Convoy S2+ UV Flashlight

[Cadmium]

Andy, please re-read my last post. 301 vs 303.

[Andy Perrin]

Ah, I see. I don't own any of these, and I have to admit I'm starting to get confused trying to follow all of these different permutations. We have:

-MTE 301 with U-340

-MTE 301 without U-340

-MTE 301 without reflector

-MTE 301 with reflector

-MTE 303 without reflector

-MTE 303 with reflector

-Convoy without reflector (?)

-Convoy with reflector

 

Plus three different people's tests.

[Cadmium]

Don't get confused, keep it simple. There are three torches here. That is about all you need to think about.

But... ponder this handy dandy UV Torch / LED Wall Chart, and note the 'optical power' of each LED.

Nichia UV-LED's:

http://www.nichia.co...duct/uvled.html

 

MTE 301 uses Nichia LED model: NCSU033B

http://www.nichia.co.../NCSU033B-E.pdf

 

Convoy S2+ uses Nichia LED model: NCSU276A U365

http://www.nichia.co.../NCSU276A-E.pdf

 

MTE 303 uses Nichia LED model: NVSU233A U365

http://www.nichia.co.../NVSU233A-E.pdf

 

 

For those who need to translate the chart text:

 

MTE 301 LED Information

Nichia LED Model: NCSU033B

Size: LxWxH(mm) 6.8x6.8x2.1

Peak Spectrum λp (nm): 365

Optical Power Typ (mW): 450

Forward Voltage VF(V): 3.8 (Typ) - 4.4 (Max)

Directivity 2θ ½ (degree): 115

IF(mA): 500

LED Surface: Flat

 

Convoy S2+ LED Information

Nichia LED Model: NCSU276A U365

Size: LxWxH(mm) 3.5x3.5x2.0

Peak Spectrum λp (nm): 365

Optical Power Typ (mW): 780

Forward Voltage VF(V): 3.8 (Typ) - 4.4 (Max)

Directivity 2θ ½ (degree): 130

IF(mA): 500

LED Surface: Domed Lens

 

MTE 303 LED Information

Nichia LED Model: NVSU233A U365

Size: LxWxH(mm) 3.5x3.5x1.23

Peak Spectrum λp (nm): 365

Optical Power Typ (mW): 1,030

Forward Voltage VF(V): 3.75 (Typ) - 4.4 (Max)

Directivity 2θ ½ (degree): 120

IF(mA): 1,000

LED Surface: Flat

 

(photos in scale with each other)

[JCDowdy]

Enrico/Steve,

 

Excellent info gentlemen, thank you! You both offer some very interesting comparisons which, without ant MTE, I am unable to make.

 

Steve, I also appreciate your Convoy disassembly lesson - I have not invaded mine yet to install any of the 20.5mm ZWB2 filters I also ordered.

 

I think in general we can agree that the Convoy is at least intermediate between the two MTE models if not on par with the MTE 303.

 

I can confirm Enrico's observation that the Convoy becomes slightly warm to the touch, could be a problem with long duration operation.

 

Time will tell how well the Convoy UV S2+ holds up compared to the MTE.

[Andy Perrin]

I ordered one. The price was right. ;)

 

Is the ZWB2 filtration for UVIVF, to block visible leakage? Or does it do something else useful, like move the peak?

[JCDowdy]

Yes, it is intended to attenuate VIS in UVIVF applications.

[enricosavazzi]

Is the ZWB2 filtration for UVIVF, to block visible leakage? Or does it do something else useful, like move the peak?

I don't know about the ZWB2 filter, but the U-340 filter on my MTE 301 has the effect of shifting the emission peak by 1 nm toward shorter wavelengths. It does this by selectively cutting some of the higher-wavelength tail of the emission curve, including a little at the emission peak, but not enough to matter in practical use.

 

I had in fact overlooked the fact that the MTE 301 uses a LED rated at 450 mW emission, i.e. less that half the MTE 303 emission (since the response of our eyes is not linear, the visual difference is only slight). If view of this, the results of my tests are perfectly as expected. If we tested the MTE 303 vs. Convoy S2+ we could probably measure the higher emission of the MTE 303 in an illumination circle of the same diameter. Taking into account a different hotspot size is going to be difficult. I have a Spectralon integrating sphere to homogenize the emission, but the different window sizes of the two torches complicate things to the point that I gave up on using it for my test.

 

Besides, I am not going to buy an MTE 303 any time soon, because with two Convoy S2+ I can exceed the MTE 303 at a fraction of the price. I might still consider a 10W 365 nm torch though, if someone will decide to make it. There are even 200 W and 400 W LED cobs advertised at 365 nm, so the sky is the limit.

[Cadmium]

The idea is to cut the blue, and UG11 was originally used for this because it cuts blue better than UG1.

2mm works about right for the 365nm peak. U-340 (the Hoya equivalent of UG11), is normally substituted for UG11 because of the price.

U-340 doesn't suppress the upper visual range as well as UG11 at 1mm thick, but works fine at 2mm thick.

The only two Chinese filters I have tried are ZWB1 (like UG11/U-340) and QB39 (like BG39), and my opinion of those two filters is not good.

ZWB1 is a very poor equivalent of UG11 or even U-340, and not efficient in comparison.

At 1.5mm thick, ZWB1 leaks visual as badly as U-340 does at 1mm, so thicker ZWB1 is needed to fully suppress the visual range, and this requires longer exposures for UV-only stacks.

I have not tried ZWB2, it is the supposed equivalent of UG1 and U-360.

I have a high opinion of U-360, I rate it higher than UG1.

Back to the general idea, which is to cut off any visual blue leak that the LED might have, and the general thinking is that UG11 and U-340 cut blue better than UG1 or U-360

(which both cross into the visual blue range compared to UG11 and U-340 at the same thickness),

but U-360 may cut blue better than generally thought, and what is plotted on graphs. I don't have much idea how well either of the ZWB1 or ZWB2 will cut blue.

 

I understand that idea of using U-360, UG1, or ZWB2 to better align the filter transmission at the 365nm peak, but don't forget the main reason for using the U-glass is to cut the blue,

so keep that in mind.

[Cadmium]

I can confirm Enrico's observation that the Convoy becomes slightly warm to the touch, could be a problem with long duration operation.

 

I tested the Convoy and the 303, left them each on for 1 hour, simultaneously, full charged batteries, and neither one was noticeably warm.

So I don't know what the difference is here.

 

Added: I also tried them at 1 minute and 5 minutes, with the same results.

[colinbm]

Steve got me looking again at UV lighting......

There is an Australian Co now selling UVProducts.. http://uvp.com.au/

These are shown OXLX-365, OLX-365B as 10,000 µW/cm2 at 15inches with a 2inch light circle.

How does that compare to the MTE & Convoy lamps at 15inches Please ?

http://uvp.com.au/do...is/OPTI-LUX.pdf

Col

[Cadmium]

Col, Thanks for those links. Those look interesting.

 

Back to temperature of the Convoy S2+ vs MTE 301 and MTE 303.

I did these tests with a FLUKE 54 II Dual Thermometer, and I don't see temperatures to be very hot, about body temp or so.

The left hand column is the S2+ (T1) vs MTE 301 (T2), and the right column is the S2+ (T1) vs MTE 303 (T2).

About 10 minutes is all that is needed, which I had tried earlier with no camera.

NOTE: Left hand test, batteries fresh in both S2+ and 301. Right hand test, S2+ may be running on low battery, thus lower temperature, battery fresh in 303.

 

[Cadmium]

One more for the road...

I did this the same way John did, with a chemistry clamp and stand. I used 15" from Blak-Ray meter to front of all torches.

Meter was set to B range for all.

Keep in mind that the center brightness of these is quite different, so that is one of the big influences on the reading.

I like this Black-Ray meter, because it has a larger sensor surface area. The Solarmeter has such a small sensor window that it makes it more difficult to measure uneven beams.

Center of light beam was carefully positioned individually in the center of the meter sensor area.

Convoy S2+ and MTE 301 both read about the same, but that is only because the MTE has most of its power in the center, whereas the S2+ is more evenly distributed.

MTE30 is off the scale, I would have to increase the distance to get it on scale, which I thought I had when I set up the distance, but... enough, didn't want to redo it.

MTE also has a brighter center than S2+.

General recommendation, unless you want a brighter center, or need front threads, or want to change the front filter a little easier/quicker, then get the Convoy S2+,

for the price, the S2+ seems is stronger than the 301 overall.

 

[colinbm]

Thanks Steve....these Australian torches OXLX-365, OLX-365B are left behind in the dust & very over priced to boot.

Col

[Cadmium]

Hi Col, You mean because of the numbers they show? I don't think we can really compare my numbers to the number the other torches/site shows.

I mean, I don't use the number my meter shows to define them, only to compare them to each other in the same test, and even this test can not truly show how bright they are,

which is hard to exactly say based on their beam dispersion.

I think you would have to compare one of the torches you show directly to one or more of these to get a real idea of just what the difference might be.

A big question I would have is what LED do they use, is it Nichia?

 

Back to the Convoy S2+, one additional NOTE is that although they have nice O-ring seals on the body, there is no seal in the front where the glass is to protect moisture from getting into the reflector and LED housing.

This may not matter to anyone, and it may be possible to install an O-ring between the glass and front to seal off the front of the torch,

but it seems strange that they didn't include that when they used two other O-rings in the body.

So just for people who may think the LED is sealed off from water and moisture, it is not at all. You would not want to get around too much water with it, or underwater with it at all.

Wrong, as John points out below.

[JCDowdy]

Back to the Convoy S2+, one additional NOTE is that although they have nice O-ring seals on the body, there is no seal in the front where the glass is to protect moisture from getting into the reflector and LED housing.

This may not matter to anyone, and it may be possible to install an O-ring between the glass and front to seal off the front of the torch,

but it seems strange that they didn't include that when they used two other O-rings in the body.

So just for people who may think the LED is sealed off from water and moisture, it is not at all. You would not want to get around too much water with it, or underwater with it at all.

 

All four of mine have seals in front of the glass. If you look closely at the last image in your post #19 you can see it. It may be glued in place and so did not come out when you disassembled yours.

[Cadmium]

John, Thanks, you are correct! I missed that, didn't see against the block paited metal, and it doesn't just drop out easy.

I stand corrected, I will edit that.

Thanks.

[JCDowdy]

You are welcome as always. I guess if it doesn't drop out easily then it will be harder to loose when disassembled.

 

Speaking of o-rings I saw where some people are replacing them with fluorescent silicone rings. Seem like that defeats the purpose of having a nice narrow band source! I guess it must make them look cooler!