# LiteFlux LF2 mini review (updated lux reading and runtime on 3/7)



## NetKidz (Feb 20, 2007)

*LiteFlux LF2 mini review (6/4 updated with SSC P4 runtime)*

*EDIT: 7/2* updated with SSC P4 lux reading at 1m
*EDIT: 6/4* updated with SSC P4 runtime
*EDIT: 5/19 *updated with SSC P4 version
*EDIT: 3/7* updated lux reading and runtime with 10440 for new firmware.




LF2 is the first flashlight in new "beacon" series manufactured by LiteFlux. It has a 2-stage mechanical switch and MCU controlled circuit with 4 operation modes and 5 functions. There're some discussion about it: http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=150055


Official Product pages: LF2 Cree XR-E Version (There's a Quick start manual with flowchart)

Spec:

Two model: Cree XR-E and SSC P4
Size: XR-E model: 80mm(L) x 14mm (D), SSC P4 model: 76mm(L) x 14mm (D)
Made of aircraft grade aluminum
HA III Hard anodized finish
Battery : single AAA (Alkaline,Ni-MH,Lithium) batteries
single 10440 Li-Ion is available
Switch : twist
Input voltage : 0.9V ~ 5.0V
4 operation modes
6 user defined output
1 user adjusted output
4 functions
Weight : 17g (excluding battery)
Waterproof
Glass lens with AR coating
Candle mode available
Accessories : plastic light cover,O-ring,silicon oil
Wood gift box
The packaging and contains:











My LF2 comes with a diffuser, 3 o-rings and a sheet of operation manual.


Size comparision with LF1:





With diffuser:






The LF2 doesn't look fancy, it has two flat surface and two slots on the tube. You could install some tritium vials in the body slots or use some glow-in-the-dark paint to make it easier to find in the dark. The tube tail has two holes and two short slots for attaching lanyard and keychain ring. There's no notch, thus attaching a keychain ring may affect the tail-stand ability (Someone suggested LiteFlux already).


Disassembled: 






Head and tail:









Inner head and tube:










LF2 with diffuser and LF1 with LargeHead and diffuser: 






Some Beam shots: 







EV 0.0





EV -0.9





EV -1.5






LF1 (1xAA) at left and LF2 at right:
EV 0.0





EV -0.9





EV -1.5





The beam shots aren't good. I'll re-take them after I get my new DC. 

LF2 has 4 operation modes and 5 useful functions. It's good that you could directly select any mode or function at any time, there's no need to cycle through each of them.

4 Operation mode:

Standard mode: Two user configurable output levels. (Using programming function to set and store)
Manual mode: Adjustable output level, you could adjust it on the fly from 0.2% to 100% (256 levels, Default to 50%). It won't be saved after you leave this mode.
Strobe mode: Two user configurable strobe mode. Both the output level and strobe pattern are configurable. (127x127 patterns)
SOS mode: Two user configurable output levels. The SOS signal pattern is fixed.
5 Functions:

Programming function: Most important function of LF2 used to configure the standard, strobe and SOS mode.
Battery voltage report function: Use the flash pattern to report the battery voltage.
Demo function: It'll demo through all modes.
Rechargable battery over-discharge protection: It'll set the proper limit automatically for NiMH and Li-ion. When the voltage drop to 3.0v for Li-ion and 1.0v for NiMH, it starts to flash 3 times every 40 seconds. When the voltage drop to 2.8v for Li-ion and 0.8v for NiMH, it'll do fast strobe about 8 seconds, then turn off the light. (It still drains about 1mA, so swap the batt before it drop into this state).
Reset function: If you mess up something or want to restore the default, select this function will clear the EEPROM and restore the factory defaults.
Here's the operation brief I posted before: 
=========
Removed. Please refer to official quick start manual on LiteFlux web site.
============ 
(There're some flow charts in the operation manual, I think they should be clear than my writing)



It may look very complicate at first, but after using it, I feel it's not so hard.  It'll jump to the previous mode when switch on. If using the standard mode most of the time, just 1/4 turn(P1) or another 1/4 (P2) will go to my two favorite output levels. If it's not in standard mode, just 1x SW will quickly jump to standard mode.

Since the input voltage range is wide, basically any AAA battery will fit. But be careful with 10440 li-ion rechargable batteries. LF2 will drain over 600mA when using Li-ion with 100% output. I think it's over the recommended 1.5C discharge rate.

LF2 output level is controlled by PWM, but the frequency is high (7.8KHz). I couldn't feel the flickering even in lowest level (0.2%). I could easily feel it with my JETBeam C-LE and MK.II X. One problem is sometimes the output isn't stable, I only have one LF2 and not sure if it's only in my LF2. I'll got another LF2 with SSC P4 when available, and I'll compare them.

I didn't have other AAA sized flashlights at hand to compare with, but I think I won't buy another one. :naughty: 



Updated on 2/22 
=====
Lux Reading at 1m (factory default P1 and P2):

10440:
100%: 590
50%: 281
0.2%: 3
P1: 76
P2: 288​ 

NiMH:100%: 248
50%: 132
0.2%: 1
P1: 36
P2: 129​ 



Here's my LF1 with 1AA NiMH for reference:High: 305
Low: 37​(Seems too low for my LF1?)



=====
Runtime Chart:

Tests were done in my closet. No light box or similar device used, the reading is directly take from the sensor and distance of the lux meter and light was about 40cm. Reading was taken at 1min interval.

I use eneloop AAA to do the run time. They were tested 804, 802 and 796mAh at 500mA discharging rate on my MAHA MH-C9000. When testing with Alkaline batteries, the overdischarge protection was turned OFF, and turned ON with NiMH batteries.


*Alkaline battery (Energizer LR03 AAA):*







*NiMH battery (eneloop 800mAh):*




Almost a flat line with factory default P1 output.  


*10440 (320mAh):*








The unstable output and output level were fixed with the new firmware. The runtime of 10440 seems not very smooth but I couldn't feel it with my naked eyes. I didn't do a 100% runtime since the current may exceed the recommended discharging rate of 10440.





Updated on 3/3:
=============

Factory Default Settings:







Added on 3/7:
===========
Just took a photo to demonstrate the PWM feeling. As I said before, LF2 uses PWM but I couldn't feel the flickering with the lowest 0.2% output. I use another JETBeam flashlights as reference, and you could feel the frequency difference. All flashlights are using one NiMH battery and adjuest to lowest setting. Top is LF2 (0.2%), middle is C-LE (low) and the bottom is MK.II X (5%):









==== 5/19 Updated with SSC P4 version ====
Just got the SSC P4 version of LF2 this morning. :devil: Here's a quick comparison.

The XR-E is 80mm, and SSC is 77mm:




(Upper is SSC P4 version)

Head shots: (Left is XR-E, right is SSC P4)




The reflector of SSC P4 is shallower and it's about 4.5mm. The XR-E version is deeper, about 8mm.





The OP reflector of XR-E is heavier.









The SSC P4 is put on the anodized head cap and the center hole of reflector is larger.


Beam shot around 20cm: (Left is XR-E, right is SSC P4)
both use NiMH and in P2 position. DC isn't white balanced.

EV -0.9





EV +0.0





EV +0.9






It's a great floody light for short distance use. 


==== 6/4 Updated with SSC P4 version ====
It's roughly about 2/3 of Cree version. Maybe a higer Vf? :shrug:



*Alkaline battery (Energizer LR03 AAA):*






*NiMH battery (eneloop 800mAh):*





*10440 (360mAh, started from 4.13v):*





Updated on 7/2 
=====
SSC P4 Lux Reading at 1m (factory default P1 and P2):

NiMH:
100%: 256
P2: 140
P1: 41
0.2%: 2
​10440:
100%: 565
P2: 270
P1: 66
0.2%: 2
​


----------



## bray (Feb 20, 2007)

*Re: LiteFlux LF2 mini review (runtime in progress... )*

very nice. very nice. when do these lights go up for sale?


----------



## gunga (Feb 20, 2007)

*Re: LiteFlux LF2 mini review (runtime in progress... )*

Hmmm, 

while the lite and features are pretty fantastic, I'm a little unsure about the UI. I plan to pick up a few lights, and trying to remember all the complicated UI's might make this a no go. In any case, perhaps I'll see how other people handle it.

Thanks for the info Netkidz! I still eagerly await this light (and it's price point!).


----------



## Perfectionist (Feb 21, 2007)

*Re: LiteFlux LF2 mini review (runtime in progress... )*

Need a comparison review with the L0P !!


----------



## Stef (Feb 21, 2007)

*Re: LiteFlux LF2 mini review (runtime in progress... )*

Amazing UI, natural finish and a lanyard as the LF1 it will be the best AAA flashlight. I waits the price and a beam comparison with LOD CE.


----------



## BentHeadTX (Feb 21, 2007)

*Re: LiteFlux LF2 mini review (runtime in progress... )*

Thank you for the mini review
I like the light for programmable levels with a low-low desired that I can determine. Tightening the tail for off is a great idea, no lost tail caps from keeping them loose. Another added bonus is the light will turn on in low mode to let you know that the cap is not tight enough. 
Flashaholic proof! :thumbsup:


----------



## LED Cool (Feb 21, 2007)

*Re: LiteFlux LF2 mini review (runtime in progress... )*

hi netkidz,

:goodjob: :thumbsup: :twothumbs. I envy you guys who got the LF2!

khoo


----------



## x2x3x2 (Feb 21, 2007)

*Re: LiteFlux LF2 mini review (runtime in progress... )*

Thats the most modes i've seen in a light!

Dunno how it will affect usability on daily use tho, seems like a little steep learning curve to gain familiarity. Loosen to on reminds me of the Mag Solitaire, i think using a swistie for the plethora of modes is a bad idea. Nobody's gonna remember to turn it 1/4 turn or 1/2 turn, the diamter of the light is so small.

We should be able to take a torch out and obtain the desired mode without looking like we're trying to crack a safe!  I'm looking forward to the larger versions, hopefully they'll come in clicky form.


----------



## TORCH_BOY (Feb 21, 2007)

*Re: LiteFlux LF2 mini review (runtime in progress... )*

Great review,


----------



## Glen C (Feb 21, 2007)

*Re: LiteFlux LF2 mini review (runtime in progress... )*

Tremendous review, Netkidz. Thank you


----------



## ruralott (Feb 21, 2007)

*Re: LiteFlux LF2 mini review (runtime in progress... )*

Great review, thank you !!!



> Since the input voltage range is wide, basically any AAA battery will fit. But be careful with 10440 li-ion rechargable batteries. LF2 will drain over 600mA when using Li-ion with 100% output. I think it's over the recommended 1.5C discharge rate.


 That's not too too bad. LOD-CE draws 1.11A on high (linky).


> Lux reading: (Will measure them when I've done the runtime test)


----------



## ydna (Feb 21, 2007)

*Re: LiteFlux LF2 mini review (runtime in progress... )*

Fenix L0Dce vs Liteflux LF2




Left: Fenix L0Dce, Right: Liteflux LF2




L0Dce High @ AAA




LF2 100 @ AAA(I'm not sure it's 100% right now, settings quite complicated)




L0Dce High @ 10440




LF2 100% @ 10440 (not sure again)


----------



## martonic (Feb 21, 2007)

*Re: LiteFlux LF2 mini review (runtime in progress... )*

This UI sounds like it was developed on April First.:eeksign:


----------



## NetKidz (Feb 22, 2007)

*Re: LiteFlux LF2 mini review (Lux reading and runtime added)*

I've updated the lux reading and runtime. The runtime of 10440 is odd and I've asked LiteFlux what's going on. This is a small production run of a small group buy. It may also be a pilot run, since others have some small problem with the light. I think LiteFlux would fix them before the mass production.  

About the UI, I think it's fine, not too hard, just need some practice with the programming function. If you only want to use it, turn on it and you're set. No need to practice at all.

About the P1 and P2 position, or switch action. Not need to be at exactly 1/4 turn. I didn't have a DV to take the operating action, but ydna had subtitled the short video taked by LiteFlux:
http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1856835&postcount=94
Beside the twisty action, you could do the switch action like reverse clickie at the P2 position. I think it's easier.

@ydna,
Thanks for the comparison of L0D CE. :thumbsup:


----------



## jsr (Feb 22, 2007)

*Re: LiteFlux LF2 mini review (Lux reading and runtime added)*

Wowzers that's a lot of functions, modes, and combinations! I guess it's nice to be able to program it to your exact preferences, but dang it'll take a while to get used to it first and learn it.
Looks nice tho. How much are these?


----------



## farscape105 (Feb 23, 2007)

*Re: LiteFlux LF2 mini review (Lux reading and runtime added)*

Looks to me like the LOD on 10440's is much brighter than LF2, provided it was on highest level.


----------



## aceo07 (Feb 25, 2007)

*Re: LiteFlux LF2 mini review (Lux reading and runtime added)*

Release date? 

Price?


----------



## NetKidz (Mar 3, 2007)

*Re: LiteFlux LF2 mini review (updated some info on 3/3)*

LiteFlux had updated their web pages with XR-E version LF2:
http://www.liteflux.com/english/product_detail.php?act=1&index=11

The price is US$55 shipped.


----------



## NetKidz (Mar 7, 2007)

Updated the lux reading and runtime of new firmware with 10440. Now it's 2.5W with Li-ion battery and the unstable output with Li-ion battery was fixed.


----------



## aceo07 (Mar 19, 2007)

When is the SSC version coming out?


----------



## JJohn (Mar 27, 2007)

I had an idea... Is it possible to set the strobe output at the lowest setting (say 0.5%) and the strobe rate to be once per second or slower. That would make a useful locator function and not drain too much current. 

If I am not mistaken, 0.5% should last about 200 hrs on a good NiMh battery, and pulsed at 1 Hz should stretch that out for months. Is my logic flawed here? If not, that could be handy in some situations. A locator function would be useful.

John


----------



## LED Cool (Mar 28, 2007)

hi john,

there is a table at the end of first post detailing the factory default values for the various modes.

you can set the strobe output to very very low and have it flash once every second. (1Hz default)

do not know about the runtime though in that setting.

however, personnaly i would prefer a higher output (50%) at 2Hz (flash twice every second). one may not be able to locate the LF2 if the flashing is weak.

also if you put on the diffuser giving you 360 degrees view of the flashing, you can convert your LF2 into a locator beacon. hang it on your neck or backpack while walking/hiking at night.

khoo


----------



## jackcselab (Mar 28, 2007)

JJohn said:


> I had an idea... Is it possible to set the strobe output at the lowest setting (say 0.5%) and the strobe rate to be once per second or slower. That would make a useful locator function and not drain too much current.
> 
> If I am not mistaken, 0.5% should last about 200 hrs on a good NiMh battery, and pulsed at 1 Hz should stretch that out for months. Is my logic flawed here? If not, that could be handy in some situations. A locator function would be useful.
> 
> John



Yes,you can set such strobe mode. but the efficiency will decrease when set to very very low brightness.
According to author's saying, the efficiency can still maintains 65~70% at 6% brightness. If you set to lower than 6%, the effciency will decrease rapidly. You still can get longer runtime when set to lower than 6%. But the runtime will grow slowly.


----------



## JJohn (Apr 3, 2007)

jackcselab said:


> Yes,you can set such strobe mode. but the efficiency will decrease when set to very very low brightness.
> According to author's saying, the efficiency can still maintains 65~70% at 6% brightness. If you set to lower than 6%, the effciency will decrease rapidly. You still can get longer runtime when set to lower than 6%. But the runtime will grow slowly.




I am not sure this is correct for PWM dimming. With PWM, the drive current does not drop below where the LED is efficient only the ratio between on time and off time changes. In PWM, the 5% level is defined as the LED is getting drive current only 5% of the time, pulsed in this case, at over 7kHz. Yes, I know this is an oversimplification, you can play games with drive level and pulse shape in combination with the PWM. But, unless I am missing something I believe the runtime should scale linearly with PWM level. 

I think that this means one could setup a very low low level for the strobe and have a locator beacon that would last for months and make it easy to grab the light in pitch darkness. I might have to check this theory out.

John


----------



## JJohn (Apr 8, 2007)

Just another data point on runtime: I started my LF-2 almost 40 hours ago at a setting a bit brighter than the lowest setting and it is still going. I am getting bored with this test so I will probably end it Sunday morning. To check how the battery is doing, I toggle it to 50% for a minute or so every 10-12 hours. So far it doesn't have any problems going to 50% after all this time at somewhere around 1%. The near 1% level is fine for reading in the dark and navigating around a dark home.


----------



## JJohn (Apr 12, 2007)

Just a little update. My LF-2 had been running non-stop since Friday at noon. To think I was impressed with it going more than 40 hrs. Admittedly the light level is not high. It is okay for reading in a dark room or navigating arond the house or checking on sleeping kids. Still, six days is pretty good. The quick checks at 50% every 12 hours or so are probably the biggest drain of the battery so far.


----------



## kurni (Apr 13, 2007)

I would have been all over it if it's not using PWM.


----------



## HarveyRich (Apr 13, 2007)

> Originally Posted by farscape105: Looks to me like the LOD on 10440's is much brighter than LF2, provided it was on highest level.


 
That's true, but the LOD-CE can burn out on 10440 on high (in theory, if used for too long, although I haven't heard of that happening yet). People use it for a few minutes on high, but it's not recommended by Fenix. However, on medium and low it's OK with 10440. Output at 1 meter on high with *NiMH* appears to be considerably higher than the LF-2 reading here, which was 248 lux. The LOD-CE appears to have about 550-650 lux at 1 meter on high on NiMH and, of course, much more if you throw in a 10440.


----------



## NetKidz (Apr 13, 2007)

kurni said:


> I would have been all over it if it's not using PWM.


 
The output is very stable. It's hardware based PWM, and the frequency is 7.8kHz. If you don't know it use PWM at first, you won't know it when you actually see it. 




HarveyRich said:


> That's true, but the LOD-CE can burn out on 10440 on high (in theory, if used for too long, although I haven't heard of that happening yet). People use it for a few minutes on high, but it's not recommended by Fenix. However, on medium and low it's OK with 10440. Output at 1 meter on high with *NiMH* appears to be considerably higher than the LF-2 reading here, which was 248 lux. The LOD-CE appears to have about 550-650 lux at 1 meter on high on NiMH and, of course, much more if you throw in a 10440.


 
Just a note here. OP-type (textured) and Smooth-type reflectors make BIG difference on throw ability.  

I don't have L0D CE and I won't buy Fenix cree lights. I couldn't test the total output of L0D CE with a lightbox like device for comparision. Sorry for that.


----------



## JJohn (Apr 15, 2007)

Well, at a very low output level, my LF2 ran for over 180 Hours on a L-92 AAA Energizer. Yes, non-stop over 7 days with useful light and that was with frequent short use at 50% output. Even at this lowest level, no PWM is visible. At anything over even 0.5 kHz I don't think it would be possible for a human to detect the PWM. This thing is at 7.8kHz.

And for any doubters the PWM of this light is even better than my HDS U60. If I move my HDS as fast as I can back and forth aimed at a mirror I can barely see the strobe effect. With my LF2 I cannot detect any strobe effect no matter how fast I move it.


----------



## kurni (Apr 15, 2007)

Am I right in saying that at the highest setting there is no PWM?

I assume that you go directly to the highest setting when you turn it on (sorry I'm a bit confused about the UI); ultimately I just want the brightest and when necessary the half bright.

Many thanks,
KK


----------



## LED Cool (Apr 16, 2007)

hello kurni,

the LF2 uses a very high frequency (7.8kHz) for PWM at all levels.

human eyes will not notice any flickering at ANY output levels. that is a guarantee!

khoo


----------



## kurni (Apr 16, 2007)

LED Cool said:


> hello kurni,
> 
> the LF2 uses a very high frequency (7.8kHz) for PWM at all levels.
> 
> ...



True; there is no way I can detect the flicker. This sounds like an ideal EDC for me.

Many thanks,
Kurni


----------



## NetKidz (May 19, 2007)

Just got the SSC P4 version of LF2 this morning.




Here's a quick comparison.

The XR-E is 80mm, and SSC is 77mm:




(Upper is SSC P4 version)

Head shots: (Left is XR-E, right is SSC P4)




The reflector of SSC P4 is shallower and it's about 4.5mm. The XR-E version is deeper, about 8mm.





The OP reflector of XR-E is heavier.









The SSC P4 is put on the anodized head cap and the center hole of reflector is larger.


Beam shot around 20cm: (Left is XR-E, right is SSC P4)
both use NiMH and in P2 position. DC isn't white balanced.

EV -0.9





EV +0.0





EV +0.9






It's a great floody light for short distance use.







==== 6/4 Updated with SSC P4 version ====
It's roughly about 2/3 of Cree version. Maybe a higer Vf? 

*Alkaline battery (Energizer LR03 AAA):*






*NiMH battery (eneloop 800mAh):*





*10440 (360mAh, started from 4.13v):*


----------



## Ice (May 19, 2007)

Interresting, thanks NetKidz!


----------



## 45/70 (May 19, 2007)

NetKidz,

It's always hard for me to tell from a picture, is the central spot similar in intensity between the two, or is the SSC dimmer?

Great review! :thumbsup:

Dave


----------



## NetKidz (May 19, 2007)

Hello Dave,

My eyes aren't sensitive to light intensity. I feel they're near. I'll take lux reading when my light meter is back.

Thanks.


----------



## srvctec (May 19, 2007)

Is there a way to adjust the exposure down a few stops with your digital camera? This always seems to help tremendously when comparing side-by-side white-wall beamshots.

Dang it!! Now I want ANOTHER light!


----------



## NetKidz (May 19, 2007)

Hi srvctec,

My old DC couldn't do manual exposure. EV -1.5 is the max and here's it:





Thanks.


----------



## srvctec (May 19, 2007)

NetKidz,

Thanks for doing that. It sure is hard to tell, but it appears to me that the Cree is ever so slightly brighter in the central spot than the SSC.


----------



## LED Cool (May 20, 2007)

hello netkidz,

very good pictures! as usual, you are quick on your review!

thanks.
khoo


----------



## 45/70 (May 20, 2007)

Thanks for the pic NetKidz.  LED Cool states in another thread that the spot isn't as bright, makes sense as the photons are spread out making the spill beam brighter and larger. I'm seriously contemplating getting a SSC version.

Dave


----------



## cheapo (May 20, 2007)

which do you like better?


----------



## nanotech17 (May 21, 2007)

ordered mine direct to LED Cool,
Probably get it tommorrow 
LED Cool please check your sms


----------



## 45/70 (May 21, 2007)

cheapo said:


> which do you like better?


For a keychain (watch pocket, in my case) light, I prefer a floody beam as you aren't normally trying to spot a rat's a** at 200 yards anyway.  The floodier beams just seem more practical.

Dave


----------



## Ice (May 30, 2007)

@NetKidz:
Great review, thanks! 
However one thing seems somewhat strange to me: Does the LF2 really only run about 1 minute with NiMH batteries and even shorter with alkalines? Your runtime graphs (I reeeally like runtime graphs! ) at least looks that way to me...


----------



## 45/70 (May 30, 2007)

Ice said:


> Does the LF2 really only run about 1 minute with NiMH batteries and even shorter with alkalines?


Try thinking in hours instead of minutes, Ice. 

Dave


----------



## Ice (May 31, 2007)

Uh, well, that indeed does make a difference!!! 
Thanks!


----------



## GoingGear.com (Jun 3, 2007)

I got my Cree version LF2 today and love the little thing. The UI is a little daunting at first, but the default modes are probably all I will use for now. I would like to program in a lower low though.

Has anyone found a pocket clip that fits this thing yet? I don't want to attach it to my keys since I already have enough crap on my keyring.


----------



## 4tuner (Jun 3, 2007)

Great review, thanks!


----------



## sixfellas (Jun 3, 2007)

*Re: LiteFlux LF2 mini review (5/19 updated with SSC P4 sersion)*

Regarding runtime:

Anybody do a comparison of runtime between the Cree and SSC versions?


----------



## 45/70 (Jun 3, 2007)

*Re: LiteFlux LF2 mini review (5/19 updated with SSC P4 sersion)*



sixfellas said:


> Regarding runtime:
> 
> Anybody do a comparison of runtime between the Cree and SSC versions?


They should be identical as the board determines the runtime (fully regulated) not the LED. I don't have both or I'd check it out! 

Dave


----------



## sixfellas (Jun 3, 2007)

*Re: LiteFlux LF2 mini review (5/19 updated with SSC P4 sersion)*



45/70 said:


> They should be identical as the board determines the runtime (fully regulated) not the LED. I don't have both or I'd check it out!
> 
> Dave




Then this thing must be way less efficient that the L0D CE because i'm getting only about 30 minutes of runtime with the LF2 SSC on high from a 800 mha NiMH as opposed to 1 hour on my L0D. In addition, the L0D is noticeable brighter.


----------



## Ice (Jun 3, 2007)

> > Anybody do a comparison of runtime between the Cree and SSC versions?
> 
> 
> They should be identical as the board determines the runtime (fully regulated) not the LED.


 If and only if both LEDs have the same electric resistance I'd say...


----------



## Thujone (Jun 3, 2007)

Ice said:


> If and only if both LEDs have the same electric resistance I'd say...



As a boost circuit you should be right, because the VIN might be higher on one led to reach X ma than on the other. Having to boost to a higher voltage would require a different amount of battery draw to be boosted to the same ma. Make any sense? :laughing:


----------



## NetKidz (Jun 3, 2007)

*Re: LiteFlux LF2 mini review (5/19 updated with SSC P4 sersion)*



sixfellas said:


> Regarding runtime:
> 
> Anybody do a comparison of runtime between the Cree and SSC versions?


 
Just updated it. 

It's roughly about 2/3 of Cree XR-E version.


----------



## 45/70 (Jun 3, 2007)

Ice, you are correct. I would think however that LightFlux would use the same Vf range emitters whether Cree or SSC. I don't know, maybe they don't! :shrug: If they do, since a SSC is really just a Cree in a SSC package, I don't think the resistance would differ enough to matter. In other words, we're not comparing a Luxeon to a Cree. The main component is the same.

@ sixfellas, that is odd. I would expect the LightFlux to be a bit more energy consuming, just because it has a lot more electronic components. Not that much though. Hummm. :thinking:

Edit: Gee, thanks NetKids! I give up!


----------



## sixfellas (Jun 4, 2007)

*Re: LiteFlux LF2 mini review (5/19 updated with SSC P4 sersion)*



NetKidz said:


> Just updated it.
> 
> It's roughly about 2/3 of Cree XR-E version.



Wow, so i'm right on target with mine. SSC is a HOG!


----------



## 45/70 (Jun 4, 2007)

NetKidz, are your lux readings measured at the spot? The SSC is already known to have a dimmer spot than the Cree, but a wider spill beam. How do the two compare in a ceiling bounce test?

Dave


----------



## sixfellas (Jun 4, 2007)

How exactly could this be? from all i have seen the Cree and SSC have similar power requirements / outputs and all. This difference in runtime is really strange.


----------



## Thujone (Jun 4, 2007)

45/70 said:


> NetKidz, are your lux readings measured at the spot? The SSC is already known to have a dimmer spot than the Cree, but a wider spill beam. How do the two compare in a ceiling bounce test?
> 
> Dave




I would like to know the same. Because if this graph is bounce then the SSC version is FAR less efficient... This is concerning. If it is the spot then it is not quite as bad but still not as efficient as the Cree version.


----------



## FulgensLux (Jun 4, 2007)

It is bizarre behavior--my guess is that it is something to do with the SSC LED. Either Liteflux got a batch that were mis-binned (or something of that kind of problem), or they got emitters with a very different Vf? Remember, the CREE version uses a P3 (luminous flux 73.9-80.6), and the SSC P4 U-bins are (91-118.5). This is a minimum (P3 max vs. U min) difference of 12%, an average difference (comparing the min's and max's of each respectively) of 19-32%, and a maximum difference (P3 min vs. U max) of 38%. Even if we assume that this improvement is there and we can't really see it because of the reconfigured beam/hotspot (although that may not even be the case, but it sounds like from the few people who have reported that it's certainly not seeing a bigger gain than that), we're still loosing a significant amount of runtime--with (NIMH) full power, 47%; P2 (which is 50), 47%; P1 (which is 15), 39%. That's not right, something must be wrong. For these numbers to be appropriate, on full power the SSC should be about (or even more than) twice as bright as the CREE version. For people who have both, what idea of the difference can you give us? From the pictures posted by NetKidz, it looked pretty much like a wash to me between the two in overall output.


----------



## sixfellas (Jun 5, 2007)

FulgensLux said:


> It is bizarre behavior--my guess is that it is something to do with the SSC LED. Either Liteflux got a batch that were mis-binned (or something of that kind of problem), or they got emitters with a very different Vf? Remember, the CREE version uses a P3 (luminous flux 73.9-80.6), and the SSC P4 U-bins are (91-118.5). This is a minimum (P3 max vs. U min) difference of 12%, an average difference (comparing the min's and max's of each respectively) of 19-32%, and a maximum difference (P3 min vs. U max) of 38%. Even if we assume that this improvement is there and we can't really see it because of the reconfigured beam/hotspot (although that may not even be the case, but it sounds like from the few people who have reported that it's certainly not seeing a bigger gain than that), we're still loosing a significant amount of runtime--with (NIMH) full power, 47%; P2 (which is 50), 47%; P1 (which is 15), 39%. That's not right, something must be wrong. For these numbers to be appropriate, on full power the SSC should be about (or even more than) twice as bright as the CREE version. For people who have both, what idea of the difference can you give us? From the pictures posted by NetKidz, it looked pretty much like a wash to me between the two in overall output.



Fulgenslux is right, something doesn't make sense, especially with those numbers maybe Khoo or someone closer to liteflux can give us some answers.


----------



## jackcselab (Jun 5, 2007)

NetKidz's runtime plot is only lux reading at 40cm. It is nothing about overall output or lumens. SSC P4 version LF2 has wider spot and spill beam than CREE XR-E version. According to Liteflux's author saying, CREE XR-E should has much more throw than SSC P4 version at the same lumens output.

Besides the beam style is different between CREE XR-E and SSC P4 version, another thing should be taken notice. NetKidz's CREE XR-E LF2 is a special case that has much longer runtime than normal CREE XR-E LF2. When NetKidz posted the runtime plot at first time, I already noticed something strange. NetKidz's CREE XR-E LF2 got 65 min. runtime at 100% output with eneloop battery. But mine only got 40 min. runtime with the same battery. This is a hugh different.

Several days after, I get another CREE LF2. I tested the second CREE LF2 and got 53 min. runtime.(another hugn different!!! ) I also noticed that the second LF2 has lower lux reading than first LF2.(about 10% lower)

It seems CREE LF2s has much variation in runtime. I asked others for their LF2 runtime. It seems that Netkidz's LF2 and my first LF2 are both special case. Runtime of NetKidz's LF2 is too long and my first LF2 is too short. My second LF2 is much more normal.

When NetKidz post runtime plot of SSC P4 version, I noticed another strange thing. NetKidz's CREE LF2 and SSC P4 LF2 has almost the same lux reading. It mean his CREE LF2 should have much lower lumen output than his SSC P4 LF2. Maybe this is why his CREE LF2 has such long runtime.

I also buy a SSC P4 LF2, so I examine mine. My first CREE LF2 has already returned to author, so I comare my second CREE LF2(the nomal one) to SSC P4 version. 


100% lux reading at 1m: 285(CREE LF2) / 235(SSC P4 LF2)

runtime: 53min.(CREE LF2) / 40min.(SSC P4 LF2)

I don't has a lightbox, so I can't measure the relative overall output. But I use another rough method to measure.


overall output: 1.9(CREE LF2) / 2.7(SSC P4 LF2)
(roughly)

It seems the SSS P4 LF2 has much higher overall output.
(Again, this is a very rough method, so the reading should has some deviation relative to real overall output)

I also ask others for their SSc P4 LF2's runtime. It seems all about 40 min. with eneloop battery. So I guess maybe the manufacturing process has been improved. SSC P4 version has higher overall output and less runtime variation than early manufactured CREE version. Maybe later manufactured CREE LF2 also has the same character as SSC P4 version. 

All I post here are just guess. I don't have accurate equipment and many LF2s to prove my guess. If someone can prove or disprove this, It will be very appreciated.


----------



## sixfellas (Jun 5, 2007)

jackcselab said:


> 100% lux reading at 1m: 285(CREE LF2) / 235(SSC P4 LF2)
> 
> runtime: 53min.(SSC P4 LF2) / 40min.(SSC P4 LF2)
> 
> ...



i assume the first time you say SSC P4 in these examples you are actually referring to the CREE?

anyway, great info. thanks a bunch.


----------



## jackcselab (Jun 5, 2007)

sixfellas said:


> i assume the first time you say SSC P4 in these examples you are actually referring to the CREE?
> 
> anyway, great info. thanks a bunch.



Yes, I make a copy/paste mistake. Thank you for correct me


----------



## regulator (Jun 5, 2007)

Thanks Jackcselab,

You make some very good observations and may explain the shorter runtime with Soul. One would have to adjust the output of the Soul to near what the Cree model is putting out (overall Lumens) to make a true comaprison. Maybe if this is done the runtime would look better for the Soul version. Maybe nothing to worry about.


----------



## FulgensLux (Jun 5, 2007)

Thanks for weighing in Jackcselab,
I think you have mentioned several interesting things--the most interesting being the runtime performance of the CREE version--I think we all assumed that runtime would be about the same for NedKidz's flashlight as for the others. Does anyone else with a CREE want to test their runtime and see?

As to your test, can I ask how you roughly ascertained the overall output numbers between the two? As I said before, from NetKidz's picture, the two versions looked pretty even in terms of overall output (or at most just the gain one would expect from the SSC led), and you think that his CREE version is particularly dim too. It seems like there could be some variation in these lights...

Finally, with the runtime numbers you provided, the SSC version has 75% of the runtime, so it should be ~33% brighter (I think I'm right with that calculation...). Your rough overall output numbers indicate that the SSC version is 40% brighter--so that is pretty much where it should be, although the gain from the U-bin SSC is less than anticipated. Perhaps the only problem is an inconsistency in the lights and not enough people giving runtime/brightness figures.:shrug:


----------



## jackcselab (Jun 5, 2007)

FulgensLux said:


> Thanks for weighing in Jackcselab,
> 
> As to your test, can I ask how you roughly ascertained the overall output numbers between the two? As I said before, from NetKidz's picture, the two versions looked pretty even in terms of overall output (or at most just the gain one would expect from the SSC led), and you think that his CREE version is particularly dim too. It seems like there could be some variation in these lights...



My method for overall output measurement is using whole room for a lightbox. This method is so roughly because size of room is far too big for a suitable lightbox. So I can't assure the accuracy of measured result.

PS: Maybe we should encourage chevrofreak to do a runtime plot for LF2. Then we will know what the truth is......:devil:


----------



## 45/70 (Jun 6, 2007)

jackcselab said:


> PS: Maybe we should encourage chevrofreak to do a runtime plot for LF2. Then we will know what the truth is......:devil:


While I think it'd be great if chevro did a runtime test also, NetKidz did an excellent job. :thumbsup: I'm not too sure it would really mean anything. If there is a wide range of Vf bins being installed, the result could very well be the opposite.

@ NetKidz, Did you take readings for the SSC @ 1 meter like you show in the first post for the Cree? Just curious.

What ever we find here, I have to say I'm liking my SSC version very much.  A nice wide, bright spill and no Cree rings or artifacts.

Dave


----------



## NetKidz (Jun 7, 2007)

Thanke for jackcselab for clearing up something.  I'm busy on work those days and just skim through the posts.

Will do some more test (Lux readings and others) when I finished my work (weekend?). I only have SSC P4 LF2 at hand now, my XR-E LF2 in the passaround haven't be back. Will re-test XR-E when it's back.

From LiteFlux, the driving current of newer XR-E LF2 and SSC P4 are higher than the old version XR-E LF2 (Mine and jackcselab's). I don't know much the current was, but 900mAh battery is around 40min for 100% output.

Thanks.


----------



## 45/70 (Jun 7, 2007)

NetKidz said:


> From LiteFlux, the driving current of newer XR-E LF2 and SSC P4 are higher than the old version XR-E LF2 (Mine and jackcselab's). I don't know much the current was, but 900mAh battery is around 40min for 100% output.


Humm, well having different drive levels between lights, would throw results off a bit.! I have a dozen or so NiMH AAA's but the newest four are about a year old. I don't think any runtime tests I do will have any real meaning, sorry. I wish my 10440's would get here but that's another story. 

Thanks for all the info and keep it coming guys! :thumbsup:

Dave


----------



## FulgensLux (Jun 10, 2007)

Thank you NetKidz for the information. So, Liteflux has bumped up the current (as I thought they should, after all isn't the point of programmable light levels to have a wide variety of brightness/runtime options?), but no one mentioned that until now...

I do have a couple of lingering questions:

The 40mins runtime you sighted, is that meant to apply to both the newer Cree and the SSC versions? In other words, if I was to buy either now I should expect them to have about the same runtime.

What is the overall output of the newer Cree version compared to the SSC version--the picture of both Cree and SSC together (where they looked about equal), was that with the newer Cree version or the older Cree version? After all, shouldn't the SSC version be brighter than even the newer Cree version if the currents (runtimes) have been equalized.

It seems like we're almost there to solving this completely...


----------



## 45/70 (Jun 10, 2007)

FulgensLux said:


> What is the overall output of the newer Cree version compared to the SSC version--the picture of both Cree and SSC together (where they looked about equal), was that with the newer Cree version or the older Cree version? After all, shouldn't the SSC version be brighter than even the newer Cree version if the currents (runtimes) have been equalized.


I'm curious as well. I might understand the SSC not having as much throw as the Cree, with such a small reflector. Their package designs permit the cree to throw forward more than the SSC. However I would expect the SSC U bin to have more overall output.

Dave


----------



## LED Cool (Jun 12, 2007)

ok. guys, time to clear up the runtime issue.

i did my own runtime test on 3 pcs of brand new LF2 CREE from different batch of delivery from LiteFlux. these 3 had a tint towards the yellowish side (warm white?) so i kept them aside waiting to exchange them for a better tint at a later date.

the test was done using 3pcs of brand new (2 weeks) Sanyo 1000mAh NMH batteries. battery voltage measured are 1.36V & 1.42V respectively. 
the first 2 times i did the test with batteries which have been rested for one day, hence the 1.36V. another 2 times i did it with batteries fresh off the charger, hence 1.42V.

the test was done at 100% output. also i did not dedicated one particular battery to each LF2 CREE test sample. meaning battery A could have been used in any of the test samples.

a total of 4 runtime test were done and with each test i got 3 different results. i did not use a Lux meter to measure the hotspot/spill brightness.

LF2 CREE A 43mins, 44mins, 45mins, 46mins
LF2 CREE B 63mins, 61mins, 66mins, 65mins
LF2 CREE C 85mins, 87mins, 90mins, 91mins

i am surprised by the runtime results as there are huge differences between them :thinking:. i called LiteFlux in Taiwan and we had a lengthy discussion.

LiteFlux explanation is that there are many reasons and factors that contributed to my runtime test rusults.

1. as some of us may know, CREE do not sort their LED by the Vf. 
so when LiteFlux bought the batch of CREE LED, they can only choose 
the bin (P3, which is the highest available at that time) and tint 
(which is also inconsistent, judging from the various tint that i got). 
LiteFlux claimed they got a wide range of tint and Vf in the same reel. 
(3.1V - 3.6V). so they had to sort out the low Vf from the high Vf and 
use/keep the low Vf for their first production batch. 
the sorting scale was in increment of 0.05V.

2. the LED driver/MCU circuit board is designed and manufactured in house 
by LiteFlux themselves. therefore they have control over the amount of 
current going into the CREE LED. Initially, they took into account of the
current discharge capacity of AAA battery and decided on the current
supplied to the CREE LED by the driver. 
this current range from 250ma - 290ma in order to match the Vf of the 
LED. higher Vf gets higher current. lower Vf gets lower current.
(if i recall correctly, the kind of matching will yield similar output
regardless of Vf?)

3. before the LF2 CREE was launched. there was a pre-sale held within
Taiwan. so netkidz probably got VERY lucky and got one LF2 CREE with a
very low Vf and current. hence the ultra long runtime plot. note it is 
inpractical for LiteFlux to keep track and label the Vf of each LF2.
(i also got lucky as i have a test sample here with ultra long runtime )

4. after the launching of LF2 CREE, users feedback was that the LF2 was
not bright enough at 100%. so LiteFlux easily up the LED current to 
280ma - 320ma as LF2 CREE comes off the production line. that explains
my 2nd shorter runtime results.

5. before launching the LF2 SSC P4, i had weekly discussion with LiteFlux. 
updates, differences between the 2 version etc. one of the most talked 
about subject was brightness. i always requested for higher output at
100% and runtme be damn. if the user wanted a longer runtime just use
the 50% or lower output. simple as that. 
LiteFlux knows they can feed more current to both LED, but has to
take into account the alkaline/NIMH battery discharge capability,
internal resistance and battery voltage dropped under high load.

For example, 
one can feed 500ma to the LED, (Vf 3.35V, assuming efficiency is 70%, 
battery current draw will be 2A, at the AAA battery limit and damaging) 
but the battery voltage under load will drop quickly and trigger the
overdischarge protection too early resulting an inpractical very short 
runtime on 100%. the light shuts down but there are still quite a lot of
energy left inside the battery.

To stike a balance, LiteFlux has decided, for both version LED, the max 
LED current be 330ma - 350ma. and they have also refine the Vf sorting 
scale to 0.01V! the CREE uses XRE P3 LED and the SSC P4 uses USXOIW 
SEOUL LED. I bin Vf is 3.25V - 3.50V. 
that means LiteFlux adjust/match the LED current to each individual
CREE and SSC P4 LED during assembly! WOW! 

6. as of 1st June, all version of LF2 will have the 330ma - 350ma LED
current. the tint in CREE will still be variable (warm white to cool 
white) but the SSC P4 will be consistent.

i hope this helps clear up any confusion about the LF2 runtime issue.
for those who are on the fence/hesitated on this LF2 CPF special promotion, i hope this will help you make a well informed decision.

thank you. 
khoo


----------



## nanotech17 (Jun 12, 2007)

Wow why some people very critical with runtimes? Knowing that they are not living in a jungle  
Get more batteries,your local store or online store seems to provide good or relatively low prices compare to some countries 
On rechargeable do we really still need to use the cell when the output drop to 50%?Is it bright enough?
I recharge my cell if the output is drop slightly to my naked eye 
If one need to travel ,just bring along a dozen of nimh - problem solved 
If one really critical about runtime try that Nuwai ALX 352-AL than you know what is runtime is all about. 

my 2 cents :shakehead


----------



## wasBlinded (Jun 15, 2007)

*Re: LiteFlux LF2 mini review (5/19 updated with SSC P4 sersion)*



sixfellas said:


> Then this thing must be way less efficient that the L0D CE because i'm getting only about 30 minutes of runtime with the LF2 SSC on high from a 800 mha NiMH as opposed to 1 hour on my L0D. In addition, the L0D is noticeable brighter.


 
The higher PWM frequency of the LF2 (7600 Hz) compared to the LOD (320 Hz) probably results in a much lower circuit efficiency than the LOD. PWM frequency vs. circuit efficiency is a known design trade-off.


----------



## Grubbster (Jun 15, 2007)

*Re: LiteFlux LF2 mini review (5/19 updated with SSC P4 sersion)*



wasBlinded said:


> The higher PWM frequency of the LF2 (7600 Hz) compared to the LOD (320 Hz) probably results in a much lower circuit efficiency than the LOD. PWM frequency vs. circuit efficiency is a known design trade-off.


Higher PWM frequency is definitely a trade-off I am willing to accept!


----------



## Thujone (Jun 15, 2007)

*Re: LiteFlux LF2 mini review (5/19 updated with SSC P4 sersion)*

I believe it is 7800 Hz just for the record


----------



## Ice (Jun 16, 2007)

And the LOD-CEs I have are far from 320Hz, it looks more like 100Hz (or even lower), which corresponds to what I have read here in the forum somewhere, too.


----------



## wasBlinded (Jun 19, 2007)

Ice said:


> And the LOD-CEs I have are far from 320Hz, it looks more like 100Hz (or even lower), which corresponds to what I have read here in the forum somewhere, too.


 
You're right. I was thinking of the HDS EDC on low, which is around 300 Hz. Even this frequency is noticable with rapid motion of the light.


----------



## JJohn (Jun 19, 2007)

*Re: LiteFlux LF2 mini review (5/19 updated with SSC P4 sersion)*



wasBlinded said:


> The higher PWM frequency of the LF2 (7600 Hz) compared to the LOD (320 Hz) probably results in a much lower circuit efficiency than the LOD. PWM frequency vs. circuit efficiency is a known design trade-off.



You have to ask yourself then - Why would LiteFlux go so high with their PWM? They could have chosen 500 Hz and noone would be able to detect it. Why go to over 7.7kHz? Even 1kHz (1000 Hz) would make more sense. I really would like the answer as it is clear the engineers at LiuteFlux are highly competent. Perhaps the efficiency hit is insignificant. 

Can anyone answer this question?

John

By the way, without actually measuring output versus time, I don't see any real difference in efficiency between the Fenix and the LF2. Has someone done that test too?


----------



## Thujone (Jun 19, 2007)

*Re: LiteFlux LF2 mini review (5/19 updated with SSC P4 sersion)*



JJohn said:


> You have to ask yourself then - Why would LiteFlux go so high with their PWM? They could have chosen 500 Hz and noone would be able to detect it. Why go to over 7.7kHz? Even 1kHz (1000 Hz) would make more sense. I really would like the answer as it is clear the engineers at LiuteFlux are highly competent. Perhaps the efficiency hit is insignificant.
> 
> Can anyone answer this question?
> 
> ...



My best guess is that the chips natural clock is 7.8khz so they matched it. Perhaps there was simply no penalty due to the fact the chip would be using the same power or even less by doing so.


----------



## jackcselab (Jun 20, 2007)

*Re: LiteFlux LF2 mini review (5/19 updated with SSC P4 sersion)*



JJohn said:


> You have to ask yourself then - Why would LiteFlux go so high with their PWM? They could have chosen 500 Hz and noone would be able to detect it. Why go to over 7.7kHz? Even 1kHz (1000 Hz) would make more sense. I really would like the answer as it is clear the engineers at LiuteFlux are highly competent. Perhaps the efficiency hit is insignificant.



The desinger of LF2 has answered this at a Taiwan's Forum. The efficiency impact of high PWM frequency is insignificant. It is only about several %.

LF2's MCU has hardware PWM built-in so its PWM frquency is much higher than others that use software-simulated PWM. why frquency is so high? The designer doesn't mention. maybe hardware only provide such high frquency..:laughing:


----------



## LED Cool (Jun 20, 2007)

*Re: LiteFlux LF2 mini review (5/19 updated with SSC P4 sersion)*



JJohn said:


> You have to ask yourself then - Why would LiteFlux go so high with their PWM? They could have chosen 500 Hz and noone would be able to detect it. Why go to over 7.7kHz? Even 1kHz (1000 Hz) would make more sense. I really would like the answer as it is clear the engineers at LiuteFlux are highly competent. Perhaps the efficiency hit is insignificant.
> 
> Can anyone answer this question?
> 
> ...



GOOD POINT! John! let me check.:thinking: but i think jackcselab may be right.

hmm... i wonder why everyone is coming out with higher and higher frequency for their PWM lights IF higher frequency PWM can cause more inefficiency in the driver circuit. perhaps the compromise is insignificant as john said? 

khoo


----------



## Ice (Jun 20, 2007)

Well, we've heared a lot of good news and reviews about the LF2, there's just one thing missing:
We need a few nice promotion pictures of the LF2! 
Something sleek looking or even with artistical merit... :naughty:
And in high resolution of course, not those usual small and simple pictures.
Unfortunately I have neither a good camera nor any talent in that regard...


----------



## Thujone (Jun 20, 2007)

Ice said:


> Well, we've heared a lot of good news and reviews about the LF2, there's just one thing missing:
> We need a few nice promotion pictures of the LF2!
> Something sleek looking or even with artistical merit... :naughty:
> And in high resolution of course, not those usual small and simple pictures.
> Unfortunately I have neither a good camera nor any talent in that regard...




Perhaps I will take a few pics tonight... 

Update: I didn't have a ton of time but here are a few.


----------



## Thujone (Jun 20, 2007)

*Bump for Pics*


----------



## LED Cool (Jun 21, 2007)

thujone, keep it coming!:twothumbs

i see you are not using the brass colour keyring that i included in the box.

if you decided to, please install the keyring through both the small hole and the elongated hole. that way, your LF2 can tail stand steadily.

thanks.
khoo


----------



## Thujone (Jun 21, 2007)

LED Cool said:


> thujone, keep it coming!:twothumbs
> 
> i see you are not using the brass colour keyring that i included in the box.
> 
> ...



I click it to my keyring using this clip from berkley point. It fits perfect into the elongated hole, next to zero risk of it ever coming out while in pocket.







 I will try to get another shoot in when my other 2 arrive


----------



## Ice (Jun 21, 2007)

Thanks for the photos! :twothumbs
Maybe I'll try to do some more after all... 

One more thing:
Yesterday I bought a photo diode and since I happen to have an oszilloscope I had a look at the PWR frequencies of the LF2 and its arch rival the L0D-CE.
The L0D had a frequency of about 100Hz, so I can confirm what has been written here in the forum before.
And the LF2 showed about 8300Hz, so no surprise here, too.
Well, looking at the different flashlights was fun and surprisingly the oszilloscope showed quite different pictures for the two flashlights...  
The L0D is just going on and off while the LF2 showed a much smoother curve... 
Well, that sure is not very interresting but anyway...


----------



## Thujone (Jun 21, 2007)

Ice said:


> Well, looking at the different flashlights was fun and surprisingly the oszilloscope showed quite different pictures for the two flashlights...
> The L0D is just going on and off while the LF2 showed a much smoother curve...
> Well, that sure is not very interresting but anyway...



The LF2 is simply 'going on and off' as well. The problem if that due to the high cycle rate you are actually seeing the voltage trail off of your photo diode. It takes time albeit a small amount in order to charge and discharge that diode. Because you are zoomed in so close you will actually see the curve of that happening. Hope that makes sense I haven't had any tea yet...


----------



## Ice (Jun 21, 2007)

Yeah, that absolutely makes sense!
I knew that those high frequencies could be a problem so I asked specifically for a fast photo diode when I bought it. But after that I seem to have repressed that problem completely... 

P.S.:
Thujone, you could safe a lot of space if you used the decimal systerm in your signature! :wave:


----------



## Thujone (Jun 21, 2007)

Ice said:


> Thujone, you could safe a lot of space if you used the decimal systerm in your signature! :wave:



I'd use hex but binary has some meaning to me. It represents a lack of middle ground, a higher commitment, never being wishy washy. Things are either right or wrong, 1 or 0. There are only 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't. :nana:


----------



## Ice (Jun 21, 2007)

I took a few pictures, too.
(Surprisingly my camera was not as bad with macro settings as I thought... )
Both are about 0.5MB (I hope that's not too large).













P.S.:


> There are only 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.


 Good one!!!!!


----------



## barkingmad (Jun 25, 2007)

If you want PM me your email address and I will email over optimised versions (about 1/10th the file size)... :naughty:


----------



## Ice (Jun 25, 2007)

> If you want PM me your email address and I will email over optimised versions (about 1/10th the file size)...


 Thanks for the offer, but I could make them smaller, I just wanted to loose as little detail as possible, for your viewing pleasure! :candle: 
Actually I used a compression ratio somewhere in the middle allready, but since both pictures show quite a lot of detail and few single-colored areas it didn't help a lot. 

Edit:
I've seen some other forums where only small previews were posted as links to the "real deal", but I have never seen that here, so I thought that's not possible here... :thinking:


----------



## barkingmad (Jun 25, 2007)

Ice said:


> Thanks for the offer, but I could make them smaller, I just wanted to loose as little detail as possible, for your viewing pleasure! :candle:
> Actually I used a compression ratio somewhere in the middle allready, but since both pictures show quite a lot of detail and few single-colored areas it didn't help a lot.
> 
> Edit:
> I've seen some other forums where only small previews were posted as links to the "real deal", but I have never seen that here, so I thought that's not possible here... :thinking:


 
Nearly a meg for 2 images is bit OTT for viewing online - feel sorry for anyone on modem or slow connection (or paying for their usage)... :mecry:


----------



## NetKidz (Jul 2, 2007)

Busy on working and too lazy to do anything when back to home everyday. :mecry:

Here's the long waiting Lux reading @1m of SSC P4 LF2. Updated on the first post and here's the copy:


NiMH:100%: 256
P2: 140
P1: 41
0.2%: 2​
10440:100%: 565
P2: 270
P1: 66
0.2%: 2​ 
I got the Q2-WG XR-E from Nitroz and installed on new version LF2. The 100% output runtime is about 40min using eneloop 800mAh battery. (same with SSC P4 version)

Here's the lux reading of Q2 LF2 at 1m:
NiMH:
100%: 329
P2: 179
P1: 50
0.2%: 2​10440:
100%: 709
P2: 343
P1: 77
0.2%: 3​It's indeed brighter but not WOW bright.  I think I'll sell it and wait for the R2 bin. 

I also get the JET-u and will post the comparison tomorrow.


----------



## barkingmad (Jul 2, 2007)

Is it only brighter as it has a tighter spot compared to the SSC version?


----------



## NetKidz (Jul 2, 2007)

Brighter than stock XR-E LF2. The beam pattern is the same.


----------



## jackcselab (Jul 3, 2007)

I think that barkingmad was talking about beam pattern comparison between XR-E LF2 and SSC P4 LF2, not Q2 XR-E LF2 and stock XR-E P4 LF2. Netkidz seems give wrong answer.


----------



## NetKidz (Jul 3, 2007)

jackcselab said:


> I think that barkingmad was talking about beam pattern comparison between XR-E LF2 and SSC P4 LF2, not Q2 XR-E LF2 and stock XR-E P4 LF2. Netkidz seems give wrong answer.


 
Oops. My bad. 

The driving current of SSC P4 LF2 is slightly higher than my earily batch Cree LF2, but it's the same with current batch Cree LF2. The lux reading of hotspot is near for my LF2s. (The SSC P4 version should be dimmer compared to the current batch Cree version.)

The Cree LF2 has a tighter hotspot and SSC P4 LF2 is floody with looser hotspot. I think SSC P4 version is very good at short distance working.


----------



## NetKidz (Jul 3, 2007)

Since x2x3x2 and ernsanada already done great reviews of JETBeam JET-u:
https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/167457
https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/167681

I'll just take two photos of JET-u and LF2 for comparison:






(Top to bottom: SSC P4 LF2, JET-u, Cree LF2)






(Left to right: SSC P4 LF2, JET-u, Cree LF2)



Beam shot at 20cm to wall (Medium for JET-u, P2 for LF2, NIMH battery):





(Left: SSC P4 LF2, Right: JET-u, E.V. +0.0)





(Left: SSC P4 LF2, Right: JET-u, E.V. -1.5)







(Left: Cree LF2, Right: JET-u, E.V. +0.0)





(Left: Cree LF2, Right: JET-u, E.V. -1.5)



JET-u is shorter and smaller than both version LF2. The tube knurling of JET-u makes it better for grip. But the output isn't good for JET-u. JET-u is more floody than SSC P4 LF2.

JET-u will heat up quicker than LF2, and I think that's the problem and I won't use 10440 with JET-u. :green:

Here's the lux reading @1m of JET-u for comparison:
NiMH: 15/38/92 (Low/Medium/High)
10440: 31/102/232 (Low/Medium/High)

JET-u and LF2 both listed as US$55 shipped, but LF2 has a promotional price of US$45 now.  If you're not addicted to natural finish, I'll say "Go with LF2!" :naughty:

PS. As I know, LiteFlux won't make natural finish lights in the near future. (The color control isn't stable now)


----------



## gunga (Jul 3, 2007)

Perhaps we need to bring these numbers up with jetbeam. I expected them to be a bit lower, but not that much...

Is it because the beam is more floody?


----------



## NetKidz (Jul 3, 2007)

Hi gunga,

Do you get your JET-u yet?

I'm also curious about what's the problem. The more floody beam may be one of the cause.

BTW, I'll try to take the lux reading in a small box when I'm back from work today.


----------



## 2xTrinity (Jul 4, 2007)

I'm quite surprised but for a very long time, I didn't even realize that this light even existed until recently. After using a L0D-CE with 10440 for a while, I thought to myself "I wish someone designed a light to run on 10440 that ran at 600mA max, with built in voltage protection, and a high PWM frequency". I ordered the LF2 within minutes of finding out about it.

IMO the interface is great -- 99% of the time I use the light in practice (read: not showing off) I want either a very low low, or as much light as I can get, with no nonsense. Now that I have the light programmed, I can get just that with the two-stage twisty. The low voltage protection is also a very important feature, though I never overdischarged any cells on my L0D-CE, I had to be very conscious of what I was doing. The warning blinks give me more peace of mind. I also love the little voltmeter feature. 

Lastly, and certainly not least, I ended up drawing a winner in terms of color/tint, it's one of my best LEDs.


----------



## LED Cool (Jul 4, 2007)

Hello 2xTrinity,

glad you have received both version of the LF2. how long did it take to reached you? 5 days?

since you have programmed your LF2 to have a low low at P1 and 100% at P2, making it a customized 2 level output EDC light, may i suggest you use the user adjustable mode (50%) making your LF2 a customized 3 level output EDC light. 

enjoy your LF2s!

khoo


----------



## LED Cool (Jul 4, 2007)

Hello NetKidz,

thank you for the comparison between JET-u and LF2. do you have a Fenix LOD CE to do a similar comparison as well?

regards,
khoo


----------



## 2xTrinity (Jul 4, 2007)

LED Cool said:


> Hello 2xTrinity,
> 
> glad you have received both version of the LF2. how long did it take to reached you? 5 days?
> 
> ...


Yep, it took 5 business days from the time I received the notice. I received both in good working order. The Seoul one is quite good as well, but the Cree is the one I will carry regularly as I like the greater throw, and I lucked out with very good tint on the emitter. In the next few days I will post a comparison review between these two, the L0D-CE, and a "standard" flashlight like a Maglite. 

As for using user adjustable mode as a quick and easy "medium" level, that is a great idea. For most instances, I either want max or min brightness, but there are times where a balance of high output and long runtime are needed, so having the 50% output level is perfect.


----------



## europium (Jul 7, 2007)

LED Cool said:


> ...
> 
> since you have programmed your LF2 to have a low low at P1 and 100% at P2, making it a customized 2 level output EDC light, may *i suggest you use the user adjustable mode (50%) making your LF2 a customized 3 level output EDC light.*
> 
> ...


Has the problem of this "forgetful" mode been solved? In another thread, 

here: https://www.candlepowerforums.com/posts/2005349#post2005349 

a user mentioned that with the LF2 _*"the user adjustable mode setting I program in is lost when it's turned off."*_ Is this still the case, or can this mode now be programmed to something like, say, 25%, and this level of 25% will be selected again when switching to the user adjustable mode even after the light has been turned off?

Eu

EDIT: In yet a different thread, 

here: http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1931100#post1931100

you yourself mention:


LED Cool said:


> my understanding is that the initial brightness is default 50% everytime user adjustable mode is turn on. you can increase it (turn to P2) to 100% (indicated by a flash after 8 seconds) and save it (turn back to P1). your LF2 will remember this 100% setting as long as the light is on. your LF2 will also remember this 100% setting even if you changed to other operating modes (eg. strobe or SOS) or access the extra functions (eg. SW x 5 battery voltage indicator).
> 
> * once your LF2 is turn off or a battery change is performed, the 100% brightness is no longer remembered. enter the user adjustable mode again and the initial brightness is back to default 50%....*


----------



## LED Cool (Jul 7, 2007)

Hello europium,

my suggestion to 2xtrinity is to use the default output (50%) of user adjustable mode without increasing or decreasing the default.

there was no problems with user adjustable mode of LF2. it worked as i described. 

LiteFlux opinion is that when the user adjustable (UA) mode is accessed, the user could select a higher or lower output based on the task at hand. usually the nature of the task changes everytime, so does the required brightness. therefore the selected level in UA mode is not save when the light is switch off. it is a design feature. however, i have to agreed that this feature may not suit every user requirement, judging from some of the feedback and suggestions.

regards,
khoo


----------



## streetshot (Jan 30, 2009)

Not sure if you are still reading posts to this thread but...I have been looking at the Berkeley Point clips for a while but had no visual reference for their size(s). It appears in the photo post of your keyring with the LiteFlux LF2 that you are using several sizes...but I am most interested in the clip size you are using for the LiteFlux. Berkeley gives the clips names like Nano and so on. Grateful for your help!

Michael


----------



## Beacon of Light (Apr 1, 2009)

Since this thread is not closed I will bump this also for info on these Berkely keyrings and also purchase of one opf these $45 LF2 lights.


----------

