JetBEAM PA10 650 lumen, but PC10 is 550 lumen only - why?

Just wondering if someone can explain this to me.


Been reading up on the new JetBeam models and the PA10 can put out a massive 650 lumen on a 14500. The PC10 on an RCR123 however only manages 550 lumen.

Aren't both the 14500 and RCR123 3.7v (nom), but with the RCR123 having 750mAH instead of 700mAH for the 14500?

So why with the same voltage but less mAH does the PA10 offer up 100 lumens more at max?

Actually RCR123 has less capacity than 14500 (550-600mAh vs. 700mAh).

Drivers might be slightly different. Perhaps the driver in the PA10 is pulling more amps than the driver in the PC10.

Best way to tell would probably be for someone to get both and compare. Personally, I lost all interest in these lights when I saw that they only run in max mode when using li-ion batteries.

phantom23 said:

Actually RCR123 has less capacity than 14500 (550-600mAh vs. 700mAh).

Click to expand...

My AW ICR 14500s and 16340s are both rated at 750 mAh capacity.

However, My AW IMR 14500 is rated at 600 mAh while the IMR 16340 is only rated at 550 mAh.

phantom23 said:

Actually RCR123 has less capacity than 14500 (550-600mAh vs. 700mAh).

Click to expand...

I admit I'm a novice on this, I was just using the stats on Wikipedia..... But maybe that answers the question.

It all boils down to how hard the LED is driven. the 14500 can handle more load than the CR123 hence the 100 lumen difference. but IMHO, 500 to 600, you hardly notice the difference, esp if it is from the same LED bin.

Also, if you are considering the PA10, know that it will not change modes when running with 14500, I confirmed this with a Jetbeam employee. Which is why I ditched this for the V10A which I recently acquired.

This could also be as much a physically based decisions as an electronic one. JB may have decided that the slightly longer body of the light could deal with heat better, and hence then made the decision that they could drive the PA10 harder.

I was initially very interested in the PA10 - the idea of a 'pocket rocket' of that nature did attract me, but as has been stated, most people (not all apparently - there is one video on youtube of a PA10 that appears to be able to switch modes when using a 14500 cell, but that seems to be the exception rather than the rule) have found that they cannot switch modes when using an li-ion cell, and that was a bit of a turn off.

I settled for the PC10 instead. Turbo and high mode more or less merge when using an RCR123, but the medium and low mode still work.

Fireclaw18 said:

My AW ICR 14500s and 16340s are both rated at 750 mAh capacity.

Click to expand...

Rated, yes. But they (16340s) never get even close to 700mAh

Stephen Wallace said:

This could also be as much a physically based decisions as an electronic one. JB may have decided that the slightly longer body of the light could deal with heat better, and hence then made the decision that they could drive the PA10 harder.

I was initially very interested in the PA10 - the idea of a 'pocket rocket' of that nature did attract me, but as has been stated, most people (not all apparently - there is one video on youtube of a PA10 that appears to be able to switch modes when using a 14500 cell, but that seems to be the exception rather than the rule) have found that they cannot switch modes when using an li-ion cell, and that was a bit of a turn off.

I settled for the PC10 instead. Turbo and high mode more or less merge when using an RCR123, but the medium and low mode still work.

Click to expand...

Can I just confirm. The PC10 when running on a single RCR123 can offer up 550 lumen AND the lower modes too?

I hadn't realised that, I thought it was the same as the PA10. However if it allows all modes and high lumen output then that seals it for me.

I have no means to confirm the output unfortunately.

I can confirm though that I have used both LiCo and LiMn 16340s in my PC10.

The high setting with the head loosened, and the turbo setting with the head tightened become basically the same, but I definitely have a middle and low setting with the head loosened. Not small steps either - the low is very low, and the middle setting a good deal brighter. There is then a large jump up in brightness to the high setting. In normal CR123A use, high is pitched somewhere between the middle and turbo setting, but with the 16340, like I said, high becomes more like turbo, so the settings are no longer spaced as they should be, but you do definitely get defined middle and low settings.

phantom23 said:

Rated, yes. But they (16340s) never get even close to 700mAh

Click to expand...

Uh...yes, AW's RCR16340's do.

Stephen Wallace said:

I have no means to confirm the output unfortunately.

I can confirm though that I have used both LiCo and LiMn 16340s in my PC10.

The high setting with the head loosened, and the turbo setting with the head tightened become basically the same, but I definitely have a middle and low setting with the head loosened. Not small steps either - the low is very low, and the middle setting a good deal brighter. There is then a large jump up in brightness to the high setting. In normal CR123A use, high is pitched somewhere between the middle and turbo setting, but with the 16340, like I said, high becomes more like turbo, so the settings are no longer spaced as they should be, but you do definitely get defined middle and low settings.

Click to expand...

Cool thanks.

Hi and Turbo are pulling the same Amps according to this.
The light will be even brighter using an IMR16340.

Power consumption test.
3 types of batteries used in the experiment.
Measured Amps.

RCR3.0v RCR3.7v IMR3.7v
(3.57v) (4.18v) (4.18v)
Lo 0.02 0.03 0.03
Med 0.07 0.11 0.11
Hi 0.63 2.11 2.66
Turbo 0.85 2.11 2.66

With mine, I do see a small but definite difference in brightness between high and turbo when using a LiCo cell, but that could be more to do with the particular cell than anything. The LiMn cell may well be producing the same brightness, and drawing the same current, on high and turbo.

So using AA Eneloops in the PA10 should let you access all the outputs, correct? I'm new to this, sorry!

fatelvis said:

So using AA Eneloops in the PA10 should let you access all the outputs, correct? I'm new to this, sorry!

Click to expand...

Yes any alkaline or Lithium primary (aka non rechargeable batteries, should have a voltage of 1.5) or any NiMH rechargeable cells (1.2v) will allow all modes to work. But you won't be getting the high Lumen output. On an AA you'll only get 140 lumens max.

The "650 lumens" is only available with a Li-io rechargeable cell but when running this you will lose all the other modes, so makes the torch pretty useless accept for a bit of WOW factor. You won't want to run the PA10 for more than a few minutes at a time with Li-io due to heat. I believe the LED is also being direct driven when run on Li-io, rather than being regulated. So it'll start off really really bright, but then dim as the cell depletes.

I really want to like the PA10 and JetBeams in general, but I'm not keen on their marketing claims, they seem a little bogus and aimed to deceive IMO. Although I may still buy one.


If you want to stick with JetBeam I think you'd find a PC10 to be a better bet, not quite as high headline output, but still flippin bright for such a small flashlight and will retain most of it's modes when run on a Li-io.

If you want to stick AA/14500 then the Xeno EO3 looks quite impressive and at a budget price and the Sunwayman V10A and the newer V11A. Again not quite as headline high numbers, but probably better torches overall.

I've also been looking at the Niteye EYE10, this seems to produce some silly high numbers, a review in the review section claims 662 lumens. But you might want to research this a little more yourself.


Sorry to waffle on so much. But in short a normal AA (eneloop, Duracell, etc) will only ever net 140-180 lumens for a single AA (current technology). This is due to only 1.2 - 1.5v, if you want more punch you need more volts, so a 2xAA or Li-io.

shane45_1911 said:

Uh...yes, AW's RCR16340's do.

Click to expand...

little late to be responding to this post, but.

..no they don't. multiple tests place that at around 550mAh.