Just tested the Imalent DT70 at 9200 lumens.
It’s a light with a 16000 lumens claim that I and many other reviewers measured 12000-14000 lumens from. I never heard of a test yielding such a low figure.
Texas_Ace BLF Calibrated Lumen tube / Sphere No math skills needed - Several spheres still available
Keep in mind that almost all lumen readings you see online are not ANSI and are reading too high. I was one of them.
If you want to read higher numbers, simply add 30% to the numbers and you will have my old calibration which is pretty close to most other online lumen readings you see, but it is not ANSI.
That would put you right at the numbers you expect as well, even if they are not correct.
Basically we need to know if you want real ANSI numbers or if you want numbers that sound good / line up with other people online?
It sounds like you are already doing pretty good for ANSI numbers, if you want to compare your number online, then you need to add about 30% to them.
Should be more @ turn on. Vinh estimates conservatively. For a split second I recorded 10500 with fresh VTC5A.
My X45vn hit 28000 at turn on, vinh claimed 25000, now if you have that!
My CPF Italia Cometa zoomie is reading 208 lumens on the Texas_Ace tube.
(674 flood)
I ceiling bounced circa 1200 flood 700 throw.
I just took a reading with my stock cometa and I got:
203 lumens throw
653 lumens flood (with a centering ring that is slightly too small, the numbers would be slightly higher with a larger one)
Sounds like your sphere is reading perfectly to me, just slightly higher then mine with both the Q8 and Cometa, I am quit happy with that actually.
I think the problem is that you are comparing the numbers to random methods that are not based on ANSI testing. In which case the “accepted” lumen readings are about 30% higher.
Do you have any Fenix lights, they are the best comparisons.
I’m only testing your tube @ turn on mate as most of my lights are stepping down or too hot to hold at ansi! Most reviewers of lumen monsters are testing turn on now inc vinh.
With your tube and with any light I can’t get close to my previous test results, manufacturers claims or other reviewers claims.
…except for the Q8 which isn’t that short.
The 160-200klux Cometa isn’t a 200 lumen thrower!!! A 300 lumen generic T6 zoomie might be fully focused.
Your test results matching mine prove the tube is retaining light.
I am not talking about ANSI testing spec of 30 seconds. I am talking calibrated to ANSI standards. AKA, it reads 1 lumen the same as 1 ANSI lumen.
Most readings you see just use a made up lumen number and have no standard to base it on.
Why do you think this?
The cometa can easily be only a 200 lumen light fully zoomed.
I just tested a smaller zoomie and got 100 lumens OTF, also very reasonable.
Lumens have almost nothing to do with throw.
Honestly from hearing you talk it doesn’t sound like you are interested in seeing how many lumens your lights are putting out, you simply want to see numbers that agree with other people online.
In which case you are better off just adding 30% to the numbers and using my old calibration which was inline with most other numbers posted online.
KG, do you have any Fenix lights? You talked about them earlier as if you do?
Acebeam X45 manufacturer figures (ANSI)
Turbo Max 16500
Turbo 9000
High 4000
Med 1500
Low 500
Ceiling bounce app calibrated to its 14500 Turbo Max
Turbo Max 14500
Turbo 8057
High 4050
Med 1536
Low 541
Texas_Ace calibrating tube
Turbo Max 10100
Turbo 5700
High 2930
Med 1076
Low 370
Ala the higher the lumens the higher the tube losses.
Anyone else want to post their test results and with what system?
I am not seeing a discrepancy worth talking about and in fact the TA tube reads HIGHER at max relative to minimum mode.
10,100 / 370 = 27.3 ratio for the TA tube (which is closer to the factory rated ratio BTW)
vs
14500 / 541 = 26.8 for the ceiling bounce
Thus confirming that the readings are linear enough, the slight discrepancy is more then likely the ceiling bounce as it is a notoriously inaccurate way of taking a measurement.
Why do you think that the higher the readings, the further off it is? You own numbers confirm this is not the case.
Do you have any Fenix lights?
The 30% you keep quoting is folly if you’re following my logic.
Your tube increases the losses as the lumens increase. Just like an engine or amplifier become inefficiency when pushed too hard.
I was finding 20% unexpected losses at lower levels and up to 60% at higher power levels. The percentage losses tended to rise with the lumens increasing.
Also the tube lends itself to certain beam profiles at lower power levels but burdens others. The circa 1200 lumen Cometa (1300 claimed) had over 200% losses fully focused.
I’ve rigged and theorised that many systems that only a sphere can be fair. Then you have the effect tints have.
That was tested with Sony vtc5d… just tested with Sony VTC5A again and got 8000 lumen @ turn on…
The biggy is the percentage losses become more on the TA tube compared to Acebeam’s figures (and every other test of note) as the modes get brighter, and face it or not, it’s damning.
My 1000 lumen Fenix light would roughly read the same as your 1000 lumen Fenix light and probably the manufacturers claim, but our Fenix TK72R flashlights will never in a billion years read 9000 lumens on your tube. Not even with adding 30%.
[quote=KG_Tuning]
-Acebeam X45 70.2 NW with VTC5A flat top@ 4.05V
17730 lumen@ 0 second
16900 lumen@ 30 seconds
Acebeam X45 70.2 NW with stock Acebeam 310A protected botton top@ 4.15V
16116 lumen@ 0 second
15708 lumen@ 30 seconds
-TN40vn with VTC5A flat top@ 4.08V
6040 lumen@ 0 second
5600 lumen@ 30 seconds
My 3.5” TA tube is slightly smaller than TN40’s head diameter, there may be some light leak.
-Q8 (brass screws, all spring bypass) with VTC6 botton top@ 4.18V
5650 lumen@ 0 second
5550 lumen@ 30 seconds
[quote=charles lin]
[quote=KG_Tuning]
So once again the direct comparison lines up great with his numbers.
The X45 is a mystery but seeing as everything else lines up well I am thinking something is up with the light, not the sphere. It still seems like it is being taken in high instead of turbo. You don’t bias an entire measurement system off one extreme reading
There is no way all these other lights would be spot on and the X45 is magically reading 50% os what it should. That is an issue with the light, not the sphere.
Thats just it, I can not figure out your logic, you keep tossing out ceiling bounce numbers, rated output and other random measurements and comparing them to the sphere. They mean nothing, the sphere numbers are what matters.
The 30% number is just to make the numbers look better, it has nothing to do with getting accurate readings, it is already giving you accurate readings right now.
Do you have any Fenix lights?
Thats what I just showed, your own numbers show that it does NOT read lower as lumen increase. In fact the opposite is true, it reads higher then your ceiling bounce test. The light simply does not put out the rated lumens.
Forget the acebeam numbers, they are just numbers and mean nothing.
Your own testing proves that the sphere is reading linearly as compared to your own ceiling bounce test.
So you do have a fenix light? Can you please post all the fenix tests that you can please?
[quote=Texas_Ace]
[quote=charles lin]
[quote=Texas_Ace]
[quote=charles lin]
DX80 20,000 lumens
X80 15,000 lumens
DT70 9,000 lumens
NOCTIGON M43 4,500 lumens
MF01 cw 7,600 lumens
All my lumen monsters are significantly down on the TA tube.