JetBeam PC10, PC20 (XM-L) and PA20 (XP-G) Mini-review: VIDEO, PICS, MAX RUNTIMES

selfbuilt

Flashaholic
Joined
May 27, 2006
Messages
6,936
Location
Canada
Warning: pic heavy, as usual. :whistle:

REVIEWER'S NOTE: This is not going to be a full review of the Jetbeam PA/PC series lights. Jetbeam has sent me the PC10, PC20 and PA20 for personal evaluation purposes only - not a full analysis and review. I have decided to summarize my findings here in a "mini-review," but it will not be as detailed as my usual full invited reviews.

I will start with the common features and overview, and then summarize the results in individual sections for each model tested. Note that I have not received a PA10 for evaluation, but have included it in the manufacturer specs below for comparison purposes. As always, these specifications are from the manufacturer – scroll down to see my direct testing results.


PA-PC014.jpg

PA-PC013.jpg


Common Manufacturer Specifications:
  • Specially designed user interface for tactical applications
  • Rapidly switch between Tactical mode and User-defined mode
  • User-defined mode allows for customized brightness levels and a multitude of functions
  • Anti-roll design
  • Newly designed high efficiency broad voltage drive circuit
  • Reverse polarity protection
  • Equips removable stainless steel tactical clip
  • Reflector: Aluminum reflector
  • Lens: Toughened ultra-clear mineral glass with anti-reflective coating
  • Material: Aero grade aluminum alloy
  • Finish: HA III Military grade hard anodized
  • Switch: Forward clicky
  • IPX-8 standard waterproof (two meters)
  • Accessories: Lanyard, spare rubber tailcap switch cover, spare O-ring and holster
PC10
  • LED: CREE XM-L T6
  • Max output: 550 lumens
  • Maximum runtime of up to 177 hours
  • Battery: 1xCR123 battery
  • Dimensions: Tube diameter 22.5mm, Total length 93mm Weight: 51g (without battery)
  • MSRP: ~$69
PC20
  • LED: CREE XM-L T6
  • Max output: 410 lumens
  • Maximum runtime of up to 65 hours
  • Battery: 2xCR123 (RCR123) batteries
  • Dimensions: Tube diameter 22.5mm, Total length 128mm Weight: 61g (without battery)
  • MSRP: ~$69
PA10
  • LED: CREE XM-L T6
  • Max output: 650 lumens
  • Maximum runtime of up to 90 hours
  • Battery: Battery: 1xAA 1.5V (5 Modes) or 14500 3.7V Li-ion rechargeable battery (1
  • Mode Only 650 Lumen)
  • Dimensions: Tube diameter 22.5mm, Total length 109mm
  • Weight: 65g (without battery)
  • MSRP: ~$69
PA20
  • LED: CREE XP-G R5
  • Max output: 230 lumens
  • Maximum runtime of up to 252 hours
  • Battery: 2xAA batteries
  • Dimensions: Tube diameter 22.5mm, Total length 159mm
  • Weight: 82g (without battery)
  • MSRP: ~$69
PA-PC011.jpg

PA-PC012.jpg


Packaging is a solid plastic clamshell presentation case, with cut-out foam to secure the light. Also included is a decent quality holster and wrist strap/lanyard, extra o-rings and boot cover, stainless clip-on style clip, manual and warranty card.

PA-PC015.jpg

PA-PC020.jpg

PA-PC021.jpg

PA-PC019.jpg


See the photos above and the video below for more details on the build. Overall build is slightly more advanced than the earlier BA/BC-series of Jetbeam lights.

Beamshots:

Note that PC20 and PC10 look the same (i.e. both are XM-L based with smooth reflectors). I do not have the PA10 to compare, but it should look similar. The PA20 is shown below, as it has a XP-G emitter and smooth reflector.

PC10:
PA-PC016.jpg

PA-PC006.jpg


PA20:
PA20002.jpg


Sorry, I haven't gotten around to doing standardized beamshots on these lights. :p

My subjective impression is they are pretty typical for these size lights and emitters. The smooth reflectors do result in a few beam rings, but no more than you would expect.

User Interface

Turn the lights on by pressing the tailcap clicky (press for momentary on, click for locked on).

With the head tight, you get Turbo output. With the head loosened, you get the programmed user-selected state. You select the output mode for this state by soft-pressing the clicky switch from off (or clicking off-on from on). The sequence is: Hi > Med > Lo > Strobe > SOS, in a repeating loop. The light has mode memory, and saves the last setting used in the head-loosened state.

Note that for most lights on most batteries, Turbo is brighter than the head-loosened Hi mode. The exception was the PC10 on 1xRCR, where Turbo and Hi were the same brightness. On all other lights and batteries, the Turbo mode was brighter (note that I have not tested the PA10).

For a more detailed examination of the build and user interface, please see my video overview: :wave:


Video was recorded in 720p, but YouTube typically defaults to 360p. Once the video is running, you can click on the quality settings icon and select the higher 480p to 720p options. You can also run full-screen.

PWM/Strobe

There is no sign of PWM, at any output level. I believe the lights are current-controlled. :thumbsup:

PC-PA-Strobe.gif


Strobe is unusual, as the frequency is truly variable (i.e. it doesn't remain consistent from one flash to the next).

This is probably the first time I've seen this – most "random" strobes are in fact oscillating strobes, and simply switch between 2 or 3 defined frequencies at defined time points. I can see no obvious pattern to this strobe – it does appear truly random. The "average" frequency is somewhere around 5 Hz.

Testing Method:

All my output numbers are relative for my home-made light box setup, a la Quickbeam's flashlightreviews.com method. You can directly compare all my relative output values from different reviews - i.e. an output value of "10" in one graph is the same as "10" in another. All runtimes are done under a cooling fan, except for any extended run Lo/Min modes (i.e. >12 hours) which are done without cooling.

I have devised a method for converting my lightbox relative output values (ROV) to estimated Lumens. See my How to convert Selfbuilt's Lighbox values to Lumens thread for more info.

My summary tables are reported in a manner consistent with the ANSI FL-1 standard for flashlight testing. Please see http://www.sliderule.ca/FL1.htm for a description of the terms used in these tables.

PC10

PA-PC024.jpg

JR10-20063.jpg

From left to right: Duracell CR123A; Rofis JR10; JetBeam PC10, BC10; 4Sevens Mini 123; Thrunite Neutron 1C; Surefire E1B Backup; Novatac 120P.

All dimensions are given with no batteries installed:

Jetbeam PC10: Weight: 50.5g, Length: 93.6mm, Width (bezel): 22.6mm
Jetbeam BC10: Weight: 46.6g, Length: 90.3mm, Width (bezel): 23.2mm
Lumintop ED10: Weight: 21.5g, Length: 70.4mm, Width (bezel): 20.7mm
Olight i1 Stainless Steel: Weight 48.1g, Length: 63.9mm, Width (bezel): 20.4mm
Thrunite Neutron 1C: Weight: 45.2g, Length: 91.5mm, Width (bezel) 22.0mm

JR10-FL1-Summary-1.gif


JR10-FL1-Summary-2.gif


PC10-HiRCR.gif

Note: Updated to show the IMR-RCR run, which has slightly higher output initially than a standard ICR-based RCR.

JR10-MaxCR123A.gif


UPDATE February 29, 2012: To clarify the relative output levels on various battery sources on the PC10, here is a summary table showing estimated lumen outputs over time:

PC10-LumenSummary.gif


PC20

PA-PC029.jpg

JR10-20062.jpg

From left to right: Surefire CR123A, AW protected 18650; Rofis JR20; Jetbeam PC20, Jet-III ST; Klarus NT20; 4Sevens Quark 123-X; Thrunite Neutron 2C; Lumintop ED20.

All dimensions are given with no batteries installed:

Jetbeam PC10: Weight: 60.0g, Length: 127.5mm, Width (bezel): 22.6mm
Lumintop ED20: Weight 84.4g, Length 121.6mm, Width (bezel) 25.2mm
Spark SL6: Weight 77.8g, Length: 125.5mm, Width (bezel) 30.9mm
Thrunite TN12: Weight: 64.0g, Length: 126.9mm, Width (bezel): 24.1mm

PC20-FL1-Summary1.gif


PC20-FL1-Summary2.gif


PC20-FL1-Summary3.gif


PC20-Hi17670.gif

Note: most of the above runtimes are on 1x18650 – only a few are on the lower capacity 1x17670 battery.

PC20-HiRCR.gif


PC20-HiCR123A.gif


BA20

PA-PC037.jpg

PA-PC002.jpg

From left to right: Duracell NiMH AA; Jetbeam PA20, BA20; 4Sevens Quark AA-2; Fenix LD20-R4; Thrunite Neutron 2Al Sunwayman M20A; Eagletac P20A2-II.

All dimensions are given with no batteries installed:

Jetbeam PA20: Weight: 82.52g, Length: 160mm, Width (bezel) 22.6mm
Jetbeam BA20: Weight: 70.2g, Length: 156.4mm, Width (bezel) 23.2mm
4Sevens QAA-2 X (Tactical tailcap): Weight: 60.1g, Length: 149.1mm, Width (bezel) 22.0mm
Thrunite Neutron 2A: Weight: 76.4g, Length: 250mm, Width (bezel) 22.0mm

PA20-FL1-Summary.gif


PA20-HiEne.gif


PA20-HiL92.gif


PA20-HiAlka.gif


Potential Issues

Strobe/SOS is on the main sequence of the programmable head-loosened state. Mode sequence is from Hi to Lo. You can only advance modes in this state by soft-pressing from off, or clicking off-on from on.

Consistent with other recent Jetbeam (and some Nitecore) lights, the tailswitch spring has a longer traverse and more "squishy" feel than most clickies.

Lights were variable in their ability to tailstand.

Standard basic model pocket clip included.

Lights use smooth reflectors instead of textured, so some beam rings are to be expected.

The PC20 cannot take 18650 cells, and even 17670 may be a very tight fit.

You lose the defined Hi mode on 1xRCR on the PC10 (i.e. Lo, Med, and Turbo constant output modes on the user-selectable level).

Reported ANSI FL-1 output specs for the PA10 and PC10 appear to be based on initial activation on rechargeable Li-ions - and not 3 mins on primary CR123A, as expected for ANSI FL-1. However, PC10 max output is in keeping with the most heavily-driven lights I've seen in this class. And the output specs for the PA20 and PC20 seem reasonable and appropriate as ANSI FL-1 (and if anything, slightly understated in my testing).

Preliminary Observations

Although similar overall, the build and functionality of these PA/PC series lights are a notch up from the earlier BA/BC "budget" Backup series of Jetbeam lights. :)

Physically, the PA/PC series lights add what I find to be a nicer natural anodizing finish, improved threads (both number, thickness and cut style – now square), and improved contact surface in the head. Most members of this family have also received a XM-L emitter upgrade (for some reason, the PA20 keeps the XP-G R5 emitter).

The interface is also more sophisticated – like before, head tight gives you Turbo output and head loosened gives you a lower output mode. But now you can program the head-loosened state to you own preferred mode (choice between Lo, Med, Hi, Strobe or SOS). I like this overall user interface, as it more versatile than the basic backup series. However, I would prefer that the blinking modes were hidden away somewhere else. :rolleyes:

Another significant difference is the use of customized circuits in each of the models. Most "family" series of AA/CR123A-based lights use a common head for the 1xAA, 1xCR123A and 2xAA models (including the earlier BA/BC series lights). In this case, each model has a circuit optimized for the specific supported battery voltages. This allows you to customize performance for each model.

As these samples were sent to me for my personal evaluation only (and not for detailed analysis/review), I have limited my testing to max output only:

  • Performance of the PC10 was in keeping with the most heavily-driven lights in my collection – on both 1xCR123A and 1xRCR, for both output and runtime. :thumbsup: However, I find the reported output specs unrealistic for this light - it appears to be based on initial activation on IMR-RCR, not ANSI FL-1 as reported. I suspect the PA10 is similarly inflated.
  • Performance of the PC20 was in keeping with other lights in this size/class, both for output and runtime on all battery sources. The reported ANSI FL-1 output specs actually seem to be an under-estimate compared to what I observed.
  • The performance PA20 was a pretty close match for the BA20 on Turbo, as expected. The reported ANSI FL-1 output specs seem bang on.
One additional comment - the strobe mode is interesting on these new PA/PC-series lights. This is the first time I've seen a true variable frequency strobe. While the overall average frequency is around 5 Hz, the time between individual pulses can be anywhere from ~50 msecs to ~500 msecs (i.e. a tenth to half a second between pulses).

So, what else has changed from the earlier Backup BA/BC series? Well, with this new lineup you also get a presentation case and a greater number of extras (e.g. belt pouch). The lights are all slightly heavier and longer. They also use smooth reflectors instead of textured (not sure why, since lights this size are never going to be particularly throwy). :thinking:

What haven't changed are the overall size/form factors, basic pocket clip or the clicky switch. On this last point, the switch remains somewhat "mushy", with a softer feel and longer traverse than typical. I find SYSMAX has standardized on this switch for most of their Jetbeam and Nitecore lights. :shrug:

Ok, for a "mini-review", I think this hasn't gotten long enough. :sweat: All in all, these lights are a nice upgrade from the earlier Backup BA/BC series lights from Jetbeam. While there are still a few things I'd like to see done a bit differently, they do provide a more advanced option for a higher price point.

----

PC10, PC20 and PA20 supplied by Jetbeam for personal evaluation only.
 
Last edited:

RBWNY

Enlightened
Joined
Mar 10, 2011
Messages
374
Very Nice synopsis :)

I was pondering the PC10 & 20 for possible purchase recently, but found the differences in lumens, per cell choice, rather confusing. Then with the PA10, losing all modes when using a 14500, that just seemed wacky... and completely non-sensical :eek:. But even odder, was how they could figure a ONE cell light, would have higher lumens than a TWO cell light :shrug:. THAT was a real head-scratcher! -- however you kinda de-bunked it too!

Glad to have this though as an always useful comparison tool :thumbsup:.
 
Last edited:

GordoJones88

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
1,157
Location
Tennessee
Hey thanks for the review and especially the RCR123 specs on the PC10.

On the PC10 you estimated 460 lumens on an RCR123, where Jetbeam claims 550 ANSI lumens.

Here is data that shows the PC10 draws on max output:
2.11A on an ICR 16340 (RCR123)
2.66A on an IMR 16340

It also shows the Hi and Turbo modes do indeed have the same draw.

http://www.thaicpf.com/webboard/index.php?topic=3286.0


It would be interesting to see your test data with an AW IMR 16340. :naughty:

To be fair, you did test the Jetbeam BC10 on an IMR. :wave:
 
Last edited:

Enzo

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Mar 10, 2011
Messages
127
Location
Massachusetts
I'm far from a flashlight expert but I too am confused by the cells used vs. lumen output for these lights. Very different from what you'd expect.
 

candle lamp

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 16, 2010
Messages
1,572
Location
South Korea
Excellent & very informative review as always. Selfbuit! :thumbsup: Thanks a lot for your time.

Most members of this family have also received a XM-L emitter upgrade (for some reason, the PA20 keeps the XP-G R5 emitter).

What do you think of the main reason PA20 keeps XP-G R5 emitter, not using XM-L?
 

selfbuilt

Flashaholic
Joined
May 27, 2006
Messages
6,936
Location
Canada
Here is data that shows the PC10 draws on max output:
2.11A on an RCR123
2.66A on an IMR 16340.
It also shows the Hi and Turbo modes do indeed have the same draw.
Yes, I can confirm there is no difference in output between Hi and Turbo in my lightbox.

I wouldn't have expected much difference in output between IMR and regular ICR chemistry, as the PC10 circuit should interpret the common nominal 3.7V voltage (~4.2V fully charged) the same way. But there does seem to be a bump in initial outut and current draw on IMR.

Here are my tailcap current draws. These are lower than the source your reported, but that may reflect more resistance inside my meter (10-yr old Uni-T UT60A):

PC10 Turbo - AW protected RCR 3.7V (ICR) - 4.16V off Pila: 1.39A
PC10 Turbo - AW unprotected IMR 3.7V (IMR) - 4.16V off Pila: 1.60A

Note that since the light is not regulated at these levels, output will drop quickly. What I would expect to see is a slight difference in the output/runtime pattern, due to the difference between IMR and standard ICR chemistry.

I will do an IMR runtime today and post later. :wave:

http://www.thaicpf.com/webboard/index.php?topic=3286.0
Scroll down to see a pic of the RCR vs IMR difference in light output.
It would be interesting to see your test data with an AW IMR 16340. :naughty:
I've looked at those photos, and honestly can't see much of a difference between the standard ICR and IMR 16340 photos near the end (due to the beam center having shifted slightly). It's hard to know what is due to output, and what is due to the higher angle on the IMR shot.

I agree there is certainly a huge difference between nominative 3.0V RCR (I'm going to guess IFR = LiFeP04) and 3.7V RCR (ICR) - as you would expect from the large voltage difference in fully changed cells.

I'm far from a flashlight expert but I too am confused by the cells used vs. lumen output for these lights. Very different from what you'd expect.
Actually, each individual member of this series performs exactly as I would expect for that particular battery type and emitter. It is just that Jetbeam is confusing in how it labels the output.

So, for the PC20 and PA20, you are getting actual ANSI FL-1 measures at 3 mins into the run, on the specified primary cells. But for the PC10 (and presumably PA10), Jetbeam seems to be reporting initial output on Li-ion rechargeables. :thinking: These are clearly NOT ANSI FL-1 (which requires use of the stated primary cell at 3 mins).

The other confusing thing is that we are used to seeing common heads among 1xCR123A, 1xAA and 2xAA lights in these sorts of "families". In those cases, output is always comparable for a given voltage source. With each member here having its own customized circuit, each light can instead perform directly in-line to comparably driven individual model lights from other makers.

Simply put, the inidividual lights here are more easily compared to other lights of their respective classes than they are to the other members of the same PA/PC family.

What do you think of the main reason PA20 keeps XP-G R5 emitter, not using XM-L?
Sheer speculation on my part, but I'm guessing it's because it is a better match to the customized circuit of the PA20.

Again, just a guess, but it is possible they are using a more restrictive voltage range for the PA20 (compared to the PC10 and PA10). The PC10 and PA10 can both take 3.7V nominal RCR (~4.2V fully charged). There is no need for that in the PA20, where max ~3.4V should cover you well for all cells. If they have restricted the circuit for lower voltages, they may have found performance was better with the XP-G R5.

Now, why would you want to restrict the voltage? One thing I've notice on multi-power heads (that can run ~1.2V-4.2V battery sources) is they typically have trouble keeping the low modes on 2x L91 lithium (which while nominally 1.5V, can be >1.7V initially). I did a quick test of fresh L91s on the PA20, and it has no trouble displaying all output modes. :thumbsup:

Again, that is not a reason for why they would use XP-G per se - it is just supposition on my part that they opted to use a narrower voltage range that just so happened to be better suited to XP-G's characteristics. I have no knowledge one way or the other ... it just seems consistent that they would have optimized the PA20 circuit.
 
Last edited:

Chicken Drumstick

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Dec 9, 2011
Messages
1,478
Location
UK
I don't expect there will be much difference in output, as the PC10 circuit will interpret the common nominative 3.7V voltage (~4.2V fully charged) the same way.

Note that since the light is not regulated at these levels, output will drop quickly.
I was under the impression that the PC10 was regulated with an RCR while the PA10 isn't regulated with a 14500 hence the 100 lumen rating difference by JetBEAM.

Are you able to confirm the PC10 definitely isn't regulated when running an RCR?


So, for the PC20 and PA20, you are getting actual ANSI FL-1 measures at 3 mins into the run, on the specified primary cells. But for the PC10 (and presumably PA10), Jetbeam seems to be reporting initial output on Li-ion rechargeables. :thinking: These are clearly NOT ANSI FL-1 (which requires use of the stated primary cell at 3 mins).
Curious, but how in the US do companies get away with false claims? In the UK I'd have thought reporting them to trading standards with claims of false advertising would provoke some response (although I don't know if JetBEAMS are officially imported and distributed in the UK and I don't believe ANSI is UK recognised standard).

However it does peeve me when companies blatantly lie and makes me not want to buy their products.
 

selfbuilt

Flashaholic
Joined
May 27, 2006
Messages
6,936
Location
Canada
It would be interesting to see your test data with an AW IMR 16340. :naughty:
Ok, I've updated the main PC10 RCR graph with the IMR results (dotted line) in the main post. It can be hard to see, so here's a blow up of the Jetbeam lights (with IMR as a solid red line):

PC10-HiRCR-2.gif


There is a definite shift in the runtime pattern on IMR vs standard (ICR) chemistry - the light is brighter initially, but it drops off faster to the regulated ~320 lumen level of the 1xCR123A.

Here is a table that summarize this in estimated lumens:

PC10-LumenSummary.gif


So, it looks to me like the JetBeam reported lumen value for this light ("550 lumens") refers to initial activation on IMR-RCR.

I was under the impression that the PC10 was regulated with an RCR while the PA10 isn't regulated with a 14500 hence the 100 lumen rating difference by JetBEAM.
Are you able to confirm the PC10 definitely isn't regulated when running an RCR?
The graph above is fairly clear - while the PC10 may be "regulated" on RCR, it is certainly not flat stabilization initially. It only reaches flat regulation once it drops down to the flat-regulated level of 1xCR123A (i.e. ~320 lumens in my testing).

As to what the actual lumen values are at each level, that's hard to say - my estimates are just that, based on the method I developed (see this link from the review).

But as for the ANSI FL-1, it seems clear than the PC10 and PA10 are NOT using ANSI FL-1 standards (whereas the PC20 and PA20 are). I don't know why the discrepancy, but the PC10 and PA10 should be re-labeled to make it clear what those numbers are actually referring to.
 
Last edited:

candle lamp

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 16, 2010
Messages
1,572
Location
South Korea
Sheer speculation on my part, but I'm guessing it's because it is a better match to the customized circuit of the PA20.

Again, just a guess, but it is possible they are using a more restrictive voltage range for the PA20 (compared to the PC10 and PA10). The PC10 and PA10 can both take 3.7V nominal RCR (~4.2V fully charged). There is no need for that in the PA20, where max ~3.4V should cover you well for all cells. If they have restricted the circuit for lower voltages, they may have found performance was better with the XP-G R5.

Now, why would you want to restrict the voltage? One thing I've notice on multi-power heads (that can run ~1.2V-4.2V battery sources) is they typically have trouble keeping the low modes on 2x L91 lithium (which while nominally 1.5V, can be >1.7V initially). I did a quick test of fresh L91s on the PA20, and it has no trouble displaying all output modes. :thumbsup:

Again, that is not a reason for why they would use XP-G per se - it is just supposition on my part that they opted to use a narrower voltage range that just so happened to be better suited to XP-G's characteristics. I have no knowledge one way or the other ... it just seems consistent that they would have optimized the PA20 circuit.

Many thanks for your detailed reply. :twothumbs
I think that's quite a reasonable explanation. It does sound like XP-G R5 emitter powered by 1xAA or 2xAA is more efficient than XM-L.
 

Labrador72

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
1,788
Location
European Union
Now, why would you want to restrict the voltage? One thing I've notice on multi-power heads (that can run ~1.2V-4.2V battery sources) is they typically have trouble keeping the low modes on 2x L91 lithium (which while nominally 1.5V, can be >1.7V initially). I did a quick test of fresh L91s on the PA20, and it has no trouble displaying all output modes. :thumbsup:
I have a question about the L91s. Basically they have better run-times than NiHMs (2000MhA); if I understand the Comparison charts for the PA20 though, the the light output remains unchanged regardless whether you are using an Eneloop or an L91 or did I get it wrong?
 

selfbuilt

Flashaholic
Joined
May 27, 2006
Messages
6,936
Location
Canada
I have a question about the L91s. Basically they have better run-times than NiHMs (2000MhA); if I understand the Comparison charts for the PA20 though, the the light output remains unchanged regardless whether you are using an Eneloop or an L91 or did I get it wrong?
That's right. L91 lithium is typically no brighter than other standard batteries (voltages aren't that different). But they provide consistent output under load, unlike regular alkalines, with longer runtimes.
 

Labrador72

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
1,788
Location
European Union
Did anybody who owns a PC20 or PC10 notice dark areas in the outer edges of the spill that make the beam look somewhat square against a white wall?
At least 2 PA10 users - one being myself - noticed this artifact in the PA10's beam. Judging by the pictures in this thread the head of the PA10 seems indeed to be the same as the head of the PC10 and PC20.
 

selfbuilt

Flashaholic
Joined
May 27, 2006
Messages
6,936
Location
Canada
Did anybody who owns a PC20 or PC10 notice dark areas in the outer edges of the spill that make the beam look somewhat square against a white wall?
What you describe is usually the result of the scaloping of the bezel (i.e., the three raised areas of the bezel may cast a bit of a shadow). The presentation can be variable, as it also depends on the exact alignment of the emitter and reflector (e.g., may be worse if the emitter is seated a little lower). But even if it is present, with a bezel this narrow, it would generally only be noticeable on a white wall.

Can't say I recall seeing much of one with any of these lights, but I didn't do beamshots. I will try to take a look when I get the chance.
 

Labrador72

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
1,788
Location
European Union
What you describe is usually the result of the scaloping of the bezel (i.e., the three raised areas of the bezel may cast a bit of a shadow). The presentation can be variable, as it also depends on the exact alignment of the emitter and reflector (e.g., may be worse if the emitter is seated a little lower). But even if it is present, with a bezel this narrow, it would generally only be noticeable on a white wall.

Can't say I recall seeing much of one with any of these lights, but I didn't do beamshots. I will try to take a look when I get the chance.

Thanks again selfbuilt! I had actually checked the scaloping of the bezel as the store where I bought the PA10 had suggested as the cause of the problem.
You are also correct that it was only visible on walls: I tested the PA10 outdoors first and didn't notice it but indoors it was visible even on non-white walls - the fact that I noticed it on white wall might have made me notice it on gray walls too.
I checked the "clipped corners" against the scaloping and they didn't seem to be aligned so I had ruled out this possibility. The impression I had is that the "clipped corners" were aligned with the four corners of the XML LED as if the reflector failed to give the LED a fully round shape. Maybe that is explained by what you said about the alignment of the emitter and the reflector?

If you get a chance to check out your PC10/PC20 it would be great, more out of curiosity than anything else: In the end the online store offered to replace it so I gave it a chance and sent it back but I understand I might get another one with exactly the same problem, hopefully not worse or maybe I'll just get a clean clean beam. A couple of PA10 owners I talked to said they didn't have this problem at all, in fact one of them said his PA10 didn't even have rings on the outside of the beam!
 

selfbuilt

Flashaholic
Joined
May 27, 2006
Messages
6,936
Location
Canada
I checked the "clipped corners" against the scaloping and they didn't seem to be aligned so I had ruled out this possibility. The impression I had is that the "clipped corners" were aligned with the four corners of the XML LED as if the reflector failed to give the LED a fully round shape. Maybe that is explained by what you said about the alignment of the emitter and the reflector?
I have just checked, and I see the square spillbeam edge effect on both my XM-L-based PC10 and PC20. It is not present on the XP-G based PA20.

Moreover, the pattern does indeed directly correspond to the four straight edges of the XM-L die. Although I can't say I recall ever noticing this before, I have gone and checked, at it is present on most small XM-L-based lights (to varying degrees). It is probably just more noticeable on the PC/PA lights because of the more definite outer spillbeam ring. But it does seem to be a general feature of most small XM-L lights in my collection.
 

Labrador72

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
1,788
Location
European Union
I have just checked, and I see the square spillbeam edge effect on both my XM-L-based PC10 and PC20. It is not present on the XP-G based PA20.

Moreover, the pattern does indeed directly correspond to the four straight edges of the XM-L die. Although I can't say I recall ever noticing this before, I have gone and checked, at it is present on most small XM-L-based lights (to varying degrees). It is probably just more noticeable on the PC/PA lights because of the more definite outer spillbeam ring. But it does seem to be a general feature of most small XM-L lights in my collection.

Thanks for taking the time to check selfbuilt, I really appreciate it. The PA10 is my first XM-L so I thought the squarish beam may be the sign of a defect. If I had known it was present on a lot of XM-L lights I might not have sent it back for a replacement.
In any case, I still hope to get a PA10 with a cleaner beam or at least fewer rings. I normally don't mind them and they don't bother me on my PA20 but on the PA10 they were a lot more of them and it started bugging me considering I used the light indoors too very often. I just wonder if an R5 and fewer lumens wouldn't have been a better choice for lights of this size, if not for the PC10 and PC20 at least for the PA10.
 
Last edited:

_Jose

Newly Enlightened
Joined
Mar 29, 2012
Messages
4
Hello all! I'm new to the forum, just bought a jetbeam PC10 and I have at all clear that battery use.
I thought the Solarforce v2 880mAh,was a good choice (I now question of what will be worth its long longitude?)
and seen a model 700mAh AW IMR 18350 cell you know if this will be compatible with the PC10? Or has too many amps? pardon my English. thanks for your attention. regards
 
Top