Maxtoch XSWORD L2K // 2000 Meter Laser Tech Thrower // Full Review

Okay.

I see what you’re saying Jos, but I also know that lenses block a percentage of the light so it’s expected to see more light with the lens removed. In this case though, it’s a difference between floody light and a shadow vs tightly controlled narrow light.

These light tubes are different in that they are designed as P traps for large commercial drains. The ID is 4 1/4”, the curve is not a typical 90º. More expensive, but the results are different. Texas Ace uses 90º pipe bends in a 3” Sch 40 if I’m not mistaken, a different product altogether. And our P trap lights are painted internally to further aid in the integration. Painted black externally as well, although I don’t know why as the Sch 80 pipe is thick walled enough to allow no pass through.

I know mine is calibrated with no less than 25 ANSI rated high end lights, and over the past 4 or 5 years I’ve seen results from out-of-box lights match the ANSI ratings admirably, in all sorts of lights, low end budget lights to extremely expensive name brand multi emitters. Literally 500+ lights have been in my light box, with the numbers always a close enough match to the big name ANSI ratings (lights that come with Owners Manual’s that show the big green multi tens of thousands of dollars spheres they test with) to cause no worry about deviation.

To be honest, the constant questioning of the light box is tiresome… it’s proven out over a wide disparity of lights, speaks volumes in and of itself.

Completely random off-topic post, but if you want to hear one of the pioneers of electro-pop synth music you could do worse than checkout Kraftwerk at Kraftwerk - Autobahn ( Longversion ), das Original. - YouTube

It was very good indeed. And so syncopated, despite the machines.

Is there any sound?Because I can’t hear any.Also,who has made this and what diode is used,as I know that the stronger ones give 7W max.

I’d like to find a way to lay the whole light testing equipment question to rest, once and for all. Do we need to communicate with a manufacturer and send a light around the world to different testers and see where the differences fall? Or do we need to send a select sampling of lights to a manufacturer so they can be tested in one of those expensive green spheres? I’m going to bet my money that no sphere, regardless of cost, integrates every light properly without adjustments being made to the color and output type. Simple as that. A $25,000 sphere is going to be wrong as often as my own P trap light box, at the end of all the testing. Maybe not by as much margin, but not 100% accurate either. I’m also willing to bet that any given light, if given 100 samples off the line from random selection, is going to show a lot of different results in the same high end sphere. So again, this is not a carved in stone science where a particular light makes a particular output all the time. Given that, and given your own testing Jos with multiple builds and meters, I think it’s safe to say we are after a reference point, and a reference point alone. People need to understand that their lights are going to vary, with different cells, different days, different emitters, different lenses, variation is the only constant when it’s all said and done.

And if we did all that testing, found a foregone conclusion, the question would still come up over and over and over… such is life, right?

So, here we are again, with my P trap light box (and robo819’s, built by the same 2 guys) being said to have high numbers for throwers, yet testing low against ANSI ratings from the manufacturer… 373 lumens against 500. So much for theories…

I’m sure that the pipe-design as a way to measure total light output will work well as long as the radiation pattern of the light source (beam shape) does not show too much variation (most flashlights produce some sort of hotspot with spill around it), but with patterns much different from that (zoomie in spot modus or a pure mule) I do expect that you will see incorrect readings to some extend. With this Maxtoch with and without lens you are testing the limits of your measuring device!

I’m beginning to want to get me one of these pipe-devices to check the integration quality myself, compared to integrating spheres.

A big difference in this Schedule 80 4” P trap is cost, the P trap alone is $80! As a P trap, it doesn’t have the sweeping 90º turn but instead it has a sharp bend. And the thicker Schedule 80 design helps as well I would assume. Simpler and cheaper to assemble a light box from 90º elbows, but maybe not as effective. Can build a 3” Sch 40 for less than $20 or thereabouts.

Our in here, (Me, Robo, Richard, Tom E) is that one of the two brothers has worked in a plumbing supply house for 25+ years! :wink: The unique situation is that both brothers are flashaholics, one liking hot rod balls to the wall lights and the other liking high end high quality high cri lights. So they had a very wide sampling of lights to use to calibrate these boxes, having over 400 lights between them at the time.

Just buy a gym-ball, fibre-glass the outside, not forgetting the non-stick coating, let it set, remove the bladder, then paint it internally with whatever (that is the important decision, BaO would be nice, but unlikely to be readily available.)

Set up some sort of baffle, and fire away. Into a sphere.

Bits of bent toilet pipe aren’t really going to do the same job.

Easy for me to say, but I’ve never actually tried it, because I’ve never had a reason to worry about precise numbers.

Nor do I care much about numbers from these contraptions, just what I see with my imperfect eyes.

Yes, check your settings. And settle back for a good listen. Which was the whole point of my link, but probably went “whoosh” over the heads of most :wink:

And there it is in a nutshell. The numbers are comparatively meaningless in and of themselves.

I pull a light out of the box, look at the manual, drop a charged cell in and see if matches Their numbers, then I take it apart and rebuild it my way, see what gains I’ve found, maybe tear it apart and address some issues, put it back together and test it again to see if it’s where I think it should be. The numbers are relevant in that I’ve spent time and effort to gain output. I post these numbers here so that people can see what the light does out of the box as compared to what it does with some tinkering. :wink:

Wetool states that their laser puts out 0.25W (ouput energy) for 200 lumens. This light here won’t be that much stronger than that. 7W would be in a different world (also requiring a much bigger light with much better cooling). Lasers are much more fragile than LEDs. Also, this driver is probably not a standard buck driver. Laser diodes are normally driven with special laser drivers which regulate with less voltage spikes etc.

What about the wattage?How is it possible to have a 10W laser,when I know that Sanwu for example goes max to 7W?

Only by combining multiple diodes, which is very common. 7W per diode is only reached in extreme mods.

Yeah, lasers use constant voltage, opposite of LEDs.

[quote=djozz]

Hmmm… How does 430 +kcd sounds to you in 50mm(47mm) B158 with emitter XP-E2 die size? LOL yes… Very possible, and this will strike whole forum soon. So goodbye XP-G2 S4 2B and Black Flat… Game over for that leds… :beer:

But I agree that B158 has natural opportunity for 53.4mm lenses (Just look how much unnecessary “meat” their 50mm lenses have).

Sometimes I really can’t understand manufacturer blindness on some thing… Even if you draw them, explain them etc. They still don’t want to listen.

So I really hope Maxtoch will make LEP light suitable for all hunting situations… Probably smaller one with zoomable function. Or same size with zoomable function. I will wait…

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think I have the basic understanding of how this light is working.

This should be the basic design used in the Maxtoch. A rear firing laser to excite the phosphor in a very small dot, then a double convex (double aspheric) lens to produce a “parallel” beam out the end. Think of sunlight through a magnifying glass creating a tiny focused source of light. Now it’s night time and you reverse the source of light. You go from a tiny source of light to a wide parallel beam.

Oops, I didn’t make my link clear.

Try 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e11h73WhqK4

Turn it up loud, and admire the syncopation.

Edit: and the fat Moog bass.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobahn\_(song)

Deutsche engineering. Driven by a need for speed. Coming to a flashlight near you soon, by trickle-down.

Why do you keep posting that? You’re cluttering the thread.

Frankly there is no thread.

Talk about it, hypothetically, but I doubt that you are going to get any useful tech. data. The rest will be supposition.

A very few people now have these, but don’t quite know what to make of them yet . They are very different.

This is beyond what has gone before, and the standard ability to measure the thing (if that matters at-all).

So, I suggest, a period of quiet contemplation, before posting again. Particularly if you don’t actually have one, very few do. (also applies to me, but I do have a deep technical understanding of the subject, and am impressed).

Otherwise, well, I’d better not say.

This actually IS a thread, posted by a friend of mine, and Tom Tom, you’re out of line.

I am one that has the light, as is my friend, and we’re trying to bring it out to those interested. All relevant measurements have been posted, along with beam shots and some tear down pics, so do you actually have anything relevant to say or are you just loitering here, trolling? Stand down or go outside please.