Please put me down for 2 more, so that’d be 3 in total.
Thanks!
@ Sharpie : I’ts nice of you thinking safety concerns. I myself would think that if it’s used that way, there are more points to take care of before that. I would only use quality protected cells in parallel. Also they would have to be button top’s to make contact. And if there would be cell wrong way around, I don’t think it could made contact. Maybe in some case you could fry your driver with overvoltage. And every light as well as every car, that uses these type of cells will have possibility of potential catastrophic failure. It would be matter of user’s decision whether to use light like that or not. But safety should always be considered.
@ djozz : You are correct. I did use “nominal” dimensions instead of oversize. Thanks for saying it out. I did draft one more sketch. That would have been taken care of that. I’ll drop it end of this message.
@ Tac Gunner : Thanks for you support.
@ mattlward : Nice idea that could probably do it. I think that in my latest sketch I have overcome this obstacle. But that sure could be an option too if it wouldn’t work.
@ Jesjes : Sure a poll would be appropriate if more people like it different. But I think there has only spoken so few lately that, I don’t think it should be changed after all (or at least kept in similar dimensions). Since others have “signed in” with the earlier design.
@ The Miller : Yea the few that has spoken, would like it to be same diameter and I agree on that. I liked that 7 cells could fit nice and tight, but seems this ain’t the light for it.
@ Jesjes : I’m sorry to say, but there was no plan of using 5 cells. Apologizes if i mislead you. That drawing where was one middle was only as a possible solution for able to use light with 1x 18650 cell as in illustration purpose. If the cells would not have space, that could hold them despite number of cells used (It’s a feature of this light being able to operate 1-4 cells). With in 26650’s place using a 26650-18650 sleeve. If there would be 5 cells with one being center that would take same space than my drawing showing 7x 18650. So it would not be worth it.
But if you were thinking of 5 round revolver style that would be somewhat between of those 2, SRK style being smallest ~50mm diameter. Followed by 5 cell revolver 55-60mm and last would be that 7x design 60-65mm depending on wall thicknesses.
—
Here is my last sketch about tube roughly SRK size tube.
19mm for 18650 and 27mm for 26650, now there should be margin to fit.
50mm diameter of tube.
2mm wall thickness at lowest (The Miller measured that SRK style light had lowest wall thickness of 1.55mm) - Thanks for measuring for me. *
Blue line is 17,63mm at lowest, so it should hold 18650 in place.
- I would have measured my own SRK if it would be in my hands, but unfortunately I had lended it earlier to my brother.
So I just leave it here, if enough likes it. Then I think that a poll about it would be appropriate. But for now I think that it should be original one, and not to decide on behalf of others.
It was fun sketching thought and you guys had nice opinions. Thanks.
Feel free to point out if there is any flaws or have some ideas about it. Whether it would stay as a sketch or possible in a product someday. I still would like to overcome any obstacles about it. It’s just the way I am.
-Phoenix_FIN
Phoenix - I'd love to see these ideas applied to the BOSS1 - it's currently a 4P 26650 config, so potentially has lots of options, but it's a big carry being so wide. Also the BOSS1 has a Batt+ contact in the center of the driver. As The Miller said, though, we can't do a change like this - just too much impact, all good ideas though.
Phoenix_FIN, nice diagram. As this light is to be mod friendly, could we at least fill the center of the driver’s positive pad (unless there’s a good reason not to) and make the bottom of the light ready to receive an extra center spring? If someone wants to file the holding tabs down by 1mm or so to fit a 26650, I say let them. This seems like a case of “zero cost change for the better”.
@ Tom E : Why not, if you had something in mind just shoot a PM. Only problem being I don’t own that light (at least for now).
Yea I did understand, just wanted to see whether any of them could be adopted. A good idea are not that good idea, if it’s just in the bank (head) instead of trying to make it work. I’d like to think that even the best can get better.
Anyhow this light will be awesome, no matter what cells it will take!
Thanks, I appreciate you’r output.
@ fixed it : Thanks. I think Q team can answer that better. That’s great idea, preparing for it and leaving it in hands of user.
-Phoenix_FIN
It's listed here at GearBest, group buy attempt here, and big thread info here . Just an interesting thought. PALIGHT is an unknown - we couldn't even get a group buy going for it.
Hhmm, that will put a wrinkle on PD68's sexy design pattern he has there. Could ask, see what The Miller says. Dunno if there's just solder mask over a batt+ plane, or other issues.
Maybe I am missing something but wouldn’t it be easy enough to just solder a copper disc over the middle instead of changing the driver?
As before this flow if ideas is a great joy!
And well I am sure that somebody capable of modding the center of the driver to accept a + side of a cell is also capable of modding the tail PCB to accept a -side right?
I’d hate to see that (quote Tom) “sexy driver” 
lose some of its sexyness 
on production lights (if Thorfire is going to use our design 1 on 1)
when will this be available for purchase? what’s the estimated lumens and distance? whats the runtime on 4 3400mah cells? I didn’t see it on the first page. are there actual sample pictures in the thread?
What is with the name of the flashlight. Should Q8 only be the working name, shouldnt it? Because if we will name it Q6 for production, this name should be on the driver, marked with the contact wholes.
Not sure, probably a long time
4000+
Don’t know
Weeks to months on low modes, much less on highest
Not yet we will post new info when it comes and of course post pics of samples when they come
We have not reached the step where there are samples available.
We do have driver prototypes, see post 2 for video of the ramping mode.
In the OP you see head design V5
This with some clarification pics is send to Thorfire.
We have slightly adapted V2/3 of the driver board design and it is planned to order 3 of those do Tom can make new Q8 Narsil driver prototypes and send one to Thorfire.
The OP is where you can find what we have.
If something new comes, a milestone is reached, a discussion about something can take place etc, I update the OP, add the topic in CAPS in the title (and if needed link to the post in the thread where it can be found high in the OP)
We have no idea how fast this will go, as you can see we basically design a completely new light and previous BLF specials based on existing lights took long, we probably need a little longer since every part, trace, corner, size etc is to be designed/implemented and bounced back and forth through the team, BLF community and Thorfire.
We do know that the LEDs and FET driver combo should give at least 4000 lumens.
The distance is depending on the reflector as well but that should look about the same as a Quad SRK reflector seen from above (the underside is a different design) and this type of light it more floody then throwy but a basic nodded SRK will get at least 150m so we expect this to reach that with no problem.
We and Thorfire are still in the design phase,so there isn’t a sample yet. We know the requirements, we have many design suggestions, we have a proposed driver, and all will be incorporated into a flashlight.
We aim for over 4000 lumens, but on 3400mAh cells, which are not high-drain, it will be somewhat less. A runtime on 3400mAh cells with flashlight on highest setting would be in the order of 1 hour, with high drain 3000mAh cells more near 40 minutes.
It is a flood light, so the distance will not be great, but illuminates everything near you.
edit: The Miller beat me with his answer
Actually I "think" this light will have the throw of a good stock C8, I'm figuring on, maybe a little better. I took measurements of some SRK clones - don't have the #'s here with me. As you add LED's generally the reflector diameter goes down, and so does throw. The 3X's are best, 4X not bad, 5 and up gets lower and lower. 4X is a nice compromise of lumens and throw.
+1 on the lumens: 4,000-5,000, in that range. NW LED's with non AR glass is maybe 10%-20% lower than cool white w/AR.
Q8 or Q6
Well Toykeeper explained why a 6 is logical and used often.
However a 8 is also fine 18650 has a 8 in it as well.
14500 has both a 4 and a 5
So Q4/Q8 or Q5/Q6 are equally logical.
Q2/Q4/Q8 looks very good to me
Q4/Q5/Q6 suggest closer performance.
Please no off topic but when going for a AA/14500 Qx the performance will not be close to the 18650 Qy we are working on now.
So I like the Q8 name (followed by a Q4) better and think it sounds and looks better.
I really like how that driver looks now with Q8, esthetically the closed 8 appeals much more then a 6 to me.
Then we are talking about Q8 with Thorfire and would like the main designs to be the focus and not adding confusion by naming it Q6 all of a sudden. Though we can aleay do that later on.
But yes other then explaining where the Q comes from and that both Q4/Q8 as Q5/Q6 are good fitting the topic 6/8 is not heavily discussed, at least not to a final conclusion.
Q4/Q8 pro’s
Closer to expected performance
Logical sequence
Looks good
Already well known on BLF
Already well known with Thorfire
Q5/Q6 pro’s
More common
On par with Kronos X5/X6
(Well maybe something common is an advantage to some, for me personally it has a slightly negative connotation, I rather discover then walk the broad road everybody walks on
And after I have asked several times if Kronos is going to work on a X4/X7 that is not clear.
Besides there are manufacturers making lights with other then 6 for 18650 and 5 for 14500 namings even common ways are no law ;).
If however Kronos would be working on a X4 and/or X7 that would change everything and I would be then opt for X5/X6 since that would create some BLF consistency which I think is cool
The Q is there to stay
For the 8/6 I am just a BLFer like the rest.
and I have just expressed my sentiments and thoughts.
Besides seeing this progressing and being able to work on a new light, one of the nicest and rewarding aspects about the Q8 is that so much is debated and decided by the whole community!
So I guess it is time for a new round of debate! Yay!
Gonna update the title and refer to this post and let’s decide it via discussion and maybe a poll if the need arises.
Cool
Q8 nice round and even.
Well, I’ve been referring to it as the Q8 now for so long that it has stuck. Even if the name is changed, I’ll probably still refer to it as the Q8. I vote we stick with that.
Q8 does it imho
4 emitters ×2 = 8
I vote for Q8 .
Oh yeah quad as a quad SRK but at least double the output
But taking Narsil into account, comparing that to stock SRKs we should name it ” Q googolplex ”
Or just Q4 ….
4 leds and probably ~4k lumens (over 3k for sure)