# New *capacitor battery* 5.11 tac light wow!



## Meltdown (Sep 12, 2008)

this is way too cool. Just saw the pre production light today at a law enforcement trade show. The light is being marketed by 5.11 and is a large-ish duty light (a bit smaller that the new Pelican 8060). 
Features 3 LED's with small reflectors and claimed output of 270 lumens which seemed pretty modest. the beam looked like a nice combo flood/throw. Mind you it was daytime. 
The most amazing thing is the battery...or lack thereof. You cannot take out the capacitor which will run the light for 1 1/2 hours on hi. (it's a three mode with hi, lo and strobe). The recharge rate from completely dead is 90 seconds! and they claim a minimum of 5,000 recharges and no appreciable self discharge at all. Holy crap! I took some photos and will try to post them tonight.


----------



## 276 (Sep 12, 2008)

almost sounds like this http://www.lightningflashlights.com


----------



## Illum (Sep 12, 2008)

finally, a practical product for supercaps


----------



## Meltdown (Sep 12, 2008)

276, I appreciate the link but it's a different light. Same technology I imagine... I really don't know.


----------



## spgrk (Sep 12, 2008)

It doesn't quite add up. Supercapacitors have about one tenth the energy density of chemical batteries and they can be recharged millions of times. Perhaps it uses some some sort of hybrid battery?


----------



## Flashfirstask?later (Sep 12, 2008)

Any pics of it yet?

Any idea of price range and when available?


----------



## Bronco (Sep 12, 2008)

Wow. If this technology works out to be as advertised, it could change a lot of things. On the other hand, I hope the potential for what might be a pretty catastrophic short circuit event has been taken into consideration.


----------



## MrGman (Sep 12, 2008)

And you don't want to try and over charge that battery to a slightly higher voltage just to see if you can get a little more out of it because that could cause it to breakdown and short out and quite literally explode. Ouch. It will be very interesting to see how they worked all the bugs out of that.


----------



## 276 (Sep 12, 2008)

Now I'm really curious


----------



## LEDAdd1ct (Sep 12, 2008)

If this pans out, it will have serious implications in the portable lighting world. I can't wait to see pictures!


----------



## matrixshaman (Sep 12, 2008)

The one in the link above by 276 is a 12 inch one pound flashlight using an LED. While it's a nice idea within it's limitations I don't see these being a pocket EDC anytime soon. It is going to take a big Ultracap to get any reasonable runtime and last I checked big Ultracaps were quite expensive. I've got some small Ultracaps but they barely power a 5mm LED and not that bright either. It did keep it going dimly for a surprising amount of time though. Hopefully this technology can be improved to the point that they do have better energy density. It would eliminate batteries, landfill and a lot of environmental problems associated with battery manufacture and use.


----------



## kramer5150 (Sep 12, 2008)

Wow... waiting for pics

Exploding caps is no joke. I wonder what their sales / marketing pitch is regarding that?


----------



## Meltdown (Sep 12, 2008)

sorry no pics yet. I'm such a retard I've forgotten what the URL is of the website where I keep my photos! d-oh!

incidentally the light will be in production by January (supposedly) and retail will be around 150.00 and yes they do have a smaller one they will introduce soon after but no details at all on that one.

ok, so it's not photobucket....anyone want to guess for me? :sigh:


----------



## matrixshaman (Sep 12, 2008)

Imageshack.com ? Sounds interesting - do you know if they have a web site? I tried 511tactical.com but didn't see anything there. Somewhere in my fuzzy memory I seem to remember a company that was selling something like this but it turned out that it had a battery in it too - in addition to an ultracapacitor. They were scamming people on the thing for sure as eventually the battery would need to be replaced - but it sure did charge fast. So I'm really hoping for the best on this as I'd love to see a leap forward in power sources for lights and especially one that is a very 'green' solution.


----------



## spencer (Sep 12, 2008)

imageshack?

EDIT: I was beaten by matrixshaman


----------



## LEDAdd1ct (Sep 13, 2008)

"I tried 511tactical.com but didn't see anything there."

Me too. Here's to hoping you find the correct site!


----------



## hopkins (Sep 13, 2008)

As a tactical flashlight there may be times when you need an exploding
flashlight for those situations that have *really gone wrong*...


----------



## Meltdown (Sep 13, 2008)

Hopkins LOL!!!! an capacitor discharge flashbang eh?

ok, the factory guy PM'd me and he's doing to email me some pictures and specs when he gets back in a couple days. I don't have the patience! arg!

it might be imageshack but the link for password isn't responding. it's a conspiracy to keep us in the dark!


----------



## eebowler (Sep 13, 2008)

Very interesting. A link to the information would be nice.


----------



## matrixshaman (Sep 13, 2008)

Meltdown said:


> Hopkins LOL!!!! an capacitor discharge flashbang eh?
> 
> ok, the factory guy PM'd me and he's doing to email me some pictures and specs when he gets back in a couple days. I don't have the patience! arg!
> 
> it might be imageshack but the link for password isn't responding. it's a conspiracy to keep us in the dark!



I've had that problem intermittently with Imageshack - sometimes it doesn't seem to know me and others I get right in. It's not a cookie thing either. I usually just close the browser and try again a few times and usually get in.


----------



## Illum (Sep 13, 2008)

kramer5150 said:


> Wow... waiting for pics
> 
> Exploding caps is no joke. I wonder what their sales / marketing pitch is regarding that?



exploding caps at discharge?
hm, I've always thought thats something to consider during charging, not discharge


----------



## superflytnt (Sep 13, 2008)

hopkins said:


> As a tactical flashlight there may be times when you need an exploding
> flashlight for those situations that have *really gone wrong*...


 


Now THAT would be an innovative feature for a tactical light. Push the RED button and you have 3 seconds before your torch goes into grenade mode.........................


----------



## PseudoFed (Sep 13, 2008)

matrixshaman said:


> I've had that problem intermittently with Imageshack - sometimes it doesn't seem to know me and others I get right in. It's not a cookie thing either. I usually just close the browser and try again a few times and usually get in.



I use photobucket. Never had any issues. Give it a try.


----------



## AntiDark (Sep 13, 2008)

Host your pics on www.tinypic.com No need to sign up or anything, just upload and copy link.


----------



## civation (Sep 13, 2008)

There is a picture and stats in the new 5.11 catalog. I found the listings in both the Law Enforcement and Fire/EMS catalogs. Download the Fire/EMS since it is smaller, and the listing in each catalog is the same.

http://www.511tactical.com/request-catalog.html


----------



## LEDAdd1ct (Sep 13, 2008)

civation said:


> There is a picture and stats in the new 5.11 catalog. I found the listings in both the Law Enforcement and Fire/EMS catalogs. Download the Fire/EMS since it is smaller, and the listing in each catalog is the same.
> 
> http://www.511tactical.com/request-catalog.html




After downloading the Fire/EMS catalog, see page 34.


----------



## LEDAdd1ct (Sep 13, 2008)

According to this site here:

http://domain-daily.com/new/2008-08-14/40.html

on August 14th, several domains were registered with the following:

511light4life.com whois
511light4life.net whois
511light4life.org whois
511lightforlife.com whois
511lightforlife.net whois
511lightforlife.org whois

I don't think any of them are up yet.


----------



## LEDAdd1ct (Sep 13, 2008)

276 said:


> almost sounds like this http://www.lightningflashlights.com





Meltdown said:


> Same technology I imagine... I really don't know.



Yup, same technology. See here:

http://www.ivusenergy.com/technology.htm


----------



## Cheapskate (Sep 13, 2008)

I just don't see the point of this.

You can swap a battery in 90sec. As has been noted, batteries have higher energy densities. It would probably be easier to swap a battery in the field than faff about with a charger. Sounds like a sales gimmick.


----------



## kramer5150 (Sep 13, 2008)

The inability to swap cells in the field could put the user in danger... if he were stuck out in the dark. Seems like it would be more reassuring to know you have a nights worth of backup cells on your belt. Although, as a spot-use kind of light it might be OK.


----------



## matrixshaman (Sep 13, 2008)

Seeing it in the catalog it looks like a very large light - i.e. probably a little bigger than a 2 or 3 D cell [email protected] The head looks bigger too. If it can be scaled down to pocket size and still even get a half hour runtime at typical full LED output (say a Cree at 150 Lumens or better) I'd be interested in the capacitor replacement. But I'm guessing they will be way more expensive than Li-Ion rechargeables. 

I keep thinking it might be possible to build a setup with these that would charge the capacitor in 90 seconds or so and then have the cap charge a Li-ion more slowly while it's in the flashlight or even in use. Unless they really do have these built well enough to get energy density close to batteries now.


----------



## kramer5150 (Sep 13, 2008)

Stupid question warning....

Isn't this the same principle as those god-awful emergency hand crank things?

:duck:


----------



## baterija (Sep 13, 2008)

kramer5150 said:


> Isn't this the same principle as those god-awful emergency hand crank things?


The hand crank lights have a battery inside to store the energy produced by the crank. The crank is a generator that uses your motion to make electrical energy to be stored. 
The capacitor is a way to store energy. It just doesn't use the same method of storing it as the typical cells we are used to.


----------



## kramer5150 (Sep 13, 2008)

baterija said:


> The hand crank lights have a battery inside to store the energy produced by the crank. The crank is a generator that uses your motion to make electrical energy to be stored.
> The capacitor is a way to store energy. It just doesn't use the same method of storing it as the typical cells we are used to.




oh OK... for some reason I was thinking emergency crank lights lights used capacitors for storage.


----------



## jzmtl (Sep 13, 2008)

kramer5150 said:


> oh OK... for some reason I was thinking emergency crank lights lights used capacitors for storage.



Some do, they tend to be more expensive thou.


----------



## Fird (Sep 13, 2008)

kinda liking the grenade mode idea... hmmm


----------



## Bronco (Sep 13, 2008)

Cheapskate said:


> I just don't see the point of this.
> 
> You can swap a battery in 90sec. As has been noted, batteries have higher energy densities. It would probably be easier to swap a battery in the field than faff about with a charger. Sounds like a sales gimmick.



With respect, you guys are thinking too small. If we embrace this technology and allow it some time to mature, who's to say that at some point in the not too distant future we might not have ultracap modules that are roughly the same size as batteries, can be swapped out as easily as batteries AND recharge in 90 seconds.


----------



## BabyDoc (Sep 14, 2008)

We are thinking too small with only flashlights using supercapicitors. Check out this website. http://zenncars.com/ 

Zenn is a small Canadian company that currently sells a small electric car powered by lead acid batteries. What is exciting about this company is they have plans to produce an electric car that will run on supercaps.

(Look under the press section on their webside regarding their plans for using this technology in automobiles.) They have an exclusive partnership with a company in Austin, Texas, call E-Stor that will be making a supercapacitor that will be capable of powering an automobile the size of a Toyota Camry. The car that Zenn expects to release in the fall of 2009 will have a range of 250 miles on a 5 minute charge. The car will be capable of going 80 miles an hour and be priced at around $25,000. What is incredible about this technology is that Zenn plans to make this drive train available to any car manufacturer and it can be retrofitted into any sedan. This company has the potential to be the Intel of the car industry. Why nobody is talking about this in the mainstream news media is beyond me. It sounds too good to be true, and I am guessing a lot of skepticism exists until the first prototype car is actually on the road. (In case you are thinking about investing in this, Zenn is a publically held company. However, E-stor is a privately owned company.)

The way a supercap works is unlike any battery. Electrical energy is stored on metal plates that do not require consumable chemicals or time consuming reactions. Therefore the storage process is quick and cells can be recharged almost an endless number of times.

I know this has nothing directly to do with flashlights, but with all the money you will save on gas with this car, just think how many more lights you will be able to afford!:twothumbs


----------



## spgrk (Sep 14, 2008)

BabyDoc said:


> Zenn is a small Canadian company that currently sells a small electric car powered by lead acid batteries. What is exciting about this company is they have plans to produce an electric car that will run on supercaps.
> 
> They have an exclusive partnership with a company in Austin, Texas, call E-Stor that will be making a supercapacitor that will be capable of powering an automobile the size of a Toyota Camry. The car that Zenn expects to release in the fall of 2009 will have a range of 250 miles on a 5 minute charge.



That sounds implausible. Suppose the car has a 10kW engine and it goes at 25 mph (the Tata Nano has a 25kW engine): to go 250 miles, it will take 10 hrs and expend 100kWh. Therefore, the capacitor or battery must have 100kWh of energy to begin with. To fill up to 100kWh in 5 minutes, power must be supplied at a rate of 1.2MW, which at 120V is 10,000A. Considering that most appliances don't draw more than about 20A, your house is going to need a bit of rewiring!


----------



## Cheapskate (Sep 14, 2008)

BabyDoc said:


> The car that Zenn expects to release in the fall of 2009 will have a range of 250 miles on a 5 minute charge. The car will be capable of going 80 miles an hour and be priced at around $25,000. What is incredible about this technology is that Zenn plans to make this drive train available to any car manufacturer and it can be retrofitted into any sedan. This company has the potential to be the Intel of the car industry. Why nobody is talking about this in the mainstream news media is beyond me. It sounds too good to be true



If they can make that, I will eat my maglite (no other use for it  ). Electric cars aren't common today because the energy density of all available technologies can not match hydrocarbon fuels. This is why all electric cars made tend to be very light-weight. The idea of retrofitting heavy steel bodied cars is laughable. It is on the same page as all those inventions of the past claiming to allow you to run a car on water.

The claims being made by this company are so outrageously impractical and exagerated that it sounds like an intention to scam investors.

The fun thing about such a car - not that is going to happen - is when people accidentally short the capacitor, or it happens as a result of a vehicle accident - the resulting explosions will be heard many kilometres away and there will be pretty little mushroom clouds springing up throughout suburbia. Not fun for anyone who happens to be nearby though.



Bronco said:


> We are thinking too small with only flashlights using supercapicitors. Check out this website. http://zenncars.com/



I am not thinking too small, I am thinking realistically. You speak as if capacitors are a new invention with a lot of development potential, but they aren't. They have been around a long time are are a mature technology, the physics behind their operation is well understood. If the physics predicted an ability to shrink them considerably and up their power density it would have been done. You would see submarines using them for a start. If the military/DARPA haven't encouraged the development of capacitors that can better the performance of batteries, a small flashlight manufaturer isn't going to provide the push to do so.

You aren't thinking big enough. The world is crying out for better means of economically storing electrical energy. The big problem with power derived from wind energy is it's variability. When the wind doesn't blow you get nothing so you have to have conventional power stations of equal capacity to fill the gaps. If there were some way to store the energy from wind turbines it would have a dramatically positive effect on the investment in wind power globally.

Then you have electric cars, again, they are a piece of cake - except for the power source. Huge sums are being spent on this problem and the nut hasn't been anywhere near cracked yet.

Buying some itsy bitsy flashlights is not going to fund or bring about development of capacitors that will equal or better batteries, the world has vastly greater needs and imperatives to spur such activity. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like the physics will allow it.


----------



## Fird (Sep 14, 2008)

hehe, yeah the 1.2MW is a slight disadvantage to most.. i've heard marketing speak of "a car that uses no gas, charges in minutes, and runs for miles." hmm, energy in still = energy out until somebody figures out how to get more than 100% efficiency.. so for those of us who live next to nuclear powerplants, these cars might be a feasable option.. 

as far as the flashlight, i think some protection mechanism involving physically covering the cap's contacts after it's removed from the flashlight to swap would be required.. I'm paranoid about my 18650's storage, I keep them in a plastic bag just to make sure they're insulated and can't short against anything..


----------



## Meltdown (Sep 14, 2008)

lens close up. the blue color is from the table reflection. you can see the gasket for waterproofing.






here is a line up from left: pelican 7060, 8060 and the new 511





and here with my left hand for scale:






the light is bulky, BUT it is so light in weight that it feels wierd. I think it would float it's so light.


----------



## Greenlead (Sep 14, 2008)

kramer5150 said:


> The inability to swap cells in the field could put the user in danger... if he were stuck out in the dark. Seems like it would be more reassuring to know you have a nights worth of backup cells on your belt. Although, as a spot-use kind of light it might be OK.



Rather than change out the cells in the field, the police officer should switch to his back-up flashlight. This way, he has a working light in his hand with no delay.

Error diagnosis, including battery changes, should wait until he gets back to his car. There's no reason to be distracted out in the field.


----------



## Gator762 (Sep 14, 2008)

kramer5150 said:


> The inability to swap cells in the field could put the user in danger... if he were stuck out in the dark. Seems like it would be more reassuring to know you have a nights worth of backup cells on your belt. Although, as a spot-use kind of light it might be OK.



I'll bet it's intended market is for police, and they could have a charger in the cruiser. 90 secs and they are back in business. I think it's better to have a EDC size backup than carrying spare batteries.


----------



## Gator762 (Sep 14, 2008)

superflytnt said:


> Now THAT would be an innovative feature for a tactical light. Push the RED button and you have 3 seconds before your torch goes into grenade mode.........................



Set phaser, er torch, to overload! :devil:


----------



## BabyDoc (Sep 14, 2008)

spgrk said:


> That sounds implausible. Suppose the car has a 10kW engine and it goes at 25 mph (the Tata Nano has a 25kW engine): to go 250 miles, it will take 10 hrs and expend 100kWh. Therefore, the capacitor or battery must have 100kWh of energy to begin with. To fill up to 100kWh in 5 minutes, power must be supplied at a rate of 1.2MW, which at 120V is 10,000A. Considering that most appliances don't draw more than about 20A, your house is going to need a bit of rewiring!


 
Please check the PRESS section of this website out COMPLETELY. The 5 min charge DOES require special equipment. At home, I believe they state that more realistically it will take a few hours. If it is a scam, a lot smarter people than us are being scammed including the former head of Dell Computers and Lockheed who already have bought into this. I admit skepticism, too. According to the head of Zenn Cars, they will soon provide 3rd party verification that E-STOR can do what they are saying. Until then, I am on the fence about making any investment. Mind you, they are beyond the prototype stage and are building full production facilitities in Texas. They say they are on target to have the first production auto SuperCaps ready for Zenn by the first of 2009. Zenn is targeting the fall of 2009 for the first marketable car.


----------



## Cheapskate (Sep 14, 2008)

BabyDoc said:


> Please check the PRESS section of this website out COMPLETELY. ... If it is a scam, a lot smarter people than us are being scammed including the former head of Dell Computers and Lockheed who already have bought into this. I admit skepticism, too. ...Until then, I am on the fence about making any investment.



The IEEE have a Publication called Spectrum which has of late, had several articles on the cutting edge and state of the art in electric vehicles. I do not recall seeing any mention of this 'breakthrough' in any of the articles I have read in it. I commend to you this article from May 2008: http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/may08/6213/2

A roundup of EV development that makes no mention of Zenn or capacitors.

This article from August '08 also makes no mention of the technology, although it does mention ultracapacitors on page 2, but not for primary energy storage:

http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/aug08/6524

If the IEEE doesn't know what is state of the art...


----------



## TigerhawkT3 (Sep 15, 2008)

Let's do some math! 

The claim is 270L for 1.5h, using three emitters. It looks from that close-up of the head that Crees are used, so most likely XR-Es. I'll use a rough 100L/W for my estimates.

270L/3 = 90L per emitter

90L corresponds to about 350mA at 3.2V (very roughly) from an XR-E.

If*Vf*emitters*time = energy

0.35A*3.2V*3*1.5h = 5.04Wh

So, the supercap has about 5Wh in it (again, very roughly).

The above assumes 270L at the emitter. Let's say it's 270L OTF, which would mean around 360L at the emitters.

360/3 = 120L per emitter

120L corresponds to, say, 450mA at 3.3V or so.

0.45A*3.3V*3*1.5h = 6.7Wh

This more optimistic estimate (in terms of both energy storage and lumen claims) puts us at a little under 7Wh for the supercap used in the light.

Let's see what we get with a common AW 18650:

3.7V*2.2Ah=8.14Wh

So, this flashlight's power source has around 62% (pessimistically) or 82% (optimistically) of the energy of an 18650, but is several times the size.

I think I'll pass on this one.


----------



## jzmtl (Sep 15, 2008)

If I had a job that needs to use a light all the time and have access to charge station readily (like in my car) I'd go for it. But for most people on this forum it's not practical.


----------



## BabyDoc (Sep 15, 2008)

Cheapskate said:


> If the IEEE doesn't know what is state of the art...


 
I am not impressed with the IEEE report. I have been keeping my eye on Electric vehicles for some time and their reports are rather outdated if you ask me. Everyone of the vehicles in their report, I have been aware of for some time through other sources. Even so, what they are reporting are cars that are currently available or at least in the prototype stage. You will probably have to wait until January before they will even mention Zenn, since they aren't even in prototype development.

Remember Zenn is a real company, not just some made up company for the sake of a scam. They sell real lead acid cars in the US now. I actually saw one of them. They are a publicly held company which has invested in E-Store themselves. (If anybody is scamming, it could be E-Store, but soon there will be 3rd party verification that they really have a product that works.) Furthermore, January is really around the corner and they will either deliver or they won't, but E-Store hasn't even begun to make excuses for not being able to do so. They say they are on target with the January delivery date. (If you were scamming knowing you couldn't deliver, wouldn't you already begin to look for an excuse?) Finally, E-Store isn't looking for more investors at this time. They are a privately held company. If they were scamming shouldn't they go public to gather in more investors while they still can? Having said all this, I am skeptical, like you are, that a couple of little companies out of nowhere could possibly revolutionize the old established automobile industry? But it has been done before. (Look at Sarah Palin, out of nowhere, look what she did for the republican campaign.)


----------



## frank777 (Sep 15, 2008)

TigerhawkT3 said:


> So, this flashlight's power source has around 62% (pessimistically) or 82% (optimistically) of the energy of an 18650, but is several times the size.
> 
> I think I'll pass on this one.


 
Ditto..... besides, I charge my batteries during the day when I don't NEED a flashlight. I don't see much benefit in reducing the charge time to 90 seconds when I have over 9 hours of daylight.


----------



## JWP_EE (Sep 15, 2008)

I can think of one benefit I would like about this technology.

It would be so easy to keep the flashlight charge topped off. If you have used the light for any amount of time, when you walk past the charger just drop it in for 60 to 90 seconds.

I have some idea of the amount of time I have used a light since the last time I charged the cells. But I don't track it closely and I may not remember.

I know if in doubt you say just change the cells or carry a back up set. But wouldn't it be nice to just drop it in the charger on your way to the frig for a cold one and pick it up on the way out knowing that it doesn't matter what the state of charge was, it is now fully charged.

I can hear the battery aholics saying where the fun in that.:naughty:


----------



## Sgt. LED (Sep 15, 2008)

Concerning the light weight of the item........
I wonder if it has enough heatsinking?

The quick recharge is interesting though.

My favorite thing from this thread is the flashlight grenade idea! Awesome


----------



## LEDAdd1ct (Sep 15, 2008)

Meltdown said:


> You cannot take out the capacitor which will run the light for 1 1/2 hours on hi. (it's a three mode with hi, lo and strobe).




In the other flashlight using this technology, the Lightning-180, the claimed runtime is 90 minutes on "standard beam," and 25 minutes on "high." Can you verify that this new model, using three LEDs, is spec'ed to run on high for the same amount of time the other model is spec'ed to run on standard, i.e, 25 minutes vs. 90 minutes? :thinking: See here for specs on the other model:

http://www.lightningflashlights.com/lightning180.htm


----------



## JAS (Sep 15, 2008)

I have a Pelican 7060 now and I usually don't run my 7060 for a long period of time. If I did and were close to the charger I suppose I could just have a second 7060 ready to go. If the charging time is equal to the run time, or less, that alone would be a big benefit to some people. I, for one, would like to see what is inside the host.


----------



## Meltdown (Sep 16, 2008)

got to play with the light a bit more today 

it's full power for 1 1/2 hours or quite a bit longer (sorry I forget as I'm dead tired) on low power.

the rep says they plan to incorporate some kind of portable quick charger for it that could even mount to your belt. hmmmm. I have mixed feelings about how handy that would be but it's an option anyway. they envision this portable charger to be powered by some drop-in alkaline batteries for emergencies.


----------



## Sgt. LED (Sep 16, 2008)

Well that's a big NO to the belt recharger for me! But having something like that in a backpack would be cool. 
I can imagine using a AA solar charger while camping then loading the AA's into the recharger for this light. 
Hmmmm I like the possibility anyway.


----------



## Edog006 (Sep 16, 2008)

While a super capacitor sounds great the technology will likely not be as efficient and effective as advertised. 270 peak lumens is good but not great considering the current size of these lights. You can get a brighter smaller light that will last over and hour (at full strength) and simply insert new batteries in the field as needed. If you are away from your charger and have no backup well thats not advantageous. Maybe a battery backup on these things would be a worthy addition. Im sticking with my cr123's for now. Think, for the size of these lights you can get a maglite with a terralux LED drop in for half the price and twice the lumens (and decent runtime).


----------



## Meltdown (Sep 16, 2008)

however you will save big $$ with the supercap light if you use it a lot. if you charge it every day for the next 130 years it will still be in spec according to them. now that's a long life power source. A bit hard to believe...although I hope it's true. I must have one!!!!


----------



## TigerhawkT3 (Sep 16, 2008)

Is it so bad to buy a replacement battery pack every few years?

I've badmouthed supercaps a couple times before, but don't get me wrong - they have awesome potential. However, it's like a bike without a chain drive - bulky and unpopular, and just waiting for a single breakthrough to make it the next big thing.


----------



## Robocop (Sep 16, 2008)

As an officer I would love to hope for this idea and in some ways will try to remain optomistic as to the future.....However the realistic side of me seems very leery. For those here who are much better at calculations it is a matter of simple logic. I can not even try to figure it out on my own however I am sure there are practical limits to output vs size.

It is like the time old saying goes...."if it sounds too good to be true it usually is" Much like T3 pointed out a simple (?) formula will show that some things are simply impossible by the laws of physics....or nature. You just do not get energy for free and I find it hard to believe that todays top scientists would not have figured it out by now if it could be done.

We can all hope for this would be great for our hobby and shared interests yet again I just dont see it happening. Like I said there are physical limits that simply can not be worked around. I am no expert however looking at it from a simple persons point of view it makes perfect sense.....a 90 second charge time....well I will believe it when I see it firsthand.


----------



## Barbarin (Sep 17, 2008)

Regarding Ultracapacitors.

A screwdriver LI-ION based as the iXO can get in/out an average of 37 screws. A Coleman flashcell screwdriver can get 22. I think and iXo does have a 1000 mAh battery, so that would mean that Coleman has arround 600 mA. 

http://www.colemanflashcellscrewdriver.com/

Maybe enough for the typical "in-car" flashlight that you may use to change a tyre, check levels (perhaps too bulky to read a map) , not for more complicated situations. Would be great as a flash warning device.


----------



## civation (Sep 17, 2008)

Thanks for the Math T3, you got me thinking…. Not about math..but about sleuthing…
So, to start the sleuthing, let’s build a hypothetical cap light based on past caplight discussions and some Googling.
1.  If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck… I’m guessing that the 5.11 flashlight is a derivative of the Lightning Ultracap light. The reason why is that if a light is going to be shown at Shot Show with this kind of performance, someone is going to notice….

2. Engineers and Marketing guys mix like… Remember how Scotty on Startrek used to sandbag everything? I’m wondering if we’re seeing that with 5.11 Tactical. Lightning flashlights give them the specs and then they add a little padding…OR, the light has gotten better since last we’ve seen it, OR assumption 1 is wrong and this is something new.

3. The Coleman light has a similar charge time as is claimed by the Lightning/5.11 light. Dead to fully charged in 90 seconds. Coleman uses a 5.4V array (see the manual at www.colemanflashcellscrewdriver.com). Also, looking at the video on the site and looking at the pictures provided by Meltdown, and the hands of our “models” for scale, I’m guessing that our CAPS are probably 2.7V (no one seems to make a 5.4V supercap and 5.4/2 = 2.7V, which they do seem to make – Maxwell BCAP350, and NessCap 400F/2.7V. So, since the simplest answer is usually in the ballpark, they are probably using 2 (maybe 3) super caps 2.7V supercaps. And I think energy for supercaps is calculated by Voltage squared times capacitance divided by 2….. Thank you GOOGLE.

4. The final piece of the puzzle is an article/blog about the Coleman drill found here: http://www.ultracapacitors.org/ultracapacitors.org-blog/coleman-flashcell-screwdriver.html where they compare the drill to Skil’s lithium-ion iXO 3.6V. The test they performed, had the Cap drill doing 22 screws and the iXO doing 37 screws -- roughly 60% the measured output of the battery powered equivalent…and the cap product looks to be about twice the size of the iXO.

5. For a benchmark comparison, lets use the Pelican 7060, since it is featured in this thread, and it looks to be about half the size of the 5.11 Light. From what I’ve gathered, the P7060 has an output of 130 lumen for 1.5 hours (I’m sure someone can confirm/modify my findings).
Given this line of thought, our hypothetical cap light will probably have about 60% the lumen output of a product about half its size. This means the light 5.11 light should have an output of about 90 lumen for 1.5hours or 130 lumen for 1 hour, with a peak output at the peak lumen rating for the 3 LEDs at 270 lumen for about 25 minutes or so.
Notice that the deduced performance levels are in the neighborhood to what Lightning flashlights was saying their cap light would be. So my ultimate conclusion would be that unless there has been some sort of breakthrough in development, the 5.11 light will have performance characteristics in the neighborhood of our hypothetical light and that of Lightning Flashlight’s cap light.
Can anyone support with observation or REAL math? My head is going to explode now.


----------



## Barbarin (Sep 17, 2008)

Read my above post... It seems we did exactly the same.

Javier


----------



## civation (Sep 17, 2008)

Barbarin said:


> Read my above post... It seems we did exactly the same.
> 
> Javier


 
Yup. That's what got me going on hypothetical light train of though. I really want to see this thing, and to shoo out the "is it real" ghosts lurking in my head.


----------



## Barbarin (Sep 17, 2008)

I saw that light in Shot Show 2008. It is the future of rechargeable lights, but it is going to take a while to get closer to the performance of a AA, CR123, or Li-ION light. For some applications it could be a very good choice.

Javier


----------



## OrchidLight (Sep 17, 2008)

kramer5150 said:


> Wow... waiting for pics
> 
> Exploding caps is no joke. I wonder what their sales / marketing pitch is regarding that?



Exploding caps = Instantaneous Complete Discharge™ (ICD) technology.  :laughing:


----------



## adnj (Sep 17, 2008)

I see a huge benefit for anyone that uses a flashlight regularly and for short periods of time:

Aircraft inspection
Carrier Night signaling
Utilities
Journeymen
Boilermakers
Manufacturing
Boaters
Truckers
No batteries to ever replace, no eco disposal issues, fast recharge, always ready with very slow discharge.


----------



## NickBose (Sep 18, 2008)

BabyDoc said:


> Please check the PRESS section of this website out COMPLETELY. The 5 min charge DOES require special equipment. At home, I believe they state that more realistically it will take a few hours. If it is a scam, a lot smarter people than us are being scammed including the former head of Dell Computers and Lockheed who already have bought into this. I admit skepticism, too. According to the head of Zenn Cars, they will soon provide 3rd party verification that E-STOR can do what they are saying. Until then, I am on the fence about making any investment. Mind you, they are beyond the prototype stage and are building full production facilitities in Texas. They say they are on target to have the first production auto SuperCaps ready for Zenn by the first of 2009. Zenn is targeting the fall of 2009 for the first marketable car.



What about *lithium titanate battery*?


----------



## passive101 (Sep 18, 2008)

This will be awesome for duty lights and security companies! You should always have some type of backup light anyways if you know you'll be out in the dark obviously. 

I am interested more in the safety of it though. What type of explosion are we talking about if the capacitor goes critical? Could you lose fingers or a hand or would it be like a handgun kabooming so it just cuts you and bruises you?


----------



## civation (Sep 18, 2008)

I’m hoping they address(ed) the “kaboom” issue as well. But something that gives me a little bit of comfort is the thought that capacitors don’t hold nearly the same amount of energy as a battery of comparable size.
Also, what kind of failure are we talking about? A failure on overcharge (heat, melting, shorting)? Balistics damage (shorting, but you probably have more to worry about than a short in your cap)? Caps in a fire (once again, you probably have more immediate issues than cap overheating)? 
You know…If they are marketing the light to patrol officers, I wonder if shooting the light is a standard destructive test….and I wonder how it makes out with that!


----------



## LEDAdd1ct (Sep 18, 2008)

I just called the contact number on this page here:

http://www.511tacticaldirect.com/contactus.html

and they said the light should be available for purchase in mid-October!

I asked for pricing info, and he said that it was not available yet.


----------



## dougie (Sep 18, 2008)

Whilst I hope that 5.11 have done their home work on this light and make a success of it I'm still suspicious about the advertising. The advertising suggests that this light is capable of running at 270 lumens on high but makes no mention of specific run times. I also cynically wonder why 5.11 was the company to bring this light to market? Surely if this technology is so good and is thought to be ideal for a flashlight doesn't it surprise you that one of the larger and more established names in the flashlight world hasn't got in there first? I would love this to be the product its claimed to be but until its released it appears a wee bit too fanciful for me to get my hopes up:shrug:?


----------



## baterija (Sep 18, 2008)

One the things I find interesting is that they went with 3 emitters, and the increased cost required for parts and maunfacture, versus 1 emitter that driven near max rated current could be in the same ballpark for output. I wonder if the efficiency boost of driving 3 moderately was that critical because of issues with the new power source...hmmmmm.


----------



## LEDAdd1ct (Sep 18, 2008)

I was wondering that, too. Are three separate LEDs more efficient?


----------



## odessit (Sep 18, 2008)

could be.
Instead of one large heat source you get three smaller ones.
It is also probably cheaper and provides more "flood" too...
Depends on the goals that the light needs to accomplish really.


----------



## civation (Sep 18, 2008)

Did anyone who hit the Shot Show 08 talk to these guys about why 3 LEDs? When you look at the advertised output, and consider the output of other lights with a SINGLE LED, and consider the additional complexity of trying to focus 3 points of light as opposed to a single point. My thought is why are you making this so complex?.... unless they had to.

I would think that since supercaps don't have the energy capacity of a battery, and 5.11 (or whomever) wants to get a competitive light out there, they would need to do some interesting things with power management to get that kind of output (yet to be verified) with a cap powered system.


----------



## IMSabbel (Sep 18, 2008)

baterija said:


> One the things I find interesting is that they went with 3 emitters, and the increased cost required for parts and maunfacture, versus 1 emitter that driven near max rated current could be in the same ballpark for output. I wonder if the efficiency boost of driving 3 moderately was that critical because of issues with the new power source...hmmmmm.



Going one LED only would still have needed that big body. LEDs are cheap. 
They gain at least 50% efficiency that way.


----------



## LEDAdd1ct (Sep 18, 2008)

IMSabbel said:


> Going one LED only would still have needed that big body. LEDs are cheap.
> They gain at least 50% efficiency that way.



Could you please clarify? Is it the case that by using three LEDs instead of one, they gain "at least 50% efficiency?"


----------



## Optik49 (Sep 18, 2008)

*NEW 5.11 Tactical Flashlight 270 Lumens*

 I picked up an advertisement handout today for a new LED police flashlight from 5.11 Tactical. It looks like it’s called the 53000 Light for Life. 

Here are the stats:

4-Way power: Standard (90 lumens, Peak (270 lumens), Strobe & Standby. Includes 12V DC car charger and mounting plate. 120V AC household adapter available separately. Recharges in 90 seconds. Compared to 4 hours by the closest competitor. Will charge and hold its charge 50,000 times. No batteries. Highest R.O.I. and environmentally friendly. State of the art polymer that is impact, abrasion and water resistant. Size looks like it about 12 inches long in the photo with some type of multi LED head. Retail price $169.99. Preorders through authorized 5.11 dealers. 

Looks pretty good to me. :thumbsup: I can’t wait to see one. This light seems like it could be a winner in the law enforcement market. I will try and get some more info, stay tuned.


----------



## Flashfirstask?later (Sep 18, 2008)

*Re: NEW 5.11 Tactical Flashlight 270 Lumens*

Being disscussed in https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/207339.


----------



## kramer5150 (Sep 18, 2008)

*Re: NEW 5.11 Tactical Flashlight 270 Lumens*

you dont need to open a new thread, its already being discussed.


----------



## baterija (Sep 18, 2008)

LEDAdd1ct said:


> Could you please clarify? Is it the case that by using three LEDs instead of one, they gain "at least 50% efficiency?"



Not directly a result of the 3 LED's. Each individual LED is less efficient at producing light the harder you drive it. Look for "Relative flux versus Current" graphs in the documentation for the Cree to see. Doubling the current gets you less than double the light. Throw on the fact that Vf goes up with the current and you are feeding more than twice the power for less than twice the output, when you double the drive current.


----------



## Jarl (Sep 18, 2008)

1 LED at 270 lumens is about 1.2A

1 LED at 90 lumens is 300ma

difference between 900ma and 1.2A is ~30%, so there are significant gains to be made.


----------



## LEDAdd1ct (Sep 18, 2008)

Jarl said:


> 1 LED at 270 lumens is about 1.2A
> 
> 1 LED at 90 lumens is 300ma
> 
> difference between 900ma and 1.2A is ~30%, so there are significant gains to be made.



Ahh, that makes perfect sense. Thank's, Jarl!


----------



## LEDninja (Sep 19, 2008)

HIJACK

Take the info provided by Zenn with a grain of salt. Their current car can not be bought and driven in most of Canada (Quebec, where the factory is located is allowing trials). One of the problems is the max speed is 40 kph (~25 mph) is too low. A lot less than 80 mph.
GM had the Volt concept car out a while ago. They just released the production prototype. Yet they do not expect the dealers to have them for another 2 years. For Zenn to ship a car based on totally new technology in a year from a paper concept is unrealistic. As others have pointed out they have not gotten around to calculating how long it takes for a 115V 15A circuit to charge the supercapacitor.

Zenn is selling the car in parts of the US where low speed EVs are allowed. I came across a video of CPF's Cool Daddy Administrator Darell driving one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaZZzEnL_14


BabyDoc said:


> We are thinking too small with only flashlights using supercapicitors. Check out this website. http://zenncars.com/
> 
> Zenn is a small Canadian company that currently sells a small electric car powered by lead acid batteries. What is exciting about this company is they have plans to produce an electric car that will run on supercaps.
> 
> ...



/HIJACK


----------



## TigerhawkT3 (Sep 19, 2008)

I think Barbarin hit the nail on the head: they're the future of rechargeable lights.

...But, IMHO, not the present. The energy density just isn't there yet. Does anyone notice how huge the thing has to be to compete with 1x18650 lights? I wonder how many buyers are going to go for the fast charge over a smaller, lighter, more traditional light.


----------



## IMSabbel (Sep 19, 2008)

TigerhawkT3 said:


> I think Barbarin hit the nail on the head: they're the future of rechargeable lights.


They are NOT the future of rechargeable lights.
Seriously, believe me.
There _are_ some interesting aspects to high voltage ultracaps (that are in no way usable in flashlights), but low voltage ones are just fail...
(You have to understand how exactly the insulation of their nanostructured plates works. Then i becomes clear that a) they will never even get close to batteries in energy density and b) that with increasing capacity they will get more fragile and less durable)


----------



## TigerhawkT3 (Sep 20, 2008)

IMSabbel said:


> They are NOT the future of rechargeable lights.
> Seriously, believe me.
> There _are_ some interesting aspects to high voltage ultracaps (that are in no way usable in flashlights), but low voltage ones are just fail...
> (You have to understand how exactly the insulation of their nanostructured plates works. Then i becomes clear that a) they will never even get close to batteries in energy density and b) that with increasing capacity they will get more fragile and less durable)


Oh. Well, dang. I stand corrrected, then. I guess Li-Ion is our best bet.


----------



## Bradlee (Sep 24, 2008)

Apparently LAPoliceGear's taking pre-orders now. I'd be interested if it wasn't so ugly :green:. 

Definitely a technology to keep an eye on though...


----------



## righty (Sep 25, 2008)

When the grid goes down, are you going to run your generator 2 hours a day to charge your light?

It would be great to get a recharge in 90 seconds if you had very limited access to electricity.
Righty


----------



## Optik49 (Sep 25, 2008)

I can’t wait to see a review and beam shots.


----------



## shomie911 (Sep 25, 2008)

righty said:


> When the grid goes down, are you going to run your generator 2 hours a day to charge your light?
> 
> It would be great to get a recharge in 90 seconds if you had very limited access to electricity.
> Righty



You could just run your car for 90 seconds.

I think this could turn out to be an interesting light.


----------



## LEDAdd1ct (Sep 25, 2008)

Yep, I'd been thinking about running the car for 90 seconds during a blackout. A lot quicker than recharging batteries.

However, a lot slower than popping in a spare cell...

I can see the advantages and disadvantages on both sides here. Regardless, I too look forward to beamshots and a review.


----------



## climberkid (Sep 26, 2008)

i wasnt quite sure.....who has put one on order in here?


----------



## postonpost (Oct 1, 2008)

Has anybody heard of how long the run time on this light is going to be? 

Thanks Everybody!!!


----------



## Meltdown (Oct 1, 2008)

runtime on high is supposed to be 1 1/2hrs (270lumens).

I'm supposed to be getting one of the first ones hot off the press...(we'll see)

waiting impatiently......


----------



## Sgt. LED (Oct 1, 2008)

I am alot more interested in the low mode runtime.

The last 2 pages of Lapolicegear's latest catalog had a nice lifesize pic of it.


----------



## Ilikeshinythings (Oct 1, 2008)

A while back I read something about Eestor supercapacitors being the next big thing. They charge fast, but they are not necessarily as stable as alternative battery sources. If they can perfect the technology and offer us something that is quick, efficient and also powerful enough for heavy applications, it might work well in flashlights down the road. In the mean time I wouldn't touch this thing with a bombsquad suit.


----------



## TigerhawkT3 (Oct 2, 2008)

I wonder what would happen if you tried to charge TWO fully-depleted lights, back to back, on one charger.


----------



## Gryloc (Oct 2, 2008)

It is late, and I just read this entire thread. I am so bummed out by the responses, that I felt that I had to rant a little. I understand everyone's skepticism, but you all have to be more optimistic! Everybody is bashing supercapacitors based on earlier technologies and based on older lights. The technology is still young. 

I say this because years ago (not too long ago -2002), we would not believe that we could have AA sized flashlights pumping out 220lm, considering the 1W Luxeon Star from Lumileds only produced 30-45 lumens. Even when the K2 was at its prime (if you want to call it that), the Cree XR-E would seem unheard of. As for safety, I bet those comfortable with NiMH cells in the early days (especially the RC guys) would fear li-ion because they are "unsafe". Now, they are still not the safest battery type to use, but they are produced cheaply and in mass and distributed to all from sites like DX and KD. I remember calling the C- and D-sized li-ion cell on DX and KD "hand grenades" when they first became available (2007?). They are still hand grenades if you are reckless, but now many people use the D-sized li-ion cells in their projects. I use several currently with a respect for them, but not complete fear. I can imagine that a supercap can discharge quickly (and in a devastating manner), but so can a li-ion (think of the A123 cells -eek). If supercaps become big, and the cylindrical cells are used in portable electronics and available for use in flashlights, I am sure they will have independent protection circuits on them like li-ion cells. People will learn how to handle them carefully and use them safely. Only a few will get in the hands of the careless and stupid (like how people get a hold of li-ion cells just to force them to vent violently for some fireworks -then they show videos on you-tube).

As for power densities, they could have improved enough to power a ~7Whr load using cells that are larger than a D-cell. It is so unfair to compare the power density to that of the 18650 cell. The 18650 cell has been around for years, and has been tweaked intensely due to the huge boom in sales of laptops and other high-power portable electronics. There are so many companies producing the 18650 cell, and there is plenty of competition in the market. A large amount of cylindrical li-ion cells in other form factors have a smaller power density than the common 18650 cells because they have not been developed as far as the 18650 cells.

The supercapacitor technology still needs much more time to mature, and I am not saying that the technology will replace li-ion cells next year, but they will get better when there is interest in the technology. It may take 4-6 years (like it took for LED technology) for the technology to match that of a typical battery, but I bet that some sort of supercapacitor technology will replace our common battery types. I hate when people judge a high tech gizmo before they actually see it. This item could be total junk that is far from practical or it could be revolutionary. I can see how the specs can be stretched some, but I do not see this as being a scam at all (like those 300lm 3AAA lights you see on e-bay that are actually cheap trash). Can you compare this light directly to the older supercap flashlight from "Lightning Flashlights"?

Finally, this supercap flashlight will have its advantages and disadvantages to many different people, but probably not to many here on the CPF. However, that does not mean that one should bash the light based on its size and output, knowing that they have a cheaper, smaller, or a custom light that can out-perform it. Even if the large, but lightweight torch is not useful to someone in its present form, I can see new iterations with different cell, emitter, and reflector configurations be useful for a larger variety of people than just law enforcement officers. 

So, this above post is not very detailed, and the thoughts may be a tangled mess, but it is late and I am extremely tired. I just hate seeing people being so negative about a new technology, thinking that it will never happen. Years ago, many people felt the same way about the breakthrough technologies we use today. I am hoping my rantings make sense. Thanks for your patience.

-Tony


----------



## EvilPaul2112 (Oct 2, 2008)

Greenlead said:


> Rather than change out the cells in the field, the police officer should switch to his back-up flashlight. This way, he has a working light in his hand with no delay.
> 
> Error diagnosis, including battery changes, should wait until he gets back to his car. There's no reason to be distracted out in the field.


 
I completely agree. The fastest reload is a second gun......I carry (1) TK11 with an 18650 and (1) 2C ROP HOLA on my belt. For emergency back-up I carry a P3D in my cargo pants pocket. In my duty bag, in the trunk of my squad, is (1) 2C ROP HOLA , (1) Mag85 3C, and (1) TK11 with primaries. In addition I carry extra lamps and approximately (12) extra CR123s. 

I refuse to be stuck in the dark on duty and I dont repair lights on the street. Overwhelming FBI statistics state that if I ever have to use my gun to defend my partner(s) or my life, it will probably be at a distance of less than 8 feet and IN THE DARK. This is why I consider my lights as extremely important tools and not "toys of the trade".


----------



## Kremer (Oct 2, 2008)

I have one of those coleman/demain flashcell screwdrivers, it's pretty neat. the charger contacts on the back of the driver are recessed, but accessible and to my surprise they are HOT, soldered straight to the caps. It won't short on a flat metal surface, but I wonder what would happen if I dropped it tail first in a bucket of screws  This thing would be pretty cool if you gutted the motor assembly off the top and transplanted a buck/boost multilevel LED assembly on it. Hmm, I wonder if 'extra' drivers are available, or if they plan to make more seperately available tools/accessories that could use the same charger.


----------



## LEDAdd1ct (Oct 2, 2008)

Kremer said:


> This thing would be pretty cool if you gutted the motor assembly off the top and transplanted a buck/boost multilevel LED assembly on it. Hmm, I wonder if 'extra' drivers are available, or if they plan to make more seperately available tools/accessories that could use the same charger.




That is, without a doubt, the coolest bit of "possibility" I have heard today!


----------



## Sharpy_swe (Oct 5, 2008)

Now I've played with the prototype 

Such a cool flashlight, it´s kinda ugly but in a cool industrial way. And it's really surprisingly light.

I'm really looking forward for an in-depth review.


----------



## IMSabbel (Oct 5, 2008)

Gryloc said:


> So, this above post is not very detailed, and the thoughts may be a tangled mess, but it is late and I am extremely tired. I just hate seeing people being so negative about a new technology, thinking that it will never happen. Years ago, many people felt the same way about the breakthrough technologies we use today. I am hoping my rantings make sense. Thanks for your patience.
> 
> -Tony



Sometimes, being "negative" is more realitic than just buying into every hype.
And supercaps are a major topic of hype the last couple years. (Hint: You can calculate a hype coefficient by looking at how often a non-computer technology gets posted on slashdot and digg).

Not that i am not open to new technology. But you have to take into account that capacitors are a technology WAY older than lithium batteries. And most of the possible improvements for supercaps can also benefit the batteries in similar ways. And many of the original benefits of capacitors get lost the more you make them like batteries (which the supercaps and electrolytical double-layer caps are doing)


----------



## Darell (Oct 7, 2008)

Cheapskate said:


> Electric cars aren't common today because the energy density of all available technologies can not match hydrocarbon fuels. This is why all electric cars made tend to be very light-weight.



Agggh. You really don't want to go there, do you? This uses the same logic as saying that motorcycles aren't common today because they don't have four doors. Or that sedans aren't popular today because they can't tow a horse trailer. The vast majority of the cars on the road today have no need for the density of liquid fuel.

And to the last sentence - every EV that I've owned (three production cars) have been heavier than their counterparts. I guess you must have meant the glider was light. And while that was the case with the aluminum-bodied EV1 with magnesium seat frames and wheels, the other two cars - the Toyota Rav4EV and the Ford Ranger EV - were both identical gliders to the gas version, but with the added weight of batteries. 

Anyway... nobody is more skeptical about the EEstor claims than I!


----------



## cnw4002 (Oct 10, 2008)

Here is a link to look at. Click on the different areas and it tells a little about what they claim.

http://www.511tactical.com/lightforlife.html.


----------



## mikel81 (Oct 10, 2008)

I was just gonna say, noone noticed this link in the PDF?

But cnw4002 just posted it

http://www.511tactical.com/lightforlife.html


----------



## poolville02 (Oct 13, 2008)

Not sure if anyone's mentioned this yet.


http://www.policemag.com/Articles/2008/10/Quick-Charge-Artist.aspx


This article states the light has three modes:

standard - 90 lumens - 60 minutes w/30 minute reserve
burst - 240 lumens
strobe - 270

Don't know how accurate this is but if its true, as an LEO, I will probably pass on this and stick with my malkoff maglite for now.


----------



## LEDAdd1ct (Oct 13, 2008)

mikel81 said:


> I was just gonna say, noone noticed this link in the PDF?
> 
> But cnw4002 just posted it
> 
> http://www.511tactical.com/lightforlife.html




I noticed the link a long time ago, but it let nowhere until very recently.


----------



## TigerhawkT3 (Oct 13, 2008)

poolville02 said:


> Not sure if anyone's mentioned this yet.
> 
> 
> http://www.policemag.com/Articles/2008/10/Quick-Charge-Artist.aspx
> ...


Wait, it's only 90L for 1.5h? The original claim was 270L (not 240L) for 1.5h. This means that this light's power source has only one quarter the energy of an 18650. And what's this "reserve"? Is it a recommended recharge point, or a moon mode (which would mean 1h runtime, not 1.5h)?


----------



## Sharpy_swe (Oct 14, 2008)

_''...
Key performance specs for the UC3.400™ include 270 lumens peak output, 90 lumens on standard mode, as well as a 270 lumen tactical strobe. As you can see, the Light for Life™ creates more powerful peak brightness than many of our competitors.

Click the button once and the light will operate for 60 minutes in standard mode (90 lumens) at which point it will reduce itself to a 25 lumen standby mode for an additional 30 minutes. This mode is effective to give adequate light for most applications.
...''
_
90 lumens for 60 minutes and then 25 lumens for 30 minutes *OR* 15 minutes 270 lumens and then 25 lumens for 30 minutes.


----------



## skeerd of the dark (Oct 14, 2008)

there is a picture and a few stats on the 511 light at LApolicegear.com, not much but.......


----------



## PeteBroccolo (Oct 20, 2008)

I just noticed a thread about this light on officer.com, and found this thread after a Google search.

From the above pictures, this looks to be about the length and body diameter of a Mag 3 D, so its reviewed lighter weight is intriguing.

While the short run-time for maximum lumens is disappointing, its low-output is not really shabby compared to some others.

Looks like this is just the first of a potentially LONG line of such lights. I certainly paid more for a N-O Gladius not terribly long ago, so I think this is a good light. I would DEFINITELY like to handle / test one some 0dark:30 shift.


----------



## TORCH_BOY (Oct 21, 2008)

spgrk said:


> That sounds implausible. Suppose the car has a 10kW engine and it goes at 25 mph (the Tata Nano has a 25kW engine): to go 250 miles, it will take 10 hrs and expend 100kWh. Therefore, the capacitor or battery must have 100kWh of energy to begin with. To fill up to 100kWh in 5 minutes, power must be supplied at a rate of 1.2MW, which at 120V is 10,000A. Considering that most appliances don't draw more than about 20A, your house is going to need a bit of rewiring!



At that current you would need your own Power station gas turbine generator


----------



## righty (Oct 21, 2008)

Ordered mine last week. Now the long wait begins


----------



## Wattnot (Oct 22, 2008)

.


----------



## 2xTrinity (Oct 22, 2008)

I fail to see what is so amazing about the fact that the ultracaps can charge in 90 seconds. If the goal was a super fast charging light, they could have opted to build a skinnier light using three 26700 A123 cells, and still wound up with almost 4x the energy content. A hypothetical 3D cell-sized pack of LiFePO4s would have about 8x more energy content than the ultracaps in a package with the same size and weight, and probably lower cost.

Here's the best part about my plan-- 

Max recommended charge rate for A123s is about 5C, or 12 minutes to charge fully. In effect, the LiFePO4s take 8 times longer to charge, but they have 8 times as much capacity. That means if you were only intersted in charging from 0 to 1/8th full (the amount of capacity you get with this light) you can STILL reach that state of charge in 90 seconds! If you happen to have more down time than 90 sceonds, you can store another 8x more energy... and I can hardly imagine a scenario where one wouldn't have ~15 minutes or so to recharge, anyway.


----------



## glockboy (Oct 23, 2008)

Can't wait for this light to come out.


----------



## junglelight (Oct 23, 2008)

Hey guys I just order the flashlight. It seems like a good deal if it last so long. I did find this blog about the light http://www.511lightforlife.com/blog/ I'm guessing it is the same company, eventhough they are slow in answering the questions.

Has anyone actually held the light? Is it heavy?


----------



## Turbo DV8 (Oct 30, 2008)

EvilPaul2112 said:


> Overwhelming FBI statistics state that if I ever have to use my gun to defend my partner(s) or my life, it will probably be... IN THE DARK. This is why I consider my lights as extremely important tools and not "toys of the trade".


 
This is way OT, but that comment had me thinking... if you had to use your pistol in the dark and you were using the flashlight to light up the other guy, how can you see the sight in the dark? Inquiring minds want to know. Mine, anyway.


----------



## shomie911 (Oct 30, 2008)

Turbo DV8 said:


> This is way OT, but that comment had me thinking... if you had to use your pistol in the dark and you were using the flashlight to light up the other guy, how can you see the sight in the dark? Inquiring minds want to know. Mine, anyway.



Through the contrast between the dark sights and the lit up person.

I've fired guns with just ambient light (almost pitch black) and I can make out the sights. It's all in practice.

Once you're familiar with your weapon, close to medium range shots can be made without the sights, just based on muscle memory.


----------



## ElGreco (Oct 31, 2008)

The runtimes seem to leave a little to be desired, even if the recharge time is 90 seconds. I think i'd rather take an 8060 to last in the very least most of the night on one charge if im actually using it _that_ much, and not need to worry about runtime.


----------



## celler (Oct 31, 2008)

Turbo DV8 said:


> This is way OT, but that comment had me thinking... if you had to use your pistol in the dark and you were using the flashlight to light up the other guy, how can you see the sight in the dark? Inquiring minds want to know. Mine, anyway.



A good number of us use tritium night sights. Check out http://www.trijicon.com/ . They are also useful in no light situations where you use muzzle flash to identify the target (not the preferred method).

Stay safe.

Craig.


----------



## Justin Case (Nov 10, 2008)

Turbo DV8 said:


> This is way OT, but that comment had me thinking... if you had to use your pistol in the dark and you were using the flashlight to light up the other guy, how can you see the sight in the dark? Inquiring minds want to know. Mine, anyway.


 
Besides contrast between the sights and the illuminated target, or using tritium night sights, the side spill from the flashlight itself also provides some lighting and thus visibility of the sights.


----------



## Justin Case (Nov 10, 2008)

As 2xTrinity states, the supposed advantage of a 90 sec recharge is a bit overstated. I rarely, if ever, run down my Li-ion RCR123A cells to the point where I need hours to recharge them. Thus, the actual, real-world charging time is more like single-digit minutes, which is not much different than 90 sec.

Also, the key method to evaluate portable power is the Ragone plot of specific power vs. specific energy. The bottom line is that caps and supercaps simply cannot compete with batteries when it comes to specific energy.

It sounds good in theory to have such a high cycle life and low self-discharge rate. But I personally dislike products that lock you into their system. I like flashlights that allow me to change out the power source, especially since there is no man-made product in existence that has 0% defect rate. I don't want to be stuck with a flashlight with a non-replaceable power source that doesn't live up to its marketing claims.

Also as technology advances, I can take advantage of that by using the more advanced batteries and LED drop-ins in my SureFire 6P. I can't do that with this light. How do you upgrade this light when some new ultracap breakthrough occurs? Send it in to the manufacturer? Kind of defeats the purpose of that 90 sec recharge time.


----------



## spencer (Nov 11, 2008)

Engadget has their uneducated thoughts on it here.


----------



## TigerhawkT3 (Nov 11, 2008)

spencer said:


> Engadget has their uneducated thoughts on it here.


 They talk about charging the LEDs... no mention of batteries or capacitors at all.


----------



## richardcpf (Nov 15, 2008)

Engadget bloggers are so wrong... this is not even flashaholic knowledge, it's basic!



> Enter 5.11 Tactical's Light for Life UC3.400 -- *a flashlight whose three LEDs take 90 seconds to charge and have 90 minutes of uptime.*


 
Wow, with this new technology i can just carry few leds which can run for 90 mins. sweet.



> The *LEDs are apparently rated* for "more than 50,000 charge cycles,"


 
they meant supercapacitors?


----------



## atropine1 (Nov 15, 2008)

Thee just doesn't seem to be any new technology here. It's the same ultra caps that run cordless screw drivers and the like. I kind of think nobody else has married ultracaps with high outputs LED's before because it's not a sensible idea with the current capacity of the ultra caps.

Bad ideas happens all the time, this is probably one of them.


----------



## Turbo DV8 (Nov 16, 2008)

atropine1 said:


> It's the same ultra caps that run cordless screw drivers.


 
:thinking:


----------



## NeonLights (Nov 16, 2008)

atropine1 said:


> Thee just doesn't seem to be any new technology here. It's the same ultra caps that run cordless screw drivers and the like.....


Which ones? All of the newer cordless screwdriver models I've seen hit the market are using rechargeable lithium batteries. I'm curious about these ultra-cap powered cordless screwdrivers you speak of.


----------



## atropine1 (Nov 16, 2008)

hi,

My cordless screwdriver is a chinese cheapie made by GMC. They call the capacitor a 'flash cell' . I find I always have to charge it before use, as it seems to lose a good percentage of it's charge over a number of weeks of not being used, and when I was using it for the installation of a couple of 'whirly birds' on my roof, I had to come down mid job to charge the damn thing after it went flat. It's true it only takes 45 seconds to charge but a lithium or nicad cell screwdriver wouhldn't' have given up in that period.

It will be good to hear from buyers of this torch, and their reviews.


----------



## Supernova (Nov 26, 2008)

glockboy said:


> Can't wait for this light to come out.


 

I would wait!!! I played with this torch at a 5.11 presentation at a close protection seminar in london in october! the 5.11 rep gave a presentation to all the delegates. It is about the size of a 3 cell maglite and is so light it feels strange . When the question was posed about a smaller torch for bodyguards he confirmed that 5.11 was looking into something about the size of a surefire G2. This smaller torch will be released a year from now!


----------



## civation (Nov 30, 2008)

If you are up for a little marketing video, it looks like one was recently posted on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NJUzZS2BKg


I'm not sure if it really answered any of my questions, but it was an interesting 7 minutes.


----------



## Duport (Dec 4, 2008)

Anyone buy this light yet?


----------



## TooManyGizmos (Dec 5, 2008)

Duport said:


> Anyone buy this light yet?




................................... No


.


----------



## 276 (Dec 6, 2008)

Don't think its out yet.


----------



## guiri (Dec 7, 2008)

Bronco said:


> With respect, you guys are thinking too small. If we embrace this technology and allow it some time to mature, who's to say that at some point in the not too distant future we might not have ultracap modules that are roughly the same size as batteries, can be swapped out as easily as batteries AND recharge in 90 seconds.



Well, that was my thinking and I thought it was obvious that it had to appear sooner or later.

Anyway, great idea, ugly light


----------



## guiri (Dec 7, 2008)

BabyDoc said:


> Why nobody is talking about this in the mainstream news media is beyond me.



What's up Doc?

The same reason that we don't develop alternative energy sources and the reason we're fighting in Iraq instead of investing the same money in ALTERNATIVE ENGERY sources. The wrong people control the money 

Where does Bush's money come from...?


----------



## guiri (Dec 7, 2008)

As for the Zenn car, apparently they are selling them now
http://www.zenncars.com/


----------



## eyeeatingfish (Dec 11, 2008)

Saw a demo version of this light at the store, was not a bad light. It was getting pretty low and they let me charge it up in my car, and sure enough about 2 minutes later it was bright. The body was handmade and not the final version so any misaligned this or that likely wouldnt represent the actual product. The light was about the size of a 3d mag but a little shorter i would say. Not very heavy for its size and pretty bright. I would say its similar to my Q2 MRV on high. A wider hotspot though and I dont know how well it throws as i could only use it with the lights out in the shop but should be decent.
Odd thing is that the switch had to be held down for the high otherwise it would revert to the medium mode. The medium was similar to the incendio that I had, though my incendio batteries were not super fresh and im not sure if using the 3.0volt rcr123s means I wasnt getting full brightness out of the incendio. The color was fine, nothing in either extreme. The strobe was a nice strobe, not too fast like some strobes. 
The light was a bit large to wear on the belt though. There was talk of them making a smaller one later though, could be interesting. I dont know about tactical but it could have uses in different areas that I am not sure of.
I didnt leave it on high to see how long that would last because that would mean holding down the button for 15 minutes or so. The meduim is very useable not too bright but adequate for lets say a traffic stop of inside a medium sized room.

Im testing lights for my department so I guess ill have to add this to my list to put to the comittee. Not sure how I feel about it though.


----------



## john2551 (Jan 12, 2009)

Having to HOLD down the switch the WHOLE time you want all 3 LEDs on HIGH is a deal breaker for me. Other than than it looks interesting. Size, weight & polymer composition is excellent.


----------



## was.lost.but.now.found (Jan 12, 2009)

Since this thread just will not die I feel obligated to comment.

I will say first of all that I am not a police officer, however I did get my 4 year college education in law enforcement and spent an entire summer semester performing an internship with the IL State Police. Therefore I do feel somewhat qualified based on direct experience to comment on how well (or poorly) a given light may fit the bill for law enforcement. After all, looking at their website would make someone believe this light was designed specifically for a police officer.

I can't see how anyone with a straight face could say this light would work well for law enforcement. The realities of law enforcement are working traffic accidents, attending to crime scenes, directing traffic for events, etc., etc., for hours on end. That is hours on end that a light needs to function. Sure this may not happen every day, but when you need your light you need it to work for more than 25 minutes. You can't be out in the middle of directing traffic away from a major accident and just run back to your squad car every 25 minutes to recharge your flashlight - no matter how quickly it recharges. You just can't do it. I can't believe noone has said this. It does not matter how bright it is or how wonderful it may be in every other way, this is a fundamental dealbreaker for law enforcement applications. Sure you can carry a back-up, but the use of the backup should be the exception, not the rule.


----------



## john2551 (Jan 12, 2009)

Well said. This light could be a good "traffic stop use light" but not a light for the aforementioned incidents. I've had the occasion to have my light on for 4-5 hours straight with no time for recharging at fatal highway accidents. This light would not be appropriate for those circumstances. This light does fill a niche in an emergency if the power grid goes down & you need to use a vehicle for a quick charging source.


----------



## wood (Feb 9, 2009)

I got to check one of these out while at a fire show in Missouri. Our 5.11 rep brought it and I must say it fits the security guard line. [advertising link removed - DM51]


----------



## Bushman5 (Feb 11, 2009)

LEDAdd1ct said:


> Yep, I'd been thinking about running the car for 90 seconds during a blackout. A lot quicker than recharging batteries.
> 
> However, a lot slower than popping in a spare cell...
> 
> I can see the advantages and disadvantages on both sides here. Regardless, I too look forward to beamshots and a review.



or using a 12 volt battery, say from an alarm panel.......or a 12v solar panel......or 12v plug from a genset......lots of possibilities. 

I have one on order. I can forsee lots of use with it, as i use a light frequently and i like fast recharge. 

now maybe someone like MILKY should delve into super caps and make a Milky-Cap light, or maybe someone could use some GIANT super caps and make a HID light........

:devil::devil::devil::devil::devil::devil:


----------



## Bushman5 (Feb 11, 2009)

Gryloc said:


> It is late, and I just read this entire thread. I am so bummed out by the responses, that I felt that I had to rant a little. I understand everyone's skepticism, but you all have to be more optimistic! Everybody is bashing supercapacitors based on earlier technologies and based on older lights. The technology is still young.
> 
> I say this because years ago (not too long ago -2002), we would not believe that we could have AA sized flashlights pumping out 220lm, considering the 1W Luxeon Star from Lumileds only produced 30-45 lumens. Even when the K2 was at its prime (if you want to call it that), the Cree XR-E would seem unheard of. As for safety, I bet those comfortable with NiMH cells in the early days (especially the RC guys) would fear li-ion because they are "unsafe". Now, they are still not the safest battery type to use, but they are produced cheaply and in mass and distributed to all from sites like DX and KD. I remember calling the C- and D-sized li-ion cell on DX and KD "hand grenades" when they first became available (2007?). They are still hand grenades if you are reckless, but now many people use the D-sized li-ion cells in their projects. I use several currently with a respect for them, but not complete fear. I can imagine that a supercap can discharge quickly (and in a devastating manner), but so can a li-ion (think of the A123 cells -eek). If supercaps become big, and the cylindrical cells are used in portable electronics and available for use in flashlights, I am sure they will have independent protection circuits on them like li-ion cells. People will learn how to handle them carefully and use them safely. Only a few will get in the hands of the careless and stupid (like how people get a hold of li-ion cells just to force them to vent violently for some fireworks -then they show videos on you-tube).
> 
> ...



AMEN! i may be a complete BOOB when it comes to flashlight tech, but i do know super caps from my days running big car stereos. The new supercaps since then are NOTHING like the old technology. 

in fact, the 5.11 light inspired a friend of mine to build a power pack made form super caps for remote area power for a laptop for weeks on end. he charges it off his truck battery.


----------



## deusexaethera (Feb 11, 2009)

Bronco said:


> Wow. If this technology works out to be as advertised, it could change a lot of things. On the other hand, I hope the potential for what might be a pretty catastrophic short circuit event has been taken into consideration.


As long as the body of the flashlight is metal, it should be fine -- it will just discharge into itself. You might feel a tingle if you're holding it, but because the capacitor has just as much positive potential as negative potential, it will just cancel itself out if it shorts.

Also, the fact that the capacitor isn't removable makes it pretty clear they don't want to risk someone tongue-testing a fully-charged cap.


----------



## deusexaethera (Feb 11, 2009)

Gryloc's rant makes me wonder if Li-Ion batteries could be made safer by wrapping them with a single layer of Kevlar between the metal and the shrink-wrap plastic, to keep shrapnel from flying all over the place if a cell explodes.


----------



## was.lost.but.now.found (Feb 11, 2009)

deusexaethera said:


> Gryloc's rant makes me wonder if Li-Ion batteries could be made safer by wrapping them with a single layer of Kevlar between the metal and the shrink-wrap plastic, to keep shrapnel from flying all over the place if a cell explodes.


 
How would that prevent a more directed (and more powerful) explosion out the ends?


----------



## deusexaethera (Feb 11, 2009)

was.lost.but.now.found said:


> How would that prevent a more directed (and more powerful) explosion out the ends?


The endcaps are usually thicker, because the positive terminal has to grip the central electrode, and the battery casing is made by stretch-pressing a flat sheet of metal, much like cheap cooking pots. I've disassembled a few batteries in my day.

I'm not sure how you could reinforce the joint between the positive terminal and the battery casing, but it's probably not a huge deal because there's always something pressing against both terminals when the battery is charging or in use.


----------



## McAllan (Feb 12, 2009)

deusexaethera said:


> I'm not sure how you could reinforce the joint between the positive terminal and the battery casing, but it's probably not a huge deal because there's always something pressing against both terminals when the battery is charging or in use.



The problem with LiIon isn't the strength of the container. You can make it out of 4 mm solid steel or titanium and it'll still explode - and with even greater power because of pressure build up.
The cause is that with the traditional LiIon technology you don't need a very high temperature for the oxygen _which is needed inside the battery_ to be released and power the "explosion".

If you want a safe technology then stick with Nickel based ones such as NiMH. No matter how you mistreat them they'll only leak or become very hot. Of course that can potentially be bad and a short circuit (outside the cell) can easily generate so much heat that the surroundins to be set on fire but none the less much more safe than a LiIon "explosion" with flames etc.
The worst I've had a Ni cell failing was a cheap chinese cell which short circuited inside. I've charged it and put it away to use the next day. But the next day the shrinkwrap had shrunk by 50% and cracked and of course the cell was very dead. But no explosion and I think that even it it had been inside something I had to be very unlucky for it to set the house on fire.


----------



## deusexaethera (Feb 12, 2009)

NiMH doesn't store enough power. I grew up with rechargeable batteries and I gave up on them because Energizer Lithiums last sooo much longer.

Anyway, the point of the Kevlar is not to keep the cell from rupturing, it's to keep bits and pieces from flying everywhere _after_ the cell ruptures.


----------



## was.lost.but.now.found (Feb 12, 2009)

deusexaethera said:


> NiMH doesn't store enough power. I grew up with rechargeable batteries and I gave up on them because Energizer Lithiums last sooo much longer.
> 
> Anyway, the point of the Kevlar is not to keep the cell from rupturing, it's to keep bits and pieces from flying everywhere _after_ the cell ruptures.


 
Sorry, but all you're doing is creating a better bomb (as McAllen also said). By limiting the area the force has to escape, you increase the pressure at the ends. Before, you drive yourself to the hospital with some burns and leave the same day. With a Kevlar "enhancement", you die from what most closely resembles a shotgun wound to the torso.


----------



## deusexaethera (Feb 12, 2009)

So, it hasn't occurred to you that the gases from the explosion would be able to escape through the Kevlar (which is a porous fabric), while the pieces would be contained?

Also, I would be fascinated to know how anyone could possibly enact your scenario in real life, wherein they cause a battery to explode by holding it in their hand without it being connected to anything, because that's the only way something like your predicted outcome could happen. Maybe it's just me, but when it's in the charger or in a flashlight, it's going to have a rather hard time aiming itself at you and then exploding through the outer container and driving itself into your chest.

Friggin' fearmongerers. "Let's dream up the worst possible outcome and then pretend like it happens every day!" :shakehead


----------



## was.lost.but.now.found (Feb 12, 2009)

I'll give you that it's an interesting concept. I don't want to try a real world scenario though thank you very much. So unless you are we may just have to define this one as "Plausable".


----------



## civation (Feb 12, 2009)

So if we're looking for a head scratching plausible...

How bout someone trying to mod their NiCd rechargeable system to work with the charger in this UC flashlight? Lots of amps...iddy biddy living space.


----------



## deusexaethera (Feb 13, 2009)

If I had the requisite batteries, spare chargers, and Kevlar (probably some kind of hose shrouding would work), I actually would be willing to try it. It's not that hard to take a fully-charged battery, short it to itself, walk away and watch with a camcorder.

Unfortunately, I don't have those things, and my townhouse neighbors might object to me intentionally blowing battery bits all over their (tiny) lawns.

Sorry about biting your head off. I was having a bad day.


----------



## IMSabbel (Feb 15, 2009)

Why not just install a burst-disc?
Lithium-Ions DO NOT DETONATE. At worst, they deflagrate. Most just vent and then start burning with oxygen from the air.

Even a tiny relieve system would be more than enough for all your cr123/18650 pressure protection needs.


----------



## n4zov (Feb 17, 2009)

I wonder what the reaction to this light would have been if it had been labeled SUREFIRE?


----------



## deusexaethera (Feb 17, 2009)

That is a very good question.


----------



## was.lost.but.now.found (Feb 18, 2009)

n4zov said:


> I wonder what the reaction to this light would have been if it had been labeled SUREFIRE?


 
I'm not sure that's a very fair question because Surefire has chosen to (nearly exclusively) sell only products that are designed to use lithium primaries only. While I may have my own opinions about their price point, I respect them for the quality products they make - and don't believe they would ever put their name on this product.


----------



## n4zov (Feb 18, 2009)

was.lost.but.now.found said:


> I'm not sure that's a very fair question because Surefire has chosen to (nearly exclusively) sell only products that are designed to use lithium primaries only. While I may have my own opinions about their price point, I respect them for the quality products they make - and don't believe they would ever put their name on this product.



Your reply makes my point. Thanks!


----------



## was.lost.but.now.found (Feb 18, 2009)

n4zov said:


> Your reply makes my point. Thanks!


 
Oh, I thought you were trying to say the reaction would have been more positive had this light been labeled Surefire.


----------



## corrections operator (Feb 18, 2009)

n4zov said:


> Your reply makes my point. Thanks!


 
I think he was making a point about snobbery when it comes to certain brands, and also in general. These forums, myself included, have a tendency to be aloof and closed minded about certain things.

Not jabbing at anyone in particular, just making an observation....


----------



## was.lost.but.now.found (Feb 18, 2009)

corrections operator said:


> I think he was making a point about snobbery when it comes to certain brands, and also in general. These forums, myself included, have a tendency to be aloof and closed minded about certain things.
> 
> Not jabbing at anyone in particular, just making an observation....


 
Maybe my wording was not the best when I mentioned the quality of Surefire. It was not intended to imply that this light lacks quality. All of my comments on this thread, as well as all of the comments I have seen by others are focused on the feasability and usability of the super capacitor technology. If I am mistaken please show me but I don't see any comments in this thread about this light being of inferior quility. I do see a lot of jokes about them blowing up, but they are just that - jokes, not assessments of the quality.

And again on your question n4zov, Surefire DID NOT make this light. I'll wager you a paycheck that they will not manufacture a battery free, super capacitor flashlight for the next 20 years. If you think I'm I snob take my bet. Otherwise you are the snob who likes to point out weaknesses in others, which I detest. So which one is it?


----------



## DM51 (Feb 18, 2009)

was.lost.but.now.found said:


> If you think I'm I snob take my bet. Otherwise you are the snob who likes to point out weaknesses in others, which I detest. So which one is it?


 I don't think this is necessary, and we'll have no more name-calling here. 

I'm not entirely surprised by the confusion, though: 



corrections operator said:


> I think he was making a point about snobbery when it comes to certain brands, and also in general. These forums, myself included, have a tendency to be aloof and closed minded about certain things.
> 
> Not jabbing at anyone in particular, just making an observation....


corrections operator.... your post is somewhat opaque and it is difficult to discern what your point is, if there is one, or who you might be getting at (despite your denial). I’m still trying to work out how someone can be aloof and at the same time have a closed mind. Please spare us any more "observations" of that type, please.


----------



## techwg (Feb 19, 2009)

corrections operator said:


> I think he was making a point about snobbery when it comes to certain brands, and also in general. These forums, myself included, have a tendency to be aloof and closed minded about certain things.
> 
> Not jabbing at anyone in particular, just making an observation....



I know exactly what you mean, sometimes we can start making generalizations regarding brands. Which is fine for our own purposes, but it can discriminate against valid and good innovations of another brand based on our representation of of the given brand.

ps: 
Aloof - 


> –adjective 2.	reserved or reticent; indifferent; disinterested: Because of his shyness, he had the reputation of being aloof.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/aloof

ie, he means being close minded about brands and things, and being disinterested in them shruging them off even against possible valid points of interest. In my opinion, a valid and true statement about many of us, not only limited to flashlights or any one person..


I think i would not buy a light which had ANY internal only powersource. Capacitor or otherwise.. For my purposes, it would need to be able to be swapped out when dead ie dont make a light which can be "charged" instead make standard size batteries from the supercap technology, because a) you can sell those to a wider audience than flashlight people and b) it will work in your lights also.. Perfect solution for everything.


----------



## CdBoy (Feb 19, 2009)

wow! great for the environment! less battery less chemical pollution....


----------



## techwg (Feb 19, 2009)

CdBoy said:


> wow! great for the environment! less battery less chemical pollution....



Im all for that, but at least make classic battery replacement cells using supercaps. That way we can all enjoy the benefits.


----------



## corrections operator (Feb 19, 2009)

techwg said:


> I know exactly what you mean, sometimes we can start making generalizations regarding brands. Which is fine for our own purposes, but it can discriminate against valid and good innovations of another brand based on our representation of of the given brand.
> 
> ps:
> Aloof -
> ...




Thank you, :goodjob:. Several times I tried to write a reply to explain myself only to delete it before posting. Just could not type one that was not sarcastic or was concise enough. You said it better than I could have.



... One statement, an interpretation, an insult taken when one was not intended, a friendly reprimand, an interpretation of the original interpretation, and finally we have a clear and concise point.:lolsign:

Next time, I'll just PM you to post for me...:laughing:


----------



## dudemar (Feb 20, 2009)

Soo.... has anyone else handled this light before?


----------



## dougie (Feb 20, 2009)

I've a friend who is a sales manager for a UK distributor and he has had a prototype demonstrator for a while now. According to him it's been recharged 200 times now with no loss of charge during that time. If my maths are right 200+ hours worth of non rechargeable & disposable batteries would cost more than the asking price for this light so I'm already impressed. It will be interesting to hear views about beam profile and reliability in the field before I commit fully but it is looking good!


----------



## DM51 (Feb 20, 2009)

corrections operator said:


> ... One statement, an interpretation, an insult taken when one was not intended, a friendly reprimand, an interpretation of the original interpretation, and finally we have a clear and concise point.:lolsign:


Very well put! And I now understand what you meant.


----------



## Phaserburn (Mar 20, 2009)

blah, blah, blah...

Back to the OP: Does anyone actually have this light or have they seen it in person and can comment? The specs are impressive, and I'd like to know how close to those the manufacturer has come.


----------



## MattK (Mar 21, 2009)

I've had a few chances to play with them - both early prototypes and final productions samples.

I think it's an interesting idea with some niche markets but the product, as finalized, can never serve more than those niche markets. Right now I could see it used by some first responders; ambulance, police cruiser, etc but it's size and build do not make it at all suitable for the tactical, patrol LEO/security, home defense or emegency preparedness markets. The UI needs refinement and the runtime ,which is like 15 minutes on high IIRC, limits it's usefulness for many potential buyers.

I'll be very interested in the 'next generation' of products using this technology.


----------



## mcmc (Apr 1, 2009)

Wow, only 15 minutes? That's short.


----------



## civation (Apr 1, 2009)

A user manual is out now, which I think would mean they have completed the design and have completed trials:

http://content.511tactical.com/LightForLife/files/UC3400_UserGuide_2009.pdf

Output is 90 lumen for 60 minutes with a 25 lumen reserve for 60 minutes on standard mode.

High mode is now 270 lumen for 20 minutes with a 60 minute reserve.


----------



## civation (May 1, 2009)

The LFL website has been updated with a FAQ that makes for some very interesting reading, once you get through the first half of it. 

They also have some production photos of the UC3.400

http://www.511tactical.com/lightforlife.html


----------



## hoppyjr (May 2, 2009)

Hello folks.........I actually have this light and just did a a review in a new thread, as I thought it would be good to have a "reviews and opinions thread" rather than drag this out to many more pages. If I am incorrect, would a Moderator please bring my review over here?

Thanks 

REVIEW is here: https://www.candlepowerforums.com/posts/2940493#post2940493


----------



## DM51 (May 2, 2009)

We'll continue in the thread linked by hoppyjr. This one is closed.


----------

