The THROWER Thread

agenthex · September 18, 2012, 2:52am

mags:

agenthex:

agenthex:

Manny:

I understood that taking the dome off changes the light path…. What I can’t comprehend is that the light thrown goes from 130,000 Kcd to 240Kcd by only removing the dome ? No wiring No increase on amperage and no changing wires or drivers… Then these guys charge $70.00 extra on a TN31 and charge $285.00 just for dedoming…. Wow

It doesn’t double by dedoming unless it was focused less than optimally in the first place.

To expand on this, most big reflector “throwers” I find don’t have optimal throw. IOW, you can get a brighter (and smaller) center spot by moving the led relative to the reflector. That’s probably done on purpose because a decent sized spot is more useful than a tiny one (and not because the manufacturers are idiots), though I would question the logic of a bigger reflector if they’re not going to take full advantage of it.

I would take a shot in the dark with this one and state that a lack of knowledge and bad design might have to play a role.

No, I would think that anyone who can design a working reflector would know where to place the led.

In practice the best lights have a relatively uniform center spot, which is what these large throwers mostly achieve. When I move them to the “optimal” spot, the hotspot become “two-staged” (a brighter center and ring of lesser brightness around it), which might be something they’re looking to avoid. I’m not familiar enough with optics to know whether this is inherent or not.

Most of these light are still used as general purpose, so too tight of a spot isn’t really all that useful. Otherwise they’d put XR-E Ez900’s, NOT xml’s, in them.

agenthex · September 18, 2012, 2:50am

I think he’s referring to the density of the lines/flux, not which way is right. To be fair, if the flux where represented accurately by the density of the lines, the difference wouldn’t be obvious.

Slewflash · September 18, 2012, 2:54am

I deliberately reduced the density of the lines to make it more obvious.

mags · September 18, 2012, 3:01am

agenthex:

mags:

agenthex:

agenthex:

Manny:

I understood that taking the dome off changes the light path…. What I can’t comprehend is that the light thrown goes from 130,000 Kcd to 240Kcd by only removing the dome ? No wiring No increase on amperage and no changing wires or drivers… Then these guys charge $70.00 extra on a TN31 and charge $285.00 just for dedoming…. Wow

It doesn’t double by dedoming unless it was focused less than optimally in the first place.

To expand on this, most big reflector “throwers” I find don’t have optimal throw. IOW, you can get a brighter (and smaller) center spot by moving the led relative to the reflector. That’s probably done on purpose because a decent sized spot is more useful than a tiny one (and not because the manufacturers are idiots), though I would question the logic of a bigger reflector if they’re not going to take full advantage of it.

I would take a shot in the dark with this one and state that a lack of knowledge and bad design might have to play a role.

No, I would think that anyone who can design a working reflector would know where to place the led.

In practice the best lights have a relatively uniform center spot, which is what these large throwers mostly achieve. When I move them to the “optimal” spot, the hotspot become “two-staged” (a brighter center and ring of lesser brightness around it), which might be something they’re looking to avoid. I’m not familiar enough with optics to know whether this is inherent or not.

Most of these light are still used as general purpose, so too tight of a spot isn’t really all that useful. Otherwise they’d put XR-E Ez900’s, NOT xml’s, in them.

Specialty/higher end manufacturers would have the know how as they invest in optics. You can’t expect the same quality from budget shops.

agenthex · September 18, 2012, 3:07am

mags:

agenthex:

mags:

agenthex:

agenthex:

Manny:

I understood that taking the dome off changes the light path…. What I can’t comprehend is that the light thrown goes from 130,000 Kcd to 240Kcd by only removing the dome ? No wiring No increase on amperage and no changing wires or drivers… Then these guys charge $70.00 extra on a TN31 and charge $285.00 just for dedoming…. Wow

It doesn’t double by dedoming unless it was focused less than optimally in the first place.

To expand on this, most big reflector “throwers” I find don’t have optimal throw. IOW, you can get a brighter (and smaller) center spot by moving the led relative to the reflector. That’s probably done on purpose because a decent sized spot is more useful than a tiny one (and not because the manufacturers are idiots), though I would question the logic of a bigger reflector if they’re not going to take full advantage of it.

I would take a shot in the dark with this one and state that a lack of knowledge and bad design might have to play a role.

No, I would think that anyone who can design a working reflector would know where to place the led.

In practice the best lights have a relatively uniform center spot, which is what these large throwers mostly achieve. When I move them to the “optimal” spot, the hotspot become “two-staged” (a brighter center and ring of lesser brightness around it), which might be something they’re looking to avoid. I’m not familiar enough with optics to know whether this is inherent or not.

Most of these light are still used as general purpose, so too tight of a spot isn’t really all that useful. Otherwise they’d put XR-E Ez900’s, NOT xml’s, in them.

Specialty/higher end manufacturers would have the know how as they invest in optics. You can’t expect the same quality from budget shops.

Sure, but the point is that it’s trivial to make the budget lights throw better, for the tradeoff of worse hotspot. I’m just speculating that they didn’t feel the tradeoff was worth it, especially considering that the purpose wasn’t to maximize throw given the choice of emitter but a generally useful light. A hard driven EZ900 easily outthrows a xml.

For example, in most of these large xml budget throwers, just play with different spacer thickness between the mbpcb and reflector and it’s easily 20-30% diff.

GottaZoom · September 18, 2012, 3:13am

Don’t see a standard C8 on the list . .

And my sample seems to be pulling significantly more watts with 2 primaries than I would expect from a standard C8 at 4v.

I’m guessing this could be close to the E1320 high draw XRE P60 drop-in, but with a bigger reflector.

So I’m wondering how it compares to the larger reflector Jacobs which is pulling 7-8 watts on good batts . . .

Manny · September 18, 2012, 3:19am

All I can say is my g4 mcu can throw ! But I got an m10 and it throws more than mcu and C8…
!!

mags · September 18, 2012, 3:23am

agenthex:

mags:

agenthex:

mags:

agenthex:

agenthex:

Manny:

I understood that taking the dome off changes the light path…. What I can’t comprehend is that the light thrown goes from 130,000 Kcd to 240Kcd by only removing the dome ? No wiring No increase on amperage and no changing wires or drivers… Then these guys charge $70.00 extra on a TN31 and charge $285.00 just for dedoming…. Wow

It doesn’t double by dedoming unless it was focused less than optimally in the first place.

To expand on this, most big reflector “throwers” I find don’t have optimal throw. IOW, you can get a brighter (and smaller) center spot by moving the led relative to the reflector. That’s probably done on purpose because a decent sized spot is more useful than a tiny one (and not because the manufacturers are idiots), though I would question the logic of a bigger reflector if they’re not going to take full advantage of it.

I would take a shot in the dark with this one and state that a lack of knowledge and bad design might have to play a role.

No, I would think that anyone who can design a working reflector would know where to place the led.

In practice the best lights have a relatively uniform center spot, which is what these large throwers mostly achieve. When I move them to the “optimal” spot, the hotspot become “two-staged” (a brighter center and ring of lesser brightness around it), which might be something they’re looking to avoid. I’m not familiar enough with optics to know whether this is inherent or not.

Most of these light are still used as general purpose, so too tight of a spot isn’t really all that useful. Otherwise they’d put XR-E Ez900’s, NOT xml’s, in them.

Specialty/higher end manufacturers would have the know how as they invest in optics. You can’t expect the same quality from budget shops.

Sure, but the point is that it’s trivial to make the budget lights throw better, for the tradeoff of worse hotspot. I’m just speculating that they didn’t feel the tradeoff was worth it, especially considering that the purpose wasn’t to maximize throw given the choice of emitter but a generally useful light. A hard driven EZ900 easily outthrows a xml.

For example, in most of these large xml budget throwers, just play with different spacer thickness between the mbpcb and reflector and it’s easily 20-30% diff.

True, kinda makes you wonder then….perhaps these budget lights are purposely made that way so that the user can mod to their taste. Make a general light with simple output that would please the masses and leave it up to the user to play with.

Jinx · September 18, 2012, 5:48pm

No a normal C8 will never make it on that list IMO, its just not optimal for throw, whats the Jacob, 10mm wider? And thus i assume also deeper? The only other major increase could be driver levels and heatsinking but i think we are approaching limits in C8s. Saying that i will of course add one if Lux figures make me look stupid.

Jinx · September 18, 2012, 5:50pm

Any idea of Lux from M10? nice looking light but as above maybe limited by reflector size vs the Jacobs etc…

Pok · September 18, 2012, 6:00pm

My C8 did about 20k - 23k lux
My M10 did about 26k lux
Both are U2 with 7135 V2

Xin TD T6 did about 21k lux

Jinx · September 18, 2012, 6:26pm

Thanks Pok, really falling short of the mark there then for this thread. Still love the XinTD tho

ILIKEFLASHLIGHTS · September 18, 2012, 11:19pm

I would say the TK41 is more like about 50,000k. I honestly believe my SR51 will out throw it.

flashlight_man · September 18, 2012, 11:38pm

I had both at one time. They are almost identical. If the SR51 beat the TK41 is was not really visible to my eyes. To close to call.

ILIKEFLASHLIGHTS · September 19, 2012, 12:03am

Mouseover TK41 mouseout SR51

ILIKEFLASHLIGHTS · September 19, 2012, 12:04am

SR51 wins in my eyes no question.

Mr_X · September 19, 2012, 12:27am

Hi guys anyone here have the Crelant 7G9?

Manny · September 19, 2012, 12:38am

Check out this thrower I found on eBay: eBay

mags · September 19, 2012, 12:50am

Just received mine today. The closest comparison in my collection was the Trustfire X8. The 7G9 is almost twice as bright, I was not expecting that.
Bear in mind this is using TFF batteries. I have the Panasonics in the mail so I am certain the output will improve overall.

Mr_X · September 19, 2012, 1:00am

I also just picked one up last night cant wait for it to get here. Where did you buy your 7G9?