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

Thank You, may I suggest a Pineapple?:slight_smile:

I would have voted 3 times, for the bottom three options, if possible. Just sayin. But I piled on the last option to help make that a reality.

jon_slider,
I want to remind you that there are at least a few NoPWM lights you’ll want nothing to do with… so specifying CC instead would be more specific.

NoPWM != CC

(ahem, Zebralight, cough cough)

What we want is CC, and not NoPWM, nor PWM.

Single-chemistry lights usually have slightly more efficient drivers. For example, my Zebralight SC5w (AA only) is about 10% more efficient than my Zebralight SC52w (AA and 14500).

Besides, with 1xAA lights now getting 500 lumens out of an Eneloop, there’s really not much need to go with 14500 cells anymore.

PWM sucks, even if it has unnoticeable high frequency. It kills efficiency!
Constant current is better for runtime - and my eyes! :smiley:

Sorry to add even more confusion, but for the visible PWM light we are assuming there’s at least one mode (usually its turbo) with no PWM… correct?
For the AA only light we are assuming it also takes ~1.7V Lithium primaries correct?

Assuming its YES to both scenarios above I would vote for the AA-only light. ~250-300 relatively cool running lumens is more than enough for my needs.

Dual-chemistry boost drivers can have Li-ion low-voltage protection. The driver needs to disallow a range of about 1.8 to 2.6 volts. Several lights do this, including the Zebralight SC52, Armytek 1xAA lights, the Klarus Mi7 and that prototype Illumn was showing off last year.

As for PWM, I’m fine if it’s fast, not fine if it’s slow. I’d probably give up Li-ion compatibility rather than accept slow PWM in a small, budget EDC type light if I had to make the choice. I bring an 18650 light if I actually think I’ll be using a light though.

correct PWM is only used on dimmed modes
correct an AA light will also accept Eneloop and Lithium Iron (primaries)
however it is imho not realistic to expect more than 140 lumens from a single AA with a 90+CRI LED

if your goal is to have more than 200 lumens, you are getting into CR123 territory, or LiIon

thank you :slight_smile:
apparently that was considered too large and too expensive for the Pineapple

Zebras dont offer 90+CRI, and they are also not constant current.

Klarus also does not offer 90+CRI, and it does not have real overdischarge protection, it just “automatically lowers output levels”. And Klarus calls their low of 5 lumens a “moonlight”, I think they have an English language challenge.

Finding an AA light with constant current and 90+CRI is quite rare
I cant think of any ATM that have all 3 features: constant current, 90+CRI, AND dual chemistry.

I think it should be very possible to get a 90+ CRI light on a single AA (NiMH cell). Zebralight SC5Fc and SC5Fd offer 85 CRI and 375 lumen output on a single AA. Switching to a 90 CRI LED would certainly be able to output more than 140 lumens. I think the reason it isn’t offered is because there isn’t enough demand for it. Zebralight seems to think the sweet spot between high output and high CRI is the 85 CRI EasyWhite LED.

Even the lowly Astrolux A01 Nichia 219 does close to 90 lumens, on a single AAA cell, at ~92 CRI. It’s not asking much more from a AA cell. I have an old L3 L10 that does about 100 lumens using the old Nichia 219A at 92 CRI. Just swapping in a 219B should get it up to 140 lumens, and it’s not driven hard at all.

Again, Zebralight SC5 does 535 lumens on a single AA. Manker T01 does over 400. Two years ago, sure, you needed to go with 14500 for that kind of output, but now you can do it with a NiMH cell.

I don’t see a need for 14500 any more. An Eneloop has the same energy, can deliver almost as much power, and does it way more safely, cheaper, and lasts for a couple of thousand charges.

I’d say it would depend on the quality/design of the driver as to whether a 14500 would be needed. Zebralight re-engineered the everyday driver to a highly efficient one to get high lumens from a NIMH.

Generic drivers require Lithium to achieve the same results.

500 lumens is impressive, but there are 14500 lights which do 1300 lumens (BLF X5). Li-ion also allows lights to be smaller since the driver is simpler. However, neither AA nor 14500 can sustain maximum output for long, since they just don’t have enough capacity for that. I generally only use them for 50 lumens or less.

Same here. A relatively small increase in size provides a 4X or 5X increase in capacity, while also eliminating driver complexity and making it much easier to do custom stuff. 1x18650 is a sweet spot. Some would even call it a “master race”. :wink:

Lithium iron primaries meaning L91 lithium AA (Li-FeS2)? Yes, AA lights generally work from about 0.9V to 1.8V, to cover the range of NiMH, alkaline, and lithium AA cells.

Or lithium iron as in LiFePO4/LiFeMnPO4? Adding lithium iron (phosphate) to the mix makes it a dual-voltage driver; it would need to support the 2.8V to 3.6V range. Adding common lithium ion also would require supporting ~2.7V to 4.4V. Those two aren’t so bad, since there’s still a gap between 1.8V and 2.7V which could be used to detect cell type for LVP.

Or lithium primaries as in CR123A? Adding CR123A to the mix makes things much harder since it can operate from like 1.0V to 3.6V. This mostly breaks cell auto-detection and LVP. It’s the reason I don’t get LVP on my Olight S10/S1/S-Mini. I’d rather have LVP than have CR123A support.

Zebralight offers lights with 90+CRI. For example: SC600Fd MkIII+
Nearly everything they’ve ever made uses constant current drivers, with some of the best efficiency and most stable output on the market. Sure, some levels oscillate quickly between two constant current levels to get an intermediate level, but other levels are truly constant.

I may not care much for ZL’s host aesthetics, UI quirks, tint choices, mod-unfriendliness, or price… but they typically lead the pack for driver technology.

+1

Dual chemistry is much more important to me than a little flicker, as long as I know why the light is flickering.

I’m fine with non-visible PWM, but if the PWM is visible, I’m going for AA and no PWM. Lithium compatibility is nice, but it’s not worth tolerating visible PWM for.

I don’t think this is true, with the latest emitters and brightest flux BINs there are 350L capable lights from just a single eneloop. My TH20 headlamp does ~230-250 and its not a barn burner at all, its more about cool running efficiency.

May I suggest a Pineapple?:slight_smile:

an observation about the poll, flawed though it is
as of today
51 people would buy dual chemistry with NoPWM
10 people would buy dual chemistry with YesPWM

from this I conclude that the Pineapple has only captured 16% of the polled market for a dual chemistry AA/14500 light. :slight_smile:

This suggests that NoPWM is a more limiting Sales variable overall, than dual AA/LiIon compatibility

Dreaming of a Constant Current Copper Pineapple :slight_smile:

I agree with you, and disagree with my earlier comment, I was not accurate. Thanks for keeping me honest.

The Mi7 and Zebra SC5 can also do more than 200 lumens on an AA, since they don’t use a Nichia.

An Mi7 wouldn’t lose much going from an XP-L HI V3 to a 219C D320, but those only guarantee 70 CRI. If the limiting factor is the input current, it might lose nothing at all since the 219C’s forward voltage is lower. The 219C’s beam profile is nearly as throwy as the XP-L HI as well.

Higher CRI and warmer tint, however both usually require giving up some output, and the 90 CRI, 4000K 219C used in the Pineapple has a Flux bin of D240, which only has 75% of the brightness of the D320. Note that this would still be about 250 lumens.

The Mi7 could have about 420 lumens if it used an XP-L HD W2.

Wow! Okay, that is impressive from a 14500. I’m guessing no protection circuit allowed for that. The run-time must be about 5 minutes?

I disagree. 14500s have their advantages over AA in certain situations. Camping/backpacking is one. If you are out in the middle of nowhere, it is MUCH easier to charge Li-Ion with a solar panel than it is NiMH. For one, since solar charging is often at low current, a charge at a given current (like .5A) puts energy on a Li-Ion cell about three times faster than NiMH (due to the higher voltage). This means that it takes MUCH less time to charge a battery of a given energy content (or, looked at another way, more runtime for a given amount of time on the charger). Also, because Li-Ion terminates based on voltage, there is less of an issue with termination than with NiMH with less than steady power sources (like solar panels in certain situations). Finally, 14500s are lighter than AA, which reduces pack weight (although 18650 would be even better here).

Another issue here is that, although the SC5 CAN produce 500 lumens from AA, it just doesn’t do a super good job at it. The SC5, for instance, will only produce 500 lumens from good quality cells that are fairly new and at a fairly high state of charge. It just doesn’t take much before a cell cannot support the 500 lumen turbo, and the light dims rapidly while it can be sustained. In other words, 500 lumens on a single AA is somewhat more gimmicky than truly useful. But 500 lumens on a 14500 is MUCH more sustainable.

I’ll agree with you on all that, partially. While 14500 allows you to charge them more easily than NiMH, if you’re going for energy density and weight, 18650 is a far better option than 14500. So I think the real comparison when backpacking is between AA lights and 18650 lights, not AA vs 14500.

But, yes, if your only choice is between carrying a bunch of 14500 cells or carrying a bunch of AA cells, then you should probably choose the lighter option and go with 14500.

For regular everyday use, I still think there’s no advantage for 14500 over quality AA cells (like Eneloops).

I don’t agree. If you look at Selfbuilt’s output graphs on the SC5, you’ll notice that it has very flat regulation until it drops down to medium after about 45 minutes. There is the 3-minute step-down in output that is programmed into the light, but that is the case regardless of battery chemistry. It’s designed to stop the light from over-heating. The SC52 on a 14500 cell (again 500 lumens), steps down after 1 minute.

I haven’t noticed any issues with the SC5 losing output when I use Eneloops many years old. It seems to be fine, until the cell is almost drained.

A couple of years ago, it used to be the case that max output couldn’t be maintained except on fresh cells. For example, my SC52’s on an Eneloop only give their 280 lumens max output for a few minutes, before it slowly drops off to about 200 lumens for most of the run-time. For that light, 14500 clearly has a benefit, as it maintains a solid 280 lumens for the entire run-time after the 1-minute step-down.

I think Zebralight’s driver for the SC5 solved that problem. I can get a little over 20 minutes of 500 lumen output (by turning it up again after the 3-minute step-down), on a regular 1900mAh Eneloop. And, unlike with lithium-ion, I never have to worry about the light shutting off due to low voltage protection. On a drained Eneloop, it will continue to run on low levels for hours, without damaging the battery.