Review : Utorch UT02 Flashlight (XHP35 / 26650 / usb rechargeable)(in progress)

237 posts / 0 new
Last post
giorgoskok
giorgoskok's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 days 6 hours ago
Joined: 11/13/2015 - 10:46
Posts: 2670
Location: Greece
thijsco19 wrote:
Can you test if 2 26350 will fit? Without destroying the light of course..

I don’t own any 26350 . But i can measure max length tube & springs allow .

Edit : Max length should be 70 to 71mm with springs fully compressed . Let’s say 70mm to be sure .

Tom E
Tom E's picture
Online
Last seen: 2 min 32 sec ago
Joined: 08/19/2012 - 08:23
Posts: 12912
Location: LI NY

It's an electronic switch light with no power tail switch - if you did try the 2 cells, you will give the driver board 8V unless you physically block one end of the cells - tape or something. Hhmm - if you had a 26700 cell to try, but think two 26350's are a little longer.

I have a U21 and do have 26700 cells, and 26350 cells.

KawiBoy1428
KawiBoy1428's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 35 min ago
Joined: 04/11/2014 - 18:05
Posts: 4124
Location: The Motor City

giorgoskok wrote:
I don’t know about KWB’s lights…

Sent him a pm , never got an answer . I really don’t know .


Sorry thought I answered your PM, never hit send I guess! Facepalm

Yes both are still 2.5 and 2.25amps no matter what battery I have used, no matter how many times I check, still the same! Big Smile

Still dirty too! Sad

KB1428 “Live Life WOT

DB Custom
DB Custom's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 7 hours ago
Joined: 01/13/2013 - 22:28
Posts: 20623
Location: Heart of Texas

I really don’t get y’all, hung up on watts. Watts is an after the fact measurement of amperage and voltage. Watts is misleading, as you can get more lumens with less watts, look at Cree’s Product Configuration tool.

You don’t feed watts to the emitter, you feed amperage (current) at the voltage it will accept. Wattage shows it’s efficiency. Like statistics on a football game, a team can blow away the other team in statistics but lose by a big points spread. It’s the same way with the emitters making lumens. Voltage and current produce lumens, watts is a statistic of how efficiently it’s doing so.

gastonpatagonico
Offline
Last seen: 20 hours 7 min ago
Joined: 10/31/2016 - 21:32
Posts: 190
Location: patagonia

Hi, does it produce 124000kcd or not?

LightRider
LightRider's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 1 month ago
Joined: 08/05/2015 - 09:52
Posts: 2007
Location: U.P. MI, USA

DB Custom wrote:
I really don’t get y’all, hung up on watts. Watts is an after the fact measurement of amperage and voltage. Watts is misleading, as you can get more lumens with less watts, look at Cree’s Product Configuration tool.

You don’t feed watts to the emitter, you feed amperage (current) at the voltage it will accept. Wattage shows it’s efficiency. Like statistics on a football game, a team can blow away the other team in statistics but lose by a big points spread. It’s the same way with the emitters making lumens. Voltage and current produce lumens, watts is a statistic of how efficiently it’s doing so.

Yes but we know how many lumens are produced by a certain wattage according to the data sheets. Efficiency is correlates to the flux bins given. So they all matter equally the same.

When the emitter is placed into a light and fed by a driver the numbers on the data sheet only show best case scenario. So if a light is using a certain number of watts measured at the tail we can assume only that the light is producing less light than data sheet. It cannot produce more.

So… this light is underperforming. Not a big deal, but there is no other way to spin the data. All that said, we need someone to measure the actual light output:)

thijsco19
Offline
Last seen: 9 hours 21 min ago
Joined: 12/14/2012 - 16:18
Posts: 1348
Location: Nearby Rotterdam, the Netherlands

DB Custom wrote:
I really don’t get y’all, hung up on watts. Watts is an after the fact measurement of amperage and voltage. Watts is misleading, as you can get more lumens with less watts, look at Cree’s Product Configuration tool.

You don’t feed watts to the emitter, you feed amperage (current) at the voltage it will accept. Wattage shows it’s efficiency. Like statistics on a football game, a team can blow away the other team in statistics but lose by a big points spread. It’s the same way with the emitters making lumens. Voltage and current produce lumens, watts is a statistic of how efficiently it’s doing so.


Not true.
I can be if someone doesn’t understand wat it means and how to use it (not saying you don’t know it btw Wink ). Grad
10 Watts = 10 Watts.
10 volt x 1 amp = 10 watt, 1 volt x 10 amp = 10 watt.
If a emitter is doing 100L/W then you’ll get 1000 lumens. (10×100)
It doesn’t matter if the emitter is a xpl or xhp35. Lets assume they are both doing 100L/W.
Xpl: 3 volt x 3.33 amp = 10 watt x 100 lumens = 1000 lumens.
Xhp35: 12 volt x 0.83 amp = 10 watt x 100 lumens = 1000 lumens.

Point is, without knowing and using those other numbers watt doesn’t say a lot. (for example the lumens/watt efficiency)
But with all those numbers it says everything.

In one thing you are completely right, current is what matters to us. It says a lot about how a led performs, but that’s because we know our leds. (meaning we know what to expect and what it can handle)

But we are going off topic Beer
Sorry about that.

DB Custom
DB Custom's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 7 hours ago
Joined: 01/13/2013 - 22:28
Posts: 20623
Location: Heart of Texas

I see people that read spec sheets and don’t build lights.

For example, what do your sheets say about an XHP-35 at 4.5Amps?

What do the spec sheets say about an MT-G2 at 16Amps?

Or an XP-L W2 2B at 6.67Amps?

your wattage per lumen figure is going to vary according to the current you’re pushing, so you don’t have a fixed number to work with. Just like the amperage is going to change as the cell dies, and the forward voltage will fall. All you really have is a voltage reading and current reading, everything else is playing the numbers. And the numbers are not nice. What’s the board temperature? The cell temperature? Where’s the constant? There’s not one.

Dwantink
Dwantink's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 11/28/2015 - 20:14
Posts: 302
Location: Arizona

This makes it easier to pass on this light. Innocent

LightRider
LightRider's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 1 month ago
Joined: 08/05/2015 - 09:52
Posts: 2007
Location: U.P. MI, USA

DB Custom wrote:
I see people that read spec sheets and don’t build lights.

For example, what do your sheets say about an XHP-35 at 4.5Amps?

What do the spec sheets say about an MT-G2 at 16Amps?

Or an XP-L W2 2B at 6.67Amps?

your wattage per lumen figure is going to vary according to the current you’re pushing, so you don’t have a fixed number to work with. Just like the amperage is going to change as the cell dies, and the forward voltage will fall. All you really have is a voltage reading and current reading, everything else is playing the numbers. And the numbers are not nice. What’s the board temperature? The cell temperature? Where’s the constant? There’s not one.

Yes, all these things you mention are not constants. They are variables. Variables make up equations that can be calculated. That is all we are trying to do. With the data reported thus far and as I calculated earlier, this light will not reach 1000 lumens. But we will wait to see. Hoping I’m wrong.

LightRider
LightRider's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 1 month ago
Joined: 08/05/2015 - 09:52
Posts: 2007
Location: U.P. MI, USA

giorgoskok wrote:
Removed the driver this morning . It’s 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 E’s driver , http://prntscr.com/dhcbsh .

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 …

PS . I have already contacted gearbest to check the production with the factory .
Also UT01 came today , at least this is working properly .

Wait… I somehow missed this. So you are getting similar amp draw as the u21 by changing the sense resistor?

Jerommel
Jerommel's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: 01/04/2014 - 13:18
Posts: 6380
Location: the Hague, Netherlands

Giorgio, could you please downsize the pictures in your review?
Those huge sizes are quite pointless, they’re not even sharp enough for that many pixels.
Thanks.

O uhm.. Nice light! Looks good. Thumbs Up
But 1300 LM can be obtained with an XP-L too and then you don’t need a boost driver…

hIKARInoob
hIKARInoob's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 4 weeks ago
Joined: 08/28/2016 - 08:15
Posts: 4185

Jerommel wrote:
Giorgio, could you please downsize the pictures in your review?
Those huge sizes are quite pointless, they’re not even sharp enough for that many pixels.
Thanks.

O uhm.. Nice light! Looks good. Thumbs Up
But 1300 LM can be obtained with an XP-L too and then you don’t need a boost driver…

I think the efficacy with an XHP35 is much higher than with an XPL. Secondly, output is also more constant.

giorgoskok
giorgoskok's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 days 6 hours ago
Joined: 11/13/2015 - 10:46
Posts: 2670
Location: Greece

Jerommel wrote:
Giorgio, could you please downsize the pictures in your review?
Those huge sizes are quite pointless, they’re not even sharp enough for that many pixels.
Thanks.

O uhm.. Nice light! Looks good. Thumbs Up
But 1300 LM can be obtained with an XP-L too and then you don’t need a boost driver…

Pictures are fine from PC .

DB Custom
DB Custom's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 7 hours ago
Joined: 01/13/2013 - 22:28
Posts: 20623
Location: Heart of Texas

I have 4 XHP-35 E4 in my TM16. Each one is seeing 1.14A at some 13.1V making 1768 lumens. Collectively, the 4 are seeing 4.55A in parallel and making 7072 lumens.

Edit: The above said for the statisticians. Perhaps it will help figure the variables. It does seem like this light is not running very hard at all and should be doing more. (UT02, I mean)

Jerommel
Jerommel's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: 01/04/2014 - 13:18
Posts: 6380
Location: the Hague, Netherlands

giorgoskok wrote:
Jerommel wrote:
Giorgio, could you please downsize the pictures in your review?
Those huge sizes are quite pointless, they’re not even sharp enough for that many pixels.
Thanks.

O uhm.. Nice light! Looks good. Thumbs Up
But 1300 LM can be obtained with an XP-L too and then you don’t need a boost driver…

Pictures are fine from PC .

Yes they are fine, but they’re 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.
Jerommel
Jerommel's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: 01/04/2014 - 13:18
Posts: 6380
Location: the Hague, Netherlands

hIKARInoob wrote:
Jerommel wrote:
Giorgio, could you please downsize the pictures in your review?
Those huge sizes are quite pointless, they’re not even sharp enough for that many pixels.
Thanks.

O uhm.. Nice light! Looks good. Thumbs Up
But 1300 LM can be obtained with an XP-L too and then you don’t need a boost driver…

I 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.
Quote:
Secondly, output is also more constant.
That’s the advantage of a boost driver. Smile
giorgoskok
giorgoskok's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 days 6 hours ago
Joined: 11/13/2015 - 10:46
Posts: 2670
Location: Greece

Jerommel wrote:
giorgoskok wrote:
Jerommel wrote:
Giorgio, could you please downsize the pictures in your review?
Those huge sizes are quite pointless, they’re not even sharp enough for that many pixels.
Thanks.

O uhm.. Nice light! Looks good. Thumbs Up
But 1300 LM can be obtained with an XP-L too and then you don’t need a boost driver…

Pictures are fine from PC .

Yes they are fine, but they’re 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 pictures’ relative width .

hIKARInoob
hIKARInoob's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 4 weeks ago
Joined: 08/28/2016 - 08:15
Posts: 4185

Jerommel wrote:
hIKARInoob wrote:
Jerommel wrote:
Giorgio, could you please downsize the pictures in your review?
Those huge sizes are quite pointless, they’re not even sharp enough for that many pixels.
Thanks.

O uhm.. Nice light! Looks good. Thumbs Up
But 1300 LM can be obtained with an XP-L too and then you don’t need a boost driver…

I 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.
Quote:
Secondly, output is also more constant.
That’s the advantage of a boost driver. Smile

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, I’m pretty pleased.

Jerommel
Jerommel's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: 01/04/2014 - 13:18
Posts: 6380
Location: the Hague, Netherlands

giorgoskok wrote:
Jerommel wrote:
giorgoskok wrote:
Jerommel wrote:
Giorgio, could you please downsize the pictures in your review?
Those huge sizes are quite pointless, they’re not even sharp enough for that many pixels.
Thanks.

O uhm.. Nice light! Looks good. Thumbs Up
But 1300 LM can be obtained with an XP-L too and then you don’t need a boost driver…

Pictures are fine from PC .

Yes they are fine, but they’re 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 pictures’ relative width .

That doesn’t matter.
You have used a lot of pictures of several megabytes each.
Setting the % page width doesn’t 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.
hIKARInoob
hIKARInoob's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 4 weeks ago
Joined: 08/28/2016 - 08:15
Posts: 4185

Not complaining, but I also have noticed page 1 takes a lot more time than any other page to load…

giorgoskok
giorgoskok's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 days 6 hours ago
Joined: 11/13/2015 - 10:46
Posts: 2670
Location: Greece

Ok i will probably do this when i update the review .

Thanks for letting me know , and sorry Smile

Jerommel
Jerommel's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: 01/04/2014 - 13:18
Posts: 6380
Location: the Hague, Netherlands

hIKARInoob wrote:
Jerommel wrote:
hIKARInoob wrote:
Jerommel wrote:
Giorgio, could you please downsize the pictures in your review?
Those huge sizes are quite pointless, they’re not even sharp enough for that many pixels.
Thanks.

O uhm.. Nice light! Looks good. Thumbs Up
But 1300 LM can be obtained with an XP-L too and then you don’t need a boost driver…

I 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.
Quote:
Secondly, output is also more constant.
That’s the advantage of a boost driver. Smile

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, I’m 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 (that’s 4x) approximately, which is usually not that efficient.
A.f.a.i.k. boost and buck conversion works much more efficient when it’s within about 20% difference between input and output.
Jerommel
Jerommel's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: 01/04/2014 - 13:18
Posts: 6380
Location: the Hague, Netherlands

giorgoskok wrote:
Ok i will probably do this when i update the review .

Thanks for letting me know , and sorry Smile

Thumbs Up
Thanks.
DB Custom
DB Custom's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 7 hours ago
Joined: 01/13/2013 - 22:28
Posts: 20623
Location: Heart of Texas

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 it’s not a likely candidate for bumping power to for just anyone.

dogany
Offline
Last seen: 6 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 12/09/2016 - 20:03
Posts: 16
Location: TURKEY

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 you’re measuring from led

Tom E
Tom E's picture
Online
Last seen: 2 min 32 sec ago
Joined: 08/19/2012 - 08:23
Posts: 12912
Location: LI NY

dogany wrote:
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 you're 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.

Jerommel
Jerommel's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: 01/04/2014 - 13:18
Posts: 6380
Location: the Hague, Netherlands

DB Custom wrote:
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.
dogany
Offline
Last seen: 6 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 12/09/2016 - 20:03
Posts: 16
Location: TURKEY

My mistake. You are right, sorry

Rusty Joe
Rusty Joe's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 7 hours ago
Joined: 07/24/2011 - 00:22
Posts: 3166
Location: Houston, TX

Why does the info say this light has a belt clip? I don’t see one.

Pages