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

1290 posts / 0 new
Last post
Newlumen
Newlumen's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 4 min ago
Joined: 05/27/2017 - 00:19
Posts: 1294
Location: United states

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?

We dont have an exact answer for that, since we dont have a calibrated light… It is too obvious if your number is way off..

For example.. my fenix tk15 should be 1000 lumen range.. i got 1045 lumen.. thats is acceptable… i also test my pelican 7060, which is 369/368/366 lumen.

We just have to install the disc correctly and play with it until we are satisified with the results..

beam0
beam0's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 3 days ago
Joined: 12/20/2011 - 23:18
Posts: 3195
Location: Pennsylvania
teacher wrote:
. EDIT: Just saw what TA posted above. Thumbs Up I understand a bit more now…. I think. Big Smile . Big Smile . Big Smile

Me thinks this too. Guess I didn’t understand Facepalm

So we need to orientate the discs whatever way it takes to get a 0.68 correction factor, (Reading without correction discs multiplied by .68, correct?)
So we need everyone to correct for 0.68 and leave it that way.

.

I think my concern was in part based on Terry Oregon orientating his discs to achieve the factory spec of the Pflex S2+

Quote:

Convoy S2+ (PFlexPRO)

spec 607 @ 30sec

TA Tube: 790

Since his reading before and after correction was 790 and 608, doesn’t that work out to 0.77 (rounded)?
For 0.68 shouldn’t he be shooting for 537? (closer to his first reading of 505)

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

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

 

 

beam0
beam0's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 3 days ago
Joined: 12/20/2011 - 23:18
Posts: 3195
Location: Pennsylvania

Newlumen wrote:

We just have to install the disc correctly and play with it until we are satisified with the results..

No, If i understand correctly we all need to orientate the discs to get the 0.68 correction, regardless of what we think the output should be for a particular light.

With the testing TA did to verify 0.68 was the correction needed, we all need to correct for 0.68 and live with the outputs that’s giving us for our lights, like it or not!

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

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

 

 

teacher
teacher's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 3 min ago
Joined: 02/23/2016 - 19:04
Posts: 5804
Location: NE & SW Alabama
beam0 wrote:
teacher wrote:
. EDIT: Just saw what TA posted above. Thumbs Up I understand a bit more now…. I think. Big Smile . Big Smile . Big Smile

Me thinks this too. Guess I didn’t understand Facepalm

So we need to orientate the discs whatever way it takes to get a 0.68 correction factor, (Reading without correction discs multiplied by .68, correct?)
So we need everyone to correct for 0.68 and leaves it that way.

.

I think my concern was in part based on Terry Oregon orientating his discs to achieve the factory spec of the Pflex S2+

Quote:

Convoy S2+ (PFlexPRO)

spec 607 @ 30sec

TA Tube: 790

Since his reading before and after correction was 790 and 608, doesn’t that work out to 0.77 (rounded)?
For 0.68 shouldn’t he be shooting for 537? (closer to his first reading of 505)

I am kinda in the same boat beam0. Like ole Forrest Gump, “I’m not a real smart man”. …. Except I am not concerned about Terry Oregon’s results at all..

His PFlexPRO is sphere tested & certified…. it is not just an arbitrary “factory spec”.
If I had a light like his…. I would do exactly as he has done. Thumbs Up …. Beer .. Smile

      You never know how a horse will pull until you hook him up to a heavy load. / Paul "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 /\ LED Tint Picture /\ Xlamp size chart /\ BatteryU                   Flashaholic? Need Professional Help???   wink   /\ TheOriginal /\ TAB /\ LightSearch /\ BatterySearch /\ 14500's /\ DiCal                                                       

Newlumen
Newlumen's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 4 min ago
Joined: 05/27/2017 - 00:19
Posts: 1294
Location: United states

beam0 wrote:
Newlumen wrote:

We just have to install the disc correctly and play with it until we are satisified with the results..

No, If i understand correctly we all need to orientate the discs to get the 0.68 correction, regardless of what we think the output should be for a particular light.

With the testing TA did to verify 0.68 was the correction needed, we all need to correct for 0.68 and live with the outputs that’s giving us for our lights, like it or not!

That’s correct.. those disc are cut into .68 or whatever correction factored..

SKV89
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 28 min ago
Joined: 12/10/2017 - 12:46
Posts: 1098
Location: US

I did some pretty extensive testing with my 4” TA sphere using different orientations of the correction disk. Here are the results:

Both smooth faces face tube: 0.62
Both smooth faces face meter: 0.70
Smooth faces face each other: 0.66
Rough Face face each other: 0.67

I also tested removing the sensor and inserting it back in the tube in a different orientation and the readings didn’t change Thumbs Up

I’m trying to figure out which correction factor to use. I’m leaning towards 0.70.
With the 0.70 factor, my PflexPro S2+ triple Nichia 219B 4000k measures 875 startup lumens and 853 ANSI lumens whereas PflexPro’s integration sphere measures 930 startup lumens and 919 ANSI lumens. This equates to about 0.75 correction factor between my original TA sphere and Randy’s integration sphere. Did anyone get an answer how PflexPro calibrated his sphere?

Newlumen
Newlumen's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 4 min ago
Joined: 05/27/2017 - 00:19
Posts: 1294
Location: United states

SKV89 wrote:
I did some pretty extensive testing with my 4” TA sphere using different orientations of the correction disk. Here are the results:

Both smooth faces face tube: 0.62
Both smooth faces face meter: 0.70
Smooth faces face each other: 0.66
Rough Face face each other: 0.67

I also tested removing the sensor and inserting it back in the tube in a different orientation and the readings didn’t change Thumbs Up

I’m trying to figure out which correction factor to use. I’m leaning towards 0.70.
With the 0.70 factor, my PflexPro S2+ triple Nichia 219B 4000k measures 875 startup lumens and 853 ANSI lumens whereas PflexPro’s integration sphere measures 930 startup lumens and 919 ANSI lumens. This equates to about 0.75 correction factor between my original TA sphere and Randy’s integration sphere. Did anyone get an answer how PflexPro calibrated his sphere?

Yes skv.. I have the same set up and working well.. both smooth facing meter..

JasonWW
JasonWW's picture
Online
Last seen: 1 min 8 sec ago
Joined: 10/22/2016 - 11:41
Posts: 7077
Location: Houston 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?


The discs are only for convenience. Without them we measure the lights and multiply by .68 to get the more accurate results. It’s an extra step compared to reading the lumens straight off the lux meter.

We can eliminate having to do the extra math by letting the discs do that for us. By getting them to automatically reduce the normal readings down by .68 we don’t have to use a calculator any more. This adds convenience and makes the tubes live up to the promise of “No math skills needed”.

There are obviously some small differences in the diffuser sheets so “both smooth sides facing into the tube” is not always going to give a .68 reduction. If we test the same two circles of discs across multiple tubes I bet they have the same results.

But if we test one tube with two sets of discs from different sheets of diffusers we get these small differences. This is why we do before and after measurements. We just find the orientation that automatically reduces the readings .68. A .68 reduction is the goal.

I hope that makes sense. Smile

My Convoy L6 thread with XHP70.2, Texas Avenger FET driver, Narsil v1.2 ramping firmware (old), lighted side switch and cut down SMO reflector. Lots of amp draws on stock driver as well. 

My Supfire L5-S thread with XHP70, Texas Avenger FET driver, NarsilM v1.0 ramping firmware and lighted side switch. My mini L6! 

9 NarsilM user videos for BLF Q8, GT, GT Mini and ROT66

Texas_Ace BLF Calibrated Lumen tube

Maukka Calibration Lights for DIY Lumen Measuring Devices

beam0
beam0's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 3 days ago
Joined: 12/20/2011 - 23:18
Posts: 3195
Location: Pennsylvania

teacher wrote:

I am not concerned about Terry Oregon’s results at all..

His PFlexPRO is sphere tested & certified…. it is not just an arbitrary “factory spec”.

Hmmm, it’s certified and tested, to PflexPRo’s sphere …

.

SKV89 wrote:

Did anyone get an answer how PflexPro calibrated his sphere?

It’s calibrated by lights…

Quote from Randy at Pflex from his ebay listings:

“My testing: I use the FL1 test procedures, but my sphere is not ANSI calibrated but is calibrated using a number of ANSI rated flashlights. Since I make customs, I don’t have a production run of flashlight to test. I test each flashlight I build and report the output for that light.”

.

Earlier in this thread I had suggested TA contact him to get a calibration light…

Texas_Ace wrote:
….so his is also calibrated by lights, I think that maukka said he has a standard light source for calibrating the sphere which is key.

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

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

 

 

beam0
beam0's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 3 days ago
Joined: 12/20/2011 - 23:18
Posts: 3195
Location: Pennsylvania

JasonWW wrote:

We just find the orientation that automatically reduces the readings .68. A .68 reduction is the goal.

I hope that makes sense. Smile

Yep, I got it. But everyone with this tube needs to find the orientation that comes closest to .68 and ignore what they think their lights should output. Or just do the math for .68, that way when someone posts their results in other threads, reviews etc. we can know they’re consistent for this tube across the board.

Sound reasonable?

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

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

 

 

teacher
teacher's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 3 min ago
Joined: 02/23/2016 - 19:04
Posts: 5804
Location: NE & SW Alabama
Thumbs Up ./\/\. Thumbs Up

      You never know how a horse will pull until you hook him up to a heavy load. / Paul "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 /\ LED Tint Picture /\ Xlamp size chart /\ BatteryU                   Flashaholic? Need Professional Help???   wink   /\ TheOriginal /\ TAB /\ LightSearch /\ BatterySearch /\ 14500's /\ DiCal                                                       

JasonWW
JasonWW's picture
Online
Last seen: 1 min 8 sec ago
Joined: 10/22/2016 - 11:41
Posts: 7077
Location: Houston Texas

beam0 wrote:

So we need to orientate the discs whatever way it takes to get a 0.68 correction factor, (Reading without correction discs multiplied by .68, correct?)
So we need everyone to correct for 0.68 and leave it that way.

.

I think my concern was in part based on Terry Oregon orientating his discs to achieve the factory spec of the Pflex S2+

Quote:

Convoy S2+ (PFlexPRO)

spec 607 @ 30sec

TA Tube: 790

Since his reading before and after correction was 790 and 608, doesn’t that work out to 0.77 (rounded)?
For 0.68 shouldn’t he be shooting for 537? (closer to his first reading of 505)


All we are asked to do is apply a .68 correction factor or to orientate the diffusers to give us that correction factor automatically.

We are not supposed to be tuning the tube to get a certain result from PFlexPRO. We don’t know if his calibrations are correct. It seems they are reading a bit high and are outside the TA tube plus or minus 5% range.

At this point I’m only trusting Maukka’s measurements because he’s got calibrated reference lights.

I might try and get my tube to a tighter tolerance by sending TA one of my On The Road U16’s. It is a bit larger in diameter than a S2+ and sits nicely on top of the adapter hole. No need to adjust it’s depth in the hole. That removes a variable. On Medium it measures a steady 226 lumen regardless of battery voltage from 4.2v to 3.8v. It deviated only 1 lumen depending on voltage. So I think this will be a great light to send to TA.

It’s pretty likely my tube is not one of the outliers meaning 4% to 5% off, but probably closer to the middle average. By sending TA a light I can probably reduce the tolerance to plus or minus 1%.

My Convoy L6 thread with XHP70.2, Texas Avenger FET driver, Narsil v1.2 ramping firmware (old), lighted side switch and cut down SMO reflector. Lots of amp draws on stock driver as well. 

My Supfire L5-S thread with XHP70, Texas Avenger FET driver, NarsilM v1.0 ramping firmware and lighted side switch. My mini L6! 

9 NarsilM user videos for BLF Q8, GT, GT Mini and ROT66

Texas_Ace BLF Calibrated Lumen tube

Maukka Calibration Lights for DIY Lumen Measuring Devices

JasonWW
JasonWW's picture
Online
Last seen: 1 min 8 sec ago
Joined: 10/22/2016 - 11:41
Posts: 7077
Location: Houston Texas

beam0 wrote:
JasonWW wrote:

We just find the orientation that automatically reduces the readings .68. A .68 reduction is the goal.

I hope that makes sense. Smile

Yep, I got it. But everyone with this tube needs to find the orientation that comes closest to .68 and ignore what they think their lights should output. Or just do the math for .68, that way when someone posts their results in other threads, reviews etc. we can know they’re consistent for this tube across the board.

Sound reasonable?


You guys were busy while I was writing up my last post.

Yes to what you said. We want to keep all the TA Tubes reading very similar to each other which means using that .68 correction factor (either by using the TA diffuser discs, math or a custom diffuser).

I found a steady output light and did back to back measurements and wrote them down to find the correct disc orientation. Now mine is automatically adjusted to read .68 and I can throw any light on it and read the lumens directly off the meter. Thumbs Up

I can also go back to all my old measurements which I wrote down the raw numbers and multiply those by .68 to get more realistic numbers instead of measuring them all over again. That’s too much work. Lol

My Convoy L6 thread with XHP70.2, Texas Avenger FET driver, Narsil v1.2 ramping firmware (old), lighted side switch and cut down SMO reflector. Lots of amp draws on stock driver as well. 

My Supfire L5-S thread with XHP70, Texas Avenger FET driver, NarsilM v1.0 ramping firmware and lighted side switch. My mini L6! 

9 NarsilM user videos for BLF Q8, GT, GT Mini and ROT66

Texas_Ace BLF Calibrated Lumen tube

Maukka Calibration Lights for DIY Lumen Measuring Devices

Micael
Offline
Last seen: 5 days 13 hours ago
Joined: 12/04/2016 - 07:49
Posts: 50
Location: Sverige ( Sweden)

We are at the point red or blue pills.

What I mean is that many have probably over estimated their measurement methods, everyone wants stronger flashlights. so red pills or blue pills what had Neo done?

What is right or wrong ?. As I understand, the idea is that we calibrate our Ta-tubes with each other so we have a “standard” to compare with. if we like all lights are less strong than we thought the question is about red or blue pills.

I have already realized that 2000 lumens flashlights are more like 1300-1400 in our Ta-tubes but appreciate how strong the flashlights are in reality:
/ Micael.

Micael

Texas_Ace BLF Calibrated Lumen tube

JasonWW
JasonWW's picture
Online
Last seen: 1 min 8 sec ago
Joined: 10/22/2016 - 11:41
Posts: 7077
Location: Houston Texas

Micael wrote:
We are at the point red or blue pills.

What I mean is that many have probably over estimated their measurement methods, everyone wants stronger flashlights. so red pills or blue pills what had Neo done?

What is right or wrong ?. As I understand, the idea is that we calibrate our Ta-tubes with each other so we have a “standard” to compare with. if we like all lights are less strong than we thought the question is about red or blue pills.

I have already realized that 2000 lumens flashlights are more like 1300-1400 in our Ta-tubes but appreciate how strong the flashlights are in reality:
/ Micael.


Is this in reference to what I said two weeks ago?

JasonWW wrote:

I think it’s just human nature for us to want to see high lumen numbers from our lights. It’s hard to accept that a light that we thought was doing 9000 luman may actually be doing closer to 6000 lumen. Nooo! Say it ain’t true! Lol

It’s like we’re living in The Matrix and we’re starting to emerge from our pods and seeing the real world for the first time. Lol


Right or wrong is a human idea. We should go with science.

We have to take off the rose colored glasses and see things closer to what they actually are.

I don’t like that my FET driver, xhp70.2 Convoy L6 drawing 17A to 18A is only doing 5950 lumen instead of 8500 like I used to think. This is a bummer, but I’d rather know the truth.

I used to think a 13,000 lumen MT09R was a little brighter than my L6. Now I know it’s more than double my light! This is good news.

My Convoy L6 thread with XHP70.2, Texas Avenger FET driver, Narsil v1.2 ramping firmware (old), lighted side switch and cut down SMO reflector. Lots of amp draws on stock driver as well. 

My Supfire L5-S thread with XHP70, Texas Avenger FET driver, NarsilM v1.0 ramping firmware and lighted side switch. My mini L6! 

9 NarsilM user videos for BLF Q8, GT, GT Mini and ROT66

Texas_Ace BLF Calibrated Lumen tube

Maukka Calibration Lights for DIY Lumen Measuring Devices

Micael
Offline
Last seen: 5 days 13 hours ago
Joined: 12/04/2016 - 07:49
Posts: 50
Location: Sverige ( Sweden)

completely unaware repetition of your post, did not try to steal your post.

What I mean as you said reality is not always what we want to believe, but it’s still real Smile

take it for what it is and be happy.

Micael

Texas_Ace BLF Calibrated Lumen tube

Newlumen
Newlumen's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 4 min ago
Joined: 05/27/2017 - 00:19
Posts: 1294
Location: United states

Micael wrote:
We are at the point red or blue pills.

What I mean is that many have probably over estimated their measurement methods, everyone wants stronger flashlights. so red pills or blue pills what had Neo done?

What is right or wrong ?. As I understand, the idea is that we calibrate our Ta-tubes with each other so we have a “standard” to compare with. if we like all lights are less strong than we thought the question is about red or blue pills.

I have already realized that 2000 lumens flashlights are more like 1300-1400 in our Ta-tubes but appreciate how strong the flashlights are in reality:
/ Micael.

Absolutely.. don’t believe manufacture number.. I got 1700 lumen on the acebeam L16 ( 2000 lumen rated)..

Texas_Ace
Texas_Ace's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 hours 6 min ago
Joined: 03/24/2016 - 07:44
Posts: 7322
Location: Everything is brighter in Texas

beam0 wrote:
JasonWW wrote:

We just find the orientation that automatically reduces the readings .68. A .68 reduction is the goal.

I hope that makes sense. Smile

Yep, I got it. But everyone with this tube needs to find the orientation that comes closest to .68 and ignore what they think their lights should output. Or just do the math for .68, that way when someone posts their results in other threads, reviews etc. we can know they’re consistent for this tube across the board.

Sound reasonable?

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.

Texas_Ace
Texas_Ace's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 hours 6 min ago
Joined: 03/24/2016 - 07:44
Posts: 7322
Location: Everything is brighter in Texas

Micael wrote:
We are at the point red or blue pills.

What I mean is that many have probably over estimated their measurement methods, everyone wants stronger flashlights. so red pills or blue pills what had Neo done?

What is right or wrong ?. As I understand, the idea is that we calibrate our Ta-tubes with each other so we have a “standard” to compare with. if we like all lights are less strong than we thought the question is about red or blue pills.

I have already realized that 2000 lumens flashlights are more like 1300-1400 in our Ta-tubes but appreciate how strong the flashlights are in reality:
/ Micael.

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.

JasonWW
JasonWW's picture
Online
Last seen: 1 min 8 sec ago
Joined: 10/22/2016 - 11:41
Posts: 7077
Location: Houston Texas

Newlumen wrote:

Absolutely.. don’t believe manufacture number.. I got 1700 lumen on the acebeam L16 ( 2000 lumen rated)..

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”.

My Convoy L6 thread with XHP70.2, Texas Avenger FET driver, Narsil v1.2 ramping firmware (old), lighted side switch and cut down SMO reflector. Lots of amp draws on stock driver as well. 

My Supfire L5-S thread with XHP70, Texas Avenger FET driver, NarsilM v1.0 ramping firmware and lighted side switch. My mini L6! 

9 NarsilM user videos for BLF Q8, GT, GT Mini and ROT66

Texas_Ace BLF Calibrated Lumen tube

Maukka Calibration Lights for DIY Lumen Measuring Devices

JasonWW
JasonWW's picture
Online
Last seen: 1 min 8 sec ago
Joined: 10/22/2016 - 11:41
Posts: 7077
Location: Houston Texas

Matt from Adventure Sport Flashlights has a cool video on “internet lumens”. It’s worth a view.


.

My Convoy L6 thread with XHP70.2, Texas Avenger FET driver, Narsil v1.2 ramping firmware (old), lighted side switch and cut down SMO reflector. Lots of amp draws on stock driver as well. 

My Supfire L5-S thread with XHP70, Texas Avenger FET driver, NarsilM v1.0 ramping firmware and lighted side switch. My mini L6! 

9 NarsilM user videos for BLF Q8, GT, GT Mini and ROT66

Texas_Ace BLF Calibrated Lumen tube

Maukka Calibration Lights for DIY Lumen Measuring Devices

beam0
beam0's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 3 days ago
Joined: 12/20/2011 - 23:18
Posts: 3195
Location: Pennsylvania

JasonWW wrote:

I might try and get my tube to a tighter tolerance by sending TA one of my On The Road U16’s. It is a bit larger in diameter than a S2+ and sits nicely on top of the adapter hole. No need to adjust it’s depth in the hole. That removes a variable.

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?

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

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

 

 

Texas_Ace
Texas_Ace's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 hours 6 min ago
Joined: 03/24/2016 - 07:44
Posts: 7322
Location: Everything is brighter in Texas

beam0 wrote:
JasonWW wrote:

I might try and get my tube to a tighter tolerance by sending TA one of my On The Road U16’s. It is a bit larger in diameter than a S2+ and sits nicely on top of the adapter hole. No need to adjust it’s depth in the hole. That removes a variable.

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.

JasonWW
JasonWW's picture
Online
Last seen: 1 min 8 sec ago
Joined: 10/22/2016 - 11:41
Posts: 7077
Location: Houston Texas

beam0 wrote:
JasonWW wrote:

I might try and get my tube to a tighter tolerance by sending TA one of my On The Road U16’s. It is a bit larger in diameter than a S2+ and sits nicely on top of the adapter hole. No need to adjust it’s depth in the hole. That removes a variable.

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?


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.

My Convoy L6 thread with XHP70.2, Texas Avenger FET driver, Narsil v1.2 ramping firmware (old), lighted side switch and cut down SMO reflector. Lots of amp draws on stock driver as well. 

My Supfire L5-S thread with XHP70, Texas Avenger FET driver, NarsilM v1.0 ramping firmware and lighted side switch. My mini L6! 

9 NarsilM user videos for BLF Q8, GT, GT Mini and ROT66

Texas_Ace BLF Calibrated Lumen tube

Maukka Calibration Lights for DIY Lumen Measuring Devices

Newlumen
Newlumen's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 4 min ago
Joined: 05/27/2017 - 00:19
Posts: 1294
Location: United states

I got my manker ranger today.. I tested the throw version and got 1470 lumen.. manker listed 1500 lumen.. just some information..

SKV89
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 28 min ago
Joined: 12/10/2017 - 12:46
Posts: 1098
Location: US
Newlumen wrote:
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-exc...

Newlumen
Newlumen's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 4 min ago
Joined: 05/27/2017 - 00:19
Posts: 1294
Location: United states
SKV89 wrote:
Newlumen wrote:
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-exc...

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
7_A012_B21-_ADB2-4_BBD-_B0_F2-_C1_E0238_EAD4_C

Newlumen
Newlumen's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 4 min ago
Joined: 05/27/2017 - 00:19
Posts: 1294
Location: United states

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..

JasonWW
JasonWW's picture
Online
Last seen: 1 min 8 sec ago
Joined: 10/22/2016 - 11:41
Posts: 7077
Location: Houston Texas

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.

My Convoy L6 thread with XHP70.2, Texas Avenger FET driver, Narsil v1.2 ramping firmware (old), lighted side switch and cut down SMO reflector. Lots of amp draws on stock driver as well. 

My Supfire L5-S thread with XHP70, Texas Avenger FET driver, NarsilM v1.0 ramping firmware and lighted side switch. My mini L6! 

9 NarsilM user videos for BLF Q8, GT, GT Mini and ROT66

Texas_Ace BLF Calibrated Lumen tube

Maukka Calibration Lights for DIY Lumen Measuring Devices

Newlumen
Newlumen's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 4 min ago
Joined: 05/27/2017 - 00:19
Posts: 1294
Location: United states

JasonWW wrote:
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?

Pages