# Fenix L0D CE runtimes



## chevrofreak (Feb 8, 2007)

Overall output measurements taken in my home built integrating sphere at the start of the run.

Fenix L0D CE - high - Energizer E2 lithium: 895 (est 63.93 lumens)

Fenix L0D CE - high - Duracell coppertop: 772 (est 55.14 lumens)

Fenix L0D CE - high - Sanyo HR-4U 900mAh Ni-MH: 754 (est 53.86 lumens)







Fenix L0D CE - medium (primary) - Energizer E2 lithium: 291 (est 20.79 lumens)

Fenix L0D CE - medium (primary) - Duracell coppertop: 268 (est 19.14 lumens)

Fenix L0D CE - medium (primary) - Sanyo HR-4U 900mAh Ni-MH: 262 (est 18.71 lumens)






Fenix L0D CE - low - Energizer E2 lithium: 127 (est 9.07 lumens)

Fenix L0D CE - low - Sanyo HR-4U 900mAh Ni-MH: 114 (est 8.14 lumens)

Fenix L0D CE - low - Duracell coppertop: 106 (est 7.57 lumens)







The L0D CE is pretty much 2x as bright as the L0P SE on all levels, yet has slightly longer runtime.



Here are the runtimes on the 10440 Li-Ion as promised.

Fenix L0D CE - high - AW 320mAh 10440 Li-Ion: 2190 (est 156.43 lumens) (cell measured 3.76v after 10 minute cooldown/rest after runtime)






Fenix L0D CE - medium (primary) - AW 320mAh 10440 Li-Ion: 819 (est 58.4 lumens)






Fenix L0D CE - low - AW 320mAh 10440 Li-Ion: 367 (est 26.21 lumens)


----------



## Erasmus (Feb 8, 2007)

Great work! Thanks!!!


----------



## cdosrun (Feb 8, 2007)

Agreed, thank you Chevro. I'm always impressed at the amount of effort some of you 'mainstays' go to for the benefit of others here.

Andrew


----------



## lightbug (Feb 8, 2007)

Wonderful graphs :goodjob:


----------



## thezman (Feb 8, 2007)

Thanks


----------



## revolvergeek (Feb 8, 2007)

Awesome! I can't wait for mine to get here!!!


----------



## mchlwise (Feb 8, 2007)

lightbug said:


> Wonderful graphs :goodjob:



Ditto. 

You are the runtime king, Chevro. 

Hope you do one on a L1DCE soon. :naughty:


----------



## cave dave (Feb 10, 2007)

Anybody know if they changed the PWM rate? The old strobe effect annoyed me on the lower levels and I would foresee using the lower levels more often on this one.


----------



## paulr (Feb 10, 2007)

The strobing is pretty noticable.


----------



## chevrofreak (Feb 10, 2007)

mchlwise said:


> Ditto.
> 
> You are the runtime king, Chevro.
> 
> Hope you do one on a L1DCE soon. :naughty:



I have the L1D CE going on low right now. It'll be probably a week before I have a whole set of graphs for it though, and the L2D CE might take two  

Hopefully the 10440's I ordered will be here sometime toward the end of this coming week and I'll be able to do runtimes on those too.


----------



## THE_dAY (Feb 10, 2007)

thanks for the very informative and helpful info!


----------



## paulr (Feb 11, 2007)

Thanks! This light really likes NiMH and doesn't like alkalines


----------



## Xygen (Feb 11, 2007)

chevrofreak said:


> ...and the L2D CE might take two


I was just looking for your L2D-CE graphs....
Do you think you can post the "turbo"-graph as it's finished? Or do you want to post 'em all together?
Sorry for being OT and thanks again for your effort!


----------



## ruralott (Feb 12, 2007)

Fantastic graph. Thank you !!!!



> Hopefully the 10440's I ordered will be here sometime toward the end of this coming week and I'll be able to do runtimes on those too.


 Can't wait.


----------



## chevrofreak (Feb 14, 2007)

Xygen said:


> I was just looking for your L2D-CE graphs....
> Do you think you can post the "turbo"-graph as it's finished? Or do you want to post 'em all together?
> Sorry for being OT and thanks again for your effort!




I'll see what I can do. I've been slacking off a bit due to a rather nasty cold/flu I've had for the last few weeks.


----------



## chevrofreak (Feb 16, 2007)

Li-Ion graphs added to the first post.


----------



## 4sevens (Feb 16, 2007)

chevrofreak said:


> Fenix L0D CE - high - AW 320mAh 10440 Li-Ion: 2190 (est *156.43 lumens*) (cell measured 3.76v after 10 minute cooldown/rest after runtime)


----------



## slim shady (Feb 16, 2007)

4sevens said:


>


Your having some server problems.Way slow 
load times there.Edit nevermind.The site is loading fine now.Probally getting
indexed by google or Yahoo when I was trying to clicky in.


----------



## aceo07 (Feb 16, 2007)

Did you cool it during the 10440 runtime?


----------



## adirondackdestroyer (Feb 16, 2007)

Holy crap! Over 150 lumens out of a keychain light!!!!! That must completely amaze any and everyone you show it to. 

Has it been proven to be safe to run this light with the 10440 cell?


----------



## chevrofreak (Feb 16, 2007)

aceo07 said:


> Did you cool it during the 10440 runtime?


I cooled the heck out of it with a large fan from just a few inches away. On high I still measured a peak of 102F with an IR thermometer. That's really quite warm. With the same cooling a lot of other lights don't even get above 85F.


----------



## chevrofreak (Feb 16, 2007)

adirondackdestroyer said:


> Holy crap! Over 150 lumens out of a keychain light!!!!! That must completely amaze any and everyone you show it to.
> 
> Has it been proven to be safe to run this light with the 10440 cell?



I seriously wouldn't run it on high for more than a minute or two just to "wow" someone. Medium is a bit brighter with the 10440 than High is with a Ni-MH. That's plenty of light for most uses.


----------



## Badbeams3 (Feb 16, 2007)

Am I to understand Fenix is actualy accurate with thier lumen est. with this light? Or even understating?


----------



## ruralott (Feb 16, 2007)

Thank you so much for the new graph. You rock :rock:

Max lumen of *156.43 lumens *only last for seconds, but impressive nonetheless. Now I think LOCE can be used with 10440 if owners want high as the default (primary). I am still waiting to see what LF2 can do before I jump in. But it's really difficult to hold back :laughing:

Thanks again.


----------



## TenPin (Feb 17, 2007)

Awesome charts for the L0D, thanks. How are the L1D charts coming along?


----------



## chevrofreak (Feb 18, 2007)

TenPin said:


> Awesome charts for the L0D, thanks. How are the L1D charts coming along?



They're coming, though fairly slowly. My Duracell 2650mAh Ni-MH cells seem to be getting worn out though so I may have to buy some more 

I'm also waiting on some lithium cells to be shipped to me to completely finish it. The L1D CE is mostly done except for a couple Ni-MH tests and a couple lithium tests.


----------



## TenPin (Feb 18, 2007)

Sweet! Thanks for your hard work. It really makes a difference for people choosing which light to buy.


----------



## TigerhawkT3 (Feb 18, 2007)

Nice graphs! Now THAT'S a keychain light! 

I think I'll be getting one, along with some 10440s.


----------



## Argon (Mar 1, 2007)

Great work with the graphs.

Hows the L2D-CE runtimes coming? Don't mean to be pushy just i'm intrested to see how they turn out.


----------



## jar3ds (Mar 1, 2007)

thanks chev! I've been waiting for the 10440's!


----------



## Doug S (Mar 1, 2007)

Quote Chevrofreak in post #1: 
*Here are the runtimes on the 10440 Li-Ion as promised.* 

Comparing the Li-ion curves against the alkaline curves it is clear that during these tests the Li-ion cells were discharged well below the generally recommended minimum of 2.5V, especially on the medium and low tests. I am curious if the same cell was used for all three tests or three different cells. Either way, I'm curious if these cells were tested for and/or showed later degradation.


----------



## chevrofreak (Mar 5, 2007)

Doug S said:


> Quote Chevrofreak in post #1:
> *Here are the runtimes on the 10440 Li-Ion as promised.*
> 
> Comparing the Li-ion curves against the alkaline curves it is clear that during these tests the Li-ion cells were discharged well below the generally recommended minimum of 2.5V, especially on the medium and low tests. I am curious if the same cell was used for all three tests or three different cells. Either way, I'm curious if these cells were tested for and/or showed later degradation.



I didn't use the same cell for all tests, I alternated them. The test on Low did run a bit too long and the cell hit about 2v before I noticed. I'll test them against each other in another light to see if it may have damaged it.

I'm pretty sure that on medium it terminated at about 3.2v


----------



## Doug S (Mar 5, 2007)

Thanks. My simple minded way of looking at this is that the Li-ion tested on medium was terminated at around 260 of your light output units. This happens to be the same value at which your Ni-Mh medium test started so I assumed that the loaded value of the Li-ion would have been down around that of a fully charged loaded Ni-Mh or around 1.3V. Similarly, the Li-ion tested on low was terminated at around 25 light units and the Ni-Mh test on low started at around 115 units so I thus concluded that the loaded voltage of the Li-ion at the end was much below that of a charged Ni-Mh. 
I am sure that lots of folks appreciate you testing these Li-ion cells in these lights as I have noted the trend towards some folks using unprotected Li-ion cells in lights that are capable of overdischarging them. Unfortunately there are a couple of East Asian light manufacturers that actually condone, if not outright encourage, this. Fortunately for them they are likely beyond the reach of US tort lawyers. This whole business of using unprotected Li-ion cells in lights that are capable of overdischarging them has me on the verge of a foaming at the mouth tirade. I was hoping that at least you might be able to demonstrate that it is bad for their cells. That might actually be a deterrent for them. The prospect of simply burning down their apartment building and taking all the innocent victims with them seems insufficient.



chevrofreak said:


> I didn't use the same cell for all tests, I alternated them. The test on Low did run a bit too long and the cell hit about 2v before I noticed. I'll test them against each other in another light to see if it may have damaged it.
> 
> I'm pretty sure that on medium it terminated at about 3.2v


----------



## Khaytsus (Jan 5, 2008)

Has anyone done output on the Q4 models? I'm mainly curious about low, but in general it'd be interesting to see the Q4 output on all modes.


----------



## Burgess (Jan 5, 2008)

Good question . . . .


Was thinking the same thing about my Q2 model.

:candle:
_


----------



## 42 (Jan 7, 2008)

I've got a Q4 on the way so this is definitely something I'd like to see.


----------



## HighLight (Mar 31, 2008)

I know these tests were done a while ago but what emitter was in the L0D CE for these run graphs?

Also how would a Q4 be expected to stack up with whatever was used for the above tests?


----------



## Marduke (Mar 31, 2008)

HighLight said:


> I know these tests were done a while ago but what emitter was in the L0D CE for these run graphs?
> 
> Also how would a Q4 be expected to stack up with whatever was used for the above tests?



The older LOD CE uses a Cree P4. The newer Q4 should have the same shape, but be proportionally brighter in all modes and battery configurations.


----------



## dealgrabber2002 (May 21, 2008)

Marduke said:


> The older LOD CE uses a Cree P4. The newer Q4 should have the same shape, but be proportionally brighter in all modes and battery configurations.



Would the runtime the same between the LOD-CE P4 and Q4?


----------



## Patriot (May 22, 2008)

dealgrabber2002 said:


> Would the runtime the same between the LOD-CE P4 and Q4?




I should be very close, but of course, the Q4 is producing more light. 


It's much brighter than the P4. Just like Marduke stated, it's the same shape beam too but with a nicer color.


----------



## dealgrabber2002 (Jun 3, 2008)

On a side note... a chapstick cap fits PERFECT as a diffuser... It also protect lens from scratch!


----------

