New-117 (TK35 clone) mod. Turn a TK35 into a TK35UE (Updated with Beamshots 3-jan-2015)

I guess that is the only way, you can only be certain by looking at the pictures, since their brands/models/descriptions are pretty random. Based on my experience (on purchasing other things), I bet if they are to be found at TaoBao, their prices will be much cheaper than at AliExpress, but sifting through the listings gonna take hours if not days.

When I’m really bored at work, I do a search through the flashlights and select “newest” for the sort order. Then I just scroll and scroll and scroll until I see something interesting.

This is awesome. :smiley:

TexasToasted,

Good find, thank you very much for posting,

That is great. :beer:

dentillozie, can you please kindly help me to confirm that if the New-117 reflector is same as the XM-L C8 reflector in diameter and depth? Much appreciated.

bibihang,

They are not the “same” but the 117 will take the c8 OP reflector I tried, the c8 was just a shade smaller but the pill screwing into the head easily accounts for small changes.

The 117 reflector will not fit in a c8 do to the reflector being attached to the approx 43mm head ID threaded portion size.

Thanks for the information Ronin42. The outer diameter of the 117 reflector is a tad bit bigger than the C8 one?

Thank you.

I’m not in a position to answer your question directly, but please take a look at JohnnyMac’s measurements and reflector pictures over here: JohnnyMac - Review: UniqueFire UF-F10 (Fenix TK35 clone) If you weren’t familiar with the light you might not realize that the reflector has a large threaded portion which is physically part of the reflector.

Hey thank you wight. I read this review quite some time ago but I forgot about it, thanks for bringing this up and JohnnyMac’s review is really helpful. :slight_smile:

I hope this helps.

reflector:
C8 (non deep version)L=31.46mm
C8 (non deep version)W=41.80

TK35 clone L=31.19
TK35 clone W=42.67

about the same specs as in the articial.

As the TK35 clone does not use a case as a ground like the C8 be sure not to electrically (ground/short) the reflector to the emitter. The Clones factory reflector uses the large threaded (reflector pill) section to hold the reflector in place, which is not like the pinch style used in the c8’s.

my hunch is there is less variation in the TK35 clones then in “C8’s” as we know the actual design specs of c8”s change depending on who builds them.

The information is very helpful Ronin42, thanks a lot for that. :beer:

I might buy one soon or later, and before that happen I need to make some cash flow arrangement first. :slight_smile:

the tk35 clone reflector has a big ring at the outside. a C8 reflector wil give you a bit better throw i think. but im not sure you would be able to see it. maybe with a XM-L, but not with the MT-G2. i dont have a C8 reflector or light at the moment so im not able to test.

Wow the C8 reflector idea in interesting! MY pet peve about MT-G2 light’s is the artifacts in the corona of the beam caused by the extreme amount of light that comes directly out the front of the emitter, I ALWAYS prefer to use OP reflector’s for MT light’s to try and hide this effet, it doesnt fix it totally but it does help to hid it. I no longer have the 117 I did (did it for a customer) but I have some more interested folks asking about them, I also have plenty of C8 reflector’s, may have to give that a go for next time.

I received my Mt-G2 emitters, opened up the reflector and gave it a try.

not bad. But in the process of measuring the reflectors I had shorted one of the clones out. a little three leg (hard to see) black box thingy “ao8k” was kaput.

wight helped me to identify the (ao8k) and source replacements. (Thank you wight) They arrived (man are they small) well I found that the original location of the board that the (ao8k) needed to be soldered to was missing a solder pad, it was just gone. Well this board seems to have two of (places for ao8k (on the board you can see an open three pad area to the right of the ao8k) and the two sense resistors) and so I soldered a replacement on the second area, this worked until I switched to high zzzzaapp. Replaced it again again, zzzaappp.

So it looks like I cant “fix” this board to make the ao8k to work.

Screw the (a8ok) (for now) how do I make it a working single mode light that runs on high?

My question is specifically from where to where do I run a wire or wires to by pass the (ao8k thingy) it is the only part that I need to by pass (everything else seems to work?).

Help

sorry I did not post any photos but the board is identical the the ones in this thread (same light).

I think that the most basic 1-wire mod would be to connect L- to GND. Ideally you’d also bypass L+ around the inductor to BAT+.

Vcc should be BAT+, but I’d double check rather than trusting what I’m saying.

You may have a fairly hot light if you do this. You may melt/damage springs or switches.

wight,

Got it. Thanks.

btw you say to double check, what is it I am double checking? continuity? voltage? amps? (man I sound dumb) :slight_smile:

I will run used laptop pulls (no INR cells for this baby). should I run my high iR cells so that there is some resistance in the system?

It sounds like “we” are not using anything on the boards except the hot wires. as there are resistors on the board, I doubled the stock ones, shorted “r2” with solid copper wire and doubled “r1”.

I am fine with it running hot and not being able to use it for long periods of time, (I have other lights for that).

All in all “I have been warened”.

I guess there are various ways to double check that. I’d probably visually inspect it to see whether that’s BAT. If a visual inspection wasn’t practical I’d do continuity checks between BAT and Vcc. Just checking voltage is OK and will at least let you differentiate Vcc and Vdd (one of them is probably ~5v or less I assume).

It sounds like you’re doing a bunch of unnecessary things with resistors. You should be bypassing all of them with your wiring for straight-DD.

Trace things back from the LED to the batteries:

  • LED- goes to GND (BAT-)
  • LED+ goes to BAT+

If you find anything in between then move wires.

Well I did not know what Vcc and Vdd are so I looked them up:

From power - What is the difference between \$V_{CC}\$, \$V_{DD}\$, \$V_{EE}\$, \$V_{SS}\$ - Electrical Engineering Stack Exchange

“Back in the Pleistocene (1960s or earlier), logic was implemented with bipolar transistors. Even more specifically, they were NPN because for some reasons I’m not going to get into, NPN were faster. Back then it made sense to someone that the positive supply voltage would be called Vcc where the ”c” stands for collector. Sometimes (but less commonly) the negative supply was called Vee where “e” stands for emitter.

When FET logic came about, the same kind of naming was used, but now the positive supply was Vdd (drain) and the negative Vss (source). With CMOS this makes no sense, but it persists anyway. Note that the “C” in CMOS stands for “complementary”. That means both N and P channel devices are used in about equal numbers. A CMOS inverter is just a P channel and a N channel MOSFET in its simplest form. With roughly equal numbers of N and P channel devices, drains aren’t more likely to be positive than sources, and vice versa. However, the Vdd and Vss names have stuck for historical reasons. Technically Vcc/Vee is for bipolar and Vdd/Vss for FETs, but in practice today Vcc and Vdd mean the same, and Vee and Vss mean the same.”

Ok so now I must have misunderstood you.

If we are going direct then I take the positive (red) and the neg (black) and run it streight to the emitter. I think you were tryiing to tell me which pads to use (that was really my question)

Maybe we got off track with Vcc and Vdd?

Sorry this was not easier. I am not trying to be difficult.

As far as I know, Vcc and Vdd are commonly used to identify supply voltages. As we can clearly see, the Chinese driver house WS has used both identifiers on this board. One identifier is for the unregulated Vbat (battery input voltage) and the other is for the regulated voltage fed to the MCU. (this is regulated with a Zener and load resistor combo).

The key is that when both are in use on the same board it’s very safe to assume that they are not referring to the same supply voltage.

Thank you again,

Yes it looks like I will stick with your:

“Trace things back from the LED to the batteries:

•LED- goes to GND ring (BAT-)
•LED+ goes to center BAT+ (vcc)

and see if I can trace it back so it works.