# Feedback/impressions on the PhD-M6 custom battery pack



## wquiles

I am starting this thread so that we can discuss feedback/impressions/suggestions/recommendations/etc. on the production PhD-M6 packs, now that I started a new sales thread and have asked a moderator to close the feeler thread. 

So going forward we will keep this discussion thread and the sales thread going.

Will


----------



## wquiles

reserved


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Feeler: PhD-M6 (programmable hotwire driver for the SF-M6)*

I wanted to give an initial impressions report since I got the PhD-M6 from Will today. 

First, let me thank Eric for his last post about the heat issue with cells, and his sensible recommendation when using higher power bulbs to limit runs to around 5 mins, or when it feels like significant heat is building up externally. The battery resellers/manufacturers who list performance specifications use the most favorable (yet unrealistic) testing conditions. For example, their measurements of cell capacity and voltage under load tests are done with the cells as hot as possible (like NiMH 'hot off the charger') knowing it will give the best results.

Secondly, now that I have one of these PhD-M6's in my hands, it is obvious how well designed they are. I had a couple of logistical/part orientation issues that can easily be fixed, and discussed them several hours ago with Will.

I have never used any of Eric's battery holders, and being accustomed to Fivemega's holders, the first thing I did was unscrew the top to load the batteries. That resulted in the unglued black support rods falling out of the Delrin end pieces, two of which rolled under my computer case. I missed the point that these were designed to not be completely unscrewed, rather the batteries only need to be pushed in from the side.

However, this gave me a chance to admire the contact points, and see how secure the center threaded rod was with regards to not being able to tighten down into the tail/driver board end which has been a problem with other brands. There is also zero rotational "twisting" as you tighten the cap--very nice. Once satisfied this was a secure and safe thread anchoring system, it took quite a while to line up the 3 batteries and black support rods to get the top back on. Then I was not sure which side of the top anchoring wheel/nut faced up. I thought I better give a quick call to Will about this and the bulb voltage question, and of course, I guessed wrong--the knob/nut faces down towards the pack for better electrical contact. 

*First lesson*: Don't remove the top, just insert the cells from the side, and tighten top to hold them secure. If you do remove it, just put it back together without the cells, and insert them later. Securing "ratchet top" (another nice enhancement) goes with protruding nut/knob side down. I felt stupid. 

Next suggestion I gave Will was to add the list of lamps to the printout, either next to the custom written level voltages, or with the photos. Most people are going to use the same default set of 4 voltage levels & moon-mode setting, so I think it could all be printed out and be a part of the instructions. Obviously for a custom voltage setup, another form with manually filled in blank numbers like the one sent to me could be separately used. I like the idea of keeping the circuit end of the pack towards the tailcap, and away from the bulb heat, but indeed, it works if inserted either end first.

Final confusion I had was selecting the proper voltage level with the default MN21 I had been using in my M6, so I came back to this thread, and after some searching, found that Eric recommended using the *Level 2* (6.8V) setting for this bulb. I thought about that for a couple minutes, and spent about a half hour failing to find the threads where the various MN bulbs had their optimal voltages under load with standard SF holder & primary cells listed.

Despite all the work I have done with bi-pin bulb testing, I never learned about the voltage/performance under load of the SF MN bulbs, only having the M4 & M6, so I was puzzled why Eric's recommended voltage was so low, when I knew that putting 3s2p of SF A123 cells each with fresh voltage of 3.25V added up to 9.75V and drove the bulb just fine.

Of course, Will informed me that SF designed the combination of the MN20 & MN21 bulbs (and their primary cells) to withstand a normally higher initial inrush current without needing a soft start. The primary cells voltage/current sags almost immediately under the bulb's load to work just fine. Will was completely gracious, but again I felt stupid and had to laugh at myself being such a MN noob. 

Once I was reassured that Eric's 6.8V (Level 2) was correct, flipping those switches with your fingernail to match the photos was child's play, and an elegant improvement over trying to jam a pen into the earlier 'recessed' switches.

From that point on, it was all a heavenly experience. Through two sets of 17670 AW protected cells, it always worked with that continuously regulated, beautiful white color!  The 1/10th to 2/10's of a second soft start is not even noticeable. Push button flashing works just fine. If you do it as fast as you can, the pulses are dim, but at a rate of 1 per second, they were bright white flashes. 

I ran it several times for 7 & 8 minutes, and this bulb/battery combination got warm at the head and neck, but not at all hot, unless I neglected adequate cooling time in between. I didn't get precise on the overall run time of the cells, but I think Eric has that nailed down in other posts. I would estimate it to be 22-25 mins, with another 5 mins of moon-mode which was obvious and still useful illumination. Once I let it continue draining until shutdown, it did not turn back on (as is the design). Removing the three warm-hot cells after about 5 mins showed their voltages of 3.1, 3.3, & 3.4V, so they were well drained but not abused. These AW cells are 18-24 months old. Back into the Pila chargers they went.

I immediately began thinking of how many boxes of cells I had gone through since I bought this light, and how that--and the quickly fading output--were the biggest reasons I didn't use it more often. I figured I went through at least 90 cells at $1.75 to $2 each including shipping! Now I had something that has a soft start, gives regulated light, lets me easily replace the cells when they wear out, and allows easy custom settings for different bulb applications I want, and as far as I can tell is nearly idiot proof. It is what the average consumer would dream of having for this incan M6 model. I smiled, and am thrilled to have ordered two.

*This is a no-brainer, folks.* Big hat's off to Will, Eric, AlanB, JimmyM, Willie Hunt (who I'm sure will be proud when he sees this), and other contributors. As far as I am concerned, it is ready for release with some simple instructional enhancements & putting all the information on the shipped instructional pages.


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Feeler: PhD-M6 (programmable hotwire driver for the SF-M6)*



wquiles said:


> OK folks, some great news regarding my destructive testing with *protected* LiIon cells - nothing was destructed
> 
> So basically:
> => The regulator worked "only" when all 3 cells were inserted with the correct polarity, and it seems you can't harm the driver/regulator by installing *protected* cells backwards :twothumbs
> 
> So it looks like I can "relax" a little bit the warnings about reverse battery polarity protection, but certainly only when using *protected* LiIon cells(!).
> 
> *I have not yet measured/try unprotected cells (which are not approved for this pack anyway!), but if I can find them and I can find a way to test them safely, I will report on that later.*
> 
> So in summary: To ensure utmost safety to you, your lights, and the PhD-M6 pack, only use *PROTECTED CELLS* with the PhD-M6 pack - please be safe
> 
> Will



*Beautiful!* 

BTW, I have some unprotected cells I got from AW years ago when that's all there was. I don't know if its worth bothering to test with them though.


----------



## leukos

*Re: Feeler: PhD-M6 (programmable hotwire driver for the SF-M6)*

Like LuxLuthor, the PhD-M6 pack arrived well packaged today. The improvements to the intructions were great, Will. I think the pictures will be helpful for most folks. Here's the pack with the test M6:







As Lux mentioned, if you have not handled one of Eric's 3x17670 holders before, the fit and feel of the PhD-M6 will certainly impress. Compared to the FM pack that I modified to regulate at 7.5V, the PhD-M6 is completely superior in both design and function. My pack feels very fragile, the PhD-M6 commands a lot more confidence. All other regulated M6 packs only had one voltage, the PhD-M6 offers four!






Will and Eric have listened to suggestions and have made some nice improvements since the beta packs. Both of my M6's are older, and I think may have smaller inner diameters than newer M6's. The beta pack was a bit snug and limited momentary operation. This newer pack slides in nice and smooth and I was able to tap out SOS with no issues. 
The larger switches are an improvement. My fingers are still a little too fat to switch them without a toothpick or some tool, but it was much easier all the same. 
The moon mode is fantastic. This is what I wanted from the beginning and Will, you delivered! Other regulators flash as a low battery warning, but this pack allows you usable light to find your second PhD-M6 pack before the light goes out. Great job! 








I still would like to do a lot more testing with this pack over the next few days into the weekend, but it certainly has two thumbs up so far. One modification I think I will suggest already (for Will, or the end user) would be to carefully fill the pcb gab with two part epoxy, potting compound, or hot glue to add a little insurance to the surface components, nuts, and washers (without covering the switches obviously!). I will do this for my two packs for durability and to add some water resistance if it is not part of the end design.






My other quick suggestion for Will and Eric (if you guys have the time or energy) is to devise a simple protective carrying case. The one below is an example, but it could be made of pvc or anything. 







I'll add more over the next few days as I do a bit more testing. I will not be doing any destructive testing, just performance testing. There were a couple of improvements from the beta version that I would like to put through the paces. Thanks again, Will, for the opportunity to evaluate this fine piece of work. :thumbsup:


----------



## LuxLuthor

*Re: Feeler: PhD-M6 (programmable hotwire driver for the SF-M6)*

Leukos, I like your idea of having an insulating travel case if you get two. 

My first reaction personally, I don't think I would want the epoxy/hot glue treatment, as I want the ability to get it serviced by Will, including reflashing the main chip with new set of bulb values--especially if a new battery capacity/voltage or custom bulb becomes available. The 3 spacer rods give a very secure support protection for the chip.

I'm also continuing to test it over the weekend, including using several bipin bulbs with an FM bulb holder, but I seriously doubt I willl have any substantive suggestions.

It's interesting to see that the pack with batteries inserted shows the total 3s battery voltage at the two terminals if you want to verify more objectively the pack's status.


----------



## It01Firefox

*Re: Feeler: PhD-M6 (programmable hotwire driver for the SF-M6)*

+1 on the travel case idea. 

Thanks to everybody involved in bringing this idea to life. I can't wait to pick one up!


----------



## DM51

*Re: Feeler: PhD-M6 (programmable hotwire driver for the SF-M6)*

New thread off to a great start with first-rate feedback. 5-star stuff, straight off the mark.


----------



## wquiles

*Re: Feeler: PhD-M6 (programmable hotwire driver for the SF-M6)*



DM51 said:


> New thread off to a great start with first-rate feedback. 5-star stuff, straight off the mark.



Thanks David for your help and assistance getting the new threads going :bow:


----------



## wquiles

*Re: Feeler: PhD-M6 (programmable hotwire driver for the SF-M6)*



LuxLuthor said:


> I have never used any of Eric's battery holders, and being accustomed to Fivemega's holders, the first thing I did was unscrew the top to load the batteries. That resulted in the unglued black support rods falling out of the Delrin end pieces, two of which rolled under my computer case. I missed the point that these were designed to not be completely unscrewed, rather the batteries only need to be pushed in from the side.





LuxLuthor said:


> Once satisfied this was a secure and safe thread anchoring system, it took quite a while to line up the 3 batteries and black support rods to get the top back on. Then I was not sure which side of the top anchoring wheel/nut faced up. I thought I better give a quick call to Will about this and the bulb voltage question, and of course, I guessed wrong--the knob/nut faces down towards the pack for better electrical contact.



Definitely something that I forgot to cover - sorry about that :whoopin:

I will update the handout/guide with a short description and at least one photo or two showing how to insert the cells into the pack, and to note the orientation:










Although Eric's design does not require at all for that nut to be removed, if it ever comes off by going too far out, this photo does show how it goes back in:






I am working on up-loading a very short video showing how to load and unload the cells - I will have it available soon 




LuxLuthor said:


> Next suggestion I gave Will was to add the list of lamps to the printout, either next to the custom written level voltages, or with the photos. Most people are going to use the same default set of 4 voltage levels & moon-mode setting, so I think it could all be printed out and be a part of the instructions. Obviously for a custom voltage setup, another form with manually filled in blank numbers like the one sent to me could be separately used. I like the idea of keeping the circuit end of the pack towards the tailcap, and away from the bulb heat, but indeed, it works if inserted either end first.


I will update the guide to reflect this as well 




LuxLuthor said:


> From that point on, it was all a heavenly experience. Through two sets of 17670 AW protected cells, it always worked with that continuously regulated, beautiful white color!  The 1/10th to 2/10's of a second soft start is not even noticeable. Push button flashing works just fine. If you do it as fast as you can, the pulses are dim, but at a rate of 1 per second, they were bright white flashes.
> 
> I ran it several times for 7 & 8 minutes, and this bulb/battery combination got warm at the head and neck, but not at all hot, unless I neglected adequate cooling time in between. I didn't get precise on the overall run time of the cells, but I think Eric has that nailed down in other posts. I would estimate it to be 22-25 mins, with another 5 mins of moon-mode which was obvious and still useful illumination. Once I let it continue draining until shutdown, it did not turn back on (as is the design). Removing the three warm-hot cells after about 5 mins showed their voltages of 3.1, 3.3, & 3.4V, so they were well drained but not abused. These AW cells are 18-24 months old. Back into the Pila chargers they went.





LuxLuthor said:


> *This is a no-brainer, folks.* Big hat's off to Will, Eric, AlanB, JimmyM, Willie Hunt (who I'm sure will be proud when he sees this), and other contributors. As far as I am concerned, it is ready for release with some simple instructional enhancements & putting all the information on the shipped instructional pages.


Thanks much


----------



## wquiles

*Re: Feeler: PhD-M6 (programmable hotwire driver for the SF-M6)*



leukos said:


> Like LuxLuthor, the PhD-M6 pack arrived well packaged today. The improvements to the intructions were great, Will. I think the pictures will be helpful for most folks.





leukos said:


> Will and Eric have listened to suggestions and have made some nice improvements since the beta packs. Both of my M6's are older, and I think may have smaller inner diameters than newer M6's. The beta pack was a bit snug and limited momentary operation. This newer pack slides in nice and smooth and I was able to tap out SOS with no issues.
> The larger switches are an improvement. My fingers are still a little too fat to switch them without a toothpick or some tool, but it was much easier all the same.
> The moon mode is fantastic. This is what I wanted from the beginning and Will, you delivered! Other regulators flash as a low battery warning, but this pack allows you usable light to find your second PhD-M6 pack before the light goes out. Great job!


Thanks again for your help/testing during the Alpha phase, and for verifying that we addressed the concerns that you shared with us back them :thumbsup:




leukos said:


> One modification I think I will suggest already (for Will, or the end user) would be to carefully fill the pcb gab with two part epoxy, potting compound, or hot glue to add a little insurance to the surface components, nuts, and washers (without covering the switches obviously!). I will do this for my two packs for durability and to add some water resistance if it is not part of the end design.


Since the pack is inside a water resistant housing (the M6), the pack is very secure and immune to the elements. Eric's holder is a very neat and strong solution - everything is bolted together nice and tight, and in over 3 months of testing, not a single pack has failed nor come loose, even after the heavy duty and constant usage we have given those packs. 

Eric has done a fair amount of abuse dropping his M6 (with the PhD-M6 pack inside of course), repeatedly without the pack failing. Of course the pack is not indestructible, and obvious abuse is not something I should be expected to cover, but we did try out best during the development phase to "push" the envelope and the packs have remain solid so far.

The dimensions of the Delrin carrier and the board/switch were selected to make sure there was no exposed part of the circuit near the edge of the PWB, so there is no electrical contact possible, if the pack were to be laid down against something else, specially a conductive surface. However, nothing prevents "prying" into the circuit's "open cage", which could in fact damage/break one or more of the surface mount components. 

The part about the epoxy filled was something that I talked to Eric about 2 months ago. Like you I also feel it is a great way to "seal" the circuit for those times when the pack is not inside the M6, and for a more "hostile" environment where the pack would/could be routinely be exposed to harm, or in a "extreme duty" light where you want to minimize/eliminate as many forms of failure as possible. 

I have been calling this special version the LE version, for Law Enforcement version - it would be potted with special two-part electronics grade Epoxy (which I already have used in this project some time ago). It would certainly be the more robust version of the pack, having only the very top of the dip switch exposed, which is water resistant (I selected this specific switch due to this extra safety factor since I need all parts to survive cleaning with water in my ultrasonic cleaner). Note that I am not claiming nor supporting getting the PhD-M6 pack wet. The board itself and the board's components can be cleaned with water and air dry, but if the board is powered, I would expect the board to fail, like with most/all other electronic circuits. 

However, like I have mentioned before (sorry guys if I am sounding like a broken record!), there is always a compromise. If the end user or myself, were the seal the board, there is ZERO chance to reprogram it, test it, repair, replace, etc.. - if it ever fails, it becomes an expensive paper weight . Since I would have to charge more for this extra potting step, and it voids any chance of repair/test/replace, it makes for an interesting catch-22. Until I can think this through in more detail, I will not be offering this option. Certainly not until I can deliver the regular PhD-M6 production packs.



leukos said:


> My other quick suggestion for Will and Eric (if you guys have the time or energy) is to devise a simple protective carrying case. The one below is an example, but it could be made of pvc or anything.


Good idea. It certainly has not been part of the scope for the project, but I will consult with Eric on what we can do. Perhaps we can sell it as a low cost accessory to the pack.




leukos said:


> I'll add more over the next few days as I do a bit more testing. I will not be doing any destructive testing, just performance testing. There were a couple of improvements from the beta version that I would like to put through the paces. Thanks again, Will, for the opportunity to evaluate this fine piece of work. :thumbsup:


Thanks much


----------



## cnjl3

*Re: Feeler: PhD-M6 (programmable hotwire driver for the SF-M6)*

Why not use some heatshrink tubing on the end with the circuit board. 
It would shield the sides and yet still allow access to the switch and or future programming?



leukos said:


> One modification I think I will suggest already (for Will, or the end user) would be to carefully fill the pcb gab with two part epoxy, potting compound, or hot glue to add a little insurance to the surface components, nuts, and washers (without covering the switches obviously!). I will do this for my two packs for durability and to add some water resistance if it is not part of the end design.


----------



## wquiles

*Re: Feeler: PhD-M6 (programmable hotwire driver for the SF-M6)*



cnjl3 said:


> Why not use some heatshrink tubing on the end with the circuit board.
> It would shield the sides and yet still allow access to the switch and or future programming?



The pack slides in/out easily, but the pack was not designed with the extra room to allow for the HS tubbing (it might or it might not fit back into the body of the M6). The HS tubbing could (as it shrinks) put pressure on the switch or other components near the edge of the board - none of which are designed to survive lateral forces, so the HS tubbing could (worst case) break a part, lift a pad, etc.. 

I am not trying to scare you or anyone, but please be mindful before attempting to modify the pack as it might end up costing more to repair/replace that if you left it alone.


----------



## wquiles

Some short videos:

PhD-M6 Video 14: Side loading of protected 17670 cells


PhD-M6 Video 15: Removing the protected 17670 cells


PhD-M6 Video 16: Re-installing the tightening nut


----------



## DM51

wquiles said:


> Some short videos


The film directorial debut of Mr. Cecil B. DeQuiles! Is there no limit to his talent?!?


----------



## LuxLuthor

wquiles said:


> Some short videos:
> 
> PhD-M6 Video 14: Side loading of protected 17670 cells
> 
> 
> PhD-M6 Video 15: Removing the protected 17670 cells
> 
> 
> PhD-M6 Video 16: Re-installing the tightening nut



LOL! Just thinking how much time I made you waste doing those videos. I was thinking you should make a Ronco/Billy Mays infomercial with voiceover "Tired of taking apart your battery packs, and dropping all the parts, not knowing where they went, or how they go back together...now we have the Ronco Pack-O-Matic" with the video showing a bumbling idiot taking off the cap, having the black rods fall out and roll under the computer case, crawling down on the floor looking for them with a flashlight, then spending 5 minutes trying to orient polarity, line up the 3 cells and 3 rods to get the top back on, re-attaching the nut the wrong way....then put a big red X over the last scene, and proceed to the proper use of your original elegant design. :twothumbs


----------



## wquiles

LuxLuthor said:


> LOL! Just thinking how much time I made you waste doing those videos. I was thinking you should make a Ronco/Billy Mays infomercial with voiceover "Tired of taking apart your battery packs, and dropping all the parts, not knowing where they went, or how they go back together...now we have the Ronco Pack-O-Matic" with the video showing a bumbling idiot taking off the cap, having the black rods fall out and roll under the computer case, crawling down on the floor looking for them with a flashlight, then spending 5 minutes trying to orient polarity, line up the 3 cells and 3 rods to get the top back on, re-attaching the nut the wrong way....then put a big red X over the last scene, and proceed to the proper use of your original elegant design. :twothumbs



No worries Lux, the videos do help show things more clearly. Besides, as David indicated above, if this flashlight "stuff" does not work out, I might have a chance in Hollywood


----------



## mdocod

Hi everyone, 

Sounds like things are going well so far with just a few interesting hiccups nana

I'm realizing now that LuxLuthor may not be the only one to do a "double take" on the 6.8V recomendation. I'm hoping nobody tries to go with their "gut" and try the 10.8V setting thinking that it will be just a mild over-drive compared to the 9+V of the MB20 pack. 

The normal _average_ operating voltage of the MN21 is actually closer to 6.6V, however, it can be as high as ~7.0V with really fresh and warm CR123s, so we decided on 6.8V as a nice balance that pushes the HOLA lamps to a good balance of brilliance and bulb life. The MN16 works nicely here as well. 

Eric


----------



## LuxLuthor

Will, when you get the instruction document updated the way you want it, can you please post it as link to download in the sales thread? I want to replace my earlier one (or email me a copy)--no hurry. Thank you sir!

Eric, thanks so much for all the testing and research you did with the various optimal bulb settings. I know the work that involves, and having it available as a concise, correlated to PhD-M6 voltage setting list is an enormous gift. People can just relax and enjoy their choice because of it. :kiss:


----------



## Justin Case

Been thinking about the levels some more. Can you list the bulbs that you envision for Level 3, and their "optimum" (or acceptable) voltages vs the actual Level 3 voltage of 7.5V? Basically, if there is some spread of the optimum/acceptable voltages for say an MN15, MN16, MN20, and other bulbs about 7.5V, then I might want to specify re-programming of the Level 3 voltage that might more closely match some bulb of interest whose optimum/acceptable voltage might be closer to 7.1V-7.3V. If such a case exists, then this might also better accommodate a WA1111/64250 than the current Level 3 voltage of 7.5V, providing a level that can drive the bulb a little harder than Level 2 but not so hard as to risk erratic filament life.

Thanks.


----------



## donn_

I guess I didn't realize we could order the device with our own preferred target voltages programmed into the four levels.

Time for some research.


----------



## wquiles

LuxLuthor said:


> Will, when you get the instruction document updated the way you want it, can you please post it as link to download in the sales thread? I want to replace my earlier one (or email me a copy)--no hurry. Thank you sir!


I just updated the document - available from the main sales thread. Comments/suggestions welcomed 




Justin Case said:


> Been thinking about the levels some more. Can you list the bulbs that you envision for Level 3, and their "optimum" (or acceptable) voltages vs the actual Level 3 voltage of 7.5V? Basically, if there is some spread of the optimum/acceptable voltages for say an MN15, MN16, MN20, and other bulbs about 7.5V, then I might want to specify re-programming of the Level 3 voltage that might more closely match some bulb of interest whose optimum/acceptable voltage might be closer to 7.1V-7.3V. If such a case exists, then this might also better accommodate a WA1111/64250 than the current Level 3 voltage of 7.5V, providing a level that can drive the bulb a little harder than Level 2 but not so hard as to risk erratic filament life.


I just talked to Eric about various things this morning and I told him about this good question that you have. In fact Eric still "owes" us a chart with a few more recommendations, so your question is very timely. 

Eric said these recommendations still needed some tweaking but that based on his testing, this was a good starting point:
MN15: Range: 7.2-8.0V, recommended drive level: 7.5V
MN16: Range: 6.5-7.0V, recommended drive level: 6.8V
MN20: Range: 7.2-8.0V, recommended drive level: 7.5V
MN21: Range: 6.5-7.0V, recommended drive level: 6.8V
HO-M3T: Range: 7.2-7.9V, recommended drive level: 7.5V
EO-M3T: Range: 7.1-7.8V, recommended drive level: 7.5V
IMR-M3T: Range: 7.0-7.8V, recommended drive level: 7.5V
WA1111/64250: Range: 6.4-7.2V, recommended drive level: 6.8V

(once Eric reviews/finalizes this list, I will update the sales thread with it)

Eric said he will come back and review these once he is done running some errands this morning 




donn_ said:


> I guess I didn't realize we could order the device with our own preferred target voltages programmed into the four levels.


Yes. It is an extra charge, but I can program the pack to different default voltages.

Here I am quoting myself:


wquiles said:


> Unless I hear otherwise, I am going to assume the default values/behavior for those orders:
> 
> Level 1 = 5.0 volts
> Level 2 = 6.8 volts
> Level 3 = 7.5 volts
> Level 4 = 10.8 volts
> 
> Default behavior for almost depleted cells = Moon Mode
> 
> Moon Mode means = PWM duty cycle goes down by 1/2, so output RMS voltage goes down approximately 30%.
> 
> NOTE: Do NOT send payment until instructed by me, either here in this thread or by email (please, no PM's nor visitor messages). I will not be collecting money until I have a pack ready to ship to you.



You are nearly at the top of the list, so I need to know ASAP if you want the default values, or if you want me to bump you down until you are ready.


----------



## donn_

wquiles said:


> Yes. It is an extra charge, but I can program the pack to different default voltages.
> 
> You are nearly at the top of the list, so I need to know ASAP if you want the default values, or if you want me to bumb you down until you are ready.



Don't "bumb" me! I'll give you my target voltages shortly.


----------



## wquiles

donn_ said:


> Don't "bumb" me!



Opps, sorry for the typo. Meant bump you down 

I will wait for your custom values.


----------



## donn_

Here they are, Will:

Level 1: 7.2V
Level 2: 8.5V
Level 3: 9.6V
Level 4: 10.8V


----------



## wquiles

donn_ said:


> Here they are, Will:
> 
> Level 1: 7.2V
> Level 2: 8.5V
> Level 3: 9.6V
> Level 4: 10.8V



I updated your order - thanks for the quick turn-around


----------



## mdocod

Hi Justin Case,

Great questions. I will be working on a chart that Will can edit into the first post of either this thread, or the sales thread over the weekend. I'll come up with an estimated range of drive levels for each bulb for folks to consider. 

We don't know exact bulb specifications on SF bulbs, but we can deduce a lot from looking at current draw and comparing that to discharge graphs of CR123s and working backwards. The only way to really find out exactly where bulb drive levels life ratings line up would be through destructive testing of hundreds of bulbs to find the average failure point. 

the 7.5V level 3 is optimized as a conservative but impressive drive level for SF standard output lamps. (MN15, MN20). 2.5V per CR123 that the bulb is designed to run from provides what I would call an optimized drive level for these bulbs. (That's why we chose 5.0V for the N1). 

Under the load of SF high output lamps, CR123s sag to something closer to 2.25V per cell in the stack. So the 6.8V setting is what I consider a nice optimum drive level for the MN16 and MN21. 

Obviously everyone has preferences for balancing bulb life and efficiency. I suspect that most people, once they have tried these default settings, will agree that they are well chosen for running SF bulbs. 

As it would turn out, the 7.5V setting also works great for all of the LumensFactory M3T lamps. Including the IMR-M3T. I've actually done a lot of my run-time tests on the EO-M3T, and IMR-M3T, and the bulbs are holding up well at this voltage and providing great performance. 


For your specific case, I would look at the 5V and 10.8V options and decide if you can afford to "drop" one or both of them, Use that extra setting/s to sneak in an optimized drive for your favorite 1111, while retaining proper drive levels for the stock SF lamps. For example: 6.8V, 7.1V, 7.5V, 10.8V. Just throwing out ideas to ponder 


Eric


----------



## mdocod

donn_ said:


> Here they are, Will:
> 
> Level 1: 7.2V
> Level 2: 8.5V
> Level 3: 9.6V
> Level 4: 10.8V



Very curious which bulbs you have in mind. Would you mind sharing?

Eric


----------



## donn_

mdocod said:


> Very curious which bulbs you have in mind. Would you mind sharing?
> 
> Eric



Level 1: 7.2V 1111 789L/112F/11.2Hr .......5761 1237L/152F/11.2Hr

Level 2: 8.5V JC5607 1082L/111F/31Hr

Level 3: 9.6V 1164 1361L/132F/8.9Hr

Level 4: 10.8V 1185 1171L/110F/12.2Hr


----------



## Justin Case

mdocod said:


> We don't know exact bulb specifications on SF bulbs, but we can deduce a lot from looking at current draw and comparing that to discharge graphs of CR123s and working backwards. The only way to really find out exactly where bulb drive levels life ratings line up would be through destructive testing of hundreds of bulbs to find the average failure point.


 
You can measure tail draw with a DMM and then use a bench power supply to estimate the corresponding voltage that gives you that current draw. Of course, there can be certain complications from system resistances resulting in differing amounts of voltage drop for the flashlight vs bench supply setup.


----------



## mdocod

Justin Case said:


> You can measure tail draw with a DMM and then use a bench power supply to determine the corresponding voltage that gives you that current draw.



Yes, but this information does not produce bulb life estimates, which is the primary factor in determining "optimized" drive levels. 

Eric


----------



## donn_

I wouldn't say bulb life is the primary factor in determining drive levels. It's one of them, but it's no more important than unit price, output level and beam quality.

For example, the JC5607 can provide 1000+ lumens at 8.5V and live for 31 hours. But, if you want to live it up, you can take it to over 2100 lumens on 10.8V for less than 2 hours. At $1.15 each, you can afford to be a sport.:devil:


----------



## mdocod

donn_ said:


> Level 1: 7.2V 1111 789L/112F/11.2Hr .......5761 1237L/152F/11.2Hr
> 
> Level 2: 8.5V JC5607 1082L/111F/31Hr
> 
> Level 3: 9.6V 1164 1361L/132F/8.9Hr
> 
> Level 4: 10.8V 1185 1171L/110F/12.2Hr



Hi Donn,

Keep in mind, the 10.8V setting on the PhD-M6 provides soft start, but doesn't really provide _meaningful_ regulation at the high loads presented by the 1185 and similar bulbs. Depending on the temperature and condition of the cells, the regulated run can be anywhere from non-existent, to 5-10 minutes worth. 

You're ready to remove the bezel of the turbohead in order to install the 5761? They don't usually fit through the hole. Just making sure  Also, at 7.2V, that's about 40W, which is pushing the cells even harder than the MN21 at ~35W, I think that's a bit too much for safety, unless it's not used much or only used on very short bursts. 

The 5607 at 9.6V: That's a 3-4C load on the cells which is very unsafe. I can't even guarantee that the PhD-M6 will be able to turn that bulb on. The protection in the cells will likely prevent it. 

I think Will and I are going to have to discuss putting some kind of warning or disclaimer or something in place that says we are not going to configure the PhD-M6 in scenarios where the intention is to exceed 35W power consumption. 

Eric

PS: when IMR17670s come out, I don't see any problem with powering up ~50W bulbs.


----------



## Justin Case

mdocod said:


> Yes, but this information does not produce bulb life estimates, which is the primary factor in determining "optimized" drive levels.
> 
> Eric


 
Since we are talking about SF bulbs, it is a safe assumption that SF has done that work already. Thus, estimate the voltage at which the SF bulbs run and use that in the PhD-M6. QED.


----------



## mdocod

Justin Case said:


> Since we are talking about SF bulbs, it is a safe assumption that SF has done that work already. Thus, estimate the voltage at which the SF bulbs run and use that in the PhD-M6. QED.



Yes, that's what I did, which I already said.


----------



## Justin Case

mdocod said:


> Hi Donn,
> 
> Keep in mind, the 10.8V setting on the PhD-M6 provides soft start, but doesn't really provide _meaningful_ regulation at the high loads presented by the 1185 and similar bulbs. Depending on the temperature and condition of the cells, the regulated run can be anywhere from non-existent, to 5-10 minutes worth.
> 
> You're ready to remove the bezel of the turbohead in order to install the 5761? They don't usually fit through the hole. Just making sure  Also, at 7.2V, that's about 40W, which is pushing the cells even harder than the MN21 at ~35W, I think that's a bit too much for safety, unless it's not used much or only used on very short bursts.
> 
> The 5607 at 9.6V: That's a 3-4C load on the cells which is very unsafe. I can't even guarantee that the PhD-M6 will be able to turn that bulb on. The protection in the cells will likely prevent it.
> 
> I think Will and I are going to have to discuss putting some kind of warning or disclaimer or something in place that says we are not going to configure the PhD-M6 in scenarios where the intention is to exceed 35W power consumption.
> 
> Eric
> 
> PS: when IMR17670s come out, I don't see any problem with powering up ~50W bulbs.


 
All of my Philips 5761 bulbs fit in my KT4. As do all of my 64250s. Just lucky I guess.

As your "PS" suggests, I assumed that Donn was planning ahead for the day that IMR17670 cells become available. Then his PhD-M6 would be already setup and optimized for high power use.

1164 will probably draw over 4A at 9.6V.

5761 will draw over 5A at ~7V.

1111/64250 will draw almost 4A at the low 7V range.

JC5607 will draw over 4A at 8.5V.

All of these bulbs are asking a lot from the AW17670 black label cells.


----------



## Justin Case

mdocod said:


> Yes, that's what I did, which I already said.


 
I must have misunderstood then when you stated



mdocod said:


> We don't know exact bulb specifications on SF bulbs, but we can deduce a lot from looking at current draw and comparing that to discharge graphs of CR123s and working backwards.


 
It sounded like you were using discharge graphs for 123A primaries, correlating those graphs to measured tail currents, and estimating Vbulb.

I'm talking about correlating the tail current to a bench supply V/I draw to estimate Vbulb.


----------



## donn_

mdocod said:


> Hi Donn,
> 
> Keep in mind, the 10.8V setting on the PhD-M6 provides soft start, but doesn't really provide _meaningful_ regulation at the high loads presented by the 1185 and similar bulbs. Depending on the temperature and condition of the cells, the regulated run can be anywhere from non-existent, to 5-10 minutes worth.
> 
> You're ready to remove the bezel of the turbohead in order to install the 5761? They don't usually fit through the hole. Just making sure  Also, at 7.2V, that's about 40W, which is pushing the cells even harder than the MN21 at ~35W, I think that's a bit too much for safety, unless it's not used much or only used on very short bursts.



It will be short burst use only, and most of my use for this M6 will be with Mag heads.



mdocod said:


> The 5607 at 9.6V: That's a 3-4C load on the cells which is very unsafe. I can't even guarantee that the PhD-M6 will be able to turn that bulb on. The protection in the cells will likely prevent it.



The 5607 is delegated to either level 1 (7.2V) or 2 (8.5V).



mdocod said:


> I think Will and I are going to have to discuss putting some kind of warning or disclaimer or something in place that says we are not going to configure the PhD-M6 in scenarios where the intention is to exceed 35W power consumption.
> 
> Eric
> 
> PS: when IMR17670s come out, I don't see any problem with powering up ~50W bulbs.



I expect to see IMR, LiFePO4 or some other safe high amp chemistry in this size eventually.


----------



## donn_

Justin Case said:


> All of these bulbs are asking a lot from the AW17670 black label cells.



From AW's sales thread:



> *The new Protected 17670 (1600mAH), 17500 (1100mAH), 14500 (750mAH) are now available. A few improvements have been incorporated on these new cells :*
> 
> *- a new protection PCB with a higher current threshold ( up to 5A +/- 0.5A )*


----------



## mdocod

Justin Case said:


> It sounded like you were using discharge graphs for 123A primaries, correlating those graphs to measured tail currents, and estimating Vbulb.
> 
> I'm talking about correlating the tail current to a bench supply V/I draw to estimate Vbulb.



The results are the same either way if proper care is taken in adjusting for expected resistance and load. The drive levels for SF bulbs have been ball-parked on CPF since as far back as CPF goes. The PhD-M6 does not represent the first time that someone has tried to put numbers on paper about these bulbs. I've been figuring and estimating these bulb characteristics for years and building on that information and improving on it through those years. I've also conducted V-Bulb tests under the power of CR123s into SF bulbs on several occasions in the past, long before the PhD-M6 was ever even a dream.

Eric


----------



## Justin Case

Regardless of the max limit of AW's protection circuit, asking his 17670 cells to deliver 4A-5A is asking a lot. The usual recommended max discharge rate for a standard LiCo chemistry Li-ion is 2C.

AW's 14500 cells also have a protection circuit with an upper limit of 5A +/-0.5A. I seriously doubt that pulling 5A from a 14500 is a good idea, regardless of that 5A limit for the protection circuit. 14500 C is advertised as 750mAh. 17670 C is given as 1600mAh.


----------



## Justin Case

deleted


----------



## mdocod

Hi donn,

Sorry, I mixed up the voltage/bulb arrangements in the response, but the concerns are still valid...

The high current limit on the PCB is only set that high in order to allow for the cold-start of high power bulbs. There is a combination of effects taking place. It's not unusual for current to spike between 10-20+ amps when a bulb is cold and being fired up. At the same time, there is a delay before the protection circuit can react to the high current condition. By moving the current limit higher on the PCB, it's possible to "trick" the delay into allowing that high current bulb to fire up and move on to steady state operation before the protection trips. The 5A limit on the PCB has nothing to do with the maximum continuous safe discharge of the cells. 

The maximum recommended continuous discharge rate on most LiCo cells is between 1.5C and 2C rate. The PhD-M6 and any other PWM regulation presents further complications. Since the load is not continuous, but instead, in the form of higher current pulses, more energy from the cells is translated into heat as a result of cell resistance than would have been in a continuous discharge. This results in more heat buildup in the cells, which requires further de-rating for continuous discharges. 

In our application, the MN21 is running at ~9V X ~7A X~50% duty cycle. The peak current on each pulse is actually in excess of the 5A limit of the PCB, but the fast pulsing creates a scenario where the PCB can not react to those high current peaks. The RMS current would have to rise above 5A to trip it more than likely. 

I wasn't originally planning on sharing this, but when Will was working on the optimization of the soft-start to allow the MN21 to fire up (it wouldn't originally), I decided to test it to see how much "over-head" we had in the design for the PCB tolerances that we might run into. The 64275 will fire up at 6.8V, which is about 44W. (I didn't test this a ton, just cranked up the bulb numerous times, ran it a few minutes, and that's it) This convinced me that we have the over-head required to run the MN21 without problems from the PCB with the modified soft-start program. 

Eric


----------



## wquiles

Justin Case said:


> Regardless of the max limit of AW's protection circuit, asking his 17670 cells to deliver 4A-5A is asking a lot. The usual recommended max discharge rate for a standard LiCo chemistry Li-ion is 2C.
> 
> AW's 14500 cells also have a protection circuit with an upper limit of 5A +/-0.5A. I seriously doubt that pulling 5A from a 14500 is a good idea, regardless of that 5A limit for the protection circuit. 14500 C is advertised as 750mAh. 17670 C is given as 1600mAh.



+1

Well said Justin.





mdocod said:


> I think Will and I are going to have to discuss putting some kind of warning or disclaimer or something in place that says we are not going to configure the PhD-M6 in scenarios where the intention is to exceed 35W power consumption.


Exactly. We have tested and re-tested the PhD-M6 at the default values with as many bulbs as we could, and have a great feel of the "envelope" that we can support. We can stand firm in stating that the driver will work well within those limits and bulb recommendations.

However, whether the end customer is using default voltage settings or custom voltage settings, the end user can exceed the cells/pack beyond the safe area that we tested - there is nothing we can do about it. But every action has a consequence. If the pack/driver is damaged when going beyond the safe area we tested and recommended, then I don't feel it would be fair to call that fair/normal use, and repair/replacement of parts & labor should be covered at the owner's expense.


----------



## Justin Case

What do you think of the following:

Level 1: 6.8V (MN21)
Level 2: 7.3V (MN15, MN20, N62, 1111, 64250, 5761 eventually)
Level 3: 8.0V (1164, 1274, Hikari 5607)
Level 4: 10.8A (1185, 1331, 1318)

I like the original Level 1 at 5.0V, but I have only one N1 lamp, while I have lots of 1164s and 1274s. So I'm sacrificing the low-low for another upper-mid voltage setting. I figure that the MN15 at 7.3V can be my long-running lamp. I reduced the 7.5V level for the MN15 and MN20 down to 7.3V to try to accommodate the 1111, 64250, and 5761. I listed the N62 in my notional Level 2, but it's not clear to me if I'd actually use it. The notional Level 3 of 8.0V tries to balance safely driving the 1274 vs. getting some reasonable overdrive for the 1164 and especially the 5607. If I didn't have so many 1274s, I'd probably go for 9.0V for Level 3.


----------



## wquiles

Justin Case said:


> What do you think of the following:
> 
> Level 1: 6.8V (MN21)
> Level 2: 7.3V (MN15, MN20, N62, 1111, 64250, 5761 eventually)
> Level 3: 8.0V (1164, 1274, Hikari 5607)
> Level 4: 10.8A (1185, 1331, 1318)
> 
> I like the original Level 1 at 5.0V, but I have only one N1 lamp, while I have lots of 1164s and 1274s. So I'm sacrificing the low-low for another upper-mid voltage setting. I figure that the MN15 at 7.3V can be my long-running lamp. I reduced the 7.5V level for the MN15 and MN20 down to 7.3V to try to accommodate the 1111, 64250, and 5761. I listed the N62 in my notional Level 2, but it's not clear to me if I'd actually use it. The notional Level 3 of 8.0V tries to balance safely driving the 1274 vs. getting some reasonable overdrive for the 1164 and especially the 5607. If I didn't have so many 1274s, I'd probably go for 9.0V for Level 3.



I look forward to hearing Eric's comments but these look good to me. Once you finalize these, please update your order the sales thread ASAP, as your pack is likely to be one of the ones in the first batch


----------



## Justin Case

Will do ASAP. Thanks.


----------



## LuxLuthor

wquiles said:


> I just updated the document - available from the main sales thread. Comments/suggestions welcomed



I emailed you just a few!


----------



## LuxLuthor

I liked some of the suggested custom settings. After going over my charts and Ictorana's graphs, I'm thinking of getting this setup with my 2nd PhD-M6. I'm using general guidelines of not exceeding 5A draw, as between the heat, limited 17670 mAh capacity, and desired run time, I don't feel it would be practical (including the venerable 5761). I'll use AlanB, JimmyM, or direct drive in Mag's for those.

Level 1: 6.8V (MN21 & 1160)
Level 2: 7.4V (MN15, MN20, N62, 1111)
Level 3: 9.3V (1164, Hikari 5607)
Level 4: 10.8A (1185, 1331)


----------



## wquiles

Justin Case said:


> Will do ASAP. Thanks.


No problem Justin 



LuxLuthor said:


> I emailed you just a few!


I guess I got lucky there only a few :naughty:

I will work on the updated document - thanks


----------



## Justin Case

In terms of Wh and thus run time, there is little difference between the 5761 driven at 7.3V/5.55A (40.5 Wh) vs the Hikari 5607 at 9.3V/4.3A (40 Wh).

In terms of current draw, both far exceed the recommended 2C discharge limit (3.2A for the AW17670). Double bacon cheeseburger vs triple bacon cheeseburger.


----------



## wquiles

Justin Case said:


> In terms of Wh and thus run time, there is little difference between the 5761 driven at 7.3V/5.55A (40.5 Wh) vs the Hikari 5607 at 9.3V/4.3A (40 Wh).
> 
> In terms of current draw, both far exceed the recommended 2C discharge limit (3.2A for the AW17670). Double bacon cheeseburger vs triple bacon cheeseburger.



I ordered the boards with twice the oz of copper (2oz vs the standard 1oz), and made the high current traces short and very wide, and selected (with help from Jimmy) a low Rds FET (5mOhm) with 25Amp drive rating, but at the end of the day we are just very limited by the 17670 cells we have available today. The good thing is that the driver itself should work really well if/when the IMR cells ever become available.

That being said, if you are deciding between those two, I would go for the lowest current draw.


----------



## Justin Case

The Hikari is the lower current draw bulb and it is also really inexpensive and probably more readily available than the 5761. I wish I had my bulbs with me to inspect them and to run some beam quality tests. But I vaguely recall that the Hikari filament is relatively large and didn't focus that great with a VLOP FM Ver2 Deep Mag Reflector. Can't recall the 5761's filament. Not sure what kind of beam the heavier OP KT4 would deliver. The WA bulbs all use fairly small, fine filaments. As I recall, they all seem to produce nice beams in a KT4.

The deal in my case is that I have more 1111s, 5761s, and 1274s than Hikari 5607s and 1164s. That skews my choices more toward optimizing for the 1111/5761 and 1274, i.e., Level 2 at 7.3V and Level 3 at 8.0V. 

I think if I had a boat load of only 1111s and 5607s, I'd set Level 2 to 7.4V and Level 3 to 9.4V (or to Lux's 9.3V).

For high output, the 5761 is comparable to the 5607 in estimated lumens. The downsides, besides bulb price/availability, are even higher current draw and probably the need to wait for IMR17670s to hit the market.


----------



## LuxLuthor

Justin Case said:


> The Hikari is the lower current draw bulb and it is also really inexpensive and probably more readily available than the 5761. I wish I had my bulbs with me to inspect them and to run some beam quality tests. But I vaguely recall that the Hikari filament is relatively large and didn't focus that great with a VLOP FM Ver2 Deep Mag Reflector. Can't recall the 5761's filament. Not sure what kind of beam the heavier OP KT4 would deliver. The WA bulbs all use fairly small, fine filaments. As I recall, they all seem to produce nice beams in a KT4.
> 
> The deal in my case is that I have more 1111s, 5761s, and 1274s than Hikari 5607s and 1164s. That skews my choices more toward optimizing for the 1111/5761 and 1274, i.e., Level 2 at 7.3V and Level 3 at 8.0V.
> 
> I think if I had a boat load of only 1111s and 5607s, I'd set Level 2 to 7.4V and Level 3 to 9.4V (or to Lux's 9.3V).
> 
> For high output, the 5761 is comparable to the 5607 in estimated lumens. The downsides, besides bulb price/availability, are even higher current draw and probably the need to wait for IMR17670s to hit the market.



Basically I agree with your thinking on this from a total Watts standpoint, so no wrong choices. I'm more of a Bacon Double Cheeseburger guy, but I have a few points worth making for others considering your 5761 IMR idea.

The 5761 is not even close to fitting any of the three KT4 reflector openings I have, and I'm not boring them or sanding the bulb envelope just for this purpose. The Hikari fits easily. 

With the 5.55A (@ 7.3V) current draw, the 5761 is a problem with 17670 LiCo cells & protection circuit. The Hikari as you say is cheap, smaller glass envelope, although a somewhat larger transverse filament. Either will turn out fine in a textured MOP reflector like in the M6.

Keep in mind that while the IMR will tolerate higher amp draw, it will have less storage. If you extrapolate from AW's 18650
LiMn 1600mAh / LiCo 2200mAh = 0.72 Let's round up and say that LiMn has 75% the capacity of LiCo.

So if 17670 LiCo has 1600mAh, then LiMn version should be reduced to 1200mAh, which isn't much when you are sucking out 5.55 A for the 5761. I would guess you probably have less than 10 mins by the time the realistic IMR capacity and voltage curve is used + unknown trigger point of moon mode cutting the balls off the mighty 5761. ​Of course these are just the estimated extrapolations of an incandescent madman, but that's what went into my thinking in avoiding the 5761 in this application.


----------



## mdocod

donn said:


> The 5607 is delegated to either level 1 (7.2V) or 2 (8.5V).



Realize what I did, in referencing LuxLuthors charts, I mixed up the 1164 and 5607 in translation. (too many tabs!). 



donn said:


> I expect to see IMR, LiFePO4 or some other safe high amp chemistry in this size eventually.



If LiFePO4 cells come out in this size, then any setting above ~7-8V driving a relatively high power bulb would likely not be in regulation. We have to cross our fingers for LiMn chemistry cells to be able to drive more bulbs in regulation. 

Hint Hint > AW _wink wink_



donn said:


> I wouldn't say bulb life is the primary factor in determining drive levels. It's one of them, but it's no more important than unit price, output level and beam quality.



I fully appreciate the glory of driving cheap bulbs hard for the thrill of that brilliant white efficient output. However, the PhD-M6 project is an effort to turn the M6 into a better tool. Any recommendations I make within the scope of this project have to be on the conservative side wherever possible. Cranking through a bunch of cheap bulbs is not an option for folks who depend on that tool. Bulb life is extremely important when I pick drive levels that could be life and death for someone busting down a door. 

*wait, hang on guys, let me swap in another bulb -_bullets whizzing by_-, anyone seen that that really small hex driver? ah crap....*

I guess the hex driver would come in handy later though. Maybe they could use it to pry bullets out...

I have to treat this project as if we are working on a serious tool. With that in mind, my recommended drive levels for bulbs will probably stop short of where many people may choose to drive them. 

Eric


----------



## mdocod

Hi Everyone,

I feel that there is still confusion regarding normal operating current of bulbs in steady state, compared to how the PhD-M6 drives bulbs (or any PWM driver for incans). To say that we shouldn't exceed a particular RMS bulb current (3A, or 5A, or whatever), is not necessarily correct. In practice, setting some personal limits on bulb power is never a bad idea when using lithium cobalt or lithium primary cells.

The high current limit on the cells is tripped based somewhat on RMS current lasting long enough to trip it, and it is somewhat tricked by the PWM anyways. Remember, the MN21 is running at 7A peaks in our application and it's not tripping the circuit. I've tested the 64275 briefly, which would actually operate at something closer to 8-9 amp peaks under this PWM. 

A 2C discharge in the case of a 3x17670 pack consisting of cells that are new and in great shape means that roughly 40 watts is being depleted across the entire circuit, including the power wasted as heat to resistance before anything even gets to the intended device to be powered up (in our case, a bulb). Under a normal discharge condition (non pulsed load), a 2C rate for a 3x17670 pack would generate heat in the cells at a rate of 4.5W, and about 2W would be wasted in other contacts and such (in a flashlight application). The result is that the power consumption of the device to be powered should not exceed ~33.5W for a normal direct drive 2C load, again, assuming brand new cells in great condition. At a 2C rate, one could say that typical LiCo powered flashlights are operating at ~84% efficiency after considering losses at the batteries and contacts and such. Dealing with these losses is best performed by reducing resistance wherever possible. Including finding lower resistance cells (this is why we need IMR cells!)

When we use a higher voltage source to drive lower voltage bulbs with PWM regulation, we get get higher current peaks, so a higher percentage of the total energy flowing from the cells gets converted to heat within the cells. 

Rough Example: WA1111 @ 7.2V, 3.8A, 1.9 Ohm.

1.9 Ohm bulb resistance + ~0.5 Ohms for everything else = 2.4 Ohm load.

With cells at ~80% state of charge: 12V pack / 2.4 Ohm = 5A

12V x 5A = 60W total power consumption during an "on" pulse of the regulator. 

0.5Ohm / 2.4Ohm x 12V = 2.5V lost to resistance
1.9Ohm / 2.4Ohm x 12V = 9.5V hits the bulb

9.5V x 5A = 47.5W hits the bulb during an "on" pulse of the regulator. 

PWM @ 57% = 27W RMS to the bulb. The drive level is power based. The bulb never sees 7.2V or 3.8A, but it runs just the same. 

2.5V x 5A x 57% = ~7W converted to heat, ~5W of that heat is right in the cells. 

The *total* power dissipation (including ALL losses, not just the bulb operating power) occurring in this snapshot of running a WA1111 is 34W. Or ~1.7C discharge rate.

The efficiency loss to resistance gets slightly worse compared to direct drive. The example I gave above for a direct drive application shows ~83% efficiency into a 2C load, here, at 1.7C, it's more like ~79% efficiency. 

I think that the most important thing to keep in mind, is that, because of the way that we are achieving regulation here, it's going to be normal to see more heat buildup in the cells for a given power output. If a 2C rate would normally cause ~4.5W of heat at the cells, and a 1.7C rate under one example of PWM regulation causes slightly more heat at the cells, then one must realize that at a 2C rate, we are going to exceed the heat build-up rate that the cells were originally rated to tolerate in a continuous discharge at 2C. This means that the user needs to take care in preventing continuous discharges of high power lamps. Cool down periods are important for safety. 

So.... One could say, that a WA1111 IS a 5A bulb. You just have to run it at 9.5V instead of 7.2V.... Oh, and don't forget to turn it off 106 times per second 

Eric


----------



## mdocod

Hi Everyone,

I spent pretty much all night last night calculating a bulb chart for the PhD-M6...

bulb_chart_v1.pdf

The information in the chart can be used to make decisions about driving various bulbs with the PhD-M6. Not every bulb in the chart is appropriate for use with the PhD-M6 on lithium cobalt cells, but have been included to maximize the amount of available information. For each bulb, I have listed some information about the theoretical range of drive levels that should work pretty well for the bulb, approximated torch lumen and runtime for each bulb, as well as some information about how taxing the bulb is on the cells themselves. Many of the bulbs that "could" be used should not be used with LiCo cells but each user will have to decide where their comfort zone on this is. If you want to play it safe, don't use any bulbs that have a "C" rate above 2, if you want to play it really really safe, do not use any bulbs with a heat factor rating above 1. 

In studying the chart, I think many practical enthusiasts will see that the MN61 @9.0V may prove to be the most logical balance of runtime, output, and safety with no continuous run limit. 

I've come up with an interesting specification that I am simply going to call "heat factor." The heat factor is a rough calculated estimate of the ratio of energy being converted to heat in the cells while running a particular bulb compared to the maximum rate of heat buildup that would normally occur under a direct drive 2C rate discharge of the cells. This information helps give the user a better understanding of how "hard" on the cells a particular bulb is, independent of just looking at the runtime and calculating a "C" rate. A heat factor of 1 means than the heat produced in the cells during the discharge is expected to be similar to what would have occurred during a normal direct drive 2C discharge. It is advised to never run a bulb with a heat factor above 1 continuously through the discharge, as it will likely result in cells over-heating.

The runtime ratings are on the conservative side in many cases but aren't guaranteed. Cell condition and operating temperature will effect actual runtime.

I actually learned a lot myself while running all of the numbers. The "heat factor" can also be looked at as a general efficiency of the configuration. Higher heat factors mean more energy is wasted as heat in the cells, lower heat factors mean that less energy is wasted in the cells. High heat factors are caused by very intense low resistance high current loads.

Most of the bulbs listed have their heat factor, run-time, and "C" rate calculated based on the recommended drive level in the far right column. For a few bulbs, I made 2 separate listings to show the difference in runtime, heat factor, and "C" rate based on running at different specific drive levels to show how different drive levels effect the results. For those specific listings, the voltage is listed next to the bulb name in the far left column. 

Actually interesting to learn, that the 5607 and 1164 aren't really much harder on the cells than the MN21. The actual total energy drain from the cells is only slightly higher than the MN21, since they operate at higher voltage, and higher resistance, the heat factor is actually a bit lower. 

Eric


----------



## wquiles

Thanks much Eric :twothumbs


----------



## Justin Case

LuxLuthor said:


> Basically I agree with your thinking on this from a total Watts standpoint, so no wrong choices. I'm more of a Bacon Double Cheeseburger guy, but I have a few points worth making for others considering your 5761 IMR idea.
> 
> The 5761 is not even close to fitting any of the three KT4 reflector openings I have, and I'm not boring them or sanding the bulb envelope just for this purpose. The Hikari fits easily.
> 
> With the 5.55A (@ 7.3V) current draw, the 5761 is a problem with 17670 LiCo cells & protection circuit. The Hikari as you say is cheap, smaller glass envelope, although a somewhat larger transverse filament. Either will turn out fine in a textured MOP reflector like in the M6.
> 
> Keep in mind that while the IMR will tolerate higher amp draw, it will have less storage. If you extrapolate from AW's 18650LiMn 1600mAh / LiCo 2200mAh = 0.72 Let's round up and say that LiMn has 75% the capacity of LiCo.
> 
> So if 17670 LiCo has 1600mAh, then LiMn version should be reduced to 1200mAh, which isn't much when you are sucking out 5.55 A for the 5761. I would guess you probably have less than 10 mins by the time the realistic IMR capacity and voltage curve is used + unknown trigger point of moon mode cutting the balls off the mighty 5761. ​Of course these are just the estimated extrapolations of an incandescent madman, but that's what went into my thinking in avoiding the 5761 in this application.



All quite sensible. Fortunately, all of my stock 5761s fit through my KT4s.

IMO, when you get down to the bottom line, really none of these HO bulbs -- e.g., 5761, 1185, 5607 -- are all that practical. They all require fairly high current and 3x17670 in whatever chemistry is just going to be limited in feeding that appetite. It is true that the 5761 is probably by far the hottest running bulb, which further limits its already limited practicality.

I'm leaning toward running a 1274 as my workhorse bulb. The MN20 and MN61 also are candidates, but the SF lamps are way more than the 1274's $5 price (ignoring the sunk cost of the FM MN bi-pin adapter).


----------



## LuxLuthor

mdocod said:


> Hi Everyone,
> 
> I spent pretty much all night last night calculating a bulb chart for the PhD-M6...
> 
> bulb_chart_v1.pdf
> 
> Eric



Thanks for doing this. I wonder if there is a way to get this into a format for printing landscape on 8.5 x 11 paper, and/or put on Excel to add lines to track entire line easier? It takes a while to compare some of this to other tested results. That being said, I'm not sure I agree with all your numbers (i.e. recommended voltage range & lumens--for example the 1111), but it is still a useful comparative reference, and represents a good bit of work. Where are you getting your lumens readings from? *Do we have CBA-II test results running the AW 17670 at various Amp loads? If not, I can do that quickly.*


----------



## donn_

It automatically printed in landscape for me.


----------



## Justin Case

LuxLuthor said:


> Thanks for doing this. I wonder if there is a way to get this into a format for printing landscape on 8.5 x 11 paper, and/or put on Excel to add lines to track entire line easier? It takes a while to compare some of this to other tested results. That being said, I'm not sure I agree with all your numbers (i.e. recommended voltage range & lumens--for example the 1111), but it is still a useful comparative reference, and represents a good bit of work. Where are you getting your lumens readings from? *Do we have CBA-II test results running the AW 17670 at various Amp loads? If not, I can do that quickly.*



I have the pdf converted to Excel 2007.


----------



## LuxLuthor

donn_ said:


> It automatically printed in landscape for me.



 I know it is designed, displays, and prints in landscape. 

Unless you shrink it to force fitting onto letter size, which makes it uber small, it doesn't print the sides. All that is needed is to shorten the titles, or put them on two lines to not waste all the space. A document with this many items and colums also needs lines to follow accross.


----------



## LuxLuthor

Justin Case said:


> I have the pdf converted to Excel 2007.



What did mom say about sharing your toys with the other boys?


----------



## Justin Case

Do you want the image or the actual xls file? If the latter, I need a site to upload it. If the former, I can convert the Excel page to a jpeg or whatever, put it on photobucket, and put it into a post to the thread.


----------



## wquiles

Justin Case said:


> Do you want the image or the actual xls file? If the latter, I need a site to upload it. If the former, I can convert the Excel page to a jpeg or whatever, put it on photobucket, and put it into a post to the thread.



I am hosting all of the pictures and files already, including this file from Eric. If you email me the file, I will host it along with the original file.


----------



## oldways

Guys 

At 9v would the MN61 be producing 400 or more otf?


----------



## Justin Case

Post deleted.


----------



## wquiles

Thanks much Justin. Here is the hosted file:
PhD-M6_bulbs_table.xlsx


----------



## wquiles

oldways said:


> Guys
> 
> At 9v would the MN61 be producing 400 or more otf?



As you probably remember from the development and feeler threads I did a lot of runtime tests on the MN21, but the cells always came out too darn hot from the continuous run (of course not recommended, but it was part of my development/tests). The MN61 sounds like a fantastic match to the cell chemistry that we have today, so I am definitely going to give it a try today or tomorrow.

If it would help any of you on the fence, and since I have two M6's, I could do a side-by-side beamshot at night comparing both the MN21 and the MN61.


----------



## oldways

Looking at the bulb chart the MN61 looks like the one to run.

If it is 400+ otf at 9v would be a very useful setup capable of sustained runs.

I would love to see beamhots of the MN21 and MN61 sxs.

Also wonder how it would do at 9.2-9.3v?


----------



## wquiles

oldways said:


> Looking at the bulb chart the MN61 looks like the one to run.
> 
> If it is 400+ otf at 9v would be a very useful setup capable of sustained runs.
> 
> I would love to see beamhots of the MN21 and MN61 sxs.
> 
> Also wonder how it would do at 9.2-9.3v?



OK, I will re-program one of my proto packs for the MN61 tonight for 9 volts . I will report back when I have some beamshots to share


----------



## LuxLuthor

I just finished running AW 17670 discharge graphs at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Amps with the cells I have, and as a result will be making another change to my custom profile Level 4, giving up on the 10.8V category. I should have thought about this aspect earlier.

I took the time to go back through my PayPal transactions to see that _*I bought my only six 17670 AW protected cells way back in May, 2007, so people need to consider the age of these cells with my posted results, as newer ones may perform better. *_ I sent a PM to AW to look at these results, and comment.

In any case, I'm not seeing these size cells as having the 'cajones' to power the 1185, nor does AW list it as such here. 







Edit: I'm dropping my 10.8V setting because if we divide that by 3, we get 3.6V per cell. So the question is whether a specific bulb being driven at its necessary Amp level will have the cell voltage held above 3.6V for a reasonable amount of time. The 1185 draws 3.4A itself (not including additional drain from pack resistance), and you can see the green line above is all below 3.6V...so this would make it out of regulation==>going to direct drive.

Even the 1331 @ 10.8V uses 2.1A for the bulb alone. You can see how quickly the 2A red line crosses the 3.6V threshold.

Now looking at the 1164 @ 9.3V uses 4.2Amps, but now we have a lower voltage threshold (9.3V/3 = 3.1V/cell) before it drops below regulation. It crosses the 3.1V line just short of 1Ah which is better than nothing.

Suffice it to say that I'm going back to the drawing board. I don't know how much "beefier" the newest AW 17670-P cells are, but I would rather err on the conservative side.


----------



## wquiles

OK, nothing shocking, but neat to do anyway. Camera on tripod, manual exposure (1/2 sec, F5.6), lens at 50mm.

MN61 driven at 9.0 Vrms

Control:






MN20: Aim at mailbox and then at fence










MN61: Aim at mailbox and then at fence










MN21: Aim at mailbox and then at fence










Control:






MN61 (left) - MN20 (right)






MN61 (left) - MN21 (right)






MN61 (left) - MN21 (right)






Will


----------



## wquiles

OK, on that last photo the MN61 was a little bit more yellow than the MN21, so I decided to test the MN61 at 9.2 volts instead.

MN61 driven at 9.2 Vrms


MN61 (left) - MN21 (right)
Still different, but a little closer.







Control:






MN61:
(wider beam)






MN21:
(more focused beam)







Control:






MN61:
(wider beam)






MN21:
(more focused beam)








Control:






MN61:
(wider beam)






MN21:
(more trow)






Will


----------



## RichS

LuxLuthor said:


> I just finished running AW 17670 discharge graphs at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Amps with the cells I have, and as a result will be making another change to my custom profile Level 4, giving up on the 10.8V category. I should have thought about this aspect earlier.
> 
> I took the time to go back through my PayPal transactions to see that _*I bought my only six 17670 AW protected cells way back in May, 2007, so people need to consider the age of these cells with my posted results, as newer ones may perform better. *_I sent a PM to AW to look at these results, and comment.
> 
> In any case, I'm not seeing these size cells as having the 'cajones' to power the 1185, nor does AW list it as such here.


 

Wow you're right, it can't sustain very much voltage when draw is over 2-3 amps. The good news is, the king of throw among the M6 bulbs in my experience (outside the 1185) is the HO-M6R at only 2.1amps. It smokes the MN21 and even beats the WA1111 by a small margin. There's no way I would give up my 10.8v setting and the ability to run this bulb with this pack, even if it will drop out of regulation quickly. The low amp draw, low heat, excellent reach, beautiful beam pattern and long bulb life are just too good not to have a setting for. The IMR-M6 is another reason to keep the 10.8v setting IMO.


----------



## Justin Case

LuxLuthor said:


> I just finished running AW 17670 discharge graphs at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Amps with the cells I have, and as a result will be making another change to my custom profile Level 4, giving up on the 10.8V category. I should have thought about this aspect earlier.
> 
> I took the time to go back through my PayPal transactions to see that _*I bought my only six 17670 AW protected cells way back in May, 2007, so people need to consider the age of these cells with my posted results, as newer ones may perform better. *_ I sent a PM to AW to look at these results, and comment.
> 
> In any case, I'm not seeing these size cells as having the 'cajones' to power the 1185, nor does AW list it as such here.



It looks like ~2A draw (1.25C) from the AW17670s is a reasonable max in terms of holding cell voltage under load. What this might translate to for PWM...?

A WA01331 might be able to run in regulation at 10.8V for say 10 min before going direct drive for the remainder of the battery pack's capacity.

My two workhorse bulb candidates are the MN15 and WA01274, for lower output/longer run time and higher output/moderate run time options, respectively. If I didn't have an FM MN bi-pin adapter and a bunch of 1274s already, I might go with an MN15 and MN61.

I'm taking a slight chance with my Level 3 at 8.0V for the 1274. But I can always run the bulb at Level 2 at 7.3V. At $5 per bulb, the 1274 looks like a good all-around choice to me.


----------



## LuxLuthor

RichS said:


> Wow you're right, it can't sustain very much voltage when draw is over 2-3 amps. The good news is, the king of throw among the M6 bulbs in my experience (outside the 1185) is the HO-M6R at only 2.1amps. It smokes the MN21 and even beats the WA1111 by a small margin. There's no way I would give up my 10.8v setting and the ability to run this bulb with this pack, even if it will drop out of regulation quickly. The low amp draw, low heat, excellent reach, beautiful beam pattern and long bulb life are just too good not to have a setting for. The IMR-M6 is another reason to keep the 10.8v setting IMO.



Rich, I don't have much *objective *data with the MN & Lighthound bulbs, but I'm confused by your saying the HO-M6R "smokes the MN21," when I see Eric's chart listing it as only 400L diminishing to 250L, vs. his report of the MN21 being 500-700L. I'm also not clear on how he got his lumen readings, and whether they are "bulb lumens," or extrapolated "Torch lumens" _(using the 65% x Bulb Lumen formula that I have never accepted)_.

Too many questions....and miles to go before I sleep. Miles to go before I sleep.

Edit: Now I see where you are getting that from. When I look at my box of the HO-M6R, it's spec is 700L @ 13V. Ain't gonna get up there with these cells.


----------



## RichS

LuxLuthor said:


> Rich, I don't have much *objective *data with the MN & Lighthound bulbs, but I'm confused by your saying the HO-M6R "smokes the MN21," when I see Eric's chart listing it as only 400L diminishing to 250L, vs. his report of the MN21 being 500-700L. I'm also not clear on how he got his lumen readings, and whether they are "bulb lumens," or extrapolated "Torch lumens" _(using the 65% x Bulb Lumen formula that I have never accepted)_.
> 
> Too many questions....and miles to go before I sleep. Miles to go before I sleep.


Very fair question Lux. This is based upon the results of beamshot tests I did a while back with the M6. To be clear, I was referencing the *throw *of the HO-M6R per the prior statement. I'm not disagreeing that the MN21 puts out more overall lumens. Now, the "smokes" part came from testing the MN21 on fresh primaries (stock SureFire config) vs. the HO-M6R. However, it also beat the MN21 by a smaller margin even when run the MN21 was run on fully charged 18650s. Again, it beat it in overall throw, not total lumens. With a light of this form factor, throw is one of my major considerations in a lamp for the M6. And in that department, the HO-M6R wins (and maintains it's practicality at the same time :twothumbs).

Here are the shots from that test:


----------



## LuxLuthor

Right, but remember that 13V 700L HO setup is designed for 6 x RCR123A which has no relationship to 3 x 17670. It seems the most practical use of that bulb is with direct drive 6 x RCR123A, but I'm not that experienced with using it yet.


----------



## Steve in SoCal

LuxLuthor said:


> Right, but remember that 13V 700L HO setup is designed for 6 x RCR123A which has no relationship to 3 x 17670. It seems the most practical use of that bulb is with direct drive 6 x RCR123A, but I'm not that experienced with using it yet.



Incorrect, the standard M6 battery holder is 3s2p so in this case the 3 x 17670 is perfectly matched to the HO-M6R. In fact, the HO-M6R is really the best basic setup for the 3 x 17670.:thumbsup:


----------



## LuxLuthor

Steve in SoCal said:


> Incorrect, the standard M6 battery holder is 3s2p so in this case the 3 x 17670 is perfectly matched to the HO-M6R. In fact, the HO-M6R is really the best basic setup for the 3 x 17670.:thumbsup:



Oh yeah, right. I always forget that pesky little 3s2p battery holder detail, thanks! I keep saying, I have not used many of the M6 MN or Lighthound bulbs, nor RCR123 cells, so I should shut up on those specifics, and go back to Eric's chart for them. Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## mdocod

Justin Case said:


> really none of these HO bulbs -- e.g., 5761, 1185, 5607 -- are all that practical. They all require fairly high current and 3x17670 in whatever chemistry is just going to be limited in feeding that appetite.



Greetings Justin,

So very true....

The good new is that, due to the efficiency gains from lower resistance in IMR cells, the lower capacity will not translate to as much runtime loss as one would think on many of these bulbs. I actually ran the numbers for an MN21 on a theoretical IMR17670 pack and came up with a 17% drop in runtime, but it would be more consistent from run to run and survive hundreds of cycles safely. 

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



LuxLuthor said:


> I wonder if there is a way to get this into a format for printing landscape on 8.5 x 11 paper, and/or put on Excel to add lines to track entire line easier?



Howdy Luxluthor!

I actually tried to get it to leave the lines in the PDF export from the spreadsheet but couldn't find a way to do it, (using NeoOffice). I'm not a big fan of crossing my fingers that everyone will have the ability to open a spreadsheet file created by one of the many "office" packages out there. Hard to find someone who doesn't have a PDF reader though, and PDF files produce predictable printing behavior. 



> I'm not sure I agree with all your numbers (i.e. recommended voltage range & lumens--for example the 1111), but it is still a useful comparative reference, and represents a good bit of work. Where are you getting your lumens readings from?


Well, I've been referencing the charts that you made for these numbers since way back when you did them and using modified re-rate formulas that more closely mimic actual measured lux from your charts. They represent the most accurate estimated bulb lumen figures available for a wide array of drive levels anywhere. The CPF community and myself owe you more thanks than can possibly be given for this information. The chart was developed because it offers PhD-M6 customers a fast reference general guideline for making decisions about bulbs and drive levels. The PhD-M6 product could probably be sold without any such chart available, leaving folks to "fend for themselves" so to speak. I wanted to provide at least something to give a guideline that I feel comfortable with for the scope of this project. 

For the KT4 style Millennium Turbo Head, I believe that the 65% loss is appropriate, so that is what has been applied. I am in agreement with you that 65% torch conversion is not always accurate. I believe that a well made head that does not take losses to a foam insert and recessed shock absorption system can achieve better numbers. You and I both know that light is perceived in a logarithmic fashion, so rough numbers are more than adequate. 

Of course, I am quite confident, that many people will read the chart, and completely ignore the qualifier words highlighted in the top row, "estimated" , "approximate" etc. Someone will want to hold me to the grinding stone, for them, I say the following: Sign a contract to purchase 10,000 units, I will arrange to provide accurate measured output for every bulb at a variety of drive levels  With the amount of work that has gone into this project, there isn't much of a selling price that will ever completely cover every hour. Even with such testing, there would be no way to guarantee specific lumen outputs on flashlights. There are too many variables. All it takes is for 1 contact to be slightly gunked up or oxidized, and the numbers all fall apart. 

Keep in mind, that a particular voltage does not hold true from one test rig to the next. Are we talking V-Batt? V-Bulb, V-Springs, V-half-way in-betwen, V-Pack..? The PhD-M6 is calibrated with a test rig that fairly closely mimics the resistance that could be expected in a properly cleaned and cared for M6 flashlight. So When I recommend 6.8V or 7.2V, or whatever, I'm not talking about V-pack voltage, we're basically at the base of the spring contacts for the bulb. The difference can be dramatic, a few percent different in voltage can equate to 10% or more actual output. I've thought as much of this through as anyone could be expected to and come up with what I believe are reasonable approximations with the information I have. 

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



oldways said:


> At 9v would the MN61 be producing 400 or more otf?



Hi oldways,

Unless someone wants to measure it in a sphere, I can not guarantee anything, I would estimate that it should be somewhere _*around*_ 400 torch lumens at 9V. Remember those "qualifying" words in the chart. 

The reality is that, the difference between 350 and 450 lumens is pretty hard to see. If it's in the ballpark of a need, then it will work. 

It's not like someone is going to be spotting something with a 385 lumen light, and have a hard time seeing it, say to their friend, "gosh darn-it, I should have bought the 415 lumen version!"

Of course, some people might think that it would have made a difference, but the truth of the matter is, that beam profile has a larger impact on useful performance for an application within a ball park lumen range than the lumens themselves. 

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



Justin Case said:


> I'll send the xls file momentarily.



Thank You Justin for converting the file. It looks great!

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



oldways said:


> Looking at the bulb chart the MN61 looks like the one to run.
> 
> If it is 400+ otf at 9v would be a very useful setup capable of sustained runs.
> 
> I would love to see beamhots of the MN21 and MN61 sxs.
> 
> Also wonder how it would do at 9.2-9.3v?



Hi oldways[/quote]

I am going to run some more numbers and try to come up with some better figures for the MN61 and MN60, I realized after building the chart that I haven't taken into account the lower losses from resistance on the higher voltage bulbs entirely on that chart for these bulbs. 9.2V may be more appropriate for a good overall performance on the MN61. Keep in mind, that the closer one gets to ~10V drive levels, the harder it is to ensure regulation though the discharge. 

Stay tuned, I may change the ranges and values for some bulbs in the coming days. Of course, it's still all just very educated guess work, but I'll do the best I can. {wink wink}

-----------



LuxLuthor said:


> I just finished running AW 17670 discharge graphs at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Amps with the cells I have, and as a result will be making another change to my custom profile Level 4, giving up on the 10.8V category. I should have thought about this aspect earlier.



As you may have noticed, I've been pointing out since doing testing that the 10.8V setting just isn't going to provide much if any regulation for most bulbs. It's hard to articulate why, but I'll go ahead and throw out some numbers for folks to consider:

Fresh charged pack: 12.6V
Resistance to bulb: ~0.5Ohm (Batteries+contacts, assuming ideal conditions with clean contacts and all)
Maximum duty cycle we can run for proper voltage measurements and maintaining calibration in all modes: ~98%. 
Bulb resistance (1185): ~3.2 Ohm
0.5 Ohm / 3.7 Ohm x 98% duty cycle = ~13.25% voltage drop

That's equates to 10.9V to an 1185 with AW17670s in good condition and good clean contacts. It only takes a few seconds to drop out of regulation. 

This calculation assumes that the electrolytic reaction keeps up 100% with the rate demanded. There are losses there that are very hard to quantify being heavily dependent on temperature. 



> I bought my only six 17670 AW protected cells way back in May, 2007, so people need to consider the age of these cells with my posted results, as newer ones may perform better.


I've noticed a difference in runtime just by going from cells purchased about 1-1.5 year ago to cells that just arrived a few days ago. Cell age and condition are critical factors way outside our control. 



LuxLuthor said:


> Even the 1331 @ 10.8V uses 2.1A for the bulb alone. You can see how quickly the 2A red line crosses the 3.6V threshold.



Yes, after taking the 2% loss from the maximum duty cycle we can run, and added resistance from contacts and such, even the 1331 and HO-M6R will not run in regulation. If they do, it isn't for long. 



LuxLuthor said:


> Suffice it to say that I'm going back to the drawing board. I don't know how much "beefier" the newest AW 17670-P cells are, but I would rather err on the conservative side.



The newer the better. I'm actually surprised to see that you got ~1.4AH from ~3 year old cells. Brand new cells are pretty close to 1.6AH. The actual stored energy is even more, but it's not usable energy unless they are drained infinitely slow. The way in which cells are used or stored over the years can have quite the impact. My ~1 year old cells probably wouldn't perform much better than your test results. 

Speaking of test results, THANK YOU!!! It can not be repeated enough, you're a treasure for CPF. Keep up the good work!



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



RichS said:


> The good news is, the king of throw among the M6 bulbs in my experience (outside the 1185) is the HO-M6R at only 2.1amps. It smokes the MN21 and even beats the WA1111 by a small margin. There's no way I would give up my 10.8v setting and the ability to run this bulb with this pack, even if it will drop out of regulation quickly. The low amp draw, low heat, excellent reach, beautiful beam pattern and long bulb life are just too good not to have a setting for. The IMR-M6 is another reason to keep the 10.8v setting IMO.



When comparing direct drive options, the HO-M6R is definitely a King of bulb options. It, like any other bulb in direct drive, suffers diminishing output through the discharge. but since other bulbs suffer the same, it wins in many contests.

Within the context of the PhD-M6, the HO-M6R does not win very many contests. Keep in mind that we have more contacts between the cells and the bulb as a result of the regulator being part of the circuit. We also have a 2% voltage loss purely due to the fact that the regulator can never operate at 100% duty cycle and still take proper voltage measurements for moon mode and attempted regulation. 

I am personally a huge fan of the HO-M6R when direct driven on a nice low resistance 3xli-ion cell configuration. It's my #1 choice bulb for 3 cells. The PhD-M6 introduces a scenario where the HO-M6R doesn't hold it's ground against other options anywhere near as well. 

With regulation, the MN21 at 6.8V walks all over the HO-M6R in pretty much any contest. Even the IMR-M3T looks better at 7.5V than the HO-M6R if compared as an "average" through the discharge (both rated the same "700" bulb lumen). The HO-M6R is hard to beat for it's tight beam pattern, but the raw punch behind it fades quickly when compared to a regulated configuration. 

-----------



Justin Case said:


> It looks like ~2A draw (1.25C) from the AW17670s is a reasonable max in terms of holding cell voltage under load. What this might translate to for PWM...?



Hi Justin,

Post #56 in this thread by myself gives an example of the effects of PWM. The truth is, there isn't any way for me to articulate the effects of PWM without a lot of math. The translation that does not require math for the end user can be found in the "heat factor" rating in the chart that I posted before. The "heat factor" rating is like a comparison between what would have been a direct drive 2C discharge, and the effects of the PWM load presented here with different bulbs. 



Justin Case said:


> A WA01331 might be able to run in regulation at 10.8V for say 10 min before going direct drive for the remainder of the battery pack's capacity.



Originally, I had suspected that it might be possible to have some worthwhile regulation in the 10.8V setting on some bulbs. After running the numbers for the chart, I have come to the conclusion that it's not a realistic expectation unless the cells are pre-heated before the discharge. 



Justin Case said:


> My two workhorse bulb candidates are the MN15 and WA01274, for lower output/longer run time and higher output/moderate run time options, respectively. If I didn't have an FM MN bi-pin adapter and a bunch of 1274s already, I might go with an MN15 and MN61.
> 
> I'm taking a slight chance with my Level 3 at 8.0V for the 1274. But I can always run the bulb at Level 2 at 7.3V. At $5 per bulb, the 1274 looks like a good all-around choice to me.



I think that plan would work beautifully. My goal in setting up the recommended drive ranges was to never venture below an estimated 10 hours bulb life. The 1274 at 8V won't have a ton of bulb life, but at least at 8V, I suspect it should produce _somewhat_ predictable behavior. 

I went ahead and ran some numbers for you as I know that you like specifics (none of these numbers are truly "specific," as that would require years of testing and a lot more decimal places, but it's a ballpark to compare to the chart):

1274 @ 8.0V

Torch Lumen : ~475
Runtime: ~35 minutes
Discharge Rate: ~1.7C
"Heat Factor" : ~0.9
No continuous run limits based purely on the cell heat unless the flashlight gets uncomfortable to hold from bulb heat. 

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



LuxLuthor said:


> Now I see where you are getting that from. When I look at my box of the HO-M6R, it's spec is 700L @ 13V. Ain't gonna get up there with these cells.



I wish it were that simple. 

At the time when bulbs designed for 3x li-ion cells started hitting the market, compared to many bulbs out there designed for 4xCR123 cell, the manufactures of these new "3xli-ion" bulbs decided to "call" them "13V" bulbs to help differentiate them from the "12V" bulbs being sold for 4xCR123 configurations. In truth, the 12V bulbs aren't 12V bulbs and the 13V bulbs aren't 13V bulbs. In the long run, I believe that all of these manufactures of tactical lamp assemblies have in a sort of way bitten themselves in the ankle by even attempting to use voltage in the nomenclature related to the bulbs themselves. Model numbers would have been better as perhaps they would not have ingrained the false sense of "understanding" that the voltage ratings did in many consumers. At the end of the day, none of those mistakes will matter because it's all going to LED, where they can make all new mistakes  !!!!

The LF 3xli-ion bulbs, like the HO-M6R, D36 "13" bulbs, IMR-13, and IMR-M6, are all probably designed to hit their listed bulb lumen rating at somewhere around 11.1V at the bulb (give or take, probably give). LF lists bulb lumen and not torch lumen, so I have applied the same 0.65 conversion for them just as well. 

-----------



RichS said:


> This is based upon the results of beamshot tests I did a while back with the M6. To be clear, I was referencing the throw of the HO-M6R per the prior statement. I'm not disagreeing that the MN21 puts out more overall lumens. Now, the "smokes" part came from testing the MN21 on fresh primaries (stock SureFire config) vs. the HO-M6R.



Even my lux measurements confirm that the HO-M6R can outperform the MN21 in raw throw when compared fresh off the line on good cells. However, I think if you had a chance to compare the overall performance through a discharge of a similar power bulb that runs in regulation, you would find that the constant output, color temperature, and higher CRI of the regulated bulb through the discharge winds up out-performing the HO-M6R, especially when the HO-M6R is driven by the PhD-M6 which actually hurts it's performance compared to being driven "direct drive."

Eric


----------



## oldways

Will, Eric, and Lux

Thanks for the info and work:twothumbs

I think I will run four bulbs primarily.

6.8v..MN21
7.4v..MN15,MN2O
9.2v.. MN61
10.8..for hopeful future battery improvements

What is you guys opinion?


----------



## Justin Case

Yeah, I forgot about the various system resistances that suck up what little voltage leeway one might have with the 1331.

Thanks for running some estimates on the 1274. Picking 8.0V for my Level 3 is a head game battle. Should I optimize just for the 1274 and accept whatever output I get with the 1164/5607 that I also have in my inventory? If so, then I'd clearly go a little lower in voltage. Or should I also consider the 1164 and 5607 bulbs in my voltage selection, balancing 1274 performance/life with some moderate overdriving of the 1164/5607? Or optimize for the 1164/5607 (e.g., 9.0V for Level 3) and use Level 2 (7.3V) for the MN15, MN20, 1111, 64250, 1274, and 5761 (eventually, when battery technology can meet the challenge)?

I went with balancing 1274 performance/life with some moderate overdriving of the 1164/5607. The ability to fall back to Level 2 at 7.3V with the 1274 helps in that decisionmaking. I also selected a similar fall back concept for the 1111 and 5761 from Level 2 to Level 1.

Level 4 at 10.8V seems to have limited utility currently, but I'm tending toward sticking with it -- thinking to the future when there are 5V spinel Li-ions.


----------



## Justin Case

Here's a silly question, wrt to the desired Level 4 voltage of 10.8V. Can you fit and run 6x16340 cells in series in the holder?


----------



## wquiles

Justin Case said:


> Can you fit and run 6x16340 cells in series in the holder?



The pack has been designed and tested to work "only" with 3x17670 LiIon protected cells.


----------



## donn_

I expect they'll fit, but the question would be if the pack circuitry can handle the doubled voltage.

You'd also cut your runtimes by a good bit.


----------



## RichS

Thanks so much for taking the time to put up the MN21 vs. MN61 beamshots Will! They were very helpful.

I have just a couple of follow-up quetions:

Since the MN61 will be the main purpose of my 9.0V level 3, based on your shots it looks like I should change this to 9.2V to get a nice white beam. Would this be your recommendation base on what you saw, or do you feel this would be pushing this bulb too close to the edge?

Also, are the above beamshots with the MN21 used at the 6.8v setting? The reason I was wondering, is my shots of the MN21 with primaries should also be running at around 6.75v, and you can see how dim it is compared to the MN21 on 2x18650s. At this voltage it even looks much dimmer than the HO-M6R. I just wanted to make sure that 6.8v is still the optimal voltage for running the MN21 based on my and your beamshots.

Eric - thanks much for your detailed explanation on the reasons this pack is less than optimal for the HO-M6R. I forgot that it was mentioned before about losing some voltage due to the additional contacts, etc. I think I'll keep the 10.8 setting for now, just to be able to run a higher voltage bulb in the future, or even the HO-M6R in a pinch. I'll still keep my DD pack for this bulb when I want to run it.

Thanks again for the lighting fast answers and all the great information you all are providing in this thread!! :twothumbs


----------



## wquiles

RichS said:


> Since the MN61 will be the main purpose of my 9.0V level 3, based on your shots it looks like I should change this to 9.2V to get a nice white beam. Would this be your recommendation base on what you saw, or do you feel this would be pushing this bulb too close to the edge?


Yes, the MN61 at 9.2 volts was awesome. I would not push it harder. In fact, back when had two of the ill-fated HDM6's, I keep one of my M6's with an MN21 and one with the MN20. Now with my own pack, and given the 3x17670 source, I am keeping one of them with the MN20 (at 7.5 volts), and for sure going to keep the other one of my M6's with the MN61 bulb at 9.2 volts.




RichS said:


> Also, are the above beamshots with the MN21 used at the 6.8v setting?


Yes, absolutely. 6.8 Vrms (regulated  )




RichS said:


> The reason I was wondering, is my shots of the MN21 with primaries should also be running at around 6.75v, and you can see how dim it is compared to the MN21 on 2x18650s. At this voltage it even looks much dimmer than the HO-M6R. I just wanted to make sure that 6.8v is still the optimal voltage for running the MN21 based on my and your beamshots.


Way too many things different between your setup and mine. Even changing the manual exposure would make things brighter or dimmer - too many variables make it impossible to directly compare my beamshots to anyone else's. That being said, yes, 6.8Vrms on the PhD-M6 "is" the optimal and correct drive level for the MN21. Driving the MN21 harder will only give you even shorter cell life, more heat wasted in the cells, shorter runtimes, and a shorter life for the bulb.


----------



## mdocod

Warning: Picking voltage options may cause hemorrhaging, temporary blindness, vomiting, dizziness, or dry-mouth, there is also an increased risk of stroke and heart attack associated with the procedure. 

My recommendations:


Avoid splitting bulbs with different needs across a half-way compromise on 1 voltage setting. All this will result in is a drive level that is always over or under driving something.
Ask yourself, If you could only have one regulated output, what would that be? Make sure that you have that in your group of 4.
Pick at minimum 1 drive level, preferably 2 or more, that offers a practical reliable drive option for few bulbs. The rest can be experimental or performance oriented, just try not to shoot yourself in the foot with a whole list of drive levels that are all abusive towards bulbs.

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

Hi RichS, WQuiles,

Keep in mind that higher wattage bulbs have more filament material to work with, they can often achieve higher CCT levels with the same bulb life as a lower wattage bulb. The MN21 will out-perform most lower power bulbs in CCT with about the same bulb life. 

I did run numbers for the MN61 with a few more considerations wrapped up in there and came up with something pretty close to 9.2V to theoretically match the drive _intensity_ of the MN11/16/[email protected] 


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

Justin,

How about:
6.8V: MN16/21/WA1111/64250/5761/1160/GE787
7.2V: MN15/MN20//N2/WA1111/64250/HO-M3T/EO-M3T/IMR-M3T/1274/5761/N62/GE787
7.7V: MN15/MN20//N2/N62/HO-M3T/EO-M3T/IMR-M3T/1274
9.2V: MN61/WA1164/JC5607

I wouldn't suggest picking a value today that is based on the assumption of a cell coming out in the future. The 17670 size isn't very popular so I don't know what all advancements if any we are going to see in that size. 


Eric


----------



## Starlight

Everyone needs to stop obsessing over .1V or .2V. You CAN'T see any difference, so why worry.


----------



## RichS

Will/Eric - thanks so much for the quick replies.

OK - I'm making these my final custom levels based on all the info I've learned recently, and the primary bulbs I will be using on each setting. Then I'm shutting down my computer before I read something else and change my mind again...:duh2:

*6.8V:* MN21
*7.4V:* MN15/MN20/WA1111
*9.2V:* MN61
*10.8V:* HO-M6R/WA1331


----------



## oldways

RichS said:


> Will/Eric - thanks so much for the quick replies.
> 
> OK - I'm making these my final custom levels based on all the info I've learned recently, and the primary bulbs I will be using on each setting. Then I'm shutting down my computer before I read something else and change my mind again...:duh2:
> 
> *6.8V:* MN21
> *7.4V:* MN15/MN20/WA1111
> *9.2V:* MN61
> *10.8V:* HO-M6R/WA1331



:hahaha::hahaha: I feel the same way:buddies:


----------



## Not So Bright

After looking over the chart, I would like the following levels:
6.8 V
7.2 V
9.2 V
10.8 V

Thanks for making this happen.


----------



## Steve in SoCal

6.8V: MN16/21/WA1111/64250/5761/1160/GE787
7.2V: MN15/MN20//N2/WA1111/64250/HO-M3T/EO-M3T/IMR-M3T/1274/5761/N62/GE787
7.7V: MN15/MN20//N2/N62/HO-M3T/EO-M3T/IMR-M3T/1274
9.2V: MN61/WA1164/JC5607


I'm digging those levels, I may need to update my custom settings.


----------



## Justin Case

mdocod said:


> Justin,
> 
> How about:
> 6.8V: MN16/21/WA1111/64250/5761/1160/GE787
> 7.2V: MN15/MN20//N2/WA1111/64250/HO-M3T/EO-M3T/IMR-M3T/1274/5761/N62/GE787
> 7.7V: MN15/MN20//N2/N62/HO-M3T/EO-M3T/IMR-M3T/1274
> 9.2V: MN61/WA1164/JC5607



Those are very interesting settings.

I have many 1111, 64250, 5761, 1274, 1164, 5607, and 1331/1318 bulbs. I have some N62s, but since they are rare and discontinued, I probably will just stare at them unused. Perhaps that's silly. I have a few stock SF TH bulbs -- MN15, MN20, MN21. No MN61s. No Lumens Factory bulbs.

I'm definitely set on 6.8V for Level 1.

I suppose if I had any MN61 lamps, then 9.2V for Level 4 would make sense. But having a setting only for admittedly impractical bulbs like the 1164 and 5607 (for my case) seems a waste. At 10.8V, I get useful application out of a 1331/1318, even if I don't get regulated operation.

My original 7.3V for Level 2 seems like a fair balance for the MN15 vs 1111. Do you think that 7.2V really provides an important advantage over 7.3V (of course, one could also ask the reverse question -- what does 7.3V offer over 7.2V)? If I had a Level 3 at 7.7V, then I can see dropping Level 2 slightly. But I think I'm willing to take a chance at 8.0V for Level 3 (which would be too much for the MN15, MN20, and 1111). The 1164 and 5607 are not overdriven by a lot at 8.0V, and seem to me to have a bit more practicality than running them at 9.2V (I could be wrong). To me, the biggest risk is with the 1274. It seems like 8.0V is "safe" based on Lux's destructive data. But his data is based on DC power supply input to the bulbs with essentially a manual (and slow) soft start.

I assume that you have some reservations on running a 1274 at 8.0V. That is the upper limit in your chart for the recommended voltage range.

What if I go with 7.9V for Level 3?


----------



## LuxLuthor

Hopefully, Rich shut down his computer....but I do see his green online light still lit. LOL!

Eric, thanks for your recent responses. Really great, practical information. This whole thing is getting a bit too confusing and beginning to resemble all of us assembling in a circular firing squad formation!

In any case, one last thing I wanted to check--separate from the numbers on papers and charts--is the actual appearance and performance of the HO-M6R ("HO") & 1185 bulbs with the regulator set at 10.8V.

This is the first time I took the HO out of the box and actually used it, and I agree it is a nice looking beam. It remained a nice looking bulb, with a nice white color on whitewall for the 30 mins I ran it (in timed 5 min segments). The 1185 actually ran fine with the pack using these cells, and kept a nice white color for the 15 mins I tested it (in 5 min segments). However, the 1185 had that pronounced oval pattern with a center hotspot, because of its transverse filament. I actually didn't like it as much as the HO.

Just for the heck of it, I took some Amp & Voltage readings at intervals, touching the probe to the back contact of pack, and other to side wall of body (with tailcap off). Both used AC+DC settings on my Fluke 182. 

*The HO showed:*Start - 12.32 Vbat (4.1 V/cell) ; 1.98A
7min - 11.88 Vbat (3.96 V/cell)
10min - 11.61 Vbat (3.87V/cell)
15min - 11.34 Vbat (3.78V/cell)
20min - 11.15 Vbat (3.72V/cell)
25min - 11.02 Vbat (3.67V/cell) ; 1.84A
30min - 10.90 Vbat (3.63V/cell)​*The 1185 showed** (Destructive chart here)*Start - 12.34 Vbat (4.1 V/cell) ; 3.22A
10 min - 11.39 Vbat (3.8 V/cell) ; 3.16A
15 min - 11.06 Vbat (3.69 V/cell) ; 3.05A​So even though it appears that the 1185 is starting out of regulation (my destructive testing says it should be getting 3.35A at 10.8V), it still gives 15 mins of a nice looking beam.

So for those keeping the 10.8V, you still have better practical performance in <3.5 Amp bulbs than I would have expected with these aging 17670 cells of mine. I think just for the hell of it, I'm gonna throw in a Hikari 5067 and run it at 10.8V (which should actually perform between the blue 4Amp and purple 5Amp lines on my cell testing graphs) and see what happens now. What's the worst that could happen? :tinfoil: Wish me luck!

Edit: The 5067 ran fine on the 10.8V setting, but it looks like it dropped to direct drive at 9.9V because the Amp reading I took on startup was 4.55 Amps. However, even with two spacer washers, the bulb was too far into the reflector, and looked like crap. I'm gonna scratch using this bulb in this application. So I'm back to keeping my last settings posted in the thread of:*Level 1: 6.8V (MN21 & 1160)*
* Level 2: 7.4V (MN15, MN20, N62, 1111)*
* Level 3: 9.3V (MN61, 1164)*
* Level 4: 10.8V (HO-M6R, 1185, 1331) *
​_*Will, no other issues, bugs, or problems noted with everything I could think of to test the pack and driver. 

It's not a problem, but every time I first engaged the tailcap, there was always a momentary closed circuit, light flash before getting threads engaged. 

As far as I am concerned the pack is good to go--Final Answer! Great work you and Eric!*_


----------



## wquiles

Lux, thanks much for the feedback and additional testing - much appreciated :bow:



LuxLuthor said:


> It's not a problem, but every time I first engaged the tailcap, there was always a momentary closed circuit, light flash before getting threads engaged.


Yes, this means the regulator's bulb detection algorithm is working :devil:

What happens is that as you start to screw the tailcap, the inner contact surface of the tailcap (the one that has that inner O-ring) momentarily makes contact with the body of the light, which briefly closes the circuit. As the circuit is now closed, the PhD-M6 wakes up and starts to work, and starts doing the soft-start => this is the light flash that you see. 

Here in the right side of this picture you can see the inner piece with O-ring that I am talking about (newer insert on top - very old one on bottom). And as you can see, it does have a small forward "lip", right before the O-ring starts (facing down in this picture, or towards the bulb as it is being inserted into the M6's body). It is this lip, which when touches the body of the M6 (although briefly), which closes the circuit path:







Now, as you keep inserting the tailcap, and it gets aligned with the threads, the O-ring in that inner contact surface finally disconnects the connection to the body, so once the PhD-M6 "sees" that there is no longer a connection, it goes to sleep again. This is why the light flash that you see is only momentary. The PhD-M6 properly detected that brief moment when you were installing the tailcap and briefly closing the circuit, but then it goes asleep again once the circuit is open by the O-ring. Of course, once you close the circuit on purpose by screwing the tailcap all of the way, or by pressing the button, the PhD-M6 again detects the circuit is made and starts to work all over again.


----------



## LuxLuthor

OK, thanks for that explanation mainly that it is flashing with the soft start engaged which was my only concern. Sent last few instructions document corrections by email. :kiss:


----------



## mdocod

The little flash of light when installing the tailcap is a normal behavior regardless of what battery pack is used.

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

Hi Justin,

When I built the chart, the intention was to list a voltage range for each bulb that should not introduce a lot of unpredictable behavior or get too terribly expensive in bulb replacement costs. If I have 8V listed at the top end for a bulb, then there's actually some theoretical room over that drive level where it would still _*likely*_ work at least for a little while. Remember you did mention that you have a 1111 regulated to 7.4V in another setup right? 7.4V with soft start is probably quite doable with the 1111/64250, but I can't personally recommend that drive level within the scope of a project intended for the M6. 

As a very rough rule of thumb, in a voltage range listed, the bottom voltage listed is estimated to achieve 50 or more hours of bulb life, the top end voltage listed was targeted for 10 or more hours bulb life. For Soft Started configurations, my understanding is that 10 hours bulb life should still work pretty well. 

After inventing the concept of "heat factor" and comparing the way different bulbs actually effect the cells, the 1164 and 5607 are not really going to be any harder on the cells than an MN21, but it's important to keep in mind that they are all VERY hard on cells. My math tells me that with a ~9V setting, both will probably drop out of regulation when the cells reach ~50% state of charge. I need to update the chart to reflect this. 

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

I just ran some more numbers on the MN61, which I think may become pretty popular for the PhD-M6....

The math says that it will drop out of regulation at roughly the same time the lower battery warning moon mode would have kicked in anyways, go figure


----------



## Troop#26

It is simply amazing how well everyone on this forum has contributed to this project (as well as others). It continues on in this thread where even a guy like me can make informed decisions on a product due to everyones hard work! lovecpf

I have gone through a little bit of "bulb overdose" as I have been trying to keep up with all the options, but I have finally settled on custom options and I think I am going to be very happy with this. Note that I dont have access to a bi-pin holder and I dont think it would be appropriate for how Im going to use the torch so I have a simplified set of bulbs to work from compared with many of you!

It is interesting how things EVOLVED in watching this, thought I did come in rather late to the project compared to many of you. I have learned a lot about Hotwires and their associated cost benefits and the discussion you people have generated about hallogen cycles, voltage at load, etc etc (the list goes on) has created some fun reading. Your also all going to cost me alot of money, I think Im going to start taking up donations at work for flashlight advice.

When I originally started reading all of this, I thought my bulb of choice would be the MN21. It has always been a lust item for me 20min of uniform brightness WOW... Then after my fiasco trying to find the perfect bulb (and failing to understand what a hotwire really is) I thought my primary use would be an IMR-M3T. Now in just the last hour the MN61 at 9.2 volts seems like it is going to be the winner and the day to day use. The MN61 seems to pair so well this current cell chemistry and the fact that by the "rough calculations" it is going to fall out of regulation at the same time it hits moon mode (by the way I could never even attempt those calculations that you guys do rough forms of) seems like its an out the park winner.

EDIT:
Had question about IMR-M6... found it in the bulb list, missed it the first time. Removed out of my own stupidity.

Thanks again to all,

Stephen


----------



## Justin Case

I probably missed it in previous discussion, but how does the PhD-M6 soft start speed compare to the JimmyM regulator's slow, medium, and fast soft start?


----------



## LuxLuthor

Justin Case said:


> I probably missed it in previous discussion, but how does the PhD-M6 soft start speed compare to the JimmyM regulator's slow, medium, and fast soft start?



I would have to go back to find Jimmy's actual ms settings, but this PhD looks to be about 150 to 200 ms. Using the age old layman's timing of 'saying' a second as "_*One Thousand One*_," I would say the PhD soft start is "*One Th*"


----------



## mdocod

Hi Stephen,

If I may humbly suggest a tightened down range of voltage ranges that I feel would be pretty appropriate for law enforcement use based on what I have learned in my own testing and calculations in the last few weeks:

(No bi-pins listed, I agree with you that they are not suitable for this application)

Level 1: 6.6V or 6.7V (MN16, MN21)
Level 2: 7.4V - 7.5V (MN15, MN20, HO-M3T, EO-M3T, IMR-M3T, N62)
Level 3: 9.0V - 9.1V (MN61)
Level 4: either 5.0V (N1), 10.0V (MN60), or 10.8V(HO-M6R).

Pick Level 4 depending on which of those 3 bulb you think would be the most appropriate additional option on the table for your needs. 

Cheers,
Eric


----------



## Justin Case

LuxLuthor said:


> I would have to go back to find Jimmy's actual ms settings, but this PhD looks to be about 150 to 200 ms. Using the age old layman's timing of 'saying' a second as "_*One Thousand One*_," I would say the PhD soft start is "*One Th*"


 
That looks to be comparable to the JM-PhD-D1's fast soft start speed. Yet another complication. I had been using medium soft start (about 0.5 sec) with my JimmyM regulated Mag driving a WA01111 bulb at 7.4V.


----------



## wquiles

Justin Case said:


> That looks to be comparable to the JM-PhD-D1's fast soft start speed. Yet another complication. I had been using medium soft start (about 0.5 sec) with my JimmyM regulated Mag driving a WA01111 bulb at 7.4V.



Justin,

I am heading for the "shop" to programm those packs that are paid, including yours, but if you want to further tweak something, let me know ASAP and I will wait to do yours with the next batch.

Will


----------



## Justin Case

Let me think about Levels 2 and 3 for a moment.

Thanks.


----------



## Justin Case

Has anyone tested a 1111 at the present 7.5V Level 3?

Will, let's go with the voltages I've already selected. If I have to, I'll suck it up and pay the fee for re-programming. Thanks.


----------



## DM51

Justin Case said:


> Has anyone tested a 1111 at the present 7.5V Level 3?


LuxLuthor's WA1111 test sheet.


----------



## wquiles

Justin Case said:


> Will, let's go with the voltages I've already selected. If I have to, I'll suck it up and pay the fee for re-programming. Thanks.



OK, thanks


----------



## Justin Case

DM51 said:


> LuxLuthor's WA1111 test sheet.


 
I guess I was unclear. Has anyone tested the 1111 at 7.5V Level 3 in the PhD-M6? Or alternatively, at ~7.5V in a JM-PhD-D1 using Fast Soft Start. I've run the 1111 at 7.4V with a JimmyM regulator, but only at Medium Soft Start.


----------



## mdocod

Hi Justin,

I honestly don't even want to try it. I've never exploded a bulb in my M6 and want to keep it that way if at all possible. 

Eric


----------



## RichS

LuxLuthor said:


> This is the first time I took the HO out of the box and actually used it, and I agree it is a nice looking beam. It remained a nice looking bulb, with a nice white color on whitewall for the 30 mins I ran it (in timed 5 min segments). The 1185 actually ran fine with the pack using these cells, and kept a nice white color for the 15 mins I tested it (in 5 min segments). However, the 1185 had that pronounced oval pattern with a center hotspot, because of its transverse filament. I actually didn't like it as much as the HO.
> 
> Just for the heck of it, I took some Amp & Voltage readings at intervals, touching the probe to the back contact of pack, and other to side wall of body (with tailcap off). Both used AC+DC settings on my Fluke 182.
> 
> *The HO showed:*
> Start - 12.32 Vbat (4.1 V/cell) ; 1.98A
> 7min - 11.88 Vbat (3.96 V/cell)
> 10min - 11.61 Vbat (3.87V/cell)
> 15min - 11.34 Vbat (3.78V/cell)
> 20min - 11.15 Vbat (3.72V/cell)
> 25min - 11.02 Vbat (3.67V/cell) ; 1.84A
> 30min - 10.90 Vbat (3.63V/cell)​


Lux - thanks so much for testing the HO-M6R! It's great to know my favorite M6 bulb will still work in this new pack!



Justin Case said:


> I guess I was unclear. Has anyone tested the 1111 at 7.5V Level 3 in the PhD-M6? Or alternatively, at ~7.5V in a JM-PhD-D1 using Fast Soft Start. I've run the 1111 at 7.4V with a JimmyM regulator, but only at Medium Soft Start.


 


mdocod said:


> Hi Justin,
> 
> I honestly don't even want to try it. I've never exploded a bulb in my M6 and want to keep it that way if at all possible.
> 
> Eric


 
Ummm...so following that statement, is anyone else just a wee bit leery now about running the 1111 at the 7.4v setting (as I was planning to do)??!.......:sweat:


----------



## Justin Case

I'd have to disassemble one of my Mag11 builds, reprogram the JM-PhD-D1 for a fast soft start, adjust the Vbulb trim pot to 7.5V, and test the 1111 bulb. I didn't cut a window in the Kiu base for access to the driver's programming header pins. Fortunately, however, no exploding bulb issues so far in two D Mag builds running 1111 bulbs at 7.4V with medium soft start.


----------



## RichS

Justin Case said:


> I'd have to disassemble one of my Mag11 builds, reprogram the JM-PhD-D1 for a fast soft start, adjust the Vbulb trim pot to 7.5V, and test the 1111 bulb. I didn't cut a window in the Kiu base for access to the driver's programming header pins. Fortunately, however, no exploding bulb issues so far in two D Mag builds running 1111 bulbs at 7.4V with medium soft start.


 
Better get started!

I've been running a 1111 in a Leefbody with 2x*IMR*18500 with an AW tailcap soft start, and have never had an issue. Fully charged, they are at 4.1v each. I wouldn't think that the sag on these IMRs would be too much with the ~3.5a draw on this bulb. But, I could be wrong about that...


----------



## Justin Case

mdocod said:


> I've come up with an interesting specification that I am simply going to call "heat factor." The heat factor is a rough calculated estimate of the ratio of energy being converted to heat in the cells while running a particular bulb compared to the maximum rate of heat buildup that would normally occur under a direct drive 2C rate discharge of the cells. This information helps give the user a better understanding of how "hard" on the cells a particular bulb is, independent of just looking at the runtime and calculating a "C" rate. A heat factor of 1 means than the heat produced in the cells during the discharge is expected to be similar to what would have occurred during a normal direct drive 2C discharge. It is advised to never run a bulb with a heat factor above 1 continuously through the discharge, as it will likely result in cells over-heating.


 
I'm somewhat confused as to how this heat factor works.

Is the heat factor's denominator held constant at your ~4.5W figure of merit from Post #56?

How did you arrive at this 4.5W value?


----------



## mdocod

Hi RichS,

By my calculations, taking into account the resistance added by the AW soft start switch, assuming ~50mOhm per cell and some more resistance from a couple other contacts, the voltage at the bulb with cells sitting at 8.2V open circuit room temp would be somewhere around 7V. 

Eric


----------



## Justin Case

RichS said:


> Better get started!
> 
> I've been running a 1111 in a Leefbody with 2x*IMR*18500 with an AW tailcap soft start, and have never had an issue. Fully charged, they are at 4.1v each. I wouldn't think that the sag on these IMRs would be too much with the ~3.5a draw on this bulb. But, I could be wrong about that...


 
Well then I guess you have nothing to worry about in running a 1111 at 7.4V in your PhD-M6 and there is no need for me to get started with any surrogate testing using a JM-PhD-D1.


----------



## Troop#26

mdocod said:


> Hi Stephen,
> 
> If I may humbly suggest a tightened down range of voltage ranges that I feel would be pretty appropriate for law enforcement use based on what I have learned in my own testing and calculations in the last few weeks:
> 
> (No bi-pins listed, I agree with you that they are not suitable for this application)
> 
> Level 1: 6.6V or 6.7V (MN16, MN21)
> Level 2: 7.4V - 7.5V (MN15, MN20, HO-M3T, EO-M3T, IMR-M3T, N62)
> Level 3: 9.0V - 9.1V (MN61)
> Level 4: either 5.0V (N1), 10.0V (MN60), or 10.8V(HO-M6R).
> 
> Pick Level 4 depending on which of those 3 bulb you think would be the most appropriate additional option on the table for your needs.
> 
> Cheers,
> Eric



Hi Eric,

Thanks again, as usual I am humbled before your knowledge; you dont need to humbly suggest anything to me (Im still reading threads with your name on them from YEARS ago, just trying to catch up!). I really appreciate you helping out EVERYONE (myself included), in making decisions based on some real figures rather than gut instinct. As I stated before, my gut changes week over week with this project. BUT IT SURE IS FUN!

I have gotten a fix on what I think my final values will be:
Level 1: 6.8V (MN16, *MN21*)
Level 2: 7.5V (MN15, MN20, HO-M3T, EO-M3T, *IMR-M3T*, N62)
Level 3: 9.2V (*MN61*)
Level 4: 10.8V(*HO-M6R*, IMR-M6)
Primary bulbs for each setting displayed in *BOLD*
I really have no use for a N1 bulb in my intended usage as I am sure you can gather from my primary bulb choices above!

I noticed that my values are a few tenths more than yours in most cases, 6.8V for MN21 (yours being 6.7V) and 9.2V for MN61 (your being 9.1V). Is that just more safety on the bulb life or do you think that my extra tents will be pushing the lamp to far? 

Thanks again for all your help!

Stephen

EDIT: Changed primary bulb for 7.5V from EO-M3T to IMR-M3T


----------



## mdocod

Hi Justin Case,

Post #56 is sort of the pre-face for how I built the chart and came up with this concept of "heat factor." When I actually sat down and started punching out numbers (pages and pages of calculations), I made adjustments to account for more variation in cell condition and age, basically, I moved conservative.

Finding the heat generated within a cell at a 2C discharge rate is pretty much just a function of calculating for power distribution within a series circuit based on resistance in each part of the circuit. The cells represent a certain portion of the resistance of the entire circuit, so as long as the resistance of the cells is a known value (I tested and studied and came up with a value), and the rest of the circuit is a known value (pretty easy to calculate with a few known operating conditions) we can calculate the amount of electrical energy will be lost to heat within any portion of a circuit. 

For calculating "heat factor" the exact resistance of the cells isn't super critical, as long as you use the same constant for all calculations things will come out about the same. 

For each bulb, a snap-shot of a theoretical point during a discharge under PWM regulation is created. The snap-shot calculates the amount of energy that goes to the bulb, and the amount that is lost to resistance in the cells.

When the amount of energy converted to heat in the cells rises above the amount calculated for a normal direct drive 2C discharge, the "heat factor" rating goes above 1.

The maximum continuous run recomendation is the estimated total run-time divided by the square of the heat factor.

Eric


----------



## Justin Case

So the denominator of the heat factor is not a constant since the series resistance divider will vary depending on bulb.

That seems somewhat unusual since it would appear that instead of using an absolute reference value, you are using a variable reference. So a 1.0 heat factor for one bulb may not necessarily mean the same actual heat generation (say in watts) vs a 1.2 heat factor for some other bulb.

Also, I'm not sure I understand your rule of thumb that the amount of time to let the light cool down is given by multiplying the heat factor by the max continuous run time.

I would think that the cooling rate of the light would be essentially constant, independent of bulb (assuming other variables are held constant, such as ambient temp, air velocity, hand position on the light). So why would something like a 5761 have a shorter "cool down" time vs something like an 1160? Once the light heats up to whatever critical temperature is deemed to warrant shutting down, it would seem to me that the time to cool back down to some acceptable temperature is independent of the bulb. It's a constant heat capacity, and thus a constant amount of energy absorbed to reach the given recommended shutdown point.


----------



## mdocod

Troop#26 said:


> Hi Eric,
> 
> I noticed that my values are a few tenths more than yours in most cases, 6.8V for MN21 (yours being 6.7V) and 9.2V for MN61 (your being 9.1V). Is that just more safety on the bulb life or do you think that my extra tents will be pushing the lamp to far?
> 
> Thanks again for all your help!
> 
> Stephen



Hi Stephen,

As I understand, your application could be defined as "very rugged." On CPF, I'm sure there is a wide array of applications for the M6, ranging from shelf queens to the absolute most abusive environments imaginable. 

The default voltage values were selected with certain traits in mind that would allow for bulb options that could meet a fairly wide array of possible requirements.

Running the SF HOLA options at 6.8V represents the side of CPF that wants to see something that dazzles the senses a bit, while not breaking out of the scope of _some_ reliability. Running the SF LOLA options at 7.5V moves to in the direction of conservatism for bulb reliability. The 7.5V setting winds up doubling as a way to move back in the direction of dazzling as you move up the LF M3T bulb list. It's a neat balance of options for most people. 

The reality is that, you may never have a problem with a configuration that drives all bulbs pretty hard, but when bulb failures can translate to serious danger very quickly in your line of work, I would be the type who would sacrifice some output for some reliability. Lower drive levels will generally produce better bulb life. Lower drive levels should also theoretically reduce the risk of bulb failure from physical shock. (No guarantees of course!)

Tuning a specific arrangement of recommended voltages for a specific application isn't easy and will always involve trade-offs that result in imperfection. Considering your most recently posted list of bulbs with highlighted options, I would _lean_ towards 6.6-6.7V, 7.3-7.4V, 9.0-9.1V, and 10.8V. This would be a reasonably conservative approach that I would feel more comfortable with in harsh conditions. 

Eric


----------



## Troop#26

mdocod said:


> The reality is that, you may never have a problem with a configuration that drives all bulbs pretty hard, but when bulb failures can translate to serious danger very quickly in your line of work, I would be the type who would sacrifice some output for some reliability. Lower drive levels will generally produce better bulb life. Lower drive levels should also theoretically reduce the risk of bulb failure from physical shock. (No guarantees of course!)



Interesting food for thought. I guess its a balance for me if I am a flashaholic police officer or a police officer who is a flashaholic. 

I really do appreciate all of your insight Eric. You make a hugely valid argument. I feel a little bit more comfortable thinking that the second light on my belt is going to be a Surefire M2 with an Oveready V3 Triple at the business end. FOR NOW, Im going to stick with my more dazzling criteria and if I find Im having issues Ill have the pack re-programed. While this still is a combat light for me, it is intended to be more of a search light first, which is why the MN61 works so well for what I am thinking as it has no heat concerns (well not none but less).

Looking at the destructive testing I would think that while these values are pushing the bulbs, they certainly could be pushed even further. Looking at DM51's M6 Shoot Out he actually ran the MN61 off of just a 3X17670 holder which I would think, even with voltage sage, would still be on the higher than my proposed settings. The other proposed bulbs also seem very resilient.

I mean no disrespect at all eric, I am not discounting your advice at all! Thank you again so much for all your insight.

Regards,

Stephen


----------



## mdocod

Hi Justin,



Justin Case said:


> So the denominator of the heat factor is not a constant since the series resistance divider will vary depending on bulb.



The denominator is a constant, not a variable. It is derived based on a 2C direct drive discharge. The same constant is used to formulate every "heat factor" rating. 



> That seems somewhat unusual since it would appear that instead of using an absolute reference value, you are using a variable reference. So a 1.0 heat factor for one bulb may not necessarily mean the same actual heat generation (say in watts) vs a 1.2 heat factor for some other bulb.



No



> Also, I'm not sure I understand your rule of thumb that the amount of time to let the light cool down is given by multiplying the heat factor by the max continuous run time.
> 
> I would think that the cooling rate of the light would be essentially constant, independent of bulb (assuming other variables are held constant, such as ambient temp, air velocity, hand position on the light). So why would something like a 5761 have a shorter "cool down" time vs something like an 1160? Once the light heats up to whatever critical temperature is deemed to warrant shutting down, it would seem to me that the time to cool back down to some acceptable temperature is independent of the bulb. It's a constant heat capacity, and thus a constant amount of energy absorbed to reach the given recommended shutdown point.



I actually spent a few moments trying to decide what to "call" the specification, because "heat" really isn't the only factor ultimately being addressed by guidelines set forth by it. The name "heat factor" had such a nice ring to it. Hard to pass it up. The caveat was that I knew there would be one little bump in the road. Yes Justin, I thought of you at 2:47AM or whenever the heck in the middle of the night it was  

1160 vs 5761 from the charts and recommendations:

1160: Run for 7.5 minutes, cool for 13.5 minutes, rinse, repeat. 
User duty cycle = 56%. 

5761: Run for 3 minutes, cool for 8.7 minutes, rinse, repeat. 
User duty cycle = 34%

Convert to equal run time for each:

1160: run for 3 minutes, cool for 5.4 minutes
5761: run for 3 minutes, cool for 8.7 minutes

When each bulb is ON for the same amount of time, the more abusive bulb should be rested longer between runs. 

You can convert down a bulb to a lower runtime, but do not convert up a bulb to a longer runtime. The important thing is the effective duty cycle of the user operation combined with never exceeding the maximum continuous run-time. If you have ever used a welder with a duty cycle rating this makes perfect sense. 

If the term "heat factor" bothers anyone, just call it "cell abuse factor" instead. 

Eric


----------



## mdocod

Troop#26 said:


> ...........I mean no disrespect at all eric, I am not discounting your advice at all! Thank you again so much for all your insight.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Stephen



Hi Stephen,

Absolutely no disrespect is taken! 

If the M6 isn't necessarily going to operate as the primary light, but as part of an array of potential alternatives, then my comfort level with more intense drive levels for law enforcement certainly improves quite a bit. The drive levels you have in mind should be fine.

I'm a pretty paranoid type individual when it comes to personal safety/security against other mammals. 

My only request is that you do some quick-draw practice on your illumination options!

Stay safe,

Regards,
Eric


----------



## Justin Case

mdocod said:


> The denominator is a constant, not a variable. It is derived based on a 2C direct drive discharge. The same constant is used to formulate every "heat factor" rating.



Excellent.



mdocod said:


> 1160 vs 5761 from the charts and recommendations:
> 
> 1160: Run for 7.5 minutes, cool for 13.5 minutes, rinse, repeat.
> User duty cycle = 56%.
> 
> 5761: Run for 3 minutes, cool for 8.7 minutes, rinse, repeat.
> User duty cycle = 34%
> 
> Convert to equal run time for each:
> 
> 1160: run for 3 minutes, cool for 5.4 minutes
> 5761: run for 3 minutes, cool for 8.7 minutes
> 
> When each bulb is ON for the same amount of time, the more abusive bulb should be rested longer between runs.



I must be misunderstanding the application of your resting period equation.

The max continuous run time is not a constant and thus each bulb is not necessarily on for the same amount of time (which is what your 1160 and 5761 example above shows).

I would assume that the heat capacity of the 17670 cells is going to be constant for every user. Thus, to reach a particular temperature (e.g., 60C) above which you should shut down because the cells are getting too hot (thus dictating the max continuous run time), a fixed amount of heat is required to reach that temp. Hotter bulbs will reach this temp quicker than cooler bulbs (again, this is what your example above shows). But they all deliver the same fixed amount of energy to the cells to get them to the critical temp for shut down.

Similarly, the cooling rate of the cells and the M6 ought to be a constant for a given set of conditions. Thus, I still don't see why one should apparently wait a variable amount of time (your "resting period", which is given by max continuous run time multiplied by heat factor). Once the cells reach the critical temp (say 60C), the time to cool back down to some acceptable temp to start running again should be constant, independent of the bulb.

Your resting period formula could have the user turning on the flashlight sooner for hotter bulbs than for cooler bulbs, as shown by your example above. Why should one wait longer to let the light cool down when using an 1164 vs 5761? Isn't the cooling rate the same, regardless of bulb type?


----------



## wquiles

Updated bulb charts/tables from Eric:

PhDM6_bulb_chart_8_9_10.ods

PhDM6_bulb_chart_8_9_10.xls


----------



## LuxLuthor

mdocod said:


> Hi Justin,
> 
> I honestly don't even want to try it. I've never exploded a bulb in my M6 and want to keep it that way if at all possible.
> 
> Eric
> 
> 
> Justin Case said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I was unclear. Has anyone tested the 1111 at 7.5V Level 3 in the PhD-M6? Or alternatively, at ~7.5V in a JM-PhD-D1 using Fast Soft Start. I've run the 1111 at 7.4V with a JimmyM regulator, but only at Medium Soft Start.
> 
> 
> DM51 said:
> 
> 
> 
> LuxLuthor's WA1111 test sheet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


You will be happy to know that with freshly charged cells, I set the PhD on 7.5V, the 1111 worked just fine. Also then repeatedly pushed thumb button, and it did fine. 

Now, I'm not sure what actual voltage was being sent to the bulb with these aging cells, given the 4A battery chart I posted earlier...may very well have been direct driving at lower voltage, but it worked none-the-less. For what it's worth, AW did respond to my PM, and said that he was actually very impressed with the performance of those 3+ year old cells, given that it is nearly end of life. He said he could never recommend pushing these cells to 2C (above 3A) because it will result in less cycles and shortened life. You can tell he doesn't have that Incan Jockey "Crazy" gene.


----------



## Justin Case

LuxLuthor said:


> You will be happy to know that with freshly charged cells, I set the PhD on 7.5V, the 1111 worked just fine. Also then repeatedly pushed thumb button, and it did fine.



I did the same with a 2D Mag11 mod using a JimmyM regulator set to 7.4V and fast soft start and loaded with 3xIMR26500. Repeatedly pressed the on-off button at various repetition rates and for various durations. No issues.


----------



## mdocod

Hi Justin,

The recommended continuous runs and the recommended resting periods are not based absolutely 100% on just heat generated in the cells. I wanted the recomendation to have the effect of producing more limited operating duty cycle on higher power lamps, and most importantly those lamps that are the most abusive to the cells.

If the battery pack and the head of the flashlight holding the bulb were thermally isolated from each-other, then you would be absolutely right that the cool down periods for the cells to cool off by themselves would be the same for every bulb, but that is not the case here, and I'm concerned about more than just cell temps in making these recommendations. 

Keep in mind that the bulb introduces heat to the flashlight as well, so running something like an 1160 for 7.5 minutes straight will introduce more heat to the flashlight body than running the 5761 for 3 minutes, thus, a longer cool down period is required after that run. 

I wanted to devise a simple calculation that anyone with elementary math could use to come up with some good guidelines to improve the safety of the operation of their flashlight. In using and testing the light for weeks and taking cell temps, I was actually amazed at how well the heat factor recommendation compared to my real world testing. Is it perfect? Nope. Is it pretty darn good? YES, I believe it is! You are free to use them, not use them, make your own, whatever makes you happy. 

Eric


----------



## Justin Case

I guess I don't see why cool down rate is constant only if the battery pack and head are thermally isolated from each other.

If heat factor also may account for potential heat-related damage to the KT4 reflector (for example), in addition to 17670 cell heating, that still seems like you'd be dealing with a constant heat input to the flashlight system to reach that critical temperature to avoid heat-related damage/problems.

But it seems from your comments that a max continuous run time of 7.5min for an 1164 delivers more energy to the flashlight system than a max continuous run time of 3 min for a 5761.

Why would you allow more heat (and thus presumably a higher internal temp) to the flashlight system for one bulb vs another when determining max continuous run time? I don't understand that aspect.


----------



## mdocod

Justin Case said:


> Why would you allow more heat (and thus presumably a higher internal temp) to the flashlight system for one bulb vs another when determining max continuous run time? I don't understand that aspect.



Hi Justin,

The lower resistance load of the 5761 results in a higher percentage of expended energy being converted to heat within the cells than the 1164. That's what the specification "heat factor" figures out (as previously explained). So I suggest that a longer continuous run on the 1164 is reasonable. 

We can't go around in circles on this forever. There are more pressing things, (like building PhD-M6 battery packs) to worry about :nana:

Eric

[edit in]
PS: Both the 5761 and 1164 are going to be very hard on cells and should not be used at all if you are concerned about cell health.


----------



## Justin Case

mdocod said:


> Hi Justin,
> 
> The lower resistance load of the 5761 results in a higher percentage of expended energy being converted to heat within the cells than the 1164. That's what the specification "heat factor" figures out (as previously explained). So I suggest that a longer continuous run on the 1164 is reasonable.


 
I understand all of that. That's not the point. It is not relevant that one bulb delivers more heat per unit time than another. That relates to how long the "max continuous run time" might be. The faster the heat delivery, the faster the light reaches some undesirable high temp, at which time one should shut down the light, and thus the shorter the max continuous run time.

What I don't understand is why you would have a variable duration "rest period" that depends on the bulb.

I would have thought that you would want to shut down the light when the internal temp reaches some undesirable level. To reach that critical internal temp, the light bulb delivers some fixed amount of heat to the system. Depending on the rate of heat delivery, you get shorter or longer run time before hitting the critical temp. To then cool down to some acceptable level to allow running the light again also requires dissipating some other fixed amount of heat. Since the cooling rate is a constant, the "rest period" also should be a constant, not variable.


----------



## mdocod

Hi Justin,

The recommendations are not not based on hitting a particular temperature in every application, and they are not supposed to be. I would not want it this way for many reasons. 

The recommendations are from the bigger picture of trying to preserve cell health when I know that some people are going to run configurations that are hard on cells. I've been using li-ion cells for years, done some of my own little abuse tests and have a pretty good feel for how to kill a li-ion cell in short order. Temperature is not the only factor.

If it were up to a lawyer, the chart would never have been made, we would just give a short list of lower power bulbs that are theoretically compatible with the PhD-M6 and back that up with a nice long disclaimer that ends with something like "for everything else, you're on your own, best of luck." 

I decided to do what I believe the CPF community would prefer, which is to provide some recommendations to improve the safety during the operation of the flashlight when used with bulb options that push the envelope. I can't guarantee that following these recommendations will prevent a disaster, but I can sleep at night a little easier knowing that they should reduce the likelihood compared to making no recommendations. 

I respect your right to disagree with any part of, or the entire premise of the recommendations. I stand by them as being well thought out and backed up by experience.

Eric


----------



## Justin Case

So other factors in estimating the max continuous run time could include how long you subject the cells to some level of high current draw and the resultant depth of discharge. Because of this, the heat input during the max continuous run time is not a constant because you are not using only some critical temp level in deteriming max continuous run time. And thus, one bulb could deliver more heat to the flashlight system during its max continous run time than another bulb during its different max continuous run time.

Does that capture the gist of it?

I guess I still don't see why the rest period duration is variable, and shorter for a more demanding bulb than a less demanding one.

My questions have zero to do with agreeing/disagreeing with your recommendations. One has to understand the basis for the recommendations first, before making an assessment of their utility. I'm at the understanding stage.

What is your normalizing value (i.e., the denominator) that you use for your heat factor?


----------



## wquiles

The 4 domestic packs that I ship yesterday via USPS Priority mail should only take a few days to arrive within the USA (the two international ones of course will take longer). Once those packs arrive, please do post your impressions


----------



## mdocod

Justin Case said:


> So other factors in estimating the max continuous run time could include how long you subject the cells to some level of high current draw and the resultant depth of discharge. Because of this, the heat input during the max continuous run time is not a constant because you are not using only some critical temp level in deteriming max continuous run time. And thus, one bulb could deliver more heat to the flashlight system during its max continous run time than another bulb during its different max continuous run time.
> 
> Does that capture the gist of it?



Hi Justin,

Most LiCo cells are rated for a maximum 2C continuous discharge, and a maximum 140F operating temp. Would you agree that if one were going to exceed one of these specified maximums, that it would be beneficial to come in below the other maximum to theoretically offset the effective wear and tear?

If I run the IMR-M3T for the 15 minute maximum recommended run, the flashlight and the cells will be hotter than if I run the MN21 for 5 minutes. I don't want the cell temps to reach the level they reach when driving the IMR-M3T while driving the MN21 if I can help it because the MN21 is already very hard on the cells, I don't want to compound that with a lot of heat. The recomended rest after running the IMR-M3T for 15 minutes is about 20 minutes, and since a lot more heat will have built up in the light over that 15 minute run, 20 minutes to cool off again is a darn good estimation. Is it exact? No. The MN21 for 5 minutes will not have heated up nearly as much, so won't take as long to cool off. I'm estimating 11 minutes or so. Exact? well...... I used enough qualifier words in the chart. 



> I guess I still don't see why the rest period duration is variable, and shorter for a more demanding bulb than a less demanding one.



How about now?



> What is your normalizing value (i.e., the denominator) that you use for your heat factor?



Sorry. I'm not going to share any of the constants I used. As I said before, the denominator is derived based on the resistance of the cells. With that in mind, and realizing that the resistance of the cells is also used in every calculation of the circuit for every different bulb, that it doesn't actually matter that much what the denominator is, the chart would look basically the same even if a different denominator was used. 

Eric


----------



## LuxLuthor

Justin Case said:


> I did the same with a 2D Mag11 mod using a JimmyM regulator set to 7.4V and fast soft start and loaded with 3xIMR26500. Repeatedly pressed the on-off button at various repetition rates and for various durations. No issues.



BTW, You're welcome. I did that 7.5V 1111 just for you. :sigh:


----------



## Justin Case

mdocod said:


> Sorry. I'm not going to share any of the constants I used. As I said before, the denominator is derived based on the resistance of the cells. With that in mind, and realizing that the resistance of the cells is also used in every calculation of the circuit for every different bulb, that it doesn't actually matter that much what the denominator is, the chart would look basically the same even if a different denominator was used.


 
Oh come on. You gave us an example calculation for the 1111 bulb, which can be reproduced for any of the other bulbs. We also know from your PDF table that the IMR-M6 bulb has a heat factor of 1.0. Thus, if we calculate the waste heat generated by the IMR-M6, we get your normalizing factor.

I guess I'll just have to do the calculation myself and then post it.

Or even easier. Just take the 1111 calculation and divide by the 1111 heat factor.


----------



## Justin Case

LuxLuthor said:


> BTW, You're welcome. I did that 7.5V 1111 just for you. :sigh:


 
BTW, you're welcome. I did the Excel chart just for you. :sigh:


----------



## Justin Case

Any suggestions for approx voltage ranges for the MN10 and MN11 in a Z46? I can't recall for sure which LA I'm using, but I believe I'm driving an MN11 with 2xIMR16340 in an E2e host with a C2M adapter for the Z46. Is it really true that the MN10/MN15 and MN11/MN16 pairs use the same bulbs, just mounted on different towers?


----------



## wquiles

I personally don't know for sure, but per this post, it sure looks like the MN10 = MN15 and the MN11=MN16, at least based on voltage, current draw, and power.

Popular bulbs current draw; SF & other brands, incl hotwires

Surefire Millenium Series 9V
MN10 M3 LOLA - 1.18-1.3A 9.5W (2x18500 67min/3x123A 1hr/2x17500 52min)
MN11 M3 HOLA - 2.50A 20W (2x18500 28min/3x123A 20min)
N2 (KT2 Turbo) - 1.21A 10W (2x186500 104min/2x17500 52min)
MN15 M3T LOLA- 1.10A 10W (2x18650 104min/2x18500 67min/2x17500 52min/3x123 1hr/M6 X-LOLA 2.5hrs)
MN16 M3T HOLA-2.54-2.65A 20.5W (2x186500 43min/2x18500 28min/3x123A 20min)
Surefire old style 12PM/ZM LeopardLight 3"T-62/TRTH or 2.5"SRTH Turbo "12V" light, 7.65V bulb
N 62 HOLA 7.65V - 3.70A (4xCR123A's 12min/3.35A on two 18650 Li-Ions/2xIMR16340)


----------



## Justin Case

I guess I'll just have to try it out.

BTW, when you hooked up your bench supply to the PhD-M6 for testing, where did you connect your power leads?


----------



## wquiles

Justin Case said:


> I guess I'll just have to try it out.
> 
> BTW, when you hooked up your bench supply to the PhD-M6 for testing, where did you connect your power leads?



I don't use a bench power supply to test the PhD-M6 - I only use the LiIon cells.


----------



## Justin Case

Oh, I thought in your videos you powered the PhD-M6 with a bench supply.

Is power from a linear bench supply a bad idea?


----------



## wquiles

Justin Case said:


> Oh, I thought in your videos you powered the PhD-M6 with a bench supply.
> 
> Is power from a linear bench supply a bad idea?



During development I used a power supply, but the power supply does not behave like real cells do, so I use real cells for everything now.

Yes, using a bench supply is a really bad idea. The board was not designed for external access to signals/power. There is no easy nor safe way to do it. If you try it, it is highly likely to short something and kill the board - then the PhD-M6 becomes an expensive paper weight.

Have you used your pack yet? If so, what bulbs have you tried?


----------



## oldways

Received my pack today.

First...build quality is outstanding. It matches the M6 quality, and that is saying something.

Fit in the M6 tube is perfect. No rattle not too snug.

Since my back yard is a 300 acre field I have a good place to shine lights
My MN61 did not come today so I decided to run the MN20.

Fully charged at 4.19v off the PIla I ran it about 25 minutes(all the darn insects I could take). My setting is 7.4 and this gave a beautiful white beam NEVER DIMMING:twothumbs. No heat issues at all.

Looks like the PhD-M6 is going to be superb. Tomorrow night the MN61 I hope. If not I will run the MN21.


----------



## Justin Case

wquiles said:


> During development I used a power supply, but the power supply does not behave like real cells do, so I use real cells for everything now.
> 
> Yes, using a bench supply is a really bad idea. The board was not designed for external access to signals/power. There is no easy nor safe way to do it. If you try it, it is highly likely to short something and kill the board - then the PhD-M6 becomes an expensive paper weight.
> 
> Have you used your pack yet? If so, what bulbs have you tried?



I wasn't planning on powering the regulator at the board level. I had thought of hooking into the holder's battery contacts. But it doesn't seem to be worth the risk of "bricking" the PhD-M6.

I've used my FM MN bi pin adapter with a WA01274 at Level 3. Seems fine so far, but the testing so far has been very brief.

I noticed that if you put a non AC+DC RMS DMM onto the PhD-M6 holder's contacts, you get a voltage that seems to be lower than the expected OCV of the pack. Same with the tail current draw reading -- a lower reading than what you'd expect from Lux's tables.


----------



## wquiles

Justin Case said:


> I noticed that if you put a non AC+DC RMS DMM onto the PhD-M6 holder's contacts, you get a voltage that seems to be lower than the expected OCV of the pack. Same with the tail current draw reading -- a lower reading than what you'd expect from Lux's tables.



A non AC+DC RMS meter can't give you the correct values for the Vrms and the Irms. Most true RMS meters I have tried tend to give you a lower value, which matches what you are seeing.

Will


----------



## wquiles

oldways said:


> Received my pack today.
> 
> First...build quality is outstanding. It matches the M6 quality, and that is saying something.
> 
> Fit in the M6 tube is perfect. No rattle not too snug.
> 
> Since my back yard is a 300 acre field I have a good place to shine lights
> My MN61 did not come today so I decided to run the MN20.
> 
> Fully charged at 4.19v off the PIla I ran it about 25 minutes(all the darn insects I could take). My setting is 7.4 and this gave a beautiful white beam NEVER DIMMING:twothumbs. No heat issues at all.
> 
> Looks like the PhD-M6 is going to be superb. Tomorrow night the MN61 I hope. If not I will run the MN21.



Thanks for the early feedback. Keep me posted once you get the MN61


----------



## mdocod

I'll try to make a Z46 chart sometime.

Quick reference for default setting would be as follows:

MN10: 7.5V
MN11: 6.8V
HO-M3: 7.5V
EO-M3: 7.5V
IMR-M3: 7.5V

Eric


----------



## Justin Case

Post deleted.


----------



## RichS

I got my PhD-M6 yesterday. I was expecting something very nice, but I was blown away! I have seen a lot of amazing mods by many talented people here on the forum, but this creation is one of the most innovative things I have seen come to fruition. The fit & finish is top notch, and it fits like it was built stock with the M6. 

Even the battery carrier itself is just amazing, and far surpasses the stock holder, or any after market holder I've used. The way the batteries gently "snap" into their places holding them securely even before the nut is tightened down just shows the amount of thought and attention to detail that was put into this entire creation.

So I sat down to put this thing to the test. It's still hard to imagine being able to just pop in so many completely different bulbs in my M6 without changing out the battery configs. When I got my bulbs out, much to my dismay I realized I had sold my FM MN bi-pin holder. So no 1111... major bummer there. So I tried out the M6 bulbs I had on hand.

The MN20 was the first one I tried out, running at 7.4v. It was nice and white, just a beautiful color. This would make a nice longer run bulb. Then I tried the MN21 at 6.8v. Amazing!!! The lumens this thing puts out is just phenominal. The beauty of it is, it would run at this color and output until moon mode... This is huge, because on primaries the nice white output of the MN21 lasts like 2-3 minutes, and then drops like a rock. Not to mention the $$$ saved with using this battery pack not having to plop in primaries every 20 minutes...

I was actually most anxious to try out my favorite M6 bulb - the HO-M6R. I read that it loses some voltage with this pack compared to the direct-drive FM pack I was using. Well, Lux was right as usual - a bright, beautiful white beam on 10.8v! I could not perceive any difference between the output and color it gave with this pack vs. my FM battery carrier. It will be interesting to see what the true difference is in some beamshot comparisons. I'd like to get quite a few shots with the different bulbs that I can run at my 4 preset levels. I'd like to see how the 1111 looks at 6.8v vs. 7.4v, etc... Hopefully I'll be able to put some up over the next couple of weeks.

Now to get some more bulbs!! I can't wait to get this out on some longer runs and just enjoy the incan regulated goodness. It's so nice to know that moon mode will kick in when the batteries are getting low, which is just one less thing I have to worry about. It's also nice to know I won't be left in the dark when they do start to get low.

I don't usually dote all over a new purchase, but this thing is just the coolest creation I seen or used in this hobby. I guess what I like so much about it, is that it makes what is already an awesome light - the M6 - so very practical. I just love the form factor of an M6, and I love incan light, but now it is regulated, and this one battery pack can run virtually any bulb I need/want based on the task. Just too cool. Will and Eric most definitely hit a home run with this creation! :twothumbs:twothumbs:bow::bow::bow::bow:

I only have one question - how do I get one of those new cool looking black star nuts for my PhD?? 

Here's a few pics of my favorite new toy:






















-Rich


----------



## wquiles

Thanks for your kind words 




RichS said:


> I only have one question - how do I get one of those new cool looking black star nuts for my PhD??


No extras yet as I buy the complete custom carriers from Eric, but if there is enough interest I will check with Eric to see how/what is possible once I get fully caught-up with the pending sales.


----------



## LuxLuthor

Rich, fabulous and spot on review....you captured the heart of this baby and the work done by its proud parents!


----------



## oldways

Ran the MN61 last night. How nice to pop out the MN20 pop in the MN61 set the switch to 9.2v and have over 40 minutes of regulated white bright beam

Im guessing 450 lms, very nice beam with no heat issues. I think the MN61 will stay in my M6 unless there is a bulb life issue which I do not expect.

Great job on the PhD-M6 Will:bow::rock::twothumbs


----------



## whitedoom34

Quick Question:
Is there any harm (to the pack) when running a bulb at a voltage level LOWER than reccomended for additional runtime?


----------



## mdocod

Hi whitedoom34,

No harm in doing that. 

I wouldn't expect to see any significant gains in runtime by doing this though. (Depends on how dramatic the under-drive is I suppose). 

Eric


----------



## Tim W

*Stupid question time*

I second all the compliments that have been given so far. :twothumbs:twothumbs:twothumbs

Have only had a few minutes to play with it so far. :thumbsdow Work gets in the way of a guy's hobbies at times.

I do have one question, though: How _tight_ is the thumb nut supposed to be to make contact? I even shaved off the black plastic on the Neg. ends of my cells and have to *really* reef it down to get it to function.

Can't wait for dark!!!!!!!!:naughty::naughty::naughty::naughty:


----------



## wquiles

*Re: Stupid question time*



Tim W said:


> I second all the compliments that have been given so far. :twothumbs:twothumbs:twothumbs
> 
> Have only had a few minutes to play with it so far. :thumbsdow Work gets in the way of a guy's hobbies at times.
> 
> I do have one question, though: How _tight_ is the thumb nut supposed to be to make contact? I even shaved off the black plastic on the Neg. ends of my cells and have to *really* reef it down to get it to function.
> 
> Can't wait for dark!!!!!!!!:naughty::naughty::naughty::naughty:



Awesome, glad it arrived safely 

If you close the pack too lightly, you will not get the optimal contact between all cells and the pack's electrical contact points, and you would therefore have a higher resistive path for the current, or even intermittent behavior.

I am sure that Eric will chime in sometime today, but the best description would be "very snug". As you start applying pressure, the nut basically gets to a point where is stops moving easily - to go past this point requires a lot of additional force, and it does feel like you are "compressing" the cells after this point. That is when you stop - you don't want to feel like you are compressing the cells.

These two short videos shows that I do get the nut "snug", but that I am not trying to crush the cells either:


PhD-M6 Video 14: Side loading of protected 17670 cells


PhD-M6 Video 15: Removing the protected 17670 cells



Will


----------



## LuxLuthor

I think the best "snugness" guideline is to the point where you cannot rotate the cells with your thumb. Don't over do it. You don't want to leave an indentation on the end plates for example.


----------



## Tim W

LuxLuthor said:


> I think the best "snugness" guideline is to the point where you cannot rotate the cells with your thumb. Don't over do it. You don't want to leave an indentation on the end plates for example.



OK, that is about what it did take. Just didn't want to over do it by accident.

Thanks
Tim


----------



## wquiles

Tim W said:


> OK, that is about what it did take. Just didn't want to over do it by accident.
> 
> Thanks
> Tim



Don't worry too much - the custom battery carrier that Eric designed is very robust and strong. Eric and I have used the prototype packs now for about 4 months and they are still as strong as when they were new, so don't worry if you apply a little bit more force to get the cells nice and tight 

Once you get a chance to use tonight, please do let us know how it worked out.

Will


----------



## Tim W

wquiles said:


> Once you get a chance to use tonight, please do let us know how it worked out.
> 
> Will




Will do. Did run for about 10 minutes total with mn21 in the living room and have seen no dimming so far.


----------



## wquiles

Tim W said:


> Will do. Did run for about 10 minutes total with mn21 in the living room and have seen no dimming so far.



Excellent - this also means that the pack was nice and "tight"


----------



## Dioni

I can't wait to have one :mecry:


----------



## LuxLuthor

Got my 2nd PhD-M6. LOL! First thing I realized is that I only have one M-6. Have a "slew" of FM Megalenniums & bipin adapters that now I wish I could bore one out for this regulator. :thinking:


----------



## mdocod

In regard to "how tight?" questions:

Snug it up till the cells are all feeling like they are held in place pretty decent, keep in mind that there can be variations in cell lengths that can cause some issues. The pack has actually been designed to a balance of rigidity and flexibility to meet the needs of mild variations in cell length. 

Eric


----------



## Tim W

Definitely a keeper! 
My batteries are several years old and must be getting a little tired as I had several instances of the pack needing to be reset. 
First time I've really used the MN21, and I was quite impressed. I had been running an 1185, and think that with the regulation I get much more consistent light than DDing the 1185.
I could easily light up the corner of my street that is about 400 feet away.


EDIT: Forgot to mention that moon mode is great. Still plenty of light and very useful. Did not let it run til batteries died, but still got at least another 5 minutes of light.


----------



## wquiles

Tim W said:


> Definitely a keeper!
> My batteries are several years old and must be getting a little tired as I had several instances of the pack needing to be reset.
> First time I've really used the MN21, and I was quite impressed. I had been running an 1185, and think that with the regulation I get much more consistent light than DDing the 1185.
> I could easily light up the corner of my street that is about 400 feet away.



Thanks Tim. Sounds like you now have an excuse to buy some new 17670 cells :devil:


----------



## Justin Case

Post deleted.


----------



## wquiles

Very nice job Justin :thumbsup:

And WOW on that PAR36 head - very impressive!


----------



## wquiles

wquiles said:


> Stephen,
> 
> My current PhD driver was designed to fit/work only the custom battery carrier that Eric designed for the PhD-M6 pack. The board and the carrier were designed for each other, so I am pretty sure that a new application like FM's 3x18650 would require a complete re-design of the PWB, so definitely not something I can consider at this point in time.
> 
> Will





Troop#26 said:


> Hi Will,
> 
> I understand that your board was only designed to work with the battery pack, I also understand it IS AWESOME. I'll have to look at my pack further when it arrives, but I don't see why it couldn't work in one capacity or another (though it has been clear up to this point that my knowledge is vastly inferior to yours). Again I was looking to have something "custom made", thus buying the finished board from you and having other things machined and built around around it to accommodate my needs.



This is where the challenge comes:

- Think of the string of 3 cells in series. Lets call the (+) end of the cells the (+)Bat side, and (-)Bat for the other side.

- Then think about the pack. The pack also has a (+) and (-) side, (+)P and (-)P.

For the PhD drivers, the (+)Bat and the (+)P are exactly/electrically the same, but the (-)P and the (-)Bat are "not" the same - they are electrically isolated. The PhD driver (by turning on/off the MOSFET) switches the (-)Bat to the (-)P at about 250Hz, therefore creating the PWM signal for the bulb. By varying the duty cycle of the PWM signal, the driver can set the target RMS Voltage.

I am generalizing, but normal/standard direct drive battery packs have typically two key problems that need to be overcome in order for it to support a PhD type driver:
- There is no way to separate the (-)Bat from the (-)P -> they are always tied together. For the PhD driver to work, the (-)Bat "must" be electrically isolated from the (-)P.

- Most packs don't bring both the (+)Bat and (-)Bat to one side of the battery carrier -> for the PhD driver to monitor the series voltage, the PhD must have direct access to both sides of the cells in the pack.

So, it is certainly "possible" to modify/alter a regular 3x series pack to work with a PhD driver, but it is not quite trivial.

Will


----------



## Troop#26

wquiles said:


> This is where the challenge comes:
> 
> - Most packs don't bring both the (+)Bat and (-)Bat to one side of the battery carrier -> for the PhD driver to monitor the series voltage, the PhD must have direct access to both sides of the cells in the pack.
> 
> So, it is certainly "possible" to modify/alter a regular 3x series pack to work with a PhD driver, but it is not quite trivial.
> 
> Will



Will I have a very easy and amazing (ok... a little self indulgent perhaps, simple not that amazing) drop in solution to isolate PACK positive and BAT positive so that this driver (or any driver) can be used. I have tried to type it out in words several times but I cannot quite describe what I have in my head. As such the crayons are coming out and Im going to draw you a pic-a-ture. The only hard part is going to be either have a custom tail cap, or figuring out how to shave out distance out of the existing caps. Ill send it to you all private like soon!

Regards,

Stephen


----------



## LuxLuthor

This PhD-M6 just makes me happy. 

I love things that are so thoughtfully designed, bug tested, well explained, but started as a complex challenge. Very few will ever know how much knowledge and experience had to be acquired, tweaking of so many design variables, research, selecting ideal features, running trial and error speculations, extensive testing, etc.--but then somehow all of that is distilled down to such an elegantly simple product with all the work and complexity made invisible--leaving the user with an adjustable, flexible, nearly foolproof high quality product without a rival. That is not easy to accomplish.

Like I said, recognizing all that this represents and accomplishes--just makes me happy.


----------



## oldways

LuxLuthor said:


> This PhD-M6 just makes me happy.
> 
> I love things that are so thoughtfully designed, bug tested, well explained, but started as a complex challenge. Very few will ever know how much knowledge and experience had to be acquired, tweaking of so many design variables, research, selecting ideal features, running trial and error speculations, extensive testing, etc.--but then somehow all of that is distilled down to such an elegantly simple product with all the work and complexity made invisible--leaving the user with an adjustable, flexible, nearly foolproof high quality product without a rival. That is not easy to accomplish.
> 
> Like I said, recognizing all that this represents and accomplishes--just makes me happy.




It is making me happy too. 

Guys lets hear your feedback on those packs out there.


----------



## wquiles

Thank you *LuxLuthor* and *oldways* for your kind words 





Troop#26 said:


> Will I have a very easy and amazing (ok... a little self indulgent perhaps, simple not that amazing) drop in solution to isolate PACK positive and BAT positive so that this driver (or any driver) can be used. I have tried to type it out in words several times but I cannot quite describe what I have in my head. As such the crayons are coming out and Im going to draw you a pic-a-ture. The only hard part is going to be either have a custom tail cap, or figuring out how to shave out distance out of the existing caps. Ill send it to you all private like soon!
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Stephen



Just so that you can keep working on your idea: It is the PACK "NEG" and the BAT "NEG" that need to be isolated, and on the same side you also need to have access to both BAT "POS" and BAT "NEG"


----------



## BSBG

I have had my pack for a few days and wanted to share my thoughts. I wanted to wait a bit as my most recent project prior to this was a 3D Mag with 4 IMR 26500s using an AlanB regulator to drive an FM 1909. After that, even an MN21 is somewhat underwhelming.

Build quality and execution is first rate. I think we all know that from the numerous progress reports throughout the development. I dropped in 3 cells at 4.0v each from my 1331 direct drive M6 that was close at hand. Consulting the enclosed instructions I adjusted the dip switches with a tiny screwdriver and installed the pack. Pressing the button produced a slight ‘boing’ sound and a nice crisp white beam from the 1331 at 10.8v.

I immediately grabbed an MN21, HO M3T, MN16 and an MN61 from my box o’ bulbs and tried them all (at the appropriate voltages). The MN21 would not turn on, but the HO M3T would at 6.8v. I swapped in some other cells (slightly lower voltage, 3.9v each) and it fired right up, go figure.

The MN21 is great at 6.8v. It is in the running to be my “go to” setup with this pack. The HO M3T and MN16 were nice, with the HO M3T looking like a good long-running option. An MN20, which I have not tried, would work well for this too. The MN61 was the last one I tried, and the one still in the light. While not quite as bright as the MN21 (but brighter than the MN16 or HO M3T), the longer run time and less abusive drain on the cells make this a strong contender for the best setup for me. I do have a Leef 3x18650 body and tried the MN61 direct drive in it– it may be brighter than the MN21, but bulb life is probably tragically short.
What about the 1331? I have kept an M6 set up with one with 3x17670 direct drive by my back door for a while. It is bright and has a great beam, but I may not continue with it in the regulated setup for the reasons outlined earlier in the discussion– very short regulated run time, even at the 2A draw.

This pack is a winner for the rechargeability, regulation, soft start, multiple bulb options and overall utility. Great job Will (and Eric)!

:twothumbs


----------



## jtivat

Well after playing with mine last night I just have a few thoughts.

*MN21**=*:twothumbs

Why would there be any need to run any other lamp??


----------



## LuxLuthor

jtivat said:


> Well after playing with mine last night I just have a few thoughts.
> 
> *MN21**=*:twothumbs
> 
> Why would there be any need to run any other lamp??



Two reasons come to mind $$$ & bulb life (I'm not sure what the rated spec life is or how much a soft starter extends it).


----------



## wquiles

BSBG said:


> This pack is a winner for the rechargeability, regulation, soft start, multiple bulb options and overall utility. Great job Will (and Eric)!



Yes, the MN21 is very hard on the cells, and as you found out, some cells have a more "sensitive" protection circuit than others, so that part is normal. The cells' protection circuitry basically sees the cold filament of the MN21 as a short circuit, so I am in fact playing a trick on the poor cells with my hybrid soft-start to get them to work with the MN21 :devil:

Thanks much for the great feedback 





jtivat said:


> Well after playing with mine last night I just have a few thoughts.
> 
> *MN21**=*:twothumbs
> 
> Why would there be any need to run any other lamp??



I understand 100%. No wonder most movies/shows in TV use the M6/MN21 combo - it is an awesome sight, specially coming from such a (relatively) small package. Everyone I show the M6 with the regulated MN21 has the same response - they can't stop the big smile :naughty:





LuxLuthor said:


> Two reasons come to mind $$$ & bulb life (I'm not sure what the rated spec life is or how much a soft starter extends it).


Yes, there is always a trade-off. The best "compromise" so far seems to be the MN61 (@9.2V), which is what I keep on my own M6


----------



## jtivat

LuxLuthor said:


> Two reasons come to mind $$$ & bulb life (I'm not sure what the rated spec life is or how much a soft starter extends it).



Ok after looking at that link do the new MN21's really look like that? Mine has a much larger glass tube around it. Is there any difference in the two?

Thanks


----------



## wquiles

jtivat said:


> Ok after looking at that link do the new MN21's really look like that? Mine has a much larger glass tube around it. Is there any difference in the two?
> 
> Thanks



You are right. That bulb is most definitely NOT the MN21 bulb. Whomever updated their website simply got the wrong image


----------



## whitedoom34

Ive had the pack for a couple days now, and I can say that I am very impressed. I originally ran a HO-M6R in my M6 with a run of the mill non-regulated pack. I tried this bulb first with my PhD pack, and I found that the PhD-M6 could not regulate this bulb for very long (as expected), but I did appreciate the soft start (easier on the batteries, longer, more reliable bulb life) and the moon mode at the end. 

The soft start is very "nifty". I love how I can see it ramp up (in a good way). I also like the moon mode. I have only run the light for a couple of minutes in moon mode, although I do wonder how long it will sustain for (more testing needed!).

I have chosen to use the MN20 bulb for the best all-round performance, and through several sets of batteries, the regulation has been perfect. As my primary large work light, this PhD pack has made my M6 incandescent perfection 

Thanks so much to everyone who made this project possible, and especially thanks to wquiles and mdocod.


----------



## wquiles

Thanks for the feedback, and you are welcome


----------



## jdriller

I have been using the MN61 at 9.3v. I too, am very happy! This is the ultimate pack for the M6. Nice to be able to use so many different bulbs. Hey, Will. Can you use a McClicky switch with the Phd? I have the adapter that replaces the stock switch with the click. 
Thanks. This is great!


----------



## wquiles

jdriller said:


> I have been using the MN61 at 9.3v. I too, am very happy! This is the ultimate pack for the M6. Nice to be able to use so many different bulbs. Thanks. This is great!


You are welcome 




jdriller said:


> Hey, Will. Can you use a McClicky switch with the Phd? I have the adapter that replaces the stock switch with the click.


You know, I have not tried as I don't own a clicky switch for the M6. However, the PhD-M6 pack does not know/care how the electrical path is closed (normally using the push button or closing the tailcap fully). So, since the Clicky switch just closes the electrical path between the pack's NEG and the tailcap/body of the light, it "should" work.

If you do try it, please let us know how it worked out


----------



## jtivat

What voltage should AW cell cut out at? I just did a run with an MN20 and after the pack shut down the cell voltage was 3.67, 3.5 and 3.1 that seems low??


----------



## wquiles

jtivat said:


> What voltage should AW cell cut out at? I just did a run with an MN20 and after the pack shut down the cell voltage was 3.67, 3.5 and 3.1 that seems low??



It varies somewhat as I have never seen the cells' protective circuit cut out at exactly the same place, but once cells get to around 3.5-3.6V and below, the cells are pretty much done. When I did my own MN20 discharge tests, I got my cells to be pretty much in the same range as yours. Here is another run on the MN20 and another run with the MN21 with similar results.

From those voltages that you listed, I would say that the 3.1v cell gave up first, but the one at 3.5 was awfully close to being done with as well. You will likely also note that if you take voltage measurements right away and then after the cells completely cool down/rest, that the resting voltage will be slightly higher. Either way, the cells do need re-charging when they get this low.

Will


----------



## mdocod

Thanks everyone for the great feedback! It's a great feeling to have worked on this project and see some happy faces as a result!

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



JT said:


> What voltage should AW cell cut out at? I just did a run with an MN20 and after the pack shut down the cell voltage was 3.67, 3.5 and 3.1 that seems low??



Hi JT,

If you run the pack till shut-down, (all the way through moon mode), the final shut down will be triggered by one of the cells tripping it's low voltage protection. Under a load, that occurs at ~2.5V for a cell. When the load is removed, the cell will generally recover to between 3.0 and 3.5V open circuit. 

Don't worry too much about the variation from cell to cell when they come out of the unit. it's normal to see wider swings in open circuit voltage on depleted cells because the difference between 2.5V and 3.5V is really only a few percent capacity. 

In my beta/alpha/pre-production testing, if the cells were removed just after moon mode kicked in, I would get open circuit voltage measurements _around_ ~3.65V on each cell. Different bulbs and conditions created different results. 

Good rule of thumb: If you don't want 100% depleted cells, shut down when it trips over to moon mode as soon as possible. 

Eric


----------



## jtivat

Thanks guys I was worried that the 3.1 was low. The cell did come up to 3.35 after a few minutes and then was back too 4.25 after charging overnight.


----------



## Starlight

I received my PhD-M6 today. I have to echo everyone's comments, the pack is first rate. I have just started playing around (testing) the pack and I have a question that I don't think has been asked. Can I recharge the batteries in the pack? That is, can I connect the pack to a charger and set it for 3 series Li-On. I'm not worried about balancing because I use a Schulze charger.


----------



## wquiles

Starlight said:


> I received my PhD-M6 today. I have to echo everyone's comments, the pack is first rate.


Thanks 



Starlight said:


> I have just started playing around (testing) the pack and I have a question that I don't think has been asked. Can I recharge the batteries in the pack? That is, can I connect the pack to a charger and set it for 3 series Li-On.


Remember from my recent dialog with Stephen that there is no electrical connection between the packs' NEG side and the cells' NEG side. As such, please do not connect the pack to any charger. 

The cells must "always" be removed from the battery carrier for the cells to be charged.


----------



## jtivat

Stop the presses I found a major problem with the pack!!!

It makes me want to play with different lamp options so much that I dropped an MN20 while changing lamps!!!


----------



## wquiles

jtivat said:


> It makes me want to play with different lamp options so much that I dropped an MN20 while changing lamps!!!



Ahh man, sorry to hear that :mecry:

If it makes you feel any better: While testing various settings with the MN21, I put the pack in my programming fixture, made the changes, and when to test the MN21 again. Problem was that I "forgot" to change the switches back to 6.8V. The were set to 10.8V - no amount of soft-start could help my poor bulb  :mecry:


----------



## LuxLuthor

mdocod said:


> Thanks everyone for the great feedback! It's a great feeling to have worked on this project and see some happy faces as a result!



I don't want to "Jinx" you, but as far as I can tell the feedback thus far is 100% positive.


----------



## wquiles

Except for 1-2 packs, I am done with the sale of the packs at the introductory pricing, and as such, I will be closing that sales thread, and opening a new sales thread for the PhD-M6 at the regular price in the next day or so.

The new sales thread for the PhD-M6 will have three notable differences:
1) Pricing now includes all Paypal fees.
Yes, I messed up in the original sales thread. Being my first for this type of sales thread I though there would be a way to make payments via Paypal without fees, but it proved not only impossible, but incredibly confusing for all of us, so my apologies for that. I will be paying all Paypal fees.

2) Pricing now includes custom values.
There will no longer be any need to pay any additional for custom values. My initial expectation was that few would order custom values, and I was just plain wrong - most ordered custom values. The net of it was that the "default" set was the least selected set of values, so I had to re-program most all of the packs anyway. Since that seems the preference (to order custom values) I will no longer charge anything extra for custom values. You can order the pack with any custom values without paying anything extra.

#1 and #2 mean that the net price of the pack, regardless of the custom options and Paypal fees will be a fixed/net $195 plus shipping. The only thing to add will be $5 for domestic shipping or $15 for international shipping (via USPS Priority Small Box Flat Rate). This should keep confusion to a minimum for my customers and for myself:

-> Domestic price (net) = $195 + $5
-> International price (net) = $195 + $15


3) The first sales thread used the A3 version of the custom battery carrier from Eric, which was mostly based on white Delrin. The new sales thread will be using the A5 version of the custom battery carrier, which incorporates two changes: a little bit more protection to the driver board, and the use of Black Delrin.

As you will see in the pictures below, Eric accomplished this by designing a thicker top cover (without altering the overall length of the pack) which now leaves less space exposed, and that has the top 1/3 of the switch inside the top cover, while using a more ergonomic opening for the switch. Not a night-and-day difference, but since feedback in this thread reflected some worry about the driver board being somewhat exposed, this new revision of the pack improves this a little bit. And yes, the pack will now be Black Delrin, which does a much better job hiding "dirty fingers" 

Here on the left is the revision A5, Black Edition PhD-M6 pack, and on the right is the original PhD-M6 pack:







New one on top - note the thicker top cover:






New Black Edition PhD-M6 pack followed by the original PhD-M6 pack:










New switch opening in the Black Edition PhD-M6 pack:






Original switch opening in the original PhD-M6 pack:






And a close up of both packs:






Both packs with AW's black label cells:






I will be doing a minor update to the PhD-M6 manual/guide to reflect the Red/Green dots in the new Black Edition PhD-M6 pack (versus the Red/Black in the original pack), but please note that there are no electrical/functional changes. Both the original PhD-M6 pack and the new Black Edition PhD-M6 pack will work and function "exactly" the same way.

Thanks again for all of the encouragement, feedback, and support that you guys game us to get this project going 

Will


----------



## LuxLuthor

You should call the Black version the Ninja Pack. LOL! Nice looking and matches the black AW cells.


----------



## wquiles

LuxLuthor said:


> Nice looking and matches the black AW cells.


You are right 

I added a picture of both packs with the AW black label cells :twothumbs


----------



## Steve in SoCal

The new black packs look awesome!!

Just finished my first set of batteries on an MN61 at 9.2v. :twothumbs Pulled the pack once it flipped to moon mode, all three cells were 3.68v-3.69v. I consider that perfect timing.


----------



## DM51

The Stealth pack! :twothumbs 

Now I'll bet you get someone who wants one in orange GITD delrin, lol.


----------



## RichS

Steve in SoCal said:


> The new black packs look awesome!!
> 
> Just finished my first set of batteries on an MN61 at 9.2v. :twothumbs Pulled the pack once it flipped to moon mode, all three cells were 3.68v-3.69v. I consider that perfect timing.


 
How many minutes of runtime did you get with the MN61 before moon mode kicked in?


----------



## KAO0313

Will the purchase to an earlier version of the user ... will sell the new version of the protection of driver board Black Delrin. Let users buy. To drive a more perfect plate protection? .. Will sell no driver board A5 Black Delrin for the user to change it? I love black. If there is to sell what would be the price?
Excuse me .... again ... If in the old sales line. Has commissioned friends to buy a PhD-M6 custom battery pack. But now it seems the price of your new lines $ 195. Than the old sales line plus buy Custom 195 $ + 20 $ cheaper ... so how to do?


----------



## wquiles

KAO0313 said:


> Will the purchase to an earlier version of the user ... will sell the new version of the protection of driver board Black Delrin. Let users buy. To drive a more perfect plate protection? .. Will sell no driver board A5 Black Delrin for the user to change it? I love black. If there is to sell what would be the price?
> Excuse me .... again ... If in the old sales line. Has commissioned friends to buy a PhD-M6 custom battery pack. But now it seems the price of your new lines $ 195. Than the old sales line plus buy Custom 195 $ + 20 $ cheaper ... so how to do?



Eric and I are making parts for complete packs only, so currently no individual parts are available for sale. And yes, the current final price for the Black Edition PhD-M6 pack is cheaper than first announced, since there are no Paypal fees and no customization fees. Price will be $195 plus shipping. I will open the new sales thread shortly.

Will


----------



## KAO0313

I know that the new sales line is 195 $ ... but I use a custom 195 $ + 20 $. A total of $ 215. In the old sales line to find a friend to help me buy has ....-.-" late I should buy. ... I think ... I can buy $ 195 PhD-M6 custom battery pack. can save $ 20 can get my favorite black ...... instead of $ 215 to buy PhD- M6 custom battery pack ......


----------



## wquiles

KAO0313 said:


> I know that the new sales line is 195 $ ... but I use a custom 195 $ + 20 $. A total of $ 215. In the old sales line to find a friend to help me buy has ....-.-" late I should buy. ... I think ... I can buy $ 195 PhD-M6 custom battery pack. can save $ 20 can get my favorite black ...... instead of $ 215 to buy PhD- M6 custom battery pack ......



I am not sure I follow what you are trying to tell me. Can you please send me email (in my signature)?


----------



## leukos

+1 on offering an all black version, looks really sharp! The larger opening for switches looks a little more user friendly too. Nice job simplifying the prices. Great improvements all around!


----------



## Troop#26

Its amazing to see that this product is already going through revisions and improvements (it was already so good). The BLACK is an amazing look!

There is but one problem Will... I only have one M6!

Simply beautiful!

Stephen


----------



## KAO0313

Mail has been sent to you ...


----------



## wquiles

Thank you guys


----------



## LuxLuthor

DM51 said:


> The Stealth pack! :twothumbs
> 
> Now I'll bet you get someone who wants one in orange GITD delrin, lol.



Wha-wha-whatttt? We can get orange glow in the dark Delrin? Oh perfect for Halloween. 

Will, what about a Clapper PhD-M6? You clap twice for on; twice more for off. That would be a hit at parties.

Someone should make a clear Delrin (or some other plastic) flashlight so you can see all the parts. Would have to run a ground strip up front.


----------



## Steve in SoCal

RichS said:


> How many minutes of runtime did you get with the MN61 before moon mode kicked in?



Unfortunately I wasn't keeping track, somewhere in the 20 to 40 minutes range.:shrug:


----------



## wquiles

By the way, the new sales thread for the Black Edition PhD-M6 pack is now open 

We will continue to use this thread for discussion/feedback/impressions/etc.

Thanks again for all of your support


----------



## Justin Case

For the bulbs listed in the Excel spreadsheet with a range for the recommended voltage (i.e., all of the bulbs except for 1331 and 1185), what voltage was used in calculating discharge rate and heat factor, which presumably lead to the estimates for run time and max continuous run time.


----------



## Troop#26

wquiles said:


> We will continue to use this thread for discussion/feedback/impressions/etc.
> Thanks again for all of your support



Hi Will (and everyone else too):

My PHD-M6 hasn't shown up yet, but Im thinking tomorrow! Anyway... I had always intended to do a very detailed review of the PHD-M6, something akin to what DM51 did with M6 and rechargeable options a while back here and then again continued here. DM51 also gave "mad respect" to adamlau and what he did in an urban setting with the M6 here.

Anyway... with your (and all those that helped you Eric et al) amazing product , I decided to shake that up a little. Now I certainly don't have the collection that DM51 has (jealous :nana and my case is not a nice Pellican case but a cardboard box. But I have a few lights and a few bulb options and Im rural enough that this should be a slice. So for everyone to see and judge I present the Even M Series with a guest appearance by Pila featuring Lumens Factory. Should be fun!

Might take me a couple of days, and I need to round up a digital range finder. I might even bug a few of the guys at work and get some other lights out as well!!! Time will tell!

Anyway... just wanted to let you know, I have plans for your pretty! :devil:

Stephen


----------



## wquiles

Troop#26 said:


> Hi Will (and everyone else too):
> 
> My PHD-M6 hasn't shown up yet, but Im thinking tomorrow!



Wow - it certainly has been a while. Looking at my receipt for shipping, your package left on Aug 13th, via USPS Priority Mail Small Flat Rate Box. Unfortunately with Priority International there is no tracking, so I have no way to know where the package might be. I have heard of several times where packages to Canada get delayed due to customs stuff, but I do hope that you will get your package soon. Please do keep me posted.

Will


----------



## Troop#26

wquiles said:


> Wow - it certainly has been a while. Looking at my receipt for shipping, your package left on Aug 13th, via USPS Priority Mail Small Flat Rate Box. Unfortunately with Priority International there is no tracking, so I have no way to know where the package might be. I have heard of several times where packages to Canada get delayed due to customs stuff, but I do hope that you will get your package soon. Please do keep me posted.
> 
> Will


Heh... got to remember this isn't just Canada this is Canada North. Away from the major centres takes a lot longer than it should!

Im not worried yet! When the order from Lumens Factory in Hong Kong that I ordered a few days after you sent the PHD-M6 out shows up then I will worry!

Stephen


----------



## oldways

Fellow PhDM6ers

I am loving the bright long runs I am getting on the MN61.

Will I love the way it snaps into moon mode and the moon is quite useful.

Mine moons at 3.5 to 3.58v.


----------



## wquiles

oldways said:


> Fellow PhDM6ers
> 
> I am loving the bright long runs I am getting on the MN61.
> 
> Will I love the way it snaps into moon mode and the moon is quite useful.
> 
> Mine moons at 3.5 to 3.58v.



Yes, the Moon mode is very useful 

I also like my MN61 setup. Here in TX, specially now in the Summer time (105F high temps - very hot!) the MN21 is just too darn hot to hold for more than a few minutes. The MN20 is much easier to hold on for long periods, but the MN61 just does about everything right: It is not too hard on the cells, gives great runtime, it is brighter than the MN20, while only being marginally hotter on the M6's body - this bulb and PhD-M6 pack simply hits a happy balance


----------



## Linger

Please creat solid offering of boards only. Considering a board option when the packs are gone may have us buyers waiting until all the parts are gone. Given that most of the bulbs can run great in a [email protected], that the four regulated levels make for great versatility, and with excellent run-time with 3s AW 2.3A IMR 25500, or 4A IMR 26650.
Please give me an option, short of requiring I buy an M6 pack for an M6 I don't have (have you seen Surefire prices in Canada?!?) and gutting it for the regulator. Please. The M6 is like $500 in Canada, where available, and most US retailers won't ship to Can addresses. But I've got a few sweet mag hotwires. 

Thank-you for your consideration,
Linger

**Yes there have been other regulated drivers but this is the only one presently available: Jimmy's is out likely for the rest of the year, orders to Alan many months off. Yours is the only option for multiple bulbs.


----------



## wquiles

Linger said:


> Please creat solid offering of boards only. Considering a board option when the packs are gone may have us buyers waiting until all the parts are gone. Given that most of the bulbs can run great in a [email protected], that the four regulated levels make for great versatility, and with excellent run-time with 3s AW 2.3A IMR 25500, or 4A IMR 26650.
> Please give me an option, short of requiring I buy an M6 pack for an M6 I don't have (have you seen Surefire prices in Canada?!?) and gutting it for the regulator. Please. The M6 is like $500 in Canada, where available, and most US retailers won't ship to Can addresses. But I've got a few sweet mag hotwires.
> 
> Thank-you for your consideration,
> Linger



Linger,

You already have options. You don't have to buy an M6 to have a PhD driver. Both Alan B and JimmyM offer PhD products, and their variants fit in the much less costly Mag platform. Alan's solution is more of a module with great adjust-ability and programming options. Jimmy's solution is the board by itself, and also offers lots of programming options. Jimmy is working in new variants including much more powerful versions, and if I recall correctly, a new Multi-level version.

Will


----------



## LuxLuthor

wquiles said:


> Linger,
> 
> You already have options. You don't have to buy an M6 to have a PhD driver. Both Alan B and JimmyM offer PhD products, and their variants fit in the much less costly Mag platform. Alan's solution is more of a module with great adjust-ability and programming options. Jimmy's solution is the board by itself, and also offers lots of programming options. Jimmy is working in new variants including much more powerful versions, and if I recall correctly, a new Multi-level version.
> 
> Will



Linger, as an owner of all three products, Will is correct. JimmyM's and AlanB's products are superb. Alan's is close to a drop-in solution (but suffers from his available time to work on them), and Jimmy's requires more custom setup, but works extremely well. The PhD-M6 is a vastly superior replacement for the defunct & troubled AWR/JS M6-R project. There are tons of M6 users out there who only need to know this PhD-M6 is available, and Will/Eric will have more than their hands full. I think a couple of strategically placed posts on various forums would begin an onslaught of orders. I would be surprised if SF has not already heard about it. (Hint hint.....apply for patent now).


----------



## oldways

i think the M6 with PhD-M6 pack running MN61 would make an excellent light for Police officers.

That is a large market.


----------



## wquiles

LuxLuthor said:


> There are tons of M6 users out there who only need to know this PhD-M6 is available, and Will/Eric will have more than their hands full. I think a couple of strategically placed posts on various forums would begin an onslaught of orders.





oldways said:


> i think the M6 with PhD-M6 pack running MN61 would make an excellent light for Police officers.
> 
> That is a large market.



Thank you guys - much appreciated. Selling outside CPF was always part of the original plan, but we had to make sure we served the demand in "our" forum first


----------



## Troop#26

oldways said:


> i think the M6 with PhD-M6 pack running MN61 would make an excellent light for Police officers.
> 
> That is a large market.


 
I certainly agree. The problem is largely two fold. The original being the cost of the host and secondarily the form factor is unfamiliar and not TERRIBLY beltable . Most LEO where I am are used to a 3D mag that can be used as an improvised  if needed. Its not that the M6 wouldn't stand up to that... its just... not as long... and certainly isn't as weighty.

Ill let you know what the guys think when my stuff all rolls in.:devil:

Stephen

EDIT: 2010-08-27 10:44 am PST My M6 and Bulbs showed up from the US, so did the order from Lumens Factory from Hong Kong. Im now waiting for the PHD-M6... Any thoughts Will?


----------



## wquiles

Troop#26 said:


> EDIT: 2010-08-27 10:44 am PST My M6 and Bulbs showed up from the US, so did the order from Lumens Factory from Hong Kong. Im now waiting for the PHD-M6... Any thoughts Will?


Unfortunately no further thoughts that I can offer. International with tracking is about twice as much ($25-30), so if we could turn back time perhaps that would have been a better alternative than just regular priority international. I have not heard either from many of my International customers either, so perhaps everything outside the USA is just really slow :mecry:

EDIT: I will email you the number on the top of the custom's form. I don't know if this will be of any value, but it is certainly better than nothing.


----------



## mdocod

In talking to the guy down at my contract postal office here, he always tells me that priority and first class international are actually on the same time table. Not sure if it's true or not, but it seems possible. In my experience, international orders via first class can take anywhere from 9 to 20 days on average, with the occasional package taking longer, usually if it takes much longer than that, then it has been "eaten" by the system.

Hopefully it will be there soon!

Eric


----------



## DM51

*Re: Sales Thread for the Black Edition PhD-M6 custom battery pack*

Just received my PhD-M6 and have been trying it out.

This is one of the all-time great CPF-born projects, IMO, and the result is *SUPERB*. Like some others, I was keen to try it out with the MN21 HOLA, which I have only used on rare occasions due to the $$$$$ of running it on primaries.

Well... all you guys who (like me) have had MN21s sitting around unused for that same reason - look no further. The PhD-M6 is the answer! In fact, because of the regulation, it gives a BETTER perfomance than you get with the stock 6x primary holder. So it's a no-brainer: $$$$$ with primaries vs. $0.00 with the PhD-M6.

And it can be used with all the popular bulbs I used in my M6 shootout - and more. There have been other and far better evaluations of this pack, and doubtless there will be a great deal more to be said about what an amazingly innovative and useful item it is. The manufacturing screams quality and durability - it is a winner there too.

I'm delighted with the way this has turned out, and as soon as I work out what custom settings I would like, I'll be putting in an order for a 2nd one - a PhD-M6-BK-Stealth, lol. 

Well done, Will and Eric!

*For the record, I am not a shill.*


----------



## UberLumens

What is the min i can set the voltage to? 
im thinking for led use
3.5 4.2 8 and ??

(Sorry if its already been answered here somewhere)


----------



## wquiles

UberLumens said:


> What is the min i can set the voltage to?
> im thinking for led use
> 3.5 4.2 8 and ??
> 
> (Sorry if its already been answered here somewhere)



Hi there 

The PhD-M6 pack does not work with LED's, as it is specifically designed to drive an incandescent filament. Although I seriously doubt you could damage the pack by connecting it to LED(s), the LED's are very likely to be damaged/destroyed.

If you want a good LED driver, I would recommend you check www.taskled.com

Will


----------



## wquiles

*Re: Sales Thread for the Black Edition PhD-M6 custom battery pack*



DM51 said:


> Just received my PhD-M6 and have been trying it out.
> 
> This is one of the all-time great CPF-born projects, IMO, and the result is *SUPERB*. Like some others, I was keen to try it out with the MN21 HOLA, which I have only used on rare occasions due to the $$$$$ of running it on primaries.
> 
> Well... all you guys who (like me) have had MN21s sitting around unused for that same reason - look no further. The PhD-M6 is the answer! In fact, because of the regulation, it gives a BETTER perfomance than you get with the stock 6x primary holder. So it's a no-brainer: $$$$$ with primaries vs. $0.00 with the PhD-M6.
> 
> And it can be used with all the popular bulbs I used in my M6 shootout - and more. There have been other and far better evaluations of this pack, and doubtless there will be a great deal more to be said about what an amazingly innovative and useful item it is. The manufacturing screams quality and durability - it is a winner there too.
> 
> I'm delighted with the way this has turned out, and as soon as I work out what custom settings I would like, I'll be putting in an order for a 2nd one - a PhD-M6-BK-Stealth, lol.
> 
> Well done, Will and Eric!
> 
> *For the record, I am not a shill.*


 
Thank you for your kind words David - it certainly has been a great learning experience and I am happy that the packs are working well and being well received 

and thanks for confirming receipt. I was beginning to worry about all of the packs I sent outside the USA. Since yours was the very first group that I shipped, I would hope that the rest of the international packs start to arrive soon


----------



## Troop#26

ITS HERE ITS HERE
I poped into work today and it was waiting for me! Its still day-time but this thing is amazing. I threw in the MN21 just to wow everyone at work... that thing is bright and NO DIMMING AND free lumens!

The workmanship is amazing.:naughty:It fits every bit as good as the stock holder and actually I had a slight rattle with the MB20 when locked out, that I dont get with the PHD-M6. I had some wonders about this being something I would use for duty. That question has been answered in a significantly way... this thing is GOOD TO GO!

I cant wait for it to get dark. But until it does Ill have to play with it like this!






Let there be light (PHD-M6 driving MN21)




PHD-M6, FM 3X17670, Stock BM20




BM 20 Front 3/4




FM 3X17670 Front 3/4




FM 3X17670 Rear 3/4




PHD-M6 Front straight on




PHD-M6 Front straight on




PHD-M6 Top (Focus on the brains)




PHD-M6 Top




Rear 3/4




Surefire MN20, MN21, MN61; Lumens Factory HO-M6, IMR-M3T, IMR-M6 (Front 3/4)




Surefire MN20, MN21, MN61; Lumens Factory HO-M6 (Front 3/4)




Surefire MN61; Lumens Factory HO-M6, IMR-M3T, IMR-M6 (Front 3/4)




Surefire MN20, MN21, MN61; Lumens Factory HO-M6, IMR-M3T, IMR-M6 (Top)




Lumens Factory IMR-M6, IMR-M3T, HO-M6 (Boxes)




Surefire MN20, MN21, MN61; Lumens Factory HO-M6, IMR-M3T, IMR-M6 (all safe and sound)

Remember I plan on doing a larger review / shoot out on Oh, the even Surefire "M"s.... I have had a few difficulties as documented in the first post (more to the bottom) so I have to wait a few weeks to do the whole thing. However I cant wait to play with this tonight!

Thanks Will, Eric and Everyone else who:help:

Stephen


----------



## wquiles

Awesome - thanks for letting me know it finally got there :thumbsup:

Once you play with it tonight, please do let me know how it worked with the various bulbs.

Will


----------



## DM51

Just to prove that we all make mistakes - *I posted in the wrong thread!! *I've now moved the post here, where it belongs:



DM51 said:


> Just received my PhD-M6 and have been trying it out.
> 
> This is one of the all-time great CPF-born projects, IMO, and the result is *SUPERB*. Like some others, I was keen to try it out with the MN21 HOLA, which I have only used on rare occasions due to the $$$$$ of running it on primaries.
> 
> Well... all you guys who (like me) have had MN21s sitting around unused for that same reason - look no further. The PhD-M6 is the answer! In fact, because of the regulation, it gives a BETTER perfomance than you get with the stock 6x primary holder. So it's a no-brainer: $$$$$ with primaries vs. $0.00 with the PhD-M6.
> 
> And it can be used with all the popular bulbs I used in my M6 shootout - and more. There have been other and far better evaluations of this pack, and doubtless there will be a great deal more to be said about what an amazingly innovative and useful item it is. The manufacturing screams quality and durability - it is a winner there too.
> 
> I'm delighted with the way this has turned out, and as soon as I work out what custom settings I would like, I'll be putting in an order for a 2nd one - a PhD-M6-BK-Stealth, lol.
> 
> Well done, Will and Eric!
> 
> *For the record, I am not a shill.*


----------



## Steve in SoCal

Just a couple of quick updates. The mn21 at 6.8v is really awesome, nice and white with a nice fat beam.:huh:

I also just ran a mn61 for 30 min continuous at 9.2v on a brand new set of aw's until I hit moon mode. Voltages at moonmode were in the mid to high 3.6s.


----------



## wquiles

Steve in SoCal said:


> Just a couple of quick updates. The mn21 at 6.8v is really awesome, nice and white with a nice fat beam.:huh:
> 
> I also just ran a mn61 for 30 min continuous at 9.2v on a brand new set of aw's until I hit moon mode. Voltages at moonmode were in the mid to high 3.6s.



Those numbers are pretty much what you should be getting, so I would say your pack is performing very well


----------



## Tempest UK

Order placed for my PhD-M6 pack 

The only question is: which of the 12 M6s will be the lucky recipient?


----------



## wquiles

Tempest UK said:


> Order placed for my PhD-M6 pack
> 
> The only question is: which of the 12 M6s will be the lucky recipient?



Wow - 12 of them :devil:

Do you have them all with different bulbs/batteries?


----------



## wquiles

hron61 said:


> hey will,
> since the phd-m6 packs are gonna be a smash hit, any chance you might do one for the surefire m4? thats one platform that could surely use one of these for sure. i have one and it will be getting bored for 18650's very soon to help it out some but one of these packs would bring it out of the closet and into the light (pun intended).



In the M6 Eric and I used the space already in use by the OEM battery holder to create a new custom pack that houses the cells and the driver. I am sure it is doable, but I think with the M4 the challenge is space. Where in the M4 would where you thinking that one could put the regulator/driver?


----------



## hron61

hi will,
yes, good question. maybe you could add a 1/2-3/4 spacer between head and body? i know i wouldnt even mind an extra inch added to it. runtime and performance are what matters me thinks. i love the look and feel of the m4, and to have the same capacity of the phd pack into it, it would do pretty well i beleive. i read that many people love the beam and throw of it but the operating costs keep em in the closet. i know i would be up for one. :wave:


----------



## Alan B

Great Job!!!

Congratulations on a great project and product, Will and Eric!!

Too bad I don't have an M6!

By the way, heat factors on the batteries will be related to RMS bulb current, not peak current (plus any bulb heating). The duty cycle cancels out the peak factors.

So many [email protected], so little time...


----------



## Tempest UK

wquiles said:


> Wow - 12 of them :devil:
> 
> Do you have them all with different bulbs/batteries?



12 was something of an exaggeration. 

I think I have 5 or 6 of them...I'm not too sure. All completely stock at the moment, running either the MN20 or MN21.

The PhD-M6 is my first step into aftermarket options and rechargeable solutions for the M6. I don't mind feeding them SF123A...just not all of them...and not all of the time. My previously voracious consumption of SF123A has declined somewhat now that most of the lights I'm using on a regular basis are using efficient LEDs. The M6 is my last big battery-eater in (fairly) regular usage, so it now seems to make sense to have the rechargeable option there.


----------



## wquiles

hron61 said:


> hi will,
> yes, good question. maybe you could add a 1/2-3/4 spacer between head and body? i know i wouldnt even mind an extra inch added to it. runtime and performance are what matters me thinks. i love the look and feel of the m4, and to have the same capacity of the phd pack into it, it would do pretty well i beleive. i read that many people love the beam and throw of it but the operating costs keep em in the closet. i know i would be up for one. :wave:


It would require a lot of machining as the head has to thread on one side and the body has to thread on the other, and it would have to be hollow to accept the driver, but certainly an interesting project for the future.




Alan B said:


> Great Job!!!
> 
> Congratulations on a great project and product, Will and Eric!!


Thanks much Alan :bow:




Tempest UK said:


> 12 was something of an exaggeration.
> 
> I think I have 5 or 6 of them...I'm not too sure. All completely stock at the moment, running either the MN20 or MN21.
> 
> The PhD-M6 is my first step into aftermarket options and rechargeable solutions for the M6. I don't mind feeding them SF123A...just not all of them...and not all of the time. My previously voracious consumption of SF123A has declined somewhat now that most of the lights I'm using on a regular basis are using efficient LEDs. The M6 is my last big battery-eater in (fairly) regular usage, so it now seems to make sense to have the rechargeable option there.


Gotcha. I am the same way with my two M6's. They did not see much use prior to using rechargeable options - I could not stand the price of primaries :sick2:


----------



## my_gentle_cry

I received my pack yesterday. 
I’m impressed! Will, thank U for the excellent work
I remember a lively debate regarding the bulb WA1111, so I decided to make several measurements:

M*g fire +WA1111+AW softstart
2 * AW 18650 (2600mA)
U of the batteries 8.2V(just charged)
U of the lamp 7,0V

M*g fire +WA1111+AW softstart
2*AW18650 (IMR1600mA)
U of the batteries 8.3V (just charged)
U of the lamp 7.4V, in 3 sec - 7,1V, then - 7,0V

18mm FiveMega BODIES 2*18650+bi-pin+WA1111+AW softstart
2 * AW 18650 (2600mA)
U of the batteries 8.2V (just charged)
U of the lamp 6,6V

Megalennium - A 2*18650+dummy+ bi-pin+WA1111
2 * AW 18650 (2600mA)+Dummy
U lamp: 6,6V
U batteries: 8,1V 

I didn’t managed to make beam shots… my measurements pleasure dragged on till 3 am But when comparing PhD-M6 level-one (6.8V)+ bi-pin+WA1111 with megalennium -A 2*18650+dummy+ bi-pin+WA1111 I didn’t see any difference.
But it was much brighter on level-2 (7.4V).

Sasha


----------



## wquiles

my_gentle_cry said:


> I received my pack yesterday.
> I’m impressed! Will, thank U for the excellent work
> I remember a lively debate regarding the bulb WA1111, so I decided to make several measurements:
> 
> M*g fire +WA1111+AW softstart
> 2 * AW 18650 (2600mA)
> U of the batteries 8.2V(just charged)
> U of the lamp 7,0V
> 
> M*g fire +WA1111+AW softstart
> 2*AW18650 (IMR1600mA)
> U of the batteries 8.3V (just charged)
> U of the lamp 7.4V, in 3 sec - 7,1V, then - 7,0V
> 
> 18mm FiveMega BODIES 2*18650+bi-pin+WA1111+AW softstart
> 2 * AW 18650 (2600mA)
> U of the batteries 8.2V (just charged)
> U of the lamp 6,6V
> 
> Megalennium - A 2*18650+dummy+ bi-pin+WA1111
> 2 * AW 18650 (2600mA)+Dummy
> U lamp: 6,6V
> U batteries: 8,1V
> 
> I didn’t managed to make beam shots… my measurements pleasure dragged on till 3 am But when comparing PhD-M6 level-one (6.8V)+ bi-pin+WA1111 with megalennium -A 2*18650+dummy+ bi-pin+WA1111 I didn’t see any difference.
> But it was much brighter on level-2 (7.4V).
> 
> Sasha



Awesome - thanks much for letting me know it arrived safely and that it is working well


----------



## LuxLuthor

Having two of these PhD-M6 packs is seriously making me want to buy a second M6. I remember back in the day arguing with JS about how impractical the M6 was (compared to a Mag85 or Mag66) and how I hardly ever used my M4...mainly because of the short & rapidly waning SF disposable 123a cells.

Do I need a 2nd M6? Hell no. Is this PhD-M6 pack so inspiring that it is driving me towards buying one just to use the pack in?  Yep. If I was SF, I would buy this out from these guys yesterday. Willie Hunt knows the value of something like this, and isn't he working there now?

I wonder if I can just buy the M6 body and tailcap, since I already have a spare KT4 head?


----------



## Troop#26

LuxLuthor said:


> Having two of these PhD-M6 packs is seriously making me want to buy a second M6. I remember back in the day arguing with JS about how impractical the M6 was (compared to a Mag85 or Mag66) and how I hardly ever used my M4...mainly because of the short & rapidly waning SF disposable 123a cells.
> 
> Do I need a 2nd M6? Hell no. Is this PhD-M6 pack so inspiring that it is driving me towards buying one just to use the pack in?  Yep. If I was SF, I would buy this out from these guys yesterday. Willie Hunt knows the value of something like this, and isn't he working there now?
> 
> I wonder if I can just buy the M6 body and tailcap, since I already have a spare KT4 head?



Yes, yes you can!

Spare Body Here, Im still looking for a source for a new tail, as this one has sold. I also purchased the Millennium Turbo Head he had!

If anyone can find a source for tail switches I would be forever indebted!

Stephen

P.S. Will... come a few more paydays Im getting a Ninja Addition! I think Im going to push the bulbs a little harder with this one and have it just for a toy!

BTW... it finally stopped raining here long enough to play with this a little bit. The MN21 is, well frankly amazing @ 6.8V. I could see how people in the past would not want to use it due to primary costs... now I say shine on. I also put in the HOM6 and IMR M6 from lumens factory. The HOM6 really is a thrower... the IMRM6 is really really freaking bright on fresh Lions, I only ran it for a second but both inside and outside it seemed brighter to me than the MN21 (maybe its all in my head). The MN61 is a great bulb noticeably less bright than MN21 but still very useable. Great FREAKING PRODUCT!

I must agree Lux Im subscribed to both this and the sales thread and every time I see and update, Im thinking its going to be that the thread is closed due to an "outside agency" not disclosed at this time buying out the product. I then expect to see the front page with a new M6e or rM6 or maybe the ANM6 Scalper for sale buy surefire.:naughty:

Stephen


----------



## Kestrel

wquiles said:


> In the M6 Eric and I used the space already in use by the OEM battery holder to create a new custom pack that houses the cells and the driver. I am sure it is doable, but I think with the M4 the challenge is space. Where in the M4 would where you thinking that one could put the regulator/driver?


I've got an idea for this that is a little 'out there', the usable depth is probably insufficient but at least I wanted to submit it:







In the Moddoo ZeroRez tailcap mod, the brass part that takes the place of the stock aluminum component & spring assembly is ~0.75" tall above the bottom flange that makes contact with the light body. In addition, an additional 0.010" could be gained by altering the geometry (i.e. elevating the outer contact flange) to permit electrical contact with the Z41 screwed further out from the light body, where the exterior shell of the Z41 begins to reveal the auxiliary o-ring groove on the light body. An additional 0.015" more can be gained by unscrewing the Z41 further, until the primary o-ring groove is about to be revealed. In this way, the light is 'getting longer', as the tailcap contact position would be elevated considerably compared to the stock location, creating more usable volume at this location.

Taking all this together, there would be a maximum usable cylindrical volume inside a modded Z41 of ~1.0" height x 0.65" diam, although there would still have to be a center hole to permit a retaining screw to hold the regulation unit to the rest of the momentary assembly.

I hope this is clear, tried to explain the best that I could. Not the greatest idea, but it's an idea - perhaps a 'cut down' version of your regulator/driver with a reduced feature set... :shrug:



LuxLuthor said:


> If I was SF, I would buy this out from these guys yesterday.


Yes, that would make a lot of sense.


----------



## wquiles

LuxLuthor said:


> Do I need a 2nd M6? Hell no. Is this PhD-M6 pack so inspiring that it is driving me towards buying one just to use the pack in?  Yep. If I was SF, I would buy this out from these guys yesterday. Willie Hunt knows the value of something like this, and isn't he working there now?





Troop#26 said:


> I must agree Lux Im subscribed to both this and the sales thread and every time I see and update, Im thinking its going to be that the thread is closed due to an "outside agency" not disclosed at this time buying out the product. I then expect to see the front page with a new M6e or rM6 or maybe the ANM6 Scalper for sale buy surefire.:naughty:


Thank you both for the good thoughts on outside interest. I was answering questions about the PhD-M6 in a flashlight forum in Malasya, so the word about the PhD-M6 "is" spreading 




Troop#26 said:


> P.S. Will... come a few more paydays Im getting a Ninja Addition! I think Im going to push the bulbs a little harder with this one and have it just for a toy!
> 
> BTW... it finally stopped raining here long enough to play with this a little bit. The MN21 is, well frankly amazing @ 6.8V. I could see how people in the past would not want to use it due to primary costs... now I say shine on. I also put in the HOM6 and IMR M6 from lumens factory. The HOM6 really is a thrower... the IMRM6 is really really freaking bright on fresh Lions, I only ran it for a second but both inside and outside it seemed brighter to me than the MN21 (maybe its all in my head). The MN61 is a great bulb noticeably less bright than MN21 but still very useable. Great FREAKING PRODUCT!


Thanks much. It is awesome to hear reports of the PhD-M6 being put to good use :twothumbs




Kestrel said:


> I've got an idea for this that is a little 'out there', the usable depth is probably insufficient but at least I wanted to submit it:
> 
> (snip pic)
> 
> In the Moddoo ZeroRez tailcap mod, the brass part that takes the place of the stock aluminum component & spring assembly is ~0.75" tall above the bottom flange that makes contact with the light body. In addition, an additional 0.010" could be gained by altering the geometry (i.e. elevating the outer contact flange) to permit electrical contact with the Z41 screwed further out from the light body, where the exterior shell of the Z41 begins to reveal the auxiliary o-ring groove on the light body. An additional 0.015" more can be gained by unscrewing the Z41 further, until the primary o-ring groove is about to be revealed. In this way, the light is 'getting longer', as the tailcap contact position would be elevated considerably compared to the stock location, creating more usable volume at this location.
> 
> Taking all this together, there would be a maximum usable cylindrical volume inside a modded Z41 of ~1.0" height x 0.65" diam, although there would still have to be a center hole to permit a retaining screw to hold the regulation unit to the rest of the momentary assembly.
> 
> I hope this is clear, tried to explain the best that I could. Not the greatest idea, but it's an idea - perhaps a 'cut down' version of your regulator/driver with a reduced feature set... :shrug:


These are all good ideas, so please keep them coming. It is great to bounce ideas around to see what is possible. 

Although using a fixed number of cells (2x) and a fixed/single bulb, Willie Hunt's awesome A2 does already solves a lot of the challenges of placing a PWM driver in-line with the cells, completely self-contained in the battery tube.

Will


----------



## LuxLuthor

Troop#26 said:


> Yes, yes you can!
> 
> Spare Body Here, Im still looking for a source for a new tail, as this one has sold. I also purchased the Millennium Turbo Head he had!



Appreciate info, but I need a body and tailcap, or else a new M6


----------



## Dioni

Hi guys. 

There is a lot of info here, so please don't take me wrong. I have a question wich probably already been anwsered here. 

How could this PhD-M6, setted at 6.8v [eg], handle the MN21? This bulb drawing more than 5amps, correct? And the PhD does use 3x17670 wich have 1600mah. How could it?  

Thanks in advance! 
lovecpf


----------



## wquiles

Dioni said:


> Hi guys.
> 
> There is a lot of info here, so please don't take me wrong. I have a question wich probably already been anwsered here.
> 
> How could this PhD-M6, setted at 6.8v [eg], handle the MN21? This bulb drawing more than 5amps, correct? And the PhD does use 3x17670 wich have 1600mah. How could it?
> 
> Thanks in advance!
> lovecpf



The MN21 is indeed very hard on those cells , and until the IMR cells do become available, that is all we can use in this 17670 form factor for now. 

With the PhD-M6 we are driving the 17670 cells pretty hard with the MN21, so we recommend short runs of 5 to 10 minutes to give the cells time to recover as they do get warm/hot with long runs. For less output, but decent runtime at a current draw that is not too hard on the cells, we recommend the MN61.

Will


----------



## hron61

wquiles said:


> The MN21 is indeed very hard on those cells , and until the IMR cells do become available, that is all we can use in this 17670 form factor for now.
> 
> With the PhD-M6 we are driving the 17670 cells pretty hard with the MN21, so we recommend short runs of 5 to 10 minutes to give the cells time to recover as they do get warm/hot with long runs. For less output, but decent runtime at a current draw that is not too hard on the cells, we recommend the MN61.
> 
> Will


 
hey will, sorry for the newbie question but will we be able to use the phd packs with the imr's when they become available? as in same size to fit the packs? and or will the voltages still work with intended bulbs? what would the advantage of imr be?


----------



## Dioni

wquiles said:


> The MN21 is indeed very hard on those cells , and until the IMR cells do become available, that is all we can use in this 17670 form factor for now.
> 
> With the PhD-M6 we are driving the 17670 cells pretty hard with the MN21, so we recommend short runs of 5 to 10 minutes to give the cells time to recover as they do get warm/hot with long runs. For less output, but decent runtime at a current draw that is not too hard on the cells, we recommend the MN61.
> 
> Will


 
That was what I was thinking. Just care, no miracle! 
Thanks for the confirmation and your work is impressive on that.
I'm saving money to take one! 
:thumbsup:



hron61 said:


> hey will, sorry for the newbie question but will we be able to use the phd packs with the imr's when they become available? as in same size to fit the packs? and or will the voltages still work with intended bulbs? what would the advantage of imr be?


 
The IMR17670, if become avaliable someday, they should have the same size of the 17670 li-ons as the voltage will be also the same. The upgrade will be rightly handle this big bulbs wich drawing many amps. The IMR's chemistry cells allow a 8C safe discharge limit rate against 2C of the li-ions. Somthing like 12.8amps against 3.2amps. :devil:


----------



## wquiles

hron61 said:


> hey will, sorry for the newbie question but will we be able to use the phd packs with the imr's when they become available? as in same size to fit the packs? and or will the voltages still work with intended bulbs? what would the advantage of imr be?



The IMR cells should work great, since they have a lower internal resistance (allowing for higher current and lower internal losses/heat), even though they tipically have lower capacity than current LiIon cells (for the same size/form factor). I do hope that at some point we will get IMR cells in the 17670 size, so at that point I will be able to fully characterize how the PhD-M6 does with those cells.


----------



## hron61

will, one of my m6's has an aw soft start switch installed in it, should i put the stock switch back in or is it ok to run it with the phd too since the phd has a built in one? will it damage the aw switch? thanks


----------



## wquiles

hron61 said:


> will, one of my m6's has an aw soft start switch installed in it, should i put the stock switch back in or is it ok to run it with the phd too since the phd has a built in one? will it damage the aw switch? thanks



It is never OK to run the PhD-M6 with any other electronic/active device. In this case you risk damaging the PhD-M6, the AW soft switch, blowing the the bulb, or damaging all of them. The only path that would yield predictable results is to replace the OEM switch back before attempting to use the PhD-M6.

Will


----------



## hron61

wquiles said:


> It is never OK to run the PhD-M6 with any other electronic/active device. In this case you risk damaging the PhD-M6, the AW soft switch, blowing the the bulb, or damaging all of them. The only path that would yield predictable results is to replace the OEM switch back before attempting to use the PhD-M6.
> 
> Will


 

im glad i asked first. i will reinstall the oem before running the phd.


----------



## Dioni

wquiles said:


> It is never OK to run the PhD-M6 with any other electronic/active device. In this case you risk damaging the PhD-M6, the AW soft switch, blowing the the bulb, or damaging all of them. The only path that would yield predictable results is to replace the OEM switch back before attempting to use the PhD-M6.
> 
> Will


 
Good to know! Thanks! :thumbsup:


----------



## wquiles

hron61 said:


> im glad i asked first. i will reinstall the oem before running the phd.



It was an excellent question, and something nobody else has asked before, so thanks for bringing that up :thumbsup:


----------



## hron61

wquiles said:


> It was an excellent question, and something nobody else has asked before, so thanks for bringing that up :thumbsup:


 
no, thank you...you just saved me 200 bucks!!!  :mecry:


----------



## hron61

hi will.
i received my pair of packs today. 
i have one running a [email protected] and one running an [email protected].
i cant beleive what im seeing, i can run the lights and its a steady non dimming beam of light. what a difference the packs make. the mn21 is a beautiful white beam, it really shows how nice the beam really is plus no dimming. the wa1185 is a monster of light that before the packs it would start dimming within a few mins, but ive ran it for 10 mins so far and its as bright as when i first turned it on. the phd pack is a must have for the m6, it really turns it into a user light instead of a shelf queen. im very satisfied with my purchases, thank you. 

one question though, in one of the packs i can hear a whining noise while its running, while the other one is dead silent. normal? :thumbsup:


----------



## wquiles

hron61 said:


> hi will.
> i received my pair of packs today.
> i have one running a [email protected] and one running an [email protected].
> i cant beleive what im seeing, i can run the lights and its a steady non dimming beam of light. what a difference the packs make. the mn21 is a beautiful white beam, it really shows how nice the beam really is plus no dimming. the wa1185 is a monster of light that before the packs it would start dimming within a few mins, but ive ran it for 10 mins so far and its as bright as when i first turned it on. the phd pack is a must have for the m6, it really turns it into a user light instead of a shelf queen. im very satisfied with my purchases, thank you.
> 
> one question though, in one of the packs i can hear a whining noise while its running, while the other one is dead silent. normal? :thumbsup:



I am glad the packs got there, and thanks much for the feedback :thumbsup:

The only device/part that can make any noise is the filament itself, so that could be a faint source of the noise you hear. If you have various bulbs try to see if the noise follows a specific bulb.

The only other time I can hear any noise is when the tailcap is not fully pressed IN, so that there is a slight "gap" and/or dirt preventing full current transfer - this causes the current to arc slightly across the gap, which causes noise. To try to see if this is the source, take out the PhD-M6 pack and completely clean the tailcap thread area, the treads on the body, and most specially the un-anodized edge of the body that contacts the insert inside of the tailcap - it must be clean for optimum current transfer (you might need a Q-tip to clean the insert in the tailcap). Then lightly lubricate the threaded area on the body so that you have some lubricant again, but try not to get any on that exposed edge nor the insert in the tailcap. Note that this cleaning is helpful regardless of the power source for the M6, not just the PhD-M6.

Please do let me know what you find out.

Will


----------



## mdocod

Hi Hron61,

The high current lower voltage bulbs are operating with very high current peaks each time the circuit is closed to make up the PWM. Those high current peaks can actually produce a ringing in the tailcap contacts and spring if everything isn't clean. You are probably hearing it on the MN21 and not the 1185, because the 1185 is operating at basically 98% duty cycle all the time, and the current peaks aren't really any higher than the bulb would operate under direct drive. In fact, the 1185 isn't expected to operate in regulation at the 10.8V setting. 

In my experience, even after cleaning contacts and such, a low level ringing can be heard if you hold the light up to your ear on the high current lamps. You probably won't notice it much if at all when using more conservative bulb options. 

Do keep in mind that the MN21 should be run at the 6.8V setting. (or around there). 7.5V is going to be pretty (very) hard on the bulb and even harder on the cells. 

Eric


----------



## hron61

hi and thanks for the input. im away from my lights till monday out of town for the weekend but ill definetly try what you two have suggested when i get back home. all in all, these packs are winners for sure. thanks for all the hard work and determination and trial and error that went into this project. ive only had mine for a few days and i could not imagine running the m6 the way of old when this is available for it.

kuddos to you.


----------



## derangboy

I would just like to add that my PhD-M6 has been working flawlessly since I got it. Now that it's been getting darker earlier, I use it at night to check the horses before turning in. With all that glorious incan light, I can easily identify them! With some LED lights, they tend to blend into the background. Well Done! I now eagerly await the 6P version!


----------



## wquiles

Thank you guys. You are welcome


----------



## It01Firefox

Hi,
I finally got mine today, it was sitting at the customs office for two weeks while I was on holiday, they almost sent it back!
I've only played with it for a few minutes using the MN16 and MN60 bulbs that I had lying close by. I'm really loving it, great build quality.

Thanks to all involved in making this great product.

Markus


----------



## wquiles

It01Firefox said:


> Hi,
> I finally got mine today, it was sitting at the customs office for two weeks while I was on holiday, they almost sent it back!
> I've only played with it for a few minutes using the MN16 and MN60 bulbs that I had lying close by. I'm really loving it, great build quality.
> 
> Thanks to all involved in making this great product.
> 
> Markus



Awesome - glad to hear it got there safely :thumbsup:


----------



## jellydonut

Hello PhD-M6 people

Would it be possible to mate the PhD-M6 circuitry to the Odd Mods 2x18650 battery caddy rather than the 3x17670 caddy?

Well, I guess what I'm asking is... Can I pay someone to make such a creation?:naughty: Or is it not possible?

And I guess an equally interesting point is - would two protected AW 18650s (cobalt, not manganese) be capable of running any fun bulbs or would the current draw be so great as to make it pointless?


----------



## wquiles

jellydonut said:


> Would it be possible to mate the PhD-M6 circuitry to the Odd Mods 2x18650 battery caddy rather than the 3x17670 caddy?



Unfortunately no. The PhD-M6 that I designed for the SF M6 using 3x 17670 LiIon cells uses a custom board that is perfectly matched to the custom battery carrier that Eric (Odd Mods) designed, so any/all changes would require a new cycle of design/testing and updated firmware - I would never be able to charge enough to come even close to break even.


----------



## wquiles

my_gentle_cry said:


> Hi Will!
> I have a question... can I charge the batteries without disassembling the holder?
> Sasha.



No. There is no electrical path for charging while the cells are in the pack. You might damage the charger, the PhD-M6 pack, or both.

ALWAYS remove the cells from the pack for charging.

Will


----------



## bouli

I'd like to say THANKS to all PhD-M6 people .
It really is a wonderful gizmo , I LOVE it .

I got mine from a friend , or you can call it a little "group-buy" , cause we are in Taiwan .
And I am not very good at English .



Bouli


----------



## wquiles

bouli said:


> I'd like to say THANKS to all PhD-M6 people .
> It really is a wonderful gizmo , I LOVE it .
> 
> I got mine from a friend , or you can call it a little "group-buy" , cause we are in Taiwan .
> And I am not very good at English .
> 
> 
> 
> Bouli



You are welcome - glad you like it 

And your English is fine


----------



## Kestrel

bouli said:


> I'd like to say THANKS to all PhD-M6 people .
> It really is a wonderful gizmo , I LOVE it .
> 
> I got mine from a friend , or you can call it a little "group-buy" , cause we are in Taiwan .
> And I am not very good at English .
> Bouli


Wow, your first post since a join date of June 2001, I believe that's a record! :huh:

:welcome: LOL!

(BTW by pulling up your profile I can see that you're member # 171 - that was maybe the longest lurk in CPF!)


----------



## Troop#26

hron61 said:


> ... i have one running... and one running an [email protected]. i cant beleive what im seeing...



I couldn't believe it would work... so I tried it for myself. I just wanted the record to reflect, I tried the MN21 at 7.5v yesterday and HOLEY CRAPOLA... that thing is impressive! I thought it was good at 6.8v...:devil:

Will, every time I play with this thing I get more and more impressed. The ability to so quickly and seamlessly change bulbs, pop off the turbo head, pop off the tail, switch the DIP's back on the turbo head (with new bulb), back on the tail and its like a whole new toy!

I also would like to say it is SO MUCH easier to change the cells in the PHD-M6 than compared to my older 3X17670 holders. The pop-in pop-out design is DELIGHTFUL! The engineering in this thing is INTENSE! Seriously, HATS OFF!

My second M6 has finally all shown up, sadly it wont be a second host for a PHD-M6, its going to MILKY for a mod (cant not have a LED version of the M6).

After that, I think I may need a third M6 as a host for a second PHD-M6. Curses too you WILL and ERIC you have really MADE the M6, which was already a fantastic format, a superb product! 

Warm, well lit regards!

Stephen


----------



## wquiles

Troop#26 said:


> I couldn't believe it would work... so I tried it for myself. I just wanted the record to reflect, I tried the MN21 at 7.5v yesterday and HOLEY CRAPOLA... that thing is impressive! I thought it was good at 6.8v...:devil:
> 
> Will, every time I play with this thing I get more and more impressed. The ability to so quickly and seamlessly change bulbs, pop off the turbo head, pop off the tail, switch the DIP's back on the turbo head (with new bulb), back on the tail and its like a whole new toy!
> 
> I also would like to say it is SO MUCH easier to change the cells in the PHD-M6 than compared to my older 3X17670 holders. The pop-in pop-out design is DELIGHTFUL! The engineering in this thing is INTENSE! Seriously, HATS OFF!
> 
> My second M6 has finally all shown up, sadly it wont be a second host for a PHD-M6, its going to MILKY for a mod (cant not have a LED version of the M6).
> 
> After that, I think I may need a third M6 as a host for a second PHD-M6. Curses too you WILL and ERIC you have really MADE the M6, which was already a fantastic format, a superb product!
> 
> Warm, well lit regards!
> 
> Stephen



Thanks much Stephen 

I have to admit I am amazed at the MN21 running at 7.5Vrms - definitely not something I ever tested, but I have heard of folks running the MN21 at 7.0 - 7.1 volts when using one of Willy Hunt's LVR's. I would imagine that the life expectancy would be greatly reduced, right?

Will


----------



## oldways

It wont run on 9.2v I changed the MN61 to MN21 and did NOT change the dip


----------



## wquiles

oldways said:


> It wont run on 9.2v I changed the MN61 to MN21 and did NOT change the dip



I have done that myself once. Had one of my development packs on 10.8Vrms and tried an MN21 bulb


----------



## Troop#26

oldways said:


> It wont run on 9.2v I changed the MN61 to MN21 and did NOT change the dip



My greatest fear! Shipping is so expensive to Canada from the US I would hate too poof any of the Surefire bulbs. Lumens factory bulbs are less to ship but take a little longer to get here!

Oh well! Live and learn! I'll probably pop a few soon when I do my beam shoot out! A few more items to arrive and Ill be good to go!

Thanks again Will and Eric, this thing really is AMAZING!

Stephen


----------



## wquiles

Well, my turn. I am not only the designer of the PhD-M6, I am also an user  (although that sounds too close to the Club Hair for Men advertisement!)

Tonight was finally cool enough here in the Dallas area to resume my nightly walk with my two small kids, something I have been doing for the last 3-4 years now. It is a great opportunity to test lights (sometimes from pass-arounds) and to compare various lights on a practical setting.

I used to carry the A2, which is plenty bright, but more because of its regulated beam - everything outdoors "looks right", unlike most all of the LED lights that I have used. Once I got the ill-fated HDM6 regulated packs from AWR I then switched to the M6, typically with the MN20, and that is the setup I have been using for the last year or so, specially given the longer runtimes with the MN20.

Of course now I have my own regulated solution, so tonight I went out with my kids using my PhD-M6 with the MN61 (driven at 9.2Vrms). After our 1/2 hour walk the light was very warm, but still comfortable. I was pleasantly surprised the combo lasted the whole 1/2 hour (I had a small high-CRI light as a backup, just in case). The MN20 stays a little bit cooler, but I like the extra punch from the MN61, even if an overkill just for walking at night. Just like with the A2, and the HDM6, and now with the PhD-M6, colors look "right" outdoors when using a properly driven incandescent light. I will likely try the MN21 next, just because I can - even if that would truly be a serious overkill :devil:

Will


----------



## oldways

Guys,

Anyone ran the MN15? What runtime did you get?


----------



## wquiles

oldways said:


> Guys,
> 
> Anyone ran the MN15? What runtime did you get?



I have tested it many times, but never for a runtime test. Eric estimated the following:
-> MN15 @ ~7.6V: ~140L, ~100-120 minutes


Will


----------



## JimmyM

Will, this thing makes me want to go out and buy an M6 just to reap the benefits of this. My "bright" flashlight that has any sort of run time is a regulated Mag5761 running on 3 D Li-Ions. But the M6 is such a nice form factor. I just looked at the price of one of these. Ooof! I have to build a lot more regulators!
Awesome work though.


----------



## wquiles

JimmyM said:


> Will, this thing makes me want to go out and buy an M6 just to reap the benefits of this. My "bright" flashlight that has any sort of run time is a regulated Mag5761 running on 3 D Li-Ions. But the M6 is such a nice form factor. I just looked at the price of one of these. Ooof! I have to build a lot more regulators!
> Awesome work though.



Thanks Jimmy


----------



## JimmyM

Will,
The standoffs you use... Are they compatible with the KIU socket base? If so, what size are they?


----------



## wquiles

JimmyM said:


> Will,
> The standoffs you use... Are they compatible with the KIU socket base? If so, what size are they?



I honestly don't know if they fit the KIU socket base or not, but this is the size we use for the new short standoff (in Stainless Steel):
-> Male-Female Threaded Hex Standoff 3/16" Hex, 3/16" Length, 4-40 Screw Size

They are very expensive, specially in McMaster, but they have a great stock of parts/sizes 

Will


----------



## munchs

I got mine about a week ago and been using it in my M6 with a mn21.

It's so easy to use and the regulation works as it should! Actually it's the first incan flashlight I have that runs on regulation! I am an led guy and to my experience the flat regulation is quite common in led lands. But this PHD-M6 brings a wild life back to this dust covered M6 and it's a pure joy to use it without worrying about battery cost!

I have a lot of led light in my collection, but my M6 with phd-m6 is the one I reach for the most these days and every time I feel the excitement I have never felt in led lights!  
I have yet to try other high-output bulbs that are on its way to me. I'll try to update on them later! 

Great Job, Will!

Just one Quick Question! I think a similar one has been asked here, but I want to be sure.

*Is it OK to use a regulated LED drop-ins with PHD-M6?* 

There are some costom turbo-head drop-ins being sold here. I wonder if its OK to use them as long as their input voltage falls in the PD-M6's out-put voltage range? 

Thanks


----------



## wquiles

You are welcome - I am glad the PhD-M6 is making you use your M6 more often 

The PhD-M6 works by regulating the output voltage via PWM (Pulse Width Modulation), and the frequency (around 250 Hz) only works well with the filament in an incandescent lamp, which can't turn ON and OFF that fast. Putting an LED module in an M6 that has the PhD-M6 pack will bring unpredictable results, in which the best case scenario is that nothing works, and the worst case scenario is that you might damage the LED module, the PhD-M6, or both. Therefore, the only safe recommendation is to never use any LED or LED module in conjunction with the PhD-M6.

Will


----------



## munchs

I wish it could... but I believe I would use incan bulbs more in this set-up even though it could. So not a big problem.

Thanks for the clarification!


----------



## brandx

M6 with MN21...... I just never really 'used' the MN21 before due to primary cost. Still have not had occasion to 'use' it, but I fire it up about every weekend to shine on various neighborhood trees, just because I can with the PhD M6 now. It's a psychological conundrum, a $400+ flashlight that is not 'used' because the running costs are too high, go figure the logic in that. Had to have it 'just in case' but it really just sat there waiting on the crisis. Now with an investment that is basically a few times more than just a simple rechargeable adapter and pretso it's a viable everyday tool to be used as needed. I may just learn to appreciate the thing for what I can and have used it for rather than as a shelf queen baby to fire up in the next crisis. 
Question .... how many MN21's have you 'used up' ? Not destroyed/damaged in mishaps, but how many have you actually gone thru 'using' your M6? I suspect if this gets many replies we'll likely get 2 modes: (0 - 1) or ('a bunch') The first group is like me, don't use it because the batteries <used to> cost too much. The second group because it's the tool they need and 'damn the torpedoes (or $)' to paraphrase Adm Farragut. This is actually a fairly serious question for the community.


----------



## wquiles

brandx said:


> M6 with MN21...... I just never really 'used' the MN21 before due to primary cost. Still have not had occasion to 'use' it, but I fire it up about every weekend to shine on various neighborhood trees, just because I can with the PhD M6 now. It's a psychological conundrum, a $400+ flashlight that is not 'used' because the running costs are too high, go figure the logic in that. Had to have it 'just in case' but it really just sat there waiting on the crisis. Now with an investment that is basically a few times more than just a simple rechargeable adapter and pretso it's a viable everyday tool to be used as needed. I may just learn to appreciate the thing for what I can and have used it for rather than as a shelf queen baby to fire up in the next crisis.


Good point. I also wonder how many M6 owners have it but don't use it due to the cost of running it.





brandx said:


> Question .... how many MN21's have you 'used up' ? Not destroyed/damaged in mishaps, but how many have you actually gone thru 'using' your M6? I suspect if this gets many replies we'll likely get 2 modes: (0 - 1) or ('a bunch') The first group is like me, don't use it because the batteries <used to> cost too much. The second group because it's the tool they need and 'damn the torpedoes (or $)' to paraphrase Adm Farragut. This is actually a fairly serious question for the community.


I don't know about others, but I can tell you that I have been using a regulated solution in my M6 for a long time:
- first the M6-R that I made from parts that *js* sold. That was the thing that got me interested in voltage regulation and PWM, since it used the LVR's from Willie Hunt.

- then the ill-fated HDM6 form AWR. Again, I had full regulation and soft-start on the MN20 and MN21. It was an all-analog design, and it actually worked well, although it was not adjustable, had no low battery warning, and it was a fairly delicate assembly (not robust).

- and of course now with my own PhD-M6 design. 

So in the 4-5 years since I got my first of two M6's, I have yet to have a bulb die from actual use. Now, I have blown a couple during the development/testing of the PhD-M6 when I left the switches in the wrong position, but that was "my" fault :devil:

Will


----------



## jellydonut

Hey guys

So it happens that I've got my hands on 17670 cells - I thought I wouldn't but I do. Cheers fortean101!

Which means I am back to considering the PhD-M6. However, looking at the Excel bulb chart, it appears it cannot regulate the output of the LF HO-M6R, which means it would effectively be a $200 battery carrier, right? 

I have an MN21 as well but the runtime for this is stated as '0-20 minutes' with two asterisks next to it. There are, however, no notes for two asterisks to be found in the chart.  One and three asterisks, but not two - am I blind/retarded/both?

I'd like to wrangle the output of my newly acquired M6 if I can, but I'd rather not get into yet even further reconfiguration with bi-pin adapters and bulbs.. At least not yet.


----------



## Justin Case

jellydonut said:


> I have an MN21 as well but the runtime for this is stated as '0-20 minutes' with two asterisks next to it. There are, however, no notes for two asterisks to be found in the chart.  One and three asterisks, but not two - am I blind/retarded/both?


 
Try increasing the column width to see the contents of the full cell.


----------



## hron61

hello will. i have no technical info to post but i can tell you one thing...the only way i would part with my m6 is for someone to pry it out of my cold dead hands. it is a great setup with it installed. 
when i visit tactical supply stores that sell surefire, i tell em about this pack, hopefully someone will take heed and order one or two. thanks again for turning my m6 into a user instead of a dust gatherer. :thumbsup:


----------



## wquiles

jellydonut said:


> Hey guys
> 
> So it happens that I've got my hands on 17670 cells - I thought I wouldn't but I do. Cheers fortean101!
> 
> Which means I am back to considering the PhD-M6. However, looking at the Excel bulb chart, it appears it cannot regulate the output of the LF HO-M6R, which means it would effectively be a $200 battery carrier, right?
> 
> I have an MN21 as well but the runtime for this is stated as '0-20 minutes' with two asterisks next to it. There are, however, no notes for two asterisks to be found in the chart.  One and three asterisks, but not two - am I blind/retarded/both?
> 
> I'd like to wrangle the output of my newly acquired M6 if I can, but I'd rather not get into yet even further reconfiguration with bi-pin adapters and bulbs.. At least not yet.



We have had several other alternatives in the past, but at a high level, for the M6 you have 3 alternatives:
- plain battery pack: Offered by mdocod and FM. Hold batteries in place. No regulation, no soft-start, no battery monitoring. You can use with different bulbs as long as those bulbs "work well" with the cells you will be using. This is true direct drive (DD), and it is perhaps the most common way of using the M6 with rechargeable cells.

- plain battery pack with AW soft-start. Same as above (still DD with no regulation, no battery monitoring), but the soft-start helps a lot with bulbs that operate near the max. the cells support, so it prevents insta-flashes in certain combinations. Folks who have it are pretty happy with it, although I personally don't own one. Definitely better than the plain adapter.

- PhD-M6: 
-> regulated output voltage - output level remains consistent as the batteries drain
-> soft-start
-> 4 voltage/bulb settings
-> battery monitoring and low voltage warning (Moon Mode)
-> uses 3x Rechargeable LiIon 17670 cells

The MN21 works with the 17670, but it is a high current application, so the cells are hammered, so we recommend no more than 5-10 minute runs to prevent the cells from getting too hot.

For the higher voltage bulbs (around 10.8V), you still have the soft-start as well, but yes, we are limited by these cells' chemistry so you would only be in regulation for a short while, then doing to DD until the battery monitoring kicks in.

Although not the highest output, the MN61 is almost a perfect match to the PhD-M6 pack and the 3x 17670 cells, so that is what I use in my own M6.

Will


----------



## jellydonut

I was about to say that I would prefer a non-SF bulb due to the ridiculous intl. shipping limitations, but a quick check reveals my preferred local SF dealer carries them at a reasonable price, just listed by output instead of the bulb's actual name. Maybe I should consider that one.. :twothumbs

I would love it if I could get an unfrosted bulb that would 'play nice' with the PhD-M6, though. 

What about the IMR-M3T? It is listed without any intimidating special characters in the sheet, and it's a nice and clear bulb for added throw. Anyone got any feedback on that one?


----------



## mdocod

jellydonut said:


> Hey guys
> 
> So it happens that I've got my hands on 17670 cells - I thought I wouldn't but I do. Cheers fortean101!
> 
> Which means I am back to considering the PhD-M6. However, looking at the Excel bulb chart, it appears it cannot regulate the output of the LF HO-M6R, which means it would effectively be a $200 battery carrier, right?



The 10.8V setting is really best utilized as a way to run the 1185 without causing unpredictable bulb life. (instaflashes, premature failure, etc). If the only intension is to run a HO-M6R, then the PhD-M6 is not the most cost effective solution with a large margin of return on investment because as you have learned, it will not maintain regulation on that bulb.

The best way to take advantage of the PhD-M6 at a similar output level as the HO-M6R is to consider the IMR-M3T or MN61 under regulation. 



> I have an MN21 as well but the runtime for this is stated as '0-20 minutes' with two asterisks next to it. There are, however, no notes for two asterisks to be found in the chart.  One and three asterisks, but not two - am I blind/retarded/both?



Throw me a PM with email information and I'll happily send you a copy of the file in PDF format. It should render correctly and you should then be able to read the various "notes" for the different markings. 

Eric


----------



## mdocod

jellydonut said:


> What about the IMR-M3T? It is listed without any intimidating special characters in the sheet, and it's a nice and clear bulb for added throw. Anyone got any feedback on that one?



The IMR-M3T @ ~7.5V is one of my favorite bulbs! Works really nice. 

Eric


----------



## jellydonut

Erm.. I am too weak. 

Black Edition PhD-M6 $210

IMR-M3T bulbs, some extra batteries, other goodies $200

lovecpf


----------



## wquiles

That is the only real downside of this hobby of ours - it is hard on our finances


----------



## jellydonut

Phew - went through all the PhD-M6 threads last night. oo:

I'm left wondering - what is the maximum input voltage of the PhD-M6? For future battery technology considerations and the like.

Would it be possible to create a 7.2V 'IMR 17670' with two 16340s? The capacity would be terrible, but.. just as a consideration.. :devil:


----------



## wquiles

jellydonut said:


> Phew - went through all the PhD-M6 threads last night. oo:
> 
> I'm left wondering - what is the maximum input voltage of the PhD-M6? For future battery technology considerations and the like.
> 
> Would it be possible to create a 7.2V 'IMR 17670' with two 16340s? The capacity would be terrible, but.. just as a consideration.. :devil:



Right now the hardware and software are optimized for 3x LiIon cells, which was the technology/chemistry we had available in the 17670 form factor. Applying a higher voltage would not be recognized by the software (you might blow some bulbs in the process!), and you might damage (break) the PhD-M6, so please use only the recommended 17670 LiIon cells with your PhD-M6 pack.

If/when IMR 17670 cells become available, I will then test the PhD-M6 pack to see what needs to change in the software/hardware design. My guess at this point is that because the IMR cells don't sag as much, I might need to tweak the low-voltage monitoring software, but with no 17670 IMR cells in my hand to test, it is just a guess on my part.


----------



## wquiles

I want to pass along a good tip on maintenance for your M6. To ensure optimum current capability, it is important to clean/wipe this edge from time to time:







and if you can, it is also good to remove the press-fit metal tailcap insert and clean the lower lip as well (since that is what contacts the body of the light to transfer current):











Will


----------



## Tim W

I had posted this before the crash, but does anyone have the bulb chart in PDF form? I don't know what the @#[email protected]# I'm doing wrong, but I can't get the XLS version to print out properly.

Thanks,
Tim


----------



## wquiles

Thanks to Justin we have the same data in a graphical/photo format what you should be able to see:
http://m3coupe.com/electronics/PhD/part2/PhDM6_Bulb_Chart_8_21_10.png

Will


----------



## jtivat

I am having as issue with my pack if if i remove the tail cap and replace it the pack will not work again until I pull the batteries. This is also an issue when putting the tail cap on as many times the tail cap will short and then not work until the batteries are pulled again. This can be very frustrating as it sometimes takes many tries!


----------



## wquiles

jtivat said:


> I am having as issue with my pack if if i remove the tail cap and replace it the pack will not work again until I pull the batteries. This is also an issue when putting the tail cap on as many times the tail cap will short and then not work until the batteries are pulled again. This can be very frustrating as it sometimes takes many tries!


 
JT,

What you are seeing is this:
- PhD-M6 senses the circuit being closed (tailcap making electrical contact therefore closing the ciruit)
- PhD-M6 starts to apply narrow pulses via PWM to do the soft-start
- Before the PhD-M6 can finish the soft-start phase and go into steady-state, the cell's built-in short circuit protection is being triggered
- Since the ony way to reset the cells' protection circuitry is to remove the load, you have to remove at least one cell to reset the protection circuit. 
- The reason it then works fine after several tries is because the filament is now not 100% "cold", so the inrush current is a little bit lower, which then does not trigger the cell's protection circuitry.

NOTE: Keep in mind that all it takes is one cell to trigger "early" for this to happen.

I have seen this in my older/used set of cells, and more so when combined with a high current bulb, as it looks like with use/time the cells become a little bit more sensitive to the high inrush current from the cold filament. It would be good to know what bulb this is happening with, and how old/how much use the current set of batteries have. The other thing to try is to use a brand new set of cells, as I have not seen new cells excibit this problem.

Will


----------



## jtivat

I purchased the cells same time as the pack and they have very little use on them.

Lamp is the MN21
Cells are AW


----------



## Tim W

Just what the Dr. ordered!

Thanks!
Tim



wquiles said:


> Thanks to Justin we have the same data in a graphical/photo format what you should be able to see:
> http://m3coupe.com/electronics/PhD/part2/PhDM6_Bulb_Chart_8_21_10.png
> 
> Will


----------



## wquiles

jtivat said:


> I purchased the cells same time as the pack and they have very little use on them.
> 
> Lamp is the MN21
> Cells are AW


 
Same combination where I have personally seen what I described above, and the reason why I always test each pack I make with the MN21 - the MN21 puts everything to the test as the cold amperage is very high. 

Please try to completely clean the threads/tailcap of old grease/dirt in case that is also contributing to an intermitent electrical connection, but in my own experience the MN21 is just too darn hard on the poor LiIon cells (the MN-21 is pushing the cells beyond their max recommended amperage draw, which also shortens their life expectancy), so it is more likely that you will need to buy new cells just like I did.

What I do with the older cells is that I use them in my second M6, driving the MN-61, which is a far lower load on the cells, and I then never trigger the cells' protection circuitry with that bulb.

Will


----------



## JimmyM

Will, This might seem like an "after the horses have gone" solution. I'm a great Monday morning Quarterback.
In the voltage mode for the MN21 you could add a bit of code that keeps duty cycle low (1-2 for maybe 20 loops (80 mS) during the first part of the softstart phase. It will keep the "shock" to the cell protection short enough to not trigger the protection yet allow the filament to heat up a bit before rolling into the steep ramp of full start up.


----------



## wquiles

JimmyM said:


> Will, This might seem like an "after the horses have gone" solution. I'm a great Monday morning Quarterback.
> In the voltage mode for the MN21 you could add a bit of code that keeps duty cycle low (1-2 for maybe 20 loops (80 mS) during the first part of the softstart phase. It will keep the "shock" to the cell protection short enough to not trigger the protection yet allow the filament to heat up a bit before rolling into the steep ramp of full start up.


 
It is a great idea, and in fact I am "already" doing that. That was the only way I could even get the MN21 to work at all with the cells we have today. The MN21 simply draws too much current, so I came up with this two-stage soft-start mechanism, in order to fool the cells' protection into not triggering. And the algorithm I came up with works 100% reliably: as I mentioned above I always test every new pack with the MN21 precicesely due to the high current draw. The problem is that after a while (depending on age of the cells and the actual usage), as the cells get hammered with the frequent demands (beyond their rating), some of the cells degrade quicker than others, and eventually "one" of the 3 cells starts triggering its protection circuit, and that is when you see the problem. At that point you really should to get new cells, or switch to a lower amperage bulb.

Will


----------



## JimmyM

wquiles said:


> It is a great idea, and in fact I am "already" doing that. That was the only way I could even get the MN21 to work at all with the cells we have today. The MN21 simply draws too much current, so I came up with this two-stage soft-start mechanism, in order to fool the cells' protection into not triggering. And the algorithm I came up with works 100% reliably: as I mentioned above I always test every new pack with the MN21 precicesely due to the high current draw. The problem is that after a while (depending on age of the cells and the actual usage), as the cells get hammered with the frequent demands (beyond their rating), some of the cells degrade quicker than others, and eventually "one" of the 3 cells starts triggering its protection circuit, and that is when you see the problem. At that point you really should to get new cells, or switch to a lower amperage bulb.
> 
> Will


Great minds! heh.
I didn't know or just forgot that you were using a 2 stage softstart. I too use a multi-stage softstart. 3 stages. With the "SLOW" start you can actually see each stage on a scope.
Does the cell's protection trigger based on measured current or voltage drop of the cell?


----------



## st_burt

I forgot to post that my PhD-M6 arrived, and it's awesome! I've been running a WA1274 in FiveMega's bi-pin holder, so I can run it constantly without overheating or abusing the cells. 

Regulated incan ... it's almost like a miracle or something :bow: Really makes the M6 into a fantastic light. Thanks!


----------



## wquiles

JimmyM said:


> Great minds! heh.
> I didn't know or just forgot that you were using a 2 stage softstart. I too use a multi-stage softstart. 3 stages. With the "SLOW" start you can actually see each stage on a scope.
> Does the cell's protection trigger based on measured current or voltage drop of the cell?


 
Yes, I have learned a lot from you and Alan in this project, so it is not surprising to hear that I have some of those ideas implemented in the PhD-M6 

As to the cells, my understanding is that it is current-based. The cell is basically seeing a "short circuit", so the cell shutsdown to protect itself. The problem was worst with the first/second generation AW cells since those triggered even sooner (at smaller current levels), but the latter cells (black label) are better in this regard, and also have a longer runtime (my older blue label cells have shorter runtimes with the high current bulbs).

Will


----------



## wquiles

st_burt said:


> I forgot to post that my PhD-M6 arrived, and it's awesome! I've been running a WA1274 in FiveMega's bi-pin holder, so I can run it constantly without overheating or abusing the cells.
> 
> Regulated incan ... it's almost like a miracle or something :bow: Really makes the M6 into a fantastic light. Thanks!


 
Awesome, glad to hear the pack got there safely and that it is working well for you


----------



## DavidS

My PhD-M6 has arrived - in perfect condition and without any hassle from customs. Haven't had a chance to fire it up yet, but first impressions are build quality is superb and battery holder is exceptionally well thought out. Suspect this will turn the M6 into my go-to light!

DavidS


----------



## oldways

The PHd-M6 will indeed turn your M6 to THE go to light.


----------



## wquiles

DavidS said:


> My PhD-M6 has arrived - in perfect condition and without any hassle from customs. Haven't had a chance to fire it up yet, but first impressions are build quality is superb and battery holder is exceptionally well thought out. Suspect this will turn the M6 into my go-to light!
> 
> DavidS


Cool. It certainly takes a little bit longer for anything shipped to Canada due to the customs delay, but I am glad it finally arrived. Please let us know how it works out once you start using it.



oldways said:


> The PHd-M6 will indeed turn your M6 to THE go to light.


I am of course a little bit biased myself, but I have two M6's, one with the MN21 that now-a-days pretty much stays in my bench to test each PhD-M6 pack before it goes out, but my second M6 uses one of the very first working prototypes packs (I don't even have one of the Black packs!) with the MN61 bulb, and that is my go to light whenever I head out of the house - long running, good lumens without getting too hot, and a great regulated beam that makes everything outdoors look "natural" 

Will


----------



## DavidS

Have now had some time to use my PhD-M6, and it doesn't disappoint! Been running it with MN20/21, LF HO-MR6, IMR-M6 and WA1185 in bi-pin holder. Easy to set up correct voltages, and fantastic to have a regulated beam followed by low mode. And now with rechargeables I'll be able to use this regularly.

I can't thank you guys enough for all the time and effort that this project took, but I can assure you that your time was well spent! Anyone who doesn't buy one of these for their M6 is missing a great trick - this is what Surefire should have released, and the build quality is easily up there with Surefire's.


----------



## wquiles

Awesome - thanks much


----------



## theamazingrando

I just placed an order (over on the order thread). 

I decided to go with:
5.0
6.8
7.2
9.2

I know I'll regret leaving out the 10.8 level if IMR cells capable of driving the 1185 show up--but I have a couple of N1s, and the idea of matching my A2's beautiful regulated beam for 2 hours and more appeals to me.


----------



## oldways

You can have it re-programed I believe, if need be.

The 9.2 setting you chose will really make the MN61 shine


----------



## wquiles

theamazingrando said:


> I just placed an order (over on the order thread).
> 
> I decided to go with:
> 5.0
> 6.8
> 7.2
> 9.2
> 
> I know I'll regret leaving out the 10.8 level is IMR cells capable of driving the 1185 show up--but I have a couple of N1s, and the idea of matching my A2's beautiful regulated beam for 2 hours and more appeals to me.


Your pack left today - please do stop by once you get it and have time to "play" with it some 





oldways said:


> You can have it re-programed I believe, if need be.
> 
> The 9.2 setting you chose will really make the MN61 shine


 
The 9.2V is what I use on my second M6, with the MN61. It is my go-to light


----------



## theamazingrando

I had a chance to play with my pack last night. I illuminated trees at various distances with the MN16 @ 6.8v and the MN61 @ 9.2v. The MN16 was super white and is a great thrower in this light. The MN61 is amazing! It produces a huge amount of very nice light with surprisingly little heat. It really is a sweet spot for this system. I'll have to pick up a couple more MN61 lamps before stocks start to dwindle. 

I love my M6 running this pack! I've always wanted to see the M6 get the Aviator treatment from Surefire, and with this regulator it's half way there. If it had secondary LEDs to produce a white, smooth flood like my AZ2 with the regulated MN61 for the main battery that might be my perfect light.


----------



## theamazingrando

By the way, I used my P-Touch label printer to make the only obvious upgrade to the pack:


----------



## theamazingrando

Now that the lights are out in our warehouse at work, I've been playing with all the lamp options I have. 

I have to say that the N1 with the PhD is not to be despised. It has great throw with a tight, white hotspot. I actually really like it. 

Of course, you have to run the N1 BEFORE the other lamps to appreciate it! 

I hadn't expected the regulation to make a big difference with the MN21, but it looks whiter to my eye-making it seem brighter. The MN21 will light up the entire 80 yard aisle of racks in the warehouse--right to the ceiling. That really is an awesome lamp!


----------



## wquiles

theamazingrando said:


> I had a chance to play with my pack last night. I illuminated trees at various distances with the MN16 @ 6.8v and the MN61 @ 9.2v. The MN16 was super white and is a great thrower in this light. The MN61 is amazing! It produces a huge amount of very nice light with surprisingly little heat. It really is a sweet spot for this system. I'll have to pick up a couple more MN61 lamps before stocks start to dwindle.
> 
> I love my M6 running this pack! I've always wanted to see the M6 get the Aviator treatment from Surefire, and with this regulator it's half way there. If it had secondary LEDs to produce a white, smooth flood like my AZ2 with the regulated MN61 for the main battery that might be my perfect light.





theamazingrando said:


> Now that the lights are out in our warehouse at work, I've been playing with all the lamp options I have.
> 
> I have to say that the N1 with the PhD is not to be despised. It has great throw with a tight, white hotspot. I actually really like it.
> 
> Of course, you have to run the N1 BEFORE the other lamps to appreciate it!
> 
> I hadn't expected the regulation to make a big difference with the MN21, but it looks whiter to my eye-making it seem brighter. The MN21 will light up the entire 80 yard aisle of racks in the warehouse--right to the ceiling. That really is an awesome lamp!



Awesome - thanks for the feedback. Although the N1 gives you long runtimes, and the MN21 is "stunning" when running regulated, the MN61 gives you the best compromise on good runtime, good output, and you are not being too hard on the cells 



theamazingrando said:


> By the way, I used my P-Touch label printer to make the only obvious upgrade to the pack:


I like it - good idea


----------



## archimedes

Wow, I just stumbled across this thread - this is so cool!

I did have one question (and apologize if this has been asked and answered, I tried scanning through the 15+ pages of discussion, but might have missed it), namely, will this work with the AW soft-start three-level M6 tail-switch?

I am constantly amazed at the things that are created here on CPF....


----------



## oldways

No. It will NOT work with the AW soft start switch.

The PhD-M6 pack has built in soft start.


----------



## archimedes

oldways said:


> No. It will NOT work with the AW soft start switch.
> 
> The PhD-M6 pack has built in soft start.


 
Yeah, that's what I had guessed. I might have to look for a second M6 tailcap, as I'd rather not have to uninstall and reinstall the AW switch. Those don't seem to pop up too often on CPFMP, though.

Thanks for the info.


----------



## wquiles

Thanks much *oldways*


----------



## LuxLuthor

Just wanted to give you ongoing praise. This has been the best thing for my M6's since sliced bread. They tend to squash the sliced bread though.

Thanks for making and supporting these regulators.


----------



## DM51

Good to see this bumped. I agree with LL and others - this is easily the best solution for the M6.


----------



## wquiles

Thank you guys


----------



## Tim W

DM51 said:


> Good to see this bumped. I agree with LL and others - this is easily the best solution for the M6.


 

+1!!!!

I've not posted much (if anything) about mine, but it does what it does fantastically well!

While I * KIND OF * miss running an 1185 with a FM 3x17670 holder, I LOVE THIS THING WITH the MN61! New cells give easily 30-35 minutes continuous beautiful WHITE light.


----------



## oldways

Tim W said:


> +1!!!!
> 
> I've not posted much (if anything) about mine, but it does what it does fantastically well!
> 
> While I * KIND OF * miss running an 1185 with a FM 3x17670 holder, I LOVE THIS THING WITH the MN61! New cells give easily 30-35 minutes continuous beautiful WHITE light.


 

It will run the 1185 well at 10.8v


----------



## DM51

All we really need to make it totally perfect are some AW IMR17670s, so we can run the MN21 without overstraining the cells...


----------



## Tim W

oldways said:


> It will run the 1185 well at 10.8v


 
Yeah, I know, but not with any kind of regulation which was the biggest selling point for me.


----------



## Flea Bag

Hi guys, I've been away for a while and now I come back to find that the SF incans are discontinued... I quickly ordered another M6 for keeping and then stumbled upon the completion of this thing! I actually contributed quite a few thoughts back in the early feedback/design phase and I'm really happy it's turned out the way it has!

Right now, I'm considering which voltages I should go for. I have a preference for bulbs that run at least an hour on the original 6xCR123 configs but at around the 200 lumen level. As such, my favourite bulb is the MN20 (newer version with oval hotspot). Also have one of each: MN15, MN16, MN21, MN60, MN61, MN10.

Decided so far on:
Level 1: 6.8v
Level 2: 7.4/7.3v (slightly lower than 7.5 for better durability of MN20, MN15 bulbs?)

It's level 3 and 4 that I'm undecided about. I like that 10.8v allows usage of some WA lamps as well as Lumens Factory LAs but I don't own any of those yet. What I'm more interested in are the MN60 and MN61. I've read impressions about the MN20 vs MN60 and though the 60 has better endurance, it also seems to yellow sooner than an MN20 on primaries. I can always test this myself but I trust your impressions.

But with the new PhD and its regulation, how does the MN60 at 9.8 or 10v compare to the MN20 at 7.4/7.3V? Does it still yellow sooner? I like that the MN60 is comparable to the MN20 but has the potential to run quite a bit longer.


----------



## wquiles

The best guide as to what to expect was created by Eric. His table compares many bulbs, in regards with their output, current draw, recommended drive level, etc.. We are not recommending using all of those bulbs with the PhD-M6, since many of them really go past the safe 2C load on the cells, but it is still a very good summary, and a good way to compare bulbs, so that you can have some options. Updated bulb charts/tables from Eric:
PhDM6_Bulb_Chart_8_21_10.xls

Thanks to forum member and contributor *Justin_Case*, we also have available the same information as a graph/photo (PNG format):
http://m3coupe.com/electronics/PhD/part2/PhDM6_Bulb_Chart_8_21_10.png


I run the MN61 in my personal pack, and from memory it is set at 9.2 volts or so, and I love it. Nice, bright, white team, great output level, is not too hard on the cells, and the host does not get too hot on very long runs. It is my favorite bulb on the PhD-M6 for "actual" use 

Will


----------



## Flea Bag

Thanks Will... I did use Justin_Case's list to arrive at what I'm at so far. (With great appreciation) 

I'm still not certain about how underdriven the respective bulbs are when at the lower end of the 'recommended range' though. For example, the MN20's range of 7.2 to 8.1v -Are the bulbs quite yellow at 7.2 or still quite white, similar to running on 60-70% charge CR123s?

At this time, I'm probably going for two packs, the first of which is:

1. 6.7v (MN16, MN21)
2. 7.3v (MN15, MN20, Lumen's Factory bulbs)
3. 9.2v (MN61)
4. 10.0/9.8 (MN60)

You'll notice how I'm about 0.1 to 0.2v lower than the common 7.4/7.5 and 6.8v. Would you think this would be of minimal impact to whiteness while helping a bit in physical durability (vibration/accidental light impact?)


----------



## wquiles

I think that the range Eric listed is a good guide as to what is practical/doable from under-driving the bulb to over-driving the bulb, but perhaps is best to look at the Recommended Drive Level for the MN20 being at 7.5volts, MN21 at 6.8volts, etc. 

Most folks have used those recommended values and have reported great success, but a 0.1/0.2 volts difference is not very significant, so if set a tad lower than the "recommended" value, the impact will be minimal (I doubt you will be able to notice with your bare eyes, plus you of course have bulb-to-bulb variations, etc.), but of course I will program your pack(s) as you request. 

Will


----------



## Flea Bag

The PhD uses a buck converter correct?

If so, what is the max voltage it will take and would it work just as well with 6 x CR123 primay cells, assuming I stick to within the 1C to 2C discharge range?


----------



## Justin Case

Post deleted.


----------



## wquiles

Justin - great reply. Thanks much for your great insights 




Flea Bag said:


> The PhD uses a buck converter correct?
> 
> If so, what is the max voltage it will take and would it work just as well with 6 x CR123 primary cells, assuming I stick to within the 1C to 2C discharge range?


Yes, a buck down converter, but the hardware/board (voltage dividers) and software (taking into account discharge rates) were programmed to work with 3x fully-charged LiIon cells plus a little margin (around 14 volts or so, if my memory is right). I have not done tests nor approved using anything other than 3x LiIon cells, so I would not recommend using 6x CR123 primary cells.

Will


----------



## Flea Bag

Great post Justin... Thanks for taking the time. I did some hard work and read the entire thread too and stumbled upon mdocod's recommendations for a member who may have wanted a little more safety. You're right in stating that I want to be more careful with my voltages now that the M6 is discontinued and we're not sure of how may lamp assemblies are available out there.

Will, I know it's not tested but is there any reason why the PhD-M6 can't use 4 x CR123 with two dummy cells?

Also, will the PhD-M6 fit 2 x 18650 cells and a thin dummy? I'm interested in the new 2600 and 2900 mAh capacities AW/Panasonic has available and plan to use them with the MN21.


----------



## wquiles

Flea Bag said:


> Will, I know it's not tested but is there any reason why the PhD-M6 can't use xyz cell(s)?



Yes - the pack was designed, tested, and calibrated to work only with the 3x 17670 LiIon cells. Preferably the ones from AW.

Myself and Eric (and the Alfa/Beta testers) took great care and spent a lot of time testing the pack with the approved 3xLiIon cells - ZERO time spent on any other combination. No other combination is approved for the PhD-M6 pack.

Will


----------



## Flea Bag

My apologies for sounding tiresome about it...

I think I've figured out what voltage combinations would work best for me. Just need to work out other bulbs, parts and accessories I'll need before I place an order... Thanks again Will and Justin!


----------



## wquiles

Flea Bag said:


> My apologies for sounding tiresome about it...
> 
> I think I've figured out what voltage combinations would work best for me. Just need to work out other bulbs, parts and accessories I'll need before I place an order... Thanks again Will and Justin!



If you were to try other combinations/cells/etc. that we have not tested, the pack might be damaged, the bulbs might blow up, the regulation points could be off, the battery low level would certainly don't work as well, etc., etc., etc. - we just don't know. No product is perfect, and I am not claiming that my PhD-M6 is perfect, but based on the 40-50+ packs in use all other the world, the pack seems to work really well with the 3xLiIon cells, and the bulbs/voltages Eric came up with, so that is why I recommend staying within that "envelope" 

Will


----------



## Flea Bag

wquiles said:


> If you were to try other combinations/cells/etc. that we have not tested, the pack might be damaged, the bulbs might blow up, the regulation points could be off, the battery low level would certainly don't work as well, etc., etc., etc. - we just don't know. No product is perfect, and I am not claiming that my PhD-M6 is perfect, but based on the 40-50+ packs in use all other the world, the pack seems to work really well with the 3xLiIon cells, and the bulbs/voltages Eric came up with, so that is why I recommend staying within that "envelope"
> 
> Will



I get you Will... No worries! I've got some engineering background too so I know where you're coming from! I'm still working on the final voltage at the moment...


----------



## mdocod

Hello Flea Bag... err... that doesn't sound very nice,

(now why are you making me call you that? just doesn't seem right!)

hehe.... anyways. I was just checking email and noticed that Will had sent me a heads up that there was some activity that may well warrant another opinion on the matter. 

As I recall, I think most SF bulbs were rated by SF to be 30 hour lamps (or maybe it was 50? can't recall). Keep in mind that, bulb life ratings for bulbs intended to be direct-driven by batteries are always going to be rough estimates because there are so many variables. CR123s when used to drive bulbs direct drive, can be somewhat abusive because they tend to deliver higher inital voltage and then settle down within a few seconds (or fraction of a second depending on the load and temp and state of charge etc etc). Matching bulbs to CR123 cells requires leaving enough overhead in the bulb design to handle higher voltage peaks than when matching bulbs to a constant voltage source. Temperature and state of charge have a huge effect on drive levels. 

When selecting "recommended" voltages, my goal was to try to make a reasonable estimate of where a constant voltage drive level with soft start, would roughly match the bulbs originally intended life on CR123s. I can't guarantee anything because there is no concrete published data on SF bulbs, however, I suspect I have come respectably close to that goal. The idea being that, we can get away with a slightly higher _average_ drive level than the bulb would have seen on CR123s, because we have traded out the abusive characteristics of direct drive.

That said, if you want to get the MN21 running closer to it's average drive level on CR123s, 6.6V would technically be closer, for the MN15/20, 7.5V is probably pretty darn close but dropping a tenth wouldn't hurt either. The MN15/20 bulbs, IMO, are _likely_ to have more overhead in their design because they would normally have been subject to higher voltage spikes as a result of the way CR123s behave into those loads. 

As far as the CCT is concerned.. Assuming that a MN20 is running ~3325K at 7.5V (a complete and total guess; please keep this within context as it is for comparison purposes only), then at 7.3V, it would drop to ~3300K. If they were side by side, you _might_ be able to notice a difference, but if you had any time between comparing them, I think it would be pretty hard bordering on impossible to identify which was which. 

One last consideration: I wouldn't personally bother with a 10.8V setting. I have it on my packs, but never have any desire to use it because it really does not provide any meaningful regulation, we just don't have enough voltage overhead to work with. Also, if I had to choose between a ~7.5V>MN20 vs a ~10V>MN60. I think I would be tempted to lean towards the MN60 if beam pattern differences were not an issue. For reasons which I do not have the gumption to explain at this time, a higher voltage, lower current, similar wattage, albeit still primarily regulated setting, is going to make better use of available stored energy 

Eric


----------



## Flea Bag

Thanks for popping in Eric and to Will for the heads-up... It certainly seems like all the bulbs I'll be using will be 10v or lower.

After consideration and the your kind inputs, I'd like the following levels:

1: 6.7v 
2: 7.3v
3: 9.2v
4: 10.0v

That and international shipping please...

Total $195 + $15 = $210. Let me know when I can send the payment!

Thanks again Eric, Will and Justin... I know I'm late to the party, but in case anyone wants to know, my voltages above are prioritised purely for the SureFire HOLAs and LOLAs (LOLAs a bit more for durability and a little less 'wow' since they're meant more for endurance anyway) with levels 3 and 4 specifically for the MN60 and MN61. My figures were derived largely from Eric (mdocod), Justin_Case and Will's posts throughout this thread.


----------



## wquiles

Flea Bag said:


> Thanks for popping in Eric and to Will for the heads-up... It certainly seems like all the bulbs I'll be using will be 10v or lower.
> 
> After consideration and the your kind inputs, I'd like the following levels:
> 
> 1: 6.7v
> 2: 7.3v
> 3: 9.2v
> 4: 10.0v
> 
> That and international shipping please...
> 
> Total $195 + $15 = $210. Let me know when I can send the payment!
> 
> Thanks again Eric, Will and Justin... I know I'm late to the party, but in case anyone wants to know, my voltages above are prioritised purely for the SureFire HOLAs and LOLAs (LOLAs a bit more for durability and a little less 'wow' since they're meant more for endurance anyway) with levels 3 and 4 specifically for the MN60 and MN61. My figures were derived largely from Eric (mdocod), Justin_Case and Will's posts throughout this thread.



No problem - glad we were able to help 

The ordering information is in the Sales Thread:
http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?288770-Sales-Thread-for-the-Black-Edition-PhD-M6-custom-battery-pack

Basically post your order in that thread, claiming the next # (19, I believe), and send Paypal to the email address listed there.

I should be able to work work on your pack and get it done this weekend, and then notify you when it ships.

Will


----------



## Flea Bag

wquiles said:


> No problem - glad we were able to help
> 
> The ordering information is in the Sales Thread:
> http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?288770-Sales-Thread-for-the-Black-Edition-PhD-M6-custom-battery-pack
> 
> Basically post your order in that thread, claiming the next # (19, I believe), and send Paypal to the email address listed there.
> 
> I should be able to work work on your pack and get it done this weekend, and then notify you when it ships.
> 
> Will



Sigh... I got carried away...  Will post in the sales thread!


----------



## wquiles

No worries


----------



## Flea Bag

Okay! My pack has arrived and I had a nice 47 minute run with the MN60! But first the following words:

From the French movie Taxi:

"A tourist who isn't scammed isn't a tourist" or something to that effect.

Here's mine:

"A flashaholic who hasn't blown a bulb isn't a flashaholic". :naughty:

Up till now, I've yet to blow a bulb. So...
Perhaps you can tell where this is leading...  

I thought I had it all worked out. I thought I read Will's instructions and seen the pictures so many times that I knew by heart which switch positions meant which levels. :shakehead So for the test run, I placed three newly arrived, freshly charged and properly rested AW 17670 cells into the PhD-M6, selected what I thought was level 2 (7.3V) on the dip switches for the MN20 bulb and turned the light on... What I didn't realise was that I was actually running level 3 (9.2V)!!! :sick2:

Long story short... I got a very very white MN20 which ran safely for over 5 minutes continuously until I decided to turn the M6 off. No bulb failure!!! MN20 still perfectly functional!

:nana: :devil:

Okay... Now really I was very lucky with that misadventure not to have blown my faithful MN20. The guy had over 30 hours on it, probably much more. To be honest, when I first turned it on thinking it was 7.3V, I was actually a bit disappointed. It wasn't the brightness or whiteness -that was very impressive. Rather, I was thinking: I should have gone with an even more conservative voltage than 7.3v because I quite like the slightly warmer tints (even for an incan) and want to make my bulbs last a little longer and be physically tougher against little bumps and impacts. But anyway, now that I’ve run the MN20 at 7.3v proper, I’m very happy with the beam tint and would be happy even if it were 0.1 or a little more lower.

I then proceeded to testing one of my main purposes for using the PhD-M6 pack: The MN60, which should give me close to 70 minutes, an improved efficiency to the MN20 at around the same output. I was then planning to test the MN61 and finally, the MN21 where by then, the cells should have been through a few cycles.

Unfortunately, progress was halted with the MN60. I managed only 48 minutes total runtime on my new AW 17670 cells. This was the set of cells that did 9.2V on my MN20 for 5 minutes, then 7.3V on the MN20 for 8 minutes and the remaining 35 minutes on the MN60 at 10.0V. So I thought perhaps the MN20 at 9.2 must have pulled some serious current from my cells during that 5 minute run. I did notice the extra heat of the output at 9.2, but it couldn’t have drawn so much more as to lose around 20 minutes of MN60 runtime!

So I proceeded to use the second set of new 17670 cells on the MN60 and got only 51 minutes until Moon mode kicked in and around 2.5 minutes until protection shut the light off completely. It was at this point that I thought perhaps there was too much resistance somewhere or that the pack was malfunctioning.

The next day, after the first set of 17670 cells had their charge and a rest, I placed the cells in an FM 3x17670 holder and ran the MN60 direct drive. Clearly overdriven, it was a very white tint, for almost all its runtime until around the 47.5 minute mark where tint had dimmed noticeably and relatively quickly to become equivalent to my MN20 2x18650 reference in a Leef 2x18650 body. Then at 49 minutes, protection cut in. I proceeded to test the second set of 17670 cells and it too produced a 49 minute runtime.

Two more runs using the PhD-M6 with both sets of 17670 cells produced 53 and 52 minutes total runtime respectively.

As I type this, I’m using an MN10 in the adorable looking ‘sea-cucumber’ config. to test the health of my cells on an easier load.


----------



## wquiles

Awesome - looks like you are having tons of fun 

Will


----------



## Flea Bag

Thanks for joining in Will :wave:

I had 1h 48minutes to moon mode on the MN10 at 7.3v. I followed that up with the MN20 and had a little over 51 minutes to Moon mode which sounds about right.

I was hoping for much more than the 52/53 minutes from the MN60 though. Eric's table indicated it would do 70 minutes and now I'm not sure the MN61 will do the full 40 minutes either. Will test it in a day or two.


----------



## wquiles

Flea Bag said:


> Thanks for joining in Will :wave:
> 
> I had 1h 48minutes to moon mode on the MN10 at 7.3v. I followed that up with the MN20 and had a little over 51 minutes to Moon mode which sounds about right.
> 
> I was hoping for much more than the 52/53 minutes from the MN60 though. Eric's table indicated it would do 70 minutes and now I'm not sure the MN61 will do the full 40 minutes either. Will test it in a day or two.



Eric table is just a baseline - it does not mean that every single bulb/battery combination will deliver "exactly" those numbers. Remember that you have variations in cell to cell, and bulb to bulb, so if I get 35min on my MN61 and you get 40min on your MN61, that is more than reasonable variation given that we don't have control over every single variable.

You are getting close enough values to indicate everything is working perfectly. Just use it and enjoy it 

Will


----------



## Flea Bag

Don't get me wrong! I am enjoying the pack heartily! I was under the impression though that the table was made with the 3x17670 config in mind. My 17670 cells are pretty new since all 6 arrived just last week and AW confirmed that they were of the same production batch so I was expecting rather more runtime with the MN60 on my AW cells. 

If I were to calculate runtimes using just simple wattage however, it does make sense now that runtimes (for MN60) should be only a few minutes longer than the MN20. I suspect Eric's estimate for the MN60 was based closer to the power figures of the bulb running on the stock 4xCR123 config. which spends a higher proportion of its 1h runtime underdriven compared to bulbs like the MN20 on 6xCR123. That and the higher voltage of the MN60 which results in lower amps needed from the batteries.

Now that I know my cells are fine, I'll proceed to testing the MN61 and then the MN21!


----------



## wquiles

Cool, let me know how you like my favorite - the MN61


----------



## Flea Bag

I've not yet run the MN61 but decided to try something interesting to cure my curiosity as to why the MN60 isn't getting better runtimes compared to stock config despite the superior energy capacity of the PhD-M6 pack. At this point, we do know that the stock configuration is quite underdriven relative to the li-ions: Why not run the MN60 stock and note its tint at the middle of the run until the final few minutes of a 1h runtime to see just how dim it is compared to MN60 at 10.0V in PhD-M6?

Long story short, I didn’t complete the run on the 4xCR123 stock setup due to a screw-up that caused the cells to overheat. Instead, I decided to try the MN60 at 9.2v rather than 10v. The 10v setup previously gave about a 53 minute runtime.

Running at 9.2v, I got a nice tinted beam (still quite white), what looks to be full regulation throughout the run and a total of 61 minutes battery life! Given the difference in energy densities between the PhD-M6 and stock M4-MN60, this means the MN60 is still being driven harder at 9.2v than on primaries on average unless the circuit PhD circuit is really sucking up all of that extra energy, which I doubt. It will consume some but it shouldn't be that much.

By that logic, the MN60 can probably be run at even lower voltages than 9.2 if one wants to mimic SureFire’s rated average drive levels on 4xCR123s.

In summary of what I’ve found up to this point with the MN60:

1.	MN60 on 3x17670 cells direct drive gives you 49 minutes runtime.
2.	MN60 on 3x17670 cells in PhD-M6 at 10.V gives 52 minutes runtime.
3.	MN60 on 3x17670 cells in PhD-M6 at 9.2 V gives 61 minutes runtime.


Ignore the below details if you’re not interested in details of the MN60-9.2v test:

At the start of its run, the MN60 (on CR123 primaries) is quite a bit whiter than my well-aged MN20 using oldish 2x18650 cells. At 15 minutes, it is still whiter than the MN20* but less than before. Anyway, at 20 minutes or so I let the test run unattended but made a mistake with my stopwatch and lost track of the runtime... Mumph...

Well I decided not to put in another set of primaries and instead tried to reverse investigate: Run the MN60 at 9.2v instead of 10.0v. So far, going by memory, the difference in overall output at 9.2v vs 10.0v indoors in a large white room didn't seem that large. Outdoors among the greens, that may be a different story. I'll try that another day, but hotspot tint indoors on a white wall is still considerably whiter than my old MN20-2x18650 setup* and comparable to the 15 minutes point of the 4xCR123 stock setup.

Final runtime of MN60 at 9.2V: 61 minutes to moon mode and no significant change in tint from start to finish! Probably ran in regulation the whole time and light ran noticeably cooler than at 10v as should be expected.

* note: This is probably a reflection of the age of my MN20 and or how old my 18650 cells have become. A newer MN20 on new 2x18650 cells should be whiter than the MN60 setup due to being overdriven. Whatever the case, it just goes to show how warm I like my tints. If the PhD-M6 was not around, I'd still be happily running the MN20-18650 setup blissfully unaware. I may re-run the MN60/9.2V/PhD-M6 vs MN20/direct drive/2x18650 comparison using a new MN20 eventually to be more thorough. I should have at least another 2 or 3 new MN20 bulbs in storage to test with.


----------



## wquiles

Back in this thread (starting on post 74) I did a few side by side comparisons (beamshots) between the MN20, MN21, and MN61. I like using the MN61 since it gives me a good compromise between amount of light vs. runtime, and when I do my walks at night with my kids, the MN61 always gives me "enough" runtime. But for longer walks, I would probably use the MN20.

Will


----------



## Flea Bag

I've finally done some runs of the MN61 and MN21 in the last few days and have been very impressed by both: The MN61 at 9.2v is very impressive in terms of heat output relative to light output but I only achieved a total runtime of about 33 minutes for both sets of batteries.

I've only had one run of the MN21 at 6.7v so far and the output is similarly very impressive but heat output of course is much more of a concern than with the MN61. I achieved a total runtime of 23 minutes but I may not be able to repeat that again if I were to exercise more caution.

The 23 minute MN21 run was broken up into a few segments. The first was probably around 3 minutes and the next few were around 4 to 6 minutes each with some time between segments to allow the light to cool. The final segment started at the 17.5 minute mark and I intended to run it until the PhD-M6 switched to moon mode at around the 20 minute mark. However, the pack kept going and going and at 23 minutes, heat was starting to worry me, so I turned it off.

For those who are unaware, the MN21 is a class of bulb which puts out so much heat that the head and neck area can become warm before the heat even has a chance to spread to the rest of the light. The li-ions themselves will also be putting out quite some heat due to the high current required. Therefore, it is not uncommon to turn off the M6-MN21 when its head is warm and the body still cool only to come back a minute or two later to find that both the head and body have continued to grow even warmer than when you first switched off the light.

Back to the run, when I turned off the light at 23minutes, both head and body were already very warm which meant that the batteries would have been even hotter and any further running could damage the batteries. Sure enough, when I tried to turn the M6 on again about 20 minute later when the body had cooled to air temperature (around 26 degrees celsius), the M6 would not turn on. What has happened here is that the eleveated internal battery temperatures have resulted in a battery voltage rise high enough to keep the MN21 running without triggering the moon mode. Once the batteries were allowed to cool back to room temperature (and therefore causing battery voltages to drop back to levels more indicative of their true remaining capacity), the cells were unable to pump out the minimum required current to start the MN21.

Allowed to cool overnight, the batteries measured in at 3.66, 3.66 and 3.69v respectively. I'll try to do another run in smaller, more strict 3 minute segments with a few hours rest in-between to determine the true runtime the batteries can sustain without heat-aided voltage rises.


----------



## wquiles

Cool - you have been busy 

I will try tonight to do a run on my MN61 (have not done a full run in a long time!). And by the way, I always have a very small fan (a 12v fan from a desktop PC) running on the host while I am doing the runtimes. I setup the host in the general direction of the TV, so while I am watching TV I can tell when it goes into moon mode.

Will


----------



## wquiles

I charged my 3x cells with two PILA chargers, and I got 31 minutes to moon mode on the MN-61 and at about 34 minutes it shutdown.

Will


----------



## Flea Bag

Hi Will, I'm surprised there aren't more of us doing complete runtime tests and then posting them here! My tests are a bit more 'purist' and are done with me holding the light in an outdoors environment. Here in the tropics however, things do heat up quite a bit faster any time of the year but doing the tests this way lets me know how long I can run a light/bulb combo before heat makes things uncomfortable!

I did another run of the MN21 at 6.7v in 2 to 3 minute segments with a cooling down period in-between and am pleased to report a runtime of 23m 45s to moon mode! The final run started from the 22m mark so that final 1m 45s of running did allow the Moon Mode to do its job and dim the light at the appropriate time. Battery voltages read: 3.47v, 3.59v and 3.59v!

One interesting note was that the M6 did seem to heat up faster during those 1m45s than earlier 2-3m runs, perhaps reflecting how much nearer to the limit they were running to compensate with their falling voltage levels. I think 20m would be a good time to have your batteries recharged for the sake of their long-term health.

I'll take the MN61 out again tonight to see how much less I'm getting compared to the MN21! I intend to keep one M6 with an endurance bulb like the MN60 or MN20/MN16 and the other equipped with a quick-blast option like the MN21/61.

Plain and simple fun!


----------



## wquiles

Flea Bag said:


> Hi Will, I'm surprised there aren't more of us doing complete runtime tests and then posting them here!


The pack has been for sale for almost two years, so we have done a lot of testing in the past. Once folks find that 1 or 2 bulbs that work best for them, they just keep using that combo(s) - like in my case, I settled on the MN61.





Flea Bag said:


> Plain and simple fun!


That is what matters most at the end of the day - that you are enjoying the M6 again 


Will


----------



## Flea Bag

The pack has been on sale for a long time but despite going through this entire thread and more before buying it and deciding on voltages etc, I'm surprised there aren't more runtimes done. No one did the MN61 and MN60 for example and those bulbs were the ones I was most interested in. There's also the Lumens Factory bulbs and others like the WAs.

Like you said, I guess most are quite easily satisfied with their chosen bulb or two (mine was the MN20 for a few years) but I personally intend to test quite a few more before I decide which ones to use long-term. I think this way because these bulbs might be discontinued eventually so before I stock-up on them, I want to make sure I get it right. Don't be mistaken, I've always enjoyed my M6 and M4 and they're the only lights that I've used recreationally rather than just for convenience or necessity, but your pack has started me experimenting with other bulbs that weren't cost-effective before so you can understand why it appears as if my M6 has been getting a lot of attention recently!

Consider me a big fan of this pack! I've been waiting for it a long time -December 2008!


----------



## wquiles

I am also worried about the bulbs being discontinued, specially now that the incandescent M6 has been discontinued. Even recently L.A. Police Gear was running a liquidation sale on a couple of the bulbs, and before they were all gone, I picked up two brand new MN20 bulbs. Even though the bulbs should last longer with the soft-start, I still wanted to have a couple of spares for future use 

Will


----------



## scaredofthedark

man this pack is so awesome....
makes me wanna order two more...
did a runtime test with mn61 @ 7.5V bulb and got 33 mins off it.

if only i had money for a second M6 and two more packs....


----------



## wquiles

scaredofthedark said:


> man this pack is so awesome....
> makes me wanna order two more...
> did a runtime test with mn61 @ 7.5V bulb and got 33 mins off it.
> 
> if only i had money for a second M6 and two more packs....



Thanks man 

Batteries do get worn out from time to time (specially when running the MN21 bulb, which is a "cell killer" due to the high current draw), but I am still using one of my original white PhD-M6 prototype pack in my personal M6 with an MN61 bulb (at 9.2V), and almost 3 years latter it is still working like the day it was built 

Will


----------



## LuxLuthor

wquiles said:


> Thanks man
> 
> Batteries do get worn out from time to time (specially when running the MN21 bulb, which is a "cell killer" due to the high current draw), but I am still using one of my original white PhD-M6 prototype pack in my personal M6 with an MN61 bulb (at 9.2V), and almost 3 years latter it is still working like the day it was built
> 
> Will



Will, I may not post much anymore, but I use your pack several times per week--for however long it has been now since you first came out with it. FYI, the MN21 & 61's are still listed at SF for $33 each, or at LAPG for $23.10; $21.70 respectively.

I think of the great Alan/Will/Jimmy trio with fondness.


----------



## JimmyM

LuxLuthor said:


> I think of the great Alan/Will/Jimmy trio with fondness.


As we do you, Lux.


----------



## cland72

I don't have a pack yet (I will within 30 days hopefully) but I will say that I've emailed Will back and forth with a few preliminary voltage configuration questions (probably very basic, beneath most of the folks in this thread) and he's taken time to answer them quickly, fully, and with respect.

Thanks Will!


----------



## wquiles

Thank you guys 

This project with Eric (mdocod) has been awesome indeed 

And for those of you who have not seen it, I got a page dedicated in my website to the PhD-M6:
PhD-M6


Will


----------



## Flea Bag

Observations of AW's 17670 cells and their use with MN21 and IMR 17650 cells as well:

In February I received my PhD-M6 and have been having lots of fun with my MN21 rotating between two sets of three of AW's 17670 cells! As a note, I recorded the voltages of the batteries straight from the package and grouped the cells acccording to voltage. The highest voltage cell was labelled "Set 1, Battery 1 of 3" and then the next highest was labelled as "Set 1, Battery 2 of 3" and so on in that order until the lowest voltage cell was labelled "Set 2, Battery 3 of 3".

I noted that after charging, battery number 3 of each set would almost always read lowest after usage and after charging. Two weeks ago, set 2 would no longer power my MN21. Light would not start. Guess the MN21 murdered them with its strain! Not surprisingly, battery set 2, battery 3 of 3 was singled out as being the weakest and the reason why the light would not light up. They would power my MN60 okay but not my MN21. Anyway, I'm not sure how much longer set 1 will continue to power my MN21 but if they died soon, I wouldn't be happy!

So I decided to tryout the some IMR 17650 cells at AvidVaper.com (there also seems to be a listing for them on eBay now). I've only done one run so far and runtime with MN21 was 19m 25s to moon mode, broken up into segments between 5 minutes and 2 minutes long. Voltage of the batteries read 3.53 to 3.54 volts at the end of the run.

As a comparison, the AW cells managed a few runs between 23m flat and 23m 45 seconds to moon mode. As can be expected, the IMR cells are better able to take the strain and by proportion are performing closer to their rated capacity than the LiCo cells.

A little maths fun to demonstrate that point:

By proportion, if the 1200mAh rated IMR cells managed 19m 25s, then the 1600 mAh cells should run for 25 minutes and 53 seconds. Conversely, if the 1600mAh cells managed 23m 45s, then the 1200mAh cells should not have managed more than 17m 49s. By proportion, IMR cells are running 81.75% as long as the LiCo cells.

Will do a few more runs to see how these cells hold up. Will also post how long my remaining set of AW cells are able to power the MN21 as it's been months I last timed them. At the moment, it does look like the MN21 looks a little brighter with the IMR cells than the LiCo cells. I can't be sure because I don't have a lux meter.


----------



## Justin Case

The AW17670 LCO cells do surprisingly well in terms of extraction efficiency (though apparently not so good on cycle life, which is no surprise for 3C discharge). The approx energy capacity of 3xAW17670 is 3*3.7V*1.6Ah = 17.8Wh. The MN21 draws about 37W, so if you could extract all of the available energy from the cells, your theoretical run time would be 17.8/37 = 0.5h. In reality, you get about 24 min, or about 80% of the rated capacity. For a 3C draw, that seems pretty good for an LCO cell.

I assume that the IMR cells are designed for high power draw. They have a nominal capacity of 3*3.7V*1.2Ah = 13.3Wh. The calculated run time is 13.3/37 = 0.36h. In fact, you get a measured 19.5 min, or 0.32h, or about 89% of rated capacity. Too bad you lose 25% in capacity vs LCO. Hopefully, you win big on cycle life.

This is where that 5.11 supercap flashlight power source could come in handy. You hybridize the power source for these high current draw lights, combining a high current capacity source and a high energy density source. The downsides that I see are the design would probably be very costly and the battery highly proprietary. No one likes expensive product lock-in.


----------



## wquiles

I have "ruined" several sets of the LCO cells just testing every pack with the MN21 bulb. The MN21 is just too hard on these cells 

As Justin states the IMR cells do sound interesting in terms of cycle life, even if the capacity is lower. I need to get some of these IMR cells to do some testing myself 

Will


----------



## Flea Bag

I'm pleased to report that my 6 month old AW cells are still able to give 23m 45s runtime with the MN21, similar to when they were new.

On their second run, my IMR 17650 cells managed 19m 45s, so about 20 seconds longer than on their first run. Will see if a third timed run goes any longer. Note that all runs were between 5 minutes and 2 minutes long.

I'd also like to add that the body of the M6 stays cool about a minute longer with the IMR cells than with the LiCo cells.

Having lots of fun!


----------



## wquiles

Flea Bag said:


> Having lots of fun!


That is the best part 

I ordered the IMR cells - hopefully next week I will get to "play" with the new cells 

Will


----------



## wquiles

OK, quick update. I ordered the 17650 cells from RTD vapor, and I did some bench testing today on my two personal packs. I tested with both the "standard" AW Black Label cells and with these IMR cells, on two voltages: 6.8v (MN21) and 9.2v (MN61), and the regulated voltage with these IMR cells was just a "hair" higher (probably due to their lower internal resistance) - just about 0.02 - 0.04 volts higher. So at least from my initial testing, these cells will work on the PhD-M6 pack "as is", with no need to re-calibrate the pack.

Will


----------



## Flea Bag

Thanks for the update! The IMR cells also run significantly cooler longer than the AW cells running the MN21 no? That should enable significantly longer continuous usage than the suggested 5 minutes max with the AW cells!


----------



## wquiles

Flea Bag said:


> Thanks for the update! The IMR cells also run significantly cooler longer than the AW cells running the MN21 no? That should enable significantly longer continuous usage than the suggested 5 minutes max with the AW cells!




I have not yet done a long MN21 test with the IMR, but I would suspect that given their lower internal resistance, that yes, they "should" run cooler and allow longer continuous runs 

And I should add that I like these IMR cells enough that I bought a second set of 3x cells :thumbsup:

Will


----------



## Edwood

Just received my 2 PhD-M6 packs. Love them. Much better fit in the body tube than my 3x17670 FM packs. 

One thing, I know it might be obvious to some people, but I must have missed in the manual where it lists which end of the pack is Positive and Negative. I think it's not mentioned in the OP of the sales thread too. The part that makes it confusing is that you refer to the cover piece for the electronics as the thicker "top" piece, further causing potential confusion.

Of course, I double checked with my DMM to make sure I has the voltage and polarity correct. But just a heads up.


----------



## wquiles

Edwood said:


> Just received my 2 PhD-M6 packs. Love them. Much better fit in the body tube than my 3x17670 FM packs.
> 
> One thing, I know it might be obvious to some people, but I must have missed in the manual where it lists which end of the pack is Positive and Negative. I think it's not mentioned in the OP of the sales thread too. The part that makes it confusing is that you refer to the cover piece for the electronics as the thicker "top" piece, further causing potential confusion.
> 
> Of course, I double checked with my DMM to make sure I has the voltage and polarity correct. But just a heads up.



Incandescent bulbs have no polarity, so it does not mater which end goes into the M6. I recommend the side with the switch facing the tailcap, so that by opening the tailcap you can see the switch position without having to remove the PhD-M6 pack.

I should add something to the manual to be more clear about that. 

Will


----------



## cland72

I've found mine to work much more reliably with the switch facing the tailcap. Not sure why.


----------



## wquiles

cland72 said:


> I've found mine to work much more reliably with the switch facing the tailcap. Not sure why.



Although Eric and I tried the packs both ways for several weeks, ever since I went into production, I have to admit I always use/test my packs with the switch facing the tailcap side, so I have no recent hands-on experience with the pack "backwards" (relatively speaking).

Anyone else notice this with their packs?


----------



## Flea Bag

From the start, I've been using the pack with the PCB/switch-side facing towards the head. I thought that since polarity doesn't matter with incans and the PCB should be able to take the heat from an MN21 or other high output bulbs, then I should try to keep the batteries away from the lamp side to minimise heat-related ageing of li-ion cells.

I apply the same principle with my C3 + 17670 and dummy cell. I place the dummy cell between the 17670 cell and the lamp-side spring.

I haven't experienced any reliability issues with the PhD-M6 pack this way. Works just as well with the longer 17670 cells and the shorter 17650 IMR cells.


----------



## wquiles

Talking about which side goes where, I wanted to point out that the end cap (with the nut) "does" have a required orientation. 

Please note this following picture of the "bottom" side of the pack. I ship the packs as shown in the right, with the nut pointing inwards, which allows the electrical path to occur. If you install this piece as in the left side, with the nut facing outwards, the pack will never work:







Will


----------



## cland72

Just wanted to say that I still love using this in my M6. Brings a smile to my face knowing the Incan throw monster isn't costing me an arm and a leg when I use it!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Brigadier

Posted this in the other PhD-M6 thread, but I will also post it here:

Received the PhD-M6 yesterday. It is an impressive piece. Very high quality design and build. And the LF HO-M3T - very impressive. Set the Phd DIP switches to 7.5V, and it produces a very nice, tight beam, much better than the MN20/21, and throws much farther. And the color - I have never seen such a pure white incan. And the regulation!! Oh yeah!! Constant brightness throughout the charge. What could be better than that?

I am looking forward to the next Seattle GTG to show this bad boy off.

As a lover of high power incans, and rechargeable solutions to battery hungry beasts, I had tried a M*g 11 on IMR26550's. It worked well, but I have always preferred the drop-in, pre-focused system SureFire designed. Now, with this PhD-M6, I can run the ultimate SF incan on rechargeable batteries. To echo LuxLuthor, it IS a no brainer.

Hats off to Will and all involved in the design and manufacture of a wonderful piece of kit.


----------



## wquiles

Thank you guys


----------



## Brigadier

OK. I have been giddy with this thing, and trying different bulb combos. I noticed in reading this thread the MN21/6.8V combo was very popular, so I tried it. Yes it is bright. Very bright. But let me tell you, IMO, it does not beat the HO-M3T/7.5V combo. The color of the LF bulbs is just, well, white. I mean snow white. And the throw......
And I can standardize the bulbs with my M3T.

Also, has anyone tried the LF HO-M4A bulb? What voltage works?

Which begs the question;

What bulb/V combo has everyone settled on?


----------



## cland72

Brigadier said:


> OK. I have been giddy with this thing, and trying different bulb combos. I noticed in reading this thread the MN21/6.8V combo was very popular, so I tried it. Yes it is bright. Very bright. But let me tell you, IMO, it does not beat the HO-M3T/7.5V combo. The color of the LF bulbs is just, well, white. I mean snow white. And the throw......
> And I can standardize the bulbs with my M3T.
> 
> Also, has anyone tried the LF HO-M4A bulb? What voltage works?
> 
> Which begs the question;
> 
> What bulb/V combo has everyone settled on?



I can't remember the voltage (7.4v?) but I've been running my stock MN20. I like it this way because I get nice long runtime, and can swap in the stock battery carrier with primaries if the 17670's run out of juice.


----------



## wquiles

Brigadier said:


> What bulb/V combo has everyone settled on?



Excellent question: I personally picked the MN61, since it gives "me" the perfect balance between:
- brightness
- runtime
- easy on the batteries (in fact, cells that become worn-out from running the MN21, still drive the MN61 easily!)

Will


----------



## Brigadier

cland72 said:


> and can swap in the stock battery carrier with primaries if the 17670's run out of juice.



This is one reason I am using the LF HO-M3T and the MN15.

Last night I got 107 minutes until moon mode on an MN15.


----------



## Brigadier

Just ordered another pack!! This will go in the M6 in my truck that now sports an MB20 and Malkoff MD60 drop in.


----------



## wquiles

August 24, 2013

NOTE: I just sold the last pack this week as I have run out of parts to keep production running. I am not going to ask the admins to close this thread, since folks can still discuss/ask questions/etc.., but there will be no more sales.

Many thanks to Eric, our customers, and to CPF for the great support for this project 







Will


----------



## LuxLuthor

Thank you for all the incredible work on this, and Eric, and Alan, and Jimmy, and Willie Hunt, and all the others that played a part. I will forever treasure my regulators.


----------



## wquiles

Thanks man. This project has certainly been a great experience and most enjoyable


----------



## JimmyM

Congratulations Will, on the sales and creation of such a fantastic product!


----------



## wquiles

Thanks much Jimmy


----------



## jellydonut

Wow. While it is sad to see a bulb regulator with this amount of features and thought put into it go out of sale.. I'm glad I've got mine.

How many were sold?


----------



## wquiles

jellydonut said:


> Wow. While it is sad to see a bulb regulator with this amount of features and thought put into it go out of sale.. I'm glad I've got mine.
> 
> How many were sold?



Thanks 

I have to double check the database, but from memory, about 71-72 packs were sold over the 3+ year run.


----------



## scaredofthedark

wquiles said:


> Thanks
> 
> I have to double check the database, but from memory, about 71-72 packs were sold over the 3+ year run.



really??? only 72???
and to think i have 2.78% control of all the Phd-M6 packs out there lol...if only my stocks had that kind of stake in any company


----------



## Alan B

Nice Job Will!


----------



## wquiles

Alan B said:


> Nice Job Will!



Thanks much to you for your help and guidance :bow:


----------



## hron61

Now i can never sell my pack. they will be nearly impossible to replace.

Thanks for making them, i think your creation was the most useful custom accessory available for our lights.

Cant wait to see your nx project. cheers. :wave:


----------



## wquiles

Thanks man


----------



## socom1970

I absloutely love my PhD pack for all the reasons already described. I agree about the MN61. That is what is most often in my PhD-M6. 

A suggestion for a future project for Will? 

I've wanted something like the PhD to use in the SF 6P and 9P for regulated use of the P60/61 and the P90/91LA'S. Perhaps in a tailcap configuration or it looks like a 123 cell so you could use it inline with two rcr123's in a 9p/C3 to drive the LA'S. Also could be used with one rcr123 cell to drive MA 01 LA's in an E2e or MA 02/03's in an E2e if a boost circuit can fit in there. 

Just some thoughts...:thinking:


----------



## wquiles

socom1970 said:


> I absloutely love my PhD pack for all the reasons already described. I agree about the MN61. That is what is most often in my PhD-M6.
> 
> A suggestion for a future project for Will?



Thanks for your kind words on the PhD-M6 project. I am very happy that the packs are working so well for you guys that supported this project.

As to new projects? I got my hands full, and more stuff is the queue, but most/all is not related to flashlights at the moment. In particular I have been making custom Titanium and Brass handles for DE razors:






and even have made a few Titanium shaving brushes as well:






I am making a multi-section, hollow Aluminum walking/survival shaft for my son and I when we go camping, plus numerous other projects pending. I am also taking a welding class, got a MIG welder, and have a couple of welding projects "pending". The challenge is to find "time" to work on all of these :devil:


----------



## socom1970

Hey Will, since you brought up DE razors and shaving brushes... can we get a better shave with the DE razors? Is there some benefit from using them?


----------



## wquiles

socom1970 said:


> Hey Will, since you brought up DE razors and shaving brushes... can we get a better shave with the DE razors? Is there some benefit from using them?



Excellent question (and very subjective), but not a topic we should discuss here in this thread. Best to discuss either in a new thread in the CAFE, or in one of the excellent shaving forums such as "Badger & Blade".


----------



## tobrien

so I will be buying an M6 this week and have always _known_ about these PhD-M6 packs but never totally understood them. If I bought one used on CPF, are the values it's got in its settings or can those be changed?

I guess what I'm saying is that all the C# stuff is greek to me, but I'm definitely wanting to learn so I can have guilt-free lumens with an M6. 

What do I need to look for when buying a used PhD-M6? Are there any particular levels that are better than others, or perhaps the most common levels people bought with the PhD-M6?

I think this think is a true CPF engineering marvel btw!


----------



## wquiles

tobrien said:


> so I will be buying an M6 this week and have always _known_ about these PhD-M6 packs but never totally understood them. If I bought one used on CPF, are the values it's got in its settings or can those be changed?
> 
> I guess what I'm saying is that all the C# stuff is greek to me, but I'm definitely wanting to learn so I can have guilt-free lumens with an M6.
> 
> What do I need to look for when buying a used PhD-M6? Are there any particular levels that are better than others, or perhaps the most common levels people bought with the PhD-M6?
> 
> I think this think is a true CPF engineering marvel btw!



Although I am no longer making these, the best place to learn about these is the sales thread, which explains all of the C# stuff, options, has the user guide, recommended settings for many bulbs, etc..:
http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?288770-Sales-Thread-for-the-Black-Edition-PhD-M6-custom-battery-pack

Read all of that, and if you still have questions, then come back for specific questions - we will try to help you out as much as possible 

Will


----------



## tobrien

wquiles said:


> Although I am no longer making these, the best place to learn about these is the sales thread, which explains all of the C# stuff, options, has the user guide, recommended settings for many bulbs, etc..:
> http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?288770-Sales-Thread-for-the-Black-Edition-PhD-M6-custom-battery-pack
> 
> Read all of that, and if you still have questions, then come back for specific questions - we will try to help you out as much as possible
> 
> Will



thank you 

well, I guess most of it is because I'm a rookie with incan stuff, but I think it'd be best to start off with a standard values pack because that looks to cover the vast majority of bulbs, right?

so when I look for one, I just need to specify "PhD M6 Black Edition Standard Values," right?

I apologize for the generals questions, but right now I'm primarily interested in getting going with my MN61 on rechargeables and not burning through CR123s.

thanks Will!


----------



## wquiles

tobrien said:


> so when I look for one, I just need to specify "PhD M6 Black Edition Standard Values," right?



The standard values were: 
Level 1 = 5.0 volts
Level 2 = 6.8 volts
Level 3 = 7.5 volts
Level 4 = 10.8 volts

The MN61 (my favorite on the PhD-M6) at anywhere between 9.0 - 9.2 volts would be awesome.

So if you are looking for an used pack, you need to find out what 4x voltages that used pack was programmed to (the original owner will know), and based on those 4x voltage settings, the bulb chart http://m3coupe.com/electronics/PhD/part2/PhDM6_Bulb_Chart_8_21_10.png, will guide you as to what bulbs work best at each of those 4x voltages.

I would say that most of the packs had some custom values (meaning not the standard 4x), but it you can find out what Cx values were used, the Sales thread should give you enough indication of how that particular pack was programmed.

As always, if in doubt, come back with questions 

Will


----------



## tobrien

wquiles said:


> The standard values were:
> Level 1 = 5.0 volts
> Level 2 = 6.8 volts
> Level 3 = 7.5 volts
> Level 4 = 10.8 volts
> 
> The MN61 (my favorite on the PhD-M6) at anywhere between 9.0 - 9.2 volts would be awesome.
> 
> So if you are looking for an used pack, you need to find out what 4x voltages that used pack was programmed to (the original owner will know), and based on those 4x voltage settings, the bulb chart http://m3coupe.com/electronics/PhD/part2/PhDM6_Bulb_Chart_8_21_10.png, will guide you as to what bulbs work best at each of those 4x voltages.
> 
> I would say that most of the packs had some custom values (meaning not the standard 4x), but it you can find out what Cx values were used, the Sales thread should give you enough indication of how that particular pack was programmed.
> 
> As always, if in doubt, come back with questions
> 
> Will



I'm so sorry I didn't reply, I was under the assumption I already took care of that.

Anyways, you've been an awesome help and this piece of work you produced certainly commands an aftermarket price that really does show its value to the community.

long story short, I consider myself a lucky man. No, my girlfriend still won't let me kiss her, but that's not what I'm implying has changed. 

Thanks to an awesome member here, I will be buying a PhD-M6 with the following values:
Level 1 = 6.8 V
Level 2 = 7.5 V
Level 3 = 9.2 V
Level 4 = 10.8 V

I cannot tell you how excited I am about it. Really, I'd probably get banned haha

I think this is quite the score!


----------



## wquiles

Excellent - I am glad you found one with values you can use


----------



## tobrien

wquiles said:


> Excellent - I am glad you found one with values you can use



thanks man!


----------



## tobrien

Will: thanks to an amazing CPFer abroad, I got my battery pack today and my initial impressions are that this is one finely crafted product. I have classes today but will definitely be using this on my MN21 bulb that's already sitting in my M6.

I'm really quite impressed with its build quality and how it's still light weight. I think it's very apparent a good amount of engineering and thoughtfulness went into this PhD-M6.

I really cannot wait to try this out. So this PhD-M6 pack will give me more steady output than running an MN21 on primaries right? I'm assuming the AW protected 17670s hold their voltage better (or does that matter with this pack?).


----------



## cland72

tobrien said:


> Will: thanks to an amazing CPFer abroad, I got my battery pack today and my initial impressions are that this is one finely crafted product. I have classes today but will definitely be using this on my MN21 bulb that's already sitting in my M6.
> 
> I'm really quite impressed with its build quality and how it's still light weight. I think it's very apparent a good amount of engineering and thoughtfulness went into this PhD-M6.
> 
> I really cannot wait to try this out. So this PhD-M6 pack will give me more steady output than running an MN21 on primaries right? I'm assuming the AW protected 17670s hold their voltage better (or does that matter with this pack?).



I've heard the MN21 will drain the batteries pretty hard in the PHDM6. You may want to run a MN61, or MN20. But then again, if you don't care about your battery's lifespan, then go nuts :thumbsup:


----------



## wquiles

tobrien said:


> Will: thanks to an amazing CPFer abroad, I got my battery pack today and my initial impressions are that this is one finely crafted product. I have classes today but will definitely be using this on my MN21 bulb that's already sitting in my M6.
> 
> I'm really quite impressed with its build quality and how it's still light weight. I think it's very apparent a good amount of engineering and thoughtfulness went into this PhD-M6.



Thank you for your kind words 




tobrien said:


> So this PhD-M6 pack will give me more steady output than running an MN21 on primaries right? I'm assuming the AW protected 17670s hold their voltage better (or does that matter with this pack?).


Of the commonly used bulbs in the PhD-M6, as posted above, the MN21 is the most demanding, and the ones that causes the AW's cells to age the fastest. In fact, besides the slow start, to use the MN21 bulb I had to add a special software algorithm to trick the AW cells' protection circuitry from firing too soon. But with time, and prolonged use of the MN21 bulb, this protection circuitry in the AW cells ages, and they will not power the MN21 anymore. It will appear to you as if the pack does not work any more - but it is not the pack, it is the cells that are worn out prematurely. If you put in new AW cells, everything will be working back to normal, until the new cells are worn out. The IMR cells don't have the short circuit protection, so they handle the high current draw from the MN21 just fine - BUT - the IMR cells also have less capacity, so there is a compromise.

My bottom line is that we don't recommend using the MN21 too often, unless you are able to keep buying AW cells often. I recommend the MN61 instead, which will even work great with AW cells that are already too worn out to work with the MN21.


----------



## tobrien

wquiles said:


> Thank you for your kind words


any time man. all of your project/build logs strewn around the servers of CPF really show you know your stuff. 



cland72 said:


> I've heard the MN21 will drain the batteries pretty hard in the PHDM6. You may want to run a MN61, or MN20. But then again, if you don't care about your battery's lifespan, then go nuts :thumbsup:





wquiles said:


> My bottom line is that we don't recommend using the MN21 too often, unless you are able to keep buying AW cells often. I recommend the MN61 instead, which will even work great with AW cells that are already too worn out to work with the MN21.


I'm not _too_ concerned about their lifespan, but I say that because I won't be using this even 30 mins a week on average, I suppose. But then again, how short is short so far as lifespan?



wquiles said:


> Of the commonly used bulbs in the PhD-M6, as posted above, the MN21 is the most demanding, and the ones that causes the AW's cells to age the fastest. In fact, besides the slow start, to use the MN21 bulb I had to add a special software algorithm to trick the AW cells' protection circuitry from firing too soon. But with time, and prolonged use of the MN21 bulb, this protection circuitry in the AW cells ages, and they will not power the MN21 anymore. It will appear to you as if the pack does not work any more - but it is not the pack, it is the cells that are worn out prematurely. If you put in new AW cells, everything will be working back to normal, until the new cells are worn out. The IMR cells don't have the short circuit protection, so they handle the high current draw from the MN21 just fine - BUT - the IMR cells also have less capacity, so there is a compromise.


Dang, you _really do_ know how to design things (re: special software algorithm). That's incredible and makes me hold this pack in that much higher regard! 

But the thing is, with the MN*6*1, I'm going to have noticeably less output, right? Probably 200 lumens or so less. 

I guess what I need to know now is exactly _how much shorter_ the 17670s life will be. 

(I apologize if this is potentially de-railing your thread, please let me know if you're not okay with this)


----------



## wquiles

tobrien said:


> I'm not _too_ concerned about their lifespan, but I say that because I won't be using this even 30 mins a week on average, I suppose. But then again, how short is short so far as lifespan?



The observations regarding the MN21 wearing out the AW cells come from me and many of the owners of these packs over the last couple of years. Unfortunately since the 3x cells are in series, it only takes "one" of the cells to trigger their protection circuitry to bring the whole thing down. So I can't give you a range since there are too many variables. You will find out once you press the button or twist the tailcap and the M6 will not work. That is when you need to swap and put new batteries. 

I "can" tell you for sure:
- That the MN21 "will" kill the cells (meaning they will not work more with the MN21), but they will keep working with the MN20 (and other, lower current bulbs). 
- I probably use the MN21's more than anyone else since I tested each and every pack with MN21's - that was part of my burn-in test and quality control. I don't keep track of how long batteries lasted, but every couple of months (maybe 3-4?) I had to buy new batteries.
- Even if you don't use the M6, you should top-off, recharge the cells anyway. There is a little bit of parasitic draw by the microcontroller even while in sleep mode. I try to top my packs about once a month.
- Yes, the MN61 will give you less lumens than the MN21. There is always a trade-off 

Will


----------



## python

Hi,

Has anyone used the Redilast 17670?

Wladimir


----------



## tobrien

wquiles said:


> The observations regarding the MN21 wearing out the AW cells come from me and many of the owners of these packs over the last couple of years. Unfortunately since the 3x cells are in series, it only takes "one" of the cells to trigger their protection circuitry to bring the whole thing down. So I can't give you a range since there are too many variables. You will find out once you press the button or twist the tailcap and the M6 will not work. That is when you need to swap and put new batteries.
> 
> I "can" tell you for sure:
> - That the MN21 "will" kill the cells (meaning they will not work more with the MN21), but they will keep working with the MN20 (and other, lower current bulbs).
> - I probably use the MN21's more than anyone else since I tested each and every pack with MN21's - that was part of my burn-in test and quality control. I don't keep track of how long batteries lasted, but every couple of months (maybe 3-4?) I had to buy new batteries.
> - Even if you don't use the M6, you should top-off, recharge the cells anyway. There is a little bit of parasitic draw by the microcontroller even while in sleep mode. I try to top my packs about once a month.
> - Yes, the MN61 will give you less lumens than the MN21. There is always a trade-off
> 
> Will


Hey Will,

I apologize for the incredibly late response, but here goes:

Thank you very much for your response. I've been deciding (and am firm on my decision haha) that I'll bite the bullet and keep a good stock of 17670s on hand as needed. The MN21 is amazing in this.

I really am quite proud (unhealthily so?) of owning this PhD-M6 pack. It really makes my M6 all it is capable of. Thank you. 

Quick question: I just noticed how on the site you have, "_- soft start (extends bulb's life by limiting the inrush current when the filament is cold)_" listed. If you don't mind my asking, how does it work? Perhaps by remembering how long it's been since the pack was last used and basing that time on whether the bulb is likely to be cold/hot?

Thanks again man!


python said:


> Hi,
> 
> Has anyone used the Redilast 17670?
> 
> Wladimir



I have not _yet_ but do plan on it


----------



## wquiles

tobrien said:


> Quick question: I just noticed how on the site you have, "_- soft start (extends bulb's life by limiting the inrush current when the filament is cold)_" listed. If you don't mind my asking, how does it work? Perhaps by remembering how long it's been since the pack was last used and basing that time on whether the bulb is likely to be cold/hot?



Incandescent bulbs rely on a thin metal filament to create visible light. This filament has a resistance that is very low when the filament is "off", but that resistance increases as the filament heats up and then stabilitizes once the bulb reaches the operating status. This initial lower resistance causes a significant current spike from the power source (batteries in our case), and it weakens the filament/bulb, specially when operated at higher voltage levels (this is why incancescent bulbs "always" blow up when you first turn them off - not while they are running). So, in order to extend the life of the bulb, the PhD-M6 packs implements a software routine in which the initial voltage is set to a point lower than the "target" regulated voltage (thus limiting the inrrush current). Then the software increases the regulated voltage slowly, in small steps, until it reaches the "target" regulated voltage. I saw slowly, but that is of course relative. I think the delayed start was around 350-450mS or so (it has been a while, so I don't remember that Eric and I decided to use). 

Once the soft start routine finishes, then the voltage regulation and battery monitoring take over for the remainder of the time the light remains in the ON state. Turning the light OFF resets everything, so next time the light goes ON, the whole process repeats ifself over and over ........


----------



## JimmyM

tobrien, you've bought a great pack. These things make the M6 into a MUCH more flexible tool. The best part of the PhD series of regulators is that they're programmable. Will has gone the extra step of letting you "program" (via the switches) your own voltages. But even those can be changed via reprogramming with software. I credit the overall PhD project (Will, Alan, & myself) with my current microcontroller hobby.
Now there are 32-bit ARM core processors running at 30MHz that are as small as the chips we used for these just a few years ago.


----------



## wquiles

JimmyM said:


> tobrien, you've bought a great pack. These things make the M6 into a MUCH more flexible tool. The best part of the PhD series of regulators is that they're programmable. Will has gone the extra step of letting you "program" (via the switches) your own voltages. But even those can be changed via reprogramming with software. I credit the overall PhD project (Will, Alan, & myself) with my current microcontroller hobby.
> Now there are 32-bit ARM core processors running at 30MHz that are as small as the chips we used for these just a few years ago.



And I credit you and Alan for how much I learned during the PhD-M6 project. Like you, I now have done other micro-controller projects, and your collective advice was key in getting me started. I even worked on Tiny-85 controlled, blinking LED light module for my son's Cub Scout Pine Wood Derby Car


----------



## ma tumba

OK, my phd pack got broken. When I switched on my M6 with a wa1111 installed (PHD-M6 set at 6.8V), the bulb instaflashed and since that I measure 12.3V on the pack regardless of the switches' positions, which means that there is no regulation anymore. Is that repairable? I did use a new kind of 17650 batts (efest imr) but this was the second or third use of these batts, not the first one


----------



## JimmyM

ma tumba said:


> OK, my phd pack got broken. When I switched on my M6 with a wa1111 installed (PHD-M6 set at 6.8V), the bulb instaflashed and since that I measure 12.3V on the pack regardless of the switches' positions, which means that there is no regulation anymore. Is that repairable? I did use a new kind of 17650 batts (efest imr) but this was the second or third use of these batts, not the first one


The way these packs work, there always has to be some load in the place of the bulb or the voltage will always read the pack voltage. Try putting a 1K resistor in place of the bulb and measuring again.


----------



## wquiles

Measuring the voltage across the pack does not work as that is a high impedance path - the pack only operates when it senses the resistance of the bulb, and the voltmeter can't simulate that. That being said, a voltage of around 12Volts would indicate that the 3x cells are charged and that the cell's protection circuitry has not "triggered".

What brand/type of cells are you using? Has this bulb worked before in this pack/setup/voltage setting?


----------



## ma tumba

James, Will, thanks for your prompt replies.

1. I bought a set of 3 Efest IMR 1200mAh cells and have used it a few times when the AW protected cells were being charged, so this was not the first use of those batts. After this "accident" I installed the AW protected batts and instaflashed another wa1111. It was after that when I measured the voltage across the pack and found it to be equal to 12.3V. 

2. I dont have any resistors here, but I'll get one tomorrow and check. I am not sure I'd have a good selection though, so what range of resistance is acceptable for the check?

Thanks


----------



## JimmyM

ma tumba said:


> James, Will, thanks for your prompt replies.
> 
> 1. I bought a set of 3 Efest IMR 1200mAh cells and have used it a few times when the AW protected cells were being charged, so this was not the first use of those batts. After this "accident" I installed the AW protected batts and instaflashed another wa1111. It was after that when I measured the voltage across the pack and found it to be equal to 12.3V.
> 
> 2. I dont have any resistors here, but I'll get one tomorrow and check. I am not sure I'd have a good selection though, so what range of resistance is acceptable for the check?
> 
> Thanks


Will, do you think a range of 100 ohm (Will get HOT fast) to 2000 Ohm would be enough to allow "bulb detection"?


----------



## wquiles

ma tumba said:


> James, Will, thanks for your prompt replies.
> 
> 1. I bought a set of 3 Efest IMR 1200mAh cells and have used it a few times when the AW protected cells were being charged, so this was not the first use of those batts. After this "accident" I installed the AW protected batts and instaflashed another wa1111. It was after that when I measured the voltage across the pack and found it to be equal to 12.3V.
> 
> 2. I dont have any resistors here, but I'll get one tomorrow and check. I am not sure I'd have a good selection though, so what range of resistance is acceptable for the check?
> 
> Thanks



Please don't try any more bulbs. Send me the pack, and I will see what I can find. Send me an email at: wquiles (at) gmail [dot] {com}


----------



## cland72

Check the orientation of the batteries in the pack, to assure the positive and negative ends are oriented correctly (if I remember right, only two of the three face the same way). I flashed one of my bulbs that way...


----------



## ma tumba

cland72 said:


> Check the orientation of the batteries in the pack


Thanks for your suggestion, but I always double check that.


----------



## wquiles

JimmyM said:


> Will, do you think a range of 100 ohm (Will get HOT fast) to 2000 Ohm would be enough to allow "bulb detection"?



The thing with the resistor is that even if it works to turn the pack ON, unless the voltmeter has an AC+DC RMS function, the voltage read will be wrong. You have to use something like a Fluke 189, or 289 (the two that I have), manually set it to the AC+DC RMS mode, put something like a car bulb (12-13 volt rated) across the pack, and then measure the RMS voltage under load. That will tell you if the pack is regulating at the desired dip switch voltage setting.

In this thread, post #11, Willie Hunt explains the problem with measuring RMS voltage with a standard voltmeter - the problem is the duty cycle. If the duty cycle is not 50%, the measurement will not be accurate:
http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?125451-M6-R-LVR3i-change-from-6-8-to-7-5-volts-also-explaining-DC-RMS&highlight=Fluke

Willie does talk about some ways to come up with an approximate value, but I just use the Fluke 289 to read the value directly.

Will


----------



## JimmyM

wquiles said:


> The thing with the resistor is that even if it works to turn the pack ON, unless the voltmeter has an AC+DC RMS function, the voltage read will be wrong.
> Will


Absolutely. I was just hoping to see something OTHER than pack voltage to see if the FET wasn't failed-ON.
I've got the 189. You have the 289!? Nice. I'd be thrilled with the 287.


----------



## ma tumba

Interesting reading, Will. Wouldn't it be better to use a higher resistance load, rather than a car bulb, so that the batts dont sag and I could use the guidelines from the above mention post to calculate the true RMS voltage from the time averaged V measured by my volt meter? I think that anything larger than, say, 100 ohm would be good for that purpose, right? The question is whether 100 ohms or larger resistor would trigger the pack into operation?


----------



## JimmyM

ma tumba said:


> Interesting reading, Will. Wouldn't it be better to use a higher resistance load, rather than a car bulb, so that the batts dont sag and I could use the guidelines from the above mention post to calculate the true RMS voltage from the time averaged V measured by my volt meter? I think that anything larger than, say, 100 ohm would be good for that purpose, right? The question is whether 100 ohms or larger resistor would trigger the pack into operation?


A car bulb (1157/3157) only draws 2.6-ish amps. They just don't like more than 15V. So you should be OK.


----------



## wquiles

JimmyM said:


> Absolutely. I was just hoping to see something OTHER than pack voltage to see if the FET wasn't failed-ON.
> I've got the 189. You have the 289!? Nice. I'd be thrilled with the 287.


Ahh, yes. I see that you mean. I am pulling my hair over here trying to figure out what might be wrong 

The 189 I got brand new (great deal on Ebay), and the 289 was used, but it was nearly brand new - it was a fantastic buy.





JimmyM said:


> A car bulb (1157/3157) only draws 2.6-ish amps. They just don't like more than 15V. So you should be OK.


The one that I use draws (if memory serves) 5+amps with a full pack. The beauty of using a 12 volt car bulb is that it is nearly impossible to blow/flash with 3x LiIon cells in series, since they are designed to work comfortably above 12 volts (since the alternator is charging the battery at over 12 volts).




ma tumba said:


> Interesting reading, Will. Wouldn't it be better to use a higher resistance load, rather than a car bulb, so that the batts dont sag and I could use the guidelines from the above mention post to calculate the true RMS voltage from the time averaged V measured by my volt meter? I think that anything larger than, say, 100 ohm would be good for that purpose, right? The question is whether 100 ohms or larger resistor would trigger the pack into operation?


In fact, it is quite the opposite. In the PhD-M6, the pack is expecting the very low resistance of a cold filament, and that is what wakes up the regulator, start looking at the input voltage, looking at the dip switch settings, doing the soft start, etc..

All of the voltages are tested/adjusted under load using a real bulb, so using a resistor (which does not have inductance like a real bulb does) might not work to wake up the pack. I don't think you can hurt the pack itself, but I don't know how it will behave since that is not how I test them.


----------



## ma tumba

I just found an fm1909, installed it in an fm socket and put into the m6. 

it is identically bright and very white at the switch positions that are supposed to be 6.8V and 11.1V. While I'd need some extra wires and clips to measure actual voltage, I am pretty sure that in both cases the bulb was powered direct drive.


----------



## wquiles

ma tumba said:


> I just found an fm1909, installed it in an fm socket and put into the m6.
> 
> it is identically bright and very white at the switch positions that are supposed to be 6.8V and 11.1V. While I'd need some extra wires and clips to measure actual voltage, I am pretty sure that in both cases the bulb was powered direct drive.



Interesting. Direct drive (near 100% duty cycle) happens when the voltage is lower than what can be regulated, but with the voltage right at approx. 12volts, I can't explain what is happening. I have never seen a pack behave that way


----------



## JimmyM

If the FET has failed, it will do this. Just locked ON.


----------



## wquiles

JimmyM said:


> If the FET has failed, it will do this. Just locked ON.



Gotcha. I have not had a FET fail yet in any of the packs, but if/when I get the pack back, I will check that out. Thanks


----------



## JimmyM

I agree with you though. Damned peculiar.


----------



## wquiles

JimmyM said:


> I agree with you though. Damned peculiar.



Jimmy, you are a genius :bow:

Got the pack yesterday, check it this morning on my setup.



















- Visual inspection: normal. everything looks OK
- Load test: nothing. Dead.
- Microprocessor test: everything looks perfect. Can read all status information normally.
- Solder joints/dirt/corrosion: nothing. everything looks OK.


So everything looks OK, micro is happy, but no worky. So I figure I try your idea of swapping the FET. So I remove the FET and solder a new one:







Now everything works perfectly again:






I have now been re-testing the pack, and all 4x set points work again as designed:







I have will have the pack ready to ship back in the next few days 

Will


----------



## ma tumba

Thanks guys for this collective rescue mission, I really appreciate it!


----------



## JimmyM

Hey, Will, Glad you got it all worked out!


----------



## wquiles

JimmyM said:


> Hey, Will, Glad you got it all worked out!



Thank you so much for the tips/advice :bow:


----------



## JimmyM

wquiles said:


> Thank you so much for the tips/advice :bow:


C'mon, Will. Any time for you. Plus I love this stuff.


----------



## ma tumba

Just got the restored pack from Will, so my dream M6 is young and strong again. No more unproved, unsupported untested "new generation" cells..

Will, thanks a lot for standing behind your product, I very much appreciate your help!!


----------



## wquiles

You are welcome


----------



## python

PhD-M6 Black Edition C2
3 X 16650 2500 mAh 
WA 1185
Works fine here. Turn on 5 minutes and the M6 its warm to hot.
I don't measure the runtime now.


----------



## Greenbean

Anyone have a buzzing sound coming from the tail when using the pack? Normal? 

I just noticed after installed some freshly charged cells there is a real good buz coming from it.


----------



## Greenbean

Greenbean said:


> Anyone have a buzzing sound coming from the tail when using the pack? Normal?
> 
> I just noticed after installed some freshly charged cells there is a real good buz coming from it.




Still searching for this answer gang, 

I'm hoping it's normal, but if anyone can enlighten me please.

I might be able to upload a video of it as if you remove the tail cap and complete the circuit it's quite loud. However I just realized I need to check it on the different voltages. 

Stay tuned!


----------



## Nichia!

Are these still available?


----------



## archimedes

These have been discontinued years ago


----------



## usdiver

Nichia! said:


> Are these still available?



We talking about the Surefire m6


----------



## Greenbean

I believe the topic is the PhD battery pack. 

But both haven’t been produced in a few years. Both are wonderful tools though.


----------



## Nichia!

usdiver said:


> We talking about the Surefire m6



About the battery pack


----------



## id30209

As Greenbean said, this battery pack/regulator is amazing. Since i've got mine it's in use several times a week. I even remember all 4 settings for each voltage without looking at the notes )


----------



## LuxLuthor

Will & Jimmy are some of the best members CPF has ever had! I still have a whole bunch of these PhD's, compiler, programmer unit, etc. Thank goodness I saved all the instruction web pages that explain everything in detail.


----------



## Greenbean

LuxLuthor said:


> I still have a whole bunch of these PhD's, compiler, programmer unit, etc.



Words out! 

Start the bidding now! Hahaha

I still love and use mine, not as much as I used to but it’s a gem for sure!


----------



## id30209

I knew Lux is our holy grail LOL


----------



## ampdude

I would love to see these reborn! I never did get one originally.


----------



## Tempest UK

Just checking in to say that my PhD-M6 is still in use and going strong 9 years later! Now using 16650 - 17670 don't really seem to be as common anymore.

Thank you for such a great product.


----------



## ma tumba

I'd like to add that Will really stands behind his product. When I nearly killed mine, he was so kind to repair the unit


----------



## jellydonut

Tempest UK said:


> Just checking in to say that my PhD-M6 is still in use and going strong 9 years later! Now using 16650 - 17670 don't really seem to be as common anymore.
> 
> Thank you for such a great product.



Wasn't really that common back then either, but M6 size constraints meant that triple 18650 was not possible.

I'm still enjoying my PhD-M6, hopefully the battery type will not obsolete it eventually.


----------

