Zebralight SC52 & SC52w

[selas]

This video measures the tailcap current in lockout mode:
Zebralight SC52: 0.127mA <— ouch! :sick2:
Zebralight SC51: 0.006mA <— :twothumbs

That's because he's using a 14500 (you can see it's a Trustfire at 07:33). With an eneloop it's comparable to the SC51, about 0.010mA (can't be more specific, my multimeter's rubbish).

 

[shelm]

That's because he's using a 14500 (you can see it's a Trustfire at 07:33). With an eneloop it's comparable to the SC51, about 0.010mA (can't be more specific, my multimeter's rubbish).

Thanks, you are right, in the video he uses 14500 in both the SC51 (or is it a SC50??) and the SC52 and the SC51 has a much lower current on 14500
selfbuilt had addressed this subject in detail too:

Standby Drain

A standby current drain is inevitable on the SC52, due to the electronic switch in the head. Here is how the new SC52 compares to the earlier SC50 and SC51:

SC52: 129.1 uA on 14500, 20.2 uA on Eneloop NiMH
SC51: 41.8 uA on 14500, 14.2 uA on Eneloop NiMH
SC50: 7.4 uA on 14500, 2.3 uA on Eneloop NiMH

While there has been an upward trend in standby currents over time on the SC5x series, these values for the SC52 are still quite low in absolute terms. Assuming a standard 900mAh protected 14500, and a 2000mAh Eneloop NiMH, these currents would translate into 9.5 months on 14500, and 11.3 years on Eneloop.

Certainly, the drain is absolutely nothing to worry about on NiMH. The drain is higher 1x14500 (but still not unreasonable). But as always, I recommend you lock-out the light when not in use.

Parasitic Drain: Negligible (equivalent to 16 years, much less than the self discharging of a battery)

• Zebralight SC52: 0.127mA total over 1x14500 (750mAh TF) = 5905h = 246d = 8mo <— ouch! :sick2:
• Zebralight SC51: 0.0065mA total over 1x14500 (750mAh TF) = 115384h = 4807d = 160mo = 13y <— :twothumbs

Well well, the Zebralight spec "16 years" is an exaggeration and misleading (May i call it a lie? ) since on Eneloop the correct number would be "11 years" and on 14500 the correct number would be "8 months" since a typical 14500 Trustfire 900mAh cells contains only 750mAh, see battery tests and databases.

We are left with the observation that on 14500 the SC51/50 have a considerably lower standby current than the SC52. I am not concerned but i am sure that the average Joe is not aware of this fact because Zebralight only states, wrongly, "Parasitic Drain: Negligible (equivalent to 16 years bla blah".

Bad bad Zebralight Co.!

 

[Mr Floppy]

Zebralight only states, wrongly, "Parasitic Drain: Negligible (equivalent to 16 years bla blah".

Bad bad Zebralight Co.!

Yes, bad bad Zebralight, just when I planned on leaving my light untouched for 15 years ... quick, call up consumer affairs.

 

[henry1960]

(May i call it a lie? ) since on Eneloop the correct number would be "11 years" and on 14500 the correct number would be "8 months"
I am not concerned but i am sure that the average Joe is not aware of this fact because Zebralight only states, wrongly, "Parasitic Drain: Negligible (equivalent to 16 years bla blah".

Bad bad Zebralight Co.!

Learn Something New Every Day!!

 

[Wiggle]

Yes, bad bad Zebralight, just when I planned on leaving my light untouched for 15 years ... quick, call up consumer affairs.

Measuring small currents like that can difficult. The margin of error between 11 and 16 years doesn't concern me much. Even the draw on 14500 isn't a concern for a typical user who tops off their 14500 with any regularity. Not to mention we don't know if that measured standby current decreases with voltage as the battery deplates. With the difference between 14500 and Eneloop draw I don't think it's crazy to assume that standby would continue dropping as the battery lost charage and voltage, prolonging the time beyond the calculated 11 years.

To be fair, I bet the life of 16 years is about right for an alkaline cell.

 

[holylight]

maybe 16 years from now 14500 will be 8000 mah

 

[twl]

I think that the more important issue is not how long the parasitic drain will suck an entire battery dry, but instead the ramifications of pulling the light out of the desk drawer and only having part of the expected run time, or brightness.
In this case, it loses in the vicinity of about 10% per year. I don't know how far this specific light will have to drain before it can't do Turbo anymore. Or not last as long on High, or whatever.

Just because a light will take 11 years to drain my battery completely dead is not any great comfort, IMO. it has impact on run time far before 11 years rolls around.
Sure, we can have an extra battery. But some people are not flashaholics, and might not.

I just see no need for parasitic drain to drag my battery down, no matter how long it takes to run it dead. I use lights which don't have parasitic drain.
Just my preference.

 

[bluemax_1]

maybe 16 years from now 14500 will be 8000 mah

Well, if they keep improving battery chemistry and LED tech at the rate their doing now, in 16 years, 14500 cells should be about 1500-2000 mAh and a single 14500 light should be able to put out ~1500-2000 lumens.

That was one of the things that amused me about the movie 'Prometheus';
" Oh look, they're waayyyy in the future and still using early millennium tech flashlights".

That'd be like us folks using oil wick lamps on a scientific expedition. I don't think there are any directors and screenwriters who are flashaholics though. As far in the future as Prometheus is, I'd at the very least, expect TK70 output from a helmet mounted light module the size of a Streamlight Nano.


Max

 

[Overclocker]

I think that the more important issue is not how long the parasitic drain will suck an entire battery dry, but instead the ramifications of pulling the light out of the desk drawer and only having part of the expected run time, or brightness.
In this case, it loses in the vicinity of about 10% per year. I don't know how far this specific light will have to drain before it can't do Turbo anymore. Or not last as long on High, or whatever.

Just because a light will take 11 years to drain my battery completely dead is not any great comfort, IMO. it has impact on run time far before 11 years rolls around.
Sure, we can have an extra battery. But some people are not flashaholics, and might not.

I just see no need for parasitic drain to drag my battery down, no matter how long it takes to run it dead. I use lights which don't have parasitic drain.
Just my preference.

oh so you don't use batteries that self-discharge then? ;-)

 

[twl]

oh so you don't use batteries that self-discharge then? ;-)

Most often I use them up before they self-discharge much, or else I recharge them.
But I don't see any point in compounding the issue by adding parasitic drain to the mix. I don't like any parasitic drain. I don't know why anyone would.

 

[Swede74]

This video measures the tailcap current in lockout mode.

I wonder, when you measure like that, is it the tail cap current only you're measuring, or the tailcap + protection circuit current? The way I understand it, a protected cell will always suffer from parasitic drain from the protection circuit, as opposed to alkaline and NiMH which only have various degrees of self discharge to deal with.

 

[r-ice]

does zebra light still have that annoying preflash like the H51 did?

 

[DavidMB]

It seems you are only content when spreading negativity.

 

[r-ice]

It seems you are only content when spreading negativity.

seriously I can't express that I didn't like the preflash, I bought two of them and both of them had it. I can say that I haven't had another light do that to me and I do find it annoying. I am contemplating the new sc52, so you can answer that and the smart alecky remark wasn't needed.

 

[shelm]

why do i feel that i am spoken to

EDIT: oh, david was addressing rice

 

[r-ice]

I am assuming he was addressing me
which I don't understand why you can't express what is an annoyance to someone who paid for the light and expects it to work with out the preflash, shows you how much I like the light, I lost one of them anyways. I was thinking of buying the sc52 and the preflash is a dealbreaker and I was wondering if it is present in the newer lights and he pops up with that.

why do i feel that i am spoken to

EDIT: oh, david was addressing rice

here is a short vid that shows this preflash

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ub1qhkbSzi8

I'm sitting here wondering if this davidmb guy is just a online troll trying to get a rise?

 

[Glow_Worm]

rice, I assumed that David was addressing his comment to the complaints about a parasitic drain that is far lower than the battery's own self-discharge rate (at least w/ a NiMH battery), not your question.

To answer your question, no, the SC52 doesn't have any pre-flash. Unless you're talking about starting w/ a double-click to go to Medium, in which case a pre-flash is unavoidable as the light is actually starting in High and then jumping down to Medium.

 

[r-ice]

rice, I assumed that David was addressing his comment to the complaints about a parasitic drain that is far lower than the battery's own self-discharge rate (at least w/ a NiMH battery), not your question.

To answer your question, no, the SC52 doesn't have any pre-flash. Unless you're talking about starting w/ a double-click to go to Medium, in which case a pre-flash is unavoidable as the light is actually starting in High and then jumping down to Medium.

thanks, I now have no idea who he was talking to but what he said despite who he was saying it to had no relevance to the light so it wasn't needed.

 

[JetskiMark]

I do not like parasitic drain at all, yet I really enjoy using my SC52 with a 14500.

If I was planning on storing this light for a long time, I would put an L91 in it and lock out the tail cap. Simple and effective.

If Zebralight ever comes out with a neutral version, I will add it to my collection.

 

[DavidMB]

Sorry rice, that was not directed towards you. I've been reading this thread since it was created. I was enjoying it, but certain posts have taken the fun and excitement out of it. You were right shelm, it was you.