BLF LT1 Lantern, Whining, Ranting about USB C port issues go here.

80 posts / 0 new
Last post
shirnask
shirnask's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 10 min ago
Joined: 03/21/2016 - 23:58
Posts: 1360
Location: Louisiana

That was not a consideration.

The same to you

Stereodude
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 1 week ago
Joined: 03/16/2013 - 21:14
Posts: 521
Location: US of A

shirnask wrote:
That was not a consideration.
So why are they fixing it then since it’s intentionally defective by design?

You really should stop speaking for the LT1 team. It’s embarrassing.

shirnask
shirnask's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 10 min ago
Joined: 03/21/2016 - 23:58
Posts: 1360
Location: Louisiana

And you should stop making up your own history

Stereodude
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 1 week ago
Joined: 03/16/2013 - 21:14
Posts: 521
Location: US of A

shirnask wrote:
And you should stop making up your own history
Projection is real folks!
MtnDon
MtnDon's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 hours 44 min ago
Joined: 08/27/2015 - 18:25
Posts: 3934
Location: Canuk in NM

BLF Rule #4

Please avoid fighting. If you or somebody else is losing their calm, please drop the subject.

Flying Luminosity
Flying Luminosity's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 11 months ago
Joined: 09/12/2017 - 13:33
Posts: 628
Location: UK

Stereodude wrote:
shirnask wrote:
There was no mistake
So it doesn’t charge with many USB-C chargers that are compliant to the USB-C spec by design?

You guys should just stop digging… Facepalm

I don’t see it as a ‘fix’, more like an upgrade. In the same way that a USB-C connector is a definite upgrade from its nasty predecessor.

hank
hank's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 4 days ago
Joined: 09/04/2011 - 21:52
Posts: 9599
Location: Berkeley, California

Andrew S. Tanenbaum – Wikiquote
https://en.wikiquote.org › wiki › Andrew_S._Tanenbaum
The nice thing about standards is that you have so many to choose from.

3061fps
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 11 months ago
Joined: 05/02/2018 - 07:17
Posts: 11

Lantern working perfectly for me. Love the usb a to c charging capability! I have so many usb a chargers to choose from. So many I am going to buy a second lt1 when I get my code so I can put two chargers (type a female) to use at same time!

Trail Trek
Trail Trek's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 4 days ago
Joined: 06/05/2018 - 12:10
Posts: 93
Location: United Kingdom
Yokiamy wrote:
Trail Trek wrote:
I use a type-c to type-c in my car to charge the phone but i have tons of type-A (the fat end) to type c in the house so this would not have been an issue. I suppose i can see some the issue in a one wire only setting. i have a type c powerbank and in order to charge my type-c items fast i use a type c to type c cable so it uses power delivery (pd) to negotiate a high charge rate. Sometimes i go camping and only take that cable so i can charge, phones, laptop, gopro etc so maybe in that very specific scenario i would not be able to charge. But if they are fixing it anyway im super happy.

What car are you driving? Never seen a car with USB-C built in (yet)

sorry i should have said i use this, my car is 1 year old but they only stuck in a load of type-a connectors:
Annotation-2019-11-27-093722

So on a normal day i only carry a type-c to type-c and my type-c power bank in my pocket but if i owned this lantern i would carry another cable as well with a fat end type-c to small end.

I dont think the people complaining are doing it to hurt anyone’s feelings or wind people up i just think they want a BLF light to be the absolute best which is what i would expect of a BLF project, i would also like to thank DBSAR for bringing this exciting light to fruition. I think if anyone has an older one without the fix then they could just attach a converter to the side with an elastic band, i wouldn’t lose any sleep over that.

djozz
djozz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 58 min 31 sec ago
Joined: 09/07/2012 - 17:04
Posts: 18092
Location: Amsterdam
Trail Trek wrote:
I dont think the people complaining are doing it to hurt anyone’s feelings or wind people up i just think they want a BLF light to be the absolute best which is what i would expect of a BLF project

This is where it goes wrong, BLF projects will never be the absolute best, we are amateurs, we are budget, and we work with B-class manufacturers, how can one expect that the outcome is the absolute best????? BLF-teams are struggling to get our novel flashlights to be ok quality for a budget price, more is an illusion. And we got some very special flashlights done which is an achievement.

f0xx
f0xx's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 4 days ago
Joined: 02/27/2019 - 18:44
Posts: 454
Location: Near Dallas, Texas

Who is planning to carry the LT1 with them daily (in a backpack maybe?), and use it enough to need daily charging? I thought this thing was good for something like 4ish hours/day for over a week with lots of useable light?

MtnDon
MtnDon's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 hours 44 min ago
Joined: 08/27/2015 - 18:25
Posts: 3934
Location: Canuk in NM

Some people car or truck camp. Easy to carry stuff.

Stittville Ed
Stittville Ed's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 11/20/2011 - 08:22
Posts: 801
Location: Stittville, New York

My Sons will b going to Burning Man 2020
He has a van so this will be a big help.
Also getting him a Solar Charger.

Stereodude
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 1 week ago
Joined: 03/16/2013 - 21:14
Posts: 521
Location: US of A

DBSAR wrote:
You are still missing the point. There was NO mistake, there was NO intention, or discussion in the first place to make sure there was a compatibility with the USB-C protocol for charging, as it was originally intended to use a USB-micro to power the basic TP5100 charging circuit, and we only decided on the USB-C “PORT TYPE” use because its more durable & reversible.
This might be the most convoluted attempt at trying to explain away a technical oversight, aka mistake, I’ve ever seen. The LT1 team shouldn’t have put a USB-C connector on the LT1 if the team didn’t intend follow the spec for USB-C. The LT1 team made a non-compliant USB-C device. No amount of hand waving or spin is going to change that. When using a USB-C port you have to follow the spec for USB-C. It requires the use of the CC pins in a UFP to indicate to the DFP how much current it can draw. This means putting pull-down resistors on them. They are required by the USB-C spec (which has to be followed when implementing a USB-C port), even if it’s just a 500mA device. Leaving the CC pins open is not allowed.
Muto
Offline
Last seen: 8 hours 56 min ago
Joined: 09/04/2012 - 16:42
Posts: 2682
Location: Southeast, PA
Stereodude wrote:
DBSAR wrote:
You are still missing the point. There was NO mistake, there was NO intention, or discussion in the first place to make sure there was a compatibility with the USB-C protocol for charging, as it was originally intended to use a USB-micro to power the basic TP5100 charging circuit, and we only decided on the USB-C “PORT TYPE” use because its more durable & reversible.
This might be the most convoluted attempt at trying to explain away a technical oversight, aka mistake, I’ve ever seen. The LT1 team shouldn’t have put a USB-C connector on the LT1 if the team didn’t intend follow the spec for USB-C. The LT1 team made a non-compliant USB-C device. No amount of hand waving or spin is going to change that. When using a USB-C port you have to follow the spec for USB-C. It requires the use of the CC pins in a UFP to indicate to the DFP how much current it can draw. This means putting pull-down resistors on them. They are required by the USB-C spec (which has to be followed when implementing a USB-C port), even if it’s just a 500mA device. Leaving the CC pins open is not allowed.

Sounds serious,
Call Judge Judy.

The difference between Hoarding and Collecting is the illusion of Organization
.

“History doesn’t repeat itself, but it sometimes rhymes,” Mark Twain

After the Apocalypse there will be only 2 things left alive, Cockroaches and Keith Richards

Stereodude
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 1 week ago
Joined: 03/16/2013 - 21:14
Posts: 521
Location: US of A

Muto wrote:
Sounds serious,
Call Judge Judy.
Can you PM me her number?
pooptoast
pooptoast's picture
Offline
Last seen: 15 hours 55 min ago
Joined: 08/12/2015 - 23:11
Posts: 194

Stereodude][quote=DBSAR wrote:
When using a USB-C port you have to follow the spec for USB-C.
What are you, the USB-C Police? There’s plenty of devices out there that use the USB-C connector without complying with the USB-C standard, just like there are plenty of USB Micro devices in the same boat.

Can you do us all a favor and read the BLF LT thread? The original light was designed with USB Micro, people asked for a change to a USB-C port for durability reasons, not USB-C compliance reasons. Should it have been brought up that since they would be using a USB-C port that it should also be USB-C charge compliant? Sure, but that wasn’t what was requested during the design phase of this crowdsourced, foreign manufactured light. It would be a mistake if USB-C compliant charging was a design requirement however in this case it was not. Now, since the church of USB-C demands it, the capability will be built into a forthcoming light. This however is a NEW FEATURE.

Once again, if this USB-C issue is such a giant problem just don’t buy the light, wait for it to come with the features you require.

hank
hank's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 4 days ago
Joined: 09/04/2011 - 21:52
Posts: 9599
Location: Berkeley, California

Thanks for moving the whining to this separate thread.
I like being able to get my morning dose in concentrated form.

Oh, the humanity!

LightEnthusiast
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 1 week ago
Joined: 11/05/2019 - 02:39
Posts: 2

Stereodude, if you don’t like it don’t buy it or better yet go design your own usb-c compliant lantern if you want one so badly. Just stop complaining. Did you rant to the Raspberry Pi Foundation about how the rpi4 wasn’t 100% usb-c protocol compliant too?

Usb-a will never go away, usb-c is just another standard now alongside it like how the xkcd comic points out.

Oli
Offline
Last seen: 7 hours 54 min ago
Joined: 08/03/2018 - 21:03
Posts: 587
Location: United States

pooptoast wrote:
The original light was designed with USB Micro, people asked for a change to a USB-C port for durability reasons, not USB-C compliance reasons. Should it have been brought up that since they would be using a USB-C port that it should also be USB-C charge compliant? Sure, but that wasn’t what was requested during the design phase of this crowdsourced, foreign manufactured light.
People made assumptions. People designing the light, people manufacturing the light, and people playing along at home all had different levels of knowledge of USB C and most did not understand how complicated it is. Everybody is learning more and that’s a good thing. Apple still hasn’t committed and the lantern doesn’t have a lightning port. And that is a good thing.

You can't compare the big flashlight in the sky to the little flashlight in your hand.

alpinewinter
alpinewinter's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 1 week ago
Joined: 11/10/2019 - 01:35
Posts: 14
Location: Western Montana
Stereodude wrote:
DBSAR wrote:
You are still missing the point. There was NO mistake, there was NO intention, or discussion in the first place to make sure there was a compatibility with the USB-C protocol for charging, as it was originally intended to use a USB-micro to power the basic TP5100 charging circuit, and we only decided on the USB-C “PORT TYPE” use because its more durable & reversible.
This might be the most convoluted attempt at trying to explain away a technical oversight, aka mistake, I’ve ever seen. The LT1 team shouldn’t have put a USB-C connector on the LT1 if the team didn’t intend follow the spec for USB-C. The LT1 team made a non-compliant USB-C device. No amount of hand waving or spin is going to change that. When using a USB-C port you have to follow the spec for USB-C. It requires the use of the CC pins in a UFP to indicate to the DFP how much current it can draw. This means putting pull-down resistors on them. They are required by the USB-C spec (which has to be followed when implementing a USB-C port), even if it’s just a 500mA device. Leaving the CC pins open is not allowed.

Sorry, but you’re wrong. Using the USB-C connector does NOT imply adherence to any of the protocol or charging standards on the backend. That’s even the official stance of the USB standards organization. The connector is just that, a way of connecting a cable to a device, nothing more.

Get over it.

f0xx
f0xx's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 4 days ago
Joined: 02/27/2019 - 18:44
Posts: 454
Location: Near Dallas, Texas

I’m more upset about how my phone’s USB C Port is only USB 2.0.

MtnDon
MtnDon's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 hours 44 min ago
Joined: 08/27/2015 - 18:25
Posts: 3934
Location: Canuk in NM
f0xx wrote:
I’m more upset about how my phone’s USB C Port is only USB 2.0.
Smile Yes.

There are two stanards at play here I believe.
The USB-C mechanical design is one and the other is the USB version; 2. 3. 3.1 whatever

Perhaps our amateur lantern should not be sold to anyone who believes they themselves are professional grade. Facepalm

Chill. This is not the only device with a C type USB port that fails on some tech point. It wasn’t the first, it won’t be the last.

Yokiamy
Yokiamy's picture
Offline
Last seen: 20 min 13 sec ago
Joined: 10/18/2016 - 15:47
Posts: 3052
Location: Netherlands
Stereodude wrote:
DBSAR wrote:
You are still missing the point. There was NO mistake, there was NO intention, or discussion in the first place to make sure there was a compatibility with the USB-C protocol for charging, as it was originally intended to use a USB-micro to power the basic TP5100 charging circuit, and we only decided on the USB-C “PORT TYPE” use because its more durable & reversible.
This might be the most convoluted attempt at trying to explain away a technical oversight, aka mistake, I’ve ever seen. The LT1 team shouldn’t have put a USB-C connector on the LT1 if the team didn’t intend follow the spec for USB-C. The LT1 team made a non-compliant USB-C device. No amount of hand waving or spin is going to change that. When using a USB-C port you have to follow the spec for USB-C. It requires the use of the CC pins in a UFP to indicate to the DFP how much current it can draw. This means putting pull-down resistors on them. They are required by the USB-C spec (which has to be followed when implementing a USB-C port), even if it’s just a 500mA device. Leaving the CC pins open is not allowed.

Name 1 light which does this.

The SP36 and FT03 and several others experience the same issue.

Couchmaster
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 5 days ago
Joined: 05/04/2016 - 17:11
Posts: 506
Location: USA

I followed the Lantern thread from the first post. They delivered more than was promised originally with ONE exception: The out the door cost was desired (note I didn’t say promised) to be $40. That target was missed. I’m happy with the lantern and want to thank all of you folks that did the heavy lifting (and Sofirn as well). The budget part of the project was how much money you non-paid volunteers made on your hard work:-) (I’m joking… joking!!!)

Thank you all so much! Love the lantern, and the BLF wrapped batteries AmishBill did too are a fantastic addition. Great stuff!

Lightbringer
Lightbringer's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 hours 31 min ago
Joined: 08/30/2016 - 14:12
Posts: 15885
Location: nyc

Wellp, as long as it doesn’t spew toxic chemicals throughout your entire house when trying to charge it… Evil

09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

shirnask
shirnask's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 hours 10 min ago
Joined: 03/21/2016 - 23:58
Posts: 1360
Location: Louisiana
Wink
Sparks65
Sparks65's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 hours 30 min ago
Joined: 02/10/2019 - 19:34
Posts: 106
Location: Montana

Not only is the USB-C “totally wrong” the new Tesla pickup truck is ugly!!

Lightbringer
Lightbringer's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 hours 31 min ago
Joined: 08/30/2016 - 14:12
Posts: 15885
Location: nyc

Oh, don’t even get mr started on that ugly-ass thing…

Besides, hasn’t anyone ever seen “Monolith“?

09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

pooptoast
pooptoast's picture
Offline
Last seen: 15 hours 55 min ago
Joined: 08/12/2015 - 23:11
Posts: 194
Couchmaster wrote:
The out the door cost was desired (note I didn’t say promised) to be $40. That target was missed.

Agreed that the target was missed, however in their defence, that target was set before a significant number of features were finalized. If I’m not mistaken, that target was set while the LED count was only 2 (maybe 4) and of a single color temperature. It was set before a charging circuit was decided upon. It was set before Toykeeper even developed the awesome features like candle, sunset and lightning…

I’m 100% fine with the slight bump in price considering all the awesome features I recieved. Given the choice I would have paid WAY more than what I did for the extra features that this lantern included.

Pages