srfreddy
Enlightened
Wow on the output-looks like the Zebralight is finally toppled for King of 1xAA output!
Thrunite Neutron Series (XM-L) 1C, 2C, 1A, 2A Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS and more!
- Thread starter selfbuilt
- Start date
Help Support Candle Power Flashlight Forum
harlequinn
Newly Enlightened
The only benefit is the neat strobe effect in the rain. This novelty wears off after about 10 seconds and then becomes a total annoyance.
I have the 2C. The PWM sucks big time. If I'd known I wouldn't have bought it.
I assumed 100Hz wouldn't be visible as flicker and thought that it must be lower (like 50Hz) but I was wrong. It certainly looks less to me.
I'm going to make a guess as to why the lowest PWM mode is the most annoying and say that the total light output is low enough that the eyes rods are being used and the PWM rate is too low to maintain persistence of vision and reach the flicker fusion threshold. At the higher levels the light output becomes high enough to bring the cones of the eye into use which have a higher persistence of vision (1/20 second) and therefore lower flicker fusion threshold.
Some quick research into this reveals that some of the more sensitive parts of the eye can detect flicker up to 250Hz !!!!
So it's time for manufacturers to reassess their PWM strategies and for buyers to force this by not buying products that don't meet the standards that we set (come to think of it - we should get together as a group and set some standards that we expect as a minimum).
Last edited:
Yes, the 1A does indeed top it, although the difference isn't so great on NiMH. But the SC51 is optimized for NIMH (and 1x14500 is NOT recommended), so that's not an entirely fair comparison to the multi-battery support of the 1A.
Thanks for weighing in HKJ.
That's an interesting theory. I have noticed in the past (and can confirm with the 2C as well) that the lowest output modes are where the PWM is most distracting. In fact, prior to measuring it, I would have sworn that the Lo mode had a lower PWM freq than Med/Hi - but they are all the same. It is interesting that our relative perception varies with the shape of the precise PWM pattern (i.e. for a given freq, the shorter duration the light is "on" in the PWM wave - and the lower the corresponding perceived output - the more relatively distracting). I can also vouch that the PWM seems more noticeable to me in my peripheral vision that central, supporting your rod theory.
FYI, I have heard back from Thrunite on the switch boot cover. They acknowledge that the material is very soft, but insist that it is very durable and better quality than silicone or rubber. I think the point here is that you want to make sure you press in the centre of the cover, for the most reliable connection.
Last edited:
I have just updated the review with the summary tables and runtimes for the 2C, on 14670, 2xRCR and 2xCR123A. :sweat: Scroll up to check them out (may need to refresh your browser). Note that protected 17670/18650 wouldn't fit on my 2C.
Output and runtime performance of the 2C on Turbo was as expected, and consistent with Thrunite's specs. That means that the max output of the 2C (on all batteries) is closer to the 1C on CR123A or the 2A on 2xNiMH (i.e. not as high as the 1C/1A on RCR/14500). :shrug:
But I also notice a few other things - first, the output levels are lower on the 2C's Lo/Med/Hi than the other lights (i.e. the 2C's Hi mode is more like the 1C/1A/2A's Med, on most batteries). But more importantly, the relative efficiency has dropped significantly on the 2C's lower outputs (at least on the Med and Hi mode tested). On 14670 or 2xRCR, the 2C runtime on Hi was only half that of a typical XP-G R5 light. Similar issue for Med on 2xRCR - the 2C performs worse than a typical XR-E Q5/R2 light. So in addition to low freq PWM, you also get reduced efficiency at these lower levels. :sigh:
Note that there is no problem with the full-power Turbo mode - it performs as expected on the 2C (and with no PWM, of course).
Now that I am done the testing, I've also added for your reference a table showing the relative INITIAL output levels, in estimated Lumens from my lightbox, for all models on various batteries.
Again, this table is different from my other ones in the individual light review sections (which each show ANSI FL-1 lumen min/max estimates for each model). But this allows you to quickly compare at a glance what you can initially expect from the various models. :wave:
Output and runtime performance of the 2C on Turbo was as expected, and consistent with Thrunite's specs. That means that the max output of the 2C (on all batteries) is closer to the 1C on CR123A or the 2A on 2xNiMH (i.e. not as high as the 1C/1A on RCR/14500). :shrug:
But I also notice a few other things - first, the output levels are lower on the 2C's Lo/Med/Hi than the other lights (i.e. the 2C's Hi mode is more like the 1C/1A/2A's Med, on most batteries). But more importantly, the relative efficiency has dropped significantly on the 2C's lower outputs (at least on the Med and Hi mode tested). On 14670 or 2xRCR, the 2C runtime on Hi was only half that of a typical XP-G R5 light. Similar issue for Med on 2xRCR - the 2C performs worse than a typical XR-E Q5/R2 light. So in addition to low freq PWM, you also get reduced efficiency at these lower levels. :sigh:
Note that there is no problem with the full-power Turbo mode - it performs as expected on the 2C (and with no PWM, of course).
Now that I am done the testing, I've also added for your reference a table showing the relative INITIAL output levels, in estimated Lumens from my lightbox, for all models on various batteries.
Again, this table is different from my other ones in the individual light review sections (which each show ANSI FL-1 lumen min/max estimates for each model). But this allows you to quickly compare at a glance what you can initially expect from the various models. :wave:
Last edited:
I've had the 2C for about a month now.
First, I don't notice the PWM at all! Second, on mine, the hotspot has a light-brown donut when white-wall shining. Third, the tail-standing is quite wobbly.
But wait!!! It CAN take RCR's can't it? The problem I've been having (for which I posted in a thread all its own) is that when using 2 TrustFire RCR's, (and after the light goes abruptly dark), from using it for several days, 1 of the cells is COMPLETELY DEAD (ZERO VOLTS). Meanwhile the second cell is STILL right around 3.7!!!!!!
oo: I've tried this on 2 different sets of cells and it does the same thing. Right now, I'm using it with AW's, to see if it behaves the same way. I'm wondering what the heck is going on with that!! :thinking:
Can I assume that one 14505 3v Titanium Innovations cell in the 1A would behave similar to the 1C with one CR123A? Not as awsome as the 14500, but not bad for a single AA light. Are there any single AA that can beat 320 lm with the 3v 14505?
Last edited:
Theknifereviewer
Newly Enlightened
Great Review i just got the C1 and already sold it I did not like the tint mine looked purple so i sold it and already ordered the Jetbeam BC10 hope I like it it looks like a great light.
I've had the 2C for about a month now.
First, I don't notice the PWM at all! Second, on mine, the hotspot has a light-brown donut when white-wall shining. Third, the tail-standing is quite wobbly.
But wait!!! It CAN take RCR's can't it? The problem I've been having (for which I posted in a thread all its own) is that when using 2 TrustFire RCR's, (and after the light goes abruptly dark), from using it for several days, 1 of the cells is COMPLETELY DEAD (ZERO VOLTS). Meanwhile the second cell is STILL right around 3.7!!!!!!
I'm wondering what the heck is going on with that!! :thinking:
Hopefully someone knowledgeable will answer, but coud it be that the protection circuit in one cell is kicking in due to a too high current flow? That would explain why one cell is still showing a high voltage.
I've just finished the 2C Med mode runtime on 2xRCR, updated graph below.
As you can see, there is a clear efficiency issue on the 2C at Med/Hi (and I presume Lo as well, though not tested). Rather than exceeding an XP-G R5 (as most of the other lights in this family did at these levels, on most batteries), the 2C performs at around the level of a XR-E Q5 (at best). :shrug:
Again, Turbo mode works as expected, so it seems to be an issue to the low-freq PWM modes.
Clearly, there is a lot of variability in our ability to detect - I can tell which lights have visible PWM within the first few secs of turning it on.
Note also that you shouldn't routinely be running cells down to the point where the circuit needs to trip - I only do it to provide comparative runtimes (but it means I go through cells a lot faster than a regular user would). Better to regular top-up of your cells, and measure the voltage frequently to make sure they remain well matched (for ex., is one of your cells self-discharging faster than normal?)
I do not typically recommend using magnet spacers, given the risk of shorting the light (although in this case, that risk should be lower as the reverse-polarity ring should prevent the magnet from moving far).
As you can see, there is a clear efficiency issue on the 2C at Med/Hi (and I presume Lo as well, though not tested). Rather than exceeding an XP-G R5 (as most of the other lights in this family did at these levels, on most batteries), the 2C performs at around the level of a XR-E Q5 (at best). :shrug:
Again, Turbo mode works as expected, so it seems to be an issue to the low-freq PWM modes.
Thanks for posting. Although a number of us find low freq PWM quite nauseating, many people report not seeing it. Another light that produced a lot of discussion was the Olight M30, which had 100Hz PWM on its low modes.
Clearly, there is a lot of variability in our ability to detect - I can tell which lights have visible PWM within the first few secs of turning it on.
At first blush, sounds to me like a battery problem - assuming it is happening abnormally early (i.e. is one of them shorting?). It is normal for a battery whose protection circuit trips to read initially as zero volts - but in most cases (on good quality cells) the battery will almost immediately recover over the threshold cut-off, and show a high 2.x V or or low 3.x V charge. All my AW protected RCRs have worked fine in the light, and come out reasonably well balanced after one of the protection circuits trips (with near immediate bounce-back to >3V once removed).
Note also that you shouldn't routinely be running cells down to the point where the circuit needs to trip - I only do it to provide comparative runtimes (but it means I go through cells a lot faster than a regular user would). Better to regular top-up of your cells, and measure the voltage frequently to make sure they remain well matched (for ex., is one of your cells self-discharging faster than normal?)
Yes, it does perform the same. However, the Neutrons have a raised ring in the head, around for the positive contact plate (i.e. to physically prevent reverse-polarity). The new TI 3V 14505 have a shorter raised nipple at the positive terminal than standard AA or 14500, and I was unable to make contact on mine without using a small magnet spacer.
I do not typically recommend using magnet spacers, given the risk of shorting the light (although in this case, that risk should be lower as the reverse-polarity ring should prevent the magnet from moving far).
Last edited:
The 4Sevens lights are referred to throughout as MiNi, but they appear to be from the Quark (regular or tactical) series, and the 1xAA test results include 14500 data, which is not advised for the MiNi AA.
@RBWNY... It sounds like the internal protection circuit on one of the cells is tripping to prevent over-discharge, which is common in two-cell protected Li-Ion setups. If you mark the cells, you may find that one specific one trips earlier than the rest - potentially a sign of looser quality control than premium protected Li-Ions. For the sake of your cells, and so you're not suddenly left in the dark, it's recommended that you not run them until the protection cuts in. Once you know how they tend to perform, recharge earlier as a regular practice. Li-Ions are quite happy to be topped up frequently - they don't need to be run all the way down before recharging. You'll have longer runtime available if needed, compared to starting out with largely depleted cells.
The higher output achievable with XM-L based lights is interesting, and quite useful in some situations, but there's still a good case to be made for the utility of emitters that can achieve higher throw values (relative to output) in small form factor lights.
Since sales are more likely driven by raw output than runtime, manufacturers are trying to optimize new lights for high output (while still keeping the heat on high more or less manageable.) I hope that as more XM-L lights arrive in small form factors, some will offer a balance that favours runtime to a greater extent. This can be achieved to some degree in multi-mode lights with high output, but circuit designs intended to optimize runtime may offer more.
The Thrunite lights, as well as other new entrants' lights, are attractive, but for people who own existing lights in the same form factor, the new units are not necessarily so compelling that replacement is mandatory.
- Syncytial.
@RBWNY... It sounds like the internal protection circuit on one of the cells is tripping to prevent over-discharge, which is common in two-cell protected Li-Ion setups. If you mark the cells, you may find that one specific one trips earlier than the rest - potentially a sign of looser quality control than premium protected Li-Ions. For the sake of your cells, and so you're not suddenly left in the dark, it's recommended that you not run them until the protection cuts in. Once you know how they tend to perform, recharge earlier as a regular practice. Li-Ions are quite happy to be topped up frequently - they don't need to be run all the way down before recharging. You'll have longer runtime available if needed, compared to starting out with largely depleted cells.
The higher output achievable with XM-L based lights is interesting, and quite useful in some situations, but there's still a good case to be made for the utility of emitters that can achieve higher throw values (relative to output) in small form factor lights.
Since sales are more likely driven by raw output than runtime, manufacturers are trying to optimize new lights for high output (while still keeping the heat on high more or less manageable.) I hope that as more XM-L lights arrive in small form factors, some will offer a balance that favours runtime to a greater extent. This can be achieved to some degree in multi-mode lights with high output, but circuit designs intended to optimize runtime may offer more.
The Thrunite lights, as well as other new entrants' lights, are attractive, but for people who own existing lights in the same form factor, the new units are not necessarily so compelling that replacement is mandatory.
- Syncytial.
No, those are correctly-labelled Mini results in my runtime graphs. My regular Quarks are all from the original XP-E R2 run, so I don't usually include the data if I have more recent XP-G R5 Mini data. And yes, 14500 is not recommended for the Mini AA (by neither the manufacturer nor myself), but it does techinically work.
Are the lights in the photos MiNis? That's what initially led to :thinking:.
- Syncytial.
(not wanting to stray too far from the purpose of this thread).....
Thanks for your thoughts! Yes it could be the protection circuit. In the first set of cells, which I labeled 1 & 2, it was consistently #1 which always dumped first. I have not numbered the 2nd set, but it's always one over the other. Yes, I know it's better to top-off than let run down, but without checking voltage each time, it's impossible to know when the circuit "shut-off" will occur. I'll check the AW's being used now to see where they are. None of the cells are shorting but one in each set is definitely discharging quicker than the other. I've also found these TFire cells are very difficult to fit in the light. They're so snug, that one of them usually needs to be "pushed" into the tube, with the other one aiding in the process. To get them out, I need to shake the light!
Ah, no, those are Quarks - I just didn't bother to label all the pics this time.
FYI, the selection of lights for the round-up photos are just to allow you to compare relative heights and widths among similar builds in the same battery class (i.e. I grab a handful of lights of roughly similar sized lights, rather than posting rulers, etc.). These pics are done when the lights first arrive, and don't correlate in any way to the runtime graphs. The runtimes graphs are generated at the very end of testing, and I select traces of similar emitter/output levels for the best visual comparison.
This is why I don't report the Quarks on the graphs, since my older XP-E R2s are not indicative of the newer lights with XP-G R5/S2 emitters. But the Quark exteriors haven't changed much, which is why I used them in the round-up pics in this case (i.e. fairly similar looking to the Neutrons).
Hmmm, does sound like a specific battery problem - does it happen in other 2xRCR lights? But you are right, don't want to get off-topic here.
That's what I suspected, but without labeling the photos, or noting that they are just for visual comparison of similar body types, it could lead to confusion, especially for newcomers trying to sort out the huge, and dynamic, store of information on CPF.
- Syncytial.
Biker Bear
Enlightened
Thanks for all the great info!
I was very sorry to hear the 2C body won't accommodate a 17670, much less an 18650; the output results had me thinking of legoing the low-V head onto the 2C body. Any chance it could be rebored to accept a 17670? (Probably not worth hoping for an 18650... how thick can the walls be?)
I was very sorry to hear the 2C body won't accommodate a 17670, much less an 18650; the output results had me thinking of legoing the low-V head onto the 2C body. Any chance it could be rebored to accept a 17670? (Probably not worth hoping for an 18650... how thick can the walls be?)
Possibly, but I doubt it. If it was just a question of the protection circuit in the head of the protected 17670 not making it, then I could see boring being being feasible. But in this case, even the back end of my 17670 won't make it in, meaning you need to do a lot of boring. It might be possible, hard to say. :shrug:
harlequinn
Newly Enlightened
Inside diameter is 16.2mm (0.64in). The main body measures at 1.9mm (0.07in). That's not the problem though. The threaded end only measure 1.2mm (0.04in) from the inside wall to the top of the threads. Measuring from the inside wall to the bottom of the threads is only 0.8mm (0.03in).
So if you bored out an extra 1mm (0.034in) then you would shave 0.5mm (0.017in) off the radius, leaving the walls 0.3mm (0.01in) thick at the threads - way too thin. I hope I got my inches right - it's decimalised now right? Or are the old fractions still in use?
raphaello
Newly Enlightened
Is the Neutron 2AA better in runtimes compared to the Fenix LD20 (I saw the graph on max output ... and WOW , but what about on Med and Low ?!). I had decided that I would go for the Fenix but now that this light came ... I'm not so sure - what do you think is a better overall light ? Also something very important is that I will use it a lot for camping, so is there a diffuser that will fit the Neutron so perfectly as it is the case with the LD20 ?!?
, but what about on Med and Low ?!). I had decided that I would go for the Fenix but now that this light came ... I'm not so sure - what do you think is a better overall light ? Also something very important is that I will use it a lot for camping, so is there a diffuser that will fit the Neutron so perfectly as it is the case with the LD20 ?!?
