AMILITE T5 RUNTIME

FASTCAR

Banned
Joined
Nov 18, 2006
Messages
786
Location
NJ /Oh / Fla
Any T5 runtimes yet with different batts?


Also Is the T5 more lumens on a R-3.7 then a primary?

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
 
Last edited:

FASTCAR

Banned
Joined
Nov 18, 2006
Messages
786
Location
NJ /Oh / Fla
Ya I saw all those nice beamies :) ]

Now we need the good tech stuff.

Maybee if I flash the Bat signal..Chevyfreak will put on his cape..fly in and do some runtimes and lumen counts :)
 

cernobila

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Nov 27, 2004
Messages
1,739
Location
Adelaide, Australia
FASTCAR said:
Any T5 runtimes yet with different batts?


Also Is the T5 more lumens on a R-3.7 then a primary?

:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:

Just tried a fresh AW 3.7 RCR123 in my T5 and measured it on my camera and it is brighter than a CR 123 cell on both low and high....should have tried this earlier!!....I am sure that the run time will not be as good with the RCR compared to the CR.
 

NAW

Enlightened
Joined
May 18, 2006
Messages
739
I wonder how the T5 would do with a BatteryStation 3.7V 900mah RCR123.
 

Gannz

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
75
I get right around 20 minutes on high w/ a Powerizer 3.7v 650 mah unprotected cell.
 

Gannz

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
75
dammitjim said:
20 minutes? Is that typo?

No, 20 minutes on high seems to be the norm on 3.6/3.7v RCR's. It will run longer but output is greatly reduced b/c voltage drops below 3v after 20 min. It's in direct drive (no regulation) on high w/ a 3.7v RCR. Primaries and 3v RCR's get longer runtimes but decreased brightness.

I thought I read somewhere that someone got 50 minutes on high with a 900mah (or 990mah?) Ultrafire RCR but I can't find the thread and I'm not sure that they specified 3.0v or 3.6/3.7v. I'd assume it would have to be a 3.0v to get that kind of runtime.
 
Last edited:

adirondackdestroyer

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Oct 31, 2005
Messages
2,018
Flashlightreviews has the review of the Amilite T5 up now. He only did a graph for High with a primary CR123 but it's a good start.

http://flashlightreviews.com/reviews/amilite_neot5.htm

It ran for 50 minutes in regulation and around 1 hour before it hit 50%, not bad considering it's around 115 lumens!

Maybe Chevro will get one in his hands and do a bunch of different runtimes with all the cells and output levels.
 

FASTCAR

Banned
Joined
Nov 18, 2006
Messages
786
Location
NJ /Oh / Fla
It **Seems** the Quickbeam graph is the same as the T3..as in he just copied it ..assuming it is the same.

It may be..I dont know.


As always I wait for Chevyfreak to chime in with a sexy graph!

Hats off and cheers to that guy ! He does alot for us.:rock:
 

pilou

Enlightened
Joined
Jun 13, 2006
Messages
540
FASTCAR said:
It **Seems** the Quickbeam graph is the same as the T3..as in he just copied it ...



Put them side by side and you will see that they are not the same.
 

adirondackdestroyer

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Oct 31, 2005
Messages
2,018
Nope, it is not a copied graph of the T3. It just happens to be that the overall runtime to 50% is very very similar between both lights. The output however is no where near the same. The T5 has right around the same runtime, but has well over two times the overall output.




FASTCAR said:
It **Seems** the Quickbeam graph is the same as the T3..as in he just copied it ..assuming it is the same.

It may be..I dont know.


As always I wait for Chevyfreak to chime in with a sexy graph!

Hats off and cheers to that guy ! He does alot for us.:rock:
 

Quickbeam

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 19, 2001
Messages
4,329
Location
FlashlightReviews.com
FASTCAR said:
It **Seems** the Quickbeam graph is the same as the T3..as in he just copied it ..assuming it is the same.

It may be..I dont know.

ABSOLUTELY NOT! This was a separate runtime folks. I would not make that assumption. I'm just as interested as you about the actual runtime of these lights.

Now watch... someone with tooooo much time on their hands and a bone to pick with my reviews is going to use Google to comb through the entire site, find one instance where a runtime graph could have been copied, and make an insanely big deal out of it ... :ohgeez: :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

cratz2

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 6, 2003
Messages
3,947
Location
Central IN
FASTCAR said:
It **Seems** the Quickbeam graph is the same as the T3..as in he just copied it ..assuming it is the same.

It may be..I dont know.


As always I wait for Chevyfreak to chime in with a sexy graph!

Hats off and cheers to that guy ! He does alot for us.:rock:

ohgeez.gif


What the heck is wrong with some people?!
Christo_pull_hair.gif


Why would someone even take time out of their day to hurl intentional 'unintentional' insults at someone that has done so much to help CPF?

I just don't get it.

It **Seems** as though FASTCAR has nothing better to do with his time than sling completely unfounded derogatory remarks at CMF members... but don't that personally FASTCAR.
 

DM51

Super Moderator,
Supporter
Joined
Oct 31, 2006
Messages
13,338
Location
Borg cube #51
Well said, cratz2. And I think the next thing we're going to get is a flood of people wanting to find someone else to blame for their burned-out lights because they've stuck 3.7v Li-Ions into them instead of primaries.
 

FASTCAR

Banned
Joined
Nov 18, 2006
Messages
786
Location
NJ /Oh / Fla
CRATZ2

Actually it was not an insult.I like Doug and have said many times he did great stuff for us.

THAT SAID: On many occasions he has coppied data from similar items or brands to save time.He used several types of time saving tricks and I dont blame him.
In fact if you read HIS site you can even see him say so in his OWN words.

All I did was look at the review...I remembered from years ago the old run time graph and said the t5 "looked' the same and "maybee" he did a copy of the old graph.I did not "accuse" him of a single bad act.

I have never "slung" bad remarks at a single person here.In fact I have stated im here to help others.

Perhaps re-read ..think..then type.

**BTW If you read my posts about "I TESTED ALL THE CREE LIGHTS" you will find out I dont beat around the bush...if I wanted to say somthing bad here..I WOULD .

***ALSO I have tried to help here.In fact got quite a few TYs.Perhaps dont attack me as I am here helping others.

My 2 cents
 

SEMIJim

Enlightened
Joined
Jan 21, 2007
Messages
344
Location
S.E. Michigan
FASTCAR said:
CRATZ2
Actually it was not an insult. ...
...
All I did was look at the review...I remembered from years ago the old run time graph and said the t5 "looked' the same and "maybee" he did a copy of the old graph.I did not "accuse" him of a single bad act.
Um, FASTCAR, I think you need to re-think this one.

If you truly cannot see why somebody who puts as much work into what he does as Quickbeam obviously does would not regard being accused of copying runtime graphs, rather than actually doing a runtime test on a new light, as a slight, I don't know what to say.
 

Latest posts

Top