MTE U301 torch discontinued

[Adrian]

I have been trying for some time to get an MTE U301 torch in the UK. I finally sent an email to MTE, who informed me that the U301 was discontinued, and replaced by the U303. Has anyone tried this? Is it a direct replacement for the 301 (i.e. 365nm). The power output quoted as 3X, but there are no further details on the MTE web site. The price quoted is reasonable $98 + $29 DHL postage.

Adrian Davies

[JCDowdy]

I too have been looking at these.

That price seems to good to be true, see: This US site. Be careful you aren't looking at the price for the 385nm UV302.

[Cadmium]

Here is where I got mine. If you live in the US this price is actually less expensive than what I have found in the US, but more than the price you show ($98 + $29).

http://www.urbanoutback.com.au/p/mte-ultra-violet-uv-303-professional-flashlight-36/MTE-UV303

I see this site has changed from the 301 (which they use to sell, and I have) to the 303.

And take a look at the graph... I don't make any sense of that, it says 365nm, then it shows a graph for UV-C sterilization?

[colinbm]

"And take a look at the graph... I don't make any sense of that, it says 365nm, then it shows a graph for UV-C sterilization?"

That seems a bit dumb ??

The Australian dollar is around 0.70cents to the green back lately.

Col

[Cadmium]

Has anyone here compared the 301 and the 303?

[colinbm]

Yes......me......The extra Milli-watts of power is hardly noticeable & the photos exposure time is just the same.....I have failed to see any improvement, but it must be there somewhere.

Col

[enricosavazzi]

"And take a look at the graph... I don't make any sense of that, it says 365nm, then it shows a graph for UV-C sterilization?"

That seems a bit dumb ??

The Australian dollar is around 0.70cents to the green back lately.

Col

For a long time, the MTE 301 site carried claims that the torch can be used for sterilization. Some of these incorrect claims have been removed, in part due to the efforts by members of this site, but others remain, together with a few noticeable inconsistencies left by carelessly taking out some of the erroneous contents but not all. Apparently, the site owners/product owners do not regard it as a high priority to publish correct, intelligible information about their products. The MTE 301 is useful for our purposes, nonetheless, and the MTE 303 seems to be a virtual clone.

[JCDowdy]

The extra Milli-watts of power is hardly noticeable & the photos exposure time is just the same.....I have failed to see any improvement......

 

The MTE 301 is useful for our purposes, nonetheless, and the MTE 303 seems to be a virtual clone.

 

Given the differences in the output of the NCSU033B -vs- NVSU233A one would expect the MTE 303 to be twice as intense as the 301. Is there some difference in emitter or reflector geometry?

 

Anyone ever heard of a NVSU333A U365 being used in a flashlight?

[colinbm]

It would be nice if someone could convince Greg McGee Engineering to make some with the NVSU333A inside.

[Cadmium]

Colin, do the 301 and 303 have the same exact lens glass size? Do they look different in any way, size, shape, anything? Or just a different LED, and that's the only difference?

[colinbm]

Identical except for the 'World Standard' LED.

[Cadmium]

Thanks Colin. :-)

[colinbm]

My opinion is that the reflector needs to be a better design for our purposes..........

[Cadmium]

Sounds like hype to me, but new LED, so new model.

[colinbm]

Well the figures are there, but what exactly they mean over the previous one is small.

The newer http://www.nichia.co...d.html#NVSU333A should be an improvement & with a purposely designed reflector should be a real improvement.

[Cadmium]

I was going to get another one anyway, so I will get one and compare.

By the way, the Out Back price is still considerably less than the US price, for me in the US that is.

[Cadmium]

I have been trying for some time to get an MTE U301 torch in the UK. I finally sent an email to MTE, who informed me that the U301 was discontinued, and replaced by the U303. Has anyone tried this? Is it a direct replacement for the 301 (i.e. 365nm). The power output quoted as 3X, but there are no further details on the MTE web site. The price quoted is reasonable $98 + $29 DHL postage.

Adrian Davies

 

Adrian, According to MTE, your price quoted was a sample test price, 50% special price, because there is no agents in UK.

[Cadmium]

Using freshly charged batteries, I did some tests comparing the MTE301 and the MTE303 today.

I used the Solarmeter SM 5.0 and the Blak-Ray J221 (set to B, with perforated metal top in place) to compare.

I did the same tests with their original clear lenses, and with a U-340 2mm thick filter/lens replacing the original clear lenses.

Consistently, the MTE 301 is about 2/3 the power of the MTE 303.

I also compared beam brightness and spread on a white/fluorescent target, and the 303 seems to have a slightly brighter and wider beam.

 

Lens/filter size, threads, retaining ring, and O-ring lens seal are all the same on each model, all are interchangeable with each model, so the U-340 filter for my 301 fits my 303 the same.

Body style is almost the same, just different enough to tell them apart, but there is no model number on either model, an actual model number would be nice.

The two bodies are the same overall dimensions.

The Nichia LED is noticeably smaller on the newer 303 model.

The internal reflectors are somewhat the same, however the 303 reflector is slightly longer with a smaller hole for the newer smaller Nichia LED. The 301 has a larger hole for the larger LED.

So the reflectors are not interchangeable.

 

I purchased both of mine here: http://www.urbanoutb...ht-36/MTE-UV303

[Jonny]

Just out of interest, do you think the age/usage of the MTE301 plays a part in the output difference, or is it all down to the new design?

50% increase in brightness seems like quite a step change, wonder if I can get one at the 'special' UK price...

I was considering one of the 'high end' eBay torches to replace my 51LED for focusing and fluorescence, but at that price the 303 is tempting

[Cadmium]

Just out of interest, do you think the age/usage of the MTE301 plays a part in the output difference, or is it all down to the new design?

50% increase in brightness seems like quite a step change, wonder if I can get one at the 'special' UK price...

I was considering one of the 'high end' eBay torches to replace my 51LED for focusing and fluorescence, but at that price the 303 is tempting

 

Jonny, I was wondering the same thing, because even with fresh batteries I was not able to get the MTE 301 to register quite exactly the same level I was getting from it before with the Solarmeter SM 5.0 meter.

It was close, but not the same,

So it made me wonder if the LED had lost some efficiency over time. I tried different freshly charged batteries.

Even if I consider the slightly lower reading I get from the 301 now compared to before the difference is greater for the 303.

As an example, my older reading for the 301 was 97, now it was about 89, the 303 is 140.

I think either model is good, but yet the 303 has more power from what I tested.

[colinbm]

Thanks for posting the tests Steve

Col

[JCDowdy]

Adrian, According to MTE, your price quoted was a sample test price, 50% special price, because there is no agents in UK.

 

Adrian, sounds like MTE might be open to establishing a UK agent, an opportunity perhaps?

 

... even with fresh batteries I was not able to get the MTE 301 to register quite exactly the same level I was getting from it before with the Solarmeter SM 5.0 meter.

... my older reading for the 301 was 97, now it was about 89, the 303 is 140.

 

Good job Steve,

 

What was the measurement distance with your Solarmeter? As I expect you know, one of the major sources of radiometric measurement uncertainty is source positioning. When measuring highly directional sources with directional detectors, alignment can sometimes account for greater uncertainty than distance. Your observed drop from 97mW/cm² to 89mW/cm² is only ~8% which could easily fall within typical range of variance for what you are doing.

 

You also might consider variability in the meter itself. Simple radiometers can be temperature sensitive and can also drift over time. Unless one keeps a reference standard source there is no way to distinguish variability in the test source from that of the detector.

 

With a different LED I would also wonder if the peak wavelength is the same. In the absence of a spectrometer perhaps a white balance cross comparison would be of interest.

[Cadmium]

I measure them all the same way, and I am aware of the difference in positioning. Here are pics of how I do it:

http://www.ultraviol...__fromsearch__1

The difference between my earlier 97 reading and the newer 89 reading is not really a concern here for me, this is more about the 89 vs 140 reading, which is a significant difference between the two LED's.

The point was simple, to see if the 303 is much stronger than the 301.

In my opinion the 303 is about half again as strong as the 301.

[Cadmium]

I used an inexpensive piece of equipment for this test:

Bright White Inkjet Paper - 8.5x11" - 24lbs x 4 sheets thick - Brightness = 97

(MPN: HEW203000, UPC: 764025203005)

Side by side light beam comparison of MTE 303 and MTE 301. The front of each are 2 feet from the target.

I think this beam test is fairly consistent with the readings I got with the meters, and shows about half again as much light from the 303 than from the 301,

The center brightness of the 303 is slightly brighter than that of the 301, and overall the 303 is brighter and has a larger radius.

[Andrea B.]

Thankee !!