interested!

The only thing we would really need to make it work with the Q8 would be the thread pitch and size, that is fairly simple to figure out once people get them.

The hard part is the CAD design for the reflector itself. If someone could get a workable cad design for the reflector then the rest should be fairly simple. Could even 3D print a prototype for testing and cover it in mylar or other reflector coating for testing.

I have no idea how to calculate / figure out the shape of the reflector though. It would need to spring the light as evenly as possible in a 360 degree Field of view and have a sharp cutoff horizontally to keep from blinding yourself. Totally possible but also fairly advanced reflector design..

this is a lantern.
The proto looks a bit longer because DBSAR used a SRK, lots of space is not needed and the charging and powerbank functionality are sweet.
Made well this is much more sturdy then a diffuser , handy while camping.
The big Q8 output is not needed, so the led driving part can be made with less components, freeing space for the nifty camping features.

The Miller wrote:

The big Q8 output is not needed, so the led driving part can be made with less components, freeing space for the nifty camping features.

The existing driver is already as compact as you will get expect for going to a newer MCU that doesn’t have any firmware right now. In fact this light should really use a buck driver for higher efficiency but that will take up significantly more space then the existing driver.

Lantern with power bank functionality, that takes 4×18650 cells and ideally has other functions gets my vote for the next project.

ideas for other features
waterproof slot for matches, usb cables etc
12v input
Timer to off or moonlight mode
threaded base for tripod mount
flap or curtain for creating a shadow side, ideally reflective for more output to the other side.

Ah, the new photos show something that looks very much like a Q8 with a light handler on top. This is what I thought was being suggested way back.

I would suggest that such a configuration is not a waste of a Q8, but a more flexible implementation. I would recommend thinking about an attachment between a Q8 and the lamp diffuser that does not involve threading. Simply using a clamping mechanism of some sort would allow a simple and quick way to move between lantern and raw Q8. Best of both worlds. And allows rapidly going from werewolf target identifier to werewolf locator. Sorry, I am reading a werewolf series that is quite good; it just spilled over a bit here..

Still anxiously awaiting my Q8…but lets not forget a big part of what makes this light so amazing. It cost $40…go ahead say it out loud…forty dollars!

Keep it simple.

I think there’s definitely a market for DBSAR’s dedicated lantern design, Q8 attachments or not. Look at how popular Fenix’s lanterns are, for example. They’ve even been doing well enough to catch the attention of the generic manufacturers, who’ve clearly ripped off the design for themselves.

I am still very interested in this project.

Email send to Barry and DBSAR
1 to point Barry to this thread and urge Thorfire to make this high quality lantern
2 to provide DBSAR with the Q8 CAD files so he can do the design, show Thorfire and us what is the plan with some pictures.

Quote:

This lantern prototype uses a Nanjq Q-Lite driver which has moonlight mode, ( then Low,medium, & High) on moonlight it will run for over a month.

I could have worded it better, what I meant was the ability to set a timer so that it maintains current light output, then at the end of the timer goes to either off, or moonlight, whichever was selected.

This is something ideal for camping, so you can read in a sleeping bag until too sleepy to want to get up to turn off the light, which will wake you (and others with a noisy zipper) up anyway, and have the light turn off by itself, or revert to a night-light function if you do not want complete darkness.

Wait didn’t TK do things with timers?
Gonna point her to this post.

DBSAR, driver software needed things?
e switch
moon yes no
low 5%, med 40%, high 100% (or ramp?)
memory yes no
reverse by long click yes no
voltage readout
timer setting 1 light on, dimming after X time
timer setting 2 light off, slowly turn on after X time
sideswitch, beacon or off

this lantern seems very nice, subscribing so I can buy it in the future. Thanks for all the hard work.

Glad this thread is getting some action again. I’m definitely still interested in this and would also prefer a finished, dedicated lantern instead of an accessory for my Q8.

I didn’t know this thread existed. I’m a bit behind on the specs and goals… but it’s a lantern head for the Q8 body? Screw-on bezel attachment for a lantern-style diffuser? The driver is a Q8 driver, with FET+1 and e-switch and tiny85? Whole new light?

I’ve been using a “good night” mode on my lights for years, and was recently pondering adding an alarm clock mode. I doubt it would be a stretch to make something designed for lantern-style use.

The upside of a big MCU like the tiny85 is it has plenty of space for cool features. The downside is that it draws more power, so moon mode won’t last as long. Unless I can find a way to reduce operating power, but I don’t expect to find huge improvements there.

If it’s using an e-switch and Q8 driver, I could make firmware for it pretty quickly. If it’s new hardware it’ll take longer.

New light
I THINK best if it is sharing tube, tail and switch of the Q8.
Same bottom side of Q8 head, so same switch and tripod mount location but above that all new head.
And a new driver so a lower power using MCU is preferred for it is not a lumen monster at all. Runtime rules. I think DBSAR aims for 500 lumens, maybe even less from a single led.
But it is his project so he can say it much better

If it shares tube, tail and switch it’s still possible to have connections for charging etc. on the (under)side of the head, so definately sounds interesting.
Would also make it cheaper and easier for getting Thorfire interested in producing it.

My best paint skills :

For some reason I kind of expect DBSAR to do the connectors on the same flat as the tripod mount, so a rubber flap can be securely bolted to the tripod mount.
But of course it is up to him, he has the CAD files to go wild

LOL, is this the same “The_Miller” as before? I think I read probably 20 of your posts before realizing the new avatar and username were you.

sac02 wrote:

LOL, is this the same “The_Miller” as before? I think I read probably 20 of your posts before realizing the new avatar and username were you.

I think a nice idea would be to have a second tailcap, that way USB ports and coiled up charging cables can be secured in an already waterproof area. Drawback Is of course tailstand, unless the lantern has tuck-away legs. Diagram looks a bit unstable without legs anyway.

The Miller wrote:

username is still the same …

What?! No…

It used to be “The_Miller”… right?

Now it is “The Miller”

Or am I crazy?

edit: I am crazy.

I just used the wayback machine to look at an old cached version and it was “The Miller”. Why in the world did I think it was The_Miller?

The Miller wrote:

For some reason I kind of expect DBSAR to do the connectors on the same flat as the tripod mount, so a rubber flap can be securely bolted to the tripod mount. But of course it is up to him, he has the CAD files to go wild

I think for a lantern/camp light, water resistance/proof is more important that a typical EDC. I wouldn’t mind seeing connectors protected by something more robust than the typical loose friction fit flap.

edit: I just re-read your post – were you suggesting somehow using the tripod mount as a positive engagement point for securing the connector cover? I like that

Is having the charging port in the tail causing an electronic design problem? (like the need for an extra electrical connection from driver to tail?)

Some bright ideas Zulumoose! And I can understand the tripod mount being more handy on the underside, and thinking of that, if the tailcap is made a bit longer it can both house the tripod hole in the middle and on the inside space around the tripod-hole-pillar for a charging cable. (or a chunky ring magnet ) The silvered shade sounds useful too.

sac02 wrote:

The Miller wrote:

For some reason I kind of expect DBSAR to do the connectors on the same flat as the tripod mount, so a rubber flap can be securely bolted to the tripod mount. But of course it is up to him, he has the CAD files to go wild

I think for a lantern/camp light, water resistance/proof is more important that a typical EDC. I wouldn’t mind seeing connectors protected by something more robust than the typical loose friction fit flap.

edit: I just re-read your post – were you suggesting somehow using the tripod mount as a positive engagement point for securing the connector cover? I like that

https://www.banggood.com/14-Inch-Male-to-14-Inch-Female-Screw-Adapter-Fo...

Djoz, I think keeping the electronics on driver board makes a lot of sense, being a lantern tail standing is natural position
And there is space on the driver boards.
Use it with 3 cells and cables can go in the area for fourth cell

Zulumoose wrote:

ideas for other features:

1. waterproof slot for matches, usb cables etc
2. 12v input
3. Timer to off or moonlight mode
4. threaded base for tripod mount
5. flap or curtain for creating a shadow side, ideally reflective for more output to the other side

Per the Cree datasheets, 700ma through a U5 XP-L is about 265Lm.

In real world use that is plenty of light to sufficiently illuminate a small outdoor campsite or large room indoors. And I do think 250 or less will be the most commonly used level of the lantern. But I also think that it would be nice to have higher outputs (I mean, this is BLF after all) of maybe 500Lm available somehow.

What kind of driver did you have in mind for the production light, did you want it to be 7135-based?

If it is 7135 based, the PCB could easily be designed to accept additional 7135’s so that even if the production light shipped with 2*7135, the mod-minded users could add one or two more.

There you go..
A smaller MCU, less parts GLR driving the led, leaving lots of space for the cool charging and powerbank functions on the driver board.