Thanks very interesting, and sorry everybody if i confuse anyone about talking about features that does not apply to this GB 0:)
I get that a lot of current can pass through a via, but what i am wondering is how much lower resistance for example a doubling of vias would give on a hypothetical bord with big copper pours.
I just wonder how much if any, extra performance we could get by taking that aspect to its limit on switch boards and drivers.
Because every little less voltage drop helps to up output on these high Vf cree leds
True what your’e saying there cajampa, but we’re only talking about a distance of 1.5mm for the current to travel. Usually the distance is a big factor in diameter of wire needed, so once you have a proper amount of via’s through a solid pour you’re not going to see a measurable (maybe I should say noticeable) gain by adding more. There is only so much room on the board, any extra is pretty much covered in via’s already, so it is starting to become a weaking factor on the board… remember that we have spring pressure against the center of the board and if you drop a light and it falls directly on either end it could feasibly cause the board to break on impact due to the kinetic energy of the cell slamming the spring to full compression against the center pad. Compromise rears it’s ugly head.
I wouldn’t worry about extra vias weakening the board because the ospark boards are really thick and stiff, + i very often fill the vias with solder if i solder a wire there or should install a switch and there is a bunch of vias just waiting to be filled.
Before we actually start hearing about switch boards cracking on impact i don’t think we should worry about it, anyways i rather get extra performance now and fix and repair the light if it even where to be a problem than limit performance before we even know it to be an issue And remember most pcb’s in stock lights are MUCH weaker and flimsier than a fat ospark board with big copper pours all over, and i have never heard of those cracking from impact after a drop.
I also do care about aesthetics. I will fit as many vias as I can without making the thing ugly by my standards. If I knew an extra via or two would make a noticeable difference, I would screw the aesthetics and drop vias everywhere, but in my experience once you get up to 5-6 vias extras don’t do much.
…………….
I’m going to add a hashtag to all these posts: #SideTalk#NotGBRelated
Aesthetics is a good point and I love a nice symmetrically designed part, but i personally would always chose extra performance if it where there to be had on a part that can’t been seen though. Because that little enjoyment of seeing it when i build it, pales in comparison for me with the perfectionist enjoyment of knowing you have taken every steps you know how to get max performance & visual light out of the build.
You said one or two extra via after 5-6 would probably not do much but what if you dropped 20 or 40 vias on a non lighted (to get more room for vias) switchboard only made for max amp?
And isen’t this what we do a lot around here trying to find ways to up performance a little more and little more all the time, i think a switch board built for max amp would have its place among all the other advancement we have done around here.
I would certainly use one if it was available
I mean after 5 or 6 it stops making any real difference. Even with the touchy Vf’s of high bin cree’s, I think the difference between 6 vias and 8 vias would be unnoticeable, and between 8 vias and 12 would be borderline unmeasureable with normal tools.
The absolute most you could fit in the spring pad side would probably be around 15, and then you wouldn’t have any surface left to solder the spring and wire to.
Let’s make a deal: I’ll make a non-lighted board just for “max amps” next time I work on it (soon), if you agree to compare the lighted board to the “max amp” board and post results.
I am not sure i understand why you couldn’t solder a spring or wire where there is a via, what am i missing here?
I would be happy to report back but i don’t have any way to get you the definitive result i think you are asking for like lumens and amps sorry.
And i don’t have any identical lights to test side by side for a visual comparison either.
But as i said if the boards where available i would use them and i could make some drop in switchboards of them both, but if you are right about that the difference would be unnoticeable it would be very hard to compare visually.
Maybe our resident performance craving frankenDale could give them a workup to see if we have found a little extra potential performance above the normal lighted board.
Because it would be nice to now that the lighted board is the be all and end all of that part of the circuit in regards to performance and minimum volt loss.
Anyway you didn’t ask for specifics, so if you build it i will test it out to the best of my abilities
If you take 3 lights (or 5 or 10) and use the same cells, buy new ones just for this, there will be variances between the set of lights no matter how hard you try to make em all the same. It’s just the nature of the beast. You can measure one light, come back to it a month later, and it’s difficult to get the same numbers you got the first time.
No absolutes. I laugh when people try to argue minute differences because those differences are always present, from one test to another. It’s just the way it is, so trying to find a bonus in 3 extra via’s on a board is ludicrous.
He already did, in post 2104. He measured before-and-after and got a gain of 14 lumens, an increase of less than one percent. Measuring exactly the same light twice in a row is likely to show more variation than that.
I have a(n) request / idea to help keep the extra tail switch assembly a simple consistent yet interesting and beneficial assembly.
My Idea is this, (especially if we are paying for them) please spec the “extra” switch assemblies to be exactly like the lit versions but without LED’s (or even with) and we can de-solder them.
This way as noted we get the advantage of the improved switch pcb and the now standard double springs and any other “improvements” there are.
Plus, if we wanted to we could use them for experiments, different led colors, different resistor values, etc etc. Without screwing up the existing artistry that is the current lit tail cap switch assembly.
Also to simplify costing issues all they need to do is buy more of exactly the same parts (I personally don’t care if they subtract the additional cost/price of the LED’s or not) from the existing Bill Of Materials (BOM) and build them the same way, thus there is less to “think about” and/or to change.
So if folks want to have extra lit or un-lit switch assemblies it will amount to the same assembly. As we will be paying for the extra switch assemblies it opens up interest to more folks while making it as simple and beneficial as possible for us and for Manker/Banggood.
For example I would hate to go to town on the current switch assembly and screw it up so badly that that I need to cobble together a fix. and then loose the ability to ever have a lit cap again VS. either not screwing anything up or only screwing up the “extra” switch assembly but still having the beautiful one still intact.
Thank you for all the work you have done and I hope this request/solution is easily implemented.
” Inside the tail cap we can see something I’ve not seen done before in a light - dual cathode springs on the cathode PCB. The main spring is super thick for optimum electrical conduction. A second, thinner spring rides just inside it for increased flow of electricity. Think of it as having a factory spring mod. Both appear to be gold plated.”
