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

Obviously we can figure out a correction factor to use, but I would like to keep the design premise of having a direct lumens reading with no math involved.

Before any modding, the important thing is for the owners to not permanently alter the calibration that TA put on the tubes. So I was trying to figure out a way to reduce all output by a certain percentage.

Maybe making the centering discs do double duty is an option. Keep the reflective tape on one side, but change the silver paint to a less reflective color on the other side.

Instead of repainting, maybe cover the painted side in an adhesive backed felt in a specific color such as black or brown. Felt might be more consistent than paint. The problem with altering the entrance of the tube is that different beam shapes may be affected to differing degrees.

If we need a 50 or 60 percent reduction in output across the board, then we might need to look at the sensor end of the tube. Maybe a thin sheet of tissue paper over the sensor and then stick it in the hole would get the job done. This way you could still have TA’s calibration and then have your own calibration which might be closer to accurate.

So a theory - TA buys a stack of tissue paper, like waxed for instance, tests it out, gets a proper reduction across the board for all light types, then mails out a few sheets to all owners. Maybe we send a few bucks to cover envelopes, stamps and the extra effort. Then everyone’s lights would still be calibrated to each other. Plus we could simply remove the single sheet of tissue paper over the sensor and be right back to stock.

Just a thought.

Also seeing numbers higher than expected. Measurements taken 30sec after turn-on:

Fenix PD35 (freshly charged Samsung INR18650-25R)

spec high = 1,000

TA Tube = 1,600

Acebeam X80 (freshly charged Acebeam 18650s that came with light)

spec medium level = 2,500

TA Tube =2,850

Zebralight SC600w Mk III (freshly charged Samsung INR18650-25R)

spec high (H1) = 1,126

TA Tube = 1,725

Nitecore TIP 2017 (non CRI version) fully charged built-in battery

spec high = 150

TA Tube = 202

spec turbo = 360

TA Tube = 448

J5 Tactical V1-Pro (Olight 14500 battery)

(note, many have suspected they fudge their numbers)

spec for high = 300

TA Tube = 210

Olight S1 Baton (fully charged Olight 14500 battery)
spec high = 500
TA Tube = 730
Olight S1A Baton (fully charged Olight RCR123A)
spec high = 600
TA Tube = 797

Nitecore TINI (fully charged built-in battery)

spec high = 145 , TA Tube = 217
spec turbo = 380 , TA Tube = 545
Olight I3e silver (Panasonic Eneloop Pro AAA)
spec single mode = 120
TA Tube = 173
Olight I3e copper (Panasonic Eneloop Pro AAA)
spec single mode = 120
TA Tube = 167
Olight I3e blue (Panasonic Eneloop Pro AAA)
spec single mode = 90
TA Tube = 128
Olight ION (fully charged built-in battery)
spec high = 320
TA Tube = 447
Adventure Sports Flashlights custom Maglite (2X KeepPower 26650)
spec high = 5,000
TA Tube = 6,550
Rofis ER3A (Panasonic Eneloop Pro AAA)
spec single mode = 120
TA Tube = 145
MecArmy X4S (supplied 10180)
spec high = 130
TA Tube = 158
Klarus P20 (2X Panasonic Eneloop Pro AAA)
spec high = 230
TA Tube = 325
Averaging multiplication correction numbers for all results (excluding the J5 for obvious reasons) gave me a correction factor of .728(

I also noted that the exact position of the light made little difference.

FWIW my SC600w HI Mk3 sample reads within 0.5% of Zebralight’s claim of 1126 lumens at 30 seconds with any good battery (VTC5A, VTC6, 30Q, GA). I’d use that as a good calibration light for that type of beam.

edit: to clarify, this is in a sphere, not in TA’s tube, which I don’t have

Wow, no one seems to have the same lights as me. Here is what I can measure (that are still stock).

Convoy S2+ with QLITE 3A driver and xml2 CW

Convoy C8 xml2 CW

On the Road M3 CW

OTR U16 CW

OTR U18 CW

DQG Tiny 7× 2500lm CW

Eagle Eye X2R CW

EE X5R CW

Lumintop ODF30 CW

Lumintop Tool AA CW

Lumintop IYP365 CW

Jaxmnve M3 CW

New Boruit 5000lm headlamp

Crelant CH10 Xml2 CW

Zanflare F6 and F6S CW

If anyone else has one of these lights, let me know and we might be able to do some direct comparisons.

Wow your lights are all CW. I always thought you were a WW guy from your username. I have NW versions of some of your lights but can’t really compare them if they are not the same CCT. Might be different flux bin too.

If someone in Europe (shipping stuff back outside EU is too expensive) has the integrating tube and wishes to calibrate it against a sphere, PM me. Sending me two of your own lights with preferably different CCT and CRI and beam profiles would be much better than trying to calibrate against a different sample of the same model.

Maukka, Could you explain why my SC600w HI Mk3 measure 1680 lm@30 seconds in TA’s tube (Zebralight’s spec: H1-1126 lumens), but I got Exactly same M1-61 lm @30 seconds in TA’s tube as Zebralight’s claim??

The M1 on mine is actually 46 lumens.

Thanks! now It makes sense!

You can try putting a neutral density filter inside the sphere over the sensor. I then took a few readings (under 1000 lumen) both with and without the filter to get a correction factor. Then I could measure my brighter lights. At least the ones that would fit in the hole.

The JoshK sphere is also set up to put a high powered light on the outside of the ball to shine in. There is a shield inside for this purpose. It also uses a different method of calculating the output which I’m not familiar with. I need to re-read the thread and find those instructions.

I’m getting high readings too.

Might have a solution to the problem.

I tried it without using any of the rings. I just hold the flashlight centered right above the lip of the tube.
I didn’t try all my lights but the reading seems to be a little more accurate.

Zebralight light - spec 1163 - reading 1803 - w/o ring 1233
astrolux c8- spec 1300 - reading 1650 - w/o ring 1121
mt09-35 - TA tested 7000 - reading 8090 - w/o ring 6980
Surefire Fury - spec 500 - eading 883 - w/o ring 615

after more testing. I notice that small lights under 1” dia cannot be tested without using a ring.

with smaller flashlights, you’ll need to use a ring that will give you about 1” of opening on all sides to get a decent reading.

this is only mine finding. might not work for all.

I tried it without rings too, that’s what gave me the idea of coating the underside of the ring black.

I don’t think it’s going to be a practical solution because it won’t be consistent between floody lights and throwy lights.

I think we have to have that reflective tape to help trap all of the light.

Sorry I was not around last night, still catching up.

I have suspected the readings are a bit on the high side before, which is why I always round down but never even considered them being this far off. I figured maybe 10%.

I went back and looked at my notes on the calibration process for my sphere from 2 years ago and did realize a few important details I completely forgot about.

1: I was having a horrible time getting readings to agree with basically anything, the more lights and LED’s I tried, the worse it seemed to get.

2: I ended up getting so frustrated I decided I trusted the Cree spec sheets more then light ratings and ditched basically all of the light ratings except for basic comparisons.

3: I started testing all the LED’s I had on hand, which at the time were basically all from china sources like Fasttech.

At this point I think many of you can see where this is going. I was still fairly new to the raw LED market back then and put far too much trust in the ratings from fasttech and others. One thing that stood out to me is I see some notes about XP-L HI V6 LED’s (I was/still am a big XP-L HI fan).

I now know these do not exist but these played heavily into my testing at the time as they were the LED I was buying and using the most.

So I was using the cree data sheet for a V6 emitter when they were at best a V2. This also explains why other LED’s read much too low.

According to my notes I ended up averaging the numbers and settling on that as my final calibration. This put the few stock lights I had around the expected output as compared to other BLF numbers. For example my A6 at the time got just over 1600 lumens on an HE2 battery, although the notes do not say if the springs were bypassed.

Basically I think I royally screwed up the calibration on my sphere but due to lack of comparable numbers could never figure this out.

It reads lower then many I know for sure so I never expected it to be so high.

This would be great if we could get a direct comparison. I am really bothered that the readings are not even close to being correct. Feels like I mislead people when that was the last thing I wanted. I simply didn’t have anyway of getting better numbers.

I know one went to Sweden and 1 to the UK but that is all to Europe.

Maybe I could send you a few lights to get real lumen readings, then you can send them back and I can compare? That way I would have standard lights to calibrate the ones I still have and re-calibrate any that people want recalibrate.

I have wanted to do this for some time, even looked really hard for a real sphere to get a “calibration light” when I was building mine but could not find anything.

TA, in order to make this project work as expected, is it safe to assume that:

(1) after measuring several lights from respected manufacturers, each of us could come up with our own correction factor, and end up with relatively accurate readings?

(2) that correction factor should be about the same for everyone?

Based on four of the lights I've measured so far (from respected manufactures), my correction factor would be .72

Using a correction factor only takes a few seconds to compute, really no big deal.

Yes, that would work but a “standard” correction factor for everyone would keep all the numbers comparable. For that we need as large a data pool as possible and then to average the results.

If I could get some lights measured by a real ANSI sphere for calibration proposes that would be great, then for the first time I would have a standard I trust to calibrate my sphere and figure out a correction factor for everyone.

As I am sure many have noticed, lights vary a lot from the ratings. They may be ok in some modes but it is quite rare for them to be correct in all modes with all batteries.

I have many more lights I want to measure, to fine tune my correction factor.

For those of you who have been into flashlights longer than me, which manufacturers could I trust the most for accurate lumens outputs?

Someone mentioned Fenix. The three I have are PD35, FD40 and FD20.

Or any specific models that have been tested by a reliable source?

I may be on to something. I remember reading somewhere about someone using tissue paper in there lumen tube. Maybe it was TA?

I grabbed an extra waxed paper from donut section of the grocery store this morning. One piece over the sensor dropped it a little, two pieces were closer and three pieces seem just right.

Now the tube is reading pretty much the same as the JoshK sphere or just a tiny bit higher. Assuming that’s what we’re aiming for. Also, the amount of time the light is on before taking the reading does make a large difference and might explain why it’s not exact.

Here’s how I measured my BLF GT. I used a C8 reflector. I then stuck it in the appropriate sized ring. LOL. :stuck_out_tongue:

GT in TA tube:
Stock tube - 3300 lm - obviously too high
3 layers - 2200 lm - pretty realistic

I know it’s not the same without the big reflector and lens, but that doesn’t fit on the 3” tube. No biggie. It’s the only light I have that doesn’t fit.

The reading is about 1/3 higher than what is expected. We’ve seen this value before. The 4” tubes were measuring 1/3 lower, which is related to the fact that a 4” tube
has 1/3 more surface than a 3” tube.
Is there perhaps some kind of mix up?