# Review/Overview: LumensFactory Seraph P7 M Series Turbo Head



## mdocod (Sep 10, 2009)

I was lucky enough to be chosen to do an evaluation of this new unit. I have had it in my possession for at least a month now and have really had a hard time keeping quiet about it. I've used it almost every day on various configurations and am convinced that the quad die emitter category is really what is needed to compete with incans. It's still *not* an incan but it has the raw horsepower to makeup for a lot. Lets check it out....

*From the LumensFactory Website:*

_*-6V-13V Regulated Input, Constant Output
-High Output SSC P7 LED, D Bin (Max Output 950 Lumens)
-6V to 13V Regulated Input for Maximum Flexibility
-High Output Single Mode
-Maximum Current Output at 2800mA
-HA 3 Anodizing on the Head Unit.
-Constant Output
-Unique Reflector Design
-Precision Machined Aluminum Reflector
-High Temperature Resistant Light Orange Peel Coating
-Every Reflector Module is Pre-Focused for the Ultimate Spot
-Compatible with all Flashlights with M Series Sized Head Units.


Compatible with:

Surefire®
M3, M3T, M4, M6

Lumens Factory®
Seraph SP-6, SP-9 with M Adaptor Installed


***Warning: This Head Unit will NOT fit Surefire M2 or P/G/Z Series lights even with a M Adaptor .***

Price: $98
*_


*Here's a picture of the unit installed on a LumensFactory SP-9 body with the C-M adapter:*





*Here's the unit on a SureFire M6:*





*I think the unit looks really neat. It comes across to me as having a fairly unique look. The overall quality of the unit is pretty decent. The finer details of the machine work at the business end make it look at home on high end lights. It feels solid and has substantial mass to it. This is LumensFactory's first foray into HA3 "fine" quality components and I'd say they pulled this off nicely and are hitting a price point that makes this a no-brainer accessory for anyone with an M series SF.

Here's the unit pictured next to the Millennium Turbo Head from SureFire (Fount on the M3T, M4, M6 and included in the KT4)* 





*Anyone who knows anodizing understands that achieving color matching on non-colored "natural" is difficult and is effected by everything from the base material choice to many variables in the anodizing proccess. I would have liked to see a closer match to the SF parts, however, it's pretty hard to complain about color matching of a 3rd party add-on when even SF often has variances from part to part that are quite noticeable. I suppose, if you are using your light during the daytime... maybe this would be an issue though eh?....*






*Yea, even in the middle of the afternoon, with an over-cast sky, you can clearly see the light landing on objects around you with this thing *

-----

*The unit uses a D bin emitter, which, according to the binning and labeling information provided by Seoul, is supposed to fall in at 800-900 emitter lumens at 2.8A. This unit runs the emitter at almost exactly 2.8A, and unfortunately, will probably never actually achieve the 950 claimed emitter lumens. I would have preferred to see the head advertised as an 850 emitter lumen unit. The exaggerated claim, is not something I'm too thrilled about. I guess the claim could have been worse...*

[edit in]: I was doing a little research, and have decided that the 950 emitter lumens may theoretically be possible on some units that are on the higher end of the bin when fired up at low ambient temps before the LED heats up. While I maintain that the claim is still overly optimistic, I think it's interesting to note that this might be possible. 

-----






*Ok... we can't complain about the heat-sinking. Plenty of aluminum and the LED is mounted on a hefty pill that is threaded into the center. As you have seen, there are nice big beefy deep fins on the outside of the unit. 

I have run the light continuously for over 20 minutes on an SP-9 body. By about the 10 minute mark, the temperature stabilizes with the outside of the head at the heat-sink fins reaching around ~100F and the temperature right next to the emitter on the Pill reaching ~120F. The temperature then held steady there for the remainder of the test. This is with an ambient temp of ~70F. The maximum operating temperature for the P7 as suggested by Seoul is 185F, so I'd say there is definitely some room for higher ambient temps without reaching a thermal runaway condition. I would say that the unit is designed to operate continuously without any over-heating problems. This is certainly nice considering the numerous cheap quad-die lights on the market that do not handle heat properly and burn up the emitters in short order. No worries here, the temp not only will stay in range for the emitter but also will never rise high enough to pose any risk to your expensive collection of lithium-ion cells!*

------

*The compatibility of the unit and the power consumption is where things get a little complicated. Lets go over a few things about...*

Physical Compatibility:
*The tower module that contains the regulation circuitry is pretty fat and sticks down into the business end of the flashlight body. This creates compatibility problems on most "C" body lights. A C-M adapter is needed to fit the unit onto a C body light, but at this time, the only C body light I am aware of that will support the head as a simple drop-on is the Seraph line of lights. In some cases, the tower module itself is not the part that won't fit, but it's the outer spring, when added to the tower, that pushes it over the edge by only about 0.010". In some cases, this physical compatibility issue could be resolved through some minor modifications, or a simple swap to an outer spring made from thinner gauge steel. The body could be bored out slightly at the head to accommodate the module with the stock spring as well. Many CPFers including myself have the machining capability to do this so I think it's important to note, that while the unit is not compatible "out of the box" with a C body light, making it happen is not impossible. 

I suspect that the unit should fit fine on Leef "M" bodies provided that the head end of the bodies was designed similarly to the SF bodies. *

Electrical Compatibility:
*The unit delivers 2.8A to the LED. Keep in mind that this is not the same as the current drawn from the power source. This is a buck regulated unit that requires a voltage input that is quite a bit higher than the Vf of the LED to operate. What's important to understand here, is that the unit needs somewhere from 6V to 13V to work properly, and that between the regulator and the LED, it will consume approximately 11 Watts. Work backwards to determine the current draw from the power source. 

If you have a pair of li-ion cells. or basically, a ~7.4V power source, then work backwards: 11W/7.4V=~1.5A That would be the current drawn from the batteries and through the switch to operate the unit. I have measured ~1.4A on fresh from the charger li-ion cells, increasing to ~1.6A through the discharge. This confirms that the paper-estimate is solid. 

With 3 li-ion cells, the current drops to about 1A. 

So don't worry about switches, they should all be fine. I don't believe the unit is capable of drawing much more than ~1.75A-2A down around 6V supply power. 

Around 6V the unit starts to drop out of regulation. From what I can tell, it seems that the unit requires an input voltage of at least ~5V to turn on. (It will not run on a single 3.7V li-ion cell unfortunately.) So, while the unit will run on a pair of CR123 primary cells, it does not run at maximum output because CR123 primary cells do not maintain 3V under these types of loads. Instead, you can expect the unit to operate at about 30-50% reduced output on 2xCR123s compared to having a 2xli-ion/3xCR123 configuration or larger. 

Yes, this unit will work on the M6 with it's 6 CR123 cells. The battery adapter in the M6 has the cells wired 3S2P, so it's basically a "9V" battery pack. It will also work with the M6 pack loaded with 3.7V RCR123 cells. Or on a 2x18650 adapter, or on a 3x17670 adapter, and should also work on a Megalenium body from FM. *

------

*Performance:*

*The part you've been waiting for eh?

Take an ordinary 1A R2 D26 module and measure the lux at 1 meter, and then make a rough calculation for beam width and you get about 7-9K lux with a beam width of ~7-8 degrees, and a spill beam width of ~60 degrees. Take the same measurements on this P7 head, and you get a peak lux reading slightly higher, around 11K lux. Measure the beam width, and it's about double, ~14 degrees (covering 4x the area), and the spill, wider, at around 75+ degrees, or pretty similar to the spill angle found in most common incandecent configurations out there. A little 2x2=4 and you realize that this unit is in fact, producing some serious lumens when we have that known source of the R2 module; (they all test right around 200 torch lumen). I can say, with a good deal of confidence, that this unit probably produces around 650 or more torch lumens. 

The beam pattern is extremely clean. No noticeable artifacts, no donut, smooth transition from spot to spill. 

I'd compare it against a whole bunch of different stuff out there... But there's really only one bulb everyone wants to see it do battle with, the infamous MN21. *

*MN21:*





*LF P7 M:*





*Yes, the P7 head holds it's own here. That MN21 is being driven by a pair of Emoli cells that were charged to ~4.10V. It is technically over-driven compared to stock CR123 driven situations. 

The beam patterns are slightly different. You'll notice that the MN21 produces a tighter beam profile and weaker spill. The P7 head produces a wider beam profile and much more spill intensity. These variations make almost perfect sense, when we consider the way that each unit emits light, and the size of the light source compared to the size of the reflectors. (The Millennium Turbo head is about a 2.5", the LF P7 head is about a 2"). The difference in where the lumens are going is really apparent in those pictures when looking at the illumination of the surroundings. Like the grass down low and the bush to the left. 

In use, the MN21 proves more effective down range, as do many incans. In fact, many incans that have similar total power consumption as this P7 unit, will actually out-throw the unit by a fair margin. Great examples being the SR-9L D36 module, and the HO-M3 modules, both in a more compact and lighter head (~1.5" vs 2"), consume about 11W just like this unit, and generate peak lux figures half again as much as this unit. Point being, even though they are producing less lumens overall by less than half, they put more of the lumens into the central beam an less into spill. This P7 head gives you some major awareness of your surroundings in the 10-50 yard range, working better than incandecent options, beyond that, incans start to really pull ahead. 

While these new quad-die emitter builds are certainly a milestone in modern LEDs, getting into major lumen territory, I feel as though there is still a lot of room for incans in portable illumination that LEDs haven't covered adequately. I'd suggest owning both  

I'll try to do a few more comparison shots and toss em in here when I get a chance...

Just to throw a monkey wrench into the situation: MN21 runs for 15-20 minutes on CR123s, this P7 head will run for more like 90 minutes on the same pack. *

-----

Well.. Time to get ready to head off to bed. If I think of more I want to add I'll edit it in in the coming days. 

Enjoy,
-Eric


----------



## csshih (Sep 10, 2009)

nice work on the comprehensive review, and awesome pics!


----------



## toby_pra (Sep 10, 2009)

Very nice review...! :twothumbs


----------



## DaFABRICATA (Sep 10, 2009)

Nice review and nice head!

Looks pretty cool especially for the price!


----------



## Glen C (Sep 10, 2009)

As always a very comprehensive review, Thank Mdocod


----------



## Dioni (Sep 10, 2009)

Thanks Mdocod! Nice review.. :twothumbs


----------



## Eric242 (Sep 10, 2009)

Thanks a lot for the very good review Eric :thumbsup: I´ll definitly get one of those within the next few weeks!

Eric


----------



## shark_za (Sep 10, 2009)

Thanks for this !

What sort of runtime would you expect with 2x or 3x 18650 ?


----------



## tx101 (Sep 10, 2009)

You have convinced me to buy one now :twothumbs


----------



## Outdoors Fanatic (Sep 10, 2009)

Excellent Job Eric!

Thanks for sharing.


----------



## mdocod (Sep 10, 2009)

Hi Shark,

2x18650 should run for around 90 minutes, 3 will go over 2 hours. (depends on the specific 18650s in mind..)


----------



## Justin Case (Sep 10, 2009)

mdocod said:


> I have run the light continuously for over 20 minutes on an SP-9 body. By about the 10 minute mark, the temperature stabilizes with the outside of the head at the heat-sink fins reaching around ~100F and the temperature right next to the emitter on the Pill reaching ~120F. The temperature then held steady there for the remainder of the test. This is with an ambient temp of ~70F. The maximum operating temperature for the P7 as suggested by Seoul is 185F, so I'd say there is definitely some room for higher ambient temps without reaching a thermal runaway condition. I would say that the unit is designed to operate continuously without any over-heating problems. This is certainly nice considering the numerous cheap quad-die lights on the market that do not handle heat properly and burn up the emitters in short order. No worries here, the temp not only will stay in range for the emitter but also will never rise high enough to pose any risk to your expensive collection of lithium-ion cells!



120F is 49C. 185F is 85C. Assuming that the 49C measurement is the same as the solder point temp, also assuming that the P7 pulls 10W, and using the 3C/W thermal resistance spec for the P7, the junction temp could be about 79C, which approaches the 85C max temp that you cite. If the ambient temp is a bit hotter than your 70F, junction temp could exceed the 85C figure. Mitigating factors could include air movement and additional heat sinking from your hand. But I would not be so quick in assuming that this new head is free from any thermal management issues.


----------



## mdocod (Sep 10, 2009)

Hello Justin Case,

Maybe you can help me to understand this further.... You bring up an interesting point:

The spec pages for the P7 suggest that the operating tempurature range is -40 - 85C. It also lists an absolute maximum junction temp of 140C. (maybe this is the maximum the junction should reach while the unit is being soldered? not operating?)

How would you interpret this? Please extrapolate as I'd love to hear more. 

Thank You,

Eric


----------



## EV_007 (Sep 10, 2009)

Not bad. Now if offered in a multi-level 5B Q5 then it would be awesome indeed. 

Gotta love the longer runtime though.


----------



## Kiessling (Sep 10, 2009)

It is refreshing to see a single level no-strobe device. Believe it or not, I ordered one yesterday. 
It will help me waiting for the M3TL.
bernie


----------



## Outdoors Fanatic (Sep 10, 2009)

Eric, 

Please, can you tell us something about the tint? How does it compare to other popular LEDs when it comes to tint or color temperature?


----------



## mwaldron (Sep 11, 2009)

Outdoors Fanatic said:


> Eric,
> 
> Please, can you tell us something about the tint? How does it compare to other popular LEDs when it comes to tint or color temperature?



+1 on the tint request, but even if it's horrible (which it doesn't look bad in that MN21 comparison) $98 for a properly heatsinked led-less tower head that included a P7 driver and a post-it note that said "Put WW P7" here would still be a good deal.

-Mike


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Sep 11, 2009)

mwaldron said:


> +1 on the tint request, but even if it's horrible (which it doesn't look bad in that MN21 comparison) $98 for a properly heatsinked led-less tower head that included a P7 driver and a post-it note that said "Put WW P7" here would still be a good deal.
> 
> -Mike



Mike, "led-less tower head"?

Bill


----------



## Patriot (Sep 11, 2009)

Great stuff Eric! I'll bet you were sweating bullets trying to keep this one a secret..lol. I really like the look of it and the HA color is fine too. Judging from your temperature readings in F, I would say that there would never be any thermal concerns whatsoever with this head. Actually, I'm surprised to hear that it's running at a verified 2.8A and is only reading 120F near the emmiter sink. I've recorded body temperatures of 130-140F before on P7 and MC-E lights. Assuming we're all going from accurate measurements, this thing isn't even being pushed thermally. I wouldn't hesitate to run it continously on high at 70F ambient. Additionally the sink design appears to be at least as good, if not better than serveral others I've looked at including one of the most respected MC-E lights available. After the new wears off, you might consider shipping it to Mr.Gman for actual lumen testing. 

I may have to put one of these on my list. Thank you for reviewing it for us.

:thanks:

Paul


----------



## mwaldron (Sep 11, 2009)

Bullzeyebill said:


> Mike, "led-less tower head"?
> 
> Bill



I was trying to imply that even without any LED the driver, bezel, reflector, and aluminum head was worth the price. 

A LED tower module for the M6 used to fetch an amazing amount of money, and they were only ever made in limited quantities.


----------



## Outdoors Fanatic (Sep 11, 2009)

mwaldron said:


> I was trying to imply that even without any LED the driver, bezel, reflector, and aluminum head was worth the price.
> 
> A LED tower module for the M6 used to fetch an amazing amount of money, and they were only ever made in limited quantities.


I agree! That's an excellent point.


----------



## zlf15 (Sep 11, 2009)

So what kind of runtime are we looking at from this unit with the new M3L as well as the M6 both on cr123 primaries?


----------



## mdocod (Sep 11, 2009)

Hello Outdoors Fanatic,

The tint is fairly typical "cool" white. Mine is not horribly blue but does lean that direction like most of the "cool white" tinted LEDs. I would have preferred a warmer tint. I think LF would really move a lot of units if this were offered in a neutral and warm option.

----------------

Hello Patriot,

I had the feeling that the thermal management seemed pretty good based on those numbers. Your results and experience on this matter seem to confirm this. I noted in post 13 above that the actual maximum recommended junction temp is 140C, or almost 300F, seems to me there is plenty of overhead in the design. 

----------------

Hello zlf15,

Calculate run-time based on ~11W power consumption. On 3 CR123s I'd expect ~40+ minutes run-time, on the M6 loaded with CR123s I'd expect 90+ minutes. 

-Eric


----------



## Justin Case (Sep 11, 2009)

mdocod said:


> Hello Justin Case,
> 
> Maybe you can help me to understand this further.... You bring up an interesting point:
> 
> ...



If the max junction temp is 140C, then this new head is in much better shape. That's a big difference vs 85C. The max junction temp spec is for running the LED. The die heats up, resulting in a decrease in relative luminous flux. Too high of a Tj kills the LED. Also, at least for Cree, they typically spec their 50,000 hr LED life as maintaining at least 70% lumens with junction temp at 80C max. Lumens maintenance vs Tj obeys an Arrhenius relationship. So you can get a rapid decrease in lumens maintenance life as Tj increases past 80C. However, will it matter in real life? What if you get 10000 hrs, 5000 hrs, or even 1000 hrs for 70% lumens maintenance? Unless you leave the light on for hours at a time per day every day, even 1000 hrs will probably last for years before dimming to 70%.

I've seen a graph for the Seoul P4 driven at 700mA that gives the Tj~77C for 50,000hr/70% lumens maintenance. 25,000hr occurs at Tj~95C. 12,500hr looks to occur at about 115C. So it looks like you can drive the P4 (and presumably the P7) fairly hot and still get thousands of hours of 70% lumens maintenance life.

Even the decrease in relative luminous flux vs Tj might not matter all that much. Now that I have access to the P7 datasheet, the relative luminous flux vs Tj graph shows that even at Tj=100C, relative flux is about 85%. Can you even detect a 15% drop in output? Let's say that the LF head starts out at 650 OTF lumens. A 15% drop puts the output at 550 lumens.

Anyway, so it looks like this LF TH could slightly exceed the junction temp for 50,000hr life at 70% lumens maintenance. But the practical effect looks negligible. I suppose if you were in a hot environment (e.g., 45C), then you could end up with a Tj~100C. But the 70% lumens maintenance life will still most likely be in the tens of thousands of hours.


----------



## Justin Case (Sep 11, 2009)

Did you actually measure 2.8A drive current or are you assuming that from the manufacturer's spec? What was the Vf? Did you put the head on a bench power supply to check regulation from 6V-13V, as well as measure power input? That would then allow you to calculate driver efficiency. Any idea as to why the voltage overhead to run in regulation seems so high?


----------



## mdocod (Sep 11, 2009)

Justin Case said:


> Did you actually measure 2.8A drive current or are you assuming that from the manufacturer's spec? What was the Vf? Did you put the head on a bench power supply to check regulation from 6V-13V, as well as measure power input? That would then allow you to calculate driver efficiency. Any idea as to why the voltage overhead to run in regulation seems so high?



Great questions. 

I don't own a bench power supply but did tailcap measurements on cells that I have a good understanding of as far as the expected voltage sag under various loads. On a pair of CR123s, the load of course dropped the input voltage down below 6V and the unit dropped out of regulation. (I know it dropped out of regulation because the current draw on a pair of CR123s was the same as it was on a pair of 3.7V 18500s, if it had been in regulation the current should have gone up with the lower input voltage)... I tested input current on 2x18500s and 3x18500s as well and IIRC the input current dropped accordingly as expected. I'd be happy to re-test and post specific information if you are interested. If you have any suggestions on where I could get a reasonable adjustable bench power supply (single channel with voltage and current controls, up to ~30V/10+A would be nice) at a reasonable price. Most of the stuff I have seen seems pretty pricey but this is one of those things I really need to invest in. 

The voltage over-head requirement is just the behavior of the driver as far as I know. Many multi-mode drivers out there are the same way (like the LF 3-mode D26 units). 

I suppose I could try to take this thing apart and see if there is any way to tap into the LED circuit. My soldering equipment is not very good so I'd hate to have to de-solder the LED and risk doing damage to something in the proccess of re-soldering it... 

I'll take a look in there and see what I can come up with  Knowing the driver efficiency, Vf, and actual drive current is something I would be interested in as well. 

-Eric


----------



## Justin Case (Sep 11, 2009)

mdocod said:


> I don't own a bench power supply but did tailcap measurements on cells that I have a good understanding of as far as the expected voltage sag under various loads. On a pair of CR123s, the load of course dropped the input voltage down below 6V and the unit dropped out of regulation. (I know it dropped out of regulation because the current draw on a pair of CR123s was the same as it was on a pair of 3.7V 18500s, if it had been in regulation the current should have gone up with the lower input voltage)... I tested input current on 2x18500s and 3x18500s as well and IIRC the input current dropped accordingly as expected.



I've used a similar approach as that as well, knowing the V-I behavior of a driver based on actual bench supply tests. Then when I use batteries, I can infer the voltage under load from the tail current measurement. But that can't give you the drive current unless you know driver efficiency and Vf. And you don't know those two variables.



mdocod said:


> The voltage over-head requirement is just the behavior of the driver as far as I know. Many multi-mode drivers out there are the same way (like the LF 3-mode D26 units).



Is this TH single mode or multimode? I thought it was single mode.


----------



## mdocod (Sep 11, 2009)

Justin Case said:


> Is this TH single mode or multimode? I thought it was single mode.



It's a single mode. I was just pointing out that it would not be the first LED driver I have come across that would not fire up unless the input voltage was up close to 5V.


----------



## ugrey (Sep 12, 2009)

Great review, many thanks! These are the good old days.


----------



## bagman (Sep 12, 2009)

Looks very interesting, I would love to know if it fits and functions perfectly on a Leaf 2 x 18650 C-M tube?

I am running a KT4 with an IMR M3T bulb at the moment and this would be a great extra head.


----------



## Monocrom (Sep 12, 2009)

Sweet review! 

Thanks Eric.


----------



## DM51 (Sep 12, 2009)

Excellent review! Moving it to the Reviews section.


----------



## MOTO69JOE (Sep 12, 2009)

Forgive the ignorant question... When you say this thing can run on CR123 batteries in my M6 you mean I can use off the shelf Sure Fire batteries and dont need to worry about rechargeable batteries?


----------



## Outdoors Fanatic (Sep 12, 2009)

MOTO69JOE said:


> Forgive the ignorant question... When you say this thing can run on CR123 batteries in my M6 you mean I can use off the shelf Sure Fire batteries and dont need to worry about rechargeable batteries?


Yes, that's correct.


----------



## Fusion_m8 (Sep 12, 2009)

Paypal locked and loaded....

My better half is gonna get pissed when she sees the bank balance... but this is worth losing a pound of flesh for!


----------



## 1wrx7 (Sep 14, 2009)

Thanks for the great review:thumbsup: Especially for the price, this looks like an awsome lego piece to add to the collection. Finally a larger reflector desinged for the P7


----------



## Lumilo (Sep 15, 2009)

Thanks for your great review and now i am happy that i order one of these P7 Heads for my M3.I hope he will arrive very soon.

Greetings from Germany


----------



## bagman (Sep 15, 2009)

Has anyone tried one of these on a C-M Leaf body?


----------



## Outdoors Fanatic (Sep 15, 2009)

bagman said:


> Has anyone tried one of these on a C-M Leaf body?


Yes definitely! They are EXCELLENT custom made products. Fit and finish are superb. Get one while they are still availabe... LEEF is retired now... so hurry up.

http://www.lighthound.com/Custom-Flashlights-and-Parts_c_105.html


----------



## bagman (Sep 15, 2009)

Outdoors Fanatic said:


> Yes definitely! They are EXCELLENT custom made products. Fit and finish are superb. Get one while they are still availabe... LEEF is retired now... so hurry up.
> 
> http://www.lighthound.com/Custom-Flashlights-and-Parts_c_105.html



Oh dont worry, I have several in different sizes 

I wanted to check if anyone had tried with the Leaf bodies before buying one.


----------



## mdocod (Sep 15, 2009)

bagman,

After doing the measurements and actually finding out that it was technically the spring assembly that was too fat for a C body, the amount of extra clearance needed being so minimal, I'd be very surprised if it didn't work on your leefbody C-Ms.... If It didn't I'm sure one of us can help make it fit


----------



## GarageBoy (Sep 15, 2009)

Where is this made?


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Sep 15, 2009)

See previous post, this thread. China.

Bill


----------



## tx101 (Sep 18, 2009)

Just received my LF P7 M head today 

Im very happy with it :twothumbs

Thanks Eric for the great review


----------



## bagman (Sep 18, 2009)

mdocod said:


> bagman,
> 
> After doing the measurements and actually finding out that it was technically the spring assembly that was too fat for a C body, the amount of extra clearance needed being so minimal, I'd be very surprised if it didn't work on your leefbody C-Ms.... If It didn't I'm sure one of us can help make it fit



Thanks, I'm just waiting for a payment into my paypal account befire it goes winging out again


----------



## MOTO69JOE (Sep 21, 2009)

How long is it taking these that ordered directly from Hong Kong to show up?


----------



## Outdoors Fanatic (Sep 21, 2009)

MOTO69JOE said:


> How long is it taking these that ordered directly from Hong Kong to show up?


I'm still waiting on mine...


----------



## mdocod (Sep 21, 2009)

Varies, 1-4 weeks.


----------



## Kiessling (Sep 21, 2009)

Just got mine.

Interesting, head, relatively small. The design looks clumsier than the SF bodies, but apart from that I have no complaints regarding the exterior.

It is bright. Really bright. In an unofficial test by me and my wife, it was almost as bright as a SF M6 HOLA. Outside, it is outshined by the M6, but not by a large margin. Beam pattern is smooth, no donut. Relatively small hotspot and large corona.

You get a better field of vision with different beam patterns, but the head does well.

I like it. Single mode, KISS, no BS straight forward and bright. If it turns out to be solid and durable, IMHO for th eprice on ecan't go wrong.

I have it on an M3 now.

bernie


----------



## mdocod (Sep 21, 2009)

Hi Bernie,

That was similar to my observation, competes with the MN21 pretty well. 

One thing to keep in mind when comparing incans vs LEDs in a "shootout" is that, because of the way they each emit light, LEDs loaded in reflectors will always have a higher percentage of their total output dumped into the spill beam compared to incans loaded into reflectors. In my testing with a lux meter, a rough approximation would be to say that if an LED and incan of similar total output and beam shape are compared (both reflector loaded), the LED will have roughly half the center beam peak lux and roughly double the spill lux intensity. 

This is probably why I find myself routinely gravitating back to the incans, I prefer less spill intensity and greater beam intensity to a degree. 

-Eric


----------



## Kiessling (Sep 21, 2009)

First impression is pretty positive IMHO. A solid feeling KISS 1-level head with bright light running on versatile battery combos. Flawless beam, too. 

I have nothing against a bright spill, I like it in fact, as it offers a better field of view. For this however, you'd need a concentrated spill and large hotspot. Very easy on the eyes and superior area coverage.

This is for example why my old McGizmo 7xXR-E KT4 (old P-bins on 350mA each) offers a far better mid range visibility than the MN21 or the Serqph despite a lower luminous flux. Optics can do that, too.
Generally speaking I prefer optics or the XR-E in McGizmo reflectors over everything I have seen with a SSC or P7. But the Seraph has the oomph to compensate for that nicely  :devil:

Again ... so far I am satisfied. 

bernie


----------



## Kiessling (Sep 21, 2009)

BTW, anyone git a runtime info on 3x123 and 4x123 and 2x3x123 (SF M6)?


----------



## mdocod (Sep 21, 2009)

I would estimate ~45 minutes (3xCR123), ~60 minutes(4xCR123), and ~100 minutes (2x3xCR123).


----------



## bagman (Sep 22, 2009)

My finger is still hovering over the paypal button for one of these but it's to replace an IMRM3T bulb in a Leef 2 x 18650 body, The light stays in my car bag at work for long range spotting.

is it worth changing it please?


----------



## Outdoors Fanatic (Sep 22, 2009)

bagman said:


> My finger is still hovering over the paypal button for one of these but it's to replace an IMRM3T bulb in a Leef 2 x 18650 body, The light stays in my car bag at work for long range spotting.
> 
> is it worth changing it please?


I have the same setup and I'd have to say that no LED can replace an IMR-M3T, with that said, get the LF P7 Head anyways.


----------



## mdocod (Sep 22, 2009)

bagman,

If the purpose of the light is long range spotting I would absolutely stick with incans. The IMR-M3T will produce roughly double the peak beam intensity as the Seraph LED head, and I would actually encourage you to pick up an HO-M3T bulb to try out, it actually produces 50% higher peak beam intensity than the IMR-M3T and EO-M3T bulbs. Yea, it's about half the total lumens of the IMR, but you may find that for long range spotting it is just as effective while giving double the runtime. 

-Eric


----------



## bagman (Sep 22, 2009)

Outdoors Fanatic said:


> I have the same setup and I'd have to say that no LED can replace an IMR-M3T, with that said, get the LF P7 Head anyways.



:laughing:


----------



## bagman (Sep 22, 2009)

mdocod said:


> bagman,
> 
> If the purpose of the light is long range spotting I would absolutely stick with incans. The IMR-M3T will produce roughly double the peak beam intensity as the Seraph LED head, and I would actually encourage you to pick up an HO-M3T bulb to try out, it actually produces 50% higher peak beam intensity than the IMR-M3T and EO-M3T bulbs. Yea, it's about half the total lumens of the IMR, but you may find that for long range spotting it is just as effective while giving double the runtime.
> 
> -Eric



Thanks Eric, the IMR bulb was a replacement for the EO-M3T but I've never tried the HO one.


----------



## gswitter (Sep 27, 2009)

Has anyone tried the LF head on one of FM's Megalennium bodies yet?


----------



## jdriller (Sep 28, 2009)

Yes, it works fine on it.


----------



## uhsodium (Sep 28, 2009)

Kiessling said:


> Just got mine.
> 
> Interesting, head, relatively small. The design looks clumsier than the SF bodies, but apart from that I have no complaints regarding the exterior.
> 
> ...


could you post some pics of the head with M3 body?
I would like to see if it looks better in M3 than M6


----------



## Echo63 (Sep 29, 2009)

mine arrived today along with a c-m adapter.
i have an old cheapo "ledpro" 4x123 c head body, that i bored slightly to allow this thing to fit,
im very impressed, it pumps out a lot of light a fairly large hotspot, that easily throws to the end of the street.

will write a review of it up when i have had a good play

mine took 10 days to get to australia

very impressed for a less than a hundred bucks (although i need to buy a matching body, tailcap and a pair of 18650s to run with it)

I am also new to the world of high output lights, pila gl3xr (130lu) stock magcharger (200ish ?) and pelican m11 (165lu)
this is smaller, lighter and stomps all over them


----------



## Kiessling (Sep 29, 2009)

uhsodium said:


> could you post some pics of the head with M3 body?
> I would like to see if it looks better in M3 than M6



Unfortunately I don't have my camera available, so no pic. Looks better than on the M6, I am getting used to it. But the looks is more raw and less refined than the M3 body. 
But what does it matter. It makes light


----------



## Flipside (Sep 29, 2009)

Looks like a nice alternative to incan... Except for the proportions. But, they ARE back in stock.


----------



## Eric242 (Sep 30, 2009)

uhsodium said:


> could you post some pics of the head with M3 body?


I received mine today, here you go:


----------



## Echo63 (Oct 3, 2009)

Ok, i have had mine a week or so, and im loving it.
its bright as, and throws pretty well.

Just for a laugh i tried sticking my C-M adapter and head on a SF G2, it actually fits fine, just screwed straight on, and fired up with 2x RCR123 
didnt look or balance right though.


----------



## Outdoors Fanatic (Oct 4, 2009)

*I have some exciting news for y'all...*

























The Seraph P7 Turbohead WORKS ON LEEF BODIES 'C' Head to 'C' Tail!!! :twothumbs:twothumbs:twothumbs

No, it will not screw on a C Leef, but it does fit securely as the LED Pill slides in tightly all the way down the neck of the Leef tube, making perfect electrical contact. It will not fall down even if you shake hard... :naughty:

I will try to take some pics later.


----------



## Eric242 (Oct 4, 2009)

Hm, that´s not working on both of my 2x18500 Leef bodies. They are too tight for the Pill.

Eric


----------



## Outdoors Fanatic (Oct 4, 2009)

Eric242 said:


> Hm, that´s not working on both of my 2x18500 Leef bodies. They are too tight for the Pill.
> 
> Eric


Sorry about that, I guess I got lucky with my loose Leef 2x18500 HA Natural. Try some sandpaper on the pill a little.


----------



## uhsodium (Oct 10, 2009)

Eric242 said:


> I received mine today, here you go:


it looks much better than the M3TL prototype:nana:
would it be great with a 2-stage tailcap?


----------



## Echo63 (Oct 11, 2009)

uhsodium said:


> it looks much better than the M3TL prototype:nana:
> would it be great with a 2-stage tailcap?



with a 2 stage A2 style tailcap, it would be the best thing ever, maybe 60-100lu and flat out would be great (although thats what the M3tl is supposed to be)


----------



## Fusion_m8 (Oct 12, 2009)

*Does anyone know if this head is water resistant?* I tested mine in a warm bath(40'c or 104'F) tonight for over 20mins and the inside of the lens fogged up considerably.

Initially, I thought that water had entered the module but upon disassembly I could not find any droplets of water inside the body. I then used the cool air fan function on a hairdryer to dry the head, the condensation inside the lens cleared up within 2mins. 

My initial thoughts about water entering the head were probably wrong, because if it were so, the lens would not have only fogged up, but there would also be droplets of water inside the head, and the other components would have also been damp or wet.

I have a theory about what happened: Since the head was manufactiured in Hong Kong where its a warmer tropical climate compared to South Eastern Australia. The humid air captured between the lens and reflector was heated up by the emitter and condensed on the cooler glass surface rather than the warm surface of the aluminium reflector. Other flashlights I have that have been exposed to the cooler and less humid here in South Eastern Australian did not fog up like that at all.

That being said, I'm still concerned about the water resistance of the Seraph P7. I cannot find any literature on CPF or Lumens Factory's website about the water resistance(or lack thereof) of the Seraph P7 turbohead.

FYI: My Seraph P7 was mounted on a Surefire L6 body with a SW02 tailcap. Upon inspection I did not detect any damage on the O-rings of the L6 body or on the rubber shroud of the SW02 tailcap which could have led to water leakage. The 2 AW17500 cells also appeared dry and void of any water droplets or condensation.

Does anyone have another theory on why/how this happened?


----------



## uhsodium (Oct 12, 2009)

Fusion_m8 said:


> *Does anyone know if this head is water resistant?* I tested mine in a warm bath(40'c or 104'F) tonight for over 20mins and the inside of the lens fogged up considerably.
> 
> Initially, I thought that water had entered the module but upon disassembly I could not find any droplets of water inside the body. I then used the cool air fan function on a hairdryer to dry the head, the condensation inside the lens cleared up within 2mins.
> 
> ...


Try opening the bezel , and put into the box with silica gel?


----------



## mdocod (Oct 13, 2009)

On water resistance:

I'd imagine that the unit is probably pretty well sealed up. When dissembled, you find that the bezel of the unit is double-o-ring sealed, and it's a very tight fit there, the lens also appears to be O-ring sealed to the bezel. The O-ring on the M series heads is pretty fat, and provided it is properly lubed up, should provide good moisture resistance. 

If you are having trouble with water, best bet would probably be to disassemble the unit, and lube up all the O-rings really good with one of the non-petroleum based lubes out there, (I think most are just based on a silicone grease of sorts). 

I dunked mine a few times in the hot tub without any ill effects loaded on the M6 body, have had it in the rain a couple times now. I'd be curious to hear more water experiences if anyone has them to share on these units.


----------



## M.S (Oct 15, 2009)

Eric242 said:


> I received mine today, here you go:




I have been using mine on 2C bigleef setup. The head looks ugly on 2x18650 leef body, but it seems to fit M3 body really well. The best part is that I have one M3 body somewhere... Does anybody know if M3 can be bored to take 2x18500, mine does not fit even 17500:s..


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Oct 15, 2009)

M.S said:


> I have been using mine on 2C bigleef setup. The head looks ugly on 2x18650 leef body, but it seems to fit M3 body really well. The best part is that I have one M3 body somewhere... Does anybody know if M3 can be bored to take 2x18500, mine does not fit even 17500:s..



Yes, it can be bored. Do a search for "boring", or "6P bored", or something like that. Use google, cpf only, at the top of every CPF page. Some of our people provide the service for a fee. If using AW protected 17500's, take off the outer label cover. Another cover is underneath label cover. Many threads available on "boring" over the last two years. Good luck searching, and that is what CPF is about, information available for the looking.

Bill


----------



## Fusion_m8 (Oct 16, 2009)

Eric: Thanks! Just cleaned and lubed my unit, tested again in hot bath, all OK with no fogging so far...

Just another question: The retaining ring that holds the LED tower to the body, can that ring be tightened/loosened to adjust the height of the emitter relative to the reflector? Wouldn't that allow the focus of beam to be adjustable?



mdocod said:


> On water resistance:
> 
> I'd imagine that the unit is probably pretty well sealed up. When dissembled, you find that the bezel of the unit is double-o-ring sealed, and it's a very tight fit there, the lens also appears to be O-ring sealed to the bezel. The O-ring on the M series heads is pretty fat, and provided it is properly lubed up, should provide good moisture resistance.
> 
> ...


----------



## mdocod (Oct 17, 2009)

Fusion_m8 said:


> ...
> Just another question: The retaining ring that holds the LED tower to the body, can that ring be tightened/loosened to adjust the height of the emitter relative to the reflector? Wouldn't that allow the focus of beam to be adjustable?



That's correct. It comes from LF pre-focused pretty well, though you can play with the focus and surprisingly, there is some useful variation possible before things get ugly. You can definitely change the average beam "angle" a few degrees while maintaining a good clean looking beam in my experience. 

-Eric


----------



## Echo63 (Oct 18, 2009)

mdocod said:


> That's correct. It comes from LF pre-focused pretty well, though you can play with the focus and surprisingly, there is some useful variation possible before things get ugly. You can definitely change the average beam "angle" a few degrees while maintaining a good clean looking beam in my experience.
> 
> -Eric


+1 - its adjustable

little tip - to stop having to pull your light apart, adjust it a little, put it back together, test and pull it back apart again, a power supply (or 2xlions taped together) with crocodile clips clipped to the springs (positive to centre - Negative to outside) makes it much easier to focus.
get it adjusted, lock it down, and reinstall on a body.


----------



## BugOutGear_USA (Oct 26, 2009)

These have finally brought some new life to my favorite L6!

Regards,
Flavio


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Oct 26, 2009)

BugOutGear_USA said:


> These have finally brought some new life to my favorite L6!
> 
> Regards,
> Flavio



You mean it has brought new life to your L6 body, which is a good thing. 

Bill


----------



## BugOutGear_USA (Oct 29, 2009)

Bullzeyebill said:


> You mean it has brought new life to your L6 body, which is a good thing.
> 
> Bill



Roger that...

Flavio


----------



## Eric242 (Nov 2, 2009)

The head just dissapeared from the Lumens factory shop with the following note: "Due to the great responses from our customers, the Seraph P7 M Series Turbo Head has been temporary sold out. We have arranged the production of a new run, so keep checking back. Thank you for your support." Good to know it´s coming back again.

Eric


----------



## Kiessling (Nov 2, 2009)

I have three sets of batteries through it (on M3) now and it still works 
I like the simplicity of this unit. The brightness, too


----------



## digitaldave (Nov 2, 2009)

Eric242 said:


> The head just dissapeared from the Lumens factory shop with the following note: "Due to the great responses from our customers, the Seraph P7 M Series Turbo Head has been temporary sold out. We have arranged the production of a new run, so keep checking back. Thank you for your support." Good to know it´s coming back again.
> 
> Eric



Good news indeed, I was planning on getting a Turbo Head (and a Seraph to put it on).


----------



## Mikey V (Nov 3, 2009)

digitaldave said:


> Good news indeed, I was planning on getting a Turbo Head (and a Seraph to put it on).


 
Best solution is what you plan-the P7 Turbo head and a three cell Seraph light (cheap at under $50 bucks). You don't have to bore out a Surefire or use a pricey Leaf tube. The three cell Seraph gives you all you need, plus two tailcap choices, matches the Turbo head. Just be sure to also get the C to M adaptor ring Seraph makes. I use two 18500's in mine. It's a beast!


----------



## digitaldave (Nov 3, 2009)

Mikey V said:


> Best solution is what you plan-the P7 Turbo head and a three cell Seraph light (cheap at under $50 bucks). You don't have to bore out a Surefire or use a pricey Leaf tube. The three cell Seraph gives you all you need, plus two tailcap choices, matches the Turbo head. Just be sure to also get the C to M adaptor ring Seraph makes. I use two 18500's in mine. It's a beast!



To be honest, I was planning on getting the 2 cell version with extenders, as that would still give the 3 cell capacity option (or as you have the 2x18500), but I could also use it as a 2 cell light with a D26 or D36 module. But if I'm likely to be using the turbo head on it, then the three cell option makes more sense I guess.

How is the performance on 2x18500, in terms of output and run time? And have you used a D36 head on it?

Thanks,

Dave.


----------



## mwaldron (Nov 3, 2009)

I received mine today (Lighthound was resupplied late last week and still has stock $96.04 shipped with CPF discount) and I'm very impressed. 

This was supposed to make my M6 "day-to-day useful" (currently my M6 is 1185), but as it turns out I lucked into a 3x18650 Megallenium (arriving tomorrow I hope, maybe Thursday) so this is now permanently installed on my M6 body with 33x17670. 

It looks really good on the M6 body, and it feels really good in the hand. Great balance. 

The tint is somewhat neutral although unquestionably on the cold side. I will be looking for a warm binned P7 at some point as a mod. I may loose a few lumens but I'll be happier. I'm completely adjusted and in love with my M60W and Ra 100WW. Warm is the wave of my future.

Mine arrived completely dry on all joints. When I loosened the bezel I could feel it grinding. I'll be taking it apart and lubing it up as soon as I'm done with this post. 

While I'm in the shack I'm going to take current measurements for everyone at various voltages, I'll be sure to post my results later this evening.


----------



## socom1970 (Nov 3, 2009)

Good News!!! I was on the fence about getting one of these for a while. I read this review and that did it! 

The good news is that I just ordered one of the Seraph P7 M series heads, so they are apparently back in stock again!

Just to give myself another lego piece to mess with, I also bought one of Leef's M-C 3x18650 bodies for the Seraph head. 

Great review, Eric! I really appreciate your attention to detail regarding every aspect of the product under review. A positive review from you makes it nearly impossible to resist buying whatever you're reviewing. Great job!!!:thumbsup:


----------



## mwaldron (Nov 3, 2009)

Ok, as promised here are my current measurements over 5V->13VDC.


```
Voltage(V)    Current(A)
   5.00        1.51*
   5.50        1.98
   6.00        1.78
   6.50        1.60
   7.00        1.45
   7.50        1.30
   8.00        1.18
   8.50        1.08
   9.00        0.99
   9.50        0.90
  10.00        0.83
  10.50        0.76
  11.00        0.74
  11.50        0.76**
  12.00        0.73
  12.50        0.69
  13.00        0.66

Notes:
* No regulation at 5.00V, driver was making awful whining sound until about 5.48V
** There was a perceptible brightness increase at 11.40V, a small increase, but noticeable.
```


And the corresponding pretty graph...








A pretty good power sipper, I should get some great runtime off of my 3x17670 pack!


----------



## stienke (Nov 4, 2009)

This was supposed to make my M6 "day-to-day useful" (currently my M6 is 1185), but as it turns out I lucked into a 3x18650 Megallenium (arriving tomorrow I hope, maybe Thursday) so this is now permanently installed on my M6 body with 33x17670. 


Have you picture's from this "rare" M6 body???:thinking::green:


----------



## Justin Case (Nov 4, 2009)

A better graph to see how well the driver functions in terms of regulation is to graph power vs voltage. When you do that, the curve looks horrible. In comparison, this is what a tightly regulated buck driver delivers for power vs voltage. I guess this convinces me not to get the LF Seraph P7, or at least I would get rid of whatever driver they are using. It is highly doubtful that the P7 is getting 2800mA between 9V-13V input. The input power is only about 8W-9W for that voltage range. Even if we assume a relatively low Vf of 3.3V at 2800mA, that means that the P7 draws around 9.24W at full power. Since drivers are not 100% efficient, the power in has to be greater than 9.24W. Since that is not the case from 9V-13V, I don't think that the P7 is running full tilt if you drive the Seraph with 3xLi-ion.

It may be that at lower input voltage, the P7 gets full power. But the ugly power vs voltage curve doesn't inspire a lot of confidence. Thus, I wouldn't assume full power at Vin from around 5.5V-7.5V unless I actually measured that to be the case.


----------



## mwaldron (Nov 4, 2009)

stienke said:


> Have you picture's from this "rare" M6 body???:thinking::green:



It's a BEAST! :lolsign:

Yeah, sorry that was a typo I missed. It's a standard M6 body with a FM 3x17670 holder.



Justin Case said:


> A better graph to see how well the driver functions in terms of regulation is to graph power vs voltage. When you do that, the curve looks horrible. In comparison, this is what a tightly regulated buck driver delivers for power vs voltage. I guess this convinces me not to get the LF Seraph P7, or at least I would get rid of whatever driver they are using. It is highly doubtful that the P7 is getting 2800mA between 9V-13V input. The input power is only about 8W-9W for that voltage range. Even if we assume a relatively low Vf of 3.3V at 2800mA, that means that the P7 draws around 9.24W at full power. Since drivers are not 100% efficient, the power in has to be greater than 9.24W. Since that is not the case from 9V-13V, I don't think that the P7 is running full tilt if you drive the Seraph with 3xLi-ion.
> 
> It may be that at lower input voltage, the P7 gets full power. But the ugly power vs voltage curve doesn't inspire a lot of confidence. Thus, I wouldn't assume full power at Vin from around 5.5V-7.5V unless I actually measured that to be the case.



I never thought about looking at it from that perspective, I just took them at their word, but you're right as soon as you graph power as a function of voltage there is obviously something wrong. It's not really possible they the P7 is being driven at 2.8A through most of the voltage input range. 

It's still a very impressive head and I'm glad I was able to get one. 

For those who don't feel like retyping the data, here is the graph Justin is talking about:







I find it interesting that no where in that range did I ever notice a change in output, but my guess is it was never a significant enough step for my calibrated human eyeball to detect, except for the increase at 11.4 that I mentioned earlier.


----------



## mdocod (Nov 4, 2009)

Interesting test results... Man, I need to get a bench power supply!

I just tested my module on 3 17670s charged to ~4.1V each. 0.95A consumption. Under that load I know for a fact that the voltage is ~3.7V per cell or better, meaning [email protected] or ~10.5W or better (probably closer to 11W). 

I'm wondering if the drivers are that inconsistent from unit to unit, or if this is a combination of factors including the Vf of the emitter. 

Assuming a Vf of 3.6V and a driver efficiency of 90%, we should expect ~11W of power consumption at all input voltages to maintain ~2800mA to the LED. My demo unit seems to behave in this fashion given the tests I have the capacity to run.


----------



## mwaldron (Nov 4, 2009)

I'm using an old BK Precision 1635 (have a pair of them) and they're great. You can pick them up in working condition around flea markets and hamfests for about $100. They're built like tanks, but the disadvantage is they do not have the current capacity for most incandescent bulbs. 

If you have a pair they do support parallel operation to double the current, but it complicates things quite a bit. 

For my tests, I let the LED "warm up" at 8V for 2-3 minutes before I dropped the voltage down and started taking measurements. I ran the current through my Fluke 29-II meter for measurements, and used the readout on the supply for the voltage.


----------



## Justin Case (Nov 4, 2009)

The problem is that you don't have any measurement data to support your contention that driver efficiency is 90%. There are infinite sets of Vf, If, and efficiency combos that can give the same results. Efficiency could be 90%. But the apparently poor driver QC and the terrible power in vs voltage in curve from mwaldron certainly doesn't inspire any confidence.

The way to resolve the issue is to measure the drive current and Vf. You don't need a bench supply to do that. True, the efficiency calculation will be for one specific Vin/Iin point. But if the driver is any good, it ought to be stable and show consistent behavior across its rated voltage. On the other hand, IMO this driver's stability and consistency are open to question.


----------



## Justin Case (Nov 4, 2009)

The last time I saw a Pin vs Vin graph vaguely similar to this one for the Seraph was when I tested some DX11836 drop-ins. Same odd dip and rise at the higher voltage end of the graph.

Seraph





DX11836 #1





DX11836 #3


----------



## Mikey V (Nov 5, 2009)

digitaldave said:


> To be honest, I was planning on getting the 2 cell version with extenders, as that would still give the 3 cell capacity option (or as you have the 2x18500), but I could also use it as a 2 cell light with a D26 or D36 module. But if I'm likely to be using the turbo head on it, then the three cell option makes more sense I guess.
> 
> How is the performance on 2x18500, in terms of output and run time? And have you used a D36 head on it?
> 
> ...


 
Dave, I haven't tried the D36 head. I ordered the turbo head together with the three cell light as it was my intention to use as a turbo light all long, and I just chucked the regular D26 head back in the box. I already have tons of P60 size lights. I think you would be disappointed with the balance of a two cell version hanging that big head onto it. I can't see how the grip and balance would work. It feels nose heavy and rather short on the grip department even using the three cell tube. With extenders, it would work, but "Rube Goldberg-ness" increases. Consider the two-cell light only if you really need to switch off to a light in that size, as you'll probably want to leave the turbo fully assembled once you try it. The 18500's are outstanding - as bright as a pair of 18650's. They of course will not run quite as long as 18650's, but then, I don't have to swing a real long tom around. (For that, I have a Leef 2x18650 tube with a MC-E Turbo KT-4 Clone head and Surefire tailcap- basically a digital M4 Devastator.) I haven't tested run time, but they are still on the first charge cycle and I have been playing with them for a few weeks. This Seraph modular light 2x18500 setup is a bit smaller than a Surefire M3T if you need a reference.


----------



## mwaldron (Nov 5, 2009)

Justin Case said:


> The way to resolve the issue is to measure the drive current and Vf. You don't need a bench supply to do that. True, the efficiency calculation will be for one specific Vin/Iin point. But if the driver is any good, it ought to be stable and show consistent behavior across its rated voltage. On the other hand, IMO this driver's stability and consistency are open to question.



I thought about this, but I'm just not prepared to remove the LED from the driver to take readings, so I'm going to have to bow out of assisting on those numbers. 

The next time some nice warm P7's come up available I'm going to grab one and at that point I'll take the numbers since I have to disassemble it anyway.


----------



## Justin Case (Nov 5, 2009)

I don't have one of these heads, so I can't give you specifics on measuring drive current. But in general if you can separate the pill from the reflector, then all you need to do is de-solder say the LED+ wire from the LED, insert your DMM in series at that point, and then power the pill (either with batteries, or in your case with your BK power supply). Read off the drive current from the DMM.

For forward voltage, if you have access to the LED's terminals (e.g., you can remove the reflector to expose the LED), then just power the light while measuring voltage across the LED's terminals using a DMM.


----------



## mdocod (Nov 5, 2009)

Justin Case said:


> I don't have one of these heads, so I can't give you specifics on measuring drive current. But in general if you can separate the pill from the reflector, then all you need to do is de-solder say the LED+ wire from the LED, insert your DMM in series at that point, and then power the pill (either with batteries, or in your case with your BK power supply). Read off the drive current from the DMM.



Easier said than done on this unit. Things are packed up pretty tight....


----------



## Illum (Nov 18, 2009)

uhsodium said:


> would it be great with a 2-stage tailcap?



the A2's "two stage" part involves a wee little resistor, at 1.5A I'd expect that resistor to fry in short order:candle:

I'm contemplating 2x17500 + P7 head on my M3T body...but... $130 is a bit:candle:


----------



## rokspydr (Nov 18, 2009)

will this head fit on the megalennum body?


----------



## mwaldron (Nov 18, 2009)

Illum said:


> the A2's "two stage" part involves a wee little resistor, at 1.5A I'd expect that resistor to fry in short order



In another thread AW has stated that his multi-stage incandescent M6 switch works well with teh LF P7 head. I do have that switch and I can verify it does work, but I have some concerns about longevity issues. I'm concerned that PWMing (what the AW Switch does) a regulator (contained in the LF head) might not be good for the long term reliability of the regulator. 

I will qualify the above by saying that I have absolutely no proof, and I made the statement in hopes someone with experience designing buck regulators to explain why I'm wrong and why PWMing their power source won't hurt them. 



rokspydr said:


> will this head fit on the megalennum body?



In fact it fits well, although I prefer the aesthetics of it attached to the M6 body. The megalennium is where my AW switch is installed so that is where the above testing occurred. 

Putting the Seraph on my M6 body with 3x17670 after getting my Megallenium allowed me to have 2 awesome lights "of m6 pedigree" and they're both guilt-free lumens, the best kind!


----------



## wacbzz (Nov 21, 2009)

Just ordered mine. :twothumbs

Hopefully I'll get it by Thanksgiving so I can one-up the Father-in-Law in yet another of our ongoing "war" catagories - - brightest handheld flashlight.


----------



## Justin Case (Nov 21, 2009)

mdocod said:


> Easier said than done on this unit. Things are packed up pretty tight....



It's too bad the pill is not easily accessible. The price is right. But the driver makes me pause. If I can access the pill, then I can swap out the driver if I don't like it. I can swap out the LED when the next latest and greatest emitter comes along.

That's the one major factor in favor of a SureFire TH (e.g., KT1, KT4). I can build a wide variety of LED towers -- Luxeon, Seoul P4, MC-E, Cree XP-G and choose from a selection of drivers, both boost and buck (and linear regulator). For example, I just built three XP-G R4 based towers. One uses an SOB1227 buck driver. A second uses a single-mode 3xAMC7135 driver. The third uses a KD1640 buck driver. I have a 2S2P MC-E tower driven by an SOB1227. I have a 4P MC-E tower driven by a GD1000 that works great with 2xNiMH or 3xNiMH.


----------



## Eric242 (Nov 22, 2009)

I just got a hint from a fello Messerforum.net member the head might work with Surefire C bodies if the outer spring get´s replaced by a thinner spring and indeed it worked. Be adwised, the picture shows the turbo head on a Surefie L5 that has a built in C-M adaptor. Usually it is glued to the KL5 head!


----------



## Echo63 (Nov 24, 2009)

quick question guys 
is this head safe to run on 3x RCR123 in an M3 tube ?
how about on 2x RCR123 ?
I will be running it on AW cells


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Nov 24, 2009)

Echo63 said:


> quick question guys
> is this head safe to run on 3x RCR123 in an M3 tube ?
> how about on 2x RCR123 ?
> I will be running it on AW cells



Read the first post.

Bill


----------



## Illum (Nov 25, 2009)

Eric242 said:


> I just got a hint from a fello Messerforum.net member the head might work with Surefire C bodies if the outer spring get´s replaced by a thinner spring and indeed it worked. Be adwised, the picture shows the turbo head on a Surefie L5 that has a built in C-M adaptor. Usually it is glued to the KL5 head!



What, if I may ask, did you do with the KL5 head?:candle:


----------



## Eric242 (Nov 25, 2009)

It´s still a complete L5 light. I just tried if it actually would work with a c-series body. The P7 head is still waiting for a 2x18650 FiveMega C-M body.

Eric


----------



## wacbzz (Nov 30, 2009)

Here are some pictures for size comparison, looks, and general what-not...

P7 head on the M4:






P7 head on the M3:






Compared to the Malkoff MD4 Wildcat:






And the LED's on all three (that's an SST-50 in the M3):


----------



## Illum (Mar 8, 2010)

whats the word on tint differences, do P7s suffer from tint lottery as well?


----------



## mwaldron (Mar 8, 2010)

On the Seraph P7 head I bought, which was from the "2nd" production run, my tint is very white with almost no detectable bluish tint. 

I can't say much for lottery since I only have the 1 P7, but even with my affinity for warm tints I find the Seraph P7 acceptable.


----------



## Eric242 (Mar 8, 2010)

I got two of these heads (1st run) and the don´t differ in tint.

Eric


----------



## vestureofblood (Apr 25, 2010)

Hi Mdocod,

I was just wandering if that C to M adapter will work for an actual surefire head rather than the LF one? What I mean is could I buy that adapter and put a surefire M3 head on a 6P body with it?


----------



## mdocod (Apr 25, 2010)

vestureofblood said:


> Hi Mdocod,
> 
> I was just wandering if that C to M adapter will work for an actual surefire head rather than the LF one? What I mean is could I buy that adapter and put a surefire M3 head on a 6P body with it?



I use that handy little thing for all sort of conversions. One of my personal favorites is a mock-up M3 like what you are talking about. (Mine is often setup on a 2x18500 FM body and a "big" SolarForce tailcap). 

I have also used it on my 6Ps for use with everything from the Z46 (M3 head) to the LF P7 Seraph head to the SF Millennium Turbo head on pairs of IMR16340s. Fun stuff!

Eric


----------



## Eric242 (Apr 25, 2010)

Btw., the P7 head is now available as a three level version (5%, 30%, 100%).

Eric


----------



## flashfiend (May 10, 2010)

Just wondering if anyone knows if they will offer this Turbo Head with an sst-series LED and an updated driver? Maybe Mark from LF can chime in?


----------



## Fusion_m8 (May 15, 2010)

I think it won't be a drop-in pill though, the SST-series LEDs would require a new reflector, hopefully it would be a SMO to maximise throw.


----------



## mdocod (May 16, 2010)

Fusion_m8 said:


> I think it won't be a drop-in pill though, the SST-series LEDs would require a new reflector, hopefully it would be a SMO to maximise throw.



From what others here have said, the reflector in this P7 head works very well with the SST large dies as well. It's a doable modification. 

Eric


----------



## flashfiend (May 16, 2010)

Yes a doable mod, but I'm also looking for a driver that can handle voltages similar to the P7 given here but for the sst-series LEDs


----------



## Rat6P (May 20, 2010)

Firstly.............Thanks SelfBuilt. :bow:

Has anyone seen any other beamshots for the Seraph P7?
Comparing it to some other lights would be nice.
I've tried searching but apart from the 2 in this post( which are great by the way) can't seem to find any.

itching to pull the trigger on this one but still  sitting on the fence atm...


----------



## Eric242 (May 20, 2010)

I included my P7 head in a beamshot comparsion over here. The shots were taken on an abandoned US army shooting range in the nearby woods. Post #8 has the distances from where I was standing/shooting to the walls. I was aiming at the "1" of the first wall at 31m and not much light/spill was passing underneath the first wall onto the next walls.

Eric


----------



## Meganoggin (May 20, 2010)

Fantastic beamshot comparison Eric - that must have taken a lot of time and effort :thumbsup:


----------



## Rat6P (May 20, 2010)

WOW!!.....NICE!! :rock: 

Thanks Eric. Wasn't expecting such a sweet beamshot comparsion. I nearly fell of the fence!!

Is the P7 a keeper for you ?




I see you have another thread at messerforum about the P7. Good job!!


----------



## Eric242 (May 20, 2010)

Thanks guys 



Rat6P said:


> Is the P7 a keeper for you ?


Definitly! If Fivemega is going to make another run of his 3x18650 Megallennium body (not the parallel) I´ll get one as well as another P7 head (the version with three levels) to go along with it.

Eric


----------



## Rat6P (May 20, 2010)

You are most welcome.

Actually I was just looking at the Megalennium body too.

Jeez I think I am going to have some explaining to do to the Mrs later:shakehead


----------



## jtivat (May 20, 2010)

Rat6P said:


> itching to pull the trigger on this one but still  sitting on the fence atm...



Don't! I have had mine for almost two months and still can't use it as it shorts out. I have been waiting on "new springs" as I apparently need to fix the light myself. CS from LF and BOG has been less than stellar.


----------



## Rat6P (May 20, 2010)

LOL.........too late.............I twitched.

Seriously though I'm sorry to hear you are not having much luck.:shrug:
What body are you trying to use it on? What happened?



Ahh ok I found the thread.


----------



## [email protected] (May 21, 2010)

Hi JT,

I asked BOG to ask you to sent it back for an inspection and exchange, but BOG told me that you insist to try fix it yourself. Is there something lost in the communication? 

If you need help with your turbohead, please contact me directly at [email protected] and I will help you the best I can.


Thanks.

Mark


----------



## jtivat (May 21, 2010)

He at first gave me two options to send it back and then after it got back he would have it fixed or send a new one or he could send a new spring. I took the shorter of the two options. I then received the wrong spring and was told on 4-25 that he would ship the correct one. I have sent an e-mail asking where the spring is with no response. So at this point I am getting annoyed as I purchased the light at the end of March and still can’t use it.




[email protected] said:


> Hi JT,
> 
> I asked BOG to ask you to sent it back for an inspection and exchange, but BOG told me that you insist to try fix it yourself. Is there something lost in the communication?
> 
> ...


----------



## mwaldron (May 21, 2010)

You had a problem and complained in this thread (off topic), Mark offered his email address to help you get it fixed. 

Please lets not continue turning this review thread into something that belongs in the Cheers/Jeers forum.

P.S. I'm still happily using the first generation of this on 3x17670s. Great product, but I'd still like a Neutral/Warm version...


----------



## Rat6P (Jun 4, 2010)

I was just playing around with my Seraph P7 (lego etc) and the outside spring happened to come off. So anyway I tried it without the spring and it still works fine. I only have C/P series bodies. So don't know if this works with other series.


----------



## jtivat (Jun 4, 2010)

I just tried it in my M6 without the spring and it does not work. On another note I cut the center spring down by 1/4" and the head is rock solid. I really like the balance of throw and spill.


----------



## Rat6P (Jun 5, 2010)

I guess the module seats down and into a P/C series body and just touches enough to make an electrical contact. The inside bit of a module does have similar dimensions to a D26 dropin base.

So the M6 body has more headspace?? and unlike in a P series body cannot earth?? I'm just guessing here as I have never seen inside an M6 before.

I agree...The Seraph P7 does have a great balance between throw and flood.
Its nice and bright. I think I prefer this kind of balance to a more throwy or floody type beam. It makes for a good search light enabling you to utilize more of your peripheral vision than a pure spot would.


----------



## Illum (Aug 28, 2012)

Has this "screw in" [single mode model] been discontinued? Seems like either that or lighthound gave the prospect up


----------



## Rat6P (Sep 13, 2012)

I believe Lumens Factory have released the XML version of this head. I would say the P7 version has probably been discontinued.


----------

