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

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?

toobadorz · 2018-06-18T16:23:34.000Z

JasonWW:

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?

No. They just told me they knew the problem and a replacement was ready to ship to me

texas_shooter · 2018-06-18T17:28:48.000Z

I wonder how many of the problem ones are floating around? I get 28 seconds until step down.

toobadorz · 2018-06-18T17:35:19.000Z

texas shooter:

I wonder how many of the problem ones are floating around? I get 28 seconds until step down.

Is that a single burst (like my previous EC65) or you can access the highest (3700~4000) output again after cooling the flashlight?

texas_shooter · 2018-06-19T05:44:32.000Z

toobadorz:

texas shooter:

I wonder how many of the problem ones are floating around? I get 28 seconds until step down.

Is that a single burst (like my previous EC65) or you can access the highest (3700~4000) output again after cooling the flashlight?

It’s the initial output on a fresh battery.

toobadorz · 2018-06-19T07:37:36.000Z

texas shooter:

It’s the initial output on a fresh battery.

Try to cool down the EC65 and re-activate Turbo again, see if the highest (3700~4000) output can be achieved again. If not, then your EC65 is probably similar to my previous one.

JasonWW · 2018-06-20T14:48:09.000Z

Toobadorz, Maukka was just mentioning that his first sample measured 3456 lumen at turn on. His second sample measured 3750 lumen.

maukka:

~~I don’t have numbers for the first light. It could have well been lower than the 3750 on the new one.~~

edit: scratch that. The first sample was 3456 lm @ 0 sec.

I think this means you would have to adjust your charts again. Maybe you can ask Maukka for clarification.

toobadorz · 2018-06-20T15:14:07.000Z

JasonWW:

Toobadorz, Maukka was just mentioning that his first sample measured 3456 lumen at turn on. His second sample measured 3750 lumen.

maukka:

~~I don’t have numbers for the first light. It could have well been lower than the 3750 on the new one.~~

edit: scratch that. The first sample was 3456 lm @ 0 sec.

I think this means you would have to adjust your charts again. Maybe you can ask Maukka for clarification.

Yes, I saw it. But I’m not sure if the two (his and mine) replaced EC65 are equivalent, because the temperature numbers measured are quite different. So I tend to leave it as is (but remove the note of my scaling numbers in accordance with maukka’s). As I have stated, these are rough estimations and by no means should be considered as accurate.

Henk4U2 · 2018-06-20T17:30:09.000Z

Measuring the output of a flashlight is surrounded by a large number of variables. The chance that two people measuring two lights from the same production batch end up with the same result is smaller than winning the lottery. If someone says that the second light is more powerful than the first light, you can believe him (her). But if the results from two lights and two people are to be compared, the least you should do is to make detailed notes of the how/what/when and then send that very light to the other person. And vice-versa.
To quote Tiger Woods: always use double protection, in case you make a hole-in-one.

JasonWW · 2018-06-20T17:49:08.000Z

Henk4U2:

Measuring the output of a flashlight is surrounded by a large number of variables.

Yeah, each xhp35-HI has a plus or minus 7% tolerance for each emitters output. With 4 emitters that can lead to a pretty big range of output.

The fact that Maukka got 250 more lumens from his replacement light may not even have anything to do with the driver. The second light might have just had four emitters that were on the higher end of the output tolerance.