how does eagletac put out so many lumens. seem to be the one to beat?

295 lumens from 2 cr123's. 220 lumens from 2 aa batteries. I dont see anything else around that compares to them when it comes to output. I just got my d10 today and i am thinking i need something that puts out alot of lumens. This could turn into a sickness. I like the sound of the t-10L , 255 lumens for over 2 hours, 60 lumens for 13 hours. They sound great. I would have to get a 18650 battery and charger though.

They exaggerate their claims, plain and simple. A given battery only holds so many watt hours of energy, so unless one light has a much more efficient emitter then the other (and there isn't anything that is that much more efficient then the Q5 right now) it can't produce more lumens without sacrificing run time.

A good example of this is the TK11. Fenix claims 225 lumens for 2.7 hours with an 18650. Sure the light makes 225 lumens with a fresh battery and sure it goes 2.7 hours before output falls to 50%, but in no way does it make 225 lumens for 2.7 hours. As reviews, and my real life experience, has shown the TK11 falls out of regulation very quickly and output diminishes throughout the run time. Compared to other lights which claim 225 lumen for 1.5 hours on an 18650 and hold flat regulation. That's not to say the TK11 is bad, I'm happy with mine, it just can't break the rules.

Axion said:

They exaggerate their claims, plain and simple. A given battery only hold so many watt hours of energy, so unless one light has a much more efficient emitter then the other (and there isn't anything that is that much more efficient then the Q5 right now) it can't produce more lumes without sacrificing run time.

A good example of this is the TK11. Fenix claims 225 lumens for 2.7 hours with an 18650. Sure the light makes 225 lumens with a fresh battery and sure it goes 2.7 hours before output falls to 50%, but in no way does it make 225 lumens for 2.7 hours. As reviews, and my real life experience, has shown the TK11 falls out of regulation very quickly and output diminishes throughout the run time. Compared to other lights which claim 225 lumen for 1.5 hours on an 18650 and hold flat regulation. That's not to say the TK11 is bad, I'm happy with mine, it just can't break the rules.

Click to expand...

WELL SAID!:thumbsup:

Paper lumens are always nice take an example of Jetbeam they were the nicest lights ever but always failed to deliver. Take the manufacturer specs with a grain of salt and look for independant reviews, the average folk wouldn't really bother check for runtimes or have a integrating sphere to test the lumens so the manufacturer usually gets away with the false claim. Just like MPG in cars.

They all use the same batteries.


They all use the same emitters.



So ya' can't hardly expect one model to
magically and mysteriously "clobber" everything else.


:thinking:


It's just, ummm, "creative marketing".


Of course, Your Mileage May Vary.


Of course. :devil:

_

295 emitter lumens under perfect bench testing conditions with no loss due to thermal buildup or electrical resistance and in a total vacuum, maybe. In a light? Probably not. Better to focus on the light's build quality, ergonomics, and beam pattern than to get too hung up on lumen claims.

and again , i learn more about flashlights. From their claims of lumens, i would think they would be the hottest thing going. Makes sense though, I would love for one of these hardcore guys to test them and see what they will do. I like the 18650 light they are showing. would that light be regulated for that battery? Or will it slowly dim as the battery drains?

If you need throw get the Dereelight DBS
18650
http://www.dereelight.com/dbsv2.htm

If you want total output get a SSC-P7 light.
3D
http://www.king-cart.com/cgi-bin/ca...ser-id=&password=&exchange=&exact_match=exact
18650
http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.12809

Axion said:

They exaggerate their claims, plain and simple. A given battery only holds so many watt hours of energy, so unless one light has a much more efficient emitter then the other (and there isn't anything that is that much more efficient then the Q5 right now) it can't produce more lumens without sacrificing run time.

Click to expand...

But they DO sacrifice run time. So it is possible that they are not exaggerating their claims.

First hand experience (but completely subjective) is that the Eagletacs are not any brighter than any other light with the same emitter. They do, strangely, have a greener tint than any other lights I have with the same emitter. I'm color blind, and my T10C made me say 'wow, that looks green' when I first turned it on. My P10C has a slightly green tint. Compared to my Nitecore (fairly neutral white, maybe a HINT of blue) and my Fenix T1 (pure white), they just look different. And to be honest, the green tint on my Eagletacs actually makes them look dimmer than my other lights.

This is a typical situation of exaggerated claims if you put it mildly, or ... lies, if you say it clearly.

Unfortunately a lot of manufacturers use estimated emitter lumens for light output of the flashlights, not taking into account the massive losses everywhere. Others just simply lie.

It warms my heart to see that the members of CPF seem to gain the upper hand again see through the veil of deception and judge a light for what it is and not what it claims to be.
Well done, guys ! :thumbsup:
This is what CPF is made for.

bernie

* over 200 lumens
* for more than 2 hours
* with either 2 AA, 2 CR123 or 1 18650
is VERY difficult and up to almost a lie

possibly only with a good 18650, but no way 250+ Lumen
(by sept. 2008)

The lumen lies are getting out of hand. I quit buying lights other than Surefires, Arcs. Nitecore also changed their rating to "torch lumens" instead of the widely used and useless emitter lumens, although I don't think they test their lights.

Ceiling bounce testing

Just did a ceiling bounce test comparing my Nitecore EX10GD with my Jetbeam Jet II IBS, and my EagleTac T10C. I used the same battery in each light and ran through the test twice.

EX10GD on high= 4.7 Lux @ 1.04A battery current.
Jet II IBS on high= 8.1 Lux @ 1.28A battery current.
EagleTac T10C on low= 2.9 Lux @ 180mA battery current.
EagleTac T10C on high= 12 Lux @ 1.8A battery current.

Re: Ceiling bounce testing

cheetokhan said:

Just did a ceiling bounce test comparing my Nitecore EX10GD with my Jetbeam Jet II IBS, and my EagleTac T10C. I used the same battery in each light and ran through the test twice.

EX10GD on high= 4.7 Lux @ 1.04A battery current.
Jet II IBS on high= 8.1 Lux @ 1.28A battery current.
EagleTac T10C on low= 2.9 Lux @ 180mA battery current.
EagleTac T10C on high= 12 Lux @ 1.8A battery current.

Click to expand...

Do you have any other lights to compare with the EagleTac? Like a Fenix TK10, T1, etc?

You're getting 1.8A of current off 2xCR123's?

Kiessling said:

This is a typical situation of exaggerated claims if you put it mildly, or ... lies, if you say it clearly.

Unfortunately a lot of manufacturers use estimated emitter lumens for light output of the flashlights, not taking into account the massive losses everywhere. Others just simply lie.

It warms my heart to see that the members of CPF seem to gain the upper hand again see through the veil of deception and judge a light for what it is and not what it claims to be.
Well done, guys ! :thumbsup:
This is what CPF is made for.

bernie

Click to expand...

Agreed:
https://www.candlepowerforums.com/posts/2611779#post2611779

Re: Ceiling bounce testing

WadeF said:

Do you have any other lights to compare with the EagleTac? Like a Fenix TK10, T1, etc?

You're getting 1.8A of current off 2xCR123's?

Click to expand...

That's 1.8A from a single CR123.
I just got the light meter so I haven't played with it much, but later tonight, I'll make a chart of all my lights.

Re: Ceiling bounce testing

Another point of consideration is at what point are you sending so much current through the LED that you are causing permanent damage. Any manufacturer can just up the current until instaflash occurs.

I personally believe that 150 lumens (out the front) is about the current sustained max that a single Cree Q5 can deliver without permanent lumen losses. A flashlight could deliver more for a short time period if it had a thermo regulated boost mode. I believe well respected designers like Henry (HDS) and Peter (ARC) wouldn't even run a Cree at 150 lumens for very long. You just can't build a heatsink good enough for sustained operations.

It probably isn't the smartest thing to disagree with a crowd this enthusiastic, but I think you will see why I do it. Have any of you commenting actually read a review, let alone owned one? To put it simply, the CR123 models are the brighest out there, just as the OP assumed. Of course I agree that the lumens are exaggerated, but no more than other companies, leaving them at the top. Yes, runtime takes a serious hit on high. But no more the the JETBeams, which are not as bright. And on low (general) they are the first company to surpass Fenix's efficiency. In terms of build quality, yes, they claim too much, but I for one won't let that distract me from the fact that their build quality is up there with Dereelight, and better in some ways.

In summary, yes, the claims are exaggerated just like almost every other flashlight company out there. But that does not change the fact that they currently produce the brightest and most efficient CR123 (1 or 2) Q5 based lights.

I don't think their numbers are exaggerated. It's stated in the sales thread that they are emitter lumens. If the T10C shows 1.8A at the cap, it is easily putting out 220 lumens at the emitter.