1xAA flashlights with side clicky besides Zebralight?

[reppans]

I'll respond to some of Reppans concerns....

I'd like to compare your tailcap and output measurements, with the ones I did.

For this size/weight/indestructible niche, its build quality should be compared to a Malkoff 1 or 2 AA. Gene uses dual springs, and the potting is evident. Yes, MDCs are 50% more expensive, but fit and finish is immaculate and I would bet 3:1 odds on Gene's light in a torture test. Fitment of my bezel and emitter do not improve by viewing angle or rotation, nor is it on par with my Quarks. And yes, I'm in the US and can swap my Malkoffs or Quarks in a week or two - my AT took nearly 6 weeks to arrive from China.

So here's some lightbox/tailcap measurements I got on 1 Eneloop ~1.31V - as you know I'm a low lumen guy and will focus on sub-/single digit output (lumens/ma):
- Prime Pro A1 WW: 0.02/12.4; 0.39/20; 5.8/150
- Neutron V2 NW: 0.05/19.4; 5.3/73
- SC52 CW (starting @ "0.34"): 0.07/6.8; 1.3/17.5; 7.5/81
- QPA-X CW: 0.3/10.5; 3.6/48

The current measurements match what I've (we've) seen in my various runtime tests, the NV2 and SC52 roughly doubled the PPA1 in my 5-7 lm side-by-side test. BTW, here's what I get between the PPA1 and QPAX at Max output; batts not fully charged (again lumens/amps):
PPA1 - 225/3.78 (NiMh); 385/1.68 (14500)
QPAX - 140/1.96 ""; 315/1.12 ""

We have very different results here... seems that of my samples, the Quark is more efficient on a lumens-amp basis, but yes the PPA1 is brighter (and much on NiMh).

Now this is interesting, taking the tailcap measurement on a 14500 yields (lms/ma):
PPA1 - 0.7/3.8; 5.8/29
QPAX - 0.3/4; 3.6/16.6

So the efficiency of my PPA1 sample on a 14500 now looks very good, and perhaps closer to what you are seeing given the higher 2AA voltage? Don't know if my boost driver is faulty or not, but my sample is inefficient on 1xNiMh. Given this is a wide voltage head, perhaps AT is using the same head for 1AA and 2AA (as Quarks) - can you try testing 1xNiMh on yours?

 

[WalkIntoTheLight]

For this size/weight/indestructible niche, its build quality should be compared to a Malkoff 1 or 2 AA.

Yeah, out of my price range. In the $50-$75 range, I haven't seen any lights with dual battery springs. I think the Armytek will survive drops better than other AA lights like 4sevens or Eagletac. But since I just got it, I don't know how well it perform over the long-term during normal usage. I haven't had any problems with my Quarks, and they get good reviews. I've seen very few reviews on the Armytek primes, though.

So here's some lightbox/tailcap measurements I got on 1 Eneloop ~1.31V - as you know I'm a low lumen guy and will focus on sub-/single digit output (lumens/ma):
- Prime Pro A1 WW: 0.02/12.4; 0.39/20; 5.8/150
- Neutron V2 NW: 0.05/19.4; 5.3/73
- SC52 CW (starting @ "0.34"): 0.07/6.8; 1.3/17.5; 7.5/81
- QPA-X CW: 0.3/10.5; 3.6/48

I haven't got my Prime A1 yet, so hard to compare with my Prime A2. I might check again against the Prime A1 when I get it. But here are my Prime A2 (warm) current measurements on 2xAA full Eneloops.

Off: 4.0uA
Moonlight 1: 2.2mA
Moonlight 2: 5.8mA
Low: 46mA
Medium: 0.188A
High: 0.58A
Max: 1.35A

Lumens I estimate as follows:

Moonlight 1: 0.05
Moonlight 2: 0.5
Low: 14
Medium: 55
High: 165
Max: 458

That's very rough, though, and I don't claim any great accuracy. To give you some relative scale, I estimate the SC52 (on a fresh battery) at 229 lumens, and the Quark 2xAA XML2 at 366 lumens.

BTW, here's what I get between the PPA1 and QPAX at Max output; batts not fully charged (again lumens/amps):
PPA1 - 225/3.78 (NiMh); 385/1.68 (14500)
QPAX - 140/1.96 ""; 315/1.12 ""

We have very different results here... seems that of my samples, the Quark is more efficient on a lumens-amp basis, but yes the PPA1 is brighter (and much on NiMh).

It's hard to compare, since we're using different battery configurations and voltages.

Now this is interesting, taking the tailcap measurement on a 14500 yields (lms/ma):
PPA1 - 0.7/3.8; 5.8/29
QPAX - 0.3/4; 3.6/16.6

So the efficiency of my PPA1 sample on a 14500 now looks very good, and perhaps closer to what you are seeing given the higher 2AA voltage? Don't know if my boost driver is faulty or not, but my sample is inefficient on 1xNiMh. Given this is a wide voltage head, perhaps AT is using the same head for 1AA and 2AA (as Quarks) - can you try testing 1xNiMh on yours?

I'll try when I get the Prime A1. But I'm pretty certain Armytek uses the same head on the Prime A1 and A2, and probably the C1 too. The head has written on it, "AA(1), AA(2), CR123(1), 1-4.2v". So, it has to be the same head for all their low-voltage Primes.

Maybe the 1xAA is less efficient. Boost driver would certainly have to work harder.

 

[eraursls1984]

... very exaggerated specs (although this worked in my favor, the 1.5 lm mode = 0.4 lms which I love)...

This is my problem with Armytek (well, and CS). I bought a Tiara based on the specs, it is WAY off, and has one mode less than they claimed. I was expecting a moonlight of .2 which would've been my most used mode, but it's more like .002. An old, dieing, trit I have is brighter. Then the low mode (would've been second most used mode) is about 4-5x's brighter than they claimed. The medium, high, and turbo(replaces high with a 14500) seem pretty accurate, but those weren't why I bought it.

It's a shame. I almost bought the Wizard Pro. The Prime C2 sounds like a perfect EDC light for me, but I can't trust that it is what they say it is.

 

[reppans]

This is my problem with Armytek (well, and CS). I bought a Tiara based on the specs, it is WAY off, and has one mode less than they claimed. I was expecting a moonlight of .2 which would've been my most used mode, but it's more like .002. An old, dieing, trit I have is brighter. Then the low mode (would've been second most used mode) is about 4-5x's brighter than they claimed. The medium, high, and turbo(replaces high with a 14500) seem pretty accurate, but those weren't why I bought it.

It's a shame. I almost bought the Wizard Pro. The Prime C2 sounds like a perfect EDC light for me, but I can't trust that it is what they say it is.

Hehe... another rare low lumen enthusiast. Amazing how being a few measy lumens, or fractions of a lumen, off spec can make or break a flashlight for us. The other manufacturer I find way off spec in the low lows, by many multiples, is named in the title.

Sadly, so many runtime/efficiency claims in the low lows are also ridiculous too. Despite some being very good, and very efficient, I just can't support companies that can blatantly lie so badly.

 

[WalkIntoTheLight]

Hehe... another rare low lumen enthusiast. Amazing how being a few measy lumens, or fractions of a lumen, off spec can make or break a flashlight for us. The other manufacturer I find way off spec in the low lows, by many multiples, is named in the title.

Sadly, so many runtime/efficiency claims in the low lows are also ridiculous too. Despite some being very good, and very efficient, I just can't support companies that can blatantly lie so badly.

Yes, Zebralight and Armytek are way off on their moonlight specs. But, Armytek gives you a choice of 2 moonlight modes, and Zebralight 3 moonlight modes (or 4 if you count the regular low mode). So, there's usually at least 1 mode that fits to most people's wants, even if it happens to be a mode higher than they originally thought.

It's more annoying if a design only gives you 1 moonlight mode, and it's very different than spec. (or just not the brightness you thought you wanted). With Zebralight, I know there's usually at least 1 of the moonlight modes that will suit my purpose, even if it's different than what they claim.

As for efficiency, all moonlight modes take just a few milliamps, so will last for weeks. I'm more concerned about efficiency on the medium and high modes, where run-time does make a difference.

 

[B0rt]

Manker Quinlan T01

 

[more_vampires]

Hehe... another rare low lumen enthusiast. Amazing how being a few measy lumens, or fractions of a lumen, off spec can make or break a flashlight for us. The other manufacturer I find way off spec in the low lows, by many multiples, is named in the title.

Sadly, so many runtime/efficiency claims in the low lows are also ridiculous too. Despite some being very good, and very efficient, I just can't support companies that can blatantly lie so badly.

I'm a low lumen enthusiast, too!

Yes, Zebralight and Armytek are way off on their moonlight specs. But, Armytek gives you a choice of 2 moonlight modes, and Zebralight 3 moonlight modes (or 4 if you count the regular low mode). So, there's usually at least 1 mode that fits to most people's wants, even if it happens to be a mode higher than they originally thought.

It's more annoying if a design only gives you 1 moonlight mode, and it's very different than spec. (or just not the brightness you thought you wanted). With Zebralight, I know there's usually at least 1 of the moonlight modes that will suit my purpose, even if it's different than what they claim.

As for efficiency, all moonlight modes take just a few milliamps, so will last for weeks. I'm more concerned about efficiency on the medium and high modes, where run-time does make a difference.

I agree with the above completely. For a maker to say "moonlight mode" and it's 10 lumens irks me. I also don't understand a AAx1 light with a .3 lumen mode that only gets 18 hours runtime or similar. That's not a feature to be proud of at that point.

I really appreciate ZL for allowing user selection of exactly what your lowest mode will be, not all tastes are the same. I would like it if more makers offered something like that as an option.

Super efficient moon/firefly with several output choices without sacrificing UI? I'm in on that 100% for certain. I like super-blasters, of course, but the quickest way to get me a light is weeks/months/years of continuious runtime at highly efficient modes.

I absolutely love that stuff.

 

[eraursls1984]

The other manufacturer I find way off spec in the low lows, by many multiples, is named in the title.

I only have one Zebralight right now, but I find it to be pretty close to their claims. I understand that it's hard to have uniformity of sub lumen modes between LEDs, but it should be within a reasonable margin.

Yes, Zebralight and Armytek are way off on their moonlight specs. But, Armytek gives you a choice of 2 moonlight modes, and Zebralight 3 moonlight modes (or 4 if you count the regular low mode). So, there's usually at least 1 mode that fits to most people's wants, even if it happens to be a mode higher than they originally thought.

My Zebralight is pretty close to spec, my Armytek is a different story. I like all of Zebralights moon modes, I just wish I could enable more than one. If they allowed you to enable all modes somehow that would make the lights nearly perfect.