If voltage regulation is so great, why don't Surefire, Streamlight et al. use it?

If voltage regulation is so great, why don\'t Surefire, Streamlight et al. use it?

Ever since I joined this Forum I've heard about the virtues of regulating circuits. While this was usually in the context of LED's I always assumed that it also applied to incandescents. If so why don't the top manufacturers use it? It can't be the expense, not when Surefire charges $350.00 for a flashlight. (M6)

Any ideas?


Regards,
Brightnorm

Re: If voltage regulation is so great, why don\'t Surefire, Streamlight et al. use it?

Let me be the Devil's advocate...</p>

Surefire don't use regulators because if they did so they would sell less lamp assembly and less batteries (voltage regulation would increase both battery life and lamp life).</p>

If a product sell well enough as it is, why bother to improve ?</p>

Ok that was trolling </p>

To be 100% honest, there could be size and heat problem, you would like a regulator very small so the flashlight size doesn't increase and resist the heat that the lamp emits.</p>

Another point is that Surefire seems very much focused on very high quality mechanical engineering (shock resistance, firearms recoil management (that would be a challenge for a electronic circuit to resist heavy caliber rifle recoil, doable but likely expensive)), optics and ergonomics, but right now there's nothing fancy in their flashlight from an electrical engineering point of view. Perhaps it's just not their array of competences, and most people find the product good enough as it is.</p>

Edited for layout</p>

Re: If voltage regulation is so great, why don\'t Surefire, Streamlight et al. use it?

Thanks ctrlBR,

That seems like a pretty reasonable explanation.

Regards,
Brightnorm

Re: If voltage regulation is so great, why don\'t Surefire, Streamlight et al. use it?

... and just as importantly, I wonder if some kind of voltage regulation adds an unacceptable single-point-of-failure on a light whose main job is to always go on, no matter what. These are tactical lights, after all.

Re: If voltage regulation is so great, why don\'t Surefire, Streamlight et al. use it?

I don't have any lithium light (although I have a C3 and an E2 in the mail ) but I suspect that the discharge curve of a lithium battery is flat enough that the need for a voltage regulator is reduced. I think that alkilines would benifit though.

Re: If voltage regulation is so great, why don\'t Surefire, Streamlight et al. use it?

Joe,
That makes sense. Tactical lights have to be as simple and foolproof as possible.

Kboorg,
You're right about the more favorable lithium discharge curve, yet when I look at Stingmon's graph of the ARC LS tested with different batteries there still seems to be enough room for improvement to make it worthwhile (to us, maybe not to the manufacturer).

Joe, as an LEO can you tell me what the SF M6 would be used for, and whether you have ever used it in a professional capacity?

Best Regards,
Brightnorm

Re: If voltage regulation is so great, why don\'t Surefire, Streamlight et al. use it?

Norm,

I'm not an LEO. When I reference LEO discussions, I'm either referencing threads on the internet in which LEOs took part, or discussions with personal friends of mine (San Jose Police or Santa Clara Sheriff's Dept). I've not seen a lot of discussion of the M6. I'm guessing that it's partly because it's so expensive, and partly because it's awkward to use in conjunction with a handgun, at least in comparison with the 2- and 3-battery lights.

Joe

Re: If voltage regulation is so great, why don\'t Surefire, Streamlight et al. use it?

OK. Thanks, Joe

BN

Re: If voltage regulation is so great, why don\'t Surefire, Streamlight et al. use it?

I don't think there are very complicated reasons.

I think SF typically doesn't do it because the Li batteries are typically "good enough" for their purposes.

It's my bet that SF might get around to this earlier than others tho - one interesting thing is that it appears for some of their lights they engineer the battery and lamp solutions very close to the edge -- something that having good voltage regulation might make easier. It would also make it easier to mix and match battery and lamp options.

I don't think reliability or single point of failure is the reason, reference most regulated lights are for spelunkers. They of all people need something bulletproof (smashing it up on rocks, etc) and they rely on the light a lot.

Part of it may be cost and complexity vs reward. I think until consumers realize what they are missing and demand a better product, the manufactures aren't going to bother. Why make sophisticated device when we can do something simple and make just as much?

Note again that the most demanding and most informed consumers are starting to go that direction, reference the Arc AAA/LS, HDS Actionlight, Photon Fusion, various headlamps for spelunkers, some bike lights, etc.

It's also going to hurt manufacturers in some ways. Arc AAA vs Photon, the Photon can advertise a much longer runtime. If they regulated, the runtime would be much shorter - which would provide an oppertunity for inferior products to win because people don't know better.

The average consumer is going to plunk down $19 bucks and get a Maglite if they want a "high end" light! Or maybe they will just get that yellow plastic 2D one for $3.95.

-john

Re: If voltage regulation is so great, why don\'t Surefire, Streamlight et al. use it?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CtrlBR:
To be 100% honest, there could be size and heat problem, you would like a regulator very small so the flashlight size doesn't increase and resist the heat that the lamp emits.</p>
Edited for layout</p><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think Peter has shown these are all winable engineering endevors with the Arc AAA. Not only does he have the electronics stuff under control (remember, he doesn't have much to work with there -- it has to be SMALL, and he only has a AAA to work with!), it's smaller than the Maglite solitare.

But.... It requires you to do some actual engineering. Heaven forbid.

You mean we have to hire an electronics person?

-john

Re: If voltage regulation is so great, why don\'t Surefire, Streamlight et al. use it?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CtrlBR:
Another point is that Surefire seems very much focused on very high quality mechanical engineering (shock resistance, firearms recoil management (that would be a challenge for a electronic circuit to resist heavy caliber rifle recoil, doable but likely expensive)), optics and ergonomics, but right now there's nothing fancy in their flashlight from an electrical engineering point of view. Perhaps it's just not their array of competences, and most people find the product good enough as it is.</p>
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think it's unreasonable to have electronics stand up to hard use. Recall that there are electronic gun sights (Aimpoint, et all). Heck, I even think we sent some to the moon or something.

In a lot of cases all you need to do is pot your stuff, worst case probably pot it and provide some shock isolation.

BTW, since these are *lights* (as opposed to scopes or something), the SF stuff probably isn't really intended for large caliber firearms (which are typically meant for longer distance use). Basically you only shoot as far as you can illuminate, you don't need a high power rifle. The AR15 type stuff and handgun stuff that is common isn't really that serious in regard to recoil (IMO). There are probably exceptions, but I doubt it's common.

-john

Re: If voltage regulation is so great, why don\'t Surefire, Streamlight et al. use it?

On the downside you lose efficency. I think most circuits I've seen are only 80-90% efficent.

When comparing this against lithium batteries, it may not be worth it.

When using alkalines, it probably is.

-john

Re: If voltage regulation is so great, why don\'t Surefire, Streamlight et al. use it?

All that said, I hope SF and Streamlight (as well as others) really start thinking about this.

For duty lights (Streamlight mostly), you can do cool tricks if you start making the lights smarter. One, you can get a better beam on the recharable batteries, but you can also monitor runtime and capacity and predict time remaining and predict when you need to replace the cells.

If you had a flashlight that remained full brightness and had a time remaining indicator, don't you think the people who rely on these devices wouldn't love it? Think of the marketing buzz you could put on that.

It also would make alkaline cells a feasible power source for serious lights IMO.

-john

Re: If voltage regulation is so great, why don\'t Surefire, Streamlight et al. use it?

Re: M6... (Though it looks like I'm off topic now, sorry.)

The reason more cops don't use the M6 is probably because it's ^%*$#*& expensive! Even more so with the $12-$36 cost for one set of batteries. It is a specialized tool with limited use. With its size and cost there is no good reason for a Patrol guy to carry one around. It cannot replace a rechargeable or a small backup SF light on a belt.

Even an entry man on a high-risk entry team, SWAT or warrant or narco or whatever, would probably use a weapon mounted light for maximum flexibility.

Of course, for cops who care, or just really like lights , there are uses. You can keep one in your bag for when you need to make an entry but do not have a weapon mounted light. Or maybe when you are going to search a dark alley for a hiding suspect. You never know when the extra lumens may help, but the M6 is too big and expensive to use to keep with you all the time.

My M6 fits nicely in a back cargo pocket in addition to an E2 or M2 on my belt when working plainclothes. Since I don't need to look around all the time in my current job and waste batteries, I can keep the M6 handy if I actually find some guy I am looking for. It also worked pretty good on a charging dog once, but I wouldn't count on it 100%...

Hope this helps

Re: If voltage regulation is so great, why don\'t Surefire, Streamlight et al. use it?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dennis:
Re: M6... (Though it looks like I'm off topic now, sorry.)
<>
Even an entry man on a high-risk entry team, SWAT or warrant or narco or whatever, would probably use a weapon mounted light for maximum flexibility.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Also not LEO, but my observation is that the M6 is useful for those who have various weapons but don't want to buy a bunch of lights.

It's also brighter than most weapon mounted lights, especially those for handguns.

It's small enough and of reasonable shape to be used reasonable with a handgun.

I think the main niche is tactical handgun.

-john

Re: If voltage regulation is so great, why don\'t Surefire, Streamlight et al. use it?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John N:
I don't think it's unreasonable to have electronics stand up to hard use. Recall that there are electronic gun sights (Aimpoint, et all). Heck, I even think we sent some to the moon or something.


My point exactly, it's do-able but will be
expensive.


In a lot of cases all you need to do is pot your stuff, worst case probably pot it and provide some shock isolation.

BTW, since these are *lights* (as opposed to scopes or something), the SF stuff probably isn't really intended for large caliber firearms (which are typically meant for longer distance use). Basically you only shoot as far as you can illuminate, you don't need a high power rifle. The AR15 type stuff and handgun stuff that is common isn't really that serious in regard to recoil (IMO). There are probably exceptions, but I doubt it's common.

-john<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was thinking 12 gauge in fact... Caliber large enough ?

Re: If voltage regulation is so great, why don\'t Surefire, Streamlight et al. use it?

Voltage regulation Guru Willie Hunt on 3V Lithiums

Quote:

Lithium's (LiSO2) are quite flat druing their discharge, but the open circuit 3.0 volts quickly drops to around 2.5 for typical light bulb load. If the load is light the voltage will be higher, it the load is heavy then the voltage will be lower. This makes it hard to match the bulb and battery. The LVR can fix this problem.

ENDQUOTE

Seems that SF has a name for exactly that - finetuning / matching bulb & battery.

And BTW - Willie Hunt seems to work for SF now - but no rumours yet on an LVR-SF.

The points made in this thread so far are well made IMO - SF does already very well in what an LVR would be used for in the case of the anyways flat discharge of Lithiums - so why lose 10-20 % efficiency when its not necessary. In the end I think not much overall lumen gain if any at all.

Klaus

Re: If voltage regulation is so great, why don\'t Surefire, Streamlight et al. use it?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Klaus:
Voltage regulation Guru Willie Hunt on 3V Lithiums

Quote:

Lithium's (LiSO2) are quite flat druing their discharge, but the open circuit 3.0 volts quickly drops to around 2.5 for typical light bulb load. If the load is light the voltage will be higher, it the load is heavy then the voltage will be lower. This makes it hard to match the bulb and battery. The LVR can fix this problem.

ENDQUOTE

Seems that SF has a name for exactly that - finetuning / matching bulb & battery.

And BTW - Willie Hunt seems to work for SF now - but no rumours yet on an LVR-SF.

The points made in this thread so far are well made IMO - SF does already very well in what an LVR would be used for in the case of the anyways flat discharge of Lithiums - so why lose 10-20 % efficiency when its not necessary. In the end I think not much overall lumen gain if any at all.

Klaus<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Using a regulator would't permit to empty more those freakin' expensive cells without damaging the bulb ?

The increase in (expensive too) bulb life would be worth the effort IMHO.

Re: If voltage regulation is so great, why don\'t Surefire, Streamlight et al. use it?

Brightnorm: simple-it takes a little bit of juice, 5-20% neighborhood, just to do the regulating adjustments; it's a sort of a sales tax if that helps at all. Straight batteries pay no such tax- it just goes to the bulb directly. Step down "buck" regulators are more efficient as a rule than "boosts" stepups by about 10%. I can't give a good general reason why right off hand. Something to do with losses in inducing voltage increase. Wayne or some of the engineers could say.

Even inefficient regulators are usually worth it because most of the life of a battery is below it's optimum voltage output as you see with your SF. In almost all cases there is an advantage to regulation.

Off-topic:I wonder can you put a pulse mod circuit together with a step up circuit for even better battery life?

Re: If voltage regulation is so great, why don\'t Surefire, Streamlight et al. use it?

Just an opinion (and I'm not too conversant on the Hunt circuit, or as much on incandescents), but Lots of experience with LED circuits definitely shows not only increased battery run time, but better element longevity.
-But, on strictly a purist, technical level, yes there is some efficiency lost.
Elementary physics, I guess..
How else can you explain the success of relatively weak performers like CMG Infinity?