Different power settings but identical run-times??

Hi Guys,

Perhaps an electrical whiz out there could solve a puzzle for me.

The new 2017 Petzl Tikka was scheduled for January release, and I got mine about a week ago. I love it ... same price as the old model ($30 in the U.S. and $38 in Canada) but now with twice as many lumens on high (now 200) and a separate red LED that has a strobe feature that's bright for a loooong way on a dark night. Plus a whistle on the headband, if you're into that sorta thing. Plus it's noticeably smaller/sleeker than the previous model.

But there's something I don't understand. The literature on the box and on the website clearly states that the projected run-time is identical for both the 100 lumen middle setting AND the 200 lumen maximum setting. It's listed at 60 hours for both situations. That doesn't seem to make sense ... based on my mediocre knowledge of electricity and physics.

Thanks in advance!

Ron

Are they?

JB

ThinAirDesigns said:

Are they?

JB

Click to expand...

?? I don't understand what you're asking. Perhaps "Are the run-times identical?"

I have no way of knowing. I don't think that Petzl would have made a typo, so I'm just curious about the Science of it all.

Yes -- are the run times identical?

And yes you do have a way to know ... you turn it on and find out.

JB

On a light with a boost mode, the maximum setting will run for a very limited time and then drop down to the next level for the duration of the battery's life. The limited time on a boost mode has a minimal impact on runtime overall. ANSI spec counts runtime down to 10% original brightness so unless the high setting is more than 90% dimmer than turbo, there will basically be no difference in runtime between the two settings since on the turbo setting, it is probably on high for 99% of the time.

Hooked on Fenix said:

On a light with a boost mode, the maximum setting will run for a very limited time and then drop down to the next level for the duration of the battery's life. The limited time on a boost mode has a minimal impact on runtime overall. ANSI spec counts runtime down to 10% original brightness so unless the high setting is more than 90% dimmer than turbo, there will basically be no difference in runtime between the two settings since on the turbo setting, it is probably on high for 99% of the time.

Click to expand...

Hi Mr. Fenix,

Thanks for chiming in. What you say makes sense, but nowhere in the Petzl literature is there any mention of a Turbo setting (by that or any other name ... which I understand to be a short-term "burst" setting that fairly quickly defaults back to a lower setting ... I'm guessing to avoid associated heat issues. Here's the link for the new model ...

h??ps://www.petzl.com/CA/en/Sport/New/TIKKA#.WHV4FrEZOis

Fenix, eh? I've been a fanboy for several years. I lost my first Fenix headlamp years ago but quickly replaced it, and have bought two more as gifts for friends. All were 4AA models with external battery pack on the back. The 8AA TK40 flashlight was A Big Deal when it first appeared several years ago, and I still have it. And gave another one to my best friend as a retirement present. And for Christmas I treated myself to a dandy little E12.

Thanks again for the thoughtful response.

ThinAirDesigns said:

Yes -- are the run times identical?

And yes you do have a way to know ... you turn it on and find out.

JB

Click to expand...

Thanks for your suggestion. I'd considered the idea, but quickly dismissed it because life is too short and too fragile to putz-around with stuff like that. I could die before the experiment was complete. And premium-brand AAA batteries can be wicked expensive ($17 for six Duracells is almost half the price of the bargain headlamp) and are all that's available out here right now in the hinterland. (I use AA NiMH Sanyo Eneloops in my other lights.)

Perhaps more to the point, you'll also notice that I was asking if anybody could explain the science behind Petzl's puzzling-to-me claim. I have no doubt that it is accurate ... them folks are not exactly "the new kids on the block".

OldmanRon said:

Perhaps more to the point, you'll also notice that I was asking if anybody could explain the science behind Petzl's puzzling-to-me claim.

Click to expand...

Yes, and as a scientist I can assure you the very first step in science when faced with a claim is to test and see if the claim is true. Only then is further investigation warranted.

I have no doubt that it is accurate ... them folks are not exactly "the new kids on the block".

Click to expand...

This is a "faith" position, not a scientific position. If you truly want a scientific answer, there are no shortcuts.

JB

Thin Air Designs,

Oops ... my bad.

I thought that this forum was a place to ask questions ... and maybe offer answers ... and share knowledge and good ideas and interesting observations ...

Yikes.

Just one thread on the topic at a time please. Since you have started a second one in another subforum, we'll close this one. Continue the discussion in your other thread. Thanks.