Jump to content
UltravioletPhotography

Convoy S2+ has a challenger ( Nemo )


Recommended Posts

Ulf,

Yes I might be interested in 2 if the cost is low.

Now I have tried a clamp to the battery compartment. But constant power would be nice. I think I am using either a #1 or #2 halex hanger clamp.

Link to comment
I like the 1/4" thread idea. It would be nice for an at-home setup where you can use a mini tripod or something to point it and a USB hub to power it (and everything else).
Link to comment
I really hope your printed cap works. However, I suspect you may run into thermal problems. I think that the reason they have stepped down the power from what the LED is capable of is that the stock cap cannot adequately dissipate the heat generated by a higher power level. 10 watt LED microscope illuminators have either big honking finned heat sinks or fans. A printed plastic cap will not conduct heat away as well as the stock metal cap.
Link to comment

Ulf, what is the fault with the 'Nemo' besides that it isn't 15w as advertised ?

There is the battery, 26650, of different technology & voltage, to the 18650 battery that we have used before.

The driver has 5 constant current IC's at 350mA which equals Cf 1750mA.

How is the max voltage established without the Vf being known ?

Col

Link to comment

Something I don't like about the 'Nemo' is the back end battery cap. It is hard to remove, it has an O-ring, once it is screwed on all the way, it is hard to remove because it has no gripping texture to it.

Minor, perhaps, but the torch should have texture to that cap, such as with the Convoy's.

Link to comment

Ulf, what is the fault with the 'Nemo' besides that it isn't 15w as advertised ?

There is the battery, 26650, of different technology & voltage, to the 18650 battery that we have used before.

The driver has 5 constant current IC's at 350mA which equals Cf 1750mA.

How is the max voltage established without the Vf being known ?

Col

I am not really sure how you define fault here, but let me answer your questions:

 

The build quality is not all the way up to the level of the Convoy is some aspects, but not bad at all.

Some differences are not at all important for the function, like type of anodisation and quality of the shipping box.

The design make it much easier to reconfigure and adapt for other purposes than the Convoy.

 

I think the LED is a 10W type, not a 15W but that is impossible to know without knowing the LED type.

The LED is driven a bit conservative and not to the full 10W due to that there only are space for five constant current drivers on the driver board.

Also A higher power might give too much problems with the mechanical design with the cooling of the LED.

 

The 26650 battery is just a bigger battery size with more volume that gives space for more capacity and a potential to have a lower internal resistance.

As higher power consumes more energy that is a logical difference.

The technology and voltages are the same, but the power and current capacity is higher.

Compare it with this:

Nobody would use a moped tank when designing a road train engine. :wink:

 

There are other sizes but even less common that the 26650.

As long as the battery chemistry is the same as the usual batteries LiPO it will work.

You could use a 18650 together with a plastic size adapter the gives the shape of a 26650.

 

The Vf of the LED is known from the wavelength it emits.

That is a property of the semiconductor technology used.

We also know the lamp is using five linear constant current drivers.

 

If you by Vf means the minimum required battery voltage that is found in my post in you topic.

https://www.ultravio...dpost__p__38385

Maybe I should try to merge some of that information into the main topic, to have everything important in the same place.

Link to comment

Thanks Ulf

These 26650 batteries are only getting 4.05 volts after charging with the 'Nemo' charger.

The 18650 batteries I have & charge on other chargers get up to 4.2 volts.

Link to comment

Thanks Ulf

These 26650 batteries are only getting 4.05 volts after charging with the 'Nemo' charger.

The 18650 batteries I have & charge on other chargers get up to 4.2 volts.

That is not related to the size 26650.

It can depend on the charger or individual battery.

The chargers delivered with the Nemo looks like junk.

I never even tried them.

 

I use a MiBoxer C4 Plus

and have an older MiBoxer C4

 

I think the MiBoxer C4-12 is really nice too

https://www.ebay.com...miboxer+c4+plus

Link to comment

One thing to look out for when buying rechargeable lithium batteries is the type of chemistry.

It should be LiPO, not LiFePO4,

The last type in this page where Steve had bought good batteries, is LiFePO4:

https://liionwholesale.com/collections/batteries/26650

 

The LiFePO4 type has a lower cell voltage, but also a very much lower inner resistance.

They are good for very high current loads, if the voltage they supply is sufficient.

Unfortunately the voltage from LiFePO4 is not sufficient for either Convoy or Nemo.

 

The LiPO has a nominal voltage of 3.8V and a fully charged voltage of 4.2V

The LiFePO4 has a nominal voltage of 3.2V and a fully charged voltage of 3.6V

Link to comment

I really hope your printed cap works. However, I suspect you may run into thermal problems. I think that the reason they have stepped down the power from what the LED is capable of is that the stock cap cannot adequately dissipate the heat generated by a higher power level. 10 watt LED microscope illuminators have either big honking finned heat sinks or fans. A printed plastic cap will not conduct heat away as well as the stock metal cap.

Thermal management is one important part of this design.

I hope this will work thermally too and am well aware of the potential pitfalls.

 

This is my reasoning about that problem:

The battery tube, is mot the major part of the LED's cooling, as the walls are rather thin.

I will set the DCDC-step down converter voltage as low as possible to minimise losses from the constant current drivers.

The DCDC unit has a high efficiency of ca 94%, not contributing much with heat.

If that still is not enough I can always add some ventilation holes in the walls of the cap.

thermal testing will tell.

 

Just now I have been printing and testing the first cap with some of the mechanical features.

post-150-0-02529800-1601032038.jpg

Most threaded features worked well. Only the one against the Torches head needs to be tighter.

The extended screw will be replaced with a grub screw. It and ti's twin on the other side are for locking the USB-cable.

Link to comment

Oh I see, that is to contain the larger circuit board? And then powered from a separate supply.

Interesting.

That is correct, but I do not think bigger is a very good description of the PCB.

It is 17.0 x 22.3mm small board containing a DCDC step down converter that can deliver up to 3A according to it's specifications.

 

I will add some switch by at the end bu the cable outlet too.

 

In the beginning I was aiming at a design with spring connectors against the lamp-head's contact surfaces to avoid any change or soldering to the lamp-head.

Then it would have been possible to switch between using the lamp-head with batteries or with the Cap.

However that would make the design more complicated and expensive.

I would have had to design or make a dedicated circuit board for such connectors.

 

For my own use I will have dedicated Nemo spotlight-lamps and will solder cables to connect the lamp heads to the DCDC-converter.

I will order a few more torches for this purpose soon.

Link to comment
  • 1 year later...
1 hour ago, colinbm said:

The Alonefire H42 has been my goto 365nm torch.
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005003993409540.html


Ulf bought a cheaper one & it failed.
 

And the cheaper second one I bought worked perfectly well. 

It was just bad luck with the first one.

The design is exactly the same, branded or not.

https://www.ultravioletphotography.com/content/index.php?/topic/5122-alonefire-h45-45w-dissection-and-analysis/#comment-53111

Both the defect one with one fried LED and the OK one are the most powerful UV-torches I have, especially the first few minute or so, before the fading due to insufficient thermal design has let them fade too much. 

The internal electronics and the LEDs heat up causing the fading. After a few minutes turned off the lamps can shine at almost full power again.

 

I like them too, but they are not suited for extended time on as the Nemo.

 

Link to comment

Hello, I just picked up this light. Mine was Alonefire brand SV13 off Amazon and it is identical to the one pictured (someone was just asking). 

 

I am satisfied with the output but I would like to better filter out all the visible blue leakage. Reading the previous info in this thread people mentioned adapting hoya u340 or sg11 glass.

 

Assuming the included glass is similar to zwb2 I ordered some 40mm zwb1 that may or may not help, but it could take a while and may not solve the issue as well.

 

I would like to get better glass and it seems like u340 or sg11 is the way to go. My issue is where can I find it in sizes that will work with this light economically? So it looks like this would need 40-41mm round glass to fit inside. Does anyone sell custom cut sizes like this? Or I could use a 42mm step up ring and step up to 42-52mm, but I'm having trouble finding a source for framed filters in those sizes as well. I just see 50mm round u340 for $170 which seems pricey and I would still need to figure out a frame. At that point I would have to consider getting a baader u which could be dual purpose but it also seems excessive and then I couldn't be as careless leaving it on the light and throwing it in a bag. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, xonefs said:

I am satisfied with the output but I would like to better filter out all the visible blue leakage. Reading the previous info in this thread people mentioned adapting hoya u340 or sg11 glass.

I would be interested to hear a logical reasoning for the need of a better filtering.

I think it would be an overkill to do that.

At least if your fluorescence is not extremely weak.

 

Have you verified bu practical tests that there actually is a problem with visual leakage in the original configuration?

There are so many opinions about things that sometimes are not quite logical.

 

It would be a rather difficult test to do and distinguish between blue fluorescence and blue leakage.

I assume you would like to catch blue fluorescence when there are some.

Link to comment
On 8/26/2022 at 12:27 PM, ulf said:

I would be interested to hear a logical reasoning for the need of a better filtering.

I think it would be an overkill to do that.

At least if your fluorescence is not extremely weak.

 

Have you verified bu practical tests that there actually is a problem with visual leakage in the original configuration?

There are so many opinions about things that sometimes are not quite logical.

 

It would be a rather difficult test to do and distinguish between blue fluorescence and blue leakage.

I assume you would like to catch blue fluorescence when there are some.

 

 

Yes. In some cases the blue washes out fluorescence in some scenes that are not super bright, and there is a blue cast in background. It is bright enough in visible that walking around with just the torch I was able to see well walking through a dark forest/swamp boardwalk without any other light source. 

 

I am interested in outdoor nature UVIVF so there will sometimes be things that do not fluoresce well and the visible can wash out things that do fluoresce but not as strongly. I do still like these images. these are some examples where it is problematic (and one thrown in with vine on tree I really like where the visible leak might actually help- but if it didn't reflect visible as much I could probably expose the red fluorescing leaves more). The red leafy plant has a blue cast but I'm pretty sure it only actually fluoresces red, editing can remove it more but it's still there. I think with less visible I would be able to mix strongly and mildly fluorescing things better, where now the visible can reflect and overexpose before getting the milder things. 

 

I was using an Astronomik L3 clip in filter which has a sharp cutoff at 420nm (and a kolari hot mirror on lens) and was still getting too much blue/visible

DSC05613.jpg

 

DSC05610.jpg

 

DSC05608.jpg

 

DSC05598.jpg

Link to comment

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...