ARC-LS RUNTIME GRAPHS

Just beginning the tests. Here is the first with two AA Lithium. Just started the 123 test, with more to come in the days ahead.

For those who care, the test was conducted inside a file cabinet, sensor 12 inches from light source. The readings were recorded every five minutes using time lapse camcorder and then put into an Excel spreadsheet fo this chart.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Ted, I`m not sure how to interpit the graph...which red line in the X is the run time and which is the brightness?

Just kidding...it didn`t work...all I get is a square with a red x in it.

Thanks for the test Ted Bear!

Chris M.'s Arc-LS using 2 L91 battery test showed 11 1/2 hrs total burntime with about 5 hrs of bright light. It shows Arc-LS's performance does not vary greatly with every unit.

If it is not asking too much, will you please do other (1AA and 2AA) tests using different brands of alkaline batteries? It would be interesting to know burntime of different brands of alkaline batteries.

- verge -

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ken B:
Hi Ted, I`m not sure how to interpit the graph...which red line in the X is the run time and which is the brightness?

Just kidding...it didn`t work...all I get is a square with a red x in it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Same here. The "other" browser gives me a picture-like icon with a big chunk torn off the top. This one gives me the dreaded red "X" in a white box. :X

For those who don't see the pic, try this: right click on the broken picture and go to properties. Copy the URL from the properties box and paste it in your browser address bar and hit enter. The pic may come up that way.

I see the picture in the posts no problem, but the "difficult" pictures always seem to come up ok for me....

I edited the link to the graph.... how is it now ?

In addition to being brighter, it would appear the Arc LS with two lithium AA batteries has a longer runtime then the Inova X5 with a much more flatter discharge curve.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Quickbeam:
For those who don't see the pic, try this: right click on the broken picture and go to properties. Copy the URL from the properties box and paste it in your browser address bar and hit enter. The pic may come up that way.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's a pain in the t**let muscle, but it works.
Funny thing is, when I hit the "back" button to return to this page, the picture appears in it too. So it has to be in your cache before it will actually display directly off this page.

Adjust the link (third attempt), any better ???. Oh, also added Sanyo 123

Adjust the link (third attempt), any better ???.

Nope. Not unless I copy/paste the image`s URL and go directly to it, as suggested up there by mr Quickbeam.

Looks like Excite`s new owners have caught on to what we`re up to and decided to start blocking hotlinking just like Tripod and Yahoo did. Tell you what, when yer done, e-mail it over here to me and I`ll host it for you on my ISP server that I use to post my own pics. That one`s stable enough, it should show up all the time.


Oh, also added Sanyo 123

D`oh!!!!!
Your graph, and the recent re-posting of Craig`s in another thread, made me want to look at my own that I did a while back for some reason or other that I forget at this moment in time, and I just realised something. I did a burn on one of the Sanyo batteries that the generous mr Neverman provided me for such testing purposes, but never got round to graphing the results!

Hope they`re still here....back in a half hour. Might as well re-post my graph for comparison purposes- to see how the proto and production ALS`s perform.

yoink...

Great graph!

One question though. Your "2 AA Duracell Alkalines" plot shows it lasting no longer than a 123, but your plot for "2 AA Alkalines" shows a longer run time. Is this correct? Or am I reading something wrong?

One question though. Your "2 AA Duracell Alkalines" plot shows it lasting no longer than a 123, but your plot for "2 AA Alkalines" shows a longer run time. Is this correct? Or am I reading something wrong?

Yep, absolutely correct. I was thoroughly baffled by this result, as those were brand new just-out-the-pack batteries, yet they fell over far too soon. All I can think is that the heat generated by the LED/circuit was conducted up into the top battery and somehow affected it. The whole apparatus was wrapped up (to keep ambient light out) and inverted, so heat in there could have been an issue. The top cell in contact with the head read a very low voltage, but the back cell was significantly higher.
That, or it was a bad cell. I just don`t know.

I only ran that repeat test as former custodian of this here prototype, Brock said he`d got a longer run time with the alkaline 2AA than I did with the 2 Energizers which I did first. Unfortunately as batteries cost so much here, I couldn`t really repeat it a third time. The apparatus has long since been dismantled so I can`t add to it now.

Another full round of tests will commence when the production light arrives, in a month or two.

In the news....Duracell M3 Ultra 123 tanks early.. Cheapo off name brand AA Alkaline is an eye opener

quickbeam thanks for the tip on bringing up the graph.

It would be great if NiMH AAs is added in the chart

Alan

rayovac worst performance yet..... aa tests tonight and tommorrow

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alan:
It would be great if NiMH AAs is added in the chart

Alan<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I recently bought some... maybe when I get a bit of time to work with, I'll burn off a set or two in there and see what happens.

Right now, the motorized satanic battery destroying robot death machine is being used on another flashlight (4+ days and still going so far) and is currently unavailable.

Craig, thanks

Alan