If Quarks use the latest R5 emitters, why aren't they brighter?

yalskey · Jan 5, 2010

I've been checking out the Quark lights and generally I really like them, although they are a bit plain in looks for my taste (i.e. compare the looks to JetBeam).

Question for ya'll... One of the reasons I like these Quarks so much is they use cutting edge design features such as the R5 bin emitters. This should really give them a significant advantage in efficiency over other comparable lights using the good old Q5 emitters.

However, while looking up reviews and beam shots for these lights, the newer R5 Quarks really don't seem that much brighter... and in some cases it is less bright than Q5 emitter lights.

Did Quark decide to have "just" average Turbo output for the sake of longer runtimes, less heat, and a longer lasting emitter life?

Moreover, I'm pretty sure Quark uses real out-the-front lumens in their specs vs. theoretical emitter lumens.... right?

I don't expect miracles with a couple jumps up in bins / emitters, but we've been in the mid-200 lumen range for while now... you would think we would have crossed the 300 lumen range by now, especially with all these new emitters. (of course I'm talking single element emitters here)

madmook · Jan 5, 2010

yalskey said:
However, while looking up reviews and beam shots for these lights, the newer R5 Quarks really don't seem that much brighter... and in some cases it is less bright than Q5 emitter lights

I think any increases in efficiency and output are incremental, not exponential, so no, there is not a significantly noticeable jump in either category.

Also, I have some original Quarks and a Titanium with the R5 emitter, and the tighter hotspot vs. the larger, floodier hotspot of the R5 can alter one's perception on which is "brighter."

Edit: and regarding maximal output (without regards to battery life), I think thermal management becomes a much more prominent concern.

sfca · Jan 5, 2010

Yeah 4sevens does quote OTF lumens.

I've handled a Quark Turbo. Vs an E2DL, equal throw, more area lit up. Much more usable light.
With my coworkers as guinea pigs, the QT was obviously brighter then the E2DL.
200 lumens bested by 230 lumens.

If only for that switch, ugh the more I think about it the more I hate it.

I hope the Maelstrom has a different switch or I'm going to have to wait till S2/S5 XPG drop-ins come out and go the Surefire C2 route.

4sevens, tweak that switch!!

kramer5150 · Jan 5, 2010

Given your time here I'm sure you're familiar with the Lux -VS- Lumen discussion... no need to go there.

Were still stuck at ~250 OTF because the LEDs themselves have not made *significantly* big improvements in Lumen output per unit of heat generated. So while the big lights are getting brighter overall, the small EDCs are still throttled by heat generated from the LED. With good reason, the reputable manufacturers are not releasing designs that are going to overheat and fail.

In My Humble Speculation of course.:thumbsup:

fannin · Jan 5, 2010

yalskey said:
I've been checking out the Quark lights and generally I really like them, although they are a bit plain in looks for my taste (i.e. compare the looks to JetBeam).

i don't own a quark, i have nitecore d10 (love the looks of it) and fenix ld20 and i prefer the looks of the quark aa2 to the ld20: nice and clean with plenty of useful knurling vs not enough knurling by fenix imo. my biggest beef with the fenix ld20 is that the upgraded version still uses cree q5, WTF fenix? you offer pd30 in r2 and r4...

i'm almost happy with the fenix though, i trust it

i like the looks of jetbeam too

monkeyboy · Jan 5, 2010

I have to agree with the OP. To my eyes, my Quark R5 2 x 123 is the same brightness as my Fenix TK11 R2 on the ceiling bounce test. This is not a bad thing, I was just expecting it to be brighter. The current draw (on 1 x li-ion) is less than the TK11 though which suggests that it's running more efficiently.

yalskey · Jan 5, 2010

kramer5150 said:
Given your time here I'm sure you're familiar with the Lux -VS- Lumen discussion... no need to go there.

Were still stuck at ~250 OTF because the LEDs themselves have not made *significantly* big improvements in Lumen output per unit of heat generated. So while the big lights are getting brighter overall, the small EDCs are still throttled by heat generated from the LED. With good reason, the reputable manufacturers are not releasing designs that are going to overheat and fail.

In My Humble Speculation of course.:thumbsup:

Yep, I understand Lux v. Lumen pretty well I think... in that Lux is better than Lumens.... (just kidding)

So I guess (from what you are saying) it's the balance between limiting factors. One factor says... make in smaller, and the other factor says... make it brighter (a.k.a. more heat, assuming no increase in efficiency). You can't have it both ways unless one of the factors gives; or efficiency goes up.

I guess I was just hoping for bigger improvements by now.

Damn it, I want 300 OTF lumen from a 1AA light! LOL (one day.... one day)

brianch · Jan 5, 2010

To me the R5 emitters have a larger hot spot then the Q5 and R2 emitters. In the same reflector they don't look much different either then the R5 having brighter spill and a more spread out hotspot. I still find the R2 and Q5s to have laser like hotspots though, which sometimes make the Q5 appear brighter then the floodier R5s. I would like to see the R5's being used in lights with larger reflectors to concentrate the larger emitter surface better. Then maybe we'll see the R5's shine better. I remember there was a guy who slapped an R5 into a Jetbeam RRT-1 with good results. It's sort of the same situation with large emitters like the P7 MC-E and SSTs. In small reflectors all the light produces is a flood light, in over sized reflectors the light can actually be focused into a beam and make the light seem brighter. With the smaller reflectors I don't think we will get super focused beams with larger emitters, just a whole lot of flood. Thats my take.

Stress_Test · Jan 9, 2010

yalskey said:
....

I guess I was just hoping for bigger improvements by now.

Damn it, I want 300 OTF lumen from a 1AA light! LOL (one day.... one day)

Same here!

But from what I understand, the single AA battery is the big limiting factor because the voltage has to be boosted up to run the LED, and that's already drawing ~2 amps out of the battery to run the LED at only 700mA. (I may not be remembering these numbers exactly, but you get the idea.)

To me, it seems like we need someone to invent an LED that runs at a voltage forward (Vf) lower than the usual 3.6 or so. If the Vf is only 2 volts, then the battery doesn't have to be boosted as much and maybe then the circuit can supply the full 1000mA to the emitter and give us those 300 lumens OTF that we're all waiting for! :devil:

lolzertank · Jan 9, 2010

Stress_Test said:
To me, it seems like we need someone to invent an LED that runs at a voltage forward (Vf) lower than the usual 3.6 or so. If the Vf is only 2 volts, then the battery doesn't have to be boosted as much and maybe then the circuit can supply the full 1000mA to the emitter and give us those 300 lumens OTF that we're all waiting for! :devil:

Unfortunately, using the current blue die + yellow phosphor technology, that's not possible. The amount of energy needed per electron needed to generate blue photons doesn't allow a Vf lower than about 2.75V.

Besides, the market is too small. Buck converters used by most of the lighting industry perform better at high output voltages due to flyback diode losses.

skyfire · Jan 10, 2010

sfca said:
Yeah 4sevens does quote OTF lumens.

I've handled a Quark Turbo. Vs an E2DL, equal throw, more area lit up. Much more usable light.
With my coworkers as guinea pigs, the QT was obviously brighter then the E2DL.
200 lumens bested by 230 lumens.

If only for that switch, ugh the more I think about it the more I hate it.

I hope the Maelstrom has a different switch or I'm going to have to wait till S2/S5 XPG drop-ins come out and go the Surefire C2 route.

4sevens, tweak that switch!!

i have the the quark 123x2 tactical r5, and i like the switch. i dont know how it compares to the surefire switch, but to me its very solid, without much slack. i like it more than my olight m20 swtich, and the fenix pd30 switch. ive played around with my friends pelican 7060, and both the swtiches on it are super sensitive, everybody that i know that have handled it has momentarily flashed themselves in the eyes lol

Denix · Jan 10, 2010

It's funny how we get jaded so quickly. When I joined here around 8 years ago, I was impressed with my Streamlight Scorpion. 60 lumens incan. What a scorcher. Blew away my 4C Mag. Then the leds started being popular. I loved my 3 lumen Arc AAA like most of you. Then, the Luxeons arrived. In 2003 I bought a Longbow Micra with a whopping 28 lumens. Not bad for a led in those days. I upgraded to a Firefly III in 2006 (guess I was one of the lucky ones who didn't get shafted). It spewed out 70 lumens on boost for an astounding 15 minutes. 3 years later we're disappointed that we haven't hit the 300 lumens for 2 hours in a 2 inch long light by now

.

Maybe next year

Guy

Stress_Test · Jan 10, 2010

Yeah I'm just greedy

I want a AA powered blaster without the length of the 2 cell config, hence I want only 1AA.

You're right, maybe next year; I still don't think we've really hit the steep point of the advancement curve yet, because LEDs are just now beginning to enter the public consumer consciousness. Once the demand from the Joe Average buyer really takes off, I think we'll see some amazing things!

(wow, I'm gettin' all visionary and stuff tonight... must be a result of getting high on the chemical fumes while cleaning the bathroom earlier!)

recDNA · Jan 10, 2010

I'll bet eventually Eagletac will drive the R5 hard enough to produce more OTF lumens than the Quark. Eagletac seems to drive their l.e.d.'s harder and get more out of them than other manufacturers. Look at the output of their T10C2 compared to other flashlights of the same size, battery config, and l.e.d. model.

WadeF · Jan 11, 2010

Let's get down to the nitty gritty.

The Quark line came out with XP-E R2's. Pretty sure the specs say they are designed for 700mA max current. The Quark 2x123's was driving these XP-E's at 990mA. 4sevens must have been confident they could handle this current, at least in the aluminum Quarks.

Enter the XP-G R5. 4sevens swapped the XP-E for the XP-G, the circuits stayed the same as far as I know. So we now have a XP-G R5 being driven around 990mA in the 2x123 Quark. The result was more lumens and a floodier hot spot. No one ever said the Quarks were pushing the limits of the XP-G. We simply gained a more efficient emitter which would run cooler than the XP-E, while putting out a little more lumens.

The XP-G maybe capable for being driven to currents of 1.2A-1.5A and I'm sure we'll start seeing more lights do that, but they may need more mass than what is available with the current Quarks to properly heat sink them.

So to answer your question, they are brighter, just not a lot brighter. With the more diffused beam profile it is actually less bright looking in the hot spot compared with the XP-E Quark equivalents. My Quark 1x123 XP-E has more throw (higher lux) than my Quark Ti 2x123 XP-G R5, but the XP-G version has more total output, brighter spill, etc.

yalskey · Jan 11, 2010

WadeF said:
Let's get down to the nitty gritty.

The Quark line came out with XP-E R2's. Pretty sure the specs say they are designed for 700mA max current. The Quark 2x123's was driving these XP-E's at 990mA. 4sevens must have been confident they could handle this current, at least in the aluminum Quarks.

Enter the XP-G R5. 4sevens swapped the XP-E for the XP-G, the circuits stayed the same as far as I know. So we now have a XP-G R5 being driven around 990mA in the 2x123 Quark. The result was more lumens and a floodier hot spot. No one ever said the Quarks were pushing the limits of the XP-G. We simply gained a more efficient emitter which would run cooler than the XP-E, while putting out a little more lumens.

The XP-G maybe capable for being driven to currents of 1.2A-1.5A and I'm sure we'll start seeing more lights do that, but they may need more mass than what is available with the current Quarks to properly heat sink them.

So to answer your question, they are brighter, just not a lot brighter. With the more diffused beam profile it is actually less bright looking in the hot spot compared with the XP-E Quark equivalents. My Quark 1x123 XP-E has more throw (higher lux) than my Quark Ti 2x123 XP-G R5, but the XP-G version has more total output, brighter spill, etc.

A PERFECT answer to my original post... thank you WadeF

If Quarks use the latest R5 emitters, why aren't they brighter?

yalskey

Enlightened

madmook

Newly Enlightened

sfca

Enlightened

kramer5150

Flashaholic

fannin

Enlightened

monkeyboy

Flashlight Enthusiast

yalskey

Enlightened

brianch

Enlightened

Stress_Test

Flashlight Enthusiast

lolzertank

Enlightened

skyfire

Flashlight Enthusiast

Denix

Newly Enlightened

Stress_Test

Flashlight Enthusiast

recDNA

Flashaholic

WadeF

Flashlight Enthusiast

yalskey

Enlightened

Similar threads

Latest posts