You can see the archived poll results on the Wayback Machine:
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
I hate visible PWM.
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…
…and so would next memory mode with blinkies…
How about blinkies with low frequency PWM?
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.
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
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
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?
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!!
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
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
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.
I thought the Skyray King has 200Hz PWM on low. I can’t see anything… Should I feel lucky or should I feel old?