Run-Time Plot - CMG Sonic

This runtime plot is for a CMG Sonic using one AAA Aklaine battery.

Eequipment used is a photocell and a Radio Shack 22-805 multimeter with a PC interface that is using ScopeView software (V1.08)

The vertical axis in mA and the horizontal axis is 15 minutes per division.

Be aware that your actgual battery milage may vary from that indicated by this runtime plot.

The runtime to 50% Brightness is 3 hours 58 minutes.

"Excellent"!! Thanks again Roy!!

I don't quite understand what happened at just before the six hour mark. Is the chart indicative as to what really happened, the light suddenly got a second wind to near new levels or is it what I think it may be, a incorrect posting as the approximately 6 to 8 hour period looks identical to the run time of between hours 2 and 4.

ScopeView is scaling up the plot by 10X just before the 6 hour mark for legibility.

What you are seeing at the 6 hour mark is the remains of the plot of the first 4 hours. ScopeView does not erase the previous plot when it starts a new graph! That also indicates where I stopped the runtime plot. I very seldom run a plot of a LED till the battery goes dead....that could take days in some cases.

I see now. Roy, what are your impressions of the light output curve compared to the Arc AAA? I have been meaning to go to my local REI to pick one of these lights up. From beamshots I have seen, I think I prefer the wider output of the Arc AAA.

Roy, could we have a side by side comparison of the Arc-AAA and CMG Sonic run time graphs with the same scale for each? This will require a replot of the data since you used 15min/div for the Sonic and 30min/div for the AAA. This difference in scale makes the lights confusing to compare. If you have the raw data, I can plot it for you in Excel.

Peter

Peter, e-mail sent.

Here's a side by side of the ARC AAA on the left and the CMG Sonic on the right. The lights were about 3 inches from the target.

Roy,
Does the Sonic have a hotter hotspot and more throw? Very hard to tell from the pic although it would seem to have it.

The sonic has, for all practical purposes, no side spill! My eyes can't see any difference at the end of the hallway between the AAA or the Sonic. The photocell is busy or I wounld put each light (touching the photocell and thus no light loss) on the photocell to see which is brighter.

Hmmmm. The Sonic doesn't look like it would be much of a task light at all.

Roy sent me the data and I plotted them together. The plot was done with an older Arc-AAA. The newer ones are more efficient.

It's up to Roy if he wants to show the combined plot.

Peter

EDITED:

Here's Peters re-ploting of my runtime plots:

If I'm reading that runtime plot correctly, the Sonic runs for about 4 hours (to half brightness) and then starts circling the drain. The packaging says it runs for "10 hours peak brightness", which I thought was horse puckey given the 215mA current draw.

Man, that comparison plot vs. the Arc AAA makes the Sonic look pretty sad.

I wonder if the Sonic uses the same circuit as the Infinity Ultra. If yes, the Arc AAA is also more efficient than the Ultra, and so the Arc AA should also beat the Ultra.

Looks like the battle is over!
Looks like the Sonic was utterly destroyed by the Arc AAA. The Arc is brighter with a much broader beam and good spill. It is shorter, smaller in diameter/length, more durable and IMHO looks much better. Now, it lasts much, much longer so the Sonic looses on all counts save two: availability and cost. I need to get one of those for my wife's keychain, she keeps eyeballing the Micro.
I wonder how the run times of the coming soon Arc AA will compare with the Infinity Ultra? I bet the Arc AA with a lithium will make sense to a lot of people after this week.

It looks to me like the Arc AAA wins mostly because its regulator has a lower cutout voltage than the CMG. That suggests that with a flatter-discharge battery (e.g. lithium) the advantage will be smaller. So an Arc AA vs. a CMG Ultra both running on lithiums or NiMH may be a closer contest than the Arc AA vs. Ultra both running on alkalines or Zn-C cells. I'm looking forward to actual tests.

Note that the Arc AAA does pretty well on cheap zinc-carbon AAA cells. I think that's a significant test because sometimes that's the only kind of batteries you can get. I'd like to see runtime tests of both the Arc AA and CMG Ultra with Zn-C cells.

A further request--Roy, could you make plots for the Arc AAA and the Sonic running on NiMH cells? Their flatter discharge curve would make cutout voltage differences less important and better show differences in converter efficiency. Thanks.

[ QUOTE ]
BentHeadTX said:
Looks like the battle is over!
Looks like the Sonic was utterly destroyed by the Arc AAA. The Arc is brighter with a much broader beam and good spill.


[/ QUOTE ]

Problem....Price. People (non-flashaholics) will still pick the Sonic over the Arc because of the price.

Also the led museum website says the Sonic is brighter than the Arc AAA. I can tell you my Sonic is also brighter than my Arc AAA.

[ QUOTE ]
AZMAN said:
[ QUOTE ]
BentHeadTX said:
Looks like the battle is over!
Looks like the Sonic was utterly destroyed by the Arc AAA. The Arc is brighter with a much broader beam and good spill.


[/ QUOTE ]

Problem....Price. People (non-flashaholics) will still pick the Sonic over the Arc because of the price.

Also the led museum website says the Sonic is brighter than the Arc AAA. I can tell you my Sonic is also brighter than my Arc AAA.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes, but those non-flashoholics most likely don't know about the good pricing($15) you can find and the Sonic and they will most likely see the Sonic for themselves in stores, in which the price will almost always be more(Sonic-$20~). The arc aaa can still be had at some places on the internet for around $20~. and wouldn't the better word's to describe the Sonic be "more focused" not brighter?