# The Quark lights thread! (Part 5)



## Badbeams3 (May 30, 2009)

_*[Continued from **Part 1* *, Part 2, Part 3 and Part4*_


Announcing the new Quark lights...

10 year performance warranty!!!

Let`s try to keep this thread from getting closed down from nonsense 


Manufacture's link


----------



## crockett (Aug 8, 2009)

> You are running a buck-only head on a single cell which only puts out 3.0v, what exactly do you expect?


 
Uh...maybe someone to explain it to me. You're making the assumption I know what you do, I don't. What did I expect? I expected that when it said it was rated 3.0 - 9.0 V that if you put a 3.0 V battery in the light it would work as advertised. The was no "*" after the 3.0 V. Doesn't seem like too big of a stretch for you does it? Now, I know otherwise. It was just a case of me being a newb, no big deal.

Perhaps you missed it but somebody already answer my question.

As I understand the reply even though the light is rated 3.0 - 9.0 V according to 4sevens, it needs more voltage than 3.0 to work on turbo. I have a rechargable Li-Ion on the way and I'm sure it will be fine after that. My understanding is that it is 3.7 V.

Also, thanks to others on the color comments, my packing gives NO indication of color (I checked today) so I am assumming that I did indeed get a cool white. The color charts provided help explain why it looks warmer than my Romisen.


----------



## Nake (Aug 8, 2009)

crockett said:


> I have a rechargable Li-Ion on the way and I'm sure it will be fine after that. My understanding is that it is 3.7 V..


 
It won't last long. When the voltage starts dropping so will the output of turbo.


----------



## crockett (Aug 8, 2009)

Nake said:


> It won't last long. When the voltage starts dropping so will the output of turbo.


 
So are you saying that a 123-2 head on a single Li-Ion (16340) will not be regulated?

https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/234960

Looking at the thread above it shows that a 123 head on a single Li-Ion (16340) has very good regulation on Turbo for about 30 minutes.

It also shows that a 123-2 on a single Li-Ion (17650) has very good regulation on Turbo for about 1 hour 14 minutes.

If the 123-2 head will not be regulated on a single 16340 in turbo mode then I will order a single 123 head. Regulated on all outputs is one of the reasons I chose this light.

Can anyone confirm this?

Thanks.


----------



## Nake (Aug 8, 2009)

A 123 has about 1/3 the energy of a 17670. I'm just guessing at all this, but I would say about 20 min with the 123.


----------



## xenonk (Aug 8, 2009)

crockett said:


> I expected that when it said it was rated 3.0 - 9.0 V that if you put a 3.0 V battery in the light it would work as advertised.


The 2xCR123 head isn't advertised to run on anything but 2xCR123, but it's easy to draw other conclusions given what everyone is getting it to do. The light is only advertised to perform as specified on two 3V or 3.7V (4.2V charged) cells, which would start at 6 or 8.4 volts.

As you already know now, the light's operating voltage range does not imply maximum output at the low end; only that it will continue to emit some light at that point. Below that, it's not even expected to fire up. Most lights in this class use the same format for voltage specification.



crockett said:


> So are you saying that a 123-2 head on a single Li-Ion (16340) will not be regulated?
> [snip]
> Can anyone confirm this?


 
You'll find it nice and bright on one fully charged li-ion cell at 4.2V, but it's not designed for that and regulation will not be flat. ie: the light will dim towards the end of run time. Some people actually prefer this and it's one of the reasons they run the 2xCR123 head on one cell.

All buck-only circuits behave this way on one cell, regardless of brand. It has to do with the way the LEDs work. The electronics forum has some discussion on LED forward voltage, drivers, current draw, etc... in great detail.


----------



## Badbeams3 (Aug 8, 2009)

crockett said:


> So are you saying that a 123-2 head on a single Li-Ion (16340) will not be regulated?
> 
> https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/234960
> 
> ...



You are correct. But Nake also has a point...I wouldn`t run it much past 20 minutes of turbo just to protect the batt. You have the better head for running LI-IONs of any type. Protects the batt better...but still don`t push to the limit. I would definently order the 17670 batt to run in your 123x2 body. That will give you nice runtime as you said...but wouldn`t push it beyond 1 hour of turbo...again to be kind to your batt.

Play a bit and recharge often...as I understand it, it is the ticket to long batt health. If you think you might want to run the batt down, on a camping trip for example...use basic 123 and throw away. :thumbsup:


----------



## DHart (Aug 8, 2009)

Badbeams3 said:


> You are correct. But Nake also has a point...I wouldn`t run it much past 20 minutes of turbo just to protect the batt. You have the better head for running LI-IONs of any type. Protects the batt better...but still don`t push to the limit. I would definently order the 17670 batt to run in your 123x2 body. That will give you nice runtime as you said...but wouldn`t push it beyond 1 hour of turbo...again to be kind to your batt.
> 
> Play a bit and recharge often...as I understand it, it is the ticket to long batt health. If you think you might want to run the batt down, on a camping trip for example...use basic 123 and throw away. :thumbsup:



Though the cost is higher, for me the sweet spot is to buy a two Quarks and an extra body: a 123-2 and a AA, and a 123 body tube. I happen to prefer the regular head to the tactical head, but I like having a regular AND a tactical tailcap. With the parts you get with these lights and tube, you can put together a wonderful array of flashlights with a wide range of sizes and powering options. Flashlight lego-lovers will rejoice in this!

Personally, I run li-ions exclusively in these lights and 17670 only in the 123x2 bodies I have. I recharge them often, don't run them down too far, and carry extras when gone for extended periods of time. 

Also, if I want a longer runtime, I would choose high output rather than turbo because you don't lose much in the way of visible output, but you really gain quite a bit more in runtime! :thumbsup: I also keep an ample supply of primaries (123 and AA lithiums) in the cooler for long-term emergency back up powering options. I view turbo for occasional use and high, medium, low, or moon for longer use applications.

I can't think of a better way for someone to have such a nice range of flashlight sizes and powering options than to buy the 123x2, the AA, and a 123 tube. I have avoided the AAx2 body because the two AA form factor has no appeal whatsoever to me... but it's a good option for those who like that sort of thing.


----------



## crockett (Aug 8, 2009)

Thanks for the replies to all above. I'm getting it now. One last question in regards to this.



> You'll find it nice and bright on one fully charged li-ion cell at 4.2V, but it's not designed for that and regulation will not be flat. ie: the light will dim towards the end of run time. Some people actually prefer this and it's one of the reasons they run the 2xCR123 head on one cell.


 
When you say dim towards the end of run time. Do you mean it will be pretty flat for an extended time (let's just say 20 minutes) and then it will begin to dim pretty quick over a few minutes.

This I can live with. However, if it just starts out at full brightness and then gradually ramps down:thumbsdow. I'll get the 123 (single) head. One of the main reasons I ended up on this forum is because I hate how all the cheap walmart lights I own don't maintain the same brightness for an extended period of time. They just start immediately ramping down.

I'm not looking for a light to be perfectly flat and then drop off like a brick but I would like it to be relatively flat through the bulk of the run. I can deal with a gradual dim towards the end.

The charts on selfbuilts comparison thread are what I'm looking for. However, he never shows a curve with a 123-2 head driven by a single 16340.

I was hoping to get a nice flat EDC (single battery) and then add the 2 battery tube when I'm camping and hiking. If it's not fairly flat in this configuration, I'll just switch to two lights. A 123 and a 123-2.


----------



## Nake (Aug 8, 2009)

Use a 17670 in the long tube and you'll have flat regulation with both combos.


----------



## xenonk (Aug 8, 2009)

crockett said:


> I'm not looking for a light to be perfectly flat and then drop off like a brick but I would like it to be relatively flat through the bulk of the run. I can deal with a gradual dim towards the end.


That's about what it will do. The driver can maintain regulation as long as the battery voltage remains above the LED's forward voltage (somewhere around 3.5V), after which it will drop out of regulation and start to dim.

Note the funky curve on selfbuilt's graph for the 2xCR123 Quark on turbo powered by 1x17670. It also seems to maintain regulation better at lower output on the next graph.


----------



## tsask (Aug 9, 2009)

My Neutral Quarks arrived. I got an AA and CR123 also a 2AA tube.

Here's the good:
The AA Quark on the included alk was brighter than my Connexion on a 14500. 
It's machined well.

Here's the bad:
It only works on high and strobe, no lower settings work at all, so I will need a RMA to return it.

7777 is GREAT with service yet solid state lighting at it's finest is still not perfect. To the unenlightened this would be a source of MAJOR disappointment!

My CR123:
bright, all modes work yet it does not seem to remember last setting then it starts flashing????

I am a big 4 Sevens fan/supporter and have nothing but the greatest respect and appreciation for their work.


----------



## Badbeams3 (Aug 9, 2009)

tsask said:


> My Neutral Quarks arrived. I got an AA and CR123 also a 2AA tube.
> 
> Here's the good:
> The AA Quark on the included alk was brighter than my Connexion on a 14500.
> ...



There is no memory on the Quark standard...it will either start on low if you have had it off long enough...or switch to the next level if not.

You do know...and I think you do...but just to make sure....that the head needs to be loosened a bit to get the lower levels...tight to get turbo?


----------



## wapkil (Aug 9, 2009)

tsask said:


> Here's the bad:
> It only works on high and strobe, no lower settings work at all, so I will need a RMA to return it.
> 
> 7777 is GREAT with service yet solid state lighting at it's finest is still not perfect. To the unenlightened this would be a source of MAJOR disappointment!
> ...



Actually the solid state lighting technology is not responsible for your problems. What you describe looks like a faulty driver - an electronic circuit similar to thousands of others in devices around us. It only happens to be connected to an LED, not something else.


----------



## tsask (Aug 9, 2009)

Badbeams3 said:


> There is no memory on the Quark standard...it will either start on low if you have had it off long enough...or switch to the next level if not.
> 
> You do know...and I think you do...but just to make sure....that the head needs to be loosened a bit to get the lower levels...tight to get turbo?


 
Thanks for the clarification on the memory. Concerning the multiple levels, yes I did losen the bezel albiet to no avail.
I can not believe the size of the CR123 Quark. It is noticably narrower and smaller than the HDS, or Novatacs. My Warm tint CR123 Quark blows away my cherished Nitecore PD 20 Q5 in it's power! WHAT AN INCREDIBLE LIGHT INDEED!

I'll work out the details on my AA Quark with 7777 they ALWAYS come through!


----------



## tsask (Aug 9, 2009)

wapkil said:


> Actually the solid state lighting technology is not responsible for your problems. What you describe looks like a faulty driver - an electronic circuit similar to thousands of others in devices around us. It only happens to be connected to an LED, not something else.


 
Excellent point!


----------



## Nake (Aug 9, 2009)

There is a memory of sorts. For instance if set my loose head light level to med and then tighten the head for it to go into turbo and later loosen the head again, I'll still be in med.


----------



## ohwhyme (Aug 9, 2009)

bought a quark aa tactical, do I just get a quark 123 body from 4sevens to make it smaller and use cr123 batteries?


----------



## Tom_123 (Aug 9, 2009)

> bought a quark aa tactical, do I just get a quark 123 body from 4sevens to make it smaller and use cr123 batteries?


It's possible, but you won't have a clip on the 123 then.


----------



## Henk_Lu (Aug 9, 2009)

I got two of my Quarka on friday, the 123 no clip and the 123-2, both tactical and neutral white.

Man, it never took me so long to get a light out of its box! Wonderful package! :thumbsup:

There is a preflash on both lights, a bright one when tha light was in a higer mode the last time it was used, a dimer one when it was in the same mode. OK, we know this by now, so let's pass it.

The neutral white emitter is exactly what I expected. Wondefull warm light, the beam is great, the hotspot is a litle bit like a star, not exactly round and the spill is well lit, no Cree rings around! :thumbsup:

I don't like the long lanyards, so I attached a cut one from a Surefire to the 123 no clip. I really sweated until I had the lanyard in that ring and the ring on the light... 

The UI is cool, once I read again how it exactly works I could change the modes somewhat quickly and I like the fact that I have a simple tactical UI which can be changed.

The batteries in the 123-2 rattle a bit, I put some paper around them, now it's OK. Perhaps the spring in the tailcap should be stiffer. That's the only negative thing I found, besides the preflash.

Now I'm waiting for my AA-2 neutral white regular to arrive, it was shipped one day earlier than the other two, let's hope nothing happened to it... :sigh:

The I can lego, if I wat my 123-2 to be regular, it'll get that tailcap, if I want a lanyard on the AA-2, it'll get the tailcap from the 123.

The lights are really great and exactly what I hoped they would be! :twothumbs

Oh, I forgot, there is another negative thing : the neutral white a are limited editions, so I can't recommend them by a review in our local geocaching magazine, the lights will be sold out when people get it... :shrug:


----------



## Badbeams3 (Aug 9, 2009)

Henk_Lu said:


> I got two of my Quarka on friday, the 123 no clip and the 123-2, both tactical and neutral white.
> 
> Man, it never took me so long to get a light out of its box! Wonderful package! :thumbsup:
> 
> ...



What? No AA with a 14500 batt...no 17670 batt? I think there should have been a limit on the neutral whites...one per household. :wave:


----------



## ZMZ67 (Aug 9, 2009)

Henk_Lu said:


> I got two of my Quarka on friday, the 123 no clip and the 123-2, both tactical and neutral white.
> 
> Man, it never took me so long to get a light out of its box! Wonderful package! :thumbsup:
> 
> ...


 
I wish they would do a second run of the neutrals.I am very pleased with the one I purchased but they were sold out before I got around to ordering a second one(clipless standard 123).With the neutral white LED the Quark 123 makes an excellent all around EDC for indoor and outdoor use.


----------



## Badbeams3 (Aug 9, 2009)

wrong thread


----------



## metawaffle (Aug 9, 2009)

Well, I'm the guy who won a freebie from 4Sevens, and my Quark 123 neutral-tint tactical arrived this morning! I have to say, it's better quality than I expected. Classy packaging and accessories, quality build, and I love that low, low low. Yeah, I have the preflash, but time will tell whether that's of any practical consequence 

Now, do I need that AA body to go with it... :naughty:


----------



## Toohotruk (Aug 9, 2009)

metawaffle said:


> Well, I'm the guy who won a freebie from 4Sevens, and my Quark 123 neutral-tint tactical arrived this morning! I have to say, it's better quality than I expected. Classy packaging and accessories, quality build, and I love that low, low low. Yeah, I have the preflash, but time will tell whether that's of any practical consequence
> 
> Now, do I need that AA body to go with it... :naughty:



Congrats!!!


----------



## Linger (Aug 9, 2009)

Badbeams3 said:


> If you think you might want to run the batt down, on a camping trip for example...use basic 123 and throw away. :thumbsup:



oh ****. I forgot rechargeables suck in the wild. I'd bought the AA warm tact Quark to go with my Zebralight h50 to standardize cell across camping lights and have solid performers for outdoors. (I mean they just make a perfect base pair, guarenteed performance with back-up cells that takes up less space than a pack of cards)
Including the option of running regular AA's (as they'd also BOE, edc, etc). But I totally forgot I can't drain them if I'm 7 days from electricity. That means I'd be better off with cr123's as no-one makes primary 14500's.

Thanx! my 'perfect' plan...


----------



## Marduke (Aug 9, 2009)

linger said:


> oh ****. I forgot rechargeables suck in the wild. I'd bought the AA warm tact Quark to go with my Zebralight h50 to standardize cell across camping lights and have solid performers for outdoors. (I mean they just make a perfect base pair, guarenteed performance with back-up cells that takes up less space than a pack of cards)
> Including the option of running regular AA's (as they'd also BOE, edc, etc). But I totally forgot I can't drain them if I'm 7 days from electricity. That means I'd be better off with cr123's as no-one makes primary 14500's.
> 
> Thanx! my 'perfect' plan...



And why don't rechargables work away from civilization? Last I checked, you can't recharge primary cells away from electricity either. So either format you take however many you need for the trip, use them until they are done, and pack them back out at the end.

The only difference is primaries go to recycling when you get home, and rechargeables go back on the charger.


----------



## metawaffle (Aug 9, 2009)

linger said:


> oh ****. I forgot rechargeables suck in the wild. I'd bought the AA warm tact Quark to go with my Zebralight h50 to standardize cell across camping lights and have solid performers for outdoors. (I mean they just make a perfect base pair, guarenteed performance with back-up cells that takes up less space than a pack of cards)
> Including the option of running regular AA's (as they'd also BOE, edc, etc). But I totally forgot I can't drain them if I'm 7 days from electricity. That means I'd be better off with cr123's as no-one makes primary 14500's.
> 
> Thanx! my 'perfect' plan...



You should be able to just buy a 123 body and swap out the AA body, though, right? (I hope so, since I might go the other way, because... er... I'm sure there's a reason )


----------



## Woods Walker (Aug 9, 2009)

Marduke said:


> And why don't rechargables work away from civilization? Last I checked, you can't recharge primary cells away from electricity either. So either format you take however many you need for the trip, use them until they are done, and pack them back out at the end.
> 
> The only difference is primaries go to recycling when you get home, and rechargeables go back on the charger.


 
Or just recharge in the field.


----------



## Woods Walker (Aug 9, 2009)

metawaffle said:


> Well, I'm the guy who won a freebie from 4Sevens, and my Quark 123 neutral-tint tactical arrived this morning! I have to say, it's better quality than I expected. Classy packaging and accessories, quality build, and I love that low, low low. Yeah, I have the preflash, but time will tell whether that's of any practical consequence
> 
> Now, do I need that AA body to go with it... :naughty:


 
Nice. I am still on the fence with these lights but the true low is a powerful selling point.


----------



## DHart (Aug 9, 2009)

linger said:


> oh ****. I forgot rechargeables suck in the wild. I'd bought the AA warm tact Quark to go with my Zebralight h50 to standardize cell across camping lights and have solid performers for outdoors. (I mean they just make a perfect base pair, guarenteed performance with back-up cells that takes up less space than a pack of cards)
> Including the option of running regular AA's (as they'd also BOE, edc, etc). But I totally forgot I can't drain them if I'm 7 days from electricity. That means I'd be better off with cr123's as no-one makes primary 14500's.
> 
> Thanx! my 'perfect' plan...



Take your 14500's, then if and when they run down, replace them with Energizer L91 lithium primary cells (I think they're also called Ultimate Lithium). These are the equivalent to CR123 lithium primaries, except they are a lower voltage. L91s are available everywhere batteries are sold and are the next best powering source for a AA flashlight after a 14500 li-ion. Shelf life of at least 10 years.

If all else fails, run the lights with AA Duracells.


----------



## xenonk (Aug 9, 2009)

Marduke said:


> And why don't rechargables work away from civilization?


I would have thought the issue to be more related to energy density and weight. Possibly also environmental hardiness, but eneloops are pretty tough.


----------



## f22shift (Aug 9, 2009)

figured a super low while playing around.
not sure if it works with other models.

1. have flashlight on
2. tighten bezel to tight mode
3. slightly loosen to go into loose mode
4. put thumb on lens end and give it a quick push
5. it'll drop into super low 

when in super low twisting the bezel does nothing. you either shut it off or press on the head then release. it'll preflash and go back in normal loose mode.

i'm not sure what exactly is happening. all i can think is it's going into tight mode really quick then back into loose mode. thing is, you cannot recreate with twisting the bezel. it has to be quick.

enjoy.:laughing:


----------



## Linger (Aug 9, 2009)

Marduke said:


> The only difference is primaries go to recycling when you get home, and rechargeables go back on the charger.



You're right, but, cells don't like being depleted for long periods of time. If I bump the low voltage cut-off on my second night out and have a few more days left in the trip, that's a long time for the cell to be sitting discharged.

However reading your (collective) responses, I see that not planning on using rechargables is planning on using primaries thus planning on throwing them out. And I guess that wieghs more on my ethos then carrying extra cells and guesstimating 3.6v (hard as hell with real life usage and variable output lights).


----------



## Linger (Aug 10, 2009)

DHart said:


> replace them with Energizer L91 lithium primary cells (I think they're also called Ultimate Lithium).



I've actually got a few Trustfire 2900mAh Li/FeS2 (BOB for Zebralight before I found eneloops) in the drawer, but same difference as the energizer lithium. I was gonna say PITA that there are no primary 3.7v 14500, but in effect that is saying is I want to pay $2 for the priviledge of throwingout a single-use cell instead of paying an extra $2 for the possibility of recharging them when I return.

My new conclusion that my old plan is a good one. Use 14500's (must buy more from AW) and even if they suffer huge degredation from prolonged discharge state they'd still make for beater / utility cells.
This is good. Because hopefully I get my quark tomorrow morning, and then I'll take it out on a canoe trip this weekend. I've got to say, I'm very excited about this Z&Q pairing. I'm hoping my AA Quark is solid performer. Potential here for Z&Q to cover %99 of all lighting requirements. I'll prolly take my Nailbender p60 Mc-e just because, you know, that %1 remaining is what makes me a flashaholic right? Who else would choose an extra cell over a granola bar...


----------



## DHart (Aug 10, 2009)

linger said:


> You're right, but, cells don't like being depleted for long periods of time. If I bump the low voltage cut-off on my second night out and have a few more days left in the trip, that's a long time for the cell to be sitting discharged.
> 
> However reading your (collective) responses, I see that not planning on using rechargables is planning on using primaries thus planning on throwing them out. And I guess that wieghs more on my ethos then carrying extra cells and guesstimating 3.6v (hard as hell with real life usage and variable output lights).



You could just take a bunch of Eneloop AAs, drain 'em, and if necessary, then break into a pack of Ultimate Lithiums (L91's) or Duracell AAs? Save the glorious li-ions for home-based use, or just use them periodically while on the trip.


----------



## DHart (Aug 10, 2009)

linger said:


> My new conclusion that my old plan is a good one. Use 14500's (must buy more from AW) and even if they suffer huge degredation from prolonged discharge state they'd still make for beater / utility cells.
> 
> Because hopefully I get my quark tomorrow morning, and then I'll take it out on a canoe trip this weekend. I've got to say, I'm very excited about this Z&Q pairing. I'm hoping my AA Quark is solid performer. Potential here for Z&Q to cover %99 of all lighting requirements. I'll prolly take my Nailbender p60 Mc-e just because, you know, that %1 remaining is what makes me a flashaholic right? Who else would choose an extra cell over a granola bar...



I think your initial plan for the Z501 and QAA is perfect! For wide range of applicability and compatibility of powering sources! Excellent choices - I would do the same with my Z501 warm and QAA warm!!

And I agree that you really should take a third flashlight of some sort. If it runs on 14500/AA variants as well, so much the better. If not, no big deal... just bring some more cells!


----------



## jankj (Aug 10, 2009)

linger said:


> oh ****. I forgot rechargeables suck in the wild....(snip).... 7 days from electricity.
> 
> Thanx! my 'perfect' plan...



Out in the wild, you'll be amased how much you appreciate low mode. If you have a camp fire, the ligth remains off untill you actually have to do something (go grab that beer or whatever). 

Bring plenty of batteries. Chances are good that you'll be running on the first set of batteries when you get home. :thumbsup:

I'm a zebralight owner that eagerly awaits his quark AA neutral white... Love my zebra, but whish I had a H50 with warm or neutral white...


----------



## Xak (Aug 10, 2009)

f22shift said:


> figured a super low while playing around.
> not sure if it works with other models.
> 
> 1. have flashlight on
> ...


 
Doesn't work on mine.


----------



## wapkil (Aug 10, 2009)

f22shift said:


> figured a super low while playing around.
> not sure if it works with other models.
> 
> 1. have flashlight on
> ...



Does it dim or goes straight into this super low? I remember reading that there is a similar procedure for Fenix lights. It included pushing the head and I think the steps were in fact identical but I'm not completely sure.


----------



## wapkil (Aug 10, 2009)

Huh? What happened to the David's (4sevens) announcement that they soon will be selling the Quark heads with neutral LEDs?

He wrote that there will be 6 types and it is a problem for them to have so many options, then there was some discussion. I could swear it was in this thread. I wanted to check how the discussion ended but it's no longer here. Anybody knows where it is now?


----------



## SilentK (Aug 10, 2009)

wapkil said:


> Huh? What happened to the David's (4sevens) announcement that they soon will be selling the Quark heads with neutral LEDs?
> 
> He wrote that there will be 6 types and it is a problem for them to have so many options, then there was some discussion. I could swear it was in this thread. I wanted to check how the discussion ended but it's no longer here. Anybody knows where it is now?



Same here. i also remember this thread having 3 pages it seems.

500th post! w00t! I love that little asterisk


----------



## Badbeams3 (Aug 10, 2009)

Maybe we are spending so much time on CPF we are starting to see things


----------



## f22shift (Aug 10, 2009)

wapkil said:


> Does it dim or goes straight into this super low? I remember reading that there is a similar procedure for Fenix lights. It included pushing the head and I think the steps were in fact identical but I'm not completely sure.


 
it'll flash the tight mode output for that split second(while doing the quick press) and then be the super low.


----------



## xenonk (Aug 10, 2009)

wapkil said:


> Huh? What happened to the David's (4sevens) announcement that they soon will be selling the Quark heads with neutral LEDs?


May have been considered advertising/product announcement on CPF proper and moderated. I remember it too.


----------



## Badbeams3 (Aug 10, 2009)

Just called CS at 47`s to inquire about some things and also asked about the upcoming Fenix diffuser....said it was great. They say it fits the Quark but a tad snug. That could be a good thing. Just don`t know if I need one http://www.4sevens.com/product_info.php?cPath=27_38&products_id=1775


----------



## wapkil (Aug 10, 2009)

f22shift said:


> it'll flash the tight mode output for that split second(while doing the quick press) and then be the super low.



I don't remember where I saw it for Fenix lights but I'm pretty sure I read that they have a similar mode. I think the Quarks have a similar circuit so it would even be logical. There was a theory that it is for programming something in the driver but I think it wasn't confirmed. I'm not sure if it is completely safe to use it, e.g. whether one couldn't accidentally reprogram the light.


----------



## jcw122 (Aug 10, 2009)

*Why There is a Pre-flash*

Hey everyone, I e-mailed 4Sevens and found out the reason for the pre-flash. I haven't seen this explanation in the other threads so here is some useful information:



Mary @ 4Sevens said:


> EDITED, as this was private e-mailing. See my paraphrase on POST 81


 
At least it is a hardware limitation opposed to an actual design flaw.


----------



## Unforgiven (Aug 10, 2009)

wapkil said:


> Huh? What happened to the David's (4sevens) announcement that they soon will be selling the Quark heads with neutral LEDs?





xenonk said:


> May have been considered advertising/product announcement on CPF proper and moderated.




Any posts considered advertising are subject to removal along with any replies to such posts.


_
Thinking to self..... I could have sworn this has been stated a few hundred times since this policy went into effect. Maybe it's just me._ :duh2:


----------



## Unforgiven (Aug 10, 2009)

*Re: Why There is a Pre-flash*



jcw122 said:


> Hey everyone, I e-mailed 4Sevens and found out the reason for the pre-flash. I haven't seen this explanation in the other threads so here is some useful information:
> 
> 
> 
> At least it is a hardware limitation opposed to an actual design flaw.



jcw122,

If that is a quote from a private correspondence, do you have permission to post it? If not, it needs to be removed.


----------



## xenonk (Aug 10, 2009)

_Content removed in violation of rule 8_


----------



## Badbeams3 (Aug 10, 2009)

Question for the folks who have both the neutral and regular white...if you could keep only one...which would it be?


----------



## kwkarth (Aug 10, 2009)

Badbeams3 said:


> Question for the folks who have both the neutral and regular white...if you could keep only one...which would it be?



I have a Quark123 with both neutral white and regular tint heads and although I like both, I would keep the neutral white head without hesitation if I could only keep one or the other. I have more neutral tint Quarks (123x2 T, and a AA with AAx2 tube) on the way.

So, no question, neutral tint all the way.


----------



## wapkil (Aug 10, 2009)

*Re: Why There is a Pre-flash*



jcw122 said:


> Hey everyone, I e-mailed 4Sevens and found out the reason for the pre-flash. I haven't seen this explanation in the other threads so here is some useful information:
> 
> At least it is a hardware limitation opposed to an actual design flaw.



Actually it was explained in the previous thread but was then considered a private correspondence with the customer service and removed 

Maybe you could rephrase the contents so the explanation is still available? 

I'm not sure what's the difference between the hardware limitation and the design flaw (except like in "it's not a bug, it's a feature"), but I digress.


----------



## FoxyRick (Aug 10, 2009)

The postman brought me my AA and AA2 warm tacticals this morning! (He also took away £18 in customs fees)

They're superb lights - I can't wait for it to get get dark enough to try them out properly.

I do have a small problem now though - my wife caught the parcel and I had to open it in front of her.

She asked why I had bought two. For a moment I was stuck for words; I couldn't think of an answer that would really satisfy her ('buy both!' just wouldn't cut it) until she came to my 'rescue' with...

"Aww - you got the small one for me didn't you?"

What could I say but "yes, dear"? 

So I've already lost the AA version!


----------



## mr.snakeman (Aug 10, 2009)

FoxyRick said:


> "Aww - you got the small one for me didn't you?"
> 
> What could I say but "yes, dear"?
> 
> So I've already lost the AA version!


Love and happiness in the home: see what a little flashlight can do:twothumbs.


----------



## ohwhyme (Aug 10, 2009)

just got my neutral quark aa tactical and not very satisfied. It came with a 14500 that doesn't work as its got corrosion on the top of the battery. You think I should try and charge it? My other 14500 came charged. I tried a working 14500 battery and put it in and it would only work momentarily as I had to keep holding the clicky in to make it constantly. Also it made squeeky noises as it was on max. I programmed the first mode to be moonlight mode and it still won't stay on constantly without me having to hold down the button. But going to the second mode works just fine. Any ideas what is wrong? It works perfectly fine with an AA battery. I thought it could use 14500s?


----------



## pobox1475 (Aug 10, 2009)

> "Aww - you got the small one for me didn't you?"


 Same thing happened to me. After a while of her not using it I took repossession.


----------



## Badbeams3 (Aug 10, 2009)

ohwhyme said:


> just got my neutral quark aa tactical and not very satisfied. It came with a 14500 that doesn't work as its got corrosion on the top of the battery. You think I should try and charge it? My other 14500 came charged. I tried a working 14500 battery and put it in and it would only work mometarily as I had to keep holding the clicky in to make it constantly. Also it made a squeeky voice as it was on max. Any ideas what is wrong? It works perfectly fine with an AA battery. I thought it could use 14500s?



Well...regarding the batt...check the voltage...if it is to low don`t try to charge...I would send it back. Otherwise maybe clean and charge.

As far as the fitting troubles...try removing the tail and look in the switch...see if you can fit a tool (tweezers for example) into the two holes and try tightening it down. 

Another Idea might be to turn the body around...see if that helps.


----------



## ohwhyme (Aug 10, 2009)

thanks for the reply. Not sure what u mean with tightening the two holes down can't see anything I could tighten down. I tried to turn it around and now I can't have the second mode constant. :O


----------



## Badbeams3 (Aug 10, 2009)

ohwhyme said:


> thanks for the reply. Not sure what u mean with tightening the two holes down can't see anything I could tighten down. I tried to turn it around and now I can't have the second mode constant. :O


 
If you can fashion a tool to fit into the two holes (in the plate) on the inside of the switch and turn it clockwise...if it will.

Second thought...loosen the tail end first...tighten the head down...then turn/twist the tail down but not all the way...maybe it might work right?


----------



## Henk_Lu (Aug 10, 2009)

I got my last one today : The AA2 neutral white regular version.

The head was somewhat tight, I had to use some force to loosen it. Afterwards it worked quite normally, but feels a little bit stiffer than the 123 and the 123-2.

I immediately noticed the negative side of the regular UI : It always starts on moon mode, so, that you normally have to switch it at once. I love the moon mode, don't get me wrong, but it just isn't the mode the light should start with.

For the rest the light is great and it will replace my LD20 in my backpack.

I don't have any cool white Quarks, so I would keep the neutral whites! :thumbsup:


----------



## chaosmagnet (Aug 10, 2009)

FoxyRick said:


> "Aww - you got the small one for me didn't you?"
> 
> What could I say but "yes, dear"?
> 
> So I've already lost the AA version!



  :laughing: 

ROFL


----------



## ohwhyme (Aug 10, 2009)

badbeams your a genius! it works! you can have my first born child . The battery has corrosoin on it and I have a wf139 charger, I can't really see the voltage or anything. Should I try and charge it?


----------



## Marduke (Aug 10, 2009)

ohwhyme said:


> badbeams your a genius! it works! you can have my first born child . The battery has corrosoin on it and I have a wf139 charger, I can't really see the voltage or anything. Should I try and charge it?



Wait, you are using Li-Ion's but don't have a DMM to check voltages???


----------



## Badbeams3 (Aug 10, 2009)

ohwhyme said:


> badbeams your a genius! it works! you can have my first born child . The battery has corrosoin on it and I have a wf139 charger, I can't really see the voltage or anything. Should I try and charge it?



Good to hear! I`m sorry but I wouldn`t try to charge it. I`m not saying it wouldn`t...but these things can go . Even if it did charge that batt would always keep me nervous  Suggest you contact 47`s co and arrange to have it replaced.


----------



## wapkil (Aug 10, 2009)

f22shift said:


> figured a super low while playing around.
> not sure if it works with other models.





wapkil said:


> I don't remember where I saw it for Fenix lights but I'm pretty sure I read that they have a similar mode. I think the Quarks have a similar circuit so it would even be logical.



I read it somewhere, not saw on youtube but here is a video with a Fenix in this super-low mode.


----------



## suregetfired (Aug 10, 2009)

Henk_Lu said:


> ...I immediately noticed the negative side of the regular UI : It always starts on moon mode, so, that you normally have to switch it at once. I love the moon mode, don't get me wrong, but it just isn't the mode the light should start with... :thumbsup:



I hope you don't mind but I am just curious to know what you would consider a "proper" sequence of the brightness? To me, it makes sense to start from min to max especially for night time use. Wouldn't it be kind of illogical to start from a brighter-than-moon mode at night and have your night-adapted vision destroyed before stepping down to the moon mode? Anyway, this is just my opinion so it doesn't count.


----------



## Mr. Tone (Aug 10, 2009)

suregetfired said:


> I hope you don't mind but I am just curious to know what you would consider a "proper" sequence of the brightness? To me, it makes sense to start from min to max especially for night time use. Wouldn't it be kind of illogical to start from a brighter-than-moon mode at night and have your night-adapted vision destroyed before stepping down to the moon mode? Anyway, this is just my opinion so it doesn't count.


 
I agree with you. I think that the regular Quark UI is most logical with the lowest and highest modes being first in line. I bought the tactical as well so I could have the light turn on in my most common mode for general use. I am glad with the regular model that when I turn it on in the middle of the night it will be moon mode. To each his own.

I do wish that the mode switching to default was faster though, along the time length of Fenix lights. The 3 seconds or more that it takes is annoying to me and I end up cycling through the dreaded flashing modes.


----------



## Badbeams3 (Aug 10, 2009)

Some new stairwell shots are up in the review section https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/238153


----------



## Toohotruk (Aug 10, 2009)

+2 for starting with Moon...nothing worse than a blinding light in the middle of the night, shocking you into unwanted consciousness, when you just wanted to make your way to the bathroom without stubbing your toes and without waking up too much. :tired:

IMHO, Moonlight mode (on the first click) on the Quark lights is _perfect_ for such excursions.


----------



## xenonk (Aug 10, 2009)

I received a Neutral AA Tactical today. The first impression, like a lot of people, was that the rubberized box was nifty and well-stocked with accessories.

The second impression was that I absolutely hate the clip on the AA resting on the head and making the twist action awkward. So... that had to come off and go back in the box while the holster came out for use. I could reverse it so that it rests on the cap, but I prefer to keep the lens away from dirt and obstacles.

I don't find the dim preflash to be as imperceptible as some do, and the max preflash when wanting moonlight can be downright uncomfortable. Nobody I've shown the light to so far has failed to notice the preflash without being told about it, even a dim flash.

Out of the box, the o-rings were lubed but the threads were dry and a little crunchy on both ends.

Sound bad? I actually like it so far.

The threading was quickly taken care of with a re-lube. The knurling and body shape make it easy to cigar hold and twist the bezel one-handed. The tailcap on this one has anodized threads. It locks out. :twothumbs I'm not sure what to make of the finger holder. It looks like it may be useful; will need to play with it.

Given the way the driver works, the preflash isn't really avoidable without killing efficiency, so I've already gotten used to compensating if it has a flash stored up (cold start moon mode, or any lower mode following a higher mode, from my experience).

I run it on a 14500, which gives me the higher max (use responsibly, she heats up). Tint is definitely not the pink I expected from a 5A bin. It's more orange, which I like better. The LED efficiency on lower modes also seems to be working out. I thought I'd used the light a good bit today, but when I went to charge the battery it was done in less than ten minutes.

I would like to see them figure something out about the preflash and add more clip options, but my initial impressions are overall positive. I still need to carry and use it some more before I'm sure about everything, but I think it may be replacing the cheaper K-106 for the long haul.

I would definitely be interested in a bezel-down deep carry clip that folds over on itself to avoid going past the small flat on the body tube.


----------



## Henk_Lu (Aug 11, 2009)

suregetfired said:


> I hope you don't mind but I am just curious to know what you would consider a "proper" sequence of the brightness? To me, it makes sense to start from min to max especially for night time use. Wouldn't it be kind of illogical to start from a brighter-than-moon mode at night and have your night-adapted vision destroyed before stepping down to the moon mode? Anyway, this is just my opinion so it doesn't count.



You are right, a flashlight should start on the low mode. The Quark is special however, as the moon mode is much lower than a normal Low. As I got the tactical versions first, I immediately noticed the disadvantage here yesterday, when I had to search for the cats' playing toys under a shelf. I switched the AA-2 on and saw not very much under the shelf. A normal Low would be enough.

Having it start on a higher level wouldn't be a good solution either, you would need a memory which can be set to the wanted level, which would more or less equal the tactical UI.

OK, got me here, unless you complicate the UI and raise the price, moon mode is the best level to have the light start in and you need a tactical if it isn't for you...


----------



## jankj (Aug 11, 2009)

I'm still waiting for my clark, but previous experience (fenix/zebra) tells me that this UI is perferct for me. The philosophy is so simple: Need more ligth? Just add more ... squeeze it out by half-clicking... Doesn't get any more intuitive than that.


----------



## mbiraman (Aug 11, 2009)

jankj said:


> I'm still waiting for my clark, but previous experience (fenix/zebra) tells me that this UI is perferct for me. The philosophy is so simple: Need more ligth? Just add more ... squeeze it out by half-clicking... Doesn't get any more intuitive than that.



+1


----------



## ironhorse (Aug 11, 2009)

I have been debating getting a AA Quark since the preorder, but after having the Nitecore EX10, I don't know if I can see myself going to a light with a switch.
I would like to have the moonlight mode, but I haven't been able to convince myself that I am going to like a light with a switch.
How can so much thought and design go into a light and not use the PD?


----------



## Linger (Aug 11, 2009)

Woot, I have a quark. It's the wrong one but a first hand impression goes well with all these posts...
Quark = great



DHart said:


> initial plan for the Z501 and QAA is perfect! I would do the same with my Z501 warm and QAA warm!!


 
Well then DHart I say you've got a great plan too. I"m totally excited for this combo. So small, so versatile. Haven't tried the quark on the zebra headband yet but I'm sure i'll figure a way to make it happen if I need to.

jnkj -  I appreciate the sentiment. You'll note I called two simple AA/14500 lights the ultimate trecking combo. Lights known for ultra low's. Not some sst-90 monster. I'm in the wilderness all the time.


----------



## Linger (Aug 11, 2009)

Badbeams3 said:


> !  Suggest you contact co and arrange to have it replaced.


 
FYI - Quark's don't ship with 14500's. I know someone posted that, but they don't. Mine didn't, 4seven's sites say they don't, all the reviews and pass arounds haven't....


----------



## burntoshine (Aug 11, 2009)

ironhorse said:


> I have been debating getting a AA Quark since the preorder, but after having the Nitecore EX10, I don't know if I can see myself going to a light with a switch.
> I would like to have the moonlight mode, but I haven't been able to convince myself that I am going to like a light with a switch.
> How can so much thought and design go into a light and not use the PD?



i feel the EXACT same way. i love my quark AA, but for that exact reason, the D10 remains my EDC. the piston drive is just the best IMO. if only the D10 had a triple click option to toggle through some flash modes; that'd be sweet!

also, i was disappointed to see that i can not tell much of a difference between the quark's moonmode and the nitecore D10's lowest level. i was expecting it to be half as bright or lower. quark's moonmode _might_ be a hair dimmer, but not much more.


----------



## Badbeams3 (Aug 11, 2009)

linger said:


> FYI - Quark's don't ship with 14500's. I know someone posted that, but they don't. Mine didn't, 4seven's sites say they don't, all the reviews and pass arounds haven't....



??? 47`s sells them for $12 (AW brand). Why do you find that strange? http://www.4sevens.com/product_info.php?cPath=53&products_id=206


----------



## jcw122 (Aug 11, 2009)

*The Reason Behind the Pre-Flash*

I can't post the private e-mail from 4Sevens, but what they said about the pre-flash was that it is a *hardware* limitation opposed to a design flaw. With the circuit they use, they could have removed the pre-flash, but then moonlight and low modes would have been extremely inefficent. I think I would like to keep their awesome runtimes so I'm fine with that!

P.S. Thanks Unforgiven, didn't know I wasn't allowed to post private e-mails.


----------



## bcwang (Aug 12, 2009)

burntoshine said:


> also, i was disappointed to see that i can not tell much of a difference between the quark's moonmode and the nitecore D10's lowest level. i was expecting it to be half as bright or lower. quark's moonmode _might_ be a hair dimmer, but not much more.



Strange, based on the specs the quark AA will last 4 times longer than the D10 in moon mode so it's definitely using less power. Are you comparing them side by side or based on memory? Everytime I use moon mode on the quark my eyes are already adapted and it seems much brighter than I'd normally think. Using it in normal lighting conditions it looks like the light isn't even on. So it is very relative to conditions.


----------



## wapkil (Aug 12, 2009)

*Re: The Reason Behind the Pre-Flash*



jcw122 said:


> I can't post the private e-mail from 4Sevens, but what they said about the pre-flash was that it is a *hardware* limitation opposed to a design flaw. With the circuit they use, they could have removed the pre-flash, but then moonlight and low modes would have been extremely inefficent. I think I would like to keep their awesome runtimes so I'm fine with that!



For those more familiar with drivers internals, they also wrote that they use a pull-up resistor to minimize the flash but to make it unnoticeable they would need lower resistance which would result in lower efficiency.


----------



## Shimmy (Aug 12, 2009)

Well, my Quark AA2 regular cool white was arrived today... 

Honestly can't say I am completely pleased... was I expecting too much? (first *real* light).

The threads seem a bit rough and were a bit dirty it seemed, scraped a fingernail through the threads and the stuff in them was not a grease/oil (that I know of), it was a soft/solid matter, pliable... could move it around, stretch it etc... 

How much of a difference is there supposed to be between the 70 and 170 lumins when in a dark room?
There is a difference, but not that much... more of a noticeable difference between the 18 and 70 modes.
This is with both the alkalines it came with and eneloops.

Is the clip removable? I thought I read it was... I can't figure out how.

How hard is the clicky supposed to be to press? Mine at times can be a bit difficult to press.

Also with the clicky, it seems sometimes when changing between modes (half pressing) that it won't change every time, somtimes will blink but stay on the same mode.
Not sure if this is me or the clicky (does it require a certain distance/pressure before changing)?

Overall, it is a nice light, just curious on the above questions.

Cheers.

EDIT:
Just checked it outside (night time here) and used both the 170 and 70 modes, there is virtually no point in using the 170 mode over the 70, the spill is a tad brighter, the spot a tad brighter but the difference to me is small enough it does not light up anything enough over the 70 mode to use it. This was a distance of about 15m and about 60m (2 different trees)

Don't get me wrong the 70 mode is quite bright and is pretty much what I would use most of the time, but if the 170 mode is meant to be any brighter than mine is I most certainly would like it to be.

So, going back to my first question... was I expecting too much from it?


----------



## Nake (Aug 12, 2009)

Shimmy,

You're not going to get 170lm unless you're using a Li-Ion (4v) battery. Another name for it is 14500.


----------



## HKJ (Aug 12, 2009)

Nake said:


> Shimmy,
> 
> You're not going to get 170lm unless you're using a Li-Ion (4v) battery. Another name for it is 14500.



That would be a very bad idea in a AA-2 version

But it would be a good idea to use NiMH batteries.


----------



## wapkil (Aug 12, 2009)

Nake said:


> Shimmy,
> 
> You're not going to get 170lm unless you're using a Li-Ion (4v) battery. Another name for it is 14500.



:thinking: Shimmy wrote it is AA2. I though it should put out 170lm and *should not* be used with two 14500s...

I'm not sure what were the expectations, but the difference between 70lm and 170lm should be quite noticeable.


----------



## Shimmy (Aug 12, 2009)

I am using eneloops.

Correct me if I am mistaken but I believe the AA2 is advertised as being capable of 170lm on max, it even says it on the box, webside, instruction manual.

Nothing/no-one has said you would need to buy other parts ontop to get the adevertised/specified outputs.



wapkil said:


> :thinking: Shimmy wrote it is AA2. I though it should put out 170lm and *should not* be used with two 14500s...



Yes, it is indeed the AA*2*.



wapkil said:


> I'm not sure what were the expectations, but the difference between 70lm and 170lm should be quite noticeable.


They are noticable but the difference to me is not really all that usable.
It is pretty close overall to what I was expecting but I was expecting more of a difference between the 70 and 170 modes.


----------



## Nake (Aug 12, 2009)

Oops, my mistake. I failed to see it was the double AA model.


----------



## Henk_Lu (Aug 12, 2009)

Shimmy said:


> Well, my Quark AA2 regular cool white was arrived today...
> 
> Honestly can't say I am completely pleased... was I expecting too much? (first *real* light).
> 
> The threads seem a bit rough and were a bit dirty it seemed, scraped a fingernail through the threads and the stuff in them was not a grease/oil (that I know of), it was a soft/solid matter, pliable... could move it around, stretch it etc...



I got my AA2 regulat neutral while last friday and had the same, on the tailcap. Shouldn't be, but not a great problem either, I used a q-tip to get the dirt more or less out, feels good now, after adding some lube.



> How much of a difference is there supposed to be between the 70 and 170 lumins when in a dark room?
> There is a difference, but not that much... more of a noticeable difference between the 18 and 70 modes.
> This is with both the alkalines it came with and eneloops.


Double Lumen doesn't mean double output. On my neutral white it is noticeable however and surely makes sense if you really need brightness.



> Is the clip removable? I thought I read it was... I can't figure out how.


Unfortunately, that's not documented and I found out after I nearly cut the o-ring. So, get out the o-ring first, just strap it on the threads. Then you loosen the ring that holds the clip completely, until it has no contact with the threads anymore. To remove the clip, you still need a little force and you may scratch the anodizing with it. I reinstalled mine after bending it back, because I already bent it the wrong way when trying to tear it out. As I bent it too much, I had some trouble to fix the ring, after some more bending and pressing both the clip and the ring are in place as they should be and it will stay like this now.



> How hard is the clicky supposed to be to press? Mine at times can be a bit difficult to press.


I can confirm that theyx are hard to press, same for the tactical. They are probably the stiffest I own, but, as I'm a man... 



> Also with the clicky, it seems sometimes when changing between modes (half pressing) that it won't change every time, somtimes will blink but stay on the same mode.
> Not sure if this is me or the clicky (does it require a certain distance/pressure before changing)?


That's strange! While I sometimes had no result at all ar first, as the switch is quite stiff, it always changes when I press it deep enough and if it blinks, it should be pressed in deep enough.

Be sure your NiMh cells are correctly charged, keep out the alcalines (I collect mine, which come with the flashlights for thr remote controls, needn't buy any fort years by now...).

Seriously, alkalines may leak and may not bring the necessary current drawn for a long time, especially on high.



> Overall, it is a nice light, just curious on the above questions.Cheers.
> 
> EDIT:
> Just checked it outside (night time here) and used both the 170 and 70 modes, there is virtually no point in using the 170 mode over the 70, the spill is a tad brighter, the spot a tad brighter but the difference to me is small enough it does not light up anything enough over the 70 mode to use it. This was a distance of about 15m and about 60m (2 different trees)
> ...


If your test was performed by daylight I would tell you to test at night. As you tested by night, either you expected too much or your light has a problem. There is no way to tell somebody how much brighter it should be, but it should be a real difference in the dark.

I suppose you have no other light to compare with as you say it's your first real flashlight. Make a search here, perhaps you'll find beamshots of the different levels. Again, make sure your NiMh are fully charged, it's the turbo mode which is affected by half depleted cells, while the rest of the modes may work normally.

Greets,

Henk


----------



## wapkil (Aug 12, 2009)

Henk_Lu said:


> If your test was performed by daylight I would tell you to test at night. As you tested by night, either you expected too much or your light has a problem. There is no way to tell somebody how much brighter it should be, but it should be a real difference in the dark.
> 
> I suppose you have no other light to compare with as you say it's your first real flashlight. Make a search here, perhaps you'll find beamshots of the different levels. Again, make sure your NiMh are fully charged, it's the turbo mode which is affected by half depleted cells, while the rest of the modes may work normally.



I would also expect 170lm and 70lm to show a noticeable difference at night. I seem to remember someone returning a Quark because of the faulty driver that would not have the full output on high... 

You may also try to check the current consumption of the light on high, as described e.g. in HKJ's guide, to see if it is as expected.


----------



## dilbert (Aug 12, 2009)

f22shift said:


> figured a super low while playing around.
> not sure if it works with other models.
> 
> 1. have flashlight on
> ...


 

I was able to recreate this with my AA2 Warm Tactical. Now that really is a super low low! I'm curious to hear from 4Sevens about if it is safe to use this mode or if it has something to do with programming.


----------



## Shimmy (Aug 12, 2009)

Henk_Lu said:


> I got my AA2 regulat neutral while last friday and had the same, on the tailcap. Shouldn't be, but not a great problem either, I used a q-tip to get the dirt more or less out, feels good now, after adding some lube.


Yeah, it wasn't much of a problem, I just cleaned it out and put on a light coat of bearing oil I had close by for my RC's.
Going to clean that off soon too and add some black grease/lube. 


Henk_Lu said:


> Double Lumen doesn't mean double output. On my neutral white it is noticeable however and surely makes sense if you really need brightness.


I realise it wouldn't nessecarily mean double output, but I would have expected more to be honest.


Henk_Lu said:


> Unfortunately, that's not documented and I found out after I nearly cut the o-ring. So, get out the o-ring first, just strap it on the threads. Then you loosen the ring that holds the clip completely, until it has no contact with the threads anymore. To remove the clip, you still need a little force and you may scratch the anodizing with it. I reinstalled mine after bending it back, because I already bent it the wrong way when trying to tear it out. As I bent it too much, I had some trouble to fix the ring, after some more bending and pressing both the clip and the ring are in place as they should be and it will stay like this now.


Ah, fair enough... may have been another I was reading about then.


Henk_Lu said:


> I can confirm that theyx are hard to press, same for the tactical. They are probably the stiffest I own, but, as I'm a man...


Cool, good to know mine isn't an odd one out... it's not a problem really, just with it being recessed (and a long travel with the rubber boot too) I seem to find it takes a couple of goes to press it in the right spot enough to get it to aknoledge it.


Henk_Lu said:


> That's strange! While I sometimes had no result at all ar first, as the switch is quite stiff, it always changes when I press it deep enough and if it blinks, it should be pressed in deep enough.


I first thought the above reason (stiff/awkward clicky) to have something to do with it but it does blink without changing modes, unless I am not depressing the button enough?


Henk_Lu said:


> Be sure your NiMh cells are correctly charged, keep out the alcalines (I collect mine, which come with the flashlights for thr remote controls, needn't buy any fort years by now...).


Yup, freshly charged, alkalines are out and the eneloops are in.


Henk_Lu said:


> Seriously, alkalines may leak and may not bring the necessary current drawn for a long time, especially on high.


Just found the current draw difference between them, alkies sure can't handle as much as the eneloops.


Henk_Lu said:


> If your test was performed by daylight I would tell you to test at night. As you tested by night, either you expected too much or your light has a problem. There is no way to tell somebody how much brighter it should be, but it should be a real difference in the dark.


Yup, tested in the day at first and have now tested at night.
I am begining to think I expected too much from it.
There is a difference between them, but it's not that obvious, lit up a tree about 60m (at a guess) away on the 70 mode and it was visable and putting it on the 170 mode the branches were just a tad bit brighter, just a tad bit more identifiable. 


Henk_Lu said:


> I suppose you have no other light to compare with as you say it's your first real flashlight. Make a search here, perhaps you'll find beamshots of the different levels. Again, make sure your NiMh are fully charged, it's the turbo mode which is affected by half depleted cells, while the rest of the modes may work normally.



Nah, no other lights to compare to aside from a couple of well used (near stuffed) 3C pelican incan lights.





wapkil said:


> I would also expect 170lm and 70lm to show a noticeable difference at night. I seem to remember someone returning a Quark because of the faulty driver that would not have the full output on high...
> 
> You may also try to check the current consumption of the light on high, as described e.g. in HKJ's guide, to see if it is as expected.




I just tried what was described in the link and according to my multimeter on the 170 mode with eneloops it read about 2.1A and with the duracel alkalines 1.7A.
.2 mode with the eneloops read about .002A.

EDIT:
Playing around with it again, I would have to say the tint difference is bigger than the brightness difference between the 70 and 170 modes.


----------



## Vox Clamatis in Deserto (Aug 12, 2009)

Darn, just experienced my second Quark tailcap failure. The last one was the regular pusbutton, this one is a tactical on my QAAW. My wife and I walked for a couple of miles with the light last night and it performed flawlessly, nice moon mode for a dark country road, immediate max when needed for a passing car or wildlife. I also had an Inova Inforce Color, great low modes but sometimes a little awkward to get on high when you need it in a hurry.

This morning the QAAW light would not come on.

I tried the usual troubleshooting, battery swap, swapping ends, Nyogel, Deoxit, etc. A tailcap swap with one of my other Quarks confirmed the fault.

As with the earlier failure, the switch action feels normal, perhaps there is some solder joint or pc board trace in the tailcap that has lost continuity. I don't really have the right pin wrench to disassemble the tailcap but I do have some wristwatch caseback openers that might work.

I realize 4Sevens will repair or replace the light under warranty but as before, I just ordered a new tactical tailcap for $9 delivered. It's easier for me than getting an RMA, packing the light, going to the post office several miles away and waiting for the light to come back. I had a mixup on an earlier 4Sevens RMA and I really want to keep the warm emitter.

Now that I think about it, maybe I should stock a couple of extra Quark tailcaps.

Clicky tailcaps are guaranteed in my experience. Guaranteed to fail...


----------



## wapkil (Aug 12, 2009)

Shimmy said:


> Cool, good to know mine isn't an odd one out... it's not a problem really, just with it being recessed (and a long travel with the rubber boot too) I seem to find it takes a couple of goes to press it in the right spot enough to get it to aknoledge it.



The first shipped versions of Quarks had stiffer boots and there was  a run of replacements to correct it. I don't know though how stiff were the original ones or how soft are the replacements.



Shimmy said:


> I just tried what was described in the link and according to my multimeter on the 170 mode with eneloops it read about 2.1A and with the duracel alkalines 1.7A. .2 mode with the eneloops read about .002A.



It's not a definitive proof (e.g. a faulty driver could waste the energy) but 2.1A sounds normal. ~2mA too, so DMM readings seem correct.


----------



## HKJ (Aug 12, 2009)

Shimmy said:


> I just tried what was described in the link and according to my multimeter on the 170 mode with eneloops it read about 2.1A and with the duracel alkalines 1.7A.
> .2 mode with the eneloops read about .002A.



You current measurements are very reasonable, I got the following values: 2.4mA, 14mA, 98mA, 422mA, 2300mA

The difference between 70 and 170 lumen is visual very small. In my (usual Danish) reviews and beamshots I has a log graph of the different levels, the height difference between the levels is the visual change, as you can see below the difference between high and max has the smallest step size and that also means that it has the least visible change. 







Think about this small difference, when you want a new high power light, the visual change from 70 to 170 is the same as from 170 to 400 lumen!


----------



## Shimmy (Aug 12, 2009)

wapkil said:


> The first shipped versions of Quarks had stiffer boots and there was  a run of replacements to correct it. I don't know though how stiff were the original ones or how soft are the replacements.



I may just send an email off about it, although I could live with the one I have, but if there is a better option I won't say no.
Thanks for the link.



HKJ said:


> You current measurements are very reasonable, I got the following values: 2.4mA, 14mA, 98mA, 422mA, 2300mA
> 
> The difference between 70 and 170 lumen is visual very small. In my (usual Danish) reviews and beamshots I has a log graph of the different levels, the height difference between the levels is the visual change, as you can see below the difference between high and max has the smallest step size and that also means that it has the least visible change.
> 
> ...



Excellent! Cheers for that mate.
That pretty much confirms exactly what I am seeing and it seems it is indeed normal. Pretty much the same current readings too (very close).
So is the visual difference the same for all lights or just the quark?
EDIT: after re-reading your post, it seems it is normal for all lights.


----------



## Marduke (Aug 12, 2009)

It's normal for all lights. You can thank the human logarithmic perception of brightness.


----------



## vali (Aug 12, 2009)

Yes, the change in brightness is not that big between high and max... but it isnt between high and turbo on my LD20 either, so blame the human perception.

The fact is I dont really care. Most of the time I use the lower levels and I am not a "brightness is everything" whore. For me runtime/efficiency and reliability are king.


----------



## KuKu427 (Aug 12, 2009)

I ordered a Quark AA Regular with two AW 14500's and a charger. Waited 12 days for the package to get to Taiwan. And what shows up at my door? 

Two AW 14500's. No Quark, no charger.....

Like... 

Oh wait... one more thing came in the package.





ARRRRGGGGG!!!!!!


----------



## csshih (Aug 12, 2009)

KuKu427 said:


> Oh wait... one more thing came in the package.
> ARRRRGGGGG!!!!!!



I see your light!! It's right there! just reach in and take it out of the brochure. granted..it's sawed in half


----------



## wapkil (Aug 12, 2009)

KuKu427 said:


> I ordered a Quark AA Regular with two AW 14500's and a charger. Waited 12 days for the package to get to Taiwan. And what shows up at my door?
> 
> Two AW 14500's. No Quark, no charger.....
> 
> ...



I believe they are writing about something similar in the Convention Against Torture. On the bright side, you can always be thankful that you haven't received two 10440 UltraFires :nana:


----------



## KuKu427 (Aug 12, 2009)

wapkil said:


> I believe they are writing about something similar in the Convention Against Torture. On the bright side, you can always be thankful that you haven't received two 10440 UltraFires :nana:



I have three of those things... 500mah my a$$!


----------



## Badbeams3 (Aug 12, 2009)

Wow! Nice brochure!

Oh, man that sucks :shakehead I would call by phone if you can from over there on the other side of the pond. See if they can`t get yours to you fast with some upgraded superfast mail. Sorry...


----------



## KuKu427 (Aug 12, 2009)

Badbeams3 said:


> Wow! Nice brochure!
> 
> Oh, man that sucks :shakehead I would call by phone if you can from over there on the other side of the pond. See if they can`t get yours to you fast with some upgraded superfast mail. Sorry...


They replied to my first email 5 hours ago. I also took the opportunity to add a Quark AA Tactical to the order. Been waiting for Paypal instructions for 2 and a half... 

Looking at that brochure hurts me in a way I've never been hurt before... :green:

Time to fire up Skype....

Update: Thank you for calling XXXXXX. Our office hours are blah blah blah blah leave a message blah blah blah....


----------



## Vox Clamatis in Deserto (Aug 12, 2009)

> Time to fire up Skype....


 
You probably know that the time in ATL is exactly 12 hours earlier than in TPE this time of year.

Also, check out the 4Sevens mailing label, for my domestic orders it lists the contents in large print on the margin (not sure I like that idea). Obviously, check your account to see if anything was backordered.


----------



## KuKu427 (Aug 12, 2009)

Vox Clamatis in Deserto said:


> You probably know that the time in ATL is exactly 12 hours earlier than in TPE this time of year.
> 
> Also, check out the 4Sevens mailing label, for my domestic orders it lists the contents in large print on the margin (not sure I like that idea). Obviously, check your account to see if anything was backordered.



Which is why its funny that I get a machine at 2:30 in the afternoon.


----------



## Inliner (Aug 12, 2009)

*Nitecore D20 still Tops*

I carried my new Quark 2AA on duty for a week, but it's been relegated to an "around the house" light. I knew what I was getting when I bought it, and I love the moonlight mode and the Q3-5A tint :twothumbs

But this Quark made me realize that I need instant access (one handed) to low and high. Having to cycle through SOS and Beacon annoy the heck out of me. A strobe I can live with, if it isn't in the way, but SOS and Beacon.... 

So, as much as I hate the Nitecore D20's puny clip, and cool white beam, it's back in my pocket each night.


----------



## jahxman (Aug 12, 2009)

*Re: Nitecore D20 still Tops*



Inliner said:


> But this Quark made me realize that I need instant access (one handed) to low and high. Having to cycle through SOS and Beacon annoy the heck out of me. A strobe I can live with, if it isn't in the way, but SOS and Beacon....


 
Sounds like you needed the tactical....I have mine working well so that I can switch modes while on with one hand - of course to turn it off you might have to change your grip to access the button.


----------



## wapkil (Aug 12, 2009)

KuKu427 said:


> [a mailing label]



Ehm, it is up to you of course, but you may want to reconsider publishing your full address... It's nothing secret, and can be easily found but why do it when there is no need to. Yup - paranoia saves lives


----------



## KuKu427 (Aug 12, 2009)

wapkil said:


> Ehm, it is up to you of course, but you may want to reconsider publishing your full address... It's nothing secret, and can be easily found but why do it when there is no need to. Yup - paranoia saves lives


That's the address I put on my packages when I ship lights out from TW and I don't really see anything to worry about.


----------



## Vox Clamatis in Deserto (Aug 12, 2009)

> Which is why its funny that I get a machine at 2:30 in the afternoon.


 
Different label, I use PayPal for domestic orders, but it does indeed list the intended contents after your name in the address block. Looks like another production error in the shipping department.

I had almost the same order recently, the QAA was one of the natural tints so the charger and 14500's were held until the QAAW's arrived, not a problem with me.

Sorry you have to wait, I've had some issues myself but these are great lights IMHO.


----------



## KuKu427 (Aug 12, 2009)

Yup! Looks like a great light! 

That's why the waiting is killing me!!!:hairpull:

I just ordered a tactical with priority shipping and left a note for them to ship what's missing from my previous order along with it.


----------



## wapkil (Aug 12, 2009)

KuKu427 said:


> That's the address I put on my packages when I ship lights out from TW and I don't really see anything to worry about.



I know but in this thread it will probably eventually be seen by the number of people orders of magnitude larger than the number of your customers. And not all of these people will be nice guys. 

I'm not trying to scare you, it's only an address and almost certainly because of it nothing bad will ever happen. I'm sorry for the off topic, it's just that safety is all about reducing the chances and not taking unnecessary risks. I consider it healthy paranoia but I agree that sometimes it may be too extreme.


----------



## KuKu427 (Aug 12, 2009)

wapkil said:


> I know but in this thread it will probably eventually be seen by the number of people orders of magnitude larger than the number of your customers. And not all of these people will be nice guys.
> 
> I'm not trying to scare you, it's only an address and almost certainly because of it nothing bad will ever happen. I'm sorry for the off topic, it's just that safety is all about reducing the chances and not taking unnecessary risks. I consider it healthy paranoia but I agree that sometimes it may be too extreme.


You're not too paranoid wapkil. Too paranoid is when you rent a cheap apartment so you can have an address to ship and receive from.


----------



## pobox1475 (Aug 12, 2009)

> Having to cycle through SOS and Beacon annoy the heck out of me.


 You don't have to. Shut off and it will restart from moon.


----------



## bcwang (Aug 12, 2009)

pobox1475 said:


> You don't have to. Shut off and it will restart from moon.



In my experience, it is faster to cycle through than to shut-off and restart from moon. Many times I've shut off and waited what I thought was 4 seconds and it still came on in the next mode.


----------



## bcwang (Aug 12, 2009)

HKJ said:


> You current measurements are very reasonable, I got the following values: 2.4mA, 14mA, 98mA, 422mA, 2300mA



Woah, that is a significant difference in current consumption going from high to max. Is that even right? There is no way an eneloop could last 1.3 hours at that rate.

Maybe it would be more accurate to use a fixed voltage bench supply giving a steady 2.4v to see how much current is drawn in each mode. If you're doing it through the batteries I'm sure the voltage drop results in increased current consumption at the higher settings.


----------



## wapkil (Aug 12, 2009)

bcwang said:


> Woah, that is a significant difference in current consumption going from high to max. Is that even right? There is no way an eneloop could last 1.3 hours at that rate.



You are right, there is no way for an Eneloop to last 1.3 hours and it doesn't last that long. 

I believe the measurements are correct. You can for example see selfbuilt's test in which the light ran in regulation for ~1h plus additional 5min. to 50% output. Actually at that rate it is impossible for an Eneloop to last even one hour but the output and the power consumption drop down after a few minutes.


----------



## HKJ (Aug 12, 2009)

bcwang said:


> Woah, that is a significant difference in current consumption going from high to max. Is that even right? There is no way an eneloop could last 1.3 hours at that rate.



According to selfbuilds review it does not last 1.3 hours, only 1:05 hour and it starts with a slightly higher output on fresh batteries.



bcwang said:


> Maybe it would be more accurate to use a fixed voltage bench supply giving a steady 2.4v to see how much current is drawn in each mode. If you're doing it through the batteries I'm sure the voltage drop results in increased current consumption at the higher settings.



A power supply can give a more stable voltage, but what voltage is correct for batteries? Fully charged NiMH is more like 1.4 volt each.
The best would be a curve of current draw with different voltage, but it is a lot of work for a 5 mode light and next problem is that I have not found a good way to get a stable low ohmic connection from the power supply to the flashlight.


----------



## bcwang (Aug 12, 2009)

HKJ said:


> A power supply can give a more stable voltage, but what voltage is correct for batteries? Fully charged NiMH is more like 1.4 volt each.
> The best would be a curve of current draw with different voltage, but it is a lot of work for a 5 mode light and next problem is that I have not found a good way to get a stable low ohmic connection from the power supply to the flashlight.



Another thing that could be done instead. With a power supply you could vary the voltage and see the current draw at different voltages. Then you could see if the circuit is more efficient at particular voltages or just higher vs lower voltages. It would be nice if the circuit was the same efficiency throughout it's voltage range but I kind of doubt it. This is of course assuming the brightness doesn't vary with the voltage which I would hope it does not since it's supposed to be constant current at the output side.



HKJ said:


> According to selfbuilds review it does not last 1.3 hours, only 1:05 hour and it starts with a slightly higher output on fresh batteries.



Does this mean slightly higher voltage gives slightly brighter output even though this is supposed to be a current regulated flashlight? Or is it simply from starting with a cool emitter it's brighter and then it drops as it heats up to a steady temp?


----------



## KuKu427 (Aug 12, 2009)

Just an update. 
4Sevens has upgraded shipping on my package from Global Priority to Express Mail International!!!
:twothumbs:twothumbs:twothumbs


----------



## Toohotruk (Aug 12, 2009)

Shimmy said:


> ...Also with the clicky, it seems sometimes when changing between modes (half pressing) that it won't change every time, somtimes will blink but stay on the same mode.
> Not sure if this is me or the clicky (does it require a certain distance/pressure before changing)?...




One thing I've noticed with both my Fenix and my Quark lights, is if you half press and then let off too quickly when trying to get to the next mode, it will stay at the same brightness. Just hold the button down a hair longer and it should change modes for you.


----------



## Shimmy (Aug 12, 2009)

Toohotruk said:


> One thing I've noticed with both my Fenix and my Quark lights, is if you half press and then let off too quickly when trying to get to the next mode, it will stay at the same brightness. Just hold the button down a hair longer and it should change modes for you.



I just tried doing that, seems to be the more consistent way about it.
Quick taps just blink.

Also found another problem... 
Sometimes when half pressing it turns off.
No click so I am not actually turning it off, just a half press.
Another half press and it comes back on.
So I might be pressing it too far too quick?

On another note, I would have been quite happy with just the 4 modes of brightness (.2, 3.5, 18, 70), not only is the 170 not a lot visually different and chews up batts far quicker.

https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/235171
Looking at the AA2 on there, it is more or less about the same I am seeing.


----------



## burntoshine (Aug 12, 2009)

bcwang said:


> Strange, based on the specs the quark AA will last 4 times longer than the D10 in moon mode so it's definitely using less power. Are you comparing them side by side or based on memory? Everytime I use moon mode on the quark my eyes are already adapted and it seems much brighter than I'd normally think. Using it in normal lighting conditions it looks like the light isn't even on. So it is very relative to conditions.



...side by side.

honestly, to me they look to be the same brightness. both using eneloops.

...just my personal observation.


----------



## DHart (Aug 12, 2009)

KuKu427 said:


> Just an update.
> 4Sevens has upgraded shipping on my package from Global Priority to Express Mail International!!!
> :twothumbs:twothumbs:twothumbs



KuKu... just wanted to say that as a Liteflux dealer and as a member of this forum, you're contributions have been fantastic... it's great to have you as a fellow member of this forum!


----------



## Darkspark (Aug 12, 2009)

So, i noticed that someone had mentioned battery rattle in their 123^2. Is that common? I thought i had decided on a 123^2, but i would buy the 123 instead if it didn't have battery rattle. I don't really want to have to stuff garbage in the tube of my new light to keep it from sounding like a tambourine. Is the single cell version better in this regard?
...and yeah, i can live with the pre-flash.


----------



## Linger (Aug 13, 2009)

the batteries do fit loose in my quark too. Both eneloops and AW 14500's.

Eneloop - high and max (bezel turn away) look almost identical. 14500 - max really picks up the intensity. The beam configuration is great. I want to hate it, because it is so wide and floody, but the thing is, I don't. It's got enough of a power range that when I want to the spill beam brighter I just kick up the output.
But I digress - output, and max specifically. I'm actually very happy running the quark on an eneloop. It's nice with max a twist away. I find max eneloop totally sufficient. sure, I like the option of higher power, but as a 'standby' or BOB light the quark is remarkably bright for a single AA.

Pull to tighten -any comments on 'pulling' the bezel towards the tail to change modes? Instead of turning I can sqeeze the light with my fingers and change modes. I don't know if this is a good idea though, so it's not a habit.


----------



## xenonk (Aug 13, 2009)

linger said:


> Pull to tighten -any comments on 'pulling' the bezel towards the tail to change modes? Instead of turning I can sqeeze the light with my fingers and change modes. I don't know if this is a good idea though, so it's not a habit.


You could put the threads under stress, which would wear them out faster. I do a head pinch for momentary on with some of my cheap-o AAA lights, but they're beaters; I'm not terribly worried about their thread longevity.


----------



## gbelleh (Aug 13, 2009)

I just got my Quark AA warm tint today. I've only gotten to play with it briefly on my lunch break, but so far it's great.

I'm still pretty new to modern LED lights, but I've acquired a few lights over the past month or so (including a Fenix LD20 and TK11, JetBeam Jet I v3 and a couple Maratac AAAs). The QAA seems to be the most versatile of the bunch.

After reading the posts here, I was expecting the moonlight to be dimmer than it is. It actually seems like a very useable level, and after comparing it to some of my other lights' lows, the QAA is in fact quite a bit lower than these.

The warm tint looks great! Very similar in color to my old Surefire E2e. The QAA has a very nice beam with a wider spill on low than my JetBeam or Fenix LD20. It should be great for night dog walks.

The light operates as it should with an Alkaline, Eneloop or 14500, and the quality looks top notch. The clicky seems to work very well and isn't difficult to press, or operate at all. Turbo output is appropriately brighter than high, and mine does have the preflash (but it doesn't concern me at all). The pocket clip is nice and strong, and stays put better than the JetBeam or Maratac.

It's clipped in my pocket right now. It looks like this will be my new EDC (along with the Maratac AAA on the keychain). I really like this light so far.


----------



## Henk_Lu (Aug 13, 2009)

Darkspark said:


> So, i noticed that someone had mentioned battery rattle in their 123^2. Is that common? I thought i had decided on a 123^2, but i would buy the 123 instead if it didn't have battery rattle. I don't really want to have to stuff garbage in the tube of my new light to keep it from sounding like a tambourine. Is the single cell version better in this regard?
> ...and yeah, i can live with the pre-flash.



That must have been me...

I put a piece of paper around the cells and there's silence, unless you shake the light quite violently. I used the 47s cells that came with the light, another cell may be a bit larger. This phenomenon is common to 3 x CR123A lights, if they can take an 18650 it's guaranteed. But, that shouldn't bother you too much, there are no tambourines and you needn't stuff garbage in your light.


----------



## wapkil (Aug 13, 2009)

bcwang said:


> Does this mean slightly higher voltage gives slightly brighter output even though this is supposed to be a current regulated flashlight? Or is it simply from starting with a cool emitter it's brighter and then it drops as it heats up to a steady temp?



I believe it means that the higher voltage gives higher output. As I wrote, an Eneloop could not last 1 hour with the measured initial current draw (2.3A). The current was measured in a different light than the runtime but I believe that it is almost certain that the current gets lower with lower voltage. Which means lower power and lower output.


----------



## DHart (Aug 13, 2009)

Darkspark said:


> So, i noticed that someone had mentioned battery rattle in their 123^2. Is that common? I thought i had decided on a 123^2, but i would buy the 123 instead if it didn't have battery rattle. I don't really want to have to stuff garbage in the tube of my new light to keep it from sounding like a tambourine. Is the single cell version better in this regard?
> ...and yeah, i can live with the pre-flash.



Best solution to battery rattle is: 
RCR123 in the 123, 
14500 in the AA, and 
17670 in the 123x2! 

Li-ions rule!


----------



## uplite (Aug 13, 2009)

Hi all, first post on CPF, and I'm gonna use it to share some Quark love. 

Got a Q123-5A-tactical last week. It obliterated my Maglites, trounced a friend's 18V Dewalt worklight, and replaced my old VectorLite 1.5M candlepower monster for all purposes.

So I ordered another, QAA-5A-regular, to swap and try different parts. 

*Likes* -- Fit & finish are top notch. The neutral (Q3-5A) LEDs are awesome...not yellow like my maglites...not washed-out like my Petzl headlamps. Strobe mode is a super party trick, and probably a great defensive weapon. The finger-sleeve is brilliant!!

*Suggestions* -- Hide the SOS and Beacon modes behind a multi-twist UI, out of the main sequence. Offer a "no packaging" option online for whoever wants...I feel bad that I just threw away that super-fancy package. For the lanyard, a thinner, black cord would be nice. Actually, just me, I'd prefer a good wrist strap. Also please consider selling a simple headstrap (like the nite-ize, but petzl quality), with elastic loops to hold the 123 or AA quarks at different angles.

As a product designer in a past life, I ~deeply~ appreciate the thoughtfulness and passion that went into this little gem. 3 cheers, and 5 stars, for 4Sevens!  Thanks-

-Jeff


----------



## burntoshine (Aug 13, 2009)

*Re: The Quark lights pre-flash*

PRE-FLASH: I've mentioned this several times, but it is continuously brought up. My regular Quark AA does not do the pre-flash if it has been off for more than 25 or 30 seconds. It _does_ do the pre-flash if I turn it off and then only wait a few seconds for the memory to reset back to moonmode, then turn back on. 

I'm curious to see if it is the same in all Quarks. Someone responded when i brought it up before and mentioned that it was some residual energy causing it somehow and it dissipates after a little bit and so does not do the pre-flash. I nailed it down to right about 25 seconds for my Quark AA using an eneloop. I wonder if using different batteries would make a difference. Try it.


----------



## gbelleh (Aug 13, 2009)

*Re: The Quark lights pre-flash*

I just tried turning on my AA after it had been off for over an hour, and it still pre flashed the same as when it's off for a few seconds. It seems to do it exactly the same no matter how long it's been off or what mode it was in previously. (I only tried this with a 14500 so far). I'll try it some more later tonight.


----------



## burntoshine (Aug 13, 2009)

*Re: The Quark lights pre-flash*



gbelleh said:


> I just tried turning on my AA after it had been off for over an hour, and it still pre flashed the same as when it's off for a few seconds. It seems to do it exactly the same no matter how long it's been off or what mode it was in previously. (I only tried this with a 14500 so far). I'll try it some more later tonight.



dang! that's weird. mine's completely consistent and hasn't strayed from what i reported at all. maybe the batteries _do_ have something to do with it...
:thinking:


----------



## bcwang (Aug 13, 2009)

wapkil said:


> I believe it means that the higher voltage gives higher output. As I wrote, an Eneloop could not last 1 hour with the measured initial current draw (2.3A). The current was measured in a different light than the runtime but I believe that it is almost certain that the current gets lower with lower voltage. Which means lower power and lower output.



Actually I'm pretty sure in the general voltage range of usage, the current draw goes up as the voltage in the battery drops to maintain constant power to keep constant brightness. That's how it maintains flat regulation. 

Looking at self-built's review, with nimh it is very flat until it drops off at the end. This is why it's surprising that there would be an initial brightness spike at the beginning since the lights are supposed to be fully regulated when operated at the proper voltage range.


----------



## wapkil (Aug 13, 2009)

bcwang said:


> Actually I'm pretty sure in the general voltage range of usage, the current draw goes up as the voltage in the battery drops to maintain constant power to keep constant brightness. That's how it maintains flat regulation.
> 
> Looking at self-built's review, with nimh it is very flat until it drops off at the end. This is why it's surprising that there would be an initial brightness spike at the beginning since the lights are supposed to be fully regulated when operated at the proper voltage range.



You are right of course that for most of the runtime the driver will keep the power constant. I was writing only about the initial part where the output drops. If HKJ's and Shimmy's measurements are correct, and there is no reason to doubt it, at the beginning of the runtime the light consumes around 2.7W-3.0W. There is no way an Eneloop could supply this power for one hour so I think that it has to drop, together with the brightness.

EDIT: To be clear, I was writing what happens to a single Eneloop in there. There are two so the power supplied to the driver is twice as high but for the above reasoning it was easier for me to look at a single battery. The conclusion is identical when looking at both of them.

The easiest way to check would be to simply measure the current with different voltages but unfortunately I don't have any Quark to do it.

BTW, I just saw that the question about Quark voltages in the Marketplace is yours so maybe David will explain it.


----------



## flatline (Aug 13, 2009)

I finally got some 14500s to play with. The Max is noticeably brighter than High now (not that I ever use it on Max...medium seems to be the highest useful level indoors...and my bedtime is currently before the sun goes down...).

The other thing I noticed is that my preflash seems brighter than when I use alkalines or NiMh. Still not bothersome, though.


----------



## wapkil (Aug 13, 2009)

wapkil said:


> If HKJ's and Shimmy's measurements are correct, and there is no reason to doubt it, at the beginning of the runtime the light consumes around 2.7W-3.0W. There is no way an Eneloop could supply this power for one hour so I think that it has to drop, together with the brightness.
> 
> EDIT: To be clear, I was writing what happens to a single Eneloop in there. There are two so the power supplied to the driver is twice as high but for the above reasoning it was easier for me to look at a single battery. The conclusion is identical when looking at both of them.



Well, ok, I admit I got lost myself. Something is wrong here. With 700mA the LED consumes ~2.5W, the batteries are pushing 5W-6W. So more than half of the power is wasted? It's quite possible that I messed something up but it's late here and I don't see what...


----------



## kwkarth (Aug 13, 2009)

<deleted>


----------



## kwkarth (Aug 13, 2009)

bcwang said:


> Woah, that is a significant difference in current consumption going from high to max. Is that even right? There is no way an eneloop could last 1.3 hours at that rate.
> 
> Maybe it would be more accurate to use a fixed voltage bench supply giving a steady 2.4v to see how much current is drawn in each mode. If you're doing it through the batteries I'm sure the voltage drop results in increased current consumption at the higher settings.



I have a QAA, QAA2 battery tube, Q123, and a Q123x2 all in neutral white and one additional cool white head. There is a considerable difference in brightness between high and turbo modes with every light except one.

When I power the same 0.9V ~ 4.2V head (your choice,) with a single AA, there is very, very little difference in brightness between high and turbo modes.

I suspect the boost circuit is having a real hard time making 3.7v out of the supplied 0.9v. The current drain on the single AA is considerable while the current supplied to the led is not up to snuff. This would explain the considerable increase in drain on the battery with little difference in brightness from the led. The increased current from the battery is being eaten up in IR losses rather than increased lumens.
__________________


----------



## MichaelW (Aug 13, 2009)

Yes & no.
The 4sevens guys know that AA can only give so much. High is 250ma & turbo (okay sorry, Maximum) is 350ma, not the 700ma that AAx2 & CR123x1 operate at.
and in a review, the Quark AA pulled 1,000ma on high, and 1,400ma on maximum (130ma on medium, 30ma on low, 4.8 on moon)-so no alkaline cells on high/max!


----------



## Shimmy (Aug 14, 2009)

Just looking at the box and manual book that came with it and also the website product description page...

On the box it claims 170L for 1.8 hours, in the manual it claims 170L for 1.3 hours.
And on the website it claims that 170L only draws 700ma.

Thats quite different to the actual real readings and measurements of 2.3-2.4A and quite a bit less than 1.3 hours (let alone 1.8 hours).
By my measurements and calculations (most likely wrong, so please correct me if you can), at these currents I will more likely get .8 of an hour runtime at max and from my understandings, and the voltage of the batt drops over the life of the charge the current will increase which would then make the runtime even shorter.

Is there a certain batt or something that was used to get the advertised/claimed specs?

I understand that not everything is exactly as stated/specified and there are some production variations/fluctuations but surely there has to be some kind of tolerence during production to get near the advertised specs?

If I am wrong about anything I just said, please correct me, I am trying to learn a bit as I go here aswell.


----------



## MichaelW (Aug 14, 2009)

Those current numbers: max-990ma cr123x2, 700 cr123,AAx2, 350 AAx1, high-250ma, medium-130, low-30, moon-4.8
are at the diode, not the batteries.
The cr123x2 is a buck only, where the rest are a boost/buck circuit.


----------



## Henk_Lu (Aug 14, 2009)

I followed the instructions and measured also a few lights with my multi-meter. Either it is not working correct, which may be, it is 20 years old and I've never used it to measure a current draw as I'm not an electrician/electronician, or my lights draw a lot less.

The measured draw is pretty much the same for 1 x CR123A lights, Quark or not : About 1,30 A on the highest mode. My LD20 also turns about that value with 2 x AA while the LD10 reaches nearly 1,70 A (Panasonic Infinium cells). The 2 x CR123A lights were at about half of that : Under 0,70A. In comparison I measured the M30 at nearly 1,60 A (3 x CR123A).

If I hadn't read values of 2,1 to 2,4 A here, measured by professionnals, I would have though my values pretty correct as I thought the LED works wit 3V and the maximum current slightly over 1A. I would have guessed that the rest (< 0,3A) is for the circuit, used cells that bring less than 3 Volt and some unprecisions of the measures... :thinking:


----------



## kwkarth (Aug 14, 2009)

MichaelW said:


> Yes & no.
> The 4sevens guys know that AA can only give so much. High is 250ma & turbo (okay sorry, Maximum) is 350ma, not the 700ma that AAx2 & CR123x1 operate at.
> and in a review, the Quark AA pulled 1,000ma on high, and 1,400ma on maximum (130ma on medium, 30ma on low, 4.8 on moon)-so no alkaline cells on high/max!



Thanks Michael, that 'splains it!


----------



## HKJ (Aug 14, 2009)

Henk_Lu said:


> I followed the instructions and measured also a few lights with my multi-meter. Either it is not working correct, which may be, it is 20 years old and I've never used it to measure a current draw as I'm not an electrician/electronician, or my lights draw a lot less.
> 
> The measured draw is pretty much the same for 1 x CR123A lights, Quark or not : About 1,30 A on the highest mode. My LD20 also turns about that value with 2 x AA while the LD10 reaches nearly 1,70 A (Panasonic Infinium cells). The 2 x CR123A lights were at about half of that : Under 0,70A. In comparison I measured the M30 at nearly 1,60 A (3 x CR123A).
> 
> If I hadn't read values of 2,1 to 2,4 A here, measured by professionnals, I would have though my values pretty correct as I thought the LED works wit 3V and the maximum current slightly over 1A. I would have guessed that the rest (< 0,3A) is for the circuit, used cells that bring less than 3 Volt and some unprecisions of the measures... :thinking:



There can be a couple of reasons for you measurements.
The battery voltage, my measurements where done with fresh batteries, on regulated lights this usual gives the lowest current draw, but it looks like the Quark has an extra high draw, until the led is warm.
The actual current draw is not a stable current draw, but done in very fast pulses, this can confuse many types of meters and give false readings. In my guide the cheap meter show to high a value, but another meter might show to low a value.
The problem might also be that your batteries can not supply the current, I am using eneloop, they are good at high current draw.

It is expected that lights with same battery configuration and same output draws about the same current.

I have done the current measurements again (Quark AA-2), with 3 different meters:
Fluke: 2.3A
Best: 2.2A
ISOTech: 2.3A

The batteries measure 2.6 volt and it only takes a few seconds to do the measurement, i.e. the led is cold.


----------



## Badbeams3 (Aug 14, 2009)

The diffuser lens for the Fenix/Quarks are now in and shipping today. I ordered one as sometimes I like a bright short range wall of light 

http://www.4sevens.com/product_info.php?cPath=27_38&products_id=1775

5 bucks if anybody else likes a wall of light rather than throw.


----------



## wapkil (Aug 14, 2009)

HKJ said:


> I have done the current measurements again (Quark AA-2), with 3 different meters:
> Fluke: 2.3A
> Best: 2.2A
> ISOTech: 2.3A
> ...



Am I correct thinking it means that the circuit efficiency is around 40%?

If the batteries measure 2.6V and the current is 2.3A, the power is around 6W. The LED is driven at 700mA, it has forward voltage of around 3.5V so it consumes around 2.5W. 2.5W/6W ~= 42%. ~40% efficiency seems extremely low...


----------



## HKJ (Aug 14, 2009)

wapkil said:


> Am I correct thinking it means that the circuit efficiency is around 40%?
> 
> If the batteries measure 2.6V and the current is 2.3A, the power is around 6W. The LED is driven at 700mA, it has forward voltage of around 3.5V so it consumes around 2.5W. 2.5W/6W ~= 42%. ~40% efficiency seems extremely low...



Check selfbuilds runtime graph, it has higher output with a cold led, i.e. the current might be higher.
And I did not measure the battery voltage under load, it probably is a bit lower.
But we know that the light will run 1 hour on the batteries, that means the current must drop down to a lower level or my light has shorter runtime? Do I really have to do a runtime on my light?


----------



## Henk_Lu (Aug 14, 2009)

HKJ said:


> There can be a couple of reasons for you measurements.
> 
> It is expected that lights with same battery configuration and same output draws about the same current.
> 
> ...



I believe that your measures are right and mine wrong, as I'm a novice in electronics.

I measured : Quark 123-2, Fenix LD20, LD10, PD20, PD30, TK10, TK11, Surefire L4, EagleTac T10C2, Olight M30 and what I don't remember.

For different battery configurations, my measures where the same, so the meter doesn't show correct values.


----------



## wapkil (Aug 14, 2009)

HKJ said:


> Check selfbuilds runtime graph, it has higher output with a cold led, i.e. the current might be higher.
> And I did not measure the battery voltage under load, it probably is a bit lower.



I thought that 2.6V is under load - in Silverfox tests an Eneloop starts with >1.35V @ 2A so under load the voltage can be simmilar.



HKJ said:


> But we know that the light will run 1 hour on the batteries, that means the current must drop down to a lower level or my light has shorter runtime? Do I really have to do a runtime on my light?



Well, you don't have to if you don't want to  Yours, selfbult's, and Shimmy's results look pretty consistent to me. 

I know that the output probably drops, I even wrote it in this thread, but it doesn't change that much. Two Eneloops at this current hold around 4.4Wh. If the LED is driven for an hour @700mA (so ~2.5W) the circuit efficiency would be ~2.5Wh/4.4Wh = ~57%. If the current drops, the efficiency is lower. It would mean that at first the circuit efficiency is around 40% and the average raises probably to ~50%-55%.

I'm asking because such an efficiency seems pretty low to me. Maybe it is what one can expect from a flashlight but 50% of the energy wasted in the circuit looks surprising. I just wanted to see if I understand it correctly.


----------



## Chaz (Aug 14, 2009)

I notice that some of you seem to be using the 14500 in the QAA without any problem. If I put a 14500 (AW) in my QAA it is long enough to prevent the head from making contact for the turbo mode without some serious twisting pressure which I am reluctant to use for fear of damaging something. Backing the switch off a bit resolves the problem for the reverse clicky, but not for the tactical switch on which the threads are anodized. Besides, when backing the tail off enough it seems that there are not more than a couple of threads holding it on.
Is this the same with all QAAs, or did I get a shorter body than normal? If so, I will ask for a replacement from 4Sevens.


----------



## TwitchALot (Aug 14, 2009)

I thought the Quark's didn't have a LOTC, but when I unscrew the tailcap a bit, it essentially breaks the circuit and prevents the light from turning on. Isn't this in effect, a LOTC? :Scratch:


----------



## burntoshine (Aug 14, 2009)

Badbeams3 said:


> The diffuser lens for the Fenix/Quarks are now in and shipping today. I ordered one as sometimes I like a bright short range wall of light
> 
> http://www.4sevens.com/product_info.php?cPath=27_38&products_id=1775
> 
> 5 bucks if anybody else likes a wall of light rather than throw.



mine shipped tuesday and i got it yesterday. it is very artifacty, but pretty good for $5


----------



## HKJ (Aug 14, 2009)

TwitchALot said:


> I thought the Quark's didn't have a LOTC, but when I unscrew the tailcap a bit, it essentially breaks the circuit and prevents the light from turning on. Isn't this in effect, a LOTC? :Scratch:



The first batch did not, bud in subsequent Quarks the tailcap has some anodizing on the threads. I.e. if you have black threads you have a lockout tailcap:


----------



## TwitchALot (Aug 14, 2009)

HKJ said:


> The first batch did not, bud in subsequent Quarks the tailcap has some anodizing on the threads. I.e. if you have black threads you have a lockout tailcap:



Thanks for clearing that up!


----------



## flatline (Aug 14, 2009)

Chaz said:


> I notice that some of you seem to be using the 14500 in the QAA without any problem. If I put a 14500 (AW) in my QAA it is long enough to prevent the head from making contact for the turbo mode without some serious twisting pressure which I am reluctant to use for fear of damaging something.



What kind of 14500s are you using? can you measure their length for us?

--flatline


----------



## Chaz (Aug 14, 2009)

The 14500 I am using is an AW and measures very close to 2 inches including the + contact. An AA measures 1 15/16 inch. So the 14500 is about 1/16 inch longer than an AA.
The size column on Battery Station show that a 14500 is 1.98 inches, which is very close to 2 inches.


----------



## pobox1475 (Aug 14, 2009)

The spring should be able to accommodate a 1/16 variation.


----------



## edc3 (Aug 14, 2009)

Chaz said:


> I notice that some of you seem to be using the 14500 in the QAA without any problem. If I put a 14500 (AW) in my QAA it is long enough to prevent the head from making contact for the turbo mode without some serious twisting pressure which I am reluctant to use for fear of damaging something. Backing the switch off a bit resolves the problem for the reverse clicky, but not for the tactical switch on which the threads are anodized. Besides, when backing the tail off enough it seems that there are not more than a couple of threads holding it on.
> Is this the same with all QAAs, or did I get a shorter body than normal? If so, I will ask for a replacement from 4Sevens.



Have you removed your clip? I removed my clip right after I got my AA Tactical. Today I tried an AW 14500 in it. After inserting the battery and tightening the tailcap I wasn't able to tighten the head without backing off the tailcap a bit. This seems to be because the little collar that tightens on the clip was screwed all the way down, allowing the tailcap to be be screwed down much further than necessary. I replaced the clip and the battery fits nicely. Also, after trying the 14500 in it, my Quark tube has a nasty smell. Maybe I'm being paranoid, but I'm not really comfortable using the 14500 in it now. It seems to me that removing the clip should not allow the tail to be over-tightened. BTW, my tailcap is not annodized.


----------



## xenonk (Aug 15, 2009)

edc3 said:


> After inserting the battery and tightening the tailcap I wasn't able to tighten the head without backing off the tailcap a bit. This seems to be because the little collar that tightens on the clip was screwed all the way down, allowing the tailcap to be be screwed down much further than necessary.


I don't have one of the early non-anodized tailcaps, but that explanation sounds plausible.

The anodized tailcaps don't seem to have this issue since they now rely on the lip of the battery tube pressing against the bare switch retaining ring inside the tailcap. After removing the clip, I quickly noticed there was a slight gap between my collar and the end of the tailcap when fully tightened down.

This led to a different but minor pair of quirks on my Quark (haw!):

The collar on mine has little to no bite when tightened down towards the body tube with the clip removed, so it likes to come loose and spin freely. I really don't like that but still want it filling in the clip channel so I tighten it up towards the tailcap instead, where it seems to get some grip and stay put.
Unfortunately at this position it likes to follow the tailcap when unscrewing, until it reaches the o-ring and the tailcap separates from it. Nothing seems amiss until you put the tailcap back on, which will now hit and seize at the collar's higher position before the battery tube can make contact.
It stays with the tailcap well enough for a short lockout turn to screw back down properly. I suppose I have the coefficient of static friction to thank for that.

Given that I'm top-loading to preserve the lockout anodize on my tailcap anyway though, the collar-to-tailcap bit actually ceases to be an issue.


----------



## tankahn (Aug 15, 2009)

My new quark arrived a week ago along with the extension tubes I ordered. Proceeded to remove the clips. One was screwed on so tight, had to use C clamps pliers to loosen it. Big mistake, pieces of metal were removed, its one ugly light now. Took it for a night walk but weren't happy with its brighter hotspot at the expense of flood. My friend wanted to see how to program the other modes. The threads were not well lubricated and we have a hard time twisting the head in the field until the 0 ring broke. I decided to edc the light to see if I warm up to it. I have also ordered a second LE quark with a warm tint. The single CR123 quark is out of stock so I order the 2 CR123 version. I soon began to worry what if I put 2 batteries on the wrong versions and it go poof! My worry was short-lived when I lost the light. It must have fell out from my pocket. Thankfully Quarks are not expensive and the loss was forgotten. 

The new quark arrived. Loved its warm tint. Runs bright even with one 17650 batteries. The batteries that comes with it were duds. No voltage shown in my multimeter. Didn't realized the batteries were shrink-wrapped and nearly threw them away. 

I usually throw away the boxes before the missus sees them. Removed and kept the 4 magnets from each gift box. The magnets are great for spacers and DX is backordered.

Am so happy that I ordered more accessories from 4sevens including flood filter, red filter, traffic cone, white cone.


----------



## Vox Clamatis in Deserto (Aug 15, 2009)

> Didn't realized the batteries were shrink-wrapped and nearly threw them away.


 
I saw that one coming. It is nice that the 123's are wrapped so they won't short out in a briefcase or backpack but the clear wrap could cause confusion in low light or in a tense tactical reload situation.



> I usually throw away the boxes before the missus sees them. Removed and kept the 4 magnets from each gift box. The magnets are great for spacers and DX is backordered.


 
Great minds think alike on that one...


----------



## bcwang (Aug 15, 2009)

wapkil said:


> I thought that 2.6V is under load - in Silverfox tests an Eneloop starts with >1.35V @ 2A so under load the voltage can be simmilar.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'll try to test it under a DC voltage regulated power supply next week to get to the bottom of this. Trying to measure current draw when you can't measure the voltage of the battery at the same time will lead to erroneous calculations of actual power. I'm guessing that if the batteries are 2.6v open circuit, they are going to be much lower under such a high load. I can do a full sweep at a couple of interesting voltage points.

With my rudimentary equipment at home, I measured:

using eneloop nimh, resting voltage is 1.278 v per cell
moonlight - 0ma 
low -10ma
medium - 70ma
high - 410ma
max - 2120ma

Using powergenix nizn, resting voltage 1.810v per cell
moonlight - 0ma
low - 0ma
medium - 50ma
high - 250
max - 1270ma

Note the poor resolution of my meter at low currents, it's only good to the nearest 10ma. In any case, it'll give decent rough estimates.

The first thing to note is the efficiency does seem to go up with a higher input voltage in the high and max modes. So even if cells have the same total energy (watt-hours) in them, the cells that run at a higher voltage will last longer in the flashlight at the higher settings. 

In any case, it'll be easier and better to compute real power numbers once I get accurate measurements next week.


----------



## HKJ (Aug 15, 2009)

bcwang said:


> I'll try to test it under a DC voltage regulated power supply next week to get to the bottom of this. Trying to measure current draw when you can't measure the voltage of the battery at the same time will lead to erroneous calculations of actual power. I'm guessing that if the batteries are 2.6v open circuit, they are going to be much lower under such a high load. I can do a full sweep at a couple of interesting voltage points.



I was curious and could not wait for next week, I did the measurement on the same AA2 light that I did the current measurement on. Remeber that this is the exactly same head as the AA and CR123 light uses.

This curve takes some time to make, i.e. the led and circuit are warm. I tried also doing a few measurements where I let it cool down and then turned it on, this gives a higher current for a short time (I could measure 2.3A at 2.3 volt).
The lights turns on between 0.8 and 0.9 volt, but can stay on down to 0.2 volt.
The lumen are calculated, I did a lux measurement and then scale it to lumen from the specified max of 170.

Red:Current, green:Lumen


----------



## Henk_Lu (Aug 15, 2009)

When my Quark AA-2 came, it was very hard to tighten the head. I screw it off, back on again and it worked more or less normally, a little bit stiff, but OK.

Yesterday, when I used it, the head wasn't tightened, but nearly impossible to turn, I had to use real force tu scre it off. Back on again, it worked normally again, still stiff. So, today I disassembled everything, o-ring off and cleaned everything thoroughly, there was aluminium in the threads. I also had to use some sand paper to smoothen the ring just under the threads, over the o-ring, the anodizing ends here and that was not properly worked out.

I lubed everything, put the o-ring back on, the problem stays the same, it definetely is the o-ring and if you don't turn the head for some time, it kinda blocks. I've already read in this thread about the problem, but I thought it was only on the AA and I also thought it was solved now... :sigh:

Well, I'll hardly need turbo, do it won't bother me much, but it isn't nice, I couldn't give this light to my wife without first making the head turn smoother.

The 123 and 123-2 don't have this problem and I can be glad I took those with the tactical UI and the AA-2 with the regular one!


----------



## wapkil (Aug 15, 2009)

HKJ said:


> I was curious and could not wait for next week, I did the measurement on the same AA2 light that I did the current measurement on. Remeber that this is the exactly same head as the AA and CR123 light uses.
> 
> This curve takes some time to make, i.e. the led and circuit are warm. I tried also doing a few measurements where I let it cool down and then turned it on, this gives a higher current for a short time (I could measure 2.3A at 2.3 volt).
> The lights turns on between 0.8 and 0.9 volt, but can stay on down to 0.2 volt.
> The lumen are calculated, I did a lux measurement and then scale it to lumen from the specified max of 170.



Thanks, a picture is really worth a thousand words in this case 

So the turbo in the Quark here really needs the voltage above around 2.4V for the 100% output. In practice it probably means that it is regulated only for Li-Ions - at the required current a CR123 won't be able to keep the voltage, for two NiMHs I think even Eneloops, especially after some use, may be able to sustain it only for a first few minutes. 

The graph seems to be in sync with bcwang's prediction in the Marketplace thread that there will be a problem for many NiMHs in a single cell configuration to get to 90lm. If, like on the graph, it needs to have >1.3V @2A, it is actually impossible for most cells and the light will drop down to 70lm-80lm.

At 2.4V the graph also seems to confirm the ~50% circuit efficiency for NiMHs that I wrote about previously. The efficiency for Li-Ions depends on how well they are able to keep the voltage but it looks like it can be around 65%-75%.

It surprised me that the light needs such a high voltage to stay in regulation. The output of 160lm instead of 170lm or 75lm instead of 90lm doesn't look bad but the higher output together with a much better efficiency suggest it really should be ran with Li-Ions. How nice it would be if manufacturers published similar graphs in the specification...

EDIT: I forgot to ask - do you know what may be the cause of the rapid current drop from ~1.1V? It looks like the circuit has three "operating areas" - the first one (0V-1.1V) in which both the current and the voltage grow, the second (1.1V-2.4V )in which only the voltage changes, and the third (2.4V-4.4V) constant power one. It is interesting that in the first two areas the brightness changes in a similar manner even though the change in supplied power in the first one is roughly quadratic and in the second one roughly linear...


----------



## uplite (Aug 15, 2009)

xenonk said:


> The collar on mine has little to no bite when tightened down towards the body tube with the clip removed, so it likes to come loose and spin freely.


You could wipe a tiny bit of Loctite 222 or 242 over the last few threads of the tube before you install the collar...problem solved. :thumbsup:



Henk_Lu said:


> I lubed everything, put the o-ring back on, the problem stays the same, it definetely is the o-ring and if you don't turn the head for some time, it kinda blocks.


Try your spare o-rings? Maybe they came out a bit thinner, you never know. Also what kind of lube did you use on the o-ring?

FWIW, the head on my Quark takes a lot of force to twist...it doesn't feel "blocked", but it is a mandatory two-hand operation (and I have rock-climber fingers). That's OK...tight o-rings = waterproof. It'd be nice to have some thinner o-rings for casual use though.

-Jeff


----------



## Henk_Lu (Aug 15, 2009)

uplite said:


> Try your spare o-rings? Maybe they came out a bit thinner, you never know. Also what kind of lube did you use on the o-ring?
> 
> FWIW, the head on my Quark takes a lot of force to twist...it doesn't feel "blocked", but it is a mandatory two-hand operation (and I have rock-climber fingers). That's OK...tight o-rings = waterproof. It'd be nice to have some thinner o-rings for casual use though.
> 
> -Jeff



Good idea, I'll have a look on the spare o-ring!

What lube? Of course some silicone lube which came with my Liteflux LF3XT just for that purpose. I already know about o-rings and petroleum based lubes...

On the threads I use household oil, revealed to be fine if applied in really minimal quantities.


----------



## uplite (Aug 15, 2009)

Henk_Lu said:


> What lube? Of course some silicone lube which came with my Liteflux LF3XT just for that purpose. I already know about o-rings and petroleum based lubes...


I'm no expert, but I've read that some silicone o-rings can swell when you apply a silicone lube. I dunno how you identify a silicon o-ring vs other materials, though. Are they always red? :thinking:

I've also read that petroleum lubes are not a problem with most o-rings you are likely to see these days. Only on natural rubber, which is pretty rare. But again, I'm no expert...just passing on what I've read on the web. 

Probably the o-rings are just a bit too thick to begin with. :shrug:

-Jeff


----------



## jabe1 (Aug 15, 2009)

uplite said:


> I'm no expert, but I've read that some silicone o-rings can swell when you apply a silicone lube. I dunno how you identify a silicon o-ring vs other materials, though. Are they always red? :thinking:
> 
> I've also read that petroleum lubes are not a problem with most o-rings you are likely to see these days. Only on natural rubber, which is pretty rare. But again, I'm no expert...just passing on what I've read on the web.
> 
> ...



I'm using the No-Ox Id A-special and it works great! It is now my preferred lube for all of my lights.


----------



## uplite (Aug 15, 2009)

HKJ said:


> I was curious and could not wait for next week, I did the measurement on the same AA2 light that I did the current measurement on.


Wow, that graph looks like it was a lot of work! :bow: Thanks for sharing it. :twothumbs:




wapkil said:


> At 2.4V the graph also seems to confirm the ~50% circuit efficiency for NiMHs that I wrote about previously.


I wonder...could the difference between these measurements, and the expected power draw of the LED, come from the way the driver sources current? Perhaps it draws a pulsed or throbbing current from the batteries, so the average current is actually much lower than what you guys are measuring? :thinking:

I dunno how the driver works...so this is just a wild guess...but it would explain why it looks like 5 watts (2A @ 2.5V) are being drawn when the LED should only need 2.4W (700mA @ 3.4Vf). Perhaps 2A is the _peak _current, and the _average _current is more like 1A?

As for the battery capacity, I bet it drops to something like 50% of stated when you try to pull this much current from the cells. That would explain the published runtimes with nimhs.

-Jeff


----------



## Vox Clamatis in Deserto (Aug 15, 2009)

> Is this the same with all QAAs, or did I get a shorter body than normal? If so, I will ask for a replacement from 4Sevens.


 
Well, something seems to be going on with my QAAW body. The tactical tailcap suddenly quit working, I tried it on a Q123-2 body and it still didn't work. The tailcap for the Q123-2 worked fine on the QAAW body so I was convinced the tactical tailcap had failed and I dutifully reported my finding here. I ordered a new tactical tailcap, it came in two days as usual (great service 47's!). The new tactical tailcap didn't work on the QAAW body either but it did work on the Q123-2 body. Hmmm. I dug up my QAA-2 body and _both_ tactical tailcaps work with it.

I've tried the usual CPF remedies of Nyogel, cleaning, DeoxIT and strong language. Also tried both AA's and 14500's in the QAAW as well as swapping ends on the light. Both tactical tailcaps have the new insulated threads, it seems that perhaps some of the tubes have threading that allows the end of the tube to make contact with the threaded washer inside the tailcap, others do not. On closer inspection, it turns out that my QAA-2 tailcap is the old style with bare threads, that would explain why it would work even if the end of the QAAW tube doesn't contact the threaded tailcap washer.

I love the warm head but the QAA-2 body is just a little too much for me. I somehow need to get my QAAW working again with the tactical tailcap, it is a great combo for my purposes. I probably should admit defeat and send the original QAAW configuration back to 47's for warranty repair.


----------



## Badbeams3 (Aug 15, 2009)

Vox Clamatis in Deserto said:


> Well, something seems to be going on with my QAAW body. The tactical tailcap suddenly quit working, I tried it on a Q123-2 body and it still didn't work. The tailcap for the Q123-2 worked fine on the QAAW body so I was convinced the tactical tailcap had failed and I dutifully reported my finding here. I ordered a new tactical tailcap, it came in two days as usual (great service 47's!). The new tactical tailcap didn't work on the QAAW body either but it did work on the Q123-2 body. Hmmm. I dug up my QAA-2 body and _both_ tactical tailcaps work with it.
> 
> I've tried the usual CPF remedies of Nyogel, cleaning, DeoxIT and strong language. Also tried both AA's and 14500's in the QAAW as well as swapping ends on the light. Both tactical tailcaps have the new insulated threads, it seems that perhaps some of the tubes have threading that allows the end of the tube to make contact with the threaded washer inside the tailcap, others do not. On closer inspection, it turns out that my QAA-2 tailcap is the old style with bare threads, that would explain why it would work even if the end of the QAAW tube doesn't contact the threaded tailcap washer.
> 
> I love the warm head but the QAA-2 body is just a little too much for me. I somehow need to get my QAAW working again with the tactical tailcap, it is a great combo for my purposes. I probably should admit defeat and send the original QAAW configuration back to 47's for warranty repair.



Well this worked for a poster once before...might work again. Look inside the tailcap...do you see the plate with two holes...if you can fashion a tool to fit into these holes and turn clockwise...moving the plate further back/deeper into the switch...


----------



## SJB (Aug 15, 2009)

I'm having a similar problem with a tactical tailcap. It is one of the newer types with anodizing on the inside threads. On some of my bodies (123 & 1 end of my AA) the switch retaining ring does not quite contact the back of the tube even when tightened all the way. Therefore the light will not come on. I am sending the tailcap back to 4Sevens for a swap. My regular tailcap (un-anodized) has no problems whatsoever.


----------



## Owen (Aug 15, 2009)

Badbeams3 said:


> The diffuser lens for the Fenix/Quarks are now in and shipping today.


Cool. The Olight one that I ordered with my Quark fits, but it's oversized, and seems inefficient. 



I got a AA2 "tactical" with neutral tint yesterday, and used it at home, then at work last night. Very pleased with the size. Mini-Mag length, and a slimmer head. 
I don't keep up with these Quark threads, so haven't read much of the commentary on them. 
The overall quality isn't particularly impressive, or disappointing. About what I expected, not bad. The so-called "type III" ano is crap, though.
I like the UI and beam well enough. Love the brightness choices, and of course, the tint. 
This is the first flashlight that I've actually used for more than one set of rounds since I started using a Malkoff M60W at work. I'm even thinking about making the Quark my primary work light.

Would rather wait 'til I've used it for awhile to see how it does over time, but may order another AA2 with spare 1x123 body, plus a single AA model for a gift while the neutrals are still available. 
I wanted a 2AA setup, so I'm not not wholly dependant on Lithiums or Li-ions for an all-around light. Along with a diffuser, this one could technically do everything I need a flashlight for all by itself.
I get AAs free, too


----------



## Lightraven (Aug 15, 2009)

I got my Quark 123 Tactical and have been putting it through some action--found and arrested a guy on Max, wrote up the field reports on moonmode, helped a supervisor see a dirt road on Max.

I'll make it my primary utility duty light, with my Surefire X-300 backing it up for more serious purposes.


----------



## HKJ (Aug 15, 2009)

wapkil said:


> EDIT: I forgot to ask - do you know what may be the cause of the rapid current drop from ~1.1V? It looks like the circuit has three "operating areas" - the first one (0V-1.1V) in which both the current and the voltage grow, the second (1.1V-2.4V )in which only the voltage changes, and the third (2.4V-4.4V) constant power one. It is interesting that in the first two areas the brightness changes in a similar manner even though the change in supplied power in the first one is roughly quadratic and in the second one roughly linear...



I do not know it, but it looks like the first phase is where the circuit is ramping up to max. current that it can handle, in the next phase it is handling about 2A and delivering as much power to the led as possible. When it reaches 170 lumen it will stay at that level and reduce the current for higher voltage.

The first part will have low efficiency, due to voltage drops in the circuit, at higher voltage the efficiency will go up, there are two reasons for that, both that a 0.1 volt drop is less significant and that the current goes down.


----------



## ZMZ67 (Aug 15, 2009)

The anodizing is a little disappointing.Similar to Fenix ano it is not as nice as my Nitecores or INOVAs.Still very impressed with my two lights though, havent really found any problems.


----------



## bcwang (Aug 16, 2009)

HKJ said:


>



Thanks for doing this HKJ!

Something fishy is going on between 1.1v-1.2v, I don't know how the current can lower but the brightness also go up so much. Did you sweep pretty quickly? I wonder if 1.1v the current would have started going down on it's own because the circuit switched into some other mode or from the heat increase during the test changing required current draw. It would be interesting to play around that voltage range a bit more and see if it is always the same behavior or varies. The way I see it if you take the graph at face value is you do not want to be at 1.1v as it is extremely inefficient.

It also does look like maybe, just maybe, the quark regulates for 90 lumen between 1.2v-1.3v. Notice the flat spot between the two voltages where current drops only slightly and brightness looks pretty level. Again, the speed of the sweep could be affecting it making it not perfectly level. This would be the voltage range of a good AA nimh cell under load. It would be nice if 4sevens could clarify if this is the case or if it's just an anamoly during the sweep.

Notice how true it is that the higher the input voltage the more efficient the circuit runs at. From the worst point running the full 170lumen 2.4v x 2.25amp = 5.4 watts. For the same brightness at 4.1v x 0.75amp = 3.075watts. That means at 2.4v it is burning 75% more power than when running at 4.1v to drive the LED at the same brightness. I think the regular head in a 123x2 body with a 17670 is the most efficient use of space and energy.

So it looks like 2.4v is the minimum voltage for your Quark to drive max brightness. Now I wonder if this is the same for every Quark or if it depends on the LED forward voltage at all, or sample variation.

Now does anyone have the 123x2 head they could run through the same voltage sweep? It would be interesting to see how efficiency differs between the two heads and also what voltage is needed to achieve full brightness.


----------



## HKJ (Aug 16, 2009)

bcwang said:


> Now does anyone have the 123x2 head they could run through the same voltage sweep? It would be interesting to see how efficiency differs between the two heads and also what voltage is needed to achieve full brightness.



Ok, here it comes.

It is done with a tactical head and lumens are scaled from a lux measurement and the 190 lumen for 123-2 Quark.

Red: Current, green:Lumen


----------



## bcwang (Aug 16, 2009)

Awesome. The interesting part about this graph on the 123x2 head is the efficiency seems to be best at 3.6v and goes down as voltage continues to rise. Though this might be related to the fact that output seems to be slightly increasing with voltage, which is unexpected. I wonder if this could be another anamoly of increasing temperatures during the sweep rather than being due to the voltage increasing.


----------



## wapkil (Aug 16, 2009)

bcwang said:


> I think the regular head in a 123x2 body with a 17670 is the most efficient use of space and energy.



After the second graph a 123x2 head with a 17670 seems a bit better. It should have similar efficacy at a bit higher brightness. Of course this is true only for Turbo, in other modes the heads will behave differently.


----------



## xenonk (Aug 16, 2009)

uplite said:


> You could wipe a tiny bit of Loctite 222 or 242 over the last few threads of the tube before you install the collar...problem solved. :thumbsup:


Now that you mention it, purple loctite does sound like a good option. Reversible easily enough in case somebody ever makes a foldover clip for deep carry that I can use.



uplite said:


> FWIW, the head on my Quark takes a lot of force to twist...it doesn't feel "blocked", but it is a mandatory two-hand operation


You may try flipping the body around if you don't need the clip bezel down. There's something different about the machining or o-ring on the tail end that makes it significantly easier to turn the head if it's on that end.



uplite said:


> I'm no expert, but I've read that some silicone o-rings can swell when you apply a silicone lube. I dunno how you identify a silicon o-ring vs other materials, though. Are they always red? :thinking:


No, they can be any colour. Unless you have some way to chemically test them it's unlikely you can tell silicone from rubber through simple observation.

Using a lube based on the same chemical as your o-ring can generally cause dissolving, or swelling through absorption.


----------



## HKJ (Aug 16, 2009)

bcwang said:


> Awesome. The interesting part about this graph on the 123x2 head is the efficiency seems to be best at 3.6v and goes down as voltage continues to rise. Though this might be related to the fact that output seems to be slightly increasing with voltage, which is unexpected. I wonder if this could be another anamoly of increasing temperatures during the sweep rather than being due to the voltage increasing.



On the 123-2 I started the sweep from 9 volt. The AA-2 was done from 0.8 and up, then from 0.8 and down. There is nothing automatic about my sweep, each measurement point takes a couple of seconds while I write the values down.


----------



## Burgess (Aug 16, 2009)

to HKJ --


*Thank you* for your time and effort

in producing these *Very Useful graphs* !


:wow::goodjob::thanks:




Now, if you could just do 'em at other brightness levels . . . .





lovecpf

_


----------



## jimmy1970 (Aug 17, 2009)

Just received a few new Quarks today. The quality of the threads is a bit ordinary with the 'o' rings getting a little chewed up in one of them until I relubed it. 

However, the tint of the 2 x neutral units I have is just fantastic. Nice artifact free beam as well. The clicky is a bit touchy on turbo mode making it a bit too easy to go to strobe. I will have to try a neutral tint tactical model next - that would probably be the perfect combo IMHO.

James....


----------



## MichaelW (Aug 17, 2009)

I wonder if 4sevens will bring back the 3xcr123 bodies?
I never picked one up for the Fenix p3d, $50 was too steep, maybe if it were cheaper $30-40-ish.


----------



## Mr. Tone (Aug 17, 2009)

Well guys, I finally got the magnet spacers from Lighthound for my button-less 14500 batteries. I really like the little extra output now on turbo. The difference between high and max is a little larger than my Fenix lights, which is nice. Of course it isn't a huge step up in brightness as it is only a little more than double the lumens. Now if we could only have a step up from high to 350-400 lumens to be the same difference as the other level steps.  

Does anyone have an idea how the Quark runtime would be on Moon, Low, and Medium with a single 14500? I believe Selfbuilt only did a runtime(14500) on max and high. For the high mode it was around 2x the runtime as with nimh so I'm curious how the rest of the modes would fair.

Anyone?


----------



## flatline (Aug 17, 2009)

Mr. Tone said:


> Well guys, I finally got the magnet spacers from Lighthound for my button-less 14500 batteries.


 
Out of curiosity, could you have used the magnets that were in the Quark packaging or is there something special about the magnets from Lighthound?

Are all magnets good conductors or only certain types?

--flatline


----------



## DHart (Aug 17, 2009)

Recapping my experience now after having a bunch o' Quarks for a while. At present, I'd say my fave Quark configurations are these:

AA regular head/warm tint emitter with AA body, tactical tailcap, 14500 cell

123x2 regular head/warm tint emitter with 123x2 body, tactical tailcap, 17670 cell

These set-ups give the nice warm/neutral tint, turbo or moon with just a head twist, momentary operation, and quick, easy access to all the output levels and modes. To me, this is the sweetest Quark set-up, whether with 14500 or 17670.

For the pocket, EDC use, make it this:

123 regular head/warm tint, 123 body, regular tailcap (for compactness & minimizing inadvertant "on"), 16340 li-ion cell.


----------



## jcw122 (Aug 18, 2009)

I'm liking the AA^2 setup a lot right now. AA feels almost TOO small. I can't imagine the 123. That and the longer AA^2 makes it feel like the light is deeper in my pocket when clipped.

That and Max on NiHM is actually useful 

Has anyone tried 2 x Lithium AAs in the AA^2 yet? The voltage should only be 3.0v so I imagine this should work.


----------



## DHart (Aug 18, 2009)

jcw122 said:


> I'm liking the AA^2 setup a lot right now. AA feels almost TOO small. I can't imagine the 123. That and the longer AA^2 makes it feel like the light is deeper in my pocket when clipped.
> 
> That and Max on NiHM is actually useful
> 
> Has anyone tried 2 x Lithium AAs in the AA^2 yet? The voltage should only be 3.0v so I imagine this should work.



Interesting how much some of us differ... I can't fathom the AAx2 form factor... waaaaay too long for my liking, generally speaking. Having one for emergency use I can understand, but for general use, the 123x2 with a 17670 feels purrrrrrrrrfect!  And the AA or 123 for the pocket is sweet!


----------



## Mr. Tone (Aug 18, 2009)

flatline said:


> Out of curiosity, could you have used the magnets that were in the Quark packaging or is there something special about the magnets from Lighthound?
> 
> Are all magnets good conductors or only certain types?
> 
> --flatline


 
I don't really know the answer to your question. I never took the magnets out of the Quark boxes, I am going to try and keep them intact. Some of the CPFers suggested the ones I got. They are made for this application and I think are neodymium. They are just the right size and have low resistance.


----------



## oldpal (Aug 18, 2009)

DHart said:


> Interesting how much some of us differ... I can't fathom the AAx2 form factor... waaaaay too long for my liking, generally speaking. Having one for emergency use I can understand, but for general use, the 123x2 with a 17670 feels purrrrrrrrrfect!  And the AA or 123 for the pocket is sweet!



I'm with you, DHart. I got a QAA when they first came out and soon after ordered a 2xAA body, thinking that I would use it with the AA head. I put it together once, but now use the 2xAA body to store spare eneloops. That Quark 2xAA is an ugly thing to behold, in my opinion. I don't have a Q2x123, so I don't know about it. I'm looking forward to trying out my Ti Q123nc.

Hugh


----------



## Badbeams3 (Aug 18, 2009)

oldpal said:


> I'm with you, DHart. I got a QAA when they first came out and soon after ordered a 2xAA body, thinking that I would use it with the AA head. I put it together once, but now use the 2xAA body to store spare eneloops. That Quark 2xAA is an ugly thing to behold, in my opinion. I don't have a Q2x123, so I don't know about it. I'm looking forward to trying out my Ti Q123nc.
> 
> Hugh



True, but the 2xAA would be the ticket for travelers and campers. Long run time and easy to find batts. 

http://www.4sevens.com/popup_image.php?pID=1620&image=0

Not THAT ugly.


----------



## DHart (Aug 18, 2009)

Badbeams3 said:


> True, but the 2xAA would be the ticket for travelers and campers. Long run time and easy to find batts.
> 
> http://www.4sevens.com/popup_image.php?pID=1620&image=0
> 
> Not THAT ugly.



Yeah... the 2xAA has some merits, but I think a single AA is just about as practical for traveling/camping/batt supplies and to my preferences, much nicer to work with and to pocket.


----------



## flatline (Aug 18, 2009)

I'm tempted to get a AA2 tube to use to hold my spare 14500s when traveling. I'm not opposed to the AA2 form factor (carried a 2xAA minimag on my belt for 10 years until i got my QAAw), but the advantage of runtime and max output seems to be moot when using a 14500 in the AA tube.


----------



## PeaceOfMind (Aug 18, 2009)

Just got my first Quark - The 1xAA Tactical, from 4Sevens Canada.

I gotta say, I'm really impressed with the pocket clip and how strong it is. I often don't trust pocket clips, but this one seems unstoppable.

However I find my AW 14500's are a tight fit (too long), which makes it very hard to turn the head to switch modes. So I'll probably be sticking with regular AA cells in this one for the most part.


----------



## Tom_123 (Aug 18, 2009)

> However I find my AW 14500's are a tight fit (too long)


As the threads of the QAA aren’t anodized you can adjust the length by open
the tailcap a bit.
Nevertheless, I too wish the 1xAA tube would be 2mm or 3mm longer,
that would be the better solution.


----------



## HKJ (Aug 18, 2009)

Tom_123 said:


> As the threads of the QAA aren’t anodized you can adjust the length by open the tailcap a bit.



That is only true for the first production run, the current version has anodizing on the tailcaps threads.


----------



## kwkarth (Aug 18, 2009)

HKJ said:


> That is only true for the first production run, the current version has anodizing on the tailcaps threads.



That's very true. The "lock out" function works perfectly and only requires a turn out of 35-45 degrees from tight on both the tactical and regular tailcaps.


----------



## flatline (Aug 18, 2009)

I wish they hadn't anodized the tailcaps. I would have like the ability to loosen the tailcap to make space for protected 14500s that are otherwise too long to use in the light.

Tailcap lockout has no appeal to me.

--flatline


----------



## Mr. Tone (Aug 18, 2009)

flatline said:


> I wish they hadn't anodized the tailcaps. I would have like the ability to loosen the tailcap to make space for protected 14500s that are otherwise too long to use in the light.
> 
> Tailcap lockout has no appeal to me.
> 
> --flatline


 
I'm with you there. Lockout has no appeal to me either. For some, it is a big deal. I would prefer no anodizing on the threads. I was looking forward to not having it and then when I got my Quarks I found out quickly that they anodized the tailcap threads on the later runs(mine).


----------



## Coaster (Aug 18, 2009)

Mr. Tone said:


> I'm with you there. Lockout has no appeal to me either. For some, it is a big deal. I would prefer no anodizing on the threads. I was looking forward to not having it and then when I got my Quarks I found out quickly that they anodized the tailcap threads on the later runs(mine).



While I agree with you about not caring about lockout and wanting to use protected 14500s there is one up side. It's easier to remove anodizing at home than to add it. :thinking:


----------



## Mr_Light (Aug 18, 2009)

PeaceOfMind said:


> Just got my first Quark - The 1xAA Tactical, from 4Sevens Canada.
> 
> I gotta say, I'm really impressed with the pocket clip and how strong it is. I often don't trust pocket clips, but this one seems unstoppable.
> 
> However I find my AW 14500's are a tight fit (too long), which makes it very hard to turn the head to switch modes. So I'll probably be sticking with regular AA cells in this one for the most part.


 I haven't tried the AW 14500s, but the following Trustfire cells are short enought to tighten all the way down.
http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.3435
Note I also tried the Trustfire cells with flames on them and they are too long.


----------



## Tom_123 (Aug 19, 2009)

> That is only true for the first production run, the current version has anodizing on the tailcaps threads


Sorry, I wasn’t aware of that.
Is the new 1xAA battery tube the same size as the old one?
Mine, (not anodized) is 51.5mm.
Would it make sense to inform 4Sevens about this issue? 

I also took a look at the tailcap, but there is no chance for an adjustments,
as the washer under the boot is already very small. (0.5mm)


----------



## xenonk (Aug 19, 2009)

Coaster said:


> While I agree with you about not caring about lockout and wanting to use protected 14500s there is one up side. It's easier to remove anodizing at home than to add it. :thinking:


I can agree with that. I've searched all over the house but I just don't seem to have an anodizing bath handy. :shrug:

Lockout is important to me with the tactical setup. I'm very happy that they started anodizing the tailcaps. I would prefer that tolerance issues with batteries be addressed some other way (spring? tube?) than removing the anodize.

I was actually surprised to hear of issues with AW's 14500s, though that's probably because I'm accustomed to his RCR123s being the same size as primaries.



Tom_123 said:


> Is the new 1xAA battery tube the same size as the old one?
> Mine, (not anodized) is 51.5mm.
> Would it make sense to inform 4Sevens about this issue?



I imagine 4Sevens is already aware of the issue, but it can't hurt to email anyway.

I don't believe the battery tube changed. It's only the tailcap that became anodized. The tube on mine is also 51.5mm. The anodized tailcap appears to be 10mm deep from rim to retaining ring.


----------



## Tom_123 (Aug 19, 2009)

> I imagine 4Sevens is already aware of the issue, but it can't hurt to email anyway.


Agreed and mail sent.



> It's only the tailcap that became anodized…


Thanks for clearing this up.


----------



## bodhran (Aug 19, 2009)

Has it been mentioned that the softer rubber boot and tool are available now?


----------



## PeaceOfMind (Aug 20, 2009)

Tom_123 said:


> As the threads of the QAA aren’t anodized you can adjust the length by open
> the tailcap a bit.
> Nevertheless, I too wish the 1xAA tube would be 2mm or 3mm longer,
> that would be the better solution.



Yes, that's true, thanks for the tip. For some reason I didn't think of this, as it is just instinct to want to tighten the tailcap all the way.

Mine must have been made before they added the anodizing on the tailcap.

Regardless, the AW cells do fit even if you tighten the tailcap all the way, and everything still works correctly... it's just hard to turn the head is all. I still love the light.


----------



## recDNA (Aug 20, 2009)

I got an email ad from you know who today and it said "click here for a sneak peak at the new Quark Titanium. When I click all I can find is pictures of the regular Quarks. Is there a link that actually SHOWS the titanium Quark or is the sneak peak just the INFO in the new light?


----------



## Coaster (Aug 20, 2009)

I don't think they have the production samples yet so they don't have a picture of the new lights. So yeah it's just the info on the new light, no pictures of it yet.


----------



## uplite (Aug 20, 2009)

PeaceOfMind said:


> ...it is just instinct to want to tighten the tailcap all the way.


Very wise instinct. :thumbsup:

Electrical contact through the threads is very dodgy compared to the connections at the ends of the body tube. The o-rings make it feel like the threads are tight, but they aren't! If you run the light in "loosened bezel" modes, you can break the connection just by pushing or pulling on the head. If you remove the o-ring you can feel just how much the threads rattle around. Intermittent connections suck. :sick2:

IMHO, you should choose your Quark components and program your modes so that _both_ the head and the tail are _always_ tightened. Unfortunately that means just Max and Strobe with the regular head...

-Jeff


----------



## Biginboca (Aug 20, 2009)

Has anyone tried the 123x2 head with a single primary 123 battery in the 123 body?

I wonder if this combo would work. Obviously with a RCR123 you could use the small body no problem, but I was wondering if primaries would be an option as well.


----------



## HKJ (Aug 20, 2009)

Biginboca said:


> Has anyone tried the 123x2 head with a single primary 123 battery in the 123 body?
> 
> I wonder if this combo would work. Obviously with a RCR123 you could use the small body no problem, but I was wondering if primaries would be an option as well.



I have not tried it, but I have measured the light output at different voltages and at 3 volt it is down to 37% light and at 2.8 volt it is 14%.
You can see the curve in post #184


----------



## Biginboca (Aug 20, 2009)

Hmm... ok thanks. Guess it's not a viable option!


----------



## jcw122 (Aug 21, 2009)

bodhran said:


> Has it been mentioned that the softer rubber boot and tool are available now?



Are you sure? Looks like it's just a kit to change your boot to be a blue one. Does this change how hard the button is to press?


----------



## Nitroz (Aug 21, 2009)

jcw122 said:


> Are you sure? Looks like it's just a kit to change your boot to be a blue one. Does this change how hard the button is to press?



It is suppose to.

Does anyone have any pictures of this blue button on a regular quark?


----------



## DHart (Aug 21, 2009)

Biginboca said:


> Has anyone tried the 123x2 head with a single primary 123 battery in the 123 body?
> 
> I wonder if this combo would work. Obviously with a RCR123 you could use the small body no problem, but I was wondering if primaries would be an option as well.



Can't answer your question directly with respect to primaries because I don't use primaries (except as back-up/emergencies) but I can say that with a 4.2v li-ion, the 123-2 head runs great... especially the 123-2 head driven by a 17670! I love that combo.


----------



## Nitroz (Aug 21, 2009)

DHart said:


> Can't answer your question directly with respect to primaries because I don't use primaries (except as back-up/emergencies) but I can say that with a 4.2v li-ion, the 123-2 head runs great... especially the 123-2 head driven by a 17670! I love that combo.



Excellent news! I made the right choice then.


----------



## DHart (Aug 22, 2009)

Nitroz said:


> Excellent news! I made the right choice then.



I'm sure you'll love it... the 123-2 on a 17670 is a match made in heaven! 

As to my preferences, make it a regular 123-2 head with warm tint emitter, add a tactical tailcap, and it's sublime!


----------



## Badbeams3 (Aug 22, 2009)

Some neutral white heads are up for sale. Missing are the 123x2 heads...the one I want.


----------



## Owen (Aug 22, 2009)

Anybody's 2AA losing the ability to program when the batteries get low?
This concerns me since the single AA model uses the same bezel. 
I'd been using my Hybrids with no problems, but switched to alkalines since they're free at work. Tossed the batteries without checking voltage or anything, but will probably burn another set of alkalines tonight on Max, and see if it happens again. 
I know they were low enough that Max wasn't much brighter than High...then when I tried to reset the levels, it would go to moon then back to high. No intermediate levels, no strobe to verify programming, just back to high.


----------



## yuk (Aug 22, 2009)

Does anyone know if the spare Quark 123x2 body with its covers could be a waterproof battery case?


----------



## kwkarth (Aug 22, 2009)

yuk said:


> Does anyone know if the spare Quark 123x2 body with its covers could be a waterproof battery case?


I suspect it would. I have a spare 2xAA tube and the screw on end caps seem to make good compression with the O-rings on the tube on both ends.


----------



## Toohotruk (Aug 22, 2009)

I'm sure it would be just as water resistant as the light itself is.


----------



## yuk (Aug 22, 2009)

Thank you guys, but basically my plan failed. I wanted to have a Q123 in my pocket as my main light and the x2 tube in my bag just in the I case I needed a bigger light or longer runtimes, but I can't use neither the Q123's head with 2 batteries, nor the Q123x2's head with one battery because it falls out of regulation. :sigh:


----------



## CaNo (Aug 23, 2009)

yuk said:


> Thank you guys, but basically my plan failed. I wanted to have a Q123 in my pocket as my main light and the x2 tube in my bag just in the I case I needed a bigger light or longer runtimes, but I can't use neither the Q123's head with 2 batteries, nor the Q123x2's head with one battery because it falls out of regulation. :sigh:



If you buy the Q123*2 light and a spare Q123 body tube it will work. The regulation minimum for the Q123*2 head is 3.0v, and a lithium battery is a minimum of 3.0v. Stick with your plan bud!


----------



## CaNo (Aug 23, 2009)

http://www.4sevens.com/product_info.php?cPath=297_305&products_id=1599

There's your proof.


----------



## Marduke (Aug 23, 2009)

CaNo said:


> If you buy the Q123*2 light and a spare Q123 body tube it will work. The regulation minimum for the Q123*2 head is 3.0v, and a lithium battery is a minimum of 3.0v. Stick with your plan bud!





CaNo said:


> http://www.4sevens.com/product_info.php?cPath=297_305&products_id=1599
> 
> There's your proof.



However the 123^2 head will not be regulated on 1xCR123.


----------



## CaNo (Aug 23, 2009)

Marduke said:


> However the 123^2 head will not be regulated on 1xCR123.



Good to know. Same goes with a 3.7v rcr123 cell?


----------



## Marduke (Aug 23, 2009)

CaNo said:


> Good to know. Same goes with a 3.7v rcr123 cell?



The 123^2 head is decently regulated on 1xRCR cell, which is why running it on 17670 is a popular setup.


----------



## CaNo (Aug 23, 2009)

yuk said:


> Thank you guys, but basically my plan failed. I wanted to have a Q123 in my pocket as my main light and the x2 tube in my bag just in the I case I needed a bigger light or longer runtimes, but I can't use neither the Q123's head with 2 batteries, nor the Q123x2's head with one battery because it falls out of regulation. :sigh:



Alright... the Duke even confirmed it. To make your plan work, use a 3.7v RCR123 cell with the Q123 tube and Q123*2 head. The 17670 cell he was referring to is also 3.7v, so you should have no problem with this arrangement. Also keep that in mind. It is also another great set-up with the Q123*2.


----------



## Owen (Aug 23, 2009)

yuk said:


> Thank you guys, but basically my plan failed. I wanted to have a Q123 in my pocket as my main light and the x2 tube in my bag just in the I case I needed a bigger light or longer runtimes, but I can't use neither the Q123's head with 2 batteries, nor the Q123x2's head with one battery because it falls out of regulation. :sigh:


You could have the 2x123 body with a 17670, or 2AA body with rechargeables, lithiums, or alkalines in your bag, to complement the 1x123 in your pocket, though. That .9-4.2V head is really versatile.

If mine is still doing well in a few more weeks, and I decide to get another 2AA, I'm going to order a clipless 1x123 body for use with a R123, and 2x123 body for use with a 17670.


----------



## yuk (Aug 23, 2009)

Owen said:


> [...]or 2AA body with rechargeables, lithiums, or alkalines in your bag, to complement the 1x123 in your pocket, though. That .9-4.2V head is really versatile.[...]


I don't get it. The 2AA tube can hold 123s?

I see my best bet for max versatility is a 2x123 body and a Q123 with RCRs. I haven't use any rechargeable batteries in a flashlight in the past, for some reason I don't trust them... Maybe it's time to reconsider. Are the AWs still the best and safest ones out there?


----------



## berry580 (Aug 23, 2009)

im thinking of using 2 x 14500 on a 123^2 head with a AA^2 body
how does that sound?


----------



## Crimson (Aug 23, 2009)

No it can't. I think he was just suggesting having AA's as backups, which is a good idea because of their availability. When I finally get around to getting some 14500's, I will keep one in my QAA and have two eneloops in my QAA^2 body. For now, three eneloops do the job.


----------



## Marduke (Aug 23, 2009)

You could use the 123/AA head on the 123 body, and use it with the 123^2 body if you run it on 17670.


----------



## tslrc (Aug 23, 2009)

I read somewhere that either of the different Quark heads (.9-4.2 or 3-9) could be used with the 2-123 body and a 17670 cell, but is there any difference in Max or any other modes depending on which head you use with a 17670 cell? Is one better than the other for any other reason, efficiency, brightness, etc...

I'm thinking Quark Lego here, and of also getting into Li Ion for the first time. I've been researching and I know of the extra care one needs while using Li Ion.

Edit: Added additional ?


----------



## Badbeams3 (Aug 23, 2009)

tslrc said:


> I read somewhere that either of the different Quark heads (.9-4.2 or 3-9) could be used with the 2-123 body and a 17670 cell, but is there any difference in Max or any other modes depending on which head you use with a 17670 cell? Is one better than the other for any other reason, efficiency, brightness, etc...
> 
> I'm thinking Quark Lego here, and of also getting into Li Ion for the first time. I've been researching and I know of the extra care one needs while using Li Ion.
> 
> Edit: Added additional ?



If your going to run only Li-ion the 2x123 head is the way to go as it drops in brightness fast at around 3 volts. Might be a tad brighter too.

If you want flexibility you have no choice but to go with the other head.


----------



## DHart (Aug 23, 2009)

yuk said:


> Thank you guys, but basically my plan failed. I wanted to have a Q123 in my pocket as my main light and the x2 tube in my bag just in the I case I needed a bigger light or longer runtimes, but I can't use neither the Q123's head with 2 batteries, nor the Q123x2's head with one battery because it falls out of regulation. :sigh:



Use a 17670 in your 123x2 and you'll be thrilled with the performance...


----------



## tslrc (Aug 23, 2009)

Thx Badbeams3...... I shoulda mentioned my plan for Quark Lego, I was gonna get a Tactical 2AA, a regular AA, and by getting the 2x123 body I'd have quite a setup, then able to use a 17670 or eventually 14500 (in the regular AA) if I want. I was thinking in this way I wouldn't need the 2x123 head which saves some $$$$


----------



## wapkil (Aug 23, 2009)

Marduke said:


> The 123^2 head is decently regulated on 1xRCR cell, which is why running it on 17670 is a popular setup.



Are you sure that it will run regulated with an RCR? 

A 17670 is bigger and holds the voltage better. Looking at the HKJ's graph, I'm afraid that an 123-2 head at 0.9A with a freshly charged RCR will run for the first three or four minutes in regulation (i.e. at or above 3.6V) and then the voltage and the output will have to drop.


----------



## mbiraman (Aug 23, 2009)

DHart said:


> Use a 17670 in your 123x2 and you'll be thrilled with the performance...


Dhart; what's the lumin output and runtime of a 123x2 using a 17670 on high,,,mm,,and turbo??


----------



## yuk (Aug 23, 2009)

mbiraman said:


> Dhart; what's the lumin output and runtime of a 123x2 using a 17670 on high,,,mm,,and turbo??


https://www.candlepowerforums.com/posts/2993553&postcount=45


----------



## Biginboca (Aug 23, 2009)

wapkil said:


> I'm afraid that an 123-2 head at 0.9A with a freshly charged RCR will run for the first three or four minutes in regulation (i.e. at or above 3.6V) and then the voltage and the output will have to drop.


 
Is there a definitive answer on this? Has anyone tested the RCR in the 123x2 head and graphed the output?


----------



## kwkarth (Aug 23, 2009)

Biginboca said:


> Is there a definitive answer on this? Has anyone tested the RCR in the 123x2 head and graphed the output?


Are you talking about 1xRCR123 or 2xRCR123 with a 123x2 head?
You can forget 1xRCR123 with a 123x2 head. 
As you can see an rcr123 is good for about 30 minutes with the 1x123 head.
Reading between the lines, you can estimate 2xRCR123's on a 123x2 head to go for about 1.5 hours at best.


----------



## Biginboca (Aug 24, 2009)

kwkarth said:


> Are you talking about 1xRCR123 or 2xRCR123 with a 123x2 head?
> *You can forget 1xRCR123 with a 123x2 head*.


 
Yes, I was asking about 1 x RCR123 with the 123x2 Head. I have a single 123 body coming today, and I am going to try the 123x2 head and a single RCR to see how it performs. 

I ordered the 1x123 body last week so I could use this combo, and if this doesn't work I will have wasted $20... 

I had thought that the light would just direct drive on Turbo and last maybe 35 mins to 50%.


----------



## wapkil (Aug 24, 2009)

Biginboca said:


> Yes, I was asking about 1 x RCR123 with the 123x2 Head. I have a single 123 body coming today, and I am going to try the 123x2 head and a single RCR to see how it performs.
> 
> I ordered the 1x123 body last week so I could use this combo, and if this doesn't work I will have wasted $20...
> 
> I had thought that the light would just direct drive on Turbo and last maybe 35 mins to 50%.



I think it should work somehow. It may be unregulated but the brightness with an 123-2 head for most of the runtime should still be similar to the an 123 head. At least that's what I guessed looking at the graphs, please report how your setup really performed.


----------



## xenonk (Aug 24, 2009)

Biginboca said:


> I had thought that the light would just direct drive on Turbo and last maybe 35 mins to 50%.


I don't see why it wouldn't work. It ought to behave like it does on 17670, only with the RCR123 having far less capacity.


----------



## NonSenCe (Aug 24, 2009)

i caved in. 

ordered a titanium quark aa regular. 

i just pray that i made a right choice. 

i still kinda want the momentary and the simple to use interface. and hope i didnt make a mistake buying the regular quark with its damn blinker modes.. 

because i wanted the momentary, i ordered a tactical tailcap and blue boot kit just in case if they can be swapped into the Ti regular version. -no reply from 47s yet on my questions in cpfmp, and time is running out on preorders.

now.. i need to sell something to recoup some of the 100$ i just spent.


----------



## wapkil (Aug 24, 2009)

xenonk said:


> I don't see why it wouldn't work. It ought to behave like it does on 17670, only with the RCR123 having far less capacity.



As I wrote in the previous post - an RCR is smaller than an 17670 and won't able to hold the voltage as well as an 17670. If the 123-2 head runs in regulation only above ~3.6V (like in the HKJ's graph), the battery will probably be able to supply it only for the first few minutes. If that's the case, it will work afterwards but will work unregulated with the output diminishing as the battery voltage gets lower.

That's what the graphs told me, I'm also interested to here how it works in practice.


----------



## kwkarth (Aug 24, 2009)

wapkil said:


> As I wrote in the previous post - an RCR is smaller than an 17670 and won't able to hold the voltage as well as an 17670. If the 123-2 head runs in regulation only above ~3.6V (like in the HKJ's graph), the battery will probably be able to supply it only for the first few minutes. If that's the case, it will work afterwards but will work unregulated with the output diminishing as the battery voltage gets lower.
> 
> That's what the graphs told me, I'm also interested to here how it works in practice.


Ditto. Beginboca, I'm interested to read your results!


----------



## Biginboca (Aug 24, 2009)

kwkarth said:


> Ditto. Beginboca, I'm interested to read your results!


 
Ok, well here you go. In my unscientific testing it works fine!

I only have one light but here is how I tested. I ran the 123x1 body with 123x2 Head on Turbo for 20 minutes with a AW RCR123 that was maybe 80% charged at start. Then I tested all the levels to see how bright the turbo was by itself in also the contrast stepping up from high to turbo.

Then I quickly switched to an AW 17670 which was also about 80% charged in the 123x2 Body with the same head, tested the turbo for brightness by itself and also switching from high to turbo to see the contrast in the stepping.

They appeared to my eyes to be exactly the same. I know it's not scientific, but I'm not selfbuilt 

I also tried the 123 body w/ 123x2 Head and a partially used (50%) 123 primary. Switching between setting it gets no brighter than medium. So high and Turbo look exactly the same brightness as medium with the used 123 primary. 

So there you go. I don't feel that I wasted $20! 

I would like to charge the AW123 fully and then see how long it runs on turbo before dropping to a level equivalent to high, but I'll try that another time. For now I am satisfied with these results, and I also like my Sterile Lego 123x1 light!


----------



## CRZ (Aug 24, 2009)

I've been checking out a lot of different lights that have been reviewed here, and as a licensed and regular concealed handgun carrier I was pretty late in the game of ensuring I always had a flashlight on me. 

But instead of rushing out to buy a department store light or to plunk down what I consider to be an inordinate amount of cash on a Surefire, I figured I'd google for the experts on the subject and came upon this place. When I was initially reading about this obsession most of you share I didn't think I had much in common with you. I thought a flashlight was a tool, nothing more, nothing less. I thought it would be like being obsessed about a wrench.

Weeks later, I still don't know a fraction of what the serious hardcore flashaholics around here have forgotten, but I felt pretty good about picking up a Quark 123*2 Tactical. And after some research and the many recommendations, I also picked up a couple of the AW protected 17670s and the WF139 charger 4Sevens has on his site.

I ordered it Friday. It showed up in my mailbox at lunch today. 

Now I'm not so sure I haven't picked up an unhealthy issue. I had no qualms about a cool white tint on the flashlight, and while I know that many on this forum have issues with off-color tints I think this light suits my needs perfectly. That said, I can't help being curious about how it would look with a different tint.

I haven't stopped messing with it. This afternoon I've been particularly unproductive at work, trying merely to decide which two modes I'm going to settle in on. And while I'm certainly not already considering which light I want to buy next, I can now understand why having a quality light like this can start to change your mind about the functionality and reliability of having flashlights of this caliber.

In any case, I greatly appreciate all the posters that have aided me in making this purchase, and simultaneously curse you all for starting me on what looks to be a fairly expensive obsession.


----------



## kwkarth (Aug 24, 2009)

Biginboca said:


> Ok, well here you go. In my unscientific testing it works fine!
> 
> I only have one light but here is how I tested. I ran the 123x1 body with 123x2 Head on Turbo for 20 minutes with a AW RCR123 that was maybe 80% charged at start. Then I tested all the levels to see how bright the turbo was by itself in also the contrast stepping up from high to turbo.
> 
> ...


Well, in that case, congratulations! I seem to remember reading in one of the Quark threads, someone (might have been David) posting that the circuit in the 1x123 head was boost only and the circuit in the 2x123 head was buck only, so I'm a bit puzzled how the superior current drain capability of the RCR over the 123 primary turns into longer run time on turbo, but I'm sure there's a rational explanation. We just don't have all the information to accurately characterize what's going on.

Thanks for the update!
k


----------



## Marduke (Aug 24, 2009)

The 123 head is buck/boost, where the 123^2 is buck only. However, the Vf of the XP-E is much lower than an XR-E, so the Li-Ion cell can maintain a voltage above the Vf long enough to get some decent regulation before it falls into direct drive on turbo (while still able to regulate at lower levels). The added bonus of this setup is you don't get sudden death of a protection circuit kicking in like you do on the buck/boost head, or in the 2xRCR123 configurations.


----------



## Biginboca (Aug 24, 2009)

BTW, forgot to mention that my head tested above is a 123x2 Tactical Warm. Doubt it would matter, but just thought I would mention it.


----------



## pobox1475 (Aug 24, 2009)

> In any case, I greatly appreciate all the posters that have aided me in making this purchase, and simultaneously curse you all for starting me on what looks to be a fairly expensive obsession.


 Congrats on your wise purchase and :welcome:. As far as future additions you can go from *mild *to* wild* :naughty: or some where in between. I try to keep it to two or three a year.


----------



## kwkarth (Aug 24, 2009)

Marduke said:


> The 123 head is buck/boost, where the 123^2 is buck only. However, the Vf of the XP-E is much lower than an XR-E, so the Li-Ion cell can maintain a voltage above the Vf long enough to get some decent regulation before it falls into direct drive on turbo (while still able to regulate at lower levels). The added bonus of this setup is you don't get sudden death of a protection circuit kicking in like you do on the buck/boost head, or in the 2xRCR123 configurations.


Are you saying that the two heads use different LEDs? I want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly. I get the part about the 2x123 being a buck only circuit and about feeding the LED Vf above its threshold so it avalanches, but what's this about one being a XR-E and the other being XP-E?
I think I missed something somewhere!

Thanks!


----------



## Marduke (Aug 24, 2009)

kwkarth said:


> Are you saying that the two heads use different LEDs? I want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly. I get the part about the 2x123 being a buck only circuit and about feeding the LED Vf above its threshold so it avalanches, but what's this about one being a XR-E and the other being XP-E?
> I think I missed something somewhere!
> 
> Thanks!



No no, they are both XP-E. I was comparing to XR-E since that is the experience base for the current conventional thinking of what works and what doesn't for direct driving and using single Li-Ion cells in buck only lights currently on the market.


----------



## uplite (Aug 24, 2009)

Marduke said:


> The 123 head is buck/boost, where the 123^2 is buck only. However, the Vf of the XP-E is much lower than an XR-E, so the Li-Ion cell can maintain a voltage above the Vf long enough to get some decent regulation before it falls into direct drive on turbo


I can see why kwkarth was surprised, though.

According to the datasheets, the XR-E has typical Vf:
3.3V @ 350mA
3.5V @ 700mA
3.7V @ 1000mA

And XPE has Vf:
3.2V @ 350mA
3.4V @ 700mA

4sevens says that 123x2 head Max mode is 900mA...which is beyond the documented max for the XPE...but if we extrapolate from the numbers above, it should be about *3.6 Vf*. That is also the _nominal_ voltage of a single RCR123. Put the cell under load, and the voltage will depress even lower. So you would expect that the light will _always_ be out of regulation in this config. I'd bet dollars to donuts that if you measure the real output on a few of these lights, it is out of regulation.

Of course, these are just _typical_ values. The exact Vf varies from LED to LED. And load-depression varies from cell to cell. Biginboca probably has a gem of an LED, or a gem of a cell, or both. :twothumbs

-Jeff


----------



## mbiraman (Aug 24, 2009)

CRZ said:


> I've been checking out a lot of different lights that have been reviewed here, and as a licensed and regular concealed handgun carrier I was pretty late in the game of ensuring I always had a flashlight on me.
> 
> But instead of rushing out to buy a department store light or to plunk down what I consider to be an inordinate amount of cash on a Surefire, I figured I'd google for the experts on the subject and came upon this place. When I was initially reading about this obsession most of you share I didn't think I had much in common with you. I thought a flashlight was a tool, nothing more, nothing less. I thought it would be like being obsessed about a wrench.
> 
> ...



Welcome to the madness. You may start to go crazy but you'll have a good torch to light your way. Now i have to go fiddle with my light.


----------



## wapkil (Aug 24, 2009)

uplite said:


> I'd bet dollars to donuts that if you measure the real output on a few of these lights, it is out of regulation.
> 
> Of course, these are just _typical_ values. The exact Vf varies from LED to LED. And load-depression varies from cell to cell. Biginboca probably has a gem of an LED, or a gem of a cell, or both. :twothumbs



I think Biginboca's light may also run out of regulation. It is brighter than in the high mode but the max mode should be 2.7 times brighter so there is some room left for dimming.

I believe that even if the light runs out of regulation, it isn't necessarily a bad thing. It could still be above 80% of the maximum 123-2 output or even close to ~90%, which is the 123 maximum. Even if it dims a bit when working, it will have longer runtime in return. It's just useful to know in what way it works in this configuration.


----------



## heathen (Aug 24, 2009)

I bought two quarks the other day, a regular single AA, and a tactical single 123, and I love them both very much. They are perfect for my needs. I am however having trouble with the AA head running on duraloops. Sometimes it will work properly and then sometimes it won't work at all.. Once it stops working I can unscrew the head to break contact and then it will work again until I turn it back off again. But then it won't turn back on again until I unscrew the head to break contact. I have tried cleaning the threads and contacts and I have also tried using the tactical tailcap from the other light with the same result. I can however put the regular head on the 123 body and it will work properly with the 123 battery everytime. This is on a freshly charged duraloop and I don't have any fresh alkalines or I would try one of those. I'm thinking the regular head just doesn't like the low voltage of the duraloops. I bought this light to run off of rechargeables and if it won't then I need to send it back. Any ideas? 

Thanks for your help gents!


----------



## CaNo (Aug 24, 2009)

CRZ said:


> I've been checking out a lot of different lights that have been reviewed here, and as a licensed and regular concealed handgun carrier I was pretty late in the game of ensuring I always had a flashlight on me.
> 
> But instead of rushing out to buy a department store light or to plunk down what I consider to be an inordinate amount of cash on a Surefire, I figured I'd google for the experts on the subject and came upon this place. When I was initially reading about this obsession most of you share I didn't think I had much in common with you. I thought a flashlight was a tool, nothing more, nothing less. I thought it would be like being obsessed about a wrench.
> 
> ...



:welcome:.... Be afraid... be very afraid.... You think this is bad and you are only on your first post? Man, you are in for a rude awakening... :nana: It's no longer an obsession... I think its more like a disease...


----------



## kwkarth (Aug 24, 2009)

heathen said:


> I bought two quarks the other day, a regular single AA, and a tactical single 123, and I love them both very much. They are perfect for my needs. I am however having trouble with the AA head running on duraloops. Sometimes it will work properly and then sometimes it won't work at all.. Once it stops working I can unscrew the head to break contact and then it will work again until I turn it back off again. But then it won't turn back on again until I unscrew the head to break contact. I have tried cleaning the threads and contacts and I have also tried using the tactical tailcap from the other light with the same result. I can however put the regular head on the 123 body and it will work properly with the 123 battery everytime. This is on a freshly charged duraloop and I don't have any fresh alkalines or I would try one of those. I'm thinking the regular head just doesn't like the low voltage of the duraloops. I bought this light to run off of rechargeables and if it won't then I need to send it back. Any ideas?


The "duraloop" AA battery you're referring to... How do you know it's fully charged and fully functional? Do you have access to a voltmeter? What happens when you take the head off of the 123 light and put in on the AA body? The heads should be interchangable. Moreover, you should try the AA light with a cheapo Alkaline before you conclude the head is defective. What happens with the 123 head on the AA body? What happens with an alkaline battery in the AA light?
Best!


----------



## bcwang (Aug 24, 2009)

I did some current draw tests at a few discrete voltage levels for all the constant modes. To make one chart show something meaningful, I've made each value the milliwatts consumed by the head. Using this unit of measure it is easy to compare efficiency using different battery configurations. You can still extract out the milliamp draw by doing the math.

This is results from my AAx2 unit, your results may vary.

What I've concluded given the choice of 1.2v nimh 2000mah, 1.6v ni-zn 1500mah, 3.7v li-ion 17670 1600mah, 3.7v li-ion 14500 750mah:

-2.2v is necessary to reach turbo levels on this unit, all voltage levels listed below that threshold are not running in full turbo.

-For all levels from moon to high, 3.2v which is 2 ni-zn cells is the most efficient. 1500mah ni-zn cells will outlast 2000mah eneloops if both cells capacity are rated accurately.

-In turbo mode, 2.4v is the worst, as it is just near the voltage where regulation starts and efficiency is the most poor. Efficiency goes up with voltage up to the 4.1v test limit I set. at 2.4v, the circuit is burning 47% more power than at 4.1v for the same brightness. If running turbo all the time, a 3.7v nominal li-ion will most efficiently use the circuit.

-A 17670 1600mah li-ion will outlast any other combination possible in turbo mode by quite a large margin. However that advantage is lost by moon mode where it burns nearly twice the power than the lower voltages.

-with 1 AA, the ni-zn will outlast a ni-mh in every mode except turbo, because it drives turbo with 40% more power, thus a brighter turbo but shorter running one. 

-in the 1AA size, including li-ion 14500, the ni-zn will outlast all others in moon mode. It matches the 14500 in low and medium, then in high the 14500 lasts significantly longer, but in turbo the nimh lasts the longest but is also the dimmest.

-With a large gap from 2.4-3.2v that was not tested, it may be somewhere in there that is actually the most efficient driving voltage for all modes other than turbo. However, since no cells run at that voltage I didn't bother testing it.


```
volts  .9v  1v  1.2v  1.6v  2.4v  3.2v  3.7v  4.1v
moon   9    10  7.2   6.4  7.2   6.4   12.3   12.3
low    99   80  46.8  41.6  38.4  38.4  53.3  53.3
med    657  390  210  200  194.4 182.4  246  258
high   1665 2000 1848 1776 1032  992 1168.5 1148
turbo  1665 2000 2400 3360 5112 4512 4428  3485
```
dang it's hard to align this, there has to be a better way


----------



## Biginboca (Aug 24, 2009)

HKJ said:


> Ok, here it comes.
> 
> It is done with a tactical head and lumens are scaled from a lux measurement and the 190 lumen for 123-2 Quark.
> 
> Red: Current, green:Lumen


 
Looking at this graph even at 3.4 volts you are getting 160 lumens on the 123x2 head. 

On a fresh off the charger cell how long would it take on Turbo for an AW RCR123 to drop below 3.4 volts? Because my eyes are telling me it was still around that level after 20 mins+ on Turbo compared with a 17670 in the 123x2 body with the same head on it. Of course I realize at that output level it may be hard for my eyes to gauge a 30 lumen difference between them...

I wish someone who has proper measuring equipment, or at least another similar light and battery set up, would try this out!


----------



## Badbeams3 (Aug 24, 2009)

kwkarth said:


> The "duraloop" AA battery you're referring to... How do you know it's fully charged and fully functional? Do you have access to a voltmeter? What happens when you take the head off of the 123 light and put in on the AA body? The heads should be interchangable. Moreover, you should try the AA light with a cheapo Alkaline before you conclude the head is defective. What happens with the 123 head on the AA body? What happens with an alkaline battery in the AA light?
> Best!



+1...try switching heads.


----------



## heathen (Aug 24, 2009)

Hey guys I said in my post that the regular head was fully functional on with the 123 body. I would however like it to work with the rechargeable AA battery as well. I do have a voltmeter and the batteries are all charged properly. I tried several duraloops some older ones and some brand new cells all with the same result.


----------



## xenonk (Aug 24, 2009)

wapkil said:


> an RCR is smaller than an 17670 and won't able to hold the voltage as well as an 17670. If the 123-2 head runs in regulation only above ~3.6V (like in the HKJ's graph), the battery will probably be able to supply it only for the first few minutes.


I can't see the voltage drop being *that* severe, especially with a good cell capable of decent discharge. If a regular AW RCR123 in my L2m can keep a 3.4-16V deree module happy for over 15min (and it's an XR-E), I don't see why one couldn't keep the Quark bright.



Biginboca said:


> Ok, well here you go. In my unscientific testing it works fine!


That's about what I figured, but nothing beats a real test to know for sure. Thanks for checking that out for us!


----------



## kwkarth (Aug 24, 2009)

heathen said:


> Hey guys I said in my post that the regular head was fully functional on with the 123 body. I would however like it to work with the rechargeable AA battery as well. I do have a voltmeter and the batteries are all charged properly. I tried several duraloops some older ones and some brand new cells all with the same result.


You still have not tried the 123 head with the AA battery. Try it and see what happens.


----------



## Norm (Aug 24, 2009)

The Quark normal head is 0.9 to 4.2 Volts, Quark 123² head is 3.0 to 9.0Volts.
Norm


----------



## xenonk (Aug 24, 2009)

kwkarth said:


> You still have not tried the 123 head with the AA battery. Try it and see what happens.


That should net the expected [email protected]/[email protected] since it's the same head the AA version uses.

Well aside from the fact that you can get a built-in clip when you buy it in 123 format, anyway...

I'm liking those NiZn results increasingly the more I mull over them... I may have to break down, and break into that chemistry.


----------



## kwkarth (Aug 24, 2009)

xenonk said:


> That should net the expected [email protected]/[email protected] since it's the same head the AA version uses.
> 
> Well aside from the fact that you can get a built-in clip when you buy it in 123 format, anyway...
> 
> I'm liking those NiZn results increasingly the more I mull over them... I may have to break down, and break into that chemistry.


Hold on there speedy, we all know that, I even posted the same in an earlier post in this thread, what we're trying to determine if whether or not his AA head is defective and he aparently has no voltmeter and no other batteries with which to test.


----------



## Owen (Aug 25, 2009)

uplite said:


> ..it should be about 3.6 Vf. That is also the _nominal_ voltage of a single RCR123. Put the cell under load, and the voltage will depress even lower.


"Nominal" is usually considered synonymous with under load. It will be in regulation, but how long that remains true depends on a variety of factors. Keep in mind that if it were DD, the emitter would be getting closer to an amp, possibly higher(?), of current-more than it does in regulation, and current draw from the battery would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 900mA. 
Basically, as long as the current and output seen at the emitter would be greater in direct drive than the level designated by the buck circuit, the circuit should be able to operate in regulation. That is not 100% correct, because it doesn't take things like temperature and driver efficiency into account, but might serve as a simplistic way of illustrating how a single Li-ion can work with a buck circuit.


----------



## clipboard (Aug 25, 2009)

hey guys I have a question. First of all I own 2 quarks both are tactical one is a 123 and the other is a 123 squared. What is the best rechargeable li-on to run in the 123 squared ? 17670 at 4.2 volts or 2 rcr123's at 8.35 volts. I would think the to rcr123's would be better since it is a 9 volt head. But selfbuilt's review would indicate almost the same brightness and better runtimes with the 17670 aw's.....


----------



## Marduke (Aug 25, 2009)

clipboard said:


> But selfbuilt's review would indicate almost the same brightness and better runtimes with the 17670 aw's.....




There is your answer.


----------



## wapkil (Aug 25, 2009)

xenonk said:


> I can't see the voltage drop being *that* severe, especially with a good cell capable of decent discharge. If a regular AW RCR123 in my L2m can keep a 3.4-16V deree module happy for over 15min (and it's an XR-E), I don't see why one couldn't keep the Quark bright.



I think that for a typical RCR the voltage will be around 3.4V-3.5V. You can see how some RCRs performed in SilverFox tests. It's not, as you say, something severe - I wrote that the output will probably still be around 80%-90% of the maximum but the light will run out of regulation.


----------



## wapkil (Aug 25, 2009)

Norm said:


> The Quark normal head is 0.9 to 4.2 Volts, Quark 123² head is 3.0 to 9.0Volts.



Do you have additional information or for some reason decided to simply quote the specification?

If the circuit in the 123-2 head is buck only (as David wrote) the 3.0V level for an XP-E LED is absurd. The circuit will not raise the voltage (because it's buck only) and the LED needs at least 3.3V-3.4V to work correctly in the Turbo mode. It will be direct driven and even will have some output but it won't be regulated and won't be anywhere near the specification. As was BTW demonstrated in HKJ's test's, higher than I expected, estimated 100lm output.


----------



## Marduke (Aug 25, 2009)

However lower modes will still be regulated at only 3v.


----------



## HKJ (Aug 25, 2009)

wapkil said:


> If the circuit in the 123-2 head is buck only (as David wrote) the 3.0V level for an XP-E LED is absurd.



No, it is not. It is the same as the 0.9 to 4.2 volt specification. The head will send out light within these voltages, but it might not be in full regulation.


----------



## kwkarth (Aug 25, 2009)

HKJ said:


> No, it is not. It is the same as the 0.9 to 4.2 volt specification. The head will send out light within these voltages, but it might not be in full regulation.


But what about what David said? Below 3.0v input the head does not boost, and above 3.0v it regulates up to the point that is needs to buck to continue to deliver specified output to the led. Is he not correct? He said that a single 17670 works well, and that makes sense. It does not make sense to use a single 123 with the 123x2 head. Sure, it might light up for a while, but it will never be anywhere near optimum, and never in regulation.


----------



## Marduke (Aug 25, 2009)

kwkarth said:


> But what about what David said? Below 3.0v input the head does not boost, and above 3.0v it regulates up to the point that is needs to buck to continue to deliver specified output to the led. Is he not correct?



The voltage threshold of buck/boost is a moving target, dependant on the Vf at the drive current of the level in question.


----------



## wapkil (Aug 25, 2009)

Marduke said:


> However lower modes will still be regulated at only 3v.





HKJ said:


> No, it is not. It is the same as the 0.9 to 4.2 volt specification. The head will send out light within these voltages, but it might not be in full regulation.



This is not a device that is specified to produce some undefined output in some undefined way. The turbo mode is specified to produce 190lm, in the regulated fashion at the input range of 3.0V-9.0V. If the device is incapable of producing 190lm at 3.0V then the specification is incorrect. I believe that such a description is misleading for users less familiar with flashlights and absurd for those who know that it is impossible for this light to work this way. The specifications should not be written to force users to guess which parts of them are applicable and when.

I don't say that it is wrong for the light to work this way. It is not, the device is dedicated for two batteries so if it wasn't written in the specification I would never expect it to work correctly at 3.0V but the specification is simply incorrect.


----------



## HKJ (Aug 25, 2009)

kwkarth said:


> But what about what David said? Below 3.0v input the head does not boost, and above 3.0v it regulates up to the point that is needs to buck to continue to deliver specified output to the led. Is he not correct? He said that a single 17670 works well, and that makes sense. It does not make sense to use a single 123 with the 123x2 head. Sure, it might light up for a while, but it will never be anywhere near optimum, and never in regulation.



I do not believe it has anything but buck regulation, but at lower settings the led has a lower Vf and it can get into regulation at a lower battery voltage.
Using a single LiIon battery with this light is equivalent to using a single LiIon in many other lights with buck regulator, they all stay at the edge of regulation. This will also get a long runtime, because the current is a bit below specification.




wapkil said:


> This is not a device that is specified to produce some undefined output in some undefined way. The turbo mode is specified to produce 190lm, in the regulated fashion at the input range of 3.0V-9.0V. If the device is incapable of producing 190lm at 3.0V then the specification is incorrect.



I do not believe that 4sevens has specified either head to produce full output at the the full voltage range, he has specified. Just because both specifications are on the same page, it does not follow that they are linked together.
When I read the specification on the webpage, I do not see anything about about support for LiIon either, only support for 2xCR123 batteries.


----------



## Biginboca (Aug 25, 2009)

I agree wapkil. I originally purchased the 123 body thinking it could operate my 123x2 head with a 123 primary.

I think based on the graph we have seen the spec should be 3.6 volts to 9 volts since that is what is actually needed for the 190 lumens.


----------



## wapkil (Aug 25, 2009)

HKJ said:


> I do not believe that 4sevens has specified either head to produce full output at the the full voltage range, he has specified. Just because both specifications are on the same page, it does not follow that they are linked together.



Oh come on, it's not only the same page, it's also the same section called "Specifications". And even if it wasn't the same section, it would still be a document describing the features of a single product. It's like with everything else. If I buy a device with the "Input: 100V-240V", I expect it to work the same way with the US and European voltages. If it only partially worked in the US, it would be an incorrect description. Even if the functionality is described on a different page of the manual...



HKJ said:


> When I read the specification on the webpage, I do not see anything about about support for LiIon either, only support for 2xCR123 batteries.



I haven't noticed it but I think it's another problem with this specification. It doesn't have to be an error, it could be omitted on purpose but I think that in the Market Place design threads the Quarks were advertised as working with Li-Ions. Probably it's just a mistake. BTW, it looks like recently the Quark design threads also mysteriously disappeared...

To be clear, I believe that the Quarks specifications are better than many documets published by the competition. I think the output numbers probably correctly represent the actual typical outputs. The runtimes are also usually close to what was tested (although a few random published runtimes are much lower than they should be). Unfortunately it doesn't mean that this specification is good but only that many others are much worse. I believe that there is nothing wrong in pointing out the errors. Especially since they are evidently *not* intended as a false advertisement. Just normal errors and omissions but I don't see the point in pretending that they are not there.


----------



## bcwang (Aug 25, 2009)

Even in seflbuilt's review, the 123x2 head with a 17670 doesn't regulate well at all, so a rcr123 is only going to be worse. With 2 you are much better off.

Talking about specs, my AAx2 box mentions 1.8 hour runtime at max. The website 1.3 hours. One of those has to be wrong, or both are.


----------



## wapkil (Aug 25, 2009)

bcwang said:


> Talking about specs, my AAx2 box mentions 1.8 hour runtime at max. The website 1.3 hours. One of those has to be wrong, or both are.



I dunno. In the selfbuilt test it ran only 1h 5min. I believe that the 123 box (if they weren't changed) says 1h at max while the web page has 0.8h. I think 4sevens probably expected better runtimes when the boxes were printed. Mistakes in the last minute changes could also somehow explain some strange runtimes in the specification - around twice as low as they should be.


----------



## uplite (Aug 25, 2009)

Owen said:


> "Nominal" is usually considered synonymous with under load.


You're right, I should have said "under _this_ load". 

Nominal voltage is typically quoted for a fairly low load...0.05C for some cells...more likely 0.2C for a li-ion. In this case though, the discharge rate is more than 1C.

For some good graphs of RCR123 discharge and voltage sag, see *this thread*. At 1000mA, most RCR123 cells fall below 3.6V within about 5 minutes.

-Jeff


----------



## bcwang (Aug 25, 2009)

I'm going to try to see if my efficiency data is easier to understand in this form, though the detail is almost unreadable. To get the original numbers and my interpretation, look back like 25 posts.

nimh=2000mah
nizn=1500mah
14500=750mah
17670=1600mah


----------



## kwkarth (Aug 25, 2009)

HKJ said:


> I do not believe it has anything but buck regulation, but at lower settings the led has a lower Vf and it can get into regulation at a lower battery voltage.
> Using a single LiIon battery with this light is equivalent to using a single LiIon in many other lights with buck regulator, they all stay at the edge of regulation. This will also get a long runtime, because the current is a bit below specification.
> 
> I do not believe that 4sevens has specified either head to produce full output at the the full voltage range, he has specified. Just because both specifications are on the same page, it does not follow that they are linked together.
> When I read the specification on the webpage, I do not see anything about about support for LiIon either, only support for 2xCR123 batteries.


Both of your points make good sense to me HKJ, thank you.


----------



## Xak (Aug 25, 2009)

bcwang said:


> Even in seflbuilt's review, the 123x2 head with a 17670 doesn't regulate well at all, so a rcr123 is only going to be worse. With 2 you are much better off.
> 
> Talking about specs, my AAx2 box mentions 1.8 hour runtime at max. The website 1.3 hours. One of those has to be wrong, or both are.


 
IIRC in Selfbuilt's review the Q123-2 17670 ran something crazy like 1 1/2hrs or so to 50% and was the best light/battery combo in the Quark series, the 2xRCR123 in the Q123-2 only lasted like 15min.


----------



## heathen (Aug 25, 2009)

kwkarth - I did say that I have a voltmeter if you will go back and read my post. _ I don't however have any alkaline batteries to test. I have tried the tactical head on the AA body and it works fine. I have legoed these things everyway possible and the regular head is the only one I am having trouble with. My batteries read 1.46 volts fresh off of the charger. What I am getting at is that this head should work with these batteries and it is not. I think I am going to have to send it back in. Thanks for your help._


----------



## wapkil (Aug 25, 2009)

Xak said:


> IIRC in Selfbuilt's review the Q123-2 17670 ran something crazy like 1 1/2hrs or so to 50% and was the best light/battery combo in the Quark series, the 2xRCR123 in the Q123-2 only lasted like 15min.



It was a defective Quark. With a correctly working replacement, the runtime was 1:14 for RCRs and 1:42 for 17670. I think that the 17670 dropped out of the regulation after ~35 minutes (hence the sudden drop in the output) but the output remained close to the 2x RCR one.


----------



## wapkil (Aug 25, 2009)

bcwang said:


> I'm going to try to see if my efficiency data is easier to understand in this form, though the detail is almost unreadable.
> 
> [...]



Thanks for the measurements. I'd have to later find some time to look at them but I can say that they already made me interested in the Ni-Zn cells  I think they are still quite rare, even here at CPF.


----------



## Marduke (Aug 25, 2009)

wapkil said:


> It was a defective Quark. With a correctly working replacement, the runtime was 1:14 for RCRs and 1:42 for 17670. I think that the 17670 dropped out of the regulation after ~35 minutes (hence the sudden drop in the output) but the output remained close to the 2x RCR one.



You are seriously going to tell me that little burp in the graph make a lick of difference? A TEMPORARY ~6% drop? Give me a freaking break... 

http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff97/selfbuilt/Q1232-Replace.gif

The original sample didn't even have that burp, and plenty of people are using the 123^2 in the 17670 setup and are EXTREMELY happy with the _superior_ performance...

Same output, longer runtime, and no sudden shutoff.


----------



## kwkarth (Aug 25, 2009)

heathen said:


> kwkarth - I did say that I have a voltmeter if you will go back and read my post. _ I don't however have any alkaline batteries to test. I have tried the tactical head on the AA body and it works fine. I have legoed these things everyway possible and the regular head is the only one I am having trouble with. My batteries read 1.46 volts fresh off of the charger. What I am getting at is that this head should work with these batteries and it is not. I think I am going to have to send it back in. Thanks for your help._


My apologies man, sorry I missed that. I light of this fact, I wouldn't waste another minute on this thing. Call 4-7's in the morning and get a RMA number to replace the defective head!
Cheers!


----------



## bcwang (Aug 25, 2009)

Marduke said:


> The original sample didn't even have that burp, and plenty of people are using the 123^2 in the 17670 setup and are EXTREMELY happy with the _superior_ performance...
> 
> Same output, longer runtime, and no sudden shutoff.



That graph shows it out of regulation for much of the runtime. What might be very impressive is this: Quark 123x2 head, 2AA body, 2 x 14500 cells.

The only issue would be using 2 li-ion cells in series, have to be very very careful not to drain it too low. Though this would be the same as trying to use 2 rcr123 cells in series. 

If only the Quark fit the 18650 cells, those have so much more capacity and would have really pushed me to try the 123x2 body.


----------



## wapkil (Aug 25, 2009)

Marduke said:


> You are seriously going to tell me that little burp in the graph make a lick of difference? A TEMPORARY ~6% drop? Give me a freaking break...



Where did I say that it makes a practical difference?

I wrote previously that the 17670 will hold the voltage much better than an RCR. I think some of them may even stay in regulation for the full runtime. I'm also not disputing that a 17670 is a better practical choice. This drop is just an interesting artifact on the graph that I thought may be caused by the light dropping out of the regulation, that's all.

For easier reading, here is the selfbuilt's graph:


----------



## clipboard (Aug 25, 2009)

what about using a 4 volt head with a 123 squared body and a 17670 battery? I think I might give it a try...:thinking:


----------



## bcwang (Aug 25, 2009)

clipboard said:


> what about using a 4 volt head with a 123 squared body and a 17670 battery? I think I might give it a try...:thinking:



I believe the 123x2 head is more efficient because it is only a buck circuit, the only thing you gain by going to the AA head is a full time fully regulated (but slightly dimmer) turbo mode. You'll also have to be careful because this head can drain the cell below a safe voltage easily especially in the lower modes. 

All these possibilities, makes me want a 123x2 head to play with too.


----------



## Badbeams3 (Aug 25, 2009)

bcwang said:


> I believe the 123x2 head is more efficient because it is only a buck circuit, the only thing you gain by going to the AA head is a full time fully regulated (but slightly dimmer) turbo mode. You'll also have to be careful because this head can drain the cell below a safe voltage easily especially in the lower modes.
> 
> All these possibilities, makes me want a 123x2 head to play with too.



Me too, but I was hoping to get a neutral white 3~9 volt head. Not listed on the 47 site yet.


----------



## wapkil (Aug 25, 2009)

bcwang said:


> I believe the 123x2 head is more efficient because it is only a buck circuit, the only thing you gain by going to the AA head is a full time fully regulated (but slightly dimmer) turbo mode. You'll also have to be careful because this head can drain the cell below a safe voltage easily especially in the lower modes.



Actually the 123-2 head with an 17670 will also drain the cell below the safe voltage - exactly as seen on the selfbuilt's graph. It can be more convenient to not have the sudden cut-off but when the light dims, it should be turned off. Otherwise the light is killing the cell. Since it is unregulated, even the protected cells will go below the safe voltage (unless they have a high overdischarge voltage cutoff and e.g. AW's have it low).

EDIT: the same of course applies to any unregulated configuration (e.g. a 123-2 with an RCR) and almost every other light that drops out of regulation.


----------



## Badbeams3 (Aug 25, 2009)

wapkil said:


> Actually the 123-2 head with an 17670 will also drain the cell below the safe voltage - exactly as seen on the selfbuilt's graph. It can be more convenient to not have the sudden cut-off but when the light dims, it should be turned off. Otherwise the light is killing the cell. Since it is unregulated, even the protected cells will go below the safe voltage (unless they have a high overdischarge voltage cutoff and e.g. AW's have it low).



Agree. Still... as you say, the 123-2 head gives better notice than the other head of a low batt condition. By the time the other head gets dim on turbo the batt is really low...maybe forever damaged.


----------



## DHart (Aug 25, 2009)

I've got two 123x2 Quarks (one a warm tactical and the other a cool regular) and run them both with 17670's exclusively... I really love that combination! :twothumbs No plans to use two RCR123's nor two primaries in them unless I'm out of charged 17670s and must turn to emergency/back-up power sources to use one of the lights. Being able to start out with a freshly charged 17670 whenever I plan to take the lights out and top them off again when I'm done is fantastic. I really dislike using CR123s unless forced to by necessity.


----------



## wapkil (Aug 25, 2009)

Badbeams3 said:


> Agree. Still... as you say, the 123-2 head gives better notice than the other head of a low batt condition. By the time the other head gets dim on turbo the batt is really low...maybe forever damaged.



It depends on the mode. In the turbo mode, the other head (123) will be regulated with a Li-Ion - it will pull a high current, there will be no dimming and the battery protection circuit will intervene soon enough. In lower modes both heads will probably be regulated but when the current is low enough (definitely in the moon mode, probably in the low mode and maybe also in the medium mode) they will be able to overdischarge batteries with a low cutoff voltage (e.g. AW's), without any warning. That's why the overdischage protection should be also present in the flashlight.

EDIT: I was wrong about lower modes. The 123-2 head obviously will not be regulated indefinitely. Even in the lower modes it will drop out of regulation when the voltage drops below the LED forward voltage and will dim. In all the modes except Turbo if this dimming can be noticed (i.e. probably everywhere except the moon mode) it is then safer for batteries than the 123 head.


----------



## heathen (Aug 25, 2009)

kwkarth - no need for apologies sir. Thank you for your input. I guess I'll have to send it back. Thanks for everyone's help.


----------



## xenonk (Aug 26, 2009)

kwkarth said:


> Hold on there speedy, we all know that, I even posted the same in an earlier post in this thread, what we're trying to determine if whether or not his AA head is defective and he aparently has no voltmeter and no other batteries with which to test.


Whoops, my mistake. That suddenly makes a lot more sense. Uh, aside from the voltmeter part anyway.
Too many Quark threads going on; it's getting hard to keep track of everything.


----------



## mbiraman (Aug 26, 2009)

Does the possibility of discharging a battery to an unsafe level apply only to Lion cells or does it apply to Nimhs as well?.


----------



## kwkarth (Aug 26, 2009)

xenonk said:


> Whoops, my mistake. That suddenly makes a lot more sense. Uh, aside from the voltmeter part anyway.
> Too many Quark threads going on; it's getting hard to keep track of everything.


No problem, I totally agree, all the different topics are hare to keep track of!
Cheers!


----------



## wapkil (Aug 26, 2009)

mbiraman said:


> Does the possibility of discharging a battery to an unsafe level apply only to Lion cells or does it apply to Nimhs as well?.



As far as I know, the Quarks don't have any overdischarge protection. Actually the only lights that I know with both NiMH and Li-Ion protections are from LiteFlux. NiMH batteries of course don't have their own overdischarge protection either. 

I was writing about Li-Ions. I wasn't checking how the Quarks behave with NiMHs. On the HKJ's graphs the 123/AA head works even at 0.2V and NiMHs generally shouldn't be discharged below 0.9V. You would have to check what happens with NiMHs in different modes. The light will probably eventually drop out of regulation and you'll notice the dimming, the question is at what voltage it happens. The worst situation will be for the moon mode, when the dimming may be unnoticeable and for 2xAA configuration when the batteries can be depleted to half the voltage of a single AA.


----------



## mbiraman (Aug 26, 2009)

wapkil said:


> As far as I know, the Quarks don't have any overdischarge protection. Actually the only lights that I know with both NiMH and Li-Ion protections are from LiteFlux. NiMH batteries of course don't have their own overdischarge protection either.
> 
> I was writing about Li-Ions. I wasn't checking how the Quarks behave with NiMHs. On the HKJ's graphs the 123/AA head works even at 0.2V and NiMHs generally shouldn't be discharged below 0.9V. You would have to check what happens with NiMHs in different modes. The light will probably eventually drop out of regulation and you'll notice the dimming, the question is at what voltage it happens. The worst situation will be for the moon mode, when the dimming may be unnoticeable and for 2xAA configuration when the batteries can be depleted to half the voltage of a single AA.



Thankx ; that gives me a little more clarity on the situation. Having recently come from the alkaline primary world into new high tech torch world with Lions and Nimhs its taking a little time to wrap my head around the new parameters. I was worried that i would use my light and then all of a sudden it goes dim and the battery is already damaged and i guess that could happen in certain situations and me as a light user ,tending to be in moonlight or low mode quite a bit, so i guess i need to figure out my general usage and recharge appropriately before it gets too low.
thankx


----------



## wapkil (Aug 26, 2009)

mbiraman said:


> Thankx ; that gives me a little more clarity on the situation. Having recently come from the alkaline primary world into new high tech torch world with Lions and Nimhs its taking a little time to wrap my head around the new parameters. I was worried that i would use my light and then all of a sudden it goes dim and the battery is already damaged and i guess that could happen in certain situations and me as a light user ,tending to be in moonlight or low mode quite a bit, so i guess i need to figure out my general usage and recharge appropriately before it gets too low.



Yes, it's always the best to understand what is happening  Unfortunately most of current flashlights are not as worry-free as I would like them to be. You should note though that the batteries tend to be pretty tolerant to abuse. They should not be overdischarged but if they are, and they are not kept discharged for too long and to an extremely low level, they go back to life. They may lose some capacity, their life can be shortened but usually they won't be completely dead. It's not a good idea to overdischarge batteries but usually it doesn't destroy them either.

EDIT: I think that for a normal use it means that one should be worried mostly about lower levels, as you wrote. If the light dims on high, the battery may be overdischarged a bit but it can be easily seen and when the light is turned off the voltage will rebound and probably nothing wrong will happen. In lower modes what is dangerous is the possibility that the user is unaware of the flashlight pulling the current from an already overdischarged battery, damaging it this way. It should be investigated if such a possibility for a particular light exists and if it does, this situation should be avoided.


----------



## Twinkle-Plank (Aug 27, 2009)

Can a quark AA use a 14500?


----------



## Norm (Aug 27, 2009)

Twinkle-Plank said:


> Can a quark AA use a 14500?


Yes


----------



## HKJ (Aug 27, 2009)

Twinkle-Plank said:


> Can a quark AA use a 14500?



Yes, and it will have the same brightness as a Quark CR123.


----------



## DHart (Aug 27, 2009)

Twinkle-Plank said:


> Can a quark AA use a 14500?



Not only can it, but I think li-ions are the very best way to power the Quarks. Keep in mind that with a li-ion, you can start every day with a fully charged cell that also provides maximum output. You can (and should) top the cell off anywhere below full charge when you get a chance to do so. 

With primaries (of any chemistry), you start with a fully charged cell only once and from then on you're running with a partially depleted cell every time... and when that cell dies, you have to toss (recycle) it and buy yet another one. Can you imagine how many batteries are discarded in the world every day? It's got to be an unbelievable number. Primaries have their place, but for me their place is as back-up/emergency/long-term storage type of thing.

NiMH is a decent option, because they are rechargeable. But you don't get the output you get with li-ions.

All of my Quarks are loaded with li-ions. 16340 in the 123, 14500 in the AA's, and 17670 in the 123x2s. And I couldn't be happier with the performance! Just be sure to learn and follow the do's and don'ts of charging and using li-ions and you'll be thrilled with the performance.


----------



## uplite (Aug 27, 2009)

I _would_ use 14500 cells in my QAA, if only the sequence of modes was programmable.  

Right now I use nimh and lithium primaries in the QAA, so Max mode is throttled down to 350mA...runtime is much longer than a 14500...and the light does not get hot. :thumbsup:

I know, High mode is similar to this. But High mode only works in the jittery bezel-loosened position, and you have to click through 3 other modes to get to it.  

Does anyone else find it funny that the Quark brochure/packaging shows an _alkaline_ coppertop in the cutaway picture? :duh2: :laughing:

-Jeff


----------



## Owen (Aug 27, 2009)

uplite said:


> Does anyone else find it funny that the Quark brochure/packaging shows an _alkaline_ coppertop in the cutaway picture? :duh2: :laughing:


Since they come with Duracell alkalines, not really.


----------



## DHart (Aug 27, 2009)

uplite said:


> But High mode only works in the jittery bezel-loosened position, and you have to click through 3 other modes to get to it.



Yeah... it sucks having to do all that clicking every time you want to get to high which is, arguably, a better general purpose level (nearly as bright as turbo but with much better runtime). And the tactical model is no solution as if you program the two settings to high and moon, you can't get to turbo. :scowl:


----------



## uplite (Aug 27, 2009)

DHart said:


> Yeah... it sucks having to do all that clicking every time you want to get to high which is, arguably, a better general purpose level (nearly as bright as turbo but with much better runtime). And the tactical model is no solution as if you program the two settings to high and moon, you can't get to turbo. :scowl:


Exactly. Neither head is ideal. That's why we need a head that lets us program the entire sequence of modes.

Actually, the clicking doesn't bother me so much. The bigger issue is the loose bezel. When I loosen the bezel to run in High or Max, it works about 2/3 of the time. The other times, I have to fiddle with it to get a solid contact between the threads. My tactical head has even gone into programming mode just from loosening the bezel. This is with new, clean threads. I figure the "bezel loosened" position is a bit of a gimmick to give us more modes to play with, but not practical for everyday use on High.

I'm not complaining, btw. I think the original quarks are a great first version, and pretty good value. These are just the parts that I think could be improved.

-Jeff


----------



## adnj (Aug 27, 2009)

For the tactical, set it to turbo and low (or medium). You can always cover the lense to reduce output for a few moments. And programming only takes about 8 seconds. 

I keep a tiny AAA light for reading and keyhole navigation.


----------



## uplite (Aug 27, 2009)

Owen said:


> Since they come with Duracell alkalines, not really.


OMG, they do, don't they?  I tossed that cell into my alkalines bin so fast that I forgot it came with the light! :duh2:

It'd be swell if 4sevens could negotiate with energizer or whomever to include a lithium AA in the box. That makes more sense for these lights. And it would be great advertising for the batteries!

-Jeff


----------



## bcwang (Aug 27, 2009)

uplite said:


> The bigger issue is the loose bezel. When I loosen the bezel to run in High or Max, it works about 2/3 of the time. The other times, I have to fiddle with it to get a solid contact between the threads.



I think you need to clean and re-lube your threads and head contacts. I've always had 100% positive contact when switching between turbo and lower modes. I can switch it back and forth all day long and it will just simply work.


----------



## bcwang (Aug 27, 2009)

uplite said:


> It'd be swell if 4sevens could negotiate with energizer or whomever to include a lithium AA in the box. That makes more sense for these lights. And it would be great advertising for the batteries!



I don't think lithium AA's would be a good idea for this light. Previous discussion about them shows their poor suitability for high drain (>2.0 amp). My own testing shows in AA and AA-2 turbo at the voltage of lithium, the head pulls over 2 amp and would result in the protection circuit kicking in, not to mention the high temps the battery would generate.

Alkaline's aren't great either, but at least they are cheap to include.


----------



## DHart (Aug 27, 2009)

adnj said:


> For the tactical, set it to turbo and low (or medium). You can always cover the lense to reduce output for a few moments. And programming only takes about 8 seconds.
> 
> I keep a tiny AAA light for reading and keyhole navigation.



My tactical is set to turbo and low (not moon). And I use other lights for "moon" applications. 

On regular models, "high" really should be quicker to access because it's arguably the best level for a bright light with good runtime. And if you turn the light on and off with any frequency (which I do) having to click up from moon every time does get to be a little tedious... so I just tend to use turbo and skip trying for long runtime.

The loose head issue mentioned is not common... I'd suggest cleaning and re-lubing and if that doesn't do it, ask 4Sevens for a replacement.


----------



## wapkil (Aug 27, 2009)

bcwang said:


> I don't think lithium AA's would be a good idea for this light. Previous discussion about them shows their poor suitability for high drain (>2.0 amp). My own testing shows in AA and AA-2 turbo at the voltage of lithium, the head pulls over 2 amp and would result in the protection circuit kicking in, not to mention the high temps the battery would generate.



I haven't heard about a lithium battery with a protection circuit inside - there is usually only a PTC resistor. An L91 should work without problems around 2A, its voltage would drop to a NiMH level so there would be also no difference here. I don't know how much heat the Quark generates on Turbo - if too much, it could be the cause of the battery overheating. 

I think that there may be no important gain in capacity when comparing at 2A an L91 and a high capacity (non-LSD) NiMH. There would be a difference in lower levels though.


----------



## kwkarth (Aug 27, 2009)

uplite said:


> Exactly. Neither head is ideal. That's why we need a head that lets us program the entire sequence of modes.
> 
> Actually, the clicking doesn't bother me so much. The bigger issue is the loose bezel. When I loosen the bezel to run in High or Max, it works about 2/3 of the time. The other times, I have to fiddle with it to get a solid contact between the threads. My tactical head has even gone into programming mode just from loosening the bezel. This is with new, clean threads. I figure the "bezel loosened" position is a bit of a gimmick to give us more modes to play with, but not practical for everyday use on High.
> 
> ...


Jeff,
Is your O ring missing or damaged? I haven't tried removing any of my O rings to see how loose the threads are but with the O Rings in place there is no sense of loosness on either end of any of the 4 Quarks I have.


----------



## Toohotruk (Aug 28, 2009)

Mine neither...with the head loosened, it's not wobbly in the least bit. :thinking:


----------



## uplite (Aug 28, 2009)

Right...the head is not "wobbly"...the o-rings make it feel nice and tight. 

But...the electrical contact of the threads is variable. Isn't that just how machine threads work? They need some clearance so they can turn.

To see for yourself, try these two simple tests:

*Test 1:* Unscrew the head 1/4 turn. Turn the light on and click to High mode. Grab the head and tail, and gently pull them apart or push them together. Does the light flicker? If not, unscrew the head a tiny bit more and try again. It's luck of the draw, but I bet it only takes 1 or 2 tries before you see it flicker on High.

*Test 2:* Unscrew the head just past the o-ring. Or if you prefer, remove the oring and screw the head back on most of the way. Push/pull on the head. With the o-ring out of the way, can you feel the tiny movement of the threads?

FYI, I have two new Quark heads, nice and clean. The tactical one has a light application of triflow on the threads and o-ring, because I expected to rotate it a bunch of times to program it. The regular one was cleaned with a cotton swab but not yet lubed...it has only been loosened and tighted about a dozen times so far. :thumbsup:

Am I off base here? Does anyone see this flicker when they push/pull on the head? 

It's not a big deal...I plan to just use the bezel-tightened modes...but I am curious if others see the same issue with this design.

-Jeff


----------



## tankahn (Aug 28, 2009)

I am using AW 17650 li-ion batteries for my !23x2 Quark. They are too snug making it difficult to engage dual modes. I have unprotected DLG 17650 li-ions which fits better but they would not turn on. The batteries work works on every other lights I have. Any possible reasons for that? I know unprotected li-ons are *bad* but have been careful in using them for a long time.


----------



## tankahn (Aug 28, 2009)

I am using AW 17650 li-ion batteries for my !23x2 Quark. They are too snug making it difficult to engage dual modes. I have unprotected DLG 17650 li-ions which fits better but they would not turn on. The batteries work on every other lights I have. Any possible reasons for that? I know unprotected li-ons are *bad* but have been careful in using them for a long time.


----------



## DHart (Aug 28, 2009)

Try backing off the tailcap just a bit... that might make just enough room for your 17670s t work.

I have two 123x2 lights, both running with AW black protected 17670s... fit is snug all the way around, but works perfectly.


----------



## kwkarth (Aug 28, 2009)

uplite said:


> Right...the head is not "wobbly"...the o-rings make it feel nice and tight.
> 
> But...the electrical contact of the threads is variable. Isn't that just how machine threads work? They need some clearance so they can turn.
> 
> ...


Jeff,
I unscrewed the head over a full turn and there was no play, no flicker, just steady constant light, solid as a rock. I think maybe the triflow is not the right lube to use on your light. 

I'm using a light silicone grease on both the o-ring and the threads. Before I applied the grease, I cleaned all of the oxidation off the threads until they were shiny silver, then applied the grease, and everything is smooth and silky. 

The light is solid with never even a hint of flicker. If I unscrew the head past the o-ring so that it is hanging on by only a thread, then yeah, it feels loose because it is at that point.


----------



## Xak (Aug 28, 2009)

DHart said:


> Try backing off the tailcap just a bit... that might make just enough room for your 17670s t work.
> 
> I have two 123x2 lights, both running with AW black protected 17670s... fit is snug all the way around, but works perfectly.



My protected AW 17670 fits perfectly in the Q123-2. Slides right in like a glove and does not rattle. Zero problems with the light. And the neutral tint is fantastic.


----------



## redryder (Aug 28, 2009)

I had a 123 tactical with a damaged reflector. 4 Sevens replaced the light. Unfortunately the replacement, has play/looseness in the head. The first returned light had none. With the head loosened less than a full 1/2 turn, the head moves and makes contact causing the tightened head mode to flash. When the light is held in one hand and the button pushed, you can feel the head wobble. I returned this light to 4 Sevens, but they said it is working correctly. Unfortunately, the wobbly head makes the light seems cheap.



kwkarth said:


> Jeff,
> I unscrewed the head over a full turn and there was no play, no flicker, just steady constant light, solid as a rock. I think maybe the triflow is not the right lube to use on your light.
> 
> I'm using a light silicone grease on both the o-ring and the threads. Before I applied the grease, I cleaned all of the oxidation off the threads until they were shiny silver, then applied the grease, and everything is smooth and silky.
> ...


----------



## Badbeams3 (Aug 28, 2009)

redryder said:


> I had a 123 tactical with a damaged reflector. 4 Sevens replaced the light. Unfortunately the replacement, has play/looseness in the head. The first returned light had none. With the head loosened less than a full 1/2 turn, the head moves and makes contact causing the tightened head mode to flash. When the light is held in one hand and the button pushed, you can feel the head wobble. I returned this light to 4 Sevens, but they said it is working correctly. Unfortunately, the wobbly head makes the light seems cheap.



Why don`t you ask for your money back? I wouldn`t like that either. Or perhaps ask for credit and pre-order one of the Ti Quarks.


----------



## kwkarth (Aug 28, 2009)

redryder said:


> I had a 123 tactical with a damaged reflector. 4 Sevens replaced the light. Unfortunately the replacement, has play/looseness in the head. The first returned light had none. With the head loosened less than a full 1/2 turn, the head moves and makes contact causing the tightened head mode to flash. When the light is held in one hand and the button pushed, you can feel the head wobble. I returned this light to 4 Sevens, but they said it is working correctly. Unfortunately, the wobbly head makes the light seems cheap.


Wow, I appreciate your predicament. Maybe the cleanest course of action would be to RMA the whole light, get your money back, and rebuy what you want, keeping your fingers crossed. I had an issue very similar to this with Surefire. I finally gave up, and ate the bad light. Even though this happened years ago, it left a bad taste in my mouth for Surefire customer service to this day. In all fairness, I've had good interaction from Surefire's customer support at other times, so I think everybody has a bad day once in a while. If you call 4-7's CS again, remember that. Maybe 3 times is a charm. There must be somebody there sensitive to your plight, but if not, get your money back. That's what I should have done with Surefire. That one incident with Surefire for me has saved me many hundreds of dollars over the years, and cost Surefire many sales.

Try not to let it go sour with 4-7's, but do stand your ground. Good luck!!


----------



## uplite (Aug 28, 2009)

OK, so I took everyone's advice, and gave both quarks a very thorough cleaning (microfiber, swabs, contact cleaner). The cloth & swabs picked up a surprising amount of smudge, considering that I cleaned both lights last week.  But anyway...the threads are bright & shiny, no oxidation, with beautiful square edges.  Here's a photo:







Inner threads and contacts are harder to photograph, but trust me, they are equally clean and perfect! :thumbsup:

I reassembled the lights and tested again with bezel-loosened Max (tactical) and bezel-loosened High (regular). Same issue. *It comes on cleanly 90% of the time, but sometimes it flickers. And I can almost always make it flicker by gently pushing or pulling on the head.*

The fact that it flickers _at all_ tells me that even when it does not flicker, it probably has a poor/high resistance contact. And it is not an issue with lube, or oxidation, or condition of the contacts or threads. Or the electronics. Bezel tightened is always perfectly flicker-free. 

This seems to happen more often with Q123-tactical-Max than with QAA-regular-High. I guess this is because Q123 Max draws much more current than QAA High, and the contact surface of the threads is not good enough to handle that current. This would also explain why most people don't notice this issue...the default bezel-loose mode is Moonlight, which only draws 1mA.

It also happens more often if I unscrew the head 1 full turn, instead of just 1/4 turn. I assume this is because there are fewer meshed threads to make electrical contact.

This is the first light I have owned that tries to move current through the threads. *Is this a common design? Do any of the "high end" lights (e.g. Surefire) try to move current through the threads?*

Again, I'm not complaining. I love my Quarks! These lights are overall a great deal, and I'm happy running them only in bezel-tightened modes. I'm just curious whether I've read this issue correctly. Thanks! 

-Jeff


----------



## JWP_EE (Aug 28, 2009)

uplite

I have a Quark AA. If I unscrew the head 1/4 turn and then pull and push on the head I not only get flickering but I can cycle through all the modes. I have cleaned the threads on the head and it still does it.


----------



## kwkarth (Aug 28, 2009)

uplite said:


> The fact that it flickers _at all_ tells me that even when it does not flicker, it probably has a poor/high resistance contact. And it is not an issue with lube, or oxidation, or condition of the contacts or threads. Or the electronics. Bezel tightened is always perfectly flicker-free.
> 
> This seems to happen more often with Q123-tactical-Max than with QAA-regular-High. I guess this is because Q123 Max draws much more current than QAA High, and the contact surface of the threads is not good enough to handle that current. This would also explain why most people don't notice this issue...the default bezel-loose mode is Moonlight, which only draws 1mA.
> 
> ...


Maybe it's not the thread to thread body contact at all, maybe it's the positive contact between the battery button and the contact in the head. Is all that stuff nice and clean and shiny? BTW, I also use DeOxit and Pro Gold on my contacts. Works great.

BTW, I think the only lights I have that do not move current through the threads are the Nitecore PD series of lights and the TK40. How else would you connect the negative end of the battery(s) back to the head?


----------



## redryder (Aug 28, 2009)

JWP_EE said:


> uplite
> 
> I have a Quark AA. If I unscrew the head 1/4 turn and then pull and push on the head I not only get flickering but I can cycle through all the modes. I have cleaned the threads on the head and it still does it.



Try turning the head more than 1/4 turn, at least 1/2 turn. When the head is not unscrewed enough, and you push and pull on the head you are making contact between the head and the body thus activating the light.


----------



## redryder (Aug 28, 2009)

kwkarth said:


> Wow, I appreciate your predicament. Maybe the cleanest course of action would be to RMA the whole light, get your money back, and rebuy what you want, keeping your fingers crossed. I had an issue very similar to this with Surefire. I finally gave up, and ate the bad light. Even though this happened years ago, it left a bad taste in my mouth for Surefire customer service to this day. In all fairness, I've had good interaction from Surefire's customer support at other times, so I think everybody has a bad day once in a while. If you call 4-7's CS again, remember that. Maybe 3 times is a charm. There must be somebody there sensitive to your plight, but if not, get your money back. That's what I should have done with Surefire. That one incident with Surefire for me has saved me many hundreds of dollars over the years, and cost Surefire many sales.
> 
> Try not to let it go sour with 4-7's, but do stand your ground. Good luck!!


I'm afraid if I return it and get another one it may be the same. I don't want to be PITA to them. It seems like it's within tolerances for 4 Sevens. The light has features I like so I'll see if the positves outweigh the negatives.


----------



## redryder (Aug 28, 2009)

Badbeams3 said:


> Why don`t you ask for your money back? I wouldn`t like that either. Or perhaps ask for credit and pre-order one of the Ti Quarks.


I'm concerned that the Ti lights are built to the same tolerances and may have the same problem.


----------



## Badbeams3 (Aug 28, 2009)

redryder said:


> I'm concerned that the Ti lights are built to the same tolerances and may have the same problem.



Well that`s understandable...give them a phone call and ask if you can just return it for your money back then.


----------



## JWP_EE (Aug 28, 2009)

redryder

I tried a 1/2 turn and you are right. I can't get it to change modes and the flickering seem to be gone. So with a 1/4 turn it must be pushing on the ring for turbo mode when I push on it.


----------



## Lite_me (Aug 28, 2009)

uplite said:


> I reassembled the lights and tested again with bezel-loosened Max (tactical) and bezel-loosened High (regular). Same issue. *It comes on cleanly 90% of the time, but sometimes it flickers. And I can almost always make it flicker by gently pushing or pulling on the head.*
> 
> The fact that it flickers _at all_ tells me that even when it does not flicker, it probably has a poor/high resistance contact. And it is not an issue with lube, or oxidation, or condition of the contacts or threads. Or the electronics. Bezel tightened is always perfectly flicker-free.
> 
> -Jeff


I believe the theory _is_ - that the battery spring pressure is to be substantial enough to induce adequate pressure to the head, maintaining needed contact for continuity through the threads. 

Does it work? 

Most of the time.


----------



## uplite (Aug 28, 2009)

kwkarth said:


> maybe it's the positive contact between the battery button and the contact in the head


Nope. As I said in my last post, the contacts were thoroughly cleaned. Shiny goodness. 

It's not a spring issue, either. The battery makes good contact with the head screwed on just 1/2 turn. (FYI, it takes 4.5 turns to screw the head on all the way.)

Actually, the spring does a good job of pushing the threads against each other until you screw over the o-ring, about 2.5 turns in. Then the o-ring holds the threads tightly in whatever position they were screwed to, whether they are touching or not.




> BTW, I think the only lights I have that do not move current through the threads are the Nitecore PD series of lights and the TK40. How else would you connect the negative end of the battery(s) back to the head?


Umm...using a contact ring that hits the end of the body tube? 

That is how the Quark tail works (esp. with anodized threads). It's also how the Quark head detects the bezel-tightened position. You screw the tube down onto the ring, rock solid contact. Not like the variable contact through the threads.

Take a closer look at your other lights...do they _really_ put current through the threads? The TK40 is a high-current light, no? I seriously doubt they would use this design.

Also take your o-ring off, and I guarantee you will feel the thread-rattle. It is a very small movement, but it only takes microns to make or break an electrical contact.

-Jeff


----------



## kwkarth (Aug 28, 2009)

redryder said:


> I'm concerned that the Ti lights are built to the same tolerances and may have the same problem.


I hope there are no more problems with the TI lights than I'm having with the neutral white Quarks, because I have no problems with my current Quarks and I have 3 TI's on order!


----------



## kwkarth (Aug 28, 2009)

uplite said:


> Nope. As I said in my last post, the contacts were thoroughly cleaned. Shiny goodness.
> 
> It's not a spring issue, either. The battery makes good contact with the head screwed on just 1/2 turn. (FYI, it takes 4.5 turns to screw the head on all the way.)
> 
> ...


You are right, the contact ring in the tail of the Quark contacts the end of the tube to transfer minus current through the body to the....threads at the other end, which in the non tactical version, give you moon, low, med, and high modes. When you tighten the head the end of the battery tube contacts the ring in the head end of the light for Turbo. Correct?



> Take a closer look at your other lights...do they _really_ put current through the threads? The TK40 is a high-current light, no? I seriously doubt they would use this design.


 I named the TK40, and the PD series as my only lights that do not rely on current transmission through the threads.. The TK40 has both positive and negative contacts at the North end of the battery magazine which contact gold flashed rings in the head. At the tail end of the TK40, switching is low current uP controlled through contact points in the tail end of the battery magazine. I'm not sure what you were trying to say about the TK40??



> Also take your o-ring off, and I guarantee you will feel the thread-rattle. It is a very small movement, but it only takes microns to make or break an electrical contact.


Absolutely! Never said anything different. If the threads are making good contact electrically, because of the spring pressure and lack of oxidation, then everything's cool, right?


----------



## Badbeams3 (Aug 28, 2009)

You know...I wonder if switching O-rings might solve the loose head problems...they might just be a tad thin. Did any spares come with these...don`t know where my box is.


----------



## kwkarth (Aug 28, 2009)

Wow! I made my Q123 go crazy. With the head screwed in tight, on turbo, I unscrewed the head until the turbo mode JUST disengaged. At that point, I could push in on the head, causing the light to go into turbo mode again, but then, while slowly lessening the pressure, I caused the light to flicker rapidly into and out of turbo, until... It was turbo mode in both states and the only way I could force it to revert back to normal operation was to remove the head altogether, forcing the uP to reset. Easter egg time!!


----------



## uplite (Aug 28, 2009)

Badbeams3 said:


> You know...I wonder if switching O-rings might solve the loose head problems...they might just be a tad thin. Did any spares come with these...don`t know where my box is.


It might help. Each light comes with two spares (and of course you can swap the head and tail rings).

I had just the opposite issue...the head on my Q123 is very tight. I calipered all of the o-rings and found they ranged from 0.062" to 0.067" CS. Swapped for the thinnest one...and I _think_ it helped a teeny tiny bit...but it might be wishful thinking.  :thumbsup:

-Jeff


----------



## uplite (Aug 28, 2009)

kwkarth said:


> I'm not sure what you were trying to say about the TK40??


Just that it's a high-current light, so the designers wouldn't try to push current through the threads...as you confirmed. 

The question is, what flashlights _do_ put current through the threads? Do any of the "high end" lights do this? Or is it only the "value enthusiast" lights like Quark, Fenix, etc? What flashlights do you have that use this design?



> If the threads are making good contact electrically, because of the spring pressure and lack of oxidation, then everything's cool, right?


Right. The issue is, the threads do _not_ make 100% reliable contact for the current that these Quarks pull on High or Max, at least.

It does work most of the time, and when it doesn't work, you can easily tweak the bezel to get it working. And judging from the polls, lots of folks just use the default modes (loose = moonlight). So it's good enough for most of us. But it could be better. 

-Jeff


----------



## adnj (Aug 28, 2009)

Didn't read through the entire thread - There may be an issue with the connection at the tail end of the light. I have used Fenix lights with the same desin for years and never had a problem.


----------



## uplite (Aug 28, 2009)

adnj said:


> There may be an issue with the connection at the tail end of the light.


Good idea...but not a problem here. 

The light is 100% reliable when the head is tightened. And it is OK when the head is loosened past the o-ring...the spring pushes the threads together...as long as I don't touch it! 

The problem only comes up when the threads have poor contact with each other, and they are held in that position by the o-ring. And it seems to come up more often with higher current (123 Max mode). 

-Jeff


----------



## bcwang (Aug 28, 2009)

uplite said:


> Right...the head is not "wobbly"...the o-rings make it feel nice and tight.
> 
> But...the electrical contact of the threads is variable. Isn't that just how machine threads work? They need some clearance so they can turn.
> 
> ...



I just tried this too. I know the head has play as the threads don't perfectly slot into each other. But wiggling it around, moving it up and down (I can feel it move from contacting the top side of the thread to the bottom side, the contact never broke. No flicker, no mode changing, nothing. This is with the thread 1/4 turned off, and 1 full turn as well.

I did use deoxit to clean all my threads, deoxit gold spread on it afterwards, and then lubed with nyogel 760g. I don't know if all that makes a difference but all I have is reliable contact. 

Given the amount of material there is to make contact, it is surprising that at any point you would be able to break contact from all points unless you had many spots in your threads that are actually oxidized. Oxidized aluminum may not be so easy to spot. I'd recommend if you've got deoxit, to try using it to reclean all your threads to make sure any oxidation is removed. Deoxit has worked wonders where other stuff doesn't do a thing.

One thing you could try, see if you can remove the o-ring and float the head in a position just right to not let the light turn on. If you are able to do that, maybe you do have excessive play to the point no thread is actually touching.


----------



## uplite (Aug 29, 2009)

bcwang said:


> Given the amount of material there is to make contact, it is surprising that at any point you would be able to break contact from all points unless you had many spots in your threads that are actually oxidized. Oxidized aluminum may not be so easy to spot. I'd recommend if you've got deoxit, to try using it to reclean all your threads to make sure any oxidation is removed. Deoxit has worked wonders where other stuff doesn't do a thing.


OK, I'll pick up some Deoxit and give it a go. Thanks for your patience everyone. 

I wonder how much more these lights would cost if 4sevens gave the threads a zincate-nickel-gold electroplating... :thinking:

-Jeff


----------



## Vox Clamatis in Deserto (Aug 29, 2009)

I've got some Quark tailcap-body combinations that don't work. I've ordered a couple of blue boot kits, I'm going to use the tool to take apart the extra tailcaps and see if I can make them work reliably.

Twice, I've had a Quark tailcap suddenly stop working, one on a regular Q123, perhaps after it had been dropped going through airport security, the second on a tactical QAAW after a battery change.

The QAAW tail cap now works with a 2AA body but not on the original AA body. Maybe some of the lubricant migrated to the threads or contact area or whatever. I've got the Deoxit, Nyogel, voltmeter, spare lego parts, tools etc. to troubleshoot but haven't had the time or patience in recent days. Might as well wait for the tailcap tool to see if it gives me any insight.

I remember a few years ago Surefire had a spate of bad tailcaps, I got a couple of free replacements with a phone call. It's great to have wonderful customer service, even better not to need it in the first place as many of us have observed here.

The Quarks are terrific lights with the usual growing pains of a new product line.

I see the product information has been updated to reflect the sapphire coating on a glass lens. I was led to believe by the original description that the lens was sapphire, not uncommon on some more expensive custom lights.


----------



## Tom_123 (Aug 29, 2009)

Referring to Post #203 and following about the problem with 14500 batteries:

I mailed 4Seven but till now I just got the usual „We will be looking into this“ answer.
(Somehow disappointing, me think)

So I made with my own solution.

I’ll post my solution here instead of starting a new thread.
If you think that this will clutter this thread too much, please tell me and I’ll delete it.

The problem with the short battery tube is that the offset of the retain ring will get
in touch with the battery and short-circuit the clicky.
So I made a spacer out of a sealing ring.







As there is no standard ring with this dimension, I had to file the outer diameter to ~18 mm.
Thickness is 1.3 mm.

You could just drop the ring into the tail cap, but if you want to use the lockout feature,
it might be better to glue the spacer to the retain ring.
Not sure here but I think superglue (Cyanacrylat) should do the job.
Please consider that you want a current flow from the battery tube through the spacer
to the retain ring, so just glue selectively.






A drawback of this work around is, that there will be a tiny gab between the tube and the tail cap.
But I think until 4Sevens offers a longer battery tube, this isn’t a too bad work around.
However, critics are welcome.






Hope that helps somehow

Thomas


----------



## 4sevens (Aug 31, 2009)

We're getting some new retaining rings that will help with 14500 use. 
They should be here next week. 
Contact customer service (next week) and we'll send you replacement retaining rings


----------



## Vox Clamatis in Deserto (Aug 31, 2009)

Just got the blue rubber boot kit with the pin tool for the retaining ring inside the Quark tailcaps.

As someone helpfully suggested here a while back, I used the tool to tighten the retaining ring on both tactical tailcaps and now they work fine with the QAAW using both 14500's and AA's. Before, they would only work properly with the QAA-2 body.

I found the old dead tailcap from my Q123 that I replaced weeks ago. Tightened the retaining ring with the pin tool and, you guessed it, it works.

It seems that in my case, loosening of the retaining ring in the tailcap has been responsible for continuity issues with several combinations of tailcaps, batteries and bodies. I did some lego work while troubleshooting and couldn't figure out why some assemblies worked and others did not.

Also, while experimenting, I noticed that sometimes the outside threaded black retaining ring for the clip is loose on some lights and not others. The ring can back up the body and stop the head from tightening enough for consistent mode changes if it is on the head end and can prevent the light from turning on if it is on the tailcap end. On some bodies, the clip ring tightens nicely, on others it seems to almost rattle with play.

I'm guessing that the loose retaining ring issue in the tailcap may come from insufficient tightening during production, loosening during transport and use due to vibration and temperature changes or perhaps loosening during battery changes.

As an aside, the pin tool included in the blue tailcap boot kit seems to be nonmagnetic, harder than aluminum and dull gray. Is it titanium or am I just too anxious for the the XP-G Ti Quark's to arrive?


----------



## qip (Aug 31, 2009)

for Quark V2.0 

1. source some different clicky switches, as stated here the feel of it is much better ...swapping fenix clicky into your quark

2. only for max/turbo ...if i recall the drive current isnt as high as usual fenix example 1.4a in 2aa because of xpe ...with xpg will there be a chance to bump up the drive a bit to compliment the new led

3. i saw the drawing somewhere here before and also adnj here has it spot on , is it possible 





4. xpg in regular aluminum of course


----------



## Marduke (Aug 31, 2009)

Vox Clamatis in Deserto said:


> As an aside, the pin tool included in the blue tailcap boot kit seems to be nonmagnetic, harder than aluminum and dull gray. Is it titanium or am I just too anxious for the the XP-G Ti Quark's to arrive?




It's probably just stainless steel, nothing special.


----------



## oregon (Sep 1, 2009)

The tool _is_ magnetic (just not tremendously so).

The rubber boots are great. The *tool*, ah the tool, is a must have!

It is so cleverly cut thru with "4Sevens" that it is hard to believe it is not etched or printed. Beautiful work. A perfect tool. An instant collectible. A modern day skate key for those who remember...

Seen below on a pad of orange colored Post-its:






Pic with magnet hanging off the business end:





oregon


----------



## jahxman (Sep 1, 2009)

Since we're talking about taking the quarks apart, has anyone been able to remove the pill on one yet? I'd like to get a look at the emitter and driver if possible but the fine point tweezers I have won't budge the thing.

Any ideas?


----------



## Tom_123 (Sep 2, 2009)

> We're getting some new retaining rings that will help with 14500 use....


Wow, that’s really a great service thanks a lot.


----------



## 4sevens (Sep 2, 2009)

oregon said:


> The tool _is_ magnetic (just not tremendously so).
> 
> The rubber boots are great. The *tool*, ah the tool, is a must have!
> 
> ...


Nice pictures oregon! When we were looking at making a tool for the tail, we wanted to add a little pizazz to the small details. Since it was a large run, we went for it. And obviously it turned out very nice! When I got the pieces, I stared at it for almost 10 minutes! Not bad for a little tool


----------



## matrixshaman (Sep 2, 2009)

Nice tool. I'm curious if it was cut with laser or water jet or some other way? Is the purpose of the boot kit to make clicking easier?


----------



## DHart (Sep 2, 2009)

matrixshaman said:


> Is the purpose of the boot kit to make clicking easier?



:thinking: I'm wondering the same thing...


----------



## bcwang (Sep 2, 2009)

matrixshaman said:


> Nice tool. I'm curious if it was cut with laser or water jet or some other way? Is the purpose of the boot kit to make clicking easier?



I think one purpose is to get blue boots. If it's to make the clicking easier too, it would be nice if they also offered it in black.


----------



## uplite (Sep 2, 2009)

The "boot kit" does not make clicking easier. Well...if your retaining ring has been loosened somehow, then yeah, tightening it will push the button back where it belongs. But the firmness of the click comes from the switch itself.

I honestly don't understand the boot kit. Almost ten bucks for a blue rubber cap that makes the light look like a little kid's toy?!? :duh2: No thanks. I might pay a buck or two for a *glow-in-the-dark* boot. Considering the cost of these lights though, 4sevens should throw it in, like Zebralight throws in both black and GITD holders. :thumbsup:

Out of curiousity I just disassembled my Quark tails.  I used a small needlenose pliers, like this:





Tweezers would work if you have a "beater" pair. Snap-ring pliers are ideal if you have them. :thumbsup:

The tail has these five parts, assembled in clockwise order from top:





Parts flipped over:





Tactical and regular tails share the same tube, washer, and retaining ring. Only the switch and boot are taller:





Enjoy. 

-Jeff


----------



## Marduke (Sep 2, 2009)

The boot kit is softer, and less stiff than the original boots, so yes, it does make it easier to push for those with weak thumbs...


----------



## DimeRazorback (Sep 2, 2009)

Lol, they must be very weak thumbs :nana:


----------



## uplite (Sep 2, 2009)

Marduke said:


> The boot kit is softer, and less stiff than the original boots, so yes, it does make it easier to push for those with weak thumbs...


Right...  Now I remember reading about that first run of bad boots. 

But - anyone who got the original stiff boot can just contact quark for a FREE softer boot, according to *this post*:


[email protected] said:


> *Yes, if you received an older "stiff" boot, contact us when the new ones are available and we'll send one out.
> 
> Peter*



So...I still don't understand the boot kit. Does the blue cap have some functional advantage over the black one? Or do folks drop 10 bucks just to have a bit of *blue* on their light? :thinking: Shucks, if I wanted that, I'd just wrap some painters tape around it. :laughing:

Seriously, a *glow in the dark* boot would be VERY USEFUL. But not for 10 bucks. Maybe 2 bucks...or throw it in with every new order. 

-Jeff


----------



## wapkil (Sep 2, 2009)

uplite said:


> Marduke said:
> 
> 
> > The boot kit is softer, and less stiff than the original boots, so yes, it does make it easier to push for those with weak thumbs...
> ...



Yup, this is what it was supposed to be but people who got the replacement boots report that the Quark still feels stiff. It seems that it is not the boot but the switch fault :shrug:


----------



## recDNA (Sep 2, 2009)

uplite said:


> Right...  Now I remember reading about that first run of bad boots.
> 
> But - anyone who got the original stiff boot can just contact quark for a FREE softer boot, according to *this post*:
> 
> ...


 
It would be worth it if it were tritium! I understand it is too much hassle for 4sevens to bother with though.


----------



## yuk (Sep 3, 2009)

How loud is the clicky switch on the regular models? Like a Fenix's? Somewhere between D10's and Fenix's switches?


----------



## CaNo (Sep 4, 2009)

yuk said:


> How loud is the clicky switch on the regular models? Like a Fenix's? Somewhere between D10's and Fenix's switches?



I would say just as loud as the Fenix lights, but far more stiff to push. Which is good for me, so there is no accidental activations in my pocket...


----------



## Julian Holtz (Sep 4, 2009)

*Stiff heads?*

Some people complain about stiff turning heads.
I have finally found a solution which works very nice for me.
First, I ordered 16mm O-rings from DX. Then I slid one over the chuck of my Proxxon mini drill, and held it against a fine sanding block with 10.000rpm. One has to work in little iterations.

I have been a fan of teflon grease a long time, but I recently came to use molybdenum grease wit Lithium-something in it, which I purchased for my bike bearings. This grease works even better.
The same improvement I saw when I used Teflon grease instead of Silicon grease, I see now when using the molybdenum grease.

Anyhow, this grease in combination with the modified 16mm o-rings works perfect. I can easily turn the head now using one hand at the light, and its a real pleasure, as smooth as it is :twothumbs.
Now, I am 100% satisfied with my Quarks.

Cheers,

Julez

PS: Concerning the "stiff" switch, I put a small washer between the switch button and the rubber boot. Works perfectly now!


----------



## kwkarth (Sep 4, 2009)

*Re: Stiff heads?*



Julian Holtz said:


> Some people complain about stiff turning heads.
> I have finally found a solution which works very nice for me.
> First, I ordered 16mm O-rings from DX. Then I slid one over the chuck of my Proxxon mini drill, and held it against a fine sanding block with 10.000rpm. One has to work in little iterations.
> 
> ...



Great tips Julian! 
Thanks


----------



## Billy Berue (Sep 4, 2009)

Resurrecting a post from way back in Part 4 of this thread...



DHart said:


> Posting for convenient reference re: runtimes:
> 
> =============14500======Eneloop AA======L91 Lithium
> Q AA on turbo.........46 min............1 hr. 12 min.............2 hrs. 1 min.
> ...



I'm interested in comparing the *shapes *of the runtime graphs of using a 17670 on both the higher voltage (123x2) and lower voltage (AA/123/etc.) Quark heads. For my usage, I would prefer for the light to stay in flat regulation for as long as possible in all output modes. In other words, I would prefer the runtime graphs in all modes to appear like a fairly flat line as long as possible, followed by a fairly steep dropoff. Which of the two heads would give me that with a 17670?

I realize that several folks actually prefer the light to decline in output gradually, particularly in survival situations. But I don't plan to use my light in that way. For my day-to-day usage, I like to keep the output as flat and constant as possible for as long as possible in each mode.


----------



## shae (Sep 4, 2009)

Billy Berue said:


> I'm interested in comparing the *shapes *of the runtime graphs of using a 17670 on both the higher voltage (123x2) and lower voltage (AA/123/etc.) Quark heads.


Selfbuilt's review has the graphs that you're looking for. In particular check out this post: https://www.candlepowerforums.com/posts/2993553&postcount=45


----------



## Billy Berue (Sep 4, 2009)

shae said:


> Selfbuilt's review has the graphs that you're looking for. In particular check out this post: https://www.candlepowerforums.com/posts/2993553&postcount=45



Thanks. That is indeed helpful with respect to Turbo mode. I had previously read his original review, but I didn't realize he had updated it with this "special request" graph.

As it relates to Hi/Med/Lo modes, although he includes a graph for the 123x2/17670 combo in Hi mode, I didn't otherwise see any information in there for Hi/Med/Lo modes of either head with the 17670. Perhaps the runtimes are simply too long in these modes to practically test?

I don't really use Turbo mode all that much, but I find myself rotating between Hi/Med/Lo quite a bit. I would prefer to use whichever of the two heads that provides the "best" regulation (for my purposes, meaning that the light stays in regulation the longest) with a 17670 in those modes.

Thanks for your response.


----------



## Marduke (Sep 4, 2009)

That would probably be the 123^2 head on 17670. At lower levels, the Vf is lower, keeping the 17670 in regulation longer. The buck only circuit is usually more efficient than a buck/boost circuit. 

The main benefit of the 123^2 on 17670 IMO is the lack of sudden death when a protection circuit kicks in.


----------



## Billy Berue (Sep 4, 2009)

Double post


----------



## broomdodger (Sep 4, 2009)

*Re: Stiff heads?*



Julian Holtz said:


> I have been a fan of teflon grease a long time, but I recently came to use molybdenum grease wit Lithium-something in it, which I purchased for my bike bearings.


I hope you know and take precautions... molybdenum is quite toxic.

It is mostly useful in high-pressure applications, like automobile CV joints.


----------



## CaNo (Sep 4, 2009)

The Quark AAA light is official!



4sevens said:


> You guys are too funny. Unsubscribe this thread and don't come back and you'll be safe! :nana:
> 
> Prototype samples are on their way to me. Tthey were supposed to be
> in my hands last week but there were some last minute adjustments.
> ...


----------



## Marduke (Sep 4, 2009)

CaNo said:


> The Quark AAA light is official!



A 4Sevens AAA light, yes, but there was no mention of it being part of the "Quark" product series


----------



## ThesaurZA (Sep 4, 2009)

Marduke said:


> there was no mention of it being part of the "Quark" product series



Even if they call it Steve and only have it in pink, I'm still getting it...


----------



## kwkarth (Sep 4, 2009)

*Re: Stiff heads?*



broomdodger said:


> I hope you know and take precautions... molybdenum is quite toxic.
> 
> It is mostly useful in high-pressure applications, like automobile CV joints.



I used to use Molybdenum disulfide and STP in a mixture as bearing grease for my turntable, years ago. It was magic! It had enough viscosity to take up any microscopic slop in the bearing, yet slippery enough so as to not drag the belt drive motor down. Amazingly effective. Using moly on flashlight threads / o-rings means that it would often be in contact with your fingers...not a good thing.


----------



## kwkarth (Sep 4, 2009)

> Originally Posted by 4sevens
> You guys are too funny. Unsubscribe this thread and don't come back and you'll be safe!
> 
> Prototype samples are on their way to me. Tthey were supposed to be
> ...



Unsubscribe? Are you kidding?  Where's the pre-order button! :twothumbs


----------



## CaNo (Sep 4, 2009)

Marduke said:


> A 4Sevens AAA light, yes, but there was no mention of it being part of the "Quark" product series



You had to find something wrong with the sentence didn't you Duke? haha Whatta guy! 



ThesaurZA said:


> Even if they call it Steve and only have it in pink, I'm still getting it...



They do have it in a pinkish purplish color too btw haha! And since it's not a Quark... I think the name Steve will suit it just fine! :laughing:



kwkarth said:


> Unsubscribe? Are you kidding?  Where's the pre-order button! :twothumbs



LOL! I looked for it kwkarth, but was not successful... :shrug:

I hope they don't drag this one out...  Because that would just be plain :devil:


----------



## CaNo (Sep 4, 2009)

Upper right hand side...


4sevens said:


>


----------



## kwkarth (Sep 4, 2009)

CaNo said:


> Upper right hand side...



Perfect! Just the finish on the titaniums is exactly what I was hoping for!

As far as the "new surface treatment" on the EZ-AAA, looks like a heavy bead blast??? I think I will prefer more aggressive knurling.


----------



## Marduke (Sep 4, 2009)

kwkarth said:


> Perfect! Just the finish on the titaniums I was hoping for!
> 
> As far as the "new surface treatment" on the EZ-AAA, looks like a heavy bead blast??? I think I will prefer more aggressive knurling.



They are talking about the 4Sevens AAA light, NOT an EZ-AAA (which does not exist yet).


----------



## kwkarth (Sep 5, 2009)

Marduke said:


> They are talking about the 4Sevens AAA light, NOT an EZ-AAA (which does not exist yet).



My bad, you're absolutely right. I forgot where my EZ's came from for a moment! (I bought them from 4-7's, but he didn't build them.}

'Been a long day, and I've got to roast a batch of coffee tonight before I call it a day!


----------



## pobox1475 (Sep 7, 2009)

What tint is the warm versions? 5A, 5B, WH, etc...


----------



## Marduke (Sep 7, 2009)

pobox1475 said:


> What tint is the warm versions? 5A, 5B, WH, etc...



Have you read the specs on the product page??


----------



## kwkarth (Sep 7, 2009)

So, back to the Quarks... They are fast becoming my all around favorite EDC.
All of the Quarks I have use the neutral tint Q3 emitter, except for one. The CRI of the Q3-5A is so much better to my eye, that even though the XPE-R2 is slightly brighter, resolution with the Q3-5A is better and the beam profile is near ideal. I hope the QT's on order, are even better!:thumbsup:


----------



## DHart (Sep 7, 2009)

kwkarth said:


> So, back to the Quarks... They are fast becoming my all around favorite EDC.
> All of the Quarks I have use the neutral tint Q3 emitter, except for one. The CRI of the Q3-5A is so much better to my eye, that even though the XPE-R2 is slightly brighter, resolution with the Q3-5A is better and the beam profile is near ideal. I hope the QT's on order, are even better!:thumbsup:



Totally agree on the Q3 5A. A slightly marginal hit on absolute brightness = much better color rendition and more beautiful, natural appearance. Make mine a 123x2, Q3 5A emitter, regular UI head, 17670 cell, and tactical tailpiece. Or for carry a AA size version with the same selected options, except 14500 in place of the 17670.


----------



## pobox1475 (Sep 7, 2009)

> Have you read the specs on the product page??


 Yes. Missed the 5A part. Now I know ty?


----------



## olepi (Sep 7, 2009)

I have a question. Can you lego the Quark 123 w/Clip with the AA body? I ordered the Quark 123 Tactical with clip on Friday and am wondering whether I should change my order to the one without a clip.


----------



## DHart (Sep 7, 2009)

olepi said:


> I have a question. Can you lego the Quark 123 w/Clip with the AA body? I ordered the Quark 123 Tactical with clip on Friday and am wondering whether I should change my order to the one without a clip.



The head with permaclip might go on the AA body. I'm not sure. My 123 body is the non-clip tube, which I prefer.

Honestly, I much prefer no clips on all of my Quarks. Just have no need for clips myself. 

If you buy the AA instead and add-on a 123 body and a tactical tailcap, you can use the clip on the AA, or not, as you wish, or put the AA head on the 123 body without clip for smallest, drop it in the pocket, form factor. The AA light has the most utility anyway for powering options. You can drive it with a 14500 li-ion rechargeable, NiMH rechargeable, L91 lithium primary, or plain old alkaline if that's all you've got. 

Use the regular tailcap for tailstanding or use the tactical tailcap when you want momentary function. And no need to buy the tactical head if you just want the tactical tailcap... buy the tactical tailcap as an add-on part to a non-tactical Quark if you want immediate access to all the levels and modes. The downside to the Tactical head is you only have access to two levels without re-programming, which I find to be bothersome. Having both, I prefer the regular head to the tactical head. But I do like the tactical tailcap. Of course, YMMV.


----------



## kwkarth (Sep 7, 2009)

olepi said:


> I have a question. Can you lego the Quark 123 w/Clip with the AA body? I ordered the Quark 123 Tactical with clip on Friday and am wondering whether I should change my order to the one without a clip.



Yes, it will work. I tried it out of curiosity myself.


----------



## hiker123 (Sep 10, 2009)

uplite said:


> Right...the head is not "wobbly"...the o-rings make it feel nice and tight.
> 
> But...the electrical contact of the threads is variable. Isn't that just how machine threads work? They need some clearance so they can turn.
> 
> ...



I have it as well. If I hold it like a mechanical pencil to click out some more lead and push down on the head of the Quark lightly it will change modes and it takes very little pressure to do it. I cleaned the threads and same issue. I wonder if replacing the tube would fix it hoping for larger threads on it or if it is the head threads?!? If you find anything out let us know please.
Cheers


----------



## Doctor (Sep 10, 2009)

I am looking for some Quark owners and I think this thread is the right one lovecpf
I want to order a Quark. But I have still some unsolved questions:


What is the difference between a tactical and a non tactical (normal) version?
I want the AA model. It looks really nice and is very small with a lot of power as EDC. There are any reasons to choose an other Quark? (I hope not)
Is there still a chance to order a Ti version? I love that...really...
Where is the best shop to order a Quark? There are any special conditions for CPF members?
I want to use the AA with 14500. Protected or not protected version?
Is there a special replacement ring that a 14500 will fit into QAA?


----------



## PeaceOfMind (Sep 10, 2009)

Doctor said:


> I am looking for some Quark owners and I think this thread is the right one lovecpf
> I want to order a Quark. But I have still some unsolved questions:
> 
> 
> What is the difference between a tactical and a non tactical (normal) version?


Normal version lets you cycle through all light levels using a "soft click". The tactical version allows you to program in a light level for when the head is tightened and a light level for when the head is loosened (two selectable modes). The product details page explains these UI details well. Tactical version has a forward clicky and does not tailstand. Regular version has a reverse clicky and does tailstand.


Doctor said:


> I want the AA model. It looks really nice and is very small with a lot of power as EDC. There are any reasons to choose an other Quark? (I hope not)


I love my AA, but this is all a matter of battery preference and size preference. The Quarks are all fine choices.


Doctor said:


> Is there still a chance to order a Ti version? I love that...really...


I think all of the AA Ti versions are gone by now. One might show up on the marketplace when they're delivered if you keep your eyes out...



Doctor said:


> Where is the best shop to order a Quark? There are any special conditions for CPF members?


Get it straight from 4sevens.com. Use CPF8 discount code.



Doctor said:


> I want to use the AA with 14500. Protected or not protected version?


Protected, no question. Get a quality cell. AW.



Doctor said:


> Is there a special replacement ring that a 14500 will fit into QAA?


 Yes, 4Sevens has mentioned one that is now available. Newer Quarks would have this by default I would think. I have one on the way to me right now courtesy of 4Sevens. I'll let you know how it works when I get it. Even without this ring I can get an AW 14500 to fit, but its a bit too tight. Some 14500 cells are shorter and will have no issue regardless.


----------



## qip (Sep 10, 2009)

What is the difference between a tactical and a non tactical (normal) version?
 * tactical is 2 levels but you can choose which you like as to set it ..here is a video click me*


I want the AA model. It looks really nice and is very small with a lot of power as EDC. There are any reasons to choose an other Quark? (I hope not)
 *you can get a AA quark HERE and also the 2AA body and cr123 body seperate so its like having 3 lights in 1 ..**pick up bodies & tailcaps here ...coupon code " cfp8 " for 8%off*

*you can lego the quark for 1aa,2aa, 1 cr123 the head can work for those configurations , BUT the 2xCR123 can not this head is separate from the other *
 

Is there still a chance to order a Ti version? I love that...really...
*the time has expired and all have been sold for U.S except for maybe 4sevens Canada but its a bit pricier *


Where is the best shop to order a Quark? There are any special conditions for CPF members?
*4sevens as stated above , cpf8 coupon*


I want to use the AA with 14500. Protected or not protected version?
*4sevens sells the 14500 batteries too*


Is there a special replacement ring that a 14500 will fit into QAA?
*i think for the tactical version one is coming but some have stated 14500 fit fine so its hit or miss i guess *


----------



## Doctor (Sep 10, 2009)

Thx a lot for the information. :thumbsup:

Now I know the tactical programming. But how can I switch to other modes with the normal version? I have to press several time the power button to reach the wanted mode? And if I switch off the flashlight, then the actual mode is saved? :thinking:


----------



## qip (Sep 10, 2009)

regular version is click on and it starts out on low low..then you just soft tap/press ..NOT a full click ...to go to next level, once you have it in hand you will understand easily and how well it works...it works exactly like a fenix so you might wanna search some reviews on *youtube *for quarks or fenix lights L1D,L2D P2D and some may show how it operates......quark does not have a memory it always starts on low low in general mode "head loose" or max output in turbo mode "head tight" 


only memory it has is short term ..example, i turn on the light and select medium output then i tighten the head for max turbo ..when i loosen head back to general mode it will go back to medium which was the one i selected , but once i turn off the light it starts over to low low


----------



## uplite (Sep 10, 2009)

FYI, the light has to be turned off for about 2 seconds before it will "reset" to the default mode (moon or max) when turned on.

If you turn it off and on quickly, it still "remembers" the last mode, and will just switch to the next mode in the sequence.

It doesn't matter whether you use a momentary press, or full-off/full-on clicking. Either way, you are turning the light off momentarily. Do it fast to switch modes, or slowly to reset to default.

-Jeff


----------



## flatline (Sep 10, 2009)

uplite said:


> FYI, the light has to be turned off for about 2 seconds before it will "reset" to the default mode (moon or max) when turned on.
> 
> If you turn it off and on quickly, it still "remembers" the last mode, and will just switch to the next mode in the sequence.
> 
> ...



My experience is that you have to wait at least 4 seconds to prevent it from advancing to the next mode on power-up.

Is my QAAw not typical?

--flatline


----------



## Toohotruk (Sep 11, 2009)

flatline said:


> My experience is that you have to wait at least 4 seconds to prevent it from advancing to the next mode on power-up.
> 
> Is my QAAw not typical?
> 
> --flatline



Sounds about right.


----------



## Doctor (Sep 11, 2009)

Thanks for the explanations. The QAA will be my first "real" flashlight 
But I still don't know, which version I should order....tactical or not tactical  :help:


----------



## Doctor (Sep 11, 2009)

I ordered a regulare Quark AA. :thanks:


----------



## kwkarth (Sep 11, 2009)

For you guys that have multiple Quarks w/ Q3-5A emitters...

Have you noticed much variance between emitter color? Of the three 5A's that I have, no two are the same, but even the "warmest" of the three is still very pleasant. The "coolest" of the three is very close to true "neutral" and the other two are more "brown". I think the most neutral of the three is my favorite.


----------



## Unforgiven (Sep 11, 2009)

Continued


----------

