Razor canister light

[stuartv]

@stuartv it's also not UN38.3 certified

Do you know that it is not UN38.3 certified? Or are you just speculating on that because the web page doesn't say anything about it?

I really know very little about all this stuff.

But, I downloaded the manual for the light and it has 2 Certificates of Compliance included in the manual.

One says "EC-RED Certificate". This one says that you can use the CE marking on the light. The other just says "Certificate of Compliance" and lists several test standards that all start with "IEC 62321".

A later part of the manual talks about flying with it and even mentions a cap they have for the battery canister to put on it when flying.

The web page specifically says it's a Samsung battery pack. That seems like something that Samsung would have tested and would be reliable.

 

[tbone1004]

@stuartv samsung does not make battery packs, it just means it has samsung cells in it. They didn't make the BMS or assemble the pack. That also has nothing to do with UN38.3 compliance.

The EC-Red stuff in 1.2 is for the charger. Has to do with EM fields, wire insulation, radio waves etc.
1.3 is about heavy metals and other random stuff

What is lacking is a specific UN38.3 certification that states that the pack has been tested to failure, the canister has pressure relief devices installed to prevent things like the incident with the Big Blue pack exploding from almost killing someone *which I don't see on this light btw*. That pressure relief in the Halcyon and UWLD handhelds are the charging pins on the packs, and on LM, the big Halcyon packs etc. are the switch boots. This has none of that stuff in it which basically makes it a bomb.

@Bobby has some great resources out there. He is certainly not the only one that has made sure his stuff is done properly, but I would argue he has the highest quality pack on the market and has gone through the steps to make sure that his are designed properly.
Some good resources. Unfortunately the UN38.3 link is dead since the DOT has changed, but it was to the full standard which is a bit dry to read. You can find it with a quick google if you're so inclined.
https://uwlightdude.com/guide-air-travel-lithium-batteries/
https://uwlightdude.com/is-your-battery-certified-safe/

Here is a link to something that should be printed if you ever fly with a UWLD light and something I wish more manufacturers would do. It includes the actual certification from a certified test house.
http://uwlightdude.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/UWLD-Air-Travel-Info-Cert-2015.pdf

Based on the quick look through their manual *direct link below since it's annoying to find*, I wouldn't go near this light, certainly not if I wanted to travel with it. No UN38.3 cert is one thing, but it looks like there is no relief mechanism in that canister which means if it goes, it's going to quite literally turn into a pipe bomb. That's already happened once this year to a diver, I really don't want to have it happen again.
http://shop.gosidemount.com/Downloads/Manual_Razor_L4200_en.pdf

 

[stuartv]

@stuartv samsung does not make battery packs, it just means it has samsung cells in it. They didn't make the BMS or assemble the pack. That also has nothing to do with UN38.3 compliance.

The EC-Red stuff in 1.2 is for the charger. Has to do with EM fields, wire insulation, radio waves etc.
1.3 is about heavy metals and other random stuff

What is lacking is a specific UN38.3 certification that states that the pack has been tested to failure, the canister has pressure relief devices installed to prevent things like the incident with the Big Blue pack exploding from almost killing someone *which I don't see on this light btw*. That pressure relief in the Halcyon and UWLD handhelds are the charging pins on the packs, and on LM, the big Halcyon packs etc. are the switch boots. This has none of that stuff in it which basically makes it a bomb.

@Bobby has some great resources out there. He is certainly not the only one that has made sure his stuff is done properly, but I would argue he has the highest quality pack on the market and has gone through the steps to make sure that his are designed properly.
Some good resources. Unfortunately the UN38.3 link is dead since the DOT has changed, but it was to the full standard which is a bit dry to read. You can find it with a quick google if you're so inclined.
https://uwlightdude.com/guide-air-travel-lithium-batteries/
https://uwlightdude.com/is-your-battery-certified-safe/

Here is a link to something that should be printed if you ever fly with a UWLD light and something I wish more manufacturers would do. It includes the actual certification from a certified test house.
http://uwlightdude.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/UWLD-Air-Travel-Info-Cert-2015.pdf

Based on the quick look through their manual *direct link below since it's annoying to find*, I wouldn't go near this light, certainly not if I wanted to travel with it. No UN38.3 cert is one thing, but it looks like there is no relief mechanism in that canister which means if it goes, it's going to quite literally turn into a pipe bomb. That's already happened once this year to a diver, I really don't want to have it happen again.
http://shop.gosidemount.com/Downloads/Manual_Razor_L4200_en.pdf

Thank you for the analysis. That is a lot of info that I did not know.

 

[Manatee Diver]

The Cree data for the XHP70.2 says 181 lumens per Watt, at binning conditions. And max output is 4292. I am just guessing that 4292 lumens is the "binning conditions" being referred to.

So, a quick calculation says that 4200 lumens would require 23.2 watts. 23.2 watts times 5.5 hours is 128 watt-hours. The battery pack is 155 W-Hr.

Their spec seems believable. What am I missing?

Those numbers are ideal world, with no losses to optics, and such. Someone that builds light for a living can expound on it.

But when their competitors are running 4,300 lumens for about an hour with a 5 hour taper with a similar sized battery pack, I am going to call BS.

 

[stuartv]

Those numbers are ideal world, with no losses to optics, and such. Someone that builds light for a living can expound on it.

But when their competitors are running 4,300 lumens for about an hour with a 5 hour taper with a similar sized battery pack, I am going to call BS.

The specs you used as an example match the specs for the Dive Rite EX35. An important difference to note is that Dive Rite are seriously overdriving an LED emitter that is not spec'ed for that much output. The EX35 uses an XHP35 emitter, which is only spec'ed to put out 1700 lumens - but DR are overdriving it to put out 4300.

The Razor is using an XHP70.2, which is actually spec'ed for a little over 4200 lumens.

If I am not mistaken, as LED emitters are driven harder than spec, their efficiency drops off - quite a bit, when overdriven by a lot.

I suspect that the DR EX35 on 100% is running with much lower energy efficiency than the Razor on 100%.

I suspect that the difference in efficiency could be enough for the DR light to start tapering down after 1 hour, to 1% at 6 hours, while the Razor runs at 100% for 5.5 hours.

So, again, I think the Razor numbers seem very believable. If you believe the DR numbers for their light, anyway.

 

[doctormike]

Wireless charging is VERY inefficient. Inefficient charging means energy that should be going into the battery is turned into heat, and heat is what usually makes batteries fail. In a sealed canister made of an insulator, it's not a technology I would be comfortable using.

Why would you even design something like this with wireless charging? I mean, I kind of see the appeal for a cell phone that you can just toss on a mat to charge each evening if you really don't want to plug in a cable. But for this? Why?

I don't know the actual specs, and from what I can tell there isn't much health risk from the low output EMF of a phone charger, but this would probably involve a much higher energy field, right?

 

[Asheron]

Had the 1000 lumen handheld and it immediately shot the button across the room after the first couple clicks. I found the button and took the light apart and found a chinsey bent E-clip, went in the garage and found a nice stainless one and installed it. After emailing the company, they were quite offended that i took the brand new light apart to fix it and said I voided my warranty.......so I won't be buying much from them ever again.

I like their BCD and have been using it for the last few years, but I would not buy anything electronic from them after my interaction with their team.

 

[Asheron]

Also the supplied battery proceeded to fail after about 5 charges.....the integrated charging unit is junk.

 

[stuartv]

@Asheron I couldn't really make myself click "Like" on your posts. So... good info! Thank you for sharing that. Apparently, Go Sidemount is NOT the Shearwater of lights... LOL

 

[tbone1004]

Why would you even design something like this with wireless charging? I mean, I kind of see the appeal for a cell phone that you can just toss on a mat to charge each evening if you really don't want to plug in a cable. But for this? Why?

I don't know the actual specs, and from what I can tell there isn't much health risk from the low output EMF of a phone charger, but this would probably involve a much higher energy field, right?

because it's cheaper than designing pins in the tail and it's not a "leak point". One of the problem with Halcyons pins for example is they aren't disconnected when off the charger so you can actually see them bubbling when underwater and discharging the battery. This is annoying because it also degrades the pins and especially in salt you have to clean them off. With the UWLD, in the electronics on those pins, they "shut off" unless a charger is connected so they won't do that which is nice. That requires real engineering which Razor certainly did not do on this thing.