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

[toobadorz]

@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]

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

[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?

[texas_shooter]

@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]

@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]

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]

@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]

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]

@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.