[PART 1] Official BLF GT Group Buy thread. Group buy officially closed! Lights shipping.

19107 posts / 0 new
Last post
JockRobbins
JockRobbins's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 9 months ago
Joined: 11/05/2016 - 22:10
Posts: 246
Location: The slightly cooler end of a high powered torch
Enderman wrote:
Interesting idea. Tube would be much thinner and runtime would be shorter tho.

Not necessarily. Bore out a fat tube to accommodate 26650 width. Yes it would weigh a lot due to very thick battery tube walls – but it’s going to anyway.
But in saying that you’d lose 2 carriers and 4 cells. So the weight may be ok.

HighCaliber
Offline
Last seen: 1 month 3 days ago
Joined: 08/17/2015 - 21:49
Posts: 214
Location: Washington State, U.S.

Please add me to the very interested list. I can’t miss out on another potential industry stand setting BLF creation.

Caleb
Caleb's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 18 hours ago
Joined: 03/13/2016 - 01:28
Posts: 736
Texas_Ace wrote:
Caleb wrote:
Is there a way to design in some kind of safety mechanism to reduce the risk?

Risk of what exactly? risk of someone being stupid?

Sadly Stupidity is an incurable disease that plages millions around the planet ever since natural selection’s cycle was interrupted in the last hundred years or so. It is destined to get worse.

Anyone here ever seen that documentary “idiocracy?

In all seriousness, it should not be an issue but the PCB’s we will have in the carriers would have the ability to use fuses if it was deemed necessary.

Ahahaha! Idiocracy… a documentary!! I’ve been saying the same thing for years. I call it the “idiocracy effect.”

I work on a plane and have to make an announcement on each leg regarding the Samsung Galaxy Note 7. Even though they have been recalled, and the replacements have been recalled, and now they are banned by the FAA from every flight in the U.S. Some people are still using them and sneaking them onto planes.

Li-Ion battery fire/explosion onboard a sealed pressure vessel probably won’t end well. You can’t just pull over and park. This is the idiocracy effect in action.

And yes, because of the “idiocracy effect” now prevelent in our society, perhaps PCB fuses are a good idea.

DB Custom
DB Custom's picture
Offline
Last seen: 23 hours 40 min ago
Joined: 01/13/2013 - 22:28
Posts: 20731
Location: Heart of Texas

Cells, capacity, series, power and availability…. what do we mostly use, a 3000mAh 18650? Maybe a 3400mAh? But we’re talking about using 4S, then 2 parallel, right? What about the big 32650? It’s in excess of 6000mAh, delivers whatever power any other cell is capable of and then some (yes, it’ll outperform the 30Q or LG HE4) And 4 inline series would make (does make) a great handle for a honker.

The beastly Trustfire TR-J20 uses 3 of these, I’ve helped build one that utilized 4, and the results can be staggering. It would have the full capacity of 8 18650’s, with the expense of 4 good cells. Something to think about, I’m sure most would want to veto based purely on having to buy those 4 new cells, but doesn’t a light like this warrant a set of matched dedicated cells?

Edit: Just so you know they’re serious contenders, my TR-J20 uses 3 TrustFire 32650’s and puts out 15,000 lumens. Richard built one that needed 4 of the big cells, I built him an extension for the TR-J20 he modified, and it made a whopping 34,000 lumens! These cells are awesome!

JockRobbins
JockRobbins's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 9 months ago
Joined: 11/05/2016 - 22:10
Posts: 246
Location: The slightly cooler end of a high powered torch
DB Custom wrote:
I built him an extension for the TR-J20 he modified, and it made a whopping 34,000 lumens! These cells are awesome!

Beamshots!!!!! That’s just insane power

mdeni
mdeni's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 5 days ago
Joined: 08/06/2016 - 05:17
Posts: 271
Location: Europe

4 × 26650 inline!?
Comedy. The tube will be too thin. And the proportiins would be horrid.
26650 can be used in a 2×2 configuration. With no carriers i think.

JockRobbins
JockRobbins's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 9 months ago
Joined: 11/05/2016 - 22:10
Posts: 246
Location: The slightly cooler end of a high powered torch
mdeni wrote:
4 × 26650 inline!? Comedy. The tube will be too thin. And the proportiins would be horrid. 26650 can be used in a 2×2 configuration. With no carriers i think.

As I mentioned up a few posts but you keenly overlooked, all that needs to be done is bore out a fat tube to fit 26650s, and have thick tube walls. The weight of the thicker walls (by rough calculation) will be minimally more than the weight of the 2x carriers and 4x extra cells that will be housed in the 18650 configuration.
Or if weight is truly an issue, bore more aluminum out, and make a plastic sleeve.

mrheosuper
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 09/30/2016 - 12:44
Posts: 1515
Location: Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

well, 4*26550 is quite big, but how’s about 2s 26550, it’s thick and long enough to not be an idiot looking
and today many people have access to 26550 cell, if you want to make a flashlight for everyone, you need to stick with AA ni-mh battery
but, the vote has decided 8*18650, so, nothing can do now
A changeable Tube would be better, for those who dont have and hate dummy cell

Forgot my pen

JockRobbins
JockRobbins's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 9 months ago
Joined: 11/05/2016 - 22:10
Posts: 246
Location: The slightly cooler end of a high powered torch
mrheosuper wrote:
the vote has decided 8*18650

I can assure you there was no vote. 8 was always the final spec. I’m only discussing 4× 26650s to put ideas out there even though we all know the GT team will ultimately decide what goes in to the light. And that in itself is not a bad thing, we can’t keep debating for months on end we will never get anywhere with it. I think the hold up now is reflector sourcing

NikolaS
NikolaS's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 02/07/2014 - 13:26
Posts: 1272
Location: intersection of all roads

We can do the vote but I assuming that 95% will chose 8×18650 option!

So can we stop discussing about that.

18650 are most available battery on the market and at the moment you can buy 4 Panasonic 3400 mAh on GB sale for 11$. Also what charger would accept 4 26650, or 32650 at same time? With 4S2P we have that option to use only 4 cell’s and have a spare for the backup…

Theodore41
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 18 hours ago
Joined: 02/20/2016 - 12:57
Posts: 1094
Location: Athens Greece.

If it is a weight balance only issue,so as to put 4 only 18650s,it could be possible to make the battery tube from ss,which is way heavier than aluminum,so there would be a better balance.I have a Astrolux ss and I know.

e10sno
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 04/26/2011 - 13:28
Posts: 159
Location: THA

please added me in.. by the way any timeline plan?

Nicolaas
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 8 months ago
Joined: 10/31/2012 - 15:38
Posts: 458
Location: Netherlands

I think it’s high time to stop discussing all kinds of options, variations, possibilities and whatnot.
.
*New project
Aim:
BIG thrower that surpasses the latest super throwers like the TN42*
- easy build to keep cost down
- user friendly
- simple design so that as much as possible will want to buy & use it
.
I propose to stick with the long tube, 8 cell configuration. Preferably like so that it can be used with just 4 cells, 18650 only.
EVERRYONE has 18650 cells and the chargers to go with them.
Let’s not make this an endless discussion, however interesting, and keep the end goal in mind.
.
BIG thrower that surpasses the latest super throwers like the TN42
.
Grtz
Nico

The Miller
The Miller's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 10 months ago
Joined: 12/14/2015 - 12:08
Posts: 9908
Location: Charente France

Will update the list late
No 4-8 18650 in two parallel carriers that need 4 cells wired in series it is.
(I am eyeballing some old notebooks Wink and besides with 2,5A at the LED any 18650 will do and I saw the 3400 Panasonic’s for $11,11 at Gearbest recently so even buying new cells would not set somebody back that much)

With SRK/Q8 compability at the head side and a 46mm driver people should be able to mid how there heart desires.

I agree that with this mass and sine finning at led level and higher up to avoid rolling away the GT should provide ample cooling even for future IUP140 (Insane Ultimate Performance, you know the LED series Cree will bring above the Extreme High Performance Wink )

DBSS
Offline
Last seen: 2 weeks 4 days ago
Joined: 11/04/2014 - 23:20
Posts: 280
Location: Toronto

I will say that it depends on price a little…but I am very likely in.

Texas_Ace
Texas_Ace's picture
Offline
Last seen: 13 hours 59 min ago
Joined: 03/24/2016 - 07:44
Posts: 9354
Location: Everything is brighter in Texas

Using 32650’s was considered early on but rejected due to the fact most people do not own any 32650’s. Plus the tube to reflector proportion would be even worse. The 4× 18650 was the biggest we could go and still be hand held to improve the visual appeal.

I have never been a fan of the massive heads with toothpicks for bodies myself.

thijsco19
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 19 hours ago
Joined: 12/14/2012 - 16:18
Posts: 1383
Location: Nearby Rotterdam, the Netherlands

Just to throw some Idea’s (these idea’s where already suggested I think), 4 26650’s in a 2 row 2s side bij side config is not really a bad idea.
You’ll have a carrier with on the left side 2 26650’s in series and on the right side the same, together they form a 4s setup.
Because you use a carrier the tube doesn’t have to be that thick, however using 26650’s in this config will increase the diameter by 8mm. (measured at the batteries)
Or if you use 18650’s instead of 26650’s in the same config the diameter will decrease by 8 mm.
The balance will be slightly worse. 5ar should be able to see where the Center of gravity is in his design software.

AlexGT
AlexGT's picture
Offline
Last seen: 45 min 50 sec ago
Joined: 06/07/2012 - 17:39
Posts: 4593
Location: Texas

I would still like 18650 over the other size due to general availability thanks to all the Vaping stores that have recently started to pop up everywhere, I could get some almost anywhere in an emergency, 32650 or 26650 not so much, would consider those bigger sizes if the design changed to the box form, but I like this traditional design better for this project, maybe the box design with bigger batteries for a XHP70 with an even bigger reflector in the future… Cool

Texas_Ace
Texas_Ace's picture
Offline
Last seen: 13 hours 59 min ago
Joined: 03/24/2016 - 07:44
Posts: 9354
Location: Everything is brighter in Texas
AlexGT wrote:
I would still like 18650 over the other size due to general availability thanks to all the Vaping stores that have recently started to pop up everywhere, I could get some almost anywhere in an emergency, 32650 or 26650 not so much, would consider those bigger sizes if the design changed to the box form, but I like this traditional design better for this project, maybe the box design with bigger batteries for a XHP70 with an even bigger reflector in the future… Cool

This was another big factor, plus like was said, since this light will have such a low current draw due to being 4S any 18650 will work. So laptop pulls would be perfectly happy in this light making the cells themselves quite cheap.

mdeni
mdeni's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 5 days ago
Joined: 08/06/2016 - 05:17
Posts: 271
Location: Europe

thijsco19 wrote:
Just to throw some Idea’s (these idea’s where already suggested I think), 4 26650’s in a 2 row 2s side bij side config is not really a bad idea.
You’ll have a carrier with on the left side 2 26650’s in series and on the right side the same, together they form a 4s setup.
Because you use a carrier the tube doesn’t have to be that thick, however using 26650’s in this config will increase the diameter by 8mm. (measured at the batteries)
Or if you use 18650’s instead of 26650’s in the same config the diameter will decrease by 8 mm.
The balance will be slightly worse. 5ar should be able to see where the Center of gravity is in his design software.

!{width:50%}http://i1280.photobucket.com/albums/a500/thijsco19/battery%20setup_zps9r...!


4× 18650 in a 2×2 configuranion is good. It can be made from a tube, and plastic insert. Bypassing the need of a carriers and bringing the price down. Excellent idea. Or even better, it can be made for 4×26650 with one plastic insert, and for 4×18650 with another plastic insert. Same tube, same everything just a piece of plastic. No need of complicated carriers, no danger of mixed cells. Any 4 cells will do the job at 3.5A drain.
thijsco19
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 19 hours ago
Joined: 12/14/2012 - 16:18
Posts: 1383
Location: Nearby Rotterdam, the Netherlands

mdeni wrote:
thijsco19 wrote:
Just to throw some Idea’s (these idea’s where already suggested I think), 4 26650’s in a 2 row 2s side bij side config is not really a bad idea.
You’ll have a carrier with on the left side 2 26650’s in series and on the right side the same, together they form a 4s setup.
Because you use a carrier the tube doesn’t have to be that thick, however using 26650’s in this config will increase the diameter by 8mm. (measured at the batteries)
Or if you use 18650’s instead of 26650’s in the same config the diameter will decrease by 8 mm.
The balance will be slightly worse. 5ar should be able to see where the Center of gravity is in his design software.

!{width:50%}http://i1280.photobucket.com/albums/a500/thijsco19/battery%20setup_zps9r...!


4× 18650 in a 2×2 configuranion is good. It can be made from a tube, and plastic insert. Bypassing the need of a carriers and bringing the price down. Excellent idea. Or even better, it can be made for 4×26650 with one plastic insert, and for 4×18650 with another plastic insert. Same tube, same everything just a piece of plastic. No need of complicated carriers, no danger of mixed cells. Any 4 cells will do the job at 3.5A drain.

How? lengthwise wont fit. The length of the tube is still 2 cells.
Or do you mean, make at wide enough for the 26650 setup but use a plastic insert to bring it down to a 18650 setup?
Better Idea, using a carrier like this:

Can use both 26650’s as 18650’s.
A carrier is easier or necessary to make contact with the driver contacts (2 rings).

Another picture, orange are the 26650’s red are the 18650’s.

The Miller
The Miller's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 10 months ago
Joined: 12/14/2015 - 12:08
Posts: 9908
Location: Charente France

That begs for an oval tube seen from above, would hold nice and look very elegant.
And a squared of tube? No access to cells now but a square seen from above with rounded corners capable of holding 26650 cells (2×4) would that be so much bigger then round 18650 tube?
If not maybe a nice consideration for those wanting the absolute max runtimes. Yet it MUST be able to hold 4×2 18650 cells.

Don’t see harm in playing around with new ideas at this stage.

mdeni
mdeni's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 5 days ago
Joined: 08/06/2016 - 05:17
Posts: 271
Location: Europe

thijsco19 wrote:
mdeni wrote:
thijsco19 wrote:
Just to throw some Idea’s (these idea’s where already suggested I think), 4 26650’s in a 2 row 2s side bij side config is not really a bad idea.
You’ll have a carrier with on the left side 2 26650’s in series and on the right side the same, together they form a 4s setup.
Because you use a carrier the tube doesn’t have to be that thick, however using 26650’s in this config will increase the diameter by 8mm. (measured at the batteries)
Or if you use 18650’s instead of 26650’s in the same config the diameter will decrease by 8 mm.
The balance will be slightly worse. 5ar should be able to see where the Center of gravity is in his design software.

!{width:50%}http://i1280.photobucket.com/albums/a500/thijsco19/battery%20setup_zps9r...!


4× 18650 in a 2×2 configuranion is good. It can be made from a tube, and plastic insert. Bypassing the need of a carriers and bringing the price down. Excellent idea. Or even better, it can be made for 4×26650 with one plastic insert, and for 4×18650 with another plastic insert. Same tube, same everything just a piece of plastic. No need of complicated carriers, no danger of mixed cells. Any 4 cells will do the job at 3.5A drain.

How? lengthwise wont fit. The length of the tube is still 2 cells.
Or do you mean, make at wide enough for the 26650 setup but use a plastic insert to bring it down to a 18650 setup?
Better Idea, using a carrier like this:

Can use both 26650’s as 18650’s.
A carrier is easier or necessary to make contact with the driver contacts (2 rings).

Another picture, orange are the 26650’s red are the 18650’s.
!{width:50%}http://i1280.photobucket.com/albums/a500/thijsco19/battery%20setup%20v2....!

2х2 tube that holds 2 in front and 2 in the back. Not all for next to eachother.
Like first and last one:

The tube is aluminium and hollow, and you get a plastic insert that makes the space suitable for 2×26650 batteries, and 2 more behind them. It can be solid aluminium but plastic is used to reduce cost.

[+_________-][+__________-]
[-_________+][-__________+]

Like so.
And that plastic insert, can be swapped with a plastic insert that has smaller holes which can hold 18650 in the same configuration.

That will reduce price, will make the handle long and thick. Proportions will be good.

Texas_Ace
Texas_Ace's picture
Offline
Last seen: 13 hours 59 min ago
Joined: 03/24/2016 - 07:44
Posts: 9354
Location: Everything is brighter in Texas

One thing to keep in mind is that the 4× 18650 tube is already on the edge of comfortable for smaller hands (several people that have used my SRK’s have mentioned as much). Since this light needs to be able to be used by anyone, any larger then a 4× 18650 tube will start quickly reducing the comfort for more and more users. Particularly when you factor in the weight.

It is significantly harder to hold onto a larger bar then a smaller one all else being the same. Even very small differences can have large effects.

DB Custom
DB Custom's picture
Offline
Last seen: 23 hours 40 min ago
Joined: 01/13/2013 - 22:28
Posts: 20731
Location: Heart of Texas

Not a suggestion, but merely stating that the TR-J20 has extremely thick battery tube walls, and still houses 32650’s. It’s a beefy light, for sure, and I’m sure they were leaning towards heavier, not lighter, in all discussion when designing it.

When I did the extension for Richard, he sent the battery tube and tail cap for me to work with. I saw this tube and knew I had to have the light, promptly ordered my own based purely on how solidly the battery tube was made. lol

mdeni
mdeni's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 5 days ago
Joined: 08/06/2016 - 05:17
Posts: 271
Location: Europe

Texas_Ace wrote:
One thing to keep in mind is that the 4× 18650 tube is already on the edge of comfortable for smaller hands (several people that have used my SRK’s have mentioned as much). Since this light needs to be able to be used by anyone, any larger then a 4× 18650 tube will start quickly reducing the comfort for more and more users. Particularly when you factor in the weight.

It is significantly harder to hold onto a larger bar then a smaller one all else being the same. Even very small differences can have large effects.


Okay then! Ditch the 26650 idea! Even lower cost and problems.

2х2 18650 8mm thinner tube. Plastic insert, cheap aluminium tube. No problems with carriers and connections.

But remember, 4×18650 is already very thin tube for the 13cm head. We do not want to make it like this:

johny723
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 19 hours ago
Joined: 06/08/2014 - 08:48
Posts: 391
Location: slovakia

There is just way too much fuss about the cells and battery tube. Texas_Ace and The Miller are not Tony Stark with unlimited resources. We should focus on making it simple. Otherwise it will kill the project. I suggest everyone be happy that you can be a part of this awesome project, but unless you come up with a revolutionary groundbreaking idea, please let the team enjoy this unpaid work and make it easier, not harder for them.

mdeni
mdeni's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 5 days ago
Joined: 08/06/2016 - 05:17
Posts: 271
Location: Europe

johny723 wrote:
There is just way too much fuss about the cells and battery tube. Texas_Ace and The Miller are not Tony Stark with unlimited resources. We should focus on making it simple. Otherwise it will kill the project. I suggest everyone be happy that you can be a part of this awesome project, but unless you come up with a revolutionary groundbreaking idea, please let the team enjoy this unpaid work and make it easier, not harder for them.

I think that was the point of the latest suggestions.
thijsco19
Offline
Last seen: 2 days 19 hours ago
Joined: 12/14/2012 - 16:18
Posts: 1383
Location: Nearby Rotterdam, the Netherlands

Texas_Ace wrote:
One thing to keep in mind is that the 4× 18650 tube is already on the edge of comfortable for smaller hands (several people that have used my SRK’s have mentioned as much). Since this light needs to be able to be used by anyone, any larger then a 4× 18650 tube will start quickly reducing the comfort for more and more users. Particularly when you factor in the weight.

It is significantly harder to hold onto a larger bar then a smaller one all else being the same. Even very small differences can have large effects.


Didn’t know that, dont have a SRK like flashlight here to know how it feels.
So what about the little smaller side by side setup?
The only problem that I see is that the balance might not be optimal.
Nicolaas
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 8 months ago
Joined: 10/31/2012 - 15:38
Posts: 458
Location: Netherlands
johny723 wrote:
There is just way too much fuss about the cells and battery tube. Texas_Ace and The Miller are not Tony Stark with unlimited resources. We should focus on making it simple. Otherwise it will kill the project. I suggest everyone be happy that you can be a part of this awesome project, but unless you come up with a revolutionary groundbreaking idea, please let the team enjoy this unpaid work and make it easier, not harder for them.

+1

Pages

Topic locked