Olight M30 Triton (new and first pictures

[mmajunkie]

20 Here

30 Here

20 again

30 again

I set the Camera to "M" but I guess it still did something Auto.

But I assure you the M30 blows away the 20, IMO.

 

[RainerWahnsinn]

For the life of me I can't notice the PVM, and everybody I recruited to see if they could said they see nothing but light.

The one problem I do have is the light only working with AW 18650's. With Tenergy 18650's it won't work, but with Tenergy Rc123 it works perfect.

Anybody else have this problem or an Idea as to why it is?

it can be that the protection of the Tenergy 18650´s becomes effective already with 1,6 A. Is only an assumption of me.

I use 2 protected Ultrafire 18500 and have no problem at all.

 

[ergotelis]

The hotspot of the flashlight at distance is really big, about 8m wide at 50m distance!

 

[wapkil]

Well sorry to interject in a very physics/electronics oriented discussion my background is in the natural sciences, so I cannot comment with any accuracy about current voltage and LED efficiency (ohms law etc..) other than in general terms. However, my only question is why use PVM ever, if it is seemingly not efficient and annoying as hell to some people? Personally I dont notice unless I shake the M30 back and forth rapidly. Thanks in advance, enginers, physicists, and mechanically inclined individuals.

I don't know enough to answer your question but in the parallel thread about the M30 I asked why the PWM is used in all the modes (even Hi) - you may want to read my posts #39 and HKJ's answer below. This is only an example of a particular solution but I would suspect that PWM is generally cheaper to design and manufacture.

It would be nice if someone with electronics background could offer better explanation but I think that inside most (if not all) of the CC DC/DC circuits some form of PWM is used anyway. In CC circuits the flickering is then hidden by using an output filter. Maybe by adding such a filter (a capacitor?) between the LED and the PWM circuit the flickering could also be eliminated? :shrug:

 

[MattK]

Matt, you have no idea what you're talking about. Let correct what you think

1. There are plenty of examples of CC drivers that can drive as low or even lower. There's one in the works that does 1ma and will power lights for over a month easily.

2. PWM is NOT very efficient. PWM is only as efficient as the 100% cycle. Of the entire driving current range, the MOST inefficient is the maximum driving power. So even though your PWM is at say 1%, your efficiency is at best as efficient the highest driving range.

Example: an LED driven at 25ma achieves 150 lumens per watt. The same LED driven at 1000ma is 70 lumens per watt. If you drive a light at 1000ma and 100% or 1% PWM, the efficiency remains at 70 lumens per watt.

In fact, it's less efficiency than 100% due to switching losses. Imagine
if you drive a car by only flooring the throttle and completely letting off the throttle. You can modulate the throttle and acheve the speed you want but your miles per gallon is going to STINK.

You know what I think?

You're just justifying PWM because it's a product that you sell.
Come to think of it, those two points I quoted you contradict themselves.

David, your lack of courtesy and tact here is disappointing.

You're attempting to parse a qualified statement and making strawmen arguments and it's pretty clear that many of the respondents have seen right through your motivations.
For those wondering about motivations; my company has sole representation rights for Olight on CPF, David's company has them for Fenix and, I think, for Eagletac; so much for, "disseminating the truth."


I posted: "I think, BTW, that they had to use PWM to provide the very low low that CPF likes to have so much because CC drivers cannot have such broad input/output variability."

David replied: "Matt, you have no idea what you're talking about. Let correct what you think
1. There are plenty of examples of CC drivers that can drive as low or even lower. There's one in the works that does 1ma and will power lights for over a month easily.
2. PWM is NOT very efficient. PWM is only as efficient as the 100% cycle. Of the entire driving current range, the MOST inefficient is the maximum driving power. So even though your PWM is at say 1%, your efficiency is at best as efficient the highest driving range."

You're manipulating my statement in order to attack it:
Firstly; I qualified my statement by using the expression, "I think".
Secondly; what I described is that CC drivers cannot have such wide input and output variations - I didn't say they couldn't go low, I said they couldn't have the huge range that the M30 has at around 1%/20%/100% with an input voltage from 6-12V. You have failed to refute that point instead choosing to attack a statement that I didn't make. 'There's one in the works', hrmm, I bet that is, "a product that you sell".

PWM is quite efficient. Yes, CC is usually more efficient than PWM. I said PWM is "very efficient"not "the most efficient".

Unfortunately a CC circuit wasn't realistically possible with the UI chosen for the M30. It has little to do with manufacturing or engineering costs; it wasn't a possibility without massively overcomplicating the light which could give potential durability issues - doing so would have required at least 2 signal path wires from the circuit in the head to that in the tailcap; since this light will be weapon mounted by many users we felt this wasn't the best choice. I have a prototype M30 that doesn't use PWM - it also has the strobe button on the lower bezel, not on the tailcap and we decided against this from a usability standpoint. The M30 is actually more expensive to manufacture than most CC lights because it has 2 control circuits; 1 in the tailcap and 1 in the lower bezel. Since the M30 is a light made for REAL tactical situations/users the UI (instant access to high and strobe) took precedence over efficiency at the lower output levels (the M30 will still run for 90 hrs on low). The usage for the lower levels is largely seen as for what LEO's call 'administrative tasks,' writing tickets, etc, and the PWM simply will not be visible in those real world tasks (the medium output level will last 7.5 hrs - a full shift). The PWM rate for Med/Low of around 100hz is considerably higher than that used for computer monitors, dimming residential light bulbs (both 50-60hz)and many other common applications. If you LOOK for it you might see it depending upon your sensitivity but most users in the real world will not see it or notice it.

However, I am still upset. A co-worker of mine just emailed me - he lurks here silently and reads everything too....

Upset? LOL.
You mean one of your EMPLOYEES, right? Yah, that's what I thought.
Clearly your motivations in this thread are pure as the driven snow.

If you've got a bone to pick in the future I am sure you've got my phone number, email and IM.

My apologies to all for replying to his tripe and further cluttering this thread but I couldn't simply walk away from this rude and ungracious attack.

 

[Edog006]

Can I get a Boo Yah! I think David got served, but in any case lets end the smackdown there, no need for a petty back and forth, you both stated your cases and each made some good points. I do appreciate the information laced in each argument.

 

[mmajunkie]

Really nice of David to S#it it the thread and say what he did about Matt.

I have purchased from both Vendors in the past, and because of this incident, I will be dropping one from the list.

Guess which one?

 

[4sevens]

Matt,

Let's stick to the facts and statements at hand and leave out the manupulation and instigation.
This time I will quote YOUR words so you cannot accuse me of mincing your words and setting up "straw men"

My primary point is that misinformation is being disseminated by you. It's obvious that you are defending a product that you have exclusivity with on CPF and I have no problem with that - what I have a problem with is when misinformation is being spread by you. Whether you did it intentionally or not, let's leave it out of this discussion and stick to the points at hand. Let's stick with the technical facts and clear up the wrong facts.

Firstly let me clear up something from your previous post - you put words in my mouth that I did not say.

You said and I quote:

Regarding efficiency, PWM is very efficient.

And I said:
"PWM is NOT very efficient"

Then you said:

I said PWM is "very efficient"not "the most efficient".

I NEVER accused you of saying PWM is MOST efficient. I said PWM is NOT VERY efficient. Don't put words in my mouth and don't distract from the point.

POINT #1
The FACT (that I've stated already) is PWM is NOT VERY EFFICIENT. In fact, it's the LEAST efficient across the entire drive range since it is driving it at maximum. So PWM is not only "not very" efficient, it is actually the LEAST efficient. Nobody said anything about "MOST" except you.

POINT #2
You said:

I think, BTW, that they had to use PWM to provide the very low low that CPF likes to have so much because CC drivers cannot have such broad input/output variability.

Firstly, just because you said "THINK" doesn't mean you're not responsible for your statements.

Secondly, re-read your OWN statement... specifically "they had to use PWM to provide the very low low"
You just said PWM must be used for low low.

Then you say "because CC drivers cannot have such broad input/output variability." Again not true.
The maximum end is not dictated by CC or PWM. Simply the lack of PWM gives you 100%. So what we
are talking about is the low-end which you mentioned in the first part of your sentence.
I disagree - PWM is NOT required for a low low.

My response was:
"There are plenty of examples of CC drivers that can drive as low or even lower"

Now you're trying to change the subject from "low low" to "wide input and output variations" which I never addressed. Don't change the subject again. I was talking about the former, refuting your statement that a low low MUST use PWM. Again, not true. Constant current regulation can achieve very low low modes and using PWM is NOT a must. Ok, I know you "think" this, but now you stand corrected.

Unfortunately a CC circuit wasn't realistically possible with the UI chosen for the M30. It has little to do with manufacturing or engineering costs; it wasn't a possibility without massively overcomplicating the light which could give potential durability issues - doing so would have required at least 2 signal path wires from the circuit in the head to that in the tailcap; since this light will be weapon mounted by many users we felt this wasn't the best choice. I have a prototype M30 that doesn't use PWM - it also has the strobe button on the lower bezel, not on the tailcap and we decided against this from a usability standpoint. The M30 is actually more expensive to manufacture than most CC lights because it has 2 control circuits; 1 in the tailcap and 1 in the lower bezel. Since the M30 is a light made for REAL tactical situations/users the UI (instant access to high and strobe) took precedence over efficiency at the lower output levels (the M30 will still run for 90 hrs on low). The usage for the lower levels is largely seen as for what LEO's call 'administrative tasks,' writing tickets, etc, and the PWM simply will not be visible in those real world tasks (the medium output level will last 7.5 hrs - a full shift). The PWM rate for Med/Low of around 100hz is considerably higher than that used for computer monitors, dimming residential light bulbs (both 50-60hz)and many other common applications. If you LOOK for it you might see it depending upon your sensitivity but most users in the real world will not see it or notice it.

So you're saying the design is a compromise?

Low modes for writing tickets? You know there are lots of tactical applications requiring low-light.
I personally know a ex-surefire employee who trained in low-light tactical operations (while he was working with surefire and even today he flies all over the world giving low light tactical training sessions). You should qualify what you mean by "real world tasks," "administrative tasks"

In the previous quote, now you admit to efficiency issues at lower output levels?


It's obvious what we don't agree on somethings, however some of these points are glaring misinformation that is misleading people. They cross the line of what is true and I can't sit on the side watching this kind of wrong information being spread.

Matt, these are not "staw-men." This is misleading information.
In the interest of science and the many readers here, I feel it is my responsibility to correct your dis-information.

 

[RainerWahnsinn]

Please imagine what happens, if every friend of David or Matt would answer now! Let them do their posts, they are adults. No need to make more of it.

I´m proud to have such a big and interesting thread so far, please back to topic (facts) thank you.

 

[Helmut.G]

ok, PWM is very unefficient and most people here know that.
Please don't turn this thread into a flame war.

 

[HKJ]

There are a couple of differences between pwm and constant current (cc) driving and efficiency is not the only one and not as obvious as some makes it.

With pwm you can optimize the current control for one current, this makes it possible to get better efficiency in the circuit. But with pwm you usual run the led at a high current and the led has lower efficiency at high current. This will lower the total efficiency at mid levels.

But at low current levels you have some other problems, the leds efficiency goes down and the led changes tint, using cc regulation you will encounter both of these problems, and also have the problem with keeping a high efficiency circuit over a very wide range of current. Pwm does not have any of these problems.

Neither solution is ideal, but very depend of how competent (and lucky) the circuit designer is, some lights uses both principles, to get the best from both worlds. With the M30 there are some very good reason, why it was made the way it is, it could not have been made in this way with cc regulation (Except with a more complicated circuit).


Having two shop owners discuss this, because they have product with pwm/cc they wish to sell, does not really belong in the M30 thread. (IMHO)

 

[wapkil]

Neither solution is ideal, but very depend of how competent (and lucky) the circuit designer is, some lights uses both principles, to get the best from both worlds. With the M30 there are some very good reason, why it was made the way it is, it could not have been made in this way with cc regulation (Except with a more complicated circuit).


Having two shop owners discuss this, because they have product with pwm/cc they wish to sell, does not really belong in the M30 thread. (IMHO)

You are probably right but I think that this discussion may serve to explain some important things (at least for me). To go back to the M30 - do you think that it would be possible to add a filter between the driver circuit and the LED to get rid of the PWM effect on the LED?

I ask this because as far as I remember all the boost and boost-buck circuits I saw used PWM or PFM with a filter capacitor connected to the output. Would it be wrong to treat the PWM circuits in lights as the equivalent of those with the filter removed? Is it be possible to add such a capacitor to the M30 to remove flickering (and I think in effect convert it to what is called CC here)?

 

[tab665]

i dont understand how some owners (including myself) cannot notice the pwm flicker, while others think it can be a headache inducing problem. i realize that other people are affected by it differently but there seems to be too big of a gap between those who can barely notice/ cannot notice and those who instantly notice/ cannot stand the pwm.
is there any chance that there are manufacturing variables that could cause one batch to have worse pwm than another?

 

[ergotelis]

i dont understand how some owners (including myself) cannot notice the pwm flicker, while others think it can be a headache inducing problem. i realize that other people are affected by it differently but there seems to be too big of a gap between those who can barely notice/ cannot notice and those who instantly notice/ cannot stand the pwm.
is there any chance that there are manufacturing variables that could cause one batch to have worse pwm than another?

Generally you do not notice it. But if you light towards a target moving on its enviroment or if you quickly move the flashlight you will notice it. It depends on the usage you do. For someone might not be that bad, but for some it is. For me, sometimes yes sometimes no. It depends. I had bought a Dereelight 2 years ago and i thought it had a problem in low mode, until i learned that it had (and learned what it is) a PWM driver. Though i don't know its hz i can say that sometimes it was annoying.

 

[MrGman]

i dont understand how some owners (including myself) cannot notice the pwm flicker, while others think it can be a headache inducing problem. i realize that other people are affected by it differently but there seems to be too big of a gap between those who can barely notice/ cannot notice and those who instantly notice/ cannot stand the pwm.
is there any chance that there are manufacturing variables that could cause one batch to have worse pwm than another?

The components used typically have a tolerance on them that would contribute to a rather wide variation. Most of the capacitors used in commercial applications are +/-20% variation, typically no better than +/-10% variation. Resistors are +/-10%, +/-5% in most cases, Really good ones probably not used in a commercially made product would be 2 or 1% tolerance ones. So using R and C components to establish modulation frequencies and set points for duty cycles is of course going to vary some what from unit to unit. Not the actual "manufacturing" variables like how well parts were soldered in and cleaning off of flux and things like that.


Also peoples sensitivity to the flicker rate varies as well. Some people can't stand to look at a monitors with 30Hz refresh rate (days of old) while others couldn't take one with a 60Hz refresh rate.

Everyone is different.

 

[wapkil]

i dont understand how some owners (including myself) cannot notice the pwm flicker, while others think it can be a headache inducing problem. i realize that other people are affected by it differently but there seems to be too big of a gap between those who can barely notice/ cannot notice and those who instantly notice/ cannot stand the pwm.
is there any chance that there are manufacturing variables that could cause one batch to have worse pwm than another?

I was also wondering whether there are different batches of this light. On the other hand, I remember that when the CRT monitors were popular some people had them set to 60Hz and didn't mind it at all, while I had to set my monitor to 120Hz to stop noticing the flickering.

It's similar situation with contemporary LCD monitors. I had to return two LCDs backlit with fluorescent lamps before I found one without the flickering that would give me a headache when set to the lowest brightness level. Other people I asked usually haven't noticed this flickering. I think that in some circumstances we all would see it but if it can always be seen depends on a personal sensitivity.

Edit: funny - MrGman beat me to it with his monitor flickering example

 

[4sevens]

You are probably right but I think that this discussion may serve to explain some important things (at least for me). To go back to the M30 - do you think that it would be possible to add a filter between the driver circuit and the LED to get rid of the PWM effect on the LED?

I ask this because as far as I remember all the boost and boost-buck circuits I saw used PWM or PFM with a filter capacitor connected to the output. Would it be wrong to treat the PWM circuits in lights as the equivalent of those with the filter removed? Is it be possible to add such a capacitor to the M30 to remove flickering (and I think in effect convert it to what is called CC here)?

Those are excellent questions that I will try to answer from technical point of view. The most common implementation of PWM is adding the pulses AFTER a boost or buck circuit, effectively chopping up the output into tiny pieces. While it is true that most driver circuits send pulses into an inductor and capacity to charge up and discharge as very very high speeds, consider that PWM implementation actually has two "pulse" systems. A high speed pulsing used for the driver circuit and another slow PWM switch that modulates the output. So effectively you have TWO pulsing going on.

I'm not familiar with the specifics of the M30 implementation but it may be limited to PWM due to the need for the tailcap to communicate with the head.

In some other implementations, PWM is also used for communication between the MCU and the driver chip which takes PWM as a signal input (not power) and regulates it's output accordingly. But this is different than using PWM for powering the LED on and off.

So to answer your original question... just adding a capacitor many not solve the problem because 1) it may not work with how the m30's second button is designed 2) even if it's mildly effective, it's just a fix to minimize the PWM effect. Its very different than the pulsing in the driver circuit which is has an inductor and capacitor that is matched for optimal efficiency.given the charge/discharge rate - they're really two different applications.

To sum up. PWM is used for
1) signaling between MCU and Driver (smart driver packages and take signal input)

2) pulsing in the buck or boost circuit that charges and discharged a capacitor and inductor at very high frequencies, fine tuned for optimal efficiencies. (often offered as a single chip packages i.e. #1)

3) PWM used for chopping the final output to the LED. Usually lower frequencies due to the fact that higher frequencies inhibit the efficiency of the driver circuit that is behind it.

 

[HKJ]

To go back to the M30 - do you think that it would be possible to add a filter between the driver circuit and the LED to get rid of the PWM effect on the LED?

Yes, it is possible, but that is not the same as easy, a higher pwm frequency would be easier to handle, but (as I have written before), you can not just use a higher pwm frequency.
An on top of the circuit problems you also has some other problems: A filter cost money, reduces efficiency and takes up space.

is there any chance that there are manufacturing variables that could cause one batch to have worse pwm than another?

Manufacturing tolerances could maybe change the pwm with 30% (But probably much less), I believe the problem is mostly related to people, both how sensitive they are to flicker and how much they complain about things that they do not like. I know that if I have a weak flicker in the corner of my eye, I will probably not complain about it, but I believe that some of the complains here a about just that, some people demand perfect light (And they might have a good reason to do that).

 

[wapkil]

The most common implementation of PWM is adding the pulses AFTER a boost or buck circuit, effectively chopping up the output into tiny pieces.

Thank you for this explanation. This is exactly the information I was missing to understand what's the real difference between CC and PWM circuits in flashlights. I just haven't thought that there may be two circuits, each doing its own PWM

When it's built this way, a PWM-driven flaslight has a CC converter set to predefined maximal current (and a PWM circuit to modulate the output). A CC-driven light would have a CC circuit with internal current regulation. This explains why they operate in a different way, although it probably also makes the question which circuit would be more efficient even more complicated.

 

[Light Brite]

Standing on the side line wondering if my light varies significantly from others who have such issues with the PWM or if I should get an eye exam whereas I haven't really experinced a problem with it unless I try and create one.