From reading through all of the threads the DRY driver puts out the most power of any driver on the market for 3x XM-L lights. You can also get it without strobe and having Turbo-High-Med-Low modes where the T70 is just High-Med-Strobe iirc. Also, the T70 looks to be built better than the DRY as well as being able to remove heat from the LEDs better meaning you would be able to run in Turbo mode for longer.
According to Ultrafire's website, there's no strobe mode, so that could be a plus. Ok, so I think I see the reasoning... you figure the UF host would be better suited to do the slightly higher output because of thermal management; i.e., you get a better built and better looking DRY out of it?
Basically, yes, and the T70 has better throw even with its normal driver than the DRY so that is a bonus as well. Also, I think someone on here who owns the T70 said it is a Hi-Med-Strobe and here’s a video on Youtube confirming the Strobe http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwXAXy81vv0
It is somewhat sad that the manufacturers own site is wrong.
THANKS! I certaily feel cooler now that I've officially joined! :D
Also, I was reading in another thread... there seemed to be confusion about the tailcap readings that were coming from the TR-J12. The cells are obviously in series, but I'm guessing the emitters are in parallel and the driver's just a current-regulated buck driver. That would probably explain some of the "odd" readings. Only thing is, it's my understanding that having emitters in parallel is not such a hot idea due to the minor Vf discrepancies between leds of the same bin. Don't know how much of a problem that is in reality, but it might count against the light's reliability.
In the interest of helping people who are reading this thread, I've decided to calculate the estimated lumen output for each mode for each flashlight using the flashlight current specs and the xm-l datasheet.
TR-J12: 7.5 A to 5 emitters in parallel = 1.5 A to each emitter (high)
High - 2660
Mid (45% current) - 1350
Low (10%) - 350
DRY 4.5 A in turbo, 2.5 A in high
Turbo (4.5 A = off the cree chart; estimated by curve extension) - 3000
High (100%) - 2410
Mid (50%) - 1386
Low (5%) - 110
UF-T70 (2.6 A regulated high)
High (100%) - 2436
Low (20%) - 630
Sky Ray King (4 A regulated output to 3 emitters in parallel? = 1.333 A / emitter? )
High - 1512 ???
Low - unable to find data; 300 as per other BLF reviewer's estimate.
IMO it's not fair to the DRY to criticize the heat it creates in Turbo mode. Considering none of the other lights have that option, you are comparing apples to oranges. Compare the DRY in High mode where it is the equal of the other lights in output and the heat is quite manageable. The Dry has the ability though to really hit hard with the photons when switched into Turbo (direct drive) and leave everything else in the dust.
Until the UF-T70 or the SR King are able to run in DD and push 4A to each emitter, please refrain from any statements about how they don't get as hot on High as the DRY on Turbo then claim how much better built they are than the DRY based on that alone.
Truth is, the DRY is still the reigning King of triple emitter torches and the SR King is merely it's flamboyantly gay little brother. I still want that flaming gay torch but it will never be as bright as my DRY, at least in stock form.
JohnnyMac, it has been compared before, SR King at High put out more light than DRY at Turbo on ceiling bounce test by "_the_". AND produce less heat while at it. DRY at Turbo only have slight upper hand for 10seconds (what good is that), and after that outputs 10% lower than the King.
So, yes, people CAN criticize that heat management issue, it's fair game.
Personally, I think you could criticize it anyway. Having a mode on a flashlight that is potentially or even likely to lead to the light's failure? It's both an asset and a potential liability. Regardless, I think it's important to mention that there's a difference in output, and am glad someone clarified that the DRY does not have thermal problems in the 2.5 A mode.
I'd really like to know what the ACTUAL specs are for the KING (parallel, series, amperage for modes, etc.) From what I can tell, there's no way it should be able to hang with the other lights. The only numbers I've seen for it state 4.0 A on high mode. If every emitter is getting 4A, then the emitters are in series... which is odd, cuz the cells are in parallel, which would indicate a boost circuit. On the other hand, a cheaper way to drive the light would be to have the emitters AND the cells in parallel. But that would mean only 1.333... amps per emitter, which would make the output quite a bit lower than its competitors. That seems to go against the test results for this light from various reviewers.
Considering the heat sag I can see that. I really don't understand how the ceiling bounce figures match up, at least for the first 10 seconds. With the King only getting 2.5A minus driver loss of 15% (guessing average between 10% & 20% normally seen by most drivers) making it only 2.12A to each emitter how in the world could it possibly make more light than the DRY with good batteries putting 4.5 direct driven amps to each emitter?? Is thermal sag really that bad or was _the_ using very poor batteries in his tests? While it's hard to question the ceiling bounce results (although reflector design plays a part), it's the number themselves that just don't add up to me. With good batteries that don't sag as easily I'd like to see the tests redone.
I don't have the greatest cells either but when I do eventually get my SR King (yes, I want one badly and always have) I will do my own comparisons and see if my results match those you referenced. Other pics I've seen comparing the two lights in outdoor shots give the DRY the advantage in real world output so there are definitely many factors involved that can sway test results one way or another. They are both great lights though and I can't see anyone being unhappy with either light.
It's in the thread I gave. _the_ measured 7.5A at tail (he believed it should be more, suspect wire-limited). I believe Pok also mentioned before some Thailand forummers actually measured 9A on the king. So from what we have, the King will draw around 7.5A - 9A.
Both LED and batteries are placed in parallel. So 9A will split into three - 3A each emitter, minus efficiency factor (unknown so I'll let others reply to this). But as for battery load, each need only have a share of 9A/4 = 2.25A each battery, quite a light load. So this design will give better battery life and less voltage sag.
What people need to realize is that Tail Cap current really don't dictate how much current is going to the LEDs. What does dictate it is overall power consumed. Two batteries in series with 1.5 A current give as much power as 1 battery with 3 A of current. Remember Ohm's Law ov V=IR and power being P=IV, or P=V2/R or P=I2R. This will then help you decide what is actually getting more power.
They were not very bad. Unprotected TF Flames, capable of delivering up to 4.3A TC current (IIRC). But they are not very good either.
And I was indeed using different cells in King (XTAR 18700 2600mAh).
I'll re-test the ceiling bounces with same cells some day (as soon as I have some free time).
Yes. Many many factors. For example in these photos, taken after just a couple seconds on (= aiming time), the DRY seems to be a bit brighter - or then it's just a bit different aim? (Mouse over for DRY, out for King)
And, while we are at it, here's DRY compared to TR-J12 (Mouse over for DRY, out for TR-J12)
I fully agree! Actually all three / four are great lights. And comparing differences in brightness is more or less academic.. All of them are "bright enough" and you can't really see the difference in real life.
