# Best pocket LED light?



## geepondy (Apr 15, 2001)

This is my first foray into this forum. I thought LED lights were still pretty much a gadget item and had no idea so many people shared my interests. My three contestants on subject matter are the Photon II, the Infinity and the Pocketbright, being the three pocket sized LED lights I own.  This is my personal experience with the three lights. The Photon II although initially shines very bright, dims down a degree rather quickly and it's battery life is less then desirable. And to change the batteries is a real work of art, something of which could never be accomplished in the dark. The infinity has many good qualities. Very rugged, easy to use and easy to change the very common AA battery. But it's light output is disappointingly dimmer then the rest. I see the pocketbright has garned a log of negative reviews but to me, it is the best one of the three. I have not experienced any of the switch problems people have complained about. It's light output although not as bright as the photon II at least initially is much brighter then the infinity and it's battery life is quite satisfactory. Plus it's fairly easy to change the batteries and I think you could accomplish this in the dark if need be. So that is the light that is on my keychain but when I go hiking, I always make sure I throw the infinity in the backpack because you can see your way around in the complete dark with it and it makes a great emergency light.

I'm curious to hear other people's opinions on the subject matter and perhaps compare to other entries as well. I think the Arc light from what I've ready may be the new winner.

P.S. Any word or pre-reviews on the Lightwave 4000? I like my CC Expedition 7 but hate the intermittency of the,
IMO, barbaric twist on/off mechanism to serve as a switch. I read that they've kept the same tradition in the new 14 and 19 LED versions. I hope the Lightwave 4000 has suitable light output because I have read that it has a real push switch.


----------



## vcal (Apr 15, 2001)

Welcome aboard





My favorite subject: powerful "key" lights. Although so far, my all time favorite is the UKE-2AAA(another forum?), I too, used to have the PocketBright on my keychain until I got tired of fixing the switching and the about 1/3 output of my Photon II
Now on my keyring(s), I'm using a hopped-up version of the Pelican L1-which I think is a great buy @ only $11.
prediction?: April 2002-a small waterproof Luxeon pocket LED light using rechargeable Lithium batteries for less than $50.)


----------



## X-CalBR8 (Apr 15, 2001)

I agree. Push switches are much easier to use, and it only requires one hand to turn on and off. From what I've heard about the Trek 7 you have to put it in a "death grip" just to turn it on and off and I think that's just ridiculous. In fact that is the one reason why I haven't bought one yet. Isn't part of the point of a good flashlight supposed to be ease of use? I guess that's one reason why I like the good ole Turtlelite II so much. It has a very easy to turn on and off push switch (which a child could turn on & off one handedly while blindfolded), but it's recessed to keep it from accidentally turning on when placed in a backpack or other circumstance where it could easily get turned on by accident. Although I think the Double Barrel flashlight line by Energizer has the most excellent switches of any light that I've ever used to date. They are totally silent when pressed and just have a great feel to them. The only mistake that I noticed about the Double Barrel's switches was I would have liked their switches to have been recessed like with the Turtlelite to keep from turning it on accidentally in a backpack or glovebox. What I would like to know is why can't all flashlight's switches be this nice and easy to use? Is it a matter of cost, or a lack of engineering prowess, or just a matter of personal taste?


----------



## geepondy (Apr 15, 2001)

Yes, the Trek 7 is rather hard to twist the head in it's on and off positions and it is not a smooth transaction. It is a very barbaric design and operation in my opinion, especially for a $60 light. Literally, you're just loosening the lens cap assembly from the batteries. More then once, I thought the unit was "off" only to turn it upside down to rest it on its head and have the light come back on. When it is in its so called off position, the batteries and other innards are allowed to shake around freely.


----------



## X-CalBR8 (Apr 15, 2001)

Yeah, that's what I thought to. Kinda cheap for a $60.00 light not to have a proper switch. That's why I don't have one already. I figure it's only a matter of time before a competitor gets it right and I will buy from them.


----------



## X-CalBR8 (Apr 15, 2001)

I sure hope the upcoming Arc Light doesn't have any switch problems as I'm looking forward to owning one. It has a twist type switch also, but I can kind of understand having that type of switch in a pocket light though because it would be far too easy to accidentally turn on a push switch in one's pocket.


----------



## Lux Luthor (Apr 16, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by X-CalBR8:
*...I can kind of understand having that type of switch in a pocket light though because it would be far too easy to accidentally turn on a push switch in one's pocket.*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's one reason for having a screw type switch. The main reason is that it's by far the best way to waterproof a flashlight. Almost all the diving lights use this kind of switch. It's not "barbaric". It's a simple effective design. As far as how easy the ARC light will be to turn, all I can say is that my Infinity is perfectly easy to turn on and off with only one hand, and doesn't require repositioning the light in any way like a rear push button switch does.


----------



## geepondy (Apr 16, 2001)

The infinity's switch mechanism is very smooth yet solid feeling with a very short turning range between the off and on positions. The Trek 7 turns very hard, is not smooth turning at all and feels like you're just unscrewing the lens assembly because that is exactly what you're doing. There is a wide area of intermittent on/off range. I have to give it an extran half turn when I turn it off because if I don't and set it on it's head, the light is apt to come back on again. Just my two cents but to me, this makes it impractical to use as a daily light that you would be switching on and off several times.


----------



## Coherence (Apr 16, 2001)

I posted this to another thread but maybe it has relevance here - 


Another alternative switch is the magnetic reed switch. I just took apart a sensor that is used for home security (attaches to a window). Inside is a magnetic reed switch with both normally open and normally closed contacts. If you bring a magnet within an inch or two of it the switch flips.

I want a light that is truly waterproof and easy to turn on/off. What I have found is that the weak point in being waterproof seems to be the switch. The switches that really are waterproof require two hands to use (twist the O-ringed head down until it lights).

My thought is to build a flashlight where the light is 'on' by default. Also make a holster with a magnet in the appropriate place. 

Now you have a light which:
1. Is always on when you use it.
2. Lights up if you drop it or are separated from the light.
3. You are 'reminded' to return it to its holster (the only way to turn it off). Now you can find it later, it is on your belt.
4. *Nothing* protrudes through the case to allow water leakage.

Anyway, just a thought.

Incidently the magnetic switch is a cylinder about 1/2" long and 1/8" diameter.

Update: it will work through the wall of a 3D cell Maglight, i.e. sensor on one side and magnet on the other. So aluminum flashlight is certainly possible w/magnetic switch...

also a simple deactivator switch would be a rubber band with a magnet glued to it to fit around the body of light.


----------



## Brock (Apr 16, 2001)

Ok, since I just got the Arc light today I am going to have to say that it is the best pocket light.

I did a review on my site, but to sum up it is great! The knurling (rough steel) is better, and it is brighter than the Infinity. It stays bright for a *long* time, over 3 hours now constant on and now just ever so slightly dimmer then my Photon, still way brighter then the Infinity. It is small, easily held in your teeth to do up close work, and won't take up much space in your pocket. Hopefully I will get around to taking some shots tonight when I get home. This is a nice light. I wish I had invested some $ in this company because they have done it right!

Brock


----------



## X-CalBR8 (Apr 16, 2001)

Coherence: That's a pretty cool idea. I just happened to think of another possible variation on it to. What if you epoxy a slide switch on the outside of the light that would slide a magnet into an "on" position or an "off" position? You would have the same waterproofness but also have a switch so you would not always need to use a holster to turn it off. This sounds just like the perfect mod for a Trek 7 to me. LOL, who knows I might even get a Trek 7 now that we've figured out a neat way of getting around the "grip of death" switch.


----------



## Badbeams3 (Apr 16, 2001)

When I ordered my Expedition I asked them (CCrane Co.) to send me one that was easy to turn on/off and they did. It has only one "O" ring (and it maybe smaller than standard) so it does not have the deep dive capabitity but is safe in my bathtub...it is smooth and easy to turn. I also am wondering about the Lightwave 4000 sounds nice.


----------



## Coherence (Apr 16, 2001)

to X-CalBR8 :


I own a Trek 7, and can concur that the switch is too difficult to activate.

(This light no longer works. Why? because it is the first one I took apart to put the LED's into other projects!)

I think you are on the right track thinking of a moveable but attached magnet with the flashlight for on/off. Perhaps could even be attached to the lanyard. 

Or have the light normally off and wear gloves w/magnets hidden in them. Light comes on when you (only you) pick it up! Great for messing with your friends.


----------



## Brock (Apr 16, 2001)

X-CalBR8 I have a dive light that does that, completly sealed and the external magnetic switch turns it on and off, but it is in a 6v lantern battery light, I can't remember which one.

KenB, I am running the Arc constantly and just comparing it to the Photon every 1/2 hour. If the Photon were on that long it would be WAY dimmer, it gets to about 2/3 brightness after about 1 hour. At 4 hours it is now very close to the Infinity with a lithium (Arc still a tab bit brighter). I am running a standard Duracell alkaline in the Arc, not the Ultra style.

Brock


----------



## X-CalBR8 (Apr 16, 2001)

Coherence: Cool idea about the lanyard. That way you would always have the magnet with you and you wouldn't have to find it in the dark. Some very interesting ideas. Hehe. It would be funny if we see this stuff showing up in the next generation of diving lights after we've posted it here.


----------



## X-CalBR8 (Apr 16, 2001)

Brock: I posted at the same time as you did. It looks like some of these ideas have already surfaced.


----------



## Badbeams3 (Apr 16, 2001)

Thanks Brock, lets see what happens as it crosses the 5 hour mark and approches its death dive. Wonder how bright it is after the drop.


----------



## Badbeams3 (Apr 16, 2001)

I wonder why the magnet idea never caught on, it seems like a great idea to me.


----------



## Brock (Apr 16, 2001)

It just took the dive! 4:15 Of course running the light constant for the whole time lowers the total run time. I have found I get about 5% to 10% longer battery life if used even in 20 minute segments. Now it is dimmer then the Infinity lithium, about the same as the Infinity alkaline. It is now pulling 130 mA, it was still at 220 mA at 4 hours. It is still quite useful as far as light output, I wonder if this is the next holding point until it is dead or if it just keeps fadeing from now on. I wonder how long it will hold out? Stay Tuned...

Brock


----------



## Badbeams3 (Apr 16, 2001)

Ok, if it holds at this brightness for a while it would be great. Did you measure the voltage?


----------



## Brock (Apr 16, 2001)

The battery 1.15v under load. I had to turn it off to do the voltage test and when I turned it back on it was noticably brighter.


----------



## X-CalBR8 (Apr 16, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KenB:
*I wonder why the magnet idea never caught on, it seems like a great idea to me.*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm wondering the same thing. I mean, I'm sure it would add a small amount to the cost of the light, but on a $60.00 divers light, who would notice an extra buck tacked on to the price tag?


----------



## Badbeams3 (Apr 16, 2001)

Hmm, if a AAA has 1150 and it has used 980 and is at 130...and if if stays at that level for 1 hour it should have sucked the batt dry...I would expect a gradual decline from here out...maybe 2 hours to cardiac arrest.


----------



## X-CalBR8 (Apr 16, 2001)

Hey Brock, this play by play action is very exciting. I must really be a huge flashlight neard for having so much fun hitting refresh for the latest news. hehe.


----------



## Badbeams3 (Apr 16, 2001)

I agree X-CAL, ...maybe it`s not a dependable switch?...I would think it would be very dependable...especialy if the contacts were gold plated (cheap to do)hmmm...


----------



## Brock (Apr 16, 2001)

LOL, play-by-play. 5 hours now and it is dimmer than the Infinity running alkaline. It is pulling 90 mA. I bet it will continue die a slow death.

My dive buddy knocked his magnetic switch off his light and now he can't really use it anymore



It was literally glued to the casing. Mine is still fine. We could have glued the switch back on, but it sank in 110 feet of water on to sand. You can turn it on with a magent though


----------



## Badbeams3 (Apr 16, 2001)

I wonder why the test chart showed the Arc lasting 5:45 before the drop...could there be differences in the step-ups...or the diodes (LED`s)...or maybe the big drop has yet to come?...How many milamps does the Infinity pull on alkiline?


----------



## The_LED_Museum (Apr 16, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by X-CalBR8:
*Hey Brock, this play by play action is very exciting. I must really be a huge flashlight neard for having so much fun hitting refresh for the latest news. hehe.



*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My turn now.
I first had to *find* it... it's so small I had to use another flashlight to find the silly thing.





Of course now isn't the best time to find the batteries in my meter have pooped out.





Ok, the clock is running. At 9:23pm, I get 3.70mA on my photometer/solar cell thingie and full brightness from the LED.
The eventual results should mirror Brock's battery drain analysis.

(tick tick tick.....)


----------



## X-CalBR8 (Apr 16, 2001)

How about this idea, a magnetic switch that is screwed into the body of the light instead of glued on? That way you wouldn't have to worry about the switch coming off. If the screws were designed so that they wouldn't go all the way through the flashlight's housing, there should be no problem with being waterproof.


----------



## vcal (Apr 16, 2001)

telephony,
was that *3.70* ma.-if so, after how long?


----------



## X-CalBR8 (Apr 16, 2001)

I wish I had an Arc so I could play to.


----------



## Badbeams3 (Apr 16, 2001)

X-Cal, I agree that would solve tha loose it problem...maybe the magnetic switch idea was scraped to soon.

The run time of the Arc is still great...after 4 hours I would be at Wallyworld spending 4 bucks for new batts in my Photon...not 40 cents...of course there is still the lurking Photon III with it`s med...low settings to be reckond with. Should be interesting as well.


----------



## Badbeams3 (Apr 16, 2001)

Craig, are you using a copper top or a bunny in yours...if it`s a bunny DON`T let him beat that drum...I heard there`s some sort of counter built in and it stops after so many beats...damm wabbits...


----------



## X-CalBR8 (Apr 16, 2001)

Yeah, I just hope the Photon III doesn't oscillate at too low of a frequency so that it looks like a fluorescent tube that's about to burn out. If it gives consistent light though, it should be very interesting.


----------



## Brock (Apr 16, 2001)

6 hours and it was at 70 mA and 1.03v Still quite useable. I don't know why mine took the dive at 4:15. Maybe my cell is older. It is dated MAR 2003. Does anyone know how they stamp their dates? Is it 4 years since they were made? Maybe 5? If it was 5 this is a 3 year old battery which would have lost some juice over that time.

6:40 Well it just took a serious dive, it is way dim I went to meter it and it won't turn back on. I guess the battery is done. I am quite happy with the results. I change the batteries in my Photon after about 1.5 hours because they get to dim for me (then I put them in the red one).

Brock


----------



## Gransee (Apr 16, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KenB:
*I wonder why the test chart showed the Arc lasting 5:45 before the drop...could there be differences in the step-ups...or the diodes (LED`s)...or maybe the big drop has yet to come?...How many milamps does the Infinity pull on alkiline?*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I find that interesting too. I wonder how's Craig's test will come out as well.

For our test, we had the light pulled apart out of the case and hooked up to the scope. Ambient temp was kinda high (80 degrees F) - which should have actually made the run shorter. The battery was a Duracell Alkaline (not the ultra) fresh out of the wrapper and dated "2004". we did this test twice, the first run was 6.5 hours @69 degrees F and the second run was 5.5 hours @80 degrees F. We attributed the difference to tempurature and decided 5 hours was a good amount to quote.

We did not attach any amp meter inline since they scavange a small amount of current to drop across their resistor.

Still wondering why Brock only got 4 hours of bright light.





I am sure a good explanation will come to light once we run a few more batteries through it.


----------



## Gransee (Apr 16, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brock:
*6 hours and it was at 70 mA and 1.03v Still quite useable. I don't know why mine took the dive at 4:15. Maybe my cell is older. It is dated MAR 2003. Does anyone know how they stamp their dates? Is it 4 years since they were made? Maybe 5? If it was 5 this is a 3 year old battery which would have lost some juice over that time.

6:40 Well it just took a serious dive, it is way dim I went to meter it and it won't turn back on. I guess the battery is done. I am quite happy with the results. 
Brock*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, maybe the battery was old. Maybe not.

Brock, let that same battery sit for 5 minutes and try it again. You'll notice it will provide a little bit of usable light before it dives again.





Peter


----------



## vcal (Apr 16, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brock:
* Maybe my cell is older. It is dated MAR 2003. Does anyone know how they stamp their dates? Is it 4 years since they were made? Maybe 5? If it was 5 this is a 3 year old battery which would have lost some juice over that time.

Brock*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
All the "fresh" cells I've seen are dated around 4 years from stock date.I'll bet your battery is at least 2 years old..
I may be alone in this, but for as much juice as that light is drawing,-I'll bet you almost any thing that your performance will increase about 25-30% with a nice new Duracell Ultra.




BTW-what did you say the light drew in milliamps INITIALLY?


----------



## Badbeams3 (Apr 16, 2001)

I think Brock might be on target with his older batt thought. Let`s see how Craigs does and start noticing the batt expiration dates as well.


----------



## The_LED_Museum (Apr 16, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by videocal:
*telephony,
was that 3.70 ma.-if so, after how long?*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This current is what the photocell generates when exposed to the full brunt of the LED's light output.

Battery is a new copper top (not the rabbit) with a March 2007 date.

*THIS MESSAGE WILL CONTAIN ALL THE TIMED UPDATES, done about once an hour until the battery is circling the drain* so use your "refresh" button every now and again.





3.70mA at 9:23pm
3.30mA at 10:23pm (and still *much* brighter than a CMG)
3.29mA at 11:23pm
3.12mA at 12:23am
2.40mA at 1:23am... reaching for the chain...
1.37mA at 2:04am... and out comes the stopper...

Within the last two minutes, the solar cell current dropped about 1 microamp per second, then started to plateau a bit... now down to 1.26mA 1.25... 1.24... dropping like a bomb now... 1.17... 

Visually, it's just a touch brigher now than the Infinity with a new coppertop in it.
wait... no, it's as bright, but not brighter than the Infinity... down to 1.08 (watching the thing nosedive as I type, hehehe!)
1.04... dropping about 1 microamp every 2 seconds and holding... 0.93 oh jeez it's going fast now. 0.81... 0.77... 
Now the Infinity is noticeably brighter... 0.63... 0.54... yup, it's tanking good now.
0.48... if this were a ball game, it would be bottom of the ninth with the sacks full!
0.41... it's 2:10am and it's now only half as bright as the Infinity... a lot of action going on here in the last six minutes!!
0.34 now, and finally beginning to level its descent. 0.32... 0.31... 0.30...0.29...

I think it's fair to say this test is just about finished. Final result to be posted in a new message in 11 minutes.

For the record, the Infinity tested on this same equipment just now gave a reading of 1.07mA in the solar cell.
The Arc is now at 0.1176mA and dropping steadily at a rate of about 0.1uA per second with two minutes to go.






This is the actual test setup.
It's laughably crude as photometers go, but remarkably effective. The light is mounted or laid perpendicular to a satellite-type photovoltaic cell, which is connected to a meter set on the 20mA scale. Readings are taken with all other lighting shut down.

Back in ten with another reading.


----------



## Badbeams3 (Apr 16, 2001)

Cool, but you may loose me, it`s almost 2:00 here and my wife is begining to grumble, says I pay more attention to flashlights and this "stupid board" than to her. Goodnight, I will check first thing tomorrow.


----------



## Doug (Apr 17, 2001)

> Originally posted by telephony:
> [QB]This current is what the photocell generates when exposed to the full brunt of the LED's light output.
> 
> Battery is a new copper top (not the rabbit) with a March 2007 date.
> ...


----------



## The_LED_Museum (Apr 17, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Doug:
*
3.29mA at 11:23pm

Hey! Where is the latest update



??? It's 12:01 am!



*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Notice the time... I started the test at 9:23pm, and post readings 23 minutes after each hour. This makes it possible to have exact hourly readings, either until the batteries crap out or until I do.


----------



## The_LED_Museum (Apr 17, 2001)

Here are the final results of the Arc Flashlight burn-in.

Milliamp readings are the result of the LED being fired point blank onto a silicon solar cell (the better Radio Shack type) with the cell connected directly to a multimeter set to read milliamps.

3.70mA at 9:23pm. Starting with new battery with less than 1 min. of use on it.
3.30mA at 10:23pm (and still *much* brighter than CMG)
3.29mA at 11:23pm
3.12mA at 12:23am
2.40mA at 1:23am... reaching for the chain...
1.37mA at 2:04am... and out comes the stopper...
0.0921mA at 2:23am... get out your plunger folks, this battery's ready for the toilet.

Again, for the record, the Infinity tested on this same equipment with a new Duracell gives a reading of 1.07mA in the solar cell.
So the Arc Flashlight starts much brighter and stays brighter for about 4.75 hours, then takes the plunge over a period of less than ten minutes. 

The battery, when _quickly_ removed and tested, shows 0.45 volts open circuit.
This proves the Arc Flashlight's inverter circuit, still capable of lighting a high voltage WHITE LED to a low but still somewhat usable level, is extremely effecient at sucking every last microwatt out of the battery.

When the battery was reinstalled after about 1 minute, the light again exceeded the Infinity's output, but sags noticeably fairly quickly. It's still too bright to stare into though, so that battery ain't finished yet. In a sticky situation, cycling the light to rest a failing battery might just get you through.

If the flashight was always used on an intermittent basis - like flashlights were designed for - the battery might give even longer life and give a brighter light for more of that life.
This test was necessarily brutal and unrealistic, but shows what might happen when the kid leaves it on and throws it in the toybox overnight, or if someone forgets to turn it off before pocketing it.





Congratulations Peter, you've done it.
Three thumbs up.


----------



## K Horn (Apr 17, 2001)

Craig / Brock
GREAT INPUT. I always look forward to both of your analysis on new products.

Since obviously comparing the Infinity and the Arc is an apples/oranges thing, has anyone compared it to say a standard solitare or even 2aa mini-mag? My bet would be that the Arc is brighter than a solitare and about even with the mini-mag. If thats the case(or close), then the ARC is a homerun.


----------



## X-CalBR8 (Apr 17, 2001)

Now that we know the results of the Arc with a regular Duracell, has anyone completed a test with a Duracell Ultra yet to see if there is a significant difference? I just wonder if there could be another hours worth of life hidden away in an Ultra.


----------



## Badbeams3 (Apr 17, 2001)

Excellent test Brock/Craig. This was a real world test...most interesting...dare I say entertaining too...Craigs light meter test tells the story well.

The Arc gets high score...no doubt...A+

Hmm...I too am interested to see how the Ultra and Titanium would play out...want to play again?


----------



## Badbeams3 (Apr 17, 2001)

Hey Brock, that solor cell Craig is using is only 5 bucks at Radio Shack. You have to solder the leads on yourself...it is a little fragile...I broke one into three parts...believe it or not each part still works and seems to read the same as when it was whole...so now I have three...hehe. 

Anyway hook it up to a digital volt meter ( on A/C...don`t ask me?) and...cheap nice light meter.


----------



## The_LED_Museum (Apr 17, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KenB:
*Hey Brock, that solor cell Craig is using is only 5 bucks at Radio Shack. 

Anyway hook it up to a digital volt meter ( on A/C...don`t ask me?) and...cheap nice light meter.*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You hook it up and set the meter for a low DC mA range. Voltage is irrelavent, as the cell will output a constant voltage regardless of the light level. The short circuit current the cell generates is entirely dependent on how much light strikes it, so use a low mA range on your meter.


----------



## Brock (Apr 17, 2001)

Craig, what is the part # on that cell, I will go get one.

Gransee as far as the date on the cells I just looked at another cell. It is an Ultra and it is dated MAR 2007. Assuming that is the newest date that is 6 years out. Does anyone out there have a cell dated further than *APR 2007*? If it is 6 years the battery I tested with was already 4 years old. That could explain a lot.

Gransee, yes, after about 2 minutes I could use the battery again and it continued to run for quite a while, about an hour before I tossed it and took the light in the pool. I only took it to 3 feet and no leaks at all! Did I mention I like this light?

Brock


----------



## RonM (Apr 17, 2001)

Craig great report!!! Initially I wasn't all that interested in this light, but things are changing. As usual my cheapness may prevail and I'll wait until its priced at $20 or less. (Sorry Gransee)

Question about the solar panel. Do you know if the output is linear? In other words does a 3mA output indicate the panel is receiving 3x more light than a 1mA output?


----------



## X-CalBR8 (Apr 17, 2001)

Yeah, I'm afraid I have to agree with RonM on this. I will have to wait till the Arc hits the $20.00 mark also. I'm just a poor college student and I have to watch every dollar I spend. From all the great stuff I've heard so far, I know I want to get one eventually though. Perhaps a discount for the people on the CandlePower Forum or for those that pre-order? I guess I'm just dreaming there, but it sure would be nice.


----------



## Badbeams3 (Apr 17, 2001)

The silcon solar cell part# 276-124A...in my shack they were by the LED`s.


----------



## mikep (Apr 17, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by X-CalBR8:
*Yeah, I'm afraid I have to agree with RonM on this. I will have to wait till the Arc hits the $20.00 mark also...*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I also think it would have to hit $20 before my impulse-buying-impulse takes over. I may be wrong, though.


----------



## Badbeams3 (Apr 17, 2001)

I would like it more at $20 too...I guess I say to myself...if I don`t go to BurgerKing for lunch one day...I can pay the extra 5 and have it now...not logical, I know...giving in to my "want it now" desires. I really must be a flashaholic.


----------



## Cyclops942 (Apr 17, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KenB:
*I would like it more at $20 too...I guess I say to myself...if I don`t go to BurgerKing for lunch one day...I can pay the extra 5 and have it now...not logical, I know...giving in to my "want it now" desires. I really must be a flashaholic.



*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


As long as you actually remember to stay away from Burger King et al. for that day, you're not busting the budget, though, so it ain't all bad.


----------



## The_LED_Museum (Apr 18, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RonM:
*Question about the solar panel. Do you know if the output is linear? In other words does a 3mA output indicate the panel is receiving 3x more light than a 1mA output?*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As far as I know, it's as linear as they get.
For the ultimate test though, I'll have to wait till the new equipment gets installed. http://www.radimg.com/images/wpe5.jpg


----------



## Gransee (Apr 18, 2001)

The Arc prototypes performed worse than expected in both Craig and Brock's battery test. Brock got about 4:15 and Craig got about 4:50 if I read their tests correctly. Our own tests showed the circuit was capable of 6 hours or more. The reason for the discrepancy may be in a defect we found in the prototype that causes a partial short on the PCB. *The production unit design already fixes this.*

We still feel that the quoted "5 hour" run time is on target.

I have already emailed Brock and Craig and we will be sending production units to them soon. We hope that the production units will perform better than the prototype in the run time tests.





I would like to thank Craig and Brock for the service they provide to the LED flashlight community.





Stay tuned!

Peter Gransee


----------



## Chris M. (Apr 18, 2001)

Well....my Arc light showed up today- thanks Peter! And I am _very_ impressed! This is one great little light, watch my web site for a full review in the forthcoming fortnight (hopefully sooner but I`m still working on the site design , and coming up with a review format I like and isn`t too "familiar" if you know what I mean).

Now I want to play at life tests! 
It was supplied with a Duracell Ultra AAA- so I will perform my own life test of it tonight (guess I`m staying up late then, it`s half past 9 now!!), and get a regular Duracell AAA for it tomorrow and do the test again- see how different things are. X-CalBR8 you will find out soon enough whether the added expense of an Ultra is worth it...

I don`t get hold of Duracell Ultras that often (too expensive!) but I`m willing to sacrifice one in the name of science and Flashaholism. 
To perform the test I dissasembled one of my solar powered path marker lights for its solar panel- it doesn`t give much of an output with small lights (it`s really a bit too big and needs to be illuminated over its entire surface to give good results) but is still readable. I have hooked this panel to my meter and will take a note of the current it gives with the Arc shone at it, much like Craig did with his cell.

Stay tuned. I`ll post my findings as and when they happen. The clock starts now...

9.30. 56.5uA (yes microamps)

The light started flickering shortly after starting the test- it wasn`t screwed in hard enough and a dirty battery contact must have caused it. Tightening it solved this problem so I have begun again....

(time....solar cell current....time elapsed....current drop.)
9.35........56.2uA......0h00......-0.0
10.05......53.2uA......0h30......-3.0
10.35......52.0uA......1h00......-1.2
11.05......51.1uA......1h30......-0.9
11.35......49.3uA......2h00......-1.8
12.05......47.5uA......2h30......-1.8
12.35......45.8uA......3h00......-1.7
1.05........43.3uA......3h30......-2.5
1.35........39.9uA......4h00......-3.4
2.05........37.2uA......4h30......-2.7
2.35........34.3uA......5h00......-2.9
3.05........32.7uA......5h30......-1.6
3.35........28.9uA......6h00......-3.8 (can I go to sleep yet?)
3.50........24.3uA......6h15......-4.6 It`s dropping faster now but still beats the Infinity...
4.05........18.1uA......6h30......-6.2 and its still going down...about the same as the Infinity now. 
4.20........14.4uA......6h45......-3.7
4.35........11.0uA......7h00......-3.4 End of test. Light is dim but still useful up close for reading, etc. 

It will probably carry on for some time gradually fading but it`s way too late here now. It`s a good thing I`m not working tomorrow isn`t it?








Final battery voltage was quickly tested at 0.606v but it will definately recover a bit overnight. 

I`ll get percentage-of-initial-brightness amounts calculated tomorrow and plot a graph too- unless someone else wants to do it for me



? 

Well....4.45AM. Now _that`s_ dedication for you. Can I have my star back now, I think I`ve earnt it havn`t I?


----------



## Badbeams3 (Apr 18, 2001)

Great Chris, did you check the amp draw at start?


----------



## Badbeams3 (Apr 18, 2001)

The reason I`m asking is...based on info Gransee posted, the draw should be around 185...Brock`s was pulling 230...the 45 differance may represent the "short" Gransee suspects could be present in some of the prototypes.


----------



## Brock (Apr 18, 2001)

Chris, where are you metering it? 56 mA? I was getting above 200 mA at the start? Are you right at the LED itself?

Confused

Brock


----------



## Chris M. (Apr 18, 2001)

_did you check the amp draw at start? _

*D`oh!!!* Nope I forgot! Well I`m knew to the world of testing and reviewing flashlights, I`m expected to forget the odd thing to begin with aren`t I? If I can find more Ultras in the future I`ll do it then. Promise. And I`ll do it tomorrow with normal Duracells too.

I can`t move the light now. The slightest movement and the reading will change- it`s shone onto one portion of the panel and the results will change if it were moved. To make sure it doesn`t the panel is secured in the dark bit behind my PC monitor, all the lights in the room are off and the light is firmly taped to the side of my video camera, which in turn is mounted on a tripod locked into place. It`s not going to go anywhere for the next 5 hours or so.....and neither am I!!






I`ll post half-hourly meter reading reports in my message back on page 4. I just had a thought that my panel`s output isn`t linear- does anyone know how linear Amorphous Silicon solar panels are? Too late now though, I`ve started so I`ll finish...


----------



## Chris M. (Apr 18, 2001)

_Chris, where are you metering it? _

The values Im giving are the readings from the solar panel it`s shone upon (connected to my Fluke meter on 200uA range), not the current draw of the light. Foolishly I forgot to measure the initial current draw, now I can`t move the light so it`ll have to wait till another time (see above). 

Sorry! I`ll take a pic of the setup to clarify things, hold on....


----------



## Badbeams3 (Apr 18, 2001)

Thats ok Chris, the test will still be of intrest...we`ll just see how long it runs and where the death drop starts.


----------



## Badbeams3 (Apr 18, 2001)

Brock, were you able to get one of the solar cells? Were you able to get some e2 batts?


----------



## Chris M. (Apr 18, 2001)

right this is the very crude but seemingly effective setup here, lit briefly by my db18. The solar panel looks like it`s just stuck there but it is properly secured to the plug pins of that weighty wall-wart plug and can`t move, not by itsself anyway...

<center>



</center>


----------



## vcal (Apr 18, 2001)

This light will get a direct light output test (over 8 hour period-(1/2 hr.increments) with both Dura & e2, as well as both standard versions of those batts
-I'll use a small analog G.E. type 213 lux/footcandle meter.


----------



## X-CalBR8 (Apr 18, 2001)

Wow! I'm away from the board for a few hours and I come back and I'm already missing the show. LOL. Looks like we are all gonna find out, at long last, whether all the hype surrounding the Ultra/Titanium is just that, hype. If the premium batteries don't perform significantly better then we will all save a fortune by never buying premium batteries again and just stick to cheaper normal alkalines. That is until we can find some AAA Lithiums.


----------



## Badbeams3 (Apr 18, 2001)

Doug, is that one of the 1930`s type, I want to get one of those.


----------



## vcal (Apr 18, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KenB:
*Doug, is that one of the 1930`s type, I want to get one of those.*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ken, I'll have you know it's from about 1977, but I have kept it working _perfectly_ for the last 24 years.




-I have to have _something_ to quickly measure outputs of only about 50-60 lights




justalightjunkie


----------



## Chris M. (Apr 18, 2001)

<center>



</center>

While I`m here (it`s midnight and still going strong....no sleep for me till it`s out!) I may as well post some beam comparison pics I took earlier on. It`ll fill the time I suppose...
<center>



</center>

The beam in reality is more violet-tinted and the centre hotspot flares slightly in these pics, actually its bluer than that. It`s bright though....

<center>



</center>

Infinity on the left, Arc on the right. This shows slightly less of a difference than Craig`s pic posted earlier on. Either Craig`s Infinity is dimmer than mine (Craig- what generation Infinity did you use? I used the new blue anodised one), or his Arc is brighter, or our cameras have been playing tricks. It _is_ much brighter than the Infinity though, this pic shows the difference quite well.

<center>



</center>

Photon-II on the left. Both lights were turned on approximately 1 minute before snapping this one to let them settle down. True, the batteries in my Photon aren`t 100% but it still shows how bright the Arc is.

Impressive, I think!


----------



## Badbeams3 (Apr 18, 2001)

Thanks Chris, is the color about the same as the Photon or is the Photon whiter or do you remember?


----------



## Chris M. (Apr 18, 2001)

Ken- yes the Photon is definately whiter. My Arc has a blue/violet tinge to it, much like my ASP Aspen (white version of the Sapphire). Don`t know if they`re all that way (Arcs or Aspens), possibably not. White LEDs vary a great deal in colour and brightness as you know. 

Mr Gransee- are the LEDs used for the Arc chosen from the same rank to be all the same colour (production units at least), or are they all slightly different?









(yes it is still me....I just shortened my screen name. It`s a bit of a mouthfull and I kept meaning to do it for ages, and suddenly have the time to do it now...wonder why....




)


----------



## Badbeams3 (Apr 18, 2001)

Gransee, are they the "s" grouping Craig has spoke of...these are suppose to be a little more money...but I think Craig said they were the best?


----------



## vcal (Apr 18, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KenB:
*Doug, is that one of the 1930`s type, I want to get one of those.*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ken; looks like videocal just bought *another* light meter on eBay few minutes ago, (#1133751939).
I'm holding you personally responsible for this!!


----------



## X-CalBR8 (Apr 18, 2001)

Hey Chris, I just happened to think of something. How are you gonna get the Arc in the exact same position relative to the solar panel when you go to test the Arc with a standard Duracell? If it's off by just a hair, couldn't it put the readings off by a little? I know the test you are currently running will accurately test the run-time of both types of batteries, but I'm curious, not just about the run-time, but whether there will be significantly more light produced while using an Ultra vs. a normal alkaline. If you already have a way in mind of conquering this issue then just please just forgive my ignorance in even posting this. Btw, I'm enjoying the show.


----------



## Gransee (Apr 18, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chris Millinship:*Mr Gransee- are the LEDs used for the Arc chosen from the same rank to be all the same colour (production units at least), or are they all slightly different? *<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KenB:*Gransee, are they the "s" grouping Craig has spoke of...these are suppose to be a little more money...but I think Craig said they were the best? *<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To answer both questions (nice pics btw), the Nichias used came from two seperate R lots. There is quite a variation. Some actually have a green tint to them.

Interesting note. I doubt the Photons even use the S-rank. I imagine only a small amount of production comes out at "S" brightness. Therefore, the numbers may be too small to support the Photon assembly line.


----------



## Brock (Apr 18, 2001)

Nope I completly forgot to get the solar panel today. Hopefully I will get it tomorrow. 

I get it now Chris. I thought Craig had the Arc right against the solar panel? If we start testing other light we will have to all do it the same way. I would think right up against it would make since. Maybe a second and third reading at 1 foot and 5 feet? Either way it should be a cheap/good way to compare differnt lights.

Brock


----------



## Badbeams3 (Apr 18, 2001)

Ok, at three hours it`s down about 18%, not bad...


----------



## vcal (Apr 18, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>
How about an "Arc Plus" (or the "Arc XL") with a S-rank Nichia for $5 more?




[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Mr. Gransee,
I'll have one of *those*, if you don't mind..(#519)


----------



## Badbeams3 (Apr 18, 2001)

Doug, that was the one I wanted darn you...with all this going on here I forgot to go back and bid


----------



## Chris M. (Apr 18, 2001)

_How are you gonna get the Arc in the exact same position relative to the solar panel when you go to test the Arc with a standard Duracell? _

I`m not. I have thought about it and can`t see it will be possible to get the head off the Arc, change the battery and replace it without it moving. It`s just not really possible. Also bear in mind the panel/meter is not calibrated to any recognised intensity scale and possibly not entirely linear (anyone know about Amorphous Silicon panels?)- it was designed to charge a simple LED garden path marker light. 

What I will do though that may show an improvememt or otherwise, is take 2 more test firings with the Infinity and Photon-II and try and get the exposures the same relative to the Infinity/Photon. That may help a bit?


_I thought Craig had the Arc right against the solar panel? _

Yes but remember Craig`s panel is really small and a different construction too I think. Mine is a bit too big and holding the light right against it gave little or no readable response. Amorphous Silicon panels are made of series interconnected stripes, stripe length determines max current and no.of stripes determines max voltage (though you can`t have both at the same time) and if even one stripe doesn`t get any light, the output drops drastically. So I have to do it this way with the light at a distance of 6" (I measured beforehand) to expose all stripes to the light. Not ideal but for now it`s all I have and it seems to work. The microamps figures I will probably convert to percentages starting at 100 and dropping accordingly, I`ll work it out tomorrow and see if it makes any sense. That way it is probably possible to compare battery run times quite accurately, that is the main purpose of tonights test. Ultra vs normal. Prototype vs production unit. There`s a graph or 2 lurking in these results somewhere too.

I`ll leave it to Craig and his amazing new piece of test kit to give us exact photometric data I think. Never in a million years would I be able to afford a system like _that_!


----------



## vcal (Apr 18, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KenB:
*Doug, that was the one I wanted %$#% you...with all this going on here I forgot to go back and bid












*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry about that...I only got it
to experiment with




-_seriously_, if you aren't just kidding,-and the meter checks out O.K., I'll sell it to you for just what I paid for it.
Howz *that?*


----------



## Badbeams3 (Apr 18, 2001)

Oh, I`m only joking of course, there will be another one with my name on it...let me know how you like it





...4 hours and counting...down 29%.


----------



## mcjamison (Apr 18, 2001)

A couple ideas for testing whether one of these cells is linear:

* use two light sources, and see if output of A plus output of B = output of (A+B). Try it with different combinations - they need not be equal.

* Use a single source of light and see whether it seems to obey the inverse square law. At 2x a distance, you should get 1/4 the light. Use a bare bulb or something close to a point source for this, such as a maglight with the head screwed off, rather than something with a reflector or lens. You probably want to be able to start far enough from the cell so that the local geometry doesn't complicate matters too much, so maybe a bare 60W bulb would be a better choice, so you get enough power to get good readings.

My math might be wrong, but I think that if you plotted the square root of the distance on the x axis of a graph and the cell's output on the y axis, you'd expect to see a straight line going from the upper left (the highest output being from the closest sample) to the lower right. If the output was linear. 

Sound right? I haven't done that sort of stuff since narrow ties were cool.

-- Jamie


----------



## Badbeams3 (Apr 18, 2001)

Sound right Mcjamison, hmm...I wonder...is a 50 watt bulb twice as bright as a 25 watt?


----------



## Chris M. (Apr 18, 2001)

McJamison, I`ll try those tests as soon as I can, maybe there will be a way to adjust the results if it proves not to be very linear? Probably not worth the fuss though, it will hopefully give a good indication of when that rapid drop off period is as it comes. Talking of which it`s now about 4-1/2 hours in and right in between the time the other 2 dropped off. The next half hour will tell all....did I get lucky and have a good one?


----------



## Badbeams3 (Apr 18, 2001)

Hey Doug, was that light meter the one that had "rough work, factory work, sewing, and fine work" on the dail along with the candle power increments? If so I think it might be a collectable someday


----------



## Chris M. (Apr 18, 2001)

This quite poor picture was taken about 20 minutes ago, near enough 5 hours after the test began give or take 10 minutes. It shows that the Arc is still maybe 3 or 4 times brighter than the Infinity. I guess I got lucky then? 
I had to be _very careful_ not to touch the Arc or panel while doing this- hence it`s a little askew but the 2 lights are almost the same distance from the "target" (which also doubles as my score-sheet for tonight!). Colour and exposure are up to the camera- it`s that same teeny CCTV one I used earlier and you can`t adjust anything except fo the focus, but you get the idea......

by the way it was so fiddly I doubt I`ll take another like that until I declare the test over. I hope it`s not too much longer...


----------



## vcal (Apr 18, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KenB:
*Hey Doug, was that light meter the one that had "rough work, factory work, sewing, and fine work" on the dail along with the candle power increments? If so I think it might be a collectable someday



*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yea, that's it alright...
Newspapers,red part of scalefor: "inadequate for night work"75fc. scale etc.-looks real nice.
(you've seen this one before)? You can easilygo to that auction # and see for yourself...
BTW-eBay search yielded some *1300* items for "light meter"


----------



## Badbeams3 (Apr 18, 2001)

Chris, did you fall asleep. This thing has got to be dead...unless that batt really does do something...WAKE UP.


----------



## Chris M. (Apr 18, 2001)

Zzzzzzzzzzzzz...wh...what? No I wasn`t sleeping honest!

I`m just done, to save posting it twice I`ve just updated the original message of mine on this page


Now I _will_ go to sleep.


----------



## The_LED_Museum (Apr 18, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brock:
*Nope I completly forgot to get the solar panel today. Hopefully I will get it tomorrow. 

I get it now Chris. I thought Craig had the Arc right against the solar panel? If we start testing other light we will have to all do it the same way
Brock*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is how they should be tested for those of us (myself included) with less than stellar test equipment.

Testing the lights far from the cell introduces increasingly severe errors due to ambient light contamination. Testing with the light butted right up against the cell helps mitigate this by giving much higher initial readings that help nullify the smaller ambient range (so the vast number of photons hitting the cell are coming from the flashlight) and possible greater dynamic range as the light begins to die off.

$0.02... $0.04 (inflation, sorry)

I'm about to start a test with the silly wabbit e2, but need to finish reading this forum to be sure someone hasn't jumped the gun.


----------



## **DONOTDELETE** (Apr 18, 2001)

for me it is the Streamlight Stylus 3 i use it every day i all so have a Princeton Tec PULSAR on my keys but i never ues it


----------



## The_LED_Museum (Apr 18, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chris M.:
*I thought Craig had the Arc right against the solar panel? 

Yes but remember Craig`s panel is really small and a different construction too I think. Mine is a bit too big and holding the light right against it gave little or no readable response. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>*

What you need is a SINGLE CELL from a solar panel. Sounds like your panel has a bunch of little cells in series to jack up the total voltage... that might explain why illuminating just a small portion gave little or no reading.

With a single 0.45 volt cell, you can light up the whole panel or just a bit and get the same output - as it is dependent on how much light hits it with no regard to how much of the panel's surface area is illuminated.


<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>*
I`ll leave it to Craig and his amazing new piece of test kit to give us exact photometric data I think. Never in a million years would I be able to afford a system like that! 

I don't have it yet... and when I do get it installed, it's only a loaner. I could never in a million years afford the thing either.













*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


----------



## X-CalBR8 (Apr 18, 2001)

Thanks Chris for staying up so late on this project and your dedication to it. I watched the progress of the test with eager anticipation. Now once you test these results against a normal Duracell, we will have the hard, real life, proof that we've all been looking for on whether there is any advantage to buying premium batteries for LED lights or not.


----------



## The_LED_Museum (Apr 18, 2001)

*TEST WITH ENERGIZER E2</>
The beating of little tin drums on wheels is expressly forbidden while testing is in progress.

Test started at 9:15pm PST with the flashlight butted directly against a single solar panel connected to a Fluke 8000A bench meter.

9:15pm...... 4.19mA
9:45pm...... 3.68mA
10:15pm..... 3.50mA
10:45pm..... 3.41mA
11:15pm..... 3.30mA
11:45pm..... 3.26mA
12:15am..... 3.19mA
12:45am..... 3.10mA
1:15am...... 2.78mA
1:45am...... 2.40mA
2:00am...... 2.23mA
2:15am...... 2.12mA
2:30am...... 1.94mA ...circling the drain...
2:45am...... 1.75mA
3:00am...... 0.78mA ...out comes the stopper...
3:01am...... 0.75mA ...almost at the pee trap...
3:02am...... 0.71mA ...goin' 'round the bend...
3:03am...... 0.67mA ...this must be the big nosedive...
3:04am...... 0.66mA ...you can almost see the flushed baby alligators...
3:05am...... 0.64mA
3:06am...... 0.62mA
3:07am...... 0.60mA ...the decline is slowing again...
3:08am...... 0.59mA
3:10am...... 0.56mA ...it smells down here, someone flush me a Glade Plug-In!
3:15am...... 0.50mA
3:30am...... 0.38mA
3:45am...... 0.33mA 
4:00am...... 143uA
4:02am...... 126uA
4:05am...... 89uA
4:07am...... 74uA
4:10am...... 63uA ...It's dead Jim... 

At the 3:15am reading, the Arc was very noticeably dimmer than the Infinity, but is still useful for night forays around the home and for night reading. 

With a regular Duracell, the light was down to around 0.09mA (90uA) on the photocell at 5 hours, while at 6.5 hours on the Titanium E2, I'm still getting 0.32mA (320uA) on the photocell and it's still usable.

If I stay up much longer, I risk sleeping through the alarm and missing my morning deliveries... I might try for a 4:00am reading but it will probably be my last... Or, if it drops fast enough, I'll end the test when it dives well below 100 microamps (0.10mA) or so.
That's about when the light starts becoming not so useful anymore.

I don't know who's gonna poop out first... the flashlight, or me. If I fall asleep at the wrong time it will ***** the test and I'll have to start all over again tomorrow.



*


----------



## Badbeams3 (Apr 18, 2001)

Go bunny go, hehe. jeese I`m tiierd but then this is a most interesting night...I just hope I can stay awake...Chris, thank you for hanging in till the end...I know you won`t read this till tomorrow but figure I better say that now cause i might sleep all day...more test need to be run as you know but so far it looks to me like Gransee has built us a very fine little light and it easily exceeded his claims.


----------



## Badbeams3 (Apr 18, 2001)

Craig, I see the start at 4.19...the duracell started at 3.7...how do you acount for this...is it brighter with this batt or some other reason?


----------



## The_LED_Museum (Apr 18, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KenB:
*Craig, I see the start at 4.19...the duracell started at 3.7...how do you acount for this...is it brighter with this batt or some other reason?*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It has to be the battery... the ability for it to sustain higher peak currents perhaps because of its lower internal resistance.
The setup itself is identical in every aspect, except that 18 or so hours had elapsed since the last test.


----------



## Badbeams3 (Apr 19, 2001)

Looks like it`s loosing it`s steam...it`s about where the standard coppertop was at this time 3.29 (coppertop) vs 3.3 (bunny e2)..it`s starting to look like, while it offers a higher start brightness the run time will be very close...hope I`m wrong...come on bunny...get a second wind...tick, tick....


----------



## Doug (Apr 19, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>I haven't done that sort of stuff since narrow ties were cool.

-- Jamie[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Narrow ties where cool at some point?!?! Oh, wait... you mean THE 80'S?! Ok... I can understand that... at first I thought you said "TIRES"! Haha... That did not make sence... duh...

Doug


----------



## Doug (Apr 19, 2001)

Just a thought guys.... perhaps you could just video tape the meter, then watch it the next day, and post the results, so you don't have to stay up late



??

Doug


----------



## The_LED_Museum (Apr 19, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Doug:
*Just a thought guys.... perhaps you could just video tape the meter, then watch it the next day, and post the results, so you don't have to stay up late



??

Doug*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice idea, but I lost all of my video equipment in the quake.







So I have to do it the hard way.





A chart recorder and a meter than can be connected to one would be _great_ for this kind of testing.

Maybe that equipment I'm getting can do this... perhaps so one can watch a bulb degrade over time and record the results.
If so, I can use it to watch batteries croak too.


----------



## Chris M. (Apr 19, 2001)

_What you need is a SINGLE CELL from a solar panel. Sounds like your panel has a bunch of little cells in series to jack up the total voltage... that might explain why illuminating just a small portion gave little or no reading._

Exactly! But trouble is, my panel is made differently to yours. It`s a flat glass panel with the amorphous silicon stuff printed on the back of it. I can`t dissassemble it, not without cutting it up and I want to put it back in that path light when I`m done. It was all I had to do the test and I wanted to do it while the _Ultra vs Normal_, as well as the _life-testing of the AAA Arc_, discussions were still going on, that`s all.

_With a single 0.45 volt cell, you can light up the whole panel or just a bit and get the same output - as it is dependent on how much light hits it with no regard to how much of the panel's surface area is illuminated._
That`s just the thing I need. I will see about finding a small single-cell panel like that to repeat this test in the future with the production model. Hey- it`s all part of the learning process! I`ll get there in the end....

By the way I made sure the ambient light in the room was practically 0. I waited until dark to start, there were no other lights on, the only glow in the room was the Arc light, an occasional flash of an Infinity to read the meter, and my PC monitor (and I turned its brightness down so it didn`t affect anything too much). The panel didn`t register anything at the end of the test when I turned the Arc off- even when using my infinity up close to read the scale. Meter and panel were seperated by a giant PC monitor.

I know it was far from ideal, perhaps I should have hooked up the meter to the battery/LED and watched current draw instead? 

Too late now.....graphs on the way later....


----------



## Badbeams3 (Apr 19, 2001)

I wonder if we should decide on a NULO (non usefull light output) point...a point at which light is consider unusable...maybe, for example, hold/mount the light three feet from a standard news paper and see at which point the light is no longer enough to read by...we could use the light meter to measure that point (move the light at that point up against the meter) and use the reading as a standard referance point to compare light to light or batt to batt (depending of course on the test at hand)...so you might say...light "A" ran 3hrs to NULO while light "B" ran 3.2 to NULO. Or brand X ran....brand Y ran...

Since every one sees a little differant we would have to elect one person to decide this point. Then, if all testers use the same light meter setup, the Radio Shack cell for example, we would have a standard test point. Your thoughts gentlemen?


----------



## Chris M. (Apr 19, 2001)

Here is the graph of my results last night...

<center>



</center>

I have yet to determine whether or not my panel is linear, but even if not, you can still see that the light drops fairly steadily until about 6 hours where it rolls off more sharply for a bit. And had I more stamina to continue the test further than I did, I expect it would have flattened off and continued on at a lower level for a few hours more, much like Peter`s test results he posted.

Today I tried the tired little light again briefy and it lit brightly comparing to a Photon II after a minute of settling, and I`ll leave it on longer tonight to see exactly how long it`ll keep going.

In conclusion I can say this prototype/sample doesn`t have the short circuit defect that a few others have so should hopefully give an accurate reflection of the performance of the final product.

Based on last night, life testing with a regular Duracell will now *not* be performed tonight for 2 reasons- 
1. The local shop was all out of Duaracell AAAs so I`ll have to go find some elsewhere.
2. I can`t stay up till 5AM again tonight cos I`ve got to be in work on Friday. Ideally I want to run both tests for the same 7 hours. And even though it`s far from ideal I`ll use the same solar panel setup for consistency.

But I`ll do it Saturday night and post the results here in this thread as and when they happen. That`ll be fun....


----------



## The_LED_Museum (Apr 19, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chris M.:
*I know it was far from ideal, perhaps I should have hooked up the meter to the battery/LED and watched current draw instead?*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This would also be a good test, but I have yet to figure out how to get the battery, flashlight head, and meter connected in such a way that I don't have to hold it all together for six hours straight. I suppose one could build a jig to do that, but I don't have any woodworking tools here. That will have to be up to someone else to build.

Ideas?
Suggestions?


----------



## Gransee (Apr 19, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by telephony:
*This would also be a good test, but I have yet to figure out how to get the battery, flashlight head, and meter connected in such a way that I don't have to hold it all together for six hours straight. Ideas? Suggestions?*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How about using a large alligator clip and an AAA battery holder (both from Radio Shack)?

Note to others beside the reviewers: this test requires soldering a lead to the Arc battery contact. Do so at your own risk! If you ruin it, the warranty is void.

1. The positive lead of the battery holder would be soldered to the battery contact on the Arc.
2. The negative lead of the battery holder would attached to the positive lead of the meter.
3. The negative lead of the meter would attached to the alligator clip that is clamped around the threads of the Arc illuminator.

Understand that the final results will be a shade low because of meter losses in the ammeter mode.

Use of a logging meter like the Metex 11/12 really helps for those long runs. The output is pretty nice too.

I've seen the Metex 11 on sale at Radioshack.com for $19.95 including the software!

Measurement with an accurate solar panel setup is ideal though because light output is not always linear with current consumption (as you well know). 
--

So it appears that Craig ("telephony") and Brock's prototypes are partially shorted while Chris's is not. Chris's second run with a regular Duracell will prove this out.

Another quick way to see if the unit is shorted is if the current draw off the battery is over 190mA with a Duracell alkaline. Current draw should be slightly higher with a lower resistance cell like the Ultra or the Titantium ("E2").

Sorry if all this is too confusing!

As the manufacturer of the Arc flashlight, we think the extra run time of ~1hour is a big deal.





The production model has a completely redesigned PC board. So the shorting problem has already been addressed. We will send production units to the reviewers the end of next week.

-

I want to say thanks to Craig, Brock and Chris for their ongoing and excellent tests which are very interesting to watch!

Peter


----------



## Brock (Apr 19, 2001)

Just to let everyone know I took the Arc to 10 feet and played with it for quite a while, turning it on and off. I threw it around in the pool letting it sink and hit the bottom. It sat at the 10 foot depth for at least 10 minutes, not a drop in it. So I would say it passes the test for 3 feet



I wouldn't recommend doing this, but you can feel safe dunking it to 3 feet.

Brock


----------



## Chris M. (Apr 19, 2001)

_This would also be a good test, but I have yet to figure out how to get the battery, flashlight head, and meter connected in such a way that I don't have to hold it all together for six hours straight. _

Leave it to me, I`ll come up with something and it won`t need soldering hopfully. The only bit we`re interested in is the head (and battery of course) so it`s just a case of rummaging round my nuts-and-bolts draw to see what I can find in there to hold the 2 parts in place and make electrical contact with each other and the meter.

Don`t go away....I`ll be back later this afternoon...






By the way I like Doug`s video tape idea. I can get 8 hours on a tape with my equipment so may just do that with one of my little cameras watching clock and meter- they`re one on top of the other so it`s easy to do. Then it`s just a case of watching back the next day in fast-forward mode and making notes at the appropriate time. I get a good nights sleep and the test will take care of itsself. Nice one...but why couldn`t you have thought of it yesterday?


----------



## mikep (Apr 19, 2001)

Okay, now how about a live webcam set up on the test assembly so everyone can keep score at home in real time?


----------



## Cyclops942 (Apr 19, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mikep:
*Okay, now how about a live webcam set up on the test assembly so everyone can keep score at home in real time?



*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, oh. I think I'm in trouble. My first thoughts on reading this post were, "Oh, COOL idea!" and "Man, can't they get my DSL hooked up any sooner! This is gonna be *torture* watching this over my dialup connection!"

I have a wife; I have a house; I have a yard; I have a dog; I'm supposed to have a *real life*, even. What am I doing drooling over the prospect of watching a web-cam pointed at a flashlight, a solar cell, a meter, and a clock? To quote Charlie Brown (as best I can spell it), "AAAAAAUGH!"


----------



## Chris M. (Apr 19, 2001)

_Okay, now how about a live webcam set up on the test assembly so everyone can keep score at home in real time? _

I did have live streaming video software installed here over the christmas period (it worked alongside my video capture card)- there was a live christmas lights display web cam for a while. But since I`m connecting through a slow dialup that cuts me off every 2 hours (one of those totally free unmetered services, meant to stop excessive use) and my IP address (and essentially the address viewers logged on to, in order to view the video) changed each time, it was slow, unreliable and needed me to update the adddress after each 2 hour re-connect. To put it bluntly it was a pain. Plus it didn`t work properly anyway, kept crashing my PC! I uninstalled it after the festive season was over. I don`t think it was designed for dialup connections and very slow PCs like mine.

So "it aint gonna happen", not from here anyway. Believe me having sat through the 7 hour show here last night, it`s not that interesting. Of course if I use the videotape idea I could mail copies to anyone interested in watching it!


----------



## X-CalBR8 (Apr 19, 2001)

Hey Chris. That's a nice little invention to test the Arc with. That sort of set-up could also work well for other lights. Very clever.


----------



## The_LED_Museum (Apr 19, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cyclops942:
*
What am I doing drooling over the prospect of watching a web-cam pointed at a flashlight, a solar cell, a meter, and a clock*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Probably doing the same as the guy who made this webcam page:
The Amazing Plastic Toliet Cam
I think his camera got broken since I haven't seen a new picture here in a few months now.


----------



## Badbeams3 (Apr 19, 2001)

Well, are there going to be any test later tonight or will we get to sleep?


----------



## Chris M. (Apr 19, 2001)

Not from me. My second test with a regular Duracell battery will be on saturday night. 
I`m off to sleep now....

Craig?


----------



## The_LED_Museum (Apr 19, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chris M.:
*Not from me. My second test with a regular Duracell battery will be on saturday night. 
I`m off to sleep now....

Craig?*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not me... I can't handle staying up till five am again... I'll also wait till Saturday night, as I do not have to worry about missing shipments or deliveries if I stay up til 5 or 6 in the morning watching a flashlight & a meter, and subsequently end up sleeping in until noon.





My next test will be with a Duracell Ultra.
I've already tried regular Duracell and Energizer e2.


----------



## Doug (Apr 19, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chris M.:
*.....By the way I like Doug`s video tape idea. I can get 8 hours on a tape with my equipment so may just do that with one of my little cameras watching clock and meter- they`re one on top of the other so it`s easy to do. Then it`s just a case of watching back the next day in fast-forward mode and making notes at the appropriate time. I get a good nights sleep and the test will take care of itsself. Nice one...but why couldn`t you have thought of it yesterday?







*_<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry



But, brilliance (ahh, double meaning, I LOVE IT



! Hehe) doesn't come over night





Doug_


----------



## Go Go Gadget Flashlight (Apr 19, 2001)

I don't know if most webcams have this capability, but my Logitech QuickCam came with TIME-LAPSE feature in the software.

Wouldn't that work for battery life vs brightness tests? You can manually control color, brightness, focus so all "frames" of the time-lapse would be comparable from test to test.

Any other webcams have this option? BTW, mine is an option under video capture, take pic every ?? seconds, minutes...


----------



## The_LED_Museum (Apr 20, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gadget:
*Any other webcams have this option? BTW, mine is an option under video capture, take pic every ?? seconds, minutes...*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My old black & white Quickcam had this option, and it would have worked had it not been damaged, possibly destroyed (it looked rather smashed and flat) on Ash Wednesday.

The exposure can be fixed, the lens is already a fixed-focus (but it broke a long time ago and became _adjustable_



), and the software can be set up to take pictures at any desired interval. A picture every five minutes would probably be fine for this test. I think I still have a few hundred megs left on my drive for the pictures to all save properly.

If I still have the pieces of my poor injured webcam, maybe the CCD and board are still intact and it can be fixed in time to test the production model of the Arc.

If I ran the test before going to bed, having the computer tied up would be irrelevant. Come back in the morning to the dead flashlight and point ACDSee to the pictures - presto, instant test results.


----------



## Chris M. (Apr 20, 2001)

Right then.....





This is what I`ve come up with. Don`t laugh, it works doesn`t it



?

The head off the Arc is held in place with a cable clamp out of an extension cord (I removed its O-ring to avoid damaging it), and sits in a groove I cut in the wood block. One wire is laid on top just under the clamp and the screws done up tight so it makes good contact.
The groove extends back further and the battery sits in it, and pressure applied to hold it onto the positive contact by that metal bracket which I soldered a small ex-equipment battery holder spring onto, as well as the other meter wire.

It works and when I come to repeat the battery test for the production Arc I will use this along with a hopefully improved light meter arrangement, and record both values. Not bad for half an hour`s rummaging...


----------



## Gransee (Apr 20, 2001)

I agree, not bad for a "half an hour's rummaging".





Peter


----------



## Go Go Gadget Flashlight (Apr 20, 2001)

Yep Craig, that's what I was thinkin too.





If I remember right, I paid all of $30 for this color Quickcam VC USB after rebate.



And that was about a year ago...

It's 320x240, with a interpolated 640x480 mode.

I've seen refurbed Express Quickcams for $18 at Justdeals.com if interested. 






Here's one for $23 with shipping

UCDWeb $15 + $8 S&H


----------



## The_LED_Museum (Apr 20, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gadget:
*Yep Craig, that's what I was thinkin too.





If I remember right, I paid all of $30 for this color Quickcam VC USB after rebate.



And that was about a year ago...

It's 320x240, with a interpolated 640x480 mode.
*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

All the modern cams need a USB port, which I do not have. I'll need to find an older model that goes in the printer port.














(Or hope my old one can be salvaged)


----------



## Badbeams3 (Apr 21, 2001)

Ok, it`s Saturday Night, what time does the show start? Chris /Craig?


----------



## Chris M. (Apr 21, 2001)

_Ok, it`s Saturday Night, what time does the show start? Chris /Craig? _

Many apologies, but I`m afraid my second battery test will be delayed by a few days



. I havn`t been able to get a hold of any regular Duracell AAA batteries yet, my local shop didn`t have any and the supermarket we get our weekly shopping from, had sold out too when I went today. I could have got Energizers but since energizer`s Ultra equivalent, e2s, are virtually unheard of here right now (that place doesn`t even have Ultras!), it didn`t seem like much point. I`ll go for one of my rare trips into the town centre on monday and find somewhere that has Duracells, and do the test monday night assuming I can get some. 
I just downloaded a nice bit of software (thanks Ant!) that I may be able to be set up to take time-lapse stills overnight and save jpeg pics to my HDD while I`m asleep. Otherwise a VHS tape will take its place and together with a CCTV camera, they will be my eyes overnight and I`ll get some sleep.

Again- sorry for the delay. 
Craig, assuming all went to plan over there in Seattle WA, I`m looking forward to seeing your results tomorrow.


----------



## Doug (Apr 21, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chris M.:
*Ok, it`s Saturday Night, what time does the show start? Chris /Craig? 

Many apologies, but I`m afraid my second battery test will be delayed by a few days



. I havn`t been able to get a hold of any regular Duracell AAA batteries yet, my local shop didn`t have any and the supermarket we get our weekly shopping from, had sold out too when I went today. I could have got Energizers but since energizer`s Ultra equivalent, e2s, are virtually unheard of here right now (that place doesn`t even have Ultras!), it didn`t seem like much point. I`ll go for one of my rare trips into the town centre on monday and find somewhere that has Duracells, and do the test monday night assuming I can get some. 
I just downloaded a nice bit of software (thanks Ant!) that I may be able to be set up to take time-lapse stills overnight and save jpeg pics to my HDD while I`m asleep. Otherwise a VHS tape will take its place and together with a CCTV camera, they will be my eyes overnight and I`ll get some sleep.

Again- sorry for the delay. 
Craig, assuming all went to plan over there in Seattle WA, I`m looking forward to seeing your results tomorrow.







*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Chris,

Where do you live, that you can not find theses batteries? I bet most of us live in towns where you have at least 3 choices of places to buy theses batteries at



.

DOug


----------



## The_LED_Museum (Apr 21, 2001)

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KenB:
*Ok, it`s Saturday Night, what time does the show start? Chris /Craig?*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My light is shorted out, so what would be the point? I just spent $12 on batteries and it would be senseless to waste any more of them on a sample we know isn't up to par.

I'll wait until the new, improved "production" model shows up on my doorstep, and then do the test with at least three different battery types over three days.

Sorry guys... I'm taking this weekend off.


----------



## Brock (Apr 21, 2001)

Me too. Actually I just got a bunch of new lights to start to play with and I will wait for the production run of the ARC to do more battery testing.

Brock


----------



## Gransee (Apr 22, 2001)

Agreed. I don't see any reason why you shouldn't have your production units by the end of next week.

Peter


----------



## Chris M. (Apr 22, 2001)

_Where do you live, that you can not find theses batteries? _

South Wales, land of rain and high prices. 

Well...I`m sure there`s a few places I could go to get some, but the shop down the road only has Energizers and those blue Evereadys, another within walking distance had Duracells but only AA and the supermarket we get our weekly food shop from was sold out of AAAs- the peg was all bare.
The problem I had wasn`t not-having places to go find them, but more like not having the time to go look. I don`t drive myself and had a lot of web-site stuff to do as well as the dreaded gardening (for once here in dull rainy south Wales it was a nice sunny day



) so didn`t have time to take a bus ride to the town centre and wander round battery-hunting! 

Sorry to dissapoint everyone. But hopefully monday night I will be able to do the test- I`ll go look round for Duracell AAAs in every place I can think of, and since my sample seems OK I`ll set up the test equipment and either run a video tape or a new piece of video-capture software I have, if I can get it to take pics at timed intervals. That way I get to go to sleep and you all see the results, graphed and all, tuesday AM.


----------



## L.E.D. (Mar 14, 2002)

sorry to revive this thread, but could someone do an hour by hour test of a white infinity too


----------



## The_LED_Museum (Mar 14, 2002)

I recently paid a visit to my "battery guy" and picked up half a case of AA Duracells. Guess that means I should do this test.





I'll see if I can set it up before going to bed. This _does_ mean I can't take pictures or use my ProMetric while the test is in progress (est. time 2-3 days), so i need to see if any pictures *have* to be taken for the website before I begin.


----------

