HDS Systems EDC #14

[the.Mtn.Man]

Here's an idea I had for adding a clip to the Rotary using my Clicky as the test subject (please excuse the poor quality of the photo and the messy desk ):



Just your standard constrictor knot with a mini-carabiner attached. It seems to be working out pretty well with this get up. It can, of course, be improved with better quality cord (this is just some old nylon stuff that my wife had laying around) and something like the P7 suspension clip.

 

[Blades]

You mean kinda like this? I like it too. I think I'll have to pick one up...:thumbsup:

Yep. You could have one for flood, one for throw, and a back up light. Do you have one of those?

 

[bondr006]

Do you have one of those?

No, but one of my favorite dealers has them and I will get one next time I go over there. That is if it will accommodate my HDS T200.... :thumbsup:

 

[cave dave]

The night core band allows the lights to flop around a lot. Not so great in use as each time it flops the beam also moves arround. Better than a clip and a ball cap though.

 

[Blades]

The night core band allows the lights to flop around a lot. Not so great in use as each time it flops the beam also moves arround. Better than a clip and a ball cap though.

Good to know, better then holding it in your mouth also.

 

[gearmonky]

has anyone attempted current measurements from an HDS light? i'd love to start a new thread for visibility on this but i'm not sure if the mods would just move my post anyway.

through a complicated network of jumpers and an extra set of hands, i got the following values from my rotary:

level 1 (.07 lm): 8.9mA
level 9 (1.1 lm): 12.2mA
level 16 (13 lm): 47.8mA
level 24 (200 lm): 1012mA

(AW rcr123a @ 3.914 open circuit, fluke 87 V meter)

with as many jumpers as i used i have to point out that there is a lot of room for error, but i would suspect that with current draw that low, the numbers should be pretty accurate (excepting of course the L24 number).

i would be especially interested in whether or not the circuit has any more overhead than a normal 200 clicky. i know the numbers will vary from light to light due to how they are calibrated, but i still would love to know if anyone else has made similar measurements. i tried a quick search but didn't turn much up. i'll try again later when i have more time.

 

[Bullzeyebill]

Thinking out loud here, I am wondering if level 24 using an RCR123 starting at 4.2 at rest, would show a lower mA mumber?

Bill

 

[Pöbel]

I did emittier current measurements. measuring battery current will vary with battery voltage under load.

it's a former edc120w mow with 90+ cri xp-g

lvl 1 is below 1mA
burst is 723mA

so it seems the LED would have been 140 capable but was set to 120 because of demand for that type

@bullzeye, your assumption is correct. higher voltage results in lower current

 

[csshih]

Ideally someone would use a regulated power supply and look at Vin and Iin from there.
OCV of that cell doesn't mean much as cell wear is unknown. how long did that cell sit before you measured it? etc. :sick2:

Also, each sample will be different as LEDs naturally vary. :duh2:

that rigging must be a pain, thank you for your efforts.

Craig

 

[gearmonky]

Ideally someone would use a regulated power supply and look at Vin and Iin from there.

right, but i didn't have any reliable way to get my power supply connected to the negative contact, so i settled for the next best thing. i will try to grab some test leads from work to accomplish this. if i can come up with something, i'll do a sweep of input voltages. i also want to do this again and do a complete sweep of the levels, so if i do get everything set up again i'll throw that into the test plan.

OCV of that cell doesn't mean much as cell wear is unknown. how long did that cell sit before you measured it? etc. :sick2:

sorry, i should have noted: it is a basically brand-new cell, measured shortly after testing.

Also, each sample will be different as LEDs naturally vary. :duh2:

right, as i noted each light will vary slightly due to how HDS calibrates them.

that rigging must be a pain, thank you for your efforts.

it was; it involved a combination of several alligator clips, hook leads, and hands. the real trick was having a finger free to press the button and turn the rotary once it was on

 

[fnj]

i got following values from my rotary:

level 1 (.07 lm): 8.9mA
level 9 (1.1 lm): 12.2mA
level 16 (13 lm): 47.8mA
level 24 (200 lm): 1012mA

i would be especially interested in whether or not the circuit has any more overhead than a normal 200 clicky

The circuit overhead at 0.07 lumens is ridiculously high. That's what I was afraid of with the rotary, and with it confirmed, my interest in the rotary drops to zero. I do know that the old generation HDS were well below this level. I am not sure what the current clicky overhead is, but I doubt if it is anywhere near this high.

 

[gearmonky]

The circuit overhead at 0.07 lumens is ridiculously high. That's what I was afraid of with the rotary, and with it confirmed, my interest in the rotary drops to zero. I do know that the old generation HDS were well below this level. I am not sure what the current clicky overhead is, but I doubt if it is anywhere near this high.

this is exactly what i am afraid of. my rotary is a stop-gap while i wait for the high-CRI lights to come out. once they do, if i can confirm that a clicky has appreciably less overhead, that purchase will be a clicky and not a rotary.

i should have mentioned that henry himself assured me that the rotary has no significant current draw over a clicky, but given the numbers above, i'm not sure what he views as 'significant'...

 

[flatline]

The circuit overhead at 0.07 lumens is ridiculously high. That's what I was afraid of with the rotary, and with it confirmed, my interest in the rotary drops to zero. I do know that the old generation HDS were well below this level. I am not sure what the current clicky overhead is, but I doubt if it is anywhere near this high.

I thought those current values were measured at the emitter, not the battery.

How do you figure the circuit overhead from the emitter current?

--flatline

 

[the.Mtn.Man]

The circuit overhead at 0.07 lumens is ridiculously high. That's what I was afraid of with the rotary, and with it confirmed, my interest in the rotary drops to zero. I do know that the old generation HDS were well below this level. I am not sure what the current clicky overhead is, but I doubt if it is anywhere near this high.

Assuming, of course, that gearmonky's readings are correct. I think the person who knows best is Henry, but he's apparently got his hands full with other things at the moment.

 

[Blades]

The circuit overhead at 0.07 lumens is ridiculously high. That's what I was afraid of with the rotary, and with it confirmed, my interest in the rotary drops to zero.

Somebody help; why does the circuit overhead need to worry me?
I'm happy with my Rotary(I think).

 

[fnj]

I thought those current values were measured at the emitter, not the battery.

How do you figure the circuit overhead from the emitter current?

--flatline

As I read it, gearmonkey measured at the battery, Pöbel measured at the emitter. Given that the emitter is "below 1 mA," then if the circuit draws 8.9 mA at a higher voltage, that is an inefficient circuit at that level. Now, I will grant that it is by no means easy (rather the contrary) to create a circuit with high efficiency over an entire 1000:1 range of light output. But still, I believe the clicky is much, much more efficient at the lower end of that range. And that is to be expected. A rotary by its nature is expected to have a comparatively high overhead.

 

[fnj]

Somebody help; why does the circuit overhead need to worry me?
I'm happy with my Rotary(I think).

Absolutely no reason not to be happy, depending on your expectations. The current drain figures detailed here indicate that a primary CR123 battery will drain in around a week at 0.07 lumens. To my memory, clickies have been measured to run for about a month, if not well in excess. If that usage pattern matters enough to you, a clicky is indicated. If not, a rotary would have nothing against you. There is no right and wrong. Both will have fans.

 

[the.Mtn.Man]

...why does the circuit overhead need to worry me?

It doesn't.

 

[Pöbel]

As I read it, gearmonkey measured at the battery, Pöbel measured at the emitter. Given that the emitter is "below 1 mA," then if the circuit draws 8.9 mA at a higher voltage, that is an inefficient circuit at that level. Now, I will grant that it is by no means easy (rather the contrary) to create a circuit with high efficiency over an entire 1000:1 range of light output. But still, I believe the clicky is much, much more efficient at the lower end of that range. And that is to be expected. A rotary by its nature is expected to have a comparatively high overhead.

A while ago i measured battery current at lvl1 with cr123 around 1mA on the old clicky and 2mA on my Novatac.

Until the 9mA figure is confirmed on another Rotary i would hold my breath though.

 

[TyJo]

As I read it, gearmonkey measured at the battery, Pöbel measured at the emitter. Given that the emitter is "below 1 mA," then if the circuit draws 8.9 mA at a higher voltage, that is an inefficient circuit at that level. Now, I will grant that it is by no means easy (rather the contrary) to create a circuit with high efficiency over an entire 1000:1 range of light output. But still, I believe the clicky is much, much more efficient at the lower end of that range. And that is to be expected. A rotary by its nature is expected to have a comparatively high overhead.

Can all of that rigging affect the mA reading on level 1, i.e. show an increased reading for level 1? I'll believe the runtimes for level 1 when someone actually runs the light. I would do a runtime test but I only own 1 HDS, and that is my EDC.