• You must be a Supporting Member to participate in the Candle Power Forums Marketplace.

    You can become a Supporting Member.

SOLD TK61vn V4

Candle Power Flashlight Forum

Help Support CPF:

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: TK61vn V3.5

thedoc007 said:
Actually, no, the numbers do not support that claim at all. Take the K40 and K40M as an example, since the host is already offered with both XM-L2 and MT-G2 versions, and will give us a good idea of the rough difference.

The K40 does 95600 candela, according to Supbeam. 618 meters of throw.

The K40M does 65000 candela, according to Acebeam (new name for Supbeam). 509 meters of throw.

So the MT-G2 version has a peak beam intensity of around two-thirds that of the XM-L2 version. And it has over 80% of the throw, while being well over twice as bright.

I've actually argued against the MT-G2 before in the TK61vn, for some of the reasons that koti has mentioned. It is a dedicated thrower, as conceived with XM-L2. But it is by no means a stupid question, and koti's response was out of nowhere...people are allowed to ask questions. I've disagreed with Severus before, too, but on this one I'm with him. It is a perfectly legitimate question, it relates directly to the TK61vn, and he wasn't demanding that Vinh do it, just asking if he has considered it.

As to why the throw is much closer than some might expect, consider that as you increase brightness, throw increases in a linear fashion. So if you double the brightness of a given light, all else equal, you double the beam intensity as well. The MT-G2, then, accomplishes pretty decent throw through brute force, whereas the XM-L2 is a much tighter beam, and accomplishes throw by being very well focused. Either method can work quite well. And each method has different pros and cons. Nothing wrong with stating your preference, but let's not start calling other people's opinions dumb simply because we don't share their particular priorities. Particularly if you are basing your opinions on assumptions, rather than facts.

Ty, you knew I'd show up sooner or later. I love a good argument!
Click to expand...

I am always willing to admit to a mistake when I make one. At this point I am still leaning toward a smaller emitter in throwers. What you are writing above makes sense - on paper. I've been over this subject many times over the years and higher surface brightness always had the advantage over brute lumen in throwers. As for the argument...
I have apologized to the guy...which I regret now. The reason why I regret it is that it drives me crazy when people are putting words into my mouth which clearly I have not spoken. I never told him to "shut up" and this is what triggered me. If you expect me to read through what you wrote and sit quite - I'm sory but I wont. I have stated numerous times that I want to end this argument in this thread. It must be a good feeling for you to act as a mediator but what you write above concerning the argument is bringing it back when it was over.
 
Re: TK61vn V3.5

Alex1234 said:
also if you dedome an mtg2 it has some dam good throw. i saw beamshots comparing the dedomed k40vn to the sr52vn and the throw was the same. the beamshots are in the sr52vn thread. so if the dedomed k40vn gets about 240kcd like the sr52vn put that same dedome mtg2 in a tk61 and im gona guess around 400kcd which is pretty dam good
Click to expand...
I am willing to make a bet with you (or anyone for that matter) that a dedomed MT-G2 in Vinh's future TK61 project will not throw more than a dedomed XML2 U3 in the existing TK61vn V3.5 (~750kcd)
 
Re: TK61vn V3.5

koti said:
I am always willing to admit to a mistake when I make one. At this point I am still leaning toward a smaller emitter in throwers. What you are writing above makes sense - on paper. I've been over this subject many times over the years and higher surface brightness always had the advantage over brute lumen in throwers. As for the argument...
I have apologized to the guy...which I regret now. The reason why I regret it is that it drives me crazy when people are putting words into my mouth which clearly I have not spoken. I never told him to "shut up" and this is what triggered me. If you expect me to read through what you wrote and sit quite - I'm sory but I wont. I have stated numerous times that I want to end this argument in this thread. It must be a good feeling for you to act as a mediator but what you write above concerning the argument is bringing it back when it was over.
Click to expand...

I was addressing what you said, not trying to be a mediator. It drives you crazy when people put words in your mouth...it bugs me when people make assumptions, and then insult other people for asking a question. I find that introducing FACTS, rather than opinions, to be helpful, even if it isn't always appreciated by all parties in the discussion.

No one has suggested that you can't (or shouldn't) respond to a post you disagree with. It would be a pretty boring forum without debate. But your tone is important, too. Let's all try to be civil, and avoid misquoting and/or insulting each other.

koti said:
I am willing to make a bet with you (or anyone for that matter) that a dedomed MT-G2 in Vinh's future TK61 project will not throw more than a dedomed XML2 U3 in the existing TK61vn V3.5 (~750kcd)
Click to expand...

No one is arguing that point. XM-L2 does throw better, this is well established. But throw is not the only consideration, for many people.
 
Last edited:
Re: TK61vn V3.5

koti said:
I am willing to make a bet with you (or anyone for that matter) that a dedomed MT-G2 in Vinh's future TK61 project will not throw more than a dedomed XML2 U3 in the existing TK61vn V3.5 (~750kcd)
Click to expand...


well of course it wouldn't. no one said it would but 400kcd seams reasonable to me or about half the throw
 
Re: TK61vn V3.5

thedoc007 said:
I was addressing what you said, not trying to be a mediator. It drives you crazy when people put words in your mouth...it bugs me when people make assumptions, and then insult other people for asking a question. I find that introducing FACTS, rather than opinions, to be helpful, even if it isn't always appreciated by all parties in the discussion.

No one has suggested that you can't (or shouldn't) respond to a post you disagree with. It would be a pretty boring forum without debate. But your tone is important, too. Let's all try to be civil, and avoid misquoting and/or insulting each other.
Click to expand...

I agree. Lets put this behind us. I miss Ann Arbor btw.
 
Re: TK61vn V3.5

Alex1234 said:
well of course it wouldn't. no one said it would but 400kcd seams reasonable to me or about half the throw
Click to expand...
Being a throw junkie would you realy want to swap that sick ~750kcd for ~400kcd in the TK61? Be honest.
 
Re: TK61vn V3.5

koti said:
The reason why I regret it is that it drives me crazy when people are putting words into my mouth which clearly I have not spoken. I never told him to "shut up" and this is what triggered me. If you expect me to read through what you wrote and sit quite - I'm sory but I wont.
Click to expand...

I hate to go back to this again but feel I need to. Facts are stubborn things.
First: You jumped on me making assumptions. You did that don't turn this on somebody else.
Second: As far as putting words in your mouth that is not a entirely true, you never typed to "shut up" but very clearly you were implying it. "Read and learn first before you post a question like that" sound very clear, the message is "Shut up"

Like I stated before we need a better attitude on this forum. I apologize to others members here because I am not letting this issue go. The reason is very simple if members start to adopt koti's attitude people will feel intimidated to ask a question especially new users and that defeat the purpose of this forum.
 
Re: TK61vn V3.5

Severus said:
I hate to go back to this again but feel I need to. Facts are stubborn things.
First: You jumped on me making assumptions. You did that don't turn this on somebody else.
Second: As far as putting words in your mouth that is not a entirely true, you never typed to "shut up" but very clearly you were implying it. "Read and learn first before you post a question like that" sound very clear, the message is "Shut up"

Like I stated before we need a better attitude on this forum. I apologize to others members here because I am not letting this issue go. The reason is very simple if members start to adopt koti's attitude people will feel intimidated to ask a question especially new users and that defeat the purpose of this forum.
Click to expand...

Just leave it and lets move on.
 
Re: TK61vn V3.5

Well that escalated quickly...gonna grab some pop corn.

I'm all for a TK61MTGvn 400KCD still insane but much bigger hotspot wow. Then again if I wanted throw with plenty of power I'd grab a X60M but £££ not a cheap omer that one.
 
Re: TK61vn V3.5

CyclingSalmon14 said:
Well that escalated quickly...gonna grab some pop corn.

I'm all for a TK61MTGvn 400KCD still insane but much bigger hotspot wow. Then again if I wanted throw with plenty of power I'd grab a X60M but £££ not a cheap omer that one.
Click to expand...

TK61MTGvn ??? IF you would kindly read the following quote you will understand why thats not going to happen


koti said:
TK61vn V3.5 is ment to be a strictly throw light with a concentrated hot spot for viewing at great distances. Throwers require small emitters, the smaller the emitter, the higher the surface brightness which is key to achieving a concentrated hot spot at a distance. MT-G2 is a huge emitter compared to the XML2. It's great for wall of light type flashlights and is not good for throwy lights (unless you have a huge, deep reflector to go with it...like the size of a car wheel would do the job)
Now coming back to whats wrong with your post...You are asking a respected modder who does stuff to emitters and electronics which is beyond me (and judging by your post certainly beyond you) if he played with an idea of swapping an XML2 with an MT-G2 in TK61 V3.5. I can say it again...go read and learn(start with what I bolded out for you) before you ask him something like that again. He's got only so much time and he's gotta finish modding my light so stop taking his time with trivia will ya? :nana:
Click to expand...
 
Re: TK61vn V3.5

Some of us would really like to have a TK61vn w/ an MTG2. We know what kind of beam to expect with a tk61 reflector (3000+ lumens with very respectable throw). We would appreciate it if others would respect what we want, and stop telling us it's not going to happen. Thanks.
 
Re: TK61vn V3.5

Saul Good said:
Some of us would really like to have a TK61vn w/ an MTG2. We know what kind of beam to expect with a tk61 reflector (3000+ lumens with very respectable throw). We would appreciate it if others would respect what we want, and stop telling us it's not going to happen. Thanks.
Click to expand...

The question is, has Vinh played around with the idea. Lets ask him.
 
Re: TK61vn V3.5

Wayne,
When will you have the XML2 with all the mods ready to ship? I too, am only interested in this light as a thrower. I currently have many "VN" lights that do both.

P. S. I am fairly certain he will accommodate those lusting after the MTG2 version. This started out as the "ultimate thrower".
 
Re: TK61vn V3.5

koti said:
The question is, has Vinh played around with the idea. Lets ask him.
Click to expand...

Good question : ) Vinh did say a TK61vn w/ mtg2 is definitely on the table. But I'm sure he'll cross that bridge when he gets there...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top