# Arc6 beta test



## Gransee (May 23, 2008)

Beta testing was performed earlier on previous versions of the Arc6 during development. This current test is with the latest Arc6 version. 

The Arc6 beta testers:

CM
Cyclops942
Lebkuecher
NewBie
this_is_nascar

NewBie is no longer a CPF member (he's even more controversial than I am) but he did help with some testing and recommendations during the Arc6 development. In return for his contribution, he asked for an Arc6 flashlight. Since he is pretty good at testing and I was sending him a flashlight anyways, I figured "2 birds with one stone". His test results will either be published on his website or I will copy them here. 

Each beta tester was sent the following:

Arc6 production head
NG sleeve
Guarded sleeve
2 Duracell’s
Arc6 instructions
Arc6 display box

The firmware version loaded is "Release Candidate "A". 

Beta Testers,

The focus of this test is to verify that the Arc6 performs reliably in normal use. This includes testing with different batteries, power levels, run time, switch activation, water immersion (less than 100 feet), drop testing (less than 6 feet), etc. You are not expected to perform each and every test but I would like you to use it quite a bit, become familiar with its character and reliability and not be afraid to write a report on your experience. 

You may photograph the light and post photos. I do ask that you not publish part numbers or the electronic pattern of the PCB. This might be published later but for now I would like to keep it confidential.

If you find a problem with the light you are welcome to write about it on the CPF first or wait and email me about it. We will attempt to fix the problem before units are put up for sale. Preferably, we would like you to test the fix and verify it is indeed fixed. In the event we cannot fix the problem, then the customer will be notified of the errata at the point of sale. 

The beta testers thread on the CPF is for you to post your observations and to answer reasonable questions from the CPF. I will start the thread, introduce you by your cpf id and outline the purpose of the test. You could then make a post letting us know you have started your tests, your observations so far, photos, tests you ran, etc. 

Here's a list of things I have noticed in my tests:



Sometimes when cycling through the stages in the settings menu, the flash code is uneven in its timing. For example it may flash once slowly and then twice at a faster rate. This has to do with the timing precision of the microcontroller and is normal. 

Sometimes, with some batteries, the light may flicker in its output. This seems to occur mostly with higher voltage rechargeables (especially with new rechargeables charged at 4.2volts or higher). It tends to go away after a minute or two of usage. It also tends to go away with older cells. This is caused by instability in the analog feedback loop and is a known issue. Other than occasional flickering, it has not caused any other problems. 

Lower voltage cells tend to produce a higher light output. This has to do with how current is sensed by the electronics. This can be compensated by using a different level setting. 

It is possible for the kilroy spring (part of the PD switch mechanism) to become bent flat enough for there to be no space between stage1 and stage2 switch activation. This can be fixed by bending the kilroy spring back up with your finger. 

It is normal for the converter to hum or whine during operation.

Sometimes with a new battery, the light may noticeably ramp in brightness (ramping in less than a second) the first time a particular level is used. This is normal and is produced by a function in firmware that seeks the best converter settings for that particular battery/level combination. Sometimes this ramping also produces a momentary shift in LED color. Subsequent uses should be normal after the processor has adjusted to the new battery.

It is normal for the flashlight to get quite warm during extended use. However, the protection system should prevent it from going over 135F on its own. 

Runtimes graphs are difficult to produce since the light may switch to a lower level due to temperature. Sufficient cooling or running the test in segments would be neccessary.

--

Thank you again beta testers!

Peter Gransee


----------



## jch79 (May 23, 2008)

Thanks for letting a bunch of well-respected CPF'rs (and Newbie ) put the Arc6 through the wringer!

john


----------



## smokelaw1 (May 23, 2008)

This is going to be a FUN read!


----------



## Lebkuecher (May 23, 2008)

First I would like to thank Peter for selecting me as a beta tester.

I would like to start out with a little history, about two years ago when I attended one of our Phoenix GTs Peter pulled out a Laptop and showed everyone CAD drawings of what is now the Arc6. I and I believe everyone attending the GT became very excited as Peter explained the concepts and goals of this new project. As most people know there are few more committed to developing the perfect EDC and this enthusiasm showed as Peter went into details. I believe everyone attending the GT left feeling this light would be a winner and from what I can tell with what little time I have had with the light we where right. From that point forward it has really been something following the Arc6 as the light went thought the development stages. From the few "windows" I had to follow this project I can tell you every time I had a glimpse there was always Peter working extremely hard to get this project to market. I don't think most people understand the degree of commitment it takes to successfully pull a project off of this magnitude, I know I didn't. I believe this projects speaks volumes about Peter and his dedication to the industry. 

I received this version of the Arc6 two days ago and have spent all of my spare time running the light through the paces but have also had to deal with a strong work schedule as well so I still have more tests to perform. The previous version of the light I had and the lights I help test at LSI did not have the updated electronics so the light I have now is truly a new light from my point of view. 

When I first pulled the light out of the packaging I was truly struck by the quality and workmanship of the light. The Arc6 makes a very strong first impression when you first get the light. I really didn't know what to expect because it had been at least 8 months since the last time I handle one of the prototypes. The head and both bodies are cosmetically perfect with no cosmetic flaws in the anodizing. The head is slightly darker then both bodies but this is not really a big deal. The reflector is perfectly placed and lens and reflector are completely dust free and clean of any artifacts. The style and design are very pleasing to the eye and the light has a feel quality. When you remove the head and look at electronics you truly get an understanding of just how tight the light is designed. The size of the light is also very appealing both with the guarded and non sleeve. I tend to prefer the non guarded because my preference is to carry the light in my front pocket. Yesterday was the first chance I had to carry the light all day and I there was no problem at all. The tint of the LED is very good and perfectly white. I will post some beam comparison soon along with honoring any request for beam comparisons with any light I have. 

Programming and using the light is pretty straight forward so I do not think anyone will have any problems here. I only had to read the instructions once to set all of the stages to levels I want. The flexibility of the stages is awesome and I believe everyone will be able to fine tune the stages to the setting appropriate for their needs. 

The one characteristic I might change a little with the light and this is my personally preference is the amount of pressure required to activate and hold the light in stages 2 and 3 when engaging the tail switch. Some may find the pressure need to continually hold the light in the upper stages a little tiring to the hand. Of course I have cycled the light well over 400 times in the last 24 hours testing the light so this could have something to do with my thoughts. 

As far as testing is concerned I have cycled the light several hundred times and have yet to see a problem. I have also submerged the light under water for over twenty minutes while operating the light and again no problems. I will start meter testing and conduct light testing comparisons tonight and over the weekend as time permits. I will also do some freezer test and increase the height of the drop tests. (Four feet is the max at this point because I don't want to kill the light before completing the other test)

So far and over all I am very impressed and I look forward to reporting back as I complete the test. 

Steve


----------



## KeyGrip (May 23, 2008)

Wow. That picture of the electronics is stunning, and does tell a lot about what went into the light. You other pictures also make it look much less like a "re-badged" PD than I was expecting, and I hope this pleases a few people. Thanks for posting this.


----------



## McGizmo (May 23, 2008)

Nice photos! The only concern I have in seeing the Arc6 is one I have mentioned to Peter in the past and it may well be a non issue but worthy at least of consideration.

I have received PD's back from folks and the anode ball has been collapsed for whatever reason. The Arc6 is loaded with components on the exposed side of the PCB and the user needs to insure that nothing gets in or makes contact with areas that it shouldn't. This also means no messing around with dented or iffy batteries placed in the light. 

To paraphrase a comment I have made before, if one wants to pass a reasonable judgment on the Arc6 they have to get past its cover!


----------



## Cuso (May 23, 2008)

Does it fit in the Arc pouch?? :huh:


----------



## Gransee (May 23, 2008)

McGizmo, did I tell you we are placing the ball on its open end and filling it with solder? We found it crushes less easily that way. You are probably the one who suggested we do that. 

On several test units, I covered the pcb in epoxy to help protect them. However, it made them difficult to get to if I wanted to change a component. I also have not seen any problems so far with just letting everything hang out au natural. We shall see.

Thanks Lebkuecher. Informative post and good pictues. Happy testing!

peter

ps. just thought of this. The piston in the Arc6 is nickle plated Aluminum. The original PD was nickle plated brass. Switching to AL made it trickier to find someone who could plate it but it did reduce the weight of the piston by 2/3rds. 2.15 oz with a battery...


----------



## McGizmo (May 23, 2008)

Peter,
With the ball filled as you are doing, I see no reason to be concerned about it compressing. The compressed contacts I saw were all a case with a hollow void in the ball. Cool. As to the au natural, I think with proper consideration and care during battery exchanges, there is no cause for any real concern.

Non issue.


----------



## Sean (May 23, 2008)

Great stuff! Keep it coming. :wave:


----------



## CM (May 24, 2008)

I can't believe I'm still up (it's almost one in the morning) to write this but I need to get my first impressions down before I forget. I just got back from meeting with Peter and Cyclops942 about an hour ago, I'm tired, so bear with me. 

I also have a previous beta firmware that I've been using for a while and it was one that had some amount of flicker which most people would probably not notice but there's a lot of whitewall hunters around here. I know Peter spent many hours worrying about this and trying everything to squash the problem. I was concerned after getting my new firmware tonight that it might not have been improved. Well I just tried combinations that really brought out the flicker on the old version and I'm glad to report that the problem is fixed. 

After getting home tonight and testing it against my brightest two lights (KL6 with Cree Q5 at 1.2A and Seoul P4 driven at 1.3A) the Arc 6 is now the brightest LED light I have in my possession, even at Level 6. Level seven is even brighter but it will kick the thermal cut off in a few minutes. I've had this thing for only a few hours but I can't put it down. If you look at the claims that Peter will make about the output, the typical CPF'er will probably pass. But don't make the mistake of comparing his numbers to the likes of other manufacturers (like 180 lumens for 5 hours on a single 123 blah blah blah) Peter is still very conservative in his rating but the test results he showed me and Cyclops942 shows that this is the brightest light among it's 123 powered peers. Those 180 lumen claims from the competitors are lies, lies and more lies and a side by side with the Arc 6 proves it to me. Arc has them beat in the sphere and in real use. The output still blows me away as I type this. 

Now the bad. I agree with Lebkuecher that the pressure required to activate is a bit high out of the box. You can make adjustments to this to get it to turn on with a hair trigger but right out of the box, you'll probably want to make some adjustments to the kilroy. Fortunately, this is easy to do. I have not evaluated the features of the release candidate firmware but I'll spend time in the next few days checking it out. I have verified that the light's thermal protection is functional, and that the low battery step down works correctly. 

I would like to make a commentary here. The amount of data that Peter has taken on this light and the competitors would make your head spin. He probably knows the competitor's lights better than they know themselves. Peter put in a lot of work to make sure he understood the competition. The results of all that hard work is embodied in the Arc6. The light in its current form is light years away from the initial beta units I evaluated. 

The Arc6 is finally ready for prime time.


----------



## SaturnNyne (May 24, 2008)

Thanks for staying up, CM; your initial impressions are very exciting!


----------



## toby_pra (May 24, 2008)

Very nice first impressions Lebhuecher!


----------



## drifthat (May 24, 2008)

I just hope the final retail price would not be higher than $200...


----------



## CM (May 24, 2008)

Gransee said:


> ...The original PD was nickle plated brass. Switching to AL made it trickier to find someone who could plate it but it did reduce the weight of the piston by 2/3rds. 2.15 oz with a battery...



This is one thing I'm starting to notice. Compared to other single cell lights (including AA's) the weight difference makes a big difference. Unlike the other lights, this one does not pull my pants down when I'm not wearing a belt


----------



## cryhavok (May 24, 2008)

Can we get a description of the beam? How does the light throw? Thanks.​


----------



## HoopleHead (May 24, 2008)

would love to get exact dimensions (length and diameter, and weight) as well, thanks!


----------



## this_is_nascar (May 24, 2008)

As appreciative as I was when asked to beta test the Arc4, being asked to test the Arc6 really caught me off guard. If you've kept up with the threads, you'd know that the Arc6 never really got me hyped at all for a variety of reasons. I won't get into the particulars here. They're scattered throughout the forum, so you shouldn't have too much of a problem finding them if they interest you. That being said, I can only expect that Peter really values my opinion, knowing that I'll tell it like it is. For that, I'm extremely appreciative. I'm actually looking forward to putting the Arc6 through it's paces and can't say thanks enough for the opportunity. I really mean that. I was shocked and extremely grateful. It gives me a good feeling. Due to some confusion/issues/etc with shipping, I still have not received my beta unit. With any luck, I should see it on Tuesday.


----------



## Gransee (May 24, 2008)

Before I forget... many 1x123 lights don't operate down to 1.7volts like the Arc6 does. Last night with the guys over we were reminded of this by accident when I put a dead duracell in a fenix p2d and it didn't light up. Thought there was a problem with the flashlight. Put the cell in the Arc6, lit up no problem. 

peter


----------



## maxspeeds (May 24, 2008)

HoopleHead said:


> would love to get exact dimensions (length and diameter, and weight) as well, thanks!


 
From the Arc website: http://www.arcflashlight.com/lsseries.shtml

2.940 inches long by 0.950 inches in diameter 
Weighs 2.2 ounces (with battery and NG sleeve)


----------



## greenlight (May 24, 2008)

Glad to see that Newbie is still around. He's the only nerd around here who actually knows everything. 

Did you say the light hums? Maybe I should get one for my GF?


----------



## olrac (May 24, 2008)

Gransee said:


> Before I forget... many 1x123 lights don't operate down to 1.7volts like the Arc6 does. Last night with the guys over we were reminded of this by accident when I put a dead duracell in a fenix p2d and it didn't light up. Thought there was a problem with the flashlight. Put the cell in the Arc6, lit up no problem.
> 
> peter



In all fairness fenix P2D Q5= $60 vs. Arc6 Starting auction price $275
not an apples to apples comparison
sorta like a pinto vs a corvette


----------



## Lebkuecher (May 25, 2008)

Cuso said:


> Does it fit in the Arc pouch?? :huh:




It sure dose Cuso but the pouch is not part of the package. I have had this pouch for several years now.



cryhavok said:


> Can we get a description of the beam? How does the light throw? Thanks.​



cryhavok the beam shot should help and yes this little light can throw big time.


----------



## Cyclops942 (May 25, 2008)

Okay, unlike CM, I did NOT stay up last night to write my first impressions, probably because I got home not too long before the time of his posting (an unfortunate result of geography and the current speed limits). However, I, too, am quite pleased with the improvements that have been made over the earlier firmware revisions.

Because of previous commitments for today, I have been unable to hunt any white walls yet, but I will have much more time to devote to this tomorrow. I will be performing my own flicker detection testing, as well as some other types of testing.

Before I begin, I want to state the obvious. These opinions are my own, and reflect my own experiences, prejudices, and biases. Your mileage may vary based upon your own inputs.

I would like to address the humming issue first, actually. Please remember that when Peter describes something he's trying to sell, one of the first things he does is vomit up all the negatives he can think of about the subject of discussion, with no sugar coating or soft-selling. He's done this ever since I've known him, and he does not limit this behavior to flashlights. As a matter of fact, when my wife and I visited Phoenix before my job interview here, we met Peter and Merri for breakfast so that we could learn about the area, and he started talking about 122-degree temperatures that closed the airport, scorpions, tarantulas, low humidity that cracks skin, and I really can't remember what else. (Obviously, since we moved out here anyway, the good points were eventually reached, but that's not the point I'm trying to make.) The listing of the humming is another instance of this behavior.

Just for some reference points, I can hear the "ultra-sonic" pest repellers sold in home stores and catalogs, and actually find them painful. I can hear CRT monitors whine when they're no longer performing well. I can hear the "silent" dog control devices (think "sonic mace"), and find them VERY painful. However, when I first got the light, I didn't even hear the hum. I heard the guys make some mention of the light humming, but I never noticed it until one night while walking my dog, I held the light up next to my ear and bounced the beam off a stop sign 3/4 of a block away. Not only did I wince from the reflection, but I FINALLY heard the hum. (I actually would call it a whine, since it's at about 4 KHz, not 60 Hz, but I'll stick with the terminology currently in use.) 

Wherever my hand surrounds the light, no sound appears to escape; the only place the sound leaks out is where the light is exposed to the air. In my hands, that leaves basically the two ends of the light as high-frequency sound emitters, and typically only the business end, because my thumb is typically covering the end of the piston. Please note that we're not talking high volumes, here. I don't have any equipment to measure this any more scientific or precise than my ears, but it's not loud. I personally can detect the hum at brightness levels 2-7, but I have to actually press the light against my ear to hear it at level 2. I've used the light to read while bouncing the beam off the ceiling (leaving almost the entire light exposed), and I've not heard the hum. I've used the light for many, many dog-walking excursions (which, because of the way the light is carried, leaves both ends exposed), and I've not heard the hum. I've shown the light to many of my co-workers (in an office environment), and none of them have heard the hum. I've shown the light to some budding flashoholics in both indoor and outdoor environments, and none of them have ever heard the hum. On all the walks, my dog has never acted like he has heard the hum. The only times I've ever heard the Arc6 hum in actual real-life usage have been when I've been aligning the light with my eyeballs to maximize reflective bounce-back. In short, this is not something I find distracting in actual use. 

I did perform an inadvertent drop-test onto a concrete driveway from about three feet (1 meter, for our European readers) while walking my dog tonight, and I find no damage whatsoever now that I'm home. (Hey, when you have to hold a leash, a bag of... stuff, and a flashlight, you have to do a little juggling... the light slipped.) Of course, the guy I was talking to at the time was impressed that the light stayed on, and that I was completely unconcerned about being a butter-fingers.

Just like CM, I verified the thermal cutoff last night before leaving Peter's place, using level 7. Tonight, I verified that it works at level 6, too, and that it takes longer. No surprises there. I'll probably do some actual timed tests of the thermal cutoff under various circumstances later.

Tonight, I noticed the variance in the timing of the flash codes that Peter mentions. The timing may be uneven, but it's still different from what you're doing with your thumb, which is pretty regular. Peter says this is normal in his post, and I can say from experience that it's a non-issue for me.

CM also mentioned the weight of the light. Even when using the heavier guarded sleeve as I tend to do, the weight is hardly noticeable. If I need to carry the light in my pants pocket instead of on my belt, I have NO problem changing the sleeve out and dropping it in the front pocket of my pants, whether it's jeans, dress slacks, or khakis. It fits well, it's not bulky (smaller than a SureFire E1e, actually, which I hope to catch in a photo later), and the weight in a pocket is negligible. CM and I actually weighed the light with the guarded sleeve, and, if memory serves me correctly, it comes in at about 2.8 ounces (80g) or less, but I would love it if CM, Peter, or one of the other testers with a proper scale would jump in and supply the actual weight, here.

I will be taking some pictures of the light, and if they turn out even reasonably well, I'll post them. I'll even try some beam shots, but I make no promises on how they'll turn out; I've never really done those before.

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

CM mentioned the huge volume of data that Peter has collected on various lights. I don't know how to emphasize just how much actual testing has occurred, the number of different lights that have been tested, the number of different batteries (and battery chemistries) that have been used, or how much the advertised claims of lumen output from other lights are different from the data collected by this testing. 

When Peter makes his lumen claims for his own lights, he's using a fully-assembled flashlight and battery in a NIST-traceable integrating sphere. He also will quote these claims in a conservative fashion, rather than, just as a possible example, using the highest lumen rating ever received on a bare LED hooked to a bench power supply as the claimed rating for all lights. If Peter makes a lumen claim for a light he's selling, it's a legitimate claim.


----------



## Cyclops942 (May 25, 2008)

olrac said:


> In all fairness fenix P2D Q5= $60 vs. Arc6 Starting auction price $275
> not an apples to apples comparison
> sorta like a pinto vs a corvette



I think Peter was mentioning it not as a primary selling point, but merely as an added bonus. And let's face it; people who are in the market for a Pinto are not likely to buy a Corvette instead, even if it does have that much cooler-looking steering wheel.


----------



## olrac (May 25, 2008)

Cyclops942 said:


> I think Peter was mentioning it not as a primary selling point, but merely as an added bonus. And let's face it; people who are in the market for a Pinto are not likely to buy a Corvette instead, even if it does have that much cooler-looking steering wheel.



Of course the Pinto buyer is not going to buy a vette, the point I was making that it is silly to compare your product to an unlike product or one not designed for the same tasks. Chevy would look silly saying the vette beats the Pinto in zero to sixty, even though its true. Now saying the vette beats the Dodge Viper in 0 to 60, well that has some meat to it. But let's keep the thread on track and drop this line of discussion or start a different thread.


----------



## CM (May 25, 2008)

Sort of off topic. I've read through several posts on the Arc forum and a bit here also. For those that are whining about the price of the ebay units, remember that those come with both sleeves. The guarded sleeve with the Ti clip is probably worth a lot (I'm not going to guess a price here) 

Not knowing anything, if I were to buy a production Arc I'd probably pick the unguarded one. However, I've grown to like the one with the clip that I've stuck to it exclusively. The Arc6 is small enough and light enough that even with the added weight and diameter, the guarded version offers me much more utility. Also, it makes the light easier to activate if you choose to leave the kilroy in its stock condition. Having said that, I'd probably like the other sleeve also for those times when I really want to go slim.

Here's a side by side comparison of the two sleeves:


----------



## Cyclops942 (May 25, 2008)

olrac said:


> Of course the Pinto buyer is not going to buy a vette, the point I was making that it is silly to compare your product to an unlike product or one not designed for the same tasks. Chevy would look silly saying the vette beats the Pinto in zero to sixty, even though its true. Now saying the vette beats the Dodge Viper in 0 to 60, well that has some meat to it. But let's keep the thread on track and drop this line of discussion or start a different thread.



Talking about the results of the Arc6 beta testing, including the fact that it will still fire on a battery most other lights consider dead *is* on track, I would think. Throwing in the Pinto/Corvette chat might be a little off-topic, but I thought you were trying to make a point about the relative prices and intended markets of the two lights used in the comparison, so I answered in the same vein.


----------



## paulr (May 25, 2008)

I'd definitely go for the guarded one with the clip. I'm currently edc'ing an Aleph Mule and the clip is working fantastically. It's the first light I've had where I actually use the clip.


----------



## Finbar (May 25, 2008)

Cyclops942 said:


> I think Peter was mentioning it not as a primary selling point, but merely as an added bonus. And let's face it; people who are in the market for a Pinto are not likely to buy a Corvette instead, even if it does have that much cooler-looking steering wheel.



Not to mention that the exploding fireballs that resulted from the poor build quality.

"Due to the alleged engineering, safety, and reliability problems, Forbes included the Pinto on its list of the *worst* cars of all time."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto

And let's face it, when paying for a Corvette, no one wants to get a lemon like a Pinto.


Fin


----------



## CM (May 26, 2008)

I'm on the second day of testing this and so far so good. I can't find any issues to report so I've actually tested the thermal kickdown on mine. It drops down around as low123F and high of 128F. I recall Peter mentioned the threshold is about 120F.


----------



## Lebkuecher (May 26, 2008)

I have yet to find any major flaws and the more I use the light the more I like it. 

I have cycled the light well over a 1000 times now without a misfire. I have performed several drop test with no issues. Several times when dropping the light the tail would hit first giving the light a nice bounce back up. The first time this happen the light flew into a wall putting a nick in the wall but no problems with the light. Each drop test was 6 feet plus. 

I have not noticed any flicking at all. 

The light has a quite humming at times but I don't think this will be a big deal to most. The humming is intermittent and doesn't happen every time. Some times the light will hum when you first activate the light then stop. 

I have shown this light to many workmates and all have been very impressed. Most have no idea what makes a good EDC or even know what EDC means but still the feed back is important. Most like the size and are very impressed with the brightness. More then half have mentioned the pressure needed to maintain stages two and three may need to be adjusted down a little. 

Testing continues, it is now time to bake an Arc, I believe the light feels a little chilled at the moment.


----------



## CM (May 27, 2008)

For all you data lovers.

I took a measurement of my brightest and longest thrower, a 2D Mag modified with a Seoul P4 U bin biased at 1.2A. So a fair comparison would be the Arc6 at the same bias level but Peter posted somewhere that level 6 is 1000mA, and Level 7 is 1400mA. I therefore compared the Seoul Mag to these two high settings on the Arc6 since they were the closest to 1.2A. Since I do not have an integrating sphere, I used an ordinary lightmeter and bounced the light from the Mag and the Arc6 to guage output. Units are irrelevant since I'm interested in relative output so call it what you like. The results:

Seoul Mag at 1.2A=16.5
Arc6 on Level 6 (~1A) = 18.5 
Arc6 on Level 7 (~1.4A) = 25.5 

On level 6, the Arc was 12% brighter even though the Seoul was biased 20% higher. On level 7, it was 54.5% brighter. The other lights Peter had (I think these went on to get auctioned) were very comparable to my particular sample. Cyclops942's light was virtually identical to mine.

Here's something I didn't expect. It appears to me that Lumileds K2-TFFC has caught up if not surpassed the brightest offering from Seoul, and possibly Cree with their R2. I was skeptical for a long time whether Lumiled's can come back but it appears that they might have. Peter has maintained that the Seouls are not as bright/nice as these K2's so the question remains: are these K2's unique or do they represent the typical lot? The question about whether more of these can be made with existing K2's availability has been raised in other threads. I would be surprised if Lumiled's couldn't overcome whatever issues is causing this LED's supply to fall short of the demand.


----------



## SaturnNyne (May 28, 2008)

CM said:


> The results:
> Seoul Mag at 1.2A=16.5
> Arc6 on Level 6 (~1A) = 18.5
> Arc6 on Level 7 (~1.4A) = 25.5


~18-25 CM's Ordinary Lightmeter Units! Fantastic! oo:

Thanks a lot. Even though it now looks like I'll have to wait a long time before I ever see one of these, these kinds of reports make me rather giddy with excitement.


----------



## Bullzeyebill (May 28, 2008)

Peter had indicated that he has not decided on the Led for the production run of the Arc6. Would be nice if he used the same K2 he is using with this pre-production special run for the auction. Is this K2 easier to work with than the Seoul P4? Same tint control as the Luxeon's?

Bill


----------



## this_is_nascar (May 28, 2008)

So, yesterday afternoon, I returned from our weekend camping trip. I had hoped to get this before leaving, but that never happened. It would have been a good proving grounds to test my Arc6. Anyway, the package was waiting for me, as it had arrived earlier in the day.

I received the following:

Arc6 Head.
NG Sleeve.
Guarded Sleeve.
2 Duracell Batteries.
Arc6 Instructions.
Arc6 Display/Packaging Box.

I like the box. It's not so over-the-top like some of the latest offerings you see from others and it's certainly more "presentable" than a Zip-Loc bag. My only suggestion would be to highlight the name and logo with black or something. It is raised-lettering, but you still have to strain to see it.

The end of the piston in both of my sleeves have the cutout for the stand tritium vial found in the other PD offerings, however none were installed in either of my units. I'm unclear if 1) all the Arc6 lights with have the slot milled and 2) if they do, will a vial be included/installed.

I have not seen a standard PD light (the physical basis of the Arc6) in sometime, however the Arc6 looks smaller than I had expected, almost to a fault. When using the PD to activate the light, I find part of my hand blocks a small amount of light coming out the front. I continually find myself repositioning this light to not block the beam. The activation action is typical "PD" like. Twist the bezel to go to low, twist quite a bit more to go to high OR press the PD a bit for low and press a bit more for high. I've only cycled the Arc6 several hundred times so far, but it's "typical PD" for me, meaning very hard to activate. I find myself losing high-mode all the time due to thumb fatigue which lessens the pressure required to remain in high mode. I've never cared for the piston-drive design because of this and I've never really owned/used my PD lights long enough to "break them in". The twisty action to activate the light is smooth and accurate, however I'd like to see less turning required to get from low to high. It's possible (I don't know for sure) that this can be tweaked by adjusting the Kilroy, however I'm not going to mess with that.

I was at an advantage over the other beta testers, since I have not really been following the Arc6. I've classified it several times as nothing more than a "re-badge PD" light. For the most part, that's true when you look at the physical aspects of the Arc6. Where you have the difference is in the electronics. I was able to step-through the documentation and setup the light to my liking, changing it and setting it back again. What I have not found is the ability to get the Arc6 reset back to the default mode. I'm unsure if it's possible or an undocumented feature. I feel that ability should be there and instructions published on how to do that.

So, you pretty much have (3) stages.

- Low
- High
- Virtual

I think low and high are pretty self-explanatory. Either and/or both can be activated by the piston or by turning the bezel. The Virtual stage is really slick and I like the concept of it. By pushing the piston straight though low to high, you have access to this 3rd (virtual) stage, which can have it's own setting. This is a great feature and a pretty slick design that I'm happy with. My current Arc6, during this stage of my testing, is set for strobe-mode on the virtual setting.

There are (7) brightness levels + (1) strobe level that make up the Arc6. For comparison purposes, level-1 (lowest level) is brighter than the lowest level of my LF2X, but lower than low on my NDI. To my eyes, levels 5, 6 and 7 on the Arc6 all appear to be the same brightness. I have not tested this on any equipment as of yet, but I had some time to play in the yard last night. In setting the light, I saw no difference between 5, 6 and 7. I currently have the Arc6 set to level-1 (lowest) on stage-1 and level-4 on stage-2. As mention, strobe is now set on the virtual mode, but I'll change that to level 6 or 7. Between those (3) settings, I should be set for whatever the situation warrants.

As previously mentioned, I've yet to perform any run-time/output type testing, but plan to do what I can. The issue I have is that I have to come up with a different setup for my testing, since the Arc6 on high, overloads my meter/setup. As of this writing, the Arc6 is performing the way it should, as far as I can tell. I'm able to set and re-set the light, as advertised. This next series of testing will be more vigorous and will subject the Arc6 to "real-world" usage.


----------



## Lebkuecher (May 28, 2008)

this_is_nascar said:


> I find myself losing high-mode all the time due to thumb fatigue which lessens the pressure required to remain in high mode.



Tin you may want to run some test with the switch without adjusting the kilroy to let everyone know what to expect when they receive their lights but a simple and very easy adjustment will make a big difference in the pressure needed. All three of us Bata testers gently pushed the kilroy down towards the body of the head and it makes a big difference in the pressure needed to keep stages two and three activated. I still occasionally will let the light slip back into stage one but not near as much as when I first received the light.


----------



## Blue72 (May 28, 2008)

I would like to see more shock tests on a hard surface. I would like to see 30 drops from ten feet (higher would be even better) on concrete,rock, or asphalt.

Also can this light be repeatedly used underwater with no water entering the tail switch?

I really like to see how durable this light is.


----------



## Cyclops942 (May 28, 2008)

dd61999 said:


> I would like to see more shock tests on a hard surface. I would like to see 30 drops from ten feet (higher would be even better) on concrete,rock, or asphalt.
> 
> Also can this light be repeatedly used underwater with no water entering the tail switch?
> 
> I really like to see how durable this light is.



Check the first post of this thread; the stated standard for the drop test is less than 6 feet.


----------



## Gransee (May 28, 2008)

The MIL-STD 810F spec is 48 inches on all surfaces. My goal in testing is 72 inches on all surfaces. One of the reasons I specified type III anodize and a Ti-6AL-4V bezel. 

peter

ps. I think I referred to the alloy as AV64 once in the past. that was wrong. I had the right numbers and letters arranged in the right order but in the wrong groups. You think having now bought, handled and machined the stuff I would know what it is called. Blondes...


----------



## Blue72 (May 28, 2008)

Cyclops942 said:


> Check the first post of this thread; the stated standard for the drop test is less than 6 feet.


 

Thats fine, I would settle for 30-40 drops on concrete, asphalt, or rock at less than 6 feet.

I think this would be one of the true test of the light. Freezing a light (although impressive) does little for me. I would like to see more common situations tested.

I would also like to see it dropped at different angles as well, so we do not have the tail switch breaking the fall of the light.


----------



## CM (May 28, 2008)

this_is_nascar said:


> ...To my eyes, levels 5, 6 and 7 on the Arc6 all appear to be the same brightness. I have not tested this on any equipment as of yet, but I had some time to play in the yard last night...



Do you have any RCR123's you can try? The light will only go to the highest setting that the cell can provide and if the cell doesn't have the oomph, it will top out at a lower level. I know with partially spent Cr123's I can't tell the difference between 6 and 7.


----------



## FrogmanM (May 29, 2008)

TIN, now that I think about it, strobe for the third level on a PD UI would be awesome!



Mayo


----------



## this_is_nascar (May 29, 2008)

CM said:


> Do you have any RCR123's you can try? The light will only go to the highest setting that the cell can provide and if the cell doesn't have the oomph, it will top out at a lower level. I know with partially spent Cr123's I can't tell the difference between 6 and 7.



I have a few older MP non-protected cells I've been trying. I'll have to recharge them and try again.


----------



## yaesumofo (May 29, 2008)

Why not machine the body and head components from 7075? This is arguably a somewhat more durable form of aluminum alloy which No doubt is a better material than 6061. This would definitely make the light pass drop testing at 72 inches and beyond.
IMHO and based on my non scientific testing Stainless steel (815) is every bit as good a material for a flashlight bezel as titanium.
If the light (any light) takes an impact which is strong enough to deform 815 the light will have more things to worry about than a tangled up bezel. The same is true of Titanium. 
I look forwared to seeing more results from the beta testers.

Yaesumofo



Gransee said:


> The MIL-STD 810F spec is 48 inches on all surfaces. My goal in testing is 72 inches on all surfaces. One of the reasons I specified type III anodize and a Ti-6AL-4V bezel.
> 
> peter
> 
> ps. I think I referred to the alloy as AV64 once in the past. that was wrong. I had the right numbers and letters arranged in the right order but in the wrong groups. You think having now bought, handled and machined the stuff I would know what it is called. Blondes...


----------



## Haz (May 30, 2008)

yaesumofo said:


> IMHO and based on my non scientific testing Stainless steel (815) is every bit as good a material for a flashlight bezel as titanium.
> If the light (any light) takes an impact which is strong enough to deform 815 the light will have more things to worry about than a tangled up bezel. The same is true of Titanium.
> I look forwared to seeing more results from the beta testers.
> 
> Yaesumofo


 
I guess titanium is used, because it's rust resistant, since it is still possible for stainless steel to rust in harsh conditions.


----------



## yaesumofo (May 30, 2008)

True. The price differential is a factor of 5 or 10 depending on what Peter is paying. In terms of materials alone the cost ratio is roughly 10 to 1 titanium to steel. there is a machine shop differential as well.
I don't mind having to wipe the salt water or rain off the bezel of my flashlight in order to prevent corrosion, if I am going to save a bundle in the process.
IMHO there just is not enough of an advantage of titanium over stainless for use in flashlight bezels. It is like buying a 40 dollar part where a 10 dollar part will work perfectly.
Just an opinion.
Yaesumofo




Haz said:


> I guess titanium is used, because it's rust resistant, since it is still possible for stainless steel to rust in harsh conditions.


----------



## err0r (May 30, 2008)

yaesumofo said:


> True. The price differential is a factor of 5 or 10 depending on what Peter is paying. In terms of materials alone the cost ratio is roughly 10 to 1 titanium to steel. there is a machine shop differential as well.
> I don't mind having to wipe the salt water or rain off the bezel of my flashlight in order to prevent corrosion, if I am going to save a bundle in the process.
> IMHO there just is not enough of an advantage of titanium over stainless for use in flashlight bezels. It is like buying a 40 dollar part where a 10 dollar part will work perfectly.
> Just an opinion.
> Yaesumofo



I believe that this was previously discussed in depth by Peter - since the greatest cost influence to the bezel is the machining, not the feed stock, switching from titanium to stainless steel would not incur the cost savings that you might be expecting, thus Peter feels that the advantages of Ti in this role are worth it. Others do disagree, but the difference in price between a complete light with a SS bezel and one with a Ti bezel is not going to be particularly large and the Ti performs better in this role.


----------



## this_is_nascar (May 30, 2008)

Nothing new to report. The Arc6 is still working flawlessly, as expected. It's functioning as it should. My eyes still don't see a difference between levels 6,7 on standard and rechargeable cells, but that's nothing I"m concerned about. I've seen lights meter higher but not appear to be brighter to me.

The one thing I have noticed that I've never seen before is what I'm calling "theater lighting" on low mode. For those of you with an automobile, that advertises "theater lighting", you know what I mean. From low-mode, turning the light off, it doesn't instantly go out. It somewhat dims rapidly to off. I don't ever recall seeing this effect before on any other light. I'm not considering this a problem, just an observation of something that's "different".


----------



## IsaacHayes (May 30, 2008)

Very interesting thread. One thing that caught my eye is CM's P4 mag is at 1.2amps. I know there is some variation in P4 emitters, some can take higher currents more than others, depending on the batch probably etc, etc. But generally their phosphor does not like heat and gets overwhelmed easily. Reason I'm saying this is I have a Seoul P4 mag and when I ran it at 1.2amps the light was dimmer and significantly bluer than when at 1 amp. So it's possible that CM's P4 could not be at max lumens due to the 200ma overdrive. My P4 bin is one of the warmer bins, so it's quite easy to see when it changes from white to bluish. Some of the colder tint bins may not be so easy to notice. And actually I did not realize that anything was wrong until I dropped the current down to 1amp and saw the difference. I just thought it was a cooler tinted led anyways. The cree and the K2 are much more tolerant to over drive and do not shift tint as drastically or suddenly at a certain current point. I have ran luxeons way over spec and same for crees (2amps) and aside from being brighter, not noticed any crazy change.

I do not know the current drive levels of the Arc6, but by using a K2 luxeon, it should not have any troubles with dropping in output or changing color temp with high currents. That's one of the things the K2 advertised, was (1.5amp was it?) high current capability. Like I said I don't know if the Arc6 takes advantage of high current the the emitter or if it's possible even with a single battery unless the Vf of the K2 is low enough for it to happen without taxing the limits of the current output of the battery, but the LED should be able to handle it.


----------



## yaesumofo (May 30, 2008)

This concept is exactly 180 degrees wrong. They (stainless steel and titanium) cost roughly the same to machine but the cost of material is 10X higher with titanium. I do not see how the following statement could be correct.
Yaesumofo




err0r said:


> I believe that this was previously discussed in depth by Peter - since the greatest cost influence to the bezel is the machining, not the feed stock, switching from titanium to stainless steel would not incur the cost savings that you might be expecting, thus Peter feels that the advantages of Ti in this role are worth it. Others do disagree, but the difference in price between a complete light with a SS bezel and one with a Ti bezel is not going to be particularly large and the Ti performs better in this role.


----------



## Lebkuecher (May 30, 2008)

this_is_nascar said:


> Nothing new to report. The Arc6 is still working flawlessly, as expected. It's functioning as it should..



Same here, I have carried the light everyday and continue to run the light through its paces without having issues. Yesterday day I performed 10 more drop test at work in front of my coworkers and they could believe I was doing it. The light has become very popular at work and now everyone wants one.

The only small change I would make would be to adjust the Kilroy so the tail switch would be easier to use but this is a minor adjustment and anyone could do this with their thumb. 

Overall I feel everyone will be very pleased with the light.



yaesumofo said:


> This concept is exactly 180 degrees wrong. They (stainless steel and titanium) cost roughly the same to machine but the cost of material is 10X higher with titanium. I do not see how the following statement could be correct.
> Yaesumofo



I am not a CNC person but my understanding is you have to have special equipment to work with titanium and it is harder to work with. I had a conversation with Jason B regarding the FF projects and this was the impression I was left with. Again I could be wrong but this was the impression I was left with.


----------



## Cyclops942 (May 30, 2008)

My Arc6 is still working at least as well as advertised. This is no surprise, since I've been carrying a prototype for months as EDC.

More good news is that it goes through airport security just fine (assuming you remember to put it on the conveyor belt, that is... it would definitely set off the metal detectors).

I am very pleased with this light. While the design decisions that have been made will not meet the needs of every potential buyer (witness the plethora of alternatives being put forh even at this late date), the light is a useful tool for many applications. There will definitely be another one in my future buying plans.


----------



## Lebkuecher (May 30, 2008)

Cyclops942 said:


> More good news is that it goes through airport security just fine (assuming you remember to put it on the conveyor belt, that is... it would definitely set off the metal detectors).



I was wondering if airport security would check and see what kind of battery you had in it. I guess they didn’t?


----------



## Blue72 (May 30, 2008)

I thought the Beta test, would be more of a formal series of different tests. So far it seems Like just a bunch of reviews and impressions.

Are you guys going to be doing something more formal in the future?


----------



## Lebkuecher (May 30, 2008)

dd61999 said:


> I thought the Beta test, would be more of a formal series of different tests. So far it seems Like just a bunch of reviews and impressions.
> 
> Are you guys going to be doing something more formal in the future?



What more would like to see? 

As beta testers we were instructed to use the light as it was intended and to give constant feedback to the group. We were asked to answer questions and perform test such as water and drop test. Peter thought it was important to give first impressions then continue to post back our experiences so this makes it a little awkward to formally present a conclusion even though I believe the on going conclusion is the light is winner. I and the other beta testers are willing to do any reasonable test requested and provide any comparisons we can. So if there is more you would like to see or know just ask away. 

I thought there would be more questions and request BTW.


----------



## Blue72 (May 30, 2008)

Lebkuecher said:


> What more would like to see?
> 
> As beta testers we were instructed to use the light as it was intended and to give constant feedback to the group. We were asked to answer questions and perform test such as water and drop test. Peter thought it was important to give first impressions then continue to post back our experiences so this makes it a little awkward to formally present a conclusion even though I believe the on going conclusion is the light is winner. I and the other beta testers are willing to do any reasonable test requested and provide any comparisons we can. So if there is more you would like to see or know just ask away.
> 
> I thought there would be more questions and request BTW.


 

Something along the lines of what quickbeam did when beta testing the ARC-AAA P.


It also seems from Peter previous post that he would like to exceed MIL-STD 810F. If that is the case There are over 500 pages of different tests that can be done to the ARC6. 

I was not looking to see that extreme of testing. But applying some of the methods quickbeam did would be nice.

My main concern is shock resistance on a hard surface. I know a competitor dropped their light multiple times from 20 feet onto rock, concrete, and asphalt. I would like to see the ARC6 go through the same punishment even at only 6 feet.

A water resistance test would be nice. Put the light in a plastic bottle filled with water and apply 50 pounds to test water depth pressure or even put it on a fishing line and dump it in the ocean or have someone actually dive with the light. By the way I would happily volunteer if someone wants to lend me their ARC6:naughty:

I would also like to see runtimes and outdoor beamshots of the different levels. Although I am sure TIN will cover the run time test.


Plus Photos or videos on youtube would make all these tests more interesting.


----------



## this_is_nascar (May 30, 2008)

dd61999 said:


> I thought the Beta test, would be more of a formal series of different tests. So far it seems Like just a bunch of reviews and impressions.
> 
> Are you guys going to be doing something more formal in the future?



I'm not quite sure what more you're asking for. We're using the lights like a normal user would, even moreso in some cases. The electronics are being exercised terribly more than a normal user would in order to find/discover any bugs now, rather than the end user getting his/her Arc6. What are we not doing that you'd consider a more "formal series" of testing? If you're looking for crap like running it over with a lawn-mower, dropping it from a cliff or anything like that, I think you're asking too much. If it's something else you're looking for please speak-up, with specifics.


----------



## Lebkuecher (May 30, 2008)

Give me an hour or so and I will post some youtube video of the light dropping if this will help you. Like Tin just mentioned I don't want to be extreme but I do believe some youtube drop test are reasonable so I will do it. I will try and post some outside beam shots tonight.


----------



## Blue72 (May 30, 2008)

Hey guys,

I am not looking for anything extreme (all though it does put on a nice show) I would just like to see some test what a flashlight might encounter during its lifetime.

I know these might take time, but a weekend is coming up shortly!


----------



## this_is_nascar (May 30, 2008)

dd61999 said:


> Hey guys,
> 
> I am not looking for anything extreme (all though it does put on a nice show) I would just like to see some test what a flashlight might encounter during its lifetime.
> 
> I know these might take time, but a weekend is coming up shortly!



... and that's exactly what we're doing by using the light, even when we don't need light, dropping it much more often than a normal person would and subjecting it to moisture/water immersion.


----------



## Blue72 (May 30, 2008)

this_is_nascar said:


> ... and that's exactly what we're doing by using the light, even when we don't need light, dropping it much more often than a normal person would and subjecting it to moisture/water immersion.


 
Then maybe their was just some miscommunication or not enough reporting.

I would like to see more details on the drops such as how many times? From what height? and what surface?

The same goes for the moisture/water immersion.

Maybe I am asking to much. I am surprised more people are not requesting this.

By the way the above posts I made are just requests I would like to see. You guys can feel free to tell me to get lost if I am asking to much


----------



## Ritch (May 30, 2008)

Hello beta testers,

here is my question: There is one beamshot in this threat, but would you be as nice as to describe the beam characteristics particularly?

thank's
richard


----------



## Lebkuecher (May 30, 2008)

Richard 

I believe this picture will help, comparing the color to other lights I have I would describe color as warm. 

I am uploading three drop test videos now and will post when they become available on youtube. The first video you will see the light die on the last drop and when you see what happened to the battery you will see why. The nipple was smashed in on the battery but once I replaced the battery the light is fine with no marks. This is one tough light.


----------



## Lebkuecher (May 30, 2008)

dd61999 said:


> The same goes for the moisture/water immersion.



I can tell you I left the Arc 6 in a bathtub filled with water for about twenty minutes and during that time I activated the light several times underwater. Later I put the light in a plastic bag filled with water then froze the light solid (Picture in the thread). I then ran hot water over the ice to get the light out and turned the light on immediately to see if the electronics could handle the extremes. I have now activated the light well over 3000 times without a miscue. I have reprogrammed the light several times trying to find a flaw in the programming and can’t. I have dropped the light over thirty times now and the light still works fine. I hope this helps.

BTW still waiting on youtube


----------



## Lebkuecher (May 30, 2008)

youtube drop test

First video shows 5 drops with the last one smashing the battery nipple.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkC_SC-c0ow


What the damaged battery looks like
http://youtube.com/watch?v=GO5gKiJyFhs


More drop test after replacing damaged battery
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=db8P4j7_sFM


----------



## mraymer (May 30, 2008)

I just love that "Ooops!" at the end of the first video, hilarious.  One of those Murphy's Law moments. Glad to see it was a battery failure and not a problem with the light however in the subsequent videos. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## olrac (May 30, 2008)

It's great that the light itself didn't fail , but in an emergency situation you would still have no light the same as a light that was broken, and if I was dropped from 72" I would be bruised but I would still work more than likely. So the light may not be the tough character it was advertised as being. Not taking away from the quality, just that it is very hard to design a light to be diaster proof. I don't know if the design could be changed to prevent battery damage or not.


----------



## sbebenelli (May 30, 2008)

olrac said:


> just that it is very hard to design a light to be diaster proof.


----------



## SaturnNyne (May 30, 2008)

this_is_nascar said:


> From low-mode, turning the light off, it doesn't instantly go out. It somewhat dims rapidly to off. I don't ever recall seeing this effect before on any other light. I'm not considering this a problem, just an observation of something that's "different".


That's interesting, kind of reminds me of the way an HDS EDC remains on very dimly for a second after shutdown. I always liked that for some reason, maybe just because it's different, and I was disappointed to find that the Nova doesn't do it too. Anyway, cool, thanks for noticing and reporting little details like that.


----------



## mraymer (May 30, 2008)

I don't feel these comparisons are fair. I don't recall the Arc6 being advertised as "bomb proof" like the Ra Twisty. Durable yes, but not impervious to damage.


----------



## olrac (May 30, 2008)

mraymer said:


> I don't feel these comparisons are fair. I don't recall the Arc6 being advertised as "bomb proof" like the Ra Twisty. Durable yes, but not impervious to damage.



I wasn't comparing it to any light. But I recall Peter saying the light should be at least as tough as the person carrying it, and I have taken a fall from more than 72" and walked away, if the light took that fall with me it should work afterwards as well, if this is what it is designed to do.

edit: the fall was off my garage roof, about 8 feet, and I don't recommend trying it, lol.


----------



## this_is_nascar (May 30, 2008)

Alright guys, I'm going to do something which I normally don't do, which is "vocally moderate" this thread, especially those last few posts, in order to keep this thread strictly on-topic. It's the Arc6 Beta Test thread. It's not an "Arc6 Compared to Other Lights" thread or an "Arc6 - It Should Do This and That" thread or anything else that's not related to the testing of the current Arc6 product.

Any comments and/or opinions not specifically related to the Arc6 product that we're testing should be posted somewhere else. We would all appreciate keeping this thread on topic, so others can quickly peruse the thread and know the results of the testing that's occurring. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.


----------



## olrac (May 30, 2008)

this_is_nascar said:


> Alright guys, I'm going to do something which I normally don't do, which is "vocally moderate" this thread, especially those last few posts, in order to keep this thread strictly on-topic. It's the Arc6 Beta Test thread. It's not an "Arc6 Compared to Other Lights" thread or an "Arc6 - It Should Do This and That" thread or anything else that's not related to the testing of the current Arc6 product.
> 
> Any comments and/or opinions not specifically related to the Arc6 product that we're testing should be posted somewhere else. We would all appreciate keeping this thread on topic, so others can quickly peruse the thread and know the results of the testing that's occurring. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation.



Sorry TIN, I didn't know that it was a no response thread, if I had I would not have posted and will not post anything further if that is the case.

BTW, My post was in response to the video test and what the durability of the light is in relation to what Peter said about it, not just to slam it


----------



## this_is_nascar (May 30, 2008)

It certainly is a response and Q/A thread. Let's just keep it constructive. What we don't want to see (the post that really caused my response) is comparisions to other lights in this thread. It's not the place for it. Those posts can be made somewhere else and will be more than plentiful once folks get their Arc6 and start reviewing/comparing the product Thanks again.


----------



## olrac (May 30, 2008)

Will do.


----------



## this_is_nascar (May 30, 2008)

During the cautions of this Craftman's Truck race at Dover, I've spent some time outside with the Arc6. On level-7, the highest output level, this thing puts out an incredible amount of light as it relates to both flood and throw. I'm currently using an old MP rechargeable 123-cell, so that certainly helps. In this configuration, this light put out more light than any other 1x123 I've ever owned. It's quite impressive actually.


----------



## Lebkuecher (May 30, 2008)

Using my Meterman lm631 I measured the Arc 6 at 78 verse a FFIII at 47. I tested the FFIII at LSI in sphere at 72 lumens to put this in contexts. The Arc was tested using a used energizer so needless to say this light is bright.


----------



## CM (May 31, 2008)

Finally did a few (10) drop tests from about 5ft onto tile. The 123 cell appears to take most of the beating. The (+) contact on the PCB stayed intact probably because it was filled with solder. Normally, this contact has a hole in it which would probably collapse when subjected to a drop. I think that this should continue to be solder filled. Preferably with ROHS solder due to it being a bit less maleable. I did not bother with too many bezel side drops since this part is pretty well protected. In any case, a broken lens can be serviced by the user.


----------



## paulr (May 31, 2008)

.


----------



## cryhavok (May 31, 2008)

To give us an idea of the throw, can anyone do some [email protected] meter tests?


----------



## Blue72 (May 31, 2008)

olrac said:


> It's great that the light itself didn't fail , but in an emergency situation you would still have no light the same as a light that was broken, and if I was dropped from 72" I would be bruised but I would still work more than likely. So the light may not be the tough character it was advertised as being. Not taking away from the quality, just that it is very hard to design a light to be diaster proof. I don't know if the design could be changed to prevent battery damage or not.


 
Hey *Olrac*,

Lets keep in mind these are multiple drops that hammer away at the battery. In an emergency situation we would probably only drop the light once or twice.


Thanks *Lebkuecher*,

These are the kind of tests I wanted to see! *By the way nice socks*!!! How many drops overall would you say your ARC6 had so far.






Will anybody be doing a water resistance test. I know it was left in a tub for a length of time. But I would like to see some water pressure tests if possible.

Outdoor beamshots of the different levels would be nice too.


Thanks


----------



## olrac (May 31, 2008)

dd61999 said:


> Hey *Olrac*,
> 
> Lets keep in mind these are multiple drops that hammer away at the battery. In an emergency situation we would probably only drop the light once or twice.
> 
> ...



Good point!


----------



## Cyclops942 (May 31, 2008)

Hey, if I toss it 25 times to the bottom of a 4-foot pool, will that work for the 100-foot depth test?


Seriously, the 4-foot test is no problem, and it's a TAD better than the bathtub test. I'll do it and post back here.


----------



## Cyclops942 (May 31, 2008)

Lebkuecher said:


> I was wondering if airport security would check and see what kind of battery you had in it. I guess they didn’t?


 
Nope, they didn't. I checked the TSA's website before I left, just to make sure what I could bring. They're concerned about Lithium cells that are (a) in carry-on luggage, and (b) not installed. So, all I had to do was put tape over the positive contact of my spare batteries, and they were hunky-dory with everything.


----------



## CM (May 31, 2008)

cryhavok said:


> To give us an idea of the throw, can anyone do some [email protected] meter tests?



No problem. 

12,810 lux with no name rechargeable's
8,750 lux with throwaways.


For grins, I tested an HDS modified with a Seoul P4 using rechargeables. This is (was) my brightest 123 powered light. It topped out at 4,860 lux on max.

Bear in mind that the 12,810 lux will not be sustainable for a long time because of the thermal protection. And even without the thermal kickdown I don't know how long an RCR123 can sustain a discharge at this output. Peter did indicate that Level 7 is not meant for continous run. Regardless, I am quite impressed by the numbers above. I would never have guessed the outcome of the comparison.


----------



## Cyclops942 (May 31, 2008)

Cyclops942 said:


> There will definitely be another one in my future buying plans.


 
Oh, yeah... since I already have one, I am deliberately NOT bidding on any of the ones being auctioned. I just feel that's fair to the rest of the ArcFans out there.


----------



## Cyclops942 (May 31, 2008)

CM said:


> Bear in mind that the 12,810 lux will not be sustainable for a long time because of the thermal protection. And even without the thermal kickdown I don't know how long an RCR123 can sustain a discharge at this output. Peter did indicate that Level 7 is not meant for continous run. Regardless, I am quite impressed by the numbers above. I would never have guessed the outcome of the comparison.


 
If you want to see how long the RCR123 can sustain this output, drop the light into a vat/glass/container of ice water. This will keep the temperature of the light below the level that activates the thermal cutoff long enough to let the voltage drop take the light down to level 6.

I have done this ONE time with ONE battery. Because of this limited set of data, I am reluctant to post the exact results.


----------



## CM (May 31, 2008)

Cyclops942 said:


> If you want to see how long the RCR123 can sustain this output, drop the light into a vat/glass/container of ice water. This will keep the temperature of the light below the level that activates the thermal cutoff long enough to let the voltage drop take the light down to level 6.
> 
> I have done this ONE time with ONE battery. Because of this limited set of data, I am reluctant to post the exact results.



I just tried this with two no names and got 48 and 56 seconds. Both were charged within the last two days so I think these are "fresh" enough. I think you can now show us your result to add to the small body of knowledge.

Also, to anyone who is wondering how to tell between a temperature vs voltage stepdown, a temperature induced step down will take a light from Level 7 down to Level 3. A voltage stepdown will take it from 7 down to 6. I have not tried temp step down from other levels but maybe Peter can clue us in on what the algorithm is.


----------



## Blue72 (May 31, 2008)

Cyclops942 said:


> Hey, if I toss it 25 times to the bottom of a 4-foot pool, will that work for the 100-foot depth test?
> 
> 
> Seriously, the 4-foot test is no problem, and it's a TAD better than the bathtub test. I'll do it and post back here.


 
At 4 feet you are only looking at less than 2 pounds per square inch of water pressure. A maglite solitaire works flawlessly at those levels. 

I would like to see at least 30 -60 feet of water or a test simulating 30-60 feet of water (about 14-28 pounds per square inch) for a period of an hour or so.

This is less than what Arc rated the light for water resistance. But if you guys can do this test it would give us an idea of the ARC 6 build tolerances and real world idea of water resistance, since most products I have bought in the past from other manufacturers are way off on there water ratings.


Once again, thanks guys for taking our requests!!:thumbsup:


----------



## cryhavok (May 31, 2008)

Thanks for being so responsive to my requests :thumbsup:


----------



## McGizmo (May 31, 2008)

A seal design can be based on greater pressure exerting itself on the seal and insuring a greater seal. On the Arc6, this is the case for the window seal. The piston and head to sleeve seals are bore seals and as such likely have an ultimate failure pressure but by design, it is likely well beyond what one would typically encounter. I say by design because the reality is often different than the design. You have tolerance drifts and you have materials subject to degradation and contamination.

I have had a number of items flood on me and typically the flood has occurred at shallow depths and under little relative pressure. If you have a design which is sound for pressure situations you can most often check its integrity without needing to exert significant pressure. Ironically in many cases, the greatest chance for flooding is under very low pressure where the seals are not yet functioning as they will when under pressure.

If a device is claimed to be good to a certain depth then clearly one would want to confirm this claim. My point is that if failure is to occur, it could be well before this depth. I speak from experience and in regards to items which were designed by others and well accepted as specifically made and assembled for under water use. :green:


----------



## CM (May 31, 2008)

dd61999 said:


> ..I would like to see at least 30 -60 feet of water or a test simulating 30-60 feet of water (about 14-28 pounds per square inch) for a period of an hour or so...



Care to enlighten us how one might go about doing this? Keep in mind we beta testers are ordinary people with ordinary access to test methods.


----------



## Cyclops942 (May 31, 2008)

CM said:


> Care to enlighten us how one might go about doing this? Keep in mind we beta testers are ordinary people with ordinary access to test methods.


 
Yeah, that was my thought, too. I don't have access to a boat and deep water, either here or at home, nor do I have a really, really long tube of water. I suppose I could go to Wally World and buy a pressure cooker, but I think the high heat would invalidate the test.

Btw, I tossed the light (tied to a line) to the bottom of the 4-foot pool and drew it back in well over a hundred times, and the light was still lit, and the insides were bone dry. No shock here.


----------



## greenLED (May 31, 2008)

CM said:


> Care to enlighten us how one might go about doing this? Keep in mind we beta testers are ordinary people with ordinary access to test methods.



If one of y'all's got a lake near by, you could tie a rope to the light, and drop it into a deep spot. Fish while you wait... 


...and cyclops sneaks a post on me.


----------



## Daniel_sk (May 31, 2008)

You could put it inside a plastic bottle filled with water, close the bottle and put pressure on the bottle? (put some weight on it?)
I don't know if this works? Just an idea...


----------



## Blue72 (May 31, 2008)

CM said:


> Care to enlighten us how one might go about doing this? Keep in mind we beta testers are ordinary people with ordinary access to test methods.


 

The best way to perform this test is to mail me the light and I will test it in the atlantic ocean!!! 

Or you can keep it simple and do what Daniel SK said for an hour or so.


----------



## CM (May 31, 2008)

dd61999 said:


> The best way to perform this test is to mail me the light and I will test it in the atlantic ocean!!!
> 
> Or you can keep it simple and do what Daniel SK said for an hour or so.



I'll try the second test. A bottle of club soda (for fizz) in a tight container, seal, shake and cross fingers.


----------



## greenLED (May 31, 2008)

CM said:


> I'll try the second test. A bottle of club soda (for fizz) in a tight container, seal, shake and cross fingers.


Very cool idea. I wonder how much pressure you can contain inside a bottle of soda. :shrug:


----------



## Cyclops942 (May 31, 2008)

CM said:


> I'll try the second test. A bottle of club soda (for fizz) in a tight container, seal, shake and cross fingers.



Dude! Where are you gonna find a bottle of club soda with a mouth wide enough to drop in this light? You got a gallon jug and a soda fountain handy?


----------



## CM (May 31, 2008)

Cyclops942 said:


> Dude! Where are you gonna find a bottle of club soda with a mouth wide enough to drop in this light? You got a gallon jug and a soda fountain handy?



Schweppes 1 liter club soda bottles have a big enough mouth to fit the Arc6 through.


----------



## olrac (May 31, 2008)

greenLED said:


> Very cool idea. I wonder how much pressure you can contain inside a bottle of soda. :shrug:



The max. PSI correlates directly to the amount of licks it takes to get to the center of a tootsie pop :nana:


----------



## Blue72 (May 31, 2008)

CM said:


> I'll try the second test. A bottle of club soda (for fizz) in a tight container, seal, shake and cross fingers.


 

If you really want to make it interesting try vinegar and baking soda..........or better yet CHLORINE AND ALCOHOL!!!!!!! That way it is settled once and for all that the ARC6 is BOMB PROOF!!!!!


----------



## CM (May 31, 2008)

dd61999 said:


> If you really want to make it interesting try vinegar and baking soda..........or better yet CHLORINE AND ALCOHOL!!!!!!! That way it is settled once and for all that the ARC6 is BOMB PROOF!!!!!



Let's not get carried away. 

I cleaned the O-rings and put fresh silicone grease on them, put the arc6 in the club soda half full, shook it up and it's been in there an hour and 10 minutes. No leaks whatsoever. I don't know how many PSI this is but as McGizmo stated above, it will likely pass the test at the rated pressure if it passed the club soda test.

Any one have more interesting and legitimate tests?


----------



## this_is_nascar (May 31, 2008)

I'm attempting to perform some type of run-time testing, however it's proving to be difficult for a couple of reason.

- I can't figure a way to modify my testing setup to allow for the extreme brightness of Level-6 and and Level-7 and still be consistent in the testing.

- The built-in thermal step-down is proving to be a challenge in testing run-time as well. I'm not setup to cool the light while testing, in order to show any type of comparisons to other lights. I could tell you that Level-7 puts out "XXX", however that useless unless I have something to compare it to.

What I can say is that Level-5 of the Arc6 with a Surefire CR123 appears to meter higher than the NDI with an AW14500P.


----------



## greenLED (May 31, 2008)

CM said:


> Any one have more interesting and legitimate tests?


Other than using that puppy as a hammer, :devil: sounds like y'all got all the bases covered. This is cool! 


Actually, now that I think about it... something that's been bugging me is the resistance of that upright inductor to impacts. So if y'all could drop your Arc's a few more times from increasing heights (realistic, of course, don't go climbing radio towers just for the heck of it) I'd appreciate it.


----------



## CM (May 31, 2008)

More comparison shots. This is an HDS B42 with a Seoul P4 which was my brightest 123 light. Both using fresh RCR123's and both set to the highest level setting. You can see that the Arc has a tighter focus. The HDS beam is more useful close up. But for those that like throw, the Arc6 has the edge. Overall, the Arc6 is insanely bright for it's size. I have mine set to level three on the second stage. I rarely use level 7 third stage except when I need to remind myself what this is capable of.

I love the tint on the K2-TFFC. Unfortunately, this is the only one I've seen and I do not know how consistent they'll be. The Seouls have been very predictable. The one in the picture is a USWOH.

By the way, I thought I set the exposure time to manual. However, the Arc 6 had a slightly faster shutter so I left them the way they are. The Arc 6 still shows up brighter despite this.


----------



## Blue72 (Jun 1, 2008)

CM said:


> Let's not get carried away.
> 
> I cleaned the O-rings and put fresh silicone grease on them, put the arc6 in the club soda half full, shook it up and it's been in there an hour and 10 minutes. No leaks whatsoever. I don't know how many PSI this is but as McGizmo stated above, it will likely pass the test at the rated pressure if it passed the club soda test.
> 
> Any one have more interesting and legitimate tests?


 

I could be wrong, but I dont think a half full bottle would create enough pressure to ressemble depth. I will try to measure a soda bottle tommorrow to see how much PSI it created.

I also think mcgizmo theory might be wrong because as pressure increase water finds the path of least resistance. So water under pressure would be a much better indicator of failure. This is just based on my experience with espresso machines. For example a espresso shot with some defects may pull well under 7 bar or 100 PSI but will channel like crazy under a more ideal 9 bar (130 psi).


----------



## McGizmo (Jun 1, 2008)

dd61999 said:


> ........
> I also think mcgizmo theory might be wrong because as *pressure increase water finds the path of least resistance.* So water under pressure would be a much better indicator of failure. This is just based on my experience with espresso machines. For example a espresso shot with some defects may pull well under 7 bar or 100 PSI but will channel like crazy under a more ideal 9 bar (130 psi).



*bold* added by me. As pressure decreases does water find the path of greater resistance?

There are many types and designs of seals that will blow or fail as a result of pressure increasing. In an O-ring bore seal I don't know kinds of pressure we are talking about or what the nature of failure might be. I can imagine in some cases that the O-ring itself might shear. It might also yield and move aside. You need to keep in mind that the external pressure is even and it becomes a question of vectors of force trying to push towards the lower pressure inside. A good O-ring bore seal is not going to fail in the realm we are discussing here. A bad O-ring bore seal can fail under running tap water depending on _why_ it is a bad O-ring bore seal. 

Imagine a cat hair laying across the O-ring and imagine the O-ring in place and that the compression on the O-ring at ambient pressure is such that there is a channel or gap on either side of this cat hair. Water or air can pass by in this gap. Now when you increases the pressure on the O-ring it starts to deform and move towards the volume within where there is less pressure. as it deforms it is forced against this cat hair and to the point that it seals those areas which before allowed the passage of air or water. In this example a faulty seal improves as the pressure increases. There are a number of devices and assemblies which have poor seals until pressures increase.

To insure that something like a flashlight isn't going to leak, you first need to have a seal in place. If the seal is in fact sealing then cool. Next the question is what happens to this seal as the pressure on it increases as the external pressure increases. Where and how are these forces exerted and can they move or break the seal? The external pressure on the O-ring on the piston and head of the Arc6 will ultimately try to force the O-ring out of its groove and through the narrow gap in the sleeve towards the interior. Yes, water would like to go under the O-ring but it is also pusing the O-ring like heck into a place it doesn't want to go! Stand on a book and then try to lift the cover. 

On the window seal of the Arc6 the water wants to get under the O-ring under the window but as pressure increases, the force across the surface area of the whole window is being transfered to squishing the O-ring down. The surface area of the O-ring which is receiving the same pressure is so much less than that of the window that the O-ring will not be pushed aside; it is clamped down to well.

Don't get me wrong. Things fail and Murphy will have his day. The point I was trying to make is if the design for seals is sound that it is quite likely that a failure will be in the initial seal itself and this can be detected without need to go for much pressure. 

On the Arc6, you have a bezel ring that retains the window and provides initial sealing pressure against the O-ring. If you take the light in the bath tub, unscrew the bezel ring and remove it and then start playing up and down periscope with the light, there is a good chance the window can lift or even fall out and you will have a flooded light. Hold the light with window in place but bezel ring gone under the faucet and you could have some problems.

Now take that light down to 100' underwater and remove the bezel ring. You will have no issues with flooding and you won't get that window to move for you until you approach the surface and at that point, again, you could have some problems.


----------



## Blue72 (Jun 1, 2008)

Mcgizmo,

I still have to differ, what you are describing is *IF* the tolerances of the machining and the o-ring where done correctly there should be no problems with the light leaking. 

However, It is simple hydrodynamics that water takes the path of least resistance. When water pressure is not high it will not fight with the o-rings of the light instead it will travel elsewhere to travel but when the pressure increases it will start to fight its way in easier if the tolerance of the o-ring and the light is not tight enough. The same way as a running a garden hose and you notice no pin hole leaks but as soon as you have a kink in the hose and water pressure builds you start to notice pin hole streams of water shooting 2 feet in the air.

This is the same hydrodynamics that apply to watches, espresso machines,flashlights, etc.............


----------



## McGizmo (Jun 1, 2008)

dd61999,

In the design of the seals in the Arc 6, if the O-rings or their seats are out of tolerance, I think it likely that you would see more leaking or a chance of leaking in low pressure situations than in high pressure situations. I state this because high external pressure will attempt to compress the O-rings and force them against their seats or out of their grooves and into areas where they would have to compress significantly to pass. External pressure results in compression of the o-rings due to their locations and the physical constraints of the flashlight which itself does not yield to these pressures.

In your example of a garden hose, you have internal pressure which causes or forces the hose to expand which it can do as it is not restrained. The pin hole will expand under pressure and the leak increase.

I agree that to determine of the design of the seal is up to a stated pressure then certainly the real test is to take it to that pressure. I would take it beyond to insure that the design is not at its limit at the stated pressure. If or when the design is accepted as appropriate and sound for the pressure conditions claimed, beyond that, I would look for problems and issues in the particular case to be as likely if not more likely to show well before the maximum pressure is approached.

I try to envision what could go wrong with the seals in a light like the Arc6 and cause some flooding while submersed. I can imagine a nicked O-ring, a rough surface where the O-ring seats or of course a foreign object or particle in the seal seat area. These things I mentioned that could be wrong are more likely to show themselves and cause a problem in low pressure conditions. As the pressure increases, the compression of the O-ring is more apt to force a seal with these conditions in place.

I recently had a prototype I built and found it was fine when I took it snorkeling and there was no leaks. However I had a suspicion and put it in a glass of water and left it for a while. I came back to it and there was indeed some water in side. The initial seal on one O-ring was not adequate. Under pressure, this O-ring would improve in its sealing capacity and there would be no passage of water.

I have had flashlights, underwater cameras and underwater camera housings flood on me. In all cases these floods took place in shallow water and they were not a question of pressure blowing a seal. Yes, pressure _can_ blow a seal and especially if the design is inadequate or there is some other weakness in surface, dimension or material.

From what I know about the Arc6, it should be fine at 100' submerged provided it passes safely through the first 5-10 feet. However I wouldn't consider it viable at 100' because I am confident you couldn't turn it off unless you unscrewed the head completely and then a flood is a given. :green:


----------



## Lebkuecher (Jun 1, 2008)

I don't want to absolutely promise I can do this tomorrow but I do live near a lake and can try to find a place to dunk the light about forty feet. I will try to pick up some fishing line and we will see what happens.


----------



## CM (Jun 1, 2008)

And if you can wait a week, I'll be in Maui so I can have someone take it to depth when they go diving.


----------



## Blue72 (Jun 2, 2008)

Hey Mcgizmo,

Your theories are interesting. However they go against what I have learned in fluid dynamics. It is basic physics that water takes the path of least resistance and if a seal leaks at no pressure it will continue to leak at high pressure In the case that if it would seal it would only be a matter of of a few psi before it failed again. However I am not an expert. If you have scientific or industrial references to back up your theories I would be interested in reading them. 

Back to the real world most other manufacturers exaggerate their water resistance ratings. Since this light is expensive and I enjoy the water. I would like the confidence this light can handle water at depth for a certain period time. It does not even have to be anywhere near the depth rating that Arc rated it at.

In the meantime I look forward to the future water tests to be performed by CM and Lebkuecher.


----------



## Daniel_sk (Jun 2, 2008)

I believe Don is right. Take a front glass on a flashlight for example, the o-ring is behind the glass. The bigger the pressure, the more is the glass pushed against the seal = better seal.
It's like the super expensive blackbird spy planes, the oils leaks from all gaps when they are on the ground. But once they are in the air (at a very high altitude) the seals work.


----------



## CM (Jun 2, 2008)

Daniel_sk said:


> I believe Don is right. Take a front glass on a flashlight for example, the o-ring is behind the glass. The bigger the pressure, the more is the glass pushed against the seal = better seal.
> It's like the super expensive blackbird spy planes, the oils leaks from all gaps when they are on the ground. But once they are in the air (at a very high altitude) the seals work.



It's actually fuel that leaks and it's because the seals were designed for high temperatures during supersonic flight. At high altitudes, there is less pressure. But we digress. Your first analogy is correct and is the basis for McGizmo's argument. No need for fancy fluid dynamics to understand that McGizmo's argument is sound.


----------



## chimo (Jun 2, 2008)

Here's a less esoteric example to support Don's point. 

Consider the flat rubber sink drain "plugs" that just lay over the drain. It takes a bit of pressure on them to seal properly. This example only applies to the bezel and not the bore/battery tube.

Paul


----------



## Blue72 (Jun 2, 2008)

Daniel_sk said:


> I believe Don is right. Take a front glass on a flashlight for example, the o-ring is behind the glass. The bigger the pressure, the more is the glass pushed against the seal = better seal.
> It's like the super expensive blackbird spy planes, the oils leaks from all gaps when they are on the ground. But once they are in the air (at a very high altitude) the seals work.


 

The sr71 blackbird did not have any seals that worked to begin with because there was nothing that can handle the exotic fuel at the time so it depended on heat, external pressure and g forces to seal itself not pressure from the fuel.

I can see the pressure on the glass helping create a seal. However, as PSI increases the chance for channeling increases. I am also more concerned with the body seal then the glass.

If a simple bath tub or glass of water is all we would need to test water resistance then the Maglite solitaire would be a great dive light.

Many years ago when I tested the solitaire in a sink and it performed great it even worked great in the pool. But when I went white water rafting (very little pressure by the way) it leaked bad. 

The point is I want to see that the ARC6 handles water well and you are more likely to see water resistance failure at pressure.


----------



## Lebkuecher (Jun 2, 2008)

Lebkuecher said:


> I don't want to absolutely promise I can do this tomorrow but I do live near a lake and can try to find a place to dunk the light about forty feet. I will try to pick up some fishing line and we will see what happens.



Just FYI, looks like I may have a problem finding a place to dunk the light. The shore is just too shallow and I do not have a boat.


----------



## McGizmo (Jun 2, 2008)

dd61999 said:


> Hey Mcgizmo,
> 
> .... It is basic physics that water takes the path of least resistance and if a seal leaks at no pressure it will continue to leak at high pressure .......
> 
> ..........



This would make sense if the seal is not effected or changed in its relationship to the components constituting the seal as pressure is applied. However we know that pressure will have its way on anything that can not hold its form or shape when subjected to that pressure. In a sense, we are using the same perception of the physics involved but applying them to different circumstances. You claim that a seal that is sound under no or low pressure can be blown by increased pressure. I agree. The O-ring or material used to make the seal is displaced and deformed by the pressure and the seal is ultimately compromised. This same force can act on a seal that is initially compromised and displace and deform the sealing material such that the seal starts to function properly when pressure is applied.

In real world and in the case of the bore seals using O-rings in a flashlight tube, consider a notch missing in an O-ring or a tiny grain of sand wedged between the O-ring and its sealing surface. In no or low pressure, there could be a passage for water or air to get by the O-ring through this notch or around that grain of sand. As pressure increases, the O-ring is pushed towards the lower pressure "side" and as it is moved, it can quite possibly compress to the point the notch is distorted or filled or the O-ring completely envelopes this grain of sand and seals around it and the sealing surface. 

Simply put, an increase in pressure can break a seal or it can _make_ a seal. What determines the outcome is the specific nature of the seal itself and this relates to that which is changed by the change in pressure and that which remains constant.

Are you familiar with the simple brass check valves used in water systems and irrigation? They consist of a swinging gate or door. If you mount one on the vertical and upside down such that gravity has the gate hanging down and away from its closure seat, you can run water under low pressure through this all day long. Increase the pressure enough and the water will lift the gate up and effectively close the valve and no more water will pass through.

There are no check valves on the Arc6 so the example has no relevance. To discuss or consider a potential failure of the seals on the Arc 6 we need to get specific and identify what constitutes a seal and what conditions could cause it to fail. Specifics are key and all that really matter. 

In the Arc 6, what do you see failing in terms of its seals and how do you see that failure coming about? If this is beyond our ken, the next step is to just test the light under pressure which is what you and others suggest. I concede. I still maintain though that if you do witness a failure in the Arc 6 it will most likely occur early on and without the need of excessive failure. My position is based on personal experience and a reasonable familiarity with the seal design itself. I could be wrong.


----------



## Blue72 (Jun 2, 2008)

McGizmo said:


> . .....To discuss or consider a potential failure of the seals on the Arc 6 we need to get specific and identify what constitutes a seal and what conditions could cause it to fail. Specifics are key and all that really matter.
> 
> In the Arc 6, what do you see failing in terms of its seals and how do you see that failure coming about? If this is beyond our ken, the next step is to just test the light under pressure which is what you and others suggest. I concede. I still maintain though that if you do witness a failure in the Arc 6 it will most likely occur early on and without the need of excessive failure. My position is based on personal experience and a reasonable familiarity with the seal design itself. I could be wrong.


 
Hey Mcgizmo,

I did not say I see the ARC6 failing, I just want assurance that it will survive a swim and would like to see some water tests from the Beta testers.

Almost any light with o-rings can handle sitting in a glass jar with water the same goes for water resistant watches.

As a matter of fact watches are great examples because they use o-ring seals and have a lens.

For Example, when it comes to real world water resistance 50m (over 150') is deeper than what most divers will ever do.

The way watches are rated. They are stuck into a pressure jar compressed, sitting there on the bottom. This is a _hydrostatic_ pressure test, meaning the water does not move.

However, the second you move a watch under pressure, you increase the pressure the watch is getting on one side, while decreasing it on the other. So essentially, the second you move, you have just multiplied the pressure by many times. Now hit it on a rock while under water and imagine how much pressure there must be there!

The reality is even though less than 1% will ever actually go to 100m, let alone 200m, you need a higher rated watch for scuba because of the stresses and movement it goes through at depth.

Thats why when you see guidelines for a dive watch it looks something like this

Water Resistant: Will resist moisture from accidental splashing, rain, sweat, etc. 
Water Resistant 30M: Will resist moisture and can be submerged, no swimming 
Water Resistant 50M: Will resist moisture and can also be worn while swimming in shallow water. 
Water Resistant 100M: Watch may be worn during snorkelling, skin-diving, and swimming. 
Water Resistant 200M: (plus): Watch may be worn during standard scuba diving. 
Water Resistant 1000M: Watch may be worn for deep sea diving


Think of a watch that indicates 30M of water resistance: Your pool is 10M deep so you should be safe right? Well, the force of your arm crashing down as you swim will exceed the static pressures the watch was rated for. A person will not scuba dive to depths of 200M however, if one is scuba diving then a 200M+ watch is recommended.

Hence the same reason why my maglite solitaire failed when I was white water rafting even though it performed flawlessly in the kitchen sink and pool.


----------



## Gransee (Jun 2, 2008)

McGizmo has a lot of experience with underwater use and gland design.

peter


----------



## Blue72 (Jun 2, 2008)

Gransee said:


> McGizmo has a lot of experience with underwater use and gland design.
> 
> peter


 
Peter,

How did you exactly come up with the 100 foot water resistance rating?

Thanks


----------



## McGizmo (Jun 2, 2008)

dd61999,
I bought my first watch after working all summer for it. I was in 7th grade and purchased a Rollex Tudor from a good friend's dad who owned a jewelery store in town. That would have been in 1964 or there abouts. The watch was $110 and 3 months of wages and a discount from my friend's dad allowed me to splurge on that watch. I was an active swimmer and budding surfer and didn't want another watch that would one day predict fog by example. I really liked the idea of something that I could wear at all times and have it do what it was designed to do and not fail on me.

I understand what you are saying about the watches. I also feel I am wasting my time and yours and anyone else who might be following the discussion so I leave it to the testers.........


----------



## BigHonu (Jun 2, 2008)

dd61999 said:


> Hey Mcgizmo,
> 
> I did not say I see the ARC6 failing, I just want assurance that it will survive a swim and would like to see some water tests from the Beta testers.



Hi dd61999,

I don't have an Arc6, but do have experience with the PD design in water (both pool and ocean) so I feel like I can be of assistance here.

I want to mention that I have been using dive lights for years, and through that experience, have learned to keep my seals as clean and nick-free as possible.

All instances, the light was in a pocket of my swim shorts.

Swimming in the pool, I never went deeper than 10ft (swimming along the bottom) more than a handful of times. Most of the time was spent in 4ft or less just wading around. No moisture found inside. 

Ocean experiences were mostly walking the reef while fishing. Never deeper than 3ft, but was constantly pounded by the surf. I did this quite a few times. Fresh water rinse after I got back home maybe half the time. No moisture found inside.

I don't recall being IN the water AND needing to turn the light on, though I have turned the light on before going in (actually falling in is more accurate) or have been wet (but standing clear of the water) and using the light.


----------



## Blue72 (Jun 2, 2008)

McGizmo said:


> dd61999,
> 
> I understand what you are saying about the watches. I also feel I am wasting my time and yours and anyone else who might be following the discussion so I leave it to the testers.........


 
Don

I agree with you and I think it went to far. I just simply wanted to see some serious water testing because like you I enjoy surfing, swimming, and all things water related. 

However, I still would like to see how Peter came up with the 100 feet rating since the Beta testers are having some difficulties and it would ease my mind.

Don


----------



## Gransee (Jun 2, 2008)

The 100 ft rating is an estimate with the -016 silicone body o-ring based on my experience with the LS and Arc4. With the Arc4, I actually did pressure vessel testing up to 200feet static. I haven't taken the time to static test the Arc6 at that depth, but I feel like 100 feet is reasonable. 

The Arc6 is not designed to be a dive light. It doesn't have the oversized switch, special beam and other features you would want on a dive light. It is however designed for general use around water.

I also static tested the Arc-AAA to 200 feet and then later 6 of them were taken on a technical dive to about 250 feet where they were turned on an off at depth.

If the -016 body o-ring has problems with at 100 feet or you want to try deeper, upping the o-ring to -017 or -018 will tighten it up even more. I opted for the -016 as a good combination of depth and easy to turn.

I know that a good gland design has about (I would have to look it up), 10% deformation for a rotating gland, but the final metric was how it felt. 

A good coating of lube is also important as you know. 

peter


----------



## Gransee (Jun 4, 2008)

Any other questions for the beta testers? 

peter


----------



## bmstrong (Jun 4, 2008)

Gransee said:


> Any other questions for the beta testers?
> 
> peter



Yeah. Would the beta guys purchase one for themselves? Do you see that same light becoming your EDC? Or would it rotate with other lights? What do you think the light is worth in terms of a dollar figure?


----------



## this_is_nascar (Jun 4, 2008)

bmstrong said:


> Yeah. Would the beta guys purchase one for themselves? Do you see that same light becoming your EDC? Or would it rotate with other lights? What do you think the light is worth in terms of a dollar figure?



Man, talk about cutting to the chase. I like the question and I'll answer from my standpoint. I've said several times, that I had no intentions of purchasing an Arc6 (or whatever it was called at the time I first heard of the light). I had made the decision the minute I heard the Arc6 was based on the PD design. Once I learned of the PD design being re badged as an Arc product, I stopped reading about the new Arc. I personally dislike the PD design. I never liked it since the 1st day I used a PD light, but that's just me. I seem to be in the minority as far as my feelings for the PD design. So, my answer is no, I would not have purchased an Arc6 of my own doing.

Assuming everything I just said about the PD above was the opposite and I did like it, could I see the Arc6 being my EDC? Again, for me personally, no. That's because I've long since written off every 1 x CR123 light as being an EDC-sized light for me to carry. I simply have decided to go with the narrower path with 1 x AAA lights to EDC. That's my personal preference and nothing against the Arc6. For those who are used to carrying the HDS, Novatac or SureFire 1 x CR123, then you'll really appreciate the small size and lighter weight of the Arc6 and I can certainly see it as replacing other's EDC lights.

As far as "dollar figure worth", I won't lock myself into a price, but I will say this. The Arc6 has a more robust feature-set than the McLux PD. It also has the ability to go much lower and much brighter than the PD. The feature-set is similar to the HDS/Novatac, whereas multiple/adjustable levels are available. The Arc6 will be worth (just like anything else) whatever people are willing to pay for it. If I liked the PD design and wanted an Arc6, would I pay $250, $300, $350 or $500? Sure, why not, but that's how I am with anything. If I want something badly enough, I'll pay 2, 3, 4, 10 times more than what it's "worth" to others.

My personal opinion is that if the final MSRP of the Arc6 is inline + a premium for the unique emitter, with the HDS/Novatac/ETC, than it's a fair deal. Fair may be the wrong term I'm looking for, but I think you get my point.


----------



## SaturnNyne (Jun 4, 2008)

Gransee said:


> Any other questions for the beta testers?


Hm... I'd like to hear more impressions on the virtual level setup and the delay involved in getting to stage 2. I think it's a very clever way to maximize the versatility of the PD interface, but after thinking about how I'd want to make use of such a feature, I realized that I might not be able to take advantage of it in many of the situations I encounter when using a light in a "serious" fashion. If I have a light latched on to provide basic navigational illumination, I want to be able to easily give a burst of full power to check out more distant things before dropping back to the lower level; that would require having full power on stage 2. But, if I have the light off and something surprises me, I'm probably going to want all the output I can get when I immediately slam the switch to the stop.

For the second example, I'm mainly thinking of an experience I had one night while out walking by the light of a full moon. I was admiring the beautiful, clear night when the bush next to my foot turned into a skunk. I backpedaled down the path pretty speedily while grabbing at my ML1 to see what just jumped at me and what needed to be done about it. I don't think I'd have been able to give much thought to activating my light with the proper delay to get the ideal level in that situation... However, I think the virtual level could be very useful to me in a more day to day edc role.

Any testers have some thoughts or experiences with this to share?


----------



## this_is_nascar (Jun 4, 2008)

SaturnNyne said:


> Hm... I'd like to hear more impressions on the virtual level setup and the delay involved in getting to stage 2. I think it's a very clever way to maximize the versatility of the PD interface, but after thinking about how I'd want to make use of such a feature, I realized that I might not be able to take advantage of it in many of the situations I encounter when using a light in a "serious" fashion. If I have a light latched on to provide basic navigational illumination, I want to be able to easily give a burst of full power to check out more distant things before dropping back to the lower level; that would require having full power on stage 2. But, if I have the light off and something surprises me, I'm probably going to want all the output I can get when I immediately slam the switch to the stop.



You are correct. If latched, you can not get to virtual mode. As you said, you would of had to have L-2 set to high/max to get to it while latched on L-1. From off, you get quickly get to virtual via either the bezel twist or the plunger.



> For the second example, I'm mainly thinking of an experience I had one night while out walking by the light of a full moon. I was admiring the beautiful, clear night when the bush next to my foot turned into a skunk. I backpedaled down the path pretty speedily while grabbing at my ML1 to see what just jumped at me and what needed to be done about it. I don't think I'd have been able to give much thought to activating my light with the proper delay to get the ideal level in that situation... However, I think the virtual level could be very useful to me in a more day to day edc role.
> 
> Any testers have some thoughts or experiences with this to share?



If this case, assuming the Arc6 was off, just put the plunger straight through to virtual brightness level.


----------



## CM (Jun 4, 2008)

bmstrong said:


> ...Would the beta guys purchase one for themselves? Do you see that same light becoming your EDC? Or would it rotate with other lights? What do you think the light is worth in terms of a dollar figure?



I would purchase one for myself if it were to sell for around $220-ish. I know the amount of thought and work that went into it so my viewpoint can be considered biased but given that, the figure above is what I'd be willing to pay for a version with the clip. 

I do not really have an EDC (my cell phone backlight does the job for me so the AAA got stuck in my laptop bag). However, I use lights around the house everyday and this one has seen the most use in the past two weeks and not just because it's a beta tester. Why? I like the instant access to Level 7 from something that fits in the palm of my hand but like the long runtime and still high output from Level 3 programmed stage 2. Level 1 on lowest has served bedside duty for the past two weeks. I even . It's very versatile and if I have to pick only one light to serve as a workhorse, this would be at the top of the list. I didn't think I'd say that but the latest firmware impressed me enough to say it. Look at the comparison shots from page 4. I have to keep reminding myself of the size of the flashlight that all those lumens came from. It's impressive.



SaturnNyne said:


> Hm... I'd like to hear more impressions on the virtual level setup and the delay involved in getting to stage 2. I think it's a very clever way to maximize the versatility of the PD interface, but after thinking about how I'd want to make use of such a feature, I realized that I might not be able to take advantage of it in many of the situations I encounter when using a light in a "serious" fashion. If I have a light latched on to provide basic navigational illumination, I want to be able to easily give a burst of full power to check out more distant things before dropping back to the lower level; that would require having full power on stage 2. But, if I have the light off and something surprises me, I'm probably going to want all the output I can get when I immediately slam the switch to the stop.



One can view this as either half full or half empty. Given two physical stages, the third virtual one is a plus. From a half empty point of view, the virtual stage is a limitation from having only two real physical stages to work with. If the virtual stage was never offered and you only had one of two stages, the issue would have never come up.



SaturnNyne said:


> For the second example, I'm mainly thinking of an experience I had one night while out walking by the light of a full moon. I was admiring the beautiful, clear night when the bush next to my foot turned into a skunk. I backpedaled down the path pretty speedily while grabbing at my ML1 to see what just jumped at me and what needed to be done about it. I don't think I'd have been able to give much thought to activating my light with the proper delay to get the ideal level in that situation... However, I think the virtual level could be very useful to me in a more day to day edc role.
> 
> Any testers have some thoughts or experiences with this to share?



My second stage is set to level 3 and it is plenty bright for 99% of what I need a bright light for. In situation such as yours, I'd have slammed on the switch giving me level 7. No need to think about it. I only have to be conscious of activating level 3 to ensure that I don't accidentally engage the virtual stage. To me this is more of an issue than the former.


----------



## Cyclops942 (Jun 5, 2008)

bmstrong said:


> Yeah. Would the beta guys purchase one for themselves? Do you see that same light becoming your EDC? Or would it rotate with other lights? What do you think the light is worth in terms of a dollar figure?



Absolutely! I've said so, as a matter of fact, in either this thread or the auction notice thread. However, since I already have one, and since the demand for them is high right now, I think it's only fair that I wait until they become available for "normal" purchase on the Arc website before I try to get another one.

As far as price, well, I've been prepping myself for the $250 - $300 range for about two years now, so I've gotten emotionally pretty comfortable with the idea of parting with that much cash for this light. Add in the fact that I would want both the Guarded and Non-Guarded sleeves, and I could be persuaded to part with a little bit more, if necessary.

This light became part of my EDC rig as soon as Peter handed it over (I got the guarded sleeve right away, so I could put it on my belt that night), and I anticipate that a second one could quite easily find a home in my disaster response kit. Yes, I have plenty of other flashlights that I could (and do) put in there, that actually use more common battery sizes, but this light is SO useful in SO many situations, that putting it and a dozen SureFire batteries into this kit just sounds like a good idea. After all, I can also use the SF batteries for the hurricane lantern they used to sell.



SaturnNyne said:


> Hm... I'd like to hear more impressions on the virtual level setup and the delay involved in getting to stage 2. I think it's a very clever way to maximize the versatility of the PD interface, but after thinking about how I'd want to make use of such a feature, I realized that I might not be able to take advantage of it in many of the situations I encounter when using a light in a "serious" fashion. If I have a light latched on to provide basic navigational illumination, I want to be able to easily give a burst of full power to check out more distant things before dropping back to the lower level; that would require having full power on stage 2. But, if I have the light off and something surprises me, I'm probably going to want all the output I can get when I immediately slam the switch to the stop.



The delay needed to get to stage 2 is pretty short, actually. It's about 1/4 to 1/2 a second. (Of course, waiting longer works, too.)



SaturnNyne said:


> For the second example, I'm mainly thinking of an experience I had one night while out walking by the light of a full moon. I was admiring the beautiful, clear night when the bush next to my foot turned into a skunk. I backpedaled down the path pretty speedily while grabbing at my ML1 to see what just jumped at me and what needed to be done about it. I don't think I'd have been able to give much thought to activating my light with the proper delay to get the ideal level in that situation... However, I think the virtual level could be very useful to me in a more day to day edc role.
> 
> Any testers have some thoughts or experiences with this to share?



Like CM, I typically have Brightness Level 3 (BL3) or BL4 set as Stage 2, with BL1 set as Stage 1. Trust me, that puts Stage 2 at quite a few photons hitting the target. If you have Stage 3 set for BL7 (or any other value other than the one used for Stage 2), you are correct, you will not be able to reach Stage 3 without first shutting off the light. From the off, position, the instinctive startle reaction you describe above would lend itself quite well to activating Stage 3. If the light were already on, the startle reaction would still kick in, and you'd hit Stage 2 pretty darn quick if you didn't already have it on Stage 2.

I don't see why the addition of a "virtual" Stage 3 switch position is now being seen as a negative. It's very easy to deactivate, simply by setting Stage 3 to the same BL as Stage 2. Do that, and you'll never notice that Stage 3 exists.

(Keep in mind, you can, if you want, set all three stages to the save BL value (giving you off and one BL), or put Stage 1 at a higher BL than Stage 2 or Stage 3, or whatever you like. That's the beauty of this interface.)


----------



## SaturnNyne (Jun 5, 2008)

this_is_nascar said:


> If this case, assuming the Arc6 was off, just put the plunger straight through to virtual brightness level.


That assumes you've chosen to set the virtual level to the brightest level. I'm fully aware of how it works, my point with these examples is simply that—should the virtual level be used—there are likely times, at least in my usage, when the light can only be optimized for one of these situations at a time and doing so would make it less ideal for the other situation. I'm throwing this out there in the hope that someone has used the light in a manner similar to my uses and has some actual user insight into it for me.




CM said:


> One can view this as either half full or half empty. Given two physical stages, the third virtual one is a plus. From a half empty point of view, the virtual stage is a limitation from having only two real physical stages to work with. If the virtual stage was never offered and you only had one of two stages, the issue would have never come up.


I disagree, the addition of the virtual stage is not a "limitation" at all, aside from the added programming should you choose to keep the top two levels set to the same output. Please don't take my question as a criticism, it is not in any way. As I said before, I commend Peter for this clever method of extending the versatility of the switching mechanism. Clearly, having the option of it is better than not (since it can be deactivated if necessary). The point of my question is simply to lament the fact that I will possibly not be able to benefit from it in anything but a quick everyday carrying/around the house sort of situation and to ask if those who have actual experience with the interface also feel that there might be times when they have to reduce the flexibility of the light by deactivating the virtual level in order to allow the light to respond ideally in both a constant on and emergency situation. Or perhaps you've found that, say, a low to moderate stage 1, full level 7 stage 2, and ~level 5 virtual would work just fine in both of the common situations I presented from my use, as I suspect might be the case if I tried it? Or maybe you've found having both 5 and 7 set is wasteful because they're too close to make a significant difference most of the time?

Or maybe all of your uses are completely different from mine and you just don't have an answer for me one way or the other? That's fine too. I've heard descriptions of basic use around the house and testing of the lights physical toughness and waterproofness, but none of that is what I refer to as "serious" use, meaning using it in a situation where you truly need a flashlight and aren't just choosing to use it because you like them more than the alternatives, situations where the light might be required to ensure safety, etc. I guess what I'm basically asking for is the kind of stuff I'd be trying if I had one. Have any of you gone hiking with it or just walking through a forest at night and used it as your primary or only source of light, as I would likely do if I had one? If so, did you experiment with various setups for the interface, as I would? Did you find a three level setup that seemed perfect for all your uses or did you find that there were times you had to turn off the third? Have you found one setup that you think works for everything? Have you settled on, say, two setups that you switch between depending on the circumstances or surroundings, such as one for edc and one for what I'm referring to as more "serious" use, as I'm guessing I'll probably do if/when I get one? That kind of actual use detail stuff. Perhaps the things I'm interested in hearing about this light are too pedantic to ask of the beta testers, but these are the only remaining questions I have right now (aside from some results of runtime testing) and it's likely a long time until I'll have the opportunity to find out the answers for myself.




Cyclops942 said:


> The delay needed to get to stage 2 is pretty short, actually. It's about 1/4 to 1/2 a second. (Of course, waiting longer works, too.)


Thank you very much, that's part of what I wanted to hear. Around 1/4 second is what Peter said but I wanted to hear more about it from the betas.



Cyclops942 said:


> Like CM, I typically have Brightness Level 3 (BL3) or BL4 set as Stage 2, with BL1 set as Stage 1. Trust me, that puts Stage 2 at quite a few photons hitting the target. If you have Stage 3 set for BL7 (or any other value other than the one used for Stage 2), you are correct, you will not be able to reach Stage 3 without first shutting off the light. From the off, position, the instinctive startle reaction you describe above would lend itself quite well to activating Stage 3. If the light were already on, the startle reaction would still kick in, and you'd hit Stage 2 pretty darn quick if you didn't already have it on Stage 2.


Thank you for your thoughts on it. As you say, BL3 or 4 is quite a bit of light, likely enough that it would be quite adequate in an emergency/startle response sort of situation. But, given that, I'm thinking my settings would probably the be the opposite of yours on the upper two stages. ~BL4 on virtual to provide a more moderate and constant level of light, if necessary, that is still bright enough to identify an unexpected threat from off; BL7 on stage 2 for momentary spotting while latched on stage 1. Thank you for your thoughts on the subject.



Cyclops942 said:


> I don't see why the addition of a "virtual" Stage 3 switch position is now being seen as a negative.


NOT A NEGATIVE! :sigh: Discussing the potential cons as well as the pros does not mean I have a negative opinion of it. I hope you didn't all somehow get the idea that I was in any way implying at any time that the addition of a potentially valuable option is a negative, but since I don't see anyone else discussing it here, my lone question about it must be the evidence of it "now being seen as a negative." The virtual level is one of my favorite features of this light, that's why I want to hear more about it in actual use. When I initially posted the question about its usefulness in certain situations, I was also careful to point out that I like the idea and think it would be very useful for edc usage, which is what the light is primarily designed for.

Forgive me if I'm starting to sound testy about this, but it seems like my request for more detailed user impressions about this feature was misinterpreted and that there may be a defensive atmosphere developing around this light after all the flak thrown in its direction in the last month or so. I like the light, I intend to buy one at some point if I can, it's one of maybe two lights on the market that actually excites me still, I am not attacking it or any aspect of it in any way, I am responding to Peter's request for more questions by presenting a small and fairly inconsequential question that has been on my mind for a few weeks and asking for more information about a feature I like but may only be able to use part of the time.

Thank you all for responding and trying to answer my questions, I hope they didn't end up being somehow inappropriate or irrelevant to the further gathering of information and opinions on the light.


----------



## err0r (Jun 5, 2008)

I wonder if a 'reverse'* set-up could be useful to some?

Level 1 - Brightness 7
Level 2 - Brightness 4
Virtual - Brightness 1

From off, a small push affords one maximum light whilst a hard push affords one minimum light. If one wants bright but not max, a stepped press with a 1/4 second at max gives the medium brightness as the virtual level. 

If working in low or medium, a release to level one immediately affords one maximum light. In this set-up the only change that requires turning off first is going from bright (level 1 or 2) to low (virtual), which shouldn't be too arduous given that such a change is rarely an emergency.


*Not quite reverse, but the reason I swapped levels 1 & 2 is so that maximum is only one step from both level 2 and the virtual level - perfect for emergencies.


----------



## gnef (Jun 5, 2008)

if anyone still needs a pressure test, you can try to find a local homebrewer (makes their own beer/wine/mead) who kegs, and you could put it in a keg with enough water to cover it, and pressurize to around 55-60 psi for most standard beer regulators. If any of the beta testers are in the atlanta area, I would be willing to do this for them in late june (i'm at my parent's in texas right now). The kegs are stainless steel, so you wouldn't be able to observe as you tested, but if you left it on in level 2-3 for an hour at 55 psi, and when you open the lid, and it is still on, that should be a pretty good indication.

if none of the beta testers are in the atlanta area but still want to try this, you can pm me, and I can try to find a local homebrewer to you, and ask for their assistance. (you would most likely get a sample of some homebrew too. haha. you would if you came to my place!)


----------



## Blue72 (Jun 5, 2008)

gnef said:


> if anyone still needs a pressure test, you can try to find a local homebrewer (makes their own beer/wine/mead) who kegs, and you could put it in a keg with enough water to cover it, and pressurize to around 55-60 psi for most standard beer regulators. If any of the beta testers are in the atlanta area, I would be willing to do this for them in late june (i'm at my parent's in texas right now). The kegs are stainless steel, so you wouldn't be able to observe as you tested, but if you left it on in level 2-3 for an hour at 55 psi, and when you open the lid, and it is still on, that should be a pretty good indication.
> 
> if none of the beta testers are in the atlanta area but still want to try this, you can pm me, and I can try to find a local homebrewer to you, and ask for their assistance. (you would most likely get a sample of some homebrew too. haha. you would if you came to my place!)


 
55 psi is equivalant to 125 feet


----------



## Robocop (Jun 6, 2008)

I have two questions that maybe the testers can help with however may be answered better by the maker...

First the damaged battery when dropped.....Is this a freak accident or a symptom of the actual design? I am not sure really how the PD design is set up however I do like this design for the look and reliability. Is this possible battery damage issue common to other lights that use the PD design or just something that happens sometimes to any light? Seems like a tailcap spring could be used to cusion a drop however I am not sure if the PD design even uses a spring. I read through this thread and others and have not seen this mentioned as of yet. I have damaged a few batteries myself using only a twisty tail cap and this was easy to explain....simple force applied with no cushion. I have never read of battery damage to other type lights and also cant recall ever hearing of any damage from the other PD based lights.

Also the o-ring thing has me a little confused. Don are you saying that if a light is going to leak it will more often be in shallow water with less pressure? I can understand that pressure could actually help with sealing and the grain of sand explanation made me see your reason more clearly. If this is true isnt this kind of backwards for what most lights will actually see in usage. I dont think most average people will ever see 100 feet under water however many could take a shallow swim. If this is true would simply making sure the o-rings were clean with no obstructions remedy this potential problem for any light using o-rings?


----------



## McGizmo (Jun 6, 2008)

Hi Robo,
The cross section of the PD design below is the same as that in the Arc 6 and it may help to visualize both the battery question as well as the seal question. As illustrated, the head is twisted until the piston lip has been brought into contact with the contact ring of the PCB and it can't be tightened any more (level 2 on the Arc 6):






The battery is under max compression against its spring when the light is twisted into level 2 but there is still room in the piston for the battery. It is not being crushed as is the case in some twistys where there is no spring. I didn't catch the nature of the battery damage but I have seen batteries dented on anode and cathode end in any number of lights when they were subjected to enough G's in a rapid deceleration of an impact.

As for the depth consideration, if the design is inadequate for the pressure, you can and will see a seal blow when it it taken past its capability. In the design here, increased pressure is more likely to enhance the seal and that is why I made the comment that you didn't need to take the light to depth to see if it could hold. A pinched or flawed O-ring, scarred or flawed finish in the seal surface or contamination of external debris would more likely cause a flood under low pressure before the pressure got to the point of forcing the O-rings into a tighter seal.

Perhaps a reasonable analogy would be that of a tubeless tire on a rim. Agreed that enough pressure in the tire and something will blow. However, if you keep well within the design of the rim and tire, a leak at the seal between rim and tire due to a nick in the tire bead or crater in the rim seat could well be more of a problem at the low pressure end than when the pressure were increased. 

There are a number of lights that don't have seals designed properly or capable of the pressure encountered at say 100' of depth. The O-rings may not be in a groove but left free to float down the bore until an opening was allowed. Some window seals are on the outside and pressure on the window is actually pushing the window away from the seal instead of into it.

I guess I was coming from the point of view that if you in fact have a viable seal at the surface on the Arc 6, it would only get better as you went deeper. If you don't have a viable seal at the surface, you will have some flooding. This is based on the specific seal designs in place on the Arc 6 and predicated on the parts being in conformance. If the parts or components were not in conformance, I would still bet on a flood early on, if a flood were to occur.


----------



## Blue72 (Jun 6, 2008)

What material is the reflector made out of?

Thanks


----------



## kelmo (Jun 6, 2008)

Does the switch lock out? 

I typically carry my 1 celled lights in generic Swiss Army Knife holsters attached to my belt. What is the likelyhood of the light self activating when I get in and out of a car when carryed in this manner?

Is the lens replacable if it gets scratched?

I guess this one is for Peter, will there be an option to replace the clip for a dedicated lanyard attachment point, factory installed?

Thanks,

kelmo


----------



## McGizmo (Jun 6, 2008)

The reflector is 6061 t6 Al. 

The light as is does not have a lock out feature. A redesign of the piston end to either accept an O-ring out side of the sleeve or an additional flange mounted outside of the sleeve would provide for a limit to its travel and as such, a lock out. With the guarded version having been in service now for a number of years, I have not heard tell of a single incident where the light came on unwanted because of the piston being accidentally depressed. However, there is a possibility of unwanted activation if the head is left in a very close to activation orientation and there are pressure/temperature changes which cause the piston to "suck" into the light a bit. Usually when you install a battery, you end up setting a positive pressure within the piston by virtue of compressing the air trapped within when you screw down the head. This internal pressure adds to the needed activation force. If you assemble the light in 110F ambient air and then move it into very cold ambient, as the air inside cools, the pressure drops. I believe this can be an issue even for a well sealed clickie light if it has a hair trigger boot for momentary. Many have noticed the boots expand and bubble out when the light gets hot and the reverse is also a possibility. Unwanted activation of some of these sealed lights as you take them to greater submersed depths is all part of the same dynamics.

The window is replaceable and since it is sapphire, scratches will take some effort to install.


----------



## Cyclops942 (Jun 6, 2008)

In actual use, I have not had the light accidentally activate. However, keep in mind that since this switch is NOT a clickie switch, any activation caused by pressing on the piston would be momentary, and would stop the moment the pressure ended.

It is conceivable that, when using the clip, you could brush the light against a surface "grippy" enough to twist the head of the light tighter, to the point of activation, but I have not had this happen, either. Note that this would NOT be a momentary activation, but would, instead, be of a more lasting nature. Leaving more than 1/8 of a turn of "safety" should prove adequate, based on my own usage.


----------



## kelmo (Jun 6, 2008)

I didn't see a clear answer to my question so forgive me if this is redundant.

The piston in the tail is for momentary illumination. The output varies according to the pressure/depth that is applied correct?

Constant on is activated by rotating the bezel?

Thanks again.


----------



## CM (Jun 6, 2008)

kelmo said:


> I didn't see a clear answer to my question so forgive me if this is redundant.
> 
> The piston in the tail is for momentary illumination. The output varies according to the pressure/depth that is applied correct?
> 
> ...



That is correct. As far as the previous question about lock out. if you twist it out far enough, it should be safe from any accidental turn on. As cyclops942 noted, the switch does not "latch" so that you would have to maintain pressure to keep the light on. And it does take a bit of pressure to overcome the kilroy as the light comes from the factory. Even after adjusting mine, it still takes some effort to activate.


----------



## wolverine1 (Jun 6, 2008)

Hello,

I thought I remembered a post that gave each of the 8 positions milli amps (ma) pull? If not has anyone measured this yet or seen the data from Peter?

Thanks,

Rick


----------



## Lebkuecher (Jun 6, 2008)

I did some dunk tests on Old Hickory Lake today but couldn’t find a place where I could get a lot of depth. I can tell you the LS6 did fine at 15 feet, not a real serious test when we are looking at a potential of 100 ft but I believe for most knowing the light will do well at 15 ft will be sufficient for every day carry. 



err0r said:


> I wonder if a 'reverse'* set-up could be useful to some?
> 
> Level 1 - Brightness 7
> Level 2 - Brightness 4
> ...



err0r

Your setting are very close to how I have my light programmed and I find it works well for me. The only difference is I have level one set at 6 and Virtual set at level two.




Robocop said:


> First the damaged battery when dropped.....Is this a freak accident or a symptom of the actual design?



I have had others batteries damaged when beta testing. I once slammed an Arc AAA against a brick wall to show some friends how durable the light is and it smashed the nipple of the battery in. I truly believe the damage is coming from the exceptionally rough treatment the light is getting during testing. I guess it is a good thing for the light to be more durable then the batteries.


----------



## bmstrong (Jun 8, 2008)

Any parting thoughts from the beta testers?


----------



## CM (Jun 8, 2008)

bmstrong said:


> Any parting thoughts from the beta testers?



Two things. I was not a big fan of the PD design originally, and I thought Lumiled's has fallen behind on the competition. Now I'm looking to add another PD type of light (if I can get a Ti version for a good deal) and another Arc6 (if the production price is also right). I'm very impressed with the K2-Thin film flip chip. I love the tint on mine and the other beta units that I saw. I will be looking to switch out some of my Seoul's for these as they become available again.


----------



## this_is_nascar (Jun 8, 2008)

bmstrong said:


> Any parting thoughts from the beta testers?



My Arc6 has been working as advertised. I've been using to the point of being over-excessive, even when light was not needed. The size is small compared to the other 1 x 123 lights of similar function/feature on the market. I won't continue to beat this point to death, but I'll mention for a last time. I didn't like the PD design going into this and I've seen nothing to change my opinion about that. This is all of a personal opinion. Those who use and like this design will be right at home with the Arc6 and will have no problems. Keeping in mind I'm not a techie-type as it relates to emitters/LEDS/ETC, I see nothing "special" about this emitter other than at maximum, it's the brightest I've witnessed in a 1 x 123 configuration. Tint is good, beam quality is good. I certainly wouldn't classify it as the absolutely best, over the top, never to be beaten best beam I've ever seen. I've always consider the McLux PD, HDS and Novatac to produce some of the best "visually looking" beams. The Arc6 is right there with them.


----------



## CM (Jun 8, 2008)

this_is_nascar said:


> ...I see nothing "special" about this emitter other than at maximum, it's the brightest I've witnessed in a 1 x 123 configuration. Tint is good, beam quality is good. I certainly wouldn't classify it as the absolutely best, over the top, never to be beaten best beam I've ever seen...



Such an emitter doesn't/never will exist. The best of "today" always stand to be superseded by the next generation crop.


----------



## Cyclops942 (Jun 8, 2008)

bmstrong said:


> Any parting thoughts from the beta testers?



Who says we're leaving?

And, like CM, I will be buying another one when they become more widely available. And let's think about this for a minute, shall we? Here you have someone (more than one someone, actually, but I'm only going to talk about my own thoughts here) who already has one of these lights in his hot little flashoholic hands, for which he paid nothing, and let's not forget that this is one of the lower-numbered ones (#0043, to be exact), so it's already a prize. This same person is going to plunk down a rather large chunk of his hard-earned money to buy another one. This second one is certainly not going to be one of the highly-coveted first 100, and it may not even have the greatly-desired K2 TF LED in it by that time. 

As stated above, this person (yours truly) already has one of these much-prized lights, given to him in exchange for services rendered (beta testing). What could drive him to pay cash for a second one? It sure isn't just the desire for accumulation, or "stuff-itis;" it isn't that he has to have two or more of every light in his collection (he doesn't); it isn't even the desire to have a back-up light in the event of losing the first one (because they are, after all, relatively small lights).

It is because this person feels that this light in particular is well worth the money (expected to be) set as the purchase price, and the light is just so darned attractive, both from an aesthetic point of view and from an EDC point of view. The unique combination of size, available brightness, appearance, and utility makes this light a winner in my book.

Granted, if the actual retail price greatly exceeds my expectations, I may not make this purchase immediately, but that just means I'll be saving for it longer, that's all.


----------



## tebore (Jun 8, 2008)

I've read the whole thread through. I've seen all the various light meter readings. 

How much light is this light pumping out? By looking at beam shots and lux readings it looks like it's in the realm of 200-240lm out the front. 

Peter can you comment on this? Also did you have a design goal when you were designing the Arc6 for how much light the Arc6 should be putting out the front. 

If this info was posted just point me there and I apologize for missing it.


----------



## Lebkuecher (Jun 8, 2008)

bmstrong said:


> Any parting thoughts from the beta testers?




I am still very impressed with the LS6 and I believe most will be as well. The light seems to grow on you the more you use it, at least this has been the case with me. I carry the light everyday even though most days I really don’t need a light but because of the small size, the LS just fits in my front pant pocket and I don’t even know it is there. 

The light can survive some torture, I have dropped the light over thirty times and I can only see one or two small dings on the body. I believe I have really put the light through its paces; I have frozen the light and dunk the light into fifteen feet of water with no problems at all. I still plan to do some more dunk test but without a boat finding a safe place to dunk the light in deeper water has been difficult. I have turned the light on and off over 5000 time without a problem. There is no metal shaving on the piston rim which was a concern I had before receiving the light, I had an earlier beta where this was a problem and is one of the reasons I have cycled the light so many times. The switching between levels and activation is very smooth with both switches.

I really do like the programming, I don’t think anyone will have a problem at all learning to use the light and customizing the levels to fit their needs. I am very pleased with the LED tint, it is the best tinted LED I own and I have several lights. As others have posted this light is BRIGHT, nothing I have with a single 123 battery comes close. I also like the styling, I know this is more of a personnel opinion but Peter did an excellent job designing the light to be cosmetically pleasing to the eye. As I posted when I first received the light the tail switched required more pressure then I would prefer to keep stages 2 and 3 activated but a simple adjustment to the kilroy has made a huge difference. I can easily say without hesitation this is my favorite light and if I had to keep only one light it would be the LS6. I truly believe the light is a winner and really like everything about the LS6.


----------



## Sinjz (Jun 9, 2008)

Can we get some thoughts on guarded tailpack vs. non-guarded tailpack. Does the guarded make it more difficult to access and use the kilroy switch thing? How do they feel in the hands? Big? Small? Just right? Grippy, slippery? Cold to touch? Does the guarded one make the light feel a lot bigger than the non-guarded one?

I'd also like to get some idea about how easy it is to change emitters on this thing. Ease of emitter swaps is one of the selling points. And the easier the better for a non-modder like me.  How do other emitters look with this same reflector? Which beta tester is willing to downgrade their emitter to tell us?


----------



## Sinjz (Jun 9, 2008)

Lebkuecher said:


> ... but because of the small size, the LS just fits in my front pant pocket and I don’t even know it is there.
> ....



Which tailpack do you have on it?

And more info on adjusting the kilroy please.


----------



## Cyclops942 (Jun 9, 2008)

Sinjz said:


> Can we get some thoughts on guarded tailpack vs. non-guarded tailpack. Does the guarded make it more difficult to access and use the kilroy switch thing? How do they feel in the hands? Big? Small? Just right? Grippy, slippery? Cold to touch? Does the guarded one make the light feel a lot bigger than the non-guarded one?



In pre-beta testing, I formed a strong preference for the guarded sleeve, simply because it fits in my larger-than-average hands better. With the non-guarded sleeve, I feel that the light almost gets lost. This is something I pointed out early and often, and *might *(I flatter myself to think so, in other words) have been a *small* part of the reason that the guarded sleeve was (a) produced at all, and (b) available immediately upon the release of the light, instead of coming along later.

The kilroy is in the head of the light, and so is not affected by the choice of sleeve. However, I find it easier to grip the light when using the guarded sleeve because of the presence of the tail-end crenelations and the clip.

IMHO, the light does not feel very much bigger at all when using the guarded sleeve, but the places where it is bigger make it easier for my hand to grip the light. Even with the guarded sleeve, I can completely conceal the light (when it's off, that is) by making a fist around it. This light is one VERY compact unit! 

The light, being made mostly of aluminum (aluminium to our European readers), will tend to feel slightly cooler than the ambient air temperature, because of the conductive nature of metals. Of course, leaving it in the dashboard of your car on a June day in Phoenix, AZ, will completely change that. So will keeping it in that block of ice that Lebkuecher likes so well. :naughty:



Sinjz said:


> I'd also like to get some idea about how easy it is to change emitters on this thing. Ease of emitter swaps is one of the selling points. And the easier the better for a non-modder like me.  How do other emitters look with this same reflector? Which beta tester is willing to downgrade their emitter to tell us?



I have no clue. I, too, am a non-modder, and I therefore have no spare emitters lying around looking for a new home.


----------



## cryhavok (Jun 9, 2008)

Have any of you all with Arc6 taken the current readings from the battery?

I'm getting some EXTREMELY high current going through the battery when the light is on level 7: 3.89A!!!

Level 3 or 4 has a current draw of 1.12A This is with an AW rechargeable 

Can anyone else confirm/deny these readings? Is something wrong with my unit?

Also, [email protected] meter is only about 6500...almost half of what CM quoted. This is on a relatively new AW rechargeable. With the provided Duracell ultra, it is ~5000


----------



## Gransee (Jun 9, 2008)

Your current readings sound too high. I measure about 2 amps on level 7 with a battery. I use a fluke 189 True RMS. 

No idea why your light meter readings would be different than CMs without reviewing both test setups. Each Arc6 is output calibrated to produce a similiar output. This is unlike most 1x123 flashlights which are not brightness calibrated and therefore vary in output from unit to unit much more. 

peter


----------



## tebore (Jun 9, 2008)

Gransee said:


> Your current readings sound too high. I measure about 2 amps on level 7 with a battery. I use a fluke 189 True RMS.
> 
> No idea why your light meter readings would be different than CMs without reviewing both test setups. Each Arc6 is output calibrated to produce a similiar output. This is unlike most 1x123 flashlights which are not brightness calibrated and therefore vary in output from unit to unit much more.
> 
> peter



What level of lumen output do you aim for in the calibration?


----------



## cryhavok (Jun 9, 2008)

Thanks for your reply, Peter.

I just was testing the light again and noticed something interesting.

When I put the light in stage 2 (set to level 3 or 4, I don't remember), the inductor whine is quite loud.

Now, if I go into stage 3, the inductor whine is present for about 1 second then it slowly fades away.

This correlates to my current readings taken from the battery. Stage 2 has about 1.2A. 

Now if I go to stage 3, the current reads about 2.4A for .5 seconds then the current shoots up and settles at 3.8A. While the current is shooting up, the inductor whine diminishes until it is gone (at the same time the current settles to 3.8A) 

What are your thoughts? Shall I send in the light for evaluation? If so, tell Maria not to Fedex the sleeve yet, as you could save money and send the package all together.


----------



## cryhavok (Jun 9, 2008)

Just playing with the light some more and now the light is malfunctioning. Stage 1 works fine (set to level 1). Stage 2 (set to level 3 or 4) engages ok, but flashes off to level 1 after about 1 second. Stage 3 does the same thing (goes on, but then flashes off to level 1 after about 1 second). The light is room temperature.

I thought it might be the protection circuit on the battery, but it does the same thing with the duracell ultra. 

If I let the light rest for 30 seconds, it will engage to stage 2 and 3 for maybe 3 seconds before kicking down to level 1. Basically, I cannot get the light to raise above ambient temperature because it kicks down almost immediately. Shall I send it back to the address from which it was sent? Or do you have another address you like?

My e-mail is cryhavok (at) bellsouth.net

Thanks!

P.S.
You not having PM's enabled is killing me 

Edit: I let the light rest for a few minutes and now it seems that the 2nd stage works and it is able to heat up the light. The third stage seems to be working normal as well. Of course, this is only how the light is operating right now.
However, the capacitor whine still goes away after about 2 seconds and the current from the battery still jumps to 3.8A as the whine diminishes. I think it still needs an evaluation. Thoughts?

2nd Edit: Light is operating as it did in the beginning of the post (shutting down to level 1 after less than 5 seconds on level 2 and 3)


----------



## luke_28 (Jun 9, 2008)

cryhavok - Is this happening with a fresh battery ?


----------



## cryhavok (Jun 9, 2008)

Luke,

Yes, this happens with the following batteries:
Provided new Duracell ultra (3.0V - isn't this low?)
slightly used Surefire (3.08V)
Brand new Surefire (3.22V)
AW RCR123 black label (4.05V)
another AW RCR123 black label (4.08V)

I feel like I'm getting a different response every time. Now the pattern seems to be that it will go to level 7, stay on for under 5 seconds at that level, then kick down to a lower level. 2 seconds later, it blinks off then back on at the same lower level.


----------



## Gransee (Jun 9, 2008)

cryhavok, you bet. I can look at the light and test it again. I can compare it to the first set of tests to see if things have changed.

btw, my email is [email protected]

peter


----------



## cryhavok (Jun 9, 2008)

Yes to the typo. I meant to write 3.08V

Where shall I send the light?


----------



## Gransee (Jun 9, 2008)

I guess you don't want to mess with email. eh? I don't blaim you. 

Mega Tech Devices, LLC.
Arc6 Service - Attn. Peter
3101 N. 33 rd Ave
Phoenix, Arizona 85017 USA 

What I will do is retest it. If a part is bad, swap it out. Test again. If the unit is fine when I get it, try to find out what kind of situation would have created this result and write up a blurb for the instructions. I will know a lot more when I get it on the bench.

peter


----------



## cryhavok (Jun 9, 2008)

Thanks :thumbsup:

I'll send it out priority mail tomorrow.


----------



## cryhavok (Jun 9, 2008)

Here are some more current numbers, organized by level:

Level 2: .09A
Level 3: .52A
Level 4: 1.29A
Level 5: 1.99A
Level 6: 2.9A
Level 7: 3.8A

I am interested to see what Peter measures once he receives the unit.


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Jun 9, 2008)

cryhavok said:


> Here are some more current numbers, organized by level:
> 
> Level 2: .09A
> Level 3: .52A
> ...



Those are pretty high numbers, starting at level 5, and level four should not be that high. Try another DMM?

Bill


----------



## Lebkuecher (Jun 9, 2008)

Sinjz said:


> Which tailpack do you have on it?
> 
> And more info on adjusting the kilroy please.



Sinjz

I have both tail packs and I tend to use the non guarded more because I pocket the light. This is a preference on my part. As far as adjusting the kilroy I just used my thumb and pushed the kilroy down a little to decrease the pressure needed to activate levels 2 and 3. Works great.


----------



## paulr (Jun 10, 2008)

cryhavok said:


> Here are some more current numbers, organized by level:
> 
> Level 2: .09A
> Level 3: .52A
> ...


:wow: What kind of battery?


----------



## JohnTz (Jun 10, 2008)

cryhavok said:


> Here are some more current numbers, organized by level:
> 
> Level 2: .09A
> Level 3: .52A
> ...


 
 3.8A if true = battery destruction/explosion. Be careful! What 123 can deliver 3 to 4 C and not shut down instantly unless it is unprotected and in that case I would not be holding that in my hand at those current levels.


----------



## cryhavok (Jun 10, 2008)

Those readings are with a black label AW RCR123. I also tested Level 7 on an AW 18650 and it was the same 3.8A

The only explanation is if my DMM is messed up. Unfortunately, I do not own another one.

IF my DMM is broken, ok. But why does the whine from the circuit board fade away after 1 second of being on level 7 while at the same time the current jumps from 2.4A to 3.8A? Seems to be too much of a coincidence to be just a broken DMM.

The unit seems to be damaged anyway as it was dropping to level 1 way before any heat would build up. The unit is off to Peter and I hope he can recreate/diagnose the problem.


----------



## Gransee (Jun 16, 2008)

cryhavok, I got unit #0061 on the test bench today. It does draw a lot of current, which looking through my old test notes appears to be normal for this design. level 6 draws a little over 2 amps while level 7 can draw as much as 4amps. I tested several other units and verified this again. The unit whines normally and everything else seems to be fine. I will continue to test it to see if I can find anything out of the ordinary. 

I agree, 4amps does seem like a lot but I have been testing this design with multiple batteries on level7 for some time now and never seen the batteries get over 60C, leak, hiss or pop. I doubt using this level for 1 minute per use (which is about all you are going to get before the temp limit is reached) will significantly affect the cycle life of a $3 rechargeable like the powerizers I am using. However, I understand this won't satisfy some people and for those people, I recommend they don't use level 7. 

Again, I have tested them, other people have tested, none have reported any problems with the battery on level 7. Even so, some people may want to avoid level 7 just to be on the safe side.

I will continue to test #0061 to see if I can find any unusual modes in it. So far, it acting fine. I suspect what you were seeing may have been the automatic fallback. So far, the fallback is testing fine but I want to repeat the tests multiple times before I give you the option of getting the light back. If there is a problem, I will offer to fix it. Either way, you are more than welcome to request a refund on the purchase price. 

peter


----------



## cryhavok (Jun 16, 2008)

Peter,
Thanks for posting. The only thing that I wondered was if it is normal for the whine to decrease on level 7. It seemed to start at ~2.4A and then jumped to 3.8A.
Also, could you do a quick [email protected] meter reading while you have it? I'd like to know if 12,000 is possible as a beta tester measured (the huge throw was a main selling point for me) Are some units better throwers than others? Thanks.


----------



## Elmie (Jun 19, 2008)

No more news from the beta testers?

I'm interested in run times from level 1-7.


----------



## Gransee (Jun 19, 2008)

Yes, it is normal for the capactitor whine to change on level7. Level 7 is not regulated. The driver is running flat out and not very efficient or calm at that power level. It is intended for short usage (less than 1 or 2 minutes) like looking down a dark mine shaft, looking at a distant object, tactical usage, signalling, etc. 

btw, I am continuing to test your light and don't see any problems. Temperature fallback on level7 was tested today several times and it did what it is supposed to. I can continue to test or I can send it back to you. Let me know.

peter


----------



## Valpo Hawkeye (Jun 19, 2008)

I'm just curious if cryhavok's amp readings are typical of all Arc6's. Reason I ask is that they're considerably higher (nearly double) than what you stated in post #160.


----------



## PoliceScannerMan (Jun 19, 2008)

Interesting, so 1-6 are regulated?


----------



## this_is_nascar (Jun 19, 2008)

I hadn't realized the L-7 was unregulated, but even if it was, I can't image the cell keeping up for more than a couple minutes.


----------



## Elmie (Jun 19, 2008)

I've had mine on level 7 for just over a minute but it got way to hot to hold onto comfortably. 
This light is too bright! Even level 4 is too bright for normal use. Level 4 is a touch brighter than my HDS U60GT with a P4 on high.


----------



## Gransee (Jun 19, 2008)

Actually lvl1 is only voltage regulated, 2-6 are current regulated and lvl7 is running flat out (meaning there is nothing being held back to regulate with). The EEs will understand why I used this method. Dynamic range. 

The Arc6 has one of the widest power envelopes of any light on the market. TIN has probably run into this trying to plot the runtime. 

yes, each light varies in current consumption because they are brightness calibrated. 4amps for level7 and 2-2.5amps for level 6 is typical. Remember, this is typicaly and will vary, especialy since I have constrained variation in the brightness vector through calibration. 

Yes, I did say 2amps for level7. I remembered my tests incorrectly. Lots of notes. It is actually level 7. Silverfox, over in the battery forum, has tested quite a few brands at 2.5amps draw so level 6 should be doable for most brands. But, like I said, level 7 will not work with all batteries.

cryhavoc, I just tested 0061 for vbat fallback and it drops at ~1.8volt, which is what it is supposed to do. I have re-run a full set of tests on this unit and have not found anything wrong. 

I suspect that what appeared to be eratic performance when you tested the light could have been the fallback interacting with a high load/weak battery situation which would be normal but probably appear confusing in some circumstances. I have run a bunch of batteries through it at various loads and it does everything I would expect it to do with no surprises. Let me know if you want me to send it back or run another specific test. 

peter


----------



## Gransee (Jun 19, 2008)

Repeat: Level 7 runs the LED with quite a bit of current. As much as 1500mA in some cases, which the K2 is rated for. The driver is designed to find a balance between small size, wide dynamic range (power envelope) and long battery life at usefull power levels. 

Yes, 1500mA to the LED and 4000mA from the battery, even with the difference in step-up voltage is not very efficient. But for the top end of the power envelope, efficiency was not the top design criteria. Otherwise the rest of the design would have had to compromise. Of course, at lower levels the efficiency improves. 

I should warn you. There are a lot of odd things about this design that could drive a person mad if they don't understand the goals I had in mind. 

On level 7, the Arc6 will get hot. Sometimes as high as 130F on the head if the conditions are right although typically it limits out at around 120F. According to the K2 data sheet, its limit is 302F. Yes, 302F (150C). The LED is bonded to the housing using Artic alumina epoxy. This insures a small heat differential. Meaning, even at a housing temp of 130F, the LED is barely half way to its thermal limit. 

And no, not even the batteries are complaining. Typical lithium ion don't like to go above 140F and as you can see from the thermal images, the battery compartment is cooler than the head. The reason batteries vent and catch fire is because of heat. Every documented case of spectacular battery failure I have seen was a result of 2 things: multiple cells used together (which is one of the reasons why we prefer single cell lights) and the cells where allowed to get very hot.

The reason for the thermal limit is to protect your hands. With heatsinking this good, the hands are the first thing that complains about the heat. None of the components. That is why I have made the hand limit the temperature limit. A fenix P2D can get over 145F on its highest setting (which is still dimmer than the Arc6). This is hot enough to burn skin in some situations (140F for 3 seconds according to the data I have seen for hot water). Old people and children are slightly more sensitive. The Arc6 gets up to temp quickly, but stays safely below that limit and runs cooler than other lights on the market. 

peter


----------



## cryhavok (Jun 19, 2008)

Peter,

Thanks for the testing. Send her back. You can send it to the Boca Raton address (Maria should have it noted down...it is where she was going to send the missing guarded tailpack). 

Shawn


----------



## regulator (Jun 19, 2008)

Those upper output levels are there for very momentary use and are very high for a small light. It is an "option/output" other lights do not have and is available in the Arc6. People must realize that there are limits to what a battery can provide and should not expect it to run at that level for longer than a few short bursts.


----------



## cryhavok (Jun 20, 2008)

Could you make a comment about the [email protected] meter readings?


----------



## greg_in_canada (Jun 20, 2008)

Gransee said:


> On level 7, the Arc6 will get hot. Sometimes as high as 130F on the head if the conditions are right although typically it limits out at around 120F. According to the K2 data sheet, its limit is 302F. Yes, 302F (150C). The LED is bonded to the housing using Artic alumina epoxy. This insures a small heat differential. Meaning, even at a housing temp of 130F, the LED is barely half way to its thermal limit.
> 
> peter



Are you sure about that?

The K2 data sheet I looked at (http://www.lumileds.com/pdfs/ds51.pdf) says the maximum die temperature for the whites is 150C. The maximum case temperature is 135C.

And the thermal resistance is 9 degrees C per watt. So if you are putting 4 Watts into it then the die is 36 degrees warmer than the case. So the maximum case temperature at that current is 150-36 = 114C (to avoid exceeding the max die temp).

Regards - Greg


----------



## Gransee (Jun 20, 2008)

cryhavok said:


> Could you make a comment about the [email protected] meter readings?



Sure, I measured about 4klux at 1 meter on level 6. 

I'll try to send the light back today. 

peter


----------



## Gransee (Jun 20, 2008)

Greg, the datasheet you linked to is for the previous K2 model. The new K2 TF FC used in the Arc6 has a thermal resistance of 5.5 C/W. 

peter


----------



## Gransee (Jun 20, 2008)

In school they told me to show my work...

Assuming 1500ma at 3.6v, you have 5.4watts. At 5.5w/c, the data sheet claims there is a die to emitter slug differential of 29.7C. Rounding up to 30C, the maximum slug temperature is 120C (150C-30C). I estimate (based on measurements I have taken) less than 10C (18F) of difference between the slug and the housing so the max housing temp is 120C-10C = 110C (230F) (hotter than boiling water to give the non-techies some idea). No, I don't want the housing hot enough to boil water. That would cause problems.  Since my temperature limit is determined by the limit of human skin instead of the components in the flashlight, I shoot for a max housing of 49C (120F) but it can go as high as 54C (130F) (allowing for variations in process and materials). So the max housing temperature typically has the LED die at a little more or less than half its maximum, depending on the scale you are using (54C x 2 = 108C or 130F x 2 = 260F). It is possible my 10C measurment for the slug to housing temperature is somehow a bit low (although I have measured it several times using different methods). Even if it where 6 times more than what I measured, the die is still below is maximum. 

The bottom line is that even on Level 7, all the components, including the LED are designed to be below their maximum rated limits. 

Now, several other 1x123 flashlights I have measured use LEDs that have worse temperature ratings and yet they run them at higher temperatures (>130F). This makes it easier to overdrive the parts. For example, you can get the battery hotter in the dimmer P2D Q5 on turbo than running the brighter Arc6 on max. Batteries don't like to get hot. To be fair, fenix does tell people to use turbo sparingly and not to use turbo with 3.6v rechargeables. Let me say this again to be clear and fair, I feel Fenix designed the light, when properly used, to operate safely below the component limits. But if you leave the light on unattended or try to use the turbo and/or use 3.6v rechargeables for longer than you should, you could easily exceed those limits. So with the P2D and other similiar lights, the customer is expected to know when to stop using the max feature to avoid damage (I prefer that the flashlight takes more care of itself so the operator can pay more attention to their enviroment). Overdriving components is nothing new in the flashlight business but lets be more clear about when it is and is not happening. 

peter

p.s. A big reason that an automatic safety is important to me is that I heard of a person leaving one of my LSH lights unattended in a crib with a baby because the light helped it sleep. The baby is fine but the story convinced me to try to make the light safer.


----------



## Gransee (Jun 20, 2008)

cryhavoc, I called Maria and she didn't know about the boca address. She sent the guarded pack to your other address. I suspect in all the hustle, some wires were crossed. I sent your light to the boca address you have listed in ebay. 

peter


----------



## cryhavok (Jun 20, 2008)

Peter,
Please send me an e-mail with what parts are going to which exact address. I have a few addresses...

Thanks
Shawn

P.S. I verbally gave Maria the boca address when I called her to tell her to send the other tailpack.


----------



## greg_in_canada (Jun 20, 2008)

Gransee said:


> Greg, the datasheet you linked to is for the previous K2 model. The new K2 TF FC used in the Arc6 has a thermal resistance of 5.5 C/W.
> 
> peter



Thanks Peter. That makes more sense.

In the section I quoted before it seemed (to me) like you were saying 150 was the maximum case/slug temperature, not the max die temperature (because you were talking about the head temperature and arctic alumina).

Cheers - Greg


----------



## kelmo (Jun 22, 2008)

The brightness at level 7 is dependant on the condition of the battery?


----------



## Bullzeyebill (Jun 22, 2008)

kelmo said:


> The brightness at level 7 is dependant on the condition of the battery?



If I read Peter right, level 7 runs direct drive, flat out, and will draw as much as the batteries mAh capacity will support. A mostly depleted battery would not be as bright as a new, or fully charged battery on level 7, and I am believe that level 6, or or other levels would also be affected too, and not run in regulation at the higher currrent levels. The Arc6 would step down to a level that would provide regulation. I may be wrong here.

Bill


----------



## this_is_nascar (Jun 22, 2008)

kelmo said:


> The brightness at level 7 is dependant on the condition of the battery?



I'd expect that to be true, since we're recently learned that not only L-7, but L-1 are neither regulated.


----------



## this_is_nascar (Jun 22, 2008)

Bullzeyebill said:


> If I read Peter right, level 7 runs direct drive, flat out, and will draw as much as the batteries mAh capacity will support. A mostly depleted battery would not be as bright as a new, or fully charged battery on level 7, and I am believe that level 6, or or other levels would also be affected too, and not run in regulation at the higher currrent levels. The Arc6 would step down to a level that would provide regulation. I may be wrong here.
> 
> Bill



Yep, it seems to be a guessing game. We've learned that L-1 and L-7 are not regulated, so all bets are off there. As it relates to L-6, L-5, etc, I guess it would be a factor of the thermal management system vs. battery life, drain and regulation. If the LED is hot enough to kick in thermal-management, then the light would step down and still be in regulation. If thermal-management didn't kick it, it would be regulated, but at the higher level.


----------



## olrac (Jun 22, 2008)

Out of curiosity what happens to the beta test lights? Are they sold or auctioned off after the test period?


----------



## niko_n (Aug 4, 2008)

It is my first post, here we go! 

I didn't found this anywhere: How long the battery will last?

Worst case scenario: my imaginary dog disappears. It is fall when there is no snow in the ground just yet (total darkness)... How long I will be able to search the dog with Level 5? How many % of the time it will run with Level 3 to compensate heat?

How about other 6 levels?


I think these battery things are important. However, I'm not sure how it should be exactly measured. Feel free to do calculations with different approach.



_Note: For realistic approach one can add a fan next to Arc6 and adjust blow to approximately 20-30 ft/sec._


----------



## SaturnNyne (Aug 4, 2008)

niko: Welcome to CPF! This is a very friendly forum, I hope you'll enjoy your stay here.

On to your question. As far as I'm aware, the only actual, semi-formal runtime data available on these is from T_I_N's graphed tests of levels 2 through 5, which can be found here (I hope he doesn't mind me linking directly to his album, I'm not sure which thread he posted these in).

Edit: Found the thread with the graphs, his Twisty review from a couple months back: https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/200292


----------



## tpchan (Oct 2, 2008)

Would any remaining Arc6 beta testers please post whether or not their lights have the fabled K2-TFFC led and if so, do their Arc6 heads have a serial number on them? The reason for asking is that there is some confusion over which Arc6's have the K2-TFFC leds. Some say only the ones with serial numbers 0000 to 0100. Others says there are a few more lights with the K2 led but not in that serial number range. Is there a definitive list of Arc6 lights with the K2-TFFC led's ? Perhaps Mr. Gransee could enlighten all of us....


----------



## Gransee (Oct 2, 2008)

All the K2's were installed in 0-100 serial numbers except 1 or 2 units. Since there were not enough K2's to go into all 100 housings, the remaining 0-100 serial numbers were filled with P4s. 

So if you have a K2, the odds are very very good that it is less than 100 in serial number. Whereas if you have a P4, it is probably rare to find one with a serial number less than 100. 

peter


----------



## litetube (Dec 19, 2008)

So this thread has sputtered to a stop. Have all the testers sent the lights back/kept them / continue to use them? Bought new ones as replacements because they liked them so much?


----------



## djans1397 (Jan 12, 2009)

Pardon if this has been asked or if I am be "politically incorrect in this thread. But how does this differ from McGizmos Ti-PDs? Besides the obvious UI.

I just bought one of Don's last run of Ti-PDs and have yet to receive it, but then I ran across the Arc6. Any comments from those who have experienced both? Most likely it'll boil down to personal preference. I may just have to buy an Arc6 as well.

Thanks,
Dan


----------



## orcinus (Jan 12, 2009)

They are completely different flashlights, aside from the superficial, general look and PD.
The size is different, the regulation is different and is based on different principles, and the Arc6 is an MCU driven light.


----------



## Cyclops942 (Jan 18, 2009)

litetube said:


> So this thread has sputtered to a stop. Have all the testers sent the lights back/kept them / continue to use them? Bought new ones as replacements because they liked them so much?



I have recently purchased Arc6 #3009, which is my second... no, third Arc6, since the first two were beta test models. The first one, with no serial number, was traded in for one with a sub-100 serial number (#0043, to be exact). Now I have one serialized at over 3K. I'm very pleased with the quality and performance of the Arc6 design; it's why I bought another one.


----------



## Optik49 (Jan 18, 2009)

Can someone tell me is the Arc 6 programmable like the Clicky or Novatac? 
Oh ya and guarded or non? I was thinking guarded


----------



## SaturnNyne (Jan 18, 2009)

Optik49 said:


> Can someone tell me is the Arc 6 programmable like the Clicky or Novatac?


Yes and no. http://www.arcflashlight.com/Arc6_instructions.doc


----------



## Optik49 (Jan 18, 2009)

Wow, it seems like one of those lights you need to use, to decide if you like it.


----------



## SaturnNyne (Jan 18, 2009)

Optik49 said:


> Wow, it seems like one of those lights you need to use, to decide if you like it.


Likely so. It incorporates a lot of good ideas, but there are a lot of areas where a user can find that they just don't get along with it. The virtual stage is a good example of that. It's a very clever way of implementing a third stage in a mechanical two stage switch, but if you assign a level to it you're forced to decide ahead of time if you're going to need that level at a moments notice from off or from constant stage 1. Can't have it both ways if you want three levels. Back when I was considering getting one, I was very impressed by the virtual in concept, but after thinking about my uses I decided that I'd probably have to turn it off when actually using it (as opposed to just carrying it and wanting to keep three levels handy for quick uses).


----------



## Optik49 (Jan 19, 2009)

_So what about guarded or non-guarded?_


----------



## AMRaider (Jan 19, 2009)

Optik49 said:


> _So what about guarded or non-guarded?_


 

You can get the Arc 6 with either a guarded sleeve or non-guarded sleeve.

http://www.arcflashlight.com/lsseries.shtml


----------



## Optik49 (Jan 19, 2009)

LOL I know that, I was asking what people prefer. I tend to like clips.


----------



## AMRaider (Jan 19, 2009)

Optik49 said:


> LOL I know that, I was asking what people prefer. I tend to like clips.


 
There is a poll regarding "guard" vs. "no guard" somewhere in the Arc forum. The majority voted for "guard" iirc.


----------



## toby_pra (Jan 20, 2009)

Hi Guys!

Is there a way to make it easier to press the piston to the highest level?

When i press the piston, i can hardly hold it in my hands...:thinking: :mecry:


----------



## MorpheusT1 (Jan 20, 2009)

Give me your adress and i will send you a less stiff spring 
Presuming these will fit,should be the same as MCGizmo uses.

I bought lots from the GB and dont need all.

Another solution is to make the spring a little shorter and stretch it a bit.
But it is easy to take to much.



Give me a day or two to get it in the mail.


Best Regards,
Benny


----------



## toby_pra (Jan 20, 2009)

MorpheusT1 said:


> Give me your adress and i will send you a less stiff spring
> Presuming these will fit,should be the same as MCGizmo uses.
> 
> I bought lots from the GB and dont need all.
> ...


 
Oh that sounds great! Many thanks my friend!!!

Will shoot you a PM


----------



## toby_pra (Jan 21, 2009)

Does anyone know the exact currents of each level?

From light-reviews you can read, that ist only overdriven at Level7...

What is the current of Levels6 instead? 

And perhaps someone could explain me, why my Arc6 gets very hot in 
Level7 with AW's RCR123 and has a thermal stepdown after roughly
30seconds, but not with a Cr123??!!


----------



## tpchan (Jan 21, 2009)

toby_pra said:


> Does anyone know the exact currents of each level?
> 
> From light-reviews you can read, that ist only overdriven at Level7...
> 
> ...


I'll take a guess on this one: Some CR123 cells are not strong enough to even run the Arc6 at Level 7 so you may not be seeing the thermal stepdown because your light is not really at Level 7. Brand new AW RCR123 cells DO run the Arc6 at Level7 and 30 seconds is a long time (relatively) and will get hot. AW IMR cells are the best for running the Arc6 at Level7 and Level6.

If you do use CR123's that are "known" to be good and fresh, then they will drive the Arc6 at Level7 and you will feel the light get hot. There is no getting around Level7 running the light "hot".

Also keep in mind that light-reviews was using a Seoul P4 Arc6 and not the K2 emitter version, so their numbers are not going to be the same. The K2 is NOT overdriven and can handle the high amperages being used in the Arc6.

I don't have the gear (or the know how) to measure the exact currents at each level but the Arc6 website lists approximate lumen outputs at each level. http://www.arcflashlight.com/faqs.shtml


----------



## toby_pra (Jan 21, 2009)

So the K2 is not overdriven with Level7?

What rechargeables do you use in your Arc6? Somewhere i have read
that with unprotected Rcr123 i have a longer runtime on high...:candle:


----------



## tpchan (Jan 21, 2009)

As I said in my earlier post -- AW IMR cells work the best in an Arc6 for Level 7 and Level 6 usage. See the AW IMR sales thread in CPFMP. They are Li-MNO4 cells that are not protected and they are designed for high amp drain flashlights like the Arc6.


----------



## toby_pra (Jan 21, 2009)

Many thanks...

BTW sometimes its hard to know all the battery-types.:nana:


----------



## AMRaider (Jan 21, 2009)

toby_pra said:


> Does anyone know the exact currents of each level?
> 
> From light-reviews you can read, that ist only overdriven at Level7...
> 
> ...


 
These specs are buried in one of the Arc 6 threads. I can't remember which one otherwise I would link it, but here is the info. As each light is calibrated for Lumens, these current ratings are only approximate and will vary from light to light:

L1 - 1mA
L2 - 80mA
L3 - 250mA
L4 - 500mA
L5 - 700mA
L6 - 1A
L7 - 1.4A

From Arc's website, using an RCR123 and a P4 LED you get:

L1 < 1L
L2 = 7L
L3 = 35L
L4 = 70L
L5 = 100L
L6 >= 120L
L7 > 120L

When using a primary CR123, I do not notice any difference between levels 5, 6, and 7 with my eyes. In fact, level 4 appears to be VERY close to level 5 in brightness. It is probable that in order to take full advantage of level 6 and 7, you will need to use an RCR123 (a few other members have made comments along those lines as well). On the Arc website it says that using a primary CR123, you will get 100L on L7. I suspect that when using a primary CR123, levels 5, 6, and 7 are all around 100L. Hope that helps.


----------



## toby_pra (Jan 22, 2009)

As long as the K2 is not overdriven at Level7, everything is fine to me...

I cant believe taht the current raises up from 1A to 1.4A from Level6 to
Level7, because i cant see much mor brightness in Level7 comparing with the lower
Level...


----------



## Elmie (Jan 22, 2009)

Toby, I take it you have the arc6 proto? I have one as well and I can clearly see a difference between L6 and L7. L7 is just insanely bright on mine...hot too!!!


----------



## toby_pra (Jan 22, 2009)

Yes i do...but IMO are the differences between Level 5 to Level 6 much more clear to me. 

What rechargeables did you use?


----------



## Elmie (Jan 22, 2009)

I'm using AW's Protected CR123. They work great for me, but I want to try the new IMR cells and see how those are like.


----------



## toby_pra (Jan 22, 2009)

I will test the IMR's also, because my RCR123 from AW stepdown after 30seconds...


----------



## Pöbel (Jan 22, 2009)

toby_pra said:


> I will test the IMR's also, because my RCR123 from AW stepdown after 30seconds...



that stepdown is more likely to be caused by heat in my eyes


----------



## toby_pra (Jan 22, 2009)

You are right, but as mentioned before the RCR123 from AW are high protected, that causes the "early" stepdown. But the unprotected new IMR's
may work a little longer, than the normal RCR123's...


----------



## Elmie (Jan 23, 2009)

Well if you hand hold the light to draw the heat away it way go much longer than the 30 seconds you are getting. As for the protected 123's and step down, I guess it really depends on much amperage the light is drawing, which is why we see so many mixed results.


----------



## toby_pra (Jan 23, 2009)

What did you mean with with the amperage the light is drawing?

My Arc6 steps down after 30seconds in level6 and 7 too...

I think with using other rechargeables it would step down later, but i 
do not know which one to take?!


----------



## Elmie (Jan 23, 2009)

L7 has no regulation from what I gather. So depending on the LED the amount of power drawn will be dependent on that....I'm guess.


----------



## orcinus (Jan 23, 2009)

According to Peter, L7 is "semi-regulated" but was described as unregulated for simplicity's sake. It probably goes in and out of regulation depending on the state of the cell.

Regarding cells, the Powerizer unprotected RCR123's seem to work very well with L6 and L7. I have yet to see any of the four i use choke up on it or otherwise misbehave in any way. Also, with one of them in my K2 Arc6 i can see the difference between the levels. It's sometimes hard to tell the difference by eye because levels 6 and 7 (5 too? can't remember right now) ramp up to full current instead of just "blinking" on.


----------



## toby_pra (Jan 24, 2009)

Many thanks for the informations...


----------

