SureFire LumaMax specs have been "revealed"...

SureFire LumaMax specs have been \"revealed\"...

I have excellent news for all of us who are interested in SureFire's (SF) L1, L2, L4, L5, and L6 lights. I spoke to an Eric at SF yesterday. All of these models except the L2, have final specs that will not be changing.
L1 = low 1 lumen, high 20 lumens, for 600 minutes
L2 has eight weeks to be finalized. As of today, low 15 lumens, high 65 lumens, for 90 minutes
L4 = 65 lumens, for 90 minutes
L5 = 80 lumens, for 45 minutes
L6 = 80 lumens, for 90 minutes

I learned that when I want the lastest specs on their lights, my "only" option is to call their tech support department, especially when new models have not been released yet. This had been a long journey for me, and I am glad that it is over!

There is one unanswered question I have for SF. If the L6 uses three batteries, and the L5 uses two batteries, why is the runtime of the L5 45 minutes instead of 60 minutes? This would be the logical number. Both lights put out 80 lumens, so what is going on here?

Luxlover

Re: SureFire LumaMax specs have been \"revealed\"...

[ QUOTE ]
luxlover said:
(...)There is one unanswered question I have for SF. If the L6 uses three batteries, and the L5 uses two batteries, why is the runtime of the L5 45 minutes instead of 60 minutes? This would be the logical number. Both lights put out 80 lumens, so what is going on here?

Luxlover

[/ QUOTE ]

I am no expert on this but maybe it's the driver and its efficency or maybe setup as a reason for the difference in runtime? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif

You might want to call them again, maybe they have a simple explanation?

Klaus.

Re: SureFire LumaMax specs have been \"revealed\"...

Wow, cool! My L4 is gonna start running another half hour on a set of batteries! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/hahaha.gif

Maybe I'l get one of those L1s too, 20 lumens for 10 hours sounds good. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif


Peter

Re: SureFire LumaMax specs have been \"revealed\"...

I recommend rethinking your L1 purchase just a little. Recall my post expressing disappointment in the low beam's output? If you know what a 1 lumen output represents, and you can live with that, then you should buy it. It is beautifully made from top to bottom. The size is small enough by my standards, and would not weigh you down, if you know what I mean?

Luxlover

PS: You have a PM waiting for you!

Re: SureFire LumaMax specs have been \"revealed\"...

[ QUOTE ]
luxlover said:

L1 = low 1 lumen, high 20 lumens, for 600 minutes

Luxlover

[/ QUOTE ]

To me, this looks like you are stating that the L1 will run in high brightness (20 lumens) for 600 minutes.

And how did SF suddenly get another 25 minutes runtime on the L4?


Peter

Re: SureFire LumaMax specs have been \"revealed\"...

L1 for 600 min should be the low beam?

the expended runtime of the L6 vs. the L5 comes from the fact that the L6 uses a step-down converter which is more efficient than the L5's boost converter.

the 90min for the L4 seem to high ... I think we got about 65 min here ... ??? maybe they have tweaked the design? better bins? lower drive current?

bernhard

Re: SureFire LumaMax specs have been \"revealed\"...

I'm also wondering about that. The 90 minutes runtime may be possible with a very efficient L4, but I also think the average is around 60 minutes.

Re: SureFire LumaMax specs have been \"revealed\"...

Those numbers are indeed a little bit confusing. The 90 minutes runtime on the L4 is correct, when "runtime" is defined as the time when the output has dropped to 50%. But how is it possible that he L5 has dropped to 50% brightness within only 45 minutes. Aren't the L4, L5 and L6 all driven by the same current level?

Re: SureFire LumaMax specs have been \"revealed\"...

[ QUOTE ]
Mister T said:
(...) Aren't the L4, L5 and L6 all driven by the same current level?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not sure about that - some other people will know for sure. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Re: SureFire LumaMax specs have been \"revealed\"...

Our colleague Kiessling wrote in a message..... "the L6 has a much longer runtime than the L5 because it is a step-down converter as opposed to a boost-converter in the L5. Those run more efficiently, thus the longer runtime."

I believe that this is what is happening..... The 5 watt Luxeon can accommodate either two or three batteries. SF has made possible an 80 lumen output in both lights. In the L6, some circuitry has to decrease the voltage to the LED from the 9 volts of the three batteries, so as not to fry it or drastically shorten it's lifespan. In the L5, the 5 watt Luxeon can handle more voltage than the 6 volts from the two batteries, so the circuitry has to increase the voltage to the LED. It is almost as if the voltage decrease of the L6, and the voltage increase of the L5 is almost the same amount, in order to deliver the same light output. Is this logical?

Luxlover

Re: SureFire LumaMax specs have been \"revealed\"...

[ QUOTE ]
luxlover said:
Our colleague Kiessling wrote in a message..... "the L6 has a much longer runtime than the L5 because it is a step-down converter as opposed to a boost-converter in the L5. Those run more efficiently, thus the longer runtime."

I believe that this is what is happening..... The 5 watt Luxeon can accommodate either two or three batteries. SF has made possible an 80 lumen output in both lights. In the L6, some circuitry has to decrease the voltage to the LED from the 9 volts of the three batteries, so as not to fry it or drastically shorten it's lifespan. In the L5, the 5 watt Luxeon can handle more voltage than the 6 volts from the two batteries, so the circuitry has to increase the voltage to the LED. It is almost as if the voltage decrease of the L6, and the voltage increase of the L5 is almost the same amount, in order to deliver the same light output. Is this logical?

Luxlover

[/ QUOTE ]
While Bernhard is quite likely correct that a stepdown switcher is a bit more efficient than a stepup, this is likely only a minor contributor to the difference in runtime. Assuming that the two circuits draw equal power , the L6 places only 2/3 of the power demand on each cell that the L5 does. Cells will deliver more total Whr at lower loads than higher loads. For example, assume that each light draws 5W. The L5 then draws 2.5W/cell and the L6 1.67W/cell. Per the Duracell datasheet for their 123 cell, at 2.5W about 2Whr is attainable down to a cutoff voltage of 1.8V while at 1.67W about 2.8Whr is attainable. 3x2.8 is a bit over double 2X2.

Re: SureFire LumaMax specs have been \"revealed\"...

The L1 is impressive with 600 minutes, but how bright is 1 lumen roughly? Isn't that even dimmer than an Arc AAA?

Re: SureFire LumaMax specs have been \"revealed\"...

Mister T,

AFAIK, three CPF'ers including me took the runtime plot of L4 and only Roy's L4 marked the 90 minutes runtime even by your definition.

Roy's L4
bon's L4
My L4

Maybe bon and I unluckly got inefficient units /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon3.gif But the L4 spec on the SF web site says the runtime is about one hour and I feel it's reasonable. Of course, there is a chance the recent units are more efficient /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Re: SureFire LumaMax specs have been \"revealed\"...

thanx Doug /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
bernhard

Re: SureFire LumaMax specs have been \"revealed\"...

[ QUOTE ]
kj said:
Mister T,
AFAIK, three CPF'ers including me took the runtime plot of L4 and only Roy's L4 marked the 90 minutes runtime even by your definition.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is even more interesting /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ooo.gif I only looked at Roy's runtime plot and didn't expect that much variation in runtime /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon3.gif

Re: SureFire LumaMax specs have been \"revealed\"...

Roughly you ask? It is dim, man! Real dim! But if you had one you would get used to it, and keep it handy when you don't want to disturb yourself or others at night, in a dark house, or in a movie theatre. I would like it a little brighter, but for now it will suffice.

I do not own an ARC-AAA light. The only light I can compare it to is the CMG (Gerber) Infinity Task light, which is brighter....

Luxlover

Re: SureFire LumaMax specs have been \"revealed\"...

I believe that an Arc AAA is 3 lumens, so you can guess how bright a 1 lumen light is. You know when you hand someone a light and the first thing they do is turn it on while looking straight into it? That's the amount of light you want for them. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Re: SureFire LumaMax specs have been \"revealed\"...

Some review sites show the L5's runtime to be between 75 and 90 minutes. Has anyone actually done a runtime test on an L5 to check?

Re: SureFire LumaMax specs have been \"revealed\"...

I beleive Craig Johnson has a review on his site.....

Re: SureFire LumaMax specs have been \"revealed\"...

Whoops..maybe not..but I know he owns one....and will spec it if you ask....