# LumensFactory Vs. SureFire



## wrathothebunny (May 15, 2007)

To LumensFactory,

The claim has been made by some, including our much esteemed MDOCOD (Valued contributor at CPF), that SureFire must be updating their lamp technology to keep up with the state-of-the-art, and that their lamps should be very high-pressured also - the key difference being that SureFire doesn't drive their lamps as hard and thus SureFire lamps last longer. Some people here at these forums are also applying the following formulas to try to equate "LumensFactory Bulb Lumens" to "SureFire Torch Lumens," and that is multiply the LumensFactory bulb-lumens by .65 to acheive regular torch lumens, then multiply further by .80 to yield the de-rated average torch lumens provided by SureFire. This formula when applied to the SR-9 yields 220 X .65 X .80 = 114 SureFire Lumens. As the SureFire P90 is spec'd at 105 SureFire Lumens, this is an increase in only 9% efficiency.

My question to you is, how do you see your efficiency (as provided by your 8 atm xenon pressure and robust filament design) as compared to SureFire, and can you quantify, or estimate, what you feel this efficiency is?


----------



## mdocod (May 15, 2007)

I think a larger difference would be noted simply by changing which brand of CR123 one used to drive the lamps.

The most important thing to understand, is how insignificant these slight differences are in the real world, how unimportant a 10-20% difference in light is. But I'm still the type to split hairs, because I want to know the details also. So in reality, doesn't matter, but for the sake of fun, I'd like to know more!

If you have a 50 lumen light, and want a nice noticeable "jump" in performance, you need to shoot for about 150 lumen, if you want to make another nice "jump" you would want to shoot for about 500 lumen, the next jump would need to be about 1500 lumens, then 5000 lumens, etc etc...

The point being, that to have a substantial impact on function, the differences in light output need to be substantial, on a logarithmic scale.

So, whether or not the SR-9 is 150 lumens or 100 lumens, just isn't going to matter in the real world... but I'd be interested to know more details on this as well.

What would be nice, is if we had bulb specs from other brands, listed the same way LF does it. V>A>lumen>@[email protected] LF is the only brand of tactical lamps that provides these details. So Hats off to LF!


----------



## SCblur (May 15, 2007)

What I find funny, is that most of us know what mdocod says is true, but we still yearn for that extra 20 lumens. If there's a lamp out there that can get us 220 instead of 200, we'll take it! Even if it means a little less runtime. I guess that's just part of being a flashaholic, eh?


----------



## Art Vandelay (May 15, 2007)

What is the difference in price between the two? If somebody has actually measured the difference between the two (in out the front lumens), could somebody post a link in this thread. Beamshots would also be helpful. Thanks.


----------



## mdocod (May 15, 2007)

SR-9 ~$13+shipping, P90 ~$25-30 depending on source.


----------



## Glen C (May 15, 2007)

Art, I havent seen any Integrating Sphere or Integrating Bathroom comparisons, there has been a few beamshot comparisons, not sure if I posted in the Lumens Factory thread or not. Basically the LF are half the price as equivalent Surefires, some are brighter and they make some models which are not made by Surefire. I will be doing a bunch of beamshots soon, will post a link to them.

Wrath, Mark from Lumens Factory tests his lamps in an integrating sphere and provides that information to the public, including amps drawn and voltage used. They are very open about their results. I don't think it is either possible or polite for Mark to comment on Surefire's manufacturing process, or possible improvements over that. LF don't see themselves as a Surefire replacement, more a boutique lamp manufacturer who offer us alternatives which may or may not be related to Surefire such as EO2R for Surefire E2E (an option not available from Surefire) or the EO13 for the Wolf Eyes Rattlesnake 13V. I can tell you that LF don't see SF as the only manufacturer in town. 

I am a dealer for LF, so bear that in mind when reading my comments.

Mdocod, as always, I seem to agree with you 100%  Batteries make a huge difference and these differences are minor (though when I buy a lamp I like to get the one 10% more efficient)


----------



## EV_007 (May 15, 2007)

Art Vandelay said:


> What is the difference in price between the two? If somebody has actually measured the difference between the two (in out the front lumens), could somebody post a link in this thread. Beamshots would also be helpful. Thanks.




Shot I took comparing some of my favorite lamps from both Surefire and Lumens Factory all running in SureFire bodies.






















I love the LF E0-9 LA in my SureFire 9P running 2x17670s with an A19 extender. 

The LF E2R on 2 unprotected Li-Ions is slightly brighter and a bit floodier than the SF P60. All in the small SureFire E2E body, not bad. and guilt free too. The M6 with the MN21 thrown in for perspective.


----------



## wrathothebunny (May 15, 2007)

Glen C said:


> I don't think it is either possible or polite for Mark to comment on Surefire's manufacturing process, or possible improvements over that.


I understand your point, and I anticipated the "I can't comment on brand X's product" response. In response, I feel that SureFire is recognized as the Benchmark Standard by which other high-end suppliers are typically compared. The claim of "higher efficiency" is meaningless unless it is in reference to some real, comparitive standard. More efficient than what - a "regular pressure bulb" rather than an "ultra high-pressure bulb?" What if no high-end supplier produces products with "regular pressure bulbs," then what utility is this "high efficiency" label? If these labels are to have meaning, then they ought to be comparable to some competitive product in the marketplace. I mean, this is Apples to Apples after all. Miles-Per-Gallon are comparable between Toyota and Ford, why can't Lumens be comparable between LumensFactory and SureFire? Would Ford consider it impolite if Toyota said that their leading sedan got better mileage than Ford's leading sedan? No, that would just be called advertising - based on technical facts none the less.


----------



## jumpstat (May 15, 2007)

EV_007, thanks for the pics. The LF EO-9 compared very well with M6's MN21, cheaper as well.....


----------



## wrathothebunny (May 15, 2007)

jumpstat said:


> The LF EO-9 compared very well with M6's MN21, cheaper as well.....



Are you looking at the same picture I'm looking at? Because I see the MN21 having a blindingly bright hot spot and a good amount more spill than the EO-9's moderately bright hot spot and lesser spill. The MN21 actually looks at least 2.5 times brighter.

EV_007, thanks for the beamshots, but would you have any ones comparing equivalent wattage LumensFactory and SureFire bulbs - like a P90 compared to an SR-9, or a SR-12 compared to a MN60. Thanks!


----------



## mdocod (May 15, 2007)

> LF don't see themselves as a Surefire replacement, more a boutique lamp manufacturer who offer us alternatives which may or may not be related to Surefire



absolutely agree. I just absolutely love having the extra options that have been made available. With WE, PILA, LF, G&P, SF, LF all in the game, we have a lot of configuration options to choose from.

As far as the high pressure high efficiency issue goes. I am not aware of ANY compact tactical lamp made by any manufacture that is not considered high pressure, with variations in fill gas chemistry, all containing some percent halogen, xenon, and possible trace amounts of argon or krypton or other fill gases... I have "busted" a G&P lamp, trust, me, it was high pressure also, ears rang after it popped and shards went in every direction at high velocities. 

the fuel economy is an interesting point... As a consumer, it might be important to know WHY a vehicle is getting better fuel economy, and not just that it does. As A consumer, maybe I find out that it's because it weighs less, then I might have to take into consideration whether I want to weigh less in competition in an accident. Maybe the SF isn't going to be as efficient on CR123s as a LF lamp, but it will last more hours (weigh more) survive better.

It's all about tradeoffs. In tactical lamps, having good survivability or longevity is important, that's why we don't see Tactical lamps on the bleeding edge of survivability, like [email protected] hours life. A well built magmod, with plenty of hefty overdrive, will drive a lamp well over 30 lm/w and blow all these tactical lamps out of competition as far as efficiency goes, and that can be done with a $3-10 bulb in many cases. It's designed for WOW factor, not tactical engagements. 

you can take a 5 cell magnumstar xenon bulb and make it about 35-40lm/w efficient with about a 3-8 hour life on a pair of 18500s. Or a generic alternative, do the same thing for $1.69.


----------



## mdocod (May 15, 2007)

The MN21 is close to 1000 bulb lumens on fresh cells. The picture clearly shows this.


----------



## wrathothebunny (May 16, 2007)

I would really love to see Apples to Apples measurements made between SureFire and LumensFactory. From what I can see, SureFire has two grades of lamp tech - their integrated P60/P61/P90/P91 type lamp assemblies, and their military MN/11/MN15/MN21 type lamp assemblies. They also have their "executive" and LED assemblies, but I will ignore those for right now - sorry. LumensFactory, of course, thus far only has their integrated bulb&reflector tech. I would love to see someone take a SureFire bulb and throw it in an integrated sphere and take the equivalent watt LumensFactory bulb and throw it in an integrated sphere as well and compare the results. This would definately answer the question as to which tech is most efficient and by how much. Certain things in life are subjective, net light output is not one of those things - it can be measured, quantified, and compared.


----------



## Patriot (May 16, 2007)

jumpstat said:


> EV_007, thanks for the pics. The LF EO-9 compared very well with M6's MN21, cheaper as well.....


 
Sorry, but I didn't think it compared very well. I see a substantial difference in intensity from the MN21...

EV 007, thank you for those pictures.


----------



## SCblur (May 16, 2007)

Those beamshots make me want an M6 in a bad way.


----------



## Art Vandelay (May 16, 2007)

The MN21 has a run time of 20 minutes. What is the run time of the LF EO-9?


----------



## GeorgePaul (May 16, 2007)

wrathothebunny said:


> LumensFactory, of course, thus far only has their integrated bulb&reflector tech.


Not really. The LF E series is bulb only.


----------



## wrathothebunny (May 16, 2007)

GeorgePaul said:


> Not really. The LF E series is bulb only.



I know, I mentioned that I was going to ignore the "Executive" and LED lamp assembly options.


----------



## leukos (May 16, 2007)

As far as longevity, I have burned out one LF lamp in 15 hours, but it was rated for 15 hours. I have only burned out one SF lamp which took 60 hours, though it was rated for 25 hours. My most used lamp is a P90 with over 70 hours on it.


----------



## mdocod (May 16, 2007)

> What is the run time of the LF EO-9?


depends on the configuration it is used in. Anything from 12 minutes to 1 hour.


----------



## jumpstat (May 16, 2007)

jumpstat said:


> EV_007, thanks for the pics. The LF EO-9 compared very well with M6's MN21, cheaper as well.....


Hi Guys, what I wanted to say here was that LF does come up with bulbs which are bright for their price and as per specs. Of course the SF bulbs are far superior and much much brighter with unquestionable quality. Not comparing relative brightness per se.


----------



## mdocod (May 16, 2007)

so they are much brighter without comparing relative brightness?


----------



## dudemar (May 16, 2007)

One should also take note that the EO-9 has the versatility of utilizing rechargeables under a number of different lights (Pila, WE, etc.). Just drop it in and you're good to go, no mods, no problems



wrathothebunny said:


> Are you looking at the same picture I'm looking at? Because I see the MN21 having a blindingly bright hot spot and a good amount more spill than the EO-9's moderately bright hot spot and lesser spill. The MN21 actually looks at least 2.5 times brighter.



The reflector on the M6 is 2.5 (hmm funny how you mention this decimal number) times larger in diameter versus the EO-9 (M6: 2.5 in; EO-9: 1 in). The bezel diameter alone explains much of the sidespill, but this shouldn't be solely based on lumen ratings.

I did a few calculations myself for fun, and with the Pila GL3 @ 200 bulb lumens you end up with 130 lumens (200 X .65 = 130 lumens). The EO-9 will yield about 247 lumens, which is exactly 1.9 times more lumens!:twothumbs

Just to throw in the 80% numbers, the GL3 bulb will yield 104 lumens and the EO-9 will yield 197.6 (roughly 200) lumens, still nearly double the output of the Pila bulb.


----------



## Glen C (May 16, 2007)

Wrath, I reread your first post and thought of a comparison which both confirms some of your thoughts and raises questions about comparisons. In your first post you mentioned a 9% effeciency difference, the problem with that it is derived from two different styles of lumens measurements. Mark from LF tells us how he measures the lumens, SF doesn't really (and their right to choose not to) so most are using educated guesses from the collective wisdom here. I really dont think you can state there is a 9% efficiency difference by comparing two different measuring systems.

I just checked the amps used by a P60 (cost A$45 at some dealers in Aus and rated at 65 lumens) which was 1.07 against the SR6 (rated at 120 lumens and A$17) 1.1 amps. If you use the .65 to get torch lumens = 78 lumens, then if you multiply by your .8 they seem somewhat equivalent if you disregard price. They really need to be put in an integrating sphere to compare, as the SF are optimised for spill, the LF for throw.

You seem quite intent on taking LF to task on their using the words 'higher efficiency'. I really think that is to explain what they are compared to an average 60 cent globe, but I see your point of view also. I really think it serves no purpose to bother analysing marketing claims, I notice every time I log onto the Surefire site they claim "The world's finest compact high-intensity flashlights". I haven't seen you take them to task on that, but really don't believe they are better than McGizmo, Cmac, fivemega, Mr Bulk, Leef, etc, etc can produce (especially in titanium) and definitely wouldn't be better than if I asked any of those to produce a $2k flashlight for me. They also claimed that the Titan (very nice light which seems to be a nod towards some of the aboves makers products) was the first stepless multi level light. It wasn't and you didn't take them to task on that. You also should take their whole LED range to task as they are not high intensity, compared to the Cree all should be called 'medium intensity'. I am not wanting to denigrate SF here as I believe they make a very good mass produced product, which I personally like. I am just pointing out what you consider the standard in flashlights (rightly so, I believe they are the std in mass produced lights) does not meet *your* standards and the standard *you* believe LF should have in their marketing comments.

Wrath, I must say you have started a few interesting threads




All the best


----------



## LED61 (May 16, 2007)

Mdocod, after this can we convince Mark to produce a LF version of the MN21 for the M6 ? The WE Raider with the EO-9 on rechargeables is my favorite light after my powerful M6. Small and dang bright and rechargeable to boot!!


----------



## wrathothebunny (May 16, 2007)

Glen C,

Thanks for your detailed reply I am not, actually, suggesting anything about LumensFactory efficiency. I am simply relaying to them what I've seen bandied about in these forums concerning their efficiency related to SureFire, and I wanted to give them an opportunity to comment - or at the very least, generate some interesting discussion among our members. As far as SureFire being the "benchmark," I think that's a pretty safe assumption I don't think many would challenge. Note, however, that benchmark does not equate to "best."


----------



## mdocod (May 16, 2007)

by contrast, take a bulb like a MN61 and drive it with 3 18650 li-ion cells. At that drive level it blows LF lamps driven under normal conditions out of the water as far as efficiency, color temperature, and overall lumens go, but would last maybe 10 hours at best. So the argument goes both ways and is more dependent on how you drive the lamps than the lamps themselves. 

It would be very difficult to setup a test that could really determine which bulb is more efficient. The only way I think it could be done is to have a bare bulb, in an integrating sphere, connected through Volt and Amp meters, with a bench power supply, You would have to run 2 similar bulbs (like the SR-9 and P90) at many different voltage inputs, take current readings, and lumen readings at each input level, It would also help to have a devise that could measure CCT at a given voltage, so you could correlate readings at a given CCT (which may occur at a different voltage for different lamps) to see if one bulb is truly making more lumens per watt at a given level of "drive."


----------

