*BLF LT1 Lantern Project* (first code for all 3000 GB list sent)

9915 posts / 0 new
Last post
puglife2
Offline
Last seen: 13 hours 40 min ago
Joined: 10/07/2017 - 17:56
Posts: 170
Phlogiston wrote:
Those factory drawings look good. No sign of a battery carrier, which I like, because that’s one less thing to lose. I’m happy to see the 18.9mm × 71mm 18650 dimensions as well, because that means we have the choice of protected or unprotected cells, i.e. whatever people have to hand.

Yeah battery carrier sucks! Shocked

Lothar
Lothar's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 5 hours ago
Joined: 10/26/2011 - 11:22
Posts: 504
Location: Stellenbosch, South Africa

Hi, great project, can I please be put on the interest list for 3 to 5 depending on the price.
Thanks

Current Collection: BTU: Shocker (3 x SST-40 @ 8A)Lumintop: BLF GT70 (CW Sliced), BLF GTmini; Solarforce: 2 x L2P (XM-L2 U3 2C @ 4A), MPP-1 (XP-L HI @ 6A), MPP-3 (3 x XM-L2 U2 2C @ 12A), M6 (Nichia 319A @ 6A), M8 (Cree XHP-50.2 @ 9A), 9x (9 x XM-L2 U2 1A @ 2A)

Coming Soon: Lumintop: BLF GT4; Sofirn: BLF-LT1;

gregor
gregor's picture
Offline
Last seen: 19 hours 35 min ago
Joined: 01/09/2015 - 16:35
Posts: 573
Location: Slovenia

I’m interested for one depending on the final pricing. Smile
Thank you

bd52
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 6 days ago
Joined: 11/16/2015 - 13:30
Posts: 11
Location: Montana

Could you put me down for three lanterns on the interest list? Thanks!

alternety
Offline
Last seen: 5 days 9 hours ago
Joined: 09/08/2013 - 00:52
Posts: 263
Location: Pacific NW

OK. My views on everything.

There should be a substantial stainless steel connection for a three leg stand. The hole for the tripod must have a complete water barrier internally. With no possibility of being penetrated/destroyed by a long attachment screw. Is making a tripod for the lantern being considered? The Q8 version of the bottom cap may not be strong enough for holding a small tripod in a center hole. The lantern will be tipped over, and worse. This is a potential weak point. If making a tripod, be sure you look at the leg spread required to minimize tipping the vertical mass, and uneven surfaces.

Flats bad; knurled good. No apparent reason to have flats except possibly around the control button.

Sloped plastic surround; maybe not so good. It could be done with a standard piece of plastic tubing; lower cost. Perhaps more durable/scratch resistant than the current selection. Top heat sink could possibly get smaller diameter but thicker heat sink/more fins if needed. The overall heat management needs to consider a range of environmental conditions. Is it zero F or 100 F? Both could be possible. Straight tubing would make it simpler to apply a removable shield to mask some areas of light. Much easier to find a replacement in case of damage.

Battery carriers have some significant merit. No carriers and extension tubes are one of the few things I did not like in my Q8s. First, the newer battery formats need to be accommodated. I have seen little preparation for new formats. Preferably using inserts in the carriers for the 18650s. In a year or two, we will be saying “Why on earth did we not consider the new battery formats that are replacing 18650s”. The carriers with extension tubes could double or triple the run time of the lamp even with just 18650s. I bought a TK75 for this feature. At bedside it has a 1 segment tube. In the closet is a tube for 3 carriers with charged batteries sitting with the tube. The sizing for the tripod would need to be designed to control tipping with a new center of gravity.

I do not believe it is reasonable to include external charging, charging phones, or jump starting your SUV. Anything not directly connected to it being a lantern. There should be a thoroughly sealed control button penetrating the shell; no additional holes in the shell using “stick in” sealing (none when doing external functions in the rain). I have multiple devices (phones, radios, etc.) where these little rubber plugs have shown their inability to work over time, or still be attached after some use (and just normal infrequent use). I think most people will use these lights in two ways. Emergency lighting; camping. I do not see many people wandering around holding up a lantern rather than a flashlight.

Using/charging the batteries in the lamp should not be a feature. There are many many inexpensive and compact external battery packs to charge your phones. Not to mention your vehicle. Why suck run time from the lantern. IT IS A LANTERN. Not a source of getting power to watch a program you just can’t miss.

If we absolutely need to have these, I would want the type C connectors. It is where we are going. Using another version of USB or other protocols is just stupid. For a few dollars you can get a cable for the type C. There is no reasonable way you can fix the lantern if it is not type C. It boils down to type C now with an adapter (if needed), or adapters for all your nice new stuff.

Efficiency of the lamp should be the number one electronic priority. Whatever electronics are used; this should be the absolute guiding objective. IT IS A LAMP.

I do not view radiation frequency variations as a useful addition. I can live with it, if it does not reduce run time or increase cost. Otherwise, over a rather long time, I have been exposed to all of the visible spectrum (think walking outside on a sunny day). Some bands in the visible spectrum I like more than others. But I JUST DON’T CARE IN A PORTABLE LANTERN. If there is no cost or loss of lighting efficiency for variable spectrum; OK. Otherwise no; IT IS A LANTERN.

jigsaw
jigsaw's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 23 min ago
Joined: 01/15/2016 - 17:35
Posts: 261
Location: Michigan, USA

alternety wrote:
OK. My views on everything.

There should be a substantial stainless steel connection for a three leg stand. The hole for the tripod must have a complete water barrier internally. With no possibility of being penetrated/destroyed by a long attachment screw. Is making a tripod for the lantern being considered? The Q8 version of the bottom cap may not be strong enough for holding a small tripod in a center hole. The lamp will be tipped over, and worse. This is a potential weak point. If making a tripod, be sure you look at the leg spread required to minimize tipping the vertical mass, and uneven surfaces.

Flats bad; knurled good. No apparent reason to have flats except possibly around the control button.

Sloped plastic surround; maybe not so good. It could be done with a standard piece of plastic tubing; lower cost. Perhaps more durable/scratch resistant than the current selection. Top heat sink could possibly get smaller diameter but thicker heat sink/more fins if needed. The overall heat management needs to consider a range of environmental conditions. Is it zero F or 100 F? Both could be possible. Straight tubing would make it simpler to apply a removable shield to mask some areas of light. Much easier to find a replacement in case of damage.

Battery carriers have some significant merit. No carriers and extension tubes are one of the few things I did not like in my Q8s. First, the newer battery formats need to be accommodated. I have seen little preparation for new formats. Preferably using inserts in the carriers for the 18650s. In a year or two, we will be saying “Why on earth did we not consider the new battery formats that are replacing 18650s”. The carriers with extension tubes could double or triple the run time of the lamp even with just 18650s. I bought a TK75 for this feature. At bedside it has a 1 segment tube. In the closet is a tube for 3 carriers with charged batteries sitting with the tube. The sizing for the tripod would need to be designed to control tipping with a new center of gravity.

I do not believe it is reasonable to include external charging, charging phones, or jump starting your SUV. Anything not directly connected to it being a lamp. There should be a thoroughly sealed control button penetrating the shell; no additional holes in the shell using “stick in” sealing (none when doing external functions in the rain). I have multiple devices (phones, radios, etc.) where these little rubber plugs have shown their inability to work over time, or still be attached after some use (and just normal infrequent use). I think most people will use these lights in two ways. Emergency lighting; camping. I do not see many people wandering around holding up a lantern rather than a flashlight.

Using/charging the batteries in the lamp should not be a feature. There are many many inexpensive and compact external battery packs to charge your phones. Not to mention your vehicle. Why suck run time from the lamp. IT IS A LAMP. Not a source of getting power to watch a program you just can’t miss.

If we absolutely need to have these, I would want the type C connectors. It is where we are going. Using another version of USB or other protocols is just stupid. For a few dollars you can get a cable for the type C. There is no reasonable way you can fix the lantern if it is not type C. It boils down to type C now with an adapter (if needed), or adapters for all your nice new stuff.

Efficiency of the lamp should be the number one electronic priority. Whatever electronics are used; this should be the absolute guiding objective. IT IS A LAMP.

I do not view radiation frequency variations as a useful addition. I can live with it, if it does not reduce run time or increase cost. Otherwise, over a rather long time, I have been exposed to all of the visible spectrum (think walking outside on a sunny day). Some bands in the visible spectrum I like more than others. But I JUST DON’T CARE IN A PORTABLE LAMP. If there is no cost or loss of lighting efficiency for variable spectrum; OK. Otherwise no; IT IS A LAMP.

Probably best if you don’t buy this lantern.

ToyKeeper
ToyKeeper's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 53 min ago
Joined: 01/12/2013 - 14:40
Posts: 10090
Location: (469219) 2016 HO3
jigsaw wrote:
alternety-TL;DR wrote:
I DON’T LIKE THIS LANTERN.

Probably best if you don’t buy this lantern.

I’m glad we got that resolved. Smile

shirnask
shirnask's picture
Offline
Last seen: 18 min 24 sec ago
Joined: 03/21/2016 - 23:58
Posts: 1071
Location: Louisiana

I am reasonably sure this is meant to be a lantern not a lamp

DBSAR
DBSAR's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 15 hours ago
Joined: 02/11/2013 - 23:28
Posts: 6103
Location: Ontario, Canada

jigsaw wrote:
alternety wrote:
OK. My views on everything…IT IS A LAMP

Probably best if you don’t buy this lantern.

Definitely agree, This project is probably not for alternety if all those views are expected to be in place or changed to please one person.
As we told one other before, were not going to try to please everyone, nor will we never be able to please everyone. The goal here originally was to design, build and have a lantern available that has a good balance of features, usability, off-grid sustainability, & versatility while keeping the retail cost down as much as possible in comparison to other commercially available lanterns in the size range. Once this one is rolling into production, we may look into building a simple “base model” of this same lantern for the cost-conscious buyer with no charging, tint ramping, etc. I should mention though it is a “lantern” & not a lamp, I had to giggle a bit at the number of times it was called a lamp in one reply.

That Canadian flashlight guy & Lantern Guru -Den / DBSARlight

MtnDon
MtnDon's picture
Online
Last seen: 1 min 6 sec ago
Joined: 08/27/2015 - 18:25
Posts: 2561
Location: Canuk in NM

I like it enough as it has evolved that I still want the two I put my name in for way back. And yes, I want a lantern. Wink

BLF Member Map Add your name and location.

Stittville Ed
Stittville Ed's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 34 min ago
Joined: 11/20/2011 - 08:22
Posts: 786
Location: Stittville, New York

I think a Base Model would be a great seller, nice idea.

Start a list Smile

MtnDon
MtnDon's picture
Online
Last seen: 1 min 6 sec ago
Joined: 08/27/2015 - 18:25
Posts: 2561
Location: Canuk in NM

Let’s complete this project before starting any spinoff lists. Too much to keep track of as it is.

BLF Member Map Add your name and location.

DBSAR
DBSAR's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 15 hours ago
Joined: 02/11/2013 - 23:28
Posts: 6103
Location: Ontario, Canada
MtnDon wrote:
Let’s complete this project before starting any spinoff lists. Too much to keep track of as it is.

agreed.

That Canadian flashlight guy & Lantern Guru -Den / DBSARlight

Lexel
Lexel's picture
Offline
Last seen: 12 hours 34 min ago
Joined: 11/01/2016 - 08:00
Posts: 5527
Location: Germany

DBSAR wrote:
Barry sent me a couple of the first images of the BLF LT1 lantern design their engineers did based from the drawings & info i sent them. It looks really good & very close to the design perimeters i sent them. Smile

I agree with the middle section, keep it as compact as possible

The driver in its current parts has just 3mm parts height, so there can be a cavity of like 7mm max height to easily fit all the wires

so no battery carrier as its 4P
in the middle section my advise would be placing the USB in and out ports
and the switch placed on the top of the lantern, or better both top and side

Tom Tom wrote:
Just a thought, the tailcap of the Q8 is it’s weakest point IMO. A thin fragile shell that would not withstand any kind of abuse, drop, etc. and very finely threaded.

I have long been waiting for something much chunkier to be made, spreading out a little wider for better stability ||(and grip, when handholding, the Q8 is a slippery devil), also with provision for attaching a lanyard.

This is very important for a lantern that will be expected to tail-stand. The Q8 tail cap is completely unsuitable IMO, It is also flat on the bottom, so only stands on a completely flat surface.

Something like the tail cap of e.g. the Astrolux MF01, also providing for attachment of a lanyard if desired. I have one of these, and it is far superior to the Q8 design.

Edit: with three, not four, raised parts, for stability.

The Q8 tube was left to Thorfire to design, the team just focussed on the head, which is a decent design, (Edit: in version 2) but the tube, and particularly the tail cap, could have been done much better. Sofirn have corrected the tube in their new Q8 by removing the flats that never registered properly for those with OCD, but still haven’t addressed the very poor tailcap.

Some way to attach a string to the top and suspend it is also required for a lantern IMO.

agreed I would manufacture the battery tube from one piece, no hassle with drop damaged threads of the relative fragile Q8 tail cap
or do it massive to support more stability when placed on a table with like 3-4mm more diameter

ToyKeeper wrote:
AEDe wrote:
The tail cap now also is too large.

I think that is to allow room for a tripod mount on the tail.

I would simply make a hole in the battery PCB on the tail to allow the Tripod mount stick into it so we can get it 2 maybe 3mm shorter

DBSAR
DBSAR's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 15 hours ago
Joined: 02/11/2013 - 23:28
Posts: 6103
Location: Ontario, Canada

Lexel wrote:

I would simply make a hole in the battery PCB on the tail to allow the Tripod mount stick into it so we can get it 2 maybe 3mm shorter

If Barry can have the engineers make the battery tube as one piece with the bottom cap to make it shorter & simpler then i am good with that, as long as it don’t cost more as they already have a current template for the battery tube from the Q8, (though the lantern has a re-designed cap that is a bit thicker to allow the bottom tripod mount to be more solid) but if Barry indicates that it wont cost more to make a new one piece battery body then good. (I am guessing they would have to make a new bottom PCB with springs and mount inside from the inside correct in that case)

If the driver only needs that amount of space then i can do a quick edit of the images Barry sent me with a little more of the mid-section removed to make it shorter to send him. ( i can ask him about the ideo of a one-piece bottom & tube too.

That Canadian flashlight guy & Lantern Guru -Den / DBSARlight

Madtoffel
Offline
Last seen: 15 hours 59 min ago
Joined: 05/07/2018 - 09:46
Posts: 86
Location: Germany (TLF member)

Maybe you missed my last comment, but what do you think about making the battery tube a little bit wider, so that you could also use 20700/21700 batteries if you want maximum runtime? At the moment it looks like the battery compartment is the smallest (least diameter) part of the lantern, so that this wouldn’t make it significantly larger.

Satan@103TFS
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 56 min ago
Joined: 09/04/2017 - 12:51
Posts: 562

Lexel wrote:

I agree with the middle section, keep it as compact as possible

The driver in its current parts has just 3mm parts height, so there can be a cavity of like 7mm max height to easily fit all the wires

so no battery carrier as its 4P
in the middle section my advise would be placing the USB in and out ports
and the switch placed on the top of the lantern, or better both top and side

….

I would simply make a hole in the battery PCB on the tail to allow the Tripod mount stick into it so we can get it 2 maybe 3mm shorter

That look much better Thumbs Up

DBSAR
DBSAR's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 15 hours ago
Joined: 02/11/2013 - 23:28
Posts: 6103
Location: Ontario, Canada

Satan@103TFS wrote:
Lexel wrote:

I agree with the middle section, keep it as compact as possible

The driver in its current parts has just 3mm parts height, so there can be a cavity of like 7mm max height to easily fit all the wires

so no battery carrier as its 4P
in the middle section my advise would be placing the USB in and out ports
and the switch placed on the top of the lantern, or better both top and side

….

I would simply make a hole in the battery PCB on the tail to allow the Tripod mount stick into it so we can get it 2 maybe 3mm shorter

That look much better Thumbs Up

The image shortening looks good. Smile
I agree the mid section can be shortened like that in your edited pic of the cross section, but the switch can not go in that location in the center of the top as that is the bolt location that holds the top end down in place. (and i have never liked any of the lanterns that i had/have that have a top switch for many reasons, (one being the Zanflare T1) and the plan is to have the glowing switch boot like the Q8 as a night light/firefly glow (but in amber instead of green)
Even with the shortened midsection there should be enough room for the electronic switch on the side 45 degrees around from the charge port.

That Canadian flashlight guy & Lantern Guru -Den / DBSARlight

Agro
Agro's picture
Online
Last seen: 41 sec ago
Joined: 05/14/2017 - 11:16
Posts: 4983
Location: Ślōnsk

DBSAR wrote:
jigsaw wrote:
alternety wrote:
OK. My views on everything…IT IS A LAMP

Probably best if you don’t buy this lantern.

Definitely agree, This project is probably not for alternety if all those views are expected to be in place or changed to please one person.
As we told one other before, were not going to try to please everyone, nor will we never be able to please everyone. The goal here originally was to design, build and have a lantern available that has a good balance of features, usability, off-grid sustainability, & versatility while keeping the retail cost down as much as possible in comparison to other commercially available lanterns in the size range. Once this one is rolling into production, we may look into building a simple “base model” of this same lantern for the cost-conscious buyer with no charging, tint ramping, etc. I should mention though it is a “lantern” & not a lamp, I had to giggle a bit at the number of times it was called a lamp in one reply.


I believe that opinionated design meant to suit a subset of users well rather than to more-or-less-please-everyone is just right.
Nevertheless in this context I really dislike the name. This is not any kind of ultimate light.
Lexel
Lexel's picture
Offline
Last seen: 12 hours 34 min ago
Joined: 11/01/2016 - 08:00
Posts: 5527
Location: Germany

DBSAR wrote:
Satan@103TFS wrote:
Lexel wrote:

I agree with the middle section, keep it as compact as possible

The driver in its current parts has just 3mm parts height, so there can be a cavity of like 7mm max height to easily fit all the wires

so no battery carrier as its 4P
in the middle section my advise would be placing the USB in and out ports
and the switch placed on the top of the lantern, or better both top and side

….

I would simply make a hole in the battery PCB on the tail to allow the Tripod mount stick into it so we can get it 2 maybe 3mm shorter

That look much better Thumbs Up

The image shortening looks good. Smile
I agree the mid section can be shortened like that in your edited pic of the cross section, but the switch can not go in that location in the center of the top as that is the bolt location that holds the top end down in place. (and i have never liked any of the lanterns that i had/have that have a top switch for many reasons, (one being the Zanflare T1) and the plan is to have the glowing switch boot like the Q8 as a night light/firefly glow (but in amber instead of green)
Even with the shortened midsection there should be enough room for the electronic switch on the side 45 degrees around from the charge port.

switch does not nessesarely need to sit in center, but my best recommondation would be that the top section gets screwed fom the driver cavity like the Q8 did, so you got no need to water proof the screw on top of the lantern and it looks cleaner

fixed it
Offline
Last seen: 6 days 2 hours ago
Joined: 12/08/2015 - 14:27
Posts: 396
Location: Canada

Something I just remembered… the Q8 has this problem that a good smack on the tail cap will cut power for a short while and leave the light off (MCU reset). I suspect this will be a more annoying problem with a lantern that you’re going to put down on its tail cap most of the time. IIRC, some people found that a large capacitor fixed the problem. Probably a capacitor after the diode so it does not power the main LED but my memory is a little fuzzy on that. It would be nice to make sure this is incorporated in the lantern driver so it does not suffer from the same problem. Maybe it already is… I’ve not tried to figure out the rather complex board which was posted a while back.

mdeni
mdeni's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 weeks 4 days ago
Joined: 08/06/2016 - 05:17
Posts: 271
Location: Europe

The aluminium “nut” for the bolt will shear in a matter of days.

Over torquing in aluminium can be done very easily also.

finnegans
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 05/25/2018 - 09:01
Posts: 20
Location: USA

Interested in one or two depending on price – thanks!

lexvegas
Offline
Last seen: 17 hours 31 min ago
Joined: 07/24/2018 - 14:20
Posts: 91
Location: USA

I’m totally in on a minimal or simple version, too, if it ever comes about. Great for gifts, especially with built-in charging.

One thing to PLEASE be sure of, if using a low quality charger, can we try to isolate the chassis from mains voltage as best as possible? Better safe than sorry! (BigClive: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwqFkelUs_g )

And I have to agree with the switch being on the side a-la Q8, and an amber LED sounds AMAZING. Top buttons are cumbersome, especially with the lantern hanging.

@lexel, reducing the length looks great, but reduces the club feature Wink

MtnDon
MtnDon's picture
Online
Last seen: 1 min 6 sec ago
Joined: 08/27/2015 - 18:25
Posts: 2561
Location: Canuk in NM

With this lantern, there is no danger as there is with the one linked to above. With this BLF design, I believe you simply plug in the ubiquitous micro USB cord from as if you were plugging the cord into a smartphone or other common device. There is no high voltage mains connection to the BLF light.

BLF Member Map Add your name and location.

lexvegas
Offline
Last seen: 17 hours 31 min ago
Joined: 07/24/2018 - 14:20
Posts: 91
Location: USA

Yeah, not under normal circumstances, but it’s possible to toss in a zenier diode and a re-settable fuse for safety. High voltage overcomes the zenier breakdown voltage, and the current trips the re-settable fuse. Not a priority or a dealbreaker, but it seems that for $0.01 of parts, if that, there’s a potential for increased protection to the system, batteries, and the user.

ETA: Also, with the lantern being used in potentially wet locations, it makes even more sense to me to include additional protection.

MtnDon
MtnDon's picture
Online
Last seen: 1 min 6 sec ago
Joined: 08/27/2015 - 18:25
Posts: 2561
Location: Canuk in NM

I am puzzled about the concern you have… how many people have been harmed when charging their smartphone or tablet or other USB charged device?

BLF Member Map Add your name and location.

nastynate
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 16 hours ago
Joined: 09/05/2018 - 23:42
Posts: 25
Location: United States

Is there any info on the USB c charging and tint ramping? I’m really excited to see if the low tint will be all the way down to 2700k. I have a lamp by my bed with an Ikea 2700k bulb and the tint would be perfect for being easy on the eyes in a tent.

lexvegas
Offline
Last seen: 17 hours 31 min ago
Joined: 07/24/2018 - 14:20
Posts: 91
Location: USA
MtnDon wrote:
I am puzzled about the concern you have… how many people have been harmed when charging their smartphone or tablet or other USB charged device?

https://www.cnn.com/2017/07/18/health/teen-bathtub-electrocuted-text-trn...

And I’m more thinking of a crap quality mains-> 5V USB adapter. Again, I think this light is more likely to be used while charging than most flashlights with USB charging. Like I said, not a large concern, and not something I’m worried about happening to myself. Just seems like something that could be alleviated almost for free.

BTW @lexel, does this driver have “pass through” operation? I.e. Running the light off of USB rather than the batteries?

derfyled
derfyled's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 2 days ago
Joined: 04/16/2013 - 07:51
Posts: 201
Location: Canada

alternety wrote:
OK. My views on everything.

There should be a substantial stainless steel connection for a three leg stand. The hole for the tripod must have a complete water barrier internally. With no possibility of being penetrated/destroyed by a long attachment screw. Is making a tripod for the lantern being considered? The Q8 version of the bottom cap may not be strong enough for holding a small tripod in a center hole. The lamp will be tipped over, and worse. This is a potential weak point. If making a tripod, be sure you look at the leg spread required to minimize tipping the vertical mass, and uneven surfaces.

Flats bad; knurled good. No apparent reason to have flats except possibly around the control button.

Sloped plastic surround; maybe not so good. It could be done with a standard piece of plastic tubing; lower cost. Perhaps more durable/scratch resistant than the current selection. Top heat sink could possibly get smaller diameter but thicker heat sink/more fins if needed. The overall heat management needs to consider a range of environmental conditions. Is it zero F or 100 F? Both could be possible. Straight tubing would make it simpler to apply a removable shield to mask some areas of light. Much easier to find a replacement in case of damage.

Battery carriers have some significant merit. No carriers and extension tubes are one of the few things I did not like in my Q8s. First, the newer battery formats need to be accommodated. I have seen little preparation for new formats. Preferably using inserts in the carriers for the 18650s. In a year or two, we will be saying “Why on earth did we not consider the new battery formats that are replacing 18650s”. The carriers with extension tubes could double or triple the run time of the lamp even with just 18650s. I bought a TK75 for this feature. At bedside it has a 1 segment tube. In the closet is a tube for 3 carriers with charged batteries sitting with the tube. The sizing for the tripod would need to be designed to control tipping with a new center of gravity.

I do not believe it is reasonable to include external charging, charging phones, or jump starting your SUV. Anything not directly connected to it being a lamp. There should be a thoroughly sealed control button penetrating the shell; no additional holes in the shell using “stick in” sealing (none when doing external functions in the rain). I have multiple devices (phones, radios, etc.) where these little rubber plugs have shown their inability to work over time, or still be attached after some use (and just normal infrequent use). I think most people will use these lights in two ways. Emergency lighting; camping. I do not see many people wandering around holding up a lantern rather than a flashlight.

Using/charging the batteries in the lamp should not be a feature. There are many many inexpensive and compact external battery packs to charge your phones. Not to mention your vehicle. Why suck run time from the lamp. IT IS A LAMP. Not a source of getting power to watch a program you just can’t miss.

If we absolutely need to have these, I would want the type C connectors. It is where we are going. Using another version of USB or other protocols is just stupid. For a few dollars you can get a cable for the type C. There is no reasonable way you can fix the lantern if it is not type C. It boils down to type C now with an adapter (if needed), or adapters for all your nice new stuff.

Efficiency of the lamp should be the number one electronic priority. Whatever electronics are used; this should be the absolute guiding objective. IT IS A LAMP.

I do not view radiation frequency variations as a useful addition. I can live with it, if it does not reduce run time or increase cost. Otherwise, over a rather long time, I have been exposed to all of the visible spectrum (think walking outside on a sunny day). Some bands in the visible spectrum I like more than others. But I JUST DON’T CARE IN A PORTABLE LAMP. If there is no cost or loss of lighting efficiency for variable spectrum; OK. Otherwise no; IT IS A LAMP.

Although I feel this post is kind of rude, especially so close to the production process, there is still some some valid points in it. The new battery format is one of those.

Designing the lamp around 21700 could make it backward compatible for 18650 but the inverse is impossible. 3 × 21700 can reach 15000 mAh and eventually even more while using 4 of the absolute best 18650 available can deliver around 14000 mAh. Now, if we could fit 4 × 21700, the best cell actually available would make it 20000 mAh. It’s not crazy to think this number could jump near 25000 mAh within a few years.

I don’t know if there is enough room to fit 4 21700 but if yes, I think it’s something that should be really considered since using a simple sleeve to accommodate 18650 seems easy to supply and use.

EDIT: this is not a rant against the project, just my worthless 2 cents. I still have ordered 3 lantern !

Pages