I suggest to any manufacturer with a fan-cooled light to just do away with the āWaterproofā guarantee and start selling.
I myself do not want a ālighted, bright torpedoā ā¦ 
Im still curious how good or bad the battery life on total runtime will be, it cant be very high if its gonna use 8x18650 batteries 3000mahā¦ Compared to whats out there they cant really do magicā¦
oh wow someone fears the astrolux mf03 a little it seems 
Hopefully they resort back to the control ring! Lol
Two very different lights. They are not direct competition.
Itās not stopping Acebeam and Imalent pitting pop can lights against search lights in the lumens race.
Iāll be impressed with the first brand to hit 50k.
#THELUMENSWARHASBEGUN
This guy again. :person_facepalming:
Sorry, didnāt see your comment.
I canāt think of something right, and I didnāt say anything about a device thatās being submerged.
There are really thousands different ādevicesā that are using fans and pretty sure that there are more than you know that are āIPā rated.
Really, a fan is nothing more than an electronic motor and those can easily work underwater. The only thing an electronic motor needs is a changing magnetic field and water doesnāt change that. All the other electronics can be even extern or coated to make it waterproof. The main problem is making a waterproof connection to the inside for the wires.
Yes a waterproof fan is probably expensive but not impossible.
The lumen monster hater, stick to threads about 200 lumen high CRI specials.
Yes, Dmitriyrus mentioned that model in my thread on Actively Cooled lights, but I never put it in post #1. I guess I can do that now.
Youāve gotten your facts wrong.
Again.
Thought my facts ālook reasonableā
Lmfao
The X70 will read 25,000 lumens on the gutter pipe, you heard it here first.
Why do you have to go around insulting everybody?
Ps. PVC based lumen tubes have a long tradition on BLF and CPF. Texas_Aceās is probably the best version yet.
Ugh, I give up. Your right, everybody else is wrong, etcā¦etcā¦
You canāt reason with him. I believe in the tube thread it said he was given a partial refund which he accepted. From what Iāve read, TA was trying to work with him and even offered an addittional larger refund. He would rather bash TAās name and reputation and continues to do so. Iāve found in life when a single person continues to have problems they blame on others, often they have to look at themselves first.
Most of what Iāve read from KG seems so against what Iām used to at BLF, we have a great community here and I hope that doesnāt go away.
Iāve publicly offered him the partial refund back too.
All I care about is warning people not to fall for the scam.
It all became too personal and my nationality brought into it.
The other three dozen customers who bought the TA lumen sphere didnt experience the same issues you have. I posted my measurements with the TA sphere and they were in line with ratings from reputable manufacturers whether they are low powered lights or high power lights, flooders and throwers. You were the only one with issues so we tried to help you figure out the reasons but you werent interested in working with us and instead just interested in proving your accusations are right without doing it scientifically.
We are about to recive the Maukka calibration lights so we can verify scientifically how accurate the current calibration of the TA spheres are.
This is off topic, but itās possible to get accurate measurements with any lumen tube as long as you have a reputable lux meter and
Correct multiplier. The differser sheets are a nice addition to the tube.
The issue was the few cmās of tube wall before the 1st diffuser, light from heavy flooders would hit those walls and be absorbed. Then thereās the fact the multiple diffusers would take a fixed percentage of light off the total calculated output. Which meant a 1000 lumen light would lose a 100 lumens off the total and a 100 lumen light would lose 10 lumens, unavoidable using heavy diffusing, basically the higher powered the light the greater the overall lumens lost, though at roughly the same percentage, some higher powered lights had a slightly higher percentage due to them being extra floody (side wall) whilst still having high Candela (bounce back), the DX80 lost around 10,000 lumens. Lights with high Candela seemed to be suffering from a possible direct bounce back from the first diffuser.
The only lights that would read correctly would be those similar to what the tube was calibrated with. All my 30+ lights read too low and every light Iāve seen published has read too low.