Is this really advancement?

In the lumens race there are more and more manufacturers offering greater output but only for a few minutes.
Is it really an advancement to have some led overdriven to 5k lumens for a few seconds? (exaggeration for dramatic effect. But you know what I mean)

Tony Rama said:

In the lumens race there are more and more manufacturers offering greater output but only for a few minutes.
Is it really an advancement to have some led overdriven to 5k lumens for a few seconds? (exaggeration for dramatic effect. But you know what I mean)

Click to expand...

It all comes down to physics. Less mass, less heat dispersion, hotter lights.

We don't even have to address the 'over-driven' aspect of modern flashlights.

Smaller lights get hotter, faster than larger lights, given the same ouput.

Chris

I'll answer that with my opinion. NO! To have a light that puts out 10,000 lumens for 3 minutes other then bragging rights is pretty useless. And then they will step down to 5,000 for 15 minutes. And then set down to 2000 where it will maintain till it's dead. Just get one that's 2000 to begin with. I'm sure that burst mode to Quote HDS might be useful in some rare cases in normal use it's pointless. And yes they are being driven so hard you have to wonder about dependability. Again this is my opinion take it as such. But I would much rather have a light that puts out 1000 lumens keeps at that level and is dead reliable.

I like turbo modes.
Most often I use them to just have a better look at something specific. Or too look after something (trail marking). These uses don't require hours at full power. Often just 2-3 seconds.

Depends - does the light have practically spaced and well regulated hi/mid/lo/moon modes? If it does, sure, add a 3 second turbo.

Seems more of the advancement has been at the mid end anyway. Look how long some lights are running at 250-300 lumens on a 18650 cell. 6 hours is common, which is phenomenal looking back at prior generations.

On extremely rare occasions I have wanted to use 1000 lumens in a hand held light. Otherwise, 500 is pretty much where my needs max out. The lumens race doesn't interest me. I'd much rather have longer run times in the 250-500 range.

In my opinion it's hardly an advancement. Lumen sells and while a short burst at super high brightness in some cases can has its use it's mostly used as a selling point to those who want to impress people. The very need for step down after very short time(I think I have seen as short time as 20s) in order to prevent the light to be damaged shows the light is heavily overpowered.

An advancement is sales technique, yes.
Advance in lighting technology? Let the buyer decide. I don't see it as an advancement and actually avoid them. Until the numbers provided are for steady output with a sidenote stating turbo potential I see it as false advertising much like a car saying 67mpg (coasting down hill) but 35mpg under normal conditions……

Let's be real. Stare at something out your window for a few seconds. 30 seconds is a long time. 15 seconds is a long time. 5 seconds is still a long time.

If, for instance, you want to know what a noise is, peek down an alleyway, or just try to see if that shadow is the landmark you're looking for, just 5 seconds is more than enough to identify what that is.

You don't always need 50 lumens. You don't always need 500 lumens. You don't often need 5000 lumens. But is the ability to have it when you want it nice? Oh, yes.

These days I often carry a light that's rated for max output of about 4000 lumens. If you ran it long enough (within seconds, honestly) it'd probably throttle itself to about 400 lumens to keep from burning itself (and me!). But most of the time I use it at 100 lumens, or possibly less. Moonlight is pretty handy, too.

When I ride my bike, I use it to illuminate the road ahead and make drivers aware of my location, and that's when I'll put it at maybe 500 lumens. More light is an advantage at speed and the airflow helps to cool it down. But as practical, everyday uses go that's where my lumens needs seems to end.

Sometimes I want to see what's really far away. It's kind of a floody light. Nobody could call it a thrower. But at 4000 lumens, it still reaches out there okay.

That said, at full power bouncing off the ceiling, it's not even as bright in a room as when all the lightbulbs are on. Put that into perspective!

I agree with carrot. Lights that are capable of three or four K lumens for a few seconds when needed are now single 18650 size, and even smaller.

"Is-this-really-advancement"?

Yes. Some people want recent advances in technology that provide more light per unit time in a smaller and/or same size package. I am in the process of adding lots of Osram W2.1 emitter, LEP emitter and SBT90.2 emitter lights to my collection.

Newly minted "Why do people keep collecting lights?/Is collectorism just raw naked consumerism?/When is enough enough?/Are offerings during the past few years worthy of purchasing?" type topics are a great way for me to keep on adding a few of my bits and bytes to the chatosphere. And a great way for me to continuously visualize other peoples' whirls of pisdom.

It would be useful for manufacturers to quote the max steady state output for their products. Then state the the overdrive spec. (There is no such thing as a "turbo" on a flashlight. That is just bullish*t for ignorant consumers).

We can see that it is an advancement for some people, and completely unnecessary and unwanted for other people. Seems like these days the best answer is usually, "It depends." Some want\need super high output, super low output, super reliability, super cheap, super fancy, or whatever. We ought to accept it all in a sense that one man's garbage is another man's E01.

Tony Rama said:

In the lumens race there are more and more manufacturers offering greater output but only for a few minutes.
Is it really an advancement to have some led overdriven to 5k lumens for a few seconds? (exaggeration for dramatic effect. But you know what I mean)

Click to expand...

The advancement from xhp70.0 to xhp70.2 is 3,600 lumens to 4000 lumens or more accurately to say about 165 lumens per watt at the emitter to 180 lumens per watt.

Whether or not the rest of the flashlight has improved, LEDs can be much brighter for the watts than they are right now.

In the 1960s, when LED technology was starting to be widely used, they were converting over 12 percent of the energy into light. By 2000 this was around 20%. Now in 2020 it's close to 30%, the maximum theoretical is 49.9% as a semiconductor can't reach 100% it is only pheasable for 50% minus losses.

We have a long way to go. For 1 hour runtime the tk75 from 2014 could put out around 1600 lumens or a little more with 8 18650s, now with 8 21700s the Imalent ms18 can output what, like 10,000 lumens for an hour?
That's a huge efficiency improvement. Yes the short MS18 runtime on max of 100k>75k>25k>15k lumens lasts but 1 minute, the fundamental increase in energy efficiency and energy storage has made lights of today leaps and bounds more advanced than 5 years ago.

Increased use of burst modes for 30 seconds of light is not B.S. when compared to the 1000 lumen burst modes of our past either, and any brand-focused improvement you see shows this as being basic fact: longer sustained runtimes, longer pushes at the same high mode being a previous lights' turbo mode, and brighter maximum settings.

Fenix lights still make light that has 15 minute runtime.
But Nitecores' push it till you fail attitude hasn't changed, it's just the Nitecore tm quads of the past with 4000 lumens for 30 seconds is replaced with the very thermally efficient tm9k with 9,500 lumens for yes, 30 seconds. The 21700 5000 mah battery having more than have the 4x18650s from the 2010 nitecore quads with only 2,500 mah batteries from the wrong provider.

In any case there is significant advancement in my opinion. New problems with LED thermal management are happening (in 2008 the biggest heat source in a flashlight was the driver)
Now that the efficiency has eclipsed 25 percent, the biggest heat source is the LED and that needs different design solutions.

Tony Rama said:

It would be useful for manufacturers to quote the max steady state output for their products. Then state the the overdrive spec. (There is no such thing as a "turbo" on a flashlight. That is just bullish*t for ignorant consumers).

Click to expand...

Many manufacturers are starting to specifically state this on the packaging and some retailers (batteryjunction) are also making this clear.

The confusion starts when one brand (fenix....ish for some of their lights anyway) states a mode that will last for a good few minutes and the Acebeam give you something the same size with double the output for only 30 seconds.

However I do still think even then these good common brands are indeed making it far more clear than 5 years ago what light output level is sustained and even then exactly how long before step down.

Fenix, acebeam, olight, Streamlight and many other companies now give you estimation curves for how long light lasts for each output level on the box and on the website.
The long-awaited transparency of these systems has become quite a reality in my opinion.

YRe: Is this really advancement?

To me bazar……that is true advancement. Truth? What a novel concept.

I got hollered at a few years ago for calling out one brand using inflated numbers to claim "worlds brightest". I used the word gimmick and it set off quite the fireworks for a day. It required a special battery, which was also new at the time and after about 22 seconds lowered it's high output to well below established numbers. I still applaud the designer for acheiving the intended threshold using what is now a fairly standard process for some. But I still say touting a light as worlds brightest was a gimmick to lure buyers. It was during a dark period of the lumen wars and seems to have run its course.

A friend sent me a light that touted 700 lumens from a double a battery. No Rayovac, Eveready or Duracell can put out the energy required to fire a light at that amount. Yet it said "AA Battery". It can however put out 675 lumens at the lens, breifly with a special aa sized rechargeable number. I actually like the cute little flashlight. I put their special battery in the box it came with and put in a lithium aa and enjoy the 200 lumens that puts out just dandy. 200 lumens from one store bought available nearly everywhere double a is a ​true advancement from not that long ago.

It appears some of these ultra high lumen flashlights are exactly that. They flash their overdrive for a few seconds or a minute or two. Traditionally a flashlight was something used on a camera. A torch is used for a constant output. (Pedantic word jugglery, but why not?).

Turbo just sounds more "tacticool".

One of my first LED flashlights has a turbo in the settings. Press for turbo, once it clicks release for hi. To me that was an idea that was great. Press again, you get turbo, release for low. I didn't really dig that though. Press again for turbo, release for off. I really did not dig that.

I remember when all the buzz was how long brand X's turbo held. But their product listed the high as the output with available turbo.

I see turbo / boost / overdrive / burst / plaid modes in EDC lights as occasional-use modes for single- to low double-digit duty cycles. The physics of heat dissipation dictates that the bulk of one's usage will be defined by sub-kilolumen output and the light should be optimized for this usage. Unlike the drivers of ~15 years ago that might have been limited to one output level, today's drivers can manage an arbitrary number of levels, thus turbo capability doesn't really cost anything to include and users need not sacrifice anything in the process.

Expectations should be established around sustainable output numbers by manufacturer and users alike, however one can certainly fault manufacturer propaganda that fixates on the big max-output number. I'd personally like to see numbers that focus on performance at the maximum sustainable output and below since "turbo" stresses the system and there are just too may variables around it such as battery SOC/capability and existing heat level within all components. But I'm experienced in these things so I know to consider them.

I've got a few modern pocket rockets - D4s and FW3As. Both are nominally <500 lumen lights that can manage ~10% duty cycles at max output at 6-8x nominal should I feel the need. I'm OK with this. The experience at sustainable output levels is good. There have been but a handful of occasions when I wished they could run all-out for longer, but I also accept that I would have needed a far larger light in those situations that I simply would not have been carrying.

It's worth noting that the "turbo" problem exists in nearly all LED flashlights - small, medium, large - typically made from aluminum or other materials that represent a significant thermal mass that can sink heat for seconds or minutes until component temperatures rise too far and the driver - or user - is forced to dial things back.

idleprocess said:

I see turbo / boost / overdrive / burst / plaid modes in EDC lights as occasional-use modes for single- to low double-digit duty cycles. The physics of heat dissipation dictates that the bulk of one's usage will be defined by sub-kilolumen output and the light should be optimized for this usage. Unlike the drivers of ~15 years ago that might have been limited to one output level, today's drivers can manage an arbitrary number of levels, thus turbo capability doesn't really cost anything to include and users need not sacrifice anything in the process.

Expectations should be established around sustainable output numbers by manufacturer and users alike, however one can certainly fault manufacturer propaganda that fixates on the big max-output number. I'd personally like to see numbers that focus on performance at the maximum sustainable output and below since "turbo" stresses the system and there are just too may variables around it such as battery SOC/capability and existing heat level within all components. But I'm experienced in these things so I know to consider them.

I've got a few modern pocket rockets - D4s and FW3As. Both are nominally <500 lumen lights that can manage ~10% duty cycles at max output at 6-8x nominal should I feel the need. I'm OK with this. The experience at sustainable output levels is good. There have been but a handful of occasions when I wished they could run all-out for longer, but I also accept that I would have needed a far larger light in those situations that I simply would not have been carrying.

It's worth noting that the "turbo" problem exists in nearly all LED flashlights - small, medium, large - typically made from aluminum or other materials that represent a significant thermal mass that can sink heat for seconds or minutes until component temperatures rise too far and the driver - or user - is forced to dial things back.

Click to expand...

This is a very sober and balanced assessment. Thanks.