concerned.


----------



## Ken J. Good (Nov 18, 2009)

Still thinking about overall comparable "coverage" of this lights.

Since most searchlights put out a cone of light, determining the Volume of that cone essentially defines coverage assuming the distance component (or height of the cone) is accurately assigned.

Let's go to a distance that both lights can obviously "throw" to: 100 meters.

Therefore: 
A short-arc HID searchlight correctly focused to .5 degree beam angle has a light cone volume of *19.8 cubic meters*. 

A long-arc HID searchlight correctly focused with a 20 degree beam angle has a light cone volume of *33,929 cubic meters*

That is *1,712 times the Volume of space* being illuminated in the space between the light and the intended target. I am not figuring other reflections from the ground and adjacent objects that would bounce light into different areas of space.

Somebody check my math here based on the following assumptions:

Volume of cone is equal to: 1/3 pi * radius squared * height

.5 degree beam angle at 100 meters produces a spot diameter of .87 meters, therefore the radius of that spot is .435 meters.

20 degree beam angle at 100 meters produces a spot diameter of 36 meters, therefore the radius of that spot is 18 meters.


----------



## Entrope (Nov 20, 2009)

_(Post Removed)_


----------



## Entrope (Nov 22, 2009)

_(Post Removed)_


----------



## Ken J. Good (Nov 22, 2009)

Civilian purchase: Yes.

Mounts, IR Filters and switching for machineguns are ITAR controlled items.
The searchlight itself is not.


----------



## Entrope (Nov 23, 2009)

_(Post Removed)_


----------



## Ken J. Good (Nov 30, 2009)

I will try to get some better imagery of the Searchlight in isolation.


----------



## Ken J. Good (Jan 11, 2010)

Interesting article:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/201...between_israel_and_firm_he_owned_stake_i.html


----------



## cmacclel (Jan 11, 2010)

Ken J. Good said:


> Interesting article:
> 
> http://www.nydailynews.com/news/201...between_israel_and_firm_he_owned_stake_i.html




What so interesting about it?

Mac


----------



## Ken J. Good (Jan 11, 2010)

I enjoyed the fonts chosen, the graphics layout and general color scheme of the webpage.


----------



## short (Jan 11, 2010)

*Re: Polarion CSWL (Long Arc HID) / Xeonics NightHunter 3 CSWL (Short Arc HID)*



Ken J. Good said:


> jasonck08
> You stated it perfectly and I really should just stop now. The point is made...There is no comparison....But I am having so much fun.


 
Ken,

Any chance you could use a PH-40 for your comparison? There are a few of us here who would like a PH-50, but cannot get one. I am not sure if the night reaper is even available to the civilian market. So, for someone like me, I would be more interested in what the PH-40 does against the Nighthunter III.

Don't get me wrong, I am NOT suggesting that the PH-40 would lose here. That said, what of the rumors that there may be a PH-45 coming out?

And yes, I did see a comparison by another member between a PH-40 and a PH-50, there was a difference, but not a major difference, at least from the pics that member posted. I am assuming that the night reaper and the PH-50 have about the same throw/performance.


----------



## Ken J. Good (Jan 11, 2010)

We did not do a photographic comparison between our 40-watt HID searchlights and the Xenonics Night Hunter 3 because the point was to photographically look at what 2 different so-called Crew Served Weapon Lights (CSWL) actually put out the front end at various distances. We used our PF50 (50-watt HID) in one of the photo shoots which has very similar beam signature to our Night Reaper CSWL. It turns out, based on end-user photography and metering, the Night Reaper appears to be putting more light in it's initial full power setting than the Polarion 50-watt handheld searchlights.

A picture is worth more than a 1,000 words in this case.

You can now download 2 ZIP files that shows some of images side-by-side:

Polarion Night Reaper vs Xenonics Night Hunter 1

Polarion PF50 vs Xenonics Night Hunter 3


Within this forum there are several PH40 to PH50 comparisons as well as Night Reaper to PH50 comparisons.

Please see: https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/252194

Other companies: Let the proverbial chips in the form of imagery, facts and end-users comments fall where they may.


----------



## Patriot (Jan 12, 2010)

*Re: Polarion CSWL (Long Arc HID) / Xeonics NightHunter 3 CSWL (Short Arc HID)*



short said:


> That said, what of the rumors that there may be a PH-45 coming out?



:thinking: Sorry, but there are no recent rumors that I know of. There were rumors a well over a year ago but for the past year it's been fairly understood that the 45W Helios project has been abandoned.




> And yes, I did see a comparison by another member between a PH-40 and a PH-50, there was a difference, but not a major difference, at least from the pics that member posted. I am assuming that the night reaper and the PH-50 have about the same throw/performance.




Here are some older PH40 PH50 comparisons to go along with the other good threads Ken has already linked.
https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/196233





Ken, that was interesting about Xenonics. To be perfectly honest that investment company has given me the creeps ever since I looked into it 3-4 years ago. I investigated them as closely as I could about 2 years ago when I had the opportunity to review the Xenonics Supervision. I quickly realized that their claims were wildly exaggerated and the device performed rather poorly in real life exercises and applications as compared to a PVS-14 SA Was it worth it's price? Unlike the Nighthunter III, it probably was but it also cost 1/4 the amount of GenIII Autogated intensifiers. Xenonics is all about the marketing.


----------



## petersmith6 (Jan 12, 2010)

ive use both Xenonics Night Hunter and maxabeams and all i can say it like using a laser pointer to search a room. some one could drive a semi upto you get out and be kicking you in the babymaker just becuse they were just of there host spot.while throw is imprtant it is nothing with out spill.my grandad told me how the sneeked up on german positions by staying in the spill of there search lights as they had Very little spill.


----------



## Ken J. Good (Jun 9, 2010)

Not looking to get banned of course and I acknowledge your authority to moderate this board and you see fit.

But I would like to point out that I am pretty sure I didn't call anybody a "liar" (a fairly strong word).

I did say that something very close to effect that some manufacturers claims are not substantiated when subjected to testing. Nobody was named.
Just want to add this in light (no pun intended) of your last statement about my statements that are no longer publicly visible for anybody else to evaluate.

I see why you deleted the posts and for what it is worth, I think it was a good call given where it was going.


----------



## cmacclel (Jun 9, 2010)

Ken sorry about my ealier reply you are 100% correct I edited my post.

Mac


----------



## one2tim (Jun 10, 2010)

I Think the pictures speak for themselves, sad for the soldiers that use those lights, theres serval small led lights that would provide better light, a mystery to me how us government have gone with this product.


----------



## Stereodude (Jun 10, 2010)

one2tim said:


> theres serval small led lights that would provide better light, a mystery to me how us government have gone with this product.


 Which lights are those?


----------



## LukeA (Jun 10, 2010)

Stereodude said:


> Which lights are those?



I think he may be talking about the NH lights when he says "those lights." Saying that there are a number of handheld LED lights that can replicate the Polarion's performance would be a difficult position to defend.

Plus, I just had a look at the Xenonics catalog. I'm skeptical of any light manufacturer that will not quote you any easily verifiable performance specs, like lumens, lux at distance, etc. And I'm skeptical of and electronics company that doesn't seem to understand battery capacity.


----------



## one2tim (Jun 10, 2010)

I think this thread is dangerous cause its almost impossible not to start xenonics bashing, seriously if i was american and my hard earned tax money went to those *beep* lights i would be quite mad. In Denmark the military have screwed up bigtime investing in useless material and that have not gone unseen by the press.


----------



## clint357 (Jun 10, 2010)

I would be very interested to hear/see the results of the military testing done in order to come to the conclusion that these are the best.


----------



## Patriot (Jun 12, 2010)

LukeA said:


> Plus, I just had a look at the Xenonics catalog. I'm skeptical of any light manufacturer that will not quote you any easily verifiable performance specs, like lumens, lux at distance, etc. And I'm skeptical of and electronics company that doesn't seem to understand battery capacity.





Dude, you're right on the money with that skepticism. Xenonics motto should read, "We over promise and under deliver." It's not just their lights, they overstate the performance of every technology that they invest in. The claims of their CCD based NVD's are even more outlandish. At least where their night vision products are concerned, they cost 1/4 of current G4 amplification, so in that regard they could be considered to have a fair price to performance ratio. Not the case with their short-arc lights as they're terribly expensive and offer little in practicality.


----------

