Talk:Maglite

Header

What type of bulbs are found in Maglite flashlights? —This unsigned comment was added by 71.4.51.150 (talk • contribs) .

Krypton, sometimes with Xenon gas mixed in. C- and D-cell Maglites use PR-base type bulbs. The Solitaire and Mini use bi-pin bulbs. - S. Komae (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

TBD

• mods (e.g. LED insted of bulb)
• criticism of Mag quality (see e.g. "Mag failed me stories" on candlepowerforums.com)

Apokrif 18:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Article title

Isn't Maglite supposed to be spelt: Mag-Lite? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Akosygin (talk • contribs) 01:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

On Mag Instrument's webpage MAGLITE, MAG-LITE and Maglite seem to be used interchangeably. Bergsten 09:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Efficiency of LED flashlights vs incandescent

This concerns today's change to maintain the wording that the efficiency advantage of LED flashlights is mainly restricted to lower output levels. While LEDs in general are commonly described as much more efficient than incandescent bulbs, such statements are a broad generalization and often don't apply to the higher-powered LEDs used in flashlights. This is especially so when driven at the high output levels common in Luxeon flashlights. Since the article is about LED flashlights, not LED indicator lights (which are much lower powered and more efficient), the wording should reflect the efficiency picture of the usage mode. For more info on relative efficiency of LEDs vs other lighting sources, see: [1] Joema 15:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

its still more efficient, the minimag led goes for 3.5hrs before 50% brightness according to flashlightreviews.com http://www.flashlightreviews.com/reviews/maglite_minimagled.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.30.77.143 (talk) 08:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC).

The above-referenced wording change was not about Maglites in particular, but LED vs incandescent lights in general. Previously the wording was: "LED flashlights are generally much more efficient than incandescent bulbs", and was changed to "LED flashlights are more efficient at lower output levels than incandescent bulbs". This can easily be seen since high output LEDs when driven at high levels have efficiency per watt which isn't greatly above incandescent. At lower output levels LEDs become more efficient. However LED technology is constantly improving and it's likely in the relatively near future LED lights will greatly surpass incandescent bulbs at high output levels. The article wording should properly reflect the current situation. Joema 13:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...Technically true, but the Mag does not have a 'low' setting, so I do not see that this is relevant. Also, people will probably replace the battery before it gets to a low light level where this would be relevant. People might think you are referring to battery life and blissfully unaware of discharge curves, so I removed the entire sentence. A comment about battery life vs. brightness for a specific model of Maglite would be helpful, as would something comparing the measured brightness of the same Mag, once with incandescent bulb and again with an LED. Jerry guru (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The efficiency of LEDs decreases the higher the current. Fair enough. The reverse is true for incandescent lights however – lower current, less efficiency, because the visible brightness decreases more than proportionally as the output spectrum shifts towards red and infrared (the color of white LEDs is not affected by current). See for yourself what this means for Maglites. The 11h runtime sure sounds impressive, but after only one hour on fresh alkaline cells, the brightness has already plummetted to 50%. Sure, this is a problem that could be solved with current regulation as used by my much more advanced Fenix LD20 (this review is actually about one variant of its predecessor, the current regulation on the LD20 is better still), but the Maglite doesn't have that, and then the batteries wouldn't last "11 hours". The LD20 gets about 5,5 hours runtime on high mode using 2x high-capacity NiMH AAs with constant brightness. When at least one battery is nearly exhausted, it switches to low mode instantly without any transition. Until then it was brighter (94 lumens) than the Maglite 3D (80 lumens) is with fresh batteries only.

Lack of current regulation also means poor performance with NiMH rechargeables. If I used a Maglite 3D in the same way I used my LD20, I would easily burn through 20+ D-cells every month, at about $2 a pop (for the Rayovacs). The electricity for and wear on my NiMH AAs, on the other hand, add up to a few cents. Aragorn2 (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry-since this info is not about Maglites in particular but flashlights in general, I decided to remove my edits and replace it with a reference to LED and Flashlight entries. Jerry guru (talk) 00:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Explanation of revision to paragraph about police and Maglites

Revised paragraph for various reasons: (1) Article is about Maglites in general (incl. LED models which don't have as marked ring patterns) not just about incandescent models. (2) Ring pattern is due mainly to focusing ability, which most focusable lights (not just Maglites) will have.

Revised statement about reduced output relative to other tactical flashlights. Reason: the most common Maglite in law enforcement use is probably the Mag Charger, which is more powerful and has better "throw" than many tactical lights, thus the statement as originally written wasn't really correct.

Statement comparing LED lights to Maglites was misleading since Mag makes LED lights, plus purpose of article isn't a pro/con consideration of Maglites vs other tactical lights or incandescent vs LED. Statement about battery life being shorter than LED lights wasn't generally correct, because (1) Mag makes LED lights, and (2) Incandescent Maglites have very long battery life, just not a favorable discharge curve, so much of the battery life is at a lower luminous output but is nonetheless long. Joema 23:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Spare Bulb

How to you retrieve the spare bulb out of the tailcap? Mike

You pull the spring out, the bulb is behind it. It should just pop out. Senatorpjt 10:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Paint

I don't know anything about the camouflage Maglite, but the rest of them aren't painted, they're made of anodized aluminum. I changed the mentions of paint. Senatorpjt 10:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The camo maglite is painted - it's a bit of an anomoly. --RedHillian 22:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

2xAAA Most Popular?

I've never seen one.

Georget99 (talk) 23:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• +1. And, I do know a few LEO's and military. Jerry guru (talk) 01:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I was given one in a nice presentation box, printed with a company name - some time in 1998. I still keep it in my briefcase in case I have to descend a smoke-filled stairwell in the dark. Though I wish I could get a cheap LED upgrade for it - the common one only fits AA lights from what I've read. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Major Surgery

Sorry, I cannot stand it. I will try to fix the patient without killing him/her/it. I will attempt to remove the salesman pitch from the intro, and remove the collector's opinions from the 'Popular' section. Mainly, I will delete and do minor editing. These are the materials I removed and why:

• also known as MAGLITE, MAG-LITE (according to company website, Maglite is correct spelling, but some minority of products have the name hyphenated)
• The Maglite was an improvement over the Kel-Lite, after which the Maglite was patterned (opinion, speculation)
• an aluminum alloy (repetitive)
• The durability trait has long been a major selling point of Maglite advertising. One Maglite commercial features a tractor-trailer truck driving over a black D-cell Maglite, followed by the driver stepping out and discovering the Maglite still functioning. (advertising)
• family of flashlights has a large set of , ranging from (advertising)
• and a bewildering array of (not confusing: xenon or LED)
• developed and marketed (advertising)
• Many police officers carry Maglites, as they are durable, focusable, and generally produce better output than inexpensive mass market flashlights. However in recent years police departments have been adopting more expensive, higher performance "tactical" flashlights from companies such as SureFire and Streamlight. (opinion).
• A signature feature of a Maglite is its spare bulb. Most conventional Maglites are equipped with a spare light bulb encased in the tailcap, making replacement of a burned out bulb convenient. (advertising)
• are out of production due to lack of demand) (opinion)
• == Popular Maglites == (title not related to section content; I have renamed this section 'Variants')
• The two most popular Maglites are the 2xAA cell battery Mini Maglite and the 2xAAA cell battery Mini Maglite (both pictured above). These 2 Maglites are small and light yet powerful and water-resistant. This is ideal in camping situations as bigger flashlights such as the 6 D-cell Maglite are awkward and often inconvenient to use. Most police forces as well as the US Marines have a 2xAAA cell battery Mini Maglite as part of their uniform.(advetising, and partially not true; I converted the AAA military reference to a bullet point)
• Maglites have also drawn a number of private collector's and often releases models with special paint schemes. (unverifiable opinion)
• There are also some models that are mass produced, but not readily available. The pink AA is only available at some Walmart locations, no other retail outlets, aside from collector outlets. (opinion)
• for instance, are fairly rare, as well as some sizes of camouflage. Certain colors of 4, 5, and 6 D-cell Maglites can also be difficult to find. Most of the models are rare for the simple fact that most public retailers don't stock them. Some collectors believe certain items should be standard equipment with Maglites, such as the available glass lenses, which are not offered in any retail packages. (opinion)
• "Original research|section|date=September 2007" tag. (since I have deleted most of this section, I have removed this tag as being, hopefully, no longer true).

Jerry guru (talk) 01:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Whew!

That was a big change. I have no doubt that I excised too much; that is why I listed all the deleted text. If you think something should be reinstated, please be my guest. Also, the article still needs fleshing out. I did not remove the tags at the top of the article; I think the article still needs cleaning (in particular, I am uncomfortable with many statements in the LEO baton weapon section, but I am not qualified to pass judgement; suggest a LEO take a good, hard look at this section), but go ahead and remove them if you think I did a sufficient job.

LED, too

I also edited the LED section:

The only apparent downfall being the LED models emit light so evenly that it does not focus like a typical Minimag. (this comment is peculiar to this one brand only, not to LED's in general)

Niteize produces a variety of after market LED modules for use in Maglite products. (advertising)

LED flashlights are more efficient at lower output levels than incandescent bulbs, and are also more resistant to physical shock. LEDs also have a longer lifespan than incandescent bulbs and can last for 10,000 hours of use or more. (misleading, not entirely true)

In keeping with tradition. (advertising)

feature a patent pending power management system designed to balance optimal light output with extended battery life (advertising)

line also features (advertising)

Jerry guru (talk) 02:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

References

Removing Almost All of the Weapons section

I was sufficiently skeptical of this section to remove ALL of it, save for the one verifiable news story. It is mostly, if not all, either anecdotal or personal opinion. If you are a LEO or other person who has personal, first-hand experience or a verifiable reference, please reinstate some/all of what I removed. For reference, here is sum total of all I removed from the article:

Due to their size, shape, mass, and hardness, the larger C- and D-cell Maglites are also useful as ersatz batons, and in the past a handful of law-enforcement agencies have even trained officers in the use of Maglites as weapons. Security personnel (who often must carry flashlights in the course of their work) and private citizens have also used their lights as relatively effective mêlée weapons in self-defense.

The popularity of large flashlights such as the Maglite as a weapon in law enforcement has diminished in recent years, following the availability and widespread adoption of collapsible batons. Many agencies and departments, in an effort to improve law enforcement's public image by appearing less aggressive and militaristic, discourage or outright prohibit the carrying of rigid batons, either the straight, "billy club" style or the side-handled model (known as the PR-24), under routine circumstances. Flashlights such as the Maglite became popular for their benign, functional appearance, yet still allowed personnel to effectively escalate the level of force used in violent encounters without resorting to firearms. Such activity may appear problematic or impossible with some Maglite models, such as the "Mini Maglite" and "Maglite Solitaire". The Mini Maglite is often used in place of a pocket stick, kubotan, or yawara.

If you have verifiable information that warrants reinstating any of the above deletions, please put it back in. Jerry guru (talk) 03:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Reference 2 doesn't work anymore —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.103.10.17 (talk) 18:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

removing all of See Also section

I removed these references, since they are not relevant to the current entry:

• Lumencraft
• Surefire
• Streamlight
• Arc Flashlight

Jerry guru (talk) 03:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Minor Editions

In response to the criticism about the page sounding like an advertisement, I moved some paragraphs around to make the introduction shorter and more to the point, and deleted the following sentence: "They are available from Mag Instrument, Inc. and numerous third-party vendors."

83.88.252.13 (talk) 21:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC) Morten

The Name

I assume that the Maglite name comes from Anthony Maglica's surname (rather than because the torches are made of magnesium, which they aren't). However it doesn't explicitly state in either this article or the article on Anthony Maglica that Maglite comes from his name; before I add this, is it absolutely most definitely the case? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 12:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Nextorch

does Nextorch belong to Maglite? -- 92.226.209.115 (talk) 16:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Thermal-management article section

The "Thermal management" section mentions that Mag Instrument has designed some LED flashlights which must dim themselves over time to stay cool. It adds that the current-generation Maglite LED 3-Cell D has no need to do so. Do any of Mag Instrument's current LED flashlights still need to dim themselves for cooling during extended use? If so, which? When you answer, please specify how you know the answer. Cheers, Unforgettableid (talk) 07:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Have a look at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, if you have a minute. Web fan sites are not considered reliable; there's no editorial control, (just like Wikipedia) and so all we have there is annonymous opinions. I'm a sometime user of Candlepowerforums, but it's not a source I would use here. Sometimes the CPF postings point at documents that *can* be used. In any case,all that stuff about the Maglites is too opinionated to add to the article without any sort of reliable reference. A D cell Maglite is a perfectly usable flashlight and probably sells more in a day than one of the estoeric makers does in a month. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

As for your first point, see my point about FlashlightReviews in my reply to Cantaloupe2 below.

As for your other points: Yes, I agree that Maglites are huge sellers. I also agree that Maglites are perfectly usable flashlights, even the flawed ones. The Maglites with the flawed heat sinks do become dim over time, but the dimming saves on battery usage. The Maglites with the flaw are still very useful. And the warranty policy is excellent. A fairly-new broken Maglite can usually be exchanged in-store; an older broken Maglite can also be exchanged, though this may have to be done by mail. I doubt that most of the flashlights that CandlePowerForums members use can be exchanged in a local retail store. I don't think the "Thermal management" section implies that nobody should buy Maglites; it is merely six lines or so of criticism.

Especially please read my newly-added last bit of the article section; at least some Maglites have been redesigned to correct the flaw.

With kind regards, --Unforgettableid (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I blanked that section, because the contents were based on user authored original research. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 11:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Cantaloupe2. Perhaps FlashlightReviews, in this case, is a secondary source? Also, I ask a favor: could you please leave my contribution until we have resolved this discussion? Please see also WP:TALKDONTREVERT. With kind regards, --Unforgettableid (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

You made a bold edit to add a free write up referenced to anecdotal claims from some online message boards. Whatever claim you're making must be verifiable by a reliable source. FlasihlightReviews is a review site ran by a hobbyist it is a primary source and not a WP:RS. WP:USERG is very clear about not adding original idea WP:OR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cantaloupe2 (talk • contribs) 11:27, 24 January 2013‎ (UTC)

A source like, oh, say, "Consumer Reports" would be nice; or even "Handguns and Handcuffs Quarterly (The Review of all Police Equipment)". The CPF guys are a little...intense...and we don't want this article filled up with rants about the "tint lottery", off-center LEDs, tiny flaws in the reflector, and of course the ringy beam that shows up when you go white wall hunting. Let alone discussions about anodization. Unless, of course,we can find reliable sources to talk about this. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

"A lightweight source may sometimes be acceptable for a lightweight claim".

"Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided."[2]

$30 electronic devices don't always include excellent heatsinking. "First-generation LED Maglites sometimes dim because of poor heatsinking" is a lightweight claim, not an extraordinary claim. I suspect there may be nobody in the world who disagrees with the claim — maybe not even a Maglite sales rep. Yes, it is a very lightweight claim.

FlashlightReviews cites the user-generated source CandlePowerForums to support their point about poor heatsinking, so I believe it here acts as a secondary source. Taken together, I believe that FlashlightReviews (as a secondary source) plus NLee the Engineer's user-generated content plus the LED-Resource team are enough to support such a lightweight claim.

A comment from User:Andy Dingley elsewhere has inspired me to point out: If you are still unhappy with the sourcing, may I suggest you try to look for better sources yourself. I have already done so, and added citations to the article, though I have not visited my local university library to try searching ProQuest or EbscoHost.

May I suggest that you let the issue rest for now, and if people ever do start adding rants about anodization, that you revisit the issue then.

With kind regards, --Unforgettableid (talk) 19:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

On second thought, I have removed the section for now, to make the article more concise. Since Mag improved the heatsinking in some (if not all) of their popular flashlights in 2009, it's no longer such a significant issue. Wtshymanski, thank you for your last comment, which I think may have helped me decide to remove the section. Unforgettableid (talk) 19:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I have moved the removed "Thermal management" section to Flashlight Wiki. Unforgettableid (talk) 06:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Step-down-regulation section

I created this section just now. Please remember: "A lightweight source may sometimes be acceptable for a lightweight claim". With kind regards, --Unforgettableid (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The weight of source talks about difference in strength of of sources that are acceptable as reliable sources. This does not mean editors have a pass to introduce inappropriate sources. Forum posts are almost never acceptable. There are exceptions, but they're rare. For example, a news story may say that someone have posted his criminal plot on a forum(cite news site, and archived link to said referenced forum thread). Anyone can post on forums. There's no difference between

• a wikieditor saying "this is so, because my friend said his friends said so" and
• "this is so" ref: forum post says another WP:SPS or WP:USERG says it is so.

Cantaloupe2 (talk) 07:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Cantaloupe2. I am curious: why did you challenge my contribution? It was an uncontentious point: that some Maglites have step-down regulation. If you didn't challenge it, then it could have remained on the article. Now all that's left is a lonely orphaned one-sentence article section which is far less meaningful. Cheers, Unforgettableid (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Because, its original research and the accuracy is questionable and based on forum gossip. Why did you include forum gossip? If you had sourced it reliably and did not advance a position not supported by reliable sources, it wouldn't have been challenged in the first place.Cantaloupe2 (talk) 18:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you believe the output-over-time graphs on that forum were forged? :) Unforgettableid (talk) 19:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

It's policy. This encyclopedia is not a place to publish personal experiments. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 19:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe wholeheartedly that the Maglite personal-experiment output graph on that forum is true and correct. It's a forum; they challenge each other when they disbelieve each other. And so I personally consider the output graphs on that forum a reliable source for me to rely on for my own personal knowledge. I'm also not so convinced that Wikipedia policy really falls completely on your side; I saw two conflicting statements on two different policy pages. Maybe I can dig up quotes later. Unforgettableid (talk) 19:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

So, post the links to policies and quotes from it that you may feel that is misinterpreted, so we can discuss it. Another editor also disputed your series of additions as questionable. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I can dig them up when I have more time. But here's another point: These are not ordinary forums where people just state their opinions with nothing to back them up. Some of the users on these flashlight forums spend incredible time doing careful research. And like I said, the replies act as peer review. Yes, peer review. Just like in the best of the physics research journals. Maybe this case should be an exception to policy. Unforgettableid (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

So appeal to reliable source or original research noticeboard. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 19:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

"I believe wholeheartedly that"... responding to that, please see WP:V where it says "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." and said verification must come through reliable sources. I think you're having trouble understanding our guidelines on WP:USERG. EDCforums, Candlepowerforums, etc, etc, etc constitutes user generated contents and research of forum members constitute original research. Is there anything else you would like to have clarified? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 04:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The section is now on Flashlight Wiki instead. Cheers, Unforgettableid (talk) 06:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

My evaluation of items #12, and #2 of external links policy finds that it should not be retained. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 07:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)