last i checked was 45 days ?
The protection is 6 months now, not 45 days. 
Here’s a notification of the change: Policy Updates
And here’s the document that actually changed: PAYPAL USER AGREEMENT
Section 13.2.
Had no idea they did that its good as a buyer but as a seller it sounds like a bad idea, i sold a iphone 5 the guy who bought it loved it till he dropped it and wanted a refund 40 days later, u should no what happen next i get a broke phone and he got his money back
I agree, this is a terrible change from the sellers’ perspectives.
OTOH it solves a dilemma faced by the nicer individuals who order from China and are asked to “wait, wait, wait” for surface mail. Often nice folks who trusted sellers were asked to wait beyond 45 days. For many people this was no problem since the packages eventually showed up. Other people were unable to have that much faith for whatever reason (burned in the past, etc) and felt compelled to file a claim at the 45 day mark. Several members here keep datasheets and previously filed a claim for any unreceived goods 45 days after payment as standard policy! This was never the intended use of Paypal’s dispute resolution system; therefore the practice was detremental to the system. In the end the 45-day limit caused several things…
- It made it very difficult for the system to judge good sellers from bad due to the signal:noise ratio.
- Good sellers who used slow surface mail shipping or ran into problems (like returned li-ions from mailcarriers) were sometimes wrongly punished.
- Extra work for buyers determined not to get the short end of the stick (keeping spreadsheets, filing disputes at the 45 day mark on the dot, etc).
- Beyond the cost of resolving disputes for packages that would eventually arrive anyway, international sellers (as well as those providing custom orders which took a long time to build) which faced another problem: many buyers were simply unwilling to deal with the risks involved with that 45-day limit.
So while for many sellers the change increases risk, there are also benefits for many. Increased buyer confidence leading to higher sales AND reduced losses through the elimination of honest but unnecessary “item not received” claims.
So yeah, meh.
I didnt read all 8 pages of this thread, but here is my update.
LCK-LED has the XHP 70 in stock, but its not a top bin.
Cutter has them listed as in stock on a copper star in the N4 bin
http://www.cutter.com.au/products.php?cat=Cree+XHP70
As mentioned before the 50 size emitters will work on XML boards in 6V but not in 12V
I will stock the 70 size boards, but am not sure about the 12V 50 size yet.
I will be carrying XHP50 and XHP70 in about a month, but I am still not sure what the bin and tint will be. Copper 6V and 12V XHP50/XHP70 Sinkpad MCPCBs are already available.
I am thinking about a multi-emitter XHP70 build. Any suggestions for a good host? I was thinking about doing a 3x XHP70 Supfire M6, with 8x18350s powering it.
Same here, about to assemble a triple M6…emitters should be here today or tomorrow unless Mouser is playing the cat and mouse game.
I have about 19 of the copper SinkPAD MK-R stars if anyone is interested.
Don’t do it. 4 x 18650 has to be sooo much better. The least you’d have to do is make a contact plate in Eagle… And the tail end is extremely easily modified.
I realize the capacity benefits, and making a custom driver isn't an issue, but 4x18650 without gluing the head shut or adding a set screw has too much possibility for very "heated" mistakes (I think you know this from personal experience).
I think the M6 would be a great host for it.
18350’s would be an easier build but would be a bit of a pain to manage all the batteries which would need to be done often. 18650’s in serial would be much better.
Edit: Perhaps a light with a removable battery holder would be a better choice.
Hi Beam, the problem is that we are working with an existing light. The distance between the driver and springs is a set figure. We can’t just start building battery carriers and shoving em in, they won’t fit. So there is no universal easy solution. Have a new tail cap made and this would be very much the way to go. Short of doing that, it’s a problem.
TK75 would be pretty sweet, but that's too expensive.
Oh, my bad, I thought you could use some old beer cans to make a battery carrier, and if you were to hit it real hard with a sledge hammer you might get it to fit.
I guess being employed by IBM for 14 years as an electromechanical engineer didn’t teach me a thing did it.
It’s always a good idea to leave sledge hammers alone when beer is involved.
Of course, I could not know where you’re coming from. Please feel free to draw us up a battery carrier for the M6. Oh yeah, it’s not a simple tube.
Please dont cripple it with 18350’s. Do this instead: Mod: My SupFire M6 "BMF" edition (new beamshots in OP). M6 Goodness!
You mean this?
I don't trust myself to not screw up at some point with it, let alone other people who may pick up the light. I think that a dedicated battery carrier may be in order. Bore out the M6 tube and slide it in.
Just to be clear: I'm not mocking Mike C's build, in fact I think it's quite cool, but it's just not for me.
The nice thing about the M6 is that it can be thrown like a hand grenade if it starts smoking. 
Boring it out for a cell carrier sounds like an interesting idea, and certainly far safer to keep the dead-short gremlins at bay.
If you plan on making a dedicated battery carrier for it, why bore out the tube? Why not make a 4 leaf clover shape to match the contours of the housing, with 1 or more smooth connecting rods running down the center of the batteries. Once inserted the batteries would lock the carrier in place to prevent twisting of the top plate. There appears to be enough room to insert 2 possibly 3 smaller connecting rods in the center of the batteries if twisting is of concern, however if engineered properly the top plate would lock into the grooves cut into the housing for the batteries and twisting of the battery carrier would be an impossibility.
I agree Hi-Beam, that is pretty much what I was thinking about too. With the clover leaf plate to convert to 2S2P the button top cells of 2 would be in contact with the driver as usual, the other 2 would be in contact with the springs. That should work fine and removing the battery tube for changes wouldn’t impact anything, it would be necessary to remove the tail cap to get to the other 2 cells though, right? Unless the carrier would slide out, which should also work. Maybe a hexagonal shaped aluminum rod in the center of sufficient size to allow the use of 2 or even 3 small screws to prevent twisting when out of the tube?