Klarus        
Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 151 to 180 of 238

Thread: New Surefire EB1 Clicky (Beamshots added) - Review and runtime results

  1. #151
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    11,641

    Default Re: New Surefire EB1 Clicky (Beamshots added) - Review and runtime results

    Quote Originally Posted by Maxbelg View Post
    Just tried this again with LiFePO4 but no go and then I popped in an IMR 16340 and it worked! Is this safe???
    It should not be safe. Circuit is meant to boost a CR123 with a voltage of 3 volts or less to the LED's rated forward voltage, which is at about 3+ volts, not 4.2 volts which an IMR can have when topped off. I'm surprised that the LiFe does not work well in your EB1. A runtime plot of an LiFe, in this thread or the other major EB1 thread, showed excellent regulation.

    Bill

  2. #152
    Flashaholic
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    288

    Default Re: New Surefire EB1 Clicky (Beamshots added) - Review and runtime results

    Yes, I saw the runtime plots with LiFe batteries but also read about others having problems with LiFe especially when fully recharged. How come I measure 2000mAh current draw and have normally functioning levels when its high level won't work at 3,3V (LiFe)? I measure the same current draw with somewhat depleted primaries. I posted some observations here.

    Could it be that this isn't just a boost circuit? Others have mentioned how the electronics seem overly complex for a "simple" 2 level light. Couldn't this light be designed so that its driver works differently at different voltages? i.e. Could it be that this head is not only designed for both Clickys and Tactical switches but also for 1 and 2 cell bodies? Could it have a boost circuit at a certain voltage and a buck-boost at higher V? Anyhow I've tried it some more and so far everything is working exactly the same as with primaries.
    Last edited by Maxbelg; 04-06-2013 at 01:13 PM.

  3. #153
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    11,641

    Default Re: New Surefire EB1 Clicky (Beamshots added) - Review and runtime results

    It is very interesting. It can run well with an IMR16340 that can output more current than a standard protected RCR123, both fully charged to about 4.2 volts, but can not run well with a LiFe, with a starting voltage of about 3.4 volts or so, and yet it also runs well with a common CR123. Sounds like an anomaly, or maybe you are correct, and the tactical EB1 might have a buck/boost circuit, but why no good performance with an LiFe?

    Bill

  4. #154
    Flashaholic
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    288

    Default Re: New Surefire EB1 Clicky (Beamshots added) - Review and runtime results

    Quote Originally Posted by Bullzeyebill View Post
    It is very interesting........ Sounds like an anomaly..........

    Bill
    I guess we'll see whether they are all like this when others try it!

    That's why I was thinking that this head may work differently depending on voltage so that it could be used on 1 or 2 cell bodies? That would explain why it doesn't run well at 3,3V: too high for 1 primary and too low for 2. If this theory is correct it would explain the complicated electronics. It doesn't seem logical to make the electronics unnecessarily complicated and expensive unless there will be cost-savings by using the same head in various setups.
    Last edited by Maxbelg; 04-07-2013 at 12:08 AM. Reason: More ponderings

  5. #155
    Flashaholic
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Amman, Jordan
    Posts
    481

    Default Re: New Surefire EB1 Clicky (Beamshots added) - Review and runtime results

    We know that the EB1 is not regulated. Does that mean that it is direct drive?

    I'm concerned because one of the articles on HDS Systems website talks about direct drive LED lights and has the following to say:
    Another problem with direct drive flashlights is that power through the LED can be atdangerously high levels until the internal resistance of the battery increases sufficientlyto limit the power to safer levels. As a result, direct drive flashlights are usually less
    reliable due to a higher LED failure rate.

  6. #156
    Flashaholic
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    288

    Default Re: New Surefire EB1 Clicky (Beamshots added) - Review and runtime results

    Quote Originally Posted by WilsonCQB1911 View Post
    We know that the EB1 is not regulated.......
    We don't know this at all. It might not be well regulated but that doesn't mean it is direct drive. Take as an example the LX2 Head: On 2 primaries it is very well regulated but on a single its discharge curve looks like this.

    EDIT: I decided to risk it and ran my EB1 with an IMR 16340 continuously until the cell was depleted. Total runtime was 33 minutes. I compared it visually regularly to my E1B and couldn't see any difference in output during the entire runtime. The last 30 seconds or so it went dimmer and there was a tint shift to the the greenish tint my example has on low. Voltage of the IMR cell was 2,6V but it jumped back to 3V within a few seconds and I'm recharging it at present.

    I'm going to continue using IMRs in my EB1: It seems to have a VERY flat runtime curve and more than 30 minutes with this type of output is great! Remember that the HDS 200 Lumen with burst switched off does only about 30 minutes as well with a RCRs and that's with an XPG. So am I overdriving this thing? It didn't get overly hot and output is the same as with a fresh primary. I'm going to continue using this setup but would appreciate others input.
    Last edited by Maxbelg; 04-07-2013 at 06:11 AM. Reason: Runtime IMR added.

  7. #157
    Flashaholic
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    New England, USA
    Posts
    124

    Default Re: New Surefire EB1 Clicky (Beamshots added) - Review and runtime results

    Quote Originally Posted by Maxbelg View Post
    We don't know this at all. It might not be well regulated but that doesn't mean it is direct drive. Take as an example the LX2 Head: On 2 primaries it is very well regulated but on a single its discharge curve looks like this.

    EDIT: I decided to risk it and ran my EB1 with an IMR 16340 continuously until the cell was depleted. Total runtime was 33 minutes. I compared it visually regularly to my E1B and couldn't see any difference in output during the entire runtime. The last 30 seconds or so it went dimmer and there was a tint shift to the the greenish tint my example has on low. Voltage of the IMR cell was 2,6V but it jumped back to 3V within a few seconds and I'm recharging it at present.

    I'm going to continue using IMRs in my EB1: It seems to have a VERY flat runtime curve and more than 30 minutes with this type of output is great! Remember that the HDS 200 Lumen with burst switched off does only about 30 minutes as well with a RCRs and that's with an XPG. So am I overdriving this thing? It didn't get overly hot and output is the same as with a fresh primary. I'm going to continue using this setup but would appreciate others input.
    MAX, I get the same results with IMRs. Longer flat output. Runs great while the battery keeps up which is about 1/2 hour. Been doing this for a couple of weeks now. No heat issues running it on IMRs (or at least no more heat than primaries).

    Lovin' it.

    ThumperACC

  8. #158
    Flashaholic
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    288

    Default Re: New Surefire EB1 Clicky (Beamshots added) - Review and runtime results

    Quote Originally Posted by ThumperACC View Post
    MAX, I get the same results with IMRs...........
    Great, thanks for posting your results!

    Now it would be very interesting to hear the explanation of why mine doesn't work well at 3,3V (LiFePO4) and does work well at 4,2V (IMR). I am beginning to suspect that it works differently depending on the voltage (the way the HDS will treat a primary differently to a rechargeable based on the initial voltage). Could it be that the same head is meant for 2cell bodies as well? An EB2? Anybody?

  9. #159
    Flashaholic* Robin24k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,023

    Default Re: New Surefire EB1 Clicky (Beamshots added) - Review and runtime results

    This is just speculation, but the EB1 driver could be similar to the one in the rechargeable lights (R1/UNR/UBR), which has two modes of operation surrounding a grey area that overlaps with fully charged LFP123A voltage.

    I don't think it would be a good idea to use it with a two-cell body, since all of the mentioned products are "single-cell" lights.
    Last edited by Robin24k; 04-08-2013 at 03:11 PM.

  10. #160

    Default Re: New Surefire EB1 Clicky (Beamshots added) - Review and runtime results

    Quote Originally Posted by Maxbelg View Post
    Could it be that the same head is meant for 2cell bodies as well? An EB2? Anybody?
    I've got an eb1t and a e2dl body. The eb1 head fits the defender body but I'm scared to press the tailcap. I ruined a $25 light once. I'd hate to ruin a $200 one.
    My website: www.preachertony.com
    My radio show: The Bible Broadcast
    My life story and mother's murder in Concealed Carry Magazine: "Good from Evil"

  11. #161
    Flashaholic
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    288

    Default Re: New Surefire EB1 Clicky (Beamshots added) - Review and runtime results

    Quote Originally Posted by tonywalker23 View Post
    ........eb1 head fits the defender body but I'm scared to press the tailcap.......
    I have 2 cell bodies as well which would fit but am not going to try either!

    Quote Originally Posted by Robin24k View Post
    This is just speculation, but the EB1 driver could be similar to the one in the rechargeable lights (R1/UNR/UBR), which has two modes of operation surrounding a grey area that overlaps with fully charged LFP123A voltage.....
    That's what I thought as well: 2 different modes of operation based on the initial voltage (like the HDS treating rechargeables differently to primaries). This sounds like the most plausible explanation to me. It would be very nice to see discharge curves of an EB1 with IMR, but I don't have the necessary equipment or skill to do this. Hopefully someone else will do it someday. I suspect we'll see a very nice flat discharge.

  12. #162
    Flashaholic* 880arm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Wildlands of Western Kentucky
    Posts
    1,752

    Default Re: New Surefire EB1 Clicky (Beamshots added) - Review and runtime results

    I applaud you guys for your willingness to try out the EB1 with IMR's. I'm not an expert on battery chemistry but I think I remember Vox posting that his EB1 didn't work correctly using a RCR123 so I'm having trouble understanding why the IMR's work. Is it because the 16340 couldn't provide the amperage that the IMR does?

    Keep up the good work!

  13. #163
    Flashaholic
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    288

    Default Re: New Surefire EB1 Clicky (Beamshots added) - Review and runtime results

    Quote Originally Posted by 880arm View Post
    .......EB1 didn't work correctly using a RCR123 so I'm having trouble understanding why the IMR's work.............
    I'm no expert at all but assume that it must be due to the high current draw that RCRs didn't work well. I haven't tried RCRs and am not planning to either as I'm very happy with the IMRs. Now I'm just waiting for someone with the necessary skills and equipment to do a proper runtime curve with IMRs!

    When I read about the EB1 before owning one the main disadvantages for me were the discharge curve which was nowhere near as flat as the E1B and the fact that there seemed to be some problems with LiFePO4 usage. I assumed no 16340s! Now it seems it's compatibile with IMRs AND has a nice flat runtime curve with these! The only significant negative aspect of my EB1 is the green tint on low which I can just live with.

  14. #164

    Talking Re: New Surefire EB1 Clicky (Beamshots added) - Review and runtime results

    It can be use the surefire e1b tailcap???thx

  15. #165
    Flashaholic* 880arm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Wildlands of Western Kentucky
    Posts
    1,752

    Default Re: New Surefire EB1 Clicky (Beamshots added) - Review and runtime results

    Quote Originally Posted by ivanlee View Post
    It can be use the surefire e1b tailcap???thx


    The E1B tailcap will not work on the EB1 body. However, you can use the EB1 head on the E1B body and use the tailcap that way.

  16. #166
    Flashaholic*
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    655

    Default Re: New Surefire EB1 Clicky (Beamshots added) - Review and runtime results

    Quote Originally Posted by 880arm View Post
    I applaud you guys for your willingness to try out the EB1 with IMR's. I'm not an expert on battery chemistry but I think I remember Vox posting that his EB1 didn't work correctly using a RCR123 so I'm having trouble understanding why the IMR's work. Is it because the 16340 couldn't provide the amperage that the IMR does?

    Keep up the good work!
    I tried the following cells and they all work in my EB1C-A-TN: IMR 16340; MP 3.6V RCR123; Solarforce 3.7V 16340.

  17. #167
    Flashaholic* 880arm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Wildlands of Western Kentucky
    Posts
    1,752

    Default Re: New Surefire EB1 Clicky (Beamshots added) - Review and runtime results

    Quote Originally Posted by seattlite View Post
    I tried the following cells and they all work in my EB1C-A-TN: IMR 16340; MP 3.6V RCR123; Solarforce 3.7V 16340.
    Good information. I never had the nerve to try it myself

  18. #168
    Enlightened Risky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Tampa, Florida
    Posts
    58

    Default Re: New Surefire EB1 Clicky (Beamshots added) - Review and runtime results

    Does anyone know if all the EB1 tailcaps are interchangeable with each other (shroud, non-shroud, etc..)

  19. #169
    Flashaholic*
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Southwest PA
    Posts
    669

    Default Re: New Surefire EB1 Clicky (Beamshots added) - Review and runtime results

    Quote Originally Posted by Risky View Post
    Does anyone know if all the EB1 tailcaps are interchangeable with each other (shroud, non-shroud, etc..)
    I believe they can. I have the EB1T, which relies on the degree to which the switch is pressed and/or turned to select low or high. If I deliberately try to do so, I can quickly depress, release, and depress the switch to take the light into low mode on the second press, the way the non-tactical EB1 is supposed to work.

  20. #170
    Flashaholic tongkang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Kuala Lumpur
    Posts
    130

    Default Re: New Surefire EB1 Clicky (Beamshots added) - Review and runtime results

    Been a while EB1 thread..but still best review around here imo
    @880arm,
    dont know how to say this in correct words...any chance to add 200rotary in your review please? I'm sure it's help a lot for CPF gang here

    Thank you

  21. #171
    Flashaholic* 880arm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Wildlands of Western Kentucky
    Posts
    1,752

    Default Re: New Surefire EB1 Clicky (Beamshots added) - Review and runtime results

    Quote Originally Posted by tongkang View Post
    Been a while EB1 thread..but still best review around here imo
    @880arm,
    dont know how to say this in correct words...any chance to add 200rotary in your review please? I'm sure it's help a lot for CPF gang here

    Thank you
    I would love to but unfortunately I don't yet own an HDS light. However, one of these days I will get myself one and you can bet I will do a review on it. Thanks for the compliment.

  22. #172
    Flashaholic* 880arm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Wildlands of Western Kentucky
    Posts
    1,752

    Default Re: New Surefire EB1 Clicky (Beamshots added) - Review and runtime results

    I recently received a new EB1-T to go along with my EB1-C that was the original subject of this thread and I can confirm that there are several differences between my original EB1 and this newest one, aside from the fact one is a clicky and the other is the tactical version. For lack of a better way to tell them apart, I am going to refer to them as Gen 1 and Gen 2.

    As far as appearances are concerned, the Gen 2 has the same finish and overall design with the most notable difference being the addition of the serial number and QR code to the head, as with other recent E-series lights. The body of this one sample also has its own serial number and QR code which may indicate SureFire is still working through a stock of bodies that have the old markings.


    Things might get interesting if I ever need warranty service since it looks like I have two different serial numbers!


    As far as function is concerned, I have not experienced any faulty mode switching like some users found with the early versions of the EB1-T. The Gen 2 EB1-T uses a true single-mode head so, for example, when swapping heads between the EB1-T and EB1-C, the EB1-T head provides only a single high mode of output. Operation of the tactical switch has been reliable and predictable although I have experienced a couple of instances where there was a brief high-output flash when going to OFF from constant-on low mode.

    When operated in high mode, both versions of the EB1 make a faint buzzing sound that can be heard if I hold the light up to my ear. I would never have noticed this if someone had not mentioned it in the E1D Defender thread.

    On the performance front, there are a few more differences beginning with the beam profile. Specifically the Gen 2 produces a beam with a somewhat larger and slightly less intense center hotspot and more sharply defined corona than the Gen 1.

    The following photos were taken approximately 5 yards from the building and were intentionally underexposed to better show the beam profiles.

    Gen 2 EB1-T Backup



    Gen 1 EB1-C Backup

    Some quick and dirty lux measurements confirmed the difference in beam intensity with the Gen 1 EB1 clocking in at 10,671 lux and the Gen 2 at 9,268; thankfully, much less of a difference than we were led to believe by the specs in the 2014 SureFire catalog. In terms of reach, these measurements would translate into ANSI beam distances of 207 and 193 meters respectively. For real world application it is safe to say they are both fairly effective to about 100 meters, based on my experience (yours may vary).

    There are no obvious differences in the optic used in either light so it appears the difference is in the LED, however, I can't see enough of it to have the slightest clue of what it may be. If I get a chance I will attempt some photographs to see if anyone else here will have a better idea. Overall the Gen 2 has a very slightly warmer tint and whiter beam than the Gen 1. It does not have the same beam profile and tint as the new E1D.

    As far as the overall beam is concerned, the larger hotspot of the Gen 2 is more noticeable to me than its slight loss of throw. The spill beams are also different with the Gen 2 projecting a little bit more spill downrange but it doesn't transition as smoothly toward the edges.

    The following beamshots were taken at a distance of 30 yards from the wooden swing but aren't the best for highlighting the differences in beam profile. Next time out I will take some better ones.

    Gen 2 EB1-T Backup


    Gen 1 EB1-C Backup


    Finally we come to runtime, one of the most often maligned aspects of the original EB1. In this department, the Gen 2 shows some improvement.



    Overall I would grade the changes as a success. I'm a fan of the SureFire TIR-equipped lights for their throw so I hated to hear the newer EB1 may have less of it, but the difference hasn't been that big of a deal. Aside from that, I like the larger hotspot and improved beam tint. There will probably be some who would still prefer the extra 5 or 6 yards of throw but I think most everyone will approve of the increase in runtime.

    When I get a chance I will update the original post and my review with more details.

  23. #173
    Flashaholic* Robin24k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,023

    Default Re: New Surefire EB1 Clicky (Beamshots added) - Review and runtime results

    Great work, Jim! Do you have any shots of the LED? Trying to confirm if it's Oslon Square or XP-G2...

  24. #174
    Flashaholic tongkang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Kuala Lumpur
    Posts
    130

    Default Re: New Surefire EB1 Clicky (Beamshots added) - Review and runtime results

    Usefull update here,many thanks for the test..about your Gen1 EB1,are they fine with AW liFe?

  25. #175
    Flashaholic* Sean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    IL, near St. Louis MO
    Posts
    2,944

    Default Re: Surefire EB1 Backup Review

    Thanks for the update!

  26. #176

    Default Re: Surefire EB1 Backup Review

    VERY helpful info, thanks! Other than ordering from SF, can anyone recommend a high volume dealer that will have the Gen2's vs the Gen1's?

  27. #177
    Flashaholic* 880arm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Wildlands of Western Kentucky
    Posts
    1,752

    Default Re: Surefire EB1 Backup Review

    Quote Originally Posted by Robin24k View Post
    Great work, Jim! Do you have any shots of the LED? Trying to confirm if it's Oslon Square or XP-G2...
    With my photos it's hard to tell whether it's an LED, Bigfoot, or the Loch Ness Monster .

    The LED is too small to be either of the two you mentioned, if anything it looks about the same as the one in my original EB1. The newer (Gen 2) EB1 is #2 in the photo below. It's not very clear but at least you can get an idea of the relative sizes of the LEDs (click image for really big version).


    Quote Originally Posted by tongkang View Post
    Usefull update here,many thanks for the test..about your Gen1 EB1,are they fine with AW liFe?
    I haven't tried any of the AW LiFe cells but I always use the K2 Energy batteries with all of my E-series lights. The Gen 1 EB1 is a little shaky on a freshly charged cell but after it's used a little bit, it works just fine. I haven't used the Gen 2 much with the rechargeables yet but it seems like it tolerates them much better.

    Quote Originally Posted by 46Alpha View Post
    VERY helpful info, thanks! Other than ordering from SF, can anyone recommend a high volume dealer that will have the Gen2's vs the Gen1's?
    Wish I could but I ordered this one from SureFire. I didn't know for sure whether I would receive the updated version or not but I wanted an EB1-T anyway.

  28. #178
    Flashaholic* Robin24k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,023

    Default Re: Surefire EB1 Backup Review

    EB1 #2 still looks like an XP-E to me...green PCB is a dead giveaway though.

  29. #179

    Default Re: Surefire EB1 Backup Review

    Thank you for the info 'jim, the difference is little perceptible between the two generations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Robin24k View Post
    EB1 #2 still looks like an XP-E to me...green PCB is a dead giveaway though.
    where does the improvement if it is still an XP-E?

    Flashaholic "Give me more lumens!" - Flashlight Addict -

  30. #180
    Flashaholic* Robin24k's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,023

    Default Re: Surefire EB1 Backup Review

    Quote Originally Posted by DAN92 View Post
    where does the improvement if it is still an XP-E?
    Step-down is controlled by firmware, but the new LED might be a higher bin.

Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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