# ZebraLight's new 12-volt models require an **Unprotected Battery**



## KeepingItLight (Jan 21, 2016)

Some CPF members and moderators have suggested that battery talk is beginning to go in circles on the regular threads for the new SC600 Mk. III and SC63. I started this thread so the conversation can continue.

Please keep the discussion here focused on battery issues. As far as it relates to ZebraLight's battery requirements, discussion of the new driver and "pogo" pins, as well as flashlight size, are also fair game.

What do you think? Will the requirement for an unprotected battery keep you from buying one of the new ZebraLights?


----------



## KeepingItLight (Jan 21, 2016)

First and foremost, I see the new 12-volt driver as the motivating factor. According to reports, it will be pulling between 4 and 5 amps, with the highest draws occurring as the battery gets low. A change to unprotected, medium-draw batteries, such as the Sanyo NCR18560GA or the Samsung 30Q, assures that there won't be a problem supplying current. 

The pogo pins have reduced electrical resistance compared to a spring. This means less voltage is wasted pushing current through the springs, and more voltage is available for the driver. That's what the designers wanted, more voltage for the driver. 

Note that pogo pins cannot be compressed as much as a spring. Switching to them means that battery size must be more uniform. Unprotected batteries provide this uniformity. Thus we have a second factor motivating a change to unprotected batteries.

Now consider the protection circuits themselves. I am not an expert, but my understanding is that they consume perhaps as much as a tenth of a volt. That's not much, but any voltage not used running protection circuits in the battery can be made available to the driver. Since ZL was planning to build protection circuits into the driver, including them on the battery is, at some level, redundant. This is a third motivation suggesting a switch to unprotected batteries.

Once designers understood that these changes would be better for the driver, then they realized the flashlight size could also be made smaller. 

All of this is pure speculation on my part, but I think it makes more sense than the alternative. Tossing out protected batteries has cost ZebraLight sales. All you have to do is read the ZebraLight threads here at CPF to see that that is true. Many previous customers have stated flatly that they won't be coming back to buy the new models. It does not make sense that ZebraLight would alienate these customers just to save a few millimeters in size. 

If reducing flashlight size were the foremost motivation for the changes, I think ZebraLight would have found a way to allow protected batteries. If, on the other hand, driver design were already leading ZL in the direction of unprotected batteries and pogo pins, then the changes become more understandable.

_This post was adapted from my previous post here._


----------



## tonkem (Jan 21, 2016)

nope. I pre ordered the SC63. Unprotected no issue for me.


----------



## scs (Jan 21, 2016)

Do the pogo pins further reduce shock absorption?
Is it likely that future increase in cell capacity means longer cells?
Will the pogo pins lose their compression quickly?
Can the pogo pins get caught by the any part of the negative end of the cell/wrapper?
Will high current draw significantly reduce cell life?


----------



## ShineOnYouCrazyDiamond (Jan 21, 2016)

Not a problem for me. I ordered the XPH35 HI Pre-Order.

BTW - I think people are incorrectly calling this a 12V driver. Does anyone actually have solid proof that this driver is boosting to 12 volts? The XHP can be wired as either 6V or 12V. I would suspect that Zebralight is wiring it as a 6V and only boosting that much. Boosting for 3.7v to 6v would be more efficient than boosting all the way up to 12v.


----------



## scs (Jan 21, 2016)

ShineOnYouCrazyDiamond said:


> Not a problem for me. I ordered the XPH35 HI Pre-Order.
> 
> BTW - I think people are incorrectly calling this a 12V driver. Does anyone actually have solid proof that this driver is boosting to 12 volts? The XHP can be wired as either 6V or 12V. I would suspect that Zebralight is wiring it as a 6V and only boosting that much. Boosting for 3.7v to 6v would be more efficient than boosting all the way up to 12v.



Found no reference to 6V in cree datasheet for the XHP35.


----------



## ShineOnYouCrazyDiamond (Jan 21, 2016)

I stand corrected - my wrong. I was thinking the XHP50 which is a quad-die and has the dual-config option.


----------



## marinemaster (Jan 21, 2016)

I am tired of beginners here with their big words and attention catching titles beating down on ZL. It happens a lot and after all this years I don't think is at random, by now I think is purposely done. Internet supposed to be a good think but some people use it for malicious intent. ZL is a good company making a great product. If it would be up to me I would delete this thread.


----------



## twistedraven (Jan 21, 2016)

I enjoy the change. It opens up possibilities to Cree's higher voltage LEDs, which means more options for us.


----------



## sidecross (Jan 21, 2016)

All I have read has shown that the XPH35 does need 12 volts.

There has been some confusing comments made about the four 'pogo pins' reducing and some have written increase resistance, Has any one been able to find a definitive answer to this issue?

If it does become an issue, it seems Zebralight could remedy the problem with a new tail cap design.

As for the battery issue I am quite comfortable using flat-top 18650 standard batteries at the length of 65mm. In fact I am now using matched pairs of these same batteries in my two Fenix TK35UE both '14 and '15 versions because changing the protected batteries in these two Fenix lights was rather difficult before switching to the flat-tom 65mm batteries.

Another advantage is the use of 18650 batteries that with the proper charger can use the 4.35 volt batteries at the same 65mm length.

Thank you too KeepinItLight for stating this thread. :thumbsup:


----------



## KITROBASKIN (Jan 21, 2016)

Deleting this thread is not in the spirit of open communication, seems like. 

The NiteCore extended battery pack for the TM series uses pogo pins, or something very similar. It works well in that application. If the pogo pins are a significant issue with ZL, you can bet it will disappear with the next iteration, but really it will probably evolve instead.

My NiteCore 2014 P12 will not accept button top batteries because of the plastic disc surrounding the positive terminal (actually I removed the disc but you see numerous flashlights that restrict button tops for physical reverse polarity protection)

My Oveready/Moddoolar bodies are quite limited regarding battery diameter, many protected 18650's will not work.

Just got an EagTac M25C2 Turbo that the kind folks at EagleTac made for me, installing an XP-L Hi 5000K (gorgeous tint, stupendous throw and satisfactory spill) and it will not accept a protected 3500 mAh Orbtronic; length apparently being the limitation. 

Money (and flashlight orders) talk, incessant complaining from a minority is an artifact of the internet.


----------



## scs (Jan 21, 2016)

KITROBASKIN said:


> Money (and flashlight orders) talk, incessant complaining from a minority is an artifact of the internet.



There's almost no alternative to just "letting the market decide," but it's unfortunate that consumers are often not rational, and certain things don't become as good as they can be, and certain things that shouldn't be continue to be.


----------



## ShineOnYouCrazyDiamond (Jan 21, 2016)

Having been vaping for well over a year now I have become more and more comfortable with unprotected cells. They are completely safe. If you use them in a well designed light and charge them with a good charger there should be no problem. If you do stupid things, well - you'll have stupid problems. 

For those who aren't comfortable with the 18650 lights there are plenty of AA lights still available that will fit needs.


----------



## KeepingItLight (Jan 21, 2016)

marinemaster said:


> I am tired of beginners here with their big words and attention catching titles beating down on ZL. It happens a lot and after all this years I don't think is at random, by now I think is purposely done. Internet supposed to be a good think but some people use it for malicious intent. ZL is a good company making a great product. If it would be up to me I would delete this thread.




I am sorry to hear that. My intention in choosing the title and content of the first post was to be as neutral as possible. I wanted to create a space where opinions on both sides could be expressed. For you, at least, I failed that goal.

As it happens, I am a supporter of the new designs. As I explain in the second post above, I believe they were motivated by the needs of the new driver. If I am wrong about that, and it turns out the change to an unprotected battery was motivated solely by a desire to reduce flashlight size, then I would be less enthusiastic. But I would still be a buyer. For my money (which is probably not worth very much in flashlight circles), ZebraLight has the some of the best engineering in the business.

I am waiting to make my purchase, however, until the new high-CRI "d" models are released.


----------



## sidecross (Jan 21, 2016)

KITROBASKIN said:


> Deleting this thread is not in the spirit of open communication, seems like.



I am in agreement with your comment. 

If someone does not agree with a comment or feels the language does not suit their individual taste then just skip the comment or thread. :wave:


----------



## nbp (Jan 21, 2016)

There is no need to delete nor even moderate this thread so long as opinions are expressed respectfully. Remember, attack the POST not the POSTER and the conversation can continue. Enjoy!


----------



## Tachead (Jan 21, 2016)

ShineOnYouCrazyDiamond said:


> Having been vaping for well over a year now I have become more and more comfortable with unprotected cells. *They are completely safe*. If you use them in a well designed light and charge them with a good charger there should be no problem. If you do stupid things, well - you'll have stupid problems.
> 
> For those who aren't comfortable with the 18650 lights there are plenty of AA lights still available that will fit needs.



Says the guy that has been inhaling a nicotine/propylene glycol mix for well over a year

Sorry, couldnt resist.

Tell that to the families of those that were on flight MH370.

They are relatively safe. Lets not downplay the risks associated with Lithium Ions of all types.


----------



## sidecross (Jan 21, 2016)

scs said:


> Do the pogo pins further reduce shock absorption?
> Is it likely that future increase in cell capacity means longer cells?
> Will the pogo pins lose their compression quickly?
> Can the pogo pins get caught by the any part of the negative end of the cell/wrapper?
> Will high current draw significantly reduce cell life?




The new 'pogo pins' do seem to ask a question of why; It seems unlikely the change was made for a reduction in vibration as these lights are not often used on long guns.

The newest cells are 65mm in length have 3500mAh, and up to 10 amps; I do not see a correlation between size, capacity, and amps.

The 'pogo pins' being designed for only 65mm batteries should have been engineered with this only factor. !8650 batteries are produced from 65mm to almost 70mm this would be a problem if the newest Zebralight tried to fit this entire range.

The 'pogo pins' seemed to be well centered; I always check the wrap of all my batteries and have the knowledge and supplies to re-wrap any battery wrap showing wear. The whole metal case of a lithium ion battery is the negative part of a battery.

The high current draw depends on the efficiency of the LED; Cree seems from my understanding has made advances in their new XPH35.


----------



## scs (Jan 21, 2016)

sidecross said:


> The new 'pogo pins' do seem to ask a question of why; It seems unlikely the change was made for a reduction in vibration as these lights are not often used on long guns.
> 
> The newest cells are 65mm in length have 3500mAh, and up to 10 amps; I do not see a correlation between size, capacity, and amps.
> 
> ...



Thanks, sidecross.
With regard to my first question, I mean whether the pogo pins would more likely induce cell damage from a drop, as opposed to having springs at at least one end or ideally at both ends.


----------



## sidecross (Jan 21, 2016)

scs said:


> Thanks, sidecross.
> With regard to my first question, I mean whether the pogo pins would more likely induce cell damage from a drop, as opposed to having springs at at least one end or ideally at both ends.


I think that Zebralight had to worry only about 65mm batteries so to solve an engineering problem with spring compression on the battery should not be difficult. My concern would be on all the electronics that make this newer light function be designed for a two meter fall or drop.


----------



## G. Scott H. (Jan 22, 2016)

ShineOnYouCrazyDiamond said:


> Having been vaping for well over a year now I have become more and more comfortable with unprotected cells. They are completely safe. If you use them in a well designed light and charge them with a good charger there should be no problem. If you do stupid things, well - you'll have stupid problems.



I've been vaping on unprotected Panasonic hybrid cells for about 4 years now. Right from the get go I made sure that the mods I used them in provided various protections: reverse polarity, short circuit, over discharge (and overcharge in the case of those that allow the battery to be charged while in the unit). No issues whatsoever thus far (knock on wood ). Using unprotected cells in an unprotected device, whether vaporizer or light, still gives me the heebee jeebees.  If a light had similar protections to my vaporizers, I wouldn't hesitate to use it. I haven't looked into these particular ZL's in detail, but a cursory glance shows they have circuitry inside offering at least some of these protective features.


----------



## KeepingItLight (Jan 22, 2016)

selfbuilt said:


>





more_vampires said:


> Are the pins solid? If they move, wouldn't they have springs of their own as well?



While I do not know the specifics of the ZebraLight SC5 design, I can offer these observations. 


The contact area between a battery and spring is physically smaller than the contact area of the pins. A larger contact area means less electrical resistance. 
If springs are used under the pins, they are shorter than a normal tail-cap spring. Shorter means less resistance to current flow. 
If springs are used under the pins, they are probably soldered to the caps, giving a good connection. 
When a single spring is used, all current must flow through that spring. At high currents, the spring will heat up. As temperature rises, so does the resistance of the spring. 
When seven pins are used, the current is divided into seven parts. This alone reduces resistance. 
In addition, because current is divided into seven parts, each pin will see less current. That means it will heat up less. Less heat means lower resistance. 
Even if there are springs beneath the pins, that does not necessarily mean the spring will be the primary conduction path in the pin. 

_Source for the above:_ My earlier post in the SC600 thread.


My speculation has been that a desire for less voltage drop across the springs created the motivation to use pogo pins. I do not know the fact, but the arguments above lead me to believe that pins have lower electrical resistance than a spring would.

Once you start thinking about using pogo pins (in order to obtain lower resistance), then you must deal with the fact that they have less travel than a spring. That leads you to understand that you need less variation in battery size. Since you are already aware that medium draw batteries, such as the Sanyo/Panasonic NCR18650GA and the Samsung 30Q, are a better match for your new driver than older batteries, it is a short hop to concluding that an unprotected battery would give you the control over battery size that you need.

I don't know whether the details I have described are accurate. My main point, however, stands. The decision to switch to an unprotected battery and pogo pins was primarily driven by driver and electronic considerations. It was not merely a whimsical desire to reduce size by an extra 3mm. It was not ZebraLight's way of saying to heck with all the scaredy-cats who use "protection." _It was necessary for the driver._ 

I am not saying you could not design a driver that did the same job using a low-draw, protected battery, such as a protected Panasonic NCR18650B. But if you want to design a top-drawer, boost driver that performs efficiently while lifting the 3.0 volts of a depleted 18650 battery up to the 11.3 volts needed to drive the Cree XHP35, this is the road many of you would have traveled.

So that's my speculation. I have no facts. I might easily be wrong. But I find this explanation to be more credible than any other I have read at CPF.


----------



## ShineOnYouCrazyDiamond (Jan 22, 2016)

Tachead said:


> Says the guy that has been inhaling a nicotine/propylene glycol mix for well over a year
> 
> Sorry, couldnt resist.
> 
> ...



And Tesla's burn down to the frame while charging. Did they use protected 18650s - maybe they should have. 

Yes - it's all relative. I meant they are completely safe relative to the protected cells that the alarmists are saying are the only thing to use.


----------



## markr6 (Jan 22, 2016)

ShineOnYouCrazyDiamond said:


> Having been vaping for well over a year now I have become more and more comfortable with unprotected cells. They are completely safe. If you use them in a well designed light and charge them with a good charger there should be no problem. If you do stupid things, well - you'll have stupid problems.
> 
> For those who aren't comfortable with the 18650 lights there are plenty of AA lights still available that will fit needs.



to all that!


----------



## sidecross (Jan 22, 2016)

ShineOnYouCrazyDiamond said:


> And Tesla's burn down to the frame while charging. Did they use protected 18650s - maybe they should have.
> 
> Yes - it's all relative. I meant they are completely safe relative to the protected cells that the alarmists are saying are the only thing to use.


Do a YouTube search on how Tesla and other battery packs are constructed for electric motored automobiles. :thumbsup:


----------



## sidecross (Jan 22, 2016)

KeepingItLight said:


> While I do not know the specifics of the ZebraLight SC5 design, I can offer these observations.
> 
> 
> The contact area between a battery and spring is physically smaller than the contact area of the pins. A larger contact area means less electrical resistance.
> ...


I tend to agree with your reasoning; I would appreciate if Zebralight or another independent source could confirm what we both think.


----------



## ozzie_c_cobblepot (Jan 22, 2016)

Ping!


----------



## sidecross (Jan 22, 2016)

"So I am an engineer and really want to understand the battery. It is my understanding that there are 6831 NCR18650 Panasonic batteries in the "Battery pack". 11 moduals in series each with 9 "bricks" in series and each brick with 69 18650's in parallel. So 69 * 9 * 11 = 6,831. Are you with me so far?..."

https://my.teslamotors.com/it_IT/forum/forums/technical-battery-discussion

Obviously we are having a very limited discussion. :wave:

http://insideevs.com/panasonic-drop...ost-solely-on-battery-cells-for-tesla-motors/


----------



## KeepingItLight (Jan 22, 2016)

sidecross said:


> I tend to agree with your reasoning; I would appreciate if Zebralight or another independent source could confirm what we both think.




I have thought about this. I am afraid that the spokespeople giving public comment may not be engineers, and may not understand the issues. Meanwhile, the engineers may not be available for public comment, and may not speak English.

One thing, for sure, if I were a spokesman, I would learn very fast to stay away from techno-babble. It confuses the customer, and makes him feel stupid.


----------



## sidecross (Jan 22, 2016)

KeepingItLight said:


> I have thought about this. I am afraid that the spokespeople giving public comment may not be engineers, and may not understand the issues. Meanwhile, the engineers may not be available for public comment, and may not speak English.
> 
> One thing, for sure, if I were a spokesman, I would learn very fast to stay away from techno-babble. It confuses the customer, and makes him feel stupid.


Most of the flashlight manufacturer representatives I have either spoken to or written to do not understand that many of us are smart enough to be asking pertinent questions. We are generally the opposite of stupid. 

If anything, the inability to answer technical questions with specific answers shows a lack of respect for our ability to ask pertinent questions.

I have worked as Union and Nationally Certified factory trained auto mechanic for Mercedes Benz and Toyota with State Licenses too, and much of the problems in automobile repair business is because of a lack of the ability to ask questions and receive informed answers to those questions.


----------



## ShineOnYouCrazyDiamond (Jan 22, 2016)

sidecross said:


> "So I am an engineer and really want to understand the battery. It is my understanding that there are 6831 NCR18650 Panasonic batteries in the "Battery pack". 11 moduals in series each with 9 "bricks" in series and each brick with 69 18650's in parallel. So 69 * 9 * 11 = 6,831. Are you with me so far?..."



And you're worried about one little 18650 in a flashlight? :thinking:


----------



## sidecross (Jan 23, 2016)

ShineOnYouCrazyDiamond said:


> And you're worried about one little 18650 in a flashlight? :thinking:


I am not concerned! It is why I posted the comment.

mock·er·y: a derisive, imitative action or speech


----------



## ShineOnYouCrazyDiamond (Jan 23, 2016)

sidecross said:


> I am not concerned! It is why I posted the comment.
> 
> mock·er·y: a derisive, imitative action or speech



But others are and I hope this thread makes them think again about whether or not their concerns are valid.


----------



## sidecross (Jan 23, 2016)

ShineOnYouCrazyDiamond said:


> But others are and I hope this thread makes them think again about whether or not their concerns are valid.


Thinking is the ability to enter new information to evolve a persons's understanding and view point. Dogma on the otherhand is a reformulation of staic information in a new form.


----------



## sidecross (Jan 23, 2016)

ShineOnYouCrazyDiamond said:


> But others are and I hope this thread makes them think again about whether or not their concerns are valid.


Thinking is the ability to enter new information to evolve a person's understanding and view point. Dogma on the other hand is a reformulation of static information in a new form.


----------



## ShineOnYouCrazyDiamond (Jan 23, 2016)

semantics:

the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence, etc._ie: Let's not argue about semantics._


----------



## sidecross (Jan 23, 2016)

ShineOnYouCrazyDiamond said:


> semantics:
> 
> the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence, etc._ie: Let's not argue about semantics._


That is fine for this topic, but meaning is what directs all my thoughts and my life.


----------



## KeepingItLight (Jan 23, 2016)

sidecross said:


> Thinking is the ability to enter new information to evolve a persons's understanding and view point. Dogma on the otherhand is a reformulation of staic information in a new form.




Dogma is also the name of this red-hot Armenian folk-metal band! 



Turn it up loud!


----------



## kreisl (Jan 24, 2016)

why does the title say "12 volts"?

zebralight uses 1 single liion battery, 4.2 volts.


----------



## KeepingItLight (Jan 24, 2016)

Yeah, that can be deceptive. 12 volts refers to the driver output. I believe that ZebraLight itself has referred to this as its "12-volt driver."


----------



## kreisl (Jan 24, 2016)

i haven't looked yet into xhp led flashlights. there's an armytek goinggear shot show video which shows a 2000 lumens light from 1 single 18650 because of this new led.


----------



## Aldiggi (Jan 24, 2016)

We need these manufacturers to specifically recommend to its consumers the exact battery for best performance overall. These LEDs are getting more powerful and the battery manufacturers need to evolve along with them. It sucks we have to have a stock of batteries until we find the right one for our light.


----------



## ChrisGarrett (Jan 24, 2016)

Aldiggi said:


> We need these manufacturers to specifically recommend to its consumers the exact battery for best performance overall. These LEDs are getting more powerful and the battery manufacturers need to evolve along with them. It sucks we have to have a stock of batteries until we find the right one for our light.



Do you really think that Sanyo, Panasonic, Samsung, LG and/or Sony really care if their bare cells work in the new Zebralight SC600 Mk III?

They don't.

They deal in bulk sales to laptop makers, Tesla and to others who buy in the thousands, not some obscure flashlight maker who might make 1000 units of any given model.

Not a hater, but 'we' don't really matter in the grand scheme of things.

In fact, I bet the 'vapers' have a bigger toehold in the ears of the cell manufacturers than we flashlight geeks and I don't think that they really matter one whit.

Chris


----------



## Aldiggi (Jan 24, 2016)

ChrisGarrett said:


> Do you really think that Sanyo, Panasonic, Samsung, LG and/or Sony really care if their bare cells work in the new Zebralight SC600 Mk III?
> 
> They don't.
> 
> ...



You are right. Then what battery do you recommend to run that bad boy [emoji6]


----------



## ChrisGarrett (Jan 25, 2016)

Aldiggi said:


> You are right. Then what battery do you recommend to run that bad boy [emoji6]



Any 10A bare cell, like the S/P NCR1860GA, or LG MJ1.

They will fit and give the required amperage. It's not that difficult.

There are others, but you need to know what's required.

Chris


----------



## Lumencrazy (Jan 25, 2016)

Aldiggi said:


> We need these manufacturers to specifically recommend to its consumers the exact battery for best performance overall. These LEDs are getting more powerful and the battery manufacturers need to evolve along with them. It sucks we have to have a stock of batteries until we find the right one for our light.



Panasonic does not sell unprotected batteries directly to the consumer. In fact, even if you are a manufacturer who installs protection circuits they have a written policy that you must first meet their requirements and audit before they will allow their unprotected batteries to be used by your company. We are getting our batteries through other channels. Furthermore, the flashlight market is absolutely insignificant to Panasonic and the others, and, if they could, they would prevent any unprotected batteries from ever reaching Joe Consumer. In 2013 250 million 18650’s were manufactured and the new Panasonic factory in Nevada alone will produce more 18650’s than the combined current world production. These plans have nothing to do with people buying flashlights. We don’t even exist on their radar. We are not important! Furthermore, Panasonic would never make recommendations directly to Joe Consumer. That would be an insane policy with regards to liability laws since they have no control over our level of technical knowledge or how we use them.


----------



## Gadgetman7 (Jan 25, 2016)

So...do they have to be flat top or would IMR batteries work?


----------



## ShineOnYouCrazyDiamond (Jan 25, 2016)

Gadgetman7 said:


> So...do they have to be flat top or would IMR batteries work?



Kinda two different questions here:

1) Do they have to be flat top? I believe the answer is yes. From what it seem a button top wouldn't fit.

2) Would IMR batteries work? You should definitely be using IMR or hybrid batteries that support a minimum of 10A constant. IMR/hybrid batteries come is both flat top and button top - see question 1. 

In answer to a few of the other above posts in terms of batteries, Zebralight seems to have made a recommendation in that they have a 3500mAh 10A Panasonic/Sanyo NCR18650GA battery for sale on their site. 

I would say that any high current (10A+) unprotected flat top 18650 cell sold at Mtn Electronics or an equivalent reputable dealer should work. You could also check some of the vaping sites as they cell lots of the high current 18650 batteries as well.


----------



## markr6 (Jan 26, 2016)

Correct. I tried to cram a button top in, no go. That 1-2mm extra made it too long. But that's OK with me. You can either remove the button on cells you already have, or just buy a new flat top which just about all sellers have. Only some have button top options. We're talking unprotected flavors, here.


----------



## recDNA (Jan 26, 2016)

Of the unprotected flat top batteries capable of 10 amps output do any of them have safer chemistry than the others? In other words if overcharged or short circuited are any less likely to vent with flame?


----------



## ChrisGarrett (Jan 26, 2016)

recDNA said:


> Of the unprotected flat top batteries capable of 10 amps output do any of them have safer chemistry than the others? In other words if overcharged or short circuited are any less likely to vent with flame?



The old ICR vs. IMR vs. IFR (safe, safer, safest) monikers are somewhat outdated and archaic. Cobalt had a lower thermal runaway temp than manganese, which had a lower runaway temperature than iron phosphate.

The last pure ICR 18650, IIRC, was the Panasonic NCR18650 2900mAh cell. The A, B, G and GA using aluminum, or nickel, I think, or combos thereof?

These are the new hybrids and we don't really know the runaway temps for them and really, it's not going to matter too much if it's 265*, or 315*, so think instead, of buying quality cells, chargers and lights and having those be your 'safety nets' and roll on like a pro.

If you dead short any of the above, you might be in trouble, so don't dead short stuff and things should be fine.

Flying naked really isn't a huge risk, either 'practically, or philosophically,' IMO, when you try and ballpark the odds of something ka-booming on you.

Chris


----------



## recDNA (Jan 27, 2016)

Is it possible for the old imr to vent with flame? I thought they merely vented poison gas.


----------



## ChrisGarrett (Jan 27, 2016)

recDNA said:


> Is it possible for the old imr to vent with flame? I thought they merely vented poison gas.



Yeah, they don't vent as violently, but poison gas ain't exactly a good way to go, either, right?

Nowadays, with the Chinese labeled stuff, we're not sure, as there's not a lot of documentation available, like we have with published datasheets for the Big 5: Sanyo, Panasonic, Samsung, LG and Sanyo.

If you buy quality cells, chargers and you monitor voltages, there's really little risk involved and we have a better chance of getting killed by falling space junk, or a pit bull, than we do with li-ion cells.

Chris


----------



## recDNA (Jan 27, 2016)

ChrisGarrett said:


> Yeah, they don't vent as violently, but poison gas ain't exactly a good way to go, either, right?
> 
> Nowadays, with the Chinese labeled stuff, we're not sure, as there's not a lot of documentation available, like we have with published datasheets for the Big 5: Sanyo, Panasonic, Samsung, LG and Sanyo.
> 
> ...


Oh I know the gas is bad but I may have mistakenly always used exclusively AW IMR as my only unprotected battery type since I thought it couldn't set my house on fire even in worst case scenario. At least I could run away from the gas and open all the windows. An indoor lithium ion fire is a disaster.


----------



## ShineOnYouCrazyDiamond (Jan 27, 2016)

recDNA said:


> Oh I know the gas is bad but I may have mistakenly always used exclusively AW IMR as my only unprotected battery type since I thought it couldn't set my house on fire even in worst case scenario. At least I could run away from the gas and open all the windows. An indoor lithium ion fire is a disaster.



Think about how many other no-name Chinese cell LiIon device you probably have in your home that you don't give a second thought to. All your cordless vacuums, drills, saw, trimmers, edgers, screwdrivers, etc. We leave these devices charging all the time and don't even think about them yet when it comes to a single cell we get overly concerned. 

Stick with a name brand an you should be fine. Nothing wrong with sticking with AW cells. They have a solid reputation in both the flashlight and vaping community.


----------



## recDNA (Jan 27, 2016)

You're absolutely right about that. Cell phones and computers too. We all thoughtlessly charge may li ion devices. It's all odds and the odds are in our favor.

Personally, I like the option of using AW protected batteries. I'm not saying everyone should. I also use AW IMR but they are all button top. The newest AW "IMR" 18650 flat top is a hybrid so no advantage to it chemically speaking. I may also misunderstand the old AW IMR. I thought they could not catch fire.

My favorite setup has a spring at both ends to have maximum battery size flexibility, fewer rattles, and better shock absorption. 

I also do not like to exceed 3 amps. I don't need more power than that for my personal use.


----------



## KeepingItLight (Jan 28, 2016)

*Does the low-voltage cutoff in this driver work when a flashlight is off?*

ZebraLights have a minuscule standby drain. In theory, therefore, it is possible that an over-discharge could occur when a flashlight is stored with the battery installed. I wonder whether the low-voltage cutoff circuit built into the driver can prevent this.

In practice, it would take a very long time for the standby current to completely drain the battery in a ZebraLight. In addition, a simple 1/4 turn of the tail cap will lock out a ZebraLight, cutting the standby current to zero.

Here is what selfbuilt reported about standby current in his review of the *ZebraLight SC62*.



selfbuilt said:


> *Standby Drain*
> 
> Due to the electronic switch, all Zebralights have a constant parasitic stand-by current drain when the tailcap is connected.
> 
> ...



If the new driver can get anywhere close to the values selfbuilt tested for standby current in the SC62, then the whole issue is moot!


----------



## offtrail (Jan 29, 2016)

*Re: Does the low-voltage cutoff in this driver work when a flashlight is off?*

Everyone, thank you for a very enlightening and engaging discussion, so far.


----------



## light-wolff (Jan 31, 2016)

I've been a ZL follower (almost fanboy) since their very first product (H50). I still believe they build superior flashlights, I like the look and feel and the UI. But I'm still not convinced that there is any real benefit from the decision to move to 12V-LEDs, or from the pogo pins, other than marketing.

Currently EDCing SC600w MK III, and SC63 NW preordered.
I don't want to speculate, I want to measure and know. If there's no improvement, I will sell these lights to people who believe that newer is always better. 




KeepingItLight said:


> The pogo pins have reduced electrical resistance compared to a spring.


This has been written several times, but nobody has so far produced any figures. It is very difficult to measure directly. Fact: my SC600 MK III has longer and more consistent runtime on max with a "springed" SC62 tailcap instead of the "pogo pinned" original. This translates to: spring has better contact and less resistance than pogo. At least in my example.
I've ordered spring tailcap PCBs from ZL to replace the pogo pins in my MK III.



KeepingItLight said:


> Now consider the protection circuits themselves. I am not an expert, but my understanding is that they consume perhaps as much as a tenth of a volt...


At full current, yes. But even 0.1V is only 3% loss. Barely measurable, even less noticeable.




KeepingItLight said:


> Since ZL was planning to build protection circuits into the driver, including them on the battery is, at some level, redundant.


Even the first SC600 had low-voltage cutoff. The 2nd version added step-down to next-lower level.

Redundant protection is good. Imagine what would happen if the driver shorts out? Plain short on the battery! This happened to me with a brand new Olight S30 - luckily, the battery was protected.

That being said, I've ever since been using only unprotected cells in my ZLs (only exception: SC52w). Main reason for this was the ability to use 4.35V cells for longer runtime. This point is now moot because 3500mAh cells like NCR GA, LG MJ1 and SDI 35E deliver more energy than the best 4.35V cells.

It still has to be shown whether the MK III is more efficient than the MK II regarding lm / W (W from battery).
A step-up driver from 3.6V to 12V is always less efficient than a step-down to 3.3V. I guess the LED's efficiency improvement is compensated or even over-compensated by higher driver loss.




KeepingItLight said:


> If springs are used under the pins, they are shorter than a normal tail-cap spring. Shorter means less resistance to current flow.
> If springs are used under the pins, they are probably soldered to the caps, giving a good connection.
> When a single spring is used, all current must flow through that spring. At high currents, the spring will heat up. As temperature rises, so does the resistance of the spring.
> When seven pins are used, the current is divided into seven parts. This alone reduces resistance.
> ...


Some interesting points.

Ad 1: There ARE springs inside, it is a spring loaded contact after all.
Shorter spring means less resistance only if the spring wire has the same thickness. SC62 spring wire: 0.9mm.

Ad 2: No, they aren't soldered. How do I know? Disassembled such springs (from ATE nail beds), read datasheets, (though not the exact ZL variety, so I could be wrong).

Ad 3: Depends on material. A well-designed spring won't heat up, i.e. neglegible resistance rise.

Ad 4: Not if each of the 7 parts has more than 7 times the resistance of the single other part.

Ad 5: see 3.

Ad 6: Yes. But the hardest part of manufacturing pogo pins is probably to ensure good electrical contact between body and pin without blocking the movement. It is undesirable for the signal or current to flow through the internal spring alone. But it happens, depending on quality. The MK III pogo pins are very short, so it's difficult to maintain contact between their pin and body.



KeepingItLight said:


> One thing, for sure, if I were a spokesman, I would learn very fast to stay away from techno-babble. It confuses the customer, and makes him feel stupid.


It only makes the stupid feel stupid. Others listen and get educated. 




Aldiggi said:


> We need these manufacturers to specifically recommend to its consumers the exact battery for best performance overall. These LEDs are getting more powerful and the battery manufacturers need to evolve along with them. It sucks we have to have a stock of batteries until we find the right one for our light.


Zebralight does recommend NCR18650GA. This cell is easy to obtain.
Batteries have evolved a lot, the can deliver more current than the average flahlight needs.
But flashlights are certainly not driving any battery innovation.




KeepingItLight said:


> If the new driver can get anywhere close to the values selfbuilt tested for standby current in the SC62, then the whole issue is moot!


Yes, it can: 3.8µA


----------



## snowlover91 (Jan 31, 2016)

light-wolff said:


> I've been a ZL follower (almost fanboy) since their very first product (H50). I still believe they build superior flashlights, I like the look and feel and the UI. But I'm still not convinced that there is any real benefit from the decision to move to 12V-LEDs, or from the pogo pins, other than marketing.
> 
> Currently EDCing SC600w MK III, and SC63 NW preordered.
> I don't want to speculate, I want to measure and know. If there's no improvement, I will sell these lights to people who believe that newer is always better.
> ...



I don't think they're making the switch for marketing reasons. They don't really advertise it or make a big deal about the pogo pins, the only way a person would know they use them is by either looking at the spreadsheet or reading reviews from people who own them. They don't make a big deal about it like a company would if the reason was due to marketing so I don't think that's why they made the switch. 

Also I would add that in my communications with them they said they don't currently plan to use the pogo pins for their headlamps because they're not planning to boost the output right now so they're sticking with the springs. They have stated on another site through an email exchange that they had multiple reasons for the change to pogo pins. This includes the better efficiency for the new boost circuit, reducing return/warranty issues from customers using protected cells that trip under high amp draw, the benefit of smaller size/lighter and maintaining the efficiency they're known for. They've had to push the release back for the MK3, it was originally supposed to release late summer 2015 and kept getting pushed back due to designs for the circuit and getting the best performance. They usually thoroughly test their new designs and don't release it until it's right so I'm guessing in their testing the pogo pins gave the best results. I don't think they would switch to the pogo design unless it gave the best results. The SC5 switched to this design and I haven't seen a single issue with the pogo pins, shock or any other issues from the tail cap. I personally prefer the pogo pins and look forward to testing my SC63 and MK3 HI.


----------



## Tachead (Jan 31, 2016)

light-wolff said:


> I've been a ZL follower (almost fanboy) since their very first product (H50). I still believe they build superior flashlights, I like the look and feel and the UI. But I'm still not convinced that there is any real benefit from the decision to move to 12V-LEDs, or from the pogo pins, other than marketing.
> 
> Currently EDCing SC600w MK III, and SC63 NW preordered.
> I don't want to speculate, I want to measure and know. If there's no improvement, I will sell these lights to people who believe that newer is always better.
> ...



Good post. I look forward to your findings. Please check out my thread on this topic as well. I am skeptical of this new design as well.

http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb...battery-tube-design(SC600-MKII-SC63-SC5-exc-)


----------



## snowlover91 (Feb 1, 2016)

light-wolff said:


> I've been a ZL follower (almost fanboy) since their very first product (H50). I still believe they build superior flashlights, I like the look and feel and the UI. But I'm still not convinced that there is any real benefit from the decision to move to 12V-LEDs, or from the pogo pins, other than marketing.
> 
> Currently EDCing SC600w MK III, and SC63 NW preordered.
> I don't want to speculate, I want to measure and know. If there's no improvement, I will sell these lights to people who believe that newer is always better.
> ...



How comparable are your runtimes on the MK3 to what's advertised and to your MK2? I'm surprised you were able to order the spring tailcap PCB's from ZL as other forum members have been unsuccessful in this attempt before, how were you able to convince them to sell you some and what's the cost like? How are you going to remove the current tailcap in your MK3 and replace it? 

From Cree's data sheet the XM-L2 averages 170 lm/W while the XHP35 averages 172 lm/W. That's a minuscule efficiency increase in the LED itself so ZL had to do some major circuit redesign and other things to increase efficiency since the LED itself is essentially the same from a lm/W standpoint. To go from a driver the goes down in voltage to one that steps it up from 3.6v to 12v while increasing the output with similar runtimes is pretty impressive imo. My guess is the redesigned driver is a big part of what helped as well as the pogo pins. It's not like ZL just randomly put them in there, they made the decision based on their own tests which must have indicated better performance. Perhaps your sample was an anomaly? 

Those are are some interesting points but as you mentioned they're speculation until we have someone who can actually test the pogo pins, their resistance, etc. to determine if they're more or less efficient. The pogo pins on the ZL are unique and probably much different from the springs you disassembled. The best I can tell they're soldered to the pcb, or glued, I'm not sure it's hard to tell what they used.


----------



## swan (Feb 1, 2016)

To say that the spring tailcap gives more run time likely proves that the higher resistance wont allow it to discharge as a quick as the pogopins indicating it cant deliver amps as efficiently.

This test is only relevent if you put the light on a integrated light sphere or similar to ensure it is as bright on both tailcaps.

Light modders have been doubling springs or soldering wire bi passes to springs for ages to lower less resistance and more output.

Remember current follows the path of least resistance and these pogopins look like a way better solution than an old spring.


----------



## snowlover91 (Feb 1, 2016)

swan said:


> To say that the spring tailcap gives more run time likely proves that the higher resistance wont allow it to discharge as a quick as the pogopins indicating it cant deliver amps as efficiently.
> 
> This test is only relevent if you put the light on a integrated light sphere or similar to ensure it is as bright on both tailcaps.
> 
> ...



Hmmm interesting thought. Maybe someone who has both models can switch tail caps and test output and runtime as well to see the results.


----------



## sandotter (Feb 2, 2016)

ChrisGarrett said:


> Any 10A bare cell, like the S/P NCR1860GA, or LG MJ1.
> 
> They will fit and give the required amperage. It's not that difficult.
> 
> ...



Even if zebralight recommends NCR18650GA using a NCR18650B should be no problem in my opinion. The cree XHP35 is rated with 13W, so the maximum current should be approximately 13W/2,7V = 4,8A. The Panasonic NCR18650B has a max. constant discharge current of 6.8A. So a NCR18650B should be safe to use or am I missing something:thinking:?


----------



## markr6 (Feb 2, 2016)

sandotter said:


> Even if zebralight recommends NCR18650GA using a NCR18650B should be no problem in my opinion. The cree XHP35 is rated with 13W, so the maximum current should be approximately 13W/2,7V = 4,8A. The Panasonic NCR18650B has a max. constant discharge current of 6.8A. So a NCR18650B should be safe to use or am I missing something:thinking:?



I tested an NCR18650B and it worked just fine. But I did not do any long runtime tests to compare.


----------



## Tachead (Feb 2, 2016)

sandotter said:


> Even if zebralight recommends NCR18650GA using a NCR18650B should be no problem in my opinion. The cree XHP35 is rated with 13W, so the maximum current should be approximately 13W/2,7V = 4,8A. The Panasonic NCR18650B has a max. constant discharge current of 6.8A. So a NCR18650B should be safe to use or am I missing something:thinking:?



I agree it should be absolutely fine to run it in these lights and is still within spec even in a worst case scenario.


----------



## 18650 (Feb 4, 2016)

recDNA said:


> You're absolutely right about that. Cell phones and computers too. We all thoughtlessly charge may li ion devices. It's all odds and the odds are in our favor. Personally, I like the option of using AW protected batteries. I'm not saying everyone should. I also use AW IMR but they are all button top. The newest AW "IMR" 18650 flat top is a hybrid so no advantage to it chemically speaking. I may also misunderstand the old AW IMR. I thought they could not catch fire. My favorite setup has a spring at both ends to have maximum battery size flexibility, fewer rattles, and better shock absorption. I also do not like to exceed 3 amps. I don't need more power than that for my personal use.


 Any modern 18650 can do more than 3 amps. The circuit on protected cells usually doesn't trip until 7 or 8A. Whatever measures you use to keep load under 3A on protected cells you can do the same with unprotected ones.


----------



## recDNA (Feb 4, 2016)

18650 said:


> Any modern 18650 can do more than 3 amps. The circuit on protected cells usually doesn't trip until 7 or 8A. Whatever measures you use to keep load under 3A on protected cells you can do the same with unprotected ones.


You miss my point entirely. It is there is no need for a light this small to be designed to work on unprotected batteries only. There is also no need to use an led demanding 12 volts which demands such a high amp draw. An XP-L HI would be a better led for this light and would not require all the changes that ruined it.


----------



## ShineOnYouCrazyDiamond (Feb 4, 2016)

rec - while I don't fully disagree with your statement I actually commend ZL for pushing the boundaries. 

Yes - they could've gone with the XP-L HI, but they choose to invest their R&D into the next generation of Cree LED rather than the current one. One which promises higher efficiencies.

Yes - they could've stuck with supporting a protected cell, but they choose to make their light even smaller than the previous version. 

They didn't need to do any of this, but they chose to. We know that ZL has always pushed the boundaries on what can be done with a simple NiMH AA cell. Their driver technologies and efficiency rival pretty much everyone in the business. They make solid lights that have shown to handle abuse through drops, car tires, washing machines, 8 ft pools, frozen blocks, etc. 

Do you have any doubts that their advances are in a positive direction or are you just complaining because of one small facet of having to use an unprotected cell? They have protection circuitry in their light to protect against over-discharge and reverse protection. Do you really think, most of the time, you'll actually run your cell so low you'll trip that protection circuit? Or, like most of us, will you likely top off the cell every so often anyway?

I am just suggesting that, while your opinion is valid, maybe you are being a bit extreme saying they "ruined" the light.


----------



## ChrisGarrett (Feb 4, 2016)

recDNA said:


> You miss my point entirely. It is there is no need for a light this small to be designed to work on unprotected batteries only. There is also no need to use an led demanding 12 volts which demands such a high amp draw. An XP-L HI would be a better led for this light and would not require all the changes that ruined it.



They did what they did and the consumers will vote with their wallets and by the looks of it, they seem to be selling and in high demand.

Running the correct cell in this light really isn't a hardship and running an NCR-B is doable, although probably not the best for that cell, if you're constantly running the light down on HIGH.

Naked 10A 3500mAh cells are a dime a dozen these days.

If you don't want to deal with the hassle, stick with their H600/H602 headlamps, or their SC600 MkI and MkII lights.

Chris


----------



## recDNA (Feb 4, 2016)

ChrisGarrett said:


> They did what they did and the consumers will vote with their wallets and by the looks of it, they seem to be selling and in high demand.
> 
> Running the correct cell in this light really isn't a hardship and running an NCR-B is doable, although probably not the best for that cell, if you're constantly running the light down on HIGH.
> 
> ...


For me it is an unnecessary additional risk. From the sold out status many are not as concerned as I. I hope they keep an eye on their batteries when charging.


----------



## ChrisGarrett (Feb 4, 2016)

recDNA said:


> For me it is an unnecessary additional risk. From the sold out status many are not as concerned as I. I hope they keep an eye on their batteries when charging.



You're sounding a bit like a 'scaredy-cat' and somewhat irrational on this subject matter, which is fine. I was pretty cautious in the beginning--better to be somewhat paranoid about this stuff, than blasse' and careless.

I've read some of your recent posts discussing your trepidations with li-ion cells and even with NiMH rechargeable batteries.

The new Mk III is probably something you should avoid. In fact, since most all of the bigger ZLs use only li-ion cells and not CR123A primaries, you should probably just avoid them and stick to their smaller AA, or CR123A lights.

For most of us here, proper li-ion handling is like brushing our teeth in the morning--pretty much automatic and we rarely see problems on CPF, from people who know what they're doing.

Chris


----------



## psychbeat (Feb 4, 2016)

swan said:


> To say that the spring tailcap gives more run time likely proves that the higher resistance wont allow it to discharge as a quick as the pogopins indicating it cant deliver amps as efficiently.
> 
> This test is only relevent if you put the light on a integrated light sphere or similar to ensure it is as bright on both tailcaps.
> 
> ...



I've been trying not to post in this thread but was thinking this EXACT thing and have to give u a plus one  

My direct drive lights will run longer on older cells with more IR or with weaker springs etc because they sag more which acts as a bottleneck and keeps the current down. 

It's like adding a Malkoff hi/lo resistor which YES will give more runtime but at a REDUCED output. 

Even tho these are boost drivers they seem to be affected by sag just like the older zebra circuit which drops output not just to PID but to lower voltage in the cell.


----------



## recDNA (Feb 4, 2016)

ChrisGarrett said:


> You're sounding a bit like a 'scaredy-cat' and somewhat irrational on this subject matter, which is fine. I was pretty cautious in the beginning--better to be somewhat paranoid about this stuff, than blasse' and careless.
> 
> I've read some of your recent posts discussing your trepidations with li-ion cells and even with NiMH rechargeable batteries.
> 
> ...


LoL. Chris, check my profile. I'm not a newbie. I have lots of li ion and a couple of good chargers but even good chargers go bad sometimes so I like the added protection in the battery to prevent overcharging or vent with flame on a short. I do use old AW Imr batteries but I prefer that chemistry to the new hybrid chemistry and the aw are button top. 

On one thing we agree. I will not buy the new ZL. It's a shame because the sc62w is my favorite light.


----------



## swan (Feb 4, 2016)

psychbeat said:


> I've been trying not to post in this thread but was thinking this EXACT thing and have to give u a plus one
> 
> My direct drive lights will run longer on older cells with more IR or with weaker springs etc because they sag more which acts as a bottleneck and keeps the current down.
> 
> ...



Hey psychbeat- i just got the shipping notice for the mk 111 to be delivered today- i will test it for output/lux and try the older sc600 tailcap and i will report back later today.


----------



## fnsooner (Feb 4, 2016)




----------



## ShineOnYouCrazyDiamond (Feb 4, 2016)

I just contacted ZLs support and was told I had another 4 weeks to wait on my XHP35 HI model. Can't wait to see if this light is the winner I hope it to be.


----------



## swan (Feb 4, 2016)

ShineOnYouCrazyDiamond said:


> I just contacted ZLs support and was told I had another 4 weeks to wait on my XHP35 HI model. Can't wait to see if this light is the winner I hope it to be.



Hey ShineOnYouCrazyDiamond I noticed acebeam are advertising 2500 lumens and 420kcd out of it K50 v3 with the new XHP35 HI cree led .

I think this is very impressive- i think we will see a lot more of the 6v-12v XHP series.

I hope for a speedy delivery for your new light. I saw Pink Floyd twenty years ago in sydney wow i think it was twenty years ago.


----------



## swan (Feb 4, 2016)

I dont want to hijack KIL,S thread but i just got the SC600cw MK111 dropped in my awt 2600 mah high drain cell and i am getting measured on my light box

Start up 1600 lumens

At 30 secs 1500 lumens

It almost match,s my Thrunite Tn 32 1700 lumen model which i measures 1550 lumens at 1min 30 secs= [email protected]!!!!!!!

I will start a new thread after some more tests but i cant believe my eyes.

It more than doubles the output of the old sc600 mk1 which i measure at 710 lumens at 30 secs on a protected ncr18650b.


----------



## sidecross (Feb 4, 2016)

swan said:


> Hey ShineOnYouCrazyDiamond I noticed acebeam are advertising 2500 lumens and 420kcd out of it K50 v3 with the new XHP35 HI cree led .
> 
> I think this is very impressive- i think we will see a lot more of the 6v-12v XHP series.
> 
> I hope for a speedy delivery for your new light. I saw Pink Floyd twenty years ago in sydney wow i think it was twenty years ago.


I hope to see the same 12 volt drivers for Cree XHP series LED's powered from 26650 batteries.


----------



## psychbeat (Feb 5, 2016)

swan said:


> I dont want to hijack KIL,S thread but i just got the SC600cw MK111 dropped in my awt 2600 mah high drain cell and i am getting measured on my light box
> 
> Start up 1600 lumens
> 
> ...



EPIC!


----------



## recDNA (Feb 5, 2016)

That IS a lot of output. I'm surprised PID didn't knock it down faster than that. It will be interesting to see the heat vs output graph when the light is reviewed. Amazing. 1500 lumens. Wow.


----------



## swan (Feb 5, 2016)

recDNA said:


> That IS a lot of output. I'm surprised PID didn't knock it down faster than that. It will be interesting to see the heat vs output graph when the light is reviewed. Amazing. 1500 lumens. Wow.



On my light box without a fan ambient temp 25c using a AWT 2600 40a high drain cell.

H1 

At start 3030 lux = 1621 lumens 

30 secs 2820 lux = 1508 lumens 

1:30 2800 lux = 1498 lumens 

1:40 Pid kicks in

H2

Start 802 lumens

30 secs 791

1:30 791

3:00 786 lumens
Just a short run with no fan not touching it.

Max Candela measured at 5m calculated back to 1m = 11800cd 

All my numbers are relevent to and compared back to back with Zebralight SC600 750 lumen Thrunite TN32 1702 lumen Fenix TK75 2900 lumen models.

I am not to sure of what to make of this, it is massively powerful and have triple checked these figures and using a different cell Efest 30a 2100 high drain. 

This one has a much more defined hotspot than the old one and the tint more neutral. The xhp 35 led is tiny and looks to have a similar size die to an xml. 
What a little bruiser.


----------



## recDNA (Feb 5, 2016)

For 180 seconds then comparable to old model?


----------



## GeoBruin (Feb 5, 2016)

Yeah that seems strange. I thought the PID would slowly ramp it down. From your numbers it looks more like a step down timer would behave. Unless your formatting is just confusing? For the last measurement did you just not provide the lumens for H1 and instead only quoted H2?


----------



## swan (Feb 6, 2016)

GeoBruin said:


> Yeah that seems strange. I thought the PID would slowly ramp it down. From your numbers it looks more like a step down timer would behave. Unless your formatting is just confusing? For the last measurement did you just not provide the lumens for H1 and instead only quoted H2?



Yes when i saved it the format closed up. I have changed it , hope that makes more sense.
I did a longer run on h1 with a fan in the led flashlight section.


----------



## recDNA (Feb 6, 2016)

swan said:


> Yes when i saved it the format closed up. I have changed it , hope that makes more sense.
> I did a longer run on h1 with a fan in the led flashlight section.


I like these measurements sjnce I hardly ever walk around with an electric fan! There is no way to draw a lot of amps without producing heat. If battery voltage were low heat would be even greater.

I hope they eventually make a model with XP-L HI and dump the high voltage circuit.


----------



## scs (Feb 6, 2016)

recDNA said:


> I like these measurements sjnce I hardly ever walk around with an electric fan! There is no way to draw a lot of amps without producing heat. If battery voltage were low heat would be even greater.
> 
> I hope they eventually make a model with XP-L HI and dump the high voltage circuit.



measurements of max draw on max output when cell is low but can still power it is needed ...


----------



## light-wolff (Feb 7, 2016)

Tachead said:


> Good post. I look forward to your findings.





snowlover91 said:


> How comparable are your runtimes on the MK3 to what's advertised and to your MK2?


MKIII on H1 until automatic stepdown to M, watercooled, i.e. no PID kicking in.
I've been running altogether 6 runtime tests with NCR8650GA on H1:
original tailcap: 35:17, 31:54, 36:28
with SC62 tailcap: 44:30, 45:16, 44:04
The main point here is consistency. With the original tailcap the results are less consistent which I translate to less reliable contact. I have never seen such huge deviations between repeated measurements on a ZL before. I always perform each measurement twice at least, and repeat if they don't match.
Notably, after the premature step-down (31:54) the cell voltage was higher, i.e. more charge still left in cell.

You asked for MKII runtimes:

Zebralight SC600w Mk II L2H1 1020lmH2 620lmH2 330lmLG ICR18650D1 3000mAh 4.35V0:53:19 (3,66V)1:37:30 (3,65V)4:44:10 (3,55VSoshine 3400mAh PCB0:54:38 (3,34V)1:36:20 (3,35V)5:07:41 (3,20V)Keeppower 3600mAh PCB (NCR G cell)0:59:13 (3,34V)1:44:14 (3,25V)5:23:51 (2,96V)SDI ICR18650-32A 3200mAh 4.35V0:59:13 (3,46V)1:47:43 (3,40V)5:26:45LG ICR18650E1 3200mAh 4.35V0:54:39 (3,64V)1:42:34 (3,57V)5:03:14 (3,32V)
time in h:m:s until stepdown, cell resting voltage 1 minute later. This data is 2 years old, originally posted here.



swan said:


> To say that the spring tailcap gives more run time likely proves that the higher resistance wont allow it to discharge as a quick as the pogopins indicating it cant deliver amps as efficiently.


This is a regulated light, not some dumb direct drive. Fully regulated lights pull more current when voltage gets lower. 
The ZL steps down when voltage gets below a certain limit. With higher contact resistances, this limit is reached earlier due to the added sag. But the MKIII is apparently not fully regulated, so you have a point there.



swan said:


> This test is only relevent if you put the light on a integrated light sphere or similar to ensure it is as bright on both tailcaps.


True. Someone should test this, with watercooling to get repeatable results. 



snowlover91 said:


> Hmmm interesting thought. Maybe someone who has both models can switch tail caps and test output and runtime as well to see the results.


I second that. I can't measure output.



swan said:


> Hey psychbeat- i just got the shipping notice for the mk 111 to be delivered today- i will test it for output/lux and try the older sc600 tailcap and i will report back later today.


Have you tried this yet?


----------



## gunga (Feb 7, 2016)

Wow. Very interesting data. Do you have more theries about the results?


----------



## snowlover91 (Feb 7, 2016)

Thanks for the data there Wolff. I'm hoping soon someone who has both lights can test the output and that way we can definitively know if the spring tailcap is reduced output with longer runtime or just more efficient. Thanks for sharing all your results!


----------



## Tachead (Feb 8, 2016)

light-wolff said:


> MKIII on H1 until automatic stepdown to M, watercooled, i.e. no PID kicking in.
> I've been running altogether 6 runtime tests with NCR8650GA on H1:
> original tailcap: 35:17, 31:54, 36:28
> with SC62 tailcap: 44:30, 45:16, 44:04
> ...



Thanks for the data light-wolff:thumbsup:


----------



## Tachead (Feb 8, 2016)

I find the higher inconsistency with the pogo pin tail cap interesting. That indicates to me that it provides a less reliable contact as well. I look forward to some output measurements to go along with this data. 

Another thing to consider with this new pogo pin design is possible wear on the pins and how that might further effect contact reliability over time(especially with their short throw and the tight tolerances of this design). As you thread the tail cap closed they are abrading against the steel negative terminal of the cell. The pins furthest out towards the knurling will see the most wear due to them dragging further then the inner pins.


----------



## snowlover91 (Feb 8, 2016)

Tachead said:


> I find the higher inconsistency with the pogo pin tail cap interesting. That indicates to me that it provides a less reliable contact as well. I look forward to some output measurements to go along with this data.
> 
> Another thing to consider with this new pogo pin design is possible wear on the pins and how that might further effect contact reliability over time(especially with their short throw and the tight tolerances of this design). As you thread the tail cap closed they are abrading against the steel negative terminal of the cell. The pins furthest out towards the knurling will see the most wear due to them dragging further then the inner pins.



Yes it will be interesting to see the results if someone can test this with both tailcaps and something to measure output! 

No wear whatsoever on my SC5 after a year of use, pogo pins work just as good as the day I bought it and the nice thing is the battery terminal doesn't get scratched up like springs do :thumbsup:


----------



## KeepingItLight (Feb 8, 2016)

There are a lot of nice posts here. Thanks to Wolff and swan for generating and sharing some actual data. 

As I see it, there are two possible explanations why ZebraLight changed to pogo pins. The first is the one ZebraLight described at reddit and also in email exchanges with snowlover91. The pogo pins are one of the ways the new driver obtains its efficiency. The other explanation is a conjecture that has been offered by some posters at CPF. It is that ZebraLight switched to pogo pins only because they are a tiny bit shorter than a spring. Under this theory, the pogo pins offer no advantages for the new driver. 

My belief is that no one cares very much about the pogo pins. No one complained, for instance, when the *ZebraLight SC5* was released with pogo pins. The only reason they are an issue now is because of the unprotected battery used by flashlights with the new driver. Some of the folks who have decided that they must pass up a flashlight that requires an unprotected battery are trying to convince themselves that there is no engineering reason for the requirement. 



_If the *ZebraLight SC600 Mk. III* accepted a protected battery, I believe none of the people who have argued that pogo pins are inferior would ever have “discovered” this “fact.”_


Something I read recently struck a chord with me. As flashlights have gained in power and amperage, their springs have not kept pace. That's why so many modders bypass flashlights springs. What we need, said this writer, is a basic redesign of the springs. ZebraLight has answered this challenge. Pogo pins are the design it came up with.

Note, by the way, that a spring-bypass is a labor intensive procedure that can only be carried out by hand. I watched recently as a friend bypassed the springs on a *BLF Special Edition A6*, so I have witnessed the operation. (My job in this two-person effort was to provide the beer.)

The *BLF Kronos X6/X5* flashlights, and the *CPFItalia Cometa* flashlight, use a different design. Those lights have a double-spring. They have a small spring inside the larger, regular spring. That is something that lends itself to mass production. And it does provide a lessening of electrical resistance. Unfortunately, at least in these flashlights, testers report that a double-spring does not reduce resistance as much as a spring-bypass. Even with a double-spring, these modders are adding a spring-bypass to get maximum performance.

@Wolff: when you reviewed my arguments that pogo pins ought to have lower electrical resistance than the original ZebraLight spring, you seemed to be playing devil's advocate. On a point-by-point basis, you described circumstances where there could be exceptions to what I was saying. Reading in between the lines, however, I got the sense that, on balance, you might agree that pogo pins (as implemented by ZebraLight) have reduced resistance compared to its spring. Is that a fair characterization of what you were saying? I apologize if I have misunderstood.


----------



## Tachead (Feb 8, 2016)

snowlover91 said:


> Yes it will be interesting to see the results if someone can test this with both tailcaps and something to measure output!
> 
> No wear whatsoever on my SC5 after a year of use, pogo pins work just as good as the day I bought it and the nice thing is the battery terminal doesn't get scratched up like springs do :thumbsup:



Did you mic the pins before and after the year? How many battery changes? The lack of scratches just shows how much lower the contact pressure is. While that might help with the wear, it could also potentially be the cause of the lower contact reliability/consistency. Scratches on the battery terminal are not a bad thing, they keep the contact points clean ensuring low resistance and a reliable connection. That's why you wire brush car battery terminals as part of proper battery maintenance.


----------



## chillinn (Feb 8, 2016)

As I have said in other posts in other threads, I fail to see the benefit of a Li-ion cell protection circuit to the user, but it is a benefit to the cell. What I am seeing is that this circuit seems to give otherwise knowledgable users a false sense of security. The response I get back is that most cell fires happen on the charger, yet I am unaware of any Li-ion cell charging fires, other than those rarely reported in the media of a phone or laptop catching fire, or vaper that managed to dead short their cell or acquired a cell of low quality. How many long time Li-ion cell users in this thread have had their charger catch fire? My guess, after cumulatively thousands and thousands of hours of use and charging, exactly none. 

I think maybe over time, Li-ion cell manufacturers have streamlined their processes and the risks of a bad cell in a batch is steadily being reduced. I think maybe over time, cell charger manufacturers have done the same, reducing the risk of a bad charger. I think maybe over time, Li-ion cell users have not advanced even a little, and are just as careless as they always were and always will be (present company excluded). 

A false sense of security is worse than no sense of security, and no security. I just can't seem to comprehend what it is exactly that users adamant about Li-ion cell protection circuits think they are being protected from, other than if they obsess about their cells, in which case, their obsession is a far better security device than any Li-ion cell protection circuit.

I want to understand, and it has been explained over and over, and I just don't see that circuit doing anything, except helping prevent the user from destroying the cell through carelessness. Careless users would not care about the protection circuit, so if you care about it, it is likely that you don't need it. Your care is superior to that protection circuit.

--
Additionally, no one has mentioned that the springs themselves, whether pogo or fullsized, do in fact have a safety value, in that when they collapse, the circuit is broken. This sounds like a viable, realistic security device that is superior to the ordinary in-cell circuit protection,


----------



## snowlover91 (Feb 8, 2016)

Tachead said:


> Did you mic the pins before and after the year? How many battery changes? The lack of scratches just shows how much lower the contact pressure is. While that might help with the wear, it could also potentially be the cause of the lower contact reliability/consistency. Scratches on the battery terminal are not a bad thing, they keep the contact points clean ensuring low resistance and a reliable connection. That's why you wire brush car battery terminals as part of proper battery maintenance.



I think it would be good for you to actually own one of the Zebralights with pogo pins. You can only speculate how they work, I have personal experience with them which makes a big difference. The reason they don't scratch the battery terminal is because often times the tip of a spring is a little rough or jagged while on the pogo pins the discs are smooth so they're not going to scratch it. It's not due to lower contact pressure or reliability. I have no idea how many battery changes I've done but it's a good amount and many on here also have had similar experience and no issues with the pogo pins. I don't think anyone is going to be taking a wire brush to their 18650 batteries, the covering on the bottom is pretty thin and that would wear them out quickly. If you purchase a Zebralight with pogo pins you'll understand a little better why many users actually prefer them over springs. No one complained about them when the SC5 was released and the only reason they're being criticized now is because it makes it so users can't use protected cells, like KeepingItLight mentioned.


----------



## ChrisGarrett (Feb 8, 2016)

KeepingItLight said:


> The *BLF Kronos X6/X5* flashlights, and the *CPFItalia Cometa* flashlight, use a different design. Those lights have a double-spring. They have a small spring inside the larger, regular spring. That is something that lends itself to mass production. And it does provide a lessening of electrical resistance. Unfortunately, at least in these flashlights, testers report that a double-spring does not reduce resistance as much as a spring-bypass. Even with a double-spring, these modders are adding a spring-bypass to get maximum performance.



I just bought a NiteCore HC50 headlight with a XM-L2 U2 emitter from an authorized NiteCore dealer (only see the U2 vs. T6 on FastTech) and its tailcap comes with a double spring, whereas the XM-L2 T6 (565LM vs. 760LM) has only a single spring.

When I first noticed it, I thought 'cool...I'm now Tier 1.'

My modified SupFire M6 from Richard at ME, has the braided bypass wires added to all four springs and that light pulls about 7.7A at the tail.

Chris


----------



## Tachead (Feb 8, 2016)

snowlover91 said:


> I think it would be good for you to actually own one of the Zebralights with pogo pins. You can only speculate how they work, I have personal experience with them which makes a big difference. The reason they don't scratch the battery terminal is because often times the tip of a spring is a little rough or jagged while on the pogo pins the discs are smooth so they're not going to scratch it. It's not due to lower contact pressure or reliability. I have no idea how many battery changes I've done but it's a good amount and many on here also have had similar experience and no issues with the pogo pins. I don't think anyone is going to be taking a wire brush to their 18650 batteries, the covering on the bottom is pretty thin and that would wear them out quickly. If you purchase a Zebralight with pogo pins you'll understand a little better why many users actually prefer them over springs. No one complained about them when the SC5 was released and the only reason they're being criticized now is because it makes it so users can't use protected cells, like KeepingItLight mentioned.



I dont need to own one to know how they work man. They're not a new invention nor rocket science. You should probably know that I have years of professional mechanical experience and have taken college courses in aerospace manufacturing, physics, metallurgy, aviation technology, and electrical engineering. While I have nowhere near the engineering prowess of Zebralight's designers I have a good understanding of designs, both mechanical and electrical. Not all springs have a rough or jagged edge and they still scuff/scratch due to the higher contact pressure and rounded surface on the spring wire. Pogo pins use little tiny springs inside a cylindrical sleeve verses a large spring/springs. You guys think they are some revolutionary invention and do something different then a spring when they are basically just like using a bunch of small short throw springs verses a large one. They are are in a brass/copper sleeve/piston that's the only difference. There is probably some extra electrical pathway due to the piston walls making contact but, that will lower when they wear and stretch and probably doesnt make full contact from the get go anyway. I would rather see a spring bypass or duel spring design myself as apposed to this design if lower resistance is even needed on a design that only pulls a max 4.8amps. At least then you still have the higher contact pressure, self cleaning contacts, and added shock resistance of the duel spring design. And, a spring bypass is not near as labor intensive as KeepingItLight makes it out to be. It is basically just soldering a wire between the tailcap and spring tip. It takes a mere few minutes for even an amateur solderer. Not to mention who cares how labor intensive it is as it would come from the factory already done. There is also a number of other designs that could have achieved lower contact resistance as well. I was talking about car battery terminals as a reference and why it is important to keep battery terminal/contacts clean. Keeping battery terminals/contacts clean lowers resistance and using a brass brush is not going to do any wear to the much harder steel negative terminal anyway. Corrosion forms naturally on all contact surfaces and keeping them clean is essential to maintaining low resistance. The scuffing/scratching you see on a battery that has been in a light with a spring contact is a good thing as it is self cleaning the contacts and keeping the resistance as low as possible. There you go putting words into peoples mouths again and using your personal assumptions as fact. How do you know "many" users prefer them? How many verses not? This must be the same way you know what testing equipment and procedures ZL uses to design thier lights(telempathy?). It has nothing to do with protected cells for me. Again with the assumptions:shakehead. I have said many times that I have no issue using bare cells. You should really try to be more objective man. You seem to just think that whatever Zebralight does must automatically be the best possible design option and that there is no way any other way could be better. Zebralight is not the supreme master of electrical designs. They are a small niche flashlight company that has only been around for a handful of years. They still make decisions based on many things to stay in business just like any other company. Marketing, profit margins, ease of manufacture, lowering warranty claims and many other factors determine their design decisions as well. 

Lets just wait and see what further testing shows. So far it is indicating that the pogo pins offer a less reliable contact vs the old spring design even if they are lower resistance(not yet proven). And, they definitely offer less shock resistance and lack the efficient self cleaning contact design of the old spring system.


----------



## nbp (Feb 8, 2016)

I'm pretty sure I know what is happening here. It's really quite simple. Tachead's one man crusade against this new tailcap design stems from his considerable investement in one of the premier spring manufacturing companies in the world! Every spring discarded in favor of a new style contact point in a flashlight is money out of his pocket! This trend, should it continue, will undoubtedly be his undoing.  hehe


----------



## Tachead (Feb 8, 2016)

nbp said:


> I'm pretty sure I know what is happening here. It's really quite simple. Tachead's one man crusade against this new tailcap design stems from his considerable investement in one of the premier spring manufacturing companies in the world! Every spring discarded in favor of a new style contact point in a flashlight is money out of his pocket! This trend, should it continue, will undoubtedly be his undoing.  hehe



Bahaha damn it, you are on to my hidden motive

But, wait the pogo pins have springs in them so maybe this design is better:thinking:


----------



## scs (Feb 8, 2016)

Tachead has merely been arguing his point that ZL made the change NOT for the reason echoed by those here who are in favor of the pogo pins. The pogo pins restrict cell length AND they MIGHT NOT even be better than the original spring; even if the driving reason behind the change is to reduce resistance, Tachead believes there are still other ways without restricting the cell length. THAT's what's making him tick. Let's wait for test results to come back, should there be any, and then draw conclusions then. If Tachead is right all along, I hope folks give credit where credit is due. If he's wrong, I hope he owns up to his false assumptions.

Tachead, please consider not constantly trying to get the others to see your points and acknowledge your arguments. Just sit tight and wait. The truth will be revealed.


----------



## sidecross (Feb 8, 2016)

"You should probably know that I have years of professional mechanical experience and have taken college courses in..."

When people on a forum start writing like this is when I tune them out. :wave:

An opinion is nothing more than an opinion, and on a forum like this one, parading self described qualifications is usually a sign of a poor argument.


----------



## nbp (Feb 8, 2016)

scs said:


> Tachead, please consider not constantly trying to get the others to see your points and acknowledge your arguments. Just sit tight and wait. The truth will be revealed.



Well said. I think Tac's point has been explained several times and is probably understood by anyone interested in the topic who has been following these threads. Until there is new info presented, why not just take a deep breath and relax a bit. It'll be good for everyone's blood pressure. Haha


----------



## psychbeat (Feb 8, 2016)

nbp said:


> I'm pretty sure I know what is happening here. It's really quite simple. Tachead's one man crusade against this new tailcap design stems from his considerable investement in one of the premier spring manufacturing companies in the world! Every spring discarded in favor of a new style contact point in a flashlight is money out of his pocket! This trend, should it continue, will undoubtedly be his undoing.  hehe


----------



## Tachead (Feb 8, 2016)

scs said:


> Tachead has merely been arguing his point that ZL made the change NOT for the reason echoed by those here who are in favor of the pogo pins. *The pogo pins restrict cell length AND they MIGHT NOT even be better than the original spring; even if the driving reason behind the change is to reduce resistance,* *Tachead believes there are still other ways without restricting the cell length.* THAT's what's making him tick. Let's wait for test results to come back, should there be any, and then draw conclusions then. If Tachead is right all along, I hope folks give credit where credit is due. If he's wrong, I hope he owns up to his false assumptions.
> 
> Tachead, please consider not constantly trying to get the others to see your points and acknowledge your arguments. Just sit tight and wait. The truth will be revealed.



Its not just that, I dont like the other sacrifices that this design has made(higher contact pressure, better shock resistance, self cleaning contact effect of the old springs, firmer cell retention which may decrease chance of cell movement and increase reliability in some conditions). I also worry about the reliability of an unproven design and believe why fix it if its not broken.

Even if testing does show the design has lower resistance that doesnt change the other points I have made. And, doesnt mean that another design couldnt have achieved the same or better resistance without making so many concessions/sacrifices. 

I do look forward to further testing and results on the resistance and contact reliability issues however. So far the preliminary testing Light-Wolff has done is indication lower contact reliability due to the higher runtime variance.


----------



## scs (Feb 8, 2016)

Tachead said:


> Its not just that, I dont like the other sacrifices that this design has made(higher contact pressure, better shock resistance, self cleaning contact effect of the old springs, firmer cell retention which may decrease chance of cell movement and increase reliability in some conditions). I also worry about the reliability of an unproven design and believe why fix it if its not broken.
> 
> Even if testing does show the design has lower resistance that doesnt change the other points I have made. And, doesnt mean that another design couldnt have achieved the same or better resistance without making so many concessions/sacrifices.
> 
> I do look forward to further testing and results on the resistance and contact reliability issues however. So far the preliminary testing Light-Wolff has done is indication lower contact reliability due to the higher runtime variance.



Understood and acknowledged.


----------



## Tachead (Feb 8, 2016)

sidecross said:


> "You should probably know that I have years of professional mechanical experience and have taken college courses in..."
> 
> When people on a forum start writing like this is when I tune them out. :wave:
> 
> ...


----------



## markr6 (Feb 8, 2016)

Tachead said:


> Its not just that, I dont like the other sacrifices that this design has made(higher contact pressure, better shock resistance, self cleaning contact effect of the old springs, firmer cell retention which may decrease chance of cell movement and increase reliability in some conditions). I also worry about the reliability of an unproven design and believe why fix it if its not broken.



I think I'm on your side here. I wish they didn't change it. But I will steer clear of any further discussion until I receive my SC63w. I wasn't 100% sold on my SC600 MK III, so this will be a second chance for the new design for me.


----------



## Tachead (Feb 8, 2016)

Also, its not all opinion, some of the sacrifices I have listed are facts. Whether or not they will effect the use of the light for all users doesnt change that.


----------



## scs (Feb 8, 2016)

sidecross said:


> "You should probably know that I have years of professional mechanical experience and have taken college courses in..."
> 
> When people on a forum start writing like this is when I tune them out. :wave:
> 
> An opinion is nothing more than an opinion, and on a forum like this one, parading self described qualifications is usually a sign of a poor argument.



It's understandable that Tachead feels the need to clarify that, because not too many post ago, someone dismissed him and called him a newb.
We're not playing FPS multiplayer here. Calling out someone a newb on this forum, in my view, is a put-down, and pretty rude.


----------



## Tachead (Feb 8, 2016)

markr6 said:


> I think I'm on your side here. I wish they didn't change it. But I will steer clear of any further discussion until I receive my SC63w. I wasn't 100% sold on my SC600 MK III, so this will be a second chance for the new design for me.



I will probably end up trying one as well(probably the SC600Fd III Plus) because I still love Zebralight and many of their features and options. Just because I dont like this new change doesnt mean that I am done with the company or dont think they make some great lights. In fact, am am so happy with my H600Fd MKIII that I am going to order the "c" version as well for when I need a warmer temp and for backup in case of an issue/failure in the remote locations that I often use my headlamp.


----------



## nbp (Feb 8, 2016)

The good thing is this: all of us have been given an incredible brain, with which we can take in facts, reason on them, and make an informed decision. So why not let people do that? Present your case and then step back and let people do as they wish and report back with results. Badgering people almost never changes their mind and brings them over to your side. In fact, it usually only roots them more firmly in their opinion. No one likes admitting they were wrong, so when attacked they will usually dig in their heels all the moreso to defend their view. The result of which, in this instance, is a terribly uninteresting thread with lots of "nuh-uhs!" And "yah-huhs!"


----------



## Tachead (Feb 8, 2016)

scs said:


> It's understandable that Tachead feels the need to clarify that, because not too many post ago, someone dismissed him and called him a newb.
> We're not playing FPS multiplayer here. Calling out someone a newb on this forum, in my view, is a put-down, and pretty rude.



Thanks for this post:thumbsup:. I did take offense to that newb comment and I agree that although it can seem like one is tooting their own horn, it is often necessary to let others know qualifications/experience so they know where the view/opinion is coming from. For those that didnt read my reply to that "rude" comment, I have been into LED flashlights since the Luxeon 3 days and incans for over 25 years so I dont consider myself a newb. I just recently decided to join flashlight forums after reading for years on them because I like to help others, like to be able to get help from others, and get bored in the winter sometimes lol. Sorry if I sometimes get overzealous with my opinions/view points guys


----------



## snowlover91 (Feb 8, 2016)

Tac, my point about the pogo pins was similar to KeepingItLight in that no one brought it up as an issue when the SC5 was introduced. I have yet to see any posts from the SC5 commenting on contact issues, reliability concerns or any other issues related to the pogo pins. While I'm sure you are far more qualified than I am in these issues my point is simply that in the 1 year or so the SC5 has been out I've yet to see any issues here on CPF or elsewhere due to the pogo pin design. I'm not saying that ZL is infallible or always makes the right decisions but merely pointing out that the new design has proven perfectly fine in their SC5 series. If there were issues because of the pogo pins I would assume we would have seen at least one or two pop up in the past year. My experience along with those here on the forum has been positive with the new design on the SC5 lights. The pogo pins give plenty of contact pressure in both my SC5 series lights as well, I have absolutely no battery rattle or contact issues. If implemented correctly it works well, we don't know yet how it will perform in the SC63 series so that's still an unknown. 

Also the results so far only prove that the pogo pin tail cap gives shorter run times than the spring style, we still don't know why. It very well could be due to less resistance in the spring but it also could be that the pogo pins work better, we simply don't have enough data yet to make any definitive conclusions. Hopefully we have someone soon who can measure output with a light box and use a spring tail cap to compare the results. Until then it's still unclear what caused the shorter runtime.

Also I must add that I'm impressed they're getting 1600+ lumens from the CW MK3 as tested by swan. Whether that's due to the new circuit design, pogo pins, or both its a new standard for single cell 18650 lights.


----------



## sidecross (Feb 8, 2016)

scs said:


> It's understandable that Tachead feels the need to clarify that, because not too many post ago, someone dismissed him and called him a newb.
> We're not playing FPS multiplayer here. Calling out someone a newb on this forum, in my view, is a put-down, and pretty rude.


Being a player on any new frontier takes an ability to take disagreement and it some times it may be rude or condescending. 

Albert Einstein or Charles Darwin were not first met with applause and gratitude with their new thinking.

The discussion here about 'pogo pins' and 'springs' is in the scheme of things rather mundane. If any adjustment in design is necessary, in time it will come out from either people on forums like this one or Zebralight itself. :thumbsup:


----------



## Tachead (Feb 8, 2016)

snowlover91 said:


> Tac, my point about the pogo pins was similar to KeepingItLight in that no one brought it up as an issue when the SC5 was introduced. I have yet to see any posts from the SC5 commenting on contact issues, reliability concerns or any other issues related to the pogo pins. While I'm sure you are far more qualified than I am in these issues my point is simply that in the 1 year or so the SC5 has been out I've yet to see any issues here on CPF or elsewhere due to the pogo pin design. I'm not saying that ZL is infallible or always makes the right decisions but merely pointing out that the new design has proven perfectly fine in their SC5 series. If there were issues because of the pogo pins I would assume we would have seen at least one or two pop up in the past year. My experience along with those here on the forum has been positive with the new design on the SC5 lights. The pogo pins give plenty of contact pressure in both my SC5 series lights as well, I have absolutely no battery rattle or contact issues. If implemented correctly it works well, we don't know yet how it will perform in the SC63 series so that's still an unknown.
> 
> Also the results so far only prove that the pogo pin tail cap gives shorter run times than the spring style, we still don't know why. It very well could be due to less resistance in the spring but it also could be that the pogo pins work better, we simply don't have enough data yet to make any definitive conclusions. Hopefully we have someone soon who can measure output with a light box and use a spring tail cap to compare the results. Until then it's still unclear what caused the shorter runtime.
> 
> Also I must add that I'm impressed they're getting 1600+ lumens from the CW MK3 as tested by swan. Whether that's due to the new circuit design, pogo pins, or both its a new standard for single cell 18650 lights.



I will say that I have never had any interest in the SC5(AA/14500 lights dont do it for me and I have always liked CR123s/RCR123/16340/18350/and now 18650 better). I also only read on here in the winter when I am bored and flashlights are far down on my favorite hobbies list so, that's why I personally never brought up the issue about the pogo pins before. I didnt even know the SC5 had pogo pins until very recently. There are no issues with your personal use but that doesnt mean that some of the sacrifices this design has made dont exist and arent a problem for others. 

While the resistance/runtime efficiency comparisons are far from proven or conclusive so far, you are leaving out the runtime consistencies/variances. The pogo pin tail cap tests shows a much larger variance in runtimes when compared to the old spring design. That indicates a less reliable contact. Do we need more testing to be sure, yes but, that's why myself and others are using the word "indicate" instead of proves. Another thing to consider when talking about runtime efficiency is that not everyone cares about small gains in runtime when these lights already have such great efficiency. And, not everyone would chose to except the sacrifices of this design for a couple of minutes more runtime, if given a choice, even if the pogo pins prove to be more efficient. 

I am impressed as well. Zebralight does have some great designs and makes some of the most efficient drivers in the industry. I look forward to these and their future offerings.

Now, lets give it a rest for now and wait for some more testing. No matter what the results prove or what our individual opinions on the battery compartment/contact design are though, these new lights are proving to be a step forward in output and driver designs and all with ZL's usually great fit and finish, features, and options to boot.


----------



## swan (Feb 8, 2016)

snowlover91 said:


> Tac, my point about the pogo pins was similar to KeepingItLight in that no one brought it up as an issue when the SC5 was introduced. I have yet to see any posts from the SC5 commenting on contact issues, reliability concerns or any other issues related to the pogo pins. While I'm sure you are far more qualified than I am in these issues my point is simply that in the 1 year or so the SC5 has been out I've yet to see any issues here on CPF or elsewhere due to the pogo pin design. I'm not saying that ZL is infallible or always makes the right decisions but merely pointing out that the new design has proven perfectly fine in their SC5 series. If there were issues because of the pogo pins I would assume we would have seen at least one or two pop up in the past year. My experience along with those here on the forum has been positive with the new design on the SC5 lights. The pogo pins give plenty of contact pressure in both my SC5 series lights as well, I have absolutely no battery rattle or contact issues. If implemented correctly it works well, we don't know yet how it will perform in the SC63 series so that's still an unknown.
> 
> Also the results so far only prove that the pogo pin tail cap gives shorter run times than the spring style, we still don't know why. It very well could be due to less resistance in the spring but it also could be that the pogo pins work better, we simply don't have enough data yet to make any definitive conclusions. Hopefully we have someone soon who can measure output with a light box and use a spring tail cap to compare the results. Until then it's still unclear what caused the shorter runtime.
> 
> Also I must add that I'm impressed they're getting 1600+ lumens from the CW MK3 as tested by swan. Whether that's due to the new circuit design, pogo pins, or both its a new standard for single cell 18650 lights.



Yes- i have not heard single issue with the SC5 and as KIL and yourself point out, we would of.

It is funny how some people rush to judgement, make assumptions or perceive a problem solely based on one single example. Only with time and real examples we will discover if there is any issue at all.

The mk111 cw emits a giant wall of light the likes of which i have never seen in a single cell light and i keep shaking my head every time i crank it up.


----------



## sidecross (Feb 8, 2016)

swan said:


> Yes- i have not heard single issue with the SC5 and as KIL and yourself point out, we would of.
> 
> It is funny how some people rush to judgement, make assumptions or perceive a problem solely based on one single example. Only with time and real examples we will discover if there is any issue at all.
> 
> The mk111 cw emits a giant wall of light the likes of which i have never seen in a single cell light and i keep shaking my head every time i crank it up.


The reason I ordered the SC600 Mklll on 1/7/16 is beacuse of its size and what seems to be outstanding performance.

If there is a problem, I am sure a resolution will be fourth coming either from Zebralight or some entrepreneur.

Because today is the start of the Chinese New Year I expect a delay in shipment and hope any flaws of the initial release has been corrected. :thumbsup:


----------



## chillinn (Feb 8, 2016)

Tachead said:


> sidecross said:
> 
> 
> > "You should probably know that I have years of professional mechanical experience and have taken college courses in..."
> ...



Tachead, I like your posts. Especially now that ForrestChump has retired, you're giving me my fix. I like your argument, even if I am personally still on the fence about the ZL spring issue. I like dissent and argument, and believe that finer accuracy and better knowledge comes from dissent and argument and it does not and can not come from a room full of people agreeing with each other. 

That said, I believe sidecross has a nose for logical fallacy without necessarily being fully aware of the logical implications, and that fallacy is _argumentum ad verecundiam_, commonly known as argument from authority. It is not always utilized as fallacy, but your argument will be stronger if you can find other ways to make it without appealing to authority. I studied years of logic, from syllogistic, to model, symbolic, and computational and everything in between, and I have read every Sherlock Holmes novel and thus have mastered deductive and inductive reasoning, so I really know what I'm talking about... oops. ok, see what I did there? ;-)

For the love of knowledge, please carry on, and don't beat me up too much for my annoying pedantry.


----------



## snowlover91 (Feb 8, 2016)

Tachead said:


> I will say that I have never had any interest in the SC5(AA/14500 lights dont do it for me and I have always liked CR123s/RCR123/16340/18350/and now 18650 better). I also only read on here in the winter when I am bored and flashlights are far down on my favorite hobbies list so, that's why I personally never brought up the issue about the pogo pins before. I didnt even know the SC5 had pogo pins until very recently. *There are no issues with your personal use but that doesnt mean that some of the sacrifices this design has made dont exist and arent a problem for others.*
> 
> While the resistance/runtime efficiency comparisons are far from proven or conclusive so far, you are leaving out the runtime consistencies/variances. The pogo pin tail cap tests shows a much larger variance in runtimes when compared to the old spring design. That indicates a less reliable contact. Do we need more testing to be sure, yes but, that's why myself and others are using the word "indicate" instead of proves. Another thing to consider when talking about runtime efficiency is that not everyone cares about small gains in runtime when these lights already have such great efficiency. And, not everyone would chose to except the sacrifices of this design for a couple of minutes more runtime, if given a choice, even if the pogo pins prove to be more efficient.
> 
> ...



It's not just me its all the members on CPF. There are a good amount of members with this light and I haven't seen a single thread about an issue related to the pogo pins or contact issues. If the "sacrifices of this design" we're the case it would have shown up on CPF by now, yet we are closing in on 1 year later with no issues reported on here. In fact if this new design was causing issues ZL would not have switched the SC63 and MK3 series. This leads me to believe that it has worked quite well for them and their customers since no issues have been reported here on CPF. If there were problems with this design this is the first place I would expect to see it mentioned. 

Also of note the pogo pin design on the SC5 works by screwing on the tailcap. About 1/2 to 3/4 of the way down it begins to contact the pogo pin and the rest of the tightening is snugging them firmly against the battery terminal. The travel in the spring is fully absorbed in this process so that the springs are completely compressed. It gives excellent contact and plenty of pressure, imo. 

The variance in runtime could be due to less contact OR there are other variables that could effect it also. We don't know what caused the difference in runtime, it's only assumed that less reliable contact is the reason. All possibilities must be considered until there is data to prove otherwise. It could be something related to the battery voltage/capacity, ambient temperature or something affecting the PID, etc we just don't know at this time. That's why I wouldn't even say it indicates anything because there are multiple variables which could account for the variance besides the contact issue. I look forward to seeing further testing and results!


----------



## Tachead (Feb 8, 2016)

*Re: Zebralight plans MKIII's and SC63 release for this year*





Originally Posted by *oeL* 

 
light-wolf, do you have a voltmeter that can measure resistance (Ohms)? Would be interesting if there is a difference between the tailcaps.

Sure, even milliohms. Hoewever, it's almost impossible to measure total contact resistance of 4 pogo pins in a reliable way with an ohmmeter.
I can only measure indirectly via runtime, and all I can say is that with the original tailcap the light steps down from H1 to M1 earlier than with an SC62 spring tailcap. And that with the SC62 tailcap there is no flickering in H1 with almost depleted battery. And that with original tailcap and tin foil or thin copper plate to increase pogo pin contact pressure the flicker problem also disappears, while the runtime on H1 increases to the same value as with the SC62 tailcap. All with NCR18650GA. Now go figure... 

*Here is some more data posted courtesy of light-wolff.*​


----------



## snowlover91 (Feb 8, 2016)

Tachead said:


> *Re: Zebralight plans MKIII's and SC63 release for this year*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Some interesting data there but it still doesn't isolate the results to give us a conclusion. In order to make a solid conclusion imo we need someone who can test it in a light box with both tail caps and then provide results. Adding tin foil or a copper plate only adds another variable to the equation. Not to discount the results as the data is certainly interesting but we don't know what effect the tin foil or copper has. It may increase or decrease resistance, affect the current draw, etc and it doesn't isolate the main two designs in question. Is there anyone who has an MK3 and SC62 or MK2 who can also test in a light box? Anyone? When I receive mine I have a rudimentary way to test them but it'll be a few weeks before I receive mine.


----------



## Tachead (Feb 9, 2016)

snowlover91 said:


> Some interesting data there but it still doesn't isolate the results to give us a conclusion. In order to make a solid conclusion imo we need someone who can test it in a light box with both tail caps and then provide results. Adding tin foil or a copper plate only adds another variable to the equation. Not to discount the results as the data is certainly interesting but we don't know what effect the tin foil or copper has. It may increase or decrease resistance, affect the current draw, etc and it doesn't isolate the main two designs in question. Is there anyone who has an MK3 and SC62 or MK2 who can also test in a light box? Anyone? When I receive mine I have a rudimentary way to test them but it'll be a few weeks before I receive mine.



No one said it gave us a conclusion, just that it is more data. But, the data does strengthen the hypothesis that the lower contact pressure of the pogo pins is effecting contact reliability however. The light box will help us with the efficiency side of this discussion for sure but, what about the contact reliability? Runtime variance aside, how do you explain the flickering with the stock tail cap and lack of flickering when switched to the spring cap? We do know exactly what the tin foil or copper plate does; resistance and runtime aside, it increases contact pressure and stops the flickering. This is only one light(sample)and would have to be tested on more lights and repeated but, if repeated, the fact that with all else being equal the light appears to work better at low battery voltage with a SC62 tail cap is significant. 

Come on snowlover cant you except that at least maybe this new design could be inferior in some ways to the old one or another option? Even if there have been no reported issues with the SC5 wouldnt you feel better about having higher shock resistance and contact pressure, just to use a couple of examples, if you still got the same runtime and efficiency? No matter how many valid points are brought up or how much new data is introduced you just dont seem to want to accept there may be concessions with this new design and cling to "their have been no issues or ZL said they did it for this reason" I really think you should try and be more objective. Might I suggest you look up the term "post purchase rationalization" and really think about it.


----------



## ChrisGarrett (Feb 9, 2016)

Tachead said:


> No one said it gave us a conclusion, just that it is more data. But, the data does strengthen the hypothesis that the lower contact pressure of the pogo pins is effecting contact reliability however. The light box will help us with the efficiency side of this discussion for sure but, what about the contact reliability? Runtime variance aside, how do you explain the flickering with the stock tail cap and lack of flickering when switched to the spring cap? We do know exactly what the tin foil or copper plate does; resistance and runtime aside, it increases contact pressure and stops the flickering. This is only one light(sample)and would have to be tested on more lights and repeated but, if repeated, the fact that with all else being equal the light appears to work better at low battery voltage with a SC62 tail cap is significant.
> 
> Come on snowlover cant you except that at least maybe this new design could be inferior in some ways to the old one or another option? Even if there have been no reported issues with the SC5 wouldnt you feel better about having higher shock resistance and contact pressure, just to use a couple of examples, if you still got the same runtime and efficiency? No matter how many valid points are brought up or how much new data is introduced you just dont seem to want to accept there may be concessions with this new design and cling to "their have been no issues or ZL said they did it for this reason" I really think you should try and be more objective. Might I suggest you look up the term "post purchase rationalization" and really think about it.



Bud, it's a stupid flashlight, not the 'fountain of youth,' or some new whiz-bang super reactor that's going to save humanity from the oil cartels.

If it works and works better than the previous iteration, then it's a success, no?

It's $95 shipped, buy one and see for yourself. You could probably get all of your money back if you decide you don't like it.

Right now, we're just going through some 'mental masturbation,' right?

Chris


----------



## gunga (Feb 9, 2016)

Sigh. Look Tachead. You might be right. But there is insufficient evidence for a conclusion on either side. You even suggested we all just wait for more conclusive results. So everyone... , no one is changing their mind, no matter how much debate there is. Let's continue to wait for more results. 

It's quite amazing how everyone thinks constant debate/arguing /bickering will suddenly cause a change in opinion. 


I'm sorry. I'm just feeling annoyed by the circular arguments. It's my fault for reading the "argument" thread.


----------



## psychbeat (Feb 9, 2016)

Keep it rolling - I NEEEEEEED to be convinced the new design sux hella bad so I don't ever buy one.


----------



## snowlover91 (Feb 9, 2016)

Tachead said:


> No one said it gave us a conclusion, just that it is more data. But, the data does strengthen the hypothesis that the lower contact pressure of the pogo pins is effecting contact reliability however. The light box will help us with the efficiency side of this discussion for sure but, what about the contact reliability? Runtime variance aside, how do you explain the flickering with the stock tail cap and lack of flickering when switched to the spring cap? We do know exactly what the tin foil or copper plate does; resistance and runtime aside, it increases contact pressure and stops the flickering. This is only one light(sample)and would have to be tested on more lights and repeated but, if repeated, the fact that with all else being equal the light appears to work better at low battery voltage with a SC62 tail cap is significant.
> 
> Come on snowlover cant you except that at least maybe this new design could be inferior in some ways to the old one or another option? Even if there have been no reported issues with the SC5 wouldnt you feel better about having higher shock resistance and contact pressure, just to use a couple of examples, if you still got the same runtime and efficiency? No matter how many valid points are brought up or how much new data is introduced you just dont seem to want to accept there may be concessions with this new design and cling to "their have been no issues or ZL said they did it for this reason" I really think you should try and be more objective. Might I suggest you look up the term "post purchase rationalization" and really think about it.



The flickering could have to do with the circuit requirements and amp draw. Let's just assume for a minute that the pogo pins are in some way better at providing the necessary current needed for the driver to the LED to keep it current regulated. Now let's use some tin foil or copper and put it between the battery terminal and the pogo pins. This would have the potential to lower the ability for the pins to provide the same amount of current which in turn on a depleted battery (where amp draw would be highest) could cause the circuit to struggle to regulate the light at that level. It could also indicate that the light being tested is not within the necessary tolerance (part of the early batch or defective) and is giving these results. As I understand it the pogo pins are coated with gold which if true is a far better electric conductor than either copper or aluminum foil. Imo the aluminum foil and copper doesn't indicate anything at all because another variable was used in the test. Instead of isolating the pogo pins it only put a layer between them and the battery which certainly can affect current draw especially with a depleted battery.

Here are the questions I ask about tests done like this, I think they're fair and quite objectionable and should be looked into if one is going to make assumptions. Until questions like these are answered I think it best not to automatically assume just one explanation and look at all possibilities. 
1) Did the foil/copper in any way affect the current draw? 
2) Did they increase or reduce resistance? Why? How would this affect the results? 
3) If the pogo pins are indeed gold plated then did the aluminum/copper lower the conductivity or increase it? 
4) What other variables may have been present during the test? Temp, air circulation, battery voltage, etc.
5) Was the output more or less? 
6) Why did the foil/copper stop the flickering? What other possible explanations are there? How can I test to eliminate any other variables?
7) Does this flickering on a low battery happen on one level or all of them? 

I'm certainly willing to admit when ZL messes up. If you read my posts for the new SC63 design I mentioned a few times how I'm uncertain about it and not sure if I like it. I'll give it a chance and try it out in person but the smooth/concave middle with ribs at the top and bottom aren't aesthetically pleasing to me. I also ran some tests awhile back to test the moonlight modes of the ZL since there was discussion about the accuracy of their lower level output. The results were highly variable from light to light and not conclusive imo. I'm not one of those people who blindly accepts everything a company says or does. 

Also in regards to the SC5 design I actually prefer it over the spring of the SC62. In my SC62 an unprotected battery will rattle some if I shake it hard while protected do not. Furthermore screwing on the spring tailcap requires a good deal of pressure and you have to align the threads correctly as well. This is further magnified when using protected cells as the fit is even tighter thus compressing the spring even more. On the SC5 the tailcap is buttery smooth since the pogo pins don't contact the battery until about halfway down the threads. This allows me to easily line up the tailcap and screw it on with minimal effort. This one change alone is why I prefer the pogo design versus the spring. As far as shock resistance goes I work in a warehouse where my light gets dropped on concrete floors, banged into objects and used frequently. As far as shock resistance goes my light has held up well in spite of all this. I think the shock resistance is right on par with my SC62w used in similar conditions.


----------



## tops2 (Feb 9, 2016)

Was there a post saying Zebralight had made some modifications to the new pogo based on the feedback about flickering or something? Thought I saw it mentioned in one of the MKIII threads but can't seem to find it.


----------



## psychbeat (Feb 9, 2016)

tops2 said:


> Was there a post saying Zebralight had made some modifications to the new pogo based on the feedback about flickering or something? Thought I saw it mentioned in one of the MKIII threads but can't seem to find it.



Yah - I think some of them weren't to spec or something and there were flickering & cell rattling issues with some of the first batch. 

I'd guess that's what's going on with these measurements (poor contact pressure due to out of tolerance threads or pins) but it's probably just cuz the new design sux real bad and we need MOAR springz


----------



## snowlover91 (Feb 9, 2016)

tops2 said:


> Was there a post saying Zebralight had made some modifications to the new pogo based on the feedback about flickering or something? Thought I saw it mentioned in one of the MKIII threads but can't seem to find it.



I'm not aware of the flickering but they did say the early batch had issues with battery rattle due to the tolerances being off, I'm not sure though if this was related to the pogo pins or the diameter of the battery tube or a combo of both.


----------



## tops2 (Feb 9, 2016)

psychbeat said:


> Yah - I think some of them weren't to spec or something and there were flickering & cell rattling issues with some of the first batch.
> 
> I'd guess that's what's going on with these measurements (poor contact pressure due to out of tolerance threads or pins) but it's probably just cuz the new design sux real bad and we need MOAR springz



Lol.. I'll just stay quiet on that!



snowlover91 said:


> I'm not aware of the flickering but they did say the early batch had issues with battery rattle due to the tolerances being off, I'm not sure though if this was related to the pogo pins or the diameter of the battery tube or a combo of both.



Yeah..so I'm not sure if with the "fixed" tailcaps that the runtime experiments would be different or if it would still be what we see here so far..


----------



## sidecross (Feb 9, 2016)

chillinn said:


> Tachead, I like your posts. Especially now that ForrestChump has retired, you're giving me my fix. I like your argument, even if I am personally still on the fence about the ZL spring issue. I like dissent and argument, and believe that finer accuracy and better knowledge comes from dissent and argument and it does not and can not come from a room full of people agreeing with each other.
> 
> That said, I believe sidecross has a nose for logical fallacy without necessarily being fully aware of the logical implications, and that fallacy is _argumentum ad verecundiam_, commonly known as argument from authority. It is not always utilized as fallacy, but your argument will be stronger if you can find other ways to make it without appealing to authority. I studied years of logic, from syllogistic, to model, symbolic, and computational and everything in between, and I have read every Sherlock Holmes novel and thus have mastered deductive and inductive reasoning, so I really know what I'm talking about... oops. ok, see what I did there? ;-)
> 
> For the love of knowledge, please carry on, and don't beat me up too much for my annoying pedantry.


Kurt Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems. :wave:


----------



## chillinn (Feb 9, 2016)

sidecross said:


> Kurt Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems. :wave:



Kirk always beats Spock at chess. It was illogical to have insinuated your kung fu was not strong.


----------



## sidecross (Feb 9, 2016)

chillinn said:


> Kirk always beats Spock at chess. It was illogical to have insinuated your kung fu was not strong.


Humor always cuts deep. :thumbsup:


----------



## markr6 (Feb 10, 2016)

Zebralight updated the product spreadsheet. SC63/SC63w now says in the notes section:

_*"pogo pin or spring contacts, unprotected only"*

_So, will there be two options? I doubt it. A change back to springs in a newer version?

Correct me if it always said this, but I don't recall seeing this note and believe it's a new note.


----------



## Overclocker (Feb 10, 2016)

markr6 said:


> Zebralight updated the product spreadsheet. SC63/SC63w now says in the notes section:
> 
> _*"pogo pin or spring contacts, unprotected only"*
> 
> ...





well pogo pin IS a spring contact  maybe they were just clarifying


----------



## markr6 (Feb 10, 2016)

Overclocker said:


> well pogo pin IS a spring contact  maybe they were just clarifying



Well, true! But some say "pogo pin contact", and this one says "pogo pin or spring contacts"

Maybe it was there this whole time and they didn't know yet while it was in production, and I just missed this. I can't remember.


----------



## gunga (Feb 10, 2016)

This is new. I clearly remember that NOT being there.


----------



## markr6 (Feb 10, 2016)

gunga said:


> This is new. I clearly remember that NOT being there.



Hmmm, maybe I'm part of the guinea pigs...interested to see what happens here.


----------



## Tachead (Feb 10, 2016)

markr6 said:


> Hmmm, maybe I'm part of the guinea pigs...interested to see what happens here.



Buying from the first batch/batches of any product always makes you a guinea pig/beta tester, not just flashlights. Its always safer to wait until later runs when all the bugs have been worked out. Especially with Zebralight. But, I wouldnt worry because if there is an issue, you can always send it back to Zebralight or your dealer and they will take care of you.


----------



## markr6 (Feb 11, 2016)

Tachead said:


> Buying from the first batch/batches of any product always makes you a guinea pig/beta tester, not just flashlights. Its always safer to wait until later runs when all the bugs have been worked out. Especially with Zebralight. But, I wouldnt worry because if there is an issue, you can always send it back to Zebralight or your dealer and they will take care of you.



I've always had luck over the past few years with a dozen Zebralights, never a failure or major issue. But I think that luck wore off! I'm trying not to get my hopes up for the SC63w.


----------



## snowlover91 (Feb 12, 2016)

So ZL went with a hybrid design of pogo pins and a tailcap spring for the SC63 but kept the pogo pins for the MK3 variants...


----------



## markr6 (Feb 12, 2016)

snowlover91 said:


> So ZL went with a hybrid design of pogo pins and a tailcap spring for the SC63 but kept the pogo pins for the MK3 variants...



I'm liking it! Here's the SC63w pins and springs.


----------



## Tachead (Feb 12, 2016)

Now I wonder if they will go back to duel springs or stick with this design or what going forward. I think this shows that at least for these new offerings, the change wasnt absolutely needed for resistance or efficiency. I wish they just would have left the design alone personally. If its not broke then dont try and fix it. Just include a warning in the instructions to only use a battery capable of 4.8+amps continuous(protected or bare cell) as a minimum and be done with it.


----------



## 18650 (Feb 12, 2016)

markr6 said:


> I'm liking it! Here's the SC63w pins and springs.


 Unfortunate.


----------



## recDNA (Feb 12, 2016)

markr6 said:


> I'm liking it! Here's the SC63w pins and springs.


Only 3 pins? I bet a spring would have less resistance due to greater surface area touching battery. In fact wouldn't a flat plate have less resistance?


----------



## ShineOnYouCrazyDiamond (Feb 12, 2016)

recDNA said:


> Only 3 pins? I bet a spring would have less resistance due to greater surface area touching battery. In fact wouldn't a flat plate have less resistance?



Really - are you so sure about that? What do you base your logic on with that statement? Do you have proof of this? 

When AW came out with his 18650 black cells the negative end had a flat cap with three bumps on it to improve contact with batteries placed in series. No one had any complaints with that logic when it came from AW.

As stated many times before a long wrapped spring can impose quite a bit of inline resistance to a circuit.

I guess no matter how many times the truth is said in this thread the haters still gonna hate, hate, hate.


----------



## recDNA (Feb 12, 2016)

Why use a long spring? Use a short one. Or use a flat plate with more surface area.

BTW... I still don't hate it. I'm waiting for HiCRI model. I do prefer 2 springs but I love ZL

You know me. I complain about everything.... Except your spectacular mods!


----------



## newbie66 (Feb 12, 2016)

Wow, springs at tail and pogo at head. Looks good to me.


----------



## snowlover91 (Feb 12, 2016)

I'm not a fan of the switch to a hybrid pogo pin/spring design personally. I wanted to be able to easily screw the tailcap on like with my SC5 series of lights... Man it's so nice and was hoping for that with the SC63. Oh well I'll see how I like it mine is in my mailbox but I can't get it until Sunday when I get back in town. The wait is unbearable!


----------



## gunga (Feb 12, 2016)

Odd choice. But I'll probably be fine either way. Perhaps a slightly shorter spring would improve things.


----------



## markr6 (Feb 13, 2016)

ShineOnYouCrazyDiamond said:


> I guess no matter how many times the truth is said in this thread the haters still gonna hate, hate, hate.



There's no getting around that unfortunately.

Doesn't matter. Bottom line, this SC63 is amazing. Perfect as far as I can tell. Springs/pogo, I don't really care now that the battery is held nice and tight like all my other Zebralights since 2012. Good tint, clean threads and anodizing, EASY to clip in pocket (smooth body against end of clip), small, bright. A clear winner!!

The ONLY thing they can do is throw in a high CRI, 5000K for me. Too bad it looks like only the *SC600Fd III Plus* is getting that..._for now._


----------



## snowlover91 (Feb 13, 2016)

markr6 said:


> There's no getting around that unfortunately.
> 
> Doesn't matter. Bottom line, this SC63 is amazing. Perfect as far as I can tell. Springs/pogo, I don't really care now that the battery is held nice and tight like all my other Zebralights since 2012. Good tint, clean threads and anodizing, EASY to clip in pocket (smooth body against end of clip), small, bright. A clear winner!!
> 
> The ONLY thing they can do is throw in a high CRI, 5000K for me. Too bad it looks like only the *SC600Fd III Plus* is getting that..._for now._



They're planning a 90+ CRI variant later this year, if it comes to fruition take my money! It would use the XHP35 and I'm guessing still out out 800-900 lumens or more.


----------



## markr6 (Feb 13, 2016)

snowlover91 said:


> They're planning a 90+ CRI variant later this year, if it comes to fruition take my money! It would use the XHP35 and I'm guessing still out out 800-900 lumens or more.



Yes that was the SC600Fd III Plus I referenced above. It's $99, but surely worth it from how it sounds!


----------



## snowlover91 (Feb 13, 2016)

markr6 said:


> Yes that was the SC600Fd III Plus I referenced above. It's $99, but surely worth it from how it sounds!



Sorry I wasn't clear in my original post. From my emails with them they're planning an SC63 series with high CRI also. They said they weren't sure if they would put them in production since they "cherry pick" their high CRI led's and it's time consuming... But they were planning one at least so we may or may not see a 90+ CRI SC63 later this year too. If so... I'll be a poor man lol.


----------



## 18650 (Feb 13, 2016)

Tachead said:


> Now I wonder if they will go back to duel springs or stick with this design or what going forward. *I think this shows that at least for these new offerings, the change wasnt absolutely needed for resistance or efficiency.* I wish they just would have left the design alone personally. If its not broke then dont try and fix it. Just include a warning in the instructions to only use a battery capable of 4.8+amps continuous(protected or bare cell) as a minimum and be done with it.


 You don't know that for sure. Maybe they silently made a sacrifice elsewhere.


----------



## markr6 (Feb 13, 2016)

snowlover91 said:


> Sorry I wasn't clear in my original post. From my emails with them they're planning an SC63 series with high CRI also. They said they weren't sure if they would put them in production since they "cherry pick" their high CRI led's and it's time consuming... But they were planning one at least so we may or may not see a 90+ CRI SC63 later this year too. If so... I'll be a poor man lol.



Oh yeah I remember that now. Take my money!!!


----------



## newbie66 (Feb 14, 2016)

markr6 said:


> There's no getting around that unfortunately.
> 
> Doesn't matter. Bottom line, this SC63 is amazing. Perfect as far as I can tell. Springs/pogo, I don't really care now that the battery is held nice and tight like all my other Zebralights since 2012. Good tint, clean threads and anodizing, EASY to clip in pocket (smooth body against end of clip), small, bright. A clear winner!!
> 
> The ONLY thing they can do is throw in a high CRI, 5000K for me. Too bad it looks like only the *SC600Fd III Plus* is getting that..._for now._



I was planning on getting the h600fd after just losing my h600w mkii in a cab. But it is out of stock at the nearest dealer as well as Zebralight's website. Production is slow or there are just too many customers. I think I will just be patient and wait.


----------



## markr6 (Feb 14, 2016)

newbie66 said:


> I was planning on getting the h600fd after just losing my h600w mkii in a cab. But it is out of stock at the nearest dealer as well as Zebralight's website. Production is slow or there are just too many customers. I think I will just be patient and wait.



I almost want my H600w to get stolen or lost so I have an excuse to get the H600Fd


----------



## psychbeat (Feb 14, 2016)

markr6 said:


> I almost want my H600w to get stolen or lost so I have an excuse to get the H600Fd



Same here but for the "C" 
But then I'd pretty much ALWAYS want to have another light with me that throws a bit.


----------



## KeepingItLight (Feb 14, 2016)

fnsooner has given us a couple of more data points. He posted these results in another ZebraLight thread.

Thanks!



fnsooner said:


> I just ran some tailcap amp tests on my SC63w and SC600w HI MK III using four Sanyo NCR18650GA cells. I ran the tests several times and topped the cells off during the tests just to double check things.
> 
> With cells at 4.20VDC I am getting a current reading of *6A on the MK III HI* and *4.85A on the SC63w* while in H1 mode.





fnsooner said:


> I ran the tests several times throughout the morning, topping off the batteries from time to time. The outcome was very consistent and repeatable.





fnsooner said:


> I do understand any skepticism while reading test results and wanting to know all the details. I am the same way. I take most things I read with a grain of salt and look for other testing to corroborate.
> 
> Any time any of my testing doesn’t look right, call me out. I am here for the truth, not to look good.
> 
> ...





fnsooner said:


> Actually, I am not checking the amp draw with the tail caps on. Tail cap readings may be the wrong description.
> 
> I am putting one lead of my DMM on the negative end of the battery (while cell is installed in light) and the other lead to the bare spot at the end of the battery tube of the light and then clicking the switch to on to get to H1.
> 
> ...


----------



## KeepingItLight (Feb 14, 2016)

ShineOnYouCrazyDiamond said:


> As stated many times before a long wrapped spring can impose quite a bit of inline resistance to a circuit.
> 
> I guess no matter how many times the truth is said in this thread the haters still gonna hate, hate, hate.




Too true!

Actually, I have sympathy for those who wish the new ZebraLight flashlights could take a protected battery. In many flashlights, I like to use them myself. For those who have decided they can never use an unprotected battery, it must be quite a disappointment to learn they cannot acquire one of these outstanding new ZebraLight flashlights.

What I cannot understand, however, is the denial. In spite of ZebraLight's explanation at reddit and elsewhere that the switch to an unprotected battery had to do with engineering and electronic considerations, there are still a few who insist that the change was made only to save a few millimeters in size. Without any data, and, in some cases, without ever setting eyes on a ZebraLight pogo pin, they have pretended to an expertise that is surprising. The reason, evidently, is so they can claim that the new ZebraLight flashlights could have been made to work with a protected battery. 

Weak as they are, at least these arguments won't cause someone to make a poor battery choice. A protected battery won't fit inside one of the new ZebraLights, so it is impossible to make the wrong decision there. 

Unfortunately, the same is not true regarding the selection of which unprotected battery to use. In spite of ZebraLight's own recommendation of the Sanyo/Panasonic NCR18650GA, and the datasheets posted here for the Panasonic NCR18650B, we still have folks saying the "B" is a fine choice for the new ZebraLights. 

Sorry, guys. It is not.

The "B" is rated by its manufacturer for a maximum continuous discharge rate of 4.875 amps. The ZebraLight SC600w Mk. III HI has now been measured at 6 amps, and the ZebraLight SC63w, at 5.2 amps. I don't recommend using the "B" in either one of them.


----------



## markr6 (Feb 14, 2016)

No big deal. The NCR18650B got blown away by the performance and low cost of NCR18650GA. And Zebralight sells them for a fair price, so I think many customers will pick them up there to save on shipping. If they want to be stupid and buy XXXfire on Amazon, so be it.

There are plenty of good alternatives for this light.


----------



## KeepingItLight (Feb 14, 2016)

markr6 said:


> If they want to be stupid and buy XXXfire on Amazon, so be it.



Right. Just so they don't live next door to me, that is. 

Don't want my house to catch fire when theirs burns down!


----------



## KeepingItLight (Feb 14, 2016)

Okay. I was only joking.

I don't really expect someone's house will burn down just because they buy a xxxx-Fire battery, and use it in a 6-amp flashlight...

At least, most of the time.


----------



## Tachead (Feb 15, 2016)

KeepingItLight said:


> Too true!
> 
> Actually, I have sympathy for those who wish the new ZebraLight flashlights could take a protected battery. In many flashlights, I like to use them myself. For those who have decided they can never use an unprotected battery, it must be quite a disappointment to learn they cannot acquire one of these outstanding new ZebraLight flashlights.
> 
> ...







Originally Posted by *ShineOnYouCrazyDiamond* 

 
*As stated many times before a long wrapped spring can impose quite a bit of inline resistance to a circuit.*

I guess no matter how many times the truth is said in this thread the haters still gonna hate, hate, hate.


Well they used said spring in the SC63 without a jumper and its not even a double spring so, it doesnt seem to be enough to go with another design apparently.


No matter what Zebralight's stated reason, they could have made all these new lights work with a protected battery. They just chose not to. I suspect it was mainly to lower their warranty claims and to stop reports of lights not working properly because idiots used the wrong battery. There are many easily accessible protected batteries on the market that can supply 10amps continuous(same as ZL's recommended cell) which is almost double the max claimed draw(6amp) of these new models. Also, remember that max draw is only that high in a worst case scenario when the battery voltage is low and the light is on H1. And, even then it is only that high for a short period of time before the PID lowers the output and the amp draw with it. 

As for the "B", remember that the NCR18650B(which you spout your fear mongering about) has a max discharge rating of 6.8amp. The 4.875 continuous rating is for extended continuous discharge. So, if your only using your light for short bursts on H1(which most people do) I dont think that you would ever see/have an issue using this cell. Sure, a "GA" or other cell with a higher continuous rating would be better suited, especially if you like to use H1 for extended periods, but using a "b" wisely isnt going to burn any houses down man lol.


----------



## snowlover91 (Feb 15, 2016)

Although I don't have any equipment for measuring light output I did try an experiment with my SC63w. I took the pogo pin tailcap from the MK3 HI and used it on the SC63w, turned it on to H1 and immediately snapped a pic. I then used the same camera settings and switched to the spring tailcap to see if the results were any different. I'll let everyone on here be the judge. Camera settings were 1/4000 shutter speed, iso 100 and aperture of 5.6 for both photos. Only thing changed is the tailcap. I wanted the camera stopped down as far as possible so any minute output differences might show up.

Pogo pin 





Spring tailcap


----------



## snowlover91 (Feb 15, 2016)

Tachead said:


> No matter what Zebralight's stated reason, they could have made all these new lights work with a protected battery. They just chose not to. I suspect it was mainly to lower their warranty claims and to stop reports of lights not working properly because idiots used the wrong battery. There are many easily accessible protected batteries on the market that can supply 10amps continuous(same as ZL's recommended cell) which is almost double the max claimed draw(6amp) of these new models. Also, remember that max draw is only that high in a worst case scenario when the battery voltage is low and the light is on H1. And, even then it is only that high for a short period of time before the PID lowers the output and the amp draw with it.
> 
> *As for the "B", remember that the NCR18650B(which you spout your fear mongering about) has a max discharge rating of 6.8amp. The 4.875 continuous rating is for extended continuous discharge. So, if your only using your light for short bursts on H1(which most people do) I dont think that you would ever see/have an issue using this cell. Sure, a "GA" or other cell with a higher continuous rating would be better suited, especially if you like to use H1 for extended periods, but using a "b" wisely isnt going to burn any houses down man lol.*



The problem is many users do run their lights on the H1 mode until the batter is depleted. Tests show far show a 4.8-5.2 amp draw on this mode. If a user runs the light for a full 35-50 minutes until the battery is depleted this could cause issues since it is at or above the max continuous rating. Yes some people do use their H1 mode in bursts, that's how I use mine. Many others use the H1 mode and run it until the battery needs replacing. A battery like the 18650b would be dangerously close and could cause issues if used for more than a short burst, imo, and there are people who use their lights this way.


----------



## Tachead (Feb 15, 2016)

snowlover91 said:


> The problem is many users do run their lights on the H1 mode until the batter is depleted. Tests show far show a 4.8-5.2 amp draw on this mode. If a user runs the light for a full 35-50 minutes until the battery is depleted this could cause issues since it is at or above the max continuous rating. Yes some people do use their H1 mode in bursts, that's how I use mine. Many others use the H1 mode and run it until the battery needs replacing. A battery like the 18650b would be dangerously close and could cause issues if used for more than a short burst, imo, and there are people who use their lights this way.



Those users should use the recommended "GA" cell. Remember though that these lights only draw those levels in a worst case scenario(low battery voltage in H1). And, as soon as the PID kicks in(which is pretty quickly on small lights like these) the amperage drops with the output. Also, I said "using wisely". Using a 4.875amp continuous rated cell on H1 in a light that can draw 5.2amps in H1 until the battery is depleted would not be very wise would it lol. Running a "B" mainly in the normal modes and with only short bursts in the two PID levels would be perfectly fine imo. I only said what you quoted because Keepingitlight was way overstating the dangers of using a "B" cell imo.

Like mark said though, no need to run a "B" because a "GA" arent much more expensive, are higher capacity, higher performance, and are sold at most places that sell "GA"'s.


----------



## snowlover91 (Feb 15, 2016)

Tachead said:


> Those users should use the recommended "GA" cell. Remember though that these lights only draw those levels in a worst case scenario(low battery voltage in H1). And, as soon as the PID kicks in(which is pretty quickly on small lights like these) the amperage drops with the output. Also, I said "using wisely". Using a 4.875amp continuous rated cell on H1 in a light that can draw 5.2amps in H1 until the battery is depleted would not be very wise would it lol. Running a "B" mainly in the normal modes and with only short bursts in the two PID levels would be perfectly fine imo. I only said what you quoted because Keepingitlight was way overstating the dangers of using a "B" cell imo.
> 
> Like mark said though, no need to run a "B" because a "GA" arent much more expensive, are higher capacity, higher performance, and are sold at most places that sell "GA"'s.



I agree and since the GA cells are only $8 a piece on ZL that should help with getting good quality cells to users since many protected cells of good quality are $10 or more each, usually more like $15-20 here in the US. What do you think of the pic comparison between spring and pogo tailcap? May have to turn monitor brightness up since I stopped my camera all the way down.


----------



## Tachead (Feb 15, 2016)

snowlover91 said:


> I agree and since the GA cells are only $8 a piece on ZL that should help with getting good quality cells to users since many protected cells of good quality are $10 or more each, usually more like $15-20 here in the US. *What do you think of the pic comparison between spring and pogo tailcap?* May have to turn monitor brightness up since I stopped my camera all the way down.



Its pretty hard to tell. They look about the same I would say. How do they compare in real life?


----------



## scs (Feb 15, 2016)

snowlover91 said:


> Although I don't have any equipment for measuring light output I did try an experiment with my SC63w. I took the pogo pin tailcap from the MK3 HI and used it on the SC63w, turned it on to H1 and immediately snapped a pic. I then used the same camera settings and switched to the spring tailcap to see if the results were any different. I'll let everyone on here be the judge. Camera settings were 1/4000 shutter speed, iso 100 and aperture of 5.6 for both photos. Only thing changed is the tailcap. I wanted the camera stopped down as far as possible so any minute output differences might show up.
> 
> Pogo pin
> 
> ...



Pogo appears brighter to me. Perhaps there is a way to use Photoshop to tell.


----------



## KeepingItLight (Feb 15, 2016)

scs said:


> Pogo appears brighter to me. Perhaps there is a way to use Photoshop to tell.



One way to see might be to set the camera to aperture-priority mode. That's an exposure mode where you set the aperture, and the camera chooses the proper shutter speed. If you did this, the two pictures should look identical. By checking the EXIF data for the two pictures, you could determine which one had the longer exposure. The longer exposure would be the dimmer flashlight.


----------



## snowlover91 (Feb 15, 2016)

Tachead said:


> Its pretty hard to tell. They look about the same I would say. How do they compare in real life?



Its impossible to tell in real life since the human eye has less perceived brightness increase as lumen levels go up. If one of these was say 100 lumens brighter I definitely wouldn't be able to tell. I'll have to try what KIL suggested and see if the aperture priority mode uses a different shutter speed. On my monitor the pogo pin seems a tad brighter but it's very minimal if so.


----------



## KeepingItLight (Feb 15, 2016)

Hey, Tachhead, you mean well, and I think you have a lot to offer. Too often, however, you shoot from the hip. A couple of posts back, you did it again.

I made the following careful, and factual, statements about the *Panasonic NCR18650* battery. They are supported by the manufacturer's battery specification I posted last week.



KeepingItLight said:


> Unfortunately, the same is not true regarding the selection of which unprotected battery to use. In spite of ZebraLight's own recommendation of the Sanyo/Panasonic NCR18650GA, and the datasheets posted here for the Panasonic NCR18650B, we still have folks saying the "B" is a fine choice for the new ZebraLights.
> 
> Sorry, guys. *It is not.*
> 
> ...



The worst I said about the "B" is that "it is not" a "fine choice for the new ZebraLights," and that "I don't recommend" using it.

Later, in response to a post by Mark, I made the following joke about the *xxxx-Fire 18650* battery. Knowing that it is easy to be misunderstood online, I even came back and explained that I was only joking.



markr6 said:


> If they want to be stupid and buy XXXfire on Amazon, so be it.





KeepingItLight said:


> Right. Just so they don't live next door to me, that is.
> 
> Don't want my house to catch fire when theirs burns down!





KeepingItLight said:


> Okay. I was only joking.
> 
> I don't really expect someone's house will burn down just because they buy a xxxx-Fire battery, and use it in a 6-amp flashlight...
> 
> At least, most of the time.



Even with this clear explanation, you accused me of "fear mongering," and saying that using a Panasonic NCR18650 might burn your house down.



Tachead said:


> As for the "B", remember that the NCR18650B (which you spout your fear mongering about) has a max discharge rating of 6.8amp.
> 
> ... using a "b" wisely isn't going to burn any houses down.



Not sure how you missed it, but the rest of the readers here know I was making a joke about the fire. But let's ignore that. These same careful readers are also aware that there is a world of difference between a Panasonic-brand battery and one branded xxxx-Fire. The only brand I joked might cause a fire is the xxxx-Fire, yet you put words in my mouth suggesting that I was not joking, and that I had said your house might burn down if you use a Panasonic NCR18650.

Earlier, it was explained to you that an "argument from authority" is a fallacious argument. Well, here is another. An argument that puts words in a person's mouth that were never said, and then shows that those words are wrong, is called a "straw-man argument." As arguments go, it is just as fallacious as the argument from authority.

But I don't think you are guilty of that. The way I see it, you did not set out to construct a straw-man argument. No. I think you are just a friend who was shooting from the hip. 

I hope that's the way other people see it, too.


----------



## Tachead (Feb 15, 2016)

I though you were lumping the "b" in with the xxxxfire batteries when you made the comment about burning a house down. Sorry, I was tired and it was late. I agree that the "b" is not the best choice for these flashlights but, also think there would be little danger using one if that's what you had and were careful with your use of H1 & H2.


----------



## ChrisGarrett (Feb 15, 2016)

Tachead said:


> I though you were lumping the "b" in with the xxxxfire batteries when you made the comment about burning a house down. Sorry, I was tired and it was late. I agree that the "b" is not the best choice for these flashlights but, also think there would be little danger using one if that's what you had and were careful with your use of H1 & H2.



Ehhh, not a great choice because if you use the newer ZLs on High a lot, you'll just kill the NCR-B a bit quicker, running it near its redline, but nothing should ka-boom .

How quickly it dies in that light, nobody can say, but being an older design and a 'bare' cell, you're not out all that much money.

Chris


----------



## 18650 (Feb 15, 2016)

scs said:


> Pogo appears brighter to me. Perhaps there is a way to use Photoshop to tell.


 Pogo pin picture appears brighter under the eye dropper. However even in manual mode with identical settings, the aperture may not close to exactly the same spot, leaving slight variances from picture to picture.


----------



## sidecross (Feb 15, 2016)

Just from my viewing HKJ's 18650 Battery 'Comparator': http://lygte-info.dk/review/batteries2012/Common18650comparator.php

The LG 18650 D1 3000mAh at 4.35 volts seems to out perform for high current use most other 18650 3500mAh batteries at 4.2 volts.

Is this a correct reading of this data?


----------



## recDNA (Feb 15, 2016)

If the spring does increase resistance I would be more disturbed about increased heat than a little less output.


----------



## ChrisGarrett (Feb 15, 2016)

sidecross said:


> Just from my viewing HKJ's 18650 Battery 'Comparator': http://lygte-info.dk/review/batteries2012/Common18650comparator.php
> 
> The LG 18650 D1 3000mAh at 4.35 volts seems to out perform for high current use most other 18650 3500mAh batteries at 4.2 volts.
> 
> Is this a correct reading of this data?



I have a pair of LG D1s and also the E1s and they can hold higher voltages up until they crash and burn, versus some other cells, if that's important to the light? They're good to about ~5A, so they're not going the be the best choice for the new ZLs.

Chris


----------



## sidecross (Feb 15, 2016)

recDNA said:


> If the spring does increase resistance I would be more disturbed about increased heat than a little less output.


By the time the current reaches the new Cree XHP35 there is just 1 amp of current; this would reduce heat of the LED.


----------



## ShineOnYouCrazyDiamond (Feb 15, 2016)

recDNA said:


> If the spring does increase resistance I would be more disturbed about increased heat than a little less output.



In this instance I wouldn't worry too much about an increase in heat. The voltage drop across the resistance of the spring probably wouldn't be realized much in an LED light with a really good driver that can boost levels.

It was more of an issue in the old incan Mag mods where spring provided so much resistance it negatively impacted the voltage across the bulb itself. 

Now in really high power setups the resistance across a spring could prove to be a problem. I've had it happen to me a few times. Too much current across a very thin spring has caused the spring to heat up and disfigure itself. I've also had problem with too much current through a switch causing the switch to heat up and fail. In every situation where this has occurred to me the result was an open circuit so no power to the light. Due to the design of flashlights I don't think it would be possible for the failure to result in a short across the battery itself.

Most of the times these issues occur it's because of someone doing something a light wasn't intended for. This is the reason that Oveready came out with the zero-res switch. 

Any competent production flashlight should have all of these factors calculated into the voltage and current across any spring or switch.

The goal in designing a better spring mechanism (ie: the pogo pins) is to make the light as efficient as possible.


----------



## sidecross (Feb 15, 2016)

ChrisGarrett said:


> I have a pair of LG D1s and also the E1s and they can hold higher voltages up until they crash and burn, versus some other cells, if that's important to the light? They're good to about ~5A, so they're not going the be the best choice for the new ZLs.
> 
> Chris


Chris

On the HKJ's 18650 Battery 'Comparator': http://lygte-info.dk/review/batterie...comparator.php the graph if you choose to see what '2 amps' and '7 amps' read they show it operating at these two currents. 

Am I reading this data correctly?


----------



## ChrisGarrett (Feb 15, 2016)

sidecross said:


> Chris
> 
> On the HKJ's 18650 Battery 'Comparator': http://lygte-info.dk/review/batterie...comparator.php the graph if you choose to see what '2 amps' and '7 amps' read they show it operating at these two currents.
> 
> Am I reading this data correctly?



HKJ tested the E1s at 4.35v up to 10A and they work, but in his description, he lists the rated 'max continuous discharge' at 1.5C, or 4650mA (4.6A+,) so something's up there.

Personally, I wouldn't stress the cells by running them over 4-5A, but again, they're not expensive to replace, if you do kill them quickly.

HKJ only tested the D1s up to 5A, I believe.

I was one of the first here with the Xtar VP2 and so I jumped into the 4.35v cells to try them out. I think that I have about $30 into the four, if that, so we're not talking about a lot of money. FastTech for the D1s and Mountain Elec. for the E1s.

Chris


----------



## recDNA (Feb 15, 2016)

sidecross said:


> By the time the current reaches the new Cree XHP35 there is just 1 amp of current; this would reduce heat of the LED.


It was heat in the spring itself I was concerned about. I think shineon's answer satisfies my concern about it. I never worry about damaging an led or flashlight. I only worry about damaging the battery.


----------



## sidecross (Feb 15, 2016)

ChrisGarrett said:


> HKJ tested the E1s at 4.35v up to 10A and they work, but in his description, he lists the rated 'max continuous discharge' at 1.5C, or 4650mA (4.6A+,) so something's up there.
> 
> Personally, I wouldn't stress the cells by running them over 4-5A, but again, they're not expensive to replace, if you do kill them quickly.
> 
> ...


I have the XTAR VP2 charger too and have gotten some LG D1 and LG E1 batteries from Mountain Electronics and I have experimenting with them.

From what you have written and looking at HKJ's site on reading the graphs you seem to be correct about the use of these batteries on the new ZebraLight SC600 Mklll. I will experiment with my other lights these 4.35 volt batteries. Thank you!


----------



## ChrisGarrett (Feb 15, 2016)

sidecross said:


> I have the XTAR VP2 charger too and have gotten some LG D1 and LG D2 batteries from Mountain Electronics and I have experimenting with them.
> 
> From what you have written and looking at HKJ's site on reading the graphs you seem to be correct about the use of these batteries on the new ZebraLight SC600 Mklll. I will experiment with my other lights these 4.35 volt batteries. Thank you!



I think that they're the D1s (pink/3000mAh) and E1s (green/3200mAh,) unless they've come out with a different model?

Funny, but HKJ kind of revealed that the D1s actually tested better than the E1s, holding a slightly higher voltage, but the original E1 tests were Keeppower protected versions and one of the PCBs crapped out on him, so I don't know if one is that much 'better' than the other?

His testing of the naked E1s seems to show that they fair better than the D1s, but remember, he's testing only a small (2 cell) sample size and he's come across variations, older cells and the like, which might not perform quite as well for his survey.

We get what we get, but other than one CPFer stating that his LG 4.35v cells started getting higher I.R.s, my four cells tested well for capacity on my new Opus BT-3400 and while the IRs were between 100-150, that IR function is hit, or miss and not very repeatable/precise, so who knows?

Play with them in the new ZL, at least the E1s and when they die, move onto other models!

Chris


----------



## sidecross (Feb 15, 2016)

ChrisGarrett said:


> I think that they're the D1s (pink/3000mAh) and E1s (green/3200mAh,) unless they've come out with a different model?
> 
> Funny, but HKJ kind of revealed that the D1s actually tested better than the E1s, holding a slightly higher voltage, but the original E1 tests were Keeppower protected versions and one of the PCBs crapped out on him, so I don't know if one is that much 'better' than the other?
> 
> ...


The D1 are still pink and the E1 are green and when looking at HKJ's test result graphs the D1's do seem to out perform the E1's. Battery chemistries do have mysteries.

Thank you for the correction of D1 and E1 in the batteries designation; I first labeled them D1 and D2.


----------



## CelticCross74 (Feb 18, 2016)

Good lord the amount of bickering and attitudes being thrown around over a simple flashlight in this thread! I ordered the MkIII HI a few days ago as well as the Sanyo GA for it from ZL. Let me be crystal clear here I am no battery expert. This new MkIII will be my first foray into unprotected flat tops so I have been googling up as much information as I can and I have been left wondering what cell is actually the best performer forthe MkIII HI? Is the Sanyo GA the best power source for the MkIII there is and I should just stop researching other highe out put flat tops? I never knew there are SO may unprotected high power flat top cells out there. It has left me with the serious question-what is the most efficient longest lasting flat top cell for the MkIII is it solely the GA or are there other cellls that better power the light? I have looked all over the place and am seeing such different proper size fit for the MkIII out there that are runnimg Today alone I counted two dozen


----------



## psychbeat (Feb 18, 2016)

CelticCross74 said:


> Good lord the amount of bickering and attitudes being thrown around over a simple flashlight in this thread! I ordered the MkIII HI a few days ago as well as the Sanyo GA for it from ZL. Let me be crystal clear here I am no battery expert. This new MkIII will be my first foray into unprotected flat tops so I have been googling up as much information as I can and I have been left wondering what cell is actually the best performer forthe MkIII HI? Is the Sanyo GA the best power source for the MkIII there is and I should just stop researching other highe out put flat tops? I never knew there are SO may unprotected high power flat top cells out there. It has left me with the serious question-what is the most efficient longest lasting flat top cell for the MkIII is it solely the GA or are there other cellls that better power the light? I have looked all over the place and am seeing such different proper size fit for the MkIII out there that are runnimg Today alone I counted two dozen



Yes!



or LJ MJ1 is ~= 18650GA

 [emoji173]️[emoji169][emoji172][emoji170][emoji171]☪[emoji707]️F


----------



## markr6 (Feb 18, 2016)

I still can't decide if I want one of these. I definitely don't need a MKII, HI, and the Plus when it comes out.


----------



## recDNA (Feb 18, 2016)

What is the advantage of the MKIII HI over the MKIII? I've read the HI has less output and a warm shade and not much more if any more throw?


----------



## snowlover91 (Feb 18, 2016)

recDNA said:


> What is the advantage of the MKIII HI over the MKIII? I've read the HI has less output and a warm shade and not much more if any more throw?



I don't have the regular MK3 but the HI version is my warmest tint but very nice. It has a nice tight hotspot and the throw is quite good. I was able to test it in a field and it lit up the tree line that was 100+ yards away. I have an EC11 rated for 9000cd and 190 meters of throw, my MK3 HI has a tighter hotspot and throws further than the EC11.


----------



## snowlover91 (Feb 18, 2016)

Since there were questions early on about the switch to pogo pins and contact pressure/battery rattle issues I thought I would post this pic of the battery (rewrapped 18650a) used in my MK3 Hi. ZL has supposedly fixed the issue of battery rattle, none whatsoever with my sample no matter how hard I shake it! You can actually see 3 little indents caused by the pogo pins and the last quarter turn of the tailcap is nice and snug.


----------



## Tachead (Feb 18, 2016)

snowlover91 said:


> Since there were questions early on about the switch to pogo pins and contact pressure/battery rattle issues I thought I would post this pic of the battery (rewrapped 18650a) used in my MK3 Hi. ZL has supposedly fixed the issue of battery rattle, none whatsoever with my sample no matter how hard I shake it! You can actually see 3 little indents caused by the pogo pins and the last quarter turn of the tailcap is nice and snug.



It looks like it caved the end in just a little as the marks are half moons towards the outer edge instead of round. Or is that just the pic? I hope the fit isnt so tight that the pins are fully compressed. Right in the middle of their travel would be ideal.


----------



## Tachead (Feb 18, 2016)

snowlover91 said:


> I don't have the regular MK3 but* the HI version is my warmest* tint but very nice. It has a nice tight hotspot and the throw is quite good. I was able to test it in a field and it lit up the tree line that was 100+ yards away. I have an EC11 rated for 9000cd and 190 meters of throw, my MK3 HI has a tighter hotspot and throws further than the EC11.



Any chance you could measure the CCT? You can get an app for your phone called Color Temp Meter for $1. It works great, I just got it. You just shoot the light on a piece of white paper in a dark room and then take a measurement. I wish everyone on here had it so we could compare(roughly of course).


----------



## ShineOnYouCrazyDiamond (Feb 18, 2016)

Tachead said:


> Any chance you could measure the CCT? You can get an app for your phone called Color Temp Meter for $1. It works great, I just got it. You just shoot the light on a piece of white paper in a dark room and then take a measurement. I wish everyone on here had it so we could compare(roughly of course).



Really?? I don't have my ZL yet but I'm game to test out this app on a bunch of lights and mods I have. Thanks for the recommendation.


----------



## Tachead (Feb 18, 2016)

ShineOnYouCrazyDiamond said:


> Really?? I don't have my ZL yet but I'm game to test out this app on a bunch of lights and mods I have. Thanks for the recommendation.



No problem. It seems to work pretty well. I'm sure it is only so accurate but, it would help us compare at least. It is important to perfectly center the hotspot in the box as it seems to take its reading from there. Diffused lights are the easiest to measure as the hotspot is larger. I also find that holding the light further from the page making the hotspot larger helps to get consistent readings.


----------



## snowlover91 (Feb 18, 2016)

Tachead said:


> Any chance you could measure the CCT? You can get an app for your phone called Color Temp Meter for $1. It works great, I just got it. You just shoot the light on a piece of white paper in a dark room and then take a measurement. I wish everyone on here had it so we could compare(roughly of course).



Unfortunately it's not available for iPhone, at least I didn't see it in the App Store  The top of the battery is pressed in slightly, however the interesting thing I noticed when comparing my 18650ga beside this Orbtronic 3500mah rewrapped cell is that the Orbtronic cell is a tad longer. When I use the Sanyo 18650ga you can see the tiny marks but the top of the cell doesn't press in at all. I'm not sure why the Orbtronic cells would be a tad longer since they're supposed to just be rewrapped 18650ga cells.


----------



## markr6 (Feb 19, 2016)

Tachead said:


> Any chance you could measure the CCT? You can get an app for your phone called Color Temp Meter for $1. It works great, I just got it. You just shoot the light on a piece of white paper in a dark room and then take a measurement. I wish everyone on here had it so we could compare(roughly of course).



That's cool. Do you take a photo of the paper, or just bounce light off that and record the ambient light in real time?


----------



## Tachead (Feb 19, 2016)

markr6 said:


> That's cool. Do you take a photo of the paper, or *just bounce light off that and record the ambient light in real time*?



This. There is analyze button. You just center the hotspot in the viewing window click it, and it gives you the CCT.


----------



## Tachead (Feb 19, 2016)

snowlover91 said:


> Unfortunately it's not available for iPhone, at least I didn't see it in the App Store  The top of the battery is pressed in slightly, however the interesting thing I noticed when comparing my 18650ga beside this Orbtronic 3500mah rewrapped cell is that the Orbtronic cell is a tad longer. When I use the Sanyo 18650ga you can see the tiny marks but the top of the cell doesn't press in at all. I'm not sure why the Orbtronic cells would be a tad longer since they're supposed to just be rewrapped 18650ga cells.



What are you doing with an iphone? I would think that would be the last phone a techie like you would ever buy. They are like the Surefire of phones(overly simplified idiot proof UI, inferior components, price jacked for the name, and everyone who isnt in the know thinks their the best)


----------



## markr6 (Feb 19, 2016)

Tachead said:


> What are you doing with an iphone? I would think that would be the last phone a techie like you would ever buy. They are like the Surefire of phones(overly simplified idiot proof UI, inferior components, and everyone who isnt in the know thinks their the best)



LOL I know I have an iPhone too. After using my wife's new android, then going back to my iPhone, I felt like I was playing with one of those fake toddler toy phones! But I just can't seem to break away from it.


----------



## Tachead (Feb 19, 2016)

markr6 said:


> LOL I know I have an iPhone too. After using my wife's new android, then going back to my iPhone, I felt like I was playing with one of those fake toddler toy phones! *But I just can't seem to break away from it*.



Its their marketing, they are excellent at marketing. 

The funny thing is the next generation will be using a Samsung screen and 75% Samsung processors/chips. And, Samsung already makes half their other components in previous models lol. Pretty soon it will be a Samsung with an apple on it and a "toddler" OS as you put it. They always seem to use outdated or not the latest generation of components too but, still charge the same or more as the top Android phones that do. That apple logo sure must cost a lot to emboss on there lol. Its a good thing they have a great marketing team.

Meanwhile in the flashlight world


----------



## sidecross (Feb 19, 2016)

http://www.alibaba.com/showroom/lumen-cct-cri-test-machine.html

http://www.digikey.com/en/articles/techzone/2014/aug/illuminating-the-limitations-of-cri-testing

Testing equipment for CCI and CRI is not cheap.


----------



## markr6 (Feb 19, 2016)

$2000 impulse buy


----------



## snowlover91 (Feb 19, 2016)

Tachead said:


> Its their marketing, they are excellent at marketing.
> 
> The funny thing is the next generation will be using a Samsung screen and 75% Samsung processors/chips. And, Samsung already makes half their other components in previous models lol. Pretty soon it will be a Samsung with an apple on it and a "toddler" OS as you put it. They always seem to use outdated or not the latest generation of components too but, still charge the same or more as the top Android phones that do. That apple logo sure must cost a lot to emboss on there lol. Its a good thing they have a great marketing team.
> 
> Meanwhile in the flashlight world



Haha I like the OS personally and their phones work well enough for my uses  They do use Samsung and LG screens but design their own chips which in benchmark tests are comparable with the top end android phones and they're shifting production of these chips to TSMC, as the rumor goes. Me personally I don't need 4gb of ram or a 8 core processor haha it gets the job done. Plus where I work retail for one of my jobs we've seen TONS of fraud with the new Samsung Pay where people are using stolen credit cards and things like that whereas we've not seen the same issues with Apple Pay due to the way they authentication. I'm glad we have choices like Apple and Samsung because not everyone likes the Apple phones/OS and vice versa.

Back to flashlights now lol. I need to do some amp draw measurements on my SC63w and MK3 HI to see if they're different at the H1 level. Anyone else tested them?


----------



## sidecross (Feb 19, 2016)

markr6 said:


> $2000 impulse buy




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tISsunRpf0

The Zebralight cost less than $100. :thumbsup:


----------



## Tachead (Feb 19, 2016)

snowlover91 said:


> Haha I like the OS personally and their phones work well enough for my uses  They do use Samsung and LG screens but design their own chips which in benchmark tests are comparable with the top end android phones and they're shifting production of these chips to TSMC, as the rumor goes. Me personally I don't need 4gb of ram or a 8 core processor haha it gets the job done. Plus where I work retail for one of my jobs we've seen TONS of fraud with the new Samsung Pay where people are using stolen credit cards and things like that whereas we've not seen the same issues with Apple Pay due to the way they authentication. I'm glad we have choices like Apple and Samsung because not everyone likes the Apple phones/OS and vice versa.
> 
> Back to flashlights now lol. I need to do some amp draw measurements on my SC63w and MK3 HI to see if they're different at the H1 level. Anyone else tested them?



Their OS is so restrictive though. Its like a OS dumbed down for grandmas and children, you can barely adjust or change anything. Hardly the OS that a techie would usually want. I figured with you liking ZL UI that you would definitely be an Android guy, I guess not.

Sorry but, they dont design all of their own chips. Almost all their internal components are made and designed by other manufacturers, primarily Samsung but also TSMC, Texas Instruments, STmicro, Broadcom, exc. As you the next generation Samsung will make all their displays as well. They will also manufacture 75% of their processors going forward apparently. Apple doesnt even assemble their phones. Apple does do some things right though. They are excellent at marketing and make great software. Another bad thing about them though is they have extreme control issues and have to audit all third party apps and software and charge huge fees unlike Android. This is why you cant get the Color Temp Meter app and why Apple users miss out on many apps. A lot of app designers just refuse to pay their high fees. One thing that is good about it, about the only thing, is there is few crappy apps because of this. 

Right, back to flashlights. I am interested in the max lumen output as well. Does the SC600w MKIII HI or regular seem much brighter then the SC63w to your eye? Hopefully someone will do some light box testing. I would like to know if there is a significant brightness advantage of the MKIII for short use in H1(obviously the MKII will be better for sustained H1 output). Thanks:thumbsup:


----------



## markr6 (Feb 19, 2016)

Now that I have my SC63w, I wish I kept the SC600w III to compare. Then I probably would have ended up with the HI as well. At this point I may just pull the trigger on the HI, but the warm tint is worrying me.


----------



## snowlover91 (Feb 19, 2016)

Tachead said:


> Their OS is so restrictive though. Its like a OS dumbed down for grandmas and children, you can barely adjust or change anything. Hardly the OS that a techie would usually want. I figured with you liking ZL UI that you would definitely be an Android guy, I guess not.
> 
> Sorry but, they dont design their own chips. Almost all their internal components are made and designed by other manufacturers, primarily Samsung but also TSMC, Texas Instruments, STmicro, Broadcom, exc. As you the next generation Samsung will make all their displays as well. They will also manufacture 75% of their processors going forward apparently. Apple doesnt even assemble their phones. Apple does do some things right though. They are excellent at marketing and make great software. Another bad thing about them though is they have extreme control issues and have to audit all third party apps and software and charge huge fees unlike Android. This is why you cant get the Color Temp Meter app and why Apple users miss out on many apps. A lot of app designers just refuse to pay their high fees. One thing that is good about it, about the only thing, is there is few crappy apps because of this.
> 
> Right, back to flashlights. I am interested in the max lumen output as well. Does the SC600w MKIII HI or regular seem much brighter then the SC63w to your eye? Hopefully someone will do some light box testing. I would like to know if there is a significant brightness advantage of the MKIII for short use in H1(obviously the MKII will be better for sustained H1 output). Thanks:thumbsup:



I like to customize my flashlight UI and have a more simplified OS. The restrictions don't bother me and I'll take that for the added security benefits. They do design their own chips according to numerous tech website articles but then contract out Samsung and others like TSMC to manufacture them. Either way they get the job done just fine for my uses but it's good to have options out there. 

Mark, did you see the pics I posted comparing the Nichia 219b at 4500k to the Mk3 HI? It's only slightly warmer in my copy and if you like the Nichia I think you would like the MK3 HI as its slightly warmer but a very nice tint.


----------



## sidecross (Feb 19, 2016)

snowlover91 said:


> I like to customize my flashlight UI and have a more simplified OS. The restrictions don't bother me and I'll take that for the added security benefits. They do design their own chips according to numerous tech website articles but then contract out Samsung and others like TSMC to manufacture them. Either way they get the job done just fine for my uses but it's good to have options out there.
> 
> Mark, did you see the pics I posted comparing the Nichia 219b at 4500k to the Mk3 HI? It's only slightly warmer in my copy and if you like the Nichia I think you would like the MK3 HI as its slightly warmer but a very nice tint.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJLEPRcQu60&list=PL1t6JkcqG9NkaqDf0TxcfyBgSCxQExoTS&index=1

A good explaination.


----------



## Tachead (Feb 19, 2016)

snowlover91 said:


> I like to customize my flashlight UI and have a more simplified OS. The restrictions don't bother me and I'll take that for the added security benefits. *They do design their own chips according to numerous tech website articles* but then contract out Samsung and others like TSMC to manufacture them. Either way they get the job done just fine for my uses but it's good to have options out there.
> 
> Mark, did you see the pics I posted comparing the Nichia 219b at 4500k to the Mk3 HI? It's only slightly warmer in my copy and if you like the Nichia I think you would like the MK3 HI as its slightly warmer but a very nice tint.



They design the A9 yes but, most of the others are others designs.

Thanks for those beamshots. I hope someone can measure the CCT so we have an idea what the CCT is. I am guessing 4200-4400Kish.

I am interested in the max lumen output as well. Does the SC600w MKIII HI or regular seem much brighter then the SC63w to your eye? Hopefully someone will do some light box testing. I would like to know if there is a significant brightness advantage of the MKIII for short use in H1(obviously the MKII will be better for sustained H1 output). Thanks


----------



## snowlover91 (Feb 19, 2016)

Unfortunately I don't have a light box to test it and it's hard to compare brightness since the SC63w is a large hot spot whereas the Mk3 HI is a nice tight hotspot by comparison. I'll do some amp draw measurements tonight that should help at least indicate if one has better output. I believe someone measured about 4.85 amps on the SC63 and around 6 amps for their MK3 but I don't remember who. I will say there is a significant different in regards to throw between the SC63 and Mk3 Hi.


----------



## markr6 (Feb 19, 2016)

I was measuring 4.3A or something like that on the III. I'll check my SC63w later tonight.


----------



## Tachead (Feb 19, 2016)

snowlover91 said:


> Unfortunately I don't have a light box to test it and it's hard to compare brightness since the SC63w is a large hot spot whereas the Mk3 HI is a nice tight hotspot by comparison. I'll do some amp draw measurements tonight that should help at least indicate if one has better output. I believe someone measured about 4.85 amps on the SC63 and around 6 amps for their MK3 but I don't remember who. I will say there is a significant different in regards to throw between the SC63 and Mk3 Hi.




Ok thanks:thumbsup:. I saw another poster comment on this, what's your opinion; If you could only have one, which would it be?


----------



## snowlover91 (Feb 19, 2016)

Tachead said:


> Ok thanks:thumbsup:. I saw another poster comment on this, what's your opinion; If you could only have one, which would it be?



Hmm that's a tough one.. I actually prefer the tint and tighter hotspot of the MK3 HI better. However the one major flaw it has imo is the clip, I'm used to all the Zebralights having a clip opposite of the button. That way I pull the light out of my pocket and my finger knows exactly where to go. However on the MK3 the clip pops on and there is the small little "bump" where the keychain ring is attached and I can't mount the clip opposite of the button. This is a big drawback for how I use the light and as a result I prefer the SC63. IF I can find a way to maybe file that key ring mount down then definitely the MK3 Hi would be preferred. Will do tailcap measurements tonight after work.


----------

