# Just got the IMR 9 D26!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



## bigchelis (Feb 20, 2009)

I got home from work to find a IMR 9 D26 (500 Lumen) for my Surefire 6P. I dropped in two 16340 (not AW's) The light barely had any power. I read the post here about tapping it on/off a couple times to trick the battery.

Then it went on. Wow. Talk about power. The cells began to dim at around 11 minutes and I stopped running it at that point. I was hot; amost too hot to handle. The sucker is bright and has good spill. 
*Next I will be running it in a 2 18650 AW set-up. 6P bored with 18650 extention.
In my P7 LED I wrap it in aluminum foil to help with the heat.

What can I do to help with the heat from this heat issue??????


----------



## dudemar (Feb 20, 2009)

Be sure to use a body that dissipates heat well. That's the best solution I could think of right now.

That or you can get a number of IMR-9's and put them in three different bodies (effectively making three IMR-9 lights). When one gets too hot, just exchange it for a cool one while the hot one can chill out!

I was planning on doing this with the EO-9 and three of my Pila GL3's.:naughty:


----------



## effulgentOne (Feb 22, 2009)

Also be aware that unless your 16340s are LiMn/IMR, you are destroying your cells, and may be turning them into a fire hazard. That protection circuit that you had to click several times to fool is there for a reason. Some AW IMR 16340s would be much safer, and probably a lot brighter too.

However, any chemistry 18650s should be fine, because the bigger cells can handle the current draw.


----------



## bigchelis (Feb 22, 2009)

effulgentOne said:


> Also be aware that unless your 16340s are LiMn/IMR, you are destroying your cells, and may be turning them into a fire hazard. That protection circuit that you had to click several times to fool is there for a reason. Some AW IMR 16340s would be much safer, and probably a lot brighter too.
> 
> However, any chemistry 18650s should be fine, because the bigger cells can handle the current draw.


 

I had two AW16340's, but now I could only find one in my home

So, I was using the trustfire. I did put in an order for 2 more at lighthound to keep things safe.


----------



## Youfoundnemo (Feb 22, 2009)

do you have a P91 to compare it to? I would really appreciate pictures if you do


----------



## Fusion_m8 (Feb 22, 2009)

I'm assuming that when you bought the IMR-9 lamp, you've read and understood all the WARNINGS regarding the safety issues when using the IMR-9: 

****This Product is Designed for use with IMR(LiMN) Batteries ONLY*** *

*Heat Warning: This lamp produces EXCESSIVE HEAT and should not be operated continously for over 10 minutes.*




bigchelis said:


> I got home from work to find a IMR 9 D26 (500 Lumen) for my Surefire 6P. I dropped in two 16340 (not AW's) The light barely had any power. I read the post here about tapping it on/off a couple times to trick the battery.
> 
> Then it went on. Wow. Talk about power. The cells began to dim at around 11 minutes and I stopped running it at that point. I was hot; amost too hot to handle. The sucker is bright and has good spill.
> *Next I will be running it in a 2 18650 AW set-up. 6P bored with 18650 extention.
> ...


----------



## bigchelis (Feb 23, 2009)

Fusion_m8 said:


> I'm assuming that when you bought the IMR-9 lamp, you've read and understood all the WARNINGS regarding the safety issues when using the IMR-9:
> 
> ****This Product is Designed for use with IMR(LiMN) Batteries ONLY*** *
> 
> *Heat Warning: This lamp produces EXCESSIVE HEAT and should not be operated continously for over 10 minutes.*


 

I did only run it for 10 minutes, but it gets really hot. At the time I didn't have AW16340's so instead I am now waiting for my AW18650's to use in a 6P bored with extention.

I think the bigger cells will help with runtime and the aw cells will hold the amp draw safely. I will turn it off every 5minutes for now.

I guess my question was can incan lamps be wrapped in aluminum to help with the heat like a P7 LED?????


----------



## foxtrot29 (Feb 23, 2009)

bigchelis said:


> I did only run it for 10 minutes, but it gets really hot. At the time I didn't have AW16340's so instead I am now waiting for my AW18650's to use in a 6P bored with extention.
> 
> I think the bigger cells will help with runtime and the aw cells will hold the amp draw safely. I will turn it off every 5minutes for now.
> 
> I guess my question was can incan lamps be wrapped in aluminum to help with the heat like a P7 LED?????



I think you're missing what people are saying about the batteries (maybe I'm wrong).

You can't use the AW black label rechargable cells. You have to use the AW red IMR cells. Although both are rechargable, they are NOT one and the same.


----------



## bigchelis (Feb 23, 2009)

foxtrot29 said:


> I think you're missing what people are saying about the batteries (maybe I'm wrong).
> 
> You can't use the AW black label rechargable cells. You have to use the AW red IMR cells. Although both are rechargable, they are NOT one and the same.


 
My apologies I meant the red IMR 18650's. I had purchased AW IMR 16340'a to run the P7, but now I rather have AW IMR 18650's for the incan.


----------



## Howecollc (Feb 23, 2009)

I know it's hard to resist being an authority on the aspect of the original post that you *do* know something about, but how about someone being useful, and answering the guys question about the *heatsinking*.


----------



## GreyShark (Feb 23, 2009)

If it's heat you're worried about there's two things I'd try. One is replacing the Z44 bezel with an M2 bezel. The M2 has a lot more metal to absorb the heat and more surface area to radiate it. I have an LU60A black hard anodized M2 bezel on a 6P and the color match is good enough for me. Some M2 bezels were made in type II black anodizing but you'll have to find a used one at this point. The other is cord wrapping the handle to insulate yourself from the heat. Or wear a glove.


----------



## foxtrot29 (Feb 23, 2009)

bigchelis said:


> My apologies I meant the red IMR 18650's. I had purchased AW IMR 16340'a to run the P7, but now I rather have AW IMR 18650's for the incan.



Just looking out for you bro! lol 

I don't know too much about the heatsinking, other than that you shouldn't run it for more than a few minutes at a time. 

I'm running mine in a Surefire C2, and for the first time ever I'll be bringing it to work tonight. (I'll still keep the Strion in my duty bag, and the E1B clipped to my vest in case I need a light for more than a few minutes at a time). Should be interesting for use on traffic stops -- lol, 500 lumens at close range through a car window, hahaha, this is going to be great. I only wish I could take pics.


----------



## Howecollc (Feb 23, 2009)

deleted


----------



## Fusion_m8 (Feb 24, 2009)

bigchelis said:


> I did only run it for 10 minutes, but it gets really hot. At the time I didn't have AW16340's so instead I am now waiting for my AW18650's to use in a 6P bored with extention.
> 
> I think the bigger cells will help with runtime and the aw cells will hold the amp draw safely. I will turn it off every 5minutes for now.
> 
> I guess my question was can incan lamps be wrapped in aluminum to help with the heat like a P7 LED?????



Yes it can, but only by running the 18650 extension AND the foil.

By only using just foil but no extension: you would not be prolonging the runtime of the light because using foil helps to increase the contact area between the lamp and flashlight body, which helps to transfer the heat faster to the body, but because the amount of metal in the flashlight body remains the same as without the foil, the amount of heat dissipated from the lamp remains the same.

End result of using just foil around the lamp: the flashlight body will heat up quicker, but it will not be running cooler than without the foil because the size of the heat sink remains the same.

End result of using both foil + extension: better heat transfer to the flashlight body and run cooler for longer because the overall surface area and amount of metal to act as a heat sink has increased.

Good luck and always put your personal safety first!!!


----------



## 325addict (Feb 24, 2009)

What's the current draw of this beast? I can't find it on the site....

I would rather take a C3 to accomodate larger batteries or, as you plan, use a host that will take 2X 18650s. These will always be able to fire this hot thing up, as the maximum of 2C is somewhere around 4 to 5 amps. This should really do 

I'm wanting the 700 Lumen beast for my M90 rattlesnake! This one draws 2.2 Amps, so 18500's will power it safely for about half an hour.

With my C3 I'll have an experiment the other way: let's see what an energy-saving lamp from LF will do. When I remember right, it draws 0.85 Amps, this will comfortably be enough for an hour runtime using 2X AW 17500s with 1100mAh.

Timmo.


----------



## mdocod (Feb 24, 2009)

I'm still not 100% clear on which batteries are being used to drive this IMR-9 here, but the original post describes a scenario where the cells are being run for a constant 11 minutes to dimming on cells that had to be "tapped" on to run. This means that LiCo cells were run through a near full discharge at a ~6C rate, that's TRIPLE their maximum safe discharge rating. 

The nonchalant-ness with which you describe doing this scares me. I would put a mark on those cells indicating that they have been abused and have a higher risk of explosion in future cycling, especially charging. 

Eric


----------



## bigchelis (Feb 24, 2009)

mdocod said:


> I'm still not 100% clear on which batteries are being used to drive this IMR-9 here, but the original post describes a scenario where the cells are being run for a constant 11 minutes to dimming on cells that had to be "tapped" on to run. This means that LiCo cells were run through a near full discharge at a ~6C rate, that's TRIPLE their maximum safe discharge rating.
> 
> The nonchalant-ness with which you describe doing this scares me. I would put a mark on those cells indicating that they have been abused and have a higher risk of explosion in future cycling, especially charging.
> 
> Eric


 

Yes, 
Initially all I had was 16340 ebay protected versions, but I put those aside and now run only IMR 16340 and IMR 18650 for the turbo head or IMR 9 D26 incan.

The cheaper trustfire batteries will only see LED R2 duty now and the ones I used for this set-up initially 16340's are retired.


----------



## Badger_Girl (Jul 10, 2009)

Forgive my ignorance, but what does "AW" and "IMR" stand for.

I am looking to get started with rechargable Lithiums.

Thanks for the help!

-BG


----------



## bigchelis (Jul 10, 2009)

Badger_Girl said:


> Forgive my ignorance, but what does "AW" and "IMR" stand for.
> 
> I am looking to get started with rechargable Lithiums.
> 
> ...


 
AW is the name of the person on this site who sells the AW and IMR Cells.

The AW line of rechargeable cells offer quality and protected li-on cells.
AW also offers un-protected cells he calls IMR cells. These IMR cells can handle the higher currents better. 

I do not know what AW means or what IMR means, but I just assume it means super quality stuff because that is all I keep getting from him.

Jose


----------



## USM0083 (Jul 10, 2009)

I picked up a IMR-9 a couple of months ago. It is significantly brighter than a EO-9 (both on IMR 18650s in a FM body), but is more floody. 

I currently run in the FM body a D26 Sunlight with a WA 1111. The beam is a bit tighter with more output.


----------



## bigchelis (Jul 10, 2009)

USM0083 said:


> I picked up a IMR-9 a couple of months ago. It is significantly brighter than a EO-9 (both on IMR 18650s in a FM body), but is more floody.
> 
> I currently run in the FM body a D26 Sunlight with a WA 1111. The beam is a bit tighter with more output.


 

MrGman tested the IMR 9 D26, but he was dissapointed:mecry:

It actually made in the real IS Sphere of truth the same lumens as the Lumens Factory E0-9 which was 260 lumens. Unfortunately; watt per watt the new IMR 9 D26 is less efficient than the E0-9. Sorry, but it is what it is. On the plus side it still burns bright and I have several hours of use out of it.:thumbsup:


----------



## lctorana (Jul 10, 2009)

Badger_Girl said:


> Forgive my ignorance, but what does "AW" and "IMR" stand for.


 
AW stands for Andrew Wan, a Hong Kong based CPF agent for high-quality lithium batteries.

He also sells IMR cells, suitable for safe high current use. Here's what the letters "IMR" stand for; they represtent Lithium Ion Manganese safe chemistry cells.


----------



## mdocod (Jul 10, 2009)

bigchelis said:


> MrGman tested the IMR 9 D26, but he was dissapointed:mecry:
> 
> It actually made in the real IS Sphere of truth the same lumens as the Lumens Factory E0-9 which was 260 lumens. Unfortunately; watt per watt the new IMR 9 D26 is less efficient than the E0-9. Sorry, but it is what it is. On the plus side it still burns bright and I have several hours of use out of it.:thumbsup:



That's interesting... My IMR-9 appears nearly twice as bright as my EO-9. In my experience it was the EO-9 that was the under-performer of the 2 by a long shot. I'll try to take a beam shot comparison or something to show what I mean...

-Eric


----------



## bigchelis (Jul 10, 2009)

mdocod said:


> That's interesting... My IMR-9 appears nearly twice as bright as my EO-9. In my experience it was the EO-9 that was the under-performer of the 2 by a long shot. I'll try to take a beam shot comparison or something to show what I mean...
> 
> -Eric


 
Eric,
He tested it twice. Once with 18650 cells at his house and once again at the CPF San Jose, CA meet. Here is the published reading with 2 IMR 16340 topped off cells, UCL lens, 6P hosts. MrGman might have got the name wrong, but I own the light and this is the same drop-in lamp I got when I first started this thread.

*L.F. IMR 9,_________Surefire 6P____________2 IMR 16340,____270.7**__1 sec*

*And here is the competition*
Lumens Factor EO-9 Lamp___272__turn on peak______2X18650 L I__________Solarforce L2 Host 1 ext, AR Coated glass in BZL.

*It is on post #61*
https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/229135&page=2


Can you tell me the current you get at the tail and with what cells. I want to re-check my current because I want to make sure we have similar readings. If I recall I get about 2.4A at the tail with the IMR D26 500 lumen lamp. I will double check when I get home.


----------



## SilentK (Jul 10, 2009)

I cant belive no one has said this yet, but *where are the beamshots?* :nana:


----------



## bigchelis (Jul 10, 2009)

SilentK said:


> I cant belive no one has said this yet, but *where are the beamshots?* :nana:


 
Here is the IMR 9 D26 vs. M60


----------



## polkiuj (Jul 10, 2009)

bigchelis said:


> Eric,
> He tested it twice. Once with 18650 cells at his house and once again at the CPF San Jose, CA meet. Here is the published reading with 2 IMR 16340 topped off cells, UCL lens, 6P hosts. MrGman might have got the name wrong, but I own the light and this is the same drop-in lamp I got when I first started this thread.
> 
> *L.F. IMR 9,_________Surefire 6P____________2 IMR 16340,____270.7**__1 sec*
> ...


So... the IMR-9 is FAR LESS bright than a P91 but eats (roughly) the same power? Aww man! I thought I have an alternative... =(


----------



## mdocod (Jul 11, 2009)

polkiuj said:


> So... the IMR-9 is FAR LESS bright than a P91 but eats (roughly) the same power? Aww man! I thought I have an alternative... =(



The P91 achieves those incredible numbers we are hearing about because of substantial overdrive from li-ion cells, which will result in drastically reduced bulb life. The IMR-9 is designed to run on li-ion cells while still having some bulb life on the table.... The IMR-9 SHOULD be thought of as the alternative to the P91 for those who want decent output in this platform without burning though a lot of lamps. The P91/MN11/MN16/1794/1111 class of lamps driven on pairs of big li-ion cells are more for showing off and playing around, you would not take these configurations into critical applications.


----------



## polkiuj (Jul 12, 2009)

mdocod said:


> The P91 achieves those incredible numbers we are hearing about because of substantial overdrive from li-ion cells, which will result in drastically reduced bulb life. The IMR-9 is designed to run on li-ion cells while still having some bulb life on the table.... The IMR-9 SHOULD be thought of as the alternative to the P91 for those who want decent output in this platform without burning though a lot of lamps. The P91/MN11/MN16/1794/1111 class of lamps driven on pairs of big li-ion cells are more for showing off and playing around, you would not take these configurations into critical applications.


Awesome answer! Thanks! =)

But for a claimed 500 lumen lamp, this is quite disappointing. I would at least expect it to achieve 300-350 lumens or more. =(


----------



## Bushman5 (Jul 21, 2009)

bigchelis said:


> Here is the IMR 9 D26 vs. M60




am i missing something here? there is no way thats 500 lumens.....500 lumens would light up a soccer field with ease...

:shrug:


----------



## Outdoors Fanatic (Jul 21, 2009)

Bushman5 said:


> am i missing something here? there is no way thats 500 lumens.....500 lumens would light up a soccer field with ease...
> 
> :shrug:


It's 500_* bulb lumens*_. Not torch lumens. And I bet he has a truly underperforming IMR-9 sample, either that or his batteries/charger are to blame. My EO-9 blows the Malkoff M60 out of the water on fresh IMR cells, let alone the IMR-9...


----------



## lctorana (Jul 21, 2009)

Bushman5 said:


> 500 lumens would light up a soccer field with ease...
> 
> :shrug:


No it wouldn't!

A standard, 240V 40W clear incan houshold light bulb produces 410 lumens.

A 60W bulb produces 700.

500 lumens is barely enough to fully illuminate a small room. You wouldn't get much of a soccer match happening with that...


----------



## mdocod (Jul 21, 2009)

I just noticed that the testing was 2x18650s driving the EO-9 vs 2xIMR16340s driving the IMR-9. So that's like 1C vs 5C discharge rates.... no wonder they both produced the same output in that comparison...

If you run both on the same cells, be it 2x18650 LiCo or LiMn, the results will be much different. I have tested the IMR-9 vs the EO-9 with a lux meter, and the IMR-9 produces both higher lux and a wider beam profile, and higher lux values throughout the beam and spill.

-Eric


----------



## LuxLuthor (Jul 21, 2009)

To answer that original pesky question, in high heat applications like this, there is no great way to heatsink away the heat. You would be wise to manage it by limiting light run time, which in turn will help protect the batteries and other parts from heat stress damage.

FiveMega and others have come up with ingenious ways to increase head finning and grooves to increase surface area with ambient air, as well as transferring heat to larger body surface..but that only goes so far.


----------



## Bushman5 (Jul 22, 2009)

lctorana said:


> No it wouldn't!
> 
> A standard, 240V 40W clear incan houshold light bulb produces 410 lumens.
> 
> ...




um....no offense but i can light up the soccer field near me with my SF L2 at a 100 lumens....end to end. 

i can do the same with my TA30 on high, my TK11 on high, and my SF E1l outdoorsman does a pretty good job too at only 45 lumens....

I can light up my room very well with the 3 lumens low of the E2l......

your milage might vary....


----------



## pete7226 (Jul 22, 2009)

Personally, Im not impressed with the IMR series of lamps. Just got in the IMR 9L D36 700 lumen lamp. Good hotspot but not so great spill. Its yellow compared to the FM1794 and wa1111 and has less output. It also seems brighter on 2x18650 vs 2xIMR 18500. Sold it a day later


----------



## cernobila (Jul 22, 2009)

pete7226 said:


> Personally, Im not impressed with the IMR series of lamps. Just got in the IMR 9L D36 700 lumen lamp. Good hotspot but not so great spill. Its yellow compared to the FM1794 and wa1111 and has less output. It also seems brighter on 2x18650 vs 2xIMR 18500. Sold it a day later



That is interesting, so what other IMR lamps are you not happy with, besides the 9L.


----------



## Outdoors Fanatic (Jul 22, 2009)

pete7226 said:


> Personally, Im not impressed with the IMR series of lamps. Just got in the IMR 9L D36 700 lumen lamp. Good hotspot but not so great spill. Its yellow compared to the FM1794 and wa1111 and has less output. It also seems brighter on 2x18650 vs 2xIMR 18500. Sold it a day later


Perhaps you had a dud? CPFers in general seems to be quite satisfied with most IMR setups-- including some _very_ experienced members around here...


----------



## mdocod (Jul 22, 2009)

Outdoors Fanatic said:


> Perhaps you had a dud? CPFers in general seems to be quite satisfied with most IMR setups-- including some _very_ experienced members around here...



I think it's a matter of expectation...

Bulbs like the 1111/P91/64250/1185/5761/MN11/MN16/MN60/MN61 all have their potential li-ion driven applications, when they are driven in this fashion, they deliver a spectacular performance in terms of whiteness and output and efficiency as a result of over-drive. None of those lamps were originally designed for use with li-ion cells but we have found some awesome applications for them and enjoy those for what they excel at. Then we have lamps like the 1794, that were custom ordered to meet a specification that would deliver incredible results on something like a pair of IMR16340 cells, but that can't quite handle a pair of IMR18650s. Bleeding edge options produce the highest levels of satisfaction when they work, and the highest levels of disappointment when they insta-flash. It's a risk-reward thing. 

There's been a LOT of threads, a lot of discussion, and a lot of posts regarding "will *this* configuration blow this bulb? What about this? or that?" Sometimes I feel like I am being held to the grill forced to remote view the amount of resistance in someone's configuration 782 miles away, and determine if the bulb will survive... On a long enough time scale, no bulb survives, some will pop immediately, some will last 5 minutes, some will last a few hours, some will last 20 or 2000 hours. 

A LF bulb used in it's intended application, being compared to a configuration that has far less bulb life, in the same class of power consumption, is, a fair comparison to make if one only wants to look at output and whiteness.... If we start looking at the practicality of a configuration, like how long the bulb will last, the scale tilts in favor of the purpose designed bulb. Sacrificing some efficiency to gain dependability and usefulness in the field. I enjoy a 3450K driven incan as much as the next guy, but when I have to grab a flashlight to go out and actually get something done, the liquid tungsten builds stay behind. 

I like to think of a P91 on a pair of IMR18650s as a high risk, high potential reward investment, with a lot of down-side potential as well. The IMR-9 produces steady acceptable results with much less risk of down-side (premature failure). This comparison can be made across the line.... IMR-M3 vs MN11 on li-ion. EO-M3T vs MN16, IMR-M3T/9L vs 1111/64250, IMR-M6/13 vs 1185....


----------



## pete7226 (Jul 22, 2009)

I dont think I received a dud, it should under perform the 1794 and 1111, on paper and in practical use. Its just not as white as the other 2 bulbs-probably because both are overdriven a bit, and I was expecting more throw with the D36 size, which isn't the case. Just didn't perform the way I was hoping. Either way, Im sure it will fill the niche it was created for.


----------



## mdocod (Jul 23, 2009)

Hi pete7226!

In my testing, the IMR-9L is, unfortunately, the worst thrower of all the D36 lineup that I have tested, even the SR-9L out-performs it in terms of beam intensity (at center) for throwing potential. The IMR-13 performs on par with the HO-13 and SR-9L for throw, but with a ginourmous beam profile (floody). The IMR D36 series of lamps didn't bring anything new to the table as far as throw, just more output for this class in each voltage category... 

-Eric

[edit in]

Your experience got me interested, I went and reviewed my findings, and then did a little side by side testing... I'm finding that the IMR-9L may very well be an underperforming design. The HO-13, rated only 400 lumen, performs on par and whiter side by side. The IMR-M3T, also rated 700 lumen like the IMR-9L, blows it away in output and throw.... After experimenting further with this, I am not surprised at all that you were disappointed by the IMR-9L. All of the other D36 lamps I have played with have been whiter and more efficient than this one... I'm going to contact Mark and let him know...


----------



## cernobila (Jul 23, 2009)

Going by my own beamshots, https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/237006 I found that the progression in output and throw is as you would expect. Maybe I am missing something......


----------



## RobertM (Jul 23, 2009)

Earlier this year I posted some beamshots comparing the IMR-9 to the SF P60, P90, MN20, and MN21. You can see them here: https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/218828

-Robert


----------



## Outdoors Fanatic (Jul 23, 2009)

RobertM said:


> Earlier this year I posted some beamshots comparing the IMR-9 to the SF P60, P90, MN20, and MN21. You can see them here: https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/218828
> 
> -Robert


Thanks! That is a great thread.


----------

