What is more important to you, AA compatibility, LiIon compatibility, or dual chemistry AA and 14500, with or without PWM?

67 posts / 0 new
Last post

Pages

jon_slider
Offline
Last seen: 11 hours 42 min ago
Joined: 09/08/2015 - 12:20
Posts: 263
Location: Crowdifornia
What is more important to you, AA compatibility, LiIon compatibility, or dual chemistry AA and 14500, with or without PWM?
I would buy a 14500 light with PWM.
7% (7 votes)
I would buy an AA (includes Eneloop) light with PWM.
4% (4 votes)
I would buy a light with dual chemistry with PWM
12% (12 votes)
I would buy a 14500 light with NoPWM.
1% (1 vote)
I would buy an AA (includes Eneloop) light with NoPWM.
14% (14 votes)
I would buy a light with dual chemistry with NoPWM
63% (65 votes)
Total votes: 103
EyeballFryer
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 10 hours ago
Joined: 11/30/2015 - 02:17
Posts: 315
Location: California, USA

If all other features are assumed equal, I don’t get why you would pick 14500 only or AA only instead of dual chemistry AA/14500.

Dusty
Online
Last seen: 6 sec ago
Joined: 12/03/2015 - 07:58
Posts: 229
Location: Left Coast of Michigan
EyeballFryer wrote:
If all other features are assumed equal, I don’t get why you would pick 14500 only or AA only instead of dual chemistry AA/14500.

Exactly. My eyeball’s are so fried, I don’t see PWM, either.

Dustybug

jon_slider
Offline
Last seen: 11 hours 42 min ago
Joined: 09/08/2015 - 12:20
Posts: 263
Location: Crowdifornia

EyeballFryer wrote:
If all other features are assumed equal, I don’t get why you would pick 14500 only or AA only instead of dual chemistry AA/14500.

they are not equal. Take the Pineapple for example, it is dual chemistry, and to retain low modes on LiIon, it uses PWM

If you could only have dual chemistry with PWM, and can only have NoPWM without dual chemistry, which would you pick?

If you could not keep the same low mode on LiIon, but could have NoPWM, would you mind that low on LiIon was brighter than on Primaries?

if in order to have dual chemistry you have to have PWM that looks like this, would that be OK with you? (note there are no pineapples in this pic)

EyeballFryer
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 10 hours ago
Joined: 11/30/2015 - 02:17
Posts: 315
Location: California, USA
Dusty wrote:
Exactly. My eyeball’s are so fried, I don’t see PWM, either.

That’s funny, because I’m the opposite. My eyeballs are so fried, I can “feel” when flashlights are using PWM, especially the slow frequency PWM that results in:

Even if I hold the beam steady and I can’t see the flickering, I can still feel it, and I get a bit nauseous from it.

kramer5150
kramer5150's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 51 min ago
Joined: 05/19/2010 - 13:43
Posts: 1511
Location: Palo Alto CA

There is good PWM and bad PWM…

High frequency, non-visible PWM (the good kind) is perfectly OK by my book.

Low frequency, visible PWM (the bad kind) is a deal breaker for lights in this Lumen range, no thanks.

My overall preference is dual chemistry, no visible PWM… the last option. I won’t buy a light with visible PWM regardless of cell compatibility.

EyeballFryer
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 10 hours ago
Joined: 11/30/2015 - 02:17
Posts: 315
Location: California, USA

jon_slider wrote:

they are not equal. Take the Pineapple for example, it is dual chemistry, and to retain low modes on LiIon, it uses PWM

If you could only have dual chemistry with PWM, and can only have NoPWM without dual chemistry, which would you pick?

If you could not keep the same low mode on LiIon, but could have NoPWM, would you mind that low on LiIon was brighter than on Primaries?

if in order to have dual chemistry you have to have PWM that looks like this, would that be OK with you? (note there are no pineapples in this pic)

That’s what makes the question more complicated – available modes based on PWM/NoPWM, and based on supported battery chemistry. Even more complicated is whether the PWM is fast enough where it won’t affect me (like a Convoy) or slow enough to annoy me.

So to answer your questions:

Q: If you could only have dual chemistry with PWM, and can only have NoPWM without dual chemistry, which would you pick?
A: If it’s fast PWM, I can take dual chemistry with PWM. If it’s slow PWM, I would pick NoPWM with 1 chemistry.

Q: If you could not keep the same low mode on LiIon, but could have NoPWM, would you mind that low on LiIon was brighter than on Primaries?
A: That would depend on the difference in the low modes are on 14500 vs AA and also what I intend to do with the flashlight. A brighter 14500-low is OK if I’m just looking under my desk or inside my computer. A brighter 14500-low could be too bright if I’m trying to preserve my night vision.

Q: if in order to have dual chemistry you have to have PWM that looks like this, would that be OK with you? (note there are no pineapples in this pic)
A: I don’t know what frequency that PWM is. If the PWM is high enough frequency, it would be OK. If the PWM frequency is too low, it is not OK.

In case you’re wondering, I voted for “dual chemistry with NoPWM” in the poll, because the poll question didn’t specify the other differences that I’d have to consider. “dual chemistry with NoPWM” has the most flexible battery support without any potential annoyances of PWM.

MtnDon
MtnDon's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 hours 38 min ago
Joined: 08/27/2015 - 18:25
Posts: 641
Location: Northern New Mexico, USA

There’s PWM you can see and then there’s PWM that is so fast you, or at least I, can not see it, or at least I am not bothered by it.

I do like ‘lights that can use either the 14500 or the AA/eneloop as long as they do not overheat rapidly on a 14500.

Jerommel
Jerommel's picture
Online
Last seen: 9 min 37 sec ago
Joined: 01/04/2014 - 13:18
Posts: 2406
Location: the Hague, Netherlands

I hate visible PWM.

Looking for:

5” parabolic reflector (for recoil light)

Mkduffer
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 30 min ago
Joined: 12/19/2015 - 02:31
Posts: 156
Location: Island of Hawaii

For me, it depends on what I plan to use it for.

EDC, I’d want no visible PWM, dual chemistry compatibility.

For an emergency light, dual chemistry would be more important, non-visible PWM not as important.

Jerommel
Jerommel's picture
Online
Last seen: 9 min 37 sec ago
Joined: 01/04/2014 - 13:18
Posts: 2406
Location: the Hague, Netherlands

Mkduffer wrote:
For me, it depends on what I plan to use it for.

EDC, I’d want no visible PWM, dual chemistry compatibility.

For an emergency light, dual chemistry would be more important, non-visible PWM not as important.


In an emergency situation visible PWM would make me even more stressed and nervous… Wink

…and so would next memory mode with blinkies…

Looking for:

5” parabolic reflector (for recoil light)

hIKARInoob
hIKARInoob's picture
Online
Last seen: 1 min 57 sec ago
Joined: 08/28/2016 - 08:15
Posts: 853

Jerommel wrote:
Mkduffer wrote:
For me, it depends on what I plan to use it for.

EDC, I’d want no visible PWM, dual chemistry compatibility.

For an emergency light, dual chemistry would be more important, non-visible PWM not as important.


In an emergency situation visible PWM would make me even more stressed and nervous… Wink

…and so would next memory mode with blinkies…

How about blinkies with low frequency PWM?

Jerommel
Jerommel's picture
Online
Last seen: 9 min 37 sec ago
Joined: 01/04/2014 - 13:18
Posts: 2406
Location: the Hague, Netherlands

hIKARInoob wrote:
Jerommel wrote:
Mkduffer wrote:
For me, it depends on what I plan to use it for.

EDC, I’d want no visible PWM, dual chemistry compatibility.

For an emergency light, dual chemistry would be more important, non-visible PWM not as important.


In an emergency situation visible PWM would make me even more stressed and nervous… Wink

…and so would next memory mode with blinkies…

How about blinkies with low frequency PWM?

Aaarrgh!!! Sick

Looking for:

5” parabolic reflector (for recoil light)

Lightbringer
Lightbringer's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 hours 50 min ago
Joined: 08/30/2016 - 14:12
Posts: 567
Location: nyc
EyeballFryer wrote:
If all other features are assumed equal, I don’t get why you would pick 14500 only or AA only instead of dual chemistry AA/14500.

A dual-chemistry driver would happily keep draining a 14500 to sub-volt levels. You’d need a protected 14500 to keep that from happening.

I don’t know offhand any DC drivers/lights that can “remember” it’s got a 14500 and then cut out at 2.9V or so. Not saying it’s impossible, just that I don’t know of any.

09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

Dusty
Online
Last seen: 6 sec ago
Joined: 12/03/2015 - 07:58
Posts: 229
Location: Left Coast of Michigan
jon_slider wrote:
!https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-uBBzkWVY0ew/Vk6G3OMeYbI/AAAAAAAAJ5Q/1...!

You can actually see this with the naked eye? I’ve seen pictures of a few of the lights I have showing the same thing (no idea how you film it). I have never seen anything like that. Maybe I’m just lucky? It was actually a little joke as to my fried eyeball’s. I’m 60, don’t need glasses (except for working with resistors, or the small phone book). I am somewhat colorblind. Do you think eye color has anything to do with it? Honestly, I’m kind of fascinated with this.

I do have bad hearing though. I see my wife’s lips move all the time, but seldom hear her Wink

Dustybug

wle
wle's picture
Offline
Last seen: 13 hours 17 min ago
Joined: 01/07/2015 - 13:49
Posts: 203
Location: atlanta ga

it isn;t really a good question.
the thing is, i would place a higher priority on other features, besides “lack of pwm”

i would like a UI that makes sense and is not opposite my other EDC lights
i want 3-5 logarithmically evenly spaced light levels [ 1 3 11 36 121 400 would be great, or 1 10 25 63 151 400 or 1 10 34 117 400]

i do NOT want blinky modes, at least not where you accidentally blinkulate
i want instant access to turbo from any mode

small, under 85mm
side button switch
tailstand

if it had that, and was under $40 – i wouldn;t care if it had PWM

also – why would anyone NOT want dual chemistry, where is the drawback to that?

wle

eebowler
eebowler's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 12 min ago
Joined: 08/13/2012 - 11:34
Posts: 1632
Location: Trinidad and Tobago GMT -4

I believe that dual chemistry drivers are less efficient than a specific chemistry driver so I’ll choose AA only. Also, I DISLIKE visible PWM. Most days just aggravating, on days when I’m exhausted, it’s nauseating. Manker 01 in AA form factor with a little more brightness would be awesome!!

My gratitude to those who are willing and able to help others (in whatever way you can)! Being human is more than just existing for yourself. Smile

jon_slider
Offline
Last seen: 11 hours 42 min ago
Joined: 09/08/2015 - 12:20
Posts: 263
Location: Crowdifornia
Lightbringer wrote:
A dual-chemistry driver would happily keep draining a 14500 to sub-volt levels. You’d need a protected 14500 to keep that from happening.
I agree
Dusty wrote:
jon_slider wrote:

You can actually see this with the naked eye?


No, the camera can see it. And the brain is processing the pulses, but it is not “visible” unless you wave the light, or take a photo
wle wrote:
it isn;t really a good question. … why would anyone NOT want dual chemistry, where is the drawback to that?

I agree it is very difficult to create a good poll
the issue is that the last choice, dual chemistry with NoPWM, at least in a Pineapple, is not available, even though it is the one most people would want

I can see people have lots of different tolerance levels of PWM, some get headaches even from PWM they cannot see, but it can be photographed, and it shows on a scope

here is an example of 3 lights with “noPWM”, and one with true PWM, the Malkoff.. note the Zebra on the left causes at least one user to get headaches.. The Zebra’s “circuit noise” is only barely visible in a photograph, and on a scope it does not drop to zero, so its not PWM by the strict definition.., originally posted by reppans:
left to right, Zebra, Quark, Eagletac, Malkoff

emarkd
emarkd's picture
Offline
Last seen: 18 min 10 sec ago
Joined: 04/14/2015 - 22:04
Posts: 1117
Location: Georgia, USA

It’s just not that simple because we all have different levels of sensitivity to such things. We all know this poll is about the Pineapple, and I can’t see the pwm on the Pineapple so it’s fine with me. I mean if it can be made faster then by all means do it, but I have no complaints as it is.

hIKARInoob
hIKARInoob's picture
Online
Last seen: 1 min 57 sec ago
Joined: 08/28/2016 - 08:15
Posts: 853

I thought the Skyray King has 200Hz PWM on low. I can’t see anything… Should I feel lucky or should I feel old?

jon_slider
Offline
Last seen: 11 hours 42 min ago
Joined: 09/08/2015 - 12:20
Posts: 263
Location: Crowdifornia

Thanks for all the comments.

hIKARInoob wrote:
Should I feel lucky or should I feel old?

Lucky to be Old Smile

fwiw, I asked Malkoff what speed PWM his 3 mode MDC uses, the reply:
“The PWM frequency is 310 Hertz. Most people can’t see it.”

I leave it to each individual to decide how they feel about PWM, the poll clearly shows a preference not to have PWM IF there was a choice, but I also see that people are happy to buy lights with PWM that they dont notice. Im guessing most of the people that do not notice, do not try waving the light, and do not take photos of the beam or LED up close.

As a wise man once said, if you dont notice PWM, don’t learn how to detect it or you may regret it. Similar to the High CRI experience, if you are happy with your Cool White Low CRI lights, don’t learn how to detect CRI, and steer clear of Neutral CCT, or you may regret that too. Evil

When ReyLight came out with the High CRI, Neutral CCT, and NoPWM Tool, I thought I had entered Nirvana. Imagine my surprise when both the Maratac AA and the Pineapple, came out with PWM drivers..

Its all good.. choices are fun.. Merry New Year!

Flintrock
Offline
Last seen: 33 min 6 sec ago
Joined: 09/10/2016 - 20:29
Posts: 706

What's the excuse for any light having low frequency PWM?  Is there some cost savings available using cheaper mcu's that only have low frequency capability? Low speed PWM is pretty unacceptable in fast motion situations. Maybe there's someone it won't bother, but I don't see any reason to do it. A light with low frequency PWM is just designed wrong, or cheap at best.

mrheosuper
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 1 hour ago
Joined: 09/30/2016 - 12:44
Posts: 126
Location: Ho Chi Minh City

yeah, what is seen can’t be unseen
but actually, the CRI is not a big deal for me
i am having Astrolux A01 and olight I3s Cu CW, and i like the i3s Cu more(yeah, the price is much more higher)

Forgot my pen

mrheosuper
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 1 hour ago
Joined: 09/30/2016 - 12:44
Posts: 126
Location: Ho Chi Minh City

and the last option is the best, but this is BUDGETlightforum, if i have to pay 10$ more for a 15$ flashlight just to get rid of PWM, i will deny it
i am happy to go with option 3, as long as it has HIGH Frequency PWM, for me, the ability to use many types of battery is more important

Forgot my pen

Lightbringer
Lightbringer's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 hours 50 min ago
Joined: 08/30/2016 - 14:12
Posts: 567
Location: nyc
Flintrock wrote:

What’s the excuse for any light having low frequency PWM?  Is there some cost savings available using cheaper mcu’s that only have low frequency capability? Low speed PWM is pretty unacceptable in fast motion situations. Maybe there’s someone it won’t bother, but I don’t see any reason to do it. A light with low frequency PWM is just designed wrong, or cheap at best.

7135s have a certain capacitance associated with the input strobe pin. ×8, and that’s a fairly hefty capacitance to overcome with the somewhat anæmic output pin of a Tiny13. The signal is slowed and rises only gradually, so at low levels (especially moonlight/firefly modes) it “eats” a few counts of the PWM output, sometimes enough that the 7135s don’t even turn on. So a PWM of 8 counts might only “register” as a 6 (where 256 = 100%), and a PWM of 3 might register as a 1… if it turns on at all. (The difference of 130 vs 128 won’t be noticeable.)

At a lower PWM freq, each pulse is wider, so a PWM of 1 (longer pulse) would be long enough to get the 7135s to turn on; at a higher freq, 1 or 2 (shorter pulses) might not turn them on, but a 3 would (first 1-2 pulses “eaten” from the slow risetime).

09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

Lightbringer
Lightbringer's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 hours 50 min ago
Joined: 08/30/2016 - 14:12
Posts: 567
Location: nyc

Boaz wrote:
I can easily see PWM at 310mhz

PWM should be set at about 9000 mhz or above

Wait… what??

Not sure if you mean millihertz or megahertz, but either one is… uhh, wow.

310MHz is like VHF teevee channel frequency.

310mHz is 0.3Hz or a sloooooow turn-signal on a car.

9000mHz is 9Hz, and pretty much everyone can see that kind of flicker.

09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

Gunga
Gunga's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 8 min ago
Joined: 11/28/2014 - 16:56
Posts: 1342
Location: Vancouver, Canada

While I’m making an assumption, I’m pretty sure he meant 9KHz or 9000 Hz. Metric is not clear for everyone.

In any case, Jon, you are really taking this anti-PWM crusade to heart it seems!

I come from the old days, in 2006, 100Hz was common, the Jetbeam CL-E even came out with 80Hz in the first gen model (later improved to 300Hz). Conversely, the old Cree XRE with constant current designs tended to be very green at lower levels.

These days, with modern LEDS and much higher frequency designs (10KHz and above), I find PWM to be fine. My favourite drivers (eg. Dr. Jones H17F) are super powerful, flexible, and programmable. That would not be feasible with a constant current design. It would likely be too complicate, cost too much or be too big. Constant current is preferable to me, but if the PWM frequency is high enough, I don’t mind.

AA compatibility is a must for me. I much prefer the ability to use eneloops in my AA lights. 14500 compatibility is a nice to have for me, but not a requirement. Perhaps useful to make the light weigh less or provide higher max output. That said, a single voltage design is likely more efficient and easier to design (eg. Zebralight SC5).

I see you have mentioned the ReyLight Pineapple. I think it’s PWM was measured at around 2KHz. While I do detect it, I find it reasonable in use. especially since it is not found in the moonlight level. In any case, it’s disappointing but I don’t find it too noticeable. I’m pretty sensitive to PWM, but I’m sure others may find it annoying. I’m glad Rey is raising the frequency to 9Khz in the Ti design though.

On an unrelated note, has anyone tried the new 4Sevens Preon? I have heard it has very bad PWM…

Boaz
Boaz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 44 min ago
Joined: 11/07/2010 - 09:31
Posts: 5865
Location: Birthplace of Aviation

Smile

Yeah … 9Khz

310Mhz is my garage door frequency

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

evankouros
evankouros's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 3 hours ago
Joined: 11/30/2015 - 16:23
Posts: 381
Location: Hellas

Dual, with or without PWM.

Flintrock
Offline
Last seen: 33 min 6 sec ago
Joined: 09/10/2016 - 20:29
Posts: 706

Lightbringer wrote:

7135s have a certain capacitance associated with the input strobe pin. ×8, and that's a fairly hefty capacitance to overcome with the somewhat anæmic output pin of a Tiny13. The signal is slowed and rises only gradually, so at low levels (especially moonlight/firefly modes) it "eats" a few counts of the PWM output, sometimes enough that the 7135s don't even turn on. So a PWM of 8 counts might only "register" as a 6 (where 256 = 100%), and a PWM of 3 might register as a 1... if it turns on at all. (The difference of 130 vs 128 won't be noticeable.) At a lower PWM freq, each pulse is wider, so a PWM of 1 (longer pulse) would be long enough to get the 7135s to turn on; at a higher freq, 1 or 2 (shorter pulses) might not turn them on, but a 3 would (first 1-2 pulses "eaten" from the slow risetime).

 

Thanks Lighbringer.  I see.. ok.. This would be a problem on the opposite end also, not that anyone cares much there,  but a 254 would not regesiter as 245/255 but more like 254.9/255.

So that creates a little non-linearity in the PWM response, maybe complicates unifying software across different configurations (different numbers of 7135's), but in the end you can still do a PWM of 3 though to get the equivilant of the 1, and if it's really only that bad, then that's not so bad at all.   There might be some actual energy wasted in driving all that capacitance though, which might bug the survivalists who want 50 days of moonlight mode.  Between the two issues, I'd rather have high frequency.

 

 

Lightbringer
Lightbringer's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 hours 50 min ago
Joined: 08/30/2016 - 14:12
Posts: 567
Location: nyc
Flintrock wrote:
Lightbringer wrote:

7135s have a certain capacitance associated with the input strobe pin. ×8, and that’s a fairly hefty capacitance to overcome with the somewhat anæmic output pin of a Tiny13. The signal is slowed and rises only gradually, so at low levels (especially moonlight/firefly modes) it “eats” a few counts of the PWM output, sometimes enough that the 7135s don’t even turn on. So a PWM of 8 counts might only “register” as a 6 (where 256 = 100%), and a PWM of 3 might register as a 1… if it turns on at all. (The difference of 130 vs 128 won’t be noticeable.) At a lower PWM freq, each pulse is wider, so a PWM of 1 (longer pulse) would be long enough to get the 7135s to turn on; at a higher freq, 1 or 2 (shorter pulses) might not turn them on, but a 3 would (first 1-2 pulses “eaten” from the slow risetime).


Thanks Lighbringer.  I see.. ok.. This would be a problem on the opposite end also, not that anyone cares much there,  but a 254 would not regesiter as 245/255 but more like 254.9/255.


So that creates a little non-linearity in the PWM response, maybe complicates unifying software across different configurations (different numbers of 7135’s), but in the end you can still do a PWM of 3 though to get the equivilant of the 1, and if it’s really only that bad, then that’s not so bad at all.   There might be some actual energy wasted in driving all that capacitance though, which might bug the survivalists who want 50 days of moonlight mode.  Between the two issues, I’d rather have high frequency.

It might get a little more complicated than that, that there’d be a similar lag when turning off, but the main issue is in fact getting the bugger to turn on in the first place when the PWM period for 1 count is about as long as you want to strobe the 7135s.

It’s like turning on a bank of tube fluorescent lights that flicker a bit before catching. That lag is what causes the issue when you just want to turn the lights on for, say, 1sec, when it takes about 1sec for them to catch.

And the bigger problem is that there’s variation elsewhere (7135s, output drive for the Tiny13s, etc.), that some combos will work fine and give you nice low firefly mode, whereas other times it won’t turn on at all, or start fine in firefly but not at all when stepping down from turbo to firefly, etc.

I followed the thread for a while, on setting PWM values on “biscotti”, and it got really complicated.

For a Li-cell, the best firefly mode is probably just a dedicated line through a resistor, not PWMing it at all. Besides, as I can attest from my Quark, lowest modes tend to be the greenest (yecch). That’s why PWMing is actually preferred over linear. Linear brings its own issues such as nasty color-shifts in any LED (even monochromatic, not just white). Even 2A vs 2mA is a 1000:1 range.

09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

Pages