OK! OK! I will do a 2nd run of M6-R's

[andrewwynn]

I'm definitely a character, yeah i do know it, please don't be offended.. if so.. please tell me.. definitely not intended... i do get loopy at times though.

1.. strongly beg to differ.. a light that costs $25-100/hr to operate when it should costs pennies.. has a very big problem, that should be solved.. that is my point about fixing.

2... MB20... if talking about the holder.. that is an asbolute work of art.. i've not exactly figured out what order they wired them up but it's a beautiful piece of work.. the one in the light i have did not have enough spring tension but the design is such it took 1 minute to fix that.. 3 of the springs did not hold the batteries very tight.. but they are solid metal not coiled springs like the ones we melt in our AA adapters. I was talking about using primary 123cells at 4.9A.. that's a foolish thing, plain and simple.. primary lithium cells are 1.3AH cells.. pushing them to 3.8C is borderline crazy. i'm surprised they don't explode.. (glad they don't explode, just surprised). Consider that... at 4.9A say.. for 20 minutes.. that's 816mAH.. from 1300mAH cells.. that means that 40% of the stored energy in the cells is thrown out by pulling the current out so fast.

[edit].. my goof.. i know and knew that the cells are series-parallel.. but goofed and forgot to divide by two... the reality is that 2.45A is only 1.88C which though high.. as JS very wisely points out below..the most POWER is obtained from any power source at 50% efficiency.. reminding me of electronics school days.. so it's a very logical conclusion theirfore to push the batteries that hard to maximize power transfer at the (extreme) cost of.. well cost.. and also efficiency.. it's a valuable and understandable tradeoff.. without that math error .. i'm sure much of the following debate would have been avoided.. sorry folks... it was pretty late.

2a.. since with virtually NO modification you can fit NINE cells of the same size in.. it could be a simple series-parallel solution which would bring the current drain per stack down tremendously but of course would probably blow the bulb.. it never fails to amaze me how much space inside a battery compartment is NOT BATTERIES.. like the mag.. which always looks like it's 1 more cell than it is because of how big the switch mechanism is and battery spring is.

3... i've not had any luck searching cpf since the changover.. example... trying to find the runtime output graph of the USL.. etc.. it's very frustrating.. Not sure that a preview of exactly what the pack was/is/does would make any diff. for a post but you are correct about 'good form'... mea culpa.

4. LOTC? Does that mean either the holder for the cells which i don't recommend modifying.. or the bulb holder? I believe that the SF bulbs are worth what they cost.. that quite likley it's not possible to come up with a better solution for putting in the M6.. but when i run the numbers and it is feasible to put an 1185 bulb into an M6.. and run it 2x as long as the MN21.. I dunno.. to me, that's interesting and should be followed up on.. it may well be a total bust in which case im completely prepared to work on the add'l plan of putting the regulator into the light between the battery pack and the bulb so you can use standard bulbs and blamo.. very cool note about the other bulb that works at the same voltage as the MN21.. very cool.

5... i agree on the MN21.. haven't seen the MN20.. the problem is not the bulb, the light, but the power plant.. if that wasn't the case this thread wouldn't exist.

I have 'heard' about the M6-R.. and i'm blown away that there aren't more like it.. it's awesome for you to pave the way.. i can only be a copy cat now

I like the philosophy you present.. quality over quantity... Why'd you think i'm so interested in those ring-potted lamps!

-awr

 

[js]

Andrew,

Look, I know you're an intelligent and clever guy, and I am impressed by your work, so don't take this the wrong way, but,

THINK AND RESEARCH BEFORE YOU POST, MAN!

You don't know what the hell you're talking about. Stop. Stop now. And do some research on the M6. OK?

You should not criticize something you don't understand.

The M6 with MN21 is pulling 4.9 amps from two parallel stacks of three 123's.. This is just under 2.5 amps per stack of 123's, and is not too much. It is, I will grant you, the upper limit, but it is not OVER the limit. The P61, P91, MN16, and many others are designed to draw about 2.5 amps from a stack of 123's. Yes, you are wasting some energy in heat losses to the internal resistance, but so what? The power delivered is still high and the equlivalent delivered-energy density is still good.

Do me a favor, Andrew, and stop clogging up my thread with criticisms of the M6 that are based on an incomplete and faulty understanding of the light.

You are an intelligent and capable guy, and people can see that from your posts, so when you spread mis-information around, it is that much more serious. A newbie will look at your post and start thinking that the M6 was poorly designed, when nothing could be further from the truth. Are you following me, here?

As for what a light should cost to operate, that is not your decision to make for everyone else. Everyone gets to make that decision for him or herself, based on the appropriate criterion. As I mentioned, saving a few $100 over a year is pointless if it is a matter of life and death. Things like this are relative, Andrew.

Ever wonder why the Beast runs on 123's? Probably because a border patrol can just carry a whole lot of 123's in their truck or helicopter and be ready to "recharge" their light in a minute and be good to go again for another hour or two.

And besides all of that, the M6 only costs $25 to operate an hour if you run it constant on for an entire hour! Who does that?

Look, I know recreationally it's great to have a rechargeable solution, but if I were a Military or LEO or special forces dude, I would go for the MN20 and a whole lot of 123's. And I would get a spare MB20 battery holder. So I spend an extra $100 or $200 a year due to batteries? So friggin' what? That's nothing.

Now please. Stop arguing with me until you learn something about the M6.

 

[PeterB]

I can only second Jim! The M6 with standard LA and the PWM rechargeable pack is simply an optimal solution (for hobby, for professional use I would still use the 123's) . Why should anyone use an LDO converter or WA lamps.
Only the guys, which compare bulb lumen to SF lumen could consider such a switch. And I think the risk to ruin the turbo head by an outgasing holder or an exploding lamp is also increased.
I'm also surprised by the shown lack of etiquette.

 

[js]

PeterB,

Thanks for the post! I wonder how many other people would agree that for some professional uses the 123's are still the best solution? Might be an interesting poll in the incan forum.

As for lack of etiquette, guilty as charged. I should have been more civil and stuck to the facts. But since it was Andrew, I figured what the heck :devil: LOL! We're actually exchanging emails at this very moment, so everyone should know that there are no hard feelings. I suppose I hold Andrew to a higher standard because he SHOULD already have figured out the wiring of the MB20 and voltage under load, and all that stuff. He will in a couple days or a week or so, anyway, so why not wait until then to post? And let it be noted that I restrained myself in Andrews own thread even if I didn't here.

 

[andrewwynn]

IMHO... only use for primary cell/high power light.. is if your M.O. is 10min/mo or less.. in which case.. rechargeables are absolutely pointless.. I'm designing a light myself that there is a thread on.. 800BL light from primary.. uses 9CR123As..it will ALSO run from 6x17500 cells in the exact same battery pack.. and that is my gripe.. that is how i'd have designed the M6... since it can hold the same exact configuration my light can.. it is really troubling that it does not have a factory rechargeable solution.

For any low-use lights.. primary really is the way to go.. high-use.. it's extremely wasteful.. there wouldn't be this thread if that wasn't the case.. there is a reason there is a strong demand for the M6-R.

Not sure what are my faulty or incomplete understandings.. there almost could not be a simpler design.. it doesn't even have a switch, talk about rugged simplicity..

4.9A / 2 = 2.45A per group.. that means if depleted in 20 minutes.. 2.45A*1/3H = .817 AH.. if pulling that from a 1.4AH cell.. means you are throwing .58AH from every cell away.. 42%.. that is very wasteful IMHO.. i didn't say it doesn't work.. but i can tell you that head-to-head with a regulated light that has similar output.. the M6 pales in output in just 5 minutes, so i know there 'has gotta be a better way'.

I agree about the life-saving line.. i happen to think that it'd be better/safer/wiser to have a freshly charged battery pack at the ready than a bunch of toss away cells.. and i also believe it's the very best to have a set of primaries ready for the 'real emergencies'.. best of both worlds.. i have nothing against using primary cells at the right times... i design and use some lights with them.. one of my favorite is the K.I. which i managed to get the model w/o the capability of using the RcR2.. and i love it a lot.

My personal opinion of why the beast uses primary cells is because SF sells a lot of batteries that way.. it'd be in the came league as the M6 in that regard but worse 'cause it wastes more precious resources, like time and money and oil... I can not believe there wouldn't be a better solution that uses rechargeable cells.. anybody that uses a light for their job could and should understand how to manage and maintain a battery... and again.. it should have a primary cell backup because Lithium primaries can not be beat for standby.

it costs $25/hr even if you use it one minute at a time..

with the MN20.. that is a much more sensible solution that i don't have anywhere near as much a gripe about.. but.. consider the likes of other possibilities in such a nice big battery tube.. at least 2x the runtime is easily obtainable.. and without losing the ability to use the really marvy primary 123 cells as well.

If the light is used sparingly .. the primary solution is definitely the best.. the three worst things for flashlights.. 1) turn it on.. batteries are dead.. 2) turn it on.. bulb flashes.. 3).. try to turn it on.. nothing happens because the switch is shot.

1).. not likely to happen unexpectedly with Li primary cells..
2).. not likely to happen with Li primary cells with their high resistance
3).. can't happen... no switch..

So.. three strikes your in with the M6.. but i like to USE my lights.. i can go through a couple 20 minute charges in a day.. i blew through 1/2 the M6 battery pack while trying to conserve in a single night of demos..

The problem i have is just the lack of an readily available rechargeable solution for the M6... i think that is a tragic customer disservice that i believe you are filling the need for, so three cheers for that for sure.

I think there has got to be some irony in the fact you're arguing the points of virtue for using primary cells on a thread about the logical replacement for those.. a rechargeable battery pack.

You've got all valid points, not saying they weren't.. my claim from the beginning was that the 'whole' of the M6 needed 'fixing' in the form of a rechargeable battery solution, so it seems humorous to me that somehow the creator of said solution.. is arguing against my point... see my point?

anyhow.. keep making they sound really cool, and IMHO, desperately needed.. glad ya came up with it and glad people want them, 'cause they make so much sense.

Sorry about pushin buttons i had thought i was payin' you a compliment, not sure how it got turned around, but no hard feelin' ok?

-awr

 

[cy]

LOTC means lock out tail cap and one of most robust switch designs ever made.

M6 along with all of Surefire's bulbs are engineering marvels. construction is designed from the ground up to survive harsh impact.

note how ground strap and positive wire is welded to springs.
further note how springs are over-sized to support entire load of battery pack and/or cell's mass.

M6's ground spring along with foam in front of reflector is designed to isolate entire reflector/bulb assembly from rigors of gunfire.

M6 is a particularly well thought out and designed light for a particular mission.

only I disgree with JS's assessment that M6R not be used a mission critical operation (carrying a backup std M6 pack loaded with 123's). mine has proven it'self equal to 123's. besides using new surefire 123 has it's own operation failure mode however small.

naturally away from any rechargable source. 123's are still the only real option.

 

[andrewwynn]

i noticed each and every point you made.. absolutely marvelous how the whole reflector is held with the bulb as one piece between a spring and a foam donut.. the mass of the reflector would act to hold the bulb from moving as much when shocked.. i did notice the welding.. and some tricky little speckles on the bottom of the spring that can only be some tricky contact enhancement.

I never said i wanted to defeat the LOTC.. only to make the switch one-handed operation.. making the button on the back a latching button so i'd have momentary, latching and you can still LOTC.

In answer to the why use LDO.. so you have constant reliable output start to finish, not slowly dimming light.. you can run the bulb brighter because you don't have to 'hold back' the average voltage to make sure you don't melt the bulb with fresh batteries.. those are pretty good things.

The 'downside'.. one more part to fail.. the M6 is absolutely awesome in its simplicity.. probably a very big part of why the decision was made to not have rechargeable solutions.. more parts to break.. 123s are really reliable.

Sorry to be blunt but a comment about why primary cells are not a good option in a thread about replacing them with rechargeable ones it not 'out of line'... it is the fitting place to say 'good show'.. and 'about time'. which is what i was saying, not sure why that somehow got turned into a bad thing. So.. 'good show' and 'about time' (regarding making the M6-R'.. i agree with it's concept and function and use and sale wholeheartedly.. boorah.

-awr

 

[PeterB]

As for lack of etiquette, guilty as charged. QUOTE]

Jim, I didn't address your posts! For me it is not appropiate to promote a (not yet existing) solution in another persons thread.

 

[js]

PeterB,

OK. Got it.

cy,

I never meant to say that my M6-R pack was not appropriate for mission critical use! It would depend on the mission. If you were an LEO with a car charger, and backup MB20, yeah baby, go for it. In that situation, the M6-R would be great. Lightraven would fit this case.

But if you were going into the deep woods for a week or two, then obviously a rechargeable pack might not be such a great idea. How would you recharge it?

I look for balance in all things. I am not "promoting" primary cells over a rechargeable solution. Nor did I "promote" or push my M6-R rechargeable solution over primaries when I first unveiled the M6-R. A fair and balanced view would see that both power sources have their advantages and disadvantages.

Now, Andrew,

that's a foolish thing, plain and simple.. primary lithium cells are 1.3AH cells.. pushing them to 3.8C is borderline crazy. i'm surprised they don't explode..

4.9/1.3 = 3.76 C. So clearly you were assuming that all 4.9 amps came from a single stack of cells. And your comments about "borderline crazy" and "explode" also clearly point to this assumption. And this assumption is wrong.

As for how much energy is wasted, who cares? In fact, if you do the differential calculus, you will see that maximum power transfer will occur when fully HALF of the energy is wasted in the cells, right? The HOLA is not for extracting the most energy from the batteries as possible. It is for getting the most LIGHT as possible from the power source, regardless of runtime.

You are so far from giving SureFire their due, from crediting them with intelligence and experience, that it kinda rubs me the wrong way.

As does your comment that SF made the Beast use 123's so that they could sell more batteries.

Let's not go making wild accusations towards a company which is so obviously devoted to making high quality flashlights.

Please, Andrew, give SureFire some small amount of respect.

And now, let's drop this discussion. I hear what you're saying and you hear what I'm saying. No need to repeat.

 

[andrewwynn]

Actually that is a very good point about the half wasted energy for max power transfer.. i did learn that and it does make sense for that to be almost what is happening with the M6.. it would be where the max power is pulled..

The solution is a logical conclusion in many ways, not saying the good parts aren't great, but saying the bad parts are bad, why not make a better solution, which you are doing and i am doing, that really was my point.

Ya know what i did goof on the 3.8C comment that was a math error.. i am and was aware the light uses two stacks of 3 batteries.. and the other math was done correctly.. 1.88C is not remotly crazy, just 'pushing the envelope'..

I don't think it's wrong to point out the tremendous amount of waste in the likes of 'the beast'.. My opinion is there is a better solution.. and it might be pushing the envelope to say SF makes lights w/o recharegables specifically so they can sell batteries but IMO that is how it comes off because i have seen the light with good rechargeable solutions and SF should have more environmentally and ecomically sound solutions.. they do make the 10x dominator as a rechargeable light, why don't they make the beast and the M6 with rechargeable soliutions.. it's less than optimal to say the least.. that's the whole claim.

My point summarized is that SF who knows how to make arguably the best lights, a class in which the M6 belongs.. should also be fitting the light with the best power plant, a class in which I don't believe Lithium primaries belong. the power density is far greater with the right set of LiON or NiMH cells.

It's not disrespectful to say that in one (or two) of the hundreds of lights that they should have done it a different way.. I'm not alone in thinking that it's borderline silly to spend $25/hr to run a light that can be run for less than 2cents/hour. No disrespect is meant.. i think that SF 'dropped the ball' to not have a rechargeable solution for such awesome lights that should have one... I believe that it was likely 'bean counting' that caused the decisison rather than customer service mindset, that doesn't mean SF is 'bad' or that i think they are evil, i just think they could have and should have done a better job in this case... and i think it's fair to be vocal about it.. maybe they'll fix it.

So.. like you said.. we got all our points out, time to move on, i agree. Sorry about the math error that got me to make the 'crazyness' comment.. that was definitely a goof, i got into a whole tangent i'd not have otherwise... 1.88C is just 'a lot'.. and probably really close to the maximum power which is a viable, logical, though expensive decision.. just consider the cells 800MAH cells and than it all makes sense.

So sorry about causing a ruckus.. not sorry about saying rechargeables should be used vs primary cells in a light like the M6.. now i'm done.

-awr

 

[kongfuchicken]

Not that I want any part of the argument but the M6 was not designed for everyday/duty use and not advertised as such. It's a "special operations" light intended for people who are likely to work where a power outlet and charger is not available but whose jobs will provide plenty of primary 123 cells.
There is nothing wrong with the M6 design; the M6-R just makes it a better light for us regular Flashaholics...

 

[tvodrd]

I believe the Beast was advertized to have a 90 minute runtime on its 4X 15V 20 cells. I suspect that's typically SF conservative, based on the one PK left on at the SHOT CPF party this year. I haven't bothered to time mine. I have seen/fondled a LiIon rechargable Beast that had charge contacts on the sides and charging indication LEDs. The charger/cradle was integral to the carrying case.

The M6R is bitchin! :bow: js

Larry

 

[js]

OK Andrew. Thanks for the comments and opinions.

kongfuchicken,

Yes, that was my goal. I wanted to provide another power option, an accessory. I wanted to provide a component that would be worthy to keep company with the other SF M6 components. Obviously, SureFire would do a better job, but I feel as if I have done the best I could with the resources I had. And I am very, very happy that people are so pleased with their M6-R packs. And I am rather embarrased and disappointed that it is taking me so damn long to get them out the door. Oh well.

Larry,

Thanks for the compliment!

Everyone,

A quick note:

If you send me a "notify" email, it may take me a week or so to send you a confirmation email back. But I will do so. If you don't get one within a reasonable amount of time, send me another email and ask me what's up. Everyone should get a reply saying that they have been added to the notify list and that they will get an email a week or two before the opening of the 2nd run signup thread.

OK. Thanks everyone!

 

[andrewwynn]

Back on topic, sorry about the rukkus earlier.. after using the tip of searching by cpf handle i was able to find the original thread describing the M6-R.. and really dug the explanation of why NiMH vs. LiON... and the phrase.. LiON is inside-the-box and using the right NiMH is outside the box..been doing a bunch of research on the A-size NiMH for my own project and i am so not a NiMH guy and yet I just ordered 44 NiMH cells of A and AA size from CBP..

after playing with the M6 more.. I'm really glad for the M6-R for those who own it I can't wait to see the one i have regulated it's such a nice light and bulb... I personally would never considered buying the M6 w/o renewable power plant, but with the M6-R i sure would..

-awr

 

[js]

Well,

I've been thinking a lot lately about how to make the 2nd run easier on me and faster for the buyers and about how to deal with the large number of orders I am likely to get. I have decided to look into getting welded packs made up--that will save a lot of time--and having Willie Hunt re-design the board to make it easier for me to remote mount the FET. Right now I solder lead wires onto the FET and then solder those wires onto the board, but if the board were re-designed I could simply bend the tips of the FET leads down into three properly spaced and sized holes, and solder them up in a jiffy.

And then there are a few more simple changes that would simplify the connection of the charging wire leads. Plus, if I could get a company to make up the copper end caps, with contact material coating and all, that would speed things up.

And so on.

I'll be looking into all this, because as it is right now, I can't seem to get the time per pack much below 8 hours.

 

[PaulW]

Jim,

Eight hours per pack. Wow!!

I agree. There has to be a better way.

You may already have thought of this, but I'll bet that if you start a thread asking for thoughts about how to make the job more efficient, you'd get some useful ideas. There are a lot of smart and experienced people who I think would love to be of help.

Paul

 

[js]

Paul,

Good idea. I'll do that. For now though--for the 1st run--I'm stuck with doing it the way I've been doing it. The result is great, but yes, it does take some time. I should have kept better track of how much time the various jobs were taking, then I would have been more realistic in my time estimates. But yes, between prepping and tinning all the batteries, and adding kapton insulators to the positive ends, and end-to-end soldering them, and wrapping them in kapton tape, and trimming the tape, and gluing them into packs, and making the connections. And making the end caps, and brazing them, and sanding them, and prepping the regulators and FETs, and making the charging cables and charging connectors, and assembling and soldering everything, and shrink wrapping, and cutting the holes in the top kapton tape over the end-caps, and labeling, and packing everything up, and so on . . . it just takes a lot of time, and I can only get so efficient and so streamlined, below that there is simply an unavoidable baseline of about 7-8 hours of tedius, precision work.

But the 2nd run will have to be different, and yes, I'll solicit opinions on how to make the process less time consuming. Thanks for the idea.

 

[andrewwynn]

JS.. email sent.

 

[Luna]

And then there are a few more simple changes that would simplify the connection of the charging wire leads. Plus, if I could get a company to make up the copper end caps, with contact material coating and all, that would speed things up

What is the shape of the caps?

 

[andrewwynn]

you should be able to make the end caps with 4oz copper PCB.. with a contact rivet or such on the pos. end, etc.. if i get a good look at the design i will help you figure out a way to streamline it.. i've dropped 2/3 of the time out of each nano since i started.... i don't even WANT to know how long they took originally.. but on my future projects assembly streamlining is the highest priority.

-awr