Review: ArcMania's new SMJLED2 PR2 SS review

[nikon]

That's the one!
It's true that it does not do well in a nonfocussing flashlight.
Works good in my 4D Maglite though.

Anyways, hopefully smjled3 will be better.

Here's a link to a thread discussing the Niteze C/D drop in.....http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=114270&highlight=nite+ize

 

[NewBie]

I have purchased additional SMJLED2 PR SS bulbs, and I am seeing very little difference, if any at all, from the first one.

I went down and purchased a low cost host, which in this case was a Garrity AA Glo light. Several folks said this would be the type of flashlight they'd use this blub in.

During the Super Heavy Duty cell run, my light meter software had an error at ~140 and 7 hours, so everything after that was deleted.

The Alkaline cells were Energizer Max, just purchased, with date code 2010.

There are multiple lines for each cell, since Excel 97 does not like to plot 134,000 datapoints at once. (Yes, samples were taken, once each second) It still hollers at me, but it works (it doesn't like over 32,000 datapoints on a graph).

I have runtimes on NiMH and Lithium to go yet.

I believe it was Quickbeam that started the runtime definition, as time to 50% output. Using this definition:

Super Heavy Duty cells: 2.9 hours
Alkaline cells: 10.5 hours

 

[fieldops]

This pretty much confirms my visual runtime tests. I like to have both types of tests for runtime. The metered version gives us a quantitative analysis. The visual represents how we use lights in everyday life. Thanks for doing this, Newbie. All of this has taught me one thing: The original SMJLED is quite a nice performer. It does far better than the new unit tested here. I started putting the original SMJED in several cheap hosts as emergency lights. You can't go wrong!

 

[NewBie]

This pretty much confirms my visual runtime tests. I like to have both types of tests for runtime. The metered version gives us a quantitative analysis. The visual represents how we use lights in everyday life. Thanks for doing this, Newbie.

You are quite welcome.

I am glad the review has been of use to you.

Yes, it pretty much jives with what you reported.


The other tests are in process as we speak.


.

 

[chevrofreak]

I did a runtime with the original SMJLED PR using some alkalines, but there was a loose connection in the light causing output to have some spikes. I ran it again with the connections all cleaned and tightened using some FujiNovel batteries, and when it was following the same curve I decided to abort the test since it was going to take a couple days to complete.

2500 minutes is 41-2/3 hours

 

[NewBie]

Thank you for the graph of the old SMJLED chevrofreak.

They are very different.

 

[NoFair]

Thanks NewBie and Chevrofreak!

I'm really happy I got the old one.

I know some people don't like it, but it is these kind of reviews that make this place valueable.

Thanks

 

[vortechs]

To be fair to the SS SMJLED PR2 bulb, the runtime curve for it should also be done with NiMH cells. Since from the previous graphs it appeared that the converter in the SS PR2 bulb is optimized for approximately the voltage of 2 NiMH cells (around 2.4 volts).

I must admit to being curious about the differences between the original SMJLED PR bulb and the SS version. Is the difference in runtime due to the different LED's, different converter efficiencies, or perhaps the input voltage the converter is optimized for?

 

[NewBie]

As I mentioned, the other tests are in process.

Those include NiMH as well as Lithium.

 

[Christoph]

Looking for this

 

[NewBie]

Looking for this

Hi Christoph.

I'm sorry this is taking so long.

The reason why it is taking so long, is that I found a problem with the SMJLED2 PR SS.

I had a file glitch on the first Lithium cell run, then the second time, the light meter cells went dead, so I am on my third run now.

But these issues allowed me to stumble on something else. Each time I found there was a loss of light output. It works out to be a 45% loss (for the initial peak during the run) by only the third set of Energizer e^2 Lithium AA cells.

The brown trace in interrupted due to the file glitch.

The medium blue trace is where the batteries went dead.

The green trace is the third lithium AA run.

I have a third ArcMania SMJLED2 PR SS which I purchased that I will be doing a life runtime on, off a regulated power supply, to see if it is the Lithium cells that are killing it, or if it is just due to the drive to the LED.

 

[Christoph]

Thanks:rock:I appreciate what you are doing for us Newbie keep up the investigations.
Chris

 

[NewBie]

Thanks:rock:I appreciate what you are doing for us Newbie keep up the investigations.
Chris

Okay, the runtime is updated, showing the complete runtime of the ArcMania SMJLED2 PR SS, on the Lithium cells (finished green plot). Keep in mind the Lithium cells rapidly cause the device's light output to degrade.

 

[PlayboyJoeShmoe]

I'm still rather happy that I have all "old" SMJLEDs. Because we are in hurricane alley. And days beats hours!!!

 

[vortechs]

Okay, the runtime is updated, showing the complete runtime of the ArcMania SMJLED2 PR SS, on the Lithium cells (finished green plot). Keep in mind the Lithium cells rapidly cause the device's light output to degrade.

Based on these test results, hopefully the manufacturer/dealers will include some instructions with the SMJLED2 PR SS bulb that it should NOT be used with two AA-size 1.5V Lithium primary cells.

That means using a single Li-Ion cell with this bulb is definitely out of the question.

From all the data we are seeing here so far, it appears that this bulb is best suited for use with 2 NiMH cells. That is good information to know.

Thanks NewBie.

 

[NewBie]

I took my third ArcMania SMJLED2 PR SS, and connected it to a regulated 2.8V power supply. At the bulb, I added an 1,800 uF capacitor, so wire lengths would not affect things.

I chose 2.8V, as it is close to what a very lightly loaded NiMH does, and they discharge relatively flat, and is less than what lightly loaded Alkaline D cells would be.

It appears as though some of the light drop over time, that I'd originally considered might be due to the battey voltage dropping, is accentuated by the rapid lumen loss of the 5mm LED over time.

Here is what I have for now, tests are on going.

 

[chimo]

Great job, Newbie.

Wow, that's a very quick drop! For a drop that rapid, it would seem like these LEDs are being seriously over-driven. Could the wrong LEDs have been installed in these?

Paul

 

[vortechs]

Thanks NewBie,

These results are very concerning. If the LED in the bulb looses brightness that quickly even with only a 2.8V input, there would appear to be a flaw in the design. It sounds like the 5mm LED cannot take the current that the converter in the PR bulb base is giving it. Perhaps the original SMJLED PR bulb did not have this problem because the 4-die LED in that design could handle more current without degrading.

Do you have a good way to measure the voltage & current going to the LED?

Just to be sure that there isn't some other factor involved, I would suggest that you should eventually turn off the power, let the bulb 'rest' for a while then turn the power back on and see if the bulb brightness returns to the initial line or starts where it left off. If the cause of the reduction is permanant rather than temporary, a 'rest' period would not affect the brightness. I am just trying to make sure all possiblities are covered.

 

[NewBie]

Vortechs, there was a rest, where the brightness didn't return, refer to the three runs on Lithiums, and the graphs.

As far as current and the voltage to the bulb, estimate from here:
https://www.candlepowerforums.com/posts/1566798&postcount=111

The older four die design would at least spread the power between the four dies, or there would be 1/4th the power in each die, which would also spread it over a larger area, instead of having all of the power in a single point heatsource (single die).


It may also be, that since there were four dies, that the efficiency was higher. Due to lower current density in the dies, you would also increase the die efficiency and thus produce less heat in the first place, but this is would be speculation and not based on any sort of measurements or anything.


In reality, these may have been designed to operate just like they are, so I'm not sure if you could call it a design flaw. Without full specifications for the design lifetime and to what degradation point, as well as bulb case temps specified, it is pretty hard to figure whatever out.

 

[NewBie]

Lifetime Graph has been updated with latest collected data.