Just curious why you want to use protected cells in this when full battery protection is already incorporated into the carrier?
Fire Foxes IV FF4
- Thread starter mhemling33
- Start date
Help Support Candle Power Flashlight Forum
Ray-o-light
Newly Enlightened
Yep, I'll be picking one up. Hope it has a smooth reflector too!
Serious question Bob, because I'm not as electronically minded, would it matter if protected cells were used, as long the cell protection circuits were less aggressive than the protection built into the carrier? If I understand correctly, the battery protection would never have to kick in if the carrier did it first, thus the cells just acting as a back-up to the primary protection. One of the things I like about cell protection is the build in temperature circuit in each individual cell.
Thanks buddy.
Serious question Bob, because I'm not as electronically minded, would it matter if protected cells were used, as long the cell protection circuits were less aggressive than the protection built into the carrier? If I understand correctly, the battery protection would never have to kick in if the carrier did it first, thus the cells just acting as a back-up to the primary protection. One of the things I like about cell protection is the build in temperature circuit in each individual cell.
Thanks buddy.
Paul, No, it wouldn't matter in function. Not that I am an expert in this but depending on the specs of the two different protection circuits, one would kick in before the other with the same end result. In both cases, (as far as the Low Voltage Cutoff {LVC} function) it's just a circuit that is attached to a bare cell for cell protection. So given the fact that - 1, One has to nearly butcher the carrier by cutting and nearly eliminating the negative end springs, 2, The danger of ripping the cell wrapper and creating a dead short are greatly increased, 3, the protected cells cost more than bare cells, and 4, Protection already exists (and probably much more sophisticated protection) -- why use protected cells? The light is not designed to use protected cells. My guess is that the LVC on the carrier is more conservative than the individual cell circuit and therefore, the cell circuit would never be used. And you really don't want to rely on the individual cell circuit for normal shutdown because it is so low - 2.5 Volts, or so, that it will shorten the life of the cell upon regular tripping. Individual cell protection circuits are not really designed to be used as a normal end of charge notification whereas, IIRC, the built-in FF circuit is. It might even be that the higher LVC (again, I believe it is) of the carrier might be designed to protect the ballast from too low an input Voltage. But a lot of what I said is really neither hear nor there because the carrier LVC probably cuts power long before the individual cell circuit does. It just goes back to why spend more, ruin the carrier and probably ruin the cells and increase your chances of a dead short trying to get them in and out without ripping the wrapper.
Last edited:
Ok this all makes sense, other than I didn't realize that protected cells are more prone to ripping the wrapper than not protected cells. Since I'm running protected cells in all of these different 3 & 4 x 18650 LED lights that should use protected cells, even though the lights have a low voltage cut-off. I just don't have many unprotected cells left these days and the ones that I have are starting to get a bit dated. I know that the FFIII drew a lot of interest from people out of the LED crowd and like me, they might have only a few or perhaps zero unprotected cells in their inventory. From that perspective, it's always nice to be able to use what you already have, which is why I was curious.
All of this said however, the FFIII can still use protected cells?
Yes, you can use them if they will physically fit lengthwise after having cut most of the negative spring off, leaving a much smaller contact area and a sharp point. Therein lies the reason for my comment on tearing the wrapper. At least with the FF3, the + buttons in the carrier are flat and have sharp edges. With the extra length of the protected cells, unless you really take the time with each and every cell, to get a good hold on the top of the cell, push it as hard as you can to 100% fully compress the spring and then carefully watch as you skoot the cells' outer case under and past the sharp button edge, you WILL tear it. And the same goes for extracting it. With the tiny plastic cutout on the carrier for your finger to compress the cell, it's easy to not get a good grip on it when removing it and end up with a torn wrapper. It's not really a matter of IF you're going to tear a wrapper as much as it is WHEN you're going to tear one.
Understood! You just have to be willing to cut most of the negative spring off.
oh, okay. Thanks for getting me up to speed Bob. See, I just didn't know enough about the current situation with the FFIII with the cut spring and the wrapper's tearing but it all makes sense now. If one is going to own the FFIII, like you stated, it just flat out makes sense to just order some unprotected cells rather than certainly ruining existing ones.
That's why I ask you buddy!
Happy to offer up my experiences!
walterr839
Enlightened
count me in for one
Patriot/BVH, you both know how "rabid" I am about Li-Ion safety, and I carefully studied the internals of the FF3, battery holder, and did repeated run times, and frequent removal and checking voltage of cells (which I numbered to keep in same holder position which can affect total resistance and drain) before feeling comfortable using the unprotected Panasonics in my FF3. There is also a whole other level of quality starting with that brand (vs. *crap*-Fire Li-Ion brands).
As far as tearing the label, it is always a good idea to seal the split, tear with a dab of 5 min epoxy or clear fingernail polish to avoid progression, and the far more serious internal short against the body tube. Nothing wrong with using quality protected cells either for extra protection. If you remove most of the contact spring, take a few seconds to sand down the sharp remaining edge and fold it down with needle-nose pliers.
I got an email/PM from Lips to sign up for the FF4 GB he is running over at Flashlight-Forums.com which is nice of him to do once again.
I'm trying to figure out how this FF4 output compares to the FF3.
Man, has that FF3 been an awesome light to have--especially with candletop standup mode during the 9 days of power outage during Hurricane Sandy when a 60 year old Maple came crashing down into the back of our home and bedroom, followed 5 mins later by power outage...and again for a shorter time during the last 30" snow storm.
Last edited:
Hey Lux! I didn't know you did all that research on the FF3 carrier. Did I miss it or did you not make a thread? I'm hoping the bigg difference for me between my FF3 recently sold and the new FF4 will be the SMO reflector. Even if the FF4 was going to have the same power, I'd buy it just for the SMO. The higher power is jut icing on the cake.
I just did it for my own peace of mind, and curiosity. Probably should have posted all my results, but didn't. I have to say that I was a lot more impressed with the FF3 than I was expecting to be. Wouldn't dream of selling it. Hell, for that matter, I don't know if I've ever sold any of my lights. LOL!
Bullet Bob
Enlightened
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2008
- Messages
- 341
I'm in for one too.
mhemling33
Newly Enlightened
updated OP
Hoop
Enlightened
I already emailed, and I'm on Lips list, but I'll post too. I'm in for one.
