donn_
Flashaholic
It automatically printed in landscape for me.
Feedback/impressions on the PhD-M6 custom battery pack
- Thread starter wquiles
- Start date
Help Support Candle Power Flashlight Forum
Justin Case
Flashlight Enthusiast
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2008
- Messages
- 3,797
I have the pdf converted to Excel 2007.
🙄 I know it is designed, displays, and prints in landscape.
Unless you shrink it to force fitting onto letter size, which makes it uber small, it doesn't print the sides. All that is needed is to shorten the titles, or put them on two lines to not waste all the space. A document with this many items and colums also needs lines to follow accross.
Justin Case
Flashlight Enthusiast
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2008
- Messages
- 3,797
Do you want the image or the actual xls file? If the latter, I need a site to upload it. If the former, I can convert the Excel page to a jpeg or whatever, put it on photobucket, and put it into a post to the thread.
I am hosting all of the pictures and files already, including this file from Eric. If you email me the file, I will host it along with the original file.
oldways
Enlightened
Guys
At 9v would the MN61 be producing 400 or more otf?
At 9v would the MN61 be producing 400 or more otf?
Justin Case
Flashlight Enthusiast
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2008
- Messages
- 3,797
Post deleted.
Last edited:
Thanks much Justin. Here is the hosted file:
PhD-M6_bulbs_table.xlsx
PhD-M6_bulbs_table.xlsx
As you probably remember from the development and feeler threads I did a lot of runtime tests on the MN21, but the cells always came out too darn hot from the continuous run (of course not recommended, but it was part of my development/tests). The MN61 sounds like a fantastic match to the cell chemistry that we have today, so I am definitely going to give it a try today or tomorrow.
If it would help any of you on the fence, and since I have two M6's, I could do a side-by-side beamshot at night comparing both the MN21 and the MN61.
oldways
Enlightened
Looking at the bulb chart the MN61 looks like the one to run.
If it is 400+ otf at 9v would be a very useful setup capable of sustained runs.
I would love to see beamhots of the MN21 and MN61 sxs.
Also wonder how it would do at 9.2-9.3v?
If it is 400+ otf at 9v would be a very useful setup capable of sustained runs.
I would love to see beamhots of the MN21 and MN61 sxs.
Also wonder how it would do at 9.2-9.3v?
OK, I will re-program one of my proto packs for the MN61 tonight for 9 volts . I will report back when I have some beamshots to share 😉
I just finished running AW 17670 discharge graphs at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Amps with the cells I have, and as a result will be making another change to my custom profile Level 4, giving up on the 10.8V category. I should have thought about this aspect earlier.
I took the time to go back through my PayPal transactions to see that I bought my only six 17670 AW protected cells way back in May, 2007, so people need to consider the age of these cells with my posted results, as newer ones may perform better. I sent a PM to AW to look at these results, and comment.
In any case, I'm not seeing these size cells as having the 'cajones' to power the 1185, nor does AW list it as such here.
Edit: I'm dropping my 10.8V setting because if we divide that by 3, we get 3.6V per cell. So the question is whether a specific bulb being driven at its necessary Amp level will have the cell voltage held above 3.6V for a reasonable amount of time. The 1185 draws 3.4A itself (not including additional drain from pack resistance), and you can see the green line above is all below 3.6V...so this would make it out of regulation==>going to direct drive.
Even the 1331 @ 10.8V uses 2.1A for the bulb alone. You can see how quickly the 2A red line crosses the 3.6V threshold.
Now looking at the 1164 @ 9.3V uses 4.2Amps, but now we have a lower voltage threshold (9.3V/3 = 3.1V/cell) before it drops below regulation. It crosses the 3.1V line just short of 1Ah which is better than nothing.
Suffice it to say that I'm going back to the drawing board. I don't know how much "beefier" the newest AW 17670-P cells are, but I would rather err on the conservative side.
I took the time to go back through my PayPal transactions to see that I bought my only six 17670 AW protected cells way back in May, 2007, so people need to consider the age of these cells with my posted results, as newer ones may perform better. I sent a PM to AW to look at these results, and comment.
In any case, I'm not seeing these size cells as having the 'cajones' to power the 1185, nor does AW list it as such here.
Edit: I'm dropping my 10.8V setting because if we divide that by 3, we get 3.6V per cell. So the question is whether a specific bulb being driven at its necessary Amp level will have the cell voltage held above 3.6V for a reasonable amount of time. The 1185 draws 3.4A itself (not including additional drain from pack resistance), and you can see the green line above is all below 3.6V...so this would make it out of regulation==>going to direct drive.
Even the 1331 @ 10.8V uses 2.1A for the bulb alone. You can see how quickly the 2A red line crosses the 3.6V threshold.
Now looking at the 1164 @ 9.3V uses 4.2Amps, but now we have a lower voltage threshold (9.3V/3 = 3.1V/cell) before it drops below regulation. It crosses the 3.1V line just short of 1Ah which is better than nothing.
Suffice it to say that I'm going back to the drawing board. I don't know how much "beefier" the newest AW 17670-P cells are, but I would rather err on the conservative side.
Last edited:
OK, nothing shocking, but neat to do anyway. Camera on tripod, manual exposure (1/2 sec, F5.6), lens at 50mm.
MN61 driven at 9.0 Vrms
Control:
MN20: Aim at mailbox and then at fence
MN61: Aim at mailbox and then at fence
MN21: Aim at mailbox and then at fence
Control:
MN61 (left) - MN20 (right)
MN61 (left) - MN21 (right)
MN61 (left) - MN21 (right)
Will
MN61 driven at 9.0 Vrms
Control:
MN20: Aim at mailbox and then at fence
MN61: Aim at mailbox and then at fence
MN21: Aim at mailbox and then at fence
Control:
MN61 (left) - MN20 (right)
MN61 (left) - MN21 (right)
MN61 (left) - MN21 (right)
Will
Last edited:
OK, on that last photo the MN61 was a little bit more yellow than the MN21, so I decided to test the MN61 at 9.2 volts instead.
MN61 driven at 9.2 Vrms
MN61 (left) - MN21 (right)
Still different, but a little closer.
Control:
MN61:
(wider beam)
MN21:
(more focused beam)
Control:
MN61:
(wider beam)
MN21:
(more focused beam)
Control:
MN61:
(wider beam)
MN21:
(more trow)
Will
MN61 driven at 9.2 Vrms
MN61 (left) - MN21 (right)
Still different, but a little closer.
Control:
MN61:
(wider beam)
MN21:
(more focused beam)
Control:
MN61:
(wider beam)
MN21:
(more focused beam)
Control:
MN61:
(wider beam)
MN21:
(more trow)
Will
I just finished running AW 17670 discharge graphs at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Amps with the cells I have, and as a result will be making another change to my custom profile Level 4, giving up on the 10.8V category. I should have thought about this aspect earlier.
I took the time to go back through my PayPal transactions to see that I bought my only six 17670 AW protected cells way back in May, 2007, so people need to consider the age of these cells with my posted results, as newer ones may perform better. I sent a PM to AW to look at these results, and comment.
In any case, I'm not seeing these size cells as having the 'cajones' to power the 1185, nor does AW list it as such here.
Wow you're right, it can't sustain very much voltage when draw is over 2-3 amps. The good news is, the king of throw among the M6 bulbs in my experience (outside the 1185) is the HO-M6R at only 2.1amps. It smokes the MN21 and even beats the WA1111 by a small margin. There's no way I would give up my 10.8v setting and the ability to run this bulb with this pack, even if it will drop out of regulation quickly. The low amp draw, low heat, excellent reach, beautiful beam pattern and long bulb life are just too good not to have a setting for. The IMR-M6 is another reason to keep the 10.8v setting IMO.
Justin Case
Flashlight Enthusiast
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2008
- Messages
- 3,797
It looks like ~2A draw (1.25C) from the AW17670s is a reasonable max in terms of holding cell voltage under load. What this might translate to for PWM...?
A WA01331 might be able to run in regulation at 10.8V for say 10 min before going direct drive for the remainder of the battery pack's capacity.
My two workhorse bulb candidates are the MN15 and WA01274, for lower output/longer run time and higher output/moderate run time options, respectively. If I didn't have an FM MN bi-pin adapter and a bunch of 1274s already, I might go with an MN15 and MN61.
I'm taking a slight chance with my Level 3 at 8.0V for the 1274. But I can always run the bulb at Level 2 at 7.3V. At $5 per bulb, the 1274 looks like a good all-around choice to me.
Last edited:
Rich, I don't have much objective data with the MN & Lighthound bulbs, but I'm confused by your saying the HO-M6R "smokes the MN21," when I see Eric's chart listing it as only 400L diminishing to 250L, vs. his report of the MN21 being 500-700L. I'm also not clear on how he got his lumen readings, and whether they are "bulb lumens," or extrapolated "Torch lumens" (using the 65% x Bulb Lumen formula that I have never accepted).
Too many questions....and miles to go before I sleep. Miles to go before I sleep.
Edit: Now I see where you are getting that from. When I look at my box of the HO-M6R, it's spec is 700L @ 13V. Ain't gonna get up there with these cells.
Last edited:
Very fair question Lux. This is based upon the results of beamshot tests I did a while back with the M6. To be clear, I was referencing the throw of the HO-M6R per the prior statement. I'm not disagreeing that the MN21 puts out more overall lumens. Now, the "smokes" part came from testing the MN21 on fresh primaries (stock SureFire config) vs. the HO-M6R. However, it also beat the MN21 by a smaller margin even when run the MN21 was run on fully charged 18650s. Again, it beat it in overall throw, not total lumens. With a light of this form factor, throw is one of my major considerations in a lamp for the M6. And in that department, the HO-M6R wins (and maintains it's practicality at the same time :twothumbs).
Here are the shots from that test:
Last edited:
Right, but remember that 13V 700L HO setup is designed for 6 x RCR123A which has no relationship to 3 x 17670. It seems the most practical use of that bulb is with direct drive 6 x RCR123A, but I'm not that experienced with using it yet.
