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

It is a pity there is no LED choice for higher R9 and CRI value.

Thanks Lexel for designing the driver. It looks good. I hope your hand is doing well. Now about that question from The_Driver.

Lexel, you know better than me for sure, because I know zero. But I do know that the led4power drivers have a separate channel for moon mode that uses only a resistor and doesn’t use the FET at all, to get a low enough output. Unless you’ve done something led4power couldn’t/didn’t do to get lower output from the FET, it might not be low enough for some people. For me, there probably isn’t any need for an actual moon or firefly level mode. This is a lantern, with light shining in all directions, not a flashlight with the beam concentrated in one direction.

The lighted switch on a Q8 (and probably this lantern) is bright enough for some purposes. Brighter than firefly, lower than moonlight.
What moonlight in a flashlight means to me is enough to find your way around a room or search for something with night adapted eyes, without the spill disturbing sleepers.

In a lantern this is not a practical aim, as if bright enough to light the room for searching, it is maybe too bright to wave around without disturbing sleepers. In a lantern I think the lowest setting (in warm tints) should enable a sleeper to wake up and immediately grab keys/glasses/flashlight/phone etc left lying around the lantern, but not much brighter than that. I have no idea what this translates to in lumens for a 360 degree beam, but would be interested to find out.

Harder to test I would imagine as well, since the lantern won’t fit many DIY lumens test rigs, and would need a sphere, right?

I guess I’ll put WhitedragonBC down for 1 more, total of 2, 2nd number 962 on the interest list.

lexvegas added two more at 960, 961 on the interest list.

NuggetMcNugget added at 963 on the interest list.

Look like we can hit 1K order for this light. :beer:

Yeah, I think we’ve both got the same idea. I might not have been clear enough though. I think the lowest amount of light that the FET can do will NOT be as low as the classic moonlight levels but WILL certainly be low enough for lantern use.

For this we would need anorher MCU like Attiny 84
I had already to remove Indicator LED output for linear CC regulation

R1/2 Volk age divider for LVP
2 FET channels
Enable for rhe CC OPAs and powerbank

Can someone explain to me how burning the extra voltage above Vf in a FET instead of a 7135 is going to gain efficiency? What are the switching losses in PWM’ing a 7135? The proposed circuit basically uses a FET as a varistor. It’s 2018 and we’re back to using current limiting resistors?

Why isn’t there a true constant current boost circuit? A 1S4P or 2S2P battery config and a two 4 LEDs strings would operate in boost regardless of the battery voltage. This would give constant brightness, ensure each LED gets the same current, and should have greater overall efficiency than just throwing away power in a FET turning it into heat.

I agree, no additional moonlight mode is needed. Still, it’s interesting to see how low it will go.

I have to agree.

To play devils advocate:

Part of the reason may be the costs and complexity, though. Getting the boost driver right would require multiple revisions, especially to integrate it into a firmware like Andruil. Sure, there are dedicated smps ICs out there, but that increases the BOM and manufacturing effort.

For those who really care about such things, the BLF designs are all made to be easily modded, which many will do.

I don’t know if it would make the driver cost more, but I put that into the so what category. It wouldn’t be a lot. It is supposed to be the ultimate lantern right?

I don’t think it would require very many revisions. A prove out of the design should be all that’s necessary. I hope the design gets a prove out before they make the lights no matter what the design is.

The FET based linear driver is more efficient in all modes except the max mode because the LEDs are actually being driven at a lower current. LEDs become much more efficient with less current. A 7135 based driver always drives LEDs at the set current, so they have identical effeiciency in all modes.

A boost driver would be better though, I agree, because the LEDs in the lantern are not driven with high currents. This their VFS are rather low. FET vased linear drivers are good for medium to high currents.

Amazing work on this! ( i just got home form ym few days away trip)
This looks like the driver that will be the one to run the BLF LT1 lantern. :slight_smile: Just curious, for those who wish to mod the maximum lantern outputs, is “R1” the resistor that will regulate the maximum output? ( meaning simply swapping out that resistor with a different ohm value will change the overall output/amp draw?

yep, 1S4P as the same configuration for the Q8, which in this case with the lower maximum amp draws it can run on even one 18650 or four.

It’s not constant current regulated. It’s regulated (by throwing away excess voltage/power) until the battery voltage drops below Vf + the Rdson * current. At which point it is no longer regulated.

This lantern is crying out for a boost drivers and series strings of 4 LEDs.

Theoretically yes. Maybe… You’re only saving switching losses. Nearly all the losses or gains in efficiency at varying current levels are due to heating of the die. The die heating at 175mA vs. 350mA with a 50% duty and a reasonably fast PWM will be virtually identical meaning there is no efficiency loss/gain in the LED itself. It’s only the switching losses of the PWM.

I’ve yet to see anyone quantify the switching losses, so for all I know someone is chasing a sub 1% gain.

Actually, I prefer the linear driver for this project. That way, the lantern is less likely to suddenly die on me when the cells run low, as often happens with boost drivers.

The linear driver can just drop out of regulation and gradually lose output, whilst still producing enough light for me to find my spare cells and another light to use while I change them.

That has nothing to do with ho boost drivers work. It just depends on how smart the U.I. of the light is. It should be no problem slowly reduce the brightness at the end of the runtime.

This. And given the tendency of Chinese manufacturers to play the part swap game, there’s something to be said about a proven reliable design where few things can go wrong. I like a nice driver as much as anyone but I like a working light even more.

Can you prove this? I don’t believe it. LEDs have a lower forward voltage at lower current levels. This means that the total power consumed is less (instead the power is burned off in the FET, which is not a problem when cooled properly). Also, the reason that LEDs get dimmer with higher current density is not actually heat. You can cool an LED to negative temps and it will still become less efficient at higher current levels. This effect is called droop. Of course heat is an additional problem that can further reduce brightness. The LED will definitely be cooler with the FET because it runs at lower power. In addition to this it’s also brighter…