Just the cold hard scientific facts please

I am curious as to why some knowledgable people consider certain lights by McGizmo, Mr. Bulk and other modders to be the most technologically advanced, highest quality, most useful, best lights in the world while other knowledgable people consider them to be far from this. So, I'm starting this thread to provoke a purely intellectual, engineering and technology oriented lively scientific debate on why these lights are or are not among the best. I want this to be in the spirit of those debates by great minds the likes of Hawking, Einstein, Newton, Plato etc...i.e. a cordial yet lively debate in search of the pure, scientific, provable truth.

Let me say that I am simply curious and want to know only the cold hard scientific facts, no holds barred but also no irrelevant or personal info. Other than a FFII, I do not own, nor have I ever even seen in person, a Mr.Bulk, McGizmo, or any other modder's light so I have no preconceived preferences.

I invite those with the scientific and engineering knowledge neccessary to participate in a debate such as this to please do so, and perhaps the CPF community as whole will benefit from the information gleaned from this thread.

I think that Charlie's lights are more small technological marvels and Don's are more of a multi-functional jack of all trades. Wilke the electronics that go into Don's lights are far simpler and dont offer the extremely variable output levels, menus, and other electronic orniments they offer vast interchangability not only with each other but with surefire and vital gear components. I guess it boils down to 2 different schools of development. Cutting edge or simplicity, Kind of similar to the contrast of in American and Soviet Cold War military hardware. While the Americans always had the more high tech toys like the SR-71 and the F-15, the Soviets chose to make something a little less complicated to offer a little bit more rugged and mass-produced of a solution.

At leas thats the way i see things. I dont have a masters in engineering or anything so this is just a humble high school educated guys opinion.

Anybody else see any value in what i just said?

Shane

IBTL: they are both producing bleeding edge products... they have different approaches, each approach has pros and cons.

I don't see how it is possible to decide which is 'better,' much less agree on which atributes are most important or what critera to use when judging (and I think attaining impartiality is impossible at this point for most folks).

Thanks Hallis, I appreciate your analysis and your analogy. I didn't mean to imply in the opening post that anyone had to have specific formal education in engineering, just knowledge gained thru whatever means including self-taught and hands on experience.

Data, I'm not looking for decisions as to specifically which is better or criteria for making personal judgements really. More like just a lively scientifically oriented debate of the actual facts in the context of an engineering "brainstorming" type scenario.

I don't think that you can objectively say that Charlie's lights or Don's lights are better - only that they are different. Charlie's lights are marvels of electrical engineering (thanks to his team of developers), an Don's lights are marvels of mechanical engineerging (thanks to Don himself).

You can, however, say which lights you like the best if you so choose - that's a personal preference thing. Some people like icecream with cherries and nuts in it, and some people prefer plain chocolate. One is not better than the other - they are just different.

One developer opts for versatility through electronics, the other through interchangeability of parts while keeping the elctronics as simple as possible for the sake of rugged reliability.

Each developer has brought inovation to the table. There are many more, but 2 things come to mind right off the top of my head - 1) the highly programable light engine in Charlies latest creations, and 2) the piston drive concept in Don's latest creation. Because Don's lights are not mass produced, he has the definite edge in producing some of the most beautiful and functional lights I have seen - take, for instance, a coral blue body with a nickle plated head and tail or a multi-colored anodize job.

For me, personally, I own some of Charlie's creations, and I own some of Don's creations. I EDC one of each and would hard pressed to decide if I had to leave one of them at home.

You asked for facts, and I'm sure there are some in what I have said somewhere. It's up to you to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Just my 2 cents.

I hate replying to my own post, so just consider this a continuation.

Top of the line lights don't have to be expensive or custom or limited production. Take for instance the Jil lights. I absolutely love these little things and I EDC one of each - they get a lot of use. Another light that I really like, despite it faults is the Fire~Fly II which I also EDC.

The RAW is really cool just for the concept - smallest and brightest. It really fits my sig line.

There are also the do-it-yourself mod lights that even the novice modder can do. One of my first and still my favorite is the Mag85 with a FM 3v head. This thing is just awesome.

For sheer quality and light output for the form factor, my preferance is for the X990, but it looks like the Razorbeam is going to be a tough contender.

IMHO, Don makes utility lights for practical purposes with all the necessary accesories like clip and lanyard options. The ability to swap power sources is also a plus for me so that the light can be adapted to the whatever situation is present at the time.

Charlie on the other hand makes lights that are as bright as can be at the cost of sacrificing some of the aspects of utility and reliability and really more apporpriate as trophy queens with the prices they have soared to as of late. Also, with the LH, the total lack of carry options was totally puzzling. Why design a light that is as small as can be but have no way of securing it from falling out or getting lost? Finally, with only one specific li-ion power source(Pila 150A) and unregulated circuitry, alternative power sources are not viable unless you're willing to sacrifice some aspects of its features or willing to lug along additional accessories like a spacer for a primary cr123 or the 168 tube for longer runtime but which both cases require you to bring along the charger every time.

It's really down to personal preferences than technology as both of them use the latest technology and most advanced materials available.

For me, if you're looking to wow and impress friends, you go for a MR Bulk creation, but if it's functionality you want McGizmos lights are the way to go.

I know I know. We hate the analogy with cars, BUT people don't buy a Ferarri because of the engineering. It's a tiny bit faster than a Viper depending on the model. Or any exotic car for that matter. It's the asthetics. They are beautiful performing works of art.

Stingray, you need to hold one of McGizmo's Alephs in your hands. An exotic one like the one that I'm building up into a complete rare and exotic system and art piece. Here's a Link

I own #2 and I have the 3 different heads A1 A2 A3 all in chrome. I'm working on getting two more LE's that will compliment each other and also working on a semi-surprise component or two.

Interchanging LE's, heads bodies or tails gives you a system that can be used for many different situations from throw vs size to flood or output. The two stage twisties allow two levels of brightness, hi/lo. Two levels of brightness is sufficient for most needs. The technology is in the complex 'simplicity' in engineering design which allows them to be reliable when you need them without worrying about anything. McGizmo's Alephs are the Cameleon of the flashlight world. The system can adapt to any situation if you have all the parts.

I AFAIK they are designed from the ground up in style, form, and function. The smallest detail being examined with the eye of Leonardo DaVinci. I Know, sappy sappy comparison but its what I see. Don looks at the smallest detail when designing the reflectors parabolic curves and depth to the relational position of the phosper on the emitter. Don views throw as illuminating the target at distance with the ammount of photons hitting it and being reflected back and the perceptability of the eye to pick that up. I'm sure that I'm barely scratching the surface. Leonardo would look at things with the same talent and skill. He would look deeper at a scene that he wanted to paint and would see the foreshadowing and the perspective as nobody before him. He was the McGizmo of the Renaissance.

So Performance, Design, Usability, Reliabilty, Adaptability, Technology and more are all part of the engineering of the McGizmo's team on the Aleph.

PS hope I haven't messed up any of the technical aspects as I'm not an engineer so Don, please correct anything you care to. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

BTW I like these lights and I like Ferrari's too. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Hallis said:
..... Wilke the electronics that go into Don's lights are far simpler and dont offer the extremely variable output levels, menus, and other electronic orniments ......................
I guess it boils down to 2 different schools of development. Anybody else see any value in what i just said?
Shane

[/ QUOTE ]

Shane, I see it a little differently. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

The electronics that go into the LH/LC (but not the VIP) units are simpler than the Nexgen/Wizards in Don's lights. In essence, the LH/LC light engines use a small programmable computer chip (a uC) to rapidly switch (connect) the battery to the LED. Although the parts count is very low for this driver, much of the development time is spent writing the software code that controls the switch. The most difficult part is writing the programming that will deliver lots of features with an intuitive interface (not as easy as it sounds). When running at 100%, this is very close to a direct drive configuration. Concern has been raised about the current that the LED sees in this configuration. The flatness of the output curve is due to the flat discharge characterists of the Li-ion battery.

The products from Don/Wayne use constant current drivers to ensure the LED receives the desired current. Due to the feedback components, this type of driver has a higher part count.

Keep an eye on the new bbflex driver that Georges80 is working on. It will combine both technologies and is the next logical evolutionary step.

There are arguments for/against both sides. Much will depend on your personal preference and purpose for the light. The uC based products will always have more features (multi-stage dimming, strobing, signaling, etc.... They will also require a battery voltage that is close, but over, the Vf of the LED. With the present LuxIIIs, that is more or less limited to a Li-ion.

The Nexgens and Wizards can have additional feedback circuitry that allows for efficient multi-stage dimming. They also have a much wider voltage input range so battery selection and chemistry is much more flexible. I would consider them more of a no-nonsense solid tool.

I was going to throw out an analogy of a work truck and a flashy sports car but there are cross-over products in both camps so that analogy would not fit perfectly.

It really comes down to your personal preferences and usages for the product, on which one would be more useful for you. For my purposes: If I had to choose between a LC and PD, I would choose the PD. I don't require the functions of the LC/LH. YMMV.

Please feel free to comment or ask for clarifications on this post.

Paul

Edit: changed PIC to uC

[ QUOTE ]
Hallis said:
I think that Charlie's lights are more small technological marvels and Don's are more of a multi-functional jack of all trades. Wilke the electronics that go into Don's lights are far simpler and dont offer the extremely variable output levels, menus, and other electronic orniments they offer vast interchangability not only with each other but with surefire and vital gear components.

Shane

[/ QUOTE ]


Hi Shane.

I dunno.

The electronics in the LH/LC really are not complex (especially to a designer that is utilizing it in his design). That is one of the beauties of it, it is really simple to do, especially for PWM and user interface. Basically all that is happening is a simple microcontroller (uC) is switching a MOSFET off and on at about 800Hz with one of it's pins, under command of the uC. The other pin reads in the switch. There are many uC devices that can be used to do this, from a wide variety of manufacturers (microchip, atmel, ti, phillips, so on and so on. One of the nice things about these uC devices is their extremely low cost price in very low volume, with some reaching 0.53 ea. The MOSFET can be had for a quarter or less. Nor is the software complex either. It isn't a technological breakthrough, nor was it done here first. You can go back to Henry of HDS fame, way back, and he even published papers on it, along with problems on the ownership of PWM, and an alternate method called PFM. I remember PWMing LEDs back in the 1970's myself, as a young man.

Henry talks about it a bit further here:
http://www.hdssystems.com/PatentLEDFlashlight.pdf

In reality, a person does not need to utilize a uC to PWM an LED, there are much simpler circuits that are even adjustable. The uC has been around longer than many CPFers have been alive. What it does bring to the table is a very simple circuit, and a different method to interface to the user for control of the light.

My first personal ownership of a uC controlled flashlight was an early prototype that the North American President of Nichia gave to me back in about 2000-2001 timeframe. It later became known as the Photon III(for some reason, mine has 4 brightness levels):
"Easy to use multi-function squeeze button allows selection of 3 levels of brightness, 3 strobe functions for signaling including S.O.S. emergency strobe, & a convenient auto-shutoff mode."

Implementing PWM in a uC has been covered in detail by several uC makers, who have sample circuits, and even sample code for the UI and the PWM control.

A person can take a step further, and implement a substantially more complex switching power supply, such as is found here:
http://www.elecdesign.com/Files/29/6169/Figure_01.gif

If you are interested, it is discussed in more detail here:
http://www.elecdesign.com/Articles/ArticleID/6169/6169.html

Henry of HDS is one such person to have done so, but his are even more complex, implementing buck and boost modes, on top of the simplistic uC with PWM. Adding a buck, boost, buck/boost, SEPIC, flyback to the basic PWM has numerous advantages to it.

Unfortunately, a switching type power supply is a more complex circuit to deal with, as there are feedback loops, issues that must be addressed for gain/phase compensation, possible MOSFET shoot-thru that must be dealt with, and it has to be carefully looked at in a variety of situations, such as temperature, input voltage, output voltage, current regulation, and a whole host of other issues such as efficiency, heat, etc.

Lots of application notes on how to do these sorts of things abound around the internet. If a fella wanted to study a little more, here is another:
http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/AppNotes/00874a.pdf


For a much more detailed thread (and just a small sampling at that) on all the information there is that abounds around the internet regarding uC stuff that is applicable, look here, back from February 2004:

http://www.candlepowerforums.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB6&Number=918917

Some of the merits of various methods of driving LEDs have been discussed at length in the past, and some common wrong assumptions on those methods. There was a very long discussion on this some time ago.

not really had the chance to see the work of Don's lights much.. i think i've played with one without realizing it was his creation... but i've chatted with both Don and Charlie doing my own research for my own designs.. and they both have really neat innovations in their stuff.

I was attracted to MrB stuff which actually is what led me to CPF in the first place.. stumbled into the VIP project doing a search on luxeon flashlights... the modular design where the head can be swapped.. the battery that could be swapped really sucked me in... the set n forget level of the VIP is also a winner, though i personally would have had a different method for input that would be one-handed... always room for progress.. the first bicycles didn't have 2-wheel drive either didn't mean they weren't awesome.

I think you really have to look at a need and a solution... somewhere in the producers of these high-end lights.. you can find a solution that fits your needs best... if one doesn't cover it.. follow Jim's lead and get one of each.. i often carry both the VIP and the LH with me because IMHO the VIP is incredible at up-close and the LH sucks at up=close (it does dim... but then you have a tiny bright spot about the size of a quarter and the brightness of the arcaaa)... of course i cheat and also have a nano with me for those close-quarter uses like wiring behind an AV system etc.

There will always be a lot of different uses for lights.. there is no possible light that could be the 'universal' solution though of course.. i'm working on it im working on it: shameless plug. (plenty of ideas gained from creations of others, but expounding on them).

One of the more important scientific design elements of the VIP is that the heatsink IS the outside of the light.. the emitter is glued right to the body of the light which is the finned heatsink.. that is nearly impossible to beat... the LH and LC have the stars stuck to a similar location but neither have the same quality of connection to the outside world as the 'original'... and with only 2 1/2W output.. the VIP really never gets warm... at least i've never noticed mine ever get warm... it's all one big heatsink.

i can't say a bad thing about Don's lights so i guess i have to get one now to see how and why it's cool also.

-awr

CromagNet, That looks like a nice light. The next time they have a flashaholic get together in Florida I will be there and check some out. I was at the last one a few years ago, but none of these lights were around then. I did get to play with every Surefire made at the time, and the just released Tigerlight, which was cool.

Newbie, Can you use a LC type uC interface in conjunction with a buck/boost sandwich or similar device for regulation and have the best of both worlds, PWM for multiple brightness levels and strobes, along with the ability to use various battery configurations including primaries and LI-ON? Is this what the Gladius does, only in a tactical vs an EDC utilty form factor?

[ QUOTE ]
Stingray said:
Newbie, Can you use a LC type uC interface in conjunction with a buck/boost sandwich or similar device for regulation and have the best of both worlds, PWM for multiple brightness levels and strobes, along with the ability to use various battery configurations including primaries and LI-ON? Is this what the Gladius does, only in a tactical vs an EDC utilty form factor?

[/ QUOTE ]

You certainly can. The earliest one I am aware of is the ARC4+, which has gone through significant evolution into the EDC that HDS Systems makes. Though Henry has some of his own added touches that add to it's uniqueness. As I understand it, he continues in his innovation still.

You can even use the uC to control the commanded current drive for the switcher that it provides the LED, so you can take advantage of significant efficiency increases in the battery and also within the LED itself. It takes some care to keep the efficiency high at very low drive levels (since just doing the switching consumes power) and also to be efficient at high drive levels. You can also implement all the leading edge menus, stobes, flashes and other wizbangs at the same time.

An alternate approach is to lower the switching power supply (buck, boost, etc.) current level, down to the point where you start eating into the efficiency of the converter itself, and then from there, go into PWM mode.

Another simpler approach would be to use a switcher circuit on the output of the uC (without the switching controller), and to vary the duty cycle "open loop" based on input voltage. This, coupled with the switching components results in a step-up, step-down, or both, depending on how it is implemented. The main advantage here is some simplicity, yet without slamming the LED with high currents of raw PWM.

Then you can use the uC as a MOSFET controller itself, while monitoring the current output, to adjust the duty cycle to convert the power for the LED. In addition, you can monitor input voltages to determine battery type, step down the output based on remaining power in the battery, and if you want to, also utilize it to charge the battery at the same time.

These techniques really aren't new, and have seen alot of implementation in various consumer products, especially cell phones and other portable products.

IMHO, what really is new, are high current capable converters, that are also very efficient, and can be fit into amazingly small places. Tacking constant current output to properly drive the LED, on top of all this, is a very nice touch.

Adjusting the constant current level on a switching converter with a uC is not hard or tough, in the scheme of things. Basically, you just need to filter the PWM output of a uC, with something as simple as a capacitor, or as complex (j/k) as a resistor and capacitor, and to sum it with the current feedback from the sense resistor.

You can even do the dimming with the FB node summing thing, with a hall effect sensor, such as I demonstrated long ago:
http://www.candlepowerforums.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB6&Number=619897

Anyhow, I've got more work to do before I head of to bed, have a great night.

I totally agree with JimH
"I don't think that you can objectively say that Charlie's lights or Don's lights are better - only that they are different ... "

I own several of each. McLux, A1, A3, PD, VIP & LH.
It's whatever suites your taste. They are both beautiful & electronic marvels.
Hats off to both teams ... (McGizmo & dat2zip) and (MR Bulk, georges80, Otokoyama and Daryll).

Now if you were to compared them by their categories, body, light engine & optics it's alittle easier to do but not by much. Keep in mind one is a mass production (>300) & the other is small quantity runs (100+)

These lights are equally beautiful in my mind.
Oto/MrBulk's body design for VIP/LH/LC is very well design for the masses.
McGizmo's Aleph & PD greatest assets are simplicity & interchangability.

As for the light engine.
georges80's driver (LH & LC) have the best UI designed (thanx to Darell).
dat2zip's NextGen & Wizard2 are some of the smallest and most efficient around.

Last but not least the optics.
MrBulk have choosen to go with the IMS 27mm reflector, most likely due to mass production. It's one of the best Luxeon thrower out there.
McGizmo's reflector are ... "perfectly designed parabolic reflectors for Luxeons". Yep, you won't get better than this.

So when it comes down to the final question which ones to choose? It depends on how much $$$ you got and how many you can grab.

On a side note ...
chimo, I believe the LH/LC uses an Atmel chip not Michochip's PIC.
Newbie, any monkey (me) can do PWM, but getting one to have the PWM, UI, and menu system like the LH/LC is another thing. The closest thing I saw is what djpark did with his PIC 12F6##.
Stingray, a buck/boost circuit with LH's interface was demonstated by georges80's bbFlex .

Here's my list of some of the light which I have or wished I have.
Listed in no specific order.

Arc4+ - the first microprocessor light. Arc
ArcLS - the reason why most of CPFers are here. Arc
FireFly/FF2 - the first CPF mass produced light. tvodrd ... DSpeck
LionHeart/LionCub - the most user friendly UI. MrBulk & team
Maxabeam - the most powerful thrower.
McLux - greatest recent historical significant. Skunkworks
McLuxIII-PD - first piston driven light. McGizmo
MiniHID - the smallest handheld HID light. SilverLegacy ... modamag
Polaris - the first mass produced MR16 based light. Ginseng
Sleeper - the most power consuming.
Thor - the cheapest lumen/$$$ "portable" light.
USL - the marshmellow & egg cooker. bwaites & team
VIP - the first variable output light. MrBulk & team

Disclaimer: All opinions, although stupid, are strictly mine. I have no financial affilation with any of the lights mentions.

Now that we have the luxury to choose between a lot of very nice alternatives in the lighting section of life, IMHO it boils down to two factors:

1) design philosophy ... switching method, drive current, ...
2) quality of execution ... machining, materials used, LEDs used, ...

Makes the choice for the end-user even harder than a few years ago when we were happy to get something at all.
I think what happens today is that we are often confusing design philosophy and quality criteria and end up with non-valid arguments and confusion.
Where the design philosophy is a very subjective thing, the quality of the light in question can be described in a relatively objective manner ... at least by our experts on CPF.
Design philosophy will most likely follow your specific needs for your light-instrument (buyer's point of view), but quality you'd always want the best for the $$ you got at hand.

A relatively non-complex design philosophy doesn't at all mean the light will be an easy concept and / or of poor or simple quality, and vice versa.

bernie


P.S.: example: McLuxIII-PD (which I happen to know very well):
Simple design philosophy following the KISS principle, sophisticated way to achieve this goal and perfect execution and production:



... and those converters by Wayne are really cutting edge mdual-level constant current units ... and really far from simple, too /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Now ... if you'd prefer a multi-setting uC-switch ... you won't like this light, but you'd still have to accept that it is a high-quality unit.

So ... the question of this thread ... can only be answered for the second part of the whole picture, the quality of executiion. The design philosophy is too subjective and depends on your personal needs.

[ QUOTE ]
modamag said:
Newbie, any monkey (me) can do PWM, but getting one to have the PWM, UI, and menu system like the LH/LC is another thing. The closest thing I saw is what djpark did with his PIC 12F6##.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not trying to diss anyone, but I'm more impressed with dat2zip's Wiz2 than the LH/LC driver. I think there are a lot of people here doing programming for a living (and I'm one of them) that would easily be able to do the same as what have been done in the LH/LC driver.

Sigbjoern

I believe its all about the switch in most of the creations mentioned so far. The LH/LC is a simple flashlight that looks like it would be easy to produce.It's beauty is all in the switch.
I personally do not care if its direct drive or regulated. The switch is positioned where it should be with a very intuitive UI. The Lux III can be very easily replaced by anyone with the most basic soldering skills. And it gets lots of light depending on the forward voltage of the Lux.

Mc.Gizmo lights have taken the mechanical switch to perfection, and to do this has required very clever thinking as shown above in the diagram of the PD.Also I believe the reflectors in McGizmo lights are all metal and of the highest quality.
Quality of the McGizmo lights are outstanding.
Also McGizmo does not use the threads to conduct current. This has to be a plus for long term reliability.

The UI is personal preference, and I think both are outstanding good examples for the chosen philosophy.

I just wanted to bring up the differences regarding the optics.
The most important part of a flashlight is the optics. Every photon you loose in the optical system has to be compensated by an increased current to the LED, which leads to a reduced efficiency of the LED, increased I^2xR losses of converter and battery, increased heat (and with this heat even more reduced efficencies).
The knowledge about optics seems to be not very wide spread around CPF (there is for example no optic forum available) and this point is often overlooked.

Ok lets compare them
McLux I/III & Aleph's:
- Very large aperture (compared to bezel diameter), no shading of the reflector
- Reflector with high quality coating
- UCL Lens or one side AR coated sapphire (which is slightly worse than UCL but more scratch resistant).

Lion Cub
- Small aperture, shading more than 30% of the reflector area
- Standard reflector (which is ok, but not outstanding)
- UCL Lens

I think it is clear that the optical system of the McGizmo lights are carefully designed, based on a lot of knowledge and experience.

In general, when a flashlight is picked up and turned there is a high expectation of light! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif We have all experienced turning on a light and not getting light. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon15.gif This is something both the user and designer would like to avoid if at all possible. If a light is to be left unattended for long periods or if it will be seeing daily use will require decisions both at the designers level as well as by the user. I would expect that the most common reason for a light not coming on is a depleted battery but I could be wrong. The second typical cause for no light is some interuption in the electrical path and at mechanical contact points. Every mechanical contact point is subject to potential contamination and the designer must address this in terms of the actual mechanics and the user must address this in terms of maintenance. Contamination of the contact points can be from foreign invasion of dirt or dust or may be a result of corrosion; galvanic or oxidation. The designer can address corrosion issues with a choice of materials used and consideration of the galvanic scale if contacts are of dissimilar metals. The potential for contamination can also be addressed by the designer by providing that the contacts are of a wiping or "self cleaning" nature in some cases as well as providing access for cleaning and inspection by the user. To evaluate a lights design as well as understand its maintenance, one needs to follow the electron path, IMHO and be aware of all points where the electrons might be impeeded.

Every light mentioned above has contact points and potential for problems at these contact points. In some cases, the contacts are well above what I would consider industry standards and in a couple, they are below. I leave it to the reader to know and understand their flashlight! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/nana.gif