T20C2 MKII 18650, two sources much different output/runtime numbers?

[RTTR]

Looking at the T20C2 MKII powered by a 18650 battery I'm finding that two sources are giving much different run time/output figures for this light, can anyone chime in?

Source: Light-Review.com

Source: CPF User - SelfBuilt

Let's just say that SelfBuilt's numbers are the more accurate ones, is it good performance for a 18650 light to drop output like that over its runtime before it gets near its end capacity?

 

[JaguarDave-in-Oz]

The overall runtime looks about the same but with slightly different characteristics to their falls. If all that is said about the human eye not being able to percieve small differences in lumens emitted I'd have to suggest that one could barely detect the ten percent or so difference between the one minute mark and the hundred and twenty minute mark on either of those two graphs.

They may not run in "pefect regulation" but in the real world, what difference would it make? I say none.

 

[sfca]

Looking at the T20C2 MKII powered by a 18650 battery I'm finding that two sources are giving much different run time/output figures for this light, can anyone chime in?

Let's just say that SelfBuilt's numbers are the more accurate ones, is it good performance for a 18650 light to drop output like that over its runtime before it gets near its end capacity?

Hmm looks the same to me, but then again I don't use 18650s so I don't know the usual graph.

I asked previously and was told "[T20C2 Mark II] is not well regulated (meaning it will run direct drive when the voltage of the battery runs low)". That accounts for the dropping of output.

As for the first part, I think Selfbuilt continues to use the 2200mah (?) 18650 for standardized numbers.
Light-reviews used the 18650 2400mAh EagleTac for their runtime tests.

 

[Paapaa]

Looks quite identical to me, too. Both drop to 50% in about the same time. Are you looking the correct curves? It is the brown one.

 

[JaguarDave-in-Oz]

Looks quite identical to me, too. Both drop to 50% in about the same time. Are you looking the correct curves? It is the brown one.

They aren't identical. The red one in the first graph runs flat until about the 55 minute mark whereas the brown one runs flat only till about the 30 minute mark but as I said earlier, both are within around ten percent of their initial 1 or 2 minute brightness level until around the two hour mark so if we go by the accepted wisdom the human eye should not perceive the difference.

As for the fact that one graph sets the flat part of the brightness level at 100 and the other 90, well, they are both arbitrary numbers related only to the two blokes' individual measuring setups.

 

[ToNIX]

Looks quite identical to me, too. Both drop to 50% in about the same time. Are you looking the correct curves? It is the brown one.

I just made a quick crappy photoshop of the 2 images superposed in 2 mins.

X axis (time scale) is more accurate than the Y axis since it uses % on one graph and numbers on the other one. I tried to make them start at the same place on the Y axis.

Hey, it's crappy but it gives a good idea anyways... They seem pretty much the same to me

 

[SuperTrouper]

They're quite similar in appearance when you forgive that the Y Axis is indeed different. The differences are possibly due to different 18650 cells being used.

The lower one says it uses protected, and as you'd expect, turns off before zero light, whereas the other one drops off smoothly to zero light emission. Could that possibly be unprotected and they ran it until no light came out?

 

[jhc37013]

It's nice to see the T20 MKII regulated well with both battery types I have one on the way after being impressed with the P20 MKII.

 

[Splunk_Au]

X axis (time scale) is more accurate than the Y axis since it uses % on one graph and numbers on the other one.

How'd you figure that? A numbered scale doesn't relate to it being more detailed in any way.

 

[GlobalPlayer]

Looking at the T20C2 MKII powered by a 18650 battery I'm finding that two sources are giving much different run time/output figures for this light, can anyone chime in?

I can't see much difference; there are only minimal different characteristics during 120 minutes: different sources, different batterys ...

 

[ToNIX]

How'd you figure that? A numbered scale doesn't relate to it being more detailed in any way.

I meant on my own graph...

 

[member 6142]

Looking at the T20C2 MKII powered by a 18650 battery I'm finding that two sources are giving much different run time/output figures for this light, can anyone chime in?....

I can only speak oabout the Med setting, the only one I've tested so far.
Both with AW 2.2A 18650 (8h30' to 50%) and with AW 2.6A 18650 (with magnet) (11h to 50%).
It looks like to me that this light uses a buck circuit that gives place to DD when battery voltage is less than Vf and this is to my understanding the most efficient way to handle XP-G, that has lower Vf than XR-E R2.
This way with both AW18560 once reached the 50% of starting output (medium i.e.) there is juice for at least another 30' of declining yet not properly moon mode output

Thus Selfbuilt runtime graphs are more faithful in slope IMHO.

One more thing I'd like to point out: there is a review where it is stated that this flashlight performs "Below average runtime on Turbo mode" but I wonder whether there are other flashlights using same led and bin, kind of regulation (buck->DD) and performing comparable output out there
If not (as I suspect) there could be no average to compare against.:devil:

Bottom note: Bigchelis was lucky and had his one working with 2.6A 18650 without magnet. i wasn't so lucky
Said that, even with 2.2A 18650 runtime is damn good.

Last but not least: some have reported that Pure white R5 bins are often on the green side of pure white. I compared my T20C2 MkII against my HDA EDC Ultimate 60XRGT and it is a teensie weensie cooler, with no green shift at all.

This is a hell of a flashlight, with a heck of stock accessories, so it has become my EDC, along with my RAClicky Custom 170 and my Extrema Ratio MF0 folder. As I rely on my G21 Glock as far as home defense is concerned

 

[JaguarDave-in-Oz]

Bottom note: Bigchelis was lucky and had his one working with 2.6A 18650 without magnet. i wasn't so lucky
Said that, even with 2.2A 18650 runtime is damn good.

I've not ever used a magnet on a battery so I don't know how secure they are but this type torch uses a sprung contact ring in the head to make the circuit with the end of the battery and if a magnet happened to slip sideways and touch that ring that would make for one hell of a short.

 

[JaguarDave-in-Oz]

One more thing I'd like to point out: there is a review where it is stated that this flashlight performs "Below average runtime on Turbo mode" but I wonder whether there are other flashlights using same led and bin, kind of regulation (buck->DD) and performing comparable output out there
If not (as I suspect) there could be no average to compare against.:devil:

Quark 123-2 R2 runtime with 17670 on "lightreviews" is about 1:29 and the reviewer says it's "providing good runtimes". This Eagletac torch is stated there as being "below average" at 1:10 which is whilst providing nearly 100 extra lumens. I don't think he's looking at the whole picture.

 

[RTTR]

Quark 123-2 R2 runtime with 17670 on "lightreviews" is about 1:29 and the reviewer says it's "providing good runtimes". This Eagletac torch is stated there as being "below average" at 1:10 which is whilst providing nearly 100 extra lumens. I don't think he's looking at the whole picture.

He also rates the P20C2 MKII as having less output on his bar graph than the R2 Quark, yet i mean look at the numbers.

I dunno what is standard method of rating is cause I don't a system here.

 

[blub]

That site seems odd to me, on the Thrunite Catapult test it says High Spot 31240 Lux then in the ratings they give it a "7" for output in the ratings.

On the Fenix TK40 review it says Turbo Spot 20800 Lux
then give it a "9" for output in the ratings even though the Catapult is brighter and has higher lumens.

 

[jhc37013]

He also rates the P20C2 MKII as having less output on his bar graph than the R2 Quark, yet i mean look at the numbers.

I dunno what is standard method of rating is cause I don't a system here.

Also the reviewer says that the Eagletac P20MKII in the Bad comment section that it has bad runtime on turbo but you can see it regulates for about 1.5hr on primary's and 1.75hr untill 50%. I'm not sure what he compares it to but I think those are descent enough runtimes and surely should not be a "bad" mark.

I love his reviews and he does better than I can so I'm not going to critique it to much.

 

[Dole]

That site seems odd to me, on the Thrunite Catapult test it says High Spot 31240 Lux then in the ratings they give it a "7" for output in the ratings.

On the Fenix TK40 review it says Turbo Spot 20800 Lux
then give it a "9" for output in the ratings even though the Catapult is brighter and has higher lumens.

Maybe he's taking into account several other factors like output/size ratio or output/price ratio.

 

[Painful Chafe]

I do know he takes into account runtime on his output rating. I asked him once why the Olight M30 was rated pretty low on his output rating. It was given a 6.5
He said it was because runtime and regulation. It seems weird that the having a higher lumens output doesn't give a boost to the "Output" rating because it causes lower runtime as a consequence.

 

[member 6142]

I've not ever used a magnet on a battery so I don't know how secure they are but this type torch uses a sprung contact ring in the head to make the circuit with the end of the battery and if a magnet happened to slip sideways and touch that ring that would make for one hell of a short.

Yep, you're quite right but I did it VERY carefully