Well, like I said I have the new carrier and Acebeam assures me the new adapter will be mailed shortly.
I’ve thrown out the old carrier and adapter as they aren’t safe and will charge the batteries externally until this is sorted.
I hope this new adapter / carrier combo fixes everything, I do like having the ability to charge internally.
+ 1. I share your attitude.
Wait, the replacement PSU has lies printed on it? It declares itself to be exactly the same as the old version, including model numbers etc, yet is not the same? Wow, and some are willing to accept that abuse of standards?
Im done, all I want now is to arrange for the same arrangement that was offered for mismatched tubes, return the units at Acebeams expense. 2 of the three I have have never been used except to test. I accept the 3rd is not returnable.
Forget whether it works or not, Im far more concerned with the complete disregard for safety standards, and risks it exposes those reading the label too, and their completely reasonable expectation that what is printed there is accurate. I will not willingly accept into my home, where other people live, an item that risks them and or my home or the electrical items plugged into it. I can not control what people do, when they see a USB plug, and assume it is as its declares itself to be, 5v, people have a reasonable expectation it is 5v. That is if they were conscientious enough to read and check, not just assume as most people would that a USB plug, is a USB plug.
And please, before the usual suspects suggest Im over reacting and so much so they will take my lights, the answer is no. I will return them to Acebeam. What happens after that has nothing to do with me. But no wonder their fix is worse than the original error, people seem willing to lay down and just accept any effort to correct the broken aspect, by breaking far more. You encourage the watering down of those standards that have developed over many decades (no, not just USB), I dont and wont.
Lets get some understanding here. No one reads the label of a USB puck to check its right,t hey just plug them in. Its why its a standard. But even if people were anal about being certain, in this case they are being misled for peanuts. This is not just business, its not just a mistake, its now entering criminal.
How were they tested if this wasn’t picked up?. If they used a standard 5v supply, this would have been picked up IF they were hand testing every carrier.
The other issue is when this power supply fails, where the hell will you ever get a replacement.
The only course of action now should be a full refund and a recall for those affected.
Acebeam only knew of this issue because of their customers informing them of it. They tried to gloss it over and then you were all patient while Acebeam carried out the “fix”.
It is unbelievable that the same community has now had to point it out that the “fix” is flawed too.
What a complete failure from start to finish.
A product recall in China is AKA 68% off sale. Everyone buys them up and they end up EVERYWHERE.
>insert a quad of double facepalms here<
Well given past history, the other side of the coin could be much worse if there are injuries and the media gets a hold of it. After all, Acebeam have admitted the problems and are providing band aid solutions.
So after running another discharge/charge test with the new carrier and the new “non”-standard USB power adapter, my findings is that the new carrier charges one cell faster than the other two. I checked the charge rate part way through a charge of a different set if matched cells this time, (three protected Panasonic NCR18650’s) and got the exact same results i did with the matched TF 2400mah Flames i did earlier.
Part way through the charge the voltages read as:
- 3.87v
- 3.88v
When the light finished the charge (green LED indicator on the tail cap) the voltage of the cells were as:
- 4.16v
- 4.16v
The NCR’s finished with the exact same charged voltage pattern as did the three TF2400’s did in the first test, with one just slightly higher than the other two. (0.01 volt.
Also to note, during the charge process the adapter became very hot. You can draw your own conclusion after these results. Would be interesting to see of others get the same results or different ones with their new carrier and new adapter.
+1
Interesting find and another likely failure. I’ll do the same test when I receive mine.
These carriers need to be opened and the circuit evaluated.
We had not produced any X40&K50 on March. We have been concentrating on solving the previous problem.
DBSAR published his test result of X40: posted #199
The cells are balanced which used the new carrier and 6V adapter after fully charged (indicator went green). Well solved and safe to use.
Thus we decided to delivery the 6V special-designed adapter without USB connector like photo. The tracking number will be sent you by e-mail once it shipped out in following days.
Please well noted.
I have permanently attached my supplied cable to the new Adapter with epoxy to make sure it can’t be used with any other USB device.
Can you explain why the cells are charging at vastly different rates as stated in post 210?
Remember way back when the K50’s were sold that is how the charger is designed. Said it was very important to wait until the charging was complete and not remove light from charger in the middle of the charge or this would happen.
I remember something like that and it seemed odd at the time, still does.
Begs the question are some cells being charged at higher current than others.
So its not a USB style? So not only will the PSU need to be resent, but a new cable too? Well that would have been nice to clarify. I take back all I said regarding USB standards. But even that changes the game. Some wont care, some already charge outside the light anyway so they wont care either but some of us bought very much for the reason these claimed to be able to recharge off a USB. It was certainly a large part of why I purchased these units over others.
Acebeam originally provided USB adapter replacements, as seen in DBSAR’s post, but now I think it’s providing integrated adapters (adapters + cable) amid the backlash.
Well, the all in one will be a better solution than a 6.2v usb adapter. I got my new carrier last week and already knew it was faulty, so it just went on the shelf of spare parts.
Do we need to email Supbeam again, or will they automatically send up a replacement charger?
I received both X40 & X60M carriers yesterday.
The new X60 carrier works fine .015v (Hi/Lo) - charging terminated at highest v 4.19 and .010v discharge (Hi/Low)- This was repeated 3 times, thanks Bella! 