Armory Sponsor
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - L3 Filmless tube life (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 2/21/2019 6:20:41 PM EDT
|
I decided to upgrade my recent order to the l3 tubes after some time looking around. One nagging question I still have however is tube life. Do these l3 filmless tubes hold up just as well as other thin filmed options? I want an investment like this to last quite a while. I’ve read a few comments from years ago regarding someone complaining about his 1k hour filmless tube quality being degraded. I’ve found another thread from ‘16 concerning this, but didn’t really get the answer I was looking for. Now that people have had these for a while I was looking for some updated responses. Any truth to this? Will I get plenty of life out of my setup? Thanks! |
|
There is a bit of propaganda against l3 tubes going on.
Look at it this way. If l3 tubes were failing with degradation and short tube life spans, would not there be many more complaints from actual l3 owners, than the comments from another company's device owners and supporters about l3 devices failing early? |
|
Quoted:
There is a bit of propaganda against l3 tubes going on. Look at it this way. If l3 tubes were failing with degradation and short tube life spans, would not there be many more complaints from actual l3 owners, than the comments from another company's device owners and supporters about l3 devices failing early? |
|
OP standby, unlike others who just claim shit I can reference and show where I am right
ETA it's not lies, it's science and science says they degrade faster @txdx - check hamamatsu's data on this, took me a bit to figure out how L3 did something ITT couldn't. People say it's the PSU they put in, but in reality it's just a lot lower power. If you put 800v on that bitch I bet it would be like peering into the future, for about 2k hours before it would be toast. L3 Filmless like all GaAs tubes are subject to high light, bright light and basic bitch light degradation due to the chemistry used vs Multialkali. It means your multialkali tube all things equal will outlast your L3 filmless tube in maintaining its specs when exposed to light. Any light. For those that don't understand the concept here: A GaAs tube WILL DEGRADE FASTER vs MULTIALKALI because it is a known issue and accepted by everyone who makes the tubes. HOWEVER L3 when making the new filmless and I'm dumbing this down here as much as possible to make this understandable, did something wonderful and unlike thin filmed which had about 4x the voltage to overcome the gain issues you get when you film, lowered the voltage to around ~200v. This means L3 actually may be underplaying the MTTF as you could expect 30-40k hours on a tube before it's just not right anymore. But what it doesn't mean that you high spec tube won't lose specs faster. It will. 10k hours to lose sensitivity in the lab test isn't real world usage. In all fairness L3 filmless tubes CAN be amazing if they didn't have L3 making them, buuuut, no one else can make a tube like they can manage sometimes so there's this double edged sword. L3 did manage to fix the lifetime issues, by lowering the voltage required and likely finding a better way to degas the MCP to reduce ion strikes which is notoriously difficult due to the massive amount of surface area present. This is published fact. Anyone who disputes this is not telling the truth. |
|
Here we go again! LOL Actually, now that you're back, I hope you can back this up because I'd like to know if this is legit or not. You were mentioned on those other threads that were in vendors posts that have been moved. Since this post is specific to L3 and not a vendor I hope it can stay. Adding: Let's keep vendor bashing out of this guys, plz, so this thread doesn't get shit canned. Quoted:
OP standby, unlike others who just claim shit I can reference and show where I am right ETA it's not lies, it's science and science says they degrade faster |
|
Even if the performance degrades "quicker" than thin filmed tubes, let's say you use your tube 5 hours a week every single week. That's 260 hours per year.
Lets say that these unfilmed L3 tubes start to degrade 2x as quick as the standard thin filmed offerings (5,000 hours vs 10,000 hours). That's over 19 years of consistent use at 5 hours per week! And the standard 10,000 hour rating isn't to complete failure, it's where the tubes typically start to experience significant performance degradation. Enjoy your NV and use it as much as possible without worry 
|
|
Quoted:
Even if the performance degrades "quicker" than thin filmed tubes, let's say you use your tube 5 hours a week every single week. That's 260 hours per year. Lets say that these unfilmed L3 tubes start to degrade 2x as quick as the standard thin filmed offerings (5,000 hours vs 10,000 hours). That's over 19 years of consistent use at 5 hours per week! The standard 10,000 hour rating isn't to complete failure, it's where the tubes typically start to experience significant performance degradation. Enjoy your NV and use it as much as possible without worry |
|
Quoted:
Even if the performance degrades "quicker" than thin filmed tubes, let's say you use your tube 5 hours a week every single week. That's 260 hours per year. Lets say that these unfilmed L3 tubes start to degrade 2x as quick as the standard thin filmed offerings (5,000 hours vs 10,000 hours). That's over 19 years of consistent use at 5 hours per week! The standard 10,000 hour rating isn't to complete failure, it's where the tubes typically start to experience significant performance degradation. Enjoy your NV and use it as much as possible without worry |
|
Quoted:
Here we go again! LOL Actually, now that you're back, I hope you can back this up because I'd like to know if this is legit or not. You were mentioned on those other threads that were in vendors posts that have been moved. Since this post is specific to L3 and not a vendor I hope it can stay. Adding: Let's keep vendor bashing out of this guys, plz, so this thread doesn't get shit canned. |
|
Quoted:
OP standby, unlike others who just claim shit I can reference and show where I am right ETA it's not lies, it's science and science says they degrade faster @txdx - check hamamatsu's data on this, took me a bit to figure out how L3 did something ITT couldn't. People say it's the PSU they put in, but in reality it's just a lot lower power. If you put 800v on that bitch I bet it would be like peering into the future, for about 2k hours before it would be toast. L3 Filmless like all GaAs tubes are subject to high light, bright light and basic bitch light degradation due to the chemistry used vs Multialkali. It means your multialkali tube all things equal will outlast your L3 filmless tube in maintaining its specs when exposed to light. Any light. For those that don't understand the concept here: A GaAs tube WILL DEGRADE FASTER vs MULTIALKALI because it is a known issue and accepted by everyone who makes the tubes. HOWEVER L3 when making the new filmless and I'm dumbing this down here as much as possible to make this understandable, did something wonderful and unlike thin filmed which had about 4x the voltage to overcome the gain issues you get when you film, lowered the voltage to around ~200v. This means L3 actually may be underplaying the MTTF as you could expect 30-40k hours on a tube before it's just not right anymore. But what it doesn't mean that you high spec tube won't lose specs faster. It will. 10k hours to lose sensitivity in the lab test isn't real world usage. In all fairness L3 filmless tubes CAN be amazing if they didn't have L3 making them, buuuut, no one else can make a tube like they can manage sometimes so there's this double edged sword. L3 did manage to fix the lifetime issues, by lowering the voltage required and likely finding a better way to degas the MCP to reduce ion strikes which is notoriously difficult due to the massive amount of surface area present. This is published fact. Anyone who disputes this is not telling the truth. 
And @Alex_B as well if you have any info on this? |
|
Quoted:
Degrade from use, or time? Half the sources of what I said Both? I'll have to find this really interesting paper I read the other day, it'll blow the lid off all the bullshit it's classified/ITAR/NDA stuff. |
|
I'll take it a step further. Let's be honest, most people here typically use their nods for what 50 hours a year? That's probably pushing it to.
Let's say you use your tube 50 hours per year and let's just say that L3 filmless tubes degrade 4x quicker than thin filmed tubes. 2,500 hour life expectancy divided by 50 hours a year = 50 YEARS On the other side of the spectrum, let's take a look at the people who use their gear more than 99%. Let's say you put on 20 hours per week. That's 1,040 hours per year. And let's entertain the idea that these unfilmed tubes last on average 7,500 hours before performance starts to significantly decrease. That's over 7 years straight of 20 hours per week! |
|
Quoted:
TxDx knows more than me. He's a fucking genius. Quoted:
Quoted:
@txdx definitely would like to hear what you have to say on this. I actually trust you.
And @Alex_B as well if you have any info on this?
That being said, i haven't even met you and I've already seen your nipples and body hair. So I will be standing by for txdx's confirmation.
|
|
The degradation of quantum efficiency in negative electron affinity GaAs photocathodes under gas exposure
Image intensifier tube performance is what matters A guide to EXACTLY what wavelengths are most sensitive and discussion on how overcooking tubes is a no-no. Variation of spectral response for exponential-doped transmission-mode GaAs photocathodes in the preparation process Stuff to dispute what I said because being fair and consistent matters: https://www.harris.com/sites/default/files/the-gen-3-advantage-white-paperv3.pdf |
|
Quoted:
I'll take it a step further. Let's be honest, most people here typically use their nods for what 50 hours a year? That's probably pushing it to. Let's say you use your tube 50 hours per year and let's just say that L3 filmless tubes degrade 4x quicker than thin filmed tubes. 2,500 hour life expectancy divided by 50 hours a year = 50 YEARS On the other side of the spectrum, let's take a look at the people who use their gear more than 99%. Let's say you put on 20 hours per week. That's 1,040 hours per year. And let's entertain the idea that these unfilmed tubes last on average 7,500 hours before performance starts to significantly decrease. That's over 7 years straight of 20 hours per week! Look, the bottom line here is at this point we're splitting hairs. In a few years, barring the diamond plate tech working out, most everything will be SWIR, MWIR or LWIR or digital and we will all look like assholes arguing over whose vacuum tube is best. I only approach this in a way that makes sense: Why spend a lot of money for something disposable? |
|
Quoted:
Absolutely. The first time I ever talked to him he bombed me with an info dump of epic proportions.
That being said, i haven't even met you and I've already seen your nipples and body hair. So I will be standing by for txdx's confirmation. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
@txdx definitely would like to hear what you have to say on this. I actually trust you.
And @Alex_B as well if you have any info on this?
That being said, i haven't even met you and I've already seen your nipples and body hair. So I will be standing by for txdx's confirmation. |
|
OK, just to make a few technical notes here.
1) Gen3 tubes no longer go under full lifetime operational checks, but they do go under accelerated testing under Omni VIII. This is the same test for filmed and filmless. It specifies what the performance drop can be at the end of the test. ( Test is basically high-light testing for an extended period of time ). So they are still expected to last 10,000 hours at least. 2). Multialkali tubes degrade faster than GaAs... At first. Later Multialkali will outlast them, at about the 50% performance point, and then the GaAs will die pretty damn quickly... Quick enough to notice. It's just that GaAs has a flatter response to the ion poisoning than multi-alkali and degrades slower at first, then very rapidly, while Gen2 is more linear. If you wanted to put this benefit to practical use, Multialkali will be more reliable for preppers or post-apocalyptic use. Otherwise it's much of a muchness. 3). Photonis tubes are about 10,000 hours. Let's call it even, and any tubes that don't meet this we'll call "defective". I still haven't heard any substantiated rumors that L3 is defective. 4). -200v PC from the MCP input. This sounds correct. That is because the energy is not needed to break the ion barrier and offset dead voltage. Advantages include that they can gate quickly, with less stress on the PSU, and the downside is less focus, so you need to put the PC closer to the MCP, which is what led to the fragility of filmless originally. They still aren't recommended to be put into weapons that I am aware of. There's not much to gain from increasing this to 1000v, and I don't think L3 follow the same test criteria here under Omni VIII, but it shouldn't be a problem. It's a technology difference. 5). Tube lifetime, degradation, Manufacturers (ESPECIALLY L3 here) misrepresenting performance, spectral sensitivity, etc. Yeah, a lot of stuff here. What is needed is a practical test. Maybe an aftermarket S/N measurer, or similar, but if you have a TS-4348, just compare it to another system on Low Light Gen3, and this is a pretty good test. It's a little subjective, but it's still good. Take an older L3, and an older Photonis that were both high spec tubes, and test them side by side. Problem solved. I know there's been some dirty tricks by US manufacturers in the past, claiming absolute Gen3 superiority with dodgy facts, but I can't ever recall Photonis wanting to play the same game. When it comes to tubes and customers, they have always been gentlemen. Their documents ( such as MTF Matters ) were good opinion pieces and focused on technical performance criteria. They even developed new practical systems such as the TDR to bring lab testing closer to field testing. They are really geeky people who love their technology. So I don't think Photonis would want the air cleared about this, because they are happy to fight commercial battles on technical merits, rather than rumors. I've had the above discussions with their factory before, and I think I can honestly say that Gen3 and INTENS are pretty close, and while I'd give a slight edge to Gen3 Filmless in holding the top positions, this evaporates the moment you get deeper into current yields, and they are about the same... If you want to compare then, apples to apples, give the Photonis a 10% performance handicap to offset the difference in lab testing methologies, which CLEARLY benefit L3 Filmless and then they are about equal. Eg, A Photonis with S/N of 33 is about the same as Thin Filmed about 36 is about the same as L3 Filmless about 35. That's pretty much it. L3 Filmless performs slightly better than Harris Filmed of equal spec in the field, and Photonis full-spec INTENS of the same spec performs about 10% higher. It is not possible to compare ECHO's to Filmless directly because PHOTONIS NERF THEM... Don't believe me? Check out the gain specs. They aren't secret, though some on this forum would have you believe they are. But, for most applications, ECHO tubes are fine, and will still perform as well, or close to, the full spec tubes. When it gets really dark, is when the divergence in performance increases. ECHO are an assured level of commercial spec. ECHO PLUS are Mil/Pol/Gov so actually represent a full-spec even though they don't necessary meet milspec. Now, I've been looking into manufacturing problems, and Harris had some big ones recently. But I haven't been able to confirm any problems with L3. All I'm hearing is a few anecdotes, but not enough to form a clear impression of an indication of problems. Photonis had some interesting off-axis ones a few years back, but they vanished with the generational change. It's anyone's guess as to who will be on top in three years... I think there will be a lot of out-of-band stuff and spectral discussion in the future and there's some cool stuff about Photonis I still can't talk about which backs my assertion that L3 and Photonis are both neck to neck in terms of passive performance and if the differentiating changes are maintained, Photonis will pull ahead IMO. But please don't go confusing ECHO performance levels with full-spec INTENS. It's not quite just about the blems. And... Photonis and L3 pricing is very similar. You get what you pay for. But Photonis has increased it's market cap by digging into niches that weren't supported by L3 or Harris, so is doing really well lately. David. |
|
As to stay on topic regarding the initial question of filmless MCPs, these days the filmless G/G0 gain decay curve performs very close to that of a filmed OMNI 5 spec tubes (which I consider to be the golden reference).
Say you have a gain of 60k at hour 0, most filmless tubes will produce an image of at least a gain of 50k at hour 10000. The decay is gradual over time which means that yes, filmless tubes will start to decay within the first few hours of use. However that decrease will be hardly noticeable until you start hitting the 5000 hour mark, remember your tube will still be performing at a gain of about 55k at that point, which is plenty of good. Now to where the apple hits the ground, many competitors like to dismiss the filmless technology by pointing to the failure of the technology during the Omni 5 contract, losing the bid to the ITT Pinnacle tubes. This was back in the early 2000s. And yes, back then filmless tubes had a very rapid performance decay due to Litton pretty much straight up replacing the standard dielectric filmed MCP with a non-filmed one, causing ion feedback hitting and deteriorating the cesium/oxygen protective layer on the GaAs photocathode and exposing it to ionized and neutral gases within the tube. But a lot has happened since then surrounding the filmless technology. The unfilmed MCP has been improved through the development of low out-gassing high performance glass, as well as improvements in the structure of the micro-channels. Improvements have been made towards the photocathode, which is much more resistant to ionized and neutral gases, through improved scrubbing and going from Cs:O to Cs:F:O as the photocathode protective layer. New scrubbing techniques have been developed to reduce and even minimize the generation of ionized and neutral gases by the MCP and phosphor. Developments in new forms of electron and high voltage scrubs combined with vacuum baking are to be thanked here. Ion feedback has been greatly reduced through the introduction of the gated image intensifier power supply (commonly referred to as an autogated PSU) Combine all these improvements and advancement since, and you have your answer to why filmless is currently such a success. |
|
Just to stay on the topic of tube life, here's the tests... According to the spec.
Old tests - 4000 hours. ( About 6 months ). Same sort of test as current, but S/N could drop about 40%. Lifetime is 7500 hours.New tests - 1500 hours (About 2 months)... Every 11 minutes they expose the tube to about 50 lux of light for 3 seconds, and keep it illuminated the rest of the time with normal night-time levels and the tube performance is allowed to drop 20% or thereabouts. Lifetime is 10,000 hours. As a comparison, Photonis use the same light levels, but performance is allowed to drop 50%.... OVER 15,000 hours. And it's not even allowed to drop below that point DURING the testing, including under high light ( 50 Lux ) testing, so a Gen3 would pretty much die within the first 10 minutes under the Photonis test, but thats because the test is different and tests the high light capabilities of the tube as well. Filmless are still required to match this, and no matter how you protect the PC, the life is the life. Protecting the PC helps you achieve the lifetime. It doesn't necessarily improve the curve ( at least, I haven't heard anyone claim it does). So if we extrapolate, at 10,000 hours, you'd expect a Filmless to lose 40% of it's performance level and then turn to crap pretty quickly. Likewise a multialkali, about 33% of it's performance and just keep slowly deteriorating. So it looks like the crossover point would be somewhere around 8000hours... So for the first 7000 hours, the Gen3 Filmless would deteriorate at a slower rate than the Multialkali, and filmed and filmless would both decrease at about the same rate. Performance losses should be around 25% for multialkali and not quite 20% for Filmless. So Filmless would win up to about 7000 hours ( difference is not that high ). After 8000 hours, about the same, by 10,000 hours, Filmless would deteriorate at a much higher rate. By 15,000 hours, you'd expect it to be dead. Still a pretty reasonable lifespan though... After 15000 hours, the multialkali could die of other natural causes too. That's a LONG time in electronics. David. |
|
Quoted:
:) But not left on for all that time I hope - LoL!. Yes, even 7500 hours was a BIG number back then. Nothing has changed. David |
|
Quoted:
:) But not left on for all that time I hope - LoL!. Yes, even 7500 hours was a BIG number back then. Nothing has changed. David |
|
This is all really great info and an excellent example of why this is THE night vision forum we all come to.
So, reading between the lines, when tubes are tested to meet the 10,000 hours, this is done with “x” amount of samples per batch, or how do they determine it? Obviously they can’t test each one. Is that how some tubes end up commercial because they didn’t meet mil spec? Some of the commercial specs are right up there so I’d have to assume this might be *edit to add* one reason to put them out of the big game. |
|
Quoted:
This is all really great info and an excellent example of why this is THE night vision forum we all come to. So, reading between the lines, when tubes are tested to meet the 10,000 hours, this is done with “x” amount of samples per batch, or how do they determine it? Obviously they can’t test each one. Is that how some tubes end up commercial because they didn’t meet mil spec? Some of the commercial specs are right up there so I’d have to assume this might be *edit to add* one reason to put them out of the big game. Testing each one would render them useless after the 10,000 hours test.
The 10,000 hours requirement applies to all tubes, commercial or not. Because you can't test for the 10,000 hour requirement on the individual tube in advance. So manufacturers raise the water so that all boats float. |
|
That’s what I ASSumed but still wanted to ask because I have no firsthand knowledge of how they do their testing and what they do with tubes that wouldn’t make the 10k hour mark. I thought the 10k MTTF was the number set by the Mil Spec.
What is a common reason, or failure to make spec, that puts a tube commercial other than spots? Specifically, let’s use the Harris HP+ spec. Is it technically a mil spec tube without a contract to go to or what is it that makes it “mil grade” and not mil spec (other than marketing). Quoted: Its like how polling works, you take a sample and assume the rest will behave similarly. Testing each one would render them useless after the 10,000 hours test.
The 10,000 hours requirement applies to all tubes, commercial or not. Because you can't test for the 10,000 hour requirement on the individual tube in advance. So manufacturers raise the water so that all boats float. |
|
Quoted:
That's what I ASSumed but still wanted to ask because I have no firsthand knowledge of how they do their testing and what they do with tubes that wouldn't make the 10k hour mark. I thought the 10k MTTF was the number set by the Mil Spec. What is a common reason, or failure to make spec, that puts a tube commercial other than spots? Specifically, let's use the Harris HP+ spec. Is it technically a mil spec tube without a contract to go to or what is it that makes it "mil grade" and not mil spec (other than marketing). Almost anything can make a Milspec batch fail out, and usually it's related to other factors, since if they don't meet the lifetime tests, they aren't likely to proceed with a batch, and the tubes they use for testing aren't going to be sold, and generally, they pass lifetime testing. Common reasons for failing Milspec - Light and Dark patches, Too much Fixed Pattern Noise, Blemishes, S/N below threshold, Excessive axis deviation or error from the fiber plate twisting in the inverter. Sometimes they just come out underbaked but that would be evident before they do lifespan testing. Any single event can cause a tube to drop out of Milspec. Comspec usually allows for a big variation in quality. Oh yeah, Photonis isn't the only company that nerfs their commspec tubes... There seems to evidence that newer PSUs can quite effectively nerf high-spec tubes for reasons ranging from export compliance to just hitting a market, since there's no cost involved doing it that way, and it's just a software change. Check out some of the early discussions around the time that the PSUs with two pins for the EGAC came out. Sure, the manufacturers can also make sub-spec tubes for FOM1300 etc, but every indicator pointed to nerfing, started by L3 and Harris. Probably through manipulation of PC voltage. David |
|
Quoted:
That’s what I ASSumed but still wanted to ask because I have no firsthand knowledge of how they do their testing and what they do with tubes that wouldn’t make the 10k hour mark. I thought the 10k MTTF was the number set by the Mil Spec. What is a common reason, or failure to make spec, that puts a tube commercial other than spots? Specifically, let’s use the Harris HP+ spec. Is it technically a mil spec tube without a contract to go to or what is it that makes it “mil grade” and not mil spec (other than marketing). Tube has too low resolution, doesn't meet SN specs, has spots, too low photocathode sensitivity... Thats where the OMNI specifications come into play, these requirements define the milspec tube. And to be clear, a tube only needs to fail on one of the requirements in order to be considered non-milspec. Edit: David types faster than me! |
|
Quoted:
Oh yeah, Photonis isn't the only company that nerfs their commspec tubes... There seems to evidence that newer PSUs can quite effectively nerf high-spec tubes for reasons ranging from export compliance to just hitting a market, since there's no cost involved doing it that way, and it's just a software change. Check out some of the early discussions around the time that the PSUs with two pins for the EGAC came out. Sure, the manufacturers can also make sub-spec tubes for FOM1300 etc, but every indicator pointed to nerfing, started by L3 and Harris. Probably through manipulation of PC voltage. David |
|
Thanks for the answer. I’ve often wondered about nerfing with these programmable units because that would be easy to do. Perhaps that’s one way to easily offer a 10 year warranty since if you “turned it down” theoretically you’d stretch the life expectancy. Well, plus the fact most people won’t hang on to an NVD for 10 years other than Harlikwin with the 35 year old -5’s lol. Quoted:
There's a little more to it. There's a minimum sample size, and a small number of dropouts allowed, and if the number of failed tubes exceed a certain level, the whole lot are deemed bad. They might make it to comm spec, or they might be trashed. Depends on commercial arrangements, but they won't be Milspec. They are allowed to have some failures unrelated to lifetime as well. I have heard of commspec items being given away for free to researchers in the past. Ideally though they catch them before a power supply is attached so they can reduce the total losses, since I don't think anyone deliberately makes Commspec. Well, a few russian companies maybe. Almost anything can make a Milspec batch fail out, and usually it's related to other factors, since if they don't meet the lifetime tests, they aren't likely to proceed with a batch, and the tubes they use for testing aren't going to be sold, and generally, they pass lifetime testing. Common reasons for failing Milspec - Light and Dark patches, Too much Fixed Pattern Noise, Blemishes, S/N below threshold, Excessive axis deviation or error from the fiber plate twisting in the inverter. Sometimes they just come out underbaked but that would be evident before they do lifespan testing. Any single event can cause a tube to drop out of Milspec. Comspec usually allows for a big variation in quality. Oh yeah, Photonis isn't the only company that nerfs their commspec tubes... There seems to evidence that newer PSUs can quite effectively nerf high-spec tubes for reasons ranging from export compliance to just hitting a market, since there's no cost involved doing it that way, and it's just a software change. Check out some of the early discussions around the time that the PSUs with two pins for the EGAC came out. Sure, the manufacturers can also make sub-spec tubes for FOM1300 etc, but every indicator pointed to nerfing, started by L3 and Harris. Probably through manipulation of PC voltage. David |
|
Are they only using Everests now meaning no tuning unless sent to NVD or not sure who else would have the hardware to tune them? Quoted: The everest tubes by Harris/Exelis used IR led dataports to calibrate ABC and feedback for this reason. Previous PSUs where simply nerfed by detuning the feedback pot and reducing SN performance to meet FOM limitations. Didn't take long till people caught on to that and retuned the tubes. |
|
Quoted:
Absolutely. The first time I ever talked to him he bombed me with an info dump of epic proportions.
That being said, i haven't even met you and I've already seen your nipples and body hair. So I will be standing by for txdx's confirmation. Seriously though, thank you everyone for the kind words. Definitely not a genius, just obsessed with the nitty gritty technical details and this thread is one of the best examples in a long time. Lots of good info here that I need to slowly digest. |
|
Quoted: That's the vibe I got from the posts I've seen. I just want to verify with people that have run the l3 tubes with higher hours. Even if your actual usage turns out to be 10 hour a night, for a year. And it seems that the anti l3 propaganda continues to be put forth by some.... |
|
Quoted:
As others have pointed out, despite some comments that have been made that l3 tubes specs last only a year, and less than that, under actual usage, they do not degrade nor fail quickly. Even if your actual usage turns out to be 10 hour a night, for a year. And it seems that the anti l3 propaganda continues to be put forth by some.... |
|
Calling it "propaganda" is bit strong. NSFjojo brought up some good points to illustrate that L3 and all tubes are going to degrade and your full specs won't last forever regardless of the tube mfg. If anything, his explanation about the voltage resulting in filmless lasting longer than thin filmed was surprising to me. I don't see Harris fan boi's (which you could "call" me since all my tubes are Harris) in here flipping out about that.
My take away of what his intention was, was just to let people know that paying for those super tube specs you may lose those specs depending on your usage levels, etc. That for the average guy, just getting a good tube whether it be L3, Harris, or Photonis within your budget and needs is all someone should be concerned about. Not speaking on his behalf. I've only know him from his softcore porn on the internet
Quoted:
And it seems that the anti l3 propaganda continues to be put forth by some.... |
|
Quoted:
Can confirm I've seen his nipples as well. Not willingly. I do have more body hair though. Seriously though, thank you everyone for the kind words. Definitely not a genius, just obsessed with the nitty gritty technical details and this thread is one of the best examples in a long time. Lots of good info here that I need to slowly digest. Quoted:
Quoted:
Absolutely. The first time I ever talked to him he bombed me with an info dump of epic proportions.
That being said, i haven't even met you and I've already seen your nipples and body hair. So I will be standing by for txdx's confirmation. Seriously though, thank you everyone for the kind words. Definitely not a genius, just obsessed with the nitty gritty technical details and this thread is one of the best examples in a long time. Lots of good info here that I need to slowly digest. From what I have ingested so far, I stand by my first comment in this thread. Would not even worry about it. 10,000 hours is a threshold I (or 95 percent of us) will never hit with our NVG's. Hell I provably won't even hit 7,000 hours with this one. 7,000 hours ÷ 24 hours = 291 continuous days of use. Maybe if the sun never came up again.....lol |
|
Quoted:
7,000 hours ÷ 24 hours = 291 continuous days of use. Maybe if the sun never came up again.....lol
Been a good technical discussion going on here: obviously the fact that tubes have a finite lifespan and will eventually degrade over time is not something that anyone I know of has significantly argued against. But 10,000 hours before significant degradation, I tell everyone using your tubes is like smoking cigarettes—each time you use ‘em, you are causing their lifetimes and performance to decrease, I know a lot of people are non-smokers these days because of that... but it’s also impossible to really accurately measure the effect of a single cigarette or make an accurate prediction as to exactly how many cigarettes will eventually kill you or cause how much of a decrease in performance/lifespan—but if you chain smoke a shit ton you’re gonna feel it.
Again, I’ve never been a spec-whore when it comes to tubes, and while I’ve got nicer tubes around, my training/beater sets are pretty toasty—I know that’s in part a luxury offered by doing this day and night full time, but I would both agree that starting with good specs is very important to overall performance, but also that they’re not going to last forever, and the more you use them, the more you’re going to lose performance over time—but I also agree that being able to see at night at all is a whopper of a performance advantage over not being able to. TL;DR: All tubes will degrade over time, but L3 filmless will offer great performance for the practical service life of the unit—as will most quality image intensifiers. ~Augee |
|
Quoted:
I’d be more worried about how your vision and brain would fare after 291 continuous days of doing nothing but looking through NODs.
Been a good technical discussion going on here: obviously the fact that tubes have a finite lifespan and will eventually degrade over time is not something that anyone I know of has significantly argued against. But 10,000 hours before significant degradation, I tell everyone using your tubes is like smoking cigarettes—each time you use ‘em, you are causing their lifetimes and performance to decrease, I know a lot of people are non-smokers these days because of that... but it’s also impossible to really accurately measure the effect of a single cigarette or make an accurate prediction as to exactly how many cigarettes will eventually kill you or cause how much of a decrease in performance/lifespan—but if you chain smoke a shit ton you’re gonna feel it.
Again, I’ve never been a spec-whore when it comes to tubes, and while I’ve got nicer tubes around, my training/beater sets are pretty toasty—I know that’s in part a luxury offered by doing this day and night full time, but I would both agree that starting with good specs is very important to overall performance, but also that they’re not going to last forever, and the more you use them, the more you’re going to lose performance over time—but I also agree that being able to see at night at all is a whopper of a performance advantage over not being able to. TL;DR: All tubes will degrade over time, but L3 filmless will offer great performance for the practical service life of the unit—as will most quality image intensifiers. ~Augee Quoted:
Quoted:
7,000 hours ÷ 24 hours = 291 continuous days of use. Maybe if the sun never came up again.....lol
Been a good technical discussion going on here: obviously the fact that tubes have a finite lifespan and will eventually degrade over time is not something that anyone I know of has significantly argued against. But 10,000 hours before significant degradation, I tell everyone using your tubes is like smoking cigarettes—each time you use ‘em, you are causing their lifetimes and performance to decrease, I know a lot of people are non-smokers these days because of that... but it’s also impossible to really accurately measure the effect of a single cigarette or make an accurate prediction as to exactly how many cigarettes will eventually kill you or cause how much of a decrease in performance/lifespan—but if you chain smoke a shit ton you’re gonna feel it.
Again, I’ve never been a spec-whore when it comes to tubes, and while I’ve got nicer tubes around, my training/beater sets are pretty toasty—I know that’s in part a luxury offered by doing this day and night full time, but I would both agree that starting with good specs is very important to overall performance, but also that they’re not going to last forever, and the more you use them, the more you’re going to lose performance over time—but I also agree that being able to see at night at all is a whopper of a performance advantage over not being able to. TL;DR: All tubes will degrade over time, but L3 filmless will offer great performance for the practical service life of the unit—as will most quality image intensifiers. ~Augee
|
|
Quoted:
As others have pointed out, despite some comments that have been made that l3 tubes specs last only a year, and less than that, under actual usage, they do not degrade nor fail quickly. Even if your actual usage turns out to be 10 hour a night, for a year. And it seems that the anti l3 propaganda continues to be put forth by some.... ETA I kinda feel like I'm repeating myself lol, so for the sake of the thread I'll find the paper. I'm trying to be fair here. L3 did some really neat stuff to fix the filmless lifetime problems. But, GaAs degrades faster than multialkali and even more so in bright light. |
|
Quoted:
Wait... Are you telling me people actually sell their NVDs and dont just build museums of them? https://giphy.com/gifs/anchorman-lies-lie-EouEzI5bBR8uk Quoted:
Quoted:
Well, plus the fact most people won’t hang on to an NVD for 10 years other than Harlikwin with the 35 year old -5’s lol. https://giphy.com/gifs/anchorman-lies-lie-EouEzI5bBR8uk But not the type to hang stuff like this on home wall museums!  
|
|
Quoted:
And the standard 10,000 hour rating isn't to complete failure, it's where the tubes typically start to experience significant performance degradation. When I worked for the USAF we figured the tubes would take about 20 years in real life situations. (3-4 hour flight, 2 days a week for typical flight ops) |
|
Quoted:
All tubes degrade, but yeah, it's not a problem. :) For example, I have posted many images here, taken through a 6010 that had a serial number in the hundreds. I don't know how many hands it has passed through over the years, but it is still quite usable. |
|
How often would they cycle out/in tubes or devices and what was the basis for doing so? Curious what the life cycle is for that type of use. Quoted: Generally it's actually defined by the Army as when the gain degrades to 35,000 actually. (roughly 1/2 gain). When I worked for the USAF we figured the tubes would take about 20 years in real life situations. (3-4 hour flight, 2 days a week for typical flight ops) |
|
Quoted:
How often would they cycle out/in tubes or devices and what was the basis for doing so? Curious what the life cycle is for that type of use. Normally they only get cycled out when something breaks or there is a major upgrade program. They are supposed to be cleaned, inspected, and purged every 180 days. If a tube failed for blems or gain it's supposed to be swapped out at that time. USAF does this in the Life Support shop. No clue what the Army does. |
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - L3 Filmless tube life (Page 1 of 2)
Armory Sponsor