Kind of disappointed with the brightness of my modded Ra Clicky (XP-G R4)

[michaelmcgo]

Let me start by saying I love my new Ra Clicky EDC Executive! This thing is built perfectly and the UI is great. Now for the other stuff:

I put a Cree XP-G R4 in my light yesterday and was disappointed by the output of the new LED. The light is noticeably dimmer than my Quark Mini 123 (XP-G R5) on high, and the Quark is quoted at 1.2 hr runtime on high, while the Ra is rated at 1 hour at the reduced output level (even dimmer than the Quark obviously). Is the difference between the R4 and R5 this noticeable? My wife can see color really well and says that the Quark Mini 123 is a blue tint, while the Ra is a greenish tint. Do blue tint LEDs have more output than green tint LEDs (I know the neutral tints have less output than the blue tint LEDs)?

I am happy with the light, and if I can get this output up I will love it. Should I wait until the R5's become available and upgrade again? I will post beamshots tonight...

 

[michaelmcgo]

I know my camera sucks at beam shots, but this shows the size of the beam, and the comparitable brightness (Left: Quark Mini123, Right: Ra EDC)

 

[THE_dAY]

There should be no discernible difference between an R4 and R5.

Have you done a ceiling bounce test with the two lights?
That should show the overall brightness difference better then beamshots.

Also regarding runtime of the Mini, see this post:http://www.cpfmarketplace.com/mp/showpost.php?p=2410200&postcount=814

I don't have a Ra but I assume it is better regulated which would make up for the lower brightness?

EDIT: Wanted to add that I've read that overall blue tints do SEEM brighter to eyes than other tints.

 

[old4570]

So what sort of current is being used ?

 

[kramer5150]

FWIW... you are only going to get ~180-210 Lumens out of an XPG light this small, regardless of the drive current. Driving higher currents does not brighten the LED. Neither of these lights have the heatsinking capacity to cool the emitter sufficiently to sustain Lumen output... IMHO

My eyes can not decipher the difference between R4 and R5 BINs.

Ditto the other member, try ceiling bounce comparing the outputs. I have an XPG and its tint is also very green too. I don't think ts a defect, just the tint BIN.

 

[michaelmcgo]

I don't really know the current of either light. I know that at least the Quark Mini is PWM regulated which reduces runtime, I don't know if the Ra Clickies are PWM or Current regulated.

The graph of the Mini's runtime makes me feel a lot better. I was under the impression that the 1.2 hour runtime was at constant brightness, not overall runtime with tapered brightness. This makes sense now because the Ra Clikies are held at constant brightness (after the initial stepdown) for the whole hour. I am now very impressed with the brightness on the Ra Clicky :twothumbs

 

[THE_dAY]

Just found this:

http://www.light-reviews.com/ra_clicky/

Shows Ra Clicky runtime on high is over 2 hours of solid regulation!

 

[michaelmcgo]

FWIW... you are only going to get ~180-210 Lumens out of an XPG light this small, regardless of the drive current. Driving higher currents does not brighten the LED. Neither of these lights have the heatsinking capacity to cool the emitter sufficiently to sustain Lumen output... IMHO

My eyes can not decipher the difference between R4 and R5 BINs.

Ditto the other member, try ceiling bounce comparing the outputs. I have an XPG and its tint is also very green too. I don't think ts a defect, just the tint BIN.

Do you by chance have a Ra Clicky? I'm not trying to be snooty, but the Ra Clicky is much bigger than the Quark Mini and has excellent heat sinking abilities. The LED is captured in a very large chunk of aluminum that has a 4.3 square inch heavily knurled external surface area before a single threaded joint. Knurling can easily double the surface area for heat dissipation, and this is not even counting the rest of the body of the flashlight. I ran the Ra on high for 20 minutes sitting in a 65 degree room and could not feel a noticeable increase in temperature. I have been very impressed with this light so far.

 

[nanotech17]

must be the emitter

 

[kramer5150]

Do you by chance have a Ra Clicky? I'm not trying to be snooty, but the Ra Clicky is much bigger than the Quark Mini and has excellent heat sinking abilities. The LED is captured in a very large chunk of aluminum that has a 4.3 square inch heavily knurled external surface area before a single threaded joint. Knurling can easily double the surface area for heat dissipation, and this is not even counting the rest of the body of the flashlight. I ran the Ra on high for 20 minutes sitting in a 65 degree room and could not feel a noticeable increase in temperature. I have been very impressed with this light so far.

I admit I do not... Still I wound not expect mod host of that weight and surface area to conduct and radiate the heat generated from an XPG at higher currents. Knurling is not typically used to radiate heat.

But still, I would expect the ceiling bounced lumen output from both to be very close. My XPG build is also very green tint

 

[old4570]

My vote is for the driver ..

My A20 has a XP-G R3 in it and starts around 280ish and fades to around 250ish due to heat .. With a fresh cell , your looking at 1.4A +

 

[matrixshaman]

The Ra Clicky is actually a relatively heavy light and does have a very good and sizeable heat sink. Perhaps the Vf of the XP-G you put in was higher than the output voltage of the Ra. I believe each Ra is tuned for it's particular LED so if your light originally had a very low Vf LED maybe it was set for that Vf and if the new LED is a bit higher than you will not get the output you expect. That's part of the problem with swapping LED's in a Ra from what I understand. I'm considering such a swap because every Ra I've had has a terrible tint from the OGD. I know not all OGD's are bad tint as I've got a Nitecore EX10 that has a very white tint. But it seems the odds are against getting a really white tint with this LED.