CMG REACTOR RUNTIME (LITHIUM AND ALKALINE)

** EDITED 06/26 **
I have added alkaline AA to the graph and the performance was not spectaclular as with lithium. On the lithium test, I stopped at 24 hours, 600 lux, +/- the output of a PT attitude [1]

With the Alkalines, I stopped the test at 22 hour, 200 lux, +/- the output of an ARC-LE [2]

The ARC-LE is what I call minimum useable light

Jeff,

If you have a chance, please repeat with alkalines. My experiment was very unscientific but I found light dimmed steadily and fairly rapidly for the first few hours and then leveled off. If you get close to similar results as with lithiums, then I'll find out what words taste like.

Geeepondy,

My comments were now directed towards anyone in particular. I am somewhat surprised with the results. At 17 hours still brighter than an ARC using 1AA; in my book, definately useable light.

I think I will "end" this experiment and go with alkalines as you have suggested

This must be one very efficient LS then ...

Wondering

Klaus

Interesting numbers...

For comparison sake, take Mr Ted Bear's numbers and divide by 10.76 to get both foot candles AND candelas (since he's measuring at one foot).

This places the CMG at about 2x the brightness of the Opalec New Beam.

It also shows (to me at least) that the average output of a Lambda light is about 50% more than at least the one Arc LS that we're looking at. Someday, I'll get an Arc LS, too.

Cheers,

Richard

Jeff-

If you don't mind me asking, what are you using to make the chart / graph?

The program that came with my RS meter will do a single plot, but no way to do an overlay or any kind of multiple tracking.

I can do an overlay of multiple plots using my graphics program, but that is really time consuming.

Thanks!

that's awesome runtime. so is this thing regulated or is it just the lithium batteries holding up the brightness? it's good to see that cmg reactors actually work. there are 2 that failed though! did u get one of the "fixed" reactors, ted?

Silvron

I am using Excel to do the graphs. I was "printing" directly to ACDC (like Adobe Photo Shop) but the colors were not coming out right. So now, I actually print the page, scan it, crop and resize, adjust color, and then convert it to a JPEG

If you save the graphs as gif files, they should be smaller. Gif is better for compression of geometric shapes vs jpg

Why don't you use Print Screen Button when the graph is displayed in Excel and then in ACDSee just 'Paste' .... The colour will be preserved.

This is same as screen capture option.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Klaus:
This must be one very efficient LS then ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wonder if hand picking them is the key?
Either way, got to admit, very impressive. I agree with the others that I would like to see the test run again on alkelines.

Ken

Alkaline are running at this time.... if I didn't have the test caught on tape, I wouldn't believe the results. The initial brightness was over 2100 lux the first 15 minutes. While not as bright as Lambda LI (5600) lux first few minutes, its still brightger than the ARC LS.

After 30 minutes, its used up the "surplus electrons" and it is now in a stable discharge curve at 1100 lux, which is 200 lux higher than the lithium aa started at. The question is, what's it going to look like in the hours a ahead.... think I spoke too soon... now at 980lux @ 40 minutes.....

If yours is the same as mine, you'll see a steady decline and I'm willing to bet after ten to twelve hours it will be down to about the same as an Arc AAA. So much good things can be said for regulation. It's true the lithium AA's are somewhat self regulating but you are talking five dollars worth of batteries for the light vs. 50 cents with the Costco/Kirkland batteries.

Hmm- thanks for that Info-

I'll have to figure out how to do that- I've only used Excel for a few simple spread sheets and invoices, never even looked at it's graphic capabilities.

not good.... 580 lux at 2:50... less than a pt attitude

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mr Ted Bear:
While not as bright as Lambda LI (5600) lux first few minutes, its still brightger than the ARC LS.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mr Ted Bear,

I am amazed...did you move the sensor closer again? Is it really at one foot? 5600 lux at one foot? That's 520 cd. The ones Mr. Bulk, Craig, and I have measured have run from 240 to 320 cd (more or less).

Do you need to get one of those fancy Meterman light meters too?

What lux meter are you using?

Cheers,

Richard

Showing the true beauty of under-driven LEDs, I guess.

I think the great runtime you're seeing here is due to the total lack of any circuitry.

According to what I've read here this unit is direct drive, no resistor, etc. Any step up/regulation circuitry is going to run at a loss. Voltage converters run at 90% efficiency tops, mid 70s is more typical.

So compared to the ARC LS what we're seeing is:
1. Reactor has no loss to step-up circuit
2. ARC LS spends most of its battery trying to increase brightness in the early hours

That's about it. Shows you how nice the Luxeon actually is.

The results are in for the Alkalines... I am not impressed... Where CMG got 10 hours of peak brightness is beyond me

Well, "peak brightness" is about as useful as the phrase "super bright LED." It is all relative. To me though, "peak brightness" indicates a totally flat output (for 10 hours!?) which this product obviously cannot achieve. I like better how Peter calls that brightness "sun mode" in the Arc products. I'm not as fond of the "moon mode" since it really isn't a mode, but simply hour upon hour of constantly dimming output.