Surefire rates their P61 light module at 200 lumens. Their ratings appear to be conservative and OTF numbers past the reflector & lens. Lumens Factory rates their EO-9 at 380 lumens. That is a vast difference. I read several posts that the P91 is brighter. Is this because Lumens Factory drastically over rates their bulbs output. Even considering the EO-9 is probably rated at the bulb. If in fact, the P91 is brighter the numbers just don't make any sense? In both bulbs 2 X IMR123 cellls used.
Surefire P91 vs. Lumans Factory EO-9 ?
- Thread starter Bob96
- Start date
Help Support Candle Power Flashlight Forum
bigchelis
Flashlight Enthusiast
You must have read the OTF lumens readings here:
http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=229135
The P91 = 473 OTF lumens post #3
The EO9 = 272 OTF lumens post #1
The simple truth is that the P91 was drastically overdriven; while the E09 was within its intended voltage range and will likely last longer than 15 hours of runtime.
My P91 which was tested at 473 OTF lumens has now over 11 hours of runtime and still strong. I even used it with 2 IMR C cells and it still lives. I think it may hit the 15 hour mark, but I do have my fingers crossed.
I like the 470ish lumens more and it is way more impresive. Especially considering it comes out of a 6P type hosts.
http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=229135
The P91 = 473 OTF lumens post #3
The EO9 = 272 OTF lumens post #1
The simple truth is that the P91 was drastically overdriven; while the E09 was within its intended voltage range and will likely last longer than 15 hours of runtime.
My P91 which was tested at 473 OTF lumens has now over 11 hours of runtime and still strong. I even used it with 2 IMR C cells and it still lives. I think it may hit the 15 hour mark, but I do have my fingers crossed.
I like the 470ish lumens more and it is way more impresive. Especially considering it comes out of a 6P type hosts.
leukos
Flashlight Enthusiast
There is no lumen rating standard among manufacturers. Overseas companies often inflate lumen ratings by 100% or more simply because there is no industry regulation on such marketing claims.
SF's rating system is interesting. From what I can gather, their lumen ratings for their incandescent lights are an average based on the runtime of the batteries. So, if SF rates the P60 at 60 lumens, that is an average lumen rating of OTF lumens for the 60 minutes it is running on the batteries. The P60 may start out closer to 100 lumens and finish closer to 30 lumens, but the average will be the number SF advertises. This also explains how a regulated light like the A2 which has consistently been tested to be closer to 80 lumens is advertised by SF as 50. SF says the A2 runs for 1 hour, but it usually runs about 45-50 minutes in regulation, then drops to moon mode for a few minutes. The average between 80 lumens regulated for 50 minutes and 10 minutes at maybe 15 lumens gives SF the average lumens of 50 that it advertises.
Lumens factory is probably different in that it measures the lumens from the bulb itself, and probably only during the first 2 minutes if using a battery power source. This could give as much as 75% higher lumen ratings than SF's method.
Is one method better than the other? I think SF's method is harder for most customers to grasp, while most other manufactures' lumen ratings are over inflated, or just based on lumens straight from the bulb or LED, so you have to take 30% off the top just for losses from reflectors, glass lenses, etc.
Bigchelis posted the link for some independent testings for these two lamps that illustrates my point.
SF's rating system is interesting. From what I can gather, their lumen ratings for their incandescent lights are an average based on the runtime of the batteries. So, if SF rates the P60 at 60 lumens, that is an average lumen rating of OTF lumens for the 60 minutes it is running on the batteries. The P60 may start out closer to 100 lumens and finish closer to 30 lumens, but the average will be the number SF advertises. This also explains how a regulated light like the A2 which has consistently been tested to be closer to 80 lumens is advertised by SF as 50. SF says the A2 runs for 1 hour, but it usually runs about 45-50 minutes in regulation, then drops to moon mode for a few minutes. The average between 80 lumens regulated for 50 minutes and 10 minutes at maybe 15 lumens gives SF the average lumens of 50 that it advertises.
Lumens factory is probably different in that it measures the lumens from the bulb itself, and probably only during the first 2 minutes if using a battery power source. This could give as much as 75% higher lumen ratings than SF's method.
Is one method better than the other? I think SF's method is harder for most customers to grasp, while most other manufactures' lumen ratings are over inflated, or just based on lumens straight from the bulb or LED, so you have to take 30% off the top just for losses from reflectors, glass lenses, etc.
Bigchelis posted the link for some independent testings for these two lamps that illustrates my point.
gallonoffuel
Enlightened
I was under the impression that Lumens Factory has an integrating sphere and tests their lamps in it, and publishes the voltage and amperage vs lumens data. Of course, this rating would be bulb lumens, not OTF lumens, as you can't expect them to publish OTF lumens for every light in existence.
Outdoors Fanatic
Flashlight Enthusiast
Lumens Factory does not inflate numbers. They use an Integrating Sphere to measure BULB lumens, without a flashlight. That's it. Pretty much just like any other lamp manufacturer out there.
SureFire on the other hand, measures out the front lumens, coming out of their flashlights and with half depleted batteries to give an average lumen value during the run.
SureFire on the other hand, measures out the front lumens, coming out of their flashlights and with half depleted batteries to give an average lumen value during the run.
kelmo
Flashlight Enthusiast
I have both and the beam profiles are vastly different. The P91 is biased towards flood, the proverbial wall of light. The EO-9 puts out a gorgeous fat hotspot. P91, 20 minutes of advertised runtime. EO-9, 35 minutes of advertised runtime. That should give you a clue on the actuall outputs. Given a choice I like the EO-9. But my C3 and 9P both sport P90s!
Outdoors Fanatic
Flashlight Enthusiast
My favorite D26 lamp by far is the HO-9.
I'm very curious what the numbers would be with the EO-9 on IMR batteries. I recently changed my EO-9 set up from AW's LiCo to IMR 18500s and the difference is astounding. I have no experience with the P91 however. I feel some what comfortable running this set up, as it was one that Mark of Lumens Factory recommended when the AW IMR batteries first hit the scene, before the IMR lamp assembly series was released.
Another performance number I'd be interested to see would be that of the IMR-9 on a set of larger batteries. So far the only one I see cited is the 270 lumens on 2xIMR16340.
that is what i have in my G2 on 2xRCR123s, any information on what the runtime is for the HO-9?
great LA, love the tint and hotspot, was working late the other night and someone turned off all the lights on my floor as my door was closed and it was pitch dark, the HO-9 lit up everything beautifully.
My nightstand light is a Surefire C2 with two IMR cells and an EO-9 with an unfrosted bulb. The HO-9 in your G2 is a bit much for RCR cells hyperloop. Should be okay if you just run it in bursts though it will still reduce the life of the batteries. You'll see better runtime and brightness with the IMR's.
bigchelis
Flashlight Enthusiast
I have the lumens factory IMR D26 500 lumen P60 drop-in. I just got some new AW 2600mAh cells topped them off and did my test for OTF lumens. Here is what I got:
369.2 --------- 1 sec
364.6---------- 30 sec
357.7 -------- 1 min
355.4 --------- 2 min
352.3 ---------- 3 min
kelmo
Flashlight Enthusiast
That looks like a fun setup!
bigchelis
Flashlight Enthusiast
I should have mentioned my 6P is bored to accept 18650 cells and I had a 18650 Solarforce extention. My 6P bezel is also fitted with a UCL lens from lighthound.com
bigC
I like the three cell 17500/18500 setups better, they're a little more versatile with being able to use primaries and the 18500's are a little easier on the bulb than the 18650's.
hoongern
Enlightened
That looks a lot better than the initial 16340 tests if I remember! The bulb is really designed for larger cells - I imagine the 18650 IMRs would be even brighter. When I changed to using my IMR9 with IMR18500s, it really shone!
I admit to being a bit of a bulb conservative. I like a reasonable trade-off for life expectancy and brightness/runtime. I know the IMR18650's will really kick a typical IMR-9, P91 or EO-9 bulb in the *** though and get it up there in the peak efficiency and quality white incan output. The P91 is a bit touchy on the fully charged larger cells though.
This might be of some interest, based on tests in my my integrating bedroom.
Here are my promised test results, for 2 cells of various types:
This is all very encouraging feedback. I'm almost secretly hoping my EO-9 burns out so I have an excuse to replace it with the IMR-9. However, I imagine that it be hard to beat the EO-9's throw.
In my opinion P91 is hardly overdriven even on 17500 and 18500 cells, same as MN16.
P90 gives just about the same output with two li-ons as with 3 CR123, P91 not, it is way brighter and clearly overdriven.
Some time ago I played with P91 and used it with cable connected typical gel 6V 7Ah battery and it performed extremely well with it. With fresh battery it performed just about the same or even brighter than with CR123. 7Ah battery does not sug under this load at all, but that actually shows how overdriven it is with two Li-ons.
EV_007
Enlightened
Both great bulbs. As mentioned, the P91 is very floody and the EO-9 more focused toward spot profile.
