Thrower Defined? in terms in min. meters of throw

[Swedpat]

It could also be the size of the hotspot and the relative spill.
When you shine the light indoors how large of an area on the wall is lit up?
For me, a floody light will easily light up evenly a circle that is 6 feet or more at 20 feet. A "thrower" might only do 3 or less.
A stock mini mag (14 lumens) will throw farther than a small 200 lumen LED light. The problem being that it lights up a tiny area with not much lux.

Thrower for me designates that it becomes difficult to use at close ranges because I have to work around the glaring hotspot no matter how dim the light is.

A very good explanation! And in the same way a very bright spill can be negative even if the hotspot is very bright: the spill can blind on the foreground and worsen the eyes ability to make use of the bright hotspot.
For a thrower a beefy hotspot usually is an advantage but it should not have a very bright or wide spill.
A 10000lm light with 100000cd throws the same as a 500lm light with 100000cd. But in some cases the 500lm light is to prefer. Not only because of the size, weight and required battery capacity, but also because the 10000lm light will illuminate so much more area(and make unneccesary attention) than you might need to see.

 

[torchsarecool]

Regarding the OP's question. What defines a thrower isn't simply how far it throws. I think some people on these forums can make a fairly immediate judgement on the type of light by glancing at the lumens to distance ansi ratings. The equation going on in our heads will be how relative the beam distance is to the lumens. If we create a simple formula to work this out we can create a scale in which a light could be categorised a flooder or a thrower based on an overall performance.
If we said
(beam distance in meters) / (lumens) =
Work out extreme ends of the scale from a pure flooder to a pencil beam and maybe split into 4 equal points along the scale. Then we could categorise as follows
1. Flooder
2. Biased towards flooder
3. Biased towards thrower
4. Thrower
Like tornados we could have category 4 throwers

 

[bykfixer]

^^ I'm sold.

At 1.9 I never woulda figured the microstream is biased towards flood.

 

[torchsarecool]

^^ I'm sold.

At 1.9 I never woulda figured the microstream is biased towards flood.

Lol, thanks

Although I reckon if a deft X rates at 3.17 and flooder coming in around the 0.1 area, that your microstream makes a fairly solid cat 3 (biased to thrower) with 1.9 :laughing:
See...it works

 

[bykfixer]

Lol, thanks

Although I reckon if a deft X rates at 3.17 and flooder coming in around the 0.1 area, that your microstream makes a fairly solid cat 3 (biased to thrower) with 1.9 :laughing:
See...it works

Uh, what? lol.

How'd it go from 1.9 to 3?

 

[PolarLi]

See...it works

Well, my most powerfull short arc thrower come in at 0.28 and my second best at 0.91.
As for beam profile, they are both in my avatar

 

[herektir]

Well, my most powerfull short arc thrower come in at 0.28 and my second best at 0.91.
As for beam profile, they are both in my avatar

Sure you did the math right?
What about candela/lumens for throw rating numbers?
Deftx 2166 (1300000/600)
microstream 24.1 (683/28)
protac 7.8 (550/70)
Short arc lamp say maxabeam 8000 (12000000/1500)
My fenix tk22 23.2 (15800/680)

Just an addition, under 15 is floody, 16-30 mix flood throw, 31-60 throwish, 61+ real throw, 1000+ omg crap thats impressive where is my telescope.

 

[fyrstormer]

There is no strict definition of a thrower. It's just a flashlight designed to emit light in (whatever you consider to be) a very tight beam. There may or may not be a large amount of spill surrounding the beam, depending on the efficiency of the optics and your personal preference.

I've only ever owned one thrower, as I understand the concept. It was a Cool Fall Tri-V, with one of the LEDs behind a projector lense. It projected a beam shaped exactly like the surface of the LED emitter, with no spill whatsoever. It used an outdated Cree XR-E emitter, but the beam was so tight it didn't matter.

I don't have much use for throwers. My distance vision isn't good enough to make use of a tiny, brightly-illuminated spot of ground hundreds of feet away in the dark. I do better with lights that are more floody, because the wider area of illumination means the center of my vision isn't blinded by backscatter while my peripheral vision sees nothing but blackness. I'm a big fan of the triple-TIR optics for that purpose; they produce a relatively well-defined circle of light, without a large amount of spill, but that circle of light is wide enough that it covers a significant portion of my visual field -- roughly equivalent to holding a 45rpm record at arm's length, whereas the projector beam produced by that Cool Fall Tri-V I mentioned was like holding a nickel at arm's length.

 

[D6859]

I guess (beam distance)^2 / lumens (or max candela / lumens) would be better indicator.

beam distance / lumen:
Nitecore EC4SW: 238 / 2000 = 0.11900
Thrunite TN12: 218 / 1050 = 0.20762
Eagtac GX25A3: 284 / 832 = 0.34135
Armytek Dobermann: 450 / 1250 = 0.3600

So it seems GX25A3 and Dobermann are "equal" throwers? I don't think so.

beam distance^2 / lumen:
Nitecore EC4SW: 238² / 2000 = 28.322
Thrunite TN12: 218² / 1050 = 45.261
Eagtac GX25A3: 284² / 832 = 96.942
Armytek Dobermann: 450² / 1250 = 162

Now there's some difference between those two! Also, you can easily distinct the four different classes: a flooder, biased to flood, biased to throw and a thrower. That is how I would classify those four flashlights.

Also, for reference same same flashlights on Herektir's scale
Note that beam distance = sqrt(max candela / 0.25), so
max candela = 0.25 * beam distance^2, therefore
max candela / lumen = 0.25 * beam distance^2 / lumen:
Nitecore EC4SW: 0.25*238² / 2000 = 7.0805
Thrunite TN12: 0.25*218² / 1050 = 11.315
Eagtac GX25A3: 0.25*284² / 832 = 24.236
Armytek Dobermann: 0.25*450² / 1250 = 40.500

No change here, just a linear transformation

 

[torchsarecool]

I guess (beam distance)^2 / lumens (or max candela / lumens) would be better indicator.

beam distance / lumen:
Nitecore EC4SW: 238 / 2000 = 0.11900
Thrunite TN12: 218 / 1050 = 0.20762
Eagtac GX25A3: 284 / 832 = 0.34135
Armytek Dobermann: 450 / 1250 = 0.3600

So it seems GX25A3 and Dobermann are "equal" throwers? I don't think so.

beam distance^2 / lumen:
Nitecore EC4SW: 238² / 2000 = 28.322
Thrunite TN12: 218² / 1050 = 45.261
Eagtac GX25A3: 284² / 832 = 96.942
Armytek Dobermann: 450² / 1250 = 162

Now there's some difference between those two! Also, you can easily distinct the four different classes: a flooder, biased to flood, biased to throw and a thrower. That is how I would classify those four flashlights.

Also, for reference same same flashlights on Herektir's scale
Note that beam distance = sqrt(max candela / 0.25), so
max candela = 0.25 * beam distance^2, therefore
max candela / lumen = 0.25 * beam distance^2 / lumen:
Nitecore EC4SW: 0.25*238² / 2000 = 7.0805
Thrunite TN12: 0.25*218² / 1050 = 11.315
Eagtac GX25A3: 0.25*284² / 832 = 24.236
Armytek Dobermann: 0.25*450² / 1250 = 40.500

No change here, just a linear transformation

Think that's getting somewhere now. If this was standardised and provided as a rating by manufacturers it could be useful for consumers

 

[flashy bazook]

Let me throw out (sorry about the bad pun!) another definition/measure to use for classifying flashlights into throwers and non-throwers:

Throw Indicator = Lux per Amp draw

What this does it looks at the electricity consumed by the flashlight relative to the Lux achieved.

Why is this better than the distance per lumen formula proposed in other earlier posts? Because the lux formula already contains lumen and implies the distance (if you know the lux you can calculate the distance), so there is no more information by combining the two quantities again.

Instead it is better to compare the lux to the current, since that gives you the efficiency with which a given flashlight achieves its throw. As many mentioned, there are plenty flashlights that can achieve long throw, but do it by very large lumen outputs. If another flashlight can achieve the same distance throw by lower current, it can do so for a longer runtime, and it is therefore a more efficient thrower.

Maybe then we then also need an actual definition of a thrower using words:

Thrower definition = "A thrower is a flashlight that can illuminate a given target by a given amount of light farther than similar flashlights and more efficiently".

So here we see that we need to compare similar flashlights (otherwise someone will show up with a shoulder-carried 5 pound flashlight and tell you your own smaller flashlight doesn't throw as far, even if your own flashlight is evidently an excellent thrower).

OK, so what do we get if we apply the definition I propose above plus the formula for realistic flashlights?

In my own flashlight list I use a 3-scale thrower list from highest to less high: T** (for the most effective throwers), T*, and T. (I have other classifications for general use, floody flashlights, etc.).

I only have one T** flashlight, a 1x18650 Vihn modified flashlight that gets a Lux/Amp Draw of 29.

In the T* category, I find an Oveready throw-designed Surefire 6P type drop-in, with a Lux/Amp Draw of 3.

(I am using round numbers here for simplicity!).
(
This seems like a big gap, and indeed I have also other T* with Lux/Amp Draws between 5-10 (the XR-E LED based Malkoff drop-ins M30 and M60 fall into this category; for those who don't know, they have always been classified as thrower drop-ins and they contain an optic). Also a nail-bender drop-in with a smooth reflector achieves a high (T*) thrower index.

In the T category you find flashlights that can serve general purposes but also somehow achieve a decent lux score for their current draw. The classic McGizmo Ti-PD-S has a score of about 4 for example.

Of course you will get difficult cases. The Malkoff drop-in M91B, which uses the XP-L LED, achieves an 8, but clearly it does so using 3xLiIon batteries. So on one point of view you'd say it is not quite comparable to 1x or 2x cell lights. On another point of view, if you are happy to carry it, you'd be pleased to know that its high lumen plus use of the XP-L can achieve a T* performance.

Anyway, this is my approach to the thrower issue, I've worked with it using my flashlight collection for some years and I am happy with it, I hope that others here find it helpful as well. Many thanks to the OP for bringing out this quite interesting topic to a wider audience!

 

[D6859]

Let me throw out (sorry about the bad pun!) another definition/measure to use for classifying flashlights into throwers and non-throwers:

Throw Indicator = Lux per Amp draw

What this does it looks at the electricity consumed by the flashlight relative to the Lux achieved.

Why is this better than the distance per lumen formula proposed in other earlier posts? Because the lux formula already contains lumen and implies the distance (if you know the lux you can calculate the distance), so there is no more information by combining the two quantities again.

I like your approach, but i think distance (^2) / lumen is better since you don't need to open the box nor the flashlight to calculate the ratio. On the other hand you have to trust the manufacturer's specs if you just read the labels on the box.

Your right about lux <--> distance relation but wrong about lux <--> lumen relation. Yes, lux unit formula, 1 lux = 1 lm / m^2, includes lumen unit, but as lux readings are measured like candela in the hotspot (at 1m), high lux reading does not yield high overall emittance (lumen reading) as well as high lumen reading does not yield high lux reading.

In terms of mathematics if you consider function lux(x,y) the illuminance in point (x,y) at 1m, the lux reading given by the manufacturer is the maximum of lux(x,y) in some point (x,y) in the hotspot at 1 meter and the lumen reading given by the manufacturer is the integral of lux(x,y) over every point (x,y) at 1 meter (it's a spehere but you could limit to 2D projection on the wall without making great error). This is why the lumen meters are called integrating spheres. The integral does not tell you about the shape of the graph of a function (the function could be constant, e.g. "wall of light" flooder), nor does the maximum of a function tell you about the integral over all points (the function could have only one high peak, e.g. laser).

Therefore binding the lumen and lux/distance/candela together makes sense. Maybe the ratio lux/lumen might make sense as it gives you the ratio of peak to overall emittance. But to norm these numbers, you should know the area over which the integral is calculated (i.e. the width of a "standard" beam). After norming 1 would yield total flooder and higher numbers more and more throwy.

I'm not saying your idea is bad, I'm just trying to defend the distance^2 / lumen idea Also good that we have a definition for a thrower now. The formula I use would be useful with the definition: "Flashlight that doesn't spill lumens."

Tl;dr: I'm an unemployed mathematician with a flu and too much time to write.

Edit: Also to compare the "throwerness" between different classes, e.g. EC4SW (2x18650), Dobermann Pro (18650) and GX25A3 (3AA) the ratio distance^2 / lumen feels more suitable.

 

[bykfixer]

Regarding the OP's question. What defines a thrower isn't simply how far it throws. I think some people on these forums can make a fairly immediate judgement on the type of light by glancing at the lumens to distance ansi ratings. The equation going on in our heads will be how relative the beam distance is to the lumens. If we create a simple formula to work this out we can create a scale in which a light could be categorised a flooder or a thrower based on an overall performance.
If we said
(beam distance in meters) / (lumens) =
Work out extreme ends of the scale from a pure flooder to a pencil beam and maybe split into 4 equal points along the scale. Then we could categorise as follows
1. Flooder
2. Biased towards flooder
3. Biased towards thrower
4. Thrower
Like tornados we could have category 4 throwers

I'm still diggin' on the 1-4 category thing.
But what number ratio would define each category? Ratio for Cat 1, for Cat 2 etc.

Another light I use that is my battery sipper tunnel beam..the Streamlight TL 2 LED (gen II). At 160 lumens it's rated to throw about 1.2 meters per lumen.

To me anything that has a distance of 1 meter (or more) per lumen is biased to throw.
Anything less than 1 meter per lumen is not.

If you have a light rated at 600 lumens that throws 300 meters, to me that aint a thrower. Sure it lights up to 900+ feet, but it also lights the area nearby killing night time vision for focusing on distant objects.

At least for this user, thrower means placing light onto something at a given distance without killing my nearby night adjusted vision. Less light is required to create the night/day contrast of a distant object.

An example again using the TL2 vs my PK FL2.
The 650 lumen PK throws 30m farther overall than the 160 lumen TL2. But the flood of light by the giant spot causes my eyes to have trouble making out distant objects vs the pencil beam of the TL 2, which causes distant objects to appear brighter even though they are not.

Here's why I like the distance/lumens instead of cd/distance.
The cd/lumens is a good indicator as well.

Cd/lumens:
TL2 is 9000 cd at 160 lumems = 56.xx
FL2 is 12000 cd at 650 lumens = 18.xx
Big diff!!

Cd/distance:
TL2 is 9000/190 = 47.xx
FL2 is 12000/220 = 54.xx
Not much diff to indicate throw or flood

Distance/lumens:
TL2 is 190/160 = 1.2
FL2 is 650/220 = 0.33.
Again the +1 is a thrower, a less than one is not.
At least in terms of adapted night vision.
A ratio of nearly 3 lumens per meter vs a near 1:1.

Plus lumens and distance are written on the package. Candella more times is not.

 

[seery]

For me, the definition and expectations of a thrower is an evolution, continually changing.

As technology advances, so do my expectations and definitions of what is a thrower and how should it perform.

Here is a rough timeline:

1970's = 25 yards
1980's = 50 yards
1990's = 100 yards
2000's = 300 yards
2010's = 500 yards

 

[flashy bazook]

I like your approach, but i think distance (^2) / lumen is better since you don't need to open the box nor the flashlight to calculate the ratio. On the other hand you have to trust the manufacturer's specs if you just read the labels on the box.

Your right about lux <--> distance relation but wrong about lux <--> lumen relation. Yes, lux unit formula, 1 lux = 1 lm / m^2, includes lumen unit, but as lux readings are measured like candela in the hotspot (at 1m), high lux reading does not yield high overall emittance (lumen reading) as well as high lumen reading does not yield high lux reading.

In terms of mathematics if you consider function lux(x,y) the illuminance in point (x,y) at 1m, the lux reading given by the manufacturer is the maximum of lux(x,y) in some point (x,y) in the hotspot at 1 meter and the lumen reading given by the manufacturer is the integral of lux(x,y) over every point (x,y) at 1 meter (it's a spehere but you could limit to 2D projection on the wall without making great error). This is why the lumen meters are called integrating spheres. The integral does not tell you about the shape of the graph of a function (the function could be constant, e.g. "wall of light" flooder), nor does the maximum of a function tell you about the integral over all points (the function could have only one high peak, e.g. laser).

Therefore binding the lumen and lux/distance/candela together makes sense. Maybe the ratio lux/lumen might make sense as it gives you the ratio of peak to overall emittance. But to norm these numbers, you should know the area over which the integral is calculated (i.e. the width of a "standard" beam). After norming 1 would yield total flooder and higher numbers more and more throwy.

I'm not saying your idea is bad, I'm just trying to defend the distance^2 / lumen idea Also good that we have a definition for a thrower now. The formula I use would be useful with the definition: "Flashlight that doesn't spill lumens."

Tl;dr: I'm an unemployed mathematician with a flu and too much time to write.

Edit: Also to compare the "throwerness" between different classes, e.g. EC4SW (2x18650), Dobermann Pro (18650) and GX25A3 (3AA) the ratio distance^2 / lumen feels more suitable.

Hi there D6859,

many thanks for taking the time to explain these difficult concepts. I certainly learned a lot more than I knew before about lux/lumen formulas.

I see your point about the integration operation "destroying" information about the shape. And you are right, in general.

My non-mathematician understanding was based on a simpler approach where the integration operation is done over a simple geometry, resulting in the formula:

Lux = Lumen divided by beam cross-sectional area.

In layman's terms, each LED has a fixed beam angle. This is then fed into the geometry of the flashlight reflector, and perhaps further through an optic, giving the final lux measurement given a lumen input.

But, another way of thinking is this: once we fix the LED and flashlight geometry, if we are able to pump more lumen out of the flashlight (say, by increasing the current we feed to the LED), we also increase the lux.

That's why I came up with the Lux per Amp draw as a useful measure.

Maybe I am a bit influenced also by my strong focus on runtime in flashlights, which led me to be interested in a measure that combines the lux and the current draw.

Anyway, as you explained your measure more it does sound like it could be an interesting approach, I hope to find some time to input it into my database and maybe see how it correlates with the measure I propose, or how it classifies flashlights that I know about to see if I agree with its classification scheme.

To be continued!

 

[D6859]

Distance/lumens:
TL2 is 190/160 = 1.2
FL2 is 650/220 = 0.33.

I think you meant Lumens/distance, since you're talking about 650 lm light and you've calculated 650 (lm?)/220 (m?) and you then mention 3 lumens per meter.

So the correct values for
Distance / lumens are:
TL2 is 160/190 = 0.84 (comparable to none of my flashlights?)
FL is 220/650 = 0.34 (comparable 1:1 to my GX25A3 =0.34?)

For reference
Distance^2/lumens:
TL2 is 160²/190 = 135 (comparable to my Dobermann =162)
FL is 220²/650 = 74.5 (comparble to my GX25A3 =97)

I say comparable because the numbers are not equal but quite close to each other. Note that due to the power of 2 little changes in distance will have greater effect on the indicating number than small changes in lumens used. So if you have two flashlights with same lumen count, the throw matters more. Rough examples follow: EC4SW which has double the lumens but almost the same throw as TN12, has only about half of TN12's indicating number. It is a flooder. On the other hand Dobermann has twice the throw with half the lumens, so it has 8 times EC4SW's indicating number. It is a thrower.

Since candelas and distance have relation distance = 2*sqrt(cd) or, cd = 0.25 * distance^2, I think cd / distance is the worst indicator. Using the previous equation cd / distance = 0.25 * distance^2 / distance = 0.25 * distance. For example: TL2 is 9000/190 = 47.xx, and if you count 0.25 * 190, you get the same ~47. You obtain no new information by counting the one 4th of the distance.

 

[torchsarecool]

D6859

Thanks for explaining very eloquently what I had in my head. Youre clearly a very clever mathematician. I feel we should settle that the formula is

DISTANCE^2/LUMENS

All that remains is to decide what value is 50/50 flood to throw. Then maybe allocating categories to define flashlight types based on the value against that scale (I hope that makes sense)

 

[D6859]

Interesting notion while playing with a spreadsheet:
Armytek Dobermann Pro: 450^2/1250 = 162
Armytek Predator Pro v2.5: 368^2/560 = 241 (!!!)

Here I've used selfbuilt's estimates, 368 metres with 560 lumens, since AT provides only LED lumens. So could you say Predator is more "throwier" than Dobermann? Dobermann throws farther, but Predator seems to spend less lumens per metre. On the other hand Dobermann is much smaller than Predator, and XP-L HI might be more efficient than XP-G2. Now the runtimes, amps and the size come to question. Or should we call it a draw and let them both be throwers?

Please, feel free to collaborate to the spreadsheet:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18yg-Tiw4cRQLcJPG1FBPlvRXYw-nkn9rs9SKlY1NP6w/edit?usp=sharing

All you have to do is add name of the flashlight, max lumens and max throw or max candelas. Everything else is automated (and locked).

 

[D6859]

D6859

Thanks for explaining very eloquently what I had in my head. Youre clearly a very clever mathematician.

All that remains is to decide what value is 50/50 flood to throw. Then maybe allocating categories to define flashlight types based on the value against that scale (I hope that makes sense)

Thank you

It's hard to say what's the limit for 50:50 flood to throw. As in my previous example, Dobermann and Predator have huge difference between them even though I'd call them both throwers. DP has a lot more spill than Predator but they both have same 40° angle. So the extra lumens spilled by DP make it less throwy.

So what happens if you have two pieces of same light and you turn them on?
Throw is multiplied with sqrt(2), lumens multiplied with 2.
So let Ind = throw^2 / lumens.
Now Ind_2 = (sqrt(2) * throw)^2 / 2*lumens = 2*throw^2/2*lumens = throw^2/lumens = Ind.

So the throwerness index of this new dual-light is equal to the thrower index of a single light. Does that make sense?

 

[bykfixer]

I think you meant Lumens/distance, since you're talking about 650 lm light and you've calculated 650 (lm?)/220 (m?) and you then mention 3 lumens per meter.

So the correct values for
Distance / lumens are:
TL2 is 160/190 = 0.84 (comparable to none of my flashlights?)
FL is 220/650 = 0.34 (comparable 1:1 to my GX25A3 =0.34?)

For reference
Distance^2/lumens:
TL2 is 160²/190 = 135 (comparable to my Dobermann =162)
FL is 220²/650 = 74.5 (comparble to my GX25A3 =97)

I say comparable because the numbers are not equal but quite close to each other. Note that due to the power of 2 little changes in distance will have greater effect on the indicating number than small changes in lumens used. So if you have two flashlights with same lumen count, the throw matters more. Rough examples follow: EC4SW which has double the lumens but almost the same throw as TN12, has only about half of TN12's indicating number. It is a flooder. On the other hand Dobermann has twice the throw with half the lumens, so it has 8 times EC4SW's indicating number. It is a thrower.

Since candelas and distance have relation distance = 2*sqrt(cd) or, cd = 0.25 * distance^2, I think cd / distance is the worst indicator. Using the previous equation cd / distance = 0.25 * distance^2 / distance = 0.25 * distance. For example: TL2 is 9000/190 = 47.xx, and if you count 0.25 * 190, you get the same ~47. You obtain no new information by counting the one 4th of the distance.

Yeah, that's pretty much it.
I had shown the D/L of the TL2 backwards. That kinda screwed things up after that.

TL2 being a bit less than a lumen per meter (thank you for the corrected math) and FL2 still being nearly 3 lumens per meter.

Taking it back to 'weaker' lights for a bit. The 28 lumen microstream with 52m throw vs a 70 lumen ProTac with a 47 m throw.
Microstream has a near 2:1 meters per lumens ratio.
Protac has way less than a meter per lumen. About 0.6:1 ratio.

Now for up close work all that extra math you guys cite plays out in my mind. I know the 70 lumen light up close will not be much more harsh than the 28 lumen one.
Repairman scenario:
If I'm trying to peer into the inside of a usb hub to ensure all of the peanut butter sandwich that got crammed in there is gone I know that 28 lumen microstream light is going to be pretty harsh. I'll pick the protac for it's low setting, but not because of the lesser lumens but for how those lumens are dispersed.

I think we're all singing the same song here. But in a language we each understand in our own way.

It's probably best that ansi leaves out any further data. Heaven knows the public has enough trouble figuring out the info already provided.