I think you are wrong in lumping together all protected cells. You can’t really do that as the basic cell under the wrapper can have different characteristics. Plus the particular protection circuitry, which is added by a third party, can also very quite a bit.
As you can see here, the added protection circuitry definitely causes an added voltage drop on a 3A load.
The bigger thing to notice is that even without the protection circuitry, the Panny B just seems to have a lot more voltage sag under load compared to the Sanyo GA (and LG MJ1).
In the case of ChibiM, he got a triple whammy. Panny B cells, protection circuitry and only one carrier. The voltage to the driver probably dropped to under 14.8v within seconds of turning on Turbo, hence the reduced output.
When he used both carriers, reducing the load by half, it will take a bit longer before it drops out of regulation. 5 mins? 10 mins? Hard to say.
So I think we all learned something here. If you want to use a protected cell on the GT, you can. Just don’t use the Panny B, use the Sanyo GA or LG MJ1 as they have much less voltage sag. These two will allow the GT to stay in regulation much longer than the Panny B.
If you want the longest run time at the highest levels, then it’s best to use an unprotected cell. (not Panny B, though)
Too bad Astrolux loves to over spec their flashlight. That is another HUGE difference between Astrolux MF04 and Lumintop BLF GT. I don’t side with any manufacturer, fact is fact and it hurts. Not sure Lumintop had over spec their previous products or not, but this BLF GT was properly designed, tested and reviewed before releasing to buyer. Astrolux should do that by sending out review samples.
I tend to follow threads for lights I don’t even plan to buy. Lol
We didn’t talk very much about it in the GT thread because it’s sort of a competitor and it would be considered rude towards Lumintop to discuss it here. That’s all. There are plenty of discussions about it on other blf threads.
Well I really like my GT and am glad I got it. I guess I was just surprised to see a copy so fast. I’ll have to check out the other threads on it, just out of curiosity. I’m usually on the knife forums
On the latest MF02 the current was set to 2.7A, personally I prefer to set it down to 2.4-2.5A by a resistor mod. The modes are 15-35-1700-2700. On the 1700 mode the runtime will be longer and the range should be pretty good, the same or greater than on a GT on the 2A mode. The only drawback on the MF02 is the quality of the reflector which has a little op surface like so I suppose that the MF04 will be the same.
I don’t see how “1700 lumen” on the MF02 would be as bright as the GT at 2A. From 2.5A to 2A you only loose maybe 200-250 lumen. For Astrolux to say it is a 1000 lumen drop, the amp range is probably about 1.2A to 1.3A maybe? Definitely less than 2A. Has anyone measured all the brightness levels on the latest MF02?
BTW, Banggood still shows the MF02 Turbo to be 3000 lumen. The MF04 is showing 2700 lumen.
We are just being nit picky, I think. People can buy what they want.
Range and brightness are two different things.
MF04 has a bigger reflector so RANGE could be the same.
I ordered one so I will tell You more when I get it.
I’m curious did LT/ Neal send lost orders.
I really considered also getting the MF04 am pretty sure I’m deciding against it. I have a GT and another one on the way, so that’s part of it. But mostly it comes down to UI. Had the MF04 something more to offer than just a different tint and slightly larger reflector as well as Narsil, it would have been a no-brainer. I’m thinking something like an ultra-throw Oslon or Luminous ver. I have a MF01 and I much prefer the Q8 and GT ramping. I actually really like the full on and release off on the GT. That is impossible with the UI of the MF04 since the best you can do is a double click turbo and hold to turn off. That plus it’s the imitation of the project started here on BLF and I like to support the real deal. Additionally, anybody that has followed the GT from the beginning knows how much scrutiny to details was done with this light in the design process and prototype testing. Not sure about that with the other light.
Is some of this copying supply chain related also? So like the reflector design ends up basically the same other than maybe slightly less spendy final maching/finishing regimes or something for some slightly lower grade that like Astrolux will buy….but like Astrolux copying maybe helps the eventual supply cost of the Lumitops by amortizing some of the heavier or prone to needing replaced a lot tooling? It seems things can get so cheap for what you would think is a bit of an oddball part over there, that a lot of crafty agreements maybe exist where the supplier almost demands that they be allowed to sell similar part to the copiers just to help ensure they can build at the volume needed to offer the prices they offer.
It’s a very complicated question.
If one company copies another company’s design it’s because their competitors. So they are not going to share any actual parts with each other.
Certainly there are components that are shared between two different companies such as switches, switch pcbs and switch covers, maybe lenses, but you can’t say it’s a copy because it’s made by a third party who sells to a lot of different manufacturers.
The reflector in the GT and MF04 are not interchangeable and are not even the same size. It’s possible they could be made by the same company that specializes in making reflectors, but these kinds of details are kept secret over there. Maybe both giant reflectors were made by the same company or maybe not. We just don’t know.
The point I was trying to make was that companies tend to copy basic ideas. Look at all the C8 lights that are being made. Also look at the new mini throwers using xhp35-HI emitters and 21700 cell’s that are coming out. I suspect that a company that makes drivers has come up with a cost-effective 12 volt boost driver and is selling it to a lot of different companies. Examples include Astrolux X, Lumintop ODL20C, Manker U22, plus a couple I can’t think of. All super similar. Sometimes it’s a coincidence, other times it’s copying of ideas. I think the MF04 is just a copy of the idea of a really big reflector. Nothing looks directly copied. I don’t think any parts interchange.
Yeah….I wasn’t even meaning the eventual part was interchangeable. But I could see some casting/forging blanks that are then machined down to a few different products even when things just sorta grow like this. So basically to grow like this if a lot of the same folks are doing these casting/forgings they can offer way better prices if they can have some blank for a few different products that is then just machined down to slightly different products and save a good bit of money and not have to waste/recycle as much material machining out of some blank that is generally the right size and shape for a few products or something. And I figure stuff like that is why they are all tight lipped about the supply chain….there’s probably only not so many firms doing most of the detail part fabrication and once you figure out who that is they are happy to sell something really similar to brand Z to get more volume and help the bottom line! Haha.
