MagCharger WA01160 vs Tigerlight

FlashlightOCD

Enlightened
Joined
Apr 7, 2003
Messages
931
Location
Central FL, USA
I just got a WA01160 bulb from Ginsengs group purchase [Thank you Ginseng]. I made some lux measures on the hotspots of each light, I had to measure from 2 meters else the meter OF's.

MC w WA01160 = 820 x 10 x 4 = 32,800 lux
TigerLight = 505 x 10 x 4 = 20,200 lux

Both lights had charges topped off, and both lights have UCL lenses [the MagCharger UCL cracked during the test].

Edit: Oops ... forgot that the meter was at the x10 scale, edited to correct above numbers.
 

jtivat

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 14, 2002
Messages
2,375
Location
Grand Rapids
Here is a beam picture.
{07BABB71-6CFA-4422-8500-6D4C12512798}lg.jpg
 

FlashlightOCD

Enlightened
Joined
Apr 7, 2003
Messages
931
Location
Central FL, USA
[ QUOTE ]
Bullzeyebill said:
FlashlightOCD, why did UCL crack? Too much heat?

Bill

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure. I noticed when I got this UCL lens that there was already a very small hareline crack on the lens edge. I'm sending a note to Chris at Flashlightlens to see what he thinks.
 

Dukester

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jul 31, 2003
Messages
1,107
Location
Washington State
[ QUOTE ]
FlashlightOCD said:
I just got a WA01160 bulb from Ginsengs group purchase [Thank you Ginseng]. I made some lux measures on the hotspots of each light, I had to measure from 2 meters else the meter OF's.

MC w WA01160 = 820 x 10 x 4 = 32,800 lux
TigerLight = 505 x 10 x 4 = 20,200 lux

Both lights had charges topped off, and both lights have UCL lenses [the MagCharger UCL cracked during the test].

Edit: Oops ... forgot that the meter was at the x10 scale, edited to correct above numbers.


[/ QUOTE ]

Did you notice a difference in runtime for the MagCharger Batt?
 

FlashlightOCD

Enlightened
Joined
Apr 7, 2003
Messages
931
Location
Central FL, USA
[ QUOTE ]
Dukester said:
Did you notice a difference in runtime for the MagCharger Batt?


[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, I did not do a runtime test, but I would assume the WA01160 will run the battery down much faster.

I'm pretty sure PhaserBurn was doing some comparisons between stock MC batteries and PowerStream 1/2 D batteries, maybe you can find his post, or maybe he will see this one and provide you with a real answer.
 

jtivat

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 14, 2002
Messages
2,375
Location
Grand Rapids
I don't know about the stock battery but with the PS batteries I get just over two hours with the stock bulb and only 35 min with the 1160.
 

Phaserburn

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 30, 2003
Messages
4,755
Location
Connecticut, USA
From the post FlashlightOCD is referencing:

I recently purchased the Powerstream 1/2D's for my Magcharger with intent to run a Welch Allyn 01160 bulb (5V, 3.45A, billyuns of lumens... well, alot anyway). My question was, is there a difference between these cells and the stock ones? There is a stated capacity difference of 2200 vs 2500mah. But how about the performance? I ran two tests for voltage and current. The first was on freshly charged cells. The second was after 10 minutes of runtime on each using the M/C and 01160 bulb. The results:

Fresh off charger -
Mag Stock - 6.84V, 3.65A
Powerstream - 7.17V, 3.75A

After 10 Mins runtime -
Mag Stock - 6.26V, 3.53A
Powerstream - 6.41V, 3.64A

Seems the Powerstreams are a good investment if you are intending to run the same combo I am (which I have additionally outfitted with UCL (D size works) and Clip 'n' Grip (which significantly assists in carry-ability). I got 10 for $36, shipped. There is no reason to get them shrink wrapped; they fit fine as is.

The results of this combo with PS batts/01160 exceeds the Tiger in hotspot, throw AND spill, in any comparison you care to conduct. The Tiger has a better shaped hotspot, but otherwise places second to what I call the "Magcharger +".
 

flashlightlens

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Nov 12, 2002
Messages
134
Location
flashlightlens.com
The UCL is pretty well equipped to handle the thermal requirements dished out by most flashlights. Did I tell you about the time Michael Teig and I left a UCL equipped TL face down on a desk for about 3 minutes, then shoved it into a bowl of snow? - No cracks - No problem - A little condensation on the inside, but it tolerated it without any issues.

So why Borofloat? Well, it's a bit tougher out of the box than UCL. Thermal expansion of a lens doesn't seem to be a real big issue with flashlights and the heat they generate. Borofloat is simply a harder glass than the UCL, so it will prove more durable in everyday use. However, most of the time the reduction in durability is worth the 5% more light transmittance provided by the UCL glass.

FlashlightOCD - The existing crack was definitely a problem. Maybe one out of every three of four hundred lenses I ship will get damaged by the USPS. I'd be happy to send a new one out to you so you can continue your enjoyment of the WA/MagCharger setup. Email replied.
 

brightnorm

Flashaholic
Joined
Oct 13, 2001
Messages
7,160
[ QUOTE ]
jtivat said:
Here is a beam picture...

[/ QUOTE ]
J, I'm still puzzled why the 10x outperforms the M6/500 so strongly and why the M6/250 so closely matches the M6/500's performance.


[ QUOTE ]
FlashlightOCD said:[/i]

Sorry, I did not do a runtime test, but I would assume the WA01160 will run the battery down much faster.

[/ QUOTE ]
Any chance of a runtest?

Brightnorm
 

FlashlightOCD

Enlightened
Joined
Apr 7, 2003
Messages
931
Location
Central FL, USA
Brightnorm,

The M6 is a great light producer but it is not real strong in throw, since the pictures were taken to demonstrate throw I suspect that is why the M6/250/500 do not show a big difference. Trust me when I say that the M6/500 will light up a room significantly better than a M6/250. I think jtivat answered your question concerning run time, I do not have the equipment to produce a runtime plot if that is what you are asking for:

[ QUOTE ]
jtivat said:
I don't know about the stock battery but with the PS batteries I get just over two hours with the stock bulb and only 35 min with the 1160.

[/ QUOTE ]

Flashlightlens,

Exceptional customer service [as always]. Thanks!

[ QUOTE ]
flashlightlens said:
... FlashlightOCD - The existing crack was definitely a problem. Maybe one out of every three of four hundred lenses I ship will get damaged by the USPS. I'd be happy to send a new one out to you so you can continue your enjoyment of the WA/MagCharger setup. ...

[/ QUOTE ]
 

js

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Aug 2, 2003
Messages
5,793
Location
Upstate New York
jtivat,

I have seen this comparison beam shot photo many times now, and what REALLY puzzles me is why the SF P91 HOLA doesn't show up at all. From my experience, even the 6 volt P61 can keep up with the TL to some extent. The beam shots must have been of a VERY long throw test for the P91 not to show up at all. From my experience, even the P61 at least shows up where the TL shows up, except at VERY long distance. What's the deal here? I mean the P91 puts out something like 200+ lumens, given SF's conservative rating policy, and the TL puts out 275 or so lumens. Why doesn't the P91 show up on those pictures?
 

jtivat

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 14, 2002
Messages
2,375
Location
Grand Rapids
[ QUOTE ]
js said:
jtivat,

I have seen this comparison beam shot photo many times now, and what REALLY puzzles me is why the SF P91 HOLA doesn't show up at all. From my experience, even the 6 volt P61 can keep up with the TL to some extent. The beam shots must have been of a VERY long throw test for the P91 not to show up at all. From my experience, even the P61 at least shows up where the TL shows up, except at VERY long distance. What's the deal here? I mean the P91 puts out something like 200+ lumens, given SF's conservative rating policy, and the TL puts out 275 or so lumens. Why doesn't the P91 show up on those pictures?

[/ QUOTE ]

It does show up it is very hard to see in the smaller picture here is the larger version of it.
{8431676A-3613-45A4-A9AB-2934A16C86D6}lg.jpg


The test was done at 150' and the P91 is not a very tightly focused light so it is much dimmer at this range.
 

js

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Aug 2, 2003
Messages
5,793
Location
Upstate New York
JT,

I'm a little confused. Is this a joke, because I can't see anything but black in the picture above!!!

hmmm.
 

Spectre

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Oct 2, 2002
Messages
123
Location
Oslo, Norway
It is not a joke, I cant see much on my screen either, but if I change the viewing angle (on my laptop screen) I can see some details. You can also try increasing the brightness/contrast on your screen.

Bjorn
 

Ginseng

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Feb 27, 2003
Messages
3,734
Yeah,
Play with the contrast, brightness and angle(if LCD). I see the dimly lit target just fine.

Wilkey
 

js

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Aug 2, 2003
Messages
5,793
Location
Upstate New York
I see it now. Thanks.

Wow! Is the TL that much brighter at 150 feet? I never would have guessed it. Is it possible that there is something wrong with my TL? What could go wrong? Battery? Lamp? I haven't yet put 8 cycles on the battery, given that phaserburn (I bought it from him) said he'd only used it for less than an hour, or something like that anyway. I have never run the battery down, never used the light when it showed the least signs of dimness, and I was told that it has the latest generation bulb. So I'm not sure what could be wrong with it, but it just doesn't seem THAT much brighter than my P61, even at long range. Should I send it back to TL for a look over? Or buy a new LA? How would I know if the battery was compromised?
 

Phaserburn

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 30, 2003
Messages
4,755
Location
Connecticut, USA
js, that TL was charged after use around 3 times. In my comparisons, it was fully functional with no issues. I was told it was the latest gen lamp assembly when I purchased it. Unless a problem has occurred since I had it, it isn't defective in any way.
 

js

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Aug 2, 2003
Messages
5,793
Location
Upstate New York
[ QUOTE ]
Phaserburn said:
js, that TL was charged after use around 3 times. In my comparisons, it was fully functional with no issues. I was told it was the latest gen lamp assembly when I purchased it. Unless a problem has occurred since I had it, it isn't defective in any way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Phaserburn,

I am very happy with my TL, and also with the great deal you gave me on our trade. The UCL was a real plus, too. I did not for a second--and I mean that literally--doubt that you sent me a light that you considered to be in like new condition. I thank you again.

What gives me pause are these beam shot comparisons. When I go out in the dark and use my D2w/P61 HOLA and my TL, it just doesn't seem like the TL kicks enough butt on the P61, like it should. And I do PLENTY of very long throw tests in the 150+ feet range. The TL is every bit as bright as when I got it, and I have not dropped it or over depleted the batteries or anything. What I was suggesting was not that you knowingly sold me a messed up light, but that perhaps you got a TL with some problem or another and didn't know it. Did you compare the TL you got against another TL? I don't know, I never would have questioned anything except for those comparison beam shots. It just seems like the TL should be brighter than mine is, so I just wondered if there were things I could check, or have checked out. Just wondered if anything could possibly go wrong to account for it.
 

Phaserburn

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 30, 2003
Messages
4,755
Location
Connecticut, USA
js, no problem; could it be that the TL, while very bright, does have a larger spot? The TL throws very well, but at ranges of 150+ feet, it may just not have as tight a focus as the P61. How do they compare close range in the white wall test? If it's brighter there, it's brighter and producing more lumens overall but with less focus. Just a suggestion. No, I only had the one TL, but was comparing it to other lights.
 
Top