✌ FREEME - ASTROLUX MF04S (XHP70.2) & MF04 (XHP35 HI) - BRASS@.@

This is completely acceptable in Chinese business culture. Copies and clones of other things are normal.

Usually the buyers of clones have no ethical problems either as they can get a similar product for a cheaper price. The problem is it is usually not as well made. Iphone clone is not as good as original. They even copy Land Rover and other brand cars. It may look similar, but the quality is not as good.

Back to the MF04, hopefully Astrolux has finally got their MF02 drivers sorted out (many failed when they first came out) and it will be reliable. Assuming they use the same driver in the MF04 (why wouldn’t they?).

Naturally the companies being copied don’t like it, but we as consumers usually benefit.

It is up to you about how you feel about it. I’m sure Lumintop doesn’t like it, but at least Astrolux is being courteous in not releasing the MF04 until the GT sale is closer to being finished.

There is no need to wait for OBF reversed drivers
The LM3409 drivers with p-FET switch the positive side

I have MF01 and GT for it, the original GT driver needs some little mods to run OBF, a 2S/2P carrier of the MF02 is better

Interested based on price and final specs

The anti-copy culture of many western countries really holds us back, blocking innovation.

Think about C8.
I have no idea who introduced the model, but there are dozens of variants with various companies improving upon it:

  • reflector screwed into the pill
  • solid shelf
  • 26650 tube
  • e-switch
  • triple reflector
  • UV
  • colour LEDs
  • SMO or OP reflector
  • GITD in various places
  • lower quality but lower price for less demanding users

How having the variety can be a bad thing?

I do not think morality is related to a certain area. And in Chinese culture, different religions and philosophers put morality first (eg taoism). But let’s get back to ours. I am from Romania not far from a western country.
For BLF GT one year has worked. People from all over the world have collaborated. Even we who were part of the buying group have supported this project.
And now somebody comes to the work done on a GT and makes some minor changes and is made to innovate by making a new flashlight.
However, a distinction must be made between innovation and gross intellectual theft.
Being identical to GT and with the same performance, obviously and cheaper because no work has ever been invested so long, it is supposed that the world will buy this torch. Even I who supported and bought GT will buy this torch.
Reality is as it is, but that does not mean that truth should not be said and assumed. It would be nice for Banggood (Astrolux) at least to thank an official way for those who created this flashlight, that is, BLF GT parents.

Will this fit the Astrolux MF04 as well?

Grtz
Nico

Interested !

Noticed the MF04 head diameter is 136mm. What is the reflector diameter?

The idea of morals is universal, but each culture has different take of what behaviours are moral and what are not.
You seem to assume that in this regard all cultures are the same and all consider copying to be immoral. You’re wrong. In fact even in several European Parliaments are parties saying that copying is a virtue.

There is a reason why theft is considered immoral in probably all cultures.
The reason is that for one to benefit, another has to lose.

Copying of ideas is just it - copying. Nobody has less and some have more. In fact in many cases, MF04 included, most have more.

Why do I say that even BLF GT creators have more? Because they can see another implementation of their ideas. They can learn from it. How will a slightly deeper reflector work? Is Lumintop reflector of good quality? Astrolux won’t be perfect for sure, it’s going to be interesting how they work out. Astrolux is also likely to push the current up. Ergonomically the lights will be much different.
Seriously, what exactly did Astrolux (actually Mateminco) copy from GT?

  • idea of building a large thrower, with ~12 cm reflector
  • some styling cues

MF04 is their already developed technology with elements from MF01 and almost everything else from MF02. GT? It’s inspiration, no more no less.

Interested!

It’s the first time in my life when I see a pleading for theft publicly committed by a person. Using your logic you can say for example that a crime is virtuous because the victim gets to a better place, without the everyday problems .
Perhaps it does not make sense to do any homework anymore, copies from colleagues and ready. But still … if everyone goes on this principle, it will come to a given memento that everyone will expect to copy from the other and will do nothing. But then who else will it be? Perhaps innovation in stealing technique.
I have not heard anyone in the EU encourage the theft.
If we look at the obvious simplistic problem that all flashlights have a battery, a driver, a reflector and a light bulb or led. Everything put into a casing. Evidend no one brings anything new. Not even BLF GT. You can not find the wheel again.
However, to come up on this forum say that BLF GT does not bring anything new I find something unthinkable. I’ve dreamed it like a flashlight for years. Why has not Astrolux done so far? Why exactly now? How do they have similar performance? I bet the reflector, the most important and laborious part to which GT has worked and tested and tested again simulations over simulations, is the same. How can you say GT has not brought anything new !!! ??? It’s crazy to say that!
Astrolux does not bring anything new. Perhaps only a weaker and cheaper copy.
Very good. She will find her place in many collections. But it’s just a copy.
While the BLF GT is a road opener !!! She opened a new era. It passed the 1M cd bar at an acceptable price !!!
And on the other hand, it does not seem right for you to make such claims that GT did not bring anything new. A little respect for the work of such enthusiastic people would not hurt you.

I have read many times what you have written and it seems hallucinatory. Copying is a virtue!
I mean, if I copy one of William Shakespeare’s works and assume it’s mine is that I’m a virtuoso?
Not even in Chinese culture copying is a virtue. It’s just tolerated for economic reasons. Do not confuse efficiency and effectiveness with virtue.
Produce at a lower cost. And obviously the easiest way is to get a ready-made product and copy it. Modify something around here is not exactly the same and the development cost is zero. As you said, the guests have to win. A similar product at low cost.
But my first post was just that. Do we encourage such behavior? We decide whether or not we tolerate such behavior. What means do we have? For example, could we buy this product or not?

Let’s end here, it’s a big offtopic.
I meant precisely what I said, that copying is a virtue.
And, BTW, Shakespeare would agree - he copied a lot.

ADDED:
BTW, I do respect the GT creators.

Okay, boss. Copying is indeed a virtue but for the copied one. I think that’s what you really meant.
Perhaps Shakespeare would have bought Astrolux and not BLF GT. It’s a matter of taste. All the best

We already know there is no benefit to making the reflector deeper.

You can’t push the current any higher. The xhp35 just can’t handle it. Even other top throwers, like the TN42, only use 2.25A. Anything above 2.5A just creates more heat and no real increase in brightness. (Maybe you can get 100 more lumens?)

I’m pushing my XHP35HD E4 that I de-domed to 3amps in my BLF GT. and in my TN42’s.

Is it an extra 125 lumen?

Is that worth the extra heat and battery drain?

To change the subject slightly, have you tried out a sliced xhp50.2 in a big thrower? It’s a little bigger die size compared to the xhp35-HI (2.35mm2 x 2.94mm2), but about double the lumens.

It’s about the same die size as the cft90, but a bit less output. Since the cft90 is doing about 1.5mcd in the GT, I wonder if the sliced 50.2 would do about the same as the xhp35-HI (1.2mcd), just with a bigger hot spot. The GT’s driver could be still be used, you’d just have to resistor mod it to about 6A at 12v.

looklike it’s the limit of 3535 package right now, there is no way to pass that
led wait for xhp35.2

That’s strictly incorrect. What was determined is that it’s a good size to performance tradeoff, not that deepening it doesn’t help.

  1. Deeper reflectors have smaller centre opening and therefore more area, so they throw better. Not much though.
  2. They collect more light into the beam making it wider while narrowing the spill. We’ve seen complaints that the spill is blinding, so that may bring some improvement.

Two of my interventions have been marked as rude. I want to know what the reason is.Truth is rude? Thank you