This is one of the differences between a $20 light and a $100 light. Some folks might prefer the A6 along with extra batteries for well less than half the cost. Good arguments can be made for both lights.
Luckily things get better as time goes on. We are close to getting high powered (40+ watt) aftermarket boost drivers with sweet UI’s like NarsilM and Anduril. Maybe in a few more months?
At the present time we only have medium powered drivers (20W) with a set – low, med, high, turbo and dbl clk for strobe – user interface.
Maybe the next BLF light can use a boost driver.
—
Texas Ace Lumen Tube and JoshK Sphere calibrated with Maukka lights
That would probably be costly for BLF standards…but I’d like to see that happen.
How much more is a boost driver, compared to the usual FET+1 drivers that budget lights use?
I could be wrong, but I’ve got a feeling it could be a significant price difference for a good boost driver compared to a FET +1 driver, in terms of Chinese production cost.
—
The Cycle of Goodness: “No one prospers without rendering benefit to others”
- The YKK Philosophy
Also development of a good buck or boost driver costs more because often they need a 4 layer board.
So driver parts alone cost over double a good FET driver like in the FW3A.
Sounds like a 25W boost driver is good enough for a single-emitter light. Only 6€ more than a good FET+AMC driver doesn’t sound like much more expensive. So, it would be a $30 or $40 light, rather than a $20 or $30 light? Still a bargain compared to most boost-driven lights you can buy. Even if the price was $50 for a boost driver + a XHP50.2, that’s only half of what a similar Zebralight costs. Maybe the features or quality wouldn’t be as high, but BLF designs tend to be pretty good.
I have a H17F in a solid copper host with some serious thermal mass, and did some testing on its thermal response. This plot shows the H17F and an early version of Anduril from ~10 months ago.
Area under the curve says H17F wins, but they both seem to end up at the same place, steady-state. (Physics).
Perhaps down to the slightly higher thermal mass of the Cu torch, but thermal mass is not the same as mass (though I do like a heavy Cu torch).
For an identically dimensioned torch, made of either Al or Cu, the Cu torch will weigh 8940/2712 = 3.3 times as much.
Whereas the Al has more than double the specific heat capacity of Cu (0.22 vs. 0.1) by mass, or 2.2/3.3 = 0.67 by volume, but half the thermal conductivity.
Which is why copper torches make little sense in engineering terms, over three times as heavy for marginal gains. They are shiney though and patinate nicely.
If you want thermal mass, with low actual mass, go Al, not Cu.
Get it right, and you’ll have better thermal conductivity too, with less mass.
Edit: small bits of copper used in the right place for thermal conductivity are excellent, MCPCBs and pills. But making a whole torch out of it is a bit silly. And kidding yourself that it adds “thermal mass” without a downside (actual mass) doesn’t fit the facts.
Brass of course is one of the worst possible things to use for removable pills, Convoy etc. please note. A proper integral Al shelf is far better.
Tom Tom: Not everyone is a ultralight enthusiast; sometimes volume is all that matters. Higher conductivity and heat capacity for the same size light is great. Were it not for the price and how much more usable aluminum is as a material, copper would be great.
It was called EDN back then (Electronic Design News)
Oh good, that means I’m not going crazy. I wrote EDN, then looked at your link and it was just Electronic Design. I edited my previous post lest anyone think I subscribed to Erectile Dysfunction magazine.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that for those that may be suffering……..not that I would know about such an affliction but just trying to lend support to those who might be feeling a little less frivolous and………oh, god, there’s no way out of this, is there?
—
Keep your nose in the wind and your eyes along the skyline.
Del Gue
Location: (469219) 2016 HO3 // I get way more privmsgs than I can respond to, so please ask in a public thread if possible, for a faster answer.
Tom Tom wrote:
Area under the curve says H17F wins, but they both seem to end up at the same place, steady-state. (Physics).
Perhaps down to the slightly higher thermal mass of the Cu torch, but thermal mass is not the same as mass
The results aren’t really comparable, since the H17F’s host had quite a bit more thermal mass than a D4. I’d have to measure them in the same host, or at least the same model, for comparable results. It might happen at some point, but that’s a lot of effort just to satisfy my curiosity about whether the H17F can adjust any faster or if what I saw was its fastest speed.
The results aren’t really comparable, since the H17F’s host had quite a bit more thermal mass than a D4. I’d have to measure them in the same host, or at least the same model, for comparable results. It might happen at some point, but that’s a lot of effort just to satisfy my curiosity about whether the H17F can adjust any faster or if what I saw was its fastest speed.
Hey don’t look backwards at what you are doing. Just drive forwards. Whilst understanding the back history.
I think there is a lot more to come with firmware/driver integration, but the driver hardware will have to become a lot better, not sure if this is understood, or whether anyone cares.
I don't see the reason why it couldn't have a nice boost driver. I can see a cheaper, not too-hot-on-high with PID being possible. The sc62w has it all on one board (with LED) with a $3 buck/boost driver from TI (although I read its fairly complex and 4 layered with copper core). I don't think that you have to make it super powerful for a smaller light. With scale it can drop it down. But the design of the firmware will be more difficult I believe.
Still, making a small aluminum isn't impossible if you don't ask for too many lumens. I know this is BLF and we love lumens (my first loved light was the A6), but a small light like the D4 just cannot be used reasonably at its high. It burns paper. It dedomes itself. It can destroy itself from being used. I personally don't want that to happen, although I wouldn't mind more lumens on a thrower, I don't see the point of a flooder/muti much. A D4/SC6x sized light with side switch, nice buck boost driver (or even just boost), PID, killer interface with ramping, programmable modes or groups, some sort of low lumen modes, fits 18650, side switch and modability would be awesome.
I'm so excited that we are moving away from linear regulated drivers, then some into MOSFET, and now boost drivers all while getting smaller and smaller.
Thanks to this forum, there have been so many advances from the always draining incandescent, to the primitive strobing drivers with ugly tints, and now we have nice tints, way better interfaces, and are now even working on efficiency! Its so exciting!
Current status (2018-06-22): Second prototypes tested, emitter poll results collected, sending in feedback for host changes and emitter type(s). Only a few product details left to finish before production.
WOW! really excited been waiting for a loooog looong time for this
This is one of the differences between a $20 light and a $100 light. Some folks might prefer the A6 along with extra batteries for well less than half the cost. Good arguments can be made for both lights.
Luckily things get better as time goes on. We are close to getting high powered (40+ watt) aftermarket boost drivers with sweet UI’s like NarsilM and Anduril. Maybe in a few more months?
At the present time we only have medium powered drivers (20W) with a set – low, med, high, turbo and dbl clk for strobe – user interface.
Maybe the next BLF light can use a boost driver.
Texas Ace Lumen Tube and JoshK Sphere calibrated with Maukka lights
Click this to go to signature links. I'm still around, just not reading many new threads.
That would probably be costly for BLF standards…but I’d like to see that happen.
How much more is a boost driver, compared to the usual FET+1 drivers that budget lights use?
I could be wrong, but I’ve got a feeling it could be a significant price difference for a good boost driver compared to a FET +1 driver, in terms of Chinese production cost.
The Cycle of Goodness: “No one prospers without rendering benefit to others”
- The YKK Philosophy
Lexel said it would cost over $20 for him to make a high powered 17 mm boost driver.
In a BLF project it could be cheaper:
So…I don’t know, but maybe up to $10 premium?
Then there’s a question of what LED would be involved.
Here is what Lexel just told me:
So driver parts alone cost over double a good FET driver like in the FW3A.
Texas Ace Lumen Tube and JoshK Sphere calibrated with Maukka lights
Click this to go to signature links. I'm still around, just not reading many new threads.
Up to 25W?…That’s XHP35 driven to 1.8A. Could wish for more.
Sounds like a 25W boost driver is good enough for a single-emitter light. Only 6€ more than a good FET+AMC driver doesn’t sound like much more expensive. So, it would be a $30 or $40 light, rather than a $20 or $30 light? Still a bargain compared to most boost-driven lights you can buy. Even if the price was $50 for a boost driver + a XHP50.2, that’s only half of what a similar Zebralight costs. Maybe the features or quality wouldn’t be as high, but BLF designs tend to be pretty good.
Area under the curve says H17F wins, but they both seem to end up at the same place, steady-state. (Physics).
Perhaps down to the slightly higher thermal mass of the Cu torch, but thermal mass is not the same as mass (though I do like a heavy Cu torch).
For an identically dimensioned torch, made of either Al or Cu, the Cu torch will weigh 8940/2712 = 3.3 times as much.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/metal-alloys-densities-d_50.html
Whereas the Al has more than double the specific heat capacity of Cu (0.22 vs. 0.1) by mass, or 2.2/3.3 = 0.67 by volume, but half the thermal conductivity.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-heat-metals-d_152.html
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-conductivity-metals-d_858.html
Which is why copper torches make little sense in engineering terms, over three times as heavy for marginal gains. They are shiney though and patinate nicely.
If you want thermal mass, with low actual mass, go Al, not Cu.
Get it right, and you’ll have better thermal conductivity too, with less mass.
Edit: small bits of copper used in the right place for thermal conductivity are excellent, MCPCBs and pills. But making a whole torch out of it is a bit silly. And kidding yourself that it adds “thermal mass” without a downside (actual mass) doesn’t fit the facts.
Brass of course is one of the worst possible things to use for removable pills, Convoy etc. please note. A proper integral Al shelf is far better.
Please , put me in for two
Tom Tom: Not everyone is a ultralight enthusiast; sometimes volume is all that matters. Higher conductivity and heat capacity for the same size light is great. Were it not for the price and how much more usable aluminum is as a material, copper would be great.
spaceminions copper just makes flashlight non-EDC
Oh good, that means I’m not going crazy. I wrote EDN, then looked at your link and it was just Electronic Design. I edited my previous post lest anyone think I subscribed to Erectile Dysfunction magazine.
/\ …
You never know how a horse will pull until you hook him up to a heavy load./"Bear" Bryant
.................................. "Slow is Smooth, Smooth is Fast" ...................................
Texas Lumens Flashlights / M4D M4X Deals : sign up - save $$$$
Rudeness Level _ mΩ _ {width:70%} _ LightWiki _ LED Tint Chart
Xlamp size chart _ BatteryU _ Flashaholic? Need Professional Help??? TheOriginal _ TAB _ LightSearch _ BatterySearch _ 14500's _ DiCal
Not that there’s anything wrong with that for those that may be suffering……..not that I would know about such an affliction but just trying to lend support to those who might be feeling a little less frivolous and………oh, god, there’s no way out of this, is there?
Keep your nose in the wind and your eyes along the skyline.
Del Gue
Sildenafil ?
Too cheap to bother charging from some sympathetic pharmacists. And an understanding GP.
Just the private prescription fee, £7 for 16 100 mg tabs.
Edit: I have been told that 50 mg is enough, and the generic 100 mg tabs are set up to be easily divided.
Not that I would need anything like that, just saying, heard about this from a friend …
You’re nº 1379 and 1380-of pepinfaxera list of interest page 111For a total of 2 lights.How many flashlights do you want in total?… x … units?..
Edit
Jul 4 nd I receive Personal Message (PM) from Roc32:
You’re nº 1388 and 1389 of pepinfaxera list of interest page 111
For a total of 2 lights .
Sorry for my bad English
(google translator) , (https://www.deepl.com/translator)
You are number No. # 366 on: Interest List , “Post # 4”:“http://budgetlightforum.com/comment/1120496#comment-1120496 , “ Page 1 ,”:http://budgetlightforum.com/comment/1120496#comment-1120496 :
For a total of 1 lights .
How many flashlights do you want in total? … x … units?..
.
Edit ;
Jul 4 nd I receive Personal Message (PM) from Silentcropduster:
Sorry for my bad English
(google translator) , (https://www.deepl.com/translator)
Hahaa spaceminions!
I knew this would stick….. CRI Baby! 
Can you post a pic of your card?KB1428 “Live Life WOT”
The results aren’t really comparable, since the H17F’s host had quite a bit more thermal mass than a D4. I’d have to measure them in the same host, or at least the same model, for comparable results. It might happen at some point, but that’s a lot of effort just to satisfy my curiosity about whether the H17F can adjust any faster or if what I saw was its fastest speed.
Hey don’t look backwards at what you are doing. Just drive forwards. Whilst understanding the back history.
I think there is a lot more to come with firmware/driver integration, but the driver hardware will have to become a lot better, not sure if this is understood, or whether anyone cares.
Interested in three.
Not entirely sure yet. I think Neal has that process covered, but I don’t know the details.
I don't see the reason why it couldn't have a nice boost driver. I can see a cheaper, not too-hot-on-high with PID being possible. The sc62w has it all on one board (with LED) with a $3 buck/boost driver from TI (although I read its fairly complex and 4 layered with copper core). I don't think that you have to make it super powerful for a smaller light. With scale it can drop it down. But the design of the firmware will be more difficult I believe.
Here is the SC62w taken apart: https://imgur.com/a/luMiX
https://www.reddit.com/r/flashlight/comments/63fpuu/zebralight_sc62w_driver_closeups_and_component/
This is the part from mouser: https://www.mouser.com/Texas-Instruments/Switching-Voltage-Regulators/TP...
Still, making a small aluminum isn't impossible if you don't ask for too many lumens. I know this is BLF and we love lumens (my first loved light was the A6), but a small light like the D4 just cannot be used reasonably at its high. It burns paper. It dedomes itself. It can destroy itself from being used. I personally don't want that to happen, although I wouldn't mind more lumens on a thrower, I don't see the point of a flooder/muti much. A D4/SC6x sized light with side switch, nice buck boost driver (or even just boost), PID, killer interface with ramping, programmable modes or groups, some sort of low lumen modes, fits 18650, side switch and modability would be awesome.
I'm so excited that we are moving away from linear regulated drivers, then some into MOSFET, and now boost drivers all while getting smaller and smaller.
Thanks to this forum, there have been so many advances from the always draining incandescent, to the primitive strobing drivers with ugly tints, and now we have nice tints, way better interfaces, and are now even working on efficiency! Its so exciting!
In for one
WOW! really excited been waiting for a loooog looong time for this
Interested in 1. Thank you.
I’m currently 1301. Please secure one more spot for me.
In for one, thanks.
i’m in for 1
Pages