Re: Actual Lumens readings in 6" dia. Lab Sphere IS with SC 5500 control - PART II
Your comparison of a non regulated low budget light to an expensive highly well regulated light is not valid. Looking at the output graphs of the quark mini's shows the output drop in the first 10 minutes as the peak voltage of the battery goes down and also go back up a little as the battery warms up shows its not going to ever be a "constant" output. And to argue a non constant output light should have some guaranteed value is the problem.
I'm not sure why you're making this point, as you measured the Minis at turn on (when none of this would be a problem), and they do not match up with the advertised OTF lumens. What difference would the regulation make at turn on using a fresh battery?
In general you are preaching to the guy who created the thread to expose the shortfalls of all these lights in the first place by making actual lumens measurements in a johnny come lately kind of way. You are not covering new ground.
What are you talking about? I was using your results, which I assume to be pretty accurate given that measurement standards are few and far between ATM (and faith in you on my part), to realize that the Quarks
appear to have a discrepancy between what 4Sevens rated and what you rated. I only expressed disappointment in this fact. How you came to the conclusion you did above is still a mystery to me.
Complaining that the light outputs should be what they advertise in general is a good criticism but nothing new.
I said it was disappointing, not that it was an issue with me or that I was unhappy with the Quarks. If they weren't bright enough for me, I would have returned them. The fact that I didn't should say something.
Again your the guy in the choir preaching back to the Pastor, the virtues of truth. This thread and the original one behind it goes back a lot on this subject and started other threads that cover this subject rather well. We would all like lights that put out what they say if they bother to publish OTF lumens in the first place. However we also have gotten familiar with what reality is. Low cost non regulated lights that don't hold there output as the battery voltage sags simply aren't worth arguing about.
Please clarify about how I was "preaching to the Pastor, the virtues of truth." You were the one that stated, "Its a different class of flashlight both technically and price wise. If we had tested the quarks that take the Alkaline AA's we might have gotten higher readings at turn on but again the voltage and output would sag anyway. You don't buy this class of flashlight for a constant high lumen output. If you want the performance of a E2DL buy it, If you don't want to pay that price well then, welcome to reality. There are the Fenix 2XCR123 lights a plenty for under $100 that work very well and hold a good output in the TK series, there are the EagleTacs that are also good values for the same."
It's what got us on this tangent, but it's certainly not my fault. I don't have any issue with the brightness of the Quark series or its performance. Now it seems that you (and others) are simply taking offense to the fact that I stated OTF lumens should be OTF lumens, which is of course, different from not advertising OTF lumens in the first place. Is stating that so offensive, and if so, why to you in particular?
So specifically your example of the $39 Quarks should be what they claim because the Surefire E2DL is, just isn't valid. On the other hand you could put in a higher voltage battery and get far more than they claimed if you want to risk possibly shorter operating life or failure, but used in short doses you can get plenty of light out of these things.
Again, you bring up the amount of light that comes out of the Quarks. What does that have to do with anything? As for my claim, how is it not valid? I'm not seeing your argument. I never claimed a Mini should put out the same or greater amount of light than an E2DL. The only reason I used that example, and the E1B, is because Surefire has X rating, and you got X lumens out of your test, which is not what 4Sevens got with their IS setup. That may be due to a difference in setup, of course, but then again, I doubt you, Surefire, and 4Sevens use the same setup.
Pointing out that a vendor of a $39 non regulated light even claims X amount of lumens in the first place that they cannot hold even if they met those numbers at turn on is valid, but beating the point to death is not. There is plenty of data out there showing the numbers and the light output fall off over time to prove what this and various other lights actually do. Its then a matter of buyer beware.
So you admit my point is valid. What's the issue, then? Any other point I'm making was simply the result of you assuming that I expected the Quarks to put out more light (E2DL levels) or that I was unhappy with the performance of the Quarks. None of which I mentioned, or is even true, at that. Even now it seems like you think I think that Mini's should put out more light and better regulated light, or that I'm comparing Mini performance to E2DL performance. Once again, that is not the case, and never was the case if you read my posts.
What I was comparing was E2DL performance to E2DL stated lumens, and Mini performance to Mini stated lumens. The end result is that people who clearly love 4Sevens and the Quark series have rushed in to defend 4Sevens under the assumption that I'm attacking them or the performance of their lights, when neither was actually done. The only problem with such a result is that A) I never attacked 4Sevens, B) I love 4Sevens and the Quark lights, and C) I've discussed the matter with 4Sevens and am content with the response.
So, if you and others are trying to defend 4Sevens by stating that other companies don't even rate OTF lumens at all, or that the Mini is not an E2DL class light, that's fine. But wholly unnecessary. As is attempting to blame me for "beating to death the issue" because of assumptions that you made and the discussions that resulted from them.
