Black Shadow Terminator just arrived. First Impressions before a full review.

indenial · December 27, 2012, 4:20pm

There’s nothing I can do about it, but I admit I’m pissed about BS releasing a newer version within 30 friggin’ days! My seller says he was surprised too. I didn’t even get a good price! Oh, well, that’s what I get for jumping the gun. It’s still a great light.

DENGOH · December 28, 2012, 1:15am

Anyone encounter this?
I suspect my BS Terminator is driven too hard, she can’t be switched on for more than 10 minutes on HIGH. Temperature rise to very high, it hurts a bit when touch on the biggest piece of heatsink. She will cut itself off, the GREED led is off when she cut off, and button is not working. I have to unlock and lock her back to make the GREEN led to on again, then I can switch her on again. But in less than 1 minutes on HIGH, she will cut off itself again as temperature is still to high. Now I can only suspect it is the temperature as the same batteries work fine when temperature is low.

I am quite sure she is driven hard enough, thinking BS should put bigger heatsink for her.
I will not hesitate to buy this light again if BS release U3 version. Such a nice light. I think she is a thrower + flooder.

dthrckt · December 28, 2012, 1:43am

see review linked in this post Black Shadow Terminator just arrived. First Impressions before a full review.

DENGOH · December 28, 2012, 2:05am

I don’t see it mention cut off.

Santa · February 21, 2013, 10:53am

texaspyro:

I did some tail cap current measurements with 4V in from a bench supply (wattage measurements are watts delivered to the LED and assume 88% driver efficiency):

Low 0.80A -> 2.8W to the LEDs -> 94.6 lumens/watt
Medium 3.55A -> 12.5W to the LEDs -> 89.2 lumens/watt
High 8.85A -> 31.2W to the LEDs -> 70.3 lumens/watt

Again, assuming 88% driver efficiency:
Low 0.80A/4*0.88 -> 175 mA/LED
Medium 3.55A/4*0.88 -> 780 mA/LED
High 8.85A/4*0.88 -> 1950 mA/LED

Assuming U2 leds are 12% more efficient than T6’s, the 12% driver losses are compensated for by the increased U2 efficiency, so we use using Match’s T6 testing numbers directly and assume a 100% efficient driver:
Low 0.20A/led -> 83.4 lumens*4 leds -> 332 emitter lumens
Med 0.89A/led -> 348 lumens*4 leds -> 1392 emitter lumens
High 2.21A/led -> 730 lumens*4 leds -> 2918 emitter lumens
There is no way the light can do better than these numbers!

Using my measurements:
Low 265 OTF/332 Emitter -> 80% optical efficiency
Med 1115 OTF/1392 Emitter -> 80% optical efficiency
High 2150 OTF/2918 Emitter -> 74% optical efficiency (this difference is probably due to the driver not actually being 88% efficient at 2.21A/led and increased LED heating)

80% optical efficiency is doing very good for these size reflectors and lenses.

It looks like my sphere numbers are rather well validated…

8.85A at 4.0V xml driver drops it 3.1V ( Typical forward voltage for XML.) 8.85x4.0=35.4W

35.4- driver 88%=31.12W : 3.1V=10.05A : 4= 2.51A per led. is that right or wrong?

JohnnyMac · February 21, 2013, 1:26pm

Santa:

texaspyro:

I did some tail cap current measurements with 4V in from a bench supply (wattage measurements are watts delivered to the LED and assume 88% driver efficiency): Low 0.80A -> 2.8W to the LEDs -> 94.6 lumens/watt Medium 3.55A -> 12.5W to the LEDs -> 89.2 lumens/watt High 8.85A -> 31.2W to the LEDs -> 70.3 lumens/watt Again, assuming 88% driver efficiency: Low 0.80A/40.88 -> 175 mA/LED Medium 3.55A/40.88 -> 780 mA/LED High 8.85A/40.88 -> 1950 mA/LED Assuming U2 leds are 12% more efficient than T6’s, the 12% driver losses are compensated for by the increased U2 efficiency, so we use using Match’s T6 testing numbers directly and assume a 100% efficient driver: Low 0.20A/led -> 83.4 lumens4 leds -> 332 emitter lumens Med 0.89A/led -> 348 lumens4 leds -> 1392 emitter lumens High 2.21A/led -> 730 lumens4 leds -> 2918 emitter lumens There is no way the light can do better than these numbers! Using my measurements: Low 265 OTF/332 Emitter -> 80% optical efficiency Med 1115 OTF/1392 Emitter -> 80% optical efficiency High 2150 OTF/2918 Emitter -> 74% optical efficiency (this difference is probably due to the driver not actually being 88% efficient at 2.21A/led and increased LED heating) 80% optical efficiency is doing very good for these size reflectors and lenses. It looks like my sphere numbers are rather well validated…

8.85A at 4.0V xml driver drops it 3.1V ( Typical forward voltage for XML.) 8.85x4.0=35.4W 35.4- driver 88%=31.12W : 3.1V=10.05A : 4= 2.51A per led. is that right or wrong?

Your calculations do sound right to me. The only thing that could be questioned is the 8.85A.

Santa · February 21, 2013, 2:04pm

I use only texaspyro`s numbers but i get my own in couple days. I will do some test then.

texaspyro · February 21, 2013, 7:11pm

Parasitic drain is 4.5 mA. Will run down most batteries in about 60-90 days if left on. Unscrew the body a bit to turn it off.

Santa · March 2, 2013, 11:48am

Now I have a new terminator. I did some tests.
Tailcap 8.2A with new batteries.
4.2v x 8.2A= 34.4W
i measured voltage from led. 3.1V
34.4W/3.1V=11.1A 12% driver loss =9.77A
9.77A/4led=2.44A each. can’t find U3 data
U2 led 2.44A= 800+lumen per emitter
4X U2 led =3200 emitter lumen
4X U3 led =?? tell me

I would be glad if someone would also make current measurements can be compared to my measurements.
very good flashlight.

minor disappointment was when I measured after use 3.8V and get only 5.7A
I hope you understand my bad English :zipper_mouth_face:

texaspyro · March 2, 2013, 9:07pm

Figure a U3 averages 7% better than a U2. Also figure that the optics are less than 75% efficient. 3200x1.07*0.75… OTF lumens would be around 2600.

DENGOH · March 3, 2013, 3:24am

4.2v x 8.2A, I thought it won’t be 4.2v under high current.

Santa · March 4, 2013, 7:32pm

I removed wire from the led and measure current
3.1V 2.74A*4 there is no 12% driver loss. it is lot smaller.

New emitter lumens= 3600 - U2 bin and 3850- U3 bin

DB_Custom · November 6, 2013, 6:20am

Loving mine! Big thanks to R&R, very much appreciated!!!