PD-S Runtime Chart

Hey guys :wave:

Well, while everyone else was busy buying new McGizmo Ti goodies, I was busy testing my Al PD-S...

As usual, Surefire CR123A & AW R123 750mAh batteries were used for testing. No cooling, MeterMan LM-631, lux at one meter.

Results are compared to other McGizmo 1x123 lights - the PD-S (non-mizer), mCree XR19-C, and the McLuxIII-PD UX1K. All were done with Surefire CR123 and AW R123 750mAh.



john

My runtime on High is similar.
I tested mine on Low: 50 hours till it STARTS to drop.

Rudi said:

I tested mine on Low: 50 hours till it STARTS to drop.

Click to expand...

Woah... this is why I don't to low tests! That's rediculous!

Thanks for doing these tests, guys! I have the mizer version and mostly use the low. I guess the new box of Surefires on the way will last a while!

I did a runtime test on my Mizer PD today using a AW R123 rechargable battery. It was fresh off the nano charger.

I have no fancy equipment but my eyes and the clock on the cable box....

However I did manage to make a runtime chart to look at. The light ran for exactly 2 hours!! Not bad for a R123!

Heres my Chart:

hehehe, now that is some timed light!

Nice graf thar, PSM. Looks like Uncle RayBob and cuzin Bubba's got some kompeeteeshun!

Love that runtime chart, PSM! It's awesome how it goes to negative brightness after about 3 hours.... I guess that's when the Mizer rips a hole in space-time and starts sucking the energy out of the universe.


:lolsign: WP

PoliceScannerMan said:

I have no fancy equipment but my eyes and the clock on the cable box....

Click to expand...

A cable box is considered fancy equipment to me!

john

PS - Thanks for ruining my thread with your stone-age runtime chart, PSM... :nana:

You guys are great! :lolsign:

PoliceScannerMan said:

I did a runtime test on my Mizer PD today using a AW R123 rechargable battery. It was fresh off the nano charger.

I have no fancy equipment but my eyes and the clock on the cable box....

However I did manage to make a runtime chart to look at. The light ran for exactly 2 hours!! Not bad for a R123!

Heres my Chart:

Click to expand...

I especially like the part after hour 3 where "negative light" happens. Like a black hole - I guess that's where the PD-S recharges itself by sucking light back in.
:lolsign:
-C

jch79 said:

PS - Thanks for ruining my thread with your stone-age runtime chart, PSM... :nana:

Click to expand...

Sorry about that! :laughing:

The chart as far as runtime is accurate however.... :rock:

This is seriously the funniest thing I've seen all day. =)

Thanks, PSM! Great chart.

- FITP

Now this is a chart a newbie can understand! I appreciate the information!

By the way, this is probably answered somewhere else, but are the mizers and the regular PD-S's set to the same brightness for the low setting?

This needs to be in the FAQ...Where's Kiessling?!?!

I added the McLuxIII-PD UX1K and mCree XR19-C results to the first post.
And I took the easy way out and had a computer do it, not hand-drawn! :nana: :wave:
john

Kiessling reporting in :wave:

Gentlemen ... let me give this some thought. First, I want to compliment the artist for this exceptional piece of ... work. We at McGizmo Productions Inc. have never seen such a fine representation of our product line.
Including it in the official and thus sacred presentations that shall last at least an eternity will be considered and discussed in the proper meetings with important people.



bernie

Anyone care to speculate on runtimes with rechargeables, either 2x123 or Pila 168S?

Hi Rudi
None of these lights are compatible with a 2x123 tube... they're all 1x123 - unless you were just theorizing what it would be if it was possible?
john

I want to chime in and thank PSM for the refreshing runtime chart he has graciously provided us here too!

I was so impressed that I tried to duplicate his efforts but after 2 hours, instead of going into the negative, my crayon headed back to the left on the Y axis!! I think my sundial may have been effected by some cloud cover so I will need to re do the test. :green:

It has been brought to my attention that the GDx2 coupled with the EZ1000 chip seems to be resulting with lower runtimes than we have seen on previous PD's hosting the wiz2x2 driver and Luxeons. :thinking:

Well the GDx2 is supposed to be if anything, a bit more efficient than the wiz2x2 driver so what is this about? I have noticed when powering these heads on the bench supply that the current drawn by the converter is very similar so one would expect similar runtimes?!?!

My speculation on this is based on some experiments I did some time ago with runtimes when I tested the lights in ambient air and ambient water of the same temp. These tests showed significant reductions in run time when the light was in water and kept cooler. I decided that the battery temp had a significant impact on runtime and that the constant on run times were misleading since in normal use, the battery would not heat up to more optimal operating temps. I speculate now that perhaps the EZ1000 chip and GDx2 converter coupled together produce less heat and consequently the battery is not being elevated in temp during the test to the degree it is when a wiz2x2 is coupled with a Luxeon. This is my TrailerPark Scientific conclusion and I will sleep well whether I am correct or not! :nana: