# Awesome HDS Mod by Milky...



## russtang (Dec 19, 2006)

First of all, Sorry, but no pictures.

I received an HDS EDC modded with a cree-xr and the reflector from the Q3.
WHOA! What a difference.

He tried the stock reflector but it had the usual dark "rings" in the beam.
But with the modded Q3 reflector in it the beam is near flawless!
It looks like a Mcr20 with a luxIII but the hotspot is bigger and the spill is brighter.
I am more than satisfied.
The M180 I received was very nice also!
Everyone should have at least one Milky mod.

I think I will have to get me a U60 and some Q3 reflectors for some more Milky Magic.


----------



## Blindasabat (Dec 19, 2006)

*Re: Awesome Mod by Milky...*

Oh, jeeze, I was waiting for someone to post who is XR-E modding HDS for clients... Now I have to send Milky more of my money... <sigh> but I know it will be well worth it. B120 here I come!


----------



## Casual Flashlight User (Dec 20, 2006)

Oh Lordy!

What about run times...improved or the same?

Thermal protection...does it run cooler/longer?

Are the lowest settings still low enough to preserve night vision?

What model did you have modded?


CFU


----------



## jar3ds (Dec 20, 2006)

humm... now this is temping


----------



## Danbo (Dec 20, 2006)

Eventually, he's gonna get some of my money too.


----------



## Casual Flashlight User (Dec 20, 2006)

Danbo said:


> Eventually, he's gonna get some of my money too.


 
I have mental picture of poor old Milky being squashed under an avalanch of HDS lights...






CFU


----------



## jtice (Dec 20, 2006)

and I was just thinking of asking someone to Cree my Arc4+ ! 
yet another mod I will have to ask Scott about.

~John


----------



## Walt175 (Dec 20, 2006)

Did anyone else hear that? I think his PM box just exploded! :laughing:


----------



## leukos (Dec 20, 2006)

I would hate to lose the lowest settings on my HDS, I imagine that would be the side effect of this mod. I like .1 lumens for some applications. Hopefully if Henry incorporates the cree into his new lineup he will retain some of these uber low settings.


----------



## Blindasabat (Dec 20, 2006)

Agreed. According to this thread, the Basic low is not the lowest level, so we can set low to a lower level. In a Basic, it just requires 250 clicks to access programming instead of 10 for the Ultimate. Lower than that I don't think is possible without major modification.


leukos said:


> I would hate to lose the lowest settings on my HDS, I imagine that would be the side effect of this mod. I like .1 lumens for some applications. Hopefully if Henry incorporates the cree into his new lineup he will retain some of these uber low settings.


----------



## dixemon (Dec 20, 2006)

So hows the brightness in comparison to the old configuration? Beamshots? This sounds very tempting!!


----------



## russtang (Dec 20, 2006)

I'm sorry but I never have done runtimes or lightbox measurements or anything like that.

I just judge my lights on everyday around the house and outside uses.
I have been known to hunt a whitewall every now and then also.

I modded a B42. I would guess it to be 75-80 lumens now. It is hard to believe the difference.
I have no doubt that the lower levels will still be useable. I have not changed mine from the levels set when it had the stock led in it but I will probably change the low level down one setting.

I dont see how anyone wouldn''t like this mod done to their own HDS.


----------



## dixemon (Dec 20, 2006)

Sounds like a great improvement I wonder how easy the mod is, I have a few Q3 reflectors ands some HDS hosts to play with. Hmmmmm:thinking:


----------



## tebore (Dec 20, 2006)

I wonder if this mod would get easier as soon as the Cree XR-E die SSC LEDs come out. They are supposidely the same footprint as LuxI/IIIs. Once those are readly available he'll be getting my light for some surgical enhancements and my $$.


----------



## milkyspit (Dec 20, 2006)

Wow! Uh... here are some answers guys! BTW, this was a really fun mod... especially in seeing how big the improvement was from stock to Q3 reflector! oo:



Blindasabat said:


> Oh, jeeze, I was waiting for someone to post who is XR-E modding HDS for clients... Now I have to send Milky more of my money... <sigh> but I know it will be well worth it. B120 here I come!







Casual Flashlight User said:


> Oh Lordy!
> What about run times...improved or the same?
> Thermal protection...does it run cooler/longer?
> Are the lowest settings still low enough to preserve night vision?
> ...



Runtime should be at least as good as with the stock emitter as the Vf seems to be the same or lower.

The Cree should run cooler as it's a more efficient emitter... more of the energy gets converted into photons, and less into heat. Thermal protection should still work fine though as there's still a direct thermal path from emitter to the stock heatsink.

Yes, the lowest settings should be fine with night vision, although I guess to some degree it depends on the individual.

Russtang's HDS was a B42.



Danbo said:


> Eventually, he's gonna get some of my money too.



Oh no... the local grocery store will get your money when I go to buy the next batch of groceries! Amazing how much three little kids manage to eat. 



Casual Flashlight User said:


> I have mental picture of poor old Milky being squashed under an avalanch of HDS lights...
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Walt175 said:


> Did anyone else hear that? I think his PM box just exploded! :laughing:



Bring it on! 



Blindasabat said:


> Agreed. According to this thread, the Basic low is not the lowest level, so we can set low to a lower level. In a Basic, it just requires 250 clicks to access programming instead of 10 for the Ultimate. Lower than that I don't think is possible without major modification.



At some point the PWM would end up making the low beam start to look like a really fast strobe light... that's probably the practical limit on how low the light can go.
:shrug:



dixemon said:


> Sounds like a great improvement I wonder how easy the mod is, I have a few Q3 reflectors ands some HDS hosts to play with. Hmmmmm:thinking:



Well, it's not particularly easy but if you've got a steady hand, not horrible either. I did the entire mod from the front end of the light... removed retaining ring, lens, O-ring, reflector... desoldered the old emitter from the leads (which snake back into the housing... easy to lose 'em!)... pry old emitter off heatsink (it seems to be epoxied? or maybe just a tight fit) without damaging heatsink surface or anything else... build a pedestal from brass rod cut to precisely the right height... mount Cree on the pedestal, taking care not to short it from the underside... solder leads to the underside so they won't get in the way of reflector... turn down the outer diameter of the Q3 reflector... enlarge the narrow opening a bit... position reflector with electrical insulating material underneath to keep from shorting the emitter... stabilize Q3 reflector so it won't shift... remount O-ring and lens... close the light! 



tebore said:


> I wonder if this mod would get easier as soon as the Cree XR-E die SSC LEDs come out. They are supposidely the same footprint as LuxI/IIIs. Once those are readly available he'll be getting my light for some surgical enhancements and my $$.



I'm really looking forward to playing with those SSC LEDs. Anyone know where they are/will be available?


----------



## tebore (Dec 20, 2006)

We're trying to get GB going in the GB section for those SSCs.


----------



## SCblur (Dec 20, 2006)

Hey milky, what do you charge for this mod if we supply the HDS light of course? I'm so friggin' doing this. I was going to get a milky ML-1 from you, but I think I'll do this instead. Actually, I'm a flashaholic so that probably means I'll do both.


----------



## russtang (Dec 20, 2006)

Yea. I did both

plus a Modded KL1

and a M180 mag

and another M180 KL2

and a M360

and a.......

and a.......


SCblur said:


> Hey milky, what do you charge for this mod if we supply the HDS light of course? I'm so friggin' doing this. I was going to get a milky ML-1 from you, but I think I'll do this instead. Actually, I'm a flashaholic so that probably means I'll do both.


----------



## iNDiGLo (Dec 20, 2006)

This thread is worthless without beamshots.


----------



## milkyspit (Dec 21, 2006)

iNDiGLo said:


> This thread is worthless without beamshots.



Such harsh words, indiglo!   But I'll be next to useless for the beamshots because in my haste, I boxed up the light and it flew right out the door, straight to russtang's house!  Afraid we'll need to rely on him to supply the beamshots. Now the NEXT light someone submits for the procedure, heh heh... :naughty:


----------



## Edwood (Dec 22, 2006)

Milky.

Hurry, you can get a few Seoul P4's here:

http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1748515#post1748515

Hopefully it truly is a drop in replacement.

*Edit: Reversed polarity and not exactly the same die size. Hmmm. Not looking good for a simple drop in replacement. 

Perhaps I'll wait for a Q3 XR-E to have put in my HDS light.

-Ed


----------



## Edwood (Dec 22, 2006)

Mouser has them too, but single quantity purchases are out of stock.

They sell in quantities of 10 as well.


----------



## milkyspit (Dec 22, 2006)

Edwood said:


> Mouser has them too, but single quantity purchases are out of stock.
> 
> They sell in quantities of 10 as well.



Edwood, got an item number at Mouser for the right ones?


----------



## Radio (Dec 22, 2006)

Mouser


----------



## tebore (Dec 23, 2006)

Can someone tell me why reversed polarity would matter in the case of the HDS? I thought it only mattered in the case of circuits using a common ground (like in automotive apps).


----------



## milkyspit (Dec 23, 2006)

tebore said:


> Can someone tell me why reversed polarity would matter in the case of the HDS? I thought it only mattered in the case of circuits using a common ground (like in automotive apps).



Oh, you mean with respect to the SSC P4 part. Typically the housing of a flashlight like the HDS carries the ground connection. Normally that's okay because the emitter's heatsinking slug is either electrically isolated, or also carries a negative potential. However, the SSC P4 part apparently carries a POSITIVE potential, which could result in shorting-out the part and thereby bypassing the emitter itself... no electrons flow into the light-producing area in the semiconductor. Worse, the short may cause an overload situation in the regulator and end up frying the board. Not good! oo:


----------



## tebore (Dec 23, 2006)

milkyspit said:


> Oh, you mean with respect to the SSC P4 part. Typically the housing of a flashlight like the HDS carries the ground connection. Normally that's okay because the emitter's heatsinking slug is either electrically isolated, or also carries a negative potential. However, the SSC P4 part apparently carries a POSITIVE potential, which could result in shorting-out the part and thereby bypassing the emitter itself... no electrons flow into the light-producing area in the semiconductor. Worse, the short may cause an overload situation in the regulator and end up frying the board. Not good! oo:



Do you think you'll be able to come up with a solution to get around this problem? Using something like a Shin Etzu Thermal pad maybe?


----------



## milkyspit (Dec 23, 2006)

tebore said:


> Do you think you'll be able to come up with a solution to get around this problem? Using something like a Shin Etzu Thermal pad maybe?



Yup... I think I can already work around it. :naughty:


----------



## Edwood (Dec 23, 2006)

Do you have pics of the Cree Mod?

I'm wondering if Q3 XR-E will be the best available first, or maybe Seoul Semicondutor might have a comparable part at the same time.

-Ed


----------



## tebore (Dec 23, 2006)

milkyspit said:


> Yup... I think I can already work around it. :naughty:


 
Alrighty, when you get some SSCs you can count me in. I love my HDS, it'd be great to get more brightness and longer runtime.


----------



## milkyspit (Dec 23, 2006)

Edwood said:


> Do you have pics of the Cree Mod?
> 
> I'm wondering if Q3 XR-E will be the best available first, or maybe Seoul Semicondutor might have a comparable part at the same time.
> 
> -Ed



Ed, pics are coming. I'm not a professional photographer so don't expect much! But at least they'll give you some idea of that the modded light looks and performs like.

As far as your question, my guess would be that Cree is supplying the same dice to SSC that they're using in their own XR-E parts... so I would anticipate both products evolving on parallel tracks, with the XR-E appearing a month or so ahead of the SSC part in each case.

BTW, I wouldn't count Luxeon out yet... they've been suspiciously quiet lately... may be up to something... and remember, SHOT show is on the horizon...


----------



## milkyspit (Dec 23, 2006)

*[size=+1]SCblur HDS CREEmation![/size]*

Some quick photos of SCblur's completed light (which will ship today, incidentally) and comparison shots vs. my personal HDS EDC-U60.

_SCblur's HDS B42 CREEmated! Composite photo, a little artsy. 
(Note the glow ring installed in place of stock O-ring to seal the light...
the glow is essentially a bonus as the silicone composition of the ring
seems to form a better, more pliable seal against the lens! That's the
main reason I install these.)_






_The HDS CrMa beam profile._





_HDS CrMa hotspot and beam distribution._





_Comparison vs. U60: HDS CrMa left, U60 right, both at max brightness.
(Greyscale image for a more objective comparison, without results
skewed by the apparent brightness of various tints. Photo is
otherwise unretouched. Oh, and sorry my front door is so dirty!
Three kids and all... oo_





_Posterized photo: HDS CrMa left, U60 right.
(Note: this is a different photo than the one above. The HDS CrMa
hotspot oversaturated the camera's dynamic range, but it's still
useful to note how far out the CrMa continues to match or exceed
the max hotspot brightness of the U60.)_ :naughty:





Merry Christmas! :santa:


----------



## russtang (Dec 23, 2006)

I think there is more of a difference with the B42 than with the U60 judging

by these beamshots and my B42.

I am going to cree a U60 also.


----------



## russtang (Dec 23, 2006)

DUH
There is at least an 18 lumen difference to start with.
I didnt think before that post. 


russtang said:


> I think there is more of a difference with the B42 than with the U60 judging
> 
> by these beamshots and my B42.
> 
> I am going to cree a U60 also.


----------



## :)> (Dec 23, 2006)

It is on its way. I kind of figured it was getting CreeMated. Tremendous difference in the beamshots.

-Goatee


----------



## KDOG3 (Dec 23, 2006)

Thats freakin' insane. Please stop tempting me. Please.


----------



## SCblur (Dec 23, 2006)

do it KDOG, do it!!! Think of it as U85 performance with B42XR runtime and heat buildup. This is way better than a U85 IMO. I can't wait to get my light back and post my observations and thoughts.


----------



## Casual Flashlight User (Dec 23, 2006)

I think I may have already said this earlier on in the thread...but "OH LORDY!" I think I will also add a "DAMN!" for good measure.

HDS + Cree = Flashlight perfection.






CFU


----------



## Edwood (Dec 23, 2006)

So will a CreeMated U60 be even brighter? 

-Ed


----------



## milkyspit (Dec 23, 2006)

Edwood said:


> So will a CreeMated U60 be even brighter?
> 
> -Ed




My understanding is that the 42 and 60 differ mainly in use of higher-flux emitters in the 60... if that's true then I'd expect both to end up about the same brightness after the mod... so no, the U60 wouldn't necessarily be any brighter than the B42. Of course, I could be wrong!

That said, the photos do show that even a U60 should see a nice performance boost, so IMHO it's still a very worthwhile upgrade. Heck, I'm gonna upgrade mine once I get more Q3 reflectors (have about 10 on order).


----------



## Edwood (Dec 23, 2006)

milkyspit said:


> My understanding is that the 42 and 60 differ mainly in use of higher-flux emitters in the 60... if that's true then I'd expect both to end up about the same brightness after the mod... so no, the U60 wouldn't necessarily be any brighter than the B42. Of course, I could be wrong!
> 
> That said, the photos do show that even a U60 should see a nice performance boost, so IMHO it's still a very worthwhile upgrade. Heck, I'm gonna upgrade mine once I get more Q3 reflectors (have about 10 on order).



I'll have to find myself a U60 with a sickly green tint to send to you to CreeMate for me. Would hate to waste the fine Luxeon tha's in my XRGT. 
-Ed


----------



## tebore (Dec 23, 2006)

According to a discussion awhile ago in the HDS sub-forum regarding emitter swaps, a U60 would yeild the best for getting more brightness.

The reason is x60 uses more power than a x42 to get to the 60lm level, it's not much more but it's more power. A XR light uses less power than it's non-XR counter part. According to Henry a U60 would be the best candidate for emitter swaps.


----------



## Edwood (Dec 24, 2006)

tebore said:


> According to a discussion awhile ago in the HDS sub-forum regarding emitter swaps, a U60 would yeild the best for getting more brightness.
> 
> The reason is x60 uses more power than a x42 to get to the 60lm level, it's not much more but it's more power. A XR light uses less power than it's non-XR counter part. According to Henry a U60 would be the best candidate for emitter swaps.


 
But isn't a U60 and U60 XR identical, except for the emitter?
Pretty much all U60's the same, except for the emitter?

-Ed


----------



## tebore (Dec 24, 2006)

Edwood said:


> But isn't a U60 and U60 XR identical, except for the emitter?
> Pretty much all U60's the same, except for the emitter?
> 
> -Ed


 
Everything is the same except for the emitter. Henry at HDS tunes each driver to the emitter. Lets say one LED is TxxH and a TxxJ. Both can do 60lms. So the TxxH uses 3Watt and the TxxJ uses 3.2Watts. J bin goes to the non-xr and is tuned to 3.2 watts at Level 1. While the H bin gets 3 watts exact and goes in to the XR.


----------



## Edwood (Dec 24, 2006)

tebore said:


> Everything is the same except for the emitter. Henry at HDS tunes each driver to the emitter. Lets say one LED is TxxH and a TxxJ. Both can do 60lms. So the TxxH uses 3Watt and the TxxJ uses 3.2Watts. J bin goes to the non-xr and is tuned to 3.2 watts at Level 1. While the H bin gets 3 watts exact and goes in to the XR.


 
Ah, so there is a difference in the driver, so if you want a brighter one with the Cree, go for a non XR then since they are "tuned" for a slightly higher wattage then?


----------



## tebore (Dec 24, 2006)

Edwood said:


> Ah, so there is a difference in the driver, so if you want a brighter one with the Cree, go for a non XR then since they are "tuned" for a slightly higher wattage then?


 
I don't know if you can call it a difference in the driver. It's just the way the driver is programmed. It's like using the AWR hotdriver you can tune it by turning the POTs on it. Is the driver different? nope just the tuning.

As for going for a non-XR for max brightness when doing an emitter swap. That's the idea. The driver is power regulated so you want a driver tuned for higher power output.


----------



## Icebreak (Dec 24, 2006)

tabore -

Thanks for the insight. Could you help me understand what a U60 GT might do in reference to how the board may have been programmed? Also, some of us did that run time test, firmly gripping the HDS while it was on the highest setting. The longest run time I could get was 11 minutes. That was with an SF cell. The BS cells couldn't handle it. I figured the board was tuned for this emitter and needed a good bit of juice to maintain highest setting.


----------



## THE_dAY (Dec 27, 2006)

in those pics, it looks like a big jump in brightness.

it would be nice to see a comparison: modded hds against the p1d-ce

the p1d-ce is around 110 lumens on high according to another thread.

we could get a relative understanding of the brightness of the modded hds.

great job milkyspit!


----------



## milkyspit (Dec 27, 2006)

THE_dAY said:


> in those pics, it looks like a big jump in brightness.
> 
> it would be nice to see a comparison: modded hds against the p1d-ce
> 
> ...




Thanks Day! 

As for your comparison idea, IMHO it's a great one. :thumbsup: Gonna have to wait until I complete the next HDS mod though as I already sent SCblur's light back to him! No worries... more than likely I'll have more of these finished later this week. 

BTW, as far as I can tell these are the theoretical brightness levels with various emitters...

Stock U60... 60 lumens
Modded with LuxIII U-flux... 75 lumens
Modded with Cree P3-flux... 100 lumens
Modded with Cree P4-flux... 107 lumens

Remember, this is just theoretical, based on some quick calculations.


----------



## Icebreak (Dec 27, 2006)

OK. I'm in with a HDS U60 GT.

It will be nice to have an HDS U100 MS.

Thanks for doing this, Scott.


----------



## tebore (Dec 27, 2006)

Icebreak said:


> OK. I'm in with a HDS U60 GT.
> 
> It will be nice to have an HDS U100 MS.
> 
> Thanks for doing this, Scott.


 
Did your light stepdown 1 or 2 levels after 11 mins? All lights should run at max for 20 mins or they get derated to the next Lumen level (60->42).


----------



## Chronos (Dec 27, 2006)

Woohoo, I have a Cree-mated U60 undergoing Milky's magic. Heheheheh. Wow, does this look like a great little package!


----------



## Icebreak (Dec 27, 2006)

tebore said:


> Did your light stepdown 1 or 2 levels after 11 mins? All lights should run at max for 20 mins or they get derated to the next Lumen level (60->42).


It would step down 1 brightness level (not setting). The thread I was talking about was a poll that was unscientific because there were all different kinds HDS lights included. Some U60 owners did not see their lights making the 20 minute mark on the highest brightness setting. That HDS RT Poll Thread.

This topic is a little off-topic I guess. I think it would be good to know which HDS lights would recieve the most benefit from this mod. It's likely that all of them would benefit greatly. Any difference in brightness between the modded U60, U60 XR, U60 GT and U60 XRGT hosts would be something we might not be able to percieve. Runtime...maybe?

Thanks for the help especially the heads up on the U60s vf being higher than the 42s'.


----------



## SCblur (Dec 27, 2006)

I just got my CREEmated HDS back from milkyspit today. WOW! What a sweet little mod, and the workmanship is top notch. I couldn't be happier. I'm leaving tomorrow for a few days, but I'll write up a more detailed review when I get back.

Josh


----------



## peskyphotons (Dec 28, 2006)

I was wondering what this mod costs. I have a B42XRGT That could be in for a trip across country.

Thanks,
Alex


----------



## Utik (Dec 28, 2006)

Does this mod permanently change the inside of the light? Based on reading the other HDS mod thread, one of the "features" that made modding with a Luxeon so easy was the way it fit into the heat sink. This made centering it a non-issue. 

If we have this mod done, will it cause the heat sink to be modded such that it would not be suitable for future Luxeons?


----------



## milkyspit (Dec 28, 2006)

peskyphotons said:


> I was wondering what this mod costs. I have a B42XRGT That could be in for a trip across country.
> 
> Thanks,
> Alex



Alex, PM sent! Didn't want to post price and order info here... it's the wrong forum for that plus I didn't want to hijack the thread. Anyway, please check your PM, and hope the info helps!


----------



## milkyspit (Dec 28, 2006)

Utik said:


> Does this mod permanently change the inside of the light? Based on reading the other HDS mod thread, one of the "features" that made modding with a Luxeon so easy was the way it fit into the heat sink. This made centering it a non-issue.
> 
> If we have this mod done, will it cause the heat sink to be modded such that it would not be suitable for future Luxeons?



Nope, the mod doesn't change your heatsink at all, so it's reversible later if you wish. The only significant change inside the light (other than the new emitter, that is) is replacing the stock HDS reflector with the modded Q3 reflector. This reflector would almost definitely work with Luxeon as well, or you could swap-in one of the McR series reflectors to go back to Luxeon, your choice. Or hold onto the stock HDS reflector. I keep those for experimental purposes by default, but I'll send yours back if you specifically ask for that.

BTW, just as an aside... it's not always a virtue to have a form-fitting heatsink like the one in the HDS. Some Luxeons arrive with the emitter die off-center, and such a heatsink essentially self-UNcenters those.


----------



## Walt175 (Dec 28, 2006)

It looks like all the ones you have modded thus far are 60's. Would this be a worthwhile mod for a 42 XRGT?


----------



## milkyspit (Dec 28, 2006)

Walt175 said:


> It looks like all the ones you have modded thus far are 60's. Would this be a worthwhile mod for a 42 XRGT?



Actually, I believe russtang's HDS was a 42, but could be mistaken... and yes, it's DEFINITELY a good upgrade for a 42... the resulting output should end up very nearly the same regardless of starting with a 42 or 60, so in a way the 42 upgrade gives you even more bang for the buck!


----------



## Ty_Bower (Dec 28, 2006)

milkyspit said:


> ... the resulting output should end up very nearly the same regardless of starting with a 42 or 60, so in a way the 42 upgrade gives you even more bang for the buck!


I'm not sure that can be guaranteed. I've got a U60 that pulls way over an amp from the cell (on its brightest setting). My B42 only pulls a mere 600ma or so. That tells me my U60 drives its emitter a heck of a lot harder than my B42.

I fully believe that given identical emitters, Cree or otherwise, my U60 will always be brighter on its max setting than my B42.


----------



## milkyspit (Dec 28, 2006)

Ty_Bower said:


> I'm not sure that can be guaranteed. I've got a U60 that pulls way over an amp from the cell (on its brightest setting). My B42 only pulls a mere 600ma or so. That tells me my U60 drives its emitter a heck of a lot harder than my B42.
> 
> I fully believe that given identical emitters, Cree or otherwise, my U60 will always be brighter on its max setting than my B42.




Could be. I certainly don't have any inside information about the workings of the HDS circuitry!

It's worth noting that differing Vf of the emitters could account for some of the difference, and that fine tuning to achieve certain tints could also account for some. Would that account for the entire difference you see? I'm not sure.
:shrug:

In the worst case, though, let's suppose what you're saying is true and that 100% of the difference is due to differing drive levels in the two lights. That would suggest the CREEmation of a 42 would at the very least end up something like this...

Stock B42... 42 lumens
Modded with LuxIII U-flux... 66 lumens
Modded with Cree P3-flux... 87 lumens
Modded with Cree P4-flux... 94 lumens

Russtang said something earlier in this thread that suggests we're on the right track here (emphasis mine)...



russtang said:


> I'm sorry but I never have done runtimes or lightbox measurements or anything like that.
> 
> I just judge my lights on everyday around the house and outside uses.
> I have been known to hunt a whitewall every now and then also.
> ...



:naughty:


----------



## luxlover (Dec 28, 2006)

Sir CREE_mater,
_I have been reading chatter here and there about what will become of the lower output levels of an HDS light _after_ you perform a CREE_mation_. I would like to address this concern in an analytical way, using my levels/lumens tables file as reference. I ask those who are unsure, to study the lower levels of the table that applies to your light. Note that HDS models with 85lm and 60lm maximum outputs have 20 distinct levels, and those with 42lm maximum output have 19 distinct levels. I am not sure what a CREE_mation_ would accomplish with a U85 light, but lets disregard the 85lm table for the purposes of this post until Scott is asked to mod a U85.







A little background as to how the levels were calculated.....
For those who are not aware of it, when Henry designed his lights he used two numerical values to program his lights to go from one level to another. He has referred to the level difference as "visually even" in his User's Guides. Going from the lower to the higher output levels, he multiplied the square root of 2 (or 1.414) times the previous level to get the next higher one. Therefore, going from level 20 to level 1 would consist of 19 or 20 such calculations, depending on the model. Going from the higher to the lower output levels, he multiplied the square root of 2 divided by 2 (or 0.707) times the previous level to get the next lower one.

Scott has posted this information in one post.....

Stock U60... 60 lumens
Modded with LuxIII U-flux... 75 lumens
Modded with Cree P3-flux... 100 lumens
Modded with Cree P4-flux... 107 lumens

and this information in another post.....

  Stock B42... 42 lumens
Modded with LuxIII U-flux... 66 lumens
Modded with Cree P3-flux... 87 lumens
Modded with Cree P4-flux... 94 lumens

Lets take my light, a U60, as an example......
Scott claims that the end result of a P4 CREE_mation_ will be 107lm. If one does 19 consecutive calculations (levels 2 through 20) starting at 107lm, and uses 0.707 as the multiplication factor, one will arrive at level 20 with an output of .2084lm.....rounded off to two digits = .21lm.

Explanation.....
Because a U60 light would end up with 107lm after CREE_mation_, level 20 has increased from .08lm to .21lm. This represents a loss of between 2 and 3 lower levels. However, in use it won't make a difference if one has a .08lm or a .21lm level when the eyes are dark adapted, which is the only way that one would see these ultra low levels anyway! I welcome you to apply the same calculations to your light to determine what output level will result from a CREE_mation_.

Scott, I personally thank you for pursuing the acquisition of a Nuwai Q3 reflector to take full advantage of the optical properties of a CREE XR-E emitter. I hope that many of the current HDS light owners will approach you for the mod. Any HDS light is a gem in my estimation, and adding a CREE emitter as you have done to a few lights can only made it MORE of a gem with greater output and no decrease in runtime.

Jeff


----------



## majr (Dec 28, 2006)

Ty, I think that is just your individual lights. My B42 draws 950mA from a fresh li-ion cell. Its stock LED was a QX1H, modded with a UV0J (lux3) or a SX0H (lux1) it was a little bit brighter than a friends stock U60GT.
The *60 and the XRs just get more efficient emitters, so your 42 probably got a decent bin emmiter that couldnt quite make the required runtime at a harder drive for a 60 lumen light so it was put in a 42.
So it is true that YOUR 60 will always be brighter given the same emmiter than YOUR 42, but dont make that generalization about all 60s and 42s. The lights with the worst runtime will be brighter than the ones with longer runtime.


----------



## peskyphotons (Dec 28, 2006)

I remember that there has been a lot of discussion about how the HDS power supply is set up. To the best of my understanding the power supply is adjusted to each emitter so that the light output reaches a specified level. The run times seem to vary a fair amount from what people have reported in the various threads and I assume that it is a result of the different efficiency of the emitters. If an emitter puts out the specified light level at a lower power level and as a result has a longer run time, they will be the XR version. Henry from HDS has recommended to use the poorest performing light as far as runtime is concerned to get the most dramatic improvement when doing a emitter swap and I assume that these particular lights are feeding the most power to the emitter. This is my understanding and I could be all wet.

Alex


----------



## mcmc (Dec 28, 2006)

So what's our latest consensus on what kind of lumens output we think the Cree would have (for high) on a 42 and a 60?

Or is it *completely* dependent on the efficiency (and therefore drive level) of our previous LED?


----------



## luxlover (Dec 29, 2006)

mcmc said:


> So what's our latest consensus on what kind of lumens output we think the Cree would have (for high) on a 42 and a 60?
> 
> Or is it *completely* dependent on the efficiency (and therefore drive level) of our previous LED?


mcmc,
For now, since nobody else had modded an HDS light, all we have to go by is Scott's calculating expertise based on the specs. of Lumileds and CREE emitters, and his knowledge of the electronic parameters of HDS lights. From post #62 above.....
"In the worst case, though, let's suppose what you're saying is true and that 100% of the difference is due to differing drive levels in the two lights. That would suggest the CREEmation of a 42 would at the very least end up something like this...

Stock B42... 42 lumens
Modded with LuxIII U-flux... 66 lumens
Modded with Cree P3-flux... 87 lumens
Modded with Cree P4-flux... 94 lumens

Russtang said something earlier in this thread that suggests we're on the right track here (emphasis mine)..."

Also, this from post #49 above....,
"BTW, as far as I can tell these are the theoretical brightness levels with various emitters...

Stock U60... 60 lumens
Modded with LuxIII U-flux... 75 lumens
Modded with Cree P3-flux... 100 lumens
Modded with Cree P4-flux... 107 lumens

Remember, this is just theoretical, based on some quick calculations."

Jeff


----------



## wasBlinded (Dec 29, 2006)

mcmc said:


> So what's our latest consensus on what kind of lumens output we think the Cree would have (for high) on a 42 and a 60?
> 
> Or is it *completely* dependent on the efficiency (and therefore drive level) of our previous LED?


 
There is no way to predict accurately what the output of a Cree-modded HDS will be without having some idea of the drive current (power) and lumen output of the original emitter. Each B42 or B60 or U42 or U60 has had its current adjusted to meet the advertised lumen output, so among each group there is going to be a lot of variation when you pop in a Cree. Odds are good that there will be a significant brightness increase, but how much will be up in the air. If you mod an U60XR, which probably started off with an efficient emitter and so is driving with a current relatively lower than most U60 samples, you won't see as big an increase as with a U60 that started off with a less efficient emitter and has a higher set drive power.

Welcome to the Luxeon lottery, imposed upon the Cree!


----------



## Mike abcd (Dec 31, 2006)

wasBlinded said:


> There is no way to predict accurately what the output of a Cree-modded HDS will be without having some idea of the drive current (power) and lumen output of the original emitter. Each B42 or B60 or U42 or U60 has had its current adjusted to meet the advertised lumen output, so among each group there is going to be a lot of variation when you pop in a Cree. Odds are good that there will be a significant brightness increase, but how much will be up in the air. If you mod an U60XR, which probably started off with an efficient emitter and so is driving with a current relatively lower than most U60 samples, you won't see as big an increase as with a U60 that started off with a less efficient emitter and has a higher set drive power.
> 
> Welcome to the Luxeon lottery, imposed upon the Cree!



If you can measure the current draw from the battery and the voltage under load for a few lights, you can probably begin to estimate the relative drive level of the LED.

Not that there isn't a bit of a Cree Vf lottery...

In fairness, I'm basing my last statement on my sample of one P1D CE's lux @ 1 meter and when it falls into regulation at different drive currents vs a few other ones tested by others.

If anyone doesn't want to put up with such nonsense, PM me and sell me your HDS so I can...

Mike


----------



## milkyspit (Jan 3, 2007)

*[size=+1]Old vs. New HDS Stock Reflectors![/size]*

Folks, one issue has come to my attention... a couple of the lights I've received for the CREEmation mod have the old-style stock HDS reflector. What's the difference, and why should we care? The original reflectors were NON-REMOVABLE... they seem literally to be part of the body itself, making the mod substantially more difficult... to do it, I'll need to cut the stock reflector out of the light before proceeding! That of course brings along with it some additional risk, though I'd like to think I can pull it off without problems.

For those who have already send me their HDS lights, I'll contact you if there's a problem, so no worries there. One way or another we'll figure out what to do.

For anyone about to send in your light to be CREEmated, here's a quick photo showing the difference between the two reflectors, followed by some notes on how to tell without opening the light.






First note: please excuse the really crummy photo! It was taken VERY quickly and I subsequently adjusted the brightness and contrast to show the difference most clearly... so they're not terribly flattering photos for the lights themselves!

*How do you tell the difference?* The light on the left is the OLD-STYLE reflector, and the one on the right is the NEW-STYLE reflector. The key is to notice how the old-style metal does NOT reach all the way to the edge of the bezel... it changes to a hard anodized natural finish as one moves away from the edge of the reflector... by contrast, the one on the right clearly shows bare metal all the way to the edge of the bezel ring. If you see bare metal up to the edge of the bezel ring, you're looking at a new-style reflector and we've got absolutely no issues with modding your light.

If you happen to have the old-style, built-in reflector (the one on the left), we MIGHT be able to do the mod... I'm still working on that. If you have multiple lights and have a choice of which to send, choose one with a new-style reflector.

Thanks for reading!


----------



## milkyspit (Jan 4, 2007)

Icebreak and Leef, your CREEmated lights are on the way.


----------



## milkyspit (Jan 5, 2007)

Navck, your CREEmated light is on the way back. 

*[size=+1]Before and After On A Sample Of One![/size]*

Brief case history on the Navck mod... Navck sent me a stock U60XR. I latched the light to maximum output and took current draw plus brightness readings before and after CREEmation. For reference, Navck's light got a Cree P4-WH with handcut Nuwai Q3 reflector and a mild diffusing film overlay.

For brightness, I fashioned myself a test apparatus out of a shampoo bottle cap and 20 layers of textured low-tack tape. The combination allowed me to set the cap over the light meter's sensor then sit the light on top of THAT, for hands-free measurement. The whole idea was to eliminate the human element of holding the light in place, and pointing in the right direction... the cap made measurements IMHO far more repeatable. That said, this is clearly NOT even remotely rigorous in its test methodology, so at best the readings give us a glimpse of how the before case compares with the after case, and not much more.

I call my units of brightness "scu" (Shampoo Cap Units). :laughing:

The same battery was used for before and after readings and was only left on for a matter of seconds each time, so cell condition was likely to be virtually identical in both cases.

BEFORE
* Battery draw 1.58A
* Brightness 11,570scu

AFTER
* Battery draw 1.61A
* Brightness AT LEAST 20,000scu (my light meter tops-out at 20,000, and the modded light reached that level quickly then overloaded the meter! so the actual brightness is somewhere beyond that.)

INTERPRETATION
* Runtime virtually identical to what it had been before
* Brightness seems to have increased by 80-100%

Cheers!


----------



## russtang (Jan 5, 2007)

I hope you can find a way to mod the older style HDS. I have another waiting for the creemation by Milky.


----------



## Chronos (Jan 5, 2007)

russtang said:


> I hope you can find a way to mod the older style HDS. I have another waiting for the creemation by Milky.


I understand he's working diligently on it...


----------



## Navck (Jan 5, 2007)

Milkyspit,
To get me in the ball park of my light's lumen output after the mod, I did a minor calculation based on your Before and After SCU figures. First I divided the Before shampoo cap units of 20,000 by the After shampoo cap units of 11,570. The result is 1.73. This tells me how much the output increased after the mod. Since I know that my light on level 1 has been calibrated to have a 60lm output, I multiplied 60 by my 1.73 figure, giving me 103.72lm. For simplicity sake, let's round it off to 104lm.

Reading luxlover's posts #63 and 67, I came to realize that I could calculate the lumen levels at each of the 20 levels in my U60XR light after the mod. Knowing that my light is different now, I immediately became motivated and decided to revise luxlover's tables to reflect the new condition of my light. Below you will see how I implimented luxlover's explanation taken from paragraph 2 in post #63...... "For those who are not aware of it, when Henry designed his lights he used two numerical values to program his lights to go from one level to another. He has referred to the level difference as "visually even" in his User's Guides. Going from the lower to the higher output levels, he multiplied the square root of 2 (or 1.414) times the previous level to get the next higher one. Therefore, going from level 20 to level 1 would consist of 19 or 20 such calculations, depending on the model. Going from the higher to the lower output levels, he divided the square root of 2 by 2 (= 0.707) and multiplied this number times the previous level to get the next lower one." Keep in mind that the table applies to my light, which now has a level 1 equivalent to roughly 104lm...
 





 
I believe, but am NOT sure, that if one were to do a hard reset after having a light modded similarly to mine, the default brightness levels will remain at levels 1, 6, 10, and 16. However, the lumen equivalents at those levels will be 104 instead of 60, 18 instead of 10, 4.6 instead of 2.6, and 0.57 instead of 0.33.


----------



## Blindasabat (Jan 5, 2007)

milkyspit said:


> For brightness, I fashioned myself a test apparatus out of a shampoo bottle cap and 20 layers of textured low-tack tape. The combination allowed me to set the cap over the light meter's sensor then sit the light on top of THAT, for hands-free measurement....
> I call my units of brightness "scu" (Shampoo Cap Units). :laughing:
> .....
> 
> * Brightness AT LEAST 20,000scu (my light meter tops-out at 20,000, and the modded light reached that level quickly then overloaded the meter! so the actual brightness is somewhere beyond that.)


Sounds like you need to add more layers of tape to your SCU tester!


----------



## majr (Jan 6, 2007)

Does your mod maintain the waterproofness of the light? IIRC the original reflector has a rounded lip on the outside that presses the oring between the wall of the body and the glass window, do you mod the Q3 reflector to act the same way?


----------



## milkyspit (Jan 6, 2007)

majr said:


> Does your mod maintain the waterproofness of the light? IIRC the original reflector has a rounded lip on the outside that presses the oring between the wall of the body and the glass window, do you mod the Q3 reflector to act the same way?




Yup, I do. Also replace the stock O-ring with a glow ring... not because it glows (although that's cool) but because it's silicone-based and more pliable, plus thicker than stock... IMHO it forms a better seal than the stock ring did, especially in combination with the Q3 reflector.


----------



## Icebreak (Jan 10, 2007)

The modded HDS U60 GT was delivered Monday.

As luekos predicted, the two lowest brightness settings were lost. This is not a problem at all for me. I knew going into this that the UI would be challenged. It's a complicated device tuned to a certain GT LED. It's splitting up the output the best it knows how. Here's why it's not a problem: To my eyes and memory the lowest functional setting is similar if not the same as the original lowest setting. I now have 18 settings and that's just fine. Remember this light originally would run on high for a maximum of 11 minutes. It's possible that losing the two lowest levels may be specific to this light.

All the other functions still work great including the locator. The SOS paces the same way. The strobe pulses at the same frequency. Viewing strobe image return from against a ceiling in a dark room is disturbing.

The brightness increase attained by Milky Spit's mod is so great I'm afraid to say right now. I may have to take a few days to take it all in. Like the last beamshots in this thread, the beam is bigger and brighter. The side spill is amazingly bright. I have a luxeon lottery winner Orb Raw that I use as a bench mark. The total output on this Orb is fantastic. Well, the beam (hot spot) of the creemated HDS U60 GT is a little brighter than the Orb's hot spot which was a surprise. The creemated HDS's hotspot is much larger than the Orb's hotspot. The spill is many times brighter.

The Cree P4's warm white color is very nice. The die, not the package, is perfectly centered in relationship to the orange peel reflector so the beam is perfectly centered within the spill. This is important but no surprise considering who performed the modification. There is no hole. There are no rings or illusions. Just a very strong beam with excellent transition into a very strong spill.

I've had a little real world experience with this torch. In a dark parking lot at 60 feet the spill lights up cars enough to easily identify make and model. The beam shows some authority. "Authority" or having some ownership of the dark outside world by using a solid state torch this small is an experience that may cause one to chuckle and grin. That this torch is intelligent is icing.

Thanks, Scott! Terrific job.

- Jeff


----------



## Led_Blind (Jan 10, 2007)

I already have a cree in my hds but the beam has a hole. Where can i source the reflector for this mod?


Also, the HDS light is power regulated so there will be minimal change in runtime. As already stated the brightness should be fairly logarithmic.


----------



## milkyspit (Jan 12, 2007)

Hey guys, just a quick note that I'm at SHOT show at the moment. Anyone here try locating me at the Tekna booth (#7375)... they've got a couple Milky mods there as well. I'll try to hop on CPF later this evening if possible, to update some threads. Cheers!


----------



## Blindasabat (Jan 12, 2007)

Led_Blind said:


> I already have a cree in my hds but the beam has a hole. Where can I source the reflector for this mod?



Generally, you have to buy a Q3 to get one. That is what Milky does if you can't supply him with one. 
Then you can buy an MCR20 reflector to put in the Q3 so you can use the Q3 or sell it.


----------



## Reima (Jan 12, 2007)

Are Q3's still available?
Where can you get them?
RC


----------



## Blindasabat (Jan 12, 2007)

Some options:

Lighthound.com has them For ~$32.50?

Eliteled.com has Q1's (Q3 with a Lux1) on sale for $26
and Q3's for $32

Amondotech is $29 for a Q3, but shipping is around $5-6


----------



## mcmc (Jan 12, 2007)

Hey blind, thanks for the pointers! I wonder if the drive levels of the Q1 and Q3's are the same - i.e., if I was going to mod in U-bin into the Q1, would it be the same as if modded into the Q3? That would make the Cree HDS mod much more affordable I think.


----------



## wasBlinded (Jan 12, 2007)

The Q1 seems to drive between 1 and 1.5 watts, and the Q3 around 2.5 watts. A U bin will improve the light output of either one, but the Q3 will be brighter.


----------



## Carpe Diem (Jan 13, 2007)

Hi Scott...

I tried to send a PM to you, but your box is full.

If you see this post, please send a PM to me with your price, PP address and your shipping address. I`d like to have you mod one of my HDS U60GT`s (which has the newer reflector) with a Cree P4.

Thanks!


----------



## SpeedPRO (Jan 13, 2007)

Scott,

Your PM box is full, I'm gonna go ahead with your offer!


----------



## Walt175 (Jan 14, 2007)

Scott's at the SHOT show. Give him a few days.


----------



## xiorcal (Jan 23, 2007)

milkyspit said:


> Alex, PM sent! Didn't want to post price and order info here... it's the wrong forum for that plus I didn't want to hijack the thread. Anyway, please check your PM, and hope the info helps!



 Is there a thread where you could post that?
-K


----------



## cratz2 (Feb 23, 2007)

wasBlinded said:


> The Q1 seems to drive between 1 and 1.5 watts, and the Q3 around 2.5 watts. A U bin will improve the light output of either one, but the Q3 will be brighter.



Just to throw out there, I believe that if a LiIon is used in a Q1 or Q3, it essentially goes into direct drive. I've modded several Q1s and Q3s with white and colored Lux IIIs and the results are similar with LiIon cells.

For example, I put a TW0J in a Q3 and a TW0K in a Q1 and on primary cells, the Q3 was a LOT brighter. But on LiIon cells, they are about the same... the TW0J/Q3 might have been 10% brighter at the very most but part of that is probably due to the different Vf. 

I was amazed at how bright the TW0J/Q3/LiIon was... I can only imagine what it would be like with a Cree or SSC. These mods are awesome!


----------



## cratz2 (Feb 23, 2007)

By the way, has anyone tried an SSC with the stock HDS reflector?

I really want my HDS Basic42GT Creed or SSCed, but I prefer the slightly more throwy nature of the HDS reflector to the more floody Q3 reflector. I'd want the mod either way, but I'd prefer the more throw.

Also, with a 42GT, non-XR, do we get to keep all 4 settings? I was kinda confused at post by Icebreak. I definately wouldn't want to lose those lowest settings as I use them all the time. I realize without reporgramming, they will be brighter than stock which is fine, but I still want an as low as possible setting.


----------



## wasBlinded (Feb 23, 2007)

I'm using an SSC P4 with the stock reflector in an HDS B42. Without modifying the reflector, throw (max lux reading) stayed the same, though the hotspot was larger and spill was brighter for overall more light output.


This was in comparison to the LED that previously lived there, a "joker" SWOH, so the hotspot was already a bit larger due to imperfect focusing issues.

If you don't modify the reflector, there is a good chance that your throw will suffer by simply swapping in a P4. Personally, I think it makes a better task light slightly defocused, but YMMV.

The control of current and light is unaffected by the modification.


----------



## Mel_PL (Feb 23, 2007)

cratz2 said:


> By the way, has anyone tried an SSC with the stock HDS reflector?



I have HDSU60 with SSC. Simple led swap was enough, no need to modify the reflector. As the heatsink is anodized there was no problem with (+) on the led's base. 
Result: 1600 lx before, 2800 lx after. HUGE difference.

-- M.


----------



## tebore (Feb 23, 2007)

https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/152596&page=2&pp=30

There's some info there about beam shape and quality after the mod. I didn't experience any the wire shadow as mentioned in the thread.


----------



## Icebreak (Feb 23, 2007)

cratz2 said:


> Also, with a 42GT, non-XR, do we get to keep all 4 settings? I was kinda confused at post by Icebreak. I definately wouldn't want to lose those lowest settings as I use them all the time. I realize without reporgramming, they will be brighter than stock which is fine, but I still want an as low as possible setting.



My apologies for lack of clarity.

Yes, all four settings and all functionality is retained.

On my specific light I lost the two lowest brightness levels. If the light was a pie I have 18 pieces instead of 20 pieces but I still have a whole pie. I just looked at the lowest brightness levels again and they are indeed very low. I'm 99% sure the lowest setting is = or < than stock.


----------



## cratz2 (Feb 23, 2007)

Icebreak said:


> My apologies for lack of clarity.
> 
> Yes, all four settings and all functionality is retained.
> 
> On my specific light I lost the two lowest brightness levels. If the light was a pie I have 18 pieces instead of 20 pieces but I still have a whole pie. I just looked at the lowest brightness levels again and they are indeed very low. I'm 99% sure the lowest setting is = or < than stock.



Ahh... good to know. I understand now.

I was kinda scared there for a minute.


----------



## Russki (Feb 25, 2007)

Hello folks.
I have my both HDS light moded.
I got U60 and B42 XRGT.
Both upgrades have significant improvement in brightness. The B42XRGT* is *worthy to be moded.
And something else, modifying reflector is making good hot spot and nice spill. 
just my 2 cents.


----------



## Pumaman (Feb 25, 2007)

I as well had milky do the seoul mod on my B42XR.
much improved brightness, completly worth it. I love the light.


----------



## Icebreak (Feb 25, 2007)

Heck, I had to order AW's protected Li-Ions because I'm using the modded HDS so much. Never thought I'd do that for a single CR123 light. For that matter I never thought I'd buy an HDS.


----------



## tebore (Feb 25, 2007)

You guys should go with the MP700 unprotected cell as the protected cell might work against the HDS protection circuit and leave you in the dark.


----------



## Icebreak (Feb 25, 2007)

Thanks, tabore.

I didn't know that.


----------



## cratz2 (Feb 25, 2007)

Well, you guys twisted my arm enough... I'm sending my B42GT to him next week.

Now I need to practice the 250 click thing so I can lower my three lowest levels down to about stock as they are the perfect brightness for me. I just would like the longer runtime and the BRIGHT high!

So... have most of you guys reprogrammed your HDSs after the mod or are you happier with all the levels getting brighter?


----------



## Edwood (Feb 25, 2007)

I've had no problems with using protected cells, it would step down far before the protection circuit kicked in.

But, yeah, protected cells are entirely unnecessary for the HDS EDC's.

-Ed


----------



## milkyspit (Feb 26, 2007)

Edwood said:


> I've had no problems with using protected cells, it would step down far before the protection circuit kicked in.
> 
> But, yeah, protected cells are entirely unnecessary for the HDS EDC's.
> 
> -Ed




Well, I do have an MP rechargeable and it's a fine cell. I often test HDS mods using this cell, rather than go through a bunch of primaries for test purposes.

The one thing that would give me slight pause using an MP or any unprotected 123 Li-ion in the HDS is the potential for shorts... intuitively I just like the redundant safety of a protected cell's own current limiting circuit.

How's that for clear as mud!


----------



## tebore (Feb 26, 2007)

milkyspit said:


> Well, I do have an MP rechargeable and it's a fine cell. I often test HDS mods using this cell, rather than go through a bunch of primaries for test purposes.
> 
> The one thing that would give me slight pause using an MP or any unprotected 123 Li-ion in the HDS is the potential for shorts... intuitively I just like the redundant safety of a protected cell's own current limiting circuit.
> 
> How's that for clear as mud!



Shorts? C'mon give the HDS more credit than that.


----------



## mcmc (Feb 27, 2007)

I think one scenario that could happen, is that static electricity causes the light to soft-reset, thinking that a partially depleted unprotected RCR123 is a primary, and then may run it down past safe levels, such that the protected RCR123 would have been a better choice. Not a short scenario (which I also doubt would ever happen) but a potential scenario nonetheless. Sorry to take this slightly OT =) but wanted to just put that out there as a safety thing.


----------



## milkyspit (Feb 27, 2007)

tebore said:


> Shorts? C'mon give the HDS more credit than that.




I don't doubt HDS one bit... it's more along the principle of 'sh*t happens'... and wiith the Li-ion chemistry, it happens real quick! oo:


----------



## cratz2 (Feb 28, 2007)

Yeah, I've read many comments about the 'possibility' of the protected LiIon confusing the HDS board, but I can't recally reading about any based on actual experience. Honestly, I'm not 100% clear on what could happen with a protected sell that would just stop the light from working.


----------



## NoFair (Mar 1, 2007)

milkyspit said:


> I don't doubt HDS one bit... it's more along the principle of 'sh*t happens'... and wiith the Li-ion chemistry, it happens real quick! oo:



I don't know about MP cells, but Sanyo and (and I think) LG have internal safeties that shut the cell down if it shorts and the current gets too high.

Still **** happens


----------



## Led_Blind (Mar 1, 2007)

I have MP cells that are about 4 yrs old still running my HDS. The light runs about 40 mins on high and out of 3 one cell has 1/2 the runtime. 

A note on the low levels. I got back my 2nd HDS recently and was able to directly compare all the levels. They are consistantly 2x the origonal as expected. 

Remeber all that the HDS lights are POWER regulates, not V or I but V x I. You should never see levels dissapear etc and should only see them get closer together or futthur appart depending on LED. 

 thats all

edit: yes my speeling is attrocious... today i dont care... quit smoking 1\2 a pack a day... pissed off.... GRRRRRR....


----------



## vee (Apr 13, 2007)

just got my modded B60 back from milky. I love it alot. so much brighter!




modded B60 on L vs. regular B60 on R




vs.




modded B60 on L vs. regular B60 on R

Thanks again Milky!


----------



## milkyspit (Apr 13, 2007)

You're very welcome, Vee!


----------



## PEU (Apr 13, 2007)

Quick Question Scott, how can I remove the reflector on an old style B42?

Thanks!


Pablo


----------



## tebore (Apr 13, 2007)

PEU said:


> Quick Question Scott, how can I remove the reflector on an old style B42?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> ...



You don't remove it. It's part of the body. I guess if you're highly skilled with a dremel you could. I'm talking about the integrated reflectors here.


----------



## milkyspit (Apr 13, 2007)

PEU said:


> Quick Question Scott, how can I remove the reflector on an old style B42?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> ...




Pablo, Tebore's right... the old-style reflectors are literally part of the body... as in: the same piece of aluminum. You can remove the light module but not the reflector.
:sigh:


----------



## NoFair (Apr 14, 2007)

PEU said:


> Quick Question Scott, how can I remove the reflector on an old style B42?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> ...



Hi Pablo

You don't remove the reflector in the earliest HDS'. To get a nice beam with a Seoul you dremel off a bit from the back of the reflector after removing the light engine. 

This doesn't remove anything of the reflective surface, but brings the emitter slightly higher up so it focuses perfectly.

Having seen some of the lights you make I think this should pose no problem for you

Sverre


----------

