Logan QTC Runtime test... DONE!

[scout24]

So as to avoid confusion... Logan QTC running on a SF 123 primary just crossed 205 hours at an output level roughly equivalent to a Quark AA on moonlight mode. Continued from Beacon of Light's Eiger QTC runtime test thread... More to follow...

 

[cave dave]

Re: Logan QTC Runtime test

So as to avoid confusion... Logan QTC running on a SF 123 primary just crossed 205 hours at an output level roughly equivalent to a Quark AA on moonlight mode. Continued from Beacon of Light's Eiger QTC runtime test thread... More to follow...

The Quark on moonlight level running SF CR123 got 31days (runtime also by scout24) so this test might last awhile.

 

[Beacon of Light]

Re: Logan QTC Runtime test

The Quark on moonlight level running SF CR123 got 31days (runtime also by scout24) so this test might last awhile.

That's a long time from now as 31 days is 744 hours.

 

[Burgess]

Re: Logan QTC Runtime test

Thank you for doing these Long-Term runtime tests.


:thumbsup:

 

[scout24]

Re: Logan QTC Runtime test

216 hours... 9 days and still going. Burgess- I enjoy doing this to see what the real runtime capabilities of my lights are! Plus, it's just fun. :grouphug: As much as I'd like to see this run forever. I'd like to get some pocket time with the Logan. May need to order another...

 

[scout24]

Re: Logan QTC Runtime test

252 hours and running like a champ... My apologies for no update last night, but a rather large family gathering to celebrate July 4th was attended. My recently graduated Nephew is going to Ft. Benning to begin U.S. Army Basic Training later this month, so it was quite a party.

 

[scout24]

Re: Logan QTC Runtime test

263 and 1/2 hours, no change... just shy of 11 days. A bit early tonight, I'm trying for an extra bit of sleep. Had a mildly disturbing thought- I wonder how elastic the QTC is and if I'm causing it to permanently "set" or if it's designed to be okay with this compression, however slight, and spring back? Curt or Bob, any thoughts??? Also, any plans for a CR2 sized body for the HA logan QTC?

 

[RAGE CAGE]

Re: Logan QTC Runtime test

263 and 1/2 hours, no change... just shy of 11 days. A bit early tonight, I'm trying for an extra bit of sleep. Had a mildly disturbing thought- I wonder how elastic the QTC is and if I'm causing it to permanently "set" or if it's designed to be okay with this compression, however slight, and spring back? Curt or Bob, any thoughts??? Also, any plans for a CR2 sized body for the HA logan QTC?

hmmm....Quantum Compression......sure hope you don't rip a hole in the time space continueum.:thinking:

 

[scout24]

Re: Logan QTC Runtime test

288 hours as of 1/2 hour ago, still going strong... 12 days and counting.

 

[scout24]

Re: Logan QTC Runtime test

312 hours, closing in on one hour of use per day (at this level...) for a YEAR on one primary... past a month worth of constant nightlight use, (10 hrs/ night) which this would be too bright for anyway... I'd REALLY like to carry this puppy sometime soon.

 

[jabe1]

Re: Logan QTC Runtime test

We appreciate the sacrifice!

 

[scout24]

Re: Logan QTC Runtime test

A few hours early tonight, just because... Got home from work, checked on the Logan, still going at 333 hours. Just for giggles, I ramped it up to full output for 5 seconds or so, and it held like a champ.Plenty of mah's left? Tomorrow night will be 360 hours. I'm not a betting man, but we're almost halfway to my Quark moonlight test duration. Either way, I'm duly impressed. Super runtime, variable, nice beam, and I'm guessing that like my other Peaks, a bunch of useful output left once it starts tapering off. I'll mark an ending time once below this output, and let it go down to my unofficial Titan output level to see what the taper time looks like. I did order another one last night to carry, hope to have it Monday for higher level use next week.

 

[Derek Dean]

Re: Logan QTC Runtime test

Howdy scout24,
I've been enjoying your runtime test, well, at least as much as I can from the other side of the monitor , but I just wanted to clarify something.

My understanding is that you set your light to approximately the same level as a Quark on moonlight mode, correct? Sooooooo........ don't we also need a runtime test at the lowest possible output available on your light?

Oh, I see you just ordered another light. Great. You can do the ultimate low runtime test with that one :naughty:.

I'll guess 1142 hours.

 

[Curt R]

Re: Logan QTC Runtime test

The problem is the approximate level set to the Quark. Without a light-box
to set them to the same level of Lumen output, there may be as much as
30% difference in output. That could result in as much as 50% difference in
run time. We are also looking at two completely different types of electronics
that power the two lights.

Using the QTC does a better job of low light efficiency than our previous single
low level output heads. Those had a power loss in the current limiting resistor
that the QTC eliminates.

We thought that the method of multiple light output levels obtained by twisting
the head on and off multiple times to find the level required, or by pushing a
button multiple times was dumb. Miss or overshoot, and you had to start all over
again. And sometimes they will automatically change levels by themselves.

There are two other battery compartments that will work with the Logan head:

The 17500 Lithium-Ion battery compartment that will give about 50% more run time
than the CR123A battery, That compartment can also use a standard AA/14500
battery. CR123A, AA and AAA adapters for that compartment will be available soon.

The other is a 2 x AA battery compartment that will give 100% increase in
battery run time. Limited to three volts total, two Alkaline, two Lithium or two
NiMh batteries. Do not use two 14500 Lithium-Ion batteries as the voltage would be
toooooo high.

Curt

 

[scout24]

Re: Logan QTC Runtime test

359 1/2 hours, no changes... Curt- thank you for your observations and thoughts on the variance and possible resultant skew in data... As said, this is approximate, and for a few Flashaholic's amusement. Whatever the results, I'm truly impressed, and ordered a second Logan. Efficiency at the lower levels and long runtime are very worthwhile goals, and when the resultant product works this well at all output levels, all the better!

 

[Curt R]

Re: Logan QTC Runtime test

I wanted to make sure that whatever result that you obtain is not
taken as an absolute, as is sometimes assumed by some on this forum.

It is entertaining. :goodjob:

Curt

 

[scout24]

Re: Logan QTC Runtime test

Well, stick a fork in it! It's over... About 1:30pm, (45 minutes ago) I went to check on it, and it was barely glowing. I was in the same drawer getting my wallet out to go into town maybe an hour before, and it was fine. Took it out, and literally watched it blink off. Went and got my multimeter, battery at 2.07v. 376+ hours at my arbitrary level with a few ramps up to max output thrown into the mix. Unofficial results with a randomly picked SF primary cell. YMMV... Already back in my pocket with an AW RCR in it.:rock: Nicely done, Peak...

 

[regulator]

Re: Logan QTC Runtime test

Your will power to get a new light and wait so long before getting to use it is strong.

Thanks for the test. I received my 17500 Logan yesterday and really like it a lot. The really low modes (...output) is great and fun to use knowing it barely uses any battery reserve.

I will probably try a runtime test at a medium level using an AA cell and compare it against some AA lights I have. One is an El Captain number 6 level. But that's after I get to use it a bit.

 

[Derek Dean]

Yes, thanks scout24 for the patience and will power to do this test. It was fun to follow and gave us a good, solid real world example of how well the new QTC lights will perform at low light levels.

 

[Beacon of Light]

Yes, thanks scout24 for the patience and will power to do this test. It was fun to follow and gave us a good, solid real world example of how well the new QTC lights will perform at low light levels.

that was a cool and long drawn out runtime test scout! Thanks! I'll be waiting for the 17500 QTC tube and battery kit so I can try the Logan on AAA and AA NiMH on a low runtime test like both my Logan and Eiger in this thread.