XTAR New DH1 1600 Light is Coming Soon!

[XTAR]

This new Hunter DH1 1600 dive Light is tailored for spearfishing. With 1600lm output, it shines bright underwater, extremely effective at spotting fishes and lobsters in holes. Ultra-narrow 5°spot beam plus 355m beam throw make it perfect for search from a long distance.

The light takes one 21700 battery, up to 2.5hr burn time. It will meet your lighting requirements for every diving adventure. More info online: https://www.xtar.cc/product/XTAR-Hunter-DH1-1600-Lumens-Dive-Light-218.html

 

[XTAR]

New Hunter DH1 1600 lumens dive light on xtardirect online store now:

XTAR Hunter DH1 1600 Lumens Dive Light Underwater Spearfishing Flashlight

Dive Boldly, Hunt Brightly . Brighter & Farther, Born for Spearfishing . Light Weight, Sleek Look, Easy & Convenient to Operate . Up to 2.5 Hours Burn Time with High Brightness, More Dependable . Clear Battery Indicator, More Manageable . Crafted with Ingenuity, Safe & Efficient

xtardirect.com

 

[grantctobin]

Hmm…

1600 lumen ~ 16W Draw
16W * 2.5hr = 40Wh
21700 battery at its best is 5000mAh * 3.65V = 18.25Wh and ignores efficiency losses, which would imply needing more than two of them to maintain 1600lumen output.

Something fishy, but maybe that’s the “up to 2.5hr on the high setting,” rather than “1600lumen up to 2.5hr.”

Or we work backwards. 18.25Wh, let’s say we can use 90% of that, 16.4Wh. 16.4Wh / 2.5hr = ~6.57W. Best emitters are what, 170lumen/watt these days? 170*6.57 = very optimistically 1100lumen for that duration. Would need 243lumen/watt to get what is being claimed.

Survey says…I’m skeptical.

 

[Vicko]

Of course it's not a 1600 lumen light.
But I do love my xstar lights for spearfishing, excellent beam width and good penetration, I have a 6 year old d6 that's still working great.

 

[admikar]

Hmm…

1600 lumen ~ 16W Draw
16W * 2.5hr = 40Wh
21700 battery at its best is 5000mAh * 3.65V = 18.25Wh and ignores efficiency losses, which would imply needing more than two of them to maintain 1600lumen output.

Something fishy, but maybe that’s the “up to 2.5hr on the high setting,” rather than “1600lumen up to 2.5hr.”

Or we work backwards. 18.25Wh, let’s say we can use 90% of that, 16.4Wh. 16.4Wh / 2.5hr = ~6.57W. Best emitters are what, 170lumen/watt these days? 170*6.57 = very optimistically 1100lumen for that duration. Would need 243lumen/watt to get what is being claimed.

Survey says…I’m skeptical.

Now, now, play nice.
We can't apply logic to marketing spiel, someone's feelings might get hurt.

 

[rob.mwpropane]

BuSurvey says…I’m skeptical.

It does suck that they all stretch the specs, but hopefully people buying lights do their homework and know that.

They're good for what they are, recreational dive lights under $100 with a solid track record. Everybody I lend to says they like them.

I have a few Xtar lights, all a few years old. All still work great. I've never perceived them dimming over the course of a dive, but I'm certain they do.

 

[tbone1004]

Hmm…

1600 lumen ~ 16W Draw
16W * 2.5hr = 40Wh
21700 battery at its best is 5000mAh * 3.65V = 18.25Wh and ignores efficiency losses, which would imply needing more than two of them to maintain 1600lumen output.

Something fishy, but maybe that’s the “up to 2.5hr on the high setting,” rather than “1600lumen up to 2.5hr.”

Or we work backwards. 18.25Wh, let’s say we can use 90% of that, 16.4Wh. 16.4Wh / 2.5hr = ~6.57W. Best emitters are what, 170lumen/watt these days? 170*6.57 = very optimistically 1100lumen for that duration. Would need 243lumen/watt to get what is being claimed.

Survey says…I’m skeptical.

admittedly they do spec the SST-40, so in an ideal world 183 lumen/watt, but they also do state 92% efficiency.

1600/183=8.74w @ 92%=9.5w
24wh vs 40wh if we believe that 92% efficiency claim, that they emitter does not get hotter than 85c due to heat sinking, and that they're using the top quality bins for the LED's, but all that still is less than an hour of burn time. I really wish companies like @XTAR would start using constant output emitters and giving actual values for performance.

 

[rob.mwpropane]

I really wish companies like @XTAR would start using constant output emitters and giving actual values for performance.

What type of added cost would constant output emitters add?

I feel like lights that have those are all crazy expensive.

 

[tbone1004]

What type of added cost would constant output emitters add?

I feel like lights that have those are all crazy expensive.

couple of dollars to the board, not much at all. For a backup light in a cave, I would rather have the taper if it doesn't have multiple output settings since it gives you more burntime but I would rather it have a "low" setting and have the light automatically kick down to low.

Dive Rite at least puts this on the CX2, which I'm using because it uses the same emitter and battery

 

[rob.mwpropane]

couple of dollars to the board, not much at all. For a backup light in a cave, I would rather have the taper if it doesn't have multiple output settings since it gives you more burntime but I would rather it have a "low" setting and have the light automatically kick down to low.

Dive Rite at least puts this on the CX2, which I'm using because it uses the same emitter and battery
View attachment 828337

Understood.

It's tough to push people towards a "better" light (which is absolutely better), when they can't perceive the difference. I'm sure it would make a difference in a more technical setting, maybe, but even at that maybe not. By that point it's a backup to a better light.

Price difference is ~ $160 for the CX2 vs $70 for the Xtar DH1.