Beamshots - JET-I PRO V2 I.B.S. VS JET-I PRO V3.0

[jahxman]

Ok, this is my first attempt at beamshots so be gentle with me
I have in hand the JetBeam JET-I PRO V2, which has a Cree XR-E 7090 Q5 bin emitter, and I just got the JetBeam JET-I PRO V3.0, with an R2 emitter. The v3.0 came with a smooth reflector but I have installed the OP reflector here, for better comparison with the v2.0, which also has an OP reflector.

First, the V2.0 Q5:

And now the JET-I PRO V3.0 R2:

And the two side by side, V3.0 R2 is on the left

Is it just me or does the R2 seem warmer than the Q5? Is that normal?

 

[kramer5150]

Is it just me or does the R2 seem warmer than the Q5? Is that normal?

Yes... tint differences within each color BIN can be noticeable.

 

[berry580]

just from the beamshots, i can't see how the V3 w/ R2 is noticably brighter than the V2 w/ Q5

 

[jahxman]

I'd have to say, subjectively it is not brighter. The circuit is supposed to be more efficient, which increases the runtime.

With the included SMO reflector there is a tighter hot spot and more throw; I'll try to get a shot of that. Here I am using the OP reflector.

I will try a runtime comparison later today.

 

[wapkil]

I'd have to say, subjectively it is not brighter. The circuit is supposed to be more efficient, which increases the runtime.

It is supposed to be a little brighter but not much. 240lm vs. 225lm is less than 7% difference, impossible to notice.

I will try a runtime comparison later today.

 

[jahxman]

Ok, informal runtime comparison on HIGH:

Light Time until switch to low
JET-I PRO V2 26 minutes
JET-I PRO V3 36 minutes

I used Ultrafire unprotected 14500 900mAh batteries with a fresh charge in each.

I will do a more rigorous runtime comparison later, with my meter recording output, and get more exact timings.

 

[wapkil]

Ok, informal runtime comparison on HIGH:

Light Time until switch to low
JET-I PRO V2 26 minutes
JET-I PRO V3 36 minutes

Well, not bad but not the promised 45 minutes either. What do you mean by "switch to low"? Does it go to the moon mode at the end of the runtime?

 

[jahxman]

Well, not bad but not the promised 45 minutes either.

Yeah, these 14500's have seen some use, and maybe fresher better ones would do better. It also seemed to me that things were shortened by heat, it is warm here today, and although I had a fan on the flashlights during the runtime test, they got very hot.

The batteries when they came out of the lights right after the test were showing 2.75 to 2.8 volts, but after cooling down recovered to 3.2 volts, so probably the heat was a factor here.

What do you mean by "switch to low"? Does it go to the moon mode at the end of the runtime?

Yes, the times I gave were the time until it switched to low. I wouldn't quite call it a moon mode though; it's not quite that low. At this point I took the batteries out; I didn't try to time how long moon mode would last.

 

[jahxman]

Tailcap current draw measurement, made with an Ultrafire unprotected 14500 900mAh battery with a fresh charge:

JET-I PRO V3 current draw at tailcap 14500 4.06V:

Minimum: .012 Amp
50 %: .465 Amp
100% .960 Amp

JET-I PRO V2 current draw at tailcap 14500 4.06V:

Minimum: .006 Amp
50 %: .602 Amp
100% 1.223 Amp

Same thing, but now with an Energizer L91 lithium primary:

JET-I PRO V3 current draw at tailcap L91 1.59V:

Minimum: .040 Amp
50 %: .805 Amp
100% 1.057 Amp

JET-I PRO V2 current draw at tailcap L91 1.59V:

Minimum: .409 Amp
50 %: 1.952 Amp
100% 2.103 Amp

 

[wapkil]

Yeah, these 14500's have seen some use, and maybe fresher better ones would do better. It also seemed to me that things were shortened by heat, it is warm here today, and although I had a fan on the flashlights during the runtime test, they got very hot.

The batteries when they came out of the lights right after the test were showing 2.75 to 2.8 volts, but after cooling down recovered to 3.2 volts, so probably the heat was a factor here.

Discharged batteries always recover after the load is removed (unless they are killed during discharge). I don't think that the heat can lower the available capacity.

Yes, the times I gave were the time until it switched to low. I wouldn't quite call it a moon mode though; it's not quite that low. At this point I took the batteries out; I didn't try to time how long moon mode would last.

I didn't know that it is there. Haven't seen it in any review or specification. Strange - this is IMHO very useful functionality. Looking at the graphs in Selfbuilt's EX V2.0 review I thought that the light simply drops down to 0. Maybe you've managed to catch it in the middle of this drop?

 

[monanza]

The current draws make a lot of sense. My v3 is not brighter than either v2 or v1. However after running both on high for a half a minute I noticed that the v3 bezel was considerably cooler than the other two. I mean you could almost not tell it was on at high setting.

At first I was disappointed by the output but then the temperature difference made me a convert. And oh yes, The tint is warmer and if you have an OP reflector use it because I personally did not like the smooth reflector's beam.

:thumbsup:

 

[jahxman]

I didn't know that it is there. Haven't seen it in any review or specification. Strange - this is IMHO very useful functionality. Looking at the graphs in Selfbuilt's EX V2.0 review I thought that the light simply drops down to 0. Maybe you've managed to catch it in the middle of this drop?

Yes, you are correct - there is no true drop to low, I just stopped the previous test when the light got dim. Here's a runtime graph I made with the V2 light on unprotected 14500, and it was heading to zero. I stopped it because it's an unprotected cell! :

I made this very unscientifically, with a solar cell and my multimeter hooked up to the PC logging voltage off the solar cell with the light about 1.5 inches away on high.

The cell has 2.68 volts now; do I dare recharge it? . I'm not sure I want to kill another one to test the V3 this way; I have some protected AW's on the way, maybe I'll re-run with them when they arrive. At any rate it basically confirms my earlier less rigorous runtime test of the V2 using just a clock and my eyeballs.

 

[berry580]

thank you heaps. =)

When my protect is refilled with cash, I'd definitely get this JB. It just looks fabulous!! =O

 

[wapkil]

Yes, you are correct - there is no true drop to low, I just stopped the previous test when the light got dim. Here's a runtime graph I made with the V2 light on unprotected 14500, and it was heading to zero. I stopped it because it's an unprotected cell! :

[...]

I made this very unscientifically, with a solar cell and my multimeter hooked up to the PC logging voltage off the solar cell with the light about 1.5 inches away on high.

The cell has 2.68 volts now; do I dare recharge it? .

Thank you for the measurements. I hope your cell will be well It was a relatively high current discharge so if you haven't discharged the battery for too long and too low (~2V under load) the voltage should raise above 3V soon. If it is above 3V, you can charge the battery in the standard way (and you should do it soon so it doesn't sit discharged).

If the cell doesn't want to go back above 2.90V-3.00V, it was overdischarged. It is generally recommended to start charging of a cell that is below ~2.80V resting voltage with the low current of ~0.1C (~50-70mA with a 14500 cell). The cell shouldn't heat up and its voltage should raise above 2.80V in less than 30min. - 1h. If it doesn't want to go above 2.8V in that time or heats up, I would consider such a cell dead. When it raises above 2.8V it has recovered and can be charged with the standard 1C charge. I don't have experience with reviving abused cells so you should confirm what I wrote in this paragraph.

The problem with using solar cells to measure the illuminance (lux) is in their characteristics which make it really complicated, if not impossible, to relate the voltage or the current to the illuminance. You can get a relatively cheap photodiode (e.g. BPW21R) that is dedicated for the task. Note that the voltage usually has a logarithmic relation to the illuminance which makes it possible to measure wide range of illuminances but makes it hard to do it precisely. The current measurement is sometimes better suited for more precise measurements.

EDIT: Even with all the problems with the precise interpretation of solar cell measurements, the graph is still really valuable. It shows that the output is not perfectly flat (would be easier to see with a little bigger image ) It's hard to tell precisely what the change in brightness was but with human eye insensitivity to such changes it probably isn't noticeable anyway.

 

[jahxman]

For the sake of completeness, here's the runtime chart for the V3 light that I made in the same way:

I realized that the solar cell method would not give a linear representation of the light output, but I can say that subjectively, the slight decline over most of the runtime is not noticable by eye, but when it goes down sharply in the graph it corresponds to what I observed visually.

I will look into getting a decent photodiode for future tests

My cells seem to be OK, they both recovered to over 2.8 volts after resting a bit and have taken a full charge with no problems, on a approx 250 mA charge rate.

 

[wapkil]

Is it correct that on the graphs the V3 output starts to rapidly drop at ~33 minutes and for the V2 it is ~25 minutes?

That would show that the runtime is indeed 30% longer. On the other hand the output looks to be identical. Comparing (once again) to Selfbuilt's EX V2.0 tests, it seems that your batteries may, as you wrote, be of a lower capacity than new ones. In Selfbuilt test the V2 on an AW cell ran for 34 minutes (and in your test ~25 minutes). If it was the case, we could expect the advertised 45 minutes on new cells.

Don't take it as a criticism of your work but I believe that your test results would highly benefit from a better presentation - especially the time scale is now almost impossible to read

 

[DHart]

Thanks for sharing this work... I don't think I can resist getting a v3.0 with OP reflector.

 

[jahxman]

OK wapkil, you are really making me work hard now....

Here's hopefully slightly better graphs:

First the V2:

And the V3:

Hopefully these are more readable If you are having trouble, zoom in!

I dunno why the second one is not smoother; I tried to make them as much the same as possible but with the V2 raw data I was sampling every 30 seconds and with the V3 I was sampling every 10 seconds, and Excel just wants to do what Excel wants to do.

 

[wapkil]

OK wapkil, you are really making me work hard now....

It's not for me, it's for the sake of science and the CPF community :devil:

Here's hopefully slightly better graphs:

Hopefully these are more readable If you are having trouble, zoom in!

Thanks again, they are perfectly readable now :twothumbs