Hurray! I love it when this thread gets rebooted mid-conversation!
Nah, I "took the bait" and it clearly isn't worth it! Your "thoughts" always entertaining--a spot on stage for you in the future....somewhere I'm sure!
Thank you, Karl, I always enjoy your compliments too. I didn't see any "bait," but as you like...
While I have your attention, I'd just like to say that, though we tend to often hold opposing opinions, I've enjoyed and agreed with many of your recent posts. I'm sorry it's only when we are in disagreement that we actually meet on the field of conversation.
I'm not sure why so many are having a hard time understanding why there is a time limit for the burst mode . . . The set time limit seams right to me and should perform as Henry designed it for. To give you a BURST of light when you need it to see something you cant at your normal settings.Trust me as a hunter/camper i think this is going to be a great feature.Many times when in the woods at night or early morning i have had to switch from low to high very quickly to check something out and once i have seen what it was i needed to see would go right back to my lower level.
Dan, my friend, I think the issue here is that you're looking at the implementation of burst purely as someone who will actually use it as it's intended to be used. Those who complain about it are certainly within their rights to, but I think their objection is more on principle, and perhaps a desire to give the lights a "braggable" maximum rather than an asterisked maximum. That's fine, and those are legitimate concerns for a flashaholic, but I feel, as Henry clearly does, that practical concerns outweigh them. Despite how unusual and seemingly limiting the timer appears to be (I feel that way too), I do believe it to be very well thought out from a purely practical standpoint; though practicality will, in this case, demand a trade off of some degree of flashaholic satisfaction.
This post is a great undertaking, proving to me that you take all of our comments seriously.
I take everything seriously, you must know that from our epic Tour battle, when you were the Armstrong to my Landis!
Tell me it isn't so that Enzo will not be indulging in a Clicky?
I hear things.... I hear things. However, it looks like maybe I missed an important memo on that front. So I guess who can really say with him...
No Sir, I have spoken to nobody whose first name starts with the letter "H", to help me form my opinion about the rational for the burst mode timeout.
Ha! I was actually implying that you pilfered your explanation from me, it was so close in some points. However, a quick review of our emails did not turn up any discussion of it, so it looks like you're cleared. Is it possible that is the only aspect of the design we
didn't discuss?
I found the email and have looked at your calculated increase in throw with each rise in level. It just shows that an increase in output gives a slight increase in throw.
What I actually found interesting in that chart is that my Arbitrary Throw Units seem to each represent an unexpectedly substantial difference. For example: I assume, based on 100Tw beamshots/descriptions and my own output observations of my NT that my 120P would fall somewhere around the same number as the 100w (or perhaps slightly higher, since it's supposed to be brighter and one member has suggested that his Twisty was actually a little floodier; I believe a beamshot I saw may have also suggested this). That would give the 120P a rating of ~109+ATU. Compare that to the rating of the 85n at 120. A very small difference by the numbers, but I can tell you from my own comparisons that the difference in throw between the two is substantial, to the point where one is capable of "doing the job" and the other simply is not. The ATU difference between the 100w and 120w is roughly the same as the difference between the 100w and 85n, giving the impression that a step up in output is indeed quite significant in actual use (not taking into account the difference in perception that could be made by the increased backscatter from the brighter spill of the wide beam models). Now this does not make sense to me. My rough calculations are based on numbers provided by Henry and I've checked the calculations for errors, but I still wonder if something must be wrong with them, since I would not expect a one step increase to provide what the charts show. So my numbers are definitely just for intellectual entertainment for now, not something to put too much stock in.
My reference to the Rockies was a variation of the old west saying "east of the Rio Grande." Most of our international comrades wouldn't know what that means, but most would have heard of the Rockies. Am I exonerated of all guilt?
I simply meant that, contrary to a literal interpretation of your phrase, the Clicky will likely be the best light in its class on either side of the Rockies; something I'm sure you of all people would agree with.
SF has the most uncalculated all over the place output specs. I have seen. But their fine reputation is built on publishing conservative output numbers. I would much rather deal with a manufacturer like Henry, who gives us XXlm when he tells us he is giving us XXlm! I use my HDS lights as reference lights, when comparing the outputs of other lights.
I agree. SF's practice of using conservative specs is admirable compared to their competition, but it is certainly something far different from the precise and accurate ratings being discussed. The "10lm" low on my L1 appears to actually be about 15. That's great, more light for free, but it doesn't change the fact that the number given was not precise in the same sense that an HDS spec is, though there have been only a few occasions where I'd actually have preferred the lower claimed output.
Indeed, no manufacturer I know elaborates on their emitters. It is the word of mouth from each of us that informs the rest of us of their choices.
There certainly are some newer manufacturers that do specify exactly what they're using, now that there are so many choices and key differences. I think this current practice leads many newbies to the assumption that this is just how it's always been and older/larger companies must surely have always followed the same practice. But... it's just not the case.
I recently bought an HDS light with a SS lens ring and three tritium vials. Without a doubt, that solution is the best way I have found to locate my light in near total darkness. My advice is to make every attempt to deploy these vials in your HDS lights, and forget about the locator flash's intensity.
I'd like a trit, but they're really just not worth the effort and expense to me. It's very rare that I actually need a locator, so I like the idea of one I can just turn on and off. If I'm in the dark, my light is on me; if for some reason it's not, my keys probably are, and they have a light for finding lights...
Does anybody think that powernoodle's HDS light locator flash endurance test will last for 12 years, the half life of a tritium vial?
At the way it's going, I wouldn't be entirely shocked if it did!
orcinus said:
No, but i've tried to explain why people here reacted the way they did. Because they (/we)
are those kinds of people
Ah, quite right. Take my comment as a clarifying addition then.
Be careful with your answer, my kind of writing makes SaturnNyne look like he is tiptoeing through the tulips!!!! 
If they do, I'm going to 
