Flashlight origins leave me hanging.

My dad recently gave me his issue of Invention & Technology magazine (spring 2007 Issue, Vol. 22, No. 4) because there was an article about the origins of the flashlight.

Interesting read, but something near the end of the story kind of ticked me off.

...By the 1970s many customers saw the general-purpose flashlight as essentially disposable, less valuable than the batteries inside. Countering this perception is the popular Maglite, introduced in 1979 by Mag Instrument. Initially marketed to police departments and other public-safety entities, the rugged and stylish Maglite appealed to consumers as something worth keeping, with the heft and glamour of a weapon. Sometimes it actually is a weapon; the original Maglite was designed to perform double duty as a truncheon....

Then the article goes on to mention flashlights made for the military....

...They are bright enough to be used for signaling from several miles away. Consumer flashlights based on military models come with such refinements as laser light sources and xenon-filled bulb, along with various attachments and accessories. One boasts that it is "bright enough to temporarily blind and disorient a person by impairing his night-adapted vision" and features a "crenellated strike bezel" for "enhanced self-defense capabilities."

Is it just me, or does that second part sound a little condescending or at least uninformed? Why mention Maglite by name and not the other company, which is almost certainly Surefire. Whether or not it is SF, why be so vague about it? Why don't other companies deserve a mention? (Eveready is the only other company named in the article.)

I'd never heard of Invention & Technology before this, but judging from the name I'd expect a story published in 2007 to touch on the amazing advancements made in recent years and not just crap out with the 1970s. Of course, I'm looking at this from a flashaholic viewpoint, but come on...I couldn't care less about how rugged and stylish the Maglite is, tell me more about these newfangled crenelated thingy dings that can blind someone!

Perhaps I'm being too critical. I'm not looking to spark a Mag vs. SF debate, writing is a hobby of mine and this article just stood out as being poorly researched and, being about flashlights, I thought it would be nice to discuss with likeminded individuals.

As a side note: The rest of the magazine was really good. Very interesting, informative articles and few advertisements. In fact, of the 56 pages there were only TWO ads; Forbes Travel and Forbes Auto (the magazine is affiliated with Forbes.) Reminds me of what Popular Science was like 15 years ago.

AyeMayanor said:

Perhaps I'm being too critical. I'm not looking to spark a Mag vs. SF debate, writing is a hobby of mine and this article just stood out as being poorly researched and, being about flashlights, I thought it would be nice to discuss with likeminded individuals.

Click to expand...

Exactly! A perfect example of poor research. I see it all the time in other areas where a story is written with no regard to fully investigating the subject matter. Many writers are devoid of expertise and don't want to spend the time necessary to understand what it is they intend to write about. Is this a sign of the times?

I use this type of article as an indicator of the journals (newspaper, magazine, tv show) overall credibility.

It's frustrating when writers/talking heads and their editors know little or nothing about what they're spouting and either don't realize or don't care about the consequences.

"If it wasn't true, than they couldn't print/say it."

What about Streamlight and Kel-lite. That started the Aluminum tube light? Someone should write them a letter. It's like saying Ford made the first car, cars with ABS, and air bags.

I quit buying and reading magazines many years ago because of this type of pulp journalism. What is boils down to, basically, are uninformed, unmotivated, sloppy writers who try to be as accommodating to as many reader tastes as possible. Vague, Politically Correct, predictable, with a twist of indignant "so there" attitude in everything they write.

The science and astronomy magazines unraveled in the early 90's IMHO. All dumbed down and goofy articles, often outright condescending and insulting to the OLD readership. Great magazines like Sky & Telescope just lost the aura of learning and knowledge. They became pimps for advertising, filled with biased short and poorly written reviews that were afraid to tell the truth about "product X" because "product X" ran several large full color full page ads in their magazine. Blah. You could really tell they were gunning for a different audience and market altogether… to be all things for all people and sell as many copies as possible while doubling up on the advertising. And "upgrading" to super full glossy pages (for advertisers, not the readers). Bump the price $1 every few years too… the new inks made my allergies flare up too! :laughing:

They were right about the disposable flashlight of the 70's. I remember as a kid (in the 60s) being totally disapointed whith my flashlights. A single drop and the sheet metal body would dent so badly that the battery (carbon-zinc) would jam. They never worked in an emergency, since the batteries would leak if left in the light for a year. At that point the inside was so corroded that it was useless.

I also remember the first Maglites. They were quite a step up from the standardly available eveready 2 D light. I loved them. They were worth praise when they first came out.

As for magazines..... I find most of today's magazines are worthless for gathering information. A recent Scientific American had an article about robotics by BILL GATES! He knows nothing about the subject, yet he took advantage of the magazine to assert that new code from Microsoft will make robots easier to design and use. He ignored the real enabler; the smaller and more powerful batteries combined with the more powerful and cheaper processors.

But I digress. It would be graet if we had some good science and tech magazines again. Anyone know of any?

Daniel

Sometimes I go away from an article thinking that that subject was just handed to the writer that week and he did the best he could, assuming he had no interest in the subject beforehand. I've almost come to expect mediocrity from most forms of journalism. With a few exceptions.

One ironic example happens once in a while on tech stories covered on TV. I've noticed that on the tube even a well researched and well written tech piece (and a few other subjects as well) will often be edited for mass consumption and lose almost everything worthwile in the process. The ironic thing is that the the photographer, directed or not, often shoots video or stills that often show some detail that is absolutely at the very heart of the subject. Since TV is a visual whore, they always show the pictures/footage -- even though this crucial info has been cut from the 'happy talk.' I've noticed this on subjects that I am really interested in and thus more familiar with.

It also occured to me that perhaps the mention of M/\G and not SF could be a form of paid product placement. Advertizing works (or doesn't) in mysterious ways. It's creepy to say this but I think many authors will default to cheap-shotting out and just mentioning things (like M/\G) that a mass demographic will be familiar with -- the reader will feel smarter that way than he would if he were given a whole bunch of new facts to deal with.

I'll cop to having a generally cynical view of most reporters / authors.

Before Mag-Lite came on the scene in 1979, you could buy similar heavy aluminum police flashlights in nine brands made by five manufacturers. So they weren't an innovator in the sense of the basic product (although their switch was a huge improvement over others) but Mag did do two things other companies didn't.

First was quickly getting their flashlights into efficient mass production so they could lower prices. Second was widespread advertising. Both are important aspects to a business and in that sense they did "counter the popular perception" because while Mag was getting their name into public, their competitors stuck with selling in cop shops and quickly folded.

But, of course, the reason they mentioned Mag in the article is probably paid advertising or the bias of an editor.

Wikipedia seems to have a much better grasp on things.

Cydonia said:

[...]The science and astronomy magazines unraveled in the early 90's IMHO. All dumbed down and goofy articles, often outright condescending and insulting to the OLD readership. Great magazines like Sky & Telescope just lost the aura of learning and knowledge. They became pimps for advertising, filled with biased short and poorly written reviews that were afraid to tell the truth about "product X" because "product X" ran several large full color full page ads in their magazine.[...]

Click to expand...

Yep. Pretty much like the photography mags...after a one year subscription, you knew what they were going to write for the next year. Now I only pick up telescope or photog magazines if I'm in the market to buy...they've become nothing but catalogs.

I made the mistake of buying a 2 year subscription to Popular Science a few years back without having picked one up since I was a kid. "I liked it then, I should like it now." Well, that magazine sure went down the crapper. I don't recall reading anything of substance, just bad computer generated diagrams and ads on every other page.

ToyFare, the toy magazine I have been subscribed to for 6 years, hasn't been overrun with ads yet but I find myself questioning why I renew. By the time I receive the newest issue I have already seen everything online, often with better reporting and pictures.

ABTOMAT said:

Before Mag-Lite came on the scene in 1979, you could buy similar heavy aluminum police flashlights in nine brands made by five manufacturers. So they weren't an innovator in the sense of the basic product (although their switch was a huge improvement over others) but Mag did do two things other companies didn't.

First was quickly getting their flashlights into efficient mass production so they could lower prices. Second was widespread advertising. Both are important aspects to a business and in that sense they did "counter the popular perception" because while Mag was getting their name into public, their competitors stuck with selling in cop shops and quickly folded.

Click to expand...

Yes. I became a big promoter among my friends of Streamlights, which were expensive back then. Then Mag came into the scene with low-cost primary battery flashlights, and my friends were all over them. Eventually even I bought one of the 4D or 5D (I can't remember). It's bulb didn't last very long and when I tried to smack the bulb to get the filament to fuse together for a few more hours of use I broke the plastic bulb holder, ruining the light. I went out and got a SL-35 after that and was king again. Then Mag came out with their rechargeable.

I always wished Streamlight would have promoted more heavily to the consumer market. By the time they came out with consumer-grade product and got it into stores Maglite had become a word of the masses.

I'm thinking that Maglite was specifically mentioned because an Average Joe writer who does not know much about the subject will grasp onto anything familier to his mind. And, let's face it, like it or not, Maglite to many people is like "Scotch Tape" or "Kleenex". I have heard lots of people refer to many a small flashlight as a "Maglite".:sigh:

As far as i know, the Germans invented the "angle-head" torch just prior to or during the second world war, i have seen metal examples of this, (God, i'd love to get my paws on one now) I remember seeing one of these in the attic of a relative, along with a luger holster and about 2 gazillion reichsmarks, (useful only as TP to the GIs, and used for just that purpose, as i gather).
It was metal, (aluminum or tin i think) and painted a dark green with some type of german markings.
GOD, i wished i knew what happened to that thing. ;-(
I'm pretty sure the US .Gov got the idea of the angle head from the Krauts, hell, we stole everything else, (tactics, Load bearing gear, rifle design, mess tin design, etc)
And why shouldn't we, they were good ideas.