nope… i’m still stand on my statement, with flooder lights that i’m testing… it’s definitely will not loss in throw distance, in fact it increase by many times fold, HOWEVER… using throw flashlight… it doesn’t works as well as flooder light…maybe because the way the reflector beams out the light?
i don’t know i’m not a light engineer. but it is only prove it only works well with flooder lights only…
i’m still trying to find a way to increase the throw using thrower light. that’s why it’s called prototype 
Ok, so you stand by your statement that ma_sha was wrong when he said
Even though you said.
You have contradicted yourself.
using aspheric lenses won’t produce the same result…zoomable light have that square hotspot… however when you combine the zoomlight with this thing… it cancel out the square hotspot without losing the throw distance:)
my telscope only can fit Trustfire WF 502B perfectly, but not other lights that i currently own, that’s why i’m trying to build it bigger, using the same concept as telescope, but can be use with different lights
PS… the zoomie light will never out throw this device when used with trustfire 502b:)
What you need to take into account is the effect that ‘spill’ has on your eye’s pupils. The intensity of the foreground spill will affect your perception of the hot spot in the distance. If your pupils have ‘stopped down’ to handle the light in the foreground then the hotspot will appear dimmer. Concentrate all the spill into the hotspot then the ‘throw’ will appear brighter because your pupils will be open wider (much like DayLighter’s auto camera’s apeture).
I can see both sides of the argument here. There is less light but it’s put where it’s needed. This is why the Jacob A60 is still well thought of as a thrower even though it is low on lumens.
By the way a fun experiment & another excuse to play with my torches.
BTW Have a Happy New Year everyone. 
judging on your comment, i guess you didn’t see the last picture that i posted?
you didn’t gain any knowledge on that experiment? 
is my creation will less usable and effective than something i can buy?( don’t know about cheap) absolutely…
it’s an idea that i created and hoping will spawn another idea, a better one …
but if we can only be happy with 1 king thrower such as TN31 and 1 flooder maybe something like TK75…then who need idea? then who need forums like these ?
i’m pretty sure you owned more than 2 flashlights… and maybe getting more in the future.
but if there’s an idea out there that can make all the lights that you own and turn it into “monster”light… wouldn’t you want one?
and where do you think those idea will come from?
it’s the people like me who like to waste their time and money trying build something to improve what we have own already.
as far if it work well or not? there’s only 1 way to find out.
so…it probably will be much nicer if you can come out with something nicer build and share it with others instead raining on others parade
The problem is it doesn't turn it into a monster light... It may turn a flooder into a thrower, but why not start with a thrower in the first place? And while yes, you are modifying lights; so am I. The difference is I understand what I'm doing and actually make it brighter. (Driver swap, or LED swap, or more LEDs) Either way, Happy new year!
You have an idea, an interesting one, but your initial claims were made based on an incorrect use of terminology. Yes, it’s brighter, but an increase in light on the target doesn’t mean an increase in light from the torch. I certainly don’t want to bash you or stifle your creativity but the rampant inflated claims of run time and output by marketers make people trigger happy when new claims come out and it was too easy to spot the flaws in your statements. What you’ve done could save a life someday. Well done. I hope you have learned a bit more about flood vs throw and the trade offs between them when focusing light. Thanks
lol… the problem is… it doesn’t meet the requirement of what’s brighter means to you, like i said…if you expecting a cheap $12 light and turn it to a monster throw like HIDs then you’re setting yourself up for dissapointment. happy new year to you too 
:party:
yes i do learn a lot from this experiments… never mention the word “brighter”… i should just let the picture speaks for themselves next time
happy new year! :party:
PS: this mode will come in handy someday if you ever go need to go search and rescue and the only light you have is one of those small flooder light 
” When you put your finger over the tip of the hose, you decrease the amount of space the water has to flow through. Since the same amount of water has to flow out of the hose before and after you place you finger over the end, the water must shoot out faster (to keep the amount of water flowing out a constant).”
The point is that the only way “to keep the amount flowing out a constant” once you put your finger on it is to turn the pressure up. He assumes a constant flow rate which is not the case. I’m sure the author would concede that extremely basic concept. Texts do sometimes have errors. Thats why we have editors. The collimator introduces a restriction in the flow of light but there has been no increase in the light pressure going into it.
The 300ft beamshot was with a telescope, not his mod.
The problem in this thread is all the terms being thrown around without proper understanding of what they mean. (I myself probably made some errors). Another problem is the contradictions of the OP bringing in the telescope and his mod. They are very different, 2 lens vs 1 lens.
Let’s just put that analogy to rest as it is bringing this thread off topic.
I resisted posting for two days, lol, I am going to give it one more try with the intent to clarify things for forum readers, especially those new to optical lens for flashlight use :). It’s very confusing, so bear with me.
The OP’s thread actually started here: ” Brighter light without changing the driver!! & Prototype is done!! :) ( picture heavy) Brighter light without changing the driver!! & Prototype is done!! :) ( picture heavy)
It was using a lens that looks like a long EFL fresnel lens directly on top of the flashlight, don’t know why all the photos were gone,
but anyways, my comments started there & followed here when OP started a new thread with what looked like the same device.
All my comments, when I said it won’t wk, stated it’s for long EFL lens, where the focal length is much longer than the distance between led & the lens. Scaru’s test that confirmed my statements probably used long EFL fresnel lens, more inline with OP’s initial experiments.
This optical principle only partially apply to Medium EFL lens depends on where is the placement of led in relation to the lens focal point.
and depends on the size of original reflector., thus the throw of original flashlight, in relation to the size of added lens.
What’s further complicating this thread is that it looks like mixing of original long EFL lens now with devices with medium EFL lens as well as telescopes, without separating the various lens as well as lens vs telescope & using them to support each other. I think we pretty much figured out which shots are from telescope, I am going to focus on the remaining confusion, what’s happening when Medium EFL lens are used?
When OP place a 3” medium EFL lens, mounted in a tube 8” away from the flashlight, if the lens has an EFL of 8” or so,
this basically create an Aspherical flashlight, just not as efficient as typical aspherical flashlight, which use short EFL lens, so that it can be placed very close to led to collect a bigger angle of light spread. The lens placed far away like 8”, only collect a small angle of beam coming from the led.
None the less, if the led is placed at the focal point of a medium EFL lens, it’ll have the same effect as typical aspherical flashlight and increase throw.
As we all know, the throw of Aspheric flashlight is based on the diameter of the lens, thus OP was able to make it throw much further by using a 3” lens over a small reflector flashlight. May be OP can measure the EFL & confirm that he is actually placing the led at the focal point for his later single lens device, i.e actually making an aspheric flashlight?
If this is the case, it’s possible to explain why it works better in a floody light but not so much in a thrower.
A floody light typically have very small reflector, most of the light comes out as spill, the lens collect the spill & turns it into parallel beam,
in the mean time, diverge the original parallel beam from reflector so that the throw from reflector is lost. because the large lens works much more efficiently than a small reflector, the net effect is much increased throw. The gain is much greater than the loss.
On the other hand, a thrower flashlight usually has a large reflector, TN31 3”, SR90, SR95 UT 3.5”, they are able to collect majority of the light & send them out as parallel beam to have great throw to begin with. With the lens of similar diameter,3” for example, if the led is placed at the focal point, the lens will still collect the spill & turn it into throw, but in the mean time, diverge & mess-up the original throw from the reflector, because the original throw may be greater, the lens may not provide improvement, especially a low quality lens placed 8” away.
In a nuts shell, There are total of at least three type of optical systems experimented by the OP, improve throw or not will depend on the EFL of the lens, the placement of led, and the original reflector size in relation to the diameter of added lens.
1. Long EFL lens placed in front of a flashlight: Will not increase throw, it’s not practical to place led at the focal point as its to long.
2. Medium EFL lens, with flashlight led placed at or near EFL: Will increase throw, rather than a shocking new discovery, it’s just a less practical & less efficient form of aspheric flashlight setup, non the less, follow the same principle.
3. Telescope placed in front of a flashlight: Will increase throw. Not practical but I do find it interesting, especially if it has a really big front lens.
I do want to apologize for using the elephant story to make my point, even if its out of frustration triggered by wild claims & great confusion, it was inappropriate for me to do so.
1. A fixed aspheric (or FTT version) can have a slightly off focus beam that is roundish or even round (which seems similar to what you are doing).
Personally, the die shape works fine in most regular thrower uses . . at its useful distance it fills an open garage or carport or boathouse just fine. I see a lot of people complaining about it, but it seems to be a preference for past norms rather than utility.
2. My focused FTT is brighter than my focused 501b aspheric up close, so I suspect it will throw further. Both are XML T6s at moderate current. It’s die image is tighter from the same distance to a wall so I suspect the different lens is more efficient.
Efficiency is a useful goal - one can get there by both experimenting and by learning and using all that science stuff and even through changing opinions through knowledge learned from argument.
That is correct. Note your astro-physicist said “if a certain amount of water flows into the hose from the spigot”. By placing your finger over the end of the hose you introduced a restriction to the flow. Unless you increase the pressure the water no longer enters the hose at the same rate. ie. that certain amount of flow into the hose has changed. The flow has decreased and will take longer to fill your bucket. Just like he says, I suggest you look in any physics book. This reminds me of a favorite quote. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
If my water hose is smaller than my main and my pressure regulator is set lower than the community pressure, then wouldn’t the flow rate remain the same until the back-pressure exceeds the inlet? The higher community pressure would fill the home system and effectively provide the higher pressure to the hose inlet, assuming it is not exceeding the main/regulatory capacity (and restrictive back-pressure), correct?
Since the quote had a stated and potentially valid assumption, perhaps people could contemplate how to improve the experiment and/or confirm its bounds?
Happy New Year everyone!
Let’s put this bad part of this thread behind us. It’s a new year. So let’s try to be nice to others. If we do that throughout the whole year, think of how much better this place will be.
Daylighter ,
Thank you very much for all your effort!!!
I really appreciate your great attitude! While people saying bad things and trying to correct you on your ‘wrong’ scientifically naming, you stayed with your head cool,
You showed that your 502b with the lens had a higher lux reading at a certain point, and by some comments people showed that your original idea works…
No, not with all lights etc, but it’s just fun to do, and I enjoyed seeing it!
Pity that people start calling it names, because its not cool enough or not great enough to increase lux/ throw with the more expensive ‘throwers’!
You proved with the pictures what your point was with the 502b, with and without that lens!
Game over
you’re right… i’m sorry if i did it with my telescope instead my mod… i guess you didn’t read the comment that i made regarding this mod.
it is based on the telescope, i’m trying to build a bigger one so i can use it to test my other lights.
so… here’s the picture of the same light trustfire wf 502b that was used with the telescope, this time i’m using it in my mod… enjoy
same shot… building is about 300’ away ( maybe more… i’ll double check with google earth later)
control shot… daytime
same trustfire WF502B inside the mod ( i use low mode for picture so it won’t wash out)
Trustfire WF 502B throw( notice the doughnut ring… at this distance the light started losing it’s hotspot) but it still can reach!
That's the problem with a "student" having an extremely narrow field of knowledge. He was right, conversation of energy is at play. The restriction on the hose can allow the pressure to increase the rate of flow at other open spigots, or it can cause energy to change into heat buildup in the pumps trying to move the water, or a gravity system can result in a higher water level at the source...among the many possibilities. If this "student" was actually right, faucets would be atrocious devices to use as they'd always either be completely on or completely off, and if all spigots were completely off, the system would burst to allow the constant flow of water to remain unchanged. As those of us in tune with the real world know, this is not the case.