My ACEBEAM EC65 XHP35 HI is dead (Now fixed!)

The_Driver1 · 2018-06-11T23:01:25.000Z

hIKARInoob:

I know this is the case in theory, but I don’t know to what extent this is the case in practice. The M43 (3S4P) is able to produce max output with cells as low as 3.5V, and the Imalent DN70, although with a 6V emitter, can produce flat turbo output until cell is depleted as well. Imalent DN70 - Review / Vorstellung / Test + Passaround | Taschenlampen Forum
Of course neither these two lights have a boost voltage of 12V, but if the latter turns out to be a hurdle, then I’d preferred something like a 2S2P setup for the Nichia leds, and instead of XHP35 use XP-L in 2S2P. Why complicate it with a 12V XHP35?
I understand there is a qualitative complexity with increasing boost voltage, but I don’t see this should result in a quantitative behaviour that output cannot remain flat.

The Meteor M43 does boost to almost 12V! It drives four 3S-LED strings in parallel from a 3.7V battery at 90W. It’s very likely then it can boost to 12V.

The difference between it and the Acebeam is that the Meteor driver is much larger and thus has less heat problems. Also, it wasn’t designed by Acebeam. They go a little bit too close to the absolute limits of the driver components. I actually discussed this with somebody last year who took a look at one of their for drivers (the max current rating of the diodes of his driver was too low).

BlueSwordM · 2018-06-11T21:41:16.000Z

It’s honestly amazing what the Noctigon Meteor M43 did.

They are getting 90W at 3,6V, then boosting it to almost 12V.

It also has a massive inductor, so if the cells were in series, I would be willing to bet it could probably achieve 180W.

JasonWW · 2018-06-12T08:06:00.000Z

Does anyone know the driver size, 17mm? 20mm?

I assume it’s getting 1000 lumen from each emitter. Maybe 1A each at 12v for roughly 4A out of the driver and about a 20A draw on the battery?

Has anyone measured the battery amp draw?

toobadorz · 2018-06-12T12:25:37.000Z

SKV89:

toobadorz:

SKV89:

Thanks for the review and info. Does this use the same noctigon pcb and carclo optic as the D4?

It’s indeed using a Carclo optic, however the MCPCB used doesn’t seem to be a NOCTIGON.

Does it look replaceable with a noctigon mcpcb?

Sorry, I have sent the faulty EC65 back to ACEBEAM today, so I’m unable to identify this.

texas_shooter · 2018-06-13T06:09:06.000Z

So mine is coming in the mail tomorrow. Being in 100 degree Texas, I’m wondering if it’s a quick death. I’ve been wanting this one since it popped up on the radar. 82 grams might be just too lightweight for the lights output. I see possible driver improvements and total potting.

toobadorz · 2018-06-14T13:57:37.000Z

I received a new EC65 from ACEBEAM today. Will update the new test result here once it is done.

JasonWW · 2018-06-14T14:15:37.000Z

toobadorz:

I received a new EC65 from ACEBEAM today. Will update the new test result here once it is done.

Did Acebeam say they found and fixed the problem and sent you an updated version or did they send you another one like you had which might not last?

I was expecting them to take a few weeks before they sent you another. Maybe they though your damaged one was a fluke?

toobadorz · 2018-06-14T16:04:54.000Z

JasonWW:

toobadorz:

I received a new EC65 from ACEBEAM today. Will update the new test result here once it is done.

Did Acebeam say they found and fixed the problem and sent you an updated version or did they send you another one like you had which might not last?

I was expecting them to take a few weeks before they sent you another. Maybe they though your damaged one was a fluke?

They assured me that this problem has been fixed in the new one I received.

To avoid the unexpected quick death again, this time I’m planning to finish all the other tests of my interest first, and after that, I’ll do the accumulated turbo measurement again to see if the driver can sustain it.

JasonWW · 2018-06-14T16:15:38.000Z

toobadorz:

JasonWW:

toobadorz:

I received a new EC65 from ACEBEAM today. Will update the new test result here once it is done.

Did Acebeam say they found and fixed the problem and sent you an updated version or did they send you another one like you had which might not last?

I was expecting them to take a few weeks before they sent you another. Maybe they though your damaged one was a fluke?

They assured me that this problem has been fixed in the new one I received.

Wow, that’s fast on their part.

One thing is bothering me, though. If we go back to the stock battery, it seems to run for about 16 seconds before ramping down. Is this due to voltage sag?

How many times can you use that 16 second turbo before the battery can’t do it anymore? Once? Twice?

It makes me wonder if they should even classify this as a 4000 lumen light.

toobadorz · 2018-06-14T16:18:21.000Z

JasonWW:

One thing is bothering me, though. If we go back to the stock battery, it seems to run for about 16 seconds before ramping down. Is this due to voltage sag?

How many times can you use that 16 second turbo before the battery can’t do it anymore? Once? Twice?

It makes me wonder if they should even classify this as a 4000 lumen light.

I hasn’t tested the new EC65 yet, but for the old one, as you can see in the accumulated turbo curve, it’s less than 20 seconds, only one time. And that’s why I was torturing it with a more high drain LISHEN battery.

maukka · 2018-06-14T17:37:50.000Z

JasonWW:

[One thing is bothering me, though. If we go back to the stock battery, it seems to run for about 16 seconds before ramping down. Is this due to voltage sag?

Very slight differences in the battery internal resistance affect the turbo stepdown. One of my Acebeam 21700s manages 12 seocnds, one 32 seconds.

Newlumen · 2018-06-14T17:54:45.000Z

maukka:

JasonWW:

[One thing is bothering me, though. If we go back to the stock battery, it seems to run for about 16 seconds before ramping down. Is this due to voltage sag?

Very slight differences in the battery internal resistance affect the turbo stepdown. One of my Acebeam 21700s manages 12 seocnds, one 32 seconds.

Hi maukka, i saw your review… so you measured 3750 @ turn on and 3526 @ 30 seconds… you mentioned you use an integration sphere. thanks.

Firelight2 · 2018-06-14T19:33:43.000Z

Read your review on CPF Maukka. Nice job. I see also that you have higher drain batteries on the way, so will soon be able to test it to see if it burns out on Turbo like Toobadorz’ did.

Looking forward to seeing Toobadorz’ results with his replacement. Sounds like excellent service on Acebeam’s part. That was a very fast warranty replacement!

toobadorz · 2018-06-18T12:18:38.000Z

The measurement of the new EC65 is updated. This new one performs well!

JasonWW · 2018-06-18T13:22:37.000Z

toobadorz:

The measurement of the new EC65 is updated. This new one performs well!

I’m having some trouble understanding the new results.

Are they using the same battery as before?

Did you test the amp draw on the tail cap?

The old light did 3700 lm for 16 seconds.

The new one does 4000 lm for 3.5 minutes?

This doesn’t make sense to me. How can it handle the heat?
I see you said you “apply cooling”, what do you mean exactly? Dunk it in ice water?

toobadorz · 2018-06-18T14:45:17.000Z

JasonWW:

toobadorz:

The measurement of the new EC65 is updated. This new one performs well!

I’m having some trouble understanding the new results.

Are they using the same battery as before?

Did you test the amp draw on the tail cap?

The old light did 3700 lm for 16 seconds.

The new one does 4000 lm for 3.5 minutes?

This doesn’t make sense to me. How can it handle the heat?
I see you said you “apply cooling”, what do you mean exactly? Dunk it in ice water?

1. Yes, the batteries used in the tests are exactly the same ones, not just the same model.

2. I didn’t measure the current draw, however the efficiency can be calculated as lumen * hour here.

3. That’s similar to maukka’s test. When the output droped due to thermal regulation, I turned the light off immediately. Then I cooled the flashlight with two fans for at least five minutes. Then I turned the light on at Turbo again. The curves are the accumulated results. Each “spike” in the curve indicates a “power-off, cooling, power-on” (the emitting efficiency will decay when the temperature gets higher). For example, the new EC65 with the bundled 21700 battery took 14 cycles to get measured. That is time-consuming…

JasonWW · 2018-06-18T14:53:39.000Z

Okay, so your accumulated turbo is just about the batteries power. I’m only looking at the supplied Acebeam battery.

The old battery/light combo did one blast of turbo for about 16 seconds and that was it. It couldn’t do turbo again.

The new battery/light combo did 5 blasts of turbo at about 50 seconds each.

That is a huge improvement. I wonder how they did it, or better yet why the old light couldn’t do?

Does it look like they beefed up the springs at all? Something that reduced the voltage loss?

toobadorz · 2018-06-18T15:19:34.000Z

JasonWW:

Okay, so your accumulated turbo is just about the batteries power. I’m only looking at the supplied Acebeam battery.

The old battery/light combo did one blast of turbo for about 16 seconds and that was it. It couldn’t do turbo again.

The new battery/light combo did 5 blasts of turbo at about 50 seconds each.

That is a huge improvement. I wonder how they did it, or better yet why the old light couldn’t do?

Does it look like they beefed up the springs at all? Something that reduced the voltage loss?

Well, ACEBEAM only sent me the new flashlight itself, all the other accessories (including the 21700 battery) are still from the old one. That’s why I emphasized that the battery is exactly the same one. All the batteries are exactly the same ones as used in the previous (old/dead) tests.

No spring by-passing or anything else, the new EC65 looks exactly the same as the dead/old one :sunglasses:

toobadorz · 2018-06-18T15:41:58.000Z

JasonWW:

The new battery/light combo did 5 blasts of turbo at about 50 seconds each.

Oops, the Samsung 48G curve was mistaken for the ACEBEAM 21700 one in the first new plot. I’m terribly sorry for that. Now it’s corrected, there should be 4 blasts only (but the efficiency difference is actually even bigger!):

JasonWW · 2018-06-18T16:20:06.000Z

JasonWW:

That is a huge improvement. I wonder how they did it, or better yet why the old light couldn’t do?

Does it look like they beefed up the springs at all? Something that reduced the voltage loss?

Hmmm, maybe there was a bad component on the driver? It reduced performance, increased electrical resistance as well as burned up when pushed too hard?
Replace that bad component and efficiency, voltage and reliability all go up. Now their little light is performing like a champ. :partying_face:

Did Acebeam ever say what the original problem was?