Flashlightaholics: Anybody use 16340 batteries?

Posted by: ireckon

Flashlightaholics: Anybody use 16340 batteries? - 11/13/12 06:36 AM

For any of your flashlights, do you use 16340 batteries, the rechargeable version of CR123? Is there any advantage or is it mostly an inconvenience? I might buy this flashlight and have been thinking about trying out a 16340 battery:

http://dx.com/p/tk-360-cree-xp-g-r5-200-...-113158?item=13
Posted by: Phaedrus

Re: Flashlightaholics: Anybody use 16340 batteries? - 11/13/12 10:09 AM

I think the main issue with the rechargeable versions are that they lack the ability to work in the cold like the lithium version. However they do put out an impressive amount of power.
Posted by: LesSnyder

Re: Flashlightaholics: Anybody use 16340 batteries? - 11/13/12 02:14 PM

In all honesty, I've never run down a CR123 due to use... they power my weapons' lights and SureFire/SolarForce high intensity lights, and don't get routine usage...I have replaced them after multi year stand by service
Posted by: Am_Fear_Liath_Mor

Re: Flashlightaholics: Anybody use 16340 batteries? - 11/13/12 02:37 PM


I use RCR123a with the same DX flashlight, best to go with the higher spec 16340 protected cells, such as the AW RCR123a though

http://www.lighthound.com/AW-RCR123a-Protected-750-mAh-Battery_p_114.html

The Soshine RCR123a from DX are also OK

http://dx.com/p/soshine-700ma-3-7v-rcr123-a-batteries-pack-with-carrying-case-2-pack-13811?item=1

The Nitecore Intellicharger i4 will allow you to charge 4 cells at a time.

http://www.nitecore.com/video.aspx?id=54
Posted by: MDinana

Re: Flashlightaholics: Anybody use 16340 batteries? - 11/13/12 03:20 PM

You have to be more careful with them. IIRC, the 16340 is lithium ion, whereas rechargable CR123 are a different chemical composition. Running two or more in series can cause problems with reverse current and exploding batteries. Finally, not all flashlughts that run on 123s will accept 16340 due to differences is current strength.

Candlepower forums has a bunch of good info on them, including reports of battery explosions. I use them occasionally, but only in single cell lights. I suggest you do some research, if you haven't, before assuming they're interchangeable.
Posted by: chaosmagnet

Re: Flashlightaholics: Anybody use 16340 batteries? - 11/13/12 03:45 PM

My tendency is to use protected 18650s for improved runtime in those of my lights that support them. For my single-celled lights, I use them less frequently and find that CR123A primaries work very well for me.
Posted by: Arney

Re: Flashlightaholics: Anybody use 16340 batteries? - 11/13/12 03:55 PM

Originally Posted By: ireckon
For any of your flashlights, do you use 16340 batteries, the rechargeable version of CR123?

Among the Candlepower Forums crowd, "16340" generally refers to one particular type of rechargeable CR123-sized cell, but there are other types/chemistries out there, e.g. Li-Co RCR123 cells. "16340" generally refers to IMR-type cells, which are capable of high dischrage rates but have lower capacity than the more typical Li-Co lithium ion rechargeable cells.

I think you'll find this discussion on Candlepower Forums interesting.

I haven't worn out any of my Li-Co RCR123 cells yet, so I have not tried these IMR cells yet. In general, if you want really high currents, then IMR's are the way to go. If not, then Li-Co's still have their place depending on any other priorities you may have.
Posted by: ireckon

Re: Flashlightaholics: Anybody use 16340 batteries? - 11/13/12 04:42 PM

Thank you, everybody. I have a lot of reading to do about the fundamental characteristics of various batteries. All of my EDC flashlights must be able to perform in cold conditions. Perhaps all rechargeable batteries are eliminated altogether (?).
Posted by: Am_Fear_Liath_Mor

Re: Flashlightaholics: Anybody use 16340 batteries? - 11/13/12 05:09 PM


Quote:
Perhaps all rechargeable batteries are eliminated altogether (?)



Tenergy LiFePO4 RCR123As have very good low temperature performance and excellent number of charge/dischage cycles. They have a slightly less capacity though compared with other 16340 cells.

http://www.batteryjunction.com/rc375reliba.html
Posted by: haertig

Re: Flashlightaholics: Anybody use 16340 batteries? - 11/13/12 05:56 PM

I use rechargeable Li-Ion for all my daily carry flashlights (yes, multiple - what can I say?!) But you have to buy a light that is designed to use the higher voltage. I am talking from the AA-size battery perspective. I use the 14500 rechargeable Li-Ions 99% of the time. My fallback to that are the Eneloop rechargeable NiMH's. Third fallback is Alkaline.

I only have one CR123 light (weapons light on my shotgun). For that, I use regular primary CR123's. For that use - very short and sporatic use (testing mostly) - I think primary lithium cells are the best.

If you are considering rechargeable CR123's, realize that there are DIFFERENT VOLTAGES available. Make sure you get something compatible with your flashlight. Also, if you have two rechargeable Li-Ions in series you sure as heck better make sure they are the "protected" kind. Otherwise you are at risk for fire and smoke. Better than two Li-Ion CR123's (I forgot the model designation for these) in series, I would recommend ONE 18650 cell that replaces both. Again, make sure your flashlight can handle the additional voltage.

The rule of thumb for rechargeable Li-Ion's is, if your are going to buy a cheap charger (the UltraFire for example), get GOOD batteries (e.g., AW brand, etc). If you are going to get cheap batteries (UltraFire, etc.) get a GOOD charger. I personally use an UltraFire charger for Li-ions, but for batteries I always use the top-notch AW brand protected cells.
Posted by: Arney

Re: Flashlightaholics: Anybody use 16340 batteries? - 11/13/12 06:09 PM

Originally Posted By: haertig
If you are considering rechargeable CR123's, realize that there are DIFFERENT VOLTAGES available. Make sure you get something compatible with your flashlight.

Thanks, Haertig. That's something so basic to me now that it totally slipped my mind. Yes, these different batteries may all have basically the same form factor, but they have different characteristics, most importantly for most users, voltage.

Fortunately, as lithium ion batteries have become more common--at least among flashlight hobbyists and certain power users--more and more LED lights designed for one or two CR123 cells are capable of also using either primaries or rechargabeables. It's critical to double-check that before use.

It really sucks to unwrap that cool DX light that you've waited two months to be shipped from China, and then you fry it because you put lithium ions in the light when it couldn't handle the extra voltage. Then all you have a cool looking paperweight. frown
Posted by: Phaedrus

Re: Flashlightaholics: Anybody use 16340 batteries? - 11/13/12 08:46 PM

Due to the differing voltages of rechargeables, some devices won't use them. IIRC Surefire warns not to use them in their lights.
Posted by: picard120

Re: Flashlightaholics: Anybody use 16340 batteries? - 11/13/12 09:37 PM

do you mean 16850 battery? the 16340 battery is very hard to find. I think it must be misspelled word.

for that light, you can use rechargeable CR123A. The light isn't strong enough for the large battery. I have several high power flashlights.
Posted by: LED

Re: Flashlightaholics: Anybody use 16340 batteries? - 11/13/12 09:48 PM

In my Surefires I usually use 16340 LiFePO's. E1B Backup and Surefire Minimus headlamp work fine on them. Surefire recently started selling 16340 LiFePO's + charger on their website.

For the 6P Nitrolon w/Malkoff dropin I use a 17670. I prefer single cell lights.


16340 Li-co's are 3.7V

16340 LiFePO's are 3.0V so are interchangeable with CR123 primary batteries.

Posted by: haertig

Re: Flashlightaholics: Anybody use 16340 batteries? - 11/13/12 10:14 PM

Originally Posted By: Phaedrus
Due to the differing voltages of rechargeables, some devices won't use them. IIRC Surefire warns not to use them in their lights.

That's not saying the lights "that won't use them" are somehow ethically/morally/engineering-wise superior. "Don't" is probably a better word to use than "won't". Truth be told, those lights suffer from an inferior electrical design. They may be good lights, but they are older designs and failed to keep up with recent trends. Much like what happened to Maglite.

This is one reason why I bought both a 4Sevens and an Olight over a Fenix. Fenix makes good lights, but they suffer in the design department in that they cannot use the higher voltage cells. That is not a plus for them. That is a minus. 4Sevens and Olight (at least the specific models I bought) don't suffer from that deficiency.

So definitely check out the light you are considering purchasing for what voltages it will accept (and build quality, and other things too). Simply buying a well-known brand name is not good enough anymore.
Posted by: Arney

Re: Flashlightaholics: Anybody use 16340 batteries? - 11/13/12 10:16 PM

ireckon, since it's not clear if you're referring specifically to IMR-type 16340 cells, or just generically to rechargeable CR123 sized cells, I'll keep my answer fairly generic.

I tend to use rechargeable RCR123 cells in my EDC lights (which I use regularly, too), but I also make sure to top them off periodically. Takes very little time to do a top off charge. For versatility, my EDC lights are LED lights that have multiple modes so I can tailor the amount of light to the task. More efficient use of precious battery life that way, especially for a light that I'm not necessarily carrying spare batteries for at all times. However, most multi-mode LED lights are going to slowly drain your batteries to keep the electronics in them active. For example, any multi-mode light that remembers what level you used last is definitely drawing power to remember that setting. Most lights are not bad about this drain, so this is not a universal problem, but sometimes you'll come across a light that will leave you with a dead battery in a couple of months or even in weeks.

For lights that I have stashed primarily for emergency use, like the lights in my cars, I tend to use non-rechargeable batteries and pick lights that either do not draw any power when not on, or which you can adjust to not draw power (or just remove the batteries and store them outside the light). For those lights, I change out the non-rechargeable batteries annually.

So, for lights that you use often or at least handle often, it makes a lot of sense in most most cases to use rechargeables, I think. Much eaiser to make sure that you'll have a full or pretty full charge when you need it. At least if you're always starting fairly full, you have some idea of how much runtime you may have left. With non-rechargeables in a light that you use periodically or regularly, you may not have any idea at all unless you carry a spare cell.
Posted by: haertig

Re: Flashlightaholics: Anybody use 16340 batteries? - 11/13/12 10:36 PM

Also consider your preference in "regulation". An unregulated light will just keep getting dimmer and dimmer until it finally goes out. You have plenty of advance warning that you need to replace the batteries. [ But many people seem to ignore that warning. For some unknown reason they prefer to shake and beat on the light in a futile ritual to get it to turn back on. Strange folks they are - shaking a dead battery doesn't make it spring back to life. You see this all the time in the movies. ]

Anyway, ...

With a highly regulated light, the brightness stays the same, or very close to it, throughout the battery life. The lights I carry daily are all highly regulated. To the (almost ridiculous) point of staying at full power and then just suddenly turning off when they're dead. Luckily, I can switch all my lights to a much lower power setting and turn them back on for a few more minutes to a few more hours after "lights out!", so I'm not totally in the dark. But it is a little disconcerting for the first few seconds after your blazingly bright flashlight just turns off instantaneously. Until you remember to turn it back on using a lower power level and go grab some other freshly charged batteries.
Posted by: Arney

Re: Flashlightaholics: Anybody use 16340 batteries? - 11/14/12 12:06 AM

Originally Posted By: haertig
Also consider your preference in "regulation".

Although an important distinction, I think we might confuse some readers by mixing apples and oranges. Now we're talking about differences in flashlights, rather than differences in battery types.

That said, back to batteries, you can also be left in the dark with an unregulated light if you're using Li-Co rechargeable RCR123's if you run the cell down enough to trip the low voltage protection circuit built into most RCR123 cells. At that point, switching modes won't help. The only way to reset the protection circuit in the battery is to recharge the cell.

This wouldn't happen with an IMR-type rechargeable cell because it doesn't have a protection circuit. Nor would it happen with a non-rechargeable CR123 cell. (Not being able to turn the light back on, that is. The light itself might still switch off because it has its own low voltage cutoff circuit, but in that case, switching to a lower mode would probably let you continue at a lower illumination level, like Haertig was describing above).
Posted by: Phaedrus

Re: Flashlightaholics: Anybody use 16340 batteries? - 11/14/12 06:32 AM

Originally Posted By: haertig
Originally Posted By: Phaedrus
Due to the differing voltages of rechargeables, some devices won't use them. IIRC Surefire warns not to use them in their lights.

That's not saying the lights "that won't use them" are somehow ethically/morally/engineering-wise superior. "Don't" is probably a better word to use than "won't". Truth be told, those lights suffer from an inferior electrical design. They may be good lights, but they are older designs and failed to keep up with recent trends. Much like what happened to Maglite.


Hahaha! I was trying to keep it and short, avoiding writing a book, but you had to go there... grin Okay, yeah- it's an "ought" more than a flat prohibition. The issue is that there are a multitude of rechargeables with myriad voltages. Some voltages are within the range of specs that can safely drive the emitter of a Surefire lamp. Others are not. Over voltage can ruin the light. Since Surefire has no control over what kind of Chinese rechargeable batter you decide to slap in there, they simply advise you not to use rechargeables at all. Probably a sensible precaution for their marketing/legal department. If you do decide to use rechargeable batteries you want to make sure the voltage is correct.

I agree that Surefire doesn't keep up to date with the latest and greatest, but I think it's a bit off base to compare them with Maglite. The latter is truly stuck in the wrong century. While there are brighter LED lights than Surefire (and I own many of them) if I had to bet my life on one of them working I'd grab the Surefire every time. IMOHO that's probably why they don't play emitter-of-the-week with all the Chinese companies and don't try to walk the razor's edge with their microprocessors. They don't market to flashlight geeks- they market to professionals in the military and law enforcement fields. Surefire focuses on making pretty bright lights that are bomb-proof. For all that I don't think they compare to badly when it comes to light output, either. Most of my Chinese lights carry somewhat optimistic ratings; Surefire lights are generally the opposite. And my X300 Ultra weapon light is among the brightest hand held light I've seen.

Not trying to open a can of worms here, just making some observations. wink
Posted by: JPickett

Re: Flashlightaholics: Anybody use 16340 batteries? - 11/14/12 03:46 PM

Yikes! Would you guys please stick to English? I'm reminded of trying to follow a heated discussion in a language I don't understand!
Posted by: Am_Fear_Liath_Mor

Re: Flashlightaholics: Anybody use 16340 batteries? - 11/14/12 04:41 PM


Quote:
Yikes! Would you guys please stick to English? I'm reminded of trying to follow a heated discussion in a language I don't understand!


Its all explained here;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rechargeable_battery

The Table of rechargeable battery types shows all the different Battery chemistries with their pros and cons.

I still even have a C-cell Maglite with a high efficiency 3W Cree LED using Everyready 1600 mAhr NiCd's which are about 15 years old, which must have spent the last 10-12 years sitting in the back of a cupboard drawer. They just needed to be recharged. Something I suspect might be a little tricky to do with all these lightweight high technology Lithium ion technology batteries. whistle

Even NiCds have their place even for spacecraft and satellite power requirements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RazakSAT
Posted by: JohnN

Re: Flashlightaholics: Anybody use 16340 batteries? - 11/14/12 05:42 PM

My preference these days is to have a light that can either use 2x123A or 1x18650 (protected).

-john
Posted by: picard120

Re: Flashlightaholics: Anybody use 16340 batteries? - 11/14/12 10:10 PM

Originally Posted By: JohnN
My preference these days is to have a light that can either use 2x123A or 1x18650 (protected).

-john


I concur with you. I use the same type of battery too.
Posted by: Phaedrus

Re: Flashlightaholics: Anybody use 16340 batteries? - 11/14/12 11:41 PM

I know some of the JETBeam lights can operate on most available batteries.
Posted by: haertig

Re: Flashlightaholics: Anybody use 16340 batteries? - 11/15/12 05:21 AM

Originally Posted By: JohnN
My preference these days is to have a light that can either use 2x123A or 1x18650 (protected).

I have chosen the 1xAA sized lights as my standard. If you buy the right lights, you can use Alkaline primaries, rechargeable NiMH's, Lithium primaries, and rechargeable Li-Ion's in them. Lots of options there. If you're in a pinch you can run to the grocery store and buy some alkalines cheaply. While many grocery stores also have CR123's these days, you will pay through the nose buying them there. Plus, you can go to Costco and buy one of their mega-packs of AA Alkalines for real cheap and have a lot of backup batteries on hand.

I have a couple of 1xAA lights (4Sevens, Olight) that are every bit as bright, if not brighter, then my 2xCR123A light (Chinese light from Deal Extreme - model WF502B). This is with two primary CR123A cells in the WF502B and a Li-Ion cell in either the 4Sevens or the Olight. And the WF502B is huge compared to the other two lights.
Posted by: Phaedrus

Re: Flashlightaholics: Anybody use 16340 batteries? - 11/15/12 07:52 AM

I agree that AA is a pretty decent cell to go with. Even though I'm partial to the CR123A I see that the Army is going to AA's for their scopes & optics for that same reason, universal availability.
Posted by: ireckon

Re: Flashlightaholics: Anybody use 16340 batteries? - 11/15/12 05:55 PM

Originally Posted By: Phaedrus
I agree that AA is a pretty decent cell to go with. Even though I'm partial to the CR123A I see that the Army is going to AA's for their scopes & optics for that same reason, universal availability.


That just adds further to the vicious cycle. CR123A is technically superior, but many people must use CR123A in order for it to become ubiquitous. Meanwhile, people don't use it because it's not ubiquitous. As the Army moves to AA, the vicious cycle gains momentum.
Posted by: Arney

Re: Flashlightaholics: Anybody use 16340 batteries? - 11/15/12 07:38 PM

Originally Posted By: ireckon
That just adds further to the vicious cycle.

I'm not sure I follow your argument. And this "vicious cycle" leads to...?

CR123 may be technically superior but it is more expensive and overkill for many applications, so I see little economic argument for it becoming even more ubiquitous than it already is.

Arguably, the relatively recent boom in high powered LED flashlights has expanded the number of people using CR123-powered flashlights because alkaline cells just don't cut it for high drain use. Ten years ago, very few people had CR123 flashlights. At that point, Surefire was still basically "it" in that niche. Now there are a gazillion different CR123-powered models out there and those lights need batteries.
Posted by: hikermor

Re: Flashlightaholics: Anybody use 16340 batteries? - 11/15/12 08:30 PM

In standardizing on a battery type, you should consider more than just flashlights. It is helpful if batteries can be swapped among your headlamp, flashlight, GPS, camera and or water purifier, etc. When out hiking or biking, I typically have a GPS, a headlamp, and EDC flashlight, all of which can accept lithium, rechargeable, or alkaline AAAs. Depending upon the need, I have lots of backup batts....
Posted by: ireckon

Re: Flashlightaholics: Anybody use 16340 batteries? - 11/15/12 09:19 PM

Price is not the main reason many people don't buy CR123A for their flashlights. The market will buy a superior product if the price/performance ratio is lower. The main reason CR123A is unpopular is that CR123A is not ubiquitous in other electronic equipment and not in stores. Thus, people don't buy. Thus, electronics makers design around other batteries. Thus, it's not ubiquitous. Thus, people don't buy. Thus, electronics makers design around other batteries. Thus, it's not ubiquitous.... Thus, we have the vicious cycle.

Some may say CR123A is not ubiquitous because it's more expensive, but actually it's the other way around also. CR123A is more expensive partly because it's not ubiquitous. As an analogy, if I made a battery that was 20 times better than CR123A, I'd have to charge $1,000 per battery until it could be produced on a scale so massive that it was a standard. People likely wouldn't show up in masses to help me improve my scale. So, the price would have to stay at $1,000 per battery in order for me to recoup research and development expenses. In contrast, if people bought more of my battery or if I had patient venture capital funding, I'd be able to charge less, and I'd have to charge less because I'd have competition (e.g., from Chinese manufacturers). CR123A is on the cusp of seriously rivaling AA (e.g., the price/performance ratio is almost lower than AA), but when large organizations like the ARMY move to AA, it's a setback.
Posted by: haertig

Re: Flashlightaholics: Anybody use 16340 batteries? - 11/15/12 09:28 PM

You are stating CR123A is superior to AA as if that were a fact. If you are comparing LITHIUM CR123A to ALKALINE AA, then yes, CR123A is superior.

However, when comparing apples to apples - lithium to lithium, or Li-Ion to Li-Ion - the CR123A is not really superior. You might get a slight bit more of capacity. In some ways CR123A's are inferior. One: The form factor - CR123A's are fat compared to AA's. Of course, AA's are longer. But in terms of carrying a flashlight in your pocket, a single AA light is much nicer than a single CR123A light. A single AAA light is even more comfortable, but those are just too low capacity for anything except dim lighting needs (which is a valid need). Two: Compatibility - Things that run on Lithium AA's can also run on alkaline AA's. Things that run on CR123A's can also run on ... CR123A's. No such thing as an "alkaline CR123A". So we have two strikes against CR123A's right there. Form factor and compatibility. Add to that their lesser availability and significantly higher price, and you have strike three - you're out. Back in the days when the best you could get in an AA was an alkaline, the CR123A was superior. But those days are gone now.

I realize I am using the terms "AA" and "CR123A" loosely above. I am referring to the form factor of these cells. A 14500 is not really an AA (except in form factor). Nor is a RCR123 or 16340 really a CR123A (except in form factor). But for purposes of the points I am trying to make, form factor is what I need to refer too.
Posted by: Arney

Re: Flashlightaholics: Anybody use 16340 batteries? - 11/15/12 10:01 PM

Originally Posted By: ireckon
The market will buy a superior product if the price/performance ratio is lower.

I see what you're saying, but the big box, outsourcing-production-to-cheap-overseas-factories phenomenon has shown us that lower price (at least lower percieved price) tends to win out over higher performance across a wide swath of products. You can lower the price/performance ratio by either building a kick ass product (making the denominator larger) or you can sell something cheaper and shrink the numerator. For the most part, Americans have voted with their wallets and gone with lower prices.

For a more CR123-specific example, look at digital cameras. CR123's used to power a lot more digital cameras. But then rechargeable lithium ion battery packs came along. Now people didn't need to keep buying "expensive" CR123's and could just recharge the battery packs at home to save money and now there are few CR123 powered cameras. What was once a pretty ubiquitous market of CR123-powered cameras shrank because consumer preference chose something else.

Quote:
an analogy, if I made a battery that was 20 times better than CR123A, I'd have to charge $1,000 per battery until it could be produced on a scale so massive that it was a standard.

This train of thought is missing that middle piece--between "20 times better" and "becoming a standard," people have to want it and be willing to pay for it. IPhones were never cheap but people wanted it and were willing to pay for it. Overseas, where mobile phone companies don't subsidize the price, people are still willing to pay full price for iPhones even though they much lower incomes because they want it so badly. And now iPhones are ubiquitous around the world. CR123's will not become ubiquitous unless there is a widespread demand for them first. Demand drives expansion of manufacturing capacity, which increases supply, which at some point should lead to lower unit prices. If you're selling $1,000 batteries five years after introducing them to the market, don't blame limited distribution. People just didn't want them badly enough.

Another recent example just popped into my head. Look at the netbook market. Just a few years ago, they were sold at every cell phone store and every electronics retailer on the block and everyone had to have one, but then the iPad came along and ate the netbook's lunch (and dinner and dessert, to boot) even though the iPad was more expensive than the netbooks and not necessarily any more capable. You couldn't even watch YouTube videos on the iPad! Hmmm, two Apple examples in one post. Just goes to show what a genius Jobs & Co. were in coming up with wildly popular and even gamechanging products.
Posted by: haertig

Re: Flashlightaholics: Anybody use 16340 batteries? - 11/15/12 10:36 PM

There is also the concept of "good enough". More money might buy better performance technically speaking, but do you need it? Is it worth the increased cost?

What do I have in my pack as my "knife for the wilderness"? Try guessing. Is it some custom made high-end steel thing? Or is it a Mora? I can buy dozens of Moras for the cost of one of the high-end knives. Is the high-end one any better FOR MY NEEDS? Nope, not a bit.

So that I am being totally honest, I recently DID buy a knife that cost more than a Mora. It is a "better" knife (depending on your view). A SOG Field Pup. But I had to put out a whopping $19.95 (on sale!) to aquire that (arguably) better SOG. But my point still holds. I didn't spend multi-hundreds of dollars to get an "even better" knife than the SOG. No need to. The saying "You get what you pay for" only goes so far, before you start looking like a fool for paying so much.
Posted by: ireckon

Re: Flashlightaholics: Anybody use 16340 batteries? - 11/15/12 10:53 PM

This discussion has been informative.

Off topic, I had to look up the meaning of "netbook." Low and behold, it turns out that I use a netbook as my main computer. It's an Acer, 500GB, 4GB RAM, 11.5" display, for around $300. The screen is about as clear as it gets, without being a retina display. I forgot how many Hz, but I remember selecting this computer because the Hz are NOT that high (less battery drain).

This computer can do everything I need it to do, and just as fast or faster than my other computers that are considerably more expensive. In the past, I purchased only the highest end 17" laptops. Those days are over. They're too unwieldy for traveling for one thing. Also, we've reached a point in technology where higher performing hardware offers diminishing returns. For example, faster and bigger processors mean faster battery drain, while offering no benefit for regular software applications. Unfortunately, the prices for netbooks are creeping up.
Posted by: 7point82

Re: Flashlightaholics: Anybody use 16340 batteries? - 11/15/12 11:22 PM

I currently use 18650s in lights that use multiples of two of the 123 batteries but I use primaries in my everyday light/headlamp that use a single 123 cell. I couldn't be more pleased with how the 18650s have worked for me & I am thinking about buying some 16340s.

I wish I had experience specifically with the 16340s but I wouldn't expect it to be so different from the 18650s.
Posted by: chaosmagnet

Re: Flashlightaholics: Anybody use 16340 batteries? - 11/16/12 12:14 AM

Originally Posted By: haertig
But in terms of carrying a flashlight in your pocket, a single AA light is much nicer than a single CR123A light.


I prefer a 1xCR123A for a pocket light, myself.
Posted by: Phaedrus

Re: Flashlightaholics: Anybody use 16340 batteries? - 11/16/12 07:38 AM

Originally Posted By: chaosmagnet
Originally Posted By: haertig
But in terms of carrying a flashlight in your pocket, a single AA light is much nicer than a single CR123A light.


I prefer a 1xCR123A for a pocket light, myself.


Me, too, actually. Although if the goal is the tiniest light that's still bright enough to be useful the nod goes to the AAA for me. When my little Fauxton fell off my keychain and got ran over by a car (long story...) I replaced it with a Fenix 01. A bit bigger but very nice, and in truth it's the largest light I could live with in that application (keychain).

The light I generally have in the pocket of my jacket or fleece pullover when I'm out and about is a JETBeam BC10. It's extremely powerful yet simple to use and compact. I'm not sayin' it's the best or the only one to use, just the one I prefer.