I’d suggest using thermal regulation, but that’s physically not doable on this light.
However, if it’s an issue, one thing we can do is set the default ceiling values to a sane level… and then only turbo will be hotter. In practice, what that looks like is having a regular set of modes, plus one. So if it has modes 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 in the normal range, turbo would only be 6 on a visual scale. It doesn’t look much brighter, even if there’s a significant temperature difference.
Maybe i may ask Toykeeper to see if its possible to program the firmware to step down a mode after 30 minutes if it got to hot if set at 1.75 amps on high.
I thought that firmware have thermal control, isn’t it?
Thermal sensor should be it top part.
On the other hand it is not good for lamp if it change output from every gust of wind.
I think the best decision is one direction temperature control
I thought that firmware have thermal control, isn’t it?
Thermal sensor should be it top part.
The firmware has thermal regulation, but it won’t work in the lantern. The sensor is built into the MCU, which is in the middle section of the light. So it cannot sense LED temperature. They are too far apart.
An external sensor doesn’t work either, because the MCU has no pins left.
Maybe we could still use this internal sensor to automatically adjust the ceiling based on the ambiant temperature, but I think that a lamp this size shouldn’t have problems cooling a thousand lumens with a few cooling fins added. If that isn’t sufficient we could maybe try to use the center bolt as a heatpipe to the lower section and use it for cooling as well.
I also thought about this.
Central bolt made of steel it is bad heatpipe. But we can add copper pipe around the bolt. This also increase crushing strength of construction.
For example pipe d=10mm h=50mm thicknesses 2mm take 10W(definitely more than thermal power of lamp) with dt=20C.
Non-aholics run stuff wide open all the time .They have no concept of runtime and have the brighter is better mentality .Pretty sure this light was never intended on becoming a lumen monster .
Non-aholics run stuff wide open all the time .They have no concept of runtime and have the brighter is better mentality .Pretty sure this light was never intended on becoming a lumen monster .
Non-aholics run stuff wide open all the time .They have no concept of runtime and have the brighter is better mentality .Pretty sure this light was never intended on becoming a lumen monster .
Runtime/UI /tint and cri are my top concerns .
If you need more light …buy two
you mean you don’t want a lantern that so bright it gives you a tan at 0000hrs??? why the heck not?
—
Caving, Climbing, Mountaineering, Kayaking, Diving etc any time anywhere!!! If you in the UK let me know and lets Play!
Current lighting
Olight X7R,M2R,S1 Baton,S10R Baton 3m,S2R 2, I1R EOS,SofirnC8T,Lenser P7'2,Lenser P14,BLF A6,Fenix HL50,HM50R,HL55,CL05,HL05,CL09,CL25,Nitecore HC30,HC65,NU12,NU32,Astolux K1,Petzl E-light,Tikka Xp3,XP3LED,DUO,Atomlight,Xtar Warboys H3,PL47 Manker E03H and many Chinese ones
I also thought about this.
Central bolt made of steel it is bad heatpipe. But we can add copper pipe around the bolt. This also increase crushing strength of construction.
I think the goal is to build the lantern so it has enough thermal mass and surface area for its power level, so it physically cannot overheat during normal use. A heat pipe from the top to the middle might help increase the thermal capacity, if necessary. But we don’t know yet if it is necessary. Maybe if it has a maximum power level around 1.5A, it might not need any more changes.
I don’t really have a good solution for heat on this light, aside from just trying it to see what works. Perhaps some vertical fins on the top section could help increase surface area in a manner which encourages air to move even without a breeze. For example, when hanging inside a closed tent.
When used outside, it should be safer since the air is always moving at least a little.
I also thought about this.
Central bolt made of steel it is bad heatpipe. But we can add copper pipe around the bolt. This also increase crushing strength of construction.
I think the goal is to build the lantern so it has enough thermal mass and surface area for its power level, so it physically cannot overheat during normal use. A heat pipe from the top to the middle might help increase the thermal capacity, if necessary. But we don’t know yet if it is necessary. Maybe if it has a maximum power level around 1.5A, it might not need any more changes.
I don’t really have a good solution for heat on this light, aside from just trying it to see what works. Perhaps some vertical fins on the top section could help increase surface area in a manner which encourages air to move even without a breeze. For example, when hanging inside a closed tent.
When used outside, it should be safer since the air is always moving at least a little.
So far in my tests at 1.4 amps at the cells on maximum mode with the four LH351D LEDs the top of the lantern has not got to hot even after a hour running on max. ( no higher than 45 ~ 50 degrees) i doubt it still wouldn’t be a concern even with 1.6 amps considering the top is a large solid mass of aluminum.
—
That Canadian flashlight guy & Lantern Guru -Den / DBSARlight
I am increasingly mystified at what people are expecting from a useful practical efficient lantern.
The very concept of having a FET, and a “turbo” mode is utterly ridiculous. I hope I have mis-understood and that was just a naive poster spouting nonsense.
Higher power and better heatsinking could perhaps have been achieved by upward-firing LEDs from the body, the same as most other LED lanterns do it, but this is different. It fires down from the top. And it is a good decision I think. It ought to be capable of easily supporting four LEDs, if driven sensibly at their most efficient points. Not over-driven to ludicrous levels.
Which has been a key design decision, based on practical experimentation. And the correct way to go IMO for a practical lantern.
Don’t listen to the “max power, push the LEDs to the max. 30 seconds on turbo is great, let it burn” idiots. Balance in everything. This is not a torch, it’s a lantern, designed for the long-run. Don’t over-stress anything, keep it to manufacturers’ data sheet parameters, then it might be supremely reliable and out-last most of us.
PS: that does mean that a FET has no place in this driver, in case you missed that.
The very concept of having a FET, and a “turbo” mode is utterly ridiculous. I hope I have mis-understood and that was just a naive poster spouting nonsense.
The Emisar D4 is a hot rod. It can run at like 80 Watts with the right combination of battery and emitters. Its “turbo” is way beyond what it could actually sustain with such small mass. It could easily damage itself or start fires.
The BLF lantern is not a hot rod. It maxes out at around 6 to 10 Watts (TBD), and it has significantly more thermal mass. It may not have a “turbo” level, but if it does, it will probably mean that the temperature goes up to 25 C below the emitter’s rated operating temperature instead of 35 C below. It could potentially get hot enough to be uncomfortable to touch, but it’s very unlikely to cause any damage.
Tom Tom wrote:
PS: that does mean that a FET has no place in this driver, in case you missed that.
The FET-based driver uses a linear FET design to achieve constant regulated current. It is not direct-drive. Instead, it’s like two of led4power’s constant current drivers. They’re also based on a FET.
I personally prefer the 7135 version of the driver, but it’s not because of anything related to heat or brightness. It’s mostly because the 7135 version uses fewer pins, while the FET version sacrifices or complicates some features. For example, the FET version has no pin to control the button LED, because there was no room for it.
Yes practical illumination with efficient run time for this lantern please.
Max brightness lumen monsters can be trouble… I actually got chided by a camper once, they complained that my lantern was too bright for them in the next campsite like 75-100 feet away.
(Which is also why I seconded the adjustable shield request.)
Sorry I missed that development. Previously the driver was a 7135 based design AFAIK.
It’s good to see another controllable linear driver developed from discrete components, instead of just slapping down a bunch of AMCs and PWMing them.
How well does it behave ? e.g. dynamic range, moonlight or firefly ability, etc.
A schematic diagram would be of interest, but if that’s giving away a proprietary design, at least a functional block diagram.
From that layout you posted, my initial reaction for Lexel is that there are far too many, and too fine, thermal vias. surrounding the FET, and the USB charge regulator. As well as being costly to produce (drill wear and time) perforating the pcb like a sieve is counter-productive and mechanically weakening. If taken to the extreme, as here, you end up with more air than copper, and I predict one small bump would be enough to fracture the PCB, given that it has to support the full mass of the cells.
Also not happy about relying on the solder resist to insulate the brass ring from the ground plane beneath it at the top, once soldered on. It might work if you specified the solder resist to tent the vias, but it’s not good practice, given the possibility of a hard short to the battery, and most good PCB manufacturers will not tent vias, for legitimate reliability concerns.
Edit: PS: there are also vias in the pads of e.g. C7 and C11, and nearly one in R18, which is usually a no-no. Particularly in this case, when if solder enters the via it will increase the chance of it penetrating to the brass ring when it is fitted.
I think the goal is to build the lantern so it has enough thermal mass and surface area for its power level, so it physically cannot overheat during normal use. A heat pipe from the top to the middle might help increase the thermal capacity, if necessary. But we don’t know yet if it is necessary. Maybe if it has a maximum power level around 1.5A, it might not need any more changes.
From my experience top part defenitly not have enough surface area for 10w now.
Lamp may be used also indoor. So it should work normally at least at 30C and no moving air. I don’t want to check every 30 if is right temperature.
It is stupid not to use bottom part for cooling if it is possible. It allows to decrease overall mass and use thermal control.
It is stupid not to use bottom part for cooling if it is possible. It allows to decrease overall mass and use thermal control.
It is stupid if that is easy to design into the lantern and does not add cost, but I would not call it stupid if it does complicate the design and costs and if tests prove that it is not needed for function.
@Tom Tom, we are using the FET as a linear regulator, not in a direct drive setup.
..
BlueSwordM wrote:
Yes.
Sorry I missed that development. Previously the driver was a 7135 based design AFAIK.
It’s good to see another controllable linear driver developed from discrete components, instead of just slapping down a bunch of AMCs and PWMing them.
How well does it behave ? e.g. dynamic range, moonlight or firefly ability, etc.
A schematic diagram would be of interest, but if that’s giving away a proprietary design, at least a functional block diagram.
From that layout you posted, my initial reaction for Lexel is that there are far too many, and too fine, thermal vias. surrounding the FET, and the USB charge regulator. As well as being costly to produce (drill wear and time) perforating the pcb like a sieve is counter-productive and mechanically weakening. If taken to the extreme, as here, you end up with more air than copper, and I predict one small bump would be enough to fracture the PCB, given that it has to support the full mass of the cells.
Also not happy about relying on the solder resist to insulate the brass ring from the ground plane beneath it at the top, once soldered on. It might work if you specified the solder resist to tent the vias, but it’s not good practice, given the possibility of a hard short to the battery, and most good PCB manufacturers will not tent vias, for legitimate reliability concerns.
Edit: PS: there are also vias in the pads of e.g. C7 and C11, and nearly one in R18, which is usually a no-no. Particularly in this case, when if solder enters the via it will increase the chance of it penetrating to the brass ring when it is fitted.
Brass ring in latest version has also silk to cover the viases, practically the 0.3mm and 0.35mm viases will be for sure covered with 2 layers ink, there is no solder paste on the area so no risk if the bosrds have not huge silk and mask defects
We can always let in production also let them use Kapton tape for more security than that
Dynamic range with PWMing the FETOPAmps will be higher than with AMCs
Who cares if the fab has increased drill work
Even if it looks like swiss cheese those viases conduct heat much better than a simple copper plane on both sides, you see it a lot on boards with thermal load on it
I have let made MF03 board with this via density and it works, a test with MF02 with 0.3mm viases and less space between then did not fully cover with copper as it was more than 1000 per square inch, also 0.35mm viases work a lot better
also MCU with 14 pin might be an option to get all done
I’d suggest using thermal regulation, but that’s physically not doable on this light.
However, if it’s an issue, one thing we can do is set the default ceiling values to a sane level… and then only turbo will be hotter. In practice, what that looks like is having a regular set of modes, plus one. So if it has modes 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 in the normal range, turbo would only be 6 on a visual scale. It doesn’t look much brighter, even if there’s a significant temperature difference.
I thought that firmware have thermal control, isn’t it?
Thermal sensor should be it top part.
On the other hand it is not good for lamp if it change output from every gust of wind.
I think the best decision is one direction temperature control
The firmware has thermal regulation, but it won’t work in the lantern. The sensor is built into the MCU, which is in the middle section of the light. So it cannot sense LED temperature. They are too far apart.
An external sensor doesn’t work either, because the MCU has no pins left.
Maybe we could still use this internal sensor to automatically adjust the ceiling based on the ambiant temperature, but I think that a lamp this size shouldn’t have problems cooling a thousand lumens with a few cooling fins added. If that isn’t sufficient we could maybe try to use the center bolt as a heatpipe to the lower section and use it for cooling as well.
I also thought about this.
Central bolt made of steel it is bad heatpipe. But we can add copper pipe around the bolt. This also increase crushing strength of construction.
For example pipe d=10mm h=50mm thicknesses 2mm take 10W(definitely more than thermal power of lamp) with dt=20C.
Non-aholics run stuff wide open all the time .They have no concept of runtime and have the brighter is better mentality .Pretty sure this light was never intended on becoming a lumen monster .
Runtime/UI /tint and cri are my top concerns .
If you need more light ...buy two
καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει καὶ ἡ σκοτία αὐτὸ οὐ κατέλαβεν
Dc-fix diffuser film >… http://budgetlightforum.com/node/42208
you mean you don’t want a lantern that so bright it gives you a tan at 0000hrs??? why the heck not?
Caving, Climbing, Mountaineering, Kayaking, Diving etc any time anywhere!!! If you in the UK let me know and lets Play!
Current lighting
Olight X7R,M2R,S1 Baton,S10R Baton 3m,S2R 2, I1R EOS,SofirnC8T,Lenser P7'2,Lenser P14,BLF A6,Fenix HL50,HM50R,HL55,CL05,HL05,CL09,CL25,Nitecore HC30,HC65,NU12,NU32,Astolux K1,Petzl E-light,Tikka Xp3,XP3LED,DUO,Atomlight,Xtar Warboys H3,PL47 Manker E03H and many Chinese ones
I think the goal is to build the lantern so it has enough thermal mass and surface area for its power level, so it physically cannot overheat during normal use. A heat pipe from the top to the middle might help increase the thermal capacity, if necessary. But we don’t know yet if it is necessary. Maybe if it has a maximum power level around 1.5A, it might not need any more changes.
I don’t really have a good solution for heat on this light, aside from just trying it to see what works. Perhaps some vertical fins on the top section could help increase surface area in a manner which encourages air to move even without a breeze. For example, when hanging inside a closed tent.
When used outside, it should be safer since the air is always moving at least a little.
So far in my tests at 1.4 amps at the cells on maximum mode with the four LH351D LEDs the top of the lantern has not got to hot even after a hour running on max. ( no higher than 45 ~ 50 degrees) i doubt it still wouldn’t be a concern even with 1.6 amps considering the top is a large solid mass of aluminum.
That Canadian flashlight guy & Lantern Guru -Den / DBSARlight
This is something I do not need but really want… I’m not sure how I’m going to explain this one to the misses but please put me down for one!
It’s an emergency light for power outages – (for her safety and convenience)
I am increasingly mystified at what people are expecting from a useful practical efficient lantern.
The very concept of having a FET, and a “turbo” mode is utterly ridiculous. I hope I have mis-understood and that was just a naive poster spouting nonsense.
Higher power and better heatsinking could perhaps have been achieved by upward-firing LEDs from the body, the same as most other LED lanterns do it, but this is different. It fires down from the top. And it is a good decision I think. It ought to be capable of easily supporting four LEDs, if driven sensibly at their most efficient points. Not over-driven to ludicrous levels.
Which has been a key design decision, based on practical experimentation. And the correct way to go IMO for a practical lantern.
Don’t listen to the “max power, push the LEDs to the max. 30 seconds on turbo is great, let it burn” idiots. Balance in everything. This is not a torch, it’s a lantern, designed for the long-run. Don’t over-stress anything, keep it to manufacturers’ data sheet parameters, then it might be supremely reliable and out-last most of us.
PS: that does mean that a FET has no place in this driver, in case you missed that.
I think I used that excuse already, not sure if she’s going to fall for it a second (or is it third) time…
@Tom Tom, we are using the FET as a linear regulator, not in a direct drive setup.
My very own high current Beryllium Copper springs Gen 3:
http://budgetlightforum.com/node/67401
Liitokala Aliexpress Stores Battery Fraud: http://budgetlightforum.com/node/60547
Do you have schematics for that circuit?
Yes.
My very own high current Beryllium Copper springs Gen 3:
http://budgetlightforum.com/node/67401
Liitokala Aliexpress Stores Battery Fraud: http://budgetlightforum.com/node/60547
Lexel posted the driver schematics for both a few pages back.)
That Canadian flashlight guy & Lantern Guru -Den / DBSARlight
The Emisar D4 is a hot rod. It can run at like 80 Watts with the right combination of battery and emitters. Its “turbo” is way beyond what it could actually sustain with such small mass. It could easily damage itself or start fires.
The BLF lantern is not a hot rod. It maxes out at around 6 to 10 Watts (TBD), and it has significantly more thermal mass. It may not have a “turbo” level, but if it does, it will probably mean that the temperature goes up to 25 C below the emitter’s rated operating temperature instead of 35 C below. It could potentially get hot enough to be uncomfortable to touch, but it’s very unlikely to cause any damage.
The FET-based driver uses a linear FET design to achieve constant regulated current. It is not direct-drive. Instead, it’s like two of led4power’s constant current drivers. They’re also based on a FET.
I personally prefer the 7135 version of the driver, but it’s not because of anything related to heat or brightness. It’s mostly because the 7135 version uses fewer pins, while the FET version sacrifices or complicates some features. For example, the FET version has no pin to control the button LED, because there was no room for it.
I wish I was earlier on this list… but me on please!
Off to drill out some orifices on the ‘ole 2-mantel Coleman…
Put me on the list if I am not already
My Favorite Modded Lights: X6R, S8 , X2R , M6, SP03
Major Projects: Illuminated Tailcap, TripleDown/TripleStack Driver
Look’n good.
Yes practical illumination with efficient run time for this lantern please.
Max brightness lumen monsters can be trouble… I actually got chided by a camper once, they complained that my lantern was too bright for them in the next campsite like 75-100 feet away.
(Which is also why I seconded the adjustable shield request.)
Seeking the light.
..
Sorry I missed that development. Previously the driver was a 7135 based design AFAIK.
It’s good to see another controllable linear driver developed from discrete components, instead of just slapping down a bunch of AMCs and PWMing them.
How well does it behave ? e.g. dynamic range, moonlight or firefly ability, etc.
A schematic diagram would be of interest, but if that’s giving away a proprietary design, at least a functional block diagram.
From that layout you posted, my initial reaction for Lexel is that there are far too many, and too fine, thermal vias. surrounding the FET, and the USB charge regulator. As well as being costly to produce (drill wear and time) perforating the pcb like a sieve is counter-productive and mechanically weakening. If taken to the extreme, as here, you end up with more air than copper, and I predict one small bump would be enough to fracture the PCB, given that it has to support the full mass of the cells.
Also not happy about relying on the solder resist to insulate the brass ring from the ground plane beneath it at the top, once soldered on. It might work if you specified the solder resist to tent the vias, but it’s not good practice, given the possibility of a hard short to the battery, and most good PCB manufacturers will not tent vias, for legitimate reliability concerns.
Edit: PS: there are also vias in the pads of e.g. C7 and C11, and nearly one in R18, which is usually a no-no. Particularly in this case, when if solder enters the via it will increase the chance of it penetrating to the brass ring when it is fitted.
From my experience top part defenitly not have enough surface area for 10w now.
Lamp may be used also indoor. So it should work normally at least at 30C and no moving air. I don’t want to check every 30 if is right temperature.
It is stupid not to use bottom part for cooling if it is possible. It allows to decrease overall mass and use thermal control.
It is stupid if that is easy to design into the lantern and does not add cost, but I would not call it stupid if it does complicate the design and costs and if tests prove that it is not needed for function.
link to djozz tests
I’ll take one
No
That is a picture of the PCB design
Brass ring in latest version has also silk to cover the viases, practically the 0.3mm and 0.35mm viases will be for sure covered with 2 layers ink, there is no solder paste on the area so no risk if the bosrds have not huge silk and mask defects
We can always let in production also let them use Kapton tape for more security than that
Dynamic range with PWMing the FET OPAmps will be higher than with AMCs
Who cares if the fab has increased drill work
Even if it looks like swiss cheese those viases conduct heat much better than a simple copper plane on both sides, you see it a lot on boards with thermal load on it
I have let made MF03 board with this via density and it works, a test with MF02 with 0.3mm viases and less space between then did not fully cover with copper as it was more than 1000 per square inch, also 0.35mm viases work a lot better
also MCU with 14 pin might be an option to get all done
[Reviews] Miboxer C4-12, C2-4k+6k, C2, C4 / Astrolux K1, MF01, MF02, S42, K01, TI3A / BLF Q8 / Kalrus G35, XT11GT / Nitefox UT20 / Niwalker BK-FA30S / Sofirn SF36, SP35 / Imalent DM21TW / Wuben I333 / Ravemen PR1200 / CL06 lantern / Xanes headlamp
[Mods] Skilhunt H03 short / Klarus XT11GT, XT12GTS / Zebralight SC50+ / Imalent DM21TW / colorful anodisation
[Sale]
Drivers: overview of sizes and types
DD+AMC based drivers Anduril or Bistro OTSM 12-24mm, S42, 24-30mm L6, Q8, MF01(S), MT03, TN42
Anduril or Bistro 8A buck driver for 20-30mm, MF01/02/04, TN40/42, Lumintop GT, MT09R
UVC and UVC+UVA drivers
programming key
Remote switch tail DD board with FET
Aux boards:
Emisar D1, D1S, D4, D4S, D18, Lumintop FW3A, Fireflies ROT66, Astrolux MF01, Tail boards like S2+
As I said simple copper tube around central bolt could be used as heat pipe.
Of course we can wait tests and think about this after.
Pages