Longer throw without changing the driver !! :) Prototype is done and now it's time for testing.. ( more beam shots)

260 posts / 0 new
Last post
ma_sha1
ma_sha1's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: 05/06/2012 - 10:20
Posts: 368
Location: CT

Thanks for the hard work Scaru :exmark:

scaru
scaru's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 1 month ago
Joined: 03/22/2012 - 13:36
Posts: 6946
Location: Virginia

NZ Shooter wrote:
ma_sha1 wrote:
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??? :O
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?
Get bent fella. You brought up the dam elephant subject. Not me. How do feel now ??? The pictures just posted fairly conclusivley show _you_ jumped the gun on a conclusion, and were *_+WRONG+_*

Actually, they show fairly conclusively he was right. You wanna go look at my pictures again...

scaru
scaru's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 1 month ago
Joined: 03/22/2012 - 13:36
Posts: 6946
Location: Virginia

scaru wrote:

Mouse over for before; mouse off for after. 

So ma_sha was definitely right!

Cough cough cough!!! It is a much better thrower with out the lens, this could not be clearer. 

scaru
scaru's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 1 month ago
Joined: 03/22/2012 - 13:36
Posts: 6946
Location: Virginia

NZ Shooter wrote:
ma_sha1 wrote:
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
I must be on planet Mars. The 'after' shots show a tighter beam. Less flood more throw. How can ma_sha be right ?

It is tighter, that is correct. But the amount of light down range is less. It isn't as bright=less lux. 

scaru
scaru's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 1 month ago
Joined: 03/22/2012 - 13:36
Posts: 6946
Location: Virginia

Ok, here one is with it cropped so it is just the hotspot. Mouse over for before, mouse off for after. 

So which one is better lit up? 

citamul1
Offline
Last seen: 10 years 2 weeks ago
Joined: 12/29/2012 - 23:28
Posts: 10
Location: Made in the U.S.A.

First time poster here. I just had to join up after seeing this. This is a great thread guys! I’m sure glad I found this place. It’s really interesting! Smile

scaru
scaru's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 1 month ago
Joined: 03/22/2012 - 13:36
Posts: 6946
Location: Virginia

NZ Shooter wrote:
scaru wrote:

NZ Shooter wrote:
ma_sha1 wrote:
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
I must be on planet Mars. The 'after' shots show a tighter beam. Less flood more throw. How can ma_sha be right ?

It is tighter, that is correct. But the amount of light down range is less. It isn't as bright=less lux. 

Okay. So I'm looking at Daylighters' beamshots. There is no way the 'before' shot will out-throw the 'after' shot - surely. Even in the alley way it looks like it would easily.

Look at my shots, these were taken on full manual mounted on a tripod. I know these are accurate. 

scaru wrote:

Ok, here one is with it cropped so it is just the hotspot. Mouse over for before, mouse off for after. 

NightCrawl
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 10 months ago
Joined: 01/22/2012 - 08:20
Posts: 3071
Location: Karlsruhe, Germany

Even the hotspot is not brighter.. also, I clearly see a donut hole.

The pics of DayLighter are misleading, different exposure and aperture (hope thats the right vocabular)..

And, NZ Shooter, please watch your language. I noticed that quite often recently.

DayLighter
DayLighter's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 8 months ago
Joined: 11/29/2012 - 01:22
Posts: 2829
Location: New York City

scaru.. are you using the same light as i have?.. there’s no way that trustfire WF 502b have a hotspot like that. unless it was shot within 10” away
try shooting it farther.. like my distance around 80’
by then you’ll see Trustfire wf 502b will no longer have hotspot anymore.
all of you that think otherwise.. judge it by yourself.. take a simple test,get a magnifying glass and point the light to the middle of it.. depending the size of the flashlight.. hold it between 8” to 13” and see it for yourself.
and feel free to take it outside and see for yourself.. please note this mod won’t work well with multiple LEDs
then come back over here on this thread and let’s compare shots Big Smile
i’m pretty sure it can throw farther than that 80’ distance Wink

The only way to do a great work is to love what you do.

DayLighter
DayLighter's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 8 months ago
Joined: 11/29/2012 - 01:22
Posts: 2829
Location: New York City

same point and shoot camera.. just resize it to upload it better..take the challenge for yourself before you accuse someone of misleading Flat Stare

The only way to do a great work is to love what you do.

scaru
scaru's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 1 month ago
Joined: 03/22/2012 - 13:36
Posts: 6946
Location: Virginia

DayLighter wrote:
scaru.. are you using the same light as i have?.. there's no way that trustfire WF 502b have a hotspot like that. unless it was shot within 10" away try shooting it farther.. like my distance around 80' by then you'll see Trustfire wf 502b will no longer have hotspot anymore. all of you that think otherwise.. judge it by yourself.. take a simple test,get a magnifying glass and point the light to the middle of it.. depending the size of the flashlight.. hold it between 8" to 13" and see it for yourself. and feel free to take it outside and see for yourself.. please note this mod won't work well with multiple LEDs then come back over here on this thread and let's compare shots Big Smile i'm pretty sure it can throw farther than that 80' distance ;)

It's a TK35 clone, but the concept is the same. I did exactly as you suggested and got some quite clear cut results. I'll add these were taken at approximately 50 feet. 

scaru
scaru's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 1 month ago
Joined: 03/22/2012 - 13:36
Posts: 6946
Location: Virginia

DayLighter wrote:
same point and shoot camera.. just resize it to upload it better..take the challenge for yourself before you accuse someone of misleading :|

Daylight, a point and shoot does not have the same exposure settings each time. It has a computer chip that decides how to set the exposures. On my camera I set the exposures to the same standard Brad, trooplewis, and Rick use and both shots were from the same exact position. 

And I have taken the challenge myself, now that I have done it and got conclusive results it is proven. One can easily disprove a theory (like I did) but it is extremely hard to prove it. 

citamul1
Offline
Last seen: 10 years 2 weeks ago
Joined: 12/29/2012 - 23:28
Posts: 10
Location: Made in the U.S.A.

Wouldn’t it settle this once and for all if these shots were taken from a lot further than 80 feet since both versions can reach that distance easily?

I think if this were taken at 300 yards instead of only 80 feet and then measured with a camera that should clearly show which way throws further.

scaru
scaru's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 1 month ago
Joined: 03/22/2012 - 13:36
Posts: 6946
Location: Virginia

No matter what this light won't throw 300 yards, my STL-V2 couldn't do that. If you guys would like I will get out and take some at 100 yards tomorrow night. (Its 1 am here)

NightCrawl
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 10 months ago
Joined: 01/22/2012 - 08:20
Posts: 3071
Location: Karlsruhe, Germany

DayLighter wrote:
same point and shoot camera.. just resize it to upload it better..take the challenge for yourself before you accuse someone of misleading :|

I dont accuse, I state a fact.

scaru
scaru's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 1 month ago
Joined: 03/22/2012 - 13:36
Posts: 6946
Location: Virginia

NightCrawl wrote:

DayLighter wrote:
same point and shoot camera.. just resize it to upload it better..take the challenge for yourself before you accuse someone of misleading :|

I dont accuse, I state a fact.

proven fact. 

citamul1
Offline
Last seen: 10 years 2 weeks ago
Joined: 12/29/2012 - 23:28
Posts: 10
Location: Made in the U.S.A.

I just threw out 300 yards. But 100 yards come to think of it makes a lot more sense. I can’t wait to see the results! Smile

ma_sha1
ma_sha1's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 5 months ago
Joined: 05/06/2012 - 10:20
Posts: 368
Location: CT

NZ Shooter wrote:

Get bent fella.

You brought up the dam elephant subject. Not me.

How do feel now ???

The pictures just posted fairly conclusivley show you jumped the gun on a conclusion, and were WRONG

What’s making this thread so confusing, not blaming you for it, is that the OP has two sets of experiments.

Set 1. Long EFL magnifier lens or fresnel lens to project spot to the wall near focal point,
that’s where my elephant story for, it does not increase flashlight throw.

Set 2. Sticking a telescope in front of a flashlight. This is a totally different optical system. I am guessing that’s probably what the OP did in his latest 80 feet beam shot.

Telescope works similar to dual aspheric lens set-up, it’ll increase throw, which is dependent on the largest lens, 6” diameter front lens used by the OP? I never said telescope doesn’t work. I made no comments to telescope as it’s not not a flashlight mod, just fun play..

My elephant story has nothing to do with telescope set-up, it’s strictly for applying magnifier glass & fresnel lens in front of flashlight for a mod. My point was illustrated well by Scaru image, it’ll be even more obvious if he increase the distance further.

scaru
scaru's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 1 month ago
Joined: 03/22/2012 - 13:36
Posts: 6946
Location: Virginia

NZ shooter, look at my f*cking mouse over!!! It throws further without it, what is so hard to get about that? I swear the air in NZ makes you guys make exorbitant claims about throw. 

I'll throw out a basic explanation of the scientific process for you, it might help you understand...

http://www.johnpratt.com/items/astronomy/science.html

scaru
scaru's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 1 month ago
Joined: 03/22/2012 - 13:36
Posts: 6946
Location: Virginia

citamul1 wrote:
I just threw out 300 yards. But 100 yards come to think of it makes a lot more sense. I can't wait to see the results! :)

Since no one has said it yet, Welcome to BLF! As you can tell we sometimes get into heated discussions on this type of thing. Wink

scaru
scaru's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 1 month ago
Joined: 03/22/2012 - 13:36
Posts: 6946
Location: Virginia

NZ Shooter wrote:
scaru wrote:

NZ shooter, look at my f*cking mouse over!!! It throws further without it, what is so hard to get about that? I swear the air in NZ makes you guys make exorbitant claims about throw. 

I'll throw out a basic explanation of the scientific process for you, it might help you understand...

http://www.johnpratt.com/items/astronomy/science.html

Right. As mentioned above there are too many things going on here. I am not interested in your beam shots. I am, and have always been, referring to Daylighters experiment.

Ok, so let's ignore the validated beamshots that are standardized! Who needs logic. Silly Can you explain why you would want to ignore them? Because they disagree with you? Yell

Old-Lumens
Old-Lumens's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 1 month ago
Joined: 11/04/2011 - 11:39
Posts: 7478
Location: Tyler, TX, USA

NZ Shooter wrote:
I think what needs to be done here is a conclusive (longer range) comparison. I cannot understand why the initial argument has been over-looked?? "Longer throw without changing the driver" I think the after mod will throw further looking at the pics so far. No one ever said "more light down range" - brightness is irrelevant in this debate.
What you are not realizing is that there are two threads here. One thread says "with my eyes it looks brighter" The answer is Yes it looks brighter, so if that is all you want, you are completely happy.

The other side is fact and proven science. There is NO optic that will make More Light from LED. It is Not Possible. Therefore, the scientific part says, even though your eyes deceive you, there is not as much luminance by adding optics in the path of the led.

For those of you who don't give a rats butt about science and only live by your senses, be happy! The light is brighter! For those of you who live to dispute by science, congratulations, you can prove the truth, But be forewarned, laymen are a Much Larger part of the population and we don't really want to accept something that says our eyes, ears or nose deceives us. If it looks like light, sounds like light and smells like light, it must be light.

My PayPal address: oldlumens (insert the @ sign here) gmail.com

My YouTube Flashlight Video Channel

The BLF Modding Links Thread 

http://imageshack.com/a/img922/1374/jQ2wdL.jpg

 

kronological
kronological's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 1 month ago
Joined: 12/12/2012 - 09:23
Posts: 3042
Location: Texas

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 Big Smile

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.Smile


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.


What OL sed.

No one, after lighting a lamp, puts it away in a cellar nor under a basket, but on the lampstand, so that those who enter may see the light.

My Reviews: Ma

citamul1
Offline
Last seen: 10 years 2 weeks ago
Joined: 12/29/2012 - 23:28
Posts: 10
Location: Made in the U.S.A.

I’m learning little by little! Smile

DayLighter
DayLighter's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 8 months ago
Joined: 11/29/2012 - 01:22
Posts: 2829
Location: New York City

i will definitely take up the challenge.. but i doubt it very much it will reach 300 yards.. but i’m pretty sure it can throw a lot father than 80’
i wish there’s more people take this challenge and prove it to themselves.
if you don’t have trustfire WF 502B.. use any flood light even those that using AA or AAA batteries to see it how much farther it can shoot.
but as far more pictures regarding the shot it will be pointless for me now, as the only camera i have is point and shoot camera.
like scaru said.. the point and shoot camera isn’t always take a consistent picture.
and i’m not gonna buy a very expensive camera so i can justify this theory.
using the thrower flashlight for beam shot comparison is just unjustified, as i found out throwier reflector need longer distance between the magnifying glass and the flashlight, in order to achive a tighter beam.
using flooder light is the best way to test this theory Smile

The only way to do a great work is to love what you do.

scaru
scaru's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 1 month ago
Joined: 03/22/2012 - 13:36
Posts: 6946
Location: Virginia

NZ Shooter wrote:
Old-Lumens wrote:

NZ Shooter wrote:
I think what needs to be done here is a conclusive (longer range) comparison. I cannot understand why the initial argument has been over-looked?? "Longer throw without changing the driver" I think the after mod will throw further looking at the pics so far. No one ever said "more light down range" - brightness is irrelevant in this debate.
What you are not realizing is that there are two threads here. One thread says "with my eyes it looks brighter" The answer is Yes it looks brighter, so if that is all you want, you are completely happy.

The other side is fact and proven science. There is NO optic that will make More Light from LED. It is Not Possible. Therefore, the scientific part says, even though your eyes deceive you, there is not as much luminance by adding optics in the path of the led.

For those of you who don't give a rats butt about science and only live by your senses, be happy! The light is brighter! For those of you who live to dispute by science, congratulations, you can prove the truth, But be forewarned, laymen are a Much Larger part of the population and we don't really want to accept something that says our eyes, ears or nose deceives us. If it looks like light, sounds like light and smells like light, it must be light.

I hear you , but what has this to do with the whole "throw" thing? The original poster -Daylighter - wanted more throw, yes??

And he didn't get it... Yes??? Maybe you should look at something that was standardized... Yes??? See I can be obnoxious too. Yes???

scaru
scaru's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 1 month ago
Joined: 03/22/2012 - 13:36
Posts: 6946
Location: Virginia

DayLighter wrote:
i will definitely take up the challenge.. but i doubt it very much it will reach 300 yards.. but i'm pretty sure it can throw a lot father than 80' i wish there's more people take this challenge and prove it to themselves. if you don't have trustfire WF 502B.. use any flood light even those that using AA or AAA batteries to see it how much farther it can shoot. but as far more pictures regarding the shot it will be pointless for me now, as the only camera i have is point and shoot camera. like scaru said.. the point and shoot camera isn't always take a consistent picture. and i'm not gonna buy a very expensive camera so i can justify this theory. using the thrower flashlight for beam shot comparison is just unjustified, as i found out throwier reflector need longer distance between the magnifying glass and the flashlight, in order to achive a tighter beam. using flooder light is the best way to test this theory :)

Yes, but this has been disproven two ways now. 1st, by using a a camera with standardized settings. 2nd, by using science. I just don't get what is so confusing. 

scaru
scaru's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 1 month ago
Joined: 03/22/2012 - 13:36
Posts: 6946
Location: Virginia

NZ Shooter wrote:
scaru wrote:

NZ Shooter wrote:
Old-Lumens wrote:

NZ Shooter wrote:
I think what needs to be done here is a conclusive (longer range) comparison. I cannot understand why the initial argument has been over-looked?? "Longer throw without changing the driver" I think the after mod will throw further looking at the pics so far. No one ever said "more light down range" - brightness is irrelevant in this debate.
What you are not realizing is that there are two threads here. One thread says "with my eyes it looks brighter" The answer is Yes it looks brighter, so if that is all you want, you are completely happy.

The other side is fact and proven science. There is NO optic that will make More Light from LED. It is Not Possible. Therefore, the scientific part says, even though your eyes deceive you, there is not as much luminance by adding optics in the path of the led.

For those of you who don't give a rats butt about science and only live by your senses, be happy! The light is brighter! For those of you who live to dispute by science, congratulations, you can prove the truth, But be forewarned, laymen are a Much Larger part of the population and we don't really want to accept something that says our eyes, ears or nose deceives us. If it looks like light, sounds like light and smells like light, it must be light.

I hear you , but what has this to do with the whole "throw" thing? The original poster -Daylighter - wanted more throw, yes??

And he didn't get it... Yes??? Maybe you should look at something that was standardized... Yes??? See I can be obnoxious too. Yes???

Awesome. So are the "after" shots with the modified lens?? Look longer throw to me

Yes, after is using the lens. It is quite clear, there is much less light. Look at it again. 

NightCrawl
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 10 months ago
Joined: 01/22/2012 - 08:20
Posts: 3071
Location: Karlsruhe, Germany

Where do you see more throw? Post number please..

I just went outside with my L2P and a huge lens.. despite the ability of projecting a die image, there was no surprise. Ugly beam with a huge hole in the middle, significantly less light overall and less light in the hotspot. If the light in the hotspot had stayed the same, I would agree with the theory of "more throw" (although it would just be an optical trick, like aspheric throwers, more contrast and so on..). But it didnt.

 

Oh come on NZ, you got to be kidding us. How many times have we said now that these shots are misleading? Just look at the outer parts of the image, where the flashlight doesnt shine.. one is lighter than the other. Different exposure and aperture obviously.

scaru
scaru's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 1 month ago
Joined: 03/22/2012 - 13:36
Posts: 6946
Location: Virginia

As usual, I am talking about my pictures. Ya know, the same ones I'm always talking about...

Pages