# Possible next project - 6 up XML



## HuffyPuffy (Jun 9, 2008)

I just ordered some Hirschmann M8 connectors and got to thinking about what to use them for. I have 2 3x XML boards from cutter sitting on my desk waiting for a home and so I tweaked an old design that I had set aside a while back (originally for XPG's) and came up with this:














































If I build it, it will be a H6Flex based 6x XML using the cute optics. I have some ideas about how to actually make the thing, but nothing is assured since it is just bits on my hard drive right now - though it is designed to be made on a 3 axis mill.

ViaCAD says it has about 64 square inches of surface area ( Body = 44.81 sq" and Front = 20.22 sq" ) which includes the inner portions too so that would probably cut it in half. The length of the body is only 2.38" from front to back and it is about 3.4" wide. Is this too small for 6 XML's? I forgot what the rule of thumb was (1" per watt or 2"?). If this is a lost cause I may just splice in a section to add some more area or re-design it completely.


----------



## Vancbiker (May 25, 2005)

I have found that 1 square inch per Watt works as long as you are moving a moderate amount of air across the light. 2 square inches per Watt will keep a light happy at a walking pace in 50 F air. Your design looks nice. Having the fins flush to the surrounding body might make them slightly less effective.


----------



## kwarwick (Jun 12, 2004)

HuffyPuffy said:


> ViaCAD says it has about 64 square inches of surface area ( Body = 44.81 sq" and Front = 20.22 sq" ) which includes the inner portions too so that would probably cut it in half. The length of the body is only 2.38" from front to back and it is about 3.4" wide. Is this too small for 6 XML's? I forgot what the rule of thumb was (1" per watt or 2"?). If this is a lost cause I may just splice in a section to add some more area or re-design it completely.


Nice looking design!

Now going on gut feelings it does look a bit small for the heat load of 6 XMLs at full tilt. Just a thought thought, perhaps with that many emitters running them at less than 3000ma is worth considering? Niterider's new Pro 3000 light must be doing just that since the quoted 3000 lumen is no where near the maximum output of the 6 XMLs they are using. This might be a good compromise to keep the heat down and the efficiency and reliability high.


----------



## Road_Runner (Mar 31, 2009)

This might be a stupid question, but can the H6flex handle 6 XMLs in series?

From my reading of the manual it seemed that five would be the maximum that it could drive from a 5S battery, but I might be wrong about that.

Perhaps somebody with more experience of the H6flex than me would like to comment please.


----------



## kwarwick (Jun 12, 2004)

Road_Runner said:


> This might be a stupid question, but can the H6flex handle 6 XMLs in series?
> 
> From my reading of the manual it seemed that five would be the maximum that it could drive from a 5S battery, but I might be wrong about that.
> 
> Perhaps somebody with more experience of the H6flex than me would like to comment please.


I think you'd need to run 2 sets of 3 XMLs in parallel. Since the H6Flex can do over 6000ma that shouldn't be a problem. Might want to be careful to get reasonably well match forward voltages of the two strings to avoid one set drawing more current than the other.


----------



## rschultz101 (Oct 5, 2009)

hmm, 50F 10C
thats cold weather, / winter
you'd end up , running the light 1/2 power, most of the time,
and summer time overheat fast.
2 sq inch plus, is really a minimum, for natural convection 8 sq inch is a good start.
don't forget to add for driver efficiency.
then again, most, prefer cute, cool looking, super hot, unreliable lights ,
oh, and it's got to weight next to nothing,.... weight weenies .

back to square one, try to get 50+ exposed surface as min.
my monster brick, has 200, at 24W it's fine and toasty on the desk, at 72W, you'd better be moving,
at a minimum speed .
cheers, Rob


----------



## troutie-mtb (Sep 20, 2007)

Road_Runner said:


> This might be a stupid question, but can the H6flex handle 6 XMLs in series?
> 
> From my reading of the manual it seemed that five would be the maximum that it could drive from a 5S battery, but I might be wrong about that.
> 
> Perhaps somebody with more experience of the H6flex than me would like to comment please.


It would work if you parelleled the two lots of 3 leds 
but if the full 3 amps was required it would need a beefy battery

having said that it will be darn bright :thumbsup:


----------



## HuffyPuffy (Jun 9, 2008)

Road_Runner said:


> This might be a stupid question, but can the H6flex handle 6 XMLs in series?
> 
> From my reading of the manual it seemed that five would be the maximum that it could drive from a 5S battery, but I might be wrong about that.
> 
> Perhaps somebody with more experience of the H6flex than me would like to comment please.


Thanks Roadrunner, you are right, Taskled says the H6Flex will do 20V max, the Cree datasheet shows 3.5V max, so I would need 21V to run 6 in the worst case. Seems it would squeek under if I drove it at 2A, and maybe even 2.8A though that is really doubtful. However, I just saw that the input voltage is only 22V so yeah, it looks pretty bad for using a H6Flex now. Unless I run it in parallel as was suggested, though I am not sure if I want to do that.


----------



## odtexas (Oct 2, 2008)

Great looking light and you would have plenty of range of amps running H6flex with parallel stars. 
Just need the 11.1 volt battery and off you go.:thumbsup:


----------



## HuffyPuffy (Jun 9, 2008)

troutie-mtb said:


> It would work if you parelleled the two lots of 3 leds
> but if the full 3 amps was required it would need a beefy battery
> 
> having said that it will be darn bright :thumbsup:


Yeah that is why I am re-considering the whole thing (aside from the problems a small light will have with heat), I need to find a driver that can do this. I prefer to run LEDs in series due to the balancing problems, so the problem will be finding a driver that can do it without running too close to the edge on the LED side or the battery side.


----------



## HuffyPuffy (Jun 9, 2008)

rschultz101 said:


> hmm, 50F 10C
> thats cold weather, / winter
> you'd end up , running the light 1/2 power, most of the time,
> and summer time overheat fast.
> ...


Thanks Rob, you and Vancebiker both mentioned 2 sq inches per watt, so that is what I am going to aim for. I think I can get closer if I lower the current and work on the design some more. I was able to eek out another 2 sq inches by fining the back, but I think I can forget about max current realistically with this one.


----------



## HuffyPuffy (Jun 9, 2008)

odtexas said:


> Great looking light and you would have plenty of range of amps running H6flex with parallel stars.
> Just need the 11.1 volt battery and off you go.:thumbsup:


Thanks, I am unsure of running parallel strings, but the more I look, running parallel is looking like the only option aside from running more than one driver or some other funky arrangement. Looks like the H6Flex is taskled's only driver with the Amps to do it. Kwarwick, Troutie and you have said that was the way to do it, and so I think that will be the go-to method for now 

I still need to fix the surface area problem though.


----------



## kwarwick (Jun 12, 2004)

HuffyPuffy said:


> Thanks, I am unsure of running parallel strings, but the more I look, running parallel is looking like the only option aside from running more than one driver or some other funky arrangement. Looks like the H6Flex is taskled's only driver with the Amps to do it. Kwarwick, Troutie and you have said that was the way to do it, and so I think that will be the go-to method for now


I think you'd be fine with the 2 parallel strings of 3XMLs. To get the current for 2 parallel strings of 3 series wired XMLs you're going to need a hefty battery as Troutie mentioned and it pretty much has to be a 14.8V one. 11.1V just doesn't provide enough head room for buck driver like the H6flex to stay in regulation with 3 LEDs in series. Personal experience shows that RC style LiPo battery packs are really the way to go as they can pump out lots of current without the voltage sagging under load. I've had really good success using them with my 6 and 7 up XPG bike lights.

Here's a couple that I'm currently using:

HobbyKing Online R/C Hobby Store : Turnigy 5000mAh 4S1P 14.8v 20C hardcase pack

HobbyKing Online R/C Hobby Store : Turnigy 5000mAh 4S 20C Lipo Pack


----------



## emu26 (Jun 23, 2008)

If you are ordering from HobbyKing open the page for the product you want to buy and then just sit and wait. After a few minutes you'll get a little text box pop up offering you a once only discount on that product because you have been looking at it for a while. Buy the product and get the discount, close the window and loose the discount forever. Not sure if it will work when you look at a second product so maybe start with the most expensive to get the bigger discount first.

Oh, nice looking light. I agree 2 sq inch per watt is good and running 2 parallel boards will give you plenty of light and still keep the leds at a manageable temp.

Rob, 8 sq inch per watt? I understand that would keep everything beautifully cool but that would seriously put most housings into the range of impracticable for our uses here as a bike lighting forum.


----------



## bwack (Oct 11, 2009)

Hi . I just wanted to remind you for comparison sake that the Magic Shine light (the original with P7 LED) is almost 1 sq inch per watt.
Two sq inch per watt sounds good and I've read that many times in here from others too  (high five).. The hammond box I used in my design is similar to your hammond design, and I think for our previous lights it gives 1.92 sq inch per watt @ 4x XPG-R5 @ 1A ...

Looks very nice btw, the new housing. 6 XM-L's ??


----------



## mattthemuppet (Jul 16, 2004)

I see that the lumen fever has claimed another victim 

I wouldn't bother aiming to run these at 3A - the extra lumens over 2A won't be hugely noticeable as it will just go from "blinding" to "a little bit more blinding", but will make a huge difference to heat and runtime/ required battery capacity. I know it's not in the same ball park (sniff sniff) but my twin XM-L isn't that much brighter at 3A than at L4 (1.8A?), so much so that it's hard to tell just by looking which level it's in.

what about optics? They're 35mm triples, right?

Also, is the centre piece (looks like where the stars will be attached) separate from the housing? With this much heat, I'd think about cutting down the number of thermal junctions as much as possible - ie. make the body one piece and have the front cover as small as possible (much like Troutie's "swoon" triple cute housing).


----------



## HuffyPuffy (Jun 9, 2008)

Thanks for the tips on batteries (and saving some money on them ). I had not thought too much on the battery side of things, I have some old A123 cells around which I could use since they like big discharge rates - they slip in the capacity/weight area though I can live with that trade off. Lipo's are too risky for my taste, but the definitely would be an option.


----------



## HuffyPuffy (Jun 9, 2008)

bwack said:


> Hi . I just wanted to remind you for comparison sake that the Magic Shine light (the original with P7 LED) is almost 1 sq inch per watt.
> Two sq inch per watt sounds good and I've read that many times in here from others too  (high five).. The hammond box I used in my design is similar to your hammond design, and I think for our previous lights it gives 1.92 sq inch per watt @ 4x XPG-R5 @ 1A ...
> 
> Looks very nice btw, the new housing. 6 XM-L's ??


Thanks, my hammond light is still going too, they were the gateway drug to my light addiction 

I stretched the case out by 1/2 inch so now the total surface area up to about 82 in^3 but that includes the inside surfaces as well which probably amount to around 30 in^3, it is getting closer to the ball park where it makes sense to build. I am not sure how much more I can get without adding more length to the case though.


----------



## HuffyPuffy (Jun 9, 2008)

mattthemuppet said:


> I see that the lumen fever has claimed another victim
> 
> I wouldn't bother aiming to run these at 3A - the extra lumens over 2A won't be hugely noticeable as it will just go from "blinding" to "a little bit more blinding", but will make a huge difference to heat and runtime/ required battery capacity. I know it's not in the same ball park (sniff sniff) but my twin XM-L isn't that much brighter at 3A than at L4 (1.8A?), so much so that it's hard to tell just by looking which level it's in.
> 
> ...


Yeah, the more I consider it, the more I think 2A looks pretty good for a 6xXML light, plus it will run cooler. I'd like to have the 2.8A capability as a boost, though I could not see running that very long in any case, would probably piss off anyone on the trail too (not that 2A is much better in that regard).

Right also on the optics, they are the cute triples for the XML.

Thanks that is a good idea to drop the center piece, I am going to work on that, will be a big redesign, but probably worth it to get rid of a junction. When I put it in there I was thinking of the Rubix (awesome 4x P7) and how it had a similar setup, but it also had active cooling


----------



## Goldigger (Nov 6, 2009)

I say go for it, what have you got to loose?
I've thought about doing the same but just thought it was to expensive having to use two h6flex's etc..
I might as well just use two of my latest lights using 3 xml and the cute optic..

Although you could go down that route, two h6flex with two switches so you can control both sides.
That way you can run one side at the full 3 amps, or run both sides at a lower current.
I would be tempted to run both sides full power and see if i can set fire to a tree


----------



## HuffyPuffy (Jun 9, 2008)

Goldigger said:


> I say go for it, what have you got to loose?
> I've thought about doing the same but just thought it was to expensive having to use two h6flex's etc..
> I might as well just use two of my latest lights using 3 xml and the cute optic..
> 
> ...


2 h6Flex's, now that would be cool, but costly. Could also use 2 H6CC and have another board with the PIC to control both. Problem with 2 drivers is the space though it would give me more options. There is another driver here which may work, and it is smaller (data sheet is in German). Has no logic, but will take a PWM input. Only question on that one is the 2.8A/1.5A thing they claim, I am guessing that it can do either but may need to change a resistor or jumper. I could make a board with a PIC to do the PWM and battery/temp monitoring to control the drivers and even do them both or one at a time. That would make this a more complicated project, but it would make it a more useful light to have the ability to switch both on or use just one (and it could be done with one switch).


----------



## mfj197 (Jan 28, 2011)

Sounds great! I'd have to agree with matthemuppet and say don't bother with much over 2A drive current. The difference in light output between 2 and 3 amps is very difficult to see, and yet you can reduce your surface area requirements by a third.

It'll be a monster though!

Michael

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk


----------



## emu26 (Jun 23, 2008)

Whilst it would be great to have a 2x3 light with the ability to control each 3 up individually, using 2 h6flex drivers would make this light huge by our "standards". The board is 1.3" or 33mm in diameter, trying to house that in a smallish housing allowing for switch and wire input and also allowing some amount of room to solder everything up and assemble it is difficult, doubling that would be mission impossible. If you're going with a Taskled driver then I wouldn't bother with running them as separately controlled, just set your max current at 3A and then use the levels to toggle down to a sensible amount of light.

Huffy that is a nice find on the driver and exactly what I have been looking for to make some small outside lights for home that only require to be turned on and off. Unfortunately by the time you add the pwm circuit, and something to watch battery voltages and internal temps I think you would be back up to the size of the h6flex again without the simplicity or reliability of a stand alone driver that already has those features, and whilst it is a couple of dollars cheaper I think the overall cost by the time you add everything else, in would end up more.

No prizes for guessing which way I would be going

Edit: Here is the matching PWM unit from the same place as that alternate driver. It has temp and battery monitoring built in, has several different ways to adjust the brightness. Generally looks like a pretty useful unit, but it costs considerably more than the driver itself.


----------



## Goldigger (Nov 6, 2009)

emu26 said:


> Whilst it would be great to have a 2x3 light with the ability to control each 3 up individually, using 2 h6flex drivers would make this light huge by our "standards". The board is 1.3" or 33mm in diameter, trying to house that in a smallish housing allowing for switch and wire input and also allowing some amount of room to solder everything up and assemble it is difficult, doubling that would be mission impossible. If you're going with a Taskled driver then I wouldn't bother with running them as separately controlled, just set your max current at 3A and then use the levels to toggle down to a sensible amount of light.
> 
> Huffy that is a nice find on the driver and exactly what I have been looking for to make some small outside lights for home that only require to be turned on and off. Unfortunately by the time you add the pwm circuit, and something to watch battery voltages and internal temps I think you would be back up to the size of the h6flex again without the simplicity or reliability of a stand alone driver that already has those features, and whilst it is a couple of dollars cheaper I think the overall cost by the time you add everything else, in would end up more.
> 
> ...


Im not sure the size of the h6flex diameter has anything to do with the overall size, as its smaller than the diameter of the cute optic.
My light using the cute optic is 44mm in diameter, the driver compartment is 17.5mm deep. Overall lenght is 65mm which could be brought down.
Building a two up would create more space for the two drivers, as there is no wall all the way round the driver. So there would be a nice gap in the middle of the two drivers to bring in the wires from the leds.

I think this light could be finished at 84mm wide 60mm in length and 44mm tall, thats shorter width wise than my tripple XML using the LC1 optics, although it will be 15mm longer..
But i would imagine it would get two hot if both sides were on full power..


----------



## HuffyPuffy (Jun 9, 2008)

mfj197 said:


> Sounds great! I'd have to agree with matthemuppet and say don't bother with much over 2A drive current. The difference in light output between 2 and 3 amps is very difficult to see, and yet you can reduce your surface area requirements by a third.
> 
> It'll be a monster though!
> 
> ...


Thanks, I think that is what I will be shooting for, though I hope to have a 2.8-3A boost mode available. I am still working on the surface area, at 84 sq inch now, including the guts which are shrinking now that I dropped the center part in favor of the lid like Matt suggested (similar to Troutie's awesome triple XML). I estimate that the innards are probably 25-30 sq inches so I am close to 50 sq inches on the outside. I am pretty close to believing that it would have enough area, and at 2A it looks certain.


----------



## HuffyPuffy (Jun 9, 2008)

emu26 said:


> Whilst it would be great to have a 2x3 light with the ability to control each 3 up individually, using 2 h6flex drivers would make this light huge by our "standards". The board is 1.3" or 33mm in diameter, trying to house that in a smallish housing allowing for switch and wire input and also allowing some amount of room to solder everything up and assemble it is difficult, doubling that would be mission impossible. If you're going with a Taskled driver then I wouldn't bother with running them as separately controlled, just set your max current at 3A and then use the levels to toggle down to a sensible amount of light.
> 
> Huffy that is a nice find on the driver and exactly what I have been looking for to make some small outside lights for home that only require to be turned on and off. Unfortunately by the time you add the pwm circuit, and something to watch battery voltages and internal temps I think you would be back up to the size of the h6flex again without the simplicity or reliability of a stand alone driver that already has those features, and whilst it is a couple of dollars cheaper I think the overall cost by the time you add everything else, in would end up more.
> 
> ...


Thanks, that driver looks interesting, but yeah pretty expensive for what it does. I was thinking of using one of these these which can support PWM and since it has 2 analog-digital pins it could also do the battery monitoring. ( EDIT: Just realized there is a fly in my peanut butter, may need to re-think the PWM driver part )One other input could be used for a digital temp measurement and the outs for a status LED. Since it is surface mount it would probably fit inside the compartment that I was able to carve out of the prior design - this one is based on using two of the 2 2.8A drivers from pcb-components.de:










The pocket is about 0.8" deep.


----------



## HuffyPuffy (Jun 9, 2008)

Goldigger said:


> Im not sure the size of the h6flex diameter has anything to do with the overall size, as its smaller than the diameter of the cute optic.
> My light using the cute optic is 44mm in diameter, the driver compartment is 17.5mm deep. Overall lenght is 65mm which could be brought down.
> Building a two up would create more space for the two drivers, as there is no wall all the way round the driver. So there would be a nice gap in the middle of the two drivers to bring in the wires from the leds.
> 
> ...


Right now the body (not including the front cover which will hold the optics) is approx 2.25" x 3.3" x 1.7". I could probably fit two H6Flex if it were a box of that size, but with the curves and cut outs I need a smaller driver, and I think the Micro 2.8A drivers may fit the bill at 23mm. Taskled has the H6CC which will take a PWM input as well, but it is only slightly smaller than the H6Flex and probably overkill if I will use 2 anyway.

Heat is the problem with this and made me think originally that it would be a doomed project, but thanks to the advice I am getting here and some additional work on it, I am thinking it may do reasonably well at 2A at least.


----------



## troutie-mtb (Sep 20, 2007)

So its going to be approx 80 mm wide 
and presume it will have a bar mount or even 2 so get some heat into them bars its heatsinking for free.

or make a stem plate as the light you have the means to do it


----------



## mattthemuppet (Jul 16, 2004)

I'd go for simplicity - one h6flex driving the 2 3ups in parallel. Set it at 3A, use Threemode with L4 and you'll have an easy toggle between 1.8Aish (whoa neddy!) and 3A (ohmygoshmyeyes). Set low at L2 or L3 and you'll still have a bonkers bright low mode.

Using two drivers I think will just be a hassle - two switches, more complicated build, constantly pressing buttons or forgetting which one's on which level. I'd use the extra space for more fins.


----------



## HuffyPuffy (Jun 9, 2008)

troutie-mtb said:


> So its going to be approx 80 mm wide
> and presume it will have a bar mount or even 2 so get some heat into them bars its heatsinking for free.
> 
> or make a stem plate as the light you have the means to do it


Exactly :thumbsup:, planning to use one of the QR mounts I made from aluminum.


----------



## HuffyPuffy (Jun 9, 2008)

mattthemuppet said:


> I'd go for simplicity - one h6flex driving the 2 3ups in parallel. Set it at 3A, use Threemode with L4 and you'll have an easy toggle between 1.8Aish (whoa neddy!) and 3A (ohmygoshmyeyes). Set low at L2 or L3 and you'll still have a bonkers bright low mode.
> 
> Using two drivers I think will just be a hassle - two switches, more complicated build, constantly pressing buttons or forgetting which one's on which level. I'd use the extra space for more fins.


Right now, the plan I am thinking of would have one switch connected to a PWM driver board (based on a PICAXE). That PWM driver would control both Micro2.8A drivers and would be able to turn each of them on or off (as modes are cycled though), so the light could be a 3x or 6x XML at any time. The idea needs some filling out, but it should be possible I think. If I do make my own driver it will make this a more complicated project, but probably worthwhile.


----------



## HuffyPuffy (Jun 9, 2008)

Few more pics of the new and improved version (0.5" longer and got rid of the center part based on Matt's suggestion). This would use 2x Micro2.8A drivers:




























This thing could be a nightmare to machine on my mill, will need to flip it several times to do the body, but it should be possible. A bigger mill with a 4th axis could do it a lot easier.


----------



## mattthemuppet (Jul 16, 2004)

looks really neat. I'd also suggest figuring out a way to add a remote, if that would work with your proposed setup. Remotes rule  Why not have deeper fins along the sides? More surface area and less weight..

I'm still not convinced by the twin driver idea. I think having both 3-ups running at a lower current will be far more efficient (both because of the light vs. current curve and fewer heat based efficiency losses) than 1 3-up running at a higher current. Still, it would be an interesting project to see


----------



## troutie-mtb (Sep 20, 2007)

I dont know anything about them but look into a current mirror for parelleing the 2 triples 
then use the one H6flex .


----------



## mfj197 (Jan 28, 2011)

Another driver you might consider is the 3A buck driver from our friendly neighbourhood Chinese online store. It receives pretty good reviews and consists of two boards - one the buck converter and the other simply a PWM controller board using (I think) a Tiny13A microcontroller. You could use two of these drivers in your light but make use of just one controller board to drive both buck converter boards. You could also reprogram the Tiny13A as you see fit or use your own PWM controller instead. It's also very good value at $5 if you can wait for the shipping!


----------



## emu26 (Jun 23, 2008)

sorry Huffy, I didn't realise those optics were so big. I should have known that given the 20mm triple optics are crap.

are you really sure you NEED that much light though? (Don't forget need and want have two different dictionary meanings  )


----------



## HuffyPuffy (Jun 9, 2008)

mattthemuppet said:


> looks really neat. I'd also suggest figuring out a way to add a remote, if that would work with your proposed setup. Remotes rule  Why not have deeper fins along the sides? More surface area and less weight..
> 
> I'm still not convinced by the twin driver idea. I think having both 3-ups running at a lower current will be far more efficient (both because of the light vs. current curve and fewer heat based efficiency losses) than 1 3-up running at a higher current. Still, it would be an interesting project to see


A remote will be in works too, though I want to have both a button on the light and a remote. Fins are as deep as I can make them, provided some space for the inside compartment. I actually had to shorten them when I changed the design to get rid of the center part (thanks for the suggestion too :thumbsup, but once it is completed I will tweak the fins as much as possible to get the most out of them without making the walls too thin (have been aiming for a min 0.1" wall thickness so far, but I could probably get away with less in some areas of the light body).

I am thinking that the best thing to do is design it for both a dual driver setup and the H6Flex, that will give me both options. It is still difficult to cram a H6flex in the compartment so I need to work on that yet. I am really liking mfj197's suggestion though since I have one of those already (did not realize people had them running 3 XML's). If I get the body done and just want to get the project over with I will have the option of popping a H6Flex in there and running parallel, or work on the dual driver later. That is the plan right now at least


----------



## HuffyPuffy (Jun 9, 2008)

troutie-mtb said:


> I dont know anything about them but look into a current mirror for parelleing the 2 triples
> then use the one H6flex .


Thanks, I googled that and found this cool video. It sounds like I would need a beefy MOSFET to do that with the currents we are talking about. The video had me wondering what the cosmonaut connection was though, I was expecting to see a meter float off the shelf behind the guy


----------



## HuffyPuffy (Jun 9, 2008)

mfj197 said:


> Another driver you might consider is the 3A buck driver from our friendly neighbourhood Chinese online store. It receives pretty good reviews and consists of two boards - one the buck converter and the other simply a PWM controller board using (I think) a Tiny13A microcontroller. You could use two of these drivers in your light but make use of just one controller board to drive both buck converter boards. You could also reprogram the Tiny13A as you see fit or use your own PWM controller instead. It's also very good value at $5 if you can wait for the shipping!


Thanks for the tip! I have one of those in my box-o-crap from DX already, maybe 2 in there. I just did not know they would drive 3 (I had read they would do 2). Will need to check them out, but I think those will be the ones I use for the dual driver method, but I still want the option of the H6Flex for simplicity sake. The input voltage for the DX driver is a bit low for using my 18V Makita battery, but for $5 I don't mind pushing it  May just need some upgraded caps to do a higher voltage too.


----------



## HuffyPuffy (Jun 9, 2008)

emu26 said:


> sorry Huffy, I didn't realise those optics were so big. I should have known that given the 20mm triple optics are crap.
> 
> are you really sure you NEED that much light though? (Don't forget need and want have two different dictionary meanings  )


You may be the sole voice of reason here. That said, heck yea I want 6. Oops, I mean I NEED 6


----------



## emu26 (Jun 23, 2008)

out of curiosity what are you using for a helmet light, or is the plan that this will be enough you won't need one?

I rode last night with my xml twin xpg on the bars and a triple xpg regina on the lid. The xml was only ever on low, sorry I forget what level that is, the xpg was on high the whole time and I struggled to pick it on the trail. I think this has a lot to do with my aging eyes adjusting to the brightness of the bar light.


----------



## bwack (Oct 11, 2009)

HuffyPuffy said:


> Thanks, I googled that and found this cool video. It sounds like I would need a beefy MOSFET to do that with the currents we are talking about. The video had me wondering what the cosmonaut connection was though, I was expecting to see a meter float off the shelf behind the guy




Its typical to use current mirrors in microelectronics to provide high gain on input circuitry. I've seen some discreete "current mirror transistors" for purchase (troute knows some?). The transistors needs to be matched and they should be be thermally connected. It would therefor make sence if those two transistors was in the one and same 8pin package... I think troutie is onto something here; Dividing that 6A current into two strings... I've read up on some articles about using current mirrors for balancing strings of leds to prevent overloading (runaway) on of the strings. Thats what you want right with current mirror?
LEDs Magazine - LED DESIGN FORUM: Avoiding thermal runaway when driving multiple LED strings (MAGAZINE)

Beefy, not really. They should handle the current, but power dissipation vice they don't need to be so big for that. Remember, they will not have much voltage drop across the drain and source terminals. Now lets say that one of the LED-strings starts to pull more current than the other (more than 3A), then they get hotter and will pull even more (the runaway problem). What happens to the transistor with the lowest current will conduct fully (lowest drop across drain and source), and the other transistor (who experience highest current) will try its best to regulate the current down to 3A by dropping some voltage over its drain and source terminals. I'm sorry I haven't tried this with high currents, but I can't see that the voltage drop will be so high that you would need to heatsink the current mirror.

btw, regarding the remote. Are you thinking of a wireless remote ? ..


----------



## HuffyPuffy (Jun 9, 2008)

emu26 said:


> out of curiosity what are you using for a helmet light, or is the plan that this will be enough you won't need one?
> 
> I rode last night with my xml twin xpg on the bars and a triple xpg regina on the lid. The xml was only ever on low, sorry I forget what level that is, the xpg was on high the whole time and I struggled to pick it on the trail. I think this has a lot to do with my aging eyes adjusting to the brightness of the bar light.


OK I lied, I don't really need a 6xXML, I want one. I don't even need a 4x XML, but I am also not ready for a 12 step program yet to cure my light building addiction (though I will admit I have a problem). My little 4xXRE is even enough for me, but I have to justify having a mill with some projects like this. Your reasoning however is why I like the idea of running only one of them using dual drivers.


----------



## HuffyPuffy (Jun 9, 2008)

bwack said:


> Its typical to use current mirrors in microelectronics to provide high gain on input circuitry. I've seen some discreete "current mirror transistors" for purchase (troute knows some?). The transistors needs to be matched and they should be be thermally connected. It would therefor make sence if those two transistors was in the one and same 8pin package... I think troutie is onto something here; Dividing that 6A current into two strings... I've read up on some articles about using current mirrors for balancing strings of leds to prevent overloading (runaway) on of the strings. Thats what you want right with current mirror?
> LEDs Magazine - LED DESIGN FORUM: Avoiding thermal runaway when driving multiple LED strings (MAGAZINE)
> 
> Beefy, not really. They should handle the current, but power dissipation vice they don't need to be so big for that. Remember, they will not have much voltage drop across the drain and source terminals. Now lets say that one of the LED-strings starts to pull more current than the other (more than 3A), then they get hotter and will pull even more (the runaway problem). What happens to the transistor with the lowest current will conduct fully (lowest drop across drain and source), and the other transistor (who experience highest current) will try its best to regulate the current down to 3A by dropping some voltage over its drain and source terminals. I'm sorry I haven't tried this with high currents, but I can't see that the voltage drop will be so high that you would need to heatsink the current mirror.
> ...


Thanks that is awesome info! Right now I am really leaning to using the cheap DX drivers with the H6Flex as a backup option. I just opened the driver pocket so it will take a H6Flex so I now can use it, if I do, I will see if the components for a current monitor will fit.

I think a wireless remote may be too ambitious right now (but it is a great idea). I have a keyfob remote and receiver board around somewhere, however I'm pretty sure it won't fit in the driver compartment, and something like an xbee is too expensive. A wired remote on the other hand is something I was planning.


----------



## mattthemuppet (Jul 16, 2004)

as a friend of mine says to his children; "you WANT a cookie, but you NEED a pancreas"

personally, in terms of output, I think a 3x XM-L on individual stars with different optics (one aspheric, one spot, one flood for example) would be probably as much light in one light as you'd need at the moment. It might not have the raw output of a 6-up light, but the beam may be just as useable. Plus you'd have more room to play with surface area so that you can use all that light for longer when the weather's warmer. Just a thought.

I've been idly thinking about something like this for a pair of fog/driving lights for my car for a while now.


----------



## bwack (Oct 11, 2009)

Just before I went to sleep last night I realised that I had explained the operation of the current mirror partly incomplete or some incorrectly. I'm sorry, I'm abit rusty on this. In the current mirror we are using, the first (bipolar) transistor will have its base (controll input) fixed/wired to the collector. This means that voltage over base and emitter will be controlled by the current flowing through it, and the second thing is that it will be run in saturated mode (low resistance through it). Since the second transistor is matched and shares the same voltage across its base-emitter as the first transistor, and that the fact that saturated transistors acts almost like current sources, then the second transistor will "copy" the current of the first transistor. The circuit will do its best to keep the two strings equal (current), and since the current source (h6flex) is constant, the current will be 1/2 through the strings................... I should get this right now. 

I found this one, its very small, and got a 3A limit, i hope its ok, you could run 2.8A max in each string? 
http://www.onsemi.com/pub_link/Collateral/NSS40301MD-D.PDF
on mouser.com search for "matched" pair. Again its important that they are matched and are thermally connected(thats what you get when they are on the same chip).


----------



## HuffyPuffy (Jun 9, 2008)

I just finished what is hopefully the last revision of the drawing and was surprised by how much different the latest version looks vs what I had originally hoped to build. This is no longer a small light I had hoped for - at least it does not look small compared to the original, even though it is only about 1/2" taller now. I really liked the small design and could live with the medium one, but the biggest one which will take the H6Flex looks quite a bit bigger.










I think if I were to start over, I would begin with the driver and the driver pocket and work out from there since those were the toughest to make room for in each change. I probably will still build the bigger one (or maybe the medium one) since they should be the most refined with the fewest problems. I would not advise anyone to hold your breath though, it took me weeks to get the project bubbles light done and this one is even more complicated - progress pics will be plentiful though


----------



## HuffyPuffy (Jun 9, 2008)

bwack said:


> Just before I went to sleep last night I realised that I had explained the operation of the current mirror partly incomplete or some incorrectly. I'm sorry, I'm abit rusty on this. In the current mirror we are using, the first (bipolar) transistor will have its base (controll input) fixed/wired to the collector. This means that voltage over base and emitter will be controlled by the current flowing through it, and the second thing is that it will be run in saturated mode (low resistance through it). Since the second transistor is matched and shares the same voltage across its base-emitter as the first transistor, and that the fact that saturated transistors acts almost like current sources, then the second transistor will "copy" the current of the first transistor. The circuit will do its best to keep the two strings equal (current), and since the current source (h6flex) is constant, the current will be 1/2 through the strings................... I should get this right now.
> 
> I found this one, its very small, and got a 3A limit, i hope its ok, you could run 2.8A max in each string?
> http://www.onsemi.com/pub_link/Collateral/NSS40301MD-D.PDF
> on mouser.com search for "matched" pair. Again its important that they are matched and are thermally connected(thats what you get when they are on the same chip).


Thanks for the more detailed explanation, it has been a while since I have really dug into electronics so it is very helpful to understand this better, the article was brilliant too. I was thinking it would require 2 parts to do the mirror, but cool to see there are parts designed exactly for this. I am still leaning to a cheap dual driver setup, but a current mirror is a awesome idea (thanks Troutie) in combo with the H6Flex.


----------



## troutie-mtb (Sep 20, 2007)

Been watching with interest and also misgivings , yes Huffy you want this killer light but I cant help thinking you will be wasting a lot of potential light by doubling up the same optic .

I am as you know using the Cute triple for the Dominator light which I am selling a few of 
so the other night I tried 2 dominators when out walking the dog and was a little disappointed with the result .
yes it lit up the fields like a sports stadium but the lumens still did not throw really well.

The next day I was pootling along the canal towpath with the dog and this time using the old quad XML with Lauras on board and the first thing I noticed was the range the light threw to 
well past the limit of the 2 cutes together. 

Then reading Mats post cemented the idea 
I think you should start again on your design concept and build outwards from a triple in the centre with just a couple of xmls one each side with which ever optic gives the narrowest beam to fill that distance dark spot in .
for me it would be the Laura but I have just received a few of the XML specific ledils to try so that choice may alter in the next few weeks .

Just the ramblings of a silly old Trout

We are having some real bad rain at the moment but when it stops I will get a few beam shots of 2 triples working together for you to have a shufty at before you cut some metal .


----------



## OldMTBfreak (Apr 8, 2006)

I wouldn't worry about the current mirror. I just measured the voltage drop on 4 of my triple XML boards. The forward voltage was within a couple tenths of a volt on all boards. I even broke out the 4 and 1/2 digit meter. If I was going to use a "6-pack", I would just parallel em. I think Chris has the right plan though. A triple XML along with 2 single XML's with spot optics. I made a version of this using XPG's; a quad XPG (25mm) board with a spot optic and 2 single XPG's with Reginas for throw. Worked good. Huffy, I like the larger design, I'm biased of course. I live in NW Florida and it's hot as hell. In the summer, my lights occasionaly throttle, mainly on slower uphills.


----------



## HuffyPuffy (Jun 9, 2008)

troutie-mtb said:


> Been watching with interest and also misgivings , yes Huffy you want this killer light but I cant help thinking you will be wasting a lot of potential light by doubling up the same optic .
> 
> I am as you know using the Cute triple for the Dominator light which I am selling a few of
> so the other night I tried 2 dominators when out walking the dog and was a little disappointed with the result .
> ...


Thanks, after reading that I think I may be going down the same road I was with the last one, and not getting the punchy throw, the volume of light is there and awesome, but the throw is also important. I also am not really happy with the size of the finished light design either. After tweaking it so much something was lost, but I think with the suggestions I will start over. I really like the idea of a 5x XML too since I can stop worrying about the H6Flex running parallel strings. I am gonna put this one on the shelf for a while since it is about done anyway, and work on something different along the lines of what you suggested.


----------



## HuffyPuffy (Jun 9, 2008)

OldMTBfreak said:


> I wouldn't worry about the current mirror. I just measured the voltage drop on 4 of my triple XML boards. The forward voltage was within a couple tenths of a volt on all boards. I even broke out the 4 and 1/2 digit meter. If I was going to use a "6-pack", I would just parallel em. I think Chris has the right plan though. A triple XML along with 2 single XML's with spot optics. I made a version of this using XPG's; a quad XPG (25mm) board with a spot optic and 2 single XPG's with Reginas for throw. Worked good. Huffy, I like the larger design, I'm biased of course. I live in NW Florida and it's hot as hell. In the summer, my lights occasionaly throttle, mainly on slower uphills.


Yeah I am seeing the light with the potential issues of not mixing optics in a single light of this size. The size is not so much what bothers me about the design, it is that I started out with something squatty and made it tall. If I had begun thinking about a taller light or larger light I think it would turn out better than it did. I am gonna take another stab at it though.


----------



## mattthemuppet (Jul 16, 2004)

well, at least you're in the position where you can try out different designs on the computer before ever putting mill to metal 

BTW, I think you should consider a 6-up SST-90 for your next light....


----------



## Goldigger (Nov 6, 2009)

mattthemuppet said:


> well, at least you're in the position where you can try out different designs on the computer before ever putting mill to metal
> 
> BTW, I think you should consider a 6-up SST-90 for your next light....


Why only a six up?


----------



## HuffyPuffy (Jun 9, 2008)

mattthemuppet said:


> well, at least you're in the position where you can try out different designs on the computer before ever putting mill to metal
> 
> BTW, I think you should consider a 6-up SST-90 for your next light....


Yessss that sounds excellllent. Muhahahahaha, ahem, I mean uh, I think that may be a LED too far  Possibly a 5-up though, that sounds reasonable. Wait WTF am I thinking? If a 5 up is reasonable then a 6-up is awesome! PINKY, fire up the mill, we have work to do!


----------



## troutie-mtb (Sep 20, 2007)

As promised the comparison shots

single triple cute xml on high










and 2 triples sid by side on high


----------



## Goldigger (Nov 6, 2009)

troutie-mtb said:


> As promised the comparison shots
> 
> single triple cute xml on high
> 
> ...


It does push more light down the trail, as you can see the trees better with the 2 side by side..


----------



## HuffyPuffy (Jun 9, 2008)

Thanks for the comparison, I really like the shot with one, it looks to be a great amount of light. With two it looks even more impressive and does seem to squeak out some more throw as GD noted. I am really tempted to pick the design back up after seeing the shots, but I agree that mixing the cute with a optic/reflector that has more throw is probably a more efficient way to get a mix. For me, there is the added benefit of it being simpler to find a driver and battery solution for a 5up vs a 6up.


----------



## mattthemuppet (Jul 16, 2004)

I think the point was more that, even though there's a bit more light and a bit more throw, it's no where near as much of a difference as you'd expect from twice the output/ weight/etc.

I don't know how fast you ride or how open your trails are (mine are mostly slow and rocky), but I think a triple XM-L, with a centre aspheric and a laura-RS on one side and a LXP/M-RS on the other would be simply awesome. Personally I think that the Laura has excellent throw, but the aspheric might be better for >30mph speeds, and the Laura+LXP/M would have a beautifully smooth near and mid-field. If I had the machining tools and skills, I'd build one and spend most of the time running it at 2A. Actually, I might have to hit up my brother and see if he can pull in some buddy favours at his F1 team (not actually "his" F1 team, obviously).

Obviously, it's not as sexy to build a 3up when every man and his dog are, but I think it's getting to the point where it's not how much light you have but how efficiently it's being used. Not having to carry a kilo of light and battery would be nice too


----------



## HuffyPuffy (Jun 9, 2008)

After considering the suggestions, and having some time to think about my pathetic attempts to design a lumen cannon after the arrival of the "WTF". I went back to the drawing board with a clear head and put this one together. Although it looks a lot like the others, it is a ground up do-over. It is a triple cute with an Iris crammed in there for throw. Though she is a big girl, she fits. The driver options are the same as the last one (will take a H6Flex as well as a couple smaller drivers or ?).





































I think I may need to get a 4th axis to build this.


----------



## yetibetty (Dec 24, 2007)

Makes sense, the beam of a cute triple with a nice hot spot in the centre. I say go for it.

I did some light testing with a friend last week and we found that overlapping two lights with the same beam just looks, well sort of the same once your eyes adjust. Overlap two different beams and it is much better.


----------



## rschultz101 (Oct 5, 2009)

huffypuffy, 
can you calculate the external surface area ?
for heat dissipation 
just curious.
cheers, Rob


----------



## troutie-mtb (Sep 20, 2007)

Yes cool idea there Huffy Puffy there is an iris beam shot of mine floating around just I dont know where.

you could always put a 35 mm aspheric next to the triple that would improve the throw a little


----------



## mfj197 (Jan 28, 2011)

Looks a good one Huffy, and the Iris will definitely help. The other alternative instead of the Iris would be an XP-E or XR-E triple instead. Either solution should work very well - look forward to your continuing work.


----------



## mattthemuppet (Jul 16, 2004)

looks good huffy! I very much agree with Yeti about mixing optics/ beam patterns, the end result always seems to be greater than the sum of its parts.


----------



## HuffyPuffy (Jun 9, 2008)

Definitely having a mix seems to be the way to go, pretty sure the majority of the lights I have made used mixed optics. I really like the beam on the Iris, found some shots of it on a thread here somewhere, seemed to beat most of the other ones for a good hot spot, with the price for that being it's size. An aspheric would be great, however I think I am set with the Iris on this one now, an aspheric would require a big re-design and also would probably prompt me to re-design the light as something different all together.


----------



## HuffyPuffy (Jun 9, 2008)

rschultz101 said:


> huffypuffy,
> can you calculate the external surface area ?
> for heat dissipation
> just curious.
> cheers, Rob


The calculations were around 80 sq in, however when I went back to double check, all my latest files (about a dozen) were all corrupted.

This may be the last straw for using ViaCad (random crashes, tools that don't seem to work - or crash, just being a miserable pain most of the time) - and now this :madman: I save frequently, however none of them work. It may be back to the drawing board again, but I may need to get another drawing board.

Trying to recover the files if that is even possible, I am hopeful though.

EDIT: After 2 re-installs of ViaCAD, and much cursing I got them back, looks like something in ViaCAD itself was corrupted - which for some reason persisted though a 2nd re-install, which may explain the crashing and the other problems I have seen. I have a feeling something which was installed and not removed with the uninstall was the problem. Will give ViaCAD another shot since it is cheap and what I know, maybe I will ask Santa for a copy of solidworks this year 

The total area is 86.96 sq inches, including the guts. Probably the active area for cooling is about 2/3'rds that so about 57 sq inches.


----------



## OldMTBfreak (Apr 8, 2006)

My vote is triple XML with Cute optic and Iris. That would be "good enough". Pls make 2; I'd like one. James


----------



## HuffyPuffy (Jun 9, 2008)

OldMTBfreak said:


> My vote is triple XML with Cute optic and Iris. That would be "good enough". Pls make 2; I'd like one. James


Thanks, I think the Cute + Iris will be the one I'll build. Not sure if I will be cranking any more of these out. I'd really like to get into that side of the hobby, but with a day/night job it is tough to get the time. It is a possibility, though it will depend on how many problems I have making the first one - and if it worth a damn.


----------



## rschultz101 (Oct 5, 2009)

that's the thing, too expensive,...
yeah cool, people like it,.. sure,...
till they find out, it's about $500 buck for the light,
and on top of it, no you can't use your Magicshine battery,...
you got to cough up another $500 for a decent battery pack and charger,....
all sudden, the Lupine looks so sweet,....
make a few, hell, make one for yourself, don't break your neck,...
on the affordable entry, something more robust, heard alibre might do the trick,..
otherwise SW, but I rather have an 4 axis grinder, for that,...
cheers, Rob


----------



## OldMTBfreak (Apr 8, 2006)

I've been using the rectangular aluminum tubing with heat sink fins cut with a table saw. Odtexas pioneered this method of metal butchery. The fins are cut fast with great noise and danger. I have a few nice bright lights, I'm currently riding with 3 XML's with Regina reflectors, driven by a Hipflex at 3A. This is bright as hell. About 30 watts drawn from battery. I put a short vid up riding with it at night. Games 8 23 11 - YouTube I think a triple Cute + an Iris would be sick. Still as I have mentioned before, my light NEEDS to be bright enough to put the other riders in shadow. lol


----------



## mattthemuppet (Jul 16, 2004)

rschultz101 said:


> that's the thing, too expensive,...
> yeah cool, people like it,.. sure,...
> till they find out, it's about $500 buck for the light,
> and on top of it, no you can't use your Magicshine battery,...
> ...


very few builds on here make sense commercially, which is why they're so cool. I've no idea how much the aluminium costs, but the parts can't be more than $100 and a decent 10 cell (5S2P) battery isn't going to be more than $120 for good quality cells with a PCB (I put one together for $40). Add a $50 hobby charger to the mix and you have an astoundingly good light for less than $300. If it's for himself then his time is essentially free.

I think the biggest issue with commercialising DIY lights is that a) very few people want to spend >$100 on any light and b) people equate DIY with cheap and aren't willing to pay for your time and support. That's what's always put me off. I'd rather just make lights for friends for beer and chocolate.


----------



## Goldigger (Nov 6, 2009)

mattthemuppet said:


> very few builds on here make sense commercially, which is why they're so cool. I've no idea how much the aluminium costs, but the parts can't be more than $100 and a decent 10 cell (5S2P) battery isn't going to be more than $120 for good quality cells with a PCB (I put one together for $40). Add a $50 hobby charger to the mix and you have an astoundingly good light for less than $300 If it's for himself then his time is essentially free.
> 
> I think the biggest issue with commercialising DIY lights is that a) very few people want to spend >$100 on any light and b) people equate DIY with cheap and aren't willing to pay for your time and support. That's what's always put me off. *I'd rather just make lights for friends for beer and chocolate.*


Does that include friends with benefits? If that were the case I'd be making more lights..problem is I only know male riders no sexy female riders in tight lycra


----------



## mattthemuppet (Jul 16, 2004)

given that my wife comes from the same part of Ecuador that Waynetta Bobbit does, I think I'd lose more than I'd gain if I did that


----------



## troutie-mtb (Sep 20, 2007)

Been searching around in the garage and found the Iris I had earlier in the XML period
so will try and get a beam shot again 
I say again because I have a slightly modified xml due to an accident with a soldering iron burning the top of the dome .

so I shaved it flat to remove the burnt portion .
and now I have installed the Iris the beam does not look like I remember .

here is the modified dome










and here is the first beam shot with the first XMLs I got hold of last winter.










BUTCHERED DOME 









OK this needs more investigation 
and a shot with a normal led from the same batch and same optic


----------



## troutie-mtb (Sep 20, 2007)

Just added a shot of the iris with the butchered dome below

now a couple of shots for Huffy Puffy to look at

triple cute










triple cute and iris side by side










Monster light I say go for it and get cutting


----------



## HuffyPuffy (Jun 9, 2008)

mattthemuppet said:


> very few builds on here make sense commercially, which is why they're so cool. I've no idea how much the aluminium costs, but the parts can't be more than $100 and a decent 10 cell (5S2P) battery isn't going to be more than $120 for good quality cells with a PCB (I put one together for $40). Add a $50 hobby charger to the mix and you have an astoundingly good light for less than $300. If it's for himself then his time is essentially free.
> 
> I think the biggest issue with commercialising DIY lights is that a) very few people want to spend >$100 on any light and b) people equate DIY with cheap and aren't willing to pay for your time and support. That's what's always put me off. I'd rather just make lights for friends for beer and chocolate.


I think the only way to really make a commercially successful light is to farm out the production, or start a machine shop (at which point building lights may not be the best way to stay in business). Right now I have a job that pays the bills and keeps me busy so neither of those things is in the plans. If I end up thinking that a few more could be made without making me a slave to my CNC mill, then I may offer them for sale, most likely as a body so it could be customized to a degree.


----------



## HuffyPuffy (Jun 9, 2008)

troutie-mtb said:


> Just added a shot of the iris with the butchered dome below
> 
> now a couple of shots for Huffy Puffy to look at
> 
> ...


Wow, I like that, Thanks! I think I should print this out as my inspiration


----------



## yetibetty (Dec 24, 2007)

That beam looks like the one to go for.

Huffy, I think that the only way to make(or at least not lose)money is to do a simplified version of the one you would make for yourself or find some rich people who just happen to want lights.

The light that I have just made myself (very simple, not worth posting as it's almost the same as the last one)would have worked out not much more to buy ready made. I made it for myself so the time was free and I already had batteries and groovy charger. I couldn't make it for much less than Lupine charge if I charged for time.

It is quite nice doing the odd requested one or two but once it stops being a hobby and becomes work, the fun goes. You could farm out the engineering but then you are no longer a maker but a manager.


----------



## troutie-mtb (Sep 20, 2007)

That was indeed a supreme beam so much so that I need a longer beamshot location even though the far trees are 175 metres away .

I was sceptical when we ventured out but seeing it in real life was great .
looking forward to seeing it come to life Mr Huffy Puffy :thumbsup: .

wish I had the time to do one like it dont fancy it on the manual stuff .so will watch with glee and anticipation .

Besides I have a cunning plan for something else soon


----------



## rschultz101 (Oct 5, 2009)

$300 buck on a DIY , is probably still a hack job.
by the time you add some anodizing and machining,
it's more like $500 for the DIY ...
never mind tools and misc stuff, what adds up fast, 
and all the shipping on the little stuff,...
for all the little change I burned to try to make a DIY light,
probably could have bought one or two loaded carbon bikes,....
if you want something custom , nice, with a german touch, 
600 buck plus, knock on my door.
so far , it seams more like a haunted house , ...
cheers, Rob



mattthemuppet said:


> very few builds on here make sense commercially, which is why they're so cool. I've no idea how much the aluminium costs, but the parts can't be more than $100 and a decent 10 cell (5S2P) battery isn't going to be more than $120 for good quality cells with a PCB (I put one together for $40). Add a $50 hobby charger to the mix and you have an astoundingly good light for less than $300. If it's for himself then his time is essentially free.
> 
> I think the biggest issue with commercialising DIY lights is that a) very few people want to spend >$100 on any light and b) people equate DIY with cheap and aren't willing to pay for your time and support. That's what's always put me off. I'd rather just make lights for friends for beer and chocolate.


----------



## mattthemuppet (Jul 16, 2004)

I think that's a bit harsh Rob. Obviously, if you add in the cost of tools, the price goes up, but it's not as if you buy a mill (or dremel or screwdriver) to build one light and then throw it away, never to use it again. That would be like buying a computer to send an e-card, then complaining how it was more expensive than a stamp!

If you care about what people thing of your lights, sure, buy a Lupine. If you don't make one yourself and pocket the difference. I've built 2 lights (total 3000lm theoretical) for no more than $300 total, including tools, materials, parts, and 2 batteries, each with a minimum runtime of 2 1/2h on high. Even if I went with Magicshine I would struggle to get that much light in 2 units for similar money, plus I have a very good hobby charger to use with my other batteries.

I'd also say that the stuff Troutie, Goldigger, Vancbiker, Yetibetty and Huffy are building would hardly qualify as a hack job. Besides, I'd much rather have one of their "hack jobs" than a carbon road bike any day


----------



## Goldigger (Nov 6, 2009)

mattthemuppet said:


> I think that's a bit harsh Rob. Obviously, if you add in the cost of tools, the price goes up, but it's not as if you buy a mill (or dremel or screwdriver) to build one light and then throw it away, never to use it again. That would be like buying a computer to send an e-card, then complaining how it was more expensive than a stamp!
> 
> If you care about what people thing of your lights, sure, buy a Lupine. If you don't make one yourself and pocket the difference. I've built 2 lights (total 3000lm theoretical) for no more than $300 total, including tools, materials, parts, and 2 batteries, each with a minimum runtime of 2 1/2h on high. Even if I went with Magicshine I would struggle to get that much light in 2 units for similar money, plus I have a very good hobby charger to use with my other batteries.
> 
> I'd also say that the stuff Troutie, Goldigger, Vancbiker, Yetibetty and Huffy are building would hardly qualify as a hack job. Besides, I'd much rather have one of their "hack jobs" than a carbon road bike any day


Hackjob
I've just buit another tripple Cute XML for a man with a carbon bike..Trek 9.5..
looks like my hackjob is good enough for carbon

Oh and good enough to go on display at a local bike shop as a demo..:rockon:


----------



## yetibetty (Dec 24, 2007)

Good luck GD and I really hope it works out, you deserve it.

Keep at the back of your mind though that the bike shop will want to make money from you and not you make money from them. Just saying be careful.

I had a bike shop want me to make some, then they wanted a free demo, then they wanted to hire them out on night rides and give me a cut....... Hobby only for me to keep it fun.

Rob, my latest hackjob https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/xyR__Uxzo3ObFerSKVGwIA?feat=directlink

Sorry Huffy. We had better get back to your light.

It's not going to be easy to do even with CNC. Now that you have decided on the beam, the number of LED's and driver, could the housing be simplified and made easier to machine as it won't get as hot as your original 6 up plan?


----------



## mattthemuppet (Jul 16, 2004)

yetibetty said:


> Rob, my latest hackjob https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/xyR__Uxzo3ObFerSKVGwIA?feat=directlink


you should be ashamed to even show that hacked up overpriced job of a Lupine copy. Disgraceful 

What was that? This is a thread about Huffy's light? Pfft, details details.

I agree with the hackmeister above though, would be worth making the housing simpler. I'd also just pick a driver set up and design it for that, rather than trying to hedge your bets. I'd also email George at Taskled as he was musing about an updated driver with 3, A and b in it's name, which should be a fair bit smaller than the h6flex, if not as small as the lflex. No idea on timeline, but the horse's mouth is the place for that information :thumbsup:


----------



## Goldigger (Nov 6, 2009)

This looks looks similar to what you was planning..
Although 6 leds to give just 3000 lumens..
Niterider Pro 3000 - 2012 Mtbr Lights Shootout | Mountain Bike Review


----------



## HuffyPuffy (Jun 9, 2008)

Goldigger said:


> This looks looks similar to what you was planning..
> Although 6 leds to give just 3000 lumens..
> Niterider Pro 3000 - 2012 Mtbr Lights Shootout | Mountain Bike Review


Holy pigfarts, $700 for that light! Now that puts things into perspective  Probably worth it, but then again maybe not, the sucker is bright I will give it that. I really like the look though. Interestingly they did not like the idea of having one of the triples off in some modes. I'd think that would be a plus, but it would depend on how it was set up too.

I also need to apologize, I somehow missed the replies to this thread, I have been hanging around, but don't usually check this thread unless I get a email from MTBR that says hey there was a reply.

This project is still on the front burner simmering slowly though. I "had" to buy a rotary table (got one of these) and then decided that I should pin the table on my mill so I can get better indexing on my tooling plate. The only problem was that I got half way through and realized I needed to order a 1/4" reamer to get the pin holes in the tooling plate dimensioned correctly so I am waiting on that now. Doing all this should make building this much easier and repeatable if I want to build a couple or if I need to make a mk2, mk3 version.


----------



## HuffyPuffy (Jun 9, 2008)

yetibetty said:


> Good luck GD and I really hope it works out, you deserve it.
> 
> Keep at the back of your mind though that the bike shop will want to make money from you and not you make money from them. Just saying be careful.
> 
> ...


Hi Yeti, just saw your post (so sorry for the late reply). The more I have thought about how to do it and done some of the CAM stuff to build toolpaths I am thinking it won't be as hard as I thought at first. Aside from one 3Dish step everything else will just require good indexing and for that I am gonna use a couple of jigs. I could probably simplify it too, but probably wont unless I run into some real difficulties milling it. Once I get it in my hands though I may make changes to reduce the weight or help with cooling if it needs it.

Also I really like the light you hacked up , great size for a helmet and the button arrangement is cool, especially like the retainer ring for the button.


----------



## HuffyPuffy (Jun 9, 2008)

mattthemuppet said:


> you should be ashamed to even show that hacked up overpriced job of a Lupine copy. Disgraceful
> 
> What was that? This is a thread about Huffy's light? Pfft, details details.
> 
> I agree with the hackmeister above though, would be worth making the housing simpler. I'd also just pick a driver set up and design it for that, rather than trying to hedge your bets. I'd also email George at Taskled as he was musing about an updated driver with 3, A and b in it's name, which should be a fair bit smaller than the h6flex, if not as small as the lflex. No idea on timeline, but the horse's mouth is the place for that information :thumbsup:


A smaller 3A xxflex type driver would be great for XML's as long as it can do several in series - at least 4 . Right now though, I am pretty much set on this design (for this light), will see how it pans out when I get it in my hands. My idea for this light is to check a few different cheap drivers, but the go-to will be the h6flex. It sounds like if I can use the h6flex then whatever he may have cooking will also fit this light too.


----------



## marv2097 (May 19, 2011)

Hi Huffy, Ive been playing with a H6CC which uses the same driver as the H6Flex just without the micro. Ive been running 6 XML's with it fine. Ive been powering it with 5cells of Lipo to make sure it stays in regulation. I am however only running them a 2.1A so the drop accross each XML is nearly spot on 3v. My Lipo's seem to keep putting out about 20v which should give plenty of headroom for the regulator supplying 18v. 

According to the docs the H6CC is rated to 22v but the regulator IC is rated much higher. I wonder how much more headroom we could prise out of it while still keeping things within the other component ratings as running a 6s Lipo would seem a good solution for 6 XMLs.

Has anyone been running this many XML's with any of the taskled drivers?


----------



## HuffyPuffy (Jun 9, 2008)

marv2097 said:


> Hi Huffy, Ive been playing with a H6CC which uses the same driver as the H6Flex just without the micro. Ive been running 6 XML's with it fine. Ive been powering it with 5cells of Lipo to make sure it stays in regulation. I am however only running them a 2.1A so the drop accross each XML is nearly spot on 3v. My Lipo's seem to keep putting out about 20v which should give plenty of headroom for the regulator supplying 18v.
> 
> According to the docs the H6CC is rated to 22v but the regulator IC is rated much higher. I wonder how much more headroom we could prise out of it while still keeping things within the other component ratings as running a 6s Lipo would seem a good solution for 6 XMLs.
> 
> Has anyone been running this many XML's with any of the taskled drivers?


Hi Marv, I can't comment on using 6 Lipo's but I agree it would be ideal for 6 XML's in series. I backed off using 6 after seeing the amount of light that Troutie's light puts out with a 3xCute. I figured that with a 3xCute and a spot it would be all I would need. The benefits were longer run time, cooler running and more flexibility with the drivers. Gotta say though 2.1A x 6 XML's still sounds awesome.


----------



## OldMTBfreak (Apr 8, 2006)

I ordered the rectangular aluminum tubing for the triple XML with Cute optic and 1 XML with the Iris. This should be sick! Rode last night with 3 XML's with Boom reflectors. This is a nice light, good pattern, enough throw. Keep em coming! James


----------



## HuffyPuffy (Jun 9, 2008)

OldMTBfreak said:


> I ordered the rectangular aluminum tubing for the triple XML with Cute optic and 1 XML with the Iris. This should be sick! Rode last night with 3 XML's with Boom reflectors. This is a nice light, good pattern, enough throw. Keep em coming! James


Cool, are you planning to use the H6flex or something else? You will most likely get yours done before mine (but I will be getting some time off soon so things should start to speed up) - let me know what you think of the combo


----------



## sergio_pt (Jan 29, 2007)

HuffyPuffy said:


> After considering the suggestions, and having some time to think about my pathetic attempts to design a lumen cannon after the arrival of the "WTF". I went back to the drawing board with a clear head and put this one together. Although it looks a lot like the others, it is a ground up do-over. It is a triple cute with an Iris crammed in there for throw. Though she is a big girl, she fits. The driver options are the same as the last one (will take a H6Flex as well as a couple smaller drivers or ?).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That looks veery cool and 6 up XML, we are aiming at 6000 lumen? :thumbsup:
When will you have it ready?


----------



## emu26 (Jun 23, 2008)

troutie-mtb said:


> triple cute and iris side by side
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Troutie I have come in on this a little late, just so I understand, that is 4 xml, three on the triple cute and a single on the iris, is that right?

If so, what's the fV of that on 3A, around 13v?


----------



## HuffyPuffy (Jun 9, 2008)

sergio_pt said:


> That looks veery cool and 6 up XML, we are aiming at 6000 lumen? :thumbsup:
> When will you have it ready?


Not that cool, just 4 XML (3 Cute + 1 Iris). The housing probably would need some more work to do 6 XML.


----------

