# Polarion, Helios, Xeray 50 and Barn Burner



## Mr Ted Bear (Nov 6, 2006)

PART 1 - DISTANCE

Helios and Polarion side by side







... not a lot of difference

Helios, Polarion and Xeray 50...






and the winner is.... not sure....kinda of the same... now lets add the the Barn Burner..






Now that's what I call a noticable difference

PART 2 - INTERMEDIATE RANGE

This is where the differences is more noticable, albeit very subtle. In theory, we will see the differences in wattages. First, the Polarion and Helios sise by side






Yes, I believe we have found the extra 5 watts the Helios has over the originlal Polarion. It's quite noticable; one can "see more" with the Helios. Now. I know what you are thinking....the Xeray at 50 watts has a significant advantage.... guess again !






Seems the Polarion and Helios are under rated, or the Xeray is over rated. Hey, don't look at me... I just took the pictures.

Still have a few more pics, but that will have to wait till Tuesday


----------



## goodspeed (Nov 6, 2006)

That is awesome. That BB sure is bright, did it burn any the leaves on the tree!?! lol-- Great job!!


----------



## BVH (Nov 6, 2006)

As you say, Mr. TB, pretty much the same except for the BB. I, personally don't remember the BB being so dramatically brighter than the 50 Watt last time but it was immediately obvious this time. If I remember correctly, the tree is 146 Yards (438 ft) and the rock is 512 yards (1536 ft). The shed at the raveen was 527 yards (1581 ft), I think. Thank you Mr. TB and Daniel for making this happen!

The camera picked up the color temp difference btw the Helios and the Polarion but my eye didn't last night.


----------



## NAW (Nov 6, 2006)

Now I want to get a Barnburner! :mecry:

I never realized how powerful it was. :rock:


----------



## windstrings (Nov 6, 2006)

It was nice having the higher resolutions shots so the pics are bigger.
Its obvious you painstakingly cropped each one perfectly.

Nice to have have different ranges to look at too as well as distances.

I was wondering if the Xeray you used had the GE35 watt bulb or the DL-50... the reason I'm wondeing is I know the BB has the DL-50 and the color seems warmer... not as blue... unless thats just the added brightness giving that effect?

don't see much spill, but the prior shootout did a good job at that.

Thanks for going to all the trouble.. but I know it was fun!

I"m amazed that the Helios, polorion and Xeray 50 looks so identical.

With the Helios having 4000 lumens and the polarion 3500 and the Xeray 5600 what we are missing must be in the spill and remaining corona that we can't see due to the crop.

But the throw of the 3 look very close at those zoom shots.

But the Barn Burner with its 8500 lumens just does a nasty as it rapes and pillages!


----------



## BVH (Nov 6, 2006)

The 50 Watt was using the DL50. Mtbkndad's shots will be up later in the week. His were taken behind the lights so you'll see the corona and spill characteristics of the lights.


----------



## windstrings (Nov 6, 2006)

BVH said:


> The 50 Watt was using the DL50. Mtbkndad's shots will be up later in the week. His were taken behind the lights so you'll see the corona and spill characteristics of the lights.



Nice.. this looks like the best shootout ever for varying challenging terrains... decent distances too... I know some would love to throw in a short arc of such "which would indeed be interesting" but we all know the results of that... 
I just don't know how big around the beam is compared to the HID's, but I know its all beam.. no spill, no corona.

If I was trying to hide from a searchlight, I would rather the searchlight be a shart arc rather than one that has spill and corona... of course unless I was 4 miles away! But even if they saw me at that distance, they would never find me once they physically got to where I was!

Fun stuff!....

Nice job!


----------



## cmacclel (Nov 6, 2006)

I agree windstrings, the XeRay looks ever so slightly not as bright in the zoom shots. I also was wondering what lamp was used. I have compared on a white wall all these lights and my XeRay hotspot seemed noticably brighter and larger.

I'm eager to see the wide view shots.

Good work as always Mr. Ted Bear and crew 

Mac


----------



## JimH (Nov 6, 2006)

windstrings said:


> If I was trying to hide from a searchlight, ...


Those wouldn't be police heliocopter searchlights would they



? . . .


----------



## windstrings (Nov 6, 2006)

cmacclel said:


> I agree windstrings, the XeRay looks ever so slightly not as bright in the zoom shots. I also was wondering what lamp was used. I have compared on a white wall all these lights and my XeRay hotspot seemed noticably brighter and larger.
> 
> I'm eager to see the wide view shots.
> 
> ...



When all the shootout shots get up maybe it will make more sense.
lumens are lumens.. they have to go somewhere.... unless the reflector burns them up in heat due to inefficiency.

The polarion and the Helios are definately dialed in at a certain distance for thier sweet spot...without focus ability, its really good to have varying distances to look at.

No light has it all.. focus helps, but most folks that have focus rarely use it.. they keep it on 'tight" mode for max distance when seaching.
But it nice to have if you need it... Flood is good to set up for a campsite or to do a project where several guys need light at the same time.

Certain applications like military, police may never have a need for flood mode, but the layperson may.

It would be nice since the Xeray focuses, if it could focus even tighter, but I realize the challenge and sophistication of focus with a long arc.. 
its alot of light to harness and keep looking clean throught the full range of throw with a small reflector.

Similiar to the sophistication needed for a telephoto camera lense with its multilenses and sometimes mirrors. Its cheaper to just not have focus and dial it in perfect just how you want it.. Just like a single distance lens or certain millimeter lens size on a camera.... but there will always be give and take with that approach.


----------



## LEDcandle (Nov 6, 2006)

cmacclel said:


> I agree windstrings, the XeRay looks ever so slightly not as bright in the zoom shots. I also was wondering what lamp was used. I have compared on a white wall all these lights and my XeRay hotspot seemed noticably brighter and larger.
> 
> I'm eager to see the wide view shots.
> 
> ...



I feel the XeRay is *slightly* less bright as well... but then again, it looks to be the bluest, so maybe its the color rendition issue that causes it to look dimmer. It doesn't have the rich reflection of yellow....


----------



## windstrings (Nov 6, 2006)

Well my wife went to drive the grandkids home and that means she has to go down to the end of the block turn right and up to the next street and another right as they live the next street over.

I stood on my slide by the pool in the dark and hit her with my Xeray 50W beam as she took the second right.. she said it scared the crap out of her as it looked like a train was coming straight for her!

She said the trees all lit up and the houses like daylight and if she looked my way she could see nothing but light!

I estimate I was about 250 yards from her.


----------



## XeRay (Nov 7, 2006)

Jeff, how many hours have you run that 50 watt XeRay since youve had it for 11 months? The bulb will loose some performance over time. I think we should look back at the original Polarion / XeRay 50 comparison for additional data.

I believe I gave you a 35 and a 50 watt ballast back then Jeff, are you sure the 50 watt is in it? Do a run time test from full charge, that should also help confirm which is installed. The ballast SHOULD also be marked.

Dan


----------



## Trashman (Nov 7, 2006)

Good God! That Barn Burner is smokin'!


----------



## Mr Ted Bear (Nov 7, 2006)

Dan, 

Yes it is a 50watt ballast, yes full charge, and looking back at 3 shootouts, probably no more than 60 minutes of runtime on the DL-50 you sent. Current pics are consistent with past results


----------



## mtbkndad (Nov 7, 2006)

Here are most of my pics. Mr Ted bear has a nice setup with two different cameras.
I needed to crop my pictures. I also think Mr Ted Bears photos were rather over exposed for some reason. I believe my darker pictures my are much closer to what we actually saw.
I am using my Canon S2 IS f3.5 - 6" - default white balance and ISO.

Pay close attention to the different corona’s and spill and you will see where the difference is with these lights.






Polarion

If you look closely at the tree you will see that the Polarion has the tightest hotspot of the three contenders.
--------------






Helios

The Helios clearly has the most defined corona. It is also the widest of the three.
It has a wider hotspot then the Polarion but it’s hotspot is still quite a bit narrower then the XeRay which is coming up. That is why the Polarion and Helios Rival the XeRay with a DL50 and a 50 watt ballast for throw.
---------------






XeRay DL50 50 watt.

The corona hits the ground faster then the Helios or Polarion . The corona is narrower then the Helios but the hotspot is much wider This will be even more noticeable in the crops.
-----------------






This is obviously the Barn Burner
----------------

Now my Cropped shots.

Look at the tree way in the background to the left of the center of the photo that has a very vertical and light trunk. It is 266 yards away. 






Polarion
The tree is clearly visible though not real bright.
If you follow the light on the ground you will see that the area of the corona that transitions to hotspot just hits the tree in the background.
----------------






Helios
Notice how the corona is so bright and still evently defined at this distance.
Also notice how the wider hotspot and more even corona combination lights objets more evenly in a wider path on the field and farther up the hill
--------------------






XeRay DL50 50watt
Here the wider hotspot is better at lighting the tree in the background.
Also notice how while the center of the tree that the light is focused on is not appreciably brighter then the Polariion or Helios, the WHOLE tree is equally bright with the Xeray with a DL50.
To my eyes it seems the wider hotspot and narrower corona + 50 watts lights objects back and to the side at a longer distance better then the other two lights.
As I mentioned in the other thread that is where I see the advantage of this configuration.
Brighter yes, overwhelming no. 
For that matter these lights are overall so close that when at the range in person, the difference way out in the distance cannot be accurately differentiated. 
--------------------






Barn Burner Crop
-------------------

Now when we get to the 527 yard shots the real area to look at in the photos is the field not the shack as all three of the non BB lights were equally poor performers at this distance.
The field shows the different light characteristics of each of the lights.
Sorry folks my pics were definitely more realistic at this location and Mr Ted Bear even mentioned that his shots were overexposed. For good or bad we give you what we shoot, no retouching, just careful cropping in my case. I only mention this so you will not think anything in this comparison other then the Barn Burner will give good illumination of a shack at 527 yards.
Illumination yes good no. 






Polarion
---------------






Helios
---------------






XeRay DL50 50watt
----------------






Barn Burner
----------------

There is no best light of the bunch. Different lights for different needs. I want a Helios because compact size, packability (in my Hydrastorm Cyclone pack) and the ability to work if I tumble down the side of a mountain and am still able to move, are most important to me.

Take Care,
mtbkndad :wave:


----------



## larryk (Nov 7, 2006)

Thanks Mr. TB, and all involved taking these beamshots. I took some of my lights over to AWR's house a while back to do beamshots, and know what's all involved in doing this. I will have to admit it was fun though. CPF members should be grateful for members that go out of there way and donate their time taking these outdoor beamshots. I just wish I was better at it. Thanks again to all the participants.


----------



## rufusdufus (Nov 7, 2006)

BVH said:


> The 50 Watt was using the DL50.


 

I thought the 50 watt was supposed to use a 35 watt bulb overdriven?:huh2:


----------



## Lips (Nov 7, 2006)

.

Very nice shots guys. Appreciate the work putting these together... Very helpful.  


I've always been curious of who found the *Tree spot* where most of the shots are taken? That location, because of all the reference points, gives you one of the best variety of beam aspects you could wish for in a single location... The long-range shots really show the strength of the BB.


.


----------



## karlthev (Nov 7, 2006)

:goodjob: :wow: A most incredible thread and series of testing sequences! Most impressive, most!!



Karl


----------



## That_Guy (Nov 7, 2006)

The bulb in the 50W XeRay clearly isn't focused properly which accounts for both the poor performance of the 50W and the greater than expected advantage of the 75W.

The only difference between the 50 and 75W XeRays should be the brightness, the beam pattern should be the same. This is the case in the pics taken in the last shootout, but with the latest pics the beam of the 50W is much wider.

You can see what I mean in the picture below (edited version of the picture posted by Mr. Ted Bear above).


----------



## BVH (Nov 7, 2006)

We can point out the differences in these lights all day long. All 3 (excluding the BB) are excellent, excellent lights. I agree with what Mtbkndad said in that it all boils down to form factor, cosmetics/looks, personal preferences and certainly cost. They will all do the job very, very well.

I also agree with Daniel that in person, it was more difficult to discern the differences. The camera has the ability to "store" light volume over a period of time - the exposure time, whereas the human eye sees "real time" with no storage capability. Therefore, the camera shots are good for picking out subtle differences in levels of light if we want to knit-pick.

Now the Barn Burner - thats a DIFFERENT story! What a monster!


Happy 1,000th post to me!


----------



## windstrings (Nov 7, 2006)

rufusdufus said:


> I thought the 50 watt was supposed to use a 35 watt bulb overdriven?:huh2:



Normally it is.

GE 35 Watt bulb hit with a 50W ballast, but some of the newer ones are now using the DL-50 bulb "Normally overdriven with the BB with its 75W ballast" simply as a matter of choice and availability.

The Dl-50 seems to have a tighter corona good for distance saturation, while the GE seems to have a wider or larger corona good for most applications where you aren't trying to see just God but want to see his whole kingdom too!

If you look at the old beamshots, and look at the row on the bottom, it has both bulbs being used and the throw of corona is ever so slightly different due to bulb arc sizes etc.


----------



## mtbkndad (Nov 7, 2006)

That_Guy said:


> The bulb in the 50W XeRay clearly isn't focused properly which accounts for both the poor performance of the 50W and the greater than expected advantage of the 75W.
> 
> The only difference between the 50 and 75W XeRays should be the brightness, the beam pattern should be the same. This is the case in the pics taken in the last shootout, but with the latest pics the beam of the 50W is much wider.
> 
> You can see what I mean in the picture below (edited version of the picture posted by Mr. Ted Bear above).



I wondered about the focus of the DL50 in the EagleEye/Polarion shoot where it was a really poor performer in comparison with 35 watt bulbs in the same light that were overdriven to 50 watts. However it did quite nicely at this shoot. It was more like the first time I ever saw it in the BB announcement thread. The photos you posted from Mr Ted Bear show more the difference of the exposure he used then the focus of the bulb. Look closely at the corona's in the two DL50 shots. The are the same width.
It is just that the center of the hotspot is much brighter in the top photo.
Whether you want to recognize it or not the overdriven DL50 in the Barn Burner and the overdriven 35 watts to 50 watts that were tested in the last shootout produce much whiter light with a greater differentiation in the hotspot and corona then the regular driven DL50. This is neither good nor bad, but ultimately preference based once the trade offs are weighed properly.

As I mentioned before and BVH mentioned, when looking down field in person, the differences in the lights is very hard to see. This is the THIRD time I have seen the Polarion, XeRay with DL50 at 50 watts, and Barn Burner compared to each other. The only new comer for me was the Helios. The first and 3rd time I saw the XeRay with DL50 at 50 watts it was very similar.

People keep getting riled up about the lumen ratings of the Bulbs, because they do not see a direct correlation to the light down field. NewBie has on numerous occasions in different threads pointed out that bulb lumens and light output beyond the reflector are often very different. Let's not forget that important point. I do believe the Polarion and Helios are just much better at efficientlyy sending light down field from their little reflectors and that helps them make up the difference. 
I am sure even the Polarion and Helios do not come anywhere near the lumen ratings of their bulbs actually getting out the front of the lights.

Take Care,
mtbkndad :wave:


----------



## windstrings (Nov 7, 2006)

Mr Ted Bear said:


> PART 1 - DISTANCE
> 
> 
> 
> ...



As someone said.. the beam of the Xeray is a little bigger, so its candlepower at the subjects compared appears to be very close... thats where the lumens are going. Without something to "catch" all that beam, it appears to be on equal terms in candlepower at the target and thats why the corona appears more intense with the zoom shots.

To me the distant tree still seems hotter with the Xeray... but it could be my imagination.
I also see a hotter corona in the zoom shots of the Xeray, but these are all quite close and we are dealing with computer monitors too which doesn't help.

As far as the Xeray being overated.. the only way we have to rate them are the beamshots..... I believe iit was your prior beamshots that gave the rating?


----------



## windstrings (Nov 7, 2006)

mtbkndad said:


> XeRay DL50 50 watt.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I wonder what that shadow is I keep seeing in the corona of the Xeray 50W?.. it doesn't look like the bulb is upside down?.. its something else?


----------



## mtbkndad (Nov 7, 2006)

Windstrings,

Look at the photos you quoted in post # 25 and you will see what I was talking about in an earlier post rather clearly. The center of the canopy of the tree is nearly equal brightness with all three lights. The Helios lights more of the tree canopy then the Polarion.
The XeRay lights the whole tree.

Take Care,
mtbkndad :wave:


----------



## windstrings (Nov 7, 2006)

Mr Ted Bear said:


>



Starting at row three, there seems to be a blue/green tint to the pics of only the Xeray 50?...

But the zoom pics still look brighter of the tree with the Xeray 50 than the polarion... notice the hotspot in the center of the tree as well as its edges. the BB is no comparison as it shouldn't be with 50% more output.

But the Polorions corona is smoother.... very nice!

However, if you look at the "non blue" picture in the 2nd row, the Xerays corona is brighter in the zoom shots, and in the blue ones "4th row" they are darker.

I don't mean to pick apart these pics to death, but thats the point of taking them.. we knew they would be.....

however, I am very thankful you guys took them.

Its quite a challenge to get so many pictures perfectly matched with each other.


----------



## mtbkndad (Nov 7, 2006)

windstrings,

The photoshoot in your post #28 is the one where I was not impressed with the XeRay with DL50 because of that green tint. It was even MORE noticeable in person.
That is why I consider that shoot an anomaly. 
It did much better the first and 3rd time I saw it.

Take Care,
mtbkndad :wave:


----------



## windstrings (Nov 7, 2006)

mtbkndad said:


> Windstrings,
> 
> Look at the photos you quoted in post # 25 and you will see what I was talking about in an earlier post rather clearly. The center of the canopy of the tree is nearly equal brightness with all three lights. The Helios lights more of the tree canopy then the Polarion.
> The XeRay lights the whole tree.
> ...



Yea.. thanks.. I saw that.. I think the beam of the Xeray is bigger... so a bigger target at that distance may bring out the extra lumens better....
of course its the only one that focuses too, Focus is a nice option and it would indeed be nicer if the focus was tighter.. but I know thats a challenge with long arc and still keep a decent beam.

For a fixed beam the polarion and helios did an excellent job of deciding the best throw. 
I'm assuming its cheaper to make a fixed beam and the quality can be higher too since it doesn't have to rotate and still maintain its perfect corona, beam etc. Of course, then you don't have focus ability... too bad we can't have it all....but we all are trying!


----------



## ianb (Nov 7, 2006)

I may be being stupid, but what model is the Polarion? I was looking on a site which had the Helios and the P1? Or is this an older model?

thanks, Ian


----------



## cmacclel (Nov 7, 2006)

ianb said:


> I may be being stupid, but what model is the Polarion? I was looking on a site which had the Helios and the P1? Or is this an older model?
> 
> thanks, Ian




This is the one

http://www.polarion-store.com/pd_polarion.cfm#

Mac


----------



## ianb (Nov 7, 2006)

Thanks Mac :thumbsup: 

Ian


----------



## NAW (Nov 7, 2006)

ianb said:


> I may be being stupid, but what model is the Polarion? I was looking on a site which had the Helios and the P1? Or is this an older model?
> 
> thanks, Ian


 
Does that mean you're gonna get one?

I think if you do you will not be able to use your AE anymore.  

-I know ever since I got my Rayzorlite I can't stand to use my AE.


----------



## cue003 (Nov 7, 2006)

Great shots. Thanks for the writeup.

Curtis


----------



## LITEDISORDER (Nov 7, 2006)

Every one wants a HELIOUS- So every one should just get one and be done with it (admit it and get it)


----------



## windstrings (Nov 7, 2006)

LITEDISORDER said:


> Every one wants a HELIOUS- So every one should just get one and be done with it (admit it and get it)



I haven't saved up enough welfare checks yet!


----------



## NAW (Nov 7, 2006)

LITEDISORDER said:


> Every one wants a HELIOUS- So every one should just get one and be done with it (admit it and get it)


 
Oh don't worry about that, if we had the money we would'nt be waitng around :lolsign:


----------



## Mr Ted Bear (Nov 8, 2006)

OK... found the missing 10/15 watts advantage the XeRay 50 has over the Polarion/Helios


----------



## cmacclel (Nov 8, 2006)

Fixed Link

Image is large


http://home.earthlink.net/~mrtedbear/5p.jpg


----------



## LuxLuthor (Nov 8, 2006)

Post deleted. See my comments below. https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/103447&page=1&pp=30


----------



## PGP (Nov 8, 2006)

Darn, I missed this shoot out. When was it, on saturday!

Patrick


----------



## BVH (Nov 8, 2006)

Patrick, we did it Sunday night.


----------



## ianb (Nov 8, 2006)

NAW said:


> Does that mean you're gonna get one?
> 
> I think if you do you will not be able to use your AE anymore.
> 
> -I know ever since I got my Rayzorlite I can't stand to use my AE.



Bingo 

Ian


----------



## XeRay (Nov 8, 2006)

Ted Bear, can you explain these photos please?



Mr Ted Bear said:


> OK... found the missing 10/15 watts advantage the XeRay 50 has over the Polarion/Helios


----------



## mtbkndad (Nov 8, 2006)

Mr. Ted Bear can be exact about the photos. I got a call yesterday from him because he said there seemed to be a problem with the DL50 bulb in the light with the 50 watt ballast. If I remember correctly, what he did was take the DL50 out of the Barn Burner and put it into the XeRay with the 50 watt ballast.

Judging by the photos, it looks like he was not able to get together with BVH so he shot the XeRay (left) and the Polarion (right). The tree and surrounding objects in the XeRay shots looks much more like the 1st time I ever saw it. Unfortunately my photos of that original shoot did not turn out well so I was never able to compare with successive shoots. 

Take Care,
mtbkndad :wave:


----------



## LuxLuthor (Nov 8, 2006)

I'm also totally confused by the last few posts. What are you guys saying was the problem with the DL-50 bulb that you are referring to? Are you saying he went back yesterday and re-shot these new pictures after changing something? Or are these resurrected shots from some past shootout? 

:huh2:


----------



## mtbkndad (Nov 8, 2006)

Mr. Ted Bear went back last night to take these quick shots.
At least that was my understanding when we spoke yesterday.
I could not go as I was working on site till after 10:30 PM.
I mentioned in a previous post that I did not care for the XeRay with the DL 50 at 50 watt in the second shootout I was at. After the third it looked better, but even after that shootout I mentioned to Mr Ted Bear I thought it was a little brighter in the original shoot I saw it at.

As I understand it, last night Mr Ted Bear re-shot the XeRay at 50 watts with the bulb from the Barn Burner and the Polarion.

Take Care,
mtbkndad :wave:


----------



## BVH (Nov 8, 2006)

I was not able to hook up with Mr. TB last night to reshoot the Helios but he did say that there was definitely a problem with the DL50 in the Xeray 50 Watt used for the Sunday night's shoot. Just as Mtbkndad says, Mr TB was going to remove the DL50 from the Barn Burner and install it in the 50 Watt and re-shoot it. I'm assuming that the pics on the left are the Xeray 50 Watt with new DL50 from the BB and the pics on the right are of the regular Polarion.


----------



## windstrings (Nov 8, 2006)

Be curious to know what was up with the bad bulb if he figures it out.


----------



## XeRay (Nov 8, 2006)

mtbkndad said:


> Mr. Ted Bear went back last night to take these quick shots.
> At least that was my understanding when we spoke yesterday.
> I could not go as I was working on site till after 10:30 PM.
> As I understand it, last night Mr Ted Bear re-shot the XeRay at 50 watts with the bulb from the Barn Burner and the Polarion.


 
So the *50 watt* XeRay is brighter than the Polarion or Helios after all. You had a defective bulb in the older 50 watt unit correct? Once you used a newer bulb, the difference was obvious in the photos above. Is this correct?

I was quite surprised to say the least that there was no discernable difference in the earlier photos on Sunday. But the bulb has now been determined to be at fault.


----------



## mtbkndad (Nov 8, 2006)

XeRay,

Yes, the difference is more noticeable with the good bulb.
I say more noticeable because in an earlier post in this thread I mentioned that I felt my photos did indeed show more light coming out of the XeRay.
These photos were much more like what I saw in the first shoot out I attended when the Barn Burner was announced. One of the big differences, aside from light output, is the better focus of the XeRay in the photos Mr Ted Bear posted from last night.
I also think these exposure levels look much better. That was the other thing Mr Ted Bear was not pleased with from the Sunday shoot.
I would really like to see the XeRay focused to as close to the same beam pattern as the Polarion for more of and oranges to oranges light output comparison. I know it would still be brighter, but that would be a nice way to more accurately show just the difference in light output.
I have already mentioned that I feel for versatility and adjustability the XeRay is my top pick under $1,000. The Polarion is more compact and has other features that give it advantages in different areas.
Even with the good bulb I still say the difference is noticeable but not huge.
The difference between the Barn Burner and the Polarion is rather huge  . 

Neither the XeRay or Polarion can have the beam shape of the Helios so that is why I mentioned the Polarion.
I was really pleased to know that I was not imagining the performance of the XeRay at 50 watts from the first shoot. In the second shoot I was very dissapointed with the green beam. In the third shoot I was pleased to see the whiter beam back but started to really question whether I saw what I thought I saw with the XeRay at 50 watt with a DL50 in the first shoot.
My feeling in the first shoot was the Barn Burner was clearly brighter but the difference was not real huge. Unfortunately that was the shootout my photo settings were not right for that park. Now I have those nailed down and every time I go there I use the same setting whether shooting ELX's or spotlights.

Take Care,
mtbkndad :wave:


----------



## LuxLuthor (Nov 9, 2006)

_Warning: Some negative comments in this post. They are just my "beginner's" opinions...so take them with a grain of salt. I suspect they are what a number of readers are thinking, but probably not willing to say publicly...so I'll take the heat and post them._

WOW....this is a very surprising development on several levels. 

First the initial images of the XeRay didn't have any questions/concerns stated about why the XeRay did not look right, nor correlate to the earlier shootout brightness/performance when posted a couple days ago.

*It seems that only after Dan & some of the more discriminating CPF members began to question the beam color & focus shape as compared to earlier XeRay images, that it prompted enough concerns for Jeff to change a bulb and do an actual reshoot.* I appreciate his caring enough to do that, but if you were already planning on a reshoot before questions were raised, no indications were given.

I'm even more surprised when these new shots were posted, and which removes the equal performance of the Polarion/Helios models, that his text did not describe what was recognized, what was done (BB bulb swapped & new shots taken), nor even an acknowledgement that a mistake was made. Instead we saw a brief, cryptic statement of "_*OK... found the missing 10/15 watts advantage the XeRay 50 has over the Polarion/Helios*_" as if the earlier misrepresentations were insignificant.

I assumed these new shots were simply some old shootout images that were resurrected...and it seemed like there was a downplaying of new images that would improve the XeRay's standing from a more complete explanation than a single sentence. IMHO, if such concerns were real at the time of the shootout, there should have been something posted with the first images about the XeRay. Instead Jeff says at the bottom of Post #1 "*Seems the Polarion and Helios are under rated, or the Xeray is over rated. Hey, don't look at me... I just took the pictures.*" Well now, I am looking at you, Jeff.

You had another chance to raise his XeRay performance concerns when answering Dan in post #15, where you said: "*Dan, Yes it is a 50watt ballast, yes full charge, and looking back at 3 shootouts, probably no more than 60 minutes of runtime on the DL-50 you sent. Current pics are consistent with past results.*" Again, nothing was posted up front that would have suggested there was any problem with the XeRay when compared with the Helios/Polarion. ONLY after Dan & CPF members began asking questions did this recognition that there might have been something wrong with the XeRay surface. 

I'm sorry but this really now shakes my confidence in this & previous shootouts, and I just deleted my first appreciative post in this thread...as it is now hard to know if there really was some other hidden (*cough* Helios *cough*) agenda going on. I wouldn't feel this way if strong comments questioning the XeRay's performance had been posted with initial images, and again in response to Dan & other's questions. Seeing that there was not a clear and complete explanation when posting the reshoot with the new bulb showing the better XeRay performance....seems like you grudgingly were forced to admit the XeRay's superior performance. :thumbsdow 

If I was Dan, I would feel bad about how this was conducted and having to "pull teeth" before we understand the problem and correction. It does not seem that Dan is getting a fair shake here, especially if it comes at the expense of the Helios promotions going on in CPF.

*Finally, I think the most important issue to all of us who own the XeRay 50W and/or the Barn Burner using the highly respected Philips DL-50 bulb is what in the world could have gone wrong with a bulb that has reportedly only been used for 60 hours ???* There is no explanation of why such a new bulb could suddenly have turned bad...which leaves that question for us owners. Was it dropped? Was it not seated/centerd properly? Assuming it worked properly in the first shootout, and assuming it was the same DL-50 bulb....how could it turn bad in such a very short time?


----------



## mtbkndad (Nov 9, 2006)

LuxLuthor,
I stand by everything I said and my shots. 
I have said all along the XeRay is brighter but not overwhelmingly so.
I have said all along that the XeRay is the most versatile of the lights in terms of configuration choices. I made a point of not commenting on things I was not sure of.
The reason I personally want to get a Helios is something I have been very open about from the Helios announcement thread till now.
Only the Helios is compact enough and shaped properly for me to consider for my mtb pack. For me, when riding a mountain bike for long periods, how things fit in a pack is as important as them fitting inside in the first place. That is not a light output issue. Any of the 35 watt lights I have seen are bright enough for my purposes with regard to emergency use. If light output was all I cared about I would just stuff my AI into my pack and get a better workout. 
I have also mentioned in other threads that all of these lights have their strong and weak points. 
I have also been very open about the fact that I do not consider any one of these the "best", but each is best for different purposes and the needs of different users. 
So be very careful about claiming people are biased without being specific about who and how.

I got a call from Mr Ted Bear yesterday when he found out the bulb was bad as soon as he found out the bulb was bad as far as I know. I was working at a jobsite when he said he wanted to re-shoot the XeRay and Helios because he felt the XeRay would perform much better now that he was sure the bulb in the 50 watt light was bad. It certainly was not based on "Helios bias" or he would not have wanted to post anything.

We all got together tonight and found a potential BIGGER issue then Helios vs Polarion vs XeRay.
How about XeRay vs XeRay.
Helios vs Polarion vs XeRay vs AI(my personal bang for buck favorite), vs Costco HID vs X990 are all preference issues.

Costco HID vs Costco HID - Now that is a big deal because some Costco HID's have much better focus then others. 

XeRay vs XeRay is a wait for the photos subject.

We took multiple photos tonight of each light. I left my shop to do this and am now behind schedule with my projects. The purpose was to document the performance of each of these lights. We did this tonight since BVH could make it and would be out of town tomorrow through the weekend.
Mr Ted bear told me earlier that after switching the bulb he thinks there may be a difference between the different XeRay reflectors and that he wanted to take pictures to see if he is correct. Tonight the XeRays were tested with 
1DL50, two different ballasts, and two different reflectors for each ballast.
I will not comment on those photos until they are up.
Just know this was done BEFORE your post because we all wanted to be as thorough and objective as possible now that Mr Ted Bear found out what was going on.

Mr Ted bear did not write much in his post above because he has gotten tired of people picking at everything he says and telling those of us that actually are at the shootouts what we did and did not see.

The simple fact is that in any shootout there are things that can be seen that the camera does not pick up and there are things that cannot be seen that the camera does pick up. Getting as realistic balance as possible is the challenge we face.

Wait until you see the photos from tonight. I will not be able to post mine for a few days.

Take Care,
mtbkndad :wave:


----------



## BVH (Nov 9, 2006)

Lux - I'm disappointed that you feel there was bias on the part of any of us as a motive for any text or shots posted or not posted. Our time and energy are spent doing this for the benefit of all of us on CPF, not to "push" a brand of light. Your types of comments serve to discourage this work. I have a Helios for its performance/form factory package and I am probably going to buy a Xeray 50 so I can get on the upgrade list to make it a Barn Burner. These types of shootouts allow me to make objective comparisons which helps me decide what I want to buy. Had this shoot not taken place, I wouldn't have realized how massively bright the BB is and wouldn't be considering buying one.


----------



## lasercrazy (Nov 9, 2006)

I'm surprised no one else said anything about the Xeray pics. As soon as I saw them it was painfully obvious the Xeray was out of focus to begin with.


----------



## mtbkndad (Nov 9, 2006)

lasercrazy said:


> I'm surprised no one else said anything about the Xeray pics. As soon as I saw them it was painfully obvious the Xeray was out of focus to begin with.



Wait till you see the new pics that I am going to post. There will be very focused XeRay shots, a flood shot and some in between shots. With the two different XeRay reflectors and the different ballasts.

Take Care,
mtbkndad :wave:


----------



## Ken J. Good (Nov 9, 2006)

Guys,

Thanx for taking the time to do a "shoot-out". I for one appreciate the pictures and the effort it takes to do one of these things.

Obviously for the all the manufacturer's or integrators sake, putting their best of breed components forward at 100% of their capability is important or they will get a little hot around the collar.

Maintaining angles, distances, time frames, humidity levels, it also important if the shoot-out is to be useful for any type of useful/objective evaluation. It is a starting point.

Then there is material construction, style, form factor, size, availability, reliability, customer service, waterproofness, ruggedness use for other real world requirements (like weapons mounting), accessories etc, etc. that tip the scales towards one light or another for the end-user.

I have strong confidence that the Polarion Helios is going to do well based on the all the criteria in totality. If the other guys "beat it" in particular categories, so be it, good for them. That's what makes the world go around. It makes for a better light the next time in terms of constantly setting the bar higher.

Customer chooses based on their overall requirements and personal preferences. Calling other manufacturers out in a negative manner or the tester's out for bias, ultimately does not seem to be useful unless there is a clear case for noteable fraud. From my perspective, I am not seeing that here.

Plan, brief, execute, de-brief...Make the adjustments and carry on.

Best to everybody!


----------



## Mr Ted Bear (Nov 9, 2006)

This was supposed to be a simple a/b comparison of the Polarion vs Helios, and just for for fun, (becuase they were available to me), we added the XeRay 50 and the Barn Burner.

On Sunday, BVH, mtbkndad and I got together. The results were "adequate" to show relative beam intensity and patterns, but frankly, my shots were overexposed and out of focus.

I returned Monday, and redid everything expect for the Helios, which I did not have. Where as, the results were "consistent" with prior shootouts, I still had two issues....


While it looked good, the XeRay 50 did not seem quite as good as the very first time I shot the light in December 2005.
 The Barn Burner, on the other hand, just seemed to be, "that much more impressive" then my memory serves me.

I returned for the third night in a row on Tuesday, and posted the comparisons. Unfortunately, I had no time to do write a comentary, and complete the post (I took over 200 pics on Tuesday night).

Then, I compounded my mistake/lack of time, by posting the results from shootouuts from the last year. Big mistake, because I have used 3 different camera bodies, and 6 different lenses and is why you see the major color variations., and variations in "zoom" focal lengths

Wednesday mornnig, I am doing white wall beam shots, and the XeRay with DL50 dies. Well, I do have a second DL50 (installed in the Barn Burner), so I do the swap trick. Surprise... a completely differnt light. Since I had the units apart, I also try the swap reflector trick. Surprise again... instead of two variations, I now have four.

Wednesday night, take # 4. The results are going to make some people happy, others not so happy. One again, I make the statement, "I just take the pictures". LuxLuthor, I understand where you are coming from... I too am frustrated, and confused. However, I will not make the same mistake I did on Tuesday, pictures without complete descriptions.

I will take me a few days (maybe longer) to clearly show what we found... please be patient. I must have at least 20 hours into this simple a/b comparison.... and if it takes me another 20 to write it up, then so be it ; once completed, then I will post.

In the meantime, consider the last few days as "practice"; the varables in the DL50, and the reflector, pretty much invalidates all of last years work as it relates to the XeRay 50 and Barn Burner units.


----------



## XeRay (Nov 9, 2006)

I give my vote of confidence to Mr. Ted Bear. and would be greatly surprised if there were any improper intentions involved. I was surprised at the performance of the 50 watt XeRay, that is why I asked a few questions. I would have prefered they use the GE bulb we ship with as standard for that unit, only because that is what most have and are using in that model.

By the way the battery charge level has NOTHING to do with output at all, only run time is affected. The reason I asked about a runtime test was to be sure he was not running a 35 watt ballast I had provided earlier which would give 2 hours plus runtime instead of about 95 minutes for the 50 watt version ballast.


----------



## windstrings (Nov 9, 2006)

> Mr Ted bear told me earlier that after switching the bulb he thinks there may be a difference between the different XeRay reflectors



I did post a comment about the blue pics "post # 5" which you addressed as being one of your lenses? Or Ted did. 
I too used to do outdoor photography and I've never had a lens turn "blue" like that.. but I wasn't doing nightime shots either with very bright lights "in your defense". I know if pointing at the sun, you can get some similiar effects. You can also burn out your eyeball! :laughing:

I also posted questions about what was the wierd markings on the ground in post # 26. I never got a response as to what was up? It almost looked like the wire was in upside down, or the focus was "really" turned?

Then I posted a question about the bulb in post # 50 as to what the explanation might be.

*In one respect, without an explanation, it genders questions about the quality of a bulb which otherwise had an excellent reputation.

*In the other respect, it genders questions of misuse, tampering, or "I have to say it because people think it", but the bulb could be used as a scapegoat for another issue.


I post alot on priuschat.com and we are going through the exact same issues about testing a certain part. It seems no matter how meticulous you are, it always is subject to being discredited because of so many variables.

Testing always genders more questions, emotions good and bad, as well as brings up details with the pictures, that were not noticed in real life because of distractions "and vise versa".

I can walk outside right now and take a picture down the steet. Bring it inside and blow it up and examine it and see "all kinds of things" not noticed in real life. Especially if I'm playing with a zoom shot.

*1. So if we can please get an explanation of what going on with the bulb would be nice.
2. Now we are talking about a defective reflector too?.. whats going on there?*

Another horrific thought that I will voice "since we're being so open here" is that if the Xeray can't beat or matched in performance, is the quality now being attacked my implying parts are inconsistent and unreliable?

There have been absolutely no reports of such of any nature until now.
-----------------
These shootouts are indeed a hassle, but they release a wealth of fun and information. I hope the benifit is deemed worth it in the future, but as I've hinted before, there is tremendous responsibility on behalf of the participants who do these test.

They are literally "representing" each light company involved and that info is drastically influencing thousands of viewers on thier purchase. It should therefore not be taken lightly. "a little pun":laughing:

These test should indeed be fun for all.
I hope they will continue to be so.


----------



## FILA BRAZILIA (Nov 9, 2006)

Mr Ted Bear, mtbkndad and BVH;
Thanks for doing this for us, really appreciate the work! I will, BTW, post some user experiences with the HELIOS from COLD COLD Norway, in dark midwinter. Beamshots will be included.


----------



## cmacclel (Nov 9, 2006)

This week I plan on shooting outside with the Newly revised Crocodile, Helios, XeRay 50 watt (std GE lamp), and X990. We can compare the results 

Great Job with the beamshots guys. Now to see if I can find a excellent location like yours.


Mac


----------



## FILA BRAZILIA (Nov 9, 2006)

*****Double Post- Sorry.*****


----------



## FILA BRAZILIA (Nov 9, 2006)

Cheers to mr Ted Bear, BVH and mtbkndad! :twothumbs :twothumbs


----------



## LuxLuthor (Nov 9, 2006)

Just to clarify my critical (read "how I honestly felt") comments in my last post #53...they were based on the accompanying text posted by Jeff in post #1, and reinforced by additional QUOTED CLAIMS as I listed in my post. 

If you read my post #53 carefully, you will see that I was intentionally careful to not say for sure that there was a definite bias. Specifically, I said "it is now hard to know if there really was some other hidden (*cough* Helios *cough*) agenda going on." I even leave open the possibility of this being a subconscious motivation....and I believe my quotes from Jeff's statements explain why I felt this way.

When I made my post, I believed that Jeff had multiple opportunities to have raised some possible error/misrepresentation in testing the XeRay, which were not stated. At the time of my post #53, the net effect served to downplay the XeRay, and over-promote the Helios. 

That was not so much the case with mtbkndad & BVH's posts...but again nothing was stated by any of the testing group up friont that there appeared to be something wrong with the XeRay's performance when compared to their previous shootouts.

In the end...._but only after discriminating readers posted their questions about the XeRay shots_....I believe the right thing will be done, and appreciate your going this exta mile. I think you need to be careful about what you post in addition to the pictures, as that is what gives the impression of a bias. Whether intentional or unintentional, or even omissions of potential questions/mistakes/problems, all leaves the reader to make unfair inferences.

No one is questioning the value and unique characteristics of the Polarion and Helios...my comments were not about them. My concerns were about what appeared to be a downplaying of the superior XeRay 50W light output because of the text added to images, early answers to questions, and not adding at least one sentence to the new pix in post #39 clearly stating that there was an error/problem with the initial XeRay images...with more details to folliow.

As you well know...especially going back to the fake Polarion (Eagle Eye) GB issue we spoke about by phone, you know that your shootouts (even if "for fun") carry a lot of weight in representing these expensive products. You know that many of us bought various lights based SOLELY on your previous shootouts....so any comments you add or don't add carry a lot of weight...and responsibility.

For example I'm sure all of us XeRay owners are now quite concerned about what could have gone wrong with a high quality Philips DL-50 bulb after only 60 hours of use...and now what is wrong with the reflector that is now being raised. 

Are there different types of reflectors on the XeRay lights you have? I have the original group buy 50W, and the new Barn Burner, and without taking off the front plate, there appears to be no difference between them, nor the position of the GE & Philips bulbs respectively.

In putting my concerns behind us...for the future...if you have ANY issue that the testing of a unit may not be right...just state that up front, or as soon as suspected...and don't give such adamant answers to questions such as those I quoted in my post #53. If a new corrected shootout is done, make that clear...even if just adding one sentence so we know you are trying to do the right thing. 

Thanks for continuing to sort this out for everyone who has spent a lot of money on the XeRay and other lights based on your previous shootouts.


----------



## mtbkndad (Nov 9, 2006)

LuxLuthor,

I appreciate your clarification. I take these shootouts very seriously because I know people look at them and make determinations about purchases from them.
That is why I went out a purchased a Rangefinder so I could be more accurate with any distances I give rather then just giving estimates.
Please excuse me if you feel I over reacted to your post. I am in the middle of a very challenging and time cosuming series of projects with my work.
I know you must be directing numerous comments to Mr Ted Bear as we have never spoken. 

Back when the XeRay at 50 watts with a DL50 performed in what I considered to be a very poor manner the whole purpose for me being at that shootout was to compare the Eagleye and the Polarion. Others were changing bulb and ballast configurations in the XeRay rather quickly and I figured I must have mis written my notes regarding the DL50 shot. I was certainly not going to say anything bad about the light based on one bulb when a bunch of bulbs were tried in the same light that night that performed great.
I cannot emphasize enough how I believe this versatility is the biggest advantage of the XeRay setup.

I have been much more assertive at all subsequent shoots regarding making sure I knew exactly what we were shooting each time.
I want to emphasize that I do not believe anybody knew there was anything wrong with the DL50 bulb until a couple of days ago. 

Regarding the XeRay reflectors, we had two different reflectors and both performed differently with the same bulb and ballast. 
Wait to see the photos. I do not have time for importing, cropping, uploading, etc. necessary to put them up right now.
For now I will say that one comparison I will post is with the XeRay focused to a very similar beam as the Polarion for a more direct strictly light output comparison. This will be in addition to a tight focused shot and a flood shot. What suprised me is that one of the XeRay reflectors was able to focus to a Helios type pattern and yes it was brighter then the other reflector. The hotspot when narrow and wide were different too.

So for now-
One XeRay reflector produced more Polarion type characteristics.
One XeRay reflector produced more Helios type characteristics and was brighter.
This may not make sense and I am running real late for getting back to the jobsite so be patient and you will see what I mean when I can get the pictures up.


Mr Ted Bear can put his up when he gets a chance.

One of the reasons I do the shots from behind the light is because I feel the spill brightness, shape, etc. are an important part of the useability of any HID spotlight. I personally feel shots that only show the hotspot and corona are incomplete without shots that show the whole beam pattern to compliment them.

Take Care,
mtbkndad :wave:


----------



## Radio (Nov 9, 2006)

cmacclel said:


> This week I plan on shooting outside with the Newly revised Crocodile, Helios, XeRay 50 watt (std GE lamp), and X990. We can compare the results
> 
> Great Job with the beamshots guys. Now to see if I can find a excellent location like yours.
> 
> ...




Can I hold the Camera????


----------



## windstrings (Nov 9, 2006)

XeRay DL50 50 watt.








XeRay DL50 50watt 

I was able to recreate that dark line on the ground you see on both of these pics that are not noted on the other pics.

If I take my focus on my Xeray 50W and go all the way out to wide you see that line.
As you start turning it in towards fully focused, the line remains for one full inch of the turn and then disappears.
It takes two more inches of turn to get to fully focused tight for a total range of 3 inches of total movement.

So unless this was another *Anomaly
*different from the one I recreated, that would mean thise pics were at least 2/3rds from full focus or within the range of 1/3 fully wide angle, how ever you want to look at it.

The reason I"m mentioning this is I originally was wondering if these shots were the shots that were focused out to try and match the polarion/Helios pattern of throw. But now I suspect not due to the size of the corona when those lines are present.

For what its worth from that point, the corona is very consistent and smooth all the way to full focus.

***Another interesting observation I had read about once, but never really noticed even in my own light till playing with the focus more.

As you focus towards full tightness, somewhere about 1/2 from the end of the range is where the beam or corona is actually the smallest and brightest for longest desired throw.

When you go the last 1/2 inch, the corona gets a bit bigger and the solid smooth "big" hotspot in the center shrinks to a much smaller one as the lumens get dispersed out to the bigger corona.

Doing a throw shot with the Xeray is tricky business because of all the possiblities you can choose.

On mine I now have found an even better tight spot for distance throw.. about 1/2 inch from full there is even a flat even spot on the octogon type edges of the reflector "they are about 1.3 inches long each.. those flat parts", that ends up being top dead center to make it easy to find even in the dark.

Since we are getting down to splitting hairs and trying to use them as comparisions, I thought I better mention these variables too.

I don't know if my reflector is different than the one used in these pics.

That mark could be a piece of unvaporized material in the bulb that would go away with a little more runtime?


----------



## Mr Ted Bear (Nov 9, 2006)

What follows will pertain only to the "dead" DL50 bulb.

The DL50 died while I was hunting for the elusive white wall monster (beam shape comparison photos). The light was on and "just died". The bulb itself probably had between 60 -90 minutes of total run time. MINUTES not hours. The only time this light was used was for shootout comparisons

Upon inspection with a jewelers loop, I can see a crack in glass at the base, right where the four metal prongs wrap around the glass tube. So, cause of death is a cracked glass insulator providing a path for the high voltage to leak, and short out.






Now the bigger question is, why did the insulator crack? Just some of the possibilities are:

was defective from day 1, and only over time did the defect reveal itself
this bulb has been switched in/out the XeRay 50 many, many , many times to compare GE, AZ project bulb etc etc, and all this extra handling caused the bulb to fail
bulb is designed for 50watts, and pushing it to 75 watts, caused it to fail.
the day before, was an election day AND there was a full moon
 some or all of the above in combination

*In other words, it is impossible to determine what cause the insulator to crack*.


----------



## NAW (Nov 9, 2006)

mtbkndad said:


> Helios vs Polarion vs XeRay vs AI(my personal bang for buck favorite), vs


 
Hello, mtbkndad,

Whats a AI? 

I never heard of such an HID before.


----------



## Sway (Nov 9, 2006)

windstrings,

The shadow is the *return wire* on the out side of the lamp or that’s what I call it, yes it will move around depending on the focus....It's the "Nature of the Beast" in a smooth reflector when you compare spill on the ground vs what your are trying to see at the end of a beam. Turn the lamp 180 deg and it will be gone from the ground spill up into the air. Some reflectors do better then others at masking this.

Later
Kelly


----------



## lasercrazy (Nov 9, 2006)

NAW said:


> Hello, mtbkndad,
> 
> Whats a AI?
> 
> I never heard of such an HID before.


 He's talking about the Amondotech Illuminator. Here's the site: http://www.amondotech.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=1156


----------



## lasercrazy (Nov 9, 2006)

I always crush the ceramic coating on the return wires to just below the arc chamber. Helps alot to reduce that missing slice in the beam.


----------



## windstrings (Nov 9, 2006)

Mr Ted Bear said:


> What follows will pertain only to the "dead" DL50 bulb.
> 
> possibilities are:



I took my reflector apart and I noticed when putting the reflector back on, its very easy to bump the bulb and you guide it through the little hole in the reflector.. even when being careful.

Of course I'm not an expert like you guys and only did it that once, but anywhere in the game of all those changes it would be very easy to just bump a little and not even notice.. especially since it would not be noticed since it worked after that.


----------



## windstrings (Nov 9, 2006)

Sway said:


> windstrings,
> 
> The shadow is the *return wire* on the out side of the lamp or that’s what I call it, yes it will move around depending on the focus....It's the "Nature of the Beast" in a smooth reflector when you compare spill on the ground vs what your are trying to see at the end of a beam. Turn the lamp 180 deg and it will be gone from the ground spill up into the air. Some reflectors do better then others at masking this.
> 
> ...



That was my point about pointing out that it could have been focused towards the wide angle, because when its in full focus, the shadow is at the top of the field.. not the bottom.. unless of course it was put in upside down with the wire at the top instead of the bottom like its supposed to be.

For the sake of those who don't know.. the supporting wire "about 12 guage stiff wire" that supports the bulb will be opposite of how its installed due the the inverse reflection of the reflector. If the wire is installed down, you will see the shadow on top, and vice versa.

Kinda weird the way all the reflections take place in the reflector.
When focus is turned the bulb itself doesn't move at all.
However the shadow of the bulb wire is on top when focused full focus, but when you go to wide angle you still have a very faint shadow on top and more pronounced on bottom then.

With the beam set to my favorite, which is 1/2 inch back from full focus, there is no shadow anywhere and seems to have the fullest throw for distance and the smallest brightest corona.

That would be my position of choice for distance camera shots when doing shootouts... but thats just my opinion if I should ever do a shootout!


----------



## Mr Ted Bear (Nov 9, 2006)

Now regarding the different reflectors.... not BAD, not DEFECTIVE, as some haves stated.... just different.






As ou can see, one reflector is 3/32" shy of 2 inches, while the other reflector is almost 2/32" over 2 inches. That's over 1/8" difference. 

Why the difference? Did Dan at ZeVision know about this? Was this a fluke, sloppy quality control, or a deliberate production change? If it was a production change, why didn't Dan indicate earlier .

This is what dan said earlier:

I give my vote of confidence to Mr. Ted Bear. and would be greatly surprised if there were any improper intentions involved. I was surprised at the performance of the 50 watt XeRay, that is why I asked a few questions. I would have prefered they use the GE bulb we ship with as standard for that unit, only because that is what most have and are using in that model.

""By the way the battery charge level has NOTHING to do with output at all, only run time is affected. The reason I asked about a runtime test was to be sure he was not running a 35 watt ballast I had provided earlier which would give 2 hours plus runtime instead of about 95 minutes for the 50 watt version ballast""​

Now then, anyone care to guess which reflector does a better job?


----------



## windstrings (Nov 9, 2006)

Well without knowing anything else.. I would think bigger is better... at least that what I've heard in High School!


----------



## mtbkndad (Nov 9, 2006)

NAW said:


> Hello, mtbkndad,
> 
> Whats a AI?
> 
> I never heard of such an HID before.



AI is the abreviation numerous CPF members have given the Amondotech Illuminator.

Take Care,
mtbkndad :wave:

PS. Now back to catching up on this thread


----------



## XeRay (Nov 9, 2006)

He must be measuring the depth of the Parabolic reflector not the diameter. Is that what you are measuring? I am not aware of any variations or improvements in the reflector. If both are truely accurate parabolics then the deeper should make a narrower beam and better throw.

The photos don't show what is being measured.


----------



## lasercrazy (Nov 9, 2006)

I would assume the larger reflector throws better. Which one went with what light?


----------



## LuxLuthor (Nov 9, 2006)

As one of the few who has both the 50W & BB from the GB's, I just took apart both lights and measured both reflectors which I'm glad to say are identical. So those of you who bought the 50W GB, I would suspect that you also have the same size as the BB. Maybe Dan can say if one of them used by Jeff was an earlier prototype. I measured the outside large end diameter, and the height.

Given the sizes of the ruler that he quoted, they were measurements of the height.


----------



## Mr Ted Bear (Nov 9, 2006)

I am measuring the depth of the reflector to the glass


----------



## mtbkndad (Nov 10, 2006)

XeRay said:


> He must be measuring the depth of the Parabolic reflector not the diameter. Is that what you are measuring? I am not aware of any variations or improvements in the reflector. If both are truely accurate parabolics then the deeper should make a narrower beam and better throw.
> 
> The photos don't show what is being measured.



Yes Mr Ted Bear was measuring the depth.
When he called me tonight and told me about this, everything seemed to make a lot more sense due to how differently the two lights focused.

Windstrings,
I understand you are very pleased with your XeRay.
I do want to be clear about the fact that nothing has to me made up bad about the XeRay for people to prefer the Polarion original or the Helios. While the XeRay is brighter, as I have said all along, it is not overwhelmingly brighter. The photos I post with the reflectors focused similar to each light will demonstrate this. If I want loads of throw I have lights for that. For my purposes, if I owned a XeRay it would only be set to the Polarion or Helios (Depending on Reflector) focus anyway because I find those beams very ideal and therefore focusablility is a feature that is wasted on me. 

If someone does not care to change focus or use different bulbs the Polarion is very nice and more compact, waterproof, etc.

I do not like the big square boxes on the bottom the the XeRay or The Polarion. I also prefer the beam pattern of the Helios to the Polarion.
As I have said before packability and ruggedness are my main requirements for the HID I seek to purchase.

Only the Helios gives me the light output I want in the size I want in a package that is as tough as I want.

Does that mean the others are not good lights?
Of course not.

Unfortunately buying a Rangefinder for these photos shoots has set back my Helios quest a bit. 
:hairpull:

Take Care,
mtbkndad :wave:


----------



## windstrings (Nov 10, 2006)

XeRay said:


> The photos don't show what is being measured.



I'm not sure I want to know!

3 inches eh?.. I'm thinkin.. what the heck could that be?


----------



## windstrings (Nov 10, 2006)

mtbkndad said:


> Windstrings,
> I understand you are very pleased with your XeRay.
> I do want to be clear about the fact that nothing has to me made up bad about the XeRay for people to prefer the Polarion original or the Helios.
> 
> ...



I"m not offended in the least.. I'm just trying to learn more and the facts are what helps.

I would also love a Helios.. they are wonderful lights... as far as ruggedness.. I haven't heard or seen any feedback on how those beautifle lights fare with a nasty fall.. except the one that was packed in a pelican case and fell on sand with a 250 ft drop.. I suppose an egg may make that fall, especially if it was boiled.... so I'm not sure that means much.

But nevertheless.. If I owned one, I would treasure it and be proud.. they can withstand the depths of the ocean and like you said, I don't have to have a focus either.. but it is a nice option should I need to flood a whole field or my backyard for some reason.

I think they have picked a very practicle and reasonable distance to focus their reflector at being a non focusable, it does allow the manufacturer to produce precision easier.

*But because the Xeray "can" focus.. when doing a distance shot for throw, its only fair to focus it for maximum throw if that is how its portrayed and labeled on the site.
If you are simply comparing lumens with the polarion and want to focus to match thier corona size etc.. thats fine too... but it just needs to be labeled so.. so that its not misinterpreted for a max throw shot.

I know you may take the attitude that "we just take the pictures, you can interpret them how you want"
I for one.. when I look at a zoom shot where most of the corona is missing and the Xeray is involved.. I would certainly assume "as I think others do" that the shot is mean't for distance and throw abilities and so the Xeray is focused for distance. 

Zoom shots should be zoom shots.. 
If the Xeray has been diluted by focusing it out thereby casting much of its lumens to the sides instead of the distance, and then the picture is only cropped on the distance, it misrepresents the Xeray's abilities.

thats all I"m feeling.

I think viewers would be curious to see the wide angle shot with the Xeray at full focus so they can see how the corona falls also, "as I think you have already done" and they may find interesting how the wide angle shots look too with focus fully out. But I understand that is not your burden to fully demonstrate all the abilities of the Xeray.

I know your intentions were honest in that "to be fair to all lights" you wanted to to focus the Xeray to match the Polarion/Helios so the zoom shots wouldn't misrepresent those lights either.

However... that is the advantage of focus and it should be demonstrated so and not diminished.

Thanks for your reply....


----------



## mtbkndad (Nov 10, 2006)

Windstrings.

Since I never adjusted the focus till this shoot I always assumed the XeRays were focused, at least I never felt I had any reason to question whether they were focused or not since I agree with you. If only one shot is going to be done it should be done in the tightest focus of any particular light unless otherwise stated. In the pictures Mr Ted Bear and I post you will see good focus of each reflector for throw, comparative focus for each reflector for comparitive light output and a real wide, flood shot.

Actually only in this last shoot did the subject of focusing the XeRay to match the respective Helios or Polarion come up. I believe I thought of it and posted about that idea shortly before I ever got a call about another shoot. That was because I wanted to do these shots and Mr. Ted Bear said okay.

In the next few days, or at least hopefully by Sunday night on my part, there will be loads more photos and descripitions to look at.

Regarding drop testing, I think you should be a leader and not follower.
Buy a Helios, then throw your Helios and XeRay off a 50 foot building to start.   

Take Care,
mtbkndad :wave:


----------



## windstrings (Nov 10, 2006)

mtbkndad said:


> Windstrings.
> In the next few days, or at least hopefully by Sunday night on my part, there will be loads more photos and descripitions to look at.
> 
> Regarding drop testing, I think you should be a leader and not follower.
> ...



Awesome!... Until last night, I was totally estatic with my beam being at "full focus".... only now that I've discovered a 1/2 inch of a turn "back" from full does actually throw an even more powerful throw than full since the corona is the absolute smallest at that throw.
I have read about discussions about this issue before, but I don't think its that important to dig them up.

Just if and when another shoot is done, it would be great to know if a throw shot was focused so.
I have already bought my Xeray true, but If I or someone else wants to consider and additional purchaseof another light, it would be nice to know the scoop on what beam we are looking at since there are "multiple" variables possible with the Xerays focus.... "absolute full focus not being the best"

As far as drop testing.. I figured that was the case... I haven't seen anyone willing to donate thier light for a 100 ft drop test straight onto the rocks or cement unprotected... I think it must be because their afraid they might scratch it! :huh2:


----------



## LuxLuthor (Nov 10, 2006)

lasercrazy said:


> I always crush the ceramic coating on the return wires to just below the arc chamber. Helps alot to reduce that missing slice in the beam.



It would be interesting to get Dan's feedback on someone doing this...and also what you used to crush and remove part of the insulator safely....and a pix to show how much you mean _(or photoshop draw lines on one of the images someone has posted of the bulbs)_. 

Of the top of my head, I would think there must be a significant downside of doing this, or we would see uniformly shorter insulators on HID bulbs...since it improves the beam output.


----------



## lasercrazy (Nov 10, 2006)

Lux, 
The return wire is shielded so it doesn't arc all over when the bulb starts up. I did this on day 1 of getting my BB and have had nothing go wrong. All I used was my leatherman to crush a little at a time intil it was below the arc chamber. Just look up at mrtedbears pic and you'll see the big bubble in the center of the bulb, that's the arc chamber.


LuxLuthor said:


> It would be interesting to get Dan's feedback on someone doing this...and also what you used to crush and remove part of the insulator safely....and a pix to show how much you mean _(or photoshop draw lines on one of the images someone has posted of the bulbs)_.
> 
> Of the top of my head, I would think there must be a significant downside of doing this, or we would see uniformly shorter insulators on HID bulbs...since it improves the beam output.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Nov 11, 2006)

lasercrazy said:


> Lux,
> The return wire is shielded so it doesn't arc all over when the bulb starts up. I did this on day 1 of getting my BB and have had nothing go wrong. All I used was my leatherman to crush a little at a time intil it was below the arc chamber. Just look up at mrtedbears pic and you'll see the big bubble in the center of the bulb, that's the arc chamber.



That seems easy and straightforward enough...but I'm just wondering since that improves that shadow so much, why bulbs don't come that way in the first place...just wondering if there is a downside from anyone else who knows about that. Otherwise, I might try it too.


----------



## windstrings (Nov 11, 2006)

LuxLuthor said:


> It would be interesting to get Dan's feedback on someone doing this...and also what you used to crush and remove part of the insulator safely....



I am curious about this too.
If an arc ever occurs, it sounds like it comes from the wire.. which is the closest to the reflector? "almost touching"
Would one option be to have a bigger hole, or slight groove dremeled out for the wire?

I got to looking at my reflector and although I've never been aware of an arc, I do have a black spot on the front, and when the reflector is off, you can visulize it even bigger on back.

I noted that the wire nearly touches the hole of the reflector and my black spot "is not" where the wire is located... which tells me if this was due to an arc, it was when to reflector was positioned differently..... 

Maybe before I took the reflector off and put it back on, I could have put it on slightly different than prior.

When I first pulled my unit out of the box being brand new, when I first turned it on, I had no response from the button.
However, I have never "ever" had that happen again. I just assumed it was from a low battery during shipping or maybe that capacitors etc had drained over time in the ballast... I don't know enough about ballasts to really understand.
At any rate, I was never privy to any arcing with that event.. its worked perfect ever since.

If Dan or anybody has seen this before, it would be good to know and maybe we can consider alternatives to prevent it in the future if its avoidable.


----------



## larryk (Nov 11, 2006)

I'm not sure if this has been stated yet but both the RayzorLite and Helios have no insulation on there return wires.


----------



## windstrings (Nov 11, 2006)

larryk said:


> I'm not sure if this has been stated yet but both the RayzorLite and Helios have no insulation on there return wires.



larry, what are you calling the insulation.. that "whole" tube as best depicted in my top picture thats around the tube, or is there a coating "on" that tube?


----------



## Sway (Nov 11, 2006)

It's just the tube around the wire nothing else underneath, it's there to keep it from arcing to other conductive parts if their near by.

Later
Kelly


----------



## Mr Ted Bear (Nov 11, 2006)

** PROGRESS REPORT **

Its going to be a while longer till I post my report. As I said earlier, I thought this was going to be a simple a/b comparison... it is not.

Consider the following
Polarion
Helios
XeVision 50 / Phillips DL50 Reflector #1
XeVision 50 / Phillips DL50 Reflector #2
XeVision 50 / Phillips DL50 Reflector #2 focused for maximum throw
XeVision 50 / GE Reflector #1
XeVision 50 / GE Reflector #2
XeVision 50 / GE Reflector #2 focused for maximum thow
BarnBurner Relector #1
BarnBurner Relector #2
BarnBurner Relector #2 focused for maximum thow
Instead of 2, it's now 11. I use two cameras, and shot 3 different focal lengths. Also, I shoot in triplicates; set up light, and shoot three focal lengths. Set up the same light, shoot again. Set up the same light, and shot for the third time. The reason for this is to confirm the hot spot on the light is centered on target, and not "pointing at the ground". Doing the math, thats 99 pics. For any given light, the 9 pics should be identical (more or less). If just of 1 of the 9 pics is odd, how do I know which one is correct? Maybe the 1 odd one is correct, and the other 8 are bad..???

I could post results like this, but somebody will complain they are framed differently in a effort to promote/demote a particular light. Because of this, it is not possible just to reshoot one light; it's all eleven.


----------



## lasercrazy (Nov 11, 2006)

windstrings said:


> I am curious about this too.
> If an arc ever occurs, it sounds like it comes from the wire.. which is the closest to the reflector? "almost touching"
> Would one option be to have a bigger hole, or slight groove dremeled out for the wire?
> 
> ...


 Windstrings, My BB also had that mark on it right out of the case. It appears to be where the reflector was held when it was metalised. I'd like to see Dan make a bigger & deeper reflector for the Zerays with possibly a smaller hole like the helios, not a bigger one. Somewhere on here there's a front view pic of the helios and it looks like the return wire is almost touching the bulb. The Zerays's reflector is isolated by plastic all around it, arcing shouldn't be a problem.


----------



## windstrings (Nov 11, 2006)

larryk said:


> I'm not sure if this has been stated yet but both the RayzorLite and Helios have no insulation on there return wires.



How do they get away without arcs?....

Also.. the higher the wattage of the device, I assume it the voltage would also be higher and more likely to arc?


----------



## windstrings (Nov 11, 2006)

lasercrazy said:


> Windstrings, My BB also had that mark on it right out of the case. It appears to be where the reflector was held when it was metalised. Somewhere on here there's a front view pic of the helios and it looks like the return wire is almost touching the bulb. The Zerays's reflector is isolated by plastic all around it, arcing shouldn't be a problem.



Hey.. I bet your right.. my first real job was working in a metal fab shop and that makes perfect sense. The best way to hold a reflector to put the plating would be by the hole.

thanks.....

Next question for you:
you said gently cracking away the ceramic helps remove any shadows, *doesn't that increase your odds for an arc?*
Which would be a definate warranty issue, risking the ballast if it shorts.

I did see the nice rubber gasket around the reflector... its quite thick... at least 1/8" without measuring.

At the settings for throw "which I prefer" there is no shadow anyway thats percievable... especially at the distance of the target.


----------



## windstrings (Nov 11, 2006)

Well as long as the hole is as big as it is.. I plan on trying a few coats of glowpaint the the flat platform of the DL-50 bulb which is visible through the hole... I'm not sure if its angled such that it will hit the reflector and get the benifit of that too.. but we'll see.


----------



## lasercrazy (Nov 11, 2006)

I leave about 3/4" of the coating to help prevent that. It may increase the chanceof an arc, but to be honest I'm not one bit worried about that. I'm more concered about breaking the bulb than it arcing. Having already put close to 70 hours on the bulb I've yet to have ANY startup issues. (Knock on wood. ) I'd be more concerned about putting on that glow paint if I were you, that bulb gets very hot very fast. The paint could burn off and ruin your reflector and/or your lens too. I like using the flood beam so the most gain is seen then.



windstrings said:


> Next question for you:
> you said gently cracking away the ceramic helps remove any shadows, *doesn't that increase your odds for an arc?*
> Which would be a definate warranty issue, risking the ballast if it shorts.
> 
> ...


----------



## windstrings (Nov 11, 2006)

Thanks.. Its not on any direct contact of the bulb, but very close....I was wondering if it may smoke too.. maybe I'll stick with the outside reflector rings...

It would sure be a mess cleaning it off if it started acting up.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Nov 11, 2006)

Yeah, I would not want to put any paint anywhere near that bulb with the heat issue.

Also, Laser leaves the bottom part of the insulation which is well above the near contact with the reflector hole...which is where I would think it would want to arc. I may try this, but would want Dan's feedback on this first...since it may affect his warranty somehow.


----------



## windstrings (Nov 11, 2006)

LuxLuthor said:


> Yeah, I would not want to put any paint anywhere near that bulb with the heat issue.
> 
> Also, Laser leaves the bottom part of the insulation which is well above the near contact with the reflector hole...which is where I would think it would want to arc. I may try this, but would want Dan's feedback on this first...since it may affect his warranty somehow.



Ok..now I feel stupid... "no comment Lux!"... I had it all backwards
A


> ll I used was my leatherman to crush a little at a time intil it was below the arc chamber. Just look up at mrtedbears pic and you'll see the big bubble in the center of the bulb, that's the arc chamber.



For some reason I thought he was crushing the "bottom" up to the bottom of the bubble, not the top until it was too the bottom!.. Ah.. a light came on! 

If you look at my top picture:









You will see that that wire actually hides a fair amount of the light output.
I suppose if your dealing with 8500 lumens and if that wire takes up even 2% of the 360 degree output of that light, which is 7.2 degrees.
If you take 8500 lumens and take out 7.2 degrees worth of light.. 

Well 8500 lumens divided by 360 degrees equals 23.6 lumens "per degree"
23.6 lumens times 7.2 degrees is 170 lumens lost.
So that means removing the shadow would restore 170lumes more light with the BB.

If that is true and you factor the Xeray 50 with its 5600 lumens, it would be 112 lumens gained to remove the shadow. Heck thats more light than my Inova T4 puts out.. and its bright!

I realize some light goes out the tip of the bulb and is not factored in this equation but that light would be fairly negligible since it doesn't get the benifit of the reflector amplifying it. Is that where the "spill" comes from?

Anyway.. gaining those lumens is better than a sharp stick in the eye!

Hey lux, I wonder if you take the lens out and point your BB up if you can pop popcorn?


----------



## larryk (Nov 11, 2006)

windstrings said:


> How do they get away without arcs?....
> 
> Also.. the higher the wattage of the device, I assume it the voltage would also be higher and more likely to arc?



I'm not sure how they get away without arcing, but even without the insulation you still get that pie shape in the beam. Here's a link to pictures of the RayzorLite and Helios bulb and reflectors,
http://flashlight-forums.com/index.php?topic=3635.0


----------



## windstrings (Nov 11, 2006)

Sway said:


> It's just the tube around the wire nothing else underneath, it's there to keep it from arcing to other conductive parts if their near by.
> 
> Later
> Kelly



well looking at my picture with a flash in post # 104,.. I don't think you could crack any ceramic away, because there appears to be none.. its a tube. Ceramic is usually glazed or baked onto something.. this looks loose.

If you could figure out a way to remover the upper part of it, then it would slide around all over the place up and down the wire.
It looks like you said "just a tube" that is held in place due to its length bumping up against the bend in the wire.

So this may be a mute issue with this bulb.


----------



## Sway (Nov 11, 2006)

Windstrings,

It is a loose fitting tube made of a brittle material, cracking some of it away will let it slide back and forth. Really I would wait for Dan to chime in on this one from looking at your pic's, it looks very close to the edge of the reflector.

I cracked it off the Osram D2S in my Blitz but it’s a different animal with a large opening and nothing really comes close to the wire. It did make a little difference the shadow is smaller but still there.

Later
Kelly


----------



## LuxLuthor (Nov 12, 2006)

Windy, that's funny that you were thinking of the wrong end of the insulator.....lol....always good to be human! I can't imagine the remaining insulator slides up and down so easily, or Laser would have mentioned that it was not such a good idea. I suppose you could put a tiny spot of some heat safe epoxy to hold the insulator at the bottom.


----------



## LEDcandle (Nov 12, 2006)

windstrings said:


> Thanks.. Its not on any direct contact of the bulb, but very close....I was wondering if it may smoke too.. maybe I'll stick with the outside reflector rings...
> 
> It would sure be a mess cleaning it off if it started acting up.



Pretty sure it'll smoke. Added some glow paint to the base of a friends DB-3W Maglite drop-in module and after prolonged use, the entire paint turned black and it seems like some of the stuff 'evaporated' and 'condensed' back on the insides, with small sputterings of glow particles everywhere all over the reflectors.


----------



## windstrings (Nov 12, 2006)

LuxLuthor said:


> Windy,



LOL!.. you finally found a name that fits me!... maybe I should change!


----------



## lasercrazy (Nov 12, 2006)

The tube on my bulb was tight so it didn't move, but if you're concered it will lux's idea will work.


----------



## windstrings (Nov 12, 2006)

lasercrazy said:


> The tube on my bulb was tight so it didn't move, but if you're concered it will lux's idea will work.



Do they make epoxy that can handle that heat?

I'm thinking of JB weld.. but the epoxy itself could end up making a nasty shadow unless you were really down a ways.


----------



## lasercrazy (Nov 12, 2006)

The best spot to apply it would be at the base where it comes up. That's way below the reflector and shouldn't cause any shadows.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Nov 12, 2006)

Laser, how much difference would you say that really makes anyway? Barely noticeable, moderate, or dramatic type improvement on the shadow? I can almost find a focus adjustment place where it really does not seem to show in the center hotspot.


----------



## lasercrazy (Nov 12, 2006)

I personally like a nice round beam with no chunks missing. When it's in spot it's a moderate improvement, when in flood it's a big improvement. I reclaimed a good 3 or more inches of my beam in flood depending on the distance of the target.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Nov 12, 2006)

lasercrazy said:


> I personally like a nice round beam with no chunks missing. When it's in spot it's a moderate improvement, when in flood it's a big improvement. I reclaimed a good 3 or more inches of my beam in flood depending on the distance of the target.



Gets pliers out.


----------



## Mr Ted Bear (Nov 13, 2006)

It won't be long now. Mtbkndad and I re=shot everything again tonight, and I am very pleased with the consistent results.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Nov 13, 2006)

Thanks for doing all those shots. That's quite a portfolio of thumbprint images!!!


----------



## windstrings (Nov 13, 2006)

Well I know which light is the top three rows!...

Its fun to try and guess the others... most are in rows of 3, with the exception of two straggler rows....


----------



## lasercrazy (Nov 13, 2006)

Wow, that's a lot of pics.


----------



## windstrings (Nov 13, 2006)

That BB is just magnasty... I can't stand it..... gimme!!!


----------



## LuxLuthor (Nov 13, 2006)

windstrings said:


> That BB is just magnasty... I can't stand it..... gimme!!!



I know it's gluttony having a BB & 50W, but like I said before, the BB is like a close encounter event.


----------



## windstrings (Nov 17, 2006)

Thats ok.. I can take it... I don't mind if you just keep rubbing it in... and in .....and in.....


----------

