stephenk, you mean a light with three colored LEDs and a way to control each one to get the preferred colors?
That would be MELD software right?
Funny story, when Thorfire send me the S70 and S50 just bought the Uniquefire 1401. I asked Throfire to make a light like that (4 individual small reflectors with a LED, using 3 primary colors and a NW LED in the 4th space.
For the reason of people being able to blend colors to their liking. They did not understand what I was talking about, heheh had a hard time grasping the notion of a soda can light, lol we showed them what a soda can light it didn’t we
Yes, something based on MELD software with RGBW emitters and the ability to colour mix, but “off the shelf”, would be very popular with light painters. Not sure how popular it would be with the average flashaholic though.
The cometa is ok but frankly the intensity is about the same or actually a bit worse then the $13 X60 I got from banggood (I sold it so can’t do a direct comparison). The X60 has a bit larger lens so like everything when it comes to throw, size is king.
A larger lens would be a good idea, the cometa just doesn’t impress all that much.
A second reflector lens adds a lot of complication and is only to be done by a properly capable manufacture. If that is possible a second lens does increase the hot spot size, which is nice but doesn’t really effect throw.
It would be nice to see loneoceans boost driver go into production and one way would be to incorporate it into a BLF SE project as was done with the A6 driver done by wight(aka Alex Wells). It probably needs to undergo some field testing first but it’s a significant upgrade from any other boost driver currently on the market. Supporting that and similar projects is something I could get behind.
As this is now declared a discussion thread, I have an opinion on the Q4:
It is tempting to want the Q4 to be compatible with alkalines and Eneloops and I am not for it for two reasons:
1) there are quite a few pretty nice flashlights out there already that run on 4xAA cells. Even if the Q4 will be a quad, that does not add an awful lot to what is out there, a bit more output and less throw. The Q4 will not stand out other than that it may have a BLF developed nice user interface.
2) in case of dual compatibility I do not see how 14500 li-ions can be run to the max when the light also is able to run on alkalines/NiMh’s (but I’d love to be wrong, I’m not an expert on drivers). The full advantage of high current 14500 li-ion cells can only be had with a dedicated li-ion driver.
So my proposal is very simple: shrink the Q8!!
(Honey, I shrunk the Q8!)
It is almost as simple as asking Thorfire to ask just that: do everything the same as the Q8, just smaller (detail: I think that many fine fins like the LuckySun D80 has will help). But I would like to try to achieve 2 extra things: 1)see where the shrunken Q8 can be made even a bit smaller, to get the Q4 smaller than any 4xAA-size light out there (to start,a quad reflector is already shorter than a reflector for a single led), 2)add onboard charging via a micro-USB port.
On max, the output will be 4 times the output of the BLF-X5, so 4800 lumen on fresh IMR’s. Unrivalled by anything this size! Of course it can only be run on max for very short bursts of 30 seconds, probably limited by a simple timer, but that is where al those lower modes come in.
Well, if you had a buck driver with a wide input voltage range, it could use either AA Alkaline/NimH or 14500 Li-Ion cells in series. 4X Eneloops could put out a respectable amount of light if the driver was designed well, and 4X 14500’s could really fire up the imagination!
Having said that, I’d prefer the Q4 to be designed as a mini-Q8, with 4X 14500 in parallel feeding to 4X XP-L HI or something like that, using a multi-channel FET/7135 driver.
Hmm yeah parallel cells for the Q4
That is the challenge IMHO
So there will be a BLF driver that can run on AA or 14500
For else there would not be something new coming from it, just a scaled down Q8 is nice and all but rather boring for all would be clear before the actual start
It is rewarding for me to see new things and just a BLF remake of something doesn’t feel new
don’t get me wrong I love my BLF special lights that are remakes but it doesn’t feel worth my time to just mix existing stuff
For example I kind of dropped the idea of a Q10/16 when I only thought it would be a scaled up 26650 Q8, when a quad XHP35HI quad 2S2P 26650 light popped up yeah then it made sense to go for a Q16 for this means a challenge.
As for 4 14500 only for the Q4, TA wrote in the GT topic that making a light for a 32650/26650/20700/18650 just makes more sense in this case and with that I agree hencey stubborn AA wish for of those a lot of cool things are already in existence
yeah and here it is OT, nice
Again, xx650 is too long, AA and 14500 are significantly shorter.
A extruded tube and tail like the TK4A are shorter and no need for a carrier.
Q4 is a AA driven light primarily not a 32650 light where AA can be added, because then this comes into play:
As I pointed out in the other thread, the total length of the light would be the same regardless of which cells you used. The TK4A is 115mm long, about the shortest it can be and still be ergonomic.
A 65mm long cell can have the same total length as seen on the NE01. So the size “issue” is a moot point. Ergonomics will determain the minimum length anyways. With an e-switch light if it is too short you will not be able to access the switch without repositioning the light every time.
As far as the quote. So what you are saying is that you don’t care what the light is as long as a new driver is designed for it? A driver that would be useless in any other light as it would be too large for any normal lights and too small for any SRK style lights?
Not to mention that such a driver could cost as much as the entire light and thus almost double the cost of the light.
If it is primarily an AA light, then why make it? The TK4A is good enough and we can’t improve on it except for a better UI since the AA’s themselves will be the limiting factor on brightness. Way easier to just build a new driver for that light for people to swap in.
If this is something you have your heart set on, then fine. Doing something because you can is as good a reason as any.
I’m not trying to join this argument, but I’d like to make just one point. There are plenty of tiny lights on the market with side e-switch. If it were bad for ergonomics, they wouldn’t sell, and the manufacturers would stop making them.
I never said the side switch was bad, I said that if you make the light too short it will be impossible to comfortably hold the light in such a way to allow easy access to the switch without having to reposition the light every time.
Which is why you don’t really see side switch lights shorter then ~110-120mm.
If the TK4A didn’t exist I would not be so opposed to the idea but as it is, rebuilding the TK4A with a different driver seems like a waste when you will get nothing out of it except the ability to use expensive, crummy, low powered, “fragile” 14500’s that have less power then a 18350.
for of those a lot of cool things are already in existence