Gladius Runtimes on rechargeables

AW 3.0V R123as x 2
600 mah each





First Graph
Output drops as per designed when they detect you are using the light continuous. Runtime of around 58 minutes.

Second Graph
From the start, light is at 50% output. Produces well regulated light for 2hrs+.

Third Graph
17670 protected chart. Note using single li-on causes Gladius to blink every 10secs (low battery warning)

It would be helpful to me if you could give some idea of how many Lumens the "100 %" in each chart represents. I'm sure that in each chart the Lumen scale is very different.

Well, very roughly, based on my DIY litebox, 100% output of the Gladius is about 70 lumens.

The 2nd chart is 100% of 50% (which is 50% ), so its 35 lumens or so for 2hrs+.

The 17670 seems to be pushing the Gladius at 70 lumens too, even though it is only 3.7v. Just that the low batt warning comes up every 10secs.

That's good to know. Thanks for putting that together.

It says R123a on the 17670 graph.

haha.. thanks for the pointers.. I will change it when I have the chance... its 17670!!

Edit : Added some stuff! Anyway, just hope this helps anyone who wants to use rechargeables in their Gladius.

Great! Thank you very much!
But isn't the 17670 overdischarged in your test?
And I wonder whether the output will stay 100% when the light is used occasionally? I know runtimetests are always done this way, not only because it's easier to do. But wouldn't noncontinuous runtimetests be more related to practice?

Xygen said:

Great! Thank you very much!
But isn't the 17670 overdischarged in your test?
And I wonder whether the output will stay 100% when the light is used occasionally? I know runtimetests are always done this way, not only because it's easier to do. But wouldn't noncontinuous runtimetests be more related to practice?

Click to expand...

The 17670 is protected, and at the time I stopped the test, the PCB hadn't kicked in yet, so it might be able to go on a little more on moon mode. So no danger of over-discharge.

As to doing a non-continuous runtime test, everyone has different periods of use, so it's going to be really hard to determine how to test it. At least with this graph as a gauge, you'd roughly know you have 90 mins of almost full power (not counting the initial stepdown because that happens within the first few mins), and prob 40 mins worth of "65% level" juice left after that. So if you use it at so-called full power (in short bursts) during that period, you can estimate the runtime will be roughly halved.

Someone tested his Gladius full draw to be almost 1A, so theoretically the 17670 rated at 1500mah should drive the light at full 100% power for about 90 mins. (consider losses to heat and batt actual capacity and state of charge)

You're right! One should construe the graphs.
Thanks again!

I've seen that remark regarding, "Output drops as per designed when they detect you are using the light continuous. " often repeated here and as reported on FLR's as coming from a third party source. I'd be curious to see some actual evidence supporting this statement that it's designed to drop 15% of it's output in the first 5 minutes.

I cannot help but suspect that that's just marketing-speak to explain that the LuxeonIII is heatsoaking as they are known to do. Why else would it tail slowly? If it were electronically controlled, wouldn't the drop be sudden?

Is the sharp drop at 10 minutes best explained by a thermal limiter or thermal limitations or circuit design?

Your graph certainly makes sense when viewed at vs QB's because of the higher voltage the thermal conditions are occuring more quickly. I just want to know why the output drops are occuring based upon more than hearsay. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me that a light so clearly designed for 'tactical' situations would have a predesigned output drop that could 'surprise' the user and put them at a disadvantage at a bad time.

Am I making sense here?

I can't say for sure because I'm not in the Blackhawk team, but trusting the quality of their brand and product, I'm sure they are not trying to mask heatsoak as a stepdown.

I've done runtime tests of smaller lights like the Jet-I using a 14500 and drawing 1.3A, even at that size, the entire aluminium light serves as a pretty good heatsink for the LED and runtime is well regulated.
https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/116817&highlight=jet-i

The drop of 10% over 20 good minutes after li-on regulation kicks in might be due to heatsoak or maybe driver related issues?

No reason why the Gladius with a bigger body would drop 15% due to heatsoak in 5 minutes UNLESS the heatsink is poorly connected to the body of the light. The head/body of the Gladius does get fairly warm after some time, and I measured a max of 45 deg celsius at the head with an infrared thermometer. I believe the light is sinking the heat well and its large enough to dissipate it pretty efficiently.

I don't think the Gladius step-down is due to such a drastic heatsoak.

For the 17670, since input voltage is lower, I'm not sure if the driver behaves exactly the same way, but apparently it has similar characteristics (2 stepdowns), but over a much longer period of time.

Anyway, the stepdown is not shocking at all; you probably wouldn't even notice it in normal use. Just like how a direct-drive light gets dimmer every second but you'd most probably only notice it when the light is at 65-70% juice.

Btw, Quickbeam's runtime does show an immediate stepdown; maybe on rechargeables it is a little different? I don't know. But the data seems to more or less corroborate.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's a good product I'm just suspicious of the third party hearsay nature of the claim of a regulated step-down. The IR alone could be heating up the light, that doesn't mean it's effectively heatsinked.

Admittedly, my suspicions are as verifiable at the moment as the claims of the regulated step down. I just can't wrap my brain around the idea of a light so clearly intended for tactical situations that would have a mind of it's own with regards to output - it just seems illogical.

Though I understand their theory of stepping-down to prolong runtime, I agree that forcing it on the user is not the wisest of choice. Since the light has multiple levels anyway, I think it would be wiser to leave it to the user to step-down to 80% or whatever manually when he thinks he needs light for a prolonged period.

Sometimes predicting and over-compensating for a user's preferences might be counter intuitive instead.

Anyway, once my Gladius has been Creed or Seouled, 65% of max should be the same as my 100% now. (Of course some can argue that without the stepdown thingie I could have 150% light! But oh well, I take what I can get since I've already bought the light)

LOL -have fun!

Again, I'm not hatin' on the Gladius just calling BS on the hearsay until I see some evidence.