# DIY HDS EDC upgrade



## Billson (May 26, 2006)

I was playing around with a UWOJ I got from Photonfanatic wondering what I can do with it when it suddenly occurred to me to see if I could take apart my U60GT to swap out the led. 

In retrospect, I don’t know why it never occured to me to take pictures but it's easy enough to understand the steps required even without pictures.

I first unscrewed the lens and took out the reflector to look at the insides of the light. I saw that the led module unscrews from the rear so I took out the battery and used snap ring pliers to try and unscrew the module. Surprisingly, it moved easily. Seems HDS doesn't use loctite like Arc did or at least mine didn't. The module is a one-piece sealed round cylinder with the led seated in a machined slot where it fits snugly and centers itself. I just desoldered both wires and the led popped off quite easily. Only thermal paste was used so I guess the design uses the reflector to press the led onto the module for proper thermal contact. I just had to drop in the UWOJ led and soldered both leads.

Putting the light back together was just as easy. Just screw the module back into the light. Put in the reflector, lens and screw in the retaining ring.

I'm still kicking myself for not thinking of taking a lux reading before attempting the mod to compare the readings before and after. I guess I never thought it would be this easy. I also saw no point in taking a picture of the beamshot since I have nothing to compare it to. Using my eyes to gauge the difference, I'm pretty sure it's brighter and definitely whiter. Even at the lower levels it seems brighter with barely noticeable hint of tint.

With this result, I'm guessing my light originally had a TWOJ led in it because I got almost the same runtime. I actually got a few minutes more with the UWOJ so this led probably had a lower vf than the one I swapped out. I think I’ll to do a burn-in to see if the vf drops some more. Since the EDC is rated based on lumens, I’ve always assumed the EDC is calibrated by setting the required current until the rated lumens is achieved. If the led is swapped out with a lower vf bin, it should run longer. Can anyone confirm this? If this is so, I wonder what will happen if I buy a 42xr and swap in a UxxJ? Hmm.:thinking:


----------



## AuroraLite (May 27, 2006)

Thanks for writing it up, I don't have one but am planning to get one. And if the HDS is a modable light, more bonus to the purchase. Just out of curiosity, when approximately did you make your purchase? Will the recent products easier to take apart?


----------



## Billson (May 27, 2006)

I bought my light sometime at the end of last year. It's the newer design with the removable reflector but I don't know if it's been redesigned since then.

The led is the only part that you can safely remove/replace. Henry says the module is potted so attempting to open it would most probably result in destroying the electronics.

I don't know if new lights come from the factory without loctite because I've already sent my light back to HDS for repairs a few months ago but they were unable to fix the problem so I figured I had nothing to lose by attempting to do it myself.


----------



## jar3ds (May 27, 2006)

holy smokes! This is suprisingly the first info i've seen on how to take out the module of the HDS...

can you take pics of the process?


----------



## AuroraLite (May 27, 2006)

Bill,

So the reflector could also be removed from the front after removing the retaining ring, right? And if you don't mind, what's the problem that we are trying to fix when the light was sent back to HDS?

Thanks for the info! :thumbsup:


----------



## xpitxbullx (May 27, 2006)

Did you swap a star or an emmiter? I have some U-bins on the way, also.

Jeff


----------



## chesterqw (May 27, 2006)

anyone thinks modding a hds basic 42 with some GOOD lux III will improve the light output? like for example, a lux III with a bin that can put out 60 to 80 lumen?


----------



## Planterz (May 27, 2006)

I thought I remembered reading that each HDS light's circuitry was individually tuned to the LED inside. I'm not saying that modding with a more powerful LED is a bad thing, but it might not do what you're expecting or have predictable results.


----------



## W4DIZ (May 27, 2006)

I wonder what would happen if you put a LuxV in it.


----------



## jar3ds (May 27, 2006)

W4DIZ said:


> I wonder what would happen if you put a LuxV in it.


 is it even possible to luxV it? Would a diff reflector be needed... and would the input voltage be enough? i'm sure you'd get CRAZY runtimes


----------



## xochi (May 27, 2006)

I bet the ultimate LED swap for these lights would be to take the low end basic 42 model and swap in a S bin luxI. I bet you'd end up with better runtimes and brightness than any of the 60 lumen models.


----------



## jar3ds (May 27, 2006)

xochi said:


> I bet the ultimate LED swap for these lights would be to take the low end basic 42 model and swap in a S bin luxI. I bet you'd end up with better runtimes and brightness than any of the 60 lumen models.


 i've always heard/thought that there wasn't any differance between the Lux1's and the lux3's... only that the lux3's are brighter and are driven harder...

can a lux1 handle the max output?


----------



## GhostReaction (May 28, 2006)

with all this HDS mod talking, it sounds to me that the different model of HDS; 42, 60, 85 and XRs are just different emitter in the same light :thinking:


----------



## xochi (May 28, 2006)

Perhaps I was a tad enthusiastic about an S bin lux I in a b42. I think that the difference between the 42's and 60's is max drive current, I could be wrong but that makes the most sense to me. If that is the case then a luxI in the 42 would be overdriven. The lux I is rated at 350 ma (s = 51-67 lumens at this current) so if the max drive current of the HDS 60 model is spec (IIRC- 700ma - please correct me on this) then the HDS 42 max current should be somewhere around 400-600 ma (total speculation here). The Sbin 1 watters have proven themselves very efficient- sometimes just as efficent at the upper drive currents as T or U bins lux3's. At that level of overdrive the life would be shortened some and I'd just guess you'd get at least 60 lumens. 

IIRC, the die of the lux1 is smaller than the lux3 so there would be changes in the beam. 

I think that swapping the emitter in a b42 with a sbin lux1 is certainly the most interesting upgrade. Changeing out the emitter in the 60's really isn't worth the effort since you only stand to loose warranty protection for a gain that can barely be percieved.


----------



## xochi (May 28, 2006)

One thing I didn't think of is if an overdriven lux1 would kick in the thermal protection quicker. I don't know.


----------



## leukos (May 28, 2006)

Xochi,

I doubt HDS drive levels are all that different between the 42 and 60 models. From runtime tests, they still seem to run for similar amounts of time on the same batteries.


----------



## xochi (May 28, 2006)

Hey Leukos,

Are you saying that at a given level , with the b42 level 1 corresponding to b60 level 2, the runtimes are very similar? I couldn't find much b42 runtime info but the few I found seems to support this. If that is the case, that b42 runtimes on level 1 roughly correspond to b60 runtimes on level 2, I would expect that the drive current of the b60 on level 2 and the drive current of the b42 on level one are the same. 

This is an ideal situation for creating a b42 with an sbin lux1 that puts out about the same amount of light as the b60 on max. Unless the difference is entirely related to pwm, which I don't think it is , the B42 would be great for an sbin 1 watt since it wouldn't overdrive the LED quite as much as the 60 would.


----------



## xochi (May 28, 2006)

I just ordered a b42 on sale from lighthound and 2 sxoh lux1 emitters from photonfanatic (hope he still has some) to try the led swap. Here are the numbers quoted from McGizmos IS tests of various leds and a SX1J Lux1 from ledsupply. 

*Begin McGizmo Quote:*







Unfortunately, I didn't keep the Excel Spread Sheet used or I could have just added the S bin sample to the rest. :shrug:

So what I measured on the S sample follows:

If (mA)****** Vf********** Lumens

100 ---------- 3.0-------------- 17
200 ---------- 3.2-------------- 33
300 ---------- 3.3-------------- 46
350 ---------- 3.3-------------- 51
400 ---------- 3.4-------------- 56
500 ---------- 3.5-------------- 65
600 ---------- 3.5-------------- 74
700 ---------- 3.6-------------- 81
800 ---------- 3.6-------------- 88
900 ---------- 3.7-------------- 94
1000 --------- 3.8-------------- 98

It is really important to keep in mind that these measurements are reasonable in terms or relative comparisons among the samples tested but as to how representative any one of these LED's is of its brother bin members, well, your guess is as good as mine.  This particular S bin held its own against the measured competiton but did not win in any category; nor did it loose!
__________________

*End McGizmo Quote.

*Judging from Gransees integrating sphere tests of popular lights the output of the b42 roughly corresponds to a 500 ma drive current and at 500 ma the SX1J tested by McGizmo in his integrating sphere was 65 lumens. 

So long as it doesn't kill it, the H vf lux1 should perform a bit better than the J tested. The only bummer I can think of is that these emitters will likely (as Newbie said via pm) shift towards the blue and I would have liked to have started with a much warmer tint. I'm also sure that McGizmos numbers in his IS are likely totally exposed and very well heatsinked so the losses from lens and heat and reflector may make it a wash. The B42's are said to have lower quality emitters though.

Unfortunately, I have no lightmeter to measure real gains and have to eyeball it and compare vs other lights to see if it is worth it.


----------



## Billson (May 28, 2006)

jar3ds said:


> can you take pics of the process?





AuroraLite said:


> So the reflector could also be removed from the front after removing the retaining ring, right? And if you don't mind, what's the problem that we are trying to fix when the light was sent back to HDS?


jar3ds, AuroraLite

I'll try to take it apart again when I have time and take some pictures but the process is pretty straightforward. The parts should come out in this order: retaining ring, lens, oring, reflector.

I believe the original batch had an integrated reflector machined into the head. Only sure way to find out is to remove the retaining ring and lens to look for yourself.

The problem with my light was it wouldn't come on when I loosened the retaining ring. Henry said there was probably something wrong with the led so he asked me to send it to him then sent it back to me saying they couldn't find anything wrong with it but I was able to repeat the problem on my 1st attempt. Due to my location, sending the light on a round trip back and forth cost me around $40 using trackable postage so I figured if I had to send it back again and they still didn't find the problem, I would've been better off just buying a new light.

I told myself I had nothing to lose by attempting to swap the led myself. If I somehow managed to screw it up, I'll just send my light to Henry which I'd eventually have to do anyway if I left as it is.


xpitxbullx said:


> Did you swap a star or an emmiter? I have some U-bins on the way, also.


Jeff,

It's an emitter. There's a milled slot where it seats perfectly with no need for centering or fiddling with. Just put thermal paste and slot it in. My UWOJ was also a star. It's pretty easy to remove the emitter but you need to desolder the leads(don't cut) because you need the full length of the leads for attachment to the module's leads.


----------



## Billson (May 28, 2006)

chesterqw said:


> anyone thinks modding a hds basic 42 with some GOOD lux III will improve the light output? like for example, a lux III with a bin that can put out 60 to 80 lumen?





Planterz said:


> I thought I remembered reading that each HDS light's circuitry was individually tuned to the LED inside. I'm not saying that modding with a more powerful LED is a bad thing, but it might not do what you're expecting or have predictable results.



_Disclaimer: This is just my opinion so please don't take it as fact. I'm just making assumptions based on limited experience with my own light after making the modifications._

Like Planterz said, the circuitry is tuned to the particular led attached to it but I don't think it's as complicated as it sounds. I'm guessing after attaching the led, the current is increased until the brightness reaches the required lumens but there is an upper current limit or else the runtime will be compromised. If the max current is reached without the light achieving the target lumens, then the light is de-rated to a lower model.

Extrapolating from the performance difference on my light before and after modding, I'm guessing the 60 is using TxxJ, 60XR TxxH, 85 UxxJ, 85xr UxxH.



W4DIZ said:


> I wonder what would happen if you put a LuxV in it.



I don't think I'd be willing to risk that. Since the HDS is using a buck/boost circuit, there might be a max limit for the output voltage just like the max input voltage. If so, putting in a lux V might cause the boost circuit to self-destruct in trying to reach the required voltage needed by the lux V.


----------



## Billson (May 28, 2006)

xochi said:


> I bet the ultimate LED swap for these lights would be to take the low end basic 42 model and swap in a S bin luxI. I bet you'd end up with better runtimes and brightness than any of the 60 lumen models.



You'd probably end up with brighter and better runtimes than stock but highly doubt it would ever reach 60 lumens. Assuming a 15-20 percent loss in the optics, you would need 75-80 lumens from the emitter to get 60 lumens coming out the front end. You usually need to double the current to get just a 50% gain in brightness as can be seen in the graph by McGizmo that you posted. Since we have no way of making any adjustments, the current will be the same regardless of how good a led you might have to put in.



jar3ds said:


> i've always heard/thought that there wasn't any differance between the Lux1's and the lux3's... only that the lux3's are brighter and are driven harder...
> 
> can a lux1 handle the max output?



I've read that Lux 3's have better thermal properties and judging by the way the EDC's are configured, Lux I's will be severely overdriven and since they are binned at 350ma, who knows what tint they will end up with at 700ma.



GhostReaction said:


> with all this HDS mod talking, it sounds to me that the different model of HDS; 42, 60, 85 and XRs are just different emitter in the same light :thinking:



This seems to be essentially the case. It's probably just tweaked a bit due to the inconsistencies in the leds used so it can be said that each light is configured uniquely.


----------



## Billson (May 28, 2006)

xochi said:


> I just ordered a b42 on sale from lighthound and 2 sxoh lux1 emitters from photonfanatic (hope he still has some) to try the led swap. Here are the numbers quoted from McGizmos IS tests of various leds and a SX1J Lux1 from ledsupply.



I think you should make sure first that the threads don't have loctite before you buy the leds? If the Arc flashlights were any indication, attepting to unscrew the module will be a most challenging task if this happens to be the case.


----------



## AuroraLite (May 28, 2006)

Billson said:


> _Disclaimer: This is just my opinion so please don't take it as fact. I'm just making assumptions based on limited experience with my own light after making the modifications._
> 
> Like Planterz said, the circuitry is tuned to the particular led attached to it but I don't think it's as complicated as it sounds. I'm guessing after attaching the led, the current is increased until the brightness reaches the required lumens but there is an upper current limit or else the runtime will be compromised. If the max current is reached without the light achieving the target lumens, then the light is de-rated to a lower model.
> 
> ...





Bill,

So did swapping out the led in the end solves your problem(I hope so  )?

As for the swapping the led in B42 to achieve higher lumen ratings, I actually kinda think alike as Xochi. From the data that he posted/quoted McGizmo, given the highest level of brightness to B42 is achieve by driving the led at around 500ma or more with a lux III, the new SxxH emitter should give out 65 lumens(before discounting the optical wares loss)....now the challege is to figure out exactly how much highest current is driven to the led of the B42(which soldering in a resistor and get the V measurement should do the trick) and find out what kind of emitter was used originally in the B42.

My wild guess is possible that B42 achieves it luman rating by mildly underdriving a(or just at spec) lux III, which after the opticware discount, give the lumen rating of 42. 

If that is the case, swapping a premium lux I (such as SxxH) might achieve a little higher performance if the highest current level of B42 is between 500-700ma to the lux, however, overdriving might cause efficiency/heat issue(which might not exist before the mod). Anyway, it will worth a try and don't forget to get some measurement before and after! Good luck!


----------



## Billson (May 29, 2006)

AuroraLite said:


> So did swapping out the led in the end solves your problem(I hope so  )?



I hope so too since the problem was intermittent, we can only guess at what the actual problem was/is. It manifests itself sometimes and only when I take off the lens so unless the lens breaks, there should be little risk of failure.



> My wild guess is possible that B42 achieves it luman rating by mildly underdriving a(or just at spec) lux III, which after the opticware discount, give the lumen rating of 42.



This is my guess as well. I'm betting HDS aims for all lights to be 60 lumens but if they are unable to make the cut-off minimum of 60lumens and 20 minutes runtime, then the light is de-tuned and re-classifiied as 42's, hence we have the 42 XR's, GT's, and XRGT's.



> If that is the case, swapping a premium lux I (such as SxxH) might achieve a little higher performance if the highest current level of B42 is between 500-700ma to the lux, however, overdriving might cause efficiency/heat issue(which might not exist before the mod). Anyway, it will worth a try and don't forget to get some measurement before and after! Good luck!



The problem is unless you care to measure the current output of the module, we have no way of knowing what it is set at and since we can't adjust it ourselves, we have no way of knowing what tint it will be until everything's done and it's finally turned on. I'm afraid I have neither the time or patience for that. Let's hope someone else has the time and is brave enough to try it and post their results.


----------



## AuroraLite (May 29, 2006)

Billson said:


> This is my guess as well. I'm betting HDS aims for all lights to be 60 lumens but if they are unable to make the cut-off minimum of 60lumens and 20 minutes runtime, then the light is de-tuned and re-classifiied as 42's, hence we have the 42 XR's, GT's, and XRGT's.



I think that make sense too, but I am guessing it might be their intended purpose to start a line of B42 since less current drawn will mean longer battery life and more efficiency for the lux. Anyway, after checking out one of my friend's B60, I am quite impressed by the light and probably going to get one soon. 




Billson said:


> The problem is unless you care to measure the current output of the module, we have no way of knowing what it is set at and since we can't adjust it ourselves, we have no way of knowing what tint it will be until everything's done and it's finally turned on. I'm afraid I have neither the time or patience for that. Let's hope someone else has the time and is brave enough to try it and post their results.



No worries, Xochi has mentioned the possibility of modding one after he gets his, I do wish him luck on that and hope he will let us know how it turns out. And if there is no lightmeter handy, a quick snap of pictures before and after probably will say a thousand words too(if it is convinient).


----------



## xochi (May 29, 2006)

Hey Auroralite, 

You mentioned soldering in a resistor and measuring voltage, are you speaking of using the resistor _in place of_ the Led? What resistance would keep me from cooking the module?

Billson,

For what it's worth, I had some reliable information that at least the very first batch of U60XR's were using TYOJ emitters. I don't know how HDS buys LEDs but I'd imagine that , since cost is likely a big factor, they use the minimum capable of meeting specs. Perhaps it is worth the savings to buy S and T flux bin Leds, I don't know. If S bin lux3's make it into the 42's then certainly the current would be over driving a lux1 too much for my taste. If that is the case, it would be a great swap for a U lux3. I suppose that would be best case scenario with a UWOJ realistically turning a b42 into a B60XRGT. 

Without knowing the drive current of the B42, to begin with, I guess it isn't worth doing the mod so If anyone can provide a bit more info on how to measure the current output of the B42 (and as Billson pointed out , _it isn't potted) _it sure would make things easier. 

I'd be glad to post pictures and measurements if it turns out that this will even be possible.


----------



## AuroraLite (May 29, 2006)

Hi, Xochi!

Are you ready for the mod yet? 

The resistor soldered in series(or next to the emitter) is just my humble suggestion to check what is the actual current go into the lux(by measuring the voltage dropped across a 1 ohm resistor and knowing the resistance value, we will then know the current by V=IR) at the highest drive level. Anyway, that was my dummy way to do it, and it seems to work ok so far each time.

My wild guess of the B42 is using a lux III with an underdriven current came from the recent IS testing from Gransee, for an aleph 2(with 20mm reflector) with a lux III driven at 500ma is outputing around 48 lumens...that kinda led me into my assumption of the setup and current driven for B42.

Therefore, if the lux used in the B42 is indeed a lux III, and the highest current(of B42) on the lux is re-set to lower level than the B60...then even with the installation of a premium lux III, I would think the modded light might improve the brightness(or efficiency if it was a lux I in the original of B42)...but it might or might not be a direct transformation to a B60. Anyhow, good luck with the mod if you decide to do it


----------



## xochi (May 29, 2006)

Thanks Auroralite for the info. Good idea. 

Also, Thanks Billson for posting about removing the 60 module. I seem to remember someone offered up the module only for sale about a year ago, I don't remember wether it was a 42 or a 60. I just mention this to feed my hope that the b42 isn't epoxied in. Thanks again, I think that modding the 42 should be fun and I'll learn a bit from it.


----------



## Billson (May 30, 2006)

AuroraLite said:


> My wild guess of the B42 is using a lux III with an underdriven current came from the recent IS testing from Gransee, for an aleph 2(with 20mm reflector) with a lux III driven at 500ma is outputing around 48 lumens...that kinda led me into my assumption of the setup and current driven for B42.



I emailed Henry a couple of days ago to clarify the runtime of the B42 and he said that they will run at max(42lm) for only 20 mins while the XR will run for 50% more(30 mins).

Looking at Gransee's IS test, my McLuxIII-T driven at 525 ma runs for more than an hour so does this mean the B42 is either extremely inefficient or using a terrible led? Using a side by side comparison of my EDC and McLux, I would estimate the McLux at around 40 lumens so the B42's performance just doesn't add up.


----------



## AuroraLite (May 30, 2006)

Billson said:


> I emailed Henry a couple of days ago to clarify the runtime of the B42 and he said that they will run at max(42lm) for only 20 mins while the XR will run for 50% more(30 mins).
> 
> Looking at Gransee's IS test, my McLuxIII-T driven at 525 ma runs for more than an hour so does this mean the B42 is either extremely inefficient or using a terrible led? Using a side by side comparison of my EDC and McLux, I would estimate the McLux at around 40 lumens so the B42's performance just doesn't add up.



Bill, thanks for the info. 

This is the first time I was informed about B42 is running at around 42 lumens for 20+ min, and can honestly say that I have absolutely no idea why it is performing that way? :shrug: Maybe a much higher bin code(Vf) or maybe something to do with optical efficiency? Or...maybe there is a long 'full' moon mode following afterwards? Err...for a EE dummy like myself, I think that just exceeded my very limited knowledge of EE.

One correction I should make about the previous post was the Gransee's IS test on the Aleph2 is indeed 40lm instead of 47(which I remembered wrongly for the Aleph1), which I have to thank you for correcting me.


----------



## Planterz (May 30, 2006)

I think the reason the runtimes on max for the HDS lights are so short is because of the step-down technology. Meaning that it's not necessarily that it at ~20 minutes it can no longer support 42 lumens, rather that it's programmed to step down to continue cranking out usable light. For example, my old 42XR would run about 30 minutes on high, but then it'd step down to ~20 lumens for another hour, then step down again after that. This is with a li-ion. On a primary, it lasted a bit longer on max, but reached the 2nd stepdown at the same 1:30 mark. I didn't bother timing it past then. If you step down to the 10 lumen primary after the first 20-30 minutes are up, you can still get a few hours of 10 lumen light on the same battery. Other regulated lights might last longer at full brightness, but once that's up, output bottoms out to nil.

I think the idea is that if you're using your light at full-blast, you're either a) not worried about runtimes and you'll charge soon enough, or b) it's an "emergency" type situation, in which case it conserves battery life for you. The Gladius does the same sort of thing. The reason I think this is is the case is because even with lithium ions, it takes a _long_ time and at least 2 or 3 stepdowns for the protection circuitry to kick in. My McLux III PD might last a full hour or so at full brightness, but the protection kicks in and shuts off entirely.

FWIW, I consider the max level to be a "burst", and use a lower level as the primary (whether that level is the "Primary" HDS has set). For example the primary on my U60XRGT is the 42 lumen setting, and I get a full 2+ hours with a lithium ion (2.5 hours with my better cells) before it steps down. Seems pretty damn good to me.

This, plus the individual tuning of each HDS light to its LED makes me a bit skeptical about modding these lights. Not saying it can't be done, just saying it might not do what you expect it to.


----------



## AuroraLite (May 30, 2006)

Planterz,

Wow...more I look into it, more I am marvelled at the technology involved with these modern flashlights. :bow:

I too recalled looking at the runtime charge and remember seeing something what you have described. And in addition, it could be also the thermal protection in play which prevent the whole thing from overheating or burnt hands.

But one thing I noticed from Gransee's IS test is that HDS' lights do seem to perform what people expected it to be, and that is a good sign of how a good company suppose to be.


----------



## xochi (May 31, 2006)

Billson said:


> I emailed Henry a couple of days ago to clarify the runtime of the B42 and he said that they will run at max(42lm) for only 20 mins while the XR will run for 50% more(30 mins).
> 
> Looking at Gransee's IS test, my McLuxIII-T driven at 525 ma runs for more than an hour so does this mean the B42 is either extremely inefficient or using a terrible led? Using a side by side comparison of my EDC and McLux, I would estimate the McLux at around 40 lumens so the B42's performance just doesn't add up.



Actually, I kinda think that it makes sense from a manufacturing standpoint. One module programmed two different ways: Ultimate and Basic. Driven at one maximum current adjustable within a certain range-700 ma +- 100 or so ma. For the 42's use S = 51-67lm - (20% or 10-12 ish lumens)= 40-55 lumens. Drop the current on the great performers a bit and callem XR's and turn up the current a bit on the duds. Same story for the 60 model except with T's . 

If this is the situation and it kind of makes sense (since the runtimes are about the same at a given level it has to be led bin, right?) , then just getting a U bin into a 42 shouldn't effect runtimes too much but should have a huge impact on output. 

This makes the most sense from a manufacturing standpoint because then all the parts are the same with the only differences being 1. laser engraving (same cost) 2. Software (same cost) 3. Led bin (I'd guess there is a savings in buying s's and t's over just T's).

Also, HDS has to have LEDs that are _always available_, none of the top performers that aren't available all the time.


----------



## leukos (Jun 1, 2006)

Here's some pics:


----------



## AuroraLite (Jun 1, 2006)

xochi said:


> Actually, I kinda think that it makes sense from a manufacturing standpoint. One module programmed two different ways: Ultimate and Basic. Driven at one maximum current adjustable within a certain range-700 ma +- 100 or so ma. For the 42's use S = 51-67lm - (20% or 10-12 ish lumens)= 40-55 lumens. Drop the current on the great performers a bit and callem XR's and turn up the current a bit on the duds. Same story for the 60 model except with T's .



Interesting theory about how the XR come along, I would kinda think that using TxxH LuxIII (a lower Vf) probably might just extend the runtime without reconfiguring the software to a lower current driven, since the performance of the 'great performer' varies so(even a U bin could behave like T bin if it is at the lower end of the lumen output ratings). Nonetheless, I guess only HDS will know for sure. 




xochi said:


> If this is the situation and it kind of makes sense (since the runtimes are about the same at a given level it has to be led bin, right?) , then just getting a U bin into a 42 shouldn't effect runtimes too much but should have a huge impact on output.
> 
> This makes the most sense from a manufacturing standpoint because then all the parts are the same with the only differences being 1. laser engraving (same cost) 2. Software (same cost) 3. Led bin (I'd guess there is a savings in buying s's and t's over just T's).
> 
> Also, HDS has to have LEDs that are _always available_, none of the top performers that aren't available all the time.



Given the Vf for both the original lux inside the 42 and your U binned T are the same(and they are both average performer in their own bins), then yes, I too would think the swap will probably improve the performance of the light without making any runtime tradeoff.


----------



## xochi (Jun 1, 2006)

Hey Leukos,
Nice pics! Which model do you have there? How easily did it come out for you? Potted?

I just finished doing the same to a B42. After removing the bezel ring , window and oring I took a pair of needle nose pliers to the module. Well my basic 42 module wouldn't budge and at first I mistook the white thermal compound for epoxy and assumed it was potted. I did the boil-in-bag trick and managed to break it loose but I don't know if the heat made a difference or not as it seemed to be strength that broke it loose. If this B42 wasn't epoxied, it sure was torqued in there! I don't see any obvious remnants of epoxy so I guess it was just very very tight.


----------



## Ty_Bower (Jun 1, 2006)

Planterz said:


> For example, my old 42XR would run about 30 minutes on high, but then it'd step down to ~20 lumens for another hour, then step down again after that. This is with a li-ion. On a primary, it lasted a bit longer on max, but reached the 2nd stepdown at the same 1:30 mark.


That sounds like a thermal stepdown to me. _I thought the thermals would step it down a double notch (42, 21, 10, etc) while a depleted battery would only trigger a single notch stepdown (42, 30, 21, 15, 10, etc)._

It doesn't make sense that the primary cell would last LONGER on max than a li-ion. The primary cell has more overall capacity, but the li-ion usually wins in high drain applications due to its lower internal resistance. 

Besides, when the li-ion cell steps down due to depletion, it's pretty much empty. It might have 10% left in it or so. Certainly not enough to run for another full hour at 20 lumens.

Also, the old runtime chart that used to be up on the HDS site promised 80 minutes on a Duracell for the 42 series (75 for Surefire, 55 for Battery Station).

EDIT:
I had it exactly backwards up above. Thermals step down a SINGLE notch, and do so without blinking off in between. Low battery steps down two notches, and the light blinks off in between. Sorry for the confusion. I never really understood until I bought a U60. My Basic 42 never steps down due to thermals, so I never really had a chance to see it in action.


----------



## Ty_Bower (Jun 1, 2006)

I've always wondered about the runtime on the 42 models, since I own a Basic 42 and I've read so many posts that the "42 lasts about the same on max as a 60 on max". That's a way of saying you only ought to get about 20~30 minutes of 42 lumen light out the front end of a Basic 42. This always bugged me a little, since the HDS page promised 55 to 80 minutes, depending on the cell type. Of course, that runtime estimate has since been pulled from the page, and replaced with some disclaimer that new runtime estimates are in the process of being generated. Yeah.

Anyway, I had charged my no name brand 580 mAh rated li-ion R123 cell today. I used the DSD charger today, which typically doesn't charge the cells completely to 4.2 volts. Plus, my son "borrowed" my light when I got home, and he played with it for a few minutes. So, at the start of the test, I'll say the cell was "nearly full".

I started at 7:48 PM. Using an eBay light meter and a Stanley tape measure, I took a reading from about 1 meter. I logged measurements in Excel about every two or three minutes. I didn't bother to record the seconds during the test. In between readings, I held the B42 tightly clenched in my fist and surfed CPF with the other hand.

In summary, it held a pretty constant output of about 1200 lux for at least 48 minutes. My next measurement at 50 minutes was about 600 lux, and it dropped two more times in the next sixty seconds. At 8:40 PM, it was down to about 145 lux. At this point, I decided to end the test and pulled the cell. It measured 2.98 volts on the DVM. I'd bet money the HDS light has a programed cutoff at 3 volts when it detects a rechargable cell. Anyway, I'd say I got at least 48 minutes or so of full output on a not quite full cell. A cell which had a relatively low capacity rating, judging by the proliferation of 700 and 800 mAh rated cells running around these days.

So, the next time someone tells me the B42 only lasts twenty minutes on high, I can't believe them. Most likely, their light is hitting the thermal limit during the run. Mine got fairly toasty, but a firm hand grip and a couple of cold brews kept things in check. I'd bet with a higher rated cell, or a good quality primary, a Basic 42 should run at least an hour on max.


----------



## DFiorentino (Jun 1, 2006)

Ty_Bower said:


> Using an eBay light meter and a Stanley tape measure, I took a reading from about 1 meter....it held a pretty constant output of about 1200 lux



We must have the same eBay meter. I measured about 1240 lux @ 1 meter on my new B42XR  Of course after a super simple R&R, with a new UX0J in place, I'm reading about 1600 lux :rock: 

-DF


----------



## Planterz (Jun 1, 2006)

Ty_Bower said:


> That sounds like a thermal stepdown to me. I thought the thermals would step it down a double notch (42, 21, 10, etc) while a depleted battery would only trigger a single notch stepdown (42, 30, 21, 15, 10, etc).
> 
> It doesn't make sense that the primary cell would last LONGER on max than a li-ion. The primary cell has more overall capacity, but the li-ion usually wins in high drain applications due to its lower internal resistance.
> 
> ...


I never tested with a Duracell, but a lithium ion has half the capacity of a primary. No flashlight I've seen runs longer on a li-ion than it does a primary.

It's not thermal protection. Without cooling my HDS (and everybody elses') will step down quicker. All the runtime tests I've done (just eyeballing with a stopwatch) were done either in a glass of water or wrapped in an ice pack (like for bruises and such).


----------



## Led_Blind (Jun 1, 2006)

To weigh in on this debate i have had a U60GT for a while now and wondered what the runtime would be at the 42 lumen setting. So last night it was set one level down from max (which is as i understand it 42 lumens) and let it run. There was no glass of water, and it was free standing n a room with a heater going. It was running with a 750mah unprotected used and abused AW lion. 

The result
Heat - slightly warm to the touch. 
Runtime - about 50 mins before the first step down. 

I think i will get me a U42 and do a led swap


----------



## leukos (Jun 2, 2006)

xochi said:


> Hey Leukos,
> Nice pics! Which model do you have there? How easily did it come out for you? Potted?


 
It's a U60 XRGT. No, it wasn't potted, it was rather easy to turn with a pair of snap ring pliers, and it just looks like white grease to me. I have no soldering skills, so I won't be changing this LED. Besides, I'm quite pleased with its performance.  I did clean off some of its gel leakage though.


----------



## chesterqw (Jun 2, 2006)

so is the luxeon is the hds42 a lux III or lux I?

because i am very keen to buy one... then mod it with a cyan or green led... mehhehe 

edit: out of curiousity, the heatsink of the hds is black.
so it must be either paint or anodising.
care to check for us whether it is electrically isolated?

if it is... that means a total abuse of the hds driver, a lux III r/o and rechargeable batteries...

100 over FREE lumens!(not counting the battery,the light,the charger,the electric bills and the luxeon led)


----------



## Kevin Tan (Jun 2, 2006)

DFiorentino said:


> We must have the same eBay meter. I measured about 1240 lux @ 1 meter on my new B42XR  Of course after a super simple R&R, with a new UX0J in place, I'm reading about 1600 lux :rock:
> 
> -DF


 
What would that translate to in lumens output terms? Same as 60, 70 or 80 lum?


----------



## xpitxbullx (Jun 2, 2006)

Kevin Tan said:


> What would that translate to in lumens output terms? Same as 60, 70 or 80 lum?



Probably similar to the 85 lumen model that isn't offered anymore.

Jeff


----------



## Kevin Tan (Jun 2, 2006)

xpitxbullx said:


> Probably similar to the 85 lumen model that isn't offered anymore.
> 
> Jeff


 
Confirm that and I'll kiss u!!!! 

Seriously, I just ordered a B42 and 2 pcs of uwoj from photonfanatic. My thinking is that the non rx would be driving the lux with 700mah while the xr wud be 1/2 that. So transplanting a u bin into a b42 wud hopefully make it into a b85 !!!!


----------



## Ty_Bower (Jun 2, 2006)

Planterz said:


> I never tested with a Duracell, but a lithium ion has half the capacity of a primary. No flashlight I've seen runs longer on a li-ion than it does a primary.


My bad. You're right on this one. I looked at my notes from the old HDS runtime chart. It estimated 25 minutes runtime from a Duracell in the U60 on max. It estimated only 18 minutes with the li-ion cell. And yes, the li-ion cells have much less capacity (580~800 mAh) compared to a lithium primary (1400 mAh?).

Regarding your second statement, about no light running longer on li-ion than primary, does the U2 count? I'm pretty sure it will run on max a little longer with a good 18650 li-ion cell than it will with a pair of CR123 primaries. Of course, the 18650 cell is a bit bigger in diameter, which gives it an unfair capacity advantage. I'm not really comparing apples and oranges in this one.

The HDS U60 must really be flogging the cell when running on max. Looking at Silverfox's CR123 tests, you are pulling over 2 amps from a Duracell when the runtime drops down to less than half an hour. Of course, from the graphs it appears the cell voltage is sagged to about 2 volts for most of the run. 2 amps times 2 volts is about 4 watts out of the cell. If the power supply in the HDS is 75% percent efficient, then you're driving 3 watts to the emitter, right?

I'd guess that HDS takes emitters and drives them at the 3 watt level. If they make 60 lumens, they go into a B60 or U60. If they make more than 60 lumens, the drive level is tuned down in the program until they meet spec. A side advantage of this is the runtime increases, since they don't draw as much power from the cell. If the drive level can be tuned down enough to net a 50% increase in runtime, then it becomes a B60XR or U60XR.

As a side note, I'd have a hard time buying an XR model when HDS won't publish a baseline for runtime. The XR is supposed to run 50% longer, but 50% longer than what? The runtime chart isn't on their website any more. Grrr...  

If the emitter won't make 60 lumens at 3 watts, then it gets tossed into the bin with emitters for the B42 models. Again, the drive current is probably tuned down until it makes exactly 42 lumens, and whatever runtime you end up with qualifies it for XR or not. I'd certainly hope you'd get a lot of runtime (maybe an hour?) from most any T bin'd Lux III, even the crummy ones. Unless HDS is putting S bins in the B42, I can't see why people say they're only getting twenty minutes out of them.

Of course, this is only my theory. Only Henry knows for sure. 

As far as the modding is concerned, I'd say that if you want to replace the emitter with your own, and you want to drive it as hard as possible, select a HDS light with the shortest runtime. You're probably better off modding a B60 rather than a B42, especially if the B42 has a long runtime. Avoid the XR models. The longer it runs, the less power must be going to the emitter.


----------



## DFiorentino (Jun 2, 2006)

This isn't directed at any one person, I'm just sort of putting my thoughts out there...

Bin coding is based on 1.(Flux)-2.(Tint)-3.(Vf). So, to me the HDS line is disected similarly 1.(42/60/85)-2.(GT/non-GT)-3.(XR/non-XR). 

1. S=42 / T=60 / U=85
2. W0,X0=GT / Y0, YA, WA, X1, V0, V1=non-GT
3. H=XR / J, K=non-XR

I would venture to guess that the drivers is all HDS lights are similar in a given series (Basic, Ultimate) and have similar drive currents. It's that the LED will cause different flux outputs for a given drive level, and different runtimes based on its Vf efficiency.

Is that correct?

 
-DF


----------



## xpitxbullx (Jun 2, 2006)

DFiorentino said:


> This isn't directed at any one person, I'm just sort of putting my thoughts out there...
> 
> Bin coding is based on 1.(Flux)-2.(Tint)-3.(Vf). So, to me the HDS line is disected similarly 1.(42/60/85)-2.(GT/non-GT)-3.(XR/non-XR).
> 
> ...



That was my assumption.

Jeff


----------



## xochi (Jun 2, 2006)

DFiorentino said:


> We must have the same eBay meter. I measured about 1240 lux @ 1 meter on my new B42XR  Of course after a super simple R&R, with a new UX0J in place, I'm reading about 1600 lux :rock:
> 
> -DF



Hey, Thanks! That is quite good to know and it now looks like you've got a B60XRGT ! Why not do a runtime test to confirm! I'll hopefully be doing the same thing tomorrow if my UWOJ Arrives. I plan on checking some SXOH bin lux1's as well, I wish I had a meter since I'd imagine they just _might_ be brighter than the U's at 700ma as VF will go up . 

I'm glad I bought my b42 when I did since I knew I was going to perhaps destroy it and definately try to upgrade it, I decided not to pay extra for a "premium" Sbin lux3 .


----------



## xochi (Jun 2, 2006)

Di's results mean this, as he said above:

1. The 42 and the 60 drive at the same current on MAX. The 42 is an S bin emitter. The 60 is a T bin emitter. Most likely the 85's got U's. I hope they got excellent U's since they haven't a prayer of doing even _near_ 85 lumens unless they are at the top of the U bin.

2. As far as the XR models are concerned, I'd imagine that it's likely that VF is an issue but it's also possible that brighter than average T's could be PWM's a bit to get better runtime. H's are a bit too rare if you ask me, I've been told that the first XR's used J's and I think that is likely the case. 

*3*.* We're a bunch of ******* for it having taken SOOOOOO long to figure this out!!! And the EDC wasn't even potted !! And we call ourselves flashaholics.



I just feel so, so, ....... so dirty.:mecry:
*


----------



## xochi (Jun 2, 2006)

Hey Di, What happened at the other 3 levels? Is the lowest still low enough not to mess up your dark adapted vision ?


----------



## DFiorentino (Jun 2, 2006)

Primary BatteryStation CR123 = 50 minutes continuous on max before stepping down to the primary level (at 55 minutes it actually stepped). Battery (which was HOT) was immediately removed to measure 2.61V. I reinstalled the battery and turned the light back on max only to hear a faint hissing from the battery, so it was immediately shut off again and removed. This is my first HDS, so is 50 minutes till the first step down any good? 

Lux levels (rounded off due to cheap light meter):

Maximum = 1600+
Primary = 350
Secondary = 90
Minimum = 10

B42XR w/UX0J on a primary CR123.

-DF


----------



## xochi (Jun 2, 2006)

Hey Di, just wanted to say that I just checked Quickbeams site and the HDS U60XR that he reviewed was tested at 1480 lux. Personally, I believe that _every _light supplied by a manufacturer or dealer for review is likely a stellar example at the top end of the performance curve for the model, "cherry picked" if you will. As an example of this, read the notes of the U60 that tested at the top of the class in Gransees IS lumen measurements, HDS supplied the light knowing that it's ouput would be tested in an IS.

I also just looked for *HDS U85* lux measurements and could only find one --* 1620 !*

*AND

*


DFiorentino said:


> Primary BatteryStation CR123 = 50 minutes on max with no dimming so far.
> 
> I'll update as soon as I hit @50% lux.
> 
> -DF



*Wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:rock:

*


----------



## DFiorentino (Jun 2, 2006)

I just updated my post above  .

-DF

FYI: My UX0J LuxIII *and* SX0H LuxI both have a Vf of 3.3V at 700ma. The SX0H is at 3.1V at 350ma. I'll have to build a poor man's integrating sphere (milk carton :lolsign: ) to compare flux.


----------



## xochi (Jun 2, 2006)

55 minutes on max is excellent! *But, *I sure hope you were using some kind of cooling to get that runtime, otherwise, if you had some potting and boiled or heated the light to remove the module, the thermal protection may be dead. I worried about this when I boiled mine which I don't think was needed.

IIRC, the first U85's stepped down at around 23 minutes. 

You certainly *do* have the equivalent of a *B85XRGT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anyone out there who is even in the same yard as the fence that one might be on before deciding to buy a HDS B42, you'd better BUY NOW! Who knows how many are left!
*
Di, how difficult was it to remove your module? Mine was very difficult to turn with needlenose pliers.


----------



## DFiorentino (Jun 2, 2006)

xochi said:


> *Anyone out there who is even in the same yard as the fence that one might be on before deciding to buy a HDS B42, you'd better BUY NOW! Who knows how many are left!*



I'm getting ready to buy a second  .

-DF


----------



## DFiorentino (Jun 2, 2006)

xochi said:


> 55 minutes on max is excellent! *But, *I sure hope you were using some kind of cooling to get that runtime, otherwise, if you had some potting and boiled or heated the light to remove the module, the thermal protection may be dead.



I alternated between fan cooling and hand cooling. I'll probably take the module out again just to check it. Mine was very easy to pull apart. It only had thermal grease on there. When I reassembled it, I replaced the regular grease with Ceramatique which is quite durable.

I'lll probably load my second B42 with a S-bin just for a clear comparison.  

-DF


----------



## xochi (Jun 2, 2006)

DFiorentino said:


> I alternated between fan cooling and hand cooling. I'll probably take the module out again just to check it. Mine was very easy to pull apart. It only had thermal grease on there. When I reassembled it, I replaced the regular grease with Ceramatique which is quite durable.
> 
> I'lll probably load my second B42 with a S-bin just for a clear comparison.
> 
> -DF



With the low VF of the UXOJ, I guess it shouldn't be getting too hot. 

I assume you mean an S bin lux1? Or are you trying to confirm that the 42's are using Sbin lux3's by putting in a known Sbin and measuring?

BTW, *I just ordered a second B42 - $90.00 from lighthound. Apparently the B42XRGT's are now sold out on lighthound and I'd imagine that since anyone who does this swap wouldn't want to pay for a premium emitter when it's going to be replaced anyhow, the low end B42 model is going to sell out quick. *


----------



## DFiorentino (Jun 2, 2006)

Yep, I meant to say S-bin LuxI.  

-DF


----------



## AuroraLite (Jun 3, 2006)

xochi said:


> *3*.* We're a bunch of ******* for it having taken SOOOOOO long to figure this out!!! And the EDC wasn't even potted !! And we call ourselves flashaholics.
> 
> I just feel so, so, ....... so dirty.:mecry:
> *





Thank you, Xochi and Di! Now I know why I am holding off the purchase till now! :naughty:


----------



## Reima (Jun 3, 2006)

I just ordered a 42 Basic from Battery Station for modding.
RC


----------



## Ty_Bower (Jun 3, 2006)

xochi said:


> Di's results mean this, as he said above:
> 
> 1. The 42 and the 60 drive at the same current on MAX. The 42 is an S bin emitter. The 60 is a T bin emitter.


I'm not sure I agree. It seems that most B60/U60 (not XR) lights will last 20~30 minutes on max. My Basic 42 (as well as at least one other, apparently) will run for about 50 minutes on max; nearly double the runtime. Even a bin difference in Vf shouldn't cause that much variation in runtime. My only conclusion is that my B42 does not drive the emitter as hard on its max setting as a B60 or U60 would.

I'm also not sure I fully agree with the second statement. While I could believe that some 42s have an S bin in them, I'm not sure that all of them do. I'd guess that mine has a poor performaning T bin in it. It wasn't good enough to make 60 lumens, but it's more than plenty good enough to make 42.

An underdriven T bin might make as much light as a fully driven S bin, but the underdriven light will have a longer runtime. It might also make a poor mod host, since I don't seem to have a setting on my light that will allow me to drive the emitter as hard as possible. I think the B42 that I have is mostly a B60 that didn't quite make it, so it had the topmost level disabled in software.

Again, just my theory...


----------



## trivergata (Jun 3, 2006)

I have #0063, and my reflector seems to be potted or attached somehow. Had anyone figured out how to upgrade one this old? I have a U bin just sitting here with a L voltage just begging to make this guy smoke!

Josh


----------



## DFiorentino (Jun 3, 2006)

I may remove the UX0J I just installed for one of my SX0Hs.

Here's why. 

YMMV
-DF


----------



## liteMANIAC (Jun 3, 2006)

I was trying to hold out for the U85 but this sounds very promissing. I'm quite new to LEDs but would love to get a flashlight with the performance of a U85 for half the price. Now I am debating getting a B42 from batterystation. So if I use an UXOJ, will it give me on par performance compared to an U85? Is it to difficult to swap the LED for someone who has no flashlight experience? Would I get better runtime and more lumens if I used a UXOK (I hear these are rarer, so I'm guessing better)? Where would I buy a UXOJ or UXOK LED? Lastly is the only difference between UXOJ and UWOJ LEDs just tint?

Edit: if i were to do this would i have to buy a luxeon star or a luxeon emitter?

Thanks, 

Patrick


----------



## xochi (Jun 3, 2006)

Ty_Bower said:


> I'm not sure I agree. It seems that most B60/U60 (not XR) lights will last 20~30 minutes on max. My Basic 42 (as well as at least one other, apparently) will run for about 50 minutes on max; nearly double the runtime. Even a bin difference in Vf shouldn't cause that much variation in runtime. My only conclusion is that my B42 does not drive the emitter as hard on its max setting as a B60 or U60 would.
> 
> I'm also not sure I fully agree with the second statement. While I could believe that some 42s have an S bin in them, I'm not sure that all of them do. I'd guess that mine has a poor performaning T bin in it. It wasn't good enough to make 60 lumens, but it's more than plenty good enough to make 42.
> 
> ...



Ty, I think that my conclusions may have been a bit too conclusive, if you get my point. 

I really don't have enough information to conclusively say what the models use. In addition to led bin selection and differing current, pwm frequency is another variable that may be part of the equation in adjusting the performance of these lights. 

Most folks who spend this kind of money for a flashlight expect a bright light yet very , very few have any means of verifying output claims. The flashlight industry routinely exagerates lumen claims. The claims made by HDS were very accurate but Gransees testing found them to fall a bit short. The lights may have dimmed over time, who knows. 

I believe that the lumen figures are optimistic , at least on the 60 lumen models. Runtimes on the other hand can be easily verified by anyone who cares to do a runtime test so as HDS states, they are worse case scenario runtimes. When I had my U60XR and posted my runtimes (when I managed to avoid thermal stepdown) there were individuals with non XR models that came within just a few minutes of my runtimes. Every XR is not guarunteed to beat the best non-xr by 50%, the XR is guarunteed to beat the minimum *worst case scenario runtime by 50%.* HDS has recently removed the minimum runtime and is apparently updating the numbers. Interestingly enough , they have also discontinued the XR models. 

The "GT" models only guaruntee that the tint of the light emitted from that light will be within a certain part of the spectrum. That doesn't mean that the LEDs in non-GT models won't do the same. Same holds for the XR, since the release of the XR, they've been guarunteed to do 30 minutes . That doesn't mean that every single light that comes out of HDS won't do exactly the same thing. HDS buys LEDS in bulk and if production quality has gotten very good it's likely that all the lights are getting longer runtimes and since comparing runtimes between xr's and non-xr's that show very little difference means that folks might feel cheated at having paid more for nothing. People _can't _compare tint online so the value of the GT is safe. 

Ultimately, there could be a huge array of factors that go into determining the performance of these lights and they have most likely changed over time. It may be that the first year of production was all current adjusted whereas todays models are adjusted at least partly through bin selection. It's also clear that mechanical changes have been made and it's likely that software and electrical changes updates have occured as well.

What we really need to do is measure the current that they are feeding to the LED and have background info like model and purchase date included with the measurement. One thing that I thought was interesting though, is that in the McLux Pd FAQ a wiz 2x2 driver got about 1:15 minutes at 700ma. It didn't mention the bin or a lumen figure but this is pretty much in line with numbers for the HDS lights if we take into considertion that that PD likely had a premium bin in it.


----------



## Navck (Jun 3, 2006)

xochi said:


> Actually, I kinda think that it makes sense from a manufacturing standpoint. One module programmed two different ways: Ultimate and Basic. Driven at one maximum current adjustable within a certain range-700 ma +- 100 or so ma. For the 42's use S = 51-67lm - (20% or 10-12 ish lumens)= 40-55 lumens. Drop the current on the great performers a bit and callem XR's and turn up the current a bit on the duds. Same story for the 60 model except with T's .
> 
> If this is the situation and it kind of makes sense (since the runtimes are about the same at a given level it has to be led bin, right?) , then just getting a U bin into a 42 shouldn't effect runtimes too much but should have a huge impact on output.
> 
> ...



Just to correct you - I talked to Henry, and he mentioned that the "margin of error" in lumen output is 5% and he doesn't use a milkbox to calibrate his lights. (Call and ask Henry yourself if you want a citation source)



xochi said:


> I also just looked for *HDS U85* lux measurements and could only find one --* 1620 ! *


*
*I believe the U85 uses a different reflector (Again, call Henry, or take a non U85 light and measure the reflector size)

Also, there's a perfect chance of getting a XO/WO bin in a non-GT. (Yup, call Henry.)


----------



## xochi (Jun 3, 2006)

Navck said:


> Just to correct you - I talked to Henry, and he mentions that the "margin of error" in lumen output is by 5% and he doesn't use a milkbox to calibrate his lights. (Call and ask him yourself if you want a citation source)



Those numbers were really just "out of my backside" guesstimates of reflector/lens losses, not measurement margin of error percentages. In all honesty, I don't want anyone to conclude I actually know what I'm talking about, mainly it's just enthusiastic speculation stemming from a bit of excitement over Billson's heads up and Di's very cool mod.


----------



## Reima (Jun 3, 2006)

In post #17 of the thread below Henry tells us that the power levels of the 42, 60 and 85 are the same. 
http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=111862
RC


----------



## xochi (Jun 3, 2006)

Thanks Reima! In the same thread, Henry advises Viren to read his white paper on flashlight design. I took his advice and am *extremely impressed with the HDS lights. 

*The white paper doesn't say "This is how the HDS EDC lights are designed" so take my conclusions based on the white paper as you will.

Judging from the White Paper, the HDS lights all run at the same current on all levels. Dimming is mainly, perhaps entirely, a function of PWM . However, when I did the "wave in front of the face" trick, I could only see the dot trail on the lower levels as compared to the lioncub which I could see the trail at all levels. Perhaps the HDS uses a much higher frequency but shorter pulse. The light does seem to get more green at lower levels (as stated would happen with current dimming in the white paper) . My light, at lower output levels, seems more green when shined on a wall but close up shined on a piece of paper the tint seems the same as at the high level. So current dimming may be used , I don't know. 

The variations in light output between the 42, 60, and 85 are accomplished by using different flux bins. The difference between a XR and a non XR is ensuring that the XR gets a VF LED that will get at least 30 minutes. With LED quality improving, they probabally use the same LED as non xr's. 

Ty, The Basic 42 I just got from Lighthound ran for 50 minutes on max brightness on a R123 (I forget it's capacity, it's about a year old and likely from AW). 

Henry's "White Paper on Led Flashlight Design" is excellent and if you really want to understand how good the HDS lights are, check it out.


----------



## chesterqw (Jun 3, 2006)

um guys, is the heatsink of the HDS electrically isolated?


----------



## xochi (Jun 4, 2006)

chesterqw said:


> um guys, is the heatsink of the HDS electrically isolated?



I don't know. What I can say is that the heatsink appears to be hard annodized and I know that HA is considered an insulator. 

*LiteMANIAC*, The module on my unit was difficult to get out, others have had no difficulty. The LED swap is simple as long as you have basic soldering skills. Simply remove the bezel ring with a watch back remover, the HDS tool or a pair of snap ring pliers with the right size tips, then remove the lens, the oring and the reflector (protect the reflector from dust and don't try to clean it as you may mess it up). Next using a pair of needlenose pliers or snap ring pliers , locate the two holes on the module and use them to turn the module clockwise. The module will unscrew out the bottom of the head. Identify the polarity of the LED currently installed and install the new LED with the same polarity. Use a small bit of thermal compound on the bottom of the led to provide a path for thermal relief. 

Test and reassemble. Billson, who "let the cat out of the bag" and started this thread also posted instructions at the beginning of the thread if you need a more clear explanation. 

The only difference betwee UXOJ and UWOJ is tint. WO is more warm or orange while UXOJ is more cold or green (UXOJ is often considered "whiter"). These are considered the best tints available (but really it's a matter of personal preference - you might hate them). You can order either a bare emitter or a star but if you order a star you will have to remove the emitter from the star which is done by unsoldering the two leads from the board (heat and lift, repeat with other side).

*Trivergata*, I don't know how the early models were designed but I believe that the arc4+ reflector was a machined part of the head and not replaceable. I'd make sure that this isn't the case before messing with it further. If it is potted and you have a replacement reflector (I don't think that the McGizmo or IMS will fit) you could try heat or solvents but It's likely that the reflector will be damaged (solvents/heat may strip the reflector of metalization)


----------



## Navck (Jun 4, 2006)

chesterqw said:


> um guys, is the heatsink of the HDS electrically isolated?



I believe so. The negative conenction is on that silver ring, and the positive connection is on the brass-gold colored piece with three pieces extruding from it. The ring around those two pieces is used to determine a switchpress.


----------



## jar3ds (Jun 4, 2006)

is anyone seeing how the EDU's monitor the heat from the LED?

Thanks in advance


----------



## liteMANIAC (Jun 4, 2006)

Thanks for explaining it xochi. It seems easy enough. I just might go ahead and order a b42.

What EXACTLY do I have to buy from photofanatic to make this mod happen? I dont really know what a emitter or a star is so please be specific.

Thanks, 

Patrick


----------



## Reima (Jun 4, 2006)

liteMANIC,
You will need an emitter.
RC


----------



## liteMANIAC (Jun 4, 2006)

Ok but exactly which emitter? I probly will get it from photonfanatic since thats the only place i know where to get them. The best one he seems to sell is a UX1K. Will this do the trick? Does that come with an led in is the emitter all I have to buy?


----------



## Reima (Jun 4, 2006)

liteMANIAC,
You can do what I plan to do, get a UWOJ Star (the best in my opinion) from PhotonFanatic and have him remove the emitter from the Star(it cost a dollar more to have him do it).
The emitter is the LED, that's all you will need.
RC


----------



## ibcj (Jun 4, 2006)

liteMANIAC said:


> Ok but exactly which emitter? I probly will get it from photonfanatic since thats the only place i know where to get them. The best one he seems to sell is a UX1K. Will this do the trick? Does that come with an led in is the emitter all I have to buy?



You may want to read this page , which explains led bin codes.

Most people prefer WO or XO as being closest to white. 

Below is the link for PhotonFanatic's UWOJ leds for sale.
UWOJ led link 

You'll need some type of adhesive to mount the led, which you can also get from PhotonFanatic. He can also remove the emitter from the star on the led if you wish. I think he charges an extra dollar for it. 

If you're not sure on the mod, you may want to research the pages of this forum, as there is tons of useful information which can help you. Even if it's not a step by step on modding an HDS, you can find step by step guides for modding other lights. Best of luck with your mod.


----------



## xochi (Jun 4, 2006)

The adhesive isn't needed with the EDC's as the reflector pushes down the emitter a bit and helps provide good contact with the heat sink. There _should be _enough thermal paste on the heatsink and old emitter to smear a bit on the new emitter. 

*Jar3ds, *I don't see anything obvious exterior to the module. There is an additional hole , similar to the holes used to screw in the module (anyone know the right name for those?), but a bit further out in the diameter of the module. I think that most likely it is just a hole used to fill the module with epoxy but perhaps there is more to it. I would think that any kind of thermal detection is pressed up against the bottom of the heatsink on the inside of the module, just a wild guess though.


----------



## Billson (Jun 5, 2006)

Ty_Bower said:


> I can't see why people say they're only getting twenty minutes out of them.



Actually, Henry is the one who said this. I emailed him because I was wondering if the 60 minute runtime at 42 lumens he posted before applied to all models or just the 60's because the specs for the 42 states that it will run at max for 20 minutes so the data contradicted each other. I asked Henry to clarify this and that is what he told me. This was only last week. I also find this statement hard to believe because it translates to the 42's having pretty crappy leds.



Navck said:


> I believe the U85 uses a different reflector (Again, call Henry, or take a non U85 light and measure the reflector size)



I don't think the U85 is using a different reflector. It's just a tweaked one because the original 85 lumen leds were jokers and a lot of people didn't like the resulting beam so I guess Henry decided to pull them all.


----------



## xochi (Jun 5, 2006)

Hey Bill, can you clarify your post a bit? 

I just tested my b42 on li-ion and got 50 minutes on max. I only tested it once so it is certainly possible that I missed a stepdown (I really doubt it though). Henry says the b42's should get 20 minutes on max , right? Would it be correct to assume that the 20 minute number is the "worst case scenario" runtime and not the actual average runtime of the B42's? 

Has anyone seen b42 runtime posts within the past six months that measure 20ish minutes on max?


----------



## Billson (Jun 5, 2006)

* The EDC Basic flashlights provides the following features:

.......
*
"_*8 hours constant output on the Primary setting (10 lumens) using a single lithium CR123A battery. 20 minute minimum runtime on Maximum setting*_"

*.......*

This is the statement that has puzzled me from the beginning but Henry's reply to my email only reaffirmed it because the statement seems to cover all basic models. Based on your actual test, the discrepancy is huge. Now how do we calculate the XR's runtime if this is the case? At 50% more, it should run for 75 minutes vs the 30 minute claim of HDS so does it mean a B42XR could run anywhere from 30 to 75 minutes with just 30 mins being minimum. I would expect with Henry's thoroughness, he would've provided us a clearer picture of the actual performance specs. I was planning to get a 42 at the sale prices but Henry's reply saved me $90 because of the discrepancies in the data. What if I indeed got a 20 minute model, then that would be really crappy.


----------



## Kevin Tan (Jun 5, 2006)

I think xochi 50min hi runtime on lion is bcus the lion cells has much lower internal resistance and the voltage of the cell supplied stays in the uppur limit longer. But the cell may have been depleted too much for overall combined multilevel runtime, that is, the level drop may not happen. Did the b42 just switch off or blink the low level batt warning directly from the hi level without stepping down to a lower level?

If the r123 lion cell has 700mah typical, that means the 50 min runtime is consistant with the 750ma drive level that we have been speculating on.


----------



## xochi (Jun 6, 2006)

Billson said:


> * The EDC Basic flashlights provides the following features:
> 
> .......
> *
> ...



The only thing an XR will get you is a *guaruntee to do 50% longer than the minimum runtime that they quoted which also happens to be the worst case scenario of 20 minutes. *Every single light coming out of HDS will do 30 minutes, but unless you buy an XR , you don't get a guaruntee. There is no other promise in the XR, it doesn't promise to get longer runtimes than non xr's, let alone 50% longer. 

Just do the math, what's required to put out 42 lumens for 30 minutes? Not much at all. A twoj driven at 500 ma will do 42 lumens for an hour and a half. These days the XR is nothing but a guaruntee. It's likely the same with the GT. WOs. and XOs are all over the place but if you read the guaruntee, *GT**'s include some YOs *(it doesn't specify how close to the planckian black body on the Y axis so it might include YAs and WAs). I don't know what else is included , I didn't look too hard. 

I think that you will really be missing out if you skip the B42. Why would HDS be buying S bin leds when T's are all over the place *AND *he knows none of his future products will use them *AND *production quality from lumileds is getting good enough that they are getting rarer all the time. Remember, again, *the basic 42's are guarunteed to put out a minimum of 42 lumens that doesn't mean they won't put out 55 or 60! 

*The remaining 42's are the last of the lot the vast majority of leds coming out of lumileds EASILY put out in excess of 42 lumens at 700 ma ! The SXOH lux1's are makeing in excess of 51 lumens at half the current! Granted, they are supposedly freaks they are available from several sources.

As Henry stated, *the reason the models are discontinued is that they aren't sufficiently differentiated from the other models! *Read between the lines and buy a great B42! 

Sure, don't expect a miracle , expect a multilevel 42 lumen light that is very well made and very affordable. Odds are you'll get more than that. I've seen lux figures (granted in the end lux don't mean squat) over 1900 in stock b42's and my runtime is from a unit I just bought and I *know* it would qualify as a GT.


----------



## DFiorentino (Jun 6, 2006)

Well, it appears that the emmiter that came out of my new B42XR was a SW0J. 

 
-DF


----------



## Reima (Jun 6, 2006)

I don't know where you get the minimum of 42 lumens from. A quick check of the HDS website shows that for the EDC Basic 42:
"42 lumens maximum output"

and for the EDC Basic 60:
"60 lumens maximum output".

From this I take it that there is no guarantee that you will get 42 lumens.
RC


----------



## jar3ds (Jun 6, 2006)

Reima said:


> I don't know where you get the minimum of 42 lumens from. A quick check of the HDS website shows that for the EDC Basic 42:
> "42 lumens maximum output"
> 
> and for the EDC Basic 60:
> ...


 maximum... is a setting... the HDS lights are going to be around + or - 5 lumens to their respected catagory... The IS tests that a fellow CPF member has done as shown mult. U60's to be in the 62, 61, 57, 58 lumen range...

you can safely assume your getting 42 lumens from a B42... however... according to the Fenix's 46 lumens..... its more like 20 if that...


----------



## Ty_Bower (Jun 6, 2006)

xochi said:


> Remember, again, *the basic 42's are guarunteed to put out a minimum of 42 lumens that doesn't mean they won't put out 55 or 60!
> 
> *The remaining 42's are the last of the lot the vast majority of leds coming out of lumileds EASILY put out in excess of 42 lumens at 700 ma ! The SXOH lux1's are makeing in excess of 51 lumens at half the current!


Actually, I think the HDS guarantee is exactly that - they won't put out 55 or 60. The Basic 42 will make 42 lumens, plus or minus a few percent. If the emitter is capable of producing more flux, the light is tuned to a lower drive level at the factory. You will enjoy longer runtime, but not brighter light. If you want a brighter light, you need to buy a U60 model, or try modding your Basic 42 with a better emitter.

Not that the B42 is a bad light. I have one myself, and I've been trying for a long time to convince myself to upgrade to a U60. I still haven't been able to part with the cash, so I must still be happy with my B42. 

I think the fact that many of today's Luxeons will make more than 42 lumens at rated current is the reason why many B42 owners are finding they get more than the promised 20 or 30 minutes of runtime.


----------



## treasurydept (Jun 6, 2006)

I think I'm asking for all of the flashlight newbies when reading this post. I am going to purchase a HDS Basic 42, and a LUX III UWOJ led (emitter only) from photonfanatic. Could somebody please give me a simple yes or no answer:

With a little basic soldering skills, am I able to safely exchange the original LED of the B42 with the UWOJ and end up with a light which is basically a B85?


----------



## xochi (Jun 6, 2006)

Ty_Bower said:


> Actually, I think the HDS guarantee is exactly that - they won't put out 55 or 60. The Basic 42 will make 42 lumens, plus or minus a few percent. If the emitter is capable of producing more flux, the light is tuned to a lower drive level at the factory. You will enjoy longer runtime, but not brighter light. If you want a brighter light, you need to buy a U60 model, or try modding your Basic 42 with a better emitter.
> 
> Not that the B42 is a bad light. I have one myself, and I've been trying for a long time to convince myself to upgrade to a U60. I still haven't been able to part with the cash, so I must still be happy with my B42.
> 
> I think the fact that many of today's Luxeons will make more than 42 lumens at rated current is the reason why many B42 owners are finding they get more than the promised 20 or 30 minutes of runtime.



Ty, in Henry's White Paper on LED flashlight Design, Henry describes the difficulty of dealing with the large variations in LED production. He goes on to describe a practical solution for dealing with that variability. The solution is to base models on the characteristics of the variations. We can see that Henry has done exactly that. When LEDs with low VF began to appear in numbers that could support a product line, the XR was introduced. GT models are differentiated by tint bin. The 42, 60 and 85 models are differentiated by flux bin. Henry has stated that all models drive the LEDs at the same current, spec. Henry has also began discontinueing models. The reason that the models are discontinued is *to provide greater differentiation between models.* That means , the current model designations aren't very different. Why? Because of improvements in manufacturing consistency and performance of luxeon leds. So which models aren't different? The models that were differentiated based on the low end LEDs that *used to be* common product from lumileds. The previous low end leds are now uncommon. Too uncommon to justify a model based on the particular led manufacturing inconsistency. 

What happens to a bunch of flashlight bodies already laser engraved with HDS EDC Basic 42 once it's impractical to hunt down LEDs to limit them to only 42 lumens? They get better emitters that put out more light. Granted this is speculation and part of it is contingent on the idea that the max drive current doesn't change and the max level isn't pwm'd , only the lower levels are pwm'd and the calibration process means finding the particular frequencies that that batch of emitters emits x lumens for levels 1-20 (or 1-4 for basic). The calibration process is also LED selection. 

My speculation that the last of the b42's can be much better than b42's only applies to those being sold right now. Why? Because the numerous discontinued models are evidence of the absence of the emitters the models were based on. 

Folks are also posting impressions that support this. Just the other day (IIRC) Cmacclel posted lux measurements of 1480 and 1920 for just recieved b42's (I think XRGT's). These numbers are in line with B60s at least. 

Also folks who buy them and compare them to 60's are saying the same thing. Here is a quote from a very recent post in the HDS forum:



wmirag said:


> I couldn't resist the recent sale at Battery Station, so I bought a B42-XRGT with the intention of gifting it to a good friend.
> 
> I found that the new light is whiter and brighter than my U60-GT, a light I got at the very beginning of production. I can't measure the output but the difference seemed quite obvious to my eyes.
> 
> ...



If anyone ever wanted a B42, these are the creme of the crop!


----------



## xochi (Jun 6, 2006)

treasurydept said:


> I think I'm asking for all of the flashlight newbies when reading this post. I am going to purchase a HDS Basic 42, and a LUX III UWOJ led (emitter only) from photonfanatic. Could somebody please give me a simple yes or no answer:
> 
> With a little basic soldering skills, am I able to safely exchange the original LED of the B42 with the UWOJ and end up with a light which is basically a B85?



Technically, No. The U85's had the advantage of being *measured.* We don't know what kind of lumens an emitter has to put out to get 85 out the front end but Henry does and he can measure the U bin emitters that might go into U85s and weed out those that don't make the cut. 

What you can be assured of is a very bright light. I just did the swap on two lights and though the lights are very bright, the B42's already put out a good amount of light (I personally believe that the current (meaning recently produced) b42's are putting out closer to 55-60 lumens ) so the difference is , for the most part, not dramatic. Due to the way the eye works , the difference between even 42 and 85 lumens isn't that dramatic.


----------



## Navck (Jun 7, 2006)

Theres a problem here - What if you had a nicely binned LED in the light with a low voltage bin, but then if you put a bin thats "higher" than the previous bin, the light would react and treat the current LED as the previous LED, causing a loss in efficiency and possibly output.


----------



## DFiorentino (Jun 7, 2006)

Navck said:


> Theres a problem here - What if you had a nicely binned LED in the light with a low voltage bin, but then if you put a bin thats "higher" than the previous bin, the light would react and treat the current LED as the previous LED, causing a loss in efficiency and possibly output.



Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but HDS should be using current regulation. 700mA to a H-Vf will still be 700mA into a K-Vf. The price will be reduced runtime, but not necessarily efficiency. Usually we rate efficiency based on light output vs. power input. I have a UW0K that is more effiecient than a UW0J as well as a WW0T that is more efficient than a WX0S.

-DF


----------



## Ty_Bower (Jun 7, 2006)

xochi said:


> ...Henry has stated that all models drive the LEDs at the same current, spec.
> 
> ...Granted this is speculation and part of it is contingent on the idea that the max drive current doesn't change and the max level isn't pwm'd...
> 
> If anyone ever wanted a B42, these are the creme of the crop!


The FAQ on the HDS website seems pretty cut and dry:
http://hdssystems.com/LightFaq.html

*Why do battery runtimes vary?*
"The efficiency of LEDs vary from one LED to the next. Therefore the amount of power it takes to generate the same amount of light will very from one LED to the next. We have chosen to hold the light output constant and allow the input power to vary. This results in constant light output but causes variations in the battery runtime from one flashlight to the next. We guarantee a minimum battery runtime at the rated light output."

Per his FAQ, the max drive current does vary from one B42 to the next. All things said, I am tempted by these reports to buy a second B42 for myself. Maybe then I could compare it to the one I have, and see how much better it is for myself. It's funny that I can't seem to bear to part with the cash to buy a U60, but a $99 B42 seems like a deal too good to pass up. :lolsign:


----------



## jar3ds (Jun 8, 2006)

edit: i'm stupid


----------



## quantile (Jun 8, 2006)

I also could not resist the recent sale and ordered a B42 XRGT from Lighthound, took just five days to get to Europe. The HDS is a very nice light with quite some output on max. The levels are nicely spaced apart IMHO and I really love the very low minimum setting.

After stumbling over this thread, I just had to try to open this thing  

The bezel unscrewed easily, the light engine required medium force to screw loose but it all came apart pretty easily. On the heat sink, on the side that is covered with thermal grease there appear to be faint letters which I would guess to read "TW0J".







This is the same image with its contrast enhanced to bring out the letters more clearly:

http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/7254/edc42xrgtcontrastsmall8xp.jpg

After screwing the LE back into the tube I measured the voltage at the emitter, 3.21V on maximum brightness setting. For a J Vf bin that is probably well below 700 mA drive current. I have not done any runtime experiments yet.

I have a Lux I SX0H emitter on order that was intented for a differnt purpose but I will definitely try if it makes a noticeable difference in my HDS.


----------



## jar3ds (Jun 8, 2006)

awesome! THanks...

the pic is cool


----------



## xochi (Jun 8, 2006)

HOLY CRAP!

QX1H 

was written on mine. At first I couldn't distinguish and assumed it must be an S in the first position until I thought to look for emphasis dots. It's a Q, I'm dead sure on that!


----------



## xpitxbullx (Jun 8, 2006)

So the B42 have Lux-I LEDs? U60 have Lux-III's?

Jeff




xochi said:


> HOLY CRAP!
> 
> QX1H
> 
> was written on mine. At first I couldn't distinguish and assumed it must be an S in the first position until I thought to look for emphasis dots. It's a Q, I'm dead sure on that!


----------



## DFiorentino (Jun 8, 2006)

S-bin luxIII...Q-bin luxI...what's the difference :naughty: .

-DF


----------



## xochi (Jun 8, 2006)

Excellent point DF! I suppose at 700 mA a QX1H amounts to a SXOJ/K. I used your info to extrapolate, such gooood , tasty lumen flavored brain food you've provided there! It is spooky just how consistent the change in VF is even when comparing very different bins. I tried out a SXOH in one of the B42's. I didn't do runtime or anything but it was VERY bright , unfortunately it became a UYA* or UYO and I don't care for those tints much. It found a happy home in a jil 1.3 up .


----------



## Billson (Jun 9, 2006)

xochi said:


> HOLY CRAP!
> 
> QX1H
> 
> was written on mine. At first I couldn't distinguish and assumed it must be an S in the first position until I thought to look for emphasis dots. It's a Q, I'm dead sure on that!



xochi,

Is that an exclamation or are you describing the led? 


I guess that answers most of our questions. The 42's are using Lux 1's and the XR's are probably 60's that didn't make the cut so they were de-tuned to 42 specs but since they are using better leds, they can run longer hence the XR.


----------



## jar3ds (Jun 9, 2006)

i wonder if hitting the light with UV light would help with determaining the letters


----------



## HDS_Systems (Jun 9, 2006)

The web site states that the minimum runtime for the standard models is 20 minutes and the minimum runtime for the XR models is 50% longer - in other words a minimum of 30 minutes.

Although the LED modules are not glued into the head, and the LED is easily accessible for replacement, we cannot recommend modding the LED module for reasons I will explain.

During the manufacturing process an LED is married to an electronics module. We of course use the best LEDs we can get. And my white paper discusses the very large variations in LEDs even within the same bin. Each LED module is calibrated to generate the same amount of light within one of the two runtime specifications - by varying the power to the LED. If the module fails to meet the criteria, it is downgraded and the calibration is repeated. If it does not make minimum specifications the LED is rejected.

As a historical note, there was a time when the EDC Basic 42 XR did not exist. But there were still EDC Basic 42's that met the specification - but were not labeled as such. The same holds true for other models that have an XR version. So you should be careful what conclusions you try to draw from individual lights.

Because the POWER is set during the calibration process, swapping the LED will not produce consistent results. If you are replacing a very inefficient LED with a very efficient LED, you will get maximum performance gains. If you replace an efficient LED with a very inefficient LED - even though it might be of a much better bin, you may see NO performance gain.

And finally, replacing the LED with a Lux V will work but will not produce optimum results in any case. The software needs to know about the much higher Vf in order to optimize the circuitry - which is part of the calibration process.

Henry.


----------



## xochi (Jun 9, 2006)

Hey Henry,

Thanks for the post! I was a little concerned that this thread would end up with future HDS lights epoxied in. I hope not. I've bought 2 b42 and just ordered a 3rd HDS light a U60 (Murphy says its time to roll out the new models ). I thought "power" was the key word, meaning watts , correct? Voltage is adjusted to fit the proper LED VF. After reading your white paper I wondered if the output level is controlled by calibrating the light to the VF of the LED. I also wondered if there is some kind of heat management whereby the voltage is choked to a set point based on VF and the expected heat initiated VF drop. I figured that once heat lowered the vf to the set point the voltage choke would strobe the led off till it cooled and vf returned to a point within parameters, if the process was very quick it seemed like a good way to manage heat , maintain constant current, while allowing calibration for output. I guess it would be like intelligent PWM.

I'm likely WAY off and I really don't know much about how this stuff works , It's just fun to think about. I hope that I am understanding you correctly because your White Paper was the first time that I read about heat related drop in VF. I knew that it would rise in relation to current. Any chance of some elaboration on this?


----------



## Ty_Bower (Jun 9, 2006)

HDS_Systems said:


> And finally, replacing the LED with a Lux V will work but will not produce optimum results in any case. The software needs to know about the much higher Vf in order to optimize the circuitry - which is part of the calibration process.
> 
> Henry.


Thanks for the insight. I've been curious about what makes these lights tick. I hope there's a Lux V in the future for the HDS lights. Maybe the time will be right when the 18650 tubes are available in quantity. I hope if a Lux V version does come out, it keeps the existing reflector. I know it will be a very floody light (like a Surefire L4), but I really like the shape of the HDS light. A "turbo head" would spoil it for me.


----------



## DFiorentino (Jun 9, 2006)

HDS_Systems said:


> If you are replacing a very inefficient LED with a very efficient LED, you will get maximum performance gains. If you replace an efficient LED with a very inefficient LED - even though it might be of a much better bin, you may see NO performance gain.



...and this is exactly why I started testing ALL of the LEDs I have. That way all of my mods are "guaranteed". 

 


-DF


----------



## HDS_Systems (Jun 11, 2006)

Xochi,

You try to hard to complicate things with extrapolations. The simplest and most literal interpretation of the published statements will provide the best understanding.

Henry.


----------



## Planterz (Jun 13, 2006)

Out of curiosity, I removed the LE from my U60XRGT (supprisingly easy), and although it's hard to be certain, I'm pretty sure the writing on mine (which was easier to see backwards in the conductant) said "_OWH". Probably TWOH. The H was only half there, but it certainly wasn't a J. I was honestly expecting an XO tint, since it doesn't have the "warmth" of my TWOH Jil Intelli or TWOJ McLux III PD, but there you have it. It's definitely less blue than my XO or YO tint lights. The "WO" on the LE were the 2 letters that I could read with absolute certainty.


----------



## liteMANIAC (Jun 17, 2006)

I orderd a B42 with the intenstion of doing this mod. However, there was a little mix up and I ended up recieving a B42XRGT. If I understand it correctly since it's a XR the LED is more effecient so it's driven at a lower current. So when I pop in a UWOJ it wont alot brighter. Is it worth the hassel to send it back and get a B42? Also I recently have read some people have recieved there B42's and they wobble while tail standing. This one can tail stand and I wouldnt want to get one that wobbles. 


P.S. would I at least get longer runtime if I replaced the B42XRGT led with an UWOJ?


----------



## AuroraLite (Jun 17, 2006)

liteMANIAC,

I think the result will largely depend on what bin you have in your B42GTXR(in terms of brightness), and if the TxxH bin is used, then replacing it with a UxxJ might not yield that significant of a result(in terms of brightness output) or even lower the output.

The whole point of getting the B42 is because of its cheaper price and user might acheive a better than average performance if the lux swap is successful/meaningful--if you have paid for a GTXR, then the motivation for modding the light might be less since the original lux is likely to be quite good to begin with. (for example, a TX0H bin)


(post edited 28/8/06: if the HDS is indeed power-regulated, then switching a lux I TxxH with a lux I/III UxxJ might or might not have much improvement for output, since with a higher Vf, it will mean less current provided to the lux and if a lux III is used(which has a higher spec for I forward), then the result might be dampened even more. )


----------



## liteMANIAC (Jun 17, 2006)

The thing is i ordered a B42 but they send me a B45XRGT. I guess I'll have to open it and see what bin the LED is and take it from there.


----------



## Billson (Jun 18, 2006)

But if you already opened it up, the warranty is effectively voided so I don't think you'll be able to return it anymore.


----------



## chesterqw (Jun 18, 2006)

lol if you ordered a b42 and you got a b42gtxr, that is a good thing 

but you should return it to where you ordered...just incase if the guy selling send it to the wrong guy, he gets screwed.


----------



## Kevin Tan (Jun 19, 2006)

chesterqw, a uwoj to replace a _woh will result in less lumens output. This lite is current regulated and as stated by Henry, if u want the brightest - get the lowest runtime, therefore the xr is the opposite of what u want. But the B42 as is is a great light as is and for normal use it good enough.


----------



## liteMANIAC (Jun 19, 2006)

Ok, I opened up my HDS put in the new emitter. I don't exactly remember how to put it back together. When I put the reflector back in do I put the oring around the reflector or do i put it around the piece of glass?


----------



## jar3ds (Jun 19, 2006)

i believe its reflector --> oring --> glass --> bezel ring


----------



## NoFair (Jun 19, 2006)

Kevin Tan said:


> chesterqw, a uwoj to replace a _woh will result in less lumens output. This lite is current regulated and as stated by Henry, if u want the brightest - get the lowest runtime, therefore the xr is the opposite of what u want. But the B42 as is is a great light as is and for normal use it good enough.



I belive you are mistaken Kevin. A UW0J might give shorter runtime, higher Vf, but if the light is current regulated it should be brighter IMHO.

I'm not quite sure how the HDS regulation is, but in a current regulated light a higher flux bin should make it brighter and a lower Vf should give better runtimes. I think HDS lights have set max currents when they are calibrated, I'm not sure if Vf comes in, but Henry knows for sure how it works


----------



## xochi (Jun 20, 2006)

As Henry has said, the HDS lights are Power Regulated. The XR lights aren't as good to modify as the non xr lights. Runtime won't increase , only brightness will increase. Of course on a U model, you get more brightness at a lower level as well and configuring for a lower level as max means more runtime. 

*Hey Henry*, do the HDS EDC lights get slightly brighter over time on account of dropping VF?


----------



## moses (Jun 27, 2006)

Great thread.

Is it practical to use 1 watters in the HDS upgrades? Or must one use 3 watters? 

Thanks,
Mo


----------



## xochi (Jun 27, 2006)

moses said:


> Great thread.
> 
> Is it practical to use 1 watters in the HDS upgrades? Or must one use 3 watters?
> 
> ...



Depending on the particular unit, there may already be a lux1 LED in the light. 

I used SWOH lux1 LEDs in 3, includeing a U60 and 2 b42's. This may not be a smart thing to do but I've done so on the perhaps incorrect assumption that there is no difference between the two emitters except for binning current. Might be dumb, might not.


----------



## treasurydept (Jul 16, 2006)

Anybody upgraded with a U-bin with success? Would appreciate some run-times, photos etc.


----------



## Billson (Jul 17, 2006)

treasurydept said:


> Anybody upgraded with a U-bin with success? Would appreciate some run-times, photos etc.



:thinking: Did you read the first post? That exactly what I did and essentially what this whole thread is about.

As for runtime, it will stay the same because the EDC is power regulated. You just end up with a brighter light.


----------



## treasurydept (Jul 17, 2006)

I've read every single post here about 3 times over. What I meant to ask was for an update... i.e., did anybody find that the U-bins were brighter and had the same runtime etc.?


----------



## quantile (Jul 17, 2006)

I put a SW0H LuxI in my B42 XRGT. According to my cheap light meter, output increased by about 20%. Runtime is the same as before, 48 minutes on maximum on a MP R123 Li-Ion cell.

Marcus


----------



## Led_Blind (Jul 17, 2006)

I would not expect runtime to change at all, just how bright it is. 

I may just pick up an other b42 to experiment


----------



## DFiorentino (Jul 17, 2006)

quantile said:


> I put a SW0H LuxI in my B42 XRGT. According to my cheap light meter, output increased by about 20%. Runtime is the same as before, 48 minutes on maximum on a MP R123 Li-Ion cell.
> 
> Marcus



Just about the same here. My results are posted in this thread, but the "Cliff Notes" version is 25%-30% increase in output and about 50-55 minutes on maximum setting with a BS primary cell.

-DF


----------



## luminata (Jul 17, 2006)

Hi all. I dont know if this has already been mentioned I dont have time to read thru all 5 pages in this thread but removing the led module is much easier from the front. there are two cone shaped holes on the front of the module and snap ring pliers on the samller side fit right in and give plenty of torque to get it out. yes covering the LED with tape or something is a safe thing to do althought I like living on the edge and didnt as long as you apply carefule pressure (like how i spelled careful wrong?) the pliers wont slip out . I think that is the purpose of these holes . going at it from the back you risk ruining the threads and mine has no notches for purchase anyway I dont know how anyone has done it this way and I dont think HDS does it this way . My uwoj is a little brighter, my b42 is #1648 so its an older one even though i just got it from Battery station. also MARK your polarities before removal / placement of new LED take it from an idiot who put his in backwards and had to resolder. hehe


----------



## conor (Jul 25, 2006)

i JUST ordered a HDS B42 =-o

damm this thread


----------



## Ty_Bower (Jul 27, 2006)

xochi said:


> As Henry has said, the HDS lights are Power Regulated...


So, if the driver pushes a fixed amount of power through the emitter, I wonder what would happen if someone tried to stick a Lux V on there. The Vf is going to be a lot higher, but might the circuit just drive fewer mA? I mean, if a Lux III can eat 3.75 volts times 800 mA (3 watts), can the driver supply 6.5 volts times 460 mA (also 3 watts)?

Sure, you're going to underdrive the Lux V. I suppose there isn't anything you can do about that, unless someone here (other than Henry) knows how to recalibrate these lights. But, from what I've read, the Lux V generally tends to be more efficient than most Lux III parts. And, emitters generally tend to be more efficient when they are underdriven. Which suggests to me that you may get a lot of light for your 3 watts, even if it is not as much as the Lux V could make at a full 5 watts.

I suppose the large die area of the Lux V might make for a lousy beam with the EDC's relatively small reflector. Oh well...



xochi said:


> Hey Henry, do the HDS EDC lights get slightly brighter over time on account of dropping VF?


Yeah, do they? What makes the light? Is it the power, or is it the current?


----------



## CM (Jul 29, 2006)

Well I just had to try this mod. I have this UXOJ that's an exceptional LED (compared to about ten mixes of S lux I's and U lux III's) that I couldn't figure out what to do with so I picked up one of the HDS42 from Lighthound. I was hoping that I got one with an S bin Lux III so that it would be driving the LED hard but unfortunately I got one with a Vf of 3.33V at maximum output. That's about 420mA on the stock LED. So I biased the UXOJ at 3.33V and it drew about 560mA with the star mounted on a heat sink. That's good since I would get decent output when mounted on the HDS. But just how much? How about 61% more? Naaah, you're thinking big fish story. How about ceiling bounce with light meter? OK, only 50-55 percent. To put this in perspective, I have a TWOJ Lux III that's biased at 937mA hosted in a Pelican M6. The modified HDS beats the output of the T bin at 937mA using the ceiling bounce by about 5-10%. 

I haven't done a runtime and at this point I don't really care how long this thing runs. I can't get over the fact that I finally won the damn lux lottery  And the tint is excellent due to the slight underdriving which makes the XO look really white!

Thanks Billson for telling us about this mod :thumbsup:


----------



## Billson (Jul 29, 2006)

CM,

No problem. I pmed you with some questions but it seems you answered them all in this post so never mind.

Did you get the 420ma current draw with the led still attached to the light engine? It seems no one has been able to take a current reading yet from the actual light before and after the mod.

Thanks for the info.


----------



## CM (Jul 29, 2006)

The HDS are constant power. It is not constant current so the light is calibrated for the *particular* LED in the unit. Whatever the calibration process is, it will regulate the *voltage* to the LED to give the desired output level provided certain criteria are met. In this particular unit, it was set to give 3.33V (Let's not forget RMS vs. instantaneous). Once you determine this, then you know that any LED you put in will get this RMS level. So pick the lowest Vf LED with the highest flux to maximize your mod return. In my case, my UXOJ ran over 560mA at 3.33V. So the key to measuring current in the HDS is to do it indirectly. Your current will be a function of the Vf of your LED as well as the Vf of the stock LED. The gamble that you take when you buy an HDS to mod is that you will get one with a LED that has a low Vf and relatively high output in which case, you won't realize much benefit. I suspect older units that have a good probability of having an S bin tuned to higher effective voltages to make the 42 lumen output will get the biggest gains.

--CM


----------



## xochi (Jul 29, 2006)

Ty_Bower said:


> So, if the driver pushes a fixed amount of power through the emitter, I wonder what would happen if someone tried to stick a Lux V on there. The Vf is going to be a lot higher, but might the circuit just drive fewer mA? I mean, if a Lux III can eat 3.75 volts times 800 mA (3 watts), can the driver supply 6.5 volts times 460 mA (also 3 watts)?
> 
> Sure, you're going to underdrive the Lux V. I suppose there isn't anything you can do about that, unless someone here (other than Henry) knows how to recalibrate these lights. But, from what I've read, the Lux V generally tends to be more efficient than most Lux III parts. And, emitters generally tend to be more efficient when they are underdriven. Which suggests to me that you may get a lot of light for your 3 watts, even if it is not as much as the Lux V could make at a full 5 watts.
> 
> ...



Henry said that they do. The light is made by electrons dropping orbit and releasing photons, I know, kind of a smart answer . To my neophyte level of understanding, refering to leds as current driven devices means that output is dependent on the available quantity of electrons as opposed to a potential to overcome a resistance. So, really, it's power that makes light.


----------



## Ty_Bower (Jul 29, 2006)

CM said:


> (Let's not forget RMS vs. instantaneous)...


Excellent point. This is a PWM controlled light, so measuring the voltage across the emitter may not be a direct as one might think.



CM said:


> I suspect older units that have a good probability of having an S bin tuned to higher effective voltages to make the 42 lumen output will get the biggest gains.


I'd think the easiest way to choose an HDS light to mod, provided you've got more than one from which to choose, is to measure runtime on the highest level. Whichever one eats a battery fastest is the best mod candidate. Shortest runtime must necessarily equal highest drive level.


----------



## Reima (Jul 30, 2006)

I now have a CV/CC bench pwer supply and a light meter so I can test LEDs before I do the mod to my B42.
The only problem I have is to decide between buying the SXOH Lux I or the UXOJ Lux III for the mod.
Will the Lux I be able to handle the max power in the B42?
RC


----------



## Billson (Jul 30, 2006)

CM,

Thanks for the explanation. It seems the best way to maximize your gain would be to buy multiple lights and do it by trial and error.

Reima,

If your modding a B42, you should be safe with either led. The B42's are probably all under-driven anyway since they are using lux III's. You'll be overdriving the Lux I a bit but under-driving the Lux III so it should be brighter using the lux I against using the lux III.


----------



## Reima (Jul 30, 2006)

Thanks Bill.
RC


----------



## Billson (Jul 30, 2006)

Ty_Bower said:


> So, if the driver pushes a fixed amount of power through the emitter, I wonder what would happen if someone tried to stick a Lux V on there. The Vf is going to be a lot higher, but might the circuit just drive fewer mA? I mean, if a Lux III can eat 3.75 volts times 800 mA (3 watts), can the driver supply 6.5 volts times 460 mA (also 3 watts)?
> 
> Sure, you're going to underdrive the Lux V. I suppose there isn't anything you can do about that, unless someone here (other than Henry) knows how to recalibrate these lights. But, from what I've read, the Lux V generally tends to be more efficient than most Lux III parts. And, emitters generally tend to be more efficient when they are underdriven. Which suggests to me that you may get a lot of light for your 3 watts, even if it is not as much as the Lux V could make at a full 5 watts.



If I understand CM correctly, since the output voltage is calibrated according to the stock led, the lux V might not even light. I once thought my WXOS was broken because it wouldn't light with an R123 and that's at 3.7 volts. An under-driven lux III would probably be pulling less than 3.5 volts.


----------



## treasurydept (Jul 31, 2006)

Will the LuxI SX0H or LuxIII UX0J produce a brighter beam?


----------



## jar3ds (Jul 31, 2006)

treasurydept said:


> Will the LuxI SX0H or LuxIII UX0J produce a brighter beam?


 see post 3 of https://www.candlepowerforums.com/posts/1525761 by AW...

from the data we have had as of lately it appears that the SxxH will be brighter than the UxxJ's... However, I can't help but think that the UxxJ will have longer life... how much more life? Thats my question...

Currently I'm getting ready to make a Tri-Lux mod and i'm using UWOJ's... but if SXOH's will hold a decent life i might as well use them


----------



## wasBlinded (Jul 31, 2006)

jar3ds said:


> see post 3 of https://www.candlepowerforums.com/posts/1525761 by AW...
> 
> from the data we have had as of lately it appears that the SxxH will be brighter than the UxxJ's... However, I can't help but think that the UxxJ will have longer life... how much more life? Thats my question...
> 
> Currently I'm getting ready to make a Tri-Lux mod and i'm using UWOJ's... but if SXOH's will hold a decent life i might as well use them


 
I think its a common error to extrapolate the performance of different bins against each other when only a few samples of each have been tested. This probably isn't a reliable way to predict how the next Luxeon of a particular bin you buy will perform. 

Basically a UWOJ binned at 700 mA would probably be a SW0H or SX1H when binned at 350 mA. People persist in thinking that there is some fundamental differerence between _*today's*_ LuxI and LuxIII, but I've seen no good evidence to support that.

I think you would do just fine with the SXOH, though at higher drive currents than the 350 mA it was binned at, the tint may move toward purple/pink.


----------



## EvilLithiumMan (Jul 31, 2006)

wasBlinded said:


> I think its a common error to extrapolate the performance of different bins against each other when only a few samples of each have been tested. This probably isn't a reliable way to predict how the next Luxeon of a particular bin you buy will perform.



I couldn't agree more. If you've read Henry's Whitepaper on LED flashlight design, you'll see there can be a 40% deviation in efficiency within any given bin. You may find a great UXOJ device today. But three months from now, another UXOJ could be disappointing. That's why if you're into modding or building your own lights and you locate a great device, it's a good idea buy a few extra. Yes, something better may be out there in a few months, but there's no guarantee.


----------



## Billson (Aug 1, 2006)

I also believe there's virtually no difference between the LuxI and the LuxIII except for the binning. It just depends on what current one is planning to run it at because the tint might shift if run outside its rated spec.


----------



## CM (Aug 2, 2006)

Billson said:


> If I understand CM correctly, since the output voltage is calibrated according to the stock led, the lux V might not even light. I once thought my WXOS was broken because it wouldn't light with an R123 and that's at 3.7 volts. An under-driven lux III would probably be pulling less than 3.5 volts.




That is correct. If you look at the waveform across the LED, you will see that it does not have sufficient amplitude to turn on two led's in series.



Billson said:


> I also believe there's virtually no difference between the LuxI and the LuxIII except for the binning. It just depends on what current one is planning to run it at because the tint might shift if run outside its rated spec.



Correct again. I've used Lux I's and III's interchangeably and I would challenge anyone to be able to tell the difference tint shift. In fact, Lux I, III, K2's, they are virtually the same except that the III's and K2's have slightly better thermal characteristics which would make them more suitable for higher currents (700mA and above) I've seen S bin Lux I read higher then U bin Lux III's on my "controlled" testing. It's all about probability when talking about a given bin.


----------



## EvilLithiumMan (Aug 4, 2006)

xochi said:


> HOLY CRAP!
> 
> QX1H
> 
> was written on mine. At first I couldn't distinguish and assumed it must be an S in the first position until I thought to look for emphasis dots. It's a Q, I'm dead sure on that!



I'll be modding a second B42 this weekend. The markings on my first one were indistingishable. But this one is clear, another QX1H:


----------



## conor (Aug 4, 2006)

so what did u replace it with?

SX0H?


----------



## majr (Aug 6, 2006)

Opened my b42 #3594 this weekend and found "b42 QX1H" written on the module. Swapped it for a SX0H, which is very bright, but definately an undesirable purpley tint, especially on primary and lower levels. Any tips on a different bin for bright yet white/ warmer(leaning toward incandescent) color? Runtime with the stock QX1H(which I thought was a niceish color, maybe a bit greenish but not objectionable) was about 35 minutes in a cup of warm water till first stepdown on rcr123a "800mAh" unprotected from lighthound to give an idea of what sort of power level this light is calibrated for.
Thanks

*** UPDATE:
After quite a bit of runtime the tint seems to have shifted away from the purpleish that it started at, it now seems a nice but cool white. It only seems purpley now in comparision to an incan or daylight.


----------



## EvilLithiumMan (Aug 6, 2006)

I've done a number of mods this weekend, but I am a liittle under the weather and not quite ready to post detailed results.

jar3ds - Your concern is valid on overdriving a Lux I device. Luxeon design guides still state 350ma as the maximum current. I look at it this way - if I've degraded the nominal 50,000 hour life of the Lux I down to 1000 hours, it would still cost me about $4500 in CR123 cells to run it that 1000 hours at maximum current. Probably isn't going to happen. 



majr said:


> Opened my b42 #3594 this weekend and found "b42 QX1H" written on the module. Swapped it for a SX0H, which is very bright, but definately an undesirable purpley tint, especially on primary and lower levels. Any tips on a different bin for bright yet white/ warmer(leaning toward incandescent) color? Runtime with the stock QX1H(which I thought was a niceish color, maybe a bit greenish but not objectionable) was about 35 minutes in a cup of warm water till first stepdown on rcr123a "800mAh" unprotected from lighthound to give an idea of what sort of power level this light is calibrated for.
> Thanks



Interesting. I've modded two additional B42's this weekend. Both had QX1H originally installed. I put a QXOJ (Lux III) in one and a SXOH (Lux I) in the other. The SXOH I used last week was teriffic. But in this weekend's mod, the SXOH took on a decidedly greenish tint. Not too bad at maximum level. But still there and worse at lower levels. I checked the date codes of the two SXOH devices and sure enough, they are not the same. I assumed I lost the "Luxeon Lottery" with the later date code.

But here is where it becomes confusing - I also used the same date code device in a Fenix P1 and an Arc LSH-S. In those two devices, the tint is very white as I would expect. And now I read you have one that is purplelish. How very odd. Is there that much variation in a single bin with the same date code? Henry mentions wide variations in tint and brightness in his whitepaper. Perhaps that is exactly what we are experiencing.


----------



## Billson (Aug 8, 2006)

It may be because you're overdriving it too much in the EDC's so the tint is shifting noticeably. Remember that the leds are binned at 350ma so your tint is guaranteed only at that current. No one can say what it will look like at lower or higher levels.


----------



## Sengoku (Aug 11, 2006)

i had a go at this mod aswell 

Modded a B42 XRGT(received by mistake,i ordered a B42!) with a SXOH. Opening was easy, as for the original lux, i read "TWOJ" written on the module. A T bin for 42lumens. not 60?

Here are the 3 main light levels before and after measured with my milk carton lightbox:

B42 TWOJ
Max - 32 = 44.50 lumens
Primary - 7.4 = 10.28 lumens
Secondary - 1.7 = 2.36 lumens

B42 SXOH
Max - 41 = 57 lumens
Primary - 9.2 = 12.8 lumens
Secondary - 2.1 = 2.9 lumens

lux to lumen Convertions taken from Flashlight reviews.

So it gained about 13lumen in brightness, im quite happy with tht but the tint has definately gone purple, i prefer the tint of the stock TWOJ


----------



## Ty_Bower (Aug 11, 2006)

Sengoku said:


> Modded a B42 XRGT(received by mistake,i ordered a B42!) with a SXOH. Opening was easy, as for the original lux, i read "TWOJ" written on the module. A T bin for 42lumens. not 60?


Use a T bin for extended runtime at 42 lumens, hence the XR. It's a "lightly driven" T bin.

That's also the cause for the modest increase in output. You'd be better off starting with a non-XR model. Hopefully it would have some inefficient Q bin'd emitter. Replacing it with a S bin'd Lux I or U bin'd Lux III would make for some serious output.

The TWOx was probably correctly driven to maintain proper tint. The SXOx you put in there was tint binned at a lower drive level. Now you are technically overdriving it, and I'd expect the tint to shift more towards the left of the color chart. That might put you squarly in YA territory, which is distinctly purple. To avoid this, either use a Lux III with a tint that you like (WO) or use a Lux I with a tint farther right than you would normally want (maybe a V0 or V1).


----------



## Reima (Aug 13, 2006)

I got some Lux I SXOH leds from Milkyspit in a trade yesterday. I picked the one with the lowest vf on put it in my EDC B42 XR. The output on maximum went from 900 lux to 1190 lux, an increase of 32 percent! All levels showed an increase in brightness.
I have not had time to do a runtime test to see if there was any change in the runtime.
I am using a Lutron LX-102 to check the output at 1 meter.
RC


----------



## CM (Aug 13, 2006)

Reima said:


> I got some Lux I SXOH leds from Milkyspit in a trade yesterday. I picked the one with the lowest vf on put it in my EDC B42 XR. The output on maximum went from 900 lux to 1190 lux, an increase of 32 percent! All levels showed an increase in brightness.
> I have not had time to do a runtime test to see if there was any change in the runtime.
> I am using a Lutron LX-102 to check the output at 1 meter.
> RC



A 30% increase in brightness is what's expected when you go "up" one flux bin. The previous bin was likely an R lux I or T lux III.


----------



## Kevin Tan (Aug 13, 2006)

Its power regulated, so the runtime will remain the same on all levels as b4 the change.


----------



## CM (Aug 13, 2006)

Kevin Tan said:


> Its power regulated, so the runtime will remain the same on all levels as b4 the change.



Not quite. It's power regulated *for the particular LED in that light*. Change out the LED, it's a new ballgame. You may get longer runtime, shorter runtime, dimmer output, brighter output, worst tint, better tint, depending on the LED before and after the swap. Most people have gotten good results if they had a T rank with a relatively high Vf with substandard tint. One thing is certain. The outcome is uncertain


----------



## Reima (Aug 13, 2006)

I did a runtime test today, it remained the same at 38 minutes. I am using Sanyo primary cells.
RC


----------



## Kevin Tan (Aug 13, 2006)

I have changed 2 B42 with SxxH and UxxJ. On bothI noticed that 1 will take the UxxJ and be brighter but the other with the UxxJ is the same. The improved with the UxxJ is taking 1.39a from fully charged lion in brightest level. Its now taking the same current. 

The other 1 takes 1.12a was not improived with the UxxJ but is improved with the SXOH. Its also taking the same current. 

So what do you make of that?

edited 

because current reading given is from primary fresh 123, from lion is 930mah and 750mah resp.


----------



## xochi (Aug 13, 2006)

Kevin Tan said:


> I have changed 2 B42 with SxxH and UxxJ. On bothI noticed that 1 will take the UxxJ and be brighter but the other with the UxxJ is the same. The improved with the UxxJ is taking 1.39a from fully charged lion in brightest level. Its now taking the same current.
> 
> The other 1 takes 1.12a was not improived with the UxxJ but is improved with the SXOH. Its also taking the same current.
> 
> So what do you make of that?



The unit that wasn't improved by the UXXJ likely started out with an h bin vf led , so, although current draw remained the same you actually dropped the amount of current it is being fed by using a higher VF LED. It remained the same brightness because the UXXJ is a higher flux bin than the original LED. Generally speaking, once VF demands are met it's better to feed the LED the power as higher current than excess voltage.


----------



## wasBlinded (Aug 14, 2006)

Just replaced the LED in my HDS Basic 42. The Vf of the original LED was 3.1 at 350 mA, and 3.4 at 700 mA, so call it a J bin LuxIII or H bin LuxI, and it was probably an X1 tint bin.


The new LED is a SWOH LuxI, so it has about the same Vf as the original LED. The output is markedly improved by 43% on both high and default levels, so I guess its now a Basic 60. Love that SWOH tint!


----------



## GJW (Aug 14, 2006)

Are you all grabbing the module from the front or the rear?
My U60XRGT does not have the typical snap-ring indentations to grab on to at the rear.
Only eight pin-sized holes around the diameter.
About 1/4 the size of the bezel ring holes and way too small for my smallest snap-ring pliers.


----------



## Christoph (Aug 14, 2006)

GJW from the front.,

C


----------



## Billson (Aug 14, 2006)

GJW said:


> Are you all grabbing the module from the front or the rear?
> My U60XRGT does not have the typical snap-ring indentations to grab on to at the rear.
> Only eight pin-sized holes around the diameter.
> About 1/4 the size of the bezel ring holes and way too small for my smallest snap-ring pliers.



I filed down my snap ring pliers till it fit the pin sized holes in the rear. I never had a problem so I didn't even think of accessing it from the front.


----------



## Reima (Aug 15, 2006)

From the front is it has a removeable reflector and from the rear if it has an integral reflector.
RC


----------



## ouchmyfinger (Aug 19, 2006)

Hello everyone.

I just replaced the LED on a recently acquired EDC Basic 42 - serial #2038. It has a removable reflector, so I removed the bezel, lens, o-ring and reflector. Stuck some tweezers into the holes and backed the light engine assembly out. My soldering skills are very rusty, and I didn't have any wick or a solder sucker handy, but it was not very difficult. Some careful work with tweezers and the soldering iron to remove the existing LED. Put the new one in, reconnected the leads with the existing solder and a tiny drop of new stuff. Put it all back together and... yyyeeeahhhh!

Well, not quite. I will echo what some earlier posters have said - check the polarity ahead of time! I got to 'practice' by removing the new LED and turning it around ... doh!

Anyway, I put an SX0H in; I'm unfortunately not set up to do beamshots or lux readings, but I will say that it is noticably brighter. And ohhh so very white, even on the lowest levels. On burst it is brighter than a TX0H (Lux III) flupic on burst (running from 1xRCR123).

I think Lux I's are great for this mod, since there appears to be adequate thermal management in the EDC for overdriving them, and there is very little (none to my eyes) tint shifting on the lower levels. Plus you can get an H bin and increase your runtime. I haven't done any runtime tests as of yet, but I will say that I like my EDC a lot more now.

And boy do I need to get some solder wick, would have made this much easier.


----------



## Kevin Tan (Aug 22, 2006)

ouchmyfinger said:


> Hello everyone.
> 
> Plus you can get an H bin and increase your runtime.
> 
> ...


----------



## CM (Aug 22, 2006)

Kevin Tan said:


> ouchmyfinger said:
> 
> 
> > Hello everyone.
> ...


----------



## Kevin Tan (Aug 23, 2006)

Thank you CM, glad to know that all four I modded is having the same current draw measured from battery as before. Also same current draw using UWOJ and SXOH.


----------



## CM (Aug 23, 2006)

Kevin Tan said:


> Thank you CM, glad to know that all four I modded is having the same current draw measured from battery as before. Also same current draw using UWOJ and SXOH.



Then your J's and H's are actually the same Vf. Go back and read how the HDS regulates light to the LED. 

BIG FAT HINT: IT DOES NOT USE CURRENT SENSING TO THE LED. Once you understand that, you will see the light  (and why your conclusion based on anecdotal evidence is incorrect)


----------



## mikeymoto (Aug 23, 2006)

Convoluted as this thread has been, it has been simultaneously entertaining and informative. It has redoubled my appreciation for the work that Henry and all of HDS Systems (if there are others) have put into these amazing lights.


----------



## CM (Aug 24, 2006)

mikeymoto said:


> Convoluted as this thread has been, it has been simultaneously entertaining and informative. It has redoubled my appreciation for the work that Henry and all of HDS Systems (if there are others) have put into these amazing lights.



It's more like controversial  It seems that very few people understand how the HDS and Arc4's work. It's definitely the result of thinking out of the box. \


----------



## monobeg (Aug 26, 2006)

Billson said:


> ...I could take apart my U60GT to swap out the led...
> 
> Using my eyes to gauge the difference, I'm pretty sure it's brighter and definitely whiter. Even at the lower levels it seems brighter with barely noticeable hint of tint.


 
Wait...I thought the GT models had an almost perfectly white tint. Not the case?


----------



## Billson (Aug 28, 2006)

The GT models have guaranteed tint that is closer to WO. WO is a warm white but I prefer a cooler white(XO) which is what I got after modding.


----------



## monobeg (Aug 28, 2006)

OK, now this is going to make me sound stupid, but it wouldn't be the first time, so here goes:

What does 'warm' and 'cool' mean? Which one is actually closer to REAL white?


----------



## xochi (Aug 28, 2006)

CM said:


> Kevin Tan said:
> 
> 
> > ouchmyfinger said:
> ...


----------



## xochi (Aug 28, 2006)

monobeg said:


> OK, now this is going to make me sound stupid, but it wouldn't be the first time, so here goes:
> 
> What does 'warm' and 'cool' mean? Which one is actually closer to REAL white?



Mono, people refer to leds with tints toward the blue as cool and tints towards the orange as warm. Course, we know blue colors are actually hotter than orange but the descriptive practice is what it is.

Neither color is closer to real white. White is a blend of wavelenghts and your question , though apparently simple, can have a hugely complex answer. As it stands now there is something called the CIE Black body and it is an attempt at reducing subjectivity in communicating color. I know very little about this stuff but if you are looking for "real" white light, think noon daylight (unless you live far north or south of the equator). Preferences vary as have preference trends. These days it seems most folks are leaning towards warmer whites (more yellow/orange) . It seems that most folks used to prefer cooler white leds. Best thing to do is not make a big deal out of tint until you've seen enough that a natural preference developes, then , you will find yourself miserably scrutinizing the tint of every led you come to posess.


----------



## CM (Aug 28, 2006)

xochi said:


> CM said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin Tan said:
> ...


----------



## AuroraLite (Aug 29, 2006)

CM and Xochi,

With no doubt this is one of the most informative thread about HDS modding and how it works, and probably the reason why I went and got myself some HDSes.  

Being an EE dummy, I knew next to nothing about how exactly this sophisticated equipment work...but just not to get the wrong idea and wouldn't want to ruin a good light by modding it--let me see whether I am correct in my understanding.


1) HDS is a PWM light(how it actually works escape me, I only know it is done via pulsing) and it regulates the power going into the led. And it calibrates and set voltage to each of the led put in(so V is fixed), while doing so will achieve the desirable output during the calibration.

So if a lux I RxxJ is spotted in the HDS B42, HDS will set the relevant voltage to the J bin so that it will achieve the desirable output at its highest level.(around 42 lumens at highest level). 


2) And now, if we were to put in a lux I SxxJ bin, assuming there is no significant difference in the bin code or Vf variance, the output will be improve with no reduction of runtime due to the power put forth in the SxxJ matches to the RxxJ.


3) However, if we were to put in a lux I SxxH bin, since the power to led is regulated, then with a lower Vf, it will mean more current will be supplied to the SxxH bin. Hence the shorter runtime.


4) That is why Henry say to replace those with the worst efficiency, for example QxxH will have short runtime and the output is not as high, and replacing it with a anything such as RxxH or SxxH will yield higher output.(or better, SxxJ/RxxJ for higher output and longer runtime? it is counter-intiative...  )

Ok, am I way off or I am right on track?


----------



## CM (Aug 29, 2006)

AuroraLite said:


> CM and Xochi,
> 
> With no doubt this is one of the most informative thread about HDS modding and how it works, and probably the reason why I went and got myself some HDSes.
> 
> ...




You hit the nail squarely on the head. 



AuroraLite said:


> 3) However, if we were to put in a lux I SxxH bin, since the power to led is regulated, then with a lower Vf, it will mean more current will be supplied to the SxxH bin. Hence the shorter runtime.


 
Let me further clarify. The PWM to the LED was calibrated for the *J* bin so putting in an H bin will mean more current to the LED which means more current from the supply. 

It doesn't take an EE to figure this out, just a little effort from taking in all the hints and then putting them all together.


----------



## monobeg (Aug 29, 2006)

AuroraLite said:


> ...HDS is a PWM light...


 
Didn't know that! Does it suffer from the flicker other PWM lights (ie Jetbeam) have, which can be annoying when reading etc?


----------



## xochi (Aug 29, 2006)

Mono, Yeah. There is flicker.

CM,
Now I understand. I'd been trying to make it more complex than it is. With all the lights with H bin emitters getting a Q**J would be sweet.

Kevin Tan, excuse my previous explanation, it was based on a flawed understanding. Replaceing the led with a lower vf led should result in higher current draw but the same runtime since power is volts times amps and at a set power level the lower voltage means higher current. I don't know what reasoning CM is using to state that the runtime would be reduced, unless he is basing the statement on varying battery efficency based on how current is drawn (higher current at lower voltage vs. lower current at higher voltage). Either way, without nitpicking the design should dictate that higher current and greater output would result from lower VF leds (of the same flux bin) and runtime would remain about the same.

BTW - Voltage isn't fixed. As Henry has said, these lights will run a lux V unless it's a really high vf (beyond the limits of the PS) but current will drop relative to the higher vf than stock.


----------



## Ty_Bower (Aug 29, 2006)

monobeg said:


> Didn't know that! Does it suffer from the flicker other PWM lights (ie Jetbeam) have, which can be annoying when reading etc?


Yes, it does flicker. I mostly notice my Basic 42 flickering on the lowest setting. I generally tend to be sensitive to flickering things, and I usually notice a montior with a poor refresh rate before other people. I think it does flicker on the higher settings, but you really have to work to see it.

Some of the older HDS lights would also tend to blink at the lower settings. I don't think this behavior should be confused with the PWM flicker. The blink was somewhat obvious, and would occur at periodic intervals. It might be once every 10 seconds, or maybe a little faster or much slower. Mine blinks, but usually only when using primary CR123A cells. On li-ion cells, it rarely blinks.


----------



## HDS_Systems (Aug 30, 2006)

There seems to be a bit of confusion about how power regulation works. Power is Volts x Amps. In theory, if the output power does not change, the input power does not change. Therefore - all else being equal, which it rarely is - if you take a module that is calibrated for x watts and substitute an LED with a lower Vf at the same rated current, the OUTPUT current will go up and the OUTPUT voltage will go down but the OUTPUT power will remain the same. And vise versa. The input power and thus runtime will also stay the same. And just because the current went up is no guaranty that the light output will go up.

There are many variables in this equation which cause things to diverge from ideal. The total system efficiency being the largest. As the calibration process learns certain things about the LED, it can optimize certain circuit parameters to improve system efficiency. The algorithms take into consideration that the LED characteristics will change with age. Changing the LED can "detune" the circuit and thus cause the overall system efficiency to go down. However, if the LED you substitute has a large enough increase in efficiency, the final result can be an increase in light output.

An SxxH is not a equivalent to a UxxJ. After applying conversion factors, there is a significant overlap, but as always, you are dealing with a statistical probability. With a sample size of 1 you can loose very badly, or win very nicely. What you are looking for is a net increase in efficiency - i.e., the best combination of lower Vf and higher flux at the resulting drive power - all else being equal. Without appropriate measurement gear it is a crap shoot.

Finally, all switch-mode regulators use some form of PWM/PFM (pulsed width/frequency modulation) with inductance to "convert" the input voltage/current to the output voltage/current. But this is different from using PWM/PFM to simply turn on and off the output device (e.g., LED) - such as is done with direct drive systems.

Henry.


----------



## Kevin Tan (Aug 30, 2006)

HDS_Systems said:


> There seems to be a bit of confusion about how power regulation works. Power is Volts x Amps. In theory, if the output power does not change, the input power does not change. Therefore - all else being equal, which it rarely is - if you take a module that is calibrated for x watts and substitute an LED with a lower Vf at the same rated current, the OUTPUT current will go up and the OUTPUT voltage will go down but the OUTPUT power will remain the same. And vise versa. The input power and thus runtime will also stay the same. And just because the current went up is no guaranty that the light output will go up.
> 
> Henry.


 
Unless it is recalibrated to the new emmitter!!

Thank you, Sir.


----------



## luxlover (Aug 30, 2006)

HDS_Systems said:


> There seems to be a bit of confusion about how power regulation works. Power is Volts x Amps. In theory, if the output power does not change, the input power does not change. Therefore - all else being equal, which it rarely is - if you take a module that is calibrated for x watts and substitute an LED with a lower Vf at the same rated current, the OUTPUT current will go up and the OUTPUT voltage will go down but the OUTPUT power will remain the same. And vise versa. The input power and thus runtime will also stay the same. And just because the current went up is no guaranty that the light output will go up.
> 
> There are many variables in this equation which cause things to diverge from ideal. The total system efficiency being the largest. As the calibration process learns certain things about the LED, it can optimize certain circuit parameters to improve system efficiency. The algorithms take into consideration that the LED characteristics will change with age. Changing the LED can "detune" the circuit and thus cause the overall system efficiency to go down. However, if the LED you substitute has a large enough increase in efficiency, the final result can be an increase in light output.
> 
> ...


Henry,
The most concise and detailed explanation of your method of regulation I have seen so far. It was long overdue.

Now that you have gotten that off your chest and are feeling better, *DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO TELL US*? 
I think you know what I mean!......
All current Basic 42/60 and Ultimate 60 production lights have been given a "discontinued" status, they are selling like hotcakes by all dealers due to your _*brilliant*_ price reduction maneuver allowing most households to own an HDS light, and regretably there is nothing to replace these "endangered species" models? What are we poor souls to do once the dealers sell out ALL of their stock? Use Mag lights, perhaps?  You do want us to see the light, don't you? 

Circling in a holding pattern,
Jeff


----------



## monobeg (Aug 30, 2006)

Ty_Bower said:


> Yes, it does flicker. I mostly notice my Basic 42 flickering on the lowest setting. I generally tend to be sensitive to flickering things, and I usually notice a montior with a poor refresh rate before other people. I think it does flicker on the higher settings, but you really have to work to see it.


 
Sorry to digress.

DRAT! Flicker could really be a deal killer I think. Is the flicker bad enough to annoy you when reading or moving the light quickly arround the room on either of the lower two settings???


----------



## xochi (Aug 30, 2006)

monobeg said:


> Sorry to digress.
> 
> DRAT! Flicker could really be a deal killer I think. Is the flicker bad enough to annoy you when reading or moving the light quickly arround the room on either of the lower two settings???



Hey MB, Generally speaking I'm sensitive to monitor flicker and use a relatively high refresh rate but I don't have any difficulty with the HDS b42 or U60. Occasionally I will notice a strobe effect (choppy movement) but only from my peripheral vision and only from the very lowest levels. 

The HDS lights are arguably the best in the industry and if you are seriously considering one I'd recommend sending an email to Lighthound and let him know your concerns, he is excellent to deal with and will likely not have a problem with you returning the light if your vision turns out to be a bit more sensitive than average and you find using the light annoying. Also, for the price, buy a U60 and you will likely be able to find a level that suits you very well. Right now , these ARE the best deal in an EDC flashlight BAR NONE, check'em out !


----------



## CM (Aug 30, 2006)

Xochi. I stand corrected. I re-read the patent application and figured out where my misunderstanding was. Thanks to Henry for clearing things up.


----------



## AuroraLite (Aug 30, 2006)

Thank you again to Henry to clarify all the doubts in mind, and everyone's input.

And I too do agree with Xochi for the comment, in terms of appearance, HDS series might not be the 'best looking' light on earth, but it is definitely meant to be a workhorse EDC light with no doubt. Personally, I do really enjoy the practicality and the option of the features presented, the awesome regulation/stepdown process and the ability to use rechargable/primary equally well.


----------



## Kevin Tan (Aug 30, 2006)

On the flickering due to pwm, if u use a lion rechargeable, the flickering shud be reduced. Its like filling a 1 gallon bucket, the primary has less voltage - like a 1/2" water tap while the lion has higher voltage - like a 1" water tap. The faster filling will give u higher frequency, therefore less flickering. 

Theres also a hi frequency hum from the lite, which I was told about bcus it seems that I cant hear the hi frequency no more ( becoming older...... )


----------



## monobeg (Aug 31, 2006)

Kevin Tan said:


> On the flickering due to pwm, if u use a lion rechargeable, the flickering shud be reduced. Its like filling a 1 gallon bucket, the primary has less voltage - like a 1/2" water tap while the lion has higher voltage - like a 1" water tap. The faster filling will give u higher frequency, therefore less flickering.


 
Interesting. I would have guessed that increased voltage would make the problem worse, as there would have to be more "off time" per "on time", like at the lower settings.



> Theres also a hi frequency hum from the lite, which I was told about bcus it seems that I cant hear the hi frequency no more ( becoming older...... )


 
I thought this problem had been fixed - do you have an old or new light? As a 22-year-old who spends a lot more time listening to Public Radio than loud music, my high-frequency hearing is pretty sharp. I've been in rooms where the TV makes such a loud high-pitched noise I can't stay in the room, whereas my parents can't hear it. This could be a real issue.

If I pick up an HDS EDC it will be a U60GT, as I'll be wanting to use it for medical use as well as day-to-day use, where color is sometimes important.


----------



## xochi (Aug 31, 2006)

CM said:


> Xochi. I stand corrected. I re-read the patent application and figured out where my misunderstanding was. Thanks to Henry for clearing things up.



Just to be clear , my statements were basically parroting Henry's explanation from a phone call I made earlier in the day.


----------



## xochi (Aug 31, 2006)

Mono, quit agonizing over this and send lighthound an email , that is, unless yer scared.....:eeksign:


----------



## jeffb (Aug 31, 2006)

I'll chime in here...................just received a brand new Ultimate 60 GT 

I had not been particularly interested, due to to "interface" (normally prefer 2 stage twisties or SPY00r rotary).

The light is impressive (came witha Duracell Ultra and I immediately put an F04 beamshaper) seems well made; actually with the size and shape, rear switch is much easier to use than planned!.
At one time, had a SureFire L2 that was very noisy in low (green, too!!!)....reasons I no longer own.

The HDS appears to have little or no flickering with primary 123 on low and I can hear PWM, ONLY when light is pressed against ear........just fyi with this new light.

Now back to interface and settings!

jeffb


----------



## NoFair (Sep 1, 2006)

Well I just did this mod, if one can call swapping out an emitter a mod, and my light is now 5-10% brighter (B60) and has the perfect tint for me.

I swapped the emitter mostly because I prefer the warmer W0 tints to the cooler X0 tint, which is what I think I had (with a hint of purple on high..) 

I bought 3 TW0Hs from Fred and put the one that performed best in the light. I tested all 3 in my Apex which got the second best emitter.
Both lights became slightly brighter, but outdoors the warmer tints are just way better than the slightly cooler ones.

Very happy with the results. Thanks to everyone who posted how sinple this was. I didn't even consider it before seeing this posted. The HDS lights look pretty seamless and unmoddable compared to some others..

Update: It ran 30min on a somewhat depleted Li-ion before stepping down. Submerged in luke warm water. 
Now to reprogram it for a lower lowest and higher primary

Sverre


----------



## monobeg (Sep 5, 2006)

xochi said:


> Mono, quit agonizing over this and send lighthound an email , that is, unless yer scared.....:eeksign:


Well, maybe a little scared.

Batterystation is the only store offering the sale price, so how will contacting lighthound help?


----------



## discoverEDC (Sep 8, 2006)

Just ordered an SWOH from TnC Products for my B42XRGT(LE!). Here's to hoping it will match the performace of a B60. Thanks to everybody for the info on how to do the mod and make my LUX selection(I know the XR is not the best driver to start with, the swoh seemed the best match). Also thanks to Henry for the Easter Egg!


----------



## xochi (Sep 10, 2006)

monobeg said:


> Well, maybe a little scared.
> 
> Batterystation is the only store offering the sale price, so how will contacting lighthound help?



Good point, Mono. Lighthound is now sold out .

*DiscoverEDC*, I hate to say it but with the XRGT, I think that you are risking more than you will gain. Even when there is a big difference between the stock LED and the replacement LED it is debateable wether the extra lumens are worth throwing out your warranty and the possible damage of the light. It's also possible that you may not care for the tint of the new LED. 

If you decide to go through with the modification, do so for the joy of a little tinkering and pride at having tampered with it because I don't think the results will wow you and there is the sacrifice of a warranty to consider.


----------



## discoverEDC (Sep 10, 2006)

xochi, I appreciate the words of caution, I went through that whole thought process prior to pulling the trigger on the SWOH. If I get into B60 territory for lumens (50-60 lum) I'll be relatively happy. If it doesn't work I'll put the original led back into the B42, I have another host for the SWOH.


----------



## majr (Sep 11, 2006)

With my b42 and an SX0H I get maybe a little bit more light than a friends stock u60gt. The tint is a bit cooler on mine, his gt looks W0 to my eyes, very nice tint. My b42 gets pretty good runtime, into the XR category, about 35-38 minutes on high in a cup of room temp water on "800"mAh lighthound rcr123s.. I'd say to try it, should be pretty bright.


----------



## Reima (Sep 11, 2006)

discoverEDC said:


> xochi, I appreciate the words of caution, I went through that whole thought process prior to pulling the trigger on the SWOH. If I get into B60 territory for lumens (50-60 lum) I'll be relatively happy. If it doesn't work I'll put the original led back into the B42, I have another host for the SWOH.



You should get an increase in output. Yesterday I put a SXOH in a B42 that gave me 67 minutes of run time on maximum. The throw increased by 35% (@ 1 meter) with the SXOH. In my homemade light box the total output increased by 25%. Run time remained the same.
RC


----------



## discoverEDC (Sep 17, 2006)

Thanks for the good thoughts majr and reima, I'm waiting for my SWOH to arrive in the mail. Using an 800 mAh unprotected li-ion in a cup of 98 deg water I got a run time of 26 min. No super runtime here so I'm hoping that my light engine is cranking out some good mA for the SWOH.


----------



## conor (Sep 18, 2006)

I just opened up my B42 and found a TX1J

does this mean im out of luck for the SX0H upgrade?


----------



## wasBlinded (Sep 18, 2006)

An SXOH would still probably give you a measurable brightness increase and be a bit whiter than your TX1J. It might not be anything too impressive, but its not hard to do and you might like it better.


----------



## conor (Sep 19, 2006)

Hmmm

what about a UX0J? would that be better since it seems the light was calibrated for a J ?


----------



## DFiorentino (Sep 19, 2006)

For what it is worth, in my comparative testing I have found that...

Q**H luxI = S**J luxIII
R**H luxI = T**J luxIII
S**H luxI = U**J luxIII

My grain of salt contribution.

-DF

Edit: And to add, my stock B42 had a QX1H that at 500mA the Vf was about 3.55V. I replaced this with a UYAJ that at 500mA had a Vf of 3.44V. I gained noticable brightness even to the naked eye (measured a comparative 40% increase in total light output).


----------



## Reima (Sep 19, 2006)

The modules supply constant power to the Led. If the vf is lowered the current will go up. More current = more output from a Luxeon. Your results will be determined by the power that the module is calibrated to supply.
RC


----------



## Ty_Bower (Sep 30, 2006)

xochi said:


> I also just looked for *HDS U85* lux measurements and could only find one --* 1620 !*


Here's another one for you: This U85 cranks out 2170 lux at one meter. That's solidly in Surefire U2 territory, although the overall output is still quite a bit less than the U2. The U2 has a lot more light in the spill. This HDS U85 has pretty good focus, and all the light is in the spot.


----------



## xochi (Oct 5, 2006)

I modified a U60 with a swoh lux1 and just today received my LX1010B . With a Non AR sapphire lens the light put out 1882 lux and with a fairly abused and scratched UCL the light puts out 2050 lux with one reflector and 2340 lux with a reflector from another HDS light. These readings are from a carefully measured 1 meter to the top of the dome of the sensor.

The second reflector has a noticeably smaller spot but unfortunately I've put a smudge and a ding in it while futzing around during a mod. Apparently they don't hurt the focus too much.


----------



## discoverEDC (Oct 7, 2006)

My SWOH arrived, after a certain amout of futzing around it was installed. After several different measurments the max output in my milkbox IS was 55.8 lumens. I'll call that 56 lumens for grins. The color temperture became whiter to my eyes (closer to my Dorcy Super 1 watt 123a output). Thanks for the info everybody.


----------



## xochi (Oct 7, 2006)

discoverEDC said:


> My SWOH arrived, after a certain amout of futzing around it was installed. After several different measurments the max output in my milkbox IS was 55.8 lumens. I'll call that 56 lumens for grins. The color temperture became whiter to my eyes (closer to my Dorcy Super 1 watt 123a output). Thanks for the info everybody.



That's really a nice little bump, especially for a XR. These SWOHs are the cats meow. 

The odd likelihood that SxxH's become UxxJ's and UxxH's seem pretty freaking rare but TxxH's aren't hard to find seems to point directly to power being the real factor in brightness and that current isn't completely correlative with brightness.


----------



## mcmc (Feb 5, 2007)

I'm trying to mod in a SSC and I for the life of me cannot get the module out. Are you guys sticking the ends of the snap-ring pliers (I'm using a small screwdriver =( ) into the two round holes visible when you look through the front of the light? and does it unscrew out the front or the rear (i.e. do you have to turn to the right or the left)?

Does the positive battery contact board come out too??

I don't feel any better that people consider this the easiest mod to do =)


----------



## boef800 (Feb 5, 2007)

yes,that are the holes,and it screws out to the rear turning it in the same direction as the tail is screwed out for battery changes.all comes out in one piece.when u've got it out u'll see why it's so easy moddable,with the anodized heatsink the SSC even gives u no isolating headaches.

greetz,alex


----------



## tebore (Feb 5, 2007)

It is the easiest mod regarding the SSC because of the module being electrically isolated. Everything comes out nice and easy once your get the bezel ring out the way. The beam is also acceptable without messing with the reflector.

Note: When you get it apart it's best to clean all the threads and the white thermal paste out of the way. Reapply Artic Silver 5 to the portion of the body where the module screws in and to the lip where the module touches the body. Keep the AS5 thin, it's far better than the stock stuff and in my case I noticed the body got warmer faster after doing this and thermal step down was delayed. 

I haven't swapped to the SSC but i've had it open before.


----------



## mcmc (Feb 5, 2007)

Thanks guys 

Man, I think i need another tool. i'm using a small screwdriver fr my lm squirt, works for other retainer rings but this thing must be screwed in tight. i got so frustrated, i just modded another ssc into my lf1 =) but now i'd like to do the hds. do i have to do the boil trick?


----------



## boef800 (Feb 5, 2007)

I would say everything should come apart nicely without boiltrick or anything else.is it the lightmodule what's so hard to unscrew?if so I would guess it's just the thermal compounds' suckfriktion:lolsign: which u may have to overcome first.


----------



## mcmc (Feb 5, 2007)

yup, the module itself...grr! so frustrating.

i tried just unsoldering the led while in the head. got it out finally - what is the gray/black funky stuff around the led??


----------



## Reima (Feb 5, 2007)

mcmc said:


> Are you guys sticking the ends of the snap-ring pliers (I'm using a small screwdriver =( ) into the two round holes visible when you look through the front of the light? and does it unscrew out the front or the rear (i.e. do you have to turn to the right or the left)?
> 
> Does the positive battery contact board come out too??
> 
> I don't feel any better that people consider this the easiest mod to do =)


Looking from the front turn clockwise (right) to get the module out.

The positive battery contact board is part of the module.
RC


----------



## mcmc (Feb 5, 2007)

Thanks for the replies guys. I'm trying it on both my b42 and u60 and nada. Do I need to get the snap ring pliers? Any idea of walmart sells them?


----------



## tebore (Feb 5, 2007)

HDS uses the thermal grease to act as loctite. If it doesn't move try getting some Articlean made by Artic Silver it's very good at breaking up goo and won't harm electronics.​


----------



## mcmc (Feb 5, 2007)

Is the thermal grease the black soft but solid stuff? I see...

I picked it all out b/c it was looking nasty, and I finally was able to solder in the SSC from the front of the head (still was never able to get the module out). It lights up now, and while there is a small donut hole from 1' away, the beam itself is nice, smooth transition from the spot to the corona.


----------



## tebore (Feb 5, 2007)

What number is yours sounds like he didn't use thermal grease in yours but actually put some glue. 

Mine and my other B42XR has white grease, when it dries you have to give a good twist. 

To get rid of the donut hole take ~0.7mm off the reflector. Here's a tip take a piece of glass, a large piece of sand paper(wet), place the paper on the glass and rub the reflector on it. If you use fine sandpaper like 600grit and moving up as you go you should be able to remove .7mm easily without risk of removing too much at once and you'll polish the lip of the reflector. Using Glass will make sure you're using a smooth surface.


----------



## mcmc (Feb 6, 2007)

Interesting...so yours didn't have a blackish gunk in the channel where the led (and the led leads) were?

Thanks for the tip regarding the donut hole. I'll try that tomorrow!


----------



## majr (Feb 6, 2007)

my #3594 b42 had the black/grey glue junk around the stock led, i just picked it out carefully. The thermal grease is the goo under the led


----------



## mcmc (Feb 6, 2007)

majr - great, glad to hear i'm not the only one w/ this! =) did you notice any change in use afterward (assuming you didn't replace the gunk)?


----------



## tebore (Feb 6, 2007)

Yes I have that black gunk too I thought you meant between the module and the body.


----------



## mcmc (Feb 7, 2007)

Thanks guys, I sanded it down w/ some GatorGrit 600, and the spot is great! Even better than before, I think. And it sure is bright. Don't have the black gunk anymore but I figure it's no biggie.

On another note, I couldn't find snap ring pliers so I bought the thinnest needlenose pliers I could find, and I *still* couldn't unscrew the module. Go figure.


----------



## majr (Feb 9, 2007)

Nope, didnt notice any change, and Ive had a couple different leds in there since. (SX0H, UV0J, CREE, SSC P4)

*EDIT - I was only talking about the black junk, I have of course noticed big differences with the different LEDs in there.


----------



## tebore (Feb 9, 2007)

majr said:


> Nope, didnt notice any change, and Ive had a couple different leds in there since. (SX0H, UV0J, CREE, SSC P4)



I had a huge difference on Max. Going from a UxxJ to a SSC P4 Ubin. Maybe a hard reset will help.


----------



## boef800 (Feb 9, 2007)

have there been such cases?where a hard reset was nessecary to achieve the full brightness after a emitterswap?I don't see such a big improvement after the swap with the seoul too.maybe I should give it a try.

Alex


----------



## tebore (Feb 9, 2007)

It's possible that a full/hard reset is in order. I noticed that when I turned mine on to primary it was blah but after a hard reset you can notice it right away. Make sure if you're using RCR123 they are fully charged.


----------



## boef800 (Feb 9, 2007)

wow,cool.thanks for that advice tebore.now I'm courious,I'll try it out right now.that would be something,if it helps for my light too.fingers crossed.....

alex


----------



## boef800 (Feb 9, 2007)

well...,no difference for me.but anyway it's bright,just not sure how much brighter if at all it has become compared to the TWOH I had in before.

greetz,alex


----------



## tebore (Feb 9, 2007)

My light has always been a little weird. It's a B42 but it might as well be a U42 because it only takes 10 clicks, so who knows. Remember your eyes have to see a ~40% increase in light to really notice a difference.


----------



## boef800 (Feb 9, 2007)

yes,you are right.I'm thinking anyway it may well have become brighter,but with all the emitter swapping in the past(Stock>TWOJ>SWOH) I'm now asking myself from time to time if it's noticeably brighter then before?then stock...,etc.?


----------



## tebore (Feb 9, 2007)

White wall hunting is fine but you won't see the difference indoors. 100lm indoors will blind you slightly to the point where you won't notice the difference. Take it outside and try to light up something you've lit up before and you'll see what I mean.


----------



## Ty_Bower (Feb 9, 2007)

How the heck do I get out the oring? The retaining ring came out easy (used my fingernails) and the glass came out easy too (used a bit of tape to lift it out).

I can see the oring, but it's really thin. Do I just have to jab a dental pick under it and yank it out? Where do I get a new oring after I wreck this one?


----------



## tebore (Feb 9, 2007)

Here's my trick. Use those pointed end tooth picks. They are less likely to damage the ring. It's what I used the pop the reflector comes out. Not to mention it won't scratch the reflector if you slip.


----------



## mcmc (Feb 9, 2007)

I can notice a difference, and I think if I sanded down the reflector even more (I took off about .6~.7mm but even so, there's still a donut about 7 inches out, unlike stock which is like < 1 inch out), I'd get an even hotter hotspot. Compared to my U-bin U60, it's got a hotter hotspot (by moving the hotspots into each other and seeing if it looked brighter or the same) and a brighter spill.

I think majr was responding to my question - which is good, I guess that black gunk was there just to help hold the led or something?


----------



## boef800 (Feb 9, 2007)

tebore said:


> White wall hunting is fine but you won't see the difference indoors. 100lm indoors will blind you slightly to the point where you won't notice the difference. Take it outside and try to light up something you've lit up before and you'll see what I mean.



know what you mean.but I compare anyway by shining at certain spots in the nightly garden.


----------



## majr (Feb 10, 2007)

mcmc - Thats right, I was saying that the black junk removal made no difference, I put some silacone sealant in there after the first swap, but not after that, since i like to swap emmiters so frequently.
And YES I notice a quite a bit of difference with different emmiters in the light, CREE XRE is my favorite so far.


----------



## rmcnelly (Feb 13, 2007)

I'm interested in doing the SSC mod to my U60GT. From what I've read here, it's as simple as removing the module, desoldering the stock emitter, soldering in the new one, and maybe sanding the reflector down some.

I'm confused about all the SSC's for sale. Which one do I order?


----------



## rmcnelly (Feb 13, 2007)

Just found this thread:

http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=152596


----------



## mcmc (Feb 13, 2007)

majr - did you do anything else to the reflector w/ the Cree? do you like it b/c of the color, or output?

rmcnelly - any ssc you find should be fine. the U-bin P4 is the brightest available right now.


----------



## rmcnelly (Feb 13, 2007)

mcmc said:


> rmcnelly - any ssc you find should be fine. the U-bin P4 is the brightest available right now.



Thanks!


----------



## majr (Feb 14, 2007)

I used a cutdown bored out IMS20 with the CREE, it could throw much better than stock, although the beam pattern wasnt quite as nice as the stock lux3/reflector setup due to it not being perfectly centered when I soldered it down. I raised the base of the CREE up with an aluminum piece and clipped the pcb down to fit. At some point I will put the CREE in with the stock reflector and compare it to the SSC P4 mod, but from memory the CREE seemed brighter. And I liked the output, the WC color bin CREE is a bit cool for my taste, the UV0J had the most flawless color, the USV0I SSC is second best for tint.


----------



## Utik (Feb 16, 2007)

How do you determine how deeply to screw the emitter package back into the light?

Since the guts can come out either end, do you:
1) Screw it back in further than you need.
2) Put in the reflector, o-ring, lens and bezel ring.
3) Go in from the bottom and screw the guts down tight against the reflector.

I hope I am making sense.


----------



## mcmc (Feb 16, 2007)

Utik, the guts can actually only come out the back end (toward the battery) - I just accessed the led itself from the front. The reflector/o-ring/lens can only come out the front (bezel end). So, there really isn't much choice =)

The led module is screwed in all the way - the reflector was designed to sit right up against the led. Focus is achieved on mods, by sanding down the back of the reflector.


----------



## Billson (Mar 1, 2007)

I just modded my HDS again with a Seoul P4 USXOI from AW. It was easier than I thought. Took me less than 10 minutes from start of disassembly to having it completely put back together. It took me longer to clean the lens and reflector of the dust that got in there while doing the mod. At first I didn't think it was possible because I never expected the led dimensions to be exactly the same. Even the reflector fitted exactly on top of the dome like it was made for it.

I didn't bother sanding off the bottom of the reflector because I actually like the resulting beam better than the original. It's more floody with a brighter side spill compared to before with the transition from hotspot to spill being a lot more smooth and even.

The tint is perfect. Snow white. Next to my room CFL, the CFL actually looked a bit green.

I have my light set to level 1, 3, 6, & 16. One weird thing I noticed is that the led won't light at level 14 and above. Just a faint glimmer at the die. At level 13, it has a very noticeable flickering. I wonder if this is unique to my led only or maybe the P4 needs a higher current to work properly. Does the P4 have a minimum current to start working as it should?


----------



## tebore (Mar 1, 2007)

Billson said:


> I just modded my HDS again with a Seoul P4 USXOI from AW. It was easier than I thought. Took me less than 10 minutes from start of disassembly to having it completely put back together. It took me longer to clean the lens and reflector of the dust that got in there while doing the mod. At first I didn't think it was possible because I never expected the led dimensions to be exactly the same. Even the reflector fitted exactly on top of the dome like it was made for it.
> 
> I didn't bother sanding off the bottom of the reflector because I actually like the resulting beam better than the original. It's more floody with a brighter side spill compared to before with the transition from hotspot to spill being a lot more smooth and even.
> 
> ...


 
I don't know if this helps. But the VF binning is very good on the SSC parts in the sense that they are very accurate. So if the regulation lowers both current and voltage at the lower levels then there's not enough Vf to get enough current through. I've tested 3 LEDs and they all require at least 3volts to get going. Where with a J-bin vf luxeons they can get started with 2.4v.


----------



## kfiducia (Mar 3, 2007)

Mine works normally on all of the levels that I have tried, including a click then press which causes the die to glow a little bit on the lux3, but the seuol and cree give quite a bit more, just enough light to kinda be useful in pitch black with night adapted eyes.
-majr


----------



## aceo07 (Mar 4, 2007)

Billson said:


> I just modded my HDS again with a Seoul P4 USXOI from AW. It was easier than I thought. Took me less than 10 minutes from start of disassembly to having it completely put back together. It took me longer to clean the lens and reflector of the dust that got in there while doing the mod. At first I didn't think it was possible because I never expected the led dimensions to be exactly the same. Even the reflector fitted exactly on top of the dome like it was made for it.
> 
> I didn't bother sanding off the bottom of the reflector because I actually like the resulting beam better than the original. It's more floody with a brighter side spill compared to before with the transition from hotspot to spill being a lot more smooth and even.
> 
> ...



I also used the USXOI in my HDS and my previous settings were also 1,3,6,16. Since the upgrade, I've changed it to be 1,4,8,17.

I don't know what could be happening to your led. Maybe you could out it up again and check everything. I was able to go through all the levels and noticed the brightness levels change.

I love how the brightness levels are spaced so that I can actually tell the difference.


----------



## Christoph (Mar 4, 2007)

I just did my B42 with a USWOI and there is avery noticable flicker at the second lowest level and just a dim flickering glow at the lowest level.I think I measured 2.75v across the led.It will be comming out tomorrow.I think I read on it when I first took it apart that it had a QWOH in it I have a SWOH I will try in it but dagone it the P4 was so much brighter on the highest level it blew away my Spy005 on 6 where before it was at level 4-5.

C:sigh:


----------



## Christoph (Mar 11, 2007)

I just put in a USXOH P4 and now all the levels are rock steady.I can not believe how much brighter it is now and about as white as any thing I have.It makes all my WO luxes look buttery.


----------



## GLADIUSX1 (Mar 11, 2007)

Billson.Your flicker on the higher settings is likely to the fact that the slug is positive and needs to be isolated .it is grounding out(positive to neg)on the mounting surface..you need to epoxy the p4 with ARCTIC ALUMINA EPOXY AS IT IS SHORTING OUT AT HIGHER VOLT.REDO THE WORK OR YOU WILL DAMAGE THE P4.it won't heat sink and you will get a colour shift to green and will burn out .
GLADIUSX1


Billson said:


> I just modded my HDS again with a Seoul P4 USXOI from AW. It was easier than I thought. Took me less than 10 minutes from start of disassembly to having it completely put back together. It took me longer to clean the lens and reflector of the dust that got in there while doing the mod. At first I didn't think it was possible because I never expected the led dimensions to be exactly the same. Even the reflector fitted exactly on top of the dome like it was made for it.
> 
> I didn't bother sanding off the bottom of the reflector because I actually like the resulting beam better than the original. It's more floody with a brighter side spill compared to before with the transition from hotspot to spill being a lot more smooth and even.
> 
> ...


----------



## tebore (Mar 11, 2007)

GLADIUSX1 said:


> Billson.Your flicker on the higher settings is likely to the fact that the slug is positive and needs to be isolated .it is grounding out(positive to neg)on the mounting surface..you need to epoxy the p4 with ARCTIC ALUMINA EPOXY AS IT IS SHORTING OUT AT HIGHER VOLT.REDO THE WORK OR YOU WILL DAMAGE THE P4.it won't heat sink and you will get a colour shift to green and will burn out .
> GLADIUSX1


 

You need to know what you're talking about

Tebore.


----------



## GLADIUSX1 (Mar 11, 2007)

I ALREADY DO.YOU NEED SOME EXPLAINING .I HAVE ALREADY GONE THROUGH ALL THE PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS.SO EXPLAIN YOURSELF IN DETAIL.SO WE KNOW THAT YOU HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS.DON'T BE RUDE :thumbsdowTILL YOU HAVE ALL THE FACTS.
GLADIUSX1


tebore said:


> You need to know what you're talking about
> 
> Tebore.


----------



## tebore (Mar 11, 2007)

GLADIUSX1 said:


> I ALREADY DO.YOU NEED SOME EXPLAINING .I HAVE ALREADY GONE THROUGH ALL THE PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS.SO EXPLAIN YOURSELF IN DETAIL.SO WE KNOW THAT YOU HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS.DON'T BE RUDE :thumbsdowTILL YOU HAVE ALL THE FACTS.
> GLADIUSX1


 
I'm not so sure you know what you're talking about. You come in and act like you know all about the SSC emitter and the HDS. Talking in all caps makes you more knowledgable how? You and half the people who attempted the SSC emitter swap already know about the slug. Billison was a pioneer in the HDS emitter swap. I wrote a tutorial on how to do the swap. Do you even own an HDS?

If you took the time to learn you'll know the HDS' driver module is anodized. What this further means since you don't know is that positive slug is already isolated without using AA epoxy. You speak as if AA is optimal for heat transfer. Creating non-metal to metal contact should be avoided unless absolutely necessary.


----------

