FW3A, a TLF/BLF EDC flashlight - SST-20 available, coupon codes public

Coffee without coffee?
Powerful flashlight without power?
*That’s a lot of 3000 lumen? Make it 2500 lumen.
5 or 10 second turbo? I don’t accept it.
If that’s what it is, I don’t buy.*
I have two, D4 Emisar, with Nichia 219CT 83CRI, 5000K and XP-L hi,
Nicha gets very hot.
XP-L hi also heats up, but less so.
Step Down works
and the leds don’t burn out.

My bad.!

Just one light please!

D4 managed to have a generic algorithm. Is FW3A hardware harder to regulate?

On which side of the driver is the MCU? Does if face battery of shelf?
Maybe it would be possible to shorten the thermal path by installing a silicone cube or adding a blob of thermal glue in the factory?

There’s really not room for a thermal cube. A blob of thermal glue between the MCPCB shelf and MCU might work, but then it makes the light significantly less mod-friendly.

The D4’s regulation algorithm worked, but its initial peak was too hot and it had a tendency to overshoot, oscillate, and jump around. It has a reputation as a firestarter or a “nut roaster”. The FW3A improves on those things, but the initial peak is still too hot. So I’m pondering whether to make it initially act more like a turbo step-down before handing control back to the usual regulation algorithm.

In either case, the user can still force it to stay at turbo by setting the ceiling to max, ramping up to it, and holding the button down. Or they can change the thermal config values to make it run hotter, which will extend the turbo time.

My intention is to leave ceiling at 1100 lm (or even lower it some) so I don’t really have a preference about thermal regulation at higher levels.

I’ll sign up for one more light, making it a total of two (2) to my name.

Need one as backup/giveaway

I would prefer option B. I always prefer one or two hard drops vs a slow dimming.

TK, could it be that your thermal control works better at the lower levels because a lot of the heat is being generated in the 7135s rather than the LED. The 7135s being closely thermally coupled to the MCU and its internal temperature sensor. I suspect you are mostly controlling the temperature of the driver, not the LEDs.

ISTM there are two cases here:

A: Power (manageable) burned off in the 7135s, controllable. Driver temperature is a reasonable indication of overall head temperature.

B: FET in use, power (lots) burned off in the LEDs, no good thermal path to MCU, long time constants, driver runs relatively cool since most current passes straight through the FET.

Without having a temperature sensor on the LED MCPCB itself, I suspect trying to control it in B: is a difficult exercise. So a timed step-down bringing the 7135s back into use seems the most practical way forward.

Otherwise I think you would need two different control algorithms, but then it gets even more complicated as cell voltage drops, and in the transition region between 7135 only, and full FET.

TBH getting rid of the FET could make things much easier. A straight linear driver is the way to go in future IMO.

I’m all for thermal regulation B.

Reason: I have a D4 that I like to pocket-EDC but the lock-out requirement (manual or via software) makes a stiff tail-clicky EDC much more convenient. I really tried: my S2±shorty switches itself on spontaneously in my pants pocket about once a month (starts at low), the D4 does that at least twice a day, and in one occasion I found it (actually my nuts found it) on turbo.

The FW3A has the e-switch at the tail and that should help a bit but I expect not much.

So with some mapping using perhaps two different emitters you could make the stepdown start at the very first detection of rising temperature. Perhaps even use the first half second after first detection to detect the rising speed as recorded by the MCU, correlate that to what the actual temperature course is of the flashlight head and calculate an appropriate stepdown response. This could also work to get the correct stepdown when not fully ramped (but over sustainable current).

But your current temperature control algorithm may already work at this level?

My first reaction is to say to either use the universal method, or to use a significantly more aggressive regulation behavior when the fet is active but NOT go as far as to force a fast stepdown like with option B. Mostly it’s just uncomfortable to the user rather than actually harmful when the body rises above the setpoint momentarily; actual burns are from having things in front of the beam.

I’d say use normal behavior up to max 7135, then in FET use a more proactive mode. (Would a trend projecting part work here?) If there isn’t a set of parameters that can make the regulation work right at fet mode (a set which would have been too jumpy at lower modes) then maybe loosen up the constraints a little. Let it get a bit hotter than normal while it quickly regulates down to somewhere between turbo and the 7135 mode (it will be visibly changing, but that’s not nearly as bad as a fast forced stepdown). I should try some of this myself, of course. Hmm…

In for 2

Also would prefer option B

Unless there’s only a handful of bytes left, maybe this could be a config option; it does seem like people could have good reasons to go both ways.

You know, there is a body of evidence that argues otherwise. :wink:

The loudness war, decreased complexity of chords & melodies, fewer instruments, less diversity in lyrics, increased use of sampling, the growth of assembly line song writing (ie ‘track & hook’).

Does this body of evidence also have a source other than your subjective perception of today’s music? Would be interesting to read up. :+1:

Then there is the Auto-Tune.

Bland insipid pap from “celebrities” who wouldn’t know how to compose a lyric or a tune worth anything. Or sing in tune.

Nor write poetry, or inspire anyone to lead a better life.

Never mind have any musicianship, or know how to play any instrument. Leave that to the session musos who are great, but getting older.

You don’t know what you (had) until it’s gone.

Streaming has been the death of music, I’ll stick to my vinyl and CDs curmudgeonly.

Silicone cube doesn’t have to be 1 cm thick. A piece of silicone thermal pad of whatever thickness might help.
A silicone-based thermal glue shouldn’t impair mod friendliness significantly.

I can remember a time when audiophiles were bemoaning that CDs were the death of music.

Option B sounds good. 1100lm after Stepdown is still awesome.

The one thing I don’t want to happen with the thermal stepdown is to have it just keeping ramping down indefinitely.

My D4 copper starts out great on turbo. But within a minute thermal rampdown has dropped the output to maybe 50 lumens. That’s WAAAAY too low. It should stop ramping down well before that point. Maybe at 500 lumens.

This is one of the things I like about my Eagtac DX3B… it stops ramping down at 70% no matter what the temperature sensor sees.

For Anduril, maybe have a user configurable floor on the rampdown?

That’s when the rot started, with digitisation. Philips didn’t realise what a monster they had made, or how easy it would soon become to rip the stream or just copy the things. Then Fraunhofer came up with codecs, such as mp3. Winamp, Shoutcast followed.

The rest is history

I still think my MiniDisc sounds very sweet, ATRAC encoded.

Now, an analogue master tape, straight to vinyl with some sympathetic balancing through a Neve desk = heaven. Through my Garrard 401, SME tonearm, homebrew pre-amp, QuadII valve amps and a huge pair of KEF transmission line monitors. Have to wait until the neighbours are out at work before turning it up though.

A bit different from some Spotify through a cruddy bluetooth speaker.