XJ98Jeep said:
I have an E2E and I just picked up an L1 yesterday :yelclap:
Anyway, I was mainly focusing on IPF's bulbs, just for the record.
http://www.arbusa.com/bulbs.php
Any of those have the output I'm talking about, but I'm going to buy the White Max bulbs if this turns to be real.
The reason they can make claims like that is because measuring bulb output as a function of electrical input is really quite vague - it has nothing to do with the efficiency of the bulb at energy conversion (and most automotive bulbs have efficiency rates that just plain suck.)
Oh - two G2's, an old Z3, and one of their "battery pack hurricane lights" here. I also want to get an M6 for tailgaters...
When you get into the idea of "performance lighting," you start needing "hard" measurements of light output. Candlepower or candelas are both common ratings - but they suck, because it's a "spot check" of lamp output. It's still more reliable than "This bulbs uses only 55W, but generates as much light as a 100W bulb!"
Lumens are pretty much it for measuring light output - and lumens are measured using a device called an "integrating sphere" - a rating in lumens is of
total light output. That's why SureFire has always rated in lumens, and why other manufacturers are starting to catch up (Blackhawk/Gladius uses lumens, I think Streamlight is finally starting to, and Pelican is using lumens for their "field grade" stuff.)
However, design and construction of the reflector bowl also play into light output - it's not just the efficiency of the lamp itself, but the efficiency of the reflector and/or lense channeling that energy into a useful beam that matters. So, that "100W output/55W input" bulb might have been rated in one of their own reflectors, but won't give you the same sort of output in someone else's bowl - it rapidly becomes a case of "apples/oranges." Or, more likely, "apples/rocks." May as well use the "furlong/firkin/fortnight" measuring system, if you really want to confuse people. (Yes, that's real - look it up! I first found out about it taking programming classes, when some timing was measured in "microfortnights.")
I really don't mean anything against IPF - I think they put out a decent product, even if they are a bit proud of it. However, with most tests of illumination, the tests rapidly become worthless unless the circumstances and controls of the test are known. Even when using an "absolute" unit of measurement (lumen/candlepower/candela,) it's going to come apart if you don't know the conditions of the bulbs
when put under test.
So, I've always been a bit dubious of those claims, and I'll stick to what I know.
