A big Amen to that!! Very generous indeed. :+1: . 
It happens I do not have either one of those & will be happy to get them, do whatever needs ‘tuning up’ on them, and use them. 
Thank you Newlumen!!
Texas_Ace BLF Calibrated Lumen tube / Sphere No math skills needed - Several spheres still available
Your welcome… i will ship them tomorrow when i get your address…
I was thinking about selling them but they are not perfect and need minor fixing… i rather give them for free…
Wait Wait—-I was gonna make it 302 over here—— JK—— Teacher got em
PM answered with address included.
Thank you again Newlumen……
It’s a great light… i am sure teacher will like it… tn40 have xhp70 dedome 10000 lumen. And tn32 have xpg2 dedome 1800 lumen…
A few minor fix and will became great light…
You snooze, you lose brother…… 
Got it… I will send them out tomorrow morning.
tn32 have xpg2 dedome 1800 lumen WOW I need one of those LEDs —— I think you must be mistaken about something—most I remember a XP-G2 making is in the 900s ——————————
I have no doubt I will like them just fine & also give them the “minor fixes” they need to be at the top of their game……
Thank you…… :+1:
Just tested the X80 and X80-GT on the Texas_Ace calibrating tube, the X80 got 15,800 lumens and the X80-GT got 22,300 lumens. If you knock off diffuser/tube losses then I’m certain the X80-GT is a 30,000 lumen light. In fact it measured bang on 30,000 Lumens when sat directly on top of the 1st diffuser!!! Scary thing is the X80 got less than 20,000
Maukka got 22,300 for the X80 so the DX80’s record might fall.
Edit: quick ceiling bounce in the basement using a diffused Emisar D4 XP-L HI helping set calibration to a cautious 3,900 lumens returns 23,000 lumens for the X80 and 29,000 for the X80-GT. So if I used Maukka’s X80 for calibration the X80-GT would still pull around 28,000
Killer light.
So let me get this straight—You say the Tube Sphere is junk— The man is continually trying to make it right for you—you give him negative feedback —then you come back on a forum thread about the tube showing you’re still using it — what so you can continue to show you don’t like it more— I don’t get it — We get it already
The tube is a decent way to compare the lumen difference between the same or near identical lights. Was I happy with the purchase or the way I was treated for proving it doesn’t work as advertised?
Would I like to save my fellow enthusiasts over $100?
I offered you a refund, which means you are not out over $100 and I would do the same for anyone else that was unhappy.
For the record you have not provided any proven consistent results to compare yet and the vast majority of the readings that have been compared are well within reason.
Put simply it is impossible for it to measure a bunch of lights from 2000 - 7000 lumens correctly but then measure a “16k lumen” light at 8k lumens. There is something else at play, which is what I have been trying to figure out from the start but you won’t provide the information needed to figure that out.
You have to remove as many variables as possible and test things 1 at a time to figure out if there is a problem. After that you then can start tracking down where the problem is and then why it is.
We have asked for some readings from fenix lights repeatedly and you refuse to post them officially, just hint that they are correct. Why is this?
It sure sounds like you have some Fenix lights and that you have tested them and they read correctly.
I honestly want to know if there is a problem with the tube or not but the numbers you post are simply not usable for comparison since those lights are known to not be rated correctly nor be consistent.
If some results could be provided that actually proved it was faulty, I would admit there is a problem but a few readings from in-consistent lights does not a faulty tube make.
Add to that the fact that everyone else has reported it working well within reason on all of the lights they have tested and it is not logical to jump to a conclusion that the problem is in the tube. Someone else would of noted the same issue by now.
It just can’t be correct the vast majority of the time and completely wrong the rest without a reason. There is some other factory at play if this is the case because the tube is too simple for it to make sense it is inside the tube. Some pictures of you testing the problem lights would help as well.
Even though the tube appears to be working, I am still offering a refund to revert this from a negative experience for you to a positive one. How could getting a free lumen tube be a negative experience?
You are dragging my name through the mug for kicks? These tubes are a 1 time deal, it is not like I will be selling these forever and I sure as heck will not be selling anymore on ebay. I would give them away before that.
So that feedback just puts a permanent stain on my name and account that I use to provide for my family that will be logged by ebay, google ect forever when I am doing everything in my power to make you happy and correct the situation.
At this point it seems that is all you wanted. What I can’t figure out is why? what did I ever do to you? Heck I have even defended you and your right to an opinion even if I don’t agree with it.
At the least you could remove my screen name from the feedback, I didn’t even mean to list these on that account but I didn’t have my other ebay account log in details at the time.
WHAT AN ASS ——————————————————————————————————————-
I’ll add insults to the list, Texas_Ace.
Is it because I’m a “Brit?”
Nah an an Ass has no boundries——- You see if you put the HOLE behind it—-That’s Me
See that is what I don’t understand. You state you want to be the best reviewer but you are not looking at things objectively and scientifically.
I am more then willing to walk through some scientific test and see if there is something wrong with the sphere but that requires detailed testing in s specific method and order.
The first step is to find a consistent and reliable light to start the testing with. Some fenix lights have proven to be the best for this outside of a light from Muakka, which you really should invest in and would put all of this to rest.
I have got to believe that if you are going to be the worlds greatest flashlight reviewer that you have some fenix lights. If the tube is reading incorrectly then why not simply post the numbers and pictures from the fenix lights and prove it?
This is the strangest part of the whole thing for me, you won’t even give us the data to diagnose the issue.
Also, I have not once called you personally into question, I have asked for data and asked why you will not give that data, that is a big difference. Once things get personal, science and objectivity goes out the window. I I prefer to look at things scientifically.
Tell you what, how about using the money to order some calibration lights from Muakka instead, that will settle everything once and for all. Plus you would need it for any sphere setup you get later anyways, there is no other way to properly calibrate a sphere.
It would also allow for scientific analysis of the sphere to see if there and where any issues are.
This is EXACTLY how it is supposed to work, how it was designed to work and what it was designed to do. That is how every consumer Lux meter works as well.
The diffuser discs absorb a known percentage of light, thus reducing the readings on the lux meter to read the lumens instead of lux. You can do the same thing on paper with math, the diffusers do it for you.
For example if you shine a 1000 lumen light into an empty lumen tube, you might get readings of 4000 lux. Obviously that is not correct, but you know that if you add a 75% correction factor, you get the lumens.
That is exactly how this tube works, this way a 1000 lumen light or a 10,0000 lumen light all read correctly.
The added benefit of the diffusers is that the remove all beam profile from the light and thus can read throwers and flooders the same.
All that matters is that the correction factor is calibrated to a known reliable source. In the case of my old calibration I used ratings from light manufactures to get my calibration and guess what, it ended up about 32% too high due to the fact that almost all manufactures rate their lights too high.
Edit: If you read back you will also see that I did not defend the old calibration at all once I saw proof that it was indeed wrong. I apologized and promised to fix it to the best of my abilities as quickly as possible. I have no problem admitting when I am wrong at all.
So then I got a real ANSI rated light from Muakka and was able to recalibrate them to read correctly to a known good standard source. If you are going to be the best reviewer, you really should invest in one of his lights. This would prove once and for all if the tube reads correctly or not.
A calibration is only as good as the standard used to make it.
Most DIY lumen spheres out there are calibrated incorrectly due to using flashlight manufacture ratings.
The light hitting the walls is part of the calibration of the tube as a whole. The diffuser already bounces a lot of light around inside that first chamber and thus even throwers hit the walls heavily as seen by it glowing with brighter lights of any beam shape.
Holding the light at an angle causing the readings to fluctuate, most of this is due to exposing the body of the light to the tube and it absorbing light, because that first chamber acts as an integrating sphere and any light that is absorbed into the body of the light reduces the readings.
Placing the light directly on the diffusers would of course cause the readings to be higher, you are removing that interrogation chamber and thus removing the calibration from the sphere and skewing the readings. Just like holding a light closer to the ceiling skews the readings in a ceiling bounce test to read higher. Or the same way that moving closer to the lux meter causes the lux readings to go up.
If you really want to prove it doesn’t work, then please provide some results that can be compared with some Fenix lights or better yet a muakka light.
There is no need for name calling in this thread, that is not my style.
I prefer to stick to science, data and facts.
I have not said, condoned or approved of any of these things.
Name calling is not my style.