*BLF LT1 Lantern Project) (updated Nov,17,2020)

[quote=angerdan]

I liked miniUSB too. Unfortunately it has been abandoned around 2010.

Not really, Nikon, and other DSLRs still use it because it is reliable, they don’t need the hassle of warranty returns or dis-gruntled customers, who expect their cameras to just work, for many years.

Even my LED dog collar, bought this year, uses it.

Edit: sorry failed to quote properly, but you get the gist.

Type C must have some kind of headway as flashlights are starting to implement it. Manker and If I’m not mistaken, Astrolux is using it too.

This is where I found out about type c durability. Yes it’s not exactly a micro USB as it is the Micro USB 3.0 connector but I imagine it’s the same princeable to compare it to.

USB-C is new enough that we don’t really know if it’ll get big or not. The reversible connector is nice, though only one out of three USB-C devices I’ve had actually worked with the cable reversed. I’m also a bit wary of its durability, since it has 24 pins in such a small space… compared to just 4 pins for older USB. This also increases cost for the ports, cables, and circuitry.

At this point, USB-C seems like a bit of a gamble.

Unfortunately it’s very likely going to be the de facto universal connector. Other than that, I don’t have much preference between micro and C.

While I have yet to wear out a micro USB cable, I don’t disagree at all. It’s unfortunate the newer standards have not lived up to expectation - they simply can not be better than the previous edition, judging by common sense. They are too tiny to last any actual abuse and misuse, which they will receive in consumer use.

Every upgrade and replacement of the USB B was supposed to take more insertion cycles than the preceding one, and the figures were kinda scary. The original design criteria USB A-B is the most puzzling part. How can such large and seeming solid, rugged and modern connectors only be rated for 1500 insertions… beats me. If Micro and C actually are rated for 10 000, how can Mini be so bad it only takes 5000? :person_facepalming:

I’m not educated enough in this field to know, but my best guess is brand name big USB A-B cables do have in-house criterion for way more insertions than the amount defined by USB standard. They must have, they can’t be so horrendously bad.

The traditional big one was mostly bulletproof IME. However, the newer miniaturized type was kind of fragile. Both the male and female ends failed, and occasionally became unreliable without actually breaking - they gather dust and pocket lint. Sometimes they would even fail with the broken tip getting stuck in the receptacle.

Today I have a pile of old Nokia chargers and phones in my relics box, and the larger type all work fine. The new are mostly shot. Most were used and mildly abused by me personally, and I’m the guy who to this day never had a brand name or OEM quality USB cable break or wear out. Ever. Only the ones that come with “XXXFire” grade junk products, are often even DOA and should be discarded anyway.

:+1:

How about adding wireless QI charging? Just an idea. Might not be practical though. Would be nice to just set the lantern down on a QI pad and charge it with no wear what so ever.

Far to expensive and will drive the price point of this lantern out of the intended range by far. ( added with that the wireless charging is a useless feature when camping, in the wilderness, or remote locations. As for the USB-C, i just did some research and also found some wear & reliability issues occurring with it, (as mentioned above its a lot of tiny contacts in a tiny plug. As of right now the lantern prototype is planned to stick with the far more common, lower cost, easier to find, and more versatile USB-micro port, where cords & connectors can be found everywhere for that format.

Kind of figured it would not be cost effective. Micro USB is fine. On another topic,

Will we have a choice of LED tints/colortemps or will it be just one tint option?

LED tint options can definitely be a possibility, depending on the manufacturer and the final production designs. Right now were looking at a tint range of between 3500K to 4200K as a standard tint, but other option ranges can be also added as a selection by a buyer, ( as in 2700K, 3200K , 4000K, 4500K, 5000K.)
Also been thinking down the road too to see if the lantern can be offered in other anodizing colors, ( with satin black being the standard, but possibly having it available in matte sand color & maybe even clear/aluminum anodizing)

I’m hoping for 4000K to 4500K with high CRI. :slight_smile:

However, something yellow might be fun too, for more of a campfire feel… and less chance of attracting bugs.

3500k to 4200k sounds fantastic to me. My Zebralight H53c’s 4000k is gorgeous to me.

Definitely love the idea of high CRI. I go for high CRI whenever possible.

I’m game for 5000k. 90 CRI 5000k would rock if possible!

I plan to stick with the XP-footprint die size as in the 1st prototype for the LEDs, (XP-L) which would make it easy to re-flow or even use 219C Nichia emitters for high CRI 90+ if wished afterwards, (but with a sacrifice of a little efficiency & lumens forthat emitter option)

:+1: :+1:

You should make your signature longer, it’s too short :wink:

Interested.

:+1:

Would you believe I did shorten it before? I’ll be sure to fix it. Lol!

It can be helpful to turn a text signature into a compact image. Aside from just giving you more control over the layout, this keeps the signature from messing with search results. like, if someone searches for “Convoy L6” it may give them every thread you have ever posted in, instead of just threads which are about the L6.

I used to have an image signature, before I got sick of it. It looked like this:

It’s pretty out-of-date now, but still. It served its purpose, used minimal space, and didn’t interfere with searches.

I’ll try to tweak it to be smaller. :+1: