To Zebralight

[Tachead]

Tachead, I'm guessing that Lumencrazy is referring to the photo you posted earlier in this thread of the disassembled light, and I've got to admit, those electronics don't exactly look potted to me, but maybe I'm missing something. Please do set me straight. Maybe they are partially potted?

The light in those pics has had the potting compound mainly removed after disassembly to show the components. If you look close you can see in the bottom of the body the grey compound is still all there. You will also notice small specs of compound left on the MCPCB and components. All ZL lights are fully potted and have always been as far as I know.

 

[Derek Dean]

The light in those pics has had the potting compound mainly removed after disassembly to show the components. If you look close you can see in the bottom of the body the grey compound is still all there. You will also notice small specs of compound left on the MCPCB and components. All ZL lights are fully potted and have always been as far as I know.

Thanks for the clarification. Being a long time ZL user, I suspected as much, and I thought I could see the remnants of potting material in there, but felt the question still needed to be asked.

 

[Zak]

5. I love 4000k 219b emitters! The cr123 and AA models would be awesome with them, especially the headlamps. Imagine a light weight 219b floods headlamp for soldering work or similar, mannnnnnnn

If Zebralight ever uses a Nichia emitter, it probably won't be a model that's getting phased out (219B). Unfortunately, I don't think you'll ever get your wish. Instead, perhaps Armytek will answer all our prayers.

That's a quad 219B on the left. I believe you know what's on the right.

Ok, ok, I'll fill everyone else in. It's a Wizard Pro with Nichia 144A, and the latest rumor I heard suggests they'll actually make it into production.

 

[Tachead]

If Zebralight ever uses a Nichia emitter, it probably won't be a model that's getting phased out (219B). Unfortunately, I don't think you'll ever get your wish. Instead, perhaps Armytek will answer all our prayers.

That's a quad 219B on the left. I believe you know what's on the right.

Ok, ok, I'll fill everyone else in. It's a Wizard Pro with Nichia 144A, and the latest rumor I heard suggests they'll actually make it into production.

Yeah, but Armytek's are plagued by constant problems and inefficient drivers so, I think most ZL users won't be interested no matter what emitter they put in them. You can have the nicest tint in the world but, if the light isn't reliable and has poor efficiency it is not worth the trade off imo. In addition to their terrible reliability, Armytek's warranty is also quite the hassle(far from no hassle), and their new charging system is riddled with problems. They really are not a good alternative compared to ZL imo no matter what emitter they are using.

 

[Zak]

It's interesting to see how brands have different reputations in different communities. On reddit, Zebralight and Armytek enjoy similarly positive reputations, probably stemming from the time that nobody else was making 1x18650 lights with boost drivers. It's common to see people there who own, use and like products from both brands equally well.

There was a bad run of XHP50 Wizards with a lot of issues, but it's my impression Armytek lights are decent in terms of reliability otherwise. I'd definitely give Zebralight the edge in build quality, but Armytek wins on features (magnet, magnetic charging, pocket clip included with 18650 right-angle lights, more usable headband with the new plastic holder). As for efficiency...

maukka's results don't look all that great for Zebralight. Granted, the XM-L2 Easywhite isn't the most efficient emitter in this group, but it's a large disparity. I have to assume the same driver with an XHP50 wouldn't significantly outperform the Wizard. As the runtime is nearly the same, it would have to make nearly twice the output at the same drive current to equal the Wizard.

 

[Nichia!]

Derek, here's the reply ZL staff sent me regarding their potting:

"This is what looks like before the potting material (a Dow Corning thermally conductive silicone) is removed: http://www.zebralight.com/zoomify.asp?catalogid=158&img=assets/images/SC32Potting.jpg
Smaller components (less mass and hence less force under the same acceleration from shock/vibration) are on the upside of the board and covered with potting silicone completely.
Large/hot components are on the other side of the board. The unibody (http://www.zebralight.com/zoomify.asp?catalogid=122&img=assets/images/SC600MkII(L2)cutaway.jpg) are machined to have "cavities" of various sizes and depths, and when filled with potting silicone, provide strong support and short thermal paths for the components.
Single board design is to reduce unnecessary wiring and hand soldering, for better reliability and durability. Besides, PID thermal regulation doesn't work well if the sensor is not right next to the LED. Unibody also provide better mechanical rigidity as well as much better thermal and electrical paths. "

I believe this should answer your question.

This is NOT a fully potted light!

 

[Tachead]

This is NOT a fully potted light!

I am not sure why you say that. The electronics are coated in potting compound. They are indeed fully potted lights. And, ZL uses a more modern compound that is flexible, thermally conductive, and can be removed if repairs or modifications need to be performed. This is a superior method to using a standard solid epoxy like used in lights like Malkoff(for instance) because solid epoxy is permanent, does not allow for any repairs or modifications if something fails, does not offer as good of heat transfer, and adds unnecessary weight to the light. ZL also uses a single MCPCB and uses no wiring which gives much less possible points of failure and enhances reliability over traditional designs like used in other lights. Then there is their monocoque body design which is made from a single piece of Alcoa aluminum which offers superior strength, better heat transfer and dissipation, and lighter weight then traditional multi-piece threaded designs. This all adds up to make a light that is extremely reliable, small and light weight, and much more advanced then most(if not all) other lights on the market. I am not sure what more you could ask for really. Personally, I wish some of the other light companies would learn from ZL and quit sticking to old and outdated designs.

 

[Tachead]

It's interesting to see how brands have different reputations in different communities. On reddit, Zebralight and Armytek enjoy similarly positive reputations, probably stemming from the time that nobody else was making 1x18650 lights with boost drivers. It's common to see people there who own, use and like products from both brands equally well.

There was a bad run of XHP50 Wizards with a lot of issues, but it's my impression Armytek lights are decent in terms of reliability otherwise. I'd definitely give Zebralight the edge in build quality, but Armytek wins on features (magnet, magnetic charging, pocket clip included with 18650 right-angle lights, more usable headband with the new plastic holder). As for efficiency...

maukka's results don't look all that great for Zebralight. Granted, the XM-L2 Easywhite isn't the most efficient emitter in this group, but it's a large disparity. I have to assume the same driver with an XHP50 wouldn't significantly outperform the Wizard. As the runtime is nearly the same, it would have to make nearly twice the output at the same drive current to equal the Wizard.

I have seen plenty of people with issues with both Armytek's reliability and warranty department on Reddit. There have been countless reports on here, other forums, and Youtube as well. Just do a search on here or check out their forum and you will see how many people have had issues(often multiple issues). My experience with Armytek was not great as well. Last year at about this time, against my better judgement after reading all the bad reports, I decided to give Armytek a try as their headquarters is where I live and because I liked their UI and many of the features they offer. So, I bought 4 lights total to try them out. Two were for me and two were for gifts. Well, 3 of the 4 had issues or died in the first year(2 in the first few months). And, only one of them was even used much and all were very well taken care of and were still in pristine condition and never even dropped. Understandably, I was not impressed considering I have been into LED lights for around 15 years and have never seen this kind of failure rate even though I have owned dozens of lights from several different manufacturers. I am not the only one either. Several other people have had multiple failures or issues over the last few years. I also learned that Armytek's warranty is far from "hassle free". Personally, I no longer trust Armytek and although I like their UI and alot of their features I will likely never buy another as reliability is the most important trait a light can have imo. I should also point out that a few people have recently posted about having issues with the new charging system Armytek is offering. It sounds like it has some issues and has a ridiculously low charge rate to boot.

As for Armytek vs ZL, you have to compare lights with similar components. Maukka's chart you posted is comparing a 12V low CRI new generation emitter to an old 3V High CRI one.

I have personally tested some of each brands lights and have compared their runtimes, thermal regulation, output curves, etc. I have also read many reviews and tests done by others. I can tell you that there is really no comparison. The ZL's have better efficiency and generate less heat, have more accurate outputs when compared to the manufacturers specs, have far more sophisticated thermal regulation, and generally offer more stable regulation on the higher modes.

Here is an efficacy chart maukka posted in his review of the Prime Pro XHP35. It compares lights that both use boost drivers and the XHP35(although one is an HD and one is a HI)...

And here is a runtime graph of them on high...

And, here is a comparison I did of their thermal regulation. Notice the severe ringing on the AT that is likely caused by poor design/engineering(either driver or firmware).

ZL

AT

Here they are overlaid courtesy again of maukka...

And, here is a comparison of their temperatures after 2 minutes 30 seconds on their highest outputs. Notice how much hotter the Armytek is even though its output is lower and it is a larger light with more heatsinking. This is a clear sign of its drivers poor efficiency. It is wasting energy in the form of heat...

The bottom line is although Armytek's have some nice features and designs, they also have some significant reliability and design issues and are no where near as advanced and refined as Zebralight imo.

 

[Tachead]

Oops.

 

[NPL]

Wow, cool to see how AT and Zebralight compare on all of the tests you posted. I have owned two Armyteks and didn't have any issues, but recall how the AA Tiara was as big and heavy as my ZL H600w. I am also not a fan of AT marketing strategy, way too intense. ZL is nicely refined and doesn't seem to cut corners. Seeing the test results above appear to align with the overall impression I had on ZL lights.

 

[jon_slider]

Derek, here's the reply ZL staff sent me regarding their potting:

"This is what looks like before the potting material (a Dow Corning thermally conductive silicone) is removed: http://www.zebralight.com/zoomify.asp?catalogid=158&img=assets/images/SC32Potting.jpg

thanks, I think Zebralight might be using conformal coatings and calling them potting material
https://www.dowcorning.com/content/electronics/electronicsproducts/conformal-coatings-overview.aspx
"Formulated from tough yet flexible silicone technology, Dow Corning's conformal coatings promote extended service life and enhanced reliability for your PCB components and assemblies."

according to this Wiki definition, potting is a little differen than Conformal Coating.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potting_(electronics)
"In electronics, potting is a process of filling a complete electronic assembly with a solid or gelatinous compound for resistance to shock and vibration, and for exclusion of moisture and corrosive agents."

you can see that the coating Zebralight uses does not fill a pot and completely cover the electronic assembly...

this is an example wikipedia gives for potting:


my understanding is that potting permanently encases the electronics, completely hiding them, and cannot be removed.

conformal coatings otoh, are coatings, and can be removed. they do not completely encapsulate the components.

I believe HDS also uses conformal coatings and calls it potting, like Zebrallight does. Surefire also uses conformal coatings, yet people call surefire "potted".

its kind of like the way people misuse the term Tint, when they really mean Color Temperature. They are not the same thing.

 

[Woods Walker]

I rather like the little pegs on the newer ZL tail cap. I just don't care for the newer UI so find myself using AT more.

 

[Derek Dean]

thanks, I think Zebralight might be using conformal coatings and calling them potting material
https://www.dowcorning.com/content/electronics/electronicsproducts/conformal-coatings-overview.aspx
"Formulated from tough yet flexible silicone technology, Dow Corning's conformal coatings promote extended service life and enhanced reliability for your PCB components and assemblies."

according to this Wiki definition, potting is a little differen than Conformal Coating.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potting_(electronics)
"In electronics, potting is a process of filling a complete electronic assembly with a solid or gelatinous compound for resistance to shock and vibration, and for exclusion of moisture and corrosive agents."

you can see that the coating Zebralight uses does not fill a pot and completely cover the electronic assembly...

this is an example wikipedia gives for potting:


my understanding is that potting permanently encases the electronics, completely hiding them, and cannot be removed.

conformal coatings otoh, are coatings, and can be removed. they do not completely encapsulate the components.

I believe HDS also uses conformal coatings and calls it potting, like Zebrallight does. Surefire also uses conformal coatings, yet people call surefire "potted".

its kind of like the way people misuse the term Tint, when they really mean Color Temperature. They are not the same thing.

That's all very interesting, jon, and yes, I'd read that wiki definition of "potting" as well, which is why I was curious about what ZL is actually doing. Well, I'm happy with how well my ZL lights have held up to my abuse (and they get used a LOT), so I'll leave the hows and whys up to ZL as to whether they "pot" or "conform".

As far as the difference between Tint and Color Temperature........ I must admit that is something I was a bit confused about....... but now, after a thorough Google search, I think I understand that Color Temperature refers to the shift between blue and amber, while Tint refers to the the shift between magenta and green (at least that's what I got out of my search. Please set me straight if I'm still wrong).

So, let me try this....... I hope my new ZL SC600w IV Plus will have a slightly amber color temperature, with just a hint of magenta tint : )

 

[Tachead]

thanks, I think Zebralight might be using conformal coatings and calling them potting material
https://www.dowcorning.com/content/electronics/electronicsproducts/conformal-coatings-overview.aspx
"Formulated from tough yet flexible silicone technology, Dow Corning's conformal coatings promote extended service life and enhanced reliability for your PCB components and assemblies."

according to this Wiki definition, potting is a little differen than Conformal Coating.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potting_(electronics)
"In electronics, potting is a process of filling a complete electronic assembly with a solid or gelatinous compound for resistance to shock and vibration, and for exclusion of moisture and corrosive agents."

you can see that the coating Zebralight uses does not fill a pot and completely cover the electronic assembly...

this is an example wikipedia gives for potting:


my understanding is that potting permanently encases the electronics, completely hiding them, and cannot be removed.

conformal coatings otoh, are coatings, and can be removed. they do not completely encapsulate the components.

I believe HDS also uses conformal coatings and calls it potting, like Zebrallight does. Surefire also uses conformal coatings, yet people call surefire "potted".

its kind of like the way people misuse the term Tint, when they really mean Color Temperature. They are not the same thing.

The information you posted is not correct Jon. The product you linked is not what ZL uses either. They use one of Dow's thermally conductive pottants. It is not a conformal coating. And it does completely fill the electronic cavity. If you look at the picture of the disassembled SC600 MKIII below, you can see the entire cavity("pot") under the MCPCB is full. You have to remember that ZL uses a single MCPCB to house all components including the emitter and switch so the potting material must only be filled so far or it would cover the emitter and impede function of the switch.

ZL's are potted, not conformal coated(although conformal coatings should not be frowned upon as they are very effective as well).

Conformal coatings are completely different then potting. Conformal coatings are a thin layer of product(generally clear or translucent) only applied to the MCPCB and its components. This process resembles a lacquer. Surefire uses this process. Here is a pic of what it looks like...

SC600 MKIII with most of the potting compound removed from MCPCB

SC32

SC52

 

[Tachead]

I rather like the little pegs on the newer ZL tail cap. I just don't care for the newer UI so find myself using AT more.

I think you mean the standard "old" UI. The new UI is fully programmable.

 

[Keitho]

I'm really liking the newer UI (which isn't that new; available on about 2 dozen current production lights), because you can make it behave like an "old" ZL, almost exactly like an AT, just like a Noctigon, like a better version of the Emisar lights, or even like a single-mode light. Still not quite perfect, but getting there...

 

[jon_slider]

That's all very interesting, jon, and yes, I'd read that wiki definition of "potting" as well, which is why I was curious about what ZL is actually doing. Well, I'm happy with how well my ZL lights have held up to my abuse (and they get used a LOT), so I'll leave the hows and whys up to ZL as to whether they "pot" or "conform".

As far as the difference between Tint and Color Temperature........ I must admit that is something I was a bit confused about....... but now, after a thorough Google search, I think I understand that Color Temperature refers to the shift between blue and amber, while Tint refers to the the shift between magenta and green (at least that's what I got out of my search. Please set me straight if I'm still wrong).

So, let me try this....... I hope my new ZL SC600w IV Plus will have a slightly amber color temperature, with just a hint of magenta tint : )

all good
generally Tint in Zebras is above the BBL, IF they have one with a Tint below the BBL, I agree that would be my preference..
the warm(amber) to cool (blue) progression is captured in the CCT spec. So a 4000 Kelvin Corrected Color Temperature is warmer than a 6000k CCT

this chart shows both the progression of color temperature, and the location of the BBL, that divides as you said the shift from yellow/green to magenta. (D50 is 5000k, the 100w Incan is 3000k)

same CCT and Tint rainbow:

They use one of Dow's thermally conductive pottants. It is not a conformal coating. And it does completely fill the electronic cavity. If you look at the picture of the disassembled SC600 MKIII below, you can see the entire cavity("pot") under the MCPCB is full.
...
ZL's are potted, not conformal coated(although conformal coatings should not be frowned upon as they are very effective as well).

thank you, I believe you believe what you are saying
I just don't quite yet understand it because I cannot see a pot full of compound, maybe Im not looking at the right picture. And, I would be more comfortable if you gave a link to the correct potting compound they are using, so I don't have to requote hearsay, and can offer an independent link when I adopt the info you are sharing.

I agree the are silicone potting compounds as well as silicone conformal coatings. I even agree that generally conformal coatings are mentioned as being clear. I appreciate you taking the time to read my posts and helping me be accurate with the distinctions.

I also agree that conformal coatings also work very well.

imo, Potting is not removable.. but, Ive been under educated before.. and welcome better info. Not just better opinions, but also better facts.

 

[Zak]

As for Armytek vs ZL, you have to compare lights with similar components. Maukka's chart you posted is comparing a 12V low CRI new generation emitter to an old 3V High CRI one.

Not quite. It's a 12V low-CRI emitter compared to a 6V mid-CRI emitter. No doubt the XHP50 is somewhat more efficient, but it's making 80% more light at near-identical battery drain. I maintain that the Wizard's driver does not look bad in this comparison.

The Prime, on the other hand is terribly inefficient. I've been meaning to swap emitters in mine and see if that holds.

 

[maukka]

You shouldn't use that image, since it has the BBL and CCT lines in the wrong place.

Corrected one:

 

[Tachead]

all good
generally Tint in Zebras is above the BBL, IF they have one with a Tint below the BBL, I agree that would be my preference..
the warm(amber) to cool (blue) progression is captured in the CCT spec. So a 4000 Kelvin Corrected Color Temperature is warmer than a 6000k CCT

this chart shows both the progression of color temperature, and the location of the BBL, that divides as you said the shift from yellow/green to magenta. (D50 is 5000k, the 100w Incan is 3000k)


same CCT and Tint rainbow:

thank you, I believe you believe what you are saying
I just don't quite yet understand it because I cannot see a pot full of compound, maybe Im not looking at the right picture. And, I would be more comfortable if you gave a link to the correct potting compound they are using, so I don't have to requote hearsay, and can offer an independent link when I adopt the info you are sharing.

I agree the are silicone potting compounds as well as silicone conformal coatings. I even agree that generally conformal coatings are mentioned as being clear. I appreciate you taking the time to read my posts and helping me be accurate with the distinctions.

I also agree that conformal coatings also work very well.

imo, Potting is not removable.. but, Ive been under educated before.. and welcome better info. Not just better opinions, but also better facts.

Look at the picture of the SC600 MKIII. See the grey substance in the bottom of the electronics cavity with all the indents in it? That is the potting compound and the indents are from the major components on the bottom of the MCPCB. The entire cavity(pot) is completely filled with the compound including the MCPCB and all of its components excluding the emitter and switch as they can not be covered to operate properly.

As for what specific compound they are using, I am not sure but, will ask them. I am guessing it is something like these...

http://www.dowcorning.com/applications/search/default.aspx?R=12555EN

http://www.dowcorning.com/applications/search/default.aspx?R=12566EN

I don't think you are getting the main difference between conformal coating and potting.

Conformal coating is just a thin coating applied to the MCPCB and its components and yes it is usually clear or translucent. It is also generally not thermally conductive as is only used in a thin layer to protect the MCBCP, its components, and the solder joints.

Potting on the other hand is when a compound, which is sometimes thermally conductive(in this case it is), is used in large quantities to fully fill a cavity(in this case the flashlight head)and submerge the electronic components to protect them(like comformal coating does) and also to further dampen shock and vibration and help transfer and dissipate heat(when a thermally conductive product is used).

Potting compound is available in many different formulations. Some are thermally conductive and some aren't. Some compounds are epoxy based and are not removable as they dry to a hard resin. These are an older technology and are generally used in applications where maintenance is not required or permitted. The picture of what looks like an automotive relay you posted is an example of this type of epoxy based compound. Many of the newer formulations are silicone based and offer the added benefit of staying flexible. This allows removal of the compound for repair, maintenance, or upgrades. This is the type of compound ZL uses and this is why they are able to offer repair services on their lights. If they used an epoxy based potting compound no repair would be possible and modding would not be an option either.

Imo flexible and thermally conductive compounds are the best option for the flashlight industry. They offer added heat management and allow for repairs and/or modifications. Using an epoxy based product, like Malkoff does for instance, means that if anything goes wrong your light is effectively an expensive paperweight and has to be disposed of. Not to mention modifications and/or upgrades are never an option.