It was a defective Quark. With a correctly working replacement, the runtime was 1:14 for RCRs and 1:42 for 17670. I think that the 17670 dropped out of the regulation after ~35 minutes (hence the sudden drop in the output) but the output remained close to the 2x RCR one.
The Quark lights thread! (Part 5)
- Thread starter Badbeams3
- Start date
Help Support Candle Power Flashlight Forum
- Status
It was a defective Quark. With a correctly working replacement, the runtime was 1:14 for RCRs and 1:42 for 17670. I think that the 17670 dropped out of the regulation after ~35 minutes (hence the sudden drop in the output) but the output remained close to the 2x RCR one.
Thanks for the measurements. I'd have to later find some time to look at them but I can say that they already made me interested in the Ni-Zn cells
I think they are still quite rare, even here at CPF.
Marduke
Flashaholic
You are seriously going to tell me that little burp in the graph make a lick of difference? A TEMPORARY ~6% drop? Give me a freaking break...
http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff97/selfbuilt/Q1232-Replace.gif
The original sample didn't even have that burp, and plenty of people are using the 123^2 in the 17670 setup and are EXTREMELY happy with the superior performance...
Same output, longer runtime, and no sudden shutoff.
My apologies man, sorry I missed that. I light of this fact, I wouldn't waste another minute on this thing. Call 4-7's in the morning and get a RMA number to replace the defective head!
Cheers!
bcwang
Enlightened
That graph shows it out of regulation for much of the runtime. What might be very impressive is this: Quark 123x2 head, 2AA body, 2 x 14500 cells.
The only issue would be using 2 li-ion cells in series, have to be very very careful not to drain it too low. Though this would be the same as trying to use 2 rcr123 cells in series.
If only the Quark fit the 18650 cells, those have so much more capacity and would have really pushed me to try the 123x2 body.
Last edited:
You are seriously going to tell me that little burp in the graph make a lick of difference? A TEMPORARY ~6% drop? Give me a freaking break...
Where did I say that it makes a practical difference?
I wrote previously that the 17670 will hold the voltage much better than an RCR. I think some of them may even stay in regulation for the full runtime. I'm also not disputing that a 17670 is a better practical choice. This drop is just an interesting artifact on the graph that I thought may be caused by the light dropping out of the regulation, that's all.
For easier reading, here is the selfbuilt's graph:
bcwang
Enlightened
I believe the 123x2 head is more efficient because it is only a buck circuit, the only thing you gain by going to the AA head is a full time fully regulated (but slightly dimmer) turbo mode. You'll also have to be careful because this head can drain the cell below a safe voltage easily especially in the lower modes.
All these possibilities, makes me want a 123x2 head to play with too.
Me too, but I was hoping to get a neutral white 3~9 volt head. Not listed on the 47 site yet.
Actually the 123-2 head with an 17670 will also drain the cell below the safe voltage - exactly as seen on the selfbuilt's graph. It can be more convenient to not have the sudden cut-off but when the light dims, it should be turned off. Otherwise the light is killing the cell. Since it is unregulated, even the protected cells will go below the safe voltage (unless they have a high overdischarge voltage cutoff and e.g. AW's have it low).
EDIT: the same of course applies to any unregulated configuration (e.g. a 123-2 with an RCR) and almost every other light that drops out of regulation.
Last edited:
Agree. Still... as you say, the 123-2 head gives better notice than the other head of a low batt condition. By the time the other head gets dim on turbo the batt is really low...maybe forever damaged.
DHart
Flashlight Enthusiast
I've got two 123x2 Quarks (one a warm tactical and the other a cool regular) and run them both with 17670's exclusively... I really love that combination! :twothumbs No plans to use two RCR123's nor two primaries in them unless I'm out of charged 17670s and must turn to emergency/back-up power sources to use one of the lights. Being able to start out with a freshly charged 17670 whenever I plan to take the lights out and top them off again when I'm done is fantastic. I really dislike using CR123s unless forced to by necessity.
It depends on the mode. In the turbo mode, the other head (123) will be regulated with a Li-Ion - it will pull a high current, there will be no dimming and the battery protection circuit will intervene soon enough. In lower modes both heads will probably be regulated but when the current is low enough (definitely in the moon mode, probably in the low mode and maybe also in the medium mode) they will be able to overdischarge batteries with a low cutoff voltage (e.g. AW's), without any warning. That's why the overdischage protection should be also present in the flashlight.
EDIT: I was wrong about lower modes. The 123-2 head obviously will not be regulated indefinitely. Even in the lower modes it will drop out of regulation when the voltage drops below the LED forward voltage and will dim. In all the modes except Turbo if this dimming can be noticed (i.e. probably everywhere except the moon mode) it is then safer for batteries than the 123 head.
Last edited:
Whoops, my mistake. That suddenly makes a lot more sense. Uh, aside from the voltmeter part anyway.
Too many Quark threads going on; it's getting hard to keep track of everything.
mbiraman
Newly Enlightened
Does the possibility of discharging a battery to an unsafe level apply only to Lion cells or does it apply to Nimhs as well?.
No problem, I totally agree, all the different topics are hare to keep track of!
Cheers!
As far as I know, the Quarks don't have any overdischarge protection. Actually the only lights that I know with both NiMH and Li-Ion protections are from LiteFlux. NiMH batteries of course don't have their own overdischarge protection either.
I was writing about Li-Ions. I wasn't checking how the Quarks behave with NiMHs. On the HKJ's graphs the 123/AA head works even at 0.2V and NiMHs generally shouldn't be discharged below 0.9V. You would have to check what happens with NiMHs in different modes. The light will probably eventually drop out of regulation and you'll notice the dimming, the question is at what voltage it happens. The worst situation will be for the moon mode, when the dimming may be unnoticeable and for 2xAA configuration when the batteries can be depleted to half the voltage of a single AA.
mbiraman
Newly Enlightened
Thankx ; that gives me a little more clarity on the situation. Having recently come from the alkaline primary world into new high tech torch world with Lions and Nimhs its taking a little time to wrap my head around the new parameters. I was worried that i would use my light and then all of a sudden it goes dim and the battery is already damaged and i guess that could happen in certain situations and me as a light user ,tending to be in moonlight or low mode quite a bit, so i guess i need to figure out my general usage and recharge appropriately before it gets too low.
thankx
Yes, it's always the best to understand what is happening
Unfortunately most of current flashlights are not as worry-free as I would like them to be. You should note though that the batteries tend to be pretty tolerant to abuse. They should not be overdischarged but if they are, and they are not kept discharged for too long and to an extremely low level, they go back to life. They may lose some capacity, their life can be shortened but usually they won't be completely dead. It's not a good idea to overdischarge batteries but usually it doesn't destroy them either.EDIT: I think that for a normal use it means that one should be worried mostly about lower levels, as you wrote. If the light dims on high, the battery may be overdischarged a bit but it can be easily seen and when the light is turned off the voltage will rebound and probably nothing wrong will happen. In lower modes what is dangerous is the possibility that the user is unaware of the flashlight pulling the current from an already overdischarged battery, damaging it this way. It should be investigated if such a possibility for a particular light exists and if it does, this situation should be avoided.
Last edited:
- Status
