It’s actually a more efficient way to run a light. Also it really just depends on what kind of driver they have used and how it’s wired. Not that I am too interested in it but with the right driver and wiring it could be interesting. Run a single amp to each emitter and you are looking at about 4,500 lumens. (4,000OTF) It wouldn’t get very hot at only an amp per emitter and with four good 26650’s you would actually have decent run-time for a 4,000 lumen light. Or stick a FET driver in and drop one emitter, wire it 4P5S, 4 mode with a turbo stepdown.
Of course the $125 price tag is a joke but if they have them on sale for 50% off plus a $10 coupon I would pick one up just to play with it. But then again I love playing with these plunger lights. Half the fun is seeing just how messed up they have it right now.
Personally, I’m waiting for the release of the to-be-very-much-coveted 105 x xm-l T6 cannon that promises 168,000 lumens and uses 20 x 26650s. Included in the price will be a forklift to carry it around (hopefully).
False advertising is false advertising, this I don’t agree with.
That said, in anybody’s book, 3000+ lumens is still a lot of light. So ok, this might not be the most compact way to achieve it. But it does probably offer good runtime (and likely regulation) and manageable heat vs the price.
But if they push it even further, I’d hate to have to hold a 24x XM-L with 6x 26650’s. I think it would resemble more a baseball bat than a flashlight…LOL.
This and lights like them would be just so much more appealing to me if they took 18650’s in a 3P3S configuration. Most XM-L lights usually have approximately 1 cell per LED. This one has almost 6 LED’s per cell. No future practical potential other than as it is, modest output and short runtime.