To anybody thinking they could disassemble the head easily or without damage, forget it.
I got the last version fro FastTech, made in December 2012.
Two pliers holding the head parts through leather.
No way. Actually scratched the head trough the leather.
Using anything else than leather means tearing it apart instantly, like a nonslip stuff etc.
Pliers with leather and a 14.5mm key, without the body, the head actually bends under the force of the key and the key would slip to next position if one continues to try unscrewing the parts.
With the body in the head, it does not bend as much, but the head is tearing apart the leather in the pliers with the knurkling.
I’ve also tried heating it up with a soldering iron set to 480°C, it got hot but it wouldn’t melt the glue as it does not get hot enough. Probably would have to bake it just below solder melting temperature and unscrew it while hot.
In the end, put the pliers with almost 3mm thick leather in a vice, tightened it as much as I could and thought not to break the glass. With the body of course screwed into the head. Now used the 14.5mm key, which is normally snug fit, but as it bends under all the force it is not anymore in all positions. And hardly could unscrew the head with the key, making dents and stuff into the paint with the key as it was still bending the head a little.
If I would try to snap it, break it, the key would jump positions I think. In the end it gave in and was not tearing apart the leather as I was maybe 3 times tightening the vice and trying to unscrew it with the key.
My advice to anybody trying to unscrew, don’t, unless you have something that can get a really really good grip on the heads knurkling and also a 6 sides 14 or 14.5mm key. And a file to modify your 14mm key to a 14.5mm. I’ve used a normal 2 sides key, not the round one with 6 sides. Really, do get a 6 sides one for this.
Tank is a really over gluing the head, it is some transparent stuff with a slight hint of green, it hardens a lot and it’s not grease like as on Kreislers picture.
A stupid superglue would have gave in long time ago, or thread lockers.
This is really some kind of nonsense they use. Glue that hardens and there was a lot of it, when I took it out quite a it of it fell on the reflector that stayed in the head.
The MCPCB is 11.5mm, and those 12mm MCPCBs from IS are the exact same thing. XP-G is 11.5mm same as in Tank007 E09. XM-L is 11.5mm, fits there too if you modify the reflector or change it for an XM-L reflector.
Some E09 units may have a droplet more glue in the threads than others. E09 V1 didnt have glue in the threads so people like myself easily opened the heads and by doing so automatically compromised the insulation layer. E10 and E11 have even more of the nasty green hardened glue. I'd prefer Tank to install a plastic insulation spacer (thin foil) and not use any glue in E09/E10/E11, oh well *sigh* :~
I know this thread has been around for a while, but I want to thank kreisler (and everyone else) at this late date for such a thorough look at a cute budget light…
In the past months the DD price was 18.99$ and i waited for the regular price drop. Today they did it, and believe me this aint gonna stay for long. Maybe for 3 weeks max, until they play with the prices again. So if you ever wanted to buy the E09 from DD (because of 200 birthday Dinopoints, LOVELY discount code, or DD giftcards from previous DD orders) then this is now the time.
DD knows that the E09's are the most popular Tank007's (see left-hand panel "Hot Products"), which is the only reason why they had raised the prices to the ridiculous 18.99$. The 10% OFF code LOVELY still works. I just got rid of my gc's and dinopoints, PP paid 10.01$ for a 26.68$ cart $)
no more DD, DX, MF, KD, WB, BG, etc. for me. Whatever i need, i can get from HKE, FT, EBAY, AMZN, NKON. Now crossing fingers that DD doesnt mess up my E09 orders and that the E09 are flawless as my other copies.
ImCoolMan just posted about AuraBuy having it for $12.49 (brown color).
Very cheap… not a bad knock around light. This is about the limit of what I’d pay. The very noticeable PWM and starting on HIGH would annoy me to no end if I’d paid like $20 for this. Btw, isn’t there another Fenix LD01 clone out there that’s supposed to be nearly as good for around $25?
i haven’t done the math but you could probably get the LD01 and L01 giftset from Wallbuys for roughly the same price ($25) with the current sale code … i remember paying around $30…
I just recieved a DUD from Alexipress. Emitter is way off center, and it flickered a fiew seconds after turning it on, then died. no longer turns on at all…
See below, the repeated C9000 tests (steps: s#01-s#06, s#08, s#10, s#13) prove that C9000 is very consistent at showing that the 4 cells have the following properties
AA#1 and AA#2 have about the same capacity. pretty much equal!
AA#8 has about the same capacity as AA#1&AA#2 too, or it is slightly higher.
AA#4 has definitely the highest capacity of all 4 cells.
All 4 cells are on the same level of capacities. for a chosen test, the average difference between AA#4 and the rest is typically not more than 15mAh
After each test step i left the 4 cells for many hours in the C9000 (in order to get a stationary condition in the cells) and then i put them altogether in a single 1S4P battery holder (in order to get a equalized voltage in the cells). Here again, i left the 4 cells for many hours in the battery holder, so that they would have the identical voltage before starting the next test step. "Many hours" was anything between 4-8hrs, for example over night.
i've been using the other 4 cells (AA#3,#5,#6,#7) for XP4 tests hehe
s#01: Refresh&Analyze
did several R&A's before but i am counting this one as "s#01"
1989mAh
1989mAh
1991mAh
1994mAh
See? they are indeed very similar
s#02: Refresh&Analyze
between s#01 and #02 i did several other tests, so i had to do this new R&A
1954mAh
1960mAh
1966mAh
1961mAh
cells are still on the same level, just a lower level
s#03: Discharge
after each step, i leave the 4 cells in the C9000 for hours and then equalize them for hours
1912mAh
1913mAh
1918mAh
1916mAh
perfect result because they show same level and similar "tendency"
s#04: Refresh&Analyze
another R&A to get the cells back charged!
1990mAh
1990mAh
1997mAh
1990mAh
wow, even nicer result! let's note the tendency, it is AA#1 ≈ #2 ≤ #8 < #4
s#05: Discharge
for data integrity let's discharge them again
1898mAh
1881mAh
1917mAh
1905mAh
not bad result. about similar level and tendency. it's okay.
s#06: Refresh&Analyze
before we can start nc2500 discharge tests we must recharge again of course lol
1960mAh
1963mAh
1970mAh
1961mAh
not bad result. same level and similar tendency, AA#4 > #8 ≈ #1 ≈ #2
s#07: Discharge from 4×1.4434V
1st nc2500 test: discharging AA#1,#2,#8! "mAh" is c9000 LCD, "nCh" is nc2500 LCD.
1990nCh
1980nCh
1913mAh
1970nCh
wrong tendency, nor have AA#1,#2,#8 a similar level. that's bad!
s#08: Refresh&Analyze
let's reset the 4 cells before we repeat the tests. this way they get charged too lol
1949mAh
1954mAh
1963mAh
1961mAh
good result because same level and correct tendency AA#1 ≈ #2 ≤ #8 < #4
s#09: Discharge from 4×1.4467V
2nd nc2500 test: discharging AA#1,#2! they should be equal, and lower than AA#4
1994nCh
1987nCh
1904mAh
1918mAh
AA#1≈#2 okay, but level is wrong. too high. much higher than AA#4
s#10: Refresh&Analyze
for the next test we must charge first lol
1953mAh
1956mAh
1966mAh
1965mAh
tendency perfect, level the same. great result!
s#11: Discharge from 4×1.4600V
3rd nc2500 test: discharging AA#1,#8!
2018nCh
1898mAh
1929mAh
2000nCh
AA#1 is ~118mAh higher than what c9000 would have measured. tendency wrong too!
s#12: Charge in xp4 to stationary voltage
4th nc2500 test: discharging AA#2,#4!
1.4855V
1955mAh
1.4866V
2047nCh
1.4856V
2025nCh
1.4885V
1956mAh
AA#1 ≈ #8 as expected but AA#2,#4 are on too high level and wrong tendency
s#13: Refresh&Analyze
checking cells before declaring this test series as finished
1969mAh
1966mAh
1976mAh
1965mAh
perfect result. same level, correct tendency!
Summary:
See above, the four NC2500 discharge tests leave no room for data interpretation other than this: The NC2500 shows too high discharge capacities compared to the C9000. On average, for a particular cell (Eneloop AA, nominal 2000mAh) the NC2500 would measure a ~80-120mAh higher discharge capacity than the C9000 would display as final result in the LCD. In addition, NC2500 doesn't get the tendency right either!
C9000 discharge capacity measurements seem very consistent and accurate.
NC2500 discharge capacity measurements seem inconsistent and inaccurate and certainly do not match the C9000 results.
It’s still my keychain light. No reason to change it until it fails or I give it as a gift. With so little use, I am sure I will get years of use out of it unless something really wow comes out and I have to get
As long as my flashlights are being used/not failed, I don’t really buy more of them. Gotta use your money wisely with 2 kids to cater for
I just finished modding a Tank007 E09 with a XM-L U2 neutral white emitter. much brighter, better spot, and same amp draw in all 3 modes. The mod was literally micro-surgery !
I did save photos of the progress of the mod, and will post a Tread on it soon. ( i am just fin tining the micro spacer thickness between the original modded-reflector and the bigger XM-L emitter.
