currents: EagleTac D25A Clicky 2013 Ti XP-G2

14 posts / 0 new
Last post
kreisler
kreisler's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 7 months ago
Joined: 11/12/2011 - 23:32
Posts: 3992
Location: Deutcheland
currents: EagleTac D25A Clicky 2013 Ti XP-G2

http://tinyurl.com/d25ati

ölkjölkajsdopiewr

 äöäöüpüpoijkjkj

 



"Obtain EagleTac custom made M1.55 hex key from us or ET dealers to fasten the pocket clip holding screws. Regular M1.5 hex key may strip the screws."

i got the custom allen key from ET factory, my measurements: ~1.65mm (1.60-1.70mm width)

o-ring at tailcap is very delicate, dimensions, my measurements: 12.0x0.65x13.3mm. hard to resource from anywhere.

a spare o-ring for the head is included.

torch tailstands firmly, you wont need a spare boot, it's a custom-sized GITD boot for which you cant find a replacement rubber boot on the after-market so forget it duh.

this light is probably the overall best light of its class, hard to beat in total score, and it deserves an enthusiastic subjective leview from a user in luv Love

at the heart of the text-heavy leview will be the details of the following epic informative table:

D25A Clicky 2013 Ti XP-G2 R5 CW
 

spec'ed

ANSI lumen

estimated

FENIX lumen

measured

FENIX lumen

(1.0s … 30s ANSI)

full cell

current

empty cell

current

estimated

runtime

measured

continuous

runtime

measured

accumulated

Tu1 runtime

PWMstabilized
Eneloop-Lo2"0.5lm",150+h~0.9lm 0.3…0.3lm
0.011A0.017A
~143h
( untested )
N
Y
Eneloop-Med2"10lm",20h~8lm
4.8…4.7lm
0.040A0.142A
~22.0h

40h3min

#5:1.1677V

1876mAh

40h45min

#6:1.1623V

1898mAh

Y
Y
Eneloop-Hi2"73lm",2.5h~85lm
103.8…99.9lm
0.748A

1.382A|

1.944A**

~1.9h

2h10min

#5:1.2178V

1819mAh

N
Y
Eneloop-Lo1"0.5lm",150+h~1.1lm 0.4…0.4lm
0.012A0.015A
~148h
( untested )
Y
Y
Eneloop-Med1n/a~23lm
19.7…19.3lm
0.182A0.440A
~7.8h

10h12min

#6:1.1842V

1961mAh

Y
Y
Eneloop-Hi1"73lm",2.5h~85lm103.8…99.9lm
0.768A

1.261A|

1.942A**

~2.0h

2h12min

#7:1.2109V

1923mAh

N
Y

Eneloop-Tu:

Tu1/

Tu2

"121lm",1.3h

~136lm/

~45lm

160.3…146.3lm/

49.8lm

2.1A↓/

0.333A

1.626A**/

1.023A

~2.8h

4h56min

#4:1.2126V

1930mAh

63min00s

#6:1.1909V

1854mAh

60min52s

#2:1.2219V

1813mAh

N/N
"N"/Y
14500-Lo2n/a~11lm

10.3…10.3lm

creamish

0.040A0.048A~18.8h

17h53min10s

#2:0.0000V

N
Y
14500-Med2n/a~120lm
141.7…137.2lm
0.480A0.229A~2.5h

2h4min

#5:3.490V

Y
N

14500-Hi2

n/a~337lm
421.7…371.9lm
1.322A0.551A
~53min

1h3min40s

#5:0.0000V

N
N
14500-Lo1n/a~6lm

4.7…4.7lm

purplish

0.022A0.029A~32.5h

35h21min01s

#2:0.0000V

Y
Y
14500-Med1n/a~120lm
141.7…137.2lm0.465A↓0.231A~2.4h

2h29min

#2:3.220V

Y
N
14500-Hi1n/a~337lm
421.7…371.9lm1.271A0.550A~55min

1h1min16s

#1:0.0000V

N
N
14500-Tun/a~337lm
421.7…371.9lm1.277A

0.741A

~49min

1h4min59s

#2:0.0000V

55min22s

#2:0.0000V

NN

**In Eneloop Turbo-mode the torch does a step-down after 202secs. Before the step-down the light goes in some sort of direct drive ("Tu1"), after the step-down it goes into regulated drive with stabilized output ("Tu2"). Currents and brightnesses are given for both drives. However, this applies to Eneloop only; on 14500 the torch does not do any step-down on Turbo-mode. In fact, 14500-Turbo, 14500-Hi1, and 14500-Hi2 appear to be the same deal, i.e. the same max brightness level and with no step-down duh. Accumulated runtime is for 1min Tu1 intervals, see below for details. Currents in italics are plain wrong measurements caused by the DMM shunt resistor effect which effects the circuitry at this point and falsifies measurement data. I left them in the table for future reference when re-doing the measurements with a more refined amperemeter wtf. Tu1 is not a stabilized level per se but no matter how empty the Eneloop cell is the torch would always start off with a ~2.1A current draw ("turbo boost") which then slowly drops to ~1.9A during the 202secs. Since a "constant 2.1" doesnt compensate for the voltage drop of depleted Eneloops brightness isnt exactly the same yet it does stay on a similar top level where one cannot perceive a dimming effect, Tu1@1.20V ≤ Tu1@1.51V. At the step-down, from 1.9A down to 0.333A, the light reduces much of its output, Eneloop: Lo2≤Lo1<Med2<Med1<Tu2<Hi1=Hi2<Tu1. Technical note: 14500 amperages depend heavily on the 14500 sample quality, even if it's the same model, here: different samples of Protected TF flames 14500.

From the above table we learn that we got 5 noticeably different brightness levels on Eneloop, all stabilized, in order of ascending lumens output, ..

  1. Eneloop-Lo1 ~ Eneloop-Lo2. If there were a perceivable difference, then Eneloop-Lo2 Eneloop-Lo1 but in practice they are about the same.
  2. Eneloop-Med2
  3. Eneloop-Med1
  4. Eneloop-Hi1 = Eneloop-Hi2
  5. Eneloop-Tu (Tu1 steps down to stabilized Tu2)

.. and 4 noticeably different brightness levels on 14500, in order of ascending lumens output:

  1. 14500-Lo1 (purplish tint lol, PWM), stabilized
  2. 14500-Lo2 (creamish tint, PWM-free), stabilized
  3. 14500-Med1 ~ 14500-Med2, dimming
  4. 14500-Hi1 = 14500-Hi2 = 14500-Tu (no step-down in either), dimming


Accumulated runtimes

The product webpage states that both on Hi- and Turbo-modes the torch should not run unattended and should run for short time intervals only in order to control the produced heat and lower the risk of damage to the LED due to extended exposure of excessive heat. Eagletac is the first power LED flashlight company to verbalize such instructions and warning in an explicit manner, and it expresses their level of attention, frank information, professionalism, and pursuit of communication, which I all find highly commendable. This company is serious about their product creations and business:

Fenix puts similar attention to detail and communication and the operator's manual for the Fenix PD32UE officially introduces the quantity of accumulated runtime, a concept unheard of before in a printed manual:

Adopting this ingenious and helpful concept, I performed 2 different accumulated runtime tests on Eneloop (2000mAh+) and 1 test on 14500 (800mAh+), all on Turbo-modes:

  • Eneloop AA, 3.5min cycles: (202.5s Tu1 + 7.5s rest) +(202.5s Tu1 +..etc.
  • Eneloop AA, 10min cycles: (1min Tu1 +9min rest) +(1min Tu1 +..etc.
  • 14500, 10min cycles: (1min Tu1 +9min rest) +(1min Tu1 +..etc.

Note that the torch, on Eneloop (i.e. not on 14500's!), does a stepdown from Tu1 (estimated ~136 Fenix lumens) down to Tu2 (estimated ~45 Fenix lumens) after exact 202.5 seconds. A huge step, i know. And that's the reason why on Turbo-mode the continuous Eneloop-runtime can be as long as 4h56min wtf.

For the 3.5min cycles, i timed the 202.5s and, as soon as the stepdown occurred, switched off the light, let it rest for 7.5s, then switched the light back on (new cycle!), turned it off after ~203s, let it rest for ~7s, and so on. If you are confused and dont know your maths, 210sec equal 3.5min Silly haha so there you have it. For 17 cycles the light would go into Tu1-mode and do the stepdown after 202.5s. During the 18th cycle i noticed dimming of the light and no stepdown after 202.5s, so i decided to stop the test after those 3.5mins. Hot off the light, the Eneloop had ~0.97V offline voltage which would recover to 1.2219V after 24hrs+. Total accumulated runtime for this Eneloop test, 60min52sec (=17x 202.5s +3.5mins).

For the 10min cycles, i switched off the light after 60s —no stepdown had occurred until then— to give it a 9min rest. During the 9min rest i ejected the cell and monitored the recovering offline voltage, and shortly before reinserting the cell for the next cycle, i noted down its "resting" voltage. As we know, 9mins are not enough to let a cell recover to steady state, but whatcha gonna do about it. From the Eneloop voltage readings I got an idea when to officially stop the test, the Protected 14500 test ended abruptly when the cell's protection tripped.

Please dont be bored by these columns of numbers. It took 3 days to gather the data and i take the right to clutter up this review with them for your molestation. If you do feel molested, then i win, haha:

The 2 voltage columns can be visualized by plotting them together in the same scaled graph. On a common absolute y-scale {range: 0.00 .. 4.20V}, the graphs look kinda boring. However you do get a grasp of the relation and magnitude between them:

When we zoom in the 2 graphs and assign separate y-scales for higher resolution of the relevant voltage ranges, {2.80 .. 4.20V} vs. {1.10 .. 1.52V}, the graphs look much more dramatic and interesting:

I stopped the Eneloop-runtime test after 65min accumulated Tu1 runtime, 10h50mins total time had elapsed by then!, 9mins later i measured the cell's voltage to be 1.1200V, which after another 24hrs+ recovered to a steady 1.1909V. An indirect means of determining the consumed capacity is recharging the cell with C9000 at +1000mA default charge rate: since the cell was full before the test start and now is back full after the C9000 recharge, the charged capacity must equal the consumed capacity. Here, 1854mAh as displayed by the C9000. This means that the cell still had 150-200mAh capacity left (at 1.1909V resting voltage) which could have been used in RL for runs on the Med- and Lo-modes. From the Eneloop-graph it can be seen that the 'official' runtime, depending on one's definition ("50% brightness", "10% brightness", a. o.), is anything between 55..63min. For the table i picked 63min hope you're okay with that.

Similar to other lights on the market with Turbo-modes, e.g. the D25LC2, the D25A's Turbo-mode is not really stabilized and current would drop during the 202.5s of Tu1. However the attempt to draw a constant high current (see also Tank E09 on Hi-mode!) is one form of regulation (see Thrunite Ti for complete lack of any kind of regulation!), and in practice it is difficult to make out the brightness difference between 2.1A@1.53V versus 1.9A@1.23V: no matter how depleted the cell is, whenever you operate the Turbo-mode the torch would try to draw an average of ~2A from the Eneloop (or ~1A from the 14500) cell. After the stepdown, Tu2 is fully stabilized, and current would continuously rise starting from anything between 0.333 .. 1.023A, depending on how depleted the Eneloop is. Let's note again that on 14500, the Tu-mode equals the Hi1- and Hi2-modes and that there is no stepdown. Tu-/Hi1-/Hi2-modes on 14500 are not stabilized (as in "constant brightness") nor regulated (as in "constant current"); in other words, the dimming effect should be measurable with a lux meter or IS light box.

 


lölöäopüläöq

Brightness levels and lumens

People with a home-made DIY IS (integrating sphere) incl an integrated logging lux meter or embedded photodiodes can provide accurate measurements of relative brightness levels and, after serious calibration efforts, even estimate lumens relative to a chosen "ANSI" lumens scale. Despite the efforts of ANSI and PLATO and serious efforts of flashlight reviewers there is imho still no satisfactory solution to the standardization and lumens measurements of portable flashlights. What is more, how much do you believe lumens claims made by the manufacturers themselves or trust foreign people's words with the absence of a certification from a totally independent norm standards testing institute? My personal and most straight-forward take is to compare the lights and modes on a 1:1 basis to other lights from my collection. Compare how? Simply by eye and white wall double bounce.

The result of the comprehensive comparison is a long chain of inequalities and pseudo-equalities. This provides a qualitative measure as to the difference in brightness levels. Let's define the Eneloop modes moonlight/lo/med/hi/turbo of my lights as (14500 modes are in bold):

  • P1A R5: Pl, Ph, Pl, Ph
  • JR30 R5: Jl, Jm, Jh, J
  • Archer 1A G2: Ao, Al, Am, Ah, Ao, Al, Am, Ah
  • LD01 R4: Ll, Lm, Lh, Ll, Lm, Lh
  • LD20 R5: Fl, Fm, Fh, Ft
  • D25A G2: Dl, Dm1, Dm2, Dh, Dt1, Dt2, Dl1, Dl2, Dm, Dh

Then after hours of enjoyable couplings and comparisons i arrive at the following result:

Quote:
JDh > PhAh > Lh ≥ Ft(180) > Dt1("121") > Ah("178") ≥ Dm ≈ Jh("120") ≥ Lm > Ph("150") ≈ Pl > Dh("73") ≥ Fh(81) > Lh(72) > Jm("50") ≥ Dt2 > Fm(30) ≥ Am > Ll > Am("80") > Lm(26) > Dm1 > Dl2 ≥ Pl("11") > Dm2("10") ≥ Jl("5") > Dl1Al ≥ Fl(5) > Al("24") > Ll(3) > Dl("0.5") > Ao ≈ Ao("0.2")

Confusing? Confused? Maybe a little haha. The numbers in parantheses are the "ANSI" lol lumens ratings spec'ed by the manufacturers Klarus, Thrunite, Eagletac, Rofis and Fenix. Red numbers are overstated manufacturer ratings (mostly done by Thrunite!), blue numbers are imo understated lumens (mostly by Eagletac and also Rofis), and green numbers are trusted realistic conservative accurate reference lumens (all Fenix and some Rofis). After studying the numbers in this chain of relations i came to the conclusion that the Klarus and Thrunite specs are way out of line and useless, and it would be safe to take Fenix as the reference lumens scale: Fenix lights are known for industry-leading top efficiency and runtimes, sold world-wide and with high and easy availability and they never attracted attention with boldfaced dubious lumens claims. Fenix is Ch*na premium market leader #1 with the highest reputation in the flashlight scene and they were the first to proudly announce and implement the ANSI FL-1 standards and updates. The motto "we undelplomis and oveldeliva" might be true for Foursevens policy but once the Fenix lights are used as calibration reference the Fenix scale becomes a 100% accurate quasi-standard. In this regard the Eagletac D25-series lights are also underpromised-overdelivering products. Very annoying .. because it makes lumens comparisons impossible on basis of the specs papers.

Dt1 (or Eneloop-Tu1) is spec'ed at "121 ANSI lumens" by Eagletac. It's better to call them "121 ET lm". Fenix LD12 G2 is spec'ed at 125 Fenix lumens. Someone in possession of both lights now tell me which of the two is brighter and by which margin. Lemme be cheeky myself and simply claim that, without any RL tests and comparisons, the D25A outputs 136 Fenix lumens and thereby outputs 11 Fenix lumens more than the LD12 G2. I am likely to be right with this modest safe claim .. because who believes that the Fenix draws as much as 2.2A from an Eneloop AA as does the D25A?

In any case the D25A is noticeably brighter than the Archer 1A which by itself is boldly (and wrongly!) spec'ed at 178 TN lm by Thrunite. Crazy stuff, i know!

You're learning from all this, dont give a **** on lumens claims by Thrunite, Klarus, selfbuilt, Zebralight, Nitecore or even worse no name Chi*ese budget light brands (DX, XXXFire, EBAY, etc.). Instead, choose your own favorite lumens scale or Fenix reference lights and conduct manual comparisons on your own, let your eyes determine which light is brighter and if it is much brighter or not. There is for example a huge discrepancy of brightness between a 300 ZL lm light vs a 300 Fenix lm light, namely 300 Fenix lm » 300 ZL lm.

 

weasdqwe



yxcvbnmrtz

This op is a stub. You can help the author by expanding it.

*FMI* i got 4 i/o sh
Edited by: kreisler on 01/02/2014 - 12:13
kreisler
kreisler's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 7 months ago
Joined: 11/12/2011 - 23:32
Posts: 3992
Location: Deutcheland

leserved

*FMI* i got 4 i/o sh
UPz
UPz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 week ago
Joined: 01/09/2011 - 08:11
Posts: 527
Location: Barcelona
:bigsmile:
vēer
vēer's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 57 min ago
Joined: 01/07/2012 - 14:23
Posts: 2838
Location: N Europe

I dont get it, why tf people post these half-baked reviews :D?
If youre scared of losing it simply compy-paste all the data from text editor into text document and save it to your hard driver!

Otherwise why did I come here to read this unfinished SOMETHING :D?!
I want to read a review, Kreisler :D!

Firelight2
Firelight2's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 hours 42 min ago
Joined: 04/08/2011 - 15:17
Posts: 3615
Location: California

2013 Ti D25a with XPG2 is a really nice light. It’s one of the lights I’m using in my EDC rotation now. Very small, grippy, extremely dependable. Looks great. Extremely good cool white tint with no green.

Surprisingly bright and throwy for such a small reflector. I run mine exclusively on AW IMR 14500. It gets hot rapidly on max power, but can be run at medium for extended periods. My guess is output at max power with a fresh IMR 14500 is 400-450 lumens. Not as many lumens as the XML lights, but it has a much more focused hotspot and more throw than my Zebralight SC52. Also runs very bright on 1.5v L91 lithium primaries. Unlike the 2012 D25s, the 2013 has full support for and maintains all modes with 14500 cells.

I own a number of other very small form factor cylindrical AA sized lights including the Jetbeam BK135a and PA10, 2012 Eagletac D25a neutral XML in both aluminum and titanium, 4-Sevens mini-AA with XPG in aluminum and Titanium and the Nitecore EZaa XPG.

The 2013 D25a Ti XPG2 cool white is by far the best of the bunch. It blows all the others away.

Ouchyfoot
Ouchyfoot's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 4 weeks ago
Joined: 09/01/2012 - 06:15
Posts: 5089
Location: Canada

Does it retain its modes when using 14500?

Firelight2
Firelight2's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 hours 42 min ago
Joined: 04/08/2011 - 15:17
Posts: 3615
Location: California
Ouchyfoot wrote:
Does it retain its modes when using 14500?

Yes. The 2013 edition retains all modes on 14500. It’s an excellent light to use with AW IMR cells. Note that because of the physical reverse polarity protection, you’ll need to use 14500 cells with a raised top. Ones with flat tops like the Zebralight 14500 cells don’t work properly.

Ouchyfoot
Ouchyfoot's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 4 weeks ago
Joined: 09/01/2012 - 06:15
Posts: 5089
Location: Canada

What about the 2013 XM-L Ti neutral, does it retain its modes on 14500 also? Does anyone know what tint Eagletac uses?

djozz
djozz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 53 min 53 sec ago
Joined: 09/07/2012 - 17:04
Posts: 15457
Location: Amsterdam

Ouchyfoot wrote:
What about the 2013 XM-L Ti neutral, does it retain its modes on 14500 also? Does anyone know what tint Eagletac uses?

I have the neutral XPG (not a XPG2 unfortunately, but cool white is a no go for me), the tint is a bit over 4000K, so very different from cool white Smile.

I run LiFePO4 batteries in it, it is safe, output is very decent and the light never runs too hot (it still is a Ti light, not Al). Still has all the modes (with 14500's as well) but the moonlight is not a moonlight anymore, more than 10 lumens (estimation).

Ouchyfoot
Ouchyfoot's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 4 weeks ago
Joined: 09/01/2012 - 06:15
Posts: 5089
Location: Canada

kreisler wrote:

Ouchyfoot wrote:
Does it retain its modes when using 14500?

you didnt read the op, did you?

lol

what shall i do with`?

ouch!


Those specs weren’t there the first time I visited. The second visit took me straight to the newest post.
ChibiM
ChibiM's picture
Offline
Last seen: 18 hours 32 min ago
Joined: 05/09/2011 - 10:25
Posts: 6080
Location: Holland/Japan

Thanks Kreisler for the extensive review!

Boaz
Boaz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 13 hours 30 min ago
Joined: 11/07/2010 - 09:31
Posts: 7070
Location: Birthplace of Aviation

Ouchyfoot][quote=kreisler wrote:

Ouchyfoot wrote:
Does it retain its modes when using 14500?

you didnt read the op, did you?

 

       καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει καὶ ἡ σκοτία αὐτὸ οὐ κατέλαβεν

                                  https://www.gty.org/

 

    Still selling diffuser film  >…  http://budgetlightforum.com/node/42208

vēer
vēer's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 57 min ago
Joined: 01/07/2012 - 14:23
Posts: 2838
Location: N Europe

Boaz]<P>[quote=Ouchyfoot wrote:
kreisler wrote:

Ouchyfoot wrote:
Does it retain its modes when using 14500?

you didnt read the op, did you?


 

Boaz, I cant see your post – its blank :D!
And I even quoted it, still nothing(I can see it when the quote is inserted into text editor, but once its posted its gone)!
ChibiM
ChibiM's picture
Offline
Last seen: 18 hours 32 min ago
Joined: 05/09/2011 - 10:25
Posts: 6080
Location: Holland/Japan

Kreisler, looking forward to your complete review… !