I’m not sure why I’m still responding to you. It’s been explained multiple times to you in the past on this thread that it’s not the case. Here’s one instance.
The purpose of the first diffuser is to spread out the beam so it doesn’t favor throwers over flooder like you see with ceiling bounce method. Others have explained this much better than I can.
Now I just did another measurement to prove this case:
Emisar D4 XPL-2 with the throwiest Carclo 10621 optic: 379 lumens
Emisar D4 XPL-2 with no optics (180 degree flood mule): 386 lumens
These readings are are not calibrated yet to the Maukka ANSI lights which will read lower but doesn’t affect the relative difference between the flood and non flood readings.
I tested the same with the M43 with and without optics a while back but not going to waste time to redo it and post numbers, which you are probably going to ignore again anyways.
With that said, you should aim the light as perpendicular to the diffuser as possible. Although it has tolerance for slight angling of the light unlike the highly sensitive ceiling bounce method, however, if you intentionally angle it 45 degree and aim the light at the pipe wall, which it is not designed to be used that way, of course the lumen readings will be low.
Now if you are really wanting to find out why you are the only one experiencing the problems you reported, people here are happy to help you but if your sole intent is to prove yourself right and bash on TA’s creation, then let’s drop it.
Another good test would be to take one of your D4’s and make an off center “centering ring”. See how much different the reading is when the TIR is centered vs off to the side by 1/3, for example.
As I understand it if KG_Tuning’s claim has merit it would be off by a lot, even more than 30-40% since he claims the total, including centered beam, is off by as much.
Like this:
If I am off base please feel free to correct me. I’m no expert but it seems like an easy enough way to confirm or deny such an argument.
Just tested my BLF Q8 with Sony VTC6 button top 18650s and obtained a reading of 5280 lumens. Thrunite TN 36 Limited tested 7300 lumens with the same batteries. Still waiting on my new emitters for my Convoy L6. Everything seems great.
I just tested with my 30q and it made 4240 lumens. Batteries at 4.02v and all figures at turn on. I have read that VTC6 can supply up to 30A and 30q can supply 20A.
I tend to wait until the output stabilizes or 30 seconds, whichever comes first.
Back when Tom E tested the Q8 with stock springs, the VTC6 was only 125 lumen’s higher at turn on and only 50 lumens higher at 30s. So pretty much equivalent. I’m not sure why your batteries are making such a big difference.
We’re the VTC6 freshly charged and the 30Q at 4.02 volts or were they both at the same voltage?
I don’t always report turn on numbers, I just did in this case to show max output. VTC6 were fully charged. For what it is worth the 30q are flat top and VTC6 are button top, maybe the difference is from the length of the cells and better connection to the brass ring.
I cleaned them when I received them Monday, they came in at 3.12v. I have not tested internal resistance. I am charging them again and will report again.
Just tested with a freshly charged set of 30Q, 4700 lumens startup then after 20 seconds 4500 lumens. Voltage read 4.18v to 4.19v per cell.
I am aware that testing batteries at different voltages is not the best comparison, my batteries were not fully charged and I was merely attempting to give Newlumen a quick comparison. Which is why I stated the 30Q cell voltage and I never said the voltages were equal.
S2+ (1329)
282 lumens at 30 sec. on TA tube
286 lumens at 30 sec. maukka calibration report
Difference ~ 1.40% (rounded to 3 sig figs) ± .01% (uncertainty)
My BLF348 (1129)
57 lumens at 30 sec. on TA tube
57.2 lumens at 30 sec. maukka calibration report
