[REVIEW] Acebeam W10. 1KM of throw, in your front pocket. 21700/18650, USB-C charging.

100 posts / 0 new
Last post
Agro
Agro's picture
Offline
Last seen: 20 hours 35 min ago
Joined: 05/14/2017 - 11:16
Posts: 6967
Location: Ślōnsk

Tough call. Manufacturers don’t really attempt making such lights. Which doesn’t make the concept wrong.
I believe Emisar D4Vn with Oslon Black Flat is the throwiest light for the size despite using poor optics.

bmengineer
bmengineer's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 01/26/2018 - 11:38
Posts: 1038
Location: Ontario, Canada

I don’t think that light exists . Please give me a light with a throw figure so I can compare it to other real lights.

Find all my reviews of flashlights and more gear at www.bmengineer.com

Agro
Agro's picture
Offline
Last seen: 20 hours 35 min ago
Joined: 05/14/2017 - 11:16
Posts: 6967
Location: Ślōnsk

It seems to have been removed.
It did exist:
http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?440982-Black-Friday-Sale-(5-30AM-11-24-2017-Also-Father-s-Bday)
I don’t remember throw though and I can’t find it, even web archive doesn’t help (because it doesn’t have D4vn page in the cache at all).
Dedomed XP-G2 does 40 kcd
It is still challenging to find something to beat 40K at that size though.

djozz
djozz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 hours 28 min ago
Joined: 09/07/2012 - 17:04
Posts: 18291
Location: Amsterdam

Agro wrote:
It seems to have been removed.
It did exist:
http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?440982-Black-Friday-Sale-(5-30AM-11-24-2017-Also-Father-s-Bday)
I don’t remember throw though and I can’t find it, even web archive doesn’t help (because it doesn’t have D4vn page in the cache at all).
Dedomed XP-G2 does 40 kcd
It is still challenging to find something to beat 40K at that size though.

http://budgetlightforum.com/comment/1011163#comment-1011163
Am at work at the moment so I have no exact dimensions, built 2.5 years ago, the head size is about the D4, it does 58kcd. That is on a 14500 that does not drive the XP-G2 to the max.
bmengineer
bmengineer's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 01/26/2018 - 11:38
Posts: 1038
Location: Ontario, Canada

Tough to find something that beats it at that size because it’s nearly the smallest single 18650 light out there. Even the Nitecore P12GT does 28 kcd, and that’s an off the shelf light with a 1” body. On top of that, the output curve looks like this:

Instead of this:

Not to mention that all the measurements of the D4 that are floating around are measurements at turn on instead of the industry standard of at 30 seconds. It’s a ridiculous, impractical measurement and the same sort of thing we’ve bashed the big camping brands about for years.

So yes, you’re right in that the D4 is the smallest light out there and nothing its size is throwier. But no, multi emitter lights are not throwier by nature, and once you get into looking for a light with x meters of throw, the smallest example will almost always be a single emitter light, and those will draw much less power and run for much longer. As for your comment about manufacturers not ‘making such lights’, that’s because they’re subject to the laws of physics. In multi-reflector setups, the space between those reflectors is lost. If what you’re suggesting was possible, it would have been done – the W10 is proof that manufacturers are willing to try new things to get big throw numbers.

Edit: Scaled the graphs so the time scales match more closely.

Find all my reviews of flashlights and more gear at www.bmengineer.com

Agro
Agro's picture
Offline
Last seen: 20 hours 35 min ago
Joined: 05/14/2017 - 11:16
Posts: 6967
Location: Ślōnsk

djozz wrote:
Agro wrote:
It seems to have been removed.
It did exist:
http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?440982-Black-Friday-Sale-(5-30AM-11-24-2017-Also-Father-s-Bday)
I don’t remember throw though and I can’t find it, even web archive doesn’t help (because it doesn’t have D4vn page in the cache at all).
Dedomed XP-G2 does 40 kcd
It is still challenging to find something to beat 40K at that size though.

http://budgetlightforum.com/comment/1011163#comment-1011163
Am at work at the moment, but the head size is about the D4, it does 58kcd. That is on a 14500 that does not drive the XP-G2 to the max.

Definitely beats XP-G2 D4vn, thanks for showing that.

bmengineer wrote:
Tough to find something that beats it at that size because it’s nearly the smallest single 18650 light out there.

A part of what makes it so small is the fact that it uses a multi-led optics, isn’t it?

bmengineer wrote:
But no, multi emitter lights are not throwier by nature, and once you get into looking for a light with x meters of throw, the smallest example will almost always be a single emitter light, and those will draw much less power and run for much longer. As for your comment about manufacturers not ‘making such lights’, that’s because they’re subject to the laws of physics. In multi-reflector setups, the space between those reflectors is lost. If what you’re suggesting was possible, it would have been done – the W10 is proof that manufacturers are willing to try new things to get big throw numbers.

I showed some calculations here.
Do you see some error in them? I yes, please correct me.
ADDED: Actually I see an error in them. Facepalm
Instead of 6.3 times smaller height that should be about 3 times smaller height, depending on amount of siamesing. This correction doesn’t change the conclusion though.
kaybi
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 10/26/2016 - 23:53
Posts: 164
Location: Canary islands

“A part of what makes it so small is the fact that it uses a multi-led optics, isn’t it?”

No. A single led catadioptric could have been smaller. Hell, you could simply make a mule.

Multi-led optics are shorter because their height is related to diameter of the lenses.

Please accept and understand that there is no way in hell a multi-led setup beats a single led at throw on an equal fight.

Multiple people here are trying to explain this fairly simple concept to you.

Agro
Agro's picture
Offline
Last seen: 20 hours 35 min ago
Joined: 05/14/2017 - 11:16
Posts: 6967
Location: Ślōnsk

kaybi wrote:
“A part of what makes it so small is the fact that it uses a multi-led optics, isn’t it?”

No. A single led catadioptric could have been smaller. Hell, you could simply make a mule.


We’re talking about good throw to size (with size defined as volume, not diameter). djozz has shown that D4vn with XP-G2 is not a leader here, but I still maintain that it is quite good.

If Emisar made it a mule it would be smaller, but clearly would be bested by many non-18650 lights.
With catadioptric? If there was a suitable one on the market, it would be marginally shorter. Scaling down 10158 to 24 mm gives me 5.3 mm thickness, .7 less than what Emisar uses. Though I’m not sure how should I scale the rim below the lens, so that may be somewhat incorrect. Anyway – it would be smaller but probably slightly less throwy because of catadioptic’s low efficiency. It would definitely be less efficient. If efficiency is not meaningful then yes, catadioptric may be an OK option.

kaybi wrote:
Multi-led optics are shorter because their height is related to diameter of the lenses.

Please accept and understand that there is no way in hell a multi-led setup beats a single led at throw on an equal fight.

Multiple people here are trying to explain this fairly simple concept to you.


I would like to understand. But so far I understand it exactly the opposite way. And none of these people has shown a hole in my justification.

So far the argument on my side was a simple calculation.

Arguments on the other side were:

  • at same diameter, single emitter wins (I agree, but that doesn’t go against my argument)
  • multi-optics don’t use whole frontal area (I agree, I took it into account in my calculation)
  • nobody does it (I agree, but it doesn’t go against my argument either. Though certainly gives some food for thought)
  • other optics choices may be even better in this regard (I agree, though those other options come with their set of drawbacks)

Did I miss something?

I see some possible explanations on why nobody does it in practice. The biggest being:

  • the smallest Cree HI LED is 3.6x mm², 7 of them won’t make a thrower except for extremely large lights. You need very small high-intensity emitters for multi-LED thrower to work well. Like upcoming Osram KW CSLNM1.TG. Or like a LEP.
  • cost of a 7-up is much higher

There may be others, even bigger.

kaybi
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 10/26/2016 - 23:53
Posts: 164
Location: Canary islands

Yes.

“multi-optics don’t use whole frontal area”

If you add more emitters, and maintain lumen output the same, you can’t have more throw, because you are wasting part of your optic space.

If you add more emitters, and drive them all hard, you may end up with the same or more throw, at the cost of a lot of other issues, like more heat, decreased runtime, lower efficiency, etc etc etc.

Man. This is a forum for flashlight enthusiasts. Some of the people answering in this thread have forgotten more about flashlights than I have ever learned. If there was a reasonable way to get higher throw by using multiple emitters, they would know. Flashlight companies and enthusiast have spent a lot of time and money making the best throwers possible, for profit or fun, and they all share one common factor: Single output sourcer.

The very user who made the lens/reflector calculator that you quoted already answered and told you that adding more leds won’t increase throw. What else do you want? A 60 page report?

Go ahead, build a light and prove me wrong. God knows I would love to find a way to cram more candela into a smaller flashlight. I’d be happy to be proven wrong.

EDIT: Simple example:

Smaller emitters are better for throw precisely because they are small.
What is the point of having a small emitter if you then add many emitters?

We want the smaller possible emitter because that usually results in a higher cd/mm. If you add more emitters… you won’t get as high a lm/mm. You are holding onto edge cases and theoretical math, when practice, real life, and available products tell the opposite story.

EasyB
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 2 days ago
Joined: 03/09/2016 - 15:24
Posts: 2250
Location: Ohio

I think there is some misunderstanding here. Agro is not saying you can increase the throw by using multi-emitters. He is saying you can theoretically get (very close to) equal throw as a single emitter, for a given head diameter, but this is not usually done because of wasted head area and not driving the emitters hard enough. A potential advantage of multi-emitters is that the head can be shorter due to the small reflectors.

I personally like to use multi-emitters so I can have a larger hotspot (more lumens) while still maintaining high beam intensity.

iamlucky13
Offline
Last seen: 12 hours 38 min ago
Joined: 06/22/2018 - 09:18
Posts: 1147
Location: USA

In case anyone is curious, I had short discussion about luminous efficacy with kaybi elsewhere, and he shared the raw data from his runtime test with me. Based on 5100mah from an average 3.7V battery, I made two calculations, depending whether you use Acebeam’s spec of 250 lumens, or kaybi’s measurement of 185 lumens.

Using 250 lumens yields 19.7 lumens/W
Using 185 lumens yields 14.5 lumens/W

This is very low compared to LED’s, but we’re talking about a fairly new technology, and downright crazy Candela/lumen numbers. It’s ridiculous to look at those beamshots and see that, while the BLF GT obviously provides further throw, that’s due to it’s significantly higher lumen output. The W10 appears to actually have a tighter beam, despite being far smaller.

The_Driver
The_Driver's picture
Offline
Last seen: 16 hours 12 min ago
Joined: 10/20/2016 - 05:51
Posts: 1469
Location: Germany
iamlucky13 wrote:
It’s ridiculous to look at those beamshots and see that, while the BLF GT obviously provides further throw, that’s due to it’s significantly higher lumen output. The W10 appears to actually have a tighter beam, despite being far smaller.

Lumens have no effect on pure throw. The BLF GT throws further because its reflector has a much, much larger diameter compared to that of the lens in the Acebeam.

Tally-ho
Tally-ho's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 07/23/2011 - 04:15
Posts: 1394
Location: France

EDIT: not my pictures, source.


Enderman
Enderman's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 1 week ago
Joined: 11/03/2016 - 22:42
Posts: 4292
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Did you use a fog machine to take those shots?
That looks sick.
I want a flashlight some day that looks like that but without any smoke/fog Silly (hand held obviously, my syniosbeam already does that without smoke or fog Big Smile )

Jerommel
Jerommel's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 4 months ago
Joined: 01/04/2014 - 13:18
Posts: 6380
Location: the Hague, Netherlands

This pic is useless without threads.

EasyB
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 2 days ago
Joined: 03/09/2016 - 15:24
Posts: 2250
Location: Ohio

For max throw, aspheric lens lights are usually focused such that the lens projects a focused image of the die/light emitting surface. From what I’ve seen of the LEP it looks like there is non-emitting rectangle in the middle (used to block direct laser emission I’ve read), but I don’t see that in the beam. So what’s going on here? How is the lens focused?

djozz
djozz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 hours 28 min ago
Joined: 09/07/2012 - 17:04
Posts: 18291
Location: Amsterdam

Perhaps a combination of a recoil mirror and projecting lens?

Tally-ho
Tally-ho's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 07/23/2011 - 04:15
Posts: 1394
Location: France

The lens is probably out of focus and doesn’t project the image of the phosphor die.

textileRef:114826185632fd2ebe3bea:linkStartMarker:“EDIT : “High luminance at the laser light source provides valuable optical system advantages including narrow beam angle, sharp beam cut-off and smaller optical systems. Enabling beam angles smaller than 8 to 10 degrees from 25 to 50 mm optic diameter has been challenging with conventional light sources.
Utilizing laser light sources, beam angles of 2 degrees or lower have been demonstrated with total internal reflection optics of less than 30 mm in diameter, well within convenient lighting system form factor.”

Source”:https://soraalaser.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/LED-Professional-Artic....

From the same source : “In each of the two configurations, up to 500 lumens is emitted from a light emitting area only 300 microns in diameter resulting in luminance levels in excess of 1 billion cd/m²”.

= 1000 cd/mm²

The_Driver
The_Driver's picture
Offline
Last seen: 16 hours 12 min ago
Joined: 10/20/2016 - 05:51
Posts: 1469
Location: Germany

Tally-ho wrote:
The lens is probably out of focus and doesn’t project the image of the phosphor die.

textileRef:114826185632fd2ebe3bea:linkStartMarker:“EDIT : “High luminance at the laser light source provides valuable optical system advantages including narrow beam angle, sharp beam cut-off and smaller optical systems. Enabling beam angles smaller than 8 to 10 degrees from 25 to 50 mm optic diameter has been challenging with conventional light sources.
Utilizing laser light sources, beam angles of 2 degrees or lower have been demonstrated with total internal reflection optics of less than 30 mm in diameter, well within convenient lighting system form factor.”

Source”:https://soraalaser.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/LED-Professional-Artic....

From the same source : “In each of the two configurations, up to 500 lumens is emitted from a light emitting area only 300 microns in diameter resulting in luminance levels in excess of 1 billion cd/m²”.

= 1000 cd/mm²
!https://forum-images.hardware.fr/images/perso/1/ronfl2.gif!

Yes, LEP goes up to 3000cd/mm^2 (that is the highest value I have found). But not in a flashlight…

EasyB
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 2 days ago
Joined: 03/09/2016 - 15:24
Posts: 2250
Location: Ohio
EasyB wrote:
For max throw, aspheric lens lights are usually focused such that the lens projects a focused image of the die/light emitting surface. From what I’ve seen of the LEP it looks like there is non-emitting rectangle in the middle (used to block direct laser emission I’ve read), but I don’t see that in the beam. So what’s going on here? How is the lens focused?

All you LEP experts, where is the light emitting surface in this picture?

It would be interesting if someone could take a picture of it through welding or eclipse-viewing glasses.

Enderman
Enderman's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 1 week ago
Joined: 11/03/2016 - 22:42
Posts: 4292
Location: Vancouver, Canada

EasyB wrote:
For max throw, aspheric lens lights are usually focused such that the lens projects a focused image of the die/light emitting surface. From what I’ve seen of the LEP it looks like there is non-emitting rectangle in the middle (used to block direct laser emission I’ve read), but I don’t see that in the beam. So what’s going on here? How is the lens focused?

The absorption block is not at the light emitting surface, it is at the lens, which is significantly farther in front.
As the light rays spread out from the lens they cover up any hole that was created by the block.
You can only see the hole in the middle if the light is pointed up close, like a meter or less away.

If you eliminate the green triangle by blocking the center, the rest of the light will fill up the center hole after enough distance.
Enderman
Enderman's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 1 week ago
Joined: 11/03/2016 - 22:42
Posts: 4292
Location: Vancouver, Canada

EasyB wrote:

All you LEP experts, where is the light emitting surface in this picture?

It would be interesting if someone could take a picture of it through welding or eclipse-viewing glasses.


The entire yellow thing is the phosphor plate, but the laser is behind it and only the point at the very center emits light.
EasyB
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 2 days ago
Joined: 03/09/2016 - 15:24
Posts: 2250
Location: Ohio

I think I see now, thanks. So could you use a hemispherical reflecting collar to increase efficiency and luminance?

Also, it seems like this LEP could be used in a traditional reflector, if the laser blocker was positioned correctly. Is this correct?

Enderman
Enderman's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 1 week ago
Joined: 11/03/2016 - 22:42
Posts: 4292
Location: Vancouver, Canada

EasyB wrote:
I think I see now, thanks. So could you use a hemispherical reflecting collar to increase efficiency and luminance?

Also, it seems like this LEP could be used in a traditional reflector, if the laser blocker was positioned correctly. Is this correct?


Yes and yes.
You would still need the blocking device attached to the regular lens on a reflector flashlight.
Also I’m not sure about how well it would perform with a reflector, the polar distribution may or may not be the same as a domeless LED.
There is no published data on the polar intensity distribution yet.
Agro
Agro's picture
Offline
Last seen: 20 hours 35 min ago
Joined: 05/14/2017 - 11:16
Posts: 6967
Location: Ślōnsk

Try to focus that collar on a 0.1 mm² emitter….

Enderman
Enderman's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 1 week ago
Joined: 11/03/2016 - 22:42
Posts: 4292
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Agro wrote:
Try to focus that collar on a 0.1 mm² emitter….

It’s actually not as hard as it seems if you have a high contrast, because ambient light causes the collar to project an inverted image.
For example, a tiny black dot on a piece of paper.
The collar will project a shadow identical to the dot.
You know it is in perfect z-height focus when the shadow is as sharp as the original dot, and you know it’s in the right x/y position when the shadow is on top of the original dot.
Rusty Joe
Rusty Joe's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 10 min ago
Joined: 07/24/2011 - 00:22
Posts: 3869
Location: Houston, TX

We need more practical use beam shots.

But at only 185 lumens and no regulation, this is REALLY hard to justify!

CarpentryHero
CarpentryHero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 4 days ago
Joined: 06/06/2012 - 14:31
Posts: 1538
Location: Edmonton Alberta Canada

I see a lot of doubts about aspherics giving good throw, too be fare this and the weltool Lep fire the laser into the phosphor and intoa reflector that then sends it through the aspheric.

For a long long time I’ve been asking for a double aspheric lens flashlight to do what this is doing, a ridiculously tight beam in a narrow package. This does it even smaller.

Double aspheric lens had been the king of throw with led’s from 8 or 9 years ago. The setup was the a little bigger than an arm. It was a pencil beam with no spill.

I believe illum (illumination supply) had a code Spooky for Halloween for a discount.

I’m glad I’m not the only flashlight collector out there, I was beginning to think I was strange.
My name is Kendall and I’m a Flashaholic from western Canada

djozz
djozz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 hours 28 min ago
Joined: 09/07/2012 - 17:04
Posts: 18291
Location: Amsterdam

Is this a double aspheric flashlight? I thought the optics is just a single lens projecting the laser-excited die ?

CarpentryHero
CarpentryHero's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 4 days ago
Joined: 06/06/2012 - 14:31
Posts: 1538
Location: Edmonton Alberta Canada

No it’s not, this achieves the same effect with a lot less length.
Mostly due to the laser diode

I’m glad I’m not the only flashlight collector out there, I was beginning to think I was strange.
My name is Kendall and I’m a Flashaholic from western Canada

Pages