Mini MagLite - is it really 3W?

They advertize it as 3W, is that really so?

Great light, good value, but?

It uses a 3W (LuxIII) emitter. It does not drive that emitter at 3W.

I don't have any way to measure the draw from that one, but I think it's well worth the price..

I really wish people would stop making references to the "wattage" of LED based flashlights. It is such a widely abused method of marketing, it is totally worthless.

well... the luxeonIII was is and will forever be rated for 3watts for power.

so they are not really abusing the term.

they did NOT say they drive the luxeonIII at 3watts. who told you they did??

Certainly not the 2 cell. My first metered tests show the 2AA light runs around around 1 watt average. With fresh cells it peaks at about 1.4 watts, 0.45-0.48 A, times 2.7-3.0 V. This data is for the whole light, not just the LED, which will get around 85% of this. The balance is lost as heat in the driver circuit. This matches current expectations when 2500 mA cells get 4-4.5 hours run time.

Reports show the 3AA and especially the 3D, are brighter. One may assume they are driven harder, but I have no data yet.

NextLight said:

......which will get around 85% of this.

Click to expand...

You may be being a little generous with the Mag's efficiency - I would be more apt to knock 5-10% off that figure.

chesterqw said:

well... the luxeonIII WAS, IS and WILL be rated for 3watts for power.

Click to expand...

Documentation of this? Official documentation too, not the stuff CPF has been saying for years.

Actually a Luxeon III Star or Emitter can be driven as high as 5W
http://www.lumileds.com/pdfs/DS46.PDF
http://www.lumileds.com/pdfs/DS45.PDF

The correct references are Luxeon, Luxeon III, Luxeon V, Luxeon K2, etc. The designations are not necessarily indicative of the wattage levels that they are driven at.

chevrofreak said:

Documentation of this? Official documentation too, not the stuff CPF has been saying for years.

Click to expand...

What's the difference between a Luxeon I and a Luxeon III? All this time, I incorrectly thought the roman numeral indicated the maximum wattage.

There used to be easily visible differences between the Luxeon (I) and the Luxeon III emitters, but that is no longer the case - they are identical to inspection. The Luxeon III stars have a thicker 'star' heat sink than the Luxeon (I) stars, but thats about it.


I personally believe that the emitters are identical and come off the same fabrication lines, the only difference being that the Luxeon (I) is binned at 350 mA drive current, while the Luxeon III is binned at 700 mA drive current and sold for a little bit more.

They are.

wasBlinded said:

I personally believe that the emitters are identical and come off the same fabrication lines,

Click to expand...

That, unfortunately is a common misconception, and is perpetuated by various vendors using that as marketing jargon on their collateral.

thematrix said:

What's the difference between a Luxeon I and a Luxeon III? All this time, I incorrectly thought the roman numeral indicated the maximum wattage.

Click to expand...

I've taken some measurements at the tailcaps, and they showed:

2AA version

2.46V (alkalines) x .40 A = .984 Watts (1watt)

2.54V (lithium) x .46 A = 1.17 Watts


3AA Version

4.2 V x .630 A = 2.65 W

(i never checked the readings with lithiums in the 3AA)

The 3 cell version is much closer to using 3W than the 2AA, which when you compare the brightness side by side is evident.

dragoman

chesterqw said:

...they did NOT say they drive the luxeonIII at 3watts. WHO told YOU?

Click to expand...

What's with the hostility? I was just making a general reference to the use of "wattage" which is totally meaningless because of all the marketing white lies perpetuated by 90% of LED flashlight vendors in the business.

Are you saying that even though the owner's leaflet states alkies only I probably won't have any problems with e^2 lithiums?

If it's of any consolation, the text on that leaflet is carried over from the incandescent lights. Can't say that you won't experience shortened product life with the higher voltage lithiums, I don't think anyone can truthfully tell you with any certainty if it might shorten the life of the light given that the light has only been out a couple of weeks, and it's not likely that Mag may have tested it with these batteries (or at least they're not commenting on it.)

BigusLightus said:

Are you saying that even though the owner's leaflet states alkies only I probably won't have any problems with e^2 lithiums?

Click to expand...

I think there has been a lot of misinterpretation that has led to this "Watt" business with the LEDs. The mainstream consumer understands numbers and is of a "mo watts, mo betta" mentality, hence the rush to Watts rating that some of the marketing people (and their writers) may not fully understand. We all know that "watts" sells and that people keep falling for it; it's been going on for almost 50 years over multiple generations with audio equipment with people regularly buying equipment based on a watts rating that has nothing to do with the audio SPL or the quality of the audio output. So why not use it with flashlights?

CM said:

What's with the hostility? I was just making a general reference to the use of "wattage" which is totally meaningless because of all the marketing white lies perpetuated by 90% of LED flashlight vendors in the business.

Click to expand...