# Mag Drop-In Bulb Testing - UPDATE



## Drewfus2101 (Jan 1, 2008)

I noticed that I had a lot of Mag bulbs lying around, so I thought I would pick up some at the local stores (Home Deopt and Radioshack) and test them all till they blew to see which ones would be the best for different applications. 

The point being that all you have to do is decide what voltage batteries you'll be using, then find the brightest bulb. I'm calling it the "Poor Man's Hotwire". Right now I'm running a 2C Mag with 2 x 18650 and the Energiser 4D/6V bulb. With a UCL I saw around 22000 Lux at 1 meter. 

I will have the ROP bulbs in next week, and I'll test them the same way and update the info. 

I compared voltage with lux from my DX meter. I also recorded current at the voltages, but it made the chart harder to read. I have if on paper if someone needs that info. Heres a pic of the setup:






Here is the Excel chart in a JPEG. 
--Below--


----------



## Drewfus2101 (Jan 1, 2008)

*Re: Mag Drop-In Bulb Testing*

Also, if anyone wants to send me any bulbs to test and add to the spreadsheet, let me know. I could also test a MagLED, but I don't have one. If I'm lucky, I'll get a chance to "borrow" my brother's MagLED, but I won't see him for another month or so. And I wouldn't want to test it to failure like I did with all of these.


----------



## ohmblind (Jan 1, 2008)

*Re: Mag Drop-In Bulb Testing*

Thanks for the great info.
I love Mags, but my cash flow right now does let me experiment
with the harder to find bi-pin bulbs (online purchase). 
Your chart will help me find the brightest combo I can get
here around town.
Thanks


----------



## mdocod (Jan 1, 2008)

*Re: Mag Drop-In Bulb Testing*

mag 3 cell went to 8.4V before poofing?!?!?

well.... actually I suppose it's possible in that configuration, I assume you are keeping the bulb on and ramping up 0.2V at a time and taking down the results. keep in mind than in interpreting these results, the last several results would be instaflashes on in-rush current in any battery powered application. So choosing the right bulb requires backing down at least a few notches from what the bulb survived pre-heated (soft-started) to something more reasonable. 

I am really digging this chart idea, this is really cool. I'm happy to see that radio-shack HPR50 in there, it's one of my favorite bulbs, your chart is proving why, it happens to be one of the brightest bulbs for those 4.8V-6.0V applications available, I've been using it in my Tec40 on NIMH for a long time. Hopefully you'll get some more bulbs to try out. Keep it up!


----------



## Drewfus2101 (Jan 5, 2008)

I got the ROP bulbs in, tested them, and added them to the charts. 

I couldn't test the ROP-High very much, because my power supply maxes at 3 amps. The bulb pulls that at around 4V. But you can get some idea of it versus the others. 

I also added charts for the current each bulb was pulling and total power of the bulb. 

Here are the charts: (links)

-Lux
http://img239.imageshack.us/img239/9282/lux2pt6.jpg

-Current
http://img239.imageshack.us/img239/5511/current2ap9.jpg

-Power
http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/4363/power2sm2.jpg

Summary:
-Below 4V, the stock Mag bulbs are better than everything I tested, including the ROP High and Low bulbs. 
-Between 4.2V and 7.2V, the ROP-L (couldn't test ROP-H) is the best, with the Radioshack Halogen very close and the Magnum Star next. 
-From 7.4V to 8.4V, the ROP-L is clearly best with the Energizer 6V Krypton at a little better than half of the ROP-L's output. 
-A stock 3 cell Mag bulb stayed VERY close to the Energizer 6V Krypton bulb. Within about 5% of the light output at the same voltages and blew just 0.2V earlier in the test. 
-From 8.6V to 10V, the Radioshack 5 cell krypton is the best.
-From 10.2V to 13.4V, the Radioshack 6 cell wins, but then again it is the only bulb that could run at those voltages. 
-Also, its probably safe to assume that the ROP-H would consistently put up numbers around 40% higher than the ROP-L. 

Enjoy


----------



## roymail (Jan 5, 2008)

Drew, thanks for comparison charts and information... good job! What about runtimes or estimated runtimes with different battery configurations? Perhaps others can jump in to help answer this.


----------



## DM51 (Jan 5, 2008)

Drewfus 2101, these are very interesting and useful charts - thanks!

However they are very large at 1440 x 1076 pixels each. The CPF limit is 800 x 600 pixels. You need to reduce them. I think they should still be readable at 800 x 600 size.

_Edit: I have reduced one of them for you, to see how it turns out. Here it is:_






_Edit 2: Hmm. Readable, but a bit optically challenging. _

_Maybe someone else can help you come up with a way of presenting this information that will stay within the 800 x 600 pixel rule._


----------



## Timson (Jan 6, 2008)

Drewfus2101,

Great information - Loving all the time and effort you've put in here. :thumbsup:

It looks liker the KPR118 would be a great lamp to use with 3 x Li-Ions if it'll stand up to the initial current spike.

Thanks again,

Tim


----------



## LuxLuthor (Feb 8, 2008)

DM51 said:


> _Edit 2: Hmm. Readable, but a bit optically challenging. _
> 
> _Maybe someone else can help you come up with a way of presenting this information that will stay within the 800 x 600 pixel rule._



I ran into the same issue in my destructive bulb testing. My solution was to make the small image with URL link to larger image. It's pretty easy to setup....then you can use a final image whatever size you want....like this 2,000 pixel wide :


----------



## DM51 (Feb 8, 2008)

Thanks Lux, that is helpful. 

Drewfus, I suggest you follow this suggestion. PM sent.


----------



## EssLight (Feb 8, 2008)

Drewfus, thank you for some excellent data. That Mag 3 cell sure took quite a bit of overdrive. I wonder if that was an exceptional bulb, or if such performance is typical. I'd be curious to see a Mag 4 cell (krypton) bulb to compare to the Magnum Star Xenon 4 cell.

Mods, thank you for leaving the oversize charts in while waiting for a resize.

EssLight


----------



## DM51 (Feb 9, 2008)

Thanks Drewfus and Lux for fixing this, and for finding a solution for these useful charts.


----------



## Drewfus2101 (Mar 1, 2008)

*Update:* I added a 4 cell Mag bulb. Nothing special about it. It couldn't handle any more voltage than a 3 cell bulb but did at least beat it in output the entire way. 

It would be a 20% upgrade to put this bulb into a otherwise completely stock 3 cell Mag. Of course 20% of nothing is still nothing, lol. 

If I get more time tomorrow I'm going to test more bulbs to back up the numbers I have here, especially the 4 cell bulb numbers. To me those just don't seem right. I expected this bulb to be much better.


----------



## EssLight (Mar 1, 2008)

Thanks for adding the Mag 4 cell bulb. I was curious about that. It is interesting that the current draw for that bulb is nearly identical to the Xenon 4 cell bulb, and the Xenon has only slightly higher output. Also the Mag 4 cell is significantly brighter than the Radioshack KPR113.

If you have another Mag 3 cell bulb to test, that would be worth checking, since the first one took such a high level of overdrive.

EssLight


----------



## dlrflyer (Mar 2, 2008)

I'm at a loss. How does a Mag 4 cell bulb put out more light than the 3 cell bulb when run at the same voltage? This makes no sense to me. Was the 4 cell bulb one that came installed in a light, or was it a replacement that comes in the 2 packs?


----------



## Drewfus2101 (Mar 2, 2008)

All of the bulbs I'm using have been pulled out of brand new lights that I've upgraded to LEDs.


----------



## Drewfus2101 (Mar 2, 2008)

New charts added. I added a few more stock Mag bulbs today. The results confirmed my previous results. Nothing out of the ordinary. The Mag 4 cell bulb is not impressing me like I expected. 

I also tried to make it a little easier to read with the colors although it does look a little too much like a giant rainbow...I think it is at least easier to read.


----------



## Drewfus2101 (Mar 3, 2008)

Just thought I would also note that all of the stock Mag bulbs are Krypton bulbs.


----------



## Drewfus2101 (Mar 4, 2008)

Using the Mag ratings found here:
http://www.maglite.com/lampspecs_dcell.asp

I converted my lux numbers to lumens. I started by averaging my 3.0V numbers for my 2 cell bulb lux values, then set that equal to the Mag rated value in lumens for the 2 D Mag (assumibly 3.0V, could be 3.2V though). 

I then applied that formula to the entire range of bulbs. It turns out that my 3 cell bulbs lumen values are much lower by my calculations, however, my 4 cell values are pretty spot on in average. My ROP low values are about half of what LuxLuthor's numbers are in his thread though. 

-Lumens Chart:
http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/5722/lumenswd3.jpg

Any input as to how I could improve my lumen numbers would be appreciated.


----------



## dlrflyer (Mar 5, 2008)

I think your problem revolves around the hypothesis that lux directly relates to lumens. Problem is, all of these bulbs have different radiation patterns, lux only measures intensity at one point, not the total "volume" of light. So, even using the same flashlight, with same reflector, lens, etc., you're not getting a correct measurement of total light generated. For this to be of value, you would need an integrating sphere, or a least a lightbox similar to what Quickbeam used for his website. The lightbox would at least give you relative values, then you could extrapolate that among all of the bulbs, if you have at least one with a known lumen value. As an aside, Pelican rates the 3854 bulbs at 600 and 290 lumens at spec voltage.


----------



## Drewfus2101 (Mar 5, 2008)

Good point. I do have an integrating "milk carton" that I made. I could do the same experiment inside that and normalize the numbers based on the same 3.0V 2 cell Mag bulb lumen claim numbers and see how my numbers come out. Only problem there is that I'm running out of bulbs, lol. But I think I've still got a few lying around. Thanks for your input.


----------



## dlrflyer (Mar 6, 2008)

You are welcome. Mag does seem to be optimistic regarding lumen values. About the only one I find to be close is the Magcharger.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Aug 12, 2009)

It's great to be reminded about your testing thread. Not that many will know how much work & "bulb $$" goes into something like this. As I suggesed in the other thread, it would be good to add your test methods, and assumptions you made (i.e. how you measured/determined Lux and how converted to display Lumens).


----------



## Drewfus2101 (Aug 13, 2009)

The test setup was pretty simple. I wired a stock Mag switch and powered it from an adjustable power supply. I bumped the voltage up by 0.2V each time, and recorded the current draw (shown on the power supply) and measured the lux (DX meter). I also ran a fan blowing on the setup, to keep heat out of the equation, even though it made the test less life-like.

Picture of test setup:
http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/3747/incandescenttestsetup.jpg





The lux meter is setup to be directly perpindicular to the bulb (although it doesn't look quite that from the pic). 

The conversion to lumens was a pretty wild guess. I used Mag's own rating for the 2 cell, 3 cell and 4 cell bulbs, and set those equal to my measurements at those voltages and particular bulbs. I then used that conversion of lux-to-lumens and applied that to all of the other bulbs tested. 

As explained in a previous post, that is not a very accurate way to do it. I would disregard the lumens chart, although I thought that I would leave it up for others to learn from this.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Aug 13, 2009)

Thanks for the additional details. It allows people looking at your signficant number of bulb testing results to be better understood from this context. Again, great information.


----------



## lctorana (Aug 13, 2009)

I'll see what I can do with your data, graph-wise.

(That's when I finally get my computer working properly. Hard Disk failure #6 is causing me some new problems.)


----------



## LuxLuthor (Aug 13, 2009)

lctorana said:


> I'll see what I can do with your data, graph-wise.
> 
> (That's when I finally get my computer working properly. Hard Disk failure #6 is causing me some new problems.)



You are still hanging in there with the same mobo, power supply, and cables then? :tsk:


----------



## lctorana (Aug 13, 2009)

LuxLuthor said:


> You are still hanging in there with the same mobo, power supply, and cables then? :tsk:


Sorry to go OT, but New upgrade mobo, old PSU and some new cables. I *think *what happened was this:

1) Some months ago, I plugged something in while the PC was on standby, not powered off. This fried the PCI video card, and (presumably) the onboard disk cache.

2) New upgraded video card, but hard disks started failing, one after another.

3) Data disk failed. Was never sure about this disk in my old PC. Replaced.

4) Boot disk failed. Replaced.

5) New Boot disk died immediately. Replaced.

6) New Motherboard installed. All good. A nice upgrade. Helpful Microsoft support, too.

7) Sweet! Everything running beautifully.

8) Swap disk (the only old disk remaining) getting flaky.

9) Swap disk fails last night. Takes out my Outlook Express folders.dbx in the process, corrupting all my mail.

10) Thank goodness I have a 20-year-old 486SX running DOS 6.22 & Win 3.11fW, which just works, to do the really important stuff.


----------



## swampgator (Aug 15, 2009)

lctorana said:


> Thank goodness I have a 20-year-old 486SX running DOS 6.22 & Win 3.11fW, which just works, to do the really important stuff.


 
I remember when a 486 was the cat's meow! Amazing how far we've come.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Aug 15, 2009)

Ictorana, one last OT followup. Are you sure about your PS? Do you have a UPS that does line conditioning? Replace HD cables?


----------

