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

I have two S2+ 219b triples from PflexPro that came with lumen graphs. But I swapped the optics so I’ll have to change it back to test it. Will post results at a later date.

Blf gt
Factory. 2500 lumen
TA. 1990 lumen

Acebeam L16
Factory. 2000 lumen
TA. 2040 lumen

Lumintop odf30
Factory. 3500 lumen
TA. 3540 lumen

Thrunite TC20
Factory. 3800 lumen
TA. 3210 lumen

Fenix tk35ue
Factory. 3200 lumen
TA. 4290 lumen

Fenix tk15
Factory. 1000 lumen
TA. 1249 lumen

Foursevens mmx
Factory. 950 lumen
TA. 931 lumen

Foursevens mmu-x3
Factory. 1600 lumen
TA. 2470 lumen.

MT09r xhp35 hi cw @30 seconds… 6300 lumen

Mt07s single xhp70.2 5700k… @30 seconds. 8320 lumen

Got my tube earlier this week, finally got a chance to play around and take some readings with a few lights, here's my data:

Model

Mfg.spec.

Review spec.

TA tube @ 30 seconds

Deli paper 1 sheet

Deli paper 2 sheets

Eagtac D25C2 XP-G2

530 (ANSI)

na

625

519

435

Eagtac MX25L3 MTG2

2375 (ANSI)

na

3350

2740

2360

Jetbeam E20R

990 (ANSI)

na

1290

1060

895

Nitecore HC30 (NW)

1000 (ANSI)

na

1453

1165

995

Jaxman E2L 3*Nichia

720

na

895

731

629

Sofirn C8F v2

2580

2756 (30 sec)

3340

2860

2510

ThruNite TC20 (NW)

3800

3560 (30 sec)

4240

3470

2960

BLF Q8

5000

5624 (30 sec)

6950

5730

4910

Convoy C8 7135*8 (XPL-HI V2-1A)

na

na

1148

968

786

The first thing I did was swap out the included batteries in the Lux Meter with a pair of fresh Duracell Alkaline OEM.

My tube also appears to be reading higher. For the DIY re-calibration mod I took readings with different plastic bags and sheets of deli paper, the readings progressively decreasing...

Walmart bag
Shop n Save bag
Deli paper 1 sheet
Deli paper 2 sheets

The Deli paper is the kind they have in convenience stores to handle self serve donuts, also what they use to wrap cheese in the deli.

The lower readings with the Deli papers were more in line with the factory specs and review testing than the plastic bags, the correct calibration is probably somewhere between 1 and 2 sheets (closer to 2 sheets for most lights).

Overall I very happy with this lumen tube, It's lots of fun and it's great to have a tool like this, finally I have something to take measurements and compare lights!

The calibration discrepancy doesn't bother me a bit, I'm confidant TA will eventually come up with a solution for that, so in the end we will have exactly what we paid for, and I'm sure it's already worth what we paid as it is. Thanks TA!

Nice work beam0. Very detailed & easy to understand. The detailed chart makes it easy to do comparisons & see what is going on with the stock TA Tube as well as when different levels of correction materials are used. :+1:

Would you please stop posting numbers willy nilly. If you want to help us out, tell us the raw number with no bag or tell us your correction factor. Measure a light with and without the plastic bag to see what percentage it reduces the output.

I do have the ODF30 and I measured 4510 lumen. If that is what you measured then it looks like your 3540 measurement gives a correction factor of .78. So your bag is reducing output about 22%.

If we use your earlier ODF30 measurement of 3410 it gives a correction factor of .76, a 24% reduction in output.

This goes out to everyone:

If you don’t want to post the raw numbers from the TA Tube, at least say that your numbers are using a correction factor of XX% so as not to cause confusion. Thanks.

Thanks! It’s actually a condensed version, I also recorded battery cell used, outputs @turn on, and the 2 types of plastic bag outputs.

Added Convoy C8 this morning:

Model

Factory spec.

Reviewed spec.

TA tube @ 30 seconds

Deli paper 1 sheet

Deli paper 2 sheets

Convoy C8 7135*8 (XPL-HI V2-1A)

na

na

1148

968

786

Maybe ask pflexpro about sending him some lights to test for standard/calibration lights?
Or maybe he would have a stock 7135 Convoy light he could just test and send with a test results sheet.

(photo of his setup from a thread in 2015)

The C8 might be a light I can compare with. I’m running a different emitter, but color should be the same. I got:
Convoy C8 XM-L2 U2-1A - 1330 @30sec (a little better than my previous reading of 1310)

So I’m getting a higher output. The two bin codes show mine should measure about 15 lumen higher which is virtually the same. If I use a .65 correction factor, my reading is about 120 lumen higher than yours (860 to 740).

Pretty interesting. I wonder if there is a performance difference due to the battery? I’m using a protected KeepPower Sanyo 3500 GA pulling 2.66A. Same amp draw and output on a button top 30Q at same voltage.

What are you using?

I think he is just excited to try out a new toy. It is not a problem to post the numbers as he is, they are just not very useful without more information.

Yes. The reading will be much higher without the plastic. I will measure my odf30 without the plastic. Just for you!

Hmm, that is possible. Although doesn’t look like he is very active, he has not logged in for almost 2 months.

It also would seem kinda strange to not just buy one of his lights, which I suppose I could do but looks like the cheapest light he offers is an S2+ for $50. Which is ok but I would really prefer have more then 1 measured light to give better comparisons. Although $50 is hard to swallow right now seeing as I just had to buy a new soldering station.

It is an option to consider though, I just sent him a message on here, not sure if that is the best way.

Are you’re referring to my C8 numbers? (not sure where the 120 lumen higher / 860 to 740 came from?)

Is your 1330 @30sec reading with tube as shipped, no correction material?

I got 1148 @30sec so 182 lower

I also used a Sanyo 3500 GA (flat top unprotected)

Tested again with a different well rested GA and got 1160 @30sec

Also, just so everyone knows, unless otherwise stated, my numbers are generally between 5-10 seconds. That is long enough for the output to level out somewhat in most cases yet not heat the light up too much for future readings or drain the cells too much.

Many times I can need to take several readings within a few minutes and having to swap batteries and wait for it to cool down each time would make this process take way too long.

I think the PM was probably the best way, My thought was if he had a stock light sitting around he could test and sell for maybe a little over the actual cost. I think he would understand you don’t really need one of his lights but just something to use for a calibration standard. My thought was maybe he would be willing to help since he’s a member and not that far away. (Georgia?)

“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. I believe this gives you the most accurate output rating for the actual flashlight you will receive. Many of my buyers have commented on how much brighter the PFlexPro flashlights are compared to the ones they have that were supposed to have similar output. I also provide full information on my methods of thermal management and construction details in addition to the actual output -I believe you have the right to know what you are buying.”

Ok, 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.

I will see what he says to my message. Might get a light from both for a more widespread comparison

Yes, I’m refering to your C8 numbers.

The 120 lumen difference is from using a .65 correction factor. We all know the stock C8 does not put out 1330 lumen so I adjusted the numbers down. (BTW, I might have read 1140 was your reading)
1330 = 860
1150 = 750
Difference of 110 lumen in real world.

If we use a .70 correction factor the difference is 125 lumen (930 and 805). I hope this makes sense.

I am not putting any material over the sensor. These are raw numbers so they can be adjusted later on once TA has an official correction factor.

What’s interesting is that Cree rates their bin numbers with a 14% deviation and then TA Tubes are calibrated within a 10% deviation. So both of our outputs fall easily within that range. Even if our tubes were perfectly matched, I might have an emitter on the higher end of the bin scale and you might have one on the lower end and it just fits within Cree’s 14%.

Pretty cool. :smiley:

Yeah, it’s not very useful and I don’t mean to sound harsh. I just don’t want other people to get confused by it.

Handing out these Lumen Tubes is kind of like handing out a loaded gun. Some people know how to use it properly and will holster it with the safety on and other people will just run around shooting it off in the air with no regard to others.

That might be a bit of an extreme anology, but I think people should be more responsible when posting lumen results. You never know when an outsider might Google search for a flashlights output and go to a persons post that shows out of context numbers.

I know we are all amateurs here and these tubes are not meant to be a replacement for a proper integrating sphere (Ozzy), but I would still like to see us set some standards. Such as saying whether these are raw numbers from the TA Tube or if it has been corrected by XX%.

“I want these tubes to reduce the chaos in the world, not to create more.” - Philosophy of the day by JasonWW :smiley:

You didn’t sound harsh Jason & I understand Newlumen’s excitement also…. nothing wrong with that.

But any data, without stating the parameters under which it was achieved; becomes random & meaningless. And that applies to most anything and anyone who does it.

It can be easily misinterpreted by someone looking at a random post where the parameters under which the data was achieved are not stated.

No harm, no foul. Maybe we can all be more responsible in what we post so as to contribute useful data. :slight_smile:

Many have already done this……

We dont know the real correction factor… i dont have an integration tested light to calibrate… so jason, my 4” tube correction factor would estimate around .84… without plastic! Lol.