# Thrunite Neutron Series (XM-L) 1C, 2C, 1A, 2A Review: RUNTIMES, BEAMSHOTS and more!



## selfbuilt

*Warning: This round-up review of the Neutron family is a LOT more pic heavy than usual. :sweat:*

Following in the style of my other series round-up reviews threads, this review will look at all members of the Thrunite Neutron family of lights - 1C (1xR/CR123A), 2C (2xR/CR123A), 1A (1xAA), and 2A (2xAA). 

_For the sake of clarity, I will only use representative body pics (mainly from the 2C) for the general overview discussion below. _ More specific pics (including beamshots) will be included with the individual light runtime graphs and summary tables.











*Common Manufacturer Specifications:*

LED Emitter: Premium Cree XM-L T6
OP reflector
Stainless steel bezel
5 current-regulated output levels (_Reviewer’s note: the Neutrons are actually PWM-regulated_)
2 flash modes: Strobe, SOS
Reverse-click switch
Square threads for a lifetime of smooth operation
Type-III Hard Anodized finish
Sapphire coated lens
IPX-8 Waterproofing
T-6061 Aircraft-grade aluminum body
Capable of standing up securely on a flat surface to use in "candle mode"
Two modes (7 types) of output selected by turning the bezel:
*Neutron 1C Specs:*

Dimensions: Length: 3.5 in (88.9 mm), Diameter: 0.87 in (22.1 mm), Weight: 1.69 oz (45 g) (without battery)
General Mode: 0.09lumens (100hrs) 9 lumens (33hrs) -> 50 lumens (6hrs) -> 120lumens (2.1hrs) -> SOS
Turbo Mode: 255 Lumens -> Strobe 
MSRP ~$60
*Neutron 2C Specs:*

Dimensions: Length: 4.9 in (124.46 mm), Diameter: 0.87 in (22.1 mm), Weight: 2.65 oz (75 g) (without battery)
 General Mode: 0.1 lumens (325hrs) -> 9 lumens (65hrs) -> 65 lumens (9hrs) -> 120lumens (4hrs) -> SOS
Turbo Mode: 330 lumens (1.5hrs) -> Strobe
MSRP ~$70
*Neutron 1A Specs:*

Dimensions: Length: 4.1 in (104.14 mm), Diameter: 0.87 in (22.1 mm), Weight: 2.12 oz (60g) (without battery) 
General Mode: 0.09lumens (100hrs) 9 lumens (34hrs) -> 50 lumens (6hrs) -> 105 lumens (2.2hrs) -> SOS
Turbo Mode: 145 Lumens -> Strobe
MSRP ~$60
*Neutron 2A Specs:*

Dimensions: Length: 6 in (152.4 mm), Diameter: 0.87 in (22.1 mm), Weight: 2.65 oz (75g) (without battery)
General Mode: 0.1lumens-> (260hrs) 9 lumens (33hrs) -> 50 lumens (6hrs) -> 120 lumens (2.1hrs) -> SOS
 Turbo Mode: 255 Lumens -> Strobe
MSRP ~$65














Packaging is fairly typical for these sorts of lights (i.e. simple cardboard box with molded plastic insert). Inside you will find the light, manual, wrist lanyard, spare o-rings and elastic belt holster.

All dimensions given with no batteries installed:

*Neutron 1C*: Weight: 45.2g, Length: 91.5mm, Width (bezel/tail) 22.0mm
*Neutron 2C*: Weight: 57.6g, Length: 123.8mm, Width (bezel/tail) 22.0mm
*Neutron 1A*: Weight: 60.4g, Length: 156mm, Width (bezel/tail) 22.0mm
*Neutron 2A*: Weight: 76.4g, Length: 250mm, Width (bezel/tail) 22.0mm

Scroll down to the individual light reviews for comparison pics to other lights.






















The Neutron series build is pretty much what you would expect for this sort of family of lights. The components are generally interchangeable among the family (i.e. common threading and diameters for the heads/tails). 

On the whole, they look the most like the 4Sevens Quark lights, but there are some similarities to the Fenix and Olight lights as well. The most distinctive aspect is probably the consistency along their lengths - the Neutrons are among the most cylindrical (i.e. cigar-shaped) of all the lights I’ve tested (e.g. bezel and tail diameters are identical, and the body tube is only slightly thinner).

Black anodizing (type III = HA) is matte-finish, and lettering is bright white and clear on the black background. Knurling is generous and reasonably aggressive (more aggressive than most). :thumbsup:

Tail threads are anodized at body the battery tube and tailcap regions, allowing for lock-out. The lights can tailstand, but there was a bit a wobble on one of my samples. Note the switches are all reverse-clickies.

All lights except the 1C come with a removable forward-facing pocket clip (with a ring cover over the attachment point). Note the clip is not reversible. And although the heads and tails could be reversed on the body tube (i.e. common threading), the anodized tailcap threads would prevent you from using most of the modes if you tried this.





There's nothing wrong with the emitter above - that's just a shadow from the camera angle.






The Neutron family comes with the latest high-output Cree emitter, the XM-L. Reflector is common to all models, and is fairly deep and MOP-textured. Emitters were all well centered on my samples.

Due to the larger size die of the emitter, I would expect these lights to be somewhat floody - but with a narrower spillbeam width due to the deep reflectors. Scroll down to my individual reviews for beamshot comparisons to other lights of their respective classes.

*User Interface*

The UI will feel familiar to users of the regular 4Sevens Quark or Fenix LDx0/PDx0 series lights.

Turn on/off by fully pressing the reverse clicky switch (i.e. click needed to turn on). 

With the head slightly loosened, you get one of five possible modes. Soft-press the switch to advance through Firefly, Lo, Med, Hi, and SOS, in repeating sequence. The light has mode memory, and retains the last setting used when you come back into the head loosened state. 

With the bezel fully tightened, you get Turbo. Soft-press to advance to rapid Strobe (soft-press again or turn off to get back to Turbo). There is no memory for the head-tightened mode – you always get Turbo on activation with the head tightened.

*PWM/Strobe*

Despite the claimed current-control in the specifications for this family, I found all lights used pulse width modulation (PWM) on the Lo/Med/Hi output modes. 

The frequency on the 1C, 1A, and 2A lights was consistently high, measured at 4 kHz at all levels. This is sufficiently high that you won’t see it in practice. 






The 2C was a different matter, however. PWM was a very noticeable 110 Hz at Lo-Med-Hi levels. I found this to be very distracting, especially on the Lo mode. :shakehead






Strobe was consistently in the low 13 Hz range on my samples (i.e. 13.0 – 13.4 Hz).










*Testing Method:* 

*Effective November 2010, I have revised my summary tables to match with the current ANSI FL-1 standard for flashlight testing. Please see http://www.sliderule.ca/FL1.htm for a description of the terms used in these tables.*

All my runtime graph output numbers are relative for my home-made light box setup, a la Quickbeam's flashlightreviews.com method. You can directly compare all my relative output values from different reviews - i.e. an output value of "10" in one graph is the same as "10" in another. All runtimes are done under a cooling fan, except for any extended run Lo/Min modes (i.e. >12 hours) which are done without cooling.

I have recently devised a method for converting my lightbox relative output values (ROV) to estimated Lumens. See my How to convert Selfbuilt's Lighbox values to Lumens thread for more info.

-------------------

*Individual Light Runtime/Output Comparisons*

*Neutron 1C*









From left to right: Surefire CR123A; Thrunite Neutron 1A; Foursevens Quark Q123; Liteflux LF3XT; Sunwayman M10R; Novatac 120P; Zebralight SC30; ITP SC1.

All lights are on Hi on RCR (AW Protected where available), about ~0.75 meter from a white wall (with the camera ~1.25 meters back from the wall). Automatic white balance on the camera, to minimize tint differences. 

































































-------------------

*Neutron 2C*










All lights are on Hi on 18650 (AW Protected where available), about ~0.75 meter from a white wall (with the camera ~1.25 meters back from the wall). Automatic white balance on the camera, to minimize tint differences. 





























































_*UPDATE March 23, 2011:* Summary tables and runtimes for the 2C have just been added below. Note that the 2C cannot take protected 18650 or 17670, so I had to use the much lower capacity 14670 for the runtimes._















































_A note about the runtimes above - for some reason, the output levels of the 2C on Lo/Med/Hi are a fair amount lower than the 1A, 2AA or 1C versions. See my new Summary table at the end of the review for a comparison. There also seems to be a drop in efficiency on the 2C on the lower outputs, at least for the Med and Hi mode tested._

-------------------

*Neutron 1A*











All lights are on Hi on Sanyo Eneloop, about ~0.75 meter from a white wall (with the camera ~1.25 meters back from the wall). Automatic white balance on the camera, to minimize tint differences. 










































































































-------------------

*Neutron 2A*










All lights are on Hi on 2x Eneloop NiMH, about ~0.75 meter from a white wall (with the camera ~1.25 meters back from the wall). Automatic white balance on the camera, to minimize tint differences. 

























































































-------------------

*Summary of Output Levels*

*UPDATE March 23, 2011: * I have now completed all runtime testing (shown above). For your reference, here is a table showing the relative INITIAL output levels, in estimated Lumens from my lightbox, for all models on various batteries.






A few observations:

Thrunite's official ANSI Lumen numbers seem reasonably good overall (see specs at the top of the review) - in fact, they seem a bit conservative on most models. Note again the table above is initial lumen estimates in my lightbox, not ANSI FL-1. For max and min ANSI FL-1 estimates, see the individual summary tables scattered throughout this review. 
The 2C is lower in output on Lo/Med/Hi than the other lights of the series
The 1C/1A/2A head definitely seems to be common to all 3 models, given how they perform on various battery sources

---------------------

*Potential Issues*

The Neutrons use PWM for Lo-Med-Hi levels, not current-control as listed in the specs. PWM is high enough to be undetectable by eye on the 1C, 1A, and 2AA (i.e. 4kHz). However, PWM is a very noticeable 110 Hz on the 2C. 

Output levels on Lo/Med/Hi is lower on the 2C compared to the other lights of the series, and there is a clear relative drop in efficiency at these levels (i.e. the 2C performs at below the level of a typical XP-E R2 light on Med/Hi).

My 2AA sample was defective on its Firefly mode (i.e. no light produced). All other samples performed as expected.

Switches are reverse clickies, and a feel a bit "squishy" to me.

Clips are not reversible, and the clip on the 1AA scratches the head slightly as you turn it.

*Preliminary Observations*

Ok, there’s a lot to summarize up there. :sweat:

Build-wise, the Neutrons impress as solid, well-made lights. Styling is a matter of personal preference, and the Neutrons are fairly streamlined. They are also very functional, with generous knurling and removable clips (except for the 1C which has no clip). Note the clips/bodies are not reversible, as the tailcap threads are fully anodized for tailcap lock-out.

The first thing you probably want to know is the output – does the XM-L emitter make a difference over all the XP-G based lights? On higher voltage battery setups, the answer is clear – absolutely. I’m actually surprised at how much brighter the lights are on 3.7V Li-ion or 2xAA - in some cases, nearly twice as bright as their XP-G counterparts. 

A point to keep in mind here is the relative beam pattern. With the larger die of the XM-L, combined with a small head (with small reflector), this will produce a more floody beam (i.e. less focused for throw). But the Neutrons are not really pure flood lights, as the deeper reflectors produce a narrower spillbeam. See the beamshots above for relative comparisons. Since we largely perceive brightness by how bright the hotspot is, the Neutrons may not look as bright as they actually are. But handle these lights in an enclosed space, and you will quickly see how much higher the max output is on most batteries. oo:

On 3.7V Li-ion sources, output/runtime efficiency is quite good at all levels, across the whole Neutron family. Runtimes on Max are very good considering the actual output levels, and the Neutrons' Med/Hi modes handily outperform the comparable output levels of the XP-G R5 lights, in every class. :thumbsup: 

On lower voltage battery sources, efficiency of the Neutrons is still good but less impressive - typically closer to the XP-G lights, especially by Med output. I suspect the reason for this is the difficulty in boosting these battery sources to the level needed to run the XM-L emitters. The high frequency PWM may also contribute here. 

_*UPDATE March 24, 2011: * The 2C seems to have a relative drop in efficiency on the Lo/Med/Hi modes, compared to the other lights. See updated runtimes above._

On that note, I am personally quite willing to sacrifice a little efficiency for undetectable PWM, and thus appreciate the 4kHz PWM on the 1C, 1A, and 2AA. The 110Hz PWM on the 2C is _very_ noticeable however, so I urge you to carefully consider before purchasing this model (i.e. if you are sensitive to PWM, you will find the 2C very distracting). In comparison to PWM, current-controlled would be better for max efficiency, but it also tends to produce some tint shifting at lower drive levels. On the subject of tint, all four of my Neutron samples were premium white – no sign of the “green meanies” of some XM-L lights. Of course, YMMV …

I like the wide range of levels, and their relative spacing. The interface will feel very familiar to users of the regular 4Sevens Quarks and Fenix LDx0, PDx0 series. 

If you are in the market for a relatively floody light in the classic minimalist body shape – with extreme max output and good runtimes at all levels - the Neutrons may be the series for you. Given the output capabilities of the XM-L emitter, I have no doubt other makers will begin introducing them into their lines, so it will be interesting to see how they compare to these early offerings. But the Neutrons are definitely a solid opening salvo.

----

Neutrons provided by Thrunite for review.


----------



## SoCal5150

Thanks for the great review! I was thinking about purchasing the 2C, but thanks to your input I will delay until I hear the PWM issue has been fixed!


----------



## AardvarkSagus

Excellent review there as always Selfbuilt. I hadn't considered the narrower spill when I spoke of the floodiness of their beams. Honestly, I didn't realize that these were PWM. That's definitely saying something too since I am particularly sensitive to it normally.


----------



## cmbutler82

awesome review, thanks for the write up


----------



## selfbuilt

SoCal5150 said:


> Thanks for the great review! I was thinking about purchasing the 2C, but thanks to your input I will delay until I hear the PWM issue has been fixed!


Just heard back from Thrunite, and the 2C will remain at 110Hz. I will now proceed with runtime testing of the sample I have, and update the review when it's done.

Personally, I recommend people carefully consider this when deciding on the 2C model. If you don't notice PWM, you shouldn't find it an issue. But if you are sensitive to it (and I certainly am), the 110Hz will be quite noticeable. For some reason, I find it intolerable on the Lo mode (while just distracting on the Med-Hi). :shrug:



AardvarkSagus said:


> Excellent review there as always Selfbuilt. I hadn't considered the narrower spill when I spoke of the floodiness of their beams. Honestly, I didn't realize that these were PWM. That's definitely saying something too since I am particularly sensitive to it normally.


Yes, it's _very hard_ to detect 4Hz PWM visually (i.e. 1C, 1AA, or 2AA). You would have to shine the light at a very fast moving fan, and look carefully for the subtle signs of it. In actual practice, I would consider it virtually impossible to notice. The 110Hz 2C is a different matter. I find the 2C Lo mode particularly :green:.

As for the "floody" aspect, the narrower spill actually helps concentrate the light more evenly, so the actual spill area illuminated seems brighter than on a light with a shallow reflector (e.g. 4Seven Mini). Still, I suspect a lot of people expect both a wide-spillbeam and reduced-throw for "floody" lights, so I like to clarify the difference when it exists. I do consider it very floody personally.


----------



## Dsoto87

That's too bad about the 2c. I wanted to purchase one as my main work light but saw the complaints about PWM so I stayed away. Now that you've confirmed that's its deliberate and not an isolated issue ill have to pass on these awesome looking lights.


----------



## MichaelW

*Neutron fun*

What is the maximum input voltage? Can the 2A handle two 14500? (or 14670 + spacer)
Does a 17670 fit the 2C??

I think that the 1A will be the most popular. Alkalines (firefly, low, medium) EA91 (firefly, low, medium, high) L91 (firefly, low, medium, high, turbo), 14505 [3 volt primary], 14500's


----------



## selfbuilt

*Re: Neutron fun*



MichaelW said:


> What is the maximum input voltage? Can the 2A handle two 14500? (or 14670 + spacer)
> Does a 17670 fit the 2C??


You would have to confirm with Thrunite, but I seriously doubt the 2A can handle 2x14500. You would like need to use the low-PWM 2C head on the 2AA body for that. FYI, this likely explains the difference between the 1A/2AA/1C and 2C PWM - the first three likely share the same head, and the 2C has a different circuit for the higher voltage (which for some reason needs lower PWM).

Certainly a single 3.7V Li-ion should work fine in the 2A.

For the 2C, my AW protected 17670 don't fit. Aw protected 14670 does, though.


----------



## MichaelW

*Re: Neutron fun*

I re-read Neutron announcement, 4.2 volts tops, but that doesn't specify if it applies to all. How many people would use 2x rcr123 in lieu of 17670? Maybe Thrunite will commonize the 2C head with the rest of the family?
How hot did they get with Li-ion?
Because I'd like to see what 3x AA Eneloops in series can do, just not 3x AA long. {Imagine a snake digesting a pig; reverse hour glass; a short rolling pin}

I take it your move went well.


----------



## adirondackdestroyer

*Re: Neutron fun*

WOW! The XML is really impressive! Combined with the right light (contant current, slightly larger head) it could be freaking amazing!


----------



## brightnorm

*Re: Neutron fun*

Another outstanding review. How do you find the time?

Brightnorm


----------



## HIDblue

*Re: Neutron fun*

Excellent review selfbuilt! 

I've got the 1C version and think it's a great little EDC light...solid build, great floody beam, nice tint...probably the brightest 1x123 form factor light I currently own. And as expected, you nailed the only criticism I have for the Neutron series...the dreaded "Squishy" clicky. It is by far the squishiest clicky/rubber boot cover combo I've ever felt. It's pretty obvious and sometimes I find that the rubber boot cover actually squishes so much that my thumb pushes the rubber boot cover to one side and fails to activate the actual clicky. The Neutron is a solid light and I'm happy to carry it, but I'm just not sure why Thrunite would put out such a "squishy" clicky...


----------



## MAGnot

As a long time lurker here I've been awaiting your review regarding the Neutron 2C. I've previously purchased the 2A and just loved the light, so much so that I was considering the 2C version but read negative comments regarding the PWM issue. Now that you have confirmed the annoying PWM (your reviews have been a deciding factor in many of my torches), the 2C will be a pass....

It's too bad to as the Neutron series is a great light, at least in the 2A version which I have. The cylindrical body, you mentioned, is very nice in its consistent diameter throughout. No weird cutouts or shifting diameters, just a nice moderately knurled tube. The knurling is a little more aggressive than some of the other lights in its class, (i.e. 4Sevens, Fenix) and provides a very good grip.

You nailed everything else I observed regarding this series of lights, no need for me to expand but thanks for another helpful review!lovecpf


----------



## Xak

Nice! When do the neutrals and warms start coming out?!?!


----------



## Xak

Lost my old QAA, need a replacement but want a different tint.


----------



## candle lamp

Excellent review and thanks for hard work.

I think the runtime graph of 2A shows the almost flat curve and regulation is maintained nicely untill batteries run dry among Neutron series. 

By the way, Can your 1A tailstand stably? My 1A can't, but 2A can do that stably. :shrug:


----------



## selfbuilt

Thanks for the support everyone. :grouphug:



MichaelW said:


> Maybe Thrunite will commonize the 2C head with the rest of the family? How hot did they get with Li-ion?


No, they wouldn't do that - there's an efficiency hit by supporting wider voltage ranges. Every series I've ever tested always used a different circuit for the 2xCR123A model (e.g. 4Sevens, Fenix, Olight, etc.), and a common one for 1xAA, 2AA and 1xCR123A.

As for heat, I didn't notice anything too unusual during handling - they warm up, but not uncomfortably so in the hand. Runtimes are all done under a cooling fan, though. I would personally limit the time I ran any of these on Turbo, to be on the safe side (and ensure hand-cooling or a fan on them, not just tailstanding).




brightnorm said:


> Another outstanding review. How do you find the time


I ask myself the same question. :sweat: This review took awhile, given all the runtimes and data analysis needed (basically, almost as long as doing 4 separate reviews - the review text takes the least amount of time). From now on, I am not likely to be doing full series reviews - just one or two lights of a class.



HIDblue said:


> EAnd as expected, you nailed the only criticism I have for the Neutron series...the dreaded "Squishy" clicky. It is by far the squishiest clicky/rubber boot cover combo I've ever felt. ... but I'm just not sure why Thrunite would put out such a "squishy" clicky...


I'm experienced a lot of "squishy" clickies over the years (can't think of a better way to describe them). While noticeable, the Neutrons are not the worse I've come across - but it can be mildly irritating.

Oddly enough, I find lights with perfectly plat boot covers are more likely to have this problem. And hard surface covers are often even worse - the Tiablo A7 and Jetbeam E3P (the one with the stainless cover, not the rounded plastic boot cover) come to mind.



MAGnot said:


> As a long time lurker here I've been awaiting your review regarding the Neutron 2C. I've previously purchased the 2A and just loved the light, so much so that I was considering the 2C version but read negative comments regarding the PWM issue. Now that you have confirmed the annoying PWM (your reviews have been a deciding factor in many of my torches), the 2C will be a pass....


:welcome:

I am glad my reviews can help be a deciding factor - both for and against certain lights. Personally, I wouldn't go with a 110 Hz PWM light, but I know a lot of people here don't seem to be bothered by it. :shrug:



candle lamp said:


> By the way, Can your 1A tailstand stably? My 1A can't, but 2A can do that stably. :shrug:


My 1A has the most wobble of my four samples, but I suspect that's just random chance given the tailcaps are interchangeable.

But something else is odd - the wobble is much worse when clicked on. :thinking: Something I've never seen before - usually clicking-on improves tailstanding.


----------



## MAGnot

Yea that PWM issue on the 2C version is truly a deal breaker in my favorite battery form factor. I really thought Thrunite hit a homerun with this light, having a true low (with no preflash), nicely spaced modes, memory and being subtley beautiful. The XML emitter is very nice for every day use, Im finding, and is my favorite (until the next best thing). I don't understand why they have the PWM frequency so low on just the 2C verson, what are the benefits?


----------



## MichaelW

I was thinking that they commonize as many parts of the low-voltage head, but scaling up maximum voltage just enough to accommodate two brand new cr123.

For goodness sake, please don't lower the PWM frequency on the other three.


----------



## selfbuilt

MichaelW said:


> I was thinking that they commonize as many parts of the low-voltage head, but scaling up maximum voltage just enough to accommodate two brand new cr123.


Ah, that's a little more doable - but it is still not a popular solution.

I would have leave this to the circuit experts to explain why, but I believe the real problem comes when you try to support 2x 3.7V Li-ion (which can over 4.2V to start, meaning you need more than 8.4V max - typically 9V to be safe). 

If you just wanted to support 2x 3V CR123A, you could go a lot lower (i.e. a little over 6V, which is apparently easier to do in a multi-power circuit - especially regulated). But the few lights that have done this (the Tiablo A8 comes to mind, but I think there are some new Xeno lights as well) don't seem to do sell as well as those with full multi-power support. The problem seems to be that fresh CR123A cells can be a little over voltage under load, so you need to run them on a lower mode for a few minitues to drain them down to the point where they will activate on Hi. And of course, there's a risk someone will pop 2xRCR in there and blow the circuit. So, on the whole, manufacturers prefer to go with full 2xRCR support, which requires a whole new circuit.

No idea why they couldn't get the PWM higher on the 2C model's circuit, but it seems to be what it is stuck with. :shrug:


----------



## srfreddy

Wow on the output-looks like the Zebralight is finally toppled for King of 1xAA output!


----------



## HKJ

The problem is when you need both buck and boost, you usual need two different circuits for that. A few chips has combined it in one circuit, but they do not work down to 1 volt. The best wide voltage range circuit I have measured on is the ArmyTek.


----------



## harlequinn

MAGnot said:


> I don't understand why they have the PWM frequency so low on just the 2C verson, what are the benefits?



The only benefit is the neat strobe effect in the rain. This novelty wears off after about 10 seconds and then becomes a total annoyance.

I have the 2C. The PWM sucks big time. If I'd known I wouldn't have bought it.

I assumed 100Hz wouldn't be visible as flicker and thought that it must be lower (like 50Hz) but I was wrong. It certainly looks less to me.

I'm going to make a guess as to why the lowest PWM mode is the most annoying and say that the total light output is low enough that the eyes rods are being used and the PWM rate is too low to maintain persistence of vision and reach the flicker fusion threshold. At the higher levels the light output becomes high enough to bring the cones of the eye into use which have a higher persistence of vision (1/20 second) and therefore lower flicker fusion threshold.

Some quick research into this reveals that some of the more sensitive parts of the eye can detect flicker up to 250Hz !!!!

So it's time for manufacturers to reassess their PWM strategies and for buyers to force this by not buying products that don't meet the standards that we set (come to think of it - we should get together as a group and set some standards that we expect as a minimum).


----------



## selfbuilt

srfreddy said:


> Wow on the output-looks like the Zebralight is finally toppled for King of 1xAA output!


Yes, the 1A does indeed top it, although the difference isn't so great on NiMH. But the SC51 is optimized for NIMH (and 1x14500 is NOT recommended), so that's not an entirely fair comparison to the multi-battery support of the 1A.



HKJ said:


> The problem is when you need both buck and boost, you usual need two different circuits for that. A few chips has combined it in one circuit, but they do not work down to 1 volt. The best wide voltage range circuit I have measured on is the ArmyTek.


Thanks for weighing in HKJ. 



harlequinn said:


> I assumed 100Hz wouldn't be visible as flicker and thought that it must be lower (like 50Hz) but I was wrong. It certainly looks less to me.
> 
> I'm going to make a guess as to why the lowest PWM mode is the most annoying and say that the total light output is low enough that the eyes rods are being used and the PWM rate is too low to maintain persistence of vision and reach the flicker fusion threshold. At the higher levels the light output becomes high enough to bring the cones of the eye into use which have a higher persistence of vision (1/20 second) and therefore lower flicker fusion threshold.
> 
> Some quick research into this reveals that some of the more sensitive parts of the eye can detect flicker up to 250Hz !!!!


That's an interesting theory. I have noticed in the past (and can confirm with the 2C as well) that the lowest output modes are where the PWM is most distracting. In fact, prior to measuring it, I would have sworn that the Lo mode had a lower PWM freq than Med/Hi - but they are all the same. It is interesting that our relative perception varies with the shape of the precise PWM pattern (i.e. for a given freq, the shorter duration the light is "on" in the PWM wave - and the lower the corresponding perceived output - the more relatively distracting). I can also vouch that the PWM seems more noticeable to me in my peripheral vision that central, supporting your rod theory. 

FYI, I have heard back from Thrunite on the switch boot cover. They acknowledge that the material is very soft, but insist that it is very durable and better quality than silicone or rubber. I think the point here is that you want to make sure you press in the centre of the cover, for the most reliable connection.


----------



## selfbuilt

*I have just updated the review with the summary tables and runtimes for the 2C, on 14670, 2xRCR and 2xCR123A. *:sweat: Scroll up to check them out (may need to refresh your browser). Note that protected 17670/18650 wouldn't fit on my 2C.

Output and runtime performance of the 2C on Turbo was as expected, and consistent with Thrunite's specs. That means that the max output of the 2C (on all batteries) is closer to the 1C on CR123A or the 2A on 2xNiMH (i.e. not as high as the 1C/1A on RCR/14500). :shrug:

But I also notice a few other things - first, the output levels are lower on the 2C's Lo/Med/Hi than the other lights (i.e. the 2C's Hi mode is more like the 1C/1A/2A's Med, on most batteries). But more importantly, the relative efficiency has dropped significantly on the 2C's lower outputs (at least on the Med and Hi mode tested). On 14670 or 2xRCR, the 2C runtime on Hi was only half that of a typical XP-G R5 light. Similar issue for Med on 2xRCR - the 2C performs worse than a typical XR-E Q5/R2 light. So in addition to low freq PWM, you also get reduced efficiency at these lower levels. :sigh:

Note that there is no problem with the full-power Turbo mode - it performs as expected on the 2C (and with no PWM, of course).

Now that I am done the testing, I've also added for your reference a table showing the relative INITIAL output levels, in estimated Lumens from my lightbox, for all models on various batteries.







Again, this table is different from my other ones in the individual light review sections (which each show ANSI FL-1 lumen min/max estimates for each model). But this allows you to quickly compare at a glance what you can initially expect from the various models. :wave:


----------



## RBWNY

selfbuilt said:


> Ah, that's a little more doable - but it is still not a popular solution.
> 
> I would have leave this to the circuit experts to explain why, but I believe the real problem comes when you try to support 2x 3.7V Li-ion (which can over 4.2V to start, meaning you need more than 8.4V max - typically 9V to be safe).
> 
> If you just wanted to support 2x 3V CR123A, you could go a lot lower (i.e. a little over 6V, which is apparently easier to do in a multi-power circuit - especially regulated). But the few lights that have done this (the Tiablo A8 comes to mind, but I think there are some new Xeno lights as well) don't seem to do sell as well as those with full multi-power support. The problem seems to be that fresh CR123A cells can be a little over voltage under load, so you need to run them on a lower mode for a few minitues to drain them down to the point where they will activate on Hi. And of course, there's a risk someone will pop 2xRCR in there and blow the circuit. So, on the whole, manufacturers prefer to go with full 2xRCR support, which requires a whole new circuit.


 
I've had the 2C for about a month now. 

First, I don't notice the PWM at all! Second, on mine, the hotspot has a light-brown donut when white-wall shining. Third, the tail-standing is quite wobbly.

But wait!!! It *CAN *take RCR's can't it? The problem I've been having (for which I posted in a thread all its own) is that when using 2 TrustFire RCR's, (and after the light goes abruptly dark), from using it for several days, 1 of the cells is COMPLETELY DEAD (ZERO VOLTS). Meanwhile the second cell is STILL right around 3.7!!!!!! oo: I've tried this on 2 different sets of cells and it does the same thing. Right now, I'm using it with AW's, to see if it behaves the same way. 

I'm wondering what the heck is going on with that!! :thinking:


----------



## stickx

Can I assume that one 14505 3v Titanium Innovations cell in the 1A would behave similar to the 1C with one CR123A? Not as awsome as the 14500, but not bad for a single AA light. Are there any single AA that can beat 320 lm with the 3v 14505?


----------



## Theknifereviewer

Great Review i just got the C1 and already sold it I did not like the tint mine looked purple so i sold it and already ordered the Jetbeam BC10 hope I like it it looks like a great light.


----------



## LeifUK

RBWNY said:


> I've had the 2C for about a month now.
> 
> First, I don't notice the PWM at all! Second, on mine, the hotspot has a light-brown donut when white-wall shining. Third, the tail-standing is quite wobbly.
> 
> But wait!!! It *CAN *take RCR's can't it? The problem I've been having (for which I posted in a thread all its own) is that when using 2 TrustFire RCR's, (and after the light goes abruptly dark), from using it for several days, 1 of the cells is COMPLETELY DEAD (ZERO VOLTS). Meanwhile the second cell is STILL right around 3.7!!!!!! oo: I've tried this on 2 different sets of cells and it does the same thing. Right now, I'm using it with AW's, to see if it behaves the same way.
> 
> I'm wondering what the heck is going on with that!! :thinking:



Hopefully someone knowledgeable will answer, but coud it be that the protection circuit in one cell is kicking in due to a too high current flow? That would explain why one cell is still showing a high voltage.


----------



## selfbuilt

I've just finished the 2C Med mode runtime on 2xRCR, updated graph below.






As you can see, there is a clear efficiency issue on the 2C at Med/Hi (and I presume Lo as well, though not tested). Rather than exceeding an XP-G R5 (as most of the other lights in this family did at these levels, on most batteries), the 2C performs at around the level of a XR-E Q5 (at best). :shrug:

Again, Turbo mode works as expected, so it seems to be an issue to the low-freq PWM modes.



RBWNY said:


> I've had the 2C for about a month now. First, I don't notice the PWM at all!


Thanks for posting. Although a number of us find low freq PWM quite nauseating, many people report not seeing it. Another light that produced a lot of discussion was the Olight M30, which had 100Hz PWM on its low modes. 

Clearly, there is a lot of variability in our ability to detect - I can tell which lights have visible PWM within the first few secs of turning it on.



> The problem I've been having (for which I posted in a thread all its own) is that when using 2 TrustFire RCR's, (and after the light goes abruptly dark), from using it for several days, 1 of the cells is COMPLETELY DEAD (ZERO VOLTS).


At first blush, sounds to me like a battery problem - assuming it is happening abnormally early (i.e. is one of them shorting?). It is normal for a battery whose protection circuit trips to read initially as zero volts - but in most cases (on good quality cells) the battery will almost immediately recover over the threshold cut-off, and show a high 2.x V or or low 3.x V charge. All my AW protected RCRs have worked fine in the light, and come out reasonably well balanced after one of the protection circuits trips (with near immediate bounce-back to >3V once removed).

Note also that you shouldn't routinely be running cells down to the point where the circuit needs to trip - I only do it to provide comparative runtimes (but it means I go through cells a lot faster than a regular user would). Better to regular top-up of your cells, and measure the voltage frequently to make sure they remain well matched (for ex., is one of your cells self-discharging faster than normal?)



stickx said:


> Can I assume that one 14505 3v Titanium Innovations cell in the 1A would behave similar to the 1C with one CR123A? Not as awsome as the 14500, but not bad for a single AA light. Are there any single AA that can beat 320 lm with the 3v 14505?


Yes, it does perform the same. However, the Neutrons have a raised ring in the head, around for the positive contact plate (i.e. to physically prevent reverse-polarity). The new TI 3V 14505 have a shorter raised nipple at the positive terminal than standard AA or 14500, and I was unable to make contact on mine without using a small magnet spacer. 

I do not typically recommend using magnet spacers, given the risk of shorting the light (although in this case, that risk should be lower as the reverse-polarity ring should prevent the magnet from moving far).


----------



## syncytial

The 4Sevens lights are referred to throughout as MiNi, but they appear to be from the Quark (regular or tactical) series, and the 1xAA test results include 14500 data, which is not advised for the MiNi AA.

* @RBWNY*... It sounds like the internal protection circuit on one of the cells is tripping to prevent over-discharge, which is common in two-cell protected Li-Ion setups. If you mark the cells, you may find that one specific one trips earlier than the rest - potentially a sign of looser quality control than premium protected Li-Ions. For the sake of your cells, and so you're not suddenly left in the dark, it's recommended that you not run them until the protection cuts in. Once you know how they tend to perform, recharge earlier as a regular practice. Li-Ions are quite happy to be topped up frequently - they don't need to be run all the way down before recharging. You'll have longer runtime available if needed, compared to starting out with largely depleted cells.

The higher output achievable with XM-L based lights is interesting, and quite useful in some situations, but there's still a good case to be made for the utility of emitters that can achieve higher throw values (relative to output) in small form factor lights.

Since sales are more likely driven by raw output than runtime, manufacturers are trying to optimize new lights for high output (while still keeping the heat on high more or less manageable.) I hope that as more XM-L lights arrive in small form factors, some will offer a balance that favours runtime to a greater extent. This can be achieved to some degree in multi-mode lights with high output, but circuit designs intended to optimize runtime may offer more.

The Thrunite lights, as well as other new entrants' lights, are attractive, but for people who own existing lights in the same form factor, the new units are not necessarily so compelling that replacement is mandatory.


- Syncytial.


----------



## selfbuilt

syncytial said:


> The 4Sevens lights are referred to throughout as MiNi, but they appear to be from the Quark (regular or tactical) series, and the 1xAA test results include 14500 data, which is not advised for the MiNi AA.


No, those are correctly-labelled Mini results in my runtime graphs. My regular Quarks are all from the original XP-E R2 run, so I don't usually include the data if I have more recent XP-G R5 Mini data. And yes, 14500 is not recommended for the Mini AA (by neither the manufacturer nor myself), but it does techinically work.


----------



## syncytial

selfbuilt said:


> No, those are correctly-labelled Mini results in my runtime graphs. My regular Quarks are all from the original XP-E R2 run, so I don't usually include the data if I have more recent XP-G R5 Mini data. And yes, 14500 is not recommended for the Mini AA (by neither the manufacturer nor myself), but it does techinically work.



Are the lights in the photos MiNis? That's what initially led to :thinking:.


- Syncytial.


----------



## RBWNY

selfbuilt said:


> At first blush, sounds to me like a battery problem - assuming it is happening abnormally early (i.e. is one of them shorting?).
> Note also that you shouldn't routinely be running cells down to the point where the circuit needs to trip - I only do it to provide comparative runtimes (but it means I go through cells a lot faster than a regular user would). Better to regular top-up of your cells, and measure the voltage frequently to make sure they remain well matched (for ex., is one of your cells self-discharging faster than normal?)



_(not wanting to stray too far from the purpose of this thread)..... 
_Thanks for your thoughts! Yes it could be the protection circuit. In the first set of cells, which I labeled 1 & 2, it was consistently #1 which always dumped first. I have not numbered the 2nd set, but it's always one over the other. Yes, I know it's better to top-off than let run down, but without checking voltage each time, it's impossible to know when the circuit "shut-off" will occur. I'll check the AW's being used now to see where they are. None of the cells are shorting but one in each set is definitely discharging quicker than the other. I've also found these TFire cells are very difficult to fit in the light. They're so snug, that one of them usually needs to be "pushed" into the tube, with the other one aiding in the process. To get them out, I need to shake the light!


----------



## selfbuilt

syncytial said:


> Are the lights in the photos MiNis? That's what initially led to :thinking:.


Ah, no, those are Quarks - I just didn't bother to label all the pics this time. 

FYI, the selection of lights for the round-up photos are just to allow you to compare relative heights and widths among similar builds in the same battery class (i.e. I grab a handful of lights of roughly similar sized lights, rather than posting rulers, etc.). These pics are done when the lights first arrive, and don't correlate in any way to the runtime graphs. The runtimes graphs are generated at the very end of testing, and I select traces of similar emitter/output levels for the best visual comparison. 

This is why I don't report the Quarks on the graphs, since my older XP-E R2s are not indicative of the newer lights with XP-G R5/S2 emitters. But the Quark exteriors haven't changed much, which is why I used them in the round-up pics in this case (i.e. fairly similar looking to the Neutrons).



RBWNY said:


> _Yes it could be the protection circuit. In the first set of cells, which I labeled 1 & 2, it was consistently #1 which always dumped first. I have not numbered the 2nd set, but it's always one over the other. _


_
Hmmm, does sound like a specific battery problem - does it happen in other 2xRCR lights? But you are right, don't want to get off-topic here._


----------



## syncytial

selfbuilt said:


> Ah, no, those are Quarks - I just didn't bother to label all the pics this time.
> 
> FYI, the selection of lights for the round-up photos are just to allow you to compare relative heights and widths among similar builds in the same battery class (i.e. I grab a handful of lights of roughly similar sized lights, rather than posting rulers, etc.). These pics are done when the lights first arrive, and don't correlate in any way to the runtime graphs. The runtimes graphs are generated at the very end of testing, and I select traces of similar emitter/output levels for the best visual comparison.
> 
> This is why I don't report the Quarks on the graphs, since my older XP-E R2s are not indicative of the newer lights with XP-G R5/S2 emitters. But the Quark exteriors haven't changed much, which is why I used them in the round-up pics in this case (i.e. fairly similar looking to the Neutrons).



That's what I suspected, but without labeling the photos, or noting that they are just for visual comparison of similar body types, it could lead to confusion, especially for newcomers trying to sort out the huge, and dynamic, store of information on CPF. 


- Syncytial.


----------



## Biker Bear

Thanks for all the great info!

I was very sorry to hear the 2C body won't accommodate a 17670, much less an 18650; the output results had me thinking of legoing the low-V head onto the 2C body. Any chance it could be rebored to accept a 17670? (Probably not worth hoping for an 18650... how thick can the walls be?)


----------



## selfbuilt

Biker Bear said:


> I was very sorry to hear the 2C body won't accommodate a 17670, much less an 18650; the output results had me thinking of legoing the low-V head onto the 2C body. Any chance it could be rebored to accept a 17670? (Probably not worth hoping for an 18650... how thick can the walls be?)


Possibly, but I doubt it. If it was just a question of the protection circuit in the head of the protected 17670 not making it, then I could see boring being being feasible. But in this case, even the back end of my 17670 won't make it in, meaning you need to do a lot of boring. It might be possible, hard to say. :shrug:


----------



## harlequinn

Biker Bear said:


> ?(Probably not worth hoping for an 18650... how thick can the walls be?)



Inside diameter is 16.2mm (0.64in). The main body measures at 1.9mm (0.07in). That's not the problem though. The threaded end only measure 1.2mm (0.04in) from the inside wall to the top of the threads. Measuring from the inside wall to the bottom of the threads is only 0.8mm (0.03in).

So if you bored out an extra 1mm (0.034in) then you would shave 0.5mm (0.017in) off the radius, leaving the walls 0.3mm (0.01in) thick at the threads - way too thin. I hope I got my inches right - it's decimalised now right? Or are the old fractions still in use?


----------



## raphaello

Is the Neutron 2AA better in runtimes compared to the Fenix LD20 (I saw the graph on max output ... and WOW  , but what about on Med and Low ?!). I had decided that I would go for the Fenix but now that this light came ... I'm not so sure - what do you think is a better overall light ? Also something very important is that I will use it a lot for camping, so is there a diffuser that will fit the Neutron so perfectly as it is the case with the LD20 ?!?


----------



## MichaelW

raphaello said:


> Is the Neutron 2AA better in runtimes compared to the Fenix LD20 (I saw the graph on max output ... and WOW  , but what about on Med and Low ?!). I had decided that I would go for the Fenix but now that this light came ... I'm not so sure - what do you think is a better overall light ? Also something very important is that I will use it a lot for camping, so is there a diffuser that will fit the Neutron so perfectly as it is the case with the LD20 ?!?


 
Thrunite has said they will offer neutral xm-l ASAP, so that seems perfect for camping.
I don't know if the Neutron needs a diffuser, because it is almost pre-diffused (using the 4mm^2 xm-l instead of the 2mm^2 xp-g that the Fenix LD20 R5 uses)
and the Neutron has an ultra low 'firefly' mode that the Fenix does not (I wonder how long until they add a fifth output mode?)

and Neutron might fix the mushy switch/cover


----------



## selfbuilt

raphaello said:


> Is the Neutron 2AA better in runtimes compared to the Fenix LD20 (I saw the graph on max output ... and WOW  , but what about on Med and Low ?!). I had decided that I would go for the Fenix but now that this light came ... I'm not so sure - what do you think is a better overall light ? Also something very important is that I will use it a lot for camping, so is there a diffuser that will fit the Neutron so perfectly as it is the case with the LD20 ?!?


Sorry, I've done all the runtimes I'm going to for the Neutrons, moving on to other lights that need testing. You should be able to guestimate the Med mode runtime by comparing capacities of some of the other lights where I've tested both med and hi.

As for a diffuser, not sure what would fit off-hand (I'm out of town and don't have the lights with me to test). If you compare the head diameters to other lights, you should be able to figure out a few options. But see how you like it without the diffuser - the beam is pretty floody on its own.


----------



## Gondwana

raphaello said:


> ... so is there a diffuser that will fit the Neutron so perfectly as it is the case with the LD20 ?!?


 
I have just bought 1A Neutron. I have also bought Fenix filter set (two wands, red filter and flipping diffuser). The flipping diffuser fits perfectly on my 1A, wands needed a little modding: I just carved out the last 4-5mm of the ribs inside them. Doesn't fit so stable as on LD10/LD20, but for my opinion it is usable.

I wanted to buy LD10 R4 but this shop just ran out of them, I could have chosen LD20 R4 or LD10 R5. I have tried mixing heads: the R5 head was noticably worse than the R4 head on both tubes, and then they showed me they have 1A, not even listed in their pricelist. Seeing the difference, I have momentarily abandoned Fenixes.


----------



## raphaello

http://fonarik.com/test/indexen.php?model=6&scene=3&mode=0

http://fonarik.com/test/indexen.php?model=153&scene=3&mode=0

It is the same with the corridor picture. Am I the only one who thinks that the Neutron 2AA should have been A LOT brighter than the LD20 :thinking: 
What's the deal .... ?!?!


----------



## LeifUK

raphaello said:


> http://fonarik.com/test/indexen.php?model=6&scene=3&mode=0
> 
> http://fonarik.com/test/indexen.php?model=153&scene=3&mode=0
> 
> It is the same with the corridor picture. Am I the only one who thinks that the Neutron 2AA should have been A LOT brighter than the LD20 :thinking:
> What's the deal .... ?!?!


 
It does look odd. The Neutrons have a slightly narrower spill, but a wider brighter hot spot, but they don't look bright enough in those fonarik images.


----------



## MichaelW

LeifUK said:


> It does look odd. The Neutrons have a slightly narrower spill, but a wider brighter hot spot, but they don't look bright enough in those fonarik images.


 
I think all the extra light is in the spill, see the Vault picture-that one is telling.
I hope Cree will make an LED that splits the difference between the xm-l & xp-g.


----------



## raphaello

Yes, the Vault picture really shows the difference ! But ... there is something wrong with the other two (the corridor and the wall). Even the spill on the Neutron is A LOT dimmer than the LD20 on those two


----------



## selfbuilt

raphaello said:


> It is the same with the corridor picture. Am I the only one who thinks that the Neutron 2AA should have been A LOT brighter than the LD20 :thinking:
> What's the deal .... ?!?!


There's clearly a mismatch with the pictures - the 2A is a lot brighter in the spill than the LD20-R4. 

FYI, I notice only 3 modes are listed for the 2A pics - when in fact there are 4 modes available beyond firefly (i.e. they are supposedly showing Lo, Hi, and Turbo, but not Med?). Just guessing here, but I suspect the "255 lumens" and "103" lumen pics are in fact the Hi (120 lumen spec) and Med (50 lumen spec) modes, and Turbo (255 lumen spec) has not actually been taken. That would fit a lot better with my subjective experience (and my white-wall beamshots).


----------



## Jared

MichaelW said:


> Thrunite has said they will offer neutral xm-l ASAP, so that seems perfect for camping.
> I don't know if the Neutron needs a diffuser, because it is almost pre-diffused (using the 4mm^2 xm-l instead of the 2mm^2 xp-g that the Fenix LD20 R5 uses)
> and the Neutron has an ultra low 'firefly' mode that the Fenix does not (*I wonder how long until they add a fifth output mode?*)
> 
> and Neutron might fix the mushy switch/cover



I keep asking the same question. I am about to get a Neutron 1A but I'm still questionable. I really wish Fenix would start adding a firefly mode. I don't care if its PWM or not. The added functionality of just the one mode is huge. Also use of an X-ML (cool AND neutral white) in a EDC would be REALLY nice to see from Fenix (just imagine what their efficiency could be like at lower drive currents). I just don't think they are willing to step away from their traditional four mode with +2lm lows and only using a die that is small enough to still give their "standard" beam pattern.

To cut this short my point is it says something that I'm about to sacrifice a premium build and trustworthy name just for an added mode and larger output range. I'll wait a while though. See if anybody is listening.


----------



## flashflood

Jared said:


> I keep asking the same question. I am about to get a Neutron 1A but I'm still questionable. I really wish Fenix would start adding a firefly mode. I don't care if its PWM or not. The added functionality of just the one mode is huge. Also use of an X-ML (cool AND neutral white) in a EDC would be REALLY nice to see from Fenix (just imagine what their efficiency could be like at lower drive currents). I just don't think they are willing to step away from their traditional four mode with +2lm lows and only using a die that is small enough to still give their "standard" beam pattern.
> 
> To cut this short my point is it says something that I'm about to sacrifice a premium build and trustworthy name just for an added mode and larger output range. I'll wait a while though. See if anybody is listening.


 
If Fenix makes such a light, and history is any guide, it will not support 14500. If you get the 1A or 1C and throw an AW IMR 14500 or 16340 in there (which Thrunite explicitly _does_ support), I predict it will instantly become one of your favorite lights. 300+ lumens OTF, from something about the size of a roll of pennies. Love it!

I have and like Fenix and 4sevens lights, but the lack of explicit Li-Ion support in (most of) their AA, AAA, and CR123 single-cell lights has become a deal-breaker for me. Thus iTP A3 is on my keychain, and Thrunite Neutron 1A and 1C are my small EDCs.


----------



## Xak

flashflood said:


> If Fenix makes such a light, and history is any guide, it will not support 14500. If you get the 1A or 1C and throw an AW IMR 14500 or 16340 in there (which Thrunite explicitly _does_ support), I predict it will instantly become one of your favorite lights. 300+ lumens OTF, from something about the size of a roll of pennies. Love it!
> 
> I have and like Fenix and 4sevens lights, but the lack of explicit Li-Ion support in (most of) their AA, AAA, and CR123 single-cell lights has become a deal-breaker for me. Thus iTP A3 is on my keychain, and Thrunite Neutron 1A and 1C are my small EDCs.



4Sevens lights support 14500 in their one cell, Quark regular and tactical AA lights... explicitly. I'm waiting for him to jump on the XM-L neutral and warm bandwagon. I just know that as soon as I buy a new XP-G QAA (I lost my old R2 QAA) he will come out with the XM-L. I have other lights, so no rush.


----------



## B0wz3r

harlequinn said:


> The only benefit is the neat strobe effect in the rain. This novelty wears off after about 10 seconds and then becomes a total annoyance.
> 
> I have the 2C. The PWM sucks big time. If I'd known I wouldn't have bought it.
> 
> I assumed 100Hz wouldn't be visible as flicker and thought that it must be lower (like 50Hz) but I was wrong. It certainly looks less to me.
> 
> I'm going to make a guess as to why the lowest PWM mode is the most annoying and say that the total light output is low enough that the eyes rods are being used and the PWM rate is too low to maintain persistence of vision and reach the flicker fusion threshold. At the higher levels the light output becomes high enough to bring the cones of the eye into use which have a higher persistence of vision (1/20 second) and therefore lower flicker fusion threshold.
> 
> Some quick research into this reveals that some of the more sensitive parts of the eye can detect flicker up to 250Hz !!!!
> 
> So it's time for manufacturers to reassess their PWM strategies and for buyers to force this by not buying products that don't meet the standards that we set (come to think of it - we should get together as a group and set some standards that we expect as a minimum).


 
I'm just going to ramble a bit here, so bear with me, and hopefully some of what I have to say will make sense and/or be helpful with understanding this whole PWM issue...

I'm not aware that there's a temporal difference in persistence between rods and cones, but I'd have to look it up to be sure. I'm not an expert on rhodopsin characteristics, but one of my professors from grad school when I was getting my PhD in perceptual psychology at UC Santa Cruz, Gene Switkes, is... I'll have to look up some of his papers and see if he's done anything on differences in the characteristics of the pigments in rods vs cones. Just of the top of my head, I'd say that sensitivity to PWM because of differences between rods and cones is more about the differential sensitivity they have; a cone requires 5 - 6 photons to generate an action potential, whereas a rod only requires 1 - 2, so your hypothesis is certainly possible, but I'd think that overall even with the PWM the total light output would be enough to activate the cones, and at that point the intensity of the light is so high the rods get overwhelmed and essentially shut down and don't work (as in photopic vision).

With respect to flicker sensitivity, the critical flicker fusion (CFF) rate is a function of the intensity of the light. The greater the intensity of the light, the higher the rate needs to be for the light to be perceived as continuous rather than strobing/flickering, so in general, a lower PWM rate is less noticeable at low levels than high levels. I'm not an electrical engineer, so I don't know if it's possible to design a circuit that would vary the PWM rate based on the output level, but I would imagine it's cheaper and easier to build a driver that uses the same rate at all output levels. Still, the reason as to why the 2C uses such a low rate is baffling to me, and aside from the fact I don't do 123 format lights, I'd never get one because I am fairly sensitive to PWM.

Anyway, please pardon the early Sunday morning ramblings of a tired old psychophysics professor... haven't had my caffeine yet...

PS: I have to say, I really like the beam profiles of these lights... I love the large hotspot in the beam... the idea of having most of the beam be hotspot and the minority of it as spill is a very appealing profile to me for my EDC preferences. Although I find the poor regulation a put-off and the fact they're only available in cool tints right now too means I'll be waiting until they come out with neutral versions (IF they come out with neutral versions that is...)


----------



## MichaelW

I think there is a difference in the temporal resolution between rods/cones, or at least foveal/non-foveal vision.
Example: watching television with ceiling fan on. [lowest setting] The angular velocity seems greater when you are not looking at the fan, but when you turn to look at the fan, it seems to slow down.


----------



## tre

Excellent reveiw. I have one question. Your table at the end of the review shows lumen outputs and you said they are not ANSI standard measurements. The tables throughout the review show the same lumen numbers but say they are ANSI measurements. I am looking at the Turbo output for the 1A to be specific. It shows as 240 lumens in all the tables while Thrunite estimates 145 lumens. I'm wondering if the light is much brighter than their specs or if they are using ANSI and you measured turn on lumens? thanks selfbuilt.


----------



## selfbuilt

tre said:


> Excellent reveiw. I have one question. Your table at the end of the review shows lumen outputs and you said they are not ANSI standard measurements. The tables throughout the review show the same lumen numbers but say they are ANSI measurements. I am looking at the Turbo output for the 1A to be specific. It shows as 240 lumens in all the tables while Thrunite estimates 145 lumens. I'm wondering if the light is much brighter than their specs or if they are using ANSI and you measured turn on lumens? thanks selfbuilt.


All I mean in that last table is that those are initial activations, whereas the earlier tables are at 3 mins into the run (i.e. ANSI FL-1 standard). I do get ANSI estimated lumens at 240 for the 1A on 1xNiMH. This is higher than their spec, so I suspect they are somewhat low-balling the value.


----------



## tre

My confusion is that your ANSI (3 minute measurements) in turbo mode are the same as the initial turn on measurements in turbo mode for both the Neutron 2C and Neutron 1A. Is this really the case? I am confused because I don't recall any light making the same amount of lumens at turn on as it does after 3 minutes (especially in turbo mode).


----------



## selfbuilt

tre said:


> My confusion is that your ANSI (3 minute measurements) in turbo mode are the same as the initial turn on measurements in turbo mode for both the Neutron 2C and Neutron 1A. Is this really the case? I am confused because I don't recall any light making the same amount of lumens at turn on as it does after 3 minutes (especially in turbo mode).


If you look at the runtime graphs, you will see the 2C is indeed completely flat output on Turbo on RCR or CR123A is (hence why time 0 and 3 mins are the same lumen estimates). 14670 has a very slight dip, hence the the small change in estimate lumens between the two tables.

Same for the 1A - the 14500 is indeed different (reported as such in the two tables). But Eneloop is pretty flat over the first 5 mins. There is a slight dip, but it is caught within the rounding estimate for my lumens conversion (i.e. I get 242 at time 0, 236 at time 3 mins, so both get reported as 240 estimated lumens). Given my setup, I don't feel it is accurate to report lumens to any greater level of precision.


----------



## tre

selfbuilt said:


> If you look at the runtime graphs, you will see the 2C is indeed completely flat output on Turbo on RCR or CR123A is (hence why time 0 and 3 mins are the same lumen estimates). 14670 has a very slight dip, hence the the small change in estimate lumens between the two tables.
> 
> Same for the 1A - the 14500 is indeed different (reported as such in the two tables). But Eneloop is pretty flat over the first 5 mins. There is a slight dip, but it is caught within the rounding estimate for my lumens conversion (i.e. I get 242 at time 0, 236 at time 3 mins, so both get reported as 240 estimated lumens). Given my setup, I don't feel it is accurate to report lumens to any greater level of precision.



I see that now. Thanks for pointing that out. That is pretty amazing. Do you put it down to superior heat sinking or the efficiency (and lower heat) of the XML driven at lower levels?


----------



## Lighteous

I have a 1C and I am generally very pleased with it. It is easily the brightest single CR123 cell that I have. My only complaint with this light has been the "squishy" clicky and how it prevents tailstanding. I noticed that when I replace the cell and screw the tailcap down the boot seems to slighltly inflate because of the internal air pressure. This exacerbates the inabiliy to tailstand issue. However, I noticed that if I loosen and re-tighten the bezel the pressue is released, the boot flattens out and then the light can tailstand with ease. It sounds crazy, I know. But before posting this I tested this procedure three times with the same result. I will be interested to learn if anyone else has this result.


----------



## selfbuilt

tre said:


> Do you put it down to superior heat sinking or the efficiency (and lower heat) of the XML driven at lower levels?


Probably the latter, but hard to know.



Lighteous said:


> I noticed that when I replace the cell and screw the tailcap down the boot seems to slighltly inflate because of the internal air pressure. This exacerbates the inabiliy to tailstand issue. However, I noticed that if I loosen and re-tighten the bezel the pressue is released, the boot flattens out and then the light can tailstand with ease. It sounds crazy, I know. But before posting this I tested this procedure three times with the same result. I will be interested to learn if anyone else has this result.


The phenomenon of outgassing is well known with multiple NiMH cells in lights with similar tailcap (i.e. Fenix LD20, etc.). But that only occurs after running the light for awhile, when one of the cells is not in very good shape anymore. Can't think of anything similar for a 1xCR123A light - in fact, I would be rather worried if it did happen (i.e. release the pressure and dispose of the cell immediately, if the tailcap bulges while running a 1xCR123A light). But if I understand you correctly, it's only when you first tighten the tailcap? If so, I'm not clear why it would be happening. :thinking:


----------



## Kilovolt

Lighteous said:


> I have a 1C and I am generally very pleased with it. It is easily the brightest single CR123 cell that I have. My only complaint with this light has been the "squishy" clicky and how it prevents tailstanding. I noticed that when I replace the cell and screw the tailcap down the boot seems to slighltly inflate because of the internal air pressure. This exacerbates the inabiliy to tailstand issue. However, I noticed that if I loosen and re-tighten the bezel the pressue is released, the boot flattens out and then the light can tailstand with ease. It sounds crazy, I know. But before posting this I tested this procedure three times with the same result. I will be interested to learn if anyone else has this result.


 

Yes, I have the same experience so I always change the battery from the head.


----------



## Lighteous

Selfbuilt, you understand correctly. The light has not been on at all when this occurs. My assumption is that an airtight seal is created when the tailcap is tightened into place and the internal air minimally inflates the rubber boot creating a slight bulge. The minor internal air pressure is released when the stainless steel bezel is loosened and re-tightened thus causing the rubber boot to "deflate" and flatten allowing the light to tailstand. This occurs whether the battery is inserted via the tail or via the head. Irrespective of all of this, I still find the switch to be "squishy". Unlike, for instance, a Quark. Overall, however, it's a great light.

By the way, great review! As always!


----------



## srfreddy

Does the switch come out?


----------



## Lighteous

srfreddy said:


> Does the switch come out?



No, the switch stays firmly in place.


----------



## srfreddy

As in, is there a switch retaining ring in the inside of the switch.


----------



## Lighteous

srfreddy said:


> As in, is there a switch retaining ring in the inside of the switch.



Yes, the retaining ring is in place.


----------



## Kilovolt

The retaining ring has reversed threads i.e. turn CCW for tightening so there is no risk of loosening it when you screw in the tailcap.


----------



## selfbuilt

Lighteous said:


> My assumption is that an airtight seal is created when the tailcap is tightened into place and the internal air minimally inflates the rubber boot creating a slight bulge. The minor internal air pressure is released when the stainless steel bezel is loosened and re-tightened thus causing the rubber boot to "deflate" and flatten allowing the light to tailstand. This occurs whether the battery is inserted via the tail or via the head.


Interesting, especially the bit about loosening the bezel ring (clearly, the pressure build-up can escape from the battery compartment through the head). And thanks for the confirmation Kilovolt, at least at the tailcap. I won't if the reverse threading somehow contributes to this, or if the light just has a stronger than typical seal at the o-ring. :thinking:


----------



## Sunburst

SoCal5150 said:


> Thanks for the great review! I was thinking about purchasing the 2C, but thanks to your input I will delay until I hear the PWM issue has been fixed!


 
Wonderfully detailed and professional review, Selfbuilt. Thank you.:wave:

It seems that the extra lumens output comes at a price. I thought I had "discovered" a bargain with the 2CR and I am glad I read your review and discovered the drawbacks.
:shakehead

I think I'll stick with my Fenix, Surefire and (soon to arrive) 4Sevens lights for now. If I'm going to pay a lot for a light I'm a bit pickier about quality and possible problems. 

But I can wait patiently for the next improved version...


----------



## GarageBoy

Whoa, I just finished digesting it, but it almost seems like the 1C on a single R123 runs almost as long and a tad bit brighter than the 2C?


----------



## srfreddy

You could switch the clicky out, or glue on an extension to the clicky plunger-a short plunger means that you have to press the boot in a bit before it engages.


----------



## pageyjim

Is the 1A version only 145 lumens with a 14500 battery?


----------



## MichaelW

pageyjim said:


> Is the 1A version only 145 lumens with a 14500 battery?


No.
With an ICR & IMR you get an initial peak of 500 lumens. The IFR LiFePO4 should be less, maybe 350 initial.


----------



## pageyjim

MichaelW said:


> No.
> With an ICR & IMR you get an initial peak of 500 lumens. The IFR LiFePO4 should be less, maybe 350 initial.


 
Great, thanks. I thought that would be the case but I didn't see it listed anywhere.


----------



## flashflood

Beamshots of the new neutral Neutrons side-by-side with original Neutrons and Quark Mini X 123 here.


----------



## selfbuilt

pageyjim said:


> Great, thanks. I thought that would be the case but I didn't see it listed anywhere.


Estimated max lumen outputs for the 1A on Eneloop and 14500 are given in the tables in the review. You can also calculate estimates yourself from the output/runtime graphs, based on the links provide in the method description in the review.


----------



## Spirch

is using 14500 with a dummy aa a good idea for the 2aa version?


----------



## Rolex John

Just wanted to thank Selfbuilt for his review, and weigh in as a 2C owner who does not have any issues with pulse modulation at low modes - can't see it at all.


----------



## mrbladedude

Do you like this or the Fenix lights better?


----------



## selfbuilt

Spirch said:


> is using 14500 with a dummy aa a good idea for the 2aa version?


You could do this, but of course a 1A model would be a much better size. I haven't test the 2A specifically, but I remember trying 14500 with a dummy aluminum cell in the Fenix L2D once, and it worked pretty similar to a L1D on 14500 (a slight reduction in runtime, and different pattern as the cell neared exhaustion, but otherwise similar). 

Just a reminder for those curious - you cannot run 2x14500 on the 1A/2A/1C head (it would blow the circuit). The 2C head on a 2xAA body would work with 2x14500, of course.



Rolex John said:


> Just wanted to thank Selfbuilt for his review, and weigh in as a 2C owner who does not have any issues with pulse modulation at low modes - can't see it at all.


Thanks for the comment. I'm always amazed at the huge variation between people in our ability to detect PWM. I imagine many (such as yourself) must wonder what all the fuss is about, whereas others (such as myself) wonder how you can stand it.


----------



## Kilovolt

I have discovered that the diffuser tip that Lumapower supplies for their EDC lights fits very well onto Neutron 1C:








With the diffuser on and placed upright on a table the Neutron can really illuminate a room.


----------



## HIDblue

Kilovolt said:


> I have discovered that the diffuser tip that Lumapower supplies for their EDC lights fits very well onto Neutron 1C:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With the diffuser on and placed upright on a table the Neutron can really illuminate a room.


 
That's a great idea kilo...now I just have to go find my Lumapower box with the diffuser.


----------



## Xak

Has anyone found the head of their 1A to be too loose when not tightened? This is a common complaint in the marketplace. I want a 1A in neutral tint, but not if the head and body don't fit correctly.


----------



## flashflood

Xak said:


> Has anyone found the head of their 1A to be too loose when not tightened? This is a common complaint in the marketplace. I want a 1A in neutral tint, but not if the head and body don't fit correctly.


 
Unclear. I have four Neutrons (1A and 1C, original and neutral) and they all work fine when loosened, but some folks have reported intermittent connectivity when loosened. I have tried, but cannot reproduce this with any of my lights. I think the jury's out until someone experiencing the problem returns their light to Thrunite for evaluation and we see what they have to say. Unfortunately I don't see any good way to assess this over the internet, e.g. via photos or videos, because the tolerances involved are measured in thousandths of an inch.

I hope Thrunite resolves this quickly and transparently, because as long as this question lingers it's going to hurt adoption of a great little flashlight.


----------



## selfbuilt

Xak said:


> Has anyone found the head of their 1A to be too loose when not tightened? This is a common complaint in the marketplace. I want a 1A in neutral tint, but not if the head and body don't fit correctly.


No issue on any of my samples. But of course, they are from an early batch.


----------



## DHart

When running a 14500 li-ion in the 1AA model, is a regular protected li-ion sufficient, or is it highly advised to use an IMR cell? I ordered some regular AW 14500's with my light and hoping I didn't need to have IMR instead...


----------



## tallyram

Regular(black) AW14500's work great for me.


----------



## harlequinn

B0wz3r said:


> I'm just going to ramble a bit here, so bear with me, and hopefully some of what I have to say will make sense and/or be helpful with understanding this whole PWM issue...
> 
> I'm not aware that there's a temporal difference in persistence between rods and cones, but I'd have to look it up to be sure. I'm not an expert on rhodopsin characteristics, but one of my professors from grad school when I was getting my PhD in perceptual psychology at UC Santa Cruz, Gene Switkes, is... I'll have to look up some of his papers and see if he's done anything on differences in the characteristics of the pigments in rods vs cones. Just of the top of my head, I'd say that sensitivity to PWM because of differences between rods and cones is more about the differential sensitivity they have; a cone requires 5 - 6 photons to generate an action potential, whereas a rod only requires 1 - 2, so your hypothesis is certainly possible, but I'd think that overall even with the PWM the total light output would be enough to activate the cones, and at that point the intensity of the light is so high the rods get overwhelmed and essentially shut down and don't work (as in photopic vision).
> 
> With respect to flicker sensitivity, the critical flicker fusion (CFF) rate is a function of the intensity of the light. The greater the intensity of the light, the higher the rate needs to be for the light to be perceived as continuous rather than strobing/flickering, so in general, a lower PWM rate is less noticeable at low levels than high levels. I'm not an electrical engineer, so I don't know if it's possible to design a circuit that would vary the PWM rate based on the output level, but I would imagine it's cheaper and easier to build a driver that uses the same rate at all output levels. Still, the reason as to why the 2C uses such a low rate is baffling to me, and aside from the fact I don't do 123 format lights, I'd never get one because I am fairly sensitive to PWM.
> 
> Anyway, please pardon the early Sunday morning ramblings of a tired old psychophysics professor... haven't had my caffeine yet...
> 
> PS: I have to say, I really like the beam profiles of these lights... I love the large hotspot in the beam... the idea of having most of the beam be hotspot and the minority of it as spill is a very appealing profile to me for my EDC preferences. Although I find the poor regulation a put-off and the fact they're only available in cool tints right now too means I'll be waiting until they come out with neutral versions (IF they come out with neutral versions that is...)


 
That's interesting information! It would be great to see what some experts in the area think!!! Their input could help change the industry (if manufacturers were willing to listen - some are, some aren't).

I thought CFF worked in reverse - so lower intensity needs higher rate, higher intensity needs lower rate. It's not my field so I'm probably wrong and you're probably right.

I returned my 2C variant. PWM was sooooo annoying. I might pickup a 1A version instead - no PWM issues and 1 less battery to worry about.


----------



## selfbuilt

DHart said:


> When running a 14500 li-ion in the 1AA model, is a regular protected li-ion sufficient, or is it highly advised to use an IMR cell? I ordered some regular AW 14500's with my light and hoping I didn't need to have IMR instead...


Regular AW protected 14500 will be fine. Even on Turbo, I get 40 mins to shut-off. That's less than a 2C discharge rate, well within specs for a standard Li-ion. In fact, unprotected IMR would not be advised, since the lights lack a built-in low voltage shut-off feature.



harlequinn said:


> That's interesting information! It would be great to see what some experts in the area think!!! Their input could help change the industry (if manufacturers were willing to listen - some are, some aren't).


Agreed, it is interesting. But I am still at a loss as to why I (and others) seem to find PWM so much more noticeable at lower levels. :shrug:

In this case, certainly no issues with the 1A - it is just the 2C that has the low PWM issue.


----------



## B0wz3r

selfbuilt said:


> Agreed, it is interesting. But I am still at a loss as to why I (and others) seem to find PWM so much more noticeable at lower levels. :shrug:


 
There are a LOT of individual differences from person to person in terms of the nuances of their perceptual experiences. On average, about 60% of the cones are red ones, 30% green ones, and 10% blue ones, but this can vary from person to person. A late friend of mine who was an artists always said he could see more shades of red than anyone else he knew... he could look at a car with a red paint job and see swirls in the paint on the car when no one else could, and he also could not see green or blue as well. That would be consistent with him having a greater percentage of red cones at the expense of the other two types, and could also mean he had a greater range of wavelength sensitivities in his red cones as well.

The human visual system is actually a pretty bloody amazing piece of biology... as I mention above, photoreceptors are incredibly sensitive, so much so that under ideal conditions, an observer with no visual defects can see a candle flame a mile away! Further, we are so good at detecting alignments of objects, we are capable of detecting two parallel lines that are offset by about only a micron; that's less than the actual size of a photoreceptor itself. (How the visual system does that is pretty amazing too, but far too complex for me to go into here easily... and I have a class to teach in 15 min.)

The differences in detecting PWM would be based on what's known as the magnocellular system in the retina; it receives information from subtypes of cones that are specialized to detect rapid changes in brightness and also detect motion. This is the system that our ability to see motion, determine the spatial location of an object with respect to ourselves and other objects, and navigate through the environment is based on; all those spatial perceptual abilities are based on the functioning of the magnocellular system. Some people just have slightly more sensitive systems than others, based on slight differences in the proportion of the different types of cones, rods, magnocellular retinal ganglion cells, and parvocellular retinal ganglion cells.


----------



## selfbuilt

B0wz3r said:


> The differences in detecting PWM would be based on what's known as the magnocellular system in the retina; it receives information from subtypes of cones that are specialized to detect rapid changes in brightness and also detect motion. This is the system that our ability to see motion, determine the spatial location of an object with respect to ourselves and other objects, and navigate through the environment is based on; all those spatial perceptual abilities are based on the functioning of the magnocellular system. Some people just have slightly more sensitive systems than others, based on slight differences in the proportion of the different types of cones, rods, magnocellular retinal ganglion cells, and parvocellular retinal ganglion cells.


Thanks for the comments, it is definitely an interesting issue.

What you suggest above makes sense me, as I find I perceive PWM flicker as a subjective sensation that something is moving (typically in a rather stroboscopic way). This is especially obvious when looking at a moving object, but the same relative perception effect occurs if looking at a static scene. But of course, something is always moving - I am likely performing eye saccades. Given that we can cover several hundred degree arcs per second, with saccades lasting typically tens to hundreds of msec duration, I wouldn't be surprised if this was part of the explanation for those of us sensitive to PWM (in conjunction with the magnocellular system and relative sensitivity of the components).


----------



## Xak

Just got the Neutron Neutral 1A. There is a bit of wobble to the head in the loosened mode. If I turn it 1/4 of a turn or so there is no problem with accidental switching of modes or levels unless you really use 2 hands and force it, it does still wobble when sideways pressure is applied, though. I must say that even the Quarks can be manipulated this way with just a slight turn of the head and not a full 1/4 turn. 

This does not interfere with normal use of the light at all, even if I use it like I do my Quark. The noticeable wobble of the head in the loosened position does worry me as far as water resistance (is it really IPX...whatever... water proof).

The beam and tint ROCK. I was surprised to find, though, that removing the bezel gives you wider, smoother spill. Why was it designed to have such a cumbersome bezel? Really, it's an EDC-type light. It doesn't need a "tactical" bezel. Does it physically need the bezel at all? Will the glass fall out if I leave it removed?

In any case the pros out weigh the cons (unless there is a water proof issue). This thing appears to be built like a tank, the threads are robust and very square, more so than the Quarks. That is why I agree with another poster that there must be a tolerance issue possibly with the 1A bodies as I hear the same head works fine in a 1C or 2A. 

The UI is like a combo of the Quark Tactical and Quark Regular. It will function like a tactical because it has memory retention in the loose head mode, but a tight head will ALWAYS start as turbo THEN strobe if you click or tap the switch within one sec. VERY cool.

If someone want's to test the waterproofing of this light and it fails I hope Thrunite will supply new 1A bodies for those with this issue. I love the light. The head wobble and bezel are kind of a bummer. If only 4 Sevens came out with a XM-L Quark with this UI.


----------



## EngrPaul

I bought a neutral-emitter 2A (2AA) from Going Gear and received it earlier this week.

Overall, I like the light. The tint is great, the light has a good balance of flood and hotspot. The selection of levels is very good and the reverse clicky is acceptable to me because it allows me to change modes without disengaging the switch.

It's a boring-looking flashlight, the only nice feature is the front bezel. The mid-secion has some flats that give it a tiny bit of personality, but overall I consider the design "me too" and falls short of looking like a flashlight lover's piece.

The flux is not as impressive as I expected. It's not a whole lot better than my Nitecore D20 Q3-5A. I was expecting a bigger punch... regardless it is an improvement.

The reflector is a very reflective light OP. Perfect in my book, I'm tired of hazy OP finishes that have reduced reflectance. I only wish they would frame the LED at the bottom of the reflector with a donut of plastic like other manufacturers have been doing in order to make the LED look more "finished".

I experienced some things with the light that ThruNite should consider fixing.

(1) The button on the light "puffs" after installing the tailcap from the simple pressure of the collapsing volume of air as it's turned in. This prevents tailstanding. I solved this by swapping the switch cover rubber from an old "Rexlight". This has a slightly shorter button which is stiffer. I no longer have any issues with puff. However, the switch is harder to push to switch the light on. But tapping the switch for mode-changing still works without much effort.

(2) If I switch from firefly to turbo, when I go back to firefly more often than not the emitter is completely dark. If I switch the light off, then back on, the firefly comes back.

(3) The pocket clip is way too stiff and is not deburred on the inside. The burr-side of the stamping in on the internal side of the clip and is scratching off the anodizing where it rests on the body. It's also quite rough on my pants. They should at a minimum deburr the inside of the clip where it touches the body. They should consider dropping down a gage. I also experienced frequent unscrewing of the clip retaining bezel toward the tailcap, not that it causes problems.

"Wobble" is not an issue with my light.

Overall, I feel the light is acceptable at this price point because it has a newer XM-L emitter. However, it has enough flaws and lack of personality that it's appeal will quickly subside.

I do not feel this light has the same quality as the Catapult. It doesn't seem to be made by the same people. At the price point, it's somewhat lacking in features and execution. I wish it was more like the Catapult's little brother.


----------



## selfbuilt

EngrPaul said:


> It's a boring-looking flashlight, the only nice feature is the front bezel. The mid-secion has some flats that give it a tiny bit of personality, but overall I consider the design "me too" and falls short of looking like a flashlight lover's piece.


Hi Paul, welcome back. I tend to agree on the lack of "personality" - I find them a little plain looking myself. But some here seem to favour the simplified look. In a sense, they do have the distinction (?) of being among the most flat and having most consistent width across their length. :shrug:



> The flux is not as impressive as I expected. It's not a whole lot better than my Nitecore D20 Q3-5A. I was expecting a bigger punch... regardless it is an improvement.


Hmmm, I find the 2A quite a bit brighter than my D20-Q5. But I appreciate the comment, as it raises an important issue that has been on my mind lately - we generally perceive "throwier" lights as relatively brighter than "floodier" ones.

I see this as an emitter class effect in small bodies (with small reflectors), and not one specific to this Thrunite series. The XM-L lights are all "floodier" than the XP-E/G class lights, leading to less throw and less relative perceived brightness. I think a closet ceiling bounce would convince anyone they are quite a bit brighter - but they may not _seem_ that way in everyday use, given how we all track the hospot by eye.

Again, this is not specific to the Thrunites - the same would apply to any small light series "upgraded" to XM-L. I have EDCed a lot of different small lights over the years, and I find myself attract to "throwier" ones for this reason. But again, I understand why some prefer floodier lights - it is really just a question of calibrating one's light choice to one's personal preference.


----------



## EngrPaul

Agreed!

The D20 was the closest thing I had in "floodiness" to the ThruNite. (My particular D20 was always an overachiever.) With additional comparision and ceiling bounce, I have to agree the output of the ThruNite is indeed a healthy step forward.

I bought the Neturon knowing it would be a floody hotspot, and I'm 100% satisfied with the type of beam it provides.


----------



## Xak

One more thing about my 1A... it does get that "puff" to the switch when changing the battery and loosening the bezel fixes it, but even when puffy I haven't noticed the "squishy" tail switch some people are talking about. Mine seams perfectly normal.

Now and then the firefly doesn't come on when twisting the head from tight to loose while the light is on.

I was surprised someone liked the bezel. I like a plain flashlight, it's the beam that I like to show off. The bezel greatly reduces the spill. Am I correct in assuming the bezel holds the glass in and keeps it waterproof?


----------



## EngrPaul

Xak said:


> I was surprised someone liked the bezel. I like a plain flashlight, it's the beam that I like to show off. The bezel greatly reduces the spill. Am I correct in assuming the bezel holds the glass in and keeps it waterproof?


 
I like a flashlight with a bezel because you can replace the glass if it breaks, clean the emitter if it has processing gunk on it, or replace the reflector with another type if desired. Also, flashlights tend to get a hazy lens over time because silicon and other chemicals become volatile and condense on the lens.

Bezel-less lights are made where everything is loaded from the back side and then, more often than not, they expoxy the threads. Anything goes wrong, you're out of luck.


----------



## Xak

Are the heads of the 1A and 1C interchangeable? Has anyone come to the conclusion that the wobble is caused by the body? Think Thrunight will offer parts like 4Sevens does in the future? If he doesn't offer a fix for the wobble I may consider buying a new body in the future, though it would be super classy if he would just take care of the customers with the wobble problem. Perhaps a recall on the 1A bodies that wobble. (one can dream)


----------



## Xak

I replaced the tailswitch with a 4Sevens regular and it works perfectly now. Tailstands no matter what. Before it was wobbling and would switch modes when pushed flush with the table. Now it's perfect.

I found some really thin o-rings and noticed there was room for one of them next to the original o-ring. So now there are 2 o-rings in there, this did seam to help a bit. It can still switch modes when the loosened head is manipulated with 2 hands, but in normal use this is not a problem. 

I am finally happy with this light.


----------



## Uxorious

Xak said:


> I replaced the tailswitch with a 4Sevens regular and it works perfectly now. Tailstands no matter what. Before it was wobbling and would switch modes when pushed flush with the table. Now it's perfect.


 
There is another easy way to fixed the "puff" of the tailcap to an acceptable level.

First, you have to disassemble the tailswitch, and pick up the larger one of the four spare o-rings(I think they are in two size) included in the box.

Second, put the o-ring around the rubber tailcap, which can provide an additional
space between the rubber tailcap and the "shell" of the tailswitch.
This will let the tailcap recessed more from the surface which provides tailstand ability.

Third, reassemble the tailswitch.

Because the airtight of the tailswitch remains quite will, you still have to press
the tailcap when you screw the tailswitch in.
Overrall it works pretty good for my two Neutron 1A :thumbsup:

Lastly, if you can't screw in the tailswitch to the body as close as you want,
just replace the metal spacer in the tailswitch with a thinner one.

Sorry for my poor English, hope you guys really understand what I said......:hairpull:


----------



## Xak

Your English is great. If the spare 4Sevens tailswitch didn't work so well I would try your idea. Thanx. Hope this can help others.

I am really starting to dig this light. It is so bright and the neutral tint is great.


----------



## DHart

I liked the idea of swapping in a 4Sevens switch/rubber piece and happen to have a lot of Quark parts right at hand... but in spite of a huge amount of effort, that Thrunight 1A switch was simply not going to break loose from the tail cap and screw out. Dang it!

I do love the 1A... great bright turbo and truly pip-squeek firefly level... sweet. They do need just a minor tweak to enable the tailcap to tailstand and they really should do that.


----------



## Xak

DHart said:


> I liked the idea of swapping in a 4Sevens switch/rubber piece and happen to have a lot of Quark parts right at hand... but in spite of a huge amount of effort, that Thrunight 1A switch was simply not going to break loose from the tail cap and screw out. Dang it!



I had that problem too. Then I was reminded that the switch was removed lefty-tighty righty-loosy, not the normal way of righty tighty lefty loosy.


----------



## Xak

What kind of runtimes can I expect with the 1A using an AW 14500? Your grafts only show Hi-Med-Low on the 1A. No "Max" "Firefly" and all with an alkaline battery. 

Would it be similar to the 1C only a bit longer due to the higher capacity of the 14500 over the RCR123?


----------



## DHart

Xak said:


> I had that problem too. Then I was reminded that the switch was removed lefty-tighty righty-loosy, not the normal way of righty tighty lefty loosy.


 
Ah-ha... no wonder I was having problems removing it. Good info... thank you.


----------



## flashflood

DHart said:


> You gotta be kidding me... that's WHACKED! Sheesh.... what behoves them to do that?



Probably so that when you unscrew the tail cap, static friction between the switch and the body doesn't loosen the switch from the tail cap -- it actually tightens it. On the flip side, when you tighten the tail cap, friction will want to loosen the switch, but it can't because the body is in the way. It's quite clever.


----------



## DHart

Clever it is. Now I know. Thank you.


----------



## selfbuilt

flashflood said:


> Probably so that when you unscrew the tail cap, static friction between the switch and the body doesn't loosen the switch from the tail cap -- it actually tightens it. On the flip side, when you tighten the tail cap, friction will want to loosen the switch, but it can't because the body is in the way. It's quite clever.


Yes, a number of manufacturers have started using reverse threading on tailcap retaining rings. It's a good idea, as I suspect a lot of returns for inconsistent/malfunctioning lights are actually due to loosening of the tailcap retaining rings after battery changes. Its amazing how often the advice to tighten the tailcap ring has resolved users problems. I expect to see this reverse threading become more common over time.



Xak said:


> What kind of runtimes can I expect with the 1A using an AW 14500? Your grafts only show Hi-Med-Low on the 1A. No "Max" "Firefly" and all with an alkaline battery.
> 
> Would it be similar to the 1C only a bit longer due to the higher capacity of the 14500 over the RCR123?


Sorry? :thinking: The 1A graph has Turbo runtimes, in addition to Hi. 







As you can see, it's basically the same as the 1C on RCR, except that the capacity of AW 14500s are higher than AW RCRs (hence the 40mins runtime instead of 34 mins for the 1C).


----------



## Xak

How do you think the firefly and low modes compare to the Quarks? Q123 Quarks are rated at 701hrs on moonlight (0.2 lumens) while the Neutron is advertised at 100hrs on firefly (0.09 lumens). On low the Quark at 4 lumen for 60hrs seems comparable to the Neutrons 9 lumens for 33hrs I guess.

Is someone going to test these like they did the Quark? IIRC the Quark ran for a full month on moonlight.


----------



## srfreddy

Xak said:


> How do you think the firefly and low modes compare to the Quarks? Q123 Quarks are rated at 701hrs on moonlight (0.2 lumens) while the Neutron is advertised at 100hrs on firefly (0.09 lumens). On low the Quark at 4 lumen for 60hrs seems comparable to the Neutrons 9 lumens for 33hrs I guess.
> 
> Is someone going to test these like they did the Quark? IIRC the Quark ran for a full month on moonlight.


 I think that was the 2AA quark.


----------



## DHart

To facilitate tailstanding with the 1AA I tried the suggested swap with a Quark rubber switch boot... the low one (I had a spare). I did need to shim the center lug just a hair thicker to get a good contact with the switch, without making the operation too touchy. Now it tailstands perfectly. Nice fix, though it shouldn't be necessary.


----------



## EngrPaul

DHart said:


> To facilitate tailstanding with the 1AA I tried the suggested swap with a Quark rubber switch boot.


 
Sure, why not? It's the Quark 47's should have made.

Neutral XM-L all the way! :nana:


----------



## DHart

EngrPaul said:


> Sure, why not? It's the Quark 47's should have made.
> 
> Neutral XM-L all the way! :nana:


 
Yep... XM-L Neutral tint baby! Sweet. 4Sevens missed two sales to me on this, to Thrunite.

Sure makes me wonder why 4Sevens is missing out on this... I'm avoiding the current Quark line up because of the poor tints/emitter. Had 4Sevens offered the Quark AA with a neutral tint XM-L I would have bought two from them.


----------



## HIDblue

The more I use my Neutron 1C the more I like it...great floody beam and great tint, even on the cool white version...just wish they would've put a forward clicky on it.


----------



## Xak

EngrPaul said:


> Sure, why not? It's the Quark 47's should have made.
> 
> Neutral XM-L all the way! :nana:



+1

I saw these and drooled at the thought that 4Sevens would surly come out with a Quark XM-L. After hearing rumors that he wasn't going to and seeing Thrunight come out with a neutral tint I couldn't wait any longer.

I like how the Quarks are a bit shorter, and tailstand right out of the box without modification, but I prefer the Neutrons UI over the Quarks. 

Fitting that the 4Sevens regular tailcap completes this light.


----------



## flashflood

selfbuilt said:


> As you can see, it's basically the same as the 1C on RCR, except that the capacity of AW 14500s are higher than AW RCRs (hence the 40mins runtime instead of 34 mins for the 1C).



As much as i love these lights, I really wish Thrunite would offer 18mm bodies, so that the 1A/1C (exact same light except for body tube, as far as I can tell) could run on 18350, 18500, or 18650. The extra capacity would be nice.


----------



## Xak

flashflood said:


> As much as i love these lights, I really wish Thrunite would offer 18mm bodies, so that the 1A/1C (exact same light except for body tube, as far as I can tell) could run on 18350, 18500, or 18650. The extra capacity would be nice.



...and GITD tailcaps (that fit and allow the light to tailstand). In an EDC light that is likely to be on the night table it's nice to be able to see your light in pitch darkness without knocking stuff over feeling around for it. Why does no one offer these other than the bigger tac lights like the Catapult and the Olights M20 series?


----------



## AardvarkSagus

I don't know about anybody else, but I haven't had much luck with GITD tailcaps lasting for more than a few minutes. Maybe it'd be different if I had less ambient light around to mess with true dark adapted vision.


----------



## Xak

AardvarkSagus said:


> I don't know about anybody else, but I haven't had much luck with GITD tailcaps lasting for more than a few minutes. Maybe it'd be different if I had less ambient light around to mess with true dark adapted vision.


 
All of the ones I've had glow all night. Not enough to keep you up like a bright alarm clock, but in a pitch black room you can easily find it. The Olights have great GITD tailcaps, I havent had time to compare the one that came with my Cat V3 against it yet, but it seems like it's almost as good. I just like how the Olights GITD tailcap is a milky white in normal lighting, but a soft green/blue glow at night, all night.


----------



## flashflood

Xak said:


> All of the ones I've had glow all night. Not enough to keep you up like a bright alarm clock, but in a pitch black room you can easily find it. The Olights have great GITD tailcaps, I havent had time to compare the one that came with my Cat V3 against it yet, but it seems like it's almost as good. I just like how the Olights GITD tailcap is a milky white in normal lighting, but a soft green/blue glow at night, all night.


 
Is it tritium or just a really good phosphor?


----------



## EngrPaul

For 2AA lights, a downside is typically a bump at the rear of the light will cause the relatively heavy cells to move away from the head instantaneously, causing it to change modes.

The interesting thing about the ThruNite 2A is that it doesn't change modes after a bump for the lower outputs, the light is interrupted a few milliseconds and stays at the original output. A good thing. But in the turbo mode, it changes to strobe and back. They almost got it right!


----------



## ingo76

I'm very happy with my 1c runs the now common cr 123 but will use AW imr later how much difference will it be it is a neutral,


----------



## selfbuilt

ingo76 said:


> I'm very happy with my 1c runs the now common cr 123 but will use AW imr later how much difference will it be it is a neutral,


As you will see in th summary tables in my review, my 1C was about 45% brighter overall on RCR compared to CR123A. Center beam lux also increases proportionally by the same amount.


----------



## Kingdomseeder

I have a question. I purchased a 1C and some rcr123's but in looking at the beam, I can see no difference between using a rechargeable or a primary 123. Do you need to use AW's rcr? I bought some Tenergy rcr's and was really hoping for better output. I have a 4sevens tactical 123 and it definitely has a brighter hot spot which I can understand, but overall it seems brighter also. Am I doing something wrong?


----------



## selfbuilt

Kingdomseeder said:


> I have a question. I purchased a 1C and some rcr123's but in looking at the beam, I can see no difference between using a rechargeable or a primary 123. Do you need to use AW's rcr? I bought some Tenergy rcr's and was really hoping for better output. I have a 4sevens tactical 123 and it definitely has a brighter hot spot which I can understand, but overall it seems brighter also. Am I doing something wrong?


Are your RCRs 3V or 3.7V nominal? If running the the 3V Tenergy cells, you wouldn't expect to be noticeably brighter than 3V CR123A. But any 3.7V Li-ion RCR should run brighter (but a ~45% increase isn't as great as it might sound, in real life).


----------



## Kingdomseeder

selfbuilt said:


> Are your RCRs 3V or 3.7V nominal? If running the the 3V Tenergy cells, you wouldn't expect to be noticeably brighter than 3V CR123A. But any 3.7V Li-ion RCR should run brighter (but a ~45% increase isn't as great as it might sound, in real life).


 
Okay, thanks for the info. I do have the 3v and that is my problem. Looks like some new rechargeables are what I need. Thanks Selfbuilt for your valuable input.


----------



## grumble69

Do I need to beware of the mAh on the battery? For example, you used the AW 3.7V 750mAh. But I saw a special at Battery Junction on an Ultrafire kit (2 batteries + charger for $21). The issue is that the batteries are 3.6V and 880 mAh. Is that ok?


----------



## selfbuilt

grumble69 said:


> Do I need to beware of the mAh on the battery? For example, you used the AW 3.7V 750mAh. But I saw a special at Battery Junction on an Ultrafire kit (2 batteries + charger for $21). The issue is that the batteries are 3.6V and 880 mAh. Is that ok?


I would take all mAh estimates with a big grain of salt (especially Ultrafire). Just make sure that you get the protected version (i.e. built-in protection circuit).

Not sure why they would be listed as 3.6V. Typically, Li-ions are sold as 3.7V or 3.0V versions (the latter is less common, and may not be as bright on most lights). In any case, that is only nominal voltage - in practice, they will go up to ~4.2V when fully charged.


----------



## Bolster

*Quickie Review of Neutron 2A Neutral*

Just received my ThruNite Neutron 2A Neutral with XM-L, quick report, most of which confirms previous reports. 

- Neutrual/warm tint: Yes, see beamshot below, compared with a 2007 vintage Fenix L2D Rebel and a Zebralight H501w. 

- Sublumen Moon Mode: *Love it*. This is what sold me on this light. Just the right brightness for the middle of the night. And as others have reported, if you twist the bezel to go from moonmode to turbo and back, then moonmode won't function. You must cycle through the levels to get moonmode working again. Also, moonmode seems to be strongly tinted...can't tell if this is just playing tricks on my eyes, or what. 

- Wobbly Head: Yes. From loose threads? I had thought this was an issue on the 1A, but it's also here on the 2A. Will it affect waterproofing?

- Waterproof: A couple minutes in the bottom of the tub were fine, but was careful not to move the head (head wobble & o-ring = trouble?)

- Weight: heavier than my Fenix L2D. Feels solid. 

- Beam shape: Close up, the 2A appears to have a tight beam, as you can see by the beamshots. But it quickly turns floody and lights a broad area. At a distance the 2A lights up much more area than the old L2D (opposite of what the beamshots seem to show, because spill makes the L2D look wider). And the L2D seems "brighter" at a distance because it is illuminating a narrower area. 

- Knurling: beefy and feels good. 

- Tailcap stand: Possible but wobbly. It fell over once while attempting tailcap stand. 

- SOS and Strobe: Sadly you must contend with these at the end of the cycle, no way to hide them or deactivate them. I noticed that the SOS has a long pause between repeats, which is a nice feature. 

- PWM: Undetectable, by me at least. 








Setting on camera: Daylight.


----------



## Xak

*Re: Quickie Review of Neutron 2A Warm*

Was yours sold as Neutral tint or Warm tint?


----------



## Bolster

*Re: Quickie Review of Neutron 2A Neutral*

Good point, there's no identification in the materials that come with the flashlight what it is, but at GoingGear it's sold as 'ThruNite2aaN' implying 'neutral.' So I should be consistent and call it 'neutral' not warm. I think of it as 'neutral/warm' due to the yellow/brown tint. 

Even the more warm H501 in the beamshot is sold as a 'neutral.'


----------



## Marc999

Great thread. I have been toying with the idea of Thrunite Neutron 1AA, Quark 1AA, or the Zebralight sc51. 
I think I'll rule out the Thrunite at this point with the wobbly head and tail click mushy button issues.

1 down, 2 more to go.


----------



## DHart

Marc... don't rule out the Thrunight Neutron 1AA XM-L. I just bought two of them with neutral emitters and they're both amazing lights. I'm a Quark fan, but Quark doesn't offer anything comparable to the Thrunight 1AA XM-L. Go forth with confidence. If by some chance you have an issue with one, just return it for another... no problem.



Marc999 said:


> Great thread. I have been toying with the idea of Thrunite Neutron 1AA, Quark 1AA, or the Zebralight sc51.
> I think I'll rule out the Thrunite at this point with the wobbly head and tail click mushy button issues.
> 
> 1 down, 2 more to go.


----------



## nobunaga88

> - Wobbly Head: Yes. From loose threads? I had thought this was an issue on the 1A, but it's also here on the 2A. Will it affect waterproofing?
> 
> - Waterproof: A couple minutes in the bottom of the tub were fine, but was careful not to move the head (head wobble & o-ring = trouble?)



I have a question ,
whether the neutron thrunite 1a (neutral ) has the same wobbly case at all neutral neutrons 1a ?

Anyone has the same problem?

Sorry for my bad English... :naughty:


----------



## Marc999

DHart said:


> Marc... don't rule out the Thrunight Neutron 1AA XM-L. I just bought two of them with neutral emitters and they're both amazing lights. I'm a Quark fan, but Quark doesn't offer anything comparable to the Thrunight 1AA XM-L. Go forth with confidence. If by some chance you have an issue with one, just return it for another... no problem.



I didn't know they offered different emitters on the Thrunite Neutron. Mind if I ask where that is? By the way, how are your lights, wobbly heads? How about tailstanding.

Marc


----------



## badkarmaiii

I can hardly wait to get my 1A back from Barry at Precisionworks. He's already bored it for a 17500 and is now working on a CR123 spacer and AA sleeve for it. There are a couple of other things in the works as well...


----------



## DHart

badkarmaiii said:


> I can hardly wait to get my 1A back from Barry at Precisionworks. He's already bored it for a 17500 and is now working on a CR123 spacer and AA sleeve for it. There are a couple of other things in the works as well...


 
I'm eagerly awaiting your review of the modification and accessories... That sounds really cool!


----------



## mamelo

Xak said:


> Just got the Neutron Neutral 1A. There is a bit of wobble to the head in the loosened mode. If I turn it 1/4 of a turn or so there is no problem with accidental switching of modes or levels unless you really use 2 hands and force it, it does still wobble when sideways pressure is applied, though. I must say that even the Quarks can be manipulated this way with just a slight turn of the head and not a full 1/4 turn.


 
The online store I wanted to buy the Neutrons (I pointed them to this problem on the phone before ordering) discovered the same issue. But only with the head not loosened correctly (e.g. 1/4 turn). They did not know that before my call, but tried other brands also and pointed out that it is not only a Neutron issue. 

Instead the Neutrons, I ordered and tested Fenix LD25 and E11, and it is the same, if you twist (loosen) it in the position just when modes change, thumb pressure from the side can switch modes (LD25) or output level (E11). It can be used for switching modes on the LD25 instead of double-twisting the head though...

Compare it to an ordinary bulb (ceiling light), if you don't screw it in sufficiently you might be able to switch it on by pressing it a bit.

I can live with it, and I doubt it raises a problem being water proof unless you press the head from the side if the light is under water...

regards
mamel


----------



## saclight

Thanks for a good review ! I have read several others on various blogs, and they have not provided the details found here.
I just purchased the 1A, and will provide some feedback after puting it through the real life tests while hunting.


----------



## Xak

Did you really have to post the entire review with your comment? LOL


----------



## xtestifyx

Oh wow please don't quote the entire review...


----------



## shao.fu.tzer

DHart said:


> I'm eagerly awaiting your review of the modification and accessories... That sounds really cool!



Whatever became of this? Barry really is the bore-master. I would love to see how it all turned out, and am dying to know the wall thickness after what sounds like such a dramatic modification!



mamelo said:


> The online store I wanted to buy the Neutrons (I pointed them to this problem on the phone before ordering) discovered the same issue. But only with the head not loosened correctly (e.g. 1/4 turn). They did not know that before my call, but tried other brands also and pointed out that it is not only a Neutron issue.



I guess I got lucky, my 1C is SOLID with absolutely no thread play/head wobble whatsoever, no matter how far you unscrew anything. My square threads seem to be doing their job. I suppose it's just luck of the draw - like the Quark Minis - I have one with VISIBLE head wobble even if barely loosened, but then had another that was just as solid as my Neutron. Looks like thread tolerances are a beast to get perfect from light to light - probably as the die that cuts the threads nears the end of its useful life or needs to be reconditioned, it starts cutting sloppier threads. Maybe since mine was probably one of the first out of the factory (I won it in the giveaway), it was cut with fresh tooling.



xtestifyx said:


> Oh wow please don't quote the entire review...



First post, cut him some slack... I'm sure a mod will be in here to fix it and tell him like it is...


----------



## tsask

OK after starting a thread and reading reviews Im still unsure about my 1C on 3.7v rcrs

is it supposed to work properly on an RCR123?

I have grown NOT to want primary 123s in my EDC because with an RCR I can be 100% sure the light is properly fueled before venturing out into the night.


----------



## selfbuilt

tsask said:


> is it supposed to work properly on an RCR123?


It will work - you will still have defined output levels, but all will be brighter than on 1xCR123A. See the tables and graphs in the 1C portion of the review. I recommend you don't run it for long on Turbo, as the light will get hot quickly at those levels.


----------



## tsask

selfbuilt said:


> It will work - you will still have defined output levels, but all will be brighter than on 1xCR123A. See the tables and graphs in the 1C portion of the review. I recommend you don't run it for long on Turbo, as the light will get hot quickly at those levels.


thank you very much for that info
from what I could tell it is NOT normal for the Neutron C to shut off after 30 seconds on turbo

when I spoke to battJunction they told me the light was not built to run on rcrs. I want to EDc this light but I have a real aversion to not knowing how charged my battery is before venturing out.

I must admit I am still confused as to whether I need to return my 1C.


----------



## tsask

duplicate post


----------



## DHart

tsask said:


> I have grown NOT to want primary 123s in my EDC because with an RCR I can be 100% sure the light is properly fueled before venturing out into the night.



For this reason and to keep from having to continually buy new and then discard used up primaries, and for the greater output afforded, I only use li-ion rechargeables in my lights, when possible. Just use common sense not to allow the light to overheat and you will be fine. Learning the fine points of charging and using li-ion cells is essential, however, for safety. Recharge mid cycle whenever possible for good battery life and for fresh performance. My 1A is awesome on a 14500 li-ion.


----------



## selfbuilt

tsask said:


> thank you very much for that info
> from what I could tell it is NOT normal for the Neutron C to shut off after 30 seconds on turbo
> when I spoke to battJunction they told me the light was not built to run on rcrs. I want to EDc this light but I have a real aversion to not knowing how charged my battery is before venturing out.
> I must admit I am still confused as to whether I need to return my 1C.


Edit: sorry, I misread this - 30mins is normal, not 30secs. Sounds like a poor battery.


----------



## zs&tas

tsask, what batts are you using ? i had this problem and it was the batterys not handling the load. i am running aw's now and all is well


----------



## DylanKean1

Thank you for you great reviews. It help me to make the decision.









______________________________________________________________________________________________________
kindle fire cases
kindle fire cover
kindle 4 case


----------



## tobrien

Another stellar review set! So has Thrunite revised the 2C model yet? Or am I best to stick with a 1C?


----------



## selfbuilt

tobrien said:


> Another stellar review set! So has Thrunite revised the 2C model yet? Or am I best to stick with a 1C?


Well, this review is well over a year old now, so I'm not sure what the current shipping lights are like. I wouldn't be surprised if output or runtime had increased slightly (due to use of higher flux bins), but I have no drect knowledge.


----------



## tobrien

selfbuilt said:


> Well, this review is well over a year old now, so I'm not sure what the current shipping lights are like. I wouldn't be surprised if output or runtime had increased slightly (due to use of higher flux bins), but I have no drect knowledge.



thank you, I'll think over this some more


----------



## Gryffin

Wow, has it been over two years already??? Time flies...

Thrunite drives me crazy. I mostly love my Neutron 1A, amazing output, excellent mode selection, built like a tank, stainless bezel... but I just can't seem to deal with reverse-clickies anymore. So close, so far...

The new Thrunite Archer line is identical in build to the Neutrons, but with forward clickies, YAY! But, changing modes now requires head twists, BOO! Again, so close, so far...

Ah, but, since they share body parts... I got me an Archer 1A, and put the Archer tailcap on my Neutron. Finally, the Thrunite Archtron, the config I wanted all along! It's my EDC bag light, lives in the slot on the underside of the Maxpud Janus on the strap of my EDC bag for quick 'n' easy access. 

(The leftover-parts "Neucher" I keep as a loaner light. Most non-flashaholics don't seem to mind the reverse clickie like I do, and seem to grok the head-twist mode-change UI pretty quickly. Everybody wins.)

One more thing... If the clip attachment reminds you of the Quarks lights, it's not your imagination: they're 100% compatible. My "Archtron" is sportin' a 4Sevens deep carry clip for extra-secure carry on the Janus, it nearly disappears, leaving nothing to snag.


----------



## selfbuilt

Gryffin said:


> I got me an Archer 1A, and put the Archer tailcap on my Neutron. Finally, the Thrunite Archtron, the config I wanted all along! ... (The leftover-parts "Neucher" I keep as a loaner light. Most non-flashaholics don't seem to mind the reverse clickie like I do, and seem to grok the head-twist mode-change UI pretty quickly. Everybody wins.)


Thanks for sharing your hybrid experience. :laughing:

Seriously, I am glad to hear that Thrunite has kept the threading diameter and size the same. That's really rare over a two-year time frame for a manufacturer.


----------



## DHart

Gryffin said:


> Wow, has it been over two years already??? Time flies...
> 
> Thrunite drives me crazy. I mostly love my Neutron 1A, amazing output, excellent mode selection, built like a tank, stainless bezel... but I just can't seem to deal with reverse-clickies anymore. So close, so far...
> 
> The new Thrunite Archer line is identical in build to the Neutrons, but with forward clickies, YAY! But, changing modes now requires head twists, BOO! Again, so close, so far...
> 
> Ah, but, since they share body parts... I got me an Archer 1A, and put the Archer tailcap on my Neutron. Finally, the Thrunite Archtron, the config I wanted all along! It's my EDC bag light, lives in the slot on the underside of the Maxpud Janus on the strap of my EDC bag for quick 'n' easy access.
> 
> (The leftover-parts "Neucher" I keep as a loaner light. Most non-flashaholics don't seem to mind the reverse clickie like I do, and seem to grok the head-twist mode-change UI pretty quickly. Everybody wins.)
> 
> One more thing... If the clip attachment reminds you of the Quarks lights, it's not your imagination: they're 100% compatible. My "Archtron" is sportin' a 4Sevens deep carry clip for extra-secure carry on the Janus, it nearly disappears, leaving nothing to snag.



Thanks for the update! Good info to know.


----------



## thrwbck77

This Review helped so much in purchasing a flashlight for my dad thank you.


----------



## selfbuilt

thrwbck77 said:


> This Review helped so much in purchasing a flashlight for my dad thank you.


I'm glad you found it useful. These review is fairly old though, so it's possible that shipping lights may have altered characteristics (especially in terms of output or runtime). Typically, emitters continue to improve over time.

:welcome:


----------



## ger-slash

I love reading your Reviews, worlds best in my opnion. Even it's in old one, i read the reviews of my owned flashlights. I got 2 Neutron 2C this year, on both i cannot recognize any PWM. It seems ThruNite changed something in the Drivers.
I like the Neutron very much, because of the light-levels and the UI (except SOS-mode).

With best regards
Ger/

P.S. sorry for my poor english


----------



## selfbuilt

ger-slash said:


> I love reading your Reviews, worlds best in my opnion. Even it's in old one, i read the reviews of my owned flashlights. I got 2 Neutron 2C this year, on both i cannot recognize any PWM. It seems ThruNite changed something in the Drivers.


As you point out, this is a really old review - so it is certainly possible that they they improved the PWM on the 2C. Glad you found it useful, even after the fact.

And :welcome:


----------

