# Fenix P1D CE and P1D runtimes



## chevrofreak (Dec 12, 2006)

Fenix P1D CE - high - Energizer E2 CR123a: 1556 - (estimated 111.14 lumens)

Fenix P1D CE - medium - Energizer E2 CR123a: 833 - (estimated 59.5 lumens)

Fenix P1D CE - low - Energizer E2 CR123a: 236 - (estimated 16.86 lumens)


Yes ladies and gentlemen, it really did run in regulation on high with an RCR123! Medium wasn't as bright as high with the RCR123, it measured 1055 or about 75 lumens. Low didn't exist.


















The P1D is done now too.

Fenix P1D - high - Energizer E2 CR123a: 788 - (estimated 56.29 lumens)

Fenix P1D - medium - Energizer E2 CR123a: 467 - (estimated 33.36 lumens)

Fenix P1D - low - Energizer E2 CR123a: 172 - (estimated 12.29 lumens)


















And how's this for you? The P1D CE on medium puts out more light than the P1D does on high!







P1D CE vs P1D on high






P1D CE vs P1D on medium






P1D CE vs P1D on low







RCR123 lines have been added to the P1D CE medium, and the regular P1D as well. It took about 9 minutes for the RCR123 to drop into regulation on medium with the P1D CE but about 47 for the regular P1D. Some cells may not have quite the power of this one and may start out in regulation right away.





Here's the strobe mode for the P1D CE. It's pretty choppy since I had to set my light meter to slow sampling in order to even out the pulses.






S.O.S. mode. It's a solid color because of all the pulses.






Runtime for the S.O.S. is a bit disappointing, I had expected several days.




P1D CE on low with one of AW's high current RCR123s.


----------



## jtice (Dec 12, 2006)

*Re: Fenix P1D CE runtimes (regular P1D coming soon)*

Excellent work as always Chev !!! :thumbsup:

interesting the the RCR held it in regulation on high.

~John


----------



## atm (Dec 12, 2006)

*Re: Fenix P1D CE runtimes (regular P1D coming soon)*

Great info as ever thanks!

Maybe I missed mention of this in another thread, but there seems to be a fair difference between what was claimed/expected and the actual runtimes.



4sevens said:


> 5 Output Levels: 72 lumens (2.8hrs) -> 135 lumens (1hrs) -> 12 lumens (21hrs) -> Strobe -> SOS


http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1698234&postcount=1

Andrew


----------



## chevrofreak (Dec 12, 2006)

*Re: Fenix P1D CE runtimes (regular P1D coming soon)*



atm said:


> Great info as ever thanks!
> 
> Maybe I missed mention of this in another thread, but there seems to be a fair difference between what was claimed/expected and the actual runtimes.
> 
> ...



It's true that it doesn't meet the quoted runtime, but it's also brighter on low than was stated.

They state 135 lumens for high, I got about 111

They state 72 lumens for medium, I got about 60

They state 12 lumens for low, I got about 17

I think they may have changed the low beam to be brighter than they had originally stated, since I get 12.3 vs their claim of 7 on the luxeon version of the P1D.


----------



## Pumaman (Dec 12, 2006)

*Re: Fenix P1D CE runtimes (regular P1D coming soon)*

thanks chev


----------



## LEDcandle (Dec 12, 2006)

*Re: Fenix P1D CE runtimes (regular P1D coming soon)*

Nice work! Very useful information....

60 lumens for 2.5 hrs in such a small package really attests to the power of Cree... guess once the beam is fixed in other lights or new models, its going to be an even madder rush than now!


----------



## atm (Dec 12, 2006)

*Re: Fenix P1D CE runtimes (regular P1D coming soon)*

I take your point, it's possible to see where some of the claimed runtime went on low. However, I think one of the great appeals of the CE version was the "135 lumens for 1 hour", 111ish lumens for 44 mins is a significant difference. And that's to 50%, it's not even 111 lumens for the entire 44 mins, it looks like it drops off after only 20 mins.

How much of an affect on runtimes do different batteries (brands) make (the Energizers are one of the better brands anyway aren't they?)?

I know I'm being picky here, but I found the idea of a fully regulated 135 lumens for an hour very appealing. I don't regret deciding to hold off and wait for this sort of info to become available now.


----------



## chevrofreak (Dec 12, 2006)

*Re: Fenix P1D CE runtimes (regular P1D coming soon)*



atm said:


> How much of an affect on runtimes do different batteries (brands) make (the Energizers are one of the better brands anyway aren't they?)?
> 
> I know I'm being picky here, but I found the idea of a fully regulated 135 lumens for an hour very appealing. I don't regret deciding to hold off and wait for this sort of info to become available now.




The Energizers will be pretty much the best cells there are.

I believe Fenix gives their runtime quotes as the time to 50% output, or perhaps to the end of what they believe is useful light, not just the time it spends in regulation.

At the 60 minute mark it is putting out about 20 lumens. That's still quite a bit of light.


----------



## atm (Dec 12, 2006)

*Re: Fenix P1D CE runtimes (regular P1D coming soon)*



chevrofreak said:


> The Energizers will be pretty much the best cells there are.
> 
> I believe Fenix gives their runtime quotes as the time to 50% output, or perhaps to the end of what they believe is useful light, not just the time it spends in regulation.
> 
> At the 60 minute mark it is putting out about 20 lumens. That's still quite a bit of light.


OK, I guess I was being a bit too wishful.

Thanks again for doing these!

Andrew


----------



## ViReN (Dec 12, 2006)

*Re: Fenix P1D CE runtimes (regular P1D coming soon)*

chevrofreak, Hey that's great graphs. looks like very inefficient circuit out there. I mean, just 45 minutes??? was the Energizer E2 CR123a new one or partly used??

any Idea of the bin of P1D CE's V1's Cree LED?

the lowest bin (P2) should roughly give around 125 Lumens at 700 mA .coz....(P3) roughly gives around 135 Lumens at 700 mA (NewBie's tests) ....p4 bin is 145 lumens at 700 mA according to jtr's Power LED tests.

So even if it's a P2 & being fed at 900 mA, with Vf of 3.5 Volts and battery capacity of 1500 mAH according to LED Pro 2.12, the total efficiency comes out to be 52.5% only on MAX!

I m wondering what's wrong... let me check again

Current in mA = 900 mA (assuming P2 & 30% light losses in heat, reflector & lens) to give 111 estimated lumen's
Vf around 3.5 ... yes it's low... but that's with most the cree's tested by CPFers
Battery Input Voltage = 3.0 Volts
Battery Capacity = 1500 mAH
runtime according to the above chart = .75 (45 minutes)

hit Calculate.....yeah.. that's 52.5% 

either the LED Pro 2.12 is wrong or my assumptions are terribly wrong some where. (...although i tried to be as realistic as possible)

Please note if LED is being fed with low current means even lower efficiency of the circuit, if LED is being fed more than 900 mA means it's running in a Danger Zone considering small mass of light and thermal constrains.

for mere 85% efficient circuits, the LED Pro 2.12 calculated runtime with 900 mA current to the LED are around 1 hr 15 minutes.

yes, I am disappointed after viewing the runtime 

NewBie is getting P1D CE, Facts will come out soon .... hope he would be doing efficiency tests too...


----------



## chevrofreak (Dec 12, 2006)

*Re: Fenix P1D CE runtimes (regular P1D coming soon)*

It was a brand new Energizer cell.

I just measured the current consumption from a slightly used Rayovac RL123a that measures 2.94v with no load. It was drawing 1.5 amps from that little cell, yikes! At 1.5 amps it's probably sagging to about 2.4 volts, so figure about 3.6 watts going into the circuit.

At 1.5 amps the cell will only have about 1200mAh in it. The current draw probably gets close to, or perhaps even goes past 2 amps as the regulation starts to fail. That will cost a lot of battery capacity.


----------



## UnknownVT (Dec 12, 2006)

*Re: Fenix P1D CE runtimes (regular P1D coming soon)*

*chevrofreak* wrote: _"Fenix P1D CE - high - Energizer E2 CR123a: 1556 - (estimated 111.14 lumens)_
_Fenix P1D CE - medium - Energizer E2 CR123a: 833 - (estimated 59.5 lumens)_
_Fenix P1D CE - low - Energizer E2 CR123a: 236 - (estimated 16.86 lumens)"_

Excellent work again - as usual...
this adds enormously to our knowledge of the Fenix P1D-CE - 
thanks!

I have put a link to this thread in my review -

Fenix P1D-CE comparison Review

both as a new update post and in the opening post.

Thanks!


----------



## grapplex (Dec 12, 2006)

*Re: Fenix P1D CE runtimes (regular P1D coming soon)*

...


----------



## chevrofreak (Dec 12, 2006)

*Re: Fenix P1D CE runtimes (regular P1D coming soon)*



grapplex said:


> Chevro,
> 
> how exactly are you getting the lumens measurement? If your just using old luxeon light scaling numbers that would probably grossly underestimate lumens since xr-e spill will contain much more light relative to hotspot. are you using some kind of lightbox?



I'm using a spherical light box.











I've since replaced that silly Maglite bezel ring with a cap that I can screw on and off to keep dust out.


----------



## grapplex (Dec 12, 2006)

*Re: Fenix P1D CE runtimes (regular P1D coming soon)*

...


----------



## wojtek_pl (Dec 12, 2006)

*Re: Fenix P1D CE runtimes (regular P1D coming soon)*

Good Job ! Although lack of regulation in High mode is a little disappointing. It should be, say, 40 minutes regulated... 
Can you measure brightness with RCR123 on High and Medium?
Anyway, medium and low runtimes on primary are very OK with me.


----------



## LightBright (Dec 12, 2006)

*Re: Fenix P1D CE runtimes (regular P1D coming soon)*

Does the P1 CE ever get too hot to touch while it's running in High mode?


----------



## speederino (Dec 12, 2006)

*Re: Fenix P1D CE runtimes (regular P1D coming soon)*

Is the RCR123 you used protected or unprotected?

And Chev, did your spherical lightbox start life as a globe? Just curious.


----------



## adirondackdestroyer (Dec 12, 2006)

*Re: Fenix P1D CE runtimes (regular P1D coming soon)*

WOW!!! Thanks alot Chevro! I was hoping you would be receiving one soon for testing. Unreal results as well! I only wish that it had perfect flat regulation on high like it does on low and medium. Still the best pocket light on the market by far! 
I don't know how the hell you guys are complaining. Everyone raves about the HDS U60 which is actually less bright then this light is on medium, and it only runs for 30 minutes before dimming dramatically. This has 2 hours and 30 minute runtime at the same (or more) brightness!


----------



## lightbug (Dec 12, 2006)

*Re: Fenix P1D CE runtimes (regular P1D coming soon)*

Good job Chevrofreak. Thank you for sharing the useful info with us. :laughing:


----------



## EngrPaul (Dec 12, 2006)

*Re: Fenix P1D CE runtimes (regular P1D coming soon)*

Chevrofreak,

When you test RCR's are they 3.0V or 3.6V?

Thanks in advance.


----------



## Somy Nex (Dec 12, 2006)

*Re: Fenix P1D CE runtimes (regular P1D coming soon)*

what in the world are people complaining about on the regulation on high?

even the U2 on 2xCR123 doesn't maintain "perfect" regulation on its highest mode (as per flashlightreviews). the vaunted HDS does, but of course, more than two-thirds of the units out there experience thermal dropdown within 3-15 minutes, which as we now know is "perfectly normal".

the P1D-CE puts out as much light as the U2, with a single cell in a profile smaller than the HDS, almost perfectly regulated on a rcr123 and a not-to-shabby-curve on a cr123... and people are still complaining. go figure.


----------



## Art Vandelay (Dec 12, 2006)

*Re: Fenix P1D CE runtimes (regular P1D coming soon)*

Wow!  And I thought my HDS U60 was impressive. For 1 cell brightness and run times we have a new king of the hill. Thanks Chevrofreak.


----------



## gadgetnerd (Dec 12, 2006)

*Re: Fenix P1D CE runtimes (regular P1D coming soon)*

Ta for the great info. I might reconsider using RCR123 in mine. Any chance of a runtime test on medium with an RCR123?


----------



## ViReN (Dec 12, 2006)

*Re: Fenix P1D CE runtimes (regular P1D coming soon)*



chevrofreak said:


> It was a brand new Energizer cell.
> 
> I just measured the current consumption from a slightly used Rayovac RL123a that measures 2.94v with no load. It was drawing 1.5 amps from that little cell, yikes! At 1.5 amps it's probably sagging to about 2.4 volts, so figure about 3.6 watts going into the circuit.
> 
> At 1.5 amps the cell will only have about 1200mAh in it. The current draw probably gets close to, or perhaps even goes past 2 amps as the regulation starts to fail. That will cost a lot of battery capacity.



Wondering why does it need to pull *2 Amps*, if LED is being fed at 700 mA - 900mA (we need some one to actually measure the Output)

What is the current draw for P1D L


----------



## UnknownVT (Dec 12, 2006)

*Re: Fenix P1D CE runtimes (regular P1D coming soon)*

*chevrofreak* wrote: _"I just measured the current consumption from a slightly used Rayovac RL123a that measures 2.94v with no load. It was drawing 1.5 amps from that little cell, yikes! At 1.5 amps it's probably sagging to about 2.4 volts, so figure about 3.6 watts going into the circuit._
_At 1.5 amps the cell will only have about 1200mAh in it. The current draw probably gets close to, or perhaps even goes past 2 amps as the regulation starts to fail. That will cost a lot of battery capacity."_

Careful now...... please remember this is a Cree XR-E and not a LuxIII - 
the absolute max ratings are different.

I think Fenix have already "maximized" the High output close to the max ratings - 
any higher then we may run the risk of severely shortening the LED's life......

This is the crop from the Cree XR-E pdf Data Sheet


----------



## CodeOfLight (Dec 12, 2006)

*Re: Fenix P1D CE runtimes (regular P1D coming soon)*



ViReN said:


> Wondering why does it need to pull *2 Amps*, if LED is being fed at 700 mA - 900mA (we need some one to actually measure the Output)
> 
> What is the current draw for P1D L



Because the voltage is being boosted to supply the output current. The product of the voltage and the current would be constant in a perfect system. This means that the driver board will draw more current from the battery to provide the same power to the LED when the input voltage drops. Since this is NOT a perfect system, and the boost driver ALSO requires power, and there are heat losses, this current rise will be even more than would be sufficient to power the LED. 2 amps at the end is not unreasonable.


----------



## chevrofreak (Dec 13, 2006)

*Re: Fenix P1D CE runtimes (regular P1D coming soon)*



wojtek_pl said:


> Good Job ! Although lack of regulation in High mode is a little disappointing. It should be, say, 40 minutes regulated...
> Can you measure brightness with RCR123 on High and Medium?
> Anyway, medium and low runtimes on primary are very OK with me.



The brightness on high with the RCR123 was the same as with the CR123a primary lithium cell, while on medium it was only about 25% higher than with a primary cell. 



LightBright said:


> Does the P1 CE ever get too hot to touch while it's running in High mode?



I didn't touch it, but I did use an infrared thermometer to measure the temperature. It was 96F after about 15 minutes even though it was being cooled with a large fan. I checked it during the RCR123 run and it was only at 84F, so a lot of that heat may be coming from the cell and the circuit rather than the LED.



speederino said:


> Is the RCR123 you used protected or unprotected?
> 
> And Chev, did your spherical lightbox start life as a globe? Just curious.



Unprotected, and yes it did







EngrPaul said:


> Chevrofreak,
> 
> When you test RCR's are they 3.0V or 3.6V?
> 
> Thanks in advance.



3.6v, but they come off the charger at 4.13-4.16v



Somy Nex said:


> what in the world are people complaining about on the regulation on high?
> 
> even the U2 on 2xCR123 doesn't maintain "perfect" regulation on its highest mode (as per flashlightreviews). the vaunted HDS does, but of course, more than two-thirds of the units out there experience thermal dropdown within 3-15 minutes, which as we now know is "perfectly normal".
> 
> the P1D-CE puts out as much light as the U2, with a single cell in a profile smaller than the HDS, almost perfectly regulated on a rcr123 and a not-to-shabby-curve on a cr123... and people are still complaining. go figure.



The second U2 I tested only stayed in regulation for about 26 minutes, while putting out about the same amount of light as the P1D CE.










ViReN said:


> Wondering why does it need to pull 2 Amps, if LED is being fed at 700 mA - 900mA (we need some one to actually measure the Output)
> 
> What is the current draw for P1D L



Because the voltage is so low under load (about 2.4v) it is having to draw a lot of current in order to boost the output to the levels the LED needs. That high current that is needed will cause much of the power in the cell to never actually make it to the circuit, which will shorten the runtimes quite a bit. Total runtime on a single cell should increase quite a bit when the light is used for short bursts on high, since it wont heat the cell up so much.

As for the current draw on the regular P1D, I'm not sure, but it is very close to the P1D CE since the runtimes are about the same.


----------



## Destroid Monster (Dec 13, 2006)

*Re: Fenix P1D CE runtimes (regular P1D coming soon)*



LightBright said:


> Does the P1 CE ever get too hot to touch while it's running in High mode?



I test drive mine on High with a RCR123A. The little fellow do get warmish-hot, but very much bearable compared to the P1 on RCR123A.


----------



## The Voice of Reason (Dec 13, 2006)

*Re: Fenix P1D CE runtimes (regular P1D coming soon)*

Very thorough job, as usual.

Any idea of runtime in strobe mode? Apologies if I have missed this already (been blinded by too much strobe...)


----------



## daveman (Dec 13, 2006)

*Re: Fenix P1D CE runtimes (regular P1D coming soon)*

~110 lumens on high for >30 minutes
~60 lumens on med. for >140 minutes
~15 lumens on low for >10 hours

Looks like a good, cheap competitor to the A19 Cree so far...


----------



## ViReN (Dec 13, 2006)

*Re: Fenix P1D CE runtimes (regular P1D coming soon)*



CodeOfLight said:


> Because the voltage is being boosted to supply the output current. The product of the voltage and the current would be constant in a perfect system. This means that the driver board will draw more current from the battery to provide the same power to the LED when the input voltage drops. Since this is NOT a perfect system, and the boost driver ALSO requires power, and there are heat losses, this current rise will be even more than would be sufficient to power the LED. 2 amps at the end is not unreasonable.



Normally (in worst case), boost circuits are around 80% efficient, if LED is being fed current of 700 mA with Vf of 3.3, the input battery voltage of 3 (actual around 2.9V, under current draw) of capacity 1500 mAH (actual around 1400mAH under current draw) the light should run for 1hr 24 minutes.

Fenix P1D CE is giving runtime half of that with a current draw of *2+ Amps*
If Circuit is 80% efficient, LED is being severely overloaded. (probably explains why there are reports of P1D getting hot in seconds)
If LED is driven at 700 mA, Circuit is in-efficient (again generating heat losses)


----------



## ViReN (Dec 13, 2006)

*Re: Fenix P1D CE runtimes (regular P1D coming soon)*



> The second U2 I tested only stayed in regulation for about 26 minutes, while putting out about the same amount of light as the P1D CE.



U2 Uses Luxeon, we know it is inefficient, P1DCE uses Cree, we know it's 3 times efficient (check NewBie's tests). i.e. it requires 3 times less current to produce same lumens. shouldn't the runtime be 3 times the U2? (assuming converter efficiency is same) what was the current draw on U2?


----------



## chevrofreak (Dec 13, 2006)

*Re: Fenix P1D CE runtimes (regular P1D coming soon)*



ViReN said:


> U2 Uses Luxeon, we know it is inefficient, P1DCE uses Cree, we know it's 3 times efficient (check NewBie's tests). i.e. it requires 3 times less current to produce same lumens. shouldn't the runtime be 3 times the U2? (assuming converter efficiency is same) what was the current draw on U2?



The U2 uses 2 cells, so no, that doesnt mean the P1D would run 3x as long. I don't know what the U2 current draw was.

When you run the cells as hard as these lights do you won't get anywhere near the full 1400-1600mAh out of them. At 1.5 amps you might get 1200mAh and at 2 amps you might get 1000mAh.


----------



## ViReN (Dec 13, 2006)

*Re: Fenix P1D CE runtimes (regular P1D coming soon)*

Yep, Now I know. (didnt knew about U2 running on 2 cells)...

so this means the circuit is very efficient ....


----------



## NewBie (Dec 13, 2006)

*Re: Fenix P1D CE runtimes (regular P1D coming soon)*



ViReN said:


> Normally (in worst case), boost circuits are around 80% efficient, if LED is being fed current of 700 mA with Vf of 3.3, the input battery voltage of 3 (actual around 2.9V, under current draw) of capacity 1500 mAH (actual around 1400mAH under current draw) the light should run for 1hr 24 minutes.
> 
> Fenix P1D CE is giving runtime half of that with a current draw of *2+ Amps*
> If Circuit is 80% efficient, LED is being severely overloaded. (probably explains why there are reports of P1D getting hot in seconds)
> If LED is driven at 700 mA, Circuit is in-efficient (again generating heat losses)




Sorry, but at those current draws, your battery will sag much lower than 2.9V. More like 2.5-2.7V when it is fresh.

2.6V * 1.5A = 3.9 Watts draw.

The 2 Amps is as the cell fades- remember that, it is very important to understand the difference.

At this heavy draw, I would not be surprised if the circuit was 75% efficient.

So, 3.9W * .75 = 2.925 Watts to the LED.

2.925W/3.5Vf= 0.835 Amps to the LED.

Definitely *NOT* a heavily overdriven LED.

So, you'll need to go back and figure your numbers again.

Did LEDpro, or whatever that program was, figure lumens or something? Did you include reflector and lens losses?

Anyhow, until I purchase one to test, I'm going to have to figure these numbers are probably not that far off...


What is surprising is this little critter looks to be beating one U2, and comming close to the other U2, and it is only doing it with just one cell, not two like the U2 has. Not bad at all...


----------



## TooManyGizmos (Dec 13, 2006)

*Re: Fenix P1D CE runtimes (regular P1D coming soon)*

:laughing:

Folks need to consider the HI setting as *BOOst* and use it sparingly .

The first setting avail. (med) produces less heat - greater run-time .

That's the best way to use this light .................... imho


*Consider it* like the tiny .. OEM spare tire .. that came in the trunk of your car ,

* Warning* : DO NOT exceed , 50 MPH , *for very long* , or it may heat up and go  . 

( It is not intended to replace ..... The Real Thing !! ) ..... it's bigger Brother .

 

Another 2 cents ... thrown in the pot ... at the poker game of lights .

.


----------



## chevrofreak (Dec 13, 2006)

The P1D has been added, as well as an RCR123 line to the P1D CE medium graph.


----------



## Concept (Dec 13, 2006)

Just want to say thanks chevrofreak. Great work as usual. :thumbsup:


----------



## wojtek_pl (Dec 13, 2006)

*Re: Fenix P1D CE runtimes (regular P1D coming soon)*



chevrofreak said:


> The brightness on high with the RCR123 was the same as with the CR123a primary lithium cell, while on medium it was only about 25% higher than with a primary cell.


Thanks !


chevrofreak said:


> I didn't touch it, but I did use an infrared thermometer to measure the temperature. It was 96F after about 15 minutes even though it was being cooled with a large fan. I checked it during the RCR123 run and it was only at 84F, so a lot of that heat may be coming from the cell and the circuit rather than the LED.


Now THAT IS interesting  . How about temperatures on medium with RCR123 ?


----------



## chevrofreak (Dec 13, 2006)

*Re: Fenix P1D CE runtimes (regular P1D coming soon)*



wojtek_pl said:


> Thanks !
> Now THAT IS interesting  . How about temperatures on medium with RCR123 ?



I totally forgot to check the temp for medium on either RCR123 or CR123 primary


----------



## 4sevens (Dec 13, 2006)

*Re: Fenix P1D CE runtimes (regular P1D coming soon)*



chevrofreak said:


> I totally forgot to check the temp for medium on either RCR123 or CR123 primary



One thing to note is the P1D CE on medium has a slightly lower drive
than the P1. (2.5 hours versus 2.0 hours). Thus it will run a bit cooler
than the P1. I use mine on medium all the time with extended runs.
It's runs slightly cool to the touch and doesn't run warm at all. 

Thats great news about the P1D CE running in regulation on high
and on medium it runs regulater after the first 10 minutes. I also noticed
that it runs cooler on rcr123's on high than with primaries.

In one run, I ran a primary all the way down. At one point I tested
the open V and it was 0.95 and I measured the current and it was pulling 1A
and the body (not the head) of the light was warm. I think even at the
end of the run, the circuit is working reallying hard to pull all that it can
out of the cell!


----------



## chevrofreak (Dec 13, 2006)

*Re: Fenix P1D CE runtimes (regular P1D coming soon)*



4sevens said:


> One thing to note is the P1D CE on medium has a slightly lower drive
> than the P1. (2.5 hours versus 2.0 hours). Thus it will run a bit cooler
> than the P1. I use mine on medium all the time with extended runs.
> It's runs slightly cool to the touch and doesn't run warm at all.
> ...



I just tested the P1D on medium with an RCR123 too. I'm not sure if the Vf is really low on the Luxeon III's they use or what, but it took a long time for it to fall into regulation. That's been added to the graph.

When the cell charges up again I'll do high.


----------



## mboni (Dec 13, 2006)

I'm really happy about the medium performance on RCR123. My evening walks around the neighborhood are just about an hour long, so 90 minutes or so is plenty.

Now I'm wondering how a 3.0v RCR123 will perform on Low setting? I'm guessing that the lower voltage will allow Low to exist when using a 3.0v rated battery instead of a 3.7v, though it probably won't give us the 20+ hours that a primary will.


----------



## EngrPaul (Dec 13, 2006)

Nobody cares how long SOS will run?


----------



## ViReN (Dec 13, 2006)

*Re: Fenix P1D CE runtimes (regular P1D coming soon)*



NewBie said:


> Sorry, but at those current draws, your battery will sag much lower than 2.9V. More like 2.5-2.7V when it is fresh.
> 
> 2.6V * 1.5A = 3.9 Watts draw.
> 
> ...



NewBie Thanks for the insight. very enlightening. hope to see your real test & efficiency results soon.

I am trying to reverse engineer from Estimated Lumens...111
for simplicity, let's take 110 lumens at the bezel
Reflector & Lens Losses = 30%
Heat Degradation = another 5 %

so to produce 110 Lumens, LED has to output 110 + 35% of 110 = 110 + 38.5 = 148.5 .. lets say 150 Lumens required.

Let's say the LED is P3, according to your tests it is right near 825 mA, which actually verifies your calculation. wow...it's right there... 

Vf 825 mA = around 3.3 ... so input power is 2722.5 mW

Efficiency would be around 2722.5 mW / 3900 mW (assuming1.5A current draw, 2.6 battery voltage) = 69 % roughly ...so far so good....

but the current draw is *2+ Amps *voltage across battery will be around 2.2 Volts? ... 2 Volts ? .. gotta study SilverFox's Battery tests....


----------



## ViReN (Dec 13, 2006)

ok... according to http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v482/SilverFoxCPF/123Comparison2A.jpg image.... the Energizer E2 CR123a is lowest ! 2.1 Volts....

so input power is 2.1 * 2 = 4.2 Watts

Efficiency of circuit is 2722.5 / 4200 = 64% ONLY !.... hope this time we are close enough.

also according to same above image, the AH @ 2A for energizer is 1AH


----------



## NewBie (Dec 13, 2006)

Interesting, I didn't even go back and look at those charts, but made educated guesses. 

Actual real numbers will be very interesting to find out.

Any idea when the next shipment of these is due in? I need to buy one for testing purposes.


Chevrofreak, those runtime results are very impressive. Especially with the XR-E vs. Lux III results. Any chance you could also combine the low runtime charts?


----------



## Mike abcd (Dec 13, 2006)

chevrofreak, All of your work testing this light and all the others you've done is deeply appreciated!

What brand is the RCR123 you are using in these tests?

I'd love to see a P1D CE run time on low with RCR123. Since it spends most of its time in regulation on medium, that should mean that the current on low should continue to drop (along with the light output) and stretch the run time on RCR123. I managed to snag an Extech light meter off ebay yesterday so I can eventually check for myself but it looks like it will be a while before my P1D CE arrives and I don't presently have a way to monitor output except manual readings.

I'm also curious about how your RCR123 cells are behaving. You mentioned you're using unprotected RCR123 but the run time graphs seem to show them being discharged until almost a full cutoff and look more like I'd expect for cells protected against over discharge. Have you measured their resting voltage after the runs? I'd expect unprotected cells to be overdischarged and possibly showing issues being "accepted" by a smart charger. I'd also expect their capacity being effected if they're getting discharged to a resting voltage much below ~3.5 V at these currents.

I'm not being critical here, my r/c heli experience has just made me very respectful of over discharging LiPo as a single over discharge can ruin a $50+ pack at the 4-10A rates my helis pull.

Mike

PS Can you accept contributions from a CC funded PayPal?


----------



## chevrofreak (Dec 13, 2006)

NewBie said:


> Chevrofreak, those runtime results are very impressive. Especially with the XR-E vs. Lux III results. Any chance you could also combine the low runtime charts?



Done 




Mike abcd said:


> chevrofreak, All of your work testing this light and all the others you've done is deeply appreciated!
> 
> What brand is the RCR123 you are using in these tests?
> 
> ...



The RCR123's I'm using are just some generic purple ones I got from Dae a while ago. I checked his site but he doesn't seem to carry these particular ones anymore.

As for running it on low with the RCR123, I may give it a shot. The problem is that I think the cell would be mostly dead by the time the voltage is low enough to go into regulation.

In my experience unprotected RCR123's all perform that way, giving all they have then suddenly giving out. If you compare how suddenly the unprotected cells drop, you can see that it's right around the time the circuit would have kicked in on protected cells.

In this graph for the original P1 the JSB and AW cells were protected, but the 700mAh and 800mAh cells were both unprotected.







If I watch and shut the light off as soon as it's lost about 2/3 brightness on medium and high then the voltage has been between 3.14 and 3.5 volts. I did let it go a bit longer than I should on one run and the voltage dropped to 1.02 volts, but the cell didnt seem to be damaged by that. I should run it in my regular P1 again to see if it's still fine.

I should probably buy some of the new high current RCR123's that AW is selling now, they should be perfect for this. The JSB cells I have will shut off under the high current load of the P1D CE on both high and medium after only a few minutes.

I can accept all forms of PayPal. Thank you.


----------



## daywalker (Dec 13, 2006)

Hi chevrofreak,

many thanks to you for taking that looooong time for testing those lights. I am really looking forward for my new fenix lights, they should arrive this week.


----------



## chevrofreak (Dec 13, 2006)

I added a strobe graph for the P1D CE. It isn't pretty, but it'll give you an idea how long it runs.


----------



## srvctec (Dec 13, 2006)

NewBie said:


> Any idea when the next shipment of these is due in? I need to buy one for testing purposes.



If you're just getting one for testing and won't need it afterwards, you can just give it to me.


----------



## ViReN (Dec 13, 2006)

>





>



looking at the above runtime charts and the total light output, my personal choice would be to have a ordinary P1 with a Cree LED and newer reflector, other things unchanged (including the electronics especially)

I can live with that


----------



## ViReN (Dec 13, 2006)

EDIT: Hey, I just found another runtime graph for comparison. I think this one is the correct graph to compare with.


>



EDIT Again : and the graphs combined .. I still would prefer to have good old P1 with Cree and reflector, other things unchanged. it will still be a pocket screamer with 2 hour runtime, may be out put little less (around 80-90 lumens) but there will hardly be visible difference between 90 and 110 lumens (eyes have logarathmic response)


----------



## NewBie (Dec 14, 2006)

ViReN said:


> ok... according to http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v482/SilverFoxCPF/123Comparison2A.jpg image.... the Energizer E2 CR123a is lowest ! 2.1 Volts....
> 
> so input power is 2.1 * 2 = 4.2 Watts
> 
> ...




Unfortunately, many people just take their meter leads and stick them in line, and read the current. This would cause an abnormally high current reading, due to all the losses caused by the meter leads and the meter itself. So the switcher will then draw more current, in an attempt to regulate. This gets error gets worse with higher current flashlights. A better way is to use a low value resistor, like 0.02 ohms, and the mV range on the meter. Some meters don't have much resolution down that low, so you could use a higher sense resistor, with a little extra error in the current reading.


----------



## chevrofreak (Dec 14, 2006)

S.O.S. mode added for the P1D CE


----------



## The Voice of Reason (Dec 14, 2006)

SOS runtime has got to be the biggest disappointment.

My comment that the SOS mode was useless was clearly wrong. It is actually f***ing useless!

It would want to be a darn short emergency to have to use it!

Otherwise you would need to be marooned with a shipping container full of CR123 cells....


----------



## Mike abcd (Dec 14, 2006)

chevrofreak said:


> ...
> The RCR123's I'm using are just some generic purple ones I got from Dae a while ago. I checked his site but he doesn't seem to carry these particular ones anymore.
> 
> As for running it on low with the RCR123, I may give it a shot. The problem is that I think the cell would be mostly dead by the time the voltage is low enough to go into regulation.
> ...



Donation sent 

I agree that it probably won't go into regulation on low on an RCR123 until near the end of the discharge. However, I'd still expect to see a significantly longer run time than medium with the output level dropping continuously.

Your medium RCR123 run time plot shows it dropping into regulation at 9 minutes. At that point or very soon after, the P1D CE boost circuit starts pulling more current from the battery than would be used on the low setting where it would stay in direct drive. As time goes on, the difference in current (and light output) will get larger and larger between the medium and low settings.

I suspect it will add up to a major difference in run time. I'd guess at least 2.5 hours on low but 4+ wouldn't shock me.

I suspect your unprotected RCR123 cells are getting damaged by being run to drop out but I've seen little data. Sanyo only specs them for discharge to 2.75 V under load. Depending on the current draw, I'd expect that to correspond to a resting voltage between 3.2-3.6 V with higher current draws yielding higher resting voltages.

In the r/c world with LiPo packs being discharged at 10C and higher steady state and burst a lot higher, discharging much below 3.0 V / cell (~3.7 V resting voltage) kills packs quickly. Packs discharged to resting voltages below 2.0 V can be ruined in a single cycle. Some times they still deliver reasonable capacity at low discharge currents but their high current performance suffers dramatically.

BTW, most LiPo chargers in the r/c world won't charge a LiPo cell with a resting voltage much below 3.0V because of the risks of internal cell damage that can result in "venting with flames". I'm going to turn my DSD charger into a dumb cradle that I can connect to my LiPo charger so I can charge to 4.20 V with a proper CC/CV charge cycle and selectable charge currents. The charger also tracks mAH put back into the cell during charge which is very useful for checking cell capacity after discharge at various rates. The higher the rate, the sooner the cell hits the cutoff voltage and less energy is delivered.

Thanks again for all the great info!

Wonder if an 18650 would fit into the P1D CE head...I suspect it won't but it would be nice to be able to run an 18650 in an aftermarket tube on it.

Mike


----------



## Calina (Dec 14, 2006)

*Re: Fenix P1D CE runtimes (regular P1D coming soon)*



atm said:


> Not one shred of evidence supports the notion that life is serious.


 
On the other hand there is a lot of evidence that shows it is deadly.


----------



## EngrPaul (Dec 14, 2006)

ChevroFreak

Donation sent. Thanks for starting to put H:M:S to 50% on your graphs, it's very helpful


----------



## chevrofreak (Dec 14, 2006)

EngrPaul said:


> ChevroFreak
> 
> Donation sent. Thanks for starting to put H:M:S to 50% on your graphs, it's very helpful



Putting the 50% times in plain text seemed much easier than having to calculate it every time I couldnt remember  

Your donation is much appreciated.


----------



## Ritch (Dec 14, 2006)

Thanks for the great runtime graphics. Second donation sent.
Is there any possibility to see all your runtime graphs on one 'special' site?

Best,
Richard


----------



## Luxson (Dec 14, 2006)

All of Chevrofreak's run time graph ought to be sticky. :goodjob:


----------



## EngrPaul (Dec 14, 2006)

Ritch said:


> Thanks for the great runtime graphics. Second donation sent.
> Is there any possibility to see all your runtime graphs on one 'special' site?
> 
> Best,
> Richard


 
Have you tried this site?

http://lights.chevrofreak.com/runtimes/

:naughty:


----------



## Ritch (Dec 14, 2006)

Thank you, EngrPaul, that's exactly what I looked for.


----------



## chevrofreak (Dec 14, 2006)

Ritch said:


> Thanks for the great runtime graphics. Second donation sent.
> Is there any possibility to see all your runtime graphs on one 'special' site?
> 
> Best,
> Richard



I really appreciate the donation, thank you


----------



## proFeign (Jan 2, 2007)

nice work chevro :goodjob:


----------



## jsr (Jan 3, 2007)

Does the P1D drive the Lux harder than the standard P1? Just wondering since chevro's estimated output is 56lumens vs. the standard P1's 40lumens.


----------



## x2x3x2 (Jan 3, 2007)

cool runtime for the SOS mode dude, thanks for doing all the great graphs and comparisons 

better hope u get rescued in 6 hours, or carry lotsa extra batts!


----------



## jar3ds (Jan 4, 2007)

x2x3x2 said:


> cool runtime for the SOS mode dude, thanks for doing all the great graphs and comparisons
> 
> better hope u get rescued in 6 hours, or carry lotsa extra batts!


 yea... chev is da bomb  all you better donate to chev!


----------



## chevrofreak (Jan 5, 2007)

Thanks for the compliments


----------



## Mike abcd (Jan 8, 2007)

chevrofreak,

I noticed you added "AW's 3V regulated RCR123" to the run time graphs. Is that the version available from Lighthound? He doesn't seem to be offering any other 3.0V RCR123 cells that are protected, just the ones based on Saphions.

The run times you got are quite a bit less than others have posted on the Lighthound AW 3V protected cells. I've seen a couple of folks get close to 30 minutes on high and 80-90 min on medium.

Do you think the one you tested was "healthy"? Do you know what the unloaded voltage is fully charged? I think they should read close to 4.2 V unloaded if they're getting fully charged. The regulation only kicks in under load FWIK.

Thanks,
Mike


----------



## chevrofreak (Jan 8, 2007)

Mike abcd said:


> chevrofreak,
> 
> I noticed you added "AW's 3V regulated RCR123" to the run time graphs. Is that the version available from Lighthound? He doesn't seem to be offering any other 3.0V RCR123 cells that are protected, just the ones based on Saphions.
> 
> ...



I had 4 of the AW 3v cells at one time and ran them through my Fenix P1. I ran this cell through my P1 too and it performed just as the others did, so it should be fairly healthy.

The "AW" means they were purchased from CPF user AW and have his label on them. I don't think the Lighthound cells are the same thing unless Lighthound gets them from AW.

Unloaded voltage was around 3.9v


----------



## chevrofreak (Jan 8, 2007)

I do see that LightHound does have AW's cells listed here.

http://www.lighthound.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=2335

and some other 3v cells here 

http://www.lighthound.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=1158


----------



## Mike abcd (Jan 9, 2007)

chevrofreak said:


> I had 4 of the AW 3v cells at one time and ran them through my Fenix P1. I ran this cell through my P1 too and it performed just as the others did, so it should be fairly healthy.
> 
> The "AW" means they were purchased from CPF user AW and have his label on them. I don't think the Lighthound cells are the same thing unless Lighthound gets them from AW.
> 
> Unloaded voltage was around 3.9v



Thanks for the reply. AW doesn't seem to be selling them in his threads any more.

Were they charged on the "special" charger sold with them? I thought they'd read 4.2 V unloaded but I'm probably wrong. I'll have to search some.

Mike


----------



## chevrofreak (Jan 9, 2007)

This one is not being charged in the "special" charger that AW sells with them. 

When I still had that charger the cells also measured right around 3.9v fully charged. I'm quite sure the cells is getting fully charged even though I'm using a different charger, since the runtimes are nearly identical in my P1 from both.


----------



## Mike abcd (Jan 9, 2007)

chevrofreak said:


> This one is not being charged in the "special" charger that AW sells with them.
> 
> When I still had that charger the cells also measured right around 3.9v fully charged. I'm quite sure the cells is getting fully charged even though I'm using a different charger, since the runtimes are nearly identical in my P1 from both.



I've been comparing your results on the AW 3.0 V cells to the ones in this thread.
https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/146689

The results posted there for AW's 3.0V protected cells are about 30 minutes on high and 80 minutes on medium but the same 50 minutes on the P1 that you got.

I'm getting pretty confused now. Other than the 3.0 V cells based on Saphion technology that AW is currently selling I thought all the other 3.0 V offerings required a higher charge voltage than 4.2 V as the circuitry that implemented the voltage drop also caused a drop in the charging voltage. AW's current "Saphion" cells have no circuitry and a lower inherent voltage and require a lower charge voltage.

If you're right, I can save the cost of another charger. I guess I'll ask in the other thread about the charger voltage and what the cells unloaded fully charged and send an e mail to Lighthound.

Thanks
Mike


----------



## Mike abcd (Jan 10, 2007)

Chevrofreak,

From AW here
https://www.candlepowerforums.com/posts/1780150&postcount=19



AW said:


> Mike,
> 
> My 3.0V R123s require a 4.4V charger. Using a regular 4.2V charger will only charge them to 50-60% capacity. The 3.0V cell will come off the charger at 3.7V unloaded ( the internal voltage regulator has a downward adjustment value of 0.7V ).
> 
> AW



Seems to explain the run time difference but not why you see 3.9 V on both the original and a 4.2 V charger.

I'm going to get some to try anyway. 

Mike


----------



## chevrofreak (Jan 10, 2007)

My charger puts out enough voltage to fully charge them. The previous set I had also had one of the "special" chargers with it, so they were being charged how they were supposed to. Since I don't have that charger anymore (it was a loan) I have been charging them in the charger I got from JonSidneyB. That charger puts out about 5.5v with no load and will fully charge the cells. My Nano and DSD won't charge them, only the JSB charger will.


----------



## LightBright (Jan 10, 2007)

hmm, this is going to motivate me to take apart one of my Tenergy 900ma 3.0V Li-Ion RCR123's to see what's going on. I am not impressed at all with these cells, I'm getting almost exactly one hour with a P1D CE set on medium. The 900mah rating seems to be a joke.


----------



## Mike abcd (Jan 10, 2007)

I give up on trying to figure out why chevrofreak is getting shorter run times on the P1D CE with AW's 3.0 v RCR123 cells than others and why he reads a higher unloaded charged voltage than AW expects. I just ordered an AW 3.0 V charger kit with 2 cells from Lighthound to try. Lighthound is out of additional AW 3.0 V RCR123 so I added a "generic 3.0 V" with a not to delete it if it wasn't safe or wouldn't charge fully with the AW charger.

chevrofreak, many thanks for your patience and all your replies on this! I'll post my results for comparison.

Mike


----------



## OutdoorIdiot (Jan 12, 2007)

Thanks for the runtime graphs, chevrofreak.

I've just got hold of one of these mini-marvels and it's nice to know what I can expect from it. I'll be running it on primaries.


----------



## chevrofreak (Jan 12, 2007)

iNDiGLo very generously bought some of AW's high current RCR123's and an Ultrafire charger for me to use since my old cells are pretty much toast and my charger has a broken spring and is somewhat melted.  

I'll be doing a runtime for high medium and low, and potentially strobe and SOS.

Thanks Indi!


----------



## Freedom1955 (Jan 14, 2007)

Donation sent.

Nice work Chevrofreak.


----------



## chevrofreak (Jan 14, 2007)

Freedom1955 said:


> Donation sent.
> 
> Nice work Chevrofreak.




Thanks a bunch!

I added AW's high current RCR123's to the P1D CE high graph, and created another graph for low at the bottom of the first post. Medium is running now and will be added when it finishes.

These high current cells sure kick *** in this light!


----------



## daberti (Jan 14, 2007)

chevrofreak said:


> Thanks a bunch!
> 
> I added AW's high current RCR123's to the P1D CE high graph, and created another graph for low at the bottom of the first post. Medium is running now and will be added when it finishes.
> 
> These high current cells sure kick *** in this light!


 
Are these protected? Are they capable of performing a real Low? Just asking.
Thanks a lot Chevro for your hard work!!

EDIT: me idiot! They're protected.
One question remains: Chevro, are they capable of performing a real Low?


----------



## chevrofreak (Jan 15, 2007)

daberti said:


> Are these protected? Are they capable of performing a real Low? Just asking.
> Thanks a lot Chevro for your hard work!!
> 
> EDIT: me idiot! They're protected.
> One question remains: Chevro, are they capable of performing a real Low?




By a "real low" I assume you mean running in regulation on low mode? If so, no they can't. It takes about 2.5 hours to drop into regulation, but then they only run run about 20 minutes before shutdown. They run very very well on High though,


----------



## Mike abcd (Jan 16, 2007)

I just got the "AW's 3.0 V cells and charger" and a "generic Chinese 3.0 V cell" since he was out of additional AW 3.0 V cells. I got them from Lighthound and the service was great.

Run time on my P1D CE on medium
68 minutes on AW's cell
76 minutes on the generic Chinese cell.

Not as good as I hoped or as bad as I feared. My results are better than yours on AW's 3.0 V cell but worse than others I've seen posted at 90 minutes on medium.

AW's cell may have been undercharged slightly (~5%?) vs the generic Chinese cell.

Based on the "unloaded" voltage I'm seeing on a 10 M Ohm input impedance meter, I'd suggest being careful charging these cells on a 4.6 V charger. There's more information including cell voltage measurements in my post here.
https://www.candlepowerforums.com/posts/1791062&postcount=19

Those new AW 3.7 V cells look very good. My P1D CE took 45 minutes to go into regulation on medium on an AW cell purchased a year ago. It would probably take even longer on his new one.

Thanks again for all your testing! I find it very helpful for making purchasing decisions.

Mike


----------



## chevrofreak (Jan 16, 2007)

I'm thinking there could be a fairly wide range of forward voltages for the XR-E's being used. That could explain the vastly different runtimes and the different lights taking much longer to go into regulation on medium.


----------



## daberti (Jan 16, 2007)

chevrofreak said:


> By a "real low" I assume you mean running in regulation on low mode? If so, no they can't. It takes about 2.5 hours to drop into regulation, but then they only run run about 20 minutes before shutdown. They run very very well on High though,........


 
Thanks Chevro. Donations sent...I'd be pretty curious about L0D runtimes on 10440.


----------



## Mike abcd (Jan 16, 2007)

chevrofreak said:


> I'm thinking there could be a fairly wide range of forward voltages for the XR-E's being used. That could explain the vastly different runtimes and the different lights taking much longer to go into regulation on medium.



The large differences we're seeing in how long it takes to go into regulation on medium on 3.7 V RCR123 can definitely be explained by Vf. A .1-.2 V change can easily put you "above or below" the meat of the RCR123 discharge curve.

The run time differences in high/medium on 3.0 V RCR123 are probably due to more than Vf. The posted Cree XR-E Vf curves I've seen all seem to be within about 10-15% while run time differences on the same brand 3.0V RCR123 have been greater than 50%.

Mike


----------



## LightBright (Jan 16, 2007)

Basically the P1D cannot regulate any battery voltage higher than the LED's Vf, which varies from unit to unit somewhat. 

Any higher voltage leads to the LED being driven directly.....


----------



## Mike abcd (Jan 16, 2007)

LightBright said:


> Basically the P1D cannot regulate any battery voltage higher than the LED's Vf, which varies from unit to unit somewhat.
> 
> Any higher voltage leads to the LED being driven directly.....



Both chevrofreak and I are aware of that.

Mike


----------



## GMoney (Jan 25, 2007)

Perhaps I might be missing something, but I feel like there is something completely off in the estimates of the efficiency of the P1D CE circuit posted in this thread. Part of the problem is that the capacity of an Energizer CR123a cell is 1300mah, not 1500mah. From observations of actual lights in IS versus lab tests conducted by Newbie and others there seems to be ~35% loss due to reflector, heat, etc. which Viren has stated as well.

Based on Newbie’s plot of a P3 bin Cree, at 1,040mah the reading was 170 lumens, adjusted for this loss output is 111 lumens, which matches chevrofreak’s lumen estimate for the P1D CE on high

Therefore on high:
Energizer CR123 = 3,100Wh (@ 1amp load per Silverfox) assuming 84% circuit efficiency = 2,604Wh.
Vf of Cree @~1amp = 3.4 (Newbie data)
3.4*1,040 = 3,536
2,604/3,536 = .70 hours = 44.2 minutes
Chevrofreak: 44.2 minutes

On Medium:
Per Newbie’s chart P3 Cree @ 420mah = 92 lumens, 35% loss: 59.8 lumens, 
Chevrofreak estimate: 59.5 lumens

Energizer CR123 = 3,586Wh (@ .5amp load per Silverfox) assuming 87% circuit efficiency = 3,009.
Vf of Cree @ 420mah = 3.1 (Newbie data)
3.1*420 = 1,240 
3,009/1,240 = 2.43 hours = 2 hours 23 minutes
Chevrofreak: 2 hours 29 minutes

On Low:
Per Newbie chart P3 Cree @ 90mah = 26 lumens, 35% loss: 16.9 lumens, 
chevrofreak estimate: 16.9 lumens

Energizer CR123 = 3,940Wh assuming 87% circuit efficiency = 3,428.
(I do make an assumption of increasing the rating of the battery by 10% since Silverfox’s tests bottom out at .5amp. I have no idea if this is a valid assumption)
Vf of Cree @ 90mah = 2.85 (Newbie data)
2.85*90 = 256.5 
3,428/256.5 = 13.36 hours = 13 hours 22 minutes
Chevrofreak: 13 hours 20 minutes

I make some assumptions here, most notably that the circuit would be slightly more efficient on medium and low than high (3% more to match Chevrofreak’s runtimes) as well as a guestimate as to the increase in Wh under lower currents. But I guess the point of all of this is to illustrate that the circuit is better than previously stated.


----------



## crewcabrob (Oct 18, 2007)

Hi all,

I have a couple of the P1-CEs that my wife and I use for headlights on our bikes. We are running the 3.7 protected batteries that AW sells. I am ordering one of the P1D-CE Q5s to see if there is much difference in run-time and output. Any guestimates on what I will see for run time? The Q5 on medium is suppose to run about the same as the P1 does all the time. I am hoping to get a little more run-time.

Thanks,

Rob


----------



## chevrofreak (Oct 19, 2007)

I've got a P1D CE Q5 here to test, but I've run out of CR123 cells. Hopefully I'll be able to order some for runtime testing soon.

I haven't measured any levels but High, which was about 160 lumens.


----------



## crewcabrob (Oct 19, 2007)

Send me your paypal address in a message and I would be happy to donate some cash for batteries. Your run-time and output graphs are awesome and have hlelped me make many of my purchases easier.

I can't wait to see what your graphs say about the Q5; with both the primary cells and the rechargables.

Thanks for all you do.

Rob


----------



## crewcabrob (Oct 19, 2007)

Never mind, I see you have it posted for donations. PayPal sent!

Thanks again,

Rob


----------



## chevrofreak (Oct 22, 2007)

Thanks for the donation! 

Someone that is sending me a light to test was ordering some cells so I had him tack another 20 onto his order to send to me. Might be a couple weeks before I get them, though.


----------

