Thrunite Neutron 2A (1xAA/14500 2xAA) and 2C (1xRCR/18650 2xCR123A/RCR) 2014 Review

[SuLyMaN]

My jaws dropped and broke.... Thankfully such a review was not posted on the 1st of April or I would not believe it
How floody is it compared to the Quark X 2AA version sb?
Thanks for the great review as usual.

 

[markr6]

Just sent e-mail to Thrunite asking about a NEUTRAL WHITE option.

EDIT - their site was just updated with NW option.

 

[Swedpat]

Thanks Selfbuilt for another great review!

I have to say that the head of Neutron looks very similar to the head of Fenix PD12. May the body fit to PD12 head?

 

[phantom23]

Just sent e-mail to Thrunite asking about a NEUTRAL WHITE option.

There's a group buy going on on German forum and NW is one of the options.

 

[selfbuilt]

Ok, here's a repeated restart runtime on the 1xAA form of the 2A, using an Eneloop Pro (2550mAh) battery. I manually restarted the Turbo after ~4 mins of step-down Hi (just to be consistent with overall time spent at both levels).

Excellent overall runtime. I am also impressed to see that it keeps a fairly well regulated Turbo mode output level (up until the point when it drops out of regulation). :thumbsup:

My jaws dropped and broke.... Thankfully such a review was not posted on the 1st of April or I would not believe it

You are not alone there - I wouldn't have believed those specs if I hadn't tested the sample myself!

I certainly encourage a healthy dose of skepticism when it comes to manufacturers specs (indeed, that is why I do my reviews in the first place - to provide independent testing, under consistent conditions). In this case, the output specs seem surprisingly accurate.

I should point out that although the ~60% increase in max output on the 1xAA form (compared to my previous top performer, the SC52) sounds impressive, it is not that noticeable in real life. Yes, you can certainly see a difference when the two lights are side by side (e.g., look at my standardized beamshot comparisons in this review). But given the non-linearity of our visual perceptions, it's not like you would really take that much notice when handling the 2A alone.

How floody is it compared to the Quark X 2AA version sb?

You can directly pull the beamshots from that review, to compare to the ones above. The 2A is more relatively "throwy", thanks to its larger and deeper reflector.

I have to say that the head of Neutron looks very similar to the head of Fenix PD12. May the body fit to TN12 head?

No, it's completely different threading. The new Neutrons use standard fine triangular threads (and relatively few). The TN12 use thick square-cut threads.

 

[Swedpat]

No, it's completely different threading. The new Neutrons use standard fine triangular threads (and relatively few). The TN12 use thick square-cut threads.

Sorry, I wrote wrong and I corrected it. Of course I meant PD12. Otherwise I had expressed it really confusing...
But I see that PD12 also uses square-cut threads.

 

[markr6]

There's a group buy going on on German forum and NW is one of the options.

Well then, I'm on my way over to Germany!!!!!

 

[amaretto]

Ok, here's a repeated restart runtime
...
Excellent overall runtime. I am also impressed to see that it keeps a fairly well regulated Turbo mode output level (up until the point when it drops out of regulation). :thumbsup:


You are not alone there - I wouldn't have believed those specs if I hadn't tested the sample myself!

I certainly encourage a healthy dose of skepticism when it comes to manufacturers specs (indeed, that is why I do my reviews in the first place - to provide independent testing, under consistent conditions). In this case, the output specs seem surprisingly accurate.

Great, thank you very much for your additional runtime graph. This kind of graph is imho more praktical and useful than your usual runtime graphs. Why? Because in my experience it is not a normal use to fire up a flashlight and let it run until the batteries are fully drained. I think it is more realistic to use a flashlight for some time. And perhaps the next hour/day again for some time and so on. It is therefore more useful to know how powerful a torch would be depending on battery voltage each time you switch it on. By the way you could use a handful of batteries too with different voltage to verify the output instead of continuos restarts. By this means heat does not matter.

The addition runtime graph with restarts (+ cooling fan) overlayed by the "regular" runtime graph is perfect. It completes your great review. Wish you would add this graph in future to all your reviews. :twothumbs

 

[selfbuilt]

This kind of graph is imho more praktical and useful than your usual runtime graphs. Why? Because in my experience it is not a normal use to fire up a flashlight and let it run until the batteries are fully drained. ... The addition runtime graph with restarts (+ cooling fan) overlayed by the "regular" runtime graph is perfect. It completes your great review. Wish you would add this graph in future to all your reviews.

I fully agree - both types of graphs provide a lot of very useful information. But they are also more labor intensive to complete (especially the repeated restarts one). As it is, my lightbox is almost constantly in use every day (and most nights for longer runs).

Typically, the main goal of my runtime testing is really to provide a consistent comparison of output/runtime efficiency and regulation patterns over time, across multiple levels. I try to supplement with the additional context-specific testing whenever time permits - especially on lights where this would be most relevant (i.e., high or rapid step-downs, high output with thermal-controlled circuits, etc.), as well as lights where there is a lot interest. I think these models qualify on both fronts. :laughing:

 

[BWX]

I forgot to mention, I was trying to buy a TN12 and two 18650 batts at the Thrunite store "http://www.thrunite-store.com/" last week. There was no payment option popping up during checkout on three different browsers and two different computers.

Trying to contact them by email or phone was useless.
You click on "support" and get this error:


"There has been an error processing your request

Exception printing is disabled by default for security reasons.

Error log record number: 1249493523"

http://www.thrunite-store.com/flashlights/support

Pretty lame, and not confidence inspiring. I almost decided to go with a different flashlight after that.



I ended up having to buy different brand of batts and the TN12 (which was a gift from someone else, to someone else) at Amazon and couldn't get the Neutral version.

So not sure what's going on there, as that is how I bought my TN12 quite a few months ago. The store seems very slow, and you cannot complete checkout.

 

[markr6]

I forgot to mention, I was trying to buy a TN12 and two 18650 batts at the Thrunite store "http://www.thrunite-store.com/" last week. There was no payment option popping up during checkout on three different browsers and two different computers.

Trying to contact them by email or phone was useless.


I ended up having to buy different brand of batts and the TN12 (which was a gift from someone else, to someone else) at Amazon and couldn't get the Neutral version.

So not sure what's going on there, as that is how I bought my TN12 quite a few months ago. The store seems very slow, and you cannot complete checkout.

I wonder if there is any real difference between that and www.thrunite.com?

 

[BWX]

I wonder if there is any real difference between that and www.thrunite.com?

Last week I had same issues with both.
Now I tried going through checkout on http://www.thrunite.com and it seemed to allow for paypal checkout, but I did not go through with it so not sure if it works or not.
Not sure I want to buy things directly from China though, I liked having the stuff shipped from US to US like at thrunite-store.com (at least that's how I thought it worked back when I bought my TN12 there).

 

[Wolf359]

I ordered off there new website paying with paypal lastnight

http://www.thrunite-store.com has become or is becoming there european store i believe

 

[Mr Floppy]

Here are some info about current:

So is that the current draw from the battery? Because 2xAA only drawing 2A and still getting 650 Lumen means some how it needs to boost voltage to 3V so not sure I understand if that can work.

Sure, except I only take measurements at 30 sec intervals, so there is not much more to see. To make this interesting, I decided to add non-cooled runtimes to my 1xAA Eneloop Pro and alkaline runs (in 1xAA form only so far):

[strike]The cyan and orange lines, is that Alkaline or Eneloop?[/strike] edit: never mind, the gradient of the slope confused me.

Looking at the high on a regular Eneloop, is that flatter than the Eneloop pro?

 

[Quality]

This is the 14500 light to beat. Its been a long time since I've seen something that legitimately runs on 14500s and actually pushes the envelope. Very nice.

 

[selfbuilt]

Looking at the high on a regular Eneloop, is that flatter than the Eneloop pro?

No, I would say there is no significant difference.

 

[pepekraft]

Nice, thanks!

I might be missing something in the 2C beamshots .. all I see is 2xRCR form shots I think, with 18650. Did you shoot short 2C shots?

I'm mostly an AA/14500 guy anyway, and wow. just wow. those are nice.

 

[Mr Floppy]

No, I would say there is no significant difference.

From your first two graphs, I can see the Eneloop pro has a higher relative output and more of a bend than the regular Eneloop. Probably not signigicant but I wonder how a pair of Elite 1700's will go.

 

[markr6]

Had a neutral white 2A in my cart...but talked myself into waiting! As usual, "I don't need another light" keeps going thru my head.

 

[selfbuilt]

I might be missing something in the 2C beamshots .. all I see is 2xRCR form shots I think, with 18650. Did you shoot short 2C shots?

No, I didn't do specific 2xRCR shots (or 1x16340/18350 for that matter). There is not much visual difference between these cells.

From your first two graphs, I can see the Eneloop pro has a higher relative output and more of a bend than the regular Eneloop. Probably not signigicant but I wonder how a pair of Elite 1700's will go.

I wouldn't read too much into that - subtle differences like that don't usually hold up on repeated testing with different cells. And in this case, my Eneloop Pro was new, while the regular Eneloop was older, which could also contribute. I would consider them equivalent (you certainly couldn't see a difference).