… or get someone to develop a ‘cell cap’ so we can utilize existing cells for this tech
Yes, that is what I meant further up, something to convert the battery instead of necessarily creating an entirely new product.
We already have the capability to design/engineer the light, so this smaller adaption would be probably feasible as well.
I have to admit that I currently don’t have a light with an inner tube and I don’t know whether the reliability of the technology even warrants thinking about new battery designs. (ie how many people even have problems with the tube, can they be resolved otherwise, …)
…ask olight for their cap ….?
Apologies, your graphic perfectly summarizes what I was trying to say. My post was being typed as you posted yours.
such a cap, if available, would be a great approach.
Probably there is an “outside the box” solution to a simple and reliable tail e-switch that nobody has considered yet.
With a standard battery, you need an extra conductor and it seems that all alternatives already been used. LiteFlux with an inner tube, HDS with a wire inserted in the body/battery tube, Novatac with a wire shapped like a spring :
Or like said above, some sort of carrier but to get rid of this conductor, you would need a wireless module in the tailcap to communicate with the driver.
You could physically transfer the button action from tail to driver using a tube.
You could use a pressure sensor in the driver and perhaps use the battery itself as a piston.
You could have an LED inside the tail and a light sensor on the driver board (so the light shines between the tube and battery).
These are all terrible ideas but an example of how it can be constraining to think purely of an electrical connection.
Manker have a system on the E14 III and it seems they are using a glued inner tube instead of free-floating. There is also some suggestion that they are using the outer tube for switch signal, opposite of FW3A.
There are lots of possibilities and minor refinements which I am sure we will see in the coming years.
Yes like the Nitecore Piston Drive.
Yes, good idea to not have to use the additional signal conductor but basically it’s just moving the e-switch from the tail to the driver.
Fall into the wireless module category.
They are not terrible if it is still compact and improve reliability.
That is just a variation that was discussed on BLF.
I don’t think that there are a lot of possibilities, just variations of a very few possibilities. Most of those variations for a tail switch were already used 10 years ago and since, we didn’t see much improvements (except concerning the UI) but we’ll see.
I feel I am just often repeating myself here, but once again I find it necessary to clear up the Olight proprietary battery misnomer. The Seeker 2 pro will work with any 21700 protected button top battery. during the flashlight operation the light gets it’s positive from the button top, and it’s negative from the main negative on the battery. The only time the negative on the positive side is used is for in light charging with the magnetic charger. My seeker 2 has been thoroughly tested with orbtronic button top protected 21700 batteries. The only difference is that you will have to remove those batteries to charge them. Be aware however, that the majority of chargers can not accommodate the longer protected 21700 batteries. The orbtronic protected 21700 battery is like 12 bucks, where the same 5000 mah rated battery modified by Olight is 27 bucks. I use the battery that came with the light, but keep an orbtronic battery as a spare. Now, orbtronic must have a sweetheart deal with Olight, because the description of the orbtronic battery says it will not work in the Olight, but I assure you it will as long as you have the positive button turned toward the end cap just like the Olight battery is. On the head side of the light is a fairly large negative post that is used while running the light. The positive side of the battery has a insulator and a washer connected to the side of the battery casing, but the charging is transmitted through fairly small contact that could not and does not carry the higher current of the light itself…only the 1-2 amps of the charger. It is not dangerous to use the orbtronic battery even if you forget and hook the magnetic charger to it, but it will not charge either.
The orbtronic 21700 protected button top battery is 12 bucks and will run this light just fine as long as the positive is turned toward the endcap. Any protected button top 21700 battery will run the flashlight, it just can’t be charged in the light. That is all the negative on the positive side of the battery is used for…the magnetic charger.
Another possibility is moving the driver to the tail of the light. Ruins the idea of thermal regulation or aux-LEDs (though not aux-LEDs in the switch) but makes the E-switch easy. The Boruit D10 is kind-of a good example of this; Quadrupel’s driver adds a lit switch and we have +/- right there (as well as a bonus charging circuit). In that case there’s also long thin LED wires, but now I’m digressing…
Technically all we really need to do is peel back the heatshrink a little then it’d be advisable to make or find a suitable sized plastic/rubber ring to help mitigate accidental shorts
Then it’s a case of modifying/isolating the driver etc… I think that will be the part where a lot of people decide it goes in the too hard basket.
We’re not talking about the Seeker 2 pro that uses a side e-switch, we’re talking about flashlights with a tail e-switch like the Olight Odin that takes advantage of the proprietary battery design to carry the tail e-switch signal. A standard battery can’t be used without modification or the flashlight will not work.
The main reason Olight moved to the proprietary cells was to not increase body diameter (due to an inner signal tube) while increasing cell diameter. Not a trade-off I really care for.
HDS and Acebeam have nearly perfect executions of the tail E-switch with simple but elegant and effective designs.
OK, I am not familiar with that light or any possible ways to bypass the modified batteries. I am sure there is likely a work around that can be done, but knowing they have made it so difficult to use standard batteries, I think I will just steer clear. I just wanted to make people aware that in the case of the seeker 2 pro, a normal button top protected 21700 can be used for all except in light charging. 27 bucks for the modified battery is ridiculous. It is literally just a insulator and washer connected to the side of the battery shell for a ground. I like the seeker 2 pro, but would not if the proprietary battery was the only option.
That’s a good point. Proprietary batteries can call for proprietary chargers as well, and who wants or needs that?
The first Li light I bought was an Olight S30R, which is one of the earlier models with the special battery that permits magnetic tailcap charging. At that point, I didn’t envision catching The Bug, and acquiring any additional lights, or the cells and chargers needed to support them, so the the charging base was handy, and a neat, self-contained solution.
Such an arrangement has allowed Olight to try new design variations, but back then, the only benefit the special battery brought was the convenience of not having to remove the cell to charge. and that is still arguably the case for the newer models.
But as time passes, the cost of that benefit has gone up, as the sole remaining replacement cell is now is at least $15, and that’s only while it remains available for sale before supplies diminish, taking away a prominent feature of the light with it.
It has been a fine light, but I won’t be buying any mew light that relies upon proprietary schemes to retain all of its functions. There are plenty of options for lights that provide convenient charging via a common USB cable.
The Olight seeker 2 pro and S30r are both not e-tail switch so i find those comments on those lights a little off point.
I agree completely that a battery design that had both contacts on one end or something else “exotic” if it was a standard manufactured by the big li-ion manufacturers would be completely fine. Individual brands (that may or may not exist in a couple years) launching their own, much more expensive concoctions - with little added function or practicality - is something I will never support.
Considering one of these brands has had issues with lights and cells being prone to shorting on contact with metal at only one end leaves me with little confidence in the design as well. Seeing Nitecore take the same approach with the magnetically attaching light/battery system is honestly a bit concerning - it genuinely seems unsafe.
So it’s off point to consider the history of the manufacturer whose product is presented as the catalyst for the discussion, in what is at the root a cost/benefit analysis?
The same manufacturer who is one of the biggest proponents of non-standard cells, and its other products that have employed them? Do they not face the same potential questions?
Ever heard of TRX tires, or know of their history? The Honda owners who purchased vehicles equipped with the PAX system probably wish that they had, before buying.