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.
Iām surprised Acebeam did not improve the springs. This seems like an error on their part.
I think weāre on the same page here Jason, but I have the tendency to express a bit differently. Iād 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.
Maybe I should change āharderā to āless efficientlyā.
This is actually something Iād 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 Iād still like to learn a bit more in depth as to whatās going on especially in relation to heat build up.
I think itās important to understand what is going on. With a lower input voltage you need more current for the same output. More current means more heat for the same output, therefore lower efficiency. But the intrinsic efficiency of the driver could be just a tad higher or lower at that current level, so you need to superimpose the efficiencies to get the total efficiency.
To state that the driver is working harder or less efficiently is merely a definition issue I think. And since there probably is not a well defined definition, miscommunication can occur easily.
For those curious about how the different batteries can have different amounts of voltage sag, here is a comparison of the Samsung 30T to the Samsung 48G (Iām not sure what 5100mah cell Acebeam is using, but it seems similar to the 48G)
You can immediately see why the āhigh drainā 30T allows for more turbo run time due to its minimal voltage sag compared to a āhigh capacityā type battery.
It is sadly very difficult to make beamshots during the summer here. Thereās only a couple hours of darkness during the night. The need for flashlights severely decreases for a while
I'm a little late to the the party, but this review is so good, I had to give you a shout out. Thanks, maukka. Love all the technical data, especially runtime charts and color rendition info.
I am impressed by the flat output levels once this flashlight steps down to about 800 lumens. Predictable, flat output is the main reason I prefer boost (and boost/buck) drivers over linear and buck.
Buck drivers are actually great, and are actually better if you have a higher voltage source, as that means the contacts donāt need to be as thick to carry as much amperage than at lower voltages.
Yeah, I get that. And I know buck drivers can be more efficient. They donāt fight the battery as the voltage wanes.
Nevertheless, I like the perfect staircase-like runtime charts produced by buck/boost drivers such as the ones ZebraLight used in its older lights (old, ha, ha, like 2 years ago). If a mode activates at all, then I know Iām getting its rated lumen output. (That is, so long as thermal regulation hasnāt kicked in.)
I think the new 2018 EU headlight regulations for Class-3 e-bikes require this kind of flat output. Slow fading is illegal. Obviously, thatās good for rider safety in bicycle lights, but I like it in handhelds, too.
In California, they are called Class 3 E-bikes. In the EU, "speed-pedelecs." These fun e-bikes have motors that provide "assistance" up to 45 km/hr (about 28 mph). The new regulations are designed to treat them more like scooters/motor bikes, so, yeah, light output must be consistent. No gradual dimming allowed.
Regular "pedelecs," which top out at 25 km/hr in the EU, are governed by less stringent regulations. In most jurisdictions, they are treated the same as regular bicycles.
I don't know much about these rules, except what I have read in passing. As I write, it occurs to me that I may be wrong in attributing them to the EU. They may be limited to Germany.
Very pity they consider their customers a sh!t.
I contacted them via their offsite email and asked about difference. How to spot the new batch from the first batch, which had problem of using high drain batts. Asked some other questions about charging etc. They answered that the light goes with their acebeam battery in package. Said not a word beside that.
Now, a rhytorical question.
Why to bother having deal with such morons.
They do not even respect the time of person who is contacting them.