L2D modified with an MC-E emitter

My L2D Premium 100 died a few months ago. CPF's member "Marduke", told me there were some bad recalled Rebel emitters put onto the market. Looks like I had one of those. I though I was the one who left the flashlight at Turbo mode for to long. Unfortunately there was no turning back as I already opened the head to sneak in. I removed the tiny Luxeon Rebel emitter and told myself it was time to try modding it.

I bought the Cree MC-E emitter and planned to use it. I know driving the MC-E with a 2AA powered flashlight was not the greatest idea. Especially with the L2D small reflector… but I did it anyway. I just wanted to have some fun doing my first mod... and hopefully I had some results.

During this funny task, I decided to take a few pictures in order to help or inform someone interested in this "upgrade". As of today, I'm still not sure I really performed an upgrade. One thing I'm sure though is that I repaired my flashlight.

I rapidly got rid of the original Luxeon Rebel emitter so I don't have any pics of it. Sorry.

The mod…

Opening flashlight's head wasn't so hard. Because threads of the head are locked with some stuff (see it as "locktite"), you need to heat up the head enough to soften the stuff but not too much. Doing so might hurt the circuit. Using a hairdryer is an idea. In my case my emitter was still working but it was very dim, blue and getting rapidly hot. So I took advantage of this last problem to soften the so called "stuff". I used two rounded jaws pliers and two pieces of rubber to help for the grip and to protect the hard anodized finish.
Note that I did NOT remove the head from the flashlight to prevent the head to become deformed during the process. Remember that this is almost glued! Strength is needed here.

Time to cut the positive and negative wires. I cut them as close to the emitter as I could, but damaged them after. I removed the bad emitter by prying it with a small screwdriver while it was still warm. Was easy. I cleaned the area. Sorry no pix of the small Rebel .

I discovered two things: a white plastic ring to prevent shortcuts that was lightly glued to the reflector and a donut-shaped-kind-of-adapter around the emitter AT the base of the reflector. I think Fenix was using it in order to fit the very small Luxeon Rebel emitter with their already designed reflector. It must be a cheap but efficient way to use different types of emitter with only one reflector.

Obligatory material:

Note that this is a 5 minute adhesive :thumbsup: (I waited 10 minute to make sure). Mix ratio is 1:1

Using small pliers, I changed the orientation of all 8 connections pins to help me soldering the wires and avoid any contact with the rest of the flashlight. Additionnal references given from CPF's member "mpf" : http://www.cree.com/products/pdf/XLampMC-E.pdf

I connected the pins in parallel as advised by CPF's member "mpf". I linked connection pins 1 to 4 together using lead. I did the same with pins 5 to 8. I tried to shape the melted lead (up) to give myself a chance for soldering my wires. I mixed my adhesive and glued the emitter.

The original reflector has a 6.00 mm hole (diameter). The MC-E emitter is almost 7.00 mm (diameter). So I oversized it using a drill bit (size "I"). I removed the burrs.

I did my best soldering the wires. I tried to had the excess of lead down in order to fit the reflector flush with emitter's surface. The connector pins, the wires and the excess of lead is not in contact with flashlight's aluminum block except at one place on the negative side. I don't think this is a problem as flashlight's body is already used as the negative.

Then I screwed back the head assembly. At that point, I realised that the white plastic ring was to prevent shortcuts and that my new emitter's surface was not at the same level as the old one. Even if I fully screw everything the reflector is NOT sitting on emitter's surface. See GAP #1:

Because of the reflector's lip (as mentioned above on a picture) I wasn't able to simply unscrew the reflector a bit to fit these new specs. So I completely filed down the lid. I forgot to take a picture of the result. That said and that done, GAP #1 is gone, but I now have a gap (GAP #2) at the end of the head. The picture above is not REALLY showing GAP #2. This picture was taken before filing down the lip.

Now the lens is rattling if I shake it. As shaking my flashlight is not a habit for me I'm OK with this .

Not shown here is an overhead view to show the emitter is centered in an acceptable way.

It's working! I kept it on low for ~20 hours, then ~1.5 hour on medium mode and then 5 minutes at Turbo to warm up the emitter. Maybe it's useless:thinking:. Did I gain runtime? I had no time to test. I doesn't look really brighter than the L2D Q5. BUT, because it's floodier then it was, maybe it IS brighter. I will try to test it. I will eventually also post beamshots.

******************************************************************************************************************
Update no.1

Here are two beamshots to compare the beam profile:


First shot is the beam profile of a L2D Q5 with Orange Peel reflector @ 1 meter

Second shot is the beam profile of the L2D MC-E with Orange Peel reflector @ 1 meter

As expected, the beam is floodier than before. I'm glad I don't see the cross mark of the MC-E emitter. I start to see the cross at 0.7 meter. Thanks to the OP reflector.

I did a ceilling bounce test to compare the brightness. Comparing with a L2D Q5 (my L1D head with the L2D body in fact) I got this:
@ low, the brightness is exactly the same;
@ medium, the brightness is just about dimmer. VERY close;
@ high, the brightness is just about dimmer. VERY close;
@ turbo, the brightness is just about higher.

Adding my Olight T25 Regular I can sort them in order of brightness. From dimmest to brightest:
Fenix L2D Q5 - LOW
Fenix L2D MC-E - LOW
Olight T25 - LEVEL 1 (this is weird, I expected Olight's Level 1 to be the dimmest:thinking
Olight T25 - LEVEL 2
Olight T25 - LEVEL 3
Fenix L2D MC-E - MEDIUM
Fenix L2D Q5 - MEDIUM
Fenix L2D MC-E - HIGH
Olight T25 - LEVEL 4
Fenix L2D Q5 - HIGH
Fenix L2D Q5 - TURBO
Olight T25 - LEVEL 5
Fenix L2D MC-E - TURBO
******************************************************************************************************************
******************************************************************************************************************
Update no.2, Runtimes

I do not own a luxmeter yet, so I wasn't able to test the output from 100% to 50%. Instead I did from 100% until dead. I performed the test at Medium Mode using 2500 NiMh batteries.

The L2D MC-E lasted 10h57 until dead.
The L2D Q5 lasted 10h15 until dead.

That's 42 minutes more. I have to admit that I'm not very impressed. I repaired my flashlight, but do not enjoy a real upgrade. At least, I also had some fun!
******************************************************************************************************************

Cheers!

From the last picture, it looks like you need a spacer underneath the mc-e emitter.

Very nice to look at your pictures and see how you did it...

Very informative! Many thanks...

It should be brighter since each is getting less current and because of that more efficient which means more output. But as you can tell, a larger emitting surface gives you a floodier beam.

Runtime should be about the same.

maxspeeds said:

From the last picture, it looks like you need a spacer underneath the mc-e emitter.

Click to expand...

I'm afraid I discover that when the adhesive was set. If I ever make another mod I'll think about it for sure!

I added beamshots in my first post. Also I compared the brightness with an Olight T25 Regular and a L2D Q5.

The L2D Q5 and my new L2D MC-E are having the same brightness, but because the MC-E version produce a floodier beam it looks dimmer in some application. It's now a good flashlight for my new Fenix Headband though: a flood beam (MC-E) on one side and a "thrower" (Olight T25) on the other side.

If the MC-E is more efficient while having the same brightness, I expect better runtimes. When you gain efficiency, your either gain runtime with same brightness, more brightness with same runtime or a little from both worlds.

Nice!

Great thread! Thanks for your efforts! you are like a mind reader lol

I wanted to mod my L2T v2 Rb80 (working perfectly fine) with MC-E and lucky me, you provided just the information i need. I guess I won't attempt it since I don't have enough tools and I still love the tint of the RB80

Is it possible to mod a TK20? perhaps a R2 TK20 will be a promising 2xAA thrower

dudu84 said:

Is it possible to mod a TK20? perhaps a R2 TK20 will be a promising 2xAA thrower

Click to expand...

I don't see why you couldn't.

The TK20 is allready a great machine though! I'm suprised you want to mod it. On the other hand, this light has a welcomed simple User Interface, a rock solid design and is a great thrower (if not THE best) for a 2AA flashlight. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think Fenix released this light to make a difference in the world of cool-white-tint LED. The cost of using warm tint emitter is efficiency lost.

That said, if you bought the TK20 for all the reasons I mentionned (plus others I forgot) except for the warm yellow tint, then, putting an R2 into it will be an interesting upgrade.

The Q2 used in the TK20 is producing a min luminous flux of 87.7 lumens @ 350 mA.
The R2 is producing a min luminous flux of 114 lumens @ 350 mA.

That's 30% more! :thumbsup: While the Q2 is available in Cool White, Neutral White and Warm White version the R2 is only available in the Cool White version. See http://www.cree.com/products/pdf/XLampXP-E.pdf for additionnal infos including dimensions.

Producing 6180 lux @ 1 meter, the TK20 is allready the best thrower in the 2AA category available on the market (well... AFAIK). I don't think you're gonna get 30% more lux, but you'll definitely own one of the best 2AA thrower in the world ! :twothumbs



Cheers!

Thanks for your reply, NightTime.

NightTime said:

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think Fenix released this light to make a difference in the world of cool-white-tint LED.

Click to expand...

I think you are spot on about that; but then, for a thrower, I'd prefer to maximize my range, if I could see 50m further with the cool tint of a R2, I'd take it.

Then again, I can just grab a R2 TK11 which is also more compact but can't use LSD NiMH (I love my Eneloop and Imedion AA cells btw ).

The truth is I haven't got either of them and still trying to decide for my first compact real thrower :thinking:.

NightTime said:

but you'll definitely own one of the best 2AA thrower in the world ! :twothumbs

Click to expand...

You don't happen to be in the marketing industry, right ? (j/k )
I've got to stop imagining that or my hands will take actions before my brain can make a decision :laughing:

Cheers!
DN

dudu84 said:

Then again, I can just grab a R2 TK11 which is also more compact but can't use LSD NiMH (I love my Eneloop and Imedion AA cells btw ).

Click to expand...

I understand your points. My perpetual quest as a flashlight lover (besides illuminating the dark ) is to find THE most efficient, powerfull and long lasting flashlight is the world... using AA batteries. That's why I bought the Fenix L2D and an Olight T25. There are two Eagletac lights (P10A2 & P10A) on my wishlist also.

Don't take me wrong though, I have nothing against CR123 or 18650 batteries. I know CR123's performances are unbeatable, but the AA batteries are the most easy to find batteries in the world! The rechargeable version are also the cheapest. If the CR123 becomes the most easy to find batteries on the planet, then I'm gonna look the the most efficient, powerfull and long lasting flashlight is the world... using CR123 batteries. Until they make a flashlight using both CR123 and AA...

Your modified TK20 is a great solution! I didn't buy the TK20 just because warm emitters are usually not as efficient as their cool version brothers. I was not thinking about moding any light... before mine broke. That's went I saw the light .

You got a great combo fellow: TK20 and R2. :thumbsup: Wish I thought about that!

Cheers!

I added a runtime test in the OP.

it could have a lower vf than the rebel it replaced, although rebels usually were low vf's. if thats the case, it would have a lower wattage but longer runtime. if indeed its a lower wattage but just as bright (floodiness vs throw out of the picture) then you indeed did pimp your flashlight. congrats!