18650 body on a Quark

[JaguarDave-in-Oz]

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?

I would imagine that it would fit the Turbo AA2 holster given that the 18650 torch is only a bit over quarter of an inch shorter.

Maybe offer someone a swap of your old 2x123 tube for their AA2 Turbo holster. I'd be happy to do a deal like that if you were in Australia, not sure how postage would pan out if you're in USA though.

 

[tsask]

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?

YES! Try the Fenix 2AA holster.

 

[Sharpy_swe]

18650
AA² (body)
AA
MiNi AA

18650 vs AA²

QAA² holster with 50% of the velcro used

100%

 

[NutSAK]

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

That's correct. The energy provided by 2xCR123 would be 6.0v x 1500mAh in series. In parallel, it would be 3.0V x 3000mAh.

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

There is still a voltage component of the stored energy to consider. I'll use the CR123a mAh ratings you quote (1500mAh) to calculate stored energy:

CR123 in series:

6.0V x 1500mAh = 9000mA-volt-hours or 9.00 watt-hours

2600mAh 18650:

3.6V x 2600mAh = 9360mA-volt-hours or 9.36 watt-hours

Some CR123s have a bit higher rating than 1500mAh, but 1500 is typical. Considering the typical value, a 2600mAh 18650 cell can do more work than 2xCR123, so the runtime of the 18650 would actually be slightly longer, given the use of drivers of equal efficiency, such as in the high-voltage Quark head. The driver would "buck" voltage until the Vf of the LED was reached, then go direct-drive. Direct-drive is more efficient than a buck driver, so 18650 has another slight advantage there.

 

[Warp]

That's correct. The energy provided by 2xCR123 would be 6.0v x 1500mAh in series. In parallel, it would be 3.0V x 3000mAh.



There is still a voltage component of the stored energy to consider. I'll use the CR123a mAh ratings you quote (1500mAh) to calculate stored energy:

CR123 in series:

6.0V x 1500mAh = 9000mA-volt-hours or 9.00 watt-hours

2600mAh 18650:

3.6V x 2600mAh = 9360mA-volt-hours or 9.36 watt-hours

Some CR123s have a bit higher rating than 1500mAh, but 1500 is typical. Considering the typical value, a 2600mAh 18650 cell can do more work than 2xCR123, so the runtime of the 18650 would actually be slightly longer, given the use of drivers of equal efficiency, such as in the high-voltage Quark head. The driver would "buck" voltage until the Vf of the LED was reached, then go direct-drive. Direct-drive is more efficient than a buck driver, so 18650 has another slight advantage there.

Interestesting.

My point about 2x123 being double the capacity of 1x123 stands, but apparently you might actually get more watt-hours from the 18650. If you don't mind running it down that far, that is.....



But how does that calculation work? The voltage of two cells but the capacity of one are used, why?

 

[NoFair]

Interestesting.

But how does that calculation work? The voltage of two cells but the capacity of one are used, why?

That is how batteries in series work. Not much we can do about it

Generally a 18650 will give you 50% longer runtimes than a 17670. And about the same as 2 cr123s in a regulated light.

Sverre

 

[NutSAK]

How the hell does that work? You just calculated the 9.0 watt-hours using the mAh capacity of a single CR123....

That is correct. In series, the energy in 2xCR123 is 6.0V x 1500mAH. In parallel, 2xCR123 is 3.0V x 3000mAh. That is how I calculated it.

Besides, the examples I posted sure as heck show double the capacity for 2x123 compared to 1x123. Same output....double the runtime.

You are correct that a buck driver will nearly double the runtime, since it is lowering the 6.0V provided by 2xCR123 in series to the Vf (~3.0v) required by the LED. It won't be exactly double, because of the higher resistance of two cells, but close. However, 2xCR123 still will not offer as much energy as a single 2600mAh 18650, as shown by the energy calculations above. You have to consider the voltage component in an energy calculation, not just add the mAh capacity of the cells.

 

[Warp]

Okay then.

Too bad those 18650s are a little much for pocket carry. At least for me.

 

[NutSAK]

Okay then.

Too bad those 18650s are a little much for pocket carry. At least for me.

Yeah, the 18650 body for the Quark is a bit of a "how can we make this work" solution, rather than something the Quark was designed originally for. It makes it a less efficient, size wise, solution than a light that is designed around the 18650.

I really like the Quark on 18650 for the runtime, but I don't pocket carry it. It stays in my bag. The 17670 is the way to go for pocket EDC if you want to do Li-Ion. For pocket EDC, I think the benefit of the smaller size 123^2 body outweighs the extra runtime of the 18650.

 

[Warp]

Yeah, the 18650 body for the Quark is a bit of a "how can we make this work" solution, rather than something the Quark was designed originally for. It makes it a less efficient, size wise, solution than a light that is designed around the 18650.

I really like the Quark on 18650 for the runtime, but I don't pocket carry it. It stays in my bag. The 17670 is the way to go for pocket EDC if you want to do Li-Ion. For pocket EDC, I think the benefit of the smaller size 123^2 body outweighs the extra runtime of the 18650.

17670 over 2xRCR 123?

I am probably about to get my first LiIons and use them in my Quark....like I said it's too bad the 18650 is oversized.

 

[NutSAK]

17670 over 2xRCR 123?

I am probably about to get my first LiIons and use them in my Quark....like I said it's too bad the 18650 is oversized.

Yes, I would use 17670 rather than 2xRCR123 for these reasons:

1. Using one Li-Ion cell is safer than using two. If you use two, you need to ensure the two cells remain balanced.
2. Charging one Li-Ion cell is easier than charging two (IMO).
3. 17670 will go direct-drive with the Quark 123^2 head below 4.0V, leading to better efficiency.
4. 17670 will dim slowly at the end of the runtime with the 123^2 head, indicating that the cell needs to be charged. This will occur before you hit low-voltage cutoff of the cell's protection circuit, so over-discharge can more easily be avoided. 2xRCR123 will give no such warning, so damage to your cells is possible or even likely.
5. 17670 contains more energy than 2xRCR123. Let's look at that calculation:

2xRCR123:

7.2 x 750 = 5.4 watt-hours

17670:

3.6 x 1600 = 5.76 watt-hours

...that's not a big difference--I would do it just for the other reasons above, especially #1 & #4. I would carry 2xCR123 primaries for backup.

 

[Hawaiian Fire]

I asked similar questions about this topic a few weeks ago. I also got no definitive answer. I also presented the numbers on the mAh ratings between two cr123, one 17670 and one 18650 batteries. The question I was wondering was how the projected runtime of one 18650 (in theory a 2600mAh 18650 should run 62% longer than an 1600mAh 17670 battery and not 38% more) could be so much greater than 2 cr123 (when extrapolating Selfbuilt's data from a 17670 to an 18650 on the 123-2 head). I also pondered whether to buy the 18650 tube and the AA holster. In the end, I just ordered the 123-2 R5 (it is still on backorder and 4Sevens has not yet received another shipment

) and decided to use 17670 batteries. The 123-2 head and 123 head have significant performance differences. Make sure you pick the one that best suites you. My $0.02

 

[NutSAK]

(in theory a 2600mAh 18650 should run 62% longer than an 1600mAh 17670 battery and not 38% more)

Yes, you're right. 1600mAh is 62% of 2600mAh as I stated, but I didn't state the % increase of 2600 over 1600 correctly. I stated the reverse proportion.

3.6 x 1600 = 5.76 watt-hours
3.6 x 2600 = 9.36 watt-hours

The % increase with 18650 is 62.5%.

Sorry about that!

 

[Warp]

I have been in contact with 4Sevens staff RE: Replacing my 123-2 Tactical head as moon mode does not work (is same as low). I mentioned I had just ordered a charger and a couple 17670 AW batteries as well, and this was the response:


'Warp',
The 17670 is not the proper battery for the 123-2 Quarks. You will need to use two rcr123 cells instead. Would you like me to hold or change your order. Otherwise we should have a Quark 123-2 tactical ready for cross ship this week. If you wish to drop by friday (assuming these are available) I can set up an appointment.

Regards,
Trevor





Thoughts?

 

[Casper507]

I have been in contact with 4Sevens staff RE: Replacing my 123-2 Tactical head as moon mode does not work (is same as low). I mentioned I had just ordered a charger and a couple 17670 AW batteries as well, and this was the response:


'Warp',
The 17670 is not the proper battery for the 123-2 Quarks. You will need to use two rcr123 cells instead. Would you like me to hold or change your order. Otherwise we should have a Quark 123-2 tactical ready for cross ship this week. If you wish to drop by friday (assuming these are available) I can set up an appointment.

Regards,
Trevor





Thoughts?

Myself, I'd rather run the "improper" battery so I don't go from 100% to 0%
If I'm wrong then Quark is "improper" light for a gunfight; or any kind of emergency use come to think of it. 123x2 tactical plus two 123s @ around 74 minutes isn't tactical nor even strategic.

 

[JaguarDave-in-Oz]

The 17670 is not the proper battery for the 123-2 Quarks. You will need to use two rcr123 cells instead. Would you like me to hold or change your order. .....Thoughts?

To quote the owner of 4sevens in the 4sevens forum re the single Li-Ion in the 123-2 head:

"The 3.0-8.4v heads will work too but will not stay in regulation too long".

Nutsak in his earlier post states several extremely compelling reasons to favour putting the 17670/18650 together with the 123-2 head instead of the aa/123 head. It may not be the "proper" battery envisioned at the design stage but it's surely the best choice.....

 

[Warp]

Thank you for supplying that quote.

 

[thawk]

Why is the 18650 body so much longer then the 123-2? I thought 2 123's were about the same height of a 18650. Seems like there is something extra in the head/tail part maybe?

 

[JaguarDave-in-Oz]

Because the 18650 battery won't fit inside the opemning in the head so a special two stage semi self contained arrangement had to be designed. The 18650 tube isn't actually an open ended tube, it has its own screw on end that then screws into the head of the torch.

 

[thawk]

Because the 18650 battery won't fit inside the opemning in the head so a special two stage semi self contained arrangement had to be designed. The 18650 tube isn't actually an open ended tube, it has its own screw on end that then screws into the head of the torch.

Makes sense now!