Malkoff P60 vs LF EO-9 (380 bulb lumens)
- Thread starter cruzmisl
- Start date
Help Support Candle Power Flashlight Forum
adirondackdestroyer
Flashlight Enthusiast
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2005
- Messages
- 2,018
I would have to think the EO-9 would be noticeably brighter than the Malkoff, considering that it should have well over 200 lumens out the front. Keep in mind the Malkoff will most likely have 3 times the runtime if not even more.
WadeF
Flashlight Enthusiast
Let us know how they compare. 
Probably looking at around 100 more lumens out the front with the EO-9, so it may not appear twice as bright (don't you need 4x the light to look twice as bright?), so it may only look slighly brighter.
Probably looking at around 100 more lumens out the front with the EO-9, so it may not appear twice as bright (don't you need 4x the light to look twice as bright?), so it may only look slighly brighter.
You'll wanna run that EO-9 on two 18500's or two 17670/18650's to get the full potential out of it. It won't be as bright on two 17500's or primaries after a few minutes.
I figure for $15 I'll try it out. The Malkoff is pretty darn good though. If you take a 35% loss from the reflector the Malkoff delivers about 150 lumens out the front whereas the LF will deliver about 250. Now having said that the Malkoff is regulated so the output will be consistent for most of the battery life (about 90 minutes) whereas the output of the LF will continually decrease. The LF will have way more heat generated and you can only keep the bulb illuminated for 10 minutes. Also the LF has a runtime of about 35 minutes. Who knows how bright it is at the 30 minute mark?
The LF seems to have a lot of drawbacks but it will probably be brighter for 10 minutes, just not sure if it will be noticeably brighter........
The LF seems to have a lot of drawbacks but it will probably be brighter for 10 minutes, just not sure if it will be noticeably brighter........
WadeF
Flashlight Enthusiast
That seems pretty conservative. Malkoff rates it as 235+, but that maybe at the emitter.
In my light box (just tested), I get an overall output reading of 210LUX with my SF L1 on high (rated at 65 SF lumens), and the M60 in a SF G2 gave me 590LUX. The malkoff is about 180% brighter overall in my bounce box, so 65 lumens + 180% = 182 lumens. Now, the SF L1 at 65 lumens maybe conservative, from my testing it seems to be a little more than that, at least with fresh batteries, maybe 75-80 lumens. If that were the case, 75 lumens + 180% = 210 lumens, etc.
This isn't by any means a perfect test, just an approximation.
TKO
Enlightened
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
- Messages
- 204
I am running a SF P91 on two of AW's protected 18650's and it is darn bright.
You will notice the difference in output between the E09 and the Malkoff, but you will also notice the HUGE runtime difference. I am good for about 40 minutes with the P91 on the 18650's (up from 20 minutes on primaries).
If you are running primaries, go with the Malkoff for sure.
Here is a post that you might want to read:
http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=186782
You will notice the difference in output between the E09 and the Malkoff, but you will also notice the HUGE runtime difference. I am good for about 40 minutes with the P91 on the 18650's (up from 20 minutes on primaries).
If you are running primaries, go with the Malkoff for sure.
Here is a post that you might want to read:
http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=186782
Last edited:
No. You would have to bore it out to take 18mm cells. A stock 9P can take 2 x 17500. After boring it could take 2 x 18500. 2 of these cells replace 3 CR123s.
A 18650 is approx. the length of 2 CR123s.
35% out the front?! What do you think it is, an incan? LED lights generally can send out 80%+ of its emitter lumens out through its lense. Some of the better ones, such as Fenix, can do even better.
Gene43
Enlightened
The Malkoff has a colimater and should get atleast 85% out the front.
Thanks, Gene
Thanks, Gene
robm
Enlightened
Interesting.. have you got any links clarifying this?
Last edited:
mdocod
Flashaholic
it can be logically explained, no need for a test result, I'll give you how to come to the same hypothesis and the results will back it up.
On an Incandescent configurations you loose light in 3 ways:
1. Reflector surface reflectivity.
2. Losses through the lens.
3. Light out the hole that the bulb came up through into the reflector.
On an LED light #3 is not applicable because the emitter only emits light on a "half sphere" so to speak, instead of all directions, so there is no loss of light "out the back" of the assembly. In incandescent flashlights the loss out the back depends on how far forwards the filament is in the reflector compared to how wide the hole is at the base of the reflector that the bulb is inserted through.
If you want to PROVE this to yourself, go grab a typical everyday maglight with incan bulb. Focus it back and forth while pointed at the ceiling and observe the variations in brightness that occur in the room. Now pick out what looks like the brightest points of focus and dimmest and after doing so turn off the light and observe the position of the bulb. Then imagine the size of the "Cone" of light being lost out the back at that particular focus point and the brighter position will suddenly make a LOT of sense...
On a focused for throw assembly, I estimate that at around 10-20% of that "35%" loss figure is a result of this effect, then 10-20% loss from the reflector emission efficiency and a about 1-5% for the lens.
I think 0.8 is a reasonable conversion for most reflector focused LEDs, and as high as 0.85 for some configuration with special lenses.
Last edited:
robm
Enlightened
Now I actually think about it - that does seem sort of obvious!
Especially given that when using my lightbox with incan Mag lights I need to set the focus to bulb completely inside reflector (usually max flood/min throw) - the effect is much less with LEDs.
Just never heard it stated as such before, and always used the 65% as a general rule.
The 80% plus value for LED lights (vs the 65% for incan) does make the quoted output values for many LED lights even worse - can't use the excuse of emitter vs torch lumens ratio of 65% anymore!
Especially given that when using my lightbox with incan Mag lights I need to set the focus to bulb completely inside reflector (usually max flood/min throw) - the effect is much less with LEDs.
Just never heard it stated as such before, and always used the 65% as a general rule.
The 80% plus value for LED lights (vs the 65% for incan) does make the quoted output values for many LED lights even worse - can't use the excuse of emitter vs torch lumens ratio of 65% anymore!
Similar threads
