Imalent DX80 32000 lumen monster

Datasheet

Specs are amazing. 7000 lumens continuously. Even if it turns out to be only 5000 lumens continuously, I’d be happy. Now we wait again for test results…

Wow! It seems to get better and better

32,000 lumens for 3 minutes before step-down? That’s going to be hot!!! Or 13,000 lumens for 10 minutes before step-down?

I’ve got to see the tests from reviewers. Sounds too good.

Thermal roof is set at only 50 degrees C, which is fairly low compared to what some other companies do. It’s possible that Imalent uses a huge fan aimed at the vent slots of the light for cooling. Combined with the passive internal cooling fins with a huge amount of surface, I’d say the figures are possible. Now one can argue that this kind of testing does not comply with ANSI. But then again, a lot of lights Imalent released (at least recently) don’t comply with ANSI output rating anyway…

And submerged in ice water. :wink:

Well here’s the thing. The Olight X9 has 25000 lumens with built in fan. If I recall correctly, it can produce max output for like 5 minutes or so? I was pleasantly surprised with this time for such an output. Now, the DX80 has 32000 lumens, and Imalent claims 3 minutes, which I find fairly in line with the X9’s value if the DX80 is externally cooled with a fan.

Maybe, but that would be cheating, and also dangerous. I doubt Imalent would implement a 3-minute step-down, assuming someone is going to be blowing a fan on it.

I forget the details… are they using a timed step-down, or thermal control? It sounds like a timed step-down, from the spec sheet. 50C after 3 minutes at 32,000 lumens? That just doesn’t sound possible.

They are at least using a thermal step-down, but of course they might have added a timed step-down as well. Honestly, prior to wondering about step-down time, I initially question how many lumens this light is actually going to produce in the first place. Lot of pressure on Imalent as all eyes are on this light. If this thing does 25000 lumens max for only 1 minute, then that’s fine by me. Of course, this won’t make Imalent look good though…

Termal regulation, the light will maintain 50 degrees by reducing the output….

7K lumens continuously, sounds great!

Oh, that might explain the spec sheet’s claim of 3-minutes at 32,000 lumens. It might really only be a small fraction of that, before thermal control kicks in. But if you’re using it outside in winter, you might get the full 3 minutes. I dunno… just speculating.

BTW, isn’t 50C way too low for thermal control? That’s barely getting hot.

Meteor M43 is also set at 50C, which gets fairly warm close to hot. There is a difference where the sensor is placed. For example Thrunite and Acebeam have models where the sensor is on the ledboard, whereas the M43 has the sensor on the driver. 50C at the driver means temperature on the ledboard is higher.

Maybe after too many complaints for DT70 running extremely hot after just a minute they decided to make more advanced cooling that will always allow you to make as much lumens you can get and keep the temperature acceptably warm at 50 C… So 5000 lumens for 3,5 hours sounds more then enough for me.

One thing to note is accuracy of the temperature sensor. Just like how there often is reported of an off-set voltage readout with the DN and DT models, so could temperature sensor fluctuate a lot as well between actual and measured values.

They are indeed crazy specs. I also would have only expected 1 minutes of run time at 32k lumens unless it had an internally built-in fan for cooling. The run times on the lower modes are just glorious with the 8 x 18650 pack. What I am drooling over just as much as the lumen figures are the throw figures. 160 kcd out of a flood light is insane. I cannot wait to receive it. Apparently they will be releasing neutral white in the future. I was also told that the cool White Version will be probably more like 5000k.

Wow, I’m just now noticing this. The guy in the picture is not even holding the light. Plus it’s an aspheric lens beam pattern. That’s pretty shady right there.

At 32,000 lumens, that sounds about right. If it was a 1000 lumen light, the candella would only be about 4,600. That’s very floody.

Lol. At least they reversed the original image (maybe to prevent copyright claims on the photo?). Anyway, funny.

About the heat and the runtime, I did some back of the envelope calculations. I collected some specs and data and wrote them down.

Now, from experience, I have noticed that these guys use the term “theoretical” when they state lumen vs actual.
It’s easy to figure out where their stated 32,000 lumen comes from, that’s just 8 LEDs times 4022 lumen each

Here is one way to calculate “theoretical” run time until 50 degree Celcius kick down. I will assume here that all heat is sinked into the body of the light and that there is no delta T from the star to the tailcap. Also I will assume there is no heat shed via convection or radiation during. (there would be some, and that would extend it somewhat)

Using the data I collected and something I call “dimensional analysis” I came up with a formula using relevant numbers from above and came up with this.

71 seconds until the body of the light reaches 50 Celsius, up from 25 room temperature.

If I count the wattage emitted out the front using 683 lumens = 1 watt, that would decrease the heat wattage from 256 to 209.15 Watts.
That would extend the runtime to 105 seconds. That is a lttile more, but not the stated 3 minutes, 180 seconds.

Even so, my calculations are very liberal and would not reflect real world results. All kinds of factors would reduce the runtime till kickdown.
Here are some that quickly come to mind.
Decrease in efficiency of the LED as temps go up.
Added heat from the batteries.
The Delta T from the LED and star to the body.
etc

As I mentioned, there are a number of other unaccounted factors that would increase the runtime, but not by that much IMHO.

Also I could be wrong in the use of my numbers and assumptions.

I think we all know that this light can not perform quite as they state, but WHO CARES, I want one!

I have to strongly disagree with you. The first part is definitely not what you call a back of the envelope calculation.
This is what is called a two ply toilet paper calculation. :stuck_out_tongue: