LED durability or ARC vs Peak

[Luxman]

I see your point...and yes there are a lot of nice and fun lights out there.
Maybe when your ready...not 2 for your keychain...but...one for your chain and one for your pocket....and that has nothing to do with your wife not being able to see the one in your pocket.. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[drmaxx]

[ QUOTE ]
...not 2 for your keychain...but...one for your chain and one for your pocket....and that has nothing to do with your wife not being able to see the one in your pocket..

[/ QUOTE ]
I see - I can learn a lot in this forum /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[xochi]

I only have one of the 3 led ncell Peaks from about a year ago and although it seems well made the narrow beam is annoying.

If this is going to be a general use light ,used for tasks like looking into dark machines/crevices as well as used to provide light to manuever in dark areas then the wider beam of the Arc AAA will be much more satisfying to use and own.

However, if you were sneaking around in the dark and didn't want to be seen, the narrow peak beam would be an advantage.

*****
As for the LED degradation tests, do any of these tests include power on/offs in them? Do power ons from cold add any additional stresses that wouldn't be represented in a test that just ran the LED for x number of hours? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif

 

[Luxman]

xochi,
IMO the Peak 1xLED 1xAAA and 1xLED N cell have a wider center spot than the ARC-P. There is a beamshot thread a few pages back comparing all three lights. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[kitelights]

To the best of my knowledge solid state LED devices aren't subject to degradation like incans during on off cycles. That's why PWM is effective with LEDs.

Luxman - You're right and that's why xochi is right. The Peak's beam is concentrated - you see all of it concentrated in the center - that's why the hotspot is bigger and brighter. The ARC's hotspot is smaller because more of its output is being used as a flood - it's a better general purpose light. It has a nice balance of spot and flood.

There are some who like nothing but a tight concentrated spot. I find them useless and annoying. My very first LED light was a Brinkmann 2AA LED light that used a 5mm LED and a curved lense that focused the beam into a perfectly round defined spot. It looks cool, but is useless as an illumination tool.

There are other new lights being made now that use the same principal - a curved lense that produces a very tight spot with no spill. These lights boast very high outputs (true) but IMO are very impractical.

Brightness is only one part of the equation. If I had to choose between one of the new super bright Peaks and its narrow beam or an older ARC at half the brightness with a more useable practical beam, I'd choose the older ARC.

Fortunately now you can have both - a brand new ARC with the more practical useable beam AND twice the brightness. To me the choice is a no brainer.

 

[voodoogreg]

[ QUOTE ]
kitelights said:
To the best of my knowledge solid state LED devices aren't subject to degradation like incans during on off cycles. That's why PWM is effective with LEDs.

Luxman - You're right and that's why xochi is right. The Peak's beam is concentrated - you see all of it concentrated in the center - that's why the hotspot is bigger and brighter. The ARC's hotspot is smaller because more of its output is being used as a flood - it's a better general purpose light. It has a nice balance of spot and flood.

There are some who like nothing but a tight concentrated spot. I find them useless and annoying. My very first LED light was a Brinkmann 2AA LED light that used a 5mm LED and a curved lense that focused the beam into a perfectly round defined spot. It looks cool, but is useless as an illumination tool.

There are other new lights being made now that use the same principal - a curved lense that produces a very tight spot with no spill. These lights boast very high outputs (true) but IMO are very impractical.

Brightness is only one part of the equation. If I had to choose between one of the new super bright Peaks and its narrow beam or an older ARC at half the brightness with a more useable practical beam, I'd choose the older ARC.

Fortunately now you can have both - a brand new ARC with the more practical useable beam AND twice the brightness. To me the choice is a no brainer.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have plenty of usable spill from my peaks. There not an X-1, or laser. I have tried it indoor's and out after hearing this once before. plenty, I only mention this becuase of the stigma I see often concerning beam charactoristics refered to other light's like a KL-1 4th gen
etc. (it's a flood compared to a KL-1, and i love and use the KL-1! so I am not flaming that light, just using "as example")

Too me the both are "no brainer's" and find my ultra peaks new ones BTW, about 7 weeks old) to be very close in brightness, I own two ARC-P's and two peak snow ultra, and find both great light's, also I do assume you mean the ARC is twice as bright as the old ARC's, because they most definately not 2x to the peaks, I would say 15% less if that.

This is just a kinda public service message, please don't take it as a flame, because my choice if only one, would be an ARC-P, and has two have been getting a real workout between my guitar tech and myself and love em.
My concern was for newer CPFer's that may take this as a spotlight, not true, and is far from useless as an illumination tool. VDG