Epic AAA Run-time test (low level only!)

Beacon- I have read many of the eneloops threads on cpf - I seem to recall individuals have found that the cells reach optimum performance after cycling them approx. 5 times- not sure why- just seems to be the concensus of most observations.
 
@1pm (14 hours)

A1-1pm.jpg


L-R: Eiger #0/Eiger#Subzero/Maratac (cu)/Quark


A2-1pm.jpg


L-R: Quark/Preon 2/ZL H50/iTP EOS

I am wondering if perhaps I took out 2 pkgs of AAA's and set them on the floor near the charger and they got mixed in with the ones I charged? That would explain why 4 of the lights died prematurely considering 2 pkgs of Duraloops come 2 to a pkg. All the rest in the test seem to be holding stable and some of the ones that died SHOULD have still been going. Would this be possible if the ones that died were just running on the initial Duracell factory pre-charge that may have been sitting in the packaging for 2 years?
 
Last edited:
Duraloops have an embossed date code, just like Eneloops. See this post.

If your batteries are genuine, I doubt they are defective. The reported stability and consistency of Eneloops/Duraloops has been remarkable, even after years of service or even being stored unused.

If there is a real chance you mixed up cells that were charged with ones that were only partially charged, then the test should be re-run with fully charged cells. If any lights drop out prematurely, isolate the suspect cell and re-run the test on that light with a known good cell, such as one that ran a different light well beyond expectations. The point is to isolate the component that is failing - it could be the light, it could be the battery, it could be your charger, or it could be your methodology.

This is a worthwhile exercise - thanks for doing it!



- Syncytial.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the date code info, it's 8B 02 RV so Feb 2nd of 2008 pretty old for a just bought set of Duraloops. On 200mAh charge level first one charged 814mAh and the others are still on and are around 820 mAh now so it's making more sense these may have gotten mixed up prior to test and didn't get topped off on the charger like I thought they did.
 
Last edited:
I don't know as I don't use either alkies or lithium sorry. And the lights are still on so hopefully it was just that the light that died prematurely had the batteries that were mixed up that didn't get charged, so I will start those lights tonight at 11pm I will call that Group AII
 
just a +1 for running the test on Eneloops. Possible methology issues aside, I think its a great battery choice and I appreciate your selecting them.
 
to Beacon of Light --


Good work, and thank you for all yer' time and effort.

:thumbsup:



For one bit of comparison data, i can tell you that my Fenix E01,
running an Energizer L92 Lithium Cell, lasted 14 hours before "dropping".
(i used a Minolta light meter)


Very interesting thread here !
😎
_
 
Thanks guys, this isn't so much work as it is fun. I've been wanting to do this for a long time since I have always wanted to know runtime on low of any lights that are just released and no one ever does the tests on low. Here's hoping guys like Selfbuilt will reconsider and do this crucial test in future reviews.
 
Thanks Beacon for running this test, threads like this are truly great!
I think the reason Selfbuilt doesn't do tests on low very often is because of the time they take, he only has one lightbox setup, and he has too many reviews to do to wait for days of runtime testing on low. I think he has done a few unofficial low runtime tests though, just leaving them on a desk until they die.

I'm really interested in the Preon 2's runtime, as I have a WW version, and it seems to last forever on low with occasional bursts of high.

I think those Duraloops were probably not charged properly, I recently got a free pack of duraloops from a supermarket (they had them mis-labelled in stock, and I complained, so the manager gave them to me free with the rest of my order), they were marked as 2008 production, and performed quite badly for the first 2 cycles, now they are the same as my other eneloops... go figure...

Thanks again for doing this excellent test!
 
ASheep said:
I'm really interested in the Preon 2's runtime, as I have a WW version, and it seems to last forever on low with occasional bursts of high.

I think those Duraloops were probably not charged properly, I recently got a free pack of duraloops from a supermarket (they had them mis-labelled in stock, and I complained, so the manager gave them to me free with the rest of my order), they were marked as 2008 production, and performed quite badly for the first 2 cycles, now they are the same as my other eneloops... go figure...

Thanks again for doing this excellent test!
Click to expand...

Well the Preon 2 bit the dust. So did the Maratac (cu). Batteries on Maratac was .86v as well as one of the other Preon, but one of the other Preons were at .60v (Preon II takes 2xAAA batteries for those not familiar with the light)...

Asheep you may be right about needing a few cycles for them to perform optimally, as I said I havent even done a complete cycle I basically took them fresh out of the packaging and put it on the Lacrosse charger till it read FULL, and it was charged at 700mAh to get them done quicker which was another reason why the test was an hour delayed initially.

Here they are at 7pm (20hours)

A1-7pm.jpg


Eiger #0 and #Subzero are hanging in there even with the Duraloops not performing optimally. The iTP looks ok so I will check on the hour to see if it bit the dust.

A2-7pm.jpg


Preon 2 bit the dust and it is definitely something with the batteries as one read .86v and the other .60v once put on the charger.

The Zebralight seems to be running strong, so we will call this first test an unofficial test and will wind up re-doing the whole batch once I get the Duraloops refreshed.
 
With batteries being iffy I am checking every half hour now. At 7:30pm The Zebralight was off (AAA in the H50 read as 1.10v which seems pretty high for shutoff but maybe that's Zebralight's way of protecting the battery) and the Eiger #0 is dimmer than the Eiger #Subzero now. Ironically the iTP EOS is still running and still as bright as the #Subzero.

A-730pm.jpg


L-R: Eiger #0/Eiger #Subzero/iTP EOS/Quark
 
Last edited:
good look at the diffusing material used in the Eiger #0 - medium head correct?- def. does not look to me like the narrow or wide.
Sub 0 is looking like a good EDC low low consideration.
Thanks for using the Duraloops.
 
Last edited:
Schuey2002 said:
How many lumens do the Eiger #0 and #Subzero put out on fresh bats?
Click to expand...

In my thread in the Peak subforum I have pics comparing the Zebralight H50 which seems fairly close in beam size and brightness on low as the #Subzero, the #0 is brighter and I didn't actually compare it to other lights but I would say maybe a little brighter than the others tested here in low like the iTP A3 EOS, IlluminaTi, Maratacs etc.
 
Well it's 11pm 24 hours since the test started, albeit without me breaking in the batteries but anyways here they are 24 hours later:

A1-11pm.jpg


L-R: Eiger #0/Eiger #Subzero/iTP EOS A3/Quark

I think I will stop this now so I can charge up the batteries and start a new test.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
Peak El Capitan run times
Replies
8
Views
1K
russprechtl
russprechtl
N
Is it time?
Replies
15
Views
2K
jon_slider
J
AZPops
Stupid Question Time, Re. SF PeaceKeeper
Replies
3
Views
571
ebuchner
E
S
Upcoming Okluma DC2 run - mcclicky switch or no?
Replies
2
Views
604
seasam
S
L
Erwinyte AAA -- a brief review
Replies
17
Views
1K
gurdygurds
G

Latest posts

Back
Top