Talk about future projects and donation topic

I agree, but smaller just because I still like pocketable throwers.

I am also not tempted by huge throwers…

Unfortunately small lights don’t throw as good as big lights.
Or rather, the optic has to be large in relation to the LED if you want serious throw.
None the less, a Brinyte (Brynite?) B158 with a dedomed XPG2 is not that big, but it sure throws very well. :slight_smile:
But it only uses half of the emitted light, maybe even less than that.
Same goes for the Supwildfire reflector light. (in a quick test i found out the Brynyte (Brinite?) uses what would be the spill of a Supwildfire, the Supwildfire uses what the Brünüte does not use, roughly)
A recoil light collimates practically all of it.
But okay, 5 inches diameter is very large.
4 inches would be okay, maybe 3 inches, which is still roughly 75mm, which is still not small…

The former is true. The latter - I have some basic theory, but little practical verification. In theory what you say is untrue.
Throw = (optic area) * (surface intensity) * (optic efficiency).
In a simplified model, with a N-emitter light you can have N * (optic area / N) * (surface intensity) * (optic efficiency). Turns out the same as single emitter.
Really, you can’t fit a circular area with a number of smaller circles, you either lose some area or use siamese optics and lose efficiency. So single-emitter large-optic light will indeed throw better than a multi-emitter one with the same frontal area. But the difference is not big and you can definitely get serious throw with multi-emitters. Also, note that multi-emitters will tend to be shorter and may end up with better throw / volume. At least, that’s the theory.

This is correct, however “output” is called surface intensity and measured by cd/mm^2.
The actual lumen output is not directly relevant.

Thanks for the correction.

Today I got a thought about a moderate light that I’d love to have.
Not big, not small.
Not a flooder, not a thrower.
Not high output, but not a weakling either.
Not the runtime king, but nevertheless very good.
In my mind I call it a Jax of all trades because of one inspiration.

Details:

  • 3*18650
  • head just slightly larger than body
  • XHP35 HI, driven hard
  • efficient driver
  • compact package
  • side switch
  • zoomie!

Could be significantly cheaper with linear driver and SST-40, but efficiency would suffer a lot.

I don’t think you can run the xhp35 on 3 cells. It needs 4 cells.

3s linear or boost won’t work at all.
4s buck runs out of regulation at high currents, though when it does work efficiency is great.
4s linear would work, but be grossly inefficient.
For 3 cells, 1s boost and 3s buck-boost are the only sensible options that I see.

A tube for 3*18650 sure holds nice (lol just grabbed the Courui walking out which has this)

Stupid question maybe but
If we use the exact same driver as the Q8 to power 1 led (XPLHi or SST40) would that be fed 20A and blow?

If we add a bank of 7135 chips, say 8 and a zener pad
Would this make the driver ideal for regulated output for a single LED and easy to adapt to allow 2 series input and a 6V emitter?

Yeah I am thinking that BLF ST and double length tube.
With the Q8, 2 heads, 3 tubes
Dang what a set that would be.

Yeah it would get 20A and blow everything except a luminus LED like the CBT90 or whatnot.
If you want to add 7315 chips for a 6v emitter you may as well use this driver which is already available:

No sorry that answer is cool in the modding thread (I wanted to post it there but it is not about Q8 modding, it is about future BLF ST :wink: ) but a MTNE driver is not an option. We have a Q8 driver, how to adapt it so :
1 It will drive a single 3V LED like aXPLhi or SST40 with a little more regulation then FET+1 (FET + 1 + 10 perhaps)
2 can be adapted to drive a 6V led like XHP50.2 (just a zener pad?)

I’m no driver designer, but I don’t see how one Fet driver, the Q8, would function differently than another fet driver, blf A6. At full power it’s basically direct drive.

You do have less voltage sag with 4 18650 compared to a single 18650, but I don’t think it would make a huge difference.

I think the internal resistance of the led is what controls the current (in direct drive). When you run 2 emitters in parallel, or 3 or 4, etc… your just reducing the resistance which allows for more current to flow.

So an xpl might see 5-6 amps, 4 xpl in parallel might see 20 amps, but only if given enough battery power.

If you look at a quad parallel xpl light with single 18650 you don’t get 20 amps due to battery limitation and voltage sag. I think you get around 12 amps?

I’m sure there are many people here that can tell you exactly what would happen Miller.

Well, you also have the fact that the Q8 holds 4x cells, so more potential current flow. The LED will not regulate current. If there is over-current, the LED will blow.

It will, to some extent, depending on the Vf curves. Some LEDs (eg. XP-L) you can pretty much connect straight to a 4.2V power source. Others (eg. 219C) would likely blow indeed if there is not enough resistance elsewhere in the light. So it’s not unthinkable that the same driver could drive a single LED but it’s not a given either. As they say, the devil is in the details.

Yes this is my thinking
But probably better to gofor a new driver with more regulation anyways (and with single LED and driver with big pcb ample space for chips to do so.)
Thanks

While we are throwing ideas…

One thing i’ve been thinking about is a legoable set of components that would allow for a great number of lights - the generalized idea of the Q8/ST compatibility.

A lot many lights are made of 3 parts: head, battery tube and tail cap. The head itself can be split in 3 parts: optics, led and driver. Imagine all those can be easily swapped. It’s just a matter of using the same ‘interface’ - threads and electrical connections.

If a set of interfaces is agreed upon and published, you can then focus on one part or the other to create new components and implicitly a new set of lights. For instance, instead of building a new light from scratch, you just need to create a new head, or maybe just a new driver. One could build some fancy tailcaps, or a usb charger ‘stage’ that would screw in between the battery tube and the driver, other optics, other firmware based drivers… or a purely decorative ring that could fit in different places… Different materials, different finishes, different functionalities… all legoables.

Of course there would need different interface ‘scales’ to fit the different batteries - AAA, AA, 18xxx, 20xxx, 26xxx… 3x18xxx, 4x18xxx… But still some ‘adapter’ ring could allow to mix them… sometime. Battery carriers could be designed to fit smaller batteries in larger tubes…

Not sure this is a good idea or an unwanted constraint, but it seems a good idea to keep things compatible as much as possible to save on future project design and production.

PS: are the GT and Q8 parts compatible?

That seems very smart
Hard, but smart
Look at the A6 and its Astrolux counterpart, they dont even Lego.
But indeed a default threading size would be the way to go.

Let me just add one little thing off topic.

In my opinion, a good logo is needed for BLF-projects.


What do you think?