# Prototype of 1AA CREE R2 bin



## garfieldso (Dec 13, 2007)

Found from other web of this prototype of 1AA flashlight claimed to be equipped with the new CREE R2 bin.

1>.0.7-4.5V working voltage 
2>.5%-40%-100% (hidden mode strobe-SOS) 
3>.CREE-R2-WC 
4>.Normal 1 AA light output :100LM (not sure, just translated it) 
5>.Stepping up/down circuit of efficiency 80% 
7>.sapphire glass 
8>.class 7 aluminum with HAIII coating


----------



## smokelaw1 (Dec 13, 2007)

Wouldn't mind hearing more about this, but it does nto seem to be a review.


----------



## orbital (Dec 13, 2007)

+

Looks to say Jetbeam on the head.

Gettin' itchy for a new light,.... this could be worth the wait!!


----------



## datiLED (Dec 13, 2007)

Jetbeam or Hyperion.


----------



## orbital (Dec 13, 2007)

datiLED said:


> Jetbeam or Hyperion.



If you click and highlight the bottom photo, look super close

the last 4 letters look to spell '_beam'_


----------



## TodToh (Dec 13, 2007)

From the picture ,I am sure it is JetBeam.
I'm wondering why 1AA R2 has less output than it could be .


----------



## Jay T (Dec 13, 2007)

TodToh said:


> I'm wondering why 1AA R2 has less output than it could be .



Could be the 100 lumen rating is coming from the engineers who designed it. As soon as marketing gets a hold of it it should be rated at 275.


----------



## TodToh (Dec 13, 2007)

Jay T said:


> Could be the 100 lumen rating is coming from the engineers who designed it. As soon as marketing gets a hold of it it should be rated at 275.


Ha Ha Ha :naughty: I see.


----------



## al2k (Dec 13, 2007)

Looks like my dream EDC: R2 Cree, sturdy pocket clip, AA & 14500 compatible, starts in low mode, no strobe or SOS in normal mode, clicky (probably reverse, but nothings perfect right?), good HAIII, LOP alu. reflector with sapphire glass. Definitely looks like a JeatBeam design, which is perfect since I have been very impressed with my JB's - they get the most use out of all the lights I own.


----------



## TITAN1833 (Dec 13, 2007)

TodToh said:


> Ha Ha Ha :naughty: I see.


OUCH!!


----------



## PhantomPhoton (Dec 14, 2007)

Jay T said:


> Could be the 100 lumen rating is coming from the engineers who designed it. As soon as marketing gets a hold of it it should be rated at 275.



 So true it hurts.

Anyway yea at first glance the head design and the knurling I thought Jetbeam. Looking closer at the picture it appears to support my hypothesis. I like that Pocketclip! I too pray that Jetbeam brings sanity back to their UI. They make beautiful lights, they've just been stuck with such terrible UI's the past year.

Thanks for sharing. Yet another potential light to make me


----------



## swxb12 (Dec 14, 2007)

I hope this is why there has been a slow production of C-LE v2.... Cmon new version!

Forward-clicky = PayPal ready


----------



## bessiebenny (Dec 14, 2007)

Wow. This light definitely goes into my must have list if those specs are true.

It looks real nice and if runs 3W+ with a 14500, I may get one the day it comes out!!


----------



## x2x3x2 (Dec 14, 2007)

Looks a little like the Regalight R series?


----------



## EntropyQ3 (Dec 14, 2007)

TodToh said:


> From the picture ,I am sure it is JetBeam.
> I'm wondering why 1AA R2 has less output than it could be .


Because 100 lumen would be a pretty good compromise?
Assuming somewhat lower than 100lumen/watt LED efficiency, and 80% regulation circuit efficiency, we end up with roughly 75 lumen/battery watt. (Pessimistic or realistic? Your choice.) Now, this means you need to draw some 1.33W from the battery to get your 100 lumens. From a NiMH, this means that current draw will be just over 1A, at which point an Eneloop can supply some 2.3Wh (https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/79302 for some 1h45mins of 100 lumen goodness. Pretty good, even though this neglects the loss of performance when the LED heats up.

Pushing towards higher output will cause a lot of factors to conspire against you. 
* The efficiency of the LED drops greatly as the current goes up. This is a major problem of LEDs today.
* The efficiency of the LED drops with increased temperature, life time is reduced, and you risk damage to the LED. (The last two hardly much of an issue for these single AA lights though.)
* The capacity of the battery drops as current draw increases.
* I don't know how the efficiency of the current regulator is affected by increased current demands. Could someone chime in?

So, say that you are prepared to accept 2A of draw from your Eneloop. OK, this will cause their output voltage to drop a bit, and you'll feed some 2.3W to your regulator circuit. The regulator will incur losses, meaning that some 1.9W will be available to your emitter. Now, since you've increased drive current by roughly a factor of 1.8, your efficiency has dropped by 20%, and the R2 will, at this new current have an efficiency of roughly 75lumen/watt, yielding roughly 145 lumen of output, at roughly half the battery life.
Ouch.
And we're still disregarding the heat generation problem.
The higher you push, the worse it gets. Which is why we have technology, and engineers who painstakingly chip away at all these percentages inch by inch to hopefully in the end yield meaningful advances.

So - where do you draw the line? A manufacturer has to somehow make a reasonable compromise. It could be argued that they could at least make a higher power draw mode available, and I honestly don't know what all the problems with that could be (I guess there is a reason why the "Turbo" mode on Fenix L1D doesn't yield a whole lot more light than the "high"). But the 100 lumen output sounds pretty well balanced to me.


----------



## TodToh (Dec 14, 2007)

Thank you very much for your advice.


----------



## EntropyQ3 (Dec 14, 2007)

TodToh said:


> Thank you very much for your advice.


I do tend to go on and on, don't I. :laughing:
If someone could make a believable stab at precisely _why_ an L1D gives less output on turbo than an L2D, I'd really appreciate it. Nevermind if it's a good idea or not, why _can't_ we push 4W through the emitter using a NiMH AA? Is there a regulator limitation?


----------



## meuge (Dec 14, 2007)

EntropyQ3 said:


> I do tend to go on and on, don't I. :laughing:
> If someone could make a believable stab at precisely _why_ an L1D gives less output on turbo than an L2D, I'd really appreciate it. Nevermind if it's a good idea or not, why _can't_ we push 4W through the emitter using a NiMH AA? Is there a regulator limitation?



Because if you draw 1.2A at 2.4V in an L2D, to get the same wattage at 1.2V, you'd have to draw 2.4A assuming 100% efficiency, and that would probably cook the battery?


----------



## EntropyQ3 (Dec 14, 2007)

meuge said:


> Because if you draw 1.2A at 2.4V in an L2D, to get the same wattage at 1.2V, you'd have to draw 2.4A assuming 100% efficiency, and that would probably cook the battery?



Only that it wouldn't cook the battery. (Just because they're happier at lower currents doesn't mean they can't do higher.) Look at the thread I linked above, quite a number of AAs do a decent job at 5A and a pretty good one at 3A. Some even do valiant attempts at 10A!

But more to the point, the Fenix L2D, L1D and P2D all have the same head and driver circuitry, and if you attach the same LED and driver to the different bodies, you'll find that the 2xAA and the 1xCR123 yields the same output on turbo, whereas the 1xAA is significantly below. A single NiMH AA can demonstrably push out the required current, so... why don't we see the same output as with the other options, only with lower running time?

I know what a converter does, but I don't _understand_ them. What's the cause of the limitation?


----------



## Lobo (Dec 14, 2007)

Looking goood! Is that some kind of turbo head? Me likey. Just wish they would had skip the multiclick interface...


----------



## LG&M (Dec 14, 2007)

Also lose the strobe & S.O.S.


----------



## Vikas Sontakke (Dec 15, 2007)

It is just engineering compromize. A single AA cell can push 3A but a circuit designed to be able to do that will fare very poorly on an alkaline.

- Vikas


----------



## x2x3x2 (Dec 17, 2007)

Just got a confirmation that the lights in the images are the upcoming JETBeam JET-III.


----------



## AFAustin (Dec 17, 2007)

I really like the looks of that long clip! Also, interesting how this model has a larger head than JB's previous 1xAA lights. Hope that means a bit more throw.


----------



## Sgt. LED (Dec 17, 2007)




----------



## AFAustin (Dec 17, 2007)

BTW, the URLs for both the original JETBeam website, and the new one that replaced it a couple of months ago, are no longer working for me. Does anyone have a new web address for JB?

Thanks


----------



## V8TOYTRUCK (Dec 17, 2007)

Holy white balance batman!....


----------



## orbital (Dec 17, 2007)

x2x3x2 said:


> Just got a confirmation that the lights in the images are the upcoming JETBeam JET-III.



+ 

Fantastic!!!

Any ETA on the JETBeam JET-III?


----------



## pipspeak (Dec 17, 2007)

I wonder if it'll have the option of both an AA and 123 tube. Hope so. I might have to sell my D-mini or M3.


----------



## 2xTrinity (Dec 17, 2007)

> But more to the point, the Fenix L2D, L1D and P2D all have the same head and driver circuitry, and if you attach the same LED and driver to the different bodies, you'll find that the 2xAA and the 1xCR123 yields the same output on turbo, whereas the 1xAA is significantly below. A single NiMH AA can demonstrably push out the required current, so... why don't we see the same output as with the other options, only with lower running time?
> 
> I know what a converter does, but I don't _understand_ them. What's the cause of the limitation?


I'm not an expert, the following is my best speculation:













There's a simple boost driver from wikipedia. Keep in mind that going from 2.4V input to 1.2V input, a couple things change:

1) Necessary input current at least doubles -- resistance losses in the wires of the circuit increase with the _square_ of the current, meaning they will quadruple _at best_

2) Necessary gain (Vout/Vin) increases -- The driver has a higher "on" duty cycle. Small inductors used in these boost drivers will have significant magnetic leakage, which will be worse when higher gain is needed (more energy will need to be stored in the leaky magnetic field to get the needed voltage boost)



Combine these trends with the other diminishing returns you already mentioned (decreased LED efficiency, battery voltage sag under high current draw) and it's apparent that trying to pull more than a watt of power out of 1xAA is really a losing proposition.


----------



## PhantomPhoton (Dec 17, 2007)

Vikas Sontakke said:


> It is just engineering compromize. A single AA cell can push 3A but a circuit designed to be able to do that will fare very poorly on an alkaline.
> 
> - Vikas



Yes, yes, but to 'H' 'E' Double Hockey Sticks with Alkilines! :devil:

I do hope Jetbeam makes a AA extension tube for a 2xAA on this Jet III. And the usual cry for a CR123 tube will likely be heard as well.
Any word on the UI? Is Emil finally going to ditch reverse clickies? :naughty:


----------



## Crenshaw (Dec 17, 2007)

Looks alot like a jet beam, even the tail is orange in one of em, like jetbeam seems to like...if the Jet-u comes back new and improved with a R2, that along with this might just give fenix a run for thier money....

Crenshaw


----------



## EntropyQ3 (Dec 17, 2007)

2xTrinity said:


> Combine these trends with the other diminishing returns you already mentioned (decreased LED efficiency, battery voltage sag under high current draw) and it's apparent that trying to pull more than a watt of power out of 1xAA is really a losing proposition.



Thanks. I suspected I needed to get more intimate with the drivers to fully appreciate what is going on. I seem to remember, not too long ago, when using a flashlight was as easy as clicking a button, and light came out.... 

IMO, the last sentence really contains the take-home message. A lot of the focus of these boards lies on "the brightest". Not too surprising really, but - size, weight, battery efficiency, body quality (materials and fitting), water proofing, upgradeability, user interface, glass lens quality, lithium cell compatibility, heat sinking efficiency, reflector design and quality, LED centering, tint, twisty or clicky ... there are tons of factors that make or break flashlights.

Perhaps if we paid more attention to these other factors, we would be rewarded by overall better products by the manufacturers. They do try to cater to their customers, after all.


----------



## AFAustin (Dec 18, 2007)

This looks like a promising new light. I'm surprised the posts on it seem to have taken a breather. Any new/addl. info?

Thanks


----------



## liquidsix (Dec 20, 2007)

That looks awesome.

+1 on losing the multiclick interface, go with the head twisting like olight or nitecore for mode/brightness changing.

They should design the tailcap to look like the original tailcap design they had on the Jet-II (anyone remember that? It got bulkier towards the body, kinda like the defender).

I'd love to see another jetbeam I can look forward too (the last line was dissapointing for me).


----------



## garfieldso (Dec 21, 2007)

More photos











Size : body tube 19.8mm X Head 24.0mm. Length100mm. reflector dia. 21mm. Long focus type.


----------



## PhantomPhoton (Dec 21, 2007)

Caution Hot Surface 
Jet III. 
_Centurion_ it looks like?

And now that we're all quite sure it's one of Emil's the question still remains: is the UI usable this year? Or am I going to have to make sure not to use low mode... so that I don't have to cycle through 90%-80%-70%-60%-50%-40%-30%-20%-SOS etc. just to get the light back to where I had it before I sneezed too hard on the reverse clickie switch. I like so much about Jetbeams, but when a flashlight makes a better paperweight than an actual usable light it just... kinda... turns ya' off.


----------



## AFAustin (Dec 21, 2007)

Thanks for the pics, garfieldso.

Any idea where and when and price to buy?


----------



## ydna (Dec 22, 2007)

Just bought one from a local dealer. The shopkeeper said it is the one and only one they got. I think it is an engineering sample for the dealer before they make purchase order. Final production product should subject to change.

It has a reverse clicky which is bulged out. Changing mode is done by tapping the button. It'll memorize the mode when the light is turn on for about 2s.
There are 3 output levels, low -> mid -> high
The strobe and SOS mode is accessed by tap the button 3 times quickly. Then switch between them by tapping. The strobe is different from normal strobe. It flashes twice every 0.5s. The light go back to normal mode by turning the flashlight off and on again.

The overall output is not as bright as my NiteCore DI. The night box reading shows it is about 9X% of the NiteCore DI. However, it has a much tighter hotspot by its large and smooth reflector. Btw, the output is a bit bright when using 3.7V Li-ion than 1.2V NiMH (20%-30%?).

Below please find some photos





Finishing is good




Slightly longer than a NiteCore DI and has a larger head.




CREE R2 in a smooth reflector




Reflector can be unscrew so that focus can be adjusted




CREE R2




No anodizing inside




Clip with the brand JETbeam




Light engine. Notice the square threads


----------



## EntropyQ3 (Dec 22, 2007)

Thanks for the info and shots! It's a beautiful light.
I'm a bit surprised at the smooth reflector and what sounds like a more throwy design.

Can the clip be removed?


----------



## PhantomPhoton (Dec 22, 2007)

Well the UI appears better. Thanks for the report. Smooth reflector sounds interesting.
Strobe might be more like a locater beacon than a strobe. I think I like that better on a reverse clickie light as it's designed for EDC not SWAT operations.
One pesky question if you don't mind...
How low is the low output level? Comparing it to a Jetbeam MkIIX or a MkIIR is it like the lowest setting on advanced mode? (5% I think it's supposed to be on those lights). I'm hoping for something even lower myself.

:thanks:


----------



## orbital (Dec 22, 2007)

+

ydna, I don't see the useless ' Caution Hot Surface ect..' on your bezel.

What is up with all the printed stuff recently?
Do a simple laser etch, I'll pay few bucks more.








Hopefully, manufactures will stop putting freakin' warning labels on lights.

We get it!!! 
They can be both HOT and BRIGHT...


----------



## illmatic (Dec 22, 2007)

orbital said:


> Hopefully, manufactures will stop putting freakin' warning labels on lights.
> 
> We get it!!!
> They can be both HOT and BRIGHT...



We might get it, but the lady who spills hot coffee between her legs because she has no cup holders after going through a McDonald's drive-thru won't.


----------



## AFAustin (Dec 22, 2007)

Thanks, ydna---very nice photos. With the tighter hotspot, does it outthrow the NiteCore DI?


----------



## EntropyQ3 (Dec 22, 2007)

illmatic said:


> We might get it, but the lady who spills hot coffee between her legs because she has no cup holders after going through a McDonald's drive-thru won't.



Then again, she is not likely to buy this flashlight either. So not only are the bizarre warning labels necessary only if you want to sell to Americans, but they are a turnoff even to that part of the American population that could be in the market for these lights.

Of course, people in the rest of the world regard them as directly insulting. I can accept that I overspend on sexy flashlights, but I'm not going to do it for a flashlight that every time I use it tells me that it assumes that its owner is a complete moron. I already realized that, I don't want to be reminded.


----------



## StandardBattery (Dec 22, 2007)

Wow! The UI addresses the issues I had with the C-LE v2.0. If they can make this light with good quality controls, I'll get a couple. :twothumbs


----------



## ydna (Dec 23, 2007)

AFAustin said:


> Thanks, ydna---very nice photos. With the tighter hotspot, does it outthrow the NiteCore DI?


Yes, it outthrows the NiteCore DI easily. Lux reading taking at 1 meter w/ 14500
NiteCore DI: 1992 Lux
JETBeam: 2840 Lux


----------



## EntropyQ3 (Dec 23, 2007)

ydna said:


> Yes, it outthrows the NiteCore DI easily. Lux reading taking at 1 meter w/ 14500
> NiteCore DI: 1992 Lux
> JETBeam: 2840 Lux


Hmm. It really seems as if they are going for their own flavour of single AA light, the Nightcore was already unusually bright for distance use for such a flashlight.

I'll be a bit impolite and repeat my question about the pocket clip - can it be removed?


----------



## ydna (Dec 23, 2007)

Yes, the clip can be removed. Its design is similar to surefire's.

Video of Beacon mode
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiWW-FsKuwQ


----------



## orbital (Dec 23, 2007)

ydna said:


> Just bought one from a local dealer. The shopkeeper said it is the one and only one they got. I think it is an engineering sample for the dealer before they make purchase order. Final production product should subject to change.
> 
> It has a reverse clicky which is bulged out. Changing mode is done by tapping the button. It'll memorize the mode when the light is turn on for about 2s.
> There are 3 output levels, low -> mid -> high
> ...



ydna, does the JET-III blink after it remembers your last mode, or is it 'quiet' memory?

Thanks for the pictures....


----------



## AFAustin (Dec 23, 2007)

ydna said:


> Yes, it outthrows the NiteCore DI easily. Lux reading taking at 1 meter w/ 14500
> NiteCore DI: 1992 Lux
> JETBeam: 2840 Lux



ydna, thanks for the info. and the lux readings.

I likewise e-mailed JETBeam, hoping to find out a bit more.


----------



## jsr (Dec 23, 2007)

Wow, that's an attractive 1xAA light. Jetbeam always has the some of the most attractive designs (I love the JetII, but can't afford it just yet). Too bad their UIs were overly complicated. It seems they've addressed that with this new 1xAA offering tho. I'm looking forward to finding out more about this new Jetbeam with the simpler UI.


----------



## bessiebenny (Dec 23, 2007)

Gawd. I wish DX sold these for $20. =P

I wish it had the indentation in the tail part like the Nitecore DI so that pressing the clicky is easier while it can still tailstand. 
It makes quite a diference as you don't have to press it with the end portion of your thumb. But it still looks dang nice.


----------



## orbital (Dec 25, 2007)

+

This new JETBeam is going to be called: JET-I pro.

Looks to be released around 3rd week, Jan '08.....


----------



## PhantomPhoton (Dec 25, 2007)

Well we shall see if it is actually available... Jetbeam had a hell of a time with the C-LE last year. Still I'm very interested.


----------



## AFAustin (Dec 25, 2007)

orbital said:


> +
> 
> This new JETBeam is going to be called: JET-I pro.
> 
> Looks to be released around 3rd week, Jan '08.....



Thanks for the info., orbital. Can you reveal your source?


----------



## orbital (Dec 25, 2007)

AFAustin said:


> Thanks for the info., orbital. Can you reveal your source?



+

I got a PM from JETBeam yesterday.


----------



## AFAustin (Dec 25, 2007)

orbital said:


> +
> 
> I got a PM from JETBeam yesterday.



Thanks, orbital.

Also found this in another thread: http://www.cpfmarketplace.com/mp/showthread.php?t=169263&page=14 (post #415)


----------



## mchlwise (Dec 26, 2007)

JetBeam finally seems to have done something about their (in my opinion) overly complicated interfaces. 

Looks like an upgraded C-LE. 

Me likey.


----------



## marinemaster (Dec 26, 2007)

Been waiting for AA like this for a while now. Me like a lot.


----------



## Mr. Blue (Dec 26, 2007)

are these ring-y halo-ed beams?


----------



## CoolHands (Dec 26, 2007)

this looks great. Who is doing pre-order??


----------



## phantom23 (Dec 26, 2007)

Mr. Blue said:


> are these ring-y halo-ed beams?


 
Of course it has ringy beam. It's Cree with smooth reflector! With OP one it would be slightly better.


----------



## marinemaster (Dec 26, 2007)

Will 123 body be available for this light?

Chris


----------



## Dreamer (Jan 2, 2008)

ydna said:


> Yes, it outthrows the NiteCore DI easily. Lux reading taking at 1 meter w/ 14500
> NiteCore DI: *1992* Lux
> JETBeam:* 2840* Lux



Wow, this is impressive!.


----------



## orbital (Jan 3, 2008)

+

Shameless bump for the Jet-I pro.


----------



## AFAustin (Jan 3, 2008)

So we know, according to JETBeam, that the Jet-I pro should be released next mo. JB replied to an e-mail inquiry I sent, saying the price would be similar to that of the JET-II. I haven't bought a JETBeam in a while, so can anyone pls. tell me:

1) What was/is the price of the JET-II?

2) Which vendors will sell the JET-I pro, and which do you most highly recommend in terms of price and service?

Thanks.


----------



## ernsanada (Jan 3, 2008)

AFAustin said:


> So we know, according to JETBeam, that the Jet-I pro should be released next mo. JB replied to an e-mail inquiry I sent, saying the price would be similar to that of the JET-II. I haven't bought a JETBeam in a while, so can anyone pls. tell me:
> 
> 1) What was/is the price of the JET-II?
> 
> ...



Price of the Jet -II is $68.95, CPF special

Keep an eye out at Bugout Gear CPF Special's Page

Check CPFMP Dealers. Bugout Gear will post when new lights come out.

Bugout Gear is a Authorized Jet Beam Dealer.

Shipping to Socal takes 3 days.


----------



## AFAustin (Jan 3, 2008)

ernsanada said:


> Price of the Jet -II is $68.95, CPF special
> 
> Keep an eye out at Bugout Gear CPF Special's Page
> 
> ...



Thanks, Ernie, will do. Now that I think on it a bit, I believe Pacific Tactical has had JETBeams off and on. Just don't think I can go through another Emilion drama. 

Somehow, I bet you'll be about the first person in the U.S. to get his hands on one of these---so, I'll know they're here when I see your beautiful photos up.


----------



## EntropyQ3 (Jan 4, 2008)

Where is a good place to get this light for someone based in Europe?


----------



## HEY HEY ITS HENDO (Jan 6, 2008)

good question EntropyQ3, i really hope they will be doing an introductory sale  here on CPF ..... `


----------



## orbital (Jan 7, 2008)

+

From Manufacturer's Corner:

Hello all,

Thanks for your interested in JETBeam's flashlights.Here is the specification of JET-I PRO.

Model[FONT=&#23435]：[/FONT]JET-I pro
Lamp Type[FONT=&#23435]：[/FONT]CREE 7090 XR-E(R2 WC bin)
Maximum Output[FONT=&#23435]：[/FONT]280 Lumens
Reflector[FONT=&#23435]：[/FONT]Aluminum “Orange Peel” reflector
Lens[FONT=&#23435]：[/FONT]Sapphire crystal
Material[FONT=&#23435]：T6061 aircraft grade aluminum alloy [/FONT]
Finish[FONT=&#23435]：HAIII military grade hard anodized [/FONT]
Batter Type[FONT=&#23435]：[/FONT]AA size battery or other types of batteries with the same volume
Circuit[FONT=&#23435]：[/FONT]0.7V-4.2V
Circuit Functions[FONT=&#23435]：[/FONT]
 General Mode[FONT=&#23435]：[/FONT]
AA batteries: Low (15 lumens, 4Hours)-> Primary (60 lumens, 1.2Hours)-> Max (150 lumens, 50min)
lithium batteries: Low (30 lumens, 6Hours)->Primary (120 lumens, 1Hour) -> Max (280 lumens, 30min)
 Advanced Mode[FONT=&#23435]：[/FONT]Alarm signal -> SOS signal
Switch[FONT=&#23435]：[/FONT]push-button tail cap switch
Waterproof[FONT=&#23435]：[/FONT]10 meters
Dimension[FONT=&#23435]：[/FONT]Bezel diameter 25mm, Tail diameter 19mm, overall length 100mm
Weight[FONT=&#23435]：[/FONT]50g[FONT=&#23435]（[/FONT]batteries excluded[FONT=&#23435]）[/FONT]

According to the factory JET-I PRO will available in the middle of this month.Detailed price and exact shipping day will be informed in the CPF later.


Best Regards
JETBeam

http://www.cpfmarketplace.com/mp/showpost.php?p=2106927&postcount=423


----------



## Stereodude (Jan 7, 2008)

I'm not trying to crap all over this, but I wouldn't buy another Jetbeam without seeing reviews first. The C-LE v1.0 looked great from the promised spec. The actual light on the other hand wasn't so good. They've already fooled me once... I won't be giving them another chance.


----------



## Zot (Jan 7, 2008)

Not to far off!!

Ha Ha Ha  



Jay T said:


> Could be the 100 lumen rating is coming from the engineers who designed it. As soon as marketing gets a hold of it it should be rated at 275.





JETBeam said:


> Hello all,
> 
> Thanks for your interested in JETBeam's flashlights.Here is the specification of JET-I PRO.
> 
> ...


----------



## magic_elf (Jan 8, 2008)

Dreamer said:


> Wow, this is impressive!.


 
Impressive when comparing those numbers, BUT!

The review of the Nitecore Defender actually has it as 2693 lux at 1 meter running on 14500.
How come this one measures ONLY 1992 lux at 1 meter running on 14500?

So, the higher flux R2 with smooth, larger reflector throws 2840 lux.
While the lower flux Q5 with textured, smaller reflector throws 2693 lux.

How is that impressive? If anything, it seems lacking.
Just my opinion...


----------



## ydna (Jan 8, 2008)

magic_elf said:


> Impressive when comparing those numbers, BUT!
> 
> The review of the Nitecore Defender actually has it as 2693 lux at 1 meter running on 14500.
> How come this one measures ONLY 1992 lux at 1 meter running on 14500?
> ...


Where do you read 2693 lux at 1 meter for Nitecore Defender?
The Lux reading at 1 meter from ernsanada is 1960 lux. And the reading from selfbuilt is 2000 lux. Pretty close to 1992 lux.
https://www.candlepowerforums.com/posts/2273425&postcount=1
https://www.candlepowerforums.com/posts/2292813&postcount=1

Edited: Sorry, overlook selfbuilt's reading. 2000 lux is running on NiMH and 2550 lux for 14500.


----------



## LG&M (Jan 8, 2008)

I think this is the review he is thinking of
http://www.lightreviews.info/nitecore_defender_es/review.html


----------



## ydna (Jan 8, 2008)

Interesting reading. No comment on why it give out much higher reading.
But when comparing this figures, it's better base on the same setup. So just compare the readings I gave out. Or wait for the new JETBeam reading from that site.
JETBeam seems modified the circuit. It claims 280 lumens when using 14500. Although I don't think it's realistic, the production batch should give out much higher lux reading. (The overall output of my JETBeam, engineering sample?, is less than NiteCore)


----------



## BugOutGear_USA (Jan 8, 2008)

These are now up on our site for pre-order. Will post more info as we get it.

Check the Dealers Corner for CPF Promo Code or go to our website and click the "Specials" tab for CPF members.

Regards,
Flavio
BugoutGearUSA.com


----------



## ernsanada (Jan 8, 2008)

BugOutGear_USA said:


> These are now up on our site for pre-order. Will post more info as we get it.
> 
> Check the Dealers Corner for CPF Promo Code or go to our website and click the "Specials" tab for CPF members.
> 
> ...




Go to BOG Jet- I Pro

Use CPF Promo Code, CPFPRO


----------



## jsr (Jan 8, 2008)

As ernsanada pointed out, the JETPRO code on BOG's site doesn't work, so use the CPFPRO code.

FYI, regarding output, keep in mind also that Jetbeam uses Sapphire windows which have considerably lower light transmission than ultra-clear lens windows. Sapphire is actually worse than plastic for light transmission.


----------



## marinemaster (Jan 8, 2008)

Lens：Sapphire crystal

I also collect watches, the Saphire crystal is only found on high end watches. I dont have any with saphire, too expensive  I am surprised to see this on a flashlight....but should give excellent glass quality and extremely clear. Actually it should be so clear that to the eye it looks like there is no lens just the reflector. Cant wait for the reviews. I love the look of it.

Chris


----------



## jsr (Jan 8, 2008)

Actually, sapphire crystal has worse light transmittence than ultra clear lenses (made of mineral glass). Sapphire crystal has slightly worse light transmittence than plastic. The positive of sapphire crystal is it is extremely hard and difficult to scratch.


----------



## ernsanada (Jan 8, 2008)

If the Jet-I Pro R2 WC Bin comes with an OP reflector it's going to be hard for the light to hit the 280 lumen mark.


----------



## kenzo (Jan 8, 2008)

D: I wish i had $80 to spend on this flashlight. I've really liked the MkII.X that i got from the christmas gifts and this one looks even better :0. Owerl...must graduate and get job = =


----------



## magic_elf (Jan 9, 2008)

Yes, I was refering to the one on light-reviews.com
Also, selfbuilt's review here also shows 2550 lux:
https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/184939

Are there multiple versions of the NDI? cant be such a large difference in output for the same model right?


----------



## katsyonak (Jan 9, 2008)

marinemaster said:


> Lens：Sapphire crystal
> 
> I also collect watches, the Saphire crystal is only found on high end watches. I dont have any with saphire, too expensive  I am surprised to see this on a flashlight....but should give excellent glass quality and extremely clear. Actually it should be so clear that to the eye it looks like there is no lens just the reflector. Cant wait for the reviews. I love the look of it.
> 
> Chris


There's also the Dexlight Sapphire Crystal 3W 16-mode CREE AA/14500 Flashlight. One of the reasons I bought it was because of the Sapphire crystal lens.


----------



## EntropyQ3 (Jan 9, 2008)

ydna said:


> JETBeam seems modified the circuit. It claims 280 lumens when using 14500. Although I don't think it's realistic, the production batch should give out much higher lux reading. (The overall output of my JETBeam, engineering sample?, is less than NiteCore)


 
The problem is that their runtime/output numbers don't make sense at all.
If on NiMH AA it gives 60 lumens for 1.2 hours there is no way in hell it can give 150 lumens for 50 minutes on max. Unless of course the lower output regulation is woefully inefficient. Their claims are consistent though as on 14500s, it is claimed to give 120 lumen for 60 minutes, and 280 for 30 minutes on max.

Since I simply daon't believe it can do 280 lumens of output on high, I'd be inclined to believe the lower number is correct and the higher is marketing inflated, (rather than believe that the regulator circuitry is terribly inefficient at the mid output level).
But those output/runtime numbers on mid aren't particularly good. 
At $80 + shipping, I would like to see a test of this puppy before comitting anything. It's beautiful, but....


----------



## ydna (Jan 9, 2008)

magic_elf said:


> Yes, I was refering to the one on light-reviews.com
> Also, selfbuilt's review here also shows 2550 lux:
> https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/184939
> 
> Are there multiple versions of the NDI? cant be such a large difference in output for the same model right?


I think they are the same version.

The 1 meter reading I took is the distance between the lux meter and the flashlight head, the window. Higher reading may be take at the distance of the tail and the lux meter.
I tried to take the reading at 1 meter between tail and lux meter. The reading is 25XX lux. May be this is the reason?


----------



## TodToh (Jan 12, 2008)

Jay T said:


> Could be the 100 lumen rating is coming from the engineers who designed it. As soon as marketing gets a hold of it it should be rated at 275.


Wow!! how accuracy you are.


----------



## orbital (Jan 13, 2008)

+

Update: 1/13/08

http://www.cpfmarketplace.com/mp/showthread.php?p=2109733#post2109733


with Pics.


----------



## selfbuilt (Jan 13, 2008)

ydna said:


> The 1 meter reading I took is the distance between the lux meter and the flashlight head, the window. Higher reading may be take at the distance of the tail and the lux meter.
> I tried to take the reading at 1 meter between tail and lux meter. The reading is 25XX lux. May be this is the reason?


My throw measurements are taken at 1m from the head opening (i.e. at the lens).

The source of the variation between different reviews can easily be explained by the different lightmeters we are all using. No two lightmeters are calibrated to exactly the same standard. There are plenty that give higher (and plenty that give lower) readings than mine. 

Also, since light decays by an inverse square law, you really should compare lights by the squareroot of lux values (i.e. "throw" as Doug defined it on flashlightreviews.com - see there for a discussion). Judging from the various lux numbers reported here for the NDI, there's only about a ~13% variation between all the meters (which is actually surprisingly good). 

At the end of the day, all that you can do is compare the relative differences between lights for any given lightmeter. So, using ydna's numbers (1990 lux for the NDI vs 2840 lux for the Jet I Pro) and taking the roots, that's a ~20% increase in "throw" for the Jet I Pro over the NDI, based on his samples).

I must say, this new JetBeam light looks interesting (glad to see they've simplified the interface). But I would like to see it driven harder on NiMH ... it would be tough to swtich from the Q5-NDI to a R2-Jet I Pro and have less overall output.

That's my only real issue with the JB lights ... the C-LE could be driven harder, and the first batch Jet II too (although I see they've announced the second batch Jet II will be 50% brighter). Getting more tempting ...


----------



## EntropyQ3 (Jan 13, 2008)

selfbuilt said:


> That's my only real issue with the JB lights ... the C-LE could be driven harder, and the first batch Jet II too (although I see they've announced the second batch Jet II will be 50% brighter). Getting more tempting ...


Well, it depends on your preferences. I regard single AA lights as a practical EDC proposition. Driving an AA cell at over 1C rates doesn't yield very much extra light - it just makes the cells unhappy, and battery lives dismal.

But then again, I don't really see much sense in building a single AA thrower either. It seems to be a light for the Lux aficionados. Fair enough, but then it *has* to deliver, they can't repeat the Jet II fiasco. Given that they have reported 30 mins of runtime, my guess is that you will get your wish. Goodness knows I hope you buy it - love your revews and runtime plots. Got to get myself a logging light meter.


----------



## Stereodude (Jan 13, 2008)

I can't believe that anyone really expects this light to deliver on Jetbeam's claims. The AA performance seems rather mediocre and needs a 3.7V Lithium-Ion to deliver respectable performance.


----------



## magic_elf (Jan 14, 2008)

selfbuilt said:


> The source of the variation between different reviews can easily be explained by the different lightmeters we are all using. No two lightmeters are calibrated to exactly the same standard. There are plenty that give higher (and plenty that give lower) readings than mine.


 
Aren't proper light/lux meters able to be zeroed by their pots?
I don't see how such large variations can be.
Unless you're using some cheapo eBay meter of course...

I always thought measurements taken at 1m are from the lens, not tailcap cos it doesn't make sense to do it that way since different lights have different lengths.


----------



## Jay T (Jan 14, 2008)

magic_elf said:


> Aren't proper light/lux meters able to be zeroed by their pots?
> I don't see how such large variations can be.
> Unless you're using some cheapo eBay meter of course...



I think one of the problems might be that light meters are not designed to have a flashlight aimed at them from 1 meter. There role seems to be to measure the overall ambient light level at a location hence the omni directional dome.

I have two different ones, a cheapo from ebay and a decent Extech. When I shine led lights at them they do give different values, however, I also tried a bathroom ceiling bounce test using a 500W halogen and they gave the same reading. Checking the instruction manual I see that they are calibrated for 2800K light.


----------



## selfbuilt (Jan 14, 2008)

EntropyQ3 said:


> Well, it depends on your preferences. ... Given that they have reported 30 mins of runtime, my guess is that you will get your wish. Goodness knows I hope you buy it - love your revews and runtime plots. Got to get myself a logging light meter.


True enough - personally, I like multi-level lights to go as far as safely possible in terms of output, as you can always use a lower output mode for more runtime. 

It seems to me what should set the max driving level is the quality of the heatsinking - if the light can't stand the heat, it shouldn't be driven so hard at max (e.g. the JetBeam MkIIX P4 Cree and Jet-u SSC were both *way* too hot/bright on Li-ion). That's why I like how EDGETAC has kept the NiteCore DI output a bit lower than the competition on 14500, but brighter than the rest on NiMH.

Not sure yet if I will pick up the Jet-I Pro ... with insured shipping to Canada, I'm still looking at ~$100 even with Flavio's discount ... :sigh:



magic_elf said:


> Aren't proper light/lux meters able to be zeroed by their pots?
> I don't see how such large variations can be.


Whether or not there should be such variation, the fact remains that there is based on reports here. As Jay T pointed out, color calibration is another potential variable (especially for LEDs). Silverfox did a CPF member comparison review of good quality lightmeters some time back (using a standard set of lights passed around members), and I seem to recall very large variation of results for LEDs (far less so for incadenscents).

In any case, you also have to consider the variation in emitters. The Cree Q5 is binned over a ~7% output range at a set current - and that's one of the lowest bin ranges I've seen (e.g. the common SSC U-bin has a ~30% output difference range). Even Vf differences (which are huge for the Qx Crees) could have some impact depending on circuit design, battery charge, etc. And at the end of the day, most of us are only testing one individual sample on one individual lightmeter ...

All you can really do is verify your lightmeter is internally consistent over a range of intensities (i.e. move your light out various distances and confirm linearity to inverse square law), and recognize that there will be natural emitter bin variations between individual lightmeters and individual lights.


----------

