Could be a little higher, but you lose efficiency because you need the boost driver.
Secondly, output is also more constant.
Thatâs the advantage of a boost driver.
Could be a little higher, but you lose efficiency because you need the boost driver.
Secondly, output is also more constant.
Thatâs the advantage of a boost driver.
giorgoskok: Jerommel:Giorgio, could you please downsize the pictures in your review?
Those huge sizes are quite pointless, theyâre not even sharp enough for that many pixels.
Thanks.O uhm⌠Nice light! Looks good. :+1:
But 1300 LM can be obtained with an XP-L too and then you donât need a boost driverâŚPictures are fine from PC .
Yes they are fine, but theyâre also a couple of MB and not worth the huge size.
Takes very long to load with the number of pictures on page 1.
1000 pixels width would be more than enough.
I have set the pictures based on the width of the page . Works best in most devices .
If i set them based on pixels they will not show properly on smartphones etc . Anyway , i will reduce the picturesâ relative width .
hIKARInoob: Jerommel:Giorgio, could you please downsize the pictures in your review?
Those huge sizes are quite pointless, theyâre not even sharp enough for that many pixels.
Thanks.O uhm⌠Nice light! Looks good. :+1:
But 1300 LM can be obtained with an XP-L too and then you donât need a boost driverâŚI think the efficacy with an XHP35 is much higher than with an XPL.
Could be a little higher, but you lose efficiency because you need the boost driver.
Secondly, output is also more constant.
Thatâs the advantage of a boost driver.
I am curious what different efficiency values different types of drivers have. I also read that modern boost drivers are much more efficient⌠If I look at the runtime graph of the U21, Iâm pretty pleased.
Jerommel: giorgoskok: Jerommel:Giorgio, could you please downsize the pictures in your review?
Those huge sizes are quite pointless, theyâre not even sharp enough for that many pixels.
Thanks.O uhm⌠Nice light! Looks good. :+1:
But 1300 LM can be obtained with an XP-L too and then you donât need a boost driverâŚPictures are fine from PC .
Yes they are fine, but theyâre also a couple of MB and not worth the huge size.
Takes very long to load with the number of pictures on page 1.
1000 pixels width would be more than enough.I have set the pictures based on the width of the page . Works best in most devices .
If i set them based on pixels they will not show properly on smartphones etc . Anyway , i will reduce the picturesâ relative width .
That doesnât matter.
You have used a lot of pictures of several megabytes each.
Setting the % page width doesnât matter, it takes unnecessarily long to load anyway, because the files are huge and many in number.
You should scale them down on your PC first before uploading.
Not complaining, but I also have noticed page 1 takes a lot more time than any other page to loadâŚ
Ok i will probably do this when i update the review .
Thanks for letting me know , and sorry
Jerommel: hIKARInoob: Jerommel:Giorgio, could you please downsize the pictures in your review?
Those huge sizes are quite pointless, theyâre not even sharp enough for that many pixels.
Thanks.O uhm⌠Nice light! Looks good. :+1:
But 1300 LM can be obtained with an XP-L too and then you donât need a boost driverâŚI think the efficacy with an XHP35 is much higher than with an XPL.
Could be a little higher, but you lose efficiency because you need the boost driver.
Secondly, output is also more constant.
Thatâs the advantage of a boost driver.
I am curious what different efficiency values different types of drivers have. I also read that modern boost drivers are much more efficient⌠If I look at the runtime graph of the U21, Iâm pretty pleased.
Good point, because i forgot that a linear driver just turns the surplus Voltage to heat = waste.
But in this case the voltage has to be quadrupled (thatâs 4x) approximately, which is usually not that efficient.
A.f.a.i.k. boost and buck conversion works much more efficient when itâs within about 20% difference between input and output.
Ok i will probably do this when i update the review .
Thanks for letting me know , and sorry
Thanks.
Peak output being at 2.5A which occurs with 14.4V, or thereabouts, voltage is a bit more than tripled, not quadrupled, but still⌠the constant current style puts a heavy load on a dying cell by maintaining voltage at the cost of ever increasing amperage draw from the dying cell. Sounds problematic to me, considering that a hot cell can be a bomb. Factor in weak, cheap, and/or inferior components on the driver to save every fraction of a cent and itâs not a likely candidate for bumping power to for just anyone.
xhp35 has 2 versions 6v and 12v, if you are measuring from led 12v versions current will be half of 6v version. Measure voltage please if youâre measuring from led
xhp35 has 2 versions 6v and 12v, if you are measuring from led 12v versions current will be half of 6v version. Measure voltage please if youâre measuring from led
No, not according to the CREE spec sheets: http://www.cree.com/LED-Components-and-Modules/Products/XLamp/Discrete-Directional/XLamp-XHP35, not to be confused with the XHP50: http://www.cree.com/LED-Components-and-Modules/Products/XLamp/Arrays-Directional/XLamp-XHP50 which is clearly dual voltage.
Peak output being at 2.5A which occurs with 14.4V, or thereabouts, voltage is a bit more than tripled, not quadrupled,
It is when the cells are below 3.6 Volts.
And for 2.5 Amperes it will have to deliver more than 10 Amperes.
But a fat 26650 can handle that easily.
My mistake. You are right, sorry
Why does the info say this light has a belt clip? I donât see one.
Removed the driver this morning . Itâs the same driver you posted Tom E .
I looked for weak connections or something suspicious but i found nothing .
So , stock numbers : Amps at the tail : 2.65A / Amps at the emitter : 0.7A / ~70kcd intensity
As a last step , i checked the sense resistor . It was the same R050 as Tom Eâs driver , Screenshot by Lightshot .
I added another R050 on top of the existing one , and it was pulling 5.7A from the battery .
I let the light run for 10 mins without any issue . Charging cell now for more tests âŚ
PS . I have already contacted gearbest to check the production with the factory .
Also UT01 came today , at least this is working properly .
Is the sense resistor the one marked in orange in Mankerâs driver?
Can you show a pic of this Utoch driver?
giorgoskok:Removed the driver this morning . Itâs the same driver you posted Tom E .
I looked for weak connections or something suspicious but i found nothing .
So , stock numbers : Amps at the tail : 2.65A / Amps at the emitter : 0.7A / ~70kcd intensity
As a last step , i checked the sense resistor . It was the same R050 as Tom Eâs driver , Screenshot by Lightshot .
I added another R050 on top of the existing one , and it was pulling 5.7A from the battery .
I let the light run for 10 mins without any issue . Charging cell now for more tests âŚ
PS . I have already contacted gearbest to check the production with the factory .
Also UT01 came today , at least this is working properly .Is the sense resistor the one marked in orange in Mankerâs driver?
Can you show a pic of this Utoch driver?
i think itâs too small to be Sunt resitor
Thatâs what I think too.
Itâs exactly the same driver .
Yes, the resistor in orange is the one that i changed (added resistor).
Can you read âMankerâ in the Utoch driver?
I have 2 of these beauties, lucky me, here are the amp reads thru the 5 levels, for one of them, the other is slightly lower, 2.25amp. UNI-T meter and a Purple Efest 3500 off the charger! Pics of the dirty reflectors too!