Oshpark Projects

1808 posts / 0 new
Last post
Tom E
Tom E's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 22 min ago
Joined: 08/19/2012 - 08:23
Posts: 14991
Location: LI NY

On that BLF 17DD-Zener Revision 2, Mattaus put it up on June 1st, looks like, but I don't see any discussions on it? Probably too early for someone to test these? Were Rev 1's tested? I like the layout - better than the zener diode piggybacking the cap. On a BLF17DD I just built up, I mounted the zener diode laying on its side on the inside of the cap -- looks clear of possible spring mount.

DB Custom
DB Custom's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 6 days ago
Joined: 01/13/2013 - 22:28
Posts: 20733
Location: Heart of Texas

The only change I can see on Rev 2 is a slight shift of the Zener diode with larger solder pads. My original BLF17DD Z is exactly the same except for that one component. I’ve used several of them and like how they work. I AM finding though that some of the components on these boards tend to be very close to the outer edges of the board, possibly making contact with the shelf in the pill that is normally used for grounding purposes. Just have to make sure that shelf is very narrow and doesn’t cause conflict.

I had also been laying the Zener on it’s side around the cap instead of stacking it, for the clearance and ease of soldering. I’ve been using pretty much nothing but BLF boards since all this started, on everything. I DID utilize a Qlite once recently and had thoughts that I might have forgotten how to stack a chip…

RMM
RMM's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 9 months ago
Joined: 07/23/2013 - 13:47
Posts: 4006
Location: USA

Tom E wrote:

On that BLF 17DD-Zener Revision 2, Mattaus put it up on June 1st, looks like, but I don't see any discussions on it? Probably too early for someone to test these? Were Rev 1's tested? I like the layout - better than the zener diode piggybacking the cap. On a BLF17DD I just built up, I mounted the zener diode laying on its side on the inside of the cap -- looks clear of possible spring mount.

They both work, but Rev 2 works with the SOD-123 diodes that we normally use; on the first version I was still stacking on the capacitor.  The main reason for these is low voltage monitoring, otherwise the BLF17DD is the same deal. 

Mountain Electronics : batteries, Noctigon, and much more! What's new? 

wight
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 8 months ago
Joined: 11/27/2013 - 16:40
Posts: 4969
Location: Virginia, USA

RBD, there is a typo in the OP: "changed diode from SO-323 to SOD-123 and relocated star2".  The old component should be SOD-323

Thanks!

Still fine, still on a break. One day I’ll catch up with you folks! previous wight catchup Wink
list of my drivers & variants (A17DD, FET+1 stuff, WIP stuff, etc)

Rufusbduck
Rufusbduck's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 04/04/2012 - 15:34
Posts: 10389
Location: Golden state

wight wrote:

RBD, there is a typo in the OP: “changed diode from SO-323 to SOD-123 and relocated star2”.  The old component should be SOD-323

Thanks!


Oh no! Oops I’ll fix it. I think I was just copying the info on the Oshpark link. Thanks for picking that up. I had wondered about it at the time but don’t know enough about components for that level of editing.

Three Tanna leaves to give him life, nine to give him movement. But what if he eats the whole bag?

Scott

Tom E
Tom E's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 22 min ago
Joined: 08/19/2012 - 08:23
Posts: 14991
Location: LI NY

DBCstm wrote:
The only change I can see on Rev 2 is a slight shift of the Zener diode with larger solder pads. My original BLF17DD Z is exactly the same except for that one component. I've used several of them and like how they work. I AM finding though that some of the components on these boards tend to be very close to the outer edges of the board, possibly making contact with the shelf in the pill that is normally used for grounding purposes. Just have to make sure that shelf is very narrow and doesn't cause conflict. I had also been laying the Zener on it's side around the cap instead of stacking it, for the clearance and ease of soldering. I've been using pretty much nothing but BLF boards since all this started, on everything. I DID utilize a Qlite once recently and had thoughts that I might have forgotten how to stack a chip...

K, thanks! Funny, I just did the same exact thing - laying the diode on it's side.

See my new BLF17DD ref thread: http://budgetlightforum.com/node/32186. You and several others I'm sure don't need it now, but I'm trying to keep an online ref, specially for those this is all new to. If you notice anything amiss or may be needed there, shoot me a pm. Trying to keep the thread uncluttered. But the idea is to use the OP as a one source reference for the BLF17DD versions.

Tom E
Tom E's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 22 min ago
Joined: 08/19/2012 - 08:23
Posts: 14991
Location: LI NY

RMM wrote:

Tom E wrote:

On that BLF 17DD-Zener Revision 2, Mattaus put it up on June 1st, looks like, but I don't see any discussions on it? Probably too early for someone to test these? Were Rev 1's tested? I like the layout - better than the zener diode piggybacking the cap. On a BLF17DD I just built up, I mounted the zener diode laying on its side on the inside of the cap -- looks clear of possible spring mount.

They both work, but Rev 2 works with the SOD-123 diodes that we normally use; on the first version I was still stacking on the capacitor.  The main reason for these is low voltage monitoring, otherwise the BLF17DD is the same deal. 

Hhhmm. Low voltage monitoring? What do you mean exactly? Is the SOD-123 diode the one you provide in your zener kit? The SOD-323 is the standard one used in the FET driver, and Nanjg/Qlite I assume?

Rufusbduck
Rufusbduck's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 04/04/2012 - 15:34
Posts: 10389
Location: Golden state

Zener mods typically disable low voltage monitoring since the 19.1k resistor is the wrong value for a higher voltage and the Zener latches the input voltage so that the mcu no longer “sees” the battery. Separating the voltage divider from the Zener allows the mcu to once again monitor the battery voltage as it drops and only requires a new correct value for R1 to read it correctly.

Three Tanna leaves to give him life, nine to give him movement. But what if he eats the whole bag?

Scott

Tom E
Tom E's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 22 min ago
Joined: 08/19/2012 - 08:23
Posts: 14991
Location: LI NY

Ok, soooo, wut does this mean? I think I might understand you, but I'm very confused... I didn't realize voltage monitoring didn't work with applying a zener mod kit, or did it? To Nanjg/Qlites or FET based?

comfychair
comfychair's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 7 months ago
Joined: 01/12/2013 - 05:39
Posts: 6198

Tom E wrote:

Ok, soooo, wut does this mean? I think I might understand you, but I'm very confused... I didn't realize voltage monitoring didn't work with applying a zener mod kit, or did it? To Nanjg/Qlites or FET based?

With the zener, the MCU's voltage stays the same whether the battery voltage is 8v or 6v or 5.5v. It wouldn't see the actual battery voltage until it dropped below the limit set by the zener... and by that point the voltage would be far too low to be safe for two cells in series. The MCU would still kick in the protection only at the original 2.8-3v, which would be 1.4-1.5v per cell.

Rufusbduck
Rufusbduck's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 04/04/2012 - 15:34
Posts: 10389
Location: Golden state

It’s true of any Zener modded nanjg board. It’s been know about but nobody bothered with it. Now, with the advent of the FET mods opening up more board space combined with the enthusiasm for new boards it got done. RMM and others worked up getting the layout corrected and new value(s) for R1/R2. The Zener can still limit the input voltage to the mcu while a new trace layout bypasses the diode to the voltage divider allowing the mcu to once again detect the change in battery voltage as it drains.

Three Tanna leaves to give him life, nine to give him movement. But what if he eats the whole bag?

Scott

Cereal_killer
Cereal_killer's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 11 months ago
Joined: 07/22/2013 - 13:10
Posts: 4005
Location: Ohio

So the big question, does it work with 3 cells?

 RIP  SPC Joey Riley, KIA 11/24/14. Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.

wight
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 8 months ago
Joined: 11/27/2013 - 16:40
Posts: 4969
Location: Virginia, USA

Cereal_killer wrote:
So the big question, does it work with 3 cells?
Why not? The zener can handle it, I don’t think you even need to adjust the 200-Ohm resistor. You’ve got to select your voltage divider resistors correctly for LVP though. Calculator.

Still fine, still on a break. One day I’ll catch up with you folks! previous wight catchup Wink
list of my drivers & variants (A17DD, FET+1 stuff, WIP stuff, etc)

Tom E
Tom E's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 22 min ago
Joined: 08/19/2012 - 08:23
Posts: 14991
Location: LI NY

Scott - I'm really confused now... Are you saying a zener version of the board has a different R1 and R2 valued resistors? Is this defined anywhere? I was wondering what the new R1, R2, R3, R4, and R5 values are to use on the BLF17DD-Zener Rev 2. Is this defined anywhere? I was figuring I had to trace the routes to figure out part assignment. I thought resistor values could change, or the firmware could change to adjust thresholds.

Tom E
Tom E's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 22 min ago
Joined: 08/19/2012 - 08:23
Posts: 14991
Location: LI NY

wight wrote:
Cereal_killer wrote:
So the big question, does it work with 3 cells?
Why not? The zener can handle it, I don't think you even need to adjust the 200-Ohm resistor. You've got to select your voltage divider resistors correctly for LVP though. "Calculator":http://www.raltron.com/cust/tools/voltage_divider.asp.[/quote]

Yes - Richard's Super Shocker is 3 cells, 3 LED's in series using a zener mod driver. Others built 3S/3S zener lights as well. It's my plan, eventually...

Cereal_killer
Cereal_killer's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 11 months ago
Joined: 07/22/2013 - 13:10
Posts: 4005
Location: Ohio

Sorry, to specify I was talking about specifically the voltage monitor with 3s, I actually just finished up a 3s cell / 3s emitter light myself so I know it works but being able to figure out LVP would really be a nice touch.

 RIP  SPC Joey Riley, KIA 11/24/14. Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.

wight
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 8 months ago
Joined: 11/27/2013 - 16:40
Posts: 4969
Location: Virginia, USA

Tom E wrote:
<P>
wight wrote:
Cereal_killer wrote:
So the big question, does it work with 3 cells?
Why not? The zener can handle it, I don't think you even need to adjust the 200-Ohm resistor. You've got to select your voltage divider resistors correctly for LVP though. "Calculator":http://www.raltron.com/cust/tools/voltage_divider.asp.
</P>

<P>Yes - Richard's Super Shocker is 3 cells, 3 LED's in series using a zener mod driver. Others built 3S/3S zener lights&nbsp;as well. It's my plan, eventually...</P>[/quote]

Cereal_killer wrote:
Sorry, to specify I was talking about specifically the voltage monitor with 3s, I actually just finished up a 3s cell / 3s emitter light myself so I know it works but being able to figure out LVP would really be a nice touch.
I've got you now guys.  The short answer is yes, LVP can work with multi-cell zener setups.  It doesn't just happen though - we use a voltage divider and that must be setup correctly.  You don't need any math to get the job done, or understanding either actually.  You just need to know what to punch into the calculator I mentioned earlier:  http://www.raltron.com/cust/tools/voltage_divider.asp

You know the voltage you want to shutdown at the light (2.9v per cell, 3v per cell, whatever... those would be 8.7v and 9v respectively in 3s setups).  The stock values used in the STAR firmware will shutdown the light at around 0.5v coming out of the divider, but I do not know the exact value.  RBD put some effort into it but I don't recall if we came up with a precise value.  0.513-0.517v may be about right for shutdown (not rampdown).  To calculate the resistors for the divider, put in 3 values and the calc will give you the fourth, for example:
Input Voltage - 8.7
R1   - ?
R2   - 4700
Output Voltage  - 0.513

That yields an R1 value of 75007.6 Ohms.

If you want to use the calculator to simulate the original Nanjg 105c divider, you must remember one more thing.  In that setup there is a protection diode which reduces battery voltage before it hits the divider.  You must subtract that diode's Vf value from the input voltage before running the calculation (Vf is in the neighborhood of 0.25v to 0.4v, look at RBD's thread linked above for more info).

RBD or RMM may chime in with more specifics about the actual working resistor values or a more precise "output" voltage than what I wrote.  I haven't done much work on this myself.  

Still fine, still on a break. One day I’ll catch up with you folks! previous wight catchup Wink
list of my drivers & variants (A17DD, FET+1 stuff, WIP stuff, etc)

Rufusbduck
Rufusbduck's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 04/04/2012 - 15:34
Posts: 10389
Location: Golden state

Wight and I were knocking our heads together over this. On a standard 105C board the reverse polarity diode is in the circuit with the voltage divider so some voltage is dropped across D1, then more across R1 and the remainder across R2. The mcu compares the voltage drop across R2 with an internal reference voltage and does what it’s programmed to do. The ratio of R1 and R2 determine the battery voltage at which the mcu is triggered. With one cell, 19.1k ohms and 4.7k ohms provide the correct trigger voltage. With two cells I came up with ~48k for R1 if I leave R2 at 4.7K. For three cells R1 will be an even larger value.

I checked using 8.7v input, 4700 for R2, and .5v for the trigger and got 77080 ohms.

As you can see from the slight difference between me and wight a higher value resistor will cause the mcu to trigger sooner than a lower value one. The next step is to go to online and see what values are available and pick one. If you are using unprotected cells in series I would recommend erring on the high side.

This is still relatively new ground and not much testing has been done or documented with different value resistors so proceed with caution.

Also, the internal reference voltage of the attiny13A is noted for being only accurate to within 10% and while this may not be a problem with one cell it could make a situation with unbalanced cells even worse. If you go with 3 cells then test the actual battery voltage which the mcu triggers as you might need to adjust R1 up or down in value to compensate. And please post your results. More data is needed.

The Zener mod is a very clever adaptation but it seems a bit of a shoehorn in design. I’ll use it since for now it’s unique for its size/power but I’ll be watching for alternatives.

Three Tanna leaves to give him life, nine to give him movement. But what if he eats the whole bag?

Scott

Tom E
Tom E's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 22 min ago
Joined: 08/19/2012 - 08:23
Posts: 14991
Location: LI NY

Thanks! So for this board: mtnelectronics - FET MT-G2, Richard worked that all out for two cells because he says it has low voltage shutoff and rampdown? Does it matter what the LED's driven are (ie: 2 XM-L2's or 1 MT-G2)?

Does he use a different value R1 or did he change the firmware?

Rufusbduck
Rufusbduck's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 04/04/2012 - 15:34
Posts: 10389
Location: Golden state

Not sure what RMM did but if he says it works then bank on it. 2 XML in series or 1 mtg shouldn’t matter to the board. By changing both R1 and R2 and adjusting the firmware it might be possible to improve the accuracy but that’s a tad beyond me just now.

Three Tanna leaves to give him life, nine to give him movement. But what if he eats the whole bag?

Scott

Tom E
Tom E's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 hour 22 min ago
Joined: 08/19/2012 - 08:23
Posts: 14991
Location: LI NY

Ohh - ok, hopefully he will enlighten us mere mortals Smile. Absolutely I believe him, just thought maybe he published the "how" and I missed it. I think his testing is the most thorough around. I'm thinking he worked it out for 2 cells (MT-G2) and 3 cells (Super Shocker). I feel bad bugging him - busy guy to say the least...

Rufusbduck
Rufusbduck's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 04/04/2012 - 15:34
Posts: 10389
Location: Golden state

Were all here to help. I’ve only really encountered the “shut up and do a search, boob” on that other forum. And since it’s about one of his products he shouldn’t mind. If he did alter the firmware then you probably should not use his values for R1/R2 as a guide for your own mods.

Three Tanna leaves to give him life, nine to give him movement. But what if he eats the whole bag?

Scott

DB Custom
DB Custom's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 6 days ago
Joined: 01/13/2013 - 22:28
Posts: 20733
Location: Heart of Texas

Gosh, and I thought we were still on drivers!

wight
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 8 months ago
Joined: 11/27/2013 - 16:40
Posts: 4969
Location: Virginia, USA

DBCstm wrote:
Gosh, and I thought we were still on drivers!
I’m sure there’s a joke in there somewhere about improving your drive Wink

Still fine, still on a break. One day I’ll catch up with you folks! previous wight catchup Wink
list of my drivers & variants (A17DD, FET+1 stuff, WIP stuff, etc)

DB Custom
DB Custom's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 6 days ago
Joined: 01/13/2013 - 22:28
Posts: 20733
Location: Heart of Texas

I’m a knucklehead. Won’t even begin the discussion on early termination here…

By the way, any luck with the Knucklehead? Is that going anywhere? I have a light that seems well made for an MT-G2, with a new breed of that emitter inbound I’m thinking of using my existing Knucklehead in a light with the big boy. It was working on the bench, just have to make sure I sink it good. This will be a piggyback I’m sure, so I’ll just leave the chunk of copper on it and maybe see if I can swing more while I’m at it. Might as well have a working light with it, as compared to the working model driver sitting in a box. If all goes well, this will be in the well built MAXToch SN51. Wink

Rufusbduck
Rufusbduck's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: 04/04/2012 - 15:34
Posts: 10389
Location: Golden state

I had to suspend work on assembling a heat sink augmented board when my magnifying lamp broke. I’d like to replace it with one that has a larger, more powerful lens Sounds like everyone else is ready to throw in the towel but I just can’t do that yet. This chip needs a good sink attached to the vias under the solder pad and until one is built that way I don’t see how we can determine how much current it can deliver. Your heat sink was good Dale but secured to the top of the case it wouldn’t be nearly as effective as one attached to the solder pad. Also, given that this is a development project I wonder if it makes any sense to start with a slightly larger board and pare it down to size once it’s working properly. A 20 mm driver would still get used anyway. Sort of a knucklehead family of buck drivers like the TinyXX and DD drivers.

Three Tanna leaves to give him life, nine to give him movement. But what if he eats the whole bag?

Scott

comfychair
comfychair's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 7 months ago
Joined: 01/12/2013 - 05:39
Posts: 6198

Let's have a discussion of the potential pros/cons of this:

http://75.65.123.78/driverhacks/Dsc08121.jpg

It would be a tight squeeze with a full size spring, but a stumpy one like on the 105C would be no problem. MCU, diode, cap, & voltage divider resistors would all go on the battery side, with only the FET & gate/pulldown* resistors on the top. Splitting the components like that would require the fewest number of vias, though I don't know if the traces would be easier or harder because of that.

Reflashing without removing the driver from the pill - WANT!

*I'm wondering if the difference in behavior between the 17/20DD and the SRK is because of the MCU so close to the FET. Maybe putting them on opposite sides of the board would fix that, and do away with the need for the silly gate/pulldown resistors altogether. Is it worth a shot?

DB Custom
DB Custom's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 6 days ago
Joined: 01/13/2013 - 22:28
Posts: 20733
Location: Heart of Texas

Short 5/16” brass pillar for the contact, leave one spring at the switch end to maintain snug battery contact. This would make a small contact pad on the board, plenty of room for electronics, even shifted or skewed sideways a bit for the traces. With a solid pillar for contact, no chance of compressing the positive spring (nonexistent) to cause a short.

Cereal_killer
Cereal_killer's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 11 months ago
Joined: 07/22/2013 - 13:10
Posts: 4005
Location: Ohio

@ comfychair-

I love the idea, I wonder tho (ignoring the part about it possible running better with the MCU moved away from the FET, just thinking about flashing with the diver in place) is it really necessary to move it, you wouldn’t be able to use a clip but what are the chances of just adding trace’s & via’s wherever they fit without a total redesign to allow bare [male] header pins to be inserted into 6 via’s from the batt side and flash it that way? It’d take a little more thinking than simply orientating the clip one of two ways but I think that would still be better than having to uninstall the driver each time you need to flash. The one issue would be the off-time cap needing removed but you could install it from the programming via on the bottom.

 RIP  SPC Joey Riley, KIA 11/24/14. Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.

comfychair
comfychair's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 7 months ago
Joined: 01/12/2013 - 05:39
Posts: 6198

DBCstm wrote:
Short 5/16" brass pillar for the contact, leave one spring at the switch end to maintain snug battery contact. This would make a small contact pad on the board, plenty of room for electronics, even shifted or skewed sideways a bit for the traces. With a solid pillar for contact, no chance of compressing the positive spring (nonexistent) to cause a short.

I don't like a spring on only one end. Far too easy to break contact at the front by bumping the tailcap, even with a fairly mean spring. With a spring at both ends (even when the one at the front is far stiffer and with less travel - or the exact opposite, one spring really soft that compresses fully or nearly so) the cell 'floats' between the two springs and never breaks contact. It works best with one spring really stiff, like the stumpy 105C spring, otherwise if both springs are soft the cell moving around makes the light feel bouncy when you bump it in either direction.

 

Cereal_killer wrote:
@ comfychair- I love the idea, I wonder tho (ignoring the part about it possible running better with the MCU moved away from the FET, just thinking about flashing with the diver in place) is it really necessary to move it, you wouldn't be able to use a clip but what are the chances of just adding trace's & via's wherever they fit without a total redesign to allow bare [male] header pins to be inserted into 6 via's from the batt side and flash it that way? It'd take a little more thinking than simply orientating the clip one of two ways but I think that would still be better than having to uninstall the driver each time you need to flash. The one issue would be the off-time cap needing removed but you could install it from the programming via on the bottom.

Clip would attach just fine if the board were designed for it, that pic is just an existing 17DD with the attiny plonked down in the approximate location.

Pages