# Huntlight FT01PJ XR-E runtimes



## chevrofreak (Jan 5, 2007)

This light really took a long time to do....

Output measurements taken within the first few seconds of a run. If you want to know the estimated lumens at any point on the graph, figure out the "Total Light Output" number on the vertical scale and divide it by 14.

Huntlight FT01PJ (XR-E) - level 5 - LG 2400mAh 18650: 1802 - (est 128.71 lumens)

Huntlight FT01PJ (XR-E) - level 5 - Energizer E2 CR123a: 1928 - (est 137.71 lumens)

Huntlight FT01PJ (XR-E) - level 5 - AW High Current 750mAh RCR123: 1993 - (est 142.36 lumens)








Huntlight FT01PJ (XR-E) - level 4 - LG 2400mAh 18650: 1270 - (est 90.71 lumens)

Huntlight FT01PJ (XR-E) - level 4 - Energizer E2 CR123a: 1338 - (est 95.57 lumens)

Huntlight FT01PJ (XR-E) - level 4 - AW High Current 750mAh RCR123: 1387 - (est 99.07 lumens)






Huntlight FT01PJ (XR-E) - level 3 - LG 2400mAh 18650: 907 - (est 64.79 lumens)

Huntlight FT01PJ (XR-E) - level 3 - Energizer E2 CR123a: 964 - (est 68.86 lumens)

Huntlight FT01PJ (XR-E) - level 3 - AW High Current 750mAh RCR123: 999 - (est 71.36 lumens)






Huntlight FT01PJ (XR-E) - level 2 - LG 2400mAh 18650: 541 - (est 38.64 lumens)

Huntlight FT01PJ (XR-E) - level 2 - Energizer E2 CR123a: 587 - (est 41.93 lumens)

Huntlight FT01PJ (XR-E) - level 2 - AW High Current 750mAh RCR123: 608 - (est 43.43 lumens)






Huntlight FT01PJ (XR-E) - level 1 - LG 2400mAh 18650: 178 - (est 12.71 lumens)

Huntlight FT01PJ (XR-E) - level 1 - Energizer E2 CR123a: 200 - (est 14.29 lumens)

Huntlight FT01PJ (XR-E) - level 1 - AW High Current 750mAh RCR123: 208 - (est 14.86 lumens)







I have some of AW's new high current RCR123's and a much needed new charger coming thanks to a very generous person (iNDiGLo) so when those arrive I'll do a set of runtimes on each level with them as well.

Thanks to everyone else who donated money, it paid for the CR123's. Thank you to 4sevens for donating the LG 18650's.

Thanks a bunch to JonSidneyB who donated the light for testing.


----------



## lightbug (Jan 5, 2007)

:wow: :goodjob: . Fantastic charts


----------



## daveman (Jan 5, 2007)

Hey Chevrofreak, great work as always. The FT-01PJ is the HAII body, right? 


Can I trouble you for just one more thing? Can you tell me what the lumen count is on the brightest SF U2 you have tested with the same setup you tested this Huntlight with? You don't have to post any graphs or anything, I'll take your word for it, thanks.


----------



## chevrofreak (Jan 5, 2007)

Yes this one is the black type II anodized version.

The brightest U2 was 1572 (est 112.29 lumens)

here's a graph anyway


----------



## Concept (Jan 5, 2007)

Cheers chevrofreak for a good job.


----------



## daveman (Jan 5, 2007)

Is it safe to say this Huntlight is a U2 slayer for now? It's definitely brighter and runs longer, with 5 levels of brightness as well, cheaper for sure. How does the beam profile compare with the U2?


----------



## EngrPaul (Jan 5, 2007)

I love this flashlight. They did it right. The outputs and runtimes are the icing on the cake.


----------



## Phaserburn (Jan 5, 2007)

Great work, Chev! I probably should go back to previous threads, but wasn't the Huntlight supposed to be regulated even when using a single li-ion? It obviously isn't a high enough voltage to engage the circuitry. Not a terrible plot at all, but not the flat regulation when using 6V worth of primaries.


----------



## chevrofreak (Jan 5, 2007)

Yeah, not running in regulation on an 18650 is a bit of a disappointment to me, but it is still extremely bright.

Someone needs to make some 18340's for these lights so you get the regulation of the higher voltage, and the higher capacity of an 18mm diameter cell. Might be able to make them as high as 1000mAh.


----------



## Phaserburn (Jan 5, 2007)

Or perhaps an extender to that 2 18500s can be used, ala Wolf Eyes.


----------



## Dan C (Jan 5, 2007)

I just charted mine last night on level 5, looks just like yours complete with the spike before the dropoff. Only difference is mine ran a tad longer than yours, maybe 5 minutes on the same cells. Thanks for doing the charts on the lower levels, something I wasn't ambitious enough to tackle....

As a matter of interest, the current draw on mine is .690, .480, .342, .205, and .068ma. Lower than Huntlight says but I'm just replacing the tailcap with the DMM leads......is that the correct way to do it?

Dan C


----------



## LightBright (Jan 5, 2007)

Sounds like the right way to me. Thanks for the graphs, Chevro! Wow that regulation- what regulation? Looks like resistors.


----------



## adirondackdestroyer (Jan 5, 2007)

If only it had regulation on the 18650 like it does with two 123 primary cells. I don't know why it doesn't considering that the original FT-01 did. Either way the runtimes are very impressive and the brightness is HUGE! Goodbye U2.


----------



## greenLED (Jan 5, 2007)

LightBright said:


> Sounds like the right way to me. Thanks for the graphs, Chevro! Wow that regulation- what regulation? Looks like resistors.


:huh2: 
Yes, it's a pitty li-ions don't have high enough voltage to quick the regulator into action, but that doesn't mean the light is DD. There's no way DD can show a flat discharge curve like chev's getting with primaries.


----------



## LightBright (Jan 5, 2007)

So it must be a buck converter that goes out of regulation below 5V or so. The prototype adjustable output converter I built for the 18650's has a totally flat output from beginning to end.


----------



## jsr (Jan 5, 2007)

Judging by the runtime plots chevro did on the original FT-01 where running 2x R123As resulted in a very short runtime, the driver is likely a linear regulator (LDO). If it was a buck, the pulse width would have reduced enough running 2 Li-Ions that runtime would be higher. Perhaps Huntlight changed the LDO they're using in the FT-01 XR-E lights to one that needs more headroom. Regardless, still amazing output.

I'm curious to see this compared to the upcoming Lumapower M1 XR-E version. And am fighting off the urge to pick one up now and wait for the Q3/Q4 bins to be more available and put as standard in the FT-01 and M1.


----------



## chevrofreak (Jan 5, 2007)

jsr said:


> Judging by the runtime plots chevro did on the original FT-01 where running 2x R123As resulted in a very short runtime, the driver is likely a linear regulator (LDO). If it was a buck, the pulse width would have reduced enough running 2 Li-Ions that runtime would be higher. Perhaps Huntlight changed the LDO they're using in the FT-01 XR-E lights to one that needs more headroom. Regardless, still amazing output.
> 
> I'm curious to see this compared to the upcoming Lumapower M1 XR-E version. And am fighting off the urge to pick one up now and wait for the Q3/Q4 bins to be more available and put as standard in the FT-01 and M1.



The FT01PJ luxeon I tested ran 70 minutes in regulation with a pair of RCR123's. I don't see how it could be an LDO.

An LG 2400mAh 18650 has about 8.2 watt-hours at 1 amp, while 2 RCR123's combined are about 4.4 watt-hours at 1/2 amp, and 2 CR123a's are about 7.5 watt-hours at 1/2 amp. That pretty much matches up with the runtimes for the FT01PJ, indicating that the circuit is putting most of that power to use instead of burning it up..


----------



## jsr (Jan 5, 2007)

If it's a buck regulator, there would be a PWM (or PFM) control on it that would reduce the duty cycle proportional to the input voltage. Since 2x R123As is double the voltage of 1x 18650, the duty cycle should shrink (say by half as an example, but the relationship is not necessarily linear). Considering the reduction in duty cycle, I'd expect the runtime of 2x R123As to be better than what showed up in the tests, closer to 2/3rds the runtime of 1x 18650. If it's an LDO or other type of linear regulator, then a source with a third the capacity would be expected to only provide a third the runtime (with the rest of the voltage dissipated as heat). It just doesn't look right that at 7.4V, the runtime is so low if it's a buck regulator.


----------



## daveman (Jan 5, 2007)

jsr said:


> I'm curious to see this compared to the upcoming Lumapower M1 XR-E version. And am fighting off the urge to pick one up now and wait for the Q3/Q4 bins to be more available and put as standard in the FT-01 and M1.


 
I too, am waiting for Lumapower's XR-E M1. Although I expect it to have similar performance and runtime as the FT-01, unless the M1 sports a Q bin, which is unlikely, as Ricky said the M1 will be available before the end of the month. 

I guess the current Luxeon based U2 is out of the race for the brightest/most versatile 2-cell tactical LED light then?


----------



## Mike abcd (Jan 5, 2007)

I posted some speculation about that behavior in the announcement thread when folks started talking about using an 18650. Based on the actual results, the Cree is just being direct driven on the higher levels and just begins to get into regulation on the lower ones as the battery voltage drops.

A lot depends on the actual Vf of the particular emitter and some might see better or worse results. The buck regulator should limit current on at at least the higher levels even with a very low Vf emitter.

The buck regulator probably imposes a voltage drop which makes it even tougher to predict behavior without knowing how large it is even if you know the Vf vs current of the emitter.

I'm still very impressed with the measured performance on an 18650 of Chevrofreak's tested light.

Are 2 x RCR123 within the safe range of the electronics? I know it's not on some lights. You might wind up direct driving the LED (bad) or blowing the buck regulator really quickly (worse).

I'd be really tempted if they hadn't put high first. I can't understand the current trend in that direction with lights with 100+ lumens high level output.

Mike


----------



## daveman (Jan 5, 2007)

Mike abcd said:


> I'd be really tempted if they hadn't put high first. I can't understand the current trend in that direction with lights with 100+ lumens high level output.
> 
> Mike


 
I'm rather glad Huntlight designed the FT-01 to turn on at Max output; this enables the user to use the light in a tactical situation. Being that it's a 2-cell light, it's very unlikely it would be a EDC anyhow, so it wouldn't face many of the everyday scenarios that might require a barely noticeable amount of light at the first crank. If the user should need stealth over output in a tactical situation, then he can always use a sheath with a little screen-mesh hole in the bottom that will only let out a small amount of light for map reading, I think Spec Ops has one such sheath.


----------



## EngrPaul (Jan 5, 2007)

I agree with high-first being the best for this flashlight. 

If you don't want that much light, and don't want your night vision interrupted, just press the light against your leg while passing through the first few brighness levels.


----------



## Gnufsh (Jan 6, 2007)

I'm very disappointed with this light on 18650s. I was seriously considering it until I saw those graphs.


----------



## diesel_dad (Jan 6, 2007)

Overall, I am impressed with this light. The multiple brightness levels are a great addition and if I need to take one light with me, it's a solid choice.

The lack of regulation is a surprise although I doubt that the change would really be perceptible over 2 hours of use. And with 18650's, you can alway pop them back in the charger for a top-off.

The things that could still be improved are:
1). The crazy pocket clip, which is held on by security screws that I can't find a bit to remove!
2). The lack of a good lanyard attachment point (and the slot in the pocket clip, while it can be used for a lanyard is awkward).
3). Can't stand on it's tail for candle use. If the collar around the clickie were just slightly longer, problem solved.

Also, I have 3 FT-01's (Black HAII T-bin, Nat HAIII U-bin and now XR-E) and the internal diameter on the barrel is different on every one. The latest with the XR-E does not fit an AW 18650 -- so I need to get one that does.


----------



## EngrPaul (Jan 6, 2007)

I have the same wishes as diesel dad. I also wish for a texture to the reflector like the non-cree FT01.


----------



## chevrofreak (Jan 6, 2007)

If Huntlight would do a medium texture like heir regulat FT01 reflectors it would make the beam pretty much perfectly smooth and artifact free. Since it is so very simple to remove the reflector from this light it could easily be changed out by the end user. They either need to make it an option during purchase, or available for later installation.

Huntlight, are you listening? Fenix and Lumapower are working on textured reflectors for their XR-E lights. You don't want to be left behind!


----------



## digitaleos (Jan 6, 2007)

Here are a couple of pictures of the lamp assembly taken apart. I thought I would post these since I haven't seen it posted before. If someone could find a textured reflector that would fit these assemblies that would be great. I wonder if the reflector off of one of the G&P LED drop-ins would work.


----------



## EngrPaul (Jan 6, 2007)

Good pictures.

If they use a textured reflector on the dimmer FT-01 luxeon!

The only reason I could think they didn't use it on the Cree version was rushing to market with a new reflector, and the texturing would slow things down.

*I was very disappointed that the beam quality was not the same smoothness as the FT-01 due to lack of texturing, and I paid 3X for it. *


----------



## NewBie (Jan 6, 2007)

jsr said:


> If it's a buck regulator, there would be a PWM (or PFM) control on it that would reduce the duty cycle proportional to the input voltage. Since 2x R123As is double the voltage of 1x 18650, the duty cycle should shrink (say by half as an example, but the relationship is not necessarily linear). Considering the reduction in duty cycle, I'd expect the runtime of 2x R123As to be better than what showed up in the tests, closer to 2/3rds the runtime of 1x 18650. If it's an LDO or other type of linear regulator, then a source with a third the capacity would be expected to only provide a third the runtime (with the rest of the voltage dissipated as heat). It just doesn't look right that at 7.4V, the runtime is so low if it's a buck regulator.




Chevrofreak had mentioned this is a PWM dimmed light, and was noticeable especially on the lower ranges.

What may be going on, is that they used a buck regulator that doesn't have 100% duty cycle abilities, and as such, will act like an efficient voltage divider, but dropping the regulated output voltage by a ratio from the input. This would lead to the unregulated constantly dropping output, when ran off 18650 of cell.

For dimming, one simply switches the LED off and on with a switch, ran off the usually regulated output voltage, but in this case with the 18650 cells, the regulator is unable to regulate with such a low input voltage.

Had it been a buck switcher that can go to 100% duty cycle, I would have expected to see it run flat in regulation for a good period of time, before the light output started to drop in the unregulated state.

The dimming, being PWM, doesn't gain you any LED efficiency unfortunately.

Any reason folks are trying to utilize 18650's with this light?


----------



## javafool (Jan 6, 2007)

NewBie said:


> <snip>
> 
> Any reason folks are trying to utilize 18650's with this light?



It is just nice to be able to use rechargable batteries. Lithium Ions, as you know, are light weight and hold a charge well. I own one of these flashlights and am disappointed in the graph for 18650's. I think Huntlight showed the 18650 as well as CR123's on their web site, but I guess they never really updated it for the XR-E, I just assumed it would be better, especially for $100.

The FT-01XSE really is a fantastic flashlight in its own and has a good runtime curve for the 18650's.


----------



## jsr (Jan 6, 2007)

NewBie said:


> Had it been a buck switcher that can go to 100% duty cycle, I would have expected to see it run flat in regulation for a good period of time, before the light output started to drop in the unregulated state.


 
Jar - that's true...perhaps the buck can't go to full duty cycle. Still doesn't explain the reason why the normal FT-01 has such short runtimes on 2x R123As though.

I like the new FT-01 XR-E, but I'm going to wait until the Q3/Q4 versions are released.


----------



## chevrofreak (Jan 6, 2007)

jsr said:


> Jar - that's true...perhaps the buck can't go to full duty cycle. Still doesn't explain the reason why the normal FT-01 has such short runtimes on 2x R123As though.
> 
> I like the new FT-01 XR-E, but I'm going to wait until the Q3/Q4 versions are released.



I still don't see why you think the runtime is short on RCR123's. RCR123's are about half the capacity as regular CR123's so half the runtime sounds normal to me.


----------



## javafool (Jan 6, 2007)

If the scale on the left of the previous charts is the same for the FT-01PJ as it is for the XRE, does that mean using 18650 cells that the total output of the XRE drops to the Luxeon equivalent after about 6 hours +? I know the beam on the XRE is larger in diameter so it would probably appear dimmer.

If so, i think I feel better


----------



## TJZ (Jan 6, 2007)

I have the Huntlight FT01PJ XR-E Cree P4 flashlight.
This light is very very bright and white.
It has an excellent throw to it and the 
adjustable outputs are great.
Also the ability to use rechargeable batteries is fantastic!

I have a runtime that nobody has posted here yet.
I have been getting 1 Hour and 20 Minutes runtime on high (100%)
with 2 RCR123 3.6V 900mAh batteries from Battery Station.
ALL the modes work correctly on the light with these rechargeable 
batteries which is great!
It is MUCH brighter with the 3.7V batteries as compared to the
standard 3.0V CR123 batteries. 

Just did some runtimes on high (100%) with Tenergy 
3.0V RCR123 900mAh batteries. I'm getting 45 Minutes with them.
Nowhere as good as the 1 Hour and 20 Minutes runtime on 
high (100%) with 2 RCR 3.6V 900mAh batteries from Battery Station.

I have contacted Huntlight and they informed me that this
light will work with an input range of 2.5 - 9 volts with the Cree LED.

Hunlight has said to me it can run with 2 RCR123A 3.7V batteries.
But because the bad percentage of some element on 
flashlight can not control by human. When the full 2*3.7V (8.4V at first second,then 7.4V)run,
the flashlight perhaps will happen flash and go off. After several mintues, it can work again.
This matter happened percentage is small. But we still not suggest use 2*3.7V RCR123A.
We suggest use with 2*3.0V RCR123A. That is good.
Just thought I would pass this on to you. 
Mine runs great on two 3.6V batteries. You may or may not want
to run 3.6V batteries with this issue.

Also I would like too add I have been in contact with Hunlight and they
have informed me that there is a special tool to remove the clip
on this light. You can order one from them.


----------



## jsr (Jan 8, 2007)

chevrofreak said:


> I still don't see why you think the runtime is short on RCR123's. RCR123's are about half the capacity as regular CR123's so half the runtime sounds normal to me.


 
Yes, for an LDO or linear regulator, that sounds right. But for a switcher, even though the RCR123s have less capacity, the voltage is higher which should result in longer runtimes because the duty cycle (on time) that the cell actually has to deliver any current is lower. The rest of the time, the cell does not have to source any current and thus does not get drained. the higher the voltage in an SMPS, the lower the duty cycle and the lower the on time resulting in longer runtimes (the advantage of SMPS over a linear regulator).


----------



## chevrofreak (Jan 8, 2007)

jsr said:


> Yes, for an LDO or linear regulator, that sounds right. But for a switcher, even though the RCR123s have less capacity, the voltage is higher which should result in longer runtimes because the duty cycle (on time) that the cell actually has to deliver any current is lower.  The rest of the time, the cell does not have to source any current and thus does not get drained. the higher the voltage in an SMPS, the lower the duty cycle and the lower the on time resulting in longer runtimes (the advantage of SMPS over a linear regulator).



I was comparing Watt-Hours not mAh since watt-hours nore accurately represents the power a cell actually contains. At about 4.4wh for 2 RCR123's and 7.2wh for 2 CR123 primaries.

The RCR123's have about 59% of the total capacity of the CR123a primaries, but will deliver nearly all of it before the light drops out of regulation. The CR123a's will continue running for quite a while after it drops out of regulation.

I don't see how an inefficient LDO regulator would be able to give the runtime on RCR123's that the FT01 regulator did. The runtime on RCR123's was just over 1/2 as long as the CR123a primaries, which would be expected since they have just over 1/2 the capacity. That sounds like a very efficient regulator to me.


----------



## jsr (Jan 8, 2007)

For an LDO, a power source with half the capacity will deliver half the runtime. The fact that the runtime on the R123As vs. 123As is virtually the same as their difference in capacity proves that.
In a switcher, the additional voltage will improves efficiency and acts as a method to improve runtime. The idea of higher voltage resulting in lower current consumption because of the time the current is drawn is speaking in watts and not just amps. This is the same concept as in a boost circuit where starting with a higher voltage, i.e. 3V boost to 3.5V vs. 1.5V boost to 3.5V, efficiency and effectively runtime is higher because less energy is wasted due to current demand being of less time. The same holds true for a buck circuit. The higher voltage reduces the time current (and power because higher voltage is what reduces the current demand time) is demanded resulting in longer runtimes than expected based solely on capacities of the energy source.
I'm not saying anything's bad, just that I thought the driver was a buck but it looks more like a linear regulator. For a 3.7V source, this is very efficient and more cost effective than a buck.


----------



## chevrofreak (Jan 8, 2007)

I think you're talking mAh while I'm talking Wh.

The Wh for the cells I've run pretty much directly matches the runtimes in the FT01PJ Luxeon. Thats why I simply can't believe that it uses an LDO.


----------



## LightScene (Jan 8, 2007)

"I just assumed it would be better, especially for $100."

It looks to me like JSBurly may be price gouging to take advantage of the demand for the Cree XR-E.


----------



## chevrofreak (Jan 8, 2007)

LightScene said:


> "I just assumed it would be better, especially for $100."
> 
> It looks to me like JSBurly may be price gouging to take advantage of the demand for the Cree XR-E.



Jon has nothing to do with the pricing of the light, Huntlight is setting the price.


----------



## daveman (Jan 8, 2007)

LightScene said:


> "I just assumed it would be better, especially for $100."
> 
> It looks to me like JSBurly may be price gouging to take advantage of the demand for the Cree XR-E.


 
Ease up on the finger-pointing there, LightScene. While I appreciate (truthfully) your looking out for your fellow CPFers against price gouging, you should be certain before you accuse Jon of something like gouging. 
JSBurly's is selling the HA XR-E FT-01 for $90 with no shipping charge, Lighthound is selling the same for $99, could be even more with shipping.

edit to add: if your charge turns out to be false, you should offer a quick apology to Jon.


----------



## jsr (Jan 8, 2007)

chevro - like I said, a power source with 59% the capacity resulting in a runtime of approximately 59% relative to the other power source is what I'd expect from a *linear regulator*. And when I'm talking about current draw duty cycle as a result of voltage, that is power (P = VI) and power is watts. Again, if the runtime difference is the same as the capacity difference (R123A runtime is 59% of 123A because capacity is 59% of 123A), that looks like a linear regulator. A switching regulator (buck) should result in a longer runtime than what is given solely by the capacity (Wh). Again, not talking mAh...talking current duty cycle as a result of voltage. How a switcher (buck) works is to alter the duty cycle to change efficiency resulting in better or worse runtime...not a perfect correlation between runtime and capacity as what we're seeing with the FT-01 (which points to a linear regulator).


----------



## greenLED (Jan 8, 2007)

LightScene said:


> It looks to me like JSBurly may be price gouging to take advantage of the demand for the Cree XR-E.


 Your suggestion is ludicrous.

JSB is not only one of the best dealers on CPF, he's one of the most honorable people I've ever met.


----------



## LifeNRA (Jan 8, 2007)

greenLED said:


> Your suggestion is ludicrous.
> 
> JSB is not only one of the best dealers on CPF, he's one of the most honorable people I've ever met.


+1
Jon is one of the most trustworthy people I know.


----------



## EngrPaul (Jan 8, 2007)

Check your definition of "price gouging" vs. free market.

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

You don't have to buy the Cree flashlight as a basic need.

Now if somebody was selling EverReady flashlights during a flood for $50, that would be price gouging.


----------



## TJZ (Jan 9, 2007)

Jon is "ONE OF THE BEST" out there!!!
He has been extremely helpful with my purchase and questions. 
He has gained a lifetime customer.

Also my Huntlight FT01PJ XR-E Cree P4 from him is Ten Dollars
Cheaper than other places.


Thanks Jon


----------



## Glockstersharp (Jan 9, 2007)

LightScene said:


> "I just assumed it would be better, especially for $100."
> 
> It looks to me like JSBurly may be price gouging to take advantage of the demand for the Cree XR-E.


 
Jon typically has the best prices on the Huntlights. He's most definitely a stand-up guy. I think you should check out the competition's prices out there prior to questioning his character.:thumbsdow


----------



## chevrofreak (Jan 9, 2007)

jsr said:


> chevro - like I said, a power source with 59% the capacity resulting in a runtime of approximately 59% relative to the other power source is what I'd expect from a *linear regulator*. And when I'm talking about current draw duty cycle as a result of voltage, that is power (P = VI) and power is watts. Again, if the runtime difference is the same as the capacity difference (R123A runtime is 59% of 123A because capacity is 59% of 123A), that looks like a linear regulator. A switching regulator (buck) should result in a longer runtime than what is given solely by the capacity (Wh). Again, not talking mAh...talking current duty cycle as a result of voltage. How a switcher (buck) works is to alter the duty cycle to change efficiency resulting in better or worse runtime...not a perfect correlation between runtime and capacity as what we're seeing with the FT-01 (which points to a linear regulator).




Would not a linear regulator pull the same amount of current no matter which cells it was powered with, then simply burn up the extra voltage as heat? That's not what the FT01PJ luxeon does. With 2 CR123a's measuring 6.07v it was drawing 490mA, with 2 RCR123's with 8.15v it was drawing 420mA and with an 18650 measuring 4.14v it was drawing 700mA. If you calculate those out to their wattage they match up fairly well with the differences in brightness for the different cells.


----------



## LightBright (Jan 9, 2007)

How about just asking Huntlight what they're running the light with? I feel like y'all are discussing how deep the snow is at the north pole without going up there yourselves. :touche:

Watt-hours for sure will tell you something about what to expect in runtimes from a cell, and then there's the efficiency of the circuit used to drive the LED. A linear reg will be fairly efficient IF the cell voltage is near the LED's working voltage, and as the cell's voltage gets farther away from the LED's working voltage, a switcher will be the more efficient choice.

chevro - those voltages/current you posted for CR123's, RCR123, and the 18650 - looks like you were measuring the Open Circuit voltage, not the voltage measured while the cells were under load.


----------



## chevrofreak (Jan 9, 2007)

LightBright said:


> chevro - those voltages/current you posted for CR123's, RCR123, and the 18650 - looks like you were measuring the Open Circuit voltage, not the voltage measured while the cells were under load.



They were, but it was only meant to show that the current level changes depending on input voltage, which would pretty much mean it doesn't use an LDO.


----------



## jsr (Jan 9, 2007)

chevrofreak said:


> Would not a linear regulator pull the same amount of current no matter which cells it was powered with, then simply burn up the extra voltage as heat? That's not what the FT01PJ luxeon does. With 2 CR123a's measuring 6.07v it was drawing 490mA, with 2 RCR123's with 8.15v it was drawing 420mA and with an 18650 measuring 4.14v it was drawing 700mA. If you calculate those out to their wattage they match up fairly well with the differences in brightness for the different cells.


 
chevro - you're right, a linear reg would keep the current the same (since it's really only regulating voltage) unless the internal resistance of the cells are making that much of a difference (I've seen a 200mA difference between a R123A and a 14500 in my Jet1 due to the internal resistance difference of the two cell types). When I ran my FT-01 with a single 3.7V cell (single R123A), the current wasn't much different from what I got from 2x 123As or 2x R123As. Just strange to me that the higher voltage doesn't provide more runtime...higher voltage in a switcher acts similarly to increased capacity. Oh well. Do you plan on getting a Lumapower M1 Cree also to do comparos with the Huntlight Cree?...it'd be nice to see those two compared in output and runtime.


----------



## chevrofreak (Jan 10, 2007)

jsr said:


> Do you plan on getting a Lumapower M1 Cree also to do comparos with the Huntlight Cree?...it'd be nice to see those two compared in output and runtime.



I won't be able to purchase one, but if Lumapower would send me one to test I would be glad to do it. If they don't want to do that I could probably borrow one from someone here to test.


----------



## LightBright (Jan 10, 2007)

jsr said:


> chevro - you're right, a linear reg would keep the current the same



A voltage regulator keeps the OUTPUT Voltage the same and pretty much the current too, although when driving an LED at a set voltage, the current may drift slightly.

The INPUT Current will change as the INPUT Voltage changes (with a steady output load), simple as that.


----------



## jsr (Jan 10, 2007)

Ok, took some current measurements with various cells on my FT-01:

1x R123A (3.7V loaded) = 485mA
2x 3.7V R123A (~7.4V loaded) = 550mA
2x 123A (<6V loaded) = 500mA
2x 3V R123A (6V loaded) = 505mA
1x 14500 (3.7V loaded) = 600mA
1x 17500 (3.7V loaded) = 630mA

So it does look like a linear regulator. The current differences are due to the internal resistance and contact resistance of the cells. A 14500 cell has lower internal resistance than a 16340. A 17500 has lower internal resistance than a 14500. Each resulting in higher current (even tho they're at the same voltage) due to a reduction in the series resistance. An 18650 would have even lower internal resistance than a 17500 which would explain the higher current with that cell even at the same voltage level. Not a complaint, just an observation. The FT-01 would've likely cost more had they used a buck regulator. One of the reasons I love my FT-01 so much is knowing how low the price is/was making it such a great value for it's performance.

LightBright - yes, a voltage regulator regulates voltage, which the rest of my sentence that you quoted states "since it's really only regulating voltage". However, it's not that simple. There are operational differences between a buck regulator and linear regulator (both of which are voltage regulators) when it comes to their efficiencies and power consumption, which is the reason one is chosen over the other depending on application.

I'm looking forward to the comparison with the M1 Cree to the FT-01 Cree. Hope you get an M1 Cree soon chevro.


----------



## chevrofreak (Jan 11, 2007)

jsr said:


> Ok, took some current measurements with various cells on my FT-01:
> 
> 1x R123A (3.7V loaded) = 485mA
> 2x 3.7V R123A (~7.4V loaded) = 550mA
> ...




Is yours one of the original FT01's before the PJ and XSE? I'm damned near positive the PJ and XSE's use a switching regulator instead of a linear regulator. They changed the circuit for the PJ model (same circuit used in the XSE), but I'm not sure what they changed about it.


----------



## yellow (Jan 11, 2007)

thanks for the graphs. I was thinking about the huntlight quite some time now, because being one of the few multi-level, Cree, 18650 lights but did not like the agressive optics of strike bezel and such.
But with these graphs, I will now wait for smaller, less "muscle" lights...
also price might come to reasonable levels by then.


----------



## LightBright (Jan 11, 2007)

jsr said:


> LightBright - yes, a voltage regulator regulates voltage, which the rest of my sentence that you quoted states "since it's really only regulating voltage". However, it's not that simple.
> 
> There are operational differences between a buck regulator and linear regulator (both of which are voltage regulators) when it comes to their efficiencies and power consumption, which is the reason one is chosen over the other depending on application.



Yep, I know they're different - I've been in the electronics industry for about 23 years. I'm designing my flashlight circuits with a switcher. :huh:


----------



## jsr (Jan 11, 2007)

chevro - yes, mine is before the PJ (but after the initial release, so it's the brighter version of the first generation I guess). Perhaps they did change it out to a switcher.

Lightbright - nice! You should consider offering some affordable switcher drivers to CPFers. There are about 3 members offering their own drivers, but it doesn't hurt to have options, especially if they're affordable. Many of the drivers currently offered cost as much as lights themselves. A low cost but efficient option would be great!


----------



## chevrofreak (Jan 12, 2007)

iNDiGLo very generously bought some of AW's 750mAh high current RCR123's and an Ultrafire charger for me after I had mentioned that my old protected cells were pretty much dead and useless for testing. Thanks a bunch buddy!

I've run the light on all 5 levels using those cells and the data has been added to the graphs.


----------



## chevrofreak (Jan 12, 2007)

jsr said:


> Lightbright - nice! You should consider offering some affordable switcher drivers to CPFers. There are about 3 members offering their own drivers, but it doesn't hurt to have options, especially if they're affordable. Many of the drivers currently offered cost as much as lights themselves. A low cost but efficient option would be great!




Agreed. I dislike the .55" size of the commonly available ones since they're far too small to easily replace the circuit (or lack there of) in my CR123 sized lights.


----------



## woodrow (Mar 12, 2007)

I just wanted to say thanks to Chrvrofreak for the graphs as well as Quicktime for his review at Flashlight reviews. The Huntlight XR-E (from J.S.Burly's of course) will be my third Cree light in Two weeks. Thanks also everyone else for their beamshots, graphs, comments and explamations. Thats what makes cpf so great.

I will post beamshot comparrisons between the Ultrafire C2, D-Mini & Huntlight when The D-mini and Huntlight get here this week. I should have some beamshots of the C2 up tonight.

Thanks again everyone!


----------

