[PART 1] Official BLF GT Group Buy thread. Group buy officially closed! Lights shipping.

It looks nice. But, why is the reflector pictured not the same as the drawing? Where are the extra ribs and such? Did they decide it was unnecessary?

[quote=nodoubt]

Yeah this was funny, yourquestion (not yet answered and ten receiving the email :wink:

David, I thought it were like guide lines, those ribs, not for making them but to indicate the sizes.
But IDK,

I would prefer a deper reflector, 140mm or similar. I think it should be at least as deep as its diameter.

:sunglasses: :+1:

[quote=The Miller]

The ribs in the drawing are ribs. They have dimensions in two directions for each one. But, maybe they did decide those weren’t needed, so left them out. I guess we’ll find out!

somewhere in the thread all the calculations to get to this size can be found.
Basically this is an upscaled TN42 reflector.
Our top ID vs depth is 0.5% off if a TN42 reflector would have been upscaled, of course ours is better for so much thinking, research and calculating went into it :smiley:
it was very cool however to see that with all the work it took to get to these sizes it was so close to the TN42, our starting point was the top ID and it went from there.

place a led to center of the reflector and let us see that big yellow ring :sunglasses:

Yes, it was discussed way back ago that the ideal was to be as deep as it is wide. I can’t remember if it was said here why that was changed.

I thought someone said that the TN42 reflector was also (at least nearly) as deep as it was wide?

I just looked at the OP again, and the conceptual render shows the reflector as 120mm wide x 100mm deep. So, I guess I just forgot that decision was made. Oh well, carry on!

Impressive! :+1:
These guys are not wasting any time…… :wink:

Very nice, can’t wait to see what the final result will be!
Maxabeam type throw?

tn42, is 84mm deep, by 90mm wide…

…So,the depth of the new reflector should be 112mm,if it is an upscaled TN42 reflector .

Yeah, that would be more ideal, I think. But it is what it is. The shallower reflector will allow more of the light from the emitter to escape as spill. But, according to all the experts around here, it won’t effect throw, because that only depends on reflector width. They say that the “extra” light from a deeper reflector goes into making the spot wider, but not brighter.

Ah, I thought the ratios were closer.
well the goal was a 120mm wide reflector
Would it be deeper, more costs for reflector, even bigger head, more weight, higher shipping
So think this is pretty nice :wink:

Awesome!!! Hopefully we will have it before the end of the year at the pace they are going, a great manufacturer was selected!

At this pace…agree!! Love it when a plan comes together.

Soup any one—Big enough to make a bowl

Making it deeper would only increase throw very little, because the center circle (that flat-ish part around the LED) would become smaller which would add only a little front area of useful reflector.
It would result in less spill and a bigger “corona” around the hotspot.

With this design, 60 degrees of light from all sides are being collected, which leaves a 60 degree cone of spill.
People wanted this flashlight to be useful for regular use too, not just super long range, which is why it is a reflector with some spill and not an aspheric thrower.
This is approx 75% of light collected for throw, with 25% of light used for spill.

Several thousand posts near the beginning of this topic were spent calculating all of this.

Yes, you’re right. I went back and read them again. :blush: