Absolutely… don’t believe manufacture number… I got 1700 lumen on the acebeam L16 ( 2000 lumen rated)…
Texas_Ace BLF Calibrated Lumen tube / Sphere No math skills needed - Several spheres still available
Yes, this is how it should work. Although remember the spheres themselves do have a margin for error as well, so it is possible someone could use a slightly different correction factor and it is the right one for them. BUT this should only be done if you have a light that can truly be trusted. So unless you got a light from a real ANSI lab / calibrated sphere. I would not try to match the readings on the light.
As we have seen even the best light calibrated spheres tend to have issues.
This boils down to never knowing how to bias the readings since all lights will have slightly different correction factors.
As an example I know of 1 sphere that the owner said he took many hundreds of documented readings with hundreds of lights to get his correction factor (and I am pretty sure he is right). His sphere read almost 10% higher then mine (about 40% too high overall).
The more I compare readings with my old notes from years ago, the more I really like the new calibration for being accurate. It just fits better when you ignore the rated lumens on lights and stick to data sheet ratings.
So that is a long way of saying, unless you get a properly calibrated light to test in your sphere, I would aim for as close to .68 correction factor as possible.
Yep, that is exactly what I have been getting at. They are just numbers.
The more testing I do the more confident I am that these are the most accurate numbers I have ever had.
But it does not take away the hurt that is seeing 30% lower numbers then I am used to.
We can take the blue pill and stick with inflated readings to sooth our ego or we can take the red pill and get readings much more inline with what real lumens.
Personally I am just going to slowly work my way into these new readings and accept them for what they are.
If anyone chooses to not using the correction factor, then please be sure and state this in any numbers you post.
If you settle on a correction factor between say .66 and .70, then no need to mention it, we will assume it is standard.
I don’t think manufacturers expect people to try and verify their official ratings. Plus some companies will cherry pick the brightest light out of a group or even over charge a battery to 4.35v to give it an extra “boost” in output. Some companies will guess or estimate what the output should be
And some just make up the specs out of thin air. What we call “internet lumens”.
Matt from Adventure Sport Flashlights has a cool video on “internet lumens”. It’s worth a view.
.
This.
At some point down the road I’d like try to incorporate a glass plate at the inlet (directly underneath the centering ring) mainly to facilitate setting a light hands-free for longer testing, such as run-time tests.
Would this be a problem? Would I need a special type of glass?
This could be done, although getting the glass to sit just under the centering ring could be interesting. I thought about this early on but abandoned the idea as it had a lot of variables.
Only way to know what the results would be is to try it, getting a high grade glass / lens would be important to lesson the impact on the readings. The readings could go up or down, not really sure. There is a plastic lens made for flashlights in customs sizes but I forgot the website name, www,flashlightlens.com or something like that. That would be a good option.
More then likely you will need to recalibrate things slightly once this is installed. I am going to guess that by adjusting the disc orientation you should be able to get it right.
Just take some before glass readings with several consistent lights and then again after the glass is installed.
If you used glass then that will require an adjustment on the calibration to compensate for it. I thought about using a + shape of wire. Like thin stainless wire. It might not effect the readings at all, I need to check that, though. All my lights seem to give the highest output when sunk down maybe 5 to 8 mm so depth should not be a big problem. Right now its no big deal to me holding the light.
I got my manker ranger today… I tested the throw version and got 1470 lumen… manker listed 1500 lumen… just some information…
What reduction factor are you using?
Isn’t the Manker MK39 rated at 2,000 lumens? Vinh tested it at 2,000 lumens.
https://skylumen.com/collections/v54-lights/products/manker-rangervn-excellent-handle-light
My bad… I didn’t tighten the tailcap good… I tested it again and I got 1868 lumen… battery are not fully charged anymore and they were lg mj1 button top…
So yea… I will test it out with Sony vtc5a tonight…
Lg mj1 button top. 1868 lumen
So here we go… I tested out my manker ranger mk39 with the fully charged Sony vtc5a… it is very hard to test the two quad. I did my best…
1969 lumen for throw… manker rated 2000.
1903 lumen for each quad… manker rated 4000 for flood…
So this TA tube is pretty accurate… I am very positive manker use $10000-$20000 integration sphere to test out their lumen…
The result we are getting is good for The tube…
Manker is just as susceptible as any other company for exaggerating their lumen specs. Some of their lights are closer to accurate than others.
My conclusion from your test is not that the tube is good, but that Manker seems to have giving the MK39 some realistic specs. Good for them.
If you say so… i measured 20,400 lumen @ turn on for the mt09r… whats your opinion on it?
I don’t know what your asking.
Your specific MT09R is a custom built light. Factory specs do not apply.
I found where TA measured the factory 70.2 MT09R CW at 14k and NW at 15k lumen on his original lumen tube. We can now adjust his readings by .68 to get 9,500 and 10,200 lumen. This is way below the factory rated 15k lumen spec.
So your light is now double what it was factory. :+1:
Mine is not factory., it is modded with TA driver, upgrade xhp70.2 5700k, and bypass spring…
TA was being very conservative with his lumen ratings. The stock MT09R 5000k I measured 2,140 lux compared w/ TA modded 4000k 80CRI at 2,740 lux, which TA rated at 22-23k lumens. My stock TA tube measured the modded light at 27.5k lumens (coincidentally it was giving same number as my ceiling bounce lux). Therefore if I use a 0.68 calibration factor, I would be getting 18.7k lumens for the TA modded MT09R and 14.6k lumens with the stock MT09R 5000k. TA did say he thinks there might have been multiple emitter bins for the 5000k and I might have gotten a higher binned one but we don’t know for sure.
Haikelite mt09r is more powerful than olight x7vn. Both are modded with xhp70.2. First number is turn on and seconds number is 30 Seconds.
Mt09r TA 20000/ 18000
X7vn. 19000 / 17000
As a matter of fact, skylumen rated 21000 for the x7vn, and i got 19000 lumen…
The point i am trying to make is TA tube with two disc is reading about right…
I don’t think TA was being conservative with the stock light measurements. He has no reason to be.
I could only find a couple of his old factory measurements, though.
I’m sure he could tell us the range of measurements he got when testing stock MT09R’s. I have long forgotten that info.
My point was that regardless of the company or model of light, you always have to be skeptical of the factory specs. This is why we test stuff in reviews. We don’t just blindly accept what the manufacturer says.
Some things are easy to test like temperatures, amp draws and candela. Other things are much harder to test such as lumens, but that is a lot easier now.
I think you completely misunderstood what I was saying.