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. 
LOL,
That’s even funnier than you think.
That’s actually a napkin from McDonalds. With the quality of the food, it might as well be the same thing
- Ancient Chinese proverb -
Wipe yer bum, wipe yer mouth
What goes in must once come out.
The first batch of DX80 doesn’t look good, already three reports received none working or defective light in two days! :person_facepalming: 
Explains the delay. Imalent had to make sure non of the lights were fully functioning… sigh. :confounded:
Where did you find this reports and pictures?
Some link?
Different source, but at the bottom there is a video of the DX80 seemingly not functioning too well, although it could be the capacitors discharging: 手电吧-百度贴吧--手电吧，手握光明，何惧黑暗！--手电吧——手电爱好者分享交流的场所，欢迎入坑！
i didnt know it came with battery pack? i thought it is using 8x18650.
There should be 8 x 30Qs in there. It’s 4S2P charging, so they probably don’t want people to stick their entire collection of 18650 cells collected throughout the years in this light.
Imalent strikes again
kind of disappointing though, i wish that they use standard individual 18650s and battery carrier instead.
Yup, me too. Even imalent on Facebook didn’t know when they told me they thought they were individual cells. I Think it would be quite easy to make your own pack with 8x 18650s, soldering and tape.
DX80 suffered from battery charging issue too.
Is anyone really surprised with quality issues from Imalent?
I was 100% sure I was going to try this light out but now that I know there’s a battery pack with in-light charging I doubt I’ll get one. I do not ever, under any circumstance charge multiple cells in a light. I just don’t trust the terrible charging systems that lights have. This is such a shame because I really had my hopes up. I passed on the DT70 based solely on bad reviews but I was going to overlook bad reviews with this one but the battery pack is a complete deal breaker for me. I mean, come on! Really? When the batteries are dead I do not want to wait to charge it up instead of just swapping out new ones. In-light charging takes like 4x longer and in 1 to 2 years when I want to get rid of the batteries for new ones, I can’t. I’m so infuriated about this. I want to say a lot of choice things about Imalent and the false information they give about their lights but I’m going to hold my tongue. I’ve given up on IMALENT completely at this point.
I believe there is no battery carrier with individual cells because it would be next to impossible to get one to work properly with the high current demands. Add up all the contact resistances with 8 cells (16), each pushing close to 10A, and well, see what I mean?
This is the same reason Lithium powered hand tools have pre constructed packs. If there is proper charging circuitry, it can be done safely. Whether Imalent has done so is another matter.
When I saw that battery pack in the photo I was surprised. Not because there was one, but rather because I didn’t think ahead of time that there must be one.
I too had the same reaction when I saw it, but it completely makes sense. This is no ordinary flashlight. We are talking over 300 Watts. That is a huge amount of power. Poor contact between cells and Springs etc make the battery pack look much more suitable in this application. Also, this applied charger says it charges the batteries in under 4 hours. That is quicker than my xtar vc4 can charge 4 cells, let alone 8.
That’s only 0.5 amp per cell on the VC4.
I’m guessing the DX80 charges each cell at 1 amp or so. The battery pack is 4S2P, right? So the charger must put out about 2 amps at 16.8 volts. That’s not too bad.