Talk about future projects and donation topic

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?

Good idea! That would probably mandate a dedicated thread…

A quick sketch:

I totally agree that there should be standards. But at the same time I think they should not be binding, f.e. when a project targets size over all, standard compliance would not be welcome.
And, obviously, we should have different standards for the same part, depending on use. There’s place for lights that have threading smaller than Q8.

The question is: what can be standardized?

  • battery tubes, battery-tube o-rings
  • battery carriers
  • lenses, bezels, o-rings (Q8-based thrower could be compatible with Q8 f.e.)
  • switches
  • drivers
  • LED PCBs

Something else?

I would also consider standardizing a set of battery formats. I count eleven fairly popular battery sizes used in lights. And several others less popular. Cutting that to just a few would reduce the cost of entry for those of us who don’t have huge battery collections yet.

As to drivers, I’ll start with saying that I don’t believe that 17 mm is a good standard for 18xxx batteries, for all regular lights 20 mm will fit. Also, max driver height could be standardized.

Single 18650 width tube, threading like Convoy S series
Single 26650 width tube (also fits 21700/20700) Convoy L series size threading
4*18650 tube, Q8 threading

This seems logical right?
We probably can get the sizes or even CADs from Simon.

Why not just try it and see what happens. Take the Q8 prototype, remove the mcpcb and reflector.
Wire up a single xpl on a 20mm or so mcpcb, find something to hold it down with, maybe a small reflector you have. Hold it down with the Q8 glass. Then install a single weak battery and try it out. Ideally you want to measure the current as you ramp it up. If it survives, then replace the battery for a single high power one and test again. If it survives and the amps are not excessive, try 2 high power cells, etc… Maybe it will hold up to 4 high power cells with only 6 or 7 amps. Maybe not. Testing with an xpl-2 would probably make the amps go up higher. If you think the sst-40 is a good choice, get one of those and try the same test procedure. See what the actual amps are for the stock driver. Then you will know. :slight_smile:

Oh if only days had more then 24 hours :wink:

This concept was discussed in detail in some older threads and it never really made sense. You would have to convince a flashlight company to make all these individual parts without actually knowing which parts are going to sell well and which ones may not sell at all. It’s not practical for a company to make all these different parts and keep them in stock. The average flashlight buyer does not want to buy parts and put it together himself, that is only an enthusiast type of thing which is going to greatly limit sales. The end result will be a bulky looking and feeling flashlight due to the inefficient packaging you get by Lego’ing a bunch of universal parts.

That was the general impression in those older threads.

About right, though frankly I’d skip on 26650 entirely for now and wait for 21700. It’s likely that 26650 will be obsolete before we make the first light with it.

Also, it would be good to specify battery compatibility even tighter:

  • min/max length (i.e. protection)
  • max diameter (protection too, but oversized batteries happen too (Shockli 26650))
  • button top?

Q8 forces many people to buy new batteries, making it ~$57 light for them. I don’t know the reasons behind that, I assume it was a well thought-up decision, but should we require all 18650 batteries to be button top for compatibility with BLF lights? Maybe we should, because we already went that way. Maybe we should re-think and go either way. Or maybe some projects will be better with button-top-only and others with either-way-fits.
Overall, it would be good if we could make sure that users don’t have to buy new cells to use a new light unless that light has way different size than anything they own already.

It’s different when we are designing the lights. Keeping standards (but not procrastinating to keep compatibility) will make the flashlights every bit as good for regular users, while making them better for us. And it also reduces design time.

The SRK design has always mandated button top cells. And to get the most output from the Q8 you’d want unprotected high drain… but that’s just an option. Nothing different from a ‘regular’ SRK clone there.

I would love to see a nice brass AA with a high CRI emmitter too.

Would this end up being like Supbeam K40M in a smaller package? I love the super-wide beam that throws pretty well of that light. It is one of my favorite “general use” lights for sure. If BLF could build a similar wide beam/nice throw light in a smaller package I would buy two for sure.

Yeah a zoomie would be cool to do for sure.
Idk how the XHP35HI fares under a lens.

Too bad there are no round DIE LEDs.

Luminus makes some round ones, but they are neither cheap nor efficient.
There are also COBs.

There’s the Nichia 319A which has a hexagonal die.

But wasn’t there talk of a plan for a dual lens zoomie?
That could be a fun challenge.

The circular CBT90 and CBT140 are not COBs, it is a single LED, and they are about as efficient as cree LEDs.
The only difference is that instead of being 6 or 12v they are 3v and much higher current.

Yes Jerommel, when a zoomie is done as BLF special I have something to do with it can only be a tad strange, so double lens or some sort of wavien thing.
I have seen your Brinyte and have a Jaxman Z1, no point in making a regular, those are available in good quality already :smiley:

I’m not sure if the BLF Lantern project is still on your table as a future project, but many would still like to see that be added hopefully in the future.

SBT-70 is not a COB.
According to Luminus CBT-90 is a chip-on-board LED

CBT-140 is a COB too.

As to efficiency, if I read the datasheet correctly, the top bin of CBT-90 does 2100 lm at the rated current. That’s 9A. At this current Vf is 3.1 V. So 75 lm/W. In Texas Ace tests of XHP35 E2 bin we see the same output with c.a. 100 lm/W. There’s HI E4 available.

ADDED: that said, I’d love to see a big thrower based on CBT-90.
ADDED: though probably compact 3*18650 package is (by far) not enough to make it thermally stable at high output.