i like the phys. construction of this torch. thanks for the great review!!
Not done as yet , still in the process ...
I save from time to time ....
"...activating the protection leaves you [ left me ] with a dead light , a real bummer if you didnt know how to resuscitate it back to life .. "
I wish I had tried this with my SE-1 before I replaced the driver . Cool tip with the momentary reverse polarity .
Nice review! Thanks for the write up. It looks like a nice light and a true bigger brother to the SE-1. Thanks also about the reverse polarity trick. ;)
Did you buy at the listed price, or is there a discount coupon available?
Thanks very much for the review Old!
Frontpage'd and Sticky'd.
Nice review.
I seem to remember Chicago X finding a very light (2g) pill ("sans driver") when his SE-1 died. Does the SE-2 have a similar very light component?
1/ No discount ...
2/ Pill seems to be fine , not heavy or light , but then aluminium does not weigh that much
/3 Reverse polarity [ Thanks guys ]
Thanks for the review old! 
Thanks for taking the time to review this for us, old. It's much appreciated.
No mode memory!
The way I use my SE-1 is to hold the lens flat against my leg and half press until I get to the mode I want before full clicking . This way I don't have to lose my dark adapted vision ...
What?! You call this excellent regulation?
It's basically direct drive!
Wow! Such drop in lumens? Where is that chart from?
Tail standing has always bugged me with the Balder lights. That's really been my only negative. The rubber switch just barely sticks out past the tail cap and makes the tail standing unstable. Basically, it manages to stay upright by virtue of the switch being flat. I don't know why they couldn't build it just a tad more recessed.
I'm actually more interested in the SE-2 than the BD-2. It's a little more simplistic in design while still looking unique and you save $15. Intl-outdoor has it for slightly less than CNQG and with free shipping.
Yes - better than most lights priced around $35 ..
+ I used a battery with as little capacity as possible my very old now IMR , originally ratted as 1600mAh , possibly closer to 1400mAh , and after 3 years ??
So what you needed to look at , was the output @ the voltage , and ignore the time ...
The variable not accounted for was heat sag , the light got very warm doing this to about 3.7v ..
And your graph LIE's , unfortunately , output never reached 0 , last measured output was 346L @ 3.39v , and then the protection circuit kicked in ..
So a few things that need to be taken into consideration =
1/ Battery used for test was very low capacity to speed up test .
2/ Variables are voltage and output , not run time ...
3/ Heat related sag , one would need to set up some sort of water cooling or something to minimize the effects of heat ! Because light output increased nearly 50L if the light was allowed to cool down [ time consuming ]
4/ So yes , I would say above average or good regulation ..
5/ if you were to stretch out the graph to 250% - 300% and end at 346L , that might represent a run with a Samsung or LG or Panasonic or the new Sanyo.
6/ Start [ Nice cool light ] 4.2v @ 630L then as the light heats up there is heat sag , the longer the light runs , the more sag as the heat builds up . END 3.39v @ 346L last measurement taken . the battery sagged bellow 3v or to 3v and the over discharge kicked in ,
So the run was from 630 to 346 , so it put out good light all the way [ if 346 is not good @ 3.39v I dont know what is ] ...
So at the end its still doing 50% of max output ..
So the test run was not the most ideal possible due to heat sag , and no attempt by me to minimize it , and how many people run a light from start to end ? [ battery ]
So the results represent real world : But if you wanted to test less heat sag ..
You would need 20 or 30 batteries at varying voltages and check output with the light at the same temperature every time and environmental conditions [ in a LAB ] .
So , I have limited time , limited test equipment , limited funds , no LAB to speak of , so my apologies !
Great review, thanks old! I'm diggin' this light. I agree with weiser's assessment on being cheaper than the BD-2 while still maintaining a unique look. Still love the looks of my BD-2 though. Interesting that the lumens output seems to be more than the specs - is that measured or your estimation? (I think the BD-2 is brighter than 500lm based on comparison with other lights)
Its a case off : My light box say's [ and my light box is rather close to actual , so Im very happy with it ]
Nice review, Matt, and nice light :) But I must agreed with Phantom, this model has the same, almost inexistent regulation, IMHO :( The good thing that is not so expensive.
Thanks old, very helpful review as always.