MT09R was a typo. 112000 was MS18 with the higher multiplier we first got based on a weaker flashlight (Convoy L2). So 97966 is our weakest guesstimate for the MS18 based on MT03 xalculated multiplier because it has more close beam pattern to MS18.
we measured the flashlights in the tube and the integrating bathroom. comparing those tube lumens to the bathroom number gives a correction factor. multiply this factor by the MS18 bathroom number gives MS18 Lumen
2 Convoy L2 (xhp50.2 and luxeon) and a DS20 gave a factor of 15.6
ZozzV6 Haikelite resulted in a 13.55 factor
we took this because it gave the lower!! result
that way the MS18 was tested with 97966 lumen compared to the haikelite
I’m wondering if ZozzV6 has ever used the above methods for measuring the output of the MS12 or if he has access to an MS12 that he could test?
Thanks to VOB who made a full 6” lumen tube we know the output for the MS12 which we could use as a comparison to the calculated results of the MS18.
My understanding is that ZozzV6 only has a 4” lumen tube which doesn’t fully fit the massive head of the MS18 which is why you also used results from a ceiling bounce test to verify the numbers?
We had M4DM4X’s MS12 there but not full battery and it was outside the whole night in the car in cold. And in the morning we did’t had time to wait till it is warm up and charged because we should bring back the MS18 and R90TS to IWA (which was 30-40 km from our hotel) until opening time. So if we measure MS12 with cold and not full batteries it was not a fair compare.
Yes I had a small lumen tube so that is why we used the bathroom ceiling bounce. But I plan to build a bigger lumen tube soon. Calibrate it with Maukka’s lights and I invited Martin to my home and If he got the final MS18 and R90TS and we can measure in a calibrated lumen tube all the big guns:
GT
GT70
R70C
R90C
MS12
R90TS
MS18
Zozz, can you tell me what lumen number you assumed for the MT03TA? Also which emitters do you have in it? I also have the MT03TA and a calibrated TA lumen tube so I can cross check those numbers. Because the MT03 TA is so ultra floody, it is at a great disadvantage compared to less floody lights in a ceiling bounce comparison. I’ve tested it and know. Even the MT09RTA, which uses the exact same driver and emitters tested much brighter than the MT03TA using ceiling bounce.
With that said, I am still super excited about these two new lights. My expectations is about 70k Maukka/ANSI lumens for the MS18 but that is probably enough for me to buy it but waiting for NW version.
Zozz and Martin, since you guys get to talk to Imalent staff in person, can you ask if they know about the Oslon HX Boost emitters? It is already available for purchase with a MOQ of 2,000. If they use this emitter, they will probably increase the throw by 50% to 100% with slightly lowered output. Since I already have the R90C I will not buy the R90TS despite the seemingly huge improvements. However, if they decide to use the HX Boost, I will definitely buy it.
The MT03 was cold and not completely full batteries. It not needed to show it’s full power just to get the multiplier factor.
Also mine has spring bypasses and I used Samsung 30Q-s in it. The best number ever I get from it is 19000 lumens. That day it done 14000 but we bring it in from the car and it started condensating waer on it’s body so the batteries were very cold. And cold batteries has lower power. If I remember correctly it done 15500 lumens in stock form when I got it new.
I did not have a TA lumen tube.
I made mine myself. we did measure in a small bathroom 100000 lumens so I did not pointed the light sensor to ceiling. Just the opposite wall. Not where I stood with the light. All walls were white so 100000 lumens in 6m2 area room It doesn’t matter how floody is it