M180-KL2 by milkyspit ... review/pics
- Thread starter Kiessling
- Start date
Help Support Candle Power Flashlight Forum
milkyspit
Flashlight Enthusiast
HiKing, I'm gonna rely on someone else to pass judgment on how far the M180 can throw. What I can say with certainty is that it's about 40 yards from the street in front of our house to the garage doors, and the M180 has no trouble at all in getting at least that far. 
Lumenation
Newly Enlightened
Where can I buy this and how much does it cost? Also I have a Surefire C3 and wanted to know if the LeefDapter will work that fits Surefire C series to M series
milkyspit
Flashlight Enthusiast
Lumenation said:
Lumenation, the M180-KL2 costs $245 plus shipping, and yes, the LeefDapter will work... in fact, a minor bit of trivia: I was the one who asked Leef to make the LeefDapter in the first place, to expand the options as far as what the Project-M heads could fit on!
Bernie's M180-KL2-C2M-C2 combo is really nice... here are the latest runtimes from Leef for that head with various battery types...
Bernie, the LeefDapter plus a LightHound E2CBezel look surprisingly good together, and allow you to hook your M180-KL2 head to pretty much any SureFire-compatible tube in existence. :naughty:
skalomax
Flashlight Enthusiast
Also Got Mine From Sir Milky Himself and Must Say It Is a Great Flashlight With Great Output and It looks Extremely Sexy with the SW02 Tailcap.
Great Light!
Great Light!
D MacAlpine
Newly Enlightened
Kiessling said:
More voltage = less current drawn from the cells = less voltage sag = less current........
I'm guessing that because the cells are treated more gently they give up more of their potential capacity (plus it could be that the converter is more efficent at higher voltages as you say). It looks like there may be some evidence of the same effect with the rechargeable cells, but to a lesser extent (because of the protection circuit cutting in?).
Or it might just be "Milky Magic"........
milkyspit
Flashlight Enthusiast
D MacAlpine said:More voltage = less current drawn from the cells = less voltage sag = less current........
I'm guessing that because the cells are treated more gently they give up more of their potential capacity (plus it could be that the converter is more efficent at higher voltages as you say). It looks like there may be some evidence of the same effect with the rechargeable cells, but to a lesser extent (because of the protection circuit cutting in?).
Or it might just be "Milky Magic"........
Bernie, you noticed that, eh?
Pretty much like D Macalpine said. At the risk of being redundant, and in no particular order... closer the input voltage comes to the output voltage, the more efficient the converter will run... the less current pulled from the cells, the closer to spec capacity they will come... when you put these two things together it really does make a difference. The lesson at least for Project-M lights is this: given a choice between lower voltage with high capacity vs. higher voltage with less capacity, the higher voltage will usually be the better choice... as long as you don't exceed the max input voltage for your light! oo:We have seen this in the past in a very clear way when the DB converter first hit the streets. But the effect wasn't no way as pronounced as it shows here.
That's why I am wondering if there isn't a methodical glitch somewhere in this chart? Not that I would doubt the enormous knowledge and attention to detail that went into it :nana: ... but still ... one has to ask ... :wave:
bernie
That's why I am wondering if there isn't a methodical glitch somewhere in this chart? Not that I would doubt the enormous knowledge and attention to detail that went into it
:nana: ... but still ... one has to ask ... :wave:bernie
milkyspit
Flashlight Enthusiast
Kiessling said:We have seen this in the past in a very clear way when the DB converter first hit the streets. But the effect wasn't no way as pronounced as it shows here.
That's why I am wondering if there isn't a methodical glitch somewhere in this chart? Not that I would doubt the enormous knowledge and attention to detail that went into it
bernie
Bernie, first of all, Leef did the runtimes so it's all his fault!
Okay, just kidding... Leef really DID do the runtimes and he's human like all of us (uh, I think), but I'm not so sure there's a mistake there at all.3x123 happens to be a special case with the M180 head, because the three series emitters on the output side only require something around 9.5V to run... so when driven off 3x123 the converter needs to do very little boosting at all for most of the runtime, and that means virtually no heat generation, no inductor saturation, and all the other little things that contribute to converter inefficiency. I wouldn't be at all surprised if converter efficiency were approaching 100% in this case.
On 2x123 the converter does need to do some boosting, and when battery voltage starts to sag the converter's demand for current is INCREASING... just at the moment the poor little cells probably can't deliver the increased demand... and things go downhill from there. My guess is the converter begins operation with efficiency around 90% and toward the end of the run converter efficiency really takes a hit... and so do the cells... the demand for higher current flow toward the end probably wipes them out pretty quickly.
Bottom line is: it MIGHT be an error... or it might not! :nana:
As an aside... the other day I hooked an M180 head to an M2C adapter, then an E2C adapter, then an Arc LS clicky 1x123 pack with a single CR2 primary in it... and it ran! I bet that configuration doesn't run for long! But the point is: it DID run. Off a single CR2 primary, not even fresh!
Similar threads
