Feedback/impressions on the PhD-M6 custom battery pack

[Steve in SoCal]

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.

Incorrect, the standard M6 battery holder is 3s2p so in this case the 3 x 17670 is perfectly matched to the HO-M6R. In fact, the HO-M6R is really the best basic setup for the 3 x 17670.:thumbsup:

 

[LuxLuthor]

Incorrect, the standard M6 battery holder is 3s2p so in this case the 3 x 17670 is perfectly matched to the HO-M6R. In fact, the HO-M6R is really the best basic setup for the 3 x 17670.:thumbsup:

Oh yeah, right. I always forget that pesky little 3s2p battery holder detail, thanks! I keep saying, I have not used many of the M6 MN or Lighthound bulbs, nor RCR123 cells, so I should shut up on those specifics, and go back to Eric's chart for them. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[mdocod]

really none of these HO bulbs -- e.g., 5761, 1185, 5607 -- are all that practical. They all require fairly high current and 3x17670 in whatever chemistry is just going to be limited in feeding that appetite.

Greetings Justin,

So very true....

The good new is that, due to the efficiency gains from lower resistance in IMR cells, the lower capacity will not translate to as much runtime loss as one would think on many of these bulbs. I actually ran the numbers for an MN21 on a theoretical IMR17670 pack and came up with a 17% drop in runtime, but it would be more consistent from run to run and survive hundreds of cycles safely.

------------

I wonder if there is a way to get this into a format for printing landscape on 8.5 x 11 paper, and/or put on Excel to add lines to track entire line easier?

Howdy Luxluthor!

I actually tried to get it to leave the lines in the PDF export from the spreadsheet but couldn't find a way to do it, (using NeoOffice). I'm not a big fan of crossing my fingers that everyone will have the ability to open a spreadsheet file created by one of the many "office" packages out there. Hard to find someone who doesn't have a PDF reader though, and PDF files produce predictable printing behavior.

I'm not sure I agree with all your numbers (i.e. recommended voltage range & lumens--for example the 1111), but it is still a useful comparative reference, and represents a good bit of work. Where are you getting your lumens readings from?

Well, I've been referencing the charts that you made for these numbers since way back when you did them and using modified re-rate formulas that more closely mimic actual measured lux from your charts. They represent the most accurate estimated bulb lumen figures available for a wide array of drive levels anywhere. The CPF community and myself owe you more thanks than can possibly be given for this information. The chart was developed because it offers PhD-M6 customers a fast reference general guideline for making decisions about bulbs and drive levels. The PhD-M6 product could probably be sold without any such chart available, leaving folks to "fend for themselves" so to speak. I wanted to provide at least something to give a guideline that I feel comfortable with for the scope of this project.

For the KT4 style Millennium Turbo Head, I believe that the 65% loss is appropriate, so that is what has been applied. I am in agreement with you that 65% torch conversion is not always accurate. I believe that a well made head that does not take losses to a foam insert and recessed shock absorption system can achieve better numbers. You and I both know that light is perceived in a logarithmic fashion, so rough numbers are more than adequate.

Of course, I am quite confident, that many people will read the chart, and completely ignore the qualifier words highlighted in the top row, "estimated" , "approximate" etc. Someone will want to hold me to the grinding stone, for them, I say the following: Sign a contract to purchase 10,000 units, I will arrange to provide accurate measured output for every bulb at a variety of drive levels 🙂 With the amount of work that has gone into this project, there isn't much of a selling price that will ever completely cover every hour. Even with such testing, there would be no way to guarantee specific lumen outputs on flashlights. There are too many variables. All it takes is for 1 contact to be slightly gunked up or oxidized, and the numbers all fall apart.

Keep in mind, that a particular voltage does not hold true from one test rig to the next. Are we talking V-Batt? V-Bulb, V-Springs, V-half-way in-betwen, V-Pack..? The PhD-M6 is calibrated with a test rig that fairly closely mimics the resistance that could be expected in a properly cleaned and cared for M6 flashlight. So When I recommend 6.8V or 7.2V, or whatever, I'm not talking about V-pack voltage, we're basically at the base of the spring contacts for the bulb. The difference can be dramatic, a few percent different in voltage can equate to 10% or more actual output. I've thought as much of this through as anyone could be expected to and come up with what I believe are reasonable approximations with the information I have.

------------

At 9v would the MN61 be producing 400 or more otf?

Hi oldways,

Unless someone wants to measure it in a sphere, I can not guarantee anything, I would estimate that it should be somewhere around 400 torch lumens at 9V. Remember those "qualifying" words in the chart.

The reality is that, the difference between 350 and 450 lumens is pretty hard to see. If it's in the ballpark of a need, then it will work.

It's not like someone is going to be spotting something with a 385 lumen light, and have a hard time seeing it, say to their friend, "gosh darn-it, I should have bought the 415 lumen version!"

Of course, some people might think that it would have made a difference, but the truth of the matter is, that beam profile has a larger impact on useful performance for an application within a ball park lumen range than the lumens themselves.

-------------

I'll send the xls file momentarily.

Thank You Justin for converting the file. It looks great!

-------------

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?

Hi oldways[/quote]

I am going to run some more numbers and try to come up with some better figures for the MN61 and MN60, I realized after building the chart that I haven't taken into account the lower losses from resistance on the higher voltage bulbs entirely on that chart for these bulbs. 9.2V may be more appropriate for a good overall performance on the MN61. Keep in mind, that the closer one gets to ~10V drive levels, the harder it is to ensure regulation though the discharge.

Stay tuned, I may change the ranges and values for some bulbs in the coming days. Of course, it's still all just very educated guess work, but I'll do the best I can. {wink wink}

-----------

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.

As you may have noticed, I've been pointing out since doing testing that the 10.8V setting just isn't going to provide much if any regulation for most bulbs. It's hard to articulate why, but I'll go ahead and throw out some numbers for folks to consider:

Fresh charged pack: 12.6V
Resistance to bulb: ~0.5Ohm (Batteries+contacts, assuming ideal conditions with clean contacts and all)
Maximum duty cycle we can run for proper voltage measurements and maintaining calibration in all modes: ~98%.
Bulb resistance (1185): ~3.2 Ohm
0.5 Ohm / 3.7 Ohm x 98% duty cycle = ~13.25% voltage drop

That's equates to 10.9V to an 1185 with AW17670s in good condition and good clean contacts. It only takes a few seconds to drop out of regulation.

This calculation assumes that the electrolytic reaction keeps up 100% with the rate demanded. There are losses there that are very hard to quantify being heavily dependent on temperature.

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've noticed a difference in runtime just by going from cells purchased about 1-1.5 year ago to cells that just arrived a few days ago. Cell age and condition are critical factors way outside our control.

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.

Yes, after taking the 2% loss from the maximum duty cycle we can run, and added resistance from contacts and such, even the 1331 and HO-M6R will not run in regulation. If they do, it isn't for long.

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.

The newer the better. I'm actually surprised to see that you got ~1.4AH from ~3 year old cells. Brand new cells are pretty close to 1.6AH. The actual stored energy is even more, but it's not usable energy unless they are drained infinitely slow. The way in which cells are used or stored over the years can have quite the impact. My ~1 year old cells probably wouldn't perform much better than your test results.

Speaking of test results, THANK YOU!!! It can not be repeated enough, you're a treasure for CPF. Keep up the good work!



---------------

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.

When comparing direct drive options, the HO-M6R is definitely a King of bulb options. It, like any other bulb in direct drive, suffers diminishing output through the discharge. but since other bulbs suffer the same, it wins in many contests.

Within the context of the PhD-M6, the HO-M6R does not win very many contests. Keep in mind that we have more contacts between the cells and the bulb as a result of the regulator being part of the circuit. We also have a 2% voltage loss purely due to the fact that the regulator can never operate at 100% duty cycle and still take proper voltage measurements for moon mode and attempted regulation.

I am personally a huge fan of the HO-M6R when direct driven on a nice low resistance 3xli-ion cell configuration. It's my #1 choice bulb for 3 cells. The PhD-M6 introduces a scenario where the HO-M6R doesn't hold it's ground against other options anywhere near as well.

With regulation, the MN21 at 6.8V walks all over the HO-M6R in pretty much any contest. Even the IMR-M3T looks better at 7.5V than the HO-M6R if compared as an "average" through the discharge (both rated the same "700" bulb lumen). The HO-M6R is hard to beat for it's tight beam pattern, but the raw punch behind it fades quickly when compared to a regulated configuration.

-----------

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...?

Hi Justin,

Post #56 in this thread by myself gives an example of the effects of PWM. The truth is, there isn't any way for me to articulate the effects of PWM without a lot of math. The translation that does not require math for the end user can be found in the "heat factor" rating in the chart that I posted before. The "heat factor" rating is like a comparison between what would have been a direct drive 2C discharge, and the effects of the PWM load presented here with different bulbs.

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.

Originally, I had suspected that it might be possible to have some worthwhile regulation in the 10.8V setting on some bulbs. After running the numbers for the chart, I have come to the conclusion that it's not a realistic expectation unless the cells are pre-heated before the discharge.

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.

I think that plan would work beautifully. My goal in setting up the recommended drive ranges was to never venture below an estimated 10 hours bulb life. The 1274 at 8V won't have a ton of bulb life, but at least at 8V, I suspect it should produce somewhat predictable behavior.

I went ahead and ran some numbers for you as I know that you like specifics (none of these numbers are truly "specific," as that would require years of testing and a lot more decimal places, but it's a ballpark to compare to the chart):

1274 @ 8.0V

Torch Lumen : ~475
Runtime: ~35 minutes
Discharge Rate: ~1.7C
"Heat Factor" : ~0.9
No continuous run limits based purely on the cell heat unless the flashlight gets uncomfortable to hold from bulb heat.

-------------

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.

I wish it were that simple.

At the time when bulbs designed for 3x li-ion cells started hitting the market, compared to many bulbs out there designed for 4xCR123 cell, the manufactures of these new "3xli-ion" bulbs decided to "call" them "13V" bulbs to help differentiate them from the "12V" bulbs being sold for 4xCR123 configurations. In truth, the 12V bulbs aren't 12V bulbs and the 13V bulbs aren't 13V bulbs. In the long run, I believe that all of these manufactures of tactical lamp assemblies have in a sort of way bitten themselves in the ankle by even attempting to use voltage in the nomenclature related to the bulbs themselves. Model numbers would have been better as perhaps they would not have ingrained the false sense of "understanding" that the voltage ratings did in many consumers. At the end of the day, none of those mistakes will matter because it's all going to LED, where they can make all new mistakes 🙂 !!!!

The LF 3xli-ion bulbs, like the HO-M6R, D36 "13" bulbs, IMR-13, and IMR-M6, are all probably designed to hit their listed bulb lumen rating at somewhere around 11.1V at the bulb (give or take, probably give). LF lists bulb lumen and not torch lumen, so I have applied the same 0.65 conversion for them just as well.

-----------

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.

Even my lux measurements confirm that the HO-M6R can outperform the MN21 in raw throw when compared fresh off the line on good cells. However, I think if you had a chance to compare the overall performance through a discharge of a similar power bulb that runs in regulation, you would find that the constant output, color temperature, and higher CRI of the regulated bulb through the discharge winds up out-performing the HO-M6R, especially when the HO-M6R is driven by the PhD-M6 which actually hurts it's performance compared to being driven "direct drive."

Eric

 

[oldways]

Will, Eric, and Lux

Thanks for the info and work:twothumbs

I think I will run four bulbs primarily.

6.8v..MN21
7.4v..MN15,MN2O
9.2v.. MN61
10.8..for hopeful future battery improvements

What is you guys opinion?

 

[Justin Case]

Yeah, I forgot about the various system resistances that suck up what little voltage leeway one might have with the 1331.

Thanks for running some estimates on the 1274. Picking 8.0V for my Level 3 is a head game battle. Should I optimize just for the 1274 and accept whatever output I get with the 1164/5607 that I also have in my inventory? If so, then I'd clearly go a little lower in voltage. Or should I also consider the 1164 and 5607 bulbs in my voltage selection, balancing 1274 performance/life with some moderate overdriving of the 1164/5607? Or optimize for the 1164/5607 (e.g., 9.0V for Level 3) and use Level 2 (7.3V) for the MN15, MN20, 1111, 64250, 1274, and 5761 (eventually, when battery technology can meet the challenge)?

I went with balancing 1274 performance/life with some moderate overdriving of the 1164/5607. The ability to fall back to Level 2 at 7.3V with the 1274 helps in that decisionmaking. I also selected a similar fall back concept for the 1111 and 5761 from Level 2 to Level 1.

Level 4 at 10.8V seems to have limited utility currently, but I'm tending toward sticking with it -- thinking to the future when there are 5V spinel Li-ions.

 

[Justin Case]

Here's a silly question, wrt to the desired Level 4 voltage of 10.8V. Can you fit and run 6x16340 cells in series in the holder?

 

[wquiles]

Can you fit and run 6x16340 cells in series in the holder?

The pack has been designed and tested to work "only" with 3x17670 LiIon protected cells.

 

[donn_]

I expect they'll fit, but the question would be if the pack circuitry can handle the doubled voltage.

You'd also cut your runtimes by a good bit.

 

[RichS]

Thanks so much for taking the time to put up the MN21 vs. MN61 beamshots Will! They were very helpful.

I have just a couple of follow-up quetions:

Since the MN61 will be the main purpose of my 9.0V level 3, based on your shots it looks like I should change this to 9.2V to get a nice white beam. Would this be your recommendation base on what you saw, or do you feel this would be pushing this bulb too close to the edge?

Also, are the above beamshots with the MN21 used at the 6.8v setting? The reason I was wondering, is my shots of the MN21 with primaries should also be running at around 6.75v, and you can see how dim it is compared to the MN21 on 2x18650s. At this voltage it even looks much dimmer than the HO-M6R. I just wanted to make sure that 6.8v is still the optimal voltage for running the MN21 based on my and your beamshots.

Eric - thanks much for your detailed explanation on the reasons this pack is less than optimal for the HO-M6R. I forgot that it was mentioned before about losing some voltage due to the additional contacts, etc. I think I'll keep the 10.8 setting for now, just to be able to run a higher voltage bulb in the future, or even the HO-M6R in a pinch. I'll still keep my DD pack for this bulb when I want to run it.

Thanks again for the lighting fast answers and all the great information you all are providing in this thread!! :twothumbs

 

[wquiles]

Since the MN61 will be the main purpose of my 9.0V level 3, based on your shots it looks like I should change this to 9.2V to get a nice white beam. Would this be your recommendation base on what you saw, or do you feel this would be pushing this bulb too close to the edge?

Yes, the MN61 at 9.2 volts was awesome. I would not push it harder. In fact, back when had two of the ill-fated HDM6's, I keep one of my M6's with an MN21 and one with the MN20. Now with my own pack, and given the 3x17670 source, I am keeping one of them with the MN20 (at 7.5 volts), and for sure going to keep the other one of my M6's with the MN61 bulb at 9.2 volts.

Also, are the above beamshots with the MN21 used at the 6.8v setting?

Yes, absolutely. 6.8 Vrms (regulated 😀 )

The reason I was wondering, is my shots of the MN21 with primaries should also be running at around 6.75v, and you can see how dim it is compared to the MN21 on 2x18650s. At this voltage it even looks much dimmer than the HO-M6R. I just wanted to make sure that 6.8v is still the optimal voltage for running the MN21 based on my and your beamshots.

Way too many things different between your setup and mine. Even changing the manual exposure would make things brighter or dimmer - too many variables make it impossible to directly compare my beamshots to anyone else's. That being said, yes, 6.8Vrms on the PhD-M6 "is" the optimal and correct drive level for the MN21. Driving the MN21 harder will only give you even shorter cell life, more heat wasted in the cells, shorter runtimes, and a shorter life for the bulb.

 

[mdocod]

Warning: Picking voltage options may cause hemorrhaging, temporary blindness, vomiting, dizziness, or dry-mouth, there is also an increased risk of stroke and heart attack associated with the procedure.

My recommendations:

• Avoid splitting bulbs with different needs across a half-way compromise on 1 voltage setting. All this will result in is a drive level that is always over or under driving something.
• Ask yourself, If you could only have one regulated output, what would that be? Make sure that you have that in your group of 4.
• Pick at minimum 1 drive level, preferably 2 or more, that offers a practical reliable drive option for few bulbs. The rest can be experimental or performance oriented, just try not to shoot yourself in the foot with a whole list of drive levels that are all abusive towards bulbs.

------------

Hi RichS, WQuiles,

Keep in mind that higher wattage bulbs have more filament material to work with, they can often achieve higher CCT levels with the same bulb life as a lower wattage bulb. The MN21 will out-perform most lower power bulbs in CCT with about the same bulb life.

I did run numbers for the MN61 with a few more considerations wrapped up in there and came up with something pretty close to 9.2V to theoretically match the drive intensity of the MN11/16/[email protected]


------------

Justin,

How about:
6.8V: MN16/21/WA1111/64250/5761/1160/GE787
7.2V: MN15/MN20//N2/WA1111/64250/HO-M3T/EO-M3T/IMR-M3T/1274/5761/N62/GE787
7.7V: MN15/MN20//N2/N62/HO-M3T/EO-M3T/IMR-M3T/1274
9.2V: MN61/WA1164/JC5607

I wouldn't suggest picking a value today that is based on the assumption of a cell coming out in the future. The 17670 size isn't very popular so I don't know what all advancements if any we are going to see in that size.


Eric

 

[Starlight]

Everyone needs to stop obsessing over .1V or .2V. You CAN'T see any difference, so why worry.

 

[RichS]

Will/Eric - thanks so much for the quick replies.

OK - I'm making these my final custom levels based on all the info I've learned recently, and the primary bulbs I will be using on each setting. Then I'm shutting down my computer before I read something else and change my mind again...:duh2:

6.8V: MN21
7.4V: MN15/MN20/WA1111
9.2V: MN61
10.8V: HO-M6R/WA1331

 

[oldways]

Will/Eric - thanks so much for the quick replies.

OK - I'm making these my final custom levels based on all the info I've learned recently, and the primary bulbs I will be using on each setting. Then I'm shutting down my computer before I read something else and change my mind again...:duh2:

6.8V: MN21
7.4V: MN15/MN20/WA1111
9.2V: MN61
10.8V: HO-M6R/WA1331

:hahaha::hahaha: I feel the same way:buddies:

 

[Not So Bright]

After looking over the chart, I would like the following levels:
6.8 V
7.2 V
9.2 V
10.8 V

Thanks for making this happen.

 

[Steve in SoCal]

6.8V: MN16/21/WA1111/64250/5761/1160/GE787
7.2V: MN15/MN20//N2/WA1111/64250/HO-M3T/EO-M3T/IMR-M3T/1274/5761/N62/GE787
7.7V: MN15/MN20//N2/N62/HO-M3T/EO-M3T/IMR-M3T/1274
9.2V: MN61/WA1164/JC5607


I'm digging those levels, I may need to update my custom settings.

 

[Justin Case]

Justin,

How about:
6.8V: MN16/21/WA1111/64250/5761/1160/GE787
7.2V: MN15/MN20//N2/WA1111/64250/HO-M3T/EO-M3T/IMR-M3T/1274/5761/N62/GE787
7.7V: MN15/MN20//N2/N62/HO-M3T/EO-M3T/IMR-M3T/1274
9.2V: MN61/WA1164/JC5607

Those are very interesting settings.

I have many 1111, 64250, 5761, 1274, 1164, 5607, and 1331/1318 bulbs. I have some N62s, but since they are rare and discontinued, I probably will just stare at them unused. Perhaps that's silly. I have a few stock SF TH bulbs -- MN15, MN20, MN21. No MN61s. No Lumens Factory bulbs.

I'm definitely set on 6.8V for Level 1.

I suppose if I had any MN61 lamps, then 9.2V for Level 4 would make sense. But having a setting only for admittedly impractical bulbs like the 1164 and 5607 (for my case) seems a waste. At 10.8V, I get useful application out of a 1331/1318, even if I don't get regulated operation.

My original 7.3V for Level 2 seems like a fair balance for the MN15 vs 1111. Do you think that 7.2V really provides an important advantage over 7.3V (of course, one could also ask the reverse question -- what does 7.3V offer over 7.2V)? If I had a Level 3 at 7.7V, then I can see dropping Level 2 slightly. But I think I'm willing to take a chance at 8.0V for Level 3 (which would be too much for the MN15, MN20, and 1111). The 1164 and 5607 are not overdriven by a lot at 8.0V, and seem to me to have a bit more practicality than running them at 9.2V (I could be wrong). To me, the biggest risk is with the 1274. It seems like 8.0V is "safe" based on Lux's destructive data. But his data is based on DC power supply input to the bulbs with essentially a manual (and slow) soft start.

I assume that you have some reservations on running a 1274 at 8.0V. That is the upper limit in your chart for the recommended voltage range.

What if I go with 7.9V for Level 3?

 

[LuxLuthor]

Hopefully, Rich shut down his computer....but I do see his green online light still lit. LOL!

Eric, thanks for your recent responses. Really great, practical information. This whole thing is getting a bit too confusing and beginning to resemble all of us assembling in a circular firing squad formation!

In any case, one last thing I wanted to check--separate from the numbers on papers and charts--is the actual appearance and performance of the HO-M6R ("HO") & 1185 bulbs with the regulator set at 10.8V.

This is the first time I took the HO out of the box and actually used it, and I agree it is a nice looking beam. It remained a nice looking bulb, with a nice white color on whitewall for the 30 mins I ran it (in timed 5 min segments). The 1185 actually ran fine with the pack using these cells, and kept a nice white color for the 15 mins I tested it (in 5 min segments). However, the 1185 had that pronounced oval pattern with a center hotspot, because of its transverse filament. I actually didn't like it as much as the HO.

Just for the heck of it, I took some Amp & Voltage readings at intervals, touching the probe to the back contact of pack, and other to side wall of body (with tailcap off). Both used AC+DC settings on my Fluke 182.

The HO showed:

Start - 12.32 Vbat (4.1 V/cell) ; 1.98A
7min - 11.88 Vbat (3.96 V/cell)
10min - 11.61 Vbat (3.87V/cell)
15min - 11.34 Vbat (3.78V/cell)
20min - 11.15 Vbat (3.72V/cell)
25min - 11.02 Vbat (3.67V/cell) ; 1.84A
30min - 10.90 Vbat (3.63V/cell)
​

The 1185 showed (Destructive chart here)

Start - 12.34 Vbat (4.1 V/cell) ; 3.22A
10 min - 11.39 Vbat (3.8 V/cell) ; 3.16A
15 min - 11.06 Vbat (3.69 V/cell) ; 3.05A
​

So even though it appears that the 1185 is starting out of regulation (my destructive testing says it should be getting 3.35A at 10.8V), it still gives 15 mins of a nice looking beam.

So for those keeping the 10.8V, you still have better practical performance in <3.5 Amp bulbs than I would have expected with these aging 17670 cells of mine. I think just for the hell of it, I'm gonna throw in a Hikari 5067 and run it at 10.8V (which should actually perform between the blue 4Amp and purple 5Amp lines on my cell testing graphs) and see what happens now. What's the worst that could happen? :tinfoil: Wish me luck!

Edit: The 5067 ran fine on the 10.8V setting, but it looks like it dropped to direct drive at 9.9V because the Amp reading I took on startup was 4.55 Amps. However, even with two spacer washers, the bulb was too far into the reflector, and looked like crap. I'm gonna scratch using this bulb in this application. So I'm back to keeping my last settings posted in the thread of:

Level 1: 6.8V (MN21 & 1160)
Level 2: 7.4V (MN15, MN20, N62, 1111)
Level 3: 9.3V (MN61, 1164)
Level 4: 10.8V (HO-M6R, 1185, 1331)

​

Will, no other issues, bugs, or problems noted with everything I could think of to test the pack and driver.

It's not a problem, but every time I first engaged the tailcap, there was always a momentary closed circuit, light flash before getting threads engaged.

As far as I am concerned the pack is good to go--Final Answer! Great work you and Eric!

 

[wquiles]

Lux, thanks much for the feedback and additional testing - much appreciated :bow:

It's not a problem, but every time I first engaged the tailcap, there was always a momentary closed circuit, light flash before getting threads engaged.

Yes, this means the regulator's bulb detection algorithm is working :devil:

What happens is that as you start to screw the tailcap, the inner contact surface of the tailcap (the one that has that inner O-ring) momentarily makes contact with the body of the light, which briefly closes the circuit. As the circuit is now closed, the PhD-M6 wakes up and starts to work, and starts doing the soft-start => this is the light flash that you see.

Here in the right side of this picture you can see the inner piece with O-ring that I am talking about (newer insert on top - very old one on bottom). And as you can see, it does have a small forward "lip", right before the O-ring starts (facing down in this picture, or towards the bulb as it is being inserted into the M6's body). It is this lip, which when touches the body of the M6 (although briefly), which closes the circuit path:

Now, as you keep inserting the tailcap, and it gets aligned with the threads, the O-ring in that inner contact surface finally disconnects the connection to the body, so once the PhD-M6 "sees" that there is no longer a connection, it goes to sleep again. This is why the light flash that you see is only momentary. The PhD-M6 properly detected that brief moment when you were installing the tailcap and briefly closing the circuit, but then it goes asleep again once the circuit is open by the O-ring. Of course, once you close the circuit on purpose by screwing the tailcap all of the way, or by pressing the button, the PhD-M6 again detects the circuit is made and starts to work all over again.

 

[LuxLuthor]

OK, thanks for that explanation mainly that it is flashing with the soft start engaged which was my only concern. Sent last few instructions document corrections by email. :kiss: