I would suggest adding a USB Power adapter as well, and not just a USB-C charge cable. Make it a complete kit if possible.
It's a wise decision to use USB-C instead of Micro USB. Just think about the times they try to connect the cord up-side down.
If you just add a charge cable, you don't know where they try to pry those cables in. Even USB-A cables can give problems. I've seen people trying to put a USB cable in an ethernet port on laptops.. and no, they weren't dumb people. Just couldn't see the holes very well.
I hope Sofirn can guarantee safety and test this rigourosly before production.
I have communicated the list of wishes to Barry/Sofirn in Januari, which included the wish for the magnetic ring being infinitely variable. I have not received comments on that list from Sofirn since.
But Sofirn has not even started with the design, so I’m not surprised that there are no answers to the wishes, because only when they start designing they can reflect on ideas and get a first idea of the costs of certain wishes.
The infinitely variable ring is not a key feature for this light, but if it is possible to have one while staying within budget I will certainly try to get that included.
Problem is usually IPX7 or IPX8 Type-C connectors are also made as USB 3.1 Gen 2 compatible which drives up the cost (and complexity) unnecessarily.
For a flashlight you really don’t need a Type-C connector with 24 pins… You only need 6 pins.
With these, like I said previously, the light needs to be designed around it and implemented correctly since the ingress protection comes from the o-ring which seals against the “chassis”.
P.S. djozz, it would be a nice thing if this flashlight would follow the USB Type-C spec. By this I mean the connector needs to have 5.1k pull-down resistors between CC and GND so that USB Type-C chargers will actually charge the flashlight.
Thanks for the extra USB-C socket information, and for the Parker O-Ring Handbook link, best lockdown read ever
I think I already asked for the USB-C charger support, Sofirn should be able to handle that because they had the request before for the LT1 and I believe already implemented it there in the next batch (not sure).
