Eiger runtime with Nichia 219?

gustophersmob

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
90
Howdy!

I'm curious, what would a #8 eiger's runtime be with the Nichia 219 head? Basically the QTC model without the QTC?

I only use eneloops and energizer lithiums, so that's what i'm looking for.

Thanks!
 

archimedes

Moderator,
Staff member
CPF Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2010
Messages
15,792
Location
CONUS, top left
Based on the 2009 version (probably with a Luxeon Rebel emitter), the output ratings on a #8 Eiger with one AAA lithium battery were listed as ...

Start 165 fc
30 min 145 fc
1 hour 137 fc
2 hour 116 fc
3 hour 80.7 fc
5 hour 8.6 fc

Although the Nichia 219 is more efficient and should have greater output, you can get a sense of the "semi-regulated" taper of the Peak.
 

gustophersmob

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
90
Thanks. I've seen that before. So do you think the nichia is a similar runtime to say, 50%?

basically, I'm thinking of ordering one if I don't get any responses to my WTB thread, and I'm trying to decide between single mode or QTC.
 

gustophersmob

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
90
I used to have a single mode eiger thAt I dropped a QTC square in. It was super hard to turn and compress the material. That made it hard to judge the smoothness of the ramp. It also made me worry about wearing out the threads due to the forces applied.

it seems like opinions are mixed on the peak designed QTC pill, so it's hard to judge if I will like it.

Many thought behind considering a single mode #8 is that it is readily available, should be a reasonable brightness for edc tasks (not too bright or too dim) with the nichia, and I'm hoping the runtime is good enough. If I can get 2-2.5 hours to 50%, I think it would be good.
 

archimedes

Moderator,
Staff member
CPF Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2010
Messages
15,792
Location
CONUS, top left
I have QTC and single-level Peak torches, and find both types useful.

Based on your post, you may be fine with just a single-level #8 (or perhaps #7) ....
 

gustophersmob

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
90
Ha, that seems to be the consensus. Since you describe it as robust, I'm assuming you haven't had issues with the pill wearing out like some have?
 

archimedes

Moderator,
Staff member
CPF Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2010
Messages
15,792
Location
CONUS, top left
I have seen many reports posted here on CPF about QTC wear, but have not personally experienced significant problems with this, including with an Eiger that I used multiple times daily for years.

That said, among the many QTC Peaks I have, some function (much) better than others ... :shrug:
 

reppans

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 25, 2007
Messages
4,873
Just a guess, but my thought was that QTC wear would depend on the number of full compression cycles, ie, full output uses. If one tends to use low lumens, then that's not going to be nearly as stressful to the spongy pill as another that uses a plunger to signal morse code at full output. A few minutes of that could put hundreds of full compressions cycles on the pill.

The one person I that did see mention wearing out his QTC pill in a year or so said he did use max output often.
 

gustophersmob

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
90
Thanks again, Archimedes, for your input.

Reppans, that is a good point. Do you have an opinion one way or the other?
 

magellan

Honorary Aussie
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
5,001
Location
USA
I have both Peak and Oveready QTC lights and my experience has been the smaller lights, like the Oveready 10250 or Peak Eiger 10440, aren't as smooth for brightness adjustment as the larger lights like my Peak Logan which is CR123A or 16340 size. Has anybody else noticed this?
 

archimedes

Moderator,
Staff member
CPF Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2010
Messages
15,792
Location
CONUS, top left
I have both Peak and Oveready QTC lights and my experience has been the smaller lights, like the Oveready 10250 or Peak Eiger 10440, aren't as smooth for brightness adjustment as the larger lights like my Peak Logan which is CR123A or 16340 size. Has anybody else noticed this?

Yes, and is presumably due to mechanical effects.
 

reppans

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 25, 2007
Messages
4,873
Reppans, that is a good point. Do you have an opinion one way or the other?

I do tend to use low output fairly often ... but not as much as @reppans does :)

As Arch knows, I'm a night vision/runtime nut. About 90% of my runtime is split between 0.3 and 3 lumens. QTC is not ideal for my use since it tends to expand/settle over a few minutes, resulting in small wattage changes that will cause output to shift (increase). It may not be significant, or even noticeable, if you tend to use medium+ outputs, but at the low lows I use, small wattage changes will shift output by multiples.

Also, although max represents a very small % of my runtime, I do use it frequently with a momentary-max-from-ON function that works like a car's high beam flashers (eg, 3>300>3 lms). I'd say I activate max ~50x, for a cumulative 30 secs, per day.

FWIW, I have output/runtime tested my El Cap for sub-lumen efficiency with some of my collection and I found it at the very top of the pile for efficiency (although due to low lumen output volatility it's hard pin average output). I really should have bought a momentary plunger with mine since the Peak is one of the very few lights that can do the momentary-max-from-ON thing, and that's my favorite UI feature.

A fixed output light is no go for night vision/runtime guy... personally, I'd get QTC with momentary plunger, and source extra QTC pills to swap in if worried about it wearing out. Never done it myself, but I heard it's easy.
 
Top