Talk about future projects and donation topic

Why not just try it and see what happens. Take the Q8 prototype, remove the mcpcb and reflector.
Wire up a single xpl on a 20mm or so mcpcb, find something to hold it down with, maybe a small reflector you have. Hold it down with the Q8 glass. Then install a single weak battery and try it out. Ideally you want to measure the current as you ramp it up. If it survives, then replace the battery for a single high power one and test again. If it survives and the amps are not excessive, try 2 high power cells, etc… Maybe it will hold up to 4 high power cells with only 6 or 7 amps. Maybe not. Testing with an xpl-2 would probably make the amps go up higher. If you think the sst-40 is a good choice, get one of those and try the same test procedure. See what the actual amps are for the stock driver. Then you will know. :slight_smile:

Oh if only days had more then 24 hours :wink:

This concept was discussed in detail in some older threads and it never really made sense. You would have to convince a flashlight company to make all these individual parts without actually knowing which parts are going to sell well and which ones may not sell at all. It’s not practical for a company to make all these different parts and keep them in stock. The average flashlight buyer does not want to buy parts and put it together himself, that is only an enthusiast type of thing which is going to greatly limit sales. The end result will be a bulky looking and feeling flashlight due to the inefficient packaging you get by Lego’ing a bunch of universal parts.

That was the general impression in those older threads.

About right, though frankly I’d skip on 26650 entirely for now and wait for 21700. It’s likely that 26650 will be obsolete before we make the first light with it.

Also, it would be good to specify battery compatibility even tighter:

  • min/max length (i.e. protection)
  • max diameter (protection too, but oversized batteries happen too (Shockli 26650))
  • button top?

Q8 forces many people to buy new batteries, making it ~$57 light for them. I don’t know the reasons behind that, I assume it was a well thought-up decision, but should we require all 18650 batteries to be button top for compatibility with BLF lights? Maybe we should, because we already went that way. Maybe we should re-think and go either way. Or maybe some projects will be better with button-top-only and others with either-way-fits.
Overall, it would be good if we could make sure that users don’t have to buy new cells to use a new light unless that light has way different size than anything they own already.

It’s different when we are designing the lights. Keeping standards (but not procrastinating to keep compatibility) will make the flashlights every bit as good for regular users, while making them better for us. And it also reduces design time.

The SRK design has always mandated button top cells. And to get the most output from the Q8 you’d want unprotected high drain… but that’s just an option. Nothing different from a ‘regular’ SRK clone there.

I would love to see a nice brass AA with a high CRI emmitter too.

Would this end up being like Supbeam K40M in a smaller package? I love the super-wide beam that throws pretty well of that light. It is one of my favorite “general use” lights for sure. If BLF could build a similar wide beam/nice throw light in a smaller package I would buy two for sure.

Yeah a zoomie would be cool to do for sure.
Idk how the XHP35HI fares under a lens.

Too bad there are no round DIE LEDs.

Luminus makes some round ones, but they are neither cheap nor efficient.
There are also COBs.

There’s the Nichia 319A which has a hexagonal die.

But wasn’t there talk of a plan for a dual lens zoomie?
That could be a fun challenge.

The circular CBT90 and CBT140 are not COBs, it is a single LED, and they are about as efficient as cree LEDs.
The only difference is that instead of being 6 or 12v they are 3v and much higher current.

Yes Jerommel, when a zoomie is done as BLF special I have something to do with it can only be a tad strange, so double lens or some sort of wavien thing.
I have seen your Brinyte and have a Jaxman Z1, no point in making a regular, those are available in good quality already :smiley:

I’m not sure if the BLF Lantern project is still on your table as a future project, but many would still like to see that be added hopefully in the future.

SBT-70 is not a COB.
According to Luminus CBT-90 is a chip-on-board LED

CBT-140 is a COB too.

As to efficiency, if I read the datasheet correctly, the top bin of CBT-90 does 2100 lm at the rated current. That’s 9A. At this current Vf is 3.1 V. So 75 lm/W. In Texas Ace tests of XHP35 E2 bin we see the same output with c.a. 100 lm/W. There’s HI E4 available.

ADDED: that said, I’d love to see a big thrower based on CBT-90.
ADDED: though probably compact 3*18650 package is (by far) not enough to make it thermally stable at high output.

Yes I saw your post.
I had hoped Barry and you would have kicked it off.
Charging, interesting head
Could it be done in such a way the head Lego’s with the Q8?
Maybe some sort of jumper so we could do this one with the long tube 2S for long runtimes. Adjust jumper and use it with the normal Q8 or short ST tube?
Though a really good diffuser (with inverted shining cone surrounded by frosted white) that screws on the Q8 instead of bezel would make it a lantern but missing the smart design features you made.)

Just thinking out loud here :wink:
.
.
.

Those luminous LEDs, only the 140 seems round. 21A is a good match with the Q8 driver though, are they as expensive as the SST were/are?

” Chip on board package assures straightforward system assembly with the best
possible thermal performance for high power devices.”

This is referring to the fact that the LED chip comes attached to the MCPCB board.
It is not a “COB” type LED that has multiple blue LEDs underneath a phosphor layer.

This is a real COB:

This is a single die LED with a sound shape:

I never hear much from Barry. (i don;t remember who that was. :P) im not sure about the high amp output of the Q8 driver would work with a continuous-running lantern head. The main concept and ability of the lantern design is to have a warmer white output that creates less eye glare, a warmer tone & higher CRI for lantern use, added with substantial long run times even on maximum mode, compactness for storage, ability to run on 1, 2 ,3 or 4 cells, have built in regulated parallel charging (that can charge from a solar panel in off grid locations) etc. If i had a Q8 sample to work with and modify, i could probably start from scratch on a re-worked second lantern prototype based on the Q8 body and its driver with all its modes, but at a reduced current to increase run times.) (and add charging ability)
Below is the current prototype still being battered hard and used & performing as the best LED lantern i ever used, here on a mountaintop expedition we did back in July in a mountain range on the Atlantic coast:

I like to do tests so I will be happy If I can help the future projects with some homework. :smiley:
The convoy and Q8 thread compatibility is a good idea.
Also a very small light I think would be better with 18350 than 16340 because now we have the Aspire 18350 as a decent high drain cell but I can not name much good 16340.
I can measure lumens, Intensity, temperature, current, voltage. I can solder and put together a driver so you can count on me in if need to do some experiment on future lights :sunglasses:

Thanks for the info.