Surefire E2 equivalent in LED - possible yet??

Looking at the stats for the JetBeam II with 2AAs in place, it would seem to coming close to the E2. Is this true, or am I missing something like a narrower beam? Is there another pocket sized LED that gets even closer to the Surefire's level of wide, high quality output? (Preferably with the option of running on rechargeable cells.)

The JetBeam seems to be an impressive light in general...

PS The last time I used this forum I got BAD food poisoning. If anyone is infectious, please don't answer this post....

Hello meanwhile

I'm not infectious

Since the SF E2 (there are a few models) is an incan, it's not easy to say, which led light is comparabel.

Take a look at:
Flashlight Reviews and LED Modifications

and compare the throw and beam characteristics.

Best regards

_____
Tom

LongJohn -

I don't understand your reply. Why should incans and LEDs be hard to compare? Light is light. The last time I bought a light, the E2 was gold standard bright-and-wide EDC sized light. I'm simply asking whether the JetBeam is now reasonably close.

Thanks for the link - but I've seen the tables you linked to - that's where I got those stats from. What I'm asking is whether in the opinion of experienced users the Jetbeam is reasonably close to matching the E2 for output now.

L4?

meanwhile said:

LongJohn -

I don't understand your reply. Why should incans and LEDs be hard to compare? Light is light. The last time I bought a light, the E2 was gold standard bright-and-wide EDC sized light. I'm simply asking whether the JetBeam is now reasonably close.

Thanks for the link - but I've seen the tables you linked to - that's where I got those stats from. What I'm asking is whether in the opinion of experienced users the Jetbeam is reasonably close to matching the E2 for output now.

Click to expand...

Sorry meanwhile but it's not easy for me to understand your reply

My post was only a tip. Light is not light.
There is a difference between Led light output and incan.
You have simply asked whether the JB is nearly close to the E2 and has seen the tables?

I found for the E2 36,41 for throw and 40,00 overall output, for the JB with the highest configuration 28.28 throw and 27 o.output.

So the answer must be NO.

Best regards

____
Tom

Re: Surefire E2 equivalent in LED - possible yet?? JetBeam ??

Long John said:

Sorry meanwhile but it's not easy for me to understand your reply

My post was only a tip. Light is not light.
There is a difference between Led light output and incan.
You have simply asked whether the JB is nearly close to the E2 and has seen the tables?

I found for the E2 36,41 for throw and 40,00 overall output, for the JB with the highest configuration 28.28 throw and 27 o.output.

So the answer must be NO.

Best regards

____
Tom

Click to expand...

Tom/LongJohn

Pulling a degree on physics on you:

1. Light is light. A photon is a photon. Incans and LEDs can be compared - indeed you just did so yourself.

2. The eye is a logarythmic detector. That means a difference of say 30%-ish (like the one you refer to above) can actually be quite insignificant. Or not. It depends, because the human eye is complex. But in general if two light sources are within 30% of each other for intensity I would say that they are probably quite comparable as far as a user is concerned - if other qualities of light are equal.

BUT - as said, the human eye is complex. And those figures you keep referring are rather crude tools (as the guy who complied them says - comparative beamshots are hugely better). So I'm asking what people who have seen the JetBeam and E2 think. Really - it isn't as simple as you think.

don't give us a degree here... some may have more...

back on topic, a pelican M6 2390 should compare quite well.
the Night-Ops Gladius can fight too.
now now, both of the LED light has MORE throw then the incan. the output is around
5% lower for the Night-Ops Gladius
and 10% lower for the M6 2390.

note that both have regulation
the incan has nothing other then direct drive.

chesterqw said:

don't give us a degree here... some may have more...

Click to expand...

You'd have preferred me just to state my opinions without (minimally) justifying them?

Well, this is the Internet...

back on topic,

Click to expand...

...Because actually understanding what we are talking about is obviously unimportant and undesireable...

Really: if you've been comparing lights in the crude way that you seem to be representing, you've been wasting time and making some serious mistakes. I appreciate your and Tom/LJ's trying to answer my question, but you do seem
to have some very serious mis-conceptions.

a pelican M6 2390 should compare quite well.
the Night-Ops Gladius can fight too.
now now, both of the LED light has MORE throw then the incan. the output is around
5% lower for the Night-Ops Gladius
and 10% lower for the M6 2390.

Click to expand...

People talk about throw as if it is always a desireable quality. As I said, I'm looking for a bright-and-wide beam. With the same overall output, a beam with LESS throw might actually be better for me.

The Gladius is OTT pricewise. The M6 is very interesting, although possibly the beam is over concentrated for my needs.

note that both have regulation
the incan has nothing other then direct drive.

Click to expand...

Regulation is definitely an excellent thing. The M6's regulation circuit doesn't seem to be very effective though, judging by Flashlight Review's runtime graph (and this is something you can judge easily from a graph).

Re: Surefire E2 equivalent in LED - possible yet?? JetBeam ??

meanwhile said:

Tom/LongJohn

Pulling a degree on physics on you:

1. Light is light. A photon is a photon. Incans and LEDs can be compared - indeed you just did so yourself.

2. The eye is a logarythmic detector. That means a difference of say 30%-ish (like the one you refer to above) can actually be quite insignificant. Or not. It depends, because the human eye is complex. But in general if two light sources are within 30% of each other for intensity I would say that they are probably quite comparable as far as a user is concerned - if other qualities of light are equal.

BUT - as said, the human eye is complex. And those figures you keep referring are rather crude tools (as the guy who complied them says - comparative beamshots are hugely better). So I'm asking what people who have seen the JetBeam and E2 think. Really - it isn't as simple as you think.

Click to expand...

I don't need a degree on physics!

1. The light of this different sources has different wave lenghts, different color temperatures, so it looks completly different.
You stated light is light and a photon is a photon. So the red light of a red Led looks the same like the white light of a white Led for you?
My advice, go to an eye doctor.

Indeed, Incans and Leds can be compared, but all I have said " Since the SF E2 (there are a few models) is an incan, it's not easy to say, which led light is comparabel."

So f.e. you can compare a glas of milk with a glas of orange juice.

2. The difference of 30% isn't insignificant and I'm be able to see the difference. If you not, so my advice:
Go to an eye doctor.

My tip for you to look at the tables in FLR should be only a clue. And for that, it works.
For me and thousands of other people the FLR is very helpfull.

"Really - it isn't as simple as you think." I ask me, who of us is thinking it's simple. I doesn't said light is light.

I said "it's not easy to say".


____
Tom

Look at Surefire L4 if wide-and-bright is what you need (and not necessarily throw). It's not a complete flood like from a clustered LED light or if it had a diffuser (there's a definite hotspot with a diminishing spill), but it definitely puts out a "wall of light" The L4 can run on 17670 litihum ion rechargables.

A Streamlight Tasklight 2L or Pelican 2390 should work well too. The Pelican has very good runtime/regulation considering its output and cell capacity. Not sure if these'll run on rechargables or not.

Beam patterns aside, there will always be a difference between LEDs and incandescents that light meters, cold numbers, or graphs will never be able to quantify; only the eye can. If you could somehow get an incandescent and an LED to produce identical beams with identical output, the incandescent will still look more "natural" and the LED will look like cold white moonlight. LEDs seem to "wash out" if there's ambient light, and what you're looking at can look ghostly and two-dimensional. With an incandescent colors look more natural (the bulb closely replicates the light spectrum of the Sun) without the ghostly moon 2D effect.

That said, I (and many, many of us) find that incandescents work best outside while LEDs are great inside (or upclose).

Re: Surefire E2 equivalent in LED - possible yet?? JetBeam ??

meanwhile

You are making friends quickly!
I would be happy to compare academic qualifications with you, but they aren't worth a damn if they don't teach you unbiased observation.
I have an E2E. And a few LEDs as well. The measured and reported outputs of the E2E can be matched, but the colour temperature (and colour components ie not true broad-spectrum white, but an eye-fooling combination of LED blue plus yellow phosphor for LEDs) make the E2E beam hard to match with LEDs. It seems to be a superior tool for looking for things in the dark, compared to LEDs with similar throw and total output.
One solid test of light quality to me is simple- shine a 'white' incan on a red object, and compare to the intensity of the colour you see when you try a 'white' LED.

For what it's worth I really like the (relatively current-independent) colour of a WO binned Luxeon, but for me it isn't quite the same as the E2E in real-world applications. Maybe not worse, but certainly different. If to you a photon is a photon, try a TnC 27mm head with a UWOJ driven at 1000mA. Absolutely gorgeous, gorgeous beam.
Oh and here's a reference: people.csail.mit.edu/unamay/publications-dir/lro.pdf. And one for you if your eyes see like spectrum analysers: http://www.superbrightleds.com/specs/mr16-wALL-spectral.htm
I hope this answers your intended question.

meanwhile said:

Well, this is the Internet...

Click to expand...

Sometimes I can't believe, in which kind some people stated her posts.

Often people have questions and the replys should help them to get answers of their questions.

And all the comunication should be respectful to each other, and not irreverent.

But in such a case it could be a mirror of an unkind person, in real life AND IN INTERNET.

_____
Tom

Re: Surefire E2 equivalent in LED - possible yet?? JetBeam ??

Long John said:

I don't need a degree on physics!

Click to expand...

That's probably fortunate.

You stated light is light and a photon is a photon. So the red light of a red Led looks the same like the white light of a white Led for you?
My advice, go to an eye doctor.

Click to expand...

You missed off the qualfications I made throughout my several posts, and interpreted this statement in as silly a way as can be imagined: my (rather trite and obvious) point is, that if a photon is in a particular state it is irrelevant what source it was emitted from.

2. The difference of 30% isn't insignificant and I'm be able to see the difference. If you not, so my advice:
Go to an eye doctor.

Click to expand...

Really: this is just silly. It doesn't show anything except that you don't understand what "logarythmic response" means. (Possibly because I can never spell it right.)

Hold a very bright light 10cm from your eye. Now move it another 1.5cm. (Inverse square law means that the intensity will be have dropped 30%.) Can you tell the difference? No - either way you'll be blinded and in pain. Have some light 10 matches 5 miles away. Then have them light another 3. Can you tell the difference? No. In between these extremes, have a friend hold an Inova X5 pointing at a wall at distances of 1m and 1.15m. (Or 10m and 11.5m, whatever.) View the centre of the light through a narrow slit and guess the distance. Do this 10 times with a 5 minute gap between. You'll guess about half wrong, unless you're a freak or very lucky. (This is a standard lab experiment.)

I'm sure you *think* you know what a 30% difference in illumination looks like - but you're wrong. In fact, your eye routinely compensates for much bigger differences all the time - the difference between being indoors in bright room and outdoors under a bright sky can be tens and tens of times, but most people would perceive the difference as much less - because their eye is a logarthymic detector. Really: find out what this means, and then look up the scientific method too, and you'll understand how you're fooling yourself.

Long John said:

Sometimes I can't believe, in which kind some people stated her posts.

Often people have questions and the replys should help them to get answers of their questions.

And all the comunication should be respectful to each other, and not irreverent.

But in such a case it could be a mirror of an unkind person, in real life AND IN INTERNET.

_____
Tom

Click to expand...

Tom -

If you're ignorant, and resent people when they politely try to explain how things really are - which is how both you and Chester behaved - don't be surprised when you get a brisk reply.

If you then go on to be straightforwardly rude, combining this with some completely arrogant and false assertions as you did, then don't be suprised when the person replying doesn'y make any effort to save your face.

I tried my best NOT to make you look like an utter ignoramus, but not at the cost of either agreeing with your patently false opinions, or effacing myself to build your ego.

And as for Chester - pack loyalty is a wonderful thing, I'm sure. If it works for you guys, rah-rah.

I don't want offend against my own opinion, so I'm better quiet in this thread

Long John said:

Sometimes I can't believe, in which kind some people stated her posts.

Often people have questions and the replys should help them to get answers of their questions.

And all the comunication should be respectful to each other, and not irreverent.

But in such a case it could be a mirror of an unkind person, in real life AND IN INTERNET.

_____
Tom

Click to expand...

____
Tom

Long John said:

I don't want offend against my own opinion, so I'm better quiet in this thread

____
Tom

Click to expand...

Of course a certain type of person would say that this means you now know you've stated - very rudely - utterly indefensible opinions, and that not trying to defend these any longer under the pretence of good manners is simply the best option for you to save face...

I suggest that next time you think about good manners *before* posting that people who disagree with your opinions should see an eye doctor. And yes, I *do* have a vision problem - which is why I'm so particular about finding the right light - thank you for trivializing this. Don't forget to find someone in a wheel chair and make fun of them today too. Then there are the always the deaf - they're great fun...

This thread is DONE. It became meaningless.



--dan