# Lumens Factory IMR-9 Arrived! Beamshots, Current Draw, Median Luminosity, and Runtime



## RobertM (Jan 9, 2009)

It was quite a pleasant surprise to come home from work and see that my new IMR-9 had arrived from LF.

I just fired this bad boy up in my SF 6PL with two AW IMR16340 cells. Wow, it is very bright! 

It has a beautiful, perfectly round, super bright, huge hotspot! This is awesome.

Time to go play some more. Beamshots to come tonight...stay tuned. :devil:

UPDATE: *Current Draw*
I just measured the current draw to be 2.3A on 2xIMR16340 cells on the Fluke 87 DMM.

UPDATE: *Beamshots*

Unfortunately, I couldn't take any outdoor beamshots since it's snowing, but here are some indoor beamshots. All camera setting were manually locked and remained constant for all the photographs.





















UPDATE: *Median Luminosity*
Using Photoshop, I check the histogram for each photograph and thought that you guys might like to see the median luminosity value for each light/beamshot for comparison sake.

Median Luminosity:
12 - SF P60
19 - SF P90
37 - LF IMR-9
41 - SF MN20
77 - SF MN21

UPDATE: *Runtime*

I do not have any special equipment for doing any runtime tests, so I can't post graphs or anything cool like that. I simply turned the light on, and timed it until I saw it dim considerable. This bezel of my SureFire 6PL gets really quite hot after running for 5 min. continuously. After 5 min., I let the light cool for 7.5 minutes, then ran it for an additional 5 minutes. After letting it cool for 2.5 minutes, it ran for 2 more minutes until I saw it dim significantly and I terminated the test after 3 minutes.

In total: 12 minutes of runtime. After 13 minutes, I immediately removed the 2 IMR16340 cells from the light and found that they actually had different voltages: one was 2.56v and the other 2.82v. After letting the cells rest for ~5 minutes, they read 2.84v and 3.03v. Does anyone know why this would be? Anything to be concerned about?

Robert


----------



## Stage Tech (Jan 9, 2009)

*Re: LumensFactory IMR-9 Arrived!*

Do you have EO-9 to campare with , and/or P91 ?
can't wait to get my hands in my IMR...


----------



## RobertM (Jan 9, 2009)

*Re: LumensFactory IMR-9 Arrived!*



Stage Tech said:


> Do you have EO-9 to campare with , and/or P91 ?
> can't wait to get my hands in my IMR...



Unfortunately, I do not have either of those. I plan to compare it to a SF P60, SF P90, SF MN20, and SF MN21.

So far, it looks to be about equal to the SF MN20, but it has a much whiter, rounder beam. The MN20 has a tighter (smaller), but more football shaped hotspot.

Robert


----------



## Stage Tech (Jan 9, 2009)

*Re: Lumens Factory IMR-9 Arrived!*

Nice , so it appears to outcome the P91 as the MN20 has 250 SF lumens...that would be great...


----------



## RobertM (Jan 9, 2009)

*Re: Lumens Factory IMR-9 Arrived!*

Just added current draw to the original post... 2.3A!


----------



## Paul5M (Jan 9, 2009)

*Re: Lumens Factory IMR-9 Arrived!*



RobertM said:


> Just added current draw to the original post... 2.3A!


That's very low!
What's your reading with the SF P90?


----------



## RobertM (Jan 9, 2009)

*Re: Lumens Factory IMR-9 Arrived! Beamshots Included*

Beamshots added to original post 
I can't stop grinning when I play with this lamp 

Paul5M,
I just tested my P90 on the Fluke... 1.15A

Robert


----------



## WadeF (Jan 9, 2009)

*Re: Lumens Factory IMR-9 Arrived! Beamshots Included*

I got my IMR-9 today, as well as the version for the E2e. Certainly noticeably brighter than the SF P60 that was in my SF 6P before. I guess I was expecting a bit more, but it's 500 bulb lumens, not 500 out the front SF lumens.  

Can anyone guess the out the front lumens? 300-350 maybe?


----------



## RobertM (Jan 9, 2009)

*Re: Lumens Factory IMR-9 Arrived! Beamshots Included*



WadeF said:


> I got my IMR-9 today, as well as the version for the E2e. Certainly noticeably brighter than the SF P60 that was in my SF 6P before. I guess I was expecting a bit more, but it's 500 bulb lumens, not 500 out the front SF lumens.
> 
> Can anyone guess the out the front lumens? 300-350 maybe?



I don't know what it's "out the front" lumens would be, but I'd say that it's ~250 "SureFire lumens." :thumbsup:

If only I had a light meter  :laughing:


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 10, 2009)

*Re: Lumens Factory IMR-9 Arrived! Beamshots Included*

Hi RobertM,

Glad you liked the bulb. :laughing:

Tell you what, 2.3A is not the design current.
Go use 2 x IMR-18650 and try again.

Hopefully, AW will make some 17500 or 18500 so you can use a 9P or something and get the best out of the lamp.

Cheers,

Mark


----------



## RobertM (Jan 10, 2009)

*Re: Lumens Factory IMR-9 Arrived! Beamshots Included*



[email protected] said:


> Hi RobertM,
> 
> Glad you liked the bulb. :laughing:
> 
> ...



Hi Mark,

Unfortunately, I do not have any IMR18650's yet nor do I have a 2x18650 host. Would you be able to tell me how far off my 2xIMR16340 setup is from what it's designed to run at?

Thanks,
Robert


----------



## :)> (Jan 10, 2009)

*Re: Lumens Factory IMR-9 Arrived! Beamshots Included*

The beamshot from the MN21 produced a spot in my vision and caused me to look away from the computer screen:naughty:


----------



## cl0123 (Jan 11, 2009)

*Re: Lumens Factory IMR-9 Arrived! Beamshots Included*



RobertM said:


> ...nor do I have a 2x18650 host.



Hopefully, Lighthound still carries the Leef C-C or Fivemega 2x18650 tubes and has them in stock. 

Last year, I was hoping to get myself started on experimenting the IMR setups. Your last three beamshot pics are really very seriously tempting. 

Fivemega sells his 2x18650 tube with a 1794 lamp, which proves to be very impressive in its own light/right. The light itself is slim and handy. The beams it shoots out is floody and superb for general household use. My only complaint is that since the bezel is small and the actual lamp is very close to the pyrex glass, the front of the lamp gets hot very quickly. While it is cool and YouTube-worthy and all to have a flashlight that can ignite newspaper with its beam, I think of it more as a safety hazard during use. 

Thanks again for posting the beam shots. Do you get the bulbs directly from LF or where would be a nice place to purchase them?

With Aloha, 

Clarence


----------



## OrlandoLights (Jan 11, 2009)

*Re: Lumens Factory IMR-9 Arrived! Beamshots Included*



[email protected] said:


> Hi RobertM,
> 
> Glad you liked the bulb. :laughing:
> 
> ...



I got the IMR-9 today, and went out tonight with my L2D to compare. My first bright Incan and wow. I have the same set-up RobertM has, and his beam shots look like what I am seeing with this light. The LED is like having the moon, and the IMR-9 is like the sun about an hour or two before sunset. Very impressive.

But what's this mean: ' Tell you what, 2.3A is not the design current.'? The LF site says the IMR-9 is for 2 x IMR16340 or 2 x IMR18650. Are the IMR16340s really not a powerful enough battery for the IMR-9? What will the effects be of not running the IMR-9 at the designed current?


----------



## Jesseri (Jan 11, 2009)

*Re: Lumens Factory IMR-9 Arrived! Beamshots Included*

I got two IMR-9s few days ago. These are my first incan modules and i like em. 

I tested both of them with PSU and got these numbers out of it. 

7.4V ~2.30A
8.0V ~2.40A
8.4V ~2.46A


----------



## RobertM (Jan 11, 2009)

*Re: Lumens Factory IMR-9 Arrived! Beamshots Included*



cl0123 said:


> Hopefully, Lighthound still carries the Leef C-C or Fivemega 2x18650 tubes and has them in stock.
> 
> Last year, I was hoping to get myself started on experimenting the IMR setups. Your last three beamshot pics are really very seriously tempting.
> 
> ...


Clarence,
I purchase my LF lamps directly from Lumensfactory.com, and occasionally from lighthound.com if I have other things to buy as well (i.e. IMR cells, etc.).

Jesseri, I find it interesting that you too measured 2.3A. Thanks for posting your findings. So it would seem that my IMR16340 cells are actually not sagging beyond 3.7v each?

Robert


----------



## Jesseri (Jan 11, 2009)

*Re: Lumens Factory IMR-9 Arrived! Beamshots Included*

Yep, it seems so. 

Those numbers are taken from PSU's integrated volt-/ammeter and i somewhat trust it. I even took my cheap DMM out from the storage (trash bin ) and measured current from two freshly out from the charger IMR16340 cells and IMR-9. 

There it was, 2.33A. As i don't take the numbers from my DMM with a grain of salt, I hooked the other IMR-9 to PSU and upped the voltage to 7.4V (2.31A from its integrated ammeter) and then compared both beams. They appeared quite identical. 




RobertM said:


> Jesseri, I find it interesting that you too measured 2.3A. Thanks for posting your findings. So it would seem that my IMR16340 cells are actually not sagging beyond 3.7v each?
> 
> Robert


----------



## Paul5M (Jan 11, 2009)

*Re: Lumens Factory IMR-9 Arrived! Beamshots Included*



Jesseri said:


> I got two IMR-9s few days ago. These are my first incan modules and i like em.
> 
> I tested both of them with PSU and got these numbers out of it.
> 
> ...


AWESOME :thumbsup:
.
Now we know why [email protected] refuses to publish the current specs of his so-called "*IMR*" lamps


----------



## RobertM (Jan 11, 2009)

*Re: Lumens Factory IMR-9 Arrived! Beamshots Included*

Non-scientific runtime test added to first post. 

EDIT: Median luminosity added too.

Robert


----------



## Paul5M (Jan 11, 2009)

*Re: Lumens Factory IMR-9 Arrived! Beamshots Included*



RobertM said:


> Non-scientific runtime test added to first post.
> 
> Robert


SUPER :thumbsup:


----------



## mdocod (Jan 11, 2009)

*Re: Lumens Factory IMR-9 Arrived! Beamshots Included*

This ~2.3A reading is popping up for both the IMR-9 and IMR-M3 (both 500 lumen rated)...

This seems very strange to me, as the EO-M3T draws more than that, and is only rated 450 lumen, and the P91 and MN11 and MN16 all draw more current than that. 

At only 2.3A power consumption, anything 18500 or larger should be fine on the 500L IMR lamps. 

------

I would have to see this sucker vs an EO-9 and P91 to see if it's worth messing with 

Eric

--------

Just noticed that Mark said this is not the design current, but we have multiple reports of ~2.3A measured, I'm wondering if the first batch of IMR 500L bulbs is botched.


----------



## lctorana (Jan 11, 2009)

IN playing with my own setups with a Surefire E2d, I noticed something odd.

Firstly, with the EO-E2R, I noticed that when I changed from freshly charged black AW 16340s to freshly charged IMR16340s, I noticed a slight DROP in lux from my normal ceiling-bounce test. This ran counter to my expectations, as one of the minor advantages I hoped for was less internal resistance.

Rather academic, as I then swapped to the IMR-E2, and doubled the lux. That's what the IMR16340s were born for, I have no doubt.

But then came the second odd thing. With 2 more freshly-charged IMR16340s, I loaded up a new Surefire 6P with the IMR-9, and got *only slightly more lux than the IMR-E2 in the E2d with the same batteries*. It ought to have been a lot more.


So, maybe:
mdocod is right - the filament in the IMR-9 is not what we think it is
I have serious internal resistance problems in my torches
the IMR16340s have unexpectedly high voltage sag, but only under very high load.
The 2.3 amp theory points to #1. I'll keep testing, and compare the IMR9 against the EO9, HO9 and DX 10W & 15W lamp assemblies with these cells and, within their ratings, the black AW 16340s.

After some serious DeOxit, of course...


Edit: Just to correct the record - the IMR 16340s *DO *exhibit lower internal resitance.


----------



## mdocod (Jan 11, 2009)

lctorana said:


> IN playing with my own setups with a Surefire E2d, I noticed something odd.
> 
> Firstly, with the EO-E2R, I noticed that when I changed from freshly charged black AW 16340s to freshly charged IMR16340s, I noticed a slight DROP in lux from my normal ceiling-bounce test. This ran counter to my expectations, as one of the minor advantages I hoped for was less internal resistance.



At the more conservative load of the EO-E2R, I would not be surprised to see the LiCo cells be slightly brighter fresh from the charger as compared to the LiMn cells, as LiMn cells almost always settle to about 4.1V, whereas LiCo cells in good condition will hold their charge voltage ~4.15V or higher depending on the charger used... If you were to give each a few minutes of running I think you would find that the black LiCo cells would drop below the output of the IMR cells. Through most of the discharge the LiMn cells should perform slightly better by my best guess. Surprisingly, the IMR16340 cells really don't' take much capacity hit compared to the LiCo RCR123 cells, no space wasted from a PCB means they are very similar in total capacity....




> Rather academic, as I then swapped to the IMR-E2, and doubled the lux. That's what the IMR16340s were born for, I have no doubt.
> 
> But then came the second odd thing. With 2 more freshly-charged IMR16340s, I loaded up a new Surefire 6P with the IMR-9, and got *only slightly more lux than the IMR-E2 in the E2d with the same batteries*. It ought to have been a lot more.



How much current does your IMR-E2 draw? I'm guessing it's around 2 amps?



> So, maybe:
> 
> mdocod is right - the filament in the IMR-9 is not what we think it is
> I have serious internal resistance problems in my torches
> ...



definitely keep on testing! I'm anxious to hear more!

Eric


----------



## Paul5M (Jan 11, 2009)

lctorana said:


> But then came the second odd thing. With 2 more freshly-charged IMR16340s, I loaded up a new Surefire 6P with the IMR-9, and got *only slightly more lux than the IMR-E2 in the E2d with the same batteries*. It ought to have been a lot more.


 Remember, there's only about 1 watt different between the two.


----------



## OrlandoLights (Jan 12, 2009)

Over at the thread on IMR set-ups [email protected] is 'pi**ed' for some reason at what people are saying about the 2.3A draw. I know so little about this stuff that I don't even know if 2.3A is a good thing or not, so if my question at #14 here was badly worded (I assume it was, since there has been no answer), it's because I don't understand the technicalities of bulbs and electricity. Since that stuff is over my head, I will just enjoy the lights. I use the IMR-9 whenever I can now and love the beam it produces.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 12, 2009)

OrlandoLights,

I wasn't angry because the "2.3A" draw, actually it wasn't that far off.
I was angry because even when I have already said it a hundred times before people are still asking and speculating what clicky could be used and and what battery OTHER then IMRs could be used.
Also, bashing me when I decide not to disclose the current draw BECAUSE I don't want anymore of the above questions.

So, now you know.

I am happy that you liked the IMR-9.
Thanks for the nice comment. 

Cheers,

Mark


----------



## OrlandoLights (Jan 12, 2009)

So that's what it's about. Thanks for clearing that up. I have a different problem, figuring out what is _supposed_ to be used together. I'm sort of surprised that my new 6P, IMR 16340s, and IMR-9 actually work OK together to produce this great light.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 12, 2009)

Your setup is perfectly fine and is a good setup. 

I was just trying to tell people that they could get better results with 2 x IMR18650 setup, that's all.

Many of you are forgeting one thing, Voltage.
Even if the current draw on 16340 and 18650 are the same, the initial voltage, the voltage sag rate, the voltage maintainence of the 2 batteries are different.
So you can get the lamp to a higher Wattage using 18650s and therefore more power, more output and for a longer time. <--better performance.

This also indicates many of you have been using LEDs for too long where input Voltage is constant and regulated, LOL.

Cheers,

Mark


----------



## Jesseri (Jan 12, 2009)

Hi Mark

I'm also happy with mine, although i already instaflashed one IMR-9 bulb . Someone forgot to check the voltage from PSU before connecting the bulb and unfortunately current limit was set at 5A . It was quite bright for about 1ms tho .


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 12, 2009)

Jesseri,

That sucks, give me an email an I will make it right for you.
Better check if your battery is alrite after the overcharge, too.

Cheers,

Mark

PS. AW told me the PILA IBC charger would be a very good choice for the IMR batteries, might wanna look into getting one.


----------



## RobertM (Jan 12, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> ...
> Many of you are forgeting one thing, Voltage.
> Even if the current draw on 16340 and 18650 are the same, the initial voltage, the voltage sag rate, the voltage maintainence of the 2 batteries are different.
> So you can get the lamp to a higher Wattage using 18650s and therefore more power, more output and for a longer time. <--better performance.
> ...



Hi Mark,

I'm a bit confused by your post. Maybe you can help me understand (I'm still pretty new to all of this).

If our cells are 3.7v each under load (7.4v in series), and I'm measuring 2.3A, how would I achieve higher wattage? I understand that IMR18650 cells would sag less under load than the IMR16340 cells.

Since Jesseri also measured 2.3A when using his PSU set to 7.4v, it would lead me to believe that my IMR16340's are not sagging below 7.4v. Isn't it impossible for the voltage to be higher, but the current draw stay the same (2.3A)? Are you just trying to say that the IMR18650 cells under load would still be higher than 7.4v, thus the current draw and resulting wattage would be higher?

Thanks,
Robert


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 12, 2009)

Robert,

So yes, basically I am just saying "the IMR cells under load would still be higher than 7.4v, thus the current draw and resulting wattage would be higher" and the larger the cell (18650) the longer it could maintain this higher voltage under load.

That is why people are experiencing higher output with their old EO-9 using IMR cells and such.


Cheers,

Mark


----------



## mdocod (Jan 12, 2009)

RobertM said:


> Hi Mark,
> 
> I'm a bit confused by your post. Maybe you can help me understand (I'm still pretty new to all of this).
> 
> ...



Try to think of batteries as water tanks up on pillars. Larger tanks come with larger pipes. Both tanks are raised to the same elevation (voltage), but since the bigger tank (18650) has larger pipes leading down to the ground, you can get more flow from it with less pressure (voltage) loss.


----------



## Croyde (Jan 12, 2009)

A very good analogy. I am just pleased that my eyes were not deceiving me and that there was indeed more light being generated from the 2 x IMR18650 setup than the 2 x IMR16340.


----------



## Jesseri (Jan 12, 2009)

Mark, Thanks but no thanks. It was my own stupid fault and no one but me should be paying for it. There was no batteries involved because i was playing with power supply trying to find the best voltage for the bulb and the voltage was accidentally left too high. (i'm trying to make a regulator for the bulb, because i'm a led guy and used to regulated lights  ) 



[email protected] said:


> Jesseri,
> 
> That sucks, give me an email an I will make it right for you.
> Better check if your battery is alrite after the overcharge, too.
> ...


----------



## RobertM (Jan 13, 2009)

Hi Mark,

Thanks for clarifying, I do appreciate it. 

Last night when I went to put my freshly charged IMR cells back in my 6PL, I looked at the IMR-9 lamp and noticed something strange. The center spring that makes contact with the batteries almost looks burnt and the metal looks discolored. Is this normal? I didn't get a good look at it when it was new before I put it in my 6PL. I can post pictures later tonight once I get home from work.

In addition, after noticing the discolored spring, I noticed that the lamp has a horrible smell now and unfortunatley, so does my 6PL :mecry:

Does anyone know what caused this and what I should use to clean my beloved 6PL?

Thanks,
Robert


----------



## lctorana (Jan 13, 2009)

Perhaps the centre spring slipped sideways and contacted the outer spring, causing a short. That would have turned the spring into a tiny electric heater, like an electric jug element.

Just a theory.


----------



## RobertM (Jan 13, 2009)

Here are some pictures of what I'm talking about...









After letting my 6PL air-out today, a good bit of the awful smell has gone away. I'm not sure what to think of the lamp though. I've never ran the lamp for more than 5 minutes continuously.

Will isopropyl alcohol hurt the 6PL at all if I were to try and clean with it?

Thanks everyone,

Robert


----------



## Stage Tech (Jan 13, 2009)

As Ictorana said , the center spring is not centralized , and very close to the outer spring , they could have make "imediate encounters of the third kind" .
I'll notice that when my IMR-9 arrives , I've never got LF lamp with uncentered springs.


----------



## RobertM (Jan 13, 2009)

Stage Tech said:


> As Ictorana said , the center spring is not centralized , and very close to the outer spring , they could have make "imediate encounters of the third kind" .
> I'll notice that when my IMR-9 arrives , I've never got LF lamp with uncentered springs.



Actually, the spring is much more centered looking in real life than in the pictures. I think the angle of the pictures is throwing it off.

Looking at the pictures again myself, it does look REALLY off center in the pictures, but this is not the case when looking at the actual lamp here on my desk.


----------



## WadeF (Jan 13, 2009)

My spring looks the same. I think it looked like that when I first opened it. I was wondering if it would effect performance.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 14, 2009)

The spring looks the the same on all the of them as WadeF has said, it is normal that way and not discoloured.

By the look of it I think it was running pretty hot inside and the surface of the glue got hot and caused the smell. It should not affect anything and will work fine. Just keep the temperature in check next time you run it which is the main concern for the IMR setups.

If you have further questions feel free to PM me or send me an email. 

Cheers.

Mark


----------



## foxtrot29 (Jan 21, 2009)

Just an FYI regarding the spring discoloration. I only ran my IMR-9 in my SF C2 for 45 seconds, then took it apart -- same discoloration on the end of the spring. Definitely not due to overheating. The odd smell was also apparent, but not very strong. This smell was also apparent when running the E-series IMR bulb in my E2D. Again, not so overpowering that it was a concern.

I'm going to guess this is just due to extremely high current draw. Doesn't seem to be affecting the batteries or performance of the bulb (yet).

Either way I am pleased with the overall performance of both so far! I'll be keeping an eye on the discoloration to see if it gets worse.

:thumbsup:


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 22, 2009)

Hi foxtrot,

The spring is a Stainless Steel spring, we have to grind it flat at the end so it looks to be discoloured a bit because it was not nickel plated after the process. It was not caused by usage and it will not affect anything, so you do not have to worry. 

As for the odd smell, well that is caused by the heat as I have mentioned before and it is coming from surface of the glue that holds the center of the spring. Again, it will not affect performance and it will go away after a few runs. Consider it a "new car smell" kind of thing. :laughing:

If you have any questions, you are welcome to email or PM me directly. I will be more then happy to help with anything that you might need. 

Thank you for your nice comments and I am happy that you are pleased with the performance.


Cheers,

Mark


----------



## foxtrot29 (Jan 22, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> Hi foxtrot,
> 
> The spring is a Stainless Steel spring, we have to grind it flat at the end so it looks to be discoloured a bit because it was not nickel plated after the process. It was not caused by usage and it will not affect anything, so you do not have to worry.
> 
> ...



Yeah, I kind of figured the smell would go away after a few uses. I was never really concerned. It's a fine product and the brightest incan bulb I've ever put into my SF.


----------



## Wilkerson Brasil (Jan 23, 2009)

I suppose IMR-9 has ~2,6A of current draw. Considering WE 9 Raider using LF-9L (2x18500, Current draw 2,4A) is a safe configuration, maybe WE 9 Raider clicky swicht and 2x18500 Li-ion can handle 2,6A current draw.

What do you think? Will it work or will I  my WE?

Ahh, [email protected], don´t get mad about me.


----------



## lctorana (Feb 1, 2009)

lctorana said:


> IN playing with my own setups with a Surefire E2d, I noticed something odd.





lctorana said:


> Firstly, with the EO-E2R, I noticed that when I changed from freshly charged black AW 16340s to freshly charged IMR16340s, I noticed a slight DROP in lux from my normal ceiling-bounce test. This ran counter to my expectations, as one of the minor advantages I hoped for was less internal resistance.
> 
> Rather academic, as I then swapped to the IMR-E2, and doubled the lux. That's what the IMR16340s were born for, I have no doubt.
> 
> ...


Here are my promised test results, for 2 cells of various types:







Note 1: The AW 16340 cells are the standard black-with-silver-label protected cells that AW sells. No attempt to power the IMR-9 with these was made, as this is beyond their stated capacity.

Note 2: The 18350 cells are the Ultrafire XSL-18350 cells, obtained from QCG. Note - these are unprotected cells, I DO NOT recommend their use in multi-cell, high-current designs.

Note 3: The IMR 16340 are the orange cells obtained from AW.

Note 4: The "Benno" is the Ultrafire and/or Superfire WF-501B. It has two variants - one with a large or small stud contact at the positive end of the battery tube. The one with the small stud, in standard trim, can only be used with the "Chinese" bulbs, as the Lumens Factory bulbs, with their large centre spring, will not make contact. The large-stud version accommodates all D26 drop-ins. Importantly, the Benno will not take the IMR-9, as it has a clicky switch, so the IMR-9 test was left for the 6P alone.

The very important point to note is that lux readings were consistent between torches for a given battery/LA combination. For example, the pink readings were the same from all three torches used.

This is a highly significant and desirable result, because it allows us to eliminate the torch as a variable and just concentrate on batteries and bulbs.

Note 5: The "Smidd" is the Ultrafire WF-501C. Example loaded with 2 x 18500 protected cells. The IMR-9 test was done just once for this test, and never again.

Note 6: I do not have a "7.4V 10W" LA, nor a "G&P G74", nor the other cheap Chinese 9V assembly. But I have reasons to suspect that all 3 of these will be, if not exactly the same as the "9V" results above, then somewhere between that and the HO-9 in output.

Note 7: Note that the IMR cell consistently exhibits lower internal resistance than the black AW cell, and the gap widens with increasing load. It would be interesting indeed to compare results with AW 17500 cells, but I do not posess any. They (IMR 16340 and AW 17500) must have similar internal resistance.

Note 8: The performance of the 18350 cells is rather good, isn't it? But please remember, they are NOT protected, and NOT safe chemistry. I do not posess them for high-current use.

Note 9: The figures in the table are lux readings obtained from a ceiling-bounce test, and are not intended to be intepreted as absolute values in any way. They are merely for relative comparison of lux readings.


----------



## lctorana (Feb 1, 2009)

1-cell results.
Less informative, due to proportionately greater internal resistance, but interesting nevertheless.


----------



## Outdoors Fanatic (Jul 23, 2009)

Great thread! Bump this...


----------



## Bushman5 (Jul 23, 2009)

RobertM said:


> It was quite a pleasant surprise to come home from work and see that my new IMR-9 had arrived from LF.
> 
> I just fired this bad boy up in my SF 6PL with two AW IMR16340 cells. Wow, it is very bright!
> 
> ...



what would the runtime be if one was to use the light in bursts of say 10 seconds at a time? (ie like when out walking the mutt)


----------



## Outdoors Fanatic (Jul 23, 2009)

Bushman5 said:


> what would the runtime be if one was to use the light in bursts of say 10 seconds at a time? (ie like when out walking the mutt)


Something in the class of the P90 on 2x18650 would last forever. You don't even need to use it in bursts...


----------

