Having thought about the design, I think it would be best usable, if the flood and the throw section have each their own controller and their own Anduril2.
The two buttons could be arranged in a way so both can be pressed at the same time, if needed. So, the user could fire up the LEDs at one time or each segment alone.
The thermal mass has a bit of inertia, so if both controllers are sensing heat from the mass, they each can level off the power as best as possible, without the risk of starting an oscillating system, where one side regulates down while the other picks up the now free dissipation capacity and ramps up, and so on. The thermal mass will act as a damper on this.
High thermal mass actually kinda makes it harder to avoid oscillation. Regardless though, Anduril’s thermal algorithm is very averse to oscillations, so it shouldn’t be an issue. It has pretty strong dampening built in already, to keep the output relatively flat. It can oscillate a little sometimes on really hot lights, but the amplitude decreases rapidly, typically down to zero or near-zero within just one cycle. So it’s less of an oscillation and more of an overshoot-and-correction.
If there were two independent drivers in one light, they would likely react to each other but settle fairly quickly to a stable level.
The light isn’t using Anduril though. I’m not sure exactly how that was decided, but I think it may be because I’m not a circuit designer so I can’t just send a schematic plus firmware and have it manufactured. Or maybe it’s just because of the chip shortage… I don’t know.
Oh, you would be absolutely right, if the thermal mass also was coupled with high thermal dissipation. Then the slippage introduced by the mass would lead to oscillation with a LED power controller that does not have the dampening capabilities of Anduril2.
Actually, here we have just mass and very little dissipation. Simply spoken, the blob of metal will just heat up and stay so for a comparably long time. Referred to as inertia.
Test prototype available assemble with 12 LH351D 5000K and 1 XHP50.3 HI, something need update:
switch feeling
The brightness did not reach the expected value, maybe update the LH351D to a more power one
the handle, not sure
What were the lumen numbers? I really think most people here understand that if you are using 90cri emitters tgat lumens aren’t going to be mind-blowing. 12*351Ds from 3*21700 would have me expecting maybe 9000 lumens OTF.
Maybe the best lumens and beam quality for the money would probably be 5000k SST20s. Avoid xpg3/xpl2!
Please stay with LH351D. Most of BLF users will prefer that version. Also I prefer them over greenish SST20. Also LH351D is my favourite high cri led. If you want to switch to something powerful only reasonable will be xhp50.3
I recommend xp-l HD either 5000k or 4500k. Even if driven at 3 amps each those should get you to 13-14000 lumens. The beam and tint with the 4500k is nice. You could also opt for the 5700k version of the lh351d, but I don’t recommend 5000-6500k sst20 for this light…green at low currents. Avoid the current cen domed Cree emitters (xpg3, Xp-l2).
Due to the high Vf and cost of XP-L, I don’t think it’ll be worth any bump in lumens over the cheap low cri sst20. Throw will be way better with the Luminus as well. For reference, check out the lumen values for Hanks 4* and 8* emitter lights to see the minimal lumen difference between these emitter choices.
Yes, We want to use the handle because we take into account that the torch generates high heat at high brightness, but take it as a option accessories is fine too, we would like do more color except black, maybe will try metal gun or green first, will try do some Rendering pictures to see how is going
Only 500 meters with the XHP50.3 HI? very disappointing, in that case we will have to look for another led that reaches more with that lens, a smaller led.