PoliceScannerMan
Flashaholic
:huh: 
Titanium Makai
- Thread starter McGizmo
- Start date
Help Support Candle Power Forums
:huh: 
tshirley
Newly Enlightened
I just received my Makai with 1x123 body. I live In Wyoming where it get real dark at night and u need a light with some reach. I have to say I like the beam on this light better than my Haiku XPG. It has more throw so I can see what is lurking but also has plenty of flood. Have to say very happy with this light. For my purpose Makai is a better light for me. :wave:
Last edited:
fyrstormer
Banned
I guess I'll take the Haiku XP-G off your hands, then. Wouldn't want you to have too much clutter.
fyrstormer
Banned
As we all know by now, run4jc takes some great photos and is equally interested in the performance as well as the appearance of his lights. Here is an animation of two of his recent photos, comparing the beam of the Haiku to the beam of the Makai, in real-world usage:
Whoever may be inclined and empowered to re-host this animation in a more official/permanent location has my insignificant permission to do so, provided of course that run4jc also agrees, since he originally took the photos.
Whoever may be inclined and empowered to re-host this animation in a more official/permanent location has my insignificant permission to do so, provided of course that run4jc also agrees, since he originally took the photos.
Thanks for the kind words, Fyrstormer - and absolute I am happy to allow these photos to be used/hosted!
Thanks for animating them! I've done some animations, but had smaller final images.....this is great.
lovecpf
Thanks for animating them! I've done some animations, but had smaller final images.....this is great.
lovecpf
fyrstormer
Banned
I use an old "abandonware" program called TakeOne to make animated .GIFs. It's not great, but it's free, and it works, and if there's a limit to the image size I haven't run into it yet.
PoliceScannerMan
Flashaholic
I was fortunate enough to trade my way into a Makai head, and mated it up with my 2 x AA Ti McClickie pak. What a nice light!!
I knew what to expect, bc I own a Malkoff Hound Dog. However with the Makai running at only 660mA, knew it wasnt gonna be as bright as the hound.
I was pleasantly suprised, the Makai holds its own, much brighter than I expected with awesome throw. And running AA's to boot! :thumbsup:
The Makai is something to hold though, it is a gorgeous light! (That could easily bludgeon someone to death! )
Great work Don, as usual. :naughty:
I knew what to expect, bc I own a Malkoff Hound Dog. However with the Makai running at only 660mA, knew it wasnt gonna be as bright as the hound.
I was pleasantly suprised, the Makai holds its own, much brighter than I expected with awesome throw. And running AA's to boot! :thumbsup:
The Makai is something to hold though, it is a gorgeous light! (That could easily bludgeon someone to death!
)Great work Don, as usual. :naughty:
Hi guys,
I composed a long, cure for insomnia relating to the Makai 2x123 but it was lost in the ether. To keep it short this time, after finally getting production buck 3S converters and testing them in the Makai with their stock drive level set at 1250 mA I have had to reevaluate the light and reduce the driver to 1000 mA. Simply put, the thermal management provided by the Makai host is not adequate should the light be left on high and unattended for any undefined length of time. I won't build or offer a light that could accidentally or intentionally be subjected to a duration of run time that can be destructive to the LED as well as generate heat in unsafe levels.
With further testing and the use of my FLIR camera for thermal evaluation, it seems that driving the XP-G at 1000 mA on high is reasonable for this design and even at this level some caution must be observed. The light gets hot at the junction of the head and pak if left standing and unattended.
There have been other posts regarding the driving of the XP-G at maximum current and observations of the loss or sag in flux as the LED heats up. This is not an issue for short blasts of a light or if the light has inherent safety features designed to throttle back from a "turbo" mode. The Makai is intended for use on high without undue qualification or restrictions and not with the high level intended for mere short blasts of light.
I am disappointed that the light can't reasonably maintain a good and safe output at the higher potentials available to the XP-G but reality is reality.
I am going to build up some inventory of the Makai heads with the boost converter and I believe I will chose to identify these as Makai 6V. I will be launching a wave of the Makai 6V in the next week or so and it will be offered as a head alone or coupled with the 2x123 pak.
At 1000 mA, the Makai 6V demands less of a single CR123 than does the Makai 1x123 so when used with 2x123, your run time will be greater than double that of the Makai 1x123 and you will be generating more light on high than does the Makai 1x123.
I composed a long, cure for insomnia relating to the Makai 2x123 but it was lost in the ether. To keep it short this time, after finally getting production buck 3S converters and testing them in the Makai with their stock drive level set at 1250 mA I have had to reevaluate the light and reduce the driver to 1000 mA. Simply put, the thermal management provided by the Makai host is not adequate should the light be left on high and unattended for any undefined length of time. I won't build or offer a light that could accidentally or intentionally be subjected to a duration of run time that can be destructive to the LED as well as generate heat in unsafe levels.
With further testing and the use of my FLIR camera for thermal evaluation, it seems that driving the XP-G at 1000 mA on high is reasonable for this design and even at this level some caution must be observed. The light gets hot at the junction of the head and pak if left standing and unattended.
There have been other posts regarding the driving of the XP-G at maximum current and observations of the loss or sag in flux as the LED heats up. This is not an issue for short blasts of a light or if the light has inherent safety features designed to throttle back from a "turbo" mode. The Makai is intended for use on high without undue qualification or restrictions and not with the high level intended for mere short blasts of light.
I am disappointed that the light can't reasonably maintain a good and safe output at the higher potentials available to the XP-G but reality is reality.
I am going to build up some inventory of the Makai heads with the boost converter and I believe I will chose to identify these as Makai 6V. I will be launching a wave of the Makai 6V in the next week or so and it will be offered as a head alone or coupled with the 2x123 pak.
At 1000 mA, the Makai 6V demands less of a single CR123 than does the Makai 1x123 so when used with 2x123, your run time will be greater than double that of the Makai 1x123 and you will be generating more light on high than does the Makai 1x123.
Drywolf
Flashlight Enthusiast
Hi Don,
I'm sure I missed this, but I can't find the answer. Will the 6v Makai run on two Li-ion cells 8.4v?
Thanks,
Frank
I'm sure I missed this, but I can't find the answer. Will the 6v Makai run on two Li-ion cells 8.4v?
Thanks,
Frank
arewethereyetdad
Moderator,
Makai 6V + 2xCR123 Pak. That right there is the cure for insomnia. Guaranteed to be a knockout. :thumbsup:
:thumbsup:
kellyglanzer
Enlightened
tino_ale
Flashlight Enthusiast
I am a little confused.
Makai 1x123 : about 600mA to the LED, P.out = 0.6x3.4 = approx 2.04W
Makai 2x123 : about 1000mA to the LED, P.out = 1.0x3.5 = approx 3.5W
I assumed an approx junction voltage of 3.4V at 600mA and 3.5V at 1A. It's approximate anyway.
A single RCR123 : 0.7mAh x 3.7V = 2.59Wh
A stack of two : 5.18Wh
I assume converter efficiency is the same for both setups, at 85%
A 1x123 Makai should run for 2.59/2.04*60*0.85= 64 min
A 2x123 Makai should run for 5.18/3.5*60*0.85= 75 min
Did I miss something ?
Henk_Lu
Flashlight Enthusiast
I'm confused as well, but perhaps Don meant it this way :
It sounds complicated and weird, but it makes sense without knocking out physical laws...
Anyway, I'm looking forward to the 2x123 Makai, but I fear mine has to wait until end of november (or december)!
You'll do enough for us all, Don, don't you???
It sounds complicated and weird, but it makes sense without knocking out physical laws...
Anyway, I'm looking forward to the 2x123 Makai, but I fear mine has to wait until end of november (or december)!
You'll do enough for us all, Don, don't you???
tino_ale
Flashlight Enthusiast
No : if you use two cells one after the other in the 1x123 Makai you will have a greater runtime then with the 2x123 using two cells at once. Re-read my post.
This is exactly why you need to knock out physical laws.
This is exactly why you need to knock out physical laws.
Last edited:
Henk_Lu
Flashlight Enthusiast
Yeah, what was I thinking, I made it even more impossible...
It is the part "greater than double" that doesn't work, it should be simply "greater than that of the Makai 1x123"
In fact, if the 6V demands less of a SINGLE cell than the 1x123, that doesn't involve double runtimes as both cells are depleted together. It must demand less than half of a single cell to get more than double the runtime and in that case, the light couldn't be brighter than the 1x123 version, unless the 6V converter is super efficient and the one of the 1x123 the opposite...
Yeah,
My brain fart there! Sorry guys!! I was pretty flustered after composing a longer post and then seeing it disappear. I was so anxious to get in a post about the reduction in current now planned with the Makai 6V that when it looked like CPF was stable enough to post I went for it without review. You are too kind trying to figure some way I could have been correct in my statement!!
What sucks is I have no idea how I came to make that statement at this point. Had the Makai 6V remained at ~1250 mA it would have had a slight runtime advantage over the Makai but using twice the number of cells. I base this claim on comparing input current of the two lights as measured on the bench. Dropping the output current down to 1000 mA gives the Makai 6V on 2x123 an obvious greater runtime than the Makai 1x123 but not close to double; possibly 1.5x.
This is all based on both lights running on high.
My brain fart there! Sorry guys!! I was pretty flustered after composing a longer post and then seeing it disappear. I was so anxious to get in a post about the reduction in current now planned with the Makai 6V that when it looked like CPF was stable enough to post I went for it without review. You are too kind trying to figure some way I could have been correct in my statement!!
What sucks is I have no idea how I came to make that statement at this point. Had the Makai 6V remained at ~1250 mA it would have had a slight runtime advantage over the Makai but using twice the number of cells. I base this claim on comparing input current of the two lights as measured on the bench. Dropping the output current down to 1000 mA gives the Makai 6V on 2x123 an obvious greater runtime than the Makai 1x123 but not close to double; possibly 1.5x.
This is all based on both lights running on high.
tino_ale
Flashlight Enthusiast
No problem Don, brain fart happens to everyone occasionnaly, even the best
Barefootone
Enlightened
No problem Don, brain fart happens to everyone occasionnaly, even the best
Hey tino_ale,
You think you guys are confused, how about us poor guys that are just reading from the sidelines trying to keep up
. Alls well that ends well thanks to Don 
.Many times I find there is just to much to absorb, but after re-reading a few times things generally fall into place :duh2:.
