*BLF LT1 Lantern Project) (updated Nov,17,2020)

[kuzuna]

Do we have any official runtimes?

[SIGShooter]

@DBSAR

@whitecitadel

Probably better than the Fenix offerings, if only because its likely commercially unviable to put in the massive amount of research, prototyping and refinement that DBSAR and the BLF team did into the LT1 over several years!

That indeed, with real world testing & use, added that the LT1 will have superior run times, modes, tints range, & capability.

And isn’t the LT1 half the price of the Fenix?

[DBSAR]

@kuzuna

Do we have any official runtimes?

Not for the lower modes, as so far it runs for days non stop on any mode below 75%. The ramping brightness is near impossible to test, but i been getting 7 ~ 8+ hours on maximum using high capacity cells.

[DBSAR]

@SIGShooter

@DBSAR

@whitecitadel

Probably better than the Fenix offerings, if only because its likely commercially unviable to put in the massive amount of research, prototyping and refinement that DBSAR and the BLF team did into the LT1 over several years!

That indeed, with real world testing & use, added that the LT1 will have superior run times, modes, tints range, & capability.

And isn’t the LT1 half the price of the Fenix?

That too.

[adam7027]

I am fully eager on this… can’t stand waiting, really

The previous 3 years seem to be less time for me than nowadays.

[bmengineer]

It’s worth noting, just to be objective, that the Fenix is more compact, more stable l, supports powerbank use, and is compatible with CR123 cells as a back up.

I don’t think it’s really fair to say either is better or worse, but the BLF lantern should be priced more competitively and have better performance as a lantern.

[RiGiD]

Unless I missed something the LT1 can run off a battery bank without the battery compartment. Removing that section makes it similar in size to the Fenix lantern with the same form factor.

[Dyrnwyn]

Interested, please put me down for 1.

[MNLegoBoy]

Add me for a second, I got a friend interested

[Bake]

Thanks for the welcome.

I can certainly appreciate the time and effort put into this project. It was probably two years ago that I first came across it here. Glad to see that it is finally coming to fruition. Great work DBSAR and all others involved.

Thanks also for the input on comparisons.

[sbslider]

@adam7027

I am fully eager on this… can’t stand waiting, really :partying_face:

Me either. I predicted the lantern would be available in September. My more detailed guess was mid September, based on DBSAR getting the test sample on August 13th. If I’m right, then the next week or two the lantern will be available. If I’m wrong, then, well, uhh, what else is new . . .

My guess was based on Sofirn taking 2-3 weeks once they got the go ahead to have production units ready. Maybe a bit optimistic, but recently at work we got a prototype of a new design from a vendor in two weeks. They bought all the parts, procured the PWBs, did the asssembly.
Granted, three CCAs with 30 component on it is not 2000 lanterns . . .

[Asian8640]

Hi! Can you put me down for one more? [Total of 2] Thank You!

[Melraidin]

Please add me to the list to purchase for 2. This is looking great.

[madcrow]

@RiGiD

Unless I missed something the LT1 can run off a battery bank without the battery compartment. Removing that section makes it similar in size to the Fenix lantern with the same form factor.

Yes it can, but form what I understand, not on full power though…
The max current the TP5100 power management IC can output (in its present configuration) is 1.5A.
Out of the factory, the LT1s come with 5 AMC7135 regulators enabled (out of the total 7). This means a 5*350mA=1750mA current draw in “high output” mode.
So even in this reduced configuration, the TP5100 cannot provide enough current for the LEDs to work at full blast.
Of course, it is theoretically possible to mod the driver board (i.e. replace the current sensing resistor of the TP chip) to make it output 1.75A or even 2.0A (this is the maximum it is capable of).
But since the chip is cooled passively, in a confined space with relatively high ambient temperatures, this kind of modification might not be a wise thing to do.
If also must be kept in mind that raising the current sourcing capability to 2.0A would result in the batteries being charged at 2.0A. Generally speaking, you could get away with this, since this charge rate would remain below the recommended 0.8C, even if you use 2600mA cells.

So long story short: Yes, you can operate the lantern from an external power source (even with the battery compartment completely removed), but there are limitations you should be aware of.

[DBSAR]

@madcrow

@RiGiD

Unless I missed something the LT1 can run off a battery bank without the battery compartment. Removing that section makes it similar in size to the Fenix lantern with the same form factor.

Yes it can, but form what I understand, not on full power though…
The max current the TP5100 power management IC can output (in its present configuration) is 1.5A.
Out of the factory, the LT1s come with 5 AMC7135 regulators enabled (out of the total 7). This means a 5*350mA=1750mA current draw in “high output” mode.
So even in this reduced configuration, the TP5100 cannot provide enough current for the LEDs to work at full blast.
Of course, it is theoretically possible to mod the driver board (i.e. replace the current sensing resistor of the TP chip) to make it output 1.75A or even 2.0A (this is the maximum it is capable of).
But since the chip is cooled passively, in a confined space with relatively high ambient temperatures, this kind of modification might not be a wise thing to do.
If also must be kept in mind that raising the current sourcing capability to 2.0A would result in the batteries being charged at 2.0A. Generally speaking, you could get away with this, since this charge rate would remain below the recommended 0.8C, even if you use 2600mA cells.

So long story short: Yes, you can operate the lantern from an external power source (even with the battery compartment completely removed), but there are limitations you should be aware of.

Correct :+1:
From my testing so far when running the LT1 from the USB-C through the TP5100 at its current configuration for the 1.5 amp max, (with the LT1 configured with the factory planned default of 5~7135 chips enabled, it will run at a reduced maximum when powered externally (i estimate roughly 75~80% of light output of it provides with 18650 battery(s) in the lantern.) While it can do that, i have not been able to test the TP chips temperatures as of yet when it is running as a power supply providing 1.5 amps of continuous load to the LEDs. (When i get my Lux sphere meter fixed or replaced i plan to do some testing on that.)

[Lund1660]

Is their a chance of hurting the electronics with extended use of external battery?

[DBSAR]

@Lund1660

Is their a chance of hurting the electronics with extended use of external battery?

I have ran the LT1 test unit for hours at 75% output with no problems on external power source, it seems to be fine for running on external power.

[rogueRobot]

Please add me to the list

[sbslider]

@SIGShooter

Up to 2,389 on the interest list. Maybe we can get to 2,500 before Sofirn is finished with production? :money_mouth_face:

Must be getting close to 2,500 . . .

[SIGShooter]

@sbslider

@SIGShooter

Up to 2,389 on the interest list. Maybe we can get to 2,500 before Sofirn is finished with production? :money_mouth_face:

Must be getting close to 2,500 . . .

Up to 2,406 at the moment