Thanks for the great and exhaustive review!
Not sure if it was mentioned earlier, but the photo of the package you posted shows peak beam intensity of 10,600 cd.
That is for the Nichia version.
Good news, the Samsung 21700 30T not only didn’t break anything, it was able to cycle full turbo seven times before stepping down to the lower turbo level of 3150 lumens. Initial turbo lasts for 40 seconds before stepping down, which is quite a lot better than on one of my original Acebeam 21700s with 12 seconds.
The internal dc resistance of the 30T is only 13 mOhm.
I’m sure performance would be even better with that updated version like Toobadorz got. Have you talked to Acebeam about getting a replacement?
Mine is already a replacement after the first one broke on turbo, just like Toobadorz’s. I’m sure the difference in performance is due to the battery sample difference as that is already large between the two I have.
Okay, I must have forgot you mentioned it.
Is your turbo still at 3700 lm? Toobadorz said his was now closer to 4000 lm on the replacement light (for some reason).
I don’t have numbers for the first light. It could have well been lower than the 3750 on the new one.
edit: scratch that. The first sample was 3456 lm @ 0 sec.
I’m still thinking this light could benefit from spring bypasses.
I’m not an experienced tester and I’ve only ever tested one light that had a boost driver. I did however notice that as I was using a heavy wire across the tail cap and a clamp meter to measure the amp draw on turbo that it extended the turbo run time.
I further could watch the amp draw decrease as I compressed the driver spring.
Have you noticed any similar behavior?
Also, what battery do you think is best for this light.
The Acebeam doesn’t give much full power turbo runtime, but does give extra run time at lower levels.
The 30T gives a lot of full power turbo run time, but it’s 3,000mah capacity runs out pretty quick.
Maybe the Lishen/Liitokala 4000mah is a good compromise?
Also, that 20A protection circuit is the biggest I’ve heard of. To answer Noirs question, that’s probably why they set that 3.5v turbo stepdown limit. If they tried to set it to a lower voltage it would probably try to draw well over 20 amps from the battery and maybe burn up the driver in the process.
If there is a measurable difference using different batteries, then a spring bypass should lead to enhanced performance or not?
At 15 amps a spring bypass is always helpful.
The EC65 tailcap spring has a resistance of 17.76 mOhm, which translates to 0.266 volt drop at 15 A.
That’s quite a lot, as in significant.
And as the spring heats up, the resistance goes up. 10 amps for 30 seconds and the voltage drop is 0.276 V scaled to 15 A .
It’s using a phosphor bronze spring, right?
Then, either using a special alloy berrylium copper spring or a spring bypass would be the best way to go.
I think it should. When the driver pulls a heavy load from the battery, the voltage sags down. The more resistance, the lower the voltage. All of this extra resistance causes the driver to work harder.
As you can see with the 30T battery, when placed under a heavy load (15A) this battery can maintain a higher voltage level.
A lot of lesser load (10A) boost driver lights use double springs to reduce electrical resistance and keep the voltage high.
Since a boost driver is trying to put out a constant wattage, Ohms law states V x C = W. This is voltage times current (amperage) = wattage. So as a batteries voltage runs down, the current draw will go up (but only so far).
I suspect if the springs were bypassed, reducing resistance, then voltage going to the driver would be higher and it would run turbo for longer times.
Look at what the extra resistance of the 18650 adapter did to the performance. It hurt it a lot. Therefore, my theory is bypassing the springs would definitely help improve performance.
I’m surprised Acebeam did not improve the springs. This seems like an error on their part.
I think we’re on the same page here Jason, but I have the tendency to express a bit differently. I’d say with both spring stock and bypassed, the driver works equally hard. But with a spring bypass you have a tad more voltage available for the driver, resulting in more turbo (max output with intermittent cooling) sequences with depleting cell voltage before reducing in output.
Tailcap spring bypassed even the stock Acebeam 21700 battery manages five full turbo cycles. Did only one before.
Maybe I should change “harder” to “less efficiently”.
This is actually something I’d like to explore in more detail. If a boost driver produces the same output at 3.5v and at 4v, is it working more efficiently or harder?
When I tested the Lumintop ODF30 I tested Turbo at three different battery voltage levels (Liitokala 5000mah 26650 black).
4.2v = 8.35A
4.0v = 9A
3.6v = 10A for one second then drop down to next level.
When testing a protected KeepPower 5200mah at 4.2v it drew 10.6A for a second then dropped down to next level.
I found all this pretty interesting, but I’d still like to learn a bit more in depth as to what’s going on especially in relation to heat build up.
Hopefully I’m not going too far off topic.
Elementary, my dear Watson. Lol
Thanks for trying it out Maukka.
Thanks for sharing the results with the 30T. 