WOOHOO!!! NEW QUARKS ARE HERE!!!

[Gaffle]

These lights are perfect for someone like me who does not own a Quark. I would rather go for the most bang for my buck, even if its just a little more bang.

It is funny that for a long time lights were rated via emitter lumens. We all knew that something like the Jetbeam C-LE wasn't really spitting up 100 lumens OTF, but thats what it was rated at, 100 lumens. Even Fenix lights at were not rated via OTF. Now companies are all about the OTF lumens. Then 4Sevens stepped it up a notch with the ANSI rating. Whew, its enough to get us flashaholics all sweaty!

Well measuring light in a sphere for x amount of time shows that in a lot of cases the lights do run at their maximum lumen rating, but not for long. Some lights do better and some lights drop a lot in 3 minutes. For those of you who have not read the sphere stickie here you go. It is interesting how much light is lost in a short time.

In doing a brief search I cannot find how a flashlight is rated via ANSI lumens. I just assumed in the ANSI test the light was measured in a sphere for x amount of time. I found a site which talks about a standardized test for flashlights via ANSI, but not how the test is conducted. It seems that most ANSI tests right now are for front projectors.

 

[OKWalker]

Thanks to 4sevens for staying on the cutting edge.

 

[flatline]

In doing a brief search I cannot find how a flashlight is rated via ANSI lumens. I just assumed in the ANSI test the light was measured in a sphere for x amount of time. I found a site which talks about a standardized test for flashlights via ANSI, but not how the test is conducted. It seems that most ANSI tests right now are for front projectors.

If I remember correctly what I've read from other posts (maybe even in this thread), "ANSI lumens" is the output after the light has been running for 3 minutes which is always lower than when the light first starts up since the LED temp has risen (and LED are less efficient at higher temps). So these new "ANSI lumens" are more honest about what you can expect to get out of the light in regular use.

--flatline

 

[jamie.91]

Would i be better off buying a warm tint mini123 instead of a S2 mini 123 ?

jamie

 

[kaichu dento]

Would i be better off buying a warm tint mini123 instead of a S2 mini 123 ?

jamie

That would be my personal preference but it depends on your tastes. If you like neutral or warm tints then absolutely but the warm R4. I'm carrying the warm AA MiNi and have no interest in the S2 until it at least reaches the 5x tint range.

 

[flatline]

Edit: Ignore this post. I was clearly out of my mind when I posted it. I'd delete it, but people have already quoted it so in fairness to them, I'm just adding this disclaimer. Just so nobody is confused, a 7% increase in output does not imply a 7% increase in throw (which was the stupid mental leap I had apparently made when posting this).

=====Begin original post=======

While it's true, as many of you are saying, that 7% increase in brightness is basically imperceptible, it's not true that a 7% increase in throw is basically imperceptible.

This might be a good light for someone whose throw needs are barely met by the current XP-G Quark.

Just saying.

--flatline

 

[jamie.91]

thankyou kaichu dento

I have a MiNi 123 already and eventhough i apperciate 4sevens pusing the limits, as i own a mini 123 already i cannot see a reason why this one is worth the extra money when i already have basically the same thing

i would much rather have a warm tint mini123 as i have never owned a warm tint led ligh before, my only concern is the lumen decrease.

thanks jamie

edit; flatline, is 7% more throw from 7% more light a correct statement ? im not questioning you i just dont know and it doesnt sound accurate ? sorry :/

 

[mr.snakeman]

So how close does the S2 tint come to the desired tint "same as new fallen snow" (my want)? Does anybody know? Please tell.

 

[flatline]

edit; flatline, is 7% more throw from 7% more light a correct statement ? im not questioning you i just dont know and it doesnt sound accurate ? sorry :/

Hmm...no, it's not accurate. I guess it's an optimistic upper-bound.

If Y lux is the minumum lux to usefully illuminate an object, then since lux diminishes with the square of the distance, then if an R5 light can project that many lux X feet, then the same light with an S2 will project that many lux about 1.034*X feet.

Sorry about that.

Edit: Even my new number is a bit optimistic. If Y is correct at X distance, then when X is increased, Y needs to be increased similarly since the light reflected back to the flashlight user also diminishes with the square of the distance. Since the light reflected back doesn't benefit from a reflector or optic like the light emitted from the flashlight, this might actually be the dominant factor. I'm watching the little man right now, but if I can get a moment to concentrate, I'll see if I can't come up with the proper equation for describing this.

--flatline

 

[AnAppleSnail]

So how close does the S2 tint come to the desired tint "same as new fallen snow" (my want)? Does anybody know? Please tell.

The S2 is not a tint.
P, Q, R, S, and so on are not tints. Tints are something like A-D or so. Sometimes they're called W-, like WC or WG.

 

[Henk_Lu]

So how close does the S2 tint come to the desired tint "same as new fallen snow" (my want)? Does anybody know? Please tell.

David didn't tell us what tint he got, the XP-G R5 were 1A IIRC and I guess, he got the same one here. If he got the same tint-bin, the S2 is exactly the same emitter, just more powerfull.

Here's a Cree tint chart :

http://img199.imageshack.us/f/ansiwhite.jpg/

In theory those emitters are pure white, but in reality white is a mix of red, blue and green . The light emitted by a LED is blue and the phosphor acts like a filter and changes the light to white. To reach pure white, teh phospor must be present in th exact quantity and exactly spread out. Quite a difficult task I guess...

 

[kaichu dento]

thankyou kaichu dento

I have a MiNi 123 already and eventhough i apperciate 4sevens pusing the limits, as i own a mini 123 already i cannot see a reason why this one is worth the extra money when i already have basically the same thing

i would much rather have a warm tint mini123 as i have never owned a warm tint led ligh before, my only concern is the lumen decrease.

thanks jamie

No problem, especially as it appears we are both in the same boat here.

 

[jblackwood]

Yep...and from what you flashaholics say, it's often hard to even tell a 100 lumen difference in the real world eye so there's nothing groundbreaking about a 7% increase.


**

It's actually all relative, as it often is with organic systems like the brain and eye. It would be quite easy to tell the difference between a 4 lumen and a 104 lumen light, especially in total darkness. I imagine the difference between a 2000 lumen light and a 2100 lumen light isn't so easy to detect, though.

Talking numbers is quite a noob thing to do, in my opinion. It's what I used to do when I first started in this hobby and I soon started to realize that, at least for me, chasing the latest, greatest, most bright light wasn't the way to go. If you just have to have the brightest, latest light out there and I've offended you, my apologies. I prefer to consider things like new clip designs, reflector performance, lithium cell compatibility, clicky design (forward or reverse?), and lastly, but most importantly, user interface (UI).

I'm just sharing my opinion, here. When you're shopping the Quark brand, though, I think you're really paying a premium price for a quality design that's durable and dependable, especially when you factor in their warranty. Since Peter remembers his roots, he's chosen to continually get the most bright, most recent LEDs that are available to put into his lights. That keeps lumen hounds happy and folks like me satisfied as well, since he got a lot of CPF input when designing his Quarks. They're not the MOST durable (no potted electronics, only one spring) but they don't claim to be weapon lights. I love them.

Just to be clear, any discussion here about the rating system now being used for the Quarks can only help to enlighten, especially when comparing with other lights. After all, when they first came out, all the Quark numbers were lower since 4sevens used out the front lumens instead of lumen ratings at the emitter.

Hope I didn't offend or belittle anyone with my words, that's all they are, after all. Whatever our motivations for getting these great lights, there's one thing I hope we all can agree on:
lovecpf

 

[wyager]

Let's try this-I'm pretending the luminous flux can be measured in mW (well, it can, I guess...)
100mW @ 500mRad @ aperture, assuming an ideal 0 thickness beam
at 100 feet, the beam width is 54.6 feet across.
pi*27.3*27.3=2341.4sqft
100mW/2341.4sqft=.04271mW/sqft

Now, if 7% brightness increase corresponds to the same lux at 7% more distance, then we should get the same power density at 107 feet. assuming the same beam characteristics, at 107 feet the diameter is 58.45. pi*29.225*29.225=2683.23sqft.
107mW/2683.23sqft=.039877mW/sqft.

Okay, so we know that 7% more light does NOT mean 7% more throw. Now, let's calculate the power densities with a 7% distance increase INCLUDING bounceback to the user (ie, the reflected light that makes the image). I'm assuming a perfect mirror here, but it shouldn't matter.
500mRad@200ft=109.26 feet across, area 9375.89
500mRad@214ft=116.91 feet across, area 10734.8
100/9375.89=.010666mW/sqft
107/10734.8=.009968mW/sqft

so, put simply, a 7% brightness increase gives you well below a 7% throw increase.

 

[get-lit]

While it's true, as many of you are saying, that 7% increase in brightness is basically imperceptible, it's not true that a 7% increase in throw is basically imperceptible.

This might be a good light for someone whose throw needs are barely met by the current XP-G Quark.

Just saying.

--flatline

With the same reflector and emitter size, lumen output is an inverse square relation to throw distance, and a 7% increase in lumen equals 3.440804327886% increase in throw: 1.07^1/2 = 1.03440804327886

Also with the same reflector and emitter size, 7% more lumen would produce 7% more illuminance in lux, which would be perceived as 2.28% brighter according to the Stevens' Power Law of brightness perception of a light source in the dark, but that difference is not beyond the threshold of perception according to the Weber law of just noticable difference (JND) of light intensity of 7.9%. You shouldn't be able to detect it as being any brighter.

 

[Lucciola]

Well as nice as those ANSI lumens may be: Why for Crees sake they don't mention just *both* values to make the new S2 comparable with their current range?

Where is the problem of advertising a value according to the old testing method and one according to ANSI standard?

This would save us from a lot of guessing. But probably this would reveal how small the difference is?

It may be impossible to calculate OTF-lumens from ANSI-lumens with a simple formula. But especially when trying to introduce a new standard there should be some help for the customers during the transition phase. To include the OTF ratings according to the old method would be extremely useful. At least it would give a general idea of the approximate equivalent values.

Lucciola

 

[mon90ey]

I think I asked the same question in post #10---

https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/298369



lovecpf

 

[Lucciola]

I think I asked the same question in post #10

What if Columbus went to the new world and nobody ever followed? What if Lindbergh would have made the last successful attempt?

Oh, and me too: lovecpf

Lucciola

 

[get-lit]

4sevens is incorrect when they say it's 7% brighter. It would have to have 22.5% more lumen to be 7% brighter! So obviously they meant it had 7% more lumen.

Given that, we could compare the ANSI lumen of an S2 model with the OTF lumen of the same R5 model, weighted by 7%. You should then have your ANSI/OTF conversion factor.

 

[davidt]

I think I may have a way to compare OTF lumens to ANSI lumens.

4sevens says there is a 7 percent increase in lumens going from R5 to S2. The Maelstrom G5 S2 wasn't measured using ANSI method (at least it wasn't mentioned). Switching from R5 to S2 led increases the lumens from 350 OTF to 375 OTF. This is a 7.1 percent increase.

The quark 123^2 turbo R5 was rated at 230 OTF lumens so if there was a 7.1% increase in switching the led only then it would become 246.4 OTF lumens.

Well the new quark 123^2 turbo S2 is rated 200 ANSI lumens. This would give an equivalence of 246.4 OTF lumens = 200 ANSI lumens.

So.....

(ANSI lumens) X 1.232 = OTF lumens