P60 Turbo head Shoot out with lux readings.

[Shrigg]

Has anyone tried the Aspherical DBS head with these dropins? Or is that cheating?

Aspherical Head replaces the normal head and reflector on your DBS V2 or V3, and CL1H V4. Solid glass aspherical lens concentrates the beam into a very tight column (almost zero spill beam), giving super-long throw.

The beam isn't for "white wall hunters", as it has some colorful rings around the hotspot, and the beam is a square shape. But talk about throw! This thing provides over 65,000 lux at one meter, well over twice the lux of the normal DBS head! In real world use, the throw increase appears to be about 25-30% over the DBS head due to the way our eyes perceive brightness. If used on a CL1H V4, it's over six times the throw compared to the normal head!

 

[bigchelis]

Has anyone tried the Aspherical DBS head with these dropins? Or is that cheating?

That was the first thing I did. I put my XP-G R5 P60 pill inside the Aspherical DBS head and it looks really bad and I am not sure more throw is gained, just more of a tunnel beam.


The reason I don't get ringy beams when I use my R2, XP-G, and MC-E's with my 2 different turbo heads is because I have an Orange Peel on both.

I have seen the Smooth TLS bezels and they make even the R2 really uggly. If you have a DBS smooth or Very light orange peel you will also get a ringy beam.

bigC

 

[bigchelis]

I just tested my EagleTac P100a2 XP-E Q5.

It only makes 170ish OTF lumens, but the lux at 5 meters is 234 lux.

vs.

The new XP-G R5 using the same 2 AA Tenergy cells = 134 lux at 5 meters.

JustinCase,

I have some artic silver 5 and I will test to see if my lumens or sustained lumens go up while using the DBS and TLS. First to try I think is the SST-50 since its performance has been well documented.

more lumens here they come:candle:

 

[stallion2]

Dam! I thought the question bugging me about the lux ratings on light-reviews was solved, but I guess not. :sigh:

If selfbuilt does a review we'll have another set of numbers to compare XRE & XPG.

the 1M vs 5M lux readings is probably not an error. once light exits the flashlight its beam profile is not constant. once the light is manipulated by the optic or reflector it then continues on in that direction w/out deviation. more distance = more dissipation. the rate of dissipation over distance is a result of how much the emitted light is manipulated before it leaves. at 1M the lux measurements are coming more from the emitter than anything else, you have to move further back before the lux readings begin to accurately reflect how much (or rather where) light is being put downrange. look for some of selfbuilt's measurements on MC-E based lights. my Olight M30 kicks the snot out of just about any other light w/ that emitter at 1M but it is much more of a flood light. the M1X and ACE-G
are both MC-E "throwers" and they kill the M30 when it comes to measuring lux at greater distance but get beaten badly at 1M...personally i think the 1M lux readings are of little value. not sure where to find selfbuilt's MC-E results but this thread has some of them.
https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/241019&page=4

Has anyone tried the Aspherical DBS head with these dropins? Or is that cheating?

cheating??? i like the DBS aspheric but it allows for little adjustment. i like the Tiablo collimater much more. i use mine w/ the A9 and can adjust the focus to a rather high degree. i'd say both work quite well.

That was the first thing I did. I put my XP-G R5 P60 pill inside the Aspherical DBS head and it looks really bad and I am not sure more throw is gained, just more of a tunnel beam.

The reason I don't get ringy beams when I use my R2, XP-G, and MC-E's with my 2 different turbo heads is because I have an Orange Peel on both.
bigC

+1, i tried the XP-G from my Thrunite dropin a while back w/ the DBS aspheric and it look horrible. the output angle is too great and alot of light of light reflects off the housing before reaching the lense...it did look pretty cool though. there is more to the rings than just the reflector's texture. XR-Es are notorious for having rings regardless of a reflector's texture. the metal ring around the optic placed over those emitters frequently catches some of the light and redirects it before it reaches the reflector. on the XP-G DBS setup the light catches the inner edge of the reflector's opening at the bottom causing the same problem. its a combination of the XP-G's low profile and greater output angle (relative the the XR-Es) that causes the issue. Dereelight's reflector for the XP-G has an opening barely bigger than the emitter itself...drill the opening a little more and the ring issue subsides...some. try the XP-G in the DBS SMO for the XR-E...on mine the rings are non-existant.

 

[joshconsulting]

I have personally seen beamshots of a SST-50 pill in a SMO DBS with a flawless beam, and my VLOP reflector was also perfect (though the SMO had slight rings). So I think it depends to some extent manufacturing variances on the pills, and to a lesser extent minor flaws in the surface and structure of the reflector.

 

[Justin Case]

the 1M vs 5M lux readings is probably not an error.

I recommend reading mudman's post in the thread I referenced earlier. For a small head light, the 1m and 5m lux readings are typically close to the inverse square law. For larger head lights, the 1m reading typically shows greater deviation from inverse square than for 5m.

The Eagletac appears to me to be relatively small headed, not a big turbo head style. Yet, the 1m and 5m measurements are way off relative to the inverse square law, even more so than some of the DBS and TLS measurements. That indicates a measurement error to me.

 

[sfca]

One common theme you guys both mention is to look at the 5M ratings for accuracy.

I can see why a drop-in can have less lux then another @ 1M, but reversed @ 5M
Dereelight R2 6700 lux < Nailbender XP-G R4 7400 lux
Dereelight R2 371 lux > Nailbender XP-G R4 230 lux


For some reason though I can't wrap my head around this:
Anto R5 / 353 lumens
@1M = 7600 lux
@5M = 341 lux
I dunnno why myself

.. Too little at 5metres??

I also think that even with an XP-G the Eagletac P20C2 XP-G [342 lux @5M] should have higher lux then the R2.
Cause the EagleTac T20C2 #s [626 lux @5M] are awesome!

This number puzzles me the most

:
Nailbender SST-50
@1M = 4170 lux
@5M = 212 lux


From my eyes and the guys on the receiving end;
Nailbender SST-50 > Quark Turbo > Surefire E2DL (numbers are usually ~9000 lux)
Mine is with a smooth reflector and at 2.8A.

 

[bigchelis]

Maybe the EagleTac XP-G pictures will help. The 2 AA variant is brighter and has a much smaller reflector.

 

[sfca]

Maybe the EagleTac XP-G pictures will help. The 2 AA variant is brighter and has a much smaller reflector.

I understand that. I was comparing and contrasting with the numbers on light-review, where the Mark II P20C2 and T20C2 both lux numbers decreased.
Here it seems they've increased..which makes sense to me! It seems the T20C2 is still the lumens and lux champ of these kind of lights.

I really hope Anto comes out with a SM reflector option in the future.

The 2.5A SST-50 still bothers me.. I should send you my 2.8A SST-50!
Once I decide what to do, and I have an alternate light to use I probably will.

 

[bigchelis]

I understand that. I was comparing and contrasting with the numbers on light-review, where the Mark II P20C2 and T20C2 both lux numbers decreased.
Here it seems they've increased..which makes sense to me! It seems the T20C2 is still the lumens and lux champ of these kind of lights.

I really hope Anto comes out with a SM reflector option in the future.

The 2.5A SST-50 still bothers me.. I should send you my 2.8A SST-50!
Once I decide what to do, and I have an alternate light to use I probably will.

I have been really wanting to test a Nailbender SST-50 2.8A for a while now. I want to see how many lumens it does in a 6P hosts, don't worry I wont use AS5 on it:thumbsup:

bigC

 

[stallion2]

I recommend reading mudman's post in the thread I referenced earlier. For a small head light, the 1m and 5m lux readings are typically close to the inverse square law. For larger head lights, the 1m reading typically shows greater deviation from inverse square than for 5m.

The Eagletac appears to me to be relatively small headed, not a big turbo head style. Yet, the 1m and 5m measurements are way off relative to the inverse square law, even more so than some of the DBS and TLS measurements. That indicates a measurement error to me.

thanks for the reference, good stuff to go over. i'm still not convinced that there is an error. with a 125 degree output angle, much more of the light emitted by the XP-G is able to reach the reflector at a distance closer to its origin (vs the XR-E and its 90 degree output). a parabolic reflector is able to redirect an XP-G's emitted light from much deeper w/in itself which allows the light to be concentrated w/in a shorter distance. since XR-E's have such a narrow output angle the deeper reflectors are necessary in order to focus a suitable percentage of the light emitted into a good throwing beam. i received a Quark 123^2 Turbo a little over a month ago and inspite of being smaller than all my other tactical size lights it still has the best throw and the most intense hotspot. its the only other small light i have that can match my LX2 to any real effect. thus far i love every XP-G setup i have (except the DBS) and am pulling my hair out trying to get my hands on Malkoff's M61.

 

[sfca]

So Stallion, what's your (layman's) take/explanation on these numbers:

Eagletac P20C2 Mark II R5 330 OTF lumens:
@1M = 13,300 lux
@5M = 342 lux

EagleTac T20C2 Mark II R5
@5M = 626 lux

The Anto R5 353 OTF at turn-on.
P60 OP reflector
@1M = 7,600 lux
@5M = 341 lux

Sorry I can't elaborate more. Gotta go!!

 

[Justin Case]

thanks for the reference, good stuff to go over. i'm still not convinced that there is an error. with a 125 degree output angle, much more of the light emitted by the XP-G is able to reach the reflector at a distance closer to its origin (vs the XR-E and its 90 degree output). a parabolic reflector is able to redirect an XP-G's emitted light from much deeper w/in itself which allows the light to be concentrated w/in a shorter distance. since XR-E's have such a narrow output angle the deeper reflectors are necessary in order to focus a suitable percentage of the light emitted into a good throwing beam. i received a Quark 123^2 Turbo a little over a month ago and inspite of being smaller than all my other tactical size lights it still has the best throw and the most intense hotspot. its the only other small light i have that can match my LX2 to any real effect. thus far i love every XP-G setup i have (except the DBS) and am pulling my hair out trying to get my hands on Malkoff's M61.

Regardless of how much light gets redirected, inverse square should still hold. The amount of light that gets focused merely affects the magnitude of the lux measurement.

There is also relatively little light intensity for either LED past 90 degrees. Also, bigC's Eagletac XP-G photos in Post #48 seem to show the typical LED/reflector relationship -- the surface of the reflector opening is level with the LED case. Hard for me to see how a ray that comes out past 90 degrees is going to reflect off of the reflector surface. In any case, I'm not comparing an XP-G to an XR-E. My statement is just for the Eagletac XP-G -- the data appears to have a measurement error that results in an inconsistency between the 1m and 5m measurements.

 

[swrdply400mrelay]

I just finished the 5 meter LUX readings on these lights:

• Masterpiece P60 Turbo head w/ R2 = 1,947 lux
• Skyline I w/ R2 = 800 lux
• Skyline II w/ R2 = 527 lux
• EagleTac P20A2 XP-G R5 = 134 lux
• EagleTac T20C2 XP-G R5 = 626 lux
• Xtar TZ-50 SST-50 = 806 lux

Please note that only the Eagletac lights have AR Coated lens.

Any readings on lumens OTF on 2 x li-ions with the Solarforce Pro-1?

Thanks!

 

[MrGman]

Weren't there a couple of threads on this at least a year old probably more than 2 years ol, that explained this kind of problem before? Some one had published a detailed explanation with all kinds of math explaining that the inverse square rule really doesn't work for wide diameter sources of light up close, that they really needed to be checked starting out at 5 meters and beyond, if I recall correctly. Comparing the one meter readings to 5 meters doesn't really tell the truth, but going from 5 meters to say 15 meters, you would see that the inverse square numbers start to work, or so I recall.

I remember seeing a whole bunch on this around the time that I had done my "King of Throw" testing with wbp over at his shop comparing the Tiablo A10 to a group of other thrower lights at the time. There is this constant issue that light sources that are not a pin point make for erroneously higher readings when the luxmeter is up close and supposedly the proof is that changing the focus of a light changes the reading dramatically for the better at 1 meter. I remember that was part of the reason we didn't bother to even take readings of those lights at 1 meter we just compared them all at 5 meters.

Big C, you sure are one Busy guy with all of this work going on. Certainly are doing a good job with all the readings and publishing but easy on the thermal paste. That stuff is expensive and I sure as heck know your not getting paid for all this research work. Anyway, I would say that for the sake of comparison if you could take some readings of the same lights you did at 1 and 5 meters, again at 10 meters and publish that, maybe these guys could do the inverse square calculations from 5 to 10 meters and see if they start to work right. I wouldn't say you have to do all of them, just maybe 4 of the most controversial lights. Good luck. I am sure Kramer would help. G.

 

[stallion2]

So Stallion, what's your (layman's) take/explanation on these numbers:

Sorry I can't elaborate more. Gotta go!!

i'm not really sure what i can say about those. i was just pointing out that the XP-Gs geometry allows for a reflector to manipulate the light closer to the origin. this allows for the light to be focused into a sharp beam over a shorter distance and i think that might explain why the 1M readings on the XP-Gs are inflated. similarly, as Justin Case pointed out, the lux readings being taken from the XP-Gs are inflated inspite of the small reflectors being used, contrary to what mudman was describing in his thread. but mudman was doing his research w/ XR-E's and the combination of their relatively narrow output angle and the effect of larger/deeper reflectors is consistent w/ the results he recorded.

 

[Justin Case]

Weren't there a couple of threads on this at least a year old probably more than 2 years ol, that explained this kind of problem before? Some one had published a detailed explanation with all kinds of math explaining that the inverse square rule really doesn't work for wide diameter sources of light up close, that they really needed to be checked starting out at 5 meters and beyond, if I recall correctly. Comparing the one meter readings to 5 meters doesn't really tell the truth, but going from 5 meters to say 15 meters, you would see that the inverse square numbers start to work, or so I recall.

You may be thinking of mudman's post, to which I provided the link already. The point is that at 5m, inverse square law should apply. From the photos of the Eagletac, the head doesn't look as large as a true TH. And even for big THs, mudman's post showed that inverse square applied at 5m.

Thus, working in reverse, one can calculate the 1m lux value based on the measured 5m value. I did that for the Eagletac P20C2 and there was a large discrepancy between the measured and calculated 1m lux values. Also, when using larger heads, the 1m lux value is typically smaller than what you'd calculate using a 5m figure and working backwards to get the 1m lux value. For the Eagletac, I calculated 8550 lux at 1m, based on the 5m lux value. The measured 1m value, however, was 13,300 lux.

 

[Justin Case]

i'm not really sure what i can say about those. i was just pointing out that the XP-Gs geometry allows for a reflector to manipulate the light closer to the origin. this allows for the light to be focused into a sharp beam over a shorter distance and i think that might explain why the 1M readings on the XP-Gs are inflated. similarly, as Justin Case pointed out, the lux readings being taken from the XP-Gs are inflated inspite of the small reflectors being used, contrary to what mudman was describing in his thread. but mudman was doing his research w/ XR-E's and the combination of their relatively narrow output angle and the effect of larger/deeper reflectors is consistent w/ the results he recorded.

mudman's data also included two incandescents (WA1111 and WA1185) and a Cree MC-E. For output angle, it doesn't get much bigger than the 180 degrees from an incan. 5m distance was sufficient for inverse square to apply.

I don't think I am contradicting mudman's data in any way. What is inflated is the Eagletac 1m measured lux value, which is inconsistent with the 5m measured lux value. My assumption is that the 5m value is correct and that inverse square law applies at 5m. Thus, one can calculate the 1m lux value and I get 8550 lux, while the measured value is 13,300.

Now, maybe the 5m measured value is off (too low), but I have no way of knowing that. So, my point is that the overall Eagletac data (one or both of the lux measurements) looks like it suffers from measurement error.

 

[stallion2]

well he does say that the readings taken at the shorter distances tended to be in "non-conformance" as a result of not following the function that his spreadsheet generated based on the data he plotted. i must be missing something here because based on mudman's thread i don't see why we should expect to be able to calculate a 1M lux reading based on lux readings taken at greater distances and then expect that value to approximate a direct lux measurment at 1M.


...EDIT: hahaha, i got it now. this whole time i thought the error you were referring to was in how the measurments were being taken at close range. i was going to the bathroom when i had my little moment of enlightenment.

 

[sfca]

...EDIT: hahaha, i got it now. this whole time i thought the error you were referring to was in how the measurments were being taken at close range. i was going to the bathroom when i had my little moment of enlightenment.

Aaahhh! I don't get it. What's the inference?

Bigchelis - whenever, and I do mean whenever (1 week, 2 weeks later I can wait) you can can you do a reading @1M for the T20C2 R5?

I think I will send in that 2.8A, but I gotta wait and see how things the new job are turning out.
I vouch for a Moddoo triple, and a Milky Creemator to be sent in!