DayLighter wrote:

Geeeezus people...for goodness sake can we just agree the light does appear brighter? let's not throw lumens or candela or scientific formula into how to calculate the brightness into this mod. it is what it is.. the lux meter show it's brighter and that's good enough for me even if it still the same lumen. what i'm trying to achieve here ..is to use a cheap and decent light and turn it into something of more expensive thrower the mod does create a brighter hotspot, the same hotspot of more expensive light that cost 10X more expensive. of course as we know it.. to get throw, you will sacrifice spill, you can't have the throw of TN31 with the spill of TR-J18. so let's us all just agree that the mod gives a better illumination than before. if there's no pictures to back it up.. then all is just words :D

No...

You don't understand. If it can't be dissected, corrected, manipulated, stipulated, debated, rejected or accepted, it can't be discussed in a flashlight forum.

Yes, you redirected the light and it appears brighter, because it is more focused. No, it really isn't brighter scientifically, because optics cannot increase light output. They are all just going through their usual long BLF process, let them enjoy, they can't help it.

As for me, I think it's a pretty cool attempt at focusing the light from your flashlights into a more usable beam. Not everyone knows the scientific correctness and the reality is "It's just a flashlight for ***** sakes and it's just a hobby, not building a rocket here, LOL. Have fun with it.

It sure looks brighter on my ipad.

Guys, the argument here is over terminology. It technically is not brighter as brighter is total light output. It is throwier which is the amount of light in one point which is what the lux meter measures. 

it actually IS brighter, in the part that matters to the OP. He took useless spill that was being wasted, and focused that light into the main focal beam, making it brighter than it was before. Thats not science, its just common sense.
In an attempt to educate/give some insight on terminology, I think some people got a little “CPFish”. No harm no foul, just the flexing of flashlight knowledge muscle. But really, theres no need to troll the OP and flame the guys country and education system. Now, if he was from Kentucky…

I think you guys took all the excitement out of DayLighters cool invention and marginalized the whole spirit his experiment over the word “looks”.

DayLighter wrote:

PS:do you think the education system in Croatia is better than in US? 'cos i don't think croatia able to send the man to the moon yet :p

Since the US hasnt brought anyone to the moon since 1972, does that mean that US citizens have become less educated?

Cool contraption daylighter,those lenses look to be from a projection tv.I have pulled some monster lenses from them myself.It's always fun to experiment with stuff like this and many great ideas are born that way.

NightCrawl wrote:

DayLighter wrote:

PS:do you think the education system in Croatia is better than in US? ‘cos i don’t think croatia able to send the man to the moon yet

Since the US hasnt brought anyone to the moon since 1972, does that mean that US citizens have become less educated?

We realized that going to the moon is like going to a Midget Strip club.. You go once to see what the fuss is about, but why the hell would you want to go back?

Blinders wrote:

NightCrawl wrote:

DayLighter wrote:

PS:do you think the education system in Croatia is better than in US? 'cos i don't think croatia able to send the man to the moon yet :p

Since the US hasnt brought anyone to the moon since 1972, does that mean that US citizens have become less educated?

We realized that going to the moon is like going to a Midget Strip club.. You go once to see what the fuss is about, but why the hell would you want to go back?

Speaking from experience are we?

@Scaru:

I wish there was a midget strip club in my area. I would have went. Once. Just so i could say “yeah I went to the midget stripclub, there wasnt nothin’ there but a bunch of naked midgets..”

Can I ask how far away from the meter were you? If you retook the measurements at a distance that is a multiple of 1 meter, then we could see how significant that is. (Nice work btw)

scaru wrote:

Guys, the argument here is over terminology. It technically is not brighter as brighter is total light output. It is throwier which is the amount of light in one point which is what the lux meter measures. 

Actually, this light is neither brighter nor a better thrower than before the mod, that’s why the thread is so misleading.
It gives a brighter spot on the wall but is not “throwier” than before.

It gives brighter spot at distance near the focal point of the long EFL lens, that’s it.
Because the lens is focusing parallel beam coming out of a flashlight, it’ll diverge the beam after the focal point.

Because it’s no longer a parallel beam, The OP needs to take it outside & compare the actual throw, i.e. the distance that light can actually reach, actual distance the light can reach vs, before the mod, it’ll be obvious that the throw will be less.

This reminds me the blind man & elephant story, the man on the left insist that the elephant looks like a rope.
He is correct & that’s no argument that the part of the elephant he felt does look like a rope. But nothing could be more wrong to state the elephant is like a rope, the men is limited by his method of experiment and failed to get the whole picture before reaching conclusion.

when people use lux at short distance to compare throw, they are comparing parallel beams to parallel beams, that’s the only time the short distance & long distance lux can be correlated.

when the spot is from non parallel beam such as this one done by using magifier glass, it’ll no longer correlate to throw, the projection distance. The spot on the wall in this case becomes the elephant’s tail.

ok, then, lets get that 502b with and without the refracting telescope outside beamshots, please! I wanna see if hes right, and it doesnt throw as far as the bare 502b. :quest:

DayLighter wrote:

NightSpy wrote:

!http://images.zaazu.com/img/male29-male-theater-cinema-smiley-emoticon-0...!

lol.. good one

Wow this is getting confusing…. I agree Daylighter you did a nice job. Keepin it simple!!

ma_sha1 wrote:

This reminds me the blind man & elephant story, the man on the left insist that the elephant looks like a rope.

I wonder what this man insists that an elephant looks like?

Old-Lumens wrote:

DayLighter wrote:

Geeeezus people…for goodness sake can we just agree the light does appear brighter? let’s not throw lumens or candela or scientific formula into how to calculate the brightness into this mod. it is what it is.. the lux meter show it’s brighter and that’s good enough for me even if it still the same lumen. what i’m trying to achieve here ..is to use a cheap and decent light and turn it into something of more expensive thrower the mod does create a brighter hotspot, the same hotspot of more expensive light that cost 10X more expensive. of course as we know it.. to get throw, you will sacrifice spill, you can’t have the throw of TN31 with the spill of TR-J18. so let’s us all just agree that the mod gives a better illumination than before. if there’s no pictures to back it up.. then all is just words

No…

You don’t understand. If it can’t be dissected, corrected, manipulated, stipulated, debated, rejected or accepted, it can’t be discussed in a flashlight forum.

Yes, you redirected the light and it appears brighter, because it is more focused. No, it really isn’t brighter scientifically, because optics cannot increase light output. They are all just going through their usual long BLF process, let them enjoy, they can’t help it.

As for me, I think it’s a pretty cool attempt at focusing the light from your flashlights into a more usable beam. Not everyone knows the scientific correctness and the reality is “It’s just a flashlight for ***** sakes and it’s just a hobby, not building a rocket here, LOL. Have fun with it.

Well said!!

NZ Shooter wrote:

ma_sha1 wrote:

This reminds me the blind man & elephant story, the man on the left insist that the elephant looks like a rope. He is correct & that's no argument that the part of the elephant he felt does look like a rope. But nothing could be more wrong to state the elephant is like a rope, the men is limited by his method of experiment and failed to get the whole picture before reaching conclusion.

What Da F**k ?? :~ You just urinated on your own argument - you haven't been out with the very torch this post is about, nor have you seen it up close and personal. Maybe _you_ need the full picture before drawing a conclusion??? :O

He does make a good point, I'll go take a few pictures comparing a light with a fresnel lens and without. I'll be back in a bit. 

Also, I'm gonna guess he knows what he is talking about, I mean have you seen his throwers!

NZ Shooter wrote:

What Da F**k ?? :~

You just urinated on your own argument – you haven’t been out with the very torch this post is about, nor have you seen it up close and personal.

Maybe you need the full picture before drawing a conclusion???

Watch your language, I don’t expect a person with potty mouth to know what elephant is by looking at pictures after pictures of it’s tail. However, plenty of people does not need to see the said elephant up close & personal to know it’s not a rope. There is no doubt that spot is much brighter on the wall, it’s the conclusion of more throw that’s being questioned.

Where is Dr. Jones when we need him?

This thread is very interesting.wife not home so I even tried sticking my 501b in my sons telescope but it didnt work. I need beamshots-!

Beamshots are coming.

Ok, so preliminary tests on the wall make lit look like the fresnel lens increases throw...

Before

After

So quite impressive to say the least! 

Ok, so let's take it outside. 

Before

After

That's pretty conclusive! For anyone who thinks otherwise here a mouseover is. Mouse over for before; mouse off for after. 

So ma_sha was definitely right!

And yes, camera settings were not changed.