prh, 10440, & rkcstr time test.

Today I finally got around to a little life time test. what i used:

phr
rkcstr set to 90 ma
2- 10440 600mah fully charged

i do not yet have an LPM so my test measured 2 things:

match lighting at 5 minute intervals
life of lase

ok so just as my title says i tested the above on continuous duty to see the effects and results are:

match lighting stopped somewhere between 30 and 35 minutes
the light almost went out at 38.49 seconds

so for those wondering about whether or not to use only 2 10440's here is some basic info to help you.

for me these results are acceptable for future rkcstr and 10440 builds.


michael

Thanks for doing this test. People tend to forget over time.

+1

Peace,
dave

You guys know I have respect for you both, but give me a break. You call this a test? You dont even have a LPM, or have compared it to 3 batteries. So it can light matches, what does that prove, or disprove? Its also contrary to what you posted a few day ago.

Tech_Junkie said:

I saw that too, but I dont agree with it. If you use 2 X 3.7 batteries it will fall out of regulation fast. When charged they have 4.2v, but it falls fast so heat is really not a problem when using 3. If you are still worried about heat you can add a silicon diode, and it will bring it back to regulation. An 1N4001 diode should work.

Click to expand...

chipdouglas said:

thank you tj. that actually explains my situation then... i have a phr in wicked core host that i bought from scopeguy... it is crazy strong, it only take 2 seconds to light white match... but it does not last along time on the 10440's. i just thought (i won't use the word assume with you anymore.. fool me once) that it was my crummy ultra fires.

michael

Click to expand...

And Dave you give him a +rep because he supports your argument in this minuscule manner. Very sad bro, I'M highly disappointed you need reassurance this bad. These are not results. There is no distance graph, there is no output reading, no current draw, no voltage test, no comparisons to anything at all, no nothing. Only that it lights matches on and off for half an hour. This doesn't prove anything, and total contrary to what he said above.

There is not a big enough face palm to cover this.

1 last question and I'll leave this thread alone.

@Dave. What voltage do you set your home PS when building, checking, and fixing PHR, 6X, 8X, 12X builds with a Rckstr driver?

Nuff said.

i didn't contraDICKT myself...i said that it didn't last a long time. which you clearly quoted me on... in this thread i clearly proved that in 38 minutes it stops lasing... and somewhere between 30 and 35 mns it stops lighting matches.... and my conclusion is that this ACCEPTABLE for ME.

and your question about daves home psu is a moot point because it is probably a plug in psu... so with that you never have to worry about falling out of regulation. so therefore you can always have it set at the min thresh hold.

michael

My assumptions may be incorrect, but my points are valid. This was in no way any kind of scientific test, and you got repped because you prove Dave's point in a small way. Which is totally based on personal acceptance, and has nothing to do with science, or the proper way to power a Blu-Ray diode. Acceptable is not an excuse to do things incorrectly. The regulation of a Blu-Ray diode with a Rkcstr driver is 9-12v, period. You will not get full power at 8.4v. Why even spend the extra money to get 200mWs if your configuration makes it 175mW at best, and it plummets up to twice as fast as the correct configuration? It doesnt make sense at all.

I'm sorry you feel that way, TJ. He did this test for you, not me. I don't have the questions you have. You should be repping him for helping to clear up a problem you have, not questioning and deriding his "non-scientific" method. He did the test so that you and others wouldn't have to.

I repped him for taking the time to do the test and sharing the info, not for agreeing with my position.

Your present focus on voltage alone is where the problem stems from.

This configuration only NEEDS 7.2V to run properly. In batteries, this just won't last long before it drops out of regulation. 8.4V is fine for ALL of the blurays when used with the Rkcstr (except some of the 12X's that are drawing close to 7V).

It is not the voltage against which I recommend. It is the combination of 2 @ 10440 batteries with higher than a PHR that I have a problem with. Even this is not because 8.4V is too little voltage. It is because when drawing 200mA the 10440's drop out too quickly.

As I stated in the other thread, 100's of lasers have been built with 2 @ 10440's and a PHR. They are running fine all over the world. They do not have as long between recharges as a 14500 or larger battery configuration, but they work fine.

I am sorry that someone gave your bad information or that you misunderstood what was told to you, but 8.4V is fine for most bluray diodes when used with a Rkcstr. You cannot focus on voltage alone. The mAh of the batteries vs. the current draw of the diode, must be considered.

To answer your question, when I used to build PHR lasers, I would set my bench PSU @ 9V. This is NOT because it needs 9V. It is so I do not have to be concerned with regulation while testing. When I build a laser using a flex or boost I set my PSU @ 4.5V for the same reason. The flex only NEEDS 2.7V, but I set the driver with my PSU @ 4.5V

After I tested/built the PHR laser with the bench PSU set @ 9V, I then finished the laser in a host that held 2 @ 10440 batteries. Just like I place the finished boost or flex into a host that only has a 3V battery.

Peace,
dave

I understand your points. You know I like Blu-Rays best. I read days upon days of info on them, and they always hammered the point that a minimum of 9v is needed to keep it in regulation. I know the lasers will work at a lower voltage, but I've never seen any posts that recommend that, or any comparisons that proves its a suitable substitution. I can only go by what I've read, because obviously I'm not that well schooled in electronics.

Sorry for the wrong assumptions (yes chip, I used that word LOL) but it went against everything I've read, and have been told (by Igor, and others).