Big numbers sell
And for anything bit very large lights some sort f safety is good.
Look at the Q8, nice to have 5500 lumens for a couple of minutes but it just is too small so a longer 2000 is still very nice.
The FW3A has a much worse cooling profile so the samefer mode for long times probably will be 1000-1200 lumens and the burst of 2500-3000 cannot be done for long
It depends on temps, a reason I like Narsil and Bistro for one can calibrate their own light to the desired max temp
I agree that 5 seconds on 10K lumen kicked down to 1200 should allow some mode in between.
So it is a great honor to be able to assist in getting sweet lights out that do not have issues like this
I’m surprised no mention of the btu shocker!
My super shocker seems to have better thermal properties than my j20.
Shocker does 5500 Lumen’s.
J20 is 7600 lumens.
I think there is sometimes some dishonesty or false advertising regarding turbo modes and runtime. Manufacturers sometimes strategically use stepdowns to make it seem like they have a long runtime, complying with the ANSI standards. This practice really makes advertised runtimes pretty much meaningless.
Personally I make my own lights that give me all control over what mode it’s in, with no stepdowns. But all of these small powerful lights have the same limitations when it comes to heatsinking. They produce too much heat to be left on continuously in “turbo” modes.
But some comments in this thread make it seem like there is something manufacturers can do to extend turbo runtimes. They can’t really, except to extend the time slightly and let the light get a little bit hotter. So then the alternative is to not have turbo modes and have the highest mode be the highest possible continuously sustainable mode. This is kind of boring. Now, I think they should be more upfront about the turbo runtime limitations and maybe have a mode that is sustainable regarding heat, determined by some testing.
Precisely…. Do away with the “5 second” Turbo mode, & the 30 second & 90 second too. Go to an output that can be used for a while. Unless of course you are deliberatly building a 30 second dazzler.
No for what can be shed depends on how and when used.
Tailstanding in a room without airflow, during summer heat or winter cold.
I see two real solutions
1 for all sorts of lights, user chosen temp stepdown.
2 for eswitch lights, turbo by holding the switch pressed so temp is always felt.
I think we are somehow just missing each other here Enderman. I am not saying it is “nothing vs battery tube” either. I am saying additional cooling will be had, if the Olight X6 had a battery container fixed to the rear of its heat sink portion. Of course this would make the light bigger, and that may be part of the reason why they chose to do it this way. I apologize for not being more clear, in my haste of a quick reply/comment/observation of it.
Sure, that light may remain cool enough, when driven at current levels. I am sure it is well designed and engineered. I will look to find out more about it. But, I was thinking that more lumens would be had, and more cooling and high lumen run times would be gained. If additional conducting material was bolted to it. In this case. In the form of a battery container being fixed to the light itself.
I am glad that you brought it to our attention. Thank you. The Olight X6 is clearly a giant heat sink. I easily see and understand that. The battery pack is obviously separate from the “flashlight” portion.
But how I read your replies, tells me that somehow you are saying that additional surface area (with some additional mass coming along with that), cannot possibly help in cooling? Are you to have us believe, that if for example. We were to bolt two of the Olight X6 heat sink potions together, that it would not help with cooling what-so-ever? How about adding an additional half of a heat sink? How about adding a battery container with fins on it? Maybe just the upper portion of the battery container having fins on it? How about, adding a good solid aluminum battery container housing, and its additional surface area, to the back of it? Now it starts looking like an Acebeam X65, right?
When I said: - “That may be considered a drawback too though?” This was pertaining to the battery pack, and with it, its battery container housing. I was thinking that ’if’ the battery housing/container was made of a good solid heat conducting material, and was conductivity fixed to the rear of that light. Like most of the more popular flashlights we see being sold today. More heat will be dissipated, if necessary, or when being driven harder.
Saying it a different way, and what I was eluding to, with my earlier comment.
If an additional aluminum/copper, tube/box/container, was fixed to the back of that Olight X6 heat sink, additional BTU dissipation gains of some measurement, would be seen. That’s it. Pure and simple. :+1:
I also find that it does have a “thermistor to monitor real-time temperature, and the circuit is supposed to gradually reduce the output when internal temperature increases above 85C/185F.”
When not being cooled by a fan, it looks like this X6 could benefit from some additional surface area for cooling. Like an aluminum housing battery container on the back.
When fan cooled, it then easily beats the Acebean K60 I have set as a bar to beat, by about 750lm. Here is what that fan cooled chart looks like >
That’s great kotobuki! Do you happen to know if any reviewers have done some testing of this TK75, and have some run time charts to show us? :sunglasses:
It would, but that is correlation not causation.
The reason it has better cooling is because it would have more surface area, which has nothing to do with mass.
If you take the Olight X6 heatsink, split each fin in half and separate them by bit (so that the overall size becomes 2x) you would also have 2x the cooling but without increasing mass.
.
Also, if you take a look at the thermal image posted earlier of a flashlight, you can see the battery tube does practically nothing for cooling because of how far it is from the head.
Green = pretty much no heat being dissipated.
As colours get closer to red, an exponential amount of heat is dissipated, not linear.
The head of the flashlight is dissipating probably a few hundred or thousand times more heat than the battery tube.
XeRay™ XV-LX70
Output power: 50/70 watt
Luminous flux: 5300/7500 lumens
Reflector: 100 mm Ø EF high precision
XV-LX70 list price: $ 2,587.- (+ S/H)
Spare bulb list price: $ 185.- (+ S/H)
Warranty: 1 year (battery 6 months)
But I cannot find any 3rd party testing of it. We all know that it is a good idea to always test manufacture’s specs., with some real world testing.
Do you happen to know of any?
You may want to re-read that part RobertB .
That was an example. The goal, is to find flashlights that will better the Acebeam K60, which is capable of running at 4000lm, for the life of it’s batteries, without stepping down. Which is done when starting it off on level 5, and not on ‘Turbo’. Which is level 6.
Have you been able to find out what the different level outputs are going to be, for this Olight Marauder X9 flashlight?
Thank you DB Custom. That is a good showing, for sure! You were testing it in an area just above ‘Ambient temp’, by 4 degrees. It must have a thermostat in it. Any idea what it’s set at by chance?
It is getting crazy, and it’s also a big reason why I started this thread. If we keep a closer eye on this, and push back on the manufactures who are unfortunately heading in this direction. Maybe it will make a difference. I do know that some OEM’s cruise this forum. Some even spend a fair amount of time here. Which is great. I hope they listen.
The community, testers, and reviewers, do need to take a second look at this developing issue. I have been emailing some reviewers about this for a few months now. Sadly, many just want to help sell flashlights, and get their “coupon code” into as many hands as possible. So they can earn an affiliate income. Which is fine, but I’d sure like to see them push back a bit more, on some of these flashlights. :+1:
