I think people usually go for the SBT70 just for looks. It is a round emitter. But, also, it is a ~3V emitter, so it works as a replacement for MT-G2 in lights where ~6V is not do-able.
is there any possibility to order extra drivers along with the flashlight? i think it would be great to be able to get some extra drivers for a “chinese price”!
No, we’ve had this conversation before. No extra drivers. Sorry.
i think i’ve read through all of this thread, but couldn’t remember if the question had been asked before.
any reason why there won’t be any extra drivers? since they already will have to make 700 drivers, why not make another 1000? i know i would buy a couple extra…
Iirc they just want to focus on getting the flashlight built at this time. We can always explore interest in anything else after the flashlight is a smashing success.
Well, I looked back over the thread. I think if you start around post #151 and read a while, you’ll get the idea. 
If you need more clarity, perhaps you should PM bugsy36. 
ok, thanks!
it seems like the permission to use this driver is for this run of the group buy, and not for anything else. so EE or BG can’t sell these drivers outside this flashlight. And perhaps with adding drivers to the GB it would be a bit too complex to handle.
I’d still like a couple of extra drivers without having to build them myself or order from USA, which makes them not-so-budget for me, but i guess not this time then
Permission? Who's permission? Didn't think TK would restrict it, maybe for the driver board design? I think EE enhanced it though with the added gate resistors which probably eliminated the well known flashes on mode changes or power up this OSHPark DD+1 driver has.
@OscarM - On that side of the world.....Contact Mitko for drivers. He may be able to help you :)
The code is freely usable under the provisions of the GNU Public License, which is a share-and-share-alike sort of thing. I’m not sure what the situation is for the A17DD-L driver board, but it’s on OSHpark. Would be nice if it had an explicit license.
BTW, the production samples still have a bit of a blink on moon if the capacitor was already charged up when it turns on. Not sure how to get around that since it needs to read the OTC value immediately on boot before it starts treating that pin as an output.
Did I say I wanted one? Yes, I did (neutral)
Make that two.
K, then still a mystery where this 'permission' issue is coming from?
Then the added resistors is also a mystery? Or an attempt to solve that issue? I recall early on we were play'n with resistors on the gates (maybe 100K?) but found it didn't seem to make a difference so they were eliminated later on.
For 1 - NW Please :bigsmile:
Okay, I’ll bite. Already on the other current Groupbuys but would like one of these too.
Please add me to the interest/want list. Need a little advice on the choice of XP-L tint though…
Regarding CW vs. NW on the XP-L. I have the original Christmas 2014 Thrunite Ti (Titanium) AAA. As this was one of the first tiny XP-L emitter lights it was only available in CW as far as I know.
However my only experience of this CW XP-L is a very nice tint. If it were compared to an XM-L2 you would say it was more Neutral (white) than Cool (blue), though not Warm or “Yellow”. As the stock CW was already leaning towards Neutral-ish, is the NW of an XP-L likely to be more Warm/Yellow in tint?
Though I don’t like Blue Cold lights, I equally don’t like very Yellow reminiscent of the old ‘Incandescent’ colour. So would I be better off with CW or NW for this particular emitter.
Also forgive me if this has been addressed already. Is this BLF edition A6 proposed to have the new XP-L HI (no factory dome), or the regular XP-L? Just opinion but being a tubular light, (ie. already limited in reflector size and hence throw capability), perhaps the new Intensity version would be a good choice to offset or counteract the throw limitation…
All the best,
Hirsh
As far as I know, the exact bins used for CW and NW have not yet been decided. I assume that what is available when production starts will decide. Wait and see, or get one of each to cover your bets...
The "regular" XP-L LED will be used, not the "factory dedomed".
If you want or need a flashlight with good throw, this is not it. This is a compact EDC light that is more of a hi-powered area light/flooder. I suspect that it will be perfect as a bike light or to light up nearby or enclosed areas.
No idea what is technically legal, but it seems to me from the beginning of this group buy attempt Wight was asked permission to use his board and ToyKeeper was asked permission to use her firmware. When a major company is using someone else’s design it’s virtually always with the designers permission to do so. Otherwise there is the potential for it to blow up in their face.
In almost every field, the guy that worked his butt off for a killer design wants recognition for it, right?
If someone just copies his great idea without getting that permission then he can rightfully sue for damages and losses, right? Happens all the time.
So Tom, if you work you butt off to figure out how to make an Olight Javelot throw 850Kcd for a client, then he gives it to Vinh and all of a sudden YOUR work has the known VN trademark on it, you gonna be happy with that?
I’ve seen it firsthand. I made the required aluminum heat sink to enable a quad to fit in the X6. I was asked if another member here could use the design, and if so, what would I do to make it better? So I redesigned it to take all the elements in question and gave him that drawing. Now everyone here knows that Nitro had these pills made for the X6 for some awesome lights. Not everyone knows that it’s my design. I didn’t know he was going to mass market it when I gave him permission, but for the greater good of the community I decided it didn’t matter to me. After all, I’m not in the business so I’m not losing anything on it nor did I intend to try making anything on it, so all is well. But that has to be understood from the get go, is the design openly available for all, and are “permissions” given for someone to mass market it and make money on it? Therein lies the rub. Where is Wight? I’m pretty sure he only gave permission for this driver to be used in the group buy. Notice they changed the design a wee bit? So technically they’re not using Wights board, right? This is the stuff lawsuits are made of, so yes, permissions are usually made note of for protection of all parties involved. I believe they call it the CYA policy…
Even if you are not in the business, and didn’t lose anything, that type of behavior is immoral at best. Just my opinion. I’m glad you didn’t let it bother you. I’m not sure many people would have done the same.
Sorry, that’s not what I meant… both myself and Nitro did our best to help the community at large, with little to no profit for anyone. The manufacturer isn’t in it for the same reasons.
The sample does not use Wight’s board, but a new board design. I don’t think Wight can claim any intellectual property on the circuit diagram since it is based upon Nanjg driver.
Let me say in advance that this is NOT intended towards anybody in particular or even intended to be harsh BUT it will read harsh as some writing does :)
I am going to try and put this driver thing to rest once and for all. For those that know and understand intellectual property, please do not debate it here. For those that do not I will make it as simple as possible.
- Trademark - A method of identification. No two unrelated entities can share the same trademark.
- Copyright - The exclusive right of a creator to control production and use of works commercially for profit (usually refers to art and music)
- Fair Use - Originally meant for news and education but extended to personal use and can side-step copyright
When I saw what Wight did I thought it would be cool to get that driver in a tube light - specifically this A6. Because there was COMMERCIAL production and PROFIT involved I asked for permission, and permission for this driver to be manufactured and installed in this A6 ONLY. I did not ask for permission to have the driver itself commercially manufactured for stand-alone sale and I would not either.
At that time the only entity that was going to be allowed to manufacture drivers COMMERCIALLY for PROFIT was RMM. I can understand that and respect that. First of all, Wight and RMM worked on a few things together, and secondly (and I could be wrong) Wight had a fondness of RMM (as many of here do). So why not? There is nothing wrong with that.
Wight NEVER EVER said that people could not manufacture these drivers for their own use. He did not care and would not be able to do anything about that.
Here in the US, for those of us that do not build drivers (me,me,me) we have access to DD drivers via mtnelectronics.com. A great guy who has contributed a lot to our hobby while making small money (if any) all while putting himself from school. When he's in class his wife helps get OUR stuff out, between raising their kids, running their house, and doing what the girls do. Not an easy task but it makes one hell of a difference for us. I mentioned small money because we ALL know what RMM spends on this stuff and inventory. He certainly does not get it for pennies and his SMALL PROFIT is generated through quantity discounts he receives while fronting the money to have things on hand for US. Has anybody noticed that his inventory is getting larger even though he is trying like hell to control it? That SMALL PROFIT has been going right back into inventory...FOR US. It isn't without risk either. All of a sudden "these batteries are no longer hot sh*t" or "this is the latest thrower" etc. etc.
With that said I was NOT going to have and will NOT have any part in competing with RMM for DD drivers, and possibly even leaving him holding the bag of a few hundred bucks of unused parts. Just NOT going to happen. He does not make that much profit and IS entitled to the little he does make. I will take no part in screwing a good guy in order to save a couple bucks.
Added Edit: For the Record - RMM never knew MY reason for never asking nor wanting to try and mass produce Wight's or any DD driver. I never discussed it with anyone and RMM and I have never discussed business in any shape or form. Our only contact has been orders and fixing my screw ups :)
For those not in the US, Mitko has been helping people in the Old World, as have a couple others. The drivers are available worldwide.
So with all of that said - PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE - No more talk of getting this driver mass produced separately with this GB.
FYI - To all of those that do not know or been reading Dale's posts - The latest EE samples with the EE sourced drivers are decent drivers BUT they are not the exact same driver and they can be placed in other lights. The point I am making there is that if people want Chinese DD drivers then start contacting driver manufacturers and flashlight manufacturers. If there is enough noise made they might make them.
)