Trustfire x6 successfully modded by E1320 to pull 11.4A on high!

SR90 is 100mm head diameter.
X6 is 80mm. This modded X6 probably is driven slightly more. The lens probably cuts some 5-7% more light.

No way the X6 can outthrow the SR90. Maybe just slightly under the TK70 or at best same league?

TK70 would be able to maintain the lumens better, i mean this forum is extremely familar with how triple XM-L works. The SR90 already sags even with that huge body. Check out the reviews.

My TrustFire X6
SST-90 de-domed
2A at tailcap 3x18650 (stock driver)
4 meters = 4850 lux
.
XM-L U2
1320 mA at tailcap 3x18650
4 meters = 5400 lux
Both are hard to set better spot.
.
And modded some aspherics lenses…… more to come

Hi Chris

When you do get the flashlight back, please give us some beamshots between your X6 and TR-J18.

Thnx

With your X6 only driven at 6A, there is tons of room for improvement at 11A. I’d love to see a lux reading with this new driver in one.

SST-90 tops out at 9A.

VPT and similar hotrods use copper direct bonding to extract performance in the 14-15A range, but seriously tapering off already. (think stock VPT would be 13A thereabouts)
These buggers run pretty hot compared to XM-Ls.

Check this out : http://flashlightnews.net/forum/index.php?topic=2789.0
(there’s an aspheric in there)

^
^
I’m sure that SST-90 in TrustFire X6 is not N or P bin.

I bought this host for next round LED and aspherics setup :wink:

Tailcap current draw its not an additive measurement. So 2 cells in series drawing 5.6A at the tailap is going to be exactly that, a 5.6A draw. Its incorrect to multiply the measurement by the cell count. Sames goes for 3S cells drawing 3.8A at the tailcap.

With series battery configurations the voltage of each cell is added together, not the current.

Not to dampen your excitement though. The SST90 is an impressive LED when its driven to capacity. I have been wanting to try this mod on a TR-J10. Sounds like a great DIY!!

So why, on a light that can take one or two 18650, would it pull say 3A on a single cell and 1.5A with 2S configuration? Every light I’ve heard of that can take multiple cells is like that. As another example, a light that takes 2 or 3 cells depending on tubes used pulls 1.5A at the tail with 2 cells or 1A at the tail with 3 cells. They always add up.

In that case it would be based on the constant wattage pull of that driver circuit design. So the single cell that pulls 3A is doing 10.8W (3A x 3.6V), assuming Vbatt =3.6V from sag.

When you add a second cell in series that driver is still going to pull its ~10.8W. But you are doubling Vbatt, so the driver is going to pull less current to maintain ~10.8W.
So in that case 10.8W = XA x 7.2V
Solve for X = 1.5A

When you add the 3rd cell in series:
10.8W = xA x 10.8V
Solve for X = 1A

Its not an exact science as this, but this is a way to “ballpark” look at it. The reality is that driver efficiency varies slightly with Vbatt, so to assume its a constant 10.8W pull across its entire Vbatt range is not entirely correct.

EDIT
Oh wait a minute… Chris is talking about EMITTER current, not JUST tailcap current. Thats a different ballgame entirely. I’ll leave my commentary as is for now though, as it pertains to tailcap power consumption only.

3A x 4.2V = 12.6W
1.5A x 8.4v = 12.6W
1A x 12.6v = 12.6W

Six of one or a half dozen of the other. Either way yields the same wattage used based on tailcap numbers. To quote you, "Its not an exact science as this, but this is a way to "ballpark" look at it", so yes, taking the draw seen at the tail and multiplying it by the number of cells does indeed yield the same exact results. It's just a different way to reach the same conclusion and happens to be far simpler than doing it your way, IMO.

The only way it would ever differ from your formula is if each cell had a different voltage and if that was the case you'd have a whole lot more serious issues to worry about with that pipe bomb you'd be carrying.

12.6W at the tail means the emitter is getting 12.6w / 3.3v = 3.8A
Subtract 80% for driver inefficiency and you get 3.1A at the emitter.
That's an awful lot of work to figure out but at least it's pretty accurate. Or...

You could just triple the tailcap measurement (1A * 3 cells) and get 3A. WAY quicker way to get nearly the same end result and it holds true for just about all scenarios when you want a ballpark figure. Might not be the technical and scientific way to do it but it's the way it's been done as long as I've been into flashlights and it hasn't really failed any of us yet.

Ok, let’s stick with ballpark math and disregard efficiency of the driver at the moment so I can wrap my mind around the before and after wattage compared to each other.

If I use the math Kramer5150 is using:
3A x 4.2V = 12.6W
1.5A x 8.4v = 12.6W
1A x 12.6v = 12.6W

On three freshly charged Trustfire 3000mah cells I get a tailcap reading of 1.95A:
1.95A x 12.6v = 24.57W

Compared to E1320’s 3.8A on three cells:
3.8A x 12.6v = 47.88W

So about twice the wattage output.
Am I looking at this correctly?

Yes, except the math you are attributing to me is actually how Kramer5150 does it. I would have just taken Erik’s 3.8A at the tailcap and tripled it (3 cells) to get 11.4A at the driver. If you want watts then multiply that times 4.2V for 47.88 watts.

In short, Erik’s modded X6 consumes almost twice the power as stock. Definitely over driven but definitely bright.

Oops, sorry JohnnyMac. There were so many quotes within quotes that I got a little dyslexic. Edited above.

I have a direct drive Dry, a UF980L dd and a Fenix LD01 using a 10440. If I give them an 8 on a scale of 1 to10 for overdriving, what would you give this upgrade?

sorry deleted I think i might be confused as usuall. I think that i am usuing the wrong voltage to calcualte the voltage i should use is the output of the driver not the voltage of the batteries……… uuugggghhhhh that would make my calculations alot better… lol

If that is correct would someone please straighten me out….lol

:~

watts calculator

yep thats the gist of it. side note… these things would be a lot more straight forward if Vf and Vbatt were more constant.

As soon as i receive the head i well post beam shots. I dont understand why some people are saying the led is not receiving 11.4 amps. E1320 had test equipment to check things including the amps.

I don’t think anyone is questioning E1320 at all. I completely understand what he is doing with his numbers.

Example: I have checked the tailcap amps on a single XM-L driven by a single 18650 so many times that I know if I read 4A, I know the LED is being driven hard. If I check the tailcap amps on a single XM-L driven by two 18650s, I double it to reference what I am familiar with.

I hope that makes sense.

I look forward to your beam shots and thanks for starting this thread.

Yeah, Chris, no one is saying Erik’s numbers are wrong. In fact, we are supporting them.

Looking forward to those beamshots, BTW. 8)

Im new in the field of flashlights so i dont undertand what they are saying really. Maybe someone could explain to me what the discussion is about.

The discussion was about me simplifying the measurement on your 9 amp driver saying it in fact pulled 11.4 amps on my simplified measurement technique that has become the standard way of measuring flashlight energy consumption when purchasing drivers or taking tail cap readings.

For some reason Kramer felt it necessary to convert the numbers to watts which is a far more accurate and proper scientific way to measure actual energy consumption, but will surely cause confusion to someone new to this field of measurement when trying to simplify the change in output you should expect to receive in this modified light.

If for some reason you are unhappy with the work I did on your light I will happily refund you the $5dollars I charged you for installing the 9amp driver that actually delivers 11.4 amps using the measurement technique the driver manufacturer advertised it as.