18650 body on a Quark

[tsask]

From the graphs, the 123² head will run a bit longer than the AA² head, and will also be slighly brighter during the first 2/3 of the battery charge, but will be dimmer toward the end. The 123² head will show end of battery by fading in the last few minutes, while the AA² head will simply turn off.

That's what I thought originally. Thanks!

My Quark Turbo/18650 with separate cool white RGB LED head ROCKS!

 

[JaguarDave-in-Oz]

Sorry if I caused confusion, I was merely saying that the 18650 won't be brighter than the 17670 until the latter dims so it's really only king of runtime, not brightness. The graphs do show a brightness difference between AA/2AA/123 and 2x123 when each is run on 17670 but neither gets initially brighter by replacing 17670 with 18650.

That said, personally I would not place a great deal of reliance in actual use in finding extra brightness shown in some of the graphs I've seen. In real life I run both a pair of AA/AA2/123 heads and a pair of and 2x 123 heads on Li-ion and I can find absolutely no discernible difference in brightness between the two versions in the first 2/3's of the battery run despite me trying a dozen different ways to see it.

As far as I'm concerned, in real life use, a decision will be better off based on the torches' respective behaviours as well as chosen backup battery options rather than based on any theoretical difference in brightness.

 

[slowhand23]

Xak,
Does the 17670 fit into the body of the 123², is it the same size? I was trying to look at the cost and benefits of which Quark to go with over the runtime and lumens it will give me and whether I'd need to get the extra body.

How long does the 17670 last for on max before running out? Is it more than primaries?

I have read a post from someone who said they used a 17670 or 18650 in their AA head and since then it is the only battery that works the AA no longer works. Seems strange.

I'd love to know how much bigger and thicker the 18650 tube is as well to compare with the AA and 123² bodies. Would love to know how long you can go in moonlight and max for with the 18650 over 123².

John

See below pic for comparison of Quarks 123-2, 18650, & Nitecore D20. Quarks are the same diameter, 18650 is a inch longer at 5.45 (bezel to tailcap). 4sevens list the AA-2 length at 5.8".

 

[Xak]

See below pic for comparison of Quarks 123-2, 18650, & Nitecore D20. Quarks are the same diameter, 18650 is a inch longer at 5.45 (bezel to tailcap). 4sevens list the AA-2 length at 5.8".

Oh, wow. Yeah, big difference. I can see sitting down with the longer 18650 may be uncomfortable. I don't even notice the light is in my pocket with the original tube.
I notice you have the deeper pocket clip. For work I actually prefer the head sticking out of my pocket slightly, though I may get one of those clips for my QAA.
That 18650 must run forever! It wouldn't happen to fir 3x123 would it? If it did would it fry the light?

 

[Warp]

Oh, wow. Yeah, big difference. I can see sitting down with the longer 18650 may be uncomfortable. I don't even notice the light is in my pocket with the original tube.
I notice you have the deeper pocket clip. For work I actually prefer the head sticking out of my pocket slightly, though I may get one of those clips for my QAA.
That 18650 must run forever! It wouldn't happen to fir 3x123 would it? If it did would it fry the light?

Note that two CR123 primaries hold more than an 18650. 3000 mAh vs ~2600 mAh

 

[FliGuyRyan]

So how long does the regular Quark 123 (one cell) last (minutes) with 100mAh? This way, I can figure out for myself the runtime on a 18650, since no one is posting the runtimes...

Or... can someone just post the runtimes of the 18650?

Please... I'm not trying to sound like a prick. But, why can't a man with a plan get some runtime love around here?

Or, a thread link with the info in it would be fine...

Anything, please...
-RC

 

[rokspydr]

But the 2 123 configuration is in series. Wiring in parallel will double capacity not series. In series only doubles voltage not capacity. So the 2 123 config only has the capacity of one 123 but voltage of two 123

 

[Warp]

But the 2 123 configuration is in series. Wiring in parallel will double capacity not series. In series only doubles voltage not capacity. So the 2 123 config only has the capacity of one 123 but voltage of two 123

Wrong. The additional capacity of a second battery does not disappear. This is a regulated light we are talking about, too. Why do you suppose the 2x123 Quark is rated for exactly double the runtime of the 1x123 at most outputs?

Output.....................1x123....................2x123
Moonlight/0.2 lumens...15 days...................30 days
Low/4 lumens.............2.5 days................5 days
Medium/22 lumens.......13 hours.................20 hours
High/85 lumens.............2.7 hours...............4.5 hours








Hmm....that sure as hell looks like doubling the batteries also doubles the capacity.


Like I said, you don't add a whole nother cell and have all of that capacity just vanish into thin air. Since this is a regulated light set for the same outputs on all levels but max (when comparing the 1x123 with the 2x) you get double the runtime.

 

[kgull85]

See below pic for comparison of Quarks 123-2, 18650, & Nitecore D20. Quarks are the same diameter, 18650 is a inch longer at 5.45 (bezel to tailcap). 4sevens list the AA-2 length at 5.8".

Where did you get that pocket clip that is on the Q123^2?

 

[NutSAK]

So how long does the regular Quark 123 (one cell) last (minutes) with 100mAh? This way, I can figure out for myself the runtime on a 18650, since no one is posting the runtimes...

Or... can someone just post the runtimes of the 18650?

Please... I'm not trying to sound like a prick. But, why can't a man with a plan get some runtime love around here?

Or, a thread link with the info in it would be fine...

Anything, please...
-RC

Take a look at post #3 in this thread.

 

[FliGuyRyan]

Selfbuilt did an output/runtime comparison between the two head types on a 17670.

So how long does the regular Quark 123 (one cell) last (minutes) with 100mAh? This way, I can figure out for myself the runtime on a 18650, since no one is posting the runtimes...

Or... can someone just post the runtimes of the 18650?

Please... I'm not trying to sound like a prick. But, why can't a man with a plan get some runtime love around here?

Or, a thread link with the info in it would be fine...

Anything, please...
-RC

I'm not sure how to make this any more clear...

What is the runtime of a 0.9v-4.2v Quark 123 single-cell CR123/RCR123 head with a 18650 body attached to it?

NOT... a 17670, as the one in the selfbuilt thread.

Quark 123 head...

with...

a Quark 18650 body...

what are the runtimes please?


This means... no mention of the 17670 cell, or the Quark 123^2 just in case any of you want to go there again. That has already been covered.

Unless I am blind, and I missed it somewhere within this thread, then I do not see a 18650 runtime for the 0.9v-4.2v head.

Again, I'm not trying to be a prick... I apologize for my tone.

-RC

 

[NutSAK]

This means... no mention of the 17670 cell, or the Quark 123^2 just in case any of you want to go there again. That has already been covered.

So, we are to assume that a simple formula to calculate the difference between the mAh of the 17670 and the 18650, and thus the runtime difference, is beyond your ability?

1600mAh is a typical mAh rating for a 17670. 2200 mAh and 2600mAh are typical 18650 ratings.

1600 mAh is 72% of 2200mAh, so it would give 72% of the runtime. The 2200mAh would give you roughly 28% more runtime.

1600 mAh is 62% of 2600mAh, so it would give 62% of the runtime. The 2600 mAh 18650 would give you roughly 38% more runtime.

OR... take the runtime of the 17670 and divide it by 16. That will give you your desired 100mAh runtime.

Uh-oh. Sorry, I mentioned 17670 several times.

 

[JaguarDave-in-Oz]

I'm not sure how to make this any more clear...

What is the runtime of a 0.9v-4.2v Quark 123 single-cell CR123/RCR123 head with a 18650 body attached to it?

Again, I'm not trying to be a prick... I apologize for my tone.

Not for me to comment on whether you are succeeeding in what you're not trying, but you want clear? Well, what should seem abundantly clear from your reading here is that no-one who has responded to this thread (or any of the half dozen other similar ones on this site) has done a runtime test on their Quark with 18650 so your question can only be answered by the calculations shown in the preceding post and that will involve your unmentionable battery type.

I'm certainly not going to run any of my batteries down to the end of their output just to find out how long it takes to dim or go black and I'm not prepared to buy the light meter that would be required to make such a test meaningful. Maybe instead of making demands in big bold letters, you could buy the stuff yourself and then provide the answers to those others that seek them. Or of course you could just go off the calculations like everyone else has.......

 

[FliGuyRyan]

Alright... listen. I am not a ****. I was not trying to be a ****. But when someone asks for something in particular and I get, "Look at post #3" and it's talking about 17670 cells, then wouldn't you think that after having my first question ignored and my second go-around be answered incorrectly that one would be frustrated?

Honestly, I'm not very good at math, nor do I understand mAh, watts, voltage and the calculations thereof. Forgive me for not being mathematically inclined.

I know nothing of the 17670 cell, which I stated. I don't know how to transfer ratings. This is why I asked. And in a thread for the 18650 body, there sure is a lot of talk about the 17670 and no mention of a direct runtime for the 18650. If this was all speculation (and no one has done an actual runtime) then I missed that point - again, I apologize.

But on a flashlight forum with so many intelligent people, I could (and did) safely assume that someone had done the runtime.

And NutSAK, don't you dare insult my intelligence with the "ability" comment. You don't know me, therefore do not assume my abilities and therefore intelligence. I am a photojournalist, not a mathematician. This is why I consult this wonderful website full of subject-matter-experts, not to get poked at for a question that was in bold letters.

And Jaguar, I did not swear at you, yell at you, I was only trying to make a point. AND, I prefaced that with my intention and that I was not trying to be a prick. I asked in a non-offensive manner.

If you guys want to take it that level, then fine, let freedom ring. But all I was trying to get an answer to is something that maybe another person or two was wondering.

And since the subject from the OP reads, "18650 body on a Quark" one would - and could - assume that the answer was within this thread (which it was not).

-RC

 

[Warp]

FliGuyRyan, I understand what you are saying and where you are coming from. Your question was definately not answered very well.

I'm certainly not going to run any of my batteries down to the end of their output just to find out how long it takes to dim or go black and I'm not prepared to buy the light meter that would be required to make such a test meaningful. Maybe instead of making demands in big bold letters, you could buy the stuff yourself and then provide the answers to those others that seek them. Or of course you could just go off the calculations like everyone else has.......

This is CPF. People regularly ask about runtimes in battery X in light Z. It is not feasible for every member to test everything they are curious about themselves. But somebody usually does and the link can be given.

He was just trying to get a straight answer. If somebody had said "I don't know", "we don't know", etc instead of saying "see post #X"....which had nothing in it that answered his question...it would have been much better.

So, we are to assume that a simple formula to calculate the difference between the mAh of the 17670 and the 18650, and thus the runtime difference, is beyond your ability?

1600mAh is a typical mAh rating for a 17670. 2200 mAh and 2600mAh are typical 18650 ratings.

1600 mAh is 72% of 2200mAh, so it would give 72% of the runtime. The 2200mAh would give you roughly 28% more runtime.

1600 mAh is 62% of 2600mAh, so it would give 62% of the runtime. The 2600 mAh 18650 would give you roughly 38% more runtime.

OR... take the runtime of the 17670 and divide it by 16. That will give you your desired 100mAh runtime.

Uh-oh. Sorry, I mentioned 17670 several times.

Exactly. He asked about an 18650 and you said "see post #3"....where the only cell discussed was a 17670. So why did you post a statement about reading post 3?

 

[JaguarDave-in-Oz]

I know nothing of the 17670 cell, which I stated. I don't know how to transfer ratings.

You don't have to do it yourself. Several people have articulated approximations or made simple calculations several times throughout this thread.

As I recall from the original 4sevens announcement thread, the Quark 18650 was a tube that was originally limited to 150 copies and they still have stock of it for sale so I'd say it's a fair guess that not huge numbers have been sold. Certainly a proportion of sales would have been to people like me who have no interest in runtime figures or refuse to put their battery life in danger by running them to protection cutoff.

That leaves another proportion of them who might or might not be interested in doing a run-time test but as I explained in my last post, there have already been half a dozen threads and requests on this site asking for 18650 run-time test results to no avail which leads me to think one is out of luck finding someone who has done it or is prepared to do it. Certainly many will be happy with a guesstimate based on already graphed times in the test of the "unmentionable battery".

As for your plea that you were using a "non-offensive manner", well it's a fine line and your plainly stated "instructions" to posters not to speak of a particular battery type "in case any of you want to go there again" may not have been offensive in the strict terms of the word but you were talking down to us in a way that I find distasteful and that seemed to be in utter contrast to your assertion as to what you were "not trying to be".

 

[FliGuyRyan]

Jaguar,

Obviously you have more knowledge of the 18650 than I do. I didn't know it was in small quantities, and I didn't even know the 18650 body existed until this thread (so no, I didn't know that many threads existed like this).

So, it's pretty safe to assume that I wouldn't have thought about all the people wanting runtimes as I didn't know there were more threads like this. I thought this was the first thread of it's kind - the subject kind of implies it.

Warp understands my frustration. And I was not talking down to anybody. You're confusing general frustration with talking-down to as I made no mention of anyone in particular. It was a blanket statement of frustration - ever experienced that? I have always appreciated the expertise on this site and have never been disrespectful.

My comment in #31 of:

"This means... no mention of the 17670 cell, or the Quark 123^2 just in case any of you want to go there again. That has already been covered, "

...is not disrespectful, nor was I making demands by it. Terrorists make demands... I do no such thing. I purely intended to bypass the 17670 talk (which, doesn't seem to be what this thread was started for, nor was it mentioned by the OP).

That is all.

So, we are to assume that a simple formula to calculate the difference between the mAh of the 17670 and the 18650, and thus the runtime difference, is beyond your ability?

Uh-oh. Sorry, I mentioned 17670 several times.

These comments are not helpful. I was looking for help. Excuse me if I hadn't researched the 18650 topic extensively like you have. I have a paper I'm writing for school and I just wanted to know a fact that I thought would've already existed. That is a safe assumption on CPF.

Now... I will cease the hijacking of this thread. john10001, I apologize or taking up your thread space.

Good day,
RC

P.S. Thank you Warp...

 

[JaguarDave-in-Oz]

Jaguar,

Obviously you have more knowledge of the 18650 than I do. I didn't know it was in small quantities, and I didn't even know the 18650 body existed until this thread (so no, I didn't know that many threads existed like this)..

There is a reason I have this knowledge. It's because when I saw 18650 mentioned in a Quark thread on here I became interested in buying the tube but like you I found I could not get the specific answers I wanted in the first thread I saw, so instead of venting my frustration at the posters in that thread, I used the search function on this forum and also on the 4sevens forum in the market place to find out all I could about the tube.

The problem for you here is that you vented your frustration, you talked down to people and you did this in response to answers that were given by people who already knew that the precise information was not available and they sought instead to try to assist enquirers to make an estimated guess based on information that existed for a similar battery source. Instead of throwing that back in people's faces you should have read the entire thread and used the valuable information contained within.

 

[NutSAK]

Exactly. He asked about an 18650 and you said "see post #3"....where the only cell discussed was a 17670. So why did you post a statement about reading post 3?

I thought that the reason I commented about post #3 was fairly obvious after I showed how you can arrive at the answer to FliGuyRyan's question from the 17670 runtime graph. That is why I posted it.

That is also why I asked about the ability of FliGuyRyan to calculate an estimate from the 17670 runtime graph. I assumed that if he were able to do so, he would have been able to do it from the link in post #3. I asked the question about the assumption because FliGuyRyan hadn't stated that the post didn't give him enough information to do so.

I was also confused as to why FliGuyRyan was apologizing for his tone after explaining that he wasn't trying to be a prick. I didn't think he was particularly trying to be a prick but, since he apologized for his tone, he must have thought he was. (?) He just seemed somewhat frustrated that his question wasn't being answered.

My apologies if my comments and calculations haven't been helpful to you FliGuyRyan. I would not have spent the time to explain how you can arrive at an answer to your question, or at least a good estimate, if I hadn't thought it would be helpful.

My calculations aren't perfect, since I'm estimating the mAh rating of the 17670 at 1600. However, you could probably send selfbuilt a pm asking him the rating of the cell he used. You can then extrapolate a pretty accurate runtime for the 18650 (or any other Li-Ion battery) using those percentage calculations. I was thinking that this calculation might suffice for you in the absence of any 18650 runtime graphs.

 

[mcbsteve]

I purchased an 18650 body for my turbo 123*2. I love the light but it doesn't fit in the 123*2 holster (holster too short). Anyone have any ideas of a holster that would fit the Turbo with 18650 extension?