It’s a buck, but I don’t think it’s a bad thing, it’s more efficient than a buck-boost and with low Vf LEDs like the LH351D 90CRI there isn’t that much boosting to do, Zak has a runtime measurement of the LE with sufficient cooling so that it runs at maximum output :
It starts to drop at the last 20% mark but only down to 70% (2.1A) at the very end, this is IMO minimal and even with a buck-boost converter it would still drop a bit at the end because available buck-boost converters are not very powerful.
(Edit : re-hosted the graph because it wouldn’t load)
Yes, the fact that this has happened disappoints me a lot. I understand that sometimes mistakes are made though and how they deal with this issue will have a big impact on how I feel about it as well. At worst it could have been ZL trying to pull a fast one, someone there was negligent and mixed up LEDs they have in stock, or at best (for Zebra’s competence) the supplier sent them mislabeled product.
I have had and seen others have even more serious issues from other brands, a number of which are selling light for the same or even higher price. There is going to be a number of “lemons” for any mass-produced product and how the company handles customers that receive them is what is really telling IMO.
if i really wanted that specific emitter in that CRI and didn't get it, i'd be pissed.
but if that's not the case, i don't think this affects you. also, it's possible that an informed consumer would take a gamble and buy it anyways in hopes of getting the bait-and-switch, lower-CRI emitter because supposedly it has a nice tint.
i still continue to buy ZLs as gifts for family and friends, and i'd buy replacements if i broke my headlamp or flashlights today.
the newest ones i got have the new battery cathode contact. i can see that it might be less prone to denting batteries in the event of a drop, but i wonder how it compares in terms of current carrying capacity (within the requirements of the flashlight) and long term durability. being optimistic, maybe it's all-around better?
I don’t follow, that thread is about the mechanics of how spectral composition and Ra rating relate, not a product failing to meet it’s advertised specs.
It would’ve been more comforting to be informed about how the mistake occurred and what steps they’ve taken to ensure it won’t happen again. I presume that when a batch of LEDs is received from a supplier, there is a certain amount of testing done to ensure that the labeled bins & temperature match the actual emitters. One would expect this to be done prior to assembly, given the price point of their SC64 flashlights.
In any case, I’m glad there is some acknowledgement of the problem and I trust that they’ll be on mark to prevent this from repeating. I dread to think of buying an SC64 from a different retailer or from someone in the used market… as you’ve no idea if they’ve got one of those low CRI mistakes just waiting to be passed onto someone else.
