If Eva Z. said that she is sadly mistaken. My Fluke meter does not lie, and there is a negative post on the positive side. If that is not considered custom, neither are the Olight batteries. In fact, I can’t think of any 21700 batteries that are custom, if those are not. They are the only 21700 batteries I have checked that will work in this light without modification or magnets…that is the definition of proprietary batteries. To be fair…all 21700 button top batteries or protected batteries are modified. The factories only make them flat top, and unprotected. The protection circuits, button tops, and negative terminals on the positive side are all 3rd party modifications.
I will add that all unmodified 21700 batteries are 21mm diamater and 70 mm in length…that is where the 21 700 comes from. 18650 batteries are 18mm diamater and 65mm length. These are closer to 22760 batteries. The added length is due to the button top and protection circuit and negative post. I suspect the added diamater is perhaps double wrapped. What can’t be said truthfully is that they are not modified, and with the negative post on the positive side they are heavily modified, and as shipped, proprietary.
So I just saw that Vinh @ Sky lumen has this posted for sale & mods. Vinh has this light listed @ 1.2mcd! And 2190 meters throw, listed as de lensed only. There is no stating any other mod beside de lense and his driver for one option, but he says the performance is the same with his driver and stock driver…
I don’t know Sarge if you have a way of measuring throw with a lux meter? Or if you even care to, but honestly if this light really throws 2190 meters or close to that with just a delense to the led (which we know only adds approximately 5% throw - so maybe 90 meters to claimed 1800m) then I would deal with the stupid batteries, because the head size is really a nice medium between MF02s v2 and k75, but 2190 is really good for the 105mm head size
I hope when someone else gets this they can confirm it throws even within 5% of 2190 meters? Because that is about 21% more throw then the claimed 1800 meters, and would make this light a REALLY great performer. That is the same throw as the mf04 with xhp35, but with a 30mm smaller head! And twice the lumens!
What is de lensed? I have heard of de domed, but this has no dome that I can see. I doubt seriously this light could throw 2190 meters. The reflector is not as deep as the TN42, which is why it only out throws the TN42 by about 300 meters. It is a wider, brighter center spot though, and I think it has more spill. I wish they had just put the same emmitter in the TN42 body. The deeper reflector would likely reach that higher throw with the TN42 reflector. I also have the mf04, and it out throws this light by a good bit…I actually compared them last night. I do not have a lux meter, so can’t measure candella.
These batteries will be available on the store soon for US customers first. I just saw a FB post about them.
Since I modified the light, I do not need the thrunite batteries. It would just be a hassle having to cover the idiotic negative post on them. I can forgive Olight for their similar modification, because at least their added negative on the positive side serves a purpose with their magnetic charger and remote pressure switches. Having to add a plastic insulator in the head to prevent the unnecessary negative post shorting is just idiotic. Thrunite techs…if you read this…don’t add a negative post to batteries that does not have a functional purpose. Maybe you could have used the added savings to have better battery level indicator or smooth ramping.
no buck driver? this light is getting least interesting day after day
The SBT90.2 has a glass window in front of the LEDdie for protection, aka a lens.
Interesting….begs the question…protection from what? The led is already enclosed by the glass and reflector and the flashlight body. Seems like manufacturers would themselves remove the lens to increase the performance in such a competitive business. Are there statistics that point to much higher led failure once the lens is removed?
Eva Z. Clarification below.
Hello Robert,
sorry for my mistake
Yes, it is bipolar 21700 battery. I checked with our engineer.
the length is 76mm, with protected circuit board.
the unprotected battery may not perform safe for the high drain light, so we add the protected circuit board
Just like dedoming, there is risk of damage to the extremely delicate die leads.
Any LED failure will come from something falling on or touching the die/leads.
Manufacturers don’t like voiding warranties by modifying parts and increasing the number of failures/defects in the production line.
The true test is can you charge them in a standard desktop charger. If you can’t, they are proprietary and should be avoided.
It would be very dangerous to charge these in a normal charger, since chargers often are made for multiple sizes of cells and the positive terminal is not just a button but rather a rectangle, and if it has raised points it could contact both the positive and negative terminals of the batteries at the same time since they are on the same side, shoring the cell.
You can’t without risking shorting due to the negative on the positive side. Once I modified the modified battery with insulators I could.
Once again, that too is not exactly correct. The high current drain is not the issue requiring protected cells. The fact that these 4 batteries are in parallel with common positive and negative termination points is the issue with unprotected cells. In such a setup, an internal short in any 1 battery would cause the other 3 to overheat badly, perhaps even catch on fire, even with the light off. 4x21700 high drain batteries provide way more current that this led requires. That is not the case with an internal short of 1 battery which effectively completes the circuit with a 0 resistence load. I would not recommend even a 2 cell light having unprotected batteries, but 4 cells might burn someones house down as they sleep. With 1 cell, the protection can be in the lights PCB. I had no issue with protected batteries. The idiotic negative termination point on the positive side serving no purpose, was my issue with the design. As designed that negative only touches an insulator, so there is no reason for it to be there. I was an electrician/mechanical troubleshooter so I know electronics. The only really safe means of protecting 4 cells in the light itself would require 4 seperate termination points to the lights circuits.
Or just use a mechanical lockout, by unscrewing the tube or tail half a turn.
I feel that just had those protected cells already designed and wanted to use them rather than getting new ones made.
Mechanical lockout might avert disaster if using unprotected cells, because in truth, during use an internal short of the battery would make the light too hot to hold before venting. In that case, you could then unscrew the head or toss the light a safe distance away. I know in my case, I would at some point forget. Now I should stress that only an internal short of a battery would cause such an issue, and that is admittedly a fairly rare event, so chances are better than not, it would not happen. The potential is there however. It is sort of like failing to change batteries in a smoke alarm, most would get away with that, but such oversite can, and has cost lives. In both cases, it is not worth the risk to life or losing your house, IMO.
Probably the case, there may very well be other Thrunite lights that actuallly use the negative post on the positive side. Using them in this light made them very proprietary, whether that was their intent or not. The removal of the insulator, and adding 20 cents worth of insulator to the batteries fixed the issue, so not a big deal for someone who is aware of the issue, and knows about the fix. I don’t really like how close those negative screws are to the positive ring, but my fluke meter indicates that it is not touching, showing high mega-ohms resistence, so it is safe, in spite of how close it looks. It was close enough for me to check that prior to putting the batteries in.
Excuse me my ignorance, but i see you ranting about unprotected cells.
You do know you’re on BLF here?
You do know about the BLF Q8?
And many other lights that use the same principle?