# 1st impression LF LAs *BEAMSHOTS ADDED* [more shots addes 02-07, P91vsEO-9]



## mdocod (Jan 17, 2007)

Ok I just got 3 lamp assemblies in.. all D26
3.7V HO-4 (*tested 1.8A)
9V EO-9 (*tested 2.0A)
9V HO-9 (*tested 1.6A)

before I begin I want to say that these lamps have a very FAT shape and do not fit properly in some flashlights. my ultrafire does not support these lamp without major modifications. (been grinding away material for awhile now to make room)... so if you have an ultrafire or similar light, you might want to take into consideration that these may NOT fit. (EDIT IN, CORRECTION: read below for more details on this, some ultrafires fit, some do not)

I'll probably take beamshots later tonight or tomorrow night if I have time. my initial impression of light output is that the EO-9, supposedly rated 380 lumen's, is about 60-70% as bright as the P91. (comparisons done on pair of 17670s). I was hoping this would be brighter, but oh well.. worth a try...

the 3.7V appears reasonably bright, a little brighter than the stock maxfire lamp...

*just tested current draw... going to top batteries off for beamshots tonight. I think it is fair to say that these lamps, are proportional in output to their wattage when compared to other lamps, no magic pixie dust here, more power makes more light... The 2.0A draw of my EO-9 would put it at ~75% of the *power* of a P91(2.7A), They both run very similarly white off a pair of li-ions, suggesting that they are being driven into the same realm of efficiency.... using this simple method of comparisons on paper, we could also say that according to LFs measuring techniques, a P91 would score over 510 lumens. The HO-9 also appears to be right in the ballpark, appearing brighter than a 1.2A G&P G90, but of course- dimmer than it's big cousin. The HO-4, again, appears to be right in line producing an appropriate amount of light for the power consumption. The tight/smooth beams of all of the LF LAs is really impressive. LF has offered some great "sweet spots" for LAs IMO. niches that haven't been addressed by other brands. After playing around some more, I am really liking the beam pattern of the EO-9 when compared to the P91, I think I'll be willing to sacrifice some lumen's for this beam and longer runtime. I think I'll probably pick up an Ultrafire WF-502D to replace the older model that I had to really grind out to fit these lamps. 

more to come later....

**BEAMSHOTS












































*** really wanted to have a comparison of the LF EO-9 and the SF P91 that takes the beam profile out of the picture and really shows raw output. A ceiling bounce shot- with the picts taken from a different room through the door is great for this because it totally eliminates the beam from the shot. In each picture, the light is in the same position on a table back around the corner inside the room pointed straight up.






*edit in 1/18/[email protected]:38am
**edit in 1/19/[email protected]:03am
***edit in 2/7/[email protected]:17am


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 18, 2007)

*Re: first impressions of LumensFactory LAs... beamshots to follow..*

mdocod,

Our reflector modules are made for Wolf-eyes, Pila, G&P, Surefire flashlights. Ultrafire flashlight model WF502B should fit in the HO-4 without problem. Maybe there is some design difference for 3 cells Ultrafire flashlight.

Our reflector modules are designed more throw than flood, in long range, you may discover the difference in brightness. Actually, the total output of P91 is higher than that of our EO-9, but most of P91's light is in the spill, while most of our light is in the centre spot.

Thank you for your order and look forward to your beamshots.

Mark


----------



## pete7226 (Jan 18, 2007)

*Re: first impressions of LumensFactory LAs... beamshots to follow..*

Thats odd, I just received my EO-9 today and it is definitely brighter, by about 15%, whiter and has a more intense hotspot than my P91. The host was however 2 9P's with an a19 bored out with 2x18650. Not sure if your decreased output is due to the smaller batteries or just a weak/defective lamp. I received 2 EO-9's and they are both brighter than any of my P91's.


----------



## nikon (Jan 18, 2007)

*Re: first impressions of LumensFactory LAs... beamshots to follow..*



[email protected] said:


> mdocod,...the total output of P91 is higher than that of our EO-9...Mark


 
:huh2: If the Lumen Factory EO-9 is rated at 380 lumens and the Surefire P91 is rated at 225 lumens, how can the P91 have higher total output? I only ask because


----------



## Bryan (Jan 18, 2007)

*Re: first impressions of LumensFactory LAs... beamshots to follow..*

You can see my posts in the LF thread, but I agree the P91 is a tad brighter. They are both pretty close. I even made my younger brother do a blind test and tell me which was brighter. He chose the P91 each time. I do like the EO-9 beam a little better (much rounder than the P91) and you can't beat the value of this lamp, really. Like I said, they are both very close in my opinion.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 18, 2007)

*Re: first impressions of LumensFactory LAs... beamshots to follow..*

Nikon,

You are correct, I have mistaken and regarded it as the HO-9, the HO-9 is 320 bulb lumens. The EO-9 should be brighter than P91, the bulb lumens of P91 should be about 350 to 360 bulb lumens. The 225 lumens of P91 is the torch lumens which is about 60 to 65% of the bulb lumens. However, our naked eyes cannot distinguish the difference in light output within +/- 15% range.

You are really SMART.

Mark


----------



## DUQ (Jan 18, 2007)

*Re: first impressions of LumensFactory LAs... beamshots to follow..*

Im interested in seeing some shots of the 3.7V HO-4 compared to a P60 or something similar. I have a WE 3.7v LA on order with a new light and was thinking of getting the 3.7V HO-4.


----------



## pete7226 (Jan 18, 2007)

*Re: first impressions of LumensFactory LAs... beamshots to follow..*

The bulb lumens is 330ish if you do the math from the rated 200 lumen p91 bulb. Interestingly enough my girlfriend also picked the EO-9 as the brighter lamp each time when shined at the ceiling. No mistaking about it, my EO-9 bulbs are brighter than my p91 bulbs, if only slightly.


----------



## mdocod (Jan 18, 2007)

*Re: first impressions of LumensFactory LAs... beamshots to follow..*

batteries aren't anywhere near charged up.... so probably not going to be tonight...

funny thing... I ordered my batteries from AW almost a full week before ordering these LAs from LF, batteries still haven't come yet... mail from overseas is weird... these tests would be easier with the rest of those batteries here.... so maybe i'll wait till they come (hopefully tomorrow)...

also... a bit of a correction on the ultrafire compatibility... (as already mentioned by mark).... our 3 cell version of the light has a different shape at the head and the LF assemblies DO fit in that light... The light that it did not fit into, was a 4 cell version. WF-503B. The WF-502B fits fine.... weird...

So now I wonder if the NEW versions of the ultrafire (WF-502D) http://www.qualitychinagoods.com/ultrafirereg-4xlir123a-wf502d-with-clip-rechargeable-p-500.html
will fit these LAs?


----------



## Glen C (Jan 18, 2007)

*Re: first impressions of LumensFactory LAs... beamshots to follow..*

Just for reference on fitting, I have a WF 501C that the LF fits into perfectly. Wouldn't surprise me if Ultrafire was a bit inconsistent in sizing


----------



## mdocod (Jan 18, 2007)

*Re: first impression of LF LAs. beamshots coming. also compatability info..*


----------



## Outdoors Fanatic (Jan 18, 2007)

*Re: first impression of LF LAs. beamshots coming. also compatability info..*



mdocod said:


> Ok I just got 3 lamp assemblies in.. all D26
> 3.7V HO-4
> 9V EO-9
> 9V HO-9
> ...



Nobody ever said that LF bulbs were designed to work in UltraFire lights.


----------



## mdocod (Jan 18, 2007)

*Re: first impression of LF LAs. beamshots coming. also compatability info..*

did I imply that I had been told this?


----------



## pete7226 (Jan 18, 2007)

*Re: first impression of LF LAs. beamshots coming. also compatability info..*

I just posted some comparison pics in the lumens factory thread on page 13 in the manufacturers corner showing the p91 on left vs the EO-9 on the right.
Not the greatest, but illustrate my observations that the EO-9 is brighter.
Here they are for the lazy people
Taken from 5FT
http://www.imagestation.com/8492861/3943188242
http://www.imagestation.com/8492861/3943188238


----------



## mdocod (Jan 18, 2007)

*Re: first impression of LF LAs. beamshots coming. also compatability info..*

your EO-9 definitely looks brighter in the beam... has me wondering how/why... mostly i think it's because of the tighter focus.... I' going to try to capture the effects of overall output and not just the beam intensity- probably do a ceiling bounce picture comparison.


----------



## DUQ (Jan 18, 2007)

*Re: first impression of LF LAs. beamshots coming. also compatability info..*

The variance in colour temperature may be having an affect on brightness perception.


----------



## Bryan (Jan 19, 2007)

*Re: first impression of LF LAs *BEAMSHOTS ADDED* also compatability info..*



mdocod said:


> The tight/smooth beams of all of the LF LAs is really impressive. LF has offered some great "sweet spots" for LAs IMO. niches that haven't been addressed by other brands. After playing around some more, I am really liking the beam pattern of the EO-9 when compared to the P91, I think I'll be willing to sacrifice some lumen's for this beam and longer runtime. I think I'll probably pick up an Ultrafire WF-502D to replace the older model that I had to really grind out to fit these lamps.


 
I have to agree with you. I have been playing around with the EO-9 and I'm really enjoying it. I think it's a little whiter than the P91 and the beam is definitely very smooth. I love the P91 for it's huge amount of flood (wall of light) but the EO-9 has more throw and still provides a decent amount of close range flood. The EO-9 just kills the G90 lamps that I have as well as the P90 (as expected). 

I was expecting 380 lumens to kill the P91 but I didn't realize it was rated as bulb lumens so I understand now.


----------



## pete7226 (Jan 19, 2007)

*Re: first impression of LF LAs *BEAMSHOTS ADDED* also compatability info..*

Mdocod, nice shots, interesting performance.


----------



## InfidelCastro (Jan 19, 2007)

*Re: first impression of LF LAs *BEAMSHOTS ADDED* also compatability info..*

Why do people keep saying the EO9 is whiter when it's obviously not if you look at the pictures.

Personally, I'll take the P91.

The Surefire P91 makes the Steamlight SL20X I use at work look orange in comparison.


----------



## mdocod (Jan 20, 2007)

*Re: first impression of LF LAs *BEAMSHOTS ADDED* also compatability info..*

actually... you can't use my picts as reference for color temp... my camera does not have a manually adjustable and settable white balance (is that the correct terminology, i'm not a *good* photographer?)..

anyways... in person, the EO-9 and P91 are both very white... 

It should be noted that because I am driving the P91 with a pair of good li-ions, it's brighter and whiter than it would be on 3xCR123s.


----------



## pete7226 (Jan 20, 2007)

*Re: first impression of LF LAs *BEAMSHOTS ADDED* also compatability info..*

Infidelcastro, if you look at the pics I took you will see that the EO_9 is whiter. If you look at Mdocods pics the P91 appears brighter. Others are also have different experiences with which bulb is whiter. There is apparently some variation in the output of all of these bulbs.


----------



## Bryan (Jan 20, 2007)

*Re: first impression of LF LAs *BEAMSHOTS ADDED* also compatability info..*

I also agree that the EO-9 is whiter than the P91. Maybe not quite as much overall output, but whiter.


----------



## mdocod (Jan 21, 2007)

*Re: first impression of LF LAs *BEAMSHOTS ADDED* also compatability info..*

so the question now is... why is petes EO-9 brighter than his P91...
eithor:
A: he has a defective P91 that is dimmer than it should be.
B: he has a defective EO-9 that is brighter than it should be.
C: I have a defective EO-9 that is dimmer than it should be.
D: I have a defective P91 that is brighter than it should be.
E: none of the lamps are defective, because they are all really bright WOOHOO!

hey pete- have you measured current on a DMM to those lamps? I get 2.0A to the EO-9 and 2.7A to the P91, is this consistant with your LAs?


----------



## pete7226 (Jan 21, 2007)

*Re: first impression of LF LAs *BEAMSHOTS ADDED* also compatability info..*

I have no instrumentation to do that with. Just lights. I am curious though. Probably sounds stupid but what would I need? a voltmeter? and how is it measured?


----------



## lexina (Jan 21, 2007)

*Re: first impression of LF LAs *BEAMSHOTS ADDED* also compatability info..*

Hi mdocod/pete7226,

Have either of you run the EO9 for more than the specified 10mins continuously? I am really tempted to get the EO9 but am a bit wary of the 10mins limitation. I plan the run the lamp on 2X18650.

I am also wondering - if the ROP-High which draws 4A, can be run continuously off 2X18650 in a Mag-ROP, then shouldn't the EO9 which draws only 2A, pose less of a problem as far as heat is concerned?


----------



## pete7226 (Jan 21, 2007)

*Re: first impression of LF LAs *BEAMSHOTS ADDED* also compatability info..*

I haven't, for what I use it for I only run it for 5-7 minutes at a time. It did however last much longer on 2X18650 than the advertised 35 minutes. At about 35 minutes I compared it along side a c3 with p90 and the EO-9 was still brighter, but not as bright as the first 30 minutes of use. After 45 minutes of use, it was about as bright as the p90.


----------



## NAW (Jan 21, 2007)

*Re: first impression of LF LAs *BEAMSHOTS ADDED* also compatability info..*



mdocod said:


> so the question now is... why is petes EO-9 brighter than his P91...
> eithor:
> A: he has a defective P91 that is dimmer than it should be.
> B: he has a defective EO-9 that is brighter than it should be.
> ...


 
One thing to keep in mind is that lumens and brightness are two different things. For ex. I have 2 P91 lamp assemblys and I can see that one of the LA puts out a "football" shaped beam. The other LA puts out a round and even circular beam. The "football" beam can appear to be brighter because it can throw twice as far as the circular beam even though they are the same amount of lumens (200).

The same can be said for a 3D cell maglite Vs a 200 lumen surefire. The Maglite puts out way less lumens but can easily appear brighter becasue the beam can be concentrated.


----------



## Paul_in_Maryland (Jan 21, 2007)

*9V, 12V, 13V beam shots using 168A cells: Lumens Factory vs. Wolf Eyes vs. RICO*

All shots were taken from 3 meters (10 feet), using two or three Wolf Eyes 168A cells (2000 mAh) measuring 4.14 to 4.18V off the charger. Exposure was ISO 100, f/2.8, 1/60 second; white balance was set to Automatic. The only touch up was unsharp mask.

I've arranged these beam shots from dimmest to brightest (as my eyes see them).

First the D26s:

*D26 9V 4th Place--Wolf Eyes D26-9V, original model (pre-2006):*







Sorry that one's so dim; I had to meter these shots using the 700-lumen EO-13L as the reference.


*D26 9V 3rd Place--Wolf Eyes D36-9V (pre-2006):
*





*D26 9V 2nd Place--Lumens Factory HO-9:
*





*
D26 9V 1st Place--Lumens Factory EO-9:






9V D36 lamps:

**D36 9V **5th Place--Wolf Eyes D36-9V (pre-2006):






D36 9V 4th Place--Wolf Eyes D36-9V (2006+):







**D36 9V **3rd Place--RICO Alpha 9:






**D36 9V **2nd Place--Lumens Factory HO-9L:






**D36 9V **1st Place--Lumens Factory EO-9L:






12V and 13V D36:

D36 12-13V 3rd Place--Wolf Eyes D36-13V:






**D36 12-13V 2nd Place--Wolf Eyes D36-12V (It survived a 30-second test on 168A cells):*





*D36 12-13V 1st Place--Lumens Factory EO-13L:





*

My favorites:

For a D26, I favor the Lumens Factory HO-9. While its output can't quite match that of the EO-9, at 1.5 amps it can be easily run in a 2x150A body like the Wolf Eyes Raider. (PTS's Mike has written to me that this is his favorite combination.)

For a D36, I'm sold on the 12V and 13V models. They're the only models whose beam is broad enough to illuminate the duct tape holding up the corners of my test target. Among the three contenders in this voltage class, I favor the Wolf Eyes D36-12V. It seems to be at least 80 percent as bright as the EO-13 but consumes far less current--1.3A vs. 2.4A. That's a huge difference and makes the Wolf Eyes 12V lamp the brightest D36 that can credibly be powered by 3x150A cells. Can it survive three 168A cells without premature failure? I think I'll test it now, even if that means I won't have one to run a set of tests using 150A cells. I'll report its longevity here or in a later post in this thread.

*Update 2007-01-21:* *The D36-12V lamp has now survived 1 full cycle on 168A cells. Lifespan testing continues.*

If you prefer a beam that's even from edge to edge, with little or no hot spot, look at the Wolf Eyes D26-9V (pre-2006), the RICO Alpha 9, and the Wolf Eyes D36-13V. I might have chosen the D36-13V over the D36-12V but the 13V draws more current (1.5A vs. 1.3A).

Note: For lovers of thin bodies, I thought about testing my G&P G140 lamp using three 168A cells, but the G140 is very derated and would have fared poorly, even among D26s.


----------



## cfromc (Jan 21, 2007)

*Re: first impression of LF LAs *BEAMSHOTS ADDED* also compatability info..*

I'm just about ready to order some bulbs, specifically the HO-9 and EO-9. Is it somewhat safe to say that the EO-9 puts out the same amount of light as the P91, but for double the run-time?


----------



## mdocod (Jan 22, 2007)

*Re: first impression of LF LAs *BEAMSHOTS ADDED* also compatability info..*

cfromc: I'd say that the P91 is brighter by about the same factor as it is more power hungry... So.. somewhere around 35% more lumens... I'd also say that depending on the batteries, the EO-9 will run anywhere from 35-50% longer than the P91... lower drain rates usually result in better performance from the batteries... In most cases, I doubt you'd get double the runtime from the EO-9, but it would definetally be a decent amount longer.


----------



## Bryan (Jan 22, 2007)

*Re: first impression of LF LAs *BEAMSHOTS ADDED* also compatability info..*



cfromc said:


> I'm just about ready to order some bulbs, specifically the HO-9 and EO-9. Is it somewhat safe to say that the EO-9 puts out the same amount of light as the P91, but for double the run-time?


 
Some will say it puts out more, others will say a little less. I think everyone will agree that it's a great lamp! It's one of my favorite lamps right now. I haven't ran it long enough to drain a pair of batteries, because I use unprotected cells and charge them often. This lamp get super hot, so it's not something I would use for extended periods of time anyway.


----------



## cfromc (Jan 22, 2007)

*Re: first impression of LF LAs *BEAMSHOTS ADDED* also compatability info..*

I guess it was just too good to be true to have more lumens and more run-time, huh?


----------



## mdocod (Jan 22, 2007)

*Re: first impression of LF LAs *BEAMSHOTS ADDED* also compatability info..*

with the exception of the new IRC bulbs, I don't know of any "standard" heavy gas filled bulb that breaks "the rules" as far as incandescent efficiency goes.

as you drive bulbs harder, they are more efficient, the P91 is actually probably pretty efficient when driven on a pair of solid li-ions. When it's very white, you know you are pushing the limit of a hotwire. 

that's why the Wolf-Eyes 12V is such an incredible lamp, it just happens to be just right, such that a set of 3 li-ions overdrive it to the limit. maximizing efficiency and whiteness, though probably at the cost of bulb life.

The LF lamps are great at this, they are really tuned to run close to the limit, so you get a lot for your watts. There aren't any laws of hotwire being broken anywhere here, just well built bulbs that can tolerate being driven to the limit very well.


----------



## mdocod (Jan 23, 2007)

*Re: first impression of LF LAs *BEAMSHOTS ADDED* also compatability info..*

Ok.... I got some new cells in from AW today... 

I really want to recap something paul and I have already went over... I've now had a chance to play with an HO-9 in a brinkman maxfire on 2xRCR123s (AWs NEW protected)... This setup is absolutely perfect. The HO-9 is the perfect sweetspot, runnable on good RCR123 sized cells, but oh so beautiful... If you are looking for the highest output setup in a 2 cell form factor without going into the "risky/pointless" zone of an RCR123, THIS lamp is the one you want. Turning this light on is brings new meaning to lumen's per cubic inch.


----------



## mdocod (Feb 7, 2007)

bump for added comparison shot..


----------



## InfidelCastro (Feb 7, 2007)

This all sounds very interesting. I have a Maxfire, but will probably be using the HO-9 or EO-9 bulbs in a Sure-Fire C3 with 17500's. I'm not sure which one to use, so probably will order a sample of each along with the rechargeable E-series bulbs I need.


----------



## mdocod (Feb 7, 2007)

run the HO in the maxfire and the EO in the C3... The HO is the perfect maximum output bulb for a pair of RCR123s, and the EO is the perfect match for 17500s... both pushing the cells to their maximum safe limits without overdoing it.


----------



## InfidelCastro (Feb 7, 2007)

I don't have any RCR123's right at the moment. In addition to an EO, I'll probably order an HO just to see how it compares to my P90 in the C3.


----------



## jlomein (Feb 22, 2007)

mdocod said:


> The HO-9 is the perfect maximum output bulb for a pair of RCR123s,



I'm very new to incandescent lights, and have a Surefire G2 coming. I want to use protected rechargables in it (without increasing the size). Are protected RCR123s my only option?

If so, I am assuming the HO-9 is the absolute brightest to use in the G2 safely. Just curious if you think there will be any heat problems since the G2 is polymer?

thanks


----------



## Glen C (Feb 22, 2007)

jlomein, AW in the dealer section sell a 17670 battery which will work with the HO4 in a G2. Or 2 x RCR123.


----------



## jlomein (Feb 22, 2007)

Glen C said:


> jlomein, AW in the dealer section sell a 17670 battery which will work with the HO4 in a G2. Or 2 x RCR123.



ok so the one 17670 battery is providing 3.7v, while the 2 RCR123's would be 2x3.7v I assume.

The HO-4 appears to provide 150 bulb lumens for use with 1x3.7v only.

Is it not safe to use the HO-9 in the G2? Big difference between 150 lumens and 320 lumens...


----------



## Glen C (Feb 22, 2007)

jlomein, I don't have a G2 but have used them but only with a Surefire lamp. You are right the difference is noticeable, the HO4 would last longer, the HO9 brighter. The HO9 would be pushing the envelope for a plastic torch to dissapate the heat, but I have never tried it, hopefully someone with a G2 will pipe up.


----------



## mdocod (Feb 22, 2007)

The HO-9 would be fine in your G2. It is very similar in WATTS to a Surefire P61(which surefire says is fine to use in G2 as far as I understand). And since runtime will be about the same as a P61 on primaries, it should be fine. When using powerful compact flashlights, you will USUALLY use them in short increments. Use them for jobs that need a lot of light for a short time. Pick a different tool if you need light for extended periods of time.


----------



## jlomein (Feb 23, 2007)

Thank you all for your input. One scary info tidbit I did pick up off the Surefire website is that the G2 is one of the few lights that uses a plastic lens, not a pyrex lens.

Maybe I'll wait until my G2 arrives, see if the lens can be replaced and if I can buy a pyrex lens somewhere.


----------



## Kraid (Dec 24, 2007)

If I were to use the 380 Lumen E0-9 in a WF-502, I would use 3x CR123As and a spacer, right?


----------



## mdocod (Dec 24, 2007)

The labeling structure of ultrafire/superfire lights seems to change weekly and also seems to vary by which dealer they are coming out of.

As I understand, the "WF-502" comes in a wide assortment of configurations. There are WF-502B, C, and D versions, (2, 3, and 4 CR123 size respectively).

Assuming you are talking about the 4 cell version (seems that you are), then yes, you could theoretically run the EO-9 in their on 3 CR123s and 1 cell spacer.... I would personally suggest taking advantage of the length and running it on a pair of 17670 size li-ion rechargeable cells.


----------



## Kraid (Dec 24, 2007)

That would still provide enough voltage? 7.4 V in a 9 V lamp? I ordered the 502D which I understand supports up 18mm cells. Are the lenses on these plastic or glass?


----------



## mdocod (Dec 24, 2007)

some of the 502 series have supported 18mm cells and some have not, you'll have to measure to find out, I've heard lots of various reports on this issue, and it's why I list compatibility for 17670s in the compatibility chart. 

As far as the 7.4V "issue" is concerned.. The EO-9 is NOT a 9V bulb. It is sold as a "9V" tactical lamp because it happens to work on 3 cells that happen to be ~3V open circuit, that are sold as 3V cells, The reality is that a CR123 does not deliver 3.0V into a load. All cells (any chemistry) have internal resistance, ramp up the current and the output voltage falls. Into the load of a EO-9 you can expect more like 2.4 V from a CR123 (or less). 

If you look at the specifications chart of the D26 series over at lumensfactory.com you will see that the EO-9 is a 7.2V bulb. Do the math and you'll see why...

Lithium Ion (cobalt oxide) cells come fresh off the charger at 4.2V, so you actually get 8.4V open circuit from a pair of them, and large format cells like 17670s, and 18650s, have LESS internal resistance than CR123 primary cells, so they suffer from less voltage sag. In fact, on high current lamps (1.5A and up) you will almost always get BRIGHTER performance from a pair of large li-ion cells than you will on 3xCR123s.


----------



## Kraid (Dec 24, 2007)

Thank ya much for clearing that up for me!


----------



## EV_007 (Dec 24, 2007)

When I first saw the P91 in action I was like "WOW" this really floods an area with a good wall of light. 

Then when I heard of Lumens Factory's offering in the EO-9 I had to give it a try.

I love the LF bulb for its energy efficient factor. And it does have a narrower beam profile, but throws a bit further as evidenced by the more intense hotspot.

Both bulbs are housed in a SureFire 9P + A19 1 cell extender made by SureFire running on two of AWs 17670s.






Distance to tree line about 200 FT or so.

I still use my P91 for the flood factor, but often switch out for the LF EO-9 for general purpose use.

Both are great lamps. Can't go wrong with either one.


----------



## AWGD8 (Dec 29, 2007)

My EO9 using a camera phone. SF9P w/ fresh SF battery


----------



## DM51 (Dec 30, 2007)

Are you sure you have posted the right pic here? This doesn't look like an EO-9. The EO-9 hot-spot is slightly oval, and it is not as white as this. This looks like a LED.



AWGD8 said:


> My EO9 using a camera phone. SF9P w/ fresh SF battery


----------



## AWGD8 (Dec 30, 2007)

That is why I noted I used my camera phone.

Check here: images i posted were updated...

https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/176517


----------



## DM51 (Dec 30, 2007)

_Déjà vu_, it seems. But I’ll eat my hat if that is an EO-9.


----------



## mdocod (Dec 30, 2007)

it's possible that the camera phone is misrepresenting the EO-9 dramatically with a large amount of white point "correction." On top of that, I doubt a Camera phone has the "dynamic range" of any good full size digital camera, which could be causing the effects of this more defined hotspot, obviously there aren't any Fstop or exposure controls on a camera phone, so it stands to reason that we have a large overexposed blob on the wall. However, I agree, that the definition of the hotspot (sudden dramatic change from overexposed hotspot to rapidly diminishing corona) does not look like any hotspot from an orange peel textured 26mm reflector and incandescent bulb.


----------



## Lightguy27 (Dec 31, 2007)

Wow, it's cool that this thread was left for dead 10 months ago and then reopened.

-Evan


----------



## jayinhk (Mar 2, 2008)

Agreed. This thread has proven extremely useful to me. I live in Hong Kong and just bought myself the HO-9 from Lumensfactory (free shipping in HK) :twothumbs. I kind of want a P91 for my Surefire 6PD now though. I use a Q5 in my Ultrafire 501B or a 7.4 G&P Xenon, but dang, the 35% difference between the EO-9 and P-91 REALLY makes me want a P-91. :|


----------



## SureAddicted (Mar 2, 2008)

Great job with the beamshots mdocod. Its plainly evident by your shots that the P91 is brighter than the EO-9, not by a whole lot though. I always had a suspicion that the P91 was a little brighter than the EO-09 and you just proved that it is. 

Steve


----------



## mdocod (Mar 3, 2008)

hehe.... this thread is pretty old, keep in mind that the HO-9 is definitely on the edge of safety for use with RCR123s, please only use this configuration in short increments, I've learned a lot since the ~year ago I posted this... Ad please, don't even think about using a P91 in a 2xRCR123 configuration, it'll destroy cells very rapidly.


----------



## dlrflyer (Mar 3, 2008)

mdocod, you had mentioned having a Maxfire. Have you tried an HO-4 and AW 17670 in it? Just wanted to see if both would fit w/o performing surgery on the lights.


----------



## Fusion_m8 (Mar 3, 2008)

Kraid:

Those of us CPFers who have read mdocod's theads regarding Li-ons & incands setups regard him as "The Oracle" when it comes to the topic...



Kraid said:


> Thank ya much for clearing that up for me!


----------



## mdocod (Mar 3, 2008)

Hello dlrflyer,
a 17670 should fit in most maxfires but is likely to be pretty snug. Remove the label to make some room and you should be good to go. I personally am running a 18650 in a maxfire on the HO-4, I honed out the body and made a copper sleeve from thinner gage copper sheet.


----------



## TKO (Mar 3, 2008)

Another D26 bulb to test against the P91!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v158/fivemega/100_1421.jpg

FM1794 bulb to use with 2 li-ion cells (1500mAh+) in $urefire 9P (XHOLA)
FM1794 is an extreme high output halogen bulb (brighter than P91) which is special order and made exclusively for FIVEMEGA (7 volt, 3A, 50MSCP, 3400K, 10 HRS life)

From this thread.

Saving my pennies as we speak

_Removed over sized image_


----------



## mdocod (Mar 3, 2008)

yea I saw that, very tempting. FM is a genius!


----------



## TKO (Mar 4, 2008)

mdocod said:


> . . . FM is a genius!


 

+1:thumbsup:


----------



## jayinhk (Mar 4, 2008)

mdocod said:


> hehe.... this thread is pretty old, keep in mind that the HO-9 is definitely on the edge of safety for use with RCR123s, please only use this configuration in short increments, I've learned a lot since the ~year ago I posted this... Ad please, don't even think about using a P91 in a 2xRCR123 configuration, it'll destroy cells very rapidly.



Thanks MDO, I'll use the HO-9 as sparingly as possible. Glad I didn't spring for the P91 now.


----------

