mortuus
(mortuus)
2
this seems stupid from what ive seen the x80 barely manages 25k at 1 min right? and this is same size but 7000 lumens more… that much lumens needs hosts like olights x9 or acebeams x70 otherwise waste of lumens imo… this light will have a very limited purpose…
They are going full throttle down the lumen train.
Are they getting a bit too overzealous though?
I know a lot of people would have preferred a high CRI Nichia 144AM light instead at say, 15000 lumens.
Lol the Acebeam page linked in the original post has a typo in it!
The photograph says 32,500 lumens, but in the caption on the right, the comma is in the wrong place making it look like 325,000 lumens.
I also find it strange that they advertise it as water-resistant to 30 meters when it appears to use a pushbutton switch and they aren’t advertising it as a dive light.
Wellp, I hope it’s not typical behavior, but I worked for a Chinese-owned company (POS equipment), and I was given the task of detailing specifications for a new doodad. Did they have any spex? Nope, just make ‘em up. Max/min temperature, humidity, altitude, etc. Copy spex from different equipment from the same company. Copy spex from competitors’ equipment. Nudge the spex “a little better”, though. Instead of 10%/90% RH, make it 5%/95%. And so on.
Hell, they’d rate a sugar-cube to be water-resistant to 100m…
So who knows. Maybe they just wanted to “up their game” even if only on paper. That’s why I wait for reviews…
It’s hard to tell with out seeing the light, but the switch looks vented, and may actually be dive rated.
Well at least it’s probably stupid efficient at any output below 1000 lumen.
wow haha!
Well hopefully Acebeam did it right. I only own one Acebeam so far (UC15) and I quite like it.
Plat
(Plat)
9
“from wikipedia” Early flashlights ran on zinc-carbon batteries, which could not provide a steady electric current and required periodic “rest” to continue functioning.[1] Because these early flashlights also used energy-inefficient carbon-filament bulbs, “resting” occurred at short intervals. Consequently, they could be used only in brief flashes, hence the common North American name “flashlight”
it seems like after 120 years we have pretty much ended up where we have started, a light that can be used for brief flashes lol.
SKV89
(SKV89)
10
I own the Acebeam H15 and their lumen rating is legit, which is rare in the flashlight world. Acebeam is considered one of the premium brands so I think their specs should be reliable. I’m thinking they reached 32.5k lumens by replacing those useless RGB and UV emitters (personal opinion) with not sure what emitters and you can turn them all on simultaneously. I would love to see the reviews for this one and hopefully they have NW option.
adam7027
(adam7027)
11
I second that.
They even could add more heatsinking (+60% weight, cooling fins), and use less emitters, as 12 XHP50 class emitter is plenty for this size - if they wish to use more, then they should add even more weight and fins (and/or some active cooling).
My wish would be a 8× or 12× 144AM at max. 10000-15000 lumens - and a bigger head with approx. 4-5 cm deep reflectors per emitter - targeting for around 130-200 kcd.
Acebeam is best at outputting plenty of dull (CRI 65-70) light for a short time, with much heat generated.
will34
(will34)
12
Having used the M43 and Olight X7R in the outdoors I can’t see why would someone need more than 15k lumens in a flood light? Yes it throws 300m+ but only at maximum output, run it at regulated mode and it’s only like 60m.
I wish manufacturers could focus on developing a more efficient reflector/optic setup rather than sticking as many emitters as possible in shallow reflectors…
mortuus
(mortuus)
13
im sure it is, but its strange see a claim of 30m waterproof and at the same time advice against diving, so whats the point ?
hehaw77
(hehaw77)
14
hmm… search, rescue, camping on remote areas, pitch black wooded areas, swamp lots of reasons for more than 15K
Agree though longevity needs to improve on these types of lights
