Stop with the BS flashlights with low sustained output.

ZoomieFan · 2019-01-29T10:14:48.000Z

Personally I call a light with a sustained output of 100 lumen a 100 lumen light. Even if it has a 10k lumen turbo.
Personally I would be very satisfied with 1k sustained.
But still I see a big fat turbo as a bonus. I won’t use it often, but who cares it’s a free bonus.

What I don’t like is the deceptive advertising.
Stuff like “Max output 10k, max runtime 2 weeks”
It’s not a lie but we all know why they pick those numbers.
ANSI lumens are another example of that.

I bought a maglight with three D cells in it 7 years ago. It’s still as bright as when I bought it using the same cells!
How’s that for advertizing? I ‘forgot’ to mention I never use the light, so it’s no lie, but utterly useless information.

prototype3a · 2019-01-29T10:38:11.000Z

I’ve been wondering lately why we don’t see flashlights using heatpipes instead of blocks of copper. I suspect the biggest reason is the difficulty in fabrication and additional expense of the heat pipes themselves.

On the other hand, I’ve been planning to build a light using some old PC heatsinks that use heatpipes and widely spaced fins to hopefully have a passively cooled light that can sustain stupid amounts of output.

polarweis · 2019-01-29T10:58:19.000Z

Did you ever try a blf gt?

Deputy_Dog · 2019-01-29T12:02:41.000Z

Blinkinglights:

When do you need a 20000 lumen turbo light for more then 45 seconds

Want to cut the lawn at night, cuz
cutting grass at night can be deadly fun!

That video reminds me of the videos where terrorists that blow themselves up while trying to build their bombs. :zipper_mouth_face: It’s just a matter of time before something breaks.

LouieAtienza · 2019-01-29T12:19:46.000Z

It wouldn’t be hard for a manufacturer to make an extrusion for a flashlight body that had provisions for heat pipes coming feom the head/pill… This however qould require a different method to attach the head or pill…

LouieAtienza · 2019-01-29T12:46:05.000Z

For those who have interest in DIY CNC, stepper motors are advertised at their stall torque… Which is somewhat useless you want your machine to remain stationary. Which also isn’t 100% sustainable because the stepper would overheat. The drives do have idle current reduction but that means loss of torque. The drives are also current limited and steppers rated for max current, and they can be overdriven or underdriven based on the drive and PSU uses - sound familiar?

The opposite is true with servomotors. Thet are rated at continuous rpm and power, and can peak 20-33% above rated specs for brief periods - turbo mode if you will. Of course with machinery once you get an axis moving it takes les and less power to keep it going at a desired speed, unlike a flashlight LED.

BlueSwordM · 2019-01-29T13:01:59.000Z

@prototype3a, it would not actually work well.

You need very large active thermal dissipation for heatpipes to be effective.

They do work with phones, since they don’t output as much power but at the levels we push our light, it is not sustainable.

wolfdog1226 · 2019-01-29T13:02:40.000Z

Every modded light I use on the trail does NOT have a timed step down where I have no control.Mine are programmed at 20 minutes,then I just bump it back up, but usually If I continue with that light, this is the point of battery change!

My one BEAST OF A LIGHT TN42vn90 has a thermal protection[in the head] that has never kicked in.

I agree 100%[brought this up in a thread 4 years ago on CPF] that these manufacturers give deceiving and phony numbers based on how they[ANSI] calculate turbo run times.

SOLUTION: Learn how to mod a light or Buy modded ones like me!

TN42vn90 5000L/1Mcd.

I can run it CONSTANTLY in the late fall and winter. In the summer, not because of step down, but because of HEAT, I can run 9 to 10 minutes b/4 dialing down.

My hand 25 minutes after using light in summer!! lol! Normal on LEFT ,TN42vn90 workout on right!!

ALL TN42vn90[CFT-90] Beam shots below

Orion The Hunter to the left of the top of light saber.

Tower 900 yards away across frozen Schuylkill River

1 Mile and 27 yards to same water tower.

teacher · 2019-01-29T15:38:00.000Z

Nice pictures wolfdog1226!! Thanks for sharing….

deleted-200707 · 2019-01-29T15:52:23.000Z

I pray that pilot does work at any airline I frequent.

Lemons_for_the_Lemon · 2019-01-29T16:30:37.000Z

I have next to zero knowledge about flashlight building, but from my experience with PC hardware, it looks like the biggest obstacle to cooling a flashlight is sinking the heat away from the emitters. CPUs, fets and other devices can have the coldplate of a heatsink directly applied. You obviously can’t put a coldplate on top of an LED emitter, and there doesn’t look like a good way to apply one unless you mounted it on the reverse side of the PCB.

If what I just said makes no sense, please forgive me.

coherent-rambling · 2019-01-29T16:57:14.000Z

Lemons for the Lemon God:

unless you mounted it on the reverse side of the PCB.

Yep, that’s exactly how flashlights are cooled. The high-power LEDs we’re talking about have a third solder pad on the back, which is an electrically neutral thermal contact. That contact is soldered to a copper disk, which is in turn covered in thermal compound and screwed to the body of the flashlight, or other heatsinking system.

The “problem” with this is that the flashlight can absorb a tremendous amount of heat for the first few seconds until it warms up, but can only dissipate heat at a slower rate. Flashlight manufacturers capitalize on this to advertise extremely bright settings which can only function until the light heats up. I personally think this is fine, basically giving me free light. But a lot of people very reasonably argue that the manufacturers should at least advertise how much light can be produced once the flashlight has reached equilibrium and is trying to dissipate the heat created.

Lightbringer · 2019-01-29T17:38:13.000Z

Okay, where’s nottawhackjob when you need him??

Random_Dan · 2019-01-29T17:50:33.000Z

It doesn’t bother me too much as I know enough to be skeptical and I’m not really in to high lumens anyway.

However it seems the whole issue could be very easily resolved by updated the ANSI spec to require 2 numbers: output at 30 sec and average output over full runtime at room temperature without extra cooling. Or better yet, manufacturers could start publishing cooled and uncooled runtime graphs like reviewers do. Sadly though, neither of these is likely to happen.

coherent-rambling · 2019-01-29T18:00:12.000Z

You’re right, this is just an extension of the flawed ANSI FL1 rules.

Anyone who has been into flashlights since before 2009, when FL1 was published, will remember that it was a double-edged sword. On the one hand, before FL1 you couldn’t trust a single detail listed on a flashlight’s packaging. Independent flashlight reviews and runtime graphs were absolutely vital to understand a single thing about the flashlight you were buying. In that sense, the introduction of FL1 was wonderful, because it made all the measurements listed on the box consistent, if nothing else.

But, it also standardized some bad ideas. Before 2009, reviewers usually listed runtime to 50% of starting brightness, and FL1 dragged that down to only 10% (and even this shameful lie wasn’t good enough for some manufacturers). An Emisar D4 is a great example of what’s being complained about here; if it were tested in accordance with FL1 they could claim 3,000 lumens and 45 minutes. Under the old 50% numbers, we’d say the runtime was about 60 seconds.

Unsustainable turbo modes are not that different from a mass-market flashlight with Alkaline batteries, that has an FL1 runtime of 300 hours. The difference, and the reason I support turbo modes but not the latter, is that I can choose a mode where that does not happen.

Firelight2 · 2019-01-29T19:38:38.000Z

coherent-rambling:

… Before 2009, reviewers usually listed runtime to 50% of starting brightness, and FL1 dragged that down to only 10% (and even this shameful lie wasn’t good enough for some manufacturers). An Emisar D4 is a great example of what’s being complained about here; if it were tested in accordance with FL1 they could claim 3,000 lumens and 45 minutes. Under the old 50% numbers, we’d say the runtime was about 60 seconds…

The old rating system of “time to 50% brightness” worked 10 years ago, but simply isn’t relevant for today’s flashlights.

That’s because 10 years ago typical flashlight output was 100 lumens. A “high end” light might output 200 or maybe 300 lumens. Battery capacity, not heat, was the limiting factor in sustaining output back then. Those lights were going at max power and output would decline as battery voltage declined.

In 2009, if you had a light that was rated 1 hour to 50% brightness, used it for 1 hour and then turned it on 2 hours later it would start at 50% brightness and decline from there. That rating gave you a good idea of how much battery capacity was left and how many spare batteries you should bring.

In contrast, the limiting factor for today’s flashlights with unsustainable turbo modes is heat, not battery capacity. Today’s lights have thermal sensors and are programmed to intentionally reduce output to prevent injury to your hand.

For example, you can turn on a D4 at max turbo of 4300 lumens. Output will rapidly decline to 50% or less in 20 seconds or so. But if you turn it off and let it cool for 10 minutes, you can then turn it on again and still get 4000+ lumen output. The battery is still almost completely full.

Also, some (but not all) of today’s lights have regulation which can sustain a flat output at an intermediate mode until the cell is almost completely depleted. This is different from lights 10 years which tended to have no regulation.

I like the ANSI system. At least everything is standardized. However, I agree some changes would be helpful. Most useful would be having 3 measurements for each light:

Maximum output - the max lumens the light can produce when cool on a fresh cell at turn-on.

Turbo mode duration - how long the light can sustain turbo mode until step down to a lower mode, or for lights with gradual rampdowns how long it takes for output to drop to the level of the maximum sustained output.

Maximum sustained output - the highest output the light can sustain while tailstanding in a 70 degrees F room.

xevious · 2019-01-29T19:47:45.000Z

This is why we have reviews… to cut through the BS.

You will never eliminate company marketing BS… but you can help keep some of them honest by detailing deficiencies or bogus claims in review content. And then you patronize those who are honest, or collectively force prices for those who aren’t to drop…

DBSS · 2019-01-29T20:56:06.000Z

I think that the marketing is to blame more than anything. If a flashlight were called a 500 lumen flashlight because on High it had a sustainable 500 lumens for lets say…20 minutes straight. Then it had a turbo, or momentary mode that was 1500 lumens. It seems more reasonable to refer to the output that you could leave it on for a long time.

I also think that trying to find a way to cheaply and effectively pull more heat away is something that needs more exploring.

mmalive · 2019-01-29T21:12:59.000Z

The guys complaining about high sustained turbo do not care about safety or damage to product. See wolf’s pictures above for reference. Look at his hands. Burn of some type for sure.

I like turbo for great amounts of light BUTI look at safety factor MORE than turbo sustained mode. NO SAFETY step down one gets injured or possible death quite simple.

Spartan · 2019-01-29T22:23:29.000Z

I like to see output tied to dt of temperature.

Example……Xlight can put out 500 lumens for three hours in 70 degree temperature. Lower times in higher temperature environment.

Then give muggles the option of blowing on it. “15 blows per minute will extent high output. Beware of passing out”