Review: UV light shootout, seven lights tested

268 posts / 0 new
Last post
CalvinIS
CalvinIS's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 11 months ago
Joined: 11/29/2012 - 03:29
Posts: 987
Location: San Jose, CA

ImA4Wheelr wrote:

I could be wrong, but I don't think the new US $100 bills have anything that fluoresces in them.  Maybe some small fibers in the paper, but I don't recall.

New US $100 under the Nitecore CU6:

USA based seller of flashlights, batteries, and chargers.
Illumn Webstore
 /// Instagram /// BLF DEAL THREAD

ImA4Wheelr
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 02/03/2013 - 14:51
Posts: 7935
Location: SC

Oh yeah.  The omniscient embedded strip.  Good point and thanks for the correction.  Still probably a lot less then the poster was expecting.

CalvinIS
CalvinIS's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 11 months ago
Joined: 11/29/2012 - 03:29
Posts: 987
Location: San Jose, CA

ImA4Wheelr wrote:

Oh yeah.  The omniscient embedded strip.  Good point and thanks for the correction.  Still probably a lot less then the poster was expecting.

Yeah, ever since I got a CU6 I've been aiming it at random things, like my shoelaces and watch hands. It's really amusing, and probably bad for my eyes haha.

USA based seller of flashlights, batteries, and chargers.
Illumn Webstore
 /// Instagram /// BLF DEAL THREAD

ImA4Wheelr
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 02/03/2013 - 14:51
Posts: 7935
Location: SC

Speaking of which, I got these glasses for my laser, but they really make UV light pleasant on the eye and you really see fluorescing objects so much better.  I have several pair of yellow glasses, for some reason these work better.  Haven't really compared side by side though.  So caveat emptor.

UPDATE: Another member purchased these glasses and reported that they don't work as well as most yellow glasses.  I trust that members judgment in this area better than mine.

allan d
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 1 week ago
Joined: 09/01/2012 - 00:15
Posts: 338
Location: SW Florida & SoCal
I know that texaspyro has better output on one cell. I have this KD drop in and find that mine is very much brighter on 8.4 volts than on a single cell. Even though they came from the same source, knowing Chinese venders I would not be surprised to see different drivers or LEDs.

I do find that the KD 365 nm UV does a much better job on bank notes than my unknown 380 nm drop in.

http://www.kaidomain.com/product/details.S022214

Allan

Mr Floppy
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 9 months ago
Joined: 08/16/2012 - 23:14
Posts: 115

Just received the KD 365nm P60 and to my surprise, there are two emitters inside the dome.

I thought the two emitter version was the 395nm version. I’ve just tried it out on some money and it fluoresces the Australian 50 dollar note OK where as my other 395nm one doesn’t show one of the symbols. Can anyone confirm that the 365nm also has the two emitters? Everything else is as how it was described in this thread.

Another thing is that I bought a purple Ultrafire WF501b as a host. Well the P60 does not fit in the head as the lens retaining ring kept it from going deep enough. I had to remove the lens to get it to fit, but it does mean I’m going to have to use it without the lens which probably has some pluses.

CheapThrills
CheapThrills's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 5 days ago
Joined: 07/02/2011 - 10:45
Posts: 3651
Location: Suomi

I received my KD P60 dropin today also.
I also wondered the two emitters under one dome.

Tested it on bills, works fine.
P.S.: Try it on:
- Your watch with Lume on hands
- GITD tailcaps
- For example shine it to yous other flashlight reflector, LED phosphor may shine some yellow light back Smile

CalvinIS
CalvinIS's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 11 months ago
Joined: 11/29/2012 - 03:29
Posts: 987
Location: San Jose, CA

CheapThrills wrote:
P.S.: Try it on: - Your watch with Lume on hands - GITD tailcaps - For example shine it to yous other flashlight reflector, LED phosphor may shine some yellow light back :)

Definitely cool.

USA based seller of flashlights, batteries, and chargers.
Illumn Webstore
 /// Instagram /// BLF DEAL THREAD

ToyKeeper
ToyKeeper's picture
Offline
Last seen: 12 hours 49 min ago
Joined: 01/12/2013 - 14:40
Posts: 10793
Location: (469219) 2016 HO3

CalvinIS wrote:
New US $100 under the Nitecore CU6:
{pic: $100}
{pic: watch hands}

Thanks for the CU6 pics. I think this is now one of only two(?) pages on the internet with any beam shots for it.

The other one I found is: http://www.fieldherpforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=18622
… and a youtube video which doesn’t really show much: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AV1A4-B40Ik

… plus someone claiming that the actual photon output should be around 450mW worth, though I’m not really sure how that translates into a familiar unit like lumens. I doubt the usual 683 lm/W math applies, but if it did, that would mean about 300 “lumens” of mostly-invisible light.

Regardless, assuming the 3000mW figure is correct for its input power, that’s several times as much as the cheap 12-LED 375nm light I have, and at a better wavelength… with a more focused beam and all the other Chameleon extras.

CalvinIS
CalvinIS's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 11 months ago
Joined: 11/29/2012 - 03:29
Posts: 987
Location: San Jose, CA

ToyKeeper wrote:
Thanks for the CU6 pics. I think this is now one of only two(?) pages on the internet with any beam shots for it. The other one I found is: http://www.fieldherpforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=18622 ... and a youtube video which doesn't really show much: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AV1A4-B40Ik ... plus someone claiming that the actual photon output should be around 450mW worth, though I'm not really sure how that translates into a familiar unit like lumens. I doubt the usual 683 lm/W math applies, but if it did, that would mean about 300 "lumens" of mostly-invisible light. Regardless, assuming the 3000mW figure is correct for its input power, that's several times as much as the cheap 12-LED 375nm light I have, and at a better wavelength... with a more focused beam and all the other Chameleon extras.

Here's another photo to give you an idea of the strength. The bill is sitting on a white box which is probably treated with some fluorescent. I'm still collecting applications to have this light reviewed. http://budgetlightforum.com/node/29119

USA based seller of flashlights, batteries, and chargers.
Illumn Webstore
 /// Instagram /// BLF DEAL THREAD

ToyKeeper
ToyKeeper's picture
Offline
Last seen: 12 hours 49 min ago
Joined: 01/12/2013 - 14:40
Posts: 10793
Location: (469219) 2016 HO3

Yow, UV beam pics are hard. I just tried a bit with my cheapo UV light. Granted, I also have an inexpensive camera and my only UV “filter” is a pair of yellow party glasses… but still.

Here was the light, unfiltered, on a wall. I took this to show the star-shaped beam pattern (which is only visible to the camera when it’s really close to the wall).

This was a 20 GBP bill, with no UV filter (click to enlarge):

… and the same thing, with the yellow party glasses in front of the lens to block UV light (click to enlarge):

None of these show very well what it actually looks like in person. Things fluoresce a lot better to my eye than they do to the camera.

8steve88
8steve88's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 7 months ago
Joined: 07/08/2013 - 11:22
Posts: 1828
Location: Cleveland U.K.

allan d wrote:
I know that texaspyro has better output on one cell. I have this KD drop in and find that mine is very much brighter on 8.4 volts than on a single cell. Even though they came from the same source, knowing Chinese venders I would not be surprised to see different drivers or LEDs.

I do find that the KD 365 nm UV does a much better job on bank notes than my unknown 380 nm drop in.

http://www.kaidomain.com/product/details.S022214

I have this drop in and didn’t notice that it had two emitters, just checked mine – bought a few months ago – and it has two.
It works very well to charge GITD and also works well on “black light” enhanced posters, must be the ageing hippy side of me. :8)
I’m running mine on 18v 6×3v CR123s in a Solarforce L2P with 2 extension tubes, the CR123s rattle a bit but work well, I tried it with a single 18650 fully charged and it was definitely not as bright.
I have several “no name” UV P60s and a couple of Solarforce UVs and the Kaidomain pushes out less visible light and more UV.

djozz
djozz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 9 min ago
Joined: 09/07/2012 - 17:04
Posts: 18085
Location: Amsterdam

I went through my son's toys with a 365nm light (my Ledengin LZ1 mod), a lot of cheap plastic fluorescence like crazy

 

Mr Floppy
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 9 months ago
Joined: 08/16/2012 - 23:14
Posts: 115
8steve88 wrote:
I have this drop in and didn’t notice that it had two emitters, just checked mine – bought a few months ago – and it has two. It works very well to charge GITD

Yep, looks like the real deal to me. Tried it out last night and it definitely shows stuff that my 395nm can’t.

In terms of GITD stuff, my 395nm one that runs off 2xCR2032 cells only manages to make a toy GITD lizard glow for 10 seconds after charging it for 10 seconds. The P60 off a single 18650 manages to make the same lizard glow for over a minute and then some! Might have found a metric for measuring UV power.

ToyKeeper
ToyKeeper's picture
Offline
Last seen: 12 hours 49 min ago
Joined: 01/12/2013 - 14:40
Posts: 10793
Location: (469219) 2016 HO3

Heh, if glow time is the metric, I’d better avoid testing with my bottle of glow paint. It generally glows all night just from ceiling-bounced mood lighting.

allan d
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 1 week ago
Joined: 09/01/2012 - 00:15
Posts: 338
Location: SW Florida & SoCal
8steve88 wrote:
I have several “no name” UV P60s and a couple of Solarforce UVs and the Kaidomain pushes out less visible light and more UV.

I agree, the KD 365 nm has a lot less visible light than my “no name” 380 nm. At least it does on two 18650 cells, on one cell it is very disappointing.

Allan

Mr Floppy
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 9 months ago
Joined: 08/16/2012 - 23:14
Posts: 115
allan d wrote:
At least it does on two 18650 cells, on one cell it is very disappointing.

I need to try two cells as I’m quite pleased with the output of mine. I can get things fluorescing quite well from about 2 metres, and good results charging up the kids GITD stars on the ceiling from about 5 feet. Maybe I got a similar one to DBCstm.

CheapThrills
CheapThrills's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 5 days ago
Joined: 07/02/2011 - 10:45
Posts: 3651
Location: Suomi
allan d wrote:
8steve88 wrote:
I have several “no name” UV P60s and a couple of Solarforce UVs and the Kaidomain pushes out less visible light and more UV.

I agree, the KD 365 nm has a lot less visible light than my “no name” 380 nm. At least it does on two 18650 cells, on one cell it is very disappointing.

Oops…
Was this intended to be used with 8.4V?
I only tried it with single 18650.
Current draw at about 0.38A, no heat issues Wink

8steve88
8steve88's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 7 months ago
Joined: 07/08/2013 - 11:22
Posts: 1828
Location: Cleveland U.K.
Quote:
Oops… Was this intended to be used with 8.4V? I only tried it with single 18650. Current draw at about 0.38A, no heat issues

3v to 18v so it’s quite flexible on voltage but I find the higher the voltage the better the effect.

ToyKeeper
ToyKeeper's picture
Offline
Last seen: 12 hours 49 min ago
Joined: 01/12/2013 - 14:40
Posts: 10793
Location: (469219) 2016 HO3

CheapThrills wrote:
Was this intended to be used with 8.4V?
I only tried it with single 18650.
Current draw at about 0.38A, no heat issues Wink

Hmm, interesting. My 12-LED cheapo runs at about 0.16A to 0.20A (takes ~30 seconds to ramp up, then holds at around 0.2A). It’s not a bad item, for $10, but it’s not exactly a good UV light either.

So, the cheapo is about 0.20A at ~375nm, the P60 drop-in is about 0.38A at 365nm, and the CU6 is probably somewhere around 0.83A at 365nm with specially-chosen glass.

Pulsar13
Pulsar13's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 20 hours ago
Joined: 02/05/2012 - 10:23
Posts: 1909
Location: Malaysia

$11 is not so cheap for a cheapo IMO. The 9-LED version is only around $3.80 at BIC.

http://www.buyincoins.com/item/35755.html

I bought one but hasn’t arrived.

I do have several single-LED UV, they’re not bad like you said. Just not strong. I’m pretty sure they use similar cheap LEDs.

Tiger Fusion
Tiger Fusion's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 5 months ago
Joined: 03/07/2014 - 10:14
Posts: 11

mfm, that was an Amazing Review!!!

I am thinking of buying the TK-566, but I would like to see one more photo (comparison if possible) of how well it does on Cat Urine. I have a UV/white light head lamp that I used for night fishing, but it has so much Visible wavelength, it does not flouresce cat pee at all.

Does anyone with the TK-566 have a bad cat and a camera that will catch the result?

Thanks!!!

djozz
djozz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 9 min ago
Joined: 09/07/2012 - 17:04
Posts: 18085
Location: Amsterdam

Tiger Fusion wrote:
mfm, that was an Amazing Review!!! I am thinking of buying the TK-566, but I would like to see one more photo (comparison if possible) of how well it does on Cat Urine. I have a UV/white light head lamp that I used for night fishing, but it has so much Visible wavelength, it does not flouresce cat pee at all. Does anyone with the TK-566 have a bad cat and a camera that will catch the result? Thanks!!!

Does a bad infant also count? I do not have the TK-566 but another 365nm light I have lights pee up clearly.

Tiger Fusion
Tiger Fusion's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 5 months ago
Joined: 03/07/2014 - 10:14
Posts: 11

Thank you djozz! I have been doing a lot of research on the 365nm lights, but I am curious how the TK-566 with the CREE chip compares to a “365nm” LED. I saw one that looks promising which costs only $18. It’s called “Peedar”, but I have read that cheaper uv “claiming” 365nm is In fact not. $60-$80 for the TK is pricey, but I want to track down this little booger’s Hot Spots and take care of them, even if it costs a lot.

ToyKeeper
ToyKeeper's picture
Offline
Last seen: 12 hours 49 min ago
Joined: 01/12/2013 - 14:40
Posts: 10793
Location: (469219) 2016 HO3

Tiger Fusion, it’s worth mentioning that the original review in this thread was three years ago. I wouldn’t expect to get a response from the original poster.

Also, UV protection glasses help a lot when trying to see fluorescence. They typically don’t cost much; even the yellow party glasses I got at a dollar store work reasonably well.

Tiger Fusion
Tiger Fusion's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 5 months ago
Joined: 03/07/2014 - 10:14
Posts: 11

Thanks ToyKeeper!
I saw something next to the original post that said 12 weeks, but did not pay attention to the date posted….
Thanks for the advice!

Tiger Fusion
Tiger Fusion's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 years 5 months ago
Joined: 03/07/2014 - 10:14
Posts: 11

I have been doing more research on the Tank007 TK-566 uv 365nm 1w & 3w model.

Some on eBay show a picture of the flashlight with "TK-566" only on the side:

Others show "TK-566" & a Hexagon with "CREE RX-E":

Is one a knockoff or is there one with a Cree emitter and one with a different type of LED???

processengr
processengr's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 months 1 week ago
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 12:39
Posts: 98
Location: New haven, CT USA

processengr wrote:
Hi all, I own a couple of P60 (502b w/186500) 1W UV lights from DX. They wont light up a $100 USD bill. Based on this thread, I ordered one from KD. Do you think it will work in a 501 with 2 CR123s?

Just received the 3W 365 nm drop in today, cant wait to try it!!

No one notices when things are going right

Mr Floppy
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 9 months ago
Joined: 08/16/2012 - 23:14
Posts: 115
Tiger Fusion wrote:
Others show “TK-566” & a Hexagon with CREE RX-E one a knockoff or is there one with a Cree emitter and one with a different type of LED???

There is a regular TK566 that is not a UV. It uses a CREE XR-E. I’m assuming the RX-E is a misspelling.

ToyKeeper
ToyKeeper's picture
Offline
Last seen: 12 hours 49 min ago
Joined: 01/12/2013 - 14:40
Posts: 10793
Location: (469219) 2016 HO3

ImA4Wheelr wrote:

Speaking of which, I got these glasses for my laser, but they really make UV light pleasant on the eye and you really see fluorescing objects so much better.  I have several pair of yellow glasses, for some reason these work better.  Haven’t really compared side by side though.  So caveat emptor.


I picked up a pair of those. They really, really cut out the blue and purple light. Probably some green, too. It cuts out so much, actually, that I have a harder time seeing UV fluorescence with them than I do with cheap yellow dollar-store glasses. Even under a UV light, everything looks orange. So, that was a bit disappointing. However, they might also be rather useful for a test I’ve been meaning to run for a few years… getting myself to be sleepy earlier by wearing blue-blocking glasses at night.

Pages