followers of the topic already know that the next production batch of E09's (termed internally as "E09 V3") will have a dedicated longer battery compartment to fit all brands of Protected 10440's, and this new fact/improvement will also be communicated on the product webpage when V3 is out.
brted's is clearly a V2 copy (and it does have the XP-E R3 in it, not the XP-E R2, see also the current product webpage which showcases the V2).
The PWM is confirmed by the company to be "normally 180~ 250HZ, and we use 230HZ" in the E09 product. The company deliberately doesnt intend to employ higher frequency PWM in an effort to avoid whining. So that's what you get with Tank007 products (similar to Balder lights, etc.). If all of my lights had the 230Hz frequency, it would be a dealbreaker if i were to buy another (new) light with the same low frequency. My Romisen RC-29 has a similar low PWM, and i am good with both ... but please not another (third) light! ;)
The defective samples were an issue of V1 (the cheap glue functioning as insulation layer -- as we recall from the other review). On my V2 sample, with my bare hands, i am not able to unscrew the upper head part from the lower head part, so i cant check the V2 insulation layer. In any case, the manufacturer is aware of the original insulation problem (V1), so let's see how they handle it in the upcoming V3.
I also did and published extensive runtime tests involving multiple test runs, both on original Eneloop AAA's and on Protected Ultrafire 10440's, and also measured amperages from tailcap readings. The interested reader may feel free to compare the measurements from both reviews.
Really great review btw. These kinds of beamshots were exactly the ones missing in the other review
