# The PhD-M6 thread (programable hotwire driver for the SF-M6) ...



## wquiles (Dec 12, 2008)

*The PhD-M6 thread - proto board received!*

*******************************************************************************************************************************************
Edit: July 26, 2010

We are finishing up tweaking of various settings, so we are almost ready to start the formal sales thread. Given this, I am going to ask a moderator to go ahead and close this thread.

Thanks much,
Will


*******************************************************************************************************************************************
Edit: June 28th, 2010

The production boards for the PhD-M6 V1 arrived today:






*******************************************************************************************************************************************

I have been working with Alan and Jim for a couple of months on the PhD project (programmable hotwire driver) and I have always been wanting to create a variant for the SF-M6. The goal is to leverage the work done on the main PhD project thread but to tailor a version specifically for the SF-M6, since the M6 is a different beast, with unique battery choices, with two possible bulbs (MN20 and MN21), and no traditional switch like on a Mag. Here is the main PhD thread:
https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/209098


Of course the precursor of this project/idea/variant is the outstanding M6-R project by *js*, which used rechargeable NiMH cells and a hotwire driver from Willie Hunt set for the MN21 bulb:
http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=79916

We had additional projects like the PIR1 and the HDM6, so this is not the first time this has been done. Still, in my book, we still owe Jim (*js*) credit for not only being the first one, but for giving us the bar by which such projects are judged.

So what do we have today? It is very early, but we have an outstanding development board done by Jim and great code created by Alan. I have been modifying this code somewhat, and will be making additional modifications to make this project M6-specific:






The goal is still to have a regulated circuit with soft-start, and I would like to offer the ability for the end user to select between the MN20 and the MN21 bulbs, so that the same pack can be used with either bulb (once selection has been made). Right now I am thinking to use a switch on the battery pack and a tiny LED to indicate what bulb has been selected, but I am wide open to suggestions/ideas. We can also consider and add other features, but we should perhaps keep the initial version simple and then consider adding other "stuff"  

To get started, I would like to discuss:
- what batteries we should consider? NiMH, LiIon (protected!), or both?
- should we consider again a special tailcup insert like HDM6?
- should we require an extension tube for the body as sold by FM?
- should we initially just consider the MN20 and MN21 only?
- how would be the preferred way to select between bulbs?
- what do we want the driver to do when the battery pack is depleted?

Questions, suggestions?

Will


----------



## zx7dave (Dec 12, 2008)

I think that you will find end users that are interested in just about all the options you mentioned...
But I think the most popular would be designs that keep the M6 looking factory externally...
Maybe bring the tailcap mod back?


----------



## wquiles (Dec 13, 2008)

I agree - the same overall form factor would be best, as Jim did on his M6-R. Here are some photos of when I made my own M6-R pack with parts that I bought from Jim:
https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/124058


At some point I also considered something like this one, but I don't think this could provide the amperage for the MN21:
3x 17670






And of course, the ill-fated HDM6 form factor that depended on the short tailcup. Short part in the middle, with a late model M6 cup on top and a very old M6 tailcup on the bottom:






I am also thinking that the 2x18650 holder from *mdocod* might be really good and maybe a version of this holder would allow a converter/driver on the sides of the cell:
https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/204701


Will


----------



## cnjl3 (Dec 13, 2008)

Wow! 
What a great project Will. I know that this will be a success only because there are so many CPF's interested in multiple bulb/battery solutions.

I wonder though about the 18650 battery carrier-because it is "only" 2200mah of juice.

You and I have AWR's HDM6 3300mah pack which uses six AW 17500's.
Are these the Li-ions you are talking about?

My vote is for:

- Li-ion cells which might or might not need the special tail cup.
- MN21 and MN20 initially with 'JS' recommended MN15 later?
- switch to select bulb selection [damn, I am smiling as I type this]
- driver needs to shut down before cells are damaged.

A big thanks to you and Alan and Jimmy for all your hard work.


----------



## wquiles (Dec 13, 2008)

cnjl3 said:


> Wow!
> What a great project Will. I know that this will be a success only because there are so many CPF's interested in multiple bulb/battery solutions.
> 
> I wonder though about the 18650 battery carrier-because it is "only" 2200mah of juice.
> ...



Like I was telling Jim (*js*), for this project my goal is not to make money, but to put my effort/time towards finding a way to try to fulfill on the desire/need for a rechargeable, regulated pack for the M6, for all of those who were left with nothing during the whole AWR HDM6 fiasco.

You and I were some of the very few that got "something" from AWR before he ran away with the money of many here in the forums. That being said, the technical aspect of the 6x 17500 Protected LiIon pack along with the new tailcup was a sound idea, and my two packs have been performing flawlesly, and it can drive both the MN20 and the MN21, so we should consider it again for this project as a possible way of implementing this battery pack.

Will


----------



## LuxLuthor (Dec 13, 2008)

Will, great pursuit. I think having a dipswitch to choose between the two bulbs would be fine, as it is unlikely that people will be changing bulbs frequently. I can see having 3 choices available would be even nicer.

You will get more mileage with Li-Ion's, so some combination makes sense. The 6x17500 cells gives a lot of options, and makes more sense than 2 x 18650. Ability to replace cells would make this a long term & more useful idea. _ (i.e. once the JS & few AWR M6-R's reach end of NiMH life, most users will not easily replace those cells.)_

For long term planning, you may want to consider a platform (in terms of batteries and form factor) that takes into account some of the flexibilities that DM51's thread outlined which would work with same battery solution. I don't think it's unreasonable to consider capability of setting other voltage choices with program update in with AVR.

I would rather see low voltage cutoff at 2.8 or 2.9V for Li-Ion, rather than most PTC's set at 2.4 to 2.5V. I like the idea of PWM Low/Med/High switch controlled settings...which would require a clickie. I also like the momentary on/off pushbutton. Wonder if there is a way to use both.

End of battery either shuts off light, or reduced output for 1-2 mins then shutoff...giving you enough emergency light to do something.

Just a few ideas off the top of my head.


----------



## jayflash (Dec 13, 2008)

The ability to use stock MN21 or MN 20 is important to me as I don't want to use bi-pins. No extension tube; that would destroy the M6 for me. Low battery warning rather than abrupt cutoff. The soft start is a plus and availability of a lower level(s) would be nice, but not absolutely necessary.

How would six 17500 cells fit or did I misread?

Good luck and thank you.


----------



## wquiles (Dec 13, 2008)

LuxLuthor said:


> Will, great pursuit. I think having a dipswitch to choose between the two bulbs would be fine, as it is unlikely that people will be changing bulbs frequently. I can see having 3 choices available would be even nicer.
> 
> You will get more mileage with Li-Ion's, so some combination makes sense. The 6x17500 cells gives a lot of options, and makes more sense than 2 x 18650. Ability to replace cells would make this a long term & more useful idea. _ (i.e. once the JS & few AWR M6-R's reach end of NiMH life, most users will not easily replace those cells.)_
> 
> ...



Thanks - excellent ideas and suggestions. Since I will be using the Tiny85 controller, those settings would be easy to set.

What did you mean by this: "I like the idea of PWM Low/Med/High switch controlled settings.." what exactly you have in mind? Driving the specific bulb at a lower point than its rated voltage?

I also went ahead and posted an invitation in *DM51's* thread you linked to get additional feedback 

Will


----------



## wquiles (Dec 13, 2008)

jayflash said:


> The ability to use stock MN21 or MN 20 is important to me as I don't want to use bi-pins. No extension tube; that would destroy the M6 for me. Low battery warning rather than abrupt cutoff. The soft start is a plus and availability of a lower level(s) would be nice, but not absolutely necessary.
> 
> How would six 17500 cells fit or did I misread?
> 
> Good luck and thank you.



You did not misread. You can fit six 17500 LiIon cells, in three parallel banks of 2x serial cells each, which even when using protected cells (and with the soft start) allows enough drive current for the MN21. Of course, there is a small catch - namely that the original tailcup's insert has to be swapped out for a smaller (less tall one) which then allows the longer battery pack to fit inside the M6 without any body extenders. That is what I meant in my post above when I posted this picture showing the shallower tailcap insert:





Will


----------



## LuxLuthor (Dec 13, 2008)

wquiles said:


> Thanks - excellent ideas and suggestions. Since I will be using the Tiny85 controller, those settings would be easy to set.
> 
> What did you mean by this: "I like the idea of PWM Low/Med/High switch controlled settings.." what exactly you have in mind? Driving the specific bulb at a lower point than its rated voltage?
> 
> ...



Will, I meant along the lines of AW's multilevel driver. When you start using its 3 settings, like many LED driver options, you realize there are many changing scenarios that benefit from reduced/higher outputs. Admittedly, I don't use the 30% duty cycle setting all that often with incans because the color is too orange, but I flip between the 60/100% a lot. I suppose the better settings would be 40/70/100% duty cycle.


----------



## LED61 (Dec 13, 2008)

Will, believe it or not (I have already talked to Jim about it) I have been running my MN21 with the 7.5V regulated pack I bought from you (thanks so much). The runs have been limited to 1 minute and the bulb lasted about 7 hours total time in 1 minute bursts. The issue was that the heat created blackened my first MN21 and to avoid this I did not do extended runs.

But I would be willing to bet that with the soft start the MN21 could run at 7.0V with more decent bulb life (15-20 hours ?). We'd be driving it harder that the M6-R at 6.8V but I'd gladly trade the lower lamp life for a more white beam.


----------



## tumblingdice (Dec 13, 2008)

Hi Will - An outstanding project. Having an M6 powered by 6X14500 cells is an excellent idea. My pennies worth: Avoid altering the external appearance/size of the fabulous M6 design. I'll be watching developments in this thread with great interest. Best of luck - Tumblingdice.:twothumbs


----------



## tumblingdice (Dec 14, 2008)

Oops - that's 6x17500 cells.



tumblingdice said:


> Hi Will - An outstanding project. Having an M6 powered by 6X14500 cells is an excellent idea. My pennies worth: Avoid altering the external appearance/size of the fabulous M6 design. I'll be watching developments in this thread with great interest. Best of luck - Tumblingdice.:twothumbs


----------



## DM51 (Dec 14, 2008)

Great project! I've added a link to this in the shootout thread.

The safe high-current IMR18650 cells from AW would be a very good choice for the MN21.


----------



## BSBG (Dec 14, 2008)

Here are my thoughts...



Keep the form factor unchanged. I have a 2C extension and really don't like it, in spite of the admirable run time with the MN20 or a WA1111.
The monetary option is important - one of my only objections to AW's 3 level soft starter is that it is constant on only.
Less than 15 minutes on the MN21 is too little IMHO.
Another option is 3x17670 with the MN60 and 61 - not too much current draw and a beautiful white light. Taking a couple of tenths of a volt off the pack and the soft start should extend the bulb life considerably.
Teh 6x17500 is viable if the modified tail cup can be made readily available, or part of a kit.
The bipin options on either 2 or 3 Li Ion should be considered - the WA1111 or 1331 are good alternatives to the SF bulbs.

I am sure more will occur to me...


----------



## brunt_sp (Dec 14, 2008)

So far as running the MN21 is concerned, what is the advantage of the 6 X 17500 over the 2 X IMR18650 ? Is it just runtime ? Is softstart really necessary ? 
I gather that the real aspect of this proposal is the regulation so there will be constant brightness level throughout the runtime of the cells - Interesting.


----------



## wquiles (Dec 14, 2008)

brunt_sp said:


> So far as running the MN21 is concerned, what is the advantage of the 6 X 17500 over the 2 X IMR18650 ? Is it just runtime ? Is softstart really necessary ?
> I gather that the real aspect of this proposal is the regulation so there will be constant brightness level throughout the runtime of the cells - Interesting.



Good questions. Nothing is perfect, but here are some advantages of the 6x17500 pack over the 2x18650:
- 6x 17500 gives you more capacity, so yes, longer runtimes.
- 6x 17500 sags puts less stress on the cells (each cell sees 1/3 of the rated MN21 current over 100% of the rated current for the 2x 18650)

Is soft-start really necessary? In my opinion, yes. I would not bother working in this project if we did not have it:
- Imagine that you "really" need the light to come "ON" - do you want to mess with double/multiple taps until you can fool the protection circuitry of the cells, or do you want a light with a soft-start so that it comes "ON" every time?
- A well implemented soft-start circuit extends the life of the bulb - pretty important in my book. It is during the initial ON that you have the highest risk of blowing the bulb. 

On top of the soft start, we then of course use regulation to keep the bulb at the optimum voltage while the batteries drain, and with regulation using a micro-controller (Tiny85 in this case), we can also easily incorporate a low battery monitor which would protect the battery pack from over-discharge.

Lastly, another important factor in favor of regulation is that you can operate a bulb using a battery pack with a higher voltage than the bulb. That first photo on post #1 shows a bulb rated at about 5 volts happily being run from a 12 volt supply. Solutions like the 2x18650 (as shown by member *mdocod*) really over-drive the MN21, so you are already increasing the risk of killing the bulb, and of course this shortens the life of the MN21 bulb. With a regulated circuit, you keep the voltage to the bulb at a set point so you eliminate this over-driving condition..

Willie Hunt's "legendary" LVR did all of this, although it did not have the ability to be used with different set voltages/bulbs. We are just trying to duplicate it, and to provide the ability to have multiple voltages 

Will


----------



## leukos (Dec 15, 2008)

Will,

First of all, thanks so much for the hundreds of hours you, Alan, Jim and put into this project already! :bow:

I'll give my quick answers to your questions:
- what batteries we should consider? NiMH, LiIon (protected!), or both? 
LiIon is the way to go, more energy density and less weight. 3x 17670 batteries is the most you can pack in there without modification, though I really do like the simplicity of 2x 18650 (6x 17500 is just too many batteries!). Besides, huge battery improvements seem to be around the corner, with all the talk of nano silicone wires we may soon have 18650's that can power the MN21 for 8 hours on a charge. Unlike js' M6-R packs, it would be nice if it wasn't a shrink wrapped kit, but something that we could pop the batteries in and out of for charging.

- should we consider again a special tailcup insert like HDM6?
Keep it simple and stock for now.

- should we require an extension tube for the body as sold by FM?
Keep it simple and stock for now.

- should we initially just consider the MN20 and MN21 only?
How much trouble would it be to make the Vout variable? With FM's excellent bi-pin adapters, there is a plethora of lamps I would like to experiment with at various voltages. I really would like a low powered lamp option with runtimes of up to four hours if the voltage could be user selected.

- how would be the preferred way to select between bulbs?
A switch makes sense if you only plan to offer two options. 

- what do we want the driver to do when the battery pack is depleted?
I have always thought that blinking renders the flashlight useless. Makes more sense for there to be a moon mode for the last few minutes before cut off.


----------



## Grox (Dec 15, 2008)

Thanks Will and everyone else who's been working on the PhD project. I have looked at that thread many times but have never been able to contribute constructively, lacking the knowledge.

Here's my 2 cents:

- what batteries we should consider? NiMH, LiIon (protected!), or both?
Li ion.

- should we consider again a special tailcup insert like HDM6?
I'd prefer not to have an insert. I appreciate the ability to swap out rechargeable packs and go back to primaries without having to fiddle with a tailcup. KISS is a good approach at least initially. Perhaps that could be an option further down the road.

- should we require an extension tube for the body as sold by FM?
Again, I'd prefer the M6 in stock form.

- should we initially just consider the MN20 and MN21 only?
For me, the most crucial feature would be MN20/21 support. However, it would be very handy if other bulbs could be powered. I'd love a variable Vout.

- how would be the preferred way to select between bulbs?
Switch or pot for variable Vout. Or... computer interface :candle: As simple as possible please!

- what do we want the driver to do when the battery pack is depleted?
It would be lovely to have a low batt indicator for example a dim pulse every few seconds.


----------



## wquiles (Dec 15, 2008)

It is of course early, but so far:

- most want to use LiIon cells

- seems like most want to keep the overall original size of the M6 as is, with no extensions. Some are willing to replace the tailcap insert to gain more capacity (7x17500)

- most want to support the stock MN20/MN21, and some want even more bulb choices

- most like the idea of a simple way to select bulbs by the end user


Let me talk more about the voltage selection, since most of you are familiar with the AW soft-start/multi-level Direct Drive PWM circuit, the FluPIC, and LED drivers from TaskLED. If you go and read the PhD thread, you will note that the "normal" PhD platform (which from now on I will just call the PhD - I will continue using PhD-M6 for our unique variant) assumes the following:
- that the host is a Mag
- that the Mag has the switch converted to momentary (like we do for the drivers from TaskLED)
- that the battery is always connected to the micro-controller (which from now on I will call the Tiny), and it is constantly looking at the momentary button to determine when to turn ON, OFF, etc..
- that there are almost infinite battery possibilities (OK, I am exaggerating a “little”, but clearly having anywhere from a 1xC to something like the Elephant means far more battery alternatives than for the M6 host).


In the PhD-M6, since we want to keep the basic flashlight "as is", we have to consider some limitations that come from this unique form factor:
- We don't have a simple way to both having a momentary button AND having the battery always connected to the Tiny. If you release the button on the M6 the circuit is open and the bulb does not get to stay on. So the M6's switch can't be considered “momentary” - it is either ON or OFF, and in our case OFF means the circuit is open.

- For the M6, we have very few battery alternatives if we stick with the OEM body configuration, so this makes the design of the PhD-M6 both simpler, but also more limited compared to a Mag host.

True, for multiple levels we could come up with some solution like on the FluPIC where multiple taps get the driver in various modes, but unlike the FluPIC and the AW driver, the PhD-M6 is a buck regulator, so it “can” output a voltage higher than the bulb can take – a mistake in the menu and/or sequence of presses/taps could result in a very expensive blown bulb!

When Jim (js) came up with the superb M6-R, he wired the LVR from Willie Hunt so that it would be connected to the battery pack, and the main switch would just close the circuit and turn everything ON. The LVR was programmed for the MN21 (set to 6.8V rms) and that was it – nothing to select. It just worked. Simple. Reliably. No double taps 

At least to start, I am looking at a similar, very simple solution that works the same way for the PhD-M6. Here is my initial proposal (please feel free to punch holes in this, agree, disagree, offer alternatives, etc.):
- Each PhD-M6 will be wired like the M6-R, in a very simple manner. No assumption of multiple button presses. Just ON and OFF, just like the M6 works today.

- The PhD-M6 will provide a regulated output via a varying duty cycle PWM signal, and it will also offer a soft-start. For example, you can run a 7 volt bulb from a 12 volt supply.

- Each board will have two dip switches (or something similar, but changeable for the user), to select one out of 4 possible bulb combinations. 

- Each time the Tiny in the PhD-M6 wakes up, it reads those values, and sets the output accordingly:
0 0 – bulb 1
0 1 – bulb 2
1 0 – bulb 3
1 1 – bulb 4

- Battery low level set depending on the battery solution used (9x NiMH, 7x 17500, 2x 18650, etc.). 

Note: If in the future we have more battery choices, we could then use the next higher pin count Tiny processor (with more additional inputs) and have two or more battery alternatives. At least for this first iteration, I would like to suggest that we keep it to just one battery pack so that we can get the project moving along.

Why I am thinking this would be a good way to get started:
- This initial solution would therefore require no double taps, no alterations to how the M6 works today

- You would not have to set the bulb choice, nor the battery alternatives via button presses/multiple taps. You can't accidentally change those values by getting confused on the menu. Remember that here the driver “can” output a higher voltage than a bulb can take.

- If you forget what bulb you have programmed now, simply “look” at the battery pack and read the dip switches. This will prevent “ops” when assembling different bulbs in the M6.

- Keeping it to just a few single alternatives will be quicker and simpler to manufacture and implement.

OK, so lets hear it. Ideas/suggestions/changes/alternatives?

Will


----------



## william lafferty (Dec 15, 2008)

Will, I would like to add my thanks to that expressed by others for your work and your willingness to share your skills with CPF members. 

I think your basic proposal, keeping thing simple, is a good choice. My only question is what battery configuration would you utilize for your initial design? 

I assume that what we are trying to do here is stuff as much power (that becomes usable through the buck driver) as we can into the M6 host. If that is the case, then it seems to me that the 6 x 17500 is the battery configuration that makes most sense. Since the 2 x 18650 or the NiMH configurations would have a lot less voltage, I'm not even sure why one would use them with a regulated driver.


----------



## Lunal_Tic (Dec 15, 2008)

I'm really excited to see a regulated M6 solution come back around. I missed out on the M6-R and I'm hoping this comes to fruition. For the most basic parameters I'm definitely a +1 on the 6x17500s and keeping the stock appearance. I also like the KISS basic on/off of the original light (press momentary, twist constant on). 

The only thing I'm a little fuzzy on is the soft start. I have a few of AW's Mag and SF C switches and I've noticed that when I have the light set to high the soft start takes a bit of time. One of the pluses for me of the M6 is a nearly instant huge blast of light when the button is hit. I don't know if the soft start can be made fast enough to provide this and still be a "soft start." I like my AW switches in the lights in which they are being used but the M6 is a different animal in my opinion and while I may end up getting one of his rumored M6 multi stage soft start switches for one of my M6s to try it out, I will definitely keep one as a "blast beast." If the blast beast happens to be a soft start and have more capacity then I'd be all over it.

Just my 2 yen.
-LT

PS Thanks to everyone involved in this, I can't wait to see how it turns out.


----------



## wquiles (Dec 15, 2008)

I don't know how AW implemented his PWM soft start, so I don't know why sometimes is shorter/faster in some cases and not in others. I can however explain how the PhD-M6 implements the soft-start function (again, kudos to Alan for writing the PhD code!). First, to explain the soft start, let me explain a little the whole idea of PWM - pulse width modulation.

If I have a 12 volt battery but have a 6 volt rated bulb, if I turn ON and OFF the battery voltage to the bulb fast enough (about 254 Hz in our case), the bulb will only see the "average" value across its filament because the filament (unlike an LED) can't react quickly enough to the battery voltage going from zero to 12 and then to zero, back to 12, and so on. By varying the percentate of the time that the we connect the battery to the bulb (12 volts), vs. the time that we disconnect the battery to the bulb (zero volts), we can increase or decrease the "effective" voltage that the bulb sees. 

This variation between the time ON and OFF cycles is called the duty cycle, and it is how we regulate the voltage in the PhD-M6. In the example above, we start at 50% duty cycle, so the bulb sees an average (or RMS - root mean squared) value of 50% of 12v, which is 6 volts. As the battery drains (which is monitored by the Tiny processor) the duty cycle is increased, which balances the lower capacity at the battery - the bulb still sees 6 volts. 

This cycle of the battery draining and the duty cycle increasing continues until the battery is depleted enough, which is when the duty cycle will eventually reach 100% - at this point the battery is connected to the bulb all of the time (no OFF cycles), and we are basically running DD (direct drive) and regulation stops - if the battery drains more, the bulb will finally see less than 6 volts and will start to dim and turn yellow.

Now, back to soft start. If we apply a duty cycle of 50% right at the beginning, the cold filament in the bulb will have its lowest resistance, so it will draw a much larger inrush current through the filament - this high inrush current is what kills bulbs. The filament will eventually warm up, which will increase its resistance, which will then settle to the "normal" operating current for the bulb at that set voltage. 

Since we want to limit that inrush current, what we do is that we simply apply a smaller duty cycle during the initial phase that is LESS than 50% (like say, 5-10%, which effectively means the bulb initially sees a voltage less than 6 volts), and then we slowly increase the duty cycle up to 50%, which is the operational point for the regulator in this particular example (12V and 6V bulb). My goal for the PhD-M6 is to have this soft start to last approximately 50-100mS, before going to steady state - based on my own experience with Willie Hunt's LVR on Jim's M6-R solution, this 50-100mS should be fast enough to be helpful to the bulb, while still being fast enough for users to almost "miss" the fact that the soft start is there (which is of course the ideal situation). The PhD-M6 would do this "soft" application of the battery voltage to the bulb, every single time it starts, which is why this is called a "soft start".

Will


----------



## leukos (Dec 15, 2008)

The softstart is a perfect compliment to regulation. I wouldn't invest in an incandescent regulator without a softstart. 

So there is the possibility of four voltage outputs? You have suggested the MN20 and the MN21, about 7.5 and 6.8 respectively. What other voltage settings might we be considering?

As far as a battery pack, maybe we could twist AW's arm to develop some 17670 IMR's for this project? 12V would be a nice battery supply for our regulator and no worries about needing a double tap from an IMR. I mention this because js recently was considering a new M6-R based on 3x protected 17670, but neither Pila's or AW's would power the MN21.


----------



## Lunal_Tic (Dec 16, 2008)

Thanks for the explanation, not even noticing the soft start would be great.



wquiles said:


> I don't know how AW implemented his PWM soft start, so I don't know why sometimes is shorter/faster in some cases and not in others.
> Will



On AW's switch the ramp up is still visible on lower outputs (same ramp speed I think) but it's the most noticeable going to full output since it has farther to go.

-LT


----------



## Grox (Dec 16, 2008)

Will,

That sounds great. I think that starting simple is ideal. Softstart and regulation are musts of course 

The dipswitch idea sounds good, but could be fiddly if people switch bulbs a lot. Are there multi-position click switches/dials that could serve? Is it possible to use a small rotary switch or slide? 

Like LT, I'm not really enthusiastic about having multiple levels but I understand that others would desire it. Here's why: I like being able to use my light to signal and I like being able to give the light to someone who isn't used to multiclick setups and have them use it quickly.

What other bulbs apart from the MN20/21? For me the most useful would be WA1185 and HOM6R and maybe the MN15 and MN61.

Having the option to use IMR17670s would be great - we could run the upcoming LF IMR HO-M6 (whatever it's called), the MN61, and the 1185 with fewer concerns!

Cheers!


----------



## mdocod (Dec 16, 2008)

leukos said:


> As far as a battery pack, maybe we could twist AW's arm to develop some 17670 IMR's for this project? 12V would be a nice battery supply for our regulator and no worries about needing a double tap from an IMR. I mention this because js recently was considering a new M6-R based on 3x protected 17670, but neither Pila's or AW's would power the MN21.



Actually, An MN21, being ~30-35W, would run on 3x protected AW 17670s reasonably well if it were PWM regulated, and with the soft-start feature, there would never be a double-multi-tap required to start it up as there is basically no current spike (that the PCB can recognize) to speak of. 

The PCBs on the 17670s are known for being right on the edge of being able to light up the 1185, which runs ~3.3-3.5A. But that's direct drive with the regular initial current spike associated with cold filaments...

If I did the math correctly, the MN21 regulated to 7V with a driver efficiency of 95%, would draw right around 3.3-3.4A from the 17670s... now, technically speaking, just like the 1185 configuration that is popular with this cell setup, this drain rate is right on the edge ore even slightly over the 2C maximum recommended discharge rate for most LiCo cells...

I brought this up more to point out that it would be possible.... let me throw my 2 lumens on the pile now:

It's an M6, with all of the effort to go into this project, aiming for reliability should be paramount, and this would be factored into all aspects. Bulb life, Cell health, regulator heat management, etc etc. With that in mind, any 3x17670 configuration should not stress the cells beyond 2C.... So LiMn would certainly be nice here, but we would be sacrificing some runtime, for sure. By my estimates, a 3x17670 LiMn setup regulated to an MN21 would run for close to 20 minutes, which would basically make this a direct replacement for the runtime normally associated with the MN21 on primaries, accept it would be regulated, soft started and brighter; not bad! 

Now... having said that, a 2x18650 LiMn setup, with regulation, would probably also run for 15+ minutes on the MN21, so the simplicity of 2 cells, and higher driver efficiency (not bucking as much voltage should result in better efficiency correct me if I'm wrong here), so that type of setup would reduce thermal management issues in the driver.... If there are any issues (I haven't followed the whole project, forgive me if I'm off on a limb here that isn't connected to this tree...)..

Personally, what I would really love to see, is an after-market M6 replacement body, that shares pretty much the exact same design as far as the grip and everything is concerned, that would be bored to fit 3x18650s. This would open up a lot of options. LiCo cells in this configuration could drive an MN21 for 40 minutes and be totally safe for the cells... This type of offering could be done separately and would not necessarily be required as the 3x17670 option is on the table IMO...


----------

Will,
I'm very interested in this project and will be following it closely...

Let me know if you need some prototyping done for various battery adapter designs to work with your project. Just tell me where you want to fit the driver and what cells and the dimensions of the driver and I will see what I can come up with. I should be able to do 2x18650 or 3x17670 designs that leave you ~1+cm of the battery tube (lengthwise) freed up for the regulator (with the stock tailcap).

Eric


----------



## wquiles (Dec 16, 2008)

Grox said:


> The dipswitch idea sounds good, but could be fiddly if people switch bulbs a lot. Are there multi-position click switches/dials that could serve? Is it possible to use a small rotary switch or slide?


Nothing cast in stone yet - keep the ideas coming. In the end, it needs to be reliable and solidly built 




Grox said:


> Having the option to use IMR17670s would be great - we could run the upcoming LF IMR HO-M6 ...


Sorry about my ignorance - but what is the LF IMR HO-M6?





mdocod said:


> Actually, An MN21, being ~30-35W, would run on 3x protected AW 17670s reasonably well if it were PWM regulated, and with the soft-start feature, there would never be a double-multi-tap required to start it up as there is basically no current spike (that the PCB can recognize) to speak of.
> 
> The PCBs on the 17670s are known for being right on the edge of being able to light up the 1185, which runs ~3.3-3.5A. But that's direct drive with the regular initial current spike associated with cold filaments...
> 
> ...


Although we have more capacity in a 6x 17500 pack, I "really" like the 3x17670 battery pack since it would give us a higher working voltage, which with the regulation could mean working on bulbs as little as 4-5 volts to near the fully charge battery voltage - pretty nice range indeed.






mdocod said:


> Now... having said that, a 2x18650 LiMn setup, with regulation, would probably also run for 15+ minutes on the MN21, so the simplicity of 2 cells, and higher driver efficiency (not bucking as much voltage should result in better efficiency correct me if I'm wrong here), so that type of setup would reduce thermal management issues in the driver.... If there are any issues (I haven't followed the whole project, forgive me if I'm off on a limb here that isn't connected to this tree...)..


The efficiency in PWM is not related to the difference between the bulb set point and the battery voltage, but rather as to how little time the switching FET is keep in the linear region. Most PWM designs are like 99% efficient since by design the FET is switched fast through the linear region so the FET does not have much time to get "warm" and give up heat (which would lower efficiency). So for us, even 4x LiIOn in series would still yield nearly 99% on a low voltage bulb 






mdocod said:


> Personally, what I would really love to see, is an after-market M6 replacement body, that shares pretty much the exact same design as far as the grip and everything is concerned, that would be bored to fit 3x18650s. This would open up a lot of options. LiCo cells in this configuration could drive an MN21 for 40 minutes and be totally safe for the cells... This type of offering could be done separately and would not necessarily be required as the 3x17670 option is on the table IMO...


I also love that idea (custom body for the M6), however, I find the width of the body pretty "fatty" as it is, and I never liked the size of the FM Elephant (which was designed to hold 3x18650 cells side-by-side), so we would have to consider some options to see what folks prefer, given that most of the feedback so far in this thread suggests that folks like to keep the same size/shape of the original M6 untouched. Definitely room for more talk on this later on 





mdocod said:


> Will,
> I'm very interested in this project and will be following it closely...
> 
> Let me know if you need some prototyping done for various battery adapter designs to work with your project. Just tell me where you want to fit the driver and what cells and the dimensions of the driver and I will see what I can come up with. I should be able to do 2x18650 or 3x17670 designs that leave you ~1+cm of the battery tube (lengthwise) freed up for the regulator (with the stock tailcap).
> ...


Eric - absolutely. I can lead us towards a solution, but I can't solve all of the technical/implementations details by myself. I am actually very happy of you joining as it would be great if you can own/drive the battery pack side of this project.

If is early, but here is an informal list of several areas where members can help or own part of this development:
- battery pack: We need to decide on what will be the "initial" configuration (right now deciding between 6x 17500, 3x 17670, and 2x 18650). Right now we can't proceed or do much until we really nail this one down.

- once we pick the initial battery pack configuration, which then sets the highest operating voltage, we need to pick/select those initial 4 bulb choices (I would personally like to keep the MN20 and MN21 as part of those 4, but this is a group project after all)

- once we do the above, we then need to design the actual PhD-M6 motherboard to fit within the constrains of the battery pack. If we pick something with a relatively long pack, we might be restricted to a long and not too wide circuit board like the LVR that Jim used on his M6-R which does not go on top or bottom of the battery pack, but rather on its side, like shown here:













If we don't have space on the "sides" of the battery pack, then we are restricted to something more like the HDM6 that used a circular board on top of the actual battery pack, like shown here in this mock up of a 3x17650 pack:





I can't start creating a working board for the Tiny until this is accomplished, but I can start implementing the code for the selector/dip switches in the meantime.


- Then we need to built 1-2, built-by-hand running prototypes to test the design with real cells, inside a real M6. Assuming this works, we probably need to make a few more and do a limited trial to make sure everything works reliably - not just on the bench.

- I will be working in parallel modifying Alan's PhD code and writing new code for the Tiny processors, and I am sure we will be making tweaks to the code/settings based on the real usage (which usually differs from paper design!).

- we then need to work on producticing (is that even a word?) the solution at least for the initial phase:
1) buying batteries

2) making the battery holders

3) making the Tiny boards, programming, calibrating them, and testing them (again, myself at this point)

4) assembling the completed packs, and testing them at the 4 set voltages - kind of tricky since most all RMS voltmeters can't read a PWM signal if it is not at 50% duty cycle.

5) perhaps work on some sort of charger for them, or assume the end-user will use an off-the-shelf charger capable of charging the cells/pack (Triton?)

6) selling the packaged solution: again my goal is not to make money or turn a "profit". At least initially, we should try to recover the cost of all of the raw materials and add a very small/nominal amount for the assembly/test time.


- After the initial phase of packs is done with, if we have enough demand, we "could" then consider offering individual pieces for end-users to assemble their own packs.


This above is my high level "project" view. Suggestions/comments/alternatives?

Will


----------



## brandx (Dec 16, 2008)

I am quite pleased to see mdocod joining the fray... more of the 'pro' support for this project can only help. For input and commentary, I can only look at my own uses here.... we have basically 2 cell or 3 cell series options and I have stayed with the SF MN 20/21, and lets' not forget the MN61, and then the WA 1111 and 1185. I would like to have the ability to use any of them via a battery pack and bulb swap and setting the correct dips on wquiles magic board. Whatever you guys come up with.... I want one! As further down the road thinking, can the driver board be planned to be adaptable to the M3-M4 as well? The M6 does have it's following, but I had an M4 and M3 WAY before I jumped on the M6 platform.


----------



## RobertM (Dec 16, 2008)

I think that 2xIMR18650 would work fine. At 1600mAh capacity, the MN21 should run for almost 20 minutes correct?

I agree with mdocod that since it is for the M6, it needs to be as reliable as possible. I like the idea of using a safe chemistry cell (i.e. IMR18650) that doesn't have any protection PCB's that could potentially fail. In additional, pushing 3x17670 to the limit doesn't seem like the best idea to me. At least not until AW has some IMR17670's?

I agree that support for the MN20 and MN21 would be at the top of the list too. Beyond those two, I'd like to see support for the MN15.


For me, a stock tailcap, stock body, regulated MN20/MN21 powered by AW's IMR18650's setup would be M6 nirvana! :twothumbs

Thanks for all your work on this project! I can't wait to see how it comes along. I've been wanting a safe/reliable rechargeable option for my MN21 for quite some time.

Thanks,
Robert


----------



## Lunal_Tic (Dec 16, 2008)

wquiles said:


> > Quote:
> > Originally Posted by Grox View Post
> > Having the option to use IMR17670s would be great - we could run the upcoming LF IMR HO-M6 ...
> >
> ...



I think he was referring to the IMR version of this LumensFactory (Last bulb second line. It hasn't been released yet.)

-LT


----------



## cy (Dec 16, 2008)

sure glad to see this come back to life!!!


----------



## mdocod (Dec 16, 2008)

As for what 4 bulbs I would like to see....

Depends pretty heavily on the battery configuration we decide to go with, but I'm thinking I'd like to see the following:

MN15 (regulated to ~7.6V) 

MN20 (regulated to ~7.6V)

MN21 (regulated to ~7.0V)

Not sure yet about that 4th bulb option, as it would depend on how this regulator works as to what I might recommend here... I am going to need to go back through all the many pages of threads on this and get caught up on the behavior of the circuit and how it is programmed and whether it is using a feedback and stuff like that... I don't want to make any more assumptions till I at least have a gist of it comprehended, (I'm not EE but can follow along on some of the more elementary subjects pretty well as I used to build speaker cabinets and crossover networks as a hobby, the hardest part is always just getting all the terminology figured out, after that it's all down hill  ) For now I need to get caught up on adapters that i am running out of so I'll be in the garage a lot and busy with the holidays over the next 2 weeks, but I'll try to spend some time reading through the project 

Eric


----------



## leukos (Dec 16, 2008)

Here's my four suggested voltage outputs (hope you all agree!):

Bulb option #1: N1 (several 6V WA lamps too) @ approx 4.8V (This would be our nice low lamp, longer runtime option)

Bulb option #2: MN21/MN16/WA 1111/ LF EO-M3T @ approx 6.8V (This would be one of our high output options)

Bulb option #3: MN20/MN15/N2/LF HO-M3T @ approx 7.4V (This would be all our practical bulbs)

Bulb option #4: MN61/N62/WA 1185 @ approx 10.8V (This would be our ultra high output lamps)

I really like the idea of trying to make a 12V pack (3x 17670 IMR) so we can have the option of using popular 12V lamps. Will, a round circuit board that incorporated FM's 3x 17670 holder would probably be ideal. It already has the V+ running through the connecting bolt to the base of the battery holder (for charging purposes). Also feel free to copy, modify, or scorn my regulated 3x 17670 setup if it helps any (the tailcap piece could be something manufactured out of delrin and could incorporate the PhD and dip switches, the other advantage is that it could accommodate any FM battery pack that could fit in it though that would create challenges for the low voltage cutoff setting):


----------



## LuxLuthor (Dec 16, 2008)

If you are leaning towards Li-Ion...couple of other issues involve choosing safe LiMn/LiFePO4 or Li-Cobalt, individual cell or pack charging, balancing, durability of cell holder if cells must be replaced every 15-20 mins of run time. Safe chemistry (giving peace of mind) are in 18650 size. Top round PCB would allow more resilient battery holder.

If 18650 are used, then 2 x Li-Ion limits choice of bulbs. 1185 & others needing >7V to drive effectively would be out. 3 x 17670 give the most options, but must use AW's Li-Cobalt, balancing, & safe charging.

Choices, choices.


----------



## leukos (Dec 16, 2008)

Lux, we might be able to twist AW's arm into making some 17670 IMR's for this soon to be wildly popular M6 battery pack. True, can't make plans on vaporware, but it is not outside the realm of possibility. Besides, the development of these packs are probably months down the road. 

FM's holder allows for charging without removing the batteries (with proper charger of course). Mdocod's 2x 18650 holder is a very good platform as well and I would recommend it if we go that route, but I'm still partial to a 12V pack which just has a lot more to offer.


----------



## mdocod (Dec 17, 2008)

I figure the 3x17670 option is probably going to be best as it'll allow for that true regulated output through the entire run on any of the ~7V bulbs... With that in mind, I know that the demand for LiMn 17670s would skyrocket to the tune of several hundred cells overnight. We need to contact AW see what he thinks about that 

Eric


----------



## Grox (Dec 17, 2008)

Yep, I was referring to the unreleased lumens factory bulb intended for use in the M6 using 6xIMR 16340. Mark of lumens factory specced the bulb at 1000 bulb lumens, which is approx the same as the MN21 on primaries. Here's the announcement.

Leukos' idea about having 4 general 'ranges' of output is a good one. I think that settings 2, 3 and 4 are quite good. I have to admit that I haven't investigated 4.8V bulbs but I'm under the impression that N1s are quite difficult to come by. Are there any other bulbs that run usefully at that setting?

With regards to how the output is selected, I do feel that a dipswitch would be somewhat inelegant. Unfortunately I can't to help to choose the alternative because I don't know much about choosing switches. I do like the idea of a small rotary though (eg. this) or a small mutiposition slide switch (eg. this).

Will, the 'productification' (lol) process could probably leave out the pack charger (step 5) at least initially. I think that we ought to leave charging to end users since there may be a variety of batteries used. We could suggest a charger solution and write a how to guide. I think that the charging side of things might end up being a little fiddly if we have to work out group buys for tritons and so on. The way I see it, it might be best to confine our energies to the hotdriver/holder.


----------



## mdocod (Dec 17, 2008)

The charging issue is certainly a concern, as Luxluthor said, LiMn configurations would benefit greatly from a charing jack as LiMn cells do very well in series charging and can generally go dozens of cycles without any balance issues. Occasionally the cells could be removed to charge individually. With LiCo cells, individual charging would be best each time if possible, but isn't necessary for every charge... As long as all the cells terminate between 4.15-4.25V it's technically within spec and totally safe. 

One thing I have always tried for in my pack designs is a setup that allows the cells to be removed and installed repeatedly without any issues. (side loading). My theory being that not everyone is going to have a pack charging solution on hand. If I work on a design for this project I'll be incorporating the best of what I have learned in the last year of doing this, and probably bring some new design concepts to the table. I'm not sure what the time frame for all of this is looking like, but depending on how things go in the next couple months, and how much of a tax return I have coming, I'm thinking about picking up a mill, which would further increase the design options for the adapter.

Eric


----------



## Grox (Dec 17, 2008)

Eric, I share and understand your concerns - and I think that ultimately they should be addressed at the design level. 

If you/others are willing to devote your time to constructing a solution that would be fantastic.

However, I am not sure that in the big picture/overall project management scheme spending that much time would be worth it at this stage. Having a design that elegantly implements charging jack/balancing would be ideal. But is it worth the time you spend designing, manufacturing and implementing it? Perhaps it would be a better investment of time, money and effort to look to other elements of the design. On the other hand, I don't think it is very hard to educate users to properly maintain their cells/packs (although I have read anecdotes of js's M6R NiMh packs being ill maintained).

If you're still devoted enough to come up with a solution to those problems, I would applaud you! Having a pack that could be maintained easily would certainly save a lot of time and hassle.


----------



## DM51 (Dec 17, 2008)

This thread gets better and better, with really excellent and thoughtful suggestions from some of CPF's most knowledgeable members.


----------



## wquiles (Dec 17, 2008)

Lunal_Tic said:


> I think he was referring to the IMR version of this LumensFactory (Last bulb second line. It hasn't been released yet.)


Thanks much LT 




cy said:


> sure glad to see this come back to life!!!


Glad to see you stop by cy 





leukos said:


> Here's my four suggested voltage outputs (hope you all agree!):
> 
> Bulb option #1: N1 (several 6V WA lamps too) @ aprox 4.8V (This would be our nice low lamp, longer runtime option)
> 
> ...


Outstanding suggestion on the voltage choices - I love those!




leukos said:


> I really like the idea of trying to make a 12V pack (3x 17670 IMR) so we can have the option of using popular 12V lamps. Will, a round circuit board that incorporated FM's 3x 17670 holder would probably be ideal. It already has the V+ running through the connecting bolt to the base of the battery holder (for charging purposes). Also feel free to copy, modify, or scorn my regulated 3x 17670 setup if it helps any (the tailcap piece could be something manufactured out of delrin and could incorporate the PhD and dip switches, the other advantage is that it could accommodate any FM battery pack that could fit in it though that would create challenges for the low voltage cutoff setting):


Me too. I am liking more and more the 3x 17670 IMR cell option 




leukos said:


> Will, a round circuit board that incorporated FM's 3x 17670 holder would probably be ideal. It already has the V+ running through the connecting bolt to the base of the battery holder (for charging purposes).


I am planing on using SMT parts through, and parts count is relatively small, so it might be possible. Please note that the charging side of the battery holder is a tad big for the limited space in the M6 - we do need space for the driver 

The design challenge comes from how to remove the batteries (like for replacing a dead/weak battery) and how to keep the connections reliable for the actual PhD-M6 driver - whatever we come up with has to be uber reliable.





leukos said:


> Also feel free to copy, modify, or scorn my regulated 3x 17670 setup if it helps any (the tailcap piece could be something manufactured out of delrin and could incorporate the PhD and dip switches, the other advantage is that it could accommodate any FM battery pack that could fit in it though that would create challenges for the low voltage cutoff setting):


That looks like a very cool and creative design :twothumbs

Will


----------



## wquiles (Dec 17, 2008)

leukos said:


> Lux, we might be able to twist AW's arm into making some 17670 IMR's for this soon to be wildly popular M6 battery pack ...






mdocod said:


> I figure the 3x17670 option is probably going to be best as it'll allow for that true regulated output through the entire run on any of the ~7V bulbs... With that in mind, I know that the demand for LiMn 17670s would skyrocket to the tune of several hundred cells overnight. We need to contact AW see what he thinks about that




Excellent idea. I just sent PM to AW to give him a heads up to stop over on this thread and gives us his take on what is possible 

Wil


----------



## JimmyM (Dec 17, 2008)

OK. Will. Here goes. If you mount the regulator at the top of the pack and have all circuitry grounds connect to the body of the light and use a program like FP6 (always on). it should work. Of course Alan will have to add ADC sync to FP6 and FP7. When you tighten the tail cap you will be completing the circuit. You won't be able to add things like multiple levels to a stock bodied light. The only thing to worry about would be how to add the FET connections between the bulb and body. This could be accomplished with a 1/32" PCB ring with the contacts on either side.

Of course you could look into High side switching. Since your design is a lot more focused with respect to voltage. We could probably work out a high side switched version. That would just mount in positive end of the pack, with a small cricuitry ground connected to the bulb ground at the head., maybe by spriing or something. If you just ran a ground lead for the circuitry down the pack to the negative and, the circuitry would always be on and PWMing. Tightening the cap would just complete the bulb current path.
What's the max voltage we're looking at here?


----------



## leukos (Dec 17, 2008)

Will, could the PCB fit like a donut around the charging jack on a FM holder?


----------



## wquiles (Dec 17, 2008)

JimmyM said:


> OK. Will. Here goes. If you mount the regulator at the top of the pack and have all circuitry grounds connect to the body of the light and use a program like FP6 (always on). it should work. Of course Alan will have to add ADC sync to FP6 and FP7. When you tighten the tail cap you will be completing the circuit. You won't be able to add things like multiple levels to a stock bodied light. The only thing to worry about would be how to add the FET connections between the bulb and body. This could be accomplished with a 1/32" PCB ring with the contacts on either side.


I have been looking at these options as well, including of course the FET connections. 



JimmyM said:


> Of course you could look into High side switching. Since your design is a lot more focused with respect to voltage. We could probably work out a high side switched version. That would just mount in positive end of the pack, with a small cricuitry ground connected to the bulb ground at the head., maybe by spriing or something. If you just ran a ground lead for the circuitry down the pack to the negative and, the circuitry would always be on and PWMing. Tightening the cap would just complete the bulb current path.
> What's the max voltage we're looking at here?



Right now we are talking about 3x LiIon cells, so if we talk about freshly charged cells at 4.2 to 4.3 volts, we have a max voltage 12.9Volts - lets say 13 volts.

This all sounds complicated, but I have personally done all of this before when I built my own M6-R packs, so I know this is doable 

Will


----------



## DM51 (Dec 17, 2008)

leukos said:


> I really like the idea of trying to make a 12V pack (3x 17670 IMR) so we can have the option of using popular 12V lamps.


I agree. However AFAIK we don't yet have a projected release date for IMR17670s, and these could be some way off. A simple alternative would be to use the stock MB20 battery holder with 3s2p IMR16340s, which are already available.


----------



## leukos (Dec 17, 2008)

Stock MB20 has no extra room for a circuit board, but the possibility of using 2 parallel stacks of 3x IMR16340's is realistic.


----------



## JimmyM (Dec 17, 2008)

wquiles said:


> This variation between the time ON and OFF cycles is called the duty cycle, and it is how we regulate the voltage in the PhD-M6. In the example above, we start at 50% duty cycle, so the bulb sees an average (or RMS - root mean squared) value of 50% of 12v, which is 6 volts. As the battery drains (which is monitored by the Tiny processor) the duty cycle is increased, which balances the lower capacity at the battery - the bulb still sees 6 volts.
> 
> Will


Actually a 25% duty cycle will yield 6V RMS from a 12V source. Do try to avoid driving a <6V bulb on more than 12V. Keep in mind, that while the RMS voltage is only 6V, the bulb does get the full 12V intermittently and therefore the current that would accompany a 6V bulb being driven on double the voltage. SO the RMS voltage is only 6V, it is pulling twice the current of a 6V bulb while it is on. (25% of the time) the FET needs to be able to handle this current. Not just RMS current.


----------



## JimmyM (Dec 17, 2008)

wquiles said:


> I have been looking at these options as well, including of course the FET connections.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The Mag gives the luxury of having a ton of room (by comparison) in the switch for all kinds of doo-dads. The M6 pack just butts right up againt the bottom of the bulb assembly. right. Precious little room. The 6x17500 solution packs in a lot of capacity, but leaves little to no room for electronics. On the upside, you don't need a giant FET like the JM-SST. You can get by easily on a DPAK, or smaller package.


----------



## wquiles (Dec 17, 2008)

JimmyM said:


> Actually a 25% duty cycle will yield 6V RMS from a 12V source. Do try to avoid driving a <6V bulb on more than 12V. Keep in mind, that while the RMS voltage is only 6V, the bulb does get the full 12V intermittently and therefore the current that would accompany a 6V bulb being driven on double the voltage. SO the RMS voltage is only 6V, it is pulling twice the current of a 6V bulb while it is on. (25% of the time) the FET needs to be able to handle this current. Not just RMS current.


Opps - sorry about that. Yes, 25% dutty cycle (  ), although I am not following you on the bulb running twice the current. Can you expand on that?




JimmyM said:


> The Mag gives the luxury of having a ton of room (by comparison) in the switch for all kinds of doo-dads. The M6 pack just butts right up againt the bottom of the bulb assembly. right. Precious little room. The 6x17500 solution packs in a lot of capacity, but leaves little to no room for electronics. On the upside, you don't need a giant FET like the JM-SST. You can get by easily on a DPAK, or smaller package.


My two HDM6 packs use 6x 17500 cells, and there is barely enough space for the driver on top of the stack of cells - yes, very, very tight!

As to the FET, you and I are thinking along the same lines - I have been planing on nothing bigger than a DPAK, but of course I have to test it with whatever battery pack and bulbs we end up using.

Will


----------



## leukos (Dec 17, 2008)

JimmyM said:


> Actually a 25% duty cycle will yield 6V RMS from a 12V source. Do try to avoid driving a <6V bulb on more than 12V. Keep in mind, that while the RMS voltage is only 6V, the bulb does get the full 12V intermittently and therefore the current that would accompany a 6V bulb being driven on double the voltage. SO the RMS voltage is only 6V, it is pulling twice the current of a 6V bulb while it is on. (25% of the time) the FET needs to be able to handle this current. Not just RMS current.


 

I'm not sure I understand the warning for low voltage options from a 12V source, if you can explain it in non-technical terms, JimmyM. Willie Hunt has an LVR that is designed for a 14V source that yields a 4.5V RMS. I have been using two of these boards for over a year now with no apparent issues. What are the limitations you are suggesting with the 6V RMS/ 25% duty cycle thresholds?


----------



## wquiles (Dec 17, 2008)

Grox said:


> Yep, I was referring to the unreleased lumens factory bulb intended for use in the M6 using 6xIMR 16340. Mark of lumens factory specced the bulb at 1000 bulb lumens, which is approx the same as the MN21 on primaries. Here's the announcement.


Cool - thanks.





Grox said:


> With regards to how the output is selected, I do feel that a dipswitch would be somewhat inelegant. Unfortunately I can't to help to choose the alternative because I don't know much about choosing switches. I do like the idea of a small rotary though (eg. this) or a small mutiposition slide switch (eg. this).


Cool - thanks for the alternate options. Of course we have very limited space, so I am hoping we will also be able to find some surface mount options.




Grox said:


> Will, the 'productification' (lol) process could probably leave out the pack charger (step 5) at least initially. I think that we ought to leave charging to end users since there may be a variety of batteries used. We could suggest a charger solution and write a how to guide. I think that the charging side of things might end up being a little fiddly if we have to work out group buys for tritons and so on. The way I see it, it might be best to confine our energies to the hotdriver/holder.


Good point. We will know better what we will need to charge once we select what pack/batteries we will use.

Will


----------



## wquiles (Dec 17, 2008)

leukos said:


> Will, could the PCB fit like a donut around the charging jack on a FM holder?



Looking at the parts on the LVR board and the PhD development board, it does not look like you can do it, even with the FET in DPAK package. I personally feel (my gut feeling) that trying to force it to fit the FM holder will not be possible without some sort of compromise - I rather come up with a battery pack that works for this project. Remember that as awesome as FM packs are, those battery packs were really resigned for a Mag "D" body and a relatively long spring in the tailcap. 

I am not trying to be negative - maybe it is possible after all. Just giving you my 2 cents worth 

Will


----------



## LED61 (Dec 17, 2008)

mdocod said:


> As for what 4 bulbs I would like to see....
> 
> Depends pretty heavily on the battery configuration we decide to go with, but I'm thinking I'd like to see the following:
> 
> ...


 
I have driven both the MN20 and MN15 regulated at 7.5V with Will´s pack, and the MN20 is definitely brighter, so I agree with Mdocod´s figure of 7.6V for the MN20, but not for the MN15. The MN15 at 7.5V is a bit dull, and JS X-LOLA with primaries I think is driving it closer to 7.7V. I´m no expert at this but judging at the differences that´s what it looks like, if not 7.8V.

And yes, this is a GREAT thread,a beautiful project with some really good and credible people in it.


----------



## donn_ (Dec 17, 2008)

This is probably from waaayy out in left field, but I'd like to see a regulated driver which isn't tied to a standardized battery pack.

I use both sizes of A123 cells in my M6s, and I think they would benefit greatly from regulation, since they are lower voltage than the cells being discussed for this project.

So, Will...how about a couple or more of your custom delrin battery sleeves, in 18650 and 26650, with this regulator built in? The ultimate would include a 2x18650 size, side-by-side, in either (or both) parallel or series, and a 26650 with the ability to be extended to 2x in length.

I'd also be interested in that regulated 26650 sleeve for [email protected] use, in much longer sizes...up to 6-7x.


----------



## JimmyM (Dec 17, 2008)

wquiles said:


> Opps - sorry about that. Yes, 25% dutty cycle (  ), although I am not following you on the bulb running twice the current. Can you expand on that?
> Will


Well, as an example. a 6V bulb running on 6V draws 1A.
Now lets see it using 12V at 25% duty cycle. sqrt((12^2)*25%)=6V. So the RMS voltage is 6V and the RMS current is 1A.
However, the peak voltage is 12V and during the time that the FET is ON, the bulb is pulling current at the same rate as if it were on a 12V DC load. 2A. So your FET needs to be able to handle the PEAK current, not just RMS.


----------



## JimmyM (Dec 17, 2008)

leukos said:


> I'm not sure I understand the warning for low voltage options from a 12V source, if you can explain it in non-technical terms, JimmyM. Willie Hunt has an LVR that is designed for a 14V source that yields a 4.5V RMS. I have been using two of these boards for over a year now with no apparent issues. What are the limitations you are suggesting with the 6V RMS/ 25% duty cycle thresholds?


See my above explanation for the whole 25% duty, current, RMS/PEAK issue.
It's not a threshold or even a real limitation. Just something to consider.
Look at it this way.
At 200Hz and 25% duty, the FET is on for 0.00125 seconds (0.25 * 0.005 Sec). If you expose a 6v bulb to 12V for 0.00125 seconds will it blow? Probably not. But let's lower the frequency, 50Hz and 25% duty (0.25 * 0.02 Sec). Will the bulb blow by exposing it to 12V for 0.005 seconds? probably not.
But lets look at it from a voltage standpoint. Same 6V bulb but try running it on 120V. Do you think a 6V bulb will blow if exposed to 120V (and 20 amps) for 0.005 seconds. Pretty likely. This illustration shows that with the voltage we're dealing with, the possibility of popping a 6V bulb while running on 12V or 18V at 254 Hz, is pretty slim. It's more a warning for the FET selection process because each and every time that FET turns on, it will have to pass the current of a drastically overdriven bulb.
The voltage does not rise and fall at the bulb. It's either ON or OFF. Full pack voltage or zero. We're relying on the thermal mass of the bulb to keep the filament temperatire below its melting point.


----------



## JimmyM (Dec 17, 2008)

A DPAK will do the job very well for you. I've been testing the IRLU7843 (IRLR7834 is surface mount DPAK version). I've been using a 18.1V source and 15.7 VRMS (9.8 amps RMS measured) into a 64623. The FET got barely warm. I could just tell it was warm by touching it. You should have no issue using that FET for the bulbs listed here. Also, it has a logic level gate, so you can drive it with the 5V of the Tiny85. Specs show 2.6 mOhm at 10V gate and 3.2 mOhms at a 4.5V gate.


----------



## JimmyM (Dec 17, 2008)

leukos said:


> Will, could the PCB fit like a donut around the charging jack on a FM holder?


It may be possible. What are the dimensions of the ID and OD of this "donut".


----------



## wquiles (Dec 17, 2008)

donn_ said:


> This is probably from waaayy out in left field, but I'd like to see a regulated driver which isn't tied to a standardized battery pack.
> 
> I use both sizes of A123 cells in my M6s, and I think they would benefit greatly from regulation, since they are lower voltage than the cells being discussed for this project.
> 
> ...



Donn,

What you are suggesting is a boost driver => Vin < Vout.

In our case, we are building a buck regulator => Vin > Vout

So we have to stick with a battery pack that has more voltage than our highest intended bulb voltage.

Will


----------



## donn_ (Dec 17, 2008)

Actually, Will, what I'm thinking of is a driver which can be programmed to either boost or buck.

In a 1xA123 or 2xA123 setting, I'd like to be able to boost.

In a larger (longer) setting, I'd look for buck.

I'd like to be able to dial in the Vbulb I need, no matter what the Vbatt.


----------



## JimmyM (Dec 17, 2008)

A boost regulator is a COMPLETELY different design. Entirely.
That would be a project unto itself. The inducotr alone would be larger than the whole PhD-M6 and JM-PhD-D1


----------



## donn_ (Dec 17, 2008)

I could swear I've read about drivers which do either buck or boost, in much smaller lights than we're talking about.

No?


----------



## wquiles (Dec 17, 2008)

donn_ said:


> Actually, Will, what I'm thinking of is a driver which can be programmed to either boost or buck.
> 
> In a 1xA123 or 2xA123 setting, I'd like to be able to boost.
> 
> ...






donn_ said:


> I could swear I've read about drivers which do either buck or boost, in much smaller lights than we're talking about.
> 
> No?




Donn,

Yes, the Shoppe sells (or used to sell), LED-only drivers that could be either boost/buck over a relatively narrow battery range. However, for what we are trying to do here in Jimmy's project for the Mag host, and in this thread for the PhD-M6 is exclusively a buck type design in which we start with a higher voltage and then "scale" down this voltage using PWM. 

Being a regulated design, the PhD will continuously monitor the battery voltage and continue to increase the duty cycle to compensate for the draining battery, so the bulb will continue to see the same RMS or average voltage until the point in which the duty cycle will be 100% and regulation stops while the battery keeps being drained until the "low battery"" point programmed into the Tiny.

Will


----------



## leukos (Dec 17, 2008)

JimmyM said:


> It may be possible. What are the dimensions of the ID and OD of this "donut".


 
I know that the dimensions for FM's battery packs have changed over successive runs, but I imagine he could work within our needs if it came down to that. The pack I have is from the second to last run of 3x 17670 battery holders:

ID: 10.50 mm
OD: 25.80 mm, but you could go as large as as 34.00 mm (OD of the delrin part of the base)
Depth: 5.38 mm

That entire donut area is "free" space in the M6, the stock tailcap makes contact with a brass button over the charging jack.


----------



## donn_ (Dec 17, 2008)

wquiles said:


> Donn,
> 
> Yes, the Shoppe sells (or used to sell), LED-only drivers that could be either boost/buck over a relatively narrow battery range. However, for what we are trying to do here in Jimmy's project for the Mag host, and in this thread for the PhD-M6 is exclusively a buck type design in which we start with a higher voltage and then "scale" down this voltage using PWM.
> 
> ...



I see.

Unfortunately, reading leads to other solutions to battery/light-source issues.

There are, indeed, existing buck/boost circuits which can easily handle wide ranges of Vbatt/Vbulb discrepancies. The Shoppe doesn't sell them, but the fact they have been created by such tech dinosaurs as TI leads me to believe they could be replicated by y'all.

Old, slow-charging cell technology like AW's protected Li-Ions are on their way out.

If you're going to invest time and energy in developing aftermarket procedures for dealing with this power source, why not shunt some off to newer cell chemistries?

In many cases, I could deal with buck-only regulation, but those would be only for multi-cell 26650 applications. An example would be something like using 6 hot A123s to drive a 64623 0r 64633 safely. Just a little buck to avoid 

My goal here is to achieve shorter charge-times than run-times, safely.


----------



## leukos (Dec 17, 2008)

Donn,

I think the consensus is that we are interested in trying to use IMR batteries. The challenge with A123 would be fitting enough of them into the M6 to give us enough voltage for a buck circuit. A boost circuit was not part of the original design for Alan, Jimmy, and Will and might require hundreds more hours to figure out how to make it practical. Your idea is a good one, but it might mean too much reversing of the gears for what has already been a long and well thought out project. I think a boost circuit would be ideal for one D sized IMR in an M6. How cool would that be? For this application though, a buck circuit is going to be a bit more efficient than a boost.


----------



## donn_ (Dec 17, 2008)

I'll give up on this, unwillingly.



> I think a boost circuit would be ideal for one D sized IMR in an M6. How cool would that be?



It wouldn't be too cool if it took twice, or more, as long to recharge the cell as it's run-time.

I think y'all are missing an opportunity to jump ahead of existing technology, in an attempt to make archaic cells more useful. But I'll defer to the majority, and rest my case.


----------



## wquiles (Dec 17, 2008)

leukos said:


> I know that the dimensions for FM's battery packs have changed over successive runs, but I imagine he could work within our needs if it came down to that. The pack I have is from the second to last run of 3x 17670 battery holders:
> 
> ID: 10.50 mm
> OD: 25.80 mm, but you could go as large as as 34.00 mm (OD of the delrin part of the base)
> ...



If we are going to do anything with the tailcup as you have shown, wouldn't be better to byte the bullet and then use the small tailcap insert and then use the higher capacity 6x 17500 pack? The driver can still fit on either end of the pack, and have a builb-in charge port like my HDM6 packs have.

Will


----------



## cnjl3 (Dec 17, 2008)

I like Donn's idea - sorta like maybe a PHD-M6 round wafer that could either be connected at either end of the battery pack. This should satisfy everyone because just like ice cream the M6 has too many options. Stock M6 ? or M6 with extentions?, stock MN21/MN20? or bi-pins? DM51's Surefire M6 rechargeable options list many many options 2S 18650's, 2S2P 14670's, 2S C size li-ions w/extender, 3S2P Rcr123 in SF stock MB20 holder, 3S 17670's - Also don't forget my favorite "six" 17500's in a 2S3P.

The other advantage of a round PHD-M6 wafer would be that li-ions in series either 2 or 3 cells would allow this to cross over into the MAG KIU host. Yeah I know that Jimmy is working on a MAG Monster solution but there are many bulbs that would benefit from this project.



donn_ said:


> This is probably from waaayy out in left field, but I'd like to see a regulated driver which isn't tied to a standardized battery pack.


----------



## leukos (Dec 17, 2008)

wquiles said:


> If we are going to do anything with the tailcup as you have shown, wouldn't be better to byte the bullet and then use the small tailcap insert and then use the higher capacity 6x 17500 pack? The driver can still fit on either end of the pack, and have a builb-in charge port like my HDM6 packs have.
> 
> Will


 

The setup pictured is just a suggestion, not really the best idea on the table, IMO. What I was suggesting in the past few posts was the possibility of designing the PhD as a donut shaped circuit board that would fit over the charging jack on the base of the battery pack, the tailcap would remain stock. The advantage of this design would keep the M6 entirely stock, and the PhD-M6 would be drop-in, just like the M6-R. But unlike the M6-R, you don't have to design your own battery holder and the batteries are not shrink wrapped, there is easy access for individual charging or replacement, though the option of series charging is still available.

I suppose it is just as viable to think AW could produce 17500 IMR's, and since we would need twice as many for this project, he may be more willing to make the investment. I think the 6x 17500 option is a very good one, I know the tailcap mod is 100% reversible. I will fully support whatever becomes the consensus. I figured right now was a brain storming time when we throw out ideas and then debate the pros and cons, so I was just getting some ideas on the table. 6x 17500 is still a good idea in my book.


----------



## wquiles (Dec 17, 2008)

cnjl3 said:


> I like Donn's idea - sorta like maybe a PHD-M6 round wafer that could either be connected at either end of the battery pack. This should satisfy everyone because just like ice cream the M6 has too many options. Stock M6 ? or M6 with extentions?, stock MN21/MN20? or bi-pins? DM51's Surefire M6 rechargeable options list many many options 2S 18650's, 2S2P 14670's, 2S C size li-ions w/extender, 3S2P Rcr123 in SF stock MB20 holder, 3S 17670's - Also don't forget my favorite "six" 17500's in a 2S3P.
> 
> The other advantage of a round PHD-M6 wafer would be that li-ions in series either 2 or 3 cells would allow this to cross over into the MAG KIU host. Yeah I know that Jimmy is working on a MAG Monster solution but there are many bulbs that would benefit from this project.



Our regulator can't be connected arbitrarily at either end. We need to place the driver and the FET in the right place for things to work properly, as we are switching the negative side of the bulb in our current approach.

At least right now, for this first version, we are not trying to come up with an universal lego approach to batteries and driver, but a complete pack with driver. Again, for this first iteration. 

This single pack/driver simplifies many, many things, and means that each driver would not have to be programmed and adjusted by the end user each time he/she changes batteries. The driver needs to know several parameters to work well:
- No load, charged battery voltage
- target Vout(s)
- target low battery set point
- calibration data for each Tiny/ADC, with the exact resistors used
- soft-start duration
- etc.

My goal has been and continues to be a solution in which there is no requirement to enter any of this. No menu GUI, no chance to get something wrong, etc., - no need to get a serial/USB programmer, no need for nothing else. Basically the pack will be ready to use - just tell the pack which one of the 4 voltages you want it to regulate to. Plain, simple, reliably - as fool proof as possible.

The only way I can drive towards this goal is to have (again, for this first iteration/version) a pre-defined battery pack, and pre-defined output voltage choices.

The other challenge that I fear from a lego approach is the connectivity and reliability between the battery pack, the driver, and the host. I am after the most reliable pack that we can build, and I don't feel multiple options is the way to start on our first project.

That is my 2 cents. How everyone else feels?

Will


----------



## wquiles (Dec 17, 2008)

leukos said:


> The setup pictured is just a suggestion, not really the best idea on the table, IMO. What I was suggesting in the past few posts was the possibility of designing the PhD as a donut shaped circuit board that would fit over the charging jack on the base of the battery pack, the tailcap would remain stock. The advantage of this design would keep the M6 entirely stock, and the PhD-M6 would be drop-in, just like the M6-R. But unlike the M6-R, you don't have to design your own battery holder and the batteries are not shrink wrapped, there is easy access for individual charging or replacement, though the option of series charging is still available.
> 
> I suppose it is just as viable to think AW could produce 17500 IMR's, and since we would need twice as many for this project, he may be more willing to make the investment. I think the 6x 17500 option is a very good one, I know the tailcap mod is 100% reversible. I will fully support whatever becomes the consensus. I figured right now was a brain storming time when we throw out ideas and then debate the pros and cons, so I was just getting some ideas on the table. 6x 17500 is still a good idea in my book.



Totally understood. It might not seen like it, but I like this back and forth of options/ideas. I am also trying to offer pros/cons, and point out some challenges with some of the options posted. I apologize if the tone of my replies is too negative :grouphug:

Will


----------



## leukos (Dec 17, 2008)

This is a round LVR about the approximate size, but imagine it with a 10.5 mm hole in the middle mounted on the base of the battery holder. Both + and - are easily accessable and the pcb could be easily encased in epoxy or whatever to make it more resistant to damage.


----------



## wquiles (Dec 17, 2008)

leukos said:


> This is a round LVR about the approximate size, but imagine it with a 10.5 mm hole in the middle mounted on the base of the battery holder. Both + and - are easily accessable and the pcb could be easily encased in epoxy or whatever to make it more resistant to damage.



Very cool - an older generation LVR from Willie Hunt :bow: :bow: :bow:

The parts count on the PhD-M6 is about the same, so perhaps if we machine that tailside of the adapter (still to big since it was designed for the Mag - I can tell you already machined it some), the hole would not have to be so big either. We would have to figure out how to solder to the Vat + and -, and then create the new "artificial" negative contact (the current negative can't touch the body), but I am starting to warm up to the idea 

Will


----------



## AW (Dec 17, 2008)

Will,

Thanks for inviting me here. It is a real excitement to see all the progress and development regarding the M6 regulator. There 's been hurdles with the amperage draw of the MN21 and the body tube size with the M6 making this project challenging. If the favor of choice is going to be lithium secondary cell, driving the MN21 with 3 x P17670 is exceeding the safely limit of these cells by a big margin ( 3C+ ). Even with 3S2P of 6 x P17500, it is still pushing the envelop to above 2C. It seems the limited choice here goes to IMR safe chemistry in favor of the higher nominal voltage of 3.7V vs 3.2V over LiFePO4. Using 3 x IMR 17670 seems to be the logical choice here. If they ever goes into production, the capacity of the IMR17670 is estimated to be ~1100 - 1150mAH. At this point, I can not guarantee what is timeline this size cell can be make available until I get approval from the production line boss.

AW


----------



## leukos (Dec 17, 2008)

Will, this adapter was designed for the M6, it is almost the same dimentions as the MB20. It is completely stock from how it came from FM. http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=208928 I can send you one if that would help.


AW, glad you came on board! The more of us involved the greater the chance of success! :thumbsup:


----------



## wquiles (Dec 17, 2008)

leukos said:


> Will, this adapter was designed for the M6, it is almost the same dimentions as the MB20. It is completely stock from how it came from FM. http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=208928 I can send you one if that would help.



The adapter in your picture looks exactly like the 4x14670 that I have in my hand now, except for the machining on the tail side of the holder. In fact, in the link you posted, even FM said it was the same thing:



fivemega said:


> These battery holders are same as used in recent 700L, connected in serial (11.1 Volt) and comes with charging jack, plug to prevent tail cap spring short and plastic pressed in front knurled nut.



Still, I am not trying to argue with you - just pointing out that these were designed for the Mag, and we have some compromises that comes with that design. For $40/holder (are they still available?), it would be great if we could also look at other alternatives ( *mdocod*??? ) that would make it easier to connect to the driver board and incorporate the new false plate for the NEG that would face the tailcap. 

One of the best things about your idea/suggestions is that even if we did not have the charging port in the tail end of the battery holder (probably would need to be covered somewhat by the new NEG contact plate), by simply unscrewing the top you would have easy access to the cells - not as nice as the tail charging port, but still very nice 

Again, I like the idea - just trying to figure out the logistic/wiring side. I would love to hear if *mdocod* has some design ideas here 

Will


----------



## wquiles (Dec 17, 2008)

AW said:


> Will,
> 
> Thanks for inviting me here. It is a real excitement to see all the progress and development regarding the M6 regulator. There 's been hurdles with the amperage draw of the MN21 and the body tube size with the M6 making this project challenging. If the favor of choice is going to be lithium secondary cell, driving the MN21 with 3 x P17670 is exceeding the safely limit of these cells by a big margin ( 3C+ ). Even with 3S2P of 6 x P17500, it is still pushing the envelop to above 2C. It seems the limited choice here goes to IMR safe chemistry in favor of the higher nominal voltage of 3.7V vs 3.2V over LiFePO4. Using 3 x IMR 17670 seems to be the logical choice here. If they ever goes into production, the capacity of the IMR17670 is estimated to be ~1100 - 1150mAH. At this point, I can not guarantee what is timeline this size cell can be make available until I get approval from the production line boss.
> 
> AW



AW, quite the opposite - thank you for stopping by. As you can tell in this thread and in many, many others here in the forums, when we talk about a high quality cell, we call them by name, and it always starts with "AW" 

Regardless on what battery pack we end up with, it looks like we are targeting to use your cells, so please keep a good watch on this thread so that you can keep us honest as to what is possible and available 

Will


----------



## wquiles (Dec 18, 2008)

leukos said:


> Will, this adapter was designed for the M6, it is almost the same dimentions as the MB20. It is completely stock from how it came from FM. http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=208928 I can send you one if that would help.



Maybe we can still incorporate a built-in charing port, if not in the middle like what the current FM holder has, but on the side like on my HDM6 packs - I have the matching cable and use my Triton to charge the pack 







Will


----------



## mdocod (Dec 18, 2008)

AW said:


> Will,
> 
> Thanks for inviting me here. It is a real excitement to see all the progress and development regarding the M6 regulator. There 's been hurdles with the amperage draw of the MN21 and the body tube size with the M6 making this project challenging. If the favor of choice is going to be lithium secondary cell, driving the MN21 with 3 x P17670 is exceeding the safely limit of these cells by a big margin ( 3C+ ). Even with 3S2P of 6 x P17500, it is still pushing the envelop to above 2C. It seems the limited choice here goes to IMR safe chemistry in favor of the higher nominal voltage of 3.7V vs 3.2V over LiFePO4. Using 3 x IMR 17670 seems to be the logical choice here. If they ever goes into production, the capacity of the IMR17670 is estimated to be ~1100 - 1150mAH. At this point, I can not guarantee what is timeline this size cell can be make available until I get approval from the production line boss.
> 
> AW



Hi AW, glad to see you joined in on the discussion here.... One flaw I wanted to point out here though....

3x17670s is a ~11.1V power source. When a regulator is used to buck down to [email protected], the load on the cells is around 3.3A, which is just a hair over 2C  

Same way when you use a pair of 3.7V li-ion cells to drive an LED module that pushes the LED to 1 amp, the module only draws about 0.5A from the cells, because it's only using 1 amp at ~3.7V, or about 3.7W. 

Eric


----------



## Flea Bag (Dec 20, 2008)

Hi Guys,

Guess I'm a little late at this stage but I'd like to add a few suggested preferences/priorities which I think would help reach out to benefit as many users of the PhD-M6 as possible. Please bear with me: 

Other than the obvious battery pack swap, I think it would be better if there are no changes to the M6 in any other way, including the tailcap. As the least, any tailcap mod should be reversible while body extension tubes for larger battery packs should be purely optional, not the primary requirement. There are many advantages to keeping the light as 'stock' as possible: 

a. In a nutshell, we should consider that the more 'stock' the M6 can remain, the more people can use the PhD-M6. This means a larger pool of users and thus lower costs from economies of scale.

b. Besides the lower production costs, there’s also a chance that because of the larger number of users, other members may start offering future mods/accessories that are compatible not only for the stock M6 but that may also be compatible for the PhD-M6. More choices for everyone!

c. Less work for the builder(s). Ensuring good fit and reliability for the battery pack and circuit will be tough enough. The modified tailcap will require yet more effort and grief. The builder has to ensure not only good fit, but reliability. For users, the tailcap may have a different feel and operation. Will the lock-out function still be operational? How much must the tailcap be unscrewed to achieve lock-out? Until a lot of the theads and o-rings become exposed to smearing grease on our clothes and pockets? Will the momentary-on button require too little pressure to activate or too much? 

d. Many of us are used to the M6's feel and balance. Some of us even have holsters or carrying cases. Changes to the external form of the M6 (like a battery extension tube) would make such accessories useless.

e. By keeping most of the light unmodified, we can always convert the M6 back to its original form if we decide to sell it, thus ensuring its resale value.

f. Keeping the tailcap stock also means that if the PhD-M6’s power pack runs out, the user can simply do a quick ‘field’ swap to the MB20 magazine without having to modify the tailcap. Spare M6 tailcaps are hard to find.

g. Hopefully we can stick to a power source that maximizes the internal space of the stock M6. That’s likely to be 3x17670, which brings me to the next point about batteries:

h. I think it’ll be better if we stay with more common li-ion battery sizes like 17670 or 18650. C or D sized batteries are harder to find and most of us will probably have to buy a new charger/charging adaptor just for that too. In that situation, I'd rather stick to my existing battery and charger system. Many, if not all of us probably already have an UltraFire or DSD charger from AW or a Wolf-Eyes.

i. Also, when lithium battery technologies improve, we’ll be much more likely to find them available from sources like AW in 17670 or 18650 sizes then we are in C or D.

j. Imagine going away for a trip and you decide to bring two or three lights with you. For me, I can picture myself bringing the PhD-M6 (3x17670) and another two or three lights. They’ll probably be either a P60 drop-in LED light or an M3/M4, all of which will use either 17670 or 18650. For all the above, I’ll be able to rely on just one charger like the UltraFire W-139 which can be charge in the car and have has international voltage compatibility. Only one set of spare 17670 cells needs to be brought to back-up my lights. If one of my 18650 cells fail, they can also be powered by 17670 or CR123s and dummy cells if required. 

In the same scenario but with the PhD-M6 using C or D cells, there’ll be more to bring in the way of chargers, adaptors or spare battery types.

k. Finally, a max voltage adjustment screw and maybe a max current adjustmetn screw with markers/detent stops on the battery pack would be a simple solution to allow swapping between different bulbs. A little pocket card with the recommended voltage/current setting for the different bulbs would be handy.

That's all I have to say I guess!

Sorry for the long post! Hope it’ll positively influence the final outcome!


----------



## modamag (Dec 20, 2008)

Wow, talk about a blast from the past.
Great show will, hope you guys can comes through.

If your driver is similar to what I'm using Tiny85 then you'll have 3 external input. Giving you up to 8 different bulb selection.

I/Os PB0-PB5

1. Button (Input)
2. Battery Voltage (Input)
3. PWM (Output)
4-6. Available for bulb selection / read on powerup/wake from sleep

*2.* Regarding the battery adapter solution.
First of, get rid of that stock tailcup if you can. That will free up quite a bit of valuable real estate.

Second, when you pack charge you risk the chance of un-balance cells. And this can results in very dangerous situation. Doing a little more work by charging these cells individually is well worth the safety. That's why I never persued the pack charge solution.

*3. *Just a reminder to check the heat on your FET. I would sink this.

If I was to design this adapter. I would put the circuit at the base. You can xfer the heat to the tailcap & body.
This is also advantageous in that the circuit is btw the battery/switch and bulb.

If I know what you guys want as a battery combination, I can design an adapter for you for ranging somewhere btw $10 - $50 depending on the quality and robustness. A PCB solution is cheap while a machined version is much more elegant and robust.

I most likely won't have the time to produce it, but with will's machining ability it should be no problem.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Dec 21, 2008)

Lots of good input. I don't think from a starting point in the design that we should be attached to FM's holder...or to a recharging plug at all. I'm not ruling them out, just that trying to design around fixed existing parts that have a lot of wasted space limits imagination. Given that generally speaking, Li-Ions should be balanced (at some point), I think incorporating a fixed (FM type) charging option is the least important.

I also agree that having a 4 bulb dipswitch option should be adequate, but if the programming of those 4 choices was left available, then those who prefer the bipin options could preserve the ability to have their 4 dip settings customized. Otherwise wquiles post #73 seems to be the most sensible.

AW's point about IMR chemistry and current output is noted, but mdocod's clarification of the practical current used keeps the option open of AW's P-17670 for many bulb choices. 

It seems that there has been general agreement on Li-Ion...which is significant progress in light of the previous M6-R projects using NiMH cells.


----------



## wquiles (Dec 21, 2008)

modamag said:


> Wow, talk about a blast from the past.
> Great show will, hope you guys can comes through.
> 
> If your driver is similar to what I'm using Tiny85 then you'll have 3 external input. Giving you up to 8 different bulb selection.
> ...


Yes, we might be able to implement 6 or 8 voltages/bulbs, but for the initial iteration 4 levels is a good target, as we might use one of those inputs for bulb detection.






modamag said:


> *2.* Regarding the battery adapter solution.
> First of, get rid of that stock tailcup if you can. That will free up quite a bit of valuable real estate.
> 
> Second, when you pack charge you risk the chance of un-balance cells. And this can results in very dangerous situation. Doing a little more work by charging these cells individually is well worth the safety. That's why I never persued the pack charge solution.


I agree that in terms of most internal usage a new tailcap insert and a 6x 17500 would give most capacity, but so far the majority want/prefer the keep the M6 stock, and to be able to interchange the MB20 in an emergency. Also, good point about the safety of charging all cells at once. 

At this point, I am hoping that the pack will be something like this (from top to bottom):

- positive contact (this would be the only removable part - to allow removal of cells)
- 3x 17670 series pack
- regulator and new negative contact (in a tough module, with perhaps just the dip/rotary switch showing to allow for bulb selection).

To have the built-in charger is great, but not the highest priority at this point.




modamag said:


> If I know what you guys want as a battery combination, I can design an adapter for you for ranging somewhere btw $10 - $50 depending on the quality and robustness. A PCB solution is cheap while a machined version is much more elegant and robust.
> 
> I most likely won't have the time to produce it, but with will's machining ability it should be no problem.



That would be outstanding - yes, I welcome the challenge of the new design. Please help us with the basic battery pack design - give us a couple of options :twothumbs

For design files, I prefer email, so I will send you a PM with my email 

Will


----------



## william lafferty (Dec 21, 2008)

Will,

The concensus so far seems to favor the 3 x 17670 pack. I'm know I'm dense, but could you explain the benefits of that to me? We already have the ability to use 3 x 17670 packs in our M6's, and I havent found anything that power source will drive that is very impressive. The best setup I've found is the 1185 for about 30 minutes. 

So if we keep the same 3 x 17670 we've had for a while and regulate it, what does that allow us to do? You have mentioned the MN 20 and MN 21 bulbs, so I assume the 3 x 17670 regulated would drive those bulbs, but at what runtime? (I dont know how many amps either of those bulbs draws). 

Also, what about Mdocod's point that "3x17670s is a ~11.1V power source. When a regulator is used to buck down to [email protected], the load on the cells is around 3.3A, which is just a hair over 2C"? [post 82]. Doesnt that present a problem for the 3 x 17670 choice?

It seems to me that the only sensible way to choose a battery pack is to list the various bulbs, their amperage, and runtimes for each bulb that each battery pack would provide. If it turns out that the 3 x 17670 pack provides the best combination of brightness and runtime, then so be it. But at this point, I dont really know what either the 6 x 17500 or the 3 x 17670 pack would be able to do.


----------



## tumblingdice (Dec 21, 2008)

Very sound and logical comments by William. Can anyone provide the info to the query in William's last paragraph......

And two queries of my own:-

1. Is it possible to design a 6x17500 cell holder that will fit the M6 without redesigning the exterior shell of the existing tailcap? I understand the switching/spring internals of the tailcap would require modification, but that shouldn't pose a problem for those of us (like myself), who love the existing appearance.

2. Assuming a positive reponse to #1 above, couldn't the MB20 holder still be interchanged in an emergency by simply inserting a spacer, such as some coins, between the base of the holder and the tailcap assembly? Almost anything could be used to provide some insulation to the sides of the spacer and the body of the M6.



> I agree that in terms of most internal usage a new tailcap insert and a 6x 17500 would give most capacity, but so far the majority want/prefer the keep the M6 stock, and to be able to interchange the MB20 in an emergency. Also, good point about the safety of charging all cells at once.


 


> It seems to me that the only sensible way to choose a battery pack is to list the various bulbs, their amperage, and runtimes for each bulb that each battery pack would provide. If it turns out that the 3 x 17670 pack provides the best combination of brightness and runtime, then so be it. But at this point, I dont really know what either the 6 x 17500 or the 3 x 17670 pack would be able to do.


----------



## wquiles (Dec 21, 2008)

william lafferty said:


> It seems to me that the only sensible way to choose a battery pack is to list the various bulbs, their amperage, and runtimes for each bulb that each battery pack would provide. If it turns out that the 3 x 17670 pack provides the best combination of brightness and runtime, then so be it. But at this point, I dont really know what either the 6 x 17500 or the 3 x 17670 pack would be able to do.



At least so far, the overwelming majority wants to keep the M6 shape/form/function the same, and that includes not using a new tailcap - without a new tailcap we can''t consider the 6x 17500 pack, so the only option that would give us several regulated bulb options, would be the 3x 17670:



leukos said:


> Here's my four suggested voltage outputs (hope you all agree!):
> 
> Bulb option #1: N1 (several 6V WA lamps too) @ approx 4.8V (This would be our nice low lamp, longer runtime option)
> 
> ...




So far this seems to be the best compromise with the available space within the M6 in stock form, so I am definitely leaning this way at the moment.

Will


----------



## wquiles (Dec 21, 2008)

tumblingdice said:


> Very sound and logical comments by William. Can anyone provide the info to the query in William's last paragraph......
> 
> And two queries of my own:-
> 
> ...



1. No, the 6x 17500 requires the new tailcap - the 2x17500 length is just too much for the OEM tailcap insert. Swapping this piece is not a permanent mod, but definitely something that you have to swap out and then keep around somewhere if you want to revert the M6 to its OEM form.

2. No, the MN20 does not work with the shallow tailcap insert. You would need to insert some spring/adapter/something to make up the distance. I have tried on my two HDM6 pakcs (6x 17500 with the shallow tailcap) and it is not very reliable. Plus if you loose the spring while swapping out the pack for the MB20, you are SOL.

Some pics to illustrate:






and by the way, that middle wire-to-body contact on the HDM6 is not that reliable. For the PhD-M6 we will not be using this middle contact:






Will


----------



## wquiles (Dec 21, 2008)

LuxLuthor said:


> Lots of good input. I don't think from a starting point in the design that we should be attached to FM's holder...or to a recharging plug at all. I'm not ruling them out, just that trying to design around fixed existing parts that have a lot of wasted space limits imagination. Given that generally speaking, Li-Ions should be balanced (at some point), I think incorporating a fixed (FM type) charging option is the least important.


I also agree, but the concept/shape/form of the FM adapter (with "+" going to the tailcap side) is still good 





LuxLuthor said:


> I also agree that having a 4 bulb dipswitch option should be adequate, but if the programming of those 4 choices was left available, then those who prefer the bipin options could preserve the ability to have their 4 dip settings customized. Otherwise wquiles post #73 seems to be the most sensible.


I am not ruling this programmability for the next version. I am just ruling this out for the initial version to keep things simple and doable in a reasonably timely fashion 




LuxLuthor said:


> AW's point about IMR chemistry and current output is noted, but mdocod's clarification of the practical current used keeps the option open of AW's P-17670 for many bulb choices.


Exactly. We can start this project now with the available AW protected 17670 cells, and if/when the safer/better batteries become available, we will use those instead later on 

Will


----------



## donn_ (Dec 21, 2008)

This is probably a question with a simple answer, which escapes only me.

If we have a 3x17670 pack, with a nominal voltage of 11.1V, and a regulator set to handle an 1185, what is the voltage to the bulb, inclusive of all resistance in the circuit?


----------



## wquiles (Dec 21, 2008)

donn_ said:


> This is probably a question with a simple answer, which escapes only me.
> 
> If we have a 3x17670 pack, with a nominal voltage of 11.1V, and a regulator set to handle an 1185, what is the voltage to the bulb, inclusive of all resistance in the circuit?



With the PhD regulator, there is NO practical resistance in the circuit - it is basically just the wires connecting the pieces. Since the FET is either ON or OFF more than 99% of the time, the design is about 99% efficient.

So, if the regulator is set to 9.8V RMS, the bulb will actually see 9.8V RMS - you don't have a voltage drop and wasted heat with the PhD 

EDIT: This of course assumes that the battery pack can maintain that voltage at the amperage needed. If the current draw is too high and the voltage sags below the set point, then the bulb will still have the soft start, but it will be in DD (direct drive) instead of being regulated.

Will


----------



## donn_ (Dec 21, 2008)

If that's the case, it would seem the 1164 would be the better bulb choice than the 1185, eh?


----------



## wquiles (Dec 21, 2008)

donn_ said:


> If that's the case, it would seem the 1164 would be the better bulb choice than the 1185, eh?



I do not recall the voltage and amps of those two, so I can't say for sure. 

I edited my response above to clarify the all-too-important current draw and voltage sag. If the 1164 bulb can be driven from 3x17670 and still have enough voltage for the set point, then the PhD will regulate to that voltage until the batteries drain enough and goes into DD mode. 

Will


----------



## donn_ (Dec 21, 2008)

Lux's IncanDestructo charts tell us at 10V, the 1164 draws ~4.3A and outputs 1500+ lumens, while the 1185 draws less than 3.2A for an output of less than 1000 lumens.

Will the 3x17560 pack tolerate a draw of 4.3A?


----------



## leukos (Dec 21, 2008)

Remember that AW has jumped in to the discussion and there is the possibility of these 17670's being IMR or something better than the current Li-ion 17670's.

There is no way that this project will compare with some of the incredible Mag hotwire builds out there. This will mainly be a regulated option for SF lamps and a few other popular lamps used with FM's bi-pin adapter.


----------



## mdocod (Dec 22, 2008)

Hi donn,

The 1164 would make more sense than an 1185 because it achieves ideal levels of output at a lower operating voltage than the 1185. This means that it could be regulated through the majority of a discharge on 3 li-ion cells, as opposed to dropping out of regulation like the 1185 would shortly after turning it on. 

You asked about safety on 3 17670s.. and there is a problem here...

9.8V x 4.3A = 42.14 watts. Assuming 99% driver efficiency, it'll be 42.56 watts of power consumption. This would require a drain rate approaching 4 amps from the 17670s. If we had IMR17670s, this would be perfectly acceptable,nNot bad considering it would be regulated to over 900 torch lumens. 

------------------------------

William Lafferty had requested to see some comparisons, I'm just going to throw in the 3x17670 options here for comparison. 3 17670s just slightly edges out over 2 18650s as far as total stored energy goes... but not by a lot, and it depends on what cells are compared. So the reason for wanting 3x17670s over 2x18650 is really more to do with having more voltage to work with, than anything else. With the higher voltage we can regulate a large number of bulb options through the entire discharge. As for 3x17670 or 2x18650 in LiMn (IMR) chemistry, the total stored energy will be very very similar, again, the 3x17670 option will provide the advantage of more voltage to work with..

paper estimates here, please allow for a margin of error here of at least +/-15%): With a bunch of the options all laid out on paper, it may be easier to decide what options to consider in the end...

Based on 3x17670 (which is looks like we are definitely going with)

SF N1 @ ~5.1V: ~80L, ~150-180 minutes (~115 minutes on IMR)
MN15 @ ~7.6V: ~140L, ~100-120 minutes (~75 minutes on IMR)
GE787 @ ~7.4V: ~225L, ~50-70 minutes (~40 minutes on IMR)
MN16 @ ~7.2V: ~300L, ~45-55 minutes ( ~30 minutes on IMR)
MN20 @ ~7.6V: ~300L, ~45-55 minutes (~30 minutes on IMR)
1111/64250: ~7.4V: ~500L ~25-35 minutes (~25 minutes on IMR)
MN21 @ ~7.0V: ~700L, ~20-30 minutes (~20 minutes on IMR)
64275 @ ~7.4V: ~850L, ~13-15 minutes on IMR ONLY (requires grinding of bulb base)
1164 @ ~9.8V: ~900L, ~15-18 minutes on IMR ONLY


--------------------------------

I have a question about the regulator Will,

If a setting on the regulator is, for example, 7.4V, could that setting be used for any bulb you wanted to drive to 7.4V, or is a different setting required for each bulb based on it having different current requirements? I'm thinking it might need a "target" duty cycle to aim for right off the bat to work right..... Sorry If I have missed this.

-------------------------------

One more thing... 

... I have a question for LuxLuthor....


If we could arrange to have some people donate a few SF lamps to you... would you be willing to run them through your destructive testing methods to see how they do? I realize you would have to rig up a different bulb holding mechanism to make this work... so If it's too much hassle don't worry about it.... but we could get an idea where the flash points are, and have a better idea where to regulate these bulbs at.... I personally am still trying to decide if 7.6V is a good point for the SF LOLA lamps, or if we should aim for more like 7.8V to make em run a little nicer, maybe even more. If the flash point isn't till 9V or more in your testing style, then 8V might not be a bad point to regulate these at.

----------------------------

Eric


----------



## wquiles (Dec 22, 2008)

mdocod said:


> I have a question about the regulator Will,
> 
> If a setting on the regulator is, for example, 7.4V, could that setting be used for any bulb you wanted to drive to 7.4V, or is a different setting required for each bulb based on it having different current requirements? I'm thinking it might need a "target" duty cycle to aim for right off the bat to work right..... Sorry If I have missed this.



First, thanks for the great reply and all of that great data - much appreciated!

Regulator question: The PhD only looks at the RMS voltage at the bulb ifself, regardless of current. So if you had two bulbs what work at 7.4V, one with 3Amps and one with 0.5Amps, to the regulator, it makes no difference at all. Of course, the 3A vs. 0.5A does make a different to the battery pack, so the battery will sag more with the 3A load, and will last less than if at only 0.5A, but again, to the regulator both loads are the same.

The duty cycle is determined by a feedback algorithm. The target is the RMS set voltage (7.4V in your example). So the regulator initially with start with narrow pulses to the FET, and will increase the width/duration of those pulses (duty cycle increases) until the target RMS voltage is hit. As the battery drains, the pulse width is increased, until the point in which the FET is ON all of the time - we now reached DD (Direct Drive) and regulation stops. Note that through the whole regulation process, we are only looking at the RMS voltage at the bulb - we pretty much don't care about the actual current (of course FET selection and heat sinking has to be considered, but it is not part of the regulation algorithm per-se).

Will


----------



## william lafferty (Dec 22, 2008)

mdocod writes:

Based on 3x17670 (which is looks like we are definitely going with)

SF N1 @ ~5.1V: ~80L, ~150-180 minutes (~115 minutes on IMR)
MN15 @ ~7.6V: ~140L, ~100-120 minutes (~75 minutes on IMR)
GE787 @ ~7.4V: ~225L, ~50-70 minutes (~40 minutes on IMR)
MN16 @ ~7.2V: ~300L, ~45-55 minutes ( ~30 minutes on IMR)
MN20 @ ~7.6V: ~300L, ~45-55 minutes (~30 minutes on IMR)
1111/64250: ~7.4V: ~500L ~25-35 minutes (~25 minutes on IMR)
MN21 @ ~7.0V: ~700L, ~20-30 minutes (~20 minutes on IMR)
64275 @ ~7.4V: ~850L, ~13-15 minutes on IMR ONLY (requires grinding of bulb base)
1164 @ ~9.8V: ~900L, ~15-18 minutes on IMR ONLY


Many thanks for this Eric. It is really helpful to me in understanding what we are getting (and not getting) in a regulated setup using 3 x 17670s. 

My personal perspective is that getting 20-30 minutes runtime with reasonably bright bulbs is not much of an achievement. I seem to recall that you can run 6 x R123s with the Lumens Factory bulb and do that well. 

I would be interested to see what differences in bulbs and runtimes, if any, there are with a 6 x 17500 battery pack. 

bill


----------



## LuxLuthor (Dec 22, 2008)

mdocod said:


> I have a question for LuxLuthor....
> 
> 
> If we could arrange to have some people donate a few SF lamps to you... would you be willing to run them through your destructive testing methods to see how they do? I realize you would have to rig up a different bulb holding mechanism to make this work... so If it's too much hassle don't worry about it.... but we could get an idea where the flash points are, and have a better idea where to regulate these bulbs at.... I personally am still trying to decide if 7.6V is a good point for the SF LOLA lamps, or if we should aim for more like 7.8V to make em run a little nicer, maybe even more. If the flash point isn't till 9V or more in your testing style, then 8V might not be a bad point to regulate these at.
> ...



That should be fine to test and get comparison feedback. The MN20/21 have leads coming out the bottom of bulb pedestal, soldered over to each contact spring of bulb assembly, I would likely solder power supply leads to those same springs to get low resistance readings. I need two new unused bulbs of each tested to verify correlation of results.


----------



## LuxLuthor (Dec 22, 2008)

I agree on preference between 1185 vs. 1164 but another one to throw into the mix is the 1274 for two reasons, little cheaper & uses less power. Depends on if you want POW (1164), or WOW (1274). These bipins all need FM's bulb holder.
*Bulb.....Ideal Vbulb....Current......Watts....Bulb Lumens* _(My adjusted value)_
*1185*.......11.0V...........3.38A......... 37W..........1200L
*1164*.........9.6V...........4.25A......... 41W..........1360L
*1274*.........8.3V...........3.10A......... 26W............820L​.


----------



## mdocod (Dec 22, 2008)

Will,
Thank your for the explanation on how the regulation works. I'm really glad to hear that... with that in mind, I guess what we need to do is pick 4 ideal voltages to have available to the end user... The final options should be geared to open up as many bulb options as possible....

-------------------------------------

William Lafferty,

I realize that it may not look like a great achievement on paper going with the 3x17670 setup. But the main thing here is achieving soft start and regulation in the stock package as so many have requested. Remember, that an ordinary li-ion powered configuration, without regulation, will steadily drop to about half it's initial output through a discharge. With regulation we can get the same output through the entire run. IMO, this is a huge leap even if we aren't gaining any big runtime figures... Knowing that anytime you turn it on, you are getting "500 lumen" or "700 lumen" or whatever bulb you choose to go with, all the time, makes this so desirable. 

The 6x17500 solution, would increase runtime across the board by about 50% (1.5X those estimates). So instead of 20-30 minute estimates, it would be 30-45 minute estimates. 

-------------------------------------

LuxLuthor

forgot all about the 1274, that could certainly be on the table... I guess my problem there is it would be kind of redundant in output class when you can run a 1111 or 64250 and get about the same output. Maybe you know- are there other bulb options at ~8.3V that would fill in a gap on the list- higher or lower than the list currently contains would be great.... I'm always doing searches on bulbs trying to find new options, it's hard to always know what's out there though...

Hopefully we can get some folks to donate some bulbs... I'll see how my finances look in the coming weeks and see if I can send a pair to you.. Lets keep our eyes peeled for "special" deals on SF lamps on the net... If we can find some at reduced clearance pricing or something that would help.


-------------------------------------

Back to Will,

If you'd like me to, I can start prototyping some rough adapter concepts to get the ball rolling on this. I just need to know a few specifics... Like how much space you need for the regulator. (how thick it is)... and what sort of mounting options you are planning on for it.. I assume you will need to have both legs of the electrical connection available to the regulator for it to monitor the output voltage. I have some ideas for how to do a lot of this but am going to need to spend some time researching the availability of various fasteners.... I was thinking- a square board with a diagonal measurement of 1-38" would work well, as it would allow for a more protective adapter design...Ideally, if there could be a center hole in the regulator board, that happens to be wired for an output (or V sense), that would be best as it would simplify things quite a bit... I guess my big question is.... is heat even an issue with this board? At 99% efficiency, I doubt we would ever need to dissipate more than 0.5W worth of heat, which is pretty minor. I know that an LED that is "star" mounted and run at ~1W is making more than 0.5W worth of heat in most cases, and the star alone is plenty of heat sinking for it to survive... So many plastic headlamps are a great example of this, so with that in mind, I'm not going to even concern myself with heat issues as I doubt they would be a problem. Most of the higher power options aren't going to run long enough for the heat to have a chance to build up, probably have more heat coming from the bulb making it's way down there anyways... hehe... If anything, insulating from the heat of the bulb is probably just as good as sinking it, lol... (or darn close)...

I'm going to draw a few things up, scan them in and see what you think 

Eric


----------



## wquiles (Dec 22, 2008)

mdocod said:


> Will,
> Thank your for the explanation on how the regulation works. I'm really glad to hear that... with that in mind, I guess what we need to do is pick 4 ideal voltages to have available to the end user... The final options should be geared to open up as many bulb options as possible....


You are welcome 






mdocod said:


> If you'd like me to, I can start prototyping some rough adapter concepts to get the ball rolling on this. I just need to know a few specifics... Like how much space you need for the regulator. (how thick it is)... and what sort of mounting options you are planning on for it.. I assume you will need to have both legs of the electrical connection available to the regulator for it to monitor the output voltage. I have some ideas for how to do a lot of this but am going to need to spend some time researching the availability of various fasteners.... I was thinking- a square board with a diagonal measurement of 1-38" would work well, as it would allow for a more protective adapter design...Ideally, if there could be a center hole in the regulator board, that happens to be wired for an output (or V sense), that would be best as it would simplify things quite a bit... I guess my big question is.... is heat even an issue with this board? At 99% efficiency, I doubt we would ever need to dissipate more than 0.5W worth of heat, which is pretty minor. I know that an LED that is "star" mounted and run at ~1W is making more than 0.5W worth of heat in most cases, and the star alone is plenty of heat sinking for it to survive... So many plastic headlamps are a great example of this, so with that in mind, I'm not going to even concern myself with heat issues as I doubt they would be a problem. Most of the higher power options aren't going to run long enough for the heat to have a chance to build up, probably have more heat coming from the bulb making it's way down there anyways... hehe... If anything, insulating from the heat of the bulb is probably just as good as sinking it, lol... (or darn close)...
> 
> I'm going to draw a few things up, scan them in and see what you think
> 
> Eric


Perfect. I just sent you a PM with my email address - better use this for attachments, sketches, etc..

Compared to Jimmy's version on the Mag, the PhD-P6 is a less power version, and given Jimmy's higher power measurements so far, heat will not be a problem for the PhD-M6. Compared to Jimmy's version, the PhD-M6 can be considered the "light" or "diet" version 

OK, enough of the bad jokes. Some mental notes on the pack/regulator or wish list:
- with the regulator on the tailcap side, I need access to both the "-" and the "+" battery contacts

- the "+" battery contact is available externally and only goes to the inner bulb spring contact

- the "+" contact should be the only removable piece, to allow for the individual cells to be removed for charging/replacing.

- the "-" negative must never have any access to the external world - only to the regulator board. Therefore we also need to create a new negative contact point facing the tailcap side. The regulator will be "sandwitched" bettwen the bottom of the actuall battery pack and the new "-" battery contact. This lower part should not be removable during normal operation - only the top side.

- the I am planning on all surface mount parts, so maybe expect for the dip/rotary switch, everything should be very flat. Lets be conservative for now and assume 0.2" including the actual PWB

- we need a through hole in the new "-" contact accessible to the outside so that we can change the dip settings/rotary switch

- for now, don't worry about a charging port - lets keep things "simple" 

Anyone has additional ideas/suggestions?

Will


----------



## jayflash (Dec 22, 2008)

If six 17500 cells are the best choice for run time and cell health, I'd think the easily reversible tail cap mod might be worth while. It keeps the external appearance stock.

While pack charging cells in the light is an attractive option for some of us, I wouldn't have any objections to having to remove the cells for charging - if that's the best compromise of features vs. performance. YMMV, of course, but I'll take performance over charging convenience in this particular case.

Thanks to all you heavy lifters of this project; all I can add is a little feedback and probably some confusion. :duh2: I appreciate the effort you all have taken to figure out the solutions to conflicting requirements.

BTW, Merry Christmas to the many Santas, here, on the CPF, giving of their precious time to benefit the rest of us.


----------



## mdocod (Dec 22, 2008)

Hi Will,

Your summery of the adapter design is very similar to what I was figuring on... Only significant difference is.. I was thinking about a side load design. no end cap would ever need to be removed to install or remove cells. If the design can quickly load and unload cells from the side, then field battery swaps become more practical without the need to own multiple units. 

Eric


----------



## leukos (Dec 22, 2008)

Eric,

I was kind of hoping you would design a side loading 3x 17670 battery holder, I really like your 2x 18650. :thumbsup:


----------



## mdocod (Dec 22, 2008)

Hey Will... 

Any particular reason you wanted the regulator on the bottom of the pack (switch side) rather than on top... Would it make a significant difference? I would think it would just be a matter of wiring the reverse... or if you needed polarity a certain way, there is no harm in installing the cells in reverse and having negative at the top as far as bulbs are concerned.... wouldn't make the slightest difference I would think..

The reason I ask is, I have this idea going through my head, that follows the same based logic as my 18650 adapter concept, but with a number of tweaks for getting more space out of the stock setup... In order to do a side loader, that doesn't need the tailcap removed, that could easily support a wide range of cell lengths (there is almost always a 2-3mm difference between protected and unprotected cells), and all the while be fairly quick and easy.... The best way to do this is with 3 thumb nuts on the bottom of the adapter... If you look at the stock tailcap, you notice there is like a "cup" all the way around the center raised portion with the spring. The thumb nuts would take advantage of this free space here, by putting them "sticking out" into there, we gain that space back for the adapter design... Any other design that involves a direct pressure cell contact (no springs or "battery contacts,"), is going to have to have a fastening component to the design of some sort that will take up valuable space within the adapter.


----------



## Alan B (Dec 22, 2008)

mdocod said:


> Hey Will...
> 
> Any particular reason you wanted the regulator on the bottom of the pack (switch side) rather than on top... Would it make a significant difference? I would think it would just be a matter of wiring the reverse... or if you needed polarity a certain way, there is no harm in installing the cells in reverse and having negative at the top as far as bulbs are concerned.... wouldn't make the slightest difference I would think..
> 
> ...



The existing regulator design needs to interrupt the negative terminal of the battery connection to the "world", but this does not have to be at the tailcap. Reversing the pack merely changes the order of the bulb / switch series connection which is unimportant to the regulator, and the direction of current flow which is unimportant to the bulb or switch (unless the bulb was actually an LED). The regulator also requires a connection to the battery positive, but this is a low current connection, so most anything will suffice.

-- Alan


----------



## donn_ (Dec 22, 2008)

Alan B said:


> ... (unless the bulb was actually an LED)...



I expect some of us will be using LED heads with this mod.


----------



## wquiles (Dec 22, 2008)

mdocod said:


> Hi Will,
> 
> Your summery of the adapter design is very similar to what I was figuring on... Only significant difference is.. I was thinking about a side load design. no end cap would ever need to be removed to install or remove cells. If the design can quickly load and unload cells from the side, then field battery swaps become more practical without the need to own multiple units.
> 
> Eric






mdocod said:


> Hey Will...
> 
> Any particular reason you wanted the regulator on the bottom of the pack (switch side) rather than on top... Would it make a significant difference? I would think it would just be a matter of wiring the reverse... or if you needed polarity a certain way, there is no harm in installing the cells in reverse and having negative at the top as far as bulbs are concerned.... wouldn't make the slightest difference I would think..
> 
> The reason I ask is, I have this idea going through my head, that follows the same based logic as my 18650 adapter concept, but with a number of tweaks for getting more space out of the stock setup... In order to do a side loader, that doesn't need the tailcap removed, that could easily support a wide range of cell lengths (there is almost always a 2-3mm difference between protected and unprotected cells), and all the while be fairly quick and easy.... The best way to do this is with 3 thumb nuts on the bottom of the adapter... If you look at the stock tailcap, you notice there is like a "cup" all the way around the center raised portion with the spring. The thumb nuts would take advantage of this free space here, by putting them "sticking out" into there, we gain that space back for the adapter design... Any other design that involves a direct pressure cell contact (no springs or "battery contacts,"), is going to have to have a fastening component to the design of some sort that will take up valuable space within the adapter.



Side load design would be great, or with the 3 thumb nuts on the bottom. Like Alan said, we can make it work either way, but if you put the regulator on the top, you need to route the new "-" from the top the regulator on top of the pack to the bottom plate (which can't be the battery's real negative contact. As long as we can achieve that new/fake negative contact, we should be OK 

Will


----------



## Alan B (Dec 22, 2008)

donn_ said:


> I expect some of us will be using LED heads with this mod.



Hmmm. Is this really the case?

-- Alan


----------



## wquiles (Dec 22, 2008)

Alan B said:


> Hmmm. Is this really the case?
> 
> -- Alan



I really hope this is not the case. 

The LED drivers like TaskLED's D2DIM and now the D2Flex work with PWM in DD, but you match the battery voltage to the vf of the LED's, so when you use PWM to dim the LED, you are not over-driving the LED, you are actually under-driving the LED.

Unlike the incandescent bulbs that can't react quickly enough to the full battery ON/OFF cycles, the LED certainly CAN, so if you take two series connected LED's (for say a combined VF of 7.4V) and you set the PhD to 7.4V with a supply of 11.1Volts, you will kill the LED's !!!

Will


----------



## donn_ (Dec 22, 2008)

Well, I expect if we can't, we won't.

It's unfortunate, though, because I imagine there are those who use the M6 with LED towers, as well as LED-built KT4s and, in my case, a KL7.


----------



## mdocod (Dec 22, 2008)

I guess the question is... if you have an LED tower module or SF LED head... then why would you need a regulated battery pack? It should already be regulated...? No? 

Just use a pair of 18650s to drive various LED heads in an M6


----------



## donn_ (Dec 22, 2008)

Part of the allure of a regulated pack is the ability to use the same pack for a variety of lumens-generators.

We'll just have to build LED engines tuned to the pack, I guess.


----------



## wquiles (Dec 24, 2008)

mdocod said:


> I guess the question is... if you have an LED tower module or SF LED head... then why would you need a regulated battery pack? It should already be regulated...? No?



If instead of a DD LED you use a full tower module with a constant current regulator that can tolerate a 2x or 3x LiIon series voltage pack, that "might" work. I guess we could set the PhD to its highest voltage setting, and then assuming that the regulator used in the LED module can tolerate a PWM voltage at its input, the LED module should work in that case. I guess that would be something worth testing 

Will


----------



## leukos (Dec 27, 2008)

Hey, Will

Your surface resistors arrived in the mail the other day (thanks!) and I had a little time tonight, so I sacrificed one of my FM 3x 17670 battery holders to try and make a drop-in regulated Li-ion pack. I used one of my round Willie Hunt LVR's and adjusted the Vout to ~7.5V and the low voltage flashing alert to ~8.0V. 

The pack was fairly simple after tinkering a little. First I removed the aluminum base plate on the pack. I then made use of the rod that runs through the center of the pack to provide the Vin+ for the LVR (which easily enough is the center hole in the PCB). I soldered a spring through the open hole in the base of the battery pack for the Vin- to the LVR.








Next I soldered a base plate from an expired D cell battery to the Vout- of the LVR and sandwiched it all together with epoxy. You lose the charging jack in the process, but the batteries are easily removed for charging by unscrewing the top of the pack.







So anyways, the end result is a workable drop-in 3x 17670 regulated prototype pack for the M6. It runs my N2's, MN15's, and MN20's really nice.
Now of course, this board you are designing has the added consideration of where to place the dip switches (or whatever switching method) for easy access within the battery pack (I didn't make any attempts to figure that out for you).


----------



## wquiles (Dec 27, 2008)

leukos said:


> Hey, Will
> 
> Your surface resistors arrived in the mail the other day (thanks!) and I had a little time tonight, so I sacrificed one of my FM 3x 17670 battery holders to try and make a drop-in regulated Li-ion pack. I used one of my round Willie Hunt LVR's and adjusted the Vout to ~7.5V and the low voltage flashing alert to ~8.0V.
> 
> ...



Outstanding :thumbsup:

Thanks so much. That is how I pictured it in my mind based on our earlier discussions. Now we have a proof of concept to try make new holders/packs for this project 

Will


----------



## LuxLuthor (Dec 27, 2008)

Alan B said:


> Hmmm. Is this really the case?
> 
> -- Alan



Please don't ruin this project by attempting to mollify the LED crowd at the expense of incan development.


----------



## Alan B (Dec 27, 2008)

LuxLuthor said:


> Please don't ruin this project by attempting to mollify the LED crowd at the expense of incan development.


 
I don't plan on it, just wanted folks to think about what it might mean.

-- Alan


----------



## donn_ (Dec 27, 2008)

LuxLuthor said:


> Please don't ruin this project by attempting to mollify the LED crowd at the expense of incan development.



"The LED crowd?" Is that a sub-race of flashlight users?


----------



## LuxLuthor (Dec 27, 2008)

donn_ said:


> "The LED crowd?" Is that a sub-race of flashlight users?



Yes. I was trying to be kind for once, and not refer to them by my more affectionate term, namely "LED Jockeys."

I freely admit being an "Incan Jockey," so it is not necessarily to be considered in a disparaging manner.

Happy New Year!


----------



## donn_ (Dec 27, 2008)

What do you call those who use both?


----------



## LuxLuthor (Dec 27, 2008)

Incanled Jockeys

Then there is HID, LASER, Mercury Vapor, Fluorescent, etc. with their Ballast Bloating


----------



## mdocod (Dec 28, 2008)

Luxluthor, 

I agree whole-heartedly. I'm a "Incanled jockey...." However; I see no room in this project for LEDs. It's a regulated incan project, and needs to stay that way. 

Eric


----------



## LuxLuthor (Dec 28, 2008)

Yeah, I'm not sure if Donn "gets" my "Larry David" (ala "Curb Your Enthusiasm") type of humor. Probably not. The reality is the software design, Voltage In > Voltage Out, and PWM features of this project are specific to incan functioning.


----------



## cnjl3 (Dec 30, 2008)

Will, 
You do a good job of explaining PWM in your earlier post https://www.candlepowerforums.com/posts/2742617#post2742617 

But I am still fuzzy on how this pulsating/quick "on and off" affects the amperage of the MN21 which consumes 4.95amps? If the voltage will be an "average" voltage then the amps will also be an "average". Does this mean that PWM will always yield a higher 'run time' when compared to other drivers?


----------



## Alan B (Dec 30, 2008)

cnjl3 said:


> Will,
> You do a good job of explaining PWM in your earlier post https://www.candlepowerforums.com/posts/2742617#post2742617
> 
> But I am still fuzzy on how this pulsating/quick "on and off" affects the amperage of the MN21 which consumes 4.95amps? If the voltage will be an "average" voltage then the amps will also be an "average". Does this mean that PWM will always yield a higher 'run time' when compared to other drivers?



Will is probably busy working on his new lathe. Maybe not, it is pretty late there.

At any rate, the PWM follows ohms law. The bulb has a resistance that is dependent on the temperature, so if we are operating it at a normal intensity it will have the normal value of resistance. The PWM switch has negligible resistance, so when the pulse is on the voltage and current will follow E=I*R, and since E is higher than "normal", so I will be higher as well. The effective or RMS value will be the proper value of voltage and current (the average is something else and will not be the same as the RMS). Since the current pulses are higher current than direct drive, the battery efficiency will drop slightly, depending on the internal resistance of the cells. So PWM will not magically increase runtime in that fashion. It will allow an extra cell to be employed, which means the system has more total energy, and thus can run longer (and of course be regulated and soft-started).

-- Alan


----------



## wquiles (Dec 30, 2008)

What Alan said 

Will
(taking a break from getting the new lathe ready!)


----------



## Alan B (Dec 30, 2008)

LuxLuthor said:


> ... The reality is the software design, Voltage In > Voltage Out, and PWM features of this project are specific to incan functioning.



Some LED "bulb replacements" will work fine with this Hotwire PWM design. Those that can direct drive from the battery voltage should have no problem. The regulation will mostly work as well, to a large degree. So if the LED and battery voltage are already compatible, the PWM will provide regulation and dimming features. This may allow folks who wish to use LEDs a way to do it without impacting the Hotwire Regulator design at all, and give a very multifunctional capability. Such an LED bulb can be constructed with an appropriate LED and resistor. The new multi-emitter configurations that can be wired in series are well suited for this type of LED application. Three sections of a four die emitter wired in series would be just about right for a 3 cell Li-ion pack. Little or no resistance may be required depending on the LED forward voltages.

-- Alan


----------



## Alan B (Dec 31, 2008)

wquiles said:


> What Alan said
> 
> Will
> (taking a break from getting the new lathe ready!)



Will, we overlapped on posting. Wow, quite an edit!

(Glad to see your spindle bore take a 3D!) (May have to get that lathe myself!). (Must resist tools. Resist.):twothumbs

The concept of incorporating the regulator into a replaceable cell battery holder is a good one, and making it swappable with stock parts is excellent.

One thing that could be done to "communicate" with the regulator in the flashlight is to use a magnet and reed switch. A ring with a magnet on the outside and three small reed switches in the battery pack could allow selecting bulb types or brightness levels. In this case the regulator at the front would be nice as the ring would be in a more convenient place, but it could be at the tailcap also. A bit of a wild idea, but I had to bring it back on topic somehow. 

-- Alan


----------



## wquiles (Dec 31, 2008)

Alan B said:


> Will, we overlapped on posting. Wow, quite an edit!


I was explaining more the side question about "average", but you covered the original question better, so this heavy duty editing keeps things more clear 




Alan B said:


> (Glad to see your spindle bore take a 3D!) (May have to get that lathe myself!). (Must resist tools. Resist.):twothumbs


Resistance is futile :devil:

Just don't order it yet - let me give it a workout before deciding this is the same thing you want :naughty:




Alan B said:


> The concept of incorporating the regulator into a replaceable cell battery holder is a good one, and making it swappable with stock parts is excellent.
> 
> One thing that could be done to "communicate" with the regulator in the flashlight is to use a magnet and reed switch. A ring with a magnet on the outside and three small reed switches in the battery pack could allow selecting bulb types or brightness levels. In this case the regulator at the front would be nice as the ring would be in a more convenient place, but it could be at the tailcap also. A bit of a wild idea, but I had to bring it back on topic somehow.


I have been thinking on the magnetic switch for 4-5 months now, and I even received various hall effect sensors from Digikey to start doing some bench testing, at least to start playing. There is another thread with a "Bomb Proof Host" from Spain, and with no external switch, so a magnetic ring/switch/selector might be ideal - that and the Mag applications (below) is why I ordered the parts in the first place.

In general, having some sort of magnetic actuator could be a nice way to go (not just for the M6), but more so for the Mags in general since the switch in the Mag is a waste of space and can't handle much current anyway, plus it is the only true weak point for water resistance, and it would allow shorter host length (or longer battery packs).

I have not brought this option for the PhD-M6 project yet since the vast majority of the folks interested in this M6 variant want to preserve the external appearance/functionality of the M6, and since I want to keep things simple for the first version, but maybe for a future version as that might be the way to have multiple selections without having to open the M6 ... :naughty:

Will


----------



## donn_ (Dec 31, 2008)

Will...maybe I should ship my magnetic-switched dive light to you.

The ring magnet on the exterior fires 1, 2 or all three of the SSC P4 emitters.

The unit needs to be upgraded to more up-to-date emitters and power source anyway, and it would give you a chance to explore the magnetic switch aspect of it.


Alan...thanks for the explanation of how LEDs could work with this pack. I've never seen "Curb Your Enthusiasm," so mine is still rampant.


----------



## wquiles (Dec 31, 2008)

donn_ said:


> Will...maybe I should ship my magnetic-switched dive light to you.
> 
> The ring magnet on the exterior fires 1, 2 or all three of the SSC P4 emitters.
> 
> The unit needs to be upgraded to more up-to-date emitters and power source anyway, and it would give you a chance to explore the magnetic switch aspect of it.



Sounds like a good idea ... :devil:

Will


----------



## mdocod (Dec 31, 2008)

Just wanted to let you know where I am at....

I've been plucking away at design concepts on paper and in my head and re-learning a lot of the trig that had cobwebs building to get some of the measurements figured out. I have a stencil completed for quickly marking important points when I get started prototyping on actual plastic. At this point I am mostly running into issues of finding various fasteners that will actually work for this. I'm exploring new ground on this one and it is very challenging and exciting all at the same time. If I can find the right combination of fasteners and rods then this will be a really awesome adapter concept... 

Eric


----------



## leukos (Dec 31, 2008)

mdocod :thumbsup:


----------



## wquiles (Dec 31, 2008)

leukos said:


> mdocod :thumbsup:



+1 Thanks much Eric :twothumbs

Will


----------



## Kestrel (Jan 2, 2009)

I felt a bit hesitant to post here with all of the 'big folk', but I am a bit late to the party and was a little disappointed to read that the 3x17670 ship has sailed at the expense of a 6x17500 option, which I might have preferred. My question is as follows:

In the quest for ever more runtime, I was wondering about the possibility of modifying an M6 for 6x18500, and was wondering if anybody had any thoughts on the question of remaining wall thickness. In addition to the simple idea of boring the body for greater ID, perhaps the body could just be milled with three semicircular cutouts under three of the six (?correct?) thicker regions of the grip. This solution would also provide retaining channels in the flashlight body for the 18500 cells, making the job of fabricating a minimalist battery carrier much easier. In addition, modifying the body in this way could still retain and center the original 123 battery carrier if desired. I do have the services of a very good machinist locally but wanted to get all the information I can first.

I do not yet have an M6 but would be very interested in purchasing one if I can get enough runtime on a WA1111. My apologies if this hijacks the thread, PM's for replies would be greatly appreciated if folks think that would be more appropriate than replying in this thread. My original intent was to post this question to the M6 rechargeable shootout thread but that seems to have concluded a week ago.

I must say that I find the previous postings quite detailed and am impressed at the depth of thought and engineering that is going into this project.


----------



## leukos (Jan 2, 2009)

Unfortunately 3x 18xxx is physically impossible in the M6 body, not enough wall material. 

From what I understand, 6x 17500 is still an option on the table, or may be an option on another run of packs if not in the first offering.


----------



## Kestrel (Jan 3, 2009)

leukos said:


> Unfortunately 3x 18xxx is physically impossible in the M6 body, not enough wall material.
> 
> From what I understand, 6x 17500 is still an option on the table, or may be an option on another run of packs if not in the first offering.


Thanks for the reply. 3x17670 just won't have enough runtime for me, but I will definitely have an interest in acquiring a 6x17500 setup if/when this great project comes to fruition.


----------



## Lunal_Tic (Jan 4, 2009)

I'm partial to the 6x17500 pack too since I'm really pleased with my 3x17670s and the LF lamp. There's not much to really draw me into another 3x17670 setup.

-LT


----------



## Alan B (Jan 4, 2009)

Will, you might consider putting a summary status either into the first posting, or into a posting with a link in the first posting to it so folks can see what you think the status is. You could keep a tally of interest in specific sub-areas, etc, or indicate possible phases - x first build, y next build, etc as things shape up.

-- Alan


----------



## wquiles (Jan 4, 2009)

Alan B said:


> Will, you might consider putting a summary status either into the first posting, or into a posting with a link in the first posting to it so folks can see what you think the status is. You could keep a tally of interest in specific sub-areas, etc, or indicate possible phases - x first build, y next build, etc as things shape up.
> 
> -- Alan



Excellent idea Alan. I am going to sleep now, but I will prepare a summary probably no lather than tomorrow 

Will


----------



## wquiles (Jan 5, 2009)

Post #1 updated with a short summary 

I will try to keep this post #1 up to date. 

Will


----------



## mdocod (Jan 6, 2009)

teaser concept


----------



## JimmyM (Jan 6, 2009)

That's pretty cool. It gives a nice "reality" to all these thoughts.

Will,
How's your PCB design going?
Will you be using the Tiny84 or 85 for this design?
After some schematic changes to my design, I might be able to get away with the Tiny85, but I think developing for the Tiny84 is still important for future designs. How small does your design have to be?


----------



## wquiles (Jan 6, 2009)

mdocod said:


> teaser concept



Thanks much Eric. I am right now looking at the Sketch data and rotating it to get all views. How is the bottom (the new negative contact) going to make electrical contact with the tailcap? Right now in this preliminary drawing you show a hole, but I guess it has to be where the electrical contact is made, perhaps with another "metal" piece not shown?






JimmyM said:


> That's pretty cool. It gives a nice "reality" to all these thoughts.
> 
> Will,
> How's your PCB design going?
> ...



I have been holding off until we had a better idea of how it needs to fit in the battery pack (see above). I plan to keep the parts count to an absolute minimum, so given this work by Eric, it looks like it will have to in fact be very about 1.375" dia and about 5 holes or so. We also have to figure out how to access the dip switches or rotary switch to select between the 4 initial voltages (maybe a hole through the negative/bottom plate/piece?

Once this is more solid, then I can start the actual layout (with your help, I hope since I am still a beginner). For this first iteration, we can still use the Tiny 85 in surface mount (actually I am going to try for everything to be surface mount) since it will be "interesting" routing around all of those holes :devil:

Will


----------



## mdocod (Jan 6, 2009)

Yea I ran out of time and wanted to show some progress before heading over to my parents place for dinner (I'm over here now, snuck off to the computer for a moment  ) the final few contacts are not shown yet, I figured I'd upload where I am at and throw in some final details a little later, the final measurements and positions of things may have to change slightly in a final version anyways. 

I'll try to do some more modeling when I get home later. Eventually I'll try to have notes and dimensions filling a completed model so it can be referenced for sizing and such when you go with build the regulator, but I don't want to get too finalized until I have actually built one to see if things line up as expected or if all this digital drawing is just a pipe dream 

Been meaning to figure out how to use sketchup for awhile now, never had muck luck with in the past but decided yesterday to figure this darn program out, as it's easily the best free software I can use on a mac for this type of work. Now that it has "clicked" a bit, I'm starting to dig this program.

Eric


----------



## leukos (Jan 7, 2009)

Nice start, Eric. I think it would be helpful to know which side is top and which is bottom as well as + and -. It looks like you are planning to run the Vout- through one of the supporting rods to the top of pack? So is the plan for the PCB to be on the top?


----------



## JimmyM (Jan 7, 2009)

wquiles said:


> I have been holding off until we had a better idea of how it needs to fit in the battery pack (see above). I plan to keep the parts count to an absolute minimum, so given this work by Eric, it looks like it will have to in fact be very about 1.375" dia and about 5 holes or so. We also have to figure out how to access the dip switches or rotary switch to select between the 4 initial voltages (maybe a hole through the negative/bottom plate/piece?
> 
> Once this is more solid, then I can start the actual layout (with your help, I hope since I am still a beginner). For this first iteration, we can still use the Tiny 85 in surface mount (actually I am going to try for everything to be surface mount) since it will be "interesting" routing around all of those holes :devil:
> 
> Will


I prefer SMD designs as well. In designing my versions, I've found quite a few SMD components that will work well for both of us. Once you have a set pf physical constraints, I can help with the board design.
I've got a 23mm round design that fits all compnents on one side.So I'm sure we can come up with something that will work for you.


----------



## wquiles (Jan 7, 2009)

Excellent - thanks much Jim. The interesting challenge will be that the board will have to have 4-5 holes for everything to line up - fun, fun, fun 

Will


----------



## mdocod (Jan 7, 2009)

JimmyM said:


> I've got a 23mm round design that fits all compnents on one side.So I'm sure we can come up with something that will work for you.



That is very comforting to know! Should fit no problem there then.


----------



## modamag (Jan 10, 2009)

will,

Sorry for not finishing this earlier. Xmas was too much fun with the family.

The PhD-M6 Driver is to reside inside the pocket of the bottom most piece.
You'll have the following space available for the driver 30mm Diam x 9mm height. With the height restriction you must stick with SMD. The 8S2 packaging should be no problem.

If you have DIP switches, then just unscrew the bottom piece to access the board.

Cheers,
Jonathan


----------



## wquiles (Jan 10, 2009)

modamag said:


> will,
> 
> Sorry for not finishing this earlier. Xmas was too much fun with the family.
> 
> ...



Jonathan - no need to apologize - great design you have there. Thanks much! What is the format for the file? What program?

Will


----------



## leukos (Jan 10, 2009)

:thumbsup: Nice design, modamag!


----------



## LuxLuthor (Jan 10, 2009)

leukos said:


> :thumbsup: Nice design, modamag!



+1


----------



## Flea Bag (Jan 12, 2009)

The effort is obvious! Looking great!


----------



## JimmyM (Jan 12, 2009)

modamag said:


> will,
> 
> Sorry for not finishing this earlier. Xmas was too much fun with the family.
> 
> ...


"unscrew the bottom piece". Is the outer edge threaded or is it threaded on via threaded center post? 30mm x 9mm is plenty of room. The PCB could be built to mount the FET(s) on one side, with the drive electronics on the other side, leaving plenty of room for a dip switch. The Tiny84 has lots of extra pins for a dip switch.


----------



## modamag (Jan 12, 2009)

Hi Jimmy,

For the total 9mm height I'm worrying about the following.

1. Potruding (-) plate attachment screw which will provide the Bat (-) to the driver. ~2mm

2a. AWG 20 (-) wire to handle 4A with 2x safety factor. ~2mm
2b. AWG 24 (+) wire for sense signal to uC. ~2mm

3. Center Nylon lock nut ~4mm

4. Driver tallest component, dip switch. (assuming single sided for low cost) ~ 3mm

5. Board thickness. 1.6 mm

Extreme care in routing this to make it work properly. It's not alot of room, IMHO. I can gain couple more mm of height at the cost of reliability of the unit which I prefer not too.

The total working height is 95mm with the stock top/bottom spring config of the M6. You can also compress the spring > 50% to obtain 5mm more.


----------



## mdocod (Jan 12, 2009)

I have a prototype basically finished here, few more finishing touches, should have a picture of it by later this evening up. 

Eric


----------



## JimmyM (Jan 12, 2009)

modamag said:


> Hi Jimmy,
> 
> For the total 9mm height I'm worrying about the following.
> 
> ...


I guess I'd have to have a unit in front of me to take measurements and properly layout the board.


----------



## leukos (Jan 12, 2009)

mdocod said:


> I have a prototype basically finished here, few more finishing touches, should have a picture of it by later this evening up.
> 
> Eric


 

A design like modamag's or FM's is very sound and fairly simple (which may better serve the KISS principle), but if we can have the option of a side loading battery holder (as Eric is designing), I think I would prefer that.


----------



## mdocod (Jan 13, 2009)

Here's an actual prototype, with 0.25" space for the regulator simulated via stand-off nuts, with a 17670 loaded, the total length is still at just 91mm, there's room for more space for the regulator, or thicker end-caps, either way.


----------



## wquiles (Jan 13, 2009)

mdocod said:


> Here's an actual prototype, with 0.25" space for the regulator simulated via stand-off nuts, with a 17670 loaded, the total length is still at just 91mm, there's room for more space for the regulator, or thicker end-caps, either way.



Awesome - you are fast dude! You just had the paper design a few days ago!

  

Will


----------



## JimmyM (Jan 13, 2009)

mdocod said:


> Here's an actual prototype, with 0.25" space for the regulator simulated via stand-off nuts, with a 17670 loaded, the total length is still at just 91mm, there's room for more space for the regulator, or thicker end-caps, either way.


So this gap is where the regulator board would go?
What's the brass screw in the front of the pic for?


----------



## Alan B (Jan 13, 2009)

Wow, fast, and looks very nice.

The brass screw ooks like Batt-. Looks like Batt+ is coming down through one of the threaded rods. Excellent.

-- Alan


----------



## leukos (Jan 13, 2009)

JimmyM said:


> So this gap is where the regulator board would go?
> What's the brass screw in the front of the pic for?


 
That does look like more of a design challenge for the PCB compared with modamag's proposed battery pack. However, if it can fit, a pack with three supports rather than one will be more solid and durable and I really love the side loading feature.


----------



## Flea Bag (Jan 13, 2009)

Another vote to keep the side-loading for the large number of us who charge our li-ions out of the holder! Charging 3x17670 in series is not very safe anyway.


----------



## Kestrel (Jan 13, 2009)

Wow, this should turn out very very nice. Thank you for working toward an impressive product, when this is available it will _really_ make want to get an M6.


jayflash said:


> Thanks to all you heavy lifters of this project; all I can add is a little feedback and probably some confusion. :duh2: I appreciate the effort you all have taken to figure out the solutions to conflicting requirements.


+1 here, except that I'm such a lightweight I can't even add _any_ confusion.:sigh:

I've just read this thread for a second time and I've picked up a bit more than the first time around. Thanks for the incan / EE education.


----------



## leukos (Jan 17, 2009)

Any updates? 


I'm quite happy using the N2, MN15, and MN20 with my homemade regulated packs, but my M6's want more!


----------



## mdocod (Jan 17, 2009)

JimmyM said:


> So this gap is where the regulator board would go?
> What's the brass screw in the front of the pic for?



Yea, the gap is for the regulator board, the screw sticking up would be the negative V-batt for the regulator connection. 

Eric


----------



## wquiles (Jan 17, 2009)

Eric,

Jim has the new software for the Tiny 84 running now, so it I can borrow your prototype holder, I can start working with Jim to layout a prototype board 

Can you make one more prototype so that you are not left without one while I use this one? That way, if I need to propose a change/modification, you can have one with you at all times.

Will


----------



## leukos (Jan 17, 2009)

Will,

Would this regulator be able to handle >25Vin for using 6x IMR 16340 (even if you don't recommend it) until IMR 17670's become available? I noticed the LVR's I have can handle up to 30Vin though the warning flashes are still at the same voltage (8.0V).


----------



## wquiles (Jan 17, 2009)

leukos said:


> Will,
> 
> Would this regulator be able to handle >25Vin for using 6x IMR 16340 (even if you don't recommend it) until IMR 17670's become available? I noticed the LVR's I have can handle up to 30Vin though the warning flashes are still at the same voltage (8.0V).



It is possible that the rating of the parts themselves would allow it, but the resistors to set the voltage divider/input that I will use will be selected to give best performance with the 3x17670 cell pack. Lets see as we get closer, as Jim's 10-bit firmware does have more resolution, but don't count on it yet 

Will


----------



## mdocod (Jan 17, 2009)

wquiles said:


> Eric,
> 
> Jim has the new software for the Tiny 84 running now, so it I can borrow your prototype holder, I can start working with Jim to layout a prototype board
> 
> ...



I'll try to build another one this week, PM me your shipping information 

Eric


----------



## wquiles (Jan 17, 2009)

mdocod said:


> I'll try to build another one this week, PM me your shipping information
> 
> Eric



Awesome - thanks. I just sent you a PM 

Will


----------



## JimmyM (Jan 17, 2009)

wquiles said:


> It is possible that the rating of the parts themselves would allow it, but the resistors to set the voltage divider/input that I will use will be selected to give best performance with the 3x17670 cell pack. Lets see as we get closer, as Jim's 10-bit firmware does have more resolution, but don't count on it yet
> 
> Will


The 10-bit regulation works great at high pack voltages. Because of the smaller step size you don't get as large a step when it increases or decreases duty. I mean it works great. Theoretically, it should vary by as much as 0.04V.
But, from what I've seen on the bench, it's a lot closer than that because of dithering. It's like getting an extra bit for free.
Set the voltage and forget it. I'm working on getting as good a reading as I can from the ADC.

Will, by the way, our 2 designs work so similarly the software will be almost identical. I have a low voltage mode working. When the battery voltage drops below a certain threshold the lowvoltage mode latches and the output voltage starts pulsing between 2 lower fractions of the set voltage.
The low voltage mode is triggered by 10 consecutive readings below the trigger voltage. I might make it 125 though. That equates to ~1/2 second.
I'm spending time now working on getting the most out of the ADC readings, averaging, etc.


----------



## js (Jan 19, 2009)

Will,

I'm finally getting around to reading this thread, but better late than never. From what I've skimmed over, it looks very good! Exciting!


----------



## wquiles (Jan 19, 2009)

js said:


> Will,
> 
> I'm finally getting around to reading this thread, but better late than never. From what I've skimmed over, it looks very good! Exciting!



Thanks Jim!

You were the one who started this path of a rechargeable M6 solution - we are just following your footsteps 

Will


----------



## TheSteve (Jan 25, 2009)

Great project! 
My Willie Hunt LVR regulated M6 pack rocks - everyone who has an M6 needs a rechargeable pack. I have all of the parts to build myself a 6 x17500 pack but haven't built it yet. I even managed to get one of the custom machined thin tail cap inserts from Andrew way back when(didn't order anything else from him)

I'm a big Atmel fan so I'd be interested in using your version of the regulator.


----------



## wquiles (Jan 25, 2009)

TheSteve said:


> Great project!
> My Willie Hunt LVR regulated M6 pack rocks - everyone who has an M6 needs a rechargeable pack. I have all of the parts to build myself a 6 x17500 pack but haven't built it yet. I even managed to get one of the custom machined thin tail cap inserts from Andrew way back when(didn't order anything else from him)
> 
> I'm a big Atmel fan so I'd be interested in using your version of the regulator.



Welcome to the thread!

We are right now wating for Eric (*mdocod*) to build an extra prototype adapter to start some board layout work, and also waiting for Jim (*JimmyM*) to finalize his 10-bit code so that we can use the Tiny84 (which will have extra I/O pins for future use!).

Will


----------



## JimmyM (Jan 25, 2009)

wquiles said:


> Welcome to the thread!
> 
> We are right now wating for Eric (*mdocod*) to build an extra prototype adapter to start some board layout work, and also waiting for Jim (*JimmyM*) to finalize his 10-bit code so that we can use the Tiny84 (which will have extra I/O pins for future use!).
> 
> Will


The 10-bit code is wrapped up very nicely. My implementation has a max battery voltage of 40V (in theory). I'll know better after more stringent testing. But I have a pulsating low voltage routine, and an over temperature routine.
With a max input of 40V I should have a resolution of 0.04V. However, Will, you're implementation won't need that range. What is the max expected voltage for M6 pack? Or an extended pack? A lower maximum pack voltage will improve resolution. I'll be updating my thread as well.


----------



## wquiles (Jan 25, 2009)

JimmyM said:


> The 10-bit code is wrapped up very nicely. My implementation has a max battery voltage of 40V (in theory). I'll know better after more stringent testing. But I have a pulsating low voltage routine, and an over temperature routine.
> With a max input of 40V I should have a resolution of 0.04V. However, Will, you're implementation won't need that range. What is the max expected voltage for M6 pack? Or an extended pack? A lower maximum pack voltage will improve resolution. I'll be updating my thread as well.



Jim, right now we are looking at 3x LiIon pack for this first iteration. The resolution that you have is excellent right now, so I don't see any reason to change it for the smaller voltage in the PhD-M6. Again, great job with the firmware for the Tiny84 :thumbsup:

Will


----------



## mdocod (Jan 25, 2009)

Hi Will,

Just a quick update, may as well do it publicly to keep everyone in the loop.

I am in the waiting for a shipment form grainger to get here, I ordered some more fasteners and things that I would like to use in the design (minor changes, nothing major). I also realized that I am basically out of 1.375" rod, so more of that is on the way as well. I expect everything to arrive sometime this week, and will hopefully have that other prototype done soon. 

Eric


----------



## wquiles (Jan 26, 2009)

mdocod said:


> Hi Will,
> 
> Just a quick update, may as well do it publicly to keep everyone in the loop.
> 
> ...



Thanks much Eric :thumbsup:

Will


----------



## JimmyM (Feb 2, 2009)

Will, This seemed to be more applicable in your design thread, so I copied the meat of the conversation here. So the folks monitoring the M6 thread would have some info in what were talking about.
-----------------


wquiles said:


> For the PhD-M6, I am basically using a subset of your Tiny 84 circuit design, so there will be no FET driver (and supporting circuitry), so I "should" have enough space to fit the more traditional SOIC package.
> 
> Once Eric sends me the prototype pack, I "should" be able to layout around the needed holes. Is your current layout firm enough so that I can start using it for the M6 variant now? If ready enough, I would like to get started
> 
> Will


I'm not using an FET driver on my design either. I'll try to put together a PCB with the SOIC14 and see how it goes. The regulator I have in mind for your design does not require any reflow either. I believe it's a 25V Max Vin SOT-23. AND you don't need the 2 adjustment pots. SO there may very well be enough room. Maybe I'll take a crack at it tonight. I'll let you know how it goes.


wquiles said:


> That is what I am hoping for, but remember that my "variant" has some sort of surface mount dip switch for the 4 bulb selections - something like this one:
> http://www.medibix.com/detail.jsp?view=detail&sku_id=888997&product_id=455722
> 
> Will





wquiles said:


> Right now I only need two switches, so that I can select between the 4 voltages, but, it would be great to allow for 3 of 4 switches if they fit  . I would also need a programming port, but you probably already have one, right?
> 
> Will


At digikey... all washable.
CT2194LPST-ND pretty small ($0.59)
CT2184LPST-ND even smaller ($1.89)
GH7238-ND kinda small ($1.02) 

Personally I like the CT2184LPST-ND. It's nice and small. Makes layout easier. However, they cost $1.30 more. That's not a lot if it allows other things in the board. But if it's not needed, then why bother.
That is unless you want to just put one of the half pitch ones in there and use a 6 or 8 position one for some other fancy adjustments.
Positions 1&2: bulb.
Positions 3&4: low voltage point.
Position 5: Low voltage "mode": dim or pulsating
Position 6: Soft-start: fast or slow. 


wquiles said:


> That was more or less my thinking - the extra 2 switches would offer a few more options
> 
> Will


Yup. It fits. Now if I can just get a template of where the holes need to go and what holes are what electrical connections, I should be able to shuffle things about a bit.


----------



## JimmyM (Feb 2, 2009)

To save room, I'm using a 1.27mm pitch female header for my D1 design. It also prevents any accidental shorting of the pins. I can see if a standard 2.54mm pitch header will work in your design. There might be room for the foot print, but the height may be restrictive.


----------



## wquiles (Feb 2, 2009)

JimmyM said:


> Will, This seemed to be more applicable in your design thread, so I copied the meat of the conversation here. So the folks monitoring the M6 thread would have some info in what were talking about.
> -----------------
> 
> I'm not using an FET driver on my design either. I'll try to put together a PCB with the SOIC14 and see how it goes. The regulator I have in mind for your design does not require any reflow either. I believe it's a 25V Max Vin SOT-23. AND you don't need the 2 adjustment pots. SO there may very well be enough room. Maybe I'll take a crack at it tonight. I'll let you know how it goes.
> ...






JimmyM said:


> To save room, I'm using a 1.27mm pitch female header for my D1 design. It also prevents any accidental shorting of the pins. I can see if a standard 2.54mm pitch header will work in your design. There might be room for the foot print, but the height may be restrictive.




That is AWESOME - you the man :twothumbs

Will


----------



## JimmyM (Feb 2, 2009)

JimmyM said:


> To save room, I'm using a 1.27mm pitch female header for my D1 design. It also prevents any accidental shorting of the pins. I can see if a standard 2.54mm pitch header will work in your design. There might be room for the foot print, but the height may be restrictive.



I found a 2.54mm pitch 2x3 female header for your board that is only 4.4mm high. Same as the 1.27mm pitch header I'm using in my design. I might see if I can use the same one in my design. I'll need to make an adapter to go from the AVR ISP 6 pin female header to the female programming header on the board anyway, so it doesn't really matter if I continue to use the 1.27mm.
I was going to have a bunch of these "programming sticks" made up and I would populate them with the pinheaders. If you're interested, when the time comes, I can just add the 2.54-2.54 ones to my design and have them all made at the same time.


----------



## Alan B (Feb 2, 2009)

JimmyM said:


> I found a 2.54mm pitch 2x3 female header for your board that is only 4.4mm high. Same as the 1.27mm pitch header I'm using in my design. I might see if I can use the same one in my design. I'll need to make an adapter to go from the AVR ISP 6 pin female header to the female programming header on the board anyway, so it doesn't really matter if I continue to use the 1.27mm.
> I was going to have a bunch of these "programming sticks" made up and I would populate them with the pinheaders. If you're interested, when the time comes, I can just add the 2.54-2.54 ones to my design and have them all made at the same time.



Is there a right angle female socket for those? Are you using male on the pcb? I may have to look at those as well. I already have a stick laid out for the larger connector, would be easy to adjust...


----------



## JimmyM (Feb 2, 2009)

Alan B said:


> Is there a right angle female socket for those? Are you using male on the pcb? I may have to look at those as well. I already have a stick laid out for the larger connector, would be easy to adjust...


For the 1.27 or 2.54mm?
I'm using female sockets on the board to prevent accidental shorts. The ones I have spec'd out are vertical.


----------



## Alan B (Feb 2, 2009)

JimmyM said:


> For the 1.27 or 2.54mm?
> I'm using female sockets on the board to prevent accidental shorts. The ones I have spec'd out are vertical.



Then a right angle would be required on the programming board. Are those available?


----------



## wquiles (Feb 2, 2009)

I am thinking that vertical would be more robust - less likely for somebody to push too hard. For the vertical to work, a small hole can be drilled to allow a small/tiny screwdriver/pick/whatever to move the dip switches.

Will


----------



## JimmyM (Feb 2, 2009)

wquiles said:


> I am thinking that vertical would be more robust - less likely for somebody to push too hard. For the vertical to work, a small hole can be drilled to allow a small/tiny screwdriver/pick/whatever to move the dip switches.
> 
> Will


Oh. You're talking about the DIP switch, not the programming header.
I'll have to look at what's available. Will, could you sketch out what you're looking for as it relates to the physical design? There are Dip switches that have side activated switches, but the body of the device is mounted flat on the board.


----------



## JimmyM (Feb 2, 2009)

Alan B said:


> Then a right angle would be required on the programming board. Are those available?


Actually, if you use a 2x3 male pin header, and slide the programming board between the rows of pins on the male header, then solder them in place. The circuit board will not need a right-angle male header.


----------



## Alan B (Feb 2, 2009)

JimmyM said:


> Actually, if you use a 2x3 male pin header, and slide the programming board between the rows of pins on the male header, then solder them in place. The circuit board will not need a right-angle male header.



That works if the PCB is the right thickness..


----------



## wquiles (Feb 2, 2009)

JimmyM said:


> Oh. You're talking about the DIP switch, not the programming header.
> I'll have to look at what's available. Will, could you sketch out what you're looking for as it relates to the physical design? There are Dip switches that have side activated switches, but the body of the device is mounted flat on the board.



It is the side activated switches that I am worried about - side pressure is likely to rip apart the switch from the board/soldering pad. I rather keep them "not" sideways if we can help it 

The programming port - I will not have it installed on the production boards, but I do need the through holes/pads. I am planning on making a programming fixture with pins that would go down and clamp on each board for programming each board before assembling the packs.

Will


----------



## JimmyM (Feb 2, 2009)

wquiles said:


> It is the side activated switches that I am worried about - side pressure is likely to rip apart the switch from the board/soldering pad. I rather keep them "not" sideways if we can help it
> 
> The programming port - I will not have it installed on the production boards, but I do need the through holes/pads. I am planning on making a programming fixture with pins that would go down and clamp on each board for programming each board before assembling the packs.
> 
> Will


OK, then. In either case (with or without the header in place), the 2.54mm pitch will probably work best.


----------



## JimmyM (Feb 2, 2009)

Alan B said:


> That works if the PCB is the right thickness..


If it's close enough, solder will work.
1.27mm pitch header has 0.87mm clearance. 0.031" FR4 (0.8mm) 1 or 2 oz. copper is close.
2mm pitch has 1.5mm clearance.
2.54mm pitch has 1.9mm clearance, 0.062" FR4 (1.6mm) + 2oz copper is close.
I have a 2.54mm header right here and some 0.062" FR4 with 1oz copper. There is the tiniest gap. Easily done with solder. Probably be a perfect fit with 2oz.


----------



## mdocod (Feb 3, 2009)

Made another prototype a few days ago, but I'm not 100% happy with the precision (more like 22% happy), I'd like to wait to send you one till I have a rotary table and can make this repeatable and reasonably precise  For batteries only, the slight variations don't matter much, but for a regulator that needs to drop right on those rods just right, I think more precision is going to be required... I should be ordering a rotary table, (and possibly a mill) within the next day or so.


----------



## wquiles (Feb 3, 2009)

mdocod said:


> Made another prototype a few days ago, but I'm not 100% happy with the precision (more like 22% happy), I'd like to wait to send you one till I have a rotary table and can make this repeatable and reasonably precise  For batteries only, the slight variations don't matter much, but for a regulator that needs to drop right on those rods just right, I think more precision is going to be required... I should be ordering a rotary table, (and possibly a mill) within the next day or so.



Understood - I rather take our time and do things right.

By the way, I am exited about your new drill/mill - keep us posted 

Will


----------



## RobertM (Feb 13, 2009)

Any update?


----------



## Patriot (Feb 13, 2009)

mdocod said:


> Made another prototype a few days ago, but I'm not 100% happy with the precision (more like 22% happy), I'd like to wait to send you one till I have a rotary table and can make this repeatable and reasonably precise




Definitely interested in seeing your latest development.


----------



## wquiles (Feb 13, 2009)

Yes, time for an update. Several of us are basically working on 3 "parts" for this project:
- the battery holder - Eric
- the pwb/driver board - Jimmy(the expert) and Will(the apprentice)
- the firmware - Jimmy and Will - original code by Alan

Jimmy has already determined that the parts "should" fit on the board, so we are now waiting for the battery holder to be finalized (Eric prototyping right now), before we can do the actual layout once we know the exact position/sizes for all holes. The firmware is pretty much done already by Alan and Jimmy, and I am expecting minimal changes by me will be necessary for our specific application.

Will


----------



## mdocod (Feb 14, 2009)

I'm getting closer, mill is on the bench, I spend the first night after getting it setup just making some random chips and getting a feel for how to do some of the important mill related tasks to be properly centered etc etc. I spent a good portion of wednesday and thursday after work diving straight into more adapter prototypes for this project and made some good headway. I have a basically finished prototype sitting here, but want to make some minor changes now that I have experimented with the fit of this higher precision adapter in the M6 and how it makes contact etc etc... Definitely getting much closer. 


Eric


----------



## leukos (Feb 14, 2009)

:thumbsup:

I wonder if AW has any more info on IMR 17670?


----------



## DM51 (Feb 14, 2009)

leukos said:


> :thumbsup:
> 
> I wonder if AW has any more info on IMR 17670?


Here is a post he made yesterday in the MP:



AW said:


> Here is the update on the next available IMR sizes :
> 
> - IMR18500 (1100mAH) - available coming week
> 
> - IMR26500 (2300mAH) - available in 4~6 weeks


So I think that means "No IMR17670 for the time being."


----------



## leukos (Feb 14, 2009)

I'm sure the 26500 will have a lot of applications (even in the M6), but I bet AW comes through for us sooner or later with 17670's.


----------



## DM51 (Feb 14, 2009)

Yes, I hope so...


----------



## wquiles (Feb 14, 2009)

mdocod said:


> I'm getting closer, mill is on the bench, I spend the first night after getting it setup just making some random chips and getting a feel for how to do some of the important mill related tasks to be properly centered etc etc. I spent a good portion of wednesday and thursday after work diving straight into more adapter prototypes for this project and made some good headway. I have a basically finished prototype sitting here, but want to make some minor changes now that I have experimented with the fit of this higher precision adapter in the M6 and how it makes contact etc etc... Definitely getting much closer.
> 
> 
> Eric



Thanks Eric - we are all happy (and some of us jealous!) about your new mill setup 

Will


----------



## LuxLuthor (Feb 15, 2009)

:twothumbs


----------



## JimmyM (Feb 15, 2009)

leukos said:


> I'm sure the 26500 will have a lot of applications (even in the M6), but I bet AW comes through for us sooner or later with 17670's.


The 26500 is a slightly long C-cell. Right? I would imagine they'd be really popular with the Hot wire guys for their C bodied 64138s, 623s, 625s, 458s, etc. I'd better get cracking on that C-body regulator I'm working on.


----------



## DM51 (Feb 15, 2009)

26500 is standard C-size (same as C alkalines). The AW protected C Li-Ions were 26530, i.e. ~3mm longer because of the protection circuit.


----------



## mdocod (Feb 16, 2009)

[edit] forgot the post office is probably closed today... This will be in the mail tomorrow 

I'll PM or email you with the measurements hopefully within the next 24 hours.

Eric


----------



## LuxLuthor (Feb 16, 2009)

Yeah, I have been waiting 2 hours for something to be delivered today, before I realized it is "President's Day."


----------



## wquiles (Feb 16, 2009)

mdocod said:


> [edit] forgot the post office is probably closed today... This will be in the mail tomorrow
> 
> I'll PM or email you with the measurements hopefully within the next 24 hours.
> 
> Eric



:twothumbs - this prototype looks much nicer than prior ones - that mill sure is coming handy, right? :devil:

I am on a business trip right now, so no worries in getting it shipped in the next day or two 

Will


----------



## leukos (Feb 16, 2009)

Looks good, Eric, almost professionally manufactured! :thumbsup:


----------



## JimmyM (Feb 17, 2009)

mdocod said:


> I'll PM or email you with the measurements hopefully within the next 24 hours.
> 
> Eric


Nice work.
Could you PM the measurements to me too. I'll need them to layout the PCB.


----------



## wquiles (Feb 24, 2009)

mdocod said:


> [edit] forgot the post office is probably closed today... This will be in the mail tomorrow
> 
> I'll PM or email you with the measurements hopefully within the next 24 hours.
> 
> Eric



I got the prototype piece - I must say that I am VERY impressed. It looks even better in person 

I have a couple more days to finish this current wave of 1xD's that I am doing, and once I get those out, I will be able to resume work on this project 

Will


----------



## RobertM (Mar 4, 2009)

Updates?


----------



## wquiles (Mar 4, 2009)

With help from Jim and Alan, and with the prototype from Eric on hand , I started the initial work on the layout of the Tiny84 this last weekend. It is going slower than I expected, as the space available (there are 5 holes on the board!) makes routing really hard for this project. That being said, it is still early and I am working with Jim on a couple of alternatives, as we feel it is doable - it is just taking extra time.

So, work is progressing - slower than anticipated, but still progressing 

Will


----------



## mdocod (Mar 5, 2009)

Let me know if you'd like me to try a different design. All the rods/holes up top there are not 100% necessary. The adapter design could always change as needed.


----------



## wquiles (Mar 5, 2009)

mdocod said:


> Let me know if you'd like me to try a different design. All the rods/holes up top there are not 100% necessary. The adapter design could always change as needed.



Right now Jim is helping me try various things, but also some of the challenges are from my own side as I learn to do PCB layout, as this is my first time doing this. I want to learn to do this, and it is a little bit harder/intimidating the first time around.

Some of the alternate options involve using the 8-pin Surface Mount Tiny85, instead of the current 14-pin Tiny84, and sticking with the initial 2-4 position switch option (for at least 4 bulb options) instead of the 8-position switch we are looking at now - both of these reduce the number of connections and make the positioning and layout easier to do. 

If even with these we find it hard to do, then we will work with you on an alternate battery pack design - but we are not there yet - we have not given up on the current design yet 

Will


----------



## wquiles (Mar 12, 2009)

OK, time for another update...

Jim has come up with a potential 4-layer design using the Tiny84 (14-pin SM) and a 4-pos switch, that seems to fit in Eric's prototype battery pack, but unfortunately the software/package we are using does not output Gerber files, so just to build a few boards to test the design is about $350 for the bare boards, with no guarantee it would work 

Since I feel the risk on the first pass is somewhat high, I am going to try using another PCB layout program, Eagle, which outputs Gerber files, and that would allow me to order a few test boards for potentially under $100. I will keep updating as I get closer to a working design 

Thanks to both Alan and Jim for the help and guidance with this part of the project - much appreciated :thumbsup:

Will


----------



## mdocod (Mar 12, 2009)

Sounds good Will, thank you for the update.

-Eric


----------



## Alan B (Mar 12, 2009)

Seems a bit pricey for a couple of test boards. Is that the best they could do? My four test boards cost about 20 bucks each as I recall. No silkscreen or solder mask, but 2 sided, plated through, reflowed, etc. Very nice. pcbexpress dot com.

Eagle is nice, but a bit hard to use and quite expensive for commercial use.


----------



## JimmyM (Mar 13, 2009)

Alan B said:


> Eagle is nice, but a bit hard to use and quite expensive for commercial use.


What package do you use?


----------



## Alan B (Mar 14, 2009)

JimmyM said:


> What package do you use?



Mostly Expresspcb's software, so far. I have done a little with Eagle. There is another open source program I have heard about, but don't have the name handy. Eagle is a popular choice, if a bit expensive. It is also very old and command based, which can be a good thing but feels primitive at times. You can start out for free but if selling boards it falls into the commercial use category.


----------



## wquiles (Mar 14, 2009)

You know, I have been following the tutorial for Eagle, and so far I "really" like this package. I have many small different projects in mind besides the PhD-M6, so this might prove to be the right package for me. Since it outputs Gerber files, I should be able to use a multitude of online manufacturing places, such as pcbexpress, barebones PCB, and others 

Will


----------



## wquiles (Mar 18, 2009)

Another quick update. 

I now have my first draft schematic on the Eagle CAD package. I have asked Alan and Jim to review, as my intent is to order a few boards to bench test the design before moving any further. 

This will be an all Surface Mount board, and for now with the 2-position dip switch for 4-bulb options. The actual part numbers in the schematic are not 100% correct since I just picked existing parts with the right electrical and package dimensions. The image is a little bit too big for the forums' limit of 800x600, but here is the link to it:
http://m3coupe.com/electronics/PhD/PhD-M6_v3.png

As soon as I get an updated schematic I will post it. Thanks for being so patient, and thanks to Eric for his awesome prototype pack, and to Alan and Jim for their continuing support :thumbsup:

Will


----------



## RobertM (Apr 8, 2009)

Any new developments with this project?


----------



## wquiles (Apr 8, 2009)

I already have a 2-layer circular board of the correct diamater, all surface mount parts, including the 2-position switch, and with the correct 5 holes in it (to fit Eric's battery holder/adapter), but I am not done with the PWB layout - I still have several errors to correct. 

I am currently on version 7, and I keep getting advice/suggestions from other more experienced guys here in the forum (as recent as last week). It is a slow process, but still moving forward 

Will


----------



## LuxLuthor (Apr 8, 2009)

Thanks for update!


----------



## leukos (Apr 8, 2009)

:thumbsup: It will be worth the wait! Thanks, Will.


----------



## wquiles (Apr 8, 2009)

Just so that you guys get an idea of how things are looking, here is my latest version of the PWB (remember this has errors and it is not final):

(snip) old design ...


Will


----------



## LumenHound (Apr 8, 2009)

Looks really good. Thanks for posting the pic and keeping us up to date.
It means alot.


----------



## RobertM (Apr 9, 2009)

Thanks for the update Will! This is going to awesome once it's complete.

-Robert


----------



## leukos (Apr 9, 2009)

So the two dip switches will be accessible through one of the holes in the battery carrier? Cool design, Will.


----------



## wquiles (Apr 9, 2009)

leukos said:


> So the two dip switches will be accessible through one of the holes in the battery carrier? Cool design, Will.



Yup, just like in one of my all-time favorite movies: "That's a fact, Jack!" (Bill Murray - Stripes)

Will


----------



## wquiles (Apr 15, 2009)

I got a newer version of the PWB under review now:

(snip) old design ...

Will


----------



## leukos (Apr 20, 2009)

The circuit design is impressive, Will. I think most of us showing interest in the development of this project are just too technologically limited to appreciate the work you and Alan and JimmyM have put into this. I'm just so eager to see it come to fruition and put it through the paces. I realize having IMR 17670's are the other big half of this project, but I'm sure they will be available when it comes time. Thanks again for your efforts! :thumbsup:


----------



## wquiles (Apr 22, 2009)

Thank you. It certainly has been a fun experience to learn to use Eagle. I am right now looking at an alternate layout with better grounding. I hope to then order a few boards to then build them and test them - hopefully the design will work with little/few mistakes 

Will


----------



## wquiles (May 5, 2009)

Well guys, I am going to order the prototype boards soon, and this will be the design I will go with:

(snip) old design ...

Will


----------



## Alan B (May 5, 2009)

It looks really nice, Will.

I'm going to have to learn Eagle (when I get some free time).

Great progress!


----------



## mdocod (May 5, 2009)

Looks like the right idea there for sure. At least I can sort-of understand the picture  Little over my head on the grand scale though!


----------



## DM51 (May 5, 2009)

It's waaaaay over my head, lol. If I didn't know what it was, I would have said it was the floor-plan of level 17 of the Death Star, but without the garbage-mashers and much less likely to blow up.


----------



## leukos (May 6, 2009)

Yes, that is a curious connection between R2 and D2......


----------



## wquiles (May 6, 2009)

Alan B said:


> It looks really nice, Will.
> 
> I'm going to have to learn Eagle (when I get some free time).
> 
> Great progress!


Thanks Alan. Without help from you, Jim, and George, I would have not made it this far. It definitely has been a great learning experience so far 




DM51 said:


> It's waaaaay over my head, lol. If I didn't know what it was, I would have said it was the floor-plan of level 17 of the Death Star, but without the garbage-mashers and much less likely to blow up.


It is like with anything new - it takes time to learn. Hopefully I will not have too many mistakes once I get the boards back 




leukos said:


> Yes, that is a curious connection between R2 and D2......


There is no connection between R2 and D2, but it might be that the Digital Ground plane makes it look like they are connected.





mdocod said:


> Looks like the right idea there for sure. At least I can sort-of understand the picture  Little over my head on the grand scale though!


This is based on your battery holder prototype, so it is partly "your" solution as well  . One change I need for you to make in the next prototype is the location of the Battery "+". In your original prototype that I have at home, the right-most rod carries the "+", but to make the routing work well, I had to switch it to the left-most rod, which is what I show above. Looking at the prototype, this change looks like something fairly easy to change, right?

Will


----------



## mdocod (May 7, 2009)

The end-caps can be arranged in 2 different possible positions and still make a perfect series connection, at the same time effectively moving the "+" from one side to the other of that gnd ("-") contact. Either way works fine and it was just a mater of which random way I decided to align the end-caps. 

Is there going to be enough room on the surface of the board for the nuts to hold the board in place? 

I think the standoff nuts I send in the prototype kit are 3/16" hex, but I'm not 100% on that, I did just order a box of 3/16" brass hex nuts, very small, might be useful, let me know if you need me to send you a few.

Let me know when you'd like me to send another more finalized version to you and I'll get started on one. I have a few changes I'd like to try to make as well. Don't worry, all the positions of the contacts stay the same 


-Eric


----------



## leukos (May 7, 2009)

wquiles said:


> There is no connection between R2 and D2, but it might be that the Digital Ground plane makes it look like they are connected.
> Will


 
Sorry, Will. My comment was meant as a stupid star wars joke in light of the death star reference.


----------



## wquiles (May 7, 2009)

leukos said:


> Sorry, Will. My comment was meant as a stupid star wars joke in light of the death star reference.



No worries - I happen to have an R2 and D2 in the circuit, and I just did not make the connection back to Star Wars 

Will


----------



## wquiles (May 7, 2009)

mdocod said:


> The end-caps can be arranged in 2 different possible positions and still make a perfect series connection, at the same time effectively moving the "+" from one side to the other of that gnd ("-") contact. Either way works fine and it was just a mater of which random way I decided to align the end-caps.
> 
> Is there going to be enough room on the surface of the board for the nuts to hold the board in place?
> 
> ...



Eric,

The outer hex nuts are 3/16", but the ground connection is much bigger, almost 1/4" hex nut, so it would be great if we can find a way to also use the smaller 3/16" nut for the ground was well.

For height/clearance, the hole in the outer plastic/delrin cover right above the ground nut might need to be larger to account for the thickness of the board, but being plastic/delrin, it will be easy for me to modify here - don't worry about it yet (we can take care of it once we start working on production boards/packages). The same might be true with the hole for the 2-position switch - it might need to be slightly larger (and/or different shape) to facilitate operation from above.

Yes, it would be great if you can fit in your hectic schedule some time to create a newer/updated prototype holder. I will need the new prototype to test the upcoming prototype boards I will be ordering soon 

Will


----------



## wquiles (May 7, 2009)

Here is a one-to-one print of the PWB - actual size, next to the prototype battery pack Eric created:
(snip) old design ...

Here is a close up of the top of the battery pack superimposed on the one-to-one print, to show the alignment of the holes to the matching holes (marked by "+" on the board):
(snip) old design ...

And here is a 5x version of the board layout next to the top of the battery pack:
(snip) old design ...

Will


----------



## mdocod (May 7, 2009)

For the ground screw connection there, keep in mind that the nut I installed under the head of the screw was just there to simulate some space consumed by the thickness of the regulator so as not to mill off too much of the other end of the screw... I'm trying to remember now if that was a 4-40, or 6-32, if it's a 6-32 we can easily drop down to a 4-40 size which will have a smaller screw head size, and the nut below the head can be completely taken out of the final assembly to reduce spacing requirements.


----------



## JimmyM (May 8, 2009)

wquiles said:


> No worries - I happen to have an R2 and D2 in the circuit, and I just did not make the connection back to Star Wars
> 
> Will


Ha ha. I did the same thing. I was like... "What's he talking about, there is no connection. Oh wait... R2-D2. I get it"


----------



## RobertM (May 28, 2009)

wquiles said:


> Well guys, I am going to order the prototype boards soon, and this will be the design I will go with:
> 
> Will



Any updates Will? Have you gotten any prototypes yet?


----------



## wquiles (May 29, 2009)

Not yet as I have been working on a small backlog of projects that I owed a couple of folks, like this one:
https://www.candlepowerforums.com/posts/2965661#post2965661


I still want to get this project moving, so sorry about the delays on my side. I will be updating this thread soon 

Will


----------



## mdocod (May 29, 2009)

Honestly I think we're both backed up on projects, I'm trying to get inventory of various "regular" battery adapters on the shelf desperately hoping to have that done before the regulator is all done, but I need to get a more finalized prototype finished up, which is hard to get in the mind-set to do when in the middle of doing other adapters... I'm hoping to work on that final prototype in the first week of June. We'll see...

-Eric


----------



## wquiles (May 30, 2009)

*Re: The PhD-M6 thread ... proto board ordered!!!*



mdocod said:


> Honestly I think we're both backed up on projects, I'm trying to get inventory of various "regular" battery adapters on the shelf desperately hoping to have that done before the regulator is all done, but I need to get a more finalized prototype finished up, which is hard to get in the mind-set to do when in the middle of doing other adapters... I'm hoping to work on that final prototype in the first week of June. We'll see...
> 
> -Eric



Thanks for the update Eric. First week of June for the new proto holder will work great, since yesterday night I "finally" ordered two prototype boards, and there is usually a week turn around time on those 

Will


----------



## wquiles (May 30, 2009)

RobertM said:


> Any updates Will? Have you gotten any prototypes yet?



I can now say YES, I ordered two prototype boards last night 

Will


----------



## HarryN (Jun 2, 2009)

Hi, I hope this is not too OT. I am taking another baby step with hobby electronics and I wondered if you used Eagle or Eagle lite to design the board? The reason I ask is I am trying to decide which pcb program to learn, eagle lite or Kicad, and both will be a serious learning curve for me.

Also, did you find most of the components already in the libraries or did you have to design your own parts lib first ?

Thanks

Harry


----------



## wquiles (Jun 2, 2009)

HarryN said:


> Hi, I hope this is not to OT. I am taking another baby step with hobby electronics and I wondered if you used Eagle or Eagle lite to design the board? The reason I ask is I am trying to decide which pcb program to learn, eagle lite or Kicad, and both will be a serious learning curve for me.
> 
> Also, did you find most of the components already in the libraries or did you have to design your own parts lib first ?
> 
> ...



Harry, no worries. I am happy to help another forum old-timer (and I mean that as a complement for all of your contributions to the forum through the years I have been here as well).

The topic of what CAD/PWB program to use is just a little bit OT, but definitely worth discussing briefly in this thread. If we get more involved that just a few exchanges, then yes, we should open a new thread as we can then get Alan, Jimmy, George (from TaskLED) and others to participate as each of us is using different CAD tools for our respective projects. 

Each tool/package has pros and cons, and I did try several of them, including the ones Alan and Jimmy use, and to answer your question, yes, Eagle Lite is what I use and it is what I recommend. The tutorials in the Internet are excellent, and there are several forums/guides/examples/etc. available for Eagle 

Will


----------



## JimmyM (Jun 2, 2009)

HarryN said:


> Hi, I hope this is not to OT. I am taking another baby step with hobby electronics and I wondered if you used Eagle or Eagle lite to design the board? The reason I ask is I am trying to decide which pcb program to learn, eagle lite or Kicad, and both will be a serious learning curve for me.
> 
> Also, did you find most of the components already in the libraries or did you have to design your own parts lib first ?
> 
> ...


I use PCB Artist from Advenced Circuits. It's free, very capable, can do 6 layers, but has one big downside. You have to order your boards from Advanced Circuits since the software doesn't produce Gerber files directly. I don't mind ordering from Advanced circuits, their customer service is great and the quality is really very good. Eagle is widely supported on the internet. Maybe at some future date I may switch to Eagle, but I'll have to buy a license to do more than 2 layers. My JM-PhD-D1 uses 4 layers.


----------



## HarryN (Jun 3, 2009)

Thanks for the inputs. Nice board sets.


----------



## RobertM (Jun 3, 2009)

wquiles said:


> I can now say YES, I ordered two prototype boards last night
> 
> Will



Sweet! :twothumbs


----------



## mdocod (Jun 3, 2009)

Quick Update:

I decided to bite the bullet and order a 17mm end-mill earlier today to use on the final prototype. Pricey buggers but the 17mm should make for a nicer fit of the cells and leave more plastic behind on the end-caps to improve rigidity. Most "17mm" cells I have measured are actually no larger than 16.9, with most being smaller than that, so this should be nice... I expect it'll be here in the next few days at which point I'll get rolling on that.


----------



## wquiles (Jun 3, 2009)

Great update Eric !!!

I have been in contact with the proto board manufacturer. It looks like me being a newbie, I send the wrong file in Eagle for the dril file. They contacted me right away, and I have now sent the correct file over to them, so everything is good for now, at least from the files point of view. Whether the boards will be correct or not, depends on how many mistakes I made on my first ever PWB board 

Will


----------



## wquiles (Jun 3, 2009)

Well guys, guess what? Just got an email with the following heading:

"Part Number PHD-M6 PCBs have shipped from Advanced Circuits!"

:devil:


----------



## Alan B (Jun 3, 2009)

wquiles said:


> Well guys, guess what? Just got an email with the following heading:
> 
> "Part Number PHD-M6 PCBs have shipped from Advanced Circuits!"
> 
> :devil:



Neat!

Are you going to solder these with a fine tipped pencil?


----------



## wquiles (Jun 4, 2009)

Alan B said:


> Neat!
> 
> Are you going to solder these with a fine tipped pencil?



Yup. I have a metcal MX-500 with the regular wand all of the surface mount tips (straight, angled, etc.), plus the Talon wand (tweezer style). At least this out to do for the first ones. Depending on actual interest, I can then consider re-flow stuff like you and Jim are using.


----------



## wquiles (Jun 5, 2009)

Well guys, I got the two PhD-M6 proto boards today - alright !!!


(snip) old design ...


Will


----------



## LuxLuthor (Jun 6, 2009)

Damn that is exciting, Will. You must be nearly losing your water over this!  Great advances!


----------



## leukos (Jun 6, 2009)

It is a lot fun to create an original idea and turn it into the real thing. :thumbsup:


----------



## wquiles (Jun 6, 2009)

LuxLuthor said:


> Damn that is exciting, Will. You must be nearly losing your water over this!  Great advances!


Thanks 



leukos said:


> It is a lot fun to create an original idea and turn it into the real thing. :thumbsup:


I am not done, but after several months of work learning the new tools and getting advice from more experienced folks and doing 10 revisions to the original design, to finally hold the little proto board in my hand is very special indeed :thumbsup:


----------



## Alan B (Jun 6, 2009)

Looking good!


----------



## JimmyM (Jun 6, 2009)

wquiles said:


> I am not done, but after several months of work learning the new tools and getting advice from more experienced folks and doing 10 revisions to the original design, to finally hold the little proto board in my hand is very special indeed :thumbsup:


Nothing quite like that feeling. Is there? When I got my boards I was literally yelling "Whoo HOOOO".


----------



## mdocod (Jun 10, 2009)

Need to cut some different threaded rods for it, figure out a way to cut these steel rods a little better...


----------



## leukos (Jun 10, 2009)

Looks stronger. Is there much more resistance with the steel rods as opposed to the brass?


----------



## wquiles (Jun 10, 2009)

mdocod said:


> (snip pics)
> 
> Need to cut some different threaded rods for it, figure out a way to cut these steel rods a little better...



Awesome Eric - I like this prototype version 2 battery pack. The new larger holes will also make it easier to access the DIP switch 

Does this one swapped the battery voltage that I mentioned earlier? I need you to please make this small change so that it lines up with the driver's layout:





Will


----------



## mdocod (Jun 11, 2009)

leukos said:


> Looks stronger. Is there much more resistance with the steel rods as opposed to the brass?



The only current that the steel rod carries is for the Vsense on the regulator. I'm guessing the actual current flow will be almost immeasurable on this part of the circuit. Steel vs brass should have no negative effect on performance. However, steel will make the adapter stronger. (Steel is about double the strength of brass IIRC). 

------------------

Hi Will,

To change the position on the adapter you have, all that you have to do is remove the 3 thumb nuts, slide off the bottom end-cap, and re-install 120 degrees counter-clockwise of the current position (looking down on it from the top of the adapter.) This action will relocate the Vsense contact to where you need it to continue working.

As long as the termination contacts within the adapter are not in the same slot a series connection can be produced. There are 2 possible arrangements of the alignment that will work 

I have one final change I'm considering making to the top-plate: instead of nuts, I'm thinking about blind holes for the threaded rods, and just using the center nut to hold it down. This would eliminate any risk of short circuit if that V-sense rod nut were to back up out of that recessed pocket for some reason. It will also make the final assembly easier and allow that top plate to be thinner if necessary depending on how thick the fully assembled regulator will be...

If you wouldn't mind- can you shoot me the thickness of the PCB, and an estimated total thickness with the various electronics installed? This way I can finalize the milled-down thickness of the negative contact and position the rods for proper clearance before sending it out. That way you can basically just drop on a finished regulator and try it out.

-Eric


----------



## Patriot (Jun 11, 2009)

Amazing work. I'm blown away with this project. You guys are so talented!


----------



## wquiles (Jun 11, 2009)

mdocod said:


> The only current that the steel rod carries is for the Vsense on the regulator. I'm guessing the actual current flow will be almost immeasurable on this part of the circuit. Steel vs brass should have no negative effect on performance. However, steel will make the adapter stronger. (Steel is about double the strength of brass IIRC).


+1. Steel vs. brass should be of little if any significance in this application.





mdocod said:


> Hi Will,
> 
> To change the position on the adapter you have, all that you have to do is remove the 3 thumb nuts, slide off the bottom end-cap, and re-install 120 degrees counter-clockwise of the current position (looking down on it from the top of the adapter.) This action will relocate the Vsense contact to where you need it to continue working.
> 
> ...


Cool - I did not realize it was that easy to change 

I will measure the board tonight and will make the estimate for the tallest part, which I suspect it will be the DIP switch, if not it will be the FET.

Will


----------



## wquiles (Jun 11, 2009)

Eric,

The board measured at around 0.065" in thickness using my calipers.

The DIP switch is 0.150" (+/- 0.004") tall.

The TO-252 SM FET is only 0.094" tall, so we can use the DIP switch as the tallest component.

I would go ahead and leave another 0.010"-0.020" or so of additional clearance - I don't want to call it "that" close


----------



## mdocod (Jun 11, 2009)

That's perfect. I was planning on the ~0.210-0.240" range for space in there. So we'll be just fine


----------



## Alan B (Jun 11, 2009)

Thanks guys. This looks so nice you are making me want an M6. :shakehead

But I need to buy aluminum sleds. 

Keep the priorities straight now. lovecpf


----------



## wquiles (Jun 11, 2009)

mdocod said:


> That's perfect. I was planning on the ~0.210-0.240" range for space in there. So we'll be just fine


Awesome dude!




Alan B said:


> Thanks guys. This looks so nice you are making me want an M6. :shakehead
> 
> But I need to buy aluminum sleds.
> 
> Keep the priorities straight now. lovecpf


Thanks Alan. It is because of your interest/work in the PWM and PhD project(s) and your continued support that we have been able to get this far, so thank you very much :twothumbs


----------



## mdocod (Jun 22, 2009)

Howdy Will!

I'm headed to the post office here in a few hours when they open up. I kept holding off to make minor little changes and am finally satisfied. 

When you receive this it will be basically ready for the driver install, cells, and go. No further cutting or milling or anything. Loosen the top center nut to gain access to the implantation zone (remove top "cover plate"), remove the 4 brass nuts from the standing studs and the screw/nut that makeup the negative contact for the battery adapter and board. Remove the "PCB thickness simulation device," drop board on with correct alignment, re-install all fasteners snugging into position slightly, re-install top cover with center brass nut. Take note of blind holes for the steel rods to line up into. (I use the blade of a flat-head screwdriver to tighten up that recessed center nut by wedging it between the nut and the inside edge of the recessed pocket and twist into place.)

You may find use of some of the stand-off nuts or other fasteners included in the previous package to finalize things. 

You should be able to fire up an M6 as soon as you're ready with this one 

-Eric


----------



## wquiles (Jun 22, 2009)

Eric,

Awesome - look forward to seeing the new prototype. 

On my side, I did some Ohm measurements on the proto boards, and everything checked out. I have to also make some changes/improvements in the layout, but I will wait to get the new protopack so that I will get everything perfectly aligned.

Thanks much,
Will


----------



## wquiles (Jun 26, 2009)

Eric,

Got the second prototype yesterday. I had seen your photos and knew what to expect, but now that I have it on my hands, I have to tell you that it is very impressive - nice job :twothumbs

Will


----------



## mdocod (Jun 27, 2009)

Excellent!

I'm headed out of state on Vacation till ~July 8th, I should be able to get on here once and awhile while I'm there as I believe they still have net access set up. 

I look forward to seeing a completed model! Hopefully in the weeks following my vacation we can get this thing finalized and go into production mode eh?

-Eric


----------



## wquiles (Jun 28, 2009)

mdocod said:


> Excellent!
> 
> I'm headed out of state on Vacation till ~July 8th, I should be able to get on here once and awhile while I'm there as I believe they still have net access set up.
> 
> ...



Sounds good Eric. As always, I am juggling several projects, but I am finding time to spend on this one, so progress will be made 

Will


----------



## wquiles (Jul 2, 2009)

Eric,

I know right now you are on vacation, and I might not get my answer until the 8th, but I have a question regarding the diameter of the battery pack. 

I started looking at how much larger can I make the next PWB so that I can achieve better spacing between the rod holes and components, and also trying on both of SF-M6's, and it seems that the diameter of the pack can be larger than it is - in fact, it is almost too small diameter-wise.

- the original prototype battery pack measured approx. 1.379" in diameter
- the new prototype pack measures approx. 1.381" in diameter 
- both of my standard MB-20 SureFire battery packs for the M6 measures approx. 1.445-6" in diameter.
- the inside diameter of one of my SureFire M6 measures approx. 1.469" in diameter
- the inside diameter of my other (older) SureFire M6 measures approx. 1.476" in diameter

If I go the "safe" route and select a size closer to the factory battery pack of 1.450" +0 / -0.005", I should have plenty of room inside the M6, and this would give us more room for a larger PWB, larger spacing, larger traces, etc... You would not have to change any other dimension other than the overall diameter, that is, assuming that the un-cut piece of Delrin/plastic you are using is originally close to 1.5" in diameter to start with 

Please let me know for sure when you get back as I would like to start re-layout based on the larger available diameter :devil:

Will


----------



## wquiles (Jul 17, 2009)

Eric,

Have you been able to look at this to see if we can indeed go slightly larger diameter?

Will


----------



## mdocod (Jul 18, 2009)

Hi Will,

Somehow I totally missed that thread update, subscription notice didn't pop until your post on 7/17... 

I'm trying to figure if there is some way to do this, I am in agreement that a 1.45" diameter rod would be *ideal...*

Right now, I'm just using 1.375" rod and using it "straight up" without machining down the diameter. I've been using bare rod in this fashion in all my battery adapters since I started doing this. 

I have some 1.75" rod on hand here that I used to make a 16x18650 adapter for a CPF member a few weeks ago on a custom project. I will order some materials and build a "jig" of sorts to mill it down to ~1.45" and try to re-make the adapter from that.... Sorry I didn't notice your post on this sooner. I'll try to get cranking on this asap 

-Eric


----------



## wquiles (Jul 19, 2009)

Eric,

No worries man. Take your time and keep us posted :thumbsup:

Will


----------



## wquiles (Aug 6, 2009)

I am buying 1.5" Black dia Acetal (Delrin) for a Diving Light project, but it is also available in "white" (or natural) so we should be OK in terms of the availability, but it is a little bit more expensive than the thinner stuff.

Will


----------



## 325addict (Aug 9, 2009)

I might tell here a double-posted thing, but time is scarce now, and before I have read that 10 pages I wrote down what I'm designing at the moment:

A hotwire regulator for the M6, that has NO separate on/off switch on the electronics, doesn't require ANY mod to the M6 and can be applied/built into Mdocods 2X 18650 holder, or FM's 3X 17670 holder. It won't add ANY length to it....

It will incorporate a softstart, and a deep-discharge protection, so it can be used with those unprotected 18650s anybody seems to have by the lorryload (including me).

Of course, output voltage can be varied, but NOT by using a microcontroller, just turn that pot and you'll be ready 

I'm off for a week in short, in that time I don't drive (1500km X2) I'll be fine-tuning the schematics and when home, I'll try if it works on a breadboard 

This one will be easy to use by anyone, and nothing can go wrong... well, nothing... ANYTHING can break down, but it will be hard to do anything wrong here... if you put in both batteries the wrong way, you may end up with an instaflash (as the reverse diode inside of the MOSFET will start to conduct current like wild) but the rest of the electronics will be fine!


Timmo.


----------



## JimmyM (Aug 9, 2009)

325addict said:


> I might tell here a double-posted thing, but time is scarce now, and before I have read that 10 pages I wrote down what I'm designing at the moment:
> 
> A hotwire regulator for the M6, that has NO separate on/off switch on the electronics, doesn't require ANY mod to the M6 and can be applied/built into Mdocods 2X 18650 holder, or FM's 3X 17670 holder. It won't add ANY length to it....
> 
> ...



Soooo. You're building pretty much the exact same thing Will is, except with a pot like I have.
Am I missing something?


----------



## Alan B (Aug 9, 2009)

JimmyM said:


> Soooo. You're building pretty much the exact same thing Will is, except with a pot like I have.
> Am I missing something?



It sounds like an interesting design challenge, but it probably belongs in its own thread.


----------



## wquiles (Aug 9, 2009)

325addict said:


> I might tell here a double-posted thing, but time is scarce now, and before I have read that 10 pages I wrote down what I'm designing at the moment:
> 
> A hotwire regulator for the M6, that has NO separate on/off switch on the electronics, doesn't require ANY mod to the M6 and can be applied/built into Mdocods 2X 18650 holder, or FM's 3X 17670 holder. It won't add ANY length to it....
> 
> ...



Timmo,

Like Alan stated, sounds like a great project, but you should really start a new thread so that you can keep your project separate from mine - it would be way too confusing to keep both projects done by different people, in a single thread.

Keep us posted 

Will


----------



## 325addict (Aug 9, 2009)

Maybe I am building quite the same. Problem was, I always needed EITHER both sides of the switch (which is impossible, because one side is the barrel of the light itself!) OR I had to use an extra switch, to switch off the electronics after use.
Either ways are unacceptable.

So now I finally found a way to power the electronics without an extra switch and without the need for the outgoing main-switch contact.... how I fixed it, remains a secret for a while 

Timmo.

EDIT: I will stop posting here and open my own thread - in a weeks' time or so, when I'm back and have the first prototype running


----------



## mdocod (Sep 3, 2009)

Hi Will,

Have you had a chance lately to work on a board layout for the new larger diameter design?

As you know I have the new larger rotary/indexing table and it's setup and working well... 1.450" diameter should be no problem now.

I've just ordered a few pieces/parts and am going to make some minor changes to the tail end along with the larger diameter we discussed. The positioning of rods/contacts will remain the same, unless you want to look at other layout options... I do have an idea for a change in design that may be desirable if the final PCB design has some flexibility: After building a non-regulated pack with a center threaded rod, I'm tempted by the concept of running a center threaded rod, and milling down a thumb nut for the center on the tail, and having 3 nylon support rods around the outside like my other project designs. This would move the V-sense of the circuit to the center rather than on the outside... The idea introduces some complication in how to get the output from the regulator to the top plate, but I'm sure it's nothing a little brain-storming couldn't solve... Let me know what you think about this...

I also have incoming, some brass flat bar stock to build some soft-jaws out of; that will make working on these adapters on this new rig much more friendly 

-Eric


----------



## wquiles (Sep 3, 2009)

Eric,

Go ahead with the center threaded rod idea - I like the concept. True, I would have to move things around on the board, but I will have to move things anyway to accommodate the larger diameter board. The larger size board also gives more flexibility in locating parts, so this is perfect timing :twothumbs

Once you have a better idea of where I can pick up the 3 signals, I can do the new layout:
- Battery (+) - connected to the bulb
- Battery (-) - internal connection only to the driver
- Fake Ground - connected to the bulb

Will


----------



## mdocod (Sep 29, 2009)

Yet another prototype that will not be the final design but did answer numerous questions and get us that much closer.... 

By the time we've gone through all the possibilities, every possible poor design element will have been eliminated, lol... These regulated adapters are going to be top notch.

-Eric


----------



## wquiles (Sep 29, 2009)

mdocod said:


> Yet another prototype that will not be the final design but did answer numerous questions and get us that much closer....
> 
> By the time we've gone through all the possibilities, every possible poor design element will have been eliminated, lol... These regulated adapters are going to be top notch.
> 
> -Eric



Dude, that looks really sharp, and it also looks more sturdy/solid than the earlier prototypes - like you said, getting better and better 

Will


----------



## leukos (Sep 29, 2009)

Looks super, Eric!

I hope this project hasn't lost too much steam, I would still be very interested in seeing it come to fruition.


----------



## RobertM (Sep 30, 2009)

mdocod said:


> Yet another prototype that will not be the final design but did answer numerous questions and get us that much closer....
> 
> By the time we've gone through all the possibilities, every possible poor design element will have been eliminated, lol... These regulated adapters are going to be top notch.
> 
> -Eric



That looks really nice, Eric!


I am patiently awaiting developments with this project.


----------



## Patriot (Sep 30, 2009)

Very clean design Eric. That thing looks more like a production unit than a proto. Great work, as usual.


----------



## alantch (Oct 28, 2009)




----------



## RobertM (Nov 4, 2009)

Will, any updates?


----------



## wquiles (Nov 4, 2009)

Yes 

Just a couple of days ago Eric shared with me the new size and location of the holes, so I will start the new larger board layout this coming weekend 

Will


----------



## wquiles (Nov 7, 2009)

Latest board out for review ...

(snip) old design ...


----------



## alantch (Nov 29, 2009)

Awaiting patiently for any updates


----------



## wquiles (Nov 30, 2009)

I received the new prototype battery carrier/adapter from Eric, so I will be using it to verify the locations of the holes, edges, etc. on my latest board (by printing a 1-1 board on my laser printer). I also have pending some layout mods based on feedback from various forum members, so I hope to get these done and order some boards to try out. I am still juggling 20 other projects so I can't give you a definite date, but it is still moving forward :thumbsup:


----------



## wquiles (Jan 13, 2010)

Just a quick update: On December I lost my VMware WinXP partition which I run under Ubuntu, but luckily I had an older backup so I only lost very little. I now have re-installed Eagle on a separate WinXP laptop, and now that the holidays are over I will get the design updated from the older backups trying to incorporate the changes Eric did on his latest prototype and of course the larger diameter size.


----------



## mdocod (Jan 13, 2010)

Sounds great Will. Thank you for the update. 

Hopefully we can start producing these things soon. Let me know if you need any further changes to the adapter. I have no problem continuing to tweak the design till this thing is perfect.

-Eric


----------



## brunt_sp (Jan 31, 2010)

This is a great project. One question though - A lot of M6 owners will have converted their tailcaps to accept the AW softstart or AW McClicky switches. In doing so, some will have ruined the original tailcap internals. Will your PHD setup work with such a modified tailcap?


----------



## Steve in SoCal (Jan 31, 2010)

mdocod said:


> Hi donn,
> 
> 
> William Lafferty had requested to see some comparisons, I'm just going to throw in the 3x17670 options here for comparison. 3 17670s just slightly edges out over 2 18650s as far as total stored energy goes... but not by a lot, and it depends on what cells are compared. So the reason for wanting 3x17670s over 2x18650 is really more to do with having more voltage to work with, than anything else. With the higher voltage we can regulate a large number of bulb options through the entire discharge. As for 3x17670 or 2x18650 in LiMn (IMR) chemistry, the total stored energy will be very very similar, again, the 3x17670 option will provide the advantage of more voltage to work with..
> ...


 I am definitely in for this. What would be the estimated runtimes for LF's applicable 2 li-ion bulbs?


----------



## wquiles (Jan 31, 2010)

brunt_sp said:


> This is a great project. One question though - A lot of M6 owners will have converted their tailcaps to accept the AW softstart or AW McClicky switches. In doing so, some will have ruined the original tailcap internals. Will your PHD setup work with such a modified tailcap?


Eric and I are doing the regulated battery pack assuming an OEM M6, so I honestly don't know since I don't own these AW products and don't know what is changed in the tailcap.



Steve in SoCal said:


> I am definitely in for this. What would be the estimated runtimes for LF's applicable 2 li-ion bulbs?


Runtimes are calculated based on the draw from the bulb and the capacity of the cells in question. In this intro post I have the equations that I use to estimate runtimes which you can use to come up with some estimated values:
link ...


----------



## wquiles (Feb 10, 2010)

OK folks, thanks to much help from George I have an updated version that looks good. I will be ordering a few boards, hopefully this week:

(snip) old design ...

Will


----------



## leukos (Feb 10, 2010)




----------



## JimmyM (Feb 10, 2010)

Looking good, Will.


----------



## wquiles (Feb 14, 2010)

OK, more checup work before ordering boards. Today I printed a one-to-one copy to see how it lines up with Eric's awesome prototype (this is the WinXP laptop running the Eagle software that I alluded to earlier that is replacing my VmWare virtual image that was lost):

(snip) old design ...

Right now I am scheduling to order boards from Advanced Circuits. I generated the Gerber files, and submitted them to their free Design File Check Service (FreeDFM) - I am now just waiting to hear back from them if they found anything I need to fix before placing the actual order.

Will


----------



## mdocod (Feb 15, 2010)

Awesome update! Great picts!

Starting to look like we might be able to start production here pretty soon. 

I have a question for the interested audience:

In the final version, we really only need to have 1 of those 3 pie shaped holes cut-out of the top plate to access the switch. However, my gut tells me that the unit looks cooler with all 3 holes. Theoretically, the unit would be stronger with the single hole but I doubt it would make much difference. Which would you prefer?

-Eric


----------



## alantch (Feb 15, 2010)

Me wanna see the electronics, so 3 holes. Makes it look more high tech. But that's just me.


----------



## leukos (Feb 15, 2010)

Fantastic update, Will! :thumbsup:




mdocod said:


> I have a question for the interested audience:
> 
> In the final version, we really only need to have 1 of those 3 pie shaped holes cut-out of the top plate to access the switch. However, my gut tells me that the unit looks cooler with all 3 holes. Theoretically, the unit would be stronger with the single hole but I doubt it would make much difference. Which would you prefer?
> 
> -Eric


 
Eric, I might just fill mine with epoxy to make the pcb more durable and water resistant, so it does not matter whether there are three holes or one for my uses.


----------



## wquiles (Feb 15, 2010)

mdocod said:


> Awesome update! Great picts!


Thanks much Eric, and my appologies to you and everyone else following this thread for the delays on my side in getting this project moving.




mdocod said:


> Starting to look like we might be able to start production here pretty soon.


I wanted to set the expectation that these boards that I am ordering any moment now will not be for production, but for testing and developing the software tweaks needed for this specific implementation for the M6. At a high level, the next steps that I see coming are:
- Wait to hear from the board manufacturer. Assuming the boards checks OK, I will be ordering 4 boards (minimum at the price of $33 each, plus shipping).
- Assuming I don't have a major boo-boo in these boards, I will then build the programing head which which I will use during development (think of a torture bed of spring-loaded pins coming from above).
- I will then build and solder at least 1 or 2 of those boards to be used for testing and writing the software.
- Start the firmware changes for these boards, test, debug, fix, etc., until I get fairly stable firmware. This will probably take the longest.
- I will then plan to build the other 2 boards so that I have a total of 4 running boards.
- I will then work with Eric to have him build additional packs for these additional boards, so that we can start field testing.
- I plan on keeping one board, and then send out the other 3 boards for specialized selected "guinea pigs", I mean, Alpha testers.
- Next steps will be decided based on those initial field tests. Depending on this real world usage, we can then talk about a Beta phase, and/or small/initial production run.

Will


----------



## RobertM (Feb 16, 2010)

It is great to see that this project is still moving forward! I can't wait to see an end-product down the road.



-Robert


----------



## wquiles (Mar 12, 2010)

OK guys, thanks to help from George, I am now fixing two small areas that would have been highly likely to create shorts, so I am now making the changes so that I can re-submit the Gerber files to the board house. Making progress 

Will


----------



## wquiles (Mar 28, 2010)

Just ordered two boards with the new design to start debugging :devil:

I will post some pictures as soon as they arrive


----------



## mdocod (Mar 28, 2010)

Excellent!

Keep at it! I'll try to build a small batch of adapters to send your way in the coming weeks so that as you are experimenting with boards you can start installing them and trying them out. 

Eric


----------



## wquiles (Mar 30, 2010)

mdocod said:


> Excellent!
> 
> Keep at it! I'll try to build a small batch of adapters to send your way in the coming weeks so that as you are experimenting with boards you can start installing them and trying them out.
> 
> Eric



Awesome!

I am now waiting for the boards to arrive. I have a lot of the surface mount parts already, but not everything, so I will be placing an order with Digikey shortly to get the key parts that I don't have. That way I will be able to build one board and start the software development part


----------



## wquiles (Mar 30, 2010)

Just got an email from the manufacturer that they just shipped the proto boards :twothumbs


----------



## wquiles (Mar 31, 2010)

Besides the round PCB, here are the parts for this project - everything is surface mount:

(snip) old design ...

I had most of these in stock already, so my order was just for 5 of these 14 items from Digikey. 

I will keep updating the thread as I start getting the boards and these parts


----------



## leukos (Apr 1, 2010)

All I can post are thumbs up and popcorn! :thumbsup:


----------



## JimmyM (Apr 1, 2010)

wquiles said:


> Besides the round PCB, here are the parts for this project - everything is surface mount:
> 
> I will keep updating the thread as I start getting the boards and these parts



Exciting stuff. I'm always giddy when my package from Digikey arrives.
I love the smell of my reflow oven, it smells like cool stuff getting made.


----------



## wquiles (Apr 1, 2010)

JimmyM said:


> I love the smell of my reflow oven, it smells like cool stuff getting made.



By the way, which reflow oven did you pick? I am thinking I need one as well. Any tips/recommendations in picking one up? :devil:


----------



## JimmyM (Apr 1, 2010)

wquiles said:


> By the way, which reflow oven did you pick? I am thinking I need one as well. Any tips/recommendations in picking one up? :devil:


I built mine. I bought 2 "Bella Cucina" 1500W convection ovens from Macy's for $30 each.
My "Kill-a-Watt" shows it only uses 1300W. It was a little slow, so I took the elements from the other oven and installed them in the 1st. Re wired it for 220V. Now it's 2600W and I use a TechFX reflow controller. I'd like to make a few tweaks for better thermal profile control, but it works pretty well as it is.
You can buy a cheap IR reflow oven for about $800. http://www.smtvip.net/Show.aspx?PID=509


----------



## wquiles (Apr 1, 2010)

JimmyM said:


> I built mine. I bought 2 "Bella Cucina" 1500W convection ovens from Macy's for $30 each.
> My "Kill-a-Watt" shows it only uses 1300W. It was a little slow, so I took the elements from the other oven and installed them in the 1st. Re wired it for 220V. Now it's 2600W and I use a TechFX reflow controller. I'd like to make a few tweaks for better thermal profile control, but it works pretty well as it is.
> You can buy a cheap IR reflow oven for about $800. http://www.smtvip.net/Show.aspx?PID=509



Ouch :sick2: $800 is a little too steep for me 

How about using a hot plate with temperature feedback/control?


----------



## JimmyM (Apr 1, 2010)

wquiles said:


> Ouch :sick2: $800 is a little too steep for me
> 
> How about using a hot plate with temperature feedback/control?


That can work. Others have done it. One issue will be the cool down of the board after the paste melts. You don't want to move the board while things are liquid, but you need to cool it off faster than just shutting off the heat. A good fan should do it. For small boards, I read an article about a guy that bolted aluminum bodied power resistors to the bottom of an aluminum plate and used a variable power supply to drive current into the resistors/heaters.


----------



## Alan B (Apr 1, 2010)

I've had great luck with my setup. A board heater and hot air pencil rework station. Cost about $250 new. Need it for rework anyway, and good for modest production.

For real low cost approaches, look in the ham radio QRP websites. I skipped over that gear myself but they use a mug warmer and a hot air embossing pencil. Total cost about $30. Works well for many folks.

The trick is the board preheat on the mug warmer is not enough to melt solder, so the hot air ticks it over the top, and then the hot air is removed. The solder solidifies and then it is safe to pick the board up from the preheat.

I do the same on my rework station. Preheat for a couple min (follow the paste time/temperature curve). Then sweep the hot air over the board and watch it solder. Then remove the hot air. The solder immediately sets. Then turn off the preheat.

There is a guy that sells small syringes of paste. The commercial syringes are too large for these small runs and the stuff spoils if you don't use it fast enough. Cash Olsen sells small syringes for $5 each. I built 40 boards on my first syringe and only used about half of it. Search for "Cash Olsen solder paste" to find him.


----------



## wquiles (Apr 1, 2010)

Alan B said:


> I've had great luck with my setup. A board heater and hot air pencil rework station. Cost about $250 new. Need it for rework anyway, and good for modest production.


That looks more aligned with my budget. You mean a station like this one:
http://gsmserver.com/shop/equipment/soldering_sssembly/hot_air/lukey_898_digital_hot_air_rework_station_solder.php

or this one:
http://www.soldertoolsdepot.com/productsdirect.asp?dept=479&main=79&item1=15143+TL&item2=16121+TL

Can you please share with me the specific items/models you got?

EDIT: By the way, I did find Cash Olsen's site and ordered two of the syringes - thanks


----------



## JimmyM (Apr 1, 2010)

This is the rework station I got.
http://www.sra-solder.com/aoyue_968.htm

This is similar to the pre-heater I use for rework. I bought mine from them, but they no longer carry the exact station. Although the price is the same. (IIRC)
http://www.sra-solder.com/aoyue_853.htm


----------



## HarryN (Apr 1, 2010)

I am switching over to reflow soldering as well, but my method is bit more crude. My brother made an Al "cake pan" for me with 1/2 thick walls. The plan is to use the gas grill for the 2 stages (pre-heat and reflow), then move it to a table for cool down. Getting the cool down stage right will most likely be the hardest.

Thanks for the solder link.


----------



## Yavox (Apr 1, 2010)

Sorry guys for a stupid question, but what is the status of the driver today? I just discovered this thread, started reading from the beginning, noticed that I am in 2008, skipped here... anyone to give me a hint about the availability of this device without reading through all this stuff? (yes, I am a bit lazy today, I know...)


----------



## mdocod (Apr 1, 2010)

Hello Yavox,

We're still punching out the finer details. No product is available for sale yet but I assure you, I am dedicated to this project and exciting to help see it through to production runs. Estimating time-frames in product development is of course not always feasible. 

In post #328 above in this thread, Will has outlined a rough plan for the steps involved still ahead of us. 

Keep an eye on this thread. Updates are steadily streaming in on progress.

Eric


----------



## wquiles (Apr 1, 2010)

Yavox said:


> Sorry guys for a stupid question, but what is the status of the driver today? I just discovered this thread, started reading from the beginning, noticed that I am in 2008, skipped here... anyone to give me a hint about the availability of this device without reading through all this stuff? (yes, I am a bit lazy today, I know...)



Well, that is totally my fault. I was over-committed on too many custom projects, at another point I lost my job and put this on hold, and then when I re-started my VMware partition for WinXP where I did the design crashed and I lost the most recent design, "plus" at the same time I am still learning how to do CAD design with Eagle - this is the first ever board I have done. Long story and lots of excuses - what counts is that I am back on the project 

So as to status:
- The project consists of a custom battery holder designed and built by mdocod (Eric), and a programmable driver designed and build by yours truly, with lots of helps from George, Alan, and Jimmy. We now have a 3rd iteration of the custom battery pack, and just today (!!!) I received the 2nd prototype boards. This photo I just took 10 minutes ago shows the latest pack from Eric along with the 2 proto boards I just received:

(snip) old design ...


- I also placed an order from Digikey last night for the surface mount parts that I did not have in stock, and once I get those I will then solder the first board.

- That board will then be used to fine-tweak/change the original algorithm by Alan so that it works with the unique requirements for this "pack" for the M6.

- Before I do the actual programming, however, I have to create a programming "bed of pins" so that I can program boards since I did not have the space for the 6-pin programming header - this will be "interesting" to say the least, but George game me an idea which I think will work great :devil:

Just keep subscribed to this thread so that you can get updates as they come out


----------



## Yavox (Apr 1, 2010)

Thank you for such a quick answer. :thumbsup: 

Will your driver run with 3x18650 Megalennium and WA1111 bulb? If so, what runtime should be expected?

Edit: any estimations as to the price?

Adam

Edit2: I just had a look at #328 and previous posts. You are going to make regulated BATTERY PACK!!! (what a surprise, I was still thinking it is going to be a tailcap modification, after reading only the beginning of this thread). I guess I should withdraw the Megalennium quesion...


----------



## wquiles (Apr 1, 2010)

Yes, this will be a regulated incandescent driver with built-in soft start, which will offer the user 4 pre-configured voltages, which could support various bulbs based on 3x17670:

SF N1 @ ~5.1V: ~80L, ~150-180 minutes (~115 minutes on IMR)
MN15 @ ~7.6V: ~140L, ~100-120 minutes (~75 minutes on IMR)
GE787 @ ~7.4V: ~225L, ~50-70 minutes (~40 minutes on IMR)
MN16 @ ~7.2V: ~300L, ~45-55 minutes ( ~30 minutes on IMR)
MN20 @ ~7.6V: ~300L, ~45-55 minutes (~30 minutes on IMR)
1111/64250: ~7.4V: ~500L ~25-35 minutes (~25 minutes on IMR)
MN21 @ ~7.0V: ~700L, ~20-30 minutes (~20 minutes on IMR)
64275 @ ~7.4V: ~850L, ~13-15 minutes on IMR ONLY (requires grinding of bulb base)
1164 @ ~9.8V: ~900L, ~15-18 minutes on IMR ONLY

We have not selected which 4 of these will be in the first version, but here is a good suggestion on 4 voltage set points:

Bulb option #1: N1 (several 6V WA lamps too) @ approx 4.8V (This would be our nice low lamp, longer runtime option)

Bulb option #2: MN21/MN16/WA 1111/ LF EO-M3T @ approx 6.8V (This would be one of our high output options)

Bulb option #3: MN20/MN15/N2/LF HO-M3T @ approx 7.4V (This would be all our practical bulbs)

Bulb option #4: MN61/N62/WA 1185 @ approx 10.8V (This would be our ultra high output lamps)

NOTE: The set points are just a suggestion at this point. None of this is final.


----------



## wquiles (Apr 1, 2010)

JimmyM said:


> This is the rework station I got.
> http://www.sra-solder.com/aoyue_968.htm
> 
> This is similar to the pre-heater I use for rework. I bought mine from them, but they no longer carry the exact station. Although the price is the same. (IIRC)
> http://www.sra-solder.com/aoyue_853.htm



I reviewed these and decided to order them - might as well stick with what works - thanks


----------



## wquiles (Apr 1, 2010)

Guess what? The proto boards do fit as expected :twothumbs

(snip) old design ...


Making progress


----------



## JimmyM (Apr 2, 2010)

Very nice. Getting close.
I don't remember if you mentioned programming. But is your intent to use another board and mount pogo pins in the programming holes?

Got to watch the clearance between the nut at 12 o'clock and the trace going to the Tiny45


----------



## JimmyM (Apr 2, 2010)

wquiles said:


> I reviewed these and decided to order them - might as well stick with what works - thanks



Just make sure you remove the shipping screw from the bottom of the 968 before use. One annoying thing about the 968 (but completely logical) is that after turning off the SMD hot air pencil, the air pump goes to high to cool off the pencil. Just more noise than I like.
The quartz heater shown looks like a newer model than mine. Mine is slow to warm up, but works fine. On one cold night in the basement, I turned it on its side and used it as a radiant heater for my hands while I worked.


----------



## wquiles (Apr 2, 2010)

JimmyM said:


> I don't remember if you mentioned programming. But is your intent to use another board and mount pogo pins in the programming holes?


Basically yes - that is what I mean above by a "bed of pins", and why I ordered two boards at this time. I already have a discarded programming fixture from work that we used to program phone handsets and bases that I think could be modified to accept a new module, and it has the spring-loaded pins that I hope to re-use.




JimmyM said:


> Got to watch the clearance between the nut at 12 o'clock and the trace going to the Tiny45


Yes, that one turned out to be a tad too close, although that one does not conduct any power/signal so a short is not "bad", but I will still likely move the trace to give myself more room on the next board run. I also have to work with Eric to put a small flat washer under each nut so that the nut will not break/tear-apart the trace as the nut is tighened - lots of little details will come up as we move forward


----------



## wquiles (Apr 2, 2010)

JimmyM said:


> Just make sure you remove the shipping screw from the bottom of the 968 before use. One annoying thing about the 968 (but completely logical) is that after turning off the SMD hot air pencil, the air pump goes to high to cool off the pencil. Just more noise than I like.
> The quartz heater shown looks like a newer model than mine. Mine is slow to warm up, but works fine. On one cold night in the basement, I turned it on its side and used it as a radiant heater for my hands while I worked.



Cool - thanks for the tips. Since my board is roughly the same size as yours, what temp settings do you use on the 968 and on the heater for your boards?


----------



## JimmyM (Apr 2, 2010)

wquiles said:


> Cool - thanks for the tips. Since my board is roughly the same size as yours, what temp settings do you use on the 968 and on the heater for your boards?



For rework I use 180C on the pre-heater. Tem on the pencil depends on what I'm soldering. An FET and the Tiny44 get 265C with a lot of air and a large nozzle. For passives I use 285C less air and a small nozzle.

For reflowing the whole board, I'd go to 180-190C in the preheater, and use 265C and a medium nozzle. Try it on a test board to see. You just don't want to cook your chips.


----------



## wquiles (Apr 2, 2010)

JimmyM said:


> For rework I use 180C on the pre-heater. Tem on the pencil depends on what I'm soldering. An FET and the Tiny44 get 265C with a lot of air and a large nozzle. For passives I use 285C less air and a small nozzle.
> 
> For reflowing the whole board, I'd go to 180-190C in the preheater, and use 265C and a medium nozzle. Try it on a test board to see. You just don't want to cook your chips.



Awesome - thanks much :twothumbs


----------



## JimmyM (Apr 2, 2010)

wquiles said:


> Awesome - thanks much :twothumbs


What kind of flux is in that paste? Is it water soluble? If not, do you have a means to clean the flux off afterwards?


----------



## wquiles (Apr 2, 2010)

JimmyM said:


> What kind of flux is in that paste? Is it water soluble? If not, do you have a means to clean the flux off afterwards?



Based on Alan's recommendation I ordered this one:
http://www.kd5ssj.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=120&Itemid=54

which is Kester Easy Profile 256 solder paste:
http://www.kd5ssj.com/images/stories/documents/EP256%20Global%20%2810Jul04%29.pdf


----------



## JimmyM (Apr 2, 2010)

wquiles said:


> Based on Alan's recommendation I got this one:
> http://www.kd5ssj.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=120&Itemid=54
> 
> which is Kester Easy Profile 256 solder paste:
> http://www.kd5ssj.com/images/stories/documents/EP256 Global (10Jul04).pdf



OK. That should do fine. Happy re-flowing.


----------



## wquiles (Apr 2, 2010)

JimmyM said:


> OK. That should do fine. Happy re-flowing.



Thank you. I have never done re-flowing, but I have watched a couple of youtube videos and it looks "doable" with my limited skill set, so I am hopeful that by using a good setup and equipment the learning curve will not be too long


----------



## Alan B (Apr 2, 2010)

For temperatures, look at the paste data. They give the temperature curves for preheat. I break that down into preheat temperature and time, and flow temperature and time. So it is just four numbers to keep track of when doing the work. The flow time is a max, it should be done earlier than that.

Different solders require different temperatures and times. The Kester easy profile is pretty forgiving and the flux doesn't have to be cleaned up - it is non corrosive and similar to hand soldering flux.

The only problem I had when learning to do this was trying too long to get the paste to flow. If it doesn't go within the time window (some part of it doesn't go) then don't keep trying past the time limit. Just solder that bit with a pencil. I had that happen a few times early on when I didn't get the hot air all the way around a part and in the backwash the paste dried out and then the solder wouldn't flow there. Touching it with a pencil and some 0.010 solder instantly fixed it. After the first few boards I didn't have to retouch any more so it improved with practice.

I started on a practice board rather than my real parts/boards. Sparkfun has some SMT kits that make good practice.


----------



## wquiles (Apr 2, 2010)

Awesome - thanks much for the advice Alan :thumbsup:


----------



## mdocod (Apr 2, 2010)

Just to confirm, the nut at "12 o'clock" is non-electrically active and insulted from any electrically active part of the system.

I wouldn't expect it to pose any threat to the system if it shorted out on that trace. 

Great progress here. I'm excited to get the ball rolling. Little washers under the nuts won't be a problem. When I get some money together and place my next order with mcmaster I'll pick up a box of little washers to work with. 

Eric


----------



## wquiles (Apr 2, 2010)

mdocod said:


> Just to confirm, the nut at "12 o'clock" is non-electrically active and insulted from any electrically active part of the system.
> 
> I wouldn't expect it to pose any threat to the system if it shorted out on that trace.



Yes, we are in the same page as to which is connected/active or not, but so that everyone following this thread can be aligned, here is the connectivity for all five of them, going clock-wise starting at 12 o'clock and finishing on the center one:

(snip) old design ...

12 o'clock - not active

2-3 o'clock - ACTIVE - this is the terminal that goes to the external "negative" side of the battery pack and is connected to the negative side of the bulb when the circuit is closed (tailcap closed or button pressed). Basically this is the new ground that is being switched ON/OFF to create the PWM signal.

6 o-clock but closer to the center pin/nut - ACTIVE - this is the "internal" ground for the batteries and for the electronic circuitry - this is isolated from the negative side of the battery pack. 

7-8 o'clock - not active

center - ACTIVE - this is the positive side of the battery pack, and it is also connected externally to the opposite of the battery pack which goes to the positive side of the bulb. It is always connected to the bulb.

Will


----------



## mdocod (Apr 3, 2010)

Man, are we geeky or what?


----------



## JimmyM (Apr 3, 2010)

mdocod said:


> Man, are we geeky or what?


You have a gift for understatement.


----------



## wquiles (Apr 5, 2010)

mdocod said:


> Man, are we geeky or what?



Yes, we are :duh2: :huh: oo: 


OK, so the package from Digikey arrived 

(snip) old design ...

Of course, one of the most interesting pieces I wanted to see in the flesh was the actual surface mount 2 position switch:

(snip) old design ...

And it seems to line up just fine on the proto board #2 with the top OFF:

(snip) old design ...

and with the top ON:

(snip) old design ...


Eric => this also means that we don't have to make those holes as large in the next packs. For this proto pack you did all 3 holes to give me more flexibility of testing, but for the production pack we should only have the one hole which will make it a little bit simpler for you to implement.


and we are doing GREAT on the height side of the equation as well 

(snip) old design ...

I am now waiting for the reflow solder and the reflow equipment to arrive so that I can practice some before attempting to do any soldering on the actual proto boards (I only have TWO of them!). Good thing is that I have over 10,000 surface mount parts available here in my home "stockpile", so I have plenty of parts to practice with :devil:


----------



## JimmyM (Apr 6, 2010)

Sweet. Don't you just love when stuff just fits.
I ordered from Digikey last night and literally in less than 2 hours I got a shipment notification. They are FAST.
Experimental parts, project parts and some plain old re-stock parts.


----------



## mdocod (Apr 6, 2010)

JimmyM said:


> Sweet. Don't you just love when stuff just fits.....



I blame my new-to-me used phase II super spacer  

mooohahaha


----------



## wquiles (Apr 8, 2010)

Well, I have not gotten yet the solder paste, but I just received the reflow equipment !!!

A lot bigger/biffier/heavier than I anticipated based on the pictures:

















If I get the solder paste this week, I might be able to start practicing this weekend 

Will


----------



## JimmyM (Apr 9, 2010)

Did you order them from sra-solder.com?
That place is literally 10 minutes from my house. The first time I ordered the reflow station, I had it shipped. Then I realized how close they were and arranged for local pickup for the preheater.

Have fun. New toys are ALWAYS the best.


----------



## wquiles (Apr 9, 2010)

Yes, I ordered through them 

I will have to do some serious re-arrenging of my electronics bench - too much "stuff" in there already and not enough space for the new "toys" :naughty:

As for practicing reflow, I still have not received my paste solder - a little weird that it has taken this long :mecry:


----------



## wquiles (Apr 10, 2010)

Got the paste solder today 

Jim/Alan - how do you hold the small boards on the pre-heater? Do you have a picture you can share of your setup?


----------



## JimmyM (Apr 11, 2010)

wquiles said:


> Got the paste solder today
> 
> Jim/Alan - how do you hold the small boards on the pre-heater? Do you have a picture you can share of your setup?


My preheater has 2 sliding rails with notches to hold the board. Even though the board is round I have no problem keeping them in place. It appears that your heater has 2 crossing bars that have sliding holders. They should work better than the 2 parallel slides I have. Once positioned in the holders there's no need for additional holding. Place the board on the preheater after applying paste and placing components. Use very little paste. Not much is needed.


----------



## wquiles (Apr 11, 2010)

JimmyM said:


> My preheater has 2 sliding rails with notches to hold the board. Even though the board is round I have no problem keeping them in place. It appears that your heater has 2 crossing bars that have sliding holders. They should work better than the 2 parallel slides I have. Once positioned in the holders there's no need for additional holding. Place the board on the preheater after applying paste and placing components. Use very little paste. Not much is needed.



You mean like this?

(snip) old design ...

OK, assuming that is OK, two more follow-up questions so that I can start practicing re-flow soldering?

1)What setup temp do I use to pre-heat the board once I put the solder paste?

2) What temp should I use with the heat gun?

Will


----------



## JimmyM (Apr 11, 2010)

wquiles said:


> You mean like this?
> 
> OK, assuming that is OK, two more follow-up questions so that I can start practicing re-flow soldering?
> 
> ...


Yup. That's what I meant.

1) Try 170-180C and see how it does.
2) For rework I've used 290C but try 250 first.

The closer you can get the board to the melt temp (usually 180-190C) using the pre-heater, the less heat you'll need with the hot air.


----------



## wquiles (Apr 12, 2010)

Cool, thanks. I tried it yesterday a little (with the older PhD-M6 board) and I think I used too little paste since there was little/no surface adhesion between the paste and the SM part - as soon as I put the hot air gun even close to the SM mount part (even with low air pressure) the SM part went flying!

I used the smallest tip that came with the hot air gun kit. What setting on the air pressure do you use with your hot air gun, and what tip do you use?

I took some close-up pictures that will help "show" how little paste I was using - I hope to post them tonight when I get home from work.


----------



## JimmyM (Apr 12, 2010)

wquiles said:


> Cool, thanks. I tried it yesterday a little (with the older PhD-M6 board) and I think I used too little paste since there was little/no surface adhesion between the paste and the SM part - as soon as I put the hot air gun even close to the SM mount part (even with low air pressure) the SM part went flying!
> 
> I used the smallest tip that came with the hot air gun kit. What setting on the air pressure do you use with your hot air gun, and what tip do you use?
> 
> I took some close-up pictures that will help "show" how little paste I was using - I hope to post them tonight when I get home from work.



Yeah, those little buggers are easy to lose. I've Tiddly-Winked several parts just touching them with the tweezers in the bench.
You can use a larger tip. The smaller tips really increase air velocity, even at low flow rates. I usually use one that's about 6-8mm diam. If you only reflow one side if a small component, you can get tombstoning if you have a little too much paste. If you think you've got too little paste, that's better than too much. You can always add a tiny bit to a weak joint and reflow it again. Practice some more, it'll come. I had the luxury of using a paste stencil with my boards. Even then, I had to practice a little. The best joints I got were when it looked like the paste was just a layer of paint on the whole pad. I got nice fillets that way.


----------



## wquiles (Apr 12, 2010)

Gotcha - thanks for the tips. I will try again this coming weekend.

Here are the photos of my first adventures with solder paste and re-flow ...

First, I played with removing the Nichia 083 Hi-CRI LED's from their boards:












I had to play with the temps and I had to try a couple of times, but I was able to do it:






OK, so here are the boards I have. The center and left one are the first proto boards (the ones I am going to practice re-flow soldering with) and the one on the right is the latest one (2nd proto version):

(snip) old design ...

Here is my first attempt at applying the solder paste (you can see the seringe on the far top-left). Based on what you just told me today, I definitely used too little paste (which I though it was not possible!):

(snip) old design ...

Here are some of the thousands of SM parts that I have. These are the caps - which one you said was better grade to use?

(snip) old design ...













And here are the resistors:











Here I placed some caps/resistors to play with - alignment was good, but again, they just flew off  :

(snip) old design ...


I hope to try again this weekend


----------



## JimmyM (Apr 13, 2010)

The components shouldn't blow off. Did you get the Aoyue 968? Turn the airflow knob fully counter-clockwise. There should be almost no airflow. If the air flow meter ball isn't just about all the way at the bottom, turn the flow knob fully clockwise then back to counter-clockwise. It should drop way down. You're just using way too much air. My 968 has a glitch where the air flow wouldn't turn down until I turned it up first.

That 1206 cap looks a little big. Are those pads for an 0805?

And look at you with your fancy pin-vise.


----------



## wquiles (Apr 13, 2010)

JimmyM said:


> The components shouldn't blow off. Did you get the Aoyue 968? Turn the airflow knob fully counter-clockwise. There should be almost no airflow. If the air flow meter ball isn't just about all the way at the bottom, turn the flow knob fully clockwise then back to counter-clockwise. It should drop way down. You're just using way too much air. My 968 has a glitch where the air flow wouldn't turn down until I turned it up first.


Ahh - that was my problem. I had the knob turned to 3 or 4 => WAY TOO MUCH AIR 




JimmyM said:


> That 1206 cap looks a little big. Are those pads for an 0805?


Yes, I was just playing with a "large" SM Cap to see how it would work (or not).




JimmyM said:


> And look at you with your fancy pin-vise.


That pin-vise is AWESOME. I owe this to forum member "darkzero"


----------



## wquiles (Apr 24, 2010)

OK, so I was able to get some practice time for re-flow soldering today. I used the same board and components as last time, but with advice from Jimmy I used a little bit more solder and a larger hot air tip with less air flow - I also used his recommended temperature settings. This time, everything went as expected 

Here is the solder paste:
(snip) old design ...







and then after soldering:
(snip) old design ...






(snip) old design ...







Thanks to Jimmy's advice today's experience was much better and easier, and no parts flying everywhere!


----------



## dan1million (Apr 30, 2010)

hey just want to say - nice looking progress - keep up the good work !

-Dan


----------



## JimmyM (Apr 30, 2010)

Oh. Sorry I missed these before. They look nice. Don't really need a lot of air, huh.
Fillets look pretty good. Usually, the solder climbs all the way up the side of the component. How long did you let it pre-heat? You don't want the flux to dry out too much or activate too long before the solder melts. Ideally you want to get up to the point where the flux activates (a little below the melting point), then hit it with the hot air to quickly get past the melting point so that the flux is active while the solder is liquid. Fillets should be shiny and go all the way up the components.
Hell, it took me several boards before my joints looked that good. You're doing great, just try a hotter pencil maybe with less time on a slightly hotter pre-heat.

I've been meaning to get an IR thermometer to measure actual board temperature on my pre-heater and in the reflow oven. I guess that's one more thing for the list.


----------



## wquiles (May 1, 2010)

JimmyM said:


> Oh. Sorry I missed these before. They look nice. Don't really need a lot of air, huh.
> Fillets look pretty good. Usually, the solder climbs all the way up the side of the component. How long did you let it pre-heat? You don't want the flux to dry out too much or activate too long before the solder melts. Ideally you want to get up to the point where the flux activates (a little below the melting point), then hit it with the hot air to quickly get past the melting point so that the flux is active while the solder is liquid. Fillets should be shiny and go all the way up the components.
> Hell, it took me several boards before my joints looked that good. You're doing great, just try a hotter pencil maybe with less time on a slightly hotter pre-heat.
> 
> I've been meaning to get an IR thermometer to measure actual board temperature on my pre-heater and in the reflow oven. I guess that's one more thing for the list.



Yup, once I stop using "hurricane-strong" air, things worked much, much better. After all, the only reason I am already getting these great results so quickly is due to help from you and Alan - specially all of your temperature settings, times, etc.. I just had to duplicate that worked for you - thanks again :wave:


----------



## JimmyM (May 1, 2010)

wquiles said:


> Yup, once I stop using "hurricane-strong" air, things worked much, much better. After all, the only reason I am already getting these great results so quickly is due to help from you and Alan - specially all of your temperature settings, times, etc.. I just had to duplicate that worked for you - thanks again :wave:


Your thanks are much appreciated. Glad to help when I can. If you need help tombstoning components I know how to do that really well. oo:


----------



## Alan B (May 2, 2010)

wquiles said:


> Got the paste solder today
> 
> Jim/Alan - how do you hold the small boards on the pre-heater? Do you have a picture you can share of your setup?



My preheater has a different board holder. It will hold several small boards if they are the same width.

I downloaded the kester 256 soldering data and I use the temperatures and times recommended by the manufacturer. I set the airflow at about 3 but use the larger round tip.

At least that's what I recall. I have not had time to make any lately, so I'll have to relearn it when I do. I make notes on index cards and keep them with the work so I can find the groove quickly.

It seems to me that the heat soak is about 1-2 minutes, then hit it with the hot air.


----------



## Mettee (May 2, 2010)

hey guys, my first time checking in on this thread...

Will, that is awesome work...you have the coolest toys. 

I will have to check in on this from time to time, but it wowed me. Cool project.


----------



## wquiles (May 2, 2010)

Alan B said:


> It seems to me that the heat soak is about 1-2 minutes, then hit it with the hot air.


I hear you. It takes a little while for the solder paste to change color/consistency, which marks the point when you can then hit it with the hot air. I think I will practice a few more times today and tomorrow before I try soldering the Tiny85 surface mount part - first time doing an 8-leg device 




Mettee said:


> hey guys, my first time checking in on this thread...
> 
> Will, that is awesome work...you have the coolest toys.
> 
> I will have to check in on this from time to time, but it wowed me. Cool project.


Thanks  , but Alan, Jimmy, and George are the ones that deserve the credit for getting me to this point


----------



## wquiles (May 3, 2010)

This is the new bench tool I just finished, which I am hoping will be of great help while working on the PhD-M6:
(snip) old design ...

and here is how the board looks like through the magnifying lens:
(snip) old design ...

To program the boards (once I am done with the firmware development, which I have not finished yet) would normally be a problem/challenge since I did not have room for the 6-pin programming header. However, with a suggestion from George, I will be modifying this telephone programming fixture:
(snip) old design ...


The idea will be to make a new plate that will hold the pins, so that it will match the 6 medium size vias in the board:
(snip) old design ...


Here the platform is on the raised position, and then in the lower position - of course I will have to adjust everything to get the right tension, position, etc., but I wanted to let you know my thoughts/plans for the programming phase:
(snip) old design ...

(snip) old design ...


If I do a good job and think things through, this fixture could also be a quick testing station to make sure the board works as expected prior to assembling a pack


----------



## Alan B (May 3, 2010)

Cute. Quite a contraption. Looks like a nice way to do it.


----------



## donn_ (May 3, 2010)

Will..where did you get the pin-vise head for the Panavise base?

EDIT: I think I figured it out. Did it start out like this:


----------



## Yavox (May 3, 2010)

Do you guys have any kind of estimation of how much the driver is going to cost?


----------



## mdocod (May 3, 2010)

Yavox said:


> Do you guys have any kind of estimation of how much the driver is going to cost?



Hello Yavox,

Will and I have been discussing that, the final price is yet to be determined. I'll leave it up to Will if he'd like to share the price range we are considering.

Eric


----------



## Yavox (May 3, 2010)

mdocod said:


> Hello Yavox,
> 
> Will and I have been discussing that, the final price is yet to be determined. I'll leave it up to Will if he'd like to share the price range we are considering.
> 
> Eric



It would be nice to know just the range. Your driver is the reason I am considering buying an M6 and I just try to estimate, how much the whole party will cost. Please post some estimation (if not the price itself, just an info like _probably no more th_an _XX_) when you are ready.

Adam


----------



## wquiles (May 3, 2010)

donn_ said:


> Will..where did you get the pin-vise head for the Panavise base?
> 
> EDIT: I think I figured it out. Did it start out like this:



Yes, that is the same one 





Yavox said:


> Do you guys have any kind of estimation of how much the driver is going to cost?





Yavox said:


> It would be nice to know just the range. Your driver is the reason I am considering buying an M6 and I just try to estimate, how much the whole party will cost. Please post some estimation (if not the price itself, just an info like _probably no more th_an _XX_) when you are ready.
> 
> Adam



The resulting solution that Erik and I will offer will not be the driver by itself, but the complete pack: custom battery carrier that Eric designs/manufactures and driver that I design/built/solder/program/test. Once you get the pack you will only need to supply the batteries. You then select the output voltage you want to use via the dip switch (4 voltage options/set-points), install the appropriate bulb for that voltage, and start using the pack. Plain and simple - that is still the goal 

Although based on both the battery carrier and the driver, the actual price of the complete pack will probably be more heavily based on the development cost of the driver itself, as I would like to attempt to break even on the equipment bought for the firmware development, 2 sets of prototype boards, reflow soldering gear, etc.. Eric might also have some equipment/setup just for this project, so again I would hope that Eric's contribution would at the bare minimum break even - nobody wants to sell anything at a loss from day one :mecry:

Pricing will also depend on how many boards we order for the first production batch (the more boards ordered the lower the individual cost, but the higher the risk of not selling all of them), and on how many we might sell in total, so lets hold off taking about price estimates until we get one working pack


----------



## Yavox (May 3, 2010)

wquiles said:


> Although based on both the battery carrier and the driver, the actual price of the complete pack will probably be more heavily based on the development cost of the driver itself, as I would like to attempt to break even on the equipment bought for the firmware development, 2 sets of prototype boards, reflow soldering gear, etc.. Eric might also have some equipment/setup just for this project, so again I would hope that Eric's contribution would at the bare minimum break even - nobody wants to sell anything at a loss from day one :mecry:
> 
> Pricing will also depend on how many boards we order for the first production batch (the more boards ordered the lower the individual cost, but the higher the risk of not selling all of them), and on how many we might sell in total, so lets hold off taking about price estimates until we get one working pack



Sure. You should get all the money invested in the development time and the equipment bought and earn some more, as the whole concept deserves it. I wish you guys good luck and as many sales as possible. I hope the price would be affordable enough so that you could score +1 more with me 

Adam


----------



## georges80 (May 4, 2010)

Will, I think your programming 'setup' is borderline insane 

Something like this is all you really need. Whenever I do a proto pcb run, I panelize a few programming and test adapters that I solder in pogo pins and appropriate 6 pin ISP header etc.

I use the co-ordinates of the vias I want the pogo's to touch down on from the main design and place holes on the test PCB layout to take the pogo pins. 

Anyhow, this is what an adapter looks like. Since the pogo pins have very sharp points that key into the test vias/holes. Since programming only takes a few seconds it's easy to just hold the adapter by hand. I can say after programming 1000's of drivers, the scheme works very well...






The driver in the picture is just under 0.6" in diameter, so you can get an idea how tight the pogo spacing is on this specific adapter.

cheers,
george.


----------



## mdocod (May 4, 2010)

Yavox said:


> I hope the price would be affordable enough so that you could score +1 more with me
> 
> Adam



Hi Adam,

The price point we are discussing is such that anyone who is buying an M6 comfortably will not be alarmed. 

The intention is the absolute finest work we are capable of. Something that can live up to M6 standards and be at home there. I think we are well on track. 

Eric


----------



## Yavox (May 4, 2010)

mdocod said:


> The price point we are discussing is such that anyone who is buying an M6 comfortably will not be alarmed.




_anyone who is buying an M6 *comfortably *...
_ 
I knew there had to be a catch somewhere :devil:




mdocod said:


> The intention is the absolute finest work we are capable of. Something that can live up to M6 standards and be at home there. I think we are well on track.




Keep up good work guys. This thread is really interesting and the possibility of tracking the progress of your work is really a great pleasure for me.

Adam


----------



## JimmyM (May 4, 2010)

georges80 said:


> The driver in the picture is just under 0.6" in diameter, so you can get an idea how tight the pogo spacing is on this specific adapter.
> 
> cheers,
> george.


That looks like a QFN20 package. What chip?


----------



## wquiles (May 4, 2010)

georges80 said:


> Will, I think your programming 'setup' is borderline insane



Well, after looking at my body of work/projects, I guess I am in fact a little bit insane 

When I was re-programming handsets on my last job I became a believer on these fixtures - so easy and straight forward, nothing to align, etc.. That is why I am trying to re-use the fixture (which was thrown to the trash when the lab closed). The idea came to me when you told me about your pogo board setup - so it is really your fault :devil:


----------



## georges80 (May 4, 2010)

JimmyM said:


> That looks like a QFN20 package. What chip?



Warning - temporary thread hijack 

Attiny45V. the other side has the 350ma buck led driver AND a momentary action side switch. Went into a run of 3 beautiful little lights that David hand made:






Oh, Will - your insanity is all of your own (possibly genetic) making 

cheers,
george.


----------



## JimmyM (May 4, 2010)

georges80 said:


> Warning - temporary thread hijack



Temporary Hijack is over. Thanks, George.


----------



## JimmyM (May 4, 2010)

Will,
I'm in the process of trying to learn Eagle instead of PCB Artist. The folks over at Advanced Circuits do fine work, but are only reasonable for larger runs. And their free tool doesn't do Gerber file output.
What sites/tutorials did you find useful?
Would you like to take this exchange to email or PM to keep it out of your M6 thread?


----------



## wquiles (May 4, 2010)

JimmyM said:


> Will,
> I'm in the process of trying to learn Eagle instead of PCB Artist. The folks over at Advanced Circuits do fine work, but are only reasonable for larger runs. And their free tool doesn't do Gerber file output.
> What sites/tutorials did you find useful?
> Would you like to take this exchange to email or PM to keep it out of your M6 thread?



I will be more than happy to share all that I know on Eagle, but lets take it to email so that we can keep this thread on subject :thumbsup:


----------



## HarryN (May 5, 2010)

You are right about Advanced Circuits. I had some boards made there in the past for my Breeze project - pretty much its $ 1K to say hello, but the quality is very good.

Are your boards just single sided, no PTH or more than that?

If you need some other suppliers for small / medium qty, I have some vendors I am using for the boards on my Streamlight project. Just send me a note.


----------



## JimmyM (May 5, 2010)

HarryN said:


> You are right about Advanced Circuits. I had some boards made there in the past for my Breeze project - pretty much its $ 1K to say hello, but the quality is very good.
> 
> Are your boards just single sided, no PTH or more than that?
> 
> If you need some other suppliers for small / medium qty, I have some vendors I am using for the boards on my Streamlight project. Just send me a note.


I use 2 to 4 layers. Vias, PTH, etc. So it's a fully fledged board. For prototypes I'll pass on the mask and silkscreen.


----------



## JimmyM (May 5, 2010)

Let's move the the PCB discussion to this thread. https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/273898


----------



## wquiles (May 17, 2010)

Time for an update ...

With much help from Jimmy, I now have some basic code working on the development platform. And when I mean "help" from Jimmy, I mean LOTS of help - he pretty much wrote the code I needed to get started with the PhD-M6 variant. Big kudos to Jim :thumbsup:

Right now for testing I have the dip switch installed and via firmware I have the following 4 levels:
Level 1: 4.0 volts rms
Level 2: 6.0 volts rms
Level 3: 8.0 volts rms
Level 4: 10.0 volts rms

Note that for "protection" while testing with the 13.8 Volts regulated power supply I am using a 12 volt car bulb - that way if anything goes bad, the bulb can never get a damaging voltage/condition.

Here is the dip switch at Level 1 (4.0 volts rms):














Here is the dip switch at Level 2 (6.0 volts rms):










Here is the dip switch at Level 3 (8.0 volts rms):










Here is the dip switch at Level 4 (10.0 volts rms):











Still more to learn about the code, and I still have to work with the low battery and temperature sensing, etc., but thanks to Jimmy I am getting closer


----------



## leukos (May 17, 2010)

:twothumbs Very cool, Will. I think the dip switch is what originally interested me in this project. Looks like it is well on it's way!


----------



## mdocod (May 18, 2010)

Looking good Will!

Big thanks to Jim! We really appreciate your help in this.

Eric


----------



## dan1million (May 18, 2010)

very cool and very good accuracy on the voltages... i am impressed !!!

-Dan


----------



## JimmyM (May 18, 2010)

I appreciate the thanks. Will, I've sent a few more replies this morning. Set your Fluke to AC volts and change mode to measure frequency. Make sure it's running at 244Hz. That will show whether the clock and prescaler values are working properly.

Now we need to ensure that bulb detection is functioning. If you connect the Fluke from ground to the FET gate, set to measure frequency or duty, it "should" go to zero or no reading when you disconnect the bulb. Then get a reading again when the bulb is reconnected. Of course you'll have to make a couple of changes to your board to add the bulb detection circuit.


----------



## wquiles (May 18, 2010)

Thank you guys 


Jim - just checked with my Fluke and sure enough the frequency at the gate is right at 244Hz 

I already implemented the extra circuit changes to your development platform to do the bulb detection, so I will be looking at that code next. Thanks again for your help :bow:


----------



## JimmyM (May 18, 2010)

wquiles said:


> Thank you guys
> 
> 
> Jim - just checked with my Fluke and sure enough the frequency at the gate is right at 244Hz
> ...


Any time, Will.

Oh cool. We'll see how it goes. The scope on the gate should go to flat zero when the bulb is disconnected, then start PWM when it is connected again. Try it out.


----------



## wquiles (May 18, 2010)

JimmyM said:


> Any time, Will.
> 
> Oh cool. We'll see how it goes. The scope on the gate should go to flat zero when the bulb is disconnected, then start PWM when it is connected again. Try it out.



It will have to wait a little ...

I am now having problems with my AVR Dragon board. After succesfully using it to debug the target board, I can no longer get the AVR suite to reset the fuses back to "normal" to re-enable the ISP interface. I am basically either locked out of ISP mode completely - the only thing that works sometimes is that I can still go into Debug mode:

http://www.m3coupe.com/electronics/PhD/AVR_debugWIRE.JPG


----------



## JimmyM (May 19, 2010)

wquiles said:


> It will have to wait a little ...
> 
> I am now having problems with my AVR Dragon board. After succesfully using it to debug the target board, I can no longer get the AVR suite to reset the fuses back to "normal" to re-enable the ISP interface. I am basically either locked out of ISP mode completely - the only thing that works sometimes is that I can still go into Debug mode:
> 
> http://www.m3coupe.com/electronics/PhD/AVR_debugWIRE.JPG


If you disabled the SPIEN fuse, you're toast. You need to reset the chip using a parallel programmer/reset board. You can buy one, they're $30. Or I have that I could ship to you. In both cases, the cost exceeds the price of a new Tiny85 chip.


----------



## wquiles (May 19, 2010)

I think that is exactly the problem, but it was not something I "did" directly - it must have been done by the AVR Studio & Dragon board when they change from ISP to debugWIRE as I enter the Debugging mode. The problem (I think) is what even then I tell the AVR Studio & Dragon to disable the debugWIRE, it can't re-enable the ISP mode, therefore leaving me in no-mans-land.

I used my last Tiny85 on this development board so I will go ahead and order a few more from Digikey today, although I probably could use the programmer to keep handy for future mishaps - which parallel programmer do you use/recommend?

Will


----------



## wquiles (May 19, 2010)

Digikey does not have stock of the 8-pin version. Looking for other suppliers now ...


----------



## JimmyM (May 19, 2010)

wquiles said:


> Digikey does not have stock of the 8-pin version. Looking for other suppliers now ...


You can easily get away with the Tiny45 version. Probably the Tiny25.
You definitely don't need the 85.

Digikey has the 8-DIP Tiny45 for $1.94 http://search.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?Detail&name=ATTINY45-20PU-ND

I use this chip re-setter.
http://www.microcontrollerprog.com/
The ATTiny Fuse repair programmer. $31 with shipping. But you need a 12-15V power supply. I use a 12V supply and it works fine.


----------



## wquiles (May 19, 2010)

JimmyM said:


> You can easily get away with the Tiny45 version. Probably the Tiny25.
> You definitely don't need the 85.
> 
> Digikey has the 8-DIP Tiny45 for $1.94 http://search.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?Detail&name=ATTINY45-20PU-ND
> ...



First, thanks for the link. That might prove to be a good option in the future being it is an stand-alone reprogrammer. 

Well, I am in luck. As it turns out, I keep looking and found a few more Tiny85 DIP version stored away in the garage, so I got extra ones I did not know about. That is the good news.

The other good news is that it turns out that the STK500 "can" be configured for serial high voltage mode, so I was able to reset my "bad" Tiny85 chips. Here is the link.

Now, for the bad news: With GREAT help from George (www.taskled.com) I tried several combinations and found out that the common problem is the actual target/development board. So my STK500 and is good, and most likely my Dragon is also good. I am now going to the garage to re-work it to find out what broke :-(

Will


----------



## JimmyM (May 19, 2010)

wquiles said:


> First, thanks for the link. That might prove to be a good option in the future being it is an stand-alone reprogrammer.
> 
> Well, I am in luck. As it turns out, I keep looking and found a few more Tiny85 DIP version stored away in the garage, so I got extra ones I did not know about. That is the good news.
> 
> ...


Glad that worked out for you. It works for the Tiny2/4/85. Good to know for the future.

Look at the Tiny25/45 chips though. Your application is so small that you could use a cheaper chip and still have room to grow. I compiled the code I sent to you for the Tiny25 and it took up 50% of program space. So it could grow, even on the Tiny25. No sense spending extra money for no benefit. Tiny25 is $1.78, Tiny45 is $1.94. Tiny85 is $2.15. Not a lot of difference, but it's a difference.


----------



## wquiles (May 19, 2010)

Thanks Jimmy - good to know the code is small enough to use the smaller chips 

Good news, the problem with the development board? No problem. It was yours truly that forgot to set the dip switches back to OFF (means no connection, which means floating to VCC via the internal pull-up resistor). When I was testing I "forgot" and left the switches both to ON, which connects them to GND. Well, as you can imagine, those two pins are the serial data pins for the ISP protocol - the programming board can't use them if they are tied to ground 

I will make other mistakes, but that one I will not make again :devil:


----------



## JimmyM (May 19, 2010)

wquiles said:


> Thanks Jimmy - good to know the code is small enough to use the smaller chips
> 
> Good news, the problem with the development board? No problem. It was yours truly that forgot to set the dip switches back to OFF (means no connection, which means floating to VCC via the internal pull-up resistor). When I was testing I "forgot" and left the switches both to ON, which connects them to GND. Well, as you can imagine, those two pins are the serial data pins for the ISP protocol - the programming board can't use them if they are tied to ground
> 
> I will make other mistakes, but that one I will not make again :devil:


I make a lot of mistakes like that. But I try to make them only once. Some, like incinerating FET drivers, I have done with alarming regularity.


----------



## wquiles (May 20, 2010)

leukos said:


> Here's my four suggested voltage outputs (hope you all agree!):
> 
> Bulb option #1: N1 (several 6V WA lamps too) @ approx 4.8V (This would be our nice low lamp, longer runtime option)
> 
> ...



By the way, as I continue testing I have moved away from my simple 4.0, 6.0, 8.0, 10.0 voltage levels and I am now using the values shown above.


----------



## JimmyM (May 21, 2010)

wquiles said:


> By the way, as I continue testing I have moved away from my simple 4.0, 6.0, 8.0, 10.0 voltage levels and I am now using the values shown above.


You could probably remove the "approx" from the above voltage listing considering how well that thing regulates. :twothumbs


----------



## wquiles (May 21, 2010)

Yes, regulation is actually pretty good 

I am right now on the interrupt as it is not working/recognizing the level change on PB2 to do the level detection. From the debugging is seems the CPU never "sees" the interrupt, and even when I changed the interrupt from edge triggered to level triggered, still nothing. I hope to figure that out today and if not I will come back with some additional questions


----------



## JimmyM (May 21, 2010)

wquiles said:


> Yes, regulation is actually pretty good
> 
> I am right now on the interrupt as it is not working/recognizing the level change on PB2 to do the level detection. From the debugging is seems the CPU never "sees" the interrupt, and even when I changed the interrupt from edge triggered to level triggered, still nothing. I hope to figure that out today and if not I will come back with some additional questions


No problem. But after it wakes up, it disables interrupts again, The only time is uses interrupts is to wake from sleep, then it disables them. Enabling them again just before going to sleep.


----------



## wquiles (May 25, 2010)

I am still tracking down an initialization problem, so I moved everything to my electronic bench so that I can use the digital scope:


----------



## JimmyM (May 25, 2010)

There may be a problem disabling/re-enabling the interrupts.

Try this...
In this section of the code...
---
//	sei();
GIMSK = _BV(INT0); // External interrupt INT0 enable
MCUCR |= _BV(ISC01);
MCUCR |= _BV(ISC00);	// Interrupt on Rising INT0.
---
uncomment the sei(); line.
comment out the GIMSK line.
---
sei();
//	GIMSK = _BV(INT0); // External interrupt INT0 enable
MCUCR |= _BV(ISC01);
MCUCR |= _BV(ISC00);	// Interrupt on Rising INT0.
---
Then in the sleep "poweroff = 1" section...
change from this...
---
sei(); // Enable Interrupts
sleep_mode(); // Puts the AVR to sleep using above set mode.
sleep_disable(); // After waking up, the Sleep mode is disabled.
cli(); // Disable Interrupts
---
To this...
---
GIMSK |= _BV(INT0); // Enable INT0 interrupt
sleep_mode(); // Puts the AVR to sleep using above set mode.
sleep_disable(); // After waking up, the Sleep mode is disabled.
GIMSK &= ~_BV(INT0); // Disable INT0 interrupt


----------



## wquiles (May 28, 2010)

Got the stability problem solved, so I am now working on the bulb detection code


----------



## wquiles (May 28, 2010)

OK, I have a treat for you guys following this thread, right before the long weekend ... no pictures from me this time (I know, a shocker!), but videos this time :nana:

PhD-M6 Video 1 - Target Voltage = 10.8 Vrms
- Shows PWM at max. since supply voltage is not high enough. As the voltage is then increased, the PWM then adapts to the higher voltage. Note that the bulb voltage is finally what needs to be for this setting (10.8V).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUBoduybtkw


PhD-M6 Video 2 - Target Voltage = 4.8 Vrms
- Here the power supply's voltage is high enough to give the 4.8V to the bulb. As I increase/decrease the supply's voltage, you can see how the PWM duty cycle adapts accordingly (duty cycle gets longer when the voltage is lower).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_irprTBPFs


PhD-M6 Video 3 - Bulb detection and soft start in action - Target voltage = 4.8Vrms
- This is not the final configuration for bulb detection, but in this video, when both traces show the nice square-looking waves, that means there is a bulb connected. Also, as the bulb is connected, you can see the brief build of the PWM modulation when doing the soft start. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLUU1wyXTt4


PhD-M6 Video 4 - Bulb soft start in action - Target voltage = 4.8Vrms
- In here you can barely see the soft start in action for the target voltage of 4.8V.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1l21FjuBS4


PhD-M6 Video 5 - Bulb soft start in action - Target voltage = 10.8Vrms
- Bulb soft start done twice, both times for target voltage 10.8V. First time the power supply is set too low, so the PWM goes to max value but can't give the bulb full voltage since power supply is too low. Second time I adjusted the power supply to provide plenty of voltage, so you can more clearly see the soft start in action.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFlaCeoRlw8


----------



## JimmyM (May 29, 2010)

That's great, Will. Can you email me the code you've got uploaded? I'd like to use what you're using when I breadboard tonight.


----------



## wquiles (May 29, 2010)

Code sent


----------



## wquiles (May 29, 2010)

OK, guys, since we are using 3xcells in this custom battery pack, what should be our "low voltage" setting where we consider the battery depleted, but before we do damage to the cells?

My intent is to measure the voltage while the batteries are "loaded", not the resting voltage, and we "could" also make this setting dependent on the bulb setting, if that makes more sense. Recall that these are the current voltage settings:
Bulb option #1: N1 (several 6V WA lamps too) @ approx 4.8V (This would be our nice low lamp, longer runtime option)

Bulb option #2: MN21/MN16/WA 1111/ LF EO-M3T @ approx 6.8V (This would be one of our high output options)

Bulb option #3: MN20/MN15/N2/LF HO-M3T @ approx 7.4V (This would be all our practical bulbs)

Bulb option #4: MN61/N62/WA 1185 @ approx 10.8V (This would be our ultra high output lamps)

Suggestions/recommendations from prospective buyers of this pack, or from experts on batteries?

Will


----------



## dan1million (May 29, 2010)

Hi William,

I am no expert on batteries.

However I would suggest in my experience with Li-IonMn / Li Po/LiFePo4

for LiIon use 3.0V as the safe minimum discharge voltage and the 3 cell pack 9V total

Hope this helps

Also is it possible to get a copy of your code for this one please? 

-Dan


----------



## wquiles (May 29, 2010)

Cool, 9 volts is what I have now as well. I figured I can start pulsing the output when there is 5% left in the cells, or start pulsing at around 9.4volts or so. What do you guys think?

Will


----------



## dan1million (May 29, 2010)

Thanks for posting the code - I really appreciate it. also good that you put plenty of comments in there.
I am a little new to programming uC's so it is helpful for me.

It is difficult to choose the "low" or pulse value, mainly based on the different discharge rates or cell brands but you could "err slightly on the side of caution" perhaps 9.6V, however if you want to use the max of the battery capacity and then only have the driver pulse when it is quite close to cut off the value you have chosen 9.4V looks good.

I only say this because recently i have seen a few issues with cells discharging with slight imbalances at high Ah rates ending in one or two cells out of a five cell pack being dicharged below 3V. 

I work in calibration, so if i am true to myself i would probably say a test is the way to go 

-Dan


----------



## wquiles (May 29, 2010)

dan1million said:


> Thanks for posting the code - I really appreciate it. also good that you put plenty of comments in there.
> I am a little new to programming uC's so it is helpful for me.


Than you much. Alan, Jimmy, and I (or any other programmer) each has our own style of what to document, how much, etc. - part of it is how we learned it (in my case more than 20 years ago). Now-a-days I put a lot more detail, but I do it on purpose - so that if I put the code down for a while, getting back to it would happen quicker for me. Like a breadcrumb trail ...

I am using code pieces from both Alan and from Jimmy, plus my own code to do fit what and how I want to do it. As always, credit for the original code to Alan and Jimmy - kudos to them :thumbsup:




dan1million said:


> It is difficult to choose the "low" or pulse value, mainly based on the different discharge rates or cell brands but you could "err slightly on the side of caution" perhaps 9.6V, however if you want to use the max of the battery capacity and then only have the driver pulse when it is quite close to cut off the value you have chosen 9.4V looks good.
> 
> I only say this because recently i have seen a few issues with cells discharging with slight imbalances at high Ah rates ending in one or two cells out of a five cell pack being dicharged below 3V.
> 
> ...


Thanks - good insight as to the values to try. I will definitely continue to do a good deal of bench testing, followed by a field trial, before going to production, so I hope to be able to fine-tune these values as time goes on.


----------



## mdocod (Jun 1, 2010)

These are going out in the mail this afternoon so that Will can get a few alpha stage units put together for testing in the coming weeks. 

Eric


----------



## wquiles (Jun 1, 2010)

mdocod said:


> These are going out in the mail this afternoon so that Will can get a few alpha stage units put together for testing in the coming weeks.
> 
> Eric



Thanks much Eric - those look awesome :twothumbs


----------



## wquiles (Jun 3, 2010)

OK guys and girls, another significant part of the code is now running, so I got a new video for you.

PhD-M6 Video 6 - Low Voltage and Shutdown Operation - Target voltage = 10.8Vrms

In this video you can first see the PWM set at roughly 60% with a high enough voltage for the bulb to work at a target voltage of 10.8 Vrms. I then turn down the voltage to 9.5V at the Power Supply, and then you can see the PWM at the maximum value. Then I start lowering the voltage at the power supply slowly until we get to about 9.4V, which is where the first low voltage setpoint is reached. At this point the light will alternate between the full voltage and 1/2 of that voltage, about every 1/2 second. The PhD-M6 will continue working in this "blinking" mode as the battery keeps getting lower and lower, until it reaches the second low voltage setpoint of about 9.0V, which is where the PhD-M6 finally shutsdown, right at the end of the video.

Of course, the goal of the "blinking mode" is to let the user know that the batteries are basically depleted, and that he/she needs to change/charge them again as soon as possible. I can change the behavior/timing of the blinking if you (prospective buyers) would like something a little bit different, and I can also change/tweak the two voltage setpoints I now have:

- first low voltage setup point - start blinking mode after 0.25 seconds of being in this mode = 9.4 volts
- second low voltage setup point - go to shutdown after 0.25 seconds ob being in this mode = 9.0 volts

A few things to note about the current operation of the PhD-M6:
1) Note the 0.25 seconds - this is to test and make sure that it is not a single time or a "fluke" that we barely got a loaded battery reading at this point. The PhD-M6 is basically waiting for 61 consecutive events before declaring yes, the battery has reached these voltage points. 

2) When the second low voltage setpoint is reached, this sets a persistent flag. Turning ON/OFF the light will not clear this flag. You have to remove the batteries (well, at least one) to force a reset which will then clear this flag.

3) Removing and reinstalling the batteries from the pack always forces a full reset. 

4) As soon as you put batteries in the PhD-M6 pack, the pack goes into sleep mode right away, drawing very, very little current (less than 1mA - in fact in one of my power supplies the current meter goes to zero since it can't measure that low!). The pack will come out of sleep as soon as it detects the bulb is now connected, which happens when you close the tailcap or press the switch to close the circuit and turn the M6 ON.

5) To change the voltage setting you can remove the batteries if you want, but don't have to remove the batteries from the pack. Just remove the pack from the light, select the new voltage setting via the dip switches, change the bulb in the head, and re-insert the pack into the M6. As soon as you close the tailcap/press the button, the PhD-M6 pack comes out of sleep mode and reads the switch position before starting regulation.

Thanks again to Jimmy for his help in getting this coded properly


----------



## JimmyM (Jun 3, 2010)

wquiles said:


> OK guys and girls, another significant part of the code is now running, so I got a new video for you.
> 
> PhD-M6 Video 6 - Low Voltage and Shutdown Operation - Target voltage = 10.8Vrms
> 
> ...



Nice work, Will. Can you send me your code when you get a chance. I'd like to see how you're doing things and see how they affect the event timing.


----------



## wquiles (Jun 3, 2010)

Thanks Jim. I am now moving to test with the actual bulbs to see what I might need to change/tweak once I get higher amperage bulbs in the circuit


----------



## wquiles (Jun 4, 2010)

Eric - the adapters arrived safely yesterday - thanks much


----------



## wquiles (Jun 4, 2010)

Yesterday was another good test day!

So far I have been testing with a "safe" bulb, one rated at 12V, 1A, so with the Power Supply set to 13 volts, even if I had something wrong, it would never blow the bulb.

But as the code is now working really good, I decided to start risking my real, more expensive bulbs, and wouldn't you know? Not a single one exploded up :devil:

First, this is how the two-position dip switch looks like. Note the "1" and the "2" at the bottom of the switch - that is the way I will always look at the switch when making changes:






And given that orientation, this is how you change the dip switches in order to achieve one of the 4 different output voltages:
(snip) old design ...


First I tested with an WA 4.8 bulb (I don't remember the bulb part number):






Then I tested with the MN15 (at 7.8V):






then the MN20 (at 7.8V):






then the "rare" N2 (at 7.8V):






and the MN60 (at 10.8V):






Definitely a good day at the bench:






Will


----------



## wquiles (Jun 4, 2010)

One of the things I wanted to make sure works flawlessly is the ability of the M6 to work not only in momentary mode, but also in fast signaling mode - turning ON/OFF as quickly as humanly possible. This is one of the several tests I have done to verify the PhD-M6 works as intended, this time with the MN15 being driven at 7.4Vrms. 

PhD-M6 Video 6 - Quick On/Off behavior testing - MN15 (7.4Vrms)

You can also of course see the soft-start in action as well. Kind of cool to see a 7.4Vrms bulb being driven from a 12Volt power supply, isn't? :devil:


----------



## leukos (Jun 4, 2010)

Really exciting stuff, Will! :thumbsup:

You know, those original voltages I suggested were just that. If in your testing the MN15 or other lamps should be boosted to say 7.8V for a better color temp, go for it. It could be tricky finding the perfect voltage that balances color temp with lamp life (especially the $30+ lamps). 
Also, I would be happy to send you some lamps for testing purposes if you want. Just PM me with what you need and I'll see if I have them.


----------



## wquiles (Jun 4, 2010)

leukos said:


> Really exciting stuff, Will! :thumbsup:
> 
> You know, those original voltages I suggested were just that. If in your testing the MN15 or other lamps should be boosted to say 7.8V for a better color temp, go for it. It could be tricky finding the perfect voltage that balances color temp with lamp life (especially the $30+ lamps).
> Also, I would be happy to send you some lamps for testing purposes if you want. Just PM me with what you need and I'll see if I have them.



Thanks much. It sure has been a lot of hard work, but also a lot of fun working on this project 

I am OK on the bulbs right now, but could use your help in a few more areas:

1) Review/revise the 4 voltage values and suggested bulbs to go with them. In other words, should I use different values? Not only for the bulb voltages, but also for the low-voltage setpoint (to start blinking) and the lower shutdown setpoint. 

2) I only have fully protected LiIon 17670 cells, not the newest cells that have more current capacity. Do you have 3x of the new cells I can borrow for testing, or point me to where I can buy them?

3) Besides Eric himself, I am considering you a good candidate for one of the Alpha battery packs for the first trial, to get a good hands-on usage feedback as to what works and not. Of course there is risk in that this is still the Alpha phase, so even though I am doing a lot of testing on my side, I can never cover 100% of the cases/situations, so there might be something that could trigger something weird - worst case you could loose a bulb :sick2: . Are you interested?

Will


----------



## wquiles (Jun 4, 2010)

Question to all reading this thread:
I have asked for feedback on values/settings a couple of times recently, and besides 2-3 more folks, I have gotten zero feedback so far. Are folks truly interested in us finishing this pack and get it available? I am starting to feel like only a few people care - maybe time to start an interest list?

Will


----------



## dan1million (Jun 4, 2010)

Hi will,

i am certainly interested in this project from the AVR programming side, i think you are doing some good development work.

if i can offer a suggestion perhaps a slight dimming pulse of about 0.2-0.3s spaced further apart say every 5 seconds rather than a faster pulse like you have may preserve the useability of the light whilst still warning the user??

i just read the testimonials on the SF site which gave me a feeling for how people expect the M6 to function. and thought of this - if i am off base let me know.

also i think an interest list may help you.

At the moment i am not in a position to get an M6... baby on the way nappies to buy etc 

-dan


----------



## leukos (Jun 4, 2010)

wquiles said:


> Thanks much. It sure has been a lot of hard work, but also a lot of fun working on this project
> 
> I am OK on the bulbs right now, but could use your help in a few more areas:
> 
> ...


 
Hi, Will

1.) The best I can do is set up lamps with my bench supply and estimate what voltage seems about ideal. I still think it makes sense to set the voltages to work ideally with SF lamps (N1, N2, MN15, MN16, MN20, MN21, MN60, MN61, N62). If those voltages happen to work nicely for some WA, Carely, Philips, etc bulbs, then that is icing on the cake. 

I think the suggestion of cut off at 9V sounds reasonable. I would still vote for a moon mode rather than flashes, since flashes render the light unusable for those last few minutes. I'm not sure what voltage to start the flashes at, maybe 9.6V?

2.) I'm not sure what cells you are referring to? I have 3 of AW's newest protected 17670's, they are about a year old. If you need some for testing, I'll buy some new ones and have them shipped to you, just PM me an address. If you have another battery in mind, I'm not aware of it.

3.) Yes! I would love to be a tester. I have two hungry M6's waiting for the opportunity!


----------



## wquiles (Jun 4, 2010)

dan1million said:


> Hi will,
> 
> i am certainly interested in this project from the AVR programming side, i think you are doing some good development work.
> 
> ...


Lets see how many more folks show interest in the final product. Even though you are not a potential buyer, I do appreciate the valuable feedback as it makes the PhD-M6 a better product/solution - thanks. If I get more folks showing interest here, over the next couple of days, I will start a formal post for actual interest in the final product 




leukos said:


> Hi, Will
> 
> 1.) The best I can do is set up lamps with my bench supply and estimate what voltage seems about ideal. I still think it makes sense to set the voltages to work ideally with SF lamps (N1, N2, MN15, MN16, MN20, MN21, MN60, MN61, N62). If those voltages happen to work nicely for some WA, Carely, Philips, etc bulbs, then that is icing on the cake.


That sounds great!




leukos said:


> I think the suggestion of cut off at 9V sounds reasonable. I would still vote for a moon mode rather than flashes, since flashes render the light unusable for those last few minutes. I'm not sure what voltage to start the flashes at, maybe 9.6V?


Sounds reasonable, but before I can "code" it, I need to know what exactly is moon mode to you? Simply dimmed (not blinking) at 1/3 or 1/4 of the brightness, right when it hits the upper low battery setpoint? Then stay at this constant level until it shutdowns for good once the lower low voltage point is reached?




leukos said:


> 2.) I'm not sure what cells you are referring to? I have 3 of AW's newest protected 17670's, they are about a year old. If you need some for testing, I'll buy some new ones and have them shipped to you, just PM me an address. If you have another battery in mind, I'm not aware of it.


I though there was some newer, safer chemistry batteries that we could use in this pack. If that is not the case, yes, please, I would love if you can send me the older cells (my protected cells are even older!). I will send you a PM, or better yet, send me an email (my email is right in my signature below).




leukos said:


> 3.) Yes! I would love to be a tester. I have two hungry M6's waiting for the opportunity!


OK, thanks


----------



## wquiles (Jun 8, 2010)

Today I worked some on the actual programmer for the production boards:
(snip) old design ...


These are the ends of the pins - very sharp!:
(snip) old design ...


I first marked the hole positions:
(snip) old design ...


and then drilled them:
(snip) old design ...


Then got the pins in place and applied hot glue to keep them aligned/in place:











Not done, but here is how it is starting to look like. The 2xAAA carrier will hold 2x AA size LiIon cells, which will provide the battery power to power the board's voltage regulator, since we need to have +5 Vcc on the target board while programming the board (the AVR Dragon does not provide power since it is USB-powered itself):


----------



## georges80 (Jun 8, 2010)

If you only need programming power, you can run a wire from the USB 5V (at the connector) to the ISP VCC pin.

On my Dragon, I've wired a little board inside my box that takes the USB 5V through a 3.3V regulator to provide 3.3V to the target. I also have a switch in series with the 3.3V so I can either provide 3.3V to the target (via the ISP VCC pin) or I can disable it for when debugging targets that have their own power.

This provides me the ability to program panels of boards without external power and a hand held pogo pin adapter.

Just another way to do it...

Oh, this of course presumes that you can 'back feed' the regulator on the target (since I apply 3.3V right to the AVR VCC pin), which is safe with most any regulator.

After programming many 1000's of boards, I think it's pretty safe to do it this way 

cheers,
george.


----------



## JimmyM (Jun 8, 2010)

georges80 said:


> If you only need programming power, you can run a wire from the USB 5V (at the connector) to the ISP VCC pin.
> 
> On my Dragon, I've wired a little board inside my box that takes the USB 5V through a 3.3V regulator to provide 3.3V to the target. I also have a switch in series with the 3.3V so I can either provide 3.3V to the target (via the ISP VCC pin) or I can disable it for when debugging targets that have their own power.
> 
> ...


I've modified my AVR ISP MkII to provide 5V power for programming. But there's one advantage to doing it that way Will proposes. It's also a functional test of the onboard regulator.


----------



## georges80 (Jun 8, 2010)

In my case all the boards come on panels. I program them on panels and test them on the panels. So, a hand held pogo programming adapter and tester works well.

If Will has individual round boards then his scheme will likely work well.

For testing, I provide power to my test pogo jig via a power supply (current limited) so if there's any shorts I don't have instant melt down.

Anyhow, it looks like Will's having fun making all sorts of adapter jigs etc and no doubt is utilizing his mill too 

cheers,
george.


----------



## wquiles (Jun 8, 2010)

JimmyM said:


> But there's one advantage to doing it that way Will proposes. It's also a functional test of the onboard regulator.


Yes, that is why I wanted to do it this way. If I can't even program the board, I know something like the regulator is not working properly, plus the current capacity of the AA size cells is somewhat limited which is good for just initial testing. The only problem is that I forgot to add a via for the battery pad, but for these protoboards it will not be a problem since there is no solder mask 




georges80 said:


> Anyhow, it looks like Will's having fun making all sorts of adapter jigs etc and no doubt is utilizing his mill too


Absolutely; the mill, the lathe, the glue gun, etc. - all kinds of gadgets :devil:


----------



## wquiles (Jun 9, 2010)

More progress today 

I got the pins lined-up, and cut the delrin holder for the right height:
(snip) old design ...


I marked and drill holes on the holder:
(snip) old design ...


and made some fitted Aluminum rods to fit on two of those holes:
(snip) old design ...

(snip) old design ...


This allows me to hold the board, solder to the board, test the board, program the board, etc., without having to actually touch the board and while keeping it on a non-conductive plane:
(snip) old design ...


Here is how it looks like while in the programming fixture:
(snip) old design ...


I made the ISP 6-pin header:







and soldered to the correct pins:





(snip) old design ...


Did a quick test fit:
(snip) old design ...


And added "lots" of hot glue to keep the ISP deader from moving while in use:






I soldered the first board manually, including a fix for the Voltage regulator that had enable on HIGH instead of low:
(snip) old design ...


and guess what? It actually programmed perfectly in the first try!:
(snip) old design ...


However, although it appeared that the bulb detection and the 4 voltage selections are working, I must have something simple wrong since the regulation voltages were off. I ran out of time today, but I hope to double check the resistor values tomorrow:
(snip) old design ...


Making progress


----------



## wquiles (Jun 10, 2010)

Not only making progress, but I got the first PhD-M6 Regulator/Driver working 

The "weird" voltages I saw before was because yours truly wired the switch on the development board wrong. The voltages for 6.8 and 7.4 were reversed in the development board 

Once that was understood, all I had to do was to measure the voltages so that I could do the calibration:
(snip) old design ...


I then assembled the Alpha proto board to the latest version of Eric's awesome custom battery pack:
(snip) old design ...


Sanded the 4 corners so that it would fit inside the SF-M6, and assembled the top of the pack:
(snip) old design ...


And here is the very first Alpha PhD-M6 proto pack:






My two M6's (one with the MN20 and the other with the MN21) are setup using the ill-fated HDM6 packs, so I had to remove the custom tailcap insert first:











And after verifying the voltage at the pack (11-12 volts - I did not wrote it down), I tried on my SF-M6 with the MN-20 bulb. Yup - it works:






Here is a short video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jifg4Z5yfXI


I need to do more testing with the actual Alpha board/setup, but as you can imagine I am a very happy camper indeed


----------



## JimmyM (Jun 10, 2010)

wquiles said:


> Not only making progress, but I got the first PhD-M6 Regulator/Driver working
> 
> The "weird" voltages I saw before was because yours truly wired the switch on the development board wrong. The voltages for 6.8 and 7.4 were reversed in the development board
> 
> ...



AWESOME, Will. I imagine you'll be revising the board design to account for the active high/active low voltage regulator difference. If for no other reason that you won;t have to solder a jumper on each and every board.


----------



## wquiles (Jun 10, 2010)

JimmyM said:


> AWESOME, Will. I imagine you'll be revising the board design to account for the active high/active low voltage regulator difference. If for no other reason that you won;t have to solder a jumper on each and every board.



Absolutely. Once I get a little bit more testing with the Alpha boards, I will be ordering Beta boards to then use for the actual field trial. Not only I have to correct the enable pin in the regulator, but also need to add a pad/via for the programming fixture for the "+" battery.


----------



## LED61 (Jun 12, 2010)

Will, you know I am interested. I still have your old pack that I did not bother in sending you even though you kindly offered a look at it, yo've been way too busy with this and I'd rather wait for this better pack. Good luck!!


----------



## wquiles (Jun 12, 2010)

LED61 said:


> Will, you know I am interested. I still have your old pack that I did not bother in sending you even though you kindly offered a look at it, yo've been way too busy with this and I'd rather wait for this better pack. Good luck!!



Cool, thanks. Not just because I am designing this one, but I truly believe this pack is a lot more flexible, and with Eric's awesome battery carrier a lot more easier on the batteries as well


----------



## wquiles (Jun 12, 2010)

I have been testing the MN20 and MN21 these last two days in one of my two SF M6's, and the tests with the MN20 are going really well. With the current low-voltage pre-sets, my 1600mAh cells were depleted enough that I had to add 1438 mAh to get them charged again, so I am "close".

With the MN21 it looks like I will have to adjust the low-battery levels since with the voltage sag with the MN21 is so large that although it is not tripping the cell's built-in protection (due to the soft-start), the voltage sag is big enough to start tripping the low-voltage logic a little bit too soon (cells are not depleted, like they were with the MN20). So it looks like I will likely have different low-voltage trigger points depending on the voltage and/or bulb. I will do some more work over the next couple of days and report back to the group.


----------



## Alan B (Jun 12, 2010)

Sometimes it works better to measure battery voltage unloaded, during the PWM off periods, to reduce the current/resistance dependence of the measurement.


----------



## wquiles (Jun 12, 2010)

Alan B said:


> Sometimes it works better to measure battery voltage unloaded, during the PWM off periods, to reduce the current/resistance dependence of the measurement.



SF M6 factory battery holder has 6 CR123 cells (2 parallel stacks of 3x CR123 cells in series), so at rest the pack measures 9 volts. Once you put the MN21 across the pack, since the MN21 needs about 5Amps, the cells sag to provide about 6.7-6.8 volts.

In my experiment with the MN20, I started with 3 charged cells, and at the end of the run, when my circuit turn off the light, the cells were almost depleted at a resting voltage of 3.5, 3.6, and 3.6 volts.

In my experiment with the MN21 I started with the 3 fully charge 17670 cells (resting voltage after charging were 4.17, 4.16, 4.17). I then turned ON the M6, but it tripped my "logic" within 2-3 minutes. My current guess is that the "resting" voltage is just barely above my current upper low voltage setpoint, because when I removed the cells their resting voltage were 4.0, 4.0, and 3.99 volts. Clearly these cells are not "depleted", so the M6 is capable of definitely running longer. This is why I say that I need to adjust the level I do the test to match the sag in the cells.

However, I like your idea of measuring the resting (no load voltage). That might help as well. Just another thing to try


----------



## Alan B (Jun 12, 2010)

I'm talking about measuring the voltage during PWM OFF periods, which isn't quite the same as 'resting' with the light off. The cell doesn't have time to recover, but the resistive losses go away since the current is low at this time.

You still may need a lower threshold, and a requierment for that voltage to be present for awhile before tripping. What are you using now?


----------



## wquiles (Jun 12, 2010)

Alan B said:


> I'm talking about measuring the voltage during PWM OFF periods, which isn't quite the same as 'resting' with the light off. The cell doesn't have time to recover, but the resistive losses go away since the current is low at this time.
> 
> You still may need a lower threshold, and a requirement for that voltage to be present for awhile before tripping.


I understand what you are saying. Makes sense. I still have a gut feeling that I need a lower threshold to account for the larger voltage sag and/or waiting a longer time than I am waiting now before taking action. Truth is that we are probably exceeding the current rating of these cells at close to 5Amps with the MN21 




Alan B said:


> What are you using now?


Right now I wait 61 consecutive instances of the loaded voltage being at this point (about 1/4 of a second), and right now the upper low voltage threshold is set at 9.4 volts. A fully charged pack of 3x LiIon cells measured at 12.5 volts, and the discharged cells after the run with the MN20 had a resting voltage of about 10.8 volts.


----------



## Alan B (Jun 12, 2010)

9.4 volts under heavy load may indeed be too high. You might want to plot the voltage under the various loads using something like the West Mountain CBA and then you could choose a cutoff from that. Unfortunately it is not going to be the same for all cells.

IMR cells might be a better choice for that load. You don't want to recommend overcurrent on Lithium Cobalt cells because some of them may


----------



## wquiles (Jun 12, 2010)

Alan B said:


> 9.4 volts under heavy load may indeed be too high. You might want to plot the voltage under the various loads using something like the West Mountain CBA and then you could choose a cutoff from that. Unfortunately it is not going to be the same for all cells.
> 
> IMR cells might be a better choice for that load. You don't want to recommend overcurrent on Lithium Cobalt cells because some of them may



Thanks much Alan. I currently only have a Triton, so I can charge, discharge, cycle, and get the capacity of cells, but it is not nearly as complete/sophisticated as the CBA III. I can definitely see how having a CBA III would be very useful for all of this project and the flashlight hobby in general. I will see if I can save some money to buy one in the near future 

Are the IMR cells available on the 17670 size? You know who sells them?

Will


----------



## Alan B (Jun 12, 2010)

wquiles said:


> ...
> 
> Are the IMR cells available on the 17670 size? You know who sells them?
> 
> Will



Not sure they are available, figured they would be by now since so many sizes have been found.


----------



## wquiles (Jun 14, 2010)

Well, my hunch was right on the money. The MN21 is simply taxing the 17670 LiIon cells quite a bit.

Here is my bench setup. I am using fully charged 17670 cells, on the pack, with an MN21 bulb held by the small alligator clip thingie:






For these two scope shots:
- channel 1 (yellow trace) is set right across the battery pack - reading the instantaneous pack's voltage
- channel 2 (blue trace) is set to measure the voltage right at the gate of the FET. Then the voltage is high, the FET turns ON, which connects the battery right across the bulb. Note that although the resting voltage is about 12 volts, the FET is turning ON/OFF fast enough (246 Hz) that the bulb (designed to run at 6.7 volts RMS) does not blow up.
- Note that this setup has higher resistance than if the MN21 were in the actual M6 host, connected directly, so the actual currents (and sagging of the cells under load) should actually be a little bit higher.

This first trace is incredibly reveling. Here the bulb is "cold", so it has its lowest resistance. When we first close the circuit we are basically putting almost a short right across the battery - note the horizontal level line, and its value on the top right. Yes, for that brief period at the beginning the battery pack's voltage sags down from about 12 volts to about 5 volts  . Note that I am using fully protected cells, but that this current pulse is so relatively fast that the cell's built-in protection does not have an opportunity to kick in. 







This second scope shot I took after the bulb warms up and the circuit finds a steady state operation. Note that the voltage sag under load is now a much higher 9.68 volts. Note that due to the PWM operation of the regulator the bulb can't react fast enough to the ON/OFF at 246 Hz, so the bulb still "sees" the average/RMS value of 6.7 volts, even though the instantaneous voltage applied to the bulb is actually 9.68 volts during the ON cycle.






These measurements, specially the second one (steady state) perfectly explain what I saw during my trial of the PhD-M6 pack with the MN21 in my SF M6 -> the voltage under load is sagging low enough to start tripping my upper low voltage trip point, even though this is still happening way sooner than the cells actually been discharged. I did not see this with my trial on the MN20 since the current draw is about 1/2, so the low level battery monitor was not affected by the sagging of the pack with the smaller MN20 load.

I guess one of the things I can do now is to disable the low-voltage protection on the firmware and check every 5 minutes or so to see how depleted the cells have become, and hopefully I will stop the test before the cell's built-in over discharge protection kicks in. This will then allow me to pick/select a more practical low voltage trip point.


----------



## JimmyM (Jun 14, 2010)

A couple of things. 
I think that if you delay the low voltage check for a second after turn on, the regulator will ignore that initial low voltage pull-down. Also, 9.4 volts is way too high for a low voltage trip. It should be down at 3V/cell. Especially considering that the voltage sampling is being done under load. I understand that you want to be conservative with Lithium ion cells, but conservative to the point where the light won't run for more than a minute or 2 before the circuitry steps in, is a bit too conservative. 3V/cell, under load, I feel is fine.


----------



## Starlight (Jun 14, 2010)

You wanted to check if people were still interested. I am.

IMR 17670's are still not available. You may have to revisit 6X17500's for the MN21.


----------



## wquiles (Jun 14, 2010)

JimmyM said:


> A couple of things.
> I think that if you delay the low voltage check for a second after turn on, the regulator will ignore that initial low voltage pull-down. Also, 9.4 volts is way too high for a low voltage trip. It should be down at 3V/cell. Especially considering that the voltage sampling is being done under load. I understand that you want to be conservative with Lithium ion cells, but conservative to the point where the light won't run for more than a minute or 2 before the circuitry steps in, is a bit too conservative. 3V/cell, under load, I feel is fine.


You make a good point about the initial (cold filament) scenario, so I will look a little bit more at this. Right now the pack is not shutting down when it is first used - right now the problem with the MN21 is that the low voltage setpoint is being tripped due to the voltage sag, so you are right, 9.4V is probably just too high. 

I went ahead and re-program the Tiny85 with the lower voltage threshold of 9.0, and extending the "review period" from 1/4 of a second to 1/2 of a second, but blew up the MN21 since I forgot to reset the voltage selection down from 10.8v to the 6.7v point 





Starlight said:


> You wanted to check if people were still interested. I am.
> 
> IMR 17670's are still not available. You may have to revisit 6X17500's for the MN21.


Always a possibility, but lets see how it goes with this first iteration of the pack. Thanks much for the interest in this project :thumbsup:


----------



## wquiles (Jun 14, 2010)

By the way Jimmy, some math questions as I am reviewing Willie Hunts PWM math ...

Under steady state conditions the MN21 is a 5A bulb at 6.7 volts. That gives out a nominal resistance value of about 1.34 ohms. So if we setup a fixed DC regulator to 6.7 volts we would have about 6.7 * 5 = 33.5 watts

Now, when we are using PWM, the power calculations are a little bit different ...

With the voltage sag that I see at 9.7 volt, the current should be:
I= V/R = 9.7 / 1.34 = 7.24 Amps (this is of course only during the ON cycles of the FET)

The duty cycle to get the 9.7 battery voltage down to 6.7V rms is about 47%, so

Bulb Power = Duty Cycle * V * I = 0.47 * 9.7 * 7.24 = 33 watts

Does that look about right?


----------



## mdocod (Jun 14, 2010)

I would expect a good 17670 to hold better voltage under this pulsed load. Will and I are discussing this and are trying to figure out where things are acting a little funny here. 

I would have guessed that it would perform more like:

10.5Vbatt with current peaks at 8A with 40% duty cycle. For an average RMS current from the cells of about 3.2A. If not better than that.

I'm going to do some research on the performance of li-ion cells under pulsed load applications here this afternoon and see what I come up with.

[edit in]

from battery university:
"[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]_A lithium-ion battery manufacturer claims that their cells perform better on a pulse rather than DC load. The DC resistance of their 18650 cylindrical cell is ~110 mOhm. At 1 KHz AC, the impedance goes down to ~36 mOhm. As the pulses increase in frequency, the cell's effective impedance goes down. This results in better performance and lower heat build-up. These two effects increase the life of the lithium-ion cell._"[/FONT]

If I understand this correctly, this should translate to performance under a load equal to or better in this pulse discharge application than a normal steady drain. 

Will and I were talking on he phone a few minutes ago and I think we may have identified the problems:
1. The cells are at least 3-4 years old. The PCBs in those cells are being tricked by the pulse discharge and essentially bypassed, but this doesn't eliminate the higher resistance in those older PCBs that is common. The age of the cells themselves would also result in poorer voltage maintenance. 
2. The MN21 is only about 1.34ohm at operating temp, adding test leads into the circuit would have a noticeable impact on such a low voltage high current setup. 
3. The low-voltage limit on the regulator is set too high to get a good run out of the older cells at this load. We discussed dropping this to 3V per cell, or a total of 9V and giving it a test run. I suspect he should get a good 15-20 minute run with a 9V limit set. Cells will probably come off with 20% remaining by my estimates (~3.7V per cell). 

I think Will will be ordering some new AW cells to test here soon. This will likely improve the performance noticeably. 

A question for Alan or Jimmy...

Any reason why we couldn't set the assumed voltage to something like 15V instead of 12V and get similar results? I'm thinking in terms of long term upgrade options. Li-Ion cells are headed in the direction of higher charge voltages to achieve better capacity. We have cells on the market right now that charge comfortably to ~4.4V, and I've heard of people in more aggressive applications charging to 5V per cell on some very modern chemistry cells. In a few years, It wouldn't surprise me if 5V per cell started showing up on manufacture data sheets for li-ion cells. With any luck, maybe a 17670 size cell will be available some time in the future that conforms to these new chemistry and charging standards. Imagine a 2.1AH 17670 cell (charges to 4.4V). MN21 runtimes in excess of 40 minutes, rechargeable and regulated!

Eric


----------



## wquiles (Jun 14, 2010)

Thanks much Eric for your time on the phone today. I think that a big part of the problem is the 3-4 year old cells that I am using, so I just ordered 3x brand new AW protected cells from Lighthound. I will report later on when I get the new cells, in the meantime I will continue testing/using the older cells, but with a lower low-voltage setpoint


----------



## dan1million (Jun 14, 2010)

sorry this is a little OT, but the lumen output of the MN21 is quoted as ~500 OTF Lumen from the M6, is normal incandescent not about 30Lm/watt?

does this not equate to over 900 bulb lumen ? is that much lost to heat/Ir etc ?

back to the "on topic" discussion, has the regulator taken into account the sum total of the battery impedance at the switching frequency ?

what is the spec of the 17670 you are using ? ie the discharge rate in C ?
do you have a datasheet i suspect that might hold the answer.

-Dan


----------



## wquiles (Jun 14, 2010)

dan1million said:


> sorry this is a little OT, but the lumen output of the MN21 is quoted as ~500 OTF Lumen from the M6, is normal incandescent not about 30Lm/watt?
> 
> does this not equate to over 900 bulb lumen ? is that much lost to heat/Ir etc ?
> 
> ...



From my reading here in the forum the MN21 is actually putting out closer to 600 lumens OTF - SureFire is just being conservative about it.

Yes, the regulator does take into account the sum total of all of the impedances automatically since it measures the loaded voltage right across the bulb.

Eric did the research on the 17670 we are using, and that is why I ordered newer cells. We both feel that the older cells with their older protection circuitry have higher internal loses compared to the newer AW cells. In fact, Eric's researched showed that the cells actually have lower internal losses when pulsed, than with steady state/constant loads.


----------



## dan1million (Jun 14, 2010)

Thanks for the fast response.

I should never have doubted you guys doing the research 


-Dan


----------



## Alan B (Jun 14, 2010)

I ordered some cells from AW a few days ago and they're here already! Amazing. Lighthound is probably even faster.

The voltage range of the regulator can include 15 volts input, it just depends on the sampling resistors. I'm not sure what Will has selected but it could include 15V. Actually it doesn't matter since the only voltages of interest are when the bulb is ON for regulation and 15V won't be present under load; and when the bulb is OFF for battery discharge protection, in which case voltages more than 9V are of little interest.

So it doesn't need to go quite to 15V but only to the loaded voltage for a 15V pack with the bulb loading it which is probably a bit less than 15.

Also, in this pack any ADC voltage overrange could be assumed in the program to be 15V since it only has room for 3 cells there cannot be much error.


----------



## Alan B (Jun 14, 2010)

Starlight said:


> You wanted to check if people were still interested. I am.
> 
> IMR 17670's are still not available. You may have to revisit 6X17500's for the MN21.



I would think 17500 IMR's with spacers would work fine in this pack.


----------



## LED61 (Jun 15, 2010)

Will, when Silverfox tested some Duracell Procell 123's that I sent to him he measured voltage under the 5 amp load to be 2.33V per cell. These were the cells that delivered the highest voltage under this load. I have since tested my MN21 with these cells and it is superb CCT right around 7 Volts. Further, the MN21 ran OK for short bursts with your old pack at 7.5V.

What I am insinuating is that if I had a choice I would love 7 volts for the MN21 with the PWM soft start it would be no problem. It would be like running the M6 MN21 with fresh Procells all the time, and soft start to boot.


----------



## wquiles (Jun 15, 2010)

mdocod said:


> Any reason why we couldn't set the assumed voltage to something like 15V instead of 12V and get similar results? I'm thinking in terms of long term upgrade options. Li-Ion cells are headed in the direction of higher charge voltages to achieve better capacity. We have cells on the market right now that charge comfortably to ~4.4V, and I've heard of people in more aggressive applications charging to 5V per cell on some very modern chemistry cells. In a few years, It wouldn't surprise me if 5V per cell started showing up on manufacture data sheets for li-ion cells. With any luck, maybe a 17670 size cell will be available some time in the future that conforms to these new chemistry and charging standards. Imagine a 2.1AH 17670 cell (charges to 4.4V). MN21 runtimes in excess of 40 minutes, rechargeable and regulated!



Eric,

I forgot to address this one ... mostly because I did not remember the effective range and because I did not have the code in front of me when we were talking on the phone. Now that I had some time to review the stuff, I can tell you what is the range for this pack.

The voltage divider formed by the 46.4K and 10K resistors means that the ADC sees a fraction of the full range of the battery voltage:

==> Voltage seen by the ADC input pin = Vbat * 10 / (10 + 46.4) = Vbat * 0.1773

Initially we were using one of the internal voltage references for the ADC, which was 2.56 V, so when I selected the resistors, I used the 2.56V as the max, which then gives us:

==> Max input voltage with vref set to 2.56 = 2.56 / 0.1773 = 14.43 volts

This was a good max value since for this pack we were using 3x cells.

I later changed the voltage reference to be VCC, which could be as low as 4.95volts, but I did not update the resistor values. Since I have not changed the resistor values, the max voltage I can see in that pin is:

==> Max input voltage with vref set to VCC = 4.95 / 0.1773 = 27.9 volts !!!

So in theory, right now we can measure a battery voltage of about 28 volts 

Now, I should change the resistor values so that we have a little bit more resolution by the ADC. If we assume that we are going to see single cells which fully charged could be up to 5 volts, then I can change the resistors to give a range closer to say 15-16 volts, and still have good resolution.

So if I change the 46.4K resistor to 22.6K, that would give us:

==> Voltage seen by the ADC input pin = Vbat * 10 / (10 + 22.6) = Vbat * 0.3067

==> Max input voltage with vref set to VCC = 4.95 / 0.3067 = 16.14 volts

Sounds good? :devil:


----------



## mdocod (Jun 15, 2010)

Hi Will,

That's exactly what I wanted to know! Now I understand the purpose of the maximum voltage "assumption" in the code. 

Here's an interesting thought...

The adapter should also theoretically work with 6xCR123s or RCR123s loaded in series. (cell retention wouldn't be great until the unit was installed in the flashlight, but it would work) That would require that you leave the 28V maximum in place, if we plan on sticking to 17670 compatibility only and have room for future cell improvements, the 16.14V range would be perfect IMO. 

The only reason I can think one might want to run say, 6xCR123 primary cells, would be maybe in conjunction with the N1 bulb to get ultra-long runtime. By my calculations, runtime could exceed 4 hours on 6xCR123 primary cells driving the N1 bulb at ~4.8V. Though, on the 3x17670s it's still a very respectable runtime approaching 3 hours. 

Just thinking out loud here 

Eric


----------



## Alan B (Jun 15, 2010)

mdocod said:


> Hi Will,
> 
> That's exactly what I wanted to know! Now I understand the purpose of the maximum voltage "assumption" in the code.
> 
> ...



Actually, Will could do autoranging. Set up the ADC for 16V for 2.56 Vref and then go to 30V 5.0 Vref. Or use 1.1 and 2.56 Vref. The code would try both Vrefs and choose the appropriate coefficients. That can be a later code upgrade if the hardware is set up that way now. After the code is upgraded it could be totally automatic. The switch selects the bulb as now, the voltage autoranges as needed, and the voltage shutoff could autorange as well.

If both CR123 and RCR123's are allowed there may be a condition where discharged RCR123's are mistaken for primaries, and the shutdown voltage would be selected incorrectly, so it might be best if only one of those battery types were allowed.


----------



## georges80 (Jun 15, 2010)

If you're looking at higher input voltage then Will likely needs to be looking for a voltage regulator (that powers the uC) spec'd to run at >24V and his input cap better be rated >24V too....

I'm pretty sure he's using the regulator I recommended and if so, it has a 24V max operating voltage. It has an abs max 38V rating - but that's more to deal with short term transients etc.

cheers,
george.


----------



## wquiles (Jun 15, 2010)

Alan B said:


> Actually, Will could do autoranging. Set up the ADC for 16V for 2.56 Vref and then go to 30V 5.0 Vref. Or use 1.1 and 2.56 Vref. The code would try both Vrefs and choose the appropriate coefficients. That can be a later code upgrade if the hardware is set up that way now. After the code is upgraded it could be totally automatic. The switch selects the bulb as now, the voltage autoranges as needed, and the voltage shutoff could autorange as well.
> 
> If both CR123 and RCR123's are allowed there may be a condition where discharged RCR123's are mistaken for primaries, and the shutdown voltage would be selected incorrectly, so it might be best if only one of those battery types were allowed.



Good idea. Another way to do it (which I already discussed with Eric yesterday) would be to use the two dip switches in two modes (right after reset - initialization only) and during steady state operation.

For reference, this is the normal/current mode of operation:
Right now when you first install the batteries, it of course forces a reset of the Tiny85 and it then goes through the initialization sequence. It then enters the main loop, and starts looking to see if the bulb is there. Since the bulb can't be there when you are installing the batteries (since you have to have the pack outside of the body of the M6 to change batteries), the Tiny85 goes to sleep, waiting for a bulb to trigger an interrupt.

Then the bulb is connected across the pack, the interrupt is generated, and the Tiny85 then goes out and reads the position of the two switches, which determines the target voltage to use for regulation (which hopefully matches the bulb being used).

When the circuit opens and the light is turned OFF, the Tiny85 (who is always checking to make sure the bulb is still there), realizes the circuit is open, and then goes to sleep again. Once the circuit is closed again, it re-checks the status of the dip switches. This means that to change the voltage target (bulb selection) you don't have to remove the batteries nor turn off the Tiny85 to force a reset - just take the pack out of the M6, change the dip switches, change the bulb, put the pack back into the M6, and you are set.



Potential 2nd mode of operation for the switches:
Two key things from the description above: 
- the initialization of the Tiny85 only happens once, when the batteries are first installed. It does not happen again until the cells are removed from the pack and re-inserted.
- the position of the switches is only read within the main loop, not as part of the initialization code.

This means that we could tell the Tiny85 what voltage the pack has by:
- remove batteries from the pack
- set dip switches for one out of 4 possible battery voltages
- insert the batteries
- the Tiny85 would then read the position of the switches as part of the initialization code, and setup the internal variables appropriately.
- the user would then re-set the two switches to match whatever bulb they want to use.

As a measure of safety, the code could "also" do the auto-ranging that Alan suggests above, to verify that the non-loaded battery/pack voltage is within the range of the selection set by the user - if there is a discrepancy, the code could always auto-select the "safer" setting.



Potential 3rd way of using the dip switches:
- Do as above, but instead of selecting various battery pack voltages/cells, the user could select from various modes of operation. For example:

1) both switches low: Normal operation as in first case
2) both switches high: auto-range of MN20 and MN21. In this mode (I think) I could code the Tin85 to "sense" what load is the bulb placing on the cells, and pick the right target voltage based on that load. So the user could use either the MN20 or the MN21, and he/she would never have to worry about selecting the right voltage in the pack - everything would happen automatically.
3) switches in the other two positions: some other modes I have not think about yet

NOTE: In modes 2 and 3 now we are asking the user to remember to reset the switches back to starting positions whenever batteries are being changed/replaced, and switch them back to the proper bulb selection - it is clear to me that the chances of something going wrong and a $40 bulb being blown are high 



KISS Concept: A specific version of the pack that does the auto-selection between MN21 and MN20 and ignores the switches altogether - this would be the KISS (keep it supper simple) pack for the factory M6 - nothing to do, change, select. Just put batteries, an MN20 or MN21 bulb and go 



Of course, this is not something I would want to do in this first pack, but it might be worth considering for future versions. 

What do you guys think?


----------



## wquiles (Jun 15, 2010)

georges80 said:


> If you're looking at higher input voltage then Will likely needs to be looking for a voltage regulator (that powers the uC) spec'd to run at >24V and his input cap better be rated >24V too....


Excellent point. To use the higher voltages I need to make sure the board itself can handle the higher voltages. The regulator is OK, but I don't remember if I am using 50V caps or not. Right now for this first iteration of the pack I would like to keep it with a max. of 16 volts max from the battery pack, but future packs might have different ratings.




georges80 said:


> I'm pretty sure he's using the regulator I recommended and if so, it has a 24V max operating voltage. It has an abs max 38V rating - but that's more to deal with short term transients etc.


Absolutely - I am using the Micrel part you recommended. You have a lot more experience with these drivers/boards/electronics than I do, so when you speak, I listen and try to learn as much as possible. Thanks again for being a good mentor 

And the same goes to Alan and Jimmy - I could have not reached this point without your help :bow:


----------



## wquiles (Jun 15, 2010)

OK, since my MN21 blue up when I connected the pack with the wrong dip setting on the switches (switches set to 10.8 Vrms)  , I of course had to order a new MN21.

In the mean time, to continue testing the upper and lower low voltage setup points, I have been doing runtimes with the MN20.

First runtime from this morning:

- start with freshly charged cells
- upper low voltage point set to 9 volts (to start blinking)
- lower low voltage point set to 8.8 volts (to shutdown)
- start run at 9:46AM
- flashlight blinked once and then turn off at 10:42AM

Looks like the cells at the end dropped very quickly and I did not have much time in the blinking mode, but when I charged the cells, I put one in my Triton and at 1Amp charge, I was able to put back 1483 mAh (these are 1600 mAH cells), so it looks like it was a good, solid run from cells that are a couple of years old 


I just now started a second runtime (4:42PM), and I started with the cells at 4.16, 4.19, and 4.17 volts respectively. This time I left the upper low voltage setpoint at 9.0 volts, but set the lower setpoint to 8.5 volts. Lets see how much juice I can get out of the cells this time


----------



## LED61 (Jun 15, 2010)

Will, is 7.0 Volts for the MN21 a possibility ? please see my post #488 above.


----------



## wquiles (Jun 15, 2010)

LED61 said:


> Will, is 7.0 Volts for the MN21 a possibility ?



Always possible. Right now I am trying for this pack to be as versatile and valuable to as many M6 owners as possible, so the pack right now will have 4 voltage setpoints:
LEVEL1 4.8 // N1 (several 6V WA lamps too)

LEVEL2 6.8 // MN21/MN16/WA 1111/ LF EO-M3T 

LEVEL3 7.4 // MN20/MN15/N2/LF HO-M3T

LEVEL4 10.8 // MN61/N62/WA 1185 


Voltage level 2 will support the MN21, as well as various others listed above, as the idea with these particular voltages is so that we can support multiple bulbs for many users of the M6.


----------



## LED61 (Jun 15, 2010)

OK, I will do a custom order for 7.0 volts for the MN21 and 7.6 volts for the MN20. I´m sure the bulbs can handle it with the soft start.


----------



## wquiles (Jun 15, 2010)

OK, the second runtime with the MN20 is done:

- cells charged voltage: 4.16, 4.19, 4.17
- starting time: 4:42PM
- ending time: 5:39PM
- cell ending voltage: 3.60, 3.63, 3.47

Again, no/little blinking - the pack just shutdown. Since it has happened now twice, with even lower firmware setpoints, my current explanation is that I am hitting the over-discharge protection circuitry built into the cells. So at least with the MN20 I need to raise the current 9.0 low-setpoint to something a little bit higher so that I can give the owner a little bit of warning instead of just letting the pack shutdown.

I am charging the cells again to see how many mAh I can put back on them.


----------



## wquiles (Jun 15, 2010)

The other idea that I have been considering to help determine when the batteries are close to being depleted is to monitor the duty cycle as well. Once the duty cycle reached the max level (very close to 100% duty cycle in my case - since I can't have a true 100% and still be able to detect a bulb), the pack basically can no longer "regulate" the voltage - it is basically a DD solution at that point, and the voltage will keep dropping since regulation stops.


----------



## mdocod (Jun 15, 2010)

1 hour run on the MN20 in regulation on 3 old 17670s... 

That's stock runtime and output but with regulation, recharge-ability, and soft start!

_We can make it better, muhahahahah!_


----------



## wquiles (Jun 15, 2010)

The cell finished charging on the Triton: 1462 mAh this time. Looks like this is as much energy as we can safely get from these older cells. Still, like you said, to get about an hour of regulated output on rechargeable cells is not bad at all


----------



## leukos (Jun 16, 2010)

wquiles said:


> Good idea. Another way to do it (which I already discussed with Eric yesterday) would be to use the two dip switches in two modes (right after reset - initialization only) and during steady state operation.
> 
> For reference, this is the normal/current mode of operation:
> Right now when you first install the batteries, it of course forces a reset of the Tiny85 and it then goes through the initialization sequence. It then enters the main loop, and starts looking to see if the bulb is there. Since the bulb can't be there when you are installing the batteries (since you have to have the pack outside of the body of the M6 to change batteries), the Tiny85 goes to sleep, waiting for a bulb to trigger an interrupt.
> ...




I think the first option appeals to me the most as a flashaholic. A KISS autoranging option sounds good for those who like it simple and fool proof (as you said). I don't see any reason to offer option 2 or 3.


----------



## wquiles (Jun 17, 2010)

leukos said:


> I think the first option appeals to me the most as a flashaholic. A KISS autoranging option sounds good for those who like it simple and fool proof (as you said). I don't see any reason to offer option 2 or 3.



Good to hear. Those are my thoughts as well. Perhaps these two versions will serve the majority of prospective buyers for this custom pack.


----------



## wquiles (Jun 17, 2010)

I am still waiting for my replacement MN-21 and new AW 17670 cells, so I still have a little bit of software development to do, but so far the hardware has been performing flawlessly, so with much help from George (www.taskled.com) I am about to order production boards for version 1 of the PhD-M6 PWB:
(snip) old design ...


----------



## donn_ (Jun 17, 2010)

Woo Hoo!


----------



## Tim W (Jun 18, 2010)

I am definitely in for one of these.

I don't check in that often, but you can count on me ordering one.

Tim


----------



## wquiles (Jun 19, 2010)

I forgot to share earlier another photo of my programming fixture. Not only it allows me to program the board by itself (which also tests the +5V VCC regulator), but if I remove one of the AA LiIon cells, the fixture also allows a fully assembled pack (minus the top cover) to be reprogrammed easy and efficiently, which has been a boom to my development/fine tunning of the firmware parameters 








Another point wort mentioning - the bulb does not have a POS or NEG terminal, so the pack can be inserted either way into the M6. However, due to the close tolerances in the pack to maximize space for the board, it is much easier and convenient to put the pack into the M6 with the circuit board towards the tailcap, as shown here. This of course makes it very easy to also change the voltage setting for the bulb without having to remove the pack from the M6:






Lastly, I have changed the meaning of the DIP switches, to follow the binary code, and to make it easier on me to start with the lowest voltage once each time the pack is programmed.

Low Low = Level 1 = 4.8 Volts

Low High = Level 2 = 6.8 Volts

High Low = Level 3 = 7.4 Volts

High High = Level 4 = 10.8 Volts


Unless I hear otherwise from you guys, right now, once I am done with calibrating and testing each pack, I am planning on shipping the pack set for Level 1 (Low Low) since that is the "safe" default bulb voltage/level. Worst case if you forget and install the pack right away without setting the output voltage, the pack will do a soft start and regulate voltage to the lowest level, so worst case your bulb will be under-driven and yellow in color


----------



## wquiles (Jun 19, 2010)

*leukos'* used AW (black label) cells arrived yesterday, so I have been doing some more runtime experiments with my MN20 bulb and proto pack #1.

Starting/charged voltage: 4.18, 4.19, 4.19 volts. Pack voltage was about 12.5 volts.
Start time: 6:04PM
End time: 6.57PM

I have raised a little bit the internal low-bat limits, so this time I got the light to flash for about 8-9 times before dying.

Pack voltage was about 9.6 volts right after the run, but when I got the cells out and they had time to "recover", then I got resting voltage after run: 3.51, 3.50, 3.26 volts. 

After charging them I got: 1352 mAh, 1370 mAh, and 1341 mAh. This is a little lower than my older cells, but we are still getting about close to an hour runtime. So my guess is that although my blue label cells are even older than *leukos'* cells, my cells had not seen as much use as his, so my cells had a little bit higher capacity. Best thing about these newer AW cells is that they should allow for higher currents, so once my new MN-21 arrives, I will test with these newer black-label AW cells.


----------



## wquiles (Jun 19, 2010)

The process to find out what low battery voltage setpoints to use is very slow:

- make a change in the program (1 minute),
- charge the batteries (a couple of hours), 
- do a test run (1 hour with the MN20),
- wait until the light dies - observe behavior, take notes at the exact time!
- repeat the whole cycle over and over ...

So today I had one of those times where the bulb in my head came on. I have a microcontroller with EEPROM memory - which survives having no batteries. Why not use it to record or "log" the battery voltages in real time?

So right now I am trying out some code to store in the EEPROM the loaded battery voltage at 1 minute intervals. Once the light shuts down, I should be able to connect the pack to my programming fixture and read back the contents of the EEPROM memory.

Hey, it is worth a shot - lets see it it works :huh:


----------



## wquiles (Jun 20, 2010)

The main routine samples the loaded voltage about once every 4mS, but for this experiment (and given the Tiny85 EEPROM size) I am capturing data approximately every 60 seconds, so not a lot of resolution, but I think this explains what I see when I do my test runs with fully charged cells and the MN20 (target regulated voltage set to 7.4Vrms).

For these tests I dissabled the firmware's shutdown due to low voltage, so when the pack shutsdown, it is because at least one of the cells has hit the limit in their internal protection circuitry. I basically do a test run like before, but this time the Tiny85 is storing samples into the EEPROM. Once the light dies out, I take the pack back to the programming fixture, and then I read the raw EEPROM contents into a file.

It was a lot of work and took a long time to get the file captured, analyzed (now I know Intel HEX format!), but in the end I captured about 60+ samples to share with you guys. Note how through the discharge (roughly 60 minutes) things look fairly nice/even until BOOM, the pack dies quickly at the end, again, probably just one cell shutting down.






Based on this data, at least with the MN20, I can program the low voltage point to be somewhere around 9.6 volts, which should give the user a few minutes (5 minutes?) warning than the pack is almost depleted. I can just then let the pack die on its own once the protection circuitry kicks in. Note that this only works with the fully protected cells that we are using in this pack.

Pretty interesting, right?


----------



## mdocod (Jun 20, 2010)

That's looking like a great way to determine the best low-voltage warning points. 

I look forward to seeing some more testing with the MN21 when it arrives!

Eric


----------



## Alan B (Jun 20, 2010)

Nice work and interesting results. I can't help but think that this may vary enough with different cells to be difficult to standardize.

If the cells are protected there is not much point in trying to protect them in the controller. So I would let the cell protection work, and not try to guess where it is.

Wavering below a threshold for warning does make sense, and perhaps that will be enough.

Of course you could do what I did and let the buyer specify and program each one individually. :devil:


----------



## wquiles (Jun 21, 2010)

mdocod said:


> That's looking like a great way to determine the best low-voltage warning points.
> 
> I look forward to seeing some more testing with the MN21 when it arrives!


I got email from SureFire that my new MN21 bulb has shipped. Like you, I am really intriged as to how the discharge looks like with the MN21 :devil:




Alan B said:


> Nice work and interesting results. I can't help but think that this may vary enough with different cells to be difficult to standardize.
> 
> If the cells are protected there is not much point in trying to protect them in the controller. So I would let the cell protection work, and not try to guess where it is.
> 
> ...


Good points Alan. I think you are right and it is best to just have one low-level point to give the user a "warning" about the pack being almost depleted, but to just keep running until the battery's protection circuitry kicks in. 

Of course, even though Eric and I are going to tell our customers to only use AW protected cells, somebody might still try using non-protected cells, so for that case I can always keep a LOW level of around 7.5 volts (2.5 volts per cell) to force a shutdown, just in case


----------



## wquiles (Jun 25, 2010)

OK, so the new MN-21 bulb arrived today 
(snip) old design ...


So I did another MN21 run, but unlike last time with the blue cells, this time using the AW Black cells that are used, and that I used for the MN20 runtime tests, so the cells are the same as last time.

Starting with cells charged at 4.17, 4.17, and 4.16 volts

I use a fan to keep the body from getting too hot, just like I used with the MN20:






Run start: 4:29PM
Run stop: 4:54PM

Runtime in regulation (and these are used cells!) = 25 minutes 

Cells in the pack right after the run were hot!. My IR meter measured a high temp of 156F on cells!

Right as the cells were hot, the cells measured 3.20, 3.40, and 3.48 volts

Once the cells cooled off (25 minutes), the cells measured 3.31, 3.47, and 3.55 volts.

Ambient temp for all of this was a balmy 90F here in Texas. I should note that when I did the runtimes on the MN20 I did it indoors with an ambient of about 76F. So next time I will do the runtime indoors as well.


After I collected the data from the EEPROM, this is what I got for the MN21 bulb, again sampling once every 60 seconds:






I would like to get a little bit more resolution for the MN21, so I think I will try another run, but collecting samples every 30 seconds - that should be interesting


----------



## LED61 (Jun 26, 2010)

excellent news!!


----------



## mdocod (Jun 26, 2010)

Hi Will,

Maximum safe temperature for a li-ion cell is about 140F.

Might be best to break the test into 2 separated segments with about a half hour rest inbetween. Or, maybe run the test with the flashlight sitting in ice water. Either way, this is good to have found out now. The high temp is probably not unusual when pushing a little over 2C discharge, especially in a pulsed manner. Make sure those cells are snugged into the adapter pretty well to minimize resistance at the contacts, which will help minimize heat buildup there. I look forward to testing with an 1185 or IMR-M6 to compare the cell temp to this test. I'm very curious if the cells get as hot with roughly the same average discharge, but with a higher "impedance" load at a higher duty cycle. 

The general consensus is that, a li-ion cell rated for a particular discharge rate can safely handle a little more if the discharge is not continuous, but rather in shorter bursts, which is how most people use an MN21 bulb anyways. So the temperature issue is something that the user needs to be aware of. I don't see this as anything unusual for an M6 owner. An M6 in stock form with the MN21 installed running CR123s will over-heat the cells if run continuously. 

I wonder if there is any way to put a temperature protection on the regulator.... hmmm

Eric


----------



## leukos (Jun 26, 2010)

Wow, 25 minutes with the MN21 is longer than I would have thought! Very exciting!


----------



## wquiles (Jun 26, 2010)

LED61 said:


> excellent news!!


Thanks. Making progress 




mdocod said:


> Hi Will,
> 
> Maximum safe temperature for a li-ion cell is about 140F.
> 
> Might be best to break the test into 2 separated segments with about a half hour rest inbetween. Or, maybe run the test with the flashlight sitting in ice water. Either way, this is good to have found out now. The high temp is probably not unusual when pushing a little over 2C discharge, especially in a pulsed manner. Make sure those cells are snugged into the adapter pretty well to minimize resistance at the contacts, which will help minimize heat buildup there.


I also felt this was a little hot, so thanks for confirming the 140F limit.

Cells are always tight, but of course not trying to crush the cells.




mdocod said:


> The general consensus is that, a li-ion cell rated for a particular discharge rate can safely handle a little more if the discharge is not continuous, but rather in shorter bursts, which is how most people use an MN21 bulb anyways. So the temperature issue is something that the user needs to be aware of. I don't see this as anything unusual for an M6 owner. An M6 in stock form with the MN21 installed running CR123s will over-heat the cells if run continuously.


That is perhaps the most important part. Maybe there are a few, but my guess is that few can hold the M6 with an MN21 for 25 minutes on their bare hand - it is just too much heat!

It is still amazing that the PhD-M6 pack "can" be driven continously that long, even when the factory cells would shutdown. In real use with more "bursty" usage the host should never get that hot, and it will be easier on the cells as well.




mdocod said:


> I wonder if there is any way to put a temperature protection on the regulator.... hmmm


We "do" have the temperature sensor in the Tiny85. The problem is that the temperature is read on the plastic package on the Tiny85 microcontroller, and because the way we have it mounted in the PhD-M6 pack, the Tiny85 is very efficiently isolated from the heat of the cells and the pack - the PWB of the driver is basically floating inside the pack.

When I did the temperature measurement on the cells being 156F, that was the hottest point in the cells, not for the actual pack. The temperature on the driver part was much cooler, somewhere around 100-105F. Since I don't have a good thermal path to the cells nor the body, measuring the temp on the plastic package is not very good - this is why I have disabled the temperature monitoring for now. Now that I have a reliable way to use the EEPROM to capture real-time measurements, I will try to capture some temperature data points, but I am not getting my hopes up 




leukos said:


> Wow, 25 minutes with the MN21 is longer than I would have thought! Very exciting!


Yup, very cool. And I got an email that my production boards have shipped, so I should be getting those this coming week


----------



## wquiles (Jun 27, 2010)

OK, second test with the MN21, but this time I collected data points every 30 seconds.

Runtime was done indoors, with a cooling fan as last time, but the ambient temp was a cooler 80F. Runtime was 26 minutes, using the same cells: used AW black label cells.

At the end of the run, the temp of the cells was a max of 152F. The max temp on the PWB was about 111F.

Cells right after the burn were 3.22, 3.41, and 3.40 volts. After 20 minutes the cells max temp was about 103F, and the resting voltage was 3.32, 3.48, and 3.47 volts. 

For reference this was the run for the MN20, samples taken every 60 seconds:






For reference this was the run for the MN21, done outdoors, samples taken every 60 seconds:






and this is the new run for the MN21, done indoors, and taking samples every 30 seconds (remember that the X axis on this one is really half as long):


----------



## dan1million (Jun 27, 2010)

that is some really nice work will.


----------



## wquiles (Jun 27, 2010)

Thanks 

As soon as I get the first production boards this week and I can build/test one, to verify that the boards do work as expected, I will start a formal feeler thread to see how many folks are actually interested in purchasing this first version of the PhD-M6 pack for 3x 17670 cells


----------



## jtivat (Jun 27, 2010)

wquiles said:


> Thanks
> 
> As soon as I get the first production boards this week and I can build/test one, to verify that the boards do work as expected, I will start a formal feeler thread to see how many folks are actually interested in purchasing this first version of the PhD-M6 pack for 3x 17670 cells



This looks like an awesome project I look forward purchasing one of these.


----------



## wquiles (Jun 28, 2010)

Guess what I got in the mail today ...

Yup, the production boards for the PhD-M6 V1:


----------



## georges80 (Jun 28, 2010)

I think you messed up the scale on your gerber files - that board looks HUGE...






cheers,
george.


----------



## donn_ (Jun 28, 2010)

It's easier to wire it up this way. Then Will just tosses it in the dryer and shrinks it down to size.:devil:


----------



## JimmyM (Jun 28, 2010)

You guys are too funny.


----------



## wquiles (Jun 28, 2010)

georges80 said:


> I think you messed up the scale on your gerber files - that board looks HUGE...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, it was YOU who taught me the little I know about Gerber files 

I will soon post some pictures after the reduction cycle in my wife's dryer 

I actually got the very first board running, on the first try


----------



## wquiles (Jun 28, 2010)

I first did a physical check to make sure all holes aligned properly - they did:











I then soldered the first board, and since I am using water-soluble flux, I cleaned the finished board in my ultrasonic cleaner (thanks much to George for these valuable tips!):






On top my second proto board. Not the pretiest, but it has served me well for several weeks of very heavy use. On the bottom my very first (ever!) production board:
(snip) old design ...


All soldered by hand:






And here it is mounted on Eric's outstanding almost-production custom battery carrier:






So the big question: Yes, it does work. In fact it came up the very first time without having to re-touch anything. Got lucky I guess :devil:

After programing the fuses, programming the flash, and performing the calibration, I first tried the MN-21, but I decided to try the old blue-label protected cells that I had. The light comes on all right as it supposed to, but the cells die quickly within 2-3 minutes. Basically out theory that the old protection circuit has too much resistance is right on the money. These old blue-label protected cells work well at lower currents (like the MN-20), but for the MN-21 you really "need" the newer black-label AW protected cells.

So once I put replaced the blue-label protected cells with the black-label protected cells, I proceeded to test this first production board with the MN-21, but since we now know (thanks to Eric) that the temperature of the cells should be keep at 140F, I decided to do the runtime test in 10 minute intervals.

- cells were charged last week, so by the time I started this run they were at about 4.14 - 4.15 volts each.

start test at 6:36PM
manually end test at 6:46PM

wait 10 minutes

start test at 6:56PM
manually end test at 7:06PM

wait 11 minutes

start test at 7:17PM
light turned off at 7:20PM

Total cumulative runtime = 10 + 10 + 3 = 23 minutes. Pretty much the same as the 25 minutes I got earlier. However, unlike before, the cell temperature now was a max. of 122F (board at about 95F).

EDIT: Cell finished charging on Triton. 1253mAh. Not quite as high as the 1350 as before, so that explains the 2-3 minutes less runtime.

Voltage on cells right after light turned off: 3.65, 3.65, 3.62 volts 
Voltage on cells after resting: 3.68, 3.68, 3.65 volts

Note how these voltages are significantly higher than before, no doubt due to the less stressful discharge.

I left the code in place to record the voltages in real time every 30 seconds, so tomorrow I will retrieve the EEPROM values and plot how it looks like


----------



## saabluster (Jun 29, 2010)

wquiles said:


> On the bottom my very first (ever!) production board:



Congratulations Will! It's sad that I didn't even know this thread existed before. I think I remember you showing me the board in it's early stages at one of our GTGs right? What a tremendous amount of work you have gone through to move our hobby forwards. It is really good to see the various parties working together to make it happen. Excellent work!


----------



## wquiles (Jun 29, 2010)

Tanks Michael. It has been an incredible learning experience, and it has been very enjoyable as well


----------



## wquiles (Jun 29, 2010)

I started a feeler thread in the B/S/T sub-forum:
PhD-M6 feeler thread ...

Will


----------



## DM51 (Jun 29, 2010)

Will, it's perfectly OK to put a link here.

I'd just like to add that I've been following this great project from the start, and I think you, Jimmy and the others are certifiable geniuses for your brilliant work on this!


----------



## donn_ (Jun 29, 2010)

DM51 said:


> I'd just like to add that I've been following this great project from the start, and I think you, Jimmy and the others are certifiable geniuses for your brilliant work on this!



And...certifiable flashaholics!:thumbsup:


----------



## wquiles (Jun 29, 2010)

DM51 said:


> Will, it's perfectly OK to put a link here.
> 
> I'd just like to add that I've been following this great project from the start, and I think you, Jimmy and the others are certifiable geniuses for your brilliant work on this!



Thank you. I just edited my post with the link :thumbsup:


----------



## wquiles (Jun 29, 2010)

Here is the EEPROM data from that run I did on the MN21, with th older/used AW black label protected 17670 cells, but this time resting every 10 minutes. Note that this data is still being captured every 30 seconds, but more importantly, this data was captured with the production PhD-M6 V1 board AND with the change in resistors to accommodate an input range of 16 volts, therefore giving more resolution to the ADC samples. 

The new production board also has thicker traces (2Oz copper, vs. 1Oz copper in the proto boards), and that with the higher resolution of the ADC (now truly using full scale) gives us a slightly different graph. This graph does not have quite as many samples as the prior tone, but the cells were resting at an initially lower voltage, which is why the run was a few minutes shorter. Shorter run -> shorter graph.

Note that although the total time including the OFF times was much longer (23 minutes of runtime plus 2x 10 minutes for the cooling off periods) the total number of samples is still proportionally correct to the number of minutes the light was ON. The reason for this is that when we turn off the M6 with the PhD-M6, the micro-controller goes to sleep until it is waken up when the bulb is detected. It then resumes storing values where it left off - only a full reset (removing and re-installing cells) would have caused it to start recording samples all over again.

Here is the new one just taken with the production board:


----------



## wquiles (Jun 30, 2010)

You guys (and gals) following this thread might be getting tired of me collecting more test data, but I continue to try to make sure this product is as solid as possible 

Although the production boards are working great on the actual M6 host, today I collected data with the new production boards, to test/measure the soft-start and bulb-detection circuitry on the scope. In this setup the voltage sag is greater than on the actual light since on my bench I have longer wires and additional resistive loses, but it is nevertheless a great tool to "watch" what is going on:






First photo is with a low power 12V bulb being driven at 10.8 volts (level 4). Yellow trace is at the battery, and the blue trace is at the gate of the FET. Here you can see several things:

1) Note soft-start taking place. Note how the width of the blue trace starts very, very narrow, and slowly gets wider and wider as time pases on (10mS per division). Roughly after 100mS or so the regulator achieves steady state.

2) Note that at the very beginning, when the bulb is "cold" (and its resistance the lowest) that the voltage sag on the cells/batteries is largest, but as the bulb warms up the voltage sag is less and less, as the resistance in the bulb increases.

3) Note that the FET (blue trace) is basically either ON or OFF. When the signal at the gate is high, the FET turns ON, when the signal at the gate goes to zero, the FET turns OFF. Note the battery voltage only sags while the FET is ON. This is the period of time where the regulator is measuring the battery voltage to adjust regulation.






In this second shot, I am doing the same exact thing as above, but this time with a SF MN20 bulb being driven at its target 7.8 volts (level 3). Again, in approx. 100mS the output is now stable. Note that since the target voltage is lower, the duty cycle is less than on the scope photo above where the duty cycle is pretty high:







This scope shot is of the steady state with the MN20 - once the soft start part has ended, and the voltage regulation is taking place (again top yellow trace is the battery, lower blue trace if the gate signal for the FET):






At this point I am pretty much running out of things to test on my setup, so I will be sending two packs to my system test "team", *mdocod* (Eric), and *leukos* over the next week or so, so that they can test additional bulbs that I don't have, and so that they can test the pack as a real "user", instead of my own biased ways as the developer. Once I can incorporate their feedback, and assuming there are no show-stoppers, we will then move towards production and a formal sales thread :twothumbs


----------



## JimmyM (Jun 30, 2010)

I always love your o-scope pictures.
Nice work on your first board. You said "soldered by hand". It looks like you're using too much paste in the joints. A little goes a Looooong way. You really just need the tiniest smear of paste. My first reflow attempts were similarly heavy on solder. Also, if you use too much paste, you increase your likelihood of solder balling and tombstoning when you put the hot air to them.
I like the ultrasonic cleaner. I have to use hot water from the tap and a soft brush. I originally bought no-clean paste, but I think I like the water soluble flux paste better. It's formulated for use with stencils, so the solder to flux ratio is higher. It doesn't flow through a very fine tip very well. The paste I bought that's no-clean is formulated for re-work so it flows better through a syringe.


----------



## wquiles (Jun 30, 2010)

By hand I meant not using reflow solder at all, but using my Metcal and solder wire, but you are still right in the money in that I should be using less solder. I was on the phone with George today and he gave me a few more pointers to practice with 

And yes, the the Kester type 331 water soluble flux is awesome. The actual Kester solder that I am using has the same water-soluble 331 flux at the core as the stand alone flux. Here is the actual solder:
http://search.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?Detail&name=KE1300-ND

and here is the actual flux pen that I am using (of course also available in larger containers):
http://search.digikey.com/scripts/DkSearch/dksus.dll?Cat=1311241&k=ZX%202331

Using these makes soldering these surface mount parts easier than any solder/flux I have ever tried, but of course "requires" the board to be cleaned. Five minutes in the ultrasonic cleaner followed by compressed air from my shop's supply (regulated to about 50-60 psi) makes for a quick and neat cleanup. For a re-touch a quick clean with a cloth/pad/Q-tip in Alcohol is also enough.


----------



## JimmyM (Jun 30, 2010)

For wire soldering (as in 'using wire solder', not 'soldering wires'), I have a roll of Crystal 505 multi-core. It's a rosin core flux. Not water cleanup, but it wets like crazy. I use the Kester 951 no-clean flux pen. For surface mount, even using an iron, I usually use the water soluble paste, but may switch to using the no-clean since it applies better using a syringe. I am considering buying a syringe of water soluble flux soldering paste with a lower solder/flux ratio for easier application. Like Kester R500.


----------



## wquiles (Jul 9, 2010)

As a quick update, the two first packs for field testing left yesterday. As soon as I get feedback and incorporate that into the firmware, I will then start a formal sales thread.


----------



## wquiles (Jul 26, 2010)

We are finishing up tweaking of various settings, so we are almost ready to start the formal sales thread. Given this, I am going to ask a moderator to go ahead and close this thread.

Thanks much,
Will


----------



## DM51 (Jul 26, 2010)

Thread closed at OP's request.


----------

