What does “lumen standard” mean?
Do you mean it’s more accurate to the rated output?
I never pay attention to rated output. I tend to go by emitter type, driver type and amp draw on battery. Then I compare it with emitter tests done by testers such as koef3, djozz, match and others. I have most of these charts in my head.
Then I calculate estimated driver, reflector and lens losses. Battery type can also play a factor. Anyway, I can pretty much tell you what it should be outputting and whether it’s more or less than the rated output. It’s not exact, but not bad for a back of the envelope calculation. Flashlight manufacturers can’t bend the rules of physics. Lol
The general rule of thumb is that most lights are below their rated output.
I never paid much attention to Fenix as they always cost a lot more than similar lights from other manufacturers.
Yea Randy at PflexPro haven’t been very responsive to emails in the last two months. He used to reply to every email right away. I hope it’s just because he’s taking a long vacation temporarily.
TA, I’ve yet to receive a response from either of the individuals I had contacted regarding using their spheres. Was hoping for better news for you. I know you are shipping your lights overseas, but I’ll keep you posted if anything changes.
OK, I redo my calculation with new Data from Maukka. I also take Maukka’s advice remove both Lumintop Tool AAA Copper & Tool AAA TIs’ DATA from the averge calibration#. Base on maukka’s review DATA; I simulation status best I can ( same model of lights with same CCT & use the same batteries). My new average calibration# for TA’s tube is 0.657939. I don’t trust any Mfg spec. I won’t recalibrate any integrating spheres with Mfg spec#.
We aren’t trying to find a specific number to make our readings match a manufacturers rated spec.
We want to know how far off the manufacturers specs actually are.
The bummer is that TA’s tube was calibrated to match a lot of other people’s lumen measuring devices on BLF and CPF. So people like DB Custom, Matt at Adventure Sport Flashlights and many others here were all measuring high.
We may have to scrap a bunch of old measurements from the last several years and start fresh based on guys like Maukka and certain TLF members, etc… who base everything off properly calibrated reference sources.
Not quite. TA needs to recieve his measured sample lights and measure them across several lumen tubes. Any one particular tube could be in the plus 5% while another might be in the negative 5%. So we need multiple samples to find that middle ground. Then TA could tell us that correction number for all spheres.
I don’t know how good it is to have several sample lights measured from different people. I suppose if they are all measured against a certified standard calibration lamp, it should be fine.
If any one person wants to get their lumen tube even more accurate, these measured sample lights might be able to be shipped to customers with instructions.
I would be willing to give TA a deposit for the light and pay for shipping so I can find my particular lumen tubes exact correction number. Then the –5% might shift down to–1% or 2%. I could even ship it to the next person wanting to use it. I don’t know if TA or Micael would want to do this, though.
It may not even be needed. Of the 35-40 tubes made, I think statistically most are already in that +–1% or 2% range. The rest falling into the wider ranges. So passing a light around might be a waste of time. ???
For me right now I’d have no real need for the calibration light because TA is going to figure out what to for do re-calibration (something better than paper sheets / plastic bags) then he will send us the part to install or tell us what to do.
After that I could see maybe passing the light around to confirm accuracy of the fix, if TA recommends doing that, at that point I would be ok with paying for shipping the light to the next member.
I decided to test out some different mediums across the TA Tube sensor to see if they are consistent.
I used my S2+ on medium measuring from 210 to 225 depending on whether I turned it off and back on. So I would leave it on and keep getting reference levels to eliminate any discrepancies.
I tested one layer of the wax tissue paper that I talked about earlier. I measured the lumen drop relative to the reference brightness level. I tested 10 different sections of a single sheet. Here are all 10 results showing the lumen drop in lowest to highest order:
24 24 27 27 27 32 35 35 37 37
Almost a 50% difference. So not very consistent, especially when doing multiple layers.
Next was a Walmart white plastic bag. I just did 4 samples from all over the bag. No printed sections and no folds. Here is the drop in lumens:
37 41 45 50
About a 35% difference. So again, not very consistent. (On average this particular white plastic bag gives me a correction factor of .80)
Lastly I did the same test as above using a Kroger grocery brown plastic bag. Here is the drop in lumens:
72 78 79 82
About a 14% difference. (On average this particular brown plastic bag gives me a correction factor of .65)
I think the trend is that the more light a medium blocks, the more consistent it is.
As I find more materials laying around the house I’ll try and give some accurate samples from it.
I think the bottom line is that when TA announces his official correction factor we will need to find some type of paper, plastic, etc… medium that drops the readings that exact amount and then not mess with it. For example, if different sections of the same plastic bag can vary so much, then we will need to cut out a specific section to use and reuse. Then not get it mixed up with a different bag or different section of bag. See what I mean?
Then we will be back to direct lumen readings right off the meter.
I assume TA is going to figure out something better than paper sheets / plastic bags etc. and send us the part that can then be permanently installed. (or tell us what/where to buy it)