Texas_Ace BLF Calibrated Lumen tube / Sphere No math skills needed - Several spheres still available

Like maukka said the light absorption should be linear (and is in my own testing).

It would also make no sense for it to read the Q8 spot on and be way off for a light only slightly brighter. A few percent maybe but not a massive change. Something else must be going on.

The biggest problem I see so far is comparing the numbers to the factory ratings. See the Haikelite story above, they had the light tested much lower then the official ratings. Official ratings now days mean almost nothing.

Are all of the cells in the lights 100% freshly charged. High powered lights are very sensitive to changes in battery voltage and low cells can easily cause low readings. Also you are using high drain, unportected cells in them correct? Like 30Q or VTC6?

On most iffy diy systems the X45 and X80 come in way too low due to the sheer flood, I had to get around it with my system by moving the X45/80 forwards to impact as a thrower. The TA system is like a Zoomie flashlight that looses lumens as you zoom to a tighter beam as most of the light is absorbed in the flashlight’s walls. My Emisar D4 XP-L HI reads higher in the TA system than my Emisar D4 XP-L HI with diffused optics.

The Q8 is throwier than the similar rated D4 XP-L so records 1300 lumens more than an expected 500 lumens difference and circa 2000 more than the diffused D4 XP-L!!!

At least the diffused Carclo triple optics (10509) will decrease output about 10% compared to the clear optics (10507).

This is exactly what I was about to say:

The diffusion causes a higher loss of photons in the optic itself so less light makes it out the front of the light.

Also, I am not sure what you are talking about with the X45/X80 to impact like a thrower?

I can not figure out what you mean?

The light should be basically level with the centering ring, it should not be pushed into the sphere or it will indeed vastly reduce the readings.

Do you think that a 4x 18650 4x XP-L HD will be anything close to the same output as a 1x 18650, 4x XP-L HI light with basically the same driver?

The Q8 should be much bright and it is, the number line up very well with what I would expect.

For the record, if there is indeed proven to be an issue with your sphere, I will make it right.

That said the numbers seem to be very reasonable so I want to wait for some other peopel to see this and hopfully be able to get some comparison numbers.

For this to happen the cells and charge status of them need to be known.

Can you please list what cells you are using and if they are freshly charged?

I’ve done the tests textbook like you wished, they get similar readings to ceiling bounce tests. In which the high lumen lights don’t seem to get as close to manufacturers claims, especially floody lights. They do if I lift the light towards the ceiling to match the hotspot of the light I’m getting a figure from. I.e. The DT70 gets 13000 and the X45 gets 11000 by lifting the light to match the spill area I got it to the widely accepted 14500 region.

All I can think is the more light you feed the TA tube the more light it retains, especially with all the diffusers, bounce back, twists and diffuser material, obviously the tube will favour certain beams and lumen ranges.

Though you doubt it it could be my meter playing up though, not being efficient??

KG, I’m just gonna look at one light at a time.

On that X45, turbo is rated at 9,000 lm and turbo max is 16,500 lm.

Are you reading 8,000 lm on turbo max?

8000 lm seems like it might be on the first turbo setting.

If your reading 8000 lm on turbo max, what does it read on the other turbo setting, 4000 lm?

I would expect Acebeam to be a bit closer to spec than most other brands.

Also, as just a general thought, batteries with high internal resistance (like protected cells) or cells like Panny B that can’t do high loads can definitely prevent a light from doing it’s best output.

Like if you had 4 Panasonic NCR18650B 3400mah in your X45 then it would probably not be able to go into the turbo Max mode. Just as an example.

Ceiling bounce tests ONLY work if you take the readings in exactly the same method, in the same room, with the same things in the room. Moving the light higher is skewing the numbers, the light simply reads lower then the rating.

So if the numbers agree when you take the ceiling bounce test from the same place, then that confirms that the sphere is reading correctly.

The reason we use a sphere is to get readings between lights that show the actual numbers, not to confirm the readings that they came with.

Also, ditto Jasons question, I was about to post the same thing. Are you sure the X45 is really on turbo max? That would make a lot more sense if it was not.

Can you please list the cells you are using and if they are fully charged?

X45 cells are the Acebeam ones
DX80 cells is proprietary
D4/TN40vn cells are VTC5A
Q8/MF01/Meteor cells are 30Q’s
DQG Tiny cell is AW
PT16/Timeback II use an 18350 Aspire cell
X5 uses a Nitecore 650mah cell
X80 uses the Acebeam cells
Gen II uses the Acebeam cell

I try to use the best or what they come with. All the batts were fully charged for that list.

The X45/80 needs to be checked by someone as they fire most of their lumens straight to the tubes sidewalls.

I calibrated the TN42 at 2200 lumens using the ceiling bounce phone app, the TN40vn with VTC5A hit over 9000 lumens when compared, on your test it managed 6500, vinh measured it at 8750 if memory serves.

Yes, I turbo maxed the X45 and X80, full batts from cold.

Since I don’t have a calibrate light, I have to use the stock fenix tk15 1000 lumen for educated lumen… so I got 1060 lumen @ 20 seconds… I am fine with it…

Do you have a Noctigon, they should really fire in the 6500-8500 range depending on led.

Take a high output light and measure the difference between a high and low mode on the same light in the tube and using the ceiling bounce method. Is the ratio the same? If it is, the meter is linear.

The tube as a physical object will always be linear with the same light, unless it actually deforms (melts). Although it is always possible for an integrating device to have errors with extremely floody or throwy lights.

Hey kg, don’t compare your lumen with the Vinh number… just focus on the getting the calibration right…

You will not see 8700 lumen ( tn40vn) with the TA tube. Trust me!

When you say you calibrated the TN42 with a phone app, how did you manage this?

The entire point of a calibrated lumen sphere is that it is VERY VERY difficult to calibrate a measuring device without a standard.

Phone lux sensors can vary wildly in the readings as well.

It is also well known that ceiling bounce tests are anything but precise.

It is also difficult to get a reading on the emisar d4. Lumen drop quickly… FYI

’To me’… this seems to be much ado about basically nothing. :person_facepalming:

This is a hundred dollar lumen tube. And while it is pretty darn accurate, it is not a professional sphere.

AND…. if factory quoted lumen specs of particular lights are trying to be ‘verified’, you are wasting your time. ’Most’ specs quoted by light companies are NOT CORRECT & in many cases they outright lie.

So this whole thing has me puzzled as to what the problem is. Maybe I am just to dumb to understand…… maybe not.

Hey kg, i am looking at your lumen number., look like you are taking turn on or otf…