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

1503 posts / 0 new
Last post
Texas_Ace
Texas_Ace's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 33 min ago
Joined: 03/24/2016 - 07:44
Posts: 8569
Location: Everything is brighter in Texas
Newlumen wrote:
SKV89 wrote:
I just received three correction discs. The instruction says to use two. I just want to make sure for the 4”, I should use 2 also right?

Yes two.. smooth disc is suppose to touch sensor right??

I am not sure what you mean by smooth disc? There should be a smooth side and a rough side to each disc.

You want the smooth side to face towards the inside of the sphere for both discs in most cases (unless you got one of the first batch of discs).

Krash610
Krash610's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 months ago
Joined: 11/30/2017 - 11:53
Posts: 26
Location: NY

this is what i’m experiencing with my kit.
With both smooth side facing the tube i’m getting a .64 correction. it seems a little low.
what seems to work for me is the smooth side touching, with that i’m getting a .675 correction.

Newlumen
Newlumen's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 8 hours ago
Joined: 05/27/2017 - 00:19
Posts: 2088
Location: United states
Krash610 wrote:
this is what i’m experiencing with my kit. With both smooth side facing the tube i’m getting a .64 correction. it seems a little low. what seems to work for me is the smooth side touching, with that i’m getting a .675 correction.

I got different results..

Smooth disc facing the tube = lower reading
Rough disc facing the tube= within range..

I think my set up is same as your..

teacher
teacher's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 6 days ago
Joined: 02/23/2016 - 19:04
Posts: 9596
Location: NE & SW Alabama

Texas_Ace wrote:

(snip)

You want the smooth side to face towards the inside of the sphere for both discs in most cases (unless you got one of the first batch of discs).

Are they subtlety marked in any way or is there any way to tell the difference between the “first batch disks” & the ‘new disks’??

You never know how a horse will pull until you hook him up to a heavy load./"Bear" Bryant 

 .................................. "Slow is Smooth, Smooth is Fast" ...................................

       Texas Lumens Flashlights / M4D M4X Deals : sign up - save $$$$  

         Rudeness Level _ mΩ _ {width:70%} _ LightWiki _ LED Tint Chart  

      Xlamp size chart _ BatteryU _ Flashaholic? Need Professional Help???            TheOriginal _ TAB _ LightSearch _ BatterySearch _ 14500's _ DiCal 

 

                                             

Krash610
Krash610's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 months ago
Joined: 11/30/2017 - 11:53
Posts: 26
Location: NY
Newlumen wrote:
Krash610 wrote:
this is what i’m experiencing with my kit. With both smooth side facing the tube i’m getting a .64 correction. it seems a little low. what seems to work for me is the smooth side touching, with that i’m getting a .675 correction.

I got different results..

Smooth disc facing the tube = lower reading
Rough disc facing the tube= within range..

I think my set up is same as your..

Do you have the rough side of both disc facing the tube?
I did try it that way. I think the correction factor was around .74
The way I have mine setup is the rough side facing the tube and the sensor.

Newlumen
Newlumen's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 8 hours ago
Joined: 05/27/2017 - 00:19
Posts: 2088
Location: United states

Hey krash, here is the photo.. its the rough side the picture you see..

CA872_AF9-2743-4_D26-9181-68_D6_FE23_A989

Newlumen
Newlumen's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 8 hours ago
Joined: 05/27/2017 - 00:19
Posts: 2088
Location: United states

Wow. I tested my pelican 7060, 368 lumen light.. it was right on the spot.. 369/368/366. By the time I took a pic, it was 366 lumen…

I also tested the fenix tk15 and it was around 1045 lumen around 20 seconds range..

So far so good..

A5_BE7607-5_EAE-4_B53-91_EC-2_B2_B8_EEE34_DC
free upload pictures

Krash610
Krash610's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 months ago
Joined: 11/30/2017 - 11:53
Posts: 26
Location: NY

Is that a 4” sphere? That could be why we are getting different results.

maukka
maukka's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 hours 34 min ago
Joined: 12/31/2015 - 04:15
Posts: 2020
Location: Finland

Is there a difference in readings if you align the two discs with each other with regard to the ridges on them or if they are at some random oblique angle?

shirnask
shirnask's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 9 min ago
Joined: 03/21/2016 - 23:58
Posts: 1077
Location: Louisiana

I used an S2+ short tube with aspire 18350’s – medium mode, fresh battery each run, two runs each configuration, measured beyond 30seconds and got:

No disks – 503

2 disks smooth side in – 313 (.62)

2 disks smooth side out – 370 (.73)

2 disks rough side facing each other – 342 (.68)

I’m going to use the last configuration – seems good to me.

JasonWW
JasonWW's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 8 min ago
Joined: 10/22/2016 - 11:41
Posts: 11886
Location: Houston Texas

It seems clear to me that we should use a stable test light and then experiment with the discs until we get as close to a 0.68 correction factor as possible.

Let’s say it reads 1000 lumen before then we want it to read 680 lumen with the discs.

500 before
340 after, etc…

Please don’t try and make a light match it’s rated specs. That is not the point of all this. Wink

Texas Ace Lumen Tube calibrated with Maukka lights

Click this to go to signature links.

Newlumen
Newlumen's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 8 hours ago
Joined: 05/27/2017 - 00:19
Posts: 2088
Location: United states

JasonWW wrote:
It seems clear to me that we should use a stable test light and then experiment with the discs until we get as close to a 0.68 correction factor as possible.

Let’s say it reads 1000 lumen before then we want it to read 680 lumen with the discs.

500 before
340 after, etc…

Please don’t try and make a light match it’s rated specs. That is not the point of all this. Wink

Yeap.. . I dont even try to match.. TA said two rough disc should be facing the tube.. thats what i did, and results are great..

JasonWW
JasonWW's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 8 min ago
Joined: 10/22/2016 - 11:41
Posts: 11886
Location: Houston Texas

Here are the results in my 3.5” tube with a 150 lumen light:

Both smooth sides facing sensor 0.725
Both rough sides facing sensor 0.63
Both rough (or smooth) side facing each other .68

There was a 2 lumen of difference whether it was the 2 smooth or the rough facing each other. Too small to matter in my opinion (see next post).

Next I will do a comparison at a higher lumen level just to confirm my results.

Texas Ace Lumen Tube calibrated with Maukka lights

Click this to go to signature links.

JasonWW
JasonWW's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 8 min ago
Joined: 10/22/2016 - 11:41
Posts: 11886
Location: Houston Texas

I did some comparisons using my ODF30 which has a boost driver and seems to have very consistent output.

High level (about 1500 lumen)
Both smooth sides together .695
Both rough sides together .688

Turbo level (about 3100 lumen)
Both smooth sides together .689
Both rough sides together .684

So I’m getting consistency at higher levels. I’m going to be putting the two rough sides together on my tube to get as close to that .680 correction factor as possible.

A-plus job on using these diffuser discs TA. Thumbs Up

Now I just need to talk you into loaning me those “Maukka measured” lights. LOL

Texas Ace Lumen Tube calibrated with Maukka lights

Click this to go to signature links.

JasonWW
JasonWW's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 8 min ago
Joined: 10/22/2016 - 11:41
Posts: 11886
Location: Houston Texas

TA, what about me sending you a light that I know has very stable output in the 200 lumen range?

Could you compare it to your reference lights and tell me what it’s real output is?

I can include shipping money as well to send it back.

Texas Ace Lumen Tube calibrated with Maukka lights

Click this to go to signature links.

Texas_Ace
Texas_Ace's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 33 min ago
Joined: 03/24/2016 - 07:44
Posts: 8569
Location: Everything is brighter in Texas
Krash610 wrote:
this is what i’m experiencing with my kit. With both smooth side facing the tube i’m getting a .64 correction. it seems a little low. what seems to work for me is the smooth side touching, with that i’m getting a .675 correction.

Hmm, those are the same basic numbers I got, just with the wrong orientation. Very strange.

Well luckily as long as you get the right number it doesn’t matter. Just odd that people are getting different results compared to the ones I tested here.

Texas_Ace
Texas_Ace's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 33 min ago
Joined: 03/24/2016 - 07:44
Posts: 8569
Location: Everything is brighter in Texas
Newlumen wrote:
Krash610 wrote:
this is what i’m experiencing with my kit. With both smooth side facing the tube i’m getting a .64 correction. it seems a little low. what seems to work for me is the smooth side touching, with that i’m getting a .675 correction.

I got different results..

Smooth disc facing the tube = lower reading
Rough disc facing the tube= within range..

I think my set up is same as your..

That is what is supposed to happen, it sounds like it is working like it should. Your 4” sphere does read slightly different then the 3” but only very slightly.

Texas_Ace
Texas_Ace's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 33 min ago
Joined: 03/24/2016 - 07:44
Posts: 8569
Location: Everything is brighter in Texas

teacher wrote:
Texas_Ace wrote:

(snip)

You want the smooth side to face towards the inside of the sphere for both discs in most cases (unless you got one of the first batch of discs).

Are they subtlety marked in any way or is there any way to tell the difference between the “first batch disks” & the ‘new disks’??

Nope, they look exactly the same to the human eye. They just got slightly different readings when I tested them. Although another possibility is that the numbers changed over the length of the sheet and that is why some are getting different numbers.

The ones I installed in these spheres were from the first section I cut out, I had to cut another set a few days later to have enough. It is possible they read slightly different, although I tested a few random samples in my sphere and they seemed to be within margin of error.

Either way, luckily it is pretty easy for people to do the math and get the correction factor dialed in on their particular sphere. It annoys me that is needed though.

Texas_Ace
Texas_Ace's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 33 min ago
Joined: 03/24/2016 - 07:44
Posts: 8569
Location: Everything is brighter in Texas
Krash610 wrote:
Is that a 4” sphere? That could be why we are getting different results.

Indeed, the 4” does get slightly different results from the discs but only slight.

Texas_Ace
Texas_Ace's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 33 min ago
Joined: 03/24/2016 - 07:44
Posts: 8569
Location: Everything is brighter in Texas

All of these numbers are numbers I saw with various combos of orientations and discs from the old and new batch. I am thinking that there must of been some inconsistency in the sheet that caused the second set I cut to read slightly different for some reason.

With the old batch I was going to recommend installing them with the smooth sides facing each other,.

So as annoying as it is for me, I would say everyone should do some basic math and double check the orientation of the discs. As you can see, you should be able to get it well within margin of error by adjusting the directions of the discs.

Texas_Ace
Texas_Ace's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 33 min ago
Joined: 03/24/2016 - 07:44
Posts: 8569
Location: Everything is brighter in Texas

JasonWW wrote:
TA, what about me sending you a light that I know has very stable output in the 200 lumen range?

Could you compare it to your reference lights and tell me what it’s real output is?

I can include shipping money as well to send it back.

Sure, send one my way and I will measure it on my sphere.

Send me a PM to work out the details.

teacher
teacher's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 6 days ago
Joined: 02/23/2016 - 19:04
Posts: 9596
Location: NE & SW Alabama

Texas_Ace wrote:
teacher wrote:
Texas_Ace wrote:

(snip)

You want the smooth side to face towards the inside of the sphere for both discs in most cases (unless you got one of the first batch of discs).

Are they subtlety marked in any way or is there any way to tell the difference between the “first batch disks” & the ‘new disks’??

Nope, they look exactly the same to the human eye. They just got slightly different readings when I tested them. Although another possibility is that the numbers changed over the length of the sheet and that is why some are getting different numbers.

The ones I installed in these spheres were from the first section I cut out, I had to cut another set a few days later to have enough. It is possible they read slightly different, although I tested a few random samples in my sphere and they seemed to be within margin of error.

Either way, luckily it is pretty easy for people to do the math and get the correction factor dialed in on their particular sphere. It annoys me that is needed though.

OK… thank you TA!! And thanks for the tube….. I’m loving it. Thumbs Up

You never know how a horse will pull until you hook him up to a heavy load./"Bear" Bryant 

 .................................. "Slow is Smooth, Smooth is Fast" ...................................

       Texas Lumens Flashlights / M4D M4X Deals : sign up - save $$$$  

         Rudeness Level _ mΩ _ {width:70%} _ LightWiki _ LED Tint Chart  

      Xlamp size chart _ BatteryU _ Flashaholic? Need Professional Help???            TheOriginal _ TAB _ LightSearch _ BatterySearch _ 14500's _ DiCal 

 

                                             

WillyD
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 1 hour ago
Joined: 10/10/2012 - 15:55
Posts: 779
Location: Ohio

TA, just read through all the updates. Sent $5 via PayPal as well. Fiddled around with the disks, and I finally got a .68 correction factor with the rough sides both facing out (smooth sides facing each other in the middle). Appreciate all your hard work with this. I’m charging batteries now so that I can spend all night testing my lights Big Smile

inrealtime
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 6 months ago
Joined: 01/11/2015 - 14:13
Posts: 26
Location: San Francisco Bay Area

Received my discs. After installing & re-testing , my MT09R modded by TA & shipped at 20k lumens now test at 13K Crying . when I first received the sphere it was tested at 19.2K lumen same now when I take out the disc to retest. Maybe mine is pretty accurate without the correction?

Texas_Ace
Texas_Ace's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 33 min ago
Joined: 03/24/2016 - 07:44
Posts: 8569
Location: Everything is brighter in Texas
inrealtime wrote:
Received my discs. After installing & re-testing , my MT09R modded by TA & shipped at 20k lumens now test at 13K Crying . when I first received the sphere it was tested at 19.2K lumen same now when I take out the disc to retest. Maybe mine is pretty accurate without the correction?

Remember, it is only numbers. The light is just as bright as it was yesterday.

That said, yes, it does appear that the lights were sadly overrated even though that is the last thing I wanted.

If I could afford it I would offer refunds for all of them.

If someone is truly unhappy with any of my work please contact me and I will make it right one way or the other.

These spheres have thrown a wrench in the what we consider a lumen here on BLF. I know my numbers for a given light were actually on the low side when compared with others readings on here in many cases.

That said, I trust these new numbers with an actual standard to base them on much more. They are simply much much lower then expected.

I have been hesitant to retest my own lights, it really hurts to get take readings on lights I used to think were doing much better then they really are.

Newlumen
Newlumen's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 8 hours ago
Joined: 05/27/2017 - 00:19
Posts: 2088
Location: United states

I am very happy with the tube and mt09r. I got 1044 lumen with my fenix tk15. 18000 lumen with the mt09r ( not fully charged battery)

I tested my mt09r many many times.. 21000 lumen @turn on with the fully charged battery…

FBF18530-1999-479_A-9_E6_F-5_BDD2_BD5_F00_B

226_F14_D3-_D684-452_E-81_F3-02_AF9_E644_BF0

beam0
beam0's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 4 months ago
Joined: 12/20/2011 - 23:18
Posts: 3195
Location: Pennsylvania

I thought the purpose was to have everyone’s tubes calibrated the same.
Doesn’t that mean we should all be installing the discs the same, per TA instructions? (both textured sides facing in)

It sounds like everyone is trying different ways to orientate the correction discs to get what they feel is the right “correction factor” based on some light they think is true to it’s factory specs. TA installed the correction discs all the same way in the 13 remaining tubes and they all spec’d out properly with the test light he used, why does anyone think their tube is different from those 13 tubes??

How can anyone know for sure what the true correction factor is if they don’t have the same light TA used to re calibrate? To me it almost seems like a whole new can of worms has been opened, I just don’t understand how anyone can know the real “correction factor” without using the same light TA used for this. I suppose the differences are not that great, but again I thought we wanted everyone’s tubes calibrated the same.

Maybe I just don’t understand, does what I’m saying sound right to anyone else?

"Over 2000000 hours (about 200 years) standby time"  (DQG Tiny 4th)

"27,157 results for zoomable flashlight" (ebay)

 

 

Newlumen
Newlumen's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 days 8 hours ago
Joined: 05/27/2017 - 00:19
Posts: 2088
Location: United states

Yes that’s what I did… you should able to feel the rough disc with your finger after you apply tape to the meter..

I see other people are doing opposite and still getting a consistent output…

Texas_Ace
Texas_Ace's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 33 min ago
Joined: 03/24/2016 - 07:44
Posts: 8569
Location: Everything is brighter in Texas

beam0 wrote:
I thought the purpose was to have everyone’s tubes calibrated the same.
Doesn’t that mean we should all be installing the discs the same, per TA instructions? (both textured sides facing in)

It sounds like everyone is trying different ways to orientate the correction discs to get what they feel is the right “correction factor” based on some light they think is true to it’s factory specs. TA installed the correction discs all the same way in the 13 remaining tubes and they all spec’d out properly with the test light he used, why does anyone think their tube is different from those 13 tubes??

How can anyone know for sure what the true correction factor is if they don’t have the same light TA used to re calibrate? To me it almost seems like a whole new can of worms has been opened, I just don’t understand how anyone can know the real “correction factor” without using the same light TA used for this. I suppose the differences are not that great, but again I thought we wanted everyone’s tubes calibrated the same.

Maybe I just don’t understand, does what I’m saying sound right to anyone else?

What actually matters is that the tubes are corrected by as close to 0.68 as possible. It is quite simple to do the math by taking a reading of a light without the discs and then taking readings with the discs installed and calculating the correction factor they give.

Changing the orientation to get closer to the .68 is fine and actually the ideal way to do it, I had hoped it would not be necessary though. In most cases it should not but it doesn’t hurt to check.

teacher
teacher's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 6 days ago
Joined: 02/23/2016 - 19:04
Posts: 9596
Location: NE & SW Alabama

beam0 wrote:

(snip)

Maybe I just don’t understand, does what I’m saying sound right to anyone else?

Truthfully….. I have been kinda wondering the same thing beam0. Thumbs Up

I can somewhat understand it if someone has a certified tested light such as a PFlexPRO or a ‘maukka tested light’ or the actual ones TA used…. to then ‘calibrate’ their particular tube to. Otherwise it seems to me things will again be all over the map so to speak.

Just my thoughts…. nothing earth shattering. Big Smile
.
EDIT: Just saw what TA posted above. Thumbs Up I understand a bit more now…. I think. Big Smile . Big Smile . Big Smile

You never know how a horse will pull until you hook him up to a heavy load./"Bear" Bryant 

 .................................. "Slow is Smooth, Smooth is Fast" ...................................

       Texas Lumens Flashlights / M4D M4X Deals : sign up - save $$$$  

         Rudeness Level _ mΩ _ {width:70%} _ LightWiki _ LED Tint Chart  

      Xlamp size chart _ BatteryU _ Flashaholic? Need Professional Help???            TheOriginal _ TAB _ LightSearch _ BatterySearch _ 14500's _ DiCal 

 

                                             

Pages