sorry, didnt check. only bought 4AA + charger set & 2x AAAs.

ray

no worries and btw Tq..

Ah, sorry for long text

Ya just use normal, you using eneloops 2000ma right? so no problem la.. Don't leave them in the car under the hot sun for very long, until you get into your car and it feel like can "boil eggs".. that is bad for NiMH.

Eneloop Universal Charger, Size C and D

http://forum.lowyat.net/index.php?act=ST&f...0#entry27208138

Thanks for link bro..looks like more expensive than my Accupower Evolution..but at least we have locals selling D size LSD..

Yo,

I just got the Quark AA Tactical today from Polkiuj. Also, he got me a 14500 I wanted for it. Thanks dude, you rock

Okay... I manage to do some quick beam comparison test with the Quark AA vs Fenix LD10 and TK40. Kinda want to rate its lumen difference, and results were more than it's specifications (based on Fenix's).

Two test distance 1) 5 meters from wall and 2) 10 meters from furniture.

Firstly, battery comparison - According to this thread (picture heavy!), there were brightness difference using NiMH and LiIon. But I've tested with Imedion AA and AW14500, did not notice any significant difference as in linked thread. (I've tested both batteries at high and turbo in comparison with the TK40 medium and high, so it was easier to remember the different beam brightness).

So next, further tests were done with the LiIon battery. At Turbo mode, the brightness matches TK40 at high! Which Fenix rated this at 277 lumens The Quark AA felt warmth after about 30 seconds. And the TK40 medium mode matches the Quark AA at high which Fenix rated at 90 lumens (TK40 does appear slightly brighter than the Quark on both modes, more floody hotspot).

As for the LD10, Fenix rate turbo mode at 120 lumens. At high, beam to beam comparison showed that the Quark AA was close to it, very close that it looked like the same brightness (my LD10 with SMO does appear more neutral ).

Quark lumen rating appears a lot different. In their specifications, turbo is at 90 lumens, but my test showed it's close to 277 lumens. Hrm, I wonder if their current draw specs were accurate too.

Bro,
I think the ratings was based on AA cell not 14500. BTW gauging brightness just by naked eye alone is not really accurate. Even a lumens difference of 30% is not noticeable.

Btw congrats on having the Quark to play with. I'm still waiting for two Ti Quark and just now 47s announce there will be a new AAA Quark with the best LED in it..maybe the XP-G too..hopefully. There goes my money again...

I see.. after reading your post, i went to compare with a new Duracell AA battery provided in the package. Tested at 1 meter, and compared again with 14500. It's hard to tell.. So having 2 Quark AA would be the best comparison. Anyway won't be testing any further.

Well, hope you get your Quarks soon, they are sweet! New XP-G emitters coming?, AAA? wow..

Hey guys!

Thanks for the praise!

Hehe!

Quark AA on 14500 and NiMH is a huge difference. I've tested both side by side. Unless your Imedion is super NiMH (dunno if it exists xD).

4Sevens rates AA as follows: Ratings are out the front, minimum tested.
Max (AA) = 90 lumens
Max (14500) = 170 lumens
High is 70 lumens for all battery configurations (NiMH and 14500 is both 70 lumens)

47 also don't publish current draw, only current to the LED. Current draw will vary as the battery drains. If you want, I can measure draw on freshly charged batteries. =D

BTW, you can't measure lumens by looking at the beam. A thrower would look brighter at longer ranges and a flooder will look brighter on very short distances. Try doing a ceiling bounce. Point both lights at the same spot on the ceiling (nearer to the ceiling is better), switch it on and look at the surrounding. It's more accurate than looking at the beam but still not very accurate. =D

Nooooo!! 47!! Don't release so many lights so fast! I can't keep up!!

This post has been edited by polkiuj: Sep 3 2009, 09:53 AM

Hey Walter, this post is for you, maybe for all who owns Quark AA.

Found out some info at Quark thread part 5... I noticed your 14500 battery jacket had a tear near the negative end, you should use electrical tape to cover that gap. If that dangling piece goes missing you leave a portion exposed to short circuit.

Here's why, bare with me, trying to explain as simple as I can. 14500 is longer than normal AA. Notice how the battery negative end are the same level with the Quark body. The Quark body need to touch the tailcap ring to have a connection. There's an o-ring in the middle of the tailcap which protect most of the 14500 from any direct connection, but only until its edges. The 14500 jacket at the edges is preventing any short circuit. So take note.

7777 has acknowledged this issue and they are coming out with new rings, don't have much info and I think the new rings will be 1-2mm thicker with a circular gap, so only the body touches the ring earlier. They should have made the body 1mm longer in the first place. Friction is my concern now. Hope that all these little things will be solved in the XPG models.

But hey, let this not stop anyone from getting Quark, it's still one of the very best EDC

---

Added on September 3, 2009, 10:39 amperhaps u're right, need 2 quark to see the real difference.

Ah, its ok, no need for the measure



This post has been edited by pseudoblue: Sep 3 2009, 10:39 AM

Hi pseudoblue,

I think 4sevens published current is correct, as polkiuj said, 4sevens published the LED current not the battery.
Here my measurement on battery current draw:
My 123^2 draw 450mA on Turbo on 8.43V, which is 0.45x8.43= 3.79Watts, minus the heat and efficiency loss, it will get around 3W LED output

And the LED max according to 4sevens is 990mA, which make sense, as LED usually required around 3V to drive, so 3 x 0.99 = 2.97W, almost 3W output.

So i guess when you use Li-on, it will drive the AA to 3W which is almost max of the R2, while Fenix usually is around 3W also. (In fact my PD30 draw the same amount 450mA too, thats why I guessing the Quark not only same designer, but produced by same factory? )

That is why you get same brightness.

That is why also the AA cannot drive to max brightness (only 90lm) because it will need more than 2000mA (maybe 2500mA) at 1.5V to drive the LED in 3W, which the battery may be too hot and die.

just 1 sen.

Has this anything to do with buck only circuit vs buck-boost circuit? So, we can replace AA with 14500 for all flashlight with buck boost circuit to get extra brightness, throw etc....

I think so, any driver support 0.9V to 4.2V (like the Quark AA) should be a buck-boost driver, because the LED required somewhere around 3V to drive it, so when you are using AA 1.5V, it boost to 3.xV to drive the max, but due to the current limitation of AA and the efficiency of the driver, you will not get the Max lumens.

While when you put a li-on which is 4.2V into it, the driver will buck (limit) the voltage to 3.XV to drive the LED, but since the Li-ion is able to supply enough current without much drop in the voltage, so it draw enough current to drive the LED.

So if your flashlight state its input voltage range is up to (from 0.9 to ) 4.2V, then you will always get brighter output when you use li-on. The Quark AA^2 however does provide almost as bright as the 123^2, this is due to the 2AA (1.5V x2) makes about 3V in total, same goes to 1x123A (3V), it will almost as bright as the 2x123A (6V).

Having said that, a 2x123A will always be a buck-only driver, so it is always in the max.

BTW, the optic in the lens also play important rules in the output, as well as the heat sink design. Therefore, a single 18650 (3.7V) jetbeam RRT-2 can produce a very bright output due to its reflector and heat sink design.

In your example above, would 2x123A (7.4V) make any improvement to output? Thanks.

I have a friend staying in Singapore and he will be coming back by Mid of September. If anyone's interested, i will have him check how much it is selling (eneloopies) in Singapore and update you guys. Hopefully it will be cheaper since Malaysia have a 23% tax on batteries...

Hey its good to hear from you susuman! Yea, I knew 7777 specs was current to the LED, i may have word out as current draw instead, sorry for misunderstanding. But it's confirm that with LiIon on the QAA, it's definitely drawing more than 350ma to the LED at turbo. 7777 specifications might be with NiMH, since brightness is confirmed to be different with LiIon. I will do a current draw test on my QAA with LiIon, NiMH and Alkaline tonight. With the buck and boost circuit, it's more accurate to "guess" how much is going to the LED. Unlike boost only circuit, current draw measurement will be alot higher and can't tell how much is going to the LED.

Note that XPE can take up to 700ma. Quark just max it to 450 because of thermal design of the head.


No, you cannot replace any buck boost circuit flashlight with 14500 unless the manufacturer says so. Like 7777 says it can take 0.9-4.2. The buck and boost electronic circuit for the Quark can handle voltage up to 4.2. Some flashlight specification with buck boost circuit might not necessary take 4.2 LiIon batteries.

---

Added on September 3, 2009, 3:00 pmOk, check this thread out if you like about Quarks, I find that Part 2 has more answers for my questions about Quark lights. There are alot more discussion but its good to hear from 7777 themselves.

This post has been edited by pseudoblue: Sep 3 2009, 03:00 PM

Hi jwyj,

In this case (the Jetbeam RRT-2) , 2xRCR123 will not improve the output anymore, since the single 3.7V 18650 already enough to drive the LED (which required around 3V), so extra higher voltage will not help. (in fact the circuit wasting energy to buck the extra voltage to provide constant current)

In contrast, a 2xRCR123 will reduce the runtime, as a 18650 can easily be a 2000mAH, while a RCR123 will only have 600-800mAH (Total up a serial batteries still get the same mAH), even a 2xCR123 only have the capacity of 1000mA+.

The technical spec of the Jetbeam further confirm this:
High Mode
Using 2*CR123 batteries: 240 Lumens, 2 Hours
Using 2*16340 batteries: 240 Lumens, 1 Hour
Using 1*18650 battery: 240 Lumens, 3 Hours

the single 18650 wins in the run time, while provide same level of output.

But in a single CR123A flashlight, a 3.7V li-ion battery (RCR123) will always boost the output, light become very bright. Like the Fenix P2D, you will loose all the low mode. , so you will have to buy the 3V RCR123 (lifePo4).

But I have an Ultrafire WF-602C, which gives a very outstanding output when using the RCR123 3.7 instead of the 3V CR123A, it is as bright as the Fenix P3D, but it will get hot in minutes.

PS: In one of my test, I burnt my Fenix P3D when in turbo (burnt mark in the LED), while the cheapo Ultrafire WF-602C survived.

PPS : After some intense rescue, the Fenix P3D revived after 2 days in ICU. Only now it is abit yellowish in the beam, everything else is ok. So it is good night light now.

What susu trying to say also is that I think there's no difference in lumen output between the two battery type. The driver is quite different from the Quark AA behavior. Just more runtime with 18650.

The 18650 tested must be either 2400-2600mAH.

*Oh btw, is your P3D still under warranty? can try and get it replaced

This post has been edited by pseudoblue: Sep 3 2009, 05:02 PM

The P3D i bought it from Hong Kong, so I guess I don't want to send it back, it is over 1 year anyway. Actually kinda like the yellowish tint, at least no 1 has it, still very bright actually, it is cool.

Anyway, thanks for the clarification, yes, for the Jetbeam RRT2, it has a best run time on the 18650, other configuration (eg 2xCR123) does not increase the lumens output.

This post has been edited by susuman: Sep 3 2009, 05:16 PM

Ah okay, for your future Fenix needs, there's a local dealer Gadgetworld2U in Subang Square. I get my lights from there and they will cover warranties purchased from them.