Is 100 lumen for 11 hours off one AA possible?
- Thread starter Badbeams3
- Start date
Help Support Candle Power Flashlight Forum
Swedpat
Flashlight Enthusiast
I doubt that any light can do that even with 2AA, it can't be regulated.
Last edited:
Thats what I would think...but they state the light is constant current regulated. Also, 10 lumen for 65 hours sounds to good to be true.
Here is a link...might be removed by one of our fine moderators...might not.
http://www.jetbeamlighting.com/JETBeam-SSA10-flashlight.html
Last edited:
Swedpat
Flashlight Enthusiast
There are many cases when the runtimes by the manufacturers are claimed according to some standard, for example the runtime until the brightness is 50 or 10% of initial. I don't know in this case, but for sure: close to such a high effiency I have never heard of.
Wiggle
Flashlight Enthusiast
It seems very unlikely to me. The very efficient SC52 only claims 3 hours on 108 lumens.
Also, if the light runs for 1.5h on 200 lumen you would expect 100 lumens to be in the area of 3.5h (better efficacy at lower levels plus easier on the cell so runtime would more than double). 3.5h is not even remotely close to 11h. I suspect that the runtime has a very long "tail" on it, with the light dropping well below 100 lumens after 2 hours or less.
Remember as well, this light runs the XP-G2 which while improved over XP-G is still not as efficient as the XM-L/XM-L2 used by the SC52 and some other lights.
Also, if the light runs for 1.5h on 200 lumen you would expect 100 lumens to be in the area of 3.5h (better efficacy at lower levels plus easier on the cell so runtime would more than double). 3.5h is not even remotely close to 11h. I suspect that the runtime has a very long "tail" on it, with the light dropping well below 100 lumens after 2 hours or less.
Remember as well, this light runs the XP-G2 which while improved over XP-G is still not as efficient as the XM-L/XM-L2 used by the SC52 and some other lights.
Last edited:
AnAppleSnail
Flashlight Enthusiast
It depends on how you mean it. I could create a flashlight whose output was 100.00 lumens for every minute possible. I would expect about 3 hours. I could also create a flashlight whose output was 100 lumens for a few minutes, with a taper down to 11.0 lumens. This would pass the ANSI Runtime Standard for something like a day. What an obnoxious habit, though. The question now is, How greatly does this light taper its output? Does that taper reset with a power cycle? What is the REAL runtime at 100 lumens (With required on/off cycles to reset that timer)?
wjv
Enlightened
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2012
- Messages
- 962
I hope it is true as that would be an efficiency breakthrough. . . But I am quite skeptical.
I have always liked JetBeam. But if they start playing games with their spec numbers, then at some point you won't be able to trust anything they claim.
Hopefully someone will buy one and do a real runtime test!
I have always liked JetBeam. But if they start playing games with their spec numbers, then at some point you won't be able to trust anything they claim.
Hopefully someone will buy one and do a real runtime test!
11 hours of runtime off an alkaline AA would equate to about 254ma/hr and at about 1.2v that is about 87ma at 3.5v. I'm not sure an LED exists that gives you that kind of lumens at that low of an input current and if you couple that with boost circuit losses of even 10 percent loss that would put you in the range of 80ma to the LED itself. 80ma at 3.5v is about 0.28 Watts so to get 100 lumens it would equate to 357 lumens/watt on the LED side. Basically speaking the math says it isn't going to happen in the near future even perhaps one day 10 years from now LEDs could possibly be that efficient.
I kinda collect in the efficient 1xAA/14500/sub-lumen category and test my lights with a light meter and randomly side-by-side with a stopwatch. I also like reconciling with Selfbuilt's results for verification, although I prefer to calibrate on the much more "conservative" lumen scale employed by Foursevens/Eagletac/Thrunite since this scale matches most of my light collection. There's huge difference in ANSI interpretation between the different manufacturers - enough to make paper spec comparisons a joke.
My "smell test" for efficient AA lights is ~ 150 lumen-hrs per AA-sized cell (ie, you can get 150 lms for 1 hour or 3 lms for 50 hrs) with some efficiency loss at the highest (turbo) and lowest (moonlight) ends. So, for example, my Zebralight SC52 specs in at double that, or ~ 300 lumen-hrs (280lms/1 hr, 100lms/3hrs, 3lms/100 hrs). I ran a side-by-side with the SC52 (108lms/3 hrs spec) and 2012 D25A-X (75lms/2.5 h spec) and came up dead even at 75 lumens (on a "conservative" scale) and 2:30 hrs between the two the lights. Selfbuilt didn't test the D25A but found the rest of the D25 family to be ~ 50% conservative on its lumen spec, and he also tested the SC52 108 lm mode to be 2:30 hrs to 50%, so I feel it's a fair/accurate comparison. My Quarks are equally efficient, and nearly as conservative as Eagletac.
Forget the Manufacturer's B/S marketing "ANSI specs" there are so many ways to interpret and game it.... either use Selfbuilt's reviews, or measure it yourself with a light meter (a DSLR or other manual exposure camera will suffice). You quickly learn which manufacturers exaggerate, and which are conservative.
My "smell test" for efficient AA lights is ~ 150 lumen-hrs per AA-sized cell (ie, you can get 150 lms for 1 hour or 3 lms for 50 hrs) with some efficiency loss at the highest (turbo) and lowest (moonlight) ends. So, for example, my Zebralight SC52 specs in at double that, or ~ 300 lumen-hrs (280lms/1 hr, 100lms/3hrs, 3lms/100 hrs). I ran a side-by-side with the SC52 (108lms/3 hrs spec) and 2012 D25A-X (75lms/2.5 h spec) and came up dead even at 75 lumens (on a "conservative" scale) and 2:30 hrs between the two the lights. Selfbuilt didn't test the D25A but found the rest of the D25 family to be ~ 50% conservative on its lumen spec, and he also tested the SC52 108 lm mode to be 2:30 hrs to 50%, so I feel it's a fair/accurate comparison. My Quarks are equally efficient, and nearly as conservative as Eagletac.
Forget the Manufacturer's B/S marketing "ANSI specs" there are so many ways to interpret and game it.... either use Selfbuilt's reviews, or measure it yourself with a light meter (a DSLR or other manual exposure camera will suffice). You quickly learn which manufacturers exaggerate, and which are conservative.
Yoda4561
Flashlight Enthusiast
Assuming a near perfect 300 lumen per watt LED, a ~2.4 watt hour eneloop would be able to power it at 100 lumens for roughly 7 hours or so. a 2700mAH rechargable AA would be able to do 9.8 hours under ideal conditions. Alkalines right now run around 2 watt hours, so both batteries and LEDs need to get better before that is possible. With current technology topping out at 160 lumens per watt and batteries being what they are, the advertised runtime is being fudged, though probably allowed under ANSI guidelines.
Sounds like Ansi with an unregulated boost circuit to me with most of the runtime well below 100 lumens. AA alkalines can run up to aroung 2700mah I believe and at 1.2v that is more like 3.2 watt hours dropping down in power as current increases.
Last edited:
parametrek
Enlightened
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2013
- Messages
- 578
My main thoughts on the SSA10 are over here but I'm crossposting one detail to clear up the speculation:
Str8stroke
Flashlight Enthusiast
Good question. Short answer= Not today. Check back when we have humans living on Mars. 
:santa:
:santa:
Woods Walker
The Wood is cut, The Bacon is cooked, Now it’s tim
| Lumens: | 200 | 200 | 100 | 10 | - |
| Runtime (Hours): | - | 1.5 | 11 | 65 |
What about the rest of it. How does it get 10 lumens for 65 hours? Really?
Woods Walker
The Wood is cut, The Bacon is cooked, Now it’s tim
parametrek
Enlightened
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2013
- Messages
- 578
Woods Walker, the SSA10 is still a good light and Jetbeam still makes nice lights. Maybe not WOW WOW WOW grade of lights. But if you're going to shun every manufacturer who has ever published a single misleading specification... Well then you won't ever be buying another flashlight again. They've all done it, intentionally or not.
Woods Walker
The Wood is cut, The Bacon is cooked, Now it’s tim
There is over exaggeration and then outright lies. This is an outright lie IMHO or maybe a bad mistake which would be ok. 65 hours at 10 lumens......Why even make that claim never mind the 11 hours at 100. They don't need to do that. Also there are makers who don't do this or rather not near that extent (I don't totally take output numbers and runtimes as gospel) so odds are I will be buying another flashlight again. We could run down the list but you know I am right. There is also tricky wording like 1000 lumens for one hour but with thermal regulation. So long as it's in the consumer information someplace for me it's acceptable but this is beyond out to lunch. Then again if you like the light that's totally cool. I am just not buying it.
swan
Banned
Run at 100 lumens for 11 hours - not possible.
Run 100 lumens Ansi FL1 for 11 hours - yes possible, it might start at 100 then stepdown in a minute or two to just above 11 lumens for the next 10 hrs 59 mins.
Ansi FL1 states runtime as - based on the time it takes to get to 10% of its initial [first 30 secs] starting output.
Run 100 lumens Ansi FL1 for 11 hours - yes possible, it might start at 100 then stepdown in a minute or two to just above 11 lumens for the next 10 hrs 59 mins.
Ansi FL1 states runtime as - based on the time it takes to get to 10% of its initial [first 30 secs] starting output.
parametrek
Enlightened
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2013
- Messages
- 578
However I haven't tested the "100 lumens for 11 hours" claim or the "10 lumens for 65 hours" claim. No one has. I only tested the high mode. And I was very pleased with what I saw. 90 minutes of 200 lumens, flat. And then 3.25 hours of 10 lumens, flat. This is a great high mode! Particularly for people who aren't good at minimizing lumens or managing battery life.
You are taking a single report about a single product and from that dismissing a reputable manufacturer who has been making lights for 12 years and currently has a product line of 60-odd lights. A single indirect report "measured" by the Mark-1 Eyeball at that! While I am happy to see a respected member of the community put so much faith in my observations... please get a grip on your gripes.
But would you actually like to run down the list?
Everyone has at least a single product with questionable specs in their history. To keep from derailing the thread, we should continue this via PM if you want to start talking about other products made by other manufacturers.
