waterproof headlight

[thatguyak]

Im looking for a waterproof headlight. I work in a shipyard pressure washing tanks, it gets very dark, very wet, and I'm using hot water so quite steamy. Does anybody know of a headlight that would be suitable, hopefully something under $50 but if it really works well and can take a beating ill pay more.

 

[DisrupTer911]

not under $50 but Spark's are very nicely waterproofed.

 

[Bolster]

Welcome! So you are looking for IPX6, 7, or 8 ratings. Have a look through the first thread referenced in my sig line for floody lights that have high IP ratings. You should consider the Pixa series, which is more or less purpose designed for work environments. Not super bright (although sufficient for close work, 25-30 lumen for 12 hours), and it's well sealed, long running, and built to take abuse. Comes in three different beam types, so you can pick what suits you best. Find them on Amazon for under $50.

http://www.petzl.com/en/page/pixa-headlamp-designed-specifically-professional

If you need more lumens than that, you have many choices from Princeton Tec, Petzl, SureFire, Spark, Zebralight, and so on. So many choices, in fact, you'll need to also make decisions on other variables (see the second link in my sig line).

 

[gcbryan]

Just because something is rated as waterproof doesn't necessarily mean it can handle pressure washing in a hot steamy environment. The Pixa does come to mind as it appears to be a study workplace type of headlamp but the best opinions would come from your fellow workers if they have a headlamp that has held up well in that environment.

 

[carrot]

I'd look at the Princeton Tec EOS too.

 

[Bolster]

Just because something is rated as waterproof doesn't necessarily mean it can handle pressure washing in a hot steamy environment.

I think this is an extension of the argument over whether IP ratings are cumulative or not. I think they are cumulative, others argue they're not.

While we'd all agree a high waterproof rating doesn't guarantee resistance against extreme pressure, such as a waterjet used to cut steel, or other extreme examples, if you take a look at the genesis of IP ratings, they appear to be ranked along a dimension of increasingly harsh work environments. So my advice is still to seek a high IP rating on your light. And, goes without saying, keep your light out of the direct stream of water; no need to tempt fate.

Yes, the PT Eos is a good recommendation. It would give you more throw than a floody Pixa, I think. Do you need to see close, or far?

 

[gcbryan]

I agree that you go for the higher rating but if there are some more industry specific headlamps out there (rather than general purpose) they might be more appropriate (maybe they don't exist?).

I haven't read the completel specs for the water ratings I guess but it depends on what they intend to convey. If the test is for water to 1 meter you're but using it where heat and steam and extreme pressure are factors then the ratings may just not apply.

O-rings that can handle the slow change in pressure of submersion in water might react differently to heat and sudden pressure. I used to work in an engineering area testing new products before they were certified for production. Static and dynamic pressures can have quite different results especially when you add high humidity and heat.

The EOS is a decent choice and it's not expensive and has a decent output. I haven't tried submerging mine:)

 

[robostudent5000]

I think this is an extension of the argument over whether IP ratings are cumulative or not. I think they are cumulative, others argue they're not.

i think it's also an argument about whether lights actually live up to their IP ratings. for example, searching through the forums, there seems to be a lot of anecdotal evidence of the Princeton Tec Apex leaking water despite its IPX7 rating, while the Streamlight Argo HP, which doesn't have an IP rating, seems to be pretty bomb proof. i'm not recommending either light, just using them for illustration.

one thing i would recommend is looking for a neutral emitter. neutral emitters create less glare off of airborne water. cool white light, which most LED headlamps produce, can create a lot of glare and in an enclosed environment with cascading jets and mist, i would imagine it could get blinding. the warmer the light, the more you'll cut down on that effect.

 

[Bolster]

neutral emitters create less glare off of airborne water. cool white light, which most LED headlamps produce, can create a lot of glare and in an enclosed environment with cascading jets and mist, i would imagine it could get blinding. the warmer the light, the more you'll cut down on that effect.

I did not know that!!

 

[gcbryan]

Turning the brightness down will go a long way in that regard as well.

 

[robostudent5000]

I did not know that!!

i can't tell if you're being serious. :confused:

Edit: might be i've been hanging out too much in the LED Flashlight sub-forum and have gotten used to the prevalent sarcasm there. i gotta stop hanging out there.

 

[Bolster]

No sarcasm...this is surprising to me, I honestly did not know you'd get less glare from warmer lights. I'm nerdy enough to find that very interesting. Obviously I wonder WHY that would be the case.

 

[robostudent5000]

here's some science that backs it up from a random paper i found online:

"Water is very slightly blue in color as overtone and combination vibrational absorption bands extend through the red part of the visible spectrum ... This absorption spectrum of water (red light absorbs 100 times more than blue light), together with the five-times greater scattering of blue light over red light, contributes to the blue color of lake, river and ocean waters."

so based on that i think we can conclude that the less blue you have in the light source, the less glare you'll get off of water.

there also seems to be a lot of anecdotal evidence of cool white LEDs creating a lot of glare in fog, rain, and especially snow compared to warm LEDs and incans.

most of my experience is based on watering my yard and washing my car at night using at first cool white headlamps and more recently neutral tint headlamps. i much, much prefer using warmer tints when there's water spraying around because of the reduced glare. same applies to night hiking near moving water and waterfalls.

 

[gcbryan]

here's some science that backs it up from a random paper i found online:

"Water is very slightly blue in color as overtone and combination vibrational absorption bands extend through the red part of the visible spectrum ... This absorption spectrum of water (red light absorbs 100 times more than blue light), together with the five-times greater scattering of blue light over red light, contributes to the blue color of lake, river and ocean waters."

so based on that i think we can conclude that the less blue you have in the light source, the less glare you'll get off of water.

there also seems to be a lot of anecdotal evidence of cool white LEDs creating a lot of glare in fog, rain, and especially snow compared to warm LEDs and incans.

most of my experience is based on watering my yard and washing my car at night using at first cool white headlamps and more recently neutral tint headlamps. i much, much prefer using warmer tints when there's water spraying around because of the reduced glare. same applies to night hiking near moving water and waterfalls.

I don't think I buy this although I'd love to be proven wrong.

I know that blue is the shorter wavelength and red the longer. Underwater red is the first color to go away but I don't think you get less glare from the tint. You might get less light and therefore less glare.

I've been diving with halogen and with HID (and LED). I can't see details with halogen and I can with the cooler HID and LED lights. Glare has to do more with beam angle, brightness and particulates in the water (or air).

I think that you like warm tints and therefore prefer their effect while washing your car. Generally when you have glare you have too much light.

Again, you may be totally right but I'd love to see a more definitive answer.

 

[robostudent5000]

i'm not sure if you're referring to effects under water or above water. i was talking strictly about the effect of glare above water. i don't know about lights under water, but since glare requires two different media, i'd think that it's not a real big problem under water. i guess if you have particulates in the water, then that would be a different story; but then correlation between tint and glare in that case depends on the reflective properties of those particulates. when we're talking about water in the air, water is the particulate. and since water reflects blue better than red, cool light should reflect more off the particulate (water) than warmer light.

try shining a cool white LED into lawn sprinklers at night and then try an incan. the difference should be pretty noticeable. well, at least they are to me.

Edit: if you're saying that it's easier to see under water with cool lights than warm lights, that makes sense since "red light absorbs 100 times more than blue light" in water. but that only applies if you're completely immersed in water. if you're dealing with water in the air, i think you want light that reflects as little off of water into the air as possible. and that would be warm light, not cool.

 

[MikeAusC]

Any headlamp that's not rated for Diving, I wouldn't use in such a wet environment.

I have an old Petzl 4AA Diving Headlamp I'm considering converting to LED for very wet use.

 

[gcbryan]

Any headlamp that's not rated for Diving, I wouldn't use in such a wet environment.

I have an old Petzl 4AA Diving Headlamp I'm considering converting to LED for very wet use.

That's interesting. I've never heard of or run into a diving headlamp unless it's something like the UK (I forget the model name) 2 AA flashlight that can be strapped to the side of the mask.
Do you have a picture or a link? Actually I always found it a bit annoying if a buddy used something like that since every time they look at you you get blinded :)