No, look at the photos of the driver renderings. At the bottom edge of the driver board, there are several vias for the programming key that he designed. But some of the pads for the MCU cross more than one via and some of the pads for the MCU don’t contact any of the vias. I don’t know if it’s “right” or not but it doesn’t look right to me.
But do you have that many cells that you would trust to put together like that? Would it be worth the high cost of buying that many cells just to not have to charge for a few days?
The MCU outline maybe confusing there. I checked and every Via connects where it should. I don’t think Lexel overlook that noticable problem. It is fine.
Aah, had to zoom way in to see that there’s a little space between the top vias and the pads for the bottom legs of the MCU. Ok. Sorry for the false alarm. :person_facepalming:
It should work fine. The only real risk there is if solder spilled over the edge of a pad and into a nearby via, bridging two MCU pins. It’s underneath so it’d be hard to see if it happened. But that’s probably pretty unlikely to happen.
It has been done before. Cut the power level in half, and it doubles the runtime. For example, a Convoy light with 4x7135 driver runs twice as long as one with a 8x7135 driver. But it puts out half as much light.
On the lantern, there isn’t much need to remove chips to increase the runtime… just turn it down a level or two and it’ll run longer. Go down all the way, and it can run nonstop for about three months. You don’t have to run it at full power at all times.
New here, can you clarify? Does this mean the first run for people here that said they were interested won’t have power bank function, but it will be added for later production runs? Or does this mean something else? Thanks.
We decided to drop the power bank option to reduce cost per unit, and get it into production sooner. (it will still have the charging function however. Originally the lantern was to be designed to be a simple, low-cost better quality lantern as a better option to all the low-quality plastic lanterns commercially available in stores & on the market, and adding to many bells & whistles will defeat that purpose of the low-cost part.
Definitely works for me. I like having the charging function, although I probably won’t ever use it. But, the power bank function is completely useless to me. I’d rather have light than to power anything else. So whatever power is in the lantern needs to stay there in my case. I know others are more hard core in their camping, hiking, caving, etc. and would find having a power bank built-in to be quite useful as it’s one less thing to carry.
For a future model we will look at the power bank function. for now the built in charging will be a great feature to have on long camping trips or off grid use.
PS: I don’t know what charging chip you have chosen, but please be sure that it can cope with a small solar panel and dump every bit of available energy into the cells, no matter how weak the light, and how variable, night, day, clouds, shadows etc. Not all can, some only work in certain conditions and trip out otherwise.
This is nothing like charging up e.g a mobile phone from a mains adapter. Totally different situation.
Edit: I mean accepting current from any solar panel, from a standard nominal 12V panel (actually a lot higher), to one of the the popular portable USB output (5V ? delivered wastefully) devices.
TBH I think that making it only a USB input is a waste. I’d rather see a full-featured input via a rugged co-ax socket, that can accept almost any supply, from a 12V solar panel, to a re-purposed laptop 19V adapter, to a 12V or 24V automotive connection, to a USB passive or active adapter of any type.