# Magicshine clones arrived!



## klynk (Apr 18, 2010)

Magicshine (or Bastid) clones arrived  
Can be found on DX and DX. 
Yes, it's good old P7, but the battery holder is very interesting - waterproof, shockproof and it takes protected 18650 (I suppose).


----------



## BKruahnndon (Jul 17, 2009)

lol that's awesome! a knockoff of a knockoff!

that's gonna be one tough light to beat....maybe unbeatable??? I really like the idea of the battery holder...looks like 4 parallel 18650s. would be great to have an array of free cells to just swap out instead of a proprietary pack. interesting connectors too.

SSC PT... haha
I wonder if some have P7 and some have MC-E with the name of it?



EDIT: just noticed "batteries not included". not quite as awesome of a deal as i first thought, but still...that's gonna be a tough one to beat.


----------



## scar (Jun 2, 2005)

*Another Chinese "copy"*

Real GatLight - http://www.lumencraft.net/index.htm

DX version - http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.55005

Probably just a coincidence. 

Granted, the original GatLight is a little out of my price range for a flashlight, but it still sucks to see the Chinese trying to profit off of everyone elses hard work.

*****


----------



## klynk (Apr 18, 2010)

*BKruahnndon*
I like the idea of battery holder, cause I have a simple (but still working) 18650-charger and some protected 18650s.
When accu get old (or degrade), all you need is to simply buy 4 new 18650 - quite convenient, IMO.


----------



## MrLee (May 28, 2010)

BKruahnndon said:


> lol that's awesome! a knockoff of a knockoff!


What would you consider the magicshine a knockoff of? Lupine Tesla?

The new one posted seems to have a much bigger reflector - 52mm?


----------



## [email protected] (Mar 28, 2007)

The Eastward lights look interesting. The ability to use batteries you trust is a smart marketing decision on somebody's part. Though it does raise the price of the overall package from an end user's point of view.

Anybody know how well protected cells work in parallel? Probably depends on the type of protection. And when will bike light manufacturers get rid of the annoyance of clicking thru the strobe mode to get back to some steady light output.

I wonder if it uses a buck boost converter to drive the LED. The input voltage range would imply that, but I've also seen such voltage ranges mentioned in flashlights that turned out to be based on a 7135 driver like this.

There's nothing wrong with the 7135 if you are aware of it's limitations. Running a 3.6 volt forward drop P7 off a 7.4 volt 18650 battery would require a lot of heatsinking, and not be very efficient. You'd also loose light output when the battery voltage drops below the forward voltage (at 2.6 or whatever amps) of the LED.

If anybody buys one and takes it apart, I'd love to see some shots of the driver. If it has an inductor, it's likely buck-boost, which might make this a nice light for doing battery/driver mods to.

Mark


----------



## znomit (Dec 27, 2007)

Bah, only rated to 800lm


----------



## Goldigger (Nov 6, 2009)

That battery pack appears to be 4 18650's in parallel, 3.7 volts 10000mah?
I'm trying to figure out how they have made the connection to the negative terminals?


----------



## georges80 (Jan 5, 2010)

Metal case - case is negative. Cable entering from the other 'end' connects to the positive of the battery and to the case to get negative.

Pins on the battery spring plate presumably key and ground the battery spring plate etc. Given the bottom screws to the case tube the battery spring plate must freely rotate within the bottom/cap.

That would be my assumption.

cheers,
george.


----------



## mattthemuppet (Jul 16, 2004)

Goldigger said:


> That battery pack appears to be 4 18650's in parallel, 3.7 volts 10000mah?
> I'm trying to figure out how they have made the connection to the negative terminals?


looks like a common ground on the screw in plate, using the case as a conduit (like torches/ flashlights). I'm guessing there's a similar common plate at the +ve end, isolated from the case, with a wire to the +ve place and the case completing the circuit. Just a guess though.


----------



## georges80 (Jan 5, 2010)

With 4 li-ion in parallel and cost issues driving the product I'll bet it's using a linear regulator scheme (bunch of AMC chips). A buck boost to drive 2.8A from a single li-ion 'battery' would be quite a challenge and not one that I'd expect from this kind of product. AMC chips are cheap.

cheers,
george.


----------



## znomit (Dec 27, 2007)

Goldigger said:


> I'm trying to figure out how they have made the connection to the negative terminals?


Through the body like a flashlight. The + will be insulated from the body.
Cheap and cheerful.


----------



## Ofroad'bent (Jul 10, 2010)

klynk said:


> Magicshine (or Bastid) clones arrived
> Can be found on DX and DX.
> Yes, it's good old P7, but the battery holder is very interesting - waterproof, shockproof and it takes protected 18650 (I suppose).


Hmm, wonder if they'll be selling just the battery holder?


----------



## Goldigger (Nov 6, 2009)

georges80 said:


> Metal case - case is negative. Cable entering from the other 'end' connects to the positive of the battery and to the case to get negative.
> 
> Pins on the battery spring plate presumably key and ground the battery spring plate etc. Given the bottom screws to the case tube the battery spring plate must freely rotate within the bottom/cap.
> 
> ...


That's what I thought but hoped it would have been a bit better than that..
Would this method create a lot resistance? Reducing the battery output?


----------



## ortelius (Dec 6, 2007)

[email protected] said:


> Anybody know how well protected cells work in parallel? Probably depends on the type of protection


I use them for more than a year, in 3S2P and 2S2P configurations. Have had no problems at all and all the cells remain in decent balanced condition even without using "balance charging". I'm using protected Trustfire 2500 from DX (the blue ones).


----------



## jsigone (Aug 25, 2004)

attack of the clone wars seems fitting here. The new battery holder does look cool and makes allot more sense.


----------



## ortelius (Dec 6, 2007)

Goldigger said:


> Would this method create a lot resistance? Reducing the battery output?


On the contrary! Look at the area of cross-section of that holder. That must be at least 100x greater surface as the cross-section of the wire conductor. And even though Al is slightly less conductive than Cu, the resistance from that body is still much much lower as it would be if they used wire instead of it.


----------



## Goldigger (Nov 6, 2009)

ortelius said:


> On the contrary! Look at the area of cross-section of that holder. That must be at least 100x greater surface as the cross-section of the wire conductor. And even though Al is slightly less conductive than Cu, the resistance from that body is still much much lower as it would be if they used wire instead of it.


So this is perfectly acceptable and efficient? if so easy to copy on the mill..minus the threading


----------



## vroom9 (Feb 24, 2009)

One nice thing about the single series connection is that you don't really need to use protected cells. You see as the voltage drops so does the light. At 3.0 volts you don't get a whole lot of light so it's obvious that you need to change the batteries. 

One issue with a light like this is that it is very sensitive to voltage drops in the system. since the P7 needs about 3.5 volts for full brightness, those few millivolts from the protection board will cause soem brightness loss. 

Too bad these are not XM-L's at the XM-L will work great since it's voltage is only about 3.3 at full brightness. That and more lumens too.


----------



## sdnative (Aug 10, 2008)

scar said:


> Probably just a coincidence.
> 
> Granted, the original GatLight is a little out of my price range for a flashlight, but it still sucks to see the Chinese trying to profit off of everyone elses hard work.


Just what they do best, and about it. And yes ...


----------



## sdnative (Aug 10, 2008)

georges80 said:


> With 4 li-ion in parallel and cost issues driving the product I'll bet it's using a linear regulator scheme ...AMC chips are cheap.
> 
> cheers,
> george.


That's what i'd do. Not going to do anything at all for peak LED illumination or overall performance, but gets the job done at target "lowest" cost.


----------



## [email protected] (Mar 28, 2007)

georges80 said:


> With 4 li-ion in parallel and cost issues driving the product I'll bet it's using a linear regulator scheme (bunch of AMC chips). A buck boost to drive 2.8A from a single li-ion 'battery' would be quite a challenge and not one that I'd expect from this kind of product. AMC chips are cheap.
> 
> cheers,
> george.


Yeah, you're probably right George. Too bad. I think using AMC7135s is kind of cheating since you don't get regulated output over the full battery voltage.

Still, if you could pop off the P7 and replace it with an XML and maybe remove one or 2 of the 7135s ... you could wind up with a pretty decent light.

sdnative said:



> That's what i'd do. Not going to do anything at all for peak LED illumination or overall performance, but gets the job done at target "lowest" cost.


Yeah, what was I thinking. Looking back at the bastid why would I expect anything well designed.

Mark


----------



## vroom9 (Feb 24, 2009)

As far as the marketplace is concerned the only thing that really matters is the fact of "is it good enough." It might be. 

Then again it might not. I'm not sure that the general public is ready for dealing with individual lithium ion cells. The second problem is the dimming that is certain to occur with the P7. The Vf is a bit high. Replace the P7 with an XM-L and it does get better.


----------



## kestrel242 (Jul 11, 2008)

scar said:


> Real GatLight - http://www.lumencraft.net/index.htm
> 
> DX version - http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.55005
> 
> ...


A great example of why filing for an ornamental design patent is cheap insurance.


----------



## BKruahnndon (Jul 17, 2009)

I guess i missed it the first time around, but notice they offer several different ones from 40-56mm diameter.
43mm - http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.50947
43mm - http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.50946
56mm - http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.50973
43mm - http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.50972
43mm - http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.50971


----------



## cytoe (Jan 20, 2004)

scar said:


> Real GatLight - http://www.lumencraft.net/index.htm
> 
> DX version - http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.55005
> 
> ...


Copying is the most sincere form of flattery right? Even I had to copy the GatLight


----------



## Road_Runner (Mar 31, 2009)

Hello to everyone on the forum.

A long-time lurker finally uncloaks, but I prefer to read more than write, so prolly won't be racking up a huge post count here.

Anyways I've taken a taken a fancy to these new MS clones mainly because the battery holder matches about as closely to my dream battery holder as you can get, so I've gone ahead and ordered the 56mm P7 version just to get my hands on one.

My present front light system consists of two parallel MTE P7 torches powered from a 1S4P 18650 protected cell pack, using a turboferret battery holder in a neoprene pouch which is velcro-ed to the frame of my bike. I'm using a remote switch on the handle bars to power on / off and change modes.

This works well, but I would like a more robust and water-tight battery holder and if the one that comes with this new light system is any good it will be worth the cost of the item just by itself.










(That's my old bike, BTW, but the lighting system is installed exactly the same on my new machine.)

I will update you on how good, or bad, the new holder is when it arrives, but I've also been thinking about what use to put the P7 light head to, when this occured to me:


















and I just wondered what, if any, thoughts you more experience light builders might have on the matter.

Would this work, or is it non-starter, do you think?


----------



## bravellir (Nov 24, 2008)

On that 4 cell holder each cell is holded in place by a spring, just like in a regular torche. Some friends use torches and complain that with vibration on mtb trails the cells loose momentary contact and the torche changes mode.

Wouldn't the same happen with this battery holder?


----------



## mattthemuppet (Jul 16, 2004)

bravellir said:


> On that 4 cell holder each cell is holded in place by a spring, just like in a regular torche. Some friends use torches and complain that with vibration on mtb trails the cells loose momentary contact and the torche changes mode.
> 
> Wouldn't the same happen with this battery holder?


I guess that depends on how tightly squished the cells are, which we're not going to know until someone gets their hands on one


----------



## Vancbiker (May 25, 2005)

bravellir said:


> On that 4 cell holder each cell is holded in place by a spring, just like in a regular torche. Some friends use torches and complain that with vibration on mtb trails the cells loose momentary contact and the torche changes mode.
> 
> Wouldn't the same happen with this battery holder?


Possibly, but not likely. Since the holder appears to be a 4P configuration, all 4 batteries would have to lose the connection simultaneously.

My experience with battery holders using coil springs is that the mounting orientation contributes to reliability of the connection. If the holder is mounted on the bike with the battery axis vertical(ie strapped to seat tube or post), the loss of connection is pretty easy. When the battery axis is horizontal it takes much more of a hit to lose connection.


----------



## bravellir (Nov 24, 2008)

mattthemuppet said:


> Possibly, but not likely. Since the holder appears to be a 4P configuration, all 4 batteries would have to lose the connection simultaneously.


You're right. They would have to loose connection all at the same time.... Didn't remember its a 4P.



Vancbiker said:


> Possibly, but not likely. Since the holder appears to be a 4P configuration, all 4 batteries would have to lose the connection simultaneously.
> 
> My experience with battery holders using coil springs is that the mounting orientation contributes to reliability of the connection. If the holder is mounted on the bike with the battery axis vertical(ie strapped to seat tube or post), the loss of connection is pretty easy. When the battery axis is horizontal it takes much more of a hit to lose connection.


I tought about that two.. It will work better when mounted to the top tube.


----------



## langen (May 21, 2005)

Has someone got hold of one of these battery holders yet?

If they are of an OK quality, I think this will be the perfect complement to George's new Lflex driver. 

1S4P + 1 XM-L + Lflex will give a runtime of just over 3 hours on 3Amps with 2500mAh batteries.


----------



## klynk (Apr 18, 2010)

langen said:


> If they are of an OK quality, I think this will be the perfect complement to George's new Lflex driver.


I've ordered the big one for swapping P7 to XML ang George's Lflex


----------



## Ofroad'bent (Jul 10, 2010)

klynk said:


> I've ordered the big one for swapping P7 to XML ang George's Lflex


Anybody able to order just the battery pack?


----------



## Trailice (Oct 30, 2009)

Anyone got these yet?


----------

