# Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good *with pics and graphs*



## seery (Mar 22, 2006)

I just recently purchased over 150 of the New Titanium 123 batteries directly
from AmondoTech. Based on the test results and good things I've read here
on CPF, figured it was a wise and well researched purchase.

The story starts here...

Using my new SF M6 and not keeping track of the "minutes" the M6 seemed 
to be eating batteries in a hurry with the MN21 bulb, much faster than the SF
advertised 20 minutes runtime. So I decided to run a few runtime tests to see
if my feelings were accurate, and boy were they!!!

I ran through two sets of (6) batteries and here are the results.

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

First run:
Loaded the M6 with (6) fresh New Titanium batteries, stepped outside, turned
it on, and started the stop watch.

At 2 minutes 50 seconds the light dimmed enough to be noticeable.
At 7 minutes 10 seconds the light dimmed to a barely useable amount (+/- 100L) 
At 9 minutes 30 seconds the light slowly dimmed to nothing and went dead.

Removed the batteries.
(3) were warm.
(1) was too hot to hold.
(2) were skin burners.

Let the batteries cool for 12 minutes, reinstalled them and started the stop
watch.

The light was at the barely useable amount of +/- 100 lumens for 6 minutes
10 seconds and then dimmed to nothing and went dead.

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

Second run:
Loaded the M6 with (6) fresh New Titanium batteries, stepped outside, turned
it on, and started the stop watch.

At 3 minutes 10 seconds the light dimmed enough to be noticeable.
At 6 minutes 30 seconds the light dimmed to a barely useable amount (+/- 100L) 
At 8 minutes 50 seconds the light slowly dimmed to nothing and went dead.

Removed the batteries.
(1) was warm.
(4) were too hot to hold.
(1) was a skin burner.

Let the batteries again cool for 12 minutes, reinstalled them and started the
stop watch.

The light was again at the barely useable amount of +/- 100 lumens for 7
minutes 15 seconds and then dimmed to nothing and went dead.

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

Very dissapointing to say the least. 
- Am I expecting to much?
- How does this compare to your results or what you would have thought?

Wednesday night I'm going to run the same two tests but with OEM Surefire
batteries. Look for the results about the same time tomorrow night.

ALL thoughts/comments/suggestions/concerns/ideas/etc. are very much
appreciated.

Going to put in a call to AmondoTech tomorrow and express my concerns and
ask for a refund on the bateries. Will also keep you posted on the response.

Until then, happy illuminating!


----------



## xdanx (Mar 22, 2006)

*Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good*

Good report, that will make me hesitate to buy titaniums.


----------



## carrot (Mar 22, 2006)

*Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good*

Amondotech's Titaniums feed my A2 and G2. No problems here. Your poor results must be due to the higher drain of the M6.


----------



## nethiker (Mar 22, 2006)

*Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good*

I have run Titaniums in my M6 and didn't notice much difference from the Surefire batteries. I did not do any extended run tests however. 

Could there possibly be a probem with the battery carrier in the M6? I don't have much technical background, but it seems strange that the batteries are different temps. Thanks for posting your experience. I would wait for more info before jumping to any conclusions regarding the quality of the Titaniums. I will look forward to your Surefire battery test.


----------



## seery (Mar 22, 2006)

*Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good*

nethiker - The thought of a faulty battery carrier never came to mind, but I'll
call SF tomorrow and see if that is a possability. If not they may be able to
suggext other reasons.

Note:
I've also been running the Titaniums in (2) E2D's and an M3. May do some runtime
tests in those two SF lights as well.


----------



## paulr (Mar 22, 2006)

*Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good*

The cells are entering thermal shutdown, it sounds like. The M6 was not really designed to be run continuously for that long--it's a tactical light and you'd only use it as momentary or to light your way while you rappel down from a helicopter into an enemy encampment. If you want to burn another set of cells, you might try running 1 minute at a time with a cooldown period after each burst.


----------



## Flakey (Mar 22, 2006)

*Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good*

yes Andrew wynn found similar results with sf 123s. After 11 minutes i believe the cells gave up due to thermal stress. i believe at peak draw 40 watts is being wasted heating up the batteries. it would seem that that the m6 HOLA pulls just a bit more than 123's want to put out reliably. try doing a test in which you run the m6 in 2 minute intervals and see how it runs! IE the two minutes it is going to take to clear the meth lab you and your team is about to take down .... i cant really think of many situations that the m6 would actually be used for 20 minutes straight on the high setting. i mean if you are walking a trail and just pointing the m6 at the ground ...... i feel sorry for you night vision!


----------



## Lightraven (Mar 22, 2006)

*Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good*

I'm currently working on a similar situation, but it will have to wait for a resolution before I can post.

In using my M6 in the field, I rarely use it for more than a minute at a time, however, it has happened. While busting into drug labs isn't my specialty, searching for people who don't want to be found is. This can take a minute or an hour. You don't really know how long it will take. It would be a major nuisance for a light to require a cool down every few minutes.

This is interesting data.


----------



## diggdug13 (Mar 22, 2006)

*Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good*

has a runtime test been done using the MN20 lamp assembly and the Titanium 123's? I'm just courious if these Titaniums perform as poorly with the lower output they would definantly be a no-go for my M6.

wonderful information and I hope you are able to get resolution to your lsatisfaction


doug


----------



## mdocod (Mar 22, 2006)

*Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good*

I have had a similar experience as Seery with titanium cells bought recently.

4 cells in series driving a 1.35A load (G120 lamp)... in theory it should be over 45 minuts runtime at a decent output (1300mah rating would suggest at least 1ah of good output into a 1.35a load)... but instead, I got less than 15 minuts of usable output, and those 15 minuts were broken up into short bursts of usage here and there. (never heated up the cells)... 

I think amondotech may have lousy cells right now... possibly sent in "good" cells for official testing, but reverted back to cheapos shortly thereafter. I won't buy again unless I hear some convincing words that they are improved "again." luckily I only wasted $20 on titanium cells.

[edit in] the "cheapo" WF brand cells that came with the ultrafire, lasted much longer driving the same lamp (at least 40+ minuts at good output, with another 20+ minuts deminishing)... suggesting that there is nothing wrong with my light, only the batteries.


----------



## RAF_Groundcrew (Mar 22, 2006)

*Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good*

I have an M6 on the way to me right now in the mail, so I'm interested in this outcome, although I plane to use Battery Station cells.

With my M4, I found that cheaper cells (Panasonic white label, via ebay) can't handle the drain of the LOLA, never mind even trying the HOLA. Battery Station cells seem to be a close runner to the SF brand cells, but they get warm if running the light for a long time, whereas the white Panasonics seem ready to melt after extended use in the M4. I would expect the M6 running the LOLA to be cooler, as the drain is being shared across 2 parallel paths (it is a 9 volt Lamp, right, not 18, as some people think). Ultimately, I found that for practical purposes, the M4 HOLA didn't seem much brighter than the LOLA, and was slower to light (heavy filament), as well as draining the cells faster.


----------



## kennyj (Mar 22, 2006)

*Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good*

There're two things happening here. One, QC on the cheap cells like the Titaniums isn't quite so good. They're fine for normal use, they just don't stand up to severe use. Two, HOLAs drain the cells at a rapid rate. Anything that claims a runtime of 20 minutes on CR123As is going to be putting the cells under a load that they really aren't meant to sustain. These are high voltage, *low amperage* cells, and they're really meant to be used in small numbers at that. If you can expect to kill them in under 30 minutes, they're going to be very stressed out and the lesser cells might not make it.

The more cells you use at one time, also, the more likely it is that one or more of those cells will be one of the bad apples that fails sooner under high load (see the QC issue above.) A lot of those cells would work fine in something with a more reasonable current draw, or for short bursts, but they just can't handle prolonged high drain.

If you don't want to feed that sucker lots of higher-cost cells, you might want to consider a rechargable option. There's the venerable Mr-R, and several homebrewed Li-Ion options using multiple high-powered 18650s and 17500s. There's also some possibility of an adapter being produced when/if AW's C-size Li-Ions become a reality by any of several modders.

If you need runtime, you might also want to consider a ROP LE on low in a Mag C body. It's still quite bright, you get a solid hour from two 18650s, and you can choose the beam pattern that suits you best. It's not nearly as robust as a SF light, but it can be made easily and inexpensively with readily-available parts and it makes a fine workhorse. I've read a number of accounts from LEOs that liked it quite a bit with both lamp options, even in spite of its limitations.


----------



## nuggett (Mar 22, 2006)

*Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good*

Ran my M6 last night on SF cells for 5-10 minutes straight. The body got very warm despite 40 degree weather. The cells still put out though. 
I found Pentagonlight cells below par in my E2d and sent them back to Pentagonlight.
I have a stock of new Baterystation cells and will let you all know how they fare.


----------



## seery (Mar 22, 2006)

*Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good*

This is what I ordered and for what device.

- 100 singles (for the M6)
- 22 inseperable doubles (E2D's)
- 6 inseperable triples (M3/M3T)
- For a total of 162 batteries.

This is from Amondotech's web site. 
The batteries are manufactured in the same production lot and matched the internal resistances.
Referring to the doubles and triples. You would think in a larger volume order
(as in the 100 singles) they would know these are going to be used together
and send out "same production lot" batteries as well. Don't think it would
make any difference, if they tell me it would I'll seperate the triples and run
the same tests again to find out.

Bought the M6 as an emergency search light on and 3 minutes 10 seconds of
runtime just won't cut it folks! I bought the most rugged and reliable high
output light for a reason.

Very anxious to run the same tests again tonight with the SF batts, and
hoping they perform as advertised.


----------



## kennyj (Mar 22, 2006)

*Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good*

All the more reason to get a ROP as a backup! :nana:


----------



## Englander (Mar 22, 2006)

*Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good*

I can second the runtime thing, im new to lights, and am currently thinking of getting a SF L4 for Search and Rescue purposes, this could mean running batteries until they are totally gone and replacing them and carrying on in the same session. Basically until the person has been found, no matter how long it takes!!

I thought Surefire was for me, but now im thinking maybee its not.... For night trials at the moment im carrying a 5 million candle power (dunno what that is in lumens) lamp, its quite large, but it only lasts about 20-25 mins before its useless, so i wanted something with medium to long range that i could use continously for searching for people and the lamp for cross mountain or more detailed inspection of a particular area, say a deep gulley.

I think ill wait on the findings of you guys before i decide.


----------



## bwaites (Mar 22, 2006)

*Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good*

This will be interesting.

The M6 is known to go into thermal shutdown using Surefire cells as well. 

js and I have discussed this at length several times. But the M6 IS designed as a special tactics light, not as most people typically use flashlights.

It really is NOT designed to run continuously with the HOLA on 123 cells. js's M6-R pack, using more robust NiMH cells solves the problem, but obviously is not widely available. 

There are lots of high power unregulated options that run more consistently than the M6 on 123's. But a regulated LiIon solution for the M6 would be seriously cool.

Andrewwynns hotdriver might make that happen. We'll have to wait and see.

Bill


----------



## Lunal_Tic (Mar 22, 2006)

*Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good*



Englander said:


> I can second the runtime thing, im new to lights, and am currently thinking of getting a SF L4 for Search and Rescue purposes, this could mean running batteries until they are totally gone and replacing them and carrying on in the same session. Basically until the person has been found, no matter how long it takes!!



May just be me but the SF L4 is _not_ a search and rescue light. I have one and it's a great light but it just doesn't have the mass to dissipate the heat. That's the reason I've got a 2 stage switch in it.

Back on topic. It sounds like the failures were exactly the same and makes me think the battery carrier might have something to do with it. The other thing is the M6 won't put out 20 minutes of light at full tilt boogie. On long runs it does dim appreciably. That's why a number of folks are looking for a rechargeable/regulated option (think JS's M6-R) that will burn full output for that long.

-LT


----------



## seery (Mar 22, 2006)

*Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good*

Just off the phone with SF. 

SF feels the problem lies in either the batteries or the bulb and that although
the battery carrier may be at fault it is unlikely. SF recommended trying a new
MN21 bulb and testing the results again. I do have another MN21 bulb and if the
test run tonight with the SF batts gives the same results I'll replace the bulb
and start over.

Also stated was that very small variances in starting voltages will cause
uneven draw on the (6) batteries causing the thermal shutdown experienced.
And that battery over-heating is not typical of the M6 light.

SF assured me that the M6 will and is designed to give 20+ minutes of continuous
output with the HOLA. If changing the bulb and/or the batteries does not
remedy the problem, send it back and they will make certain it returns to run
as advertised.

If I could put a percentage on "voice tones" I'd say the SF tech rep was here.
- Failure due to batteries 55%
- Failure due to faulty MN21 bulb 35%
- Failure due to faulty battery carrier 10%

Darkness won't come fast enough tonight so I can resume testing. Until then.


----------



## bwaites (Mar 22, 2006)

*Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good*

The failure, more than likely, IS due to the batteries, but many of us that have done multiple extended runs have had shutdowns of this nature.

It hasn't ever happened on the LOLA that I am aware of.

Surefire knows about this, even if the rep you talked to didn't.

Bill


----------



## Size15's (Mar 22, 2006)

*Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good*



seery said:


> Just off the phone with SF.
> ...And that battery over-heating is not typical of the M6 light.



I've not yet managed to make any of my M6's over-heat (go into thermal shutdown) and I've tried. I guess it's just colder over here?


----------



## bwaites (Mar 22, 2006)

*Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good*

Al,

Really? I've done it with Surefires, Battery Stations, and no name brand cells.

And outside temp had no effect, once it was when it was below zero!

Bill


----------



## Size15's (Mar 22, 2006)

*Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good*

My hand must suck the heat right out of it then!

Seriously, I ran two of my M6's with MN21 lamps constant-on, twice with SF123A's last year to see whether they would over-heat. They didn't.

I tried the same in two M2's with P61 lamps when I read on CPF that that combination also suffered from thermal shutdown. They didn't.

The only lamp I've ever experienced thermal shutdown with is the N62 (in the 12PM and M4)


----------



## bwaites (Mar 22, 2006)

*Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good*

I haven't been able to shut down any of the others, P61, P91 etc either.

I don't have an M4 (want to sell me one? or an M3 turbo head?) so I can't check out the N62. 

I wonder if some of the carriers (most likely) or the bodies (unlikely) have some change that creates more resistance, leading to a problem in only some of them? I have two carriers, maybe I need to alternate them and see if only one causes the problem.

Bill


----------



## RAF_Groundcrew (Mar 22, 2006)

*Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good*

I've got an M4 'for sale' because I have an M6 on the way. 

Is there ever going to be a readily available, effective rechargeable option for the M6????? I wish surefire would address this one, with their R&D budget, it would be a well made item, but probably not cheap. The M6-R packs concept would be worth patenting........ before SF gets in on the act.


----------



## seery (Mar 22, 2006)

*Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good*

Can anybody tell me the current draw for the M6 lights?


----------



## wquiles (Mar 22, 2006)

*Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good*



seery said:


> Can anybody tell me the current draw for the M6 lights?


A search on MN20 and MN21 would bring you plenty of information, but the MN20 draws about 2.45Amps and the HOLA (MN21) draws about 4.9Amps from fresh cells 

Will


----------



## seery (Mar 22, 2006)

*Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good*

Here are the results of the second nights testing. 

The few things changed from night #1:
- A new MN21 bulb was put into my M6.
- And a friend joined the testing with his M6.
- A Z2 with HOLA was tested.
- Tests run with New Titaniums and OEM Surefires.
- Didn't waste time cooling batts and re-running. This time first time dead was
considered dead!

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

My M6 with the New Titaniums:
Run #1 - 7 minutes 10 seconds dimmed a bit and at 9 minutes 20 seconds went completely dead.
Run #2 - 9 minutes dimmed a bit and at 11 minutes 30 seconds went completely dead.

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

Friends M6 with run #1 New Titaniums and run #2 OEM Surefires:
Run #1 - (With New Titaniums) 8 minutes dimmed a bit and at 9 minutes 10 seconds went completely dead.
Run #2 - (WITH OEM SUREFIRE BATTERIES) 24 minutes and 20 seconds with
NO overheating or shutdown before going dead.

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

Z2 with HOLA, Runs #1 and #2 with New Titaniums and run #3 with OEM SF's.
Run #1 - (New Titaniums) 13 minutes 10 seconds light went dead.
Run #2 - (New Titaniums) 2 minutes 3 seconds light went dead.
Run #3 - (OEM Surefires) 24 minutes 10 seconds with NO overheating or shutdown before going dead.

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

Surefires cost a bit more but it's apparent that's money well spent. The old
saying....get what you pay for! After reading so many posative reviews of the
New Titaniums I'm baffled?


----------



## Lunal_Tic (Mar 22, 2006)

*Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good*

Thanks for the research. :thumbsup:

-LT


----------



## SilverFox (Mar 23, 2006)

*Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good*

Just for fun, while I had some extra time between cycle testing, I ran some tests on various CR123 cells under a 5 Amp constant load.

If the cells are supposed to be rated around 1400 mAh, none of them did very well...

From these tests, I would speculate that the current draw of the M6 is a bit under 5 Amps continuous.

Here is the graph.









Tom


----------



## diggdug13 (Mar 23, 2006)

*Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good *2nd night test findings ad*

correct me if Im reading this wrong but it looks like batteystation batterys are the way to go!

Doug


----------



## mdocod (Mar 23, 2006)

*Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good*

very interesting results there- wonder if there has been a sudden decline in the quality of many brands of 123s... or if that graph is only really showing where thermal protection shut down the cells.


----------



## kennyj (Mar 23, 2006)

*Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good*

The batterystation cell pulled THAT FAR ahead of the pack? That's very interesting. They're slightly cheaper than SF cells last I looked, and IIRC they're frequently considered to be comparable to SF in build quality. Did you just use one of each cell or are these repeated tests? How did you perform the test?

Also, the M6 uses two parallel stacks, so the draw will be 2.5A from each cell on the HOLA, not 5.0A (which would be way too much to expect from a CR123A except in very short, very sparse bursts.)


----------



## bfg9000 (Mar 23, 2006)

*Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good *2nd night test findings ad*

The tested Titaniums fared best at 2A 11 months ago, while it was the Surefires that exceeded 115F: https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/67078

Perhaps if Tom could test some of the suspect cells?


----------



## kennyj (Mar 23, 2006)

*Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good *2nd night test findings ad*

I'm actually starting to think that to have any real idea of which cells are better or worse, we're going to have to start testing samples purchased from different suppliers, at different times, and of different ages in order to identify trends.

Or we could just stop pushing the primaries so damn hard, and use rechargables more...


----------



## Planterz (Mar 23, 2006)

*Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good *2nd night test findings ad*

I don't mean to sound like an *** here, but...

Running a Surefire M6 on the cheapest batteries available seems to me like buying a Lamborghini and running it on regular unleaded. I can understand the desire to be frugal, especially at 6 batteries a pop, but if you own the just about the most expensive flashlight available, why run it on questionable cheap batteries?


----------



## jeffroalpha700 (Mar 23, 2006)

*Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good *2nd night test findings added**

It's a funny thought you bring up. On duty, in my M3 gunlight (the Insight, not the Surefire), I keep a pair of the Duracell 123's. Same in my Surefire M6. When I am camping or just playing with my surefire, I use Surefire batteries. I figure when my life is on the line, I will trust the Coppertop. The same will be true when I swap the Insight light for an X200 on the near future.

This is the same philosophy as our ammo. When training, we use Federal American Eagle for 9's and .45's, and CCI for .40's (different case color to prevent the accidental loading of a .40 in a .45). On duty we use Speer Golddot. Your going to use better stuff when your life depends on it.


----------



## js (Mar 23, 2006)

*Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good *2nd night test findings added**

SilverFox:

Yes,

*THE SF M6 USES 2 PARALLEL STACKS OF 3 CR123A LI-MN-O2 CELLS!!!*

And thus the current draw on each stack is 2.5 amps. So as your graph so obviously points out, the draw on the batteries CAN'T be 5 amps--and in point of fact, it isn't.

I have run my M6 on SF 123's and have gotten the full runtime (and then some) although the light was noticeably dimmer in those last minutes.

I have never run Titaniums in it, but after reading this post, I think I will give that a try if I can scrounge a spare 20 minutes (or 7 or 8 as the case may be) and report back. I just got 36 of the New Titaniums.


----------



## RAF_Groundcrew (Mar 23, 2006)

*Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good *2nd night test findings added**

I keep going through phases of "Do I buy another $300 light, or just spend the money on batteries, and use what I have, even more".

I recently weakened, and bought an M6.

I erally would appreciate a rechargeable solution to the M6 though, at work, I have an 8NX, and last night, I drained 4 B90 Ni-Cds, and started on the 5th (that's over 3 hours of almost constant light), so I am certainly glad my work light is rechargeable.

If SF were to introduce a good rechargeable solution, even a wide market prototype (road tested by CPF M6 owners, naturally), then they would be heading in the right direction. I know there are CPF members who are producing M6 packs, but this is not a large scale production line operation, so the lucky few who get to play with these M6 packs will surely appreciate the ability to use the fantastic SF M6 at will, and not worry about the running cost.


----------



## Double_A (Mar 23, 2006)

*Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good*

In my opinion the M6 was not the proper light for the job you intended. For your purpose I would have recommended a Streamlight Litebox.

Tactical Flashlights are not used in the manner you have described, the M6 is a tactical flashlight.






seery said:


> This is what I ordered and for what device.
> 
> - 100 singles (for the M6)
> - 22 inseperable doubles (E2D's)
> ...


----------



## SilverFox (Mar 23, 2006)

*Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good*

I am glad you got a kick out of the 5 amp graphs... 

I was actually doing some other research regarding how far you can push these cells, and remembered this thread.

I will see if I can round up some information on a more realistic 2.5 amp current draw...

By the way, I believe the difference in performance shown in the test is a result of the difference in chemical mixes. 

The 5 amp tests were done with the temperature shut off disabled and a Plexiglas spatter shield in place and a fire extinguisher handy... Please note that I do not recommend using CR123 cells in 5 amp applications.

Tom


----------



## js (Mar 23, 2006)

*Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good*

SilverFox,

Don't most 123's have a 5 amp PTC short-circuit protection device? Is it possible that the battery station cells do not?


----------



## SilverFox (Mar 23, 2006)

*Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good*

Hello Jim,

I believe most of the cells have a PTC set to 5 amps. It may be that the BatteryStation one was just slightly higher.

Tom


----------



## seery (Mar 23, 2006)

*Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good*

What is your definition of tactical? Beyond the media typical answer.

My definition of tactical is Practical. 

I've been using SF handheld and weaponlights since 1993 and know them 
well. The M6 HOLA and M3 LOLA are a well suited practical pair for this
particular application.

Not sure what a marketing statement such as "tactical" has to do with the
selection process.

Staying in the SF line, what would you have chosen. I do not like Streamlight
products so they are no option.




Double_A said:


> In my opinion the M6 was not the proper light for the job you intended. For your purpose I would have recommended a Streamlight Litebox.
> 
> Tactical Flashlights are not used in the manner you have described, the M6 is a tactical flashlight.


----------



## JimH (Mar 23, 2006)

*Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good*



seery said:


> What is your definition of tactical? Beyond the media typical answer.


At the 2006 SHOT show party, PK gave us a very animated and descriptive lecture on "what is tactical" (from Surefire's perspective anyway). While I can't remember enough of the lecture to relay it here, I can still replay PK's animated illustrations in my mind.

Basically it's about localization (you hear a noise and need to locate the source right now), controlling the situation, and communication with other team members (pointing out where to search or an area to watch out for trouble). It usually involves a high energy situation that plays out, beginning to end, in under 5 minutes. It has absolutely nothing to do with "long term searching".


----------



## lebox97 (Mar 23, 2006)

*Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good*

perhaps the MN20 LOLA bulb in the M6 would be a better option for almost 3x the runtime and not as hard on the batteries?

my definition of tactical is "intermittent/surprise the bad guy's" use (otherwise you give away your position/tactical advantage) - not run it for 20 min straight till the batteries fail/runout of juice? 
What's practical about that? :shrug: for a 2-3 hour SAR operation you'd have to carry several boxes of batteries and continually be changing them out?:candle:

I have never run my high power lights for more than a few minutes at a time - and yes, I am former SAR person and LEO.


----------



## seery (Mar 23, 2006)

*Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good*

"Tactical" is a grossly overused marketing term. To say that "tactical" has
nothing to do with "long term searches" is IMO silly.

I'm not going to "intermittent/surprise the bad guy's" then change lights to
a long runtime torch to finish the tactical mission. Where do you folks
encounter scenerious that are wrapped up, doors closed, and lights out in 2-3
minutes???

I do agree though that given the probability of the MN21 overheating, the
MN20 may be a better option for the task at hand.


*tac·ti·cal* 

 ([font=verdana, sans-serif] P [/font]) *Pronunciation Key* (t




k



t



-k



l)
_adj._ 

Of, relating to, or using tactics.
<LI type=a>Of, relating to, used in, or involving military or naval operations that are smaller, closer to base, and of less long-term significance than strategic operations.
Carried out in support of military or naval operations: tactical bombing.

Characterized by adroitness, ingenuity, or skill.



JimH said:


> It usually involves a high energy situation that plays out, beginning to end, in under 5 minutes. It has absolutely nothing to do with "long term searching".


----------



## Lightraven (Mar 23, 2006)

*Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good *2nd night test findings added**

I think the point of this thread is that Titaniums are dying early. The type of flashlight or its intended use is a tangent. An interesting tangent.

I don't think the Surefire M6 is so specialized that only soldiers assaulting a 5 minute objective could get use from it. I mean, its just a flashlight.

Imagine an LEO pulls over a vehicle in a very dark area for possible drug smuggling. His partner uses an M6 to light up the interior of the car and the occupants. They run records checks and interview the subjects, they search the vehicle, then call for a police dog to do a sniff. The whole process could easily take 20 minutes.

The possibility that these subjects could produce a gun at some point and start shooting may or may not meet anybody's definition of tactical, but it is a more realistic concern.

If a Special Forces group is searching a cave in Tora Bora for Osama, do they necessarily flash their lights on and off, or do they just maintain continuous observation as they search and clear? Could that not take 20 minutes?


----------



## AmondoTech (Mar 23, 2006)

*Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good *2nd night test findings added**

I like to thank a CPF member pointed me this thread.

When we received shipments from factory, the procedure is to QC batteries at 0.5 AMP, 1 AMP and 2 AMP. 

Titanium CR123A batteries are formulated and QC at the 4 cells level. We didn't set up to QC at 6 cell environment. I don't know how many applications use more than 4 CR123A batteries at once.

For high discharge current and also involves multiple serial and pallel connections, we will need to get the spec to formulate the CR123A batteries to fit the specific applications. If there is an OEM order, we can certainly tweak the Titanium CR123A formula.

If your application requires more than 4 CR123A at once and also operate under high current draw, you will need to select other brands CR123A batteries. Other than that Titanium CR123A should perform the way it is supposed to.

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## Size15's (Mar 23, 2006)

*Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good *2nd night test findings ad*

Please can we keep this on topic and leave the discussion of "tactical" for another thread (there have been threads on "tactical" before).

Thanks

Al


----------



## SilverFox (Mar 23, 2006)

*Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good *2nd night test findings ad*

I just finished a few runs at 2.5 amps.

I am scratching my head. Richard must have gotten some "off" cells, or mine are "off."

I have tested several different batches of the Titanium cells, and they have always showed very good consistency. Of course I can say the same for the other brands represented in the graph of this testing.

Perhaps I can talk Wayne into sending some of those cells my way to see if I can get them to misbehave.

I should point out that these test results represent single cell results. There may be some difference when running 6 at a time.

At any rate, here is the data at 2.5 amps.








Can someone please explain to me what is going on here...

Tom


----------



## Size15's (Mar 23, 2006)

*Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good *2nd night test findings ad*

Tom,
Can you run the test using an M6 battery carrier?


----------



## SilverFox (Mar 23, 2006)

*Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good *2nd night test findings ad*

Hello Al,

Yes I can, however I don't have one...

Tom


----------



## bwaites (Mar 23, 2006)

*Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good *2nd night test findings ad*

I do, I can overnight it if you like Tom.

Bill


----------



## SilverFox (Mar 23, 2006)

*Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good *2nd night test findings ad*

Hello Bill,

I was just checking to see if I had enough batteries...

I have enough for a run with SureFire, BatteryStation, and Titanium batteries. I am a little short on the others.

I wish I would of considered this earlier...

Oh well, if you think that would provide some good information, send it.

Tom


----------



## bwaites (Mar 23, 2006)

*Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good *2nd night test findings ad*

PM me your address and give me a call!!

Bill


----------



## lebox97 (Mar 23, 2006)

*Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good *2nd night test findings ad*



SilverFox said:


> ...I have enough for a run with SureFire, BatteryStation, and Titanium batteries.


 those are the three brands that most of us use in the M6 I think - at least those are the three that I use.... let me know if you need some extra's 

also isn't this thread about ready to be moved to "*Flashlight Electronics - Batteries Included**" ?*


----------



## JimH (Mar 24, 2006)

*Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good *2nd night test findings ad*

This is a slightly different approach to testing batteries. I took a group of 24 Titanium batteries, purchased this year and tested them with a ZTS pulse load battery tester.

The results of the first test were that 10 of the 24 registered between 0% and 80% life remaining. The rest all registered 100%.

After a 1 hour rest period I retested the batteries, taking readings of voltage before test, % life remaining, and voltage after the test. The following table shows the results sorted by life remaining.






24% of the batteries showed less than 100% life remaining, with 1 registering completely dead.

I've got 16 Streamlight batteries that I purchased last year that I'll test next. Stay tuned for results.


----------



## JimH (Mar 24, 2006)

*Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good *2nd night test findings ad*

I just got done testing some streamlights that I purchased last year. Same testing as the Titaniums. Here are the results.






Based on my brief initial testing, it looks like the jury is in, and Titaniums are out.


----------



## kennyj (Mar 24, 2006)

*Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good *2nd night test findings ad*

Anyone know where those nice Duracells can be found cheaply?


----------



## nuggett (Mar 24, 2006)

*Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good *2nd night test findings ad*

Kennyj, seery, js,silverfox,bwaites,
I just want to say thank you for your time and effort and expense getting this information out.
I have a new M6 still on its orginal batts, with batterystations on stand by.


----------



## seery (Mar 24, 2006)

*Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good *2nd night test findings added**

Many of the Titaniums were so hot when coming out of the M6 battery carrier
that they couldn't be touched.

A few were bubbling on top???

Have a few close-up pics of the bubbling that I can email someone if they would
post them for me. Still haven't figured out how






JimH - Looking at your tests seems to explain it all. SF told me the "slightest"
variance in beginning voltage would cause thermal shut-down due to uneven
draw on the cells. Nice work and thanks.


----------



## prof (Mar 24, 2006)

*Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good *Need help posting my pics**

Have you tried www.tinypic.com for posting?


----------



## SilverFox (Mar 24, 2006)

*Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good *Need help posting my pics**

Hello Jim,

Great testing...

It looks like there is a consistency problem with the Titanium cells. I just checked some of mine and they are showing open circuit voltages in the 3.3 V range.

It looks like the ZTS tester would be a good thing to have if you have an M6...

Tom


----------



## nethiker (Mar 24, 2006)

*Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good *Need help posting my pics*

Great info here guys. I'm really surprised at the variance found in the Titanium cells. I'm certainly not going to chance running more Titaniums in a multicell light until more info is available suggesting it's o.k. Right now it definately looks like it may be a risk.

:goodjob:


----------



## bwaites (Mar 24, 2006)

*Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good *Need help posting my pics*

ZTS tester? What is that?

Bill


----------



## SCblur (Mar 24, 2006)

*Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good *2nd night test findings added**

Here are some pictures that Seery took.



seery said:


> Many of the Titaniums were so hot when coming out of the M6 battery carrier
> that they couldn't be touched.
> 
> A few were bubbling on top???


----------



## Longbow (Mar 24, 2006)

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. *I'm all done "chewing" Titanium hype! *


----------



## bwaites (Mar 24, 2006)

Interesting!!!

I've never seen the "soap bubble" look on a vented cell.

Bill


----------



## OutdoorIdiot (Mar 24, 2006)

I've recently been a bit concerned about loading ANY brand of batteries into my M6 with HOLA, then running it flat-out.

The M6 has always heated up my batteries like no other flashlight I have.

And recently, I've noticed on CPF some people say that they have been checking their new 123 batteries and finding some "duds", even with the SureFire brand.

So I've been worried about getting a dud 123 mixed in with the 6 that go into the M6.

I haven't got a ZTS tester, but I have got a reasonably good multimeter. However, I've forgotten how the whole electronics thing works. The built-in battery-test modes on it are just for 1.5v and 9v.

Can anybody here suggest a safe way, using a A/V/O meter, to ensure that all the batteries they put into the M6 are at least equal-voltage?


----------



## Ringer (Mar 24, 2006)

*Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good *Need help posting my pics*



bwaites said:


> ZTS tester? What is that?
> 
> Bill


 
It's a farily popular and inexpensive tester for various types of alkaline , metal hydride and lithium batteries. http://www.ztsinc.com/products.html

A search on ZTS should yield several threads about them.


----------



## lebox97 (Mar 24, 2006)

yup, I just ordered one...

ZTS offers 10% off to CPF'rs (look in the dealer thread - for ZTC)
but found these guy's a tad cheaper w/o a discount...
http://www.greenbatteries.com/batterytesters.html
:rock:


----------



## seery (Mar 24, 2006)

There are are a few more observations we made between the Titaniums and the
OEM SF's.

(1) After the Titaniums were removed from the battery carrier, the bottom
had a slight dent or dimple on every battery. The SF's were only surface
scuffed.

(2) We weighed 20 batteries of each. They were both very consistent in weight
with the Titaniums averaging 245 grains and the SF's averaging 257 grains.
Weighing was done on two powder balance beam scales.

(3) The "oozing" was in a few of the Titaniums. Not a single SF showed this.

(4) Upon removal of the batteries from the battery carrier, the SF's were
always the same temp (as close as we could "feel"). While the Titaniums were
always mixed from just warm, to hot, to absolutely scorching.


----------



## lebox97 (Mar 24, 2006)

just curious:
did you buy the "matched" sets of three - or the loose ones?

I am using the matched in three sets and no problems thus far... but I also don't run my M6 till the bats go dead either -

it is becoming obvious that a tester, and matching up batteries (ANY brand) for use in multi-cell high amp lights should be mandatory? :goodjob:


----------



## seery (Mar 24, 2006)

97 - I bought the matched doubles, triples, and singles. The singles come
packaged as four.

Hope this helps.


----------



## OutdoorIdiot (Mar 24, 2006)

lebox97 said:


> it is becoming obvious that a tester, and matching up batteries (ANY brand) for use in multi-cell high amp lights should be mandatory? :goodjob:


 
That's what I'm thinking. I've always been careful to use fresh, same-expiry-date, same brand batteries in the M6. But given the reports of duds recently, and this thread, I'm beginning to think that that isn't enough.

I'd rather not spend out on a battery tester, given I have a multimeter, but if that's what the techies here recommend, then I'll consider it.


----------



## JimH (Mar 24, 2006)

Here are the results of 20 Titanium CR2's that I received this past Wednesday. Doesn't look too good. Observe how *little *you can tell buy just looking at the voltage. I'll send the bad ones to Silver Fox for more testing.


----------



## OutdoorIdiot (Mar 24, 2006)

JimH said:


> Observe how *little *you can tell buy just looking at the voltage.


 
Thanks for pointing that out. Dammit, I thought that was all we needed to do to be safe!

Forgive my ignorance, but how are you determining the remaining life?

[Edit: I know you are using a ZTS tester, but I don't understand how they measure the remaining life!]


----------



## JimH (Mar 24, 2006)

OutdoorIdiot said:


> Forgive my ignorance, but how are you determining the remaining life?


See posts #71 and #72.


----------



## OutdoorIdiot (Mar 24, 2006)

Sorry, JimH - just edited my previous post as you were posting that. I don't understand the science behind how it's doing it - that's what I meant!


----------



## lebox97 (Mar 24, 2006)

here is from the ZTS FAQ: http://ztsinc.com/faq.html (they have been in business for 30 yrs - I assume they know what they are doing? )

"Do I need to know battery voltage? 
Battery voltage is not a reliable parameter for determining remaining battery capacity and condition. Also, battery voltage (open circuit) does not indicate whether the battery will actually be able to deliver power under operating load. ZTS Multi-Batery Testers™ determine a battery's remaining power capacity by precisely measuring the battery's ability to maintain specific voltage levels while delivering current (under load). This also verifies the battery's ability to deliver power (volts x amps).  ZTS Multi-Battery Testers display the test result as a percentage of remaining capacity. This eliminates the guesswork of estimating remaining capacity from a voltage reading."

HOW?
[font=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]"Battery performance is very important in today's electronic devices. ZTS Multi-Battery Testers compute the battery's actual remaining power capacity using a patented pulse load test. This pulse load simulates the real power demand that batteries experience during normal operating conditions. So battery _performance_ is measured, not just voltage or internal resistance. The load is automatically disconnected, so testing will not harm or drain the battery."
&
"[/font][font=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular][font=Arial,Helvetica,Geneva,Swiss,SunSans-Regular]microprocessor-based design makes battery testing simple - using a patented, high accuracy pulse load test. After a fully automatic test cycle, percentage of remaining battery capacity is indicated on the LED bar display. Battery types are clearly labeled next to appropriate contacts. There are no settings, and test results are easy to understand."


[/font][/font]


----------



## OutdoorIdiot (Mar 24, 2006)

That's good enough for me (since I don't really understand it anyway!)

Thanks JimH / lebox97.

So, to answer my own earlier question, it seems that a multimeter, and indeed the built-in battery tester in my multimeter, are NOT good enough to do this reliably!

I will give very serious thought to getting one of these things, thanks.


----------



## seery (Mar 24, 2006)

Well THANKS CPF folks for spending more of my $$






Going to order a ZTS MBT-1 and make this standard protocol.

Upon receiving a new batch of "X" brand batteries, test all of them and match 
the cells accordingly and place them in matched 6's for the M6's, matched 3's
for M3/M3T's and M962C's, and matched pairs for the E2D's and all other 2-cell
lights.

Sort of a pain but the rewards would be worth it. What I've experienced over
the last 10-days is crap. Being down in New Mexico for low-light work and not
being able to drive an M6 over 10 minutes!

Thoughts on this idea?


----------



## bwaites (Mar 24, 2006)

So does someone want to make a recommendation, is the ZTS MBT-1 the appropriate one to do all the cells we use?

Bill


----------



## lebox97 (Mar 24, 2006)

I got the Mini-MBT for $35 shipped. 
I couldn't justify the difference of what appeared to be button cell testing for an additional $40 (MBT-1)?

hopefully I got the right one! :candle:

Hotlink removed

*if there is enough interest for these (and MBT-1) - maybe I'll look into a groupbuy???*


----------



## seery (Mar 24, 2006)

lebox97 - I ordered the MBT-1 and after reading your post called and talked
with Dave at ZST and now have the Mini-MBT on the way instead.

ZST said the MBT-1 and the Mini-MBT use the same software, same load
resistors, etc. The MBT-1 is an "always on" model designed for store counter
type use and has about a 1.50 year life internal battery whereas the mini-MBT
has a 2-minute auto shutdown feature. It is designed more for personal and
mobile type use. The MBT-1 also has 1 more LED light taking the readout
range from 20% down to 10%. 

Both are set as follows:
100% = 90-100%
80% = 70-90%
60% = 50-70%
40% = 30-50%
20% = 10-30%

When I asked if these testers would be "accurate" enough for the use we are
discussing, he replied. Any devices needing a more accurate reading would 
probably be used only by NASA


----------



## InfidelCastro (Mar 24, 2006)

Surefire batteries can be pretty uneven as well in my experience. I've only used a couple Titanium batteries so far, so I can't say about them.

To be honest, I've been real discouraged with lithium batteries of all types lately.


----------



## SilverFox (Mar 24, 2006)

I just ordered the MBT-1.

The reason I got that one was because I am having one of the button cell test stations modified to incorporate a test for the primary Lithium AA and AAA cells. I got a batch of these from ExcessSolutions and there is some question as to which are good. 

I was told that the Mini did not have enough room for the modification, so I went with the full sized unit.

The Lithium AA mod costs an additional $30 and takes a couple of days to have done.

Let the testing begin... 

Tom


----------



## Lunal_Tic (Mar 24, 2006)

SilverFox said:


> I just ordered the MBT-1.
> 
> The reason I got that one was because I am having one of the button cell test stations modified to incorporate a test for the primary Lithium AA and AAA cells. I got a batch of these from ExcessSolutions and there is some question as to which are good.
> 
> ...



Argh, I just received my MBT-1 a little while ago and have been muttering to myself about the need for the lithium checker.  

Maybe they'll offer an upgrade to the one I have when I'm back in the US.

-LT


----------



## SilverFox (Mar 24, 2006)

Hello LT,

They told me that the modification takes a couple of days to do, so you may want to plan accordingly. I don't believe there is any problems modifying a unit that you already have, you just have to get it to them.

Tom


----------



## mdocod (Mar 24, 2006)

> If your application requires more than 4 CR123A at once and also operate under high current draw, you will need to select other brands CR123A batteries. Other than that Titanium CR123A should perform the way it is supposed to. -AmondoTech



I think I already mentioned that I was having problems in a 4 cells light with Titaniums, and all this other testing going on- showing that many batteries are coming directly from the factory with very little charge in them at all, sounds like titaniums, and possibly all brands, to some degree, are setting us up for failure and wasted cells.... Glad I'm running ion now.


----------



## JimH (Mar 24, 2006)

mdocod said:


> l, sounds like titaniums, and possibly *all brands, to some degree*, are setting us up for failure and wasted cells.... Glad I'm running ion now.


Check out the consistancy of Streamlight vs. Titanium for voltage and % life remaining.


----------



## mdocod (Mar 24, 2006)

check out "too some degree"...? I realize that SL/SF and probably others have a much better track record for consistancy, but I'm just saying, the possability is there for all batteries.


----------



## Lightraven (Mar 25, 2006)

Thanks, JimH. That's good info.


----------



## InfidelCastro (Mar 25, 2006)

Glad I only bought 8 of the Titanium batteries. I'm going to put them on my DMM before I put them in a light. That would suck to have your spare dead as a doornail.


They still seem like a pretty good deal at a buck apiece though for low drain lights.


----------



## TheOring (Mar 25, 2006)

I just got a bunch of Titaniums....

Good info on this thread though. Thankx a lot to the dedicated testers.


----------



## JimH (Mar 25, 2006)

InfidelCastro said:


> I'm going to put them on my DMM before I put them in a light.


Unlikely a DMM will tell you anything useful. A battery with only 20% life left can have a higher voltage than a battery with 100% life left.


----------



## wasBlinded (Mar 25, 2006)

JimH said:


> Unlikely a DMM will tell you anything useful. A battery with only 20% life left can have a higher voltage than a battery with 100% life left.


 
Actually, a DMM can tell you a bit more than just voltage. If it has a 10 amp current scale, use that to measure "flash amps". That is basically a short across the cell, for just a few tenths of a second. A good lithium AA should give 7+ amps (but well ander 9 amps), and the test will weed out the really bad cells.

I don't know if a reading of 8 amps or so (typical of factory fresh Energizer lithium AA cells) guarantees a 100% cell, but it might be a good indication.


----------



## InfidelCastro (Mar 25, 2006)

I would think I could blow the fuse on my DMM pretty easily if I did that.


----------



## wasBlinded (Mar 25, 2006)

InfidelCastro said:


> I would think I could blow the fuse on my DMM pretty easily if I did that.


 
On the 10 Amp scale you wouldn't. Its designed to carry a current of 10 Amps, so if you are only drawing 8 during the test, the fuse won't blow.


----------



## js (Mar 25, 2006)

OK. I'm at home on the dial up and I have to get back to SF M6-R orders work, so I'm not going to go back over all the posts in this thread. Not today anyway.

But, for what it's worth, I just did a runtime test of the New Titanium 123's in my M6 with MN21 HOLA installed.

I got 15 min 45 sec and then one or more of the batteries thermally shut down. I waited for a bit to let them cool, and then continued the test, getting another 8 minutes until obvious dimming. I could have gotten more, but it would have been increasingly dim and I believe I picked the proper cutoff point at obvious and increasing dimming.

The batteries were all equally hot--about 150 F or a bit less, going by the standard pain tests. (If you can't hold onto it for any length of time at all, it is >160F. If you can just hold it for a second it is around 160F. And if you can hold it for a few to several seconds it is 150-140 F. Etc.

Not very accurate, maybe, but you get the idea. I could hold these for a few seconds before chickening out.

I have done this sort of test with SF 123's before, and got similar results, except that thermal shutoff occured at 10 minutes, IIRC. And the cells were just as hot as these bad boys. Maybe even hotter.

OK. Hope that helped.


----------



## InfidelCastro (Mar 26, 2006)

JimH said:


> Unlikely a DMM will tell you anything useful. A battery with only 20% life left can have a higher voltage than a battery with 100% life left.




Yea I know, I'm just saying, at least I'll know it won't be totally dead. If it's totally dead it will be sub 3V I suspect.


----------



## CostcoAAcells (Mar 26, 2006)

Thanks to this thread, I decided to order a ZTS mini tester also. I'm a battery hoarder, myself. Up to now, I've bought my batteries based soley on their reputation as they are represented here on CPF. That's still kind of blind faith, in my book. At least once I get this ZTS tester, I'll be able to check for duds on delivery day. As it is, if I currently have any duds I probably won't know for another 6-12 months--when I go to use them. And by then, if I want to return them it may be harder to convince the vendor to take them back. I doubt I'd still have the paperwork for the purchase after all that time either.


----------



## AmondoTech (Mar 27, 2006)

Thank you to the CPFers for conducting such detail analyses.

I will report this to the technicians and look into this issue.

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## bwaites (Mar 27, 2006)

Wayne,

I just wanted to point out that the M6 uses two (2) stacks of 3 cells, not a single stack of 6.

So theoretically, your testing to a stack of 4 should be fine. 

But, the truth is that something about Lithium technology is still not quite perfect and just about ALL the brands have seen failures. 

I myself had had M6 shutdowns on Surefires, BatteryStation, and Duracells, as well as a few other less well known brands.

Bill


----------



## lebox97 (Mar 30, 2006)

got my ZTS mini-MBT battery tester today (batteries not included! :ironic - very small (fit's in a shirt pocket)

wow, I was surprised... some of my used 123 batteries I thought were still "ok" showed 20% left.
on 25 new ones of 3 different brands (I won't pick on a vendor) I got mostly 100%, a couple of 80% and a couple of 60%'s

what was odd is I got a few that came up as 60-80% - and when re-tested it showed 100% - not sure what's going on with that! :thinking:

also, on a DMM - the 20% bats showed 3.02-3.03 v, and 100% ranged between 2.98-3.22v :thinking:


----------



## SilverFox (Mar 30, 2006)

Hello Lebox97,

Can you give us your test procedure?

I have heard that the battery recovery effect can trick the ZTS tester a bit. I believe they recommend doing two tests 5 seconds apart and going with the second test results.

Tom


----------



## InfidelCastro (Mar 30, 2006)

SilverFox said:


> Hello Lebox97,
> 
> Can you give us your test procedure?
> 
> ...




Thanks for the tip, I'll try and remember that. I definately want to get one of these testers.

Does this effect happen with alkalines and NiMh as well?


----------



## lebox97 (Mar 30, 2006)

Hi Tom
ummm, procedure?
I sorted about 200 batteries by brand and type (AAA, AA, CR123) and started testing them on the appropriate terminal with the probe? (and all came from same storage temp)

I will re-test and create a spreadsheet to show side by side the voltage and capacity % - as I found it odd that the capacity left %'s and voltage readings were not consistent. (ie. some full capacity batteries showed a lower voltage and vice versa?)

EDIT: re-sorted all my batteries by capacity % - was surprised to find some dead/low capacity AA/AAA bats mixed in with good ones in my devices. I think this was my screw up - not manufacturers though.

the instruction sheet does mention to repeat test after several seconds for best accuracy.
Tod


----------



## Donovan (Mar 30, 2006)

The first batch that I purchased will be my last. They have less than 1/2 the runtime of battery station CR123's. I kept thinking something was wrong with my lights!!!

Granted I think I got the older style, but I wasn't able to return them for the so called "improved" ones so I was stuck with crappy batteries. I won't make that mistake again!


----------



## atm (Mar 31, 2006)

I have found the same thing with the ZTS tester (tester's results not correlating with standing voltages) as noted here;

https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/112786

I did find though that results from flash amping the batteries ordered them the same as the tester (is flash-amping advisable for new batts, particularly ones you want to store for some time?).

I make a point when using the ZTS tester of doing more than one test per battery because of the variation in results with some batteries.

In the above post I ask whether people think the testers are accurate or not, these varying results do make me wonder.

Andrew


----------



## Handlobraesing (Mar 31, 2006)

*Re: Surefire M6 / New Titanium 123's / Results / Not good*



kennyj said:


> The batterystation cell pulled THAT FAR ahead of the pack? That's very interesting. They're slightly cheaper than SF cells last I looked, and IIRC they're frequently considered to be comparable to SF in build quality. Did you just use one of each cell or are these repeated tests? How did you perform the test?
> 
> Also, the M6 uses two parallel stacks, so the draw will be 2.5A from each cell on the HOLA, not 5.0A (which would be way too much to expect from a CR123A except in very short, very sparse bursts.)



Remember that battery manufacturers usually don't recommend using lithium cells in any type of parallel config, because current sharing can't be guaranteed to be even. When one set collapses, entire loaded is shifted onto the other bank.

Someone should setup two banks of three CR123 and with a 0.01 ohm resistor in series with each bank and monitor the mV across each resistor with a two channel logger with the entire assembly connected to 5.0A CC load. Ideally both resistors would be giving a 25mV drop, but I bet in reality, one's going to be higher than the other one.


----------



## OutdoorIdiot (Mar 31, 2006)

[Edit: Just to make it clear that this was in response to ATM's post!]

I think one of the more important things that this thread has addressed in earlier posts, is that the voltage of a battery cannot be used as a reliable indicator of it's state.

Indeed, the ZTS tester seems to have been created for this very reason. From my limited understanding of how the ZTS works, I think it is performing a very sophisticated kind of flash-amp test. It seems it measures not only the voltage, but also allows a lot of current to flow, so that it can measure the battery's ability to deliver current at that voltage.

And it does this in "pulses," presumably so that (1) It doesn't drain the battery too much (or damage it), and (2) It can measure the difference in readings over time (i.e. how the measurements change at each pulse), to get more insight into the battery's behaviour. And then I think it compares these results to some kind of internal look-up table that contains measurements of current and voltage from batterys that are "known" to be "good".

If all that is true, then I'll put my neck on the line and suggest this about the ZTS tester:

(1) It is fallible. Not all 123 battery's will have the same behaviour as the ones that were used to compile the look-up table, even though they may be "good" batteries, by some measure of the term "good". However:

(2) It's as good as it gets. I really can't think of what more you can do to test if a battery is AOK, or to check that all batteries in a group are in the same "state" before loading them into a flashlight.


----------



## s.duff (Mar 31, 2006)

thanks for the info. i think ill be sticking with surefire batteries.


----------



## atm (Mar 31, 2006)

Good points, thanks OutdoorIdiot. I think the tester is the best chance I have of getting some idea of a batterys health, and those which should and shouldn't be used together.

Andrew


----------



## lebox97 (Mar 31, 2006)

anybody want to try to decipher this? :huh2:

CR123 measured voltage, ZTS-mini tested, tested again after 5 seconds, re-measured voltage after 5 sec.

*Known New Batteries* (volts, % capacity, % capacity, volts)

3.27 100 100 3.14

3.28 100 100 3.12

3.28 100 100 3.14

3.28 100 100 3.11

3.27 40 60 3.11

3.28 100 100 3.11

3.26 100 100 3.12

3.03 0 20 2.98

3.27 100 100 3.11

3.25 100 100 3.06

3.25 100 100 3.11

3.25 100 100 3.09

3.24 100 100 3.09

3.26 100 100 3.08

3.26 100 100 3.05


*New batteries (all initially tested at 100%) – after four 1 second blasts in SF M6 MN21 bulb – then rested 18 hours. *

3.02 80 80 3.00

2.98 80 60 2.96

3.07 80 60 2.96

3.02 100 80 3.00

2.99 80 100 2.97

2.98 60 80 2.95


*Known Used Batteries*

3.00 100 100 2.97

3.03 100 80 2.99

3.23 100 100 3.09

3.23 100 100 3.09

3.23 100 100 3.09

3.19 100 100 3.04

3.20 80 100 3.04

3.20 100 60 3.06

3.14 100 80 3.00

3.19 100 100 3.05

3.03 80 80 2.96

3.01 80 60 2.96

3.03 80 80 2.98

3.05 20 40 3.04

3.05 40 40 3.03

3.02 20 20 3.00

3.02 20 20 3.00

*I know I am completely baffled!!!*


----------



## OutdoorIdiot (Mar 31, 2006)

I'll have a go at deciphering those results, though I'm hardly qualified to do so. In fact I'm only doing this because I'm surprised anyone else hasn't had a go yet, and I'm getting impatient (I have to leave in a bit)!

Anyway, here goes some wild conjecture/observations from a novice:

(1) The one consistent thing (phew!) seems to be that the second voltage reading is always lower. Fair enough, because the voltage measurements and the ZTS testing will "use" the batteries to some extent. While voltage seems inadequate as a means of testing for battery life, I think it is still fair to say, that for any given battery, the voltage will drop with use (given same temperature and all else being equal, etc etc...).

(2) For the cases where the second ZTS measurement gives a higher "remaining life" reading that the first, I wonder if experimental error could be to blame? E.g, improper contact between the battery and the tester. Perhaps a few goes at measuring life, and averaging, would yield different results?

(3) The batteries that have provided a few blasts in an M6 MN21 are the most interesting part of the results, for me. The significant drops in measured life expectancy (in some of the cells) can possibly be explained by the fact that, even in a few short blasts of the M6, a huge amount of current will have been supplied, because, I believe, as the filament lights up a huge amount of current is drawn, until the filament gets hot. The fact that not all cells show the same huge drop could possibly be explained by (1) The statement that Handlobraesing made a few posts ago, "_Remember that battery manufacturers usually don't recommend using lithium cells in any type of parallel config, because current sharing can't be guaranteed to be even. When one set collapses, entire loaded is shifted onto the other bank_," and (2) Perhaps also experimental error again.

Just some thoughts. I confidently expect to be roundly slapped-down, but thought I'd have a go anyway...


----------



## JimH (Mar 31, 2006)

lebox97 said:


> anybody want to try to decipher this?


The only thing that stands out for me is that, if the initial voltage is below about 3.10, the odds are the battery will show a value less than 100 % on the ZTS tester.


----------



## Size15's (Mar 31, 2006)

Has anyone taken an MB20 apart? I understood it had diodes to prevent reverse charging...


----------



## Ringer (Mar 31, 2006)

Well most of the Titaniums I have are in the shrink wrapped 2 packs. Anyway to test these without breaking up the packs? I haven't experienced any issues with mine so far in various 2 cell Surefire and Streamlight lights.


----------



## lebox97 (Mar 31, 2006)

the only way is to break open the shrink wrap and test them individually to make your own "matches"... 
if these are going into high draw/amp lights - I highly suggest doing this to minimize the issues and maximize the runtimes... 

I use all three "popular" brands - SF, BS, and Titanium - and found concerns (occasional duds) mixed with all of them, including the "matched" ones. :candle:


----------



## tvodrd (Mar 31, 2006)

Size15's said:


> Has anyone taken an MB20 apart? I understood it had diodes to prevent reverse charging...



Hi Al, 
On a whim I grabbed one of my 3 MB20s and went to check it out. It was dead! I measured 4 cells at less than .1V and 2 at ~2.8V I've had js's M6R pack in one M6 since I received it and the dead pack wasn't dead when removed. :shrug: The other loaded (spare) pack measured 9+V.

I rang it out and traced the connections on the side with a marker. I then measured the voltage on 3 good cells and installed them in the MB20. I measured the pack voltage at exactly the same as the sum of the 3 individual cell's voltages. Diodes usually have a forward voltage drop of at least .2V, so I don't think the packs are dioded. One of our esteemed EEs may show me the error of my ways, too.

Larry


----------



## JimH (Mar 31, 2006)

I just picked up a box of 40 new CR123's right off the shelf from Tenergy. I tested each battery twice, 5 seconds between tests. Out of 40 batterries, all batteries tested 100% on the first test, and all but 1 tested 100% on the second test. The one that tested less than 100% read 80%.

Based on this limited testing, I'm pretty impressed. If this continues to be the case, it looks like Tenergy CR123's could be a very attractive, low cost choice.

I also picked up some "900"mAh 3v RCR123's from Tenergy. After I cycle them a few times, I'll test them for capacity against the rated value.

For the capacity test, what current should I use in order to fairly determine the capacity? I know some manufactures use as low as a 50 mA rate.


----------



## SilverFox (Apr 1, 2006)

Hello JimH,

You sent me 8 Titanium CR123 cells. I came up with

1 @ 0%
[email protected] 10%
5 @ 20%
1 @ 40 %

I guess the postman used them a bit between your place and mine...  

Manufacturers are suppose to utilize the standard 5 hour discharge to rate the capacity. This is a 0.2C discharge rate. You can get pretty close by using a 0.5C rate, but expect less capacity when you go to a 1C rate.

Tom


----------



## JimH (Apr 1, 2006)

Thanks for the info, Tom. 

I Just got some Tenergy "900"mAh Li-ions. That should put my selected discharge rate at 180 mAh after I cycle them a few times.


----------



## Lightraven (Apr 1, 2006)

Here are my results for comparison:

Tonight, I ran an M6 HOLA with unused Surefire 123 batteries with outside air temp of about 54F degrees. The batteries have been stored for maybe 6 months.

The lamp burned brightly for 11 minutes 57 seconds, then quit rather abruptly--thermal shutdown?

I pulled the battery carrier out, and it was very warm. I rotated the batteries in their holders, they were hot to my fingertips on the in facing surface.

I gave the light a rest of about 20 minutes then started it again. It ran at a slightly dimmer, but usable brightness for another 5 minutes 42 seconds at which time it quickly dimmed too much to be useful--towards death.

The total runtime, with the 20 minute breather, is 17 minutes 39 seconds.


----------



## nuggett (Apr 1, 2006)

I tested 50 batterystations with the ZTS and got 1 dud, they seem to run the M6 well, after about 6 minutes, they thermally shut down, then came back when cooled, but not for as long as I expected. I guess the thermal shutdown isnt good for the batts life.
I am trying a new batch of Pentagonlight batts after returning a box full for substandard performance (noticably dimmer output on hotwires) So far so good in the M6. When I first got the light, I ran it for 8-10 minutes straight and the powerpack got very hot with SF batts, no shutdown though and got satisfactory life.


----------



## JimH (Apr 1, 2006)

I just retested all 40 of my new Tenergy CR123's using an Ansmann Energy Check LCD tester.







I got the same result as with the ZTS tester - all except one tested 100%

I then retested my Titanium batteries. This weeded out a few more weak cells. I'm now down to only 26 out of 40 that register 100%.

The Ansmann tester gives results in 10% increments and displays the battery voltage at the end of the test. Out of all Tenergy and Titanium batteries that tested 100%, the ending voltage for Titanium batteries was between 2.74 and 2.76, and the ending voltage for the Tenergy batteries was between 2.85 and 2.87 (consistently 0.1v higher than the Titaniums)


----------



## AmondoTech (Apr 2, 2006)

Hello Everybody,

I have been reading this thread and am rather concerned.

I will be going to the factory next month and want to
address the consistency problems people are having at
that time. 

We use a Cadex C7400 here at Amondotech and have been
getting consistent results with the Titanium CR213A
batteries in our tester.

If I just mention some people are having consistency
problems without hard data the factory will not know
what needs to be corrected. Could any of you send me your documented results.

JimH would you be willing to come by sometime with
your tester. I would like to do a parallel test where we randomly
take an equal amount of batteries from my stock. Also
If you could bring some batteries of any other brand
you feel is more consistent I will reimburse you for
the cost.

Then we can test the batteries simultaneously using
two different testers and two different brands and I
would have some good information to take to the
factory with me. This way I can make sure any
problems with the Titanium batteries can and will be
corrected.

Warm Regards,
Wayne
[email protected]


----------



## JimH (Apr 2, 2006)

AmondoTech said:


> JimH would you be willing to come by sometime with
> your tester.


Wayne,

I am currently using a ZTS tester and an Ansmann Enery Check LCD. They are giveing consistent results with each other.

I would be happy to come by and test batteries side by side. My schedule is relatively flexable, but after noon is definitely best. Send me a PM and we'll set something up.


----------



## JimH (Apr 2, 2006)

I talked to SilverFox extensively this afternoon. We discussed test procedures and test results at length. Based on his results, I am convinced that the procedures that he has established are the most legitimate way to proceed.

His procedure is to conduct back to back tests until the tester gives the same result 3 times in a row.

Using the ZTS tester and the Ansmann Energy Check LCD tester alternately, I retested all of my new CR123's. This is a summary of the results.

Titanium CR123 - 9 out of 40 tested 100%
Tenergy CR123 - 39 out of 40 tested 100%
Streamlight CR123 - 17 out of 17 tested 100%


----------



## mtbkndad (Apr 2, 2006)

I have been semi following this thread.

I am curious since I do not know much about batteries.
Can the circuit protection in the Titanium batteries in any way affect the tests if the devices are using pulse load to determine remaining battery life?
Is the software written to take into account anomalies that the PTC may create?
Would the test unit be able to automatically identify if batteries have PTC or not?
Has anybody done runtime tests on batteries of any brand that rate less then 100% and batteries of the same brand that rate 100% with actual lights testing light output to see if the results confirm the accuracy of these meters projections? 
In a fully regulated light shouldn't a battery rated at 50% only give half the run time of a battery rated at 100%. 
In an unregulated light wouldn't it have noticeably less light output? 

Those of you in the know please explain, if you would be willing, how the PTC either could cause pulse reading and % projection problems or how it cannot if it won't.
I am just seeking to learn here.
The reason I am curious is I have been using Titaniums ever since the new ones came out and get very consistent runtime results in my NightCutter M60L and Gladiuses. I have had a couple of bad pairs or cells in the last 8 months or so but that is all. Batteries that were put into my Gladiuses that started blinking within 20 minutes of use. This has happened twice. Ironically it was the same night from the same purchase of batteries in both Gladiuses. Before and after that I have not had any problems.
With readings like JimH is posting I would think my runtimes would vary greatly but they do not. 

Any information anybody can share to help enlighten me regarding my questions would be greatly appreciated. 

Take Care,
mtbkndad :wave:


----------



## SilverFox (Apr 2, 2006)

Hello Mtbkndad,




mtbkndad said:


> I have been semi following this thread.
> 
> I am curious since I do not know much about batteries.
> Can the circuit protection in the Titanium batteries in any way affect the tests if the devices are using pulse load to determine remaining battery life?



No.



mtbkndad said:


> Is the software written to take into account anomalies that the PTC may create?



No. The PTC does not present a problem with the test algorithm.



mtbkndad said:


> Would the test unit be able to automatically identify if batteries have PTC or not?



No.



mtbkndad said:


> Has anybody done runtime tests on batteries of any brand that rate less then 100% and batteries of the same brand that rate 100% with actual lights testing light output to see if the results confirm the accuracy of these meters projections?



I am not running tests with actual lights, but am doing discharge tests on the batteries that test out at less than 100%. I am finding that not all batteries adhere strictly to the "standard" curves that the ZTS tester uses. 



mtbkndad said:


> In a fully regulated light shouldn't a battery rated at 50% only give half the run time of a battery rated at 100%.



Only if the battery strictly follows the ZTS "standard" voltage curve.



mtbkndad said:


> In an unregulated light wouldn't it have noticeably less light output?



I believe the answer to this one is yes. The ZTS tester is looking at the voltage under load. The lower the voltage, the lower percentage of capacity remaining it registers. The lower the voltage, the dimmer your light will be.



mtbkndad said:


> Those of you in the know please explain, if you would be willing, how the PTC either could cause pulse reading and % projection problems or how it cannot if it won't.



The PTC needs a high current to heat up. The ZTS tester utilizes a pulse current that is not high enough, or long enough, to trip the PTC.

Tom


----------



## mtbkndad (Apr 2, 2006)

Tom,

Thanks for the info.
I will be very interested in finding out how many batteries, and what brands, do not adhere to the standard curve the ZTS tester uses. I would also love to see tests done in real lights.

My concern is that without all of this information batteries that do adhere to the "standard" curve the ZTS tester uses will consistently test better then those that do not while not necessarily being "better" batteries.
This would limit the value of the tool for my purposes and make any reporting of information using this tester in a difinitive manner without supporting tests incomplete and rather unfair.

Possibly the Titanium's JimH tested are not as bad as they seem and the Tenergy's and Streamlight's are not as good as they seem in comparison in actual use. Maybe they are all pretty even.

I look forward to seeing the results of your tests.
I think when JimH and Wayne get together they could do the tests I mentioned with both testers on hand (% projection and actual runtime). That would be very interesting and I would love to see the results of it.

Take Care and Thanks again for the Answers,
Daniel
mtbkndad :wave:


----------



## SilverFox (Apr 2, 2006)

Hello Daniel,

While I find it academically interesting to ponder the actual voltage curves used in the ZTS tester, I feel that the real benefit is in the ability to match your cells in a multi cell application.

If you load a M6 with matched cells you will get better performance than if you have a cell or two that is either stronger or weaker than the rest. The same holds true for 2 and 3 cell lights.

If you happen to use "name brand" cells, the ability of the ZTS tester to give you an approximation of remaining capacity is a very nice "extra," but I still think its strongest benefit is to be able to match the cells for multi cell use.

Tom


----------



## NewBie (Apr 2, 2006)

SilverFox said:


> Hello Lebox97,
> 
> Can you give us your test procedure?
> 
> ...




If that is the case, they should modify their testers to operate in that fashion.


----------



## lebox97 (Apr 2, 2006)

the ZTS measures in increments of 10% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% of capacity.
the ZTS-mini measures in increments of 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% of capacity.

re-thinking my test results on the variations I experienced perhaps (or probably) was due to the battery being on the threshold of the measured capacity increment?
ie. if the battery first tests as a 40% then as a 60% (or vice versa) - perhaps in reality the battery is close to 50%? (an 80% then 100% is closer to being a 90% etc?)

as silverfox/Tom is saying - 
- I am most concerned about matching my own batteries for consumption (EDIT: and for safety!) since I have high drain incan devices. I have thus sorted the cells accordingly into groups of 20's, 40%, 60%, 80%, 100% - and now use them for different purposes (mission critical vs burn off the lumens/photons)
- I am only moderately concerned about the variations between cells I am getting from a particular brand - and will adjust my buying patterns accordingly.


----------



## seery (Apr 2, 2006)

JimH - Where is the best place to buy the Andmann Energy check? How much do 
they cost?

I REALLY like the fact it's 10% increments, not 20% like the ZTS MBT-1 I just
purchased.

And the voltage after the test is the top notch.

Anybody know the cheapest place to buy the SL batts?

Thanks.


----------



## JimH (Apr 2, 2006)

seery said:


> JimH - Where is the best place to buy the Ansmann Energy check? How much do
> they cost?


The only way to get one is to have someone in Europe send you one. I had a friend in Norway get me one and send it to me, but took an unexpected customs hit going into Norway.

Your best be would be to contact one of our CPF members in Germany and see if he will do you a favor. There are a lot of German sites that offer them, but, since my German is nonexistent, I had my friend order one fron an English site.


----------



## TENMMIKE (Apr 2, 2006)

iv found this place in the UK , but they act like they ship to europe only , iv got some brit friends on this today , i should have one sent to me in a day or 2 http://www.tantronics.co.uk/acatalog/Ansmann_Energy_Check_LCD_1.html 





seery said:


> JimH - Where is the best place to buy the Andmann Energy check? How much do
> they cost?
> 
> I REALLY like the fact it's 10% increments, not 20% like the ZTS MBT-1 I just
> ...


----------



## shotgun (Apr 2, 2006)

I've read this entire string and a few thoughts keep sticking out in my mind. At the risk of being cynical here, I'm going to go out on a limb. 

*DC is pretty basic stuff* and regardless of the marketing (by light, tester, and battery makers), it remains basic. After all, the current draw of a steadily hot filament is far more consistent than many other tasks performed by batteries. The following could also be logical:

*Some bad battery lots are being thrown in with some good battery lots at the factory.* It's nasty business, but it happens. One should never underestimate greed -- some more than others.
*Brand names invest money in their names.* They have a "vested" interest in protecting that name branding. Non-brand names invest little or nothing in their names so they sell value against the brand names. Caveat emptor.
*Doing a good job -- and not getting caught doing a bad job -- is the same thing.**
[*]Users should not mix bad batteries with good. Distributors should not sell them either.*
*A good adjustable Fluke meter (or other) can test your batteries (with a load applied).**
[*]When does metering good consistent voltage across the terminals (with resistance at current) still reflect a bad battery? Need more insight on that one.*
*Inconsistency with testing devises is caused by inconsistent testing devises.* They cost 40 bucks for Pete's sake! They're helpful, but far from lab bench quality. What's with the NASA reference? I'm sure post-Apollo-13-NASA is more concerned about accurate battery measurements than 20-percent increments on an LED array (and post-Apollo 13 astronauts now test their batteries with their tongues while holding a light bulb).
*Any "pulse" applied with recovery is no more "real world" than a steady load without recovery would be to other users* -- unless it's a marital aid. Flashlights are a relatively steady drain.
*Marketing hype is not fact, it's sales.* It's worse when it's believed.
*I've spent a lot of money on a light/batteries/devise. I can not have been duped.* Unfortunately, the sale is over.
*When in doubt, buy something.*
Cynical indeed, it's time for a Prozac. Sometimes a turd is just a turd.


----------



## jclarksnakes (Apr 3, 2006)

Shotgun,
....I think we must be related. I learned at an early age to doubt EVERYTHING. It is a lesson that serves me well.
jc


----------



## mdocod (Apr 3, 2006)

shotgun- I like your thinking...

but in rebuttal, It should be noted that Amondotech has taken as active interest in communicating with us directly on this matter, and is already taking steps to conduct tests to fix the issue with the manufacturing company. This type of interaction with the customer base is rare with large companies, but very apreciated. If they manage to get things back "up to par" i'll definetally consider purchasing CR123s from them again. Let us not forget, that the titanium NIMH cells have proven to be pretty darned good cells. I think Amondotech is a good company, who is having problems with a bad CR123 manufacture.

Not to mention, the bright orange cells LOOK COOL!! (hehe, sorry)


----------



## mtbkndad (Apr 3, 2006)

Here is my concern about this thread;

People are making statements about the quality or lack of quality of Titanium batteries based on the ZTS tester and it run time PROJECTIONS. Silverfox already mentioned that numerous batteries do not follow the specific runtime profile the tester uses. If Titaniums are one of the brands that do not fit the profile, then statements of Titanium's capacity based on this tester WITHOUT first doing run time tests to verify that the results of the ZTS tester are accurate are not very scientific and can give very misleading information.

I am looking forward to the results of Wayne and Jim's testing if they get together.
I would like to know if batteries that have a lower measured voltage under load and then a lower PROJECTED percent capacity left actually have that same proportionate result. For example if a 100% battery at 1 amp gets 1 hour a 40% battery should only get 24 minutes of run time. A battery that rates 60% by the ZTS should only give 36 minutes of run time. 
With the Cadex C7400 that Wayne has and the ZTS Jim has there should be no trouble- 

1. First finding batteries that have different projected capacities.
2. Doing controlled runtime tests that will determine how accurate the ZTS projections are for Titanium batteries.

I own a good number of CR123A lights and have been using Titaniums for months and see very little variation in actual run time in the lights I use. I use lights extensively in my work both day and night and have probably used close to 100 Titanium batteries since the new Titaniums came out. I just have not seen the variations in actual run times that everybody seems to be so worried about.

The fact that Titaniums work better in some lights then others is well known and Quickbeam addressed this in his review. I have found that to be true of other brands too. 
I think it would be good to do a study of what batteries do and do not perform according to the run time PROJECTIONS of the ZTS tester and their actual run times.
This would be particularly good before too many people start trusting this device and basing battery purchases on a "standard" that may or may not be accurate.

Take Care,
mtbkndad :wave:


----------



## JimH (Apr 3, 2006)

It's a well known fact that batteries that are targeted to a specific type of application may suck in other types of applications. If a battery chemistry is tweaked to perform optimally in high drain applications, it may suffer, in comparison to the competition, when analyzed at a low drain rate, and vice versa.

In defense of the ZTS tester, the Ansmann tester appears to use a different pulse loading algorithm and different reference curves. However, in all of the tests I have done so far using both testers, the ZTS tester seems to be more forgiving than the Ansmann tester. The results of the 2 testers have been relatively consistent and tend to validate the results of the other tester.


----------



## mtbkndad (Apr 3, 2006)

JimH,

I understand what you are saying but am not sure you are understanding what I am saying. Any testers that give projections of % of battery life are suspect until the batteries can be tested in a controlled test that will verify the accuracy of the projections. If I say 2+2=8 and a friend of mine says 2+2=8 all I have verified is that we both have the same potentially very wrong result. 
Have you done accurate runtime tests to verify the accuracy of the % battery life projections of your testers with each of the brands of batteries you have used them on?
How many Titanium batteries have you used to date?
Have you found their run times to be very inconsistent in the same device?
I mean very inconstistent. 1 hour one time, 24 minutes another time, 38 minutes another time, etc.?

This is what your posts are communicating about Titanium batteries.
I am just saying with the nearly 100 I have used I have found them to be quite consistent. There were two matched pairs a while back that were not great but that was it.
Also how many brands total have you tested?
I remember you mentioning 3.

I am not trying to be argumentative I just see shortcomings in the thoroughness of your testing.
I am curious, how will you interpret your data and the effectiveness of your testers if you find a battery that rates say 40% has roughly the same run time as a battery that rates 100%? What if a battery that rates 20% or 60% or 80% has the same run time as a battery that rates 100% because that brand of batteries does not have a burn curve that is accurately projected by your devices? 
This could be the case whether we are talking about Titaniums or any other brand that Silverfox may have been referring to when he said some batteries do not follow the projections of the testers. It seems to me that batteries could have slightly varying voltages and still have their full mAh capacity. This could effect your results.
Without accurate controlled run time tests to verify the accuracy of the projections you have been posting I find your results premature and even potentially unfairly harmful to Amondotech's battery business. 

Please understand if I had been getting inconsistent runtime results with Titaniums in the same lights I would have switched long ago. 

Take Care,
mtbkndad :wave:


----------



## OutdoorIdiot (Apr 3, 2006)

mtbkndad, I don't see you as being argumentative at all. You have now stressed, in 3 posts, the importance of verifying the ZTS / Ansmann predictions against real-world results.

I would like to stress that for a fourth time! I agree entirely. It would be great if someone could invest the time, effort and expense in this kind of experiment (perhaps even the Titanium cell manufacturers, who now have an interest in the matter thanks to this thread). I would like to see how the predictions hold up to the reality. The "reality", of course, is infinite in scope, e.g. everything from 1 cell in a low-drain light, to multiple cells in high drain lights, to combinations of serial/parallel (as in the SureFire M6 which started this thread) which might yield surprising results. And all the various applications would need to be tested with various brands of batteries. So anyone conducting this test would need to be very dedicated in terms of time and finances.

However, even a small step in this regard would certainly be of benefit, e.g. in helping readers decide things like whether a particular brand of battery is indeed problematic, either for all applications or just certain demanding applications. It would also help readers decide whether they think it is worth investing in a ZTS / Ansmann tester for their own needs.

I would also hope people do not lose sight of the other important thing (as I see it) that this thread has highlighted, which is that the SureFure M6 with the MN21 HOLA is a particularly demanding light. Not only is it very high-drain, but also, it (rather unusually, I think, among flashlights?) uses a combination of serial and parallel arrangements for the batteries. I would also love to see an investigation into exactly what happens to the batteries in an M6 over the course of the runtime, and just how important it is to ensure that the batteries are initially at the exact same voltage, and in exactly the same "state" with regard to measured "life-remaining."


----------



## SilverFox (Apr 3, 2006)

Hello Daniel,

I have been playing with the Titanium cells and the ZTS tester and decided to take a look at what the various values the ZTS tester reports mean.

I checked a cell that measured 100%, then went down the scale through 80%, 60%, 40%, 20%, and 0%. 

Here is the graph.







To get an idea of what the ZTS tester is looking at, I expanded the graph to only look at the first 7.2 seconds of the test.






While there is some variation, it is not as great as I expected from the results of the ZTS tester.

Tom


----------



## OutdoorIdiot (Apr 3, 2006)

Those are shocking graphs, thank you SilverFox!

Am I missing the point here, or do they show that a battery that gives a "0%" reading on the ZTS, can, under a 1A load, last even longer than one that reads "80%"? Okay, it delivers a bit less power because of the lower voltage, but it still can give a decent current for a long time.

If I am reading the graphs correctly, then that would explain why some people are insisting they are happy with their Titanium batteries, if they are being used in a *relatively* low-drain application.

I wonder what the graphs for those same batteries would look like under a 2.5A load (which I gather is roughly what the M6 demands)?


----------



## SilverFox (Apr 3, 2006)

Hello OutdoorIdiot,

The other thing to keep in mind is that with a regulated light you may not notice any difference at all.

I have been told that the factory quality control is based on run time. Wayne takes samples of the cells he receives from the factory and also checks them for run time. He is going to the factory later this week to discuss this with them. It will be interesting to see what develops.

Tom


----------



## JimH (Apr 3, 2006)

mtbkndad said:


> I am not trying to be argumentative I just see shortcomings in the thoroughness of your testing.


To say that there are shortcomings in the thoroughness of my testing is a vast understatement. I have done very little testing so far, and even my testing procedures may be suspect (SilverFox is helping me get better).

I have reported the total extent of my testing and my results. I have so little sample to work with that you might even say my results were statistically insignificant. Much, much more testing needs to be done. I have got the ball rolling, and SilverFox has taken the next step.

Based on SilverFox's results and my results, I think, at this point, the only conclusion that can be drawn from the data we have is that no conclusion can be drawn from the data we have.

It may have been premature, but we are just reporting the initial data of what must undoubtedly be a much larger project, which includes all of the points you have mentioned.

If I were doing this for my work, I would start by writing a detailed test plan stating exactly the purpose and scope of the testing, the objects of the testing (batteries and testers), step by step test procedures, process control and quality control measures being taken including review procedures, and the output of the testing (i.e. what will be included in the final test report). The test plan would have to be reviewed and approved before testing could even begin. This project would be a full time job for at least several months.

Somebody, please shoot me and put me out of my misery before I ramble on forever.


----------



## OutdoorIdiot (Apr 3, 2006)

JimH said:


> Somebody, please shoot me and put me out of my misery before I ramble on forever.


 
I will happily shoot you! After first of all complimenting you on your modesty, and thanking you for your work in this thread which has been of interest and benefit to me and doubtless many others! 

Here are some thoughts on those graphs from SilverFox a couple of posts ago:

Should the validity of ZTS measurements now be under as much scrutiny and apprehension as the thought of sticking Titaniums into a SF M6 with HOLA?
Looking at the 7-second "zoom-in" graph, the voltage seems to correlate very well with the ZTS readings. So, in spite of the ZTS attempting to use current as well as voltage in it's methodology, is it perhaps still "swayed" too much by voltage?
That said, looking more carefully at the graph (by putting a straight-edged object on my monitor) it does seem that the battery that gave a "0%" reading does indeed have a curve that "dips" quite significantly more than the other curves. Significant?


----------



## SilverFox (Apr 3, 2006)

Hello Jim,

:devil: BANG... :devil:

If we get to the point that no conclusions can be made, we will be sure to draw on your "expertice"... 

For the rest of you that are not in on this "inside" joke, Jim was involved in a series of lab tests in school where his group consistently came up with no conclusions. The went to great lengths to document the basis for their "non conclusions," and ended up getting an A out of the class.

Tom


----------



## wquiles (Apr 3, 2006)

mtbkndad said:


> Here is my concern about this thread;
> 
> People are making statements about the quality or lack of quality of Titanium batteries based on the ZTS tester and it run time PROJECTIONS.


Maybe it is just me, but if you read the very first post from "seery", there is nothing about projections there - just pure real-world experience with a real SF M6, not a tester/simulator/etc.. To me this is still the main issue of this thread - why are these real-life results not aligned with the original expectations?

Wayne seems pretty interested and involved in finding out more about what is causing this unexpected behavior (cheers to Wayne!), so hopefully we will either learn more about the problem and/or end up with even better cells from Wayne and company 

Will


----------



## OutdoorIdiot (Apr 3, 2006)

SilverFox said:


> The went to great lengths to document the basis for their "non conclusions," and ended up getting an A out of the class.


 
:lolsign: 

Damn! If only I'd thought of that for my lab work. My approach was to not hand anything in. As far as I can remember, I didn't get an A...

Mind you, the basis for my non-conclusions normally involved beer, and I'm not sure how I'd go about documenting that.


----------



## JimH (Apr 3, 2006)

Back to the original topic, I just ran across a manual for a watt meter used by the RC crowd. It has an interesting section on balancing batteries for inclusion into battery packs. Here is an excerpt from that section that I found interesting.
[quote="Watt's Up" Watt Meter and Power Analyzer User's Manual RC Electronics, Inc. ]
A battery pack whose individual cells are all balanced delivers the most energy since all cells are exhausted at the same minimum voltage. If any cell is "out of balance" it may reach the minimum safe voltage before the others and continued pack discharge will damage the cell.

If the cells in a pack all equally contribute to the overall pack voltage they are considered "in balance". So we can check each cells voltage at various states of pack charge and see if their voltages are the same. If they are, the pack is balanced. If not some individual cell reconditioning or replacement is necessary.

Cell balancing measurements need at least 0.02 volt resolution so that we can tell the difference between a 1.22 and 1.20 volt cell. More resolution is better because it allows us to recognize the lower voltage cell which will get exhausted first. The "Watt's Up" 0.01 Volt resolution is great for cell balancing where resolution is more important than accuracy. This is because we are mostly comparing our batteries to each other seeking equality rather than wanting to know what particular voltage they're at.[/quote]

What I find interesting is that they say the resolution needs to be 0.02v.

It looks like the ideal way to balance cells would be to graph the discharge of each cell at the expected load, then select cells that had identical curves when overlaid on top of each other.


----------



## SilverFox (Apr 3, 2006)

Hello Jim,

While that works very well with re-chargeable cells, it is a bit difficult to do with primary cells.

Tom


----------



## JimH (Apr 3, 2006)

. .


----------



## mtbkndad (Apr 3, 2006)

wquiles,

I read the entire thread from the beginning before I made my first post.
The thread started as a thread documenting problems with the Titanium's in the M6.
Wayne addressed that problem. (For the time being use other batteries in the M6.) 
The thread then took on a life of it's own, it was the second half of the thread I was referring to.

SilverFox,
Thank you very much for your work here and your continued efforts that benefit members of CPF.

JimH,

Do not do anything extreme, I hope to try to get up that way for a get together if your group has one some time this summer. If you or anybody shoots you, who will bring Jim's famous baked beans?   

Wayne,

For what it is worth, I have been very satisfied with my Titanium batteries
and will continue to use them as my primary CR123A. I have lots of hungry little lights to feed. :sweat: 



Take Care,
Daniel
mtbkndad :wave:


----------



## seery (Apr 4, 2006)

Amondotech has stood behind there product, today they issued a credit to my Paypal account for the New Titanium CR123's I sent back. Thanks to Duane at Amondotech for being a man of his word.

Wayne - What would you estimate as an ETA should the factory tweak the formula on your 123's? Are you going for a New Titanium HD in addition to the standard New Titaniums? HD of course = high-draw. Thanks for all your effort in making things right and working to give us a better product.


----------



## AmondoTech (Apr 4, 2006)

Hi Everybody,

I just want to let you know I did not forget the original purpose of this thread. I plan to purchase 2 M6's. One to keep here and one to take to the factory so we can develop Titanium batteries for use in devices that require batteries parallel and in series at the same time. 

I want to point out that 1AMP discharge rate is relatively high current for CR123A not low. The CR123A batteries can last only 1 hour under 1A load. Most of the flashlights at full brightness will last more than one hour and draw less than 1A. The Surefire M6 is a special device that uses parallel and series and draw 2.5A. At full brightness of using 6 CR123A batteries, it can only last 20 mins.

I want to thank Tom, SilverFox, for quickly pinpointing the cause of the issue and explain the contradiction results from ZTS reading and Titanium Battery performance.


Warm Regards,
Wayne

www.amondotech.com


----------



## bwaites (Apr 4, 2006)

Wayne,

While the M6 certainly puts a lot of draw on the cells, remember that many of the single stack lights, like the M3, M4, etc. put as much or more draw on a single stack than the M6 does on it's dual stacks.

The HOLA lamp assemblies of both the M3 and M4 are pulling 2+ amps, with both of them running for about that same 20 minutes that the M6 does on high.

Bill


----------



## JimH (Apr 4, 2006)

I would like to speculate on the reason the readings for the ZTS tester are what they are. While talking with SilverFox, I learned that the ZTS tester applies a pulsed load for approx. 2 seconds, then takes a voltage reading. This single voltage reading is the basis for the readout on the display.

If you look at Tom's second graph where he expands the part of the previous graph at the very beginning, there is a correspondence between the voltages on the graph and the ZTS readings. Now, let's assume that the 100% curve is the reference curve. If the ZTS tester where to draw a horizontal line from the voltage it measured until it intersected the reference curve. It would then use that intersection point as the basis for the percent life remaining.

I know I have over simplified what must actually be going on, but my speculation would at least explain what we are seeing on the graphs.

Okay, everybody, where did I go wrong in my logic?


----------



## JimH (Apr 4, 2006)

bwaites said:


> The HOLA lamp assemblies of both the M3 and M4 are pulling 2+ amps


I don't have an M6, but I do have an M4 with the HOLA. I'll bring it to the party tonight. This morning, I measured the draw at 2.51 amps. Wile it doesn't use a parrallel setup, it does use 4 cells in series.


----------



## bwaites (Apr 4, 2006)

I suspect that the problem with the M6 doesn't so much lie in the draw, because it's draw is comparable with other lights on any individual cell, but in the fact that there are so many cells involved.

In comparison to an M3, for instance, you are twice as likely to have a bad cell, because you have twice as many cells to deal with. 

I appreciate Wayne's interest and determination to do something about this, but I am not sure that you can. Lithium 123 cell tech isn't new, and we are stressing these cells to the max!!

If it is possible to build a high draw cell, remember, you will lose runtime. You can have any 2 of the 3, high voltage, high current, or long life. Since you are stuck with 3 volts, you can have high current at the expense of runtime, or you can have runtime at the expense of current. The 123 is the best available tradeoff of voltage and runtime using this chemistry. That is not to say that there aren't some bad cells screwing things up, but the more you push them, the more likely you are to find the problem. I, for one, am amazed that those little tiny 123's will push 2.5 amps anyway!!!

2.5 amp draws on cells designed for 1 amp draws is a little out of the envelope, folks!

If one in 10 cells is a little underperforming, the M6 will find it every 2 battery swaps, and you will have problems. I've had mine shut down on multiple different manufacturers cells, including Surefires. I think that once they shut down due to heat, they never will perform as well again, so that is why no one gets the full run out of them after the shutdown.

It would be interesting to do a 1 minute on, 2 minutes off, 1 minute one, 2 minutes off cycle to see how they fare with a little cool off.

Bill


----------



## JimH (Apr 4, 2006)

bwaites said:


> It would be interesting to do a 1 minute on, 2 minutes off, 1 minute one, 2 minutes off cycle to see how they fare with a little cool off.


I think Bill summed up the situation pretty well. Since the M6 is designed to be a "tactical" flashlight, I would be more interested in a 5 min on, 15 min off duty cycle as a better approximation of real world tactical use. Of course, I could just be full of it and talking out my *** because the last time I was in a tactical situation was never.


----------



## js (Apr 4, 2006)

[Edit]Forget it. Someone already made the point I made here.[/edit]


----------



## wasBlinded (Apr 4, 2006)

I think you also have to consider how the M6 battery pack form factor may be influencing results. With those 6 cells in the holder, there isn't as much surface area per cell to dissipate heat generated within the cell. At a given current draw, a cell in an M6 holder is likely to get much hotter than the same cell pushing the same current but in a 1 or 2 cell package. This extra heat buildup may be contributing to early thermal shutdown.


----------



## shotgun (Apr 4, 2006)

bwaits,

Very true! 

Again, DC is simple stuff and we can't change Ohm's Law. There would be a trade-off that might not be acceptable to other battery users. We would be helping one scenario and hurting another by adjusting any formulas for this situation. I think that's over-thinking the problem.
 

The best we can hope for from all the parties concerned:

 

As mentioned, specially designed batteries specifically for series use, or...

 

Better matched batteries from the supplier (double check them at work/home too).

 

No duds in the mix for singles or matched. 

 

Old school diligence.

 

I appreciate AmondoTech's efforts, but I think their* suppliers* are taking them for a ride. They need a "good talking to." Newly popular regulated LEDs are masking bad effects that can be noted in a demanding non-regulated incandescent light. Frankly, I believe their suppliers thought they wouldn't get caught -- or they might have just made a mistake or gotten sloppy.

 

I don't believe AmondoTech even sells incandescent lights so they must remain even more vigilant on behalf of their customers -- or it makes them look bad. Kudos to Wayne for his efforts. 

 

I don't think it is any more complex than that.


----------



## rufusdufus (Apr 4, 2006)

Is there anyone here who can tell me where to get information or supply of the Costco HID?


----------



## AmondoTech (Apr 5, 2006)

Hi Everyone,

First, I like to thank Jim for taking the time to come over last night. 

To try to thoroughly test the CR123A batteries in one night is “mission impossible”. Jim suggested to write a test plan to include enough sample size. This way, we can draw a confident conclusion. 

Our routine QC is to check for battery run time and capacity. We are communicating with the factory to include one more layer of the QC to address issues from Jim’s finding and surefire M6 issue. 

I will be leaving for a business trip this Friday and won’t be back for a few weeks. There will be surefire M6 in my suitcase for the factory to conduct tests. Once we solve the problem of batteries in surefire M6, we will post here. Hopefully, this will make Titanium batteries better than ever. 

Because I will be away, I can’t answer any questions after Friday. If you have any questions, feel free to email me directly. I do need to address that I can’t give out too much detail on CPF because we can’t reveal our business strategy and technical detail in public.

Regards,
Wayne
www.amondotech.com


----------



## shotgun (Apr 5, 2006)

Sounds good. Thanks, Wayne.


----------



## Lunal_Tic (Apr 5, 2006)

Wayne,

Good luck on the battery testing. Don't forget to take an extra lamp assembly or you might get stuck without your M6 "test meter". 

-LT


----------



## bobbo (Apr 14, 2006)

Defiantly take an extra lamp,I purchased my M6 1-1/2 years ago -long story short-switched on the light,less than one minute later the light dimmed and the bulb exploded -SureFire replaced bulb and reflector.


----------



## bobbo (Apr 14, 2006)

Messed-up,meant to say bulb/reflector AND lens.


----------



## seery (Apr 19, 2006)

A few folks insist the M6 is a "tactical" short burst only light not designed by SF
as a "long run" light.

Talked with a SF rep and inquired about the design aspects and if the M6 were
designed with 5-minute usage in mind. He replied "How often will a search last
just 5 minutes? The M6 was designed as an ultra high-output light and to have the
longest continuous run time possible."

This is from the SF web site.

M6 Guardian® 




_Battery-powered incandescent_. Ultra high-output incandescent flashlight for tactical, duty, or searchlight use. 

So please...battery failure is NO REASON to begin fabricating tales as to what
SF had in mind when they designed the M6 light.


----------



## lebox97 (Apr 19, 2006)

and conversely how many search missions last 10-15 minutes? 
(EDIT: the assumption here is we are talking HOLA MN21 bulb since that is what started this thread)
This and the other 2 threads you started, started out asking about performance of different brands 123's...

fabricating? people here are trying to tell how they actually USE an M6 and the experiences with 123's in it.

FACT: *The M6 begins dimming as soon as you turn it on...* 
This is a very specialized light, designed and "normally" used for very special cicumstances 
not, "let's see how many batteries at 18-24 batteries per hour can we go through on this mission".

I have 1000's of hours under my belt of doing SAR and LEO work - in the dark (and it get's REAL dark out here in the desert)... never have I used a specialized light like this for routine "normal" walk around/search in the desert for hours use. There are tons of other lights available that give 1-2 hours of run time without the worries of overheating the batteries, or blowing a bulb, are fast rechargeable and, have more readily available back up parts from co-workers and such.
I use normal lights for normal actvities - and whip out the M6 to check into things further if needed...

The M6 is best used for what is was designed for - A LOT OF LUMENS in a very small package, but it comes with a cost of short run times, and high battery consumption.
Keep fresh batteries in it - and know it'll be there when you need it.
(what LEO walks around wondering wether there is 5-10 minutes left on the batteries before getting into a situation, and where they put the 24 back up batteries and how are they going to change them out, and, and, and...? That's like wondering how many bullets do I think are in my gun when I pull it on someone - hmmmm, is it half loaded, or a quarter loaded today?) :huh:

PS:
seery: starting and feeding three separate threads talking about virtually the same thing, is a quick way to get a moderator to shut 1 or 2 of them down.


----------



## seery (Apr 19, 2006)

lebox97 - The original M6 thread has developed into something very useful to SF M6 owners. So much so that Wayne is trying to find better suited batteries for the high drain lights. GREAT progress if you ask me.

The "CR123's...Where do we stand?" thread has allowed for great amounts of discussion and input on the results/opinions folks are having with the various cells we use. 

The "ZTS MBT-1" thread if you follow it has quickly shown how we are learning to use the ZTS to help us "group" our batteries for better results. My average run times have gone way up thanks to "grouping" based on the ZTS test results.

IMHO all three threads are very useful and don't take away from the focus of the other discussions. Why wouldn't I "feed" all three threads? I am VERY interested in learning and sharing as much as possible about our current state of CR123's in the lights we use.

I've invested hundreds of dollars into 123's and hope my findings will help others not waste hard earned money on cells that have proven inconsistent or those that do not perform as expected. 

Sounds like you use the lights that work in your situation, my guess would be that you weren't born with that information but that it was learned by T&E. That is what we are doing here, simply sharing our results with others. Thanks for serving our communities as a LEO, it is greatly appreciated. Just wish the gov't could figure out a way to pay the military and LE folks better, God knows thay all desrve it.

Isn't feeding threads what help us grow and learn as a community?


----------



## cheapo (Apr 20, 2006)

Nothing wrong with titanium batts. They seem to work like a charm in my LED lights.

-David


----------

