PK Design Lab
Page 1 of 12 1234567811 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 333

Thread: Quark Moonlight Runtime Test

  1. #1

    Default Quark Moonlight Runtime Test

    *** Test Completed 9/9/2010; Results Below ***

    Alright, I said I'd do this, so here it is... I'm going to watch the grass grow over the next few days and see what time will tell us.

    Here's my test... At Noon today, I fired up 3 single AA Quarks and an Eiger #1 all running on AA batteries. (The Eiger via the VC AA Arc adapter)

    2 of the Quarks (one XP-E and one XP-G) and the Eiger are running on freshly cycled (via the lacrosse discharge/refresh selection) Eneloops.

    One of the Quarks (an XP-E) is running on a brand new Duracell Alkaline AA

    I am having a heck of a time with uploading photos, so I'm going to run this test verbally for all of you as I'm simply running until lights off.

    I'm not expecting much of a difference between the two crees overall, so I also feel the Alkaline running with the XP-E will be fairly indicative of the XP-G runtime when all is said and done.

    I'll check the lights @ roughly 12 hour intervals and make updates here every 12-24 hours as I expect this to be a long one!!! (at least I hope so) I'll also update if anything changes... for instance, as the Eiger dims over time and gets to the output level of the Quarks.

    Hope you enjoy this one folks, the latest of the lowest of the lows series of time killers!!!

    Regards,
    Darvis

    Update 9/9/2010: For those of you intereted in the lithium primary version of this test, a new post has been started here: http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/...28#post3519028

    Also, forgot to note that all three Eneloops came off the charger @ 1.46v and were between 1979 and 2000 mah as indicated by the lacrosse after the refresh

    As for the three Quarks: One XP-E is a tactical, one is a standard. The XP-G is a tactical model. I Don't forsee this skewing anything, but if anyone knows differently, let me know

    I honestly don't remeber which XP-E got the alkaline, but I'll note that at the end of the test. (It was the regular UI version)

    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    Results
    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

    Peak Eiger XP-G #1 (Eneloop AA, VC AA adapter)

    25.5 hours to 50%
    30.75 hours to less than Quark moon mode (The Eiger "moon" mode lasted 3.5 hours)
    47 hours to tritium brightness and .97v

    Conclusion: A very nice steady, predictable and utterly usable decline over the course of 47 hours. This light will not just turn off on you and the VC AA adapter is extremely well made and makes for a great camping/survival rig. (I still prefer the AAA format for EDC given its compactness)

    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

    Quark XP-G Tactical (Eneloop AA)

    266 hours to off and .91v

    Quark XP-E Tactical (Eneloop AA)

    270 hours to off and .90v

    Quark XP-E Regular (Duracell Alkaline AA)

    470 hours to off and .77v

    Conclusion: Holy Guacamole! 19.6 days continuous on an alkaline!


    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

    The lonely brothers Quark:




    I also wanted to note (based on the recent banner warning against shilling) that I am running these tests for my own knowledge and to share with others in this forum. These were lights purchased with my own money for my personal use and I am in no way endorsing ANY brand of light, battery, accessory or dealer. Any of my opinions in this thread are my own, and you, as a reader, are free to form your own conclusions about the data presented here.

    Enjoy!
    Last edited by Darvis; 09-09-2010 at 01:48 PM.

  2. #2
    Flashaholic* copperfox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    RI
    Posts
    770

    Default Re: Quark Moonlight Runtime Test

    No Quarks came with the XR-E. Perhaps you meant XP-E?

    Good luck, I look forward to seeing the results.


  3. #3

    Default Re: Quark Moonlight Runtime Test

    I'm glad someone is doing this test. I can't wait!

  4. #4

    Default Re: Quark Moonlight Runtime Test

    Quote Originally Posted by copperfox View Post
    No Quarks came with the XR-E. Perhaps you meant XP-E?

    Good luck, I look forward to seeing the results.
    Copperfox, thanks for the catch! I do that all the time for some reason... I've corrected my opening post

  5. #5
    Flashaholic*
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Bay Area, CA
    Posts
    1,095

    Default Re: Quark Moonlight Runtime Test

    Darvis, thanks for doing this test!

    Quote Originally Posted by Darvis View Post
    Here's my test... At Noon today, I fired up 3 single AA Quarks and an Eiger #1 all running on AA batteries. (The Eiger via the VC AA Arc adapter)
    Wow, I had no idea the Valiant adapter worked on Eigers. Good info. to know for sure.

  6. #6

    Default Re: Quark Moonlight Runtime Test

    Wow, I had no idea the Valiant adapter worked on Eigers. Good info. to know for sure.
    Sure does! I have all stainless heads and it makes for one extremely smooth turning twisty. Looks like a .308 round at first glance due to the shape, but works all the same. The adapter itself is of very high quality as well.

    It's an olive green shade of ano (in case you were wondering) and it's coated on the inside. The talicap is nicely done, uses a full spring, and from what I've read here in the forums, that spring can be flipped (somehow) and used with your choice of resistor to control output and runtime even more. Not exactly sure how this works, but I aim to find out. MWClint talks about it here in post #14: http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/...d.php?t=287386

    A tad bit pricey, but hey, it doubles your AAA fun in more ways than one!
    Last edited by Darvis; 08-20-2010 at 01:11 PM.

  7. #7
    Flashaholic* fisk-king's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    close to U.N.A.
    Posts
    1,046

    Default Re: Quark Moonlight Runtime Test

    I'm glad someone else out there is doing a "moonlight" runtime test besides me. Since Sunday I have been running my Ra at its lowest setting. Can't wait to see the results of your test.

    Also, if you have the tactical version maybe we can see a test run of the ''eclipse'' mode.

    Nick
    "Now they will know why they are afraid of the dark. Now they learn why they fear the night."-Thulsa Doom PAYPAL FEE CALCULATOR; list of lights.

  8. #8
    Flashaholic* Wiggle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Halifax, NS
    Posts
    1,124

    Default Re: Quark Moonlight Runtime Test

    I'd love to do a test but I don't think I can leave my Quark alone that long.

  9. #9
    Flashaholic* Cataract's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    3,769

    Default Re: Quark Moonlight Runtime Test

    I need my quarks too often to be able to do this

    Cataract, Shiny things specialist.
    Google Map for CPF

  10. #10
    Flashaholic Zendude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Fairfield Ca.
    Posts
    341

    Default Re: Quark Moonlight Runtime Test

    Hey folks,

    When Darvis said he was going to do this I went ahead and started a couple lights on low mode.

    The contenders:

    Nitecore D10 GDP (Duraloop)
    Ti Quark MiNi AA (alkie)
    NW Quark MiNi AA (Duraloop)

    As of 30hrs the Ti Quark and D10 are doing fine.

    The NW Quark on the other hand died somewhere between 24-28hrs. Voltage was .89V. I didn't expect it to die so soon or I would have been monitoring a little more closely. I'm going to redo the test with a different battery in case it was a dud.

    I was going to include my ZL h50b and h501 but I didn't have enough charged cells. I charged some last night so maybe I'll start them when I get home.
    Last edited by Zendude; 08-20-2010 at 02:21 PM.

  11. #11

    Default Re: Quark Moonlight Runtime Test

    Quote Originally Posted by fisk-king View Post
    Also, if you have the tactical version maybe we can see a test run of the ''eclipse'' mode.
    I just did a search for eclipse mode... I've never heard of it before, but apparently quarks use it... is it some super secret .001 lumen mode I've never heard of?

  12. #12
    Flashaholic*
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    3,567

    Default Re: Quark Moonlight Runtime Test

    If you measure the current off the battery when you start you can get in the ballpark of what the runtime will be for a regulated light on Nimh. Not so much for Alkies and unregulated lights.
    Light is the activity of what is transparent - Aristotle

  13. #13
    Flashaholic* rookiedaddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    A Place Called HOME
    Posts
    538

    Default Re: Quark Moonlight Runtime Test

    Quote Originally Posted by Zendude View Post
    The NW Quark on the other hand died somewhere between 24-28hrs. Voltage was .89V. I didn't expect it to die so soon or I would have been monitoring a little more closely. I'm going to redo the test with a different battery in case it was a dud.
    Zendude, your result is consistent with what some of us did a while back in this thread >> Quark Mini AA WW Lo-mode Runtime...

  14. #14
    Flashaholic*
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    MA
    Posts
    565

    Default Re: Quark Moonlight Runtime Test

    Quote Originally Posted by wyager View Post
    I just did a search for eclipse mode... I've never heard of it before, but apparently quarks use it... is it some super secret .001 lumen mode I've never heard of?
    Are you kidding? Any links to more info on this?

    IIRC the Quarks have no parasitic drain when off, right?

  15. #15
    Flashaholic* fisk-king's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    close to U.N.A.
    Posts
    1,046

    Default Re: Quark Moonlight Runtime Test

    Quote Originally Posted by wyager View Post
    I just did a search for eclipse mode... I've never heard of it before, but apparently quarks use it... is it some super secret .001 lumen mode I've never heard of?
    http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/...d.php?t=246126

    There is another thread at the marketplace on this subject as well. Also, some Fenix lights exhibit the same mode. The brightness is comparable to a Titan t1a on low.
    "Now they will know why they are afraid of the dark. Now they learn why they fear the night."-Thulsa Doom PAYPAL FEE CALCULATOR; list of lights.

  16. #16
    Flashaholic* AnAppleSnail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    South Hill, VA
    Posts
    4,061

    Default Re: Quark Moonlight Runtime Test

    Quote Originally Posted by Xak View Post
    Are you kidding? Any links to more info on this?

    IIRC the Quarks have no parasitic drain when off, right?
    One dimmer (but higher-drawing! ) mode is to have the quark on the edge of changing from loose back to tight and slightly press the head inwards. Done correctly, a much dimmer-than-moonlight lasts until you click the Quark off or turn the head (or wiggle the head, if your O-ring isn't stable). Not sure if that's cool enough to be Cullen-worthy.
    My biggest light-hog is my camera.

  17. #17

    Default Re: Quark Moonlight Runtime Test

    It appears it is a hardware glitch, and consumes more power than moon or low modes. I would not recommend it. Also, I now have to look up this programming mode, I thought I saw it mentioned a long time ago, something about 200 quick power cycles? I saw it mentioned in the marketplace thread.

  18. #18

    Default Re: Quark Moonlight Runtime Test

    Well folks, I'm 10.5 hours in at this point and not a darn thing to report, all lights exactly the same as when I turned them on. Next report in the morning at some point.

    These recent low mode run tests have completely converted me to the lower, darker side of flashaholism... I remain amazed at what these AAA and AA lights can do.

    Take this scenario: You have your Peak Eiger #0 or #1 mated to a VC AA adapter and are camping. You can literally turn the sucker on and not even bother to turn it off for the entire night, confident that it will run for the whole entire NEXT NIGHT!!!!

    If you're using an Eneloop and carry a powerfilm solar charger (as I do) just top the sucker off each day courtesy of the sun... One battery, one light, as long as you need it. Heck, say you just use the AAA setup... it'll still run all night.

    The best part is that the whole package is so incredibly small and makes EDC so easy. I now have a tiny light in my pocket and a spare battery on my keychain for about 40 hours of light potential.

    I love my big lights, but man, these little guys are my new favorites by far.

    Anyway, catch you all in the morning. ZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

  19. #19
    Flashaholic*
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Glendale, Arizona
    Posts
    1,397

    Default Re: Quark Moonlight Runtime Test

    These low, low light runtime tests are becoming addictive. Thanks to everyone for all the effort.
    Peakaholic!

  20. #20

    Default Re: Quark Moonlight Runtime Test

    Awesome!!!! Another run-time test, this time in moon mode!!!! This will take a while.

  21. #21

    Default Re: Quark Moonlight Runtime Test

    Yeah this is great, thanks guys for doing this

    Now if we could just come up with a huge spreadsheet that could list each regularly manufactured flashlight with runtimes with alkies, nimh, li-ion, lithium at each of the different power settings ROFL.

    Then we could all just look and see what lumens for what runtimes for what type of battery, and bingo come up with a list of what we want to buy!

  22. #22
    Flashaholic* AnAppleSnail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    South Hill, VA
    Posts
    4,061

    Default Re: Quark Moonlight Runtime Test

    Quote Originally Posted by wyager View Post
    It appears it is a hardware glitch, and consumes more power than moon or low modes. I would not recommend it. Also, I now have to look up this programming mode, I thought I saw it mentioned a long time ago, something about 200 quick power cycles? I saw it mentioned in the marketplace thread.
    There's another light out there with a "deluxe" programmable and "lame" non-programmable, where you get the programmable UI with a ludicrous number of on/off cycles...but I hadn't heard of this with the Quark regular.
    My biggest light-hog is my camera.

  23. #23
    Flashaholic Zendude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Fairfield Ca.
    Posts
    341

    Default Re: Quark Moonlight Runtime Test

    Hey folks,

    My tests for this batch are done.

    NW Quark MiNi AA: 24-28hrs (with duraloop) .89V

    Ti Quark MiNi AA: 36hrs (with duracell) .69V

    Nitecore D10 GDP ~48hrs (with duraloop) .86V

    I gotta say that I'm pretty disappointed in the results.

    I just started my ZL lights and I'm retesting the NW Quark MiNi AA(all with Eneloops).

    Edit: @rookiedaddy: I don't know how I missed that thread! As usual, I'm one step behind! I won't bother retesting the mini. I'm still disappointed with the alkie test. It was the cell that came with the light.
    Last edited by Zendude; 08-21-2010 at 12:09 PM.

  24. #24

    Default Re: Quark Moonlight Runtime Test

    Sorry for the delay folks, my DSL was down all morning.

    For starters, we're at hour 25.5 and there is no change for the three Quarks...

    The Peak went an impressive 22.5 hours with no change in brightness compared to hour 1, however, at ~ hour 23, the light began its decline in brightness, following the Eneloops NIMH discharge curve. At hour 25.5, it's still brighter than the Quarks by about a bit more than half, so there is still time to go before it matches the moonlight brightness level. I'm calling this 50% brightness for the Peak.

    Compare this to the 11-12 run of the peak on a AAA before it began to decline and until it was completely done at hour 22ish. This light continues to impress, especially mated to the Arc AA adapter. The #0 and Sub Zero should be all the more impressive!

    Catch you all a little later on!

    D
    Last edited by Darvis; 08-21-2010 at 03:52 PM.

  25. #25

    Default Re: Quark Moonlight Runtime Test

    Quote Originally Posted by AnAppleSnail View Post
    There's another light out there with a "deluxe" programmable and "lame" non-programmable, where you get the programmable UI with a ludicrous number of on/off cycles...but I hadn't heard of this with the Quark regular.
    Thanks, I looked it up yesterday. I thought it was funny how they charged you more for the exact same light, with the exact same amount of code

  26. #26

    Default Re: Quark Moonlight Runtime Test

    Hour 27 brings the peak to Quark moonlight level as it continues to decline, I imagine it will run until about hour 28 before it drops below.

    The Quarks are as they were....

    Will post back in a few hours

  27. #27

    Default Re: Quark Moonlight Runtime Test

    Thanks for testing the Peak with the AA body. How many hours will it need to be, to compare to 3x the runtime of the AAA used in the regular test? It seems like it may fall short of 3 times the runtime on AAA.

  28. #28

    Default Re: Quark Moonlight Runtime Test

    It would need to go ~39 hours for a true tripling of hours (runtime to 50%) but I'm not sure it's a simple tripling to get there. The AAA's are 800 mah and the AA's are 2000 mah, so it's less than triple the reserves to start. That and I believe it really comes down the discharge curve of the battery and the VF of the led.

    I had done the math based on Peak's specs and thought it would at least run 38 hours to half brightness; waaayyyy off I know!!! I now know that I 100% messed the math up when calculating for the AA runtimes. I at least know the AAA math is right as both your tests and mine verified the results I had gotten when running the pure numbers.

    If I look at how the math worked for the AAA, I was getting 13 hours to 50% and this combination absolutely went 25+ hours before it hit that point. I think this is more realistic as I imagine that we're really dealing with a doubling of runtime when going AA and not a tripling. In other words, I think the Peak is dead on based on the specs published by Curt on the RMSK website.

    If that's the case, I would see the #0 easily running right around 36 hours to 50% on a AA Eneloop... I have no data for the Sub Zero.

    All that aside, @ 28.75 hours, the Peak is still as bright as the Quarks!!!! I now feel the Peak will go at least 30 hours before dropping lower than the Quarks.

    No change for the Quarks.

    The final results for the Peak XP-G #1 Eiger will probably look something like this:

    25.5 hours to 50% (confirmed)
    ~30+ hours to less than Quark moon mode (tbd)
    ???? to tritium brightness, and thus the end for the Peak (tbd)
    Last edited by Darvis; 08-21-2010 at 03:56 PM.

  29. #29

    Default Re: Quark Moonlight Runtime Test

    Darvis, did you read my results on the Eiger #0 and #Subzero? I am puzzled why they both had pretty much the same runtime when I ended it (once it got dimmer than Quark brightness). The voltage wasn't particularly favoring the #Subzero either I think it was .1v more on the #Subzero than the #0. The #0 has a 56ohm resistor and the #Subzero has a 80ohm resistor according to Mark @ Peak. I was thinking that the resistor would not only reduce the lumens much lower (which it did), but also run the LED at a lower drive current so it would extend runtime, but I didn't see that benefit. Any idea of why this would be?

  30. #30

    Default Re: Quark Moonlight Runtime Test

    I did see your results and I honestly do not know the answer, but my guess would be something akin to resistance having more effect on the brightness of the bulb and not the equivalent effect on runtime. I would think the battery is supplying as much power to the resistor in both cases, and that does not, somehow translate to increased potential as much as it does decreased voltage to the LED. I guess what I'm getting at is maybe it has an exponential effect on brightness, but not on runtime, so there's no apparent 1:1 correlation that we see? Maybe the circuits are less efficient as the resistance increases????

    But am no electrical engineer, so that is my SWAG!!! Maybe someone can explain it? That would be good to know!
    Last edited by Darvis; 08-21-2010 at 04:54 PM.

Page 1 of 12 1234567811 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •