“…….or me though, they MUST also work on Eneloop… which is why I would vote with my wallet, and return the bundle of Ti2 that you discovered is not Eneloop capable…”
to me it sounds like the positive on the battery is not reaching the positive on the driver.
because the battery is on a spring, the body tube can still move forward to contact the pill… unless arow55 is correctly solving an issue with the spring being at maximum compression, preventing body tube contact to negative ring on pill. If I understand arow55 correctly, his Ti2’s did not work until he cut the spring… I dont understand, but, if it works… well… maybe worth a try before returning the 10 pack.
I think (pure guessing without evidence yet), that the issue is because the eneloop positive post is wider and is hitting one of the parts on the driver. We confirmed by photo that the component is mounted slightly closer on the Ti2, than on my Olight i3e.
btw, the reason the components are on the battery side, is because the other side has the LED mounted directly to the board, no wires. imo the intent was to make the flattest driver possible. They did succeed at that.
whether the eneloop issue is spring length or positive post width, remains unclear to me
I would speculate that chipping the insulation off the component that is too close to the brass post on the driver, could enable a Ti2 to become eneloop friendly, without cutting the spring… I dont know if chips of insulation getting broken off by the battery, is the actual reason that arow55’s lights started working… Im glad he got them to work though, either way… Im not trying to doubt the report, that spring cutting was associated with a non eneloop friendly Ti2, becoming less prejudiced against phat posts.