Lumintop GT4

629 posts / 0 new
Last post
DavidEF
DavidEF's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 7 min ago
Joined: 06/05/2014 - 06:00
Posts: 7011
Location: Salisbury, North Carolina, USA
The_Driver wrote:
DavidEF wrote:
Texas_Ace wrote:
In my experience, a multi-emitter light will generally only have slightly less throw vs a single emitter in the same space assuming that the reflector cups are well made of course.
So… if that be the case, since the Boost HX has a MUCH better luminance than XHP35 HI, can it be true that 7x Boost HX would easily beat 1x XHP35 HI in throw?

Yes, but only for a very short bit of time. The light will get hot quickly and the batteries will also empty quickly.


Wouldn’t that be equally true of the XHP-35 HI? Are you saying the 7x Boost HX would need to draw more power to beat the XHP-35 HI in throw?

The Cycle of Goodness: “No one prospers without rendering benefit to others”
- The YKK Philosophy

Texas_Ace
Texas_Ace's picture
Offline
Last seen: 20 min 30 sec ago
Joined: 03/24/2016 - 07:44
Posts: 8303
Location: Everything is brighter in Texas
ToyKeeper wrote:
Texas_Ace wrote:
Quote:
GT4, 4x XHP70.2

Interesting, I was not aware they were announcing these yet.

Is this why you’ve been asking about overheating issues lately?

Not this light in particular, I decided to keep this one Narsil due to the issues with the other light I am working on. Plus I have not seen the prototype yet myself, they just finished it the other day, so no testing on this one yet.

There is another light I am working on though that has been the reason for wanting to use Anduril. It is for sure not ready to be announced yet sadly.

If you think some details on it would help fix the thermal issues, feel free to PM me and I can tell you some there.

Texas_Ace
Texas_Ace's picture
Offline
Last seen: 20 min 30 sec ago
Joined: 03/24/2016 - 07:44
Posts: 8303
Location: Everything is brighter in Texas
AlexGT wrote:
Do you think going for a 21700 battery setup would be better for powering this monster?

This has been debated from the beginning. There are arguments for both sides and I am split 50/50 on the matter myself.

It is not set in stone though, if people really want it to be 21700 even with the added weight it would bring and the fact most people do not have 8 21700’s floating around to use in this light, that can still be arranged at this point I think.

DavidEF
DavidEF's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 7 min ago
Joined: 06/05/2014 - 06:00
Posts: 7011
Location: Salisbury, North Carolina, USA
Texas_Ace wrote:
AlexGT wrote:
Do you think going for a 21700 battery setup would be better for powering this monster?

This has been debated from the beginning. There are arguments for both sides and I am split 50/50 on the matter myself.

It is not set in stone though, if people really want it to be 21700 even with the added weight it would bring and the fact most people do not have 8 21700’s floating around to use in this light, that can still be arranged at this point I think.


Well, the excuse of “most people” not having “8 21700’s floating around” is kinda moot when you’re already talking about hundreds of dollars for the light itself, don’t you think? I mean, if you’re gonna spend ~$300 for the light, might as well make it ~$400 and get all the cells, which can also be used in other lights if need be. Yeah, I know it’s recommended to keep the 8x cells “together”. Another option for some might be to use 8× 18650’s with sleeves.

The Cycle of Goodness: “No one prospers without rendering benefit to others”
- The YKK Philosophy

M4D M4X
M4D M4X's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 49 min ago
Joined: 03/19/2014 - 05:17
Posts: 7136
Location: Austria (GMT + 1)

2S3P 21700 maybe? Wink

 

 

already member of M4DM4X.com ?

the best deals are waiting for YOU!

 

before you buy elsewhere mail me: MARTIN@M4DM4X.COM - i will try to save you money!

Texas_Ace
Texas_Ace's picture
Offline
Last seen: 20 min 30 sec ago
Joined: 03/24/2016 - 07:44
Posts: 8303
Location: Everything is brighter in Texas
DavidEF wrote:
Texas_Ace wrote:
AlexGT wrote:
Do you think going for a 21700 battery setup would be better for powering this monster?

This has been debated from the beginning. There are arguments for both sides and I am split 50/50 on the matter myself.

It is not set in stone though, if people really want it to be 21700 even with the added weight it would bring and the fact most people do not have 8 21700’s floating around to use in this light, that can still be arranged at this point I think.


Well, the excuse of “most people” not having “8 21700’s floating around” is kinda moot when you’re already talking about hundreds of dollars for the light itself, don’t you think? I mean, if you’re gonna spend ~$300 for the light, might as well make it ~$400 and get all the cells, which can also be used in other lights if need be. Yeah, I know it’s recommended to keep the 8x cells “together”. Another option for some might be to use 8× 18650’s with sleeves.

As I said, there are very valid points to both arguments. I think that 21700 would be neat but on a technical side there is not a lot of need for it and it would make the light about 1-2lb heavier based on their CAD calculations.

Plus it would need a handle if 21700 was used since the tube would be too large for most hands otherwise. So that would add cost and complexity as well.

Once I get the prototype and see how everything feels I will have a better idea of my opinion on the matter to be honest. I just don’t have one right now.

Texas_Ace
Texas_Ace's picture
Offline
Last seen: 20 min 30 sec ago
Joined: 03/24/2016 - 07:44
Posts: 8303
Location: Everything is brighter in Texas
M4D M4X wrote:

2S3P 21700 maybe? Wink


 

Interesting idea, that would fix the large handle issue, but then you do not gain much from the 21700 vs 18650 far as current / capacity goes in that case.

DavidEF
DavidEF's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 7 min ago
Joined: 06/05/2014 - 06:00
Posts: 7011
Location: Salisbury, North Carolina, USA
Texas_Ace wrote:
M4D M4X wrote:

2S3P 21700 maybe? Wink


 

Interesting idea, that would fix the large handle issue, but then you do not gain much from the 21700 vs 18650 far as current / capacity goes in that case.


Well, you wouldn’t immediately gain a lot, but I suspect that 21700 format development is still fairly heavy, while 18650 is about as good as it will ever get now. So, since you would be gaining a little bit now, but also ready for future 21700 improvements, it might be worth going for it, even with just 2S3P.

The Cycle of Goodness: “No one prospers without rendering benefit to others”
- The YKK Philosophy

Texas_Ace
Texas_Ace's picture
Offline
Last seen: 20 min 30 sec ago
Joined: 03/24/2016 - 07:44
Posts: 8303
Location: Everything is brighter in Texas

Actually I just realized that 2s3p is not possible, we need 4S input which we can’t do with 6 cells. I thought that had come up before but forgot why it was dismissed.

BlueSwordM
BlueSwordM's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 10 min ago
Joined: 11/29/2017 - 12:34
Posts: 4206
Location: Canada

Well, as we probably talked about it before, using a 2S setup instead of a 4S would require much higher current.

Because of this, the current paths would have to be even thicker, and the overall efficiency would go down by a bit.

Also, using a 4S setup instead of a 2S setup allow the easy use of the GT70 parts instead of requiring new hardware and more development costs.

My very own high current Beryllium Copper springs: http://budgetlightforum.com/node/64047
Liitokala Aliexpress Stores Battery Fraud: http://budgetlightforum.com/node/60547

Texas_Ace
Texas_Ace's picture
Offline
Last seen: 20 min 30 sec ago
Joined: 03/24/2016 - 07:44
Posts: 8303
Location: Everything is brighter in Texas

BlueSwordM wrote:
Well, as we probably talked about it before, using a 2S setup instead of a 4S would require much higher current.

Because of this, the current paths would have to be even thicker, and the overall efficiency would go down by a bit.

Also, using a 4S setup instead of a 2S setup allow the easy use of the GT70 parts instead of requiring new hardware and more development costs.

Yep, that^.

EasyB
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 4 days ago
Joined: 03/09/2016 - 15:24
Posts: 1679
Location: Ohio

Wow that’s a beast! Any info on the driver? Buck or DD/FET?

DavidEF
DavidEF's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 hours 7 min ago
Joined: 06/05/2014 - 06:00
Posts: 7011
Location: Salisbury, North Carolina, USA

Texas_Ace wrote:
BlueSwordM wrote:
Well, as we probably talked about it before, using a 2S setup instead of a 4S would require much higher current.

Because of this, the current paths would have to be even thicker, and the overall efficiency would go down by a bit.

Also, using a 4S setup instead of a 2S setup allow the easy use of the GT70 parts instead of requiring new hardware and more development costs.

Yep, that^.


Well, maybe. But the Boost HX is a ~3v chip, so I don’t think the slightly higher current going to the buck driver will be enough to cause problems. Obviously, I could be wrong. Silly

Also changing from 18650 to 21700 already requires “new hardware and more development costs” so the difference 2S or 4S isn’t significant in that regard.

The Cycle of Goodness: “No one prospers without rendering benefit to others”
- The YKK Philosophy

BlueSwordM
BlueSwordM's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 10 min ago
Joined: 11/29/2017 - 12:34
Posts: 4206
Location: Canada

It’s not going to use a buck driver though.

A 250W-300W flashlight sized buck driver would be extremely expensive, where a FET+linear regulator design would still work adequately with 4X XHP70.2s.

And besides, the 1mm2 Olson HX Boost only comes in 6000k+ variants, which look way too blue.

Lumintop could easily offer a CW XHP 70.2, and a NW 4000k XHP70.2 model, which would easily satisfy almost all customers.

My very own high current Beryllium Copper springs: http://budgetlightforum.com/node/64047
Liitokala Aliexpress Stores Battery Fraud: http://budgetlightforum.com/node/60547

Texas_Ace
Texas_Ace's picture
Offline
Last seen: 20 min 30 sec ago
Joined: 03/24/2016 - 07:44
Posts: 8303
Location: Everything is brighter in Texas
EasyB wrote:
Wow that’s a beast! Any info on the driver? Buck or DD/FET?

It will be using a beefed up version of the GT70 driver basically, so 2 channel FET driver.

A buck driver would be nice but a ~40A buck driver is no simple task and it would be very large, I know this from experience on a light that never went public.

Texas_Ace
Texas_Ace's picture
Offline
Last seen: 20 min 30 sec ago
Joined: 03/24/2016 - 07:44
Posts: 8303
Location: Everything is brighter in Texas

BlueSwordM wrote:
It’s not going to use a buck driver though.

A 250W-300W flashlight sized buck driver would be extremely expensive, where a FET+linear regulator design would still work adequately with 4X XHP70.2s.

And besides, the 1mm2 Olson HX Boost only comes in 6000k+ variants, which look way too blue.

Lumintop could easily offer a CW XHP 70.2, and a NW 4000k XHP70.2 model, which would easily satisfy almost all customers.

The boost HX is an interesting idea for a future version of the light but it will not be something done at first that is for sure seeing as they are not even out yet.

Brainsick67
Brainsick67's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 10 min ago
Joined: 06/09/2018 - 18:53
Posts: 304
Location: United States

Can it run on 8 AA?

I'm ThatCrazyFlashaholic 67

Texas_Ace
Texas_Ace's picture
Offline
Last seen: 20 min 30 sec ago
Joined: 03/24/2016 - 07:44
Posts: 8303
Location: Everything is brighter in Texas
Brainsick67 wrote:
Can it run on 8 AA?

lol, not exactly.

Brainsick67
Brainsick67's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 10 min ago
Joined: 06/09/2018 - 18:53
Posts: 304
Location: United States
Texas_Ace wrote:
Brainsick67 wrote:
Can it run on 8 AA?

lol, not exactly.


Ohhhh shoot..lol…cant wait for it….

I'm ThatCrazyFlashaholic 67

AlexGT
AlexGT's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 7 min ago
Joined: 06/07/2012 - 17:39
Posts: 4233
Location: Texas

Is the head the same size as the BLF GT? Is the heat sink the whole head? Looks to be one piece, any info on that? Any side pictures to see how deep are all the fins?

Texas_Ace
Texas_Ace's picture
Offline
Last seen: 20 min 30 sec ago
Joined: 03/24/2016 - 07:44
Posts: 8303
Location: Everything is brighter in Texas
AlexGT wrote:
Is the head the same size as the BLF GT? Is the heat sink the whole head? Looks to be one piece, any info on that? Any side pictures to see how deep are all the fins?

Yes, same basic size as the GT / GT70.

Yes, all those fins on the head are used for heat sinking pretty much.

Here is one of the earlier CAD designs, I can’t find the latest one at the moment but it as only minor changes.

The cooling on this light should be quite good to say the least.

AlexGT
AlexGT's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 hours 7 min ago
Joined: 06/07/2012 - 17:39
Posts: 4233
Location: Texas

Thanks TA! Beer

Tom E
Tom E's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 40 min ago
Joined: 08/19/2012 - 08:23
Posts: 12133
Location: LI NY

No idea, looks great though! Just saw it on FB this evening. Hopefully should out-do the old Shockers - think the best I got was over 500 kcd. Some slice&dice action on those biggies should do.

Adhara
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 44 min ago
Joined: 05/17/2018 - 01:57
Posts: 168
Location: Usa

What might this offer not already in say the Imalent R90C? Can’t imagine it would be priced much less than the R90 at the typical coupon/specials @ low $usd200, seems around the same output and throw. Is it expected to hold full output for the duration of cells ability to provide the needed juice, or something like that?

Subbed, interested, curious.

twisted raven
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 43 min ago
Joined: 03/13/2016 - 11:10
Posts: 333
Location: texas

4 xhp70.2s in huge reflectors vs 9 xhp35 HIs in smaller reflector wells would be an interesting comparison. seems like the gt4 will make for slightly more lumen but slightly less throw.

BlueSwordM
BlueSwordM's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 10 min ago
Joined: 11/29/2017 - 12:34
Posts: 4206
Location: Canada

Well, for one, it will have better QC, replaceable cells, non exaggerated specs, NarsilM.

And where did you find an R90C for 200$US?

The lowest price I’ve found with a coupon is 280$US.

My very own high current Beryllium Copper springs: http://budgetlightforum.com/node/64047
Liitokala Aliexpress Stores Battery Fraud: http://budgetlightforum.com/node/60547

Adhara
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 44 min ago
Joined: 05/17/2018 - 01:57
Posts: 168
Location: Usa

BlueSwordM wrote:
Well, for one, it will have better QC, replaceable cells, non exaggerated specs, NarsilM.

And where did you find an R90C for 200$US?

The lowest price I’ve found with a coupon is 280$US.

Used a coupon code during xmas, worked out to something like $217, plus a few shekels for insured shipping, so ~$225.
will34
will34's picture
Offline
Last seen: 54 min 52 sec ago
Joined: 12/18/2012 - 00:12
Posts: 3557

Adhara wrote:
What might this offer not already in say the Imalent R90C? Can’t imagine it would be priced much less than the R90 at the typical coupon/specials @ low $usd200, seems around the same output and throw. Is it expected to hold full output for the duration of cells ability to provide the needed juice, or something like that?

Subbed, interested, curious.

It will be more reliable than the R90C specially at the driver, step down is user-controlled, probably brighter, much better heatsinking, and most likely without the fogging issues of immalent lights.

Sadly max output will drop accordingly to the battery level, being a direct drive setup.

BlueSwordM
BlueSwordM's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 hours 10 min ago
Joined: 11/29/2017 - 12:34
Posts: 4206
Location: Canada

And can be used with 8 18650s for much better runtime.

And you can get the light in Neutral White rather than Cool White.

My very own high current Beryllium Copper springs: http://budgetlightforum.com/node/64047
Liitokala Aliexpress Stores Battery Fraud: http://budgetlightforum.com/node/60547

Texas_Ace
Texas_Ace's picture
Offline
Last seen: 20 min 30 sec ago
Joined: 03/24/2016 - 07:44
Posts: 8303
Location: Everything is brighter in Texas

This light was first planned WAY back when the GT was still in the planning stages. Needless to say things have progressed since then and it is not quite as revolutionary now as it would of been 2 years ago.

At this point, yeah there are other lights that would be direct competition for sure. How they would compare is something I can’t know without some testing though.

Lumintop finally said they want to proceed with this project and I was sure not going to say no lol.

Based on VOB’s lumen readings from the R90C though, I do expect higher lumen output from the GT4. My goal is ~20k real lumens or more.

Pages