# Fenix L2D CE and L1D CE runtime graphs



## chevrofreak (Mar 4, 2007)

Fenix L2D CE - max - Energizer E2 lithium: 1608 (est 114.86 lumens)
Fenix L2D CE - max - Kirkland alkaline: 1591 (est 113.64 lumens)
Fenix L2D CE - max - Duracell 2650mAh Ni-MH: 1561 (est 111.5 lumens)







Fenix L2D CE - high - Kirkland alkaline: 906 (est 64.71 lumens)
Fenix L2D CE - high - Energizer E2 lithium: 899 (est 64.21 lumens)
Fenix L2D CE - high - Duracell 2650mAh Ni-MH: 888 (est 63.43 lumens)






Fenix L2D CE - medium - Energizer E2 lithium: 600 (est 42.86 lumens) (dropping to 432 (est 30.86 lumens) in 20 seconds)
Fenix L2D CE - medium - Kirkland alkaline: 431 (est 30.79 lumens)
Fenix L2D CE - medium - Duracell 2650mAh Ni-MH: 428 (est 30.43 lumens)






Fenix L2D CE - low - Energizer E2 lithium: 687 (est 49.07 lumens) (regulation kicks in at 1 day 1 hour 33 minutes: 89 (est 6.36 lumens)
Fenix L2D CE - low - Kirkland alkaline: 167 (est 11.93 lumens) (regulation kicks in at 46 minutes: 89 (est 6.36 lumens)
Fenix L2D CE - low - Duracell 2650mAh Ni-MH: 90 (est 6.43 lumens)






L1D CE is done

Fenix L1D CE - max - Energizer E2 lithium: 1104 (est 78.86 lumens)
Fenix L1D CE - max - Kirkland alkaline: 989 (est 70.64 lumens)
Fenix L1D CE - max - Duracell 2650mAh Ni-MH: 979 (est 69.93 lumens)






Fenix L1D CE - high - Energizer E2 lithium: 875 (est 62.5 lumens)
Fenix L1D CE - high - Kirkland alkaline: 866 (est 61.86 lumens)
Fenix L1D CE - high - Duracell 2650mAh Ni-MH: 856 (est 61.14 lumens)






Fenix L1D CE - medium - Energizer E2 lithium: 444 (est 31.71 lumens)
Fenix L1D CE - medium - Kirkland alkaline: 436 (est 31.14 lumens)
Fenix L1D CE - medium - Duracell 2650mAh Ni-MH: 434 (est 31 lumens)






Fenix L1D CE - low - Energizer E2 lithium: 121 (est 8.64 lumens)
Fenix L1D CE - low - Kirkland alkaline: 120 (est 8.57 lumens)
Fenix L1D CE - low - Duracell 2650mAh Ni-MH: 117 (est 8.36 lumens)






Fenix L1D CE - max - AW 750mAh 14500: 1656 (est 118.29 lumens)






After the protection circuit kicked in I let the light cool for a while, then fired it back up in Low mode.

Fenix L1D CE - low - AW 750mAh 14500 3.51v after Max runtime: 553 (est 39.5 lumens)






Fenix L1D CE - high - AW 750mAh 14500: 1624 (est 116 lumens) (regulation kicks in at 54 minutes: 888 (est 63.43 lumens)


----------



## r0b0r (Mar 5, 2007)

*Re: Fenix L2D CE runtime graphs (L1D CE pending)*

Nice regulation and fantastic graphs!

Thankyou so much Chevro!
We love yOOUu!

.
..*( v )*.
...*\,/*..


----------



## Lobo (Mar 5, 2007)

*Re: Fenix L2D CE runtime graphs (L1D CE pending)*

Wow, just awesome Chevro! I have been looking forward for these runtimes a long time, thank you so much!
And damn, the L2D is quite impressives on nimh. Wonder if any of the other cree-competitiors are even close to having that kind of excellent regulation.


----------



## r0b0r (Mar 5, 2007)

*Re: Fenix L2D CE runtime graphs (L1D CE pending)*

My ASCII art su}{orz

Hope you like that awesome artwork Chevro, that pathetic thing took me far too many presses on the Preview button than I feel entirely psychologically comfortable with ;D


----------



## EssLight (Mar 5, 2007)

*Re: Fenix L2D CE runtime graphs (L1D CE pending)*

:thanks: Thanks Chevrofreak, for all the work and excellent data.:goodjob: 

And no wonder it took so long, an L2D CE on low goes over 2 days continuous running? :wow: Over 3 days on lithium batteries? :wow: :wow: 

The runtime curves on max have some jagged spots. I see similar shapes in both the alkaline and lithium curves. Any idea what causes that?

EssLight


----------



## bridgman (Mar 5, 2007)

*Re: Fenix L2D CE runtime graphs (L1D CE pending)*

Wow -- if you ever wanted to explain the difference between alkaline and NiMH batteries those graphs are ideal. Alkaline dies real fast on high, gives maybe 1/3 the runtime of NiMH on high, 60% of NiMH on medium, but almost matches the NiMH runtime on "low".

Any graph with "5200 minutes" on the x-axis deserves our most prodigious thanks !!


----------



## IsaacHayes (Mar 5, 2007)

*Re: Fenix L2D CE runtime graphs (L1D CE pending)*

Awesome work as always!!

The l2D is really versatile light. Bright as heck, but yet can be a long runtime hurricane light!!


----------



## s60308076 (Mar 5, 2007)

*Re: Fenix L2D CE runtime graphs (L1D CE pending)*

Fantastic! I love the regulation!
Look forward to your L1D CE runtime graphs~


----------



## sb0007 (Mar 5, 2007)

*Re: Fenix L2D CE runtime graphs (L1D CE pending)*

Lookin at the figures. Wow this is a great light man. A good walking light and longlong long runtime with good brightness.


----------



## Nyctophiliac (Mar 5, 2007)

*Re: Fenix L2D CE runtime graphs (L1D CE pending)*

Chevro - you've just given me a new experience!

Giddy, uncontrolable laughter, looking at runtime graphs????

(I particularly liked the low one)

Good job, Sir.







Be lucky..........


----------



## daveman (Mar 5, 2007)

*Re: Fenix L2D CE runtime graphs (L1D CE pending)*

Thank you very much for going through the trouble of doing these runtime graphs, Chevrofreak. They're immensely helpful to me, I really appreciate your selfless dedication to us.


----------



## leeleefocus (Mar 5, 2007)

*Re: Fenix L2D CE runtime graphs (L1D CE pending)*

Not only do these graphs satisfy people's curiosity about the lights runtime but they let people know how long there light will last in an emergency sittuation. Many thanks for doing these graphs Chevro.


----------



## adirondackdestroyer (Mar 5, 2007)

*Re: Fenix L2D CE runtime graphs (L1D CE pending)*

Does any light in the world have performance that can even touch this? Over 60 lumens on high for 100 minutes on two alkaline cells, or for over 6.5 hours with two lithiums!!!!! That is unreal runtime at that output level. I couldn't imagine a better light for backpacking. 


Chevro, 

Thanks a ton for all your work, I know this light must have been a real ***** to finish. You rock! :rock:


----------



## LowBat (Mar 5, 2007)

*Re: Fenix L2D CE runtime graphs (L1D CE pending)*

You do great work chevrofreak! :thumbsup:


----------



## pantshacker (Mar 5, 2007)

*Re: Fenix L2D CE runtime graphs (L1D CE pending)*

Thank you, chevrofreak


----------



## LED_Thrift (Mar 5, 2007)

*Re: Fenix L2D CE runtime graphs (L1D CE pending)*



LowBat said:


> You do *great* work chevrofreak! :thumbsup:


 

Plus One to that!


----------



## Flash-addict (Mar 5, 2007)

*Re: Fenix L2D CE runtime graphs (L1D CE pending)*

purely amazing chevrofreak. wow!:rock:


----------



## Thujone (Mar 5, 2007)

*Re: Fenix L2D CE runtime graphs (L1D CE pending)*

I gotta think that these graphs will sell some lights.. They are simply great. Thank you very much for taking the time to do these!


----------



## BentHeadTX (Mar 5, 2007)

*Re: Fenix L2D CE runtime graphs (L1D CE pending)*

Thank you, Chevro! 
You burned up an 8 pack of lithium AA cells to give us those graphs so were do we send the $$ for your battery fund? 
The runtimes are very impressive as low is measured in days and not meer hours. Another way to look at the UI of the L2D CE is alkaline or NiMH/Lithium. Leave the turbo mode alone with alkalines and you'll get decent runtimes. Load it up with NiMH and put it in full blast mode without worry. 
After seeing the greatness of the L2D CE, I think I need to order another one since I'm moving to Tampa in a few months. Get ready for a several day power outage with a 16 pack of alkalines and a few Fenix lights.


----------



## dirobesh (Mar 5, 2007)

*Re: Fenix L2D CE runtime graphs (L1D CE pending)*

Could I just add my thanks for the time and effort you've put into producing these run times. Its very much appreciated!


----------



## clipse (Mar 5, 2007)

*Re: Fenix L2D CE runtime graphs (L1D CE pending)*

wow,awesome. i can't wait to get mine here.


----------



## WildChild (Mar 5, 2007)

*Re: Fenix L2D CE runtime graphs (L1D CE pending)*

Quickbeam! Update your L2D review with these graphes!


----------



## GrnXnham (Mar 5, 2007)

*Re: Fenix L2D CE runtime graphs (L1D CE pending)*

Chevrofreak, I love you man!


----------



## Botnik (Mar 5, 2007)

*Re: Fenix L2D CE runtime graphs (L1D CE pending)*



EssLight said:


> The runtime curves on max have some jagged spots. I see similar shapes in both the alkaline and lithium curves. Any idea what causes that?



Maybe the circuitry is seeing the battery voltage drop and is switching to a different regulation mode.

Kevin


----------



## TenPin (Mar 5, 2007)

*Re: Fenix L2D CE runtime graphs (L1D CE pending)*

Thanks a lot for your efforts chevrofreak. This is a great reference.

I reckon many of the L1D runtimes will be simply slightly less than half of the L2D runtimes.

Those runtimes on low are awesome.


----------



## Buckeye (Mar 5, 2007)

*Re: Fenix L2D CE runtime graphs (L1D CE pending)*

111 lumens for 1:50 on AA NiMH!?!?  I really liked my L2D CE before now the rest of my lights seem wimpy. I was perfectly happy with my L1P...maybe I need to replace it with the L1D.
Thanks again Chevrofreak. :rock: 
Doug


----------



## Burgess (Mar 6, 2007)

*Re: Fenix L2D CE runtime graphs (L1D CE pending)*

Chevrofreak -- thank you, sir !








And this light has such *impressive* regulation and runtime.


If i didn't already OWN one, i'd hafta' run right out and ORDER one !


Thank you for your efforts, Chevro !

And thank you to FourSevens for your great service.


Bet these graphs are gonna' sell a LOT of flashlights.


----------



## chevrofreak (Mar 6, 2007)

*Re: Fenix L2D CE runtime graphs (L1D CE pending)*



EssLight said:


> The runtime curves on max have some jagged spots. I see similar shapes in both the alkaline and lithium curves. Any idea what causes that?
> 
> EssLight



My guess would be that the circuit is detecting that it is drawing less current than it is wanting to and it makes an attempt to pull even more. That's purely speculation though.


----------



## chevrofreak (Mar 6, 2007)

*Re: Fenix L2D CE runtime graphs (L1D CE pending)*



BentHeadTX said:


> Thank you, Chevro!
> You burned up an 8 pack of lithium AA cells to give us those graphs so were do we send the $$ for your battery fund?



If you would like to donate via PayPal, you can follow this link http://lights.chevrofreak.com/roger/donations.htm or simply send the funds to chevrofreak @ hotmail . com

I really appreciate all the kind words and donations I get for doing these 

BTW, the L1D CE is done and has been added to the first post.


----------



## AtomSphere (Mar 6, 2007)

chevrofreak, thanks for the graphs. However, my runtime test on the L2D CE on max is 2H10min using the exact same batteries from from the charger at 1.44v.

Was your charge different?


----------



## chevrofreak (Mar 6, 2007)

AtomSphere said:


> chevrofreak, thanks for the graphs. However, my runtime test on the L2D CE on max is 2H10min using the exact same batteries from from the charger at 1.44v.
> 
> Was your charge different?



No, mine came off at 1.450v but I think the difference is actually in the forward voltage of the LED and potentially in the minor differences between circuits.

The forward voltage of the LED will have the most significant impact on the runtime, a lower forward voltage having more runtime and a higher forward votlage having less.


----------



## Xygen (Mar 6, 2007)

Great work chevro! Thanks for your effort.
The wait has been worthwhile...


----------



## daveman (Mar 6, 2007)

Great job, sir.


----------



## adirondackdestroyer (Mar 6, 2007)

Chevro,

Thanks a ton for the new L1DCE graphs. Man that is one awesome light! 60+ lumens for two hours on one AA cell. I never thought a light that awesome would be available so quickly considering what were had only 1 year ago. 

My question is how come the L91 gives much longer runtime than the 2650 rechargable cell on Low and Medium, but has very similar runtime on high/max? That doesn't make sense to me.


----------



## r0b0r (Mar 7, 2007)

Hey Chevro (or anyone), 
With either the L1 or L2, what is the indication of batteries about to poop out on Low mode (or any, for that matter)
Do we get erratic flickering? 

Also, what's the tail end of this light - how long until we're in the dark?

Cheers!


----------



## LowBat (Mar 7, 2007)

r0b0r said:


> Hey Chevro (or anyone),
> With either the L1 or L2, what is the indication of batteries about to poop out on Low mode (or any, for that matter)
> Do we get erratic flickering?
> 
> ...


The light will go out when switching modes on low power. When that happens wait 30 seconds for the battery to recover somewhat and you can turn it on again; just leave it on a low setting.


----------



## frosty (Mar 7, 2007)

:goodjob: Thanks for taking the time to produce this info, it's really appreciated.


----------



## Quickbeam (Mar 7, 2007)

And a huge public "thank you" to Chevrofreak for his willingness to share his graphs and raw data with me, making my life a little easier. I will be adding his graphs to my L1D/L2D review on FlashlightReviews.com very soon.

Doug P.
FlashlightReviews.com


----------



## Bomo (Mar 7, 2007)

Thanks for the runtime graphs - these really put the capability of these lights in perspective.

I was outside not long ago clearing snow from my driveway at night. I thought this a great opportunity to check out my new L1D, so strapped it to the handlebar in the snowblower. It was running on high for about an hour and I just couldn't get over the fact that it was putting out so much light for so long. I'm rather new to this flashlight stuff, but the fact that it didn't dim the whole time just amazed me.


----------



## Thujone (Mar 7, 2007)

These graphs are great! Now how about a test with the L2Dce on low with all major AA cells for the sake of completeness. Just kidding of course, that would take all year! Thanks again!


----------



## zerafull (Mar 7, 2007)

thank you for your work Chevrofreak, i hate the false brands specs , thank a million


----------



## mchlwise (Mar 7, 2007)

:goodjob:

Thanks Chevro.


----------



## VidPro (Mar 7, 2007)

well now doesnt that answer a lot of questions i would have.
thanks


----------



## WildChild (Mar 8, 2007)

chevrofreak, I have a question concerning your runtime test of the L2D on low with Duracell 2650 mAh NiMH. Did you use new Duracell or your defective ones (high self discharge)? If it was the ones with high self discharge, it may have influenced the runtime. From what I've seen, when they get knocked by high self discharge, they can discharge as fast as 2-3 days!


----------



## brightnorm (Mar 9, 2007)

Chevro,


Many thanks for these very useful tests.

Brightnorm


----------



## kurni (Mar 9, 2007)

Chevro, I have always preferred your graph.

Many thanks,
KK


----------



## chevrofreak (Mar 9, 2007)

WildChild said:


> chevrofreak, I have a question concerning your runtime test of the L2D on low with Duracell 2650 mAh NiMH. Did you use new Duracell or your defective ones (high self discharge)? If it was the ones with high self discharge, it may have influenced the runtime. From what I've seen, when they get knocked by high self discharge, they can discharge as fast as 2-3 days!




All of the Ni-MH runs were done using the new cells I purchased a couple weeks ago.


----------



## WildChild (Mar 9, 2007)

chevrofreak said:


> All of the Ni-MH runs were done using the new cells I purchased a couple weeks ago.



Great!


----------



## T4R06 (Mar 9, 2007)

thanks chevro!

i guess i will use 14500, the way it act on the graph after protection kick-in you will get "extra" low and high. very unique!

went to target and grab rayovac hybrid 2100mAh, im wondering if they run at least 50mins on high?

hope my L1D will arrive tomorrow


----------



## Frenchyled (Mar 9, 2007)

Truly awesome !!!
Many thanks Chevro for your runtime graphs...

And.. thank you Fenix for this !! One of the best autonomy with only one AA cell !!


----------



## zerafull (Mar 9, 2007)

chevrofreak i dont understand the difference between the lumens of flashlighreviews (overal output 88 = 122 lumens) and your mesures of 114 lumens ? it's the test receptor quality or other ?

You can explain me ?

and why the little difference about the lumens between nihm and lE2 lithium ?
regards


----------



## Quickbeam (Mar 9, 2007)

NO two lights of the same type have exactly the same performance characteristics. Variations in the components of the circuits, LEDs, etc. will cause them all to be a little different. 

Plus, the lumen readings I get are ESTIMATES, not difinitive scientific mesasurements, and therefore are open to error. If anyone wants to send the $20,000 for the Integrating Sphere and associated calibration equipment, I'll be happy to get accurate measurements... No takers? Rats.

The difference in lumen output between Chevrofreak's and my measurements is less than 7%, and almost anything could account for that little of a difference, including mistakes in taking the readings... :shrug: Considering the level of sophistication we have access to, I would say that we did a surprisingly good job by getting readings that close!


----------



## C4LED (Mar 9, 2007)

Quickbeam said:


> Considering the level of sophistication we have access to, I would say that we did a surprisingly good job by getting readings that close!



Sound good to me!


----------



## zerafull (Mar 9, 2007)

ha okay Quickbeam, thank you for your complete reply, really and congratulation for your website !

regards


----------



## TORCH_BOY (Mar 9, 2007)

Great graphs, It purely shows that the Lithium and NIMH cells perform best in these lights


----------



## Spordin (Mar 11, 2007)

Thanks Chevro. Even with alkalines there's decent performance. Very cool gee-whizz stuff coming out.


----------



## Any Cal. (Mar 11, 2007)

Just saw this. Thanks a lot for the effort. Answers many of my questions. Thank you.


----------



## r0b0r (Mar 12, 2007)

Sorry to be repetitive, but I'm curious as to the tail end of the L1D's runtime.
Once the output can no longer exceed that of Low - how much time is there until there's no light at all?

Thankyou very much 

(If no one has tried this, I'll get a flat-ish alkaline \ NiMH and see how it goes.... might not be good for the NiMH but it doesn't bother me to loose one for science)


----------



## Patriot (Mar 12, 2007)

That must have been a lot of work. Thanks Chevrofreak!


----------



## orionlion82 (Mar 12, 2007)

wow! good work. 

thats restored a bit of my confidence in me fenixes... 
*
the bottom line is: it tells me i have to get in in the lithium game. *

3 days and a bit more on low (E2) ? WOW!
puts my NIMH (which ive never run down with a fenix) to shame!

Fenix should get a deal to ship e2's with their lights in the blister pack, like the other standard 2AA lights we know...that would impress people.


----------



## Burgess (Mar 12, 2007)

Good point, *orionlion82* -

I've always felt that the reason flashlight mfrs. include
new batteries in their package is to make the

*--- all-important First Impression ---*

a real eye-opener ! 

Something to make the user say "WOW" !


When somebody hasta' scrounge up a couple of AA's from
their TV remote-control, they simply won't get the full-effect.







I think Energizer L91's would certainly achieve this.






Are u listening, Fenix ?


----------



## Ty_Bower (Mar 13, 2007)

Thanks for the good work, Chevrofreak.

It's comforting to see the L1D-CE lasts about the same amount of time on Turbo as it does on High. This is as expected, since both settings put out essentially the same amount of light.


----------



## r0b0r (Mar 13, 2007)

L91s cost considerably more than alkalines. I see no real point in inflating the cost of a product with these.

With the L2D there's also the fact when first fired up, the voltage from the two L91s causes the lower levels to be pretty much identical - that gives the impression of shoddy design. 

Considering the battery life when using NiMH is still exceptionally good, I don't think the extra cost can be justified. 

What fenix SHOULD do is make it very clear that the preferred food of these flashlights is NiMH or Lithium - Alkalines are certainly usable but do not allow for optimum performance.

Hell, if they stuck a condensed version of a Chevro-esque graph on the packaging \ website that'd be absolutely awesome!w


----------



## kurni (Mar 15, 2007)

I'm a noob; am I right in interpreting the following graph that L1D CE is more efficient than P1D CE?






Many thanks,
KK


----------



## chevrofreak (Mar 16, 2007)

r0b0r said:


> Sorry to be repetitive, but I'm curious as to the tail end of the L1D's runtime.
> Once the output can no longer exceed that of Low - how much time is there until there's no light at all?
> 
> Thankyou very much
> ...




Alkalines can run a very very long time at the low output level because even though the light output dropped dramatically on the high levels the cells still have quite a lot of power left in them. If you use the light intermittently the cell will have a chance to recover more and the tail at the end will be shorter than it would be with a straight through run like I do when testing.

I don't have any actual data right now as I'm still quite swamped with runtime tests. I'll see if I can do another alkaline graph allowing it to run completely dead. It may be a while before I can get to it though.


----------



## chevrofreak (Mar 16, 2007)

kurni said:


> I'm a noob; am I right in interpreting the following graph that L1D CE is more efficient than P1D CE?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That is a possibility, but I think it is more likely that one of the cells doesn't have the claimed capacity, or that one has more than the claimed capacity.


----------



## Ty_Bower (Mar 16, 2007)

chevrofreak said:


> That is a possibility, but I think it is more likely that one of the cells doesn't have the claimed capacity, or that one has more than the claimed capacity.


Is it also possible that one of the lights on the graph has a Cree with a much better forward voltage? I understand there is quite a bit of variation in the Vf of these Crees.


----------



## zerafull (Mar 16, 2007)

and about the 14500 750 mah cell, it's not really dangerous for the cree led the 3,6 voltage for a long time ?

And the L1D ce got 3 modes too with 14500 ? max, high and low if i see your great graphs chevrofreak ?

thanks you


----------



## kurni (Mar 16, 2007)

zerafull said:


> and about the 14500 750 mah cell, it's not really dangerous for the cree led the 3,6 voltage for a long time ?
> 
> And the L1D ce got 3 modes too with 14500 ? max, high and low if i see your great graphs chevrofreak ?
> 
> thanks you



I'm always curious if it's actually hurting the LED; I'm guessing that at least 3.6V overdrives the LED. 3.6V bypass Fenix circuit so you loose the low, medium & high; you only have turbo, strobe & SOS.

Some of us have contacted AW for 3V 14500, but it seems that he's still waiting for more demand.


----------



## gunga (Mar 16, 2007)

I think there was aa few hundred people asking for the 3V 14500.

I wonder how much interest is needed?


----------



## zerafull (Mar 17, 2007)

thank you kurni
but the sos mode is in "general mode" (60 lumens) and not turbo mode (120 lumens + strobe) it's strange 
it's not a problem the over-voltage ? okay thank


----------



## naturelle (Mar 17, 2007)

zerafull said:


> and about the 14500 750 mah cell, it's not really dangerous for the cree led the 3,6 voltage for a long time ?


The current-draw makes the problem, not the voltage. direct-drive in a fenix means that there is no current-regulating circuit or resistor, and that's the danger for the LED.


----------



## kurni (Mar 17, 2007)

I'm now confused how L1D circuit works.


----------



## orionlion82 (Mar 18, 2007)

on second thought... i really had my info wrong. 
post deleted.


----------



## X_Marine (Mar 21, 2007)

As is said "A picture is worth a million words". I think Chevrofreak has out done this with his graphs..:rock:

Hellofajob.. :goodjob:

I would be curious as to you setup for logging all the info. I would guess a dmm with usb port for logging, or scope?. Hey just guessing..

ThanX
X.


----------



## orionlion82 (Mar 21, 2007)

Burgess said:


> Good point, *orionlion82* -
> 
> I've always felt that the reason flashlight mfrs. include
> new batteries in their package is to make the
> ...



after a bit of reading up- lithiums in series in the hands of everyone that buys a flashlight might be a rather - well, unsteady idea...


----------



## Burgess (Mar 21, 2007)

Re: Lithiums in series


That's why i specified *Energizer Lithium L91* cells !


No problems on record of THOSE cells causing any safety issues !


There are several different types of "Lithium Batteries".


Trouble is, *most* people don't know the difference.


They just see the words *Lithium Battery*, and get *scared* !


----------



## Oddjob (Mar 22, 2007)

Thanks for the graphs!


----------



## Curious_character (Mar 24, 2007)

chevrofreak said:


> That is a possibility, but I think it is more likely that one of the cells doesn't have the claimed capacity, or that one has more than the claimed capacity.


I've run a lot of discharge tests on NiMH cells. Almost none have the claimed capacity, and some are more blatantly overrated than others. But I also found something that most people don't realize -- there's a large difference in how completely various chargers charge the cells. So even people using the very same cells can get some pretty different results.

Please add my thanks for all the great work!

c_c


----------



## thei (Mar 25, 2007)

There’s no logical reason for me to want to know… but does anyone know how long the L1D-CE would run on strobe (on NiMH’s)? I’ve been playing around leaving all the lights off, and it on strobe, which is great, and got curious about the runtime. I’d hazard a guess it’d be roughly double that of it on turbo, minus however much it takes to run the strobe circuitry?


----------



## XCandela (Mar 25, 2007)

It is a shame to put Duracell 2650mAh NiMH sticker together with such a fine flashlight! 
These batteries are having horrific self discharge rate so that after 3 days there is no juice left in it at all. 
Fine flashlight deserve fine batteries ... Sanyo, Energizer to name some.


----------



## LowBat (Mar 25, 2007)

XCandela said:


> It is a shame to put Duracell 2650mAh NiMH sticker together with such a fine flashlight!
> These batteries are having horrific self discharge rate so that after 3 days there is no juice left in it at all.
> Fine flashlight deserve fine batteries ... Sanyo, Energizer to name some.


You seem to have reversed results. Most here find Energizer is the inferior brand while Duracell out performs them.


----------



## XCandela (Mar 25, 2007)

Did you try to use Duracell NiMH batteris day after you charged them? Are you planing to top up your batteries every single day - very handy eh?
Duracell 2650mAh NiMH are complitelly empty - self discharged ~3 days after being charged and that's well known fact thus in no way outperforming Energizer 2500mAh.

... all this above is for rechargeable. I don't care much about primary cells.


----------



## Burgess (Mar 25, 2007)

Methinks u have a bad batch of Duracell 2650 NiMH cells.

I have 16 of 'em, and they've *all* provided GREAT service
over the past year. Even after 2 weeks from charger.


BTW, i understand that these Duracells are manufactured by Sanyo, in Japan.


Hope this is helpful.


----------



## DavidD (Mar 25, 2007)

Burgess said:


> Methinks u have a bad batch of Duracell 2650 NiMH cells.
> 
> I have 16 of 'em, and they've *all* provided GREAT service
> over the past year. Even after 2 weeks from charger.
> ...



+1
It was all of my Energizer 2500 that have horrible self-discharge. The Duracells are so much better.


----------



## LowBat (Mar 26, 2007)

I gave away my Energizer 2500's and replaced them with Duracell 2650's. The result was no more quirky recharge issues and improved storage retention. The Energizers also had a bad habit of releasing gas when in fast/high drain devices. As Burgess pointed out, you may have received a bad batch.


----------



## chevrofreak (Mar 26, 2007)

My expenrience with the Duracell 2650's was that they developed a fast dicharge rate fairly early on. My Enerigzer 2500's have been fine so far, and my Sanyo 2500's have been kind of a mixed bag. 

I bought a second set of Duracell 2650's after the performance of my old set started to drop, and so far these new ones are doing fine. I'm trying something new with this set, I'm letting the lights run until they're nearly dead before I recharge the cells, and so far they have not developed a high self discharge rate like the old set has.

I sometimes wonder if not fully cycling our cells is actually causing them to start this high self discharge thing, so as an experiment I've been cycling my Sanyo cells repeatedly, allowing them to run completely down before charging. I think it has actually revived them to the point where they hold their charge longer. When I finish "reviving" the Sanyo 2500's I'll try doing the same thing for my old set of Duracell 2650's.


----------



## CodeOfLight (Mar 27, 2007)

I found a bad cell the other day via an odd coincidence. I turned on my L2d-CE and stood it on it's tail. After about 30 seconds, it fell over all by itself. "That's odd", I thought. When I looked at the tail cap the rubber cap covering the switch was bubbled out a little. It was growing as I watched. After another 30 seconds it had inflated into a hemisphere. I unscrewed the cap and it instantly deflated back to flat. Neither cell was hot. Both looked fine. They were both freshly charged. One was obviously venting. After a little detective work that involved switching out single cells, I found the bad one. There was NO VISIBLE SIGN that the battery was bad.


----------



## cratz2 (Mar 27, 2007)

Hrmm... I've had generally good results with both the Energizer 2500s and the Duracell 2650s. I have probably 16 of the Energizers and 8 of the 2650s. As far as a 3 day self discharge, I recently got a new digital camera that takes 2 AA cells. I charged 4 of the 2650s in a 4 channel charger (as in you can charge each cell individually) and depleted them 3 times each (2 each in 2 different Inova X1s and a pair of them in an Inova Radiant 1xAA all bought on clearance at Target). I let them run about 4 hours each then topped them all off.

4 days later, I took 432 pictures using 2 cells. 

Camera is a Canon A530.

If these cells consistantly self-discharge in 3 days, this would obviously be impossible.

With the 2500 cells, of the 8 cells I tested individually, I found one definately held less of a charge and discharged or self-discharged more rapidly than the others.

I think the biggest issue with NiMHs might be the VERY dumb chargers that a lot of users probably use. I have 2 of the slide compartment chargers that come with the Energizer 2500 cells, a 15 Minute Ray-O-Vac charger for 2 cells, a generic charger and a Duracell charger that as mentioned, you can charge one cell at a time. It isn't particularly a fast or slow charger and takes about 3 hours to charge a well depleted 2500 NiMH cell. If I take 4 of the Energizer cells that have been similarly (but not identically) discharged, and put them in the Energizer slide charger and let them run until the LED goes out, I can take those same cells, put them in the Duracell charger and get anywhere from 15 minutes to a full hour of additional charging time in the Duracell charger.

I assume this means that the cells were discharged to varying degrees and that the Energizer charger is too dumb to charge each cell fully. Remember, the Energizer charger must charge cells in pairs. 

This is the equilavent of taking two identical Honda Civics that have between 400 and 1000 miles on them and putting 4 gallons of fuel in them - on top of an unknown amount of fuel already in the tank - and then seeing how far each will go. Sure, you know far each one went, but you have no idea what kind of mileage either of them actually got because you have no idea how full either tank was before the test was started.


----------



## CodeOfLight (Mar 27, 2007)

Yep, these chargers that charge two cells on one channel are absolutely useless. If one cell is partially charged and the other is empty, the partially charged one will get WAY overcharged. I think it is set up this way in order to FORCE people to ruin perfectly good cells so that they will have to buy more. Each and every cell should be on it's own independent channel. The chargers mentioned here are like that. The cheap chargers that require two or four cell loads only are to be avoided. Either that or you must keep track of the discharge state of each cell to safely use them.


----------



## Lobo (Mar 27, 2007)

CodeOfLight said:


> Yep, these chargers that charge two cells on one channel are absolutely useless. If one cell is partially charged and the other is empty, the partially charged one will get WAY overcharged. I think it is set up this way in order to FORCE people to ruin perfectly good cells so that they will have to buy more. Each and every cell should be on it's own independent channel. The chargers mentioned here are like that. The cheap chargers that require two or four cell loads only are to be avoided. Either that or you must keep track of the discharge state of each cell to safely use them.


 
Or just use the discharge function before loading the cells? But usually I know how discharged my cells are, or just check with a voltmeter before I charge them.
Ok, I admit that I'm just making up excuses to not buy a decent charger now.


----------



## cratz2 (Mar 27, 2007)

Actually, the Duracell charger that I use was only $6.00 on clearance at Frys Electronics. Came with two 1800 mAh Duracell AAs. My ex wife has the exact same charger, except hers has an LED for each channel while mine just has two, but it is still a 4 channel charger.


----------



## CodeOfLight (Mar 28, 2007)

Any charger that costs $6 will NOT have an independent channel for each cell. If you have to put in cells in pairs before it will charge, then it is charging them in series. BAD IDEA in virtually ANY situation. The differences in capacity for individual cells from the same lot will be enough to shorten the life of them if charged this way. I think this is INSANE for the battery companies to make chargers this way. Unless, of course, you want to sell more batteries to replace the ruined ones


----------



## thei (Mar 28, 2007)

CodeOfLight said:


> Any charger that costs $6 will NOT have an independent channel for each cell. If you have to put in cells in pairs before it will charge, then it is charging them in series. BAD IDEA in virtually ANY situation. The differences in capacity for individual cells from the same lot will be enough to shorten the life of them if charged this way. I think this is INSANE for the battery companies to make chargers this way. Unless, of course, you want to sell more batteries to replace the ruined ones


Almost everything uses batteries in sets of two, so it isn't usually a problem.


----------



## cratz2 (Mar 28, 2007)

CodeOfLight said:


> Any charger that costs $6 will NOT have an independent channel for each cell. If you have to put in cells in pairs before it will charge, then it is charging them in series. BAD IDEA in virtually ANY situation. The differences in capacity for individual cells from the same lot will be enough to shorten the life of them if charged this way. I think this is INSANE for the battery companies to make chargers this way. Unless, of course, you want to sell more batteries to replace the ruined ones



I said I paid $6 for it on clearance. It was originally $30 which is $10 more than the Energizer 4 Pack with the dumb charger.

And I assure you it charges them individually.


----------



## jefffoxsr (Apr 4, 2007)

The majority of the people will use alkalines. They will only get 1/3 of the runtime that Fenix claims.

Why does Fenix significanly overstate the runtimes on the L2d-CE?

Still Learning. Thanks for the education.


----------



## adirondackdestroyer (Apr 4, 2007)

a


jefffoxsr said:


> The majority of the people will use alkalines. They will only get 1/3 of the runtime that Fenix claims.
> 
> Why does Fenix significanly overstate the runtimes on the L2d-CE?
> 
> Still Learning. Thanks for the education.


 
I'm pretty sure that Fenix is using NIMH cells when they state the runtimes of their lights. Using Alkalines in either of these lights is plain stupid. A charger and 2 NIMH cells can be had for less $10 and will give free lumens and MUCH better performance.


----------



## jefffoxsr (Apr 4, 2007)

Thanks. Where can I find out more about what a NIMH cell is and "how" to use them?

I see "NIMH" mentioned a lot on this forum, but I need a basic tutorial in batteries.

Thanks.


----------



## bridgman (Apr 4, 2007)

I went to the "Flashlight Electronics - Batteries Included" forum (fourth from the top on the main CPF page, I think) and read through all the interesting threads there. There's a HUGE amount of information available from some very knowledgeable people.

NiMH stands for Nickel Metal Hydride. They were new and cool a few years ago and now are the standard workhorse rechargeable battery for consumer products. Everywhere you see rechargeable batteries for sale they are probably NiMH cells.

The latest generation of NiMH rechargeables are extremely good, to the point where the only reason I use alkalines is so I can keep refreshing my emergency stash and use them rather than have them expire. If I could find a really good affordable solar charger I would probably give up on the alkaline stash completely.


----------



## lumenal (Apr 4, 2007)

Hey jeff - welcome to CPF. 

For the "battery-basics," try www.batteryuniversity.com.


----------



## jefffoxsr (Apr 5, 2007)

Thanks for the information.


----------



## Handlobraesing (Apr 16, 2007)

chevrofreak, I seem to recall you mentioning your lights are under forced cooling with a fan while being tested. 

Would you clarify if these particular tests were ran with or without forced cooling?


----------



## chevrofreak (Apr 17, 2007)

I fan cool all lights that I test because most of them don't belong to me and I don't want to damage the LED or cause them to explode from a potentially overheated cell.


----------



## Handlobraesing (Apr 18, 2007)

chevrofreak said:


> I fan cool all lights that I test because most of them don't belong to me and I don't want to damage the LED or cause them to explode from a potentially overheated cell.



You're creating a special laboratory environment. If you never said it, I would have never known about it. How come you don't mention the intentional environmental control factor in your test results?

Also, don't you think there's a problem with products when a reviewer fears the light under test might start a fire, rupture or create an environmental health hazard from release of dangerous gases(particular CR123s) under ordinary use conditions?


----------



## chesterqw (Apr 18, 2007)

well, you cannot even predict, let alone know what will happen the next second of your life... let alone those lights are not his.
ARE NOT his.

get it?


----------



## patycake57 (Apr 18, 2007)

The Arc LS that I have gets quite hot if left by itself, so I think there is a long history of lights not being able to thermally manage without the hand heatsink. Is it being suggested that chevro hold every light in his palm during the test? Or that he should design a system that would mimick holding in the hand, and then test what would happen if the light was dropped? Maybe he should test in Arizona conditions versus Canadian conditions? Summer versus winter? Maybe he should buy a certified integrating sphere? I could go on and on...

I think chevro's doing a great job currently, and would hate to see him stop.


----------



## chevrofreak (Apr 18, 2007)

Handlobraesing said:


> You're creating a special laboratory environment. If you never said it, I would have never known about it. How come you don't mention the intentional environmental control factor in your test results?
> 
> Also, don't you think there's a problem with products when a reviewer fears the light under test might start a fire, rupture or create an environmental health hazard from release of dangerous gases(particular CR123s) under ordinary use conditions?




Of course I'm creating a laboratory environment because there is no other way to cool the lights other than holding them in my hand, and that isn't an acceptable thing to do. Cooling each of the lights with a fan gives them all an even playing field. I even fan cooled those Maglite LED's you seem so fond of.

I often have to leave the house while a runtime test is going and I don't like the idea of an overheated cell exploding and potentially burning down my house, let alone damaging something that doesn't belong to me.


----------



## gunga (Apr 18, 2007)

chevro, please keep up the good work!

I don't understand how people can go and flame and complain considering how much work this is and how vaulable the results are!

:rock:


----------



## chevrofreak (Apr 18, 2007)

gunga said:


> chevro, please keep up the good work!
> 
> I don't understand how people can go and flame and complain considering how much work this is and how vaulable the results are!
> 
> :rock:



Handlo just doesn't like it when I call him on his Fenix bashing, so he likes to come into my threads to stir crap up.


----------



## garageguy (Apr 19, 2007)

Chevrofreak, as always, excellent job!!! Thank you for your hard work.


----------



## mchlwise (Apr 19, 2007)

garageguy said:


> Chevrofreak, as always, excellent job!!! Thank you for your hard work.



+1

Thanks Chevro! :rock:


----------



## Daniel_sk (Apr 19, 2007)

I...can't...resist... I need a L1D or L2D because of this great graphs .

Ok - just a quick question. If I get a L1D CE, can I later buy a L2D CE body and switch between a 1xAA and 2xAA body? Is there any difference between the L1D and L2D except in the body length?
Thanks!


----------



## gunga (Apr 19, 2007)

You are correct. THey have the same head. You can even buy a P2D body later (in May) and use the head with a CR123 (my plan, still waiting...)


----------



## Daniel_sk (Apr 19, 2007)

gunga said:


> You are correct. THey have the same head. You can even buy a P2D body later (in May) and use the head with a CR123 (my plan, still waiting...)


 
Ok, you convinced me, I'll order L1D CE now!  

I lost so much time waiting for the Rexlight, that was going to be my first real flashlight - but i'll just cancel that order (because it probably can't take 2AA or CR123, it has PWM, very poor regulation, stupid 5 "smart" seconds, ... it isn't what I was hoping and waiting month for  ).

Sorry for the offtopic, but I had to vent my anger...


----------



## gunga (Apr 19, 2007)

Yeah, I ordered a couple. One as gift, the other as an extra light to play with. It still has some promise as a cheap light, and it has a better feeling body (I think) than the Fenix. The Fenix is a bit slippery, and the finish has never been that tough.

OTOH, the Fenix has wicked circuitry, great efficiency and awsome support (Fenix Store, Lighthound...). If I only had one, it would be the Fenix. I thought about selling it, with all these new lights, but it still has the best combination of features. I just can't wait for the P2D tubes!

Keep in mind, all the lower modes don't work properly with 3.7V Li-on. So get 3V (Either Li-on or LiFePo4 RCR123's) if you want rechargable.

I was bummed about that, but the modes, brightness, and runtimes swayed me.

It's a winner. MIne is a bit green, but I only notice when comparing directly with other lights.

I just wish they put an OP reflector in!


----------



## Daniel_sk (Apr 19, 2007)

Gunga - thanks for the info.

I already ordered a pair of Eneloops for the Rexlight. I keep the batteries, but I have just cancelled my Rexlight order. 
I am would like to use Eneloops with this light. I go hiking, once a week or two, so I need low-discharge. I don't need high brightness (I have a headlamp, Tikka XP, 90% of the time on low), and those Li-On batteries are good for the extra brigthness (If I understand that right - I am a flashlight noob). 
I really like the idea that I can buy more accesories later, and the support is also important.


----------



## GaryF (Apr 19, 2007)

patycake57 said:


> I think chevro's doing a great job currently, and would hate to see him stop.



+1 :goodjob:


----------



## Thujone (Apr 19, 2007)

i drop my lights in water (room temp) during run time tests to keep them cool. I don't see how this differs a lot from holding the light. (Besides the fact your hand is above room temp) Keep doing things the way you are doing them Chevro, they are highly appreciated. Looking forward to your P3D graph, I may end up buying one based on your graph (and how it behaves on 2xRCR123s)


----------



## gunga (Apr 19, 2007)

Daniel sk, good choice.

I'm just playing with these batteries for fun. For real world use, like camping, hiking, eneloops are great. The Fenix is also very good on nimh. It's funny, the more I talk about how good the Fenix is, the more I want to sell the Rexlight...

I have one as a gift, so I can't really cancel. The other one may end up on B/S/T.

I still would like to take a look at it...


----------



## Daniel_sk (Apr 19, 2007)

Gunga - I would take both, Rexlight and Fenix. The Rexlight just for a try. But I am on limited budget (as a student), so I have to pick only one and I can't take the risk, fenix is a proven "classic".


----------



## CodeOfLight (Apr 20, 2007)

Guys, I have had all kinds of lights. The L2D-CE is my "goto" light in almost all cases now. I can run this puppy for over 2 hours in tail stand mode. It gets hot but not too hot. I would call it very warm. I always have a charger full of NiMH batteries both at work and at home. When it runs out, I just take 10 seconds and change the batts. I feel like I have free lumens. I can use it all I want all the time without feeling like I am using up batteries. My wife likes to have all the lights down (meaning off) at night, and I mean starting at about 8 pm. She is a little wierd this way, but she seems to think it will encourage everybody to get to bed sooner. I used to get a little miffed at this until I discovered CPF. I have a CR2 Ion Xre I always carry with me, but I reserve that for time when I am not at home. At home I carry the L2d-CE in my back pocket because of all of it's various modes and NiMH batteries. I love having my own little "super-light" area that follows me around just like the cloud of dust followed pigpen on charlie brown. I just point the light up at the ceiling wherever I walk. Whenever I have to work on the computer late at night, I take a large white styrofoam cup and cut a small hole in the side near the top. I push the head of the L2D-CE into this hole so the cup is bent over at an angle and then tailstand it near the PC, with the opening of the cup pointed at my keyboard. Perfect.

I just gave one to my 13 year old son for his birthday, he was ecstatic about it. (I am breeding a flashaholic successor). He now carries it around with him at night. I also ordered an LOD-CE for my daughter. Pretty soon the neighbors will think that our house is home to a bunch or wierdos at night, what with all the spots of light moving around. The police will probably have to flag our address as a "do not respond" type place when they get calls about flashlights moving around inside.

Oh, ane one other thing, I will soon have my Stunner-P4 (yes, I am one of the seriously lucky ones) to carry around too! Being king of my house, I must have the brightest one!


----------



## musicalfruit (Jun 26, 2007)

Hi,

I've thinking about buying a L1D-CE and had some questions about it's compatibility with a 14500. After a few months now, has it been determined that it's safe? Has anyone come out with a 3V 14500 yet?

Also, I was trying to interpret the 14500 runtimes graphs. Does it mean that a 14500 will run 57 minutes on turbo then shut down. After which, you have a high mode (another 50 minutes) or low mode (another 22 minutes) only? Why does the high mode give you more time?

Thanks.


----------



## abvidledUK (Jun 28, 2007)

*Re: L1D CE runtime graphs using Duracell Alkalines, much better*

L1D CE.

Unimpressed with the RT's and vastly reducing output Chevro achieved using Kirkland Alkalines. (See graphs on page one)

I did same RT's using Duracell Coppertop Alkalines, dated March 2011.

Much better results......


*L1D CE*, *Medium*, constant output for *120* minutes, then sharp drop.

*L1D CE*, *High*, constant output for *60* minutes, then sharp drop.

Outputs same as using nimh cells, and CR123's with P2D tube, at all levels, apart from turbo, as discovered elsewhere.

(To be really picky, the output from the AA's was actually a smidgens less than the CR123's, at any setting apart from Turbo)

Using the Alkalines, output dropped when the cells reached 1.2v, and would then not re-ignite...


----------



## Uncle Bob (Jun 28, 2007)

*Re: L1D CE runtime graphs using Duracell Alkalines, much better*



abvidledUK said:


> L1D CE.
> 
> Unimpressed with the RT's and vastly reducing output Chevro achieved using Kirkland Alkalines.
> 
> ...



This gives new life to my consideration of a new light purchase. According to Fenix Store literature the L1D-CE, L2D-CE and P2D-CE have similar lumen output. The differences are battery types, run times and size. I could go for the 1AA (easily available/cheap) in the L1D-CE and bypass the P2D-CE with it's inconvenient (price/availability) CR123. All I compromise on is run time. Right?

:thinking:


----------



## selfbuilt (Jun 28, 2007)

*Re: L1D CE runtime graphs using Duracell Alkalines, much better*



Uncle Bob said:


> According to Fenix Store literature the L1D-CE, L2D-CE and P2D-CE have similar lumen output. The differences are battery types, run times and size. I could go for the 1AA (easily available/cheap) in the L1D-CE and bypass the P2D-CE with it's inconvenient (price/availability) CR123. All I compromise on is run time. Right?


No, they all use the same head, but max output is different on the 1AA version. The L2D-CE and P2D-CE are indeed equivalent in output on Turbo, which is almost (but not quite) twice as much as the a 1AA version. The lower modes are roughly similar, with some variation.


----------



## abvidledUK (Jun 28, 2007)

*Re: L1D CE runtime graphs using Duracell Alkalines, much better*



Uncle Bob said:


> This gives new life to my consideration of a new light purchase. According to Fenix Store literature the L1D-CE, L2D-CE and P2D-CE have similar lumen output. The differences are battery types, run times and size. I could go for the 1AA (easily available/cheap) in the L1D-CE and bypass the P2D-CE with it's inconvenient (price/availability) CR123. All I compromise on is run time. Right?
> 
> :thinking:







selfbuilt said:


> max output is different on the 1AA version. The L2D-CE and P2D-CE are indeed equivalent in output on Turbo, which is almost (but not quite) twice as much as the a 1AA version. The lower modes are roughly similar, with some variation.



That's exactly correct, as I have done RT's and output comparisons with my P2D and L1D's heads and bodies.

Same heads, different cells.

The turbo output I found is ≈ no higher than the High setting using AA cells, any type.

You need the higher voltage of the CR123 to reach full turbo.

Also, lower RT's using AA's, in every mode I tested.

Cost / hour approx same for AA's and CR123's.

Except for Lithium AA's, twice the cost approx.

AA's 15p, CR123's 49p.

Advantage of AA's also, you can use nimh's, and get all output levels (but Turbo≈High).

So finally, to clarify, I get ≈ the same output level for all types AA's, and CR123 at all settings, apart from Turbo. (Not tested with 14500)


----------



## Uncle Bob (Jun 28, 2007)

*Re: L1D CE runtime graphs using Duracell Alkalines, much better*



selfbuilt said:


> No, they all use the same head, but max output is different on the 1AA version. The L2D-CE and P2D-CE are indeed equivalent in output on Turbo, which is almost (but not quite) twice as much as the a 1AA version. The lower modes are roughly similar, with some variation.



Thanks for pointing out that fact. Still, if I'm not in need of that much Turbo, I could always enjoy the use of the other modes with those economical AA's at shorter run times. I could always use lithiums if I wanted to boost run time or carry spare AA's.


----------



## 4sevens (Jun 28, 2007)

*Re: L1D CE runtime graphs using Duracell Alkalines, much better*



selfbuilt said:


> No, they all use the same head, but max output is different on the 1AA version. The L2D-CE and P2D-CE are indeed equivalent in output on Turbo, which is almost (but not quite) twice as much as the a 1AA version. The lower modes are roughly similar, with some variation.


That is correct. They are the same heads, same circuitry.



abvidledUK said:


> The turbo output I found is no higher than the High setting using AA cells, any type.


Is this an observation with your eye or with a light meter?
A 10 lumen increase from 80 is very hard for the eye detect, but it's
very clear with a light meter.
Keep in mind the eye's sensitivity is logarythmic. This means for your
eyes to observe a 2x brightness difference will require 3x-4x more lumens.
80 lumens and 320 lumens would appear twice as bright to your eyes.
Now with a light meter you can measure the difference between 80 and 90.


----------



## Uncle Bob (Jun 28, 2007)

*Re: L1D CE runtime graphs using Duracell Alkalines, much better*



abvidledUK said:


> Advantage of AA's also, you can use nimh's, and get all output levels (but Turbo=High).



I'm confused. Isn't there a *high* and *turbo* setting?


----------



## abvidledUK (Jun 28, 2007)

*Re: L1D CE runtime graphs using Duracell Alkalines, much better*



4sevens said:


> That is correct. They are the same heads, same circuitry.
> 
> Is this an observation with your eye or with a light meter?
> A 10 lumen increase from 80 is very hard for the eye detect, but it's
> ...



You are quite correct David.

All outputs were measured with a light meter, and there is a slight measured increase in turbo reading using AA's compared to high reading, I was just keeping it simple !!


----------



## abvidledUK (Jun 28, 2007)

*Re: L1D CE runtime graphs using Duracell Alkalines, much better*



Uncle Bob said:


> I'm confused. Isn't there a *high* and *turbo* setting?



Yes there is, perhaps I over simplified it.

Using AA's the turbo setting gives a very similar (slightly more) measured output than the high setting.

Perhaps I shouldn't have used the = sign.

I couldn't find the approximately equal sign on my iMac.

≈, I'll use this instead.


----------



## abvidledUK (Jun 28, 2007)

*Re: L1D CE runtime graphs using Duracell Alkalines, much better*



abvidledUK said:


> L1D CE.
> 
> Unimpressed with the RT's and vastly reducing output Chevro achieved using Kirkland Alkalines. (See graphs on page one)
> 
> ...



Let's not get too side tracked here, it was the very poor performance shown using Kirkland Alkalines in Chevro's excellent graphs that prompted me to try Duracells.

Duracells give a much better illustration of the high quality Fenix circuitry.


----------



## BB (Jun 28, 2007)

*Re: L1D CE runtime graphs using Duracell Alkalines, much better*



abvidledUK said:


> Let's not get too side tracked here, it was the very poor performance shown using Kirkland Alkalines in Chevro's excellent graphs that prompted me to try Duracells.
> 
> Duracells give a much better illustration of the high quality Fenix circuitry.



Which is strange--Generally, the Kirkland's have been as good, or slightly better than Duracells for me and some others here at CPF.

-Bill


----------



## abvidledUK (Jun 29, 2007)

I am very, very pleased with the results using Duracell Coppertop Alkalines.

Using L1D CE bodies & tailcaps suppled by 4-7's, for my P2d CE's.

Excellent accessory.

So much, I am going to buy a couple of L1D CE's, helped along by Chevro's excellent graphs for the other, non alkaline AA cells.

They are over on

http://www.cpfmarketplace.com/mp/showthread.php?p=2038808#post2038808

if anyone want's them.


----------



## WildChild (Jun 29, 2007)

*Re: L1D CE runtime graphs using Duracell Alkalines, much better*



abvidledUK said:


> Let's not get too side tracked here, it was the very poor performance shown using Kirkland Alkalines in Chevro's excellent graphs that prompted me to try Duracells.
> 
> Duracells give a much better illustration of the high quality Fenix circuitry.



You also have to consider that every flashlight is different. There are variations in circuitry and led efficiency! For example, with NiMH on turbo, the L2D chevrofreak tested was pulling ~1.45A. Mine pulls ~1.15A on turbo. This could explain why he was getting poorer performances on alkaline.


----------



## carbonmetrictree (Jun 30, 2007)

Thank you for the research! I'm in the process of getting a l2d and this really helped! :thumbsup:


----------



## etc (Jul 31, 2007)

The good:

Lots of lumens in a very small package. Hard to believe
that a device that small can generate so much lite on "Turbo".

The tint is incredibly white, and bright.

The bad:

Incredibly stupid user interface. You tell me I have to cycle through ALL the modes to get to the one I want?? Including that funky flash mode that I am sure I will need every day?? 
Great idea but very poor implementation and stupidly designed. If you want to use say medium or High as your primary mode, you will wear out the clickie getting to it all the time. It will take you 4 clicks instead of 1 like it should be.

Too confusing, too many modes. I wish it had just 2. Turbo and medium, which has the lumens of an old 1W lite.


----------



## Burgess (Jul 31, 2007)

*Your* choice, of course. I understand your frustration.


But for *me*, that LOW mode is the one that i use *most*.


When i need *more* Lumens, i simply "half-click" the tail-switch,
and BAM, i've got MEDIUM mode.


Really not so difficult or complicated, after a day or two.


Is it perfect ? Nope.


Is it usable ? You bet !



But we *really* need Fenix to build 'em with a USB interface. 

So we can "program" our flashlight to OUR tastes !


Oh, and give us **more knurling** , for greater "grip-ability" !

-


----------



## BlackDecker (Aug 1, 2007)

I quickly got used to 'half-clicking' my L2D CE to go straight to the medium light level which seems to be the one I use most. From there, just a full single click turns the light off. I find the interface quite user-friendly.


----------



## musicalfruit (Aug 17, 2007)

I just tried a 14500 in my L1D and noticed that I lost all the normal modes (this I knew) and the strobe mode but kept the SOS mode. Why would the SOS mode be kept but not the strobe mode?

Also, it doesn't seem that much brighter on 14500 than on NiMH. Should you be able to tell the difference between 120 lumens and 70 lumens (numbers taken from Chevrofreak's graphs)?

If so, what is the method that you use? I tried the ceiling bounce and it was not that conclusive since I only have one L1D and couldn't do an A-B easily. Would taking pictures from a point and shoot camera (no access to a SLR) help highlight the difference?

Thanks.


----------



## IsaacHayes (Aug 17, 2007)

There is a difference, if you did them side by side you will notice. It's just that even on NiMH it's really bright

You probably don't have strobe because the head isn't screwing down enough to enter turbo/strobe mode. The Li-ion is longer than normal AA. On mine it's barely enough to activate the turbo mode. Others lights are shorter or batteries longer and cant get to turbo/strobe at all.

If you can lock your camera exposure then you should be able to capture the difference.


----------



## musicalfruit (Aug 17, 2007)

IsaacHayes said:


> You probably don't have strobe because the head isn't screwing down enough to enter turbo/strobe mode. The Li-ion is longer than normal AA. On mine it's barely enough to activate the turbo mode. Others lights are shorter or batteries longer and cant get to turbo/strobe at all.



You're right. I think on my L1D, I can't screw down the head enough to activate turbo mode because of the 14500's extra length. That's probably why it doesn't look that much brighter. On Chevrofreak's graph, I see that high mode output drops on a rapid curve to ~900 instead of staying at around ~1500 when in turbo mode.

Is there anything I can do? Do the AW 14500 vary in length? Or perhaps I can try the unprotected UF 14500s?

Thanks for the insight.


----------



## CampLite (Feb 5, 2010)

+1 I couldnt agree more


----------



## nanotech17 (Feb 5, 2010)

musicalfruit said:


> You're right. I think on my L1D, I can't screw down the head enough to activate turbo mode because of the 14500's extra length. That's probably why it doesn't look that much brighter. On Chevrofreak's graph, I see that high mode output drops on a rapid curve to ~900 instead of staying at around ~1500 when in turbo mode.
> 
> Is there anything I can do? Do the AW 14500 vary in length? Or perhaps I can try the unprotected UF 14500s?
> 
> Thanks for the insight.



you can try a 14670 cell + a home made spacer that fit.


----------

