Yes, the MN61 is brighter than the MN21. Amazing, isnt it! I am now using new, MP cells in order to keep the dedicated to the M6. I intend to walk the dog tonight and do and extended run. Last time I did that with the stock M6/MN21/123, the grip got very warm from the batteries after about 5 min. So tonite, I'll compare.
another M6-R with MN61
- Thread starter kalengkong
- Start date
Help Support Candle Power Flashlight Forum
js
Flashlight Enthusiast
nuggett,
Holy crap! Now THAT is cool!
What did you mean by "I am now using new, MP cells in order to keep the dedicated to the M6." Not clear on that sentence.
Were the beamshots done with fresh 123's driving the MN21 and MN20? In the photos the MN20 looks decidedly less white in color than I am used to seeing. Could just be the vagaracies of the camera and underexposure and so on, but just thought I'd ask for the record.
Anyway, either way, this is incredibly good news!!! Awesome! I didn't expect that the MN61 on 2p3s R123 would be as bright as the MN21, let alone brighter.
Rockin'. Very nice. I hope we aren't overdriving it to the point where its' life is impractically short, though.
If the R123's are holding 3.5 volts per cell, that's 10.5 volts at about 2.85 amps (according to CPF reports on the MN61 on 3 li-ion cells) which is 29.9 watts. However, perhaps the 2.85 amps is wrong, or with only a single stack of 3 R123's and not two stacks in parallel. In which case the draw might be higher, and the power correspondingly higher as well. For reference, the MN21 on fresh 123's is running at 6.8 volts and drawing very close to 5 amps, which is 34 watts.
But these are just educated guesses from me at this point. What I really need to do is put this setup on the test bench and measure current draw and voltage and get a discharge curve, and then compare against a single stack of 3 primary 123's for reference. And check CCT against known lights like the A2. And so on.
I will so this at some point if no one does it before me. And I think I will probably get myself an MN60 and MN61 and some Powerizers or Lighthound cells very soon.
But, however that may be, I will definitely try to figure out a cheap and effective way to make a 6p1s 123 holder.
Looking forward to the heat report and the runtime test. Thanks so so much for trying this out and posting about it, nuggett. I'm thrilled with this whole situation.
Holy crap! Now THAT is cool!
What did you mean by "I am now using new, MP cells in order to keep the dedicated to the M6." Not clear on that sentence.
Were the beamshots done with fresh 123's driving the MN21 and MN20? In the photos the MN20 looks decidedly less white in color than I am used to seeing. Could just be the vagaracies of the camera and underexposure and so on, but just thought I'd ask for the record.
Anyway, either way, this is incredibly good news!!! Awesome! I didn't expect that the MN61 on 2p3s R123 would be as bright as the MN21, let alone brighter.
Rockin'. Very nice. I hope we aren't overdriving it to the point where its' life is impractically short, though.
If the R123's are holding 3.5 volts per cell, that's 10.5 volts at about 2.85 amps (according to CPF reports on the MN61 on 3 li-ion cells) which is 29.9 watts. However, perhaps the 2.85 amps is wrong, or with only a single stack of 3 R123's and not two stacks in parallel. In which case the draw might be higher, and the power correspondingly higher as well. For reference, the MN21 on fresh 123's is running at 6.8 volts and drawing very close to 5 amps, which is 34 watts.
But these are just educated guesses from me at this point. What I really need to do is put this setup on the test bench and measure current draw and voltage and get a discharge curve, and then compare against a single stack of 3 primary 123's for reference. And check CCT against known lights like the A2. And so on.
I will so this at some point if no one does it before me. And I think I will probably get myself an MN60 and MN61 and some Powerizers or Lighthound cells very soon.
But, however that may be, I will definitely try to figure out a cheap and effective way to make a 6p1s 123 holder.
Looking forward to the heat report and the runtime test. Thanks so so much for trying this out and posting about it, nuggett. I'm thrilled with this whole situation.
LED61
Flashlight Enthusiast
I must be missing a piece of info here. please bear with me guys. The MN21 has lower output in the beamshots and it runs on 34 watts power. How is it possible the MN61 is less power and brighter in this configuration ?
js
Flashlight Enthusiast
LED61,
No problem. It IS confusing. The issue is that a lamp can be driven over a range of voltages, from where it produces only heat, to where the filament is just about to vaporize because it is so close to the melting point of tungsten.
The MN61, driven by 4 primary 123's is less powerful than the MN21 driven by two parallel stacks of 3 primary 123's (6 total).
True. However, we are not using 4 primary 123's. A primary 123 under near maximum load (about 2.5 amps) holds around 2.2 to 2.3 volts each. So 4 of them will hold about 9 volts or so, depending on their temperature and state of charge. But we are using (aren't we cool!) 2 parallel stacks of THREE LI-ION rechargeable cells. I don't have SilverFox's graphs in front of me, but IIRC a Powerizer of Lighthound R123 will hold about 3.5 volts with a current draw of around 1.2 to 1.5 amps (i.e. each stack only needs to provide half the total current).
SO, three cells at 3.5 volts/cell is 10.5 volts. Quite a bit more than 9 volts, isn't it? This will mean higher current draw. Just exactly how much really should be determined by measuring it--both voltage and current in the setup being considered.
However, there are handy dandy rules of thumb for re-rating a lamp of known parameters, to a different voltage. These are known as the re-rating formulas. Here they are:
Ir = (Va/Vd)^0.55 * Id
Cr = (Va/Vd)^3.5 * Cd
Lr = (Vd/Va)^12 * Ld.
Here the "r" 's represent the re-rated values and the "d" 's represent design values. The "I" is current draw, the "C" is mean-spherical candlepower, which is proportional to total bulb lumens (multiply by 12.5 or something like that), and the "L" is lamp life--number of hours of operation you are likely to get. It's a statistical thing. At the L rating, half of the lamps in a group sample will have burnt out. But half will be still going.
Notice that the Life re-rating is HIGHLY non-linear: a small relative change in applied voltage will mean a large change in lamp life.
*cough* OK. More info maybe than you wanted. Let's apply it.
If the MN61 at design is 9 volts, 2.5 amps, 350 lumens and 35 hours of life, what happens at 10.5 volts. OK. First, let's adjust the 350 lumens figure. SF always under-rates by at least 20 percent. So let's just crank that up to 420 lumens, which is still conservative.
Ir = (10.5/9)^.55 * 2.5 amps = 1.16666^.55 * 2.5 amps = 1.08 * 2.5 amps = 2.72 amps.
Lr = (9/10.5)^12 * 35 hours = .157 * 35 hours = 5.5 hours.
Cr = (10.5/9)^3.5 * 420 lumens = 1.715 * 420 lumens = 720 lumens.
So yes, it does look as if the MN61 at this voltage will out output the MN21. But let's hope that 35 hours of life at 9 volts is very conservative! Otherwise we're looking at a scarily short life span.
Going back to the current, 2.72 amps disagrees with the CPF info I found in one of the incandescent forum sticky threads of interest. They claimed 2.85 amps on three Li-ion cells. A measurement will be required in any case, but I should point out that the re-rating formulas are only approximate, and the farther away you go from design the less accurate they are. On top of that, we actually don't really know the design values of this lamp. I just guessed them into the formulas.
Also, keep in mind that power is NOT going to tell you lumens, unless you also know the CCT or the life-rating. In other words, the harder you drive a lamp, the shorter the life and the greater the efficiency. At 3300 CCT, you get about 30 lumens/watt. Each 100 CCT up or down adds or subtracts about 3 lumens/watt. The practical maximum you can achieve is somewhere around 37 lumens per watt. More than that and the filament is so close to melting that it is too fragile and too short lived to be useful.
So, short answer: MN61 brighter because it is being driven harder than stock, equates to more power coupled with greater efficiency.
No problem. It IS confusing. The issue is that a lamp can be driven over a range of voltages, from where it produces only heat, to where the filament is just about to vaporize because it is so close to the melting point of tungsten.
The MN61, driven by 4 primary 123's is less powerful than the MN21 driven by two parallel stacks of 3 primary 123's (6 total).
True. However, we are not using 4 primary 123's. A primary 123 under near maximum load (about 2.5 amps) holds around 2.2 to 2.3 volts each. So 4 of them will hold about 9 volts or so, depending on their temperature and state of charge. But we are using (aren't we cool!) 2 parallel stacks of THREE LI-ION rechargeable cells. I don't have SilverFox's graphs in front of me, but IIRC a Powerizer of Lighthound R123 will hold about 3.5 volts with a current draw of around 1.2 to 1.5 amps (i.e. each stack only needs to provide half the total current).
SO, three cells at 3.5 volts/cell is 10.5 volts. Quite a bit more than 9 volts, isn't it? This will mean higher current draw. Just exactly how much really should be determined by measuring it--both voltage and current in the setup being considered.
However, there are handy dandy rules of thumb for re-rating a lamp of known parameters, to a different voltage. These are known as the re-rating formulas. Here they are:
Ir = (Va/Vd)^0.55 * Id
Cr = (Va/Vd)^3.5 * Cd
Lr = (Vd/Va)^12 * Ld.
Here the "r" 's represent the re-rated values and the "d" 's represent design values. The "I" is current draw, the "C" is mean-spherical candlepower, which is proportional to total bulb lumens (multiply by 12.5 or something like that), and the "L" is lamp life--number of hours of operation you are likely to get. It's a statistical thing. At the L rating, half of the lamps in a group sample will have burnt out. But half will be still going.
Notice that the Life re-rating is HIGHLY non-linear: a small relative change in applied voltage will mean a large change in lamp life.
*cough* OK. More info maybe than you wanted. Let's apply it.
If the MN61 at design is 9 volts, 2.5 amps, 350 lumens and 35 hours of life, what happens at 10.5 volts. OK. First, let's adjust the 350 lumens figure. SF always under-rates by at least 20 percent. So let's just crank that up to 420 lumens, which is still conservative.
Ir = (10.5/9)^.55 * 2.5 amps = 1.16666^.55 * 2.5 amps = 1.08 * 2.5 amps = 2.72 amps.
Lr = (9/10.5)^12 * 35 hours = .157 * 35 hours = 5.5 hours.
Cr = (10.5/9)^3.5 * 420 lumens = 1.715 * 420 lumens = 720 lumens.
So yes, it does look as if the MN61 at this voltage will out output the MN21. But let's hope that 35 hours of life at 9 volts is very conservative! Otherwise we're looking at a scarily short life span.
Going back to the current, 2.72 amps disagrees with the CPF info I found in one of the incandescent forum sticky threads of interest. They claimed 2.85 amps on three Li-ion cells. A measurement will be required in any case, but I should point out that the re-rating formulas are only approximate, and the farther away you go from design the less accurate they are. On top of that, we actually don't really know the design values of this lamp. I just guessed them into the formulas.
Also, keep in mind that power is NOT going to tell you lumens, unless you also know the CCT or the life-rating. In other words, the harder you drive a lamp, the shorter the life and the greater the efficiency. At 3300 CCT, you get about 30 lumens/watt. Each 100 CCT up or down adds or subtracts about 3 lumens/watt. The practical maximum you can achieve is somewhere around 37 lumens per watt. More than that and the filament is so close to melting that it is too fragile and too short lived to be useful.
So, short answer: MN61 brighter because it is being driven harder than stock, equates to more power coupled with greater efficiency.
js said:
Eeps... I misunderstood and thought that you were talking about 6 x R123s in a modified holder so I replied in that context. I wouldn't dare instaflash my MN21 with 3 x series li-ion! Thanks for the precaution anyway!
In general, with regards to the MN61 (li-ion) being brighter than the MN21 (CR123), I wasn't quite expecting it but I'm not that surprised either. If a single li-ion is underdriving a SF 6V LA and double li-ion is middle-ground for 9V LA, then logically triple li-ion is going to overdriving a 12V LA assuming batteries of reasonable capacity that is. I've run the MN61 on 3x17670 before and it was quite white and impressive but got hot pretty quickly. I can imagine two parallel stacks to be even more impressive!
Nugget, do you happen to have 2x18650 with MN21 to challenge the 6xR123 + MN61?
Last edited:
On a fresh pack of these 700mah MP cells from Lighthound, At rest,I measured 12.6v.Under load 11.7 pulling 3.7 amps. Bright light lasted 18 minutes before dimming rapidly. cells and light were a bit warm but not near as hot as the MN21/123 stock setup.
When done,I measured 10.9volts resting, 10-8 volts and dropping rapidly under load, and 3.7 draw. I am pleased with this setup and probably can expect a full 20 minutes on the blue 800 mah cells.
When done,I measured 10.9volts resting, 10-8 volts and dropping rapidly under load, and 3.7 draw. I am pleased with this setup and probably can expect a full 20 minutes on the blue 800 mah cells.
js
Flashlight Enthusiast
nuggett,
Holy current-draw, Batman!!!
Your current numbers suprise me. They seem too high. In addition, if the lamp draws 3.7 amps at 11.7 volts, it can't also be drawing 3.7 amps at 10 to 8 volts. Something is wrong there.
Please don't understand this is any kind of attack on you! It just doesn't add up. If it really were this high of an over drive, it would totally blow away the MN21. 11.7 volts times 3.7 amps is 43 watts!!!. And over-driven watts at that, so we're talking like 35 or 37 lumens/watt equates to 1591 bulb-lumens which would mean 1034 lumens out the front of the light, which would be a 64 percent increase over the MN21 output. The pictures and your description of how things are don't dovetail with that, do they?
Is there any chance these measurements could be in error?
Holy current-draw, Batman!!!
Your current numbers suprise me. They seem too high. In addition, if the lamp draws 3.7 amps at 11.7 volts, it can't also be drawing 3.7 amps at 10 to 8 volts. Something is wrong there.
Please don't understand this is any kind of attack on you! It just doesn't add up. If it really were this high of an over drive, it would totally blow away the MN21. 11.7 volts times 3.7 amps is 43 watts!!!. And over-driven watts at that, so we're talking like 35 or 37 lumens/watt equates to 1591 bulb-lumens which would mean 1034 lumens out the front of the light, which would be a 64 percent increase over the MN21 output. The pictures and your description of how things are don't dovetail with that, do they?
Is there any chance these measurements could be in error?
Yes, they were done with my Fluke 337 meter, and the jumper may not have been contacting well. I dont think the meter was made for this kind of work.
:laughing: :shrug: :shrug:
After the volts measurement, I had to reconfigure to measure amps, so it wasnt done together.
:laughing: :shrug: :shrug:
After the volts measurement, I had to reconfigure to measure amps, so it wasnt done together.
Last edited:
js
Flashlight Enthusiast
nuggett,
Getting current and voltage measurements for the SF MN series lamps is actually suprisingly difficult. Even just clipping on to the coil springs can be problematic. And if you are doing the current measurement with a DMM with long test leads, you are unlikely to get an accurate reading. And then there is the question of connecting to the MB20 battery holder. It's tricky (and painful) to do.
Getting current and voltage measurements for the SF MN series lamps is actually suprisingly difficult. Even just clipping on to the coil springs can be problematic. And if you are doing the current measurement with a DMM with long test leads, you are unlikely to get an accurate reading. And then there is the question of connecting to the MB20 battery holder. It's tricky (and painful) to do.
LED61
Flashlight Enthusiast
JS, this will probably be undoable but have you checked the Tenergy RCR´s spec sheet here ? http://batteryjunction.com/rc390reliba.html
I know you are considering only the unprotected lighthound cells for this setup but:
1) The cells are not unrecommended for bulbs that can handle more than 7.2 V, such as the MN61
2) The cells apparently detect overcurrent and shutdown above 3 amps
3) Could we have more acceptable voltage levels for the MN61 as these have lower operating voltages, and
4) They are protected cells below 2.6 -2.5 volts so we would not have to worry about over discharge ?
I know you are considering only the unprotected lighthound cells for this setup but:
1) The cells are not unrecommended for bulbs that can handle more than 7.2 V, such as the MN61
2) The cells apparently detect overcurrent and shutdown above 3 amps
3) Could we have more acceptable voltage levels for the MN61 as these have lower operating voltages, and
4) They are protected cells below 2.6 -2.5 volts so we would not have to worry about over discharge ?
js
Flashlight Enthusiast
LED61,
It all sounds good--points 2, 3, and 4 are definite pluses. Should be worth looking into. My only concern is that the protection cicuit in the cells will see a cold MN61 filament as a short circuit and will not allow the cell to engage. That has always been the problem with using conventional Li-ion protection circuits with high power incans. The only way to know is to try. Or to find out from someone who already has tried.
On another note, I should point out that WE CAN ALSO EXPLORE USING THE MN60. It will run for longer and still be bright and white, and will definitely have a longer life than the MN61. Exactly how everything will be precisely still is up for determination, but I can tell you that the MN60 is a safer, longer-lived choice, even if the power and output are lower. It will still be brighter than the MN20--and that's plenty bright for most of us.
It all sounds good--points 2, 3, and 4 are definite pluses. Should be worth looking into. My only concern is that the protection cicuit in the cells will see a cold MN61 filament as a short circuit and will not allow the cell to engage. That has always been the problem with using conventional Li-ion protection circuits with high power incans. The only way to know is to try. Or to find out from someone who already has tried.
On another note, I should point out that WE CAN ALSO EXPLORE USING THE MN60. It will run for longer and still be bright and white, and will definitely have a longer life than the MN61. Exactly how everything will be precisely still is up for determination, but I can tell you that the MN60 is a safer, longer-lived choice, even if the power and output are lower. It will still be brighter than the MN20--and that's plenty bright for most of us.
LED61
Flashlight Enthusiast
I´ll volunteer to try the MN60 and MN61 with the Tenergy´s. Milky has offered my an MN60 for sale and I can order an MN61 and the cells and charger. There is a 12-16 ms delay in overcurrent detection maybe this will help the cold filament issue you think?
Oh and Jim I hope there is not any real danger in doing this, just wanted to ask you what you think the worst case scenario could be?
Oh and Jim I hope there is not any real danger in doing this, just wanted to ask you what you think the worst case scenario could be?
js
Flashlight Enthusiast
LED61,,
No. Not really. No danger as long as you are careful to ensure all Li-ion's are at the same state of charge and do not over-discharge as I mentioned earlier.
And as protected Li-ion's do this automatically, they are even safer--especially if they don't work at all. LOL!
And it looks as if you won't blow your MN61 on overvoltage, so it's highly unlikely that you'll blow an MN60. But statistically, an instaflash or an explosion is possible with almost any high pressure lamp at almost any drive level. But the worst that would happen here is you will spoil your turbo head.
Still . . . to repeat . . . Li-ion ARE NOT inherently safe. Be careful to treat them well and follow the guidelines for use. Especailly dangerous is overcharging them. That's why it is recommended to take them all out of the MB20 holder and charge them separately, or all in parallel, to ensure that in a series stack, one isn't high with two low. i.e. instead of 4.1, 4.1 and 4.1, you could have 4.4, 4.0, 3.9, for example, or even worse. Both cases add up to the same voltage, but in the one case you are safe, whereas in the other you are approaching a very dangerous voltage for the high li-ion cell.
Anyway, no way to know if the protection circuit will play nice or not. We shall see.
No. Not really. No danger as long as you are careful to ensure all Li-ion's are at the same state of charge and do not over-discharge as I mentioned earlier.
And as protected Li-ion's do this automatically, they are even safer--especially if they don't work at all. LOL!
And it looks as if you won't blow your MN61 on overvoltage, so it's highly unlikely that you'll blow an MN60. But statistically, an instaflash or an explosion is possible with almost any high pressure lamp at almost any drive level. But the worst that would happen here is you will spoil your turbo head.
Still . . . to repeat . . . Li-ion ARE NOT inherently safe. Be careful to treat them well and follow the guidelines for use. Especailly dangerous is overcharging them. That's why it is recommended to take them all out of the MB20 holder and charge them separately, or all in parallel, to ensure that in a series stack, one isn't high with two low. i.e. instead of 4.1, 4.1 and 4.1, you could have 4.4, 4.0, 3.9, for example, or even worse. Both cases add up to the same voltage, but in the one case you are safe, whereas in the other you are approaching a very dangerous voltage for the high li-ion cell.
Anyway, no way to know if the protection circuit will play nice or not. We shall see.
FWIW, the MN60 on 3x17670 (AW Protected 1600mAh, M4 body, + 2 extenders) runs a very strong 55 minutes till protection shuts it down. The test was boken into four segments to allow the setup to cool down so as to avoid damaging the cells.
The MN60 doesn't require much from the li-ions as the cells come off the charger warm with the cells reading 2.93V, 3.10V and 3.12V in order of position in the flashlight with the 2.93V cell closest to the hot front end. After an hour or two of rest, the cells read 3.13V, 3.34V and 3.37V respectively. I apologies for I lack the ability to measure current and voltages under load.
The cells all started with identical voltages of 4.20V slightly warm from charging so if starting voltage was at a more healthy 4.10V then I guess the 55 minute figure should be reduced a bit.
Take note though that perceived colour temperature stayed remarkably consistant throughout the run. I say perceived because I forgot I had the A2 to use as a benchmark for comparison.
Fortunately, I did have an MN16 + 2 x 17670 running simultaneously. Even in the last 10 seconds of shutdown, the MN60 setup was only very slightly more yellow than the MN16 setup which was running strongly at half battery life and still overdriven compared to running on primaries.
With the differences in voltage sag and current, it'll be interesting to see how a 3s2p setup compares in terms of runtime and tint.
The MN60 doesn't require much from the li-ions as the cells come off the charger warm with the cells reading 2.93V, 3.10V and 3.12V in order of position in the flashlight with the 2.93V cell closest to the hot front end. After an hour or two of rest, the cells read 3.13V, 3.34V and 3.37V respectively. I apologies for I lack the ability to measure current and voltages under load.
The cells all started with identical voltages of 4.20V slightly warm from charging so if starting voltage was at a more healthy 4.10V then I guess the 55 minute figure should be reduced a bit.
Take note though that perceived colour temperature stayed remarkably consistant throughout the run. I say perceived because I forgot I had the A2 to use as a benchmark for comparison.
Fortunately, I did have an MN16 + 2 x 17670 running simultaneously. Even in the last 10 seconds of shutdown, the MN60 setup was only very slightly more yellow than the MN16 setup which was running strongly at half battery life and still overdriven compared to running on primaries.With the differences in voltage sag and current, it'll be interesting to see how a 3s2p setup compares in terms of runtime and tint.
js
Flashlight Enthusiast
OK.
www.batteryspace.com sells a holder that will accomodate a 123A cell. Plus a company called Memory Protection Devices (www.batteryholders.com) has holders for 123A sized cells. So for those who want to create a 6p1s holder, you can just order six of the holders from battery space and solder or crimp all of the red wires togetherm and solder or crimp all of the black wires together, then just clip onto the solder or crimp points with the charging cable alligator clips.
Or if there is enough interest, we could organize a group buy and get MPD to make us up a 6p1s holder professionally. We'd need at least 30 people interested to make it worth while I would guess.
Anyway, so there it is.
OH, and keyelco.com has battery holders as well. Cat No. 1029, page 19 of the Keystone catelog. Not sure what the relation is between them. Not sure of price either.
www.batteryspace.com sells a holder that will accomodate a 123A cell. Plus a company called Memory Protection Devices (www.batteryholders.com) has holders for 123A sized cells. So for those who want to create a 6p1s holder, you can just order six of the holders from battery space and solder or crimp all of the red wires togetherm and solder or crimp all of the black wires together, then just clip onto the solder or crimp points with the charging cable alligator clips.
Or if there is enough interest, we could organize a group buy and get MPD to make us up a 6p1s holder professionally. We'd need at least 30 people interested to make it worth while I would guess.
Anyway, so there it is.
OH, and keyelco.com has battery holders as well. Cat No. 1029, page 19 of the Keystone catelog. Not sure what the relation is between them. Not sure of price either.
js
Flashlight Enthusiast
nuggett,
How is your rechargeable M6 setup w/MN61 holding up? Lamp still nice and white and bright? Everything OK? How much use has this setup seen so far? Anything to report?
How is your rechargeable M6 setup w/MN61 holding up? Lamp still nice and white and bright? Everything OK? How much use has this setup seen so far? Anything to report?
Everything is running fine. I have been running 6 new MP cells and am still on the orginal bulb. About 6 charges so far. I might have one slightly defective or weak battery. Its charged voltage is slightly lower than the others, works fine though.
I really like it except for the runtime.. about 17 min.
I really like it except for the runtime.. about 17 min.
LED61
Flashlight Enthusiast
Hi Nuggett, I've been reading along this thread again and all of JS instruction and there is still one thing bugging me and preventing me from jumping in to test the MN61 on Tenergy's RCR's. They hold lower operating voltage than your lighthounds, I'll have 9V under load vrs your 10.5-11.1. Jim was worried of your current draw which you initially pointed to be over 3 amps. I'm worried your wiring inside your MB20 might degrade slowly? can we find out for sure what kind of amp flow you've got there? I'd like Jim to chip in on this also (and I'm worried about my current flow with lower voltage).
js
Flashlight Enthusiast
LED61,
The MB20 battery holder will take 5 amps without trouble, so that's not an issue! The only issue I can see is that the lamp life of the overdriven MN61 may be rather short--sub 10 hours kind of thing. Or it may not. There's no way to tell for sure right now.
The MB20 battery holder will take 5 amps without trouble, so that's not an issue! The only issue I can see is that the lamp life of the overdriven MN61 may be rather short--sub 10 hours kind of thing. Or it may not. There's no way to tell for sure right now.
LED61
Flashlight Enthusiast
OK Jim, thanks for clearing that up for me on the MB20, what about the discharge rate on the RCR´s if Nugget is reporting 17 min runtime that´s way too steep discharge rate for the li ions or not ?
