OLIGHT M20 WARRIOR SST50 TITANIUM LIMITED EDITION

[HKJ]

Bare Al. lights accumulate an oxide that interferes with conduction. This is a disadvantage when lights are designed with conduction through the threads to complete the circuit. Although it works to some extent, it is unreliable.

Just to put you statement in perspective: Lights like Fenix, Quark and OLight are not chemkoted and they usual works.

But this discussion does not really belong here, we obvious both like Ti light and you are convinced that there are more advantages than I believe there are.

 

[wapkil]

I believe you are mistaken here.
5.6W is far less than what most larger MC-E or SSC-P7 lights are driven at.
They are normally driven at 10 - 12W.
Driven at spec MC-E or SSC-P7 leds need 2.8A and roughly 4V which equates to 11.2 Watts.

An MC-E at maximum specified current of 700mA has Vf of 3.4V so ~9.5W. My point was that this light at 1.75A is driven much harder than any other small, single die flashlight. Even in these lights there are temperature problems so I don't see how it should not be a concern in something that produces 50%-100% more heat.

The SST-50 is clearly driven nowhere near spec in this Titanium light and is still outputting a very respectable 500 lumens.
This will put out next to no heat and the Titanium host will be more than adequate to handle it.

The specifications are not written for "typical conditions present in small flashlights". You could try to put inside an CSM-360, and (if the battery would be able to power it) at half of the maximum current it would consume 40W, heat up and die, if the driver is not killed before.

I don't know how the titanium affects the thermal situation inside a flashlight but with this LED at 500lm heat is definitely not a problem that can be ignored.

What about strength, durability, and non-corrosiveness? To many these are all big advantages too.

The mechanical properties of (hard anodized) aluminum are completely sufficient for me. I don't know about non-corrosiveness but I know that titanium oxide is conductive. I think it may also create a layer preventing from additional oxidation. I forgot to mention it, although I don't know if oxidation of aluminum flashlight bodies can be a problem (haven't experienced it yet).

 

[easilyled]

An MC-E at maximum specified current of 700mA has Vf of 3.4V so ~9.5W. My point was that this light at 1.75A is driven much harder than any other small, single die flashlight.

Your argument is misleading because quite clearly, even though this led is a single-die, its thermal management is set up to cope with currents of a magnitude far higher than any other manufacturer's single-dies, in fact its in line with the quad-die emitters currently available.

It is therefore irrelevant that it is a single die emitter, what is relevant is whether a flashlight of the size of the M20 can cope with heat-sinking 5W of power.

There are many lights in this size that are pushed far more than 5W. (like the Wolf-Eyes MCE Explorer, Xtar SSC-P7 and Xtar-MCE and many other examples)

That is why I think that the heat-sinking in this light is a non-issue.

I don't know about non-corrosiveness

Ok, well then let me tell you that Titanium does not corrode in salt water. It is therefore a very useful material for dive-lights in marine environments.
It is so non-reactive that it is the ideal material to use in surgery for implants and prostheses too.

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


In general with increasingly better thermal management of new generations of leds, it becomes far less crucial to use only Aluminium for flashlights.

This is one reason why McGizmo and many other great custom makers here are producing so many lights in Ti. Its heat conduction is perfectly adequate as long as the leds are driven conservatively as they are in this case.

Heck, McGizmo even said that many led-lights will be made in plastic before long.

 

[wapkil]

I must say that I liked the previous version of your post better... What is it with all these posts completely re-edited before I can finish answering to them? Well, I hope at least it won't change again.

Your argument is misleading because quite clearly, even though this led is a single-die, its thermal management is set up to cope with currents of a magnitude far higher than any other manufacturer's single-dies, in fact its in line with the quad-die emitters currently available.

The thermal management is not much better. The package thermal resistance is only 15% lower than in MC-Es, the maximum junction temperature is exactly the same as everywhere - 150 deg. C. It has nothing to do with the maximum current, except that with higher currents keeping the temperature low becomes much more complicated.

It is therefore irrelevant that it is a single die emitter, what is relevant is whether a flashlight of the size of the M20 can cope with heat-sinking 5W of power.

There are many lights in this size that are pushed far more than 5W. (like the Wolf-Eyes MCE Explorer, Xtar SSC-P7 and Xtar-MCE and many other examples)

That is why I think that the heat-sinking in this light is a non-issue.

[...]

In general with increasingly better thermal management of new generations of leds, it becomes far less crucial to use only Aluminium for flashlights.

I think the MCE Explorer is a good example. If I understand its specification correctly, it is driven at 6W, not 9.5W which that be allowed by the LED specification. I think it is quite probable that the reason lies exactly in the thermal management - at higher power the temperature may be too high for the LED to work properly. Six watts is also not "far more" than ~5.6W in this light here.

The efficacy of every new generation of LEDs gets higher. If they were used to produce the same output as older ones, the heat generation would indeed be lower. But they are not. They are here to replace 250lm lights with 500lm ones. Moreover, currently these LEDs have the surface brightness similar to their predecessors. They only have bigger surface and thus can consume more power. More power generates more heat and more thermal problems.

I don't have any doubts that Olight engineers performed a good work to ensure that this light will not overheat. I only wanted to correct your statements that "this will put out next to no heat", or that "heat-sinking in this light is a non-issue".

 

[Xak]

Think Olight will produce an SST-50 drop-in upgrade for people who currently own an M20 (or 2)?😎

 

[Monocrom]

Think Olight will produce an SST-50 drop-in upgrade for people who currently own an M20 (or 2)?😎

Now that would be sweet indeed.

 

[DimeRazorback]

That would be nice, but I doubt it will happen :shakehead

 

[divine]

Think Olight will produce an SST-50 drop-in upgrade for people who currently own an M20 (or 2)?😎

I've taken needle nose pliers to the pill on my M20 and I couldn't budge it. If they put thread lock on it, I doubt they will be able to upgrade them.

 

[276]

Anybody preorder one of these yet curious as to know if if I should go for it now or wait a little longer ?

 

[Henk_Lu]

Anybody preorder one of these yet curious as to know if if I should go for it now or wait a little longer ?

First, I wanted to wait for more details and beamshots, comparisons with the M20-R2 and the M30.

But, thinking over it some more, I had doubsts that there will still be a light available at the time we'll have all the necessary information. There are 2 possibilities : The light is great and will go fast or the light sucks and only the hardcore collectors will buy it.

So, I built the specs we have together in my head and the beam was quite bright and floody. I am a titanium fan too and the light looks awesome.

I preordered the light immediately! :duh2:

 

[easilyled]

I must say that I liked the previous version of your post better... What is it with all these posts completely re-edited before I can finish answering to them? Well, I hope at least it won't change again.

I didn't expect you to be waiting so eagerly for my reply. In general I prefer to read what I have written and edit the bits that are clumsily expressed.

The thermal management is not much better. The package thermal resistance is only 15% lower than in MC-Es, the maximum junction temperature is exactly the same as everywhere - 150 deg. C. It has nothing to do with the maximum current, except that with higher currents keeping the temperature low becomes much more complicated.

Perhaps you don't realise that the MCE is a quad die? You have just admitted that the thermal management of the SST-50 is superior to the MC-E.
This proves that you were wrong to say that this flashlight should be compared with "other small single-die flashlights"
You have obviously realised your error which is why you are now comparing it with a quad-die flashlight as you should.

I think the MCE Explorer is a good example. If I understand its specification correctly, it is driven at 6W, not 9.5W which that be allowed by the LED specification. I think it is quite probable that the reason lies exactly in the thermal management - at higher power the temperature may be too high for the LED to work properly. Six watts is also not "far more" than ~5.6W in this light here.

I think you're guessing about the MCE Explorer. Its current level is not revealed. The fact that Wolf Eyes are responsible in their limits and the MC-E is definitely driven harder is what counts. There are many other examples of lights of this size being driven around 8+W in any case.

I don't have any doubts that Olight engineers performed a good work to ensure that this light will not overheat. I only wanted to correct your statements that "this will put out next to no heat", or that "heat-sinking in this light is a non-issue".

Well I am afraid that you have failed to correct my statements because they were not incorrect.

However .....
your earlier assertion that 5.6W output is comparable with larger quad-die lights was blatantly incorrect since the larger quad-die lights are driven about twice as much.
In addition your argument that the SST-50 light should be compared with non Luminus single-die lights is also flawed.

We will see when the Ti Olight M20 comes out. If it becomes very hot on the highest level and drops its output rapidly then you will have been proved correct.

I am not expecting that. 🙂

 

[wapkil]

I didn't expect you to be waiting so eagerly for my reply. In general I prefer to read what I have written and edit the bits that are clumsily expressed.



Perhaps you don't realise that the MCE is a quad die? You have just admitted that the thermal management of the SST-50 is superior to the MC-E.
This proves that you were wrong to say that this flashlight should be compared with "other small single-die flashlights"
You have obviously realised your error which is why you are now comparing it with a quad-die flashlight as you should.



I think you're guessing about the MCE Explorer. Its current level is not revealed. The fact that Wolf Eyes are responsible in their limits and the MC-E is definitely driven harder is what counts. There are many other examples of lights of this size being driven around 8+W in any case.




Well I am afraid that you have failed to correct my statements because they were not incorrect.

However .....
your earlier assertion that 5.6W output is comparable with larger quad-die lights was blatantly incorrect since the larger quad-die lights are driven about twice as much.
In addition your argument that the SST-50 light should be compared with non Luminus single-die lights is also flawed.

We will see when the Ti Olight M20 comes out. If it becomes very hot on the highest level and drops its output rapidly then you will have been proved correct.

I am not expecting that. 🙂

I don't need the current level for MCE Explorer. If its LED produces 580lm, it's driven at ~6W. I wrote that the SST Olight can be compared with other small single-die flashlights because its previous version was a single-die flshlight. You wanted comparison to MC-Es so I made it.

The SST-50 package thermal resistance is not only ~15% lower than in MC-Es it is also ~70% lower than for an XR-E LED. What you fail to understand is what these values mean. At 2.45 deg.C/W the junction temperature of an SST-50 driven at 5.6W will be ~11 deg. C higher than its case temperature. At 8 deg.C/W the junction temperature of an XR-E driven at 2.8W will be ~18 deg. C higher than its case temperature. You gain an incredible 7 deg.C - around 7% of the 100 deg. C temperature rise below which you struggle to keep the LED. Yes, between the LED case and the junction situation is a bit easier but, compared to an XR-E Olight M20, you have to transfer two times as much energy from the case to the outside of the body and dissipate it.

I understand that you believe 5.6W is not a problem. You can easily see it yourself. Just get a 3.3 Ohm 10W ceramic resistor, place it on an inflammable surface and connect it to a charged LiIon battery. It will conduct around 1.25A and dissipate around 5.1W. Wait a few minutes and try to touch it. Then try to imagine that all this "next to no heat" is not generated in a 50mm*10mm*10mm "brick" but in a few mm^2 area. And you have to conduct it outside.

You also believe that there are many properly cooled MC-E lights driven 8+ W. For an MC-E 8W is around 750 LED lumens and 550 OTF lumens. You can go to MrGman IS tests and see how many MC-E lights are able to sustain this output for a first few minutes. Do you know why some of them don't even start with this power? Because they would overheat. Do you know why they lose the output after a few seconds? Because they overheat. You can also see how large are these lights.

I don't see the point in continuing this discussion. You should know the heat is a problem in current flashlights. You know that this new version will generate two times more heat than the previous model. Yet you believe that "heat-sinking in this light is a non-issue". The same logic lets you write that the light needs to overheat to prove that the thermal considerations are important. If Olight engineers manage to design it so it does not overheat, then apparently heat was not a problem and, as you write, there is "next to no heat". I cannot and don't want to argue with this type of logic.

 

[Xak]

I've taken needle nose pliers to the pill on my M20 and I couldn't budge it. If they put thread lock on it, I doubt they will be able to upgrade them.

Well, Replacement heads, then?

 

[Metatron]

this looks like a very handsome flashlight, no doubt, but 500 lumens? is that it? Given that i have a P7 pushing 600 lumens with a single rcr123, i am not sure apart from good looks, what the excitement is all about. now if it was pushed to say 1200 lumens on say 2 rcr's , i would be paying more attention, after all a ferrari with a vee dub motor is just that.

 

[HKJ]

this looks like a very handsome flashlight, no doubt, but 500 lumens? is that it? Given that i have a P7 pushing 600 lumens with a single rcr123, i am not sure apart from good looks, what the excitement is all about. now if it was pushed to say 1200 lumens on say 2 rcr's , i would be paying more attention, after all a ferrari with a vee dub motor is just that.

Try putting that P7 in a integrating sphere an you will see that it is probably only 400 lumens.
Doing high quality lights the manufacturer has to look at more than just lumen. Other parameters like runtime, reliability and heat does also count.

 

[Metatron]

Try putting that P7 in a integrating sphere an you will see that it is probably only 400 lumens.
Doing high quality lights the manufacturer has to look at more than just lumen. Other parameters like runtime, reliability and heat does also count.

a P7 driven at 2 amps = 400 lumens? not sure🙂
clearly the manufacturer must look at all the parameters, and clearly the sst 50 was not designed for a tiny flashlight that would overheat in seconds if it was driven at 75% capacity...

 

[easilyled]

I don't need the current level for MCE Explorer. If its LED produces 580lm, it's driven at ~6W. I wrote that the SST Olight can be compared with other small single-die flashlights because its previous version was a single-die flshlight. You wanted comparison to MC-Es so I made it.

The SST-50 package thermal resistance is not only ~15% lower than in MC-Es it is also ~70% lower than for an XR-E LED. What you fail to understand is what these values mean. At 2.45 deg.C/W the junction temperature of an SST-50 driven at 5.6W will be ~11 deg. C higher than its case temperature. At 8 deg.C/W the junction temperature of an XR-E driven at 2.8W will be ~18 deg. C higher than its case temperature. You gain an incredible 7 deg.C - around 7% of the 100 deg. C temperature rise below which you struggle to keep the LED. Yes, between the LED case and the junction situation is a bit easier but, compared to an XR-E Olight M20, you have to transfer two times as much energy from the case to the outside of the body and dissipate it.

I understand that you believe 5.6W is not a problem. You can easily see it yourself. Just get a 3.3 Ohm 10W ceramic resistor, place it on an inflammable surface and connect it to a charged LiIon battery. It will conduct around 1.25A and dissipate around 5.1W. Wait a few minutes and try to touch it. Then try to imagine that all this "next to no heat" is not generated in a 50mm*10mm*10mm "brick" but in a few mm^2 area. And you have to conduct it outside.

You also believe that there are many properly cooled MC-E lights driven 8+ W. For an MC-E 8W is around 750 LED lumens and 550 OTF lumens. You can go to MrGman IS tests and see how many MC-E lights are able to sustain this output for a first few minutes. Do you know why some of them don't even start with this power? Because they would overheat. Do you know why they lose the output after a few seconds? Because they overheat. You can also see how large are these lights.

I don't see the point in continuing this discussion. You should know the heat is a problem in current flashlights. You know that this new version will generate two times more heat than the previous model. Yet you believe that "heat-sinking in this light is a non-issue". The same logic lets you write that the light needs to overheat to prove that the thermal considerations are important. If Olight engineers manage to design it so it does not overheat, then apparently heat was not a problem and, as you write, there is "next to no heat". I cannot and don't want to argue with this type of logic.

You cannot and don't want to argue with this type of logic but you still do anyway ....

My line of thought is that the O-light MC-E M30 Triton which is rated at 700 lumens and pushes out about 10W, is not that much bigger than the M20 in form factor. Yet even with twice as much power to dissipate, it copes well on high for a reasonable amount of time.

This light has to dissipate about half the power and the led inside it has better thermal resistance. I think that this makes up for the fact that the light is made of titanium which isn't as good as aluminium at conducting heat away admittedly.

I cannot claim to know this with 100% certainty, but it is my gut feeling.

I am assuming that O-light have thought this out properly and will design a beefy aluminium heat-sink to transfer as much heat from the light engine to the outer casing.

When I said that heat is a "non-issue", I meant that I don't think it will be a big concern for this light given the drive levels and assuming responsible design.

 

[HKJ]

a P7 driven at 2 amps = 400 lumens? not sure🙂
clearly the manufacturer must look at all the parameters, and clearly the sst 50 was not designed for a tiny flashlight that would overheat in seconds if it was driven at 75% capacity...

The typical value is 700 lumen at 2.8 A, this gives 500 lumen at 2 A and with 80% efficiency in the optic system, you are down to 400 lumen. This assumes that you can sustain the 2 A and keep the temperature down. I do not believe that many has done that with single RCR123 lights.
Running a RCR123 at 2A does not really make a useful light, it will have a very short runtime.

The advantage when running led well below maximum is the much better efficiency and SST also has a good thermal connection, helping keeping it cool and keeping the efficiency up.

 

[Metatron]

The typical value is 700 lumen at 2.8 A, this gives 500 lumen at 2 A and with 80% efficiency in the optic system, you are down to 400 lumen. This assumes that you can sustain the 2 A and keep the temperature down. I do not believe that many has done that with single RCR123 lights.
Running a RCR123 at 2A does not really make a useful light, it will have a very short runtime.

The advantage when running led well below maximum is the much better efficiency and SST also has a good thermal connection, helping keeping it cool and keeping the efficiency up.

well, it knocks the socks off a wolfeyes storm, so i am delighted with that, call it what you will, in fact its a 'no contest' to be sure, and thats good enough for me, so i still see no point in having a ferrari motor throttled down to equal a hyundai.

 

[wapkil]

You cannot and don't want to argue with this type of logic but you still do anyway ....

Well, I'm choosing the parts where I believe that I can explain something 😛

My line of thought is that the O-light MC-E M30 Triton which is rated at 700 lumens and pushes out about 10W, is not that much bigger than the M20 in form factor. Yet even with twice as much power to dissipate, it copes well on high for a reasonable amount of time.

This light has to dissipate about half the power and the led inside it has better thermal resistance. I think that this makes up for the fact that the light is made of titanium which isn't as good as aluminium at conducting heat away admittedly.

I cannot claim to know this with 100% certainty, but it is my gut feeling.

I am assuming that O-light have thought this out properly and will design a beefy aluminium heat-sink to transfer as much heat from the light engine to the outer casing.

When I said that heat is a "non-issue", I meant that I don't think it will be a big concern for this light given the drive levels and assuming responsible design.

The M30 if rated 700lm is actually driven at around 8W-8.5W. The amount of energy to conduct (~50% more than in the SST M20) is once again more important than the differences in the LEDs thermal resistance - this time this difference would contribute to ~10deg.C difference between these LEDs.

I'm not sure if the M30 can be described as similar to the M20. It weights ~35% more but, probably more importantly, Olight engineers added the fins on the head to enlarge the surface. They are almost certainly not for aesthetic reasons but are required to dissipate the heat.

Unfortunately I don't know how important (or unimportant) is the poor thermal conductivity of titanium. Maybe someone with more knowledge in this area could comment.

I believe we now generally agree on the subject. Like you, I believe that Olight managed to properly design this light. I wanted only to point out that if they did, it wasn't as easy task as it may seem at first glance. These new single-die LEDs, even if driven at half of the maximum power, can be much more demanding than their predecessors from Cree driven at full power.