Magic Fire 40W HID 4000-Lumen 4x18650 HID Flashlight

[MDJAK]

I appreciate very much all the input here, the tests, video, etc. You guys do great work. I've had mine for about 2 weeks now, and my primary use, as I've said, is night walks with my dog, 3 miles, on very lightly traveled roads which are very dark, around a lake community. For that purpose, it's a great light. I've come to realize it does not throw as far as my SR90, but it floods better and comes close to its throw, at least to my eyes.

Is it cheaply made? Yes. Is it cheap in price? Yes. For what it is, I like it. Am I dying for a Polarion? HELL YEAH!!!!!

[BVH]

BVH,
I'm glad your unit arrived. So I guess the question is: are you satisfied with the price/performance of this unit. I'm getting the impression that it's a bit underwhelming, even at this price. In any case, thank you very much for the informative "first look."


Well, if the Fire-Fox were broadly available, that would be the unit under test, wouldn't it? It's nice that you knew all about this light, but now we're investigating it hands-on ourselves. I am a practical user so unless my unit turns out to be utter junk, I'll find a place for it. Now if you've got a source for the Fire-Fox, let's talk.

Wilkey

It's underwhelming only because it was touted as a 40 Watt light in a small, conventional format and it's not anywhere near 40 Watts output. Not to beat a dead horse but...At $180 + 30 shipping, $210.00 I'd probably not have bought it had I known what I know now. The 24 Watt (if it is) Oracle (because I already had it) would have served the purpose for a conventional flashlight style, walk the dog, go for a long night walk, 150 Yard HID. In fact, the Oracle has been in my truck for just a little over a year without having been used or the case opened up. I measured battery voltage before use yesterday and it was still at 12.3V. But they are the original Sanyo 2900 NPP cells I got off Ebay and retrofitted into the pack. Back to this light... $180 shipped as many of you got it for, I think is a fair deal for a very nice looking and feeling (in the hand), 150 Yard HID light. It should be an excellent go-to light for around the house, camping, general uses. It can be de-focused a little making it useful for closer-in tasks too. But be careful when screwing down the bezel, I believe you can go so far as to achieve glass window contact with the bulb and maybe even beyond.

Ma_Sha, have you or anyone else measured the FireFox input and/or output?

[Ginseng]

It's underwhelming only because it was touted as a 40 Watt light in a small, conventional format and it's not anywhere near 40 Watts output. Not to beat a dead horse but...At $180 + 30 shipping, $210.00 I'd probably not have bought it had I known what I know now. The 24 Watt (if it is) Oracle (because I already had it) would have served the purpose for a conventional flashlight style, walk the dog, go for a long night walk, 150 Yard HID. In fact, the Oracle has been in my truck for just a little over a year without having been used or the case opened up.
...
Back to this light... $180 shipped as many of you got it for, I think is a fair deal for a very nice looking and feeling (in the hand), 150 Yard HID light. It should be an excellent go-to light for around the house, camping, general uses.

I grok. That's the crux of it then. If this is one's only light of this type and at the right price, it's a reasonable use-light. The issue of quoted v rated output power is a separate thing but bears on expectations and judgment of value. I suppose we've come to expect some degree of spec-inflation from mainland providers. Although this is not necessarily always the case.

Wilkey

[mohanjude]

Sorry to see the test results, but I am not entirely surprised, it's no Firefox.

The light is produced by a guy on Chinese flashlight site shoudian.com, with a nick name "MeiTwui" (pretty leg). The previous version was known as "MeiTwui 299", a 35W HID that sells for 299 RMB(~$60), it was a usable light, but also the cheapest 35W HID ever sold.

This is the "Pretty Leg" II, targeting (copying) FireFox II on size, power , lamp mounting, bulb style (no envelope) & battery configuration but at 1/4 the price. The price is amazing, so is the unavoidable evidence of cost cutting, the ballast can not compare with that from the Firefox, the Firefox was targeting enthusiasts with the best components possible.

Pretty Leg 299 was very successful, so will be the Pretty leg II. The light will be a good tool for practical users, not so much as to bring joy to enthusiasts.

ma_sha1

Where do you get this info from ? So funny ... now I can boast to my mates that I have a Pretty Leg 2.

BVH

I do have 2 DMM - I checked the Voltage drop at the time to see how the cells were coping. They were fine and holding around 3.9V as they were fully charged and almost brand new AW 3100 cells.

Sent from my ViewPad7 using Tapatalk

[TEEJ]

DHL Says my Pretty Leg 2 is in Cincinnati right now.

[MDJAK]

As I'm not one that understands the tests run, when you way it's nowhere near 40 watts, can you tell me how many watts it is? I was looking at the measuring devices in your video but don't know what I was seeing. Thank you.

mark

It's underwhelming only because it was touted as a 40 Watt light in a small, conventional format and it's not anywhere near 40 Watts output. Not to beat a dead horse but...At $180 + 30 shipping, $210.00 I'd probably not have bought it had I known what I know now. The 24 Watt (if it is) Oracle (because I already had it) would have served the purpose for a conventional flashlight style, walk the dog, go for a long night walk, 150 Yard HID. In fact, the Oracle has been in my truck for just a little over a year without having been used or the case opened up. I measured battery voltage before use yesterday and it was still at 12.3V. But they are the original Sanyo 2900 NPP cells I got off Ebay and retrofitted into the pack. Back to this light... $180 shipped as many of you got it for, I think is a fair deal for a very nice looking and feeling (in the hand), 150 Yard HID light. It should be an excellent go-to light for around the house, camping, general uses. It can be de-focused a little making it useful for closer-in tasks too. But be careful when screwing down the bezel, I believe you can go so far as to achieve glass window contact with the bulb and maybe even beyond.

Ma_Sha, have you or anyone else measured the FireFox input and/or output?

[MDJAK]

Also, for instance, the light I want and am considering buying, the Polarion Abyss, which states it is 35 and 45 watts, is that a true rating? Can I expect the Abyss to blow it out of the "water" so to speak, no pun intended?

[TEEJ]

If the Abyss DIDN'T blow it out of the water, I'd be surprised...and its not JUST watts that make a light work either, there's the lens, reflector, circuitry, and so forth...that all work to make the light work better, and longer, etc.

If you have ~$1,000 budget, you'd BETTER do a better job than you'd do on a $100 budget, and so forth.

[Helmut.G]

As I'm not one that understands the tests run, when you way it's nowhere near 40 watts, can you tell me how many watts it is? I was looking at the measuring devices in your video but don't know what I was seeing. Thank you.

mark

Power is Current times Voltage.
Using the values in the video it's slightly less than 36W into the ballast, and going from typical ballast efficiencies that would be less than 30W into the bulb.

[TEEJ]

Power is Current times Voltage.
Using the values in the video it's slightly less than 36W into the ballast, and going from typical ballast efficiencies that would be less than 30W into the bulb.

Hmmm, that means it might be a candidate for mods.

[BVH]

MDJAK, sorry, I should have put the calculation in instead of just the result. I added a line in the post.

I also re-did the test with my Fluke in-line Ammeter instead of the induction Amprobe. Pretty much the same result - 36+ Watts input. New video is just under original video in my original test post.

[TEEJ]

MDJAK, sorry, I should have put the calculation in instead of just the result. I added a line in the post.

I also re-did the test with my Fluke in-line Ammeter instead of the induction Amprobe. Pretty much the same result - 36+ Watts input. New video is just under original video in my original test post.

Do you think the claimed light output is in line with the true performance, or do you think the claimed out put will prove to be an (optimistic) mathematical product of the assumed wattage, etc?

[mohanjude]

I remeassured my amp draw and it is still 2.8amps with 4.2v batts. There may varation in the Ballast which may explain the difference of 20%.

Modding is not cheap as I recently purchased a bunch of Solarc Ballasts and the 36W Ballast is more expensive than this complete flashlight.

mohan

Sent from my ViewPad7 using Tapatalk

[BVH]

That is a huge variation if this is the case. I assume your batts are not the full 4.2V (16.8V pack) each while under load at about the 30 - 35 second mark? I'm guessing they sag to 3.9x or so as mine did in the second test. In that test, the pack was a full 16.8V, 4.2 per cell at the start and at the 30 second mark, were 3.92 per cell, 15.7V for the pack.



EDIT: Adding another video using a Mastec 30V, 50 Amp variable regulated power supply for power instead of a battery pack. About the same results. As I say in the video, the Voltage number to be used for the final calculation is on the Fluke, not the PS because of the In-Line Schottky Diode consums precisely .5V (hence the reason for the two different Voltage numbers in the video)

[BVH]

Do you think the claimed light output is in line with the true performance, or do you think the claimed out put will prove to be an (optimistic) mathematical product of the assumed wattage, etc?

No, look how close the MS beam shot is to the Oracle 24 Watt. Both use the same size reflector so that's one variable out of the picture. To me, the MS shot is just a touch brighter than the Oracle - representative of 5 Watts or so in my estimation. Look how it is nowhere near the N30 or L35. Granted, both the N30 and L35 have larger reflectors but they are supposedly 10 Watts less in power. Everything points to my light performing just as the test results show - about 30 Watts, give or take.

[mohanjude]

That is a huge variation if this is the case. I assume your batts are not the full 4.2V (16.8V pack) each while under load at about the 30 - 35 second mark? I'm guessing they sag to 3.9x or so as mine did in the second test. In that test, the pack was a full 16.8V, 4.2 per cell at the start and at the 30 second mark, were 3.92 per cell, 15.7V for the pack.




EDIT: Adding another video using a Mastec 30V, 50 Amp variable regulated power supply for power instead of a battery pack. About the same results. As I say in the video, the Voltage number to be used for the final calculation is on the Fluke, not the PS because of the In-Line Schottky Diode consums precisely .5V (hence the reason for the two different Voltage numbers in the video)

As I said before mine read 3.9v on full load even after 4 .30 minutes. They hold the voltage well. I did not bother to meassure for any longer as the amp draw was steady and there was no point. To check this I tried the same test with a 8amp lipo cell (4S) that I use in my RC Cars (rated at 30C - so can discharge 240amps without sagging) fully charged at 16.8V and the battery voltage did not sag (4.1v) and the amp draw was near identical. So the amp draw is not related to the voltage drop.


I can only assume that the Ballast I have is drawing more amps - whether that equates to more ligh output I don't know.

[hahoo]

pics are taken at diff exposure times........
2 sec difference to be exact..
makes a huge difference in light output.......

[BVH]

I tried to find that info last night before posting but could not figure it out. How do you do it?

I took 2 different exposures of each light so I could pick the final setting for all pics that gave me the actual look closest to what I saw. I'll go back once I know how to find the info and correct them.

[mohanjude]

I tried to find that info last night before posting but could not figure it out. How do you do it?

I took 2 different exposures of each light so I could pick the final setting for all pics that gave me the actual look closest to what I saw. I'll go back once I know how to find the info and correct them.

If you right click the picture and look under properties.

I now get around this by putting the camera into full manual mode and keeping the shutter, aperture and ISO the same when doing comparisons

[BVH]

That's what I did last night and just now (right click) and I don't see a PROPERTIES (using Win XP) I've also got Photoshop, can I see it in there somewhere?

Ahhh, found it when right clicking on the image in Explorer and clicking advanced.

[RichS]

pics are taken at diff exposure times........
2 sec difference to be exact..
makes a huge difference in light output.......

Wow, I was pretty bummed seeing the extreme difference in the beamshots until you pointed this out hahoo. I've done what I consider my share of beamshots, and two seconds can add an insane amount of perceived difference from one light to the next. The ONLY way to do beamshots as a means of relative output comparison is to lock all settings - ESPECIALLY the exposure duration. I can make a stock Maglite look like a hotwired beast by increasing the exposure time. Doesn't mean it's real...

[Ginseng]

If you right click the picture and look under properties.

I now get around this by putting the camera into full manual mode and keeping the shutter, aperture and ISO the same when doing comparisons

It's in the image EXIF information.

Wilkey

[Ginseng]

Looks like the Oracle and the Scorpion are both directly comparable as are the other three. However, the last three will seem brighter as a group since their exposure time is 1/6 of a second as opposed to 1/8 of a second for the first two.

Wilkey

[BVH]

Fixed. There is more difference between the Oracle and MS now. It actually looks more accurately representative of the 6 or 7 Watt difference between the O and MS whereas before, they looked too close. All photos are 6 sec, and F2.7 now. My apologies to everyone.

[BVH]

Looks like the Oracle and the Scorpion are both directly comparable as are the other three. However, the last three will seem brighter as a group since their exposure time is 1/6 of a second as opposed to 1/8 of a second for the first two.

Wilkey

Wilkey, when I just checked again, they all show 6 sec and 2.7. Not sure what you mean 1/6 and 1/8 second?

[Ginseng]

Wilkey, when I just checked again, they all show 6 sec and 2.7. Not sure what you mean 1/6 and 1/8 second?

That was before you loaded the matching images. Here's what the 1/8 and 1/6 shots look like side-by-side.

Okay, let's try this again. The Oracle shots.



Wilkey

[BVH]

OK, got it, difference existed before I updated correct images. But the one thing I still don't quite get is the "1.6" and "1/8" digits. All shots were either 6 or 8 seconds, none were in fractions of seconds or 1.6 seconds unless I took one and didn't know it.

[BVH]

Double post.

[Ginseng]

Doh! That's my error. I'm so used to exposures under a second. I screwed that all up. Actually the image you posted originally appears to have been at 6 seconds. Same as the second. I'm just pulling this from the image information. The only original image that differed was the 8 second exposure of the Oracle. So I guess that explains why the Scorpion before and after images look pretty much identical. That means it's comparable to the last three in the set.

I apologize for the goof. I'm trying to do this while at the same time getting my kids ready for bed, and my wife got back from her class. Guess my concentration just wasn't there.

There is, however, a noticeable difference between the two Oracle shots.

Wilkey

[spaz815]

Not to get off the subject. But my package is Inbound Into Customs. Is that good or does it mean that there holding it for some reason?