Ra Clickly Parasitic Drain

pjandyho

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Oct 29, 2003
Messages
5,500
Location
Singapore
I'm sorry, I can't agree that the parasitic drain of a "good" HDS is comparable to CR123A self-discharge rate. First, my "bad" Ra Clicky Ti measures over 1 mA, which means it completely kills a CR123A in a couple of months, even when not used at all. OK, that's a "bad" one; I'm going to get mine fixed. But I measured two first gen (pre-Novatac) HDS EDC's and they are both right around 100 uA. I strongly believe this is in the normal range. And it is enough to pretty well kill a CR123A in under 2 years. The shelf life of a CR123A is at least 7 years before it gets strongly weakened, let alone completely discharged. I rest my case.

Maybe a RCR123 will last about as long in a "good" HDS as on the shelf, but not a CR123A.

And maybe, just maybe, the current Clickies have a lower parasitic drain than the first gen HDS. But I STRONGLY doubt it. If I ever get one, I'll test it; it's simple enough. And I'll test the Ti after fixing.

Understand, I'm not criticizing the 100 uA parasitic drain, but it has to be considered in how you use the light.
I can't recall what is the discharge rate for current crop of HDS lights but Henry has given us a number previously, and based on his measurements it would take 23 years or thereabouts to drain a CR123 primary, that is provided that a CR123 would outlast the rate at which a HDS light could drain the battery. Since Henry is the designer of HDS lights and he knows what he is talking about, I tend to trust what he said.
 

fnj

Enlightened
Joined
Dec 2, 2006
Messages
555
I can't recall what is the discharge rate for current crop of HDS lights but Henry has given us a number previously, and based on his measurements it would take 23 years or thereabouts to drain a CR123 primary, that is provided that a CR123 would outlast the rate at which a HDS light could drain the battery. Since Henry is the designer of HDS lights and he knows what he is talking about, I tend to trust what he said.

I suppose it's possible all of mine are bad in differing degree, but somehow I have a lot of trouble believing that. My measurement is confirmed by picking up one that was stored for a year with a fresh CR123A. It's markedly run down.
 

pjandyho

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Oct 29, 2003
Messages
5,500
Location
Singapore
I suppose it's possible all of mine are bad in differing degree, but somehow I have a lot of trouble believing that. My measurement is confirmed by picking up one that was stored for a year with a fresh CR123A. It's markedly run down.
A year ago was the batch that had a slight machining issue which resulted in a slightly higher drain than was normal. I am not sure if your's is suffering from the issue, and maybe the battery could have been faulty. All 3 of my lights are fixed after I complained to Henry.
 
Last edited:

fnj

Enlightened
Joined
Dec 2, 2006
Messages
555
A year ago was the batch that had a slight machining issue which resulted in a slightly higher drain than was normal. I am not sure if your's is suffering from the issue, and maybe the battery could have been faulty. All 3 of my lights are fixed after I complained to Henry.

As indicated mine are all from around 2006 except for the Ra Clicky Ti.
 

pjandyho

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Oct 29, 2003
Messages
5,500
Location
Singapore
As indicated mine are all from around 2006 except for the Ra Clicky Ti.
Hold on, you are comparing an old light to something that has been drastically improved and telling us that your assumption and conclusion is representative of all the current HDS models?
 

fnj

Enlightened
Joined
Dec 2, 2006
Messages
555
Hold on, you are comparing an old light to something that has been drastically improved and telling us that your assumption and conclusion is representative of all the current HDS models?

No, I didn't say that. But unless you show me some actual measurements, my guess is as good as anyone else's. By the way, the current specs for the Clicky only claim 128 hr at 0.3 lumens. My old ones will last several times that long at 0.3 lumens. So realize that the improvement has not been in ALL respects.
 

pjandyho

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Oct 29, 2003
Messages
5,500
Location
Singapore
Yes I know. But unless you can come up with concrete evidence supporting your claims, it is still assumption on your part and that does not make it final.
 

fnj

Enlightened
Joined
Dec 2, 2006
Messages
555
Heavens no, I never implied it was final.

Looks like we've abouyt done this to death at this point.
 

nbp

Flashaholic
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
10,976
Location
Wisconsin
Here is a direct quote from HDS Part 10 from Henry. I just found it and thought I'd post it here as it seemed applicable.

I am curious where someone got the idea that a feature that turns the light off would somehow cause the battery to drain once the light had turned off...

I can tell you that when the light is off, it is asleep and using single digit microamps. A micro is 1/1,000,000 - a really small quantity. If you go back in this thread, it was mentioned that when the light is off, it would take a calculated 27 years to drain the battery. This is an insignificant amount of power. The light is only consuming a significant amount of power when it is making light. No light, no power.

If you are planning on storing your light for a decade or two, then it would make sense to remove the battery. After the third decade, your battery would be dead due to self discharge just sitting there in the plastic bag next to the flashlight. But the flashlight's presence had nothing to do with the battery being dead.

If you actually use your flashlight, there is no reason to worry about the battery.

The single digit micromps is the same for all current models as they all use the same electronics. That included both Twisty and Clicky.

Henry.
 

pjandyho

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Oct 29, 2003
Messages
5,500
Location
Singapore
Here is a direct quote from HDS Part 10 from Henry. I just found it and thought I'd post it here as it seemed applicable.
Thanks Nick for the quote. That's the one I was referring to. Looks like it is 27 years instead of 23 years. Not like it matters.
 
Top