Q8, PMS SEND TO THOSE WITH ISSUES BLF soda can light

[Tom_E]

I got some homework to do. I'll go thru our spec list this eve and see where we stand.

Just to update that list for fixes:

Correct XPL V6 3B 3D LEDs

Little larger oring at the lens - might be able to stretch it out, gotta see

Good finish of inside of tube

Latest Narsil

Maybe another FET, maybe

Things are better:

Stainless steel bezel

A true Narsil driver

double springs

lost the retaining ring but we do have screws

BLF Q8 labeling

Other things to note:

• tube no longer LEGO's with other SRK's, but there were issues with that anyway
• new one is 2 mm shorter (good)

[djozz]

3D

(edit: Tom beat me to it)

[alternety]

To really test thermal compound, you need to put it between a heat source and a heatsink. Then, with controlled power in the source, measure the temperature at some relevant location on the heatsink for various power inputs. While current through a device does have a temperature dependence, I am not sure this is a preferred evaluation technique. Mapping the device curves for current could be useful. But how much of the observed effect is in reality a temperature feedback loop within the semiconductor device. And then again, I could just be perusing angels and pin landing sites.

For picking a compound, Google some of the PC overclocking sites or just general testing sites. Be aware, some compounds also conduct electricity.

[TheOnlyDocc]

@ToyKeeper

I know how much you like ramping… but it’s mostly only available on e-switch lights. So I’ve been making a ramping UI for clicky lights. It’s not quite done yet, but all the basics work already and on a FET+1 with tiny25 it’s almost as smooth as Narsil’s default UI. It’ll never be quite as nice without an e-switch, but I think it gets reasonably close considering the simpler hardware.

(also works on tiny13, but it’s not as smooth or as fancy due to space limitations)

Big Big thanks for that!!! I am searching for a FW with Ramping (for clicky lights) for a long time. Hope that it will be available soon! Even if i have to change the tiny13 with a tiny25 to get the best result.

@Tom E
Can you see which FET they used on the latest Proto Driver?
Is the polarity protection ring on top of the screws glued in? I have to say i do not like glue in a light! And i absolutly do not like countersunk screws to secure a driver!
It looks cheap and the slightest misalignment between the holes in the driver and the holes in the light could warp the driver. Also if you are using countersunk screws on a PCB you can easily crack the PCB if you are not really careful with tightening the screws. I really hope that they find another solution!!!
It might be ok for most of the people but it is not really mod friendly. Sure i can find a mod solution (glue in a new driver. . .) but i would only use glue as a last resort!

[Tom_E]

@TheOnlyDocc

@Tom E Can you see which FET they used on the latest Proto Driver? Is the polarity protection ring on top of the screws glued in? I have to say i do not like glue in a light! And i absolutly do not like countersunk screws to secure a driver! It looks cheap and the slightest misalignment between the holes in the driver and the holes in the light could warp the driver. Also if you are using countersunk screws on a PCB you can easily crack the PCB if you are not really careful with tightening the screws. I really hope that they find another solution!!! It might be ok for most of the people but it is not really mod friendly. Sure i can find a mod solution (glue in a new driver. . .) but i would only use glue as a last resort!

Yes, we know what FET it is and we will ask them for a change on it. It's the NXP PSNM3R0-30YLDX, so not the better one. Better one is: PSNM2R0-30YLDX.

Yes, the polarity protection was glued on, but not badly. I used the pry tool shown in post #5314 to get it loose with some minor damage. We are discussing options there with them.

Agree, not the best way to go w/screws there, but they seem committed to it, being that the battery tube and head were designed for it. For modding, a replacement driver could be press fit with no glue - this is what I usually do, but couple dabs of thermal epoxy could work also.

Oh boy -- driver diameter is 47.6 mm, slightly bigger than most SRK clones, and our BLF Q8 (OSHPark) driver at 45.86 mm. HQ's driver is 46.23 mm with wider tabs to sand down.

[ToyKeeper]

@TheOnlyDocc

Big Big thanks for that!!! I am searching for a FW with Ramping (for clicky lights) for a long time. Hope that it will be available soon!

Oh, it’s already available. It’s a bit off-topic here though. Check the recent posts in the firmware thread in my signature for more info.

[fixed_it]

@Tom E

Agree, not the best way to go w/screws there, but they seem committed to it, being that the battery tube and head were designed for it.

I don’t mind the screws as a retention mechanism: probably easier to put back in than a ring and as long as it can all be taken apart, it’s ok. Future drivers can certainly be designed with the holes.

I wonder though, how is the ground connection achieved? Is it through the screws only? Or does it depend on the tube screwing in until it contacts the driver? It looks like the driver sits on an anodized shelf so not there for sure. The screws don’t seem like a very reliable way to connect to the driver PCB, especially at high current as there’s only a tiny contact line between the copper layer of the PCB and the screw head.

If it depends on the battery tube contacting the driver, this seems bad too. It’s subject to driver PCB wear and very sensitive to tolerances (tube too short or driver too thin = no light).

Or am I missing something obvious? I’ll admit I haven’t taken apart that many lights but this seems like something worth looking at more closely. It’s my only real concern with the screws.

[ZozzV6]

@fixed it

I wonder though, how is the ground connection achieved? Is it through the screws only? Or does it depend on the tube screwing in until it contacts the driver? It looks like the driver sits on an anodized shelf so not there for sure. The screws don’t seem like a very reliable way to connect to the driver PCB, especially at high current as there’s only a tiny contact line between the copper layer of the PCB and the screw head.

If it depends on the battery tube contacting the driver, this seems bad too. It’s subject to driver PCB wear and very sensitive to tolerances (tube too short or driver too thin = no light).

Or am I missing something obvious? I’ll admit I haven’t taken apart that many lights but this seems like something worth looking at more closely. It’s my only real concern with the screws.

I think the driver contact with head does not matter too much because the head ground path need to go through the anodized tube threads which need for lockout. So the only route for ground is the tube’s edge to driver.

[lightlight22]

Question: Since Thorfire has included double springs for this version, is it still advantageous to do a spring bypass? Or are the gains minimal?

[ToyKeeper]

@lightlight22

Question: Since Thorfire has included double springs for this version, is it still advantageous to do a spring bypass? Or are the gains minimal?

Double springs aren’t as good as a bypassed spring, but they’re a lot better than a single spring with no bypass. You could probably improve it a little with a bypass, but it’s a matter of diminishing returns and the extra spring makes the bypass harder to do.

So, this makes it better by default but a little harder to mod. We get like 80% of the benefit of bypassed springs, but that last 20% is a little less convenient.

[djozz]

If double springs behave like two single springs, the resistance will halve, while a bypass will make the resistance in the order of 15 times less, that is quite a difference. (see my ‘springs!’ test via the sigline below)

But if upon compression the two springs touch each other in multiple places, it could be that resistance is lower than expected.

Also, I have seen in the X5 and X6 lights they used quite thin wire for the double springs, that makes the advantage less.

[The_Miller]

As with the turning on to check if it works I guess with the springs the Pareto Principle goes

[lightlight22]

Thank-You for the quick answer ToyKeeper Djoz

Hmm… what to think…
At this point its looking like:
Priorities From High to Low

Best Stock Light
Safety
Modification Ability

ThoreFire has definitely switched gears for both good and a bit less than good.

Whats that principle Miller?

@ToyKeeper

@lightlight22

Question: Since Thorfire has included double springs for this version, is it still advantageous to do a spring bypass? Or are the gains minimal?
.

Double springs aren’t as good as a bypassed spring, but they’re a lot better than a single spring with no bypass. You could probably improve it a little with a bypass, but it’s a matter of diminishing returns and the extra spring makes the bypass harder to do.

So, this makes it better by default but a little harder to mod. We get like 80% of the benefit of bypassed springs, but that last 20% is a little less convenient.

@Tom E

@TheOnlyDocc

@Tom E Can you see which FET they used on the latest Proto Driver? Is the polarity protection ring on top of the screws glued in? I have to say i do not like glue in a light! And i absolutly do not like countersunk screws to secure a driver! It looks cheap and the slightest misalignment between the holes in the driver and the holes in the light could warp the driver. Also if you are using countersunk screws on a PCB you can easily crack the PCB if you are not really careful with tightening the screws. I really hope that they find another solution!!! It might be ok for most of the people but it is not really mod friendly. Sure i can find a mod solution (glue in a new driver. . .) but i would only use glue as a last resort!

Yes, we know what FET it is and we will ask them for a change on it. It’s the NXP PSNM3R0-30YLDX, so not the better one. Better one is: PSNM2R0-30YLDX.

Yes, the polarity protection was glued on, but not badly. I used the pry tool shown in post #5314 to get it loose with some minor damage. We are discussing options there with them.

Agree, not the best way to go w/screws there, but they seem committed to it, being that the battery tube and head were designed for it. For modding, a replacement driver could be press fit with no glue - this is what I usually do, but couple dabs of thermal epoxy could work also.

Oh boy — driver diameter is 47.6 mm, slightly bigger than most SRK clones, and our BLF Q8 (OSHPark) driver at 45.86 mm. HQ’s driver is 46.23 mm with wider tabs to sand down.

@BrianK

The Miller I know you’re getting weary. We do appreciate your effort in this, and by the other folks involved also. Yeah, it’s been a long haul.

But will it work as is? Then OK. But if it screws over the modders it needs to be fixed and made right since modding was one of the design parameters. It needs to work for everyone based on the original design.

BTW, I’m not a modder.

@The Miller

Despite this thermal input I fear we (or I) will not ask for a shelf, ledboard AND reflector adaptation over it
We have a big ledboard and pretty good cooling as is, a change on all those parts would take months and sorry I cannot bring myself to it, not now we are relatively close and proto v2 does ~6K lumens after 30 seconds where we spec 4K.
It just doesn’t seem worth the hasle and time.
But maybe I am just getting a bit tired and anxious to hold a Q8 so in dire need of BLF input and push

@DavidEF

I’m glad to see that Thorfire is actually putting some of their own engineering effort into this. As long as their engineering effort doesn’t cause any regressions, it can’t be anything but a positive sign that they are taking some ownership of this. Apparently, they see the future potential of this light. I know The Miller has mentioned that he (and maybe others) had to work hard to help Thorfire to see that potential. So, thanks The Miller!

I was just thinking about this light the other day, and I realized something. If the “Budget” flashlight manufacturers would really work with us and take our (collective) expertise seriously, many of them could catapult themselves into a position of being Premium flashlight makers and could charge much higher market prices for the much better quality lights they’d be producing. Some of the cheapest ones would never want that, because it doesn’t fit their business model. But, the midgrade brands could transform themselves into the next Nitecore or Olight or Whatever-high-priced-brand. Of course, we’d never agree to an arrangement that benefits them that greatly and does nothing for us! So, we’d have to get a deal too.

Ideally, it would work just like this Q8 project (seems to be) working. We do a lot of the up-front work, and for that we get an amazing, top-quality light at an awesome price. Then afterward, they jack the price up to what it should really be worth in the open market. Sadly, we’ve tried this before with other manufacturers who have all failed to make the leap because they never really took us seriously enough, and they ended up feeding us half-baked junk instead of what we agreed on. That’s why this project is so exciting for me. It looks like Thorfire “gets” it. And we have The Q8 Team to thank for it, at least partially. I really hope Thorfire is reading this thread, and maybe even previous BLF custom flashlight threads for a bit of historical perspective.

@DavidEF

@SawMaster

@The Miller

a retainer ring means other 46 mm drivers can be secured easy, I do not know of drivers with holes to secure them so it seems like taking away some moddability

Well, if it comes down to having to choose, even though I like polarity protection for the muggles sake, we shouldn’t compromise on moddability. Perhaps TF can do ours, then switch to polarity protection for those being sold on the open market afterward?

Should an availability issue happen with the desired LED, that can be addressed easily later since TF wouldn’t need to change anything except what is being fed into their machines- no real issue there as long as we get what we ask for. And while everyone wants perfection, with a flooder is it really necessary to have perfectly centered LED’s? It would be nice but I think a little leniency in this would be OK as long as it doesn’t get sloppy- in field use I don’t think anyone would notice the difference in the beam between perfect and slight misalignment. Wall-hunting yes- real life no. I’ll be bashed for that but it is my honest opinion.

Nice seeing the progress- Hurrah for Team Q8 :+1:

Phil

I’ll emphatically agree with everything here except your opening statement. I’d much rather see manufacturers concerned with safety than moddability. To be sure, both of these are luxuries in the world of flashlights. If both were left out, it wouldn’t be any worse than any other multiple Li-Ion flashlight. So, we’re talking about preferences. But, the way I see it, those that know how to mod will usually find a way to mod anyway. Reverse polarity protection can’t be added by those who don’t mod. A lot of us just want this light to be the best SRK style light on the market - in Stock form.

[strango]

@SawMaster

And while everyone wants perfection, with a flooder is it really necessary to have perfectly centered LED’s? It would be nice but I think a little leniency in this would be OK as long as it doesn’t get sloppy- in field use I don’t think anyone would notice the difference in the beam between perfect and slight misalignment. Wall-hunting yes- real life no. I’ll be bashed for that but it is my honest opinion.

Sounds reasonable.
I can’t see whether the issue is a real problem from the photo provided but anyway, my Roche m170 has good led alingment, my way cheaper SRK clone has good led alingment. I see no reason why Q8 should be different.

TF anyway is going to sell Q8 under their brand afterwards and people definitely won’t be happy with that (possible) drawback. Possibly someone will face an issue while modding after LED reflowing, etc.
I think this should be at least addressed to TF and then check their reaction.

[The_Miller]

Pareto Principle
20%/80%
20% of labour achieves 80% of the work
20% of clients will earn a company 80% of profits
20% of clients will have 80% of problems

So double springs being 20% of work and trouble compared to good spring bypass will gain 80% (while some want to go 100% and need to fo a bypass thus putting in allbtge work)
Switching the Q8 on makes TF spot 80% of issues, a very in depth long lasting test procedure would elevate that but at a high cost.

Pareto principle

[Tom_E]

Sorry, had to catch up on some sleep.

The contact to ground is made via the battery tube's top edge contact to the drivers ground ring. The nice feature about this light is the battery tube's threads and o-ring fit nicely under the head, as it threads in, so I don't believe tolerances and wear will effect this ground contact negatively. There's no hard stop for it threading in, another words. Also nice it has a simple mechanical lockout, but that feature could wear out in time. The anodizing is not high quality. Dang - haven't taken close-up pics of the threads yet, they are supposed to be square, but if you don't have quality anodizing, I would think the wear will eventually break the mechanical lockout.

The bad side? Well, I mentioned before the driver's diameter is wider than normal SRK drivers, and the battery tube's top edge is thin in order to clear the new polarity protection plastic cover added. So for driver replacement, stock SRK drivers might be too narrow for ground contact - it's a risk, didn't try it myself yet so not sure.

I re-assembled proto #3 last night, stretching out the lens o-ring seemed to work out to make the assembly easier. Proto #3 that had the weaker #'s seems to have improved now. The screw holding down the reflector was definitely loose before, now it's tight, and I think the LED's look much better centered.

The thing I like a whole lot about this light is the low profile LED alignment pieces. The cheap SRK clones are awful - thick base, high sides - these are really low profile in both dimensions, which I believe translates to more LED in the reflector, more light out.

Here's what I'm talking about.

One big copper DTP MCPCB, best setup, appears identical to proto #1, accept for the screws:

This is where they made some changes - same reflector, same dimensions (18mm high, 51 mm wide, 23 mm I.D. reflectors, 7.05 mm holes), but backside machined differently. The screws were changed from flat head to pan head - an improvement because pan heads will not apply force to potentially buckle the copper MCPCB as flat heads would if hole alignments are not perfectly set. To make room for the pan heads, they drilled out holes. They also made the center hole slightly wider to properly clear the solder pads.

The low profile alignment pieces. Proto #1 used similar ones, but they are jammed into the reflector, partially broken, as if they didn't fit right. These are about a perfect fit.

Close up view of the side switch. The 4.7K resistor is way too low for these green LED's (2). The parasitic draw with these on is 0.4 mA, and with them off is 0.038 mA. The LED's are very bright, bright enough to light up your path in pitch darkness. I'd suggest about a 10K, and that should lower the drain to about 0.2 mA

I've been saying the LED's that came in the prototypes were not acceptable - CW with hints of blue and green. Thinking maybe like a 1S or 1B tint. Here's comparisons - 4X SRK clone with XM-L2 U3 3D's on the left, proto #2 on the right. First a lower output level:

Higher output level:

These wall shots are about what I'm seeing. Did a bunch of camera settings checks to get it matching pretty close. Maybe the blues and greens are a little more emphasized in the pictures, but they are there in real life.

[djozz]

If it turns out that the driver dimensions plus screw hole fixation of proto2 will make it into the production Q8, with 1000+ Q8’s around I can see modders adapt their Oshpark designs for the screw holes and new dimensions.

I kind of like the way the proto2 board is fixed with screws (although would like to see the plastic ring screwed together with the driver board), but of course it would be more convenient if the Q8 uses the standard dimensions of SRK boards.

[The_Miller]

Thanks!

hmm that driver size can we see that as issue?

Ah so first screw ledboard to shelf, then reflector to ledboard, then place driver.
Makes sense and two screws for the ledboard, nice.

Good picture to show the 3*D* tint.

Do you see any diffence in switch setup on the two latest protos?

[djozz]

Thanks for the new pics Tom, so with the two screws we have good clamping force between ledboard and shelf! I really like how the construction is now, it was not how we figured it beforehand (reflector screwed against shelf with the ledboard sandwiched in between), but this will do the job well!

[djozz]

Is the ledboard the same as proto1?