Are they ripping us off?

Candle Power Flashlight Forum

Help Support CPF:

Status
Not open for further replies.
There are so many nuances as to perceived value, and that more than anything leads to what is a "ripoff" or not for the individual. This thread makes me squirm though - like many here I'm sure, it reminds me that I spend too much on flashlights - some surely overpriced. Am I going to stop? No.
 
I am surely "in the know" as of today and yes it is very hard for me to get ripped off. When I began looking for a new duty light several years back I was completely out of the know. I was a good target to be ripped off and after reading all the packaging of various products I was even more confused.

I did not know anything about voltage, reflectors, or throw, and most important as a policeman I knew little of output numbers. I did not understand all of the hype of all the labels I did read so again I turned to the internet for help.

So not being in the know is no excuse for anyone to get ripped off in my opinion. In about 15 minutes of reading I quickly found that two of my local choices was not considered to be a good performer. I discovered many better choices and even used an online dealer to buy something totally different.

In the end I bought a new duty light and did so being totally ignorant as to specs. and other light related stuff. I used that light for several years and was very satisfied with my purchase. To me this discussion is simple actually as I feel there is not really a huge problem here.

In order for anyone to be ripped off these days it would pretty much have to be their own fault (as far as lights go) It is simply to easy to obtain a little info. and learn a little before you buy.
 
If I buy the Fenix TK20 from Finnish dealer it costs ~89$, if I order it from 4Sevens it costs 53$.

Still, I dont feel that Fenix Finnish dealer is ripping me off, it's the goverment.
On the other hand, if i go to a doctor it costs me like a 30$ a day, no matter what they need to do to me, or how long I need to stay in hospital.
I like that.
 
I think you still misunderstand me. I apologize for not making myself more clear.... you mention a number of "label" inclusions, many of which, are not qualified enough to make them meaningful in apples to apples comparisons....

Which ones? Bear in mind I'M NOT THE LIST. I'm only trying to stir up interest in creating one. Also, if I repeat something that someones says, its still just to keep the idea flowing, not to judge it as either perfect or absurd. Do you understand? Why don't you suggest something (one item perhaps) instead of only being critical? By the way, I get the point that you one may not completely simplify or reduce complex knowledge. But I'm not suggesting to do that. I'm suggesting to look at the issue from the point of view of someone who knows less than you who has no need to be technical but does have a need to know. Buyers are not builders.

Stop the RIP-OFFS, and the B.S!

Cheers!
 
LT, many manufacturers have already adopted the practice of documenting runtime as running time to 50% reduction of a given light output level. I believe Surefire started that and a number of others have followed suit. Of late, I've seen Surefire start to deviate from that methodology by stating runtime down to some minimum level such as 5lm. This is somewhat misleading....

Hmm... that's encouraging. Its the first time I've seen someone reply and admit even the illustrious SF fails to consistently inform buyers. I have been watching/tracking lights myself over the years and empiracally, lumen output ratings have been either replaced by candlepower (just as in the old days) or not reported or buried in an obscure spec sheet.

I can picture XXX lumens with less throw as a blunt shape and XXX lumens with more throw as an elongated (sharper) shape or maybe a short blunt shape with a projection extending out in front of it. If you let the length of the shape represent throw and let the width of it represent output.... Can you picture that in your mind? In other words, a wide-short pattern (more of a flood pattern) shows a gven amount of light with less throw. A long narrow pattern may show more throw but cover less area and so indicate less output. Since light values can be measured at any place in the pattern, you can get an amount that would represent "saturation" (for lack of a better term). I'm not very good at drawing or I would draw something. Does anyone know how to draw?

Cheers!

Stop the RIP-OFFS, and the B.S.!
 
The bottom line is that any cautious consumer can Google for reviews of a product before buying it. Other consumers buy whatever they like the look of without even reading the packaging - more info won't help them.

That may be true, but its no reason to withdraw concern for the people who DO read and compare. I think you are being overly optimistic about the unbiasedness of reviews. The more books I read that have researched accuracy of internet information, the more skeptical I have become. Often you're reading reviews of manufacturers who simply create acoounts and post postive feedback on thier product (presumably as ordinary consumers). Haven't you read about people who do this for their E-bay and Amazon Market Place accounts?

If someone buys whatever they feel like on a whim then they will get ripped off plenty, but putting data on the packaging that they won't read may not solve the problem.

Simpler is always better. Many people will read it if its simple. Nutrition labels (we discussed earlier) are pretty complex but people still read them. I know because I see them doing it at the store. Light bulbs have three values: Light Output, Energy, and Bulb Life. Not a ton of info, but very useful for comparison. And they vary a lot, just as do most products in a given class.

For careful buyers like myself there are better sources of information than the packaging - I would trust an independent review much more than manufacturer claims. In a review you can see how the product compares to similar offerings from other brands - you won't get that on the specs on the side of the box.

Truthful (standard) labelling does not aim to solve every problem, only the basic ones. How much light does this produce compared to product B? How long will the battery last? Does it weight a lot? How wide will the beam be? Or how far will it project? Its not that complicated. Values like that would help you to determine enough basic carachteristics to know how it performs compared to other products. Would it tell you everything? No. But I think it would save a person like yourself some time (if you want the time to be saved).

Thanks for your input.

Stop the RIP-OFFS! And the B.S.!

Cheers.
 
LightTracker… you were told by a moderator in post #198 to stop repeating your tiresome “Stop the …” slogan with every post you make. You have ignored his instructions.

It is peculiar that after 4 years of almost moribund inactivity you have now appeared in this thread and hijacked it with 36 posts (so far) of ceaseless hectoring on a subject about which you know very little.

Members are quite clearly tired of your posturing and grandstanding, and they deserve a rest from it. They will now have some respite for a few days. Please use the time to reflect on the inadvisability of ignoring instructions from moderators.
 
LT,
You are being unrealistically optimistic that a simple labelling system is possible.
It is not possible.

We have tried and failed to come up with exactly what you're harping on about.
Many have tried. All have failed.

There is no need for it. There is no motivation in the industry or from consumers.

You say that measuring light output is not complicated. In fact it is one of the most complicated 'things' to measure. To even begin to measuring it properly takes time and money and expertise. There are few testing labs that can test the output of a flashlight.
There is no standardised way of doing it.

The fact that we still talk about comparing an LED to the power of a candle shows just how far we are from things being simple.

But this is nothing compared to how such a labelling system would be enforced. The industry would either not use it at all, or would do everything they could to twist it to their advantage.

I used to work for a research association in the product testing and certification lab.
I now work for a Government agency with responsibilities for permitting, regulating and compliance checking activities.

I've seen both what needs to happen for an industry to come together and make it's own rules, and how 'the Government' does it for them.

There is no way the flashlight industry is ever going to come together and make it's own rules - there is no motivation; no pressure; no benefit in doing so.

There is no way the Government is ever going to make the rules for industry - there is no motivation; no pressure; no benefit in doing so.

Why?
It's not an issue. The only one making noise about this is you. Singular. And that's on a discussion forum of flashlight fanatics.

If you're looking for support you're not going about this the right way.

Al :shakehead
 
You say that measuring light output is not complicated. In fact it is one of the most complicated 'things' to measure. To even begin to measuring it properly takes time and money and expertise. There are few testing labs that can test the output of a flashlight.
There is no standardised way of doing it.


Man, that is soooooo true!

Well you could measure the Lumen OTF with an integrated sphere. But then that tells nothing about the throw, only the total light output.
You could also add the Lux at 1 Metre - but the lux at one point tells so little. What about the width of the hotspot at 1M & peak Lux for the hotspot & average Lux for the hotspot. Also the diameter of the spill beam and the average Lux of the spill beam.

Yeah that sort of information will work well and wont confuse anybody! 🙄
 
That may be true, but its no reason to withdraw concern for the people who DO read and compare. I think you are being overly optimistic about the unbiasedness of reviews. The more books I read that have researched accuracy of internet information, the more skeptical I have become. Often you're reading reviews of manufacturers who simply create acoounts and post postive feedback on thier product (presumably as ordinary consumers). Haven't you read about people who do this for their E-bay and Amazon Market Place accounts?


Hmmm, talk about BS! I have read reviews on many products and have had no problems finding a list of cons/negatives/drawbacks. There are well know reputable sources of fair reviews - e.g. CPF reviews by Selfbuilt. Gee, didn't I mention that in a previous post? I think the comment about you not thinking about what others are posting is a good call from Kiessling. A quick google search for "productx review" will yield many reviews for 'productx' and if you read at least one and skim through another 3 or 4 then you will have a good sense of whether the product is a good one or a dud.

I have never before come across someone wanting to trust the label from the manufacturer but not independent reviews (for fear that the reviews might be biased and/or written by the manufacturers). Who will be writing the labels?
 
kwkarth

Thanks for your posting... It´s good to see your perspective (someone who knows about economics).

:wave:

Thanks, I only try to call 'em like I see 'em.

Semper Ascendens! Since I'm somewhat gravitationally challenged 😉 , I try to ascend with my mind as well.
 
Which ones? Bear in mind I'M NOT THE LIST. I'm only trying to stir up interest in creating one. Also, if I repeat something that someones says, its still just to keep the idea flowing, not to judge it as either perfect or absurd. Do you understand? Why don't you suggest something (one item perhaps) instead of only being critical? By the way, I get the point that you one may not completely simplify or reduce complex knowledge. But I'm not suggesting to do that. I'm suggesting to look at the issue from the point of view of someone who knows less than you who has no need to be technical but does have a need to know. Buyers are not builders.

Stop the RIP-OFFS, and the B.S!

Cheers!

LT,
I'm trying really hard to not be critical. I have been trying to help you specifically. You'll have to figure this out for yourself, I've taken you as close to the water as I can.
 
Hmm... that's encouraging. Its the first time I've seen someone reply and admit even the illustrious SF fails to consistently inform buyers. I have been watching/tracking lights myself over the years and empiracally, lumen output ratings have been either replaced by candlepower (just as in the old days) or not reported or buried in an obscure spec sheet.

I can picture XXX lumens with less throw as a blunt shape and XXX lumens with more throw as an elongated (sharper) shape or maybe a short blunt shape with a projection extending out in front of it. If you let the length of the shape represent throw and let the width of it represent output.... Can you picture that in your mind? In other words, a wide-short pattern (more of a flood pattern) shows a gven amount of light with less throw. A long narrow pattern may show more throw but cover less area and so indicate less output. Since light values can be measured at any place in the pattern, you can get an amount that would represent "saturation" (for lack of a better term). I'm not very good at drawing or I would draw something. Does anyone know how to draw?

Cheers!

Stop the RIP-OFFS, and the B.S.!

LT, your mental picture is not accurate or true to real life.

Herein lies one of the greatest problems is the specsmanship games. Many, if not most simply do not understand what they're reading even if they take the time to read it, (what manufacturers have published.) Just as a successful democracy depends upon an informed and engaged electorate, a successful and (fair) free market economy depends upon and informed and engaged customer base. We do not see this in real life. Most of the buying public are led as sheep to the slaughter by Madison Av. or their disciples.

Most buy, not based upon the best specs, but on the best marketing slick.

Here is an enlightening and brief discussion about Light;
by Robert H Bryan

Lumens, Illuminance, Foot-candles and bright shiny beads….

In defining how bright something is, we have two things to consider.

1. How bright it is at the source- How Bright is that light?
2. How much light is falling on something a certain distance away from the light.

Lets' do some definitions now……

We're in America, so we are going to talk about units of measurement that concern distance in feet and inches. So, we will use some terms that folks in Europe don't use. We're going to talk about "foot-candles".

This one's simple. Get a birthday cake candle. Get a ruler. Stick the candle on one end of the ruler. Light the candle. Turn out the lights. Sing Happy Birthday to Doc. It was his 47th on the 23rd. OK, quiet down. Enough of that nonsense. One foot-candle of light is the amount of light that birthday cake candle generates one foot away.

That's a neat unit of measurement. Why? Say you have a lamp. You are told it produces 100 foot candles of light. That means at one foot from the lamp, you will receive 100 foot candles of light.

But here's where it gets tricky. The further away you move the light from what you want to illuminate, the less bright the light seems! If you measure it at the light, it's just as bright. But when you measure at the object you want illuminated, there is less light! A Physics teacher is going to tell you that light measured on an object is INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL to the distance the object is from the light source. That's a very scientific and math rich way of saying, the closer you are to the light bulb, the brighter that bulb is. Or, think of it this way. You can't change how much light comes out of your light bulb. So, to make more light on an object, you have to either move the light closer, or add more lights.

Now, lets get to LUMENS.

A LUMEN is a unit of measurement of light. It measures light much the same way. Remember, a foot-candle is how bright the light is one foot away from the source. A lumen is a way of measuring how much light gets to what you want to light! A LUMEN is equal to one foot-candle falling on one square foot of area.

So, if we take your candle and ruler, lets place a book at the opposite end from the candle. We'd have a bit of a light up if we put the book right next to the candle, you know. If that book happens to be one foot by one foot, it's one square foot. Ok, got the math done there. Now, all the light falling on that book, one foot away from your candle equals both…….1 foot candle AND one LUMEN!

Ahh, we've confused you. Let's split off from this and talk about the difference between RADIANCE and ILLUMINANCE.

RADIANCE is another way of saying how much energy is released from that light source. Again, you measure it at the source. Unless you're talking about measuring the radiance of something intensely hot, like the Sun. Then you might want to measure it at night, when it's off.

ILLUMINANCE is what results from the use of light. You turn your flashlight on in a dark room, and you light something up. That's ILLUMINANCE. Turning on a light in a dark room to make the burglar visible gives you ILLUMINANCE. It also gives you another problem when you note the burglar is pointing your duck gun at your bellybutton.

Illuminance is the intensity or degree to which something is illuminated and is therefore not the amount of light produced by the light source. This is measured in foot-candles again! And when people talk about LUX, it's illuminance measured in metric units rather than English units of measure. To reinforce that, LUX is the measurement of actual light available at a given distance. A lux equals one lumen incident per square meter of illuminated surface area. They're measuring the same thing, just using different measurement units.

Pretend you're an old photographer, like O. Winston Link, or Ansel Adams. These two gods of black and white photography (and a print made by either can fetch quite a hefty sum of money these days) used a device called a light meter to help them judge their exposure. (There is another way of judging exposure-that's when someone whispers in our ear at a cocktail party, "You silly twit, your fly's come undone!").

These light meters were nifty devices. You could use it to show how much light was falling on an object, light from the sun, and reflected light energy from every thing else. Or you could use it to show how much light energy was reflected off the object itself.

All this brings back two points. Well, three.

The first point is if we measure the output of a light at the source that gives us one thing.

The second point is that we use an entirely different unit of measure if we are measuring the results of that light's output.

The third point is the instructor is right off his trolley, isn't he?

Now back to the book at the end of the ruler.

We've measured two different things. We have a unit of measure for how much light is produced. We Yankees express that as a foot-candle. Being lazy, we use it all over the
place.

More Confusion! Candlepower!

Candlepower is a way of measuring how much light is produced by a light bulb, LED or by striking an arc in a Carbon-Arc spotlight. Is it a measure of how much light falls upon an object some distance away? No. That's illuminance. Is it a measure of how well we see an object that is illuminated by that light source? No. That's something all together different, and we are not going there!

Nowadays we use the term CANDELA instead of candlepower. Candlepower, or CANDELA is a measure of how much light the bulb produces, measured at the bulb, rather than how much falls upon the thing you want to light up. Further confusing the matter is beam focus. That's how much candlepower can be focused using a reflector/lens assembly. Obviously, if you project all your light bulbs intensity at a given spot, or towards something, it will be more intense, and the illuminance will be higher.

And here comes the confuser! A candlepower as a unit of measure is not the same as a foot-candle. A candlepower is a measurement of the light at the source, not at the object you light up.

And a candela is the metric equivalent of the light output of that one candle, based on metric calculations. And since using a candle is rather imprecise, the definition was amended to replace a light source using carbon filaments with a very specific light source, see the following:
The candela is the luminous intensity, in a given direction, of a source that emits monochromatic radiation of frequency 540 x 1012 hertz and that has a radiant intensity in that direction of 1/683 watt per steradian.

The above from the National Institute of Standards Reference on Constants, Units, and Uncertainty.

Candlepower is a measure of light taken at the source-not at the target. Foot-candles tell us how much of that light is directed at an object we want to illuminate.

Now, lets convert the lumens, a metric unit of light measurement, to candlepower.

We understand a candle radiates light equally in all directions, its output, in this consideration is not focused by any mechanical means (lenses or reflectors). Pretend for a moment that a transparent sphere one meter in radius surrounds your candle. We know that there are 12.57 square meters of surface area in such a sphere. Remember your Solid Geometry classes?

That one candle (1 Candlepower/Candela) is illuminating equally the entire surface of that sphere. The amount of light energy then reflected from that surface is defined thusly:

The amount of energy emanating from one square meter of surface is one lumen. And if we decrease the size of the sphere to one foot radius, we increase the reflected energy 12.57 times of that which fell on the square meter area.

LUX is an abbreviation for Lumens per square meter.
Foot-candles equal the amount of Lumens per square feet of area.

So, that one candlepower equivalent equals 12.57 lumens.

And for you figuring out LED equivalents, first you must know how many lumens your LED's each produce. Then divide that value by 12.57 and you have candlepower of the LED. You don't have foot-candles, remember foot-candles are illuminance. And we are measuring radiance.

Summing it all up:

Candlepower is a rating of light output at the source, using English measurements.
Foot-candles are a measurement of light at an illuminated object.
Lumens are a metric equivalent to foot-candles in that they are measured at an object you want to illuminate.
Divide the number of lumens you have produced, or are capable of producing, by 12.57 and you get the candlepower equivalent of that light source.

We've now converted a measurement taken some distance from the illuminated object, converted it from a metric standard to an English unit of measure, and further converted it from a measure of illumination to a measure of radiation!

This has been an ideal proof of the superiority of the metric system. Then again, the metric system is a product of those wonderful folks that brought us:

Renault, Peugeot, Citroen, and Air busses. Not to mention simply awful Bordeaux.

And, if you're happy with this, send those little gems to:

Robert H (Doc) Bryant
3408 Thomas Ave
Midland, Texas 79703-6240

I hope you have enjoyed this as much as I have. You ought to see me up in front of a classroom. My classes are absolute laugh riots. But people learn!
 
With some of the prices of lights out there; I have wondered what some of the real profit margins really are. Do all these companies charge crazy prices because we are the only group of individuals to buy them? or is it like any other business venture out there...just wondering.

Not really ripping anyone off, as long as the light is as advertised.

When you consider the time, tools and materials needed to create a one of a kind light, the value should often be in the thousands. I figure if it takes 10 hours to create a light and I only charge $20 an hour... $200 and that does not count the cost of tools.

If making a batch, the time involved per light decreases but he cost of jigs, CNC systems etc really add to the cost. There's nothing like buying a $15,000 machine to make 100 lights.

On the other hand, a jeweler will charge 100 to 1000 percent markup and still don't get rich. That markup covers their expenses and all the time they stand around waiting for a customer.


Daniel
 
I just want to add that 'candlepower' used in the explanation above is not the same, in the overwhelming majority of cases, as 'candlepower' used by flashlight manufacturers. They use 'Peak Beam Candlepower' which is to say they find the point in the beam as it leaves the flashlight that has the most intense light output. You can not assume that the beam is uniform and collimated; reflectors and optics have a focal point beyond which the beam will diverge. Manufacturers rarely tell us how far away from the flashlight they found this 'brightest point' nor the area of the beam that has the same intensity of light.
It is therefore not possible to convert a flashlight's 'candlepower' rating into lumens. The analogy is that you can not tell the volume of a lump of modelling clay from how tall it is from the worktop.

The lumen itself has many issues. For example it also doesn't inform us of the beam profile.

Of course 1 lumen of LED 'white' light is not the same as 1 lumen of incandescent 'white' light. The quantity of light it takes to make 1 lumen depends on the sensitivity of our eyes to each frequency of light in the spectrum being emitted. So you have to measure this and apply a weighting based on the sensitivity of the standardised eye.
This also raises an issue because there are three main standardised sensitivities depending on whether the eye is 'light adapted', 'dark adapted' or in the transition between light and dark adaptation.

Imagine the arguments - flashlights are used in no-light and low-light applications so which sensitivity should be used? If a light is over a certain output or being used in a certain [confined] space or one with a particularly reflective environment then you could find that a different sensitivity is more appropriate.

Then you have the issue of beam profile. The reason SureFire used lumens rather than [peak beam] candlepower is that they had already determined how intense the beam needed to be in order to achieve the outcome that required the use of light. So the lumen rating gives you an indication of the size of the 'central portion' of the beam and an indication of the 'brightness' of the surround/peripheral beam. But only because you know that SureFire designed its beams to be most useful for those using them with firearms in the course of their duties.
Even then this 'concept' became clouded during the development of LED-based lights. It has taken a while to get back to the ideal beam profile and we should not forget that the role of light and roles of those using firearms has changed over the years too.

Which brings me back to the fact that dry numbers have little meaning when it comes to determining the suitability of a light for a particular activity and that the best way to determine whether a light is suitable is to try it and see. An alternative is to seek feedback from people in similar situations who have already been on this path.

The beam of a flashlight is only one characteristic that makes it 'worth' something - others include how it is activated (it's User Interface) which also includes how it is held and manipulated [in conjunction with anything else you may be using such as tools].

Bottom line:
It is not possible to achieve this indication of worth through a standardised labelling system.
 
Saturday, I was reading and replying to several comments, in order. The 3rd comment (which, of course, I didn't read until I had read the first two and replied) contained instructions from the moderator to not say "Stop the rip-offs!" in my sign-off. I thought it was nit-picking, but I made out my next note without that epithet. But when I hit Submit a message said I had been banned for failure to comply with the moderator's instructions. What? I read his note and complied with it!

I think its fair to ask some questions. Because I honestly don't want to be involved in a thread with a title like this if I'm not free to identify what I strongly feel is a rip-off. And do that with ideas and argument. I have felt very strongly throughout the discussion that it consitutes a blatant rip-off to participate in (or defend) commercial interests when you know the labeling is, at best, weak at describing what's inside the package.... and that its becoming weaker instead of stronger.

I'd appreciate it of someone would speak plainly, and not beat around the bush, and provide enough information to judge whether or not it is the idea per se (of a better label) that causes me to either turn the caps lock off, or be banned -- or, is it the the fact that I have no interest in commercial ventures, and that if I sense those sentiments, I will not care much about it? And though I won't discourage it, I don't feel I need to excuse myself for not being interested.

I would like to know, is there is entanglement of CPF with commercial vendors such that one may not talk freely? I wouldn't need to be told twice. I'd get out on my own: No need to ban or brow-beat me. But I'm curious... why bother having a thread with a title like this... but when encountering someone not
part of the culture (no personal interest in buy-ins, sponsorship or investment) be the least troubled by ideas that speak strongly against commercial interests?

If the CPF or it's users are generally caught up in that, I think it would be only fair that when people sign on they be warned: Alternate opinions will not be tolerated! If that's the case, it would explain some things. But I'd find it deeply disturbing and think its completely counter to the idea of a talk forum. I wouldn't want to think its that superficial either, but you have to wonder when folks are so unwilling to reveal their real names or businesses. (By the way, I appreciated the ones who honestly shared what they do.)

If I keep posting to the forum, I will need to catch up, but in the prior week's discussion, no one made a strong argument (by refutuing the ideas themselves!) why labelling wouldn't work. Furthermore, the discussion was not at all conducive to generating new ideas. You could never get past what I feel is an "I know more than most do and I prefer to keep it that way" mentality.

LTDAN, Forsooth.
 
LightTracker, I think that you would be wise to submit your concerns to a moderator if you need more clarification, instead of eliciting comments from us as, we do not discuss issues, or reasons for banning after a banning has occurred. It is really between you and a moderator or administrator, and I am sure that one of them will help you out with your answers, but not necessary in this thread, but via a PM.

Bill
 
Saturday, I was reading and replying to several comments, in order. The 3rd comment (which, of course, I didn't read until I had read the first two and replied)


I think that was a mistake, and generally will be a mistake if you keep doing it.

Imagine this scenario:
Person A posts a comment
Person B posts correcting A and explains that A is mistaken
Person A Posts an apology about being misinformed
LightTracker Posts a reply to Person A's first comment, several paragraphs long - explaining why Person A is wrong.

It shouldn't be hard to see why LightTracker would be seen to be very annoying in that situation.

In future - try reading the thread all the way to the end, then reply to whatever you wish to. What I do is open the reply with quote in a new tab (on Firefox that is a middle click on 'Quote' or a right click on 'Quote' and select 'open in new tab') then I carry on reading. Once I have finished reading the thread I then go to each new tab that I have opened and type up my reply where appropriate. Sometimes the tab I opened just gets closed again because what I wanted to say has already been said ad nauseam and no one wants to read another comment on the same subject saying the same thing. Or the person that I was going to reply to has already retracted their statement and acknowledged that they were mistaken.

There are times when a moderator will step in and say that the discussion is taking a nasty turn and asks that people keep their posts 'on topic', you don't want to be arguing the point that the moderator has told every one to stop arguing just because you lack the patience to read to the end of the thread before having your say.

Another good idea is to click on 'Preview Post' before you use 'Submit Reply' - that way you can scroll down a little and check that someone hasn't just made the same point while you were typing.
 
TH232, I appreciate your comments. And for taking a stab at presenting some label ideas.

No problem. I've only got a bit of time to go through some of the queries you've raised, but I suppose they do need an answer:


The nutrition label intentionally doesn't answer every "relevant" question, its just a guide.

Precisely my point, but a guide for who and for what? E.g. you might have a caver, a plumber, a LEO and a high school student who are all equally uneducated about flashlights, but they'd all have vastly different requirements. Should we be general and let the LEO find out for himself which light is less prone to failure, or should we include info that the high school student doesn't need?

Again, how about the Range? Example:

XXX - XXX

This would tell you something about the beam, a large variance suggests a hotspot... less smooth transition.

Also, how about what Angelofwar suggested... a picture? I also think a figure could work. Its shape could indicate beam width and throw. Do you know what I mean? But a beamshot taken overheade might offer the same thing, as long as it has good contrast.

A picture could indeed work for some of those. Regarding range, how do we define it? I could make a good case for a "distance you can see a cat at", but at the same time that fails to take into account human variability, and is hardly easy to measure. I can also easily foresee a company massaging the numbers as well.

Color temperature? Also, maybe a photo or beamshot is not a good choice for that reason. Like I said, it's not going to be perfect.
I did consider color temperature, but as an example, see the Luxeon binning chart here:
luxeoncwfullgv3.jpg

Many bins can be described as 6000K, but there are still differences in each of them.

What is that?
How well different colours are rendered by a light source. For further reading I recommend McGizmo's excellent thread, High CRI and its significance.

How could that be described?
Absolutely no idea, which is kinda my point on that one, it's an intangible as far as a common definition goes. I as an engineering student could quite happily describe it in terms of N/mm^2, the angle at which the end of the clip makes with the body of the light, how rounded the end of the clip is and so on. But to the general public such a description would probably be meaningless.

You might be surprised. Some of the items on tour list are the same as already pointed out, Esp. lumens, battery life and beam characteristics.
And similarly, I'd be surprised if that many people are interested in the snagginess of a clip.

If we're talking about a label (that's what I was talking about in the last 10 posts) most people would just want to know how much time they have before it goes dead. Of course that depends on the setting. I suggest either reporting it on the highest setting (worst case) or report a range.
Maybe I've been frequenting online stores too much (there not being many good flashlight stores in Australia), but I was under the impression that that knowledge was already normally available, e.g. on 4Seven's website.

On similar news, here's an interesting thread that was started during your absence:

http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=244611

Note Lux's response in post #30:

Actual precision and standardization and multiple samples, power source standardization, specified ambient conditions, spectroradiometer for source correction, and calibration requirements. I don't think I can get into more specifics without violating copyright, but this is truly wonderful to see.

Personally, THAT is what you'd need for a standard to be meaningful, at which point it becomes meaningless to the average consumer. Otherwise a company can quite easily twist all the data to suit their needs (e.g. a company that lists the runtime at the lowest setting and the lumens on the highest setting).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top