Foxfury Breakthrough
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: 17500 short bursts w/ MN11 ?? Also, ....

  1. #1
    Enlightened Siskik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Mayo, FL
    Posts
    91

    Default 17500 short bursts w/ MN11 ?? Also, ....

    I tried to find a thread on this, but I didn't find what I was looking for.
    Maybe someone can help...

    Four questions:

    #1) Can I run the MN11 on two 17500's protected in short bursts without damaging the batteries? 18500's ??

    #2) I'm thinking about boring out the M3 to accept 18500's. Any thoughts why I should not do this?
    How important is the interior chemcoat ?? Would I be able to resell it ??

    #3) Does anyone know if AW is planning to create IMR 17500's ??

    #4) Can I run the MN11 on two of the new IMR RCR 123 w/
    a dummy 123 ?? Would the dummy slow down current ??


    Thanks everyone,
    John
    Last edited by Siskik; 11-05-2008 at 04:15 PM.

  2. #2
    Flashaholic nobody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    The Woods
    Posts
    176

    Default Re: 17500 short bursts w/ MN11 ?? Also, ....

    1. I've tried it with new AWs a year ago. It worked for a few times. From then on it was double, triple or quadruple taps to fire up. (unacceptable for a go-to light)

    2. I haven't done this but I did pull out my calipers and did some measurements once upon a time. The part of the body where it necks down for the rubber ringies is already really thin and will get paper thin if bored out any more. (Now someone else will come on here and tell you no problem though. ) I ended up just getting a Leef 4 cell (2 x 18650) body and that fires up the MN11 just fine and beam is bright and white!

    3. No idea
    4. No idea

  3. #3
    Flashaholic* brighterisbetter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Tornado Alley, USA
    Posts
    2,367

    Default Re: 17500 short bursts w/ MN11 ?? Also, ....

    1) I've never tried that setup, but I've run unprotected 17500's on an EO-M3 with no problems whatsoever.

    2) +1 on the Leef body, you'll save yourself time and end up having a spare tube for stock purposes.

    3) I don't believe so, I would also like some. I think the next release from AW will be IMR 18650's.

    4) Shouldn't be a problem, just realize that runtime will be EXTREMELY short.
    Nominal Voltage : 3.7V
    Capacity : 550mAH
    Lowest Discharge Voltage : 2.50V
    Standard Charge : CC/CV ( max. charging rate 1.5A )
    Cycle Life : > 500 cycles
    Max. continuous discharge rate : 8C

  4. #4
    Flashaholic*
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    451

    Default Re: 17500 short bursts w/ MN11 ?? Also, ....

    If done properly, you should have no problems at all boring out the stock bodies. I've had multiple 9P, C3, M3, M4's bored out. And no, they are not now paper thin. Cost was about $10.00/tube.

  5. #5
    *Flashaholic* mdocod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    COLORado spRINGs
    Posts
    7,350

    Default Re: 17500 short bursts w/ MN11 ?? Also, ....

    18500s are the smallest size LiCo cell you should run on a P91/MN11/MN16 lamp.

    I recommend just using a leefbody instead of boring the original, you can probably sell the original body and completely recuperate the cost of the leef.

    The IMR16340 cells can drive the MN11 perfectly fine and safely, just keep in mind that the runtime will be about 9 minutes. maybe less.

    Eric

  6. #6
    Flashaholic*
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Victoria BC
    Posts
    503

    Default Re: 17500 short bursts w/ MN11 ?? Also, ....

    I also wanted an M3 bored out. My concern was the area that the grip rings fit on. I was assured that it was no problem so bought a new M3 and sent it off boring along with a SF 9P and new AW 18500s as a gauge.

    The torches came back with an amazing finish. Something of note is that the batteries fitted the 9P easily whereas they were a tight fit in the finished M3. (To the extent that the only way to get them out was to remove the head and push them from the front).

    Once I removed the stickers from the batteries they were a beautiful lubricated piston-like fit.

    I can only conclude that so far as the M3 is concerned, it is deemed necessary to remove only the minimum amount of metal.
    Last edited by brunt_sp; 11-13-2008 at 03:19 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •