I'm with Paulr here. The name of the game is runtime and efficiency. That should be the end all be all of everything. Period!
:shakehead Why do people make such statements as this? Rather narrow minded if you ask me.
I'm with Paulr here. The name of the game is runtime and efficiency. That should be the end all be all of everything. Period!
:shakehead Why do people make such statements as this? Rather narrow minded if you ask me.
WRONG! Brighter lights aren't what everyone is clamoring for. I for one could care less as I never use anything in my growing collection of lights anything higher than low. I for one have put out the idea someone should make a dedicated low output model like .02 lumens (Dark Side of the Moon mode) /.2 lumens (Moon mode) / 2 lumens (Low mode). I would be honored if someone took this idea, I wouldn't even want royalties for coming up with this idea. This idea is my pro bono contribution. The whole brighter and brighter lights is akin to the faster and faster CPUs circa 2000/2001 by Intel/AMD. Once they broke the 1gHz barrier and then reached 2gHZ the speed race was pointless. Just like after 100 lumens, who needs more than that, it's pointless. Work on EFFICIENCY and we will ALL be HAPPIER.
I have to agree that I would also prefer an AA version. AA size cells store much more energy for the weight, and with modern technology it is easy to get an AA headlamp thats as small as you would want, the Zebralight H501 being a prime example.
Once again, the spare AA is bigger than the spare AAA.
Maybe so but thinking smaller than the 2.5 AAAs it would take to = 1 AA. I guess it depends on how someone looks at it.
:shakehead Why do people make such statements as this? Rather narrow minded if you ask me.
in a pwm based light (such as this) running lower is NOT more efficient. it is the same efficacy as running on high.If efficiency isn't important I guess we can all go back to the dreaded incandescent lights of the 70s. Yeah!!!!!
the same people who make statements like this:
or narrow viewpoints such as this:
https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/229266
oh, wait, nvm
no, you are narrow minded because you think 2 lumens is the most ANYONE ELSE will ever need. what you want is one thing, but numerous times now (see above) you find it impossible to accept that the needs/wants of others could possibly be anything other than the same as yours.Thanks Ragista, seems like you're my #1 fan. You might want to update the posts of mine you quote from as now I use my Novatacs all 5 set up pretty much at .08 lumen / .33 lumen / .94 lumen / 2.7 lumen. Let me guess I'm narrow minded because this is how I would set up all my lights if I had the opportunity. 120 lumens? Not in my lifetime. I am one where 640k is all I will ever need. 2 lumens is as bright as I will ever need. Period.
As I see it, there are only 3 ways I'm likely to use up an AAA and switch to the spare when outside of the house: 1) the AAA is already mostly used up when I leave the house; 2) I turn on the light and leave it running by accident; or 3) I use the high power mode quite a bit more than I really have to. All of these happen from time to time.
For 1 and 2, it doesn't matter whether I use an AA or AAA since it works out the same way for both. For 3, when running on the spare I'll tend to use low mode more either way. I might be less careful about that with an AA but it won't make that much difference. The lights I carry will run for 6-7 hours on low using a spare AAA which is plenty for most any foreseeable situation. Having 2.5x the capacity won't really help. "Low" on these lights is still 10+ lumens which is 2x a stock Minimag, so it's again plenty for most short and medium distance purposes.
I actually carry a whole spare light (Arc AAA) in my backpack rather than just a spare cell, so that's even more weight savings compared with an AA light.
I agree with the idea of a Zebralight-format AAA light instead of the ITP T shape. Maybe the T shape helps reduce glare by getting the light further out in front of your face though, hmm. With my H50 I use the rubber shield to help with this problem but maybe the T shape is another way to solve it without the extra rubber thingy.
another way of saying you don't see their choice/needs of more light as rational, which is exactly what you already said. again, this is PURELY your OPINION.I don't find it impossible to accept the needs or wants of other people, I just think people inevitably fall into the bigger is better, brighter is better trap and they follow along like sheep to the slaughter. More often than not, this is true.
Follow along like sheep to the slaughter? Go back to the incans of the seventies? Aren't you going just a tad bit overboard? And where the heck did I say efficiency isn't important? You also seem to fail to realize that moon modes are NOT that efficient anyway due to the nature of LED's at low drive levels.
Except that's not quite how Paul put it. The be all end all should be that everyone can choose for themselves what they want without having to run the gauntlet of posts telling them their choices are wrong.I'm with Paulr here. The name of the game is runtime and efficiency. That should be the end all be all of everything. Period!
If that's where you want to go, then go, but there are many other options that you may want to read up on.If efficiency isn't important I guess we can all go back to the dreaded incandescent lights of the 70s. Yeah!!!!!
No. You're narrow minded because you consistently make posts suggesting that the rest of us should follow your preferences.Let me guess I'm narrow minded because this is how I would set up all my lights if I had the opportunity. 120 lumens? Not in my lifetime. I am one where 640k is all I will ever need. 2 lumens is as bright as I will ever need. Period.
Good post. I think he means well but just has trouble stating in in a live-and-let-live manner.Follow along like sheep to the slaughter? Go back to the incans of the seventies? Aren't you going just a tad bit overboard?
I have zero problems with how you program and use your lights, but saying that driving LED's at a low level to maximize efficiency should be the end all be all of everything period is why I said your statement was narrow minded.
Back to the whole "bigger/better sheep slaughterfest" long runtime could also fall into the same category. Wait it does, especially when manufacturers bait the sheep with big continuous runtime numbers that fall short in real world runtime. I'm referring to the iTP EOS's low runtime BTW.
below 10-20 lumens (depending on the led) efficacy of LEDs being driven by constant current take a nose dive. using PWM, the efficacy is identical to the highest mode available on the light.It's the other way, LED's are MORE efficient at low drive levels than at high ones, as long as you're not talking about nearly-extinguished levels. In fact PWM is less efficient than driving the led at low current, because of this. This is one area where LED's have total advantage over incan.